The identity of the author of the desecration of the Herms on the eve of the Sicilian Expedition of 415 BC has been a question which has puzzled historians since the days following the event itself. This desecration and the accusations that many members of the upper classes were engaged in profaning and parodying the Eleusinian Mysteries—the two were soon connected in the public mind and have been ever since— were useful to various elements in Athens for the elimination of personal and political enemies. Still, however much they troubled the Athenian populace at the time, they were soon overwhelmed by the disaster at Syracuse. Because of their political use, the investigation into these events was never properly completed. Since then many suspects have been named—Corinthian agents acting for their Syracusan allies, drunken rowdies, oligarchic plotters, peaceniks, women and a host of others—but none of the charges have ever stuck. I would like to propose another, new name as the force behind the desecration of the Herms and the chaos which followed upon it: Peisander, who later helped to found the Four Hundred and then served the Spartans at Dekelaia.

The story is a complicated one and so, as Andokides said, “On the whole, I think it best to tell you the entire story from the beginning…” (And., DeMyst., 8) In 415 the Peace of Nikias was collapsing under pressure from parties within both Athens and Sparta, as well as their various allies. The Athenian war party was led by Alkibiades and he was able to stir up the people to undertake an expedition against Syracuse, with the hope of bringing all of Sicily under Athenian control and denying a source of grain to Sparta. He was named general along with his opponent and leader of the peace party Nikias, and the professional soldier Lamakhos. One night, while the expedition was preparing some group of people attacked the Herms—images of the god Hermes which stood everywhere in Athens, particularly in the porches of private homes and near temples and sanctuaries—damaging their faces and chopping off their phalluses, with very few exceptions (notably that near the home of Andokides). This was seen as a terrible omen and rewards were offered and immunity promised to anyone with information, citizen, metic or slave. (Thuc., VI.27)

Under a decree of Kleonymos a reward of 1000 drachmae was offered; when this did not produce results a second decree authored by Peisander offered 10,000. Things began to break after this. Andokides relates (DeMyst.,11) that the Assembly had met one last time to hear from the generals (it must have been at the very last minute, since he says that Lamakhos’ flagship was already lying offshore) when a man named Pythonikos (according to Andokides; Androkles, a demagogue and opponent of Alkibiades, according to Plutarch) rose to declare that Alkibiades had profaned the Mysteries by performing them in a private home. He asked them to grant immunity to a slave and non-initiate that he might prove his accusation. It was granted and the slave Andromakhos denounced ten men as having been involved: Alkibiades, Nikiades, Meletos, Arkhebiades (his master), Arkhippos, Diogenes, Polystratos, Aristomenes, Oionias, and Panaitios. All of them subsequently fled the country except Polystratos who was arrested and executed.

Alkibiades denied the charges vigorously and demanded trial immediately. He appeared to have the support of most of the army and navy destined for Sicily, as well as that of the Argive and Mantinean contingents he had persuaded to join, and so his enemies persuaded the people that the fleet should sail and Alkibiades could answer the charges later. (Thuc., VI.28) Also about this time, though perhaps immediately after the desecration, a special board of inquiry was appointed. Among its members were Peisander and Kharikles.

After the fleet sailed a metic named Teukros withdrew to Megara and informed the Boule that he had information regarding both the Mysteries and the desecration of the Herms. The Boule held “supreme powers at the time” (Andok., DeMyst., 15) and granted him immunity without consulting the Assembly first. Teukros denounced a further dozen men (including himself) in the matter of the Mysteries and eighteen in the matter of the Herms. This was followed by information from Agariste, the wife of Alkmaionides, who again named Alkibiades as a profaner of the Mysteries in another incident. Finally, the slave Lydos named several more men, including Leagros the father of Andokides. Speusippos tried to bring these men into court, but was prevented when Leagros successfully prosecuted him for making an illegal proposal (Andok., DeMyst. 17-24). Subsequently, though, most of the accused fled the country.

Chaos seems to have reigned supreme in Athens at this point. The people were terrified that there was a plot to overthrow the democracy and set up an oligarchy. Any accusation was given credence, regardless of the source. (Thuc., VI.53) People were being denounced without just cause and the raising and lowering of flags to signal meetings of the Assembly or the Council caused great consternation. At this time Peisander and Kharikles, who were members of the board of inquiry and regarded as the most fervent of democrats, began to put it about that the herm choppers were not a small group of criminals, but a cabal seeking to overthrow the democracy. (Andok., DeMyst., 36)

After this, one Diokleides came forward to say that he had seen and recognized nearly 300 men the night of the incident. He made his initial accusation at a meeting of the Council and denounced 42 men, beginning with Mantitheus and Apsephion who were Councilors and at the meeting. This prompted Peisander to move that the decree forbidding the examination of citizens under torture be suspended and that everyone named be tortured immediately so that the names of those involved could be discovered as soon as possible. (Andok., DeMyst., 43 The Council retired to meet in private and ordered the arrest and imprisonment of those named. Then they ordered the Generals to muster the people: the citizens of Athens proper were to go to the Agora, those between the Long Walls to the Theseon, the citizens of Piraeus to the agora there, the Knights to the Anakeon (northwest of the Acropolis), while the Council retired to the Acropolis and the prytanes to the Tholos. (Andok., DeMyst., 45

Ultimately, after a lengthy imprisonment, Andokides was persuaded to turn informer, by which he was able to save the lives of himself and many members of his family. He laid the blame on the shoulders of one Euphiletos. He said that Euphiletos had originally proposed the idea at a drinking party, but that he opposed it and prevented its execution. Euphiletos took advantage of Andokides’ incapacitation resulting from a fall from his horse and persuaded others that Andokides had changed his mind and would do his part by attacking the Herm at the shrine of Phorbas near his home. Andokides was able to prove that he was unable to have taken part in the attacks on the Herms and it soon came out that Diokleides was lying. Hoping to save his life, Diokleides said that he was induced to tell his lies by Alkibiades of Phegos (a different Alkibiades) and Amiantos of Aigina. These two fled for their lives and Diokleides was executed. Given a plausible explanation for the event and confronted with the treason of Alkibiades and growing problems in Sicily, the people got over their panic and the incident finally came to an end.

I think it is instructive at this point to examine the later career of Peisander. While this isn’t entirely within our modern standards of fairness and justice, it is certainly within that of the Classical Greeks; there are also one or two points which may bear on the incident of the Herms. In 412 Peisander was at Samos when Alkibiades decided he wanted to go home. Working through the leadership of the army, Alkibiades persuaded several people that he could gain Athens the friendship of Tissaphernes if only the democracy were replaced by an oligarchy. The troops at large weren’t happy with this idea, though they were pleased at the thought of getting some of the Persian gold. Despite some opposition, the leaders of the new oligarchic movement chose Peisander to lead a delegation back to Athens, where they were to negotiate the recall of Alkibiades and the eliminating the democracy. (Thuc., VIII.49)

In Athens Peisander put the proposal before the Assembly, where it was very badly received. He persuaded them otherwise by arguing that they really needed the friendship of the King and that they could change the government back again any time, once they had their alliance. Somehow he got this through and the Assembly chose him and twelve others to go and treat with Alkibiades and Tissaphernes as plenipotentiaries. Before his departure, Peisander “made contact with the clubs that already existed in Athens for mutual support in lawsuits and elections. He urged them to unite and to follow a common policy for getting rid of the democracy.”(Thuc., VIII.53-54) This sounds like the very same drinking clubs that were so strongly implicated in the desecration of the herms and profanation of the Mysteries. Peisander seems to have had quite a bit of influence with them. I don’t see how he could have acquired that influence in only a couple of years if he had truly been their strong enemy in 415. I believe that this indicates an earlier connection to those clubs and raises the possibility that Peisander may have encouraged them in some of their misdeeds.

Alkibiades was losing his influence with Tissaphernes and was forced to trick the Athenians into breaking off the talks. The delegation returned to Samos, where they strengthened their control over the army and tried to forge an alliance with the Samian oligarchic party. Peisander and his party decided to drop Alkibiades and try to further their ends on their own with their own money, while maintaining the fight against the enemy. Peisander and some of the delegates were sent back to Athens with instructions to set up oligarchies on the way. They did so, occasionally collecting troops, and most of those cities soon went over to Sparta. (Thuc., VIII.64-65) Once in Athens they discovered that Peisander’s advice to the clubs had been taken and they were removing potential enemies through assassination. Publicly they put forward the concept of the 5000. Meanwhile the Assembly and Council still met, but they seem to have been strongly under the influence of the revolutionary party. From the description in Thucydides there seems to have been a reign of terror, with those who spoke out against the revolution being killed and everyone just trying to keep a low profile. (Thuc., VIII.66)From this Peisander went on to engineer the take over of the Four Hundred. When the oligarchy fell a few months later he fled to the Spartan fortifications at Dekelaia and nothing more is heard from him.

Why, then, do I blame Peisander for the desecration of the Herms and, most especially, for the chaos that came after? I believe that it ,was an attempt at a coup, possibly an oligarchic one, which would have put Peisander at the head of the entire city. To begin with, why was the Assembly meeting with the generals just as they were supposed to be leaving for Sicily? If Lamakhos’ flagship was really already lying offshore, this meeting would seem to have been called quickly and at short notice. I suggest that its real purpose was the denunciation of Alkibiades by Pythonikos, in an effort to remove him from the public stage. Had Alkibiades not had the tremendous support of the army and the allies it might have worked better than it did. As it was it only confused the command and left it in the hands of a man not prepared to fight.

Peisander was at this time considered an ardent democrat, but in a few short years he would be exposed as an oligarch of the worst stripe, who engineered the coup of the Four Hundred. It was he who perpetuated the story that the desecration was the work of organized plotters seeking to overthrow the democracy. When Diokleides came to the Council to make his accusations, Peisander acted with swift resolve, almost as if he were ready for the denunciation of two of his fellow Councilors. The Council had already been vested with what Andokides calls “supreme power”, apparently meaning they could take actions without putting things to a vote of the Assembly first. His first act was to have Athenian citizens imprisoned and subjected to torture, quite in violation of the ideals, not only of the democracy, but of the whole of Athens from the time the tyrants were finally expelled. With the denunciation and flight of Mantitheus and Amiantos, Peisander seems to have assumed control of the meeting of the Council. Suddenly the citizens were under arms and being ordered about. It seems an ideal situation for one man or a group of men to take command of the city for themselves. He doesn’t seem to have been able to take complete advantage of the situation, though. The democracy held firm, though it was about this time that a body of older men was appointed to give their advice to the Council. A move which Aristotle identified as being oligarchic. I believe that this was his first roll of the dice at seizing power of his own. He didn’t win, but he played well enough to try again, and that time he managed, albeit temporarily, to succeed.