178 HisroiiY OK GKKKCI:. nation ultimately adopted ; the supporters of Alkibiades piobably not fully appreciating its consequences, and conceiving that the gpeedy departure of the expedition was advisable even for hia interest, as well as agreeable to their own feelings. And thus his enemies, though baffled in their first attempt to bring on his immediate ruin, carried a postponement which insured to them leisure for thoroughly poisoning the public mind against him, and choosing their own time for his trial. They took care to keep back all farther accusation until he and the armament had departed. 1 Heifrvof (Jta/3o/.J7f, TJV 1/j.eM.ov f>aov aiirov uirovrof nopielv, ftETUTrefiTrrov KO- uicdivTa OVTOV ayaviaaadai. Compare Plutarch, Alkib. c. 19. 1 The account which Andokides gives of the first accusation against Al- kibiades by Pythonikus, in the assembly, prior to the departure of the fleet, presents the appearance of being substantially correct, and I have followed it in the text. It is in harmony with the more brief indications of Thu- cydides. But when Andckides goes on to say, that i: in consequence of this information, Polystratus was seized and put to death, while the rest of the parties denounced fled, and were condemned to death in their absence," (sect. 13,) this cannot be true. Alkibiades most certainly did not flee, and was not condemned at that time. If Alkibiades was not then tried, neither could the other persons have been tried, who were denounced as his accom- plices in the san .e offence. My belief is that this information, having been first presented by the enemies of Alkibiades before the sailing of the fleet, was dropped entirely for that time, both against him and against his ac- complices. It was afterwards resumed, when the information of Andokides himself had satisfied the Athenians on the question of the Hermokopids: and the impeachment presented by Thessaltis son of Kimon against Alki- biades, was founded, in part at least, upon the information presented by Andromachus. If Polystratus was put to death at all, it could only have been on this second bringing forward of the charge, at the time when Alkibiades was sent for and refused to come home. But we may well doubt whether ho was put to death at that time or on that ground, when we see how inaccu- rate the statement of Andokides is as to the consequences of the information of Andromachus. He mentions Pansetius as one of those who fled in con- sequence of that information, and were condemned in their absence : but I'ansetius appears afterwards, in the very same speech, as not having fled at that time (sects. 13, 52, 67). Harpokration states (v. TloJ-varparor), on the authority of an oration ascribed to Lysias, that Polystratus was put to death on the charge of having been concerned in the mutilation of the
Hermse. This is quite different from the statement of Andokides, nnd would
