Download Reliable Study Materials and full Test Banks at testbankmall.

com

Test Bank for Building Python Programs Plus MyLab

Programming with Pearson eText, Stuart Reges,
Marty Stepp, Allison Obourn

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-building-
python-programs-plus-mylab-programming-with-pearson-etext-
stuart-reges-marty-stepp-allison-obourn/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Visit now to discover comprehensive Test Banks for All Subjects at testbankmall.com
 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

Test Bank for Building Java Programs 3/E 3rd Edition

Stuart Reges, Marty Stepp

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-building-java-
programs-3-e-3rd-edition-stuart-reges-marty-stepp/

testbankmall.com

Test Bank for Auditing: The Art and Science of Assurance

Engagements, Fourteenth Canadian Edition Plus MyLab
Accounting with Pearson eText — Package, 14th Edition
https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-auditing-the-art-and-
science-of-assurance-engagements-fourteenth-canadian-edition-plus-
mylab-accounting-with-pearson-etext-package-14th-edition/
testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Auditing: The Art and Science of

Assurance Engagements, Fourteenth Canadian Edition Plus
MyLab Accounting with Pearson eText — Package, 14th
Edition
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-auditing-the-art-
and-science-of-assurance-engagements-fourteenth-canadian-edition-plus-
mylab-accounting-with-pearson-etext-package-14th-edition/
testbankmall.com

Test Bank For Social Studies in Elementary Education Plus

MyEducationLab with Pearson eText — Access Card Package,
14/E 14th Edition
https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-social-studies-in-
elementary-education-plus-myeducationlab-with-pearson-etext-access-
card-package-14-e-14th-edition/
testbankmall.com
Solution Manual for THINK Marketing Plus MyMarketingLab
with Pearson eText — Package, 2/E – Keith J. Tuckwell
& Marina Jaffey
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-think-marketing-
plus-mymarketinglab-with-pearson-etext-package-2-e-keith-j-tuckwell-
marina-jaffey/
testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Management: A Focus on Leaders Plus

2014 MyManagementLab with Pearson eText — Package, 2/E –
Annie McKee
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-management-a-
focus-on-leaders-plus-2014-mymanagementlab-with-pearson-etext-
package-2-e-annie-mckee/
testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Experiencing MIS Plus MyMISLab with

Pearson eText — Package, 7/E – David M. Kroenke &
Randall J. Boyle
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-experiencing-mis-
plus-mymislab-with-pearson-etext-package-7-e-david-m-kroenke-randall-
j-boyle/
testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Business Essentials Plus MyBizLab with

Pearson eText — Package, 10/E – Ronald J. Ebert &
Ricky W. Griffin
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-business-
essentials-plus-mybizlab-with-pearson-etext-package-10-e-ronald-j-
ebert-ricky-w-griffin/
testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Marketing: An Introduction Plus 2014

MyMarketingLab with Pearson eText — Package, 12/E – Gary
Armstrong & Philip Kotler
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-marketing-an-
introduction-plus-2014-mymarketinglab-with-pearson-etext-
package-12-e-gary-armstrong-philip-kotler/
testbankmall.com
2. Parameter Mystery
At the bottom of the page, write the output produced by the following program.

def main():
x = "happy"
y = "pumpkin"
z = "orange"
pumpkin = "sleepy"
orange = "vampire"

orange(y, x, z)
orange(x, z, y)
orange(pumpkin, z, "y")
z = "green"
orange("x", "pumpkin", z)
orange(y, z, orange)

def orange(z, y, x):

print(y + " and " + z + " were " + x)

2 of 23
3. If/Else Simulation
For each call of the function below, write the value that is returned:

def mystery(n):
if (n < 0):
n = n * 3
return n
else:
n = n + 3
if (n % 2 == 1):
n = n + n % 10
return n

Function Call Value Returned

mystery(-5) _______________________________

mystery(0) _______________________________

mystery(7) _______________________________

mystery(18) _______________________________

mystery(49) _______________________________

3 of 23
4. Programming
Write a function named month_apart that accepts four integer parameters representing two calendar dates. Each
date consists of a month (1 through 12) and a day (1 through the number of days in that month [28-31]). Assume that
all dates occur during the same year. The method returns whether the dates are at least a month apart. For example,
the following dates are all considered to be at least a month apart from 9/19 (September 19): 2/14, 7/25, 8/2, 8/19,
10/19, 10/20, and 11/5. The following dates are NOT at least a month apart from 9/19: 9/20, 9/28, 10/1, 10/15,
and 10/18. Note that the first date could come before or after (or be the same as) the second date. Assume that all
parameter values passed are valid.

Sample calls:

month_apart( 6, 14, 9, 21) should return True, because June 14 is at least a month before September 21
month_apart( 4, 5, 5, 15) should return True, because April 5 is at least a month before May 15
month_apart( 4, 15, 5, 15) should return True, because April 15 is at least a month before May 15
month_apart( 4, 16, 5, 15) should return False, because April 16 isn't at least a month apart from May 15
month_apart( 6, 14, 6, 8) should return False, because June 14 isn't at least a month apart from June 8
month_apart( 7, 7, 6, 8) should return False, because July 7 isn't at least a month apart from June 8
month_apart( 7, 8, 6, 8) should return True, because July 8 is at least a month after June 8
month_apart(10, 14, 7, 15) should return True, because October 14 is at least a month after July 15

4 of 23
5. Programming
Write a function named print_grid that accepts two integer parameters rows and cols. The output is a comma-
separated grid of numbers where the first parameter (rows) represents the number of rows of the grid and the second
parameter (cols) represents the number of columns. The numbers count up from 1 to (rows x cols). The output are
displayed in column-major order, meaning that the numbers shown increase sequentially down each column and wrap
to the top of the next column to the right once the bottom of the current column is reached.

Assume that rows and cols are greater than 0. Here are some example calls to your function and their expected
results:

Call print_grid(3, 6) print_grid(5, 3) print_grid(4, 1) print_grid(1, 3)

Output 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 1, 6, 11 1 1, 2, 3

2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17 2, 7, 12 2
3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 3, 8, 13 3
4, 9, 14 4
5, 10, 15

5 of 23
6. Programming
Write a function named count_even_digits that accepts two integers as parameters and returns the number of
even-valued digits in the first number. An even-valued digit is either 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8. The second value represents how
many digits the number has. The second value is guaranteed to match the number of digits in the first number.

For example, the number 8546587 has four even digits (the two 8s, the 4, and the 6),
so the call count_even_digits(8346387, 7) should return 4.

You may assume that the values passed to your function are non-negative.

6 of 23
 Midterm Exam 1, Sample 1 Solutions

1. Expressions
Expression Value
8 + 5 * 3 / 2 15.5
1.5 * 4 * 7 // 8 + 3.4 8.4
73 % 10 - 6 % 10 + 28 % 3 -2
4 + 1 + 9 + (-3 + 10) + 11 // 3 24
3 // 14 // 7 / (1.0 * 2) + 10 // 6 1.0
10 > 11 == 4 / 3 > 1 False
not (2 >= 11 or 10 < 67 or 4 / 4 >= 1) False
(True or not 2 < 3) and 6 == 4 / 3 False

2. Parameter Mystery
happy and pumpkin were orange
orange and happy were pumpkin
orange and sleepy were y
pumpkin and x were green
green and pumpkin were vampire

3. If/Else Simulation

Function Call Value Returned

mystery(-5) -15
mystery(0) 6
mystery(7) 10
mystery(18) 22
mystery(49) 52

4. Programming (four solutions shown)

def month_apart(m1, d1, m2, d2):
if (m1 == m2):
return False
elif (m1 <= m2 - 2):
return True
elif (m1 >= m2 + 2):
return True
elif (m1 == m2 - 1):
if (d1 <= d2):
return True
else:
return False
elif (m1 == m2 + 1):
if (d1 >= d2):
return True
else:
return False
else:
return False

def month_apart(m1, d1, m2, d2):

if (m1 < m2 - 1 or m1 > m2 + 1):
return True
elif (m1 == m2 - 1 and d1 <= d2):
return True
elif (m1 == m2 + 1 and d1 >= d2):
return True
else:
return False

7 of 23
 def month_apart(m1, d1, m2, d2):
return (m2 - m1 > 1) or (m1 - m2 > 1) or
(m2 - m1 == 1 and d1 <= d2) or
(m1 - m2 == 1 and d1 >= d2)

def month_apart(m1, d1, m2, d2):

return abs((m1 * 31 + d1) - (m2 * 31 + d2)) >= 31

5. Programming (two solutions shown)

def print_grid(rows, cols):
for i in range(1, rows + 1):
print(i, end=’’)
for j in range(1, cols):
print(", " + str(i + rows * j), end=’’)
print()

def print_grid(rows, cols):

for i in range(1, rows + 1):
for for j in range(1, cols):
print(str(i + rows * j) + ", ", end=’’)
print(i + rows * (cols - 1))

6. Programming
def count_even_digits(n, length):
count = 0
for i in range(0,length):
digit = n % 10
n = n // 10
if (digit % 2 == 0):
count += 1

return count

Midterm 2 Sample 1
1. List Mystery
Consider the following function:

def list_mystery(list):
int x = 0
for i in range(0, len(list) - 1):
if (list[i] > list[i + 1]):
x += 1
return x

In the left-hand column below are specific lists of integers. Indicate in the right-hand column what value would be
returned by function list_mystery if the integer list in the left-hand column is passed as its parameter.

Original Contents of List Value Returned

a1 = [8]
result1 = list_mystery(a1) _____________________________

a2 = [14, 7]
result2 = list_mystery(a2) _____________________________

8 of 23
a3 = [7, 1, 3, 2, 0, 4]
result3 = list_mystery(a3) _____________________________

a4 = [10, 8, 9, 5, 6]
result4 = list_mystery(a4) _____________________________

a5 = [8, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2]
result5 = list_mystery(a5) _____________________________

9 of 23
2. Reference Semantics Mystery
The following program produces 4 lines of output. Write the output below, as it would appear on the console.

def main():
y = 1
x = 3
a = [0] * 4

mystery(a, y, x)
print(str(x) + " " + str(y) + " " + str(a))

x = y - 1
mystery(a, y, x)
print(str(x) + " " + str(y) + " " + str(a))

def mystery(a, x, y):

if (x < y):
x += 1
a[x] = 17
else:
a[y] = 17
print(str(x) + " " + str(y) + " " + str(a))

10 of 23
3. Assertions
For the following function, identify each of the three assertions in the table below as being either ALWAYS true,
NEVER true or SOMETIMES true / sometimes false at each labeled point in the code. You may abbreviate these
choices as A/N/S respectively.

def mystery():
y = 0
z = 1
next = input()

# Point A
while (next >= 0):
# Point B
if (y > z):
# Point C
z = y
y += 1
next = input()
# Point D

# Point E
return z

next < 0 y > z y == 0

Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D
Point E

11 of 23
4. File Processing
Write a function named word_stats that accepts as its parameter the name of a file that contains a sequence of
words and that reports the total number of words (as an integer) and the average word length (as an un-rounded real
number). For example, suppose file contains the following words:

To be or not to be, that is the question.

For the purposes of this problem, we will use whitespace to separate words. That means that some words include
punctuation, as in "be,". For the input above, your function should produce exactly the following output:

Total words = 10
Average length = 3.2

12 of 23
6. List Programming
Write a function named min_gap that accepts an integer list as a parameter and returns the minimum 'gap' between
adjacent values in the list. The gap between two adjacent values in a list is defined as the second value minus the first
value. For example, suppose a variable called list is a list of integers that stores the following sequence of values.

list = [1, 3, 6, 7, 12]

The first gap is 2 (3 - 1), the second gap is 3 (6 - 3), the third gap is 1 (7 - 6) and the fourth gap is 5 (12 - 7). Thus, the
call of min_gap(list) should return 1 because that is the smallest gap in the list. Notice that the minimum gap
could be a negative number. For example, if list stores the following sequence of values:

[3, 5, 11, 4, 8]

The gaps would be computed as 2 (5 - 3), 6 (11 - 5), -7 (4 - 11), and 4 (8 - 4). Of these values, -7 is the smallest, so it
would be returned.

This gap information can be helpful for determining other properties of the list. For example, if the minimum gap is
greater than or equal to 0, then you know the array is in sorted (nondecreasing) order. If the gap is greater than 0, then
you know the list is both sorted and unique (strictly increasing).

If you are passed an list with fewer than 2 elements, you should return 0.

13 of 23
6. Programming
Write a function named longest_sorted_equence that accepts a list of integers as a parameter and that returns the
length of the longest sorted (nondecreasing) sequence of integers in the list. For example, if a variable named list
stores the following values:

List = [3, 8, 10, 1, 9, 14, -3, 0, 14, 207, 56, 98, 12]

then the call of longest_sorted_sequence(list) should return 4 because the longest sorted sequence in the
array has four values in it (the sequence -3, 0, 14, 207). Notice that sorted means nondecreasing, which means that
the sequence could contain duplicates. For example, if the list stores the following values:

list2 = [17, 42, 3, 5, 5, 5, 8, 2, 4, 6, 1, 19]

Then the function would return 5 for the length of the longest sequence (the sequence 3, 5, 5, 5, 8). Your function
should return 0 if passed an empty list. Your function should return 1 if passed a list that is entirely in decreasing
order or contains only one element.

Midterm 2 Sample 1 Solutions

1.

Call Value Returned

a1 = [8]
result1 = list_mystery (a1) 0

a2 = [14, 7]
result2 = list_mystery (a2) 1

a3 = [7, 1, 3, 2, 0, 4]
result3 = list_mystery (a3) 3

a4 = [10, 8, 9, 5, 6]
result4 = list_mystery (a4) 2

a5 = [8, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2]
result5 = list_mystery (a5) 4

2.
2 3 [0, 0, 17, 0]
3 1 [0, 0, 17, 0]
1 0 [17, 0, 17, 0]
0 1 [17, 0, 17, 0]

3.
next < 0 y > z y == 0
Point A SOMETIMES NEVER ALWAYS
Point B NEVER SOMETIMES SOMETIMES

14 of 23
 Point C NEVER ALWAYS NEVER
Point D SOMETIMES SOMETIMES NEVER
Point E ALWAYS SOMETIMES SOMETIMES

4.
def word_stats(file_name):
words = open(file_name).read().split()
count = 0
sum_length = 0

for word in words:

count += 1
sum_length += len(word)
average = sum_length / count
print("Total words = " + str(count))
print("Average length = " + str(average))

5.
def min_gap(list):
if (len(list) < 2):
return 0
else:
min = list[1] - list[0]
for i in range(2, len(list)):
gap = list[i] - list[i - 1]
if (gap < min):
min = gap
return min

6.
def longest_sorted_sequence(list):
if (len(list) == 0):
return 0

max = 1
count = 1
for i in range(1, len(list)):
if (list[i] >= list[i - 1]):
count += 1
else:
count = 1

if (count > max):

max = count
return max

15 of 23
 Final Sample 1
1. While Loop Simulation
For each call of the function below, write the output that is printed:

def mystery(i, j):

while (i != 0 and j != 0):
i = i // j
j = (j - 1) // 2
print(str(i) + " " + str(j) + " ", end='')
print(i)

Function Call Output

mystery(5, 0) _______________________________

mystery(3, 2) _______________________________

mystery(16, 5) _______________________________

mystery(80, 9) _______________________________

mystery(1600, 40) _______________________________

16 of 23
2. Inheritance Mystery
Assume that the following classes have been defined:

class A(B): class C:

def method2(self): def __str__(self):
print("a 2 ", end='') return "c"
self.method1()
def method1(self):
class B(C): print("c 1 ", end='')
def __str__(se;f):
return "b" def method2(self):
print("c 2 ", end='')
def method2(self):
print("b 2 ", end='') class D(B):
super(B, seld).method2() def method1(self):
print("d 1 ", end='')
self.method2()

Given the classes above, what output is produced by the following code?

elements = [A(), B(), C(), D()]

for i in range(0, len(elements)):
print(elements[i])
elements[i].method1()
print()
elements[i].method2()
print()
print()

3. Collections Mystery
Consider the following method:
def mystery(data, pos, n):
result = set()
for i in range(0, n):
for j in range(0, n):
result.add(data[i + pos][j + pos])
return result

Suppose that a variable called grid has been declared as follows:

grid = [[8, 2, 7, 8, 2, 1], [1, 5, 1, 7, 4, 7],
[5, 9, 6, 7, 3, 2], [7, 8, 7, 7, 7, 9],
[4, 2, 6, 9, 2, 3], [2, 2, 8, 1, 1, 3]]
which means it will store the following 6-by-6 grid of values:
8 2 7 8 2 1
1 5 1 7 4 7
5 9 6 7 3 2
7 8 7 7 7 9
4 2 6 9 2 3
2 2 8 1 1 3
For each call below, indicate what value is returned. If the function call results in an error, write "error" instead.

Function Call Contents of Set Returned

mystery(grid, 2, 2) ___________________________________________________

mystery(grid, 0, 2) ___________________________________________________

17 of 23
 mystery(grid, 3, 3) ___________________________________________________

4. List Programming
Write a function named is_unique that takes a list of integers as a parameter and that returns a boolean value indicating
whether or not the values in the list are unique (True for yes, False for no). The values in the list are considered
unique if there is no pair of values that are equal. For example, if a variable called list stores the following values:

list = [3, 8, 12, 2, 9, 17, 43, -8, 46, 203, 14, 97, 10, 4]

Then the call of is_unique(list) should return True because there are no duplicated values in this list.
If instead the list stored these values:

list = [4, 7, 2, 3, 9, 12, -47, -19, 308, 3, 74]

Then the call should return False because the value 3 appears twice in this list. Notice that given this definition, a list of
0 or 1 elements would be considered unique.

5. Dictionary/Set Programming

Write a function called count_in_area_code that accepts two parameters, a dictionary from names (strings)
to phone numbers (strings) and an area code (as a string), and returns how many unique phone numbers in the
map use that area code. For example, if a map m contains these pairs:
{Marty=206-685-2181, Rick=520-206-6126, Beekto=206-685-2181,
Jenny=253-867-5309, Stuart=206-685-9138, DirecTV=800-494-4388,
Bob=206-685-9138, Benson=206-616-1246, Hottline=900-520-2767}
The call of count_in_area_code(m, "206") should return 3, because there are 3 unique phone numbers
that use the 206 area code: Marty/Beekto's number of "206-685-2181", Stuart/Bob's number of "206-685-
9138", and Benson's number of "206-616-1246".

You may assume that every phone number value string in the dictionary will begin with a 3-digit numeric area
code, and that the area code string passed will be a numeric string exactly 3 characters in length. If the
dictionary is empty or contains no phone numbers with the given area code, your function should return 0.
You may create one collection (list, dictionary, set) of your choice as auxiliary storage to solve this problem.
You can have as many simple variables as you like. You should not modify the contents of the dictionary
passed to your function.

18 of 23
19 of 23
 6. Programming
Write a function called same_pattern that returns true or false depending upon whether two strings have the same
pattern of characters. More precisely, two strings have the same pattern if they are of the same length and if two
characters in the first string are equal if and only if the characters in the corresponding positions in the second string
are also equal. Below are some examples of patterns that are the same and patterns that differ (keep in mind that the
method should return the same value no matter what order the two strings are passed).

1st String 2nd String Same Pattern?

------------ -------------- -------------
"" "" True
"a" "x" True
"a" "ab" False
"ab" "ab" True
"aa" "xy" False
"aba" "+-+" True
"---" "aba" False
"abcabc" "zodzod" True
"abcabd" "zodzoe" True
"abcabc" "xxxxxx" False
"aaassscccn" "aaabbbcccd" True
"asasasasas" "xyxyxyxyxy" True
"ascneencsa" "aeiouuoiea" True
"aaassscccn" "aaabbbcccd" True
"asasasasas" "xxxxxyyyyy" False
"ascneencsa" "aeiouaeiou" False
"aaassscccn" "xxxyyyzzzz" False
"aaasssiiii" "gggdddfffh" False

Your function should take two parameters: the two strings to compare. You are allowed to create new strings, but
otherwise you are not allowed to construct extra data structures to solve this problem (no list, set, dictionary, etc).
You are limited to the string functions on the cheat sheet.

7. 2-d Lists
Write a function called find_max that takes a two dimensional list as a parameter and returns the number of the row
that sums to the greatest value. For example if you had the following list of lists:
list = [[1, 2, 3], [2, 3, 3], [1, 3, 3]]
The first row would be 6, the second 8 and the third 7. The function would therefore return 1.
You can assume the passed in list of lists has at least one row and one column. You cannot assume that it is square.

8. Critters
Write a class Ostrich that extends the Critter class from the Critters assignment, including its get_move and
get_color methods. An Ostrich object first stays in the same place for 10 moves, then moves 10 steps to either the
WEST or the EAST, then repeats. In other words, after sitting still for 10 moves, the ostrich randomly picks to go west
or east, then walks 10 steps in that same direction. Then it stops and sits still for 10 moves and repeats. Whenever an
Ostrich is moving (that is, whenever its last call to get_move returned a direction other than DIRECTION_CENTER),
its color should be white ("white"). As soon as it stops moving, and initially when it first appears in the critter world,
its color should be cyan ("cyan"). When randomly choosing west vs. east, the two directions should be equally likely.

You may add anything needed (fields, other methods) to implement the above behavior appropriately. All other
critter behavior not discussed here uses the default values.

20 of 23
9. Classes and Objects

Suppose that you are provided with a pre-written class Date as # Each Date object stores a single
described at right. (The headings are shown, but not the method # month/day such as September 19.
# This class ignores leap years.
bodies, to save space.) Assume that the fields, constructor, and
methods shown are already implemented. You may refer to them class Date:
or use them in solving this problem if necessary. # Constructs a date with
# the given month and day.
Write an instance method named compare that will be placed inside def __init__(self, m, d):
the Date class to become a part of each Date object's behavior. self.__ month = m
The compare method accepts another Date as a parameter and self.__ day = d
compares the two dates to see which comes first in chronological
# Returns the date's day.
order. It returns an integer with one of the following values: def get_day(self)

• a negative integer (such as -1) if the date represented by # Returns the date's month.
this Date comes before that of the parameter def get_month(self)
• 0 if the two Date objects represent the same month and
# Returns the number of days
day # in this date's month.
• a positive integer (such as 1) if the date represented by def days_in_month(self)
this Date comes after that of the parameter
# Modifies this date's state
# so that it has moved forward
For example, if these Date objects are declared in client code:
# in time by 1 day, wrapping
# around into the next month
sep19 = Date(9, 19)
# or year if necessary.
dec15 = Date(12, 15)
# example: 9/19 -> 9/20
temp = Date(9, 19)
# example: 9/30 -> 10/1
sep11 = Date(9, 11)
# example: 12/31 -> 1/1
The following boolean expressions should have True results. def next_day()

sep19.compare(sep11) > 0
sep11.compare(sep19) < 0 # your method would go here
temp.compare(sep19) == 0
dec15.compare(sep11) > 0

Your method should not modify the state of either Date object (such
as by changing their day or month field values).

Final Sample 1 Solutions

1. While Loop Simulation

Function Call Output

mystery(5, 0) 5
mystery(3, 2) 1 0 1
mystery(16, 5) 3 2 1 0 1
mystery(80, 9) 8 4 2 1 2 0 2
mystery(1600, 40) 40 19 2 9 0 4 0

2. Inheritance Mystery
21 of 23
 b
c 1
a 2 c 1

b
c 1
b 2 c 2

c
c 1
c 2

b
d 1 b 2 c 2
b 2 c 2

3. Collections Mystery
Function Call Contents of Set Returned
-----------------------------------------------
mystery(grid, 2, 2) [6, 7]
mystery(grid, 0, 2) [1, 2, 5, 8]
mystery(grid, 3, 3) [1, 2, 3, 7, 9]

4. List Programming
def is_unique(list):
for i in range(1, len(list)):
for j in range(i, len(list)):
if (list[i - 1] == list[j]):
return False
return True

5. Collections Programming
def count_in_area_code(numbers, area_code):
unique_numbers = set()
for name, phone in numbers.items():
if (phone[0:3] == area_code):
unique_numbers.add(phone)
return len(unique_numbers)

6. Programming
def same_pattern(s1, s2):
if (len(s1) != len(s2)):
return False
for i in range(0, len(s1)):
for j in range(i + 1, len(s1)):
if (s1[i] == s1[j] and s2[i] != s2[j]):
return False
if (s2[i] == s2[j] and s1[i] != s1[j]):
return False
return True

22 of 23
7. 2d Lists

def find_max(lis):
max_sum = 0
max_row = 0
for i in range(0, len(lis)):
cur_sum = 0
cur_row = i
for j in range(0, len(lis[i])):
cur_sum += lis[i][j]
if cur_sum > max_sum:
max_sum = cur_sum
max_row = cur_row
return max_row

8. Critters
class Ostrich(Critter):
def __init__(self):
super(Ostrich, self).__init__()
self.__hiding = True
self.__steps = 0
self.__west = randint(0, 1) == 0

def get_color(self):
if (self.__hiding):
return "cyan"
else:
return "white"

def get_move(self):
if (self.__steps == 10):
self.__steps = 0 # Pick a new direction and re-set the steps counter
self.__hiding = not self.__hiding
self.__west = randint(0, 1) == 0

self.__steps += 1
if (self.__hiding):
return DIRECTION_CENTER
elif (self.__west):
return DIRECTION_WEST
else:
return DIRECTION_EAST
9. Classes
def compare(other):
if (self.__month < other.__month or (self.__month == other.__month and
self.__day < other.__day)):
return -1
elif (self.__month == other.__month and self.__day == other.__day):
return 0
else:
return 1

23 of 23
Other documents randomly have
different content
 The statues were carried away from Athens by Xerxês, and restored to the
Athenians by Alexander after his conquest of Persia (Arrian, Ex. Al. iii, 14, 16;
Pliny, H. N. xxxiv, 4-8).
 [222] One of these stories may be seen in Justin, ii, 9,—who gives the name
of Dioklês to Hipparchus,—“Diocles, alter ex filiis, per vim stupratâ virgine, a
fratre puellæ interficitur.”

[223] Ἡ γὰρ δειλία φονικώτατόν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς τυραννίσιν—observes Plutarch,

(Artaxerxês, c. 25).

[224] Pausan. i, 23, 2: Plutarch, De Garrulitate, p. 897; Polyæn. viii, 45;

Athenæus, xiii. p. 596.

[225] We can hardly be mistaken in putting this interpretation on the words

of Thucydidês—Ἀθηναῖος ὢν, Λαμψακηνῷ ἔδωκε (vi, 59).
Some financial tricks and frauds are ascribed to Hippias by the author of the
Pseudo-Aristotelian second book of the Œconomica (ii, 4). I place little reliance on
the statements in this treatise respecting persons of early date, such as Kypselus
or Hippias; in respect to facts of the subsequent period of Greece, between 450-
300 B. C., the author’s means of information will doubtless render him a better
witness.

[226] Herodot. vi, 36-37.

[227] Thus the Scythians broke into the Chersonese even during the
government of Miltiadês son of Kimôn, nephew of Miltiadês the œkist, about forty
years after the wall had been erected (Herodot. vi, 40). Again, Periklês
reëstablished the cross-wall, on sending to the Chersonese a fresh band of one
thousand Athenian settlers (Plutarch, Periklês, c. 19): lastly, Derkyllidas the
Lacedæmonian built it anew, in consequence of loud complaints raised by the
inhabitants of their defenceless condition,—about 397 B. C. (Xenophon. Hellen. iii,
2, 8-10). So imperfect, however, did the protection prove, that about half a
century afterwards, during the first years of the conquests of Philip of Macedon,
an idea was entertained of digging through the isthmus, and converting the
peninsula into an island (Demosthenês, Philippic ii, 6, p. 92, and De Haloneso, c.
10, p. 86); an idea, however, never carried into effect.

[228] Herodot. vi, 38, 39.

[229] Herodot. v, 94. I have already said that I conceive this as a different
war from that in which the poet Alkæus was engaged.

[230] Herodot. iii, 39.

 [231] Herodot. vi, 104, 139, 140.

[232] Herodot. vi, 39-103. Cornelius Nepos, in his Life of Miltiadês,

confounds in one biography the adventures of two persons,—Miltiadês son of
Kypselus, the œkist,—and Miltiadês son of Kimôn, the victor of Marathon,—the
uncle and the nephew.

[233] There is nothing that I know to mark the date except that it was earlier
than the death of Hipparchus in 514 B. C., and also earlier than the expedition of
Darius against the Scythians, about 516 B. C., in which expedition Miltiadês was
engaged: see Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, and J. M. Schultz, Beitrag zu genaueren
Zeitbestimmungen der Hellen. Geschichten von der 63sten bis zur 72sten
Olympiade, p. 165, in the Kieler Philologische Studien 1841.

[234] Herodot. v, 62. The unfortunate struggle at Leipsydrion became

afterwards the theme of a popular song (Athenæus, xv, p. 695): see Hesychius, v.
Λειψύδριον, and Aristotle, Fragm. Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία, 37, ed. Neumann.
If it be true that Alkibiadês, grandfather of the celebrated Alkibiadês, took part
with Kleisthenês and the Alkmæonid exiles in this struggle (see Isokratês, De
Bigis, Or. xvi, p. 351), he must have been a mere youth.

[235] Pausan. x, 5, 5.

[236] Herodot. i, 50, ii, 180. I have taken the three hundred talents of
Herodotus as being Æginæan talents, which are to Attic talents in the ratio of
5 : 3. The Inscriptions prove that the accounts of the temple were kept by the
Amphiktyons on the Æginæan scale of money: see Corpus Inscrip. Boeckh, No.
1688, and Boeckh, Metrologie, vii, 4.

[237] Herodot. vi, 62. The words of the historian would seem to imply that
they only began to think of this scheme of building the temple after the defeat of
Leipsydrion, and a year or two before the expulsion of Hippias; a supposition
quite inadmissible, since the temple must have taken some years in building.
The loose and prejudiced statement in Philochorus, affirming that the
Peisistratids caused the Delphian temple to be burnt, and also that they were at
last deposed by the victorious arm of the Alkmæônids (Philochori Fragment. 70,
ed. Didot) makes us feel the value of Herodotus and Thucydidês as authorities.

[238] Herodot. vi, 128; Cicero, De Legg. ii, 16. The deposit here mentioned
by Cicero, which may very probably have been recorded in an inscription in the
temple, must have been made before the time of the Persian conquest of Samos,
—indeed, before the death of Polykratês in 522 B. C., after which period the island
fell at once into a precarious situation, and very soon afterwards into the greatest
calamities.
 [239] Herodot. v, 62, 63.

[240] Herodot. v, 64, 65.

[241] Thucyd. vi, 56, 57.

[242] Thucyd. vi, 55. ὡς ὅ τε βωμὸς σημαίνει, καὶ ἡ στήλη περὶ τῆς τῶν
τυράννων ἀδικίας, ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἀθηναίων ἀκροπόλει σταθεῖσα.
Dr. Thirlwall, after mentioning the departure of Hippias, proceeds as follows:
“After his departure many severe measures were taken against his adherents,
who appear to have been for a long time afterwards a formidable party. They
were punished or repressed, some by death, others by exile or by the loss of their
political privileges. The family of the tyrants was condemned to perpetual
banishment, and appears to have been excepted from the most comprehensive
decrees of amnesty passed in later times.” (Hist. of Gr. ch. xi, vol. ii, p. 81.)
I cannot but think that Dr. Thirlwall has here been misled by insufficient
authority. He refers to the oration of Andokidês de Mysteriis, sects. 106 and 78
(sect. 106 coincides in part with ch. 18, in the ed. of Dobree). An attentive
reading of it will show that it is utterly unworthy of credit in regard to matters
anterior to the speaker by one generation or more. The orators often permit
themselves great license in speaking of past facts, but Andokidês in this chapter
passes the bounds even of rhetorical license. First, he states something not
bearing the least analogy to the narrative of Herodotus as to the circumstances
preceding the expulsion of the Peisistratids, and indeed tacitly setting aside that
narrative; next, he actually jumbles together the two capital and distinct exploits
of Athens,—the battle of Marathon and the repulse of Xerxês ten years after it. I
state this latter charge in the words of Sluiter and Valckenaer, before I consider
the former charge: “Verissime ad hæc verba notat Valckenaerius—Confundere
videtur Andocidês diversissima; Persica sub Miltiade et Dario et victoriam
Marathoniam (v, 14)—quæque evenere sub Themistocle, Xerxis gesta. Hic urbem
incendio delevit, non ille (v, 20). Nihil magis manifestum est, quam diversa ab
oratore confundi.” (Sluiter, Lection. Andocideæ, p. 147.)
The criticism of these commentators is perfectly borne out by the words of the
orator, which are too long to find a place here. But immediately prior to those
words he expresses himself as follows, and this is the passage which serves as Dr.
Thirlwall’s authority: Οἱ γὰρ πατέρες οἱ ὑμέτεροι, γενομένων τῇ πόλει κακῶν
μεγάλων, ὅτε οἱ τύραννοι εἶχον τὴν πόλιν, ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἔφυγε, νικήσαντες
μαχόμενοι τοὺς τυράννους ἐπὶ Παλληνίῳ, στρατηγοῦντος Λεωγόρου τοῦ
προπάππου τοῦ ἐμοῦ, καὶ Χαρίου οὗ ἐκεῖνος τὴν θυγατέρα εἶχεν ἐξ ἧς ὁ ἡμέτερος
ἦν πάππος, κατελθόντες εἰς τὴν πατρίδα τοὺς μὲν ἀπέκτειναν, τῶν δὲ φυγὴν
κατέγνωσαν, τοὺς δὲ μένειν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐάσαντες ἠτίμωσαν.
Both Sluiter (Lect. And. p. 8) and Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. p. 80) refer this alleged
victory of Leogoras and the Athenian demus to the action described by Herodotus
(v, 64) as having been fought by Kleomenês of Sparta against the Thessalian
cavalry. But the two events have not a single circumstance in common, except
that each is a victory over the Peisistratidæ or their allies: nor could they well be
the same event, described in different terms, seeing that Kleomenês, marching
from Sparta to Athens, could not have fought the Thessalians at Pallênê, which
lay on the road from Marathon to Athens. Pallênê was the place where
Peisistratus, advancing from Marathon to Athens, on occasion of his second
restoration, gained his complete victory over the opposing party, and marched on
afterwards to Athens without farther resistance (Herodot. i, 63).
If, then, we compare the statement given by Andokidês of the preceding
circumstances, whereby the dynasty of the Peisistratids was put down, with that
given by Herodotus, we shall see that the two are radically different; we cannot
blend them together, but must make our election between them. Not less
different are the representations of the two as to the circumstances which
immediately ensued on the fall of Hippias: they would scarcely appear to relate to
the same event. That “the adherents of the Peisistratidæ were punished or
repressed, some by death, others by exile, or by the loss of their political
privileges,” which is the assertion of Andokidês and Dr. Thirlwall, is not only not
stated by Herodotus, but is highly improbable, if we accept the facts which he
does state; for he tells us that Hippias capitulated and agreed to retire while
possessing ample means of resistance,—simply from regard to the safety of his
children. It is not to be supposed that he would leave his intimate partisans
exposed to danger; such of them as felt themselves obnoxious would naturally
retire along with him; and if this be what is meant by “many persons condemned
to exile,” here is no reason to call it in question. But there is little probability that
any one was put to death, and still less probability that any were punished by the
loss of their political privileges. Within a year afterwards came the comprehensive
constitution of Kleisthenês, to be described in the following chapter, and I
consider it eminently unlikely that there were a considerable class of residents in
Attica left out of this constitution, under the category of partisans of Peisistratus:
indeed, the fact cannot be so, if it be true that the very first person banished
under the Kleisthenean ostracism was a person named Hipparchus, a kinsman of
Peisistratus (Androtion, Fr. 5, ed. Didot; Harpokration, v. Ἵππαρχος); and this
latter circumstance depends upon evidence better than that of Andokidês. That
there were a party in Attica attached to the Peisistratids, I do not doubt; but that
they were “a powerful party,” (as Dr. Thirlwall imagines,) I see nothing to show;
and the extraordinary vigor and unanimity of the Athenian people under the
Kleisthenean constitution will go far to prove that such could not have been the
case.
I will add another reason to evince how completely Andokidês misconceives
the history of Athens between 510-480 B. C. He says that when the Peisistratids
were put down, many of their partisans were banished, many others allowed to
stay at home with the loss of their political privileges; but that afterwards, when
the overwhelming dangers of the Persian invasion supervened, the people passed
a vote to restore the exiles and to remove the existing disfranchisements at
home. He would thus have us believe that the exiled partisans of the Peisistratids
were all restored, and the disfranchised partisans of the Peisistratids all
enfranchised, just at the moment of the Persian invasion, and with the view of
enabling Athens better to repel that grave danger. This is nothing less than a
glaring mistake; for the first Persian invasion was undertaken with the express
view of restoring Hippias, and with the presence of Hippias himself at Marathon;
while the second Persian invasion was also brought on in part by the instigation
of his family. Persons who had remained in exile or in a state of disfranchisement
down to that time, in consequence of their attachment to the Peisistratids, could
not in common prudence be called into action at the moment of peril, to help in
repelling Hippias himself. It is very true that the exiles and the disfranchised were
readmitted, shortly before the invasion of Xerxês, and under the then pressing
calamities of the state. But these persons were not philo-Peisistratids; they were
a number gradually accumulated from the sentences of exile and (atimy or)
disfranchisement every year passed at Athens,—for these were punishments
applied by the Athenian law to various crimes and public omissions,—the persons
so sentenced were not politically disaffected, and their aid would then be of use
in defending the state against a foreign enemy.
In regard to “the exception of the family of Peisistratus from the most
comprehensive decrees of amnesty passed in later times,” I will also remark that,
in the decree of amnesty, there is no mention of them by name, nor any special
exception made against them: among a list of various categories excepted, those
are named “who have been condemned to death or exile either as murderers or
as despots,” (ἢ σφαγεῦσιν ἢ τυράννοις, Andokid. c. 13.) It is by no means certain
that the descendants of Peisistratus would be comprised in this exception, which
mentions only the person himself condemned; but even if this were otherwise,
the exception is a mere continuance of similar words of exception in the old
Solonian law, anterior to Peisistratus; and, therefore, affords no indication of
particular feeling against the Peisistratids.
Andokidês is a useful authority for the politics of Athens in his own time
(between 420-390 B. C.), but in regard to the previous history of Athens between
510-480 B. C., his assertions are so loose, confused, and unscrupulous, that he is
a witness of no value. The mere circumstance noted by Valckenaer, that he has
confounded together Marathon and Salamis, would be sufficient to show this; but
when we add to such genuine ignorance his mention of his two great-
grandfathers in prominent and victorious leadership, which it is hardly credible
that they could ever have occupied,—when we recollect that the facts which he
alleges to have preceded and accompanied the expulsion of the Peisistratids are
not only at variance with those stated by Herodotus, but so contrived as to found
a factitious analogy for the cause which he is himself pleading,—we shall hardly
be able to acquit him of something worse than ignorance in his deposition.
 [243] Herodot. v, 66-69 ἑσσούμενος δὲ ὁ Κλεισθένης τὸν δῆμον
προσεταιρίζεται—ὡς γὰρ δὴ τὸν Ἀθηναίων δῆμον, πρότερον ἀπωσμένον πάντων,
τότε πρὸς τὴν ἑωϋτοῦ μοίρην προσεθήκατο, etc.

[244] Aristot. Polit. iii, 1, 10; vi, 2, 11. Κλεισθένης,—πολλοῖς ἐφυλέτευσε

ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους.
Several able critics, and Dr. Thirlwall among the number, consider this passage
as affording no sense, and assume some conjectural emendation to be
indispensable; though there is no particular emendation which suggests itself as
preëminently plausible. Under these circumstances, I rather prefer to make the
best of the words as they stand; which, though unusual, seem to me not
absolutely inadmissible. The expression ξένος μέτοικος (which is a perfectly good
one, as we find in Aristoph. Equit. 347,—εἴπου δικιδίον εἶπας εὖ κατὰ ξένου
μετοίκου) may be considered as the correlative to δούλους μετοίκους,—the last
word being construed both with δούλους and with ξένους. I apprehend that there
always must have been in Attica a certain number of intelligent slaves living apart
from their masters (χωρὶς οἰκοῦντες), in a state between slavery and freedom,
working partly on condition of a fixed payment to him, partly for themselves, and
perhaps continuing to pass nominally as slaves after they had bought their liberty
by instalments. Such men would be δοῦλοι μέτοικοι: indeed, there are cases in
which δοῦλοι signifies freedmen (Meier, De Gentilitate Atticâ, p. 6): they must
have been industrious and pushing men, valuable partisans to a political
revolution. See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. Staats Alterth. ch. 111, not.
15.

[245] Herodot. v, 69. Κλεισθένης,—ὑπεριδὼν Ἴωνας, ἵνα μὴ σφισι αἱ αὐταὶ

ἔωσι φυλαὶ καὶ Ἴωσι.

[246] Such a disposition seems evident in Herodot. i, 143.

[247] In illustration of what is here stated, see the account of the

modifications of the constitution of Zurich, in Blüntschli, Staats und Rechts
Geschichte der Stadt Zurich, book iii. ch. 2, p. 322; also, Kortüm, Entstehungs
Geschichte der Freistädtischen Bünde im Mittelalter, ch. 5, pp. 74-75.

[248] Respecting these Eponymous Heroes of the Ten Tribes, and the
legends connected with them, see chapter viii of the Ἐπιτάφιος Λόγος,
erroneously ascribed to Demosthenês.

[249] Herodot. v, 69. δέκα δὲ καὶ τοὺς δήμους κατένεμε ἐς τὰς φυλάς.
Schömann contends that Kleisthenês established exactly one hundred demes
to the ten tribes (De Comitiis Atheniensium, Præf. p. xv and p. 363, and
Antiquitat. Jur. Pub. Græc. ch. xxii, p. 260), and K. F. Hermann (Lehrbuch der
Griech. Staats Alt. ch. 111) thinks that this is what Herodotus meant to affirm,
though he does not believe the fact to have really stood so.
I incline, as the least difficulty in the case, to construe δέκα with φυλὰς and
not with δήμους, as Wachsmuth (i, 1, p. 271) and Dieterich (De Clisthene, a
treatise cited by K. F. Hermann, but which I have not seen) construe it.

[250] The deme Melitê belonged to the tribe Kekropis; Kollytus, to the tribe
Ægêis; Kydathenæon, to the tribe Pandionis; Kerameis or Kerameikus, to the
Akamantis; Skambônidæ, to the Leontis.
All these five were demes within the city of Athens, and all belonged to
different tribes.
Peiræus belonged to the Hippothoöntis; Phalêrum, to the Æantis; Xypetê, to
the Kekropis; Thymætadæ, to the Hippothoöntis. These four demes, adjoining to
each other, formed a sort of quadruple local union, for festivals and other
purposes, among themselves; though three of them belonged to different tribes.
See the list of the Attic demes, with a careful statement of their localities in so
far as ascertained, in Professor Ross, Die Demen von Attika. Halle, 1846. The
distribution of the city-demes, and of Peiræus and Phalêrum, among different
tribes, appears to me a clear proof of the intention of the original distributors. It
shows that they wished from the beginning to make the demes constituting each
tribe discontinuous, and that they desired to prevent both the growth of separate
tribe-interests and ascendency of one tribe over the rest. It contradicts the belief
of those who suppose that the tribe was at first composed of continuous demes,
and that the breach of continuity arose from subsequent changes.
Of course there were many cases in which adjoining demes belonged to the
same tribe; but not one of the ten tribes was made up altogether of adjoining
demes.

[251] See Boeckh, Corp. Inscriptt. Nos. 85, 128, 213, etc.: compare
Demosthen. cont. Theokrin. c. 4. p. 1326 R.

[252] We may remark that this register was called by a special name, the
Lexiarchic register; while the primitive register of phrators and gentiles always
retained, even in the time of the orators, its original name of the common register
—Harpokration, v. Κοινὸν γραμματεῖον καὶ ληξιαρχικόν.

[253] See Schömann, Antiq. Jur. P. Græc. ch. xxiv. The oration of
Demosthenês against Eubulidês is instructive about these proceedings of the
assembled demots: compare Harpokration, v. Διαψήφισις, and Meier, De Bonis
Damnatorum, ch. xii, p. 78, etc.

[254] Aristot. Fragment. de Republ., ed. Neumann.—Ἀθην. πολιτ. Fr. 40, p.

88; Schol. ad Aristophan. Ran. 37; Harpokration, v. Δήμαρχος—Ναυκραρικά;
Photius, v. Ναυκραρία.
 [255] Herodot. vi, 109-111.

[256] Harpokration, v. Ἀποδέκται.

[257] See the valuable treatise of Schömann, De Comitiis, passim; also his
Antiq. Jur. Publ. Gr. ch. xxxi; Harpokration, v. Κυρία Ἐκκλησία; Pollux, viii, 95.

[258] See in particular on this subject the treatise of Schömann, De

Sortitione Judicum (Gripswald, 1820), and the work of the same author, Antiq.
Jur. Publ. Græc. ch. 49-55, p. 264, seqq.; also Heffter, Die Athenäische
Gerichtsverfassung, part ii, ch. 2, p. 51, seqq.; Meier and Schömann, Der Attische
Prozess, pp. 127-135.
The views of Schömann respecting the sortition of the Athenian jurors have
been bitterly attacked, but in no way refuted, by F. V. Fritzsche (De Sortitione
Judicum apud Athenienses Conmentatio, Leipsic, 1835).
Two or three of these dikastic tickets, marking the name and the deme of the
citizen, and the letter of the decury to which during that particular year he
belonged, have been recently dug up near Athens:—
Δ. Διόδωρος Ε. Δεινίας
Φρεάῤῥιος Ἀλαιεύς.
(Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. Nos. 207-208.)
Fritzsche (p. 73) considers these to be tickets of senators, not of dikasts,
contrary to all probability.
For the Heliastic oath, and its remarkable particulars, see Demosthen. cont.
Timokrat. p. 746. See also Aristophanês, Plutus, 277 (with the valuable Scholia,
though from different hands and not all of equal correctness) and 972;
Ekklesiazusæ, 678, seqq.

[259] Plutarch, Arist. 7; Herodot. vi, 109-111.

[260] Aristotle puts these two together; election of magistrates by the mass
of the citizens, but only out of persons possessing a high pecuniary qualification;
this he ranks as the least democratical democracy, if one may use the phrase
(Politic. iii, 6-11), or a mean between democracy and oligarchy,—an ἀριστοκρατία,
or πολιτεῖα, in his sense of the word (iv, 7, 3). He puts the employment of the lot
as a symptom of decisive and extreme democracy, such as would never tolerate a
pecuniary qualification of eligibility.
So again Plato (Legg. iii, p. 692), after remarking that the legislator of Sparta
first provided the senate, next the ephors, as a bridle upon the kings, says of the
ephors that they were “something nearly approaching to an authority emanating
from the lot,”—οἷον ψάλιον ἐνέβαλεν αὐτῇ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων δύναμιν, ἐγγὺς τῆς
κληρωτῆς ἀγαγὼν δυνάμεως.
 Upon which passage there are some good remarks in Schömann’s edition of
Plutarch’s Lives of Agis and Kleomenês (Comment. ad Ag. c. 8, p. 119). It is to be
recollected that the actual mode in which the Spartan ephors were chosen, as I
have already stated in my first volume, cannot be clearly made out, and has been
much debated by critics:—
“Mihi hæc verba, quum illud quidem manifestum faciant, quod etiam aliunde
constat, sorte captos ephoros non esse, tum hoc alterum, quod Hermannus
statuit, creationem sortitioni non absimilem fuisse, nequaquam demonstrare
videntur. Nimirum nihil aliud nisi prope accedere ephororum magistratus ad cos
dicitur, qui sortito capiantur. Sortitis autem magistratibus hoc maxime proprium
est, ut promiscue—non ex genere, censu, dignitate—a quolibet capi possint:
quamobrem quum ephori quoque fere promiscue fierent ex omni multitudine
civium, poterat haud dubie magistratus eorum ἐγγὺς τῆς κληρωτῆς δυνάμεως
esse dici, etiamsi αἱρετοὶ essent—h. e. suffragiis creati. Et video Lachmannum
quoque, p. 165, not. 1, de Platonis loco similiter judicare.”
The employment of the lot, as Schömann remarks, implies universal
admissibility of all citizens to office: though the converse does not hold good,—
the latter does not of necessity imply the former. Now, as we know that universal
admissibility did not become the law of Athens until after the battle of Platæa, so
we may conclude that the employment of the lot had no place before that epoch,
—i. e. had no place under the constitution of Kleisthenês.

[261] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 9-16.

[262] See a passage about such characters in Plato, Republic, v, p. 475 B.

[263] Plutarch, Arist. 22.

[264] So at least the supporters of the constitution of Kleisthenês were called

by the contemporaries of Periklês.

[265] Plutarch, Arist. ut sup. γράφει ψήφισμα, κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ
τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἐξ Ἀθηναίων πάντων αἱρεῖσθαι.

[266] So in the Italian republics of the twelfth and thirteenth century, the
nobles long continued to possess the exclusive right of being elected to the
consulate and the great offices of state, even after those offices had come to be
elected by the people: the habitual misrule and oppression of the nobles
gradually put an end to this right, and even created in many towns a resolution
positively to exclude them. At Milan, towards the end of the twelfth century, the
twelve consuls, with the Podestat, possessed all the powers of government: these
consuls were nominated by one hundred electors chosen by and among the
people. Sismondi observes: “Cependant le peuple imposa lui-même a ces
électeurs, la règle fondamentale de choisir tous les magistrats dans le corps de la
noblesse. Ce n’étoit point encore la possession des magistratures que l’on
contestoit aux gentilshommes: on demandoit seulement qu’ils fussent les
mandataires immédiats de la nation. Mais plus d’une fois, en dépit du droit
incontestable des citoyens, les consuls regnant s’attribuèrent l’élection de leurs
successeurs.” (Sismondi, Histoire des Républiques Italiennes, chap. xii, vol. ii, p.
240.)

[267] Plutarch, Kimon, c. 15. τὴν ἐπὶ Κλεισθένους ἐγείρειν ἀριστοκρατίαν

πειρωμένου: compare Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 2, and Isokratês, Areopagiticus, Or.
vii, p. 143, p. 192, ed. Bek.

[268] Herodotus speaks of Kallimachus the Polemarch, at Marathon, as ὁ τῷ

κυάμῳ λαχὼν Πολέμαρχος (vi, 110).
I cannot but think that in this case he transfers to the year 490 B. C. the
practice of his own time. The polemarch, at the time of the battle of Marathon,
was in a certain sense the first stratêgus; and the stratêgi were never taken by
lot, but always chosen by show of hands, even to the end of the democracy. It
seems impossible to believe that the stratêgi were elected, and that the
polemarch, at the time when his functions were the same as theirs, was chosen
by lot.
Herodotus seems to have conceived the choice of magistrates by lot as being
of the essence of a democracy (Herodot. iii, 80).
Plutarch also (Periklês, c. 9) seems to have conceived the choice of archons by
lot as a very ancient institution of Athens: nevertheless, it results from the first
chapter of his life of Aristeidês,—an obscure chapter, in which conflicting
authorities are mentioned without being well discriminated,—that Aristeidês was
chosen archon by the people,—not drawn by lot: an additional reason for
believing this is, that he was archon in the year following the battle of Marathon,
at which, he had been one of the ten generals. Idomeneus distinctly affirmed this
to be the fact.—οὐ κυαμευτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑλομένων Ἀθηναίων (Plutarch, Arist. c. 1).
Isokratês also (Areopagit. Or. vii, p. 144, p. 195, ed. Bekker) conceived the
constitution of Kleisthenês as including all the three points noticed in the text: 1.
A high pecuniary qualification of eligibility for individual offices. 2. Election to
these offices by all the citizens, and accountability to the same after office. 3. No
employment of the lot.—He even contends that this election is more truly
democratical than sortition; since the latter process might admit men attached to
oligarchy, which would not happen under the former,—ἔπειτα καὶ δημοτικωτέραν
ἐνόμιζον ταύτην τὴν κατάστασιν ἢ τὴν διὰ τοῦ λαγχάνειν γιγνομένην· ἐν μὲν γὰρ
τῇ κληρώσει τὴν τύχην βραβεύσειν, καὶ πολλάκις λήψεσθαι τὰς ἀρχὰς τοὺς τῆς
ὀλιγαρχίας ἐπιθυμοῦντας, etc. This would be a good argument if there were no
pecuniary qualification for eligibility,—such pecuniary qualification is a provision
which he lays down, but which he does not find it convenient to insist upon
emphatically.
 I do not here advert to the γραφὴ παρανόμων, the νομοφύλακες, and the
sworn νομόθεται,—all of them institutions belonging to the time of Periklês at the
earliest; not to that of Kleisthenês.

[269] See above, chap. xi. vol. iii. p. 145.

[270] Aristeidês Rhetor. Orat. xlvi. vol ii. p. 317, ed. Dindorf.

[271] Plutarch (Nikias, c. 11; Alkibiad. c. 13; Aristeid. c. 7): Thucyd. viii, 73.
Plato Comicus said, respecting Hyperbolus—
Οὐ γὰρ τοιούτων οὕνεκ᾽ ὄστραχ᾽ ηὑρέθη.
Theophrastus had stated that Phæax, and not Nikias, was the rival of
Alkibiadês on this occasion, when Hyperbolus was ostracized; but most authors,
says Plutarch, represent Nikias as the person. It is curious that there should be
any difference of statement about a fact so notorious, and in the best-known time
of Athenian history.
Taylor thinks that the oration which now passes as that of Andokidês against
Alkibiadês, is really by Phæax, and was read by Plutarch as the oration of Phæax
in an actual contest of ostracism between Phæax, Nikias, and Alkibiadês. He is
opposed by Ruhnken and Valckenaer (see Sluiter’s preface to that oration, c. 1,
and Ruhnken, Hist. Critic. Oratt. Græcor. p. 135). I cannot agree with either: I
cannot think with him, that it is a real oration of Phæax; nor with them, that it is
a real oration in any genuine cause of ostracism whatever. It appears to me to
have been composed after the ostracism had fallen into desuetude, and when the
Athenians had not only become somewhat ashamed of it, but had lost the familiar
conception of what it really was. For how otherwise can we explain the fact, that
the author of that oration complains that he is about to be ostracized without any
secret voting, in which the very essence of the ostracism consisted, and from
which its name was borrowed (οὔτε διαψηφισαμένων κρυβδὴν, c. 2)? His oration
is framed as if the audience whom he was addressing were about to ostracize one
out of the three, by show of hands. But the process of ostracizing included no
meeting and haranguing,—nothing but simple deposit of the shells in a cask; as
may be seen by the description of the special railing-in of the agora, and by the
story (true or false) of the unlettered country-citizen coming into the city to give
his vote, and asking Aristeidês, without even knowing his person, to write the
name for him on the shell (Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 7). There was, indeed, previous
discussion in the senate as well as in the ekklesia, whether a vote of ostracism
should be entered upon at all; but the author of the oration to which I allude
does not address himself to that question; he assumes that the vote is actually
about to be taken, and that one of the three—himself, Nikias, or Alkibiadês—must
be ostracized (c. 1). Now, doubtless, in practice, the decision commonly lay
between two formidable rivals; but it was not publicly or formally put so before
the people: every citizen might write upon the shell such name as he chose.
Farther, the open denunciation of the injustice of ostracism as a system (c. 2),
proves an age later than the banishment of Hyperbolus. Moreover, the author
having begun by remarking that he stands in contest with Nikias as well as with
Alkibiadês, says nothing more about Nikias to the end of the speech.

[272] See the discussion of the ostracism in Aristot. Politic. iii, 8, where he
recognizes the problem as one common to all governments.
Compare, also, a good Dissertation—J. A. Paradys, De Ostracismo
Atheniensium, Lugduni Batavor. 1793; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen
Staatsalterthümer, ch. 130; and Schömann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. Græc. ch. xxxv, p.
233.

[273] Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 3.

[274] The barathrum was a deep pit, said to have had iron spikes at the
bottom, into which criminals condemned to death were sometimes cast. Though
probably an ancient Athenian punishment, it seems to have become at the very
least extremely rare, if not entirely disused, during the times of Athens historically
known to us; but the phrase continued in speech after the practice had become
obsolete. The iron spikes depend on the evidence of the Schol. Aristophan.
Plutus, 431,—a very doubtful authority, when we read the legend which he blends
with his statement.

[275] Thucyd. iii, 70, 81, 82.

[276] Andokidês, De Mysteriis, p. 12, c. 13. Μηδὲ νόμον ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ ἐξεῖναι
θεῖναι, ἐὰν μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις· ἐὰν μὴ ἑξακισχιλίοις δόξῃ, κρυβδὴν
ψηφιζομένοις. According to the usual looseness in dealing with the name of
Solon, this has been called a law of Solon (see Petit. Leg. Att. p. 188), though it
certainly cannot be older than Kleisthenês.
“Privilegia ne irroganto,” said the law of the Twelve Tables at Rome (Cicero,
Legg. iii, 4-19).

[277] Aristotle and Philochorus, ap. Photium, App. p. 672 and 675, ed.
Porson.
It would rather appear by that passage that the ostracism was never formally
abrogated; and that even in the later times, to which the description of Aristotle
refers, the form was still preserved of putting the question whether the public
safety called for an ostracizing vote, long after it had passed both out of use and
out of mind.

[278] Philochorus, ut supra; Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 7; Schol. ad Aristophan.

Equit. 851; Pollux, viii, 19.
 There is a difference of opinion among the authorities, as well as among the
expositors, whether the minimum of six thousand applies to the votes given in all,
or to the votes given against any one name. I embrace the latter opinion, which
is supported by Philochorus, Pollux, and the Schol. on Aristophanês, though
Plutarch countenances the former. Boeckh, in his Public Economy of Athens, and
Wachsmuth, (i, 1, p. 272) are in favor of Plutarch and the former opinion; Paradys
(Dissertat. De Ostr. p. 25), Platner, and Hermann (see K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch
der Gr. Staatsalt. ch. 130, not. 6) support the other, which appears to me the
right one.
For the purpose, so unequivocally pronounced, of the general law determining
the absolute minimum necessary for a privilegium, would by no means be
obtained, if the simple majority of votes, among six thousand voters in all, had
been allowed to take effect. A person might then be ostracized with a very small
number of votes against him, and without creating any reasonable presumption
that he was dangerous to the constitution; which was by no means either the
purpose of Kleisthenês, or the well-understood operation of the ostracism, so long
as it continued to be a reality.

[279] The practical working of the ostracism presents it as a struggle

between two contending leaders, accompanied with chance of banishment to
both—Periklês πρὸς τὸν Θουκυδίδην εἰς ἀγῶνα περὶ τοῦ ὀστράκου καταστὰς, καὶ
διακινδυνεύσας, ἐκεῖνον μὲν ἐξέβαλε, κατέλυσε δὲ τὴν ἀντιτεταγμένην ἑταιρείαν
(Plutarch, Periklês, c. 14; compare Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11).

[280] It is not necessary in this remark to take notice, either of the oligarchy
of Four Hundred, or that of Thirty, called the Thirty Tyrants, established during
the closing years of the Peloponnesian war, and after the ostracism had been
discontinued. Neither of these changes were brought about by the excessive
ascendency of any one or few men: both of them grew out of the
embarrassments and dangers of Athens in the latter period of her great foreign
war.

[281] Aristotle (Polit. iii, 8, 6) seems to recognize the political necessity of the
ostracism, as applied even to obvious superiority of wealth, connection, etc.
(which he distinguishes pointedly from superiority of merit and character), and
upon principles of symmetry only, even apart from dangerous designs on the part
of the superior mind. No painter, he observes, will permit a foot, in his picture of
a man, to be of disproportionate size with the entire body, though separately
taken it may be finely painted; nor will the chorus-master allow any one voice,
however beautiful, to predominate beyond a certain proportion over the rest.
His final conclusion is, however, that the legislator ought, if possible, so to
construct his constitution, as to have no need of such exceptional remedy; but, if
this cannot be done, then the second-best step is to apply the ostracism.
Compare also v, 2, 5.
The last century of the free Athenian democracy realized the first of these
alternatives.

[282] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11: Harpokration. v. Ἵππαρχος.

[283] Lysias cont. Alkibiad. A. c. 11, p. 143: Harpokration. v. Ἀλκιβιάδης;

Andokidês cont. Alkibiad. c. 11-12, pp. 129, 130: this last oration may afford
evidence as to the facts mentioned in it, though I cannot imagine it to be either
genuine, or belonging to the time to which it professes to refer, as has been
observed in a previous note.

[284] Plutarch, Periklês. c. 4; Plutarch. Aristeid. c. 1.

[285] Ælian, V. H. xiii, 24; Herakleidês, περὶ Πολιτειῶν, c. 1, ed. Köhler.

[286] Plutarch, Themistoklês, 22; Plutarch, Aristeidês, 7, παραμυθία φθόνου

καὶ κουφισμός. See the same opinions repeated by Wachsmuth, Hellenische
Alterthumskunde, ch. 48, vol. i, p. 272, and by Platner, Prozess and Klagen bey
den Attikern, vol. i, p. 386.

[287] Thucyd. viii, 73, διὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀξιώματος φόβον.

[288] Kratinus ap. Plutarch, Periklês, 13.

Ὁ σχινοκέφαλος Ζεὺς ὁδὶ προσέρχεται
Περικλέης, τᾠδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανíου
Ἔχων, ἐπειδὴ τοὔστρακον παροίχεται.
For the attacks of the comic writers upon Damôn, see Plutarch, Periklês, c. 4.

[289] Aristot. Polit. iii, 8, 4; v, 2, 5.

[290] Diodor. xi, 55-87. This author describes very imperfectly the Athenian
ostracism, transferring to it apparently the circumstances of the Syracusan
Petalism.

[291] Herodot. v, 70-72; compare Schol. ad Aristophan. Lysistr. 274.

[292] Herodot. v, 73.

[293] See vol. ii, p. 295, part ii, ch. 3.

[294] Thucyd. iii, 61.

 [295] Herodot. vi, 108. ἐᾷν Θηβαίους Βοιωτῶν τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους ἐς
Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν. This is an important circumstance in regard to Grecian political
feeling: I shall advert to it hereafter.

[296] Herodot. vi, 108. Thucydidês (iii, 58), when recounting the capture of
Platæa by the Lacedæmonians in the third year of the Peloponnesian war, states
that the alliance between Platæa and Athens was then in its 93rd year of date;
according to which reckoning it would begin in the year 519 B. C., where Mr.
Clinton and other chronologers place it.
I venture to think that the immediate circumstances, as recounted in the text
from Herodotus (whether Thucydidês conceived them in the same way, cannot be
determined), which brought about the junction of Platæa with Athens, cannot
have taken place in 519 B. C., but must have happened after the expulsion of
Hippias from Athens in 510 B. C.,—for the following reasons:—
1. No mention is made of Hippias, who yet, if the event had happened in 519
B. C., must have been the person to determine whether the Athenians should
assist Platæa or not. The Platæan envoys present themselves at a public sacrifice
in the attitude of suppliants, so as to touch the feelings of the Athenian citizens
generally: had Hippias been then despot, he would have been the person to be
propitiated and to determine for or against assistance.
2. We know no cause which should have brought Kleomenês with a
Lacedæmonian force near to Platæa in the year 519 B. C.: we know from the
statement of Herodotus (v, 76) that no Lacedæmonian expedition against Attica
took place at that time. But in the year to which I have referred the event,
Kleomenês is on his march near the spot upon a known and assignable object.
From the very tenor of the narrative, it is plain that Kleomenês and his army were
not designedly in Bœotia, nor meddling with Bœotian affairs, at the time when
the Platæans solicited his aid; he declines to interpose in the matter, pleading the
great distance between Sparta and Platæa as a reason.
3. Again, Kleomenês, in advising the Platæans to solicit Athens, does not give
the advice through good-will towards them, but through a desire to harass and
perplex the Athenians, by entangling them in a quarrel with the Bœotians. At the
point of time to which I have referred the incident, this was a very natural desire:
he was angry, and perhaps alarmed, at the recent events which had brought
about his expulsion from Athens. But what was there to make him conceive such
a feeling against Athens during the reign of Hippias? That despot was on terms of
the closest intimacy with Sparta: the Peisistratids were (ξείνους—ξεινίους
ταμάλιστα—Herod. v, 63, 90, 91) “the particular guests” of the Spartans, who
were only induced to take part against Hippias from a reluctant obedience to the
oracles procured, one after another, by Kleisthenês. The motive, therefore,
assigned by Herodotus, for the advice given by Kleomenês to the Platæans, can
have no application to the time when Hippias was still despot.
 4. That Herodotus did not conceive the victory gained by the Athenians over
Thebes as having taken place before the expulsion of Hippias, is evident from his
emphatic contrast between their warlike spirit and success when liberated from
the despots, and their timidity or backwardness while under Hippias (Ἀθηναῖοι
τυραννευόμενοι μὲν, οὐδαμῶν τῶν σφέας περιοικεόντων ἔσαν τὰ πολέμια
ἀμείνους, ἀπαλλαχθέντες δὲ τυράννων, μακρῷ πρῶτοι ἐγένοντο· δηλοῖ ὦν ταῦτα,
ὅτι κατεχόμενοι μὲν, ἐθελοκάκεον, etc. v, 78). The man who wrote thus cannot
have believed that, in the year 519 B. C., while Hippias was in full sway, the
Athenians gained an important victory over the Thebans, cut off a considerable
portion of the Theban territory for the purpose of joining it to that of the
Platæans, and showed from that time forward their constant superiority over
Thebes by protecting her inferior neighbor against her.
These different reasons, taking them altogether, appear to me to show that
the first alliance between Athens and Platæa, as Herodotus conceives and
describes it, cannot have taken place before the expulsion of Hippias, in 510 B. C.;
and induce me to believe, either that Thucydidês was mistaken in the date of that
event, or that Herodotus has not correctly described the facts. Not seeing any
reason to suspect the description given by the latter, I have departed, though
unwillingly, from the date of Thucydidês.
The application of the Platæans to Kleomenês, and his advice grounded
thereupon, may be connected more suitably with his first expedition to Athens,
after the expulsion of Hippias, than with his second.

[297] Herodot. v, 75.

[298] Compare Kortüm, Zur Geschichte Hellenischer Staats-Verfassungen, p.

35 (Heidelberg, 1821).
I doubt, however, his interpretation of the words in Herodotus (v, 63)—εἴτε
ἰδίῳ στόλῳ, εἴτε δημοσίῳ χρησόμενοι.

[299] Herodot. v, 77; Ælian, V. H. vi, 1; Pausan. i, 28, 2.

[300] Herodot. v, 80.

[301] In the expression of Herodotus, the Æakid heroes are really sent from
Ægina, and really sent back by the Thebans (v, 80-81)—Οἱ δέ σφι αἰτέουσι
ἐπικουρίην τοὺς Αἰακίδας συμπέμπειν ἔφασαν, αὖτις οἱ Θηβαῖοι πέμψαντες, τ ο ὺ ς
μ ὲ ν Α ἰ α κ ί δ α ς σ φ ι ἀ π ε δ ί δ ο σ α ν , τ ῶ ν δ ὲ ἀ ν δ ρ ῶ ν ἐ δ έ ο ν τ ο. Compare
again v, 75; viii, 64; and Polyb. vii, 9, 2. θεῶν τῶν συστρατευομένων.
Justin gives a narrative of an analogous application from the Epizephyrian
Lokrians to Sparta (xx, 3): “Territi Locrenses ad Spartanos decurrunt: auxilium
supplices deprecantur: illi longinquâ militiâ gravati, auxilium a Castore et Polluce
petere eos jubent. Neque legati responsum sociæ urbis spreverunt; profectique in
proximum templum, facto sacrificio, auxilium deorum implorant. Litatis hostiis,
obtentoque, ut rebantur, quod petebant—haud secus læti quam si deos ipsos
secum avecturi essent—pulvinaria iis in navi componunt, faustisque profecti
ominibus, solatia suis pro auxiliis deportant.” In comparing the expressions of
Herodotus with those of Justin, we see that the former believes the direct literal
presence and action of the Æakid heroes (“the Thebans sent back the heroes,
and asked for men”), while the latter explains away the divine intervention into a
mere fancy and feeling on the part of those to whom it is supposed to be
accorded. This was the tone of those later authors whom Justin followed:
compare also Pausan. iii, 19, 2.

[302] Herodot. v, 81-82.

[303] Herodot. v, 83-88.

[304] Herodot. v, 81-89. μεγάλως Ἀθηναίους ἐσινέοντο.

[305] Herodot. v, 90.

[306] Herodot. v, 90, 91.

[307] Herodot. v, 92. ... τυραννίδας ἐς τὰς πόλις κατάγειν παρασκευάζεσθε,

τοῦ οὔτε ἀδικώτερον ἐστὶ οὐδὲν κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους οὔτε μιαιφονώτερον.

[308] Herodot. v, 93. μὴ ποιέειν μηδὲν νεώτερον περὶ πόλιν Ἑλλάδα.

[309] Herodot. v, 93-94.

[310] Thucydid. i, 68-71, 120-124.

[311] Herodot. v, 78-91. Ἀθηναῖοι μέν νυν ηὔξηντο· δηλοῖ δὲ οὐ κατ᾽ ἓν

μόνον ἀλλὰ πανταχῇ, ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὡς ἔστι χρῆμα σπουδαῖον, εἰ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι
τυραννευόμενοι μὲν, οὐδαμῶν τῶν σφέας περιοικεόντων ἔσαν τὰ πολέμια
ἀμείνους, ἀπαλλαχθέντες δὲ τυράννων, μακρῷ πρῶτοι ἐγένοντο· δηλοῖ ὦν ταῦτα,
ὅτι κατεχόμενοι μὲν, ἐθελοκάκεον, ὡς δεσπότῃ ἐργαζόμενοι, ἐλευθερωθέντων δὲ,
αὐτὸς ἕκαστος ἑωϋτῷ προθυμέετο κατεργάζεσθαι.
(c. 91.) Οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι—νόῳ λαβόντες, ὡς ἐλεύθερον μὲν ἐὸν τὸ γένος τὸ
Ἀττικὸν, ἰσόῤῥοπον τῷ ἑωϋτῶν ἂν γένοιτο, κατεχόμενον δὲ ὑπό του τυραννίδι,
ἀσθενὲς καὶ πειθαρχέεσθαι ἐτοῖμον.

[312] Herodot. iii, 80. Πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον, π ρ ῶ τ α μ ὲ ν , ο ὔ ν ο μ α π ά ν τ ω ν

κ ά λ λ ι σ τ ο ν ἔ χ ε ι , ἰ σ ο ν ο μ ί η ν· δεύτερα δὲ, τούτων τῶν ὁ μόναρχος, ποιέει
οὐδέν· πάλῳ μὲν ἀρχὰς ἄρχει, ὑπεύθυνον δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχει, βουλεύματα δὲ πάντα ἐς
τὸ κοινὸν ἀναφέρει.
The democratical speaker at Syracuse, Athenagoras, also puts this name and
promise in the first rank of advantages—(Thucyd. vi, 39)—ἐγὼ δέ φημι, π ρ ῶ τ α
μ ὲ ν, δῆμον ξύμπαν ὠνόμασθαι, ὀλιγαρχίαν δὲ, μέρος, etc.

[313] See the preceding chapter xi, of this History, vol. iii, p. 145, respecting
the Solonian declaration here adverted to.

[314] See the two speeches of Periklês in Thucyd. ii, 35-46, and ii, 60-64.
Compare the reflections of Thucydidês upon the two democracies of Athens and
Syracuse, vi, 69 and vii, 21-55.

[315] Thucyd. vii, 69. Πατρίδος τε τῆς ἐλευθερωτάτης ὑπομιμνήσκων καὶ τῆς
ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνεπιτακτοῦ πᾶσιν ἐς τὴν δίαιταν ἐξουσίας, etc.

[316] Compare the remarkable speech of the Corinthian envoys at Sparta

(Thucyd. i, 68-71), with the φιλοπραγμοσύνη which Demosthenês so emphatically
notices in Philip (Olynthiac. i, 6, p. 13): also Philippic. i, 2, and the Philippics and
Olynthiacs generally.

[317] Among the lost productions of Antisthenês the contemporary of

Xenophon and Plato, and emanating like them from the tuition of Sokratês, was
one Κῦρος, ἢ περὶ Βασιλείας (Diogenes Laërt. vi, 15).

[318] That this was the real story—a close parallel of Romulus and Remus—
we may see by Herodotus, i, 122. Some rationalizing Greeks or Persians
transformed it into a more plausible tale,—that the herdsman’s wife who suckled
the boy Cyrus was named Κυνώ (Κυών is a dog, male or female); contending that
this latter was the real basis of fact, and that the intervention of the bitch was an
exaggeration built upon the name of the woman, in order that the divine
protection shown to Cyrus might be still more manifest,—οἱ δὲ τοκέες
παραλαβόντες τὸ οὔνομα τοῦτ (ἵ ν α θ ε ι ο τ έ ρ ω ς δ ο κ έ ῃ τ ο ῖ σ ι Π έ ρ σ ῃ σ ι
π ε ρ ι ε ῖ ν α ί σ φ ι ὁ π α ῖ ς), κατέβαλον φάτιν ὡς ἐκκείμενον Κῦρον κύων
ἐξέθρεψε· ἐνθεῦτεν μὲν ἡ φάτις αὐτὴ κεχωρήκεε.
In the first volume of this History, I have noticed various transformations
operated by Palæphatus and others upon the Greek mythes,—the ram which
carried Phryxus and Hellê across the Hellespont is represented to us as having
been in reality a man named Krius, who aided their flight,—the winged horse
which carried Bellerophon was a ship named Pegasus, etc.
This same operation has here been performed upon the story of the suckling
of Cyrus; for we shall run little risk in affirming that the miraculous story is the
older of the two. The feelings which welcome a miraculous story are early and
primitive; those which break down the miracle into a common-place fact are of
subsequent growth.

[319] Herodot. i, 95. Ὡς ὦν Περσέων μ ε τ ε ξ έ τ ε ρ ο ι λέγουσιν, οἱ μ ὴ

β ο υ λ ό μ ε ν ο ι σ ε μ ν ο ῦ ν τὰ περὶ Κῦρον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐόντα λέγειν λόγον, κατὰ
ταῦτα γράψω· ἐπιστάμενος περὶ Κύρου καὶ τ ρ ι φ α σ ί α ς ἄ λ λ α ς λόγων ὁδοὺς
φῆναι. His informants were thus select persons, who differed from the Persians
generally.
The long narrative respecting the infancy and growth of Cyrus is contained in
Herodot. i, 107-129.

[320] See the Extracts from the lost Persian History of Ktêsias, in Photius
Cod. lxxii, also appended to Schweighaüser’s edition of Herodotus, vol. iv, p. 345.
Φησὶ δὲ (Ktêsias) αὐτὸν τῶν πλειόνων ἃ ἱστορεῖ αὐτόπτην γενόμενον, ἢ παρ᾽
αὐτῶν Περσῶν (ἔνθα τὸ ὁρᾷν μὴ ἐνεχώρει) αὐτήκοον καταστάντα, οὕτως τὴν
ἱστορίαν συγγράψαι.
To the discrepancies between Xenophon, Herodotus, and Ktêsias, on the
subject of Cyrus, is to be added the statement of Æschylus (Persæ, 747), the
oldest authority of them all, and that of the Armenian historians: see Bähr ad
Ktesiam, p. 85: comp. Bähr’s comments on the discrepancies, p. 87.

[321] Xenophon, Anabas. i, 8, 26.

[322] Herodot. i, 71-153; Arrian, v, 4; Strabo, xv, p. 727; Plato, Legg. iii, p.
695.

[323] Xenophon, Anabas. iii, 3, 6; iii, 4, 7-12. Strabo had read accounts
which represented the last battle between Astyagês and Cyrus to have been
fought near Pasargadæ (xv, p. 730).
It has been rendered probable by Ritter, however, that the ruined city which
Xenophon called Mespila was the ancient Assyrian Nineveh, and the other
deserted city which Xenophon calls Larissa, situated as it was on the Tigris, must
have been originally Assyrian, and not Median. See about Nineveh, above,—the
Chapter on the Babylonians, vol. iii, ch. xix, p. 305, note.
The land east of the Tigris, in which Nineveh and Arbêla were situated, seems
to have been called Aturia,—a dialectic variation of Assyria (Strabo, xvi, p. 737;
Dio Cass. lxviii, 28).

[324] Xenophanês, Fragm. p. 39, ap. Schneidewin, Delectus Poett. Elegiac.

Græc.—
Πήλικος ἦσθ᾽ ὅθ᾽ ὁ Μῆδος ἀφίκετο;
compare Theognis, v, 775, and Herodot. i, 163.

[325] Strabo, xv, p. 724. ὁμόγλωττοι παρὰ μικρόν. See Heeren, Ueber den
Verkehr der Alten Welt, part i, book i, pp. 320-340, and Ritter, Erdkunde, West-
Asien, b. iii, Abtheil. ii, sects. 1 and 2, pp. 17-84.