The Assembly had met June, 415 B.C. Andocides is our only authority for this last-minute meeting of the Assembly. It was probably convened to make final arrangements for the expedition. to give audience to Nicias, Lamachus, and Alcibiades, the generals about to leave with the Sicilian expedition—in fact, Lamachus’ flag-ship was already lying offshore—when suddenly Pythonicus rose before the people and cried: Countrymen, you are sending forth this mighty host in all its array upon a perilous enterprise. Yet your commander, Alcibiades, has been holding celebrations of the Mysteries in a private house, and others with him; I will prove it. Grant immunity The word ἄδεια is used in two slightly different senses. (a) It is the immunity granted by the Assembly or Council to persons who have a statement to make to them, but who are debarred from addressing them without special permission. This applied to slaves, metics, and women. Hence Andromachus, Teucrus, and Agariste all have to obtain an ἄδεια before lodging their information. (b) It is the immunity granted to a criminal who is prepared to turn informer. Often the two senses are combined, as here Andromachus was both debarred from addressing the Assembly in normal circumstances, and he was implicated in the crime which he was exposing. The same applies to Teucrus. to him whom I indicate, and a non-initiate, a slave belonging to someone here present, shall describe the Mysteries to you. You can punish me as you will, if that is not the truth. Alcibiades denied the charge at great length; so the Prytanes That section of the βουλή which presided at meetings of the Ecclesia for the time being. For further details see Antiph. 6.45 note 1. decided to clear the meeting of non-initiates and themselves fetch the lad indicated by Pythonicus. They went off, and returned with a slave belonging to Archebiades, son of Polemarchus. His name was Andromachus. As soon as immunity had been voted him, he stated that Mysteries had been celebrated in Pulytion’s house. Alcibiades, Niciades and Meletus —those were the actual celebrants; but others had been present and had witnessed what took place. The audience had also included slaves, namely, himself, his brother, the fluteplayer Hicesius, and Meletus’ slave. Such was the statement of Andromachus, the first of the informers. He gave the following list of persons concerned, The names of a number of those whose goods were confiscated and sold after the mutilation of the Hermae have survived on a fragmentary inscription (I.G. i 2. 327, 332). They confirm the lists given by Andocides. Oeonias, Panaetius, and Polystratus are mentioned from the list of Andromachus: Axiochus, Adeimantus, Cephisodorus, and Euphiletus from the later lists of Teucrus and Andocides himself. all of whom, save Polystratus, fled the country and were sentenced to death by you in their absence; Polystratus was arrested and executed. Take the list, please, and read out their names. Addressed to the γραμματεύς or clerk of the court. 
 Names. —The following were denounced by Andromachus: Alcibiades, Niciades, Meletus, Archebiades, Archippus, Diogenes, Polystratus, Aristomenes, Oeonias, Panaetius. This was the first information, gentlemen; it was due to Andromachus, and implicated the persons mentioned. Now call Diognetus, please.
 Witness You were on the commission of inquiry, An extraordinary board of the ζητηταί was set up to investigate both the profanation of the Mysteries and the mutilaton of the Hermae; they would act as an advisory committee to the βουλή . Peisander and Charicles were also members ( Andoc. 1.36 ). Diognetus when Pythonicus impeached Alcibiades before the Assembly? 
 Yes. 
 You recollect that Andromachus laid an information as to what was going on in Pulytion’s house?
 Yes. 
 And these are the names of those implicated by that information? 
 Yes. A second information followed. An alien named Teucrus, resident in Athens , quietly withdrew to Megara . From Megara he informed the Council that if immunity were granted him, he was prepared not only to lodge an information with regard to the Mysteries—as one of the participants, he would reveal the names of his companions—but he would also tell what he knew of the mutilation of the Hermae. The Council, which had supreme powers at the time, voted acceptance; and messengers were sent to Megara to fetch him. He was brought to Athens , and on being granted immunity, furnished a list of his associates. No sooner had Teucrus denounced them than they fled the country. Take the list, please, and read out their names. 
 Names. —The following were denounced by Teucrus: Phaedrus, Gniphonides, Isonomus, Hephaestodorus, Cephisodorus, himself, Diognetus, Smindyrides, Philocrates, Antiphon, Not, of course, the orator. Teisarchus, Pantacles. Let me remind you, gentlemen, that you are receiving confirmation of these further facts in every detail. i.e. Diognetus, who had first-hand knowledge, had listened to the recital in silence. A third information followed. According to the wife of Alcmaeonides—she had previously been married to Damon and was named Agariste—according, as I say, to Alcmaeonides’ wife, Alcibiades, Axiochus, and Adeimantus celebrated Mysteries in Charmides’ house, next to the Olympieum. No sooner had the information been lodged than those concerned left the country to a man. There was still one more information. According to Lydus, a slave of Pherecles of Themacus, Mysteries were celebrated at the house of his master, Pherecles, at Themacus. He gave a list of those concerned, including my father among them; my father had been present, so Lydus said, but asleep with his head under his cloak. Speusippus, one of the members of the Council, was for handing them all over to the proper court; whereupon my father furnished surieties and brought an action against Speusippus for making an illegal proposal. Lydus gave his information before the βουλή . Speusippus at once proposed that the offenders named be tried by the Heliaea in the usual way. Leogoras protested against his incluson in the list (a) because he had never been near Themacus and (b) because even Lydus did not go so far as to assert that he had had any part in the celebration. He then blocked Speusippus’ proposal by a γραφὴ παρανόμων which had to be settled before the proposal could take effect. The γραφή came before the Heliaea in the usual way; and Leogoras obtained a verdict in his favour. He had, of course, to furnish sureties for his own appearance in the event of his losing his case against Speusippus. The case was tried before six thousand citizens. This represents the whole of the Heliasts for the year. A jury of this size occurs nowhere else; but there are no good grounds for doubting Andocides’ figures. There were six thousand jurors, I repeat; yet Speusippus failed to gall the votes of two hundred. I may add that my father was induced to stay in the country partly by the entreaties of his relatives in general, but principally by my own. Kindly call Callias and Stephanus—yes, and call Philippus and Alexippus. Philippus and Alexippus are related to Acumenus and Autocrator, who fled in consequence of the information lodged by Lydus; Autocrator is a nephew of the one, and Acumenus is the other’s uncle. They have little reason to love the man who drove the them from this country, and they should also know better than anyone who it was who caused their exile in the first instance. i.e. (1) Speusippus, who had initiated proceedings against them, and (2) Lydus, from whom the information had originated. Face the court, gentlemen, and state whether I have been telling the truth. Witnesses Now that you have heard the facts, gentlemen, and the witnesses have confirmed them for you, let me remind you of the version of those facts which the prosecution had the effrontery to give—for after all, the right way to conduct a defence is to recall the statements of the prosecution and disprove them. According to the prosecution, I myself gave information in the matter of the Mysteries and included my own father in my list of those present: yes, turned informer against my own father. I cannot imagine a more outrageous, a more abominable suggestion. My father was denounced by Pherecles’ slave, Lydus: it was I who persuaded him to remain in 
 Athens instead of escaping into exile—and it was only after numberless entreaties and by clinging to his knees that I did so. What, pray, was I about in informing against my father, as we are asked to believe that I did, when at the same time I was begging him to remain in 
 Athens —begging him, that is, to let me be guilty of the consequences to himself? Again, we are to suppose that my father himself consented to face a trial which was bound to have one or other of two terrible results for him; if my information against him was deemed true, his blood would be upon my hands: if he himself was acquitted, mine would be upon his; because the law ran that whereas an informer’s claim to immunity should be allowed if his information were true, he should be put to death, if it were not. Yet if there is one thing of which you are all certain, it is the fact that my father and I both escaped with our lives. That could not have happened, if I had informed against my father: either he or I would have had to die. Then again, assume that he actually desired to stay. Do you imagine that his friends would have let him do so? Would they have gone bail for him? Would they not have urged him to change his mind? Would they not have begged him to find some place of refuge abroad, where he would be out of harm’s way himself and would avoid causing my death also? But to return to facts: when prosecuting Speusippus for making an illegal proposal, one thing upon which my father insisted repeatedly was that he had never visited Pherecles at Themacus in his life; and he offered the defence the opportunity of examining his slaves under torture For the torturing of slaves cf. p. 70. note. ; those who were ready to hand over their slaves, he said, ought not to meet with a refusal of the test which they were proposing, when those who were not ready to hand them over were forced to do so. You all know my father’s challenge to be a fact. Now if there is any truth in the prosecution’s assertion, what had Speusippus to reply but: Why talk of slaves, Leogoras? Has not your son here informed against you? Does not he say that you were at Themacus? Andocides, prove your father guilty, or your chance of a pardon is gone. Was that Speusippus’ natural retort or not, gentlemen? I for one think so. In fact, if I ever entered a court, if I was ever mentioned in connexion with the affair, or if there is any recorded information or list containing my name, let alone any for which I was myself responsible, anyone who wishes is welcome to step up here and prove it against me. For my own part, I have never known anyone tell so outrageous or so unconvincing a story. All that was necessary, they imagined, was sufficient effrontery to bring a charge; the possibility of their being refuted did not disturb them in the least. Be consistent, then. Had this accusation of theirs been true, your anger would have fallen upon me, and you would have considered the severest penalty justified. So now that you see them to be lying, I demand that you look upon them instead as scoundrels—and with good reason too: for if the worst of their charges are shown to be conspicuously false, I shall hardly find it difficult to prove the same of those which are less serious. Such, then, were the informations lodged in connexion with the Mysteries; they were, as I say, four in number. I have read you the names of those who went into exile after each, and the witnesses have given their evidence. I shall now do something more to convince you, gentlemen. Of those who went into exile as a result of the profanation of the Mysteries, some died abroad; but others have returned and are living in 
 Athens . These last are present in court at my request. Any of them who wishes is welcome to prove, in the time now allotted to me, The time allowed for the speeches of the prosecution and defence in an Athenian court of law was limited. It was measured by a water-clock ( κλεψύδρα ) which varied in size according to the nature of the case. The outflow of water was stopped during the reading of documents, depositions, etc. Here Andocides offers to stand aside with the clock still running. that I was responsible for the exile of any of their number, that I informed against any of them, or that the various groups did not go into exile in consequence of the particular informations which I have described to you. If I am shown not to be speaking the truth, you may punish me as you will. I shall now interrupt my defence and give place to anyone who wishes to step up here. And now, gentlemen, what followed? After the various informations had been laid, the question of rewards arose: for Cleonymus’ decree had offered one thousand drachmae, and Peisander’s ten. The question of offering rewards for information probably arose when the commission of inquiry was being appointed. After Cleonymus’ thousand drachmae was found to be producing insufficient results, it would be supplemented by the much more substantial sum proposed by Peisander. For Peisander see p.366, note. Conflicting claims were made by the informers I have mentioned, i.e. Andromachus, Teucrus, Agariste, and Lydus. Pythonicus’ claim was based on the fact that he had been originally responsible for bringing the matter to the notice of the Assembly. Androcles is here mentioned for the first time. From Thuc. 8.65 and Plut. Alc. 19 it is clear that he played an important part in the investigations; probably it was through his agency that Teucrus, the first informer to approach the βουλή , was induced to come forward. ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς here cannot possibly mean on the Council’s behalf ; there was no queston of rewarding the βουλευταί . It is more like in view of the Council’s part in the affair ; i.e. Androcles maintained that the Council had been of more importance throughout than the Assembly, and that therefore, as the person responsible for the first disclosures made to it, he himself deserved the principal reward. by Pythonicus, on the ground that he had first brought the matter before the Assembly, and by Androcles, who urged the part played by the Council. It was therefore publicly resolved that such members of the court of the Thesmothetae i.e. the Heliaea. As with Leogoras’ γραφὴ παρανόμων the jury is an exceptionally large one, although here the special circumstances make its size more easily intelligible. The case would take the form of a διαδικασία . as were initiates should be presented with the informations of the several claimants and decide between them. As a result the principal reward was voted to Andromachus, the second to Teucrus; and at the festival of the Panathenaea The Panathenaea was held every year, beginning on the 17th of Hecatombaeon (July 8th), and with extra pomp every four years, when the πέπλος of Athena was carried in procession. Andromachus received ten thousand drachmae and Teucrus one thousand. Kindly call witnesses to confirm this. Witnesses So much for the profanation of the Mysteries, gentlemen, on which the information lodged against me is based and which you are here as initiates to investigate. I have shown that I have committed no act of impiety, that I have never turned informer, that I have never admitted guilt, and that I have not a single offence against the Two Goddesses Demeter and Kore, the central figures of the Eleusis-cult. upon my conscience, whether serious or otherwise. And it is vitally important for me to convince you of this; for the stories told you by the prosecution, who treated you to so shrill a recital of bloodcurdling horrors, with their descriptions of past offenders who have made mock of the Two Goddesses and of the fearful end to which they have been brought as a punishment—what, I ask you, have such tales and such crimes to do with me? It is I, in fact, who am much more truly the accuser, and they the accused. They have been guilty of impiety; and therefore, I maintain, they deserve death. I, on the other hand, have done no wrong, and therefore I deserve to go unharmed. It would be nothing less than monstrous to vent upon me the wrath which the misdeeds of others have aroused in you, or to let the malicious attack to which I have been subjected weigh more with you than the truth, when you know that it is my enemies who are responsible for it. Obviously anyone who was guilty of an offence such as that with which we are concerned could not clear himself by denying that he had committed it: for the scrutiny to which a defendant’s statements are subjected is formidable indeed when the court already knows the truth. But to me the inquiry into the facts is the very opposite of embarrassing; I have no need to resort to entreaties or appeals for mercy to gain an acquittal upon a charge such as this: I have merely to show the absurdity of the statements of my accusers by reminding you of what actually occurred. And you yourselves have taken solemn oaths as the jurors who are to decide my fate: as jurors you have sworn to see that that decision is a fair one, under pain of causing the most terrible of curses to fall upon yourselves and your children; and at the same time you are here as initiates who have witnessed the rites of the Two Goddesses, in order that you may punish those who are guilty of impiety and protect those who are innocent. Understand, then, that to condemn the innocent for impiety is no less an act of impiety than to acquit the guilty. Indeed, in the name of the Two Goddesses I repeat yet more sternly the charge laid upon you by my accusers, for the sake both of the rites which you have witnessed and of the Greeks who are coming to this city for the festival. If I have committed any act of impiety, if I have admitted guilt, if I have informed against another, or if another has informed against me, then put me to death; I ask no mercy. But if on the other hand, I have committed no offence, and completely satisfy you of the fact, then I ask you to let the whole nation see that I have been brought to trial wrongfully. Should Cephisius here, who was responsible for the information laid against me, fail to gain one-fifth of your votes and so lose his rights as a citizen, he is forbidden to set foot within the sanctuary of the Two Goddesses under pain of death. The prosecutor who failed to gain one-fifth of the votes of the jury was condemned to a fine of one thousand drachmae and debarred from bringing a similar action in the future. In a case of ἀσεβεία , such as the present, he was further deprived of the right of entering the temples of the gods against whom the alleged act of impiety had been committed. Thus Cephisius stands to suffer partial ἀτιμία ; the fine will not trouble him, as Callias has indemnified him in advance ( Andoc. 1.121 ). And now, if you think my defence satisfactory up to the present, show your approval, so that I may present what remains with increased confidence. Next comes the mutilation of the images and the denunciation of those responsible. I will do as I promised and tell you the whole story from the beginning. On his return from Megara Teucrus was guaranteed his immunity. Hereupon, besides communicating what he knew about the Mysteries, he gave a list of eighteen of those responsible for the mutilation of the images. Of these eighteen, a number fled the country upon being denounced; the remainder were arrested and executed upon the information lodged by Teucrus. Kindly read their names. Names. —In the matter of the Hermae Teucrus denounced: Euctemon, Glaucippus, Eurymachus, Polyeuctus, Plato, Antidorus, Charippus, Theodorus, Alcisthenes, Menestratus, Eryximachus, Euphiletus, Eurydamas, Pherecles, Meletus, Timanthes, Archidamus, Telenicus. A number of these men have returned to Athens and are present in court, as are several of the relatives of those who have died. Any of them is welcome to step up here, during the time now allotted me, and prove against me that I caused either the exile or the death of a single one. And now for what followed. Peisander Came into prominence once more during the struggles of 412-411. By the end of 412 he had identified himself with the oligarchic cause, and was active in trying to procure the return of Alcibiades. He was largely responsible for the installation of the Four Hundred at 
 Athens in 411, and did his utmost to have Andocides put to death when he attempted to return to Athens during that year (cf. Andoc. 2.13-15 ). After the fall of the Four Hundred Peisander fled to Decelea; he was condemned to death in absentia and his property was confiscated. Nothing more is heard of him. Throughout he was a bitter personal enemy of Andocides. and Charicles, Another turncoat, who started as an extreme radical and then became a member of the Four Hundred. Like Peisander, he escaped to Decelea after their collapse; but he succeeded in effecting his return in 404 when 
 Sparta ordered the restoration of exiles. He became a member of the Thirty, and was responsible for some of their worst excesses. After their fall nothing more is heard of him. For a sketch of his conduct at this later period see Andoc. 1.101 . who were regarded in those days as the most fervent of democrats, were members of the commission of inquiry. These two maintained that the outrage was not the work of a small group of criminals, but an organized attempt to overthrow the popular government: and that therefore inquiries ought still to be pursued as vigorously as ever. As a result, 
	 Athens reached such a state that the lowering of the flag, by the Herald, when summonig a meeting of the Council, was quite as much a signal for the citizens to hurry from the Agora, each in terror of arrest, as it was for the Council to proceed to the Council-chamber. There is some doubt about the meaning of this statement. (a) According to Suidas, a flag was hoisted in the Agora before meetings of the Ecclesia anad lowered when they were concluded. If this is the flag referred to here, the meeting of the βουλή is the meeting held immediately after the adjournment of the Ecclesia. The Agora would then be thronged with citizens coming from the Pnyx. (b) Possibly a flag was flown from the roof of the βουλευτήριον and taken down when the council was sitting. There is no evidence for this, however; and it is a possible objection that this lowering of the flag during a meeting is precisely the opposite of the custom followed in the case of the Ecclesia. If the first explanation can be accepted we must assume that Andocides is referring only to those meetings of the βουλή which occurred after a sitting of the Ecclesia; the βουλή in fact met daily. The general distress encouraged Diocleides to bring an impeachment before the Council. He claimed that he knew who had mutilated the Hermae, and gave their number as roughly three hundred. He then went on to explain how he had come to witness the outrage. Now I want you to think carefully here, gentlemen; try to remember whether I am telling the truth, and inform your companions; for it was before you that Diocleides stated his case, and you are my witnesses of what occurred. Diocleides’ tale was that he had had to fetch the earnings of a slave of his at 
 Laurium . The mines of 
 Laurium in S. Attica were leased by the state to private individuals. These in their turn hired slaves to work them, if they had not enough of their own. The slave’s earnings were paid to his master. He arose at an early hour, mistaking the time, and started off on his walk by the light of a fuIl moon. As he was passing the gateway of the theatre of Dionysus, he noticed a large body of men coming down into the orchestra from the Odeum. The theatre of Dionysus lay on the S.E. slopes of the Acropolis. Adjoining it was the Odeum of Pericles, a rectangular hall with a conical roof, the remains of which have been brought to light in recent years; it was used for musical festivals. In alarm, he withdrew into the shadow and crouched down between the column and the pedestal with the bronze statue of the general upon it. He then saw some three hundred men standing about in groups of five and ten and, in some cases, twenty. He recognized the faces of the majority, as he could see them in the moonlight. Now to begin with, gentlemen, Diocleides gave his story this particular form simply to be in a position to say of any citizen, according as he chose, that he was or was not one of the offenders—a monstrous proceeding. However, to continue his tale: after seeing what he had, he went on to 
 Laurium ; and when he learned next day of the mutilation of the Hermae, he knew at once that it was the work of the men he had noticed. On his return to 
 Athens he found a commission already appointed to investigate, and a reward of one hundred minae offered for information i.e. the second, larger reward proposed by Peisander ( Andoc. 1.27 ). ; so seeing Euphemus, the brother of Callias, son of Telocles, sitting in his smithy, he took him to the temple of Hephaestus. Then, after describing, as I have described to you, how he had seen us on the night in question, he said that he would rather take our money than the state’s, as he would thereby avoid making enemies of us. Euphemus thanked Diocleides for confiding in him. And now, he added, be good enough to come to Leogoras’ house, so that you and I can see Andocides and the others who must be consulted. According to his story, Diocleides called next day. My father happened to be coming out just as he was knocking at the door. Are you the man they are expecting in there? he asked. Well, well, we must not turn friends like you away. And with these words he went off. This was an attempt to bring about my father’s death by showing that he was in the secret. We informed Diocleides, or so he alleged, that we had decided to offer him two talents of silver, as against the hundred minae from the Treasury, i.e. twenty minae more. and promised that he should become one of ourselves, if we achieved our end. Implying that the mutilation of the Hermae was definitely part of a plot to overthrow the democracy. Diocleides is promised a place in the oligarchic government which is to follow. Both sides were to give a guarantee of good faith. Diocleides replied that he would think it over; and we told him to meet us at Callias’ house, so that Callias, son of Telocles, might be present as well. This was a similar attempt to bring about the death of my brother-in-law. Diocleides said that he went to Callias’ house, and after terms had been arranged, pledged his word on the Acropolis. In one of the temples (cf. Andoc. 1.40 ). we on our side agreed to give him the money the following month; but we broke our promise and did not do so. He had therefore come to reveal the truth. Such was the impeachment brought by Diocleides, gentlemen. He gave a list of forty-two persons whom he claimed to have recognized, and at the head of the forty-two appeared Mantitheus and Apsephion who were members of the Council and present at that very meeting. Peisander hereupon rose and moved that the decree passed in the archonship of Scamandrius The decree forbade the examination of citizens under torture. The βουλή had been empowered to act entirely at its own discretion during the crisis ( cf. Andoc. 1.15 ), and so could suspend the ψήφισμα in question if it thought fit. be suspended and all whose names were on the list sent to the wheel, to ensure the discovery of everyone concerned before nightfall. The Council broke into shouts of approval. At that Mantitheus and Apsephion took sanctuary on the hearth, and appealed to be allowed to furnish sureties and stand trial, instead of being racked. They finally managed to gain their request; but no sooner had they provided their sureties than they leapt on horseback and deserted to the enemy, They would probably make for the Boeotian frontier (cf. Andoc. 1.45 below), though Thucydides states that there was also a Spartan force at the Isthmus at this time ( Thuc. 6.61 ). leaving the sureties to their fate, as they were now liable to the same penalties as the prisoners for whom they had gone bail. The Council adjourned for a private consultation and in the course of it gave orders for our arrest and close confinement. Lit. made us fast in the stocks. These were in the jail itself. Then they summoned the Generals and bade them proclaim that citizens resident in Athens proper were to proceed under arms to the Agora; those between the Long Walls to the Theseum; and those in Peiraeus to the Agora of Hippodamus. The Knights were to be mustered at the Anaceum The Agora of Hippodamus was the Agora of Peiraeus: the Anaceum, a temple of the Dioscuri to the N.W. of the Acropolis. by trumpet before nightfall, while the Council would take up its quarters on the Acropolis for the night, and the Prytanes in the Tholus. The θόλος was a circular building with a domed roof situated in the Agora; it was sometimes known as the σκιάς . It is the same as the Prytaneum mentioned below. The Prytanes and their γραμματεύς dined there daily, and distinguished foreign visitors were often often entertained at the Tholus at the public cost. Diocleides was accorded this privilege. In the meantime, the Boeotians, who had heard the news, had taken the field and were on the frontier; while Diocleides, the author of all the mischief, was hailed as the saviour of 
 Athens : a garland was placed upon his head, and he was driven upon an ox-cart to the Prytaneum, where he was entertained. Now first of all I want those of you who witnessed all this to picture it once more and describe it to those who did not. Next I will ask the clerk to call the Prytanes in office at the time, Philocrates and his colleagues. Witnesses And now I am also going to read you the names of those denounced by Diocleides, so that you may see how many relatives of mine he tried to ruin. First there was my father, and then my brother-in-law; my father he had represented as in the secret, while he had alleged that my brother-in-law’s house was the scene of the meeting. The names of the rest you shall hear. Read them out to the court. Charmides, son of Aristoteles. 
That is a cousin of mine; his mother and my father were brother and sister. 
 Taureas. 
That is a cousin of my father’s. 
 Nisaeus. 
A son of Taureas.
 Callias, son of Alcmaeon. 
A cousin of my father’s. 
 Euphemus. 
A brother of Callias, son of Telocles.
 Phrynichus, son of Orchesamenus. The MS. reading is retained by some and translated the ex-dancer, on the ground that a famous dancer named Phrynichus was living in Athens at this period ( cf. Aristoph. Wasps 1302 ). But no true parallel can be produced for such a use of the aorist participle. It is preferable to emend as in the text, as proper names with a participial form were not uncommon; cf. Ἀκεσαμενός, Ἀλεξαμενός, Τεισαμενός, Ἀκουμενός . 
A cousin.
 Eucrates. 
The brother of Nicias. The words ὁ Νικίου ἀδελφός are misplaced in the MSS. Andocides is clearly quoting from an official list; and in such documents a man would be referred to by his father’s name, not by his brother’s. The reference to the brother is part of the commentary of Andocides which follows. The Nicias in question is the general. He is Callias’ brother-in-law.
 Critias. 
Another cousin of my father’s; their mothers were sisters. All of these appeared among the last forty on Diocleides’ list. We were all thrown into one prison. Darkness fell, and the gates were shut. Mothers, sisters, wives, and children had gathered. Nothing was to be heard save the cries and moans of grief-stricken wretches bewailing the calamity which had overtaken them. In the midst of it all, Charmides, a cousin of my own age who had been brought up with me in my own home since boyhood, said to me: You see the utter hopelessness of our position, Andocides. I have never yet wished to say anything which might distress you: but now our plight leaves me no choice. Your friends and associates outside the family have all been subjected to the charges which are now to prove our own undoing: and half of them have been put to death,—while the other half have admitted their guilt by going into exile. Charmides’ argument seems to be that, as Andocides’ friends have already been exposed, he can do no harm to them by any revelations he may choose to make. On the other hand, he will be able to save his family from certain death. I beg of you: if you have heard anything concerning this affair, disclose it. Save yourself: save your father, who must be dearer to you than anyone in the world: save your brother-in-law, the husband of your only sister: save all those others who are bound to you by ties of blood and family: and lastly, save me, who have never vexed you in my life and who am ever ready to do anything for you and your good. At this appeal from Charmides, gentlemen, which was echoed by the rest, who each addressed their entreaties to me in turn, I thought to myself: Never, oh, never has a man found himself in a more terrible strait than I. Am I to look on while my own kindred perish for a crime which they have not committed: while they themselves are put to death and their goods are confiscated: nay more, while the names of persons entirely innocent of the deed which has been done are inscribed upon stones of record as the names of men accursed in the sight of heaven? Am I to pay no heed to three hundred Athenians who are to be wrongfully put to death, to the desperate plight of 
 Athens , to the suspicions of citizen for citizen? Or am I to reveal to my countrymen the story told me by the true criminal, Euphiletus? Already denounced by Teucrus ( Andoc. 1.35 ). Then a further thought struck me, gentlemen. I reminded myself that a number of the offenders responsible for the mutilation had already been executed upon the information lodged by Teucrus, while yet others had escaped into exile and been sentenced to death in their absence. In fact, there remained only four of the criminals whose names had not been divulged by Teucrus: Panaetius, Chaeredemus, Diacritus, and Lysistratus; and it was only natural to assume that they had been among the first to be denounced by Diocleides, as they were friends of those who had already been put to death. It was thus still doubtful whether they would escape: but it was certain that my own kindred would perish, unless 
 Athens learned the truth. So I decided that it was better to cut off from their country four men who richly deserved it—men alive today and restored to home and property—than to let those others go to a death which they had done nothing whatever to deserve. If, then, any of you yourselves, gentlemen, or any of the public at large has ever been possessed with the notion that I informed against my associates with the object of purchasing my own life at the price of theirs—a tale invented by my enemies, who wished to present me in the blackest colours—use the facts themselves as evidence; for today not only is it incumbent upon me to give a faithful account of myself—I am in the presence, remember, of the actual offenders who went into exile after committing the crime which we are discussing; they know better than anyone whether I am lying or not, and they have my permission to interrupt me and prove that what I am saying is untrue—but it is no less incumbent upon you to discover what truly happened. I say this, gentlemen, because the chief task confronting me in this trial is to prevent anyone thinking the worse of me on account of my escape: to make first you and then the whole world understand that the explanation of my behaviour from start to finish lay in the desperate plight of 
 Athens and, to a lesser degree, in that of my own family, not in any lack of principles or courage: to make you understand that, in disclosing that Euphiletus had told me, I was actuated solely by my concern for my relatives and friends and by my concern for the state as a whole, motives which I for one consider not a disgrace but a credit. If this proves to be the truth of the matter, I think it only my due that I should be acquitted with my good name unimpaired. Come now, in considering a case, a judge should make allowances for human shortcomings, gentlemen, as he would do, were he in the same plight himself. What would each of you have done? Had the choice lain between dying a noble death and preserving my life at the cost of my honour, my behaviour might well be described as base—though many would have made exactly the same choice; they would rather have remained alive than have died like heroes. But the alternatives before me were precisely the opposite. On the other hand, if I remained silent, I myself died in disgrace for an act of impiety which I had not comitted, and I allowed my father, my brother-in-law, and a host of my relatives and cousins to perish in addition. Yes, I, and I alone, was sending them to their death, if I refused to say that others were to blame; for Diocleides had thrown them into prison by his lies, and they could only be rescued if their countrymen were put in full possession of the facts; therefore I became their murderer if I refused to tell what I had heard. Besides this, I was causing three hundred citizens to perish; while the plight of 
 Athens was growing desperate. That is what silence meant. On the other hand, by revealing the truth I saved my own life, I saved my father, I saved the rest of my family, and I freed 
 Athens from the panic which was working such havoc. True, I was sending four men into exile; but all four were guilty. And for the others, who had already been denounced by Teucrus, I am sure that none of them, whether dead or in exile, was one whit the worse off for any disclosures of mine. Taking all this into consideration, gentlemen, I found that the least objectionable of the courses open to me was to tell the truth as quickly as possible, to prove that Diocleides had lied, and so to punish the scoundrel who was causing us to be put to death wrongfully and imposing upon the public, while in return he was being hailed as a supreme benefactor and rewarded for his services. I therefore informed the Council that I knew the offenders, and showed exactly what had occurred. The idea, I said, had been suggested by Euphiletus at a drinking-party; but I opposed it, and succeeded in preventing its execution for the time being. Later, however, I was thrown from a colt of mine in Cynosarges A gymnasium sacred to Heracles on the eastern outskirts of 
 Athens , near the Diomean Gate. ; I broke my collar-bone and fractured my skull, and had to be taken home on a litter. When Euphiletus saw my condition, he informed the others that I had consented to join them and had promised him to mutilate the Hermes next to the shrine of Phorbas One of the many ἡρῷα scattered over the city. Phorbas was an Attic hero; he had been the charioteer of Theseus. as my share in the escapade. He told them this to hoodwink them; and that is why the Hermes which you can all see standing close to the home of our family, the Hermes dedicated by the Aegeid tribe, was the only one in 
 Athens unmutilated, it being understood that I would attend to it as Euphiletus had promised. When the others learned the truth, they were furious to think that I was in the secret without having taken any active part; and the next day I received a visit from Meletus Meletus had also been connected with the profanation of the Mysteries; his name appears on Andromachus’ list ( Andoc. 1.13 ). Like Euphiletus, he was denounced by Teucrus for mutilation of the Hermae ( Andoc. 1.35 ). and Euphiletus. We have managed it all right, Andocides, they told me. Now if you will consent to keep quiet and say nothing, you will find us just as good friends as before. If you do not, you will find that you have been much more successful at making enemies of us than at making fresh friends by turning traitor to us. I replied that I certainly thought Euphiletus a scoundrel for acting as he had; although he and his companions had far less to fear from my being in the secret than from the mere fact that the deed was done. I supported this account by handing over my slave for torture, to prove that I was ill at the time in question and had not even left my bed; and the Prytanes arrested the women-servants in the house which the criminals had used as their base. The Council and the commission of inquiry went into the matter closely, and when at length they found that it was as I said and that the witnesses corroborated me without exception, they summoned Diocleides. He, however, made a long cross-examination unnecessary by admitting at once that he had been lying, and begged that he might be pardoned if he disclosed who had induced him to tell his story; the culprits, he said, were Alcibiades of Phegus A deme in the neighborhood of Marathon. and Amiantus of 
 Aegina . Alcibiades and Amiantus fled from the country in terror; and when you heard the facts yourselves, you handed Diocleides over to the court and put him to death. You released the prisoners awaiting execution—my relatives, who owed their escape to me alone—you welcomed back the exiles, and yourselves shouldered arms Cf. Andoc. 1.45 . and dispersed, freed from grave danger and distress. Not only do the circumstances in which I here found myself entitle me to the sympathy of all, gentlemen, but my conduct can leave you in no doubt about my integrity. When Euphiletus suggested that we pledge ourselves to what was the worst possible treachery, I opposed him, I attacked him, I heaped on him the scorn which he deserved. Yet once his companions had committed the crime, I kept their secret; it was Teucrus who lodged the information which led to their death or exile, before we had been thrown into prison by Diocleides or were threatened with death. After our imprisonment I denounced four persons: Panaetius, Diacritus, Lysistratus, and Chaeredemus. I was responsible for the exile of these four, I admit; but I saved my father, my brother-in-law, three cousins, and seven other relatives, The figures given here do not correspond with the list of 47, where the father, the brother-in-law, two cousins, and five other relatives only are mentioned. The faulty MS. tradition of 47 (see app. crit. ad loc. ) makes it more probable that it is the list which is incorrect; and alteration of the numerals given in the present passage is not a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. all of whom were about to be put to death wrongfully; they owe it to me that they are still looking on the light of day, and they are the first to acknowledge it. In addition, the scoundrel who had thrown the whole of 
 Athens into chaos and endangered her very existence was exposed; and your own suspense and suspicions of one another were at an end. Now recollect whether what I have been saying is true, gentlemen; and if you know the facts, make them clear to those who do not. Next I will ask the clerk to call the persons who owed their release to me; no one knows what happened better than they, and no one can give the court a better account of it. The position, then, is this, gentlemen: they will address you from the platform for as long as you care to listen to them; then, when you are satisfied, I will proceed to the remainder of my defence. Witnesses You now know exactly what took place at the time, I for one think that I have given all the explanations necessary. However, should any of you wish to hear more or think that any point has not been dealt with satisfactorily, or should I have omitted anything, has only to rise and mention it, and I will reply to his inquiry as well. Otherwise, I will proceed to explain the legal position to you. Admittedly, Cephisius here conformed with the law as it stands in lodging his information against me; but he is resting his case upon an old decree, moved by Isotimides, In 415 B.C. which does not concern me at all. Isotimides proposed to exclude from temples all who had committed an act of impiety and admitted their guilt. I have done neither: I have not committed any act of impiety, nor have I admitted guilt. Further, I will prove to you that the decree in question has been repealed and is void. I shall be adopting a dangerous line of defence here, I know; if I fail to convince you, I shall myself be the sufferer, and if I succeed in convincing you, I shall have cleared my opponents. i.e. if Andocides can prove that he is protected by the amnesty, he will eo ipso create a precedent whereby his accusers will themselves be able to claim exemption from punishment for the various offences which they committed before 403. The nature of these is explained in detail later ( Andoc. 1.92 et sqq.). However, the truth shall be told. After the loss of your fleet and the investment of 
 Athens The fleet was lost at 
 Aegospotami , Sept. 405; this disaster was followed by the siege of 
 Athens , which finally capitulated in April 404. The decree of Patrocleides was passed in the autumn of 405. you discussed ways and means of re-uniting the city. As a result you decided to reinstate those who had lost their civic rights, a resolution moved by Patrocleides. Now who were the disfranchised, and what were their different disabilities? I will explain. For the relevance of the following paragraphs see Introd. pp. 331-332. First, state-debtors. All who had been condemned on their accounts when vacating a public office, all who had been condemned as judgement-debtors, Persons against whom judgement had been given in a civil action, but who refused (a) to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff by the court, (b) to cede to the plaintiff property to which he had established his claim, were liable to a δίκη ἐξούλης . Such suits were common at Athens , where the machinery for ensuring that a judgement was enforced was lamentably defective. all those fined in a public action or under the summary jurisdiction of a magistrate, all who farmed taxes and then defaulted or were liable to the state as sureties for a defaulter, Tax-farmers usually formed themselves into companies headed by an ἀρχώνης who personally contracted with the state for the purchase of the right to collect a given tax. The agreed sum was not paid until the tax had been collected; and so the ἀρχώνης had to furnish sureties, who became liable if he himself defaulted. It was the practice to auction the various taxes, the highest bidder obtaining the right to farm them, cf. Andoc. 1.133 . had to pay within eight Prytanies; otherwise, the sum due was doubled and the delinquent’s property distrained upon. The six classes of state-debtor here enumerated suffered disfranchisement only so long as their debt remained unpaid. They were allowed eight Prytanies (i.e. roughly nine months) in which to find the money; at the end of that time their property was distrained upon for double the original amount. Should the confiscation fail to produce the requisite sum, they remained ἄτιμοι until the balance was forthcoming. Such was one form of disfranchisement. According to a second, delinquents lost all personal rights, but retained possession of their property. This class included all persons convicted of theft or of accepting bribes—it was laid down that both they and their descendants should lose their personal rights. Similarly, all who deserted on the field of battle, who were found guilty of evasion of military service, of cowardice, or of withholding a ship from action, When Trierarchs. all who threw away their shields, or were thrice convicted of giving perjured evidence or of falsely endorsing a summons, Whenever a plaintiff had to serve a summons in person, the law required that he should do so in the presence of witnesses. The names of these witnesses were entered on the writ. If the plaintiff secured the witnesses’ names without serving the summons and so won the case by default, the defendant had the right to bring a γραφὴ ψευδοκλητείας against the witnesses ( κλητῆρες ) concerned. or who were found guilty of maltreating their parents, were deprived of their personal rights, while retaining possession of their property. Others again had their rights curtailed in specified directions; they were only partially, not wholly, disfranchised. The soldiers who remained in 
 Athens under the Four Hundred are a case in point. This penalty appears to have been inflicted in 410, after the restoration of the democracy. They enjoyed all the rights of ordinary citizens, except that they were forbidden to speak in the Assembly or become members of the Council. They lost their rights in these two respects, because in their case the limited disability took this particular form. Others were deprived of the right of bringing an indictment, or of lodging an information: others of sailing up the 
 Hellespont , or of crossing to 
 Ionia : while yet others were specifically debarred from entering the Agora. You enacted, then, that both the originals and all extant copies of these several decrees should be cancelled, and your differences ended by an exchange of pledges on the Acropolis. Kindly read the decree of Patrocleides whereby this was effected. The decree reinstates (a) public debtors whose names were still on the official registers in June-July 405, (b) political offenders who had suffered ἀτιμία in 410 after the downfall of the Four Hundred and the restoration of the full democracy. These include both members of the Four Hundred and their supporters. An exception is made, however, of those oligarchs who fled to Decelea (e.g. Peisander and Charicles), and of persons in exile for homicide, massacre, or attempted tyranny. The last two crimes are only mentioned because Patrocleides is here quoting from a law of Solon’s and wishes to be complete. Trials for massacre or attempted tyranny had long been unheard of. For the text of the Solonian law see Plut. Sol. 19 . Decree. —On the motion of Patrocleides: whereas the Athenians have enacted that persons disfranchised and public debtors may speak and propose measures in the Assembly with impunity, the People shall pass the decree which was passed at the time of the Persian Wars and which proved of benefit to Athens . As touching such of those registered with the Superintendents of Revenue, the Treasurers of Athena and the other Deities, or the Basileus, as had not been removed from the register before the last sitting of the Council in the archonship of Callias, Callias was Archon from 406 to 405. His year of office terminated in June-July 405, and the Decree of Patrocleides followed during the autumn. : all who before that date had been disfranchised as debtors: or had been found guilty of maladministration by the Auditors and their assessors at the Auditors’ offices: or had been indicted for maladministration, but had not as yet been publicly tried: or 〈had been condemned to suffer〉 specific disabilities: or had been condemned as sureties for a defaulter; and all who were recorded as members of the Four Hundred: or who had recorded against them any act performed under the oligarchy—alway excepting those publicly recorded as fugitives: those who have been tried for homicide by the Areopagus, or by the Ephetae, whether sitting at the Pryaneum or the Delphinium, under the Presidency of the Basileus, and are now in exile or under sentence of death The Areopagus tried cases of wilful murder. The fifty-one Ephetae sat in different courts according to the nature of the offence which they were trying, but always in the open air for religious reasons. Sitting ἐπὶ Πρυτανείῳ , in the precincts of the Prytaneum, they heard cases of justifiable homicide ( φόνος δίκαιος ): sitting ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ , in the precincts of the temple of Apollo Delphinius, they heard cases of homicide where the criminal was a person or persons unknown or where death had been caused by an inanimate instrument. They further met ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ to try cases of φόνος ἀκούσιος and βούλευσις φόνου ἀκουσίου (cf. Antiphon, Choreutes , lntrod.); and in Phreatto, a quarter of Peiraeus on the sea-shore, to try persons already in exile for homicide and charged with a second murder, committed before they quitted Attica. The accused pleaded from a boat. These last two courts are not mentioned here. See also Antiphon, Tetralogies , Gen. Introd. : and those guilty of massacre or attempted tyranny— shall one and all have their names everywhere cancelled by the Superintendents of Revenue and by the Council in accordance with the foregoing, wherever any public record of their offence be found; and any copies of such records which anywhere exist shall be produced by the Thesmothetae and other magistrates. This shall be done within three days after the consent of the People has been given. And no one shall secretly retain a copy of those records which it has been decided to cancel, nor shall he at any time make malicious reference to the past. He who does so shall be liable to the punishment of fugitives from the court of the Areopagus i.e. be put to death, if he is ever apprehended within the dominions of 
 Athens . : to the end that the Athenians may live in all security both now and hereafter. By this decree you reinstated those who had lost their rights; but neither the proposal of Patrocleides nor your own enactment contained any reference to a restoration of exiles. However, after you had come to terms with 
 Sparta and demolished your walls, you allowed your exiles to return too. In April, 404. The Thirty were installed by the following summer on the motion of Dracontides, which the presence of the Spartan garrison made it difficult to reject. In the winter of 404 a number of the exiled democrats under Thrasybulus seized 
 Phyle on the northern frontier of Attica; then they moved on Peiraeus and fortified Munychia. By February 403 they were strong enough to crush the Thirty, the remnants of whom fled to 
 Eleusis , whence they were finally extirpated in 401. Then the Thirty came into power, and there followed the occupation of 
 Phyle and Munychia, and those terrible struggles which I am loath to recall either to myself or to you. After your return from Peiraeus February 403. you resolved to let bygones be bygones, in spite of the opportunity for revenge. You considered the safety of 
 Athens of more importance than the settlement of private scores; so both sides, you decided, were to forget the past. Accordingly, you elected a commission of twenty to govern 
 Athens until a fresh code of laws had been authorized; during the interval the code of Solon and the statutes of Draco were to be in force.