3D Graphics for Game Programming 1st Edition

Junghyun Han pdf download

https://ebookfinal.com/download/3d-graphics-for-game-
programming-1st-edition-junghyun-han/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks

at ebookfinal.com
Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at ebookfinal

3D Game Programming for Teens Second Revised Edition

Maneesh Sethi

https://ebookfinal.com/download/3d-game-programming-for-teens-second-
revised-edition-maneesh-sethi/

Microsoft XNA Unleashed Graphics and Game Programming for

Xbox 360 and Windows 1st ed Edition Carter

https://ebookfinal.com/download/microsoft-xna-unleashed-graphics-and-
game-programming-for-xbox-360-and-windows-1st-ed-edition-carter/

Advanced 3D Game Programming with DirectX 9 Wordware Game

Developer s Library 600th Edition Peter Walsh

https://ebookfinal.com/download/advanced-3d-game-programming-with-
directx-9-wordware-game-developer-s-library-600th-edition-peter-walsh/

Introduction to 3D game programming with DirectX 10 1st

Edition Frank D. Luna

https://ebookfinal.com/download/introduction-to-3d-game-programming-
with-directx-10-1st-edition-frank-d-luna/
3D Game Engine Design A Practical Approach to Real Time
Computer Graphics 2nd Edition David H. Eberly

https://ebookfinal.com/download/3d-game-engine-design-a-practical-
approach-to-real-time-computer-graphics-2nd-edition-david-h-eberly/

Symbolic Dynamics and Geometry Using D in Graphics and

Game Programming 1st Edition Brian Guenter (Author)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/symbolic-dynamics-and-geometry-using-
d-in-graphics-and-game-programming-1st-edition-brian-guenter-author/

C Game Programming For Serious Game Creation 1st Edition

Daniel Schuller

https://ebookfinal.com/download/c-game-programming-for-serious-game-
creation-1st-edition-daniel-schuller/

C Game Programming For Serious Game Creation 1st Edition

Daniel Schuller

https://ebookfinal.com/download/c-game-programming-for-serious-game-
creation-1st-edition-daniel-schuller-2/

LÖVE for Lua Game Programming 1st Edition Akinlaja

https://ebookfinal.com/download/love-for-lua-game-programming-1st-
edition-akinlaja/
3D Graphics for Game Programming 1st Edition
Junghyun Han Digital Instant Download
Author(s): JungHyun Han
ISBN(s): 9781439827376, 1439827370
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 29.92 MB
Year: 2011
Language: english
 3D Graphics for
Game Programming
This page intentionally left blank
 3D Graphics for
Game Programming

JungHyun Han
Korea University, Seoul, South Korea

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
A CHAPMAN & HALL BOOK
The cover image of green and yellow barley is titled “When Barley is Ripening” and is by artist Lee
Sook Ja.

Chapman & Hall/CRC

Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Chapman & Hall/CRC is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-2738-3 (Ebook-PDF)

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 stor-
age or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copy-
right.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 pro-
vides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a pho-
tocopy 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
Dedication

To my pride and joy, Jeehee, who is stepping into a new world.

i
Contents

Preface ix

1 Modeling in Game Production 1

1.1 Game Production Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Polygon Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 Polygon Mesh Creation∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.2 Polygon Mesh Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.3 Surface Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3 Model Export and Import . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4 Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2 Vertex Processing 23
2.1 World Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.1 Affine Transforms and Homogeneous Coordinates . . . 25
2.1.2 World Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.3 Euler Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.1.4 Transform of Surface Normals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2 View Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.1 Camera Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.2 Space Change and View Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3 Per-vertex Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4 Projection Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.1 View Frustum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.4.2 Projection Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.3 Derivation of Projection Matrix∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3 Rasterization 53
3.1 Clipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2 Perspective Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3 Back-face Culling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4 Coordinate Systems - Revisited∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4.1 3ds Max to OpenGL - Axis Flipping . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.2 OpenGL to Direct3D - Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.3 OpenGL to Direct3D - Vertex Reordering . . . . . . . 64
3.5 Viewport Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.6 Scan Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.7 Application: Object Picking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

v
vi

3.7.1 Computing World-space Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3.7.2 Ray-object Intersection Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4 Fragment Processing and Output Merging 89

4.1 Texturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.1.1 Texture Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.1.2 Surface Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.1.3 Texture Coordinates to Texel Address . . . . . . . . . 94
4.2 Output Merging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.2.1 Z-buffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.2.2 Alpha Blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.3 Z-culling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.1 Tile-based Culling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.2 Application: Pre-Z Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5 Illumination and Shaders 105

5.1 Phong Lighting Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.1.1 Diffuse Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.1.2 Specular Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.3 Ambient Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.1.4 Emissive Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.2 Shaders and Shading Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.2.1 Vertex and Fragment Shaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.2.2 High-Level Shading Language∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.3 Lighting in the Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.3.1 Per-vertex Lighting in HLSL∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.3.2 Per-vertex Lighting vs. Per-fragment Lighting . . . . . 117
5.3.3 Per-fragment Lighting in HLSL∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.4 Global Illumination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.4.1 Ray Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.4.2 Radiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

6 Parametric Curves and Surfaces 131

6.1 Parametric Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.1.1 Bézier Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.1.2 Hermite Curve and Catmull-Rom Spline . . . . . . . . 136
6.2 Application: Camera Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.3 Bézier Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.3.1 Bilinear Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.3.2 Biquadratic Bézier Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.3.3 Bicubic Bézier Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.3.4 Bézier Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
 vii

7 Shader Models 157

7.1 Shader Model 4 and Geometry Shader . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.2 Application: Dynamic Particle System . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.2.1 Physics-based Simulation of Particles . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.2.2 Fireworks Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.2.3 Fireworks Rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.3 Shader Model 5 and Tessellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.4 Application: PN-triangles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.4.1 Computing Control Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
7.4.2 Computing Control Normals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.4.3 PN-triangle Tessellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

8 Image Texturing 177

8.1 Texture Addressing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.2 Texture Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.2.1 Magnification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.2.2 Minification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.3 Mipmapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.3.1 Mipmap Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.3.2 Mipmap Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.3.3 Options for Mipmap Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.4 Anisotropic Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

9 Bump Mapping 197

9.1 Height Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
9.2 Normal Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.2.1 Normal Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
9.2.2 Algorithm for Normal Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
9.3 Tangent-space Normal Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
9.3.1 Algorithm for Tangent-space Normal Mapping . . . . 206
9.3.2 Tangent Space Computation∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.4 Authoring of Normal Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.5 Parallax Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.6 Displacement Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

10 Advanced Texturing 225

10.1 Environment Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.1.1 Cube Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
10.1.2 Cube Map Access∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
10.1.3 Dynamic Cube Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
10.2 Light Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
10.2.1 Diffuse Light Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
10.2.2 Radiosity Normal Mapping∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
10.3 Shadow Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
10.3.1 Algorithm for Shadow Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
viii

10.3.2 Shader Codes for Shadow Mapping∗ . . . . . . . . . . 242

10.3.3 Shadow Map Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
10.4 Ambient Occlusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.5 Deferred Shading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

11 Character Animation 257

11.1 Keyframe Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.2 Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.2.1 Interpolation of Euler Angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.2.2 Quaternion Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.2.3 Rotation Using Quaternion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.2.4 Interpolation of Quaternions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.3 Hierarchical Modeling and Space Change . . . . . . . . . . . 269
11.3.1 Hierarchical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.3.2 Space Change between Bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
11.3.3 World Space to Bone Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
11.4 Forward Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
11.5 Skinning and Keyframe Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
11.5.1 Skinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
11.5.2 Skinning in Keyframe Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
11.6 Inverse Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
11.6.1 Analytic Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
11.6.2 Cyclic Coordinate Descent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

12 Physics-based Simulation∗ 293

12.1 Penalty Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
12.2 Impulse Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
12.2.1 Impulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
12.2.2 Impulse-based Collision Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 297
12.3 Collision Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.3.1 Bounding Volumes and Their Hierarchy . . . . . . . . 303
12.3.2 Triangle-triangle Intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

References 311
Preface

Many of computer graphics classes in colleges are focused on real-time render-

ing and animation. However, it is not easy to find an appropriate textbook,
which presents the state of the art in interactive graphics, is balanced between
theory and practicality, and is of a proper length to be covered in a semester.
This book is written for answering the need and presents the must-know in
interactive graphics. This book fits the advanced undergraduate or beginning
graduate classes for ‘Computer Graphics’ and ‘Game Programming.’
Another primary reader group of this book may be composed of game de-
velopers, who have experience in graphics APIs and shader programming but
have felt lack of theoretical background in 3D graphics. A lot of programming
manual-like books can be found in the bookstore, but they do not provide a
sufficient level of mathematical background for the game developers. Assum-
ing that the readers have minimal understanding of vectors and matrices, this
book provides an opportunity to combine their experiences with the back-
ground theory of computer graphics.
At the core of contemporary interactive graphics is the evolution of GPU.
The content of this book is organized around GPU programming. The GPU
is partitioned into programmable stages and hard-wired stages. This book
presents a variety of algorithms for the programmable stages, and the indis-
pensable knowledge required to configure the hard-wired stages.
The organization and presentation of this book have been carefully designed
so as to enable the readers to easily understand the key aspects of interac-
tive graphics. Over the chapters, a lot of 3D presentations are provided in
order to help the readers quickly grasp the complicated topics. An impor-
tant organizational feature of this book is that theoretical or technical details
are presented in separate notes (in shaded boxes) and in optional sections
(marked by asterisk). They can be safely skipped without any difficulty in
understanding the main stream of the book.
Two well-known graphics APIs are Direct3D and OpenGL. This book is
API-neutral but presents the sample programs bit by bit in many places.
They help the readers understand how the interactive graphics algorithms are
implemented. However, the sample programs are located at the optional part
and can be safely skipped.
If the optional parts are not taught, the content of this book would be
appropriate for being covered in a semester for the undergraduate class. If
needed, additional choices may be made among the required parts. For ex-
ample, Sections 6.3 and 7.4 may be skipped.

ix
x

A Web site is provided for this book, http://media.korea.ac.kr/book, which

contains full lecture notes in PowerPoint files and additional materials includ-
ing video clips. Especially, the lecture notes contain all figures presented in
this book.

Acknowledgements

This book is a byproduct of a project supported by Nexon Corporation

and Korea Creative Content Agency. Many people from Nexon contributed
to the content of this book. Jubok Kim has worked together with the author
from the proposal stage of this book, and also proofread the alpha and beta
versions. Seungwon Han provided the key 3D models used in this book and
performed various art works requested by the author. Hyunwoo Ki, Joongwon
Gouk, and Minsun Song also provided valuable images.
Many people from Korea University supported writing this book. Virtu-
ally all visual presentations given in this book are generated by Seungjik Lee,
who has an exceptional talent in both programming and visual art. Without
the dedicated efforts of Dr. Nguyen Trung Kien, three chapters on texturing
could never be completed. Dr. Hanyoung Jang has made great contributions
to the chapters on shader models and physics-based simulation. Kiwon Um
helped the author keep reorganizing the chapters. The author has been deeply
indebted to his students at the 3D Interactive Media Lab: Dong-young Kim,
Hyun Ju Shin, YoungBeom Kim, EunSeok Han, GwangHyun Park, Seungho
Baek, and Junhoo Park. The content of this book has been gradually built
through the courses offered at Korea University and Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity. The students in the classes have provided the author with a lot of
feedback.
Prof. Young J. Kim at Ewha Womans University, Prof. Kyoung-Su Oh at
Soongsil University, Prof. Kang Hoon Lee at Kwangwoon University, Prof.
Jorg Peters at the University of Florida, and Dongwook Ha at Crytek reviewed
the draft of this book and provided invaluable comments. Li-Ming Leong, the
acquisitions editor of CRC Press, proposed this book, and since then has
considerately supported the author not to miss the planned dates.
The greatest thanks go to the brightest faces I have met in my life, Kyung-
Ok, Jeehee, and Jihoon. Thank you for always being with me. I love you so
much.
Chapter 1
Modeling in Game Production

The process of game development is typically partitioned into three stages:

pre-production, production, and post-production. The specific steps of each
stage may vary from game genre to genre and also from studio to studio.
In general, the pre-production stage includes sketching the game characters,
composing the storyline, creating the storyboards (visual representations of
the storyline), and writing the design document. The game design document
is the blueprint from which a game is to be built, and states what the goals and
rules of the game are, how the maps and levels are defined, how the characters
and objects are controlled, and how the screen and menus are organized.
In the production stage, a crew of level designers1 , artists, programmers,
and sound engineers is made up. They cooperate under the supervision of
producers. The design document is usually updated during the production
stage. For example, levels can be added or removed. The output of the pro-
duction stage is a game program and a bunch of game assets to be consumed
by the game program. The assets include 3D models, images, and animation
data.
The final stage is post-production. The output of the production stage is
passed to the game testers. The flaws and bugs are reported, and then the
programmers and artists fix them. This process is iterated, and the game
evolves into the final version.
This book is about the 3D graphics aspect of the production stage. The
first step of the 3D game production stage is modeling. This chapter presents
the topics in modeling.

1.1 Game Production Pipeline

Compared with the pre- and post-production stages, the production stage
for 3D games has rather universal steps. They compose the game production

1 Themajor components of level design include laying out the game map, placing the game
characters and objects (such as enemies and obstacles), and specifying their behaviors in
response to the user actions or the events of the game world.

1
2 3D Graphics for Game Programming

Fig. 1.1: Three major steps of the game production pipeline.

Fig. 1.2: Almost all 3D models in games are represented in polygon meshes.

pipeline shown in Fig. 1.1. It is called pipeline in the sense that the output
of one step is taken as the input of the next step. The pipeline in Fig. 1.1
is defined from the graphics viewpoint, and therefore graphic artists and pro-
grammers are the key players. The artists create graphics assets and are in
charge of modeling and ‘half’ of animation. The programmers are in charge of
the other half of animation and rendering. Roughly speaking, the animation
step is partitioned into off-line tasks and run-time tasks, which are handled
by artists and programmers, respectively.
In the modeling step, the artists create the components of the game en-
vironment. Consider a shooting game in an outdoor environment. We need
soldiers, guns, terrain maps, etc. See Fig. 1.2. They are usually modeled in
polygons, and such a representation is named polygon mesh. It is the most
popular modeling method in games.
The scope of modeling is not limited to constructing 3D models, but includes
creating textures that are added to 3D models to increase their visual realism.
The simplest form of a texture is a bitmap image that is pasted to an object
surface. Fig. 1.3-(a) shows an image texture created for the soldier model.
The texture is applied to the surface of the soldier at run time, to produce
the result shown in Fig. 1.3-(b).
 Modeling in Game Production 3

Fig. 1.3: An image texture applied to the surface of a polygon mesh. (a)
This example is a collection of small images, each of which is for a part of
the soldier’s body. At first glance, the texture may look weird. Section 4.1
presents how to create such an image texture. (b) The texture is pasted to
the soldier’s polygon mesh at run time.

Fig. 1.4: A skeleton is composed of bones and is embedded into the polygon
mesh. This figure illustrates the bones as if they were surfaces, but the bones
do not have explicit geometric representations. They are conceptual entities
that are usually represented as matrices. Chapter 11 presents this issue in
detail.
4 3D Graphics for Game Programming

Fig. 1.5: The polygon mesh can be animated by controlling its skeleton.

Fig. 1.6: Results of rendering the animated scenes.

The soldier should be able to walk, run, and crawl, i.e., it needs to be
animated. For this purpose, we usually specify the skeletal structure of the
soldier and then define how the skeletal motion deforms the soldier’s polygon
mesh such that, for example, the polygons of the thigh are made to move
when the thigh-bone moves. This process is often referred to as rigging. Fig.
1.4 shows a skeleton embedded into the polygon model. A rigged model is
animated by artists. (The animations are then replayed at run time.) Fig.
1.5 shows a few snapshots of an animated soldier in wireframes.
The artists perform modeling and animation in an off-line mode. Dedicated
programs such as Autodesk 3ds Max and Autodesk Maya are popularly used.
This book uses 3ds Max for demonstrating the artists’ work.
 Modeling in Game Production 5

Computer games generate an illusion of movement on the screen by quickly

displaying a sequence of changing images, called frames. When replaying an
object’s animation created by artists, distinct shape and pose (position and
orientation) of the object are computed per frame. In addition, run-time dy-
namics caused by external forces and collisions among the game objects is
handled, and the states of the involved objects are updated per frame. (This
process is referred to as physics-based simulation and is presented in Chap-
ter 12.) Furthermore, lighting conditions and viewing specifications can be
changed per frame. When all such parameters are determined, the rendering
module is invoked. Rendering is the process of generating a 2D image from
a 3D scene. The image makes up a frame. Fig. 1.6 shows the results of
rendering the animated scenes.
Unlike modeling and off-line animation conducted by artists, run-time an-
imation and rendering are executed by a game program. It is typically built
upon graphics APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) such as Direct3D
[1] and OpenGL (Open Graphics Library) [2]. Direct3D is part of Microsoft’s
DirectX API and is available only for Microsoft platforms. OpenGL is man-
aged by a non-profit consortium, the Khronos Group, and is a cross-platform
standard API.
Graphics APIs provide application programmers with essential graphics
functions. Today, such functions are implemented in hardware, named GPU
(Graphics Processing Unit), which is a processor specialized for graphics. A
graphics API can be taken as a software interface of the GPU. The API
translates the application’s graphics command to instructions that can be
executed by the GPU.
This book is not intended to be a manual for Direct3D or OpenGL, but
presents the sample programs bit by bit. They help the readers understand
how the real-time graphics algorithms are implemented. For programming
with the APIs, their SDK manuals should be referenced. For example, Di-
rect3D SDK [3] provides tutorials and samples for beginners.

1.2 Polygon Mesh

In 3D computer graphics, various modeling techniques are used. Consider a
sphere of radius r that is centered at (Cx , Cy , Cz ). Its simplest representation
is to use the sphere equation. See Fig. 1.7-(a). It is an example of an implicit
surface based on an implicit function f (x, y, z) = 0. Suppose that, when a
point (x, y, z) is inserted into the implicit function, the result is zero. Then,
the point is on the implicit surface.
We can represent the sphere explicitly in terms of its topological entities
such as vertices. A good example of such an explicit representation is the
6 3D Graphics for Game Programming

Fig. 1.7: Two different representations of a sphere. (a) Implicit surface. (b)
Polygon mesh.

Fig. 1.8: Concave polygons are harder to process than convex ones and
therefore are rarely used.

polygon mesh shown in Fig. 1.7-(b). Real-time applications prefer the poly-
gon mesh representation because the GPU has been optimized for processing
the representation. Note that the mesh vertices are the points sampling the
smooth surface, and therefore the polygon mesh is not an accurate but an
approximate representation.
OpenGL supports a general polygon having an arbitrary number of vertices,
but the polygon must be convex. Fig. 1.8 compares convex and concave
polygons. The restriction on convexity is placed because the algorithm for
processing concave polygons is slow. Another restriction in OpenGL is that
the polygon must be planar, i.e., the vertices of a polygon must lie in the same

Fig. 1.9: Triangle mesh vs. quadrilateral mesh.

 Modeling in Game Production 7

Fig. 1.10: Rendering a low-resolution mesh is fast but the model’s polygonal
nature is easily revealed. Rendering a high-resolution mesh is slow, but the
rendering result is better in general.

plane. The simplest polygon is a triangle, and it guarantees the convexity and
planarity. The polygons supported by Direct3D are limited to triangles, i.e.,
a polygon mesh in Direct3D implies a triangle mesh. Fig. 1.9 compares a
triangle mesh and a quadrilateral mesh (simply a quad mesh) for the same
object. The triangle mesh is more popular. However, the quad mesh is often
preferred, especially for modeling step, as can be observed in Section 1.2.1.
When we approximate a curved surface by a polygon mesh, various resolu-
tions can be considered, as shown in Fig. 1.10. There is a trade-off between
accuracy and efficiency. As the resolution is increased, the mesh becomes
closer to the original curved surface, but the time needed for processing the
mesh is increased. Handling various resolutions of a polygon mesh has been
an important research topic [4]. The process of converting a low-resolution
mesh into a high-resolution mesh is called refinement, and the reverse process
is called simplification.

1.2.1 Polygon Mesh Creation∗

In most cases, the polygon mesh of a game object is interactively created
using graphics packages. The polygon mesh is stored in a file and is then
input to the game program which animates and renders it at run time. A
programmer may not have to understand how a polygon mesh is created. It
is the job of an artist. If you want, you can skip this subsection2 . However,
understanding the basics of the modeling step is often helpful for developing a
game as well as communicating with an artist. This section roughly sketches
how a polygon mesh of a character is created.

2 Inthis book, the asterisk-marked parts can be skipped, and no difficulty will be encoun-
tered for further reading.
8 3D Graphics for Game Programming

Fig. 1.11: A polygon mesh is created by manual operations.

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
Urkunden über das Attische Seewesen, also the second edition of his
Staatshaushaltung der Athener, vol. ii. p. 114-118).
The total of public money, recorded by the Inscription as having passed
through the hands of Lykurgus in the twelve years, was 18,900 talents =
£4,340,000, or thereabouts. He is said to have held, besides, in deposit, a great
deal of money entrusted to him by private individuals. His official duties as
treasurer were discharged, for the first four years, in his own name: during the
last eight years, in the names of two different friends.

[666] Plutarch, Phokion, 28.

[667] Æschines (adv. Ktesiph. p. 635) mentions this mission of Ktesiphon to

Kleopatra. He also (in the same oration, p. 550) charges Demosthenes with
having sent letters to Alexander, soliciting pardon and favor. He states that a
young man named Aristion, a friend of Demosthenes, was much about the person
of Alexander, and that through him the letters were sent. He cites as his authority
the seamen of the public Athenian vessel called Paralus, and the Athenian envoys
who went to Alexander in Phenicia in the spring or summer of 331 B. C. (compare
Arrian, iii. 6, 3). Hyperides also seems to have advanced the like allegation
against Demosthenes—see Harpokration, v. Ἀριστίων.
The fragments of the oration of Hyperides in defence of Euxenippus (recently
published by Mr. Churchill Babington), delivered at some period during the reign
of Alexander, give general evidence of the wide-spread feeling of jealous aversion
to the existing Macedonian ascendancy. Euxenippus had been accused of
devotion to Macedonia; Hyperides strenuously denies it, saying that Euxenippus
had never been in Macedonia, nor ever conversed with any Macedonian who
came to Athens. Even boys at school (says Hyperides) know the names of the
corrupt orators, or servile flatterers, who serve Macedonia—Euxenippus is not
among them (p 11, 12).

[668] Plutarch, Camill. 19; Diodor. xvi. 88; Plutarch, Agis, 3.

[669] Arrian, i. 16, 11: compare Pausan. vii. 10, 1.

[670] Arrian, ii. 13, 4.

[671] Arrian, iii. 6, 4; Diodor. xvii. 48; Curtius, iv. 1, 39. It is to this war in
Krete, between Agis and the Macedonian party and troops, that Aristotle probably
alludes (in the few words contained, Politica, ii. 7, 8), as having exposed the
weakness of the Kretan institutions—see Schneider’s note on the passage. At
least we do not know of any other event, suitable to the words.

[672] Alexander, as soon as he got possession of the Persian treasures at

Susa (about December 331 B. C.), sent a large remittance of 3000 talents to
Antipater, as means for carrying on the war against the Lacedæmonians (Arrian,
iii. 16. 17). The manifestations of Agis in Peloponnesus had begun in the spring of
331 B. C. (Arrian, iii. 6, 4); but his aggressive movements in Peloponnesus did not
assume formidable proportions until the spring of 330 B. C. At the date of the
speech of Æschines against Ktesiphon (August 330 B. C.), the decisive battle by
which Antipater crushed the forces of Agis had only recently occurred; for the
Lacedæmonian prisoners were only about to be sent to Alexander to learn their
fate (Æsch. adv. Kt. p. 524). Curtius (vii. 1, 21) is certainly mistaken in saying
that the contest was terminated before the battle of Arbela. Moreover, there were
Lacedæmonian envoys, present with Darius until a few days before his death
(July 330 B. C.), who afterwards fell into the hands of Alexander (Arrian iii. 24, 7);
these men could hardly have known of the prostration of their country at home. I
suppose the victory of Antipater to have taken place about June 330 B. C.—and
the Peloponnesian armament of Agis to have been got together about three
months before (March 330 B. C.).
Mr. Clinton (Fast. H. App. c. 4. p. 234) discusses the chronology of this event,
but in a manner which I cannot think satisfactory. He seems inclined to put it
some months earlier. I see no necessity for construing the dictum ascribed to
Alexander (Plutarch, Agesilaus, 15) as proving close coincidence of time between
the battle of Arbela and the final defeat of Agis.

[673] Alexander in Media, when informed of the whole affair after the death
of Agis, spoke of it with contempt as a battle of frogs and mice, if we are to
believe the dictum of Plutarch, Agesilaus, 15.

[674] Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. p. 553. ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος ἔξω τῆς ἄρκτου καὶ
τῆς οἰκουμένης ὀλίγου δεῖν πάσης μεθειστήκει, etc.

[675] Diodor. xvii. 62; Deinarchus cont. Demosthen. s. 35.

[676] Plutarch, Reipubl. Gerend. Præcept. p. 818.

[677] This is what we make out, as to the conduct of Demosthenes, from

Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 553.
It is however difficult to believe, what Æschines insinuates, that Demosthenes
boasted of having himself got up the Lacedæmonian movement—and yet that he
made no proposition or suggestion for countenancing it. Demosthenes can hardly
have lent any positive aid to the proceeding, though of course his anti-
Macedonian feelings would be counted upon, in case things took a favorable turn.
Deinarchus (ut suprà) also accuses Demosthenes of having remained inactive
at this critical moment.

[678] Curtius, vi. 1, 15-20; Diodor. xvii. 63-73. After the defeat, a suspensive
decree was passed by the Spartans, releasing from ἀτιμία those who had escaped
from the battle—as had been done after Leuktra (Diodor. xix. 70).

[679] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 524.

[680] Curtius, vii. 4, 32.

[681] Among the various documents, real or pretended, inserted in the

oration of Demosthenes De Coronâ, there appears one (p. 266) purporting to be
the very decree moved by Ktesiphon; and another (p. 243) purporting to be the
accusation preferred by Æschines. I have already stated that I agree with
Droysen in mistrusting all the documents annexed to this oration; all of them bear
the name of wrong archons, most of them names of unknown archons; some of
them do not fit the place in which they appear. See my preceding Vol. XI. Ch.
lxxxix. p. 424; Ch. xc. p. 456-486.
We know from the statement of Æschines himself that the motion of
Ktesiphon was made after the appointment of Demosthenes to be one of the
inspectors of the fortifications of the city; and that this appointment took place in
the last month of the archon Chærondas (June 337 B. C.—see Æschines adv.
Ktesiph. p. 421-426). We also know that the accusation of Æschines against
Ktesiphon was preferred before the assassination of Philip, which took place in
August 336 B. C. (Æschin. ib. p. 612, 613). It thus appears that the motion of
Ktesiphon (with the probouleuma which followed upon it) must have occurred
some time during the autumn or winter of 337-336 B. C.—that the accusation of
Æschines must have been handed in shortly after it—and that this accusation
cannot have been handed in at the date borne by the pseudo-document, p. 243—
the month Elaphebolion of the archon Chærondas, which would be anterior to the
appointment of Demosthenes. Moreover, whoever compares the so-called motion
of Ktesiphon, as it stands inserted Demosth. De Coronâ, p. 266, with the words in
which Æschines himself (Adv. Ktesiph. p. 631. ὅθεν τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ψηφίσματος
ἐποιήσω, see also p. 439) describes the exordium of that motion, will see that it
cannot be genuine.

[682] Demosthenes De Coronâ, p. 253, 302, 303, 310. He says (p. 267-313)
that he had been crowned often (πολλάκις) by the Athenians and other Greek
cities. The crown which he received on the motion of Aristonikus (after the
successes against Philip at Byzantium and the Chersonesus, etc. in 340 B. C.) was
the second crown (p. 253)—Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 848.

[683] Demosthenes De Coronâ, p. 294.

[684] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 645. διαβέβληται δ᾽ ἡμῶν ἡ πόλις ἐκ τῶν

Δημοσθένους πολιτευμάτων π ε ρ ὶ τ ο ὺ ς ν ῦ ν κ α ι ρ ο ύ ς· δόξετε δ᾽ ἐὰν μὲν
τοῦτον στεφανώσητε, ὁ μ ο γ ν ώ μ ο ν ε ς ε ἶ ν α ι τ ο ῖ ς π α ρ α β α ί ν ο υ σ ι τ ὴ ν
κ ο ι ν ὴ ν ε ἰ ρ ή ν η ν· ἐὰν δὲ τοὐναντίον τούτου πράξητε, ἀπολύσετε τὸν δῆμον
τῶν αἰτιῶν.—Compare with this, the last sentence of the oration of Demosthenes
in reply, where he puts up a prayer to the gods—ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην
ἀπαλλαγὴν τ ῶ ν ἐ π η ρ τ η μ έ ν ω ν φ ό β ω ν δότε καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ.
The mention by Æschines (immediately before) of the Pythian games, as
about to be celebrated in a few days, marks the date of this judicial trial—August,
330 B. C.

[685] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 443.

[686] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. pp. 449, 456, 467, 551.

[687] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. pp. 526, 538, 541.

[688] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 551-553.

[689] Demosthen. De Coronâ, p. 311-316.

[690] Demosthen. De Coronâ, p. 227. μέλλων τοῦ τε ἰδίου βίου π α ν τ ό ς, ὡς

ἔοικε, λόγον διδόναι τήμερον καὶ τῶν κοινῇ πεπολιτευμένων, etc.

[691] Demosthen. De Coronâ, p. 297. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως
ἡμάρτετε, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁπάντων ἐλευθερίας καὶ σωτηρίας
κίνδυνον ἀράμενοι—οὐ μὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας τῶν προγόνων καὶ
τοὺς ἐν Πλαταιαῖς παραταξαμένους καὶ τοὺς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχήσαντας, etc., the
oath so often cited and admired.

[692] See the various lives of Æschines—in Westermann, Scriptores

Biographici, pp. 268, 269.

[693] Demosthen. De Coronâ, p. 315. ἀλλὰ νυνὶ τήμερον ἐγὼ μὲν ὑπὲρ τοῦ
στεφανωθῆναι δοκιμάζομαι, τὸ δὲ μήδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἀδικεῖν ἀνωμολόγημαι—σοὶ δὲ
συκοφάντῃ μὲν εἶναι δοκεῖν ὑπάρχει, κινδυνεύεις δὲ εἴτε δεῖ σε ἔτι τοῦτο ποιεῖν,
εἴτ᾽ ἤδη πεπαῦσθαι μὴ μεταλαβόντα τὸ πέμπτον μέρος τῶν ψήφων, etc.
Yet Æschines had become opulent, according to Demosthenes, p. 329.

[694] Diodor. xvii. 108. He states the treasure brought out of Asia by
Harpalus as 5000 talents.

[695] See the fragments of the letter or pamphlet of Theopompus addressed

to Alexander, while Harpalus was still at Tarsus, and before his flight to Athens—
Theopomp. Fragm. 277, 278, ed. Didot, ap. Athenæum, xiii. p. 586-595.
Theopompus speaks in the present tense—κ α ὶ ὁ ρ ᾷ (Harpalus) ὑπὸ τοῦ λάου
προσκυνουμένην (Glykera), etc. Kleitarchus stated these facts, as well as
Theopompus (Athenæ. ibid.).
 [696] Athenæus, xiii. p. 596—the extract from the satirical drama called
Agên, represented before Alexander at Susa, in the Dionysiac festival or early
months of 324 B. C.

[697] Plutarch, Phokion, 22; Pausanias, i. 37, 4; Dikæarchi Fragment. 72. ed.
Didot.
Plutarch’s narrative is misleading, inasmuch as it seems to imply that Harpalus
gave this money to Charikles after his arrival at Athens. We know from
Theopompus (Fr. 277) that the monument had been finished some time before
Harpalus quitted Asia. Plutarch treats it as a mean structure, unworthy of the sum
expended on it; but both Dikæarchus and Pausanias describe it as stately and
magnificent.

[698] Curtius, x. 2, 1.

[699] Curtius, x. 2, 1. “Igitur triginta navibus Sunium transmittunt” (Harpalus

and his company), “unde portum urbis petere decreverunt. His cognitis, rex
Harpalo Atheniensibusque juxta infestus, classem parari jubet, Athenas protinus
petiturus.” Compare Justin, xiii. 5, 7—who mentions this hostile intention in
Alexander’s mind, but gives a different account of the cause of it.
The extract from the drama Agên (given in Athenæus, xiii. p. 596) represents
the reports which excited this anger of Alexander. It was said that Athens had
repudiated her slavery, with the abundance which she had before enjoyed under
it,—to enter upon a struggle for freedom, with the certainty of present privations
and future ruin:—

A. ὅτε μὲν ἔφασκον (the Athenians) δοῦλον ἐκτῆσθαι βίον,

ἱκανὸν ἐδείπνουν· ν ῦ ν δ ὲ, τὸν χέδροπα μόνον
καὶ τὸν μάραθον ἔ σ θ ο υ σ ι, πυροὺς δ᾽ οὐ μάλα.
B. καὶ μὴν ἀκούω μυριάδας τὸν Ἅρπαλον
αὐτοῖσι τῶν Ἀγῆνος οὐκ ἐλάττονας
σίτου παραπέμψαι, καὶ πολίτην γεγονέναι.
A. Γλυκέρας ὁ σῖτος οὗτος ἦν· ἔσται δ᾽ ἴσως
αὐτοῖσιν ὀ λ έ θ ρ ο υ κοὐκ ἑταίρας ἀῤῥαβών.
I conceive this drama Agên to have been represented on the banks of the
Choaspes (not the Hydaspes—see my note in the Chapter immediately preceding,
p. 240), that is, at Susa, in the Dionysia of 324 B. C. It is interesting as a record of
the feelings of the time.

[700] Nevertheless the impression, that Alexander was intending to besiege

Athens, must have prevailed in the army for several months longer, during the
autumn of 324 B. C. when he was at Ekbatana. Ephippus the historian, in
recounting the flatteries addressed to Alexander at Ekbatana, mentions the
rhodomontade of a soldier named Gorgus—Γόργος ὁ ὁπλοφύλαξ Ἀλέξανδρον
Ἄμμωνος υἱὸν στεφανοῖ χρυσοῖς τρισχιλίοις, κ α ὶ ὅ τ α ν Ἀ θ ή ν α ς π ο λ ι ο ρ κ ῇ,
μυρίαις πανοπλίαις καὶ ταῖς ἴσαις καταπέλταις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς
ἄλλοις βέλεσιν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον ἱκανοῖς (Ephippus ap. Athenæum, xii. p.
538. Fragment. 3. ed. Didot).

[701] Deinarchus adv. Philokl. s. 1. φάσκων κωλύσειν Ἅρπαλον εἰς τὸν

Πειραῖα καταπλεῦσαι, στατηγὸς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὰ νεώρια καὶ τὴν Μουνυχίαν
κεχειροτονημένος, etc. Deinarchus adv. Aristogeiton, s. 4. ὃς παρ᾽ Ἁρπάλου
λαβεῖν χρήματα ἐτόλμησεν, ὃν ᾔσθεθ᾽ ἥκειν καταληψόμενον τὴν πόλιν ὑμῶν, etc.

[702] See the new and interesting, though unfortunately scanty, fragments of
the oration of Hyperides against Demosthenes, published and elucidated by Mr.
Churchill Babington from a recently discovered Egyptian papyrus (Cambridge,
1850). From Fragm. 14 (p. 38 of Mr. Babington’s edition) we may see that the
promises mentioned in the text were actually held out by Harpalus—indeed we
might almost have presumed it without positive evidence. Hyperides addresses
Demosthenes—ταύτας ὑπ...ις τῷ ψηφίσματι, συλλαβὼν τὸν Ἅρπαλον· καὶ τοὺς
μὲν ἄλλους ἅπαντας πρεσβεύεσθαι πεποίηκας ὡς Ἀλέξανδρον, οὐκ ἔχοντας ἄλλην
οὐδεμίαν ἀποστροφήν· τ ο ὺ ς δ ὲ β α ρ β ά ρ ο υ ς, οἳ αὐτοὶ ἂν ἧκον φέροντες εἰς
ταὐτὸ τὴν δύναμιν, ἔχοντες τὰ χρήματα καὶ τοὺς στρατιώτας ὅσους ἕκαστος
αὐτῶν εἶχε, τ ο ύ τ ο υ ς σ ύ μ π α ν τ α ς οὐ μόνον κ ε κ ώ λ υ κ α ς ἀ π ο σ τ ῆ ν α ι
ἐ κ ε ί ν ο υ τῇ συλλήψει τοῦ Ἁρπάλου, ἀλλὰ καὶ....
From the language thus used by Hyperides in his accusation, we are made to
perceive what prospects he (and of course Harpalus, upon whose authority he
must have spoken) had held out to the people when the case was first under
discussion.
The fragment here cited is complete as to the main sense, not requiring very
great help from conjecture. In some of the other fragments, the conjectural
restorations of Mr. Babington, though highly probable and judicious, form too
large a proportion of the whole to admit of our citing them with confidence as
testimony.

[703] Pollux, x. 159.

[704] Plutarch, De Vitioso Pudore, p. 531. τῶν γὰρ Ἀθηναίων ὡρμημένων

Ἁρπάλῳ βοηθεῖν, καὶ κορυσσόντων ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, ἐξαίφνης ἐπεφάνη
Φιλόξενος, ὁ τῶν ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ πραγμάτων Ἀλεξάνδρου στρατηγός· ἐκπλαγέντος
δὲ τοῦ δήμου, καὶ σιωπῶντος διὰ τὸν φόβον, ὁ Δημοσθένης—Τί ποιήσουσιν, ἔφη,
πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἰδόντες, οἱ μὴ δυνάμενοι πρὸς τὸν λύχνον ἀντιβλέπειν;

[705] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 21; Plutarch, Demosthen. 25.

[706] Diodor. xvii. 108.

 [707] Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 69. ἐὰν τοὺς παῖδας καταπέμψῃ
(Alexander) πρὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς νῦν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀνακεκομισμένους, καὶ τούτων ἀξιοῖ
τὴν ἀληθείαν πυθέσθαι, etc.

[708] See the fragment cited in a preceding note from the oration of
Hyperides against Demosthenes. That it was Demosthenes who moved the
decree for depositing the money in the acropolis, we learn also from one of his
other accusers—the citizen who delivered the speech composed by Deinarchus
(adv. Demosthen. sect. 68, 71, 89)—ἔ γ ρ α ψ ε ν α ὐ τ ὸ ς , ἐ ν τ ῷ δ ή μ ῳ
Δ η μ ο σ θ έ ν η ς, ὡς δηλονότι δικαίου τοῦ πράγματος ὄντος, φυλάττειν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ
τὰ εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἀφικόμενα μετὰ Ἁρπάλου χρήματα.
Deinarchus (adv. Demosth. s. 97-106) accuses Demosthenes of base flattery
to Alexander. Hyperides also makes the same charge—see the Fragments in Mr.
Babington’s edition, sect. 2. Fr. 11. p. 12; sect. 3. Fr. 5. p. 34.

[709] Pausan. ii. 33, 4; Diodor. xvii. 108.

[710] This material fact, of the question publicly put to Harpalus in the
assembly by some one at the request of Demosthenes, appears in the Fragments
of Hyperides, p. 5, 7, 9, ed. Babington—καθήμενος κάτω ὑπὸ τῇ κατατομῇ,
ἐκέλευσε ... τὸν χορευτὴν ἐρωτῆσαι τὸν Ἅρπαλον ὁπόσα εἴη τὰ χρήματα τὰ
ἀνοισθησόμενα εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν· ὁ δ ὲ ἀ π ε κ ρ ί ν α τ ο ὅτι ἑπτακόσια, etc.
The term κατατομὴ (see Mr. Babington’s note) “designates a broad passage
occurring at intervals between the concentrically arranged benches of seats in a
theatre, and running parallel with them.”

[711] Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 846. In the life of Demosthenes given by

Photius (Cod. 265, p. 494) it is stated that only 308 talents were found.

[712] That this motion was made by Demosthenes himself, is a point strongly
pressed by his accuser Deinarchus—adv. Demosth. s. 5. 62, 84, etc.: compare
also the Fragm. of Hyperides, p. 59, ed. Babington.
Deinarchus, in his loose rhetoric, tries to put the case as if Demosthenes had
proposed to recognize the sentence of the Areopagus as final and peremptory,
and stood therefore condemned upon the authority invoked by himself. But this is
refuted sufficiently by the mere fact that the trial was instituted afterwards;
besides that, it is repugnant to the judicial practice of Athens.

[713] Plutarch, Demosth. 26. We learn from Deinarchus (adv. Demosth. s.

46) that the report of the Areopagites was not delivered until after an interval of
six months. About their delay and the impatience of Demosthenes see Fragm.
Hyperides, pp. 12-33, ed. Babington.
 [714] Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 92. See the Fragm. of Hyperides in Mr.
Babington, p. 18.

[715] Deinarchus adv. Aristogeiton, s. 6. Stratokles was one of the accusers.

[716] Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 108, 109.

[717] Plutarch, Demosth. 26.

[718] Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 104.

[719] See the two orations composed by Deinarchus, against Philokles and
Aristogeiton.
In the second and third Epistles ascribed to Demosthenes (p. 1470, 1483,
1485), he is made to state, that he alone had been condemned by the Dykastery,
because his trial had come on first—that Aristogeiton and all the others tried were
acquitted, though the charge against all was the same, and the evidence against
all was the same also—viz. nothing more than the simple report of the
Areopagus. As I agree with those who hold these epistles to be probably
spurious, I cannot believe, on such authority alone, that all the other persons
tried were acquitted—a fact highly improbable in itself.

[720] Plutarch, Demosth. 25: compare also Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 846;
and Photius, Life of Demosth. Cod. 265, p. 494.

[721] See the fragment of Hyperides in Mr. Babington’s edition, pp. 37, 38 (a
fragment already cited in a preceding note), insisting upon the prodigious
mischief which Demosthenes had done by his decree for arresting (σύλληψις)
Harpalus.

[722] In the Life of Demosthenes apud Photium (Cod. 265), the service
alleged to have been rendered by him to Harpalus, and for which he was charged
with having received 1000 Darics, is put as I have stated it in the text—
Demosthenes first spoke publicly against receiving Harpalus, but presently
Δαρεικοὺς χιλίους (ὥ ς φ α σ ι) λαβὼν πρὸς τοὺς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντας μετετάξατο
(then follow the particular acts whereby this alleged change of sentiment was
manifested, which particular acts are described as follows)—καὶ βουλομένων τῶν
Ἀθηναίων Ἀντιπάτρῳ προδοῦναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀντεῖπεν, τά τε Ἁρπάλεια χρήματα
εἰς ἀκρόπολιν ἔγραψεν ἀποθέσθαι, μηδὲ τῷ δήμῳ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν
ἀποσημηνάμενος.
That Demosthenes should first oppose the reception of Harpalus—and then
afterwards oppose the surrender of Harpalus to Antipater’s requisition—is here
represented as a change of politics requiring the hypothesis of a bribe to explain
it. But it is in reality no change at all. The two proceedings are perfectly
consistent with each other, and both of them defensible.

[723] Fragm. Hyperides, p. 7, ed. Babington—ἐν τῷ δήμῳ ἑπτακόσια φ ή σ α ς

εἶναι τάλαντα, ν ῦ ν τ ὰ ἡ μ ί σ η ἀ ν α φ έ ρ ε ι ς;
In p. 26 of the same Fragments, we find Hyperides reproaching Demosthenes
for not having kept effective custody over the person of Harpalus; for not having
proposed any decree providing a special custody; for not having made known
beforehand, or prosecuted afterwards, the negligence of the ordinary jailers. This
is to make Demosthenes responsible for the performance of all the administrative
duties of the city; for the good conduct of the treasurers and the jailers.
We must recollect that Hyperides had been the loudest advocate of Harpalus,
and had done all he could to induce the Athenians to adopt the cause of that
exile against Alexander. One of the charges (already cited from his speech)
against Demosthenes, is, that Demosthenes prevented this from being
accomplished. Yet here is another charge from the same speaker, to the effect
that Demosthenes did not keep Harpalus under effective custody for the sword of
the Macedonian executioner!
The line of accusation taken by Hyperides is full of shameful inconsistencies.

[724] In the Life of Demosthenes (Plutarch, Vit. X Oratt. p. 846), the charge
of corruption against him is made to rest chiefly on the fact, that he did not make
this communication to the people—καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μήτε τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν
ἀνακομισθέντων μεμηνυκὼς μήτε τῶν φυλασσόντων ἀμελείαν, etc. The biography
apud Photium seems to state it as if Demosthenes did not communicate the
amount, at the time when he proposed the decree of sequestration. This last
statement we are enabled to contradict, from the testimony of Hyperides.

[725] Hyperid. Fragm. p. 18, ed. Babington. τὰς γὰρ ἀποφάσεις πάσας τὰς
ὑπὲρ τῶν χρημάτων Ἁρπάλου, πάσας ὁμοίως ἡ βουλὴ πεποίηται, καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς
κατὰ πάντων· καὶ ο ὐ δ ε μ ι ᾷ π ρ ο σ γ έ γ ρ α φ ε , δ ι ᾽ ὅ τ ι ἕ κ α σ τ ο ν
ἀ π ο φ α ί ν ε ι· ἀλλ᾽ ἐ π ι κ ε φ ά λ α ι ο ν γράψασα, ὁπόσον ἕκαστος εἴληφε χρυσίον,
τοῦτ᾽ οὖν ὀφειλέτω....

[726] Hyperid. Frag. p. 20, ed. Babingt. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἔλαβες τὸ χρυσίον,
ἱκανὸν οἶμαι εἶναι σημεῖον τοῖς δικασταῖς, τὸ τὴν βουλὴν σοῦ
κ α τ α γ ν ῶ ν α ι (see Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 46, and the beginning of the
second Demosthenic epistle).
Hyperid. p. 16, ed Babingt. Καὶ σ υ κ ο φ α ν τ ε ῖ ς τ ὴ ν β ο υ λ ὴ ν, προκλήσεις
προτιθεὶς, καὶ ἐ ρ ω τ ῶ ν ἐ ν τ α ῖ ς π ρ ο κ λ ή σ ε σ ι ν , π ό θ ε ν ἔ λ α β ε ς τ ὸ
χρυσίον, καὶ τίς ἦν σοὶ ὁ δοὺς, καὶ πῶς; τελευταῖον δ᾽ ἴσως
ἐρωτήσεις, καὶ εἰ ἐχρήσω τῷ χρυσίῳ, ὥσπερ τραπεζιτικὸν
λ ό γ ο ν π α ρ ὰ τ ῆ ς β ο υ λ ῆ ς ἀ π α ι τ ῶ ν.
 This monstrous sentence creates a strong presumption in favor of the
defendant,—and a still stronger presumption against the accuser. Compare
Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 6, 7.
The biographer apud Photium states that Hyperides and four other orators
procured (κατεσκεύασαν) the condemnation of Demosthenes by the Areopagus.

[727] The biographer of Hyperides (Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 48) tells us that
he was the only orator who kept himself unbribed; the comic writer Timokles
names Hyperides along with Demosthenes and others as recipients (ap. Athenæ.
viii. p. 342).

[728] See this point urged by Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 69, 70.

[729] We read in Pausanias (ii. 33, 4) that the Macedonian admiral

Philoxenus, having afterwards seized one of the slaves of Harpalus, learnt from
him the names of those Athenians whom his master had corrupted; and that
Demosthenes was not among them. As far as this statement goes, it serves to
exculpate Demosthenes. Yet I cannot assign so much importance to it as Bishop
Thirlwall seems to do. His narrative of the Harpalian transactions is able and
discriminating (Hist. vol. vii. ch. 56. p. 170 seqq.).

[730] Diodor. xix. 8.

[731] See the Fragments of Hyperides, p. 36, ed. Babington.

[732] Curtius, x. 2, 6.

[733] Curtius, x. 2, 6. The statement of Diodorus (xviii. 8)—that the rescript

was popular and acceptable to all Greeks, except the Athenians and Ætolians—
cannot be credited. It was popular, doubtless, with the exiles themselves, and
their immediate friends.

[734] Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 81; compare Hyperid. Fragm. p. 36, ed.
Babington.

[735] Diodor. xvii. 113.

[736] Diodor. xvii. 111: compare xviii. 21. Pausanias (i. 25, 5; viii. 52, 2)
affirms that Leosthenes brought over 50,000 of these mercenaries from Asia into
Peloponnesus, during the lifetime of Alexander, and against Alexander’s will. The
number here given seems incredible; but it is probable enough that he induced
some to come across.—Justin (xiii. 5) mentions that armed resistance was
prepared by the Athenians and Ætolians against Alexander himself during the
latter months of his life, in reference to the mandate enjoining recall of the exiles.
He seems to overstate the magnitude of their doings, before the death of
Alexander.

[737] A striking comparison made by the orator Demades (Plutarch,

Apophthegm. p. 181).

[738] See Frontinus, Stratagem, ii. 11, 4.

[739] Plutarch, Phokion, 23. In the Fragments of Dexippus, there appear

short extracts of two speeches, seemingly composed by that author in his history
of these transactions; one which he ascribes to Hyperides instigating the war, the
other to Phokion, against it (Fragm. Hist. Græc. vol. iii. p. 668).

[740] Diodor. xviii. 10. Diodorus states that the Athenians sent the Harpalian
treasures to the aid of Leosthenes. He seems to fancy that Harpalus had brought
to Athens all the 5000 talents which he had carried away from Asia; but it is
certain, that no more than 700 or 720 talents were declared by Harpalus in the
Athenian assembly—and of these only half were really forthcoming. Moreover,
Diodorus is not consistent with himself, when he says afterwards (xviii. 19) that
Thimbron, who killed Harpalus in Krete, got possession of the Harpalian treasures
and mercenaries, and carried them over to Kyrênê in Africa.

[741] It is to this season, apparently, that the anecdote (if true) must be
referred—The Athenians were eager to invade Bœotia unseasonably; Phokion, as
general of eighty years old, kept them back, by calling out the citizens of sixty
years old and upwards for service, and offering to march himself at their head
(Plutarch, Reip. Ger. Præcept. p. 818).

[742] Diodor. xviii. 11; Pausanias, i. 25, 4.

[743] Plutarch, Demosth. 27.

[744] See the Fragments of Hyperides, p. 36, ed. Babington. καὶ περὶ τοῦ
τοὺς κοινοὺς συλλόγους Ἀχαιῶν τε καὶ Ἀρκάδων ... we do not know what was
done to these district confederacies, but it seems that some considerable change
was made in them, at the time when Alexander’s decree for restoring the exiles
was promulgated.

[745] Diodor. xviii. 13.

[746] Plutarch, Phokion, 23, 24.

[747] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 23; Plutarch, Reip. Ger. Præcept. p. 803.

[748] Diodor. xviii. 12, 13.

 [749] Diodor. xviii. 13-15.

[750] Plutarch, Phokion, 24.

[751] Diodor. xviii. 11; Plutarch, Phokion, 26.

[752] Plutarch, Phokion, 25; Diodor. xviii. 14, 15: compare Plutarch, Pyrrhus,
1.

[753] Diodor. xviii. 15.

[754] Diodor. xviii. 15.

[755] Diodor. xviii. 8.

[756] Diodor. xviii. 17.

[757] Plutarch, Alexand. 77.

[758] Arrian, De Rebus post Alexandrum, vi. ap. Photium, Cod. 92.

[759] Arrian, De Rebus post Alexand. ut supra; Diodor. xviii. 3, 4; Curtius, x.

10; Dexippus, Fragmenta ap. Photium, Cod. 82, ap. Fragm. Hist. Græc. vol. iii. p.
667, ed. Didot (De Rebus post Alexandrum).

[760] Arrian and Dexippus—De Reb. post Alex. ut supra: compare Diodor.
xviii. 48.

[761] Diodor. xviii. 16.

[762] Diodor. xviii. 4.

[763] Plutarch, Eumenes, 3.

[764] Diodor. xviii. 17; Plutarch, Phokion, 26.

[765] Diodor. xviii. 17; Plutarch, Phokion, c. 26.

[766] Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes, who had held a bold

language and taken active part against Antipater throughout the Lamian war, is
said to have delivered a public harangue recommending resistance even at this
last moment. At least such was the story connected with his statue, erected a few
years afterwards at Athens, representing him in the costume of an orator, but
with a sword in hand—Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 847: compare Polybius, xii. 13.

[767] Plutarch, Phokion, 27; Diodor. xviii. 18.

 [768] Plutarch, Phokion, 27. Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πρέσβεις ἠγάπησαν ὡς
φιλανθρώπους τὰς διαλύσεις, πλὴν τοῦ Ξενοκράτους, etc. Pausanias even states
(vii. 10, 1) that Antipater was disposed to grant more lenient terms, but was
dissuaded from doing so by Demades.

[769] See Fragments of Hyperides adv. Demosth. p. 61-65, ed. Babington.

[770] Diodor. xviii. 18. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν ὄντες πλείους τῶν μυρίων (instead of
δισμυρίων, which seems a mistake) καὶ δισχιλίων μετεστάθησαν ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος·
οἱ δὲ τὴν ὡρισμένην τίμησιν ἔχοντες περὶ ἐννακισχιλίους, ἀπεδείχθησαν κύριοι τῆς
τε πόλεως καὶ τῆς χώρας, καὶ κατὰ τοὺς Σόλωνος νόμους ἐπολιτεύοντο. Plutarch
states the disfranchised as above 12,000.
Plutarch, Phokion, 28, 29. Ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν ὁ Φωκίων καὶ φυγῆς ἀπήλλαξε
πολλοὺς δεηθεὶς τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου· καὶ φεύγουσι διεπράξατο, μὴ καθάπερ οἱ λοιποὶ
τῶν μεθισταμένων ὑπὲρ τὰ Κεραύνια ὄρη καὶ τὸν Ταίναρον ἐκπεσεῖν τῆς Ἑλλάδος,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ κατοικεῖν, ὧν ἦν καὶ Ἁγνωνίδης ὁ συκοφάντης.
Diodorus and Plutarch (c. 29) mention that Antipater assigned residences in
Thrace for the expatriated. Those who went beyond the Keraunian mountains
must have gone either to the Illyrian coast, Apollonia or Epidamnus—or to the
Gulf of Tarentum. Those who went beyond Tænarus would probably be sent to
Libya: see Thucydides, vii. 19, 10; vii. 50, 2.

[771] Plutarch, Phokion, 28. ἐκπεπολιορκημένοις ἐῴκεσαν: compare Solon,

Fragment 28, ed. Gaisford.

[772] Plutarch, Phokion, 28.

[773] Plutarch, Demosth. 28. Ἀρχίας ὁ κληθεὶς Φυγαδοθήρας. Plutarch, Vit. X.

Oratt. p. 846.

[774] Polybius, ix. 29, 30. This is stated, as matter of traditional pride, by an
Ætolian speaker more than a century afterwards. In the speech of his Akarnanian
opponent, there is nothing to contradict it—while the fact is in itself highly
probable.
See Westermann, Geschichte der Beredtsamkeit in Griechenland, ch. 71, note
4.

[775] Plutarch, Demosth. 28; Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 849; Photius, p. 496.

[776] Plutarch, Demosth. 30. τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων, ὅσοι γεγράφασί τι περὶ αὐτοῦ,
π α μ π ο λ λ ο ὶ δ ᾽ ε ἰ σ ὶ, τὰς διαφορὰς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐπεξελθεῖν, etc.
The taunts on Archias’s profession, as an actor, and as an indifferent actor,
which Plutarch puts into the mouth of Demosthenes (c. 29), appear to me not
worthy either of the man or of the occasion; nor are they sufficiently avouched to
induce me to transcribe them. Whatever bitterness of spirit Demosthenes might
choose to manifest, at such a moment, would surely be vented on the chief
enemy, Antipater; not upon the mere instrument.

[777] Plutarch, Demosth. 30; Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 846; Photius, p. 494;
Arrian, De Rebus post Alexand. vi. ap. Photium, Cod. 92.

[778] Demosthenes, De Coronâ, p. 324. οὗτοι—τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὸ μηδένα

ἔχειν δεσπότην αὑτῶν, ἃ τοῖς προτέροις Ἕλλησιν ὅροι τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἦσαν καὶ
κανόνες, ἀνατετραφότες, etc.

[779] Diodor. xviii. 18; Diogen. Laert. x. 1, 1. I have endeavored to show, in

the Tenth Volume of this History (Ch. lxxix. p. 297, note), that Diodorus is correct
in giving forty-three years, as the duration of the Athenian Kleruchies in Samos;
although both Wesseling and Mr. Clinton impugn his statement. The Athenian
occupation of Samos began immediately after the conquest of the island by
Timotheus, in 366-365 B. C.; but additional batches of colonists were sent thither
in later years.

[780] Plutarch, Phokion, 29, 30.

[781] Diodor. xviii. 55, 56, 57, 68, 69. φανεροῦ δ᾽ ὄντος, ὅτι Κάσανδρος τῶν
κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα πόλεων ἀνθέξεται, διὰ τὸ τὰς μὲν αὐτῶν πατρικαῖς φρουραῖς
φυλάττεσθαι, τὰς δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ὀλιγαρχιῶν διοικεῖσθαι, κυριευομένας ὑπὸ τῶν
Ἀντιπάτρου φίλων καὶ ξένων.
That citizens were not only banished, but deported, by Antipater from various
other cities besides Athens, we may see from the edict issued by Polysperchon
shortly after the death of Antipater (Diod. xviii. 56)—καὶ τοὺς μ ε τ α σ τ ά ν τ α ς ἢ
φ υ γ ό ν τ α ς ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων στρατηγῶν (i. e. Antipater and Kraterus), ἀφ᾽ ὧν
χρόνων Ἀλέξανδρος εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν διέβη, κατάγομεν, etc.

[782] Diodor. xviii. 25. διεγνωκότες ὕστερον αὐτοὺς καταπολεμῆσαι, καὶ

μ ε τ α σ τ ῆ σ α ι π α ν ο ι κ ί ο υ ς ἅ π α ν τ α ς εἰς τὴν ἐρημίαν καὶ ποῤῥωτάτω τῆς
Ἀσίας κειμένην χώραν.

[783] Diodor. xviii. 18-25.

[784] Diodor. xviii. 23; Arrian, De Rebus post Alex. vi. ap. Phot. Cod. 92.
Diodorus alludes to the murder of Kynanê or Kynna, in another place (xix. 52).
Compare Polyænus, viii. 60—who mentions the murder of Kynanê by Alketas,
but gives a somewhat different explanation of her purpose in passing into Asia.
About Kynanê, see Duris, Fragm. 24, in Fragment. Hist. Græc. vol. ii. p. 475;
Athenæ. xiii. p. 560.
 [785] The fine lines of Lucan (Phars. vii. 640) on the effects of the battle of
Pharsalia, may be cited here:—

“Majus ab hac acie, quam quod sua sæcula ferrent,

Vulnus habent populi: plus est quam vita salusque
Quod perit: in totum mundi prosternimur ævum.
Vincitur his gladiis omnis, quæ serviet, ætas.
Proxima quid soboles, aut quid meruere nepotes,
In regnum nasci?” etc.

[786] Diodor. xviii. 38. Ἀντιπάτρου δ᾽ εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν διαβεβηκότος, Αἰτωλοὶ
κ α τ ὰ τ ὰ ς π ρ ὸ ς Π ε ρ δ ί κ κ α ν σ υ ν θ ή κ α ς ἐστράτευσαν εἰς τὴν Θετταλίαν,
etc.

[787] Plutarch, Eumenes, 7; Cornel. Nepos, Eumenes, c. 4. Eumenes had

trained a body of Asiatic and Thracian cavalry to fight in close combat with the
short pike and sword of the Macedonian Companions—relinquishing the javelin,
the missiles, and the alternation of charging and retiring usual to Asiatics.
Diodorus (xviii. 30, 31, 32) gives an account at some length of this battle. He
as well as Plutarch may probably have borrowed from Hieronymus of Kardia.

[788] Arrian ap. Photium, Cod. 92; Justin, xiii. 8; Diodor. xviii. 33.

[789] Diodor. xviii. 36.

[790] Plutarch, Eumenes, 8; Cornel. Nepos, Eumenes, 4; Diodor. xviii. 36, 37.

[791] Diodor. xviii. 39. Arrian, ap. Photium.

[792] Arrian, De Rebus post Alexandr. lib. ix. 10. ap. Photium, Cod. 92;
Diodor. xviii. 39, 40, 46; Plutarch, Eumenes, 3, 4.

[793] Plutarch, Eumenes, 10, 11; Cornel. Nepos, Eumenes, c. 5; Diodor. xviii.
41.

[794] Plutarch, Phokion, 30; Diodor. xviii. 48; Plutarch, Demosth. 31; Arrian,
De Reb. post Alex. vi. ap. Photium, Cod. 92.
In the life of Phokion, Plutarch has written inadvertently Antigonus instead of
Perdikkas.
It is not easy to see, however, how Deinarchus can have been the accuser of
Demades on such a matter—as Arrian and Plutarch state. Arrian seems to put the
death of Demades too early, from his anxiety to bring it into immediate
juxtaposition with the death of Demosthenes, whose condemnation Demades had
proposed in the Athenian assembly.
 [795] Diod. xviii. 48.

[796] Diod. xix. 11.

[797] Plutarch, Phokion, 31. Diodorus (xviii. 64) says also that Nikanor was
nominated by Kassander.

[798] Diodor. xviii. 54.

[799] Diodor. xviii. 49-58.

[800] Plutarch, Eumenes, 11, 12; Cornelius Nepos, Eumenes, c. 6; Diodor.

xviii. 58-62.
Diodor. xviii, 58. ἧκε δὲ καὶ παρ᾽ Ὀλυμπιάδος αὐτῷ γράμματα, δεομένης καὶ
λιπαρούσης βοηθεῖν τοῖς βασιλεῦσι καὶ ἑαυτῇ· μόνον γὰρ ἐκεῖνον πιστότατον
ἀπολελεῖφθαι τῶν φίλων, καὶ δυνάμενον διορθώσασθαι τὴν ἐρημίαν τῆς βασιλικῆς
οἰκίας.
Cornelius Nepos, Eumenes, 6. “Ad hunc (Eumenem) Olympias, quum literas et
nuntios misisset in Asiam, consultum, utrum repetitum Macedoniam veniret (nam
tum in Epiro habitabat) et eas res occuparet—huic ille primum suasit ne se
moveret, et expectaret quoad Alexandri filius regnum adipisceretur. Sin aliquâ
cupiditate raperetur in Macedoniam, omnium injuriarum oblivisceretur, et in
neminem acerbiore uteretur imperio. Horum illa nihil fecit. Nam et in Macedoniam
profecta est, et ibi crudelissime se gessit.” Compare Justin, xiv. 6; Diodor. xix. 11.
The details respecting Eumenes may be considered probably as depending on
unusually good authority. His friend Hieronymus of Kardia had written a copious
history of his own time; which, though now lost, was accessible both to Diodorus
and Plutarch. Hieronymus was serving with Eumenes, and was taken prisoner
along with him by Antigonus; who spared him and treated him well, while
Eumenes was put to death (Diodor. xix. 44). Plutarch had also read letters of
Eumenes (Plut. Eum. 11).

[801] Diodor. xviii. 63-72; xix. 11, 17, 32, 44.

[802] Plutarch (Eumenes, 16-18), Cornelius Nepos (10-13), and Justin (xiv. 3,
4) describe in considerable detail the touching circumstances attending the
tradition and capture of Eumenes. On this point Diodorus is more brief; but he
recounts at much length the preceding military operations between Eumenes and
Antigonus (xix. 17, 32, 44).
The original source of these particulars must probably be, the history of
Hieronymus of Kardia, himself present, and copied, more or less accurately, by
others.

[803] Plutarch, Eumenes, 13; Diodor. xviii. 58.

 [804] Plutarch, Eumenes, 3.

[805] Diodor. xviii. 55. εὐθὺς οὖν τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων παρόντας
πρεσβευτὰς προσκαλεσάμενοι, etc.

[806] Diodor. xviii. 56. In this chapter the proclamation is given verbatim. For
the exceptions made in respect to Amphissa, Trikka, Herakleia, etc., we do not
know the grounds.
Reference is made to prior edicts of the kings—ὑμεῖς οὖν, καθάπερ ὑμῖν καὶ
πρότερον ἐγράψαμεν, ἀκούετε τούτου (Πολυσπέρχοντος). These words must
allude to written answers given to particular cities, in reply to special applications.
No general proclamation, earlier than this, can have been issued since the death
of Antipater.

[807] Diodor. xviii. 57.

[808] Plutarch, Phokion, 32. The opinion of Plutarch, however, that

Polysperchon intended this measure as a mere trick to ruin Phokion, is only
correct so far—that Polysperchon wished to put down the Antipatrian oligarchies
everywhere, and that Phokion was the leading person of that oligarchy at Athens.

[809] Diodor. xviii. 64.

[810] Plutarch, Phokion, 31.

[811] Plutarch, Phokion, 32.

[812] Diodor. xviii. 64; Plutarch, Phokion, 32; Cornelius Nepos, Phokion, 2.

[813] Cornelius Nepos, Phokion, 2. “Concidit autem maxime uno crimine:

quod cum apud eum summum esset imperium populi, et Nicanorem, Cassandri
præfectum, insidiari Piræo Atheniensium, a Dercyllo moneretur: idemque
postularet, ut provideret, ne commeatibus civitas privaretur—huic, audiente
populo, Phocion negavit esse periculam, seque ejus rei obsidem fore pollicitus est.
Neque ita multo post Nicanor Piræo est potitus. Ad quem recuperandum cum
populus armatus concurrisset, ille non modo neminem ad arma vocavit, sed ne
armatis quidem præsse voluit, sine qua Athenæ omnino esse non possunt.”

[814] Diodor. xviii. 65; Plutarch, Phokion, 33.

[815] Diodor. xviii. 65. Τῶν γὰρ Ἀντιπάτρῳ γεγονότων φίλων τινὲς (ὑπῆρχον)
καὶ ο ἱ π ε ρ ὶ Φ ω κ ί ω ν α φ ο β ο ύ μ ε ν ο ι τ ὰ ς ἐ κ τ ῶ ν ν ό μ ω ν τ ι μ ω ρ ί α ς,
ὑπήντησαν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, καὶ διδάξαντες τὸ συμφέρον, ἔπεισαν αὐτὸν ἰδίᾳ κατέχειν
τὰ φρούρια, καὶ μὴ παραδιδόναι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, μέχρις ἂν ὁ Κάσσανδρος
καταπολεμήθῃ.
 [816] Plutarch, Phokion, 33; Diod. xviii. 65. 66. This seems to me the
probable sequence of facts, combining Plutarch with Diodorus. Plutarch takes no
notice of the negotiation opened by Phokion with Alexander, and the
understanding established between them; which is stated in the clearest manner
by Diodorus, and appears to me a material circumstance. On the other hand,
Plutarch mentions (though Diodorus does not) that Alexander was anxious to
seize Athens itself, and was very near succeeding. Plutarch seems to conceive
that it was the exiles who were disposed to let him in; but if that had been the
case, he probably would have been let in when the exiles became preponderant.
It was Phokion, I conceive, who was desirous, for his own personal safety, of
admitting the foreign troops.

[817] Diodor. xviii. 65; Plutarch, Phokion, 35.

[818] Diodor. xviii. 66. Προσδεχθέντες δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Alexander)

φιλοφρόνως, γράμματα ἔλαβον πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Πολυσπέρχοντα, ὅπως μηδὲν
πάθωσιν οἱ περὶ Φωκίωνα τ ἀ κ ε ί ν ο υ π ε φ ρ ο ν η κ ό τ ε ς , κ α ὶ ν ῦ ν
ἐ π α γ γ ε λ λ ό μ ε ν ο ι π ά ν τ α σ υ μ π ρ ά ξ ε ι ν.
This application of Phokion to Alexander, and the letters obtained to
Polysperchon, are not mentioned by Plutarch, though they are important
circumstances in following the last days of Phokion’s life.

[819] Plutarch, Phokion, 33.

[820] Diodor. xviii. 66.

[821] Plutarch, Phokion, 33; Cornel. Nepos. Phokion, 3. “Hic (Phocion), ab

Agnonide accusatus, quod Piræum Nicanori prodidisset, ex consilii sententiâ, in
custodiam conjectus, Athenas deductus est, ut ibi de eo legibus fieret judicium.”
Plutarch says that Polysperchon, before he gave this hearing to both parties,
ordered the Corinthian Deinarchus to be tortured and to be put to death. Now the
person so named cannot be Deinarchus, the logographer—of whom we have
some specimens remaining, and who was alive even as late as 292 B. C.—though
he too was a Corinthian. Either, therefore, there were two Corinthians, both
bearing this same name (as Westermann supposes—Gesch. der Beredtsamkeit,
sect. 72), or the statement of Plutarch must allude to an order given but not
carried into effect—which latter seems to me most probable.

[822] Plutarch, Phokion, 33, 34; Diodor. xviii. 66.

[823] Andokides de Mysteriis, sect. 96, 97; Lycurgus adv. Leokrat. s. 127.

[824] Not the eminent philosopher so named.

 [825] Cornel. Nepos, Phoc. 4. “Plurimi vero ita exacuerentur propter
proditionis suspicionem Piræi, maximeque quod adversus populi commoda in
senectute steterat.”

[826] Diodor. xviii. 66, 67; Plutarch, Phokion, 34, 35; Cornelius Nepos,
Phokion, 2, 3.

[827] Plutarch, Phokion, 36, 37. Two other anecdotes are recounted by
Plutarch, which seem to be of doubtful authenticity. Nikokles entreated that he
might be allowed to swallow his potion before Phokion; upon which the latter
replied—“Your request, Nikokles, is sad and mournful; but as I have never yet
refused you anything throughout my life, I grant this also.”
After the four first had drunk, all except Phokion, no more hemlock was left;
upon which the jailer said that he would not prepare any more, unless twelve
drachmæ of money were given to him to buy the material. Some hesitation took
place, until Phokion asked one of his friends to supply the money, sarcastically
remarking, that it was hard if a man could not even die gratis at Athens.
As to the first of these anecdotes—if we read, in Plato’s Phædon (152-155),
the details of the death of Sokrates,—we shall see that death by hemlock was not
caused instantaneously, but in a gradual and painless manner; the person who
had swallowed the potion being desired to walk about for some time, until his
legs grew heavy, and then to lie down in bed, after which he gradually chilled and
became insensible, first in the extremities, next in the vital centres. Under these
circumstances, the question—which of the persons condemned should swallow
the first of the five potions—could be of very little moment.
Then, as to the alleged niggardly stock of hemlock in the Athenian prison—
what would have been the alternative, if Phokion’s friend had not furnished the
twelve drachmæ? Would he have remained in confinement, without being put to
death? Certainly not; for he was under capital sentence. Would he have been put
to death by the sword or some other unexpensive instrument? This is at variance
with the analogy of Athenian practice. If there be any truth in the story, we must
suppose that the Eleven had allotted to this jailer a stock of hemlock (or the price
thereof) really adequate to five potions, but that he by accident or awkwardness
had wasted a part of it, so that it would have been necessary for him to supply
the deficiency out of his own pocket. From this embarrassment he was rescued
by Phokion and his friend; and Phokion’s sarcasm touches upon the strangeness
of a man being called upon to pay for his own execution.

[828] Plutarch, Phokion, 38

[829] Plutarch, Phokion, 18; Plutarch, Apophthegm. p. 188.

 [830] Diodor. xix. 35.

[831] Diodor. xviii. 69.

[832] Diodor. xxiii. 70, 71.

[833] Diodor. xviii. 72.

[834] Thucyd. i. 93.

[835] Diodor. xviii. 74.

[836] See the notice of Munychia, as it stood ten years afterwards (Diodor.
xx. 45).

[837] Cicero, De Legg. ii. 26, 66; Strabo, ix. p. 398; Pausanias, i. 25, 5.
τύραννόν τε Ἀθηναίοις ἔπραξε γενέσθαι Δημήτριον, etc. Duris ap. Athenæum, xii.
542. Fragm. 27. vol. iii. p. 477. Frag. Hist. Græc.
The Phalerean Demetrius composed, among numerous historical,
philosophical, and literary works, a narrative of his own decennial administration
(Diogenes Laert. v. 5, 9; Strabo, ib.)—περὶ τῆς δεκαετίας.
The statement of 1200 talents, as the annual revenue handled by Demetrius,
deserves little credit.

[838] See the Fragment of Demochares, 2. Fragment. Historic. Græc. ed.

Didot, vol. ii. p. 448, ap. Polyb. xii. 13. Demochares, nephew of the orator
Demosthenes, was the political opponent of Demetrius Phalereus, whom he
reproached with these boasts about commercial prosperity, when the liberty and
dignity of the city were overthrown. To such boasts of Demetrius Phalereus
probably belongs the statement cited from him by Strabo (iii. p. 147) about the
laborious works in the Attic mines at Laureium.

[839] Diodor. xx. 40. ὥσθ᾽ ὑπελάμβανον μὴ μόνον ἐγκρατεῖς ἔσεσθαι πολλῶν
ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν παρόντων κακῶν ἀπαλλαγήσεσθαι.

[840] Dionys. Halic. Judicium de Dinarcho, p. 633, 634; Plutarch, Demetrius,

10. λόγῳ μὲν ὀλιγαρχικῆς, ἔργῳ δὲ μοναρχικῆς, καταστάσεως γενομένης διὰ τὴν
τοῦ Φαληρέως δύναμιν, etc.

[841] Ktesikles ap. Athenæum, vi. p. 272. Mr. Fynes Clinton (following
Wesseling), supplies the defect in the text of Athenæus, so as to assign the
census to the 115th Olympiad. This conjecture may be right, yet the reasons for it
are not conclusive. The census may have been either in the 116th, or in the
117th Olympiad; we have no means of determining which. The administration of
Phalerean Demetrius covers the ten years between 317 and 307 B. C. (Fast. Hell.
Append. p. 388).
Mr. Clinton (ad ann. 317 B. C. Fast. Hell.) observes respecting the census
—“The 21,000 Athenians express those who had votes in the public assembly, or
all the males above the age of twenty years; the 10,000 μέτοικοι described also
the males of full age. When the women and children are computed, the total free
population will be about 127,660; and 400,000 slaves, added to this total, will
give about 527,660 for the total population of Attica.” See also the Appendix to F.
H. p. 390 seq.
This census is a very interesting fact; but our information respecting it is
miserably scanty, and Mr. Clinton’s interpretation of the different numbers is open
to some remark. He cannot be right, I think, in saying—“The 21,000 Athenians
express those who had votes in the assembly, or all the males above the age of
twenty years.” For we are expressly told, that under the administration of
Demetrius Phalereus, all persons who did not possess 1000 drachmæ were
excluded from the political franchise; and therefore a large number of males
above the age of twenty years would have no vote in the assembly. Since the two
categories are not coincident, then, to which shall we apply the number 21,000?
To those who had votes? Or to the total number of free citizens, voting or not
voting, above the age of twenty? The public assembly, during the administration
of Demetrius Phalereus, appears to have been of little moment or efficacy; so
that a distinct record, of the number of persons entitled to vote in it, is not likely
to have been sought.
Then again, Mr. Clinton interprets the three numbers given, upon two
principles totally distinct. The two first numbers (citizens and metics), he
considers to designate only males of full age; the third number, of οἰκέται, he
considers to include both sexes and all ages.
This is a conjecture which I think very doubtful, in the absence of farther
knowledge. It implies that the enumerators take account of the slave women and
children—but that they take no account of the free women and children, wives
and families of the citizens and metics. The number of the free women and
children are wholly unrecorded, on Mr. Clinton’s supposition. Now if, for the
purposes of the census, it was necessary to enumerate the slave women and
children—it surely would be not less necessary to enumerate the free women and
children.
The word οἰκέται sometimes means, not slaves only, but the inmates of a
family generally—free as well as slave. If such be its meaning here (which
however there is not evidence enough to affirm), we eliminate the difficulty of
supposing the slave women and children to be enumerated—and the free women
and children not to be enumerated.
 We should be able to reason more confidently, if we knew the purpose for
which the census had been taken—whether with a view to military or political
measures—to finance and taxation—or to the question of subsistence and
importation of foreign corn (see Mr. Clinton’s Fast. H. ad ann. 444 B. C., about
another census taken in reference to imported corn).

[842] See Dionys. Halic. Judic. de Dinarcho, p. 658 Reisk.

[843] Diodor. xviii. 75.

[844] Justin, xiv. 5; Diodor. xviii. 75; Pausan. vii. 8, 3; Pausanias, i. 25, 5.

[845] Diodor. xix. 11; Justin, x. 14, 4; Pausanias, i. 11, 4.

[846] Diodor. xix. 36.

[847] Diodor. xix. 50, 51; Justin, xiv. 5; Pausan. i. 25, 5; ix. 7, 1.

[848] Even immediately before the death of Olympias, Aristonous, governor

of Amphipolis in her interest, considered Eumenes to be still alive (Diodor. xix.
50).

[849] Diodor. xix. 52; Pausanias, v. 23, 2.

[850] Diodor. xix. 52, 54, 78; Pausan. ix. 7, 2-5. This seems an explanation of
Kassander’s proceeding, more probable than that given by Pausanias; who tells us
that Kassander hated the memory of Alexander the Great, and wished to undo
the consequences of his acts. That he did so hate Alexander, is however
extremely credible: see Plutarch, Alexand. 74.

[851] Diodor. xix. 54.

[852] Diodor. xix. 56.

[853] Diodor. xix. 57.

[854] Diodor. xix. 61.

[855] Diodor. xix. 62.

[856] Diodor. xix. 63, 64.

[857] Diodor. xix. 62, 67.

[858] Diodor. xix. 66. Ἀριστόδημος, ἐ π ὶ τ ο ῦ κ ο ι ν ο ῦ τ ῶ ν Α ἰ τ ω λ ῶ ν

δικαιολογησάμενος, προετρέψατο τὰ πλήθη βοηθεῖν τοῖς Ἀντιγόνου πράγμασιν,
etc.

[859] Diodor. xix. 67, 68; Justin, xv. 2. See Brandstäter, Geschichte des
Ætolischen Volkes und Bundes, p. 178 (Berlin, 1844).

[860] Diodor. xix. 74.

[861] Diodor. xix. 77, 78, 89.

[862] Diodor. xix. 87.

[863] Diodor. xix. 105.

[864] Diodor. xix. 105.

[865] Diodor. xx. 19.

[866] Messênê was garrisoned by Polysperchon (Diodor. xix. 64).

[867] Diodor. xx. 28; Trogus Pompeius—Proleg. ad Justin. xv. Justin. xv. 2.

[868] Diodor. xx. 100-103; Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 6. King Pyrrhus was of

προγόνων ἀεὶ δεδουλευκότων Μακεδόσι—at least this was the reproach of
Lysimachus (Plutarch, Phyrrhus, 12).

[869] Diodor. xx. 37 compare Justin, xiii. 6; xiv. 1.

[870] Diodor. xx. 37.

[871] Philochor. Fragm. 144, ed. Didot; Diodor. xx. 45, 46; Plutarch,
Demetrius, 8, 9. The occupation of Peiræus by Demetrius Poliorketes is related
somewhat differently by Polyænus, iv. 7, 6.

[872] Plutarch, Demetrius, 9-11; Diodor. xx. 47; Demochares ap. Athenæum,
vi. p. 253.

[873] Diogen. Laert. v, 77. Among the numerous literary works (all lost) of
the Phalerean Demetrius, one was entitled Ἀθηναίων καταδρομή (ib. v. 82).

[874] Demochares ap. Athenæum, vi. p. 253.

[875] Tacitus, Annal. i. 3. “Juniores post Actiacam victoriam, seniores

plerique inter bella civium nati: quotusquisque reliquus, qui rempublicam
vidisset?”

[876] Herodotus, v. 78.

 [877] Plutarch, Demetr. 24.

[878] Polybius, xii. 13; Decretum apud Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 851.

[879] Philochori Fragm. 144, ed. Didot, ap. Dionys. Hal. p. 636.

[880] Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 842-852. Lykurgus at his death (about 324
B. C.) left three sons, who are said, shortly after his death, to have been
prosecuted by Menesæchmus, and put in prison (“handed over to the Eleven”).
But Thrasykles, supported by Demokles, stood forward on their behalf; and
Demosthenes, then in banishment at Trœzen, wrote emphatic remonstrances to
the Athenians against such unworthy treatment of the sons of a distinguished
patriot. Accordingly the Athenians soon repented and released them.
This is what we find stated in Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 842. The third of the
so-called Demosthenic Epistles purports to be the letter written on this subject by
Demosthenes.
The harsh treatment of the sons of Lykurgus (whatever it may have amounted
to, and whatever may have been its ground) certainly did not last long; for in the
next page of the very same Plutarchian life (p. 843), an account is given of the
family of Lykurgus, which was ancient and sacerdotal; and it is there stated that
his sons after his death fully sustained the dignified position of the family.
On what ground they were accused, we cannot make out. According to the
Demosthenic epistle (which epistles I have before stated that I do not believe to
be authentic), it was upon some allegation, which, if valid at all, ought to have
been urged against Lykurgus himself during his life (p. 1477, 1478); but Lykurgus
had been always honorably acquitted, and always held thoroughly estimable, up
to the day of his death (p. 1475).

[881] Diogen. Laert. v. 38. It is probably to this return of the philosophers

that the φυγάδων κάθοδος mentioned by Philochorus, as foreshadowed by the
omen in the Acropolis, alludes (Philochorus, Frag. 145, ed. Didot, ap Dionys. Hal.
p. 637).

[882] See the few fragments of Demochares collected in Fragmenta

Historicorum Græcorum, ed. Didot, vol. ii. p. 445, with the notes of Carl Müller.
See likewise Athenæus, xiii. 610, with the fragment from the comic writer
Alexis. It is there stated that Lysimachus also, king of Thrace, had banished the
philosophers from his dominions.
Demochares might find (besides the persons named in Athenæ. v. 21, xi. 508)
other authentic examples of pupils of Plato and Isokrates who had been atrocious
and sanguinary tyrants in their native cities—see the case of Klearchus of
Herakleia, Memnon ap. Photium, Cod. 224. cap. 1. Chion and Leonides, the two
young citizens who slew Klearchus, and who perished in endeavoring to liberate
their country—were also pupils of Plato (Justin, xvi. 5). In fact, aspiring youths, of
all varieties of purpose, were likely to seek this mode of improvement. (Alexander
the Great, too, the very impersonation of subduing force, had been the pupil of
Aristotle).

[883] Diodor. xx. 46.

[884] Diodor. xx. 53; Plutarch, Demetr. 18.

[885] Diodor. xx. 99. Probably this proviso extended also to Lysimachus and
Kassander (both of whom had assisted Rhodes) as well as to Ptolemy—though
Diodorus does not expressly say so.

[886] Diodor. xx. 100.

[887] Diodor. xx. 100.

[888] That the Ætolians were just now most vexatious enemies to Athens,
may be seen by the Ithyphallic ode addressed to Demetrius Poliorketes
(Athenæus, vi. p. 253).

[889] Diodor. xx. 50; Plutarch, Demetr. 11. In reference to this defeat near
Amorgos, Stratokles (the complaisant orator who moved the votes of flattery
towards Demetrius and Antigonus) is said to have announced it first as a victory,
to the great joy of the people. Presently evidences of the defeat arrived, and the
people were angry with Stratokles. “What harm has happened to you? (replied
he)—have you not had two days of pleasure and satisfaction?” This is at any rate
a very good story.

[890] Diodor. xx. 100; Plutarch, Demetr. 23.

[891] Diodor. xx. 102, 103; Plutarch, Demetr. 23-25.

[892] Diodor. xx. 102; Plutarch, Demetr. 25; Pausanias, ii. 7, 1. The city was
withdrawn partially from the sea, and approximated closely to the acropolis. The
new city remained permanently: but the new name Demetrias gave place to the
old name Sikyon.

[893] Diodor. xx. 106

[894] That he returned from Leukas about the time of these mysteries, is
attested both by Demochares and by the Ithyphallic ode in Athenæus, vi. p. 253.
See also Duris ap. Athenæ, xii. p. 535.

[895] Semus ap. Athenæum, xiv. p. 622.

 [896] Athenæus, vi. p. 253.

Ἄλλοι μὲν ἢ μακρὰν γὰρ ἀπέχουσιν θεοὶ,

ἢ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὦτα,
ἢ οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἢ οὐ προσέχουσιν ἡμῖν οὐδὲ ἕν·
σὲ δὲ παρόνθ᾽ ὁρῶμεν,
οὐ ξύλινον, οὐδὲ λίθινον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθινόν.
Εὐχόμεσθα δὴ σοί·
πρῶτον μὲν εἰρήνην ποιῆσον, φίλτατε,
κύριος γὰρ εἶ σύ.
Τὴν δ᾽ οὐχὶ Θηβῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ἑλλάδος,
Σφίγγα περικρατοῦσαν,
Αἰτωλὸς ὅστις ἐπὶ πέτρας καθήμενος,
ὥσπερ ἡ παλαιὰ,
τὰ σώμαθ᾽ ἡμῶν πάντ᾽ ἀναρπάσας φέρει,
κ ο ὐ κ ἔ χ ω μ ά χ ε σ θ α ι·
Αἰτωλικὸν γὰρ ἁρπάσαι τὰ τῶν πέλας,
νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τὰ πόῤῥω—
μάλιστα μὲν δὴ κόλασον αὐτὸς· εἰ δὲ μὴ,
Οἰδίπουν τιν᾽ εὗρε,
τὴν Σφίγγα ταύτην ὅστις ἢ κατακρημνιεῖ,
ἢ σπίνον ποιήσει.

[897] Compare Pausanias, vii. 7, 4.

[898] Plutarch, Demetr. 24.

[899] Such is the statement of Plutarch (Demetr. 24); but it seems not in
harmony with the recital of the honorary decree, passed in 272 B. C., after the
death of Demochares, commemorating his merits by a statue, etc. (Plutarch, Vit.
X. Oratt. p. 850). It is there recited that Demochares rendered services to Athens
(fortifying and arming the city, concluding peace and alliance with the Bœotians,
etc.) ἐπὶ τοῦ τετραετοῦς πολέμου, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐξέπεσεν ὑπὸ τῶν καταλυσάντων τὸν
δῆμον. Οἱ καταλύσαντες τὸν δῆμον cannot mean either Demetrius Poliorketes, or
Stratokles. Moreover, we cannot determine when the “four years’ war”, or the
alliance with the Bœotians, occurred. Neither the discussion of Mr. Clinton (Fast.
H. 302 B. C., and Append. p. 380), nor the different hypothesis of Droysen, are
satisfactory on this point—see Carl Müller’s discussion on the fragments of
Demochares, Fragm. Hist. Gr. v. ii. p. 446.

[900] Diodor. xx. 110. παραδοὺς οὖν αὑτὸν ἄνοπλον τοῖς ἱερεῦσι, καὶ πρὸ τῆς
ὡρισμένης ἡμέρας μυηθεὶς, ἀνέζευξεν ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν.
The account of this transaction in the text is taken from Diodorus, and is a
simple one; a vote was passed granting special license to Demetrius, to receive
the mysteries at once, though it was not the appointed season.
Plutarch (Demetr. 26) superadds other circumstances, several of which have
the appearance of jest rather than reality. Pythodôrus the Daduch or Torch-bearer
of the Mysteries stood alone in his protest against any celebration of the
ceremony out of time: this is doubtless very credible. Then (according to
Plutarch) the Athenians passed decrees, on the proposition of Stratokles, that the
month Munychion should be called Anthesterion. This having been done, the
Lesser Mysteries were celebrated, in which Demetrius was initiated. Next, the
Athenians passed another decree, to the effect, that the month Munychion should
be called Boêdromion—after which, the Greater Mysteries (which belonged to the
latter month) were forthwith celebrated. The comic writer Philippides said of
Stratokles, that he had compressed the whole year into a single month.
This statement of Plutarch has very much the air of a caricature, by
Philippides or some other witty man, of the simple decree mentioned by Diodorus
—a special license to Demetrius to be initiated out of season. Compare another
passage of Philippides against Stratokles (Plutarch, Demetr. 12).

[901] Diodor. xx. 110.

[902] Diodor. xx. 111. It must have been probably during this campaign that
Demetrius began or projected the foundation of the important city of Demetrias
on the Gulf of Magnesia, which afterwards became one of the great strongholds
of the Macedonian ascendency in Greece (Strabo, ix. p. 436-443, in which latter
passage, the reference to Hieronymus of Kardia seems to prove that that
historian gave a full description of Demetrias and its foundation). See about
Demetrias, Mannert, Geogr. v. Griech. vii. p. 591.

[903] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hell. B. C. 301) places the battle of Ipsus in
August 301 B. C.; which appears to me some months earlier than the reality. It is
clear from Diodorus, (and indeed from Mr. Clinton’s own admission) that winter-
quarters in Asia intervened between the departure of Demetrius from Athens in or
soon after April 301 B. C., and the battle of Ipsus. Moreover Demetrius,
immediately after leaving Athens, carried on many operations against Kassander
in Thessaly, before crossing over to Asia to join Antigonus (Diodor. xx. 110, 111).

[904] Plutarch, Demetr. 31.

[905] Plutarch, Demetr. 34, 35; Pausan. i. 25, 5. Pausanias states (i. 26, 2)
that a gallant Athenian named Olympiodorus (we do not know when) encouraged
his fellow-citizens to attack the Museum, Munychia, and Peiræus; and expelled
the Macedonians from all of them. If this be correct, Munychia and Peiræus must
have been afterwards reconquered by the Macedonians: for they were garrisoned
(as well as Salamis and Sunium) by Antigonus Gonatas (Pausanias, ii. 8, 5;
Plutarch, Aratus, 34).
 [906] Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 6.

[907] Plutarch, Demetr. 36; Dexippus ap. Syncell. p. 264 seq.; Pausan. 7, 3;
Justin, xvi. 1, 2.

[908] Plutarch, Demetr. 39.

[909] See Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, Append. 4. p. 236-239.

[910] Pausanias, i. 4, 1; x. 20, 1. Τοῖς δέ γε Ἕλλησι κατεπεπτώκει μὲν ἐς

ἅπαν τὰ φρονήματα, τὸ δὲ ἰσχυρὸν τοῦ δείματος προῆγεν ἐς ἀνάγκην τῇ Ἑλλάδι
ἀμύνειν· ἑώρων δὲ τόν τε ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἀγῶνα, οὐκ ὑπὲρ ἐλευθερίας
γενησόμενον, καθὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ Μήδου πότε ... ὡς οὖν ἀπολωλέναι δέον ἢ
ἐπικρατεστέρους εἶναι, κατ᾽ ἄνδρα τε ἰδίᾳ καὶ αἱ πόλεις διέκειντο ἐν κοινῷ. (On the
approach of the invading Gauls.)

[911] Polyb. ii. 40, 41. πλείστους γὰρ δὴ μονάρχους οὗτος (Antigonus
Gonatas) ἐμφυτεῦσαι δοκεῖ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. Justin, xxvi. 1.

[912] Pausanias, vii. 17, 1. Ἅτε ἐκ δένδρου λελωβημένου, ἀνεβλάστησεν ἐκ

τῆς Ἑλλάδος τὸ Ἀχαϊκόν.

[913] Plutarch, Aratus, 47. ἐθισθέντες γὰρ ἀλλοτρίαις σώζεσθαι χερσὶν, καὶ
τοῖς Μακεδόνων ὅπλοις αὑτοὺς ὑπεσταλκότες (the Achæans), etc. Compare also
c. 12, 13, 15, in reference to the earlier applications to Ptolemy king of Egypt.

[914] Polybius, i. 3, 4; ii. 37.

[915] Polybius, xii. 13.

[916] See the decree in Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 850. The Antipater here
mentioned is the son of Kassander, not the father. There is no necessity for
admitting the conjecture of Mr. Clinton (Fast. Hell. App. p. 380) that the name
ought to be Antigonus, and not Antipater; although it may perhaps be true that
Demochares was on favorable terms with Antigonus Gonatas (Diog. Laert. vii,
14).
Compare Carl Müller ad Democharis Fragm. apud Fragm. Hist. Græc. vol. ii. p.
446, ed. Didot.

[917] See my last preceding Vol. XI. Ch. lxxxv. p. 196.

[918] Diodor. xix. 3. It appears that Diodorus had recounted in his eighteenth
Book the previous circumstances of these two leaders; but this part of his
narrative is lost: see Wesseling’s note.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

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

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com