De mysteriis and De reditu

/ X 6 0 1 3 8 7

to U m o T I

€ L

6 0 1 3 8 7

A N D O C I D E S

D E M Y S T E R IIS

A N D

D E R E D I T U

E D IT E D BY

E . C. M A R C H A N T , B.A .

L A T E S C H O L A R O F P E T E R H O U S E , C A M B R I D G E ; A S S I S T A N T M A S T E R A T S T . P A U L ’S SC H O O L .

Książka po dezynfekcji

R I V I N G T O N S

W A T E R L O O P L A C E , L O N D O N

M D C C C L X X X IX g i, C .,

' J L

ry £ \

B IBIIO TH K A

6 0 / ^{3 ^ 7}

/

B ib lio te k a J a g ie llo ris k a

1 0 0 1 9 5 4 7 2 3

Bibi. j a g i e l l .

1001954723

TO

A. ,7. N.

.

.

. .

P R E F A C E

O f th e th re e g en u in e speeches of A ndocides, th e first

an d second, in m an y respects un lik e, are nevertheless

closely connected ; th e M u tila tio n of th e Iie rm a e form ­

in g th e lin k w hich u n ites them . T hey p re se n t tw o

d ram atised versions— in co n sisten t an d d istin ct— of th e

facts of th a t gross outrage. A t th e sam e tim e, if we

view th e h isto ry of th e crim e an d its effects as a whole,

from th e sum m er of 415 B.C. dow n to th e a c q u itta l of

A ndocides in 399, th e de M ysteriis an d de R e d itu form

tw o in te re stin g episodes in th e story, bo th of th em well

w o rth y of g re a te r consideration th a n th e y have h ith e rto

received. I t is in th e hope of enlarging th e n u m b er of

th e readers of A ndocides th a t I have p rep ared th is

edition. I have th ro u g h o u t k e p t in view th e needs of

stu d e n ts a t th e U niversities, a n d in th e u p p er forms

of Schools. A t th e sam e tim e, I v e n tu re to hope th a t

th is book m ay d irect th e closer a tte n tio n of m atu re

scholars to a v aluable exam ple of colloquial A ttic,

w hich— th o u g h deserving to be stu d ied by adm irers of

G reek idiom , side by side w ith A risto p h an es— has in

th is co u n try been strangely neglected. T he ex p la n a ­

tio n of th is neglect is p ro b ab ly to he sought in th e

tech n ical n a tu re of th e subjects w ith w hich A ndocides

vi PREFACE.

deals. I t appears to m e th a t an an n o ta te d edition rem oves th is objection in th e case of A ndocides, since, th o u g h th ere are m an y h ig h ly tech n ical p o in ts dealt w ith, y e t th e tre a tm e n t of th e m is so sk ilfu l th a t th e y are alw ays m ade in terestin g . I n p reparing th e G reek In d ex , I have ta k en p ain s to m ake it an adequate p resen tm en t of th e vocabulary and diction of th e

“ gen tlem an o rator.”

I f these speeches are im p o rta n t as specim ens of th e every-day language of th e A th e n ia n s a t th e best period, th e y are of s till g re a te r im portance as sources of in fo r­

m ation on A th e n ia n H isto ry . I have n o t th o u g h t it m y business to en te r into any speculations as to th e a u th o rsh ip of th e M u tila tio n of th e H erm ae. The tria l of A ndocides in 399 o ught to have cleared u p th e q u es­

tion. B u t th e account th e n given b y him in court m ost certain ly does n o t correspond w ith th e tru e c ir­

cum stances. S ixteen years afte r th e events he found it easy to p u t th a t com plexion upon th e facts w hich lie w ished th e y h ad re a lly borne. I n th is w eakness for pu re rom ancing, w hich to a m odern read er is som e­

tim es am using and m ore often annoying, A ndocides is conspicuous even am ong A th e n ia n orators. H ot- w ith stan d in g th a t his disclosures before th e in itia te d h eliasts were su b seq u en t to th e w ritin g of T hucydides’

history, th e h isto ria n ’s w ords are s till tru e — to Se ovSeis ovre r ore oi'ne varepov e%ei elirelv nrepl twv

hpauavrcov. The m u tila tio n was u n d o u b ted ly the

w ork of a conspiracy of some sort. “ T hough n e ith e r

PREFACE. vi i th e p arties concerned, n o r th e ir purposes, w ere ever more th a n p a rtia lly m ade out, th e concert an d con­

spiracy itse lf is unquestionable. I t seems probable, as far as we can form an opinion, th a t th e conspirators h ad two objects, perh ap s some of th em one and some of th e m th e o th er— to ru in A lkibiades— to fru stra te or delay th e ex pedition.” 1 W h eth er, as P lu ta rc h 2 h ad read th a t some supposed a t th e tim e, th e C orinthians an d M egarians p rom pted th e deed, we hav e no m eans of judging. B u t th e idea, also m entioned by P lu ta rc h and su pported am ong m odern w rite rs by T h irlw all and G ilbert, th a t th e m u tila tio n of n early all th e statu es d u rin g one n ig h t was m erely a d ru n k e n outrage w hich was tu rn e d to p olitical account by oligarchs and extrem e dem ocrats, is o u t of th e q u estio n .3 A ll th a t can, I th in k , be clearly m ade out, is th a t th e ira ip e la of E u p h iletu s, in clu d in g A ndocides, took a considerable p a rt in th e plot. A nd, a fte r all, th is is as m uch as is to th e purpose of th e read er of A ndocides. T he de M ysteriis gives th e only d etailed account we possess of th e re sto ratio n of dem ocracy in 403 B.C., and affords us a glim pse of th e in n e r life of A th en s d u rin g th e years

1 G rote, Gk. H ist. vii. p. 9.

- Alcibiades, xviii.

3 L ipsius, Andocides, p. viii, speaks in hig h term s of G ro te ’s

account of th e outrag e. T he only p o in ts in t h a t account w hich I

have called in question a re (1) th e v eracity of A ndocides in s ta tin g

t h a t only one b u st escaped (G rote vii. p. 5), (2) th e sta te m en t about

A ndrocles and th e senate (ib. p. 34), (3) th e note on th e proposal to

to rtu re tw o sen ato rs (ib. p. 39), and (4) in p a r t, th e note about

Speusippus (p. 44).

viii PREFACE.

im m ediately following. The tw o speeches contain valuable scraps of autobiography. W e realise w h at w ere th e feelings, w h at th e affections and jealousies of an A th e n ia n g en tlem an of po sitio n an d talen t. W e can see also— an d th is is a p o in t of g reat in te re st—

w h at k in d of effect in itia tio n in to th e E leusinian M ysteries produced up o n th e life of th e believer.

T here is no sign th a t th e can d id ate for adm ission into th e secrets th o u g h t of a n y th in g except th e benefits w hich he w ould receive by in itiatio n . H e w ould th u s be b rought in to close com m union w ith D em eter and Persephone— “ th e M adonna an d C hild of an cien t G reece . ” 1 H e w ould be henceforth u n d e r th e ir pro tec­

tion, and be th e favoured object of an alm ost personal affection. H e w ould be afraid to sin ag ain st th em openly in future, le s t he should forfeit th e b rig h t hopes w hich were his since first he gazed on th e ho ly relics.

B u t his ow n du ties w ere p u rely n e g a tiv e ; as long as he took p a rt in th e an n u a l o u tin g to E leusis, and did no th in g w hich could d irectly offend th e tw o goddesses, he w as th e ir loyal servant, an d deserving of all th e bliss to w hich he looked forw ard a fter death. B u t n e ith e r A ndocides’ ow n character, as revealed in his speeches, nor his appeal to th e ju r y (cle Myst. §§ 31-33), w ho h ad them selves “ seen th e holy relics,” e n title us to assum e th a t in itia tio n was any in cen tiv e to a godly life

— if th a t term is n o t to m ean m ere abstinence from actions u n w o rth y of a respectable citizen.

1 E v ely n A b b o tt, H ist, o f Greece, i. p. 464.

PREFACE. i x

The te x t of th is ed itio n is based u p o n th a t of P ro ­ fessor B lass in th e T eubner, a n d th a t of Professor L ipsius in th e T auchnitz, s e rie s ; b u t, ex cep t in m atters of spelling, it is ra th e r m ore conservative th a n th a t of th e form er, an d considerably m ore so th a n th a t of th e la tte r, editor. E m en d in g is alw ays a n a ttra c tiv e h u t dangerous pastim e. Those d istin g u ish ed scholars ad m it th a t i t is especially dangerous in th e case of so careless a w rite r as A ndocides .1 Some of L ip siu s’ em endations, e.g. a t de M yst. §§ 4, 81, 112 , de Bed. § 10 , seem u n n eces­

sarily violent. I n de Bed. § 2 2 , D obree and R eiske in different w ays first a ltered w h a t I believe to be a sound passage. A t de M yst. §§ 39 an d 8 6 , 1 am responsible for a new a rran g em en t of th e words, an d a t §§ 12, 133, 141 for new readings. I desire to acknow ledge m ost fu lly th e g reat debt w hich I owe to th e w orks of P rofessor J e b b , an d of th e tw o G erm an Professors alread y m entioned. A ll p a rtic u la r debts I have acknow ­ ledged in th e notes. F u rth e r, I hope th a t, w henever I have expressed d issen t from th e view s of those or of o ther recognised au th o rities, I have everyw here d is­

p lay ed th a t courtesy w hich has of la te been som ew hat o u t of fashion in th e polem ics of scholars.

I w ish to offer m y w arm th a n k s to th e H ig h M aster of St. P a u l’s School for th e k in d encouragem ent and

1 “ Ip se autem L ipsius id quidem confitetur, m agna cautione opus esse, si quis in hoc o rato re in terpolationes in d ag are v e l i t : etenim fuisse A ndocidem ad verborum am bages n a tu ra propensiorem neque im m erito a quibusdam v eterum , H erm ogene teste , n u g ato rem h a b i­

tu m esse.”—Blass, Andocides, p. xi.

X

PREFACE.

assistance he has given m e in th e p rep aratio n of this b o o k : also to th e Eev. J . H . L upton, S ur-M aster of St. P a u l’s, for a d etailed criticism of th e opening p a g e s : also to M r. R. A. N eil, Fellow of P em broke College, Cam bridge, for several v aluable suggestions. M r. A. W . S p ratt, F ellow of St. C ath arin e’s, after giving m e th e benefit of his advice th ro u g h o u t, has, in th e scanty leisu re of a b u sy term , read th ro u g h th e proofs, and has th u s added a fresh k in d n ess to th e m an y th a t I h ad alread y received from him . As a form er pupil, I feel th a t I owe m u ch of w h at m ay be b est in th is book to him . T here is, m oreover, scarcely a page of the notes b u t bears upon it th e results of his criticism .

I ap p en d a lis t of th e w orks w hich I have m ost fre q u e n tly c o n s u lte d :—

B aiter and Sauppe (“ Turicenses ”)— Oratores Attici.

Zurich, 1850.

Blass, F., Andocidis Orationes. Leipzig, 1880.

Blass, F., Attische Beredsamkeit, i., E dition ii., 1887.

Busolt, G-., Griechische Gescliichte, i. Gotha, 1886.

Bockh, Public Economy of Athens, Eng. Trans. London, 1842.

Dobree, Adversaria. Cambridge, 1833.

Grote, History of Greece, in 12 vols. London, 1884.

Hickie, Andocides de Mysteriis. London, 1885.

Jebb, A ttic Orators. Selections. London, 1888.

Jebb, Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus.

Lipsius, J. H., Andocidis Orationes. Leipzig, 1888.

Lipsius, J. H., Der Attische Process von Meier und Scho-

mann, neu bearbeit. Berlin, 1883-87.

PREFACE. x i

Schomann, cie Comitiis Atheniensibus.

Schomann, Antiquities: The State. Trans, by H ardy and Mann. London, 1880.

Kennedy, C. R., The Orations of Demosthenes. London, 1861-63.

Reiske, Oratores Attici. Leipzig, 1770.

Muller, Oratores Attici. Paris, 1847.

Schiller, C., Andocidis Orationes. Leipzig, 1835.

Shil leto, Demosthenes de Falsa Legatione. Cambridge, 1874.

Kriiger, K. W., Griechische Sprachlehre fiir Schulen.

Kiihner, Ausfuhrliche GrammatiJc der Griechischen Sprache.

M eisterhans, GrammatiJc der Attischen Inschriften. Berlin, 1888.

Goodwin, Prof. W. W., Moods and Tenses, and Greek Grammar.

Rutherford, New Phrynichus.

L exicographers: Pollux, Harpocration, Hesychius, Sui- das, Dindorf’s Steplianus, P auly’s Beal-Encyclopddie, Liddell and Scott.

P rofessor G ildersleeve, who is one of th e firm est friends of Andocides, re m a rk s 1 th a t “ an ed ito r . . . should rem em ber th a t i t is his d u ty to m ake u p for th e lack of th e accum ulated labour of a long line of p red e­

cessors b y th e m ost u n sp arin g toil.” I tr u s t th a t, as far as in d u stry can m ake i t so, th is edition w ill be found w o rth y of th e ingenious au th o r of th e de Mysteriis. I t has been m y aim to m ake th e book com plete in all respects. Y et th a t critics of keener scen t th a n I w ill

1 A m erica n Jou rn a l o f Philology, vol. vi. p. 4S9.

x i i PREFACE.

detect in it sins b o th of om ission and commission, I do n o t doubt. I sh all be obliged to an y w ho w ill assist m e to rem ove them , ever bearing in m ind th e orato r’s ow n w ords : teal ela tv evTv^earaToi, peev ol i\d% icrTa e^a/xapTavovTes, aaxfipovecrTaTOi Se 01 av Ta-^iara /xeTayiyvcbcncwal.

S t . P a u l ’ s S c h o o l , M arch 1889.

E R R A T U M .

P ag e 55, line 14, f o r dvpav'

read dvpav,

.

C O N T E N T S

P r e f a c e , ...

PAGE v-xii C h r o n o l o g i c a l S u m m a r y , ... XV

L i f e o f A n d o c i d e s , . ... 1-19 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o de M ysteriis, ... 20-32 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o de R e d i t u , ... 32-40 T e x t o f de M y s t e r i i s , ... 41-89

T e x t o f de R editu, . . . . . . . . 90-99

N o t e s o n de M y s t e r i i s , ... 100-170 N o t e s o n de Reditu, . . ... 171-177 A p p e n d i x — O n t h e C o n n e c t i o n o f A n d o c i d e s w i t h

t h e M u t i l a t i o n o f t h e B e r m a e , . . . 178-180 I n d e x —

I . , ... 181-193

I I ... 194-199

C H R O N O L O G I C A L S U M M A R Y

O ly m p iad .

L X X X III. 4 XCI. 1

x o i . 2

x c i . 3 x c i . 4

x e i i . 1

3 3 3 3

XCIT. 2

33

445 415

M o n th o r Season.

M arch M ay

,, Sum m er

413 A p ril S eptem ber

W in te r

412

411

410

Sum m er A utu m n W in te r

M arch

J u ly

M arch Sum m er

B irth of A ndocides? T h irty y e ars’

peace betw een A th en s and S parta.

The A th en ian s d eterm in e to invade Sicily.

M u tilatio n of th e H erm ae, w hen th e a rm am en t w as ready.

A rrest of A. an d h is relatives.

A. leaves A th en s and goes to C yprus, in consequence of th e decree of Isotim ides.

T he S p a rtan s fo rtify Decelea.

R u in of th e A th en ian arm am en t in Sicily. D iscredit of th e extrem e dem ocrats a t A thens.

A t A th en s, a B oard of 10 irp6(3ov\oi app o in ted , of whom some were oligarchs. Increased im portance of th e oligarchs.

Samos becomes th e h e ad q u a rte rs of th e A th en ian fleet.

A lcibiades com m unicates w ith th e fleet w ith a view to his recall.

P isan d er a t A th en s suggests an oligarchy, an d organises th e oli­

garchical clubs.

T he 400 set u p a t A thens. A n d o ­ cides supplies th e fleet a t Samos w ith necessaries. H e re tu rn s to A thens. T he P a ra lu s arrives announcing th e counter-revolution a t Samos. A. a rre ste d b y order of th e 400, an d im prisoned.

O verthrow of th e 400. L im ited d e­

m ocracy established. A. released, re tire s to C yprus, w here E vagoras has ju s t become K in g of Salamis.

B a ttle of Cyzicus.

A. re tu rn s to A thens, w here full dem ocracy is restored. T he de R editu. A. leaves A th en s, and travels.

XV

O lym piad.

xciii . 4

5 >

5 5 XCIV. 1

xciv. 2

J»

XOIY. 4

XCY. I

xcv. 2 xcvi. 2 xcvi. 3

> ?

xcvi. 4

X C V II. 1 x c v i i . 2

J 5

x c v i i . 3

x c v i i i . 2

xvi CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY.

B.C. M o n th o r Season.

405 A u tu m n B e tra y al of th e A th en ian fleet a t A egospotam i. Conon tak es refuge w ith Evagoras in C yprus, w h ith er A. also goes.

Blockade of A thens. Psephism of Patroclides.

404 M arch S u rren d er of A thens.

} ) A p ril E stab lish m en t of th e 30.

J> Decem ber T h rasy b u lu s seizes P hyle. D eposi­

tio n of th e 30.

403 Sum m er R esto ratio n of dem ocracy. G eneral A m nesty. G reatness of T h ra s y ­ bulus, A n y tu s, A rchinus, C epha­

lus.

402 S pring A. re tu rn s.

400 M ay A. dpxeWwpos a t th e Isth m ia n games.

J 5 J u ly A. a.pxt8£upos a t th e Olym pian rfQ m no

399 Septem ber

gdlJlCO.

A. in d icted for Im p iety . T he de M ysteriis.

395 W in te r A lliance b etw een T hebes, A thens, C orinth, an d A rgos ag ain st Sparta.

394 J u ly T h e allies d efeated a t Corinth.

Conon’s v icto ry a t Cnidus.

if A ugust T he allies d efeated a t Coronea.

D ecline of T h rasy b u lu s’ influence.

Increased im portance of A gyrrhius a t A thens.

393 Sum m er Conon reb u ild s th e L ong W alls.

392 Conon a rre ste d by T iribazus.

391 Sum m er T he S p a rtan s c ap tu re Lechaeum . J J A utum n N egotiations for peace betw een th e

allies an d S p arta fail. T he de Pace.

389 S pring R evival of T h ras y b u lu s’ influence.

H is nav al successes.

H e is m u rd ered a t Aspendus.

A g y rrh iu s tak es his place as S trate- 387

gus.

Peace of A ntalcidas. F all of A g y r­

rh iu s an d th e sup p o rters of Conon’s

policy.

I.

L IFE OF ANDOCIDES.

S o u r c e s : T he Speeches, in w hich A ndocides refers to details o f h is life, viz., D e M yst. §§ 1, 4, 5, 17, 29, 37-45, 47-53, 61-65, 71, 101-103, 106, 110-112, 117-123, 132-137, 1 4 4 -e n d ; D e Seel.

§§ 3, 7-10, 20-24, 26, 2 7 ; De Pace-, T he G ram m arian ’s H y p o ­ thesis—th e w hole speech displays A .’s political opinions, esp. §§ 2- 12 ; fo r o th e r details, §§ 21-23, 29, 36 ; T he F rag m en ts ; Thue.

6, 60 ; P lu ta rc h Ale. 21 ; A ristoph. N ub. 108, Vesp. 12, 69 ; [Lysias] k o t’ ’AvSokISov (6) §§ 6, 11, 21-31, 33, 35, 40, 43, 46- 52 ; P seu d .-P lu t. L ife o f Andocides, ex trem ely in ac cu ra te; Suidas s. v. fa o u ie o i q uotes P la to Com. and Eupolis, w ith regard to L eo g o ras; ib. s.v. ’AvSokIStjs, for th e fa m ily ; C .I.A . Ti. 553, for th e v ictory a t th e D ionysia.

*

A n d o c i d e s , th e son o f Leogoras of th e C y d ath en aean deme, was born about 445 B.C.1 H e cam e of a g re a t E u p a trid fam ily w hich h ad m ade itself fam ous, not less b y th e vigour an d ab ility w hich its m em bers displayed in public life, th a n by its w ealth an d m agnificence in private. This fam ily traced back its line th ro u g h O dysseus to H erm es .2 Leogoras, g reat-g ran d fath er of th e orator, h a d fought w ith

1 T aylor gives 468 ; S m ith ’s D . o f B . 467— follow ing th e pseudo- P lu tarch . T he im possibility of th is d a te is show n in P a u ly ’s Encye.

2 T h a t th e p seu d o -P lu tarch is w rong in saying t h a t A. belonged to th e fam ily of th e C eryces is proved by B lass A tt, Bereds. i. p. 281, n o te ; c/. Lipsius, Andoc. v.

A

2 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

d istin ctio n ag ain st P is is tra tu s ’ sons ; A ndocides, his g ran d ­ father, had gone as am bassador to S p arta to negociate for th e T h irty Y ears’ tru c e (445 B.C.); E pilycus, his uncle, w as one of those se n t by A th en s to settle th e term s of peace (449 B.C.); Leogoras, his father, is ridiculed by th e comic poets for his lu x u ry an d p a rtia lity for ra re an d curious b ird s .1

N ow such tra d itio n s— h a tre d of T y ran n y , adherence to a policy of peace, frien d sh ip w ith S parta, along w ith a love of ease and pleasure, w ere th e tra d itio n s of the oligarchical p a rty a t A th en s. The fam ily, i t w ould seem, belonged to th a t p arty , and, th ro u g h o u t h is chequered life, A ndocides rem ained a t h e a rt an oligarch. The odium in to w hich his opinions b ro u g h t h im w ith both sections of th e dem ocratical p a rty , an d an u n fo rtu n ate qu arrel w ith his own side, to be described p resen tly , robbed him of th a t success w hich his n a tu ra l cleverness as a speaker, an d h is proved capacity for business, would otherw ise in all pro b ab ility have won for him. H is own w ords b est show w ith w h at section of politicians his sy m p ath ies really lay.

1 T he follow ing Stemma, ia a d ap ted from D obree, A d versa ria :—

, Leogoras.

Tisander.

! Andocides.

Glaucon m. Daughter. Epilycus. Daughter m. Leogoras.

________ !_______ -• I I

1. Ischo- m. Chrysias m. 2. Callias, son Leager. Daughter Daughter ANDOCIDES. Daughter m.

machus | I o f Hipponicus. e7rueA.7]po9. erri/cA^pos. Callias, son

Daughter | of Telecles.

vi. Callias, her,. | j j-

^ step-father. Daughter Hipponicus. Son (§ 124, etc.) m. Epilycus.

i

Daughter. Daughter.

I n a speech delivered before 417 B.C., he declares h im ­ self asham ed to m ention H yperbolus, th e lam p-seller and dem agogue. A fter h is re tu rn to A th en s in 411, the course of A th en ian politics and th e object h e h ad in view

— nam ely, to secure th e restoration of his rig h ts— m ade it necessary for him to profess dem ocratical opinions, th u s reversing th e change of sides w hich sim ilar circum stances h ad forced on A lcibiades in 415.1 Y et he was u nable to conceal h is tru e bias entirely. I t w as a disgrace to A th en s, he cries in 399, th a t Cleophon, th e lyre-seller, should have occupied th e an cestral hom e of his great fam ily w hile he was in exile. V ery b itte r it was to th e o r a to r ; y e t genuine dem ocrats could scarcely th in k it was a disgrace to th e ir co u n try th a t Cleophon, who, as Lysias testifies, h ad suffered d eath ra th e r th a n consent to a dishonourable peace, should have occupied the house of A ndocides, banished for com plicity in th e m u tilatio n of th e H erm ae, an im pious outrage. I n th e sam e speech (de M yst.) A ndocides applied th e e p ith e t o /caXo? Kayados, by w hich oligarchs loved to describe th e ir p arty , in iro n y to A gyrrhius, th e demagogue. E q u ally ill-advised was his passing allusion to th e resolution of th e Lacedaem onians

1 Dr. J e b b rem arks t h a t a fte r 415 A ndocides cast in his lo t w ith th e dem ocrats. I t appears to me t h a t h is sym pathies rem ained oligarchic, b u t, as A lcibiades, in p olitical sy m p a th y a dem ocrat, w as forced to profess him self an oligarch a t S p arta and Samos, so A ndo­

cides, h aving disgusted th e oligarchs by his disclosures in 415, and failed to conciliate th em in 411, was constrained to reap p ear as a dem ocrat in 410 ; hoping th u s to secure th e re sto ra tio n of h is rig h ts, w hich he could n o t o btain in 411.

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 3

4 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

to “ save th e city,” in stead of destroying it, w hen A th en s su rren d ered in 404,— a rem ark w hich could scarcely have fallen from a g enuine dem ocrat.

B u t his political bias comes o u t m ost stro n g ly in his speech “ On th e Peace,” delivered probably in th e w in ter of 392-1. H e shows in th a t speech (1 ) a strong belief in peace (§§ 2 - 12 ), ( 2 ) sy m p ath y w ith S parta, especially a t

§ 21 , w here h e praises S p arta for hav in g refused to enslave A th e n s in 4 04 B.C., (3 ) h a tre d for Argos, an d th e govern­

m e n t of C orinth w hich su p p o rted Argos (§§ 24-27, 31, 32.) X enophon {Hell. 4, 4, 2) m uch m isrep resen ts th e facts to w hich A ndocides here refers, and it is im possible to say for certain w h eth er th e governm ent of C o rin th was a t th e tim e a m oderate oligarchy or a dem ocracy. B ut th is m u ch is c e r ta in : A ndocides speaks as a su p p o rter of th e p a rty w hich h ad recen tly b etray ed C o rin th to the S p artan s, an d opposes th e governm ent, th e n in alliance w ith A rgos an d A thens. Indeed, his sta te m e n ts on th is m a tte r m ig h t have com e from X enophon him self, so tinged are th e y w ith oligarchical an d laconising sentim ent.

I n his le tte r to th e m em bers of his p o litical club,

w ritte n probably som ew here betw een 4 2 0 and 418, he

accuses th e A th e n ia n s of h av in g outraged th e rem ains of

T hem istocles— a charge, as P lu ta rc h w ith good reason

rem arks, m erely m ade w ith a view to s tir up oligarchic

feeling ag ain st th e dem ocrats. N or can we adm ire th e

alm ost jestin g rem arks (preserved in an o th er fragm ent)

u p o n th e h ard sh ip s endured by th e farm ers of A ttica

d u rin g th e L acedaem onian invasion.

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 5

I t appears therefore th a t he was tho ro u g h ly identified w ith th e w ealthy young oligarchs before 415 ; and hence he jo in ed th e p olitical club of E u p h ile tu s. These clubs (eralpeLcu) are described by T hucydides as “ confederacies for m anaging tria ls and elections,” i.e. for procuring th e control of th e law -courts an d elections in th e in te re st of th e oligarchs, who, harassed b y co n tin u al prosecutions, and ignored by th e governm ent, w ere forced to reso rt to u n d erh an d m eans to a tta in th e ir objects— friendship w ith S p arta and th e estab lish m en t of an oligarchy a t A th en s .1

In J u n e 415 occurred th e m u tila tio n of th e H erm ae, a crim e as shrouded in m y stery a t th e tim e as i t is a t th is day. B u t an endeavour was m ade to ru in A lcibiades by g ettin g u p a cry th a t he was aim ing a t a ty ran n y . W as it strange th a t h is o p ponents— w h eth er ex trem e dem ocrats lik e Cleoplion, or o p p o rtu n ists of th e stam p of Thessalus, should really th in k or a t le a st p reten d to th in k th a t he h ad h ad dealings w ith th e political clubs of th e oligarchs ? They, in fact, confused in th e ir ex citem en t tw o outrages w hich ought to have been k e p t d istin c t— th e m u tila tio n of th e H erm ae an d th e p ro fan atio n of th e m ysteries. Of th e form er A lcibiades was innocent, b u t he w as alm ost ce rtain ly g u ilty of th e latter. T he m u tila tio n was th e w ork of c e rtain oligarchs, u n d e rta k e n perhaps w ith a view to ru in A lcibiades, th e ir successful enem y, by th ro w in g suspicion on him. A t an y ra te th e club of E u p h iletu s, and A n d o cid es 2 as a m em ber, were concerned

1 W ith regard to th ese caucuses, see A rnold on Time. 8, 54.

2 T he e x te n t of A ndocides’ g u ilt is uncertain. See Appendix.

6 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

in th e crim e. T he p rofanation of th e m ysteries was probably m erely a stu p id freak on th e p a rt of A lcibiades and some boon c o m p an io n s; and A ndocides h ad n o th in g to do w ith it. B u t th e m u tila tio n of th e H erm ae caused evidence to be given of th is o ther deed, and th e tw o in cid en ts com bined le n t colour to th e cry of Stffiov K ardX vcris and th e n o tio n th a t A lcibiades was about to m ake a stroke for th e ty ra n n y , w hich he was w ith good reason suspected of desiring. T hus A lcibiades was driven o u t by th e extrem e dem ocrats, aided by th e oligarchs, th e tru e originators of th e m u tilatio n , and th e o p p o rtu n ists—

all p arties in fact com bined ag ain st him.

A ndocides, his fath er, h is brother-in-law , th re e cousins, and seven o th er relatives w ere am ong th e forty-tw o persons denounced b y D ioclides as being am ongst those who m u tila te d th e H erm ae. A ndocides, acting on the advice of his cousin C harm ides, and tru stin g to th e aSeta voted in his favour on th e m otion of M enippus, gave inform ation in crim in atin g him self and others. H ow th e h a n d of th e dem ocrats fell h eav ily on those oligarchs who were proved to have caused th e m u tilatio n . T hough th e y h ad by th a t hazardous deed succeeded in g ettin g rid of A lcibiades, y e t th e y were n o t therefore to escape now th a t th e ir g u ilt was certain. So even A ndocides, though he h ad been du ly rew arded for his disclosures, w as driven o u t b y th e decree of Isotim ides, en actin g th a t any one who h ad confessed him self g u ilty of im p iety should be excluded from th e tem ples an d m arket-place.

A ndocides, finding his position intolerable, retired

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 7

from A th en s to C yprus in th e au tu m n of 415, and engaged in trade. B u t a n a tu ra l desire to regain his position, and, perhaps, some qu arrel or m isu n d erstan d in g w ith th e K in g of C itium in C yprus, th e precise n a tu re of w hich it is im possible to discern from th e vague calum nies of his enem ies, caused him to seize an o p p o rtu n ity of re tu rn w hich occurred in 411. The S icilian disaster, th e D ecelean W ar, th e in terv en tio n of T issaphernes on beh alf of S parta, th e rev o lt of th e A th en ian allies, an d th e in ­ trigues of A lcibiades, com bined to harass th e dem ocratical g overnm ent and raise th e hopes of th e oligarchs. M atters culm inated in th e estab lish m en t of th e F o u r H u n d re d th ro u g h P isander. A ndocides no d o ubt looked for a recall of exiles by th e new governm ent. B u t though m ost o ther actions of th e demos were reversed, th e ir exiles w ere n o t restored, as th e F o u r H u n d re d did n o t w ish to see A lcibiades back. T here were also m en in th e F o u r H u n d red , as P isan d er, w ho h ad been active in d riv in g A ndocides out, and his inform ation h ad disgusted th e oligarchs. H ow A lcibiades h ad in trig u e d w ith o u t success w ith th e oligarchs a t Samos to secure his re tu rn , and A ndocides tu rn e d in th e sam e direction. H e was enabled th ro u g h a frien d ly prince, A rch elau s of M acedon, to fu rn ish oars to th e fleet a t Samos, w hile from C yprus he obtained provisions for th e m en ’s use. T his act he th o u g h t w ould appease his enem ies am ong th e F o u r H u n d red , and procure h im th e perm ission to retu rn , w hich he could n o t have obtained u n d e r th e dem ocracy.

I t seem ed th a t the A th en ian s a t Sam os had decided to

8 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

accept th e oligarchy. B u t u n fo rtu n ately for him , w hile he w as on his w ay hom e, th e fleet set u p an opposition dem ocracy, an d despatched th e P a ra lu s to announce th e change to P isander. C onsequently A ndocides h ad scarcely arriv ed in A th en s w hen his old enem y P isa n d e r accused him of “ su p p ly in g oars and provisions to th e enem y,” i.e.

th e (now ) dem ocratic fleet a t Sam os .1 On such a charge, m ade before th e P o u r H u n d red , condem nation w as cer­

ta in : he says h e only escaped being p u t to d eath by flying to th e fio vX a ia ka ria , an d th u s th e gods saved him . I f th e F o u r H u n d re d had been very anxious for his death, he could n o t have escaped th u s, any m ore th a n T h era­

m enes d id by th e sam e m eans in 404, an d i t is possible to discern o th e r causes for A ndocides’ escape in 411.

T he policy of th e F o u r H u n d re d was n o t one of in d is­

crim in ate s la u g h te r: th e y only p u t to death some few who w ere lik ely to prove dangerous to th em (Thuc. 8 , 7 0), and A ndocides was obviously n o t one of th e s e ; in ­ deed he m ig h t prove of service to th em in th e ir overtures to A gis a t D ecelea, an d finally, it is likely enough, though P isa n d e r was h is enem y and he h ad offended m an y of th e oligarchs, th a t he h ad p riv a te friends am ong th e F o u r

1 Dr. J e b b and D r. L ipsius how ever th in k A. really in ten d ed to help th e dem ocrats a t Samos, an d retu rn e d to A th en s in ignorance of th e establishm ent of th e F o u r H u n d red . B u t A. does n o t lead us to suppose he w as ig n o ran t of th e change of governm ent (de Red. §§ 11, 14 and [Lys.] 6, 27), and surely had th is been th e case h e m u st have heard it as soon as he landed a t P iraeu s— in tim e to escape. T he Four- H u n d red were already in pow er w hen he supplied th e oars and p rovi­

sions (de R ed. § 11). See Sauppe on th e frag m en t npos tovs iraipovs.

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 9

H u n d re d 1 for whose help lie h ad looked w hen he retu rn ed to A thens. H e was therefore m erely im prisoned. The governm ent of the F o u r H u n d re d broke dow n after ab o u t four m o n th s’ rule, and A ndocides e ith er escaped, or, m ore probably, was released by th e p a rtia lly restored dem ocracy in g ra titu d e for his service to th e fleet, for w hich he h ad suffered. B u t he was s till an oligarch, still ta in te d w ith th e suspicion of im piety, an d th e decree of Isotim ides was s till in force. H e accordingly again le ft A thens.

In d eed A th en s was n o t a t th e m om ent a very desirable home. I n th e early sp rin g (411) A bydos h ad re v o lte d ; soon B y zan tiu m and C halcedon fo llo w e d ; th u s th e H e l­

lespont an d E u x in e w ere closed to A th e n ia n vessels, th e dues paid to A th en s by ships passing th ro u g h th e B osphorus ceased, an d no corn cam e from th a t quarter.

In a few m onths th e question of supplies grew s till m ore serious, since E uboea revolted ju s t as th e F o u r H u n d red were about to collapse. T hucydides says th e revolt of Euboea, 011 w hich A th en s depended for a g reat p a rt of h e r supplies, especially now th a t th e E u x in e and H ellesp o n t w ere blocked, filled th e A th en ian s w ith th e u tm o st con­

sternation. The outlook m u st have been very gloomy w hen th e lim ited dem ocracy took up th e governm ent, an d A ndocides left Greece. H e h ad failed to appease th e oligarchs, b u t had nearly w on favour w ith th e dem ocrats.

1 T he F o u r H u n d red w ere by no m eans all of one m ind, owing to

jealousy. M any w ere elected who h ad no sy m p ath y w ith th e extrem e

views of P isander. Andocides m ay have been on good _terms w ith

some of T heram enes’ followers.

F o r th is reason he now sought an o p p o rtu n ity of securing th e ir good-will.

H e again w en t to C yprus, w here he arriv ed in th e w in te r (411-10). E vagoras h ad late ly obtained the th ro n e of Salam is, and was doing his u tm o st to hellenize his kingdom . H e therefore gladly received Andocides.

A th en s was th re a te n e d w ith fam ine, and a p p a re n tly it d id n o t seem lik e ly th a t supplies w ould come from C y p ru s ; 1 b u t A ndocides’ influence w as such th a t he succeeded in ob tain in g a prom ise of corn from th a t island. H e a t once set off to A th en s to announce th e prom ise to th e Senate, an d arriv ed ab o u t th e tim e of the B a ttle of Cyzicus (spring of 4 1 0 2). H e rep o rted th e new s to th e Senate, an d his reception by th a t body was sufficiently favourable to encourage h im to req u est th e Ecclesia to rem ove th e dTi/uta from w hich he was suffer­

ing, an d to give h im th e advantage of th e aSeta voted to him in 415. B ut, th ough h is enem ies k e p t silence in th e Senate w hen he only announced th e com ing supplies, th ere were m an y who were n o t p rep ared to receive back

1 Perh ap s Andocides exaggerates his personal services in C yprus in th e speech De R editu, since E vagoras w ould su rely have done w h at h e could to help A th e n s— supposing i t was from him th e corn was sen t. Pseudo-L ysias indeed (§ 20) goes so fa r as to say th a t A.

h a d offended Evagoras, h a d been im prisoned, and h a d escaped to A thens. The t r u th doubtless lies betw een th e ex trem e statem en ts of A ndocides and his accuser. T he speech D e R ed itu w as pro b ab ly d e­

livered soon a fte r th e B a ttle of Cyzicus, a b o u t th e tim e th a t full dem ocracy was resto red (§ 27).

2 W ith reg ard to th e date of h is second re tu rn , see “ In tro d u ctio n to De R editu."

1 0 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 11

as a citizen a m an g u ilty of im p iety of a serious nature.

Therefore, before he addressed th e Ecclesia, several speakers cam e forw ard to w arn th e people ag ain st ac­

ceding to his p rayer. The to n e of A ndocides’ speech was hum ble and a p o lo g e tic : he declared th a t he h ad been carried aw ay in 415 by h is y o u th fu l folly, an d by th e elo­

quence of th e confederates in th e p lo t to m u tila te th e H erm ae. H e h ad indeed inform ed, b u t he h ad th u s relieved th e city from alarm , th o u g h he h ad in cu rred th e h a tred of th e o lig a rc h s; th ey had now suborned w orthless persons to oppose his p ra y e r to th e Ecclesia, an d p rev en t him from o b tain in g a ju s t rew ard for his services in C yprus. Y et th e feeling ag ain st him am ong th e dem o­

crats m u st have been still w idespread, an d his services m u st have appeared exaggerated ; for th e A th en ian s were alw ays read y to w eigh a m a n ’s services to th e state ag ain st his guilt, an d decide in his favour if th e form er appeared to prep o n d erate over th e latter. B u t A ndocides’

req u est was n o t g ran ted , and he once m ore left A th en s u n d er the sam e conditions as in th e previous year.

H is trad in g operations now becam e extensive. H e v is ite d 1 Sicily, Ita ly , th e Peloponnese, T hessaly, th e H ellespont, th e Io n ian cities of A sia M inor, and finally

1 P a u ly ’s Encyc. accepts th e p seu d o -P lu tarch ’s sta te m en t th a t A.

settled in E lis ; b u t th is sta te m en t is n o t probable a fte r w h at w e know of his previous exiles, nor does it agree w ith de M yst. §§ 4 and 132.

H e m ay have visited Elis w h en he w en t to th e Peloponnese. No

sta te m en t can be accepted on th e sole a u th o rity of th e pseudo-

P lu tarch .

1 2 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

se ttle d once m ore in C yprus. The w ealth of his fam ily was exhausted, b u t his speculations in m e rch an t shipping were so prosperous du rin g th ese years th a t lie am assed a fresh fortune. Thus, w hile his c o u n try was passing th ro u g h th e te rrib le series of d isasters w hich culm inated in th e govern m en t of th e T h irty , A ndocides lived as a prosperous m e rch an t abroad, an d m ade th e acq u aintance of several princes, and visited m an y cities.

F in a n c ia l exhaustion caused th e fall of A th en s after th e loss of h e r fleet a t A egospotam i (405 B.C.). T here h ad been no th o u g h t of su rre n d e r w hen th e new s of th e disaster w as re c e iv e d ; b u t th ere was no m oney to b u ild a new fleet, and th e city, therefore, h a d no stre n g th to resist w hen in v ested by Lysander. The se ttle m e n t of A ndocides in C yprus, a fter several years of travel, is pro b ab ly to be placed in 405,1 a fter th e b a ttle of A egospotam i, as E va- goras’ kingdom th e n offered a re tre a t to m an y A th en ian s besides Conon, and th e seas were un safe to an A th e n ia n trad er, an d finally L ysander sen t to A th en s every A th en ian he could lay h an d s on, in order to starv e th e city th e sooner. A ndocides an d Conon therefore h ad both to w ait in C yprus and w atch th e tu r n of events.

The dem ocracy was restored in 403 B.C., by th e efforts of T hrasybulus ; and, in consequence of th e G eneral A m nesty w hich followed, A ndocides retu rn ed , a p p a ren tly early in

1 In [Ays.] 6, 49, A. is accused of doing nothing to help A th en s in

405, th o u g h he h ad vessels and m oney a t his com m and, and w hile

m any m etics and foreigners w ere doing so m uch. See n o te on de

M y st., § 144.

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 1 3

402 B.C., to A thens. H e a t once jo in ed th e p a rty w hich i t was to his in te re st to jo in — th e p a rty of T hrasybulus now in th e ascendant, an d su pported by C ephalus, A n y tu s, and A rch in u s. T his p a rty was view ed w ith jealo u sy by an o th er, w hich looked to th e exiled Conon as its hope, and in A th en s w as now led by A g yrrhius, who a t p resen t found h is sphere of a c tiv ity in finance. The governm ent was d esp erately in w a n t of funds. T he T en who had succeeded th e T h irty had borrow ed largely from S p arta to carry on th e w ar w ith th e exiles, an d on th e resto ratio n of dem ocracy p a y m e n t w as dem anded. Some argued th a t those who h ad rem ained in A th e n s (ot e£ ao-rew?) during th e oligarchy o u ght to provide th e sum due, b u t th e E cclesia decided to pay th e m oney as a public debt. Two ta le n ts owed to Thebes were n o t fo rth c o m in g ; nor could th e city pay th e co n trib u tio n s to S p a rta ’s w ar expenses now im posed on her. A th en s lay w ith o u t arsenal, fleet, docks, or w alls— a h u m b le an d defenceless m em ber of th e S p a rta n confederacy.

A ndocides was useful to th e governm ent. H e stood w ell w ith S parta, he m u st have been favourably regarded b y T hrasybulus, who h a d led th e opposition to P isan d er in 411 and had obtained m a terial assistance from A ndo­

cides in Samos, and h e h ad m oney, w hich he w as w illing

to spend on h is country. B etw een 403 and 399, he was

G ym nasiarcli a t th e festiv al of th e H ep h a e stia and A rchi-

tlieorus a t th e Isth m ia n an d O lym pian G am es (M ay and

J u ly 400 B.C. respectively), and becam e T reasu rer of th e

Sacred M oneys— a post of im portance. I n 400 he was

1 4 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

p resid en t of th e com pany w hich farm ed th e ta x of tw o per cent, on im ports and exports. A g y rrh iu s h ad been chief of th e hoard th e previous year, an d had paid th e state th irty ta le n ts for th e privilege of farm ing th e tax, b u t A ndocides now offered th irty -s ix talen ts, and th u s h is com pany secured th e contract, and A g y rrh iu s was defeated. H is disg u st w as so g reat th a t lie jo in ed in th e a tta c k on A ndocides th e follow ing year.

The period from 403 to 392 B.C. forms th e m ost suc­

cessful p o rtion of th e o rato r’s life. O ligarchs who

rem ained in A th en s d u rin g th e reign of th e T h irty h ad

to choose betw een feigning conversion to dem ocratic

opinions and leav in g A thens, un less th e y could keep in

obscurity. The p a rty was tho ro u g h ly discredited. B u t

A ndocides occupied th e enviable position of belonging

n eith e r to “ th e C ity ” nor “ th e P iraeu s ” faction. Like

Conon, he h ad seen n o th in g of th e struggle w hich gave

rise to these new parties. T hus he h ad a fresh s ta rt

w hen he re tu rn e d in 402 B.C., and he tu rn e d his

o p p o rtu n ity to good account. Y e t he h ad enem ies who

were only w aiting for a favourable m om ent for a tta c k in g

him . T here w ere oligarchs who regarded him as a tu r n ­

coat, and he was view ed w ith disfavour by th e extrem e

dem ocrats, w hile w ith some he h ad serious personal

differences. I n 399 B.C. C ephisius, E pichares, M eletus,

Callias, an d A g y rrh iu s cam e to term s and in d icted

A ndocides for im piety, and for exercising th e rig h ts of a

crScen w hen he was u n d e r civil d isabilities ow ing to th e

decree of Isotim ides. T he nam es of th e prosecutors and

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 15 th e ir supporters showed th a t p olitical questions were

^ H f ly o lv e d in th e case. .Cephalus an d -A nytnsr -two o t t h e chief sup p o rters of T hrasybulus, jo in ed A ndocides ag ain st th e com bination. The speech delivered b y th e orato r on th is occasion before th e h eliasts was very different from his address to th e Ecclesia in 410 B.C. H e now stated th a t he had ta k e n no p a rt in th e m u tilatio n of th e H erm ae h im s e lf; he h ad only told th e Senate w h at he had h eard from E u p h iletu s, th e leader in th e p lo t; and he h ad only added four nam es to those given by T eucrus in his inform ation. The lapse of eleven years and the novelty of success h ad em boldened th e speaker, an d in stead of bew ailing his gu ilt, he now p ro tested his innocence.

W h a te v e r th e h eliasts m ay have th o u g h t on th a t point, th e y h ad good reasons for ac q u ittin g Andocides. They considered th e services his fam ily h ad rendered to th e state in tim es past, th e benefits he h ad him self of late conferred u p o n i t ,1 th e obvious m alice of his opponents and th e ir own crim es (from th e consequences of w hich th e y were only protected by th e very oaths w hich th ey were now urging th e ju ry to break), above all, th e serious blow w hich condem nation in th is case w ould d eal to a g overnm ent w hose w atchw ord w as th e A m nesty. Such reasons were sufficient to ju s tify A th en ian ju ry m e n in voting in favour of acq u ittal. The v erdict for A ndocides

1 Lys. 30, § 1, says t h a t even if a m an appeared g u ilty , he was

a p t to be a cq u itte d if he recalled th e v alia n t deeds of h is ancestors

an d proved t h a t h e had him self served th e s ta te well.

1 6 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

stren g th en ed th e h an d s of th e g overnm ent an d proved th e determ iim tioii o f.th e C ourts to u phold th e A m nesty, ^

A t some d ate su b seq u en t to th e trial, A ndocides was C horegus for his Tribe, th e P andionis, a t th e g reat D io ­ nysia, an d gained a v icto ry w ith h is B oys’ C horus, th e record of w hich is still preserved in an inscription.

I n th e w in te r of 39-5 B.C., Thebes, A th en s, C orinth, and Argos form ed an alliance ag ain st S parta. I n 394 B.C.

Conon’s influence w as restored by th e g re a t v icto ry of Cnidus, w hile th a t of T h rasy b u lu s declined ow ing to th e defeats sustained b y th e allies n ear C o rin th and Coronea, T hus A g y rrh iu s also advanced in im portance, and his financial m easures th is sam e y ear m ade him exceedingly popular. The defeat of th e C orin th ian s an d A rgives a t Lechaeum in 392, and th e arre st of Conon by Tiribazus, m ade th e cause of th e allies ap p ear so hopeless th a t an em bassy w as se n t from A th en s to S p arta in th e w in ter to arrange a peace if possible. A ndocides was selected for th is m ission as a friend of Sparta. T he em bassy was w ell received an d an o th e r se n t from S p a rta to AthenSj to re tu rn w ith an answ er a fter an in te rv a l of forty days for discussion there. A ndocides addressed th e E cclesia in s; oort of th e proposed peace. I n h is speech (On the Peace), h e show ed (1) th a t th e demos h ad prospered th ro u g h peace, suffered th ro u g h w ar (B e Pace, §§ 1 - 12 ) : (2) th ere w as no ground for co n tin u in g w ar (§§ 13-16):

(3) S p arta and Thebes desired peace (§§ 17-23): (4) Argos

an d a section in C o rin th desired war, b u t Argos had

selfish m o tiv e s ; and A th en s w ith A rgos and C orinth

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 1 7

could n o t cope w ith S p a rta and Boeotia u n ite d (§§ 21-27):

(5) A th e n s was ever prone to ally herself w ith th e w eaker p a rty ,1 an d th u s in v ite defeat (§§ 2 8 -3 2 ): ( 6 ) he defended th e course now adopted (§§ 3 3 -3 6 ): and concluded w ith (7) a sum m ary of th e advantages to be gained by m aking peace w ith S p a rta (§§ 36-end). B u t th e C o rin th ian and A rgive Com m issioners opposed h im ; th e A th e n ia n s also feared th a t S p arta m ig h t again force on th em an oligarchy, as in 4 0 4 : for th e y view ed th e proposed peace as a sign of the revival of th e o lig arch s.' Some even w hispered th a t T hrasybulus, whose h au g h ty bearing gave offence, was read y to aid in estab lish in g an oligarchy— an a b ­ surd ru m o u r w hich received some colour from his con­

n ection w ith Andocides. M an y also com plained th a t th e cleruchies abroad, lost in 405, were n o t to be restored to th em by th e peace. T he conditions were therefore re fu s e d ; and th e success of Ip h ic ra te s in 390 seem ed to ju stify th e decision of th e Ecclesia. T h rasy b u lu s him self appears to have been dissatisfied w ith th e conditions proposed by S p arta, an d those who m uch w ished for peace regarded th e action of th a t g reat m an on th is occasion as th a t of a tiresom e m eddler .2

A ndocides is n o t h eard of a fter this failure. The influence of T h rasy b u lu s revived for a sh o rt tim e in 390, b u t a fresh and m ore vigorous a tta c k was p resen tly made

1 F o r a defence of th is policy see Isocrates, 4 $ 53.

2 T he obscure lines of A ristophanes Ecclesiazusae 193-203 point to some difficulty interposed b y T h rasy b u lu s, a n d also to th e d im in u tio n of public confidence in him.

B

1 8 LIFE OF ANDOCIDES.

on him . On his death in 389, A gy rrh iu s becam e S trateg u s in his place. B u t he failed s ig n a lly ; for P ersia jo in e d S parta, and on th e Peace of A n talcid as in 387 th e p a rty w hich Conon and A g y rrh iu s h ad led collapsed.

Andocides, if alive, m u st have view ed these events w ith equanim ity. The y ear of his d e a th is n o t know n.

A ndocides is a ty p ical A th e n ia n of th e decline— clever, shifty, im pulsive, living in th e p a st ra th e r th a n th e future, m ore given to w ords th a n deeds, n o t over scrupulous ab o u t tr u th and honesty, incapable of dissociating political from personal interests. T hus in character he resem bles A lcibiades. H e lacked his splendid ta le n ts and his pow er of originating, b u t we discern in h im th e same p ride of an cestry an d th e sam e self-assertion. H e h ad som ething, too, of A lcibiades’ pow er of fascinating strangers, and this pow er d im in ish ed th e b ittern ess of his exile. B u t he had no t th e pow er of sw aying m en, and he h ad no m ilitary t a l e n t : he was, as i t were, a foretaste of th e n e x t g en era­

tio n of A th en ian statesm en, w hen th e orator w as no longer, as in form er tim es, id en tical w ith th e m ilitary leader ,1 and w hen A th en s only “ d id b a ttle w ith words.”

I t is curious th a t th e strange alte rn a tio n s o f pro sp erity and adversity in th e life of A ndocides synchronise so ex actly w ith sim ilarly v ary in g phases of A th e n ia n history.

H is y o u th was passed in a p leasan t atm osphere of lu x u ry a n d ease u n d er th e glorious su n sh in e of P e ricles’ ad m in is­

tration. B u t in th e y ear of th e Sicilian E x p ed itio n , as

1 See B utcher, Demosthenes, p. 19.

LIFE OF ANDOCIDES. 1 9

th o u g h his c o u n try ’s folly w ere casting its shadow upon him , h e allow ed him self to he led in to an insensate con­

spiracy. T he m an w as b linded b y th e p rid e of w ealth, as th e city was by th e p rid e of power. B oth transgressed th e law of self-restrain t im posed by heaven on m ortals.

T h ro u g h o u t th e w eary years of th e S icilian and D ecelean W ars, N em esis, herself unw earied, pursued h e r hapless victim s. A t tim es a ra y of hope b u rst th ro u g h th e clouds.

B u t though th e gloom y goddess m ig h t d e p art for a season, it w as only th a t she m ig h t g ath er fresh stre n g th for a y e t m ore te rrib le o n s e t; while, in th e m eantim e, against A th en s she se n t fo rth th e hosts of A gis and L ysander to do h e r dread work, and against th e orator th e m ore subtle b u t n o t less form idable pow ers of P isan d er and Isotim ides.

B u t a t le n g th th e shadow s departed. C ity and citizen, h u m bled and chastened b y b itte r suffering, received con­

solation. V ery p a th e tic is th e ir h isto ry d u ring th e years succeeding th e B estoration. W e w atch th em struggling m an fu lly to redeem th e ir lost honour. I f A th en s received back A ndocides an d fran k ly forgave him , he reciprocated h er welcome w ith am ple gifts. Y et as we tu rn from contem p latin g th e evening of his life, we are conscious th a t his c o u n try is no longer w h at she was. T hrasybulus and h is followers could do m uch, b u t th e y could never resto re th e A th en s of P ericles.1

1 T he s ta te m e n t of th e p seu d o -P lu tarch th a t A. was again banished

a fte r failing to induce th e A th en ian s to accept th e peace in 392-1 is,

as Dr. Je b b p o in ts out, valueless. T he w rite r m erely m ade i t in order

to ro u n d off a sufficiently u n fo rtu n ate career w ith a m elodram atic close.

2 0 INTRODUCTION TO “ DE M YSTERIIS.”

I I .

INTRODUCTION TO “ DE M YSTERIIS.”

| 1 . N a tu re o f the Case.

T his speech was delivered in 399 B.C. (§ 132) before a court of heliasts, all of w hom were in itia te d in to th e E leu sin ian M ysteries (§ 2 9 Note)-, th e p re sid e n t of th is co u rt was th e A rchon B a sile u s 1 (c/. § 1 1 1 ), who h ad charge of th e state religion, an d presided in cases con­

nected th erew ith . The m ethod of procedure was by an eVSetfo?, or in d ictm en t, w hich was lodged by C ephisius, th e chief prosecutor, w ith th e A rchon B asileus a t Eleusis during th e la st ten days of th e m o n th Boedrom ion, th a t is, d u rin g th e celebration of th e g reater Mj^steries, w hile all th e .in itia te d , in clu d in g A. him self, w ere a t E leusis (see §§111 a n d 121). I t set fo rth th a t A. h ad been g u ilty of acre/3eia in atte n d in g th e M ysteries, whereas lie was excluded by Iso tim id es’ decree (de M yst. §§ 10, 29, 31, 58, 13 2 ; [Lys.] 6 , §§ 5, 6 , 10-12, 16, 17, 20, 3 0 ,3 1 , 52, 54, 5 5 ; [P lu t.] V it. A n d . § 3). T here were tw o o th er p ro ­ secutors, M eletus an d E picliares, who addressed th e court after C ephisius (§ 92, et seq.), an d am ong th e m ost im ­ p o rta n t w itnesses on th e ir side w ere Callias and A gyrrhius, 1 Of. H yperides pro E u x., 21, nue/lei ris

Upd

ypa(j)ai atreftela?

(eiVi)

Tpos rbv fia<ri\ea. Dem. 22 S 27 rr)s airefteias e a n v drrdyeiv, ypd(j)e<rdaL, 8ucd£e<rdai rvpbs EvpoXiridas, (f>pa£eiv 7-pos rbv fiatriKea.

Ill t h a t passage e v S e fis is n o t m entioned, but andyeiv includes ivSeiKvvvai, th e tw o term s being n o t alw ays c learly d istinguished.

See A lt. Proc., § 225. F o r yiart of th is n o te I am in d eb ted to M r.

W . F. S m ith, T u to r of St. J o h n ’s.

INTRODUCTION TO “ DE MYSTERIIS.” 21

w ho had aided th em in gettin g u p th e case. The speech of A. answ ers those of th e th re e prosecutors. H e was aided by tw o pow erful politicians, who appeared as his crvvhucob, viz., A n y tu s and Cephalus, besides m em bers of th e P a n d io n id trib e (§ 150). H en ce A. did n o t him self occupy all th e tim e allow ed for th e defence, since ex tra tim e was n o t g ran ted for o - vv S ikol to speak. T he resu lt was an a c q u ittal, and it is n o t im probable th a t C ephisius failed to ob tain one-fifth of th e votes, in w hich case he had to pay a fine of 1 0 0 0 drachm ae, as did every pro­

secutor in a pu b lic case ( 7 pa<pri) who d id not obtain th a t p roportion of th e h e lia sts’ votes, and he w as also excluded from th e E le u sin ia n shrine.

§ 2 . The Case fo r the Prosecution.

The case th e n is an o rd in ary evBeigc 9 dcre/3eia<s.' B u t the m ain count was backed u p a t th e tria l by others, and th e w hole case as sta te d before th e court stood as follows.

(1) A. was g u ilty of dae/3eia because he h ad atte n d e d th e M y steries (de Myst. § 3), and en tered th e E leu sin ian shrine a t A th en s ([L ys.] 6 , 42) w hen expressly excluded by the decree of Iso tim id es .2 ( 2 ) A. was g u ilty of daefieia b e ­ cause h e h ad h a b itu a lly entered holy places, from w hich he w as excluded by th e decree. T hus he h ad offended all th e deities ([L ys.] G, 9). (3) H e h ad exercised th e rig h ts of a citizen and en tered th e Agora, w hen p rohibited by th e decree ([L ys.] 6 , 9 and 33).

1 F o r tlie d istinction b etw een ei/fiei£is and d ira yM yf see § 8, Note.

C/-- §§ 91, 105. 2 See L ife o f A ., p. 6.

2 2 INTRODUCTION TO “ DE MYSTERIIS.”

I n order to prove any of these th re e charges it was necessary to show th a t A. was su b ject to th e decree of Iso tim id es a t th e tim e. A ccordingly evidence was p u t in w ith regard to (a) th e m u tilatio n of th e H erm ae, th a t A. h ad given inform ation in c rim in a tin g h im self in th e outrage in 415 B.C. (de Myst. § 3 4 -71; [Lys.] 6, § 14 et seq.) (ib) th e violation of th e M ysteries, th a t A. h ad given in ­ form ation in crim in atin g h im self and h is fa th e r (de M yst.

§ 11-27). T herefore he h ad a d m itted th a t he w as g u ilty of im p iety in 415, an d h ad been an d w as s till subject to th e decree of th a t year.

N ow th e prosecutors foresaw th a t A. w ould plead th a t th e decree h ad been repealed in 403 by th e m easure passed afte r th e re sto ra tio n of th e dem ocracy, w hich abolished all previous law s b u t those expressly approved a t th a t tim e, and th a t th e charge violated th e oaths ta k en b y all th e citizens a t th e tim e of th e G eneral A m nesty a fter th e re tu rn of T h rasy b u lu s, according to w hich all bygones w ere to be bygones. T he prosecutors therefore d ealt w ith th is im p o rta n t p o in t in th e ir speeches. T hey argued th a t th e reconciliation oaths an d m easures of 403 had n o th in g to do w ith A.’s case ([L ys.] 6 , § 37). T hey had been en tered into m erely by tw o p a rtie s— ot il• ao-reax;, those who rem ained in th e city d u rin g th e eig h t m o n th s’

ru le of th e T h irty (A pril-D ee. 404), and oi etc TIeipaicos—

those w ho fled into exile d u rin g th a t period and re tu rn e d w ith T hrasybulus. To n e ith e r of these did A. belong.

This arg u m en t requires exam ination. I t appears from

th e te x t of th e oath (de Myst. § 90), and th e words of