^{page 326 note 1} MacDowell, D. M., Andocides On the Mysteries (1962).Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 2} MacDowell (Appendix J, pp. 204–5) following Makkink, Andocides' Eerste Rede, 32–5, argues, with some justification, that 400 is a more likely date for the speech than the traditional 399.I have adopted the earlier date throughout this article.

^{page 328 note 1} On this point of chronology I follow MacDowell, 183–5, as against K.J. Dover in the recently published continuation of Gomme, 's commentary, HCT iv. 274 (1970).Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 2} After admitting that his story was a complete fabrication, Dioclides, who could then have had no motive for lying, revealed that the instigators of it had been Alcibiades of Phegus and Amiantos of Aegina. Thereupon both fled into exile—a clear enough admission of responsibility. The former is without doubt the cousin and fellow exile of the great Alcibiades, who is referred to by Xenophon {Hellenica i. 2. 13) as having been among the prisoners taken from four Syracusan ships captured by Thrasyllos in 409 after the Athenian reverse at Ephesos.

^{page 328 note 3} See now Dover, , HCT iv. 286–8Google Scholar, for a fuller analysis of this aspect of Dioclides' allegations.

^{page 329 note 1} Perhaps Poulytion was the ‘source’ of Thessalos' indictment? It is very strange that his name does not appear in the list cited by Andocides (De Myst. 13) of those denounced by Andromachos for parodying the Mysteries in Poulytion's own house. Did he secure his own future by offering additional information which was then used by Thessalos ?

^{page 329 note 2} And also a contradiction of the words of the prosecutor whose speech Against Andocides has come down to us as Lysias 6. It must be admitted that this religious fanatic is not a very reliable authority, but he is one to which MacDowell attaches some importance elsewhere. It thus seems fair to cite Ag. And. 35–6: (a clear reference to De Myst. 68—Andocides' description of the beneficial effect on the city produced by his information about the Hermae affair),

^{page 330 note 1} Plutarch Ale. 21.2 says that Timaios was That this is a ‘genealogical’ detail is confirmed by a remark in the section immediately preceding (21. 1 ): . Such information was characteristic of Hellanicos and it is obvious that the detail about Timaios' social standing likewise derives from him. Thus Plutarch's source for the identity of Andocides' fellow prisoner was probably Hellanicos.

^{page 332 note 1} Thucydides (6. 27. i) says of the herms that , whereas Ar. Lysistrata 1094 indicates that, as we might expect of such objects, the phalli had been the prime targets of the mutilators.

Professor K. J. Dover in his edition of Thucydides Book 6, p. 37, has pointed out that the word πρόσωπα cannot possibly give the sense ‘phalli’ in such a context but that, at the same time, it is not plausible to suggest that Thucydides is being prudish.

Thus we must assume, with Dover, that the mutilators damaged the faces as well as, or instead of, the phalli of some of the herms (perhaps those which had already lost their phalli through everyday wear and tear), and that Thucydides specified this aspect because it was regarded as a more serious sacrilege. The first of these conclusions is perhaps supported by Ag. And. 15.

^{page 333 note 1} The date of this speech must be more than just a few months later than the battle of Cyzicos (April 410) in view of the reference to that battle in chapter 12 as , but probably before autumn 408, when complete control of the Black Sea corn route was finally regained by the capture of Byzantium (Xen, . Hel. i. 3. 18–22Google Scholar).

It is true that Andocides would in any case make out that the arrival of corn ships from Cyprus was a great benefit to Athens even if it were not. But I cannot believe that he could have committed the psychological error of making so much of this ‘benefit’ if he were speaking at a time just after free access to the Black Sea corn areas had been at last restored after three difficult years.

I can see no reason to follow the suggestion of Schmid (which MacDowell, op. cit. 5, finds ‘attractive’) that the speech must have followed the recall of Alcibiades to Athens in 407. Although both men were exiled directly or indirectly as a result of impiety committed in 415 there is no indication that their subsequent fortunes were connected, especially as there is reason to believe their relations with each other were less than cordial in this period (cf. De Myst. 65–6 and above, p. 328). However, whether it belongs to 408 or 407, the important point about the De Reditu is that it is some years closer in time to the events of 415 than the De Mysteriis and for that very reason an important source document.

^{page 334 note 1} This speech purports to be that of one of Andocides‧ prosecutors at the time of his trial, but its authenticity is not wholly beyond dispute. The speaker is suspiciously well acquainted with what Andocides is going to say (cf. 13, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43). Hence it has been concluded that it was actually composed some time after the trial and circulated as a pamphlet by Andocides' enemies.

There are, however, some indications in favour of its authenticity: (a) And. De Myst. 137–9 seems to allude directly to one particular argument in this speech (19–20). (b) In chapter 43 the speaker anticipates that Andocides will argue that if he is condemned nobody will ever again be willing to be a μηνυτής. But Andocides in fact does not employ this argument, (c) The speech concentrates exclusively on the religious aspect of the affair. This is consistent with the division which was customarily made when there were several prosecutors, whereas we might expect a post eventum pamphlet to be more wide-ranging.

Whether the speech is authentic or not it is clear that it was written for, if not by, a religious zealot. If the speech is authentic it must have been delivered either by Meletos, Epichares, or Agyrrhios (cf. De Myst. 92–5, 132–3), but not by Cephisios (cf. eh. 42). At chapter 54 the speaker says that his grandfather was Diocles son of Zacoros, the Hierophant. It seems likely then that his family belonged to the Eumolpidae, the hereditary priesthood of the Mysteries. This will account for his concentration on the religious aspect (cf. Thuc. 8. 53. 2 for Eumolpid opposition to the return of Alcibiades in 411).

From what Andocides says of Epichares (De Myst, 95–102), it seems unlikely, even allowing for some exaggeration in his account, that a man of his character and reputation would have been selected to concentrate on the religious and moral aspects of the case.

The possibility that Agyrrhios was the author of the speech has not commended itself to editors (cf. MacDowell, op. cit. 14, Dover, K. J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum, 78Google Scholar). Presumably it has been thought impossible that an able and influential politician like Agyrrhios (cf. Ar. Eccl. 102–4) could have been such a blind bigot as the man who delivered this speech evidently was. This, however, is hardly a conclusive argument. It is worth noting that Andocides does not charge Agyrrhios with any serious crime—it is thus a safe inference that he had not committed any.

If we can believe Andocides (De Myst. 94) Meletos had at least one serious crime to his account—under the Thirty he had arrested Leon of Salamis, who was then executed without trial.

Now one of the accusers of Socrates at his trial in 399 was also called Meletos, and it is clear from what is said about him by Plato (Ap. 26 cd, 27 c, Euthyphro 2 c) that he was regarded as a champion of traditional religious ideas.

There is thus a strong temptation to accept the identification: prosecutor of Andocides ═ speaker of Lysias 6 ═ prosecutor of Socrates.

There is some slight confirmation of this in the fact that Socrates' accuser Meletos came from the deme of Pitthos (Pl. Euthphr. 2 b) and we hear of a Diocles of Pitthos, trierarch in 377/6 (Isaeus 8. 19; Dem. 2i. 62). Diocles was also the name of the grandfather of the speaker of Lysias 6.

On the other hand there are difficulties in this identification. Socrates himself had been ordered to share in the arrest of Leon of Salamis but had refused (PI. Ap. 32 c) and MacDowell (op. cit. 209) has objected that Socrates' colleague in 404 could not have been unknown to him in 399 (cf. Pl. Euthphr. 2 b).

Dover (op. cit. 80) has shown that this particular objection is not strong, being based on a misinterpretation of what Socrates says in Euthphr. 2 b. But it remains odd that in his account of his behaviour in the Leon affair Socrates should have ignored the golden opportunity afforded him of mentioning the fact that his principal accuser had himself actually executed the very orders which Socrates had refused.

However, the phraseology employed by Andocides in making his allegation against his Meletos arouses suspicion (cf. Dem. 40. 53 and Dover, op. cit. 80), and it may well be the case that Meletos' part in the Leon affair was considerably less clear-cut than Andocides would have us believe.

^{page 335 note 1} Certain offences in Athens were not always as precisely defined as twentieth-century liberals would like. The Athenian concept of ‘treason’ was a somewhat elastic one. It included ‘deceiving the people’ as well as ‘overthrowing the people’ (cf. Dem. 20. 135), and it is not unnatural that, in view of its widespread harmful public effects, Dioclides' ‘perjury’ (which is strictly all it was) was regarded as a capital offence.

^{page 336 note 1} It is possible that at the time of Ando-cides' trial some sections of Thucydides' history (e.g. books six and seven) were available in a ‘published’ form. But even so they could hardly yet have had much influence on the general public.

^{page 337 note 1} Dover, in his most valuable excursus on the Herms and the Mysteries, HCT iv. 264–88Google Scholar, concludes (274–6), rightly in my view, that the herms were, pace Plutarch, Ale. 20. 5, and MacDowell, 187–8, mutilated under a full moon. The dating schemes for 415 of both Dover, , HCT iv. 271–6Google Scholar, and Meritt/MacDowell, 186–9, posit at least a fortnight between the mutilation and the departure of the expedition.

^{page 338 note 1} This point has recently been emphasized by Dover, , HCT iv. 285Google Scholar, who, without coming to any hard and fast conclusions, appears to favour the view that the mutilation was not in fact politically motivated at all. This was not, however, the view which the Athenian demos took of the affair (Thuc. 6. 27–8, 60). Of course it has long been customary for historians, taking their cue from Thucydides, to belittle the political sagacity of the demos, which, on this subject, (6. 53. 3). But there are some slight indications that, on this occasion at least, it might actually have been right (cf. And. De Myst. 41–2, 45, Thuc. 6. 61. 2).