In most cases, providence is depicted in the form of a report, and was understood as the cause of an event. For instance, Herodotus in The Persian Wars interprets Pisistratus’s meeting with Amphilytus as “the providence of heaven”, when Amphilytus announces a prophecy to Pisistratus (Herodotus, The Persian Wars 1.62). Pisistratus acts on the prophesy and leads his army against the enemy. Herodotus narrates that the war was led and conducted by divine providence, so Pisistratus’ army fulfilled the prophecy by winning the war (Herodotus, The
Persian Wars 1.63).
Another example of divine providence used in the pattern of divine involvement in a big event like a war, is found in Diodorus Siculus’ report in Library of History. In this report, Megabates, the high admiral of the fleet, sails out against the Greeks, according to the order of Xerxes. While sailing from Pydna in Macedonia towards the promontory of Magnesia known as Cape Sepias, a huge storm abruptly arises. The storm causes more than 300 ships to sink, so the military power of the Persian army was much weakened in numbers and equipment for a battle (Diodorus, Library of History 2.12). Diodorus mentions the general belief among people that the storm was divine providence siding with the Greeks (Diodorus, 83 Cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.5.6; 5.7.35; 7.2.2; 12.2.21; for references that providence was a topic for
training students in debate, see Squires 1993:39.
84 For the crucial role of Stoicism in Roman historiography and Livy’s awareness of this in relation to
64
Library of History 2.13). Although Diodorus noted that scientists were not willing to attribute
the cause of a natural phenomenon like the storm to divine activity, he prefers to consider natural disasters as the result of the anger of a god (Squires 1993:38). In this regard, it is not strange that this storm was thought to have been caused by divine providence.
The belief in divine providence related to nature is supported by the understanding that divine providence preserves the natural order. Herodotus says that “it would seem that the wisdom of divine providence (as is but reasonable) has made all creatures prolific” (Herodotus, The
Persian wars 3.108). This is because the universe is balanced by divine providence (Pownall
2004:6; cf. 3.109).
Keeping the world order balanced by divine providence means that it not only maintains the order of nature, but also the order of human affairs. This seemed especially true in the political rise and fall of empires that was the concern of historians.85 In this regard, it is no
surprise that the attempts by historians to explain the various wars were closely associated with the rise and fall of a country, and attributed to divine providence.
This type of usage of divine providence to maintain the balance of the universe appears to be relevant to the portrayal of divine retributive justice.86 By bestowing divine reward or
retribution on people either on the individual level or on the assembly level of the organisational unit, the balance of the universe is maintained. But ancient Greek historiographical literature more frequently portrays retribution than reward (Trompf 2000:20). One clear example is by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Roman Antiquities. After telling of the collapse of Messena which happened during the war between Rome and the prominent Greek king Phyrrus’ troops (Dionysius, Roman Antiquities 20.1.8-3.7), Dionysius refers to a similar story of calamity that befell Rhegium, attributing it to a man named Decius, the commander of the garrison. While some of the Rhegians were still asleep or feasting, Decius and his troops went to the houses of the Rhegians and slew them all. Although most of the men were killed, Decius and his troops did not cease their cruelty; they forcibly raped the 85 For a brief argument on the rise and fall of empire in Herodotus, see Pownall (2004:6).
86 For examples of the retributive principle in the ancient Hellenistic context, see Trompf (2000:20-33). He
refers to examples of retributive justice described in historiography. He does not purport to reveal divine activity behind retribution, so it does not matter if the divine works behind retributive practice. However, in his examples, the divine is mostly linked to causation of retribution in both Hellenistic and Hebrew historiography.
65
remaining women who witnessed the death of their fathers and husbands. Decius became the tyrant of Rhegium. But this tragedy was followed by an unknown disease that caused severe pain in Decius’ eyes. Dionysius explains that “divine providence took vengeance upon Decius” (Dionysius, Roman Antiquities 20.5.2). His fate worsened and eventually he was taken away blind by the Roman army that arrived in the city. This case ends with the report of the city being restored by survivors of the carnage of Decius (cf. Dionysius, Roman
Antiquities 20.4.1-5.2). What this story depicts is the providence of the gods who punish
those who commit evil or a crime in accordance with the general customary rule of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
In Plutarch's view, even evil can be proof of providence. According to Plutarch, the world is governed by providence exercised by the divine to benefit people (Beck 2014:91). However, this typical understanding of providence cannot explain the evil that exists in the ordinary lives of human beings. In denying dualism, Plutarch views both good and evil as the providential care of the gods, with providential evil mostly appearing in the shape of retribution (Beck 2014:91). Bernstein (1993:76) analyses how Plutarch views punishment after the death of a human being, and argues that the divine works providentially by punishing humankind as follows: (1) Those who have innate evil which they inherited from their forbears, must be purified in their lifetime. (2) While the descendants are suffering, the forbears suffer punishment after death. The double punishment in this world and another world are for the purpose of education, purification, and determent (Bernstein 1993:76), which Plutarch conceives of as the proof of providence (Bernstein 1993:74). In this case, providence works in directly opposed situations, good and bad, but ultimately works to bring benefit to people.