INFORMATION OF DIOKLEILES. 199 started from Athens to go to the mines of Laureion ; wherein he had a, slave working on hire, on whose account he was to receive pay. It was full moon, and the night was so bright that he began his journey mistaking it for daybreak. 1 On reaching the propy- Ireum of the temple of Dionysus, he saw a body of men about three hundred in number descending from the Odeon towards the public theatre. Being alarmed at this unexpected sight, ho concealed himself behind a pillar, from whence he had leisure to contemplate this body of men, who stood for some time conversing together, in groups of fifteen or twenty each, and then dispersed : the moon was so bright that he could discern the faces of most of them. As soon as they had dispersed, he pursued his walk to Laureion, from whence he returned next day, and learned to his surprise that during the night the Hermse had been mutilated ; also, that commissioners of inquiry had been named, and the reward of ten thousand drachms proclaimed for information. Impressed at once with the belief that the nocturnal crowd whom he had seen were authors of the deed, he happened soon after- 1 Plutarch (Alkib. c. 20) and Diodorus (xiii, 2) assert that this testimony was glaringly false, since on the night in question it was new moon. I pre- sume, at least, that the remark of Diodorus refers to the deposition of Dioklcides, though lie never mentions the name of the latter, and even de- scribes the deposition referred to with many material variations as compared with Andokides. Plutarch's observation certainly refers to Dioklcides, whose deposition, he says, affirming that he had seen and distinguished the persons in question by the light of the moon, on a, night when it was new moon, shocked all sensible men, but produced no effect upon the blind fury of the people. "VYachsmuth (Ilellenisch. Alterth. d i, ch. viii, p. 194) copies this remark from Plutarch. I disbelieve altogether the assertion that it was new moon on that night. Andokides gives in great detail the deposition of Dioklcides, with a strong wish to show that it was false and perfidiously got up. But he nowhere mentions the fact that it was new moon on the night in question ; though if we read his report and his comments upon the deposition of Diokleides, we shall see that he never could have omitted such a means of discrediting the whole talc, if the fact had been so (Andokid. de Myster. sects. 37-43). Be- sides, it requires very good positive evidence to make us believe, that a suborned informer, giving his deposition not long after one of the most memorable nights that ever passed at Athens, would be so clumsy as tc make particular reference to the circumstance that it was/ii/i moon (elrai 6i
vavatf.Tjvuv), if it; had really been new moon,
