IG the Eleusinia, And the Eleusinians

8/12/2019 IG the Eleusinia, And the Eleusinians

1/13

IG I25, the Eleusinia, and the Eleusinians

Author(s): Kevin ClintonSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 100, No. 1, Tekmhpion. A Special Issue inHonor of James Henry Oliver (Spring, 1979), pp. 1-12Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/294221.

Accessed: 10/10/2013 08:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 83.212.248.199 on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:29:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/294221?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/294221?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/13

IG 12 5, THE ELEUSINIA,AND THE ELEUSINIANSJ. H. Oliver's publication of the Law Code of Nicomachusin Hesperia 4 (1935) was an important event for students ofAthenian religion. It represented a major addition to the pre-viously known fragments and a major advance in our under-standing of the whole document. In addition, it provided a firmbasis for further discussion and discovery during the past fourdecades. On this occasion it is a pleasure to continue the dis-

cussion, in the course of an examination of one of the earliestdecrees found at Eleusis, which contains regulations that arerather similar to some in the Code of Nicomachus.IG 12 5, inscribed around 480-470, presents a list of sacri-fices. They have long been associated with the Eleusinia, anagonistic festival held at Eleusis, which was distinct of coursefrom the famous Eleusinian Mysteries (ra Mvuri'Qta). Theinscription is actually a resume of a decree.' It states (1) theprescript ([E'6oXuE]vrT.), (2) the type of sacrifice to be offered([c. ]AEta0[iE]v), (3) the officials who are to perform thesacrifices (ro0 htEq.7orqto. 'EEvtvtov xat [r .. Ca. 13.]), (4)the place of sacrifice ([E]v [T6t 'E]Etvuti'[(ot]), (5) the gods andtheir victims, and finally (6) the time of year (EvT ttoQ[TEt]).I was able to make the following text from inspection of thestone .3

I The most thorough treatment of the inscription is H. von Prott's article,"Ein IEPOZ NOMOZ der Eleusinien," AthMitt 24 (1899) 241-66. The stone,according to Prott, served as the base of a sacrificial table or altar. The datecan only be determined roughly, from the style of the letters.2 The above quotations from the decree omit the interpuncts.3 My text differs from IG 12 5 most conspicuously in regard to subscriptdots. A dot under an omicron or theta here indicates that the central part ofthe letter is missing or damaged; the reason for the other dots can be seenfrom a glance at Prott's drawing (loc. cit.). In line 1 the second epsilon ofthe first word cannot be read, but the lower part of the tau of h6oTcs visible.

The lowest dot of the interpunct at the end of line 3 is visible. In line 2there is a rather large gap, at least 0.023 m., at the lower level of the linebetween xxaxand the next letter; considering the size of the gap, the followingletter seems most likely to be tau; a gap of approximately the same sizeexists between the xxa[and following tau in line 1. The vacant spaces markedAJP 100 (1979) 1-120002-9475/79/1001-0001 $01 .00 ? 1979 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

2 KEVIN CLINTON[MoXaxE]v [ * TElPo)El] xai [T]6i NqOt * h6CrE7HaOat3dr[E; iyOauudEtEt]v[Jr7oToE-la * 0[PfE]v * TrO hlEtO7ol6; * 'E)Etnatviov * xai [r ca. 13 *EVt[Tl6 'E)]El'vlv[iot . hEha7u 'Evayov(ot * X4itutv . a[ya .[ ca. 15. ]ov[1JoElCt6]6vt [xt6v]V . AQTE8uA * atya * : TOAi[ot *xt6v]o[HMotTPo]vt * [oAi]XtOl * obl * TtiTToav' .P/aXov * ElVTEl *oO[Trh. vacat]

Prott identified the E'OQ[TE] as the Eleusinia, because of thepresence of the iteQ0rotol 'E2Evatvtvwv nd the fact that someof the gods, especially Hermes Enagonius and Telesidromus,are the sort that would be most at home in an agonistic festi-val. His identification of the festival has been accepted by allsubsequent editors and commentators.4 However, the place ofsacrifice, the Eleusinion, i.e. either the sanctuary of Demeterand Kore at Eleusis or, more probably, the Telesterion itself,is an obstacle to Prott's identification, for it was the place inwhich the Mysteria were held. We do not know preciselywhere the Eleusinia were held, but their contests certainly didnot take place within this sanctuary," and it seems logical toexpect sacrifices at the Eleusinia to have been in close prox-imity to the contests. But there is a consideration that is evenmore important: we have no positive evidence that any festivalbut the Mysteria was celebrated within the sanctuary, intowhich only initiates of the Mysteria were admitted.7 So, if wesuppose that the sacrifices of IG 12 5 were held at the time ofthe Eleusinia, we have to imagine that only the sacrificers andperhaps those who happened to have already been initiated(at least several months earlier) entered the sanctuary to at-at the ends of lines 1-2, 4-5, indicate the relation of the ends of these linesto the end of line 3. A full epigraphical commentary and critical apparatuswill appear in the edition of all the Eleusinian inscriptions that I am preparingfor the Greek Archaeological Society. I am grateful to them and the Archaeo-logical Service for allowing me to study this inscription at Eleusis.

4The most recent discussions are my own (AJP 92 [1971] 497-98, reviewingSokolowskis LSCG) and R. M. Simms' ("The Eleusinia in the Sixth to FourthCenturies B.C.,' GRBS 16 [1975] 269-79). After Prott the inscription wasedited by: L. Ziehen, LGS II, 2; Hiller von Gaertringen, IG 12 5, and F.Sokolowski, LSCG 4 (cf. criticism in my review, loc. cit.).5Cf. 0. Rubensohn, 'Das Weihehaus von Eleusis und sein Allerheiligstes,"JdI 70 (1955) 1-49."The location of the Stadium at Eleusis is discussed by J. Travlos, Hesper-ia18 (1949) 146.7Cf. G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusiniani Mysteries (Princeton 1961)224-29.



4/13

THE ELEUSINIA AND THE ELEUSINIANS 3tend the sacrifices: the uninitiated would be excluded. Thiswould be an awkward arrangement for a Panhellenic festival.Another difficulty is that the main part of the inscription wasfound within the sanctuary.8 Therefore, the most natural in-terpretation of Ev Ttt ioQ[TEt], which must have been soobvious to a reader that the festival did not need to be named,is that it refers simply to the only festival that was held rightthere, viz. the Mysteria.9 Then the awkwardness involved insupposing the festival to be the Eleusinia disappears.

The fact remains, however, that the most natural environ-ment for Hermes Enagonius, Telesidromus, and Dolichuswould be the agonistic festival, the Eleusinia. Yet there is nocompelling reason why sacrifice to some (or all) of the godsof the Eleusinia could not be made at the Mysteria. The festi-vals were related. 10The sacrifices of IG 12 5 were carried outby the tEQorotot 'E),vutvt[Ov (who are probably not to beunderstood as the hieropoioi of the Eleusinia but as the hiero-8 Pittakys, 'Ep. 'AQX. 1860, no. 3798; L. Lenormant, Recherches archheo-logiques d Eleusis (Paris 1862) 70-71; von Prott, op. cit., 242. The stone wasfound between the lesser Propylaea and the Telesterion, at a deep level.I For this reason I tend to prefer the restoration [F]v [rti 'E)]jvatv[[otF]tt to Rubensohn's [f]v [rtt 'E)]jvaiv[t av']tt (op. cit., 9, n. 42), unlessthe courtyard is the one inside the sanctuary, in front of the Telesterion. How-ever, it is by no means impossible, though a bit unlikely, that the stone'soriginal location was the outer courtyard, and that it was later moved withinthe area of the sanctuary. If this was the case and Rubensohn's restorationis correct, then the sacrifices were performed in the outer courtyard. Thiswould eliminate some of the awkwardness I have objected to if we have toassume the festival was the Eleusinia, but not all, for the outer courtyardwas the courtyard of the sanctuary of the Mysteries. If the phrase "in the[courtyard at El]eusi[s]" was meant to designate this courtyard, it had to do soby relying mainly on the inscription's location (the words themselves do notspecify which courtyard and which sanctuary at Eleusis); by the same token"in the festival" should refer to the obvious festival held right where theinscription was set up: the Mysteria. The title [CQon7o1oi 'E),cvatv[cov does notoffer a sure indication of the festival (see below, n. 11).On Ge and the Eleusinia see R. F. Healey, HThR (1964) 153-59 especiallynote 19."'Both were chiefly in honor of Demeter and Persephone: the Eleusiniawere a harvest festival in some sense; the Mysteria occurred at the time ofsowing. In the Hellenistic period these two festivals and the Panathenaea wereannounced together by theoroi sent abroad by Athens; cf. 'ET. 'AQX.1914,167-72 (=B. Helly, Gonnoi, II [Amsterdam 1973] 121-22, no. 109). Thus itwould not be surprising to see Athena honored in both Eleusinian festivals.



5/13

4 KEVIN CLINTONpoioi of the Eleusinians) and perhaps another official or groupof officials named in the lacuna.1I It is in fact conceivablethat all the deities listed in IG 12 5 were associated with theEleusinia, although there is no direct evidence to confirmthis. 12 Some of them were also associated with the Mysteria:certainly Triptolemus, Pluto, and the Two Goddesses were. 13

'Unless the rest of the title of the [c-Qo:rotoi E)Evatviov xai [---] followedin the lacuna. Theoretically Lc?Qotooi 'E)A,vatv[wvv might mean hieropoioi ofthe Eleusinia, but actual usage offers no support. I have not been able to finda parallel for the phrase t'o:roto + genitive of the festival. The regularexpression, if the festival is mentioned, is U?eQoao1oi + participle of ti?oaot,l?v(or a similar verb) + accusative of the festival: cf. IG 112 1749, line 80. Thus itappears unlikely that the title in IG 12 5 means hieropoioi of the Eleusinia.A century ago L. Ziehen, RhM 51 (1896) 224, called such a meaning"auffallend";A. Mommsen, Heortologie (Leipzig 1864) 257, had already understood thephrase to mean hieropoioi of the Eleusinians, and he associated the sacrificeswith the Mysteria, but then he did not distinguish between the Mysteria andthe Eleusinia and so did not realize that there was a problem; later, Festede Stadt Athen (Leipzig 1898) 183, he evidently associated the sacrifices withthe Eleusinia. Hieropoioi can also be designated with the name of the sanc-tuary; cf. [CQO:TOLOt tTro WqH/3g 'E6Ov, IG 1121199. A noun in the genitivefollowing i?eQonrotol designates the gods whom they serve or the group fromwhich they are drawn; cf. [{rv i90OlTOOVTv 5 /OovAf xai TOVo16JOV, IG12 330, lines 13-14 (for the restoration, which is probable, cf. lines 6-7 and33-34, and see U. Kohler, AthMitt 7 [1882] 102-8 andIG II 5, 128 b); [l?otoloi?y /OVA)g, IG 1121672, lines 280, 284, 289, is a similar designation; at Prienethere were tEQorotoi r[cifblvpvA[cv], Inschriftei von Priene, 14, line 25.2These deities are discussed by R. F. Healey, S.J., in his unpublisheddissertation 'Eleusinian Sacrifices in the Athenian Law Code" (Harvard1962), with summary in HSCP 66 (1962) 256-59. I am very grateful to Fr.Healey for sending me a copy of his dissertation.It is perhaps better to take a[oAi],vq as an epithet of Pluto, as Prott did(op. cit. [above, n. 1] 252), meaning 'long-lasting'" or "'thegod of the LongCourse"; the hero Dolichus would have been created from this epithet ofPluto. Ziehen, LGS II 2, however, although he found the idea attractive,finally could not adopt it.3There was a shrine of Pluto within the sanctuary; cf. Mylonas, op. cit.(above, n. 7) 146-49. And Pluto had a priestess; cf. my Sacred Officials ofthe Eleusinian Mysteries, Tr-ansAmer-PhilSocN.S., 64, Pt. 3 (1974) 97.R. M. Simms, "The Eleusinia in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries B.C.,"'GRBS 16 (1975) 274, is wrong in suggesting that the myth of Triptolemusdoes not belong with the Mysteria. The speech of the daduch Callias to theLacedaemonians clearly indicates Triptolemus' connection with this festival:

.. ,-y,rat uv Tht TOr6euo O' uT?0og :7eoyovog Ta A?IU,QOg xal K6OWNaQ99}Ta 1C9-&:T9WTot; t?Votg 6iat 'H9ax)El T? TO) V/TETC9W X ? XAl

atoo0xofQotv TOlV V/MeTE9O(V .wO)iTatv, xai TOIs A?yiUoiT9O; & xaaQoT ?l5



6/13

THE ELEUSINIA AND THE ELEUSINIANS 5The sacrifices and deities in this inscription occur again,

according to F. Sokolowskil4 and R. F. Healey, 15 in the Codeof Nicomachus at the end of the fifth century (ed. J. H. Oliver,Hesperia, 4 [1935] 1-32 = LSS, 10, lines 77-86 and following),along with additional deities and sacrifices. The immediatelypreceding sacrifices in this part of the Code were carried outby the Eumolpidae and the priestess of Demeter (lines 60-76);16 these sacrifices were to: Themis, Zeus Herkeios, Dem-eter, Persephone (Pherephatta), Eumolpus, Melichus thehero, Archegetes, Polyxenus, Threptus, Diocles, Celeus. Itis very curious that Demeter and Persephone are listed sepa-rately and not as a pair. At Eleusis they were called Demeterand Kore or simply the Two Goddesses. As far as I know, thename Persephone does not occur in any prose inscription atEleusis. Another curious fact is that this list does not containthe name of any other deity whom one would immediatelyassociate with an agonistic festival like the Eleusinia.'7 Since:rQ6iwqvv)v I7)-orovvcraov acudQua wQeraaaOat (Xenophon, Hellenica 6.3.6).Triptolemus gave to the Peloponnesians what Demeter gave to the Athenians:grain and the Mysteries. The two gifts are indeed related. Isocrates callsthem 6coe&ag 61TTs6 . . . TOV5r xaQerovi . . . xai T7v T&iET6v . (Panegyricus4.28). They belong together, and Triptolemus distributed both to the rest ofthe Greek world. But he was probably associated with the Eleusinia as well."4Loissacrees des Cites grecques, Supplement (Paris 1962) no. 10. Unlessotherwise indicated, the text referred to and quoted here is the one publishedby Sokolowski.

I5In his dissertation, op. cit. (above, n. 12) 197-202, 318-20. He assumesthat IG 12 5 is a copy of one of the stelai referred to in the rubric Ex TJibvaTr[?7Awv]n line 77.

16 See Clinton, op. cit. (above, n. 13) 70.'" Demeter, of course, was associated with the Eleusinia, as well as withmany other festivals. Healey, op. cit., 117-20, identifies Threptus with Demo-phon, Demeter's nursling of the Homeric Hymn, and sees lines 265-67 ofthe Hymn, which describe a contest among the aaiT6c 'E)cvwtviw'(v n hishonor, as an aition of the Eleusinia. But there is nothing to indicate that thecontest described in the Hymn was the Eleusinia. If these lines are an aitionof a festival, it is more likely that it was the festival called Ba)itiTrV6(Hesychius, s.v., Athenaeus 9.406d). Hesychius reports that the Balletys wasin honor of Demophon, and in Athenaeus' time it was a separate festivalfrom the Eleusinia. Cf. L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 69 and N. J.Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford 1974) 245-47. J. H.Oliver, Hesperia 4 (1935) 26, and A. Korte, Glotta 25 (1937) 134-40, identifiedThreptus as Triptolemus: their view obviously cannot be taken as certain butit does seem more plausible than an identification with Demophon.



7/13

6 KEVIN CLINTONsome of them can be identified as the ancestral gods of theEumolpidae, the easiest hypothesis would be that they allare. 18 If that is so, then we should seriously consider whetherthe following group of sacrifices might be to the ancestral godsof the other "Eleusinian" genos, the Kerykes. The code tells usthat these sacrifices were to: Hestia, Athena, Charites, HermesEn[agonius], (H)e.[mes?--], Her[acles?], D[----], and one ormore deities that are not preserved. 19 A decree of the year20/19, honoring the daduch Themistocles, contains the namesof several priests who were members of this genos.20 Theyprobably represent all the priesthoods that were then con-trolled by the Kerykes.21 In addition to specifically Eleusinianpriesthoods this list includes: (1) the priest of the Graces andArtemis Epipyrgidia, (2) the priest of Hermes Patroos, and(3) the priest of Zeus Horius and Athena Horia and PoseidonProsbaterius and Poseidon Themeliuchus. It is clear, then, thatthe Kerykes have a special relationship with certain cults ofthe Charites, Artemis, Hermes, Poseidon, Athena, and Zeus.Athena, the Charites, and Hermes are listed in that order inthe section of the Law Code we have been discussing (lines80-83), and all but Zeus appear also in IG 12 5 (if Athena isrestored).22 Although the absence of several of the epithetsdoes not permit certainty, sacrifices in this particular sectionof the Law Code have at least a strong claim to considerationas sacrifices of the genos of the Kerykes, parallelling the sacri-fices of the Eumolpidae immediately preceding. Both sets ofsacrifices were most likely made at the Eleusinia or at thetime of the Eleusinia.23 They seem to be the sacrifices of thetwo gene which had a principal role in this festival, but were

In line 66 the correct reading is Mc%xwt; see Healey, op. cit., 130, and F.Graf, ZPE 14 (1974) 139-44.'8This is also the view of Healey, op. cit., 72-191.19For the readings ' line 82, and H4.[axAieT,ine 85, see Healey'sdissertation, op. cit. (above, n. 12) 257, 262.201. Threpsiades, 'Ecvoutvtaxa 1 (1932) 223-36 = Clinton, op. cit. (above,n. 13) 50-52.21 Ibid., 77, n. 8.22 Athena is restored by Healey, op. cit., 230, and Mylonas, 'AeX. 'Ep.,1960, 80, but the space seems a bit too large for her name.23 The festival at which they were made was trieteric; cf. Korte, op. cit.(above, n. 17) 136; Healey, op. cit., 7-9.



8/13

THE ELEUSINIA AND THE ELEUSINIANS 7probably not the main sacrifices of the festival itself: thename 0epraTCrij militates against this.We have seen that the sacrifices of IG 12 5 were carriedout at the Mysteria, but some of the deities to whom they wereoffered must have figured more prominently in the Eleusinia,especially Hermes Enagonius, Telesidromus, and D[oli]chus.We have also seen that some of the deities in this inscriptionwere served by the Kerykes: Hermes, the Charites, [Athena],[Poseid]on and Artemis, although epithets are lacking in somecases. Moreover, it is conceivable that Telesidromus andDolichus appeared in the now missing section of the list of[Kerykes'] sacrifices in the Law Code of Nicomachus.24 Allbut one of the remaining deities in IG 12 5 have been equatedwith Eumolpid deities listed in the Law Code: Triptolemuswith Threptus, [Pluto]n with Polyxenus, and of course theTwo Goddesses with Demeter and PherrephattE.25The othergoddess, Ge, may be equated either with Themis or Hestiawho appear respectively at the heads of the lists of deities inthe Law Code; in antiquity Themis and Hestia were regardedas manifestations of GE.26 On this hypothesis, therefore,the deities of IG 12 5 represent principal deities of the Eleusiniawho all happen to be identifiable with deities served by thetwo principal gene of the Eleusinia and Mysteria. Some ofthese gods-Triptolemus, Pluto, and the Two Goddesses-were also worshipped in the Mysteria, and it must have seemedappropriate to honor in the Mysteria the companions whomthese gods of the Mysteria had in the other principal festivalat Eleusis. So IG 12 5 regulates the set of sacrifices at the

24Dolichus may be an epithet of Pluto; see above, n. 12.25 On Threptus and Triptolemus see above, n. 17; on Polyxenus and Pluto,Richardson, op. cit., ad line 153, Healey, op. cit. (above, n. 12) 145-48. Itis curious that Poseidon does not appear among the Eumolpid deities listedin the Code. He was the divine ancestor of the genos (Pausanias 1.38.2;

Aristeides, Eleusinios 4; Euripides, Erechtheus, ed. Austin [Nova FragmentaEuripidea (Berlin 1968)]; cf. J. Toepffer, Attische Genealogie [Berlin 1899]28). It is conceivable that he is to be identified with 'Ae%qy&gqgline 67)-heseems well qualified for the title-or that he appeared ahead of Themis. Forother theories on the identity of 'AeX17y-Ti5 see J. H. Oliver, op. cit., 27,whose identification with Iacchus has been generally accepted, Healey, op.cit., 142-44, and F. Graf, Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens invorhellenistischer Zeit (Berlin 1974) 54 n. 17.26Cf. Healey, op. cit. 75-79, 219-24.



9/13

8 KEVIN CLINTONMysteria to Triptolemus, Pluto, the Two Goddesses, and theircompanion deities at the Eleusinia.27What also suggests that the sacrifices of IG 12 5 are not themain ones of the Mysteria is the fact that they are not offeredby the most important priests of the cult, namely the hiero-phant and the priestess of Demeter and Kore; one misses alsothe ite'etv FartBw1t,. It is possible that [Trv htieQav] stoodin the lacuna in line 2, but still we would expect the hierophantin addition to her for major sacrifices, and perhaps also thealtar-priest.28 Another possibility, more in accord with myanalysis, is [rai yFve Trolv 06oiv], but still, if it were a questionof the major sacrifices, we should expect only the major priests,not the larger groups, the gene. So [n7or1]Xlta remainsappealing, despite the unusual spelling.29The officials who do perform the sacrifice are the iteonro0oi'EXevatv[tv: not the hieropoioi of the Eleusinia, which isan unparalleled expression at Athens, but the hieropoioi ofthe Eleusinians,3" who seem to be an earlier version of the[e,oQo.oi Et evuiv66ev (IG 12 76 = Meiggs-Lewis, 73) or[e-ono0oi 'EXevalvt (IG J2 311), of the late fifth century. Thetitle in IG 12 5 may reflect the fact that the Eleusinians oncehad an important role in the Eleusinia and the Mysteria. Even-tually, however, they gave way to the two gene and the

27 But they were not the main sacrifices; see below and the following note.The main sacrifice was called ,Z Ova(ta(IG I12661, lines 21-22) and included/of3;; cf. IG 112 1008, lines 8-9, 1028, lines 10-11, P. Foucart, Les Mysteresd'Eleusis (Paris 1914) 371-74.

28 Cf. Clinton, op. cit. (above, n. 13) 82.2 i Simms, op. cit. (above, n. 13) 272, suggests [,7rQoT6OVa or [axQ6V]Aea.The -?l- here is not a spurious dipthong, but the fact remains that in Athenianinscriptions, according to Meisterhans-Schwyzer, 43, n. 275, the spelling

TC'r)lO; does not occur before the second century. However, evidence in thecase of -r?'?lo; may simply be incomplete; genuine -?l- appears both as -?l-and -?- in the fifth century and later; see ibid., 40-41. Yet, against this is thefact that the spelling of i1A?loS is remarkably consistent in the preservedtexts.For a discussion of the meaning of reor6)?ua see Healey, op. cit. (above,n. 12) 320-22. Themistius, Or. 5.71A, an important passage to which Healeycalls attention, uses the word to mean "preliminary ceremonies" of theMysteria which took place before the telete, which in turn took place inthe anaktora; but the context in IG 125 limits the meaning there to sacrificesalone.1"See above, n. 11.



10/13

THE ELEUSINIA AND THE ELEUSINIANS 9AthenianState.31Perhaps even at this date the title indicatedthat the hieropoioi were appointedby or drawnfrom the Eleu-sinians, but surely later in the century they were appointedby the State, probablythe Boule.32The duties of the late fifthcentury teEonroto' 'E)Evatv6OEv included some limited ad-ministrative and sacrificial activities at the Mysteria, i.e.mainly activities in which the State had an interest andwhich it did not wish to be handled by the gene, e.g. theAparch.33 The Eleusinians, however, maintained somekind of a role, perhapsnot an official one, in the Eleusinia,whereas they seem to have been completely excluded fromthe Mysteria. In a decree of the third century honoringa gen-eral we learn: ytvouEvrg; R xat' Tvg ;ravi7[yi5QE]wo T(6v'EAEva[t]vi` [v] TCjuUEya(0v E'v OE gTEatv oT EaTQaTfjy?7XEv,gOvaEv TaTg OEag uET&aT(Jv Et- 'ETEvaivog rcEt T[f] r ToV&7jjov atT7etaa.34 No such sacrifice or the group oe E`t'EAEvaTvogs mentioned n connection with the festival of theMysteria in the following sentence of this decree.Appendix: The Trieteric and Penteteric Festival

IG 112 1672offers importantevidence for the trieteric andpenteteric celebrationsof the Eleusinia. It is an account ofthe year 329/8, compiled by the En;rtarTat 'EAEvatvv0Ev xa'Tautat Toiv OEoiv. This was the last year of their four-yearterm of office. Afterlisting income and expenses for the sanc-tuaryprytany by prytany, and afterpresentinga total for theyear, they go on to account for the rent of the RarianFieldover the whole four-year period. Out of this rent, measuredin grain,they gave 61 bushels each year to "priests andpriest-esses."35 Then follow the words: Ei` Ti)VTetET7eiba T76v'EEvctv[vOv Ei`gTOvyvyvtxov dyJva xat T[ t[7ru7roQouag]

31Cf. Clinton, op. cit. (above, n. 13) 8.32Just as were the zuararat 'E,evorvo0ev, SEG X, 24, lines 7-12.33Cf. my discussion in op. cit. (above, n. 13) 14-15.34IG 112 1304, lines 24-27.3 Simms, op. cit. (above, n. 13) 269, n. 3, believes these allocations ofgrain were used by the priests and priestesses for sacral purposes at theEleusinia. But there is nothing to indicate that this was the case. No purposeis stated in the inscription, and the simplest hypothesis is that the grain wasfor personal use. For monetary distributions of this type at Eleusis cf.Clinton, op. cit., 23.



11/13

10 KEVIN CLINTONxat TroV -rarQtov ayJovo; xat Trig yovux7g y5t&yvot 70 Et;Tr?7VrEVrEcri7Qa r[Jv 'E)]E[vatviwv], then the same series ofcontests, [the number of bushels], plus, for a horse race addedaccording to decree, 70 bushels. Finally, there is the total of(1) the grain allocated to "priests and priestess" and (2) thegrain used Ei` nvrQtEcnyeia rdv 'EAEvatviv xat (3) Eigm\V7rcEvrEcrh7a.36 This clearly states that there was one celebra-tion called i) rQtEri7tg and one ? 7EvrEri7[g during the pre-ceding four years. If there had been more than one trietericcelebration, the document surely would have the plural,Etr -a; TQtepQ8iag. Some scholars, even so, have assumedthat Ecg n\v TrQETcuQia refers to two celebrations, two yearsapart.37 If the clear language of the inscription leaves anydoubt, surely it vanishes when one considers the method ofaccounting used throughout. Nowhere in the account are ex-penditures for two separate years lumped together without in-forming the reader. We should therefore not expect thisprinciple to be violated in the present instance. Thus two,not three, celebrations over this four-year period are referredto here. The conclusion we must draw is that ,' teriQig wasevidently so named because there was an interval of two yearsbetween it and the more glamorous one, i7 nrvrcr,etg, whichoccurred every four years.Another question that has touched off a considerable amountof argument is in which years of the Olympiad these celebra-

36Lines 258-62. There is no conjunction separating [ixeaeii] Xai lEQeeaglfrom -i' ri6v T9Q1elTQ6a xr


12/13

THE ELEUSINIA AND THE ELEUSINIANS 11tions were held. The surest approachto an answer is to con-sider which years are attested for trieteric and which forpenteteric festivals. The inscriptions are conveniently listedby R. M. Simms.38However, thereis only one inscription hatprovides the informationwe need: IG 112 1304.39It mentionsthree years in which the Greater Eleusinia took place. Lines24-27,quoted above, state that the generalDemaenetus, whomthis decree honors, sacrificed at the GreaterEleusiniain theyears when he served as general. These years appearto be219/8 (archonship of Chaerophon), 215/4 (archonship ofDiocles), 211/0 (archonship of Aeschron). I say "appear"because the language is a bit imprecise. Lines 12-14 read:XECoToV[?]0EiS as arQaTiyo'g Eb ri)v Xweav riv E7r'E[AE]vaTvogro ,Ev [zQrov E.7i X]atQEqpjvrog a6eXovrogxaA6t xa[i a&i]Sw av'roi5 q[?7yayEv] frfv [adQXiv xrA. Onecould easily translate:"Elected general of the Eleusinianre-gion for the first time in the year of the archon Chaerephon,he carriedout his office nobly, in a mannerworthy of himself,etc." The year of his election, accordingly,would be 219/8;the year of his service, 218/7. But the comma can be movedso as to translate, "Elected general ... for the first time, inthe year of the archon Chaerephonhe carried out his of-fice...." The expression is imprecise but a reading of thefollowinglines (18-24) convinces me that the latter translationmakesbetter sense. The pentetericfestival took place, there-fore, in the second year of the Olympiad.For the trieteric theonly useful information is that of IG 112 1672: the trieteric

38 op. cit. (above, n. 13) 269, n. 2. In addition, IG II2 847 is evidence for acelebration in the second year of the Olympiad, apparently a major celebra-tion; cf. van der Loef, op. cit., 6-9.39 Van der Loeff in his treatise, op. cit., which is the fullest treatment of thedate of the Eleusinia, did not realize the significance of IG II2 1304, partly, Isuppose, because the archons had not been precisely dated by the time hewrote. W. Kolbe, loc. cit., was evidently the first to realize, from IG II2 1304,that the penteteric festival was held in the second year of the Olympiad. Hethen assigned the trieteric to the fourth year, though some of his reasoningin support of this, namely that the celebration mentioned in IG II2 1028, line16, occurred in the year of Echecrates = 101/100, was wrong; but the year ofMedeius, in which it did occur (see below, n. 40), has since been redatedto 101/100.



13/13

12 KEVIN CLINTONtook place once in each Olympiad,therefore in the fourthyear. 40Weknowalso that theEleusiniatook place in the year332/1,the first year of the Olympiad.4' n the Hellenisticperiodthefestival was held also in the third year.42 t stands to reason,then, thatthis harvestfestival also took place in the thirdyearof the Olympiad n the fourthcentury andearlier;celebrationsin the first and third years may have been called ra 'EAEvat[vtara xa-r Evtavrov, like similar festivals of the Panathenaea.43

KEVIN CLINTONCORNELL UNIVERSITY

40 A celebration is attested for the fourth year in IG II2 1028, line 16, keepingin mind that the ephebic year started in Boedromion of 102/1 and ended atthe end of Metageitnion of 101/100.41IG II2 1496, line 130.421IGII2 2336, lines 202-3 = S. Dow, HSCP 51 (1940) 122, lines 208-9.43IG 12 334 (=LSCG, 33) line 32. For the Eleusinia as a harvest festivalsee Schol. Pindar, 01. 9.150. Annual celebration is appropriate for a harvestfestival. We can infer from IG II2 1672 that there were no contests in the xar'

EvtavTOrvcelebrations.

IG the Eleusinia, And the Eleusinians

Documents

Transcript of IG the Eleusinia, And the Eleusinians