(eBook PDF) Linear Programming and Resource

Allocation Modeling pdf download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-linear-programming-and-
resource-allocation-modeling/

Download more ebook from https://ebooksecure.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) Regression & Linear Modeling: Best

Practices and Modern Methods

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-regression-linear-
modeling-best-practices-and-modern-methods/

(eBook PDF) Translational Medicine in CNS Drug

Development, Volume 29

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-translational-medicine-
in-cns-drug-development-volume-29/

Progress in Heterocyclic Chemistry Volume 29 1st

Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/progress-in-heterocyclic-
chemistry-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Differential Equations and Linear Algebra

3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-differential-equations-
and-linear-algebra-3rd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Differential Equations and Linear Algebra
4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-differential-equations-
and-linear-algebra-4th-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) Linear System Theory and Design 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-linear-system-theory-
and-design-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Linear Algebra and Its Applications 4th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-linear-algebra-and-its-
applications-4th-edition/

Linear Algebra and Its Applications 5th Edition (eBook

PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/linear-algebra-and-its-
applications-5th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Differential Equations and Linear Algebra 4th Edition

(eBook PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/differential-equations-and-linear-
algebra-4th-edition-ebook-pdf/
 vii

Contents

Preface xi
Symbols and Abbreviations xv

1 Introduction 1

2 Mathematical Foundations 13
2.1 Matrix Algebra 13
2.2 Vector Algebra 20
2.3 Simultaneous Linear Equation Systems 22
2.4 Linear Dependence 26
2.5 Convex Sets and n-Dimensional Geometry 29

3 Introduction to Linear Programming 35

3.1 Canonical and Standard Forms 35
3.2 A Graphical Solution to the Linear Programming Problem 37
3.3 Properties of the Feasible Region 38
3.4 Existence and Location of Optimal Solutions 38
3.5 Basic Feasible and Extreme Point Solutions 39
3.6 Solutions and Requirement Spaces 41

4 Computational Aspects of Linear Programming 43

4.1 The Simplex Method 43
4.2 Improving a Basic Feasible Solution 48
4.3 Degenerate Basic Feasible Solutions 66
4.4 Summary of the Simplex Method 69

5 Variations of the Standard Simplex Routine 71

5.1 The M-Penalty Method 71
5.2 Inconsistency and Redundancy 78
5.3 Minimization of the Objective Function 85
viii Contents

5.4 Unrestricted Variables 86

5.5 The Two-Phase Method 87

6 Duality Theory 95
6.1 The Symmetric Dual 95
6.2 Unsymmetric Duals 97
6.3 Duality Theorems 100
6.4 Constructing the Dual Solution 106
6.5 Dual Simplex Method 113
6.6 Computational Aspects of the Dual Simplex Method 114
6.7 Summary of the Dual Simplex Method 121

7 Linear Programming and the Theory of the Firm 123

7.1 The Technology of the Firm 123
7.2 The Single-Process Production Function 125
7.3 The Multiactivity Production Function 129
7.4 The Single-Activity Profit Maximization Model 139
7.5 The Multiactivity Profit Maximization Model 143
7.6 Profit Indifference Curves 146
7.7 Activity Levels Interpreted as Individual Product Levels 148
7.8 The Simplex Method as an Internal Resource Allocation Process 155
7.9 The Dual Simplex Method as an Internalized Resource Allocation
Process 157
7.10 A Generalized Multiactivity Profit-Maximization Model 157
7.11 Factor Learning and the Optimum Product-Mix Model 161
7.12 Joint Production Processes 165
7.13 The Single-Process Product Transformation Function 167
7.14 The Multiactivity Joint-Production Model 171
7.15 Joint Production and Cost Minimization 180
7.16 Cost Indifference Curves 184
7.17 Activity Levels Interpreted as Individual Resource Levels 186

8 Sensitivity Analysis 195

8.1 Introduction 195
8.2 Sensitivity Analysis 195
8.2.1 Changing an Objective Function Coefficient 196
8.2.2 Changing a Component of the Requirements Vector 200
8.2.3 Changing a Component of the Coefficient Matrix 202
8.3 Summary of Sensitivity Effects 209

9 Analyzing Structural Changes 217

9.1 Introduction 217
9.2 Addition of a New Variable 217
 Contents ix

9.3 Addition of a New Structural Constraint 219

9.4 Deletion of a Variable 223
9.5 Deletion of a Structural Constraint 223

10 Parametric Programming 227

10.1 Introduction 227
10.2 Parametric Analysis 227
10.2.1 Parametrizing the Objective Function 228
10.2.2 Parametrizing the Requirements Vector 236
10.2.3 Parametrizing an Activity Vector 245
10.A Updating the Basis Inverse 256

11 Parametric Programming and the Theory of the Firm 257

11.1 The Supply Function for the Output of an Activity (or for
an Individual Product) 257
11.2 The Demand Function for a Variable Input 262
11.3 The Marginal (Net) Revenue Productivity Function for an Input 269
11.4 The Marginal Cost Function for an Activity (or Individual
Product) 276
11.5 Minimizing the Cost of Producing a Given Output 284
11.6 Determination of Marginal Productivity, Average Productivity,
Marginal Cost, and Average Cost Functions 286

12 Duality Revisited 297

12.1 Introduction 297
12.2 A Reformulation of the Primal and Dual Problems 297
12.3 Lagrangian Saddle Points 311
12.4 Duality and Complementary Slackness Theorems 315

13 Simplex-Based Methods of Optimization 321

13.1 Introduction 321
13.2 Quadratic Programming 321
13.3 Dual Quadratic Programs 325
13.4 Complementary Pivot Method 329
13.5 Quadratic Programming and Activity Analysis 335
13.6 Linear Fractional Functional Programming 338
13.7 Duality in Linear Fractional Functional Programming 347
13.8 Resource Allocation with a Fractional Objective 353
13.9 Game Theory and Linear Programming 356
13.9.1 Introduction 356
13.9.2 Matrix Games 357
13.9.3 Transformation of a Matrix Game to a Linear Program 361
13.A Quadratic Forms 363
x Contents

13.A.1 General Structure 363

13.A.2 Symmetric Quadratic Forms 366
13.A.3 Classification of Quadratic Forms 367
13.A.4 Necessary Conditions for the Definiteness and Semi-Definiteness of
Quadratic Forms 368
13.A.5 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for the Definiteness and
Semi-Definiteness of Quadratic Forms 369

14 Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) 373

14.1 Introduction 373
14.2 Set Theoretic Representation of a Production Technology 374
14.3 Output and Input Distance Functions 377
14.4 Technical and Allocative Efficiency 379
14.4.1 Measuring Technical Efficiency 379
14.4.2 Allocative, Cost, and Revenue Efficiency 382
14.5 Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Modeling 385
14.6 The Production Correspondence 386
14.7 Input-Oriented DEA Model under CRS 387
14.8 Input and Output Slack Variables 390
14.9 Modeling VRS 398
14.9.1 The Basic BCC (1984) DEA Model 398
14.9.2 Solving the BCC (1984) Model 400
14.9.3 BCC (1984) Returns to Scale 401
14.10 Output-Oriented DEA Models 402

References and Suggested Reading 405

Index 411
 xi

Preface

Economists, engineers, and management scientists have long known and

employed the power and versatility of linear programming as a tool for solving
resource allocation problems. Such problems have ranged from formulating a
simple model geared to determining an optimal product mix (e.g. a producing
unit seeks to allocate its limited inputs to a set of production activities under a
given linear technology in order to determine the quantities of the various
products that will maximize profit) to the application of an input analytical tech-
nique called data envelopment analysis (DEA) – a procedure used to estimate
multiple-input, multiple-output production correspondences so that the pro-
ductive efficiency of decision making units (DMUs) can be compared. Indeed,
DEA has now become the subject of virtually innumerable articles in profes-
sional journals, textbooks, and research monographs.
One of the drawbacks of many of the books pertaining to linear programming
applications, and especially those addressing DEA modeling, is that their cov-
erage of linear programming fundamentals is woefully deficient – especially in
the treatment of duality. In fact, this latter area is of paramount importance and
represents the “bulk of the action,” so to speak, when resource allocation
decisions are to be made.
That said, this book addresses the aforementioned shortcomings involving
the inadequate offering of linear programming theory and provides the founda-
tion for the development of DEA. This book will appeal to those wishing to solve
linear optimization problems in areas such as economics (including banking
and finance), business administration and management, agriculture and energy,
strategic planning, public decision-making, health care, and so on. The material
is presented at the advanced undergraduate to beginning graduate level and
moves at an unhurried pace. The text is replete with many detailed example
problems, and the theoretical material is offered only after the reader has been
introduced to the requisite mathematical foundations. The only prerequisites
are a beginning calculus course and some familiarity with linear algebra and
matrices.
xii Preface

Looking to specifics, Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the primal and

dual problems via an optimum product mix problem, while Chapter 2 reviews
the rudiments of vector and matrix operations and then considers topics such as
simultaneous linear equation systems, linear dependence, convex sets, and
some n-dimensional geometry. Specialized mathematical topics are offered in
chapter appendices.
Chapter 3 provides an introduction to the canonical and standard forms of a
linear programming problem. It covers the properties of the feasible region, the
existence and location of optimal solutions, and the correspondence between
basic feasible solutions and extreme point solutions.
The material in Chapter 4 addresses the computational aspects of linear
programming. Here the simplex method is developed and the detection of
degeneracy is presented.
Chapter 5 considers variations of the standard simplex theme. Topics such as
the M-penalty and two-phase methods are developed, along with the detection
of inconsistency and redundancy.
Duality theory is presented in Chapter 6. Here symmetric, as well as unsym-
metric, duals are covered, along with an assortment of duality theorems. The
construction of the dual solution and the dual simplex method round out this
key chapter.
Chapter 7 begins with a basic introduction to the technology of a firm via
activity analysis and then moves into single- and multiple-process production
functions, as well as single- and multiple-activity profit maximization models.
Both the primal and dual simplex methods are then presented as internal
resource allocation mechanisms. Factor learning is next introduced in the con-
text of an optimal product mix. All this is followed by a discussion of joint pro-
duction processes and production transformation functions, along with the
treatment of cost minimization in a joint production setting.
The discussion in Chapter 8 deals with the sensitivity analysis of the optimal
solution (e.g. changing an objective function coefficient or changing a compo-
nent of the requirements vector) while Chapter 9 analyzes structural changes
(e.g. addition of a new variable or structural constraint). Chapter 10 focuses
on parametric programming and consequently sets the stage for the material
presented in the next chapter. To this end, Chapter 11 employs parametric pro-
gramming to develop concepts such as the demand function for a variable input
and the supply function for the output of an activity. Notions such as the mar-
ginal and average productivity functions along with marginal and average cost
functions are also developed.
In Chapter 12, the concept of duality is revisited; the primal and dual pro-
blems are reformulated and re-examined in the context of Lagrangian saddle
points, and a host of duality and complementary slackness theorems are offered.
This treatment affords the reader an alternative view of duality theory and,
 Preface xiii

depending on the level of mathematical sophistication of the reader, can be con-

sidered as optional or can be omitted on a first reading.
Chapter 13 deals with primal and dual quadratic programs, the complemen-
tary pivot method, primal and dual linear fractional functional programs, and
(matrix) game theory solutions via linear programming.
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is the subject of Chapter 14. Topics such as
the set theoretic representation of a production technology, input and output
distance functions, technical and allocative efficiency, cost and revenue effi-
ciency, the production correspondence, input-oriented models under constant
and variable returns to scale, and output-oriented models are presented. DEA
model solutions are also discussed.
A note of thanks is extended to Bharat Kolluri, Rao Singamsetti, and Jim Peta.
I have benefited considerably from conversations held with these colleagues
over a great many years. Additionally, Alice Schoenrock accurately and
promptly typed the entire manuscript. Her efforts are greatly appreciated.
I would also like to thank Mindy Okura-Marszycki, editor, Mathematics and
Statistics, and Kathleen Pagliaro, assistant editor, at John Wiley & Sons, for their
professionalism and encouragement.
 xv

Symbols and Abbreviations

■ Denotes end of example

n
n-dimensional Euclidean space
n
+ {x n
|x ≥ O}
(xo) Tangent support cone
Region of admissible solutions
(xo)+ Polar support cone
(xo)∗ Dual support cone
A Transpose of a matrix A
Index set of binding constraints
∇ Del operator
O Null matrix (vector)
In Identity matrix of order n
(m × n) Order of a matrix (with m rows and n columns)
A B Matrix A is transformed into matrix B
|A| Determinant of a square matrix A
Set of all square matrices
A−1 Inverse of matrix A
n Vector space
x Norm of x
ei ith unit column vector
ρ(A) Rank of a matrix A
dim Dimension of a vector space
δ(xo) Spherical δ-neighborhood of xo
xc Convex combination
Hyperplane
+ −
( ), ( ) Open half-planes
+ −
[ ], [ ] Closed half-planes
Cone
Ray or half-line
lim Lower limit
xvi Symbols and Abbreviations

lim Upper limit

AE Allocative efficiency
BCC Banker, Charnes, and Cooper
CCR Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes
CE Cost efficiency
CRS Constant returns to scale
DBLP Dual of PBLP (multiplier form of (primal) linear program)
DEA Data envelopment analysis
DLP Dual of PLP
DMU Decision making unit
EDLP Extension of DLP
Eff Efficient
IPF Input distance function
Isoq Isoquant
LCP Linear complementarity problem
ODF Output distance function
P1 Phase 1
P2 Phase 2
PBLP Envelopment form of the (primal) linear program
PLP Primal linear program
RE Revenue efficiency
TE Technical efficiency
VRS Variable returns to scale
 1

Introduction

This book deals with the application of linear programming to firm decision
making. In particular, an important resource allocation problem that often
arises in actual practice is when a set of inputs, some of which are limited in
supply over a particular production period, is to be utilized to produce, using
a given technology, a mix of products that will maximize total profit. While a
model such as this can be constructed in a variety of ways and under different
sets of assumptions, the discussion that follows shall be limited to the linear
case, i.e. we will consider the short-run static profit-maximizing behavior of
the multiproduct, multifactor competitive firm that employs a fixed-coefficients
technology under certainty (Dorfman 1951, 1953; Naylor 1966).
How may we interpret the assumptions underlying this profit maximiza-
tion model?

1) All-around perfect competition – the prices of the firm’s product and

variable inputs are given.
2) The firm employs a static model – all prices, the technology, and the
supplies of the fixed factors remain constant over the production period.
3) The firm operates under conditions of certainty – the model is deterministic
in that all prices and the technology behave in a completely systematic (non-
random) fashion.
4) All factors and products are perfectly divisible – fractional (noninteger) quan-
tities of factors and products are admissible at an optimal feasible solution.
5) The character of the firm’s production activities, which represent specific
ways of combining fixed and variable factors in order to produce a unit of
output (in the case where the firm produces a single product) or a unit of
an individual product (when the number of activities equals or exceeds
the number of products), is determined by a set of technical decisions inter-
nal to the firm. These input activities are:
a) independent in that no interaction effects exist between activities;
b) linear, i.e. the input/output ratios for each activity are constant along
with returns to scale (if the use of all inputs in an activity increases by

Linear Programming and Resource Allocation Modeling, First Edition. Michael J. Panik.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 1 Introduction

a fixed amount, the output produced by that activity increases by the

same amount);
c) additive, e.g. if two activities are used simultaneously, the final quantities
of inputs and outputs will be the arithmetic sums of the quantities that
would result if these activities were operated separately. In addition, total
profit generated from all activities equals the sum of the profits from each
individual activity; and
d) finite – the number of input activities or processes available for use dur-
ing any production period is limited.
6) All structural relations exhibit direct proportionality – the objective func-
tion and all constraints are linear; unit profit and the fixed-factor inputs per
unit of output for each activity are directly proportional to the level of oper-
ation of the activity (thus, marginal profit equals average profit).
7) The firm’s objective is to maximize total profit subject to a set of structural
activities, fixed-factor availabilities, and nonnegativity restrictions on the
activity levels. Actually, this objective is accomplished in two distinct stages.
First, a technical optimization problem is solved in that the firm chooses a set
of production activities that requires the minimum amount of the fixed and
variable inputs per unit of output. Second, the firm solves the aforemen-
tioned constrained maximum problem.
8) The firm operates in the short run in that a certain number of its inputs are
fixed in quantity.

Why is this linear model for the firm important? It is intuitively clear that the
more sophisticated the type of capital equipment employed in a production proc-
ess, the more inflexible it is likely to be relative to the other factors of production
with which it is combined. That is, the machinery in question must be used in
fixed proportions with regard to certain other factors of production (Dorfman
1953, p. 143). For the type of process just described, no factor substitution is pos-
sible; a given output level can be produced by one and only one input combina-
tion, i.e. the inputs are perfectly complementary. For example, it is widely
recognized that certain types of chemical processes exhibit this characteristic
in that, to induce a particular type of chemical reaction, the input proportions
(coefficient) must be (approximately) fixed. Moreover, mechanical processes such
as those encountered in cotton textile manufacturing and machine-tool produc-
tion are characterized by the presence of this limitationality, i.e. in the latter case,
constant production times are logged on a fixed set of machines by a given num-
ber of operators working with specific grades of raw materials.
For example, suppose that a firm produces three types of precision tools
(denoted x1, x2, and x3) made from high-grade steel. Four separate production
operations are used: casting, grinding, sharpening, and polishing. The set of
input–output coefficients (expressed in minutes per unit of output), which
describe the firm’s technology (the firm’s stage one problem, as alluded to
 1 Introduction 3

above, has been solved) is presented in Table 1.1. (Note that each of the three
columns represents a separate input activity or process.)
Additionally, capacity limitations exist with respect to each of the four pro-
duction operations in that upper limits on their availability are in force. That
is, per production run, the firm has at its disposal 5000 minutes of casting time,
3000 minutes of grinding time, 3700 minutes of sharpening time, and 2000 min-
utes of polishing time. Finally, the unit profit values for tools x1, x2, and x3 are
$22.50, $19.75, and $26.86, respectively. (Here these figures each depict unit
revenue less unit variable cost and are computed before deducting fixed costs.
Moreover, we are tacitly assuming that what is produced is sold.) Given this
information, it is easily shown that the optimization problem the firm must
solve (i.e. the stage-two problem mentioned above) will look like (1.1):
max f = 22 50x1 + 19 75x2 + 26 86x3 s t subject to
13x1 + 10x2 + 16x3 ≤ 5000
12x1 + 8x2 + 20x3 ≤ 3000
11
8x1 + 4x2 + 9x3 ≤ 3700
5x1 + 4x2 + 6x3 ≤ 2000
x1 , x2 ,x3 ≥ 0
How may we rationalize the structure of this problem? First, the objective func-
tion f represents total profit, which is the sum of the individual (gross) profit
contributions of the three products, i.e.
3
total profit = total profit from xj sales
j=1

3
= unit profit from xj sales number of units of xj sold
j=1

Table 1.1 Input–output coefficients.

Tools

x1 x2 x3 Operations

13 10 16 Casting
12 8 20 Grinding
8 4 9 Sharpening
5 4 6 Polishing
4 1 Introduction

Next, if we consider the first structural constraint inequality (the others can be
interpreted in a similar fashion), we see that total casting time used per produc-
tion run cannot exceed the total amount available, i.e.
3
total casting time used = total casting time used by xj
j=1

3
= casting time used per unit of xj
j=1
number of units of xj produced ≤ 5000
Finally, the activity levels (product quantities) x1, x2, and x3 are nonnegative,
thus indicating that the production activities are nonreversible, i.e. the fixed
inputs cannot be created from the outputs.
To solve (1.1) we shall employ a specialized computational technique called the
simplex method. The details of the simplex routine, as well as its mathematical
foundations and embellishments, will be presented in Chapters 2–5. Putting com-
putational considerations aside for the time being, the types of information sets
that the firm obtains from an optimal solution to (1.1) can be characterized as
follows. The optimal product mix is determined (from this result management
can specify which product to produce in positive amounts and which ones to omit
from the production plan) as well as the optimal activity levels (which indicate
the exact number of units of each product produced). In addition, optimal
resource utilization information is also generated (the solution reveals the
amounts of the fixed or scarce resources employed in support of the optimal
activity levels) along with the excess (slack) capacity figures (if the total amount
available of some fixed resource is not fully utilized, the optimal solution indicates
the amount left idle). Finally, the optimal dollar value of total profit is revealed.
Associated with (1.1) (hereafter called the primal problem) is a symmetric
problem called its dual. While Chapter 6 presents duality theory in considerable
detail, let us simply note without further elaboration here that the dual problem
deals with the internal valuation (pricing) of the firm’s fixed or scarce resources.
These (nonmarket) prices or, as they are commonly called, shadow prices serve
to signal the firm when it would be beneficial, in terms of recouping forgone
profit (since the capacity limitations restrict the firm’s production and thus
profit opportunities) to acquire additional units of the fixed factors. Relative
to (1.1), the dual problem appears as
min g = 5000u1 + 3000u2 + 3700u3 + 2000u4 s t
13u1 + 12u2 + 8u3 + 5u4 ≥ 22 50
10u1 + 8u2 + 4u3 + 4u4 ≥ 19 75 12
16u1 + 20u2 + 9u3 + 6u4 ≥ 26 86
u1 ,u2 ,u3 ,u4 ≥ 0,
 1 Introduction 5

where the dual variables u1, …, u4 are the shadow prices associated with the pri-
mal capacity constraints.
What is the interpretation of the form of this dual problem? First, the objec-
tive g depicts the total imputed (accounting) value of the firm’s fixed
resources, i.e.
total imputed value of all fixed resources
4
= total imputed value of the ith resource
i=1
4
= number of units of the ith resource available
i=1
shadow price of the ith resource
Clearly, the firm must make the value of this figure as small as possible. That is,
it must minimize forgone profit. Next, looking to the first structural constraint
inequality in (1.2) (the rationalization of the others follows suit), we see that the
total imputed value of all resources going into the production of a unit of x1
cannot fall short of the profit per unit of x1, i.e.
total imputed value of all resources per unit of x1
4
= imputed value of the ith resource per unit of x1
i=1
4
= number of units of the ith resource per unit of x1
i=1
shadow price of the ith resource ≥ 22 50
Finally, as is the case for any set of prices, the shadow prices u1, …, u4 are all
nonnegative.
As will become evident in Chapter 6, the dual problem does not have to be
solved explicitly; its optimal solution is obtained as a byproduct of the optimal
solution to the primal problem (and vice versa). What sort of information is pro-
vided by the optimal dual solution? The optimal (internal) valuation of the
firm’s fixed resources is exhibited (from this data the firm can discern which
resources are in excess supply and which ones are “scarce” in the sense that total
profit could possibly be increased if the supply of the latter were augmented)
along with the optimal shadow price configuration (each such price indicates
the increase in total profit resulting from a one unit increase in the associated
fixed input). Moreover, the optimal (imputed) value of inputs for each prod-
uct is provided (the solution indicates the imputed value of all fixed resources
entering into the production of a unit of each of the firm’s outputs) as well as the
optimal accounting loss figures (here, management is provided with informa-
tion pertaining to the amount by which the imputed value of all resources used
6 1 Introduction

to produce a unit of some product exceeds the unit profit level for the same).
Finally, the optimal imputed value of all fixed resources is determined. Inter-
estingly enough, this quantity equals the optimal dollar value of total profit
obtained from the primal problem, as it must at an optimal feasible solution
to the primal-dual pair of problems.
In the preceding model we made the assumption that the various production
activities were technologically independent. However, if we now assume that they
are technologically interdependent in that each product can be produced by
employing more than one process, then we may revise the firm’s objective to
one where a set of production quotas are to be fulfilled at minimum cost. By invok-
ing this assumption we may construct what is called a joint production model.
As far as a full description of this type of production program is concerned, let
us frame it in terms of the short-run static cost-minimizing behavior of a multi-
product, multifactor competitive firm that employs a fixed-coefficients technol-
ogy. How can we interpret the assumptions given in support of this model?

1) Perfect competition in the factor markets – the prices of the firm’s primary
and shadow inputs are given.
2) The firm employs a static model – all prices, the technology, and the output
quotas remain constant over the production period.
3) The firm operates under conditions of certainty – the model is deterministic
in that all prices and the technology behave in a completely systematic (non-
random) fashion.
4) All factors and products are perfectly divisible – fractional quantities of fac-
tors and products are admissible at an optimal feasible solution.
5) The character of the firm’s production activities, which now represent ways
of producing a set of outputs from the application of one unit of a primary
input, is determined by a set of technical decisions internal to the firm. These
output activities are:
a) independent in that no interaction effects exist among activities;
b) linear, i.e. the output/input ratios for each activity are constant along
with the input response to an increase in outputs (if the production of
all outputs in an activity increases by a fixed amount, then the input level
required by the process must increase by the same amount);
c) additive, e.g. if two activities are used simultaneously, the final quantities
of inputs and outputs will be the arithmetic sums of the quantities which
would result if these activities were operated separately. Moreover, the
total cost figure resulting from all output activities equals the sum of
the costs from each individual activity; and
d) finite – the number of output activities or processes available for use dur-
ing any production period is limited.
6) All structural relations exhibit direct proportionality – the objective func-
tion and all constraints are linear; unit cost and the fixed-output per unit of
 1 Introduction 7

input values for each activity are directly proportional to the level of oper-
ation of the activity. (Thus marginal cost equals average cost.)
7) The firm’s objective is to minimize total cost subject to a set of structural
activities, fixed output quotas, and nonnegativity restrictions on the activity
levels. This objective is also accomplished in two stages, i.e. in stage one a
technical optimization problem is solved in that the firm chooses a set of out-
put activities which yield the maximum amounts of the various outputs per
unit of the primary factors. Second, the firm solves the indicated constrained
minimization problem.
8) The short-run prevails in that the firm’s minimum output requirements are
fixed in quantity.

For the type of output activities just described, no output substitution is possi-
ble; producing more of one output and less of another is not technologically
feasible, i.e. the outputs are perfectly complementary or limitational in that
they must all change together.
As an example of the type of model just described, let us assume that a firm
employs three grades of the primary input labor (denoted x1, x2, and x3) to pro-
duce four separate products: chairs, benches, tables, and stools. The set of out-
put–input coefficients (expressed in units of output per man-hour) which
describe the firm’s technology appears in Table 1.2. (Here each of the three col-
umns depicts a separate output activity.) Additionally, output quotas exist with
respect to each of the four products in that lower limits on the number of units
produced must not be violated, i.e. per production run, the firm must produce at
least eight chairs, four benches, two tables, and eight stools. Finally, the unit cost
coefficients for the labor grades x1, x2, and x3 are $8.50, $9.75, and $9.08, respec-
tively. (Each of these latter figures depicts unit primary resource cost plus unit

Table 1.2 Output–input coefficients.

Grades of Labor

x1 x2 x3 Outputs

1 1 1
Chairs
16 14 18
1 1 1
Benches
4 4 6
1 1 1
Tables
20 25 30
1 1 1
Stools
4 3 6
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
Lacedæmonium non potuerat decipere, sed triginta
Atheniensium millia facile potuit. (5) Athenienses igitur,
oratione illius persuasi, decreverunt viginti naves auxilio
mittere Ionibus, quarum ducem nominarunt Melanthium,
civem quovis nomine probatum. Hæ naves et Græcis et
barbaris principium fuere malorum.

XCVIII. Aristagoras ante illarum egressum domum revectus,

postquam Miletum pervenit, consilium cepit, ex quo nihil
quidem utilitatis rediturum ad Ionas erat; neque etiam hac
caussa id fecit, sed quo regi Dario crearet molestiam:
hominem misit in Phrygiam ad Pæones illos, qui a Strymone
fluvio captivi abducti a Megabazo, regionem vicumque
Phrygiæ seorsum habitabant. Ad quos ubi pervenit legatus,
his verbis cum eis egit: «Pæones, inquit, misit me
Aristagoras Mileti tyrannus, ut salutis viam, si obtemperare
volueritis, vobis ostendam. (2) Etenim Ionia nunc universa
descivit a rege, licetque vobis salvis in patriam redire
vestram. Ad mare quidem ut perveniatis, vos ipsi curabitis:
reliqua jam nobis curæ erunt.» His auditis, lætati admodum
Pæones, cum liberis et uxoribus ad mare se fuga
receperunt: nonnulli tamen ex eisdem, metu retenti, loco se
non moverunt. (3) Postquam ad mare pervenere Pæones,
Chium inde trajecere. Quumque jam in Chio essent, e
vestigio venit Persarum equitum magna manus, illos
prosequentium: qui ubi Pæones non sunt consecuti, Chium
miserunt præconem, ab illisque ut redirent postularunt. (4)
Sed Pæones, propositam aspernati conditionem, Chio a
Chiis Lesbum sunt transducti, Lesbiique eos Doriscum
trajecerunt: inde vero pedibus redeuntes, in Pæoniam
pervenerunt.

XCIX. Interim Athenienses cum viginti navibus Miletum

advenerunt, quas sequebantur quinque triremes
Eretriensium. Et Eretrienses quidem non Atheniensium
gratia huic se adjunxerant expeditioni, sed ipsis Milesiis
gratum facturi, beneficiumque ab illis acceptum
rependentes. Namque Milesii prius sociam Eretriensibus
operam in bello cum Chalcidensibus præstiterant, quo
tempore Samii Chalcidensibus adversus Eretrienses et
Milesios miserant auxilia. Athenienses igitur postquam
advenere cum Eretriensibus, quum et reliqui adessent socii,
expeditionem adversus Sardes suscepit Aristagoras: (2) ita
quidem ut in bellum ipse non proficisceretur, sed Mileti
maneret, constitutis aliis Milesiorum ducibus, fratre suo
Charopino, et ex reliquorum numero civium Hermophanto.

C. Hac classe quum Ephesum pervenissent Iones, relictis

navibus Coressi in finibus Ephesiorum, ipsi magna manu
ascenderunt, viæ ducibus utentes Ephesiis. (2) Progressi
autem secundum Caystrium flumen, inde superato Tmolo,
Sardes pervenere; et urbem capiunt, nemine contra
prodeunte: nempe reliqua omnia occuparunt præter arcem;
arcem vero ipse Artaphernes cum haud exigua vi militum
tutabatur.

CI. Quominus vero captam diripere possent urbem, hæc res

fuit impedimento: erant Sardibus pleræque domus ex
arundine constructæ; quæcumque vero etiam ex lateribus,
earum tecta arundinea erant. Harum unam quum
incendisset quidam ex militibus, continuo de domo in
domum grassatus ignis universam urbem depascebat. (2)
Ardente urbe, Lydi et quicumque Persæ in urbe erant,
undique interclusi, utpote extrema absumente incendio,
neque exitum ullam habentes ex urbe, in forum
confluxerunt ad Pactolum fluvium: qui fluvius auri ramenta
illis ex Tmolo deferens, per medium forum labitur, et deinde
Hermo fluvio miscetur, qui in mare influit. Ad hunc igitur
Pactolum et in forum congregati Lydi atque Persæ defendere
sese coacti sunt. (3) At Iones, ubi viderunt alios ex hostibus
fortiter pugnantes, alios vero magno numero ingruentes,
trepidi cedentes ad Tmolum, qui vocatur, montem se
receperunt: atque inde sub noctem versus naves suas
abierunt.

CII. Ita incendio consumptæ sunt Sardes, in eisque

indigenæ deæ Cybebes templum: quam causam postea
prætexentes Persæ templa vicissim in Græcia cremarunt.
Tunc vero Persæ qui intra Halyn fluvium pagos tenebant,
certiores facti quid ageretur, juntis viribus auxilio Lydis
venerunt. (2) Qui quum Ionas non amplius Sardibus essent
nacti, e vestigio subsecuti, Ephesi illos deprehenderunt. Et
Iones quidem in aciem adversus eos progressi sunt, sed
prælio commisso ingenti clade sunt adfecti: (3) magnumque
eorum numerum Persæ interfecerunt, quum alios spectatos
viros, tum Eualcidem, Eretriensium ducem, virum qui in
ludorum solennibus coronas reportaverat, multumque a
Simonide Ceo erat laudatus. Qui vero ex pugna evaserunt
per civitates sunt dissipati.

CIII. Tali igitur modo tunc pugnatum est. Posthæc vero

Athenienses prorsus deseruerunt Ionas; et sæpe
multumque ab Aristagora per nuncios solicitati, constanter
negarunt se auxilio illis futuros. Sed Iones, Atheniensium
auxilio privati, nihilo minus ad bellum adversus Darium,
quod post ea quæ adversus regem patraverant evitari non
posse intelligebant, sese comparabant. (2) In Hellespontum
navibus profecti, Byzantium et alias omnes eo loci civitates
suum sub obsequium redegerunt. Dein extra Hellespontum
evecti, majorem Cariæ partem societati suæ adjecerunt:
nam et Caunus, quæ prius, quando Sardes cremarunt,
societatem illorum recusaverat, nunc eis ipsa quoque
accessit.

CIV. Cyprii vero universi, Amathusiis exceptis, ultro se illis

adjunxerunt. Nam et hi a Medis desciverant tali occasione.
Onesilus erat, Gorgi Salaminiorum regis frater natu minor,
Chersidis filius, Siromi nepos, pronepos Euelthontis. (2) Hic
vir, postquam sæpius antea Gorgum, ut a rege deficeret,
esset hortatus; tunc, ubi Ionas etiam cognovit descivisse,
vehementius illum instigare conatus est. Cui quum morem
non gereret Gorgus, tempus observans Onesilus, quo extra
urbem Salaminiorum ille erat egressus, una cum
sectatoribus suis fratrem portis exclusit. (3) Itaque Gorgus,
urbe spoliatus, ad Medos profugit. Onesilus vero Salaminis
tenuit imperium; omnibusque Cypriis, ut secum
desciscerent, persuasit. Cæteris quidem persuasit cunctis;
Amathusios vero, morem ei gerere nolentes, obsidione
cinxit.

CV. Dum Amathunta Onesilus obsidet, interim Dario regi

nunciatur, Sardes captas esse incensasque ab Atheniensibus
et Ionibus, illiusque tumultus auctorem, cujus consilio hæc
suscepta sint, Aristagoram esse Milesium. Quo accepto
nuncio, dicitur rex, nulla ratione habita Ionum, quippe quos
bene noverat non impune laturos quod defecissent,
quæsisse quinam essent Athenienses; (2) deinde, postquam
audivit, poposcisse arcum, et sagittam arcui impositam
emisisse in cœlum, utque illa in aerem evolavit,
exclamasse, «Proh Juppiter, contingat mihi pœnas sumere
ab Atheniensibus!» hisque dictis, mandasse uni e ministris,
ut, quoties cœna ipsi adponeretur, ter ipsi diceret, «Domine,
memento Atheniensium!»

CVI. Hoc dato mandato, vocato in conspectum suum

Histiæo Milesio, quem jam multo abhinc tempore apud se
Darius retinuerat: «Histiæe, inquit, tuum procuratorem,
cujus fidei Miletum commisisti, audio res novas adversus me
esse molitum. Homines enim ex altera continente adversus
me duxit, et Ionas cum illis, factorum pœnas mihi daturos:
his persuasit ut illos sequerentur, et Sardes mihi eripuit. (2)
Nunc igitur, quo pacto tibi hoc bene habere videtur? quove
pacto tale quidpiam absque tuo consilio factum est? Vide ne
deinde tu ipse hac culpa tenearis.» Ad hæc Histiæus
respondit: «Quale verbum, rex, pronunciasti? mene agitare
consilium, ex quo tibi ulla molestia, sive magna, sive
exigua, exsistat? (3) Quid quærens equidem, tale quidpiam
facerem? cujus rei indigeo? cui eadem[TR9] quæ tibi, præsto
sunt; quicum tu omnia tua communicare consilia dignaris.
Immo, si quid tale, quale tu ais, meus agitat procurator,
scito id eum suo fecisse arbitratu. (4) At mihi statim ne
persuaderi quidem potest, Milesios et meum procuratorem
novas res adversus te moliri. Sin utique tale quid agunt,
tibique si vera relata sunt, vide, rex, quid sit quod tu
feceris, dum me a mari abstraxisti. (5) Videntur enim Iones,
ex quo ego ex illorum conspectu remotus sum, agitare id
cujus olim desiderium habuerunt. Sin ego in Ionia adessem,
nulla civitas se vel pauxillum motura erat. Nunc igitur
quamprimum dimitte me, ut in Ioniam proficiscar, tibique
omnia ibi in integrum restituam, et procuratorem hunc
Mileti, qui hæc machinatus est, vinctum tradam. (5) Hæc
quum ex animi tui sententia perfecero, deos juro regios,
non prius tunicam exuturum qua indutus Ioniam intravero,
quam tibi Sardiniam, maximam insulam, tributariam
reddidero.»

CVII. His Histiæi verbis deceptus Darius morem ei gessit,

dimisitque eum adjecto mandato, ut, postquam quæ
pollicitus esset effecta dedisset, ad se Susa rediret.

CVIII. Per idem tempus, quo nuncius de incensis Sardibus

ad regem missus est, et Darius sagitta in cœlum emissa
cum Histiæo sermonem contulit, Histiæusque a rege
dimissus ad mare est profectus; per totum hoc tempus
hæcce gesta sunt. (2) Onesilo Salaminio Amathusios
obsidenti nunciatur, Artybium Persam cum classe et ingenti
Persarum exercitu adfuturum esse in Cyprum. Quo cognito
Onesilus præcones dimisit per Ioniam, auxilio Ionas
advocans: (3) nec diu re deliberata, adfuerunt Iones cum
magna classe. Eodemque tempore quo Iones in Cyprum
advenere, Persæ etiam quum navibus e Cilicia trajecissent,
pedestri itinere Salaminem contenderunt: navibus autem
Phœnices circumnavigarunt promontorium illud, quæ Claves
Cypri vocantur.

CIX. Quæ quum ita essent, Cyprii tyranni convocatis Ionum

ducibus dixere: «Vobis, Iones, nos Cyprii damus optionem
cum utris velitis confligere, cum Persis, an cum Phœnicibus.
(2) Quod si pedestri pugna cum Persis vultis congredi, nulla
interposita mora oportet vos, navibus egressos, pedestrem
instruere aciem; nos vero, conscensis navibus vestris,
Phœnicibus nos opponere. Sin cum Phœnicibus tentare
fortunam mavultis; utrumlibet horum elegeritis, operam
dare necesse est, ut, quoad est situm in vobis, liberæ sint
et Ionia et Cyprus.» (3) Ad hæc Iones responderunt: «Nos
commune Ionum misit, ut mare custodiremus; non ut naves
nostras tradentes Cypriis, ipsi cum Persis pedestri acie
confligamus. (4) Nos igitur, qua parte locati sumus, in ea
utilem præstare operam conabimur: vos autem, memores
qualia Persis servientes passi ab illis sitis, fortes viros esse
oportet.» Hoc illis responsum Iones dederunt.

CX. Post hæc, quum Persæ in Salaminiorum advenissent

campum, aciem instruxerunt reges Cypriorum; ita quidem,
ut cæteros Cyprios cæteris hostium militibus opponerent,
Persis autem fortissimos e Salaminiis et Soliis selectos.
Contra Artybium vero, ducem Persarum, volens lubens stetit
Onesilus.

CXI. Vehebatur Artybius equo, qui erectus stare adversus

armatum militem erat edoctus. Qua re cognita Onesilus,
quum esset ei armiger genere Car, arte bellica probatus, et
animi plenus, dixit huic: «Artybii equum audio erectum
stare, et pedibus atque ore pugnare contra adversarium. (2)
Tu igitur ocyus delibera tecum, mihique ede, utrum
observare ferireque velis, equum, an ipsum Artybium.» Ad
hæc famulus respondit: «Paratus equidem sum, rex, et
utrumque facere, et alterutrum, et omnino quidquid tu
jusseris: dicam tamen id quod tuis rebus conducibilius esse
mihi videtur. (3) Regem ducemque aio oportere cum rege
duceque congredi: nam, sive tu virum ducem interfeceris,
magnum hoc tibi erit: sive, quod dii prohibeant, te ille, ab
digno etiam occidi, dimidiata calamitas est. (4) Nos vero
famulos aio oportere cum famulis congredi, et cum equo;
cujus tu artes noli timere: ego enim tibi recipio, adversus
nullum porro hominem illum se erecturum.»

CXII. Hæc postquam ille dixit, mox deinde commissa pugna

est, et terra, et mari. Et navibus quidem Iones, acriter illo
die pugnantes, superaverunt Phœnices: et inter Ionas
Samiorum præ cæteris virtus eminuit. Pedestres vero ubi
congressæ sunt copiæ, magno impetu invicem irruentes
pugnarunt. Circa imperatores autem utrimque hæc gesta
sunt: (2) ubi Artybius, equo quem dixi vectus, adversus
Onesilum impetum fecit, Onesilus, quemadmodum ei cum
armigero convenerat, ferit ipsum irruentem Artybium:
quumque equus scuto Onesili pedes injiceret, famulus falce
feriens pedes præcidit equi. Ita Artybius dux Persarum, una
cum equo, ibidem cecidit.

CXIII. Dum vero cæteri etiam acie pugnant, deserit Cyprios

Stesenor, Curii tyrannus, cum non exigua militum manu,
quos secum habebat: dicuntur autem Curienses hi
Argivorum esse coloni. Postquam Curienses deseruere
socios, protinus Salaminiorum quoque currus bellici idem
fecerunt. (2) Quo facto, superiores Persæ fuerunt Cypriis.
Quorum exercitu in fugam verso, ceciderunt et alii multi, et
Onesilus Chersidis filius, qui Cypriis auctor fuerat
defectionis, et Solensium rex Aristocyprus, Philocypri filius;
Philocypri illius, quem Solon Atheniensis postquam Cyprum
venit, præ omnibus tyrannis carmine celebravit.
CXIV. Onesili caput Amathusii, quod ipsos ille obsederat,
abscissum Amathunta deportarunt, et super oppidi portam
suspenderunt. Postquam suspensum ita caput sensim
excavatum est, apium examen in illud sese insinuans, favis
replevit. (2) Quod quum tale accidisset, oraculum
consulentibus Amathusiis, quid capite facerent, datur
responsum, auferrent caput humarentque; Onesilo vero, ut
heroi, annua sacra facerent; id si fecissent, melius cum ipsis
actum iri. Idque fecerunt Amathusii et faciunt ad meam
usque ætatem.

CXV. Iones qui ad Cyprum prælium fecerant navale, ut

intellexere perditas res esse Onesili, et Cypriorum oppida
omnia obsideri, excepta Salamine, quam priori regi Gorgo
reddiderant Salaminii; his rebus Iones cognitis, nulla
interposita mora in Ioniam renavigarunt. (2) Præter cæteras
Cypri civitates diutissime obsidionem sustinuere Soli; sed et
hanc, suffosso circumcirca muro, quinto mense Persæ
ceperunt.

CXVI. Ita igitur, Cyprii, postquam unum annum liberi

fuerant, denuo in servitutem sunt redacti. Interim Daurises,
gener Darii, et Hymeas, et Otanes, aliique duces Persæ, qui
et ipsi filias Darii in matrimonio habebant, postquam Ionas,
expeditionis adversus Sardes socios, erant persecuti,
eosdemque prælio victos in naves compulerant, deinde
divisis inter se vicibus civitates diripiebant.

CXVII. Et Daurises quidem, contra civitates ad

Hellespontum conversus, Dardanum cepit, et Abydum, et
Percoten, et Lampsacum, et Pæsum: (2) quarum singulas
singulis cepit diebus. A Pæso vero adversus Parium urbem
ducenti adfertur nuncius, Cares communicato cum Ionibus
consilio defecisse a Persis: itaque ab Hellesponto remotum
adversus Cariam duxit exercitum.
CXVIII. Ea res forte renunciata Caribus erat priusquam
Daurises advenisset. Cujus cognito consilio, Cares ad Albas
Columnas, quæ vocantur, amnemque Marsyam
congregabantur, qui ex Idriade regione fluens, Mæandro
miscetur. (2) Eo postquam convenere Cares, quum aliæ
multæ dictæ sunt sententiæ, tum illa, optima quæ mihi
videtur, Pixodari, Mausoli filii, civitate Cyindensis, qui
Syennesis filiam, Cilicum regis, in matrimonio habebat. (3)
Hujus viri sententia hæc erat, Mæandrum transmittere
debere Cares, atque ita prælium committere ut fluvium a
tergo haberent; ne scilicet retro fugere possent Cares, sed
ibi manere coacti, fortiores sese quam pro sua natura
præstarent. (4) At hæc non vicit sententia: sed Persis
maluerunt a tergo esse Mæandrum, quam sibi; scilicet, ut
illi, si prælio superati in fugam verterentur, receptum non
haberent, sed in fluvium inciderent.

CXIX. Deinde, ubi adfuerunt Persæ, Mæandrumque

trajecerunt, ibi tunc ad Marsyam fluvium cum illis congressi
sunt Cares: et acri commisso prælio, postquam diu fortiter
pugnarunt, ad extremum hostium multitudine sunt superati.
(2) Persarum ad bis mille ceciderunt, Carum vero ad decies
mille. Qui ex illorum numero cladem effugerunt, hi ad
Labranda in amplum sanctumque platanetum Jovi Stratio
(quasi dicas Militari) sacratum sunt compulsi. Soli autem
hominum, quos novimus, Cares sunt, qui Jovi Stratio sacra
faciant. (3) Ibi igitur conglobati, de salute deliberarunt,
utrum Persis sese dedere, an Asiam prorsus relinquere
satius sibi esset.

CXX. Dum hæc deliberant, auxilio eis adveniunt Milesii

eorumque socii. Tum vero, missa priori deliberatione, Cares
ad redintegrandum denuo bellum sese compararunt. (2)
Atque invadentibus Persis in aciem occurrunt: sed, prælio
commisso, majorem etiam quam antea cladem acceperunt.
Cecidere plurimi ex omnibus; sed Milesiorum præ ceteris
maxima strages facta est.

CXXI. Postea vero vulnus hoc repararunt sanaveruntque

Cares. Postquam enim cognoverunt progredi Persas, oppida
sua invasuros, in via ad Pedasum collocarunt insidias; in
quas noctu incidentes Persæ interfecti sunt et ipsi et eorum
duces, Daurises, et Amorges, et Sisimaces: cum iisdemque
periit etiam Myrsus, Gygis filius. (2) Insidiarum illarum dux
fuerat Heraclides, Ibanolidis filius, Mylasensis. Ita igitur
Persæ illi perierunt.

CXXII. Hymeas vero, alter ex his qui Ionas eos persecuti

sunt qui contra Sardes militaverant, ad Propontidem
conversus, Cion Mysiam cepit. Qua expugnata, ubi cognovit
Daurisen relicto Hellesponto versus Cariam arma
promovere, ipse Propontide relicta in Hellespontum duxit
exercitum: (2) et Æolenses subegit omnes, quotquot
Iliadem habitant terram, et Gergithas subegit, priscorum
Teucrorum reliquias. At ipse Hymeas, dum hos populos
subigit, morbo correptus moritur in Troade.

CXXIII. Et hic quidem illi finis fuit: Artapherni vero, Sardium

præfecto, et Otani, tertio duci Persarum, mandatum erat
bellum Ioniæ et finitimæ Æolidi a continente inferendum.
Atque hi Clazomenas Ioniæ ceperunt, et Cymen Æolidis.

CXXIV. Ita dum capiuntur oppida, Aristagoras Milesius hæc

videns, homo parum acri, ut factis ipse ostendit, ingenio,
qui Ioniam concitaverat magnasque miscuerat turbas,
fugam agitabat, satis ille intelligens superari Darium regem
prorsus non posse. (2) Hoc consilio, convocatis suarum
partium hominibus, deliberationem proposuit, dicens,
commodum ipsis fore, certum habere refugium, si Mileto
pellerentur, sive in Sardiniam ipsos ex hoc ducat in
coloniam, sive in Myrcinum Edonorum, Histiæo a Dario dono
datam, et in oppidum ibi ab Histiæo munitum. Hæc igitur,
nimirum utrum vellent, ex ipsis quærebat Aristagoras.

CXXV. Jam Hecatæus quidem, Hegesandri filius, historiarum

scriptor, in neutrum horum locorum abeundum censuit; sed
in Lero insula debere castellum munire Aristagoram, ibique,
si Mileto excideret, quietum se tenere, donec impetu inde
facto Miletum repetere posset. Hoc Hecatæi fuit consilium.

CXXVI. Ipse vero Aristagoras eo maxime inclinabat, ut

Myrcinum abiret. Itaque Mileto Pythagoræ fidei commissa,
probati inter cives viri, ipse, secum sumpto quicumque
voluisset, in Thraciam navigavit, regionemque quam
petierat tenuit. (2) Inde vero progressus, interfectus est a
Thracibus et ipse et exercitus ejus, quum oppidum aliquod
obsideret, rejectis conditionibus, quibus Thraces excedere
oppido voluerant.

[TR1] "quidam" → "quidem"

[TR2] "Ego" → "«Ego"
[TR3] "facturnm" → "facturum"
[TR4] "eam que" (2 lines) → "eamque"
[TR5] "eaussa" → "caussa"
[TR6] "valet" → "valet,"
[TR7] "Gephyraei" → "Gephyræi"
[TR8] "æqualibitas" → "æquabilitas"
[TR9] "eadem i" → "eadem"

HERODOTI
 HISTORIARUM LIBER SEXTUS.
(ERATO.)

I. Aristagoras igitur, quo auctore Ionia defecerat, hoc modo

vitam finivit. Histiæus vero, Mileti tyrannus, a Dario
dimissus, Sardes erat profectus: quo ubi Susis pervenit,
interrogavit eum Artaphernes, Sardium præfectus, qua re
inductos putaret Ionas a rege defecisse. (2) Id quum ille se
ignorare diceret, mirareturque factum, quasi nihil de rebus
præsentibus compertum haberet, artificiis utentem videns
Artaphernes ait: «Ita tibi, Histiæe, hæc res habet: calceum
hunc tu suisti, et induit eum Aristagoras.»

II. Hoc quum Artapherenes, ad defectionem quod attinet,

dixisset; metuens eum Histiæus, utpote intelligentem quid
rei esset, protinus prima nocte ad mare profugit: qui, quum
Dario pollicitus esset Sardiniam maximam insulam imperio
se illius esse subjecturum, decepto rege, clam auctor
Ionibus fuerat belli adversus illum suscipiendi. (2) Sed
Chium transgressus, in vincula a Chiis conjectus est,
suspectum eum habentibus quasi res novas adversus ipsos
Darii nomine molientem. Mox tamen, cognita rei veritate,
hostem esse regi, vinculis eum Chii solverunt.

III. Ibi vero interrogatus Histiæus a Ionibus, cur ita studiose

Aristagoræ, ut a rege deficeret, mandasset, et in tantas
calamitates Ionas conjecisset, veram illis caussam
nequaquam exprompsit; (2) sed, regem Darium, ait,
constituisse Phœnices sedibus suis excitos in Ioniam
transferre, Ionas autem in Phœnicen: ea caussa se istud
mandasse. Ita Ionas terruit, quum nihil umquam tale rex
animo agitasset.
IV. Post hæc internuncio Hermippo usus Histiæus, homine
Atarnita, ad Persas nonnullos, qui Sardibus erant, epistolas
misit, ut qui secum antea de defectione sermones
miscuissent. At Hermippus eis, ad quos missus erat, non
reddidit epistolas, sed Artapherni tradidit. (2) Ille vero, re
omni cognita, jussit Hermippum eis epistolas reddere ad
quos datæ erant ab Histiæo; sibi vero tradere illas, quas
Persæ vicissim ad Histiæum perferendas ipsi dedissent. Quo
facto postquam illi comperti fuerunt, de multis Persarum
supplicium sumpsit Artaphernes.

V. Atque ita tumultus Sardibus exstitit. Illa autem spe

frustratum Histiæum Chii, rogante ipso, Miletum deduxere.
At Milesiis, lubenter Aristagora etiam liberatis, neutiquam
volupe erat alium tyrannum in terram suam recipere,
quippe qui libertatem gustassent. (2) Itaque, quum noctu
per vim intrare Miletum conatus esset Histiæus, repulsus
est, atque etiam ab aliquo ex Milesiis in femore vulneratus.
Rejectus igitur a patria Chium rediit: inde vero, quum Chiis
ut sibi naves darent persuadere non potuisset, Mytilenen
trajecit; et Lesbiis, ut naves sibi darent, persuasit. (3) Hi
igitur, instructis octo triremibus, cum Histiæo Byzantium
navigarunt: ibique in insidiis stantes, naves ex Ponto
navigantes vi ceperunt, exceptis eorum navigiis qui se
paratos esse Histiæo parere profiterentur.

VI. Dum hæc Histiæus et Mytilenæi agebant, interim ad

ipsam Miletum ingens et navalis et pedestris exspectabatur
exercitus. Nam Persarum duces, junctis viribus et in unum
exercitum collatis, adversus Miletum, insuper habitis
minoribus oppidis, proficiscebantur: (2) et navalium
copiarum promptissimi erant Phœnices: una autem
militabant et Cyprii, nuper subacti, et Cilices, atque Ægyptii.

VII. Quos ubi Iones intellexerunt adversus Miletum

reliquamque Ioniam proficisci, miserunt de suis ad
Panionium, qui de rebus ad se pertinentibus deliberarent.
(2) Quibus prædicto loco congregatis, habito consilio,
placuit, ut pedestris exercitus, qui opponeretur Persis,
nullus cogeretur, sed muros defenderent ipsi per se Milesii;
classis autem, nulla excepta navi, rebus omnibus
instrueretur, atque ita instructa quamprimum ad Laden
occurreret, et pro Mileto pugna navali decerneret. Est autem
Lade parva insula, urbi Milesiorum obversa.

VIII. Post hæc, ubi instructis navibus adfuere Iones, cum

eisque Æolenses Lesbum incolentes, aciem in hunc modum
ordinarunt. (2) Cornu ad orientem spectans ipsi tenebant
Milesii, naves præbentes octoginta: his contigui erant
Prienenses cum duodecim navibus, et Myusii navibus tribus:
Myusiis proximi stabant Teii, septemdecim navibus: Teiis
proximi Chii, navibus centum. (3) Juxta hos locati Erythræi
et Phocæenses, quorum illi octo contulerant naves, hi vero
tres. Phocæensibus contigui erant Lesbii, navibus
septuaginta. Postremi locati Samii, cornu tenentes occidenti
obversum, navibus sexaginta. Universus harum omnium
numerus fuit, triremes trecentæ quinquaginta tres.

IX. Et hæ quidem Ionum erant. At barbari quas habebant

naves, multitudine erant sexcentæ. Quæ ubi et ipsæ ad
Milesiorum fines pervenere, simulque pedestres universæ
aderant copiæ, ibi tum duces Persarum, cognita Ionicarum
navium multitudine, veriti sunt ne superare has non
possent, adeoque nec Miletum possent capere, mari non
potentes, atque ita periculum incurrerent pœnas dandi
Dario. (2) Hæc secum reputantes, convocarunt Ionum
tyrannos, qui ab Aristagora Milesio imperiis dejecti ad
Medos profugerant, jamque cum illis adversus Miletum
militabant. Ex horum igitur numero convocatos, quotquot
præsentes erant, in hunc modum sunt adlocuti: «Nunc, viri
Iones, quisque vestrûm palam faciat, de regis domo se bene
velle mereri. Unusquisque nempe vestrûm det operam, ut
populares suos a reliquorum abstrahat societate. (3)
Proponite igitur illis, enunciateque, nihil triste illos ob
defectionem passuros, nec ædes eorum vel sacras vel
privatas iri incensum, nec duriore conditione, quam ante,
futuros. (4) Sin a societate non recesserint, sed utique
pugnæ periculo rem commiserint, hæc minitantes illis
prædicite, quæ ipsis sint eventura: nos prælio victos in
servitutem rapturos, pueros eorum castraturos, virgines
Bactra abducturos, et terram aliis esse tradituros.»

X. Quæ quum illi dixissent, Ionum tyranni noctu ad

populares suos unusquisque dimisit qui hæc eis
renunciarent. (2) At Iones, ad quos hi nuncii pervenere,
tenaciter in proposito suo perstiterunt, nec admiserunt
proditionem: et quique sibi solis hæc a Persis edici
existimabant. Et hæc quidem protinus, ex quo ad Miletum
Persæ pervenerant, peracta sunt.

XI. Deinde vero, ubi in Lade insula Iones convenere,

conciones sunt habitæ; et quum alii apud eos verba fecere,
tum Phocæensium dux Dionysius sic est locutus: «Nunc,
quum in novaculæ acie sint res nostræ, ut vel liberi simus,
vel servi, et ii quidem velut fugitivi; (2) si quidem volueritis,
viri Iones, labores suscipere, erit id quidem in præsentia
vobis molestum, sed poteritis superatis hostibus esse liberi;
sin disciplina militari insuper habita, mollitiei vos dedideritis;
nullam equidem spem habeo, pœnam defectionis regi
dandam effugere vos posse. (3) Sed me audite mihique vos
permittite; et vobis ego, si modo dii æqua dederint, recipio,
aut pugnæ aleam non subituros esse hostes, aut, si nos
adgressuri sunt, magnam cladem accepturos.»

XII. His auditis, Dionysio se permiserunt Iones. Tum ille

quotidie, navibus longo ordine eductis, postquam remiges in
discurrendo singulis navibus per binas alias exercuisset, et
classiarios jussisset armatos in ponte stare, reliquam diei
partem in ancoris naves tenebat; atque ita toto die laborem
Ionibus exhibebat. (2) Et illi quidem ad septimum usque
diem ei parebant, mandataque exsequebantur; insequente
vero die, quum impatientes essent talium laborum,
molestiis et solis ardore vexati, hosce inter se sermones
miscere: «Quo tandem numine læso hos exhaurimus
labores? (3) qui desipientes et de statu mentis dejecti,
homini Phocæensi, vano jactatori, qui tres naves in
commune contulit, nos totos permisimus. Et ille nos, sibi
traditos, miseriis intolerabilibus vexat; ita ut nostrûm multi
in morbos inciderint, et multis item aliis eadem sors
imminere videatur! (4) Quanto nobis præstat, quidvis aliud,
quam hæc mala, pati, et futuram servitutem potius tolerare,
qualiscumque illa fuerit, quam hanc præsentem, qua
constricti sumus! Agite, ne porro huic homini pareamus!»
(5) Hæc dixerant, et extemplo nemo amplius mandata
facere voluit; sed, tamquam pedestris exercitus, tentoriis in
insula fixis degebant in umbra, naves conscendere
exercerique nolentes.

XIII. Quæ ubi a Ionibus fieri viderunt Samiorum duces; tum

vero, quos sermones jubentibus Persis ad eos deferendos
prius curaverat Æaces, Sylosontis filius, deserere eos jubens
Ionum societatem, (2) hos tunc sermones animis
admittebant Samii, spretam ab Ionibus militarem omnem
videntes disciplinam, simulque intelligentes superari non
posse regis potentiam; satis quippe gnari, etiamsi
præsentes navales copias superarent Darii, alias
quintuplices contra se adfuturas. (3) Adripientes igitur
occasionem, simulatque Ionas viderunt negantes in officio
se futuros, lucro sibi duxerunt servare res suas et sacras et
privatas. (4) Erat autem Æaces ille, cui morem Samii
gesserunt, filius Sylosontis, Æacis nepos: qui, quum
tyrannus fuisset Sami, ab Aristagora Milesio exutus fuerat
imperio, quemadmodum reliqui Ioniæ tyranni.
XIV. Tunc igitur, ubi Phœnices cum classe contra progressi
sunt, Iones etiam naves suas longo ordine eduxerunt. Ut
vero prope invicem fuerunt, commiseruntque prælium,
exinde quinam ex Ionibus aut ignavi in hac navali pugna aut
fortes viri fuerint, adcurate scribere non possum: nam alii
alios invicem culpant. (2) Dicuntur autem tunc Samii, ut
convenerat cum Æace, sublatis velis, deserta acie, Samum
navigasse, undecim navibus exceptis. (3) Harum enim
præfecti manserunt, pugnaveruntque spreto ducum suorum
imperio: hisque commune Samiorum, ob hoc factum, eum
honorem habuit, ut nomina ipsorum cum paternis
nominibus columnæ inscriberentur, ut qui probi fortesque
viri fuissent; et est hæc columna in foro. (4) Lesbii vero,
proximos profugere videntes, idem fecerunt quod Samii;
eorumque exemplum major pars Ionum secuta est.

XV. Ex his vero qui in prælio substiterunt, pessime accepti

sunt Chii, præclaris quidem factis nobilitati, et neutiquam,
ut alii, de industria cessantes. Contulerant enim,
quemadmodum ante etiam dictum est, naves centum, et in
earum unaquaque erant quadraginta selecti ex civibus
propugnatores. (2) Qui ubi plerosque socios prodere rem
communem viderunt, noluerunt pravorum esse similes; sed
cum paucis e sociis soli relicti, pugnarunt discurrentes per
hostium naves, easque perrumpentes; donec, postquam
plures naves ceperant, ipsi suarum majorem partem
amiserunt. Chii igitur cum reliquis e suis navibus domum
profugerunt.

XVI. Quibus vero ex Chiorum numero invalidæ naves erant

ob accepta vulnera, hi, quum hostis eos persequeretur, ad
Mycalen profugerunt; et relictis ibi navibus in brevia ejectis,
pedibus per continentem redire instituerunt. (2) Ut vero
Ephesiorum fines ingressi sunt redeuntes Chii, noctuque ad
eum locum pervenerunt, ubi tunc mulieres Thesmophoria
celebrabant; ibi tunc Ephesii, quum quo pacto res Chiorum
se haberent ante non audivissent, viderentque militum
multitudinem fines suos invadentem, prorsus persuasi fures
hos esse, qui mulieribus suis insidiarentur, universi ad vim
arcendam procurrerunt, et Chios interfecerunt. Ac Chii
quidem tali utrimque fortuna usi sunt.

XVII. Dionysius vero Phocæensis, perditas res esse

intelligens Ionum, captis tribus hostium navibus, abiit non
jam Phocæam navigans, satis gnarus eam cum reliqua Ionia
in servitutem iri redactum; sed e vestigio recta in Phœnicen
contendit. Ibi quum onerarias multas naves demersisset,
multaque pecunia et aliis rebus pretiosis esset potitus, in
Siciliam inde vela fecit: ex qua coortus, prædatoriam
exercuit; Græcanicæ quidem nulli navi insidiatus, sed
Carthaginiensibus ac Tyrrhenis.

XVIII. Persæ, victis pugna navali Ionibus, terra marique

Miletum oppugnarunt, et, suffossis muris, admotisque
cujusque generis machinis, penitus vi ceperunt, sexto a
defectione Aristagoræ anno; captamque in servitutem
redegerunt. Ita ea ipsa calamitate defuncta Miletus est,
quæ in illam ab oraculo prædicta erat.

XIX. Nam quum Argivi Delphis oraculum de suæ urbis salute

consuluissent, editum est promiscuum effatum, unum
quidem ad Argivos spectans, sed huic immixtum aliud ad
Milesios pertinens. (2) Et illud quidem, quod Argivos
spectabat, deinde referam, quum ad illum narrationis locum
pervenero; quæ vero Milesiis, tunc non præsentibus,
prædixit deus, ita habent.

Tunc quoque, commentrix operum Milete malorum,

permultis cœna et præstantia munera fies,
crinitisque pedes tua pluribus abluet uxor;
templi aliis nostri in Didymis sua cura manebit.
(3) Tunc igitur hæc Milesiis acciderunt, quando virorum
major pars interfecta est a Persis longos capillos alentibus,
et mulieres et liberi mancipiorum loco sunt habiti, et
templum Didymis, ædes et oraculum, exspoliatum
deflagravit. Cæterum pecuniæ rerumque pretiosarum, quæ
in hoc templo depositæ erant, sæpe alibi in hac narratione
feci mentionem.

XX. Inde, quotquot Milesii viri capti erant, Susa sunt ducti:
quibus rex Darius, nullo alio malo adfectis, sedes adsignavit
ad Rubrum quod vocatur mare, in Ampe oppido, juxta quam
præterfluens Tigris fluvius in mare evolvitur. (2) Agri vero
Milesii eam partem, quæ prope urbem et in planitie sita est,
Persæ tenuerunt ipsi; colles et montana Caribus
Pedasensibus possidenda dedere.

XXI. Milesiis, hac calamitate adflictis a Persis, parem

gratiam non retulerunt Sybaritæ, qui patria urbe exuti Laum
et Scidrum incolebant. Nam Sybari a Crotoniatis capta
Milesii universi, nulla excepta ætate, capita raserant, et
ingentem præ se tulerant luctum: hæ enim civitates
maxime omnium, quas novimus, hospitii inter se jura
coluerant. (2) Diverso modo fecere Athenienses. Hi enim et
aliis multis modis testatum fecerunt, quam acerbum ex
Mileti expugnatione luctum perceperint; et, quum
Phrynichus drama scripsisset docuissetque, Mileti
expugnationem, in lacrimas eruperunt spectatores omnes,
et mille drachmis multatus est poeta, quod domesticarum
calamitatum memoriam refrixisset; legeque cautum est, ne
quis amplius hoc dramate uteretur.

XXII. Ita Miletus viduata est Milesiis. Samiorum vero his,

qui aliquid in bonis habebant, minime placuit id quod ab
ipsorum ducibus in gratiam Medorum erat factum. Itaque
statim a navali pugna deliberantes decreverunt, prius quam
in ipsorum terram advenisset Æaces tyrannus, navibus in
coloniam emigrare, nec manere dum Medis et Æaci servire
cogerentur. (2) Etenim per idem tempus Zanclæi ex Sicilia
nuncios miserant in Ioniam, qui Ionas ad Calactam
invitarent, ubi Ionicam condi urbem Zanclæi cupiebant. Est
autem hæc Cale Acte (Pulcrum littus) quæ vocatur, Siciliæ
tractus, Tyrrheniæ obversus. (3) His igitur invitantibus, soli
ex Ionibus Samii in coloniam abierunt, cum eisque Milesii,
qui patriæ calamitatem effugerant.

XXIII.[TR1] Interim res accidit hujusmodi. Samii, dum

Siciliam petunt, in Locris erant Epizephyriis, et Zanclæi cum
rege ipsorum, cui nomen erat Scythes, urbem aliquam
Siciliæ obsidebant, quam expugnare cupidi erant. (2) Ea re
cognita, Anaxilaus Rhegii tyrannus, infensus tunc Zanclæis,
cum Samiis egit, monens eos omittendam esse, quam
peterent, Calactam, occupandamque Zanclam, viris tum
vacuam. (3) Et Samii, dicto audientes, Zanclam tenuere.
Zanclæi, ut occupatam suam urbem audivere, ad opem
ferendam adcurrunt, advocato etiam Hippocrate, Gelæ
tyranno, cui cum illis societas erat. (4) At Hippocrates,
postquam cum exercitu tamquam opem illis laturus advenit,
ipse Scytham Zanclæorum monarcham, qui urbem
amiserat, fratremque ejus Pythogenem, compedibus vinctos
in oppidum Inycum misit; reliquos autem Zanclæos, fœdere
cum Samiis inito, et fide data acceptaque, prodidit. (5)
Merces ei a Samiis hæc erat stipulata, ut omnium quæ
moveri possent mancipiorumque, quæ in urbe essent,
dimidiam partem Hippocrates acciperet; quæ vero in agris
essent, ea cuncta sortiretur. (6) Igitur Zanclæorum
plerosque ipse mancipiorum loco in vinculis habuit,
eminentiores autem illorum trecentos Samiis tradidit
interficiendos: at ab hac quidem culpa Samii abstinuere.

XXIV. Scythes vero, Zanclæorum monarcha, ex Inyco

Himeram profugit; indeque in Asiam profectus, ad regem
Darium adscendit. (2) Et hunc Darius justissimum judicavit
virorum omnium, qui ex Græcia ad ipsum adscenderant:
nam venia a rege impetrata in Siciliam redierat, rursusque
ex Sicilia ad regem erat reversus. Denique senex et beatus
apud Persas e vita discessit. Ita igitur Samii, procul a Medis
profecti, nullo labore pulcerrima urbe Zancla sunt potiti.

XXV. Post peractam pro Mileto navalem pugnam, Phœnices

ex Persarum mandato Æacem, Sylosontis filium, Samum
reduxerunt, utpote qui utilissimam illis egregiamque operam
præstitisset. (2) Et solis, ex omnibus qui a Dario defecerant,
Samiis neque urbs neque templa incensa sunt, propterea
quod naves eorum in pugna navali socios deseruerant.
Capta vero Mileto, protinus Caria in potestatem venit
Persarum, aliis oppidis ultro sese dedentibus, aliis vi ad
obsequium redactis.

XXVI. Atque ita hæ res gestæ sunt. Histiæo autem Milesio

circa Byzantium versanti et Ionum onerarias naves e Ponto
venientes intercipienti, adfertur nuncius de rebus ad
Miletum gestis. (2) Itaque, rebus ad Hellespontum Bisaltæ
Abydeno permissis, Apollophanis filio, ipse secum sumptis
Lesbiis Chium navigavit. Ubi quum non reciperet eum
Chiorum præsidium, acie cum his congressus est in Cœlis
(id est Cavis) quæ vocantur Chiæ terræ; (3) et eorum
multos interfecit: mox reliquos etiam Chios, quippe navali
pugna misere adflictos, sub potestatem suam Histiæus,
Lesbiis adjutus, redegit, ex Polichna Chiorum oppido impetu
facto.

XXVII. Solet autem deus ante significare, quando magna

mala civitati aut populo cuipiam imminent; atque etiam
Chiis ante has calamitates ingentia signa acciderant.
Primum enim, quum centum juvenum chorum Delphos
misissent, non nisi duo ex his redierant, cæteris octo et
nonaginta peste absumptis: (2) tum per idem tempus, haud
multo ante navalem pugnam, super puerorum capitibus
literas discentium tectum corruerat, ut de centum et viginti
pueris unus solus evaserit. (3) His signis a deo ante
ostensis, deinde secuta pugna navalis in genu projecit
civitatem; post pugnam vero navalem supervenit Histiæus
cum Lesbiis, et Chios jam ante adtritos facile prorsus
depressit.

XXVIII. Inde Thaso arma Histiæus intulit, magnam Ionum

et Æolensium manum secum ducens. Dum vero Thasum
circumsidet, adfertur ei nuncius, Phœnices Mileto profectos
reliquam Ioniam navibus petere. (2) Quo cognito, Thasum
inexpugnatam relinquens, Lesbum contendit, universis
copiis secum ductis. Lesbo vero, quum fame laboraret
exercitus, in continentem trajecit, frumentum demetere et
ex Atarneo cogitans, et ex Caico campo Mysorum ditionis.
(3) At fuit forte in ea regione Harpagus Persa, haud exigui
dux exercitus: qui, cum illo in terram egresso commissa
pugna, et ipsum Histiæum vivum cepit, et majorem
copiarum illius partem interfecit.

XXIX. Captus est autem Histiæus hoc modo. Commisso

Græcos inter et Persas prælio in Malena agri Atarnensis, per
satis longum tempus æquo marte pugnatum est; ad
extremum vero immissus est Græcis equitatus, qui pugnam
hanc confecit: (2) et in fugam versis Græcis, Histiæus,
sperans se ob admissam culpam non supplicio adfectum iri
a rege, talem quemdam vitæ amorem concepit: quum
fugientem adsecutus esset homo Persa, qui jam in eo erat
ut deprehensum confoderet, Persico ille sermone hominem
adloquens, esse se Histiæum Milesium indicavit.

XXX. Qui si in vita fuisset servatus, et ad Darium regem

adductus, puto equidem nihil mali fuisse eum passurum,
remissurumque ei culpam fuisse regem. Nunc hanc ipsam
ob caussam, ne salvus evaderet iterumque magnus fieret
apud regem, Artaphernes Sardium præfectus, et qui illum
captivum fecerat Harpagus, ut Sardes adductus est
Histiæus, corpus illius suspenderunt e cruce, caput autem,
[TR2]
sale conditum, Susa ad Darium regem miserunt. (2)
Quibus rebus cognitis Darius, vituperatis his qui hoc
fecerant, quod non vivum illum in suum conspectum
adduxissent, caput Histiæi lotum et bene curatum jussit
sepeliri, ut viri de se et de Persis præclare meriti. Hoc igitur
fato functus Histiæus est.

XXXI. Jam navalis Persarum exercitus, postquam circa

Miletum hiemaverat, sequenti anno inde profectus, insulas
facile cepit haud procul a continente sitas, Chium et Lesbum
et Tenedum. (2) Quarum insularum ut quaque potiti erant
barbari, incolas omnes indagine cinctos capiebant. Indagine
autem cingunt hoc modo: vir virum manu prehendens, a
mari septemtrionali ad australe pertinentes, totam
pervadunt insulam, atque ita homines venantur. (3) Pariter
vero etiam Ionicas in continente ceperunt civitates, nisi
quod ibi homines non indagine cinctos venati sunt; neque
enim fieri id poterat.

XXXII. Tunc vero Persarum duces vera præstiterunt ea, quæ

minati Ionibus erant, quum illi ex adverso castra haberent.
(2) Postquam enim urbibus potiti sunt, selectos puerorum
formosissimos castrabant, ex viris eunuchos facientes; et
virgines forma præcellentes abducebant ad regem: et hæc
igitur faciebant et urbes cum ipsis templis incendio
cremabant. (3) Atque sic tertio in servitutem Iones redacti
sunt: primum a Lydis, et bis deinceps tunc a Persis.

XXXIII. Post hæc, relicta Ionia, navalis exercitus omnia

Hellesponti loca, quæ ad sinistram sunt intranti, subegit:
nam, quæ a dextra sunt, ea Persæ jam ipsi per se, terra
adgressi, suam in potestatem redegerant. (2) Sunt autem
ad Hellespontum in Europa loca hæc: Chersonesus, in qua
complura insunt oppida, tum Perinthus, et castella Thracia,
et Selybria, et Byzantium. (3) Jam Byzantii quidem, et his
ex adverso oppositi Calchedonii, ne exspectarunt quidem
Phœniciæ classis adventum; sed, relictis suis sedibus,
introrsus in Pontum Euxinum se receperunt, ibique urbem
condiderunt Mesembriam. Phœnices vero, incensis his quæ
nominavi locis, contra Proconnesum et Artacam se
converterunt: quibus et ipsis igni datis, iterum in
Chersonesum navigarunt, reliquas urbes expugnaturi, quas
superiori adpulsu non everterant. (4) Adversus Cyzicum
vero cursum omnino non direxerunt: nam Cyziceni ipsi jam
ante Phœnicum adventum in obsequio erant regis
Persarum, deditionem cum Œbare pacti, Megabazi filio,
Dascylei præfecto. Chersonesi vero, una Cardia excepta,
reliquis omnibus urbibus potiti sunt Phœnices.

XXXIV. Tyrannus tunc Chersonesi Miltiades erat, Cimonis

filius, Stesagoræ nepos: quod regnum primus olim
susceperat Miltiades, Cypseli filius, hoc modo. Tenebant
hanc Chersonesum Dolonci Thraces. (2) Hi, bello pressi ab
Apsinthiis, reges suos miserant Delphos, qui de hoc bello
oraculum consulerent; quibus Pythia respondit, coloniæ
conditorem in hanc regionem secum adducerent eum, qui
ipsos, postquam templo egressi essent, primus ad
hospitium vocasset. (3) Rediere Dolonci sacra via, per
Phocenses et Bœotos: ubi quum nemo eos vocasset,
Athenas deflectunt.

XXXV. Erat tunc Athenis summa potestas penes Pisistratum:

cæterum dominabatur etiam Miltiades Cypseli filius, e
familia quadrigas alente; originem quidem generis ab Æaco
ex Ægina repetens, sed recentiori memoria civis
Atheniensis; Philæus enim, Ajacis filius, primus ex hac
familia in civium Atheniensium numerum erat receptus. (2)
Hic Miltiades, in vestibulo ædium suarum sedens, quum
prætereuntes conspiceret Doloncos, vestem gestantes
extraneam et lanceas, inclamavit illos; accedentibusque
deversorium et hospitalia officia obtulit. (3) Tum illi, accepta
conditione, hospitio ab eo recepti, totum hospiti effatum
oraculi aperuerunt, rogaruntque eumdem ut deo
obsequeretur. Quorum audito sermone, protinus persuasus
Miltiades est, quippe ægre ferens Pisistrati imperium, et
procul ipse abesse cupiens. (4) Itaque extemplo Delphos
profectus, consuluit oraculum, an faceret quod eum Dolonci
rogassent.

XXXVI. Quod ubi etiam Pythia facere jussit, ita Miltiades

Cypseli filius, qui ante id tempus quadrigæ curriculo
victoriam Olympiæ reportaverat, tunc, adsumptis
quicumque ex Atheniensibus profectionis esse socii
voluerant, una cum Doloncis navigavit: et, postquam terram
illam tenuit, ab his ipsis qui eum adduxerant tyrannus est
constitutus. (2) Is igitur primo isthmum Chersonesi muro
intercepit, ex Cardia urbe usque Pactyam; ne possent
Apsinthii incursionibus vastare regionem. Est autem latitudo
isthmi illius stadia sex et triginta; longitudo vero Chersonesi
ab hoc isthmo introrsum est quadringentorum et viginti
stadiorum.

XXXVII. Faucibus Chersonesi muro interceptis, eaque

ratione expulsis Apsinthiis, primis cæterorum Lampsacenis
arma Miltiades intulit: quo bello a Lampsacenis, structis
insidiis, vivus captus est. (2) Erat autem Miltiades Crœso
Lydo familiaris. Itaque re cognita, Crœsus præcone misso
edixit Lampsacenis, salvum dimitterent Miltiadem: id ni
fecissent, minatus est, pinus arboris in modum se illos
excisurum. (3) Incertis Lampsacenis, disceptantibusque
inter se quid sibi vellet hoc verbum, quod ipsis minatus
Crœsus esset, pinus in modum se illos excisurum, postremo
tandem seniorum quispiam verum docuit, scilicet pinum
solam ex cunctis arboribus, postquam excisa sit, nullum
amplius germen edere, sed funditus perire. Igitur Crœsum
metuentes Lampsaceni Miltiadem solutis vinculis liberum
dimiserunt.

XXXVIII. Hic igitur, postquam opera Crœsi salvus evasit,

deinde sine liberis obiit, regno et rebus suis omnibus
Stesagoræ relictis, Cimonis filio, fratris sui eadem matre
nati. Et ei vita functo sacra faciunt Chersonitæ, uti mos est
conditori facere; et equestre gymnicumque in illius honorem
certamen celebrant, in quo nulli Lampsacenorum certare fas
est. (2) Dum vero bellum geritur cum Lampsacenis, accidit
ut Stesagoras quoque sine liberis vita discederet, securi
caput percussus in prytaneo ab homine, qui in speciem
transfuga, revera autem hostis erat isque ferventior.

XXXIX. Ita mortuo etiam Stesagora, deinde Miltiadem,

Cimonis filium, mortui Stesagoræ fratrem, ad suscipiendum
imperium cum triremi in Chersonesum miserunt
Pisistratidæ; qui Athenis etiam eumdem beneficiis
promeruerant, quasi non conscii fuissent cædis patris illius
Cimonis; quæ quo pacto patrata fuerit, in alia narrationis
parte exponam. (2) Miltiades postquam in Chersonesum
pervenit, domi se tenuit, tamquam mortui fratris Stesagoræ
memoriam honorans. Quod ubi rescivere Chersonesitæ,
congressi principes ex omnibus undique civitatibus, quum
communi consilio simul omnes ad eum condolendi caussa
convenissent, in vincula ab illo conjecti sunt. (3) Atque ita
Miltiades Chersonesum tenuit, quingentos alens satellites et
uxorem duxit filiam Olori Thracum regis Hegesipylam.

XL. Hic igitur Cimonis filius Miltiades recentiori memoria in

Chersonesum venerat: cui, ex quo advenit, alia acciderunt
præsentibus graviora. Tertio enim ab his rebus superiori
anno Scythas fugiens in exsilium abiit. Nempe Scythæ
Nomades, a Dario rege irritati, junctis viribus usque in hanc
Chersonesum invaserunt: (2) quorum adventum exspectare
non ausus Miltiades e Chersoneso profugit; donec, regressis
Scythis, Dolonci eum reduxerunt. Hæc igitur tertio anno
ante ea quæ nunc ei acciderunt, acta sunt.

XLI. Nunc vero, ubi Phœnices in Tenedo esse cognovit,

quinque triremibus ex his, quæ ad manus erant, pecunia et
aliis rebus pretiosis impletis Athenas navigavit. Dum vero,
ex Cardia urbe profectus, per Melanem sinum navigans,
prætervehitur Chersonesum, occurrunt navibus ejus
Phœnices. (2) Et ipse quidem Miltiades cum quattuor
navibus Imbrum effugit; quintam vero persequentes
Phœnices ceperunt, (3) cui navi præfectus tum erat Miltiadis
filius natu maximus Metiochus, non ex Olori Thracis filia
natus, sed ex alia uxore: atque hunc simul cum navi
ceperunt Phœnices. Qui, ut resciverunt Miltiadis esse filium,
ad regem eum abduxerunt, ingentem existimantes gratiam
se inituros propter sententiam quam in Ionum concilio
dixerat Miltiades, quum illos hortaretur obtemperare Scythis
rogantibus, ut pontem solverent Iones domumque
navigarent. (4) At Darius, postquam ad eum Phœnices
Metiochum Miltiadis filium adduxerunt, nihil Metiocho mali
fecit, sed multa in eum beneficia contulit: nam et domum et
possessiones ei dedit, et Persicam uxorem, ex qua ei nati
sunt filii, qui Persarum ordini sunt adscripti.

XLII. Miltiades vero ex Imbro Athenas pervenit. Atque eo

anno nihil amplius hostile adversus Ionas a Persis
susceptum est; immo vero hæc valde utilia Ionibus hoc
anno contigere. (2) Artaphernes, Sardium præfectus,
arcessitis legatis ex civitatibus, coegit Ionas, ut pactiones
mutuas facerent de litibus ex juris formula dirimendis, nec
porro vi et armis inter se agerent. (3) Et hoc eos facere
coegit, et terras eorumdem dimensus per parasangas (sic
Persæ mensuram vocant triginta stadiorum), tributa
quibusque imposuit, quæ ab illo inde tempore constanter ad
meam usque ætatem eadem manent, sicut ab Artapherne
constituta sunt: constituta autem ab illo sunt fere eadem
conditione atque prius fuerant.

XLIII. Et hæc quidem pacata illis contigerunt. Primo autem

vere, reliquis imperatoribus domum dimissis a rege,
Mardonius Gobryæ filius ad mare descendit, ingentem et
pedestrem exercitum ducens, et navalem. Ætate juvenis is
erat, et nuper regis Darii filiam Artozostram duxerat
uxorem. (2) Huic igitur exercitui præfectus Mardonius,
postquam in Ciliciam pervenit, navem ipse conscendit, et
cum reliquis navibus est profectus; pedestrem vero
exercitum alii duces ad Hellespontum duxerunt. (3) Quum
vero Asiam præternavigans Mardonius ad Ioniam
pervenisset, rem hic ego dicam maxime miram eis Græcis,
qui sibi persuaderi non patiuntur, Otanen unum e septem
illis Persis pro sententia dixisse, populare imperium apud
Persas debere institui. Namque Mardonius, abrogato
tyrannorum omnium inter Ionas imperio, popularem statum
civitatibus instituit. (4) Eo facto in Hellespontum properavit.
Ut vero coacta est magna vis navium, et collectus ingens
pedestris exercitus, navibus superato Hellesponto, per
Europam iter fecerunt: proficiscebantur autem adversus
Eretriam et Athenas.

XLIV. Nempe, contra has dirigi expeditionem, verbis præ se

ferebant. Cæterum, quum constitutum apud se haberent
quam plurimas possent ex Græcis civitatibus subigere,
primum Thasios classe adgressi, qui ne manus quidem
contra illos sustulerant, sibi subjecerunt; tum pedestri
exercitu Macedonas, post illos qui jam Persis serviebant,
sub jugum miserunt: nam qui cis Macedoniam habitant
populi, jam cuncti illis subjecti erant. (2) Dein navibus a
Thaso continentem versus transvecti, secundum oram
perrexerunt navigare usque Acanthum: tum Acantho
profecti, Athon montem circumvehi instituerunt. Sed dum
circumvehuntur, ingruens ventus boreas ingens, et contra
quem eluctari nulla arte poterant, maximum navium
numerum ad montem impulsas misere adflixit. (3) Aiunt
enim ad trecentas ex navibus periisse, et hominum amplius
viginti millia. Etenim quum belluis frequens admodum sit
hoc circa Athon mare, alii a belluis rapti periere; alii vero ad
petras adlisi; alii, quum natare non didicissent, hoc ipso
periere; alii gelu. Hæc clades classem adflixit.

XLV. Mardonium vero et pedestrem exercitum, quum in

Macedonia castra haberet, noctu adgressi Brygi Thraces,
magnum militum numerum occiderunt, ipsumque
vulnerarunt Mardonium. At ne hi quidem servitutem a Persis
imminentem effugere: etenim non prius ex his regionibus
discessit Mardonius, quam in potestatem illos redegisset.
(2) Verumtamen, subactis his, retro duxit exercitum, quippe
et terra clade a Brygis accepta, et mari maximam
calamitatem ad Athon passus. Ita hæ copiæ, turpiter re
gesta, in Asiam redierunt.

XLVI. Altero vero ab his rebus anno primum Thasios, a

vicinis insimulatos quasi defectionem molirentur, misso
nuncio jussit Darius diruere murum, et naves suas Abdera
devehere. (2) Thasii enim, ex quo ab Histiæo Milesio
fuerant[TR3] obsessi, quum magni illis essent reditus publici,
pecuniis suis utebantur ad construendas naves longas, et ad
validiorem murum urbi suæ circumducendum. Erant autem
illis reditus et ex continente et ex metallis. (3) Certe ex his
quæ in Scapte-Hyle metalla sunt, quæ sunt auri fodinæ,
omnino octoginta redibant talenta; ex his vero quæ in ipsa
Thaso, aliquanto quidem minus, sed tamen tantum, ut,
quum Thasii essent vectigalium immunes fructuum nomine
pendendorum, ex continente et ex metallis redirent iis
omnino quotannis ducenta talenta, et, quando plurimum
redibat, trecenta.
XLVII. Vidi etiam ipse hæc metalla: quorum maxime
admiranda mihi visa sunt ea, quæ a Phœnicibus fuerant
inventa, qui cum Thaso insulam hanc condiderunt, quæ
nunc ab hoc Thaso Phœnice nomen traxit. (2) Sunt autem
Phœnicia hæc metalla inter duo Thasi loca, quorum alteri
Ænyra nomen est, alteri Cœnyra, adversus Samothraciam:
ingens mons est, quærendis metalli venis susque deque
versus.

XLVIII. Et hæc quidem hujusmodi sunt. Cæterum Thasii,

regis imperio parentes, et murum suum diruerunt, et naves
cunctas devexerunt Abdera. (2) Post hæc tentare Græcorum
animos Darius instituit, cogniturus utrum secum bellum
gesturi, an se ipsi tradituri essent. Igitur præcones per
Græciam, alios alio, dimisit, qui regis nomine terram et
aquam a Græciæ populis poscerent. (3) Dum vero hos in
Græciam mittit, simul alios præcones per maritimas
civitates sibi tributarias dimisit, qui eas juberent naves
longas aliasque transvehendis equis comparare.

XLIX. Hæ igitur comparabant imperatas naves: qui vero in

Græciam venerunt legati, his multi quidem in continente
populi ea, quæ ipsis rex proposuerat postulaveratque,
dedere; insulani vero omnes, ad quoscumque legati cum
eisdem postulatis pervenerunt. Igitur quum cæteri insulani
terram et aquam Dario dederunt, tum vero etiam Æginetæ.
(2) Qui quum hoc fecissent, protinus eis imminebant
Athenienses, rati adversus se tendere illud Æginetarum
factum, ut simul cum rege Persarum bellum sibi inferrent.
Itaque cupide arripientes hanc occasionem, Spartam misere
legatos, qui accusarent Æginetas hujus facti caussa, quod
ad proditionem pertineret Græciæ.

L. Qua audita accusatione, Cleomenes Anaxandridæ filius,

rex Spartanorum, Æginam trajecit, comprehensurus hos ex
Æginetis, qui ejus rei maxime fuissent auctores. Ut vero
comprehendere eos est adgressus, quum alii Æginetarum ei
restiterunt, tum in his maxime Crius, Polycriti filius; qui,
non impune, ait, illum quemquam ex Æginetis esse
abducturum: (2) non enim publico Spartanorum consilio
eum hoc facere, sed pecunia corruptum ab Atheniensibus;
alioqui simul cum altero rege venturum fuisse ad hos
comprehendendos. Dixit autem hæc ex Demarati mandato.
(3) Cleomenes igitur, Ægina abire coactus, ex Crio quæsivit,
quodnam ei nomen esset. Qui quum verum respondisset,
dixit ei Cleomenes: «Nunc igitur, Aries (id significat Græcum
nomen Krios), cornua tua ære muni, quippe magnum in
malum incursurus.»

LI. Cleomenem vero per id tempus Spartæ calumniabatur

Demaratus, Aristonis filius, qui domi manserat, rex et ipse
Spartanorum, sed ex familia inferiore; non quidem ob aliam
caussam inferiore (nam ab eodem progenitore oriundi
erant), nisi quod propter primogenituram magis in honore
erat Eurysthenis prosapia.

LII. Etenim Lacedæmonii, contra quam a poetis omnibus

memoratur, aiunt, non Aristodemi filios, sed ipsum
Aristodemum, Aristomachi filium, Cleodæi nepotem, Hylli
pronepotem, quum rex esset Lacedæmoniorum, duxisse
illos in hanc regionem quam nunc ipsi obtinent. (2) Haud
multo vero interjecto tempore uxorem Aristodemi, cui
nomen fuisse Argiam; fuisse autem eamdem aiunt filiam
Autesionis, neptin Tisameni, proneptin Thersandri, abneptin
Polynicis; hanc, inquam, peperisse gemellos: et
Aristodemum, postquam vidisset pueros, morbo decessisse.
(3) Lacedæmonios autem, qui tunc fuissent, decrevisse
regem ex legis præscripto nominandum ex pueris eum qui
major esset natu. Quum vero nescirent, utrum ex illis
eligerent, ut qui similes inter se et æquales essent;
quumque nec nunc, nec ante cognovissent uter prior esset,
interrogasse matrem. (4) At illam dixisse, ne se quidem
ipsam internoscere: et scientem quidem egregie quæ res sit
hoc dixisse, sed cupientem, ut uterque, si fieri forte posset,
rex nominetur. Lacedæmonios itaque, incerti quum essent,
Delphos misisse, quid facto opus esset consulentes: (5)
Pythiamque eos jussisse, ut puerum utrumque regem
haberent, sed magis honorarent natu majorem. Quo
accepto responso, quum nihilo minus incerti fuissent
Lacedæmonii, quo pacto reperirent, uter eorum major natu
esset, consilium eis dedisse hominem Messenium, cui
nomen fuisse Panitæ. Suasisse igitur Lacedæmoniis hunc
Paniten, ut observarent matrem, viderentque utrum
puerorum lavaret priorem, priorique cibum præberet.
Quodsi illa deprehenderetur in hoc constanter eumdem
servare tenorem, habituros illos totam rem quam quærant
et reperire cupiant: sin fluctuet illa, et modo hunc, modo
illum priorem curet, satis illos intelligere posse, ne ipsam
quidem matrem exploratam rem habere; et tunc quidem
aliam ineundam fore rationem. (6) Jam illos, juxta Messenii
monitum observantes matrem filiorum Aristodemi,
ignorantem ipsam cujus rei caussa observaretur,
deprehendisse constanter eam et in cibo præbendo et in
lavando præferentem puerorum priorem. (7) Sumpsisse
igitur Lacedæmonios hunc a matre alteri prælatum, ut natu
majorem, eumque in domo publica aluisse; nomenque ei
impositum fuisse Eurysthenis, minori vero Proclis. Et hos
ipsos fratres, postquam adolevissent, per omne vitæ
tempus discordes inter se fuisse aiunt, et pari modo
constanter animatos esse illorum posteros.

LIII. Hæc quidem soli ex Græcis Lacedæmonii narrant. Jam

vero, quæ communi consensu a Græcis memorantur, hæc
dicam: scilicet Doriensium hos reges usque ad Perseum,
Danaæ filium, prætermisso dei nomine, recte recenseri a
Græcis, et esse illos Hellenas (sive Græcos) probari: jam
tunc enim Hellenibus hi accensebantur. (2) Dixi autem
usque ad Perseum, neque altius repetii eorum genus, hac