previous next

Lost Works.

Beside the extant speeches of Andokides, the titles of four others have been preserved. (1) Plutarch quotes an address ‘To the Associates,’ or members
Address to the Associates.
of the oligarchical clubs, as authority for a statement that the remains of Themistokles had been dishonoured at Athens; but adds that the statement was made by Andokides merely for the purpose of exasperating the oligarchs against the people1. Ruhnken2, with whom Sauppe3 agrees, thought that this Address was a letter written by Andokides, then in exile, to the fellow-conspirators of Peisandros in 411. But the breach of Andokides with the oligarchical party, after his informations in 415, was decisive and final; when he returned to Athens in 411 he was at once denounced by Peisandros and imprisoned. It seems better, then, with Kirchhoff4 and Blass5, to refer this Address to an earlier time than 415: perhaps to the years 420—418, a period of keen struggle between the oligarchical and popular
Deliberative Speech.
parties at Athens6. (2) The ‘Deliberative Speech’ quoted by the lexicographers7 is identified by Kirchhoff with the last-mentioned. Its title seems, however, to show plainly that it was of a different kind, and was either spoken, or supposed to be spoken, in
Speech On the Information.
debate in the ekklesia. (3) Harpokration once quotes a ‘Speech On the Information’ (περὶ τῆς ἐνδείξεως) for the word ζητητής, which occurs twice in the speech On the Mysteries8. Hence the two speeches have sometimes been identified. But the pseudo-Plutarch expressly distinguishes them9. And the author of the speech against Andokides states that two informations had been laid against him in the same year10. It is true that there is no proof of the earlier information having resulted in a trial; and that the title of the lost speech, if really distinct from the De Mysteriis, was ill-chosen. But it is difficult to suppose that the biographer could have made such a blunder as to quote the same speech by two different titles in the same sentence. On the whole, Sauppe's11 view, that the speech On the Mysteries and the speech On the Information were distinct, appears most probable. If the lost speech referred, like the De Mysteriis, to the Hermae case, it must have contained the word which Harpokration quotes; and it would have been natural for him to quote it from the earlier of the two compositions in which it occurred. (4) The ‘Reply to Phaeax’ is
Reply to Phaeax.
known only from the pseudo-Plutarch, who does not name the speech ‘Against Alkibiades’12. It has been shown that the latter is probably the work of a late sophist; and it is likely that Phaeax, rather than Andokides, was intended to be the speaker. If, then, it could be assumed that ‘Reply to Phaeax’ is an inaccurate quotation of the title, which ought to have been cited as ‘Reply for Phaeax,’ there is no difficulty in supposing the identity of this work with the extant speech Against Alkibiades.

Besides the names of these four speeches, two

Doubtful fragments.
fragments of unknown context have been preserved13. One of them expresses the hope that Athens may not ‘again’ see the country people thronging in to seek shelter within the walls. This seems to refer to the invasion by Archidamos in 431. If this be so, the speech to which the fragment belonged was probably older than 413, when Agis occupied Dekeleia, and when the scenes of 431 must have been to some extent repeated. Such a passage might have found place either in the address To the Associates or in the Deliberative Speech14. The other fragment speaks of Hyperbolos as then at Athens; and is therefore older, at least, than 41715.

1 Plut. Themist. c. 32.

2 Hist. Crit. Or. Gr. (Opusc. I. p. 326).

3 Or. Att. II. p. 165.

4 Andocidea, Hermes I. pp. 1— 20.

5 Att. Bereds. p. 286; and Andoc. (Teubner) p. 96.

6 Cf. Plut. Alk. c. 13.

7 Antiatticista, Bekker Anecd. vol. I. p. 94, v. 25. Photios, p. 288, 23.

8 §§ 36, 40.

9 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. mentions first the speeches On the Mysteries and On his Return; and then adds, σώζεται δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐνδείξεως λόγος καὶ ἀπολογία πρὸς Φαίακα καὶ περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης.

10 [Lys.] in Andoc. § 30.

11 O. A. II. p. 165.

12 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. l. c.

13 Sauppe, O. A. II. p. 166: Blass Andoc. (Tcubner) p. 97.

14 Sauppe refers the fragment to the πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους. So, also, does Kirchhoff, identifying the πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους with the συμβουλευτικός. If these, however, were distinct, the fragment may belong just as well to the συμβουλευτικός.

15 On the date of the ostracism of Hyperbolos, see above, p. 134, note 1.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: