Visit https://testbankfan.

com to download the full version and

explore more testbank or solution manual

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-
edition-nutt-solutions-manual/

Explore and download more testbank at testbankfan

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-nutt-
test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Deitel Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-deitel-
solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com

Operating Systems Design And Implementation 3rd Edition

Tanenbaum Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-design-and-
implementation-3rd-edition-tanenbaum-solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com

Leaders and the Leadership Process Readings Self

Assessments 6th Edition Pierce Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/leaders-and-the-leadership-process-
readings-self-assessments-6th-edition-pierce-test-bank/

testbankbell.com
SOC 4th Edition Benokraitis Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/soc-4th-edition-benokraitis-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Infants and Toddlers Curriculum and Teaching 8th Edition

Terri Swim Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/infants-and-toddlers-curriculum-and-
teaching-8th-edition-terri-swim-solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com

M Management 5th Edition Bateman Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/m-management-5th-edition-bateman-
solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com

College Algebra 6th Edition Dugopolski Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/college-algebra-6th-edition-
dugopolski-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Customer Service Career Success Through Customer Loyalty

6th Edition Timm Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/customer-service-career-success-
through-customer-loyalty-6th-edition-timm-solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com
Childhood and Adolescence Voyages in Development 5th
Edition Rathus Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/childhood-and-adolescence-voyages-in-
development-5th-edition-rathus-solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions

Chapter 9: High-Level Synchronization and Interprocess

Communication
Exercises

1. Here is one solution. Another one uses the monitor to encapsulate the resources rather
than just the entry and exit.

monitor sharedV {
public enter(int i) {set i busy;};
public exit(int i) {set i idle;};
};

p_0() {
...
enter(2);
access V_2;
exit(2)
...
}

p_1() {
...
enter(0);
access V_0
exit(0)
...
enter(2);
access V_2;
exit(2)
...
enter(0);
enter(2);
access V_0
access V_2;
exit(0)
exit(2)
}

p_2() {
...
enter(0);
access V_0
exit(0)
...
enter(1);
access V_1;
exit(1)
...
enter(0);
enter(1);
access V_0
access V_1;
exit(0)

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
exit(1)
}

p_3() {
...
enter(1);
access V_1;
exit(1)
...
}

2. Here is one solution.

semaphore s0 = 1, s1 = 1, s2 = 1;
...
P_simultaneous(...);
V_simultaneous(...);

p_0() {
...
P_simultaneous(s0, s1);
access V_0 & V_1;
V_simultaneous(s0, s1);
...
}

p_1() {
...
P_simultaneous(s1, s2);
access V_1 & V_2;
V_simultaneous(s0, s1);
...
}

p_2() {
...
P_simultaneous(s0, s2);
access V_0 & V_2;
V_simultaneous(s0, s1);
...
}

3. Here is one solution.

monitor semaphore {
private:
int count = 1; /* set to the initial value of the semaphore
*/
condition hold;
public:
P() {count--; if(count <= 0) hold.wait;};
V() {count++; hold.signal:};
};

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions

4. Condition variables are just signaling semaphores (such as the full/empty semaphores
in the bounded buffer problem). The solution to this problem requires that you know
how mutual exclusion is implemented in the monitor. Then the condition variable
wait code must enqueue the thread and release the mutual exclusion. Similarly, the
signal code obtains mutually exclusive access to the monitor and dequeues a thread.
You will need to provide some guidance as to the amount of detail you want as an
acceptable solution to this problem. Here is some pseudo code (that has only been
debugged “by eye”):

struct monitor_t {
private:
semaphore mutex = 1;
int cv = 0;
<ADT data structures>
...
public:
proc_i(...) {
P(mutex);
<processing for proc_i>
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
enqueue(self, cv_list);
setState(self, blocked);
V(mutex);
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
P(mutex);
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
pid = dequeue(cv_list);
setState(pid, ready);
V(mutex);
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
P(mutex);
}
V(mutex);
};
...
};

5. The idea is to translate the solution for #4 into System V semaphores:

struct monitor_t {
private:
union semun {
int val;
struct semid_ds *buf;
ushort * array;
} arg;
arg.val = 1; /* Initial value of semaphore */
int mutex;
struct sembuf opns[1];

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
int cv = 0; /* You could use an event here, but it will be
* tricky releasing the mutex
*/
<ADT data structures>
...
public:
monitor_t() {
mutex = semget(MY_MONITOR, 1, 0666|IPC_CREATE);
if(mutex < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Semaphore not available\n");
exit(0);
}
if(semctl(id, 0, SETVAL, arg) < 0)
{
fprintf( stderr, "Unable to set semaphore value\n");
}
/* Set up the sembuf structure. */
opns[0].sem_num = 0;
opns[0].sem_flg = 0;
};
proc_i(...) {
/* P(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = -1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
<processing for proc_i>
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
enqueue(self, cv_list);
setState(self, blocked);
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
/* P(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = -1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
pid = dequeue(cv_list);
setState(pid, ready);
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
/* P(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = -1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
}
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
};
...

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
};

6. Here is the basic idea of a solution:

struct monitor_t {
private:
HANDLE mutex;
Char *mName = “mutexName”;
int cv = 0;
<ADT data structures>
...
public:
monitor_t() {
mutex = CreateMutex(NULL, FALSE, mName);
};
proc_i(...) {
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex */
<processing for proc_i>
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
enqueue(self, cv_list);
setState(self, blocked);
ReleaseMutex(mutex); /* V(mutex) */
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex) */
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
pid = dequeue(cv_list);
setState(pid, ready);
ReleaseMutex(mutex); /* V(mutex) */
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex) */
}
ReleaseMutex(mutex); /* V(mutex) */
};
...
};

7. Here is one solution.

monitor sleepy_barber {
private:
int number_of_customers = 0;
condition_variable haircut, sleepy;

public:
request_haircut {
number_of_customers = number_of_customers + 1;
if (number_of_customers == 1) sleepy.signal;
haircut.wait;

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions

take_customer {
if (number_of_customers == 0) sleepy.wait;
number_of_customers = number_of_customers - 1;
haircut.signal;
}

The barber is a cyclic process of the form:

while (TRUE) {
sleepy_barber.take_customer;
cut_hair
}

Each customer has the form:

...
sleepy_barber.request_haircut
get_haircut;
...

8. An asynchronous send operation can be used in any situation in which the sending
process wishes to transmit information to a sender, but it does not care when the
message is received. In the SOR example, the central process can assign work to an
equation solver using an asynchronous send. (The centralized process will ultimately
have to synchronize the completion of the equation solutions by all the solvers, but
the allocation of work need not have synchronization.)
Suppose two processes, p_0 and p_1, cooperate with one another so that they
generally operate independently and concurrently, but they occasionally share
information by p_0 sending information to p_1; with a synchronous send, p_0 can
procede after its send operation with the assurance that p_1 has received the
information. This communication paradigm is used in remote procedure call
(described in detail in Chapter 17).

9. If a set of processes are working on a common problem, i.e., the work has been
partitioned and delegated to various processes, then the run time will be reduced if all
the processes can execute at the same time. This follows because a fixed amount of
work is divided, then two or more processes perform parts of the work simultaneously
(in a system with multiple processors). Blocking receive operations tend to make a
process wait for one or more other processes to "catch up," reducing the effective
amount of concurrency in the execution. However, as we have seen in various
examples in Chapters 8 and 9, concurrent operation on shared information means that
it is necessary to incorporate a synchronization mechanism to manage sharing -- a
factor that considerably raises the complexity of the software.
10. Condition variables are used to suspend a process while it is logically in a critical
section. In a user thread package, the programmer controls the scheduling of threads
within an address space (process). Therefore, the programmer can determine
situations in which a thread is in a critical section, yet needs another critical section,
and thus can suspend the thread from executing until the needed critical section can

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions

become available. Notice that this is not generally possible at the process level, since
there is not parent to control the schedule and to suspend other processes.
11. The Mach C thread cthread_fork() is similar to UNIX fork() in that it creates a
new thread. It is different in that the thread is given a specific procedure where it will
begin execution (same address space, but a different location from the parent thread).
When the C thread terminates, there is no synchronization with the parent thread.
12. This solution (with minor edits) provided by Don Lindsay, Fall, 1995.

===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* parent.c
*
* Example program by Don Lindsay
*
*
* This program uses the trapezoidal rule to integrate
* f(x) = 1/(x+1)
* on [0,2]. It does this by forking N processes, each of which
* does n/N trapezoids.
* The parent specifies tasks over N pipes, and recieves answers over one
* shared pipe.
* The parent reports the totalled area, and reports the elapsed integration
* time, ie excluding the setup time. The time is the average of many runs.
* This program must be run with N between 1 and 8, and n=64.
*
* Tested on Linux: portability unknown.
*
*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <math.h>

#define REPEAT (4000)

#define NUMSTEPS (64)
#define PATHNAME "./child"

#define PRINT if(debug)fprintf

#define PRINT2 if(debug>1)fprintf
extern char **environ;

#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE 1
#endif
typedef int Boolean;
/*typedef unsigned char u_char;*/

#define PIPE_IN (0)

#define PIPE_OUT (1)

int debug = 0;

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
int forkcount;
int pipes_to_child[8][2];
int pipe_from_child[2];

/****************************************************************
*
*/
void fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL ERROR: %s\\n", string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void system_fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: ");
perror( string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void prompt()
{
fprintf( stderr, "TRY: parent N [-d]\\n" );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Sets globals forkcount, debug
*/
void parse_my_args( int argc, char **argv )
{
if( argc < 2 || argc > 3 ) prompt();
if( argc == 3 ){
if( strcmp( argv[2], "-d" ) == 0 )
debug = 1;
else if( strcmp( argv[2], "-D" ) == 0 )
debug = 2;
else
prompt();
}
forkcount = atoi( argv[1] );
PRINT( stderr, "forkcount %d\\n", forkcount );
if( forkcount < 1 || forkcount > 8 ) fatal( "arg out of range" );
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Fork that many children.
* Leaves global pipes_to_child and pipe_from_child. These are the
* stdin and stdout of each child.
* Exits on error.
*/
void fork_solvers( int forkcount )
{
int i;
pid_t pid;
char *child_argv[2];
child_argv[0] = PATHNAME;
child_argv[1] = NULL;

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
if( pipe( pipe_from_child )) system_fatal( "Pipe" );
for( i = 0; i < forkcount; i++ ) {
if( pipe( pipes_to_child[i] )) system_fatal( "Pipe" );

PRINT( stderr, "about to fork\\n" );

pid = fork();
if( pid == 0 ) {
/* I am the i'th child. */

if( close(0))
system_fatal("Close1");
if( dup( pipes_to_child[i][PIPE_IN ])==-1)system_fatal("dup1");
if( close(1))
system_fatal("Close2");
if( dup(pipe_from_child[ PIPE_OUT ])==-1)system_fatal("dup2");

/* child's stdin and stdout are now the pipes */

execve( PATHNAME, child_argv, environ );

fprintf( stderr, "exec of \\"%s\\" failed:\\n", PATHNAME );
system_fatal( "Child" );
exit(1);
}
/* I am the parent */
if( pid == -1 ) {
system_fatal( "Fork Parent" );
}
}
}
/***************************************************************
*
* Expects globals pipes_to_child, pipe_from_child.
* Writes step requests to those pipes, and returns the sum of the results.
*/
float farm_out_work( int forkcount )
{
u_char out_buf;
float in_buf;
int in_buf_len = sizeof( float );
float area;
int i, child;

/* Try to get them all working by writing all before any reads */

for( child = 0, i = 1; i <= NUMSTEPS; child++, i++ ) {

if( child >= forkcount ) child = 0; /* wrap around */

out_buf = i;
if( write( pipes_to_child[child][PIPE_OUT], &out_buf,1)!=1)
system_fatal( "write" );
}
for( area = 0.0, i = 1; i <= NUMSTEPS; i++ ) {
if( read( pipe_from_child[PIPE_IN], &in_buf,in_buf_len)
!= in_buf_len )
system_fatal( "read pipe" );
PRINT( stderr, "parent: %d gets area = %g\\n", i, in_buf );
area += in_buf;
}
PRINT( stderr, "parent: %d gets area = %g\\n", i, in_buf );
return area;
}
/****************************************************************
*

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
*
*/
void kill_solvers( int forkcount )
{
int i;
char out_buf;
out_buf = 0;

for( i = 0; i < forkcount; i++ ) {

if( write( pipes_to_child[i][PIPE_OUT], &out_buf,1)!=1)
system_fatal( "kill write" );
}
}
/******************************************************************
*
* Returns system time in milliseconds.
*/
double get_sys_time()
{
struct timeval t; /* int fields tv_sec, tv_usec */
double time;
int result = gettimeofday( &t, 0 );
if( result ) {
fprintf( stderr, "error from gettimeofday\\n" );
perror( "" );
exit(1);
}
PRINT( stderr, "%d %d\\n", t.tv_sec, t.tv_usec );
time = t.tv_sec * 1.e6 + t.tv_usec; /* in microseconds */
return time / 1000;
}
/****************************************************************
*/
main( int argc, char **argv )
{
double start, stop;
int i;
float area;

parse_my_args( argc, argv ); /* get forkcount */

fork_solvers( forkcount );

start = get_sys_time();
/* Must integrate many times to get a measurable amount of time. */
for( i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++ ) {
area = farm_out_work( forkcount );
}
stop = get_sys_time();

fprintf( stdout, "area is %g\\n", area );

fprintf( stdout, "time per integration is %g ms.\\n",
(stop-start)/REPEAT );
kill_solvers( forkcount );
exit(0);
}
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* child.c - to be invoked by "parent", forked integrator.
*
* Example program by Don Lindsay
*
*
* This program is used to integrate (via trapezoids) the function

©2004 «GreetingLine»
Visit https://testbankbell.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
*/
#define FUNC(x) (1/(x+1.0))
#define NUMSTEPS (64)
#define INTERVAL_LO (0.0)
#define INTERVAL_HI (2.0)

/* Reads 1-byte integers, one at a time, from stdin.

* A value in the range 1..NUMSTEPS causes a single trapezoid
* to be computed, and its area written (as a binary float) to stdout.
* Zero means quit: all else is a fatal error.
* Each trapezoid represents a 1/NUMSTEPS part of the INTERVAL.
*
* Tested on Linux: portability unknown.
*
*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>

#define PRINT if(debug)fprintf

#define PRINT2 if(debug > 1)fprintf
extern char **environ;

typedef int Boolean;

/*typedef unsigned char u_char;*/

int debug = 0;
int forkcount;
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL ERROR: %s\\n", string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void parse_args( int argc, char **argv )
{
if( argc != 1 ) {
fprintf( stderr, "Illegal arglist to child: %d\\n", argc );
exit(1);
}
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void system_fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "CHILD FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: ");
perror( string );
exit(1);
}

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
/****************************************************************
*
* Returns the area under f(x1)..f(x2) assuming f is linear between.
* Assumes x2 > x1.
* Expects macro FUNC.
*/
float trapezoid( float x1, float x2 )
{
float f1 = FUNC(x1);
float f2 = FUNC(x2);
return (x2-x1) * (f1+f2)/2.;
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Returns area of indexed trapezoid.
*/
float integrate( int index )
{
float x1, x2, deltax;

deltax = (INTERVAL_HI - INTERVAL_LO)/ NUMSTEPS;

x1 = INTERVAL_LO + index * deltax;
x2 = x1 + deltax;
return trapezoid( x1, x2 );
}
/****************************************************************
*/
main( int argc, char **argv )
{
int area_len = sizeof(float);
float area;
u_char buf;

parse_args( argc, argv );

for(;;) {
if( read( 0, &buf, 1 ) != 1 ) system_fatal( "read" );
PRINT( stderr, "child reads %d from pipe.\\n", buf );
if( buf == 0 ) exit(0);
if( buf > NUMSTEPS ) {
fprintf( stderr, "child: illegal %d read.\\n", buf );
exit(1);
}
area = integrate( buf-1 );
PRINT( stderr, "Child: area %d is %g\\n", buf, area );
if( write( 1, &area, area_len ) != area_len ) system_fatal( "write" );
}
}

13. Here is the quadrature problem using Mach C threads (with politically incorrect name
for the trapezoid solver code).

===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* Trapezoidal Rule Quadrature using Mach C threads
*
* Use the following command to compile this file
* (assumed to be named trapezoid.c)
*
* trapezoid: trapezoid.o timer.o
* cc -g -o trapezoid trapezoid.o timer.o
*
* trapezoid.o: trapezoid.c

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
* cc -c trapezoid.c
*
*/

#include

/* #define TRUE 1 */
#define bottomRange 0.0
#define topRange 2.0
#define intervals 64
#define maxN 8

#define iLeft(i) 2*i+N

#define iRight(i) 2*i+N+1

/* Local function prototypes */

void solver(int);

/* Shared memory map

*
* Result from Solver 0
* Result from Solver 1
* ...
* Result from Solver N-1
* Left endpoint for Solver 0
* Right endpoint for Solver 0
* Left endpoint for Solver 1
* Right endpoint for Solver 1
* ...
* Left endpoint for Solver N-1
* Right endpoint for Solver N-1
*
* The memory descriptors follow ...
*/
float *shMem; /* Pointer to shared memory as floats */
char *cshMem; /* Pointer to shared memory as chars */

/* Locks for synchronization between solvers and master */

mutex_t resultLock[maxN];
mutex_t segLock[maxN];

extern int errno;

int N;

main (argc, argv)

int argc;
char *argv[];
{
cthread_t t_handle[maxN];
cthread_t cthread_fork();

float getTime();
float currentLeft, currentRight;
float length, result;
float startTime, stopTime;

int i, nAlive, solverNum;

unsigned lengthSM;

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions

/* Get a value of N from the command line */

if(argc == 2)
{
N = atoi(argv[1]);
if (N > maxN)
{
printf("Usage: N is too large\n");
exit(0);
};
}
else
{
printf("Usage: trapezoid N\n");
exit(0);
};

/* Initialize variables for the test */

result = 0.0;
length = (topRange-bottomRange)/(float)intervals;
currentLeft = bottomRange;
currentRight = bottomRange;
cthread_init(); /* Initialize the C threads package */

/* Create the shared memory */

lengthSM = 3*N*sizeof(float); /* See shared mem map above */
cshMem = malloc(lengthSM); /* Make the space be shared */
shMem = (float *) cshMem; /* Access the array as floats */

/* Create the N solvers */

for (i=0; i < N; i++)
{
shMem[iLeft(i)] = 0.0;
shMem[iRight(i)] = 0.0;
/* Setup locks on the buckets */
resultLock[i] = mutex_alloc();
mutex_lock(resultLock[i]);
segLock[i] = mutex_alloc();

/* Create the solver thread */

t_handle[i] = cthread_fork(solver, i);
};

nAlive = N;

/* This loop controls the dispatching of requests and processing of results

*/
startTime = getTime(); /* Starting time */
solverNum = 0;
while (nAlive > 0)
{
/* Wait for a message from a solver */
while (!mutex_try_lock(resultLock[solverNum]))
{
cthread_yield();
solverNum = (solverNum +1) % N;
};

/* Acquired lock */
result = result + shMem[solverNum];

©2004 «GreetingLine»
 Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
/* Dispatch new work to the solver that just finished */
if (currentRight+length <= topRange)
{ /* Assign the next segment to the solver */
shMem[iLeft(solverNum)] = currentLeft;
shMem[iRight(solverNum)] = currentRight;
mutex_unlock(segLock[solverNum]);
currentLeft = currentRight;
currentRight = currentRight + length;
}
else
{ /* Eliminate the solver */
shMem[iLeft(solverNum)] = 1.0;
shMem[iRight(solverNum)] = 0.0;
mutex_unlock(segLock[solverNum]);
cthread_join(t_handle[solverNum]);
nAlive--;
};
};

/* All done -- Report the time & result for this iteration */
stopTime = getTime();
printf("%d processes required %6.2f seconds, result = %f\n",
N, stopTime-startTime, result);

exit(0);
}

/*------------ The Solver Thread Schema --------------- */

void solver(me)
int me;
{
float left, right;
float result;
int i;

/* Ask for initial work by writing a result of zero */

mutex_lock(segLock[me]); /* This should pass immediately */
shMem[me] = 0.0;
mutex_unlock(resultLock[me]);

left = 0.0;
right = 0.0;
while (TRUE)
{
/* Wait for a pair of endpoints */
mutex_lock(segLock[me]);
left = shMem[iLeft(me)];
right = shMem[iRight(me)];

/* Terminate if the left endpoint is greater than the right */

if (left > right) cthread_exit(0);

/* make the call measurable */

for (i=0;i < 1000;i++) cthread_yield();

shMem[me] = ((1.0/(left+1.0))+(1.0/(right+1.0)))/2.0*(right-
left);

©2004 «GreetingLine»
Other documents randomly have
different content
distinctive motto;[184] indeed, the test of an accomplished man
about this time was his talent for singing or reciting poetry, and for
making smart and ready answers. Respecting this constellation of
wise men,—who in the next century of Grecian history, when
philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and argumentation,
were spoken of with great eulogy,—all the statements are confused,
in part even contradictory. Neither the number, nor the names, are
given by all authors alike. Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus
seventeen: the names of Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian,
Pittakus the Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all
the lists,—and the remaining names as given by Plato[185] were,
Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
Sparta. By others, however, the names are differently stated: nor
can we certainly distribute among them the sayings, or mottoes,
upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred the honor of
inscription in the Delphian temple: Know thyself,—Nothing too much,
—Know thy opportunity,—Suretyship is the precursor of ruin. Bias is
praised as an excellent judge, and Myson was declared by the
Delphian oracle to be the most discreet man among the Greeks,
according to the testimony of the satirical poet Hippônax. This is the
oldest testimony (540 B. C.) which can be produced in favor of any of
the seven; but Kleobulus of Lindus, far from being universally
extolled, is pronounced by the poet Simonidês to be a fool.[186]
Dikæarchus, however, justly observed, that these seven or ten
persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which
those words bore in his day, but persons of practical discernment in
reference to man and society,[187]—of the same turn of mind as their
contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not employing the same
mode of illustration. Their appearance forms an epoch in Grecian
history, inasmuch as they are the first persons who ever acquired an
Hellenic reputation grounded on mental competency apart from
poetical genius or effect,—a proof that political and social prudence
was beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account.
Solon, Pittakus, Bias, and Thalês, were all men of influence—the first
two even men of ascendency,[188]—in their respective cities.
Kleobulus was despot of Lindus, and Periander (by some numbered
among the seven) of Corinth. Thalês stands distinguished as the
earliest name in physical philosophy, with which the other
contemporary wise men are not said to have meddled; their celebrity
rests upon moral, social, and political wisdom exclusively, which
came into greater honor as the ethical feeling of the Greeks
improved and as their experience became enlarged.
In these celebrated names we have social philosophy in its early
and infantine state,—in the shape of homely sayings or admonitions,
either supposed to be self-evident, or to rest upon some great
authority divine or human, but neither accompanied by reasons nor
recognizing any appeal to inquiry and discussion as the proper test
of their rectitude. From such unsuspecting acquiescence, the
sentiment to which these admonitions owe their force, we are
partially liberated even in the poet Simonidês of Keôs, who (as
before alluded to) severely criticizes the song of Kleobulus as well as
its author. The half-century which followed the age of Simonidês (the
interval between about 480-430 B. C.) broke down that sentiment
more and more, by familiarizing the public with argumentative
controversy in the public assembly, the popular judicature, and even
on the dramatic stage. And the increased self-working of the Grecian
mind, thus created, manifested itself in Sokratês, who laid open all
ethical and social doctrines to the scrutiny of reason, and who first
awakened among his countrymen that love of dialectics which never
left them,—an analytical interest in the mental process of inquiring
out, verifying, proving, and expounding truth. To this capital item of
human progress, secured through the Greeks—and through them
only—to mankind generally, our attention will be called at a later
period of the history; at present, it is only mentioned in contrast with
the naked, dogmatical laconism of the Seven Wise Men, and with
the simple enforcement of the early poets: a state in which morality
has a certain place in the feelings,—but no root, even among the
superior minds, in the conscious exercise of reason.
The interval between Archilochus and Solon (660-580 B. C.)
seems, as has been remarked in my former volume, to be the period
in which writing first came to be applied to Greek poems,—to the
Homeric poems among the number; and shortly after the end of that
period, commences the era of compositions without metre or prose.
The philosopher Pherekydês of Syros, about 550 B. C., is called by
some the earliest prose-writer; but no prose-writer for a
considerable time afterwards acquired any celebrity,—seemingly
none earlier than Hekatæus of Milêtus,[189] about 510-490 B. C.,—
prose being a subordinate and ineffective species of composition,
not always even perspicuous, but requiring no small practice before
the power was acquired of rendering it interesting.[190] Down to the
generation preceding Sokratês, the poets continued to be the grand
leaders of the Greek mind: until then, nothing was taught to youth
except to read, to remember, to recite musically and rhythmically,
and to comprehend poetical composition. The comments of
preceptors, addressed to their pupils, may probably have become
fuller and more instructive, but the text still continued to be epic or
lyric poetry. We must recollect also that these poets, so enunciated,
were the best masters for acquiring a full command of the
complicated accent and rhythm of the Greek language,—essential to
an educated man in ancient times, and sure to be detected if not
properly acquired. Not to mention the Choliambist Hippônax, who
seems to have been possessed with the devil of Archilochus, and in
part also with his genius,—Anakreon, Ibykus, Pindar, Bacchylidês,
Simonidês, and the dramatists of Athens, continue the line of
eminent poets without intermission. After the Persian war, the
requirements of public speaking created a class of rhetorical
teachers, while the gradual spread of physical philosophy widened
the range of instruction: so that prose composition, for speech or for
writing, occupied a larger and larger share of the attention of men,
and was gradually wrought up to high perfection, such as we see for
the first time in Herodotus. But before it became thus improved, and
acquired that style which was the condition of wide-spread
popularity, we may be sure that it had been silently used as a means
of recording information; and that neither the large mass of
geographical matter contained in the Periegêsis of Hekatæus, nor
the map first prepared by his contemporary, Anaximander, could
have been presented to the world, without the previous labors of
unpretending prose writers, who set down the mere results of their
own experience. The acquisition of prose-writing, commencing as it
does about the age of Peisistratus, is not less remarkable as an
evidence of past, than as a means of future, progress.
Of that splendid genius in sculpture and architecture, which
shone forth in Greece after the Persian invasion, the first lineaments
only are discoverable between 600-560 B. C., in Corinth, Ægina,
Samos, Chios, Ephesus, etc.,—enough, however, to give evidence of
improvement and progress. Glaukus of Chios is said to have
discovered the art of welding iron, and Rhœkus, or his son
Theodôrus of Samos, the art of casting copper or brass in a mould:
both these discoveries, as far as can be made out, appear to date a
little before 600 B. C.[191] The primitive memorial, erected in honor of
a god, did not even pretend to be an image, but was often nothing
more than a pillar, a board, a shapeless stone, a post, etc., fixed so
as to mark and consecrate the locality, and receiving from the
neighborhood respectful care and decoration, as well as worship.
Sometimes there was a real statue, though of the rudest character,
carved in wood; and the families of carvers,—who, from father to
son, exercised this profession, represented in Attica by the name of
Dædalus, and in the Ægina by the name of Smilis,—adhered long,
with strict exactness, to the consecrated type of each particular god.
Gradually, the wish grew up to change the material, as well as to
correct the rudeness, of such primitive idols; sometimes the original
wood was retained as the material, but covered in part with ivory or
gold,—in other cases, marble or metal was substituted. Dipœnos
and Skyllis of Krête acquired renown as workers in marble, about the
50th Olympiad (580 B. C.), and from them downwards a series of
names may be traced, more or less distinguished; moreover, it
seems about the same period that the earliest temple-offerings, in
works of art, properly so called, commence,—the golden statue of
Zeus, and the large carved chest, dedicated by the Kypselids of
Corinth at Olympia.[192] The pious associations, however, connected
with the old type were so strong, that the hand of the artist was
greatly restrained in dealing with statues of the gods. It was in
statues of men, especially in those of the victors at Olympia and
other sacred games, that genuine ideas of beauty were first aimed
at and in part attained, from whence they passed afterwards to the
statues of the gods. Such statues of the athletes seem to commence
somewhere between Olympiad 53-58, (568-548 B. C.).
Nor is it until the same interval of time (between 600-550 B. C.)
that we find any traces of these architectural monuments, by which
the more important cities in Greece afterwards attracted to
themselves so much renown. The two greatest temples in Greece
known to Herodotus were, the Artemision at Ephesus, and the
Heræon at Samos: the former of these seems to have been
commenced, by the Samian Theodorus, about 600 B. C.,—the latter,
begun by the Samian Rhœkus, can hardly be traced to any higher
antiquity. The first attempts to decorate Athens by such additions
proceeded from Peisistratus and his sons, near the same time. As far
as we can judge, too, in the absence of all direct evidence, the
temples of Pæstum in Italy and Selinus in Sicily seem to fall in this
same century. Of painting, during these early centuries, nothing can
be affirmed; it never at any time reached the same perfection as
sculpture, and we may presume that its years of infancy were at
least equally rude.
The immense development of Grecian art subsequently, and the
great perfection of Grecian artists, are facts of great importance in
the history of the human race. And in regard to the Greeks
themselves, they not only acted powerfully on the taste of the
people, but were also valuable indirectly as the common boast of
Hellenism, and as supplying one bond of fraternal sympathy as well
as of mutual pride, among its widely-dispersed sections. It is the
paucity and weakness of these bonds which renders the history of
Greece, prior to 560 B. C., little better than a series of parallel, but
isolated threads, each attached to a separate city; and that
increased range of joint Hellenic feeling and action, upon which we
shall presently enter, though arising doubtless in great measure from
new and common dangers threatening many cities at once,—also
springs in part from those other causes which have been
enumerated in this chapter as acting on the Grecian mind. It
proceeds from the stimulus applied to all the common feelings in
religion, art, and recreation,—from the gradual formation of national
festivals, appealing in various ways to tastes and sentiments which
animated every Hellenic bosom,—from the inspirations of men of
genius, poets, musicians, sculptors, architects, who supplied more or
less in every Grecian city, education for the youth, training for the
chorus, and ornament for the locality,—from the gradual expansion
of science, philosophy, and rhetoric, during the coming period of this
history, which rendered one city the intellectual capital of Greece,
and brought to Isokratês and Plato pupils from the most distant
parts of the Grecian world. It was this fund of common tastes,
tendencies, and aptitudes, which caused the social atoms of Hellas
to gravitate towards each other, and which enabled the Greeks to
become something better and greater than an aggregate of petty
disunited communities like the Thracians or Phrygians. And the
creation of such common, extra-political Hellenism, is the most
interesting phenomenon which the historian has to point out in the
early period now under our notice. He is called upon to dwell upon it
the more forcibly, because the modern reader has generally no idea
of national union without political union,—an association foreign to
the Greek mind. Strange as it may seem to find a song-writer put
forward as an active instrument of union among his fellow-Hellens, it
is not the less true, that those poets, whom we have briefly passed
in review, by enriching the common language, and by circulating
from town to town either in person or in their compositions,
contributed to fan the flame of Pan-Hellenic patriotism at a time
when there were few circumstances to coöperate with them, and
when the causes tending to perpetuate isolation seemed in the
ascendant.
 CHAPTER XXX.
GRECIAN AFFAIRS DURING THE GOVERNMENT OF
PEISISTRATUS AND HIS SONS AT ATHENS.

We now arrive at what may be called the second period of

Grecian history, beginning with the rule of Peisistratus at Athens and
of Crœsus in Lydia.
It has been already stated that Peisistratus made himself despot
of Athens in 560 B. C.: he died in 527 B. C., and was succeeded by his
son Hippias, who was deposed and expelled in 510 B. C., thus making
an entire space of fifty years between the first exaltation of the
father and the final expulsion of the son. These chronological points
are settled on good evidence: but the thirty-three years covered by
the reign of Peisistratus are interrupted by two periods of exile,—one
of them lasting not less than ten years,—the other, five years. And
the exact place of the years of exile, being nowhere laid down upon
authority, has been differently determined by the conjectures of
chronologers.[193] Partly from this half-known chronology, partly from
a very scanty collection of facts, the history of the half-century now
before us can only be given very imperfectly: nor can we wonder at
our ignorance, when we find that even among the Athenians
themselves, only a century afterwards, statements the most
incorrect and contradictory respecting the Peisistratids were in
circulation, as Thucydidês distinctly, and somewhat reproachfully,
acquaints us.
More than thirty years had now elapsed since the promulgation
of the Solonian constitution, whereby the annual senate of Four
Hundred had been created, and the public assembly (preceded in its
action as well as aided and regulated by this senate) invested with a
power of exacting responsibility from the magistrates after their year
of office. The seeds of the subsequent democracy had thus been
sown, and no doubt the administration of the archons had been
practically softened by it; but nothing in the nature of a democratical
sentiment had yet been created. A hundred years hence, we shall
find that sentiment unanimous and potent among the enterprising
masses of Athens and Peiræeus, and shall be called upon to listen to
loud complaints of the difficulty of dealing with “that angry, waspish,
intractable little old man, Dêmus of Pnyx,”—so Aristophanes[194] calls
the Athenian people to their faces, with a freedom which shows that
he at least counted on their good temper. But between 560-510 B. C.
the people are as passive in respect to political rights and securities
as the most strenuous enemy of democracy could desire, and the
government is transferred from hand to hand by bargains and cross-
changes between two or three powerful men,[195] at the head of
partisans who echo their voices, espouse their personal quarrels,
and draw the sword at their command. It was this ancient
constitution—Athens as it stood before the Athenian democracy—
which the Macedonian Antipater professed to restore in 322 B. C.,
when he caused the majority of the poorer citizens to be excluded
altogether from the political franchise.[196]
By the stratagem recounted in a former chapter,[197] Peisistratus
had obtained from the public assembly a guard which he had
employed to acquire forcible possession of the acropolis. He thus
became master of the administration; but he employed his power
honorably and well, not disturbing the existing forms farther than
was necessary to insure to himself full mastery. Nevertheless, we
may see by the verses of Solon[198] (the only contemporary evidence
which we possess), that the prevalent sentiment was by no means
favorable to his recent proceeding, and that there was in many
minds a strong feeling both of terror and aversion, which presently
manifested itself in the armed coalition of his two rivals,—Megaklês
at the head of the Parali, or inhabitants of the sea-board, and
Lykurgus at the head of those in the neighboring plain. As the
conjunction of the two formed a force too powerful for Peisistratus
to withstand, he was driven into exile, after no long possession of
his despotism.
But the time came, how soon we cannot tell, when the two rivals
who had expelled him quarrelled, and Megaklês made propositions
to Peisistratus, inviting him to resume the sovereignty, promising his
own aid, and stipulating that Peisistratus should marry his daughter.
The conditions being accepted, a plan was laid between the two new
allies for carrying them into effect, by a novel stratagem,—since the
simulated wounds and pretence of personal danger were not likely
to be played off a second time with success. The two conspirators
clothed a stately woman, six feet high, named Phyê, in the panoply
and costume of Athênê,—surrounded her with the processional
accompaniments belonging to the goddess,—and placed her in a
chariot with Peisistratus by her side. In this guise the exiled despot
and his adherents approached the city and drove up to the acropolis,
preceded by heralds, who cried aloud to the people: “Athenians,
receive ye cordially Peisistratus, whom Athênê has honored above all
other men, and is now bringing back into her own acropolis.” The
people in the city received the reputed goddess with implicit belief
and demonstrations of worship, while among the country cantons
the report quickly spread that Athênê had appeared in person to
restore Peisistratus, who thus found himself, without even a show of
resistance, in possession of the acropolis and of the government. His
own party, united with that of Megaklês, were powerful enough to
maintain him, when he had once acquired possession; and probably
all, except the leaders, sincerely believed in the epiphany of the
goddess, which came to be divulged as having been a deception,
only after Peisistratus and Megaklês had quarrelled.[199]
The daughter of Megaklês, according to agreement, quickly
became the wife of Peisistratus, but she bore him no children; and it
became known that her husband, having already adult sons by a
former marriage, and considering that the Kylonian curse rested
upon all the Alkmæônid family, did not intend that she should
become a mother.[200] Megaklês was so incensed at this behavior,
that he not only renounced his alliance with Peisistratus, but even
made his peace with the third party, the adherents of Lykurgus,—
and assumed so menacing an attitude, that the despot was obliged
to evacuate Attica. He retired to Eretria in Eubœa, where he
remained no less than ten years; but a considerable portion of that
time was employed in making preparations for a forcible return, and
he seems to have exercised, even while in exile, a degree of
influence much exceeding that of a private man. He lent valuable aid
to Lygdamis of Naxos,[201] in constituting himself despot of that
island, and he possessed, we know not how, the means of rendering
valuable service to different cities, Thebes in particular. They repaid
him by large contributions of money to aid in his reëstablishment:
mercenaries were hired from Argos, and the Naxian Lygdamis came
himself, both with money and with troops. Thus equipped and aided,
Peisistratus landed at Marathon in Attica. How the Athenian
government had been conducted during his ten years’ absence, we
do not know; but the leaders of it permitted him to remain
undisturbed at Marathon, and to assemble his partisans both from
the city and from the country: nor was it until he broke up from
Marathon and had reached Pallênê on his way to Athens, that they
took the field against him. Moreover, their conduct, even when the
two armies were near together, must have been either extremely
negligent or corrupt; for Peisistratus found means to attack them
unprepared, routing their forces almost without resistance. In fact,
the proceedings have altogether the air of a concerted betrayal: for
the defeated troops, though unpursued, are said to have dispersed
and returned to their homes forthwith, in obedience to the
proclamation of Peisistratus, who marched on to Athens, and found
himself a third time ruler.[202]
On this third successful entry, he took vigorous precautions for
rendering his seat permanent. The Alkmæônidæ and their
immediate partisans retired into exile; but he seized the children of
those who remained, and whose sentiments he suspected, as
hostages for the behavior of their parents, and placed them in
Naxos, under the care of Lygdamis. Moreover, he provided himself
with a powerful body of Thracian mercenaries, paid by taxes levied
upon the people:[203] nor did he omit to conciliate the favor of the
gods by a purification of the sacred island of Delos: all the dead
bodies which had been buried within sight of the temple of Apollo
were exhumed and reinterred farther off. At this time the Delian
festival,—attended by the Asiatic Ionians and the islanders, and with
which Athens was of course peculiarly connected,—must have been
beginning to decline from its pristine magnificence; for the
subjugation of the continental Ionic cities by Cyrus had been already
achieved, and the power of Samos, though increased under the
despot Polykratês, seems to have increased at the expense and to
the ruin of the smaller Ionic islands. From the same feelings, in part,
which led to the purification of Delos,—partly as an act of party
revenue,—Peisistratus caused the houses of the Alkmæônids to be
levelled with the ground, and the bodies of the deceased members
of that family to be disinterred and cast out of the country.[204]
This third and last period of the rule of Peisistratus lasted several
years, until his death in 527 B. C.: it is said to have been so mild in its
character, that he once even suffered himself to be cited for trial
before the Senate of Areopagus; yet as we know that he had to
maintain a large body of Thracian mercenaries out of the funds of
the people, we shall be inclined to construe this eulogium
comparatively rather than positively. Thucydidês affirms that both he
and his sons governed in a wise and virtuous spirit, levying from the
people only an income-tax of five per cent.[205] This is high praise
coming from such an authority, though it seems that we ought to
make some allowance for the circumstance of Thucydidês being
connected by descent with the Peisistratid family.[206] The judgment
of Herodotus is also very favorable respecting Peisistratus; that of
Aristotle favorable, yet qualified,—since he includes these despots
among the list of those who undertook public and sacred works with
the deliberate view of impoverishing as well as of occupying their
subjects. This supposition is countenanced by the prodigious scale
upon which the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens was begun by
Peisistratus,—a scale much exceeding either the Parthenôn or the
temple of Athênê Polias, both of which were erected in later times,
when the means of Athens were decidedly larger,[207] and her
disposition to demonstrative piety certainly no way diminished. It
was left by him unfinished, nor was it ever completed until the
Roman emperor Hadrian undertook the task. Moreover, Peisistratus
introduced the greater Panathenaic festival, solemnized every four
years, in the third Olympic year: the annual Panathenaic festival,
henceforward called the Lesser, was still continued.
I have already noticed, at considerable length, the care which he
bestowed in procuring full and correct copies of the Homeric poems,
as well as in improving the recitation of them at the Panathenaic
festival,—a proceeding for which we owe him much gratitude, but
which has been shown to be erroneously interpreted by various
critics. He probably also collected the works of other poets,—called
by Aulus Gellius,[208] in language not well suited to the sixth century
B. C., a library thrown open to the public; and the service which he
thus rendered must have been highly valuable at a time when
writing and reading were not widely extended. His son Hipparchus
followed up the same taste, taking pleasure in the society of the
most eminent poets of the day,[209]—Simonidês, Anakreon, and
Lasus; not to mention the Athenian mystic Onomakritus, who,
though not pretending to the gift of prophecy himself, passed for the
proprietor and editor of the various prophecies ascribed to the
ancient name of Musæus. The Peisistratids were well versed in these
prophecies, and set great value upon them; but Onomakritus, being
detected on one occasion in the act of interpolating the prophecies
of Musæus, was banished by Hipparchus in consequence.[210] The
statues of Hermês, erected by this prince or by his personal friends
in various parts of Attica,[211] and inscribed with short moral
sentences, are extolled by the author of the Platonic dialogue called
Hipparchus, with an exaggeration which approaches to irony; but it
is certain that both the sons of Peisistratus, as well as himself, were
exact in fulfilling the religious obligations of the state, and
ornamented the city in several ways, especially the public fountain
Kallirrhoê. They are said to have maintained the preëxisting forms of
law and justice, merely taking care always to keep themselves and
their adherents in the effective offices of state, and in the full reality
of power. They were, moreover, modest and popular in their
personal demeanor, and charitable to the poor; yet one striking
example occurs of unscrupulous enmity, in their murder of Kimôn, by
night, through the agency of hired assassins.[212] There is good
reason, however, for believing that the government both of
Peisistratus and of his sons was in practice generally mild until after
the death of Hipparchus by the hands of Harmodius and
Aristogeitôn, after which event the surviving Hippias became
alarmed, cruel, and oppressive during his last four years. And the
harshness of this concluding period left upon the Athenian mind[213]
that profound and imperishable hatred, against the dynasty
generally, which Thucydidês attests,—though he labors to show that
it was not deserved by Peisistratus, nor at first by Hippias.
Peisistratus left three legitimate sons,—Hippias, Hipparchus, and
Thessalus: the general belief at Athens among the contemporaries of
Thucydidês was, that Hipparchus was the eldest of the three and
had succeeded him; but the historian emphatically pronounces this
to be a mistake, and certifies, upon his own responsibility, that
Hippias was both eldest son and successor. Such an assurance from
him, fortified by certain reasons in themselves not very conclusive, is
sufficient ground for our belief,—the more so as Herodotus
countenances the same version. But we are surprised at such a
degree of historical carelessness in the Athenian public, and
seemingly even in Plato,[214] about a matter both interesting and
comparatively recent. In order to abate this surprise, and to explain
how the name of Hipparchus came to supplant that of Hippias in the
popular talk, Thucydidês recounts the memorable story of
Harmodius and Aristogeitôn.
Of these two Athenian citizens,[215] both belonging to the ancient
gens called Gephyræi, the former was a beautiful youth, attached to
the latter by a mutual friendship and devoted intimacy, which
Grecian manners did not condemn. Hipparchus made repeated
propositions to Harmodius, which were repelled, but which, on
becoming known to Aristogeitôn, excited both his jealousy and his
fears lest the disappointed suitor should employ force,—fears
justified by the proceedings not unusual with Grecian despots,[216]
and by the absence of all legal protection against outrage from such
a quarter. Under these feelings, he began to look about, in the best
way that he could, for some means of putting down the despotism.
Meanwhile Hipparchus, though not entertaining any designs of
violence, was so incensed at the refusal of Harmodius, that he could
not be satisfied without doing something to insult or humiliate him.
In order to conceal the motive from which the insult really
proceeded, he offered it, not directly to Harmodius, but to his sister.
He caused this young maiden to be one day summoned to take her
station in a religious procession as one of the kanêphoræ, or basket
carriers, according to the practice usual at Athens; but when she
arrived at the place where her fellow-maidens were assembled, she
was dismissed with scorn as unworthy of so respectable a function,
and the summons addressed to her was disavowed.[217] An insult
thus publicly offered filled Harmodius with indignation, and still
farther exasperated the feelings of Aristogeitôn: both of them,
resolving at all hazards to put an end to the despotism, concerted
means for aggression with a few select associates. They awaited the
festival of the Great Panathenæa, wherein the body of the citizens
were accustomed to march up in armed procession, with spear and
shield, to the acropolis; this being the only day on which an armed
body could come together without suspicion. The conspirators
appeared armed like the rest of the citizens, but carrying concealed
daggers besides. Harmodius and Aristogeitôn undertook with their
own hands to kill the two Peisistratids, while the rest promised to
stand forward immediately for their protection against the foreign
mercenaries; and though the whole number of persons engaged was
small, they counted upon the spontaneous sympathies of the armed
bystanders in an effort to regain their liberties, so soon as the blow
should once be struck. The day of the festival having arrived,
Hippias, with his foreign body-guard around him, was marshalling
the armed citizens for procession, in the Kerameikus without the
gates, when Harmodius and Aristogeitôn approached with concealed
daggers to execute their purpose. On coming near, they were
thunderstruck to behold one of their own fellow-conspirators talking
familiarly with Hippias, who was of easy access to every man, and
they immediately concluded that the plot was betrayed. Expecting to
be seized, and wrought up to a state of desperation, they resolved
at least not to die without having revenged themselves on
Hipparchus, whom they found within the city gates near the chapel
called the Leôkorion, and immediately slew him. His attendant
guards killed Harmodius on the spot; while Aristogeitôn, rescued for
the moment by the surrounding crowd, was afterwards taken, and
perished in the tortures applied to make him disclose his
accomplices.[218]
The news flew quickly to Hippias in the Kerameikus, who heard it
earlier than the armed citizens near him, awaiting his order for the
commencement of the procession. With extraordinary self-command,
he took advantage of this precious instant of foreknowledge, and
advanced towards them,—commanding them to drop their arms for
a short time, and assemble on an adjoining ground. They
unsuspectingly obeyed, and he immediately directed his guards to
take possession of the vacant arms. He was now undisputed master,
and enabled to seize the persons of all those citizens whom he
mistrusted,—especially all those who had daggers about them,
which it was not the practice to carry in the Panathenaic procession.
Such is the memorable narrative of Harmodius and Aristogeitôn,
peculiarly valuable inasmuch as it all comes from Thucydidês.[219] To
possess great power,—to be above legal restraint,—to inspire
extraordinary fear,—is a privilege so much coveted by the giants
among mankind, that we may well take notice of those cases in
which it brings misfortune even upon themselves. The fear inspired
by Hipparchus,—of designs which he did not really entertain, but
was likely to entertain, and competent to execute without hindrance,
—was here the grand cause of his destruction.
 The conspiracy here detailed happened in 514 B. C., during the
thirteenth year of the reign of Hippias,—which lasted four years
longer, until 510 B. C. And these last four years, in the belief of the
Athenian public, counted for his whole reign; nay, many of them
made the still greater historical mistake of eliding these last four
years altogether, and of supposing that the conspiracy of Harmodius
and Aristogeitôn had deposed the Peisistratid government and
liberated Athens. Both poets and philosophers shared this faith,
which is distinctly put forth in the beautiful and popular Skolion or
song on the subject: the two friends are there celebrated as the
authors of liberty at Athens,—“they slew the despot and gave to
Athens equal laws.”[220] So inestimable a present was alone
sufficient to enshrine in the minds of the subsequent democracy
those who had sold their lives to purchase it: and we must farther
recollect that the intimate connection between the two, so
repugnant to the modern reader, was regarded at Athens with
sympathy,—so that the story took hold of the Athenian mind by the
vein of romance conjointly with that of patriotism. Harmodius and
Aristogeitôn were afterwards commemorated both as the winners
and as the protomartyrs of Athenian liberty. Statues were erected in
their honor shortly after the final expulsion of the Peisistratids;
immunity from taxes and public burdens was granted to the
descendants of their families; and the speaker who proposed the
abolition of such immunities, at a time when the number had been
abusively multiplied, made his only special exception in favor of this
respected lineage.[221] And since the name of Hipparchus was
universally notorious as the person slain, we discover how it was
that he came to be considered by an uncritical public as the
predominant member of the Peisistratid family,—the eldest son and
successor of Peisistratus,—the reigning despot,—to the comparative
neglect of Hippias. The same public probably cherished many other
anecdotes,[222] not the less eagerly believed because they could not
be authenticated, respecting this eventful period.
Whatever may have been the moderation of Hippias before,
indignation at the death of his brother, and fear for his own safety,
[223] now induced him to drop it altogether. It is attested both by
Thucydidês and Herodotus, and admits of no doubt, that his power
was now employed harshly and cruelly,—that he put to death a
considerable number of citizens. We find also a statement, noway
improbable in itself, and affirmed both in Pausanias and in Plutarch,
—inferior authorities, yet still in this case sufficiently credible,—that
he caused Leæna, the mistress of Aristogeitôn, to be tortured to
death, in order to extort from her a knowledge of the secrets and
accomplices of the latter.[224] But as he could not but be sensible
that this system of terrorism was full of peril to himself, so he looked
out for shelter and support in case of being expelled from Athens;
and with this view he sought to connect himself with Darius king of
Persia,—a connection full of consequences to be hereafter
developed. Æantidês, son of Hippoklus the despot of Lampsakus on
the Hellespont, stood high at this time in the favor of the Persian
monarch, which induced Hippias to give him his daughter Archedikê
in marriage; no small honor to the Lampsakene, in the estimation of
Thucydidês.[225] To explain how Hippias came to fix upon this town,
however, it is necessary to say a few words on the foreign policy of
the Peisistratids.
It has already been mentioned that the Athenians, even so far
back as the days of the poet Alkæus, had occupied Sigeium in the
Troad, and had there carried on war with the Mityleneans; so that
their acquisitions in these regions date much before the time of
Peisistratus. Owing probably to this circumstance, an application was
made to them in the early part of his reign from the Dolonkian
Thracians, inhabitants of the Chersonese on the opposite side of the
Hellespont, for aid against their powerful neighbors the Absinthian
tribe of Thracians; and opportunity was thus offered for sending out
a colony to acquire this valuable peninsula for Athens. Peisistratus
willingly entered into the scheme, and Miltiadês son of Kypselus, a
noble Athenian, living impatiently under his despotism, was no less
pleased to take the lead in executing it: his departure and that of
other malcontents as founders of a colony suited the purpose of all
parties. According to the narrative of Herodotus,—alike pious and
picturesque,—and doubtless circulating as authentic at the annual
games which the Chersonesites, even in his time, celebrated to the
honor of their œkist,—it is the Delphian god who directs the scheme
and singles out the individual. The chiefs of the distressed
Dolonkians went to Delphi to crave assistance towards procuring
Grecian colonists, and were directed to choose for their œkist the
individual who should first show them hospitality on their quitting
the temple. They departed and marched all along what was called
the Sacred Road, through Phocis and Bœotia to Athens, without
receiving a single hospitable invitation; at length they entered
Athens, and passed by the house of Miltiadês, while he himself was
sitting in front of it. Seeing men whose costume and arms marked
them out as strangers, he invited them into his house and treated
them kindly: they then apprized him that he was the man fixed upon
by the oracle, and abjured him not to refuse his concurrence. After
asking for himself personally the opinion of the oracle, and receiving
an affirmative answer, he consented; sailing as œkist, at the head of
a body of Athenian emigrants, to the Chersonese.[226]
Having reached this peninsula, and having been constituted
despot of the mixed Thracian and Athenian population, he lost no
time in fortifying the narrow isthmus by a wall reaching all across
from Kardia to Paktya, a distance of about four miles and a half; so
that the Absinthian invaders were for the time effectually shut out,
[227] though the protection was not permanently kept up. He also
entered into a war with Lampsakus, on the Asiatic side of the strait,
but was unfortunate enough to fall into an ambuscade and become
a prisoner. Nothing preserved his life except the immediate
interference of Crœsus king of Lydia, coupled with strenuous
menaces addressed to the Lampsakenes, who found themselves
compelled to release their prisoner; Miltiadês having acquired much
favor with this prince, in what manner we are not told. He died
childless some time afterwards, while his nephew Stesagoras, who
succeeded him, perished by assassination, some time subsequent to
the death of Peisistratus at Athens.[228]
 The expedition of Miltiadês to the Chersonese must have
occurred early after the first usurpation of Peisistratus, since even
his imprisonment by the Lampsakenes happened before the ruin of
Crœsus, (546 B. C.). But it was not till much later,—probably during
the third and most powerful period of Peisistratus,—that the latter
undertook his expedition against Sigeium in the Troad. This place
appears to have fallen into the hands of the Mityleneans: Peisistratus
retook it,[229] and placed there his illegitimate son Hegesistratus as
despot. The Mityleneans may have been enfeebled at this time
(somewhere between 537-527 B. C.) not only by the strides of
Persian conquest on the mainland, but also by the ruinous defeat
which they suffered from Polykratês and the Samians.[230]
Hegesistratus maintained the place against various hostile attempts,
throughout all the reign of Hippias, so that the Athenian possessions
in those regions comprehended at this period both the Chersonese
and Sigeium.[231] To the former of the two, Hippias sent out
Miltiadês, nephew of the first œkist, as governor, after the death of
his brother Stesagoras. The new governor found much discontent in
the peninsula, but succeeded in subduing it by entrapping and
imprisoning the principal men in each town. He farther took into his
pay a regiment of five hundred mercenaries, and married
Hegesipylê, daughter of the Thracian king Olorus.[232] It appears to
have been about 515 B. C. that this second Miltiadês went out to the
Chersonese.[233] He seems to have been obliged to quit it for a time,
after the Scythian expedition of Darius, in consequence of having
incurred the hostility of the Persians; but he was there from the
beginning of the Ionic revolt until about 493 B. C., or two or three
years before the battle of Marathon, on which occasion we shall find
him acting commander of the Athenian army.
Both the Chersonese and Sigeium, though Athenian possessions,
were however now tributary and dependent on Persia. And it was to
this quarter that Hippias, during his last years of alarm, looked for
support in the event of being expelled from Athens: he calculated
upon Sigeium as a shelter, and upon Æantidês, as well as Darius, as
an ally. Neither the one nor the other failed him.
 The same circumstances which alarmed Hippias, and rendered
his dominion in Attica at once more oppressive and more odious,
tended of course to raise the hopes of his enemies, the Athenian
exiles, with the powerful Alkmæônids at their head. Believing the
favorable moment to be come, they even ventured upon an invasion
of Attica, and occupied a post called Leipsydrion in the mountain
range of Parnês, which separates Attica from Bœotia.[234] But their
schemes altogether failed: Hippias defeated and drove them out of
the country. His dominion now seemed confirmed, for the
Lacedæmonians were on terms of intimate friendship with him; and
Amyntas king of Macedon, as well as the Thessalians, were his allies.
Yet the exiles whom he had beaten in the open field succeeded in an
unexpected manœuvre, which, favored by circumstances, proved his
ruin.
By an accident which had occurred in the year 548 B. C.,[235] the
Delphian temple was set on fire and burnt. To repair this grave loss
was an object of solicitude to all Greece; but the outlay required was
exceedingly heavy, and it appears to have been long before the
money could be collected. The Amphiktyons decreed that one-fourth
of the cost should be borne by the Delphians themselves, who found
themselves so heavily taxed by this assessment, that they sent
envoys throughout all Greece to collect subscriptions in aid, and
received, among other donations, from the Greek settlers in Egypt
twenty minæ, besides a large present of alum from the Egyptian
king Amasis: their munificent benefactor Crœsus fell a victim to the
Persians in 546 B. C., so that his treasure was no longer open to
them. The total sum required was three hundred talents (equal
probably to about one hundred and fifteen thousand pounds
sterling),[236]—a prodigious amount to be collected from the
dispersed Grecian cities, who acknowledged no common sovereign
authority, and among whom the proportion reasonable to ask from
each was so difficult to determine with satisfaction to all parties. At
length, however, the money was collected, and the Amphiktyons
were in a situation to make a contract for the building of the temple.
The Alkmæônids, who had been in exile ever since the third and
final acquisition of power by Peisistratus, took the contract; and in
executing it, they not only performed the work in the best manner,
but even went much beyond the terms stipulated; employing Parian
marble for the frontage, where the material prescribed to them was
coarse stone.[237] As was before remarked in the case of Peisistratus
when he was in banishment, we are surprised to find exiles whose
property had been confiscated so amply furnished with money,—
unless we are to suppose that Kleisthenês the Alkmæônid, grandson
of the Sikyonian Kleisthenês,[238] inherited through his mother
wealth independent of Attica, and deposited it in the temple of the
Samian Hêrê. But the fact is unquestionable, and they gained signal
reputation throughout the Hellenic world for their liberal
performance of so important an enterprise. That the erection took
considerable time, we cannot doubt. It seems to have been finished,
as far as we can conjecture, about a year or two after the death of
Hipparchus,—512 B. C.,—more than thirty years after the
conflagration.
To the Delphians, especially, the rebuilding of their temple on so
superior a scale was the most essential of all services, and their
gratitude towards the Alkmæônids was proportionally great. Partly
through such a feeling, partly through pecuniary presents,
Kleisthenês was thus enabled to work the oracle for political
purposes, and to call forth the powerful arm of Sparta against
Hippias. Whenever any Spartan presented himself to consult the
oracle, either on private or public business, the answer of the
priestess was always in one strain, “Athens must be liberated.” The
constant repetition of this mandate at length extorted from the piety
of the Lacedæmonians a reluctant compliance. Reverence for the
god overcame their strong feeling of friendship towards the
Peisistratids, and Anchimolius son of Aster was despatched by sea to
Athens, at the head of a Spartan force to expel them. On landing at
Phalêrum, however, he found them already forewarned and
prepared, as well as farther strengthened by one thousand horse
specially demanded from their allies in Thessaly. Upon the plain of
Phalêrum, this latter force was found peculiarly effective, so that the
division of Anchimolius was driven back to their ships with great loss
and he himself slain.[239] The defeated armament had probably been
small, and its repulse only provoked the Lacedæmonians to send a
larger, under the command of their king Kleomenês in person, who
on this occasion marched into Attica by land. On reaching the plain
of Athens, he was assailed by the Thessalian horse, but repelled
them in so gallant a style, that they at once rode off and returned to
their native country; abandoning their allies with a faithlessness not
unfrequent in the Thessalian character. Kleomenês marched on to
Athens without farther resistance, and found himself, together with
the Alkmæônids and the malcontent Athenians generally, in
possession of the town. At that time there was no fortification except
around the acropolis, into which Hippias retired with his mercenaries
and the citizens most faithful to him; having taken care to provision
it well beforehand, so that it was not less secure against famine than
against assault. He might have defied the besieging force, which was
noway prepared for a long blockade; but, not altogether confiding in
his position, he tried to send his children by stealth out of the
country; and in this proceeding the children were taken prisoners. To
procure their restoration, Hippias consented to all that was
demanded of him, and withdrew from Attica to Sigeium in the Troad
within the space of five days.
Thus fell the Peisistratid dynasty in 510 B. C., fifty years after the
first usurpation of its founder.[240] It was put down through the aid
of foreigners,[241] and those foreigners, too, wishing well to it in
their hearts, though hostile from a mistaken feeling of divine
injunction. Yet both the circumstances of its fall, and the course of
events which followed, conspire to show that it possessed few
attached friends in the country, and that the expulsion of Hippias
was welcomed unanimously by the vast majority of Athenians. His
family and chief partisans would accompany him into exile,—
probably as a matter of course, without requiring any formal
sentence of condemnation; and an altar was erected in the
acropolis, with a column hard by, commemorating both the past
iniquity of the dethroned dynasty, and the names of all its members.
[242]
 CHAPTER XXXI.
GRECIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE
PEISISTRATIDS. — REVOLUTION OF KLEISTHENES
AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMOCRACY AT ATHENS.

With Hippias disappeared the mercenary Thracian garrison, upon

which he and his father before him had leaned for defence as well as
for enforcement of authority; and Kleomenês with his
Lacedæmonian forces retired also, after staying only long enough to
establish a personal friendship, productive subsequently of important
consequences, between the Spartan king and the Athenian Isagoras.
The Athenians were thus left to themselves, without any foreign
interference to constrain them in their political arrangements.
It has been mentioned in the preceding chapter, that the
Peisistratids had for the most part respected the forms of the
Solonian constitution: the nine archons, and the probouleutic or
preconsidering Senate of Four Hundred (both annually changed), still
continued to subsist, together with occasional meetings of the
people,—or rather of such portion of the people as was comprised in
the gentes, phratries, and four Ionic tribes. The timocratic
classification of Solon (or quadruple scale of income and
admeasurement of political franchises according to it) also continued
to subsist,—but all within the tether and subservient to the purposes
of the ruling family, who always kept one of their number as real
master, among the chief administrators, and always retained
possession of the acropolis as well as of the mercenary force.
That overawing pressure being now removed by the expulsion of
Hippias, the enslaved forms became at once endued with freedom
and reality. There appeared again, what Attica had not known for
thirty years, declared political parties, and pronounced opposition
between two men as leaders,—on one side, Isagoras son of
Tisander, a person of illustrious descent,—on the other, Kleisthenês
the Alkmæônid, not less illustrious, and possessing at this moment a
claim on the gratitude of his countrymen as the most persevering as
well as the most effective foe of the dethroned despots. In what
manner such opposition was carried on we are not told. It would
seem to have been not altogether pacific; but at any rate,
Kleisthenês had the worst of it, and in consequence of this defeat,
says the historian, “he took into partnership the people, who had
been before excluded from everything.”[243] His partnership with the
people gave birth to the Athenian democracy: it was a real and
important revolution.
The political franchise, or the character of an Athenian citizen,
both before and since Solon, had been confined to the primitive four
Ionic tribes, each of which was an aggregate of so many close
corporations or quasi-families,—the gentes and the phratries. None
of the residents in Attica, therefore, except those included in some
gens or phratry, had any part in the political franchise. Such non-
privileged residents were probably at all times numerous, and
became more and more so by means of fresh settlers: moreover,
they tended most to multiply in Athens and Peiræus, where
emigrants would commonly establish themselves. Kleisthenês broke
down the existing wall of privilege, and imparted the political
franchise to the excluded mass. But this could not be done by
enrolling them in new gentes or phratries, created in addition to the
old; for the gentile tie was founded upon old faith and feeling,
which, in the existing state of the Greek mind, could not be suddenly
conjured up as a bond of union for comparative strangers: it could
only be done by disconnecting the franchise altogether from the
Ionic tribes as well as from the gentes which constituted them, and
by redistributing the population into new tribes with a character and
purpose exclusively political. Accordingly, Kleisthenês abolished the
four Ionic tribes, and created in their place ten new tribes founded
upon a different principle, independent of the gentes and phratries.
Each of his new tribes comprised a certain number of demes or
cantons, with the enrolled proprietors and residents in each of them.
The demes taken altogether included the entire surface of Attica, so
that the Kleisthenean constitution admitted to the political franchise
all the free native Athenians; and not merely these, but also many
Metics, and even some of the superior order of slaves.[244] Putting
out of sight the general body of slaves, and regarding only the free
inhabitants, it was in point of fact a scheme approaching to universal
suffrage, both political and judicial.
The slight and cursory manner in which Herodotus announces
this memorable revolution tends to make us overlook its real
importance. He dwells chiefly on the alteration in the number and
names of the tribes: Kleisthenês, he says, despised the Ionians so
much, that he would not tolerate the continuance in Attica of the
four tribes which prevailed in the Ionic cities,[245] deriving their
names from the four sons of Ion,—just as his grandfather, the
Sikyonian Kleisthenês, hating the Dorians, had degraded and
nicknamed the three Dorian tribes at Sikyôn. Such is the
representation of Herodotus, who seems himself to have entertained
some contempt for the Ionians,[246] and therefore to have suspected
a similar feeling where it had no real existence. But the scope of
Kleisthenês was something far more extensive: he abolished the four
ancient tribes, not because they were Ionic, but because they had
become incommensurate with the existing condition of the Attic
people, and because such abolition procured both for himself and for
his political scheme new as well as hearty allies. And indeed, if we
study the circumstances of the case, we shall see very obvious
reasons to suggest the proceeding. For more than thirty years—an
entire generation—the old constitution had been a mere empty
formality, working only in subservience to the reigning dynasty, and
stripped of all real controlling power. We may be very sure,
therefore, that both the Senate of Four Hundred and the popular
assembly, divested of that free speech which imparted to them not
only all their value but all their charm, had come to be of little public
estimation, and were probably attended only by a few partisans; and
thus the difference between qualified citizens and men not so
qualified,—between members of the four old tribes, and men not
members,—became during this period practically effaced. This, in
fact, was the only species of good which a Grecian despotism ever
seems to have done: it confounded the privileged and the non-
privileged under one coercive authority common to both, so that the
distinction between the two was not easy to revive when the
despotism passed away. As soon as Hippias was expelled, the senate
and the public assembly regained their efficiency. But had they been
continued on the old footing, including none except members of the
four tribes, these tribes would have been reinvested with a privilege
which in reality they had so long lost, that its revival would have
seemed an odious novelty, and the remaining population would
probably not have submitted to it. If, in addition, we consider the
political excitement of the moment,—the restoration of one body of
men from exile, and the departure of another body into exile,—the
outpouring of long-suppressed hatred, partly against these very
forms, by the corruption of which the despot had reigned,—we shall
see that prudence as well as patriotism dictated the adoption of an
enlarged scheme of government. Kleisthenês had learned some
wisdom during his long exile; and as he probably continued, for
some time after the introduction of his new constitution, to be the
chief adviser of his countrymen, we may consider their extraordinary
success as a testimony to his prudence and skill not less than to
their courage and unanimity.
Nor does it seem unreasonable to give him credit for a more
generous forward movement than what is implied in the literal
account of Herodotus. Instead of being forced against his will to
purchase popular support by proposing this new constitution,
Kleisthenês may have proposed it before, during the discussions
which immediately followed the retirement of Hippias; so that the
rejection of it formed the ground of quarrel—and no other ground is
mentioned—between him and Isagoras. The latter doubtless found
sufficient support, in the existing senate and public assembly, to
prevent it from being carried without an actual appeal to the people,
and his opposition to it is not difficult to understand. For, necessary
as the change had become, it was not the less a shock to ancient
Attic ideas. It radically altered the very idea of a tribe, which now
became an aggregation of demes, not of gentes,—of fellow-demots,
not of fellow-gentiles; and it thus broke up those associations,
religious, social, and political, between the whole and the parts of
the old system, which operated powerfully on the mind of every old-
fashioned Athenian. The patricians at Rome, who composed the
gentes and curiæ,—and the plebs, who had no part in these
corporations,—formed for a long time two separate and opposing
fractions in the same city, each with its own separate organization. It
was only by slow degrees that the plebs gained ground, and the
political value of the patrician gens was long maintained alongside of
and apart from the plebeian tribe. So too in the Italian and German
cities of the Middle Ages, the patrician families refused to part with
their own separate political identity, when the guilds grew up by the
side of them; even though forced to renounce a portion of their
power, they continued to be a separate fraternity, and would not
submit to be regimented anew, under an altered category and
denomination, along with the traders who had grown into wealth
and importance.[247] But the reform of Kleisthenês effected this
change all at once, both as to the name and as to the reality. In
some cases, indeed, that which had been the name of a gens was
retained as the name of a deme, but even then the old gentiles were
ranked indiscriminately among the remaining demots; and the
Athenian people, politically considered, thus became one
homogeneous whole, distributed for convenience into parts,
numerical, local, and politically equal. It is, however, to be
remembered, that while the four Ionic tribes were abolished, the
gentes and phratries which composed them were left untouched,
and continued to subsist as family and religious associations, though
carrying with them no political privilege.
The ten newly-created tribes, arranged in an established order of
precedence, were called,—Erechthêis, Ægêis, Pandiŏnis, Leontis,
Akamantis, Œnêis, Kekrŏpis, Hippothoöntis, Æantis, Antiochis;
names borrowed chiefly from the respected heroes of Attic legend.
[248] This number remained unaltered until the year 305 B. C., when it
was increased to twelve by the addition of two new tribes,
Antigonias and Demetrias, afterwards designated anew by the
names of Ptolemais and Attalis. The mere names of these last two,
borrowed from living kings, and not from legendary heroes, betray
the change from freedom to subservience at Athens. Each tribe
comprised a certain number of demes,—cantons, parishes, or
townships,—in Attica. But the total number of these demes is not
distinctly ascertained; for though we know that, in the time of
Polemô (the third century B. C.), it was one hundred and seventy-
four, we cannot be sure that it had always remained the same; and
several critics construe the words of Herodotus to imply that
Kleisthenês at first recognized exactly one hundred demes,
distributed in equal proportion among his ten tribes.[249] But such
construction of the words is more than doubtful, while the fact itself
is improbable; partly because if the change of number had been so
considerable as the difference between one hundred and one
hundred and seventy-four, some positive evidence of it would
probably be found,—partly because Kleisthenês would, indeed, have
a motive to render the amount of citizen population nearly equal,
but no motive to render the number of demes equal, in each of the
ten tribes. It is well known how great is the force of local habits, and
how unalterable are parochial or cantonal boundaries. In the
absence of proof to the contrary, therefore, we may reasonably
suppose the number and circumscription of the demes, as found or
modified by Kleisthenês, to have subsisted afterwards with little
alteration, at least until the increase in the number of the tribes.
There is another point, however, which is at once more certain,
and more important to notice. The demes which Kleisthenês
assigned to each tribe were in no case all adjacent to each other;
and therefore the tribe, as a whole, did not correspond with any
continuous portion of the territory, nor could it have any peculiar
local interest, separate from the entire community. Such systematic
avoidance of the factions arising out of neighborhood will appear to
have been more especially necessary, when we recollect that the
quarrels of the Parali, the Diakrii, the Pediaki, during the preceding
century, had all been generated from local feud, though doubtless
artfully fomented by individual ambition. Moreover, it was only by
this same precaution that the local predominance of the city, and the
formation of a city-interest distinct from that of the country, was
obviated; which could hardly have failed to arise had the city by
itself constituted either one deme or one tribe. Kleisthenês
distributed the city (or found it already distributed) into several
demes, and those demes among several tribes; while Peiræus and
Phalêrum, each constituting a separate deme, were also assigned to
different tribes; so that there were no local advantages either to
bestow predominance, or to create a struggle for predominance, of
one tribe over the rest.[250] Each deme had its own local interests to
watch over; but the tribe was a mere aggregate of demes for
political, military, and religious purposes, with no separate hopes or
fears, apart from the whole state. Each tribe had a chapel, sacred
rites and festivals, and a common fund for such meetings, in honor
of its eponymous hero, administered by members of its own choice;
[251] and the statues of all the ten eponymous heroes, fraternal
patrons of the democracy, were planted in the most conspicuous
part of the agora of Athens. In the future working of the Athenian
government, we shall trace no symptom of disquieting local factions,
—a capital amendment, compared with the disputes of the
preceding century, and traceable, in part, to the absence of border-
relations between demes of the same tribe.
The deme now became the primitive constituent element of the
commonwealth, both as to persons and as to property. It had its
own demarch, its register of enrolled citizens, its collective property,
its public meetings and religious ceremonies, its taxes levied and
administered by itself. The register of qualified citizens[252] was kept
by the demarch, and the inscription of new citizens took place at the
assembly of the demots, whose legitimate sons were enrolled on
attaining the age of eighteen, and their adopted sons at any time
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

testbankfan.com