Some of the historians who have described the fall of Hieronymus have done so at great length and introduced much of the marvellous, telling of the prodigies that occurred before his reign and the misfortunes of the Syracusans,
and describing in tragic colours the cruelty of his character and the impiety of his actions, and finally the strange and terrible nature of the circumstances attending his death, so that neither Phalaris nor Apollodorus nor any other tyrant would seem to have been more savage than he.
And yet he was a boy when he succeeded to power, and lived only thirteen months after.
In this space of time it is possible that one or two men may have been tortured, and some of his friends and of the other Syracusans put to death, but it is hardly probable that there was any excess of unlawful violence or any extraordinary impiety.
One must admit that his character was exceedingly capricious and violent; but he is not at least to be compared with either of these tyrants.
The fact, as it seems to me, is that those who write narratives of particular events, when they have to deal with a subject which is circumscribed and narrow, are compelled for lack of facts to make small things great and to devote much space to matters really not worthy of record. There are some also who fall into a similar error through lack of judgement. How much more justifiable indeed it would be for a writer to devote those pages of narrative which serve to fill up his book to overflowing to Hiero and Gelo, making no mention at all of Hieronymus?
This would be both more agreeable to the curious reader and more useful to the student.
Walbank Commentary