In the beginning of the Oration of Andokides (De Mysteriis), Pythonikus gives information of a mock celebration of the mysteries, committed by Alkibiades and others; citing as his witness the slave Andromachus; who is accordingly produced, and states to the assembly _vivâ voce_ what he had seen and who were the persons present—Πρῶτος μὲν οὗτος (Andromachus) ταῦτα εμήνυσε, καὶ ~ἀπέγραψε τούτους~ (s. 13). It is not here meant to affirm that the slave Andromachus wrote down the names of these persons, which he had the moment before publicly announced to the assembly. It is by the words ἀπέγραψε τούτους that the orator describes the public oral announcement made by Andromachus, which was formally taken note of by a secretary, and which led to legal consequences against the persons whose names were given in. So again, in the old law quoted by Demosthenes (adv. Makast. p. 1068), Ἀπογραφέτω δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα; and in Demosthenes adv. Nikostrat. p. 1247. Ἃ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τῷ ἰδιώτῃ τῷ ἀπογράφαντι γίγνεται, τῇ πόλει ἀφίημι: compare also Lysias, De Bonis Aristophanis, Or. xix, s. 53; it is not meant to affirm that ὁ ἀπογράφων was required to perform his process in writing, or was necessarily able to write. A citizen who could not write might do this, as well as one who could. He _informed against_ a certain person as delinquent; he _informed of_ certain articles of property, as belonging to the estate of one whose property had been confiscated to the city. The information, as well as the name of the informer, was taken down by the official person,—whether the informer could himself write or not. It appears to me that Kinadon, having been interrogated, _told_ to the guards who first seized him, the names of his accomplices,—just as he _told_ these names afterwards to the ephors (καὶ τοῦς ξυνειδότας ~ἔλεγε~); and this, whether he was, or was not, able to write; a point, which the passage of Xenophon noway determines. [464] Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 3, 11.