, which mean ‘Myron and his family’ and ‘Cleisthenes and his family’, in the sense that Myron and Cleisthenes respectively were ‘tyrant’ but other members of the family participated in the regime; see L.S.J s.v. 
2.c, and compare Plu. GQ 32 
and Androtion (F.Gr.H. 324 F 6) 
might be otiose, or of a treatise on the Seven Wise Men, whose fame in the works of other authors rested on their pithy sayings and not on military or colonial achievements. Any Greek History of a general character, composed probably in the fourth or third century, will serve as the original of the epitome; if in so conjectural a matter any name is worth mentioning, it is that of Ephorus.
show that this is the first mention of Chilon, and the single word 
implies that he has been mentioned earlier in the epitome; there is an exact parallel in Polybius 4. 81. 1 
and 
where Chilon is a newcomer and the king Lycurgus has already been mentioned. That Anaxandrides should have been mentioned earlier in the fragment fits an epitome of a Greek History but not an epitome of a treatise on the Seven Wise Men. The aorist participles 
and 
are unusual. In classical Greek the present tense is normal when the temporal significance is prominent, but here it is a sign of the compendious writing of an epitom-ist that the time and agency are conflated in the aorist participles. We may translate ‘the Ephorate of Chilon the Laconian and the generalship of Anaxandrides caused the deposition of the tyrannies in Greece’. Chilon was evidently the agent of the policy and Anaxandrides the agent of the military action. The words of the epitomist may not be correct by classical standards; for classical authors use 
of the office, not the policy of an ephor, and they use 
of a Spartan king commanding in the field (e.g. Th. 1. 114. 2; X. H.G. 4. 7. 2). But they are appropriate to the compendious style of a Hellenistic epitomist of a general history.
not 
, and he accepts the restoration 
. If his reading is correct, we have an example of the schema Pindaricum, in which a plural subject is thought of as a single concept (here ‘the Spartan state’) and this causes a singular verb. The restoration 
leads to the difficulties to which I refer in my text; for if Chilon was both ephor and commander, it is difficult to see what part Anaxandrides played in putting down the tyrannies.
, noting that Π is doubtful and makes the first four letters of the line somewhat cramped. A geographical name would be better than a second adjective. I suggest reading 
, there being room for the two letters -as in the preceding line; Sparta was then founding settlements near the frontier of Messenia and not, as Hunt and Jacoby suggest, near Ambracia.
has been used to support the contention that Myron was not a brother of Cleisthenes; but not, I think, rightly. Aristotle means that the murder of Myron might have led to liberation, but in fact (after one year under Isodamus) Sicyon fell under the tyranny of Cleisthenes. To this meaning the relationship of Myron to Cleisthenes is irrelevant. Another awkward passage to use is Plutarch 553 b where it is stated that, in fulfilment of the oracle, the Sicyonians were disciplined: 
‘So-and-so and his family’ (see p. 46, n. 3 above), which suggests that Myron II (to whom the passage probably refers, as he was a violent man) and Cleisthenes were not of the same immediate family, i, e. not brothers.
in 586/5. If Periander was seventy when he died, he may have been the first and only son of a marriage contracted by Cypselus as tyrant; Cypselus' illegitimate sons may have been sons by a previous wife whom he disowned on becoming tyrant.
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Barron, John P.
1964.
The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos.
The Classical Quarterly,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 2,
p.
210.
Boardman, John
and
Hammond, N. G. L.
1982.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
Hammond, N. G. L.
1982.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
p.
321.