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.