Antiphon and Andocides

1. On the Mysteries

1. ON THE MYSTERIES In 403 or 402 bc Andocides returned to Athens, believing himself to be protected by the recent amnesty and revision of the legal code. But about three years later, probably in 400 or possibly in 399, he was prosecuted by endeixis, a legal procedure for accusing someone of exercising rights to which he was not entitled. He had attended the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the prosecution alleged that he was forbidden to do so by the decree of Isotimides. Thus the case did not technically infringe the amnesty, which applied to offenses committed before 403; although the charge depended on the impious acts which he was said to have committed in 415, the specific act for which he was being prosecuted was attendance in the temple at Eleusis in 400 (or 399). There was also a secondary charge, that he had placed an olivebranch of supplication on the altar of the Eleusinium in Athens at the time of the Mysteries, which was illegal. The penalty demanded by the prosecutors was death, but probably they hoped that he would simply leave Athens, making a trial unnecessary. However, he stood his ground, and the trial took place. We do not now have the main speech for the prosecution, but a short speech, Against Andocides, is preserved among the speeches of Lysias (no. 6). It is unlikely that Lysias wrote it, but it does seem to be the genuine text of one of the supporting speeches of the prosecution in the trial. Its arguments, however, are mostly in general terms and give us only a little additional information. The speech On the Mysteries is the one with which Andocides defended himself. In the first half he argues that he was not guilty of impiety in 415 and had not confessed it, so that even if the decree of Isotimides were still valid, it would not apply to him. But he then goes on to argue that the amnesty and the revision of the laws in 403 have made the decree of Isotimides no longer valid. It is not clear that he is legally correct here, since the decree was not a law and thus strictly was not invalidated by the measures of 403; but it probably had been generally assumed to be obsolete, and prosecution for infringement of it in 400 was contrary to the spirit if not to the letter of the amnesty, which had been intended partly to protect men suspected of oligarchic sympathies. In the later part of the speech he moves from defense to attack by making allegations against his prosecutors, who were Cephisius, Meletus (a different man from the Meletus who had been a comrade of Andocides in 415), Epichares, and Agyrrhius. The first three, he says, had all committed offenses before 403 themselves, so that they too are open to prosecution if they do not accept the validity of the amnesty; and Agyrrhius is acting from personal spite against Andocides as a rival in the matter of the purchase of a tax-collecting right. But the sinister figure who emerges behind all these is Callias. Callias son of Hipponicus (not to be confused with other men named Callias who are also mentioned in the speech) was a well-known member of the aristocratic family of Ceryces and himself held one of the hereditary priesthoodsof the Eleusinian Mysteries. Andocides alleges that Callias wanted to get hold of a girl who was an orphaned relative both of Callias’ son and of Andocides. In accordance with Athenian law of inheritance, the nearest male relative was entitled to claim her as his wife, and Andocides and his cousin Leagrus were the nearest; but Leagrus had withdrawn his claim, and if Andocides were driven out of Athens, Callias’ son as the next nearest relative would be able to claim her and would then let her live with Callias. This lurid account of Callias’ motives may or may not be true; we have no way of checking it. But in any case it provides some fascinating information about law and custom concerning Athenian families. Evidently the speech had the desired effect on the jury, for we know that Andocides was acquitted. The text as we have it is not the work of an expert orator or stylist. Sometimes the wording is clumsy or repetitive . But it is the speech of a man fighting for his life, and he tells his version of the facts with force and vividness. The...