APPENDIX likewise mentioned in ours. To this Ruhnken replies that the oration of Phæax which Plutarch read cannot have been the same as ours, because, if it had, Plutarch could not have felt the doubt which he expresses (Nic. 11.) as to the parties who contended with each other to avoid the ostracism. But there are two possible cases, either of which would meet this objection. Plutarch might not himself have seen the oration of Phæax, but have quoted it at second hand. This however is certainly not very probable. The other case is, that Plutarch may not have meant, either in Alcib. 13. or in Nic. 11., to express a doubt, whether Phæax was one of the persons in danger of ostracism, but only whether it was he who caballed with Alcibiades to cause the ostracism to fall on Hyperbolus. His words, Alcib. 13., are: ¿c d'évroi paorr, où πpòs Νικίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς Φαίακα διαλεχθεὶς, καὶ τὴν ἐκείνου προσλαβὼν ἑταιρίαν, ἐξήλασε τὸν Ὑπέρβολον. By the vio he means Theophrastus, as appears from the other passage, Nic. 11. Ouk dyvow ὅτι Θεοφραστος ἐξοστρακισθῆναί φησι τὸν Ὑπέρβολον, Φαίακος, οὐ Νικίου, πρὸς ̓Αλκιβιάδην ἐρίσαντος. A comparison of these passages leads us to conclude that Theophrastus attributed the machinations by which Hyperbolus was ostracised to Alci. biades and Phæax. But we can hardly believe that Theophrastus denied a fact, which seems to be so well attested, and from the circumstances of the case so clear, as that Nicias was one of the parties in danger. It did not follow that Nicias conspired with Alcibiades against Hyperbolus, though this was generally suspected; and Plutarch, adopting the common statement, takes little notice of Phæax, but may have been aware that he was one of the persons concerned. But Ruhnken objects that Phæax, if he was the author of this bitter attack on Alcibiades, cannot have conspired with him against Hyperbolus. And we do not know that he did; but the oration itself, if we suppose it to be his, would not prove the contrary. For it might have been composed before the compact was made between them. The argument which it suggests against the opinion of Theophrastus, might not occur to Plutarch, though he had read it as the work of Phæax, when he was writing his life of Nicias. And certainly he is not so accurate in his quotations, that we should lay any stress on the slight variance between the statement which he quotes from Phæax, as to the abuse of the sacred vessels, and the account given of the same transaction in our oration. On the side of Taylor's opinion there still remains the weighty testimony of Theophrastus to the fact, that Phæax was one of the persons threatened with ostracism on the same occasion with Alcibiades; and it is easier to suppose Plutarch thoughtless or forgetful, almost to any degree, than to reject this testimony. Whether Theophrastus had read our oration is another matter, which however does not II. concern the present question; for it must be remembered, that, APPENDIX whether he read it as the work of Phæax or of Andocides, it must have appeared equally to contradict his opinion. Among Taylor's secondary arguments one is derived from the embassy mentioned toward the end of our oration, which he thinks may have been the same with that of Phæax, related by Thucydides, v. 4. But Ruhnken objects that our orator was sent to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy, and Sicily; whereas Phæax was ambassador only to the last two countries. On the other hand Lysias mentions the travels of Andocides in Sicily, Italy, Peloponnesus, Thessaly, the Hellespont, Ionia, and Cyprus. But Taylor thinks that these cannot be the same which are alluded to in our oration, because Lysias treats them not as an embassy but as a private journey (dñoồnμía). To this Ruhnken replies that the language of Lysias is that of an enemy. Tardus sit qui non videat Lysiam, ut accusatorem, quam πρɛσbɛíaν dicere debebat, invidiose dñodημíav dicere. But here it is Ruhnken himself who has committed a most extraordinary oversight. For nothing can be clearer from the context of Lysias (Andocid. p. 103.) than that he is speaking of the travels of Andocides during his absence from Athens after the affair of the mysteries; whereas the embassy mentioned in our oration must have preceded that affair. This is noticed by Sluiter (p. 9.), who observes: Miror virorum sagacissimorum neutrum animadvertisse, non de eadem re loqui Lysiam, sive Pseudo-Lysiam de qua dicit Andocides; non enim ille agit de legatione Andocidis sed de peregrinatione ejus post piaculi erga Hermas sive veram, sive falsam accusationem. Wyttenbach indeed (quoted in Schiller's note) rejoins, Et nos miramur, Sluiterum non animadvertisse, legationem et peregrinationem Andocidis à Pseudo-Lysia confundi. But this remark seems to involve a gratuitous assumption, and yet does not justify Ruhnken's language. Still the embassy described in our oration does not appear to agree with that of Phæax, unless we should suppose that after having ended his negotiations in Sicily and Italy, he received orders which induced him to cross over to Macedonia, through Epirus, and to return by the way of Thessaly to Athens, where Thucydides observes he arrived χρόνῳ ὕστερον, ν. 5. But the embassy to Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly, might also have been undertaken on some other occasion. The time at which this oration must have been composed, if it is genuine, is clearly marked by the allusion to the fate of the Melians, which proves that the orator is supposed to be speaking between the end of the war with Melos and the departure of the expedition for Sicily. It is remarkable that this so entirely escaped Valckenaer's notice, that among the passages in the speech which he says are applicable to none but Andocides, he cites the APPENDIX II. words τετράκις ἀγωνιζόμενος ἀπέφυγον, observing, Sapius accusatum Andocidem, ex ipsis ejus orationibus constat, ob Hermas dejectos, ob Cereris mysteria vulgata, ob reditum, evidently considering these as occurrences prior to our oration. There is, however, a difficulty connected with this allusion to Melos. The orator seems to reproach Alcibiades with having had a son by a Melian woman whom he had bought from among the captives condemned to slavery by his own decree (περὶ τῶν Μηλίων γνώμην ἀποφηνάμενος ἐξανδραποδίζεσθαι, πριάμενος γυναῖκα τῶν αἰχμα λώτων υἱὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς πέποιηται); and yet it is certain that less than nine months elapsed between the reduction of Melos and the expedition to Sicily. But it is certainly possible that this may be a rhetorical exaggeration, and that, as Droysen suggests (Ueber die Hermok. p. 199. note), the Melian woman was taken in the early part of the siege. And this agrees with Plutarch's statement (Alcib. 16.) that Alcibiades gained credit for humanity by rearing the child he had by her. It seems clear that if there is any force in Taylor's argument it is only to be found in the correspondence which he points out between the circumstances under which our oration professes to have been delivered, and Plutarch's account of the combination by which Alcibiades and Phæax, when themselves threatened with ostracism, caused it to fall upon their common enemy Hyperbolus. Taylor assumes that this was the occasion on which our oration was delivered, though not by Andocides, but by Phæax. And Valckenaer and Ruhnken, though they dissent from his conclusion, adopt the same supposition, apparently without so much as a suspicion that any other was possible. Valckenaer suggests that the speech may have been written by Andocides for Phæax. Ruhnken observes that it is clear from the speech itself, whether it be ascribed to Andocides or to Phæax, that there were three persons contending with one another to avoid ostracism, though, as we learn from Plutarch, most writers mention only two. And so he concludes-with the same negligence through which most writers omitted the third party, they substituted Phæax for Andocides. (Itaque qua negligentia plerique tertium omiserunt, eadem pro Andocide Phæacem posuerunt.) On the other hand A. G. Becker (Andocides, p. 15.) assumes it as certain that the occasion of this speech could not be that in which Hyperbolus was ostracised; and on this assumption he grounds an argument which leads him to deny the genuineness of the speech. For he believes that, after the banishment of Hyperbolus, the ostracism was abolished, so that no such contest as is represented in our oration could have taken place. Droysen (Ueber die Hermok. p. 199.) admits the first of these premises, but rejects the inference, on the ground that the ostracism was not formally abolished at II. least before the time of the Thirty, though in fact Hyperbolus APPENDIX was the last person to whom it was applied; and, as we are informed by the author of the Lexicon Rhetoricum, published with Porson's Photius (p. 672., compare the fragment of Philochorus, p. 675.), that the proceedings relating to ostracism took place in the sixth prytany, Droysen concludes, that after the fall of Hyperbolus they underwent no alteration or interruption, but that the people were still called upon every year as before to decide whether any one should suffer ostracism. But this account of the matter seems hardly to come up to the language of Philochorus (u. s.), who, having related the case of Hyperbolus, adds that after him the practice was abolished (μετά τοῦτον δὲ κατελύθη Tò 0os), and the author of the Lex. Rhet. only describes the proceeding which took place while the institution remained in force. The expression of Philochorus seems at least inconsistent with such a state of things as is supposed in our oration; and even if it does not imply that the forms of the ostracism were no longer employed, who can believe that after the warning given by the fate of Hyperbolus, Nicias and Alcibiades were again threatened with the same danger, and that it could be represented as quite certain apparently from the notoriety of the prevalent popular feeling that one of them or the orator must fall a victim to democratical jealousy? I must own that this objection appears to me of greater weight than either the external authority which has been alleged in support of the genuineness of the speech-to which Droysen adds the very questionable conjecture that Demosthenes drew from it in the passage of his oration against Midias relating to Alcibiades or the internal marks, which Valckenaer, Ruhnken, and Droysen discover, of the style of Andocides. And though it was through confusion of dates that Valckenaer explained the orator's allusion to his four previous trials (rerpákiç ȧywvióμevoc drévyov) by a reference to later occurrences of his life, it is certainly a somewhat suspicious fact that these are the only occasions on which we know him to have been placed in such peril. On the other hand, I think that Becker and Droysen have too hastily assumed that the ostracism of Hyperbolus must have taken place before the period (the early part of 415) to which this oration, if genuine, belongs. Hyperbolus, we know, was killed at Samos in the spring of 411, a little more than four years after the time when, if he was ostracised in 415, he was forced to quit Athens. For, as Droysen states, the sixth prytany in 415 fell between the 10th of January and 15th of February; and the question is, whether if he had been ostracised a year earlier, it would be likely that he should have been still living at Samos at the time of his death. For it would seem that his term of banishment must then have VOL. III. K K III. APPENDIX expired. Theopompus indeed (in the Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1001.) is made to say that he was ostracised for six years (worpάkioav τὸν Ὑπέρβολον ἓξ ἔτη). Meineke at one time proposed to substitute déka for . But as Philochorus (in the Lex. Rhet. u. s.) says that the term of ostracism was reduced from ten to five years [TOUTOV (sc. τὸν ἐξοστρακισθέντα) ἔδει, τὰ δίκαια δόντα καὶ λαβόντα ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων συναλλαγμάτων, ἐν δέκα ἡμέραις μεταστῆναι τῆς πόλεως ἔτη δέκα· ὕστερον δὲ ἐγένοντο πέντε] Meineke would now (Hist. Crit. Com. Gr. p. 194. note) read wévre. In this case the most formidable of all the objections that have been urged against the genuineness of our speech seem to fall to the ground; and until some others of greater force have been pointed out, it will have a right to retain its title. APPENDIX III. A COMPARISON OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THUCY- THUCYDIDES has given a general outline of the occurrences connected with the prosecution of Alcibiades, but without names or particulars. Andocides, in an oration composed in his own defence and after a considerable interval of time (De Mysteriis), professes to relate all the most important details of the transaction. The outline of Thucydides may be safely relied on; the account of Andocides must indeed be received with great caution; but still none of the facts which he states ought to be rejected unless they should appear to be clearly inconsistent with Thucydides. There is however, as every one knows who has examined the subject, great difficulty in inserting the details of Andocides, even where they are least liable to suspicion, in the outline of Thucydides. The chief difficulties arise about the beginning and the concluding scenes of the affair. Wachsmuth in an appendix (I. 2. p. 444.) has arranged the successive informations in their chronological order; and he has noticed the apparent contradiction between Thucydides and Andocides, as to Androcles and Pythonicus, but he has not shown quite satisfactorily how it is to be cleared up. It must however be observed, that it is Plutarch who makes the contradiction appear greater than it is. According to him (Alc. 19.) the informations alluded to by Thucydides vi. 28. (μnvúerai åtò |