Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:59:26.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Καὶ σαφῶς τύραννος ἦν: Xenophon's Account of Euphron of Sicyon*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Sian Lewis
Sian Lewis
Affiliation:
University of Wales Cardiff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Xenophon's account of Euphron, tyrant at Sicyon from 368 to 366, appears to present him as a typical fourth-century ‘new tyrant’, dependent on mercenaries and concerned solely with his own power. But why did Xenophon choose to recount Euphron's actions and fate at such length, and why does he insist so strongly that he was a tyrant? Xenophon's interest in Euphron is part of his general approach to tyranny in the Hellenica, which depicts a series of individuals and regimes, all described as tyrannies. The model of tyranny with which Xenophon operates is broader and more inclusive than we would expect, contrasting with the narrow, constitutional idea of tyranny defined by Aristotle. Understanding this has two consequences. It allows us to appreciate Euphron in a new light, giving credit to the positive tradition about his support for the Sicyonian democracy and his posthumous heroization; we can see the debate which existed in his own time about his role and position. It also raises the question of why Xenophon recognized tyranny in so many places, and was so keen to emphasize his construction of these regimes. We need to situate him within the evolution of ideas about tyranny, since the concept of tyranny is largely constructed by historians: Herodotus ‘created’ tyranny in the aftermath of the Persian Wars, while Thucydides developed the concept from the individual to the general, as this better fitted his Athenocentric model. Xenophon, in contrast, was reflecting contemporary debates over the interpretation of different types of ruler and regime, and developing his own theory of tyranny. Therefore to see a ‘new tyranny’ movement in the fourth century is misplaced: an examination of Euphron reveals the complexities of self-presentation in fourth-century Greek politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 124 , November 2004 , pp. 65 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the chronology of Euphron, see Meloni, R., ‘La tirannide de Eufrone I in Sicione’, RFIC 29 (1951) 10–33Google Scholar; Griffin, A., Sikyon (Oxford 1982) 71Google Scholar; Gehrke, H.-J., Stasis (Munich 1985) 370–2.Google Scholar

2 Diod. Sic. 15.70.3:

Ἃμα δὲ τούτοις πραττομένοις Εὔφρων ό Σικυώνιος, διαφέρων θράσει καὶ άπονοίᾳ, συνεργοὺς λαβών Ἀργείους ἐπέθετο τυραννίδι. κρατήσας δὲ τῆς ἐπτβολῆς τετταράκοντα τούς εὐπορωτάτους τῶν Σικυωνίων ἐφυγάδευσε, δημεύσας αύτῶν τὰς οὐσίας, καὶ πολλῶν χρημάτων κυριεύσας μισθοφόρους ἥθροισε καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἐδυνάστευσεν.

At the same time as these events, Euphron of Sicyon, a man notorious for rashness and folly, made an attempt on tyranny with the assistance of the Argives. After his successful coup he exiled forty of the wealthiest Sicyonians and confiscated their property; and now commanding large sums of money, he assembled a mercenary force and ruled over the city.

3 Mossé, C., La tyrannie dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1969)Google Scholar Part 2, ch. 3 (Les épigones); Mandel, J., ‘Zur Geschichte des coup d'état von Euphron I in Sikyon’, Euphrosyne 8 (1977) 93–107Google Scholar; Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Munich 1967) 305–7.Google Scholar

4 Griffin (n.1) 68–75; Frolov, E., ‘Die späte Tyrannis im Balkanischen Griechenland’, in Welskopf, E.C. (ed.), Hellenische Poleis: Krise – Wandlung – Wirkung 1 (Berlin 1974) 231–400 at 376–88Google Scholar; Thompson, W.E., ‘Arcadian factionalism in the 360s’, Historia 32 (1983) 149–60Google Scholar; Roy, J., ‘Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian affairs, 370–62 BC’, Historia 20 (1971) 569–99Google Scholar, and ‘Problems of democracy in the Arcadian confederacy’, in Brock, R. and Hodkinson, S. (eds), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organisation and Community in Ancient Greece (Oxford 2000) 308–26Google Scholar; Whitehead, D., ‘Euphron, tyrant of Sicyon’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 5.8 (1980) 175–8.Google Scholar Only Meloni (n.1) and De Ste Croix, G.E.M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London 1981) 297Google Scholar, have offered a revisionist view, the former depicting Euphron as a Sicyonian patriot, and the latter placing him as ‘a leading political figure taking up the cause of the poor’.

5 Dionysius I's ascent to power is recounted in Diod. 13.92–3.

6 The influence of Dionysius I on the figure of Hieran is clear: see Gray, V., ‘Xenophon's Hiero and the meeting of the wise man and the tyrant in Greek literature’, CQ 36 (1986) 115–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sordi, M., ‘Lo Hierone di Senofonte, Dionigi e Filisto’, Athenaeum 58 (1980) 3–13.Google Scholar

7 E.g. Tuplin, C., The Failings of Empire. A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11–7.5.27 (Historia Einzelschrift 76, Stuttgart 1993).Google Scholar

8 See Krentz, P., Xenophon Hellenika I–II.3.10 (Warminster 1989) 108–9Google Scholar on Hell. 1.1.37.

9 Hell. 6.2.33, 7.1.20, 22.

10 IG II2 18 (393 BC); IG II2 103 (368); IG II2 105 and 523 (368/7).

11 Arist. Rhet. 1401a34, cf. Quint. 3.6.26, 7.4.44; Lysias 12.35. See Tuplin (n.7) 44 n.7.

12 Interpretations of the Mania episode vary: Krentz, P., Xenophon Hellenika II.3.II–IV.2.8 (Warminster 1995) 163Google Scholar; Gray, V., The Character of Xenophon's Hellenika (London 1989) 29–32Google Scholar; see also Tuplin (n.7) 49 (on Meidias).

13 Hell. 7.3.7.

14 Hell. 5.2.32; see Buckler, J., ‘The re-establishment of the Boiotarchia (378 BC)’, AJAH 4.2 (1979) 50–64 at 50–1.Google Scholar

15 Hell. 5.4.2, 7; Plut. Pel. 7, 11, De gen. Soc. 598.

16 Hell. 5.4.13; cf. Plut. Ages. 24.2; of course the language of tyranny was widely applied to the Theban regime: see Plut. Pel. 6.1, 7.2 and Buck, R.J., A History of Boeotia (Edmonton 1976) 70–1.Google Scholar

17 Hell. 6.1.4, 8.

18 Sprawski, S., Jason of Pherai. A Study of the History of Thessaly in the Years 431–370 BC (Crakow 1999) 58–62Google Scholar, presents a detailed discussion of the topic.

19 Hell. 6.4.32.

20 Hell. 6.4.34.

21 Hell. 6.4.35.

22 Arist. Pol. 1310 a 39–1313 a 17, 1313 a 34–1315 b 10.

23 Pol. 1277 a 24–5.

24 Parker, V., ‘TYRANNOS: the semantics of a political concept from Archilochus to Aristotle’, Hermes 126 (1998) 145–72 at 167–8Google Scholar, rightly points out that Aristotle's concern with the moment of constitutional change leads him to disregard the method by which most tyrants came to power: by inheritance.

25 Pol. 1315 b 11–40.

26 Sprawski (n.18) 59; see also Keyt, D., Aristotle Politics Books V and VI (Oxford 1999)Google Scholar, who comments that Clearchus and his sons at Heracleia should also be included, given the length of their reign, and on the authenticity of the passage in general.

27 E.g. Mossé (n.3) 126; Roy (1971, n.4) 580.

28 Coins described in Weil, R., Zeitschrift für Numismatik 1 (1879) 371ff.Google Scholar; Kraay, C.M., Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London 1976) 100Google Scholar; Cargill-Thompson, J.A.W., ‘The autonomous coinage of Sicyon’, summarized at Num. Chron. 8 (1968) x.Google Scholar

29 Thuc. 2.13.4–5. The same accusation, though more vaguely couched, is levelled at Jason of Pherae at Hell. 6.4.30.

30 De Ste Croix (n.4) 297.

31 A later Athenian inscription honouring Euphron II, grandson of the tyrant, also hints at a possible longstanding link with Athens, whence Euphron I's mercenary assistance in 366/5 was drawn: IG II2 448; see Schwenk, C.J., Athens in the Age of Alexander. The Dated Laws and Decrees of ‘the Lykourgan Era’ 338–322 BC (Chicago 1985)Google Scholar no. 83, Griffin (n.1) 75–7 and Meloni (n.1).

32 Whitehead (n.4), further discussed in Cartledge, P.A., ‘Euphron and the douloi again’, LCM 5.9 (1980) 209–11.Google Scholar

33 Xen. Hell. 7.3.12.

34 Plut. Aratus 53.3–4.

35 Malkin, I., Religion and Colonisation in Ancient Greece (Leiden 1987) 232–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burkert, W., Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. Raffan, J. (Oxford 1998) 203–8.Google Scholar

36 Thucydides 5.11.

37 Arrian, Anabasis 1.17.11; see Bosworth, A.B., A Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander (Oxford 1980) 131–3Google Scholar, and perhaps Polyaenus 7.23.2.

38 Malkin (n.35) 232; Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides 2: Books IV–V.24 (Oxford 1996) 451Google Scholar; Leschhorn, W., ‘Gründer der Stadt’. Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte (Stuttgart 1984) 175–80.Google Scholar

39 Polyaenus 6.49: Ἀναξαγόρας, Κόδρος, Διόδωρος, παĩδες Ἐχεάνακτος, Ἠγησίαν τύραννον Ἐφεσίων ὰπέκτειναν.

40 The presence of a tyrant at this point seems anomalous, and Badian (‘Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia’, in Badian, E. (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions. Studies presented to V. Ehrenberg (Oxford 1966) 37–69Google Scholar) saw Hegesias as rather an ex-tyrant, that is, a member of the oligarchy who had been recalled. Bosworth (n.37) 132 suggests that the Macedonian reaction to the murder is stronger than the killing of an ex-oligarch would seem to warrant, and it is therefore more likely that he was the incumbent democratic leader.

41 Responses to Theramenes in Athens offer another illustration of such polarization; see Harding, P., ‘The Theramenes myth’, Phoenix 28 (1974) 101–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Engels, J., ‘Der Michigan-Papyrus über Theramenes und die Ausbildung des “Theramenes-Mythos”’, ZPE 99 (1993) 125–55.Google Scholar

42 For alternative theories about the inclusion of the Euphron episode, see Dillery, J., Xenophon and the History of his Times (London 1995) 130–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuplin (n.7) 124; also Higgins, W.E., Xenophon the Athenian. The Problem of the Individual and the Society of the Polis (Albany, NY 1977) 109–10, 115.Google Scholar

43 Expressed most clearly at 5.78; also at 3.80–3 and 7.102–4. The most recent treatment of the theme is Dewald, C., ‘Form and content: the question of tyranny in Herodotus’, in Morgan, K.A. (ed.), Popular Tyranny. Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece (Austin 2003) 25–58.Google Scholar

44 R.G. Osborne, ‘Changing the discourse’, in Morgan (n.43).

45 Hdt. 6.104; Thuc. 2.30 and 33; Diod. Sic. 11.86.4–5 (Tyndarides), 11.88.6, 12.8.1–2, 12.29.1 (Duketios), 13.75.2–9 (Hermocrates); also Diog. Laert. 8.63 (Empedocles). See Berve (n.3) 171–89, 207–16.

46 Parker (n.24); Oost, S.I., ‘The tyrant kings of Syracuse’, CP 71 (1976) 224–36Google Scholar; Wheeler, G.J., ‘Tyrants?’ paper given at Classical Association Conference, University of Warwick, April 2003.Google Scholar

47 On the personal propaganda of Dionysius, see Lewis, S., ‘The tyrant's myth’, in Smith, C.J. and Serrati, J. (eds), Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus (Edinburgh 2000) 97–106Google Scholar; on Mausolus (dynastes, basileus and tyrannos), see Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford 1982) 55–62, 70–1Google Scholar, and Ruzicka, S., Politics of a Persian Dynasty. The Hecatomnids in the Fourth Century BC (Norman, OK and London 1992) 43–4.Google Scholar

48 Some early tyrants were, of course, subsumed into the tradition of ‘Wise Men’: Pittacus of Mytilene and Periander of Corinth both figure in lists of the ‘Seven Sages’ remembered for their lawgiving and wise advice: Diog. Laert. 1.41–2. Pl. Prt. 343a, Plut. Conv. sept. sap. and Paus. 10.24.1 include Pittacus but not Periander.