Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

Engineering mathematics with MATLAB 1st

Edition Won Y. Yang

https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-
mathematics-with-matlab-1st-edition-won-y-yang/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

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

Multiphysics Modeling with Application to Biomedical

Engineering 1st Edition Z. Yang

https://textbookfull.com/product/multiphysics-modeling-with-
application-to-biomedical-engineering-1st-edition-z-yang/

textbookfull.com

Chemical Engineering Computation with MATLAB 2nd Edition

Yeong-Koo Yeo

https://textbookfull.com/product/chemical-engineering-computation-
with-matlab-2nd-edition-yeong-koo-yeo/

textbookfull.com

Programming Mathematics Using MATLAB 1st Edition Lisa A.

Oberbroeckling

https://textbookfull.com/product/programming-mathematics-using-
matlab-1st-edition-lisa-a-oberbroeckling/

textbookfull.com

Assumptions of the Tea Party Movement: A World of Their

Own 1st Edition David Warfield Brown (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/assumptions-of-the-tea-party-
movement-a-world-of-their-own-1st-edition-david-warfield-brown-auth/

textbookfull.com
Was revolution inevitable? : turning points of the Russian
Revolution 1st Edition Brenton

https://textbookfull.com/product/was-revolution-inevitable-turning-
points-of-the-russian-revolution-1st-edition-brenton/

textbookfull.com

Illustrated Encyclopedia of Applied and Engineering

Physics, Three-Volume Set 1st Edition Robert Splinter
(Author)
https://textbookfull.com/product/illustrated-encyclopedia-of-applied-
and-engineering-physics-three-volume-set-1st-edition-robert-splinter-
author/
textbookfull.com

The Play of Allusion in the Historia Augusta 1st Edition

David Rohrbacher

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-play-of-allusion-in-the-historia-
augusta-1st-edition-david-rohrbacher/

textbookfull.com

Translation and Translanguaging 1st Edition Mike Baynham

Tong King Lee

https://textbookfull.com/product/translation-and-translanguaging-1st-
edition-mike-baynham-tong-king-lee/

textbookfull.com

The US "Culture Wars" and the Anglo-American Special

Relationship David G. Haglund

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-us-culture-wars-and-the-anglo-
american-special-relationship-david-g-haglund/

textbookfull.com
The Runner s Guide to Healthy Feet and Ankles Simple Steps
to Prevent Injury and Run Stronger 1st Edition Dr. Brian
W. Fullem
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-runner-s-guide-to-healthy-feet-
and-ankles-simple-steps-to-prevent-injury-and-run-stronger-1st-
edition-dr-brian-w-fullem/
textbookfull.com
ENGINEERING
MATHEMATICS
with MATLAB®
ENGINEERING
MATHEMATICS
with MATLAB®

Won Y. Yang
Young K. Choi
Jaekwon Kim
Man Cheol Kim
H. Jin Kim
Taeho Im
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

Version Date: 20171028

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-05933-7 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and
information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and
publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission
to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any
future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact
the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides
licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment
has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
 To our parents and families
who love and support us
and
to our teachers and students
who enriched our knowledge
 vii

Contents
PREFACE XIII
Chapter 1: Vectors and Matrices .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Vectors ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Geometry with Vector .................................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Dot Product .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Cross Product ............................................................................................................... 6
1.1.4 Lines and Planes ........................................................................................................... 9
1.1.5 Vector Space .............................................................................................................. 17
1.1.6 Coordinate Systems .................................................................................................... 18
1.1.7 Gram–Schmidt Orthonolization ................................................................................. 29
1.2 Matrices ................................................................................................................................. 32
1.2.1 Matrix Algebra ........................................................................................................... 32
1.2.2 Rank and Row/Column Spaces .................................................................................. 32
1.2.3 Determinant and Trace ............................................................................................... 34
1.2.4 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors .................................................................................... 35
1.2.5 Inverse of a Matrix ..................................................................................................... 39
1.2.6 Similarity Transformation and Diagonalization ......................................................... 42
1.2.7 Special Matrices ......................................................................................................... 44
1.2.8 Positive Definiteness .................................................................................................. 47
1.2.9 Matrix Inversion Lemma ............................................................................................ 48
1.2.10 LU, Cholesky, QR, and Singular Value Decompositions ........................................... 49
1.2.11 Geometrical Meaning of Eigenvalues/Eigenvectors ................................................... 50
1.3 Systems of Linear Equations ............................................................................................... 55
1.3.1 Nonsingular Case ....................................................................................................... 55
1.3.2 Undetermined Case — Minimum-Norm Solution.................................................... 56
1.3.3 Overdetermined Case — Least-Squares Error Solution ........................................... 58
1.3.4 Gauss(ian) Elimination ............................................................................................... 61
1.3.5 RLS (Recursive Least Squares) Algorithm ................................................................ 65
Problems ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter 2: Vector Calculus ............................................................................................................ 99
2.1 Derivatives............................................................................................................................. 99
2.2 Vector Functions................................................................................................................. 104
2.3 Velocity and Acceleration .................................................................................................. 107
2.4 Divergence and Curl........................................................................................................... 113
2.5 Line Integrals and Path Independence ............................................................................. 127
2.5.1 Line Integrals ............................................................................................................ 127
2.5.2 Path Independence .................................................................................................... 132
2.6 Double Integrals ................................................................................................................. 134
2.7 Green's Theorem ................................................................................................................ 138
2.8 Surface Integrals................................................................................................................. 142
2.9 Stokes' Theorem ................................................................................................................. 149
viii Contents

2.10 Triple Integrals .................................................................................................................... 155

2.11 Divergence Theorem ........................................................................................................... 160
Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 169
Chapter 3: Ordinary Differential Equations ......................................................................191
3.1 First-Order Differential Equations ................................................................................... 192
3.1.1 Separable Equations ................................................................................................. 192
3.1.2 Exact Differential Equations and Integrating Factors ............................................. 195
3.1.3 Linear First-Order Differential Equations .............................................................. 200
3.1.4 Nonlinear First-Order Differential Equations ........................................................... 204
3.1.5 Systems of First-Order Differential Equations ....................................................... 205
3.2 Higher-Order Differential Equations ............................................................................... 213
3.2.1 Undetermined Coefficients ....................................................................................... 213
3.2.2 Variation of Parameters .......................................................................................... 222
3.2.3 Cauchy–Euler Equations ........................................................................................ 225
3.2.4 Systems of Linear Differential Equations................................................................. 229
3.3 Special Second-Order Linear ODEs ................................................................................. 233
3.3.1 Bessel's Equation ...................................................................................................... 233
3.3.2 Legendre's Equation ............................................................................................... 239
3.3.3 Chebyshev's Equation............................................................................................. 241
3.3.4 Hermite's Equation ................................................................................................. 244
3.3.5 Laguerre's Equation ................................................................................................ 246
3.4 Boundary Value Problems ................................................................................................. 248
Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 257
Chapter 4: The Laplace Transform ....................................................................................277
4.1 Definition of the Laplace Transform ................................................................................ 277
4.1.1 Laplace Transform of the Unit Step Function .......................................................... 277
4.1.2 Laplace Transform of the Unit Impulse Function .................................................. 278
4.1.3 Laplace Transform of the Ramp Function .............................................................. 280
4.1.4 Laplace Transform of the Exponential Function ...................................................... 281
4.1.5 Laplace Transform of the Complex Exponential Function .................................... 281
4.2 Properties of the Laplace Transform................................................................................ 281
4.2.1 Linearity ................................................................................................................... 281
4.2.2 Time Differentiation ................................................................................................. 281
4.2.3 Time Integration ....................................................................................................... 282
4.2.4 Time Shifting — Real Translation ......................................................................... 282
4.2.5 Frequency Shifting — Complex Translation .......................................................... 282
4.2.6 Real Convolution ...................................................................................................... 282
4.2.7 Partial Differentiation ............................................................................................... 283
4.2.8 Complex Differentiation ........................................................................................... 283
4.2.9 Initial Value Theorem (IVT) .................................................................................... 284
4.2.10 Final Value Theorem (FVT) .................................................................................... 284
4.3 The Inverse Laplace Transform ........................................................................................ 287
4.4 Using the Laplace Transform ............................................................................................ 289
4.5 Transfer Function of a Continuous-Time System ........................................................... 295
Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 300
 Contents ix

Chapter 5: The Z-transform .................................................................................................... . 309

5.1 Definition of the Z-transform ............................................................................................ 309
5.2 Properties of the Z-transform ........................................................................................... 314
5.2.1 Linearity ................................................................................................................... 314
5.2.2 Time Shifting — Real Translation ......................................................................... 314
5.2.3 Frequency Shifting — Complex Translation .......................................................... 315
5.2.4 Time Reversal........................................................................................................... 315
5.2.5 Real Convolution ...................................................................................................... 316
5.2.6 Complex Convolution .............................................................................................. 316
5.2.7 Complex Differentiation ........................................................................................... 317
5.2.8 Partial Differentiation ............................................................................................... 317
5.2.9 Initial Value Theorem .............................................................................................. 317
5.2.10 Final Value Theorem................................................................................................ 318
5.3 The Inverse Z-transform .................................................................................................... 318
5.4 Using the Z-transform ........................................................................................................ 322
5.5 Transfer Function of a Discrete-Time System ................................................................. 324
5.6 Differential Equation and Difference Equation ............................................................... 327
Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 329
Chapter 6: Fourier Series and Fourier Transform ............................................................337
6.1 Continuous-Time Fourier Series (CTFS) ......................................................................... 337
6.1.1 Definition and Convergence Conditions .................................................................. 337
6.1.2 Examples of CTFS ................................................................................................... 340
6.2 Continuous-Time Fourier Transform (CTFT) ................................................................ 348
6.2.1 Definition and Convergence Conditions .................................................................. 348
6.2.2 (Generalized) CTFT of Periodic Signals .................................................................. 351
6.2.3 Examples of CTFT ................................................................................................... 352
6.2.4 Properties of CTFT ................................................................................................... 357
6.3 Discrete-Time Fourier Transform (DTFT) ...................................................................... 363
6.3.1 Definition and Convergence Conditions .................................................................. 363
6.3.2 Examples of DTFT ................................................................................................... 364
6.3.3 DTFT of Periodic Sequences.................................................................................... 367
6.3.4 Properties of DTFT .................................................................................................. 369
6.4 Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) ................................................................................... 373
6.5 Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) .......................................................................................... 377
6.5.1 Decimation-in-Time (DIT) FFT ............................................................................... 377
6.5.2 Decimation-in-Frequency (DIF) FFT ....................................................................... 380
6.5.3 Computation of IDFT Using FFT Algorithm ........................................................... 382
6.5.4 Interpretation of DFT Results ................................................................................... 382
6.6 Fourier–Bessel/Legendre/Chebyshev/Cosine/Sine Series................................................ 385
6.6.1 Fourier–Bessel Series ............................................................................................... 385
6.6.2 Fourier–Legendre Series .......................................................................................... 388
6.6.3 Fourier–Chebyshev Series ........................................................................................ 389
6.6.4 Fourier–Cosine/Sine Series ...................................................................................... 391
Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 395
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
x Contents

Chapter 7: Partial Differential Equation ............................................................................423

7.1 Elliptic PDE ........................................................................................................................ 424
7.2 Parabolic PDE..................................................................................................................... 430
7.2.1 The Explicit Forward Euler Method ......................................................................... 432
7.2.2 The Implicit Backward Euler Method .................................................................... 433
7.2.3 The Crank–Nicholson Method ................................................................................. 434
7.2.4 Using the MATLAB Function 'pdepe()' ................................................................... 435
7.2.5 Two-Dimensional Parabolic PDEs ........................................................................... 438
7.3 Hyperbolic PDES ................................................................................................................ 441
7.3.1 The Explict Central Difference Method ................................................................... 443
7.3.2 Two-Dimensional Hyperbolic PDEs ........................................................................ 445
7.4 PDES in Other Coordinate Systems ................................................................................. 448
7.4.1 PDEs in Polar/Cylindrical Coordinates .................................................................... 448
7.4.2 PDEs in Spherical Coordinates ................................................................................ 461
7.5 Laplace/Fourier Transforms for Solving PDES .............................................................. 465
7.5.1 Using the Laplace Transform for PDEs ................................................................... 465
7.5.2 Using the Fourier Transform for PDEs .................................................................... 473
Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 481

Chapter 8: Complex Analysis.............................................................................................509

8.1 Functions of a Complex Variable ...................................................................................... 509
8.1.1 Complex Numbers and Their Powers/Roots .......................................................... 509
8.1.2 Functions of a Complex Variable ............................................................................. 512
8.1.3 Cauchy–Riemann Equations .................................................................................... 513
8.1.4 Exponential and Logarithmic Functions ................................................................... 520
8.1.5 Trigonometric and Hyperbolic Functions ................................................................. 521
8.1.6 Inverse Trigonometric/Hyperbolic Functions........................................................... 522
8.2 Conformal Mapping ........................................................................................................... 523
8.2.1 Conformal Mappings ................................................................................................ 523
8.2.2 Linear Fractional Transformations ........................................................................... 526
8.3 Integration of Complex Functions .................................................................................... 530
8.3.1 Line Integrals and Contour Integrals ...................................................................... 530
8.3.2 Cauchy–Goursat Theorem ...................................................................................... 533
8.3.3 Cauchy's Integral Formula...................................................................................... 536
8.4 Series and Residues ............................................................................................................ 538
8.4.1 Sequences and Series .............................................................................................. 538
8.4.2 Taylor Series ............................................................................................................ 540
8.4.3 Laurent Series ......................................................................................................... 542
8.4.4 Residues and Residue Theorem ................................................................................ 544
8.4.5 Real Integrals Using Residue Theorem .................................................................... 546
Problems ...................................................................................................................................... 551
 Contents xi

Chapter 9: Optimization .................................................................................................567

9.1 Unconstrained Optimization ............................................................................................... 567
9.1.1 Golden Search Method ............................................................................................. 567
9.1.2 Quadratic Approximation Method.......................................................................... 569
9.1.3 Nelder–Mead Method............................................................................................. 571
9.1.4 Steepest Descent Method ....................................................................................... 573
9.1.5 Newton's Method .................................................................................................... 575
9.2 Constrained Optimization ................................................................................................... 578
9.2.1 Lagrange Multiplier Method .................................................................................... 578
9.2.2 Penalty Function Method ....................................................................................... 583
9.3 MATLAB Built-in Functions for Optimization................................................................. 585
9.3.1 Unconstrained Optimization ..................................................................................... 585
9.3.2 Constrained Optimization ....................................................................................... 588
9.3.3 Linear Programming (LP) ...................................................................................... 589
9.3.4 Mixed Integer Linear Programing (MILP) ............................................................... 594
Problems ...................................................................................................................................... 603

Chapter 10: Probability ...................................................................................................619

10.1 Probability ........................................................................................................................... 619
10.1.1 Definition of Probability ........................................................................................ 619
10.1.2 Permutations and Combinations ........................................................................... 620
10.1.3 Joint Probability, Conditional Probability, and Bayes' Rule ................................ 622
10.2 Random Variables .............................................................................................................. 624
10.2.1 Random Variables and Probability Distribution/Density Function ........................ 624
10.2.2 Joint Probability Density Function ....................................................................... 627
10.2.3 Conditional Probability Density Function .............................................................. 628
10.2.4 Independence .......................................................................................................... 632
10.2.5 Function of a Random Variable ........................................................................... 632
10.2.6 Expectation, Variance, and Correlation .................................................................. 637
10.2.7 Conditional Expectation ......................................................................................... 648
10.2.8 Central Limit Theorem — Normal Convergence Theorem ................................ 651
10.3 ML Estimator and MAP Estimator................................................................................... 653
Problems ...................................................................................................................................... 659

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 695

Appendix A: Tables of Various Transforms ................................................................................. 695
Appendix B: Differentiation w.r.t.Vector ..................................................................................... 705
Appendix C: Useful Formulas ...................................................................................................... 706
Appendix D: Gamma Function ..................................................................................................... 707
Appendix E: MATLAB ................................................................................................................ 708
Appendix F: Simulink ................................................................................................................... 718

References …………………………………………………………………………………………726
Index ………………………………………………………………………………………………727
 xiii

Preface

This book has been authored to help the students studying basic mathematical stuff that can be met
up with in the course of engineering under the name of ‘engineering mathematics’. They are
supposed to have taken at least two freshman-level courses, one on differentiation/integration and
one on linear algebra (vector and matrix). One more course on the basic level of MATLAB is
recommended.
It is not the aim of this book to provide any foundation in the mathematical theory since the
authors are not so knowledgeable as to do it. The first aim of this book is to help the readers
understand the concepts, techniques, terminologies, and equations appearing in the existing books
on engineering mathematics while using MATLAB software for computation that would be time-
consuming, tedious, and error-prone with no computing device. Needless to say, the readers are
recommended to learn some basic usage of MATLAB software that is available from the MATLAB
help manual or the on-line documents at the website <http://www.mathworks.com/>. However,
they are not required to be so good at MATLAB since most programs in this book have been
composed carefully and completely so that they can be understood in connection with
related/referred equations and algorithms. The readers are expected to get used to the MATLAB
software while trying to modify/use the MATLAB codes in this book for solving the end-of-chapter
problems or their own problems. The second and main aim of this book is to make even a novice at
both MATLAB and mathematics become acquainted, at least comfortable, with MATLAB as well
as mathematics while running the MATLAB codes on his/her computer, trying to understand what
is going on among the equations, and making an interpretation of derived results or formulas. Is it
too much to expect that a novice will become interested in engineering mathematics and
simultaneously, fall in love with MATLAB, which is a universal language for engineers and
scientists, after having read this book through? Is it just the authors’ imagination that the readers
would think of this book describing and explaining many concepts in MATLAB rather than in
English? In any case, the authors have no intention to hide their hope that this book will be one of
the all-the-time-reserved books in most libraries and can be found always on the desks of most
engineers who are interested in developing their insight and getting an overview rather than
repeating impractical computations when studying engineering mathematics. The features of this
book can be summarized as follows:
1. This book presents more MATLAB programs for studying engineering mathematics than any
existent books with the same or similar titles as an approach to explain most things using
MATLAB and figures rather than English and equations.
2. Most MATLAB programs are presented in a complete form so that the readers can run them
instantly with no programming skill and focus on understanding the mathematical
manipulation process and making interpretations of the results obtained by running the
programs.
3. The solutions for most examples are plotted for visualization using the related MATLAB
programs because graphs are not only easier to understand than numeric values or literal
expressions but also helpful in grasping the concept.
xiv Preface

4. Authors never think that this book can replace the existent books made by the great authors.
They neither expect that this book can take the place of the MATLAB manual. Instead, this
book aims to bridge the gap between MATLAB software and theory, equations appearing in
the field of engineering mathematics so that the readers can feel free to utilize the MATLAB
software for studying mathematical stuff and become much more interested in engineering
mathematics than before reading this book.

The contents of this book are derived from the works of many (known or unknown) great
scientists, scholars, and researchers, all of whom are deeply appreciated. We would like to thank the
reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which contribute to enriching this book.
We also thank the people of the School of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Chung-Ang
University for giving us an academic environment. Without affections and supports of our families
and friends, this book could not be written. Special thanks should be given to the graduate students,
Seungjoon Lee, Changhyeon Kim, and Wonchul Kim at the department of Aerospace Engineering
in Seoul National University for their invaluable help in correction. We gratefully acknowledge the
editorial and production staff (including Ms. Aastha Sharma and Ms. Michele Dimont) of CRC
Press (Taylor & Francis Group) for their kind, efficient, and encouraging guidance.
Program files can be downloaded from <http://wyyang53.com.ne.kr/>. Any questions, comments,
and suggestions regarding this book are welcome and they should be mailed to
wyyang53@hanmail.net.

Won Y. Yang et al.

Certainly, I will do so that you

con focus your time and efforts
on developing your insights,
forming on overview, and finding
applications of the theory.
CHAPTER 1
Vectors and Matrices
CHAPTER OUTLINE
1.1 Vectors 1.2.5 Inverse of a Matrix
1.1.1 Geometry with Vector 1.2.6 Similarity Transformation and Diagonalization
1.1.2 Dot Product 1.2.7 Special Matrices
1.1.3 Cross Product 1.2.8 Positive Definiteness
1.1.4 Lines and Planes 1.2.9 Matrix Inversion Lemma
1.1.5 Vector Space 1.2.10 LU, Cholesky, QR, and SVD Decompositions
1.1.6 Coordinate Systems 1.2.11 Geometrical Meaning of Eigenvalues/Eigenvectors
1.1.7 Gram-Schmidt Orthogonalization
1.3 Systems of Linear Algebraic Equations
1.2 Matrices 1.3.1 Singular Case
1.2.1 Matrix Algebra 1.3.2 Underdetermined Case
1.2.2 Rank and Row Space 1.3.3 Overdetermined Case
1.2.3 Determinant and Trace 1.3.4 Gauss(ian) Elimination
1.2.4 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors 1.3.5 RLSE Algorithm
Problems

1.1 VECTORS

1.1.1 Geometry with Vector

Above of all, we need to distinguish between a scalar and a vector. A scalar is a real number with
only magnitude. Length, mass, and density are examples of scalar quantities. A vector is a quantity
with magnitude and direction that can be represented graphically as an arrow, i.e., a directed line
segment (Fig. 1.1(a)) and algebraically as an ordered pair/triple a=[ax ay]T/[ax ay az]T ( T: transpose)
of two/three real numbers in a 2D/3D Cartesian coordinate system. A 3D vector [ax ay az]T has a
direction from the origin [0, 0, 0] to the point [ax , ay , az] and a magnitude || a ||  ax2  a y2  az2 equal to
the length of the arrow or the distance from the origin to the point [ax , ay , az]. To make sure that
a=[ax ay az]T is a 3D vector rather than a set of coordinates of a geometric point in a 3D rectangular
coordinate system, we sometimes write it as
 ax 
a  [ ax ay az ]T   ay   a x u x  a y u y  a z u z (1.1.1)
 
 az 
where ux , uy , and uz are the unit vectors along +x-, +y-, and +z-axes, respectively:

1  0 0
u x   0  , u y  1  , u z   0  (1.1.2)
0 0 1

1
2 Chapter 1 Vectors and Matrices

2 1   3
az a   1  , b  1  , c   2 
uz  2  0   2 
ayuy
ux ax
(a) Different plots of the same vector [2 1 1]T (b) The sum of two vectors by the parallelogram law
Figure 1.1 Direction (slope) field for a first-order differential equation
Figure 1.1 Plots of a vector and the sum of two vectors

Force, velocity, and acceleration are examples of vector quantities. Note that the vectors are most
often written in a column vector rather than in a row vector.
Fig. 1.1(a) shows the three unit vectors u x, u y, u z (each along the +x-, +y-, and +z-axes that are
orthogonal) and different parallel arrows (with the same length and direction), which denote an
identical vector [2 1 1]T wherever they may start and end. Fig. 1.1(b) shows the parallelogram law
for vector addition, that the sum of two vectors is represented by the diagonal of the parallelogram
having the two arrows representing the two vectors (with an identical starting point) as sides.

1.1.2 Dot Product

The dot (scalar, or inner) product of two vectors a=ax ux +ay uy +az uz and b=bx ux +by uy +bz uz is
defined as
a  b  || a || || b || cos ab  ax bx  ay by  a z bz  a*T b (*: conjugate, T: transpose, ||  || : norm) (1.1.3)
where θab is the angle between the two vectors. The second equality can be proved by using the
distributive law for the dot product and the orthnormality among the unit vectors u x , u y , and u z :

 u x u x u x u y u x u z   1 0 0 
T T T
  ux 
T T
  
 u x u y u z  u x u y u z    uTy  u u u   u Tu u Tu u Tu   0 1 0 (1.1.4a)
      x y z  y x y y y z  
  u z    u z u x u z u y u z u z  0 0 1 
T T T T
  
 (1.1.3)
 ux  ux  ||ux ||||u x || cos 0o  1, u y  u y 1, u z  uz 1
 (1.1.4b)
o
ux  u y u y  u x  ||ux || ||u y || cos90  0, u y  u z u z  u y  0, u z  u x u x  u z  0


(Proof)
(1.1.4)
a  b  ( a x u x  ay u y  a z u z )  (bx u x  by u y  bz u z )  a x bx  ay by  a z bz

Note that the magnitude, called the (Euclidean) norm or l 2 -norm, of a vector a can be found from
the dot product of a and itself as
|| a ||  ||a||2  a a  a x2  a 2y  a z2 (1.1.5)
Note also that two vectors are orthogonal or perpendicular if and only if their dot product is zero:

a  b  || a |||| b|| cos ab  0  ab  denoted by a  b (1.1.6)
2
 1.1 Vectors 3

1.1.2.1 The Angle between Two Nonzero Vectors

The angle between two nonzero vectors a and b can be found from their dot product as

(1.1.3) a  b (1.1.3) ax bx  ay by  a z bz  ax bx  a y by  az bz 
cos ab    ab  cos 1   (1.1.7)
||a||||b|| ||a||||b||  ||a||||b|| 

1.1.2.2 The Law of Cosines (Cosine Formula or Cosine Rule)

To use Eq. (1.1.3) for proving the law of cosines, consider a triangle with three sides represented by
the vectors a =[ a x a y a z ]T, b =[ b x b y b z ]T, and c =[ c x c y c z ]T =[ a x - b x a y - b y a z - b z ]T,
respectively, as depicted in Fig. 1.2. Then we can derive the law of cosines as

|| c || 2  cx2  cy2  cz2  (ax  bx )2  (ay  by )2  (az  bz )2

(1.1.5)
 || a || 2  || b || 2  2|| a |||| b || cos ab (1.1.8)
 a x2  a 2y  a z2  bx2  by2  bz2  2( a x bx  ay by  a z bz ) (1.1.3)

b

c  ab a
a || c || 2  || a || 2  || b || 2  2|| a|||| b|| cos  ab
projb a

 ab  ab b
b
projba
Figure 1.2 Dot product and the law of cosines Figure 1.3 Projections of a on b

1.1.2.3 Projections of Vector a onto Vectors b and b

As depicted in Fig. 1.3, the magnitude of the component of a vector a along another vector b is
|| a ||cos ab and can be found from the dot product of the two vectors as

(1.1.3) a b b
comp ba  || a ||cos  ab  a (1.1.9)
||b|| ||b||

We can multiply this with the unit vector in the direction of b, i.e., b/||b|| to find the projection of a
on b as

b (1.1.9)  b  b b
proj ba  (comp ba)  a   a b  (1.1.10)
||b||  ||b||  ||b|| ||b||2

We can subtract this projection proj ba from a to find the projection of a on b as

b
proj b a  a  proj ba  a   a b 
(1.1.10)
(1.1.11)
||b||2

where b is the vector of magnitude ||b|| and direction perpendicular to b (see Fig. 1.3).
4 Chapter 1 Vectors and Matrices

1.1.2.4 Point-Plane Distance

1.5

0.5

0
-1 0 X 2 -2

Figure 1.4 Distance from a point to a plane

Consider a point p1 =[x1 y1 z1 ]T and a plane described by

a x  b y  cz  d  0 (1.1.12)
as depicted in Fig. 1.4. To find the formula for the distance from the point p1 to the plane, take an
arbitrary point p0 =[ x 0 y 0 z 0 ]T on the plane and a normal vector
n  [ a b c ]T (1.1.13)
Why is n a normal vector to the plane? Because it is perpendicular to the plane, or equivalently, to
any vector p0 -p=[ x 0 - x y 0 - y z 0 - z]T on the plane where the x-, y-, and z-coordinates of p0 and
p=[ x y z]T satisfy the equation for the plane:
a   x  x0  (1.1.3)
n  ( p  p0)   b    y  y0   a ( x  x0)  b ( y  y0)  c ( z  z 0 ) (1.1.12)
  d  (  d )  0 (1.1.14)
 c   z  z0
Note from Eq. (1.1.6) that n and (p0 -p) are perpendicular (or orthogonal) to each other. Fig. 1.4
suggests that the distance from p1 to the plane is just the magnitude of the component of the vector
p01 (from p1 to p0) along the normal vector n, which can be found from Eq. (1.1.9) as

n 1  x0 x1 a 
(1.1.9) (1.1.13)
|| p 21||  |compn p 01 |  p 01    y0  y1  b 
||n|| a 2 b2  c2  z0 z1  c 

a ( x0 x1) b( y0  y1 ) c ( z0 z1) (1.1.12)  d  ax1by1cz1 ax1 by1cz1 d

   (1.1.15)
a 2 b2  c 2 a 2 b2  c 2 a 2 b2  c 2
Furthermore, the shortest vector p21 from p1 to the plane can be found as the projection of the vector
p01 from p1 to p0 (the arbitrary point on the plane) onto the normal vector n:

(1.1.10)
a 
n (1.1.15) ax1  by1  cz1  d ax  by  cz  d  a 
1
p 21  projn p 01  (compn p01 )    b    1 2 12 12  b 
||n|| a 2  b 2  c 2  c 
a 2 b2  c2 a b  c  c 
(1.1.16)
The projection p2 of the point p1 onto the plane can be found by adding p21 to p1 as

(1.1.16)
 x1  ax  by  cz  d a 
p 2  p1  p 21   y1   1 2 12 12 b  (1.1.17)
 z1  a b  c  c 
 1.1 Vectors 5

%em01f04.m
clear, clf % clear the workspace memory, clear the current figure window
x=[-2:0.1:2]; y=[-2:0.1:2]; [X,Y]=meshgrid(x,y); % x- and y-grids
a=1; b=-1; c=9; d=2; Z=(-d-a*X-b*Y)/c; % Plane equation (1.1.12)
n=[a b c].'; % Normal vector to the plane
mesh(X,Y,Z), hold on
p1=[-0.5 0.5 2].'; % A point as a column vector
% An arbitrary point on the plane
p0=zeros(3,1); p0(1)=p1(1)+1; p0(2)=p1(2)-1;
p0(3)=(-d-a*p0(1)-b*p0(2))/c; % fix p0 on the plane satisfying Eq.(1.1.12)
p01=p0-p1; % The vector from p1 to p0
un=n/norm(n); % The unit normal vector
p21=dot(p01,un)*un % Eq.(1.1.15): Projection of p01 on n
plot3(p0(1),p0(2),p0(3),'o'), plot3(p1(1),p1(2),p1(3),'rx') %Points p0, p1
quiver3(p0(1),p0(2),p0(3),un(1),un(2),un(3),0) % un from p0
quiver3(p1(1),p1(2),p1(3),p01(1),p01(2),p01(3),0) % p01 from p0
quiver3(p1(1),p1(2),p1(3),p21(1),p21(2),p21(3),0) % p21 from p1
p2=p1+p21; % Projection point p2 of p1 onto the plane: Eq.(1.1.17)
plot3(p2(1),p2(2),p2(3),'bv'), axis('equal'), grid on
xlabel('x'), ylabel('y'), zlabel('z'), view(12,15), shg

Fig. 1.4 has been plotted by running the above MATLAB script “em01f04.m” with a point
p1  [ 0.5 0.5 2]T and a plane equation x  y  9 z  2  0 , which uses the MATLAB function
‘dot()’ to compute the dot product. Note that the MATLAB function ‘quiver3()’ (with scale
factor set to 1 for no scaling) has been used to draw 3D vectors. See Appendix E.10.

1.1.2.5 Cauchy–Schwarz Inequality

We can derive the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality by taking the absolute values of both sides of Eq.
(1.1.3) as
(1.1.3)
| a  b |  || a || || b |||cos  ab |  || a || || b ||  | a  b |  || a || || b || (1.1.18)

where the equality holds if and only if the two vectors a and b are parallel, i.e., a=k b (k: a scalar).

1.1.2.6 Triangle Inequality

Referring to Fig. 1.5, we can use the Cauchy–Schwartz inequality to verify the triangle inequality
saying that the length of a side of a triangle is not larger than the sum of the lengths of the other two
sides:
(1.1.5)
|| c || 2  || a  b || 2  (a  b)  (a  b)  a  a  2a b  b b
(1.1.18)
 ||a||2  2| a  b|  || b||2  || a ||2  2|| a|||| b||  || b||2  (||a ||  || b|| )2

; || c ||  || a  b ||  || a ||  || b || (1.1.19)

a c a b
|| c||  || a  b ||  || a ||  || b ||
b
Figure 1.5 Triangle inequality
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
6 Chapter 1 Vectors and Matrices

1.1.3 Cross Product

ab ab
b
b
un

a
a

b  a  a  b
(a) ( b)

Figure 1.6 Direction of cross product

The cross (vector, or outer) product of two vectors a=a x u x +a y u y +a z u z and b=b x u x +b y u y +b z u z is
defined as
a  b  || a |||| b || sin ab u n  ( a y bz  a z by ) u x  ( a z bx  a x bz )u y  ( a x by  a y bx )u z

ux u y u z  ay bz  az by 
 ax ay az   az bx  ax bz  (1.1.20)
 
bx by bz  ax by  ay bx 

where |C| is the determinant (Section 1.2.3) of matrix C and un is the unit normal vector to the plane
spanned by a and b. (A space is said to be spanned by a set of vectors if any vector in the space can
be expressed by a linear combination of the vectors belonging to the set.) Note that the direction of
a×b is given by the right-hand rule in the sense that the thumb points in the direction of a×b if the
forefinger (index finger) and middle finger point in the direction of a and b, respectively, as shown
in Fig. 1.6.
The second equality of Eq. (1.1.20) can be proved by verifying that both sides are equal in terms
of the magnitude and direction (perpendicular to both a and b):

|| a|| 2 || b|| 2 sin 2ab ||u n|| 2  || a||2 || b ||2 (1  cos 2 ab )  || a||2 || b||2  (|| a |||| b ||cosab ) 2
(1.1.3) 2
 (a
(1.1.5) x
 a 2y  az2 )(bx2  by2  bz2 )  (ax bx  ay by  az bz )2

 (ay bz  az by )2  (az bx  axbz )2  ( axby  ay bx )2 (1.1.21)

 ax    ax  bx    ax   ay bz  az by 
a  (a  b )   a y     a y   by     a y    az bx  ax bz 
           a by  ay b 
 a z    a z   bz    a z   x x

 a x ( ay bz  a z by )  a y ( a z bx  a xbz )  a z ( a xby  a y bx )  0  a  (a  b ) (1.1.22a)

bx    ax  bx   bx   ay bz  az by 

b  (a  b )  by     a y   by    by    az bx  ax bz 
           a by  ay b 
 bz    a z   b z    b z   x x

 bx ( a y bz  a z by )  by ( a z bx  a xbz )  bz ( a xby  a y bx )  0  b  (a  b ) (1.1.22b)

 1.1 Vectors 7

Alternatively, we can use the relations among the unit vectors u x , u y , and u z :

(1.1.20),   /2
ux  uy  uz (1.1.23a), u y  u x  uz (1.1.24a)
u y  uz  ux (1.1.23b), u z  u y  u x (1.1.24b)
uz  u x  uy (1.1.23c), u x  u z  u y (1.1.24c)
(1.1.20),   0
u x  u x  u y  u y  uz  uz  0 (1.1.25)

to prove the second equality of Eq. (1.1.20) as

a  b  ( a x u x  a y u y  a z u z )  (bx u x  by u y  bz u z )
(1.1.23,24,25)
 ( a y bz  a z by ) u x  ( a z bx  a x bz )u y  ( a x by  a y bx )u z

1.1.3.1 Triple Scalar Product and Triple Vector Product

We can prove the equality among three triple scalar products

( a  b)  c  (b  c )  a  (c  a)  b (1.1.26)
as follows:

( a  b)  c
(1.1.20)

 ( c x u x  c y u y  cz u z )  ( a y bz  az by )u x  ( azbx  ax bz )u y  ( ax by  ay bx )u z 
(1.1.3)
 c x ( a y bz  a z by )  cy ( az bx  ax bz )  cz ( axb y  ay bx ) (1.1.27b)

(b  c )  a
(1.1.20)

 ( a x u x  a y u y  a z u z )  (by cz bz c y )u x  (bz cx bx cz )u y  (bx cy b y cx )u z 
(1.1.3)
 a x ( by c z  b z c y )  a y ( b z c x  bx c z )  a z ( b x c y  b y c x ) (1.1.27a)

(b  c )  a
(1.1.20)

 ( a x u x  a y u y  a z u z )  (by cz bz c y )u x  (bz cx bx cz )u y  (bx cy b y cx )u z 
(1.1.3)
 bx (c y az  c z ay )  by ( cz ax  c x az )  bz ( cx ay  cy ax ) (1.1.27c)

Also, we can prove the equality for a triple vector product

a  (b  c )  (c  a) b  (b  a)c (1.1.28)
as follows:

 ax  by cz bz c y   a y (bx c y by cx )  az (bz cx bx cz ) 

a  (b  c)   a y    bz cx bx cz    az (by cz bz c y )  ax (bx c y by cx ) 
(1.1.20)
(1.1.29a)
  b c  b c   
 az   x y y x   ax (bz cx bx cz )  a y (by cz bz c y ) 
 bx   cx 
b(a c)  c(a b )  by ( a x cx  a y cy  a z cz )  c y  (a x bx  a y by  a z bz )
  (1.1.3)
(1.1.29b)
   
 bz   cz 
8 Chapter 1 Vectors and Matrices

1.1.3.2 Jacobi Identity

We can use Eq. (1.1.28) for the triple vector product to prove the Jacobi identity:
a  (b  c )  b  (c  a )  c  (a  b )  0 (1.1.30a)
( a  b)  c  ( b  c )  a  ( c  a )  b  0 (1.1.30b)

1.1.3.3 Areas and Volume with Cross Product

ab
b b
Aprlm  || a  b || 1
Atrgl  ||a  b ||
 || a||||b|| sinab 2 c
|| b|| sin ab

|| b|| sin ab

|compa×bc |
b
 ab  ab
a a a
(a) Parallelogram (b) Triangle (c) Parallelepiped

Figure 1.7 Areas and volume with cross product

The area of a parallelogram with its sides denoted by two nonparallel vectors a and b can be
computed from the magnitude of the cross product of a and b (see Fig. 1.7(a)):

Aprlm  || a  b ||  || a |||| b || sin  ab (1.1.31)

The area of a triangle with its sides denoted by two nonparallel vectors a and b can also be
computed from the magnitude of the cross product of a and b (see Fig. 1.7(b)):
1 1
A trgl  || a  b ||  || a |||| b || sin  ab (1.1.32)
2 2
The volume of a parallelepiped with its sides denoted by three nonparallel vectors a, b, and c can be
computed from the magnitude of the triple scalar product or box product of a, b, and c:
a b (1.1.9)
| (a  b)  c |  | c  (a  b)|  || a  b || c   || a  b || | compa×bc |
|| a b|| (1.1.33)
 (base parallelogram area) (height)

Why is compa×bc the height of the parallelepiped? Because it is the magnitude of the component of
c along the normal vector a×b to the base plane spanned by a and b (see Fig. 1.7(c)).

1.1.3.4 Coplanar Vectors

The necessary and sufficient condition for three vectors a, b, and c to be coplanar, i.e., in the same
plane, is
(a  b)  c  0 (1.1.34)
This forces the third vector to be perpendicular to the normal vector to the plane spanned by the
other two vectors.
 1.1 Vectors 9

1.1.4 Lines and Planes

1.1.4.1 Vector Equation of a Line

Figure 1.8 Vector equation of a line with direction vector d

The vector equation for the line with direction vector d passing through a point p1 is
p  p1  d t with direction vector d (1.1.35)
Accordingly, the vector equation for the line through any two distinct points p1 and p2 is

p  p1  d t  p1  ( p2  p1) t with direction vector d  p2 p1 (1.1.36)

This describes any point p on the line with an appropriate real value of parameter t (see Fig. 1.8).
For example, p1 and p2 are described by Eq. (1.1.36) with t = 0 and 1, respectively. Eq. (1.1.36) can
also be used to describe a line segment from p0  p1  d t0 to p f  p1  d tf with an appropriate
closed interval [t0, tf].
Eq. (1.1.35) can be written in the form of parametric equations as

x  x1  d x t , y  y1  d y t , z  z1  d z t (1.1.37a)

or in the form of symmetric equations (with the parameter t eliminated) as

x  x1 y  y1 z  z1
  (1.1.37b)
dx dy dz
if the three components of the direction vector d = [dx dy dz]T are all nonzero. If one of the three
components of d is zero, say dx = 0, it should be written as
y  y1 z  z1
x  x1 ,  (1.1.38)
dy dz
The interested readers who want to feel the vector equation of a line through a soft experiment are
advised to run the following MATLAB script “em01f08.m”:

%em01f08.m
p1=[-1 -1 1.5].'; p2=[1 0 2].'; % Two points
plot3(p1(1),p1(2),p1(3),'o', p2(1),p2(2),p2(3),'o'), hold on
d=p2-p1; % Direction vector
t=[-1 2]; % Parametric vector
p=repmat(p1,1,length(t))+(p2-p1)*t; % Vector equation Eq.(1.1.36)
plot3(p(1,:),p(2,:),p(3,:),'r') % Plot the line in a 3D space
O=zeros(3,1); arrow3(p1,O), arrow3(p2,O) % Arrows of p1 and p2 from Origin
view(12,15), grid on
10 Chapter 1 Vectors and Matrices

1.1.4.2 Vector Equation of a Plane

Normal vector Normal vector

n p  p1 n  ( p2 p1)  ( p3 p1)
p  p1 p3
p
p
 p3 p1

p2 p1
z z p p2
y  p1 y 1
O x O x
(a) Plane with normal vector n passing through a point p1 (b) Plane containing three points p1, p2, and p3
Figure 1.9 Vector equation of a plane

The vector and Cartesian equations of a plane with normal vector n=[a b c]T passing through a
point p1 =[x1 y1 z 1 ]T (Fig. 1.9(a)) are
n  ( p  p1 )  0 (1.1.39a)
and
a ( x  x1 )  b ( y  y1 )  c ( z  z 1 )  0 (1.1.39b)

This implies that a line from p1 to any point p=[x y z]T on the plane is perpendicular to the normal
vector n.
How do we write the equation for a plane containing some three points p1, p2, and p 3 (Fig.
1.9(b))? It can be obtained from Eq. (1.1.39a) with the normal vector n constructed by the cross
product of the two vectors (p 2 -p 1 ) and (p 3 -p 1 ) on the plane:

{( p 2  p1)  ( p 3  p1)}  ( p  p1)  0 (1.1.40)

(Example 1.1) Finding a Normal Vector to a Plane

We can use the cross product to find a normal vector to the plane containing three points p1 =
[0 0  2 / 9]T , p2  [1 0 1/3]T , and p3  [ 0 1 1/ 9]T as

 1   0   0(1/9)  (1/9 )1  1/9 

n  ( p 2 p1)  ( p3 p1)   0    1    (1/9 )1  0 (1/9)   1/9  (E1.1.1)
 1/9   1/9  1 1  00   1 
       
Alternatively, we first can find the equation ax+by+cz+d = 0 for the plane containing the three
points p1, p2, and p3 by substituting the coordinates of the three points into the plane equation:
1
0 0 2/9  a  d  a 0 0 2/9  d   3/2 1 0  d   0.5d 
1 0 1/3  b     d  ; b    1 0 1/3  d     1/2 0 1  d    0.5d  (E1.1.2)
0 1 1/9   c   d   c  1 1 0   d   9/2 0 0  d   4.5d 

and then write a normal vector from the coefficients as

 0.5d 
n   0.5d  (E1.1.3)
 4.5d 

Note that the two vectors obtained as Eqs. (E1.1.1) and (E1.1.3) are virtually equal (with possibly
different lengths and opposite directions) as normal vectors to the plane since they are parallel.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 In the temple of Damia and Auxesia on (i) pottery,
Aegina it became the practice (νόμος) after
the war “to introduce into the temple neither anything else Attic nor
pottery, but to drink there henceforth only out of native jars[857].”
Herodotus mentions this embargo on Attic pottery only as applied to
the one temple on Aegina[858]. But he states that it was observed by
Argives as well as by Aeginetans, which points to the possibility that
the practice prevailed in Argos as well as Aegina. Macan goes as far
as to suggest that it is an “understatement and pseudo-explanation of
a measure or custom for the protection of native ware from Attic
competition[859].” The other measures recorded in this connexion, the
changes in Attic dress and in Peloponnesian brooches, support
Macan’s suggestion. But in the matter of dating he follows earlier
writers who, using very inadequate material, came to conclusions
which can now be shown to be improbable. They date this embargo
in the middle of the sixth century. But in Aegina at any rate Attic
pottery continued to be imported throughout the second half of the
sixth century, while in Argos, where the evidence is less decisive and
abundant, there is no sign of a cessation of Attic imports about 550
B.C. On the other hand both in Argos and Aegina there does appear
to be an abrupt cessation of Attic imports early in the seventh
century. As, further, the general history of Greek pottery shows that
an Argive-Aeginetan embargo on Attic pottery would have had a
strong commercial motive early in the seventh century and none in
the middle of the sixth, there is a strong presumption that the date of
the embargo was not the middle of the sixth century but somewhere
about the beginning of the seventh. To examine the archaeological
evidence here in detail would take us too far from our main enquiry.
It will be found presented in full in an appendix[860].
The war was a great disaster for Athenian (ii) sea-power
naval power. Now the period of greatest and ships,
eclipse for Athens from this point of view was the seventh century.
Throughout it there is no indication whatever of naval activity at
Athens, except a possible war against Mitylene. Even that must be
put at the earliest close on the year 600 B.C., and is to be regarded as
announcing the beginning of the new epoch of activity in the sixth
century[861]; and against it must be set the failure in the struggle with
Megara for Salamis[862]. This had not been the naval position of
Athens earlier. During the dark ages she appears to have been a
considerable naval power. A tradition preserved by Plutarch makes
Athens succeed Crete in the command of the sea[863]: naval power is
implied in Theseus’ expedition to Crete; a poem of Bacchylides[864],
which is illustrated by a vase painting of Euphronios[865], tells how
Theseus went to the depths of the sea to fetch up the ring of Minos,
and the story has been brought by S. Reinach into connexion with
rings such as those of Polycrates and the doges of Venice, and
explained as symbolizing the winning by Theseus of the sea which
had been previously the bride of Minos[866].
The date of these events must not be pressed. The period of this
sea-power is plainly the dark age that followed the breaking up of the
Cretan and Mycenaean civilization. It is the period of the pottery
known as Geometric, and the Athenian Geometric, the Dipylon ware,
again and again shows pictures of ships. Thirty-nine examples are
quoted by Torr[867], enough, as pointed out by Helbig[868], to prove the
important rôle played by the Athenian navy in the life of Athens of
that age. The Dipylon ships, as remarked twenty years ago by
Helbig[869], show that already in the eighth century Athens was
preparing to found her power on her navy. It requires some such
catastrophic explanation as has just been offered to account for her
complete set back in the seventh.
One result in Athens of the reverse in (iii) dress.
Aegina, so Herodotus declares, was a
revolution in the dress of the Athenian women, who gave up the
Doric costume, which was made of wool and fastened with pins, and
adopted in its place the Ionic, which consisted of sewn garments
made of linen. The passage is a locus classicus among writers on
Greek dress, and it must be at once admitted that nearly all of them
accept a date late in the first half of the sixth century[870]. So late a
date seems to me to be untenable. It can be reconciled neither with
the statements of Thucydides on the subject of Athenian dress[871],
nor with the evidence of extant monuments[872]. The sumptuary laws
on women’s dress passed by Solon in 594 B.C.[873] were plainly
directed against the Ionian costume. They show that it must have
reached Athens by about 600 B.C. and offer no evidence that it had
not done so considerably earlier. Bury dates the introduction of
Ionian dress into Athens “c. 650 (?)[874].”
 Among the Aeginetans and Argives as a After the war the
result of their victory over Athens a change Argives and
was introduced in what Herodotus calls the Aeginetans make
their brooches
“measure” (μέτρον) of Aeginetan and Argive “half as big
brooches (περόναι). Herodotus states that again.”
this change affected both the dedications at
the temple of Damia and Auxesia[875], and also the general
manufacture and use. The way he tells the story explains why he goes
beyond the temple when speaking of the pins, but does not do so in
the case of the pottery. The exclusion of Attic pottery from the
Aeginetan temple, or rather the exclusive use for temple purposes of
local ware, was in Herodotus’ days a ritualistic survival. The large
brooches on the other hand had continued in general use. “Now the
women of Argos and Aegina even to my own days wore brooches of
increased size.” Very possibly Herodotus had himself noticed them.
It is the account of this change in the “measure” of the Aeginetan and
Argive brooches that confirms the connexion of Pheidon with the
origin of the Aeginetan coinage.
The new practice was in Herodotus’ own words: “to make the
brooches half as big again as the then established measure.” It is
probably significant that, both before and after the change, the
brooches have a standard “measure.” The tendency of articles of
jewellery in early periods to be of a fixed weight is a familiar one.
Numerous instances are quoted in Ridgeway’s Origin of Metallic
Currency[876]. Not only so, but these fixed weights are repeatedly
found corresponding with or anticipating the coin standards of the
places they belong to.
It may be objected that the word μέτρον does not mean weight.
This is so when it is contrasted with σταθμός[877]; but it appears to
have been used also in a more comprehensive sense[878]. The
Athenian μετρονόμοι[879] must have inspected weights as well as
measures. μέτρον is presumably applied to both, and to a fifth
century Greek there would be no question of its referring to anything
but weight when applied to jewellery[880].
The change introduced by the Argives and The Aeginetan
Aeginetans after driving the Athenians from drachma was
Aegina was to make the “measure” of their half as big again
as the Attic.
brooches half as big again as what it had
previously been. Now this is approximately the relationship in weight
of the earliest Aeginetan drachmae to the earliest drachmae struck
on the Euboeic standard. Later, in Herodotus’ own times, the relative
weights were four to three. But the earliest Aeginetan drachmae
weighed a little more than those of later issues[881]. On the other
hand, as stated by Percy Gardner[882] in discussing Solon’s
“augmentation” of the Athenian coins, the earliest Attic or rather
Euboeic drachma[883] weighed less than those of post-Solonian times.
The weight of the Aeginetan drachma as determined from the early
didrachms quoted above (p. 171, n. 6) is just over six grammes, as
compared with the 5·85 grammes of later issues, while that of the
earliest Attic Euboeic drachma as determined from the coins of p.
171, n. 8 is just over four grammes, as compared with the 4·26
grammes of later issues[884].
Thus the original Aeginetan drachma seems to have been just half
as heavy again as the earliest Attic[885]. This ratio is accepted by
Ridgeway[886], who regards it as invented to make ten silver pieces
worth one gold when gold was fifteen times as precious as silver,
while later, when silver rose to be worth 3/40 of its weight in gold,
the silver pieces were slightly diminished in weight, in order that ten
of them might still be the equivalent of one of gold[887].
Let us now return to the one passage of Summary of the
Herodotus, in which he refers by name to evidence of
the Argive tyrant. Herodotus.
In that passage he speaks of Pheidon as “the man who made their
measures for the Peloponnesians[888].” The force of the definite
article that precedes the Greek μέτρα has not always been sufficiently
stressed. More than one recent writer begins his discussion of the
passage by translating τὰ μέτρα “a system of measures.” The
subsequent argument has naturally suffered. τὰ μέτρα can be no
other measures than those associated with the Peloponnesus in
Herodotus’ own days, namely those of the famous Aeginetan
standard, employed in particular for the coinage of the island[889].
Other scholars have regarded the statement that Pheidon struck the
first coins in Aegina as merely an amplification by later writers of
these very words. They argue that “the measures” plainly meant the
Aeginetan standard, and so suggested the famous Aeginetan coinage.
This latter view assumes of course that the amplifications of Ephorus
are not to be found in Herodotus himself. But what are the facts? The
establishment of Aeginetan measures in the Peloponnesus are
alluded to by Herodotus not only in the passage about the Argive
tyrant in Book VI but also very possibly in the passage in Book V that
describes the early Argive expedition to Aegina. In this latter passage
the measures are said to have been the result of the expedition. Both
expedition and tyrant are probably to be dated early in the seventh
century. That is also the date to which numismatists generally assign
the first drachmae struck in Aegina, struck too on a standard that,
like that of our brooches, was half again as great as that previously in
use.
It is hard to avoid the inference that when the fourth century
writers say that Pheidon coined in Aegina, they are faithfully
reporting a genuine tradition.
It has indeed been maintained that the Sceptical views
whole Herodotean account of the early on these
relations of Argos, Aegina, and Athens is chapters of
Herodotus stated
unhistorical[890]. The arguments brought and answered.
forward to support this destructive view
are: (i) that the episode is timeless and its timelessness must be due
to its unhistorical character, (ii) that it must be unhistorical because
it cannot, as alleged by Herodotus, have been the cause of the war of
487 B.C., which must have been due to the natural rivalry of the two
neighbouring states. As regards the first of these two arguments, the
preceding pages have, it is hoped, shown that the episode is not
timeless: as regards the second, it is enough to point out that it
assumes that war cannot breed war, that no war can be due to two
causes, and that an incident cannot be historical if it is alleged as
leading to results that it cannot have in fact produced. The fact that
arguments such as these were accepted for publication in a periodical
of high repute less than a generation back shows how much the
whole world of scholarship was infected by the spirit of uncritical
scepticism that has left its mark in some quarters on that of the
present age.
Others again like Wilamowitz[891] regard the narrative of
Herodotus V. 82–88 as simply a reflexion backwards of the state of
affairs existing in 487 B.C.[892], when Athens attacked Aegina, and the
Aeginetans “called to their aid the same people as before, the
Argives[893].” They argue that (i) the story is our only evidence for
hatred between Athens and Aegina much before 506 B.C., (ii) the
Argive-Aeginetan brooches as compared with the broochless
Athenian costume[894], the embargo on Attic pottery at the Aeginetan
temple, and the posture of the kneeling statues (pleading before the
Athenian invaders) may all have been referred in Herodotus’ days to
the existing hatred and recent wars between Athens and Aegina, (iii)
Herodotus puts back the Athenian disaster into the timeless period
because the miracle and the change of costume required an early
date, and the story does not fit the war of 487 B.C., since the famous
Sophanes[895], who fought in it, lived till 464. Herodotus, they say,
gives no account of a disaster to the Athenian fleet in 487 because he
had used it up for this early reflexion.
Of these points (i) is answered by the whole of this chapter, (ii) and
(iii) fall with (i), besides which (ii) contains many improbabilities,
e.g. that the pottery in an Aeginetan temple should without historic
reason have suggested to any fifth century Greek an early war with
Athens, while (iii) assumes an Athenian disaster in 487 B.C., whereas
Thucydides declares that Athens was successful in that war[896].
There is nothing suspicious in the Aeginetans having twice in two
hundred years attained some sort of thalassocracy, and having on
both occasions come as a result into collision with Athens. It is
perfectly natural for the Aeginetans on a second occasion to appeal to
allies who had previously helped them so effectively and with such
profit to themselves. Macan[897] observes that the Herodotean
account of the feud between Athens and Aegina is remarkably
uninfluenced by contemporary politics and interests. He suggests[898]
dating the subjection of Aegina to Epidaurus to the reign of Pheidon,
and the revolt of the island from Epidaurus to the time of Pheidon’s
fall. But why in that case does the account speak of a revolt from
Epidaurus, if it was really a revolt from the famous Argive tyranny?
The whole narrative finds a more appropriate setting if regarded as
one chapter in the history of Pheidon himself.
Only, why in this case is the name of Why Pheidon is
Pheidon nowhere mentioned? It is one not mentioned in
thing to omit details in a biography four them.
lines in length. It is quite another to omit so prominent a name in a
narrative that runs to seven whole chapters. But the omission,
though at first sight surprising, is capable of explanation. The
Herodotean story appears to have been derived from the temple of
Damia and Auxesia[899]. It was told Herodotus not in connexion with
any royal monument, but to explain certain offerings of pottery and
jewellery that he saw in the temple. Not a single personal name
occurs in the whole narrative, and there is no particular reason why
there should. There may actually have been motives for not
introducing them. The account of the events given to Herodotus in
the Aeginetan temple of Damia and Auxesia would naturally not
emphasize the part played by the Argive tyrant. The Athenian
version, to which also Herodotus alludes, would have still better
reason for trying to forget the name of Pheidon. If my whole
interpretation of these events is not entirely wrong, Pheidon dealt
the Athenians what was probably the most crushing blow they had
ever received down to the days when Herodotus wrote his history.
The personal name may be omitted from the same motive that made
the Athenians speak of the Aeginetan drachma as the “fat” drachma,
which they are said to have done, “refusing to call it Aeginetan out of
hatred of the Aeginetans[900].” Sparta again had taken sides against
Pheidon at Olympia[901], and would have had no interest in
perpetuating the name of the man who had almost barred their way
to the hegemony of the Peloponnese.
Ephorus’ account of Pheidon’s conquests and inventions is derived
neither from Attic nor from Aeginetan sources. As seen already[902]
the source of his statement about Pheidon coining in Aegina was
most probably the Argive Heraeum. Herodotus claims to use Argive
sources, but for him the war is primarily a matter between the
Athenians and the Aeginetans, whose subsequent hatred of one
another it is intended to explain. Thus we appear to have three rival
or even hostile traditions confirming one another, so that the variety
of sources adds in a real way to the credibility of the resultant
narrative.
The notices about the coinage are not the Pheidon and
only evidence for associating Pheidon with Aegina, further
Aegina. According to Ephorus “he evidence from
Ephorus:
completely recovered the lot of Temenos, Pheidon
which had previously been split into several recovered the lot
parts[903].” Temenos appears in the of Temenos,
genealogies as great great grandson of which included
Heracles, and founder of the Dorian Aegina.
dynasty at Argos[904]. He and his sons and his son-in-law between
them are represented as securing the greater part of the North-east
Peloponnese. Aegina fell to his son-in-law Deiophontes, who went to
the island from Epidaurus[905].
The operations described in Herodotus V. 82–88, by which the
Argives crossed from Epidaurus and drove the Athenians out of
Aegina and put an end to the Epidaurians being tributary to
Athens[906], are almost beyond doubt to be identified with the
recovery by Argos of the portion of the lot of Temenos that had been
secured by Deiophontes.
It is true that this account of the recovery Traces of this
of the lot of Temenos is first certainly met recovery in other
with in Strabo, whose authority is only the passages of
Herodotus.
fourth century Ephorus. But there are hints
that Ephorus is here to be trusted. There is the evidence of
Herodotus that from an unspecified earlier date down to about 550
B.C. the Argives had possessed the whole east coast of the
Peloponnesus and “the island of Cythera and the rest of the
islands[907].” The most likely period for Argos to have acquired this
territory is the reign of Pheidon. Pheidon according to Strabo[908]
“had deprived the Spartans of the hegemony of the Peloponnese,”
and it is the Spartans who shortly before Croesus asked for their
help, had wrested from the Argives “Cythera and the rest of the
islands.” About 668 B.C., i.e. probably in Pheidon’s reign, the Argives
had beaten the Spartans in the battle of Hysiae, which decided the
possession of the strip of coast land south of the Argolid[909].
Aegina is not mentioned in these proceedings, but C. Mueller may
be right in including it among “the rest of the islands[910].” The Hysiae
campaign is roughly contemporary with the second Messenian war,
in which Argos took part against the Spartans[911], and of which
indeed it may have been an incident. Now in that war the Samians
took part by sea against the Argives[912], and it is natural to connect
this action of theirs with their repeated attacks on Aegina in the days
of the Samian King Amphikrates, at some period indefinitely before
the reign of Polycrates. The Samians were certainly a naval power in
the first half of the seventh century. The four triremes built for them
in 704 B.C. marked for Thucydides an epoch in naval history[913].
About 668 B.C. Kolaios the Samian made his famous voyage beyond
the Straits of Gibraltar to the Spanish seaport of Tartessus, a voyage
that implies much previous naval enterprise on the Samians’ part.
The rivalry with Aegina was probably commercial. Kolaios and his
crew returned from the “silver rooted streams” of the Tartessus
river[914], having “made the greatest profits from cargoes of all Greeks
of whom we have accurate information, excepting Sostratos the
Aeginetan: for it is impossible for anyone else to rival him[915].”
Samian attacks on Aegina are thus particularly likely to have
happened about the time of the second Messenian war.
A century ago C. Mueller[916] argued that some event or other
connecting Samos with Aegina must have been closely connected
with the revolt of Aegina from Epidaurus, since the revolt was
described in the History of Samos of the Samian historian Duris
(born about 340 B.C.)[917]. From this he proceeds to advocate a date
for the revolt not very long before the war between Samos and
Aegina of 520 B.C. Arguments based on the laws of digression
observed by a writer whose works are known to us only in a few
fragments need to be used with caution. If Duris is any indication
whatever for the date of the revolt, he leaves an open choice between
the time of the war of 520 B.C. and that of the days of King
Amphikrates; and as between these two the evidence shows that the
earlier is probable while the latter is almost impossible.
As independent evidence these hints would be of scarcely any
value. As confirmation of a definite but disputable statement their
value is considerable.
The recovery of ancestral domains is a Summary of
favourite euphemism among military Pheidon’s
conquerors for their policy of annexation. activities
according to
The chronology, both relative and absolute,
Strabo (=
of Strabo’s summary of Pheidon’s career Ephorus).
has every appearance of authenticity.
Pheidon first recovers the lot of Temenos, then “invents” his
measures and coinage, and after that attempts to expand eastwards
and southwards to secure the whole inheritance of Heracles, or in
other words aims at the suzerainty of the whole Peloponnese, and to
that end celebrates the Olympian games. This last event is probably
to be dated 668 B.C. The coinage must be put indefinitely earlier in
his reign, a perfectly reasonable date on numismatic and historical
grounds, and the recovery of the lot of Temenos a few years earlier
still.
The date thus reached is confirmed by the histories of the two
other leading cities of this part of the Peloponnese, Sicyon and
Corinth.
Sicyon formed part of the lot of Temenos, Pheidon and
[918]
and was held by his son Phalkes . About other parts of the
670 B.C. the city fell under the tyranny of lot of Temenos:
(i) Sicyon.
the able and powerful family of Orthagoras,
whose policy was marked by extreme hostility to Argos[919]. Pheidon
plainly can have had no footing in Sicyon during the rule of the
Orthagorids. But the unusual stability and popularity of the tyranny
at Sicyon have often been explained, not without reason, as due to its
popular anti-Dorian policy. During the second Messenian war, which
Pausanias dates 686–668 B.C.[920], so that the rise of Orthagoras
coincides with its conclusion, the Sicyonians appear to have acted in
close co-operation with the Argives[921]. The position and policy of the
Sicyonian tyrants becomes particularly comprehensible if they had
risen to power as leaders of a racial uprising that put an end in the
city to a Dorian ascendancy that dated originally from the days of
Temenos[922] and had been revived by Pheidon[923].
Whether Corinth formed part of the lot of (ii) Corinth.
Temenos is uncertain. Probably it did.
Strabo and Ptolemy exclude the city from the Argolid[924]. But on the
other hand Homer speaks of it as being “in a corner of horse rearing
Argos[925],” and Pausanias states that “the district of Corinth is part of
Argolis[926],” and that he believes it to have been so in Homeric
times[927]. The conflicting statements of these excellent authorities
are best reconciled by supposing them to be referring to different
periods. If this is so, and if, as well might be, all the domains of
Homeric Argos passed to its first Dorian lord, then Corinth formed
part of the lot of Temenos. A Temenid Corinth is perhaps implied in
Apollodorus[928], where Temenos, the two sons of Aristodemus, and
Kresphontes “when they had conquered the Peloponnese, set up
three altars of Zeus Patroos and sacrificed on them and drew lots for
the cities. The first lot was Argos, the second Sparta, the third
Messene.”
For connexions between Pheidon and Corinth we have only a story
told by Plutarch and a Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius[929] of which
the salient points are that (a) Pheidon tries to annex Corinth; (b) the
Bacchiads and Archias are the pro-Argive party; (c) the fall of the
Bacchiads (which led to the rise of the tyrant Cypselus) meant the
overthrow of Argive influence.
So far the story is all of a piece, and supports the view that the
simultaneous establishment of Cypselus in Corinth and Orthagoras
in Sicyon may have been part cause and part result of the fall of
Pheidon and the breaking up again of the lot of Temenos. Such a
suggestion harmonizes well with the friendship that existed between
the Corinthian and Sicyon tyrants[930].
There are however chronological difficulties in this interpretation
of the Pheidon Archias story. In the story (i) the fall of the Bacchiads
is made contemporary with the foundation of Syracuse, i.e. it must
presumably be dated about 734 B.C.[931]; (ii) Pheidon is put some
time before this event, his contemporary Habron being grandfather
of Archias’ favourite Actaeon: the Marmor Parium enters Pheidon
before Archias.
In a highly romantic narrative like that of Archias and Actaeon the
last thing to be looked for is a reliable and exact chronology.
Impossible dates may mean impossible statements; but on the other
hand they may mean merely a confusion of facts of different dates, or
again, the facts may be coherent, and the dates just simply wrong.
In the present case, except for the relative dating of Archias and
Pheidon, the historic background is perfectly coherent, if the events
are put early in the seventh century. To accept the 750 date for
Pheidon sets him right in relation to Archias, but leaves the rest of
the story in the air. There is indeed always the refuge of assuming a
double banishment of the Bacchiads. But the idea of a double
banishment, traces of which might easily be discovered by the
reduplicating school of historians, is deservedly suspect, and may
have arisen from a double dating due to double dating of Pheidon. If
there really were two banishments, the story better suits the second.
 Neither Plutarch nor the Scholiast on Apollonius gives any
absolute dates; and those of the Parian Marble, which does, are
impossible. The Marble dates Pheidon 895 B.C. and Archias 758.
Pheidon is also indeed made contemporary with an Athenian who
according to Castor held the office of king from 864 to 846 B.C.[932]
From 846 to 758 is a possible, though improbably long interval
between Pheidon and Archias, if as the story tells us, the latter had as
favourite the grandson of one of Pheidon’s contemporaries; but even
so the dating is so unsatisfactory, that the latest editor of the Parian
Marble[933] has suggested transposing Archias and Pheidon. But,
apart from other difficulties, the resultant early date for Archias is
altogether against the evidence. There is no need to put him back
into the ninth century merely because it is not unlikely that Greeks at
that period were already making their way to Sicily. The antedating
of Pheidon has already been accounted for, and he appears to have
taken back Archias with him part of the way.
The date of Archias is a problem any way. But it is not difficult to
suggest a possible chronology. Pheidon’s fall[934] was probably rapid
(a proof of his hubris). His rise was probably slow. Being a hereditary
monarch, he may well have ruled for fifty years, from about 715 to
665 B.C. It was early in his career that he began to carry out his
designs on Corinth. Archias, who had founded Syracuse in 734, gave
him support. We are told no details, but the alliances of the period of
the second Messenian war and the naval struggle in the Saronic Gulf
must have supplied abundant motives and inducements. Bacchiad
government under Argive protection continued till Pheidon fell,
which meant also the fall of the Bacchiads themselves. They
withdrew to the far west. Demaratus penetrated as far as Tarquinii.
Large numbers doubtless settled at Syracuse. The order of events just
outlined coincides entirely with the extant narratives, except in the
one matter of Syracuse, and there the divergence is very
comprehensible. The founder of Syracuse had supported Pheidon.
Pheidon’s fall had led to a great influx of pro-Argive Corinthians into
Syracuse, and threw Archias back entirely onto his Sicilian colony. If
this is what really happened, it would not be surprising if the fall of
Pheidon came to be regarded as having led to the original foundation
of Syracuse.
 The chief doubt however as to the Pheidon of
historical truth of the Argive tyrant’s Corinth: is he
interference in Corinth is caused by certain identical with the
Argive?
references to a Corinthian Pheidon,
described by Aristotle as “one of the earliest lawgivers[935].” When an
Argive Pheidon is reported as making his appearance in Corinthian
history, is it a mistake due to the confusing of two separate
personalities? If two existed, they were unquestionably confused. A
Pindar Scholiast says that “a certain Pheidon, a man of Corinth,
invented measures and weights[936].”
But there is an alternative possibility. The Corinthian Pheidon may
be only one aspect of the Argive: this is suggested by the Pindar
Scholiast later in the same ode, where he says that “the Pheidon who
first struck their measures (κόψας τὸ μέτρον) for the Corinthians
was an Argive[937].” Too much stress must not be laid on such very
confused statements[938]. At best they can only corroborate other and
better evidence. This however is not altogether lacking. When
Karanos, the kinsman of Pheidon, went to Macedonia and occupied
Edessa and the lands of the Argeadae[939], Bacchiads from Corinth
settled near by among the Lynkestai[940].
A lawgiver who was “one of the earliest” can have arisen in Corinth
only before the establishment of the tyranny in 657 B.C. On the other
hand lawgivers seem to have been mainly a seventh century
phenomenon in Greece, and the most natural time for one to have
been appointed in Corinth is when the Bacchiad nobility was losing
its ascendancy, a process which may be imagined as beginning early
in the seventh century or at the end of the eighth. Plutarch describes
Pheidon’s designs on Corinth as formed at the beginning of his
career. Everything points to the Argive tyrant having had a long
reign. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that the rival
factions in Corinth invited to act as their lawgiver a young sovereign
of unusual ability who ruled a city of great traditions but not at the
time particularly powerful[941]. I have already suggested the course
taken by events in Corinth after Pheidon had once secured a position
in the city. One passage remains to be quoted that makes it still more
probable both that the Corinthian lawgiver was the Argive tyrant,
and that events in Corinth took something like the course that I have
suggested. According to Nicholas of Damascus[942] Pheidon out of
friendship went to the help of the Corinthians during a civil war: an
attack was made by his supporters, and he was killed[943]. An intimate
connexion from the beginning of his career with the great trading
and manufacturing city of the Isthmus would go far to explain the
commercial and financial inventiveness that was the distinguishing
feature of this royal tyrant[944].
 Chapter VII. Corinth

ἡ μὲν δὴ πόλις ἡ τῶν Κορινθίων μεγάλη τε καὶ πλουσία

διὰ παντὸς ὑπῆρξεν, ἀνδρῶν τε ηὐπόρησεν ἀγαθῶν εἴς τε
τὰ πολιτικὰ καὶ εἰς τὰς τέχνας τὰς δημιουργικάς.
Strabo VIII. 382.
In the passage of Thucydides[945] in which Mercantile and
he associates the origin of tyranny with the marine
acquisition of wealth, one other developments at
Corinth quoted
development is mentioned as characteristic
by Thucydides to
of the age. “Greece began to fit out fleets illustrate the
and took more to the sea.” conditions that
If the views expressed in the last chapter led to the rise of
are not entirely mistaken, then in Greece tyrannies.
Proper the earliest phases of all these developments, in politics, in
industry, and in commerce by land and sea, are all to be associated
with Pheidon of Argos. But on the same showing Pheidon was a man
born rather before his time and not quite in the right place.
The town marked out by its situation[946] to develop the new
tendencies to the fullest was Corinth, and it is in fact from Corinth
that Thucydides draws his illustration, mentioning in this connexion
the shipbuilding of the Corinthian Ameinokles about 704 B.C. and
the naval battle between Corinth and Corcyra of about 664 B.C.[947]
He says nothing about Corinthian tyrants, but the description of the
situation at Corinth is simply a paraphrase of that of the general
situation that led to tyrannies[948]. Corinth is chosen to exemplify the
normal course of things in a seventh century Greek town, and it may
be taken as certain that Thucydides regards the tyranny at Corinth as
the outcome of the mercantile and maritime developments described
in the passage just quoted.
 Only, what was the personal relationship of the tyrants to the new
developments?

Fig. 22. Corinthian vase

found at Corinth.

Fig. 23. Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting a

potter at his wheel.
 Fig. 24. Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting the
interior of a kiln.

Before attempting to answer this Seventh century

question, one important addition may be Corinth was also
made to Thucydides’ picture of the state of a great industrial
centre, especially
things in the city when the tyranny arose. for pottery.
Corinth was not engaged only in commerce
and shipping. She was also a great industrial centre. In the chapter
on Argos reasons have been given for thinking that the tyrant
Pheidon flourished just at the time when pottery of the style called
for want of a better name proto-Corinthian was enjoying a great
vogue in a great part of the Greek world, that much at least of this
ware was made in Pheidon’s dominions, and that Pheidon took
political measures to crush or cripple rival centres. Towards the
middle of the seventh century proto-Corinthian ware was eclipsed by
a new style, which with good reason has been named Corinthian[949].
This new style became so popular that the invention of the potter’s
wheel was ascribed to a Corinthian[950]. Corinthian vases of this
period show one of the most decorative and distinctive styles of
pottery that has ever been invented. The style of decoration
somewhat recalls oriental carpets, and it was long ago plausibly
suggested that oriental carpets or tapestries furnished the models for
the Corinthian vase painters[951]. Two jugs in this style, one from
Corinth itself[952], the other from Corneto (Tarquinii), are shown in
figs. 22 and 34. Votive tablets of the sixth century B.C. have been
found at Corinth that depict various stages of the manufacture. Two
are here reproduced (figs. 23, 24). This very distinctive pottery made
its way over a great part of the Greek world[953]. It has been found in
large quantities all over Sicily, South Italy and Etruria, in many parts
of Greece Proper, and in many places further east[954].
Cypselus established himself as tyrant in Cypselus
657 B.C. at the height of these great becomes tyrant
developments of Corinthian industry, trade, at the height of
these
and shipping. It has been noticed by developments.
Busolt[955] that 657 is also the year of the
conquest of Sardis by the Cimmerians. The disturbances in Asia
Minor may have enhanced the importance of the western trade, in
which Corinth was particularly concerned[956]. They may incidentally
have removed, at least for the time being, a very powerful
commercial rival, since Corinth and Lydia appear to have been
engaged in much the same industries, namely weaving, dyeing,
metallurgy, horse rearing and the making of ointments, in addition
to pottery, a fact that can hardly have been accidental[957], and points
to Corinth having been influenced by Lydia. Both before and after
the Cimmerian invasion Lydia and Corinth appear to have been on
excellent terms[958]: but this would not prevent Corinthian merchants
from growing more prosperous through Lydia’s troubles[959].
Whether the rise of Cypselus had any Cypselus and the
connexion with the beginnings of beginnings of
Corinthian coinage is a matter of dispute. Corinthian
coinage.
Busolt[960] dates the earliest issues some half
century later than the establishment of the tyranny. Head[961] on the
other hand makes the coinage and the tyranny begin approximately
together and he is supported by Percy Gardner[962], who dates the
earliest coins of Corinth in the early part of the seventh century but
after 665 B.C.
 Fig. 25. Coins of Corinth.

If, then, as seems probable, the English numismatists are nearer

the truth than the German, the first issues of “colts,” as the coins
were colloquially called from the winged horse that they bore, may
have played their part in helping Cypselus to the tyranny. The traces
of Lydian influence support this view. But on the other hand Corinth,
whose trade was so preponderatingly with the west, may, like its
colony Corcyra, have felt the need of a coinage only comparatively
late. Where the main facts are so obscure and particulars are
completely wanting it is idle to carry speculation further.
For evidence as to Cypselus’ personal relationship to the
commercial developments of his age we must look elsewhere. Some
modern writers have indeed despaired of recovering any picture of
the personal history of a ruler who is variously described by our best
authorities as having ruled mildly[963] and with bloodthirsty
severity[964]. This attitude is quite His personal
unnecessary. Both statements are in relationship
themselves quite credible as contemporary when tyrant to
the commercial
accounts of the same regime from different developments of
points of view. Still, by themselves they do his age.
not take us very far. Fortunately we are
better informed in other directions.
 Of the Corinthian colonies in Western Greece, that lined the trade
route to Sicily and Italy and the Furthest West, Leukas, Ambracia
and Anaktorion were founded by Cypselus[965]. Leukas was converted
by him from a peninsula into an island for the greater convenience of
navigation[966].
Cypselus is said to have taxed his subjects heavily. This statement
is taken from the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica[967], a work of no
great authority for our early period. The tax is associated by
Suidas[968] with the dedication of a colossus of beaten gold which
“Didymus says was made by Periander” (not Cypselus) “with the
object of checking the Corinthians in their luxury and arrogance.”
Theophrastus, so Suidas also states, called the statue the colossus not
of Cypselus but of the sons of Cypselus (Κυψελιδῶν). The statement
of the Oeconomica must therefore be taken with reserve. But the
story of Cypselus’ heavy taxation states also that the tyrant made his
subjects work and prosper and able to pay the taxes[969].
Whatever the truth about the colossus the Personal
fact remains that the fame of Cypselus was relationships of
largely eclipsed by that of his son and his son
Periander to
successor Periander, who was actually these same
claimed by some writers as one of the seven developments.
sages of early Greece[970]. This is
unfortunate when we are searching for origins, since Periander is
said to have changed the character of the sovereignty[971]. Even if the
authorities who made this statement are not particularly good, still it
must be taken as in some part true. The son born in the purple can
never succeed exactly to the position of the father who founded the
house. Luckily however we are told the nature of Periander’s change.
He regarded himself as a soldier and sought to make Corinth a great
military power, whereas Cypselus had been a man of peace with a
peaceful policy[972]. So far therefore as Periander’s policy was not
directly or indirectly military, there is no need to assume a break
with that of his father.
He maintained and enlarged the colonial empire of the city[973]. As
regards Corinthian trade under Periander we are told that his public
revenues were all derived from its taxation[974]: but everything shows
that he did not follow the Bacchiads and tax it ruthlessly. Rather he
seems to have aimed at increasing his revenues by fostering
commerce. Corinthian shipping, with which the trade of the city was
inseparably bound up, certainly owed much to him. “He built
triremes and plied both seas[975].” This last statement seems intended
to contrast Periander with his father, whose activities had been
mainly in the west. Periander on the other hand is found acting in
close concert with Thrasybulus the tyrant of Miletus[976]. He has been
suspected of slave-dealing with Lydia[977], and acted as arbitrator
between that state and Miletus[978]. He had a nephew who bore the
name of a king of Egypt[979]. In order the better to “ply both seas” he
is said to have wanted to cut a canal through the Corinthian
Isthmus[980]. Here too he was following in the footsteps of his father
who had “velificated” Leukas.
It is interesting therefore to notice the emphasis laid on
Periander’s wealth[981], and to recall the social legislation attributed
to him by Nicolaus Damascenus, according to whom the tyrant
“forbad the citizens to acquire slaves and live in idleness, and
continually found them some employment[982].” Heraclides[983] and
Diogenes Laertius (quoting Ephorus and Aristotle)[984] state that he
did not allow anybody and everybody to live in the city. Their
statement is capable of many interpretations. It may mean that
Periander sought to control labour in the city or to prevent the rural
population from quitting the land for the superior attractions of life
in the great industrial centre.
In short from first to last the tyranny at Corinth is seen taking an
active part in guiding the industrial, commercial and maritime
activities of the city[985]. This however is what might be expected from
any able government at the period, and nobody has ever questioned
the Cypselids’ ability. The previous government, that of the
aristocracy of the Bacchiads, had “exploited the market with
impunity[986],” and very possibly this short-sighted policy had
hastened and helped their fall[987].
But how precisely were they overthrown? Before he
What was the career of Cypselus previous to became tyrant
his obtaining the tyranny? Cypselus was
probably
According to Nicolaus Damascenus, who polemarch,
based himself largely on the fourth century
Ephorus[988], Labda, the mother of Cypselus, belonged to the
Bacchiad aristocracy, but owing to a personal deformity[989] she had
married beneath her. Her husband, Eetion, is variously said to have
been descended from the pre-Hellenic Lapithae of Thessaly[990] and
from a non-Dorian stock of Gonussa above Sicyon[991]. In any case, as
observed by How and Wells[992], Eetion belonged to the pre-Dorian
“Aeolic” population of Corinth[993]. The Bacchiad aristocracy was
extremely exclusive. Its members married only among themselves.
Consequently the official oracles prophesied evil from this union,
and when a son was born of it, the government sent agents to destroy
the child. But the infant melted the hearts of its would-be murderers,
and instead of killing it they went back and reported that they had
done so. The infant was sent away by its parents to Olympia, and was
brought up first there and then at Cleonae. Encouraged by a Delphic
oracle Cypselus returned to Corinth, became very popular, was
elected polemarch, and made himself still more popular by refusing
to imprison citizens and remitting in all cases his part of their fines.
Finally he headed a rising against the unpopular Bacchiads, killed
Patrokleides, who was king at the time, and was made king in his
stead. He ruled mildly, neither maintaining a bodyguard nor losing
the people’s favour[994].
Such is the account given by Nicholas of Damascus. For the greater
part of it we have no earlier authority. But once more we must be on
our guard against too hasty scepticism. Ephorus, who is generally
admitted to have been the source of this account, was not further
removed from Cypselus than this age is from Cromwell. Cypselus was
the foremost man of his age in all Greece. We need to be very
sceptical of such scepticism as that of Busolt[995], who argues that
Cypselus cannot have been polemarch before he became tyrant
because if his parentage was not known he would not have been
eligible, while if it was he would not have been elected[996]. As pointed
out many years ago by Wilisch[997], such arguments are dangerous
when applied to times of which so little is known. The aristocracy
which fell in 657 B.C. may have begun to totter some time earlier.
Given the requisite gaps in our knowledge, Busolt’s line of argument
might be equally well used to discredit the received tradition about
the Victorian age in England on the ground that it contains the
highly improbable statement that the leader of the aristocratic party
was an Italian Jew.
 Ephorus seems to have been used by Aristotle[998]. It would be rash
indeed to follow Busolt[999] and agree that such a source may yet be
valueless. Aristotle is not to be treated in this way. The whole
character of his work forces us to start with the assumption that he
had some idea of the difference between myth and historical
tradition. We always know the reasons why modern scholars are
sometimes inclined to discredit him. We do not always know the
reasons that led Aristotle to accept as facts what he so accepts. What
we do know is that the material on which he based his statements
was far more ample than that which is now at our disposal. Even for
a period so comparatively remote from him as the seventh century
B.C. Aristotle must have been able to collect much evidence of one
sort or another to confirm him alike in his doubts and his beliefs[1000].
For eighth century Corinth Aristotle and his contemporaries
probably[1001] had the poems of the Corinthian Eumelos, a ποιητὴς
ἱστορικός[1002] who flourished about 750 B.C. and wrote among other
works an epic called Κορινθιακά. A prose history of Corinth
(Κορινθία συγγραφή) was also ascribed to him. The ascription is
doubted by Pausanias[1003], not without reason, but it may still have
been a document of some value and antiquity. The same is true of the
“didactic poem in two thousand lines” ascribed by Diogenes Laertius
to Periander himself[1004]. We are learning to take our ancient records
more on their face value than was done by our grandfathers in the
nineteenth century. The classical historians, using the word in its
widest sense, are still suffering from the reaction against the doctrine
of verbal inspiration.
The story of the infant Cypselus is put by Plutarch[1005] into the
mouth of a certain “Chersias the poet,” who is represented as having
during a banquet given by Periander “mentioned others whose lives
had been saved when despaired of and in particular Cypselus the
father of Periander.” One of the sceptics[1006] has recently accepted
this Chersias as historical and imagined Plutarch as here making use
of a poem of his which he proceeds to explain as a fiction invented to
give an appearance of legitimacy to the Cypselids. The explanation is
quite gratuitous. It is true that Diogenes Laertius[1007] speaks of
Periander as “of the race of the Heraclids.” But Chersias in Plutarch
does not mention even the parents of Cypselus, much less his remote
ancestors, and there is no evidence that he had them in mind[1008].
The poem itself is a doubtful item. The only inference to be drawn
from Plutarch is that to his readers the poem (assuming its
existence) probably seemed in keeping with the scene. It is however
well to be reminded that even Plutarch had much more literary
material to draw from for this early period than have the moderns.
On the whole therefore the safest attitude towards the narrative of
Nicolaus will be one of benevolent agnosticism. No doubt he had a
tendency to rationalize half or wholly mythical stories. It is not
improbable that he did this to some extent in his account of the
infant Cypselus with which we can compare the version of
Herodotus. But when he makes a simple statement of commonplace
fact, as, for instance, that Cypselus was polemarch before he became
tyrant, the most prudent and the most critical course is to accept it as
probably true[1009]. The reason why the record of this fact was
preserved is not far to seek. The fourth century historians seized on
the name as evidence that Cypselus was in fact as well as in name a
ruler of the same order as Dionysius, who started his career as a
military demagogue. But the context shows but that is no
that the polemarch was not in this case a evidence of
military officer[1010], and we know by military power.
Cypselus cannot
implication that Cypselus was not a warlike
have been a
person, for the record of how Periander military despot.
changed the character of the government
goes on to say that he became[1011] warlike. And, as remarked long ago
by Schubring[1012], if the tenure of the polemarchy is historical, still it
was not the means by which Cypselus reached the tyranny, but rather
like the murder of the Bacchiad Patrokleides, a sign and token that
he was already in a position to seize it. What then was
Nicolaus therefore brings us little nearer to the basis of his
understanding the basis of the future power? The only
possible
tyrant’s power. Our only hope of doing this
evidence is to be
lies in Herodotus, who tells the story of the found in the
infant Cypselus with certain details omitted story
by Nicolaus but which probably contain the
essence of the story. According to Herodotus[1013] Cypselus was the
child from the cypsele in which as an infant his mother had
concealed him from his would-be murderers. If we are to believe
Plutarch, the story of the cypsele could still which makes
in his days be traced back to the days of Cypselus the
Periander[1014]. It is easy to point out[1015] child from the
that we are here up against a widespread cypsele.
story of which different versions have been attached to such different
names as Sargon of Akkad (c. 3800 B.C.[1016]), Moses, Romulus and
Cyrus[1017]. But even if we accept a common origin for all these
stories, we are not very much further on. We should still have to
determine why and how Cypselus found a place in the series. But it
must not be too hastily assumed that the What is a
cypsele of Cypselus has anything at all to do cypsele? Not, in
with the ark that Pharaoh’s daughter found spite of some
ancient and
on the banks of the Nile[1018] or the “alueus” modern
discovered by the shepherd Faustulus on authorities,
the banks of the Tiber. In both these either an ark or a
cases[1019] the vessel could float and was wooden chest.
discovered by a river side. Cypselus was not
discovered. That is the whole point of the story. He was not exposed
in a river or sea like Romulus or Perseus. And it is more than
doubtful whether a cypsele has any connexion whatever with an
alueus or ark. It is true that they are more or less identified by our
ancient authorities. Pausanias[1020], who wrote his guide to Greece in
the second century A.D., professed to have seen at Olympia the very
cypsele in which Cypselus had been hidden and from which he was
said to have got his name. It was a coffer (λάρναξ) of wood and ivory
elaborately carved. The description leaves no doubt that it was of
archaic Corinthian workmanship of the time of the tyrants or not
much later[1021]. But it is extremely doubtful whether this carved box
was a cypsele or had any original connexion with the cypsele story.
Plato[1022], Aristotle[1023], and Plutarch[1024] all refer to the dedications
of the house of Cypselus without alluding to this object. Herodotus
says nothing about the cypsele having been dedicated. For Strabo[1025]
the chief dedication of Cypselus was a “golden hammered Zeus.” Dio
Chrysostom[1026] (about 100 A.D.) refers to what Pausanias calls the
cypsele of Cypselus, but describes it simply as the “wooden box
(ξυλινὴ κιβωτός) dedicated by Cypselus.” From Pausanias himself it
is plain that the object was not by any means what the Greeks of his
time understood by a cypsele. His statement[1027] that the ancient
Corinthians called a coffer a cypsele raises a suspicion that nobody
else ever did. It is probably only an inference drawn by the traveller
from the fact of this particular coffer being so called by the guides at
Olympia[1028].
The Olympian larnax does not at all Meanings of the
correspond to the picture of a cypsele word “cypsele”
suggested by the ancient notices on the given by the
ancients.
subject, which, quite apart from the light
they may possibly throw on Cypselus, deserve a more detailed
examination than they have hitherto received[1029].
The meanings of the word given by the ancients are as follows:
(1) A wine vessel[1030],
(2) A vessel to receive wheat or barley[1031],
(3) Part of a furnace[1032],
(4) A beehive[1033],
(5) Vessels for sweet condiments[1034], or receptacles for such
vessels[1035],
(6) The hole of the ear[1036],
(7) Wax in the ears[1037].
This literary evidence may be Cp. coins of
supplemented from a numismatic source. Cypsela.
Some fourth century B.C. coins of the Thracian Cypsela[1038] show a
more or less cylindrical vessel with two small vertical handles[1039]. A
similar vessel, resting on what is probably a grain of corn, is shown
on other coins of the same century and from the same district[1040].
The vessel has very plausibly been identified as a cypsele.

Fig. 26. Coins of

Cypsela.
 At first sight the various uses of the word Inferences as to
appear rather miscellaneous, especially if size, shape, and
we include (6) and (7). But (6) and (7) need material.
not be brought in. They are late uses derived from (4)[1041]. Meaning
(5) is probably to be eliminated on the same grounds. This leaves us
with (1) to (4), all of them vessels of large size, a feature implicit in
the Cypselus legend and confirmed by the ancient
lexicographers[1042].
For the material of cypselae under meanings (1) to (5) the only
written evidence is found in (i) schol. Aristoph. Pax 631, which says
that “cypselae were not only woven (πλεκταί) but also of pottery
(κεραμεαῖ),” (ii) a scholiast to Lucian, Lexiphanes, 1, which explains
the cypsele as (a) “the narrow-mouthed unpitched vessel of pottery,”
(b) an earthenware vessel, (c) [addit. C] “the name is also given to a
sort of woven vessel,” (iii) Hesychius, who explains a cypsele as a
wickerwork beehive.
These statements quite suit the list of uses. As between the two
materials mentioned the Aristophanes scholiast gives the impression
that the commoner was wicker or basket work. But in the Lucian
scholiast wickerwork is only an afterthought added by a later hand.
The Lucian scholiast is probably more correct. Pottery is a natural
material for every kind of cypsele. Cypselae (1) and (3) can never
have been of basketwork, and for (5) it looks a most unlikely
material, though we know too little about ancient spice vessels to
speak with certainty. For (2) it is suitable enough, but the cypselae of
the Thracian coins, which the emblem of the grain of corn shows to
have been probably corn jars, point in the other direction. Their
shape suits either terra cotta or metal but not wickerwork. The
probable use practically excludes metal[1043]. (4) is according to
Hesychius a “plaited beehive,” i.e. a hive of basketwork, and this
statement is accepted by M. Pottier[1044]. No doubt it was true at the
time when it was made. But is it so certain that the earliest cypsele
beehives were of basketwork? The first reference to beehives is in the
Odyssey, which describes hives of stone in the shape of vases
(κρητῆρες and ἀμφιφορῆες)[1045]. These Homeric beehives must have
been either prototypes or glorifications of hives of earthenware[1046],
and it is tempting to classify these latter with the cypsele form of
hive, especially in the light of the cypsele on the Thracian coins,
which has much the shape of a mixing bowl except that the handles
are of a type more frequent on the amphora. These coins are of the
first half of the fourth century. Our literary authorities are all much
later. Most of them mention earthenware beehives only to condemn
them[1047]. Presumably they were out of fashion. Basketwork
hives[1048] on the other hand are spoken of without condemnation.
When therefore they define the cypsele beehive as a basketwork
beehive, they practically mean a round or vase-shaped hive like the
“little pail where the bee distils his sweet flow” of Antiphilus[1049], as
distinguished from the rectangular form that was also much in
use[1050].
This is assuming that cypselae were never rectangular, but the
assumption seems fairly safe. Neither plaiting nor pottery adapts
itself to rectangular shapes. Wine vessels are not usually square. The
cypsele of the coins is not rectangular.

Fig. 27. Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a

cypsele.
 Fig. 28. Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a
cypsele.

There remains the “certain part of a furnace” referred to by

Hesychius. Whatever this may have been, it is most unlikely that it
was rectangular for the simple reason that ancient Greek furnaces
appear from extant pictures to have no rectangular parts that could
possibly be so identified. Pictures of ancient Greek furnaces are
numerous, and it is surprising that no attempt seems to have been
made to discover a cypsele in any of them, for it is not unlikely that
some of these pictures do in fact depict it, and in that case they show
us the earliest form of the object of which we have any precise
record.
 Fig. 29. Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a
cypsele.

In Saglio’s Dictionnaire des Antiquités, Probable

s.v. Fer, figs. 2964, 2965, (here figs. 27, 28), pictures of a
pictures are reproduced from two black cypsele on sixth-
century Attic
figure vases that depict furnaces being used, vases, depicting
in all probability for treating iron[1051]. On it as a large terra
the top of either furnace is depicted what de cotta vase.
Launay describes as a “sorte de vase, sans
doute de terre cuite[1052].” A similar vase is shown ibid. s.v. Caelatura,
fig. 937[1053] (here fig. 29) on top of what the context shows to be the
furnace of a bronze foundry[1054]. This latter picture is on an early red
figure vase[1055]. In all three cases the “sort of vase” is very large, as is
shown by comparing it in size with the human figures in the picture.
In short both in size, shape, use and probably material it answers to
the written descriptions of one variety of cypsele. What it does not so
well answer to is the vase represented on the coins of Cypsela, which
is tall and cylindrical and shows two vertical handles. Fortunately
there is a connecting link between the two forms. In the Berlin
Museum there is an actual stove of terra cotta, said to have been
found in the sea off Iasos (coast of Asia Minor)[1056]. It is about ·50 m.
high and of a common enough type[1057], though it is rare to find one
so well preserved[1058]. What however gives the Iasos example its
importance is a vase ·13 m. high and ·192 diameter, of the same dark
brown micaceous clay as the stove itself, that was found along with it
and fits so well on top of it that it must unquestionably have formed
part of the complete article[1059]. Here we have a vase of considerable