The Sacred Officials of The Eleusinian Mysteries

The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries
Author(s): Kevin Clinton

Source: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 64, No. 3 (1974), pp. 1-143
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1006226
Accessed: 01-06-2015 05:44 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1006226?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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 support@jstor.org.
American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 05:44:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRANSAC TIONS
OF THE
SOCIETY
PHILOSOPHICAL
AMERICAN
HELD AT PHILADELPHIA
FOR PROMOTING USEFUL KNOWLEDGE
NEW SERIES-VOLUME 64, PART 3

1974
THE SACRED OFFICIALS OF THE

ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES
KEVIN CLINTON
Departmentof Classics, CornellUniversity
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

INDEPENDENCE SQUARE
P HILADELPHIA
June,1974
In memoryof
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS
Copyright
?n 1974 by The AmericanPhilosophicalSociety
Libraryof CongressCatalog
Card Number73-79573
International
StandardBook Number0}87169-643-6
PREFACE
The presentstudy developed in the course of pre- known epigraphicaland literarytestimonia; Foucart
paringa collection,whichhas long been needed,of all did a generalstudy of the priesthoods,but in regard
the epigraphicalevidence relatingto the sanctuaryof to individualpriestslimitedhimselfto certainperiods.
Demeter and Kore at Eleusis. As I started editing Since theirstudies, informationhas increasedas new
texts and writing commentaries,however, it soon inscriptionshave been discoveredin the course of ex-
became clear that many problemsconnectedwith the cavationsat Eleusis and in theAthenianAgora (where
priesthoodscould be treated more convenientlyin a the Eleusinion has been partially excavated), and
separate studythan in the commentarieson individual much that is new has been gained throughre-studyof
inscriptions. The properscope of the separate study inscriptionsknownto Toepiferand Foucart,especially
naturally appeared to be all Eleusinian priesthoods with the publication of the Attic inscriptionsin the
and sacred offices. Since some problemsrelatingto second edition of InscriptionesGraecae. In addition,
the priesthoods,such as the chronologyof individual some resultsof myown studyand inspection(in 1967-
incumbents,requireda fairlyclose examinationof the 1970) of all the inscriptionsnow located at Eleusis as
individuals, it seemed desirable to build the entire well as many now in Athens have been incorporated
studyaroundsuch an examination. This held out the here. Advantagehas also been takenofthediscovery
furtheradvantage of allowingdocumentsconcerning within the past seventy years of vase-paintingsand
an individual incumbentto be treated as part of an sculptures depicting (or allegedly depicting) sacred
examination of all informationabout him, and the officials of the 1\Iysteries.Previously, inferences
opportunityof discussingall informationabout him about the officials'appearance have usually been
with a view to making every possible inferencecon- derived fromnon-Atticworks of art, with the ever
cerninghis priesthoodand cult. present danger that these might refer not to the
Thus the scheme I have adopted is a prosopo- M\lysteriesat Eleusis but to other :\Iysterycults of
graphical account, in chronologicalorder, of all the the Greco-Romanworld;1 and at least one new Attic
knownincumbentsof each priesthood,withan empha- monumentreveals that this has indeed been the case.
sis on certain aspects: qualificationsfora priesthood Because of this difficultyand because of the great
(or sacred office),manner of selection,length of in- numberof these non-Atticworks of art,2a study of
cumbency,officialfunctionsand duties, rank or im- themcannot be made here,but it is hoped that results
portance relative to other priesthoods (or sacred ofthepresenttreatmentoftheAtticmaterialwillserve
offices)in the cult, social position, participationin as a basis formoreaccurate interpretation of the non-
civic life and in other festivalsor cults, and religious Attic works.
dress. The evidence (literary, epigraphical, and In keepingwith the primarilyepigraphicaloriginof
archaeological) not connectedwith specificpriestsor thisstudy,I have attemptedto mentionall epigraphi-
priestesses has been interspersed chronologically cal references,includingthe insignificant,
to thepriest-
among them (with dates as headings); but thereare hoods and theirincumbents,but I have not thought
occasional departures from this procedure where it it worthwhile to include insignificantliteraryrefer-
was moreusefulto discussin one place all the evidence ences. Further limitationof the literarysources is
on a given topic (e.g., religiousdress). discussedin the Introduction. It shouldalso be noted
Althougha continuoushistoryof the sacred officials that I have not tried to treat as such the -y&fp-q
which
would naturallybe moredesirablethan thispiecemeal were involvedin supplyingsacred officials, but I hope
account of the evidence, there is unfortunatelynot that theevidencemade available concerningthepriest-
enoughevidence to compose one; oftenthereare gaps hoods and membersof the-y&'-Pq willbe a help to anyone
of well over a centuryeven between the facts, fre- undertakingsuch a study.
quently meager,which are available. On the other The latinizedformof Greek names,exceptforKore
hand, the reader who wishes to see what evidence is and Kerykesand the names ofdemes,is used through-
available foran individualpriestor priestessor fora out. I have anglicized 8ovxos as daduch and 7rais
priesthoodat a particularperiodshould be able to do a(p o-earas/IVOELs as hearth-initiate.
so fairly easily, and in those few cases where the I would like to expresshere my gratitudeto James
evidence cannot be found chronologically,the table H. Oliver, who introducedme to the study of Eleu-
of contentsand the indicescan be consulted.
1 For example, on hierophants in cults of Dionysus cf.
The previous most extensive treatmentsof these
F. Cumont, A.J.A 37 (1933): pp. 243-244.
sacred officialswere by P. Foucart, Les Mysteres 2 For an extensive treatment of them see H. G. Pringsheim,
d'Eleusis (Paris, 1914) and J. Toepffer, Attische 1905: pp. 8-19; also, for critical observations, G. E. Mylonas,
Genealogie(Berlin, 1889). Toepiferused all the then 1961: pp. 187-213 (with commentsalso on Attic works).
sinian inscriptions. While I was at Athens and in the Palazzo dei Conservatori; and the British
Eleusis examining inscriptions,he generously re- Mluseum,the Agora Excavations in Athens,and the
sponded to my many requestsforadvice, and he pro- Epigraphical Museum in Athens for their courteous
vided muchfurtherhelp and advice duringthewriting help when I examinedinscriptionsin theircollections.
ofa preliminary versionof thisas a dissertationforthe l\lystudy of the inscriptionsat Athensand Eleusis
JohnsHopkins University. With Eugene Vanderpool was made possible by fellowshipsof the American
I have had valuable discussionson many Eleusinian School of Classical Studies and the Johns Hopkins
topics and inscriptions,and I cannot thank him University;researchat Eleusis in thesummerof 1969
enough for his assistance in countless matters both was financedin part by a grant fromthe American
practical and scholarly. I have also profitedmuch Philosophical Society. Cornell University granted
fromdiscussions on various matterswith Jacquelyn fundsforthe typingof the manuscript;and I am very
Collins Clinton,SterlingDow, GuntherKlaffenbach, grateful for the patience and care of my typist,
Benjamin D. Nleritt,1\lichaelC. Stokes, Leslie L. Beverly 1Ilyers.
Threatte, and John S. Traill. John H. Young's I am especiallyindebtedto the Greek Archaeologi-
meticulous reading of the dissertationled to many cal Society forpermittingme to study the inscriptions
improvements. I would also like to thank Colin N. at Eleusis.
Edmonson for allowing me to quote sections of an The manuscriptwas completedin June,1971; since
inscriptionhe is about to publish; theGermanArchae- thenonly minoralterationshave been made.
ological Instituteat Rome forphotographsof statues K. C.
THE SACRED OFFICIALS OF THE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES
KEVIN CLINTON
CONTENTS
PAGE PAGE
Introduction.......................................... 8 Sculptural representationof the hierophant............ 33
Middle of second century......................... 35
I. Hierophant ('IeapoavT ..) . .10 The Eleusinian endowment........................ 35
1. ZaKopo s . . 10 24. 4X'a43osAe-coom7s ............................. 36
Beginning of fifthcentury . .10 25. 'IovAtos'Iepooairrt7s ............................ 38
Ca. 460 B. C . .10 26. KXabv&o s 'AroXXAvApLos 'AXapve&vs ..... ............ 39
I.G., 12,6 Face C, Text . .10 27. Nofv,uos 'Iepo4oavTt7s ........................... 40
Commentary . .11 28. KXab6tos 'Ieposo&vrt7sMapa6c'vtos ................. 40
Discussion . .13 29. 'A7roXXWvLoL s .................................. 40
430's or 420's . .13 Ca. 220 A.D ...................................... 42
421 B.C . .14 Ca. 230 A.D ...................................... 42
416/5 or 415/4 . .14 30. 'HpaKXeCt5s ................................... 42
415 B.C ..15 31. Ao6yL/Mo
s ..................................... . 42
2. 0,eE60Apo
s. . .. 16 32. 4AXa(os nakO S............................... 42
3. 'ApxLas . .16 33. Hierophant.................................. 42
373-371 . .17 34. 'EpcAnTtO
S ............... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. . 42
Before middle of fourthcentury . . 17 35. 'Ihpofav&rts . evayopov...... .................... 43
4. AaKparc17 . .. .17 36. N eo-rpto S .................................... 43
5. ' epoKoXC1
S. .. .18 Roman Empire.................................. 44
i.G., 112, 1188 Text . .18 Unknown date................................... 44
Commentary................................ 19 Uncertain provenance............................ 44
Discussion . .19 44
General remarks......... ........................
6. [--] orroS.............. .................. ..... 20
Age and duration of service..................... 44
329/8 . .20
Marital status .......... ....................... 44
330-320 . .20 Manner of appointment......................... 45
Ca. 370-322 . .21 Political activities and social position............. 45
7. Evpv,ue6Xv
....... .............................. 21
Requirements forappointment................... 45
8. EbpVKXeS . .. .21
Investiture.................................... 45
9. '1cpoipavrT7s Novwpp&5ovfleptOo57s2_ MvncLapxo . 22 Religious costume.............................. 45
Ca. 330-ca. 270 . .22 Emoluments................................... 46
Ca. 300 B. . C .22 Religious functions........ ..................... 46
10. Xaap2pro.. 23
Third centuryB.C............. 23
24 LI. Daduch (\auoixo s) ............................... 47
11. 'AptfrTOK,XiS ....... ............................ 1. KaXXia.s ......... .......................... 47
S.E.G., XXII, 124, Text . . 24 Around middle of fifthcentury..................... 48
Commentary. ............................... 24 Ca. 416 B.C ...................................... 49
Discussion. ................................. 26 415 B. C ......................................... 49
12. 'AuAvv6Maxo s .................................. 27 2. KaXXia.s ........
129/8........................................... 27 .......................... 49
352 B.C .......................................... 50
13. MEVEKXeilt7s................................... 28
3. 'hpOKiXdi350 3.7eas .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . ...........5
'eo
14. 'Iepo ipartr7sEi'o-TPo'povllupau .....II.. evs .......... 28 I .............. 50
329/8 ............................
15. 0E6) pno s . ................. ................... 28 4. fluo63pos ..................................... 50
End of second centuryB.C . .............. 28 End of third century to end of first century B.C..... 50
.
Before middle of first century B.C . . 29
Decree honoringdaduch Themistocles, Text ....... 50
16. 'Iepo(paTrt7s . . . ........... 29
Significantcorrections........................ 52
Around end of first century B.C . . 29
Discussion.................................. 52
First or second century B.C . . 29
5. tEpjioroS .............. 53
38/9........................................... 29 6. 'IepoKXe67s .............. 53
17. 'IepowaivT7s................................... 29 7. A6ovrtos .............. 53
First centuryA.D . ........... 29 8. 'AVTLpCv .............. 53
18. OLv6(pLOos.................................... 29
9. 4LX TTLt.5 4.............. 54
19. E'Ioi]Xto s 'IepoarT7 s .......... .. .............. 30 10. ZwooKX?s 54
(I) .................
20. 4XMa'3Loi s Tpa'irv . ............................. 30
11. kXoLerV16qs .............. 54
21. DpAOs. .................... 31
22. 'Iepooa'r?t7s A. 'IoE' .... ]
129/8 ................. 54
. ....... 32 .
12. evoK XI s .....54.................. 54
23. 'Iepoalvr-tqs'Aiyvowtos . . 32 13. lOpOKiX S (I I I) ............ 54
Literaryand epigraphicalevidence forthe costume of the 14. OEMLUTOKX~ S .................................. 55
hierophantand daduch......................... 32 15. 64osppao-ros......... ......................... 55
6 CLINTON: THE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC .
PAGE PAGE
16. OeEALUTToKX7 S ............................ 56 16. ALXLa'EwrXaA4,ts ............................... 75
17. ee4OpaTTos .................................. 57 17. '10cKt7....................................... 75
38/9 . . ............. 57 18. Daughter of Epigonus of Sypalletos (?) ......... 75
18. KXabvtosAEwvLqs . .. ................ 57 NWKo(3obXfl77 .... . . ... . . .......... . ............. 75
19. KXabStosAvo-tq s. ................ 59 \ovvoa . ........... 76
20. KXabStos rts . . .. ................ 59 General remarks................................. 76
21. Hoji(rt tos ?) Aq 3aobXos
......................... 59
160-170. ........................................ 60 IV. Sacred herald ('IEpoKiKpv) . ........................ 76
22. Atov'vLos . ..............................
A'iSXtos 60 Ca. 460 B.C ........... 77
23. A'lXtLosllpata-yopas .............. ............... 61 1. KXeOKpLro S. . . . .7.7..... . . . .. .. .. . ... . .. ... . .. . . 77
24. KXabatos LXrLros . . ................ 63 Ca. 330-ca. 270. ................................. 77
Period of Roman Empire . . . 63 20/19........................................... 77
25. flojAr'tosA, obuXo . s
...........................l. 63 2. ALo'VULOS...................................... 77
26. hi(3oosAouXos .. . 63 Early second centuryA.D . ... , .. 78
Ca. 217/8 . .
..................................... 64 First or second centuryA.D . . 78
27. Aajyor-oq s .................................... 64 3. Kwrw'vtos Mtptos .............................. 78
28. 6
er3tavoas ................. ................... 64 4. No'luuos NL^ypeivos ............................. 78
29. Aipaptos ZoiwraTpos . . 64 160-170......................................... 79
30. NmKayopas ................. ................... 64 5. lelapo S...................................... 79
31. 4X&3tos floAAaWXos....... .................... 66 6. 'EpPvvoos 'IepoKi<pvu 'A7roXXWvtLov EpctEos ....... ...... 79
7. NobjApos 'IepoKflpvU...................,.,.. 79
General remarks......... ......................... 67 Late second or thirdcenturyA.D . . 79
Age and duration of service..................... 67 8. 'Ep !pvvto '
S IEpOKflpVu "Ep,eLoS ...................... 79
Marital status . ................................. 67 9. 'Io0Atos IepoKRpVu
'IoVXioVMOVowxvoV s) ....
(ZTELpLEb . 79
Manner of appointment......................... 67 10. Kacavo's t1poKtpVu ZTELpLEVUs . . . ... . . 80
Requirements forappointment................... 67 11. (CIobvtos) NtKa-yopas MvoaLov . . 80
Installation................................... 68 General remarks ................ ................. 81
Dress........................................ 68
Emoluments................................... 68 V. Altar-priest(tIepeis E7rLBwjAC5)...... ................. 82
Residence..................................... 68 Ca. 460 B.C . . 82
Social and political position..................... 68 Third to firstcenturiesB.C . . 82
Duties duiringMysteries......................... 68 1. 2; 71Aws.82
W/VS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
8
Other functions............. 68 2. 'IepOKXeu5? 7.82
3. 'AVr~L6V
34. 'AwrtL< PV ...................................
.............................................. 82
III. Priestess of Demeter and Kore 4. 'Avrr v.........................................
s 82
O'IepEta AnjrpOS Ka' Kop7s) .
.....................K 68 5. bt?XwLUrL S ..................................... 82
Beginning of fifth century B.C . . 69 6. tc/P15?7 s.
....................................o 82
Ca. 460 B.C ............................. 69 7. K2rwo'bpo S................................... 82
1. Avow-rpc
tzm.................................... 69 8. AE6Vrto.S ...................................... 82
421 B.C ................... ..... 69 91.2Mp0OOKX 'S ...................................... 83
Ca. 416 B.C ............................ ....... 70
2. e)eavw......................................... 70
End of fifthcentury. ............................. 70
Fourth century.................................. 70 a ,r
13. KXaEoK s s .rt s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3. Priestess of Demeter E-- - -...................... 70 14. 4XMa'Oos'ErlBp . ........................ 85
Before middle of fourthcentury . . 70 General remarks. .................... 85
400-350 ......................................... 71
352 B.C. ..... . 71 VI. Hierophantid ts..Iepo ..v..es).. . 86
329/8.......................................... 71 Ca. 250 B.C. ............................ 86
Ca. 330-ca. 270 .................................. 71 86 B.C. ................................ 86
25 B.C ............................................
2.Cep<avTsMvx--auo
ApvlvOta. 86
Third or second centuryB.C . .................... 71 1. HIepopavntis 'AuEplou 4XAbcvs ...................... 86
863 .'e C o vT s ................................................. 86
4. 'AiroXXou'[vov
Ov'yirnp].......................... 72 2. 'IEpo6pavrns
4.
Moo-Ex- - - -]caqAdov 'Aputbvaiov OvIya'T'7p..
'AIAeptfo HeptKXa Ovvyaa7Tn7 ov ove
86
. . . .............................
86
164 B.C .......................................... 72 3. 'epo'<pavtcs
'Ihpo6pavns...................86
5. rXaVfKr7
....................................... 72 4. tIEpo'qoawrtvunwTEpas HIEpLKXCOVS ~~
O'iov OVPa'6T7p ....87
6. 'A.Eu0'6KXEta.................................... 72 5. 'Iepo6pavTLs ?Xac3ta[E..]KPAra................... 87
First half of first century B.C. ...................... 72 6. Ovuy ar)p ArnnA-qrp1oV ............................ 87
Second or first century B.C ......................... 73 7. 'iEpo&pavrts TiS v-wripas KX 4tA6oeva.............. 87
Hadrianic? 87
7. xapov ......................................... .73 ......................................
8. KXeoKpa'T7a .................................... 73 8. 'Iep6pavlrts .......... .......................... 87
9. KXecw.......................................... 73 9. 'lovvi'aMEXLtr'V....87
9. 'IuvcaMe77
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................8
First centuryA.D . .... ........ 74 160-170 ......................................... 88
10. 4'XaovlaAao5ca'-a . ..... 74 10. 10
la-La'
SOT 7 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....88
. . . .88
11. KXav51a TeapoOea . ..... 74 11. HoirXiaAlXLa'EpEvvia. ......................... 88
12. KXav51a Tar6ptov . ..... 74 General remarks. ................................ 88
13. [---aAa . .. ..... 74
14. At' .... 74 VII. ExegetesoftheEumolpidae('Et-q-yyqra1
Ev,uoX7rLCv). . 89
15. [E.. bvcqeKXoXkeua(v . ........... 74 Introduction................ 89
Ca. 150 A.D . .75 The individualexegetes................ 92
160-170......................................... 75 General remarks................................. 92
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] CONTENTS 7
PAGE PAGE
VIII. Pyrphoros (HIvp6popos)....... .................... 94 28. 'lovt'La 28. Iov^
MeAW
MEXTvfl 7vr 0 109
. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................
1. AeovTLos
....................................... 94 29. KXavcLvoseLXcavo6s . . 109
2. 'AXKavs. .. 94 30. Z&irvpos..... 109
Second centuryA.D. ? .............. ............... 94 31. 'IoivwosMeva1s .. . 109
160-170......................................... 94 32. s evwP ..
AX63Lo .109
3. AiXtosHvp<p6pos'AXapveivs ....................... 94 33. NovIAIAaKXc. . .109
4. AbprXto s
Hvp<pposAcaA,urp e-pvs ...... ................ 95 34. KXafv&os Bpabovas . .110
General remarks ................ ................. 95 35. KXavILa 'EXrK7.. .. .. 110
36. Abp7X1a Hapova.. .. 110
IX. Other Sacred Officials . . 95 37. AbpqXtaM&ayva7i Ka' 'EppAu I.110
77vvr
4DaLLIvvT? s ............................................. ....95 9 38. 'Iovvia NeLKo0rpar7 . .110
Havas-y's.95
Ha7 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........9
yrs 160-17 ... 110
1. 06'optXos .......... .......................... 95 39. Daughter of Flavius Leosthenes.110
Augustan period. .............................. 95 40. KXavia llpatacyopa11. .1
2. 'Iaocwv...................................... 95 41. Ap..X1osM1a. . . . . .
160-170....................................... 96 42. Kaocavos IepEOKpVt . . .11
3. 'EpevvwosALErlros ................. .... 96 43. ARIa 'Epvvva . .111
4. Fo6Iwpo s ........................ 96 44. rFiXtos eva-y6pas . .111
Remarks...................................... 96 45. AXA/3Oo s 'Arder..o . .111
'IaKXa-yw-yo s ..................................... 96 46. KXavIta eE,AuwrTKX&ca . ................... .... .111
'IepE,s Oeoi Kac 0Eis . ............................... 97 47. KXavia Mavbpa. . .112
1. AaKpaTe1rI5 s .......... ........................ 97 48. X(4I3Ltos) [ ......... 'A]xapves. 112
2. Eiprpvaios ......... .......................... 97 49. rEXixo
s HoXvXo s . .1 12
160-170....................................... 97 50. 'OvwpaTnavJi HoXvxap,u&sij KaL Iuacvapr . . .. 1 12
Remarks...................................... 97 51. A%Xlos Tecq.ooevOs . 112
'Iepevs TptrroMeuov. .............................. . 97 52. 'Iovvia eEI.,rTKXLc-a . . .112
. . . . ...........................
'INpua llXoVbTWVOS . . .. . .. . . 97 53. Daci3wos . ..... 112
.......................................
'Y,uva-yw-yoL 97 54. Boy or girl . .112
'Iepev s Ao'po6pos ................. ................. 98 55. Girl? . .112
1. AwoWceo s .......... .......................... 98 56. 'IEpwv......... ...
.................... .. . . . 113
Second centuryA.D . ............................ 98
2. Avpr1Xtos
7rp6oveKTos General remarks . .113
Others......................................... 98 Terminology................. 113
aeLpT7 S ..... . .. ......98 57. Boy .114
58. Boy .114
X. Hearth-initiates (allabces a&p' o-rias) ................. 98 59. Girl. 114
Introduction. .
.................................. 98 Possible hearth-initiate. . 1 114
The individuals .................................. 100
1. Avâ s ...................................... 100 XI. Conclusions.114
2. Girl........................................ 100 Protocol... 115
3. Girl........................................ 100 Eumolpid priesthoods.116
4. dIXLC C OV ........ . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Emoluments. 116
5. 'Erpa&veca . .................... 100 Dress .. .................................. 116
6. TqAoOhsa
....... ............................ .. 100 Chastity duringfestival.116
7. Girl........................................ 100 Eiresione. 116
8. [Ato]rtIa. .................... 101
9. Girl ...................... 101 Appendix
10. Boy ...................... 101 I. Chronologicallists of hierophants,daduchs, sacred
11. ['O}Kvwa(?) . .................. 101 heralds, altar-priests,priestesses of Demeter and
12. Aalcq.ov ............. . . 101 Kore, and hierophantids....... ................ 117
13. ..
Xyrw . 101 II. I.G., 112, 1045 (= S.E.G., III, 104) ............. 119
Representations in art .... 101 III. On the arrangementof the prohedriain the theater
Individuals (continued) . . . . 108 of Dionysus.................................. 120
14. KXav'cuosA i6aoSrparos
........................ 108 IV. The aeisitoi lists............. ................. 121
15. KXavcta 'AXKta . ................. 108 V. I.G., 112, 3713 + 4089 + 'Eq. 'Apx. 1897: col. 60,
16. Boy ...................................... 108 no.42 ...................................... 124
17. 4XV3COsos0OKXS
.......2. ...................... 108 VI. I.G., 112,3475 + 3476......................... 124
18. 4bOVbXotOS M-qrp06oPOS . ........................ 108 VI I. I.G., 112, 4075 + 4083 ......... ................ 124
19. 'AOr-va'ts ................. .................. 108 VIII. I.G., 112, 3531 .125
20.2edXWV ..................................... 108
21. TEpria AECKo[V .. I ................... o109Abbreviations. 127
22. Girl....................................... 109
23. KXavIta [?----- . . 109 Bibliography.128
24. 'AYaO6irovs ................................. 109
25. Boy or girl . .................. 109 Indices
26. 'AOirvaLoso KaL 'Ewrappopbcwros.................. 109 I. Passages cited.129
27. O&/dazvoscbXao3av6s . .109 II. General index................................ 135
INTRODUCTION
Membershipin eitherof the geneof the Eumolpidae sanctuaryof Demeterand Kore at Eleusis; the adjec-
or the Kerykes was a pre-requisitefor eligibilityto tive "Eleusinian" will not implyany connectionwith
most of the importantpriesthoodsof the Eleusinian the deme of Eleusis.
Mysteries. The hierophant was taken from the The terms"priest" and "sacred official"also need
Eumolpidae; the daduch, sacred herald, and altar- some explanation. The latter term is meant to in-
priestwere fromthe Kerykes; and the exegeteswere clude personswho had religiousfunctionsin the cult
fromthe Eumolpidae. but were probablynever called LEpEvs or EpEtca, such as
These two genealso controlledtheadministrationof the WraZbEsa4' ErLas and the vuvawycolyo. It is also
the sanctuary.' The deme of Eleusis apparentlyhad convenientto use it to designatepeople who were re-
no jurisdictionover it, even thoughit was withinthe garded as tepEis in some periods but may not always
territoryof the deme. None of the extant decrees lhavebeen, such as the exegetes. Excluded fromthis
passed by thedeme wereerectedwithinthesanctuary, study, therefore,are state-appointedofficialsof the
and thereis no otherevidenceindicatingthat thedeme sanctuaryand its festivals(with the exceptionof the
had any authorityover the sanctuary. But thereis lhearth-initiate).
some evidence implyingjust the opposite. When in
403 the Thirtyestablishedat Eleusis a separate state, THE SECRET OF THE MYSTERIES AND
the status of the sanctuaryin relationto the govern- CHRISTIAN WRITERS
ments of Athens and the Thirty is described by Since the presentstudy is intendedto be introduc-
Aristotleas follows2:ro 8' tEp6JJetval KOu'oP a,puoroEpwv, tory to a corpus of Eleusinian inscriptions,and the
f 7rWL/EXEZaLff 6EbKj7pvKcaS KaLi EvuoXrwtbas
Ka-ca ra 7rawrpta. focus of this study is primarilyon the sacred officials
Just as before,in accordance with ancestral custom, and not on the cult as a whole,it would be somewhat
the Kerykesand Eumolpidae were to be in charge of out of place and prematureto attemptto discuss here
the sanctuary. In inscriptions,when a question of the highlycontroversialevidenceconcerningthe secret
sanctuaryadministrationinvolvesthe Athenianstate, contentof the Mysteries,the one part of the cult to
the representativesof the interestsof the sanctuary which the inscriptionsnaturallyvery rarelypertain.
are always the Eumolpidae and Kerykes'; the deme The situation is both simplifiedand complicated
of Eleusis is never consulted. Thus, whatever the by the fact that most of our evidence for the secret
relation of the town of Eleusis to the sanctuary of content comes fromChristianwriters;simplified,to
Demeter and Kore may originallyhave been, by the some extent,because oftenenough these writersrefer
fifthcenturyit seems to have becomemainlytheacci- to the secretswitlhoutspecifyingwhichpriesthoodwas
dental one of location. It is noteworthy,too, that involved; complicated, because often we cannot be
the Eleusiniandemoticoccursonlyonce amongall the sure whetherthe Mysteries they lhad in mind were
preservednames of priestsand fathersof priestesses, those of the Athenian Eleusis. There was a suburb
which indicates that the priestsand fathersof priestof Alexandria called Eleusis,5 and it has long been
esses were most of themnot directdescendantsin the suspected that there was a i\lysterycult there.
male line of those livingat Eleusis at the end of the Nilsson was the firstto gather adequate evidence6;
sixth century (when they received their demotics).4 and much good sense would result by following
Accordingly,the term"Eleusinian priests"as used in Mylonas's suggestionsthat at least some of the state-
this study will mean priestswho lhadfunctionsin the mentsof Christianwriterson the MIysteries referonly
to the Alexandrian Eleusis.7 Decisive proof that
1 The Athenian state, however,at least by the end of the fifth there was a Alysterycult there and that it was at
century,controlled the financesof the sanctuary; but although least superficiallymodeled after the Atlheniancult I
expenditure of funds for the sanctuary had to be authorized by lelieve can be found in a statement of Porphyry
the state, thereis no indication that the state ever made any de-
cision affectingthe administration of the sanctuary without which to my knowledgehas always been understood
having at least consulted these gene.As an example of such con- by modernscholarsas referring to the Atheniancult8:
sultation the law of ca. 450 establishing the brtG-TIfTat may be Eb -ro!S Ka-r EXevalva uvcrqrpLots o ,Ev tEpoSc'ra&s ets
cited, S.E.G., X, 24, lines 28-30: AvaXLOKELV be OTC &v [EdL]XuOrTa ELKova To7 bqh7Loupyov
EvyKEvctUerVaL, baWXos 6' E's -r'v XfLov
TTV htEpEoVKat Tes EoX]els foXEvopeVos TO XoLtrov. There
heelPUETa
was apparently no needto consultthedeme.

Kct 6 EWL
/'Wo,ucp TE'
EL& 771) oEX 'Ep,uov.This
66
EpoK2spdV
2Ath. Pol., 39, 2. situation,ratherstrangeforan agriculturalcult such
3 See especiallyI.G., I2, 76 and JII,204, and the discussion as the one in Attica,one mightoffhandascribe to late
below,pp. 17-18; also S.E.G., X, 24, lines28-30,citedabove,
note1. I See R.E., V, coll. 2339-2342 (Schiff).
4Hierophant no. 10: Chaeretiusson of Prophetesof Eleusis. 6 Geschichte,2: pp. 94-95.
P. MacKendrick,The AthenianAristocracy (Cambridge,Mass., Eleusis, Appendix, pp. 287-316; 'E7rtG-T?77,OVYLK? 'Ewr lpt6 9
1969),p. 38 statesthat "Eumolpidsoftencame fromthe deme (1959): pp. 7-58.
wherethe Mysterieswerecelebrated,Kerykesnever." Yet in 8 Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, III, 12, 4 (ed.
his list of Eumolpidae,ibid., p. 99 only one personwith the K. Mras, Die griechischenchristlichenSchriftsteller, vol. XLIII)
Eleusiniandemoticappears,viz. theChaeretiusmentioned above. (= Porphyry,IlEp' a'-yaXp4aTco,fr. 10, p. 22*, ed. Bidez).
8
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 INTRODUCTION 9
syncretism. However, it is clear that the fragment KXavbtos 'IEpoqav-r7s KcaXXLKpaaTLov TPLKOPVi%OS. In a
of Porphyry'sHElp' a-yaXuarcov cited by Eusebius, of particular case all these elements of a hieronymous
which the above sentence on Eleusis formsa small name need not be present,but his originalGreekname
part, is a discussionof Egyptiancults and is so intro- is never present,having been replaced by the title of
duced by Eusebius: r4ab rov A'yvwr-Lcov 7raXtv rocacdarhis priesthood (in the instance given, Ithpopabv-rns).
f71cvExEtvcurLu,foXa. Thus the referencemust be to The customwas in forcefromthe time the priestwas
the MIystery cult at the AlexandrianEleusis. installed until he died. Afterhis death his original
The beginningof this Alexandrian cult probably name could again be used.
dates back to the timeof PtolemyI, who accordingto This custom was not in use throughoutthe entire
Tacitus consulted Timotheus, the exegete of the historyof the cult,and did not beginat the same time
Eumolpidae, concerninga dream he had: for all the priesthoodswhich eventually adopted it.
In the case of the hierophantit evidentlybegan to be
Ptolemaeus omine et miraculo excitus sacerdotibus rigorouslyobserved sometime between 148 B.C. and
Aegyptiorum,quibus mos talia intellegere,nocturnosvisus
aperit. atque illis Ponti et externorum parum gnaris, the last quarterof the second centuryB.C., afterwhich
Timotheum Atheniensem e gente Eumolpidarum, quem timeall the evidenceshowsthat it was beingobserved,
ut antistitemcaerimoniarumEleusine exciverat,quaenam therebeing no evidence to the contrary.
illa supersititio, quod numem, interrogat. Timotheus In the case of the daduch, hieronymywas evidently
quaesitis qui in Pontum meassent, cognoscit urbem illic of the firstcentury
Sinopen, nec procul templum vetere inter accolas fama not observedbeforethe beginning
lovis Ditis; namque et muliebremeffigiemadsistere quam after Christ, and there is no positive evidence forits
pleriqueProserpinam vocent.9 observanceuntil the aeisitoi lists of the middleof the
second century.
The natural interpretationof this passage is that The sacred herald did not become hieronymous
Timotheus had been summoned by Ptolemy some until sometimebetween 119/20and 166 A.D.
time previous to this dream as an antistes caeri- Hlieronymyfor the altar-priestis firstattested for
moniarum and was still in Alexandria when Ptolemy L. l\Iemmius, Altar-Priest,of Thorikos, who served
had the dream; it is also natural to assume that the from 121-124 to 191 or 192 A.D., but no evidence
caerimoniae forwhich he gave exegesiswere those of concerninghis title is available before 168/9. The
the newly established or about-to-be-established altar-priestwas not hieronymousat the end of the
Mystery cult in a suburb of Alexandria.10 At any firstcenturyB.C.
rate, in view of the statementof Porphyryand the The firstevidence forhieronymyforthe pyrphoros
evidence cited by Nilsson, therewas a M\lystery cult comes fromthe end of the second centuryA.D.; he was
thereand at least in some externalsit was verysimilar not hieronymousat the end of the firstcenturyB.C.
to the Atheniancult. However, the presentstudy is The firstsecurelydatable inscriptionfora hieronym-
not the place to continue the discussion,which has ous hierophantidis fromthe end of the firstcentury
been well advanced by M\,lylonas's studies, about A. D.
which of the statementsof the Christianwritersare In the case of the hierophanthieronymydid occur,
applicable to Alexandriaand which to Attica. in at least one instance,considerablybeforethe time
when it began to be observed strictly. At least one
HIERONYMY inscriptionshows that the practicewas in use around
For the convenience of the reader this unusual the end of the fourthcenturyB.C. This leads me to
custom will be describedhere. believe, with Foucart,'1 that originallyit may have
Hieronymyapplied to fivepriests: the hierophant, been a mark of respect given to the hierophant,at
daduch, sacred herald, altar-priest,and pyrphoros; first not required and not officiallyobserved, but
and to one group of priestesses,the hierophantids. eventuallyit became establislhedas a custom and as
It involved the replacementof their name with the an officialrule. In the case of the hierophant,as has
title of theirpriesthood. For example, according to been stated above, strict official observance of
the rule of hieronymythe hierophant'sname took the hieronymybegan in the thirdor fourthquarterof the
from: 'IEpocabvr?7s, Patronymic,Demotic. If he was second centuryB.C. Eventually, it became a crime
a Roman citizen,this formcould be preceded by his to reveal the real name of a hieronymouspriest,so
praenomen and gentilicium; for example: TLI3Eptos that by Lucian's time a scene such as the following
could be described12:
I Tacitus, Histories, IV, 83, 2; Cf.Plutarch, De Iside et Err'e9 &rv}Xs
ovTv-yxavw kaqovX rE Kac 1EpO(P a'r
KV L rols
Osiride,
362 A, where Timotheus is called an exegete. aXxots appWT7ro0Los A\EivwLav a'px7v,
cbVpOvo-Lv a&y5iv 'EirlTr7v
10So Nilsson, loc cit., but he describes Timotheus as Leiter der
Zeremonien. Though antistes can mean one who officiatesor 11 1914: p. 176.
directs,it can also mean exegete, which was Timotheus' position 12 Lucian, Lexiphanes, 10. The complaint was evidently
in the Athenian cult, and so the word is probably better under- broughtbeforethe hoplitegeneral. Cf.J. Delz, Lukians Kenntnis
stood in this sense. Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 302, incorrectlyindi- der athenischen Antiquitdten (Diss. Basel, Freiburg, 1950),
cates that Timotheus was a hierophant. p. 29.
pp. 73-74, and Geagan, Constitution,
10 CLINTON: THE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.
E'yKX7/,a 6rL Cvw6cv

icSTaf'yovras ovrov,KvLa rcwraa
Eo part. Tlhe special significanceof these two inscrip-
luS
OrlE' 01rV,p coJLwOoC,uav4vcv'oL tions lies in the fact that theyare the firstin a series
Tr ELOtl KaClOVKErTLovoluao-Tot
av
c'
a' ?V 767yEYEVOL. of knownmeasuresregulatingthe perquisitesof these
priests. The fees of the hierophantand the other
I. HIEROPHANT ('Irposv-vv) Eleusinian priests,all membersof aristocraticgene,
wereat thistimenot leftto thewhimof the individual
Until shortlybeforethe end of the fourthcentury priestsbut were regulatedby law.5
A.D. thereis no attested transgression of the ancestral
customwhichdictated that the hierophantwas to be Ca. 460 B.C.
taken only fromthe genosof the Eumolpidae.1
Ihe perquisiteswere again regulated around 460,
1. zAKopoS. Pseudo-Lysias, Against Andocides, 54.
Tloepifer,1889: p. 55. Foucart, 1914: p. 187. as part ofa major piece of legislationpublishedon four
P.A., 6182. Around the beginningof the fifth sides of a stele which was set up in the City Eleu-
sinion.6 Accordingto this law the perquisites were
centurybeforeChrist.
to be paid at the \Iysteriesto each priest by each
Zacorus, the earliest known hierophant,was the initiate. Although only the amount paid by each
great-grandfather of an unknownEumolpid who de- initiate to the priestessof Demeter is actually pre-
livered a speech against Andocides in 4002; thus he served in the main body of the law, the priestessis
would have been living around the beginningof the clearly the last in a list of priests and the amounts
fifthcentury. He was married,but neitherhis great- theyare to receive. I presenthere a new text of the
grandson nor son, Diocles, who is mentionedin the relevantpart of this inscription,Face C, which I in-
great-grandson'sspeech as having once given advice spected in the summersof 1969 and 1970, and some
to a courthearinga case of asebeia,were hierophants.3 epigraphicalcommentary.7
Althoughit is not knownwhetherZacorus was still
marriedor a widowerwhen he became hierophant,it 1.G., I2, 6, Face C
is at least evidentthata man who had marriedwas not ca. 460 a.
therebydisqualified. Stoikhedon23: lines 1-46
Non-Stoikhedon: lines 47-50
BEGINNING OF FIFTH CENTURY 5 [.1].. . .3..5]v
,3o.[o
Around the time of Zacorus, perhaps even during E[. . .. . . ]O htEFp S
his termof office,two sets of regulationswere set up .[. hE],uoI'[EXOv Ka]
withinor near the Eleusinion in Athens,one concern- 8 [6' 4j]fpav [7rapa&r]6gbcrro[hEK}oj]
and the
ing perquisitesof priesthoodsof the M\ysteries [roi T v htE[pEav]r v A ,uE[T]pos
other concerningsacrificesat festivalswhose names E\]ag/q4vEv gv[oTrE]pLots T[olS 6
are lost.4 The formeris conjecturedto date fromca. [XE]?o-lv 7papa [r6 p]borTo h[EK]aci
510-500 and the latter 500-480 (both datings are
based on letter-forms and on the factofbotustrophedon 5 The question of when the Athenian state firstbegan to exert
writing). Only the earlierof the two definitelymen- controlover the hierophantand the otherpriestsof the Mysteries
tions Eleusinian priesthoods,but in a contextwhich is intimatelybound up with the date of the firstAthenian at-
tempts to connect the Eleusinian Mysteries to Athens. For a
is obscure because of the fragmentary state of the in- discussion of this see F. Walton, H.TTh.R.45 (1952): pp. 105-114.
scription: -re'v h]tEpc[a]y [Kac |r6o] 'oatv[vrEv--]. If it really was, as Andocides (116) says, a law of Solon which
We can assume that the other Eleusinian priests,in- ordained that the Boule meet in the Eleusinion in Athens on the
cludingthe hierophant,werementionedin the missing day after the Mysteries to review infractionswhich took place
during them, it would be the earliest known law regulatingthe
affairsof the Mysteries. But as to what extent the priesthoods
' The clearest statmentof this fact is made by Aelius Aristides, were regulated in Solon's time there is no evidence. For the law
Eleusinian Oration, 4 (ed. Keil). Hellanicus wrote about the codes from Solon to Nicomachus cf. L. Jeffery,op. cit., pp.
-yEvos of the hierophantsin the second book of his Atthis (Harpo- 106-111, and S. Dow, Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc. 71 (1953-1957):
cration, s.V. IEpoo4vfT7ls). pp. 1-35.
2 Pseudo-Lysiades, Against Andocides, 54: Boi'Xo,at Totviv ere6p 6 I.G., 12, 6 (= S.E.G., XXI, 5; Sokolowski, Supplement,3).
a ALOKXfS o6 ZaKopou Tov lEpopavrou, arwros be vuETEposl qfuvE0ouXEuoE Dated by letter-forms.
f3oVXueVOIevoSuIuAV o Tt bet XpTaTOat Me-yapei a'vipLt 2-76e0Ko'Tt. For the 7 I have not seen the Agora fragments. The line numbersare
date of this trial,400 B.C., see D. MacDowell, Andocides, On the given here according to the systemof Meritt,Hesperia 14 (1945):
Mysteries(Oxford,1962), append. J. pp. 61-81, revised in Hesperia 15 (1946): pp. 249-253. This
3 If they had been, the great-grandsonwould surely have men- edition of Meritt representsthe greatestadvance in the editorial
tioned it, since he was obviously proud of the fact that he could historyof this difficultinscription. My text shows more dotted
mention it in the case of his great-grandfather. This particular letters than previous editions; for I have tried to adhere as
point and his whole case would have carried greaterweight if he strictlyas possible to the Leiden system: if the physical traces of
and his grandfatherhad been hierophants. a letter can be interpretedas more than one possible letter,the
4S.E.G., XXI, 3-4; XII, 2-3 (= Sokolowski, Supplement, letter is dotted. In the commentary I generally do not call
1-2); L. Jeffery(Hesperia 17 [1948]: pp. 86-111) did the editio attention to cases where I introducesubscriptdots, but I do call
princeps,which is still the best text. attention to cases where I think that they can be removed.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] HIEROPHANT 11
12 [r]o 6flX6V Kal [rols A]El{[OGTI] proprementdit"; their remunerationwould have
0O[3oXov7tapa r6 .]
[/]VTo-rEpLOLS come fromthe state, not fromthe initiates. How-
[V]TO hEKaoT&o vT[v/travTas0/3o] ever, his own restoration,hLE[poKEpvKKas], is also un-
XOS TOlV EO[V ElVal 7XEL' hE] satisfactory. There was never in the historyof the
16 XTaKOcL0OV Ka[l xlXlOV 3p]c,x. cult more than one sacred herald. MIoreover,the
6v a97ro E r6V h[EXrnaKOGtlO]V Ka article, which is used beforeall the other names of
lXltXoV 5paXI{ov rEv hL]EpEa priesthoods in this inscription,should be expected
V TavaXouaTa [36vcat Ka]AT7rEp beforehlt[pOKEpVKas] as well.
20 rEos a6vXoro Since the perquisitesof the other principalpriests
E[EV/IoXwrL]asKa
LKEp[vK]cs of the cult are stated at the end of the inscription
XauaP3Ev[Ev wrapdc] rO A
(lines47-50, in a different hand), presumablythe only
VET[O h]EKAIT-o E - 9 . . . .
E .. ] priests mentioned here before the priestess of De-
[Ei. o]E'OVOEXElO[V .....]
meter are the hierophantand daduch. Yet a satis-
24 [E... /. ]VLT t L .......]
/E(PEE
factoryrestorationis difficult to find. The restoration
[.,u46'va TvT 1e0-lS,v 0,JOX[6V Kal To IlS OXcl-OtLV h]o hLE[pofavTc
|s Xac,p3avETrw
3E /v[Ev 3LXa r]
[o,4Ev]o KEpvKas hE]/uto3sE[XLov]is doubtfulbecause of the imperative,
[Os] ,v-rTas h'Kc Eov[Kal Ev.o] whichis not used in this inscription,and the position
28 rX][l]raS KaTa TavTca E[cw 6E Ka7T] of the hierophant(followingthe daduch).
a 7XELOS, ELV)VVETOa[l .. ] o ,uro hEKAoXT]o was apparently firstre-
[t apa r l6
E . I bpqX,uE(;-,ue! e /Ey[... . storedby Ziehen; [KacI 6' Et]jEpav by Kirchhoff.
OLTl KEPlVKOV KalE' ED,oXwLrt6P1. Line 9: hLEp[EacvM\eritt.
32 T0 bEh[l]EpO apyVp{O TES wtap] Line 11: oI[X]Evoatv
o Meritt.
...] Line 15: [ElvaL rX'v he] Meritt.
xNs EX[ET]eZVaL 'AOEvcLoLs
[. ]at av0h.E[Tt]
3O6Xo[vEtaL,Kacd]
Line 20: avEXoro . E[vi]At[oXwtL3]as
Mveritt. There is
7rEp TO rTs 'AOEvaLaEs 4pyvpLo]
no interpuncthere,as faras I can see, and the point
on the stone where the mu is supposed to be is com-
36 TO E/ IrOXEL TO 5E ap[Eplov TO]
pletelybrokenaway.
h T[O] TO[EW OEOlV E]
tEh0p7oos
Line 21: KEp[v]Kas Meritt.
ELI]7roXELTraCELve atO ..6...]
Lines 22-3: 7r[E][{rE /EpeIEpE r6 vv
TE6v/JE'PoL OEXEL6[V
[E*]6[E. -]XEV EV TOl E ... ]
Merrit, 7r[a]v[rta ra ah o r6T v 6vo,4]E&oV Sokolowski.
40 [E.]IE . . . . ]Ev 0[v6]pp[cwv . Lines 23-4: [ETEXi &'a I JOlS /u]vLTI,rE/.
, 'E[EvaLt ,v IV
|:3 so9
opLavos 7rav[EraSKaCLroTs Meritt,OEXEL6[vbeKal acp|PO
/.E3E]va /.t]
ILTC. EL)V[XLKa
/.LE
[I.]&aTas hKa-ro .......V] ,UVi Iv g6c'}va Sokolowski.
[T]Os /vo-ras ros 'EXEE[vOLl) vo] It is quite possiblethat youngpeople otherthan the
44 [E]IEos 'v ri[E] aiAs [. . 5.. TO h] wraLs aE EoT-rLaScould not be initiated, but there is
[E]ep6, TOS vE [,UVOgVO]

acalTTEL
nothing,as faras I know,which proves it. Meritt's
Es] 'v TOl E.EVGlOl [ . ] restorationseems to be a guess also.
[T]ov E7rLTO7t fooMt LEpEa Kai T[OVE KEpVKa] Line 25: [E,4EE3]va-7r'v rT a4p [Eo-,rLas,4voAPo Hiller.
48 [T]OV OEOLV Kal TcO LEpEca TO[V wavacy]
Line 26: [E6LX r 6]S Sokolowski,[r6s v4Io]s Wilhelm.
[X]cuf3BvEv EKaXTTov T6TO[v) 6foX0
o 7rapa
I could not see the interpunctwhich MVleritt reported
[T5] UV(TT[O E]KcLTTO { EpO6 TOWV OEOWV]
thathe saw beforeKEpVKas.
Line 27: I could read no letterbeforeMvti4ras.
Line 28: [EEvuo IXwla]s MVleritt, [EEv,o
|XITr[L]Eas
COMMENTARY Clinton.
Lines 5-8: Sokolowski,Supplement,3 correctlyre- Line 29: [XtXLaL I ] or [E.vpLaccI l] Wilhelm,[hEKar6I v]
(line 6). The hieropoioi,
jected Meritt's htc[po7rol6s] Cronert.
as seems clear fromthis inscriptionand othersof the Lines 30-1: [hoc av hE3] I6ot or EX]IooLT Meritt,
fifthcentury,werea body of officialsappointed by the Xa|] ool Sokolowski,& I[Vcal rois] KEPIVKOV
6aT Kirch-
state whose duties were mainlyfinancialand adminis- hoffand Cr6nert.
trative,8and thusdid not belong "au service du culte proceeds fromthe aparche to the E7rLtTaTat 'EXevcnvoOev(instituted
around 446 B.C. according to S.E.G. X, 24). By 408/7 these
8 The institution of the hieropoioi in Athens needs further epistatai seem to have completely taken over the administrative
study. Hieropoioi performa series of sacrificesat the Eleusinia duties of the hieropoioi,for,in an account issued by them in that
(I.G., 12, 5), but these may not be the same as those in the docu- year (I.G., I2, 313/314), there is no mention of the hieropoioiin
ment edited here,who control the sacred moneyof the Eleusinian connectionwith the aparche,which seems at this time to be com-
aparche on the Acropolis. In I.G., 12, 76 tLeporotoL'EXevatpoOevare pletely in the care of the epistatai. After this, the fate of the
in charge of the administration of the aparche and performa hieropoioiis unclear until new boards of hieropoioiappear in in-
sacrificefromthe proceeds of the sale of this aparche. These are scriptions of the Lycurgan period. Cf. Busolt, Staatskunde 2:
the same as the tepoirotoL'EXevOaip (I.G., I2, 311) who turn over pp. 1103-1104.
Meritt (Hesperia 14 (1945): p. 71) objects to h[LEp6I. The second letterin line 40 could also be a
Cr6nert's restorationon the ground that it is bar- sigma; so perhaps Ev Trobl4Ep&t 'EXEJv]![Zl. Though
barous Greek. If he has rois 0o-tKEP1VKOVin mind, the restorationeludes us, the passage probablyrefers
Andocidesprobablywould not agree; he quotes a man to the special care taken by the state or the gene to
saying: YQ KaXXta,... rpc3roevE Ey Kqp'VKCwV
&WV assure the initiationof orphans.
(On the Mysteries,116). Whatever the restoration, Line 40: [6vEv E3 I] Mleritt(1945), [,ypa4cEcv] Meritt
the sense mustbe thatany memberofeithergenoswas (1946), [6viev( le] Sokolowski.
entitled to conduct myesis; it was completelyup to I am inclinedto favor [Oi'(v 5E'], but certaintyis
him wlhetherhe did so or not, the genos having no impossible.
voice in the matter; otherwiseAndocides,a member Line 41: 7raic4?as1I\eritt. The verticalstrokeof the
of the Kerykesbut not warmlybeloved of his genosat thirdletterof thisword lies at the leftof the stoichos,
the time, probably would not have conducted the and so is probablynot iota. Perhaps the restoration
myesiswhich he mentionedin On theMysteries,132. is 7rav[rras;thatis, theorphanssacrificeall together,the
This consideration does not favor [XaX]oo0. Ac- costs of whichwereborneby the geneor the state; the
cording to Meisterhans-Schwyzer(Grammatikder regularinitiates,the mystai,sacrificeindividuallyand
attischen Inschriften,p. 178) 6EcXw (in place of EOE'Xw)) bear the costs themselves.
does not occur in Attic inscriptionsuntil the middle Line 42: hEKao-roJ1 {T[voBcOa (3] 1Ieritt (1945),
of the thirdcentury. hEK4o-TroILE[vos XopLs] r1\eritt (1946), h'KUTTO/. 7r1[pOTE\XEla]
Lines 32-4: [rEs a'7rapIxls 1Ieritt (Ilesperia 14 Sokolowski.
(1945): p. 77), [rTs scvXaK]ES 1\Ieritt(ibid. 15 (1946): Sokolowski's conjectureis the most appealing, but
p. 253), [ris ba3raIvJEsSokolowski; [AE.X I E]Ta6 I\Ieritt, ii[po6iviara] should be substituted for -7r[porEXEtac], on
[a6PX IE]oOatSokolowski. the basis of I.G., JJ2, 1673, line 62: rpo6fuara bo[6&vTa
1\Ierittdoes not say what made him change his ELS 4V]7J'qOv.I\Ieritt's restoration (1946), lhowever,
mind. The upper tip of an oblique stroke which I cannot be excluded, forit is known that the Eumol-
could see at the beginningof line 33 offersonly K or X, pidae had the task of inscribingthe initiates (see
no solution. But I favor[,rs aiwap]J;K xs in connection below, p. 26).
with the new reading in line 34 (see below). L.S.J. Line 43: [,vo IM]Ejvos Kirchhoff, [Bvo|,]Ejvos
does not reportany examplesin Atticproseof EtXE-OaLSokolowski.
or 'pxaoXEtcmeaning"to be in chargeof" or "in control Sokolowski (op. cit., p. 18) pointsout that OIvE0oLaL is
of" as I\Ierittand Sokolowskiseem to have in mind just as frequentas 'VElV. But he does not note any
fortheiruse of the middle infinitives here. difficultyin having OUEWVand 6vogE'4osin the same
Line 34: h[Ej]os1\leritt. When thelightwas striking sentence for the same agent. Anyway his inter-
the stone at a certainangle, the second letterof this pretationof the wholesentencedoes not reallyrequire
wordappeared clearlyas 0. I could notmakeout any 6vo,uEvos in place of ,vo,iEVOS.
certain traces of the next two letters. This reading Line 44: [rit rpd TO rlEp6 Leonardos (apud Hiller),
eliminates the somewhat superfluousphrase hEosav [EKT0s] or [EbrOs] Roberts-Gardner, [EbrOsr6 h LEpo
f3oXovTcLrin favorof ho[Tu] (or h6[To]) av /36Xo[vTua]. I Cronert. The iota of ret is at the presenttime com-
find worthy of some considerationthe restoration pletelyillegible.
'A06,E[alotot Xpl]aocat h6[rl] av 00'Xo[wrat]; that is, It seems to me that the au)rqoutsidethe sanctuary
authorization was made here for borrowingmoney is meant, in light of the practice of prohibitingthe
fromthe fundof Demeterand Kore just as it had been acvq,rotfrom entering the sanctuary (cf. I\lylonas,
done fromthe fundof Athena. It is interestingthat Eleusis, pp. 224-226). Two au'XaLwere connected
here,as in S.E.G., X, 24, lines 12-13, a change in the with the cult of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis, one
administrationof the treasuryof Demeter and Kore withinthe sanctuary in frontof the Telesterionand
is described in termsof an already existingarrange- the otherin frontof the main gate (now the Greater
ment in the administrationof the treasuryof Athena Propylaea). The latter is probably the one men-
on the Acropolis. tioned by Pseudo-Demosthenes in Against Nea era
Line 37: r[o] ro[-v0Eo&v] Hiller and I\Ieritt,[Ev] r[6t (1 16): Ln-1rn-sfoxappas ri-qsEv rj1 ai)Xj- 'EXEVuovt.The
hEp61] Sokolowski. courtyardin frontofthesanctuarydoes in facthave an
1Ieritt was rightto retain Hiller's reading: thereis Euxapa.9
no vertical stroke at the left of the stoichosof the Line 45: [uuogvo i s] Kirchhoff,[Ovo,4vois] Sokolowski.
dotted tau but there is an upper horizontal stroke
barelyvisible. 9 See Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 169-170. Other referencesto a
Lines 38-40: raCEuuEL-6[cat EvfoXwr ]6[as 6 E]XEv EV courtyard at Eleusis are: fv T-r* avAc rov L'EpOV in I.G., 112, 847,
rot ,[to-ot rev 3 ij]3[Xov r]lv rov [6]pi{[av&v] M\Ieritt.line 54, 949, line 21, 1235, line 22, 1299, lines 28 and 78, 1304,
line 45; fv -r fv 'EXEvaUvL av'cX in I.G., IV2, 83, lines 14-15; fV
Sokolowskisuggests/3e13[ator]&E. in I.G., IV2, 84, lines 35-36.
'EEvaUvt fV T-Lt av'X* -raivOEa
fEpacL
The stone shows that the mu of 4[f{ootcan also be In all of these passages the courtyardcould be the one outside of
interpretedas eta or epsilon; perhaps, then, Evir6t the sanctuary.
See note on line 43. The finalsigma firstappears in and Kore (Iepa TOV OeoLv), exceptfor1600obolsto be
fliller'stext; I could not see it. spent by the priestesson expensesas she had done in
Line 47: r[Ov *pau6vvrb] Foucart. Hiller and the past. These expenseswerepresumablyconnected
Meritt read the omicronof r[OV, which I could not. with the festival,while the money that went to the
For therestoration [KfpvKa] see below,p. 77. treasuryof the Goddesses was used for general ex-
Line 48: [T]OV' 0Eoivneed not be a mistakefor[r]oiLv penses of the sanctuary."3
OlEov (so Meritt)butcouldbe rather a shortenedform This inscriptionmakes known that the priests of
of rTOvrolV GEoVas o 6iqgos o 'AOnvatLwvfor o 6bAoso TWV the cult were not responsiblefor carryingout the
'A6nvaLWv. "initiating," the Avg&os, but that this was rather a
rO[V ravayi AUo-600v]Ziehen. Meritt's study re- duty of any (adult) member of the Kerykes and
moved the support for Agf00ov which was formerly Eumolpidae who wished to performit (lines 26-31).
found in line 9. In addition, lack of space seems to This fact has led to the abandonmentof the notion
renderit impossiblehere. The inscriptionon Face C (once held) that Avgas was originallya termthat ap-
had its rightmarginat the very edge of the stone, as plied to the whole process of experiencingthe Mys-
'leritt's drawingsof fragmentsb and c show.'0 Since teries,fromthe presentationof oneselfas a candidate
the omicron of rO[V lies almost directly under the to thewitnessingof thesecretritesin theTelesterion.14
omicron of 'EXevovLtoL,the lacuna at the end of line 48 Now it is clear that gvrnos originallyhad a restricted
is equivalent to eight stoichedon spaces. But line 48 meaning. It was the preliminaryinstructiongiven
is non-stoichedon;five of its letters correspondap- to the initateat any timeof the year by any member
proximatelyto fourstoichedonletters;so we may cal- of the Eumolpidae or the Kerykes, whereas the
culate the lacuna at the end of line 48 to be not longer ceremony which took place in the sanctuary at
than about ten letters,whichprecludesAco00v. Eleusiswas theTEXefl, performed oncea year by the
Line 49: rTOro[v 4lO/3XLov 7rcapa] Ziehein. By a cal- priests. Avo-tswas the firststep, TEXIETf the finalone:
culation of the lengthof the lacuna at the end as in firstEinweihungand then Weihe.'5 The hierophant
line 48, it is clear that EwoOE3XtoVis too long,and so the thereforehad no part in the 4bhqo-ts as hierophant,
correctrestorationmust be rTro[v 6loX6V7rapa6. thoughit is not inconceivablethat he initiatedpeople
Line 50: 4E]Ep[Ev rolV 0Ooiv] Hiller. The rho is as a Eumolpid.
beyond the break; it does not appear in any text
beforeHiller's. 430's OR 420's (?)
It is quite possible that Face C had more lines, in- There is a very disputed piece of evidence,I.G., 12,
formingus that theappended priests,likethepriestess, 77, which seems to indicate that the hierophantwas
were to receive one obol apiece at both the Greater already included among the aeisitoi at this time.
and Lesser Mysteries. This inscription,variously dated to the 430's and
DISCUSSION 13
This was undoubtedly the source of the funds listed in
I.G., 12, 313, lines 144-6: b7riTaLa [bi4YevETO(K TOP] /t[E&]Xwy
If [Kaa' 41,UJfpavin lines 7-8 is correct,the priestwho
preceded the priestessof Demeter collected at least
lXXl Rj[
,uu[cTEP1oV]XXXXH[Hx F F 11AAAAf iK k [lr6[v
v 'Aypcu]cn vaJrTepLop. (For the restoration iy7vErosee below,
one half-oboldaily fromeach initiate at the Mys- note 103.) If we assume that the hierophant and daduch each
teries. If we reckonnine or ten days to the Greater" received a total of fourobols fromeach initiate at the Mysteries
and at least one day to the Lesser Mysteries,'2at and if we add to this the amount which the priestess and the
threeotherpriestsreceived,viz., fourobols, each initiatewill have
least five obols were requestedfromeach initiatefor contributed twelve obols at the Greater Mysteries. Dividing
just this priest. Though only two separate fees are 4,299 2/3 drachmas (25,798 obols) by 12 obols, we arrive at a
listed in this inscription,it looks as if they are listed reasonable total of approximately 2,150 initiates for the year
in decreasing amounts. Since all the major priests 408/7-provided of course that the fees were approximately the
are listed except the hierophant and daduch, the same then as fortyyears earlier. The low figurefor the Lesser
Mysteries, never obligatory for participation in the Greater,
latter most probablypreceded the priestessand were indicates that it was poorlyattended at this time.
grantedgreateramounts,of whichthe amount forthe 14-SeeNilsson, Geschichte1: p. 656; A. D. Nock, "Hellenistic
priest just discussed is one. Whatever the original Mysteries and Christian Sacraments," Mnemosyne 5 (1952):
purpose of these collections,according to this law p. 179; P. Roussel B.C.H. 54 (1930): pp. 53-55; C. Zijderveld,
Telete, Bijdrage tot de kennis der religieuze terminologiein het
theywere apparentlynot intendedto be pocketed by Grieksch (Diss. Utrecht, 1934), pp. 98-99; Pringsheim (1905:
the recipientsbut to go to the treasuryof Demeter pp. 20-26) firstnoticed the distinction.
15 By the end of the fourth century ,uuewand Abincras were also
10 Hesperia 14 (1945): p. 62.
being applied to the whole process; cf. Theophilus, ed. Edmonds,
11See S. Dow, H.S.C.P. 48 (1937): pp. 111-120. The number II, p. 568, 1, line 4), where iju Ap seems to describe the whole
of consecutive days in the Greater Mysterieson which important process; in addition, Plato and Aristotle sometimes do not keep
ceremoniestook place could have been just eight, but it is possi- to the distinction (cf. referencesto the Mysteries in Plato and
ble that the numberof days on which payment was required was Aristotlediscussed by Boyance, R.E.G. 75 (1962): pp. 460-482);
greaterthan this (or even less than this). an example of this fromthe fifthcenturyis Aristophanes,Peace,
12 The duration of the Lesser Mysteries is not attested.
375.
420's, lists the people who were given aLTvoLsin the the relationshipbetweenthe aeisitoiof thisperiodand
Prytaneum. The first group mentioned has been those of the Roman period that it is difficultto have
traditionally restoredas follows:[evaL Teh crLrEol' Tep confidence in either Ostwald's restoration or the
i1,uIrpvTaZELoL 7rp6ro0 [ Tiul' Eo-ioI htepei3J7o0' OEoip traditionalone, especially since there is good reason
K]aTaI Ta 7r[EjTpLa. M. Ostwald has more recently to believe that the latter aeisitoi were not fed in the
restored16: 7rp6roz'[E T6L [h
NtEppocu)TEL IyElJ0/ aT 'a Prytaneum (where the formerwere fed) but in the
Ta Er[A]rpLa. He rejectsthetraditional restoration on Tholos.20
thegroundsthatin thepreserved
partoftheinscrip- 421 B.C.
tion movable-nu never occurs except in 'f5oxoEv,a
formulaic term, thus ToLo-Lvis quite improbable17; In this year2"a decree,I.G., I2, 81, was passed con-
and that in the aeisitoilists of the Roman period, cerning the reconstructionof a bridge over the
whichis the onlyothertimewe are informed about Rheitos, which probably had been destroyedduring
thepriestlymembers of thisgroup,notall theEleu- the war and withoutwhich the Sacred Way was vir-
sinianpriestsare listedand thosethatarelisteddo not tually impassable.22 It is to be built hos av ra hLEpa
remainthesame,exceptthehierophant, theonlyone SCEPpoaYvhaL hLEpEaL'[Eoj]saXorara, and ofsuch a width
who always appears. However,Ostwald'srestora- hLva A' hJ &EaxOaL5LEXaWvovtaL, aXXa ToLs Lo-LvELfcaE65L'Ev
tiondoes not receive"further supportfromthe fact 7ircra htEp'. It is strikingthat "the priestesses"seem
that the LEporavT?7s was, in Classical times, the only to have a principalrole in the Sacred Procession,i.e.,
member oftheEleusinianpriesthood wrho was a priest carryingthe hiera; there is no mentionof the hiero-
and a magistrate at thesame time."'8 His referencephant herein connectionwiththe mostsacred objects
forthis,Foucart(1914: p. 178),reads:"La chargedu ofthecult. The inscriptiondividestheprocessioninto
hierophante etait'a la foisun sacerdoceet une magi- two groups: haL hLEpEaLand ToZs 16oL ("the marchers").
strature, apxj7 TrS EpEwv7VS, comniele dit une inscrip- The priestessescarry the hiera whereas the marchers
tion." But Foucartdoesnotidentify theinscription.follow after the hiera (t3a&L'Ev i7rlra hLEpa). However,
It is I.G., JJ2, 1235,a decreeof the Eumolpidaeand one cannot be suirewhetherthe hierophantwas con-
theKerykes,datedaround248/7(see below),honor- sidered as belongingto the latter group, or whether
ing a hierophant for,amongotherthings,KaLLv rEL he marchedat a point in the processionahead of "the
aPXEL T77s tEpEwOC?7S EVOX?7IOV'cXS VEPyKX-7TO1V 6avrov priestesses."23
Thusthehierophant
rapaJKKElM;cWV. certainly was not 416/5 OR 415/4
considereda magistrateofthestatein thisinscription,
butat mostan officerofthegene,liketheaPXpovTes Tcov If the legislationof ca. 460 discussedabove could be
in thesameinscription
,yEvpCv (line24), and it is indeed called democratic,in protectingthemystes,the private
perfectlyconceivablethattheEumolpidaeand Kery- citizen, from being financiallyexploited by aristo-
kes used this phraseto mean even less than that, cratic priests, the next testimony concerning the
namely,"in hispriestlyoffice"or "in thetermof his hierophant,fromthe year 416/5 or 415/4,24reflectsto
priesthood."'9Furthermore, we knowso littleabout
neokoroi,priests,and priestessesbe in charge of sanctuaries just
as thereare officialsto take care of other subdivisions of the city
16A.J.P. 72 (1951): pp. 24-32.
and country,and that they should be appointed by the state-
17 This is not a strongargumentagainst ToZcru; use of movable- except the Tra&rpLat lepw0bpaL, which should be leftalone. Aristotle,
nu can be very erratic; cf. L. Threatte, H.S.C.P. 74 (1970): loc. cit., states: 'EoTL 6f oU6f ToTio &copLCLaL pa&Fop, rolas 6L KaXeu'
p. 348. apXas 1roXXwp yap ErLo-TaTCop 7) roXLTLK77 KOLPWCOPa &LTaL, bo7rep (ov)
18 Op. cit., p. 32. irapTas OVTE TOvS atuiTOVS OVTE TOVS KX77pwTOV S PaXopTa S OEfTo, OlO
l9J. Martha (1881: pp. 8-10) believed without a doubt that ToUs LEpzis irpCaTop. A few lines later he defines a mnagistracy:
priesthoods in general were city magistracies, on the basis of iaXarTa 5'c's abro s E7re'r 'apX&S Xe-KT'OP TavTas 'o-aS a7robk5oTat
Plato, Laws, 758e-759c and Aristotle,Politics, 1299a, 14-19 and ToLro'
03ovXcrbfarOal Te 7repl TCW'VJ KaG Kpu'aL Kat irLTctaat, Ka'L /aLXLcTa
speculation of his own. At Eleusis the hierophant and daduch To -yap brLTaTTrEu apXLKWTep6P cErTCP. (Cf. the discussion of these
were certainlyin charge of the sanctuaryadministration,but by lines in WV.L. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle(Oxford, 1902),
the end of the fifthcenturythe financialpower of the sanctuary 4: pp. 255-256.) One can hardly say that commanding is the
was in the hands of the epistatai and the Athenian state. The main functionof an Eleusinian priest. At any rate the problem
state, though it probably would normally take advice fromthe of whetheror not an officecan be called an a'pX77,to continue
hierophant and daduch, legislated in matters of the sanctuary quoting Aristotle, TaiTa &a(pEpt 7rp6s z'p Ta's Xpo)s o0V&eP.
which affectedits own interest,such as the availability of the 20

See S. Dow, Prytaneis,Hesperia, suppl. 1 (1937): pp. 22-24.
sanctuary,its feesand finances,and its politicalvalue as a cultural 21 The conciliar year of the firstsecretaryis dated to 422/1 by
highlightof Athens, but thereis no evidence that it ever touched McGregor, A.J.P. 59 (1938): pp. 147-162. The period afterthe
in any significantway the basic religiousmattersof the sanctuary. cessation of hostilitiesin 421 would be the most reasonable time
In a sense, these priesthoodswere 'apxat' in that they did have forthis decree calling forconstructionwithina war zone.
some powerwithinthe sanctuaryand theywere responsibleto the 22
Cf.J. Travlos and K. Kourounoites, lIpaKTLKa 1937: pp. 25-41.
state in some matters (e.g., they underwentan audit, see below, 23 For the processionsee below, pp. 35-36; forthe "priestesses,"
p. 46) but the fact that they were not appointed by the state p. 69 and pp. 88-89.
and theirpower did not emanate fromthe state hardlyallows us 24 For a recent discussion of the date see R. Meiggs and
to regard them as city magistracies. Nor do Plato and Aristotle D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford,
regard them as such. In Plato, loc. cit., it is suggested that 1969), pp. 222-223, with bibliography. The date is not of critical
some extent the Athenian imperialismof this period. done Kara r& irarpLa KaL ri'VaMaz'rELc Thi Ey AEXqso&26;only
It is a syngraphedealingprincipallywiththe collection the scale is new and, naturally,some of the resulting
ofthea7rapXrl iroiKaplrov oilv
)Eowp. It orders that the details. What we are witnessinghere is the remaking
announcementof the request to send the aparche to of an old, local custom27(to some extentalso observed
the Eleusinian Goddesses be promulgatedfirstto the by foreigners)intoan institutionof such a grandscale
Athenians, then to their allies, and finally-with that state personnel (the hieropoioi) are required to
perhaps a slight touch of humor-to all Greek cities, handle the main administrativeburdens and conse-
not "commanding" but "encouraging" them. The quently overshadow here the traditionaladministra-
proceedsfromthe aparchewere to be used fora great torsof the sanctuary,the hierophantand the daduch.
sacrificeand "dedications to the Two Goddesses": Before this transformation, the procedureconcerning
i.e., for adorning the sanctuary. It is strikinghow the aparche was probably as follows. Each year at
minor a role the hierophanthad in all this: KEXEVEVTO the Mysteries the hierophantand the daduch an-
6E K a ho htcEpo aVTrS KLL
[a ro] LL60VXos MVJTEpLoLs 4larpX--Oac nounced that an aparche should be given to the Two
TOS hC'Evc-as TO Kapro KaTa Ta 'aTpta KaO TEV /.CaVLTELavTElV C'- Goddesses. It was then given the followingJune at
2EAXO6V. avatypacLpcoaPTes 6E E[I.] rwvaKLOL TO
r.LETpOp TO Kap7rO harvest time,stored forthe summer (in a siros), and
TO TE 7rap TOVa 65E1'apXOv KaCT.a TO[V) 6E]/OoV hEKCL(aTOl KaC TO taken out at the timeof the M\ysteries, just beforethe
77rapa TOp irO'XOV KaTa' TEV 7rOXLXV hEK6T[T(V K cT-LEVTo) EcV TE fall sowing.28 Originallytherewas in all probability
TOc EXEvatvOLot 'EXcEvLlvLKacLElv TOt IOoN[EVT]43p]lot.All the no sacrificeas describedin this decree, since it is not
otherdetails are to be taken care of by the hieropoioi performedby an Eleusinian priest. For this reason
and the Boule. The hieropoioiare to be the ones who the Eumolpidae mustnow give exegesisforit.29 Their
actually receive the grain,arrangeforits storageand exegesis,among other things,would specifythe date
sale, and from its proceeds perform the sacrifice of the sacrifice,which was left unmentionedin the
(probablyat the end of the festivalof the M\Iysteries).decree. Even thoughthe state could not arbitrarily
Even theannouncementof thehierophantand daduch institute a sacrifice at the Mysteries without the
is not very important. The crucial announcementto sanction of the Eumolpidae, it did manage to have it
the cities is to be made by the Boule throughits performedby its own appointees and not by the
heralds,so that by comparisonthe priests'announce- hierophantand daduch.
ment at the Mysteries appears somewhat pro forma,
merelylending religiousand ancestral legitimacyto 415 B.C.
an enterprise calculated to enhance the glory of At thistimethe Eleusinian M\lysteries wereinvolved
Athens as the cradle of civilization, the home of in one of the most tragic misfortunesof Athens, the
Demeter and Triptolemus. condemnationof Alcibiades on a charge of impiety
A great deal of grain is expected. An architectis against the Goddesses of the Mysteries. According
commissionedto build three new storerooms(siroi). to Plutarch the followingimpeachmentwas made
A great sacrificeis to be made fromthe proceeds of against him30: @Oc-caXo6s KLuwcvos AaKL46a?- 'AXK1f3tLa'6v
the grain, and the money left over is to be used for KXcELoV ov 2KafI3cwvu3t7vEuTola7yyELXEv
6LKEIJV lTep't7( 0Ecw,ca7ro/t-
dedications bearing the inscription47o' TO Kap7r67O 3 IOVU/EVOZ Tra Ivo-T1pLpa KaL 6EtKVVOvTa TOLS cWTOU ETcLpOtS E'
arapX1s avEO'EOE, hEXXE'ol TOPaL7rapXo/IEl)oP.25 The body of Tf OiKLfaTp EvTov, ExoVTa TToX7v ol'avrcp 6 tepofp'vaTirsE&X.AV
of the decree thencloses witha promiseof fruitfulness
and abundance to those who do not wrong the 26 Delphi was probably consulted on this occasion of its exten-
Athenians,eithertheircity or theirTwo Goddesses. sion, or at the time it was firstextended if this is not the first
time; for Delphi was apparently consulted on occasions when
This is not a newly invented enterprise,for it is there was no answer forthcomingfrom ra 7ra'TpLca or when the
scope of the reformwas beyond the scope of ra irarTpa (as in
importance for the present discussion, but I prefer and shall I.G., JJ2, 204), i.e., when something unprecedented was about
defend elsewhere Meritt's date of 416/5 or 415/4, as argued in to be undertaken.

27 Nilsson, Geschichte 1: pp. 471-474.
Classical World 56 (1962-1963): pp. 39-41, where in fact he
28 Ibid.
expresses a preference for Dinsmoor's date (The A rchons of
Athens [Cambridge, Mass., 1931], p. 340), 416/5 (not 415/4 as 29Lines 36-37: xaO6rLav EVi',oXirSatka[he I-y]vrTat. (This is
misprinted in Meritt's article and repeated by Meritt and an improved reading from a squeeze.) If the sacrifice were
McGregor in Phoenix 21 [1967]: p. 89, n. 20). In an article reallya traditionalpart of the cult, the priestperformingit would
which appeared afterthe above was written (Proc. Amer. Philos. know perfectlywell all its details without having to be informed
Soc. 115 [1971]: pp. 109-110) Meritt proposes additional argu- by the Eumolpidae. However, a new sacrificecould not be made
ments for416/5. withinthe frameworkof the Mysteries without being sanctioned
25 Lines 43-44. I followFoucart and Ziehen in understanding by the Eumolpidae, the one genos whose prerogative it was to
a&rapXoogevov as modifying heXXevov.In I.G., J2 it is written know and safeguardthe unwrittentraditionsof this cult and the
a&rapxo6gEvov; this was done firstby Kirchhoffwithout comment only genos that had the authority to expound these traditions.
and followed by Dittenberger, Roberts-Gardner, Hiller, and In thiscase, in which therewas probablyno exact precedent,they
Meiggs and Lewis, evidently interpretingit as modifyingan would have described a sacrifice most in keeping with their
understoodxapirov; but a7rarpxoiua apparently was not used in the traditions.
passive. 30 Plutarch, Alcibiades, 22, 4.
6ElKVVEC Ta Cp'a KaC ovo/aI

covTa avT)ro)v .EZv LEpoScaVTtvv, of the priestswas so revolted by Alcibiades' alleged
IIovXvTLwva 6E 6yaWXov, Kt7pVKa of 0EooE5pov cblyatL, TOVS impietyas to utter a public curse against him com-
6' aXXovs ETraLpovSAvIo-Tas 7rpoaTyopEvovTa KaL e7ro7rTas 7rapa pletelyon his own. The ability to do so mighthave
Ka Kqp )VKCoV been, like a papal interdict,a source of considerable
Ta PoA/L/Ia KaL Ta KaOE-oT?JKOTa v7ro T' Ev,uo)rL6C0v
Kat TCV LcEpECwV TCAVE4 'EXEvoZrvos. He was thereupon politicalpower. But thiswas not done. From early
condemned by default, and it was furtherdecreed timesasebeia was a crimethat was underthe jurisdic-
that "all priests and priestesses" (i.e., all the Eleu- tion of the state courts.35 Thus a curse by a priest
sinian ones) were to cursehim. Theano, the priestess could appear ridiculous if the man were subse-
of Demeter and Kore, however,refused,saying that quently foundinnocentin court. If a hierophantor
she was a praying priestess and not a cursing some other priest of the M/vysteries were really con-
priestess." cernedabout an act of impietyagainst the Goddesses,
Andocideswas similarlycursed at this time,in the the most efficaciouscourse of action would be to
following manner32: CEpEat Kat LEpELs TrTaPTES KaT?7paTapTO initiatea suit of asebeia in court (or to provide testi-
7rpoSsE7rEpav Kat fCOLPLKL as cEoELoap, KaTa TO Po0t/OVTO mony and support for such a suit). On the other
7raXatovKat acpXaLov. hand, ifpriestswereconvincedthat a man was in fact
innocentof impietydespite the verdictof the court,
2. @EOMw.pos. Plutarch, Alcibiades, 33. Toepffer, 1889:
theyapparentlycould refusea commandof the state
p. 55. Foucart, 1914: p. 187. P.A., 6827. In
to curse him. The case of Theano clearlyshows they
officein 415 and 408.
could do this however strong public indignation
Seven years later, when the Athenians changed against the condemned might be. But Theodorus
their minds and decreed the return of Alcibiades, compliedand made the curse; his later rescindingof
Theano did nothave to undo a curse. TIheothersdid33: it (even though the Eumolpidae and Kerykes were
t'tCLOrctavTro6E ... Tas apaS a4ouLtCLaoOaL 7raXivEvl/1oXwrL6asopposed to Alcibiades' return)36 and his attempt at
K'L K'pvKas, as E7rOLt1c7aTrTO
TOV 6n/tiov7rpOTTcaV-rTOs.But saving face show that he was carefulto remainon the
Theodorus the hierophant tried to save face: side of public opinion-an attitude probably rarely
acouLov/Iwv 6E T(JVaXCLw)v(OC6&.po66s OSClEPwaTr17s a found in hierophantswhen Athens was firmlyunder
EyWco EC7rEv ktov6E KaTnfpaual/inv avTrq KaKov 00EV, EL /I?1OEP the controlof the aristocraticgene.
a6LKE-ir TV wXtv." It seems, in effect,in pronouncing
the curse he, like the otherpriests,acted as thoughhe 3. 'Apxtas. Pseudo-Demosthenes, Against Neaera,
were an organ of the state, the cursingorgan; and if 116; Plutarch,Pelopidas, 10; On theSign of Socra-
the state on anotheroccasion declared the curse to be tes, 596e; Nepos, Pelopidas, 3.37 Toepffer,1889:
null and void, he as "officialexsecrator,"so rescinded pp. 55-56. P.A., 2447. Foucart, 1914: p. 188.
it. Of all the priestsapparentlyonly Theodorus was In officein 379.
cleverenoughto have hedgedhis originalcursein such Two episodes have come down to us concerning
a way34as to make it clear that it was dependentpri- Archias. The firstrelates to the vear 379. When
marilyon the will of the state and not his own; thus Pelopidas and his companionswerejust about to make
he personallycould appear to take no responsibility an unsuspectedcoup d'etatagainst the oligarchsand
forthe inanityof cursingsomeoneand thenhaving to Spartan garrisonin Thebes, one of the oligarchs,com-
take it back. It is interestingthat apparentlynone pletely drunk, dismissed a messengerfrom Athens
withthewords"OV'KOVV1es acd5ptovra orov6cda." The un-
31Plutarch does not state explicitlyhere whetherTheano is a accepted letterwhichthe messengerwas carryingwas
priestessof the Mysteries,or whether"all priestsand priestesses"
means all the Eleusinian ones or all Athenian priestesses and
fromthe oligarch'sold friend,Archiasthe hierophant,
priests in general. Toepffer(1889: p. 96, n. 2) thinksshe is the and containedan advance warningof the forthcoming
priestessof Demeter and Kore because the case concerned these coup. A short time later it took place and the
two goddesses. The real proof,I think,is in Plutarch,Alcibiades, bibulous oligarchwas killed.
33, whereit is stated that in 408 only the priestsof the Mysteries, The starting-pointof Pelopidas's operation was 'EV
the Eumolpidae and the Kerykes,are asked to undo theircurses.
Therefore,only the Eleusinian priestswere asked to make them from there the younger men among the
,rco0ptartLcw38;
in 415. Consequently Theano was an Eleusinian priestess and exiles were sent ahead to take over Thebes while the
most probably the priestessof Demeter and Kore. On bEpfov TWV rest remained behind until they received news of
et 'EXEvalvos see also below, p. 70, n. 12. success. The proximityof this gatheringplace to
32 Pseudo-Lysias, AgainstAndocides,51, when a somewhatsimi-
larly worded charge of impersonatingthe hierophant is made

against him; on the I0oLvLKL&1ES see below, p. 33. 35 Cf. J. Rudhardt, "La definitiondu delit d'impiete d'apres la
33 Plutarch, Alcibiades, 33. Cf. Nepos, Alcibiades, 6, 5: legislation attique," Museum HeIveticum18 (1961): pp. 87-105.
eidemque illi Eumolpidae sacerdotes rursusresacraresunt coacti, Aeschylus was acquitted on a charge of asebeia against the
qui eum devoverant. Mysteries by the Areopagus. In the same year as Alcibiades
3 It is similar to the conditionattached to the wish at the end Diagoras was also convicted of asebeia against the Mysteries.
of I.G., I2, 76: [ho],rtvessa [,u]e wFKo&rt 'AOEvalos pE Tr& 7roXtv 36Thucydides, VIII, 53, 2.
T,'v 'AOevacovgE3e rT CE6. So the hierophant'sconditionshould not 3 The passage in Nepos surroundingthe name of the hiero-
have struck anybody as being out of the ordinary in religious phant is corrupt.
language. 38 Plutarch, Pelopidas, 8.
Eleusis may have facilitated the hierophant's dis- 4. AaKpaTE15ts. Isaeus, On The Estate of A pollo-
coveryof the plot. dorus, 9; H. Diehls and W. Schubart, Didymi de
The other episode relates to the time that Archias DemostheneCommenta(Teubner, 1904), col. 13,
was convicted of impiety. The convictionand some lines 41-58, and col. 14, lines 35-49.44 Toepifer,
details of his crimeare mentionedby the accuser of 1889: p. 55. P.A., 8969. Foucart, 1914: p. 188.
Neaera: "AiLovbe Ka'KEWZoEvGvwlOr'aL, cX,cwapEs 'AGpvaloL, In officefromshortlybefore353 to at least 350/49.
oTt 'ApXLav rTv
'EPoSC4vT?W
TO) yEVO,uEVOV,
EtEXEyOEvra EV
aLKa07T?JpLq) acLrE03oIwTa Kal GiovTa 7rapa Ta 7raTpLa

Lacrateides is mentionedas the currenthierophant
Tas 6voLas,
fKOXaoaTE VI4ElS, Kacl 'aXXa TE KaT?70op?0? avcTov, KaL OTt
in the followingpassage of a speech made about
35345: "About to set offto Corinthwith the Athenian
TLz,j1r7r? &aLpat ~AX4OLs73L coxapas v 'Ev
PT? avXj vOZvl
rpooaovaop lEpElOV OVOELEV,OVi OPTOS PV apaTp
army,Apollodorus,lestanythinghappen to him,made
voipiOA'AOV
his will, and provided his sister . . . with a dowry,
fl/IEpatOVELV, OVa EKElVOV OV?fl T S 6voLas, aXXa T73 LEpeLas.39
The hierophant,therefore, probablydid not have the and gave her (to marry) to AaKparL6f rc vIv LEPOfavI
rightto performa sacrificeat the Haloa; apparently yEyEvY,uEvP.P The naturalinterpretation of the phrase
rT3vvvlepo4pavpyEyEv74vqis that Lacrateides had just
only the priestess (of Demeter and Kore) had this
right. recentlybecome hierophant. The passage refersto
After recounting this incident, the accuser of the betrothalof Lacrateides and the sisterof Apollo-
Neaera proceedsto stressthe importanceand prestige dorus,which took place just beforeApollodoruswent
of thisman.40 He was a Eumolpid, of noble ancestry, offto fightagainst Corinth,therefore around 394. If
and very wealthy,having performedseveral liturgies we assume that in 394 Lacrateides was about thirty
forthe city. But nothingcould save him,neitherhis years old, the age at which Greek men were likelyto
wealth nor his prestigenor the entreatiesof his rela- marry,46 thenhe would be close to seventyat the time
he was appointed hierophant(shortlybefore353).
tives and friends.4
Statementsof Philochorusand Androtioncited in a
373-371 papyrusof Didymus's commentaryon Demosthenes47
Around 373-371 an unnamed hierophantrepaid a reveal that he was still servingas hierophantin 350-
349. He was therefore in officewhenin 352 thedecree
loan of 44 minas which he had made by mortgaging
a house in the city to Euctemon.42 Upon repayment concerning the lepa opya's was issued (I.G., JJ2, 204),
and participatedin its implementation. The follow-
of the loan by the hierophant,Euctemon returnedto
ing events seem to have led up to thisdecree. Culti-
him the house, of which he (Euctemon) had the use
vators of the land adjoiningthehieraorgas,land sacred
whilethemortgagewas in effect. The date is reasona-
to the Eleusinian goddesses, had been gradually en-
bly close to the timeofArchias'sincumbencyto regard
him as the hierophantin question, though certainty croaching upon it, the boundarieshaving disappeared
in the course of time,and now the encroachmenthad
is not possible.
gone so farthat therewas cause forspecial action. A
BEFORE MIDDLE OF FOURTH CENTURY B.C. decree was passed callingforthe Demos to choose ten
men to forma committeewhichwould determinethe
The hierophantis mentionedin two fragmentary boundariesof the orgas,and for the hierophant,the
inscriptionsdated roughlyto beforethe middleof the daduch, the Kerykes, the Eumolpidae,and any other
fourthcentury,but no informationabout the hiero- Athenian who wished, to be present during the de-
phant emergesin eithercase.43 liberationof the committee. The oracle at Delphi
39Pseudo-Demosthenes, Against Neaera, 116.
was to determinea related question: Should the land
40Ibid., 117. now encroachedupon be rentedto its presentcultiva-
41 That the sacrifice of the hierophant (legitimately of the tors in orderto pay forthe constructionof the porch
priestess) was to Dionysus seems to have escaped the notice of (of the Telesterion) and the repair of the sanctuary,
writers on this festival. Deubner (1932: pp. 63-64) cites in- or should the occupants be removed
scriptionsof the third and second centuries B.C. as the earliest
and the land left
testimoniaforthe connectionof Dionysus with this festival,and
asserts that until then Dionysus had played "keinesfalls eine coming new edition of this inscriptionby C. Edmonson). New
erhebliche Rolle." Nilsson (Geschichte1: p. 467) disagrees with fragments show that the lines are ninety-seven letters long.
his interpretationbecause of the large number of Dionysiac ele- Sokolowski's restorationsare forty-twoletters too short in each
ments in the festivaland because of the time of the year at which line.
it was held. His interpretationis confirmedby this overlooked 44 Cf. P. Foucart, Etude sur Didymos, pp. 103-106
and 174-183,
passage, which shows Dionysus enjoyed an importantrole, if not in Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres38
the principalone, in this cult as early as the second quarter of the (1906); F. Gr. Hist., 324 (Androtion), F30; 328 (Philochorus),
fourthcentury. F155.
42 Isaeus, On theEstate of Philectemon,33. The date of the re- 45 Isaeus, On the Estate of Apollodorus, 9; for the date see
payment is obtained fromthe historicalevents mentionedin the Blass, AttischeBeredsamkeit,JJ2, p. 552.

speech. Cf. J. Fine, Horoi, Hesperia, suppl. 11: p. 74. 4 Cf. WV. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece(Ithaca, 1968),
43I.G., JJ2,1540, lines 31-32 (an inventory) and Sokolowski, pp. 106-107. Lacrateides, however,probably did not marrythe
Supplement, 12, line 7. In the first line of the latter, o-7r- sister of Apollodorus; cf. J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied
[ovbo(poplas] (proposed by Oliver) cannot be correct,because the Families, 600-300 B.C. (Oxford,1971), p. 44.
second lettercannot be a 7rbut probablyrathera T (see the forth- 47 Diehls-Schubart, loc. cit.
uncultivated? Towards the end of the decree it is He is honoredby the deme of Eleusis in a decree
stated that the hierophant and the priestess of dated (by its lettering)to about the middle of the
Demeter are to sacrificean [apEo-rTpLov] to Demeter fourthcentury. Since the exact middle of the cen-
and Kore, forwhich the Treasurerof the Demos is to tury is occupied by Lacrateides, we cannot be sure
give them thirtydrachmae. The decree does not whetherthis hierophantwas beforeor afterhim.
informus of Apollo's judgment in this matter,but I have been able to read moreof this inscriptionso
fortunatelythe papyrus of Didymus does: Apollo that an almost completelyrestoredtext can be pre-
decided that the land should be left uncultivated. sented here togetherwith commentaryand a photo-
Later, apparentlythe Miegarianswho had encroached graph (fig.1).
on the land disputed the location of the boundaries
and were unwillingto pay rent,so that in the year I.G., IJ2, 1188
350/49,to put an end to this,the Atheniansmarched ca. med.s. IV a.
on Megara.48 In the face of the Athenianarmy the
Megarians yielded,on conditionthat the hierophant Stoikhedon25: lines 1-28
and thedaduch determinethe boundaries:o-leWxpor-ap Non-Stoikhedon:lines 29-33
ayp Ol MeyapeZs pLopTas yEpEoOaL Tov LEpopca)T77P
AaKpaTKE)l6?w Kal TOVP6a=6OVxoV IEpOKXEl6?v. Kal CS oVTOl
6 [E 0 c
O 1 ~~~~~~41
We are not told whether the E .O[ . . .6 . . .0Cvos 'EXevoLv'os v
c$pwoav, eveMueIvaC.
boundaries determinedby the two priests differed (Z7r[E]v EPrEL6)0 oEEpoi0 avTr?s SIEp
from those set by the committeeappointed by the 4 TEl]aMEVoi HalaVLE

OKX[rl6qs
Demos. Unless the Demos was overly zealous they
vs aFv-lp ],y[aO]'s []OrT[LV] 7Epl TrV 6
probably did not, since it is hardly likely that the
hierophantand the daduch would deprive the god- [7?7]Mo[vr]ov 'EXEv[otvp]tvP Kalt X&yvp
desses of any of their rightfulland. This may have [K]ai [wOOj 6tT [6v']arat ayaoov 6
been a face-savingcompromiseon the part of the 8
[EJaTlEXE KaL [v3v] Ka[T] ev P r f. >,7rp
M\legarians rather than an actual concession by the
Athenians,it beingeasier forthe Megarians to accept o[Eo]E[Ev] xp6yE@, 6E6]6[X]0at 'EXEvoL
a settlementdecided by the sacred representativesof [V]lot[S KJVpla [ETiva]l Kal Ta Vln?pLA7
Demeter and Kore than one decided by a committee [EuaJra[ojEfa l fl[Loa]aooq 6iAoso 'EX
representing the AthenianState.
12 [Evo]VlwV TEcL [oE]pol avmm oi[cv]
This is anotherinstanceof an administrativefunc- \ , ~V Kal~~~ a ,\\ .
tion of the hierophant,wherebyhe acts primarilyas aP El6CVO]L Ol xxOl oTL 0
E6
6OO7
guardian of the propertyof the two goddesses. The [,os o 'EXE]vo{L]vl v 6rLoTra[raL x]
decree makes it clear that both the Eumolpidae and [pLTas arw op6l al TOlS EV w[o]lO
the Kerykes have to be consulted in this administra-
tive matter,and that the hierophantand daduch are 16 [vvw avr6]v T W7raLvE]alE[r]6v Epo
the spokesmen for these gene. Thus, as in the ad- [EPa'vrPv 'IEPOKX]f{E67IYV[T]E[Lr]caEv
ministrativemattersin the decreeof 416/5 concerning [ov HtaLavLeaKat 07]Efpav[(fojatav
the aparche (I.G., I2, 76), here also, the hierophant, [ETv XPVOTWL STEPavPL] 4Ir6 u 6p[a] F
the representativeof the Eumolpidae, is joined by the
daduch, the representativeof the Kerykes. Yet in 20 [xwx'vEvAOE3ELas fEb]Ka r?77 7WEP
sacrificingthe [aresterion]the hierophant'sassociate Ta LEpa Kal pLXOTL,4L]as T S E[l]
is not the daduch but the priestessof Demeter.50 [s TP6v Ai,ovTov 'EX)Evollcvp-v 'vEj
Possibly to be identifiedwith this hierophantis the [L7rEZvT6ov6?7apxov ]TOZ[s] ALO{V]V
[Aa]KpaTd6-q3[.... . .... .7la]tavpvs who dedicated a
statue base, dated to the fourthcentury,(probably) 24 [olols 6 TOES Tpa]ywly 0l]os OTL V
in the Eleusinion in Athens."5 [6O6077Uos 6'EXrEvoV]vz'cP [EojmLrco]avo!

5. 'IEpOKXEL6?fs TEEoa/eIvoi HIaLavLEvs. I.G., 112, 1188. [rOv LEpopavPT7v EvcTE/aEla]s Eve
Foucart, 1914: p. 188. In office "around the [Ka T?s 7lrEpLT-a LEpaa] Kl (plOTlI
middleof the fourthcentury." 28 [Las TnS
riz tE vTP ai,uo]v o 'ExE[vo
48
G. L. Cawkwell (R.E.G. 82 (1969): pp. 330-331) thinksthat tcovpV etvat av'Trk Ka]l EKTOPOLS a'Te
just theearXaTal,
the disputeat thistimeconcerned not the Lepa [X\ELav Kal .c..7 .-JI
. ? /OTCJV *vac.
op-yas itself. The statements of Philochorus and Androtion
suggest to me that it concernedboth. [EvaTyp4VaL To' 417'?ScLa/a T]6Ef TPv 77)ia
49 Diehls-Schubart,col. 14, lines 40-46.
50 See also below p. 71.
32 [pxov EV0r7JX?LtXLOLt]V?JLKal 077o-a[l]
51 Hesperia 26 (1957): p. 216, no. 66. A title could be restored [E1s ro 6Narpov rO 'EXEv]lvlCvV.
in line 1. vacat
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] HIEROPHANT 19
COMMENTARY
My own restorationsare: lines 10, 11 except [gtaj,

12 except [elc-v, 13-15, 16 beginning,20 evae3ELas,21,
22 beginning,23-28, 29 beginning,31 avaypa4/at, 33
beginning. The restare by Skias or Kirchnerand are
listed in the apparatus of I.G., 112,1188.
Line 1: Perhaps E1vQ[;Las rvaP]Qwvog'EXEc-tvoLos.
EvOLcas
'EXEvcrl(vtos)is mentionedin I.G., JJ2, 1672, lines 56
and 58 (329/8), and FvaOwv'EXEuo-caos,firstrestored
here by Kirchner,appears on a fourth-century grave
monument for his wife, I.G., IJ2, 6054 (dated to
365-349).
Lines 10-12: Cf. I.G., II2, 275, lines 5-7: [elvatU5]
'aikmploa[ra
['rJ&
KuLptaE bca 'A6rpalot k SitoaaTro ire]pL
Line 19: rP fills the space and extends slightlyto

the right;it does not occupy two spaces but is followed
by a blank space.
Line 20: aeflEcasand a blank space, rather than
erwXeltasseems necessaryhere because br/AiEelasis too
long forthe lacuna in line 26.
Line 21: [r6 'ep6vj Wilamowitz.
Line 22: Kirchner's ['A6,qva]wv, strange in an
Eleusinian decree,was a resultof his incorrectreading
of the end of line 21.
Lines 22-24: The Eleusinians regularlyhad their
demarchosannounce honorsconferredby themat their
Dionysia. Cf. I.G., 112, 1193, lines 15-16: Atovv-lots&V
roZs rpac-ywt3oi.Restoration of a blank space seems
unavoidable here.
Line 30: Perhaps EKad r4aXa 1ra-4 ]v 5quorCov, which
occurs, with a differentsense, in Hesperia 8 (1939):
p. 178, lines 12-13.
Line 31: acvaypac'iacfitsthe space betterthan ypa4'Vat.
Line 33: [Evri7t yop&L7- 'EXev] tvLovSkias. There
are no examples of decrees of the deme of Eleusis set
up in theiragora; thereare examplesfortheirtheater;
cf. 1.G., 112, 1185, line 8. Also possible here is ECs-ro
Atovbo-ov; cf. I.G., IJ2, 1186, line 32.
DISCUSSION
The motivationexpressedby thedecreeforhonoring

Hierocleides is nothingmore than the standard for-
mulae that Hierocleideswas a benefactorof the deme;
it is not said exactly how he benefitedit. If he per-
formedwell his duties as hierophant,he could be re-
garded as responsibleto some extent for a large at- FIG. 1. 1.G., II2, 1188.
tendance at the Mysteries and thereby for bringing
considerableeconomicbenefitto the deme, whichhad His honorsare ateleijaand a gold crown3 wortlh500
to provide the material needs of the participants.52 drachmas. Ateleia was a dispensation from-i paying
And ofcoursethepreparationsforthe Mysterieswould tax to the deme on propertyowned witlhinits territory
go most smoothlyif he had good relations with the by people who were registeredin otherdenies. We
deme and its officials. Apparently this hiierophant, Kirchner describes the crowniengraved on the stone above
53
who was previously honored by the deme on several the inscriptionas myrtle. However, it does not differin appear-
occasions (lines 10-12), had excellentrelations. ance from many olive crowns. I thinl that the decree would
state a myrtlecrown if such were the case. No instance of the
deme of Eleusis issuinga myrtlecrownis knowii. On the stubject
52 Cf.below,pp. 28-29. of crowns see below, pp. 23, 71.
cannot inferfrom this whetheror not Hierocleides the sanctuary (for which he was granted atelejiaby
actuallyownedpropertyat Eleusis,thoughitwouldnot the deme).60
be unreasonableto asstumethat he did; the dispensa- In this same document, an intriguingobject, T7?
tion would in any case be available to himselfor his OaKJ1ov, "the seat," is mentionedin line 145 without
descendantsif theychose to do so. any defining characteristic: TWCL t7r7KEVUaVTa rO
That he was wealthymay be inferredfromthe fact OaKELOv Kal KOXX?7oaWrt
ToUs ro'6as 7peJs ovras Xapiat
that Teisamenus of Paiania, donor of a gold crownto ,OLw%0s:r. It appears to have beenso wellknown that
Athena before 334-331,54was most likely his son. it did not need definition. The word is attested
OaK,dov
This cannot also be inferredwith certaintyabout his only here,accordingto L.S.J., s.v.; but the use of the
father,probably the Teisamenus of Paiania who was cognate verb OaKi4w generally indicates ceremonial
treasurerof Athena in 414/355. Though treasurersof sitting. I suspect that GaKEOlP is a "chair of office"or
Athena were once taken only fromthe pentakosio- "throne" and is to be identifiedwith the lEpo$oaVro's
medimnoi,the wealthiestclass in Athens,the practice Opovos. The hierophant was apparently the only
had probablybecome obsolete by this time.56 Eleusinian priestto have a throne6";part of one from
the Roman period was excavated and published by
6. [--]orros. I.G., IJ2, 1544, line 35. Foucart, J.Travlos.62 If thisinterpretation ofOaKELoV is correct,
1914: pp. 188-189. it is evidence that the customof the leposcavrLKos 6povos
was in use forover seven hundredyears, to the very
[--]OrTTOV tepoScaburov K[---- ] is the entire
yEVoM'uvov
end of the cult. It is also reasonableto assume thatit
preservedtestimonyfor this hierophant. It is con-
probablywas in use fora long timebeforethisaccount
tained in an inventoryof the sanctuarydrawn up by
of 329/8,perhapsfromthe verybeginningsof the cult.
the epistatai fromEleusis in the year 333/2, at the
In thisaccount it is also stated that,fromtheyearly
close of their term of office (336/5-333/2).57 In
harvest of the Rarian Field, sixty-one medimnoi
Attic prosopographyonly Btorrosor MoXorros seem to
state of the (of barley) were given to "the priestsand priestesses"
be possible. Because of the fragmentary
in each of the fouryears covered by the account, but
inscriptionnothingis known about this hierophant
it is not stated how thiswas divided among them. A
beyond the fact that he was in officeat some time in certain amount of Rarian grain was also allotted to
the period the inscriptioncovered, i.e. 336/5-333/2;
them,as a group,forthe trietericand pentetericcele-
how long beforeor after this period his incumbency
brationsof the Eleusinia.63
extendedis unknown. The participleyevopuz'ovmay
implyassumptionof officeduringthis period. 330-320
329/8 An unnamedhierophantappears in an inscription64

of thisperiod (330-320), at the head ofa groupof men
Surprisingly,no mentionis made of the hierophant selected by him to performsome functionsconnected
in the very extensiveaccount of the sanctuaryissued with the cult of Pluto in Athens: "The hierophant
by the epistataiin 329/8.58 A house of "the priestess" chose the followingmen to make up the couch for
is mentionedseveral times (lines 17, 74, 305), as well Pluto and to decoratethe table accordingto the oracle
as the house of the daduch (line 305), the houses of of the god." Thereupon follows a list of ten dis-
"the priestesses" (line 293), and the house of the tinguishedAthenians. This and threeothersimilarly
Kerykes (lines 24-25). The designations "sacred worded inscriptions65are the only testimoniafor the
houses" (lines 70, 86, 94, 293) and "the sacred house" custom (in one it is stated that all the chosen men
(lines 75, 91, 127) also occur; these were dwellingsof were married). Pluto is of course intimatelycon-
priestsor priestesses,as one entry (line 127) clearly nectedwith the cult of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis,
shows: "the sacred house,wherethe priestesslives."59 and this ceremonyin Athens,because of the involve-
And since the houses are included in this account of mentof the hierophant,musthave been relatedto the
the expendituresfor the sanctuary, they were un- Eleusinian cult in some way. The finding-placeof
doubtedly located in the sanctuary itself. Thus the thesefourinscriptions-theAcropolisand its slopes-
priestess (of Demeter and Kore), the daduch, and has led scholars66to connect them with a sanctuary
"the priestesses" lived within the sanctuary. But of the Erinyesnear there: accordingto Pausanias67a
we have no certain informationabout where the
hierophantlived, except for the fact that the hiero- 60 See above, hierophantno. 5.
See below,p. 43.
phant Hierocleidescould have ownedpropertyoutside
61
62 See below,p. 44.
63 I.G., I 12, 1672, lines 255-262.
54I.G., JJ2, 1496,line60. 64I.G., IJ2, 1933. This does not seem to be an example of
55 I.G., 12, 248. hieronymy.
56 Aristotle,Ath. Pol., 47, 1. 65 I.G., JJ2, 1934, 1935, 2464 (see below, pp. 22, 29); possibly
57 I.G., JJ2, 1544, line 35. also Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 75, no. 38.
58I.G., I 12, 1672. 66 Cf. Koehler, Hermes 6 (1872): p. 106.
59This is also apparent in line 293. 67 Pausanias, I, 28, 6.
statue of Pluto was situated in a sanctuary of the cult was not officially authorizedby the state.7' His
Erinyesbeneath the Areopagus. accusers evidentlyattemptedto prove this by calling
his poem a hymn or a paean, genres which in the
Ca. 370-322 Classical period were reserved exclusively for the
From a speechofHyperideswhose titleis notknown gods72;and attemptedto prove that the worshipwas
"I
the statement is preserved68: have the daughter public by referringto his singingof the poem at the
neitherof a hierophantnor of a daduch." This is commonmeals and to his erectinga statue in Delphi.
another indication that some hierophants were But Aristotledied at least beforeany sentencecould
married,but of course it does not tell us whetherthey be carried out and perhaps even beforea trial could
were still marriedor were widowersat the time they take place.73 Diogenes composed the followingepi-
were servingas hierophant. gram concerningthe whole episode:
7. Evpv,u4&cv.Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle,5 (ed. Evpv,ut6v ror' cilEXV 'Aptoororn'v a-Eclas

Long); Athenaeus,XV, 696a-697b; Index Librorum PypccOat LAois ML-vrtbos xv rpow7roNos.
Hesychii, 189 (ed. I. DLuring,Aristotlein theBio- acXXaX
7riw'vacKovTrovVxTEK(pV-yE TroTrLKOVLTv
graphicalTradition,p. 88). P.A., 5972. Foucart, ?71apa VLKo-aL TvK4craEs aL6LKOVS.74
1914: p. 189. In officein 323.
Demophilus, in addition to his close cooperation
During the outburst of anti-Macedonian feeling withthe hierophantin thiscase, had at least one other
which occurred very shortly after the death of connection with the sanctuary at Eleusis: he was
Alexander in 323, Eurymedonthe hierophantsought chairmanof the hieropoioioftheBoule who functioned
to bringAristotleto trialon a chargeof impiety. The therein 329/8.75 But nothingspecificallyrelated to
incidentis brieflydescribed by Diogenes Laertius as the Eleusinian cult appears to have prompted this
follows: "Aristotle withdrew to Chalcis because attack on Aristotle. The impetus is probably to be
Eurymedon the hierophant (or Demophilus, as attributedto the intense anti-Macedonian feelingat
Favorinus says in his Varia Historia) brought a the time; in fact,Demophilus'simplacableanti-Mace-
charge of asebeia against him forhaving composed a donianismis abundantlyclear fromhis role as one of
hymnto the above mentionedHermias as well as the the accusers of Phocion (forwhichhe was later put to
epigram for his statue at Delphi." He then quotes death when the city repented). However, it is not
the entire hymn and epigram. However, a speaker impossiblethat Eurymedon,thehierophant,was using
in Athenaeus, who relates that Demophilus filedthe this anti-Macedonian feeling against Aristotle for
suit at the urgingof Eurymedon,gives more informa- other, more personal reasons, having found in the
tion about the charge: "The poem composed by the philosopheran attitude toward the Mysteriesnot as
learned Aristotlein honor of Hermias of Atarneus is uinquestionablyreverent as his own.76 The next
not a paean, as Demophilus (who was suborned by hierophant is said to have certainly felt this way
Eurymedon)alleged in his suit of impietyagainst the towardsa philosopher.
philosopher, charging him with commission of an 8. EVPVKXCEL3s. Diogenes Laertius, II, 101 (ed. Long).
impietyby singinga paean to Hermias every day at Toepffer, 1889: p. 56. P.A., 5964. Foucart,
the common meals."69 The speaker then attempts 1914: p. 189. In officeduring the regimeof De-
to prove that Aristotle'spoem is actually a skolion, metriusof Phaleron,317-307.
and having completed his proof,adds70: "Moreover,
Aristotlesays in his DefenceAgainst Impiety (if it is Eurycleides could not tolerate philosophicaljokes
not a forgery): 'If I had intended to sacrifice to
Hermias as an immortal I would not have built a 71 For this type of charge see J. Rudhardt, Museum Helveticum
monumentforhim as fora mortal,nor would I have 17 (1960): pp. 92-93.

72 Plato, Laws, 700b and Republic, 607a defines hymnosas a
givenhis body funeralritesifI had intendedto regard
prayersung to the gods; cf. A. E. Harvey, "The Classificationof
him as the possessorof an immortalnature.' " From Greek Lyric Poetry," C.Q. 5 (1955): pp. 164-168. On the paean
these accounts of the charge and an alleged defense see Smyth,GreekMelic Poets, pp. xxxvi-xxxviii;D. A. Campbell,
we can inferthe precise charge of impiety brought GreekLyric Poetry (London, 1967), p. xix; and Bowra, loc. cit.
against Aristotle: worshipingin public a god whose 73On this part of Aristotle'slifecf.Wormell,op. cit.,pp. 83-87;
Duiring,op. cit.,pp. 343-348; 0. Gigon, Vita AristotelisMarciana
(Berlin, 1962): pp. 74-77.
68 Hyperides, fragment198 (ed. Jensen). 74Hp6wo7roX0s Xnoi is also used of the hierophantin I.G., 112,3411
69 Athenaeus, 696a-b. For a study of the hymn (Poetae (after 176 A.D.) and of the priestess of Demeter and Kore in
Melici Graeci, no. 842, ed. Page) see D. E. W. Wormell, "The Hesperia 10 (1940): p. 97, no. 18 (around 455 B.C.).
Literary Tradition Concerning Hermias of Atarneus," Yale 75 I.G., 112, 1672, line 299; cf. P.A., 3675.
Classical Studies 5 (1935): pp. 61-65 and C. M. Bowra, "Aris- 76 According to Arabic Lives of Aristotle,which are probably
totle's Hymn to Virtue," Problems in Greek Poetry (Oxford, derived from a Neoplatonic work by a certain Ptolemy, the
1953): pp. 138-150. motive of Eurymedon was "jealousy" and "a grudge" (see texts
70 Athenaeus, 697b. in During, op. cit., pp. 199 and 214).
on the iMvysteries,
so the story is told by Diogenes 335/4,80 but we cannot exclude the possibilitythat
Laertius: this M1nesiarchuswas a brotherof the hierophant. If
Mlnesiarchuswas the hierophant, the date of his
Once Theodorus(the atheistphilosopher) sat down next bouleutic year would agree well with what we know
to Eurycleidesthe hierophantand said, "Tell me, Eury-
cleides,who are thosewho commitimpietyagainst the of theage of thehierophantsup to now. As a member
Mysteries?" "Whoeverrevealthe Mysteriesto the un- of the Boule i\Inesiarchushad to be over thirtyyears,
initiated,"was the answer. To this Theodorusreplied, so that around the end of the fourthcenturyhe would
"Then you too are impious,sinceyou revealthemto the have been at least sixtyyears old.
uninitiated.'
77
Ca. 330-ca. 270
Only Demetriusof Phaleronwas able, accordingto
one account, to save Theodorus frombeing brought "Hierophant" is mentionedtwice in the little that
remains of a "Sacred Calendar" issued "ca. 330 to
beforethe Areopagus; according to another, he was
ca. 270"'81by an unknownauthority.82 " (The) hiero-
condemnedto death and drank hemlock.78
phant and (sacred) herald" are entitledto receiveone
9. 'IEpoScacTrqs Novuopaxov I.G., and a half drachmas forbreakfaston the fifthday of
HEpL06oL5Js?Mvrn7LapXos.
II2, 1934; 1700, line 146; 7221. Toepffer,1889: Pyanopsionwhen theyannounce the beginningof the
p. 56. P.A., 11144. Foucart, 1914: p. 189. In festival of the Proerosia. This announcementthey
officearound the end of the fourthcentury. made, it seems, in Athens. The hierophant was
probablyregardedas theannouncer;thesacred herald
Around the end of the fourthcenturyanother in- the pronouncer. And since the hierophantwas re-
scription79was set up of the type concerned with sponsible for the announcement (rp6ppnats) of this
services performedin the cult of Pluto by the hiero- festival,he must have had a considerablerole in the
phant and a group of eminentAthenians. It begins: celebrationof the festivalitself,which took place the
"['Epoxazr]-s inscribedthe (fol- next day in Eleusis; it had somethingto do with the
NovpipaHov11EpL6oL6rqs
lowing) men chosen by him to make up the couch for ritual plowingof the Rarian Field.83 Other than this
Pluto and to decorate the table according to the no informationabout the ministersof the festivalis
oracle of the god: preserved.
The calendar also reveals that the hierophantand
'IEpocrabJTrqp HEpL6o153j
Novpp[pab]ovl the "priestessesfromEleusis" went as a sacerdotal
XapLKXiPJeE6o054po[vdI]arXnpic delegation from the Eleusinian sanctuary to the
Eleven morenames in the accusative." Pyanopsia, the festivalof PythianApollo, whichtook
place in Athens on the seventh of Pyanopsion, and
Strangely,the hierophantappears at the head of the that they broughtcertain "gifts" to be sacrificedby
list of his chosen menas thoughhe had chosenhimself the Priest of Apollo, and themselvesofferedliquid
also. It may indicate that in this instance he too offerings and cakes of groundbarley.84
contributedlike the othersto the expenseof this rite,
Ca. 300 B.C.
whereas normallythe hierophantwould just officiate.
This is the firstclear instanceof hieronymy, though A speech entitled Diadikasia of the Priestess of
it certainly does not mark the beginningof strict Demeteragainst theIIierophant,deliveredaround the
hieronymy,because there are several hierophants I.G., JJ2, 1700, line 146. He can also be restored in I. G.,
80
followinghim who use theirfullname. JJ2, 7221 (probably a catalog of some sort rather than a grave
In this case we may know the hierophant's full monument).
name. A Mnesiarchus son of Nuphrades of Peri- J. G., 112,1363, recentlyedited by S. Dow and R. F. Healey,
81
thoidai is recorded as a member of the Boule in A Sacred Calendar of Eleusis, Harvard Theological Studies 21
(1965); forcommentsand a list of reviews see J. and L. Robert
R.E.G. 80 (1967): p. 481, no. 217.
77 Diogenes Laertius, loc. cit. The term a',u77Tolis used loosely 82 There is no good reason forassuming,with Dow and Healey,
here; see above, p. 13. that this was issued by the deme of Eleusis. Non-civic corpora-
78 Ibid. tions could also issue cult regulations; cf. the decree of the genos
79 I.G., JJ2, 1934. The date was determined by Kirchner on of the Salaminioi (Sokolowski, Supplement, 19). There is no
the basis of its letter-formsand the chronologyof the men listed. known instance of the deme of Eleusis having a regulatoryrole
Foucart wronglydates this inscriptionto the end of the third in the cult of the Eleusinian sanctuary (see above, Introduction):
century,because according to him the thirteenmen listed (one as far as the only evidence goes, the cult was controlled by
being the hierophant) correspond to the thirteentribes of this certain gene, primarilythe Eumolpidae and Kerykes; and the
period, and because )eEcoouoXos OeoLP[ouEvs eLpaLebs] is honored administration of the sanctuary was controlled mainly by the
on a dedication of the end of the thirdcentury (I.G., JJ2, 2798). Eumolpidae and the Kerykes, and in some respects, mostly
Kirchner,however, has identifiedTheobulus with a man of the financial, by the Athenian state. Hence a safer assumption
same name in a list of the second halfof the fourthcentury (I.G., would be that this "calendar" was issued by the geneor the state
JJ2, 2393, line 8). Moreover, the number of men in I.G., JJ2, or both.
1934 seems to have nothingto do with the numberof tribesof the 83 Cf. Deubner, 1932: pp. 68-69; Dow-Healey, op. cit., pp.
period, because, of the seven whose tribes are known, four are 14-20.
fromAiantis, nor are the men in tribal order. 84 I.G., JJ2, 1363, lines 9-19; cf. Dow-Healey, op. cit., pp. 23-28.
end of the fourthcenturyand falsely attributed to attendance at the Mysteries. The hierophant,to be
Dinarchus,85is another testimonyof the strugglefor sure of success in this regard,had to know something
sacral powerwhichwent on at thisperiodbetweenthe about his unseen audience, their traditions, their
priestessand the hierophant.86 Only two words are great deeds, theirspecial relationshipto Athens and
preserved:Av\aacX-qs
and 6pO6rrov. The formerwas the Mysteries;above all, he could notaffordto commit
the name ofa native of Eleusis, the husbandof Baubo, any faux pas, such as an inappropriatereferenceto
who entertainedDemeter; thus argumentsbased on some past or presentpoint of contentionbetweenthe
mythology were apparentlyused. 'OpOa'rrov is de- two cities.92 This decree testifies to Chaeretius's
finedas "a purplewoolen cloth with which theywipe success. And because of it the celebrationswill have
the statues of gods"; Foucart conjectures that this been well attended, and the prestige of the gene
may referto the priestess's right of taking care of enhanced.
certain statues.87 The case would have come before A large attendance also broughtanother benefitto
the basileus.88 the gene. The spondophoroi solicitedtheoroi,in addi-
tion to initiates,fromthe cities they visited.3 The
10. Xatp5rTLos HlpoQpr7rov 'EXEvo4v'Los.I.G., I I2, 1235. greatertheir success in this regard,the more theoroi
Toepffer,1889: pp. 56-57. P.A., 15209. Fou- and initiateswould make sacrificesat the Mlysteries.
cart, 1914: p. 189. In officearound 248/7. Proceeds froma portion of the sacrificeswere dis-
He is honoredwith a myrtlecrown in a decree of tributedamong the Eumolpidae and probably also
the gene ofthe Eumolpidae and the Kerykes,sometime the Kerykes.94
around 248/7.89 The inscriptionrefersalso to thefact THIRD CENTURY B.C.
that a myrtlecrown is normallyworn by the hiero-
phant (line 15). Nevertheless,the gene honor him A third-century dedication honoringa hierophant,
with one, just as they do in all otherpreservedcases I.G., JJ2, 2944, probablya statue base, is inscribedon
where they honor someone, no matter what his its frontand two sides (the back is not preserved)95;
office.90 it has on its frontthe followinginscriptionwithina
The reasonsstated forhonoringChaeretiusare that myrtlecrown:96
"(1) in word and deed he is doing everythinghe can
[T&a y],vn7
fortheirwelfare,and (2) forthose who are abroad as
[T'a T c)o
rE]Pl Tco
spondophoroihe kindly continues to copy 'the an-
nouncement,'and (3) he demonstratesa blamelessand [IEpospa]vTouvTa
becomingbehavior in his priestlyoffice."'" The first [apETinS] EVEKEV
and third reasons offerno concreteinformation,but EKca EVE]o3ELas
the second is interesting:he continuouslycopied "the
EKacdSpLXoTtAlas]
announcement,"i.e. the announcementof the Mys-
teries,for the spondophoroi who had to promulgateit :77-]S [Els] E'avTo[bs]
abroad. It is certainlynot a question here of exact [K]aL E1K[6OV]L XaXKflF7J-
copies-the hierophant was not a scribe-but of Correspondingto this crown there is another myrtle
copies varyingaccording to the city and the circum- crown on the rightface of the stone and another on
stances in which the announcementwas to be made, the left face, within each of which, respectively,is
thereforecopies that had to be preparedby a knowl- written: EvMoX7r16aL] Epo[spavTovvTa] KTX. and
I
edgeable person. These announcements were un- Beneath the myrtle crown
[K'PVKKE] I [EposavToijvTa.
doubtedly rhetoricalpieces of propaganda (probably on the frontthereis an olive crown; correspondingto
not unlike the propaganda concerning Athens in it is an olive crownon the leftface on the same level;
S.I.G.3, 704E), which had the purpose of encouraging and undoubtedly there was originallyanother cor-
respondingolive crown on the right face. Beneath
85 Dionysius of Halicarnaussus, I, p. 314, 12-17 (ed. Usener and
the olive crownon the leftface thereis anotherolive
Radermacher); Harpocration, s.v. AvoavirX-s; Pollux, VII, 69
(ed. Bethe); cf. Muller, OratoresAttici, Dinarchus, frag. XXX,
crown; and again, undoubtedlysimilar crownsorigi-
pp. 450 and 463.
86
See above, in connectionwith hierophantno. 3, Archias. 92 Cf. L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): p. 109; A. Wilhelm,
87 1914: p. 219. Wiener Anzeiger 61 (1924): pp. 101-104; Foucart, 1914: pp.
88
Aristotle,Ath. Pol., 57. 270-271.
89 I.G., JJ2, 1235. The proposer of this decree also proposed a
93 One delegation of theoroito the Mysteries, fromMiletus, is
decree of the year 248/7 (I.G., JJ2, 683; cf. Meritt, 1961: p. 234). attested (I.G., JJ2, 992, second centuryB.C.).
90I.G., JJ2, 1231; 1235; 1236; 2944; 1045 (see Appendix II); 94 See I.G., JJ2, 1231, lines 9-13 and 1078, lines 35-36.
Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 265, no. 51. The Demos and the Boule 95 This descriptionis froman inspectionof the stone.
also occasionally honoredbenefactorsof the Eleusinian sanctuary 96 Jassume that it is a myrtlecrownsince it is representedquite
with myrtlecrowns: I.G., JJ2, 847; 949; 3220; Hesperia 26 (1957): differently fromthe crownson a lower level, and the Eumolpidae
pp. 57-58, no. 12. and the Kerykes are the honoringagents: as in I.G., JJ2, 1235,
91IG., 112, 1235, lines 4-9. they would normallyhonor a hierophantwih a myrtlecrown.
nally correspondedto it on the frontand on the right append. II (= LG., 112,1045; S.E.G., III, 104).
face (there are traces of the one on the front). In P.A., 1881. In officefrom183/2 to at least the
none of the olive crownsis the name of the dedicator sixteenthof Pyanopsion,148.
preserved; but since, so far as we know, the Eumol-
pidae and Kerykesgrantedonly myrtlecrownswhen A decree honoringthis hierophantand providing
honoringsomeone with a crown,97the olive crowns much informationconcerninghis activities in office
oughtto signifyhonorsfromanothersource,probably was issued in 148.100 Since the text needs to be
fromcivic corporations,who will have honored the examinedin detail in connectionwith a discussionof
hierophantforhavingservedwith distinctionin some this priest,and I have been able to make some new
civic officeor offices. One such officeseemsto be men- readingsafterinspectingthe stone,a new versionwith
tioned in line 4: - -]avTa. He held it beforehe a photograph(fig.2) is given here.
was hierophant,or at least before the time of this
dedication, since [iEpoSwa]vTo6vTa indicatesthat he was S.E.G., XXII, 124
currently hierophant, while [ ---]avTa is most 'EwrL
AvaoaBov apXovTos H[vavofI]tCvosEKT[EL r'L]
likelythe end of an aorist participle. 6EKKa KaLaT OEoV, KacaT 6f'ap[xovT]a 7rkI7rTeL[UrTa]
The meaning of Ta -yEv&q
Ta 7rEp' Tco NCOE has been A Evov, a-yopat KVpL'at Ev [. 6l..]V6Lwt,
] 'Agvv[E6aXos]
unclear. Foucart, when he firstpublished the in- 'AXatEvls[cruEV
4 EVKXEOVS frE]L67 6 tEpOsa'rX[vT7s]
assumed that it meantthe Eumolpidae and
scription,98 'ApLoTOKXiIS HIpLoL6[E77s Edvov]s TE Ev XLaT[XEL]
Kerykes acting together. Later,99he decided that it Ka' t6tav 'K'0cOTWt Ka[L KOLV7rLira}]Tv EAoX7r[E6ats],
could not be theysince theyare mentionedon the left KaTaoYTactOts 6E bEpo[EcWTtlS E7TrL 'Ep,/oyEv[ov aPXoVTos]
and right sides of the inscription,but it should be ]
8 avEvEWJcaTo TE T a[v 4va-ypajs{PEr]v T?7v ToJ [_ 6-10
rather the other gene which supplied priests and
priestessesfor the Mysteries. The formermeaning, EK TWV apXaLowv ypa[EgaTE?'wv [TJ]v 'v [TC) 'E vv]
ca. 10 ]
however,seems to me to be the correctone. If the cOtKa() 77V
E67E TOV [a4E t ]EpOsavT[Ov]v[Ta
latter had been intended,it would most likely have 4vve-ypa4,av Ev1u[7oXr]i6at EIIIQAIE ca- - -KaS- KaT T
been expressed by the phrase Tar aXXa -yEvt7Ta rEp1 Tco 12 4 'o-,4a 1?tXov[av]Tov Kat KaTa T[a iXXa t77ntoLauaTa]
O&Ow;for the Eumolpidae and the Kerykes were cer- TOV767OV Ta o[LTa]]yWyEta KaX&JS K[aTaypacLqEL 6oa 'Ep']
Ta 7rep'TcO NCOE,and it would have been con-

tainly -yEv&7 [Ex1]IqETaaX6VT[& ]l Kat Ev,uoXrt6cov
[IEATa 7rai?7s lrapai
fusingifTa' -yev-7Ta 7rEp' TCAN6Wwere to be understoodas [-K]EVi3 Kat pLXOTLILas, 41'Xpto-Aa TE {L?VEYKEV tJ
a separate body fromthem. Moreover,I.G., 112,1235 16 [va] ava-ypa[DPrL] ? oTT7X?7[EL XOLV?7Lt
ELoa-ycoy)'7v 'V
shows that on occasion the Eumolpidae and Kerykes [T&iL E]XEVO?LV}CL, [66 7OXXV
EKXEX\l//EV&.W OVTL)V]
did act in very close concert (line 3): TCtL-yEbEtTC&JTE [6Et' 'T]v [Er]jXEL0VCV 6'a TOVS Katp[OVs 'v sKcLoTcL]
Thus, Ta -yEv7 T'a 7rEpt Tb.) 0GE60
Kait Ev,uoX7rt6Cv.
K-lpiVKbV [rc EvitVL]avTbt E6OvoEv TE aVTOS KatL rpo6ooov]
could well signifythe same sort of cooperation,with 20 pos T?)7V3ovXv7 Ka[L EveycLLTE]
[7o0l0aj6Evos
the crownson the two sides signifyingthat each genos i7rEKUcTE rpoad6c&wl
[irEp]L arVTC'V Ka' 4'tVptta fva
also independentlydecreedhonorsforthishierophant. LEpa aL OvoTLaL ovvTEXcovTaL]
yLvoAuvc.V E'S [ra
Furthermore,there is a passage referringto the [EroX]Xcov
-?
NW' [Trol]s GOwS Kara ra[warpLa
Eumolpidae and Kerykes where Ta yEv-q
T'a 7repl T-o
24 [Era]rpLov a-yvE[os - ? ----- ]
can be read with high probability. If we restoreELs
Ta tyEvi in I.G., JJ2, 1236, line 12, so as to read [
]NK[------------------- -
[EfrE/3oivTas c-'s Ta yEvr3' Ta ept T{t} N{?
O) } KTX., the
sense and the space are both satisfied,since it is clear COMMENTARY
fromthe sentencethat the object of EcE/3Ouvras Ets has
to be the Kerykesand the Eumolpidae. The followingcommentarydeals with pointswhere
It is conceivablethat an occasion mightarise where my text differsfromthat of Merittand Hubbe.
thisphrasehad a widersignificance, encompassingthe Line 8: baaypasfr]v Meritt. For the use of an
othergeneof the Mysteriesin addition to the Eumol- ava,ypa(p5 in connectionwith a genos see below, p. 56.
pidae and the Kerykes,but in defaultof any evidence Meritt restoredEpod'avTov in the lacuna at the end
for it there is no reason to assume that this was the of the line,but thereare otherpossibilities,e.g., zycovs.
case in I.G., 112, 2944. Line 9: -ypa[1AaTaEi]wv Meritt.
Line 10: ep]oepa4vr[tEv] r[- -] Meritt. The trace at
S 11EPLOolAr1S.Hesperia 11 (1942): pp.
11. 'APLTOKXro theend of the lineseemsto conformto N betterthan T.
293-298, no. 58 (= S.E.G., XXII, 124; Hesperia Line 11: irt6t[66vaLMeritt. I am hesitantabout
29 [1960]: p. 417; R.E.G. 75 [1962]: pp. 147-8 this restoration. If the letter after EIIAII were A
no. 111 [Bull. epig.]); I.G., 112,2332, lines 49-52; part of the horizontalstrokeought to be visible, but
97 See above, note 90.
the area is uninscribed.
98B.C.H. 6 (1882): p. 434.
991914: p. 161. 100See Meritt (Hesperia 34 [1965]: p. 90) concerningthe date.
HIEROPHANT
Line 12: htXoEav{T]ov Meritt. CypwLn77 elEpeL'L7ev is unparalleled;'y"',sn77

never occurs
Line 13: [E"rpaTTeP Oova ErTa X]07 Meritt. in conjunctionwithce'EpL'tael'. Traces on the stone at
Meritt,10'citing S.I.G.A, 1106, lines 52-56, an in- the end of thisline solve the problem. E. Vanderpool
scription fromCos,where cvaoy&ytoV means"entrance- kindly checked them for me and foundK/,, and my
fee,"offered theattractiveconjecturethat c-vaoywryeaa own later observation was the same. Thus Ka[E
are the initiation-fees,whichare described(thoughnot fciitacrevi] is probably the correct restoration. The
named) in I.G., 12, 6.102 But we should probablylook phrase paiLa 7rTi'O
wrept is well attested.'06 The
forsomeotherverbin place of [EerpaTTeP], becauseit sensethenis clear. Aristocles or
madea declaration
is clear fromI.G., 12, 6 thatotherpriestswereinvolved report beforetheBouleconcerning thesacrifices which
in the collection, and, anyway, the collection by hehadrestored.He hadfirst takenpersonal actionto
itselfwould not be the sortof thingthatwould prompt restore a neglected customandthenhadthegovern-
special praise. It is morelikelythat the operationto menttakelegalactiontoassureitsobservance in the
be restoredhereis the registering of the initiation-fees. future.He couldnotpropose a decree(as hedidin
A trace of the firstletterof the verb is visible; it is a regard tothe 'aayw-y'y)becauseat thistimehewasnot
verticalstrokeand shows that the lettercannot be an a member of theBoule,buthe spokebefore it and
epsilon. Thus the correct restoration is probably managed topersuade it topassa decree.
K[aTarypa4<et6rovairpaX]6?i or K[aTr,ypwpez oova
c-7rpax136 Line 21: [Erep'] Meritt, 7rEK 'p[v(V vci wpoSo-6&]
or 'y?p<&yetovta E7rp x1I. Support for this can be Merittand Hubbe, [Eiva xp77raTrP] Tod.
found in an inventoryof 408/7 (I.G., I2, 313, lines The phraseKaLt4/rq'oLfsiae7rEKp[v{cw], as restored by
161-162) wherethreeand one-halfdrachmasare listed Merittand Hubbe,mustreferto Aristocles' per-
as paid to the Eumolpidae foro-avbcta b' o[E_1tT'sui-as suasionoftheBoule. J. and L. Robertpointout'l07
K[aTacy]pasC[oEot. It was an annual responsibility
of thatthismeaning
forfrtKnp'VTT-LcV is uniqueand very
the Eumolpidae to recordthe names of the initiates, doubtful.E. Vanderpoolat my requestkindly
and the inscriptionunder discussion probably refers checked thiswordonthestoneandfound EHEIC ,
to the same task, except that the emphasis is on the and I at a latertimenoticedthesametraces. The
fees,not the names.103 Perhaps thefeesweremarked fora situation
verb wt7lKVpOWis attested tothis.
similar
next to the names. At any rate, Aristoclesfaithfully I.G. 112, 1012, lines 12-23 (111 B.C.), reads: rpo'ooov
directed the Eumolpidae in this task each year, and 7o007aaevos rpOS TrV 3OVvX7' .. savl6Et TrEi /OVXet
in addition he had a psephismapassed calling forthe Kal rTaTa rapaKaAEl TrV #OV'A-vX'ErtKvpCoaat &avTrw
"collection (of theentrance-fees),"the E1aaywy',to be -wwjia. In this instance Diognetus reported that
inscribedon stone, his innovationbeing perhaps the his synodos wished to erect a statue, and asked
stone instead of the uisualsanidia. the Boule to ratify (brLKvpCo3aa) a decree permitting
Line 14: Eu,AoXwrt5&oEv
Meritt. this. In our case the hierophantAristoclesdecided
Line 15: [EEn VEyKEV] and Hubbe.
M\Ieritt to restorea series of sacrifices,and thenmade an ap-
Line 16: UT?X[E7 Merittand Hubbe. pearance beforethe Boule concerningthem and re-
Line 19: Ev&ta]vTt MIerittand Hubbe; [EcKaviv quested the Boule to pass a decree to support this
-rpo8oov] Meritt and Hubbe, [Kal wpoo8ov] J. and restoration. ElrEKup[wcTEwv] would accordingly mean
L. Robert. The latter104 object to vvv; I agree that
here "had a decree ratified,"as Pypa64'aTO'6 441puaja
it is unnecessary,especiallysince space does not really
demand it (line 15 is of the same length). usuallydoes not mean "inscribethedecree" but "have
Line 20: [EYvC,4V and Hubbe.
E&vEmaWEv] lVMeritt
the decree inscribed."
J. and L. Robert'"5also point out that the phrase Lines 23-3: Restorations of the lacunae are by
J. and L. Robert,and have been accepted by Mleritt
101Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 297.
and Hubbe.
102 A text of the relevant portion of I.G., 12, 6 is given above, Line 24: [.... ]OY AFQ Meritt.
pp. 10-11. Another word for entrance-feeis Edaf-Matov; cf. I.G., Therewas a 7rarpToSa4ywv at theEleusinia(I.G., 112,
112, 1368,lines 37, 61, 103, foradmittance to the Iobacchoi. Hesy-
as riti-qtzaErztoov,rkEXos. For a discussion 1672, lines 259-260),
chiusdefinesELOfl?d)cvtov
at the Dionysia in the theater
of these termssee A. Wilhelm,Jahreshefte 5 (1902): p. 138. at Eleusis (I.G., 112, 1235, line 17), and at the Haloa
103 In the inventoryof 408/7 the proceeds from the Greater (I.G., 112, 1299, line 29).
and Lesser Mysteries (lines 144-146) appear shortly before the
lines just cited: r-TrEta [E7Evero (K r6v] ALEy[a]EJXovt1[vETEp'ov],
followed by the amoulnt. If the interpretationof this notice DISCUSSION
advanced above (p. 13) is correct, this is the sum of the fees
mentioned in I.G., 12, 6 which were collected fromthe initiates
That the decree was issued by the Eumolpidae can
and became "sacred to the Two Goddesses." (Meritt has safelybe inferredfromlines 5-6. The meeting-place
kindly informedme that the restoration [E' ykvEro]in I.G., 2, (line 3) is an enigma. I.G. 112, 1045 (see AppendixII)
313 is too long by two letters,so [E-yvero] should be restored.)
104R.E.G. 57 (1944): p. 197, no. 66; 75 (1962): pp. 147-148,
no. 111. 106 See especially S.I.G.3, 412, line 4.
105 Ibid. 107 R.E.G. 75 (1962): loc. cit.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] HIEROPHANT 27
may be a fragmentof another copy of this decree'08; (164 B.C.) honoringa demarchof Eleusis,"'1whereit is
it too honors a hierophantAristocles,in all proba- mentionedthat the processionof the Calamaea was
bilitythe same person. conducted by the demarch,the hierophant,and "the
Aristocles is the first hierophant whose year of priestesses." The hierophant thereforehad a sub-
appointment is known with certainty: he was ap- stantial role also in this littleknownagrarianfestival
pointed in the archonship of Hermogenes, 183/2 of Eleusis.11'
(line 7). The decree honoringhim was passed in the
archonship of Lysiades, whose year Meritt now 12. 'A,Uv6,UiaXoS E'KXAEOVS'AXaLEs. I.G., 112, 2332,
believes to be 148/7 (though152/1 is also possible).'09 line 52; 3469; above, p. 24, lines 3-4. P.A., 739.
ThereforeAristoclesserved as hierophantforat least Foucart, 1914: p. 190. In officein the second
thirty-five(or thirty-one)years. If he had been half of the second century,sometime after the
about sixtyyears old when he was appointed, the age sixteenth of Pyanopsion, 148, probablysucceeding
of some of the earlierhierophantsat the time of their Aristocles, his brother.
appointment,he would have been around ninety-five He was the brotherof Aristocles,but his deme is
years old at the time of this honorary decree. In Halai, which reveals that he was adopted by some
183/2, the year of his appointment,he participated memberof that deme, as Kirchner(P.A., 1881) noted
with many other Athenians in making contributions before the name of his adoptive fatherwas known.
for some unspecifiedpurpose (LG., IJ2, 2332, lines He was the proposerof the decreeeditedabove honor-
50-52); he gave an unknown amount on behalf of ing his brother,where his adoptive father'sname is
himself and ten drachmas "on behalf of his son given as Eucles. Sometimeafterthis he himselfwas
Eucles and on behalfof his brotherAmynomachusof appointed hierophant, according to a dedication
Halai." He has no title in this list, so it may be, as (I.G., 112, 3469) which reads"12:
Meritt observed, that he was appointed hierophant
later that year. Amynomachuswas probably too 'JEpocpavr[?7s]'A,1vvo,.saxLos]
young to contributeon his own behalf; i.e., he was E cKME'FOUS 'AX]aLE&s.
probablyless than thirtyyears old. If Aristocleswas
Meritt presents the followingprosopographyfor
sixty years old, therewould have been more than a this manll3: "From our present text
[the decree for
thirty-yeardifferencebetween them. Thus, to as- Aristocles] it is clear that the adoptive fatherwas
sume that Aristocleswas sixtyyears old when he was Eukles, possibly a descendant of Eukles, son of
appointed hierophantrequiresthe furtherassumption Eukleides, of Halai, of the fourth century (P.A.,
that he and his brotherwere most likelynot born of 5715). The fatherof our presentEukles is doubtless
the same mother. This is not an unreasonable as- to be identifiedas that who was
'AXatEvs
E'7KXis EVKXE\OV3
sumption because Amynomachus was adopted by
ephebos in 258/7 B.C. in the archonshipof Antiphon
Eucles of Halai probably not long before183/2 (see (Hesperia 7
[1938]: no. 20, line 53). His son would
below), which may have been promptedby the fact then have been of matureyears when he adopted the
that his aging fatherhad recentlydied; Amynomachus
young Amynomachos early in the second century.
could thereforehave been born of a second or subse- The family tie thus indicated between Eukles and
quent wifeof his fatherlate in his father'slife. Con- Aristoklesis also manifestin the fact that Aristokles
sequently,an age of sixty years forAristoclesat the named his own son Eukles (I.G., 112, 961, line 21;
time of his assumptionof officecan neitherbe denied 2332, line 50)." Amynomachus would then have
nor affirmedwith certainty; but since affirmation
been around fiftyyears old (or even older) when he
makes Aristoclesa nonagenarianat the time he was
proposed the decree honoring his brother, and so
hoiioredand requireshis brotherto have been born of probablyover fiftywhen he succeeded his brotheras
a second or subsequent wifeof his father,probability hierophant.
tends to favor,and a simple hypothesisdemands, a
youngerage. 129/8
In his thirty-five(or thirty-one)years of service A decree of 129/8114mentionsthat the hierophant
beforethe presentdecree in his honor,he did much to and the daduch KacLotlIAErarouTrwv iKovPTsE5 took part in
restore the cult he was in charge of; his reformsare the processionin honorof Apollo at the Thargelia.
testimony of his dedication and energy. Line 15 11
I.G., I 12, 949-
apparentlyindicatesthatat one tinme he was a member I" Deubner (1932: pp. 67-68) gives the evidence for it.
of the Boule while hierophant. 112 Restored by Meritt, Hesperia 11
(1942): p. 297; and in-
During his tenureas hierophanta decreewas passed dependently by W. Peek, Ath. Mitt. 67 (1942): p. 45, no. 62.
The stone shows that the firstfive letters of the patronymic
should be dotted.
108 The connection was firstpointed out to me by E. Vander- 113 Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 296.
pool, who also informedme that the Agora Excavations possessed 114 Sokolowski, Supplement,14, line 36.
a photographof I.G., I 12, 1045. ?1KOVT(ES is not clear. A. Wil-

115The meaning of o'Lteraj rov,rwv
109Hesperia 34 (1965): p. 90. helm (Sitzungsberichte Wien 224 [1947]: pp. 27-53) suggested a
13. MEVPEKXEL6lS03EoS,ct1ov I.G., 112,3512;

Kv5a6?7vaLEv'. quarter of the firstcentury (P.A., 990f), and the
2452, lines 48, 59; B.C.H. 15 (1891): p. 261. Menecleidesson of Theophemusof Kudathenaionwho
P.A., 9902. Foucart, 1914: p. 190. In officein was cosmete in 13/2 (I.G., 112, 1963, lines 3-4; P.A.,
the last quarterof the second century. 9903). Philiosll7and Kirchner"8identifythe latter
with the hierophantof the dedication because they
A list of distinguishedAthenians (I.G., JJ2, 2452)
believe that the dedication (on the basis of its letter-
was set up, for some unknownpurpose,in the last
ing) belongs to the early Empire. However, except
quarter of the second century; towards the end of it
for a slightlypeculiar epsilon (C), its letitering does
threehierophantswere included. They are:
not seem to me to be significantly different fromthe
'IEppos'PT'qs O-o[Ecr7'ov Kv8aGr'atdvs] (line 48) letteringof I.G., 12, 3469 whichis dated (see the pre-
'Ipof a'T'?s EvoTpo'pov HEltpatEvs (line 53) vious hierophant)to the thirdquarter of the second
century. Since the same style of letteringhas such
'IEfO(CAPTr7s MEPEKXCEL6OV Kv8aCCqPatElvs (line 59).
wide chronologicallimitsat this time,and since we do
It is odd indeed to see threehierophantstogetheron not know at all whetherMIenecleidesthe cosmetewas
the same stone, but as theyare inscribedby different a hierophant,it seems methodologicallypreferableto
hands, like the other names in this inscription,they assign the dedication to the only Menecleides who is
did not originallyappear thereat thesame time. The a knownhierophant,the Menecleidesof the list (I.G.,
list was begunaround 125 B.C. and was supplemented 112, 2452, line 48)."19 Nevertheless, the possibility
fromtime to timeprobablyuntil the beginningof the cannot be excluded that another Menecleides in this
firstcentury. So we may assume that each hiero- familywas also a hierophant.
phant was recordedat some timeduringhis periodof The dedication I.G., 12, 3512 shows that Mene-
officeand that thisis a recordof threesuccessivehiero- cleides was marriedwhile a hierophant(it was made
phants. They or their fellow citizens practiced by his wife in honor of him as a hierophant). If
hieronymy. hieronymywas strictlyobserved at this time, as is
The originalnames of the firstand thirdare known. assumed (see above, Introduction), the monument
There was a familyfromKudathenaion in which the was erectedafterthe hierophant'sdeath.
names of fatherand son alternated between Mlene-
cleides and Theophemus throughthe second half of 14. 'IEpoCa'PT-s EoTpo6Scov lIELpaLevs. I.G., 112, 2452,
the second and the early part of the firstcentury line 53. Toepifer, 1889: p. 57. P.A., 6802.
beforeChrist."6 The firstand thirdhierophantswere Foucart, 1914: p. 190. In officein thelast quarter
undoubtedly father and son in this family, Mene- of the second century.
cleides and Theophemus. They did not hold office He was probably the successorof l1enecleides. A
in directsuccession; Hierophantson of Eustrophusof Theodotus son of Eustrophus of Peiraeus, the gym-
Peiraeus came betweenthem. nasiarchin 132/1who was praisedby thedemos of the
It is not immediatelyapparent which Menecleides Salaminiansin 131 (I.G., 112, 1227), has been identified
son of Theophemus of Kudathenaion is honored as with this hierophant by Toepifer, Foucart, and
hierophantin the dedication I.G., JJ2, 3512. There Kirchner. However, the possibilitythat he was a
are three possibilities: the Menecleides of this list brotherof the hierophantcannot be excluded.
(I.G., 112, 2452, line 48), who was hierophantin the
last quarter of the second century,an hypothetical 15. 0E6C0'7/,OSMEVEKXEL6OV Kv6aOrn'aLEvs. I.G., 112, 2452,
Menecleideswhose akmewould have been in the first line 59. Toepifer, 1889: p. 57. P.A., 7097.
Foucart, 1914: pp. 190-191. In officearound the
parallel with I.G., JJ2, 1013, line 48: o Te lepoodvr?n7s [Kai ol Ka]JO end of the second century.
E[v]apes KaG eKao-rov [Er6v'LavTrv] 7r' Trv 1ravvpLv.
[EojrayCLPo[L]
He probably succeeded Hierophantson of Eustro-
The KaOeorrayCPoL aivrpes are requested in this decree concerning
weights and measures to mete out punishments to those cus- phus of Peiraeus who servedbetweenhis fatherMene-
todians of the measures at Eleusis who are foundguiltyof certain cleides and himself.
infractions at the panegyris. Thus they have duties very
similar to the epimeletaiof the Mysteries or the taxiarchoi (for END OF SECOND CENTURY B.C.
these see Hesperia 9 [1940]: pp. 104-105, no. 20) and are probably
the same type of officials. I think that it is unlikely that offi- Accordingto a law issued around thistimeconcern-
cials who were specifically in charge of keeping order at the ing weightsand measures,I.G., JJ2, 1013, the hiero-
Mysteries would have been requested to keep order also at the
Thargelia withoutsome specificmentionof this extensionof duty
phant and "appointed men" (line 48) are to punish
or at least somethingmore definitein respect to designationthan transgressors each year during the panegyris(of the
oL /erTa TOVTwv 7JKOVTES. The context seems instead to call for
sacred officials. The phrase may be deliberately indefinite; 11"7B.C.H. 19 (1895): p. 129.
perhaps the question of which Eleusinian sacred officialswould 118 P.A., 9903 and I.G., JJ2, 3512.
take part was not decided at the time but was leftto the discre- 119Foucart also assigns I.G., JJ2,3512 to the Menecleides of IJ2,
tion of the gene in charge of the Eleusinian cult. 2452, line 48, mistakenlyinterpretingPhilios as having made this
116 For the stemma see P.A., 9902. identification.
Mysteries). Who appointed the "appointed men" is 38/9
not stated, but presumablytheywere subordinateto A dedication to Titus Statilius Lamprias, set up in
the hierophantand were necessary for the extensive Epidaurus probablyin the year 38/9,123 states that he
surveillanceinvolvedat the panegyris. was a descendant of lepofoaPTLKWYKalt & aOVXLKWY O'LKWP,
and that his ancestorsincludedpriestessesof Athena
BEFORE MIDDLE OF FIRST CENTURY B.C.
and otherpriests'24. A statue of him was set up in the
The hierophantis mentioned in a fragmentof a Eleusinian courtyardnear his ancestors.'25 Since a
decreepreservedonly in a copy of Pittakysand dated similardedicationset up in his honorby the Lacedae-
to before the middle of the first century.120 The moniansemphasizeshis daduchic but omits his hiero-
decree is concerned with Eleusinian matters (the phanticancestry,126it would seem that the latterwas
priestess of Demeter and the Eumolpidae are men- ratherdistant.
tioned), k)utnot enouglhis preservedto yield any in-
formationconcerningthe hierophant or any other 17. 'IepocavTPTs. I.G., 112,4479. In office aroundthe
Eleusinian priesthood. middle of the first centuryafterChrist.
In the archonship of Callicratides (40/1-53/4)127
16. 'JEpo4va1-qs. I.G., JJ2, 1713; Hesperia, suppl. 8: Euphrosynus
the son of a hieronymoushierophant
p. 117, line 6. In officein 86/5. (Ev'spo6vvos
'JpOEpavPTOV) was a zakoros in the cult of
Both inscriptionscited are lists of archons,in each Asclepius and Hygeia situated at Eleusis (I.G., 112,
of which the entry for 86/5 is IIierophantes,un- 4479), at which time he dedicated a porch and oikos
doubtedly a hierophant whose name is concealed forthe sanctuaryof this cult. Because of hieronymy
because of hieronymy,forHierophantesdoes not exist the name of his father,the hierophant,is unknown,
as a propername in Athens.121 He is the firsthiero- but the inscriptionis significantin that it shows that
phant known to have been an archon. Though his at this time-and probably not just at this time-a
identityis unknown,he may be identicalwith Theo- priestof this local cult of Asclepiuswas drawn froma
phemusson of Menecleidesof Kudathenaion who was hierophanticfamily.
Iiierophant around the end of the second century He was marriedat some time in his life.
(see above).
FIRST CENTURY A.D.
AROUND END OF FIRST CENTURY B.C. The story recounted by Philostratus128about
A list of marriedmen "selected by the hierophant Apollonius of Tyana and the hierophantis included
to care for making the bed and settingthe table for here,thoughwe cannot be sure that it is not fictitious.
Pluto" (I.G., JJ2, 1935) was set up by a hierophant The hierophant refused to allow Apollonius to be
around the end of the firstcenturybeforeChrist.122 initiated: o be LEPOSCacVT'?s
OVK Ef3OVXETO rapExetp ra LEcpa,A77
The lacunae at the beginningsof lines 1-3 would at 'Yapap 7rOTCE/v7o-aL'yo'qTa, A76lJETr7l 'EXEvoLZ'aac'oLat
firstseem to implythat hieronymywas not observed, avOpw7rWqtr KaOap(Jra 8atg6vta. Apolloniusrepliedthat
since the hierophant'sname has the form:[Name (of although he knew more about the teletethan the
ca. 7 letters), 'IEp]o00614zs, [Patronymic (of ca. 10 hierophant,he wishedneverthelessto be initiatedby a
letters), Demotic (of ca. 7 letters)]. It is possible, man wiser than himself. As this answer foundfavor
however,that the hierophantwas a Roman citizen, among the bystanders,the hierophantwas faced with
thoughnone of the othermen in the list are, and that the riskof losingsupport,so he changed his mindand
in the firstlacuna his gentiliciumis inscribed,in which offeredinitiation to him. But Apollonius replied:
case there is no room for his original Greek name /IV?700IaL aVOts,AV?o-El6E /.E OtELVa, and Philostratus
(cognomen) and so hieronymywould have been adds: wpOVyPWOEl XPW/.LEVOSES TOV /LET EKECPOV LEpOCavPTP, Os
observed. rTrapa
LETaTc- ErT7roT lEpOV wpo"v57.
FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY B.C. 18. TLf3'pLosKXavAiosOlpoSCLXosKaXXLKparL6ov

TpLKOpV'oLOS.
I.G., 112, 3546; 3548a, as restoredby A. Wilhelm,
A hierophantwhose name is not preservedappears Wiener Anzeiger, phil.-hist.Kiasse 72 (1935):
in a dedication apparently of this period ('Apx. 'E<. pp. 83-90 (cf. J. H. Oliver, A.J.A. 55 (1951):
1971: pp. 128-129, no. 23).
123
I.G., IV2, 82-4 (= S.E.G., XI, 408a). For the date see
120 I.G., JJ2, 1044, line 6. Oliver, Hesperia 20 (1951): p. 351, n. 1.
121 Cf. S. Accame, II
Dominio Romano in Grecia dalla Guerra 124 1.G., IV2, 84, lines 29-30.
Acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), p. 170. 125 Ibid., 83, lines 14-15, and 84, lines 35-36.
122 The date is determined by the prosopography of the dis- 126 1.G., IV2, 85-6 (= S.E.G., XI, 409), lines 10-12; a new text
tinguished participants. I.G., JJ2, 1935 is duplicated in I.G., of 86 is given by W. Peek, Inschriftenaus dem Asklepieion von
JJ2, 2464; they appear to be copies of the same inscription; cf. Epidauros (Berlin, 1969), pp. 29-31, no. 36.
Oliver, Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 75. For similar lists see above, 127 Cf. I.G., IJ2, 1974.
p. 20, note 65. 128 Life of Apollonius, IV, 18.
pp. 347-348). Stemma: A. Ratibitschek,R.E. 3616, an additional fragment). Around the end
17 (1937): coll. 2253-2257. Woloch, 1966: of the firstcentury?
Claudius no. 70. In officearound the end of the
firstcentury. The inscription,on a herm,is reproducedherewith
spacing slightlydifferentfromthe above mentioned
The dedication I.G., JJ2, 3546 was set up in his editions:
honor while he was still alive, as is indicated by the [T IX]Lq3 Ha4rat[tou]
fact that his cognomen Oenophilus is omitted and
v,,at
[Frap-yjirrrto
is inserted in its place: TtL3Eptos
'IEpoCav'rqs KXa&6tos vacat
.- ]AGHNA1012;
KacXXLKparLov
'IEpo4iav'r-qs The inscription,
TPKOPV'o-Los.129
4 [. '1o0XJLos'IEpOSC[cIjZTr/s
dated by the eponymouspriestessFlavia Laodameia
[c * 5-] * TON H[ ]
(see below, priestessof Demeter and Kore no. 10) to
the end of the firstcentury,makes knownthat he had Ihe restorationsof lines 1-2 are Raubitschek's. At
had a distinguishedRoman and Atheniancareer. He first I thought that lines 4-5 might be restored
had been a praefectusfabrum (E7rapxosapXrEKrovcov [KXac]jtos 'IEfo4?c[A]VT77s [r7'V 6pt]orop7r[oXvrEVT,rW],
but
whichwas a militaryofficepreparatory an inspectionof the stoneshowedthat in line 4 a delta
6tl,uovTPcouatLcov),
to an equestrian career, and praef"ectuscohortisII is impossible(thoughalpha is not ruledout), and that,
Ilispanorum, which was an equestrian office.1'0 It while the trace of the firstletterin line 5 is veryun-
was undoubtedlvduringthe reignof Nero that Roman certain,it is probably not part of sigmna. Thus the
citizenshipwas conferredon him.1"' He was one of name in line 4 is probably [. 'Jo9jXtos.Inspection
the firstAtheniansto become a memberof the eques- also shows that the tau and eta of 'IEpo44]a PTts, only
trian order.182At Athens he served as archon (upon the tops ofwhichare preserved,wereprobablyin liga-
enteringwhich officehe distributedto each of the ture.135 I doubt Raubitschek's suggestionfor line 5,
citizens a bushel of wheat and fifteendrachmas), [o (cLXosavro]i rov 7r[arpwz'a],because of space and the
herald of the Aeropagus, herald of the Boule and fact that there is no other evidence that any of the
Demos (at which time he made a distributionof two hierophantsever had a 7ra'7rpwz; manyof them were in
denarii, probably to the membersof the Boule and factquite wealthy,and none of themare knownnot to
Demos), epimeleteof the city, agonothete,gymnasi- have been.
arch, hoplite general,and several times ambassador. It is conceivablethat thishierophantis the same as
There is no way of knowing from this dedication hierophantno. 25, in which case one could regard
whether he held any of hiis Athenian officeswhile Pantaenus as his grandfather(rodv7r[E7r7rov]). Other-
servingas hierophant. wise, a date of around 100 A.D. for the inscriptionis
His probable father and grandfatherwere also given by the man honored,Flavius Pantaenus, who
archons, and his known family seems to go back, donated a libraryin the Agora around this time and
throughconnectionsthat are not in every case clear, became an Athenian citizen.1"6
to the fourthcenturybeforeChrist,188 comprisingin
20. TLrosIX4/3tos 2Tpa6rTw. I.G., 1J2, 3984. Stemma:
almost everygenerationmen who held public office.
below,p. 31. In officearound the end of the first
In his will he adopted (i.e., by adoptiotestimentaria) quarterof the second century.
Calpurnia Arria, a Roman woman, the daughter of
Asprenas Calpurnius Torquatus, legate of Galatia in His name appears on a statue base among the an-
68/9, and the wife of Bellicus Tebanianus, consul in cestors of Titus Flavius Euthycomasson of Stratonof
Paiania, prytanyeponymos in the year 166/7.187 An
87.134
inspectionof this inscriptionshows that Graindor's
19. ['1o0LXtos '1EpoC[acvirTs. A. E. Raubitschek, Hes- text (reprintedby Kirchner,withoutsubscriptdots,
peria 35 (1966): p. 247, no. 8 (E.M\1.3849); as I.G., JJ2, 3984) should be slightlyaltered; a new
1\J.MIitsos, ZEXTLoP25 (1970): p. 187, no. 6 (E.M. text is given here.1"8
135 Mitsos's restorationof [d`pcavT-a] in line 3 is impossible,as
129 Raubitschek, op. cit., col. 2254, apparently unaware of the this verb takes the genitive. The masculine name at the begin-
custom of hieronymy, states that it is not known whether ning of line 4 rules against his reading Lepop[a']v-ts. The name
Oenophilus was alive at this time. Graindor (1922: p. 93) would Pantaenus just fits the space at the end of line 1, as is clear in
date this inscription"closer to 69/70 than to 100." Mitsos's photograph; it should be noted that the right edge of
130 Cf. Woloch, loc. cit. this inscriptionis preserved.
131 Because of his tribe; cf. Graindor, 1930: p. 10. 136 See A. XNV. Parsons, Hesperia, suppl. 8: pp. 268-272.
132 Cf. Woloch, loc. cit. 137 I.G., JJ2, 1773, lines 8, 11; 2478; cf. Woloch, 1966: Flavius
133 See stemma of Raubitschek, loc. cit., which is, however, in no. 29.
some parts very hypothetical. WV.K. Pritchett (Hesperia 11 138 Graindor,Marbreset Textes (Ghent, 1922), pp. 66-67, no. 5;
[1942]: p. 249, n. 63) commented that there is no satisfactory he was not able to see the stone and had only Skias' publication
explanation for the change of deme of Callicratides (7) son of of the fragments;hence he was not in a position to know the dis-
SyndromusfromSteiria to Trikorynthos. positionof the letters. The firstletterof the second line and the
134 See Oliver,loc.cit. tauiof line 14 have disappeared since the editioprinceps.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 HIEROPHANT 31
[K]aO Vouivn[DaTt] ErEL Ev,uoX7rtL6ts

xv OV6ETEPOPT[COV] EK
yOve'oWvYrXEJV
O V T7iS e 'AE[pELov] Toi TCoVKpVpKWV
i' yVOVs, E7r66ELTcat
KacO Op7rEp,uovovEpc'EiTat
Tpo6roVro S
TOi (E)KaTrpov T.,v [65o] TovTw1v'yEvCov7rpos OacLEpov
F. -yov#3ovXis
v
[ETtrou]
cL EsCEEo-Oat. Ap-
IEOLYTaoYOatL,cL(pE'ETcaLTov TlstEPOK?JPVKELas
4dXaX3top
Evl6vK0[/cav]
parently thereforeit was perfectlylegitimate for a
Hatt'LEa t TLrov [EXcaLov] man to change his genos if one of his parents was of
2TrparwvosCi7r'[E3]wytcP the genos into whichhe desiredto transfer. Thus we
[v1o]v" Kat Ttrov[E1X]ca0o[v] would not be unreasonablein assumingsuch a transfer
in the case of Straton the son of the hierophantand
8 [E2rp]drwvos 1iEpora'vr[ov]
therebyunderstandingi'y-yovosto mean grandson. In
[Dy}yovov aKcL aTX3ltas fact, this is the normal progressionin dedications of
[..]KparcLTas t E[p]oScVaT[rt0os] this type: son of . . ., grandson of . . ., etc. Ac-
[Ey}yovov v HoE,j]7rftja H
X [X] cordingly,Flavius Euthycomaswas also the grandson
of the hierophantidFlavia [..]crateia, and the repe-
12 [Xa] Io/lrnjoE[v] HXctEo7aLp[xov]
titionof fry-yovov
seems to indicate that she was not his
[EPLOYo&pov[Ov]yartp, r6[v] paternal grandmother,i.e., thewifeof the hierophant,
[Pav]TE77s avapa]. - but his maternalgrandmother. The followingtenta-
tive stemmacan be made:
The essential differencesbetween this text and
Graindor'sare thatall vacant spaces are noted; [TLrov] T. Fl. Straton Flavia [..] crateia
is added in line 3; [roi] is eliminatedat the end of Hierophant Hierophantid
line 12 because of lack of space; and, for the same
reason, [6oS 'Ir6]is changed to [by] at the beginning Pomp. Pleistarchus T. Fl. Straton F
Philosopher Altar-priest
of line 11, with [Dos] shiftedto the end of line 10.
I I
If [Ew7r6}yovozwere the correctrestorationin line 11, Pompeia Polla T. Fl. Euthycomas ofPaiania
we would have to understand[Dy]-yovopin line9 to mean Eponymosof prytany,166/7 (I.G., 112,1773,
"grandson." For, while E'y-yoPos is frequentlyused as line 8)
the equivalent of a&ro-yozos, "descendant," it also fre-
quently means "grandson," and would definitely (?)
mean grandsonif both 4arowyovos occurredin
and Cky-yovos T. Fl. Menander Fl. Straton
the same inscription. But now that a4wo&yovos cannot (I.G., 112,3985) Archonca. 194/ (I.G., 112,2124)
be restored,we are freeto interpretEtyyo'vosas either
grandsonor descendant. If it means grandson,then According to this stemma Flavius Straton the
the hierophantwas the fatherof Straton the altar- hierophantwill have been in officeprobably in the
priest,but since the altar-priesthoodbelonged to the first quarter of the second century. And since
Kerykes,we must thenassume that Straton the altar- Claudius Oenophilus probably died around the year
priestsomehowsucceeded in changinghis genos from 100 afterhavingservedseveral years,it is morelikely
the Eumolpidae to the Kerykes. If it means de- that Straton came afterhim ratherthan before.
scendant,then numerouspossibilitiesopen up, one of He was evidently not related to the illustrious
which is that Flavius Straton the hierophantwas the family of the hierophant Flavius Leosthenes of
maternalgrandfatherof the altar-priest,and so there Paiania (see below no. 24). In I.G., 112, 3592 mem-
is no need to assume a change of genos on the part bers of this familyare mentionedfromas far back as
of the latter; and the hierophantidcould be placed the end of the firstcentury,but no mentionis made of
either with the Kerykes' line or with the Eumolpid a Straton; nor is the familyof Leosthenes mentioned
line of the family,without her genos being definitely in the dedication in which Flavius Straton is
known in either case. However, a new document mentioned.'40
just published by J. H. Oliver shows that the first
alternative,that a change of genos took place, is not 21. ILp,uos rapy-TTLoS. I.G., 112, 2341. Toepffer,
farfetched. The document is a letter of Marcus 1889: p. 60. In officearound the middle of the
Aurelius, probably of the year 174/5, in which he second century?
makes known his decisions on various law cases ap- His name is inscribedon a round base at Eleusis,
pealed to him."'9 One decision (Plaque II, lines 7-15) whichreads:
concernsa man who triedto change his genos fromthe
Eumolpidae to the Kerykesin orderto qualifyforthe 140
The name of Euthycomas's son, Menander, is interesting.
hierokerykeia; the part relevant to the present dis- His maternal grandfather,Pleistarchus, was a philosopher,and
cussion reads as follows (lines 9-11): Ma,cqprEJvos,ufv the name Menander is the same as that of PantaenuLs'sfather,
who was a diadochosof a philosophicschool (cf. Parsons, loc. cit.),
139 J. H. Oliver, Marcus Aurelius, Aspects of Civic and Cultural as well as the name of Pantaenus's son. Some connection either
Policy in theEast, Hesperia, suppl. 13 (1970): pp. 3-9. of familyor of sentimentmay exist.
'IJpo ctzra'Tsra py77rrt0s @eEO-ISCOPOpOtla Oeais 'Aeyobol%os t1EpoCabrTqs. The name

6 rord Ttpios is the hieronymousformof the name of a hierophant
ov 4ltpios fromHagnous, with the demotic placed metricausa
6 KaL Bovra4&os.
in frontof '1Epozpa'vrqs insteadof afterit. In the relief
ov MovOcoVLos
are representedon the left Demeter and Kore, in a
Kirchner calls this inscriptiona tabula genealogica. classicizing style, and on the right the hierophant
'rhe added mention of the hierophant's real name fromHagnous (fig. 3), in a portraitstyle, which E.
shows that the monumentwas erectedafterthe hiero- Harrisoncharacterizesas earlyAntonine.144Concern-
phant's death, by his grandsonand perhaps also by ing the findingplace of the reliefVanderpoolwrites145:
his son. "It was foundlyingfacedown in thearea ofone of the
P. Firmus of Gargettos, sophronistesin 139/40 houses (illustrationI). There is no trace of a sanc-
(I.G., JJ2, 2044, line 6), Firmus son of Firmus of tuaryof Demeter and Kore in the neighborhood,and
Gargettos,hyposophronistes in 154/5 (I.G., JJ2, 2067, so we may guess that although the reliefhad been
line 111), and Firmus son of Firmus of Gargettos, made to Ethe hierophant's] order and perhaps de-
ephebe in 163/4 (I.G., JJ2, 2086, line 50), were proba- livered to his house, it was for some reason never
bly related to hierophant.l4oaTheir common name, actually dedicated in the sanctuary."
Firmus,is interesting. It is a Roman cognomen,but UJnfortunately the hierophantfromHagnous cannot
no gentiliciumever appears in their names, even be identified,and so his date of officecannot be ap-
through the sophronistesassumed the praenomen proximatedmnore closely than E. Harrison's stylistic
Publius. The familyevidentlyneverobtainedRoman date of "early Antonine." But this date agrees well
citizenship,althoughtheywerefondof usinga Roman with what we know otherwiseabout the hierophants
name, up to the very limitof the law. The name of of the second half of this century: there is no place
the hieroplhant'sgrandson, Al\usonius,is in fact a forthe hieroplhant fromHagnous in the list of hiero-
Roman gentilicium,but as Woloch notes,14""it was phants of the second centuryexcept beforethe latter
ratherfrequentlyused as a Greek personalname, not part of the reignof AntoninusPius.
against the law." This reliefis the only certain Attic representation
of a hierophant,and as such it assumes great im-
22. 'IEpos4varrsA 'Io[vi... .] HllpaLEvs. I.G., 2, portance. It has not yet been formallypublished,
3628. In officearound the middle of the second and the descriptiongiven below, which was made
century? froman inspectionof the relief,is not intendedto be
This dedicationwas set up in his honorby his wife such. However, beforedescribingthe relief,it will
Cornelia Ph[--- -]. Graindor142 dated it to the be- be convenientto list herethe literaryand epigraphical
ginningof the second centuryand restoredA 'Io[viTLovtestimonia for the costume of the hierophant and
Hll]patia. To Kirchnerthe letteringand a ligature daduch.
were indicative of a date in the second half of the
century, and he considered the hierophant Julius LITERARY AND EPIGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE
(no. 25) as a possible restoration. If his date is FOR THE COSTUME OF THE HIERO-
correct,Juliuswould in factbe the correctrestoration, PHANT AND DADUCH146
as our list of hierophants for this period shows. Garment: That of the hierophantand daduch is
Woloch,143 however, favors Graindor's restoration, called o-roX'i in Athenaeus,I, 21e: KacuAo-XvAos be ov ,u6vov
pointing out that the praenomen Decimus is not E'EVpE ThJVT7JS 0T-7OX7S EVJrpE7rELaVKaL cYEIw6oT?Ta, 7iv X7ocwrP
foundwith Julius. Ol LEpO(cavTaL KaL ,aboVXOL 4u&vvvrcu. That of the hiero-
The dedication was erected duringhis lifetime,as phant alone is called orToX7in Plutarch, Alcibiades, 22,
theuse ofhieronymy shows. He was marriedwhilehe 4 and Pseudo-Lysias,Against Andocides,51, Eo6rzsin
was a hierophant,if [avbpa] is the correctrestoration. Arrian,DiscoursesofEpictetuts, III, 21, 16; that of the
23. 'IEpo4varns'AzyvoboLos.E. Vanderpool, A.J.A 64 daduch alone, LEpa orToX-iin a scholion to Aristophanes,
(1960): p. 268, pl. 73, fig. 17 (cf. L. Robert, Clouds, line 64 and OTKEV? in Andocides, On the Mys-
R.E.G. 74 [1961]: p. 151, no. 267). In office teries,112. These referencestellus no morethan that
around 138-150. theirgarmentswere somethingout of the ordinary.147
However, in Pseudo-Lysias, Against Andocides, 51
The inscriptionbeneath a very interestingrelief the cursingof Andocidesis describedas follows:lEpEtat
(A. J. A., loc. cit.) foundnear the Olympieionreads:
144 Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, The Athenian Agora 11:
140a One of them may be the same person as the Firmus son of p. 95.
Firmus of Gargettos who made a dedication to Asclepius Amphi- 145 Loc. cit.
arus (I.G., 112,4441). 146A partial list for the hierophant was compiled by G. E.
141 Woloch, 1966: s.v. Musonius. Rizzo, Rom. Mitt. 25 (1910): pp. 156-158.
142 1931: p. 104.
147 This is especially clear in regard to the daduch's garment
143 Op. Cit., Junius
no. 4. depicted on a fifthcenturybase: see below, p. 48.
Kat lepElS oTaVTES KaLT7paoavTo 7rpoSE-7rEpav Kal qaoLKL 3as The passage fromEpictetus'sDiscoursescitedabove
aVEO-ELc7aV,KaTa To 7raXacowVKal
To VOlUlJUOV The apXaZov. mentionsthat the hierophanthad a KO/fL, i.e., wore his
priests and priestesses in question are almost cer- hair long. But this was a characteristicof many
tainly the Eleusinian ones, cursingAndocides forhis other priests as well. The priests who greeted
offenseagainst the Mysteries as they cursed Alci- Herodes Atticuson his returnfromexile are described
biades148;the COlV&KlOES would appear to be their red in an epigram(I.G., JJ2, 3606,line 13) as: lpicas ,E'v
or purplecloaks.149 rpCora OEWVKO/Io&JvTas EOELpats.

Hair and headgear: Arrian,loc. cit., mentionsthe
o-Tp6Wtovand Ko1LL' as characteristicof the hierophant; SCULPTURAL REPRESENTATION OF
Plutarch, Aristides,5, 6-7 says essentiallythe sarme THE HIEROPHANT
in regard to the fifth-century daduch Callias (see
below, daduch no. 2); Theon of Smyrna, On the In the relief(fig.3) of the hierophantfromHagnous
UTtilityof Mathematics,p. 15 (ed. Hiller), describing (above, no. 23) he is clothed in a mantle which is
the investitureof priestsas a fourthstage of partici- draped about him in such a way thatalmost his entire
pation in the Mysteries,states: TETrapT17 5E, o0) Kacl body fromhis neck to the top of his boots is covered;
r\Xos T7s E'roWrTELas, av L3EO-Ls Kal OTE/ULUcTWV EFrOEcClS, &OTE it is a much simplergarmentthan that worn by the
KalKcLL
EEp
ETEpots, 'a'
as L 7rapeaB
ct Tts 'WLEXa43E TEXET'as,
e\a wapaW3ivat
rpavv 5'vao-Oat,
vaSa daduch in a fifth-century vase painting.153Inter-
ij ij
k5ouvXias TvXo6vTa IEpoq'avTLas TLVOs aiXX-S EpWofwVVS. estingly, his boots are not the high-soled typeworn by
The essentialpart of the investiturewas thereforethe actors of tragedyat this time; thus the statementin
binding and laying on of the o-TEiUuaTa, by which is Athenaeus (see above) that the garmentof the hiero-
probablymeanttheorTpo64tov(and perhapsalso a myrtle phant and the daduch resembledthat of the stage is
wreathin the case of the hierophantand daduch and probably to be understoodstrictlyas applying only
some of the otherpriests,and perhaps only a wreath to the garment.'54 On his head he wears a orrpo'(Ptov
in the case of others). This part of the investitureis and above it a wreath,certainlyof (the hierophant's
referredto in I.G., JJ2, 3592, line 21: ro oTpo64tov 7rapa traditional) myrtle. He has long hair, the KO/w but
Tcw avTOKpacOpL OEC, 'AvTcWVEL'v Xac03vTa.150 Thus it is nottheKpWV3XOs,a hair-style thathas frequently been
clear that the oTpo6stov was the mostsignificant element attributedto the hierophantby modernscholars on
of the costumeof the hierophantand daduch. It was the basis of non-Atticworks of art.155 He holds a
a twistedpiece of cloth; but its sacerdotaluse was not staffin his righthand, and in his lefta bunch of tiny
limited to the hierophant and daduch (and other objects or perhapsonly the foldsof his cloak.
priests) of Eleusis.151 A myrtlecrownwas also cus- With this certain representationof an Eleusinian
tomarilywornby the hierophant,the daduch, and the hierophantwe now fortunatelypossess a criterionfor
otherpriestsand priestessesof the cult, as is attested identifying otherAttic sculptureswhich mightrepre-
by I.G., JJ2, 1235, lines 14-15 (for the hierophant)152 sent hierophants. Some possibilitiesare thefollowing.
and a fragmentof Ister of Cyrene,F. Gr. Hist., 334, I. Portrait of a head of the period of Gallienus,
F29: Kac Tov 1EpO4CacvTrfv 5E Kac T'as IEpOcavnL3S KaL Tov foundin the Agora.156 "On his head is a rolled fillet
3aCWoiXov KacLTass aXaS CEPELas vpp1vrsEXELV TCEavov. or strophion,above which he wears a wreath. The
leaves are too poorlypreservedto be identifiedas to
148 See above,pp. 15-16. kind.''l57 The back of the head is not preserved.
149 For the term cf. L.S.J., s.v. Pollux, IV, 116,p. 235, Harrison believes that this head is a replica of the
q0OLVLKIS
line 7 (ed. Bethe) mentionsthe in a list of stage garments; followinghead.

(pOLVLKi'
cf. Pickard-Cambridge,The Dramatic FestivalsofAthens (Oxford, II. Portraitofa head of the periodof Gallienus,now
1968), p. 203. It is not clear whetherthe ')A.EupoKaXXes,a purple
cloth,is the same thingor some kind offillet;thereis a description in the museum at Eleusis.'58 Unlike I, which ac-
of it by an Eleusinian priest (see below, p. 96) in the Etymo- cording to Harrison is its replica, II has no wreath
logicumMagnum,p. 429, s.v.: 7)/.EpoKaXXES above the strophion. Concerningthe latterL'Orange
. .. .pOLVLKOVV EPLOV
&awrEwrOLKLXvOv, c, XpCoTraL 7rpo'S r'a 'A7votv,

O
LEpoup'LaXcs
eoE6&vpoS o s ev rcj rp&rq riEpIK?pVKWV
ravayins rpooTa-yopEvu6/Evo 153 See below,pp. 48.
,yvous. XeyEL 6E OTLKaXELTaL 27/LEpoKaMes &a TO 7TeXuao5aL Kal 03E3a'4aL
154 The similaritymay have been only magnificence;the con-
150See the discussion below, pp. 37-38. nection with Aeschylus, his deme; see Pickard-Cambridge, The
151 For referencesto the Trpo'oLov in other cults see H. Seyrig, Dramatic Festivals of Athens2,revised by J. Gould and D. M.
B.C.H. 41 (1927): pp. 226-227; also L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 Lewis (Oxford,1968), pp. 200-201; on footwearin tragedy,ibid.,
(1960): p. 452 (and pl. xxviii) for representationsof them in a pp. 204-208.
155 Pringsheim,1905: p. 13; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 232; G. Rizzo
reliefon a dedication fromDidyma, and ibid., p. 597, on a stele
derivingfroman association of mystaiof Dionysus Kallon from "II costume e il tipo artistico dello hierofante,"Rom. Mitt. 25
Rhegion on the north shore of the Sea of Marmora. For the (1910): pp. 156-167.
oTrpo6oLovin some other cults of Asia Minor, see below, note 168. 156E. Harrison, 1953: pp. 63-64, no. 49, pl. 31. It has since
H. P. L'Orange, Studien zur Geschichtedes spdtantikenPortrdts been stolen fromthe Agora Museum.
157 Ibid.
(Oslo, 1933), p. 110, no. 11, gives referencesto the oTrpo'oLov on
portraitsin Corinth, Dresden, Athens, and Brussels. 158 Ibid., pp. 63-64, pl. 46e; H. P. L'Orange, Studien zur
1"2 See above,p. 23. Geschichtedes spdtantikenPortrdts,pp. 41-42, pls. 108-109.
Gallienus, now in the National Museum in Athens.160

The man is wearinga strophionbut no wreath. His
hair is long.
Harrison points out a strikingphysical similarity
betweenthis head and the head of a boy foundin the
and believes that the persons
Agora, a 7rals a4o' lrrTcas,
portrayedwere related.161
IV. Portraithead of a herm fromn the same period,
now in the National Museum in Athens.162 It is very
similarto III, differing fromit onlyin havinga feature
of I, a strophionsurmountedby a wreathof formalized
leaves. The hair is about as long as that of II. Two
wide bands flowdown fromthe strophionin back. A
cloak covers both shoulders,the left shoulder fully,
the rightslightlyless.
V. Portraithead of a priest,foundin the Agora, of
the Antonineperiod.161 His hair is long and shaggy.
The followingare two excerpts fromHarrison's de-
scription:
The featuresbear a certain resemblanceto those of
AntoninusPius, and the cut of the hairand beard looks
like a moreunkemptand shaggierversionof his mode.
At the same timethereis a faintreminiscence of certain
Hellenisticportraits,especiallythat of Demosthenes.164
The head is encircledby a rolledfillet,tied in back and
withtheendshangingdown. Above thefilletis a shallow
channel about 12 cm. wide all around, as thoughsome addi-
tionalwreathor ornamentwereto be fastenedaroundthe
head here,but thereare no holes forthe attachmentof
metal, and the nature of the addition remainsa mystery.165
She suggeststhat the subject may be a man of letters,
or if the groove above the strophionwas made for a
wreath,a priestof the same officeas 1. I thinkthat
the similarityto the combination of strophionand
wreathis such as to leave no doubt that this man was
a priestlike I, and that a wreathwas indeed inserted,
somehow,in the channel.
VI. Portraithead of a priest,foundin the Theater
of Dionysus in Athens, of the Antonine period.'66 His
hair is quite shaggy and he wears a wreath of small
leaves above a strophion.
Harrison interpretedI-IV as imperial higl-h-priests
on the basis of a suggestionof H. Ingholt that the
combinationof strophionand wreath is in Athens the
insignia of the high-priest of the imperial cult.167
in head-
Harrisonaccordinglyexplained the difference
160Harrison, op. cit., p. 61; L'Orange, op. cit., no. 11, plates
26-27.
161 Op. cit., p. 61, no. 46. Her other reasons forconnectingthe
FIG. 3. Hierophant no. 23. Courtesy of John Travlos. two are not cogent (op. cit., p. 61, n. 2). The hearth-initiates
were not necessarily offspringof Eleusinian priestly families,
thoughmany were. Thus it would not be surprisingfora hearth-
writes:159 "Um den Kopf eine wulsartigeBinde, die, initiate to be the son of a hierophantbut the connection is not a
necessary one.
hintengeknotet,in zwei losen Enden tiberden Nacken 162 L'Orange, op. cit., no. 12, pls. 25 and 29.
herabfdllt." His hair is long, though not as long as 1613Harrison, op. cit., p. 41, no. 29, pl. 18.
Ibid.
that of the hierophantfromHagnous.
164
1615 Ibid.
III. Colossal portrait head fromnthe period of It was pointed out by Harrison, op. cit., p. 41.
166
This was to be elaborated by Ingholt in an article "soon to

167
159 Ibid., p. 124, no. 58. appear," which apparently has not appeared.
gear betweenI and II as due to the fact that the same but rathera rulingby the Areopaguswhich"concerns
man was wearing,in the portraitat Eleusis, the in- a detail forwhich the diataxis, the deed establishing
nignia of his Eleusinian priesthood,viz. the strophion, in perpetuitythe use of the endowment,did not pro-
and in the portraitin the Agora, the insigniaof the vide specifically."'' A surplus had evidently ac-
high-priest, viz. strophion and wreath. This is crued, and here the Areopagusdecided how it was to
clearlyuntenablein lightof the literaryand epigraphi- be distributed. Oliver suggests'72:
cal testimonia cited above and the portrait of the
hierophantfromHagnous (no. 23), where both the The increasedincomewas to be used forincreasingthe
numberof recipients by includingamongthebeneficiaries
strophionand wreath are worn. The absence of the otherpersonsofdistinction whoare preciselyidentifiedin
wreath in II can be ascribed simply to the fact that the appendedlist .... The individualportionwas to be
the myrtlewreath,as it seems, was not the essential twelveunworn[Atticdrachmae](line 15).
part of the hierophantand daduch's costume and so
The distributiontook place probably at Eleusis in
did not always have to be worn. Even so, it is im-
connection with the festival of the M\ysteries.At
possible to say whetherthe man representedin I and
this time the membersof the Boule, who had been
II was a hierophantor daduch or some otherpriestof
recipients even before this enlargementof the re-
the MIysteries or a priestof some othercult (the fact
cipients' number,were now to receive an individual
that it was foundat Eleusis is no certain proofthat
he was a priestof the M\ysteries). The same applies portionof twelvedrachmas; and the priestsand other
officialsin the appended list either this amount or
to III-VI: one can be reasonablycertainthat theyare
double this amount (according to the notation a'7rX
priests,but not of their type. The headgear of the
or 5i7rwX writtenaftereach title.) All the priesthoods
imperialhigh-priestat Athens,ifit was different from
that are preservedwere to receivea double share; the
that of otherpriests,remainsan unsolved problem.'68
only preserved single share went to the only non-
sacerdotal officialon the list, the archon of the
MIDDLE OF SECOND CENTURY
Eumolpidae.'78
Hierophantsare mentioned,perhapsas relatives,in In the list the hierophantand the daduch are at the
a dedication (I.G., JJ2, 3966a) dated by Kirchnerto very top, undoubtedlybecause the endowmentwas
the middle of the second century; the dedicator is connected with the Eleusinian sanctuary and they
Antonius Cornelianus, but the names of the hiero- were its two foremostpriests. Of course, as an ad-
phants,if theywere given,are not preserved.'69 ministrativematterof the Eleusinian sanctuary,the
endowmentwould naturally have come under their
THE ELEUSINIAN ENDOWMENT jurisdictionsince they were also the highestranking
adminstratorsof the sanctuary; thus we findin the
The hierophantwas one of many priests,both of main body of this document that they are charged
the Eleusinian cult and of otherAtheniancults, who with its supervision (and they too probably were in
are recordedon a stele erectedat Eleusis around 160-
charge of its actual distribution). However, it was
170 A.D. (I.G., JJ2, 1092),170 as recipientsof a shareofan
probably not because of their administrativestatus
endowment. The nature of this document,as Oliver that they have such a prominentposition in the list
suggests,is not the establishmentof the endowment of priestsbut because of theiroverall importanceand
168 In representationsof the imperial high-priestin Asia Minor
prestigein the Eleusinian cult, just as in the aeisitoi
the strophionhas been describedas having attached to it a bust of
lists of this period it was surelyprestigewhich deter-
the emperorwhom the high-priestwas servingas well as busts of mined that the hierophantalways appeared firstand
other members of the imperial family. Portraits of several the daduch (usually) second (see append. IV).
priestswearing this kind of strophionare included in J. Inan and How theorderof recipientsafterthe hierophantand
E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture daduch was determined is not immediately clear.
in Asia Minor (London, 1966); they discuss the problem of
identificationin connection with no. 143, p. 124, n. 2. Having The order is as follows: the high-priest, a single exe-
examined the busts on these strophia,they are not convincedthat gete, three exegetes together,the sacred herald,the
any known example clearlyrepresentsan imperialpersonage,and altar-priest;then a group of priestesses:the priestess
in some cases the busts certainly represent deities which the of Athena,the priestessof Demeterand Kore, and the
priestsserved; thus they do not exclude the possibilitythat high-
priestswore such a strophionbut point out that the evidence for
two hierophantids. This concludes the list's first
it is insufficient. To their information should be added column,which contains,in addition to the most im-
L. Robert's bibliographyand examples, Hellenica, 11-12 (1960): portant Eleusinian, some of the most important
p. 451, n. 4; he calls attention to an interestingHadrianic por- Athenian priesthoods. The second column consists
trait in the National Museum in Athens of a man wearingan oak of minorpriesthoodsof Eleusis and Athens,with the
wreath to which is attached in front a disc ,4era -V/40OXtKCOV
rapac-ra6cewv(perhaps two crossed thyrsoi),'Apx. 'Esp. 1939-1941,
'Apx. XpovKKA:p. 12, no. 44, fig. 19. 171 Ibid.,p. 387.
169 Jcan make out on my squeeze a sigma afterKal in line 8. 172 Ibid.,p. 386.
""A new edition with commentaryis given by J. H. Oliver, 173 The share of the hearth-initiates,who are quasi-sacred
Hesperia 21 (1952): pp. 381-399. officials,is not preserved.
notable exceptionof the priest of Zeus.174 Only the with the Eleusinian cult, ties of which we are other-
firsttwo entriesof the thirdcolumnare preserved,the wise ill informed.
archonof the Eumolpidae and the hearth-initiates.
Oliver'sanalysisof thislist by groupsof priesthoods 24. TLros IX4O3tos (AEwoOEvqns)Tt 4Xaf3Lov 'AXKiCad3'oV
HcatavLtEvs. I.G., JJ2, 1773; 1774; 3592 (new frag-
and his suggestionthat theyall had some role during
the season of the Mysteriestemptsme to the hypo- ment in 'Apx. 'E<. 1971: pp. 115-116, no. 8).
thesisthat the list reflectedthe contemporary Woloch, 1966: Flavius no. 41. G. Giannelli, "I
arrange-
mentof priestsand priestessesas theymarchedin the Romani ad Eleusi," Atti della R. Accademiadelle
greatprocessionof the 1/iysteries.The groupingmay Scienze di Torino 50 (1914-1915): pp. 371-380.
reflectpriestswalking together,in groups or side by Stemma: Graindor,1934: p. 134, and see below,
side in two's or three's: at the head of the procession, note 183. In officefromsometimein the reignof
side by side, the hierophantand the daduch, then the AntoninusPius (138-161) to 167/8.
high priestand the pythochrestusexegete,'75 then the Our principalsourceof information forthisman is a
threeexegetes (of the Eumolpidae)176and afterthem lengthydedication set up in his honor by the Areo-
the sacred herald and the altar-priest. At this point pagus, Boule, and Demos sometimebetween 162 and
the section of priestessesbegins. They were led off 169. Beforementioninghis praiseworthy accomplish-
by the most importantpriestessof Athens and the inentsas hierophant,it listsall civic officeshe held,as
most importantpriestessof Eleusis, the priestessof well as all civic officesheld by his father,grandfather,
Athenaand the priestessof Demeterand Kore,walking and brother;also brieflymentionedare his wife and
perhaps side by side, symbolizingthe ancient unity some of her relatives. He held these offices:archon
between the cult of Eleusis and the cult of Athens. (but apparently not eponymous archon),'8' pane-
Behind them were the two hierophantids,then two gyriarch, gymnasiarch "at his own expense with
lesserpriestesses,the priestessof Kal[- --]177 and the bowls,"'182and twiceambassador to Rome in the reign
priestess of the Fates. Afterthem came the phae- ofAntoninusPius. He did not attain,at least by this
dyntesand the priest of Zeus, and then the lesser time, the officeof hoplite general or herald of the
Eleusinian priestsof the second column. Areopagus,the two most importantofficesin Athens
The secondarypositionof the priestessesis under- at thistime,as had his fatherand grandfather.'83We
standable when we considerthat in the marble seats
of the firstrow of the prohedria in the theater of
181 Cf. Kirchner,I. G., JJ2, 3592; Geagan, 1967: p. 8.
182 Geagan (1967: pp. 128-132) discusses the gymnasiarchyat
Dionysus only the names of priestsare inscribed177; Athens. It would be interestingto know whether the gym-
priestessesreceived seats fartherback.178 The first nasiarch "with bowls" differedfrom the ordinary gymnasiarch.
seven priestsin the endowmentlist all have seats of The gymnasiarch"with bowls" is attested at Athens also in I.G.,
IJ2, 1945, line 2 (45/6 A.D.). J. and L. Robert,Hellenica 6 (1948):
especiallygreathonorin theprohedriaofthetheater.179
pp. 127-130,discuss many texts in which 6XKEZa appear in
A seat forthe nextpriestin the endowment,the altar- connection with the gymnasiarchy; they were the vessels from
priest,is not preservedin the theater,but it is quite which the distributionof oil was made (which was the gymnasi-
possible that it existed.180 arch's main responsibility). For further bibliography see
The inclusionof non-Eleusinianpriesthoodsin the L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): p. 599, note 4; J. Robert is
endowmentlist (and perhaps thereforealso in the preparinga study concerningthe oil used in the gymnasiumand
in the CitY.
procession)was evidentlybased on ties theircults had 183 For this reason Kirchner's identificationof him with the
Flavius Leosthenes, son of Flavius Alcibiades, honored in I.G.,

174 In the theaterof Dionysus he is much more
prominent:two JJ2, 3591 is incorrect. A solution cannot be found by dating
priests of Zeus sit in the center of the prohedria (I.G., JJ2, I.G., JJ2,3591 later than 3592 because the dedicatee of 3591 is not
5024-5025). called hierophant (with appropriate hieronymy); this was cor-
175 For the identificationof this single exegete as the pytho- rectly recognized by Graindor (1934: p. 134), who interpreted
chrestus see Oliver, Expounders, p. 42. His seat in the theater this dedicatee as the grandfatherof the hierophant. Kirchner's
of Dionysus, right next to the priest of Dionysus, demonstrates error was also recognized by E. Kapetanopoulos ("Flavius
his importance. Hierophantes Paianieus and Lucius Versus," R.E.G. 83 [1970]:
176 For the identificationsee below, pp. 89-90. p. 65), but his stemma of this familyis largelyerroneousbecause
177 My squeeze reads KaXE--
-1. We perhaps ought to re- of his denial of the traditional restoration (by Skias) of the
store KaX[XryEvE1as] or an abbreviation of it, the goddess asso- hierophant'sfatheras Alcibiades, which is proved to be true by
ciated with Demeter and Kore in the Thesmophoria; see Aristo- the new fragmentpublished in 'Apx. 'E<. 1971, loc. cit. Thus we
phanes, Thesm.,296. are left to choose, basically, between the stemmata of Kirchner
178 On the prohedria see Appendix III. The priestesses' seats and Graindor. Both are possible but Graindor's is preferable
are among those that bear the inscriptionsI.G., JJ2, 5083-5164. since Kirchnerhas to assume the adoption of Eisidora forwhich
179 Cf. Oliver, Expounders,pp. 41-42 and appendix III below. there is no evidence. Graindor's stemma reveals that the great-
It would seem that the hierophantwas the most prestigiousof grandfatherof the hierophant,Flavius Alcibiades, probably was
all Athenian priests around this time. Plutarch (Numa, 9, 8) the firstmemberof the familyto receive Roman citizenshipunder
says that the position of the Pontifex Maximus was equivalent the Flavians; this is chronologicallypossible since his son was
to the r4cs of the hierophant. Dio Chrysostom (XXXI, 121, archon around the end of the firstcentury. In regard to the
ed. Arnim) refersto the priests who sit in the prohedria of the dedicatee of I.G., JJ2,3591, Flavius Leosthenes,it is probably best
theater of Dionysus as "the hierophantand the other priests." to regard him, with Graindor, as the hierophant's grandfather.
180 See append. III.
Kapetanopoulos rightlypoints out the difficultiesin taking the
do not know whetherany of these officeswere under- to offer.'87This year is accordinglythe preferable
taken while he was hierophant. Certainly the em- date for his initiation,and so ourinscriptionbelongs
bassies to Rome could have been and may well have between 162 and 169.
had somethingto do with his connectionwithAntoni- On the initiativeof thishierophant,the initiationof
nus Pius, which is discussed below. Any or all of his Lucius Verus, like the initiationof DemetriusPolior-
other civic offices,which were mainly financial in cetes and probably also that of Augustus,'88took
character,184could also have been undertakensimul- place duringa time of the year other than the usual
taneouslywith the hierophanteia. one forthe Mysteries. And so the composerof I.G.,
The most interestingpart of the inscriptionset up II2, 3592 added a note of explanation, a discreet
in his honor is lines 21-26. For the convenienceof apology: KaLi ToTO KaTa To'OrATo6' (he could not say KaTac
the discussion below, a translationof this passage is Ta 7rarpta). In the dedication to the altar-priest
given here: Memmius (I.G., JJ2, 3620), which mentionsthat he
too initiated Lucius Verus, nothing is said about
He receivedthe strophion in the presenceof the Deified having held the Mysteriestwice in one year, so that
Antoninus (Pius) and initiated the emperor Lucius
AureliusVeruswhileholdingthe Mysteries-quitelegiti- we may assume that this was done mainly on the
mately-twicein one year,and he installedthelatteras a initiativeof the hierophant. And if our interpreta-
Eumolpid,havingcombinedalso in thismatter,whenwe tion of the end of I.G., JJ2, 3592 is correct,the efforts
had the benefitof his servicesalso as the proposer(of of the hierophantwere largelyresponsibleforLucius
Versus'sadlection),propriety withreverenceforthe gods Verus's adlection into the genos of the Eumolpidae.
and greatvirtue.
After he was adlected, the hierophant,whose cus-
The mention of Lucius Verus, not yet called 0E6s tomarytask it was to install adlected members,then
(divus), demands that the inscriptionbe dated be- also installedLucius Verus as a Eumolpid.189
tween the time of his initiationat Eleusis and his This hierophanthad the unusual distinctionof being
death in 169. Two dates are possible forhis visit to installed in his own priesthood(i.e., of receivingthe
Athens (and initiation): 162, on his way to thewar in emblemof his office,the strophion)7rap&a Ti- av'TOKpaTopt
the East, or 166, on his way back to Rome. Of these zEc,'APTwPELvPW. The preposition7rapca with the dative
162 is the preferableone, as Giannellifirstproposed.185 indicatesthat it was "in the presenceof the emperor,"
For during his return in 166 his army caught the not "fromhim." Consequently,this passage is not
plague in Seleucia and werespreadingit throughevery proofthatAntoninusPius came to Athens,as Giannelli
provincethey passed; under these circumstancesit is insisted.190Moreover, the other evidence proposed
unlikelythat Verus would have made a leisurelystop by Giannelli'9lin orderto prove that AntoninusPius
at Athens to be initiatedinto the Mysteries.'86 But
in 162 he is known to have made a visit to Athens in 187 ScriptoresHistoriae Augustae, Vita Veri,6, 9: Nam
cum in-
the course of his slow journey to the East during terfectolegato, caesis legationibus,Syrisdefectionemcogitantibus
oriensvastaretur,ille in Apul[e]ia venabatur et apud Corinthum
which he tarriedat many cities in Greece and Asia et Athenas inter symfonias et cantica navigabat et per singulas
Minor, thoroughlyenjoying the festivitieseach had maritimas civitates Asiae, Pamphyliae, Ciliciaeque clariores
voluptatibus immorabatur. For a reevaluation of the impor-
Flavius Alcibiades, son of Flavius Alcibiades, honored in I.G. tance of the Vita Veri as an historical source see T. D. Barnes,
"Hadrian and Lucius Verus," J. R. S. 57 (1967): pp. 65-79, who
JJ2, 3593, as the brotherof the hierophant; if this dedication was
made afterI.G., JJ2,3592, it is odd that no mentionis made of the cites all the evidence relatingto this journeyand holds that it was
at this time (162) that the initiationtook place.
fact that the man had been panegyriarch and herald of the 188 See Graindor, 1927: pp. 19-23.
Areopagus. I do not believe such an omission to be impossible,
189 My interpretationis that the
however,especially if the man for some reason had to interrupt hierophant always did the
fullparticipationin political lifefora period of thirtyyears. He installing,but did not always propose the adlection, which could
may also have been prytanis in 162/3 (I.G., JJ2, 1772, line 5). be done by any Eumolpid; hence the necessity for the phrase
This prytanis was identifiedby Kirchner and Kapetanopoulos EIred KaL er-LXSeyOvTa EIXopev. The precise sense of er)ErtXyEtv in this
with the Flavius Alcibiades who was ephebe in 155/6 (I.G., 112, context is not attested elsewhere,but it could hardly have to do
2068, line 197), somewhat improbably, for there is no evidence with anything but the adlection process. Wrpoa6TpbeLv is attested
to my knowledgethat prytaneiswere allowed to be youngerthan in the passive with the meaning "to be installed"; see L.S.J., s.v.
thirtyyears at this time. This ephebe and Flavius Leosthenes, 19 Op. cit., 374-375.
who appears just beforehim in the same inscription,were perhaps 191Malalas, XI, 280-281, and Aelius Aristides,XLVII, 36, ed.
brothersand were probably sons of the hierophantor his brother. Keil. For the passage in Malalas see the commentary of
It is not certain whetherFlavius Heracleitus of Paiania, prytanis A. Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg,Die R6mischeKaisergeschichte
in 162 (I.G., JJ2, 1772, line 9) belongs to the same family; if he bei Malalas (Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 307-313. The passage in
did (as Kapetonopoulos believes), perhaps he was a son of the Aristideswas shown to referto Marcus Aurelius by W. Schmid,
hierophant. There can be no certainty at present concerning RheinischesMuseum 48 (1893): p. 57. Cf. W. Huttl, Antoninus
I.G., IJ2, 3648: bEpow6vr7ws, AEwo-vI7s, and 'AXKL0L5677s are equally Pius (Prague, 1936) 1: p. 236, n. 24, and K-H. Ziegler, Die
possible as restorationsin line 3. Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich (Wiesbaden,
]84 Cf. Geagan, 1967: pp. 17, 128-132, 136. 1964), p. 112.
185 Giannelli, op. cit., pp. 377-381.
This position is supported by Graindor, Marbres et Textes,
186 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Veri, 8, 1. On the p. 68, although his argument fromthe use of irapa does not by
plague cf. J. Gilliam, A.J.P. 82 (1961): pp. 225-251. itselfprove that it was held in Rome. He refersto the case of the
visited Athens is not substantialenough even to dis- 168/9, in the eighthprytany,anotherhierophant,a

prove the notice in Scriptores HistoriaeAugustae,Vita Julius, was in office(I.G., JJ2, 1775). The clhange
Pii, 7, 11 that AntoninusPius never left Italy: "nec thereforetook place sometimebetween the very end
ullas expeditionesobiit, nisi quod ad agros suiospro- of 167 (the time of the second prytany)and the be-
fectusest et ad Campaniam dicens gravem esse pro- ginningof the summerof 169.
vincialibus comitatumprincipis,etiam nimis parci." 25. 'IovXios'JEpooavvrqs.In aeisitoi lists: I.G., II2,
We must conclude that the hierophantreceived his 1775 (168/9); 1776 (169/70); 1808 (170-172, or
strophionin the presence of the emperor in Rome, 174-176,or 187); 1782 (ca. 180)199;1794 (ca. 180);
wherehe visited twiceas ambassador. Hesperia 4 (1935): p. 49, no. 11 (182/3); I.G., JJ2,
We do not knowwhyhis investiturewas held before 1788 (187/8 or 174/5); 1798 (190/1); 1792
the emperor. Perhaps just as Augustusonce settleda 191/2 or 192/3). In dedications: I.G., IJ2, 3411;
case broughtto him by Eleusinian priests(probably) 3628 (?); 3639; G. M'Ianganaro,Annuario della
concerning conflictingsacral rights192 and Marcus
Scuola Archeologicadi Atene 37-38 (1959-1960):
Aurelius ruled that a man was ineligible for the pp. 421-427. (He is possiblythe same personas
hierokerykeia,193 the appointmentof this hierophant hierophantno. 19.) In officefrom168/9 to 191
was contestedand held up until the contestantscould or 192 (or slightlylater). [See Addendum, p.
go to Rome and have it settled by the emperor,the 128.]
resultbeingthat Flavius Leostheneswas confirmed as
hierophantand the Eumolpidae held the investiture It is clear fromthe aeisitoilists that thishierophant
ceremonythenand there. In any case, forwhatever took officein 168 or the early part of 169 and left
reason,the genosinstalledthis hierophantin Rome. officein 191 or 192 or slightlylater.200
We do not know whether this hierophant was Three dedicatoryepigrams (I.G., IJ2, 3411; 3639;
married;no childrenof his are attestedwithcertainty Manganaro, loc. cit.) mention the noble deeds of a
(see note 183). Nor is there any referenceto him hierophantin connectionwith an enemy attack on
after his death, i.e. with his full name preserved. Eleusis. The attack has been identifiedwith the in-
Nonetheless,we can be reasonablysurethat,as he was vasion of the Costobocs in 170,201 and the hierophant
theson of an Alcibiadesand grandsonofa Leosthenes, has been accordinglyidentifiedwith the hieronymous
and his (only known) brotherwas named Alcibiades, Julius.
he was the eldest son and accordingly named One of these epigrams is on a monumenterected
Leosthenes. after the hiierophant'sdeatlh (I.G., 12, 3639, only
A Flavius Hierophant, certainly this hierophant, partially preservedand now in MIalta),202 where the
appears twicein the aeisitoilists. These are listscon- followingnoteworthyfacts about him are recorded:
tainedwithintheprytanylistsofthisperiod.The latter he was well knownforhis wisdomand forhis pleasing
as Geagan notes,194 firstappear after the Hadrianic voice ("pouringforththe t'uepo6coav voice of Eumolpus
reforms,and contain, from the first,lists of aeisitoi, he displayed the teletasand the all-nightorgia to the
i.e. men fed in the Tholos at public expense.195 The mystai"), and he acquitted himselfwell during the
first aeisitoi lists sufficientlypreserved to be of barbarianattack by saving,undefiled,"the ritesof the
significancedate to shortlybefore165 A.D.196 Noto- unutterablesecrets (app?,rwv6&a,uLa)." In the second
poulos197and Oliver198have compiled chronological 199For a new reading see below, p. 79, note 25.
tables of aeisitoi derived from these lists with the 200 For the dates see Appendix IV, Oliver,loc. cit.,and Notopou-
purpose of dating more accurately the prytanylists los, loc. cit. Oliver's date of 192 for 1.G., 112, 1792 (A.J.P. 71
which contain them. Oliver's table with some re- [1950]: pp. 175-176) cannot be supported by the theory that
visions is given in Appendix IV. Flavius appears as "the panegyriarchwas expected to entertain the visitors who
came to Eleusis every fouryears to the festivalof the Mysteries
hierophantin the lists of 166/7 (I.G., 112,1773) and in Boedromion," for the Mysteries were held annually; and he
the second prytany of 167/8 (I.G., IJ2, 1774). In himselfeliminated this theoryin Hesperia 27 [1958]: p. 42, n. 8.
The other evidence for the date is that it should be after 188/9
cosmete Tryphon who was crowned in Rome by Septimius because of the hoplitegeneral in that year and afterI.G.,I12,1798
Severus and Caracalla (I.G., 112, 2193). which has been plausibly assigned in the table of aeisitoi to 190/1
Strong evidence against the initiation of Antoninus Pius can (see append. IV). And since 1792 was set up before the death
also be found in I.G., 12, 3620 (see discussion below, pp. 83-84). of Commodus, its date thereforewould seem to be Boedromion
192 Suetonius, Augustus,93; cf. Graindor, 1927: pp. 23-25. of 191 or 192.
193Oliver, 1970: p. 4, lines 7-15. This hierophant's name can be restored in the following
194 1967: p. 116. aeisitoi lists which fall within his period: Hesperia 11 (1942):
195S. Dow, Prytaneis, Hesperia, suppl. 1 (1937): pp. 22-24; p. 50, no. 18 (168/9); I.G., 112, 1781 (169/70); 1795 (ca. 181);
cf. Geagan, 1967: pp. 103-112. 1796 (186/7); 1797 (ca. 191).
196 If Notopoulos' date forI.G., 112 1769, shortlybefore 165, is 20 Premerstein,Klio 12 (1912): pp. 145-164; R.E., 11, coll.
correct, this hierophant's nomen should be restored; for a dis- 1505-1507; cf. I. Russu, "Les Costobocs," Dacia, notivelleseIie
cussion of this inscriptionand I.G., 112, 1768 see below, pp. 59-60 3 (1959): pp. 341-352, especially 349-351. On the date of
and append. IV. Aristides' birth cf. C. A. Behr, A.J.P. 90 (1969): pp. 75-77, and
197 Hesperia 18 (1949): pp. 1-57, table 1. Bowersock, 1969: p. 61, n. 3.
98H.Th.R. 43 (1950): pp. 233-235. 202 It should be dated "post
191/2" instead of "ca. 170."
epigram,which is inscribedon a herm,203 the invasion referto AntoninusPius. However, it will be shown
is the main subject. It reads204: below on the clear evidence of an Eleusinian inscrip-
tion (in connection with altar-priestno. 12) that
'App'1rcov0i[avpovp -jJv YA01vas AntoninusPius was not initiatedinto the Eleusinian
MVo-TLKOV HE---bv r]oqXpwLSTvyEpcL Mysteries,which confirmsthe evidence that we have
TOVVEKa TaLvLa[Ls avEsvacav K]fKpo0i7tLa McE already seen that he never left Italy.209 The answer
KacL Oc av ev [recVEL .... ]pOS aEL TECETS. to the question why only one emperoris mentioned
It was probablyerectedshortlyafterthe invasion,and here whereas in fact the hierophantJulius initiated
it appears that his praiseworthyexploitduringit was both, and in other inscriptions(both in poetry and
the saving of the arrhetahiera whichwere kept in the prose) theyare always mentionedtogether,a question
Anactoron, the "holy of holies" in the centerof the which Giannelliproperlyraised, may have something
Telesterion into which only the hierophantwas to do with the time at which the monumentwas
allowed.205 He succeeded in gettingthe hiera safely erected. If like I.G., JJ2, 3639 it was erectedafterthe
to Athens beforethe Costobocs broke in. This too hierophant'sdeath, whichoccurredin this case in 191
is the sense of the third epigram (I.G., JJ2, 3411), or 192 or a littlelater,210it may well have been set up
where he is described as the "phantor of the holy when the name of Commodus was already under
nights,who evading the unholy work of the Sarma- damnatio memoriae.
tians (i.e. the Costobocs)206saved the orgia and his He was eponymousarchon in 191/2 or 192/3.211
lifeforhis country." This confirmsand supplements 26. Tt/KXavcAos 'ArroXva'ptosT/3KXav6iov'AiroXXo5C'pov
the informationof the second epigram. He did not 'AxapvEvs.I.G., 112, 1803; 2109; 3641. Toepffer,
lead a defenseof the sanctuarybut tookthesanerand, 1889: p. 58. In office from 191 or 192 (or
as eventsproved,themorevaluable course; he brought slightlylater) to 193/4 (or shortlybefore).
the hierasafelyback to Athensas the Costobocs were
hasteningto attack. That a large part of the sanc- He is mentionedunderthe hieronymousformof his
tuary, including the Telesterion, was destroyed by name,KXati%os as a prytanis in a
'AXapvEVs,
'IJEpoyavPr?s
the attack is borne out by the Eleusinian Oration of prytany list (I.G., IJ2, 1803) which is dated by
Aelius Aristides and archaeological evidence. Had Notopoulos212 to 192/3or 193/4. His fullname occurs
the hierophantattempted resistancehe undoubtedly in the heading of an inscriptionon a herm (I.G., JJ2,
would have lost the hiera in addition to his life and 2109) of 194/5,whichreads as follows213:
the lives of others. This epigramalso salutes him for
4 [o ...]rs
his wisdom (0-0sCtlp KXELV6V), and just beforeit breaksoff,
it mentionsthat he initiated'AvrwvZvov. KXavb&o[s Ho]Xvi7,qXos
This Antoninus can be none other than MIarcus 'AXapvEVEs or]parnr'7ot-as
Aurelius. The identificationwas opposed by Gian- r6s r{6]Xews, LEXScos
nelli207on the groundsthat,althoughMarcus Aurelius 8 KXav6iov'Aro-
elepo{Eacv]rov
is sometimesreferredto in Eleusinian inscriptionsas
Antoninus,his initiationis always mentionedtogether [Xx]tvap[Eov] 'Axapv&'.
with that of Commodus, who was initiated at the The use of the fullname of the hierophant signifies
same time (176 A.D.),208 and therefore Antoninusmust thathe was dead by thistime. Thus he was in office
203 Manganaro, loc.cit.
onlya shorttime. His nameis also preservedon a
204 I was able to see the stone in the summerof 1969, and have roundstatuebase at Eleusis (I.G., JJ2,3641),erected
added in this edition some subscriptdots. Manganaro's ir]pos in afterhis death,withthebriefinscription
lepoSCaLvT71s
line 4 appears to be epigraphicallyimpossible; enough of the stone .
'Arowva4ptos
is preservedso that the rightvertical stroke of pi should show if His fatherwas Ti. ClaudiusApoll[odorus],214
and
it existed. Mnr]po6sis possible but not attractive.
206 Aelian, Varia Historia, fragment10.
his grandfather
was perhapsPolyzelusson of Apol-
206 Cf. Premerstein,Klio 12 (1912): p. 153.
207
Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 50 (1914- 209 See above, p. 38.
1915): pp. 371-380. 210 See above, n. 200.
208 For the date see Giannelli, loc. cit.; Foucart, Revue de LG., 112, 1792, lines 3-4 (= A.J.P. 71 [1950]: p. 174); for
211
Philologie 1893: pp. 205-207. the date see above, n. 200.

On the initiationcf. ScriptoresHistoriae Augustae, Vita Marci, 212
Hesperia 18 (1949): table I, facing p. 22; cf. J. S. Traill,
27: init(i)alia Cererisadit ut se innocentemprobaretet sacrarium Hesperia 40 (1971): pp. 323-324 and 41 (1972): p. 141.
solus ingressus est. Since only the hierophant was allowed to 213 Dated by Notopoulos, 1949: p. 31. He restored[o IqrI s
enter the Anactoron (see above, n. 205) this has been thoughtto in line 4, but no basis forthis is available. I was able to see part
mean that Marcus Aurelius was the only outsider ever allowed to of another letter before eta, probably part of a serif. It is too
visit the sacred Anactoron (Foucart, op. cit., p. 207; Manganaro, close to eta to be part of a gamma but could be part of mu, alpha,
loc. cit.). But what about Commodus? Did he wait outside? lambda, and other letters. On epigraphical grounds, therefore,
D. Magie (Loeb, 1921) translates solus as "unattended" and [KoTJ/norTS is preferable to [Etn'ry}Tts.
sacrariumas "sanctuary," whichseems much preferable(although 214 I.G., 112, 3748. However, Apoll[inarios] can also be re-
sacrariumcould also mean the Telesterion in this case). stored, it seems.
lodorus of Acharnae, who was ephebe around 110.215 sixtyyears,the second alternativemust be the correct
His brotherPolyzelus was ephebic archon sometime one. In thiscase, Claudius Eumolpusson of Claudius
after 160216and thereforewas born sometime after Eumolpus of 1\iarathon, ephebe in 169/70 (I.G., 112,
140. If Polyzelus was the first-born,his brother 2097, line 38) appears, with some probability,to be
Apollinarius died at an age of less than fifty-five.the same person as our hierophant,since Eumolpus
This, however,is as uncertainas the name of their points to a connection with the appropriate genos,
father. and in 209/10 Eumolpus would have been sixtyyears
old.
27. Nov,u,uios 'JEpoipabvr-sfaX-qpEVs.I.G., I12, 1806
(194/5?); 1806a (195/6); 1790 (ca. 197); Hesperia 29. 'AwroXXconos 'AroXXwovlov.Philostratus, Lives of
16 (1947): p. 180, no. 84. In officefrom194/5 theSophists,II, 20, p. 103 (ed. Kayser); I.G., 112,
(or shortlybefore)to sometimebefore209/10. 3811-3812. Oliver,Hesperia 36 (1967): pp. 334-
335. In officearound 215.
He was the successorof Claudius Apollinarius,and
since the latter was dead in 194/5, he must already In Philostratus'sshortbiographyof him the section
have been in officein thisyear. This factwould tend concerning his career reads as follows:
to favor the removal of the question mark from the '0 6be 'AwroXXcowos o 'AO1vaiosovogAaros gE' ?tKcbO- Kac'
date "194/5?" whichNotopoulos217 proposedforI.G., ÈXX)rvas, ws tKaLo's ra b6KavLKa Kal ra &A4gl' IEXET-rnvov
112, 1806, in which this hierophantappears in the UEg1r6vS, 'waL6EvoE 'Abe
6 6'70 Kac 'HpaKX1E16rn' TE Kal rov
aeisitoi list; for if it were dated to its other possible OgCOwVgOV TO X
tOXKTLKOV Opovov rpOrsTS r -rTaXa'vrc.
year, viz. 193/4, we would have to compress even btarpE7Er's6b Kal ra WroXtrtKa' 'yEv6,gEvos e' TE 7rEpEo3Eats
furtherhis predecessor's already brief incumbency. virEp r&v pE'ylo-rcv ErpE&o,EvorEv e'v rE XiErovpylats, as
In I.G., 112, 1806a, assigned to a year in which this gEywTcLa 'AOrnvaiot vogqlovot, rnv rE E'r&vvguovKat T7/vEir
hierophantwas certainlyin office(195/6), absolute TW'v 0orwXwvE7rerpca'7f7 KaL Tas et acaKKTopOV (covas i/6
hieronymyis observed; only the titles 'IEpo4pav'r/s, yJpa'KwL', 'HpaKXE60ov gu'v Ka' Ao'y'gov Ka' FXa'KOV KaG
Aa6ovXos, JIEPOKnpv4are inscribed. Accordingto the Evco
-Cov rotovrco tEpo4cav-rc'Tv AEP a4ro6&hw,-E/APOT77L
aeisitoi list of I.G., 112, 1790, this hierophantappears 6E Kai /E'yaXo7rpE7rEica KaO KO'o-Aw 7rapa' 7roXXovs6OKWL'
in the extraordinaryposition of second place, behind TCovav'w.
the sacred herald, the only such occurrencein all the The rest of the biography discusses his oratorical
preserved aeisitoi lists. However, a squeeze of the style,but mentionis made in passing that one of his
inscriptionslhowsthat thispart of the textis definitely embassies was to Septimius Severus in Rome.22"
lines 26-29 should read:
incorrect2l8; Concerninghis death it is stated that he died "about
NOV',q,qO3 'IEpoDP[FE-rns] the age of seventy-five"and was buried along the
Nov,u'JpEPOKIPVfj] Sacred Way in the suburbcalled the Sacred Fig, where
the processionbringingthe hierafromEleusis stopped
How7rtosAabo[Dxos] to rest.
From a partially preservedaeisitoi list, not precisely A statue of him was set up at Eleusis while he was
we learnhis demotic,IaXrjpdv. He may
datable,219 still alive (I.G., 112, 3811). Beneath the epigram
be a sonofL. NummiusPhaedreasofPhaleron,220 who originallyinscribed on its base another was added
marriedNummiaBassa, daughterofa sacredherald. afterhis death by his children,revealinghis name and
If the restoration suggestedin AppendixIV for his father's name (line 12), which was also Apol-
line 1 of I.G., 112, 1789, LNov,uI]uLOs is
'JEpop4vtrIs, lonius.222 In the firstepigramthe viewer is asked to
correct, in 204/5.
thenhe was probablystillin office keep his name silent while he is alive, because "a
secret thesmos223 went taking it into the purple sea":
I.G., 112, 1077.
) Mapawvtos-.
28. KXac6os'JEpowpavTr7s 221
In view of this embassy A. von Premerstein (Jahreshefte 16
in 209/10.
In office [1913]: p. 263) suggested his name as a possible restorationin
line 21 of I.G., JJ2, 1076, as the Athenian delegate sent to Rome in
The sign) indicatesthathis fatherhad the same connection with honors for Julia Domna, but a new fragment
or the
name. Eitherhisfatherwas also a Epoaipvmrns, (Hesperia 4 [1935]: pp. 178-183, no. 45) does not seem to bear
hierophant'sname, beforehieronymy was imposed, this out.
222 If 7raTpos means the hierophant himself,the father of the
was thesameas hisfather's. Sincemostprobablyno dedicators, the line seems needlessly redundant. A small non-
washierophant
Claudiusof 1\Iarathon in theprevious joining fragmentof this inscription,foundin the storeroomof the
museum at Eleusis, belongs at the end of this line and verifies
215I.G., I I2, 2019. the restorationof Keil: -rar[pos] byoD('ApX. 'Eq'. 1971: p. 118,
216I.G., JJ2, 3748. no. 12). The line signifiesthat his fatherhad the same name.
217 1949: table I.- The last line perhaps refersto Poseidon as the ancestor of the
218 For othercorrectionsin this list see Oliver,A.J.A. 45 (1941): Eumolpidae; see Toepffer,1889: p. 30.
223 6eOauI6ssounds very much like an object here, on which the
p. 539.
219 Hesperia 16 (1947): p. 180, no. 84. name was written. It definitelywas an object in the Thesmo-
220I.G., 12, 4069-4070. phoria; see Deubner, 1932: pp. 50-60.
that is, probablyas part of the investitureceremony,
his name was writtenon a tablet and throwninto the
sea.
His role as hierophantis describedwith the words
vvi'Ep) aptyEvcats. Reference
EK rpo(paverTa
CwctKrOpOV is
also made in theepigramto the factthat the rhetorical
professionhad been in his familyforgenerations,and
now that he was a hierophanthe had given it up:
Oecpa-ravPv taxco. This and the synonym which
Philostratususes for his office,rcas et 'aaKrOpov pcowas,
as well as the remark that other hierophantswere
better in euphonia, imply great importance for a
nmelodious voice in connectionwith the functionsof
the hierophantin the Telesterion. Though not equal
to three of his successors in euphonia, he surpassed
many of his predecessorsin "solemnity,magnificence,
and dress," aspects of the hierophant'sperformance FIG. 4. I.G., II2, 3812.
which were also evidently not unimportantat this
time. but that only the name of the man's distinguishedpro-
He was marriedat some time in his life. fessionstood centeredin line 3. It is in fact centered
Since Philostratusstates that he was once an epon- in relationto line 1 and so it is reasonable to suppose
ymous archon and hoplite general, Graindor224 that line 2 should be symmetricalwithit also; thiscan
identifiedhim with the C. Cas(sius) Apollonius of be achieved with the restorationsof the above text.
Steiria who was lhoplitegeneralin 188/9225and archon We thenhave roomforan abbreviatedpraenomenand
in 207/8.226 However, it is suggested below (p. 80, nomen,whichwould of course rule out Oliver's identi-
no. 10) that the hoplite general and the archon are fication. But therestoration['AwroWXbntov] 'AroXXcovlo-
fatherand son, and that the family belongs to the [v. 13.De.mOic. .] is also possible as symmetrical with
.
Kerykes. Oliver227 believes that he should be identi- lines 1 and 3 if its beginningand end extendedbeyond
fied with the peregrineApollonius son of Apollonius those of line 1. It seems impossible to restore
who was a member of the consilium that advised 'AwroWXXvtos Eibrl,uov "EpgEtos.229Wilhelm'sidentifica-
Commodus on affairsof the Gerusia in 182 and 183. tion230 of our Apolloniuswith P. Aelius Apolloniuswho
The above interpretationof I.G., 112, 3811, line 12 as is mentionedin I.G., JJ2, 3688 (init.s. III p.) as having
indicatingthat thehierophantwas the son of a homon- been eponymous archon, basileus, hoplite general,
ymous father offerssupport for Oliver's suggestion epimeleteof the gymnasiarchy,and heraldof the Are-
as far as the patronymicis concerned,but his sugges- opagus seems doubtful. Possible argumentsagainst
tion otherwisecannot be regardedas probable on the it are that no embassies are mentionedin I.G., JJ2,
basis of available evidence.228 However, I am in- 3688 (but it may have been set up previousto them);
clined to agree with Oliver that our Apollonius is the and that Kirchner'sstemma (ad I.G., JJ2, 3688) shows
sophist honoredin J.G., 112, 3812. I would edit this that the identificationwould presuppose a change of
inscription(fig.4) as follows: genos on the part of P. Aelius Apollonius or of his
[KaTra ra] 6Ravpra 'Ap[E0orawyErats] uncle, P. Aelius Dionysius, who was a daduch (but
['.k the stemmaof the familyof hierophantno. 20 and the
ca5 .] O'AX7roXXSto[v'Aw7roXXPv'ov]
case of Valerius Mamertinus23l show that this is a pos-
[ P] a
V ffOp t [S0 V
sible course). A more serious argument is the fact
[?] that, as lines 13-16 of I.G., 112, 3688 reveal, the dedi-
cator, the wife of P. Aelius Apollonius; took pains to
The lettersof line 3 (ht., ca. 0.026 m., disregardingthe
show that her daughterwas of distinguishedancestry;
verticalstrokeof the phi) are tallerthan thoseof lines
if
1-2 (ht., ca. 0.020 m.) as well as wider,whichsuggests yet, the identificationis correct,she ignored her
husband's sophisticprofessionwhich had been in his
that the name of the man honoreddid not run on to
forsome time.
line 3, that is, did not consist of two sizes of letters, family
This hierophantwas alreadydead when Philostratus
224 1922: pp. 215-217.
was writing,between 230/1 and 238.232 His incum-
225See Hesperia, Suppl. 8: pp. 281-283; Sarikakis, 1951: 229 I.G., I12, 3665.
pp. 42-43. 230 R.E., 2, col. 121, no. 1; which is followedby P.I.R.2, A, 142
226 I.G., II2, 2199, line 7; for the date see Notopoulos, 1949:
and Bowersock, 1969: p. 133.
pp. 34-35. 231 Oliver, 1970: p. 4, lines 9-11.
227 Hesperia 36 (1967): pp. 329-335.
232 For the date cf. Bowersock, 1969: pp. 6-8.
Since "Philo-
228 Cf. J. and L. Robert, R.E.G. 82
(1969): p. 451, no. 193. stratus will have addressed Gordian at the outset by his highest
bency came in all probability before rather than Hesperia, Suppl. 8 (1949): p. 252, no. 3); 3662,
the hierophantswithwhom Philostratuscom-
after233 lines 13-14 (= Oliver, op. cit., p. 253, no. 4);
pares him and who appear to have held the hiero- 3709, lines 10-11 (= Oliver,op. cit.,p. 250, no. 2).
phantia in succession,namely,Heracleides, Logimus, Stemma: Oliver, op. cit., opposite p. 248. In
and Glaucus (who servedfora periodofnineyearsand officefornine years and part of a tenth,around
a fractionof a year). Thus Apolloniuswas eitherthe 225-235.
successor of Claudius Hierophantof Marathon or at
any rate served not long afterhim. His father,a Roman knight,was procuratorof
Cyprus around 180-200.237 The very distinguished
Ca. 220 A.D. familyto which he belonged is illustratedin Oliver's
stemma. His sisterwas the wifeof a hierophant,and
Around 220 A.D. a decreewas passed by the Demos
his brotherZoilus marriedthe daughterof the hiero-
(I.G., JJ2, 1078) regulatingdetails of the ephebes'
phantid Isidote.
participationin the escort of the hiera fromEleusis
to The most informationconcerninghim comes from
to Athens and in the processionof the MVlysteries
a memorial erected after his death at Eleusis (I.G.,
Eleusis. The end of the decree requests that this be
il2, 3661)238: "Glaucus, joining a soul of old age to a
made knownto the Areopagus,the Boule of the Five
still in its prime,and to beauty of personadding
Hundred,the hierophant,and the genosof the Eumol- body
the better part,wise self-control, revealed to all man-
pidae. The importanceattached to the hierophant's
kind the light-bringing ritesof Deo fornine years,but
and the Eumolpidae's knowledgeof thisdecreewould
in the tenth went to the immortals." Glaucus ob-
seem to indicate that they were the ones primarily
died beforereachingold age.
responsiblefor managing the procession. However, viously
According to Philostratushis euphonia was much
the decree also stipulates that the ephebes were to
better than that of Apollonius. In I.G., JJ2, 3709
receivesome Eumolpid funds,234 and it may have been
(lines 10-11) he is called "the hierophantfromthe
forthis reason,or also forthis reason,that the hiero-
radiant Anactoron," a descriptionsimilar to that in
phant and the Eumolpidae had to be specially
I.G., 112,3661: "he revealed to all mankindthe light-
notified.
bringingritesof Deo."
Ca. 230 A.D.
33. Hierophant. I.G., Il2, 3662.
A decree235 honoringUlpius Eubiotus and his sons
states that theyare to share in the aiseitiai just as the Either beforeor after Glaucus. He was the hus-
hierophantand [--- .
band of Glaucus's sisterEuryale, eponymousarchon,
30. 'HpaKXEL6-. Philostratus, II, 20, p. 103 (ed. sophist,and was commemoratedby his wife in I.G.,
JJ2,3662 (= Oliver, Hesperia, Suppl. 8 (1949): p. 253).
Kayser). In officearound 220-230.
As Graindor suggested,239 he could be the same
31. Ao'y:gos. Philostratus, ibid. In office around personas the hierophantApollonius (no. 29).
220-230. He probablysucceeded Heracleides.
34. 'Ep6rtos. I.G., JJ2, 3674. In officeafter ca. 235.
suggestedthat he is thesame as the LEpEis
Wilhelm236
1ravaPyrl'IaOcWV Z'rOOV O Kac A6yto-Aos
'A-yvofWutos A base with an epigramwas set up in his honorby
(I.G., JJ2,
3664). However, a hierophant could not hold a his son Cleadas, who was himselfhierophantof a
priesthoodof the Kerykes along with his own. It is Demeter-Korecult at Lerna,240 a cult similarto that
conceivable that he could have been Epe's wravacy?7s,of Eleusis at least in respectto thenamesofsomeofthe
then switched genos and became a hierophant,but priesthoods. Cleadas's name indicates that he was
thereis not an inklingof evidence that it was done in an Argive, and Boeckh (C.I.G., I, 405) made the
this case. plausible suggestionthat he was born of an Argive
mother. He is also mentionedin the Palatine An-
32. T 4?lX63tosFXcaKOs T 4FaX3lov F'Xa'VKoV Mapa0wcvtos. thology (IX, 688) as AEpvacwv a4rv'wv 7rWEpCpwOos oxpyco-
Philostratus, ibid.; I.G., JJ2, 3661 (= Oliver,
pavTr7s. . .,I KX7s. . ..ayav7s 7rootsEu7racrEpErs.
and most recent office" (Bowersock), it follows that the dedica-
The significanceof coin line 3 of I.G., JJ2, 3674 has
tion of the Lives of the Sophists was writtenbefore Gordian was not been commentedupon by any of its editors. Such
emperor; for 230/1 as the terminuspost quem see below, p. 81, should mean "at the hand of,"
a dative with 6EXIocLat
n. 50.
233Toepifer (1889: p. 58) interpretsthat they preceded him,
237 Cf. Woloch, 1966: Flavius no. 34a.
but Philostratusdoes not specifya chronologicalrelationship.
234 For the custom see above, p. 23.
238 The translation is by Oliver, Hesperia, loc. cit. Omitted
235 Oliver, 1941: no. 31, line 25, and a copy in Hesperia 32 finalcoupleton deathas a
hereis the veryinteresting KaXOv eK
(1963): p. 26, no. 27, line 14. /IaKapC,V /1UVT77pL0V.
236 Beitrdge zur griechischenInschriftenkunde(Wien, 1909), 239 1922: p. 217.

p. 96. 240 2: p. 354.
For the cult see Nilsson, Geschichte,
as in 66'aro ot' 0-K7rTpov 1rarpc<tov.24I How then did a god who had appeared, and he gave him everything
Cleadas receive the hierophantiaat Lerna "at the he wished," including"imperial gifts" and a retinue
hand of" his father? It is possible that Erotius also to take care of the sanctuariesof Greece.
served as hierophantat Lerna, or morelikely,that he Eunapius (X, 8), relatinganotherincidentfromthe
was involved in givingadvice about religiousmatters lifeof thishierophant,at the timeJulianwas emperor
in the Mysterycult there (which was already in ex- (361-363), fillsout the picturealready given of him
istence by the time of Plutarch and Pausanias); as a seer. At this time Prohaeresiusconsultedhim,
in perhaps a somewhat similar way Timotheus the having noticed that "the hierophantwas available,
exegete242 once furnishedhelp in the foundingof a like the Delphic tripod,to all thoseseekingknowledge
Mystery cult at Alexandria. Thus Erotius might of the future." The question he put to him was
have had a voice in the appointmentof a hierophant whetherJulian's tax reformwould be permanent,and
at Lerna, who turnedout to be his own son, eligible the answerwas negative.
by virtueof being born of an Argivemother. Another instance of the hierophant's prophetic
In the epigram of I.G., 12, 3674 Erotius is called powers is recountedby Zosimus, in connectionwith
[K]EKPOwqS O-OCO'V implyingthat,like otherhiero-
'E'PVOS, an incidentthat took place around 375. In a dream,
phants,he too was renownedforhis wisdom. the hierophantNestorius,e& 'KELVOtS Tots xpOvoLs
lepo(pavTcev ie-ay'evos, nowv7repyq1pos,
foresaw
a disaster
35. 'lepopLvar?Ts
7evaWyopou. I.G., 112, 2342. Stemma: and that Athen's only salvation lay in doing public
E. Kapetanopoulos, B.C.HI. 92 (1968): pp. 493- honor to Achilles. But his proposal was spurnedby
518, Stemma "C." In officein the firsthalf of the city officials. Undaunted, he fashioneda statue
the fourthcentury. of Achilles in an aediculum and set it beneath the
statue of Athena in the Parthenon,while recitingthe
His name is the culminationof a long tabula gene-
appropriateprayersto both deities. Soon afterwards
alogica whichis inscribedon a liermand of whichonly
a great earthquake took place and only Athens was
the last part is preserved. The inscriptionis actually
spared.
divided into two sections,one section carved on the
Nestoriuswas the hierophantwho initiated ('CXEa)
frontof the hermand the otheron the rightside, with
Eunapius,243and although Eunapius was certainly
the genealogical informationof one section comple-
writingafterthe hierophant'sdeath, he says that "it
mentingthat of the other. It reveals that his an-
is not lawful (themis)forme to say his name." (His
cestors were, on his mother'sside, the great families
of the Claudii of Melite (the daduchic house) and the name, however,is mentionedby Zosimus withoutany
Gellii of Delphi and Athens and, on his father'sside, referenceto hieronymy.) Eunapius states that this
aii unknownEumolpid family. hierophantwas a Eumolpid, and he prophesied to
Eunapius that "after him a hierophant would be
36. NEo-r6ptos.Zosimus, IV, 18 (ed. M1endelssohn); appointed forwhom it would not be lawful to touch
Eunapius, Lives oftheSophists,VII, 3, 1-4, 9, and the hierophanticthrones,since this man would have
X, 8 (ed. Giangrande); Marinus, Proclus, 28, alreadybeen consecratedto othergods and would have
p. 22 (ed. Boissonade). The last legitimate swornsecretoaths not to superviseothershrines,"and
hierophant. In officefrombefore355 to at least he would not even be an Athenian. fHealso prophe-
375 and "not long before"392. sied that sanctuarieswould be razed and pillaged in
his own time (though evidently not referringto
He was knownas a personof greatwisdomand as a Eleusis), and that the Eleusinian sanctuarywould end
seer. Julian, just beforehe was elevated to Caesar its lifebeforehis successorended his,and his successor
in 355 A.D., heard of the hierophant'swisdom and would henceforthlive in dishonor,destinedneitherto
rushed to Athens to be his pupil. But just when serve as hierophant nor to reach old age. T he
Julian succeeded in gettingto know the hierophant prophecywas borne out, Eunapius says, by the fact
well, Constantiusconferredon him the rank of Caesar that his successorwas fromThespiae and was a 7rar?)p
and assigned him to Gaul. When he was there he ri,s MtOptaKiS, and by the fact that "not long there-
summonedthe hierophantfromGreece,and together after" Alaric invaded (396 A.D.). The invasion was
with him performed"some things (i.e. rites) known successful,accordingto Eunapius, because of the im-
only to them,"whichaccordingto Eunapius were in- piety of the blackrobes,and because the "law and
strumentalin influencing Julian to do away with the bond of the hierophanticthesmoihad already been
tyrannyof Constantius. After he had done away broken" (referring presumablyto both the illegitimate
with Constantius,Eunapius adds, he sent the hiero- hierophantand the edicts of Theodosius).
Dhant back to Greece "as thoughhe were sendingoff Nestoriuswas the fatheror grandfather of Plutarch,
the Neo-Platonic philosopherwho died in 431.244
241 Iliad, II, line 186; forother examples see L.S.J., s.v.bexoISaL
1.1. 243 VI, 3, 1.
See above, Introduction,The Secret of the Mysteries and
242
244
For the relationsee R. Buetler,R.E. 21 (1951): colt.962-975,
Christian Writers. s.v. Plutarchos von Athen; cf. Oliver, Expounders,p. 84.
According to Marinus (Proclus, 28, p. 22, ed. around the end of the second century B.C. (see
Boissonade), who calls him Nestorius the Great, he Introduction).
was the author of "Op-ytaand eEOVpIYK?Y 'AywLy.245 That the hierophantnormallywas not a youngman
is clear froma passage of Epictetus in whichEpictetus
ROMAN EMPIRE addresses a hypotheticalyoung man who proposes to
A piece ofone side oftheaediculumof thetEpo(oavTtKo'sreproducethe MIysteriesat a place otherthan Eleusis
hier-
Opovosin the Telesterion is preservedand bears the by simplyreproducingthe sounds utteredby the
vertically written inscription 'Ipo avr[7s], of Roman ophant251: OVK 'o-O?Ta xEL-s 5v66 Tov IEpoAVTr)V, ov KO'7V, OV
cos
date.246 The throneand its aediculumhave been re- arp spLov OLov 6EL, ov pcA)V?7V, 0'VX ?1X\KLav, 0VX ?yvevKs
constructedby J. Travlos, who demonstrateson the EKELVOS. Thus only older men were normally ap-
basis of its foundationblocks that it was situatedin pointed, and the evidence for the individual hiero-
close proximityto the entranceof the Anaktoron.247 phants indicates that in fact several were of such an
age: Lacrateides (no. 4) was probablyover sixtywhen
UNKNOWN DATE installed; Amynomachus (no. 12) over fifty;Hiero-
phant of Hagnous (no. 23) is depicted in a reliefas an
A grave inscription(I.G., JJ2, 6400) preservedonly old man; and Apollonius (no. 24) entered the hiero-
in the sketches of Fauvel as . . (DATOHM |'AvTtKPaToVI phantia Ulq -y-qpa6cKcov and died at about seventy-five
K?7WtatEvsis restored by W. P'eek to read "certainly years of age. The evidence also indicates that some
['Jep]os4varr,s rather than [llpIIcoray6p7s."248 No date wereprobablyless thansixtywhentheywereinstalled,
is given for the monument. The reading ['JEp]oavar?Js namely,Aristoclesof Perithoidai (no. 13) whose term
seems very unlikely,since hieronymyis nowlhereelse of servicelasted at least 35 yearsand Glaucus (no. 32)
attested on monumentserected after a hierophant's who died after nine years of service while his body
death. was "still in its prime." Apollinarius (no. 26) when
UNCERTAIN PROVENANCE he assumed officemay have been fairlyyoung. How-
ever, none of the latter cases justifythe assumption
The inscriptionmentioningthe hierophantAnti- that any of them were youngerthan about 45-50 at
ochus, who appears in Toepffer'sand Philios's lists,is the time of theirappointment. In regard to several
of uncertainprovenance,and so it is not clear whether of the otherhierophants,about whose age no precise
Antiochuswas an Eleusinian hierophant.249 inferencescan be drawn, the distinguishedcareers
which they had already had by the time theyappear
GENERAL REMARKS
in inscriptionsas hierophantstestifythat they were
AGE AND DURATION OF SERVICE certainly not young men. In addition, the short
In commentingon the Mysteriesat PhliusPausanias termsof several of the hierophantsof the end of the
states (II, 14) that theydifferedfromthoseat Eleusis second and the beginningof the third century
A.D.
in being held fourtimesa year, and also in regardto point to the same conclusion, namely thiat age was an
the duration of the hierophant's term: important pre-requisite for appointment to the hiero-
lEpoIpavTrnsOVK
es rov f3ov iraTva a'ro6a6EtKTat, KaTc 6e EKXOT?7V x-TEXE/v
phantia,the importanceof it perhapsvaryingaccord-
a"XoTf: caoTtv aaoXos ovptatv atpETos, XacuL3acvv
C) 7EOEXf KOaL
ing to tlheperiod.
-yvvatKa. That the appointment of a hierophantat
MARITAL STATUS
Eleusis was for life is also indicated by the evidence
concerningApollonius (no. 29), Glaucus (no. 32), and Pausanias (II, 14, see above) seems to say that one
Nestorius (no. 36) and by the fact that no livingex- of the ways in which the hierophantsof I'hlius dif-
hierophantsare known.250In addition,in the case of feredfromthose at Eleusis was that the formercould
Apollonius (no. 29) an inscriptionstates that hier- marryif they wished. However, many of the hiero-
onymycould be liftedonly afterhis death. This was phants at Eleusis had children,and so Pausanias's
a customwhichapplied to the priest'sentiretermand testimonyraises the question whetherthey were still
was kept rigorouslyforall hierophantsstartingfrom marriedorwerewidowerswhenservingas hierophants.
A statementof Hyperidesstronglysuggeststhat mar-
was made by K. Latte, Gnomon7 (1931):
245This identification
p. 118, n. 1. riage was permittedin the fourthcenturyB.C.252 The
246I.G., IJ2, 3718; Preuner, apud Noack (1927: p. 292, no. dedication in honor of Alenecleides (no. 13) erected
114a), suggests a date in the Hadrianic period. For a probable by his wife,shows that marriagewas not forbidden
referencein the fourthcentury B.C. to the hierophant's throne, around the end of the second centuryB.C., and a dedi-
see above, p. 20. cation of the second centuryA.D. by perhaps253the
247'ApX. 'Epo.1950-1951: pp. 1-16.
248 "Attische GrabinschriftenI," Abhandlungender Deutschen
Akademie der Tl7issenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse fur Sprachen, 251 Arrian,Discourses of Epictetus,III, 21, 16 (ed. Schenkl).
Literature and Kunst, 4 (1953): no. 26. 252 Citedabove,p. 21.
249C.I.G., II, 1948. 253I.G., IJ2, 3628. She could not have been a daughter, but it
250 Cf. Oliver, H.Th.R. 43 (1950): p. 233. is possible that she was not his wife.
wife of a hierophantinvites criticismof Pausanias's Claudius Oenophilus (no. 18) held nearlyeverymajor
testimonyeven forhis own period. political position, others held several of them. At
Pausanias visited Athens probably shortlybefore least three (nos. 18, 24, 29) served as ambassadors,
the middle of the second century,certainly before two of them to Rome. In at least one case, that of
160-161.254 It is possible that at this time the in- Claudius Oenophilus (no. 18), who was probably the
cumbentwas not married,and it is also possible that firstAthenian equestrian, a hierophant,before as-
the well-knownchastityobserved by the hierophant suming office,had had a Roman career. Flavius
during the festival (see below) was a source of con- Leosthenes (no. 24), Apollonius (no. 29), and
fusion. Though Xay,3avwvyvvaLKais a normal term Nestorius (no. 36) were on good termswithemperors.
formarrying, perhapsPausanias is usingit heresimply The hierophantApollonius (no. 29) was a sophist,
to referto intercourse,so that it should be taken and several (nos. 32, 34, 36) were known for their
closelywithKaTa e EKAOT77V TEXETfV. At any rate, ifhewisdom; and the last legitimatehierophant(no. 36)
does not mean this, his testimonydoes not seem to achieved renownforhis powersofprophecyand magic.
be correcton this point. No. 25 was highlypraised forhis clear thinkingand
courage in the face of hostile attack upon the sanc-
MANNER OF APPOINTMENT tuary. Clearly the hierophantin the Roman period
generally was a person who enjoyed considerable
Only four hierophantswere close relatives of one prestige. Plutarch and Dio Chrysostomrelate that
another: the brothersAmynomachusand Aristocles
the hierophantiawas the most importantand most
of the second century B.C., and Menecleides and
respectedpriesthoodin Athens.256 It was also highly
Theophemus of the last quarter and the end of the
respectedin the Classical and Hellenisticperiod, but
second centuryB.C., who were fatherand son. This
whetherto such a degreeis not known.
small number,in contrastto the relativelylarge num-
ber of unrelated hierophants,especially those of the REQUIREMENTS FOR APPOINTMENT
fourthcenturyB.C. and of 150-230 A.D., the two
periods forwhich our recordsare the most complete, Political and intellectualdistinction(at least in the
would lead one to inferthat inheritancewas not the Roman period) were undoubtedlyvery helpfulin in-
manner of appointment. At the same time, the fluencingappointment,but religiousand ceremonial
numberof related hierophantsis large enough to cast abilities were evidentlyalso necessary. Philostratus
doubt on allotment as the manner of appointment, considereda pleasing or melodiousvoice (Eusocwvla) to
at least for the period after the third century B.C. be highlydesirable of a hierophantand listed three
However, thereis some, thoughnot very strong,evi- hierophantswho had it (nos. 30-32) and a fourth
dence that allotmentmay have been used beforethe (no. 29) who was not quite up to themin this respect.
time of Aristotle.255We must conclude that at least Epictetus listed 0wwvjas one of the hierophant'sessen-
for the later period hierophantswere elected, and, tial characteristics. Philostratus also stressed "so-
accordingly,that occasionallya familyof great pres- lemnity,magnificence, and dress."
tige and popularityamong the Eumolpidae succeeded
INVESTITURE
in having more than one of its memberselected. In-
terestingly,the predominanceofcertainfamiliesof the Apparently the most importantpart of the cere-
Eumolpidae in the hierophantia occurredin the second mony of installationwas the receptionof the stro-
centuryB.C. and coincides with a somewhat similar phion; in the case of Flavius Leosthenes (no. 24)
though lengthierpredominanceof certain familiesof this seems to have been practicallysynonymouswith
the Kerykes in the dadouchiaabout the same time. becominga hierophant.257It was probably at some
point duringthe investiturethat the hierophantcast
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL POSITION his formername intothesea and became hieronymous.
Investiturewas not restrictedto a particularplace,
Little is known of the lives of the hierophants.
as is shownby the case of Flavius Leosthenes (no. 24)
Archias (no. 3) was on good terms with oligarchs,
who receivedthe strophionin Rome in the presenceof
Eurymedon (no. 7) brought suit against Aristotle,
AntoniusPius.
Eurycleides (no. 8) was intolerant of philosophic
witticisms on the M\iysteries.The only political RELIGIOUS COSTUME
officeattested forhierophantsof the pre-Sullanperiod
is servicein the Boule (no. 11 and perhaps no. 9). The best evidence forthe dress of the hierophantis
In 86/5 a hierophantwas archon, and generally the reliefof hierophantno. 23, in connectionwith
speaking,it is characteristicof the hierophantsof the 256 See above, n. 179.
Roman period to be politically very distinguished. See the discussion of the strophionin connection with I.G.,
257
112, 3592 and Flavius Leosthenes (no. 24) and in the section on
254 Cf. J. C. Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece, pp. the hierophant's dress. The same significanceof the reception
xvi-xviii. of the strophionis attested for other cults; for bibliographysee
255 See below, pp. 52-53, 67. L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): p. 459.
which a full discussionof the hierophant'sdress was the Eumolpidae were perhaps primarilyresponsible
presented. From this reliefand literaryevidence the for the direction of the procession265;he and the
followingpicture emerges. The color of his cere- daduch probablymarchedat its head.266
monial garmentwas perhaps purple. The most im- We may summarize here the most trustworthy
portant part of his dress was the strophion,above (non-Christian)evidence referring specificallyto the
which he customarilywore a myrtlewreath. Hlis hierophantand his activitywithinthe Telesterion.267
hair was probably long by tradition. In addition, As his title indicates, he showed the hiera to the
hierophantno. 23 holds a staffand wears ratherfancy initiates.268The hiera were kept in the Anactoron,
into wlhichhe alone was permittedto enter.269He
boots. The generalimpressionof Ev1nTpE rLtaand aEz'vOrT77
influenceda speakerin Athenaeusto accuse the hiero- had a considerable speaking role during this most
phant and daduch of imitatingthe stage. sacred service, for which a pleasing and melodious
voice was essential.270He had to reveal certain
EMOLUMENTS spoken secrets (XETyO',Eva) to the assembled initiates.27
And a very importantpart of his speakingwas done
The hierophant'sprimarysource of feeswas proba-
withinthe Anactoron: Philostratususes al ft avaKTOpoV
bly the initiatesthemselves.258Though his fee is not
as a synonymfor the hierophantia.272At the
preserved,one amountingto fiveobols or morewould ~pwvaL
moment he emerged, the Anactoron was lit by a
be commensuratewith what the priestessof Demeter
brilliantlight,and the appearance of the hierophant
and Kore received. A portionof the proceeds from bathed in this lightwas a dramaticmomentthat was
theharvestof the Rarian fieldwas givento himas well
especially remembered: Apollonius (no. 29) is de-
as to the other priestsand priestessesof the cult.259 scribed in an epigram as
a?vaKTOPOV EK IrpoSpavevTa PVVPL
He undoubtedlyreceived also a portionof the sacri-
&v apyErn'aZs, and Glaucus (no. 32) is called "the hiero-
ficesofferedduringthe I\Jysteries, just as everymem- phiantfromthe radiant Anactoron." Glaucus is also
ber of the Eumolpidae did, and perhapsas hierophant
called the one who "revealed to all mankindthe light-
his portionwas greater.260In the time of Aeschines,
bringingritesof Deo." Brilliantlightwas a veryim-
at least, he probably underwenta financialaudit.261
portantpart of the festivalat this point.273
In the second centuryA.D. he had a share in theEleu-
sinian endownment, but otherwisenothingis knownof It is clear froma scholion to Aristophanes' Frogs (line 369) and
paymentsto him duringthe Roman period. Perhaps a comment by Suetonius that by Eumolpidae and Kerykes
feeswerestillcollectedfrominitiates,but the need for Isocrates probably had in mind the hierophant, daduch, and
a panegyriarch262 shows that if so, these fees did not sacred herald. The scholion reads: 7rap&T'ar roi bEpoaoavroV Kal
Tr1J&
rev rTOLKLKXfuro. Suetonius's remark,
pay the fullexpensesof the festivalas theyapparently bbo5xovu 2rp6ppf7aTuJ
Nero, 34 is cited below, p. 78, where the priests' role in the
did in Classical times. In view of the generalwealthi- prorrhesisis discussed.
265 See above, p. 42.
ness of the hierophantsof this period the initiates'
266 See above,pp. 35-36.
feesmay have been less important.
267 Concerning the difficulty of interpretingthe testimonia of
Perhaps a clearer picture would emerge from a Christian sources, which is not attempted here, see above, Intro-
comprehensivestudy of the financesof the sanctuary. duction, The Secret of the Mysteries and Christian Writers.
Proceedings in the Telesterion which do not referspecificallyto
RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS the hierophantare omitted here.
268 Also so indicated in the charge broughtagainst Alcibiades,
At the timeof the MNlysteries he practicedchastity.263 Plutarch, Alcibiades, 22 and Pseudo-Lysias, Against Andocides,
Togetherwiththedaduch he announcedthe Mysteries 51. This is ignored by Kerenyi, Eleusis, ArchetypalImage of
Motherand Daughter (New York, 1967), p. 90, who proposes a
(the prorrhesis)from the Stoa Poecile throughthe rather strange theory: "strictlyspeaking, hierophantesmeans not
servicesof the sacred herald.264 He and the genosof he who 'shows the holy things'-that would have to be called
hierodeiktes in Greek-but 'he who makes themappear,' phainei."
258 See above, pp. 10-13 and 26. He has a severely limited notion of this verb.
259 See above,p. 20. 269Aelian, Varia Historia, fragment10; cf. above, n. 208.
270 See above the hierophantsnos. 25, 29, 32. References by
Sopater to the voice of the hierophant imply that it was an
261 Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon,18 (ed. Blass): odov rov'S LEpEaS
essential part of the initiationrite (RhetoresGraecae,ed. C. Walz,
awravTa s
KaL Ta S lepeLa S v7rEvOvov S ELVaL KEXEVEL O vMo,o s, KaL avXX77737r7v
VIII, p. 123, line 3).
Kat X&OPLS KaOaTTovS KaTa Tov's ra -yEpa 406vov Xa,03davovTaS
ac74La, KaL 271 loc. cit.
Pseudo-Lysias,
TOrs EvXas v7rEp V/LCopV OEov's EVXo/JePV s, KaL o0!v/ovov L8i'a, a'xa
7rppOS
Tovs 272
See above in connection with the hierophant Apollonius
Kcd KOLJJflar yEvr7,Ev,uoXwir8as Ka' K'pvKaS Kac Toys aXXovs h7ravTas.
(no. 29).
For the officialsee Geagan, 1967: p. 136.
262 273 The light is mentioned also in: I.G., JJ2, 4058; Plutarch,
See the quotation from Epictetus cited above, p. 44; also
263 Progress in Virtue, 81e (who is presumably referringto the
Julian, Oratio V, 173c-d (ed. Hertlein), where the custom is Eleusinian Mysteries); Dio Chrysostom,Oratio XII, 33, p. 163,
somewhat exaggerated, the impressionbeing given that it was Vol. I (ed. von Arnim) (though it is not clear that he is referring
not limited to the time of the festival. specificallyto Eleusis). For a full discussion of the light see
264 Isocrates, Panegyricus, 157 (ed. Blass): Ev,uX1rtbaL ae
Ka5 0. Rubensohn, Jahrbuch70 (1955): pp. 34-49; on the intellectual
K7rpUKes ev j TreXeC-T TcV /V1fTnp1WV &ta TOTrobrwv ptOS KaL To!S XXots illuminationof the Mysteriessee P. Boyance, R.E.G. 75 (1962):
j3apj3apots e' pye-Oat T(@V lepcov &wo-repTOlS aivbpopo6vots 7rpoayopebovouv. pp. 460-473.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] DADUCH 47
Having emerged from the Anactoron, the hiero- 1962), p. 10 and append. L (stemma); J. K. Davies,
phant was assisted by the hierophantidsin showing AthenianPropertiedFamilies,600-300B. C. (Oxford,
the hiera.274 Perhaps at this point he walked around 1971), pp. 258-261. For his deme see D. Lewis,
the Telesterion,revealingthe hiera in processionwith B.S.A. 50 (1955): pp. 13-14 and B. D. Meritt,
the daduch and the hierophantidsand some or all of Hesperia 5 (1936): p. 410. In officefrom490 B.C.
the otherpriests. or earlierto 446/5 or later.
He sat on a special throneduringpart of the cere-
monies.275At one point he "sounded a gong as Kore To the battle of Marathon Callias is said to have
was being summoned."276 come dressedin his priestlygarb (Evrj-iEpjo-proXj), and
to have foughthonorably.2 He and his family,which
Other duties in connectionwith the Mysteriesin-
cluded writingthespeechesof thespondophoroi.277In included Aristides,his cousin, were quite prominent.
most of his religiousduties he could normallyrelyon Dedications he erectedon the Acropolisstill survive,
enthusiastic assistance from the genos of the one of whichwas perhapsa statue in honorof his vic-
Eumolpidae.278 toriesin the Olympiangames.3
He had a part also in the celebrationof the Cala- His service to the M\Jysteries as daduch was evi-
maea279and the Proerosia,280 the only other festivals dently no impediment to his undertaking several
at Eleusis with which any evidence connects him. importantservicesforthestate. Whenwell advanced
Around the end of the fourthcenturyB.C. he wentas a in years,he took part in the embassyof 449/8 to King
member of a delegation from the Eleusinian sanc- Artaxerxes,which resulted in the alleged Peace of
tuary, i.e., he and the "priestessesfromEleusis," to Callias, and he is last heard of as one of the two men
the festival of the Pyanopsia.281 Only "priestesses" who negotiatedthe Thirty Years' Truce with Sparta
are his associates also in the Calamaea. in 446/5 (he was also Sparta's proxenos). He was
During the panegyrisof the Mysteries he and a especially renowned for his wealth. By his con-
group of "appointed men" supervised the use of temporarieshe was considered7rXovo-dncraros 'AOrvactwv;
properweightsand measures,accordingto a law issued by the comic poets he was nicknamed XaKKO'7rXovros.
around the end of the second centuryB.C.282 One explanationof the nicknameis given in an anec-
dote related by Plutarch. Accordingto him Callias
was c,ouraros'av'Opc'7rcoV and afterthe
Kactrapavogcnraros,
II. DADUCH (AaBoiro?;) battle of Marathon some barbarian,"thinkinghim a
king because of his long hair (KOpJI) and headband
So faras is known,the daduchs were always drawn
bowed to the groundbeforehim,took him
(o-rpo'qtov),
fromthe genosof the Kerykes.1 by the hand and showedhim a heap of gold buriedin
a pit;" he thenallegedlykilled this man and took the
1. KaXXats (II) '17W7WvKOV
(I) 'AXwTrEKqOEv. Scholion to
gold. But the storyhas too many comic elementsto
Aristophanes,Clouds, line 64; Plutarch,Aristides,
be taken seriously; Plutarch probably relied heavily
5 and 25. For all other prosopographicalrefer-
on the comedians in this instance,and his account is
ences and furtherdiscussion see P.A., 7825; D.
furthersuspect in that he seems to like to make a nice
\lacDowell,Andocides,On the Mysteries(Oxford,
contrastbetween the wealth and vice of Callias and
the virtueand povertyof his cousin Aristides. Other
274 See below, chap. VII, General Remarks.
versionsrelate just that he founda cache of gold left
275 See above,pp. 20 and 44.
276Apollodorus, On the Gods, F. Gr. Hist., 244, FllOb. The behind by the Persians.4
phrase XaXKOKpOTo) ... AaaTrepos in Pindar, Isthmian VII, As a soldierin the battle of Marathon he may have
lines 3-4 probably does not referto this: it refersto the shrieking wanted to demonstrate,by wearinghis religiouscos-
of Demeter as she searches for her daughter, according to tume (iEpa o-roXt),that he was therealso as a priest,
E. Thummer, Pindar, Die Isthmische Gedichte (Heidelberg,
1969) 2: p. 116, ad. Ioc.; but B. Moreux (R.E.G. 83 [1970]: perhaps regardinghimselfas acting in defenseof not
pp. 1-14) discusses the various interpretationsof XaXKOKPOTOVand onlyAthensbut also the Mysteriesand the sanctuary
believes that it refersto the instrumentsused in the cult of the of Demeter and Kore, which were intimatelybound
Great Mother, Cybele, who wasassimilated to thecult of Demeter up withAthenianlife.
at Thebes.
277 See above,p. 23. There has been some debate as to whetherthe son
278In regard to the sophist Adrian, Philostratus (Lives of the of Callias, Hipponicus, was also a daduch, and re-
Sophists, p. 91, ed. Kayser) says: kOep6areuov, c'o-rep ra& yv-Y Tns
i latedly, whetherthe officeof daduch was hereditary
'EXeuvivos lepoopa'r7rv XaiiarpJos lepoupyoivra. Compare the assist- in this family,whose known history extends from
ance renderedby the Eumolpidae to Aristocles (no. 11). Phaenippus5in the early sixthcenturyto Hipponicus
279 I.G., 112, 949,
line 10; cf. above, p. 27.
280 See above, p. 22. 2 Plutarch, Aristides, 5; scholion to
Aristophanes, Clouds,
line 64.
282 See above, pp. 28-29.
3 A. Raubitschek, Dedications on the Athenian Akropolis, nos.
1 The clearest statement of this is made by Aelius Aristides, 111 and 136; cf. Davies, op. cit., p. 258.
Eleusinian Oration, 4 (ed. Keil), and all other evidence is in 4 F. Gr. Hist., 104, F13 and Suda, s.v. XaKK6wXoUros.
agreement. 6 P.A., 7833.
son of Hipponicus in the thirdcentury,6 and whichin Another argument,which has not been brought
the fifthand fourthcenturiesshows an alternating to bear on this problemof heredity,is that in 350/49
father-sonseries of Callias-Hipponicus. With the and 302 the incumbent daduchs were respectively
notable exceptionof Foucart,scholarshave considered Hierocleidesand Pythodorus.1' They were probably
the officeof daduch as hereditaryin the familyat not membersof this family,as these names do not
least during the fifthand fourthcenturies,when a occur anywherein the family's stemma; but much
Callias alternated with an Hipponicus.7 Foucart's more significantly,in 350/49 neither Callias (IV)
objectionsare that only two daduchs are attestedwith whose akmewas around 355 nor his fatherHipponicus
certaintyas comingfromthis family,Callias (II) and whose akme was around 388 were eitherof them the
his grandsonCallias (III), the accuser of Andocides; incumbentdaduch; nor was Hipponicus (IV) whose
that thisis not sufficientevidenceto concludethat the akme was around 322 the incumbentdaduch in 302.
officeof daduch was hereditaryin the familyfortwo So, unless Hierocleides and Pythodorus came from
centuries;and that thereis no proofthat Hipponicus, a related branch or branches,this familywas not in
controlof the officeof daduch in thesecond halfof the
the son of Callias (II) and fatherof Callias (III), the
necessarylink forprovingany heredityat all, was in fourthcentury. We must conclude that the officeof
fact a daduch. The evidence traditionallycited to daduch was not hereditaryin this familythroughout
prove that Hipponicus was a daduch is a state- its known historyand that there is no firmevidence
ment of Andocides (115): "And once his father (i.e., that it was so even at any one time in its history.
the father of Callias III), Hipponicus, expounded BetweentheincumbenciesofCallias (II) and Callias
(4-r^yrctaro) thisto the Athenians." The interpreta- (III) at least one daduch held office.
tion of this statement (if Callias told the truth) is
simplythat Hipponicususurpedthe rightof Eumolpid AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH CENTURY
exegesis, which belonged exclusively to the Eumol- A representation whichthe daduch
of the 1Epa o-roX7t
pidae8; it cannot be interpreted,as Foucart correctly wore around this timeis probablypreservedon a red-
maintains,to mean necessarilythat Hipponicuswas a figurestamnos,whichwas painted around the end of
daduch at the timehe performedillegitimateexegesis. Callias (I)'s lifetimeand placed in an Eleusinian
Callias (III), Hipponicus'sson,who also triedto usurp grave.12 A bearded man of mature age is shown
the rightof exegesis,did so by relyingon his prestige marching,barefoot,in a solemnmanner,with a torch
as daduch to escape detection.9 It does not follow in each hand, and he is followedby a mystes,crowned
that Hipponicus also had to rely on the officeof (with myrtle) and holding a myrtle-staff."3 The
daduch to act in the same illegitimatemanner. As daduch's long hair flowsdown his back and is bound
rXovo-twnarosrTc 'EXXtwvc,and a man of considerable on his head by the strophion,which seems to cover a
influencein Athens, and naturally thereforean im- wreathprobablyof myrtle.14His garmentsare quite
portant member of the Kerykes, he may not have regal. A chitonreaches to midwaybetweenthe knee
needed the officeof daduch to make his improper and ankle, with a row of decorative dots, probably
exegesis carry weight. In any event, the fact-if it embroidered,circlingthe garmentslightlyabove the
was a fact, for we have only the biased word of hem. A heavier garment, apparently an (7rEuv'a7Ts,
Callias-that Hipponicusillegitimately performed exe- decoratedwithsmall circlesscatteredall over,is worn
gesis is not proofthat he was a daduch. Some indi- over the chitonand reaches to just above the knees;
cation that he was not a daduch may be seen in the it is bound about the waist with a decorated sash.
fact that in 387 it is mentionedthat he had recently Both the chiton and the ependytesare sleeveless. A
died.'0 Now we know that his son Callias was serving stolelikechlamydionpasses around his neck; its two
as daduch frombefore400 to at least 371, so Hippo- ends come down in frontof his chest, pass under the
nicus would have had to have died before400. Al- sash, and terminatejust below the hem of the epen-
though it is not impossible that "recently" (Ewo-fr) dytes. Considering the figure's royal bearing and
could refer to an event more than thirteenyears splendid garments,the joke about a barbarian mis-
before,I think this tends to favor the position that takinghim fora king is graphicallyclear.15
Hipponicus was not a daduch.
11See below, daduchs, nos. 3 and 4.
6 I.G., 4680. He was connected with this familyby D. M.
112, 12K. Kourouniotes, "'EXevcvoaK7 AqbovuXa," 'Apx. 'Esp.
Lewis, loc. cit. 1937, pp. 223-253, fig.4; cf.J. P. Beazley, AtticRed-Figure Vase-
7 So also most recentlyMacDowell, loc. cit. and Davies, op. cit., Painters2,p. 1052.
p. 269 (which appeared after my discussion was written). For 13 For the myrtle-staff used by initiates see below, pp. 103-104.
bibliographysee Foucart, 1914: p. 191, n. 2. A thirdfigure,a woman, standing slightlyapart fromthis scene,
8 Cf. Oliver, Expounders,p. 21, and below p. 91. Kourouniotes believes to be Kore.
1 Oliver, loc. cit., and below pp. 90-91. 14 Traditional for the daduch and other Eleusinian priests; see
10Lysias, XIX, 48; for the date of this speech see F. Blass, above, p. 33. The object between his hair and the back of the
AttischeBeredsamkeit1: p. 531. Athenaeus (5, 218b-c) infers strophionhas not been explained.
that Hipponicus died ca. 422, probably wronglysince the date is 15 Kourouniotes interpretsa torch-bearingfigureon the neck
in great disagreementwith the direct evidence of Lysias. of a black-figureloutrophoros(Metzger, 1965: p. 28, no. 66) as a
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] DADUCH 49
Ca. 416 B.C. 408. In addition to the affrontthey received (or
In I.G., 12, 76 the hierophantand the daduch are imagined they received) by his (alleged) mimicry
requested to announce at the time of the Mysteries and in addition to the embarrassmentthey would
that the Greeksare to donate an aparcheto Demeter sufferby having to rescindtheircurses,Callias, one of
and Kore (see above pp. 14-15). Both priestsare also their most prominentmembers if not the daduch
requested to inscribethe size of each aparcheand the himself,was his bitterenemy.
name of its donor on a tablet. It was shown above 2. KaXXLtas(III) 'I7r7roP1KOV (II) 'AXwEKi0EV. Ando-
that they did this not so much in their traditional cides, On theMysteries(ed. MlacDowell), 112 and
religious capacity as priests than as the chief ad- 124-127; Xenophon, Hellenica, VI, 3, 2-6; Ari-
ministratorsof the sanctuary,the representativesof stotle,Rhetorica,1405a, 20. For all otherprosopo-
the Eumolpidae and the Kerykes. graphical referencessee P.A., 7826, MacDowell,
op. cit., pp. 10-11 and append. L (stemma), and
415 B.C. Davies, op. cit.,pp. 262-263. In officefromsome-
The officeof daduch was involvedin the accusation time before400 to at least 371. Born about 450
of Alcibiades for impiety in this year. The charge and still alive in 371.
was that Alcibiades called himselfhierophant,Puly- Like his ancestors,he was a very prominentman
tion daduch, and Theodorus of Phegaia herald."6 in Athens,and on some occasions held positionsin the
The daduch was certainly among the priests and government. He served as general in 391/0 in the
priestessesof Eleusis who cursed Alcibiades in 415 CorinthianWar, and also went three times as envoy
and who had to rescindtheircurse in 408 (see above, to Sparta.20 His last mission as envoy was in 371,
pp. 15-16). Callias (no. 2) may well have been the and the speech he gave at that time to the Lacedae-
daduch at this time. It is interestingthat he and moniansis summarizedby Xenophon21; in it he refers
Alcibiades had been on very bad terms concerning to the Eleusinian M1ysteriesand to the civilizing
Hipparete, Callias's sister,whom Alcibiades married mission of Triptolemus among the Peloponnesians.
sometime before424.17 According to Pseudo-Ando- He dedicated orrXEyyL86Es FrlIqKTOt on Delos,22perhaps,
cides they quarreled over her dowry,Alcibiades in- as Schaeffer23 believes,when he was an apxt0'wpoS.
sistingthat another ten talentswere owing to him at Very active in social and intellectual affairs,he
the birth of their firstchild.18 Alcibiades also mis- lavished largeamountsof moneyon the Sophists,and
treated Hipparete in various ways, to such an extent in his house were held Plato's Protagorasand Xeno-
that at one time she tried,unsuccessfully,to divorce phon's Symposium. His luxurious living, parodied
him. Alcibiades was also said to have planned the by Eupolis in 421 in the Flatterers,was a source of
assassinationof Callias in orderto acquire his wealth, frequentcomment. He was famous also for dissi-
whichforcedCallias to make over his propertyto the pating his personal wealth, at one time among the
state in the event that he died withoutan heir. greatest in Greece, so that by 387 he had only two
Whether daduch or not at this time, Callias was talents (while his grandfather'swealth amounted at
certainlyan influentialmemberof the Kerykes,and one time to two hundred talents),24 and near the
this fact provides additional backgroundfor Thucy- end of his life he could be called "the beggarpriest"
dides' statement19that the Eumolpidae and the
(1A-7pacyVupTr-s). His tumultuousmarital life is amply
Kerykes were opposed to the recall of Alcibiades in describedby Andocides; it had, apparently,much to
do with why he broughtAndocides to trial in 400.
daduch, but this is uncertain: the figure'shair is short,the upper In his speech at this trial Andocides refers to
half of the head is not preserved,and the dress is very different
from that of the figurejust described (which of course may be Callias as a "priest'25: -ya/AEi /1EV 91oxo/axov OvywTeEpac
explained by the differencein period). Also uncertain is the raVvp 66' OVVOLK oas ov' EVLcTOV T" "?TE'pa avcTws EXa#E KaL
"daduch" on a red-figureskyphos in Brussels (Corpus Vasorum LTVVPKEL O wcwrv

a cXErXtLWrcaros AVOpclrWV
Tcop /I'TpL Ka' rT
Antiquorum, Belgique, fasc. 2, pl. 18, no. 1; Beazley, op. cit., vtyaTrpl, lEpes XV rTs M-rpo'S KaL ris 0wyarpo's. If An-
p. 661, no. 86; photograph also in Kerenyi, 1967: p. 78 and
Metzger, 1965: pl. 1311 and 2). The scene has to do with the
docides is accurate here, Callias was already daduch
initiation of Heracles into the Mysteries; both he and another at the timehe was livingwiththesetwowomen,there-
figurehold myrtle-staffs.A long-hairedbearded man standing fore sometime before 400, though it is uncertain
between them, the "daduch," holds a torch in each hand and is
about to hand them over, simultaneouslyit seems, to each man. 20 He was also proxenosforSparta.
However, the garmentsof the "daduch" are quite differentfrom 21
Hellenica, loc. cit. He may still have been alive in 367/6 if he
those of the daduch on the Eleusis stamnos; moreover, he is is to be identified with the Callias of Alopeke in Hesperia
wearing only a myrtle crown, no strophion. The man could 10 (1941): no. 1, line 64.
simply be a mystagogoshanding two mystai torches in prepara- 22 I.G., 112, 1638, lines 44-45; 1640, lines 6-7; 1652, lines 9-10;
tion forthe procession or the ceremoniesat Eleusis. 1653, lines 6-7.
16 Plutarch, Alcibiades, 22, 4. 23 R.E., 4: col. 2477, lines 47-53.
17 Pseudo-Andocides, Against Alcibiades, 13. 24

Lysias, XIX, 48; forthe date see F. Blass, AttischeBeredsam-
18 Ibid., and Plutarch, op. cit., 8. keit 1: p. 531.
19VI II, 53, 2. 25 Op. cit., 124.
exactly how long before. We also learn that some- teries, the Greater Mysteries,and the Epopteia at
time afterhis double cohabitationwith these women, the same time,as soon as he arrivedin Athens,which
again before400, he held another priesthoodsimul- was to be in the monthof Munychion. Such a request
taneously: as thepriestofhisphratryhe was officiating was unheardof in the entirehistoryof the sanctuary;
when the relativesof Chrysilla,one of the women he the fulfillment of it would be a travesty. When the
was livingwith (n M-rqp) tried to introduceinto his letterof Demetriusrequestingthis was read, Pytho-
phratrythe child that she conceivedby him.26 dorusthe daduch refusedto go along withit. Despite
his refusalit was decreed to call MunychionAnthe-
352 B.C. sterion,and then to celebrate the Lesser Mysteries;
The decree of 352 concerningthe Sacred Orgas and after their celebration it was decreed to call
(I.G., JJ2,204) mentionsthedaduch as the representa- MIunychionBoedromion,and the Greater M\ysteries
tive of the Kerykes,who togetherwiththe hierophant, were held. It is interestingthat no resistancewas
the representativeof the Eumolpidae, was requested offeredby the hierophant: Plutarch explicitlystates
to performsome administrativefunctionsin regard that Pythodoruswas theonlyone who dared to refuse.
to the implementationof this decree.27 However, in
line 58, where arrangementsfor a sacrificeare de- END OF THE THIRD CENTURY TO END OF THE
FIRST CENTURY B.C.
scribed,the hierophant'sassociate is not the daduch
but the priestessof Demeter, which shows that as a Between the end of the thirdcenturyand the end
religiousrepresentativeof the sanctuary of Demeter of the firstcenturybeforeChristexactly ten daduchs
and Kore he was less importantthan the priestess. held office,and theirnames and exact orderof succes-
sion are known. The informationis contained in a
3. 'IEPOKXrE6,Xs. Didymide DemostheneCommenta, edd. decree29passed in the year of the archonship of
H. Diehls and W. Schubart (Leipzig, 1904), col. Apolexis (20/19)3?which honors the daduch Themi-
13, lines 41-58, and col. 14.28 In officein 350/49. stocles son of Theophrastus of Hagnous. It states
The affairof the Sacred Orgas,describedabove, was that Themistocles"received his 6uPy&Evaa and fromthis
finallysettledin 350/49throughthe arbitrationof the ev,yELLa the priesthooditself,in succession, fromhis
hierophantLacrateides and the daduch Hierocleides. fatherTheophrastusand from"eightotherancestors,

the earliest of whom was Leontius of Acharnae, who
329/8 lived around the end of the third century (for the
The daduch possessed a house in the Eleusinian stemma see below p. 58). These names were appar-
sanctuary in 329/8 according to I.G., JJ2, 1672, line entlytaken froma register;for,aftermentioningthe
305, which recordsan expenditurefor wood for the ten daduchs in succession, the decree states: "and
"doors of the priestessand the daduch." beforeall of these,Hermotimusand Hierocleideswere
daduchs before the registering (avawypafr')of the
4. H6v96wpos.Plutarch,Demetrius,26. P.A., 12394. Kerykeson the tablet."
Jnofficein 302. Since this importantdecree will be cited frequently
He was daduch in 302 when Demetrius Poliorcetes in the discussionto come, a new edition is presented
was initiatedinto the iMysteries. Demetriuswanted here, incorporatingcorrectionsmade from a study
to complete all stages of initiation,the Lesser 1vlys- of the stone.
DecreeHonoringDaduch Themistocles
20/19 a.
KaL7[[ovUl,uo]v
'Aya9yc7vX't Tz'S fovVX1s roV 'AO[Fvatcwvr]
l 'AwroXrtosaipxovrose7r[l] rT7 1[a]v&ovBo[s rvar's 7pv]
Atovv'tov 'AO,uovEvS
,ravd'as z Mrqrpopa'v6s ry[LypauarEv]
4 EV 'Av9Eor-rpvos66EKara-qtb-rp,pawp7rp nT'qtr p[ rcvE ]
KVpLcaEv rt
as, fKKsXlqO7a OEaTrpwL rCOP7rpoecpwt) OrLeph1pt]
26Ibid., 126.
27 See above, pp. 17-18.
28 See above, p. 17, n. 44.
29 Published by I. Threpsiades apud K. Kourouniotes 'EXETvLataK' 1 (1932): pp. 223-236 (with photograph), and re-
published by P. Roussel, 1934: pp. 819-834. Corrections of the text of Threpsiades were also made by R. Vallois, R.E.A. 35
(1933): pp. 228-229.
30 21/0 is suggested by Notopoulos, Hesperiac18 (1949): p. 12, followed by 0. Reinmuth, Hesperia 34 (1965): pp. 271-272, and
B.C.H. 90 (1966): pp. 93-100. But this date is based on a tribal rotation of secretaries the existence of which is not attested for
this time; see Dinsmoor, Hesperiac30 (1961): p. 194, note 40, with bibliography: there is no reason to favor 21/0 over 20/19,
which was originallysuggested by Dinsmoor.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 DADUCH 51
?Ep
Mjv6oytXos
2;arlVpov BEPEVPK867S Ka ovpArpO6Eepo[lvvv]
At6r[r]tAosAo&.O8pov 'AXaLEVS E17rEP VTrEp CV OL KaTaor7Ta[O':]
8 TEs dv8pes vT7r6 K
roTOK-qp'Kwv y4vovs lEura ToViEirlO3wAO[V le]
pECD 'E7rCKp4Tovs ToVKaXXdlUaXoV AEVKOVO'WSKacL rO 7rV[p]
fCOpOV Kac TCopXapLtcrvKa' Trs 'Ap4Eutw6os
LepEWs Trs 'Erl7r[vp]
,yt6lasAEovrlov rod T,ua'pXov K-qlc[E]rlot'w3, KaL ToVK'pvxos
12 TaLV OmELVAto/vI ov ToV
A-qAuoor7parovHIaXXrnE4W, rTO Kat
7raayov3 K'4pVXOS 0eeOPlXOV TOV

MfYEKPacTOV3 XOXXEt6OV,K[a't]
TOVLEpEWSTOV'Ep,uovTOVHa-rpc'ov KacLK77pvKOS TOV 'A7roXXw{os]
TOVHv9LovFPop-ytI77rOV TOV Ev37R,uovMElXTOWS, Kacl TOV XLOo0'6pov
16 'TOV LEpOVXL90V KacLtEpEW AtOS 'OpLoV KacL'AOnpas 'OpcLasKaLLHo
O-EL(6co1OS
Hpoo(K3)a{o-j7ilpLov Kacl HooJeLbWos qi1EeiXtOVXOV
Acow-tov TOVKXEa,ucpov3 Mapa9wvt4ov,KacL TCop'T/wuaywywi'
'Apto-To3',/ovTOV'ApyelovTPtKOPVcrlOV, MELP4OV) 'APqvtoWs, 4?tXF[]
20 /Aopos) MEAXTOwS,AtOTIE-j1UOS AtO&4POV'AXatevs, 'AroXqtsv
ME1)4apbpov
'A7rEXXtKJrTOS f Oi'ov, Ar/nioXa4p-qs 'ADqvt'EVs, lap[a]
rtcOv KL ALOKX7SOt ALOKXEOVS MEXLTEIS, 'ApX'TLr1os ) IpT-rto[s],
JE)/uo--TOKX77S 'AypobItos, Atoivo&Swpos
AE1POKXEOVS ) A/\cpa[6t]
24 AVwTrosAIlwpels,'A7roXXVWtos
C'-Tr7S, KLX1oJlTaS K-r7qo-tKXOV[s]
'Axc[p]vE&s, Aq/\1,
o?pcos Atopvoov HacXXpcEVs,Tt/1oo-,mnJs
Tct
/14pxo[v] K-q+E-tLotEVS, M'vac6pos A-7/uioXapovs 'A?rqvtEds,'ApLo-r[at]
x[D']os 'Aluluwplov'Apasci9pX lOVptEVS yO]
rtos, 2O0POKX7~SJIiLW'TOV
28 y[w]t 6(- Atovvo-o&wpov AEtpa6ctTrov, 'Io<'wi Atoivoo6wpov AELp[a]
6(t&.Tr7S,'AXScwa(pos 'Ayac KXoKXAovs AEVKOPOEVS,Evi`ppwp) Map[a]
9W'PLos,[2]AXEVKOS A-qlAi,OV 'AXatebs, MCKL.P httXOKPaCTOVS HlEtpatc[s],
7O7(oTCLEalcot TOp67,710op
Wrpos CLupaovvo
7rppOTo(SO) ToV) ]a[]
32 WOVXOp
(E)-/1toTOKX7P6aLt3ovXov 'Aypovo-oiap'4rT7t
(O)eoppacL-Tov
KaC{] evy[E]e)LlaL tLaScipopLTaC 7 ,uopop TOp eavToD (LO'c7raPEXE-o9OLt
7r[X]ELo7Trls hiatop Tqu?/S, aTL W7Ept
AcXX'a KcL T7p )r act53OVXtcaLv ? [c]
VirEPOX
TO Q-E/WO) KacL 'TI /1 't8LO)TWPtEpw1 eraQLetv, Eci-'w To T WEpt Ta lAv
36 o7T77ptL /1EyaXo7rpE7r's EKWX77tEWS tvro WaWToS
7rEpcpTTOTEpaS
rapetX77po,Ta
'KO1)TOSAL~OVTaL KOLT/IOV,
av9pW7rOV KacL TOy 7WpOO
T'WPC-
EV[yEL)EcaV
PTVe[y]vlav KaL
Kal STV
T77La)cLp LV?J
a'T 1s LEEOT?l
tc-pc-wofvqp Ey
',y %X(X77SW/X
5t6LaoX s 7rap'a
Kacllo3Fo]
TOWraTpOS 0JO09pacLGTOV Kacl TOV Wac7rWrov0cE/1toTOKXEOVS
40 [KX]6OVS, OS771)TOVWraTpos avTroV OELOS, Ka' AZEVOKXEOVSTOVCirtw7a[7r]
irov, OS 771 a-EX\p'S ,u1& AEO1)TrOV OE9LoS
6E 2O;pOKXOVS T1P 'YEL[O]
1Wl) t-p&v C-
f7rl 3wgov, KacL cIJXOteVl6OV TOV PycElO/EVOV
/1 7rp[0]
TEcpo[]
cEpEWS rl w,4owue X
'IETa 6cE TaCVTa (aL.LovXov rTOVC6(E\Xpo[v]
44 Kr-qp[je]1toec6wpovToVCi7rl fwlioVcEPEWS, OSNV7rpo'sa48pcJ eirLwrar
[r]os ac'JToV TW. 1ra-Tp'L eJoippacLTwL, Kat 0OPOKXEOV3 S
OV 6rpOw S I77Tp[OS]
1p ElrWcraLrwros avLTWL, KaLt 4?)tXto-T1oV,oS 7V7raWT77P
/LE1)cJLXO~E1Pt)OV K{ai]
[K]7ylpEtciO(o6wcpOv crl7rla7rroS6(E (0)CE/UITOKX(E-OVSTOV 7raLr7rov aVTOV, O[S]

48 Y[E]Vl76iS LEpEVSl7rl 3w/oS/AErcracapEXa0cE- ite apciorara T7W O[at]
1t11oVXlac,KaLt'A1)Trtp@cpToS,OS 7?1 /iE1)E' ApEptCop 7raLUwV PycEyOp's
[q?
XtorT(SltKaTcaofXw1 3E KaLt acTOSTV771E7r /wlo0 lEpEctt
V1pw 71) /1ETa
WcLpEXacL3E &aoLo-77MOTa-raTcLrA 6cw3ovXLa1, KaLLAEo1rTLoVToVloSo
52 KX\OVS /1) WraTpo'S 7rwar7rov 6' A'E1POKXEOVS TOD E7rcrWacr7Wov
avT9o[D]--
KaL Wpo TOrvTwP a7rapTw1 Ep/ao7iEEt/1oV
TEKcL JEpOKXI3OV T71 (ac{]
ovx-q41)arTwP 7rpo T7-S K-qpVKWP apa)ypacpL7S ELS TOypaclAarcTELO1v
Kac APT)vP Ka-ctT
56LTXO1
,yEv1)OE KPTESsK-yoPOL :,uA IEpOKXCEl61S KacL
6cLa /3LovT'?1 eirL i3wjioDtEpEcScflw71)-W1 EKaLOTOV T77s TE Wrpos
TaLS OEcLS EWYE/3ELcS Kcd T77SWrEAL T771VtEpOVpZycL1) LTE/1or2JTOS KctL (t]
XOrt/1tcLS E/1 WrOXXOLSKcLt 1ESycLXoLs cLywcYv ELS rO PyE1OS Qr'77p9tc7Et
cYcL WrOXXcKLs vur6TE T77S/3OVX77S
KcLLTOD (S,l,oV KcLLTOD PyE1OVS WcLp [0]
60 Xov TOVLKQatpolv TL/rLacJLKaL

Ka0LepwEvatL 7rapa7aTaL3OEcLasauvTcLLa LKO
[v]es EvapyEtsioTrLaov a7rooit3L,7r.vTraOE WrpacTTOovTa
T7r TOV y
[v]ov3 aito-JEw3 (PE-V(Ka Kat T7v 7pOJhKovTwv TALLWV avTrw TE KaIt EK[a']
JTTWLTW)V EK TOV 'EVOU3S CEPEW?V, o7roVoaoavTa 7rEpL T7v Twv 7r0aTp[l]
64 WIV E7rLPVWULV Ka7L T?) qL07VJIEJX-r7KOTCLa /7' povov

(PEK TV7 7Ept T77V OD]
KLaP -yE-yovvLas Ert 7ro,\X\a3

-EyvEa3 aLVT-wt8atoOvXca, a,\a KaL 7r1[s]
7rEp[L] ai)To)v YLOT{IoE]]1L/ILC ELa TEs TWIv EKXENEL E 7rCaTpLtwv

a'tro]
KT?7Jtv, EtL7EJoavo7s Tn7SWEpt Tas aroOypaya3 ?IqT-Jewss WoXNa' [KaL]
68 [gJf[{y]6Xa oLa7rE7rp6Xoat Lt [ .] 1 TOT[. . Tr]Av 7wpoanKOvo-aV ....
SIGNIFICANT CORRECTIONS family succeeded, and Dittenberger34 held that the

dadouchia was inherited"by generations,"as in the
Restorationsare by Kourouniotes except for one
priesthoodof Poseidon at Halicarnassus.35 According
of my own (see below) and the followingby Roussel:
to our decree, Themistocles"received the priesthood
evavrs endofline2, Ka7-aacTra[0Ev]rEs lines7-8,[rO] qEuvoEv
in succession (7rapELXo'ra Vny &z ba6oXrS).
-r'i' lEpE-woVl)flh
(with Vallois) line 35 (now confirmed),[7rap' 16X]ov
It was, therefore, certainlynot alloted. The stemma
lines 59-60 (now confirmedexcept for division); in
(see below, p. 58) shows that it passed several times
addition,he read in lines54-55 ypa/uL/IarTeiovyELPy7OT1EreS
fromfatherto son: from Philistides of Hagnous to
EK7OVOL 2/I.WV KX. (now confirmed)instead of Kou-
his son; fromLeontius (no. 7) of Acharnae to his son,
rouniotes' ypacu/uITeLol0 [O'l] 'El?7OE)VV7-ESEK'O1)OlS 'IALWl KTX.
grandson,and great-grandson;and fromThemistocles
In line 17 he and Vallois read flpoo3arqpt'ov, but the
(no. 14) of Hagnous to his son and grandson. How-
fifthletter as inscribedis definitelya rho. In lines
ever, only in the case of Themistocles (no. 14) and
26-27 Kourouniotesread 'ApLc7-r[ap xos] and Roussel
his son and grandson, and in one other case of a
'Apuor[oI/,aX]os, neitherof which is possible; the cor-
fatherand son,36was thereno interveningincumbent
rect name is 'Ap&or[aL]X[M]os. Sundwall (N.P.A., p.
betweenfatherand son; that is, in most cases father
12) gives a stemmaof thisfamily,and the onlyknown
and son did not succeed one anotherdirectly.Philis-
memberof it who appears appropriateforAristaech-
tides of Hagnous intervenedbetweenLeontius (no. 7)
mus's fatheris the Ammoniusson of Demetriuswho
of Acharnae and his son; and Philistides' son inter-
was ephebe in 80/79.3'
vened betweenLeontius'sson and grandson. In other
It should also be noted that in some of the names
words,forthe firstsix membersin this line ofsucces-
and words formed from -TrLu- and in K-hcLcoT06wpos and
sion the officepassed back and forthbetween these
KrqpLaLebs, Et was written and then the e was erased.
two families,the familyfromHagnous and the family
This erasureis in fact so regularthat it has to be re-
fromAcharnae. The seventhmemberof the succes-
stored in line 44 where thereis space forit. Toward
sion (who was of the familyfromAcharnae) was the
the end of the document (lines 60-64) the letterer
son of the sixth, but after him only two more de-
overcompensatedforthis bad habit by not inscribing
scendantsof the familyfromAcharnae appear in our
a correctepsilon in threewords.
sources,neitherofwhomare daduchs. The dadouchia
DISCUSSION
then reverted to the familyfrom Hagnous and re-
mained there,passing directlyfromfatherto son, for
The decree correctsearlier theoriesconcerningthe four generations.37 (It also happened that the two
manner by which daduchs were appointed. There familieswere joined by a marriage-tiein the same
were three main theories. Foucart32held that they generationthat the dadouchia revertedpermanently
were appointed from the genos by lot froma very to the family from Hagnous, but it is not known
limitednumberof candidates,Toepffer33 held that on whetherthe familieswere previouslyrelated.) Thus
the death of the incumbentthe oldest memberof the
Hermes 20 (1885): pp. 24-25.
34
31 I.G., I12, 1039, fragmentw, line 23; for the date see Noto- 35S.I.G.3, 1020.
poulos, Hesperia 18 (1949): pp. 24-25. 36 Xenocles and Sophocles (11I) of Acharnae.
32 1914: pp. 168-169, 192-193. This is based on a statement 37 The discrepancy between this number and the five genera-
attributed to Aristotle (see below). tions appearing on Kirchner's stemma, I.G., 112, 3510, is ex-
33 1889: pp. 89-90. plained below.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] DADUCH 53
it appears that at this time the succession was nor- Decree for Themistocles, above, line
5. 'Ep,AorTLIos.
mally inheritedfromfatherto son, but, at least at 53. In officesometimebeforethe end of the third
this time, two familieswere involved. The reason century.
for the rotation fromone family to the other in a
particularcase is not knownwith certainty;a work- The decree honoringThemistocles mentionsthat,
able hypothesisis that it had somethingto do with beforethe ten daduchs who succeeded one another,
seniority.38 If the son of the incumbentdaduch was Hermotimus and Hierocleides served as daduchs,
not old enough when his fatherdied, or was not as but does not make clear the relationof these to the
old as a suitable descendantof a daduch of the other ten, eitherwhethertheywere of the same familiesas
family, or was otherwise unqualified,he would be the ten, or whetherthey directlypreceded the ten,
passed over in favor of the candidate fromthe other or even whethertheydirectlysucceeded one another.
family. But when the one familydied out (if that is Nor can one be sure that HermotimusprecededHiero-
what happened), the dadouchiaremainedin the other cleides. Since the firstof the ten successivedaduchs,
family,there evidentlybeing no longer any need to Leontius, has his akme around the end of the third
rotate the officewith anotherfamily. As long as the century, Hermotimus and Hierocleides can be as-
two families were capable of providing candidates, signed to beforethis time.
there probably was an understandingbetween them
6. 'IEpoKXCE6ts. Above, p. 51, line 53. In office
some-
that the most suitable (often perhaps the oldest)
time beforethe end of the thirdcentury.
candidate available fromeitherfamilywould succeed
to the office;but when, as it seems, the familyfrom It is not known whetherhe came beforeor after
Acharnae could no longer provide candidates, the Hermotimus.
officenaturally remained solely within the domain
of the family from Hagnous. And then no other 7. Above, p. 51, line 51; Pausanias,
AEOv-rtOS'AXapvdvs.
Kerykes' familygained access to the officeuntil four I, 37, 1. Stemma: below, p. 58. P.A., 9111. In
generationspassed, after which time it became the officearound the beginningof the second century.
exclusive prerogative of a differentfamily, whose
deme was Melite. The connectionof this new family It is not knownwhetherhe directlysucceededHer-
with the familyfromAcharnae is not entirelyclear motimus or Hierocleides,or whetherother daduchs
(see below, p. 58). intervened. By a fault of transmissionin the manu-
A statementhas been attributedto Aristotle(Ath. scriptof Pausanias his name was changed to Aswv.
Pol., fragment5, ed. Oppermann) that priesthoods 8. 'AvntpCv.Above, p. 51, lines 49-51. Stemma:
belongingto the genosof the Kerykeswere appointed below, p. 58. In officearound the beginningof
by lot.39 However, it is not completelycertain that the second century,directlysucceeding Leontius
it was he who said this. The statementoccurs in the of Acharnae.
entry for PyeUv-rat in the Lexicon of Patmos. The
entry first describes the pre-Cleisthenicsystem of Antiphonwas succeeded by Philistidesof Hagnous.
phylai and gene,and concludes with: Kacl 'yEos KacoToV His relationshipto Philistidesis expressedin the in-
avcpas ElXE Trpta'KOvTaTovs ELs Ta y}'?7 TeTay/'evovs, OlTIpES scription as follows: 'AvrtlpCvros, 's r7vubv et4 aveftClv
yevv7)raLt cKaLXOVro, (et) wv al tEpw7vvcL (cl) KcaoTOLs waL6wv Pyeyov's 4)Xtar6-qLt. 'ES aceLVolv
E ral6wv has been
WpOOCr)KovfaLL EKX7)poUVVTOlOV variouslyinterpreted. Threpsiades40understoodit to
EiNttoXtrOatKa'l KiPVKKES Kalt
'Erofo0oVra&at, WS to-TOpet eV In 'AOpvaLwv
mean that Antiphonwas "the son of a firstcousin"
WoXLrela
and here followswhat is in- of Philistides,and Roussell's41interpretationis that
'ApLtroTrIXs X&sywvo'VrWs,
tended as a direct quotation from Aristotle. This Antiphon was the son of a sister of Philistides.
quotation gives essentially the same informationas Roussel is certainly wrong, since 66EXSpCt6os or 7racs
was givenin the precedingdescriptionbut withoutany acLEXp?7s (or 66EXSCpO)are the only attested designations
mention of priesthoodsor their manner of appoint- for"nephew" at thisperiod. Threpsiades' interpreta-
ment. So the statementthat gentilepriesthoodswere tion also has difficulties. If Antiphonhad been the
appointed by lot may come froma differentsource. son of a firstcousin of Philistides,he would in all
If indeed it is fromAristotle,it would have to apply, probabilityhave been youngerthan Philistides,and
in the case of daduchs, only to the period beforeor yet he served as daduch beforehim. There is, how-
around his time; for the lot was certainlyno longer ever, a solution. A. R. Harrison has found that aveiJo's
the principleof selectionof daduchs and, as it seems, apparentlycan also mean "firstcousinonce removed,"
of hierophantsby the end of the thirdcentury. It is and accordingly wracs acE4LOV can mean "second
possible that the statement refersto lesser priests cousin." He notes that in the speech of Isaeus On
fromthese gene. the Estate of Hagnias Theopompus describes himself
38 Cf. Roussel, op. cit., p. 831. 40Op. cit., p. 234.

39 See Foucart, loc. cit. 41 Op. Cit., p. 830.
as a rais AvEie,bvto Hagnias when in fact he was a son to Apollo at theThargelia and marchin the procession
of a cousin of Hagnias's father,viz., a second cousin in his honor,along with many otherAthenianpriests
of Hagnias; and in the speech of Pseudo-Demosthenes and officials.
AgainstMacartatus(49) avei6o'sis also usedin thesame
way.42 Hence, our passage can be interpretedas 12. '_EVOKX?7Sz2O0'OKXEOVS (I) 'AXapVE1s. Above, pp. 50-
stating that Antiphonwas related to Philistidesas a 51, lines 40 and 52; I.G., 112, 2452, line 7; 1034,
second cousin, without revealingwhetheron the pa- line 23; 3507; 3508; Pausanias, I, 37, 1; M.
ternal or maternal side. In this case Antiphonand Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of
Philistideswould both be in the same generation,and Athens (New York, 1961), p. 577. P.A., 11216.
so the unlikelihoodthat a man many years younger Stemma: below, p. 58. In officein the second
than Philistideswas his predecessorin the dadouchia century, probably within the last quarter, di-
is removed. rectlysucceedingPhiloxenides.
Antiphonwas altar-priestbeforebecomingdaduch, His father and his son were also daduchs. His
at which time he evidently relinquished the altar- daughterAcestionwas one of the weaversof Athena's
priesthood. Others in his family (viz., Philistides robe (I.G., 112, 1034, line 23), and was the wifeof
and Philoxenides)followedthe same course. the daduch Themistocles of Hagnous. His brother
Leontius (II) was an altar-priest.
9. 4XtaXTL5S 'A7Ayvobatos.Above, p. 51, line 46. His name is inscribed in a list of distinguished
Stemma: below, p. 58. In office around the Athenians (I.G., 112, 2452, line 7) set up around 125
beginning of the second century, directly suc- B.C., but the title of daduch is not given next to his
ceedingAntiphon. name, whereas the titles of the hierophantsin this
Like Antiphon,he served firstas altar-priestand inscriptionare given. Either Xenocles was not yet
then as daduch. a daduch, or it was not customaryat this period to
inscribethe daduch's title. In itselfthe latter possi-
10. 2;0p0KX?S (I) AEOVTLOV 'AXapvE1s. Above, p. 51, bility seems less likely,and the formeris reinforced
lines 45 and 51; I.G., JJ2, 2452, line 7; Pausanias, by the fact that Xenocles was most likely a mint-
I, 37, 1. Stemma: below, p. 58. In officein magistratein 130/29, 127/6, and 124/2,46and up to
the firsthalf of the second century,directlysuc- now there has been no evidence that a daduch was
ceeding Philistides. able to undertakesuch a demandingcivil magistracy
while at the same time carryingout his duties as
The name of thisman is perhaps to be restoredin a daduch; and on general grounds it does seem im-
list of bouleutai of the tribe Oeneis, dated to the probable that the co-administratorof the Eleusinian
beginningof the second century43;second in the list of sanctuary would have had the time to carry out
'AX[apvEis] is 2o(po[----l. satisfactorilyboth administrativeoffices. The only
noteworthycivic servicesrenderedby previousknown
11. 14X\OEPl6?1S 'tLXTL610V 'Ayvovatos.Above, p. 51, daduchs were those of the two Calliases, but their
lines 42 and 46. Stemma: below, p. 58. In ambassadorial missionswere naturallyonly of short
officearound the third quarter of the second duration,and their wartime services were of course
century,directlysucceedingSophocles. in responseto an emergency.47
Like his father,he served firstas altar-priestand 13. 2;O0COKX?S (III) AEVOKXEOVS 'AXapvEvs. Above, p. 51,
then as daduch. He may still have been daduch as line 39; I.G., 112, 3507 (= Hesperia, suppl. 8:
late as around 125 B.C. (see below). p. 225) and 3508; Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 15,
line 16; Pausanias, I, 37, 1. P.A., 12830.
129/8 Stemma: below, p. 58. In officein the first
In this year a decree regulatingsome aspects of the quarterof the firstcenturyB.C., directlysucceed-
cult of Apollo44ordained that the hierophant,the ing his fatherXenocles.
daduch, and ot',UETa TOV?77&J KOvTES4 should offerprayer His wife Ctesicleia48(who was one of the weavers
46 Thompson, loc. cit.
R. Harrison, The Law of Athens (Oxford, 1968), pp.
42A. 47 See above, daduchs nos. 1 and 2.
143-144, and C.R. 61 (1947): pp. 41-43. Cf. W. Lacey, The 48 Accordingto Kirchner'sstemma (ad lG., 112,3510) Ctesicleia
Family in Classical Greece (Ithaca, 1968), pp. 38-39, especially was his cousin. However, there is no evidence that her father,
p. 29, n. 82, where he takes the same view. L. Lepri, Sui Apollonius, was the brotherof Xenocles, and Kirchner's assump-
rapportidi parentela in dirittoattico,saggi terminologici(Milan, tion in P.A., 1523 and I.G., JJ2, 3487 that her father was
1959), Studi Senesi, no. 3, p. 10, admits that aivE#s was some- Apollonius son of Agenor [of Acharnae] contradicts this. Yet
times used as "cousin of a father." it is possible. A new fragmentof I.G., JJ2, 3487 (see below,
43 Hesperia 33 (1964): p. 212, no. 57, line 7. p. 92, n. 20) shows that the deme of the man in IG., JJ2, 3487
44S.E.G., XXI, 469, line 36. is Erikeia, and so he is not to be associated with the present
45 For these officialssee above, p. 27, n. 115. Ctesicleia.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 DADUCH 55
ofAthena'srobein 103)49 erectedtwostatuesin honor was very probably the agonothete of the Pana-
of Sophocles as 65aovx-coavTa, i.e., afterhis death-if thenaea,55and in 106/5he was a 7rvOaiL>T- (K KKp'VKWV.56
the dadouchiawas a lifetimepriesthood. That it was His father Theophrastus was hieropoios for ra
a lifetimepriesthoodis revealedby what seems to be a 'AO'vaLain 156/5,57 and he may have been a mint
monument erected (perhaps) by Sophocles' sister magistrate in 169/8, 167/6, and 162/1.58 He was
Acestion,wrhich is quotedbyPausanias:' AKETTLq, 6U Tn never a daduch, perhaps because he was too young
ZEVOKXE'OVS 70)
o20S0KXE'OVS Troi AEOVTlOV TOVTOVS TE ES TOV when an appointmentwas made and dead beforethe
TETapTOV Irpo6yovov AEOVTlOV 6Wo oUxovs Ii-faVTasl?7ptE yEvEoOat next one. It may be significantthat he was not the
(Kal) irapa To6V 3lOV TOV avT?S 1TpWTOVAE'V ToV a6EXPOV z20o0KXEa son of a daduch.
Mt6E &WLo3VXOVvTa, E7rl E T'vT Tov cvpa
af EeE/Ia7rKxEa, When Themistocles died, he was succeeded by
rEXEVTrfoavrOSbe Ka2LTOVTOVE)sEoippaoTrovTOV iral6a.50 It is his son, grandson, and great-grandson. (His son's
clear also that Sophocles was marriedwhiledaduch. youngerbrother,Xenocles,59did not become daduch.)
The terminuspost quem forthe death of Sophocles They could have been in each case seniorto descend-
is the Panathenaea of 103, at which time his future ants of the familyfromAcharnae-a hypothesisthat
wife, Ctesicleia, was a weaver of Athena's robe and is supportedby Kapetanopoulos's identification of two
thereforeunmarried.5' He was a pythaistat Delphi more members of this family: Ctesicles and Apol-
in 106/5.52 lonius (II).60 The name Ctesicles indicates that he
No descendantsof Sophocles or of the male line of was probably not the oldest son of Sophocles (III)
his familyare known. Afterhis death the dadouchia and Ctesicleia; thus the chances are that he would
was held successivelyby membersof the familyfrom be youngerthan Theophrastus (no. 15) and the same
Hagnous, starting with Sophocles' brother-in-law relation would exist between Apollonius (II) and
Themistocles. Sophocles (IV).
14. OeEAWTroKXiS eEosCpaa6TroV 'A-yvov-cos. Above, pp. 51- 15. 6'sopac-TroS )eALEroKXEoVs 'Ayvovatos.Above, p.
52, lines 39, 47, 56-61; Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 51, lines 32 and 39; I.G., 112, 1961, line 19; 3510;
13, line 10; M. Thompson,op. cit.,p. 568; B.S.A. 3511 (?); Pausanias, I, 37, 1; Pseudo-Plutarch,
21 (1914-1916): p. 159, line 23 (= LG., JJ2, 1036); Lives of the Ten Orators,843c. P.A., 7169. In
Pausanias, I, 37, 1. P.A., 6654. Stemma: below, officein the firsthalf of the firstcenturybefore
p. 58. In officearound the end of the first Christ,directlysucceedinghis fatherThemistocles.
quarter of the firstcentury,directlysucceeding
his brother-in-law Sophocles. According to the monument described by Pau-
sanias6' he became daduch while his motherwas still
He marriedthe sister of Sophocles, Acestion,who alive. Of his two sons the first-born, Themistocles,
was a weaver of Athena's robe in 10353; hence the became daduch. Of Themistocles's two sons, again
marriagetook place sometimeafterthis. The passage the first-born, Theophrastus, became daduch. This
in Pausanias clearlyshows that he was marriedwhile would tend to strengthenthe hypothesisthat seniority
a daduch. In 112/1 he was a mint magistrateas was a factor in the appointment. However, in a
well as in 109/8 (withTheophrastus).54 In 108/7 he comparable case, that of Sophocles (I) of Acharnae
who had two sons, the first-born, Leontius, became
49 I.G., 112, 1034, line 25.
50 It is odd that she did not see her fatheralso.
altar-priestwhilehis youngerbrother Xenocles became
Pausanias does
not state that the above informationabout Acestion and her daduch. The explanation for this may be that the
relatives is froma monument,but it seems reasonable to assume
this; for he discusses other monuments at this point, and the 109/8swas the son of the mintmagistrateof 149/8. The evidence
literaryformof this informationis appropriate to a monument. is not strong enough to include them in the stemma (below,
51 1G., 112, 1034, line 25. p. 58), but the possibilitythat they should be included makes it
52 Fouilles de Delphes, loc. cit. advisable not to use Roman numeralsafter the names of Themi-
53 I.G., I 12, 1034, line 23. stocles and Theophrastus in the stemma.
54 M. Thompson, loc. cit. This Theophrastus has usually been 55 In the photograph of I.G., 112, 1036 (B.S.A., loc. cit.), after
identified as the father of Themistocles (Thompson, op. cit., Oef/ArOKxEOUS I think I can read >. 'A[yvouatou] would fit
p. 569, and P.A., 7167). However, the father of Themistocles the lacuna perfectly. -
was hieropoiosin 156/5 and so would be very old in 109/8, much 56 Fouilles de Delphes, loc. cit.
too old, it would seem, to take on a civic office. 57I.G., 12, 1937, line 11.
58 Thompson, p. 569.
There was a Themistocles who was firstmint magistrate in
149/8 (Thompson, op. cit., p. 568), and the symbol chosen by 59Attested above, p. 51, line 23. This identificationhas been
him-"a trophyon a galley-points to the famousThemistocles." made independentlyby E. Kapetanopoulos, B.C.H. 92 (1968):
It is interestingthat the familyof Themistocles the daduch re- pp. 493-518, Stemma D. If senioritygoverned appointment to
corded that they were descendants of the famous Themistocles some extent,perhaps Xenocles died beforeTheophrastus (no. 15)
(on the monumentdescribed by Pausanias, I, 37, 1). They were became eligible. Two brothers, however, as far as is known,
not descendants in the male line because they were not of the never held the dadouchia.
same deme as the great Themistocles. Perhaps Themistocles, 60Ibid. Apollonius son of Ctesicles of Acharnae appears in
the mint magistrateof 149/8, was a brotherof Theophrastus the the decree forThemistocles,above, p. 51, lines 24-25.
father of the daduch, and Theophrastus, the mint magistrate of 61 Above, daduch no. 13.
56 CLINTON: THE ELEUSINIAN MIYSTERIES [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.
firstpriesthoodavailable to a son of Sophocles (I) was investigationwould "occur." The investigationor

the altar-priesthood,which went to Leontius, the inquiry may actually have been less formal,froma
elder son, and the dadouchiawent to his brotherlater, source not connectedwith any civil body and coming
when it in turnbecame available. in such a way as to "fall upon" them. Perhaps it
had soniethingto do with the intellectualinterestat
16. OE/Ito-7r-KXflO)omppa4orov Above,p. 51,
'A-yeovanos. this time in acquiringpatria.65 Oliver suggests that
line 32; I.G., JJ2, 3509-3510; 3511 (?); 3283; the apographaiwere copies of the Exegetica, and that
3536; 3928; 4042; 4175; 4176; Pseudo-Plutarch, thepatria referredto herewerethesectionofthewrarpta
Lives of the Ten Orators,843c. P.A., 6654. In rCoV iv7rarpt6Ko concerningthe genosof the Kerykes.66
officein the second halfof the firstcenturybefore One other important accomplishmentof Themi-
Christ,directlysucceedinghis fatherTheophras- stocles is mentionedin lines 33-36 of the decree: "he
tus; still in officein 20/19. not only exhibits a manner of life worthy of the
greatesthonorbut by the superiorityof his serviceas
The decree of 20/19 in his honor is edited above
withthedecree
(pp. 50-52). It has certainsimilarities daduch increases the solemnityand dignity of the
cult; therebythe magnificence of the Mysteriesis con-
of 152/1 honoring the hierophant Aristocles.62 In
sidered by all men to be of much greater excite-
both cases a priestwent beyond his normalduties in
ment (eKVXr1qLs) and to have its proper adornment."
order to renewsome of the patria that had fallenout
Roussel67points out the importanceof sK7XI74L3 in the
of use. The daduch Themistocles' service can be
M\lysteries,citingProclus,Platonic l'heology,III, 18, p.
translatedas follows63:
151 (ed. Portus) : Wao-7rEp rcals'aytor'aras eXErais 7rpo'rJ7z'
In unremitting activityforthegreatergloryofthegenos -rJ ,uvovup'cwV,
OcEaca'/II EKWrX-r1qs
IUVJTLKcWP and in reference
and forthedistinctions due to it and to each ofthepriests to Eleusis, Aristides,Eleusinian Oration,2 (ed. Keil):
whoare appointedfromthegenos,he has accomplished, in
the investigation that occurredin connectionwith the 7raYTw oova Otcta AVOp&wrots ravroV OptKAct-arov TE KaL
apographai,manyvaluable services,afterexertinghim- sLot6poraTrov.
selfzealouslyto discoverthepatria,a subjectin whichhe According to Pseudo-Plutarch Themistocles "un-
had acquiredexpertknowledge notonlyfromtheministry dertookalso the priesthoodof Poseidon Erechtheus,"68
whichhad cometo himafterbeingthe familypriesthood a priesthoodwhichevidentlydid not belongto any one
formanygenerations but also fromhis noble effortfor
the genostowardthe recoveryof the patria whichhad genos; Eteoboutadai held it as well as Eumolpidae.69
becomeobsolete. His family descended from the famous Themi-
stocles.70 His wifeNicostratethe daughterof Diocles
A phrase similar to E's r7z 7corEKXEXEt/4LYEV'@irarpiwu
of Melite was a descendant of the famous Lycurgus
a7r6Krr1au' occurred in the decree honoringthe hier-
and a great-granddaughter of MIedeiusthe exegete of
ophant Aristocles(lines 17-24), where we have more the Eumolpidae.71
specificinformationthan in the case of Themistocles In addition to the decree of 20/19, the Demos also
as towhichpatriawasrenewed:'KXEXEft4LE@'VWP [86 woXXJV
honoredhim by erectinga monumentbearingstatues
Ovoatco] . . . Evav 7- avdro6s.
of himself(in the center), his brotherSophocles (on
Aristocles performedat least two other acts of his left), and one otherman (on his right).72 Kirch-
renewalforwhichhe was thankedby his genos. One ner, however, assigns this monument not to him
of themwas the recording(anagraphe)of a "collection but to a
hypotheticalgrandson,ThemistoclesIII, and
of initiation-fees." This was of course a different
postulatesa Sophocles V as his brotherand a Diocles
type of anagraphe from the one mentioned in line as his son. Roussel correctlyrecognizedthat all the
54 of the Themistocles decree, which was evidently testimoniaKirchnercites for these threemen can be
a recordof all membersof the Kerykes,composed,at assigned withoutany difficulty to Kirchner'sThemi-
the earliest,around the end of the thirdcentury (a stocles II, Sophocles IV, and Diocles the son of
later date forit is also possible,if at the time of the Themistocles I I.73 1\Ioreover, Kirchner's stemma
firstrecordingall daduchs within memorywere re- gets into difficultyin regard to the hypothetical
corded). Examples of anagraphai of the Kerykes second Diocles, because it assigns his akme to around
are preservedfromthe Roman period.64
Themistocles put the knowledgehe had acquired
Cf. Oliver, Expounders,pp. 51-52.
65
over the years about the patria to commendableuse 66 Ibid.,n. 33.
in connection with the investigation which took 67 Op. cit.,pp. 833-834.
place concerningthe apographai (e7rtwrE-o-oVUs 7r-s wr-pL 68Toepffer(1889: p. 126) wronglyassumed Diocles to be the
ras a&roypatas The nature of this investiga-
?rflJEws). subject of this sentence.
69 Ibid.,pp. 125-127.
tion is not clear. The verb EbrtLwr1ur're
does not appear 70 Pausanias, I, 37, 1.
anywhereelse with the sense "to occur" as a judicial 71 Pseudo-Plutarch, loc. cit. For the stemma of this family
see P.A., II, p. 82 and Kapetanopoulos, op. cit., Stemma D.
62 Hierophant no. 11. 72 I.G., 112, 3510. This inscriptionis connected with I.G., 112,
63 Translation by Oliver, Expounders,p. 50. 3509 below, and the other man is identified.
64 See Geagan, 1967: pp. 163-186. 73 Op. cit., p. 832, n. 3.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] DADUCH 57
60 A.D. whereas all datable epigraphicalreferencesto is evidentin the decree of 20/19 I suggestthat he was
him are much earlier (41-44), and in one of these in- honoredagain shortlyafterhis death by a monument
scriptionshe was hoplitegeneralforthe second or sub- in whichhis statue took the centralpositionof honor,
sequent time.74 The akme for the firstDiocles, since receivinga moreelaborate inscriptionthan the statues
he was youngerthanTheophrastus,shouldactually be of the men who flanked him: on his left his son
placed somewhat later than "around 6 B.C.," and so Theophrastus, the currentdaduch, and on his right
he can be regardedas a man of matureyears when he his brotherSophocles, with a strikinglyabbreviated
appears in the early Claudian dedications. There- inscription.
fore, nothing precludes assigning I.G., JJ2, 3510 to Hieronymywas not observedat this time,nor was
ThemistoclesI I.75 it shortlybefore,in 20/19.
This daduch's brother,Sophocles, was an ephebe A fragmentof a statue base with an inscription
around 37/6.76 If seniorityand hereditywere factors very similar in wording and disposition of lines to
in the appointmentto the dadouchia at this time,he I.G., JJ2, 3509+3510 is publishedin 'Apx.'Eqp. 1971:
must have died fairly young or was otherwise un- pp. 130-1, no. 26.
qualified. However, up to this point, therehas been
no evidencethat two brothersever held the dadouchia, 38/9
though this did happen once in the hierophantia(see T. Statilius Lamprias, according to a dedication
Aristoclesand Amynomachus). set up in Epidaurus probablyin the year 38/9,78 was
Themistocles would have been the daduch who related to the genosof the Kerykes at Athens79:a4o
officiatedat Augustus' initiation(epopteia)in 19 B.C.77 ys 'AO-jzCop
r6 &v8otrarov K-lplKwzP -yEPO,3,p ou
k6oovXovw ot'1EV'EyZ o-rarot,Els r'p Oeioz avcrov-rapwycc-yovEz
17. )co,ppao-ros 01JEMtoIIrKXeQV3'A-yvobutos.I.G., I 12, K'L 6t EKEL'POV TWV actX ovyEvu
KcL 7 Els rovroz. Whether
3509+3510; Pseudo-Plutarch, Lives of the Ten this uncle is the same as the uncle Aristocratesof
Orators,843c. P.A., 7170. Stemma: below, p. Sparta mentionedfurtheron in this text (line 17) is
58. In officearound the end of the firstcentury
not clear.80 Lamprias was also distantly related to
beforeChrist. hierophanticfamilies.
The evidence, previously offered,that he was a
daduch is inconclusive. It has already been seen that 18. TO/3eptos MEXLtrEs. I.G., 112, 2342,
KXavb&osAEwz86rqs
thereis some doubt that he is the same as the Theo- line 2; 3609; 3610; 3612; 3614; 3615;' ApX.'Eqo.
phrastusin I.G., 112,3510, lines 9 and 14. And since 1971: pp. 119-120, no. 15; Hesperia 26 (1957):
Pseudo-Plutarch does not say whether he was a pp. 219-220, no. 76 (= I.G., III, 990 = S.E.G.,
daduch, we are left with Theophrastus the daduch XVII, 72). Kapetanopoulos, B.C.H. 92 (1968):
in I.G., 112,3509, but as this inscriptionnow stands p. 504, no. 33. Stemmata: Kirchnerad I.G., JJ2,
one cannot be sure that Theophrastus the son of 3609, revised by Oliver, Expounders, p. 80;
daduch no. 16 is meant. From the text, it looks as Woloch, Historia 18 (1969): p. 510; and Kapet-
if I.G., JJ2, 3509 might be the left portion of 3510, anopoulos, op. cit.,stemmataB and C. In office
whichis now lost. At my request ProfessorGuinther in the second half of the firstcenturyA.D.
Klaffenbachcompared the squeezes of these two in- He belongedto the familyof the Claudii of Melite,
scriptionsand wrote that there is not the slightest a very distinguishedKerykesfamilywhich controlled
doubt that they belong together,the letteringbeing the dadouchia almost continuously throughoutthe
absolutely identical in heightand in form. The left firsttwo centuriesafterChrist. In the stemmaof this
hand side of 3509+3510 should now read: familyhis akme is assigned to the middle of the first
[? 6-]Mos
century. In all epigraphicalsources he is mentioned
as an ancestor of the person honored in each case,
[actou]Xou
[8at8oXov (9OE)op]ao-ro[z
except in Hesperia 26 (1957): pp. 219-220, no. 76,
[0E1utoroKXC']ov3
['A]-yzovi[toz ApEr-]sE- which is a hermerectedin his honorby an otherwise
[PCKa KaL djzvolas 7ris Els [cuavr0 Kac] T7r7
unknownArtemidorus. In 'Apx. 'Eyo.1971, loc. cit.,
[Frposras Oca]s Evab,/3ELas
A&[,urpt KactK]6pr and I.G., 112, 3612 he is mentionedas the grandfather
aCt e ThKEm of the person honored; in I.G., JJ2, 3609, 3610, 3614,
Considering the fame of Themistocles (no. 16) which 78 See above, p. 29, n. 123.
74I.G., 112, 4175 and 4176 (=Oliver, Hesperia 35 [1966]: 79 I.G., JV2, 86, lines 10-12; a new text is edited by W. Peek,
pp. 150-153). Other inscriptionsin which he is mentioned are: Inschriftenaus dem Asklepicion von Epidauros (Berlin, 1969),
I.G., 12, 3283; 3536; 3928; 4042. p. 30.
75 It is unknown which Themistocles and which Theophrastus 80 Hiller's stemma (I.G., JV2, Prolegomena, p. xxxi) shows this
are referredto in I.G., 12, 3511, a dedication in honor of a man to be related to two members of the Athenian delegation
hearth-initiate. sent to console Lamprias' parents,and the membersof the delega-
761.G., JJ2, 1961, line 19 (=S.E.G., XXII, 113). tion to be members of the genos of the Kerykes. There is no
7 For his initiationsee Graindor, 1927: pp. 14-23. evidence foreitherconnection.
TABLE 1
STEMMA OF DADUCHIC FAMILIES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES B.C.
x x
x x
I I
Leontius of Acharnae (no. 7) Philistides Antiphon
I (no. 9) (no. 8)
Sophocles (I) (no. 10) I
Kephisodorus Philoxenides
(altar-priest (no. 11)
no. 7)
Leontius Xenocles
(altar-pr. no. 8) Apollonius of Acharnae (no. 12) Theophrastus of Hagnous
(over 30 in 156/5)
(I.G., JJ2, 1937)
Sophocles (II) Amynocles Ctesicleia=Sophocles (III) (no. 13) Acestion=Themistocles (no. 14)
(altar-pr. no. 9) (F. Delph., III, 2, 10)
(97/6)
Ctesicles Theophrastus Xenocles

I (no. 15)
Apollonius (II)
(see note 60)
Themistocles Sophocles Themistocles
(no. 16) (IV) (see note 59)
(honored in
20/19)
Theophrastus Diocles
(no. 17) (see note 74)
Athenais
(I.G., 112, 4042)
and probably3615, as the great-grandfather.In each The known history of this family is thought to
case the dedicator seems to have made an effortto extendat least as farback as thefirsthalfof thesecond
name all ancestorsof the dedicateewho weredaduchs. centurybeforeChrist (see stemma B of Kapetanop-
Hence we can inferwithsome confidencethat Claudius oulos, op. cit.).82
Leonides of Melite was the firstdaduch of this great
daduchic familyof this period.
no. 17, and suggests,on p. 496, that Leonides marriedhis daughter
His relationshipto the familyof daduchs just dis- or the daughterof Diocles, while on p. 501 he states that Leonides
cussed, from Hagnous, is unclear. Certainly one "must have marriedalso a daughter of Themistokles IV, as ob-
more person served as daduch between the incum- served above." Admittedlyone of these possibilitiesmay turn
bencies of Theophrastus of Hagnous (no. 17) and out to be correct, but I think we should either refrain from
indicate
Claudius Leonides of Melite; thus Kirchner'spostula- puttingthis hypotheticalThemistocles into a stemma orevidence
in the stemma that he is hypothetical,untilthereis more
tionofa Themistoclesthe son of no. 17 may be correct than just identical names in differentfamilies. It should be
afterall, thoughno directevidenceforit exists. Sup- noted that the familyfromMelite claimed to be descended from
portforintermarriage betweenthe two familiesat this Pericles, Conon, and Alexander (I.G., II2, 3679), whereas the
time mnight be foundin the fact that a son of Leonides familyfrom Hagnous apparently claimed to be descended from
Themistocles (Pausanias, I, 37, 1 and see above, n. 54).
was named Themistocles.81 link,
82 However it depends at one point on a hypothetical
81 For the lattersee Kapetanopoulos, op. cit.,no. 27. This was Lysiades (Kapetanopoulos, op. cit., no. 37), but this man's
suggested by Roussel, who, however, hesitated to supply a link patronymicor demotic is nowherepreserved. The main evidence
for lack of evidence. Kapetanopoulos (op. cit., pp. 495-496 and is the occurrenceof identical names in two familiesand is there-
500, no. 26), like Kirchner,postulates a Themistocles the son of forehypothetical.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] DADUCH 59
19. Tcf3EptosKXav%tos Tt3 KX AEC1wv'lov
Avoca4rgs MEAXrEls. loc. cit.,was erectedto his sisterAelia Cephisodora,he
I.G., JJ2, 3609, 3610; 3611; 3616; 1736,lines 12-13 was already dead (5q5ovxo-as).87
(?); 'ApX.'ESD.1971: pp. 119-120, no. 15 (=I.G., It is interestingthat on this base honoringAelia
JJ2, 4084 + 4087 + new fragment). Oliver, Ex- Cephisodora no living daduch is mentioned as a
pounders,pp. 79-81. Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. relative. Since it was a mark of distinctionto have
62. For the stemma see under no. 18. In office an Eleusinian priest as one's relative, as so many
fromthe end of the firstcenturyto some time in dedications of the second and third centuries bear
the reign of Hadrian or later. He succeeded his witness in addition to the present one, where the
father. dedicators listed all previous daduchs related to
Cephisodora,we may conclude with some probability
If his name is correctlyrestoredin I.G., JJ2, 1736,
that the contemporarydaduch was not related to her.
lines 12-13, he was at one time herald of the Areo-
This is reinforcedby prosopographicalinformation
pagus. The confusionof himwithLysiades the high-
concerningthe individual membersof this familyat
priestwas correctedby Oliver,whose correctionis now
this time and by the names of those who at thistime
confirmedby the inscriptionpublished in 'ApX.'Eq'.,
were daduchs. Of Sospis's three known sons, Lysi-
loc. cit. His daughter Aelia Cephisodora married
ades, Leonides, and Demostratus, apparently none
JuliusTheodotus the sophist. Her change of nomen,
was ever a daduch: his eldest son Lysiades was archon
as Oliver pointed out,83 "indicates a compliment
(around 130-138), panegyriarch,and imperial high-
which her father rendered to the emperor Hadrian
priest (from138 to around 150)88; Demostratuswas
duringthe emperor'slifetime."
archon (around 155-165) and was at the head of a
Kapetanopoulos84believes that "chronologicalcon-
faction opposed to Herodes Atticus89; and about
siderationsmake Lysiades too old to be the fatherof
Leonides nothingis known beyond the fact that he
Cephisodora, for by A.D. 110-120 he was a grand-
was a brotherof Demostratus and that his son was
father." He suggests the possibility of a second
archon of the Sacred Gerousia ca. 192.90 It appears
marriagein which Cephisodora was born "about A.D.
that this familydid not provideanotherdaduch until
130." A second marriage is indeed one solution.
Aelius Praxagoras,who was fromanotherbranchofthe
It is also possible that Cephisodora was born earlier,
familyand who became daduch sometimearound 180
around 120; in this case she would have been about
(see below). During this interval apparently un-
the same age as her husband Theodotus, even though
related daduchs served: the daduch Pom (peius) and
thiswas not customary. Theodotus held the sophistic
P. Aelius Dionysius.
chair for two years starting in 173 or 174,85 and
accordingto Philostratuswas over fiftywhen he died, 21. lloA(7r'CoS?)AqoWxos. I.G., II2, 1769; 1773; 1774;
which presumably means not over sixty. On this 1775; 1776; 1781; Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 50, no.
evidence we would not be justified in placing his 18; ibid. 34 (1965): p. 97, no. 7. In officefrom
birthbefore115. The dates forCephisodora's father ca. 150-160 to 169/70,perhapslonger,but no later
Lysiades could thenbe ca. 60-70 to ca. 130 and forher than 174/5 (see table of aeisitoiin append. IV).
brotherSospis ca. 90-100 to ca. 150, so that Cephiso-
dora need not have been bornfroma second marriage. Hieronymyhas effectively kept us ignorantof this
Her grandfatherLeonides' span could be ca. 33 to ca. man's full name. All testimoniafor him except one
100. The sons of Sospis, Lysiades and Demostratus, are derived from aeisitoi lists, the exception being
were perhaps born respectivelyca. 110 and ca. 120. Hesperia 34 (1965): p. 97, no. 7, a prytanylist,where
a Ho,uAqoxos occurs in the heading as archon in an
20. Ttf3eptos KXa&toslX7CirtsTto KX AvaotaovMEAtrEbs.unknownyear.
I.G., JJ2, 2342, lines 11, 21-22; 3609; 3610; 398186; I.G., 112, 1769 and 1768 (= Hesperia 33 [1964]: p.
'Apx. 'Esc. 1971: pp. 119-120, no. 15 (=I.G., JJ2, 220, no. 65) are dated by Notopoulos91to a singleyear
4084 + 4087 + new fragment). For the stemma shortlybefore 165. He restored[Ho,u7r7]o0s AqWovxos
see underno. 18. In officefromsome timeduring in I.G., 112, 1769 on the basis of the indicated space
the reign of Hadrian or later to ca. 150. He
succeeded his fatherLysiades. For a suggested 87 Graindor's identification(1922: p. 137) of this man with the
birthdate of ca. 90-100 see above. rhetor Sospis who appears in Plutarch's Quaestiones Conviviales
(VIII, 4; IX, 5, 12, 13) is impossible; the rhetoris a Corinthian
He appears as a relativein all epigraphicalsources. whose name is Antonius Sospis; see J. H. Kent, Corinth,VIII, 3,
When the dedication published in 'Apx. 'Esp. 1971, The Inscriptions (Princeton, 1966), nos. 170 and 226.
88Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 64: I.G., JJ2, 3609; 3744; 2776,
line 205; 4007. Cf. Graindor, 1922: pp. 135-137. A possible
83 Expounders,
p. 79. birth date of ca. 110 A.D. is suggested above under no. 19.
84 Op.Cit., p. 506, no. 39. 89Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 45. For a possible birthdate of
85See Oliver, 1970: pp. 82-83. ca. 120 see above under no. 19.
86
Cf. Oliver, Expounders, p. 75. The beginning of this in- 90Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 60. For the date see below,
scription,as I have verified,should be restoredto read: [. . . Epka p. 63, note 127.
2XI]wrip[os] 'Aa [KIE?K777rto.
,rou 91Hesperia 18 (1949): pp. 41-42.
and the date; and if this is correct,[Hoi7r'cos] should time---of thlesemen,I did not considerit necessaryforhim
be expectedalso in I.G., IJ2, 1768. These two inscrip- to undergo---what not at all at Athens-- -the following
period of time in order that nothing be left ambiguous.
tions show a remarkableirregularity. Normally the Those voluntarily canvassing for a torch-bearership
order of the Eleusinian priestsin the aeisitoi lists is: (daidouchia) or any other priesthoodgreater (?) than the
hierophant,daduch, sacred herald, and (if listed) one which they now hold must lay down beforehand,as
altar-priest,i.e., in descendingorder fromthe office ordainedby law, the strophion(of theirpresentpriesthood).
traditionallyregardedas the most prestigiousto the If a man is called [by] the demos, there will be no case
against him if he does not lay down beforehandhis former
less prestigious. But here, in the same year, the insigniabeforehe gets the appointment;once elected,how-
orderis in one case (1768): sacred herald,hierophant, ever, he too will lay down that whichwas formerlyhis.93
and daduch; and in the other (1769): hierophant,
sacred herald,daduch. It is discussedbelow (append. As is clear from this, Aelius Dionysius did not lay
IV) that, while daduch and sacred herald sometimes down the strophion of his former priesthood as was
change positionsin these lists, the hierophantalways required by law. The fact that Marcus singles out
comes first. This fact, which holds true otherwise, just one priesthood for mention, the daidouchia,
of [16pOK]ipuV
calls the restoration
therefore in 1768 strongly suggests that he is referringto this as the
into question. We should accordinglyleave open the priesthood held by Aelius Dionysius,94 and the fact
is rather[AVruK]?pV(,
possibilitythat the restoration that an Aelius Dionysius did serve as daduch around
the assistant of the K?pVtfovXASKa'L iuov, who appears this time (as I.G., JJ2, 3688 informs us) makes this
in I.G., 112, 1077, line 46, rightafterthe heraldof the "Oliver, 1970: p. 4, lines 1-7, and translation, pp. 28-29,
Boule and Demos, just as perhaps here also. The with some modifications. L. Robert pointed out to Oliver per
[- -]mns in the followingline could be the end of his litt. that [&EIwrovTas is probably incorrect, and that symbola
demotic. In theotheraeisitoilistsin whichH0,(7r,ltos) might well indicate insignia of office,in which case strophion
would be appropriate in place of trophion;Oliver re-examinedthe
Aa Xos appears the normal order of hierophant,
stone and reportedthat the readingis indeed TE[] O-Tple'oP
daduch, and sacred herald was observed,except that (see R.E.G. 84 [1971]: p. 427, no. 256). The sense, then, of
he came last in the list of I.G., 112, 1769 (shortly the participle at the beginning of line 5 must be "assuming"
before165).92 or ''receiving" or "'being about to assume" or "'being about to
The hieronymousformof the name of this daduch receive" or somethingsimilar. As a daduch was expected to hold
know of no case where this was
or his predecessorcan be restoredin I.G., 112, 5186, his priesthood for life (and we
not so), Robert's suggested restoration (1oc. cit.) of [XEL]xrovTas
erectedafterthe year 138. is probably incorrect. Better is the suggestion of C. P. Jones
It is not impossible that this man's nomen was (Zeitschriftfur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8 [1971]: p. 165),
Pomponius. Only the abbreviation Hou appears, which I have adopted: [EuE]TLovTas. Of his other suggestions
except forone case, I.G., 112, 1769,where[Ho,g?1Los is for this sentence I have verified 6EI on the stone, and while the
third letter of his 4Ei[?ov]a looks more like a mu then an iota,
restored,but this stone is no longeravailable and so an iota is not impossible,and so I have incorporatedhis restora-
[lIo,w7r6v]toscannot be excluded. tion in the translation,but with reservation. It seems to imply
that therewas a very preciseorderof precedenceamong Athenian
160-170 priesthoods. How this could operate over longerperiods, as the
prestigeof individual priesthoodsrose and declined, that is, how
The positionof thedaduch in the Eleusinian endow- the frequentalteration of the necessary list could be tolerated is
mentof thisperiod (I.G., 112, 1092) and in the seating a bit difficultto imagine. On the other hand, for particular
of the prohedria in the theater of Dionysus is dis- cults protocol lists do survive, e.g., the Eleusinian Endowment
(see above, pp. 35-36) and the firstrow of the prohedria in the
cussed above (pp. 35-36). Theater of Dionysus (see below, append. III), and so it is con-
ceivable that one existed forall Athenian priesthoods. Yet one
22. H07rXtos ('AmTEvoEvs). I.G., 112, 1782
Atovviotos
A'LXLos must ask what would be the purpose of such a list and of such a
(?); 1788 (?); 1794; (?) 3688 (withstemma). On law as required by this restoration. Was it not also obligatory
the identificationof his deme see below,p. 64. In forpriestswho sought lesser priesthoodsin place of or in addition
officein 174/5; he tookofficeafter169/70but prob- to theirown to "lay down their strophionbeforehand"? If not,
it would be strange to allow the incumbentof a "higher" priest-
ably shortlybefore,or in, 174/5, and left it ca. hood to seek and, if successful, to hold a "lower" priesthood
180-185. while not allowing the incumbentof a "lower" priesthood to do
the same in respect to a "higher"; but ifit was obligatory,that is,
The stemma compiled by Kirchner ad I.G., 112, if it was not permittedof eithertype of priest to compete forany
3688 gives his akme as ca. 144. He should probably other priesthoodwithout laying down his presentstrophion,why
be identifiedwith the priest Aelius Dionysius who is wEifovaused when iintva eTepavis sufficient?
was the subject of a decision by Marcus Aurelius If [E]!TOVrTas is the correct restoration,wpoKaTaTLOeaat may
in 174/5: have a somewhat technical meaning; that is, it may referto a
practice whereby those canvassing for a priesthood would lay
[On appeal suits which] Aelius Praxagoras,Claudius down the strophionof their present priesthood with the under-
Demostratus,Aelius Themisonbroughtagainst Aelius standing that it would be returned to them if they were un-
Dionysius:To be entitled---oughtto hear,it was decided successful.
that the electionswhenheld at the right
that it suffices 14'We have to assume that in judicial decisions of this sort
hieronymywas not used, understandablyso, since therecould be
92 Concerningthe change of order see below, append. IV. doubt in the futureabout which A'lXLos AZgbobxoswas meant.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] DADUCH 61
even more probable. It also appears to be no coin- (ca. 180), and 1788 (174/5 or 187/8).102 Since Praxa-
cidence that at least two of his threeaccusers,Aelius goras was bornca. 115-120103 and held the archonship
Praxagoras and Claudius Demostratus,were members in 154/5,104he was at least in his sixties in the early
of a familywhich had held this priesthoodfora long 180's when he most likely took office. The A'XLos
time but lost it around the middle of this century, zAqovxosin the aeisitoi lists of I.G., JJ2, 1798 (190/1)
and Aelius Praxagoras was probably the immediate and 1792 (191/2 or 192/3)105must be he since these
successorof Aelius Dionysius in this priesthood.95 No years must be regardedas at the end of his tenure.
definiteinformationis available for the date of the Since his successorwas in officebefore193 (see below),
end of Dionysius' priesthood; approximately180-5 we may date the end of his tenureto 191 or 192.
seems to be the best conjecture; the daduch Aelius The civil officeshe held included the archonship
mentionedin the aeisitoi lists (I.G., JJ2, 1782; 1788; (I.G., 112,3614; 3615;106 2067), panegyriarchia(I.G.,
1794) could be Aelius Praxagoras.96 JJ2, 3614107; 3615), agonothesia of the [Greater
I do not believe that even if one reads 60EXov[oLcav] Ascle]pieia (I.G., 112,3614), and the agonothesiaof the
. . .tEpE[]Eao7vv, as Oliverdoes, in the passage quoted [Pan]ath[enaea] (I.G., 112,3615).
above fromthe decision of 1\IarcusAurelius (and so With him, the dadouchia returnedto the familyof
translate: "Those canvassing forthe torch-bearership the Claudii of Melitel08aftera lapse of about thirty
or some othervoluntarypriesthood"),one is justified years and at least two interveningdaduchs fromother
in saying,with Oliver,97that the opposite of a "vol- families. He was the firstcousin once removed of
untary" priesthoodis an elected one, because I doubt Claudius Sospis, the last daduch from this family.
very much that the present daduch obtained this It is interestingthat none of Sospis's sons became
highly desirable priesthood by simply volunteering daduch. The domination of the Claudii of M1elite
for it. There undoubtedly were members of the in this officeand theirfather-sonsuccessionforabout
daduchic familythe Claudii of N1lelite98 at this time seventyyears abruptlyended, and about thirtyyears
who were interestedin it, as is shown by the presence later,resumed.
of two of them as accusers of Aelius Dionysius and At the time Sospis died, probably around 150, his
the fact that one of these two later became a daduch. son Lysiades II was probably already the imperial
Surely at least someone fromthis familywould have high-priest;about his otherson, Leonides II, we know
volunteeredfor it; and since election was the means nothingbeyond the fact that he was his son; but his
of selectinga priest of the Kerykes at this time (as thirdson, Demostratus (Woloch, 1966: Claudius no.
lines 10-15 of this same document indicate),99it 45) was very active and is well known. He was
seemsbest to concludethat an electionwas heldalso in archon around 155-165109 and a few years later
the case of Dionysius. The opposite of "voluntary," (170-174)110 was one of theleadersofa politicalfaction
therefore,seems to be vxoro'T which opposed to Herodes Atticus. Some of the activities
i,UovKaXEZo-Oca,100
also involves an election, but in this case, on my of the factionare relatedby Philostratus.111Its other
interpretation, the candidate did not volunteer leaders were: i\I. Valerius Mamertinus, archon in
but was nominated. The contrast becomes clearer 166/7112 and hoplite general in 168/9,113the sophist
if instead of E6EXov[o-av] we restore r6EXov[o-1)s]:
EOEXovoiLos wETtrEvacversus Vt7h
ro'TO ,UOv KaXELTOacL. 102 For the date see below, append. IV.
103 For the date see Woloch, loc. cit. and Historia 18 (1969):
23. A'iSXLos
Hpat~ayopas ReUtLT0OKXrOv3 Aeisitoi
MEXtTEvs.
p. 510; and below, n. 108.
lists: I.G., JJ2, 1782 (?); 1788 (?): 1794 (?); 1792; 1041.G., JJ2, 2067.
1798. Other: I.G., JJ2, 2067; 2342, lines 5, 27; 105 For the date see above p. 38, n. 200.
3614; 3615; 3693; 3710; 4077; 4088; Oliver, 1970: 106 The followingrestorationof lines 1-2 of this inscriptionis
no. 1, E, lines 1, 35, 41, 44, 50; append. V required by the sense and fitsthe space:
(= I.G., 112, 3713 + 4089 + 'Eqp.'Apx. 1897: col. [UlOv KX e,ELqToKXEj1oVs
60, no. 42). Woloch, 1966: Aelius no. 51. KX eE-

[MExLT&os,rY-Yovov]
Stemma: see under daduch no. 18. In office The name Aelius Praxagoras would have come in the previous
fromca. 180-185 to 191 or 192. line. I am not at all sure that fragmentb belongs with this in-
scription,as its letteringseems slightlydifferent,but this does
Since his predecessoralso had the nomen Aelius, not affectthe restorationof line 8.
it is difficultto determinewhich man is the Aelius in 107The end of line 4 of I.G., 112, 3614 should read: [Epx9i]v
the aeisitoi lists in I.G., 112, 1782 (ca. 180),1o1 1794 ,c[a]i.
108 His nomen was changed to Aelius, probably by his fatheras
95For discussion see below, pp. 61-63. a complimentto Hadrian. In one inscriptionerected well after
96For theirdates see below, append. IV. his death he is referredto as Claudius Praxagoras (I.G., JJ2,3710).
97Ibid., p. 11. 109Hesperia11 (1942): p. 43, no. 12.
98 See above, p. 59. 11 For the date see Oliver, 1970: pp. 66-84.
99Cf. Oliver, op. cit., p. 43. 111Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists (ed. Kayser), pp. 63
'I0 Ibid., p. 4, lines 5-6. 67-9, 71, 73.
101Notopoulos (Hesperia 18 [1949]: pp. 1-57, table I) does 112 I.G., 112, 1773.
not say why he assigns this to 177/8. 113I.G., I12, 1775 and Geagan, 1967: pp. 194-195.
JuliusTheodotus, who was Demostratus'suncle, and was also around this time that the dadouchia passed
the later daduch Aelius Praxagoras,who was Demos- out of Demostratus'sand Praxagoras's family,having
tratus'ssecondcousinand father-inlaw. Philostratus been controlledby it for about seventy years, and
describes the beginning of their activity against went to a Pompeius (or Pomponius) and then to
Herodes as follows114: P. Aelius Dionysius of the deme Antinoeis,neither
When thesetwo men (the Quintilii)wereboth ruling of whom appear to have been relatives. In 174/5
Greece,the Atheniansinvitedthemto a meetingof the Praxagoras and Demostratuswon a suit against the
popular assembly. The Atheniansshoutedaccusations thendaduch Aelius Dionysius (see above), and at the
of tyranny,pointingto Herodesand asking that their same time MAJamertinus was denied his attempt to
wordsbe communicated to theears of theemperor. The change from the Eumolpidae to the Kerykes and
Quintiliifeltsomesympathy withthedemosand without
delay reportedwhat they had heard. Herodesclaimed become a sacred herald; indeed, it appears that
that he was the victimof a plot on theirpart,thatthey A\Jamertinus actually won the electionforthis priest-
wereinstilling suspicionsagainsthimintothe Athenians. hood but was not invested."'8 Like Praxagoras and
For it was afterthatmeetingoftheassemblythat Demo- Demostratus Herodes belonged to the genos of the
stratusand Praxagorasand Mamertinus and manyothers Kerykes,119 fromwhich the daduchs were appointed
of theirilk,whoopposedHerodesin cityaffairs, roseinto
action. Having indicted them as settingthe demos and also fromwhichmany high-priests were drawn.120
againsthim,Herodestriedto lead themto the courtin AfterHerodes' death, and after the death of Aelius
Rome,but theysecretlymadeoffto theemperorMarcus, Dionysius, the Claudii of Melite regained the dcidou-
confiding in his moredemocratic natureand in theoppor- chia in the personof Praxagoras. Though we do not
tunity (affordedby suspicionsagainst the friendsof
LuciusVerus). know exactly who the daduch Pompeius (or Pom-
ponius) was or whetherAelius Ardys was a friendof
Even beforehe heard the case, the emperor,Philo- Herodes,121 a pattern does emerge to some extent.
stratus relates, was already favorably disposed to A Claudius of 1\IelitereplacedHerodes' fatheras high-
Herodes' opponents,and at the hearingtheywTon their priest,but then the Claudii of M\Ielite lost controlof
case, accordingto Philostratus,throughthe combina- the dadouchiaaround the middle of the century,and
tion of several factors: the influencethey had with Herodes obtained the high-priesthoodaround 160.
the empressand her daughter,Herodes' ill tempered- The next daduch, challengedlegally by two Claudii
ness because of the very recentdeath of a freedman's of 1MJelite (the challenge perhaps extendingeven to
two daughtersforwhom he had great affection,and the daduch's eligibility)122at the same time that they
Demostratus's fine speech. The emperor punished were openly challenging Herodes, was probably a
Herodes' freedmen(who were included in the indict- friend of Herodes.123 The assembly in which the
ment) but not Herodes, thoughhe may have advised Athenians aired their feelingsto the Quintilii about
him to leave Athensfora while. Herodes may well have been a welcome opportunity
The newly discoveredletterof MlarcusAurelius to forthe Claudii of Melite to move theiroppositionto
the Atheniansas it is interpretedby Oliversheds con- Herodesfromthelevelofthegenosto an openclhallenge
siderable lighton the animositywhich the Athenians in the city: Philostratussays that at this time they
felt towards Herodes in this period.115The most "sprang up," abiyrvaav ... es TO a&VTrLoov Tr4 '1Jp6p
vocal opponents of Herodes, Demostratus, Praxa- WOXLTEVOVTIES. They went to Marcus Aurelius against
goras, and Mlamertinus, are describedby Philostratus Herodes,and thenmade a concertedattempt,perhaps
as ELs TO 6wrUiOOV zr4 ~Hpc~6ywL7roXrTES. But their taking advantage of Herodes' defeat at Sirmium,to
antagonismwentfurtherthanpolitics. From theway
obtain two of the highestpriesthoodsof the Kerykes,
certainimportantpriestlhoods were beingappointed-
and disputed-over a period of decades it appears wlhichapparentlyrequiredMamertinus'sillegalchange
that this too was involved. Up until the year 138
the imperial high-priesthoodwas hereditaryin the Atticus's death was priest of Hadrian Panhellenius, and he may
have been reluctant to hold the two priesthoods (Hadrian
male line of the Herodes' family. The obvious suc- Panhellenius and high priest) concurrently." However, in his
cessor at this timewould have been Herodes, but the dissertation (1966: p. 176) he writes: "whether Herodes was also
man who got the officewas Lysiades, Demostratus's priest of Hadrian Panhellenius is unproven, but the writer
brother. Herodes did not obtain it until 160, after believes that his refusal of the high priesthood at Athens may
indicate that he was."
yet anotherincumbent,Aelius Ardys.116The change 118 Oliver, op. cit., p. 4, lines 7-15.
in officebetween Lysiades and Ardys seems to have 119IG., XIV, 1389, lines 33-34.
taken place around the middle of the century.1"7It 120 Oliver, Expounders,p. 98.
114Lives of theSophists,pp. 67-69 (ed. Kayser); translationby 121 If the daduch was a Pomponius, he may have been one of
Oliver, op. cit., p. 66. the Pomponii who were related to Aelius Ardys (see I.G., 112,
Reform,and
11 Op. cit., especially chap. III, "Jealousy, Wkar, 3687), but then one would expect him to be mentioned in I.G.,
Innovation." II2, 3687.
122 Line 2 of Marcus's letter seems to referto a charge that a
116 7oloch, 1966: Aelius no. 14. He was archon in 150/1.
117 For Ardys as succeeding Lysiades see WVoloch, Historia, 18 priestlyelectionrelatingto Dionysus was not correctlyconducted.
(1969): p. 506. He suggests (ibid.) that "Herodes at the time of 123 So Oliver,1970: p. 39.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] DADUCH 63
of genos. Unsuccessful then, it was only after eponymos of the Sacred Gerousia(loc. cit.): KXa'btos
Herodes' death that they regainedthe dadouchia. AqouXos. Nevertheless,it is clear fromthe dedica-
Another of Marcus's decisions, also, concerned tions listed above and the stemma that his real name
Praxagoras and Herodes'24: was Philippus. In the dedicationserectedin honorof
The appeal whichAelius Praxagorasmade from(the various descendants of his, he is always referredto
procuratorhereditatum)'2' Gavinius Saturninus:At the as k6ovX'o-as, withhis fullname,signifyingthat he was
trialthe so-calledcodicilsin the (false)nameof Pratolaus already dead.
wereproducedand theinvestigation tookplace. (Praxa- He did not serve as daduch very long; by around
goras),it appears,was justified.. . . Praxagorasshall 197 another,a Pompeius, had succeeded him. Since
returninto possessionof theseestatesand shall receive
fromthe viri clarissimiQuintiliian arbiterconcerning his fatherwas Demostratus, who was born around
thecrops. As forthe estates whichwere said to have 120, it would appear unlikelythat he was born much
been leftto the vir clarissimusHerodesAtticus,to these beforethe middleof the second century,and therefore
he will already have returned. Concerningthese crops he died relatively young, which is corroboratedto
Ingenuuswilljudge. And if Praxagorasfindsfaultwith
theslownessof transfer, (an action)willbe introduced by some extent by the fact that he was already dead at
the provincialauthorities. the time two statue bases were dedicated to his two
daughtersas raMEsA4o'ecrTas (I.G., IJ2, 3693 and
The involvementof Praxagoras and Herodes seems below, append. V).
to be incidental. As Oliver interpretsthe case,'26
Philippusapparentlyhad no sons. The only other
somebodyforgeda testamentleaving estates to three
knowndescendantof the Claudii of Melite at thistime
parties: his father,Herodes, and the city, Herodes
was the Praxagoras of Melite who appears in the
and the city being included in the gift probably to
beginning of the third century on an ephebic list
strengthenthe positionof the father. Afterthe will
(I.G., JJ2, 2197) as gymnasiarch,agnothete of the
was proved to be a forgery,Praxagoras appealed to
Greater Severeia, and systremmatarch;the lacuna
Marcus, who then decided that Praxagoras had a
before his name here may have contained some
legitimateclaim to the land.
priestlytitle,just as the otherephebic officialsin the
24. TL/3'pLos KXav6Loos cIX7r7rosTto KX A?77ourrpa6rovsame inscriptionhave E-pcEvs beforetheirnames (but he
MEALrEvS.I.G., J12, 1108 (= Oliver, 1941: nos. 24 surely did not possess one of the major Eleusinian
and 25, and Hesperia 30 [1961]: pp. 231-234, priestlhoods sincehieronymy was notobserved). After
no. 31); 1806; 2124; 2125; 2340 (= S.E.G., XII, Philippus the Claudii of 1Mlelite probably lost control
140); 3693; 3710; 4088; below,append. V (=I.G., of the dadouchia.
JJ2, 3713 + 4089 + 'E<o. 'Apx. 1897: col. 60,
no. 42). For the stemma see under no. 18. In PERIOD OF ROMAN EMPIRE
officefrom191 or 192 to ca. 197, succeedingAelius Because of hieronymythe identityof the daduch
Praxagoras. Claudius mentionedin I.G., JJ2, 4094 is not known.
The tenureof Philippus shows that the Claudii of
Melite were able to maintain their control of this 25. lloArwtoszAqoiXos. I.G., JJ2, 1790 ( Oliver,
officeafter having regained it with Praxagoras, the A.J.A. 45 [1941]: p. 539); Hesperia 34 (1965):
maternalgrandfatherof Philippus. p. 97, no. 7. In officefromca. 197 to sometime
While he was daduch, Philippus also held other before208/9.
distinguished offices. He was eponymous of the He followsthe hierophantand sacred herald in an
Sacred Gerousia in 191/1 or 192/3127;he was archon aeisitoilist (I.G., JJ2, 1790) whose properplace among
in the year 193/4128 and cosmetearound 196.129 the otheraeisitoi lists would seem to be about 197.180
His name is preservedon only one aeisitoilist,I.G., He may be the daduch in the aeisitoilist of I.G., JJ2,
I I2, 1806, datable to ca. 194. He is called hiero- 1789, in whichcase this list belongsin 204/5.1'1
nymouslyhere and in a list of Kerykesof ca. 200 A.D. Whetherhe is related to the daduch no. 21, Pom-
(L.G., JI2, 2340) and whenhe was archon,cosmete,and (peius) or Pom (ponius), is unknown. Nor is it
knownwhetherhe or the daduch no. 21, Pom(peius)
124Ibid., Plaque E, lines 35-47; translationby Oliver, p. 30.
or Pom (ponius), was the daduch Pom (peius) who was
125 See ibid., p. 17.
archon at an unknown date (H-esperia34 (1965):
126Ibid., pp. 40-41.
127I.G., JJ2, 1108 and later editions cited above. A.D. 193 is the p. 97, no. 7).
terminusante quem for the erection of this stele because of the
erasure of Commodus's name. WR oloch's date (1966: p. 187) of 26. ta'3Loos MapdxOvLos.I.G., 1J2, 1077; 2201;
AzaWuXos
192-he argues that the stele was set up before 193 but after the 3684; 4822. In officefrom 208/9 or earlier to
death of Praxagoras-depends on the date of I.G., IJ2, 1792 as
192, but it has been shown above (p. 38, note 200) that 192 is
209/10 or later.
only one possible date forthis inscription;191 is also possible.
128I.G., IJ2, 2125; forthe date see Notopoulos, 1949: p. 30. 130See append.IV.
29 I.G., IJ2, 2124; forthe date see Notopoulos, 1949: p. 31. 131See append.IV.
He was archon in 208/9 (I.G., JJ2, 2201)132and is Publia Aelia Herennia, the hierophantid,assumed
listed in an aeisitoi list of 209/10 (I.G., JJ2, 1077), this priesthoodafterthe dedicationof I.G., JJ2, 3688.
both of which include his demotic. Of the dedica-
tions,I.G., JJ2, 3684 is a herminscribed Ila3LoosLA6oiXos, 27. AaAo-rCAXqs.I.G., JJ2, 3715. In officesometime
and 4822 is a little altar (or base) which he (Ia,3Los in the thirdcentury.
AiaWoiXos) dedicated to Demeter and Kore, probably
on the AthenianAcropoliswhereit was found. 28. Ibid. In officesometimein the third
or3Lttaco's.
Possibly he was a son of Fabius Fabianus of 1Iara- century.
thon, herald of the Boule and Demos in 182/3, to
whom Herodes Atticus once erected a dedication."'8 1wo-7rarpos.Ibid. In officearound the
29. Aip4pLoas
If our daduch held a second archonship,114he may be end of the thirdcentury.
identical to Fabius Thisbianus of Marathon, archon
On this dedicationset up by the polis-the lettering
in 186/7.135
may be as late as the fourthcentury-one Atpaptos
foxwra-rpos, a daduch, is inscribedas the descendant
Ca. 217/8 of the daduchs Damoteles and Thisbianus.
A herm,I.G., JJ2, 3764, dedicated to Aelius Apol- The names are rather strange. AaAoqorerXqs (as
lonius the cosmete by a son of the same name, who opposed to A\7A,orAXqs) is, as far as I know, unique in
was ephebicarchonat the time,exhibitsa metricalin- Attic prosopography. The only other Thisbianus
scriptiondescribingthe cosmete as ol'v6Ec
a'67o6o'xcwv known in Athens is C. Fabius Thisbianus, archon in
CEps ,u/l7rpos TE }/EyLOra, ?77TEET cSCcLWE GEcLI irap the year 186/7.139The gentiliciumAerarius is also
Anqois-.His mother was probably a hiero-
aVaYcKTopa
puzzling. Oliver,'40on the basis of a reading of
phantid.1'6 The hermcan be dated to around 217/8, Raubitschek's which let it appear that the archon
forthe ephebe Aelius Apolloniusis listedin an ephebic Thisbianus's name should be restoredas HI [AjXLos
inscription(I.G., JJ2, 2222) of around that time,and eOtO3Lavos,once suggestedemendingthe name in our
a cosmete by the name of Apollonius appears in inscription to AL'("Ap)povtov lwbLrarpov(or AL 'Pa4ptov),
another ephebic inscriptionof about the same date stating: "while a gentiliciumAerarius is indeed at-
(1.G., JJ2, 2219). tested, it is attested in the wrong milieu to be ab-
The daduchic ancestor of these two is probablyP. solutely convincingas the nomen of an aristocratic
Aelius Dionysius (see above) whose akme Kirchner house, and I have long been puzzled by it, without,
puts at about 144. Kirchner's stemma shows that however,daringto questionit on subjectivegrounds."
his nephew was P. Aelius Apollonius of the deme Though his emendationno longerhas support in the
Antinoeis,who was a prytanisaround 180,'37and who archon's name, the difficultiesOliver noticed still
was the father of Aelius Dionysius of the deme remain,and so AL'("Ap)pLovoughtto be considered.14'
Antinoeis,ephebe in 205/6.138 Thus AeliusApollonius As in the case of the hierophantErotius (no. 34)
the cosmete can be identifiedas another son of this and his son Cleadas, Argive relationshipand a con-
Aelius Apollonius of the deme Antinoeis who was nection with the Mystery cult at Lerna may be
prytanis around 180. The identificationhas con- involvedhere.
siderablefurthersupportfromthe ephebic inscription
(I.G., JJ2, 2219) in which the cosmete appears. In- 30. (Map 'IoVVtoS)NLKayOpas MLVOVKLavoV.J. Baillet,
spectionof the stone shows that the appropriatename Inscriptionsgrecqueset latines des tombeauxdes
can be restoredin lines 2-3 to fillthe space exactly, roisou syringes(Mem. Inst. 42 [1925]: 1265,pl. 15
so that lines 2-5 read as follows: (= Dittenberger,O.G.I., 721); Baillet, op. cit.,
1889, pl. 29b (= Dittenberger,O.G.I., 720); I.G.,
[r]6v KOJ/u/7Tr)[v 7&wv'(,3c,nv A'XLov] IJ2, 4831. 0. Schissel,Kijo 21 (1927): pp. 369-
['A]7roXX'cvLov 'Av[rtvoa KaKLtyv,cva] 370, with stemma,p. 371. W. Stegemann,R.E.
[oi]Lapxo[v] K[ali -yw[loOEvr? -jarou
lrEp'] 17 (1936): col. 218. In officefromat least 304
[E]XK73 C[EY&)]oE-[----]------
to at least 326.
We must assume that the motherof the cosmete, He immortalizedhis visit to the tombs (the cham-
bers of which are called UvnpvyyES) of the kings in
13
Cf. Notopoulos, op. cit., pp. 34-35. Egyptian Thebes by recordingtwo graffiti. One of
'33Hesperia 4 (1935): p. 49, no. 11, line 57; ibid. 30 (1961): them (Baillet, 1265) reads as follows:
p. 272, no. 107. Cf. Woloch, 1966: Fabius no. 3.
134This practice occurred in the third century; see Geagan,
1967: p. 3. 139S.E.G., XXIII, 119. This Fabius could have been daduch
35S.E.G., XXIII, 119. Cf. Oliver, Z.P.E. (forthcoming). no. 25, Fabius of Marathon (see above).
140 A.J.P. 71 (1950): p. 174.
136 See below, p. 88.
13 I.G., I I2, 1793, line 14. 141 The personal name 'Paptos is
unattested, so far as I can
138 ICG., IJ2,2193, line 101. determine.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] DADUCH 65
o kaWXos 7-cw a'rytora of such a commissionis made in the graffiti. He
7rwv'EXEVT /IVJt7LLOv argues instead for a connection with Constantine's
MLVOVKLavov
founding of the University of Constantinople, his
'AO?7vaZoshoropi7o-as
affectionfor Athens, and his interestin philosophy,
ras Ovptyyas lroXXotS VOTEpOV
and suggests accordinglythat Constantine's subsidy
povotspc-Tazdeov flfaXv was for an educational purpose, a philcsophical
ai7r6rJv 'AOqvCov,EOavauaYa KatLxPt (vi) journey. In fact the graffiti informus that Nicagoras
Eo-Xov T-Lrs QoQS KacL TCoL E69OE3EOTcJarwt was in thecompanyof severalPlatonic philosophers,147
iacLJXEL rCt
Kwo--ravrLv'wt rro6 got
and his allusion to the "divine Plato" would seem to
indicate that like his ancestors he was a philosopher
crapaoXovlrt.
himself. Very near one of his graffiti(Baillet, 1269)
The daduch observedhieronymywhenwritingthis,as and those of several of his companions is another in
Baillet correctlynoticed (previously[NLKa-y6pas] was the same red ink, which reads: IXcEws'giiJ llXarwvKact
restoredat the end of line 2 when in fact it did not v-rai9a. Graindor focuses on the significanceof Kat
exist.)142 The referenceto Plato, the patronymic, v-raiea: "elle laisse entendreque le dadouque a visite
and the date (in the reign of Constantine) connect d'autres lieux oCuPlaton avait passe ou etait cense
him with the great Athenian family of orators, avoir pass"e.'148
sophists, and philosopherswhich prided itselfon its Two peculiarities in the second of Nicagoras's
descent fromthe famous Plutarch.148iViembersof it graffiti(Baillet, 1889), however, deserve comment.
were: Nicagoras thesacred herald (no. 11) and sophist, The firstis the daduch's titleo 6qao5oiXos
r&Cov
'EXEvoLvLJvW.
who lived around 180-250; Minucianus, the sacred Ta 'EXEvoLvLLa werea festivalofgames;it was an agon,
herald's grandfatherand the husband of a great-niece a completely differentfestival from the M1ysteries.
of Plutarch; and Minucianus the sacred herald's son, It seems very strange that a daduch would have
also a sophist, whose floruit was around 260-268.'44 writtenthis instead of Avor-qptcwv,in effectputtingthe
That our daduch was the latter's son is clearlyshown name of the wrong festival in his title.149Stranger
by the othergraffito at Thebes (Baillet, 1889), which still is the appearance of his own name, Nicagoras,
gives his fullname and the date of the visit: a violation of the law of hieronymyby the very
man who swore at his investitureto observe this
KwcocTravrIvw2;[E]c3(aoarc~) r' Z Kai; Kcvaoavrwtc KaLco(apt) strictlyforthe rest of his life. Even more strikingis
,r A [Er]carots the proximityof the correct formof his name and
6 6oxos rCov'EXEvoLvLvNLKayo6pas
Mtvov title to this incorrectone: on one wall he kept hier-
KUavo 'AOr7vaioslo-ropo-as ra's OELas
147 Baillet, op. cit., p. 492.
rivptyyascSavc,aaa. 148 op. cit., p. 213.
The seventh consulate of Constantine and the first 149 It is argued below that the same priest set up dedications at
consulate of Constantiuswere in 326.145 Baillet per- Epidaurus. There he is called baboixos rcop'EXEuvcZPL yvunplo.p
(I.G., IV2, 429) and 5bxbo6Xos rol ofOEVp (I.G., IV2, 431), hieronymy
suasively suggests that Constantinesubsidized Nica- being observed in both cases. No instance of an Athenian source
goras's trip to Egypt (rCotro3ro guot rapa6xovmt). He calling the Mysteries ra 'EXkEvlpLa,yuvr'ripta is known to me, so
suggests furtherthat the trip was commissionedby that a brachylogismbaboixosrcov'EXEuvcl@'wP (yvtr7pl1w) seems out
Constantine for the purpose of having the daduch of the question. Aelius Aristides uses 'EXEvulpLa for the Eleu-
sinian Mysteries (Panathenaic Oration, 230, 249, 257 [ed. J. H.
reportto him on the physical conditionof the pagan Oliver, "The Civilizing Power," Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 58, 1
monumentsof Egypt. Graindor146agrees that he was (1968)]), but in the majorityof these instances,when comparing
probably subsidized but stronglydoubts the purpose themwithothercults. Thus thereis no question that non-Athe-
suggested by Baillet; such a mission would be un- nians used this designation (even when addressing Athenians);
paralleled, and at this date in Constantine's reign, it was certainlyunderstandable,as well as usefulin distinguishing
one Mysterycult fromanother. But in our graffitothe question
inappropriate;moreover,it is strangethat no mention is whetherthis is properAthenianusage, and whetherit is by the
daduch himself,who in all other instances when he used his title
142 Baillet, op. cit., p. 295 and pl. 15. Baillet should also have had it correctlyrecorded. An error is obviously involved here,
removed it from his text. In line 2 I keep the old reading and the additional error,lack of hieronymy,shows that it is not
'EXkEvufl; Baillet would have 'EXkEvucp l(c), a designationthat was merelya scribe's error,such as nc5w 'EXEuvol'l(var?7pl)wV, but rather
never used at Athens (see below). Cf. I.G., IV2, 429 (304 A.D.). one of general ignorance,the errorvery likelyof a non-Athenian.
143 For the family see especially 0. Schissel, op. cit. He mis- Demeter and Kore are sometimes called al 'EXEvuOlpLaL (OEal)
understands the nature of the daduch when he calls Nicagoras outside ofAttica (cf.I.G., IV, 955, line 14). A priestessof Demeter
a "Myste of the second degree," and likewise that of the sacred and Kore (of the Eleusinian cult) called herself at Delphi
herald when he calls his grandfathera "Myste of the thirddegree." perhapsLpaa Ar/,lurrposKac Kopt7s'EXEUvElVpIp] (see below, p. 75).
144 Suda, s.v. MLvovKLavos. The daduch's homonymous son set Thus bqoxos rCov'EXEvo-tlViP (0ECfV) is within the realm of possi-
up a dedication (LG., JJ2, 4831) in the sanctuary of Pan and the bility, but if he wished to designate himself according to the
nymphson Mt. Parnes. goddesses he served instead of the festival, as he did at Epi-
145 Cf. A. Degrassi, I Fasti Consolari,p. 79. daurus, one would expect the title baWoxos rolV &OzV as at
146 Byzantion 3 (1926): pp. 209-214. Epidaurus.
onymy and on the opposite wall he violated it; on cianus is this same man, the fatherof the daduch
onewallhe wrotehiscorrect title,6aWxosrTCv 'EXEvamL Nicagoras who, as the hieronymousMarcus Junius,
luvorTpLwv, but on the opposite wall the unprecedented dedicated I.G., IV2, 428 and 429 at Epidaurus.
6tovXos rc( 'EXEvoWLvCO.Whytwoinscriptions?And Minucianus seems too rare a name at Athens forthis
why is one so improperlyexecuted? The immediate to be coincidental. The identificationgains even
inferenceis that Nicagoras did not write them both. furthersupport from another base at Epidaurus
He certainlywrote (or had writtenforhimand closely which has long been associated with these, namely,
supervised the writing of) the longer one (1269), I.G., IV2, 431, a dedication of a statue by a daduclh
which was in the vicinity of those of several of his who, like the hieronymousMarcus Junius,was also
companions. Besides being expressed correctly in the priest of Asclepius Soter. His name is given as
regard to this title and the use of hieronymy,it 63aWor[Xos]7ozv OEOl'\v1[. c *] vov 'AOD[vaZo]s. The
containsa personalreferenceto Plato, and the ending lacuna certainly contains a patronymicand the re-
Kal xapt(V) ecrXov v*. uot wapacrxovtn is certainly a storation6sauoWixos] TOLov
tEoLv M[tvovKLa]voi 'A77[rvaio]s
personal touch. On the other hand, the graffitoon naturallyimposesitself.154
the opposite wall contains just the bare formulaeof We can now be sure of the gentiliciumand prae-
the standard grafittofound in these tombs ("I saw nomen of this noble familyof orators,sophists, and
and expressedwonder") as well as the date according philosophers; we also know that M. Junius Nica-
to the consulates of the emperors. I suspect that goras'55served as daduch fromat least 304 to at least
this graffitowas not writtenby Nicagoras,'50but by 326; that he was a priestalso of AsclepiusSoter; and
a person unfamiliarwith correctAthenian practice; that his concern forreligion,as is manifestin the as-
by whom and under what circumstancesis a matter sumptionof this additional priesthoodand the erec-
of speculation,but the addition of the date may have tion of at least threemonumentsat Epidaurus,156 was
promptedit. Nevertheless,it does not indicate that accompanied by a very active interestin Plato.
the date of Nicagoras's visit is incorrect.
Twenty-two years earlier, in 304, a baWXosi3 ov 31. TAX3Otos ToA ?aWXosxoS. I.G., 112, 4222. In office
'EXEvonvt1vcrm7Ptc0vdedicated at Epidaurus a statue to sometime after 372.
Athena Hygieia (I.G., IV2, 428) and an altar to Apollo He was in chargeofsettingup a dedicationhonoring
Pythius Patrous (I.G., IV2, 429).15l This daduch Rufius Festus, proconsulof Achaea and Areopagite.
was also priest of Asclepius Soter simultaneously, Groag identifiesthe latterwitha magistermemoriaeof
presumably at Athens. His name is given hier- Valens from ca. 370 to 371, who probably in 372
onymouslyas Mip(Kos) 'IoUb( o).l52 A differenceof became proconsulin Asia.'57 Since he is mentioned
twenty-twoyears hardly allows one to think im- in an inscriptionas having been twice proconsul,'58 he
mediatelyofNicagoras,especiallysincethegentilicium probably served as proconsulof Achaea after372.159
and praenomenofhis familyare unknown. However, The daduch'stitle,6Laac7q,oraros,indicatesthat he
the connectioncan be made by way of the dedications was of equestrianrank; his othertitle,'a76 KO.L'tTWOV,
I.G., JJ2, 3689 and 3690, statue bases erected by the that he was awarded the honor ex comitibusbut not
city in honor of the proconsul Claudius Illyrius, in necessarilythat he served as comesor served in any
which the praenomenand gentiliciumof Nicagoras's particularoffice.'60It is uncertainhow Pom should
family are revealed: the epimelete for the dedica-
tion of both bases was one M&pKOs 'IoV'Vos MLVOVKtLavos. and philosopherswas firstsuggestedas a possibilityby K. Latte,
The bases are dated on the basis of the archonshipof Gnomon7 (1931): p. 118, n. 1. This Junius Minucianus appears
Terens (225-250), the fatherof Illyrius,to the end also in a letter of Gallienus ('Apx. 'Ep'. 1971: p. 123, no. 17,
of the second quarter of the third centuryor later, line 16).
154 F. Millar (J.R.S. 59 [1969]: pp. 16-17) independentlymade
a date that agrees well with the notice in the Suda a similar restoration,though he apparently was not disturbed
that Minucianus (the fatherof Nicagoras the daduch) by Kavvadias's interpretationof the abbreviation (which was
was a sophist whose floruit was in the reign of Gal- accepted by Latte, loc. cit.); but Millar's restoration EM 'Iovv
is too long forthe space. (He also keeps (NtKcLoypas)
lienus (253-268).153 Surely Marcus Junius Minu- MuvovKLa?]voi
in Baillet, op. cit.,p. 1265). W. Peek, however,in Inschriftenaus
demAsklepieionvonEpidauros (Berlin, 1969), no. 169, shows that
150 J cannot ascertain from the photographs whether or not he still holds to Kavvadias's resolutionof IOTN, and would restore
there is any differencein handwriting. M[ap 'Iouv]jv(E(corkp)ov, whichis strangeindeed. His drawing
151 The date is inscribed in each case as the year 181 of the of thispart of the inscription showsthat [MVouVKaajvoi fitsthe
Hadrianic era (=304 A.D.). space exactly.
152 Kavvadias interpretedthe abbreviationas Map (KOS) 'IoV(vLos) 155Perhaps I.G., JII, 12142, a grave monument for a 7ralsbe
V(fCbrepos) because of the apparently separate stroke over the nu MLVoVKL[avov --], also pertains to him.
in 429: IOTN (I have not seen the stone). This interpretationis 156 Cf. I.G., IV2, 430 by a daduch and priest of Asclepius Soter.
refuted by 428, which has only IOTN (verifiedby inspection); 157 Groag, Die Reichsbeamten von Achaia in spdtromischer Zeit
forifvE&TepOS hadreallybeenmeant,itwouldhavebeenindicated (Dissertationes Pannonicae, Ser. I, Fasc. 14, 1946), pp. 49-51.
158 C.I.L., VI, 537.
in some way in 428 also.
159 So Groag, loc. cit.
153S.v. MLJovKLavo's.The connection of the bases with the
16I Cf. Seeck, R.E. 4: coll. 633-634.
daduch of the Epidaurus dedications and the familyof sophists
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] DADUCH 67
be resolved, but it is probably a second gentilicium second and third centuries A.D. clearly shows that
ratherthan a cognomen,since hieronymydemanded hereditywas not the method of appointment; forat
the suppressionof the cognomenin Roman names. these times families apparently unrelated to one
He is the last knowndaduch. another supplied daduchs. In addition, the new
letterof MlarcusAurelius reveals that electionswere
GENERAL REMARKS definitelyheld for sacred heralds at this time, and a
AGE AND DURATION OF SERVICE
fragmentarytext relating to a daduch in the same
letterspeaks of electionsalso.161
Callias II was daduch for at least 44 years, and A fragmentof Aristotle162seems to state that
Callias III for at least 30 years. Between the end allotmentwas used; if so, it would have to have been
of the second centuryand 20/19 B.C. three daduchs used beforethe secondcenturyB.C. But the factthat
held officeand the thirdwas still in officein 20/19; in the fifthcentury the two Calliases, grandfather
thereforetheiraverage term would be about twenty and grandson,were daduchs tends to cast doubt on
years. Between the end of the thirdcenturyand the it even for this period, and favors the assumption
end of the second, seven daduchs held office,but here that, if allotmentwas at all used at this time,it was
the earlier limit is subject to a margin of error of used for a small number of pre-selectedcandidates
twentyto thirtyyears. These data point to an age as Foucart suggested.163At any rate, certainlyby
sometimes of less than fiftyyears at the time of the second century B.C. the daduchs were being
appointment,perhapssometimeseven less than forty. elected by the Kerykes, and often certain families
The only period duringthe Roman empireforwhich were so prominentand powerfulthat theircandidates
the evidence providessome inferencesconcerningage had littleor no difficulty in beingelected.164 Such an
is the second half of the second century. At that achievementwas a source of pride, as is manifestin
time Pom(peius) (no. 21) held officeforat least ten the decree honoringthe daduch Themistocles,where
years; Aelius Praxagoras (no. 23) for at least five the dadouchia is called (line 65) 7 2repl T'7P o[]KLcaP
years, and died at an age of approximatelyeighty; ,yEryovvLa EirL roXXas yEvEacs avrC, 6k6ovXLa. Once con-
Claudius Philippus (no. 24) forabout threeyears,but tinuity of one family in this priesthoodstarted, it
in his case other evidence seems to indicate that he was probably hard to stop its momentum. But it
died young; and Pompeius (no. 25) could have served could be stopped, as happened very clearly to the
for as long as ten years. In the fourth century Claudii of Melite, and in this case a considerable
Nicagoras held officeformorethan twenty-twoyears. struggleprobablytook place beforetheyregainedit."65
No literarysource comments on the daduch's age.
It appears that it was not as importanta factoras in REQUIREMENTS FOR APPOINTMENT
the case of the hierophant,and sometimesa daduch
could be selectedwho was about fortyyears old. No special requirementsfor this priesthood are
All indicationsare that the dadouchiawas a lifetime known. The decree in honor of Themistoclesstates
office. No living ex-daduchs are known. Sophocles (lines 37-39) that he received rmw Kat T7,v 4a'
E1vyEVELVaP
III ofAcharnae (no. 13) and Themistoclesof Hagnous Cy &LacoX-s7rapacro' 7rapTOSKTx.
c1T?s lEpECSoTVVflp I.G.,
(I10. 14) certainly died in office. The custom of IV2, 86, in mentioningthat Lamprias had relatives
hieronymy,which daduchs firstadopted sometimein who were daduchs, describesthe genosof the Kerykes
the firstcenturyA.D. or the firsthalf of the second
as ro rv6ot6rarov KflpVKWvPvos, ap' ov 6,a6ovXovTLPvol
century,is only comprehensiblein termsof a lifetime
office.
EV7/EVE-TaTro.166 The more timesa familyheld the
priesthoodthe moreE6ryEVyrs
it probablybecame within
MARITAL STATUS the genos. Thus prestigeand influencewereprobably
Callias III and Sophocles III of Acharnae were the only main qualificationsnecessary.
marriedwhiledaduchs,and manyothershad children. In the time of Marcus Aurelius an incumbentof
Marriage was evidentlyno bar to this priesthood. another priesthoodhad to lay down the strophionof
that priesthoodbeforecanvassingforthedaidouchia.'67
MANNER OF APPOINTMENT
For long stretches of time one or two families Oliver, 1970: pp. 43-44; this is discussed above, pp. 60-61.
dominated this priesthood. In the second and first 163 1914: pp. 192-193, but he incorrectlyassumed allotment
centuries before Christ it was rotated between two forall periods.
families, with the basis of rotation being perhaps 164 This is implied in lines 37-38 and followingin the decree
seniorityamong the eligible candidates from both for Themistocles (edited above, pp. 50-52): lrapeLXipo6ra rl1^
families. In the second half of the firstand the eb[v-y]veLav Kal Tt)v Air' avT,rs IEpewo5v7ipv7rapa ....
165 See above,pp. 61-63.
firsthalf of the second centuriesafter Christ it was 166 Lines 4-5, edited by W. Peek, Inschriftenaus dem Askle-
controlledby one family,the Claudii of Melite. How- pieion von Epidauros, p. 30, no. 36.
ever, the evidence of the fourthcenturyB.C. and the 167 See above, pp. 60-61, and below, p. 68.
INSTALLATION while Themistocles (no. 16) seems to have done re-

search in the traditionsof the cult and to have dis-
At this moment the daduch became subject to
played considerableimaginationin preservingthem.
hieronymyuntil his death (see Introduction). He is
said to have undergonea dokimasia,but the sourcefor DUTIES DURING THE MYSTERIES
this is not the most reliable.'68
He went with the hierophantand the sacred herald
DRESS to make the prorrhesisat the Stoa Poecile.172 In the
processionto Eleusis he marchedperhapsat its head,
For a discussionof the literaryevidence see above,
next to the hierophant.173During the secretriteshis
pp. 32-33. Like the hierophantthe daduch wore a
rolecan onlybe ascertainedfromhis title: he provided
strophionin addition to a myrtlewreath. His gar-
light. The great importanceof it at the climax of
ment, probably purple, was somethingout of the
these ritesis discussed above.'74
ordinary;its representationon a fifth-century vase is
He may have had a greaterrole in the eWro7rrELathan
discussedabove, p. 48.
in the TEXE?7.17
EMOLUMENTS
OTHER FUNCTIONS
No informationspecificallyfor this priesthood is the daduch
Accordingto the Suda (s.v. AtoZSKw6LOV)
available; for informationon the Eleusinian priest- used a ALos K'&6LOV 7pc' but whetherin
roVS Kacappoovs,
hoods in generalsee the section on "Emoluments" in
connection with the MIysteriesis very disputed.176
the "General Remarks" at the end of chapter I. Also in doubt is the trustworthinessof the source that
The daduch received a double portion in the supplied the scholionto Aristophanes,Frogs,line 479,
Eleusinian Endowmentof 160-70 A.D. which states that the daduch officiatedat one point
in the festivalof the Lenaea.177
RESIDENCE
Unlike the hierophanthe could hold other priest-
The daduch had a house withinthe sanctuary.169 hoods. No. 15 held also the priesthoodof Poseidon
Erechtheus; no. 29 was simultaneouslya priest of
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL POSITION Asclepius; no. 2 was the priestof his phratry. Two
daduchs in the Hellenisticperiod,nos. 7 and 10, were
In the fifthcentury B.C. the family of the two altar-priestsbeforebecomingdaduchs. No. 22 held
Calliases was one of the most importantin Athens. some other priesthood before the daidouchia. Evi-
This was also true in regard to the families from dentlya legal case could be made that one had to lay
Acharnaeand Hagnous whichcontrolledthedadouchia down the strophionof a presentlyheld priesthoodbe-
in the second and firstcenturiesB.C., and in regardto forecanvassing for the daidouchia (and then, if suc-
the Claudii of Melite, the family which controlled cessful,presumablyalso lay down the presentlyheld
it fora good part of the firstand second centuriesA.D. priesthooditself),and M\IarcusAureliuswas persuaded
It is evident fromthe speech of Andocidesand the to make a rulingto thiseffect,but as no. 29 shows,the
behavior of Callias that the daduch was normally old practiceeventuallyreasserteditself.
very highlyrespectedat that time. In the Roman
period he occupied a seat of very great honor in the
Theater of Dionysus170and was one of the aeisitoi. III. PRIESTESS OF DEMETER AND KORE
And for the second centurythere are signs of con- C'lieta A'Xs? Kxal Ko'pnq)
siderable competitionfor this priesthood.17' Also at Several genewere eligibleto supply the priestessof
this time many daduchs filleda distinguishedarray Demeter and Kore. A notice of Photius mentions
of politicalofficesand liturgies,both beforeand during one of them: ILtXXrEzia.yzvos rTi-v 'AGrvrtv EK 66 TOrVTW
their priesthoods,and most were Roman citizens.
7 epEtLa -r1s Ar7rpoS KaLLKOpr7s,X ,uvovca rovis /Th-ras
cT
Unlike the hierophants,none are knownto have been 'EXEVJTVL. An inscription of the Roman period, I.G.,
ambassadors in the Roman period, but long before 112, 2954,' indicates that there were also others. In
this the two Calliases (nos. 1 and 2) did serve in the notice of Photius Aivdzvis of course not used in its
this capacity. As a group theyare much less known
for their wisdom and speaking ability: Nicagoras 172 See below,p. 78.
(no. 30), apparently a descendant of Plutarch, and 173 See above,pp. 35-36.
174 Pp. 46-47.
Callias (no. 2) are the only ones definitelyknown to 175Sopater, RhetoresGraeci8 (ed. Walz): p. 121, 11-12: 6obxos
have engaged in literary or philosophical pursuits, 6e E&7ro7r6T7v ia\xxovi i'o%Ttv op.
roTroov Ws The meaning of this is
somewhat opaque; cf. Foucart, 1914: p. 196.
168 Eustathius, Iliad, XVIII, line 492. 176 Cf. Foucart, 1914: pp. 197-198; Nilsson, Geschichte1:
169 See above, p. 50. pp. 110-113.
170 See appendix11I. 177 Cf. Foucart, 1914: p. 198.
171 See above,pp. 61-63. 1 Discussed below, p. 74.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] PRIESTESS OF DEMETER AND KORE 69
originalsense, "to pre-initiate,"as attestedin I.G., 12, rparrzEo6popos(called rparrzE?Cin Hesychius) were priest-
6,2 but in its later sense, "to initiate."3 esses who assisted the priestess of Athena in the
acs rpaT
Kofalu-q ns.8 The principalpiece of evidence
BEGINNING OF FIFTH CENTURY B.C. in regard to them (Harpocration, s.v. rparrzEoropos)
"The priestess" mentionedin a fragmentarybou- reads: AVKO5P'YOS rv
V r. lrEp't rnrs tEpEtLa
aTL tEpwciv?7ns6vopa
7w- 2? TparrEo5oopos. ort 6'aV`T7TE Kal 7 KO/I-W JVV6LE4roVcfl
strophedoninscriptionset up withinor near the Eleu-
rj-r
rwcvra KTX. Thus, in theritualofthe
'A6rnas?EpEL,a
sinion around the beginningof the fifthcentury4is
most likely the priestessof Demeter and Kore, since cult whichinvolved the settingof a table the priestess
no otherpriestessof the Eleusinian cult is ever called of Athena was assisted by two priestesses,KOcTIw' and
rpawrEw; the former'sfunctionwas to carrythe table
simply "the priestess."
and the latter's functionwas to set it.' Their titles
Ca. 460 B.C. are certainlynot titlesof the priestessof Athena, but
simply reflecttheir particular functions,just as the
In I.G., 12, 6, the law issued around 460 B.C. con- titles hierophantand daduch reflectthe functionsof
cerning the 1\Iysteries,she is called "priestess of these priests. There is no testimonyof a priestessof
Demeter."5 Accordingto this law she was to receive Demeter and Kore having any other title than
an obol from each initiate at the Lesser Mysteries "priestess," "priestess of Demeter," "priestess of
and the same amount at the GreaterMysteries. She Demeter and Kore," or poetically cpprirorEXErs
was also to be in charge of the expense fundof 1,600 rpo6roXos as . . . KaOOvyarpos. Moreover,the priestess
drachmae, as she had been previously,an indication of Demeterand Kore is not knownto have performed
that at this time she played, apart fromher religious any functionthat involved crowning. Of course the
duties, an importantpart also in the administration fact that such a functionis not knowndoes not mean
of the cult. that it did not exist,and we mightconsidera variation
of Maas's theoryeven thoughthereis no parallelforit:
1. Avnorpamr-. Hesperia 10: (1940): p. 97, no. 18
(= S.E.G. X, 321). Around the middle of the
may reflectone of the duties of this priestess.
o-recpaLvw
fifthcentury. However, Pritchett'stheorythat the word refersto
two crownsattached to the pillar makes sense in the
Shortly before the middle of the fifthcentury text and in relation to the monument,and he cites
Lysistrate commissionedthe followinginscriptionin similardedications. Since this is poetry,thereseems
elegiac meter (Hesperia, loc. cit.) to be carved on a to be no reason against understanding -rErzpabw as
base whichheld some sort of pillar6: being in apposition to a'yaX/ia. At the presenttime
this solutionseems to me to be the preferableone.
['A]pp'-ro rErXT?r7S
wp7roXoso's, r0rvmaA-qoi, Since the poetic renderingof her title (appr'7oTrXNTs
KcL evya'pOs rpOoVpO KOJ/.OV a'yaX/a ro6E rpoXroXsaos ... KaAL 6v-yarpos)can be translatedinto
ITEdANQ
ETTr7R(TEJ Av-t-rpar- ov66 rapovrwv prose as "the priestessof Demeter and Kore," it is
E6 EraL aNXa GEoisacowos ies66pa/utv. clear thatthisfulltitlewas in use as earlyas themiddle
of the fifthcentury,and that "the priestessof Dem-
Pritchett,the editor, explained 2 TEdIANQas either eter" and "the priestess" were abbreviations of it.
arepaivw (two crowns) or Drrzhavw (a patronymicwith The poetic renderingof it shows that she had a role
co = ov). But P. M1aas would rather edit -rTEpavw7: in the secrettelete.'0
"As KOJ(LC' and rparwzcw are titles of Attic Athena
priestesses,o-rEpavw fitsthe title of an Attic Demeter 421 B.C.
priestess." His statement might lead one to think The Rheittoi inscription(I.G., I2, 81) of 421 B.C.
that KO/Ilc' and -rparrWE5 are titles of the priestessof mentions"the priestesses"as carryingthe hieraat the
Athena. This. however,is not the case. KO(TUW and head of the mystaiin the Processionof the 1Iysteries,
2 See the new edition above, pp. 10-11. and we are probably to understandthe priestessof
3Foucart (1914: p. 216) and Toepiffer(1889: pp. 92-94) in- Demeter and Kore, the most importantpriestessof
ferredfromthe provisionin I.G., I2, 6 which limitsthe conducting the Eleusinian cult, as well as the hierophantids,as
to the Eumolpidae and Kerykes that Photius's notice being among them. Foucart believes that the priest-
*of,uu/norts
refersto the Haloa. Ziehen, Leges Sacrae, p. 16, n. 8, correctly
esses mentioned here were the ctELprL
wavatyets, but he
termed their arguments a vicious circle and noted also that the
Haloa were open only to women. can supply no convincingevidence that such a group
4S.E.G., XXI, 3, line 13; see above, p. 10. of priestessesexisted in the cult of the Eleusinian
I See the new edition above, pp. 10-11. 1Iysteries.1'
6 R. E. Wycherley,The Athenian Agora, I I I, Literaryand Epi-
graphical Testimonia (Princeton, 1957): p. 82, mentionsthe possi- 8 For the operation cf. I.G., 112, 776.
bility that it is archaistic. If so, it is an extraordinarilygood 9 Cf. R.E. 2: col. 1962.
imitationof mid fifth-century letters; I doubt even the possibility 10
In I.G., II2, 3411 7rpo6roXos ArOiuS
KaL Kop7s refers to the
of its being archaistic. hierophant.
7Hesperia 15 (1946): p. 72. 111914: pp. 214-215; see below, p. 98.
Ca. 416 B.C. Thus the firstgroup of sacrificeswas performedby

Accordingto the aparche laxv (I.G., I2, 76) of ca. Eumolpidae and the priestessof Demeter (and Kore),
416, she did not take part at all in the announcement with the latter receivingapometraof 100 drachmas.
or receptionof the aparche. The second group was probably performedby the
hieropoioi;for according to I.G., 12,5 the hieropoioi
2. ?eav' MCevwvo3 'AypvXAeev. Plutarch,Alcibiades, 22 sacrificedat the Eleusinia, and several of the deities
and 33. Toepffer,1889: p. 97. P.A., 6636. For of the second group are the same as the deities in
the proofthat she was a priestessof Demeter and I.G., 12, 5.
Kore see chap. I, p. 16, n. 31. In officein 415. For hersacrificialduties in thisfestivalthe priestess
She was in officewhen the were
\lJysteries allegedly of Demeter received,as it appears, apometraof 100
mimickedby Alcibiades and his companions,but her drachmae. In comparisonwiththeemolumentsgiven
priesthood was not among the ones impersonated to all otherpriestsin this inscriptionthis is an enor-
(viz., those of the hierophant,daduch, and sacred mous amount. It is also strikingthat no sum of
herald). This cannot, however,be taken as an indi- money seems to be given to the Eumolpidae, who
cation that the priestesshad an insignificant part in togetherwith the priestess performthese sacrifices.
the telete;foras we have seen the priestessLysistrate However, if we make the followingrestoration,these
(no. 1) pridedherselfon being"a ministerof the most two anomalies disappear:
secrettelete." EWuoX7r[E36at oil]
Theano refusedto curse Alcibiades and his com- TEOVTa [%oo Kac]
panions whenso orderedby the state, protestingthat cepEaEtAL\?7qTPo3]
she was "a prayingpriestessand not a cursingpriest- H a'7ro6/ETpa].
ess."'12 We hear of no prosecutionbrought against
With several people sharingin it, the large size of the
herforthisaction. Even iftherehad been any, there sum is understandable.
Part of it went to the
probablywould have been littlechance of success, as Eumolpidae who performedthe
sacrificesand part
thestate probablyhad no clearlydefinedrightto order went to the priestessas
aPometra(a termthat seems
a priestto curse someone. to apply only to priestesses).14
END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY
FOURTH CENTURY
In thesectionofthelav code ofNicomachusdealing Two legal cases are known to have taken place in
with religious festivals the third preserved column the fourthcenturybetweenthe priestessof Demeter
lists sacrificesat the Eleusinia.'3 These are divided and Kore and the hierophantand to have concerned
into two groups, and at the end of each group the a conflictof sacral rights. In the earlier case the
priesthoods responsible for performingthem are hierophant Archias was convicted of impiety for
given. The stone breaks offbefore the end of the sacrificingat the Haloa, at which only the priestess
second group, so that the priesthoodresponsiblefor had the rightto sacrifice.'5 The othercase took place
this group is not preserved. Those responsiblefor around the end of the century,but little is known
the firstgroup are (lines 73-76): of its details, neitherthe specificpoint of contention
ral]
EvAoX[7r nor its result.'6 Both cases make it clear that the
TavTat [6rt'oav] priestesshad a very strongpositionin the Eleusinian
cepEca[{ A '7qTpos] cult.
H a'r 6,/1ETpa]
3. Priestess of Demeter [ ? ]. Hesperia 26
12 It is perhaps better to understand the phrase in Plutarch, (1957): pp. 79-80, no. 25. Dated by letteringto
Alcibiades, 22, 4, -raKaOEor?lKoraCur6r' Eb/toXIrt&7v
KaL K?p6K,V Ka.L' beforethe middleof the fourthcentury.
as referringto the Eumolpidae and
VC9V lep&.o. r(CVet 'EXEvoivos,
Kerykes and priestessesof Eleusis, and write TC(V LEpec-v TCoV et On this dedication which she erected probably in
'EXe-vaZpos.1EpEaas an alternate spelling of lepetais attested in the Eleusinion,she is called the motherof Epigenesof
inscriptions rats et 'EXEuo-Zv[os]
forall periods,and raLs L'EpELats Acharnae.
occurs in I.G., JJ2, 1363 (= Dow and Healey, A Sacred Calendar
ofEleusis) (thisreadingcontainssomeslightimprovements over BEFORE MIDDLE OF FOURTH CENTURY
thatofDow and Healey). No suchdesignation as thisoccursfor
thepriests. The passagein Plutarchwouldgivebettersenseifa An inventoryofsome year "beforethe middleof the
dichotomywere made between the Eumolpidae and Kerykes on fourthcentury" contains the uninformative entry'7:
the one hand and the priestesseson the other. For no priest of LEpEcL
atKaXE -
the sanctuary at this time is known to have come from any
other genos than the Eumolpidae or Kerykes, so that V' L-pe'Wv 14 The recipientof apometrais a priestess in I.G., 12, 843; JJ2,
seems redundant, whereas priestesses did come from several 1357, 1363; the recipientis unclear in I.G., 12, 190 and Sokolowski,
gene and it would be convenient to designate them simply Supplement,18.
"priestesses." 15See above, p. 17.
13 Sokolowski, Supple'ment,no. 10; cf. R. Healey, H.S.C.P. 66 1GSee above, pp. 22-23.
(1962): pp. 256-259. 7 1.G., I12, 1540, line 57.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] PRIESTESS OF DEMETER AND KORE 71
400-350 to; but because of the poor preservationof the stone,
Phileto, the daughterof Dexicles, the priestesswho the preciseconnectionwith the Thesmophoriais un-
made the dedication I.G., 112,4560 (400-350 B.C.), is clear. Dow and Healey2"suggestthat this is a local
apparentlya priestessof Demeter,but it is uncertain (Eleusinian) celebrationof theThesmophoria. Other
whethershe is the Eleusinian priestess. local celebrationsof the Thesmophoriaby demes are
known,22but there is no other evidence that such a
352 B.C. local celebrationtook place at Eleusis. And yet there
are threepieces of evidence that reveal that therewas
In theSacred Orgasinscription of35218the"priestess some sort of connection between the Thesmophoria
of Demeter" was requestedto sacrificean [EapE-0rpLoP] and the Eleusinian sanctuary: (1) Demeter and Kore
together with the hierophant. Previously in this are oftencalled0Eo/oP6p&,Oew,23 and in one instancea
decree, in matters pertainingto the administration hierophantmade a dedication to them24;(2) this in-
of the Sacred Orgas,the daduch was the hierophant's scription(I.G., 112, 1363); and (3) a decreeof the early
associate; but here whereit is a questionof a sacrifice second century B.C. honoring"the priestess of the
the hierophant'sassociate is not the daduch but the Thesmophoroi.'"25The editor of the latter inscrip-
priestessof Demeter (and Kore). Normally,in ad- tion, 0. Broneer,felt justifiedin restoringthe deme
ministrativemattersthe hierophantand the daduch, Melite as the corporationwhich issued the decree,
the representativesof the two gene that controlled on the groundsthat the husband of the priestesswas
the administrationof the sanctuary, were the most a memberof thisdeme. It cannot be denied that the
importantofficials;but in this religious matter the inscriptionis a decree of a deme, but the priestess's
priestess of Demeter and Kore apparently over- husband's demotic is not a compelling reason for
shadowed the daduch; she and the hierophantappear restoringMelite as the deme in question. The fact
here as the two principalreligiousrepresentativesof that she is awarded a myrtlecrownand that Demeter
the Eleusinian sanctuary. and Kore are mentionedin the decree would tend to
place it rather in the Eleusinian sphere, since the
329/8 Eleusinian genehonoredtheirbenefactorswithmyrtle
A "house of the priestess" is mentioned several crowns (and the state, also, sometimesso honored
times in an inscriptionof this year (I.G., 112,1672). benefactorsof the Eleusinian sanctuary). On the
A retainingwall was built (line 17) KaTa T7r1)OKLacTIY P) otherhand, no instanceof a myrtlecrowngrantedby
'EXEVO-iPL T7S lepeLag. In lines 126-127 two pigs are the deme of Eleusis is known; yet thisis probablynot
requiredto purify[something]and Tr?POLKLaP T71'Lepcav, enough to exclude Eleusis as the honoringdeme. If
ov 77 LEpELa OCKEL. Elsewhere (line 305) "the doors of we could accept, of Broneer's two suggestedrestora-
the priestess"are mentioned. Since these operations tions of line 11, the one which reads KaG6a'rEp [33o-rat
are listed as expenses in a financialaccount of the Kac raZ3 'aiXXcVa LepeLaLs rail] T?7r AL57ur1 rpos KaL KOpqg,the
sanctuary, we can inferthat the "sacred house" in priestessof the Thesmophoroicould be equated with
whichshe lived was situated withinthe sanctuary."9 the priestess of Demeter and Kore26; but then the
In the same inscription(lines 255ff.)she is certainly difficulty would remain that no site is mentionedfor
one of "the priestsand priestesses"who received an the erection of the priestess's portrait, a matter
allotment of grain on certain occasions (see above normally specified in honorary decrees. Thus the
p. 20). restorationand the equation are not assured, and so
the relation between the Eleusinian sanctuary and
Ca. 330-ca. 270
the Thesmophoriastill remainsobscure.
The "sacred calendar" of Eleusis, issued around the
end of the fourthcentury,mentions"the priestess" THIRD OR SECOND CENTURY B.C.
in connectionwith the Thesmophoria,2'certainlythe A statue base of a priestessof Demeter and Kore
priestess of Demeter and Kore, the only one at whose name is not preservedis dated to the thirdor
Eleusis so well known that she could be so referred second centurybeforeChrist.27
18 LIG., JJ2, 204; see above, pp. 17-18. 211965: pp. 32-36.
19 r7(1) 'EXevaVtL is ambiguous enough to be construed as 22
Cf. 1.G., 112, 1177; 1184.
referringto this house in the sanctuary. The retainingwall that 23 I.G.,
I12, 1363; Aristophanes,Thesm.,83, 282, 295; Eccl., 443;
was built in the vicinityof this house could have supported some Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 265, no. 51.
part of the sanctuary fromthe outside, so that the house could be 24A.J.A. 64 (1960): p. 268; see above, hierophantno. 23.
outside the sanctuary and therefore"in Eleusis." If so, the 25Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 265, no. 51.
priestessmighthave owned a house in the deme, but lived in the 26 The identification cannot be excluded on the ground that the
"sacred house" in the sanctuary, which was at the disposal of priestess of this inscriptionwas selected by a deme whereas the
every priestessenteringoffice. The fact that "the house of the priestess of Demeter and Kore was selected by a genos; for
priestessin Eleusis" is not called "sacred" lends a bit of support Broneer's restoration of 7rPOKEKKpL/.&Vf in line 2 is by no means
to this possibility. certain.
20 I.G., 112, 1363; see Healey-Dow, 1965. 27 I.G.,1 12, 3468.
4. [PepeLas --- ri] 'AroXXco[lov--- -6vyarpos]. are also similar to those of the beginningof the first
century.35 So there is no evidence opposed to the
If Merittis correctin his dating and restorationof
positive evidence of 'Apx. 'Eq., loc. cit., that the date
an inscriptionfound in the Athenian Agora,28the
of Glauce's priesthood was around the end of the
earliest known occurrenceof this priestess as epon-
second centuryand the beginningof the first.
ymous is "around the year 200 B.C." The only part
She came froma wealthyand distinguishedfamily.Y6
of her name that is preserved is the patronymic
Apollonius. 6. 4ItXxaOov IvXawlov Ovya'i-qp. I.G., 112,
'AAELJvo'KXca
164 B.C. 3220; 3495. In officeprobably in the second half
of the second centuryor the beginningof the first.
An honorarydecree of 164 B.C. praises the demarch
of Eleusis for,among otherthings,having "performed I.G., 112, 3220 incorrectlyreads: CirL[,EpEias%]
the sacrifice of the Calamaea, and conducted the 'AAEaoKXCEias taXf- - -]. The stoneshows: 4tX[ - - - .37
procession according to tradition togetherwith the The entirename can be restoredas )tX[abOov dJvXaoiou
hierophant and the priestesses."29The Calamaea Ov-yarpos]on the basis ofI.G., 112,3495, whichreads:
is an agrarianfestivalof Eleusis,30and thisinscription
JIEpEaav A\r/17pOS KaG K[6pns----
is our only source of informationabout its ministers.
t?tXcavGov tvXac4ov
The hierophantand the priestessesparticipatingin [OvyaTCpja.
the processionmust also have been the ministersof And 'AAEtvo'KXLcavcan in turn now be restoredin line
the festival proper. The priestess of Demeter and 1 of this inscription.
Kore was surely included among the "priestesses," Both inscriptionsare dated by Kirchnerto the first
just as she certainlywas among the "priestesses" in centurybeforeChrist. However, accordingto Sund-
the processionof the A/Iysteries.A1 At another agra- wall's stemmaof this family(N.P.A., p. 39) thereare
rian festivalat Eleusis, the Haloa, this priestesswas two men of Phyle eligible to be her father; the first
the principalcelebrant.2 Philanthes was active in the earlier part of the
second century and his mother's name was Amei-
5. Gvya&rcqp.
PXacVKcq MEvEcr5,ov Kv5aOrnvatEws Append. nocleia38;one of his sons is also called Philanthes.
VI; 'ApX.'Eyp.1971: pp. 129-130, no. 25; I.G., 112, Since the letteringof neitherinscriptionprecludes a
4690. P.A., 2959. In officearound the end of the date in the middle or second half of the second
second century. century,nothingprevents us, in harmonywitlhthe
Kirchnerdated Glauce to the middle of the second known prosopographical information,from dating
century,on the basis of the letteringof an inscription this priestessthat early. In this case she will have
(below, append. VI). She would then have to be the been in officebeforeGlauce; but it is also possiblethat
daughterof Menedemus (I),3: who was active around she was the daughterof Philanthes the youngerand
the end of the thirdcenturyand the early part of the succeeded Glauce, in the early years of the first
second. However, the date of a new inscription century. It should be noted that it is possible that
('ApX.'Eqo.,loc. cit.) would place Glauce's incumbency the second Philanthes as Sundwall conceives hiimis
around the end of the second and the beginningof the reallyidenticalwitlhthe firstone.
first century. Consequently she ought to be the Accordingto I.G., 112,3495 Ameinocleia had two
daughter of Menedemus (II),34 the grandson of sons and one daughter,but we do not know whether
Menedemus (I). The lettering of the inscription she was still marriedwvhenshe ras a priestess. She
edited in appendix VI, thoughdated by Kirchnerto belonged to a wealthy and politically distinguished
the middle of the second century,is perfectlyconsis- family.9
tent also with a date around the end of this century.
FIRST HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY B.C.
Kirchnerlater changed the date of this priestessto
the beginningof the Roman Empire, again on the The "priestess of Demeter [ ? ]" is men-
basis of the letteringof an inscription. In his com- tioned in I.G., 112,1044, a decree dated to the first
mentaryto I.G., 112,4690 he writes: "Litterae hane half of the firstcenturybeforeChrist,and the hiero-
sacerdotem initio aetatis imperatorumvixisse indi- phant is also mentioned; but the decree is too frag-
cant." However, in this case, too, the letter forms mentary to yield any information about either
priesthood.
Hesperia 37 (1968): p. 289, no. 29.
28
36 Kirchner described the rho's of I.G., 112, 4690 as
29 I.G., I 12, 949, lines 9-10.
P. The
30 Deubner, 1932: pp. 67-68. oblique stroke actually occurs on only one rho, and there it
31 IG., 12, 81; see above, p. 14. appears to be a later scratch.
36 Cf. P.A., 9894 and 9895.
32 See above, in connection with the hierophant Lacrateides
37 I.G., III, 921 gives the correctreading.
(no. 4). 38P.A., 14224.
33 P.A., 9894 and I.G., JJ2, 912.
34 I.G., JJ2,2452, line 30; P.A., 9895.
39 Cf.stemmaofSundwallin N.P.A., IOc.cit.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 PRIESTESS OF DEMETER AND KORE 73
SECOND OR FIRST CENTURY B.C. the grandfatherof Herodes Atticus. On the firsttwo
An inscribed altar of this period,49dedicated to monumentsshe is called the daughter of Eucles of
Demeter and Kore and found "beneath the modern Phlya, but I.G., 112,3604 and 4720-4722 show that
house in the area of the Eleusinion," mentions a her real fatherwas Nicodemus of Hermos and that
priestess as eponymous, probably the priestess of Eucles adopted her.
Demeter and Kore, but her name is not preserved The omissionof the name of the priest in the third
(except perhaps for a couple of letters from her line of I.G., 12, 4720 raises doubts about the correct-
patronymic). ness of the edition of this inscription,and the monu-
mentconfirmsthem. Line 1 does not exist; thereis a
6vyau-cqp.I.G., 112,3498.
7. XapwovAtovvLovMapacWvLov moldingabove line 2; above that is a flat surfaceon
First or second centuryB.C. which nothingis inscribedand above this surfacethe
original top of the epistyle seems to be preserved.
She is the eponymouspriestesson a dedication set The rightside is not originalas Kirchnernotes, but
up at Eleusis in honor of a girl hearth-initiateand neitheris theleftside. However,it is possiblethat the
kanephorosof Sarapis. Kirchnersuggestsa possible present right side is close to the original. The
relationshipwiththe Dionysiusof NIarathonwho was followingtentative text has been constructedwith
priestof Dionysus around the beginningof the second this possibilityin mind:
century.41 By its letteringthe inscriptioncould be
dated to the second as well as the first century 1 ['IhpEtaA?7/fl7TPQ3
KactKOp-qs
KXc- EVlKXEOVS IXVEXW
beforeChrist. 6vya]Ti-p, y6ovct 6E NLKO6'OV 'E[p]
8. 'A<t6vaLov6vyar-qp.I.G.,
2 [gUElOV Kal~ ________ca. 35 K
KXEoKpa'1-qa0()voopLXov 112,
CEpEVS Ef3cLtaTr7S
AtKa[t]
3490; 4704; 4716. Toepffer, 1889: 98. P.A.,
8566. Stemma: A. Wilhelm,Beitrdgezur griechi- 3 [oo&vvs 4146-qKap AT
TnL rtpK L T7L Kopnt KacL7nt
schenInschriftenkunde, p. 85. In office
inthemiddle ACKat]ooTWnl7Kal TWl /7. t
of the firstcenturyB.C.
According to this reconstructionthe priest's name
She appears as the eponymouspriestessin a dedica- and titleswould have appeared in line 2, [- -]ov being
tion to 1\Iedeiusson of Medeius of Peiraeus (I.G., the terminationof a title such as [EPXLEpEvs b3t f3l]ov.
II2, 3490), exegete of the Eumolpidae42and archon As the monumentis dedicated to Demos in addition
around 65.43 Her fatherxvasbasileus in 88/7.44 to Justiceand (probably) Demeter and Kore, Demos
Her name should probably be restored in I.G., is probably to be regardedas a deity here. And as
II2, 4716, as follows: Demeter and Kore and Justicewerethe deitiesserved
by the dedicators, Demos may also have been so
[E7rwtEp?7as
KXEQKpa]T,7Las served; that is, the priestof 2EI3aoTT/ ALKaLoofvhir (other-
4 [01voopLXov 'A<ptb]vaLov wise unknown at Athens) may also have been a
[Ovyarpos]. priest of a cult of Demos; thus his title might be
restored as lEpEpS E-3aoTT?s ALKaEtoof-VV77S Kal Aqi\Aov]. At
Skias's restorationof [- - F}valov in line 4 is out of
Athens only a priestof the Demos and Graces is at-
place, since here we expect not a praenomen but a
tested.46Severalinscriptions whichrefer toALKaLoo-vvqf
demotic. His own majuscule text and the stone
as a god are cited by L. Robert in Melanges syriens
itselfshow that T is possible at the end of line 3.
offerts d Rene Dussaud 2 (Paris, 1939): pp. 731-732,
9. KXc,O EVKXC'oVs t4wXVs Cvy4rrap, yovcybe NCKO731,1OV includingtwo that mention ministersof the cult: a
'EpAIELOV. I.G., 112, 2879; 3261; 3530; 3604; 4720; LEpEVS ALKaLocvTvn7s (at Mylasa-Olymos)47 and a IEpEa [Et&
4721; 4722. Toepffer,1889: 98. In officefrom ft3OV? rTs] AlKalOoTVV73S Trs [7rw6cXws] (at Heracleia in
sometimein the reignof Tiberius to around 70 A.D. Caria, 73/4 A.D.).48 The lattershould perhaps be re-
storedto read IepEa [:Ef3cw-rai,] AlKaLOo1V91'S. Apparently
She occurs as the eponymouspriestesson a dedica- this cult goes back to a cult of Iustitia establishedby
tion to Tiberius (I.G., 112, 3261), on a dedicationto a Augustus and called JustitiaAugusta.49
high-priestof Tiberius (I.G., 112, 3530),46 and on the
statue base (I.G., 112, 3604) of the hearth-initiate 46 For the sanctuaryof the Demos and Graces in the Agora and
Claudia Alcia. daughter of Claudius Hinnarehmis. its priestssee R. Wycherly,The AthenianAgora, III, Literaryand
Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton, 1957), pp. 59-61. A priest
40 Hesperia 32 (1963): pp. 42-43, no. 48. of the Graces alone is attested in the decree for the daduch
41P.A., 4213. Themistocles, above, p. 51, lines 10-11 (the same person was
42 See Oliver,
Expounders,p. 146. also priest of ArtemisEpipyrgidia.)
43 For the date see Dinsmoor,ArchonsofAthensin theHellenistic 47 B.C.H. 22 (1898): p. 394, no. 42, line 5.
Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), p. 282. 4 SitzungsberichteBerlin, 1933: p. 856.
44I.G., JJ2, 1714, as dated by S. Dow, Hesperia 3 (1934): pp. 49 For a discussion of it see K. Latte, Romische Religionsge-
144-146. schichte(Munich, 1960), p. 300. The Fasti Praenestini,CI.L., I2,
45Cf. Oliver, Expounders,p. 83. p. 231, record a signumIustitiae Augustae probably dedicated by
The appearance of Cleo as eponymouspriestesson 110; a date of ca. 125 seems to be appropriate,since
the dedication in honor of Claudia Alcia shows that she is honoringher great-granddaughteras a 7rats
her tenureextended well past the middle of the first acP EOTLas.
century.5
11. KXav5%a TeL/uo06aTeLtuo6fovFapoyTTrrLov 6v-ya4rTp. As
FIRST CENTURY A.D.
eponymouspriestess:I.G., JJ2, 3584; 3585; 3586;
The dedicationI.G., JJ2, 2954, dated approximately 3587; 3588. Toepffer, 1889: p. 99. Woloch,
to the firstcentury after Christ, reads as folloxvs 1966: Claudia no. 123. In office during the
(with slightchanges at the ends of lines 1-2 because reignof Hadrian.
of space and a different interpretation of line 4):
Of the dedications on which she appears as the
[E- - ------------- qvyarp lcpna eponymous priestessI.G., JJ2, 3586 can be dated on
et co[
prosopographical groundsto the reignof Hadrian.
Kac* Trs Kopr7s
[ET1S A7/Ltn7,pOS Kat] ra
4-
9
[al PytPyvovrat
LEpELcLL c. . . . ]tat, 9alXX5Ell[] 12. KXavbia TcaTapLOV MEcva'6pov PapyqTrrLov GvyarTqp.
Ls
[evi%E/elas EVEKa KacL T?7S aES vT]a' -vEEp'yEcTlas. I.G., JJ2, 4868; Hesperia 23 (1954): p. 257, no. 42.
In officein the firstor second century.
This confirmsthe notice of Photius cited above (p.
68) that the Philleidae were a genos that supplied She dedicated two monuments, one at Eleusis
this priestess,and it shows that anothergenosas well (I.G., 112, 4868, now lost), and a statue base in the
could supply the priestess. The names of many gene Agora (Hesperia, ic. it.)54 Neither can be dated
would fit the space. The name of the dedicatee more accurately than by letter-style. She may be
probablyappeared on anotherpart of the monument. a descendant of the Menander son of Asclepiodorus
of Gargettoswho was LEpE&cTV'S KaLLA#gov
0VVKX?TOETV 'PCO/,7n]
10. 1?Xaovta Alao4,IeLa KXdETOV 4wXVCCOs
GvyarTqp. I.G., Kac Xap'Tcov.55
JJ2,3557; as eponymouspriestess:I.G., JJ2,3546;
3559; 356051;4753; 4754; 'Apx. 'Eqo.1971: p. 131, 13. E--- alias TS -,[--- -- OvyaTp6S]. I.G., 112,
no. 27. Stemma: C. P. Jones, H.S.C.P. 71 4767. First or second century.
(1966): p. 210. Toepffer, 1889: pp. 98-99.
Woloch, 1966: Flavia no. 78. In officearoundthe 14. Auw'v. I.G., JJ2, 3568. As eponymous priestess
beginningof the second centuryto sometimein on a dedicationat Eleusis of an unknownhearth-
the reignof Hadrian. initiate. First or second century.
She was the wifeof M. AnniusPythodorus,priest E. Kapetanopoulos56publisheda slightlyimproved
of Delian Apollo 113/4-125/6.52 Her son Annius edition of I.G., 112, 3568, in which the last line is
Thrasyllus was ephebe in 112/3 (I.G., 112, 2024, edited: irl lep[E-Las)] MejjE(] Atc'vs. However, MEI[I
lines 2-4). Her granddaughterAristocleia married appears to be impossible; the stone clearly shows
Junius Patron, the son of an exegete, and their Ar; the second of these letters lacks the central
daughter Junia Melitine became a hierophantid horizontal stroke characteristic of epsilon and so
(no. 9). Her other distinguishedrelatives are illus-
appears to be sigma (though gamma or pi are also
tratedin Jones'sstemma.53
Since her son was ephebe in 112/3, she could not possible). So this line should be edited as follows:
brt LEpEe.Las . 5 ]as [E.i3.] ALCPWqS. This spacing can
have been born later than 80 A.D. Jones points out
that I.G., JJ2, 3557 cannot be dated earlier than ca. be seen in Kapetonopoulos' photographofthesqueezes
(where clearly fragmentsa and c are too close to-
Augustus, and Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto, II, 6, lines 23-26, refers gether). A gentiliciumwould suit the firstlacuna
to a temple of Justicewhich Augustus had erected: withas beingthe end of it, e.g., [KXavbc]as; but the
Principe nec nostro deus est moderatiorullus:
iustitia vires temperat ille suas. second lacuna is puzzling; perhaps we must reckon
Nuper eam Caesar facto de marmoretemplo, with a defectin the stone as betweenthe second and
iam pridem posuit mentis in aede suae. thirdlettersof line 4.
Other mentionsof the cult in Italy cited by Latte are C.I.L., IX,
4133 and 5890; C.I.L., VI, 2250 is in honorof a sacerdos lustitiae,
15. [, . (K XoXXEL63Z'. Second century? A tri-
not, as Latte writes,a sacerdosIustitiae Augustae (unless Augustae
is to be restored). pod base at Delphi (B.C.H. 83 [1959]: pp. 191-
50 For the date of Claudia Alcia see stemma ad I.G., 12, 3595. 192) has on it the followinginscription,as edited
51 Kirchner omitted the last line of this inscriptionwhich was
by J. Bousquet:
correctlyrecorded by Philios: T77sKXeTrov Ovyarpo's.
tXvEcws
52 See C. P. Jones, op. cit., pp. 207-208.
53 She probably is not the priestessreferredto in line 1 of I.G., 54Here [Epeta] may have been inscribed above the firstline
JJ2, 3559; for it is doubtful whether,if she were, she would also in the center.
be inscribed again as the eponymous priestess. As a matter of 55 I.G., 3547.
.128,
fact, tepc&wvis not at all a necessaryrestoration. 566'Apx. 'Ep. 1968: p. 190,no. 18 and pl. 12a.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] PRIESTESS OF DEMETER AND KORE 75
IElca
[Jpq p pOS
a Kapns to their political offices,her father was priest of
'EXvoE[tvlwv ca-.5. ]V? (K XoX Olympian Zeus (line 6), and her cousin Aelius Ardys
was high-priestand priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus
XaE6Wv 'A[7roXXwvt flv]0wt. j<
(lines 11-12).
Restorationof Atcv-w, the priestessin I.G., 112,3568 Toepffermaintains that since some of her cousins
(see above), is possible, but would require a vacat were heralds of the Areopagus,she was the daughter
or a leaf before it, unless, as I think is preferable, of a memberof the Kerykes,on the basis of Ditten-
'EXevoe[Zvt] is to be read, in which case the lacuna berger'stheory"0that heraldsof the Areopagus in the
could hold a gentilicium: 'Eeve[ivt ...... .t]v. Empireweredrawnfromthisgenos. The Eumolpidae
Even so, the priestess'sname is farfromcertain. mentionedas heralds of the Areopagus in I.G., 112,
3592 are enough to disprove this. More substantial
Ca. 150A.D. evidenceforhermembershipin thisgenosis offeredby
A priestessof Demeterand Kore whose name is not the fact that her cousin Aelius Ardyswas high-priest,
preservedperhapsappears on a dedicationto Bradua, and the only high-priestsof known genos were
Herodes' son, as hearth-initiate (I.G., 112, 3608) Kerykes.61 But if the Kerykes were one of the gene
around the middle of the second century, but a which supplied priestessesof Demeter and Kore, one
differentrestorationby Kapetanopoulos, which ex- would expect K'lPVKE6 to be restoredin I.G., 112,2954
cludes the priestess,appears to be also a possibility.57 (see above, p. 74) so as to read: ra y'}vPet {[vI at
tEpetatyLyvovTat,K?'PVKE3, --- -j]bat, 4ItXXE66a. In this
160-170 case the restoration of another personin the line above
is required, with the result that the names of even
The priestessof Demeter and Kore appears in the moregene will have to be restoredalongside K'4PVKE3;
list of recipients of the Eleusinian endowment of so the restorationof K'lPVKE3 appears somewhat im-
160-170 (I.G., 112, 1092). Her position in this list probable, though not impossible.62 One ought to
is discussed above (pp. 35-36). consider the possibilitythat high-priestswere taken
16. AIXLta'ExirXau+4sAX 1rXwro34taX-pEw3 6v-ya6mp.fromothergenebesidesthe Kerykes,just as therewere
I.G., 112, 3687. Stemma: I.G., 12, 3687 and otherimportantpriesthoodsin Athenswhosemembers
were drawn frommore than one genos,for example,
Woloch, Historia 18 (1969): p. 510. In office
around the end of the second century. the priesthoodof Apollo Patrous.f3
A statue of herwas set up at Eleusis (I.G., 112, 3687) 17. 'IeaK-q. Eponymous priestesson a dedicationto a
by her grandson Pomponius Hegias (while he was hearth-initiate,I.G., 112,3723 (once located in a
archon) and by her granddaughterPomponia Epi- private house at Eleusis, now apparently lost).
lampsis. She must have been a very old woman if Roman period.
she lived to see her grandsonserve as archon,that is, 18. Daughter of Epigonus of Sypalletos (?). Epon-
if he served at the normal age of thirtyor above. ymous priestesson a dedication at Eleusis, I.G.,
Since hieronymywas not practicedin the case of the i12, 4096 (now on Salamis). No date is given.
priestess of Demeter and Kore, we cannot be com-
pletelysure that she was still alive at this time; but NtKOOAX ?7 KacL ;lXapa EorEdluovet 'Eppelov 6vyarm7p.
if she were dead, it is unlikely that the dedication I.G., i12, 4777 (= 4750). Priestess of Demeter and
would have been made many years afterher death. Kore?
Since her son was archon around 180 it is im- She set up a dedicationon the Acropolisto Demeter
probable that she was born after 135. Thus we Chloe.fi4 Since only the title 71ttpEtais inscribed,we
need not hesitate in regardingNotopoulos's date of cannot be certainthat she was a priestessof Demeter
"afterca. 226/7" fortheyearofhergrandson'sarchon- and Kore. The place of dedication and the goddess
ship as soinewhat unlikely58;a date around the end indicatesshe was morelikelythe priestessof Demeter
ofthesecondcenturywould be morereasonableforher Chloe. Her fatherwas probably the Theotimus son
statue base and his archonship; this was Graindor's of Tryphon of Hermos who was prytanisin 167/8
date.59 Notopoulos's argumentfor the later date is (I.G.. 112.1774. line 45). as Kirchnersuggested.
that Hegias's hoplite-generalshipcame before his
archonship,but examples of the opposite order are 60 Toepffer,1889: p. 96. Dittenberger,Hermes20 (1885): p. 37.
61 See Oliver,
available. Expounders,p. 98.
62 Ta may not referto all the gene fromwhich priestesses
The inscriptionmentionsseveralof herrelativesand were drawn. -yelJrJ
all their past officesand honors, among them the 63Polycharmusson of Eucles of Marathon was high-priestand
highest Athenian political offices. And in addition priest of Apollo Patrous (I.G., I 12, 3530: Oliver, Expounders,
p. 93). The exegete of the Eumolpidae in I.G., JJ2, 3621 was a
57 Op. cit., p. 212; and see below, p. 110. priest of Apollo Patrous; see the new edition of this inscription
58Hesperia 18 (1949): p. 39. in 'Apx. 'Eqp.1971: p. 116, no. 9.
59 1922: pp. 225-226. 64 Kirchnermistakenlyreproduced
part of it as I.G., JJ2, 4750.
Gvya4r-p. I.G.,
AtovvratA F'eXXLov evawy6pov JJ2, 2342; The priestess'sparticipationin so many Eleusinian
4824; B.C.H. 20 (1896): p. 719, as edited by Oliver, festivals(more,apparently,than even the hierophant)
Expounders,I 52. Stemma: ibid., p. 164. Around suggeststhat this priesthoodwas a very ancient part
the middleof the thirdcentury. Priestessof Demeter of the cult; and this is also apparent in her title: the
and Kore? priestessof Demeterand Kore. No other priest or
priestessof the sanctuarybears the individual names
She belongedto the verydistinguishedfamilyof the
of its goddessesin theirtitles. And it is a generalrule
Gellii of Delphi and Athens. She was an apxn't at
at Athensthat the originalministerof a goddess was a
Delphi. She is never called C"ppcta
AZrJJTpos KaL Kop773,
priestessand of a god a priest. Thus there is good
nor does she appear as eponymous priestesson an
reason to believe this priestess was probably at-
Eleusinian monument. In I.G., I12, 2342 (lines
tached to the sanctuary at an earlierdate than the
32-33) she is called A'AnrpogvòrepovtepEaa, wlhere the
hierophant.68
meaning of vio-epovis somewhat obscure,65and she
made a dedication at Eleusis as A7/irpo3LEpEta. Her Whetherher position had declined by the Roman
EpELa, is odd in comparison
title,consistentlyL\W1q,rpos period is hard to say. Certainly she was very re-
to the normal title of the priestessof Demeter and spected,as is indicatedby thededicationsto individual
Kore at this period, UEpEa
AcLZ'7jUpo0 and it
KacL KOp773,
priestessesas well as by her appearance on Eleusinian
monumentsas the eponymous priestessof the sanc-
raises doubts as to whether she filled the same
tuary (firstattested in the second centuryB.C.). In
priesthood.
J. Jannoray"6understands'apx-Ltsto mean a leader the processionofthe i\Iysteries she probablywalked at
of a group of Thyiades, apx-q the head of the groupof priestesses,perhapsalongside
t3 (E)vta5wv.
Her brother,and accordinglyher father,belonged the priestessof Athena."i
to the genosof the Kerykes.f7 Her age and maritalstatus are generallyunknown.
The restorationof a priestessin I.G., JJ2, 4768 is Aelia Epilampsis was still in officeat approximately
uncertain. seventyyears of age, but the date of her assumption
of the priesthoodis not knowin. Nothing indicates
GENERAL REMARKS that this was not a lifetimepriesthood. Some priest-
This priestessevidentlyhad an importantrole in esses had children, but it is not known whether
the telete(cf.especiallythe priestessLysistrate,no. 1), marriagewas a bar to the priesthood.
but thereis no certaininformationconcerningdetails. No certain familyrelationshipbetweenany of the
In thecultin general,scatteredtestimoniashowthat priestessesis attested with certainty; thus heredity
she had a strongposition. In the fifth centuryshewas appears to be ruledout as the metlhodof appointment.
in chargeof a special expensefundof 1,600drachmas, They were probably chosen either by election or
though apparently she had nothingto do with the by lot fromamong daughtersof membersof the genos
aiapx?b which was administeredby the hierophant of the Philleidae and one other genos (and perhaps
and daduch. In 415 one priestess defied the state others).
70
and all other Eleusinian sacred officialsin refusing She lived in a "sacred house" witlhin
thesanctuary.7'
to curse Alcibiades. In the fourth century legal
battles were foughtbetween her and the hierophant IV. SACRED HERALD ('IEqoijpvut)
over sacral rights,and in one case a hierophantwas
convicted of impiety for usurpingher rightsat the In none of the very few testimoniafor the sacred
Haloa where she was the principal celebrant. She herald before the Roman period is the designation
also had a principalrole at the Eleusinia; in addition, tEpOK7pVU used.'
she was involved in thefestivalsof theThesmophoria He is called simplyO K7pUt in the charge made
and probablyalso the Calamaea. In one inscription against Alcibiades for impersonatingthe hierophant,
in which the hierophant,daduch, and priestess of the daduch, and the (sacred) herald.2 Since the
Demeter and Kore are mentioned (I.G., 112, 204), charge referredto the revealing of at least part of
only she and the hierophantare requested to make a the very essence of the M\Iysteries, the hiera, the
sacrifice. At this time, then, it would appear that sacred herald obviously had a part in the secret
the priestessof Demeterand Kore and the hierophant ceremonieswllichtook place withinthe Telesterion.
were the two most importantreligiousofficialsof the
sanctuary. 68This is also the conclusion of Foucart (1914: pp. 216-220)
and D. Feaver (Y.C.S. 15 [1957]: p. 125).
65 It may have a parallel in Pseudo-Plutarch, Lives of the Ten 69 See the discussion above, pp. 35-36, of I.G., IJ2, 1092.
Orators,843b (= Expounders,p. 137, T 30): 4)Xt7rr 7TtS tepaaaTo 70 See above, pp. 68 and 74-75.
,r1s 'AO-vis VaTepo*' irp6TepOl 6' aVTr'v -yr'7uasALOKXS. . . It would 71 See above,p. 71.
seem to mean here that she became a priestess after having 1 The LepO'S K1pVu in Pseudo-Demosthenes, Against Neaera, 78,
married. was probably not the Eleusinian sacred herald (see Toepffer,
66B.C.H. 70 (1946): p. 259. 1889: p. 184).
67
Geagan, 1967: p. 169, line 212. 2 Plutarch, Alcibiades, 22; see above, pp. 15-16.
VCL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 SACRED HERALD 77
Ca. 460 B.C. were all religious officials. Included among the
According to a law issued around this time,3he latter was the sacred herald Dionysius. Demo-
received one obol from each initiate during the stratus, son of Dionysius of Pallene, who was more
Mysteries. likelythe sacred herald's son than his father,appears
among thegroup"chosen by the genosof the Kerykes"
1. KXeOKPLTOS. Xenophon,Hellenica, II, 4, 20. P.A., (line 25), thus providinggood evidencethat his father
8570. In officein 403. the sacred herald was a member of this genos and
This man, called 6 rJ'VIAvO-r73vK?7pV$, made a speech that the officeof sacred herald was traditionallyfilled
to the followersof the Thirtyshortlyafterthe battle fromthisgenos.8
in the Peiraeus between them and the Democrats. A InpVt ravays with the name Theophilus son of
His speech makes no specificallusionto the IMvysteries, M1enecrates of Cholleidai follows the sacred herald
but it is prefaced with the interestingstatement: in the group of priestsin this document. Thus the
KXr6KplTOK 6 TCt)V .VOL7TCZ)V
firstfourpriestsmentionedare in the followingorder:
K?7pV?, /aA ErVpwvos,KaTacJtw7r?7lo-
I
/EvO X
EXE~Ev. Euphonia was naturally a desirable
thealtar-priest,
theiivpspopos (whowas also thepriest
characteristicfor a sacred herald, as it was also for of the Graces and ArtemisEpipyrgidia),the K?7pVt rac'
GEaiv, and the ravpay'S K 1pV4. With this may be com-
the hierophant.
pared the order of the three priestswho appear at
Ca. 330-ca. 270 theend of I.G., 12, 69: [r]ov Er' r6t oM&tLEpEca KaL T0[v
In a list of sacrificesconnected with Eleusinian - - Irov OEOLJvKat rov LEpELa rO[v ravayi]. Foucart
cults which was inscribed in this period one entry4 restoredhere the second priestas ro[v scac6vvr&E].
ordains that the KUVpVt iS to be treated to a meal to- But the appearance in the decree forThemistoclesof
getherwith the hierophanton the fifthday of Pyan- the crapa-yi3 K?7pVt (who is also called elsewhereK?7pVt
opsion, when theywent to Athensand announcedthe wravway9) Kac tEpEs)10 so highin thelistof priests ofthe
festival of the Proerosia. We have no reason to Kerykes indicates that he was a rather important
identifythis "herald" as any but the sacred herald priest; thus one should probably not expect to find
himself.5 On this occasion the sacred herald was the in I.G., 12,6 the phaedyntes, a rarelyattestedofficial,"
"voice" of the hierophant.A between the ravay's and the altar-priest,but rather,
as in the list in the decree for Themistocles: ro[P
20/19B.C.
KEpVKa ! i]ov OEoiv. This in fact fitsthe space perfectly.
In the decree honoringthe daduch Themistocles
20/19) he is called o K77pVt raiv Ocaiv, and the name 8 The great-grandsonof this sacred herald was hoplite general
ofthe incumbentat thistimewas: in 45/6: see I.G., 112, 3242 and Dinsmoor, Hesperia 30 (1961):
p. 194. He was also priestof the goddess Rome and the Emperor,
2. Aovv'tos ArnuoorparovHTaXXqvv,s.Above, p. 51, line
a priesthood that was the precursorof the high-priesthood,the
12. In officein 20/19. incumbentsof which were mostly if not always membersof this
genos (see Oliver, Expounders,pp. 85-98).
Previous writerswho treated the sacred herald did It seems probable that the group of priestlyofficialswho spoke
not have available to them any specific testimonia in company with those chosen by the Kerykes representsall those
provingthat the sacred herald belonged to the genos Kerykes who were at that time holding a priesthood. If this is
of the Kerykes, even though it seemed inescapable true,our document takes on an even greatervalue, presentingus
with a list of all priesthoodscontrolledby this genosat this time.
that this was his genos. Good evidence can now be The hypothesiswould then explain the distinctionmade between
foundin the decree forthe daduch Themistocles (no. them and "the chosen": a motion was passed in a special as-
16). The decree was proposed by a group of men, sembly of the Kerykes that the genos should propose to the
with one of them,Diotimus son of Diodorus of Halai, Demos that the Demos honor Themistocles the daduch; this
acting as spokesman. The group consisted of: motion also specifiedthat the proposal should be brought before
the Demos by all priestlymembers of the genos and by twenty
twenty men "chosen by the genos of the Kerykes," other memberschosen specificallyforthis purpose. The author-
who were thereforeundoubtedly members of the ization of the latter group by the genos had to be stated when
genos,7 in company with (/AEra):a group of men who theymadethe proposal(oLKaTacoTaGEvTEs iro'roi Klp1'K&WJ-}4voVs),
but the priestswere well known as membersof this genos,in fact
I I.G., I2, 6; for a new edition of the relevant part see above, as its most distinguished members and its natural spokesmen,
pp. 10-11; for the restorationof the sacred herald in line 47 see hence no statement of authorization was needed for them.
below, p. 77, no. 2. Other evidence that the sacred heralds were taken from the
4I.G., JJ2, 1363, as edited by Dow and Healey, A Sacred Kerykes is the fact that the grandson of Nicagoras (no. 12) was
Calendar of Eleusis (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), line 2. a daduch. The best evidence is, now, the letter of Marcus
5 Ibid., pp. 18-19. Aurelius which shows that Mamertinus tried to change his
6See above, p. 22. genosto the Kerykes in order to become a sacred herald (see dis-
7 Cf. W. S. Ferguson, Hesperia 7 (1938): p. 51, and Oliver, cussion below, append. IV, p. 122); the above discussion was
Expounders,p. 149. There is certainlyno evidence that anyone writtenbeforethis letterwas available to me.
in thisgroupwas not a member,and Themistoclesson of Xenocles 9 See the new edition of this section above, pp. 10-11.
of Hagnous (line 23), the cousin of the daduch Themistocles, 10I.G., 112, 5048.
certainlywas a member. "He is discussed below, p. 95.
EARLY SECOND CENTURY A.D. The year 117/8looks as thoughit werean extremely
Suetonius wrote that the emperor Nero did not active one forthis sacred herald. However,when we
attend the Mysterieson his journey throughGreece considerthat the officesof hoplite general and gym-
in 66/7 because he was afraidof being turnedaway12: nasiarchwerelargelyfinancialin natureat thistime,'6
"Eleusiniis sacris,quoruminitiationeimpiiet scelerati and that the tasks of the sacred herald in connection
voce praeconis summoventur,interesse non ausus with the Mysteriesand other Eleusinian cults were
est." Whetheror not thiswas Nero's truemotivefor probably limited to those few occasions (in addition
not attending,we do learn herethat it was the sacred to the actual celebration of the Mysteries) when a
herald who made the announcementof the prorrhesis herald's special talents were necessary,17the simul-
of the Mysteries,whereasall othertestimoniaforthe taneous undertaking of all these magisterial and
prorrhesismentiononly "Eumolpidae and Kerykes" priestlyburdens may not even have demanded con-
or "hierophantand daduch."13 Thus on thisoccasion siderable energy; but it certainlyattests that he was
the sacred herald would accompany the hierophant a very wealthyand distinguishedman.
and the daduch and do the actual speakingforthem, At some time beforehe was sacred herald he filled
just as he did forthe hierophantalone at theprorrhesis the officeof "epimeleteof the city,""8an officewhich
of the Proerosia.14 was filledby "only the most importantmen in the
city. '19
FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY A.D. In none of the inscriptionswhichwereerectedwhen

The title tEpOKipVt occurs in a fragmentof a catalog he was servingas sacred heraldis hieronymy observed.
(I.G., 112, 1947) whose nature is obscure, dated by His son's career consistedof the agonothesiaof the
Kirchnerto "saec. I/II post." The title LEpEv's,1rpos Great Caesarea, the priesthood of Demos and the
OE,)valso occurs in it; hence he called it a "catalogus Graces, and leadership of the Stoic School, all of
sacerdotalis." The inscriptionis too fragmentary for whichoccurredbeforehis archonshipin 117/8.20 We
us to ascertainwhether
thetitletEpOKqpvt belongswith do not know whetherhe was ever sacred herald. Of
the name that precedes it or with the name that the sacred herald's grandsonall that is knownis that
followsit. he was ephebic gymnasiarchin 112/3-125/6.21
3. TLros Kw7rctwtosMa4tAos'Ayvovotos. I.G., 112, 1072, 4. AOVRKtOs Fapyrrtos. I.G., 112,
NovIitos NpEivos
lines4-6; 3187; 3571; 3573; 3798; 4481; Hesperia 2342, line 8; 3574; 4069; 4070; 'Apx. 'Er. 1971:
11 (1942): p. 39, no. 8, lines 18-22. Woloch,1966: pp. 131-132, no. 29. Woloch, 1966: Nummius
Coponius no. 3. In officefromsometime before no. 5, withstemma,p. 84. In officebefore166/7.
117/8 to 119/20or later.
He was epimeleteof the Asclepieumsometimebe- He was the fatherof Nummia Bassa, who married
tween 85/6 and 94/5 (I.G., 12, 4481), at whichtime the daduch Praxagoras and also L. Nummius Phae-
he was not sacred herald; he was again epimeleteof dreas of Phaleron (who was perhaps a Eumolpid).22
this sanctuaryat an unknowndate (I.G., 112, 3187), Hieronymywas observed on monumentsin which he
still not sacred herald; and again in 119/20 (I.G., 112, appears while alive. His identity is revealed in a
3798), when he was sacred herald. In 117/8, the genealogical table inscribedaround the beginningof
year of the archonship of his son Titus Coponius of the fourthcentury (I.G., 12, 2342, line 8), where
Maximus, he was simultaneouslyhoplite general and the sacred herald Nigrinusis listed as the fatherof
gymnasiarch for the second time, priest of Ares Bassa. A monumenterected after his death (I.G.,
Enyalius, Enyo, and Zeus Geleon, as well as sacred 112,
3574) is preservedwith the inscriptionNov'(AAtoS)
herald (I.G., 112, 1072, lines 4-6). A dedication to
Neyp6vos certainly the same man.
him as hoplite general and gymnasiarchfor the first tEpOK?pV4,
time, thereforebefore117/8, is also preserved (I.G., Possibly he is the sacred herald in the aeisitoi list
112, 3573), at whichtime he was already IEpOKipVt TOLlV of I.G., 112, 1789 (see below, append. IV).
NEO V. 15
16
It would be more accurate to say that the hoplitegeneralship
12 Nero, 34. Cf. Foucart, Revue de Philologie 17 (1893): p. 199. could be largelyfinancial,with some of its authoritydelegated to
13 Scholion to
Aristophanes' Frogs, 369: lrapa T2VP TOU IEpOfOAVTOv others; see Geagan, 1967: pp. 30-31, and for the gymnasiarch,
KaCL60obXov lrp6ppfloLV
T2V bE Tfl 7rOLKIX7J
oTOa; Isocrates, Panegyricus, ibid., pp. 128-132, and above, p. 36, n. 182.
157: E,u0oXwrL'aL 6e KaL KrpvKES e'V Tnl TEXET77 TV /IVO-T2P7AV ..V . KaCL TOIS 17 That is, he was probably not responsible for administrative
dxxots f3ap3dipoLs elp-yeaOaL TCop LEpWp c'3O7rEp TOLS &Vbpo(o6PoLs matters as the hierophantand daduch were.
irpoa-yopevoLv; cf. Theonof Smyrna,p. 14 (ed. Hiller): OvTE -yap 18 Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 39, no. 8, 15-22.
acrcLO TOLS 3OVXO/e.pOLs .LeTovULa
CAVO-T27pLCP EaOTLV, a'XX' eLaP 0)ous aVTCTIV 19Geagan, op. cit., pp. 117-118.
dp-yeoGaL 7rpoayopelfETaL, o01o0TOUVSXeLpas I73 KaGapa'S KaCL (pwpn7p di~VpeTOZv 20LG., I12, 3571 and 1072, line 1. See Woloch, 1966: Coponius
eXOPTas. no. 4.
14 See above, p. 22. 211.G., JJ2, 2029, line 21. See Woloch, 1966: Coponius no. 5.
11The same title is a certain restoration in I.G., I12, 3571, a 22 LG., I12, 4069-4070; 2342, line 8. On Phaedreas see above,
dedication in honor of his son. p. 40.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] SACRED HERALD 79
160-170 He was the successor of Herennius. His name
The position of the sacred herald in the list of occurs hieronymouslyin the aeisitoi lists cited above
recipientsof the Eleusinian endowmentof 160-170 (in I.G., 112, 1790, in second place, ahead of the
(I.G., IJ2, 1092) and in the prohedriaseating in the daduch).28 He may have been the son of the previous
Theater of Dionysus is discussed above (pp. 35-36) Nummiuswho was sacred herald (no. 4).
and below, append. III.
LATE SECOND OR THIRD CENTURY A.D.
5. HEavaptos. I.G., I12, 1773 (166/7 A.D.); 1774 (167/8
A.D.); 1775 (168/9 A.D.); 1776 (169/70 A.D.). In A prytanylist dated by Oliver to the "late second
officefrom 166/7 or earlier to at least 169/70, or thirdcenturyafterChrist" contains the following
probably to 174/5. heading29:
His name occurs, hieronymously,only in the ['E}ri [E"pxo}ro[s ------ ]
aeisitoi lists indicated above, for the years 166/7 to JEPQ[K]7PVKOS I?--- -p-O pvTvaEls]
169/70.23 He may have been the fatherof C. Pinarius
Proculus of Hagnous, who was archon sometimebe- The archon was a sacred herald,and accordingto the
tween 180/1 and 191/2.24 usual order of the sacred herald's name, nomen-
hierokeryx-demotic, [E- --] must be the beginning
6. HI7rXtos'Epevvtos 'IEPOK?7PVS 'AwroXwvtov
'Ep/IEtos.I.G., of dIaLX?pEv'
of his demotic. One thinksimmediately
12, 1782 (ca. 180)25; 1788 (174/5); 1798 (190/1); and a possible descendant of L. Nummius Phaedreas
1792 (191/2 or 192/3); Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 36, of Phaleron,the husband of Nummia Bassa, daughter
no. 6 (ca. 186); I.G., 112, 3665; 3666. Stemma: of the sacred herald Nummius Nigrinus. But the
ad I.G., 112, 3665. In officefrom174/5 to about Nummius who was hierophant around this time
192. (hierophantno. 27) definitely had thedemoticItac?pEVs
His name occurs in hieronymousform in five and is thereforealso to be considered as a possible
aeisitoi lists (the firstfiveinscriptionscited above).26 descendant of Nummius Phaedreas. Thus it would
It is suggestedin appendix IV that he took officein be best not to assign Phaedreas with certainty to
174/5, the year in which M\arcusAureliusruled that eithergenos,and to leave the archonHierokeryxof the
the electionof Mamertinuswas invalid and called for deme IE--] unidentifieduntil more informationis
a new election. His last appearance in an aeisitoi available.
list, I.G., 112,1792, would have been in 191 or 192.27
He dedicated a herm to his fatherApollonius the 8. (l67rXtos) 'Epr'vvtos'1pOKflpvt "EpIEwos, I.G., 112,
sophist (I.G., 12, 3665), and since he has a Roman 1077, line 42. Stemma: ad I.G., 112, 3665. In
name in this inscriptionwhereas his fatherdoes not, officein 209/10.
he may have been the firstin his familyto receive He probably succeeded Nummius. He was the
Roman citizenship. One of his sons was a sacred son of sacred heraldno. 6, P. Herenniusson of Apollo-
herald (see below, no. 8), the otherwas a sophistand nius of Hermos (see stemma). He is probably not
heraldof theAreopagus (see stemma). His grandson, identical with P. Herennius Ptolemaeus, the sophist,
P. HerenniusDexippus (see below,p. 96), thehistorian herald of the Areopagus, polemarch,and agonothete
and organizerof the defenseagainst the Herulians in of the Greater [Asclepi]eia30;forif this were so, I.G.,
267, also sharedin the Eleusiniancult,as t-pEivswrapawcys. I12, 3667-3668 would have to be dated to the be-
I.G., 112, 3666, a dedication by the city to his son ginningof the thirdcenturyratherthan the middle,
Ptolemaeus, is dated by Kirchner to the beginning but I.G., 112, 3667 was dedicated by his son Dexippus
of the third century,but because his father's name who probablywas not born before200.31
is given hieronymouslyas H 'EpCrnitos 'IEPOKflVp, it
should be dated instead to 174/5-ca. 192. 9. '1ovXtos'1EPOKflPVS
'IovXLovMovOcLwLov(2erapLevis). Ap-
pend. VII (= I.G., 112, 4075 + 4083). In office
7. No'VtAos'IJpOKflpvi. I.G., 112, 1806 (ca. 194); 1790
(ca. 197); 1789 ?). In
(204/5
ca. 225.
office from around
194 to at least around 197.
28 For the dates see append. IV. For a new reading of I.G.,
23Also restored in I.G., JJ2, 1781 (169/70) and Hesperia 11 JJ2, 1790 see above, p. 40. The date of I.G., JJ2, 1789 is not com-
(1942): p. 50, no. 18 (168/9). pletely certain; see append. IV. In 195/6 complete hieroymny
24This man's grandfathermay have been Pinarius Proculus, was observed; only the title hierokeryx appears in the list (I.G.,
ephebe between 112 and 125/6. See Woloch, 1966: Pinarius JJ2, 1806a), in second place again, with the daduch third.
no. 1. Notopoulos (Hesperia 18 [1949]: p. 22) dates the year 29Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 66, no. 31.
of the archon to 190/1 or 191/2. 30I.G., JJ2, 3666-3668; S.I.G.3, 877D; cf. F. Millar, J.R.S. 59
25 An improved reading of the herald's name in line 51 can be (1969): p. 19. I would restore the lacuna of line 5, I.G., JJ2,
given: ['E]pev" 'IEPoKE&pv0]. On the date see above, p. 61, n. 101. 3668 to read iAEEjy iXcv 'AOKX?77rL]EhV; cf. I.G., JJ2, 3614 and IV2,
26 For their dates see appendix IV and above, note 25 and 691, line 3; this is also recommendedby the fact that 3688 was
below, note 27. set up in the Asclepieum.
27 For the date see above, p. 38, note 200. 31On his dates cf. Millar, op. cit., pp. 19-21.
His fatherJulius Musonius held very distinguished be identifiedwith the ephebe JuliusCassius of Steiria
political and religious offices;he was herald of the in a list of ca. 1604 and withthe C. JuliusCassius
Areopagus,hoplitegeneral,agonotheteoftheOlympia, who was ephebic basileus in 161/2.41 Both of these
priest of Olympian Zeus in Athens, and phaedyntes used Cassius as a cognomen. The first known
of Zeus at Olympia. As Kirchnernoticed,32 he seems memberof the other familyis C. Julius Cassianus
to be identical with P 'loVXMovo-c'vtos TeT(tptevs) who Apolloniuswho was anticosmetein 158/9and cosmete
was ephebe in 161/2.33 If so, we may date the dedica- in 161/2; in connectionwith the firstofficehis name
tion edited in appendix VII and the term of his son appears as Kaat(avos) 'A7roXX&vtos zTEtpLEVI42 and
Julius Hierokeryxto the firstquarter of the third Kaoavos 'A7roXXWvwos 2fr pev's,43 and in connectionwith
centuryor perhaps slightlylater, a date also recom- the second, F 'lovXcos KaoLavos 'A7roXXW'vtos zELpLEVS.44
mended by the difficulty of fittinghis term into the His son is to be identifiedwiththe Kao-cavos 'A7roXXWcVoS
list of knownsacred heraldsof 165-210. 2TELp1lEVS who was prytanis around 21045 and the F Kao-
In I.G., 112, 4066 a Julius Optatus dedicated a 'A7roXXWc'vos 27TELp6vswho was archon in 207/8,46in
statue of his daughterJulia Rufinaas a thank-offeringwhich case the abbreviation should be resolved as
to Eileithyia. Accordingto appendix VII a [---]a Kacw(tavos), not Kao(tos) as traditionally. The [F]
'Povwe-Eva is the motherof the presentsacred herald. Kao- (avos) ['Ao]XX os [pLVS who was hoplite
If Kirchner'sdate for4066, "beforethe middleof the generalin 188/947was morelikelythe fatherthan the
second century," is correct,they may be the same son. The presentsacred herald probably belongs to
person. this familyand is possibly the son, unless the pre-
viouslydiscussedherald,no. 9, Juliusson of Musonius
10. Kacavo's '1EPOKiPV 2;TGPtfVS. I.G., 112,2241; 3707. of Steiria belongs to the same family and the two
In officein 230/1. heraldsare in realityidentical.48
The archon in the year 230/1 was Kacavo's '1JEPOKiPV The same form of his name (but lacking the
2mteptev.34 The formof the name is a bit unusual. demotic) occurs on a base erectedin his honorby the
The rule of hieronymydemanded that the priest's polis, where he is called rOv a4p'&'rrLasAvo-frqv Kac-tavOV
Greek name be suppressed; thus, if the priest was 'IEpOK-pVKa. He is the first Eleusinian sacred official
a Roman citizen,he suppressedhis cognomenor one up to now in thisstudywho was also a hearth-initiate.
of his cognomina. Here the Greek name was sup- The same inscriptionmentionsthat he was once am-
pressed and a Roman cognomenis used as a nomen. bassador to Britain at his own expense, agonothete
However,the practiceofusinga cognomenas a nomen of the Hadrianeia, general, eponymous archon, and
was often followed by families who had a rather then the stone breaks off.
commonnomen; theywould drop the nomenand use
a distinctivecognomenin its place. We do know in 11. (Map 'lowvos)NCKawyo6pas Mvjo-actov. I.G., 12, 3814.
fact an Athenian familyof this period which had a Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, II, p. 127 (ed.
common nomen and sometimesused Cassianus with Kayser). Suda, s.v. NCKavyopas. W. Stegemann,
thisnomenbut sometimesused just Cassianus as their R.E. 17 (1936): coll. 216-217. Stemma: 0.
nomen: the Julii of Steiria. Oliver, in another con- Schissel, Kijo 21 (1927): p. 371. In officefrom
nection,suggested that this familyis not related to before 238 to the reign of Philip the Arab
Apollonius the sophist and hierophant (no. 29).35 (244-249).
Raubitschek3"and Woloch37have listed the evidence On a monumenterected afterhis death (I.G., JJ2,
forthe Juliiof Steiria,but both of themin myopinion 3814) he is called o -rc; IfpJV KfpVt Kal 'T' frS KacG6paS
confusetwo families.38 I thinkthat the familiescan ot-r7s lXovr4apXOVKac EKOJTOV rcow OpioapOcv EK7OVOS.
be separated in the followingway. The archon of
125/6was C. JuliusCassius of Steiria.A9 His son is to 40 I.G., IP1,2081, line 22.
41 I.G., JJ2, 2085, lines 52-53.
32 I.G., JJ2, 4083. 42I.G., 112, 3012; cf.C.P. 29 (1934): p. 150.
33 I.G., JJ2, 2085, line 24. 43 I.G., 112, 2079, lines 3-4.
34 For the date see L. Moretti, Iscrizioni AgonisticheGreche 44I. G., 112, 2085.
(Rome, 1953), pp. 202-203, who shows that the same man is 45 I.G., 112, 1826, line 15.
46 I.G., 112, 2199, line 7; for the date see Notopoulos, Hesperia
named as the archon in I.G., JJ2, 1832 and 2230 (= Mitsos, 'Apx.
'Eso. 1950-1951: p. 47, no. 29), and that the restorationof this 18 (1949): pp. 34 and 53.
man in I.G., JJ2, 2242 is wrong. 47 Hesperia, Supplement8 (1949): p. 282, lines 7-8 and Hesperia
35 Hesperia 36 (1967): pp. 334-335; see above in connection 11 (1942): p. 60, no. 25, where "the scribe or stone cutter re-
with hierophantno. 29. solved the abbreviation Kao- erroneously"as Kao-oolov(quotation
36 Hesperia, Supplement 8 (1949): p. 283, n. 5. fromOliver, 1970: p. 107, n. 8).
37 Woloch, 1966: p. 143. 48 Perhaps also a memberof this familyis Cassianus Philippus
38And so I regard Oliver's stemma in Marcus Aurelius (1970: of Steiria, hoplite general around 220 (I.G., 112, 1817), who may
p. 107, n. 8) as somewhat hypothetical but I agree that it is also be the archon to be restored in I.G., 112, 2242, now that
probably a question of two closely related families. Moretti (loc. cit.) has shown that Cassianus the sacred herald
39 I.G., JJ2, 2037, line 3 and Inscriptionsde Delos, 2536, line 25. cannot be restoredhere.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] SACRED HERALD 81
He was a contemporaryand friendof Philostratus, cluded in the list of sacred officialsof the genosof the
who refersto him as NtKayo6paso 'AOtr1aios, os Ka' To5 Kerykes who proposed the decree of 20/19 honoring
'EXEvotwovIEpov KijpVt (o-TE'Ot, but because of their the daduch Themistocles,at this time, too, he was
friendshiprefusedto treat his life and work. Hence undoubtedlyconsidereda priest. And if our restora-
he was already sacred herald at the time Philostratus tionofI.G., I2, 6 is correct,he is listed,around460 B.C.,
was writing (before 238),49 and thereforecertainly betweenthe altar-priestand the priest"all-hallowed"
came after,and most probably succeeded, Cassianus as a recipientof emolumentsat the Mysteries. Not
(archon and sacred herald in 230/1).5 His lifetime long afterwards,in the chargeagainst Alcibiades he is
extended to the reign of Philip the Arab, to whom associated withthe hierophantand thedaduch. Thus
he sent a 7rpEcY'EVTLKOS XO-yos,"5but probably did not he was probably considereda priest,or at least had
extendmuch beyond 250 if at all.52 the status of a priest,as early as the Classical period.
His otherwritingsincludeda Famous Lives (written His functionin the cult was evidentlysimplythat
perhaps with the work of his ancestor Plutarch in of herald. He accompanied the hierophant and
mind) and a piece called IIEpt'KXEoWraTpas T-Is E& Tpwap& daduch at the prorrhesisof the Mysteries,and under
(probably a rhetoricalmodel forhis students).53 He their authority, made the actual announcement."5
held the sophistic chair (0O(Ctori1S EwrtLT7S Ka6E'pas) He did the same for the hierophant alone at the
originallyestablished by Marcus Aurelius. The son Proerosia.57
of a great-grandsonof a sibling of Plutarch, he, like It was shownabove that the hierophanthad a large
othermembersof his distinguishedfamily54 of orators, speaking role duringthe secretceremonieswithinthe
sophists,and philosophers,was proud of his descent Telesterion, and it would seem that he alone pro-
fromthe great writer. nounced the secrets. The herald had a different role.
His grandson 1\I.Junius Nicagoras was daduch in Accordingto a passage in Sopater (VIII, p. 118, ed.
the early fourthcentury (see above, daduch no. 30). Walz), the sacred herald nrpo'ravTo ETrTcATTEL 6-qorAvt.a
This is the firstdirect relationshipknown between a rv o-tcoirtv. The hierophant, apparently, was not
sacred herald and a daduch; in all other known expected to shout above the din of the throng of
cases theyhave always belongedto relativelyseparate initiatesto demand theirattention; this was the task
families. of the herald.
The statementof Philostratusindicatesthat crown- Certainly his services must have been required
ing was involved in the ceremonyof installingthe oftenalso duringthe procession,to announce instruc-
sacred herald. Also interesting is the fact that tions to the initiatesor to call forsilence.
Nicagoras is called o rc?-PIEpCO K77pVt and o Tov EXEvrtvltov We can inferthatin thesecondcenturyA.D. appoint-
tEpOVKqpVt butnotIIEpOKqpV(, and thatPhilostratus
was ment to this priesthoodwas by election; forthe fact
not disturbed by not observingthe custom of hier- that some of the heralds are related to one another
onymy. It does not seem advisable to argue that casts doubt on allotment,and the lack of sufficiently
Nicagoras was already dead, since thereis no reason consistentfamilyrelationshipsrules against heredity.
to dispute the notice in the Suda. Welcome confirmationof this is now given by the
letter of Marcus Aurelius of 174, which mentions
GENERAL REMARKS electionsforthis office.58
Foucart was of the opinion that the sacred herald The priesthoodwas for life. No living ex-heralds
was neithera priest nor a magistrate. This cannot are known,and the use of hieronymy(which began
be true. Only priests and magistrateswere seated forthemsometimein the second quarterof the second
in the firstrow of the Theater of Dionysus, and the century)is in agreementwith this.
sacred herald was among them (I.G., 112, 5043).55 Nothing is known as to whetherage was a factor
Since no argumentcan be made that he was a magi- in theirappointment. In the Roman periodpersonal
strate, it followsthat in the second centuryA.D. he prestigeprobablyhelpedverymuch; practicallyevery
certainlyhad at least the status of a priest. In addi- one of themcame froma familyof civic, religious,or
tion, he is associated with other Eleusinian priestsin academic distinction. One would naturally assume
the aeisitoi lists, and in the Eleusinian Endowment that the officewas highlycoveted at this time, and
list he appears next to the altar-priest. As he is in- this is indeed vividlyrevealed by the letterof Marcus
Aurelius." Vocal properties may also have been
49For 238 as terminusante quem for Philostratus's Lives see taken into consideration,though our only evidence
Bowersock, 1967: p. 7 and above, pp. 41-42, n. 232. for this dates fromthe end of the fifthcenturyB.C.:
60 This gives 230/1 as a good terminuspost quem for Philostra-
afterthe battle in the Peiraeus betweenthe followers
tus's Lives.
61 Suda, loc. cit.
52Cf. Schissel, op. cit., p. 368. 56 See above, p. 56.
63Cf. Stegemann, op. cit., col. 217. 6 See above, p. 22.
6 The familyis well described by Schissel, op. cit. 58Oliver, 1970: p. 4, lines 11-13.
55Cf. append. III. 69 Cf. discussion above, pp. 61-63.
of the Thirty and the Democrats a sacred herald determinedon the basis of the stemma and the dis-
(no. 1) silenced a crowd and gave a speech; the cussion of the decree above, pp. 50-53.
heraldis describedas 6a)X'Ev`CLpWos.
1. 271Uwp.Decree for Themistocles, above, p. 51,
In regardto his installationit is stated60that he was
line 55. In officesometimebeforethe end of the
crowned,whichperhapsrefersto a myrtlecrown; for
thirdcentury.
the strophionis not attestedforthe sacred herald.6'
The sacred herald could hold other priesthoods His relationshipto Themistoclesis unknown.
simultaneously(see no. 3).
2. 'IEPOKXEt6t7s. Decree for Tlhemistocles,above, p.
51, line 55. In officesometimebeforethe end of
V. ALTAR-PRIEST ('Iv. v i U) the thirdcentury.
Of the functionof this priest nothing is known His relationshipto Themistoclesis unknown.
beyond what is apparent fromhis title, that he had
3. 'AvrtLCv. Decree for Themistocles,above, p. 51,
somethingto do with an altar. Foucart suggested
line 55. In officesometimebeforethe end of the
that "he stood near the altar, probably in charge of
perhaps thirdcentury.
strikingthe victimsofferedat the \Iysteries,
also makingcertain that they fulfilledthe conditions He wAasaltar-priest6ta' 3tov. His relationshipto
of acceptability, and marking them with a sign."' Themistoclesis unknowxn.
There was more than one altar at Eleusis; Demeter
and Kore each had her own.2 'Exrl3c,ug4 is indefinite 4. 'AvrtpCOv. Decree for Themistocles,above, p. 51,
and could signifythat he performedfunctions at lines 49-50. Stemma: table 1, above, p. 58. In
both; the occasional (evidentlyunintentional)use of officearound the end of the thirdcentury.
the title irl jBuJw(see below) indicates that in fact He was firstaltar-priestand then daduch (no. 8).
he did. altar-priest.
He was a second cousin7of the followTing
Ca. 460 B.C.
5. f'tXto-r6-s'A-yvovi%tos.Decree for Tlhemistocles,
On thesteleerectedaround460 containingextensive above, p. 51, lines49-50. Stemma: table 1, above,
regulationsconcerningthe priests and the cult, the p. 58. In officearound the beginningof the second
remunerationsof the altar-priest,the [sacred herald], century.
and the priest [all-hallowed] were appended to the
inscriptionby a differenthand fromthat which en- He too became a daduch (no. 9) afterhaving first
graved the main body of the inscription.3 The altar- served as an altar-priest. He was a second cousin of
priest'sremunerationwas one obol fromeach initiate. Antiphon, the precedingaltar-priest.
6. ftXotEvE1 'Aoyvo-yotos.DecreeforThemi-
LXs W-tX6oV
THIRD TO FIRST CENTURIES B.C. stocles,above, p. 51, lines 42-43. Stemma: table
Several altar-priests4are mentionedin the decree 1, above, p. 58. In officein the firsthalf of the
of 20/19 forthe daduch Themistoclesof Hagnous, as second century.
relatives of his.5 In addition, an altar-priest is He too became a daduch afterhaving firstserved
mentionedat the head of the list of the priestsof the as an altar-priest. He probably directlysucceeded
genos of the Kerykes who proposed this decree,6 his father.
which shows that the altar-priestwas drawn from
this genos. Immediately following him are the 7. Kqprto-6O&pos 'Ayvov'utos.DecreeforThe-
ItXto-rL6ov
pyrphorosand priest of Charites and Artemis Epi- mistocles, above, p. 51, lines 43-44. Stemma:
pyrgidia (one person) and then the sacred herald table 1, above, p. 58. In officearound the middle
(lines 8-12). If any protocol is observed here, the of the second century.
altar-priestranked higher in prestige at this time
than the sacred herald,as he perhaps did also in the He w:as the brotherof Philoxenidesand probably
fifthcentury(see above). succeeded him in this priesthood,wi-hen Philoxenides
The dates of the followingaltar-priestsmentioned resigned and assumed the dadouchiia. He wTasthe
in this decree as relativesof Themistocleshave been grandfatherof Themistocles(daduch no. 14).
8. A6V'Tmos 22OpOKXEOVS'AXapVEbs. Decree for Themis-
60 See Nicagoras, no. 12.
61 But see below, p. 116. tocles, above, p. 51, lines 41-42. Stemma: table
1 1914: p. 205. 1, above, p. 58. In officein the second half of
2 ICG., 112, 1672, line 141; 3585.
the second century,probably succeeding Cephiso-
3 See the new edition above, pp. 10-11.
4 Called throughout'Ewri Bco,uo5.
dorus.
I See text and discussion above, pp. 50-53.
6 On this list see above, p. 77, n. 8. 7 See above, pp. 53-54.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] ALTAR-PRIEST 83
With him this priesthoodpassed to the familyde- He heldthehighestcivicoffices:eponymousarchon,'0
scended fromLeontius of Acharnai, which controlled hoplitegeneral,11 and heraldoftheAreopagusin 14/3.12
the dadouchia at this time (see stemma). He was He participated,underthe directionof the hierophant,
the son of the daduch Sophocles I (no. 10). It is along with several other distinguished married
interestingthat his youngerbrotherXenocles became Atheniansin the lectisternium of Pluto.13 Perhaps it
daduch but not he. The dadouchiawas certainlythe was his overall distinctionin Athens at this time
more prestigiouspriesthoodand one wonderswhy it rather than sacerdotal protocol that determinedhis
did not go to the eldest son in this case. It was positionat the head of the priestsof the Kerykeswho
suggested above (p. 55) that the altar-priesthood proposed the decree for Themistocles; but if our
may have become available first and accordingly restorationof the sacred heraldin the positionfollow-
went to Leontius, the eldest son of Sophocles, and ing him in I.G., I2, 6 is correct,'4his position here
when the dadouchia later became vacant, it went to seems indeed to reflectsuch a protocol.
the youngerson, Xenocles. But then one naturally He belongedto an aristocraticfamilywhose known
asks why Leontius could not have resignedhis altar- history goes back to the beginningof the second
priesthoodand assumed the dadouchia as others did centuryB.C.15
before him. The answer may be that the altar- In 20/19 his name, like the daduch's, was not
priesthoodhad been made a lifetimepriesthoodby subject to hieronymy. Nor was it in 14/13 when,
this time. Perhaps previouslyit was dependent on in the catalog of officials(I.G., 112, 1721) in whichhe
the choice of the incumbentwhetherthe priesthood is listed as the herald of the Areopagus,the fact that
was to be for life or not, that is, whetheror not he he was also an altar-priestis not mentioned.
wanted to use it as a stepping-stoneto the dadouchia;
and in cases where it had been a lifetimepriesthood 11. Ti-os 4X6f3tos2Tpa4TcoW HatavtEs. I.G., 112, 3984,
it was later designated in the man's title as t4af3cov, as edited above, p. 31. Stemma: above, p. 31.
e.g., in the case of Antiphon (no. 3). Afterthe in- In officein thesecondcenturyA.D.,before121-124.
cumbency of Philoxenides (firsthalf of the second He was the father of T. Flavius Euthycomas,
century) we no longer hear of the altar-priesthood eponymosof his prytanyin 166/7.16 His period of
being filledonly for a term. Althoughthe evidence officewas thereforebeforethat of Memmius,who as-
on this point forthe period beforethe second century sumed thispriesthoodsometimebetween121 and 124.
after Christ, at which time the priesthoodcertainly
was for life, is not sufficientlyplentifulto make a 12. A ME'uiutos
'Erl Bcogcu
OpIKtOS. Aeisitoilists: I.G.,
certaindecision,the case of Leontius tends to indicate 112, 1775 (168/9); 1776 (169/70); 1781 (169/70);
that the priesthood had been made a lifetimeone 1794 (ca. 180); Hesperia 4 (1935): p. 49, no. 11
sometime between his incumbency and that of (182/3); I.G., 112, 1788 (= Hesperia 11 (1942):
Philoxenides. p. 55, no. 21) (187/8 or 174/5); 1798 (190/1).
As prytanis: Hesperlia 11 (1942): p. 43, no. 12
9. 'AXapEVEs. Decree for Themis-
z2Os0OKXis AEovTOV (155-165); I.G., 112, 1775, line 51. Other: I.G.,
tocles, above, p. 51, lines 41-42; Fouilles de 112, 2085; 3620. Woloch 1966: M\lemmius no. 3.
Deiphes, III, 2, 10, line 24. Stemma: table 1, In officefrom121-124 to 191 or 192.
above, p. 58. In officein the beginningof the
firstcentury,succeedinghis father. A statue base set up in his honorby the polis (I.G.,
112,3620) informsus that he servedas archon,hoplite
He was a pythaist fromthe genos of the Kerykes general,epimeleteof the gymnasiarchyof the deified
in 98/7 B.C.8 Whetherhe was an altar-priestat that Hadrian, agonothetethrice,ambassador several times
time is not known.No descendantof his is known. "concerningthe most important matters,including
10. 'E7rtKpar-s KaXXtuauXouAEVKOVOEVS. Decree forThe- the Gerousia," and in other offices. It is further
mistocles,above, p. 51, lines 9-10; LG., 112, 1721, stated that he served17 the goddesses as priest for
line 15; 2464, line 10; 4714; I.G., XII, 8, 26, line 5. fifty-six years, during which time he performedan
P.A. 4903. Sarikakis,1951: pp. 52-53. Stemma:
10 L.G., JJ2, 4714.
Sundwall, N.P.A., p. 105. In officefrom20/19
1I LG., XII, 8, 26, line 5.
or earlierto 14/3 or later. 12 LG., JJ2, 1721, line 15 = S.
Dow, Hesperia 3 (1934): p. 158.
13 LG., 12, 2464, line 10; see above, p. 29.
He is the firstmember of the group of Kerykes' 4 See above, p. 77.
priestswho proposed the decree in honor of Themis- '5 Sundwall, loc. cit. Dow (Hesperia 3 [1934]: pp. 152-153)
tocles.9 Probably another altar-priest intervened argues that Cicero's son called Epicrates' grandfatherprinceps
betweenhis incumbencyand that ofSophocles (no. 9). Atheniensiumin 44 B.C. (Cicero, Ep. ad Fam., XVI, 21, 5).
16 I.G., JJ2, 3984 and 1773, line 8.
XeToUpTyeth = "performreligiousservice,
17 For the meaning of
8 Fouilles de Delphes, loc. cit. minister" see L.S.J., s.v., III, 2: Dionysius of Halicarnassus
9 On these priestsas a group see above, p. 77, n. 8. (II, 22) uses the word in this sense.
initiation in the presence of Hadrian and initiated reason why it would have omitted the initiation
Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius,and Commodus. of Antoninus Pius, whose reign fell entirelywithin
The date of this inscription,177-180,is determined Memmius's termas altar-priest,if it had taken place.
by the fact that Commodusis called acTroKpATrp, a MIoreover,it is inconceivable that an altar-priest
titlewhichhe received27 November,176,and Marcus would have absented himself from Athens during
Aureliusis not yet called 6EOs,whichwas added to his any of the celebrationsof the Mysteries-especially
name very soon after his death on 17 March, 180. if the emperorhimselfwere coming.
This date allows us to calculate the beginningof Memmius's archonship was in the year 161/2.21
Memmius's fifty-six-year service as altar-priest: it He was prytanisand eponymosof Acamantis between
was sometime after November, 120, and before 155 and 165,22and prytanisagain in 168/9.23 He held
April, 124. Thus, he was already functioningas all his civil officessimultaneouslywith his priesthood.
altar-priestbefore Hadrian's firstvisit as emperor He died around 190/1,the date of his last appearance
to Athens,in 124, and Hadrian's (alleged) initiation in an aeisitoilist (I.G., IJ2, 1798); a new priestwas in
into the MVlysteries at this time.'8 officein the list dated to 191/2 or 192/3 (I.G., IJ2,
However, it is clear fromthe dedication honoring 1792).24 Thus he was an altar-priestforan amazing
him that Memmius did not officiateat Hadrian's total of at least sixty-fiveyears. If he assumed this
initiationbut only at some later time when "Hadrian priesthoodbetween the age of twentyand thirty,he
was present,"that is, eitherat I-ladrian'sepopteia or on thereforelived to an age of eighty-five to ninety-five,
an even later occasion when Hadrian returnedas a a longevitythat was already cause for praise in the
spectator. It is very unlikelythat if Memmius had last years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (LG., IJ2,
officiatedat the initiationof Hadrian the inscription 3620, line 17).
would have omittedmentionof this fact. Therefore, None of his relativesare known,althoughthe dedi-
ifthe lengthof Memmius'sincumbencyas altar-priest cation honoringhim (I.G., JJ2, 3620) disclosesthat he
is correctlyrecordedhere,we are forcedto conclude descended froma very distinguishedfamily: he was
that Hadrian was initiatedbeforeApril,124, and that the "descendant of daduchs, archons, generals, and
the literaryevidence forhis initiationin Boedromion agonothetes." It would be interestingto knowwhich
of 124, duringhis firstvisit as emperorto Athens,is daduchs werehis ancestors. Since he was bornabout
inaccurate, representingperhaps a confusionof his the beginningof the century,thereis a strongpossi-
presence as spectatorat the telete (or perhaps his bilitythat theywere the Claudii of IVielite.
epopteia) with his initiation.'9 Thus it appears that At the very end of the inscriptionhe is called TOV'
he was initiated at some time before he became [ITr'aPXLEPEV TOv (PtX6oraTrpwV.fOV 4ir' apXEpkov would
emperor,eitherat the time he was archonat Athens, appear to mean that he was a descendant of "high-
in 112/3,or earlier. There would scarcelyhave been priests,"just as TOrV 67ro8babov'Xv in line 2 means
a reason for a person who was so captivated by the "descendant ofdaduchs." AfterTov 6 aPXtEP411w'
a V
religiousinstitutionsof Athens as Hadrian was not comes his title TO'V tX6i7raTptv. Oliver25 interprets
to have been initiated during his archonship or at the whole phrase o arw' apXptEpEwvo6scto7raTpts as "the
some earlier time when he was in Athens, perhaps title of an ex-high-priestwho when high-priesthad
when he was a student there. As emperor his acquitted himselfwell in the presidencyof the Great
presenceat Eleusis would naturallybe associated with Augustan Games." Oliver's array of evidence cer-
initiationby biographerswho wereunaware of details tainly does point to a connection between the title
of his earlierstays in Athens. philopatrisand the agonothesiiaof the Great Augustan
The literarysources also indicate that he made a Games, but in myopinionthe naturaland only mean-
second visit to Eleusis in 128 and a third in 131, ing of o abr' aPXpEp'Ewv is "descendant of high-priests."
although no one source mentionsall three imperial It is verydifficult to interpretthis phraseas "ex-high-
visits.2" If thisis true,theexpressionlriOcLa-Tra
7rapovros priest" in this instance when it is exactly the same
GEoi 'AMptavovmustreferto morethan one of Hadrian's type as o 4ro' 8abouxovin line 2, whichdefinitelydoes
"presences" at Eleusis as emperor. not mean ex-daduch but descendant of daduchs.
Memmius did not initiate AntoninusPius. It is, Thus, o a4' apXtpEWV need not be directlylinkedin
accordingly,just on the basis of this, very unlikely meaningwith o stX6o7rarpts.26 Moreover,if Memmius
that this emperorwas initiated at all at Eleusis; for was a high-priest, when did he serve? Oliver admits
the inscriptionmakes veryclear that to have initiated
an emperor was a distinct honor, and there is no 21 I.G.,
2085. 112,
22 Hesperia 11 (1942), loc. cit.,as dated by Woloch, loc. cit.
18 For the date and sources see Graindor, 1934: pp. 1-8, 119, 23 I.G., JJ2, 1775, line 51.
especially p. 6, n. 1. 24
For the date see above, p. 38, note 200.
19For a similar inaccuracyon the part of Dio Cassius in calling 25Expounders,pp. 88-89.
an initiationan epopteia see Graindor, 1927: pp. 14-23. 26 That philopatrisas a title can sometimesbe used alone may
20
For the sources see Graindor, 1934: p. 38, n. 2, and pp. have furthersupport in I.G., JJ2, 3531; see the discussionand edi-
119-120. tion of this inscriptionin append. VIII.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] ALTAR-PRIEST 85
that it could hardly have been while he was altar- and a pupil of Chrestus,the Byzantine sophist; and
priest,27but Memmius was altar-priest until his in fact he was honored by the polis &pEr[i1S EVEKa KaLL
death around 190/1. Therefore, I submit, as an (P]lXoao(plas.3
hypothesis,an emendationto Oliver's theory,namely
14. Tiros ItX4/tos 'E7rLBuC,. I.G., JJ2, 3802. E.
that the titleo (pX67rarpts standingalone indicates that
its possessor undertookan agonothesiaof the Great Groag, Die Reichsbeamten von Achaia in spdtr&
mischer Zeit (Diss. Pann. Ser. I, No. 14), p. 12.
Augustan Games even though he was not the high-
Early thirdcentury,after209/10.
priestin officeat the time.28
Twice MNlemmius is called 'E7rl Bwucuv.29This is This fragmentary dedicationshows that hieronymy
probably an unintentionalassimilationof his proper was observedin the case of one o-EuvoraTosTTros4X6f3uos
title to the fact that he functionedas a priestat more 'Erl Bcow1, and it mentionsthat he was a descendantof
than one altar, i.e., the altar of Demeter and the altar daduchs as well as consuls. The latter fact would
of Kore at Eleusis.30 rule out an identificationwiththe altar-priestFlavius
1Iemmiuswas in officewhenthe Eleusinian Endow- Straton of Paiania (no. 11), who served at the be-
mentof Flavius Xenion was establishedand in effect. ginningof the second century,since the firstknown
For the positionof the altar-priestin the list of recipi- native Athenian to become a consul was the father
ents of the endowment (issued around 160-70) see of Herodes Atticus,in the reignof Trajan.35 Grain-
above, pp. 35-36. dor36 associated T. Flavius the altar-priest with
13. Tq3 KXaVi6tos;C3oa7rLs Tt3 KX Avotabov MEXcTEVS. Flavius Arrianus, the historian, who was suffect
Philostratus, II, p. 95 (ed. Kayser); I.G., JJ2, consul around 129.37 This is a bit improbablesince
1077; 1792; 2340 (= MIitsos,B.C.H. 73 (1949): adoption would have to be involved, but since
Arrian's deme was Paiania, Graindor's association
p. 359); 4007 (= Expounders,p. 78); Hesperia
30 (1961): p. 273, no. 110; Geagan, 1967: append. gains a littlesupportfromour associationof thisaltar-
III (restored). Stemmata: cited above, p. 57, priest and the altar-priestFlavius Straton of Paiania.
in connectionwithdaduch no. 18. In officefrom However, one Flavius Straton was archon around
191/2 or 192/3 to at least 209/10. 194,38a suitable date for a grandson of Flavius
Straton the altar-priestand forT. Flavius the future
He is mentionedtwice in the aeisitoi lists,in I.G., altar-priest.
192, 1792 (191/2 or 192/3)3' and I.G., II2, 1077
(209/10); and once in a list of Kerykes, I.G., II2, GENERAL REMARKS
2340, which, because of the presence of the daduch
Claudius (Philippus), should be dated around 194.32 The evidencethat thispriestwas always taken from
He was the son of Claudius Lysiades the high-priest the Kerykes is clear. An altar-priestheads the list
of Kerykes' priests in the decree honoringThemis-
and grandsonof Claudius Sospis the daduch, thus a
memberof the greatdaduchic familyof the Claudii of tocles, where also sons of daduchs appear as altar-
M\lelite.A3 He is theonlymemberof thisfamilyknown priests. An altar-priestappears in a list of Kerykes
to have been an altar-priest. publishedby D. J. Geagan (1967: append. III). The
Philostratusstates that he was a famousphilosopher altar-priestSospis (no. 13) was a member of this
genos, and M\Iemmius the altar-priest(no. 12) and T.
27 Expounders, p. 98. Flavius the altar-priest(no. 14) were descendantsof
28 Having read my discussion of this inscriptionand having daduchs.
examined my photograph of it, Oliver noticed that Trv [.j In the firstand second centuriesbeforeChristthis
&PXL'EPWv was added to the stone after T6v tXno-7raTpLVwas already priesthoodwas filled by membersof at least three
engraved. The words T6v PLX6OraTpWvare exactly centered in the separate families, and in the second century after
last line with no crowding of letters,but the two words before
it are crowded (with the finalnu of &pXLepEWJv inscribedwithinthe Christ again by membersof at least three families
omega) and extend into the margin; also, the To6vis crowded at (two of which,those of Memmiusthe altar-priestand
the end of the previous line, the nu within the omicron, though Claudius Sospis, may have been relatedin some way).
there is no other crowding in the line. Thus, for some reason The number of familiesinvolved tends to rule out
this phrase was engraved later, eitherbecause the omission of his inheritanceas the method of
appointmentand the
descent from high-priestswas noticed, or as Oliver suggests,
in accord with my hypothesis,because his title lacked TOv [PIT' consistencywith which the priesthoodremainedfirst
,&pXLepCWV. My own preference,however,is [&]}' PXLEPA.
in one familyand then in another in the firstand
29 I.G., 112, 1776 and 1796. Memmius's name can be restored
in 1.G., 112, 1774, 1795, 1796. 34Hesperia 30 (1961): p. 273, no. 110, with the identification
30 See above, n. 2. by Oliver, ibid., p. 403.
31 For the date see above, p. 38, n. 200. 3 Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 30.
32The restoration of him in Geagan, loc. cit., is not certain; 36Marbreset Textes,p. 51.
it is not known whether his incumbency and the date of this 37Woloch, 1966: Flavius no. 9. Cf. P. A. Stadter, "Flavius
document correspond. Arrianus: the new Xenophon," G.R.B.S. 13 (1967): pp. 155-161.
33I.G., II2, 4007; Expounders, p. 78. See stemmata cited 38I.G., 12, 2124. For the date see above, in connection with
above, p. 57. the daduch Claudius Philipptis (no. 24).
second centuriesB.C. rules out allotment. Therefore, sterion. In the aeisitoi lists he normallycame after
at least fromthe second centuryB.C., the altar-priest the sacred herald,and he did followthe herald in the
was elected by the genosof the Kerykes,and the fact Eleusinian Endowment list; but if this Endowment
that it occasionallyremainedwithinone family,some- list reflectsthe orderof the procession,he could have
times being passed fromfatherto son, attests to the marchedby the herald's side. Our restorationof the
influencethese familieshad withinthe genosat those sacred heraldin I.G., I2, 6, in thepositionfollowingthe
times. altar-priest,and theorderof the priestsin theThemis-
At one time the last knowncase took place in the tocles decree might imply that the sacred herald at
firsthalfof the second centuryB.C.-an incumbentof those times had slightlyless prestigethan the altar-
thispriesthoodcould resignand assume thedadouchia. priest,and that therefore therewas a shiftin his favor
At some later time,perhaps around the middleof the duringthe Roman period; but it is probably best to
second centuryB.C., it was required,or became cus- say just that they were approximatelyon the same
tomary,that this priesthoodbe held forlife. level in prestigeand importancein the cult.
In the case of Memmius, the altar-priesthoodwas
assumed at the age of thirtyor even younger. We do
not know whetherthis happened often or just this VI. HIEROPHANTIDS ('1EoDoivrtBEq)
one time a time when a person of less than thirty Of the two hierophantidsone was the hierophantid
years but a memberof a prestigiousfamily,such as of Demeter and the other the hierophantidof Kore.'
Herodes Atticus,could even become an archon. Often the inscriptionsdo not specifythe deity of a
Hieronymywas adopted forthis priesthoodsome- hierophantid,but whentheydo, the officialtitleof the
time between 14/3 B.C. and 120-124 A.D. hierophantidof Kore is, in prose, IEpo6cavrts Trs
Several altar-priestshad children,and there is no vEwJTEpass and though the title of the hierophantidof
reason to believe that their wives were dead by the Demeter never appears in prose, it probably was
time they became priests. lEpoq av-Tls -rs rpEcOVTEpaS.
His relation to an altar has been discussed above
(p. 82). The occasional inadvertent use of 'EwrL Ca. 250 B.C.
Bw1,qCovas his title reflectsthe fact that he had duties The earliest mentionof the hierophantidsis in a
at morethan one altar, namely,at least at both altars fragmentof Ister2 (ca. 250 B.C.): Kal TOV lEpo rAvVr7KaLL
of Demeter and Kore. No altars or cuttings for TaS lEpOrav$TLe5*SKaL TOV ,a5oUovX0V Kac ras aSXXas tEpELas
altars have been foundwithinthe Telesterion; hence ,UvppLv7}sEXEWvo4mpavov. It appears that at this time
he probablyperformedhis major functionsnot during theywere not minorpriestessesin the cult,since they
the secret rites but sometimebeforethem,outside of are mentioned together with the hierophant and
the Telesterion. This is reinforcedby the fact that daduch.
he is not mentioned among the ministers of the 86 B.C.
secretriteswho wereallegedlymimickedby Alcibiades
During Sulla's siege of Athens a hierophantid
and his companions.39 Foucart suggested that at
allegedly begged Aristionfora twelfthof a bushel of
Eleusis the sacrificialritual was so complicated that
wheat but receiveda twelfthof a bushel of pepper.3
a special priest,the altar-priest,was needed for it.40
He suggested further,and he could well be right, 1. 'IEpocav-Tcs 'A,iurov 4?LXa'bov6v-ya'tr-qp.I.G., JJ2, 3514.
that hissacred importancewas considerable,especially During the reignof Augustus?
to the mystai:
She and her fatherare otherwiseunknown. The
Sonautorites'exergait surtoutce quitouchaitau sacrifice, Demos made this dedicationin her honor.
depuis1'examenprealabledes animauxpresentes jusqu' a
la consommationde la ceremonie. Sa vigilanceetait 2. tEpo&pcwrLs Mo[Ex ----]caiov 'Apt6valov 6vyarT7p.
d'autantplusgrandequ'il y avait la commeuneprobation I.G., Il2, 3527. During the reign of Augustus?
indirectedes mystes. Si les Deux Deesses avaient ete
offenseespar la presencede candidatsindignesou impurs, Her own name and patronymicseem to be both pre-
elles auraientmanifeste leur courrouxpar quelque signe served; hence hieronymywas not observed. The
defavorable. Les re'sultatsheureuxdu sacrificetemoi- monument,erected by the Demos in her honor,may
gnaientau contrairequ'elles accueillaientavec bienveil-
lanceceuxqui se presentaient a 1' initiation.4' have been erectedafterher death.
In prestige and importance within the cult the 3. 'lpo(pamrts. I.G., JJ2, 3553. First centuryA.D.?
altar-priestwas roughly on a par with the sacred She erected a monument to her granddaughter
herald, although he undoubtedly had a lesser role Athenais as mystis, probably as uvqO&elcra a&p' eerTlas
than the herald in the ceremonieswithin the Tele- (see below, p. 108, no. 19).
39 See above, pp. 15-16. 1 Foucart, 1914: pp. 212-213, firstdemonstratedthis fact.
40 1914: pp. 372-373. 2 F. Gr.Hist.,334,F 29.
41 Ibid. 3 Plutarch,Sulla, 13,3.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] HIEROPHANTIDS 87
4. 'Iepo6qavrs vEwTEpaslEpLKX'OVS f' O l'ov 6vyarqp. I.G., HADRIANIC?
II2, 3546. Aroundthe end of the firstcenturyA.D. is written (according to my own
WI9p906[v]TL[aos]
Foucart correctlyidentifiedher as the hierophantid reading, 'IEpoqPa[v]T[t6os] according to Dittenberger,
of Kore.4 She appears on the same base as the I .G., III, 331) on a seat in the theater of Dionysus,
hierophantClaudius Oenophilus. This, however,is thoughthe last threelettersmust have been crowded
not sufficientto justifythe inferencethat she was a if they were on the same block. Kirchner'srestora-
Eumolpid. Oliver identified her father with the tion (I.G., IJ2, 5111), tIepopa4[v]T[ov],is probably in-
pythochrestusexegetehonoredin I.G., JJ2, 3549.5 correct,since the hierophanthad a seat much below
this, in the firstrow of the prohedria (I.G., JJ2, 5053
5. 'Iepo'pavT1s J?Xaf3la[. .]KpaTeLa. I.G., JJ2, 3984, as and see below, append. III). Moreover, hier-
edited above, p. 31. Stemma: above, p. 31. onymypreventsus fromregardingthe nearby name
Aroundthe beginningof the second centuryA.D. 'A[X]Et[zavap---], of which I was unable to discern
clearly any of the letters,as that of a hierophantid.
Flavius Euthycomas, who is honored in this in-
scription,was probably her grandson (as is argued 8. Ilpo6pavns.I.G., IJ2, 4062. After126/7.
above, p. 31), her daughterhaving marriedthe altar-
priest Flavius Straton. It is not possible to deter- She appears in a dedicationset up by theAreopagus,
mine hergenos. the Boule of the Five Hundred, and the Demos in
honorof her daughterMundicia Secundilla. Neither
6. Gvyar'qpA-qAt-rplov.I.G., JJ2, 3575. From 112/3 the daughternor herfatherBurrusis otherwiseknown
or earlierto the reignof Hadrian or later. with certainty.8
According to line 3 of this dedication she was a 9. 'Iovvta MEXlTlrv 'Iovvtlovl4rpwvos BEpEVlKb6oV6V-y rnp.
hierophantidof Demeter. Its epigram consists pri- I.G., I 12, 3633; 3557. Stemma: C. P. Jones,
marilyof praise of Hadrian, and mentionsthe glorious H.S.C.P. 71 (1966): p. 210. Around the middle
fact that she initiatedhim. It is clear that Hadrian of the second century.
was already emperorwhen the epigram was written.
If our interpretationof I.G., JJ2, 3620 is correct (see She is mentionedas a hierophantidin I.G., JJ2, 3633,
above, p. 84), namely that Hadrian was initiatedat and since her name Melitine is given, this dedication
the time he was Athenian archon (112/3) or even to her must have been set up afterher death. The
earlier,we must assume that this dedication was not original bottom of the dedication is preserved and
erected immediately after his initiation but rather shows that the tlhirdline, restoredby Skias, does not
several years later, after he had become emperor, exist. The dispositionof the text is as follows:
when the gloryof having initiatedhim years ago was
now keenlyfeltby this priestess. [?]
[- - ?E]po6 avnLv [ ]
In the firstfourlines of the epigramshe mentions
that at the momentwhen the Athenians (KEKPo7rU3al) [-?-------]--- -MELrLv-v AN[?----]
made her a hierophantid,she buriedher name by her-
In I.G., JJ2, 3557, erected around 125 A.D.,9 she is
self "in the unfathomabledepths (of the sea)."
honoredas a hearth-initiate, whereher name is given
7. 'Iepo6pavns Trs vecoTepas KX dItX6*va TLf KX lalrpcovos as 'Iovvtav[. ...... ] MeXLTLvrv.The large
MEXvris 6vy4a,rp. I.G., 112, 3585. During the gap'0 between her gentilicium and cognomen (Greek
reignof Hadrian. name) is striking; even if we were to assume that the
lacuna contained her mother'sgentilicium,the space
She was the hierophantidof Kore. The monument would not even be half filled. Kapetanopoulos's
was erected after her death by her son Claudius suggestion" that the girl had two names, joined by
Lysiades, while Timothea was priestess of Demeter Kal rTv is a good possibility; but I cannot find a
and Kore, thus in the reignof Hadrian. Her memor- trace of iota beforeMEXLTLvrnv, as he does, to give it
able achievement while hierophantidwas that she support. For I.G., 112, 3633 he suggests:
had the altar of Kore coveredwith silver (lines 5-6).6 [r)v 1E]po6avnLv ['Iovvtav ... c:. .... .TV]
Her husband had the same name as her father; [Kal MEX]lrlVrnv'Av[vtas 'AplorOKXfOVS OV]
perhaps adoption was involved, but not necessarily.7
[,ya,rpa].
Possibly a connectionwith the daduchic familythe
Claudii of Melite is involved. 8 See Woloch, 1966: Mundicius no. 6.
9 For the date see above, p. 74.
4 1914: p. 212. 10My calculations indicate a slightlylargerspace than Kirchner
5 Expounders,p. 152, I 28. calculated.
6 This is evidence that each goddess had her own altar.
11'Apx. 'E<p. 1968: p. 211. His reading of [EUp]fa in line 1
7 See Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 73. is correct.
As is clear from the description above, there can In I.G., JJ2, 3764 the motherof Aelius Apolloniusis
be no certainty at present about the margins of referred to as lepxs AnTpos .. c)patve
TeXeTas ait OEoIv irap'
this inscription,and a third line is not available; avaKTopa A-q6s. It has been shown above (p. 64)
MEX _]'r' a'0hqKEv - -] is also possible.
G[j that his parentsprobablyare the P. Aelius Apollonius
Her maternalgreat-grandmother, Flavia Laodameia, and Publia Aelia Herennia who dedicated their
was a priestessof Demeterand Kore, and herpaternal daughteras a hearth-initiate in I.G., JJ2,3688. There-
grandfather,Patron of Berenikidai,was an exegete foreshe became a hierophantidsometimeafterI.G.,
,ofan unknowntype.12 JJ2, 3688 was dedicated. Her parents are unknown.
Her husband belongedto the Kerykes.
160-170
GENERAL REMARKS
The positionof the two hierophantidsin the list of
-recipientsin the Eleusinian Endowment of 160-170 Unfortunatelyno positive informationis preserved
(I.G., IJ2, 1092) is discussed above (pp. 35-36). concerningwhichgenosor genethe hierophantidswere
taken from. Not many of their fathersare known
10. IloY6O'T-q'Io-aLov Gvyarl7p. I.G. 112, 3632, as edited fromseparate sources: only the fathersof Hierophan-
by Oliver,Hesperia,Supplement8 (1949): p. 249; tis daughterof Periclesof Oion (no. 4), Junia Melitine
I.G., IJ2, 3709. Stemma: Oliver, op. cit., fig. 2. (no. 9), and Isidote (no. 10). And the only informa-
In officein 176. tion derived fromthem which may be of significance
A monumentbearingan epigramwrittenprobably is that Pericles of Oion was a pythochrestusexegete,
by her grandson Glaucus, who was a poet, rhetor, and Patron of Berenikidai,the grandfatherof Junia
and philosopher,was set up in her honor after her ]\lelitine,was an exegeteof an unknowntype. There
death by her daughterand two grandsons. She was were three types of exegetes at Athens: the exegete
the granddaughterof Isaeus, the Assyrian sophist appointed by the Demos from the eupatridae, the
and teacher of Hadrian. The very distinguished pythochrestusexegete fromthe eupatridae, and the
familyto whichshe belongedis illustratedin Oliver's exegetes of the Eumolpidae. According to the list
stemma. of exegetescompiled by Oliver15none of the exegetes
Besides alludingto the virtuesand achievementsof from the eupatridae is known to have been a
members of her family the epigram mentions that Eumolpid.16 If the evidence is not misleading, it
once, in beginningthe telete(apXo,.4rni reXerC'), she would seem that Eumolpidae wverenot eligible to
crowned as initiates the emperors AIlarcusAurelius serve as exegetes from the eupatridae; thus, if the
and Commodus at the same time. Thus we might Eumolpidae wvereat all involved in supplying the
inferthat the hierophantidhad the role of crowning hierophantidsof Kore, there was at least one other
initiatesat the beginningof the telete,but considering genoswhichdid so as well.
the number of initiates, this duty must have been The only testimonyconcerningthe appointmentof
assumed by the other priestsand priestesses as well, a hierophantid is line 3 of I.G., JJ2, 3575: eVTe AE
KCKPOwbat A-ZoJO'GoJaV IEpOpOaaTlV. But we cannot infer
if it normallywas theirduty.
Even thoughshe was alreadydead, theepigramdoes from this that all Athenian women were eligible; for
not mention her name; it is mentionedonly on a Athenians made her a hierophantidin either case,
monumenthonoring her granddaughter (see below). whether she was taken fromAthenians at large or
Her granddaughterFlavia Eunice daughter of T. from a particular genos.
Flavius Callaeschus of MAlarathon is honored in a The firstreferenceto a hierophantidis containedin
dedicatoryepigram13writtenby the same man who a fragment of Ister (who flourishedaround the middle
xvrotethe epigram for her great-grandmother, i.e., of the third centuryB.C.) and the second is connected
Glaucus, who was Eunice's uncle. The dedication with an incident which allegedly took place during
was erectedin frontof the Telesterion. The epigram the siege of Sulla. The list of around 460 B.C. of
describes several of her illustrious relatives: her Eleusinian priesthoods(I.G., 12, 6) is not sufficiently
father'suncle in the male line was Glaucus the hier- preserved to enable one to hypothesize reasonably
ophant; thus her fatherwas a Eumolpid. Nothing that the hierophantidswere a Hellenisticinvention.'7
is said in the epigramas to whethershe was a hier- On the contrary,I suspect that the "priestesses" of
ophantid,and so nothingenables us to conclude that
she was.14 p. 44.
15 Expounders,
11. HIorXLa AlMla'Epevv'La. I.G., JJ2, 3764; 3688. In 16 At least two pythochresti exegetes were Kerykes, viz.,
tcdj nrniinrl tl4e and of tlhe second centiirv- Diotimus son of Diodorus of Halai (Expounders,I 21-26) and L.
Gellius Menogenes (ibid., I 52), who was certainlyrelated in the
Oliver, Expounders,p. 44.
12 male line to L. Gellius Polyzelus, who was a memberof this genos
I.G., JJ2,3709 (= Oliver, Hesperia, Suppl. 8 [1949]: p. 251).
13 (see Geagan, 1967: append. III, line 212).
14 As did Toepifer (1889: pp. 64-65), followed by Foucart 17 Nilsson, Geschichte,2: p. 349, suggests that they were a late
(1914: pp. 212-213). invention.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] EXEGETES OF THE EUMOLPIDAE 89
I.G., 12, 81 included the hierophantids.18Certainly For the Hellenisticperiod,thereis a decreeof 128 B.C.,2
in the Hellenisticand Classical period they were not in which a procession at the Thargelia in honor of
as prominentin the cult as the priestessof Demeter Apollo is described, and its participants are "the
and Kore, and forthe Roman period the same situa- priest of Pythian Apollo, the exegetes, the other
tion is clearly shown by the higherposition that the priests,the nine archons,the hierophant,the daduch,
priestess of Demeter and Kore held in the list of their companions,3the manager of the games, etc."
recipientsof the Eleusinian Endowment. Neverthe- In the Classical period it is forthe most part unclear
less, they did play an important part in the cult. whetherthey were considered priests. There is no
Ister mentionsthe hierophant,the hierophantids,the evidence that enables us positivelyto conclude that
daduch, and the "other priestesses" without specifi- theywere,and sometimesthe opposite view seems to
cally mentioningthe priestessof Demeter and Kore. emerge. J. H. Oliver4 notes: "In the Laws, VIII,
A notice in Photius"9describes the hierophantidsas 828b, Plato distinguishesas a matterofcoursebetween
having a veryimportantpositionin the cult: al ra tEpa 'exegetes,priestsand priestesses,and manteis.'" At
foalvovoat rotsgvovj.uEots;Which is confirmedby the fact any rate, the exegetesdid in fact have much in com-
that Publia Aelia Herennia is mentioned in an in- mon with some priests,in regardto religiousexpertise
scription as "one who revealed the teletas of the and intimateacquaintance with sacred matters; and
goddesses, beside the Anactora of Deo."20 It is in- the priest undoubtedlyhad occasion to call upon an
teresting,also, thoughit may only be an accident,that exegete for advice, especially if events produced a
thereare no dedicationsof the Roman period singing situationforwhichhis own knowledgeand experience
the gloriesof a priestessof Demeterand Kore as there were inadequate. Eventually, this close association
are fortwo hierophantids. in religious matters, as well as the fact that they
In connectionwithrevealingthe hiera7rap' a'aKropa marched togetherin processions,5and the fact that
Aijois, the rapa seems to be significant. The hier- exegetes sometimes attended sacrifices,6probably
ophant was the only priest allowed to enter the contributedto some extent to a blurringof the dis-
Anactoron,and he is frequentlymentioned,in regard tinction (if there ever was a clear one), so that by
to secret rites, as being within the Anactoron and Hellenisticand Roman timesexegetescould be called
emergingfromit; the hierophantidsalways remained "priests."
outside, and their share in revealing the hiera was There were three types of Athenian exegetes: o
carried out alongside the Anactoron, after the hier- v7
6viUAOV 6 tr6 ro KaGEoTra,AEbos E'yy?rs, and
ophant broughtout the sacred objects. the E'lylT-qralEv'AoXr7t5ov.
Only the exegetes of the
At the beginningof the telete,perhaps beforethe Eumolpidae, who were solely concerned with the
processionleftAthens,the hierophantidswereperhaps patria of the Eumolpidae and therefore the Eleusinian
involved in crowningthe initiates.2' Mysteries, are the object of this study. All three
AManyof the hierophantidshad children. There types were studied in detail by Oliver in Athenian
seems to be no reason to assume that marriagewas a Expounders of the Sacred and AncestralLaw (Balti-
bar to this priesthood. more, 1950) so that a full treatmentof the evidence
Hieronymyseems to be in forceforthemfromthe does not need to be repeatedhereexceptin thosecases
time they begin appearing in epigraphical sources, where his conclusionshave been called into question,
i.e., as early as the firstcenturyA.D. or where they can be improved upon with the help
of additional evidence.
Concerning the number of the exegetes, Oliver
VII. EXEGETES OF THE EUMOLPIDAE demonstrated that there was one pythochrestus
('Ek-y-q,a'Eutpol=%BCv) exegete and one exegete appointed by the Demos.7
INTRODUCTION Oliver's argumentsfor the number of the exegetes
of the Eumolpidae are as follows:I.G., 112, 1672, line
There is some doubt whetherthe Athenianexegetes
41 (329/8 B.C.), whichindicatesthat therewere more
were always regarded as priests (iEpEis). They were
than one; I.G., 112, 1092 (ca. 160 A.D.),8 which indi-
certainlyso regardedin Roman times; an inscription
cates that there were either two or three; and the
of thesecond centuryA.D. mentions[- --] e?,yovlup.ots
arrangementof the prohedria seats of officialsand
[e]pE[iatv - ] which can only refer to the exegetes
priests in the Theater of Dionysus (I.G., 112, 5022-
who appear elsewherein the inscription(as entriesin
a long list consistingmostlyof priestsand priestesses). 2 Sokolowski, Supple'ment,14. Cf. Oliver, Expounders, p. 42.
18And perhaps also those in I.G., III, 1363 (see above, p. 22) 3 See above, p. 27.
4 Expounders,p. 29.
and 949, line 10 (above, p. 27) included the hierophantids.
19 S.v. LEpopae'vrt&Es. 5 Sokolowski, loc. cit., and I.G., II, 1672, line 41.
20
I.G., 12, 3637, see above, hierophantidno. 11. 6 Cf. Expounders, pp. 63-64; also I.G., 112, 1029, lines 4-6
21 See above, p. 88. = Expounders,p. 146, 1 18).
1I.G., 112, 1092, lines 17-18 (= Oliver, Hesperia 21 [1952]: 7Ibid., pp. 37-42.
pp. 381-382). 8 See the edition of Oliver, Hesperia 21 (1952):
p. 382.
5079), whereOliver observed that the most appropri- specifies that the sacrifice to be offeredfrom the
ate place forthemwas representedby two unassigned proceeds of the aparche is to be performedaccording
seats, and one would expect a homogeneousbody of to theexegesisoftheEumolpidae:KaOort a&' ENioXvLbac
officialssuch as the exegetes of the Eumolpidae to EXcT[heyo]vratA.It is unusual foran officialdocument
have sat next to one another just as the six thesmo- not to specifypreciselythe officials(if they existed)
thetesdid. However,Oliver's interpretation of these who are to implement a particular order; yet in
seats was based on Kirchner'spartly inaccurate and regard to exegesis, this decree mentions only the
misleading edition of them (I.G., I 12, 5022-5079). genos as a whole. The genos is also mentioned as
In appendix III, I attemptto presenta moreaccurate the agent of exegesis by the author of the speech
pictureof these seats, mainlywith the help of Fiech- AgainstAndocides12: "Pericles, theysay, once advised
ter's thoroughstudy, and my conclusion is that on you (membersof the jury) that, in deliberatingon
the basis of our presentknowledgeit is possiblethat men who are impious,you should apply not only the
three exegetesof the Eumolpidae sat togetherin the writtenlaws, but also the unwrittenKac oivsEv,uoXw7r6at
prohedria. I.G., 112, 1092 lists one exegete (line 48), which no one yet has had the authorityto
E'71qyoirrat,
then threeexegetes (line 49), withoutnotingprecisely nullifyor oppose, and not even the author (of these
which ones are meant in each case. We know that unwrittenlaws of the Eumolpidae) is known." Again,
therewas one pythochrestusexegeteand one exegete ifexegetes had existed,it would have been verysimple
appointed by the Demos, so the firstexegete (line 48) and convenient to designate them instead of the
is undoubtedlyone of these. Since we know that the genosas a whole.
number of exegetes of the Eumolpidae was greater An incident concerningan unwrittenlaw of the
than one and since there is no other instance where Eumolpidae is recountedby Andocides in his speech
they are grouped togetherwith one of the two other On the Mlysteries(110-116). In the Boule which tra-
exegetes while separate fromthe other (there is no ditionallymet on the day afterthe Aiysteriesto hear
apparent reasonwhy thisshould have been done any- any charges of irregularitycommitted during the
way), I assume that therewere threeexegetesof the festival,Callias stood up and announced that a sup-
Eumolpidae. pliant's branch had been placed on the altar of the
Oliver suggestedthat the exegetesdid not exist in Eleusinion,and he pointedto the branch. Since such
the fifthcentury. This theory has since been dis- an act was strictlyforbiddenduringthe celebrationof
puted.9 When Expounders was still in the press, the Mysteries,the herald then asked the assembly,
F. Jacoby's Atthis (Oxford, 1949) appeared, which Who put thebranchthere. There was no reply. And
also treatedthe exegetesbut froma different point of finally:
view, namely their relationship to the Atthido-
graphers. Jacoby reached the conclusion that the E7rElU ' E\XE-YE rj fovXj- El'KX7S6" OV3tS v7raKOVOt, 7raXp
o KaXXLtasabao-ra's E"XeyE OTt E'U7-VO,UosWarPLOS, E' TLS tKET?7plaV
exegetes existed at least as far back as the time of
6Ehq Ev rc, 'Eevo-L1, KaLKpTovalroGavev, Ka',ct 6 rarrp iror'
Solon. This position has since been defended(most
avcrov'I770oVKKos E?r7qyrijaro rTara 'A6rnvaLots, aKovO0EtEbe ort
notably) by H. Bloch."0 It is my opinion that, given
( OE'v 1-qt7\vtKErlpiav. VTE0EZv a4vairn3a KEoaXos obrooi
the presentstate of our evidence, Oliver's positionis
KIt XyeE `2 KaXXMa, iravrwva'vpcOprwv avoocrarE,
the methodologicallycorrect one. But before we
wrpJ$rov WiV,OVX oo?tov (ov') o-ot EqyEioTOat
AE\v E'7qT_ K-lpVKcWv
review the evidence on this problem, it must be
wErEra6E vo,'op irarp-o' XEtYELS,r 5earoTX-qirap' ii EfT7'Kas
emphasized that nowhere does Oliver deny that p -,z Ev rco
lXtLas 5paXAajs KEXEVEt 0CELXEW, 'Ec
iais CKKei-plav
exegesistook place duringthe fifthcenturyor earlier;
'EXevacvho. Erwera 5a rlVOS 7#Kovaas OTr AV6OK137qS GE'LfTl7V
he only denies that there existed officialscalled exe- Kerp a';keaAov a'vr\v -q "va Ka' r/1,64L aK0'acoAue."}
Tr-,fOovX,-
getes beforethe end of the fifthcentury (i.e. before Weqpa K v 0
, , rl-q a ,v t
Eret crr7X KcaKEZVOS OVK ELXEV aw7EiV 6roV
aOvayvi- o
the law code of Solon was revised by Nicomachus);
Of
Kaitapav-qS?'v i- 3OovuXa,oS GEiSrmvLKE-71plaV.

i7KOVOUE1r,
this distinctionmay have been overlooked by some
who were opposed to Oliver's position. In the existed, Cephalus could have
If E'qynqralENivoXirtEov
presentstudy of the problemwe shall of course limit expressed himself much more directly by saying:
ourselvesto the exegetesof the Eumolpidae. Though \ o lx"o-to'(OV)aot 't7qyJaOat. But instead
OVK 7y-qi s &VX,
this limitationis imposed on us by the scope of this of simplystating in this way that Callias was not an
study, it is advantageous in that the evidence is exegete,a factwhichwould have been readilyapparent
much clearer for the early historyof these exegetes to everyoneifsuch officialsactually existed,Cephalus,
than for the two stateexegetes,a fact which usually whose otherremarkspiercedrightto the heart of the
has notbeen mentionedin thedebatesinceExpounders. matter, here takes the round-about course and de-
Exegesis by the Eumolpidae definitelytook place clares that Callias, being of the Kerykes, was in-
in the fifthcentury. I.G., 12, 76 (ca. 416 B.C.)" eligible to give exegesis. Thus, if one is to assume
9 For bibliographysee H. Bloch, H.S.C.P. 62 (1957): pp. 37-49. the existence of exegetes of the Eumolpidae at this
10Ibid.
11See above, pp. 14-15. 12 Pseudo-Lysias, Against Andocides,10.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] EXEGETES OF THE EUMOLPIDAE 91
time, one must also assume that Cephalus was not this institutioncame into existence when it is first
as sharp and precise on this point as he was in the mentionedin a source,nor need we go to the opposite
rest of his attack on Callias. and equally untenableextreme,as Bloch seems to do,
Anotherquestion arisingout of this passage is how of assuming the existenceof an Athenian institution
Callias (like his father)was at all able to pretendthat in itsfullydeveloped formconsiderablybeforeits first
he was an exegete. If therehad been an officialbody appearance in a source in that form.
of exegetes, certainlyit would have been foolish in If we regard Eumolpid exegesis as a developing
the extremefor someone who was not a memberof institution,the followingreconstruction of its develop-
this body to have attempted to pass himselfoffas mentappears probable. Certainmembersofthegenos
one-in the presence of the entire Athenian Boule. were more knowledgeableand skilfulin expounding
This audacity of Callias and the imprecision of than others, and they would naturally tend to be
Cephalus can best be explainedin termsof a situation called upon with some regularity. The demand for
that was somewhat fluid: the Eumolpidae had the exegesis steadily increasedwith the increasinglitiga-
exclusive rightof exegesis, but there was no clearly tion in the fourth century, which, in matters of
definedtraditionas to whichmemberwas responsible exegesis,highlyvalued expertiseand uniformity.The
forgivingexegesison a particularoccasion; the hier- great throngsof initiates,who beforethe festivalhad
ophant or other Eumolpid priests may often have to be carefullyinstructedin the patria (cf. the new
given it, as well as other membersof the genos who inscriptioncited below), especially the foreigners,
were respected for their knowledge of the patria. supplied another powerfulimpetus for uniformityof
The daduch, by his associationwiththemand because exegesis; forthey surelyneeded to know some of the
of his prestigiousposition in the cult, evidentlygave patria pertainingto the festival,and the question of
exegesis illegitimatelyon occasion.'3 In any case, whetherthey were completelyfree of pollution was
this incident shows that while exegesis certainly probably of very great importance. The genos met
existed, "exegetes of the Eumolpidae" apparently this need by appointing as e'm7yrca memberswho
did not. were most knowledgeablein this specialty, thus re-
H. Bloch14 incorrectlydescribesthis position as an gularizing and formalizingthe institution. From
argumentfromsilence: "The main issue in the con- now on, a person desiringexegesis knew exactly on
troversywas and is whetheran ancient (or medieval) whomhe could call and that the exegetewould not be
institutioncan be assumed to have come intoexistence occupied by other duties, as probably the regular
only when it is firstmentionedin a source." In the priests of the genos were occasionally in the past.
case of the exegetesof the Eumolpidae, however,the Moreover, the genos was now spared the embarrass-
silence speaks: in two instances where Eumolpid ment of faultyor illegitimateexegesis. If Oliver is
exegesisin the fifthcenturyis mentioned(I.G., 12, 76 correct in his theory that before the Law Code of
and Callias' accusation of Andocides) the most satis- Nicomachus there were no officialsat all in Athens
factory explanation for the silence concerningthe called exegetes,and that the two stateexegetes were
exegetes is that they did not exist; an assumptionof first created in connection with this code, and I
their existence forces the situations to appear re- believe that at least the firstof these propositionsis
spectivelyunusual"5and somewhatincredible. More- true, these stateexegetes would have set a precedent
over, Bloch does not distinguishbetween the institu- forcalling"human"expounders
('r^-yrral. Later the
tion and its officials. No one would deny that the Eumolpidae called their own expoundingofficialsby
institutionof Eumolpid exegesis existed long before the same name.
the end of the fifthcentury,but the available evidence At the time Expounderswas published,the earliest
indicates that the institutiondid not involve officials clear referenceto exegetesof the Eumolpidae occurred
called('r^-yrral; thatexegesiswas carriedon perfectlyin I.G., 12, 1672 (329/8 B.C.). However, Oliver felt
wellwithout('r/qyrjral at thistime;thatis, theywere that therewas some probabilityin the inferencethat
not an essential aspect of the institutionin its early they came into existence sometime after 383 but
formbut were only established later on, in response before357/6, thoughadmittingthat the evidence for
to a need forregularizationwhichwas not previously this inferencecould refernot to the exegetes of the
felt. Thus, we need not make the assumption that Eumolpidae but to the two state exegetes.'6 New
13 Cf. Expounders,p. 23.
evidence is now available concerningthe exegetes of
14H.S.C.P. 62 (1957): p. 46.
the Eumolpidae in the fourthcentury,in the formof
15 In the case of I.G., 12, 76 it is possible of course that the severalfragmentsof an inscriptionfoundin the course
phrase is a fossilizedone, still in use even thoughexegetes existed; of excavations in the Athenian Agora (soon to be
this is worth consideringonly because the same phrase was used publishedby C. Edmonson). They are actually new
in 353/2 (1.G., 112, 140; see below, p. 92) by whichtime Eumolpid fragmentsof Sokolowski,Lois Sacrees,Supplement,12,
exegetes may well have existed; but the fact that a fossilized
phrase was used in 353/2 is no argument that it was so used in
and reveal that this is in fact an inscriptionof over
416/5, and the situation of Callias strongly indicates that it
was not. 16 Expounders,pp. 33, 43-44.
fifty-five lines in length,dating apparentlyto the sec- were in existenceat that time and Oliver's inference
ond quarterof the fourthcentury,and that it contains placing their inception sometime between 383 and
regulationson manyaspects of the MIysteries in which 357/6 has not been invalidated. Nevertheless,it is
thestate had a part. C. Edmonsonhas kindlyallowed possible that theywereinstituteda bit later; the date
me to quote sectionsof it relevantto thisstudy. The of this inscriptionmay turnout to be later than the
section pertainingto the exegetesreads: Ev'oX\rt6Jv 6e second quarter of the fourthcentury. In 353 the
r0s Er yE[ras2.1.. ,. * .. *, * I7 E Is old phrase Ka6' E[rtav EWgoXwlrbat was prob-
C_]2-yCovTat
aro vog-jv as r[a 11pa Kat ra rarptac?]4tryiaOat'AOr/vaktwv ably18still used,eitherbecause the phrase had become
T@ tfIVw
rwt ITWL Unfortunately fossilizedor the C'7rqy-qTaL
].17
had not yet been established.
not enough is preservedto reveal the completesense,
but it seems that the exegetes are ordered to give THE INDIVIDUAL EXEGETES
exegesis, startingon the firstof the month (of Boe- The prosopographyof the exegetes of the Eumol-
dromion),to anyone requestingit in connectionwith
pidae has been covered thoroughlyin Expounders;
the coming festival; the lacuna may have specified
the place wheretheywould be accessible.Notewrorthy,Oliver's list of the exegetes of theEumolpidae is re-
however,is the way in whichthe exegetesare referred peated in the table below with some changes and one
to: "of the Eumolpidae the exegetes . . ."; that is, addition."9The prosopographyof each exegeteis given
the terminologyis slightly looser than their later by Oliver, Herrmann,and myselfin connectionwith
Etrqynrat ES
officialtitles:Etr1qyr-qrai
Eu/uoXrt5cov, EvgoNXt&cv,the testimoniacited in the table.
E-r y?7raL EK 7oV y4vcus-roV E'voXwt6Jv. It is as if to say
"those membersof the Eumolpidae who are exegetes"; GENERAL REMARKS
it may indicatethat thecustomofcallingtheexpound- Eumolpid exegesisundoubtedlyexisted in the pre-
ing Eumolpidae C'^yyrral was relatively recent,not
Cleisthenic period in Athens, but the selection of
enough time having elapsed for their titles to have
become formalized. But this is perhaps attempting certain men and the designationof them as exegetes
to squeeze too much significancefrom this phrase. appears, witlhsome probability,to have started only
Yet it does tend to support the evidence discussed after the end of the fifthcentury. In my opinion
above for placing the beginningof the exegetes of theirnumberwas three. The mannerin which they
the Eumolpidae sometime after Andocides' speech were appointed is not known; since they had to be
in the year 400. If the date of the inscriptionis the highly qualified, election would be a reasonable
second quarter of the fourthcentury,these officials assumption-21
Name Date Testimonia

1. TLA,oeoS ca. 300 B.C. T 27, 28
2. M7)eLos AvaaSvpov (HIeLpaLtvs) ca. 136 B.C. T 30
3. 'ArroXX&vwPos
'Ay'wvopos'EpLKEEVS last quarterofsecondcentury I 161?
4. MMELOS lb76EL'OVHIELpaLEbs ca. 60 B.C. 1 19
5. HaAA1E'vr7s
Ha u,uEvovs
Mapa&cvwos Augustan I 29, 30
6. Tq3 KXavbLosAv77jO6arparos(lovv6ds) ca. end offirst
centuryA.D. I 38, 53; below,p. 108,no. 14
7. A O&v/avtos A'LoX)wv[4Xv]EiS ca. end of firstcenturyA.D. 'Apx. 'Eso. 1971, "Inscriptions fromEleusis," nos. 27 and 31;
P. Herrmann,Z.P.E. 10 (1973): pp. 80-85.
8. [----] virpraetorius second or thirdcenturyA.D.
'Axapvdvs, 1 44 and 'Apx. 'Esp. 1971, op. cit., no. 9
Perhaps: KXabvbos
HoXvr1Xos'AXapvcvEs ca. 197 A.D. I 45; see above, p. 39
17 iepa Kal Tar ra4rpa] fits the space, and so I suggest it as

Ta[ 'Ep]LKMEbs and who is probably to be identifiedwith a boy pythaist
a possibility, on the basis of I.G., 112, 3490, which mentions of the same name in the year 128/7 (Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2,
T )1 E 77777Ov TC*71lepwV Ka' Trarpiw. 12, line 5, with no demotic) may have been his son. The Agenor
18 I.G., 112, 140,line19. 0[rT o-tr7Tal
Ol E]ryc7yVTal is conceiv- son of Apollonius who was a boy pythaist in the year 138/7
able but unlikely. (ibid., III, 2, 11, line 7) may have been the son of a cousin of the
19Expounders, p. 44. I wish to thank P. Herrmann, who exegete. The Agenor son of Apollonius who was sent to Delphi
kindlysent an offprintof his article, cited below, and thus made as a kitharistesby the Athenian Dionysiac Artists in 128/7 (ibid.
it possible to incorporate his results as my manuscript was in III, 2, 47, line 23) may be the same person or the boy pythaistof
the press. 138/7.
20 J 16 (= I.G., 112, 3487) is actually in the storeroomof the
21 Jacoby, Atthis,pp. 26-27 states: "apparently (at least later)
museum at Eleusis. An unpublishedfragmentof this inscription, in some branches of the clan the officewas handed down
from
preservingonly the end of the firstline, shows that it should read fatherto son, not by regulation but in practice."
The instance
'Aw co[p]wp 'A7y7opo[0'E]pLKEEa. In 106/5 he was pythaist at he cites, ibid., p. 242, n. 38, concernsa grandfatherand grandson,
Delphi, Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 15, where no demotic is exegetes nos. 2 and 4 (who are according to him, following
preserved (Oliver ad I 16 mistakenly implies that 'AxapvEvsis Kirchner [P.A., 10100], great-grandfather and great-grandson).
preserved). An ephebe in 119/8 (I.G., I2, 1008, line 100) whose On the basis of this, inheritancecan hardly be called apparent
name should now be restored to read ['A-y]vicop 'AroX[XEcovtOu even at this date.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,19741 EXEGETES OF THE EUMOLPIDAE 93
Little is known of the activity of the exegetes of with the Eleusinian cult. But even if it had nothing
the Eumolpidae apart from what can be surmised to do with Eleusis, those urgingdeath withouttrial
about theiractivitysimplyas exegetesand what can were very probably referringto some nomospatrios;
be deduced fromthe new inscriptionto be published forthe case of Alcibiades,who was offereda trial for
by C. Edmonson and fromthe affairof Callias, about his alleged impietyagainst the NMysteries, shows that
whicha fewadditional words may be said here. deathwithouta trial forimpietywas not a law of the
In his charge concerning the suppliant branch, democracyin 415 and was not the type of law to have
Callias reckonedthat no one would know about the originatedin thedemocracy.23"Advice," not exegesis,
law on the stele (unless he actually forgotabout it is mentionedhere,and it is interestingthat the advice
himself)whichordaineda considerablymilderpunish- of the son of the hierophantis democraticin spirit;
ment than the unwrittenlaw of the Eumolpidae, the he advises the jurors to give the man a fair hearing
nomos patrioswhichhe cited and therebywas accused on the meritsof the case. "Advice" is probably the
of performingexegesis. For the writtenlaw on the appropriateword,forexegesis(whichhe as a Eumolpid
stele took precedence over an unwritten patrios could give) may have demanded the nomos patrios,
nomos, as is clear fromPericles' and Cephalus's state- aKpTrov aroOaz'ELZ. The Eumolpid's advice assured the
ments.22 Callias probably did not cite a false law courton whichdirectionit shouldtake in thisapparent
of the Eumolpidae; this would have been a risky conflictbetweenpatriarchalsanctionsand democratic
venture in the presence of the many Eumolpidae practice. These two examples of a nomos patrios
likely to be sittingin the Boule. The unwrittenlaw reveal the harshnessof some of these ancestral laws,
of the Eumolpidae was probably real in origin but the attendant great powers that the genos once pos-
had been supersededby the writtenlaw of the State, sessed, and the natural problems inherentin later
and he was hoping that nobody would remember(or exegesis.
perhaps he himselfhad forgotten)that among the No informationabout our exegetesis available for
numerousregulationson the "stele" therewas a law the period betweenthe end of the fourthcenturyand
prescribinga penalty of 1,000 drachmas and not the latterhalfof the second centuryB.C. In the first
death. He did not reckon on the ready knowledge centurytherewas apparentlyconsiderableinterestin
of Cephalus. the pctria of the Mysteries. In 67 B.C. Cicero wrote
In this old unwrittenlaw used by Callias we get a Atticusandaskedfora copyofthe Ev'AoXtr&Cov
wrarpta.24
glimpse of the once awesome powers the genos pos- This may have been a codification25 of the EbuoXwtKov
sessed: VO',oS 7rarptos, EL rts 1KEflrpLaZ'OEc?J& Trc9'EX-vo-wCP', 7ra-rpta,or it may have been the resultof researchby
aKpLTov arcoOawcwE. We probablyhaveanotherexample priests and others who were interestedin renewing
of such a nomos patrios in Pseudo-Lysias, 54, where the cult, perhaps also by scholars of antiquarian
the following situation is described: Diocles, the interests. Whetheror not thiswas the firsttimethat
son of Zacorus the hierophant,advised (o-vze/olAEvoE) such an amount of literaryactivitywas expended on
a court on what measuresto use in regardto a Mega- the irarptaEu,uoXwrtbC4 is not known. In any case
rian who had committedan impiety. Some people it may have been enough to make the exegetes
were urging, aKPLTOP rapaxpqua a7roKT-wrat, the same henceforthrelativelyinessential:afterapproximately
in the nomos patrios cited
severepenaltyprescribed the firstcenturyB.C. there are no testimoniaagain
by Callias. As the son of a hierophant gave this until the second centuryA.D.; and then no specific
advice and the impietywas committedby a Megarian, exegeticactivityis recorded,just names in dedicatory
it would be a fairassumptionthat the case had to do inscriptions. (However,the mentionin an inscription
of the second centuryof [- - -]eryovuots tQE]pEi{up
22Pseudo-Lysias, Against Andocides, 10 and Andocides, 110- -_]26 allows that perhapschance has simplydeprived
116; quoted above, p. 90. It must be admitted, however, that us of testimonia.) No certain evidence of any type
my position regardingthe supersedureof an unwrittenlaw by a fromafter the second centuryis preserved,and the
written one is somewhat hypothetical,for it is in disagreement picture we have of the hierophantNestorius at the
with Andocides' statement (On theMysteries,85) that unwritten end of the fourthcenturytempts one to think that
laws are not valid. But there are strong grounds for doubting
Andocides' statement. Callias did not hesitate to cite a nomos
the exegetes'functionhad by this time been absorbed
patrios, an unwrittenlaw, and he was refuted by the fact that by the hierophant,the same person,in fact,in whose
there was an applicable written law. I suspect that On the possession it probably was, to a large degree, before
Mysteries,85 lacks an importantqualification: an unwrittenlaw officialscalled exegetesexisted.
was not to be used if therewas an applicable writtenone. The
omission of the qualificationwas an errorof a sort quite under-
standable and probably not rare in the Athenian law court; see the 23 Cf. Jean Rudhardt, "La definition du delit d' impieted' apres
discussion on laxity in citinglaw by A. R. W. Harrison, The Law la legislationattique," Museum Helveticum17 (1960): pp. 87-105.
24 Lettersto Atticus,I, 5, 2 (ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey).
ofAthens:Procedure(Oxford,1971), pp. 134-135. Unwrittenlaw For
is forAristotle (Rhetoric1373b) a familiarlegal concept: XEyco 3' a discussion of this revival of interest in the patria see Oliver,
vo,uovov AEvLe3lO/ TOv be KOLVOV, 'atOV /EV rOV EKaoTots wptolIevov wpos Expounders,pp. 50-52 and above, p. 56.
a -robs,Kat rovirovrov ,lev &aypapovrov be }eypaIIIIe'oP, KOLP6P b rdp 25 See Oliver, loc. cit.
26 See above, n. 1.
Ka-ra jobaotv. Cf. ibid., 1368b, 7-9.
VIII. PYRPHOROS (flu 6soq) 160/170
1. Ao6zrLos TuapXov K-qpoLtESb.Decree for daduch In the Eleusinian Endowment7the 7rvpso6poscomes,

Themistocles,lines 9-11 (see text above, p. 51). in relationto the other priestsof his genos,afterthe
In officein 20/19. sacred herald and altar-priestbut beforethe 7ravatyis.
No mention is made of the priesthoodof Artemis
In the decree for Themistocles he appears in the Epipyrgidiaand the Graces,presumablybecause they
listofKerykes'priestsas 7rvps6po s KatLEpEvsTrJ.n
XapLrTcw had no relationto the cult of the M\Iysteries.
Kal -rws 'Apr,u6bosr-rs'Ertrvpyt6L1as. He appears after
the altar-priestbut beforethe sacred herald and the 3. A''Xtos Hvpo%pos 'AXapJEvs. I.G., I 12, 1801, 1802,
wrava,y7S. 1803; Hesperia 11 (1942): no. 4, p. 33. In office
There was a cult of Artemis Epipyrgidia at the fromca. 190 to sometimebefore209/10.
entrance of the Acropolis1as well as a cult of the
He is listedhieronymouslyin threeprytanycatalogs
Charites2;theywere probablythe ones served by our
of Oineis as eponymos:I.G., 112, 1801, dated by
pyrphoros.Additional support for the connectionis
offered by thefactthata 1EP Notopoulos8to 190/1 or 191/2 (but 187/8 also seems
avapy's (a priesthood
to be possible)9; 1803, to 192/3 or 193/4 (and this
also of the Kerykes) served also as priest of 'Epp371s
satisfiesthe date suggestedabove for the hierophant
HvXi'ir?SKaL XapL6ct5rj,sa cult also at the entranceof the
25] who is also mentionedin this list); 1802, to
Acropolisand associated with the cult of the Charites [no.
191/2 or 192/3 (which in default of secure evidence
there.'
can only be regarded as uncertain). He appears
AEovTLos TLg4apXov,pythaistin 106/5, is probably to
among the aeisitoi in 191/2 or 192/3 (Hesperia 11
be recognizedas his grandfather.4
[1942]: no. 4, p. 33).10
2. 'AXKap&fle1s. I.G., 112, 4816.
71.G., IJ2, 1092 (= Hesperia 21 [1952]: p. 382, line 52); see
As 7rvpSoopos roLv Oco-v he set up a dedication at above, pp. 35-36.
Eleusis in honor of Artemis,presumablythe Artemis 8 Hesperia 18 (1949): p. 22 and table I.
9 For the hierophantJulius (no. 25) can no longer be regarded
Propylaea of the Eleusinian sanctuary5; the pre-
as the archon of this year; see I.G., JJ2, 1792 and above, p. 38,
served fragmentexhibitspart of a reliefof Artemis. note 200.
Kirchnerassigns the dedicationto the second or third A. E. Raubitschek (JrEpas'AvrcovtovKEpaMo7roV'XXov [Athens,
centuryA.D.; Kourouniotes,who firstpublished it,6 1953], p. 250) believes that I.G., 112, 1801 should be dated after
simply to the Christian era. Since the pyrphoros 212 because of the entry A'prt[ot] in line 9 (as he restoresit).
It is possible, however,to restoreAwpqX[Los] and to considerit as
practicedhieronymyby the end of the second century the nomen of the man mentioned in line 10, Dionysius; the
A.D. (see below),1.G., JJ2, 4816 shouldprobablybe unusual position of the nomen could be explained by the fact
dated beforethen; any timeafterthe second century that it was perhaps omitted at firstand then inscribedafter the
B.C. seems to be possible. inscriptionof the rest of the man's name, there no longer being
enough space to the leftof his name. I hesitate to interpretthis
as a list of Aurelii because of the two Sulpicii in lines 12-13; the
SECOND CENTURY A.D. (?) list ofAureliicited by Raubitschek (op. cit.,p. 245, note 1) is not a
precise parallel because it does not contain names of people with
One of the seats of the prohedriaof the theaterof other gentilicia (the list was published by M. N. Tod, Journal of
Dionysus was L-p&cosXaptLicv Kal. 'Api-tu6Aos 'E7rL7rvp-yL6Las Egyptian Archaeology37 [1951]: p. 95); the other study cited
7r[pVPopov (I.G., JJ2, 5050); the title 7rvpso6pov appears by Raubitschek (J. F. Gilliam, Y.C.S. 11 [1950]: p. 198) also
below and separate fromthe preceding,and is written does not concern the addition of "Aurelius" to names already
in smaller letters,perhaps indicatingthat, while the containing gentilicia. It is unclear also whetherthe "Aurelioi"
in line 9 of I.G., 112, 1824 (whatever its date) is to be regarded
same man was traditionallythe holder of all offices as heading a list, again because the list contains the names of
inscribed,the title of 7rvpc06posbelongedto a separate men with other gentilicia; it is quite possible, on the other hanld,
sphere, the cult of the 1\iysteries.On the date of that the "Aurelioi" is to be taken with the two names that follow,
this inscriptionsee now AL. i\Iaass, Die Prohedrie Lycurgus and Pistus, perhaps both sons of Berneicides; cf. I.G.,
des Dionysostheaters JJ2, 3762. It is even more difficultto restoreAuprtX[--] in line 70
in Athen (AIunich,1972): p. 122. of I.G., JJ2, 1825 as again because of the appearance
He believes that the title is not Eleusinian; to me it of other gentilicia in AMprtqx[ot], the followinglist, but also because the name
seems clearlythe same as that of pyrphorusno. 1. immediatelybelow AprXE[- -] is writtenA'p(Atos) 'E7rIKTkrE[oS],
the repetitionhardlybeing necessaryor even natural ifAup EtLoL]
1 Pausanias, II, 30, 2; see Judeich, Topographievon Athen3 is the correct restoration; thus it would seem that AuptqX[-E-]
should be interpretedin a different way, thoughexactlyhow is uin-
(Munich, 1931), pp. 224-225.
certain. It may also be noteworthythat in neither I.G., JJ2,
2 See below, p. 96.
1824 nor 1825 is A'pXtot or A'prXF[--] centered above the list
3 See below, p. 96. each is alleged to head.
4Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 15, col. III, line 16. On the dating of I.G., 112, 1801-1803, cf. J. S. Traill, Hesperia
5 See Kourouniotes,AEXTlov 1927-1928: p. 8. It was found not 40 (1971): pp. 322-324, and 41 (1972): p. 141.
far from the temple of Artemis Propylaea (for which see Pau- 10For the date see appenid. IV anid above, p. 38, note 200.
sanias, I, 38, 6; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 167-168). Oliver's restorationof him in the aeisitoi listofHesperia 11 (1942):
6 Loc.cit. p. 34, no. 5 (191/2) is unicertain.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] OTHER SACRED OFFICIALS 95
4. AMp\XcosHvp%ooposAa,7rTpEvs. I.G., JJ2.1077,line 43. and otherobjects of the cult, the only otherinforma-
In officein 209/10. tion about his functionscomes from the decree of
221/2 (which concernsthe restorationof elementsof
He appears among the aeisitoi in this year; hier- the festival in pristinumsplendorem). It mentions
onymyis observed,and his identityis unknown. (lines 16-18) that when the processionfromEleusis
with the hiera arrives at the Eleusinion in Athens
GENERAL REMARKS
"the scacwvvrTs in accordance withancestral,
rotv6co&v,
This priest's functionwas concerned with main- custom,announcesto the priestessof Athena that the
tainingthe sacrificialfireof altars and hearths." hieraand escorthave arrived."
Despite the lack of testimonyfor the priesthood No dedications honoringincumbentsof this priest-
before20/19 the informationabout it in the Roman hood are preserved,probably a sign of its minor
period reveals that it was an importantpriesthood, status. In the list in the Eleusinian Endowment,
supplied by the Kerykes. The pyrphioros had a however,he precedes the Iakchagogos,the pyrphoros,
prohedria seat in the theater, was included among and the 7ravayi7s.
the aeisitoi at the end of the second century,12 and Althoughthis priest is attested as far back as the
sometimein the firstor second centurybegan prac- end of the sixth century,he is not mentionedamong
ticing hieronymy,all of which were privilegesonly the priestsof the Kerykes in the decree of 20/19 in
of the most prestigiouspriesthoods. Thus it would honor of the daduch Themistocles,4and so we may
be unwise to assume that the pyrphorosdid not exist be reasonably certain that this sacred officialwas
froman earlydate; and also unwiseto assume that he drawn fromthe Eumolpidae.
gained in importanceonly towardsthe end of or after
the Hellenisticperiod; forthereare also veryfewtesti-
monia for the sacred herald and altar-priestbefore
the Roman Empire. However, it does seem safe to In the law of ca. 460 B.C.5 it was ordained that the
say that this priest had a low position in the cult iEpEi O [7rava,y's] would receive one obol fromeach
as a whole. He is not mentionedin the law of ca. of the initiates at the Mysteries; in this law he is
460 B.C. (whereas the sacred herald and altar-priest listedafterthe daduch, altar-priest,and sacred herald,
are),18and in the Eleusinian Endowmentof 160-170 to mentiononly priestsof the Kerykes.
he appears only at the end of the second column of
Decree in honor of
1. OE6'OCXOS MEvEKpa'roVs XoXXEL6rs.
priests,with several priests interveningbetween the
the daduch Themistocles,above, p. 51, line 13.
altar-priestand himself. It is only when he is in-
In officein 20/19.
cluded in a limited group of Eleusinian priests that
he appears directlyafter the altar-priest,as in the In the list of priestsof the Kerykeswho testifiedin
aeisitoi lists and the decree of 20/19 in honor of the favor of honoringthe daduch Themistocles, Theo-
daduch Themistocles (where he even appears ahead philus is called 6 ravay 'S K Opv;; he is preceded by the
of the sacred herald). altar-priest,the pyrphoros, and the herald of the Two
Goddesses (the sacred herald).
IX. OTHER SACRED OFFICIALS He is otherwiseunknown,but may be related to
06'oLXos 'EpAuaLoKOV XoXXElCNS (I.G., 112, 2461, line 126,
a list of members of Leontis, middle of the first
This sacred officialis attestedas earlyas the end of century B.C.).
the sixth centuryin a fragmentary boustrophedon in-
scription,1next in the list of officialsin the Eleusinian AUGUSTAN PERIOD
Endowment of ca. 160-70 A.D.,2 and finally in a A seat in the prohedriaof the Theater of Dionysus
decree of 221/2 A.D.' Besides his title, which indi- is inscribed6:K'rlPVKOS 7ravayovs KaL lep&CoS.
I
actes that he was concernedwith the care of statues
2. 'I1C4ov Z29ov0O 'A^yvovl%os. I.G., 112, 3664.
KaLA6ytoAosoS
11L. Robert (R.E.G. 79 [1966]: pp. 746-748) discusses nu- In officein the firstquarter of the second century
merous instances of the pyrphoros throughout Greece. Our A.D.
Eleusinian pyrphorosis to be distinguishedfrom the 7rupSo'pos et
aKpo7roXes; cf. J. H. Oliver, Hesperia 21 (1952): p. 394, n. 34. His incumbencyis dated by I.G., 112, 3664, which
See nos. 3 and 4 and append. III. was dedicated by the Boule of the Six Hundred, i.e.,
13See above, pp. 10-11 and 77.
1 Sokolowski, Supplement,1, whose restorationscannot be re-
before127/8,and by the fact that he is the fatherof
garded as certain; for the most accurate edition see the editio
princeps,L. H. Jeffery Hesperia 17 (1948): pp. 86-111 (= S.E.G., 4See above, pp. 10-11 and 77.
XII, 2-3). 5 See text above, p. 51, line 48.
2 See above, pp. 35-36. 6 1.G., I12, 5048; for the descriptionand dating of this inscrip-
3 I.G., 112, 1078-1079; forthe date see Notopoulos, Hesperia 18 tion see now M. Maass, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheatersin
(1949): pp. 37-39. Athen (Munich, 1972): p. 121: cf. below, Appendix III.
three boys who were ephebes in this period.7 Kape- guess. Millar shows that it is unlikelythat he died
tanopoulos lists other members of this family who beforethe mid 270's.
appear in lists of ephebes and prytaneis.8
Jason is called simplyo ravay's in I.G., JJ2, 3664, 4. Ock65wpos. EtymologicumMagnum, p. 429, s.v.
as well as the priest of several other deities: 'Ep,u71s Uncertaindate.
?7/1-poKaXXEs.
and IHo6os. Hermes
IIVX'T7SKa'LXapL3&r1-7s, F' "HAH-pos, In the EtymologicumMagnum (loc. cit.) there is
Pyletes is probably the Hermes Propylaeus at the mentioneda descriptionof the 'A,upoKaXXEs by 0e66wpos
entrance of the Acropolis, mentioned by Pausanias 6 wravacy7srpooa-yopEvoeiavos Ev rw WrpT&rw1repl KflpVKwP
(I, 22, 8).9 Interestingly,Pausanias also relates, y&vovs.13
dependingon how you take his words, either that a
REMARKS
representationof the XaptTes stood next to Hermes
Propylaeusor that both Hermes and the Graces were In the absence of any evidence it would be idle to
in one and the same representation. Such a connec- speculate on the functionof this priest.14 There is
tion with the Graces may have somethingto do with only a hint of a development in his title. Around
the epithet Xapt6or-qs, and so 'Ep,ut1sHIvX'ir-qsKal 460 B.C. he was called tEpEVs
O [7cavay's], in 20/19 K pVt
Xapt6c'r-smay be one and the same cult. rT'"'UHppos ravawy's, in the late third century tEpEvs ca'a-y-qs,and on
is believed by Wilhelm to be identical with rTq the seat in the Theater of Dionysus Kacl LEpEWS appears
Kovporpo6fos who was worshippedon the Acropolis.10 to be a later addition to K'4pVKOS wracacyovs. This sug-
A cult of HlGoos is unattestedforAthens but may be gests that his name changed from ltEpEvswavay7ys to
involved with the cult of 'A<rpo6lvqH4v6an.tosand HEdk0. KfpVt 7rawacy's and back again to tEpEV's. (In the early
In I.G., JJ2, 3664 Jason is honored apparently for his second centuryan inscriptionrecords just 7rawacy's.)
service as vaKOpOS in the cult of Asclepiusand Hygeia. Perhaps the change in title,if it is a real one, corre-
sponded to a change in function.
160-170 The available evidenceindicatesthat he was drawn
fromthe genosof the Kerykes.
Of thepriestsof the Kerykeslistedin the Eleusinian
Endowment"1the 7ravayaysfollowsthe daduch, sacred
herald, altar-priest,and pyrphoros,that is, the same
officialswho precededhim in the decree of 20/19.12 Hle is mentionedin the list of officialsappended to
the Eleusinian Endowment15of ca. 160-170 and he
3. 1H6irXtos'Ep&vtos Zf4ltwwos HTroXfEalov 'Eppetos. I.G., has a seat in the prohedria of the Theater of
JJ2, 2931, 3198, 3667, 3669, 3670, 3671. P.I.R.2, Dionysos.16 His functionis clear fromhis title: he
H 104. F. Millar, J.R.S. 59 (1969): pp. 19-29, carriedoraccompaniedthestatueof laKXos. Since this
with stemma. In officefromca. 250 to ca. 280. deity was a latecomerto the cult, probablyas a per-
sonificationof the mysticcry,17so too of course was
He is called tepev's wraca'y-sin all the epigraphical
this priest. It would be interestingto know from
testimonia except I.G, JJ2, 2931 (which he dedicated as
which genos he came, but the evidence is only of a
archon) and I.G., JJ2, 3667 (which he and his brothers negative sort. He is not in the list of the priestsof
dedicated to their father). He was panegyriarch, the Kerykes in the decree of
20/19 for the daduch
agonotheteof the Panathenaea, basileus, and archon. Themistocles18;thus he was probably a Eumolpid.
His historicalwritingsand his part in the Athenian The only known incumbent is: Atovbatos MapaOcWtPos.
defense against the Herulians are well described by I.G., 112, 3733, 3734, 4771, 4772. In officein 126/7.
Millar. His family belonged to the Kerykes; two He was cosmetein 126/ 7 (1.G., 112, 3733 and 3734).
membershad already served as sacred heralds (nos. In I.G., 112, 3734 he is not named but called fiOXOs
7 and 9), his uncle and grandfather. The familywas
among the most distinguishedin the intellectualand For the full quotation see above, p. 33, n. 149.
13
civic lifeof Athens in the second and thirdcenturies. 14 The rava-yEis mentionedby Pollux, I, 35 (ed. Bethe) cannot
We have no certain informationabout when he be understoodto mean that therewas more than one rava-yris; for
assumed this priesthood; approximatelythe middle all the officialsin this sentence are named in the plural. Julian,
Oratio V, 173c-d (ed. Hertlein) writes: Wow7rEpevraWa (i.e., in
of the thirdcenturywould seem to be a reasonable the cult of the Mother) ro rs yveaecos a'lTLov awror7e/veraL,obro be
oLrxv apprwv a-ryivoL
Kal rap& 'AOflvaLoLs davaaZ eL,t KaL6 robrwv
'Sometime between 112/3-125/6 (I.G., JJ2, 2029). The sons ka6pXcV LEpo4oAvrvS I do not thinkthat this refersto our
KTX.
and Ai64oavros. This identificationwas
are: 2rpairwv,'AwroXX)W)os, priest, but that Julian is saying that all the priestlyparticipants
made by E. Kapetanopoulos, 'Apx. 'Esp. 1968: pp. 191-192. of the cult who had some "contact" with the hiera were 7rava-yeZs,
8 Ibid. pure in some ritual sense or perhaps practicingchastityduringthe
I Cf. Frazer, Pausanias's Description of Greece2: pp. 268-273; festival.
W. Judeich, TopographievonAthen3(Munich, 1931), p. 224. 15 See above, pp. 35-36. He also appears in the list of Eleu-
10Pausanias, I, 22, 3; Wilhelm, Beitrdgezur griechischenIn- sinian priestsin Pollux, I, 35 (ed. Bethe).
schriftenkunde (Wien, 1909), p. 95. 16 I.G., 112, 5044 and append. III.
11See above, pp. 35-36. 17See Foucart, 1914: pp. 110-113.
12 See above, p. 51, line 13. 18 See above, pp. 50-52.
VOL. 64. PT. 3. 19741 OTHER SACRED OFFICIALS 97
[EIKXo]v vv-Lwv
EpOsOXoo i.vritr[Xos ovv6]8wv. He still 160-170 A.D.
has the title of 'IaKxacyw'y6s in two other dedications, lEpEVSGEO[l Kal 6e&s -- -] appearsnextto last in the
I.G., 112, 4771 and 4772, which do not belong to the second column of the Eleusinian Endowment of ca.
year in whichhe was cosmete; thisled Foucart to con- 16O1 70.26
clude that the priesthoodwas held for life.'9 These
dedicationsseem to indicate that he was also a priest REMARKS
in the cult of Isis. Apparently Eubouleus was not always served by
Hieronymywas not observed. the priestof the God and the Goddess as the case of
no. 2 seems to show.
'I?Q?U, ko0U .ai 4kd This priestwas not among those of the Kerykes in
Nilsson argues persuasivelythat the BedsKal Na are the decree of 20/19 in honor of Themistocles the
Pluton and Persephone.20 daduch, and so the priesthood was probably a
Eumolpid one. Although this priest served hier-
1. AaKpaTreL8fs 1wo-rpaTrov 'IKaptevs. I.G., 112, 1941, line onymous deities, he himselfseems not to have been
7; 2336, line 196; 2452, line 41; 4037; 4701; hieronymous,at least not before 140/1, which is in
Foujilles de Delphes, III, 2, 2, line 12; 14, line 9; keepingwith his minorpositionin the cult.
25, line 9. In officearound the end of the second
centuryB.C.
On a great reliefwhich he set up at Eleusis as a is ['Ascp]obelatos2TrEwavov
The onlyknownincumbent
xaptro-pcovto Demeter and Kore and ,e-sand Oeaand [MapaG]clwtosof the mid thirdcenturyA.D. (I.G., JJ2,
Eubouleus he is called IEPEVS 0GOVKalt Eas KaL Ev3ov&[s 3705), who is otherwiseunknown. The priesthood
____].21 The dedication was made on behalf of appears at the bottom of the list in the Eleusinian
himself,his sons Sostratus and EDionysiu]s and his Endowment27;in fact, it appears from the writing
Ewife]22Dionysia. He himselfwas a thesmothete that it was added as an afterthought. The priestof
in 98/723; his son Sostratuswas a pythaistin 106/524; Triptolemusdoes not appear among the priestsof the
and his other son Dionysius was an ephebe in the Kerykeswho testifiedon behalfof thedaduch Themis-
Pythais in the same year.25 Thus the birthdate of tocles in 20/19. This was probably thereforea
Lacrateides would appear to be around 160-170. Eumolpid priesthood.
Part of a damaged head in the reliefis identified
by a nearby inscriptionas that of Lacrateides. His ,fivQ?1a IIZousxvolq
hair is long and is bound by a strophion.

She is attested only once, in a "sacred calendar" of
2. Eip-qvaZos Hatavnevs. I.G.,
Eip-qvaLov 112, ca. 330-ca. 270, whereshe apparentlyhas a function
1772, line 8;
2047; 2048. In officein 140/1A.D. relatingto a celebrationof Thesmophoriabut not the
Mysteries.28 Nevertheless,Dow and Healey are prob-
1.G., 112, 2047 and 2048 show that he was cosmete
ably rightin maintainingthat she functionedalso in
in 140/1 and was also called IEPEvS GEOV Kat Ga's. His
the Mysteries, in which Pluto was a prominent
son Dionysiuswas ephebe in thisyear (I.G., 112, 2048) deity.29
and prytanis in 162/3 (I.G., 112, 1772, line 8).
19 1914: p. 208.
20Geschichte1: pp. 470-471; Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft Three of them are listed among the priestsof the
32 (1935): pp. 89-92 (= Opuscula, 2: pp. 555-558). Kerykesin thedecreeof 20/19forthedaduch Themis-
21 I.G., JJ2, 4701. It is possible that he was at this time a priest tocles.30 The onlyothermentionof themis in the list
of othergods as well, forthe inscriptioncontinueswith ECbovXfo[s
- - - -] Ka JciV[. c -rovIE-- - - ]. Philios's restoration,KaL
of priestsin Pollux, I, 35 (ed. Bethe) where they are
-rCov [EvlAIA,]wv roV I[Eros], is far from certain. called: V'tvw6ol,v,vrptat. In view of this and the
22 Daughter is also possible. obvious part that they would have in the procession
23I.G., JJ2, 2336, line 196 (= S. Dow, H.S.C.P. 51 [1940]: of the Mysteriesit seems reasonable to suppose that
p. 121, line 202); Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 2, line 12.
24 I.G., 112, 1941, line 7; Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 14, line 9.
they belongedto this cult.
This is my interpretation;Kirchnerbelieves (ad. I.G., 112, 1941) Of the threevVuva-ywyol in thedecreeforThemistocles,
that the pythaist was a cousin of Lacrateides. However, since the first,'Aoo-6r06fluos 'Ao-yElov TrUKOio%'Los, was the son
Sostratus probablywas the oldest son, and his brotherwas ephebe
in 106/5, it is quite possible that he was older than his brotherby 26Hesperia 21 (1952): p. 381, line 55 (= I.G., 112,1092); see
ten years or more,old enough in fact to be pythaist in this year. above, pp. 35--36. He was actually last in the firstengravingof
Kirchner believes that Sostratus the son of Lacrateides was a this document; the priest of Triptolemus was added later (see
trrwEvs in the Pythais of 106/5 (Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 28, below).
col. III, line 32), but the r7revLs in question is a Sostratus of the 27 Ibid., line56.
tribe Attalis with no patronymic or demotic given, and so he 28 Dow and Healey, 1965: line 24.
cannot be identifiedwith probabilityas the son of Lacrateides. 29 Ibid., pp. 35-36. Foucart assumed this also (1914: p. 220).
25 Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 25, line 9. 30 See the text above, p. 51, lines 18-20.
of the archon of 98/731;the second, MevvfasMevvfov OTHERS

'Atr7vtebs, is probably to be identifiedwith a prytanis An alleged special group of priestessescalled the
of 50-40,32and is perhaps related to the archon LEpEat iraca-ycts owes its existencepartly to a missing
Menneas son of Zopyrus33;and the third, (ftX7Vw comma. Bethe in his editionof Pollux, I, 35, has the
l4tuovos MeXvLebs,was the son of a 1tiris in the correct punctuation: lipEtat, ravayE6s. The latter
Pythais of 106/5.34 refersin the plural to the 7rawacy's (see above, pp.
95-96), just as all the other names of priestsin this
'IEVEV', Al6Oo p'OQO part of the list are in the plural. None of the other
1. AwoifeosKXeoM&ovs Mapa0Gvtos. Decree for Themis- evidence alleged for them relates convincinglyto
stocles the daduch, lines 15-18 (see text above, the Mysteriesat Eleusis.37
p. 51). In officein 20/19. It is unclear whetherthe gloss in Hesychiusabout
refersto a priest
the b6pavos-o a'yVPa-r's rCv 'EXEvWLv1wv
He is called o XWOoc6pos roOVtEpoi XLGovand was simul- at the Mysteries.
taneously 4EPEVS ALos 'OpLov Kalt 'A6vas '()pLaS KaL The VEWKOpOS mighthave a betterclaim to priestly
HooaE6bcovos Kalt HoaoabCovoseEAExLOVxov. status, but he is attested in only one inscription,
HIpocT(f)afo-jarqpiov the
Kapetanopoulos35pointsout that line 4 of I.G., JJ2, accountof the epistatai of 329/8,wherethereis no
1727 (= Hesperia 3 [1934]: p. 147 and fig.2) should signthat he had dutiesany moreimportantthan those
read AwVLoeosKXwop4vovsM[apa0vctos] rather than of a sacristan:the VEWK'pOS HpoajS, who Kirchner did
IWaEos; in which case our man was basileus "paullo not think was an Athenian, is mentionedas having
ante 63/2(?)". For a stemmaof the familysee I.G., somethingto do with intestines,perhaps gettingrid
112, 3488. of themor purchasingthem38;repairsof a VEWKOptovare
mentionedseveral times.39
SECOND CENTURY A.D.
There is a seat in the prohedriaof the Theater of
Dionysus designatedas the seat of the IEpESos XlWo'6pov In Pollux, I, 35 (ed. Bethe) we findappended to a
(I.G., 112, 5077); IEpEis is carved by a separate hand. list of Eleusinian priestsand priestesses:'IaKxayTwyos
'yap KaL KOVpOTpO(POS Kal 6aELpLT?7S,Kal oc-a ToLcavTa, tLaLa Twv
2. M AlvpriXLos AlWofpos HpOGbEKTOS HLoTOKpaTOVs
The firstof these certainlywas a sacred
'ATTLKxV.
KExpaXiEuv.I.G., 112, 3658 (= Oliver, 1941: no.
officialat Eleusis; the second certainlywas not,which
27). In officearound 200 A.D.
puts in doubt the ascription of the third to the
According to the dedication in his honor,he was an M1ysteries at Eleusus. A aaELpLTv7S is not attestedelse-
ambassador, archon of the Kerykes,and archonof the where. If such a priesthoodexisted in connection
Sacred Gerousia,and he was awarded Roman citizen- with the Mysteriesat Eleusis, it must have been a
ship by Commodus. It is interestinghow XWolpoposis rather minor one. Nilsson believes the goddess
incorporatedinto his name; it seems to imitatenames Daeira to be Pluto's sister,who guarded Kore in the
with hieronymy. underworld.40
The functionof the XWopopos is unknown,mainly
because we do not know the nature of the IEpos XlOos X. HEARTH-INITIATES (Haik,C Qiso'k&riwa)
which he evidently carried.36 It is clear that the
INTRODUCTION
priesthoodbelongedto the Kerykes,but the evidence
is tenuous at best for linkingit to the cult of the The wrals A4p'EcrLas (yvfl6ELsor /LvfGEl-ca) appears in the
Mysteries. It does not appear in the Eleusinian list of recipientsin the Eleusinian Endowment of
Endowment,thoughit is possiblethat it was squeezed 371For a full discussion see Foucart (1914: pp. 214-215) who is
in betweenthe second columnof the list of priestsand of the opposite opinion. It seems to me that the regular priest-
the margin. esses of the sanctuary could sometimes be called irava-yc-sbut
only in referenceto the practice of chastityduring the festival.
38 I.G., II2, 1672, line 123. On the vewK6pasin general cf. P.
31 For the archon, 'Ap7ydov
'Ap7yeZos TpLKOPVoLos, see P.A., 1586 Stengel,Kultusaltertiimer3, pp. 51-52; H. Krister,R.E. 16 (1935):
and Meritt, The Athenian Year, p. 238 (withbibliography). The coll. 2422-2424. A Perses appears on a fourth century grave
fatherof the archon I thinkis probably to be restoredin I.G., IIJ, inscriptionat Eleusis (B.C.H. 94 [1970]: p. 912).
2445, a list set up around 140, so that line 11 should read: ['Ap-yEZos 39 Lines 164, 181, 201, 208.
'Ap]TOt7rr,UOV TpLKOp'VOLOs. 40 See his full treatmentof this problematicalgoddess in Archiv
32 Hesperia 36: (1967): p. 237, no. 47, line 4. fur Religionswissenschaft32 (1935): pp. 82-83 (= Opuscula
33I.G., II2, 1718, line 2 (36/5-18/7 B.c.). Selecta, 2: pp. 545-547). It is not clear to me whether the
34 Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 28, col. II, line 29; see Sundwall, "priestess of Demeter" who according to one source must absent
N.P.A., p. 163, with stemma. herselfwhen sacrificeis made to Daeira is the priestessof Demeter
35 'E<p.'Apx., 1968: p. 177. at Eleusis. Anotherfull discussion of ancient and modern inter-
36 For the best discussion of the nature of this priest see P. pretations is given by P. Moraux, Une imprecationfunerairea
Roussel, 1934: pp. 824-827. Neocesaree (Paris, 1958), pp. 30-38.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 HEARTH-INITIATES 99
160-170 A.D.,' whichconsistsalmostentirelyof priests "primordial"in the phrase wra-sasp'Eo-rLas,more con-
(the only certain non-priestbeing the archon of the clusive evidence is needed to prove this than the fact
Eumolpidae). Porphyryincludes the wra!Es in a dis- that it meant "fromthe beginning"in the proverb.
cussionofpriests,and even attributesto themsacerdo- Foucart's theorythat the boy representsthe city,
tal functions. His descriptionofthemreads2:6irEp yap that the hearth is accordingly the hearth of the
Ev Tois wo-TrptotsO asp EoTTtasXEyogEvos7rawsavTt iravTwv Prytaneum, has a bit of support in the notice in
TLov /IVOV/IEV&Va7roIuELXaLLTLETaL
TOE 6tov, aKpLO3LS pcov Taa Bekker,Anecdota Graeca (p. 204): 'Asp'EcrrLas,Oiv?7vav
wrpooTEra,ylEva, TroTO KaT'a Ta E'V- Kal wroAXusoi' iLEpE-s O EK TLoV WpOKplTOOV 'A6nvaLCOV
KX'p) XaXwvraals iooa
5lvvavTaL avTr 7ravTrv OVOVTESKaL TO%0EOV rpooayo/EuvoL 6La gVfl6Els. For the fact that the child was initiatedat
Trs EVo-E3Las dlS T%v 0CCOV Kfl6E/IovIav. we
Nevertheless, public expense tends to indicate that he was in some
cannot conclude that the wrais Ao' EoTlas was regarded way considereda representativeof the city, in which
as a hpEbs, butsimplythathe (or she) offered
prayers case the "hearth" could well have been the main
or sacrificeson behalfof all the initiatesand perhaps hearthof the city,the one located in the Prytaneum.
also on behalfof the city,and in so doing assumed on At any rate,the "hearth,"whetherit is the one in the
this occasion quasi-sacerdotal functions. The high Prytaneumor some otherhearth,was probablya real,
respectaccorded themstands out clearlyin the great specifichearth,and the initiationof the child prob-
numberof dedicationsof the Hellenisticand Roman ably had some directphysicalrelationto it,7 perhaps
period erected in theirhonor,includingmany by the as the starting-pointof the ,TVhfo-ts8
or perhaps as the
Areopagus,Boule, and Demos. locale of some ceremonywhichtook place even before
The principalclue concerningtheirfunctionought the /ThfO-Lfs.
to lie in the phrase ap' roTLas,and severalscholarshave The customof the -ralsa4' EoTrLaswas veryold. It is
accordinglytriedto determinewhat the phrasemeans. attested as early as around 460 B.C., in an inscription
To date the most accepted interpretationsare those which is unfortunately mutilatedand uncertainlyre-
of Foucart,3who identifies'o-LTa withthe public hearth stored in the section where the irals is mentioned.9
in the Prytaneumand so views the pais as "le repre- Myesis in this inscription,and apparentlythroughout
sentant de la cite qui est symbolisee par le foyer the fifthcentury,still had its original meaning of
public,"and ofG. M\1eautis,4 who associates A4o'EoTLas "pre-initiation,"that is, an introductoryceremony
with the proverb asp' Eco-LashipXEo-OaL(i.e., "beginning that took place beforethe candidate became a mystes,
withwhat is essential,beginningfromthe beginning") before the telete.10
and then interpretslv-dls a6p' 'o-TLas in the following An unpublished inscriptiondiscovered near the
sense: "cet enfantest le premierinitie,l'initie type, Eleusinion in the Athenian Agora," which dates ap-
l'initie primordial." Accordingto his interpretation, parentlyto the second quarter of the fourthcentury
a(p EoTias is equivalent to air' apXis; 4oTla means or perhaps slightlylater, sheds new lighton the way
essentiallyapxq,,the primordial;and the proverba(p here, signifying"central starting-point"or "center as starting-
eCTrias apXE7OaLtdeveloped with this primordialaspect point." Both o-ria and apx?7with their separate meanings are
ofEoTla in mind. He gives scant attention,however, essential to the sense of the passage; if o-ricameant by itself
to the metaphorical origin of the proverb. When "central starting-point,"therewould have been no need forapxx1,
sacrificingto a series of gods, one customarilysacri- and if o-ria meant apx79, the passage would make no sense.
'A. Mommsen, Heortologie
ficedto Hestia first5;so "startingwith Hestia" came gested that the hearth was in(Leipzig, 1864), pp. 239-240, sug-
the sanctuary at Eleusis: "ein
to mean the same as "startingfromthe beginning." heiliger Heerd der Demeter, in dessen Nahe der Erwahlte die
Consequentlyit does not seem permissibleto ascribe Weihe fur alle nahm. Die Aeltern hofftenihrem Kinde durch
to o-rTlaany inherentmeaningof "beginning." This die Weihen vom Heerd reichen Segen zu gewinnen." In a foot-
meaning evolved out of a sacrificial custom, and note to p. 239 he says: "Vielleicht kann man auch die Stelle des
Hymnus 236-240 heranziehen,wo Demeter an ihrem Pflegling
apparently did not exist independentlyof a4n'EtroTas eine Unsterblichkeitsweihe(v. 242) vollzieht. Sie bedient sich
apXEcOalt.6 Thus, if a4' toTIas means "original"or dabei des Herdfeuers...." Considering the many aetiological
elements in the hymn the suggestionis a very attractive one.
11.G., II2, 1092 (= Hesperia 21 [1952]: pp. 381-382): see 8 On the ,.dnqats see above, p. 13. For the hearth of the
above, pp. 35-36 and below, pp. 110, 111. Prytaneum as a startingpoint fora processioncf. the regulation
2 De Abstinentia,IV, 5. concerningthe orgeonesof Bendis, Sokolowski, Lois sacrees, 46,
3Foucart, 1914: pp. 277-281, followed by 0. Kern, 1935: col. lines 6-7 (= I.G., II2, 1283): r,xv7rov7r,7v 1r&rav & 'aro' rrs a-ras rys
1236, and by Deubner, 1932: p. 74. eKK Tov 7rpvTavEaov. Cf. also the diaa-yco-y? a1ro6rs Eiaxapas, though
4R.E.A. 39 (1937): pp. 105-107. Nilsson, Geschichte, 2: p. 92, not related to the Prytaneum,Pickard-Cambridge,The Dramatic
n. 4, suggests the possibilitythat &aria meant "family," i.e., the FestivalsofAthens,rev. J. Gould and D. M. Lewis (Oxford,1968),
Eumolpidae and Kerykes (which probably was not true, as will pp. 59-61. It should be noted that the Croconidae, who were
be shown below), but takes no firmposition. associated with the Eleusinian cult, apparently administered a
6 See A. Preuner, Lexikon der griechischenund romischen sanctuary of Hestia (I.G., II2, 1229, line 6).
Mythologie,ed. Roscher, s.v. Hestia, coll. 2614-2620. 9 I.G., J2, 6; forthe test see above, pp. 10-11; the lines in ques-
6 In the phrase abr' a'XX77skfaS Kai ApXflsraTs 1rpa'Lets tion are 24-26.
rPOXELPLPoIc4vw (Strabo, 1, 1, 16) &ariahas the metaphoricalmean- 10 See above,
p. 13.
ing of "center," "places which are to a countryas a hearthis to a 11C. Edmonson, who will soon publish this inscription,has
house" (L.S.J., s.v. karia I, 5). kariaS Kaltaipxtsis a hendiadys kindlyallowed me to cite this passage.
the wraThsaip' i-rlaS wereselected. Lines 41-2 read: who was ephebe in 107/6 and grandsonof the priest
IrepLro ap' [Earias xpt'T-6gf3aat]Xia 7rpoayopEibEv ypacpEcOat of Apollo.
r6'
/I f3EoX]6gEvov
w 03o],eo 'AO6qvEaiw .
....................3...
(WdrV[a 1 . .. .
2. A girl. I.G., JJ2, 3477. Second half of second
~](pai& [ ....... EK 6E Tjyy zpa]ja1abv&CvKXpOVT O
,BaaLXEVsTiEl] voli/nviua ]. Thus century.
rT[v 9 P' 'orLcas-
any Athenianwho wishedto have his child becomean She is honored by the Boule and the Demos as
w' carLas merelyhad to registerthe child's name, and hearth-initiate,kanephorosat the Panathenaea, and
on the firstday (presumably of Boedromion) the kanephorosin the Pythais. The date is derivedfrom
basileus selectedthe pais by lot fromthoseregistered. the priestessof Athena,Habryllis,daughterof Micion
The fact that the basileus was involved tends to of Kephisia.16
signify great antiquity for the institution. The
manner of selection is in complete accord with the 3. The dedicationto a girlhearth-initiate in Hesperia
approximately contemporary statement made by 37 (1968): p. 289, no. 29, dated thereby its lettering
Isaeus in a lost speech12:a(:) ' r'araas/vov,/EPvos'A6rnvaZos to around 200 B.C., could perhaps belong to any
r7v Wrarrs-. KXn?pW 65E XaX&'vrE/.lt)ETO. The statement in time in the second century.
Anecdota Graeca (see above) adds that the cost 4. 4?tartov Atovvalov'AXat&os v,ya'rqp.Below, ap-
of myesis of this child was paid at public expense pend. VI. End of second century.
(6,vooia), and that the child was o sK TWV rpOKpLTwP
'AO77valwv.Foucart's suggestionthat EK rCovrpOKpLrwv Her base was set up by her father
around the end
signifiesa list of pre-selected candidates, such as of the second century, while Glauce daughter of
Aristotle mentions in connection with selection for Menedemusof Kudathenaionwas priestessof Demeter
political office,"3is ruled out by the Agora inscription and Kore (no. 5).
unless this representsa change froman earlier law 5. 'E7rapbLrEta'A6nvaoy6pov MErzXvrr.sOvya'rrnp.I.G., IJ2,
that required such a list. The phrase, I suspect, 3480. In the last quarterof the second century.
should rather be derived from the fact that in the
Hellenisticand Roman period numerousmonuments Her father and her maternal grandfatherwere
'
were dedicated at Eleusis to wraass ai EarLas of dis- priests of Sarapis on Delos in 126/5 and 116/5 re-
tinguishedfamilies,i.e., rpoKpLrot.14 spectively.'7 The base (I.G., 112, 3480) was set up
by her maternalgrandparents.
THE INDIVIDUALS
6. TqiuorEaM5rzEtov 6vyarrnp. I.G.,
roi MVrELtovHrtpat&,os
The dates indicated for the followinghearth-initi- I12, 3491. Around the middle of the firstcentury
ates are those of the individual's year of initiation. B.C.
The dedicatorymonumentlisted in each case is as-
She belongedto thefamilyofthe Medeii ofPeiraeus,
sumed to have been erected not long after that time which was very prominentin the civic life of Athens
unless it is otherwiseclear that it was not.
of the second and firstcenturiesbeforeChrist'8; her
llatavteLs. I.G., 112,3478. Around
1. Avatas'Aprt,uwvos fatherwas an exegete of the Eumolpidae and archon
115 B.C. around 65.19 Her motherDiphila was a firstcousin
ofherfather. Her mother'sniece,Nicostrate,married
Kirchneridentifiedthis boy with the Lysias son of the daduch Themistocles(no. 16) who was honoredby
Artemonof Paiania who was priestof Apollo around his genosin 20/19.
the end of the second century(I.G., 112,2452, line 21) Her fatherwas a Eumolpid.
and whose grandsonwas ephebe in 107/6 (I.G., 112,
1011, line 106). It is clear fromKirchner'sstemma 7. Daughter of a man of the deme Azenia. I.G., 112,
of the familyof the dedicators'5of the statue base of 3492. Second half of the firstcenturyB.C.
the hearth-initiate(I.G., 112,3478) that theyprobably Inspectionof this dedicationshows that the follow-
dedicated it in the last quarter of the century,since ing text is necessary:
the akme of the two known dedicators is assigned to
"around 120." If we identify the hearth-initiate [-?----------A?]nvt os Ovy[a]
with the priestof the end of the century,we have to [rEpa,Asovros roiiHv9]cW,aKros 'AEv[t]
assume that theymade the dedicationwhen theywere o
[EOS KaL AorL,uov oi3] Ato&.pov 'AXaifl]
very young. It thereforeseems more likely that it
4 v, a7' a rLas /k]vnlGEavAuE[l]
was made to the Lysias son of Artemonof Paiania
E rptKatI K6pqt]Kaav.
[vacat avu461Kav
12 Harpocration, s.v. a&p' ear1as vOr70vat.
13 Foucart, 1914: p. 278. Aristotle,Ath. Pol., 8. 16Cf. stemma ad P.A. 5966.
14 In Dio Cassius 7rpOKpLTOS iS used to translateprinceps;cf. 17 Inscriptionsde Delos, 2610.
L.S.J., s.v. 18 See stemma, P.A., II, p. 82.
15 Ad I.G., 112,
3488. 19Oliver, Expounders,I 19, pp. 146-147.
The disposition of the text is slightlyaltered, but Her fatherwas thesmothetein the beginningof the
Kirchner'srestorationsare retainedwith the addition firstcenturyA.D. (I.G., 112, 1730, line 13).
of definitearticles (so J. H. Oliver) in lines 2 and 3.
Diotimus son of Diodorus of Halai was the member REPRESENTATIONS IN ART23
of the Kerykeswho proposedthe decree honoringthe
daduch Themistocles (no. 16), and was one of the For reasons that will become clear below, the study
-distinguishedAthenians who participated with the of the individuals will be brieflyinterruptedat this
hierophantin the lectisterniumof Pluto.20 He was point in orderto discuss the several sculptureswhich
also an exegeteelected by the Demos.21 have been interpretedas representations of the hearth-
initiate. A briefdescriptionof the featuresrelevant
8. [Ator]1,a,daughterof E... ]cleides and Phaenarete. to the identification of each sculpturefollows.
I.G., 112, 3499. Dated by letteringto firstcentury 1. Figures 5-7. A statue of a boy now in the
beforeChrist. Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome.24 The boy is
None of these personsis otherwiseknown. leaningagainst a treestump. Attached to the stump
are a stafflikeobject, a wreath,and a ribbon looped
9. An unknown girl who was also kanephorosfor around the wreath and hanging from it. He is
Sarapis. I.G., 112, 3498, erected while Charion wearinga shortchitonand holdingan object in front
was priestessof Demeter and Kore (no. 7). In of him which is not preservedbut is most likely a
the firstor second centuryB.C. piglet. His hair is bound with a thin band.
The wreath and the leaves on the stafflikeobject
10. A boy. I.G., 112, 3517. Perhaps firstcentury have been thoughtto be myrtle,and this led scholars
B.C. to look to Eleusis forthe personrepresented,wherea
boy and a pigletwould naturallysuggestthe hearth-
The top of the stoneis preserved,showingthat there initiate.
is space for one more line above Skias's text. The The statue was made in the Julio-Claudian (or
leftside is originaland shows that only three letters possibly Hadrianic) period. L. Spaulding suggested,
come beforethe nu in the firstpreservedline; there- not very cogentlyin my opinion,that its originalwas
foreSkias's restorationof the name is highlyunlikely. a creationof a classicizingschool of the firstcentury
Only about one and one-half letters should be re- B.C., perhaps the Pasitelean school.25 1M'ostother
stored at the beginningof line 2. opinions are that its original was a fifth-century
creation,26 and we will returnto this question below.
11. ['O]KVLa (?) HoXvXapktov I.G., 112,
'Anvt4wlsOv-ya'irp.
3518. Beginning of firstcenturyA.D. Erected 2. Figures 8-9. An Antonine copy of the same
by the Boule. original,now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.27 It
differsfromthe precedingin a few details. Nothing
Her father was archon, her grandfatherpytho-
is attached to the tree stump; the filletin the boy's
chrestus exegete, and her great-grandfather hoplite
hair is here a strophion;he is wearinga sandal on the
general,archon,and epimeleteof Delos.22
rightfoot but his left foot is bare (but no sandal is
on the rightfootof no. 1, whose leftfoot
12. Aa/itttov 'AwroVrtboset O't'ovOvya'rrnp.'ApX. 'Eso. represented
1971: pp. 114-115, no. 7 (= I.G., 112, 3519 plus is missing).
new fragment). For the stemma see 0. Rein- 3. Figure 10. An Antoninecopy of the same origi-
muth,B.C.H. 90 (1966): pp. 98-99, and 'Apx.'Eso. nal, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori.28Only the
loc. cit. Augustan. head is ancient. He is wearinga strophion.
She comes from an illustriousfamily (see Rein- 23 I have profitedmuch in discussingthe material of this section
-muth'sstemma); her maternalgrandfatherwas prob- with my wife,Jacquelyn Collins Clinton.

24 K. Esdaile, J.H.S. 29 (1909): pp. 1-5, pl. Ia; Helbig, Fuhrer
ably the archon of 52/1, her paternal grandfather
durchdie iffentlichen SammlungenklassischerAitertilmer in Rom4
appears to have been the archon of 46/5, and her (1966), no. 1503, with bibliography.
fatherthe archon of 20/19 (for the date see above, 25The "Camillus" Type in Sculpture (Diss. Columbia, 1911),
p. 50, note 30). p. 56.
26 Cf. Helbig4, icC. cit.; G. Lippold, Die griechischePlastik
(Handbuch der Archdologie6, 3, 1, 1950), p. 130; B.S. Ridgeway,
13. 4ttXrTC'KXEoubvovs Mapasvl.ov Ov-yarqp. I.G., 112,
The SevereStylein GreekSculpture (Princeton, 1970), p. 68, who
3529. Stemma: ad I.G., 112, 3488. Around the groups nos. 1-3 near the Sosandra, i.e., ca. 460; Poulsen, Der
beginningof firstcenturyA.D. strengeStil (Copenhagen, 1937), pp. 79-80, argues fora Boeotian
originalof ca. 450.
27 K. Esdail, op. cit.,pl. lb (the forearmsand pig are restored);
20 I.G., 112, 2464, line 3. See above, p. 29. Helbig4,lcC. cit.

21 Oliver, Expounders,p. 149. 28Amelung,Dissertationesdi Pontificia Accademia, 2. Seria 9
22 For the prosopographyof this familysee ibid., p. 148. (1907): pp. 115-35, tav. VI; Helbig4,lcC. cit.
F1G. 6. Conservatori boy (1), side view. Courtesy of German

Archaeological Institute at Rome.
5. In the Louvre.30
6. At Ince Blundell HIall.3.
FIG. 5. Conservatori boy (1). Courtesy of German 7. In the Wandel collection in
Copenhagen.32
Archaeological Institute at Rome. 8. At Sicyon,discoveredin the course of excavating
a Roman house.33
4. An Antonine copy of the head of the same All of these boys (1-8) have a peculiar tuftof hair
original,now in the Terme Mluseumin Rome.29 The risingdirectlyabove the middle of the forehead.
filletin the hair is identicalto that of no. 1. 30 Reinach, Receuil de Tetes Antiques (Paris, 1903), fig.29.
Similar heads are located: 31 B. Ashmole, A Catalog of theAncientMarbles at Ince Blundell
Hall (Oxford, 1929), no. 162, pl. 4.
29
E. Paribeni, Museo Nazionale Romano (delle Terme),Sculture 32 Poulsen, Der strenge Stil, p. 79.
Grechedel V. Secolo (Rome 1953), no. 39. It is from a herm. 13 IpaKTiKra 1935: p. 80, fig. 12.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] HEARTH-INITIATES 103
FIG 7 Conservatori boy (1). Courtesy of German

Archaeolooical Institute at Rome.
Similar in some respectsto nos. 1-2 is a statue of a

boy in the Leconfield collection. 4 He is holding a
piglet and is leaning against a stump on which is
carved a knifein its sheath. On his head he has a
laurel wreath. His short chiton is similar to the one
in nos. 1-2. But although this statue is a similar
type, it certainlyis not a copy of the originalof nos.
1-8; and it does not have the same tuftof hair rising
FIG. 8. Conservatori boy (2). Courtesy of German
above the middle of the forehead. In fact,the laurel Archaeological Institute at Rome.
wreathand the knifeshow that theartisthad a Roman
context in mind, and so an identificationwith the
pretation is possible for the leaves protrudingfrom
hearth-initiateseems to be highlyunlikely.
the joints of the stafflikeobject. However, even
In regard to nos. 1-8 the identificationhas been
- thoughthe wreathdoes not providea clear indication
based essentiallyon the myrtlewreath and the staff
of the originalcontext,the stafflikeobject does point
like object attached to the tree stump of no. 1.
with considerable certainty to Eleusis. It has an
However, the "myrtle" wreath does not look like a exact parallel on the Eleusinian Niinnion tablet and
real myrtlewreath (a good example of which is a
on otherEleusinian monuments.36 It is certainlynot
silver myrtlewreath now in the British Museum).3
a torchbut rathera bundle of myrtlebranchesbound
Thus it is either artificial,that is, the leaves were
at intervals, with myrtle leaves protrudingat the
plucked from their branch and artificially arranged, or
points of binding. The staffshave been given the
else it is highlystylized,so that in eithercase one could
name faKxoL by modernscholars,perhapsincorrectly,37
also regard the leaves as olive. And the same inter-
36 Several examples are collected by Pringsheim,1905: pp. 16-
34 M. Wyndham, Catalogueof the Collectionof Greekand Roman 19. For a photograph of the Niinnion tablet see Mylonas,
Antiquities in the Possession of Lord Leconfield(London, 1915), Eleusis, pl. 88.
pp. 84-85, pl. 53 37 On the basis of a scholion to Aristophanes,Knights,line 408:
35 Illustrated in Garden Lore of Ancient Athens (Excavations of BaIKXOV 'e oiv r6v
Atovuoov eKa'XOVV ii6vov,aaXXa'KaL lravras 7rovs TEXouvTas
theAthenianAgora, Picture Book No. 8, 1963), fig.48. ira opyLa fa3KXOVS 4KaXovV, o'v /lnV aXXa Kal 0rovS KXaC OVS
o'S ovs viaraL

but whatevertheirname, theyare usually depictedas is handwoven and the leaves are highly stylized.
being carriedby mystai. His hair is short, and a lock of hair just above his
The connection of these statues with Eleusis can foreheadover the righteye is representedas having
fortunatelybe furthertested against a class of statues been cut off. The caplike appearance of the hair is
of boys foundboth at Eleusis and near the Eleusinion more simplyrenderedyet similarto that of Harrison,
in the Athenian Agora. Those from Eleusis, pub- 1953: no. 51, which she dates to the second half of
are as follows:
lished by Kourouniotes,38 the thirdcentury.
It would be natural to assume that the unusual
A. Figures 11-12. A portraithead ofa boy wearing locks in both portraitshad a religious significance;
a crown (the body is not preserved).39 The crown is thecustomis mentioned by Pollux41: ETpEfOV 6E TlVES EK
handwoven; it is not a natural twig; the leaves look 7XacylOV
KO/1711q 7 Ka7-Or cv 77'vEp p7ETw7TOp
TO iOTaCOts 77OEoZs,
somewhatlike myrtlebut could be olive. The boy's KcLL WvO/ILETeo vXo0Xyos 770JKOXXVS ") OEtpat rptXJ5V. Portrait
hair is very shortexcept fora long tuftgrowingfrom A is thereforea representationof a boy before the
a pointabove the rightear and fallingdown behindit. cutting of this lock for dedication, and portrait B
Kourouniotes dates the statue to the firstcentury just afterwards.
after Christ. It is more probably a third century Since the only known boys (and girls) connected
work,such as Harrison,1953: nos. 41 and 46, although religiously with the Eleusinian sanctuary are the
the pupils of the eyes are not drilled. hearth-initiates,Kourouniotes' identificationis un-
B. Figures 13-14. A portraithead of a boy wear- doubtedlycorrect.
ing a crown (the body is not preserved).40 The crown C. A marble statuette of a boy carryinga myrtle-
staffin his left hand, and in his right,originally,a
1905: p. 16 (cf. Nilsson,Geschichte piglet,traces of whichare stillvisible.42 His garment
4fpovatv. But Pringsheim,
1: p. 126), pointed out that this statement seems to referonly to
Dionysiac Mysteries and so does not reveal the name of the 41 B, 30, vol. I, p.
90 (ed. Bethe). For a full discussion of
Eleusinian object. Scheitelschmuck see V. von Gonzenbach, B.C.H. 93 (1969): pp.
38AErXTIoV 8 (1923): pp. 155-170. 885-945.
39Ibid., figs. la and lb. 42 Kourouniotes, op. cit., fig. 8; better photograph in Mylonas,
40 Ibid., figs.3 and 4. Eleusis, fig.80.
--
------
FIG. 12. Eleusis boy (A), side view.
FIG. 11. Eleusis boy (A).
reachesto below the kneesand leaves his rightshoulder E. Harrison,1953: no. 41, pl. 28. "This life-sized
bare. His hair is long, and a tuft(not mentionedby portrait shows a little boy wearing on his head a
Kourouniotes) rises at the part just above the fore- wreathof small,formalleaves stiffly arrangedin pairs.
head. He is not wearing a crown. Kourouniotes His hair is cut shortall over except fora singlewavy
dates the statuette to the fourthcenturyB.C.; Furt- lock about 11 cm. long which falls fromthe crown
wangler43to the fourthor thirdcenturyB.C. down the back of his head." It is dated to the second
quarter of the third centuryA.D. The long lock is
Another statuette, also found at Eleusis, may similarto those on A and B.
representa hearth-initiate:
D. A marble statuette,perhaps of a boy, with the F. Harrison, 1953: no. 42, pl. 27. Second quarter
head missing, depicting a person carrying a staff of the thirdcenturyA.D. "This is the portraitof an
(damaged now but probably originally a myrtle- even youngerchild than the one representedin no. 41
staff).44 He originallycarried a piglet in his right above. He wears a wreath of small leaves ranged
hand by its hind legs; its head and forelegsare still in parallel sets of three,and he has a long scalp-lock
preservedon the base. His garmentdoes not cover on the back of his head. The hair is short..
his rightshoulderand reachesto just above the knees.
The date of the statue according to Kourouniotes G. Harrison, 1953: no. 46, pl. 29. Third quarter
fallswithinthe Roman period. of the thirdcenturyA.D. "This is a life-sizedportrait
of a young boy wearingon his head a wreathof tiny,
The followingportraitheads, published by E. B. close-packed leaves. His hair is cut quite short on
Harrison,were foundin the AthenianAgora45: all the preservedparts of the head, but since a piece
of the back of the head is missing,it is not impossible
43 Ath. Mitt. 20 (1895): p. 357.
44 Kourouniotes, op. cit., figs.9 and 10.
that he wore a longer scalp-lock in back similar to
45 The AthenianAgora, I, PortraitSculpture (1953). that worn by no. 41 above." The leaves of the
FIG. 14. Eleusis boy (B), side view.
FIG. 13. Eleusis boy (B).

outside of Attica, these characteristicsalso occur in
no. 1, which is the earliest in the nos. 1-8 group,and
wreath, thougharranged differently, are very similar thus link nos. 1-8 with the Agora and Eleusis statues
to those in the wreathof the Conservatoriboy, no. 1. and assure the identification. The scalp-lock is of
These statues of hearth-initiatesin the Agora are to course rendered differentlyin nos. 1-8, since they
be connected with the Eleusinion, near which a are in the idealizing Early Classical style and not in
statue base of a hearth-initiatehas been found.46 the portrait style of the Eleusis and Agora group
Apparently a donor sometimes had the option of (A, B, E, F, G).47 No. 1 is furtherlinked to Eleusis
settingup a statue of someone in connectionwith the by the myrtle-staff attached to the tree stump. The
Eleusinian MVlysterieseitherat Eleusis or in the Eleu- only remainingelement of no. 1 which requires ex-
sinion in the Agora (though the vast majorityof such planation is the ribbon hanging fromthe wreath on
dedicationswas set up at Eleusis). the stump. It is similar to bands which sometimes
An identificationas hearth-initiatecan be made
hang down fromthe backs of strophiaon statues of
with the most certaintyforA, B, C, E, F, G. Dis-
tinct characteristicsthese have in commonare: (1) a priests or from strophiacarved on honorary monu-
specially woven wreath, undoubtedly of myrtle in which
ments.48 It is the raclua or -rawvieovor X'qAZVLUKOS
view of the Eleusinian connection,the leaves of which
47 By itself,however,the scalp-lock is not a convincingfeature
are representedin a formalizedmanner; (2) a single
long lock of hair obviously grown for a religious for an identificationsince the arrangementin the hair over the
foreheadin nos. 1-8 may be simplya hair style and have nothing
purpose. Amongthe previousgroupof statues,found to do with a religious custom. And it is quite conceivable
that the custom did not exist at Eleusis in the fifthcentury but
46 Hesperia 37 (1968): p. 289, no. 29. Found "in the wall of a was introducedlater. The same applies forthe tuftof hair in C.
modern house over the area of the southwestern part of the 48 See, e.g., at Athens, Hesperia 23 (1954): p. 233 no. 1; at
Eleusinion." Smyrna, L. Robert, Hellenica, 11-12, pl. 25.
was occasionallyawarded togetherwith a crownand are uninscribed: olov 6rav Xkf'ywt rois axso6pa aipXaLots
sometimesprobablyhad religioussignificance.49 KaTaXprocra& Kal rtvas EUvaL Kal avvErLypa6povs. He then
Nos. 2 and 3, the Antoninecopies, are wearingon gives two reasons of his own for the lack of inscrip-
theirheads nota wreathbut a curledband,a strophion, tionson these bases: the statues were of great men or
the customary headdress of the hierophant and heroeswho did not need to be identified, or theywere
daduch. Thus the strophionwas eithera part of the of gods. Among his examples he mentions54:Kal
headdressof thehearth-initiate as well,or,morelikely, 'rap '7valoLs 'EEvo-vlov 1w%rovTraLt3 ELK&V OUKExovoa
the Antonine copyist, ignorantof the precise Eleu- o7rLypap7v* KaKELVoV ELvaL XE'yovOLv 'HpaKXEa. The only
siniancontext,added a well-knownEleusinianelement mystai at Eleusis who were iralb8s,so faras is known,
whichdid not in factformpart of the ceremonialdress were the iraiEs asp' Eo-rlas .Wv7GEvrEs,and if Sokolowski's
of the hearth-initiate. The shortrightsleeve of no. 2 restorationof lines 24-26 of I.G., 12, 6 is correct,55
is certainly an error of the Antonine copyist, for there existed a regulationforbiddingchildrento be
initiatesof the Mysterieskept theirrightarm bare,50 initiates unless they were hearth-initiates. Thus it
a custom betterreflectedin no. 1, where the leftarm would appear that the statue mentionedby Dio was a
is bare."1 The contaminations,then, are striking hearth-initiate-unless he was actually Heracles.
only in the Antoninecopies,and do not appear, except But the interpretation of the figureas Heracles looks
forone simpleerrorin copying (the wrongarm bare), verymuchlike an uncriticalattemptto explainan old
in the Julio-Claudian(or Hadrianic) copy. uninscribedstatue as that of a god (since he obviously
Accordingto the above mentionedsuggestionof L. was not a famousman), an explanationwhichDio was
Spaulding"2the originalof nos. 1-8 was a creationof none too eager to question because he might lose
a Hellenistic classicizingeclectic school, such as the ammunitionfor his point. Heracles, in fact, as the
Pasitelean school which was active around the storiesgo, was not initiatedas a boy but as a man,56
beginning of the first century B.C. Though some and is so representedin a Hellenisticrelieffoundin the
historicalsupportforthis view mightat firstseem to Ilissos.57 Thus I thinkit unlikelythat the statue to
be offeredby the factthat theearliestpreservedstatue which Dio refersis a Heracles; at the same time it is
bases of hearth-initiatesare fromn the second century understandablethat someone wishingto identifyan
(perhaps no earlierthan the fourthquarter), this still ancient statue of an initiate with a god would pick
does not preclude the possibility that at least the Heracles: most early statues were of gods or heroes
Julio-Claudian(or Hadrianic) copy is a directcopy of or (impossiblein thiscase) famousmen,and Heracles'
a fifth-century original. Statues of people (as op- initiation was well known. Of course, we do not
posed to gods) were rare in the fifthcenturyand we know how ancient Dio's oy63pa apXaLa GlKW'V was; but it
possess no statue base ofany Eleusinian officialof that may well have been Early Classical; at the least it
time; yet an Early Classical statue of a hearth-initiate suggests a serious possibility,on historicalgrounds,
as a typecould well have been set up as a dedication. that the Roman copies could go directlyback to an
A statementof Dio Chrysostom,usually overlooked Early Classical original. On artisticgroundsI think
as evidence forthe hearth-initiate, offerssome reason thatstatue no. 1 does derivefroma fifth-century origi-
forregardingthis possibilityas a seriousone. In his nal, perhaps in bronze, the corkscrewlocks being a
Rhodian Oration (writtenduringthe Flavian period), clear later addition,and that Spaulding's assertionof
Dio attempts to persuade the Rhodians to abandon a Hellenistic original for the reason that the statue
theirdishonorablecustomof re-usingstatue bases; at shows "a knowledgeof anatomy and technicalskill"
one point"3he refersto those engaging in this who and "a sense of reality" unattainable in the fifth
defend themselves with the argument that they century58is simply not valid. A fifthcenturydate
are re-usingonly very ancient bases some of which forthe originalis indeed now generallyfavoredby art
historians.59For the Hellenisticperiodabout all that
49I.G., JJ2, 1292, lines 11-12, Ka' [a]rev[v6ajat OaXXoi can be said historicallyis that statues of hearth-
[EarepawAxtalv'v -r]awt6vtwt; fora discussionof this see E. Vanderpool, initiates did exist. Some of them may have been
leXerLov23 (1968): p. 6, with furtherreferencesto the Tvtua, and
L. Robert, 'Apx. 'Er. 1969: pp. 22-23. Cf. also or[rEipavov exaas represented in a classicizing style. In the third
,erTa TraLJVbOuV(pOLVLKLO5, Sokolowski, Lois Sacre'es de l'Asie Mineure, centuryA.D. the currentportraitstylewas used.
11, lines 2-5 (= S.I.G.3, 1018), worn by a priest in Pergamon Although the Julio-Claudian (or Hadrianic) copv
in the third century B.C.; oTre4pavCoaL OaXXoi Ure@pa'VWL Kai"
XtU['E]L'aKWL, I.G., 1297, lines 9-11; 1333, line 7; 1366, line
112,
25; and G. B. Hussey, Papers of theAmerican School of Classi- 54Ibid., 92, 7-9, p. 246.
cal Studies at Athens5 (1886-1890): p. 136. Furtherreferences, 55See above, pp. 10-11.
including many not to the religious custom, are given by C. B. 56Apollodorus, II, 5, 12; for a list of sources see
Frazer's
Welles, Royal Correspondencein the Hellenistic Period (New edition of Apollodorus, ad loc., and E. B. Harrison, A.J.A. 71
Haven, 1934), p. 369. (1967): p. 44, n. 143.
50 See Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 197, 201, 203, 209, 216. 57 See U. Hausmann, GriechischeWeihreliefs(Berlin,
1960),
51 In no. 1 the erroris of a type very frequentin copies. p. 82, fig.47.
52 Op. cit., p. 56 (see above, p. 101). 58 Op. cit., p. 56.
53 Oratio,XXXI, 90, 22-23 (ed. von Arnim,Vol. I, p. 245). 59See above, n. 26.
of the hearth initiateexhibitsno characteristicsthat probable that he would have been initiated much
are certainlyforeignto a hearth-initiateexcept the later than 70 A.D., and the gentiliciapoint most likely
copyist'sminorerrorin representing the leftarm bare to a date not earlierthan the reignof Claudius.
instead of the right, this simple error is probably His daughtermarriedSospis the daduch (no. 20).
enough to show that the statue was not intendedto Demostratuswas, of course,a Eumolpid.
be set up at Eleusis or in the Eleusinion at Athens.
The artist was probably resident in Rome, where 15. KXav3La'AXKLaTt,3KXav3Lov MapaO&ptov
'1rJ7rapXov
the statue was found. This is even more evident in 6vyaT?rp.I.G., JJ2, 3604A. P.I.R.2, C 1068.
the case of the Antoninecopies, nos. 2 and 3. No. 2 Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 98. Around 50-70
A.D.
has a sandal on one foot, the other foot bare, short
sleeves on both arms, and a strophioninstead of a She was the sisterof the fatherof Herodes Atticus.
wreath; the latter featureoccurs also on no. 3. The The dedication I.G., IJ2, 3604A, honoringher as a
single sandal was apparentlya Roman custom60;the hearth-initiate,
was set up when Cleo was priestessof
strophionwas added perhaps fromthe artist's impre- Demeter and Kore (no. 9), and thereforecannot be
cise memoryof thingsEleusinian.6' much later than 70 A.D.
From the sculpturalevidenceas a whole it emerges
that the hearth-initiate,like the othermystai,wore a 16. The son or grandsonof a daduch fromthe dadu-
myrtle wreath and a garment that left his right chic familyof the deme Hagnous. I.G., IJ2, 3511.
shoulder bare, carried a myrtlestaff,and made an First half of firstcenturyA.D.
offeringof a piglet. Peculiar to him are the short Only a tragmentis preserved; restorationis un-
chiton reachingto just above the knees (in all cases certain. The stone shows part of anotherline before
except C) and the long lock of hair, which he conse- line 1, with the letters , i.e., bi-E.tos
or AEoKXea.
cratedto thegoddesses(a customwhich,however,may For the famnilysee above, table 1, p. 58.
not have been currentas early as the fifthcentury).
The fact that the wreath is not worn but is attached 17. T 10 OSCOKX7ST liXKovc.vos 2VWlEVS. I.G., IJ2,
to the stumpin no. 1 may signifythat the representa- 3552, as restoredby A. Raubitschek, Jahreshefte
at a particularstage in the
tion is of a hearth-initiate 1948, Beiblatt: coll. 35-40, withstemma. Around
ceremoniesbeforethe wreathwas worn.62 80 A.D.
Raubitschek identified him with the Athenian

INDIVIDUALS (CONTINUED) archon of 121/2 (Inscriptionsde Delos, 2535). He
14. Ti43 KXavbtos AL7joaorparos Tt,I KX NEfKOTKrXOVS comes from a distinguishedfamily; officesheld by
loWbEVs. E. Kapetanopoulos, 'ApX. 'Eqo. 1964: pp. known members include the archonship, lhoplite
120-123, with a stemma. Around 50-70 A.D. generalship,and the priesthoodof Asclepius.
Kapetanopoulos correctlyidentifiedhim with the 18. HOl5orXtos (ToViXflos Ho JovXI3lOvMa4lgov
M?7rpo68c&pos
Claudius Demostratus of Sunion who was archon, 20cv1Es. I.G., IJ2, 3581 and new fragmentpub-
hoplitegeneral,gymnasiarch,heraldof the Areopagus, lished by Kapetanopoulos, 'Apx. 'Eqp. 1968: p.
agonotheteof the Panathenaea and Eleusinia, exegete 191, no. 19. Woloch, 1966: Fulvius no. 1.
of the Eumolpidae,and priestof Poseidon Erechtheus. Before100 A.D.
If the dedication was erected around the time he
was hearth-initiate, the stemma makes it appear im- M\letrodorus was archon sometime before 112/363;
thereforethe date of this dedication should be some-
time before 100 A.D., at the least; Kapetanopoulos
60 See K. Esdaile, op. cit., p. 1.
61 The confusionmay have resultedfromthe band that was used
suggests "ca. a. 70 p." His fatherMaximus is other-
to bind the boy's hair in no. 1. wise unknown.
62 Possibly a terracotta representationof a hearth-initiateis
a male figure found in the "Demeter Cistern" in the Agora, 19. 'AGivals, granddaughterof a hierophantid. I.G.,
published by D. B. Thompson, Hesperia 23 (1954): pp. 103-104 IJ2, 3553. FirstcenturyA.D. (dated by Kirchner).
and pl. 24. A staffis cradled between his left arm and body,
and perhaps he held a piglet in his now missingrighthand. His She is called a y.anTs and a KOvp'q (of the son of the
cloak is draped about his midsectionand hangs over his leftarm. hierophantid), undoubtedly a poetic renderingfor
I am not completely convinced that he is a boy, as Thompson hearth-initiate.
believes; he may have been a regular initiate. Also possibly a
hearth-initiateis Furtwangler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture, 20. XEXwp 'AwroXWX 'ov MEXrrEvs.I.G., II2, 3551.
p. 333, fig. 142, but here too a regular initiate would seem to be First centuryA.D. (dated by Kirchner).
possible.
In regard to the terracottasof young boys found in the Agora The Areopagus,the Boule of the Six Hundred,and
excavations of 1968 (Hesperia 38 [1969]: p. 393 and pl. 104c), the Demos made the dedication,but the boy's father
the boots, the strange headdress, and the cloak covering the
shouldersmake it very difficultto connect them with the hearth-
initiatesof Eleusis. 63 I.G., JJ2, 2021, line 13.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] HEARTH-INITIATES 109
was the epimeleteof the dedication and so bore the Her great-grandmother
was a priestessof Demeter
cost. The personsare unknown. and Kore.
21. TEpTLaAEVKLo[V ..8 ....]. OVyaTp. I.G., 112,3554. 29. r KXav6tos2EXtavo's lOXVKpLTOS. I.G., 112, 3586.
First centuryA.D. Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 84. Around 125.
This monument,dedicated by the Boule and the He is apparently the same as the C. Claudius
Demos, records that she was also errephorosfor Silianus who erecteda statue base in honorof Hadrian
Athena Polias and a kanephorosat the Epidauria and Olympius,thereforeafter 132 (I.G., 112, 3315). His
at the Eleusinia. She is otherwiseunknown. parents, Claudius and Claudia, made the dedication
duringthe priesthoodof Claudia Timothea (no. 11).
22. Daughter of a man fromHamaxanteia. I.G., 112,
3569. First or second century. 30. Zn7rvposZw7rwpovHltpatEs. I.G., 112, 3587. Dedi-
cated while Claudia Timothea was priestess of
23. KXavbta[ ?----]. I.G., 112, 3568 (see above, Demeter and Kore (no. 11), thereforeduringthe
p. 74). First or second century. While Dione reignof Hadrian. He is otherwiseunknown.
was priestessof Demeter and Kore (no. 14).
31. A 'Io vvwosMEPPEasA 'IovvtovHaTp'TvOS BEPEVTK161S.
24. 'A-yao7rovs -D?povTWvoSMapa6w?vtos. I.G., 112, 3657.
I.G., 112, 3619. Woloch, 1966: Junius no. 7.
Second century. Around 125-140.
A memberof this familyis perhaps mentionedin The brotherof no. 28, he belongedto a distinguished
I.G., 112, 3929. Oliver suggests that the lacuna of family. His paternal grandfather
was an exegete
line 4 of I.G., 112, 3657 should probablybe filledwith and his maternal
great-grandmotherwas Flavia
the demotic,[MapaOwv]lov, and that lines 1-2 can per- Laodameia the priestessof Demeter and Kore
(no.
haps be restored[Tov Kat 'A]jya6[67ro6a Ma]. 10). His daughter Neicostrate was also a hearth-
KaXOvtLEvov
25. Boy or girl relative of the daduch Lysiades (no. initiate (no. 38).
19). I.G., 112, 3611. Firsthalfofsecondcentury. 32. J4/X3tos
A'EvtwvZrn'oLXovMapaO'vtos. I.G., 112,
Since hieronymywas not observed, it may have 3676, as restoredby J. H. Oliver, Hesperia 21
been erected after Lysiades' death, in any case later (1952): pp. 396-397. Before the middle of the
than around the beginningof the second century,but second century.
it is not known whetherhieronymny was in effectfor His name is connectedwith the Eleusinian Endow-
the daduch at this time. Schmidt's restorationof a ment of 160-170 (discussed
above, pp. 35-36). He
boy is arbitrary. belongedto a senatorialfamilyfromCrete,64the first
26. 'AOt'vatos o KaL 'Erappo66EtRoS
'AO6qvatov?DXvE&vs. I.G., memberof which to receiveAtheniancitizenshipwas
112, 3577. Before 128/9. probably his father.65 Xenion was an archon of the
Panhellenion and received the special honor of
His dedicationwas set up KaT Aa 66aavTa Tfl e 'ApEtov aristopoliteia.66 He died sometimebetween 177 and
-
H'-yov /3ovX' KatI TlovXl T&v X. His father was a 182.67 Thus he would have been hearth-initiate
periodonikes. At the bottom of the dedication a certainlybefore150.
metricalinscriptionis appended (perhaps many years He is called ToV6a' EO-Ttas. This is the firstappear-
after the original inscription),which mentions that ance, in a dedication,of the designationo a6' EOTTt'as,
when Athenaeus grew up his parents named him instead of AwvqOEts or AuvflOEo-aA4' E-Tas. Hence-
Athenophilus. forthwe shall note theprecisetermused forthehearth-
27. T Ov4'4vtosDXa/3tavos initiatein dedications.
Kr-qotatEf.'ApX. 'Eq. 1971:
p. 131, no. 27. Around 100-125. 33. Nov,AA.da KXEcdAoVKiovNovAALov dIat6pEovIaXqpEVS.
His motherVipsania Laeliana dedicated this statue I.G., 112, 4069; 4070; 'ApX. 'Eq. 1971: pp. 132-133,
base in his honor,while Flavia Laodameia was priestno. 29. Woloch, 1966: Nummius no. 9, with
ess of Demeterand Kore (no. 10), thusaround 100-125. stemma. Around the middle of the second
She was the daughter of L. Vipsanius Aeolion, an century.
exegeteof the Eumolpidae (no. 7). Her parents'fondnessforher is apparent fromI.G.,
28. 'IovvtaMEXMTVtIq A 'IovVdov HapTWVOS BEPEVLKL6OV 4069 and 4070, two otherdedicationstheyerected
12,
acLTp. I.G., 112, 3557. Woloch, 1966: Junius
OV-y 64 For the familysee Oliver, op. cit.,
pp. 395-399.
no. 18. Around 125 A.D. (forthe date see above, 65 Ibid.,pp. 398-399.
p. 74). 'Apx. 'E<. 1971: pp. 116-117, no. 10 (= I.G., ff2, 3627 + two
66
new fragments); a text of this is given in Oliver, 1970: p. 102,

She was a hierophantid (no. 9) and is discussed no. 12.
above in moredetail in this connection. 67 Oliver, Hesperia 21 (1952): pp. 398-399.
in her honor in addition to the one honoringher as 36. Mp-qXia Hapago6vaAvpHapaco6vovAagw7rTpE&s eCvya'T7p.
hearth-initiate('Apx. 'Erp.1971,loc.cit.). Her mother I.G., 112, 3638. Afterthe middle of the second
was thedaughterof thesacred heraldNigrinus(no. 5), century.
and married,probablyafterhermarriageto Phaedreas,
Aelius Praxagoras the daduch (no. 23). She and her parentsare otherwiseunknown. The
Cleo is calledyv,OZcaw Ao' E'ortas. date is based on the fact that the only securely
datable inscriptionswiththe formulaKaT'a To EreprTtlu7/a
34. Ttq KXavi6tos 'Arrtos'ATELXtos BpadobasKX 'HpW'6ovT71S 3ovXiSTcov1 occur after the middle of the second
Mapa6w.vtos. I.G., 12, 3608. P.I.R.2, C 785. century,69 and that the gentiliciumis rare in Athens
Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 15. Around 150 A.D. before161/2.70
She is called r[7iv 40'] Eo-Ti'as.
Kapetanopoulos68correctedKirchner's restoration
of line 3 of I.G., 12, 3608 and restoredthe lacuna in 37. MpqXLiaM&ayvatqKcaL(Eplatov77 Avp'Erwappobidrov
Ht6E'Ws
line 4 just as I also did independentlyin my disserta- Gvly rT-p. I.G., 112, 3637. After the middle of
tion. At that time, however, I did not notice, as the second century.
Kapetanopoulos did, additional lettersin line 6 and A date after the middle of the second century
that the firstletterin line 8 is a lambda. I have since for this dedication is probably in order on account
verifiedhis readingsand I offerherea slightlydifferent of the formulaof authorization7'and the gentilicium
version of lines 1-5, although Kapetanopoulos's ver-
(cf. no. 36).
sion is also possible: She is called T'7v 4p' EO-Tt*as.
T& KX 'Arwrtov ['ATIEXLoV'ATTLKOVJ 38. 'Iovvta NaLKo 7pxTfl 'IovvLov MEvviov BEPEVKKL6oV
BpabouavKRX [HpWc0V3ov
Tap 6V-yaTt7p. I.G., 112, 3647. Second half of second
[ century.
PyKatPyLXX-s 'Arwrov]
4 v7r
a'oT 6v[yaTpoSvIo6v,
v1ov] Her fatherwas also a hearth-initiate(no. 31). The
T?s 'EXX[a6oS, a<' E]
Areopagus and the Demos set up this statue base in
4V77OE'VTa
-
her honorwith her guardian Gaius Cassius assuming
-JA - -- - -]-
the expense. Her fathermust have died while she
was still a child.
8 AH[------ -] She is called uVt7Oeiaav
E4Tnas.
4oW'
I agree with Kapetanopoulos in removing the 160-170

formulafor the eponymous priestessfromthe text, Included among the recipientsof the Eleusinian
although the possibilitystill remainsthat a priestess Endowment of 160-170 (I.G., 112, 1092) 72 are 6o-oL
was mentioned. His own restoration, 7r[aUEs] 4so' E[oiTas]. Whether they received a single
ortas 4aXwo-a)o-s Tmvbarawvrn'] or double share is not preserved. As therewas only
one hearth-initiateeach year, the use of the plural is
ris x[PaoEws riTswrTpo's'P-qyLX] interesting. Evidently hearth-initiatesof previous
Xrq[s?], years were also eligible. Surely eligibility ended
may be correct, but the parallel he gives for the when theyceased to be wralEs,whichwould have been
about the age of eighteen for boys, perhaps even
formula,I.G., 112, 3551, lines 3-5, reads E1-rt,uEXt7OEVTOs
earlierforgirls.
T[-s] 'ava6EoEwxs.
vtos 'EXXaboswas a title given also to his father 39. Daughter of T. Flavius Leosthenes of Paiania.
(I.G., 112, 3604); for its significancesee J. and L. I.G., 112, 3648. Around 175 A.D.
Robert,R.E.G. 79 (1966): pp. 369-370, no. 186. This inscriptionand the familyare discussedabove
(pp. 36-37, and note 183); thefathercannotbe identi-
35. KXav3ta 'EXWWtLK- KX 'Hpc'bov MapaOwvtovOvya'Tt7p.
fied with certaintywith any known memberof the
'Apx 'Ero.,1971: p. 132, no. 28. P.I.R.2, A 706. family. Kapetanopoulos's reading of the end of the
Woloch, 1966: Claudius no. 104. Around150 A.D. name as ]av is clear also on mysqueeze; he suggestsas
Since her death preceded her father's (he died ca. a possibility[(IXa03laEto-t&w'p]a.73Her fatherwas of
177 A.D.), it would not be unreasonableto assume that course a Eumolpid.
the Eleusiniandedicationpublishedin 'Apx. 'Er., 1971 She is called TI'V A(P' EoTtas AV'OTLV.
loc. cit., was in honor of her as a girl, as a hearth- 69 Cf. Geagan, 1967:
pp. 153-154.
initiate. 70 Cf. Woloch, 1966: s.v. Aurelius.
71 Cf. Geagan, 1967: pp. 45-46.
72 See the discussion above, pp. 35-36 and below, p. 111.
68 'Apx. 'Esp. 1968: p. 212, no. 19a. 73 R.E.G. 83 (1970): p. 64, n. 4.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] HEARTH-INITIATES 111
40. KXav6La Hpata-yopa KX AL1O0TTpT1oV MEXlTEWS a grownman; it is the onlyknowninstancewherethis
evyaTf1p. I.G., JJ2, 4077. In the third quarter was done. He was in officeas sacred herald in 230/1.
of the second century. He is called ToV640' E'oTLcas0Avo7T7V.
The firstpart of the epigram on this statue base 43. HorXlaAlMla'EpEvvla Ho ALXtLov
'A7roXXwv1ov
'AvTLVo&L,s
mentions her parents and their daduchic ancestry. 6VyacLTtp. I.G., 112, 3688, with stemma. In the
Her fatherwas Demostratus the son of the daduch last quarterof the second century.
Sospis (no. 20), and her mother,Philiste, was the
Her protheios(father's uncle) was the daduch P.
daughterof the daduch Praxagoras (no. 23).
Aelius Dionysius (no. 22), and her motherwas later
The motivationfor the dedication, which is men-
tioned at the end of the epigram and has baffled to become a hierophantid(no. 11). Her fatherwas
eponymous archon, basileus, hoplite general, epi-
editors,reads:
melete of the gymnasiarchia,and herald of the Areo-
aXXa /ZE Kael 7ratcL6v KOOAEl XOPOs, O'l TO 7rpO/JVcTTCV pagus. Further membersof this familyhave been
aXXWv EV TIEX\ETatsOTE/4a Ko/IaLtcl6BEoav. identifiedabove (p. 64). In this inscription,erected
by her mother, the hearth-initiateis said to be a
Kirchnernoted that 7rpOPVO9TnS is foundnowhereelse.74 descendantof Conon and Callimachus.
However, if we divide this word into 7rpo'JVuTTAW, the The date of the inscriptionought to be earlierthan
sentence begins to make sense: a chorus of children, Kirchner's"beginningof the thirdcentury,"if it was
also,75decoratesher by placing in her hair the myrtle set up close to the time she served as hearth-initiate,
crownin frontof the otherinitiatesat the telete. The and this is supportedto a certain extent by the fact
presence of children and Praxagora's pre-eminence that her motherwas not yet hierophantid.
among the initiates suggests that she was a hearth- She is called Tn' P ErTLasLVOTlW.
initiate. The chorus and the crowning,then, would
have taken place at the beginningof the telete,in the 44. A TAXtoxsEvacyo6pasA XXLOvAEvayopOV. I.G., 112,
courtyardof the sanctuary at Eleusis or perhaps in 3686. Stemma: Oliver, Expounders, p. 164.
Athens just beforethe processionset out forEleusis; Last quarterof the second century.
it was probably also at this point that the hiero-
phantid, a'pxogAvi T&v TEX-TJ,v, crowned Marcus Au-
The verse dedication in his honor,I.G., 112, 3686,
reliusand Commodus (see above, p. 88). calls him 7ra6akof Xenagoras and Praxagora,iov ,VhorTnV
It is possible that the presenttense of KOO7IEl refers A-o5s. This is probablya poetical way of expressing
wraLs&iP' Elo-Laasmvq6eLs; a similar expression for the
to the factthat the piece of sculpturewhichonce stood
hearth-initiateoccurs in I.G., 112, 3553, the dedication
on Praxagora's base representeda group of children
placing a filleton her head. Of which childrendid honoringhearth-initiateno. 19. Xenagoras was ar-
the Xopo's 7ral6v consist? They may have been the chon sometimeearlyin the thirdcentury(Hesperia 10
formerhearth-initiateswho were each year among [1941]: p. 260, no. 64; ibid. 11 [1942]: pp. 87-88).
those who receiveda share in the Eleusinian Endow- His motherPraxagora was also a hearth-initiate(no.
ment (see above, p. 110), and who may actually have 40) as was also his son (no. 49).
formedpart of the priestlyvan of the processionof the 45. T dIXatLos 'AreLiuros T cIX 'Aya'wvos HeLpaLevs.
Mysteries (see above, pp. 35-36). If so, the custom I.G., 112, 3656. Around the end of the second
may have been that the previous 7rai6es a' lrLas century.
would crownthe new hearth-initiateeach year, who,
in turn, after his service for that year, then joined Notopoulos identifiedhis fatherwith the prytany-
their chorus in which he took part year after year secretaryof 195/6.76 The dedication was made by
until he passed fromchildhoodto adulthood. his mother,Papia Onesime,daughterof Papius One-
simus of Besa.
41. M A'p'XLos MLXTtaL6fs 'ATyaGoKXAovs
Mapa'vtos-. I.G., Ateimetusis called rov yevyouevov
4w coroas.
IJ2, 3677. After161/2.
46. KXav6La GE/IL0TK&XEa KX 4hlXlwov MEXLrTOs Ovy4arp.
The dedicationwas made by his father. Miltiades
I.G., J12, 3693. Beginningof the third century.
is called [rov aip' 4]orT(L)as 0uLTTnv.
Because of the lack of hieronymy,the inscription
42. KaoLavos I.G., JJ2, 3707. In the last
'IEPOKfPV{.
was set up afterher father(daduch no. 24) died (ca.
quarter of the second century. He is discussed
above as a herald (no. 11). 196). It was seen above that he died relatively
young,when probably not more than fiftyyears old.
In this dedication the title of hearth-initiateis 9
She is called rv aip9 o-r1as, not Tnq')
a/. 4o-rlas as
mentionedtogetherwith his othertitlesand officesas Kirchnerread.
74 occurson a
rpolAvaors, however, Thracianinscription.
That is, in addition to being decorated by her lineage
75 76 I.G., 112,1806a; Notopoulos, Hesperia 18 (1949): p. 18 and
mentioned previouslyin the epigram. table I.
47. KXav3LaM&vav6paKX TlXl7rwov MEAXrL&os Gv-y4r-p. She was the daughterof Claudia Themistocleia,who
Below, appendix V. Beginning of the third was the daughterof the daduch Praxagoras (no. 23)
century. and was herselfa hearth-initiate(no. 46). Poly-
charmis's daughter,Junia Themistocleia,was also a
She was the sisterof Claudia Themistocleia. Their hearth-initiate(no. 52).
statue bases wereset up in close sequence (see append. She is called rTq a4' lo-rlas.
V). This mustreflectthe fact that theywere hearth-
initiates within a very short space of one another, 51. Ho A'L'XLos
TELpo-OO&f-s ALXZvcopvosBEpEvlKL6-qS. I.G.,
perhaps in two successiveyears. IJ2, 3708 (= Oliver,Expounders,I 49). Around
48. 'A(,' EoTLas T X f. ca.7. . 'A]xapvds. Geagan, 230 (Oliver's date).
1967: p. 164, line 6. Beginningof thirdcentury. His father was pythochrestusexegete and priest
His name appears (as writtenabove) beneath the of Apollo Patrous.8'
heading of a catalog of Kerykes and is followedby He is called v?7i0eas &4' EorLas.
O Vi"[S avro6]. His father is mentioned directly
52. 'lovpva ()E-t,roKXaELa. I.G., JJ2, 3679. Around250.
above, as the treasurerwho was responsiblefor the
publicationof the list, which he probably did at his Woloch, 1966: Junius no. 19a. Stemma: Kape-
tanopoulos,loc. cit. (above, no. 50).
own expensein honorof his son who was made hearth-
initiatein this year.77 Her mother,a hearth-initiate also (no. 50), was the
great-granddaughter of Claudius Philippusthedaduch
49. A r1XxLosHoXvrSXosA rT'XxLov :evay6pov. I.G., JJ2, (who died around 196). Most of the inscription
3706; Oliver, Expounders, I 52; Geagan, 1967: honoringThemistocleia is taken up by her mother's
p. 169, line 212. Stemma: Expounders,p. 164. declaration of nobility: she was a descendant of
First quarterof the thirdcentury. daduchs and of Pericles, Conon, and Alexander the
In an epigramengravedon a monumenterectedat Great.
Eleusis (I.G., 1J2, 3706) he is called yvICvYp y-rqrpa, Themistocleiais called r-v & ' 40rLas.
certainlya referenceto some officeconnectedwiththe
Eleusinian Mysteries. The 'T-qr's and, less attrac- 53. 14bai3os.I.G., 1J2, 3646. P.I.R.2, F 14. Second
tively,the hierophant'sleadingrolecome to mind,but centuryor later.
neitheris likelybecause the man was a memberof the He was of senatorial rank and held important
Kerykes.78 Since, as we have seen, the hearth- Roman military posts. His mother was a high-
initiatehad a leading role and representativefunction priestessof M'r-p [rXx Oe-C]Botcorla.The familyis
in relation to the rest of the initiates, it is most otherwiseunknown.
probably the title of this "leader of the initiates"
whichhas been poetically renderedby fry-ripyvorCL)v.54. Boy or girl. Ae-XtoV21A (1966): p. 141, no. 3
In I.G., 1J2, 3662, an epigram79 honoring a hiero- (= S.E.G., XXIV, 229).
is some chargewhichthe hiero-
phant,/Uvo0TlKPVr1-yeuova
phant assumed beforebecominghierophant;perhaps This is a fragmentof a statue base; line 5 should be
it is the same as ne-rip ,uvorC,v. restored to read: [- - op' ]o]rLas,u[vr- -] or {[-r- -].
S. N. Koumanoudes, the editor, suggests as a date
Gellius Polyzelus was a memberof an aristocratic
the end of the second centuryA.D., but it seems that
Delphian familywhichalso possessedAtheniancitizen-
almost any time betweenthe second centuryB.C. and
ship and played an active part in the politicaland re-
ligiouslifeof Athens. At Delphi he was lEpos 7rats r6o the middle of the thirdcenturyA.D. is possible,since
HV91OVKal wpeoJvs rJv O&OV. His sister'sgrandsonwas
there are only the letter-forms on which to base a
a hierophant.80 His fatherand grandmother werealso judgment.
hearth-initiates(nos. 44 and 40).
55. Ath. Mlitt.18 (1893): p. 208, no. 2. This inscrip-
50. 'Ovpparnavp)HoXvxapAt's 7 Kat dJatpaprn'Ovcoparnavov tion,82published by A. K6rte, was not included
HoXvXapAuov Ov-yArnp. I.G., IJ2, 3710. Around 225. by Kirchnerin Inscriptiones Graecae.
Stemma: Kapetanopoulos, B.C.H. 92 (1968): pp. Korte read:
493-518, stemma C. \ I I tAOBOAO'
NOT2IOTOTTHN
77Geagan, op. cit., p. 180.
78 Geagan, op. cit., p. 169, line 212. Mystagogosis also very 4EZTIA2
unlikely,since it involved only being a memberof the Kerykes or
Eumolpidae, and no honors are ever recorded forthem.
79 See Oliver, Hesperia, Suppl. 8 (1949): p. 253. See Oliver, Expounders,I 47-50 and I.G., JJ2, 3697.
81
80 See stemma ad I.G., JJ2, 3609 and that of Kapetanopoulos, l wish to thank E. Vanderpool for calling this inscriptionto
82
B.C.H. 92 (1968): pp. 493-518, stemma C. my attention.
and edited: mental love forchildrenfirstmanifestsitselfin many
. .......
KVK]XOOO'XOV otherways as well.85
Mvppt]vovOLov(?) 6ivriqv Only one monumentis preservedfor each known
hearth-initiateas hearth-initiate. This may be an
MvlOrrEvTa
dalp crrLas. accident, but more likelyit had its originin a restric-
Ay]vovo-Lovis of course also possible, and in line 3, tion imposed by necessity: dedications to hearth-
AvflOEo-av.I suspectthat6v-yaT[epa]appearedin line initiateswere the most abundant formof dedication
2; the term6v,r-sis otherwiseunattestedat Eleusis and in the sanctuary at Eleusis, and if all wealthy rela-
the demotic in the genitivecontributesto the suspi- tives of a hearth-initiatehad freerein,the sanctuary
cion. Korte later confesseddisbeliefin KVK]XOOOXOV.83 could easily in a short time have become intolerably
I triedunsuccessfullyto findthe stone in the summer cluttered. Of coursea dedicationauthorizedforsome
of 1969. other honor could also mentionthat the person had
been a hearth-initiate,and this occurredin at least
56. Hieron. 'Apx. 'Eq'. 1971: pp. 135-136, no. 32. one case, that of Cassianus the sacred herald (initiate
Unknowndate, sometimeafterthirdcenturyB.C. no. 42), but it also happens that no statue base of him
and beforethirdcenturyA.D. just as a hearth-initiate is preserved.
He is honoredby his mother,which is a reasonable It was the practice, at least in the fourthcentury
B.C., that the basileus would choose the hearth-initiate
indication that he was a hearth-initiate,since most
Eleusinian dedications by parents are in honor of by lot. The involvement of this official is very
theirchildrenas hearth-initiates. probably an indicationof the great antiquity of the
hearth-initiate,who otherwise appears as early as
GENERAL REMARKS around460 B.C.
The relationshipto a hearth is obscure, but crrLa
Very fewof the knownhearth-initiates are fromun- was probablynot hearthin a metaphoricalsense but
knownfamilies;thevast majority are K r&V
C pOKpLTrV, a real hearth; it probablyhad a physicalrelationship
fromfamilieswhich were among the most active and with the child's myesis, his pre-initiation,which was
distinguishedin the civic and religiouslifeof Athens. the originalmeaningof thisword.86
This is the most discerniblepattern in the prosopo- Involved in his pre-initiationor in the ceremonies
graphicalevidence. Many were childrenor descend- of one of the firstdays of the festivalwas his offering
ants of Eumolpidae or Kerykes; in fact,none is known of a piglet,just as it was foreveryothercandidate,87
not to have been a child of a memberof these gene, and he is representedin statues carryinga pigletand
but we cannot conclude fromthis that they were all dressed in a short chiton. At this moment he did
drawn fromthese gene, especiallysince the new frag- not wear the myrtlecrownand the ratvta; they were
ments of a fourth-century inscriptionmake it fairly set on his head later, apparently by a chorus of
clear that at that time any Athenian was eligible to hearth-initiatesof previous years, in the presence of
enroll his child forselection. But if every Athenian all the other initiates,at some moment just before
was eligible, why then is the vast majority from
the initiatesset out forEleusis, that is, at the begin-
aristocratic families? An answer becomes possible
when we considerthat the existenceof only fifty-nine ningof the telete.88 In the processionhe walked to-
separate hearth-initiatesis attested fromepigraphical gether with the other hearth-initiates,most likely
monuments (almost all of which are statue bases), at theirhead, as representativeof all the initiates,the
that is, a tiny fractionof all those who did serve as iy-mr)p Auvo,r6v.89 At some time during the festival,
hearth-initiates,one each year, between the time of perhaps at Eleusis, he consecrated his scalp-lock to
the earliest datable monuments,the last quarter of Demeter and Kore.90
the second century B.C., to the latest, around the
middle of the thirdcenturyA.D. The answer, then, TERMINOLOGY
seems to be that only the wealthycould affordto set
up monumentsto their children,and this is clearly The dedicationsseem to indicate a developmentin
reflected in the monuments preserved. Certainly the terminologyfor designating the hearth-initiate.
wealth was not a pre-requisiteforbecominga hearth-
initiate,since the costs were paid by the state84;but 85 See Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteriesof the Hellenistic and
when it came time to immortalizethis service, only Roman Age (Lund, 1957), p. 111, and the literaturecited there.
the rich could affordit. 87 Cf. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 747, Frogs, 338, Peace, 374-
It is probably not accidental that the firstmonu- 375; Foucart, 1914: pp. 294, 314-318; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp.
ments to individual hearth-initiatesappear in the 249-250.
second centuryB.C. In the Hellenisticperiod senti- 88 See above, p. 111. The crowning could have taken place
at Eleusis.
83Gromon 11 (1935): p. 627. 89 See above, p. 112.
84 See above, p. 99. 90See above, pp. 101-108.
Up to approximately130 A.D.91 only the designation genoswere all the more interestedin theirparticular
Av0eLs or AvfkZo-a&' eo-rLas is used; but during the cult as it concerneda god who was theirancestor or
restofthesecondcentury o (orn) a4' Eo-rlas lTor-qs (or who had been the protectorof the heroesfromwhom
ormorefrequently
uvo-rts), justo (or -) 4f' io-rlas,occurs theyweredescended."2 Foucart goes on to pointout
along with the previousdesignation,and in the third circumstanceswhich made the Eleusinian priestsex-
century it completely supersedes it, except in one ceptional even among priesthoodsof gene: the an-
case (no. 51). This development favors (but does tiquityof the sanctuary,which togetherwith Eleusis
not demand) a date beforethe thirdcenturyfor the was autonomous for a long time, its exceptional
following three undated inscriptionsin which no privilegeseven afterlosingits autonomy,the extentof
names are preservedbut only Avq0Els or WviJoELa a&' its properties(Sacred Orgas, Rarian Plain, Rhettoi),
EOTlLaS. the numerouspersonnelmaintained for the celebra-
tionof the festivals,and mostimportantly, theattrac-
57. Boy. I.G., JJ2, 3723. While Ithake was epony- tion and popularityof the Mysterieswhich already
mous priestess(no. 17). by the beginningof the fifthcenturyhad taken on a
58. Boy. I.G., IJ2, 3724. The last two letters of Panhellenic character. However, in describing the
his demoticare preserved. role of the Eleusinian priests in connectionwith the
Alcibiades affairhe goes too far when he says that
59. Girl. I.G., JJ2, 3727. She was also a kanephoros theygive "l'impressiond'un corps sacerdotal,parlant
forIsis. et agissant au nom des divinites mysterieuses
d'Rleusis." As we have seen,3 they were ordered
POSSIBLE HEARTH-INITIATE to curse Alcibiades, and not all of them obeyed4;
later they were ordered to undo theircurses. They
A dedication of the second or firstcentury B.C. acted in the name of the Goddesses and the Polis.
well be in honor
('Apx. 'Eqo.1971: p. 129, no. 24) nmay Even though at least one of them5probably had a
of a hearth-initiate,though other restorationsare personal grudge against Alcibiades and as a group
possible. The name of the personhonoredis Helico, they were not fond of him,6the curse was initiated
perhaps Helico daughter of Theogenes of Leukono- not by them but by the city, and the city's role was
ion (P.A., 4663 and 8021) who is dated approxi- made painfullyclear by the hierophantin the state-
mately to the firstcenturyB.C. ment he made at the momenthe was forcedto take
back his curse.
XI. CONCLUSIONS In the pre-Romanperiod there is no sign that the
Eleusinian priests possessed political clout in any
In his section on "Caracteres du sacerdoce Ileu- significantor consistent way. It is conspicuously
sinien" Foucart' compares the ordinary Athenian absent in the case of the priests in the Alcibiades'
priesthood to those which belonged exclusively to affairand especiallyinthecase ofthehierophantArchias
gene. The former,he points out, could be held by (no. 3) who was condemnedon a charge of impiety.
any qualified citizen or daughter of a citizen; they However,in theirown religioussphere (providedthat
were temporaryappointments,almost always just they were acting properly) their authoritywas con-
for a year. It did not involve much effortfor the siderable, as is clear in the case of the hierophant
appointee to acquaint himselfwith the ritual,or even Eurycleides (no. 8) who attempted to bring the
to performhis duties; the templeswere opened only philosopherTheodorus to trial for joking about the
a fewtimesa year,at the timeof the festivals,so that M1ysteries(and may have succeeded). With some
a priest could comfortablytake on more than one notable lapses,7theywere probablyin generalzealous
priesthoodif he wished. With no doctrine or mo- guardians of the M'Iysteries' sanctity and propriety.8
rality to teach, these priestshad no lasting religious In the Roman period many of the priestsheld high
influence;at theend of theirappointmenttheysimply political offices(apparentlynot the rulebeforethen),
resumedtheirregularlife,whichhad not been affected but theirpolitical success at this time,as it appears,
much anyway by their priestlyduties. The priestwas due to many factors,among whichwealth figured
hoods of the gene,on the otherhand, were different in
in no smnallway, and not primarilyto the holdingof
significantways: "Almost always the priest or the
an Eleusinian priesthood,thoughchances forpolitical
priestess was chosen for life. Thus they had the
time and the inclinationto become attached to their 2 Ibid.
functions;the traditionand the special rites of the 3 Above, pp. 15-16.
clan became very familiarto them. Members of a 4Above, p. 16.
5 Callias the daduch (no. 2).
91The date of Flavius Xenion as hearth-initiate(no. 32), who 6 See above, p. 49.
is the firstcalled Tov a(p' &tcas, cannot be much earlierthan this, 7 See above, pp. 17, 49, 50.
if at all. 8 For their special courage in this respect we may single out
1 1914: pp. 224-225. the daduch Pythodorus (no. 4) and the hierophantJulius (no. 25).
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] CONCLUSIONS 115
officewere probably enhanced if one held an Eleu- are here much lower down in the list. The most
sinian priesthood,and vice versa. strikingchangesof positionare those of the pyrphoros
Even though in the time of Aeschinesgeneas well and raia'y's, who appear relatively high up in the
as priests and priestesses who received -y(pa were decree of 20/19 (where the pyrphorosprecedes even
subject to audit,9the Eleusinian priesthoods,as was the sacred herald), but in the Endowmentbehind the
discussed above,'0 were not regardedas magistracies. sacred herald and altar-priestas well as several other
The administrationof the sanctuary was in the priestsand priestesses.'9 In regardto the positionof
hands of thegeneof the Eumolpidaeand the Kerykes," the priestessof Demeter and Kore, the Endowment,
their chief executives in this being the hierophant which is arranged by groups (and may reflectthe
and the daduch,'2with importantassistance, at least order of the priestsand priestessesin the procession
in the fifthcenturyB.C., fromotherpriestlymembers to Eleusis), cannot fairlybe compared to the law of
of these gene."3 At this early date the priestess of ca. 460.
Demeter and Kore was in charge of some expendi- All this is not to say that therewas a hierarchyin
tures, probably just those for the festival of the the modernreligioussense, but that therewas, when
Mysteriesand not those of the sanctuaryin general'4; the priesthoodswere listed together,an arrangement
how long afterwardsshe continued to possess this of orderor protocolwhichforthe most part remained
charge is not known. relativelyconsistent. No Eleusinian priest was the
"superior" of any other; but the lists apparently
PROTOCOL reflectthe fact that some priestshad more important
There are a few inscriptionsin which the Eleu- roles in the cult and consequentlymoreprestigethan
sinian priestsare arranged in a certain order. In a others.
law of ca. 460 B.C.'5 the priestessof Demeterand Kore The hierophantand the priestessof Demeter and
is probably preceded,in the now missingpart of the Kore, as was argued in the General Remarks of
inscription,by the hierophantand daduch, and she is chapter III, were at least in the Classical period the
followed,in an addition at the end of the original primary religious representativesof the cult, and
document, by the altar-priest,the [herald] of the some evidence suggests that the priestess was in-
Goddesses,and the[Eraauy'] priest. In a decree'6of volved with the cult at a much earlierdate than the
20/19 which lists a number (all, I suspect)'7 of the hierophant. In this regardit is noteworthythat the
priestsof the Kerykes at this time (who speak here hierophantwas not allowed to hold any other priest-
on behalf of the daduch honoredin this decree), the hood in any other cult, a rule which apparently re-
orderis: daduch (the object of the decree and so not mained in forceuntil the death of the last legitimate
in the list of those speaking on his behalf), altar- hierophantat the end of the fourthcenturyA.D. Nor
priest, pyrphoros,herald of the Goddesses, 7rap'acyr1s is there any evidence that the priestessof Demeter
herald. In the aeisitoi lists (see append. IV) the and Kore ever held any otherpriesthood. It appears
order is usually: hierophant,daduch, sacred herald, that these priesthoodswere associated with the cult
altar-priest,pyrphoros. For an order involving the of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis intimatelyand ex-
priests and priestessesof the entire cult (and some clusively. On the otherhand, this rule did not apply
others) we can turn to the Eleusinian Endowmentof to the daduch, sacred herald,pyrphoros, and rapaiy'7;
160-170,18 where the arrangement is as follows: that is, to all of the significantpriesthoods of the
hierophant,daduch, exegetes, sacred herald, altar- Kerykes except, perhaps, the altar-priest,for whom
priest,priestessof Demeter and Kore, hierophantids, there is no evidence, but it would be reasonable to
phaidyntes,Iakchagogos,pyrphoros,7raalay's,priest of assume that he too was allowed to hold anotherpriest-
the God and Goddess, priest of Triptolemus. The hood. Thus the priestsof the Kerykesappear to have
order here, where all the priestessesare included, is been less closely attached to the cult than the hiero-
somewhat differentfrom that in lists where only phant. This is in accord with the theory that the
priests appear: some priests who appear high up in Eumolpidae were associated with the cult beforethe
lists limitedjust to priestsor to priestsof one genos incorporationof Eleusis into the Athenian state and
that it was onlyfromthat timethat the Kerykeswere
9 Against Ctesiphon, 18 (ed. Blass). He introduces this
joined with them in the cult, in the expectationthat
example of the audit as eEri- TCP
oprapabo'wv.
o0P. 14, n. 19. the old Athenian -y'ros of the Kerykes would con-
11 See above, p. 8. tribute,by theirassociation,in bringingthe Eleusinian
12 See above, pp. 14-15, 17-18, 35, 50.
cult moresecurelyintothereligiouslifeoftheAthenian
13 S.E.G., X, 24, lines 28-30, states that the epistataimust con-
sult with "the priests" concerningexpenditures.
14 See above, p. 13. 19The pyrphorosfollowsthe sacred herald and altar-priestalso
15 See the text above, pp. 10-11. in the aeisitoi lists. His special prominencein 20/19 may have
16 See the text above, pp. 50-52. been due more to the prestigeof the incumbentat that time or
17 See
above, p. 77, n. 8. to the fact that he held other priesthoodsas well (of the Charites
18 Discussed above, pp. 35-36. and Artemis Epipyrgidia); see above, p. 94.
state.20 It should also be noted that none of the be regardedas a non-ordinarysource of funds,lists
Kerykes' priestshad functionsthat were essential to double shares forseveral priestsand priestesses. For
the cult, nor were the Kerykes specificallyentrusted emolumentsforthe priestsand priestessesas a group
withmaintainingand interpreting the traditionsof the see the sectionheaded Emolumentsat theend ofchap-
cult as the Eumolpidae and theirexegeteswere. ter I.
EUMOLPID PRIESTHOODS DRESS
Secure evidence is lacking concerningwhichpriests The dress of the hierophant,daduch, and hearth-
of the cult besides the hierophantand exegeteswere initiate has been treated above.24 Common to all
Eumolpidae.2] I thinkthat we can be fairlycertain priests and priestesses,as a statementof Ister indi-
that the phaidynteswas a Eumolpid, although no cates,25 is the myrtle wreath. The strophion is
individual incumbentsare attested.22 The priest of attested only for the hierophant,daduch, and priest
Triptolemus,the priestof the God and Goddess, and of the God and Goddess, but we may safely assume
the lakchagogosprobably also were Eumolpids,since that thisobject, whichwas wornby priestsin general,
they are not included in the (probably) completelist was also wornby the otherpriestsof the IAlysteries.
of Kerykes' priestsfromthe year 20/19.
It may well have been a Eumolpid priesthoodwhich CHASTITY DURING FESTIVAL
Valerius Mamertinusresignedin 174/5 when he im- The hierophantwas certainlyrequiredto be chaste
properlyswitchedgenosfromthe Eumolpidae to the
and it may be that all the other
duringthe festival,26
Kerykes in orderto be elected sacred herald; Marcus
priestsand priestessesalso remainedchaste if this is
Aurelius's ruling against him reads: "Mamertinus
the way we are to interpreta statementof Julian27:
shall not be removedfromthe numberof the Eumol- ot TJv apprTwv arTo6Evot 7rtava-yEs
OVTw 36KaL rapap 'A677vaLots
pidae, and he shall recoverhis priesthood."23 Since - a cLloE-TpacTaL tuacat
ELUTL,KaL 0 TovTwv fapX v aEpo
the sacred herald was allowed to hold otherAthenian
ri7 ,yEvctv.
priesthoodsnot belongingto a genos, the priesthood
which Mamertinusgave up and recoveredwas prob-
EIRESIONE
ably a minor Eumolpid priesthood. On the other
hand, theremay have been a law at this time which A grave epigram of the second century A.D. or
forbade holding two priesthoodssimultaneously(see later seems to referto the Eumolpid priests28:
above, p. 68).
Kat -yap l,'E' 6v?7rWxoEtpEUtCl'?
E[6X1roto]
EMOLUMENTS
10 [EE]ViavTEs [MeyXn' $]aTW)v EVKEL?
Specificemolumentsare knownonly forthe priest- orrTE,a 6a[EiotwrEav'To] Atovurov OLaLtarLTa,
ess of Demeter and Kore, the altar-priest,sacred 7rvp( Op[ov] ([v Ato*s AVOfTr]Kr Tr EiETEXOVl.
froma law of ca. 460 B.C. The
herald, and 7rap'a-y's,
Eleusinian Endowment of 160-170 A.D., which must The restorationsof lines 9 and 12, however,are not
certain.29
20 Foucart outlines this theoryin Mysteres(1914: pp. 156-158).
Toepffer (1889: p. 82) believes that the Kerykes always were
24 For the dress of the hierophant see above, pp. 32--33; the
closely associated with the cult.
21 The exegetes could hold other priesthoods, but the only daduch, pp. 32-33, 48; the hearth-initiate,pp. 101-108.
evidence of this is fromthe Roman period when there is barely 25 See above.
a sign that they had any serious duties as exegetes, and there is 26See above, pp. 44-45.
27 Oratio V, 173c-d (ed. Hertlein).
some doubt anyway whether in the Classical period they were
consideredpriests. 28 I.G., JJ2, 11674, lines 9-12 (= Peek, Griechische Vers-
22 See above, p. 65. Inschriften[Berlin, 1955], 1029).
23Oliver, 1970: p. 4, lines 13-14; cf. below, append. IV, pp. 29
Cf. the comments of Nilsson, Dionysiac Mysteries of the-
121-123. Hellenisticand Roman Age (Lund, 1957), p. 49, n. 21.
APPENDIX
I. LISTS OF PRIESTS AND PRIESTESSES IN CHAPTERS I-V

The dates given here foreach priestand priestessare only a summary;forprecise informationthe reader
should consultthe respectiveprosopographicalaccounts above. The numberofa priestis in bold type if there
is some probabilitythat he directlysucceeded the previousentry.
A list of exegetesof the Eumolpidae is given above, p. 92.
HIEROPHANTS
Date Page
1. zaKOpOS Ca. beginningof fifthcenturyB.C. 10
2. R)0E6&pos From 415 or earlierto 408 or later 16
3. 'ApXtas 379 16
4. AaKpaTEL6,qs Shortlybefore353 to 350/49 or later 17
5. 'Ifpo0KiXGL6sTELTaMEvojllaLavLEvs Ca. middle of fourthcentury 18
6. [- -]orro0 In 336/5-333/2 20
7. Evpv/.46wv 323 21
8. EVpVKXfEL6's In 317-307 21
9. 'I'po4pavmjs NovOpAp6ov
llEp0oL6jS Ca. end of fourthcentury 22
10. Xatp'rTosHlporo7Tov'EXEv0oQs Ca. 248/7 23
11. 'AptoT0KoXiS HEpl6oL67S 183/2 to 148/7 or later 24
12. 'A,.wvo,MaXos 'AXaLEvs
EVKXEOVS Early thirdquarterof second century 27
13. OESoc'q.ov
MEVEKXfEL6'qs Kv3a6,qvaLvEs Last quarterof second century 28
14. 'IEpo(pa4vmjs
Ev1orpo'povlHlapatEvs Last quarterof second century 28
15. OE6o,uCoYs MEVEKXGE6ovKv3a6,pvatEvs Ca. end of second century 28
16. 'IEpo(avrTs 86/5 29
17. 'IEpo(pa'4vmrs Ca. middleof firstcenturyA.D. 29
18. Tt4 KX )lvoi6tXos KaXXLKparL6ovTpLKop'vOLos Ca. end of firstcentury 29
19. ['Iov]Atos 'IEpoEp{a]vT1s Ca. end of firstcentury? 30
20. T I5XA43tos ITpaiTov llaLavLEvs Ca. end of first quarter of second
century 30
21. ILpluosrapy'qr'Tos Ca. middleof second century? 31
A 'Iov[ .... ] HlpaLE
22. 'IEpozpvmrr1s Ca. middleof second century? 32
23. 'IEpofoAvmTs'Ayvovf0tos Ca. 138-150 32
24. T I5X4A/tosAEoW6&Ev7s llaLavLEvs From sometimein 138-161 to 167/8 36
25. 'IovXtos'IEpocavmrrjs 168/9 to 191 or 192 or slightlylater 38
26. TO43
KXav'6os'A7roXXwvapLos
'AXapVE[s 191 or 192 (or later) to 193/4 39
27. No'VAAios'IEpoqoav'rTrs
dlaXr7pEvs 194/5 to before209/10 40
28. KX 'IEpoca4vTrrsMapadcwvtosvEcWTEpos 209/10 40
29. 'AwroXXcOvtos'A7roXXwvLov Ca. 215 40
30. 'HpaKXESft's Ca. 220-30 42
31. Ao6YLuos Ca. 220-30 42
32. T xaiXtos YXaiKos Mapa6cwvtos Ca. 225-235 42
33. Perhaps same as no. 29 42
34. 'EpcwrTos Afterca. 235 42
35. 'JEpoamq1s
Av'qS say0pov First half of fourth century 43
36. NEoT6pLos Before355 to shortlybefore392 43
DADUCHS
1. KaXXLas(II) 'Iw7rovLKov
(I) 'AXco7r-EKi9EV From 490 or earlier to 446/5 or later 47
2. KaXXLas(III) 'I7r7rovLKov
(II) 'AXwTrEKiq6EV Before400 to 371 or later 49
3. 'IEpoKXELb7Js 350/49 50
4. Hlv96&cpos 302 50
5. 'Epg6ortgos Beforeend of thirdcentury 53
117
Date Page
6. 'IEpOKKXEL6VS Beforeend of thirdcentury 53
7. AE6VTlOS'AxapvEvs Ca. 200 53
8. 'Avrtq,&v Ca. 200 53
9. 'Ayvoviot0os
iLtXLo-T137qs Early second century 54
10. 20SCOKX'JS AEOiVlV 'AXapvE's First halfof second century 54
11. tlXObEVl616S 'Ayvoviotos
IlXlo-T16OV Third quarterof second century 54
12. 'AxapvEvs
FZEVOKX'qSz2O0COKX\OVS Last quarterof second century 54
13. 20S0KXiS VEVOKX'OVS 'AXapvE's First quarterof firstcentury 54
14. 0EMLO-TOKXi_S EoICpa4oTov 'Ayvovi%-os Ca. 75 B.C. 55
15. RE69ppaoTros OE/ILcTTOKXEOVS 'AyVoVoctOS Second quarterof firstcentury 55
16. OE/ILcrTOKX\7S @Eoqppairov 'Ayvov'ctos Second halfof firstcenturyto 20/19or later 56
17. ()sEoscpaorTos?EIlctTOKXEOVS 'Ayvov'ctos Ca, end of firstcenturyB.C. 57
18. Tij KXav'tosAEwvL6,qs MEXLEv's Second halfof firstcenturyA.D. 57
19. Ti4 KX Avota46,sTq3 KX AEwVl6Ov MEXLEvTs Ca. 100-130 59
20. Tt/ KX lCourts Tt/ KX Avarta6ov MEXLTEvs Ca. 130-150 59
21. IHo,(7r'los?) aWoixos Ca. 150-60 to 169/70 or later 59
22. 116A''Xtos Atovvi%tos'AvTLVOEvs Ca.174/5 to ca. 180-5 60
23. AL'Xtos llpatayo6pasGE/ILTOKTXOVS MEXLTEv's Ca.180-5 to 191 or 192 61
24. Tt/3KXav'6osl4Xtwrros Ti4 KX Aq1XoIoTpa4Tov
MEXLEv's 191or 192 to ca. 197 63
25. HoAr'tos A,aovXos Ca.197 to before208/9 63
26. 'ta4/tosMapa6cwvtos From 208/9 or earlierto 209/10 or later 63
27. Aa/uoTE'XqS Third century 64
28. Owoj3tavos Third century 64
29. Aipaptos 2wcarwarpos Ca. end of third century 64
30. Map 'IovtosNLKayo6pasMUJOVKLavoP From 304 or earlierto 326 or later 64
31. tXa4/tos HlouAda3ouXos Sometimeafter372 A.D. 66
PRIESTESSES OF DEMETER AND KORE
1. Avato-Tpaiv Ca. middleof fifthcentury 69

2. @EavwME&cwvos
'AypvXi6rEv
6vyacr'qp 415 70
3. Motherof Epigenes of Acharnae Beforemiddleof fourthcentury 70
4. 'A7roXXwvLovevyaT77p Ca. 200 B.C. 72
5. rXavK'j MEvE6'/I1ov
Kv8a6,qvatlEws
cvyarT7p Ca. end of second century B.C. 72
6. 'A/IEIvJKXELa
ftX4av6ov lvXaalov 6vya4Tjp Second half of second century or begin-
ningof firstcentury 72
7. XaptovAtoVvc1ovMapawv.tovOvzya'T7p Second or firstcenturyB.C. 73
8. KXEoKPTahTaOivosciXov
'AqpL3valov
Ovya4T'7p Middle of firstcentury B.C. 73
9. KXEC,EVKXEOVS4XVuEWSV7ya4TJp,-yovcw,
3 NlKO61OUOV'Ep/.Eiov From sometimein 41-54 to ca. 70 A.D. 73
10. 4'XaovlaAao&a,MELa
KXELTov4FXv&osOvya4Tqp End of firstcenturyto ca. 125 74
11. KXav3La TEa/oOEa TeL,/o0Qov rapyqTTrLov OvyaT'qp During reign of Hadrian 74
12. KXav3LaTaTapLov MEav3pov rapyqTTtrovOvyaT'qp First or second century A.D. 74
13. ---]a,uas TiIs rE-
--Ovyarpos] First or second centuryA.D. 74
14. Atcvr1 First or second centuryA.D. 74
15. [- -] q EKXo0XXEL63CV Second century? 74
AixrExwrosXaXqpE&ws
16. AXLXa'E7rLXaA44s 6VyaTv7p Ca. end of second century 75
17. 'IOaK7j Roman period 75
18. Daughter of Epigonus of Sypalletos (?) No date 75
SACRED HERALDS
1. KXE6KplTOS 403 77
2. Atovvictos ANooTTpa4TovHaLavLEvs 20/19 77
3. T Kw7rwVtoT Ma4PuLos'AvpvoVLtos Before117/8 to 119/20or later 78
4. AOiVKLOSNovyqiosNypEivos PapXp~rrtos Before166/7 78
5. IIELV4PLOS TIEPOKiiPVS From166/7or earlierto 174/5 79
6. 116 tEpevvLos
'IEpOK17RPV "'EpMuELos
'AiroAAcwvtov 174/5 to ca. 192 79
7. Nov,qitosTIEpoKiipvT Ga. 194 to cai. 197 or later 79
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] APPENDIX 119
Date Page
8. 'EpEvvtos TIEpoK1pVu "EpIELos 209/10 79
9. 'IovALos'IEpoKMOpv4'IovXLovMoVOvtLoV(IrELpLEvs) Ca. 225 79
10. KactaVOs 'IEpPOKRPVS ITELpLEVs 230/1 80
11. Map 'Ioivvtos Mvwqalov
NLKayo6pas Before238 to 244-249 80
ALTAR-PRIESTS
1. Z, Beforeend of thirdcenturyB.C. 82
2. 'IEpoKXfEL37s Beforeend of thirdcenturyB.C. 82
3. 'Avntlv Beforeend of thirdcenturyB.C. 82
4. 'AvTtzpcol Ca. end of thirdcenturyB.C. 82
5. tXto-TrL6s 'AyvovbcroS Ca. beginningof second century 82
6. tlAoXeP16,qshtXwto6ov'Ayvovo-toS First halfof second century 82
7. K77spwor6wposdtXtorL6ov'AAyvov'rtos Ca. middleof second century 82
8. AEOVTlOS 2O0COKXEOVS 'AXapvEvs Second halfof second century 82
9. z2OIOKXqS AEOVTlOV'AXapvEvs Ca. beginningof firstcenturyB.C. 83
10. 'E7rLKpa4TqsKaXXtgAaxov AEUKOVOEVS From 20/19 or earlierto 14/3 or later 83
11. T TsIX4os
3To pa'nTvp llaavLEvs First quarterof second centuryA.D. 83
12. A ME,u,uuos 'Erl BwcluxOopLKLOS Fromsometimein 121-124 to 191 or 192 83
13. T43 KXab%os:ZCw7rts Tl43 KX Avatad*ov
MEXLTE1vs From 191 or 192 to 209/10 or later 85
14. T 1fXaWfos
'E7rlBco/uj Early thirdcentury,after209/10 85
HIEROPHANTI DS
1. 'IEpo'wavTLs'A/u.plov
LtXa6ov6v-yairTp Augustan? 86
2. 'IEp6ocavnsMoo[x-- -]ajulov 'Aspt8valov GvYAT77p Augustan? 86
3. 'IEpo6navms First centuryA.D.? 86
4. 'Icpo6wars v-EcJTc-pasHIEplKXOVS O'
0"'OV 6V-YT'p Ca. end of firstcentury 87
5. 'hpo'spavns (DXaflLa[. .]Kpacl-a Ca. beginning of second century 87
6. 6v-ya6rqpAnnJTplOV Fronm112/3 or earlier to the reign of
Hadrian or later 87
KXav5La JXotXEvaTl, KX HIarpcpvos
7. 'Icpo6'wr7a s T77sVEWCJTpas
MEXLTrCOS6v7ya4Tp During reign of Hadrian 87
8. 'Ihpo6navms After126/7 87
9. 'Iovvi'a MEXLTlvn 'Iovvi'ov H6arpwvosBEpEULKL5oV 6V-ya4T7p Ca. middleof second century 87
10. 'IlouS6rT'IoatovOVyayT-op 176 88
11. HorXtaALXLa
'EpEcvva Ca. end of second centuryA.D. 88
II. I.G., JJ2, 1045 (= S.E.G., III, 104). 5 [tcp LEP]o pawT?lJ 'Apo[ETOKX\aHEpWOl6rn' -]
[Kal mTrE]caccooatL,UvpplV[s o-TEc-('cJa)L
EVTacEflas E'PC-KaT7JS
The stone is now in Leningrad in the Hermitage.
The followingtext has been made froma photograph To
ElS 7ET'OSj
in the filesof the Agora Excavations of the American [Kal T71JS rpOS ToVs OcOVS [---]----------
School of Classical Studies (fig.15). The stonehas no E- - T]71 AF//y/y1 AE-

------ - -- --
preservededges. At its left edge it has been cut in [- -] 'ApLtTOKX\OVS Kat TE-------- -- - -_]
an even verticalline. The marginsof the presenttext 10 [Ovo-as] Tas Tel jItrTpL Ka[D Tel K6p -- -]
are merelyhypothetical. [--] 1ovvaXOETosT6O 6E--- --]----------
[T V LE]poca)T-lavc iva 8E [------- --- ali7]
[?] [Tat Tr] yos EvXapw7T[v' A4ia/ TO6E TO
cwapyp
[- -] bra[Ta? ?o rcas
[ouv Sc]ci,ILXXo J w-iEa[owqSCLXoTL4loZGac ELsE tofXwrLas
[Eds orT]rXasXWi'vasTpELs [KaL oTraL T'
rAP V---,
E16Wo'POLOTt
e6oal
T,V ad EV]l
- -]
[xapLTJas a4tas Ko/[lEtodTa?---------- 15 T(cL bv a[aTEt,
[TcoL 'EX]cvotWLCOL TflV --]
E--opxlo8oVN-v [aEyayOtTvX-qL6E0oXGat
Ev,uoXwrL8ats [? - ?--------- TO- ] s [ ?
wrat4ffat] [ I
The restorationsassume that this is a decree of the

Eumolpidae. The restorationsof lines 6-7 (Evo-Ef3elas
KTX.) and of line 9 ((aWvnrat)
are exempligratia.
III. ON THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE

PROHEDRIA IN THE THEATER
OF DIONYSUS
Because Kirchnerdid not have Fiechter'scompleted
study1of the prohedriaseats when he was editingthe
inscriptionsof the seats in I.G., 12, 5022-5079, his
informationconcerningwhich seats are in situ is
incomplete and consequently misleading.2 Fiechter
describes the general arrangementof the firstrow
of the prohedriaas follows:'
Vor jedem Keil des Sitzraumes steht eine Gruppe von funf
Sesseln; nur im Keil I und XIII sind es je 6 Sesseln:
Wahrend die ganze westliche Halfte der Sesselreihe ver-
haltnismassiggut erhaltenist, sind in der 6stlichen Hdlfte
von Keil VIII bis XIII Luicken und Storungen. Die
Ftinfer-Gruppen bestehenjeweils aus zwei Marmorbl6cken
zu je drei und je zwei Sesseln. Sie sind regelmassig so
angeordnet, zur
dass zu einerTreppe die Zweisitzsteine,
nachsten die Dreisitzsteine gegengleich stehen. Diese
Anordnung gilt nur fur die Keile II-V. In Keil VI
besteht Fuinfer-Gruppenaus zwei Zweisitz- und einem
mittlerenEinsitzstein; auch in den gestortenSesselreihen
in den Keilen VIII-XII war die gleiche Einteilung.
In cunei VIII-XIII the arrangementof the seats

(with Fiechter's numbering)is as follows:
FIG. 15. S.E.G., III, 104. Courtesy of Hermitage.
Cuneus VIII 36'
37
A genos (line 13) issued this decree,and the myrtle 38 None in situ
crown points immediately to the Eumolpidae or 39
Kerykes. One copy of the decree was set up in the 40J
city Eleusinion, another probably in the sanctuary Cuneus IX 41D
at Eleusis, btuta thirdcopy is unusual. If forsome 42
reason they held the meeting at which this decree 43 None in situ
was passed in an unusual meeting-place,it would be 144
45J
perfectlyin order for them to set up one copy there
and the other two in the places where they usually Cuneus X 46 Thesmothete Double seat in situ
set up decrees, namely in the sanctuary at Eleusis 47 Thesmothete
and in the city Eleusinion. The meeting-placeof the 48 Thesmothete Singleseat in situ
Eumolpidae at the timiethat they passed the decree 49 Thesmothete Double seat in situ
50 SacredHeraldJ obesa nst
honoringAristocles (see above, hierophant no. 11)
was certainlyan unusual one: ez' [. ]z'6.Lw thus Cuneus XI 51 Missing
far has defied restoration. The additional fact that 52 Missing
in all probabilityboth decrees honored Aristoclesof 53 Part of singleseat preserved,frontmissing,
Perithoidailends supportto the hypothesisthat these in situ
54 Double seat
two inscriptionsare copies of the same decree. On 55 PriestofApolloZosteriusJ in situ
the other hand, there are some difficulties. The
letteringof I.G., JJ2, 1045 appears to be by another I E. Fiechter, Das Dionysos-Theaterin Athen (4 v., Stuttgart,
hand, and the length of the lines differsby about 1935-1950) 1: pp. 62-75; 4: pp. 11-16. Cf. 0. A. \V. Dilke,
twentyletters. Althoughthe difficulties by no means B.S.A. 43 (1948): p. 178.
2 A valuable, full study of the prohedria appeared just as the
preclude this hypothesis,it is quite conceivable that
in the long period of Aristocles' incumbency the nmanuscript of this appendix was going to press: Michael Maass,
Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheatersin Athen (Munich, 1972).
Eumolpidae could have met in the [ca6
Maass's remarkson the arrangementof seats in the firstrow are
several times and honored Aristocles on more than essentially in agreementwith my own.
one occasion. 3 Fiechter, op. cit. 1: p. 64; and now see also Maass, op. cit.
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] APPENDIX 121
Cuneus XII 56 Missing clarifiedby Maass as not belongingto the firstrow
57 Missing of the prohedria.4
58 Missing
59 ifpf'ws 'IcaKXa-ywyOU
It is clear, therefore,that therewill be threeseats
60 LfEpf&Us'AoKX-q7rLO H[aluVOS ( ?) remainingin the firstrow for threepossible exegetes
of the Eumolpidae if theysat in thefirstrow of the
Cuneus XIII 61 'Lpecos Iruppopou E' acKpoI-XOEeCs Triple seat prohedria. There will also be a positionavailable for
62 WApoU
LIpfoS KaGL XapLrTcv KaL 'PW 4s7itu
the altar-priest. Thus the prohedriaoffersno con-
63
64
Kr7puKOS
Missing
iravawyoVs KacL LepCos
clusive evidence as to whether the exegetes of the
65 Missing Eumolpidae numberedtwo or three.
66 Missing
IV. THE AEISITOI LISTS
In positions43-44 of cuneus IX therestands now a
badly damaged double seat with the inscriptions A new table of the chronologically important
aeisitoilistsbetween165 and 210 A.D. is presentedhere
[Epxov]Tos and (now missing)flao-XMws;in position45
there is a single middle seat with the inscription (table 2). It differsonly in a few respectsfromthe
table compiledby Oliver (H.Th.R. 43 [1950]: p. 234),
7roXe,1apXov. The followingarrangement,then,would
be logical and natural forthis cuneus: but an attempthas been made to give a moredetailed
pictureof what the inscriptionsshow concerningthe
41 [6pxoP]ros Double seat five Eleusinian priestswho appear in them (the non-
42 flautXL03 Eleusinian officialshave been omittedsince none are
43 7roXe,jidpXov Single seat changed).1 The orderof theirappearance in relation
to one anotherin each list is indicatedby means of a
44 [60oeawGroveTO
Double seat numberafter their name. If the part of the list in
45 E6160r101uoO~rV]J which they appeared is not preservedso that their
The fourother thesmothetesfollowin cuneus X and order cannot be determined,the letters NP ("not
are followedby the sacred herald. preserved") are used. If their names are not pre-
Next we are faced with the problemof determining served but their position can still be determined,
the positions of three double seats which have been brackets followedby a number are used. Asterisks
removedto positionsabove the prohedria. They are: indicatedifferences fromOliver's table. The letterN
next to a date indicatesagreementwith Notopoulos's
table, Hesperia 18 (1949): pp. 1-57, table 1.
6,aVoUXOV , I Left side faced an aisle If the interpretationsuggested above, p. 60, is
lvYLovJ
Ep&os 'A7ro6XXAvos
correct, that Aelius Dionysius, the defendant in a
Right side faced an aisle case decided by Marcus Aurelius in 174/5, was the
ff
O7(W}
K-qpVKOSJ
daduch at that time, the hithertoaccepted date of
AwoylEvovs
ALo
Ev'epty1ETO
'
L
Left side faced an aisle 178/9 for I.G., JJ2, 1789 is suspect. It is a bit un-
tEp Os AT'OVs
ArriXov7~p,ro
eirwvi,uovJ settlingto see a Pompeius daduch in 169/70,Aelius
Dionysius confirmedin his officein 174/5 by Marcus
The best position for the daduch and the priest of Aurelius,and another Pompeius already in officein
Pythian Apollo would seem to be the firsttwo seats 178/9. This would mean a rather short tenure for
in cuneus VIII, whereFiechterputs them; this would Aelius Dionysius, and it is strikingthat he is both
make the daduch and the hierophantequidistant to preceded and followedby a Pompeius. The sacred
the right and left from the throne of the priest of herald Nummius adds to the suspicion. I.G., J12,
Dionysus. Then the seats presentlyoccupyingposi- 1789 is the only piece of evidence fora sacred herald
tions 36-38 should probably be shifted to 38-40, of this nomen between the heralds Pinarius and
which is in accord with theirphysical characteristics Herennius,whereas there is a good deal of evidence
as being respectivelya middle seat and a double seat that a Nummius, viz., Nigrinus of Gargettos, was
whose rightside faced an aisle. The seats in cuneus sacred herald before166/72,and evidencethataiother
VIII would be arrangedas follows: Nummius was sacred herald starting around 194.3
36 8eL8Ov7(ov DoubleSeat
4Maass, op. cit., p. 139.
1 For a more accurate treatmentof the non-Eleusinian officials
37 1,epLos 'A1roXXAWosHv9LovJ
in these lists one should consult the table of aeisitoi lists compiled
38 tEpoW',IVr7OZOs Single Seat by B. D. Merittand J. S. Traill whichwill appear in theirvolume
39 LtpfosKalPa&pXtEpr.,s Ef3a-ToV Katorapos} Double Seat of the prytany inscriptions found in the Agora. I am very
gratefulto them forshowingme theirtable beforeits publication.
40 LEp&xs 'A8ptavov 'EXEvGEpatws Their study of the non-Eleusinian officialshas necessitated a
new arrangement of some lists, but not lists with Eleusinian
The original positions of the double seat AtotyEvovs priests.
and L'Epxos'ArracXovErcovPv,ovand the double
Ev'EpryfroV 2 Sacred herald no. 5; see above, p. 79.
seat of the hoplite generaland herald have now been Sacred herald no. 8; see above, p. 79.
122 CLINTON: THE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC..
TABLE 2. ELEUSINIAN PRIESTS IN THE AEISIToI LISTS
Date Inscription Hierophant Daduch Sacred her. Altar-priest Pyrphoros Comment
ca. 164 Hesp. XII, No. 23 NP NP NP NP NP Below, p. 122

shortly before
165 N IG II2 1769 [----] 1 [-----] 3 [----] 2 absent absent
166/7 N IG II2 1773 Flavius 1 Pom 2 Pinarius 3 absent absent
167/8 N IG II2 1774 Flavius 1 Pom 2 Pinarius 3 absent absent
168/9 N Hesp. XI, No. 18 [----] 1 [----] 3? [----] 2 absent absent Below, p. 123
168/9 N IG II2 1775 Julius 1 Pom 2 Pinarius 3 Memmius 4 absent
169/70 N IG II2 1776, 1781 Julius 1 Pom 2 Pinarius 3 Memmius 4 absent
Hesp. XI, No. 1 NP NP NP NP NP
173/4 N Hesp. III, No. 43 NP NP NP NP* NP
174/5* N
(or 187/8) IG I12 1788 Julius 1 Aelius 2 Herennius 3 Memmius 4 NP Below, pp. 122-123
ca. 180 IG II2 1794 Julius 1 [--- - - 2 absent Memmius 3 absent
ca. 180 IG II2 1782 Julius 1 Aelius 2 Herennius 3 NP NP Above, p. 79, note 25
ca. 181 IG II2 1795 [ ----] 1 absent [----] 2 [----] 3 absent
182/3 N Hesp. IV, No. II Julius 1 absent absent Memmius 2 absent
ca. 186 Hesp. XI, No. 6 NP NP Herennius* NP NP Above, p. 79
186/7 N IG II2 1796 [E----_ 1 [---- 12 [----1 3 [----] 4 [----1 5
188/9 Hesp. XI, No. 23,
etc. NP NP NP NP NP
190/1 IG II2 1798 Julius 1 Aelius 2 Herennius 3 Memmius 4 absent
ca. 191 IG II2 1797 [----] 1 [----] 2 [----1 3 absent absent
191/2 N Hesp., XI, No. 5 NP NP NP NP A[Ex] ?
191* or 192 IG II2 1792, etc. Julius 1 Aelius 2 Herennius 3 Claudius 4 Aelius 5 Above, p. 38, note 200
(Hesp. XI, No. 4)
ca. 194 IG II2 1806 Nummius 1 Claudius 2 Nummius 3 absent absent
195/6 N IG II2 1806a unident. 1 unident. 3 unident. 2 absent absent
ca. 197 IG II2 1790 etc. Nummius 1 Pompeius 3 Nummius 2 absent absent Above, p. 40
ca. 198 IG II2 1799 NP NP NP NP NP
198/9 Hesp. XI, No. 36 NP NP NP NP NP
204/5* IG II2 1789 [Num]mius 1 [Pomp]eius 3 Nummius 2 absent absent Below, p. 122
209/10 N IG II2 1077 Claudius 1 Fabius 2 Herennius 3 Claudius 4 Aurelius 5
Thus one positionforI.G., 112, 1789 morein harmony ing [Nov,u]ptos, the year 204/5 appears to be the best
with this information would be 165/6. But thereare choice; it fits the tribal cycle, and the table shows
two immediateobstacles. First,accordingto Notop- that a Pompeius and Nummius were respectively
oulos4 there was a different prytany-secretary
in daduch and sacred heraldnot longbeforethis (ca. 197)
165/6: forthe secretaryin Hesperia 12 (1943) no. 23, and could have continuedto be in 204/5.
p. 77 (dated by him to 165/6) he presentsa reading We are now freeto re-examinethe positionof I1G.,
(of Mitsos): .r(or . r)[ca7 4.]FoS ) S2CsTTt(OS). When JJ2, 1788. Its traditionaldate has been ca. 174/5,
I looked at the stone in the summerof 1969, Raubit- and Notopoulos assigned it definitely to 174/5.
schek's originalreading,Ha) [4}ros ) [ a5.], ap- Oliver moved it to 187/8, apparently in a desire to
peared to be much preferable,except that the first put its daduch, Aelius, and its sacred herald, Heren-
letter of the demotic should be dotted; no more nius,close to the menof the same gentiliciamentioned
letters could be read after this; the surface is com- in I.G., JJ2, 1798 of 190/1. But ifwe accept Notop-
pletely destroyed at this point as is apparent in oulos's date for I.G., JJ2, 1788, the aeisitoi list of
Raubitschek'sphotographof the squeeze. Therefore, this document will be in complete accord with our
the date of this document can only be approximate, transfer of I.G., IJ2, 1789 to 204/5. The daduch
that is, ca. 164. The otherobjection to 165/6 as the Aelius of 1788 will then be Aelius Dionysius, inter-
year of I.G., 112, 1789, is the name of the hierophant, preted above, p. 60, as the daduch mentioned in
['Iov]Xtos; for Flavius Leosthenes was hierophantat Marcus Aurelius's decision of 174/5; and the aeisitoi
this time. However, the transcriptBoeckh5 had of list of 1788 can also be interpretedas reflecting
this inscriptionshowed nothing beforeIO2T in the anotherof Marcus's decisionsof that year, one which
firstline; Pittakyshad \I02 in his copy,but sincehe, pertained to the candidacy of a man seeking the
often unreliable anyway, made other wild errorsin officeof sacred herald:
the same copy,0one is temptedto discounthis alleged
stroke of a lambda. On the other hand, since the Since Mamertinus, who is a Eumolpid,obtainedneither
of his parentsfromthe clan of the Ceryces,so lacks the
strokecould reflectpartofa mu,whichyieldsthe read- onlymeansby whichit has beenpermitted to thosefrom
eitherof these [two] clans to transferto the other,he
4Op. cit., p. 13. shallrefrainfromseekingtheoffice ofsacredherald. The
5 C.I.G.n 188b. electionsshall be held all over again amongthe others,
I Cf.Dittenberger,I.G., III, 1038. boththosewhohave alreadygoneto courtand thosewho
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] APPENDIX 123
will now wish to be candidates,in accordwiththe laws the subsecretaryis omitted,'2and this is comparable
of theAthenians.7 to the occasional omissionof the altar-priest;in each
The elections were then held for a second time, and case it is a matterof the one of the least prestigious
I.G., 112, 1788, if it belongs to this year, shows that a officialsof the group.'3 More serious deviations and
Herennius won, who was, interestinglyenough, not absences in the second group occur in inscriptions
among those who broughtsuit against Mamertinus. whichare not well preservedor whose editionmay be
The electionswill thereforehave been held sometime incomplete; inspection or furtherinformationmay
beforethe ninthprytany,wlhenHerenniuswas already show that the traditionalorder holds true in these
in office.8 On the other hand, none of Graindor's documentsalso.14 Thus it cannot be said forcertain
original argumentswhich led him quite reasonably 12 Possibly in I.G., JJ2, 1790 (my squeeze seems to show un-
to be the firstto propose "ca. 174" as the date of this certain traces of writingbelow the last line); apparently in I.G.,
document9appears to be strongenough to precludea JJ2, 1806; definitelyin Hesperia 11 (1942): no. 5, p. 34. The
date of 187/8. Thus 174/5 must be regarded as subsecretaryshould be restoredin two places. According to my
tentative. At any rate, since we do know that an squeeze, I.G., JJ2, 1796, lines 40-42, should read:
election for the hierokerykeia must have been held 40 [-ypa/I/IaTEvs] fovAeUTWp
shortlyafterreceiptof Mlarcus'sletterin 174/5, it is
reasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence for [vnroypaa&a]r evT
any other sacred herald around this time, that this
was the year in which Herennius assumed this Hesperia 16 (1947): p. 182, no. 87, Face A, lines 1-7, should
priesthood. probably be edited as follows:
One other aspect of the aeisitoi lists to which I [LEpavLjXqs
would like to call attentionis the occasional anomnaly ['AyppodeoL-os ] 'Ewrappob[C]
in the orderof the priestsin relationto one another. [TEov HaLaPale]s
First,a slightlyimprovedtextof lines 1-5 ofIHesperia 4 [Evro-ypa]AiAraTevs
11 (1942): p. 50, no. 18, should be given: 77TP
]TLOS
[- - - - 40oos
['lov'I cpo,;av ]T[r sI
[Eap-y}7TTLOS.
[FHELV 'IEPOK]}pVT Line 9 may contain a mention of the birl ZKLa5os. Aphrodeisius
Epaphrodeitus of Paiania was hieraules from at least 173/4 to
[?] ca. 186; the otherwise unknown subsecretary Demetrius could
4 [K7pV7fOVXS Kct &q,Ov have been in officein 183-186.
13 Similar is the case of the pyrphorosand the secretaryof the
[Ha'rtos 'Ar]lrKos Bncatl-Vs . bouleutai,who appear even less frequently.
14I.G., I12, 1789; 1796; 1797; 1806; Hesperia 11 (1942): no. 4,
Here the sacred herald precedesprobablythe daduch, p. 33; ibid., no. 36, p. 70. The last document appears to be very
although it is of course possible that the daduch is ineptlyinscribed,and it may be futileto tryto restorethe proper
ineptitude. I findNotopoulos's restorations(op. cit., p. 17) con-
missingand that the herald in fact precedesthe altar- vincingonly forlines 10-11. [- -NAiov in line 8 could be the end
priest. The normalorderforthe Eleusinian priestsin of a patronymic. The list in I.G., 112, 1815 presentsan anomaly
the aeisitoilists is: hierophant,daduch, sacred herald, in lines 11-12. Geagan states (1967: p. 112) that there is
altar-priest. The reason forthe occasional anomalies only one possible resolutionof the abbreviations in lines 11-12;
and absences is not immediatelyclear, but a com- he does not mention a differentresolution offeredby Oliver in
Hesperia 11 (1942): p. 58. My squeeze of this stone indicates
parison with the order of the other aeisitoi listed in
Notopoulos's table I may shed some light. These
that the lettersshould be read as K and fF L
K t and so the
most probable resolution is Oliver's: -yp(aAAarTes) ,Oo(vAis)KC[al
are, in relation to one another,10normallylisted as UAuov] and -yp(a/i/aTebs) A [- -nomen---]. (I have
Oo(VAevTVp)
follows: herald of the Boule and Demos, secretary been helped with this reading by a comparisonalso of the squeeze
of the Boule and Demos, prytany-secretary (7rEp TO at Princeton, a description of which was kindly sent to me by
John Traill.) Perhaps there was some special reason in this
3,rua), antigrapheus, hieraules,b7rL
2KLXa6oS, subsecretary,
prytanyforthe appearance of the secretaryof the bouleutaiin this
and occasionallya secretaryof the bouleutai.11 Devia- position. On my squeeze I can also make out the tip of the
tions from this order are usually minor: the anti- right oblique stroke of the upsilon in line 15, so as to read:
rE[o-ypaa,r,aTEvs---].
grapheus sometimes changes positions with the Geagan (loc. cit.) correctly identifies the yp(a/.,uaTEvs) at the
prytany-secretary; the hierauleswith the 7rt2KLa46Os; end of Hesperia 11 (1942) no. 5, p. 34, as the -ypa,,UaTas/3o0ovXEvTCoV,
and the -7rL 2KLtaAos with the subsecretary. Sometimes also identical with the 'ypa,.qIarEvs 7rpura&vaev. We can perhaps
resolve the difficulties
ofHesperia 11 (1942) no. 2, p. 32 in a similar
manner,by interpretingthe secretaryin line 7 to be the secretary
7 Oliver, 1970: p. 4, lines 9-13, and translationon p. 29. of the bouleutaiand by reading in line 9, av[ETLKiipV], an official
8 Concerningthis
sacred herald, no. 7, see above, p. 79. who appears only occasionally in the aeisitoi lists (in I.G., 112,
9 1922: pp. 175-178. 1077; in 1768, if my suggestion, above, p. 60, is correct; and
10The occasional occurrenceof the &VTLK?PUpv and the wrupe6po'j in Hesperia 11
(1942) no. 6, p. 36, ifOliver's suggestionis correct)
between membersof this list is omitted fromconsiderationhere. and in various positions (if the restorations are correct). In
1 Cf. Geagan, 1967: pp. 103-112. I.G., JJ2, 1808 there is space for three names between the hiero-
that the major officialsof the second group,the herald the considerationthat Claudius Philippus served as
of the Boule and Demos and the secretaryof the Boule daduch foronly a short time.
and Demos, ever change position,and in this respect
they are similar to the hierophant.15 Other officials VI. I.G., IJJ23475 + 3476.
of the second group can change positions,and those
Raubitschek (A.J.A. 49 [1945]: p. 435) suggested
who do changedo so onlywiththosewho are otherwise
that these are parts of the same inscription. An ex-
just beforeor afterthem. A similarlimitationholds
amination of the stones shows that this is correct,
true for the Eleusinian priests: only the daduch and
though no join can be made. Kirchner mistakenly
sacred herald certainly change positions, while the
republishedfragmenta of 3475 as 3570.
altar-priestnever appears as precedingany of them
The followingnew text can be made:
(althoughhe is naturallyin one of theirpositionswhen
they are absent from a list).16 The occasional ab- ALOVV[o.OS .. . ...] 'AXa[Elvs]
sences of the daduch and sacred herald still remain tILXOTLOV [T',V kavr]oi 6vya[rT]pa
a puzzle.
a'p raZv [E]caiv
Co0rtas [iiv?706Eoa]Pv
4 rx]s
ErL 1EpEtf[as FXcaK77s MEVET7/1ov
V. I.G., IJ2, 3713 + 4089 + 'Eqp.'Apx. 1897: col. 60,
no. 42. Kv5a6[?JvaLxs6vyar]pOs.
The latterfragment,located in the storeroomof the Dionysius of Halai and his daughter Philistionare
museumat Eleusis, is preservedonly on its leftside; otherwiseunknown.
at a distance of 0.023 m. fromits leftedge a vertical
margin is engraved, which correspondsto the right VII. I.G., 112, 4075 + 4083
marginon I.G., IJ2, 4089 with the same identation.
The left side of Dodwell's transcriptionwas mis-
[KX Mevav]6pav takenlyassumed to be the originalleftmarginof the
[KX CXIr7Xw]OVroi inscription. Lunate sigma and epsilon occur only
[6a6ovx_]7}oavr0S
in line 6. Figures 16-17.
4 6vtyacT{p]a
KcLa A[rX] Height of letters: 0.018-0.021m. (lines 1-4)
IlpaqaLy]6pov rTo3] 0.022-0.025rm.(lines 5-6)
bar6ov]xly'aavros] ... ca.. . .]Lav .PovEpZ'cLP'IovX I Movo.W tos
I aro'yov]OVrm)v(ivp] [K'1pVt r]jj ' 'ApEcovwrafyov
lovXi, orparT7yTS 'rwTO'
8 [rIIt'as].
[bwLrTas], ayWVO6rrT77S 'QXVWrE1WV,AtoS 'OXv,urt
The text, line-division,letter-forms,and the spacing 4 [v ov tEpE7]s 'A67?07LV, (P 7vvT?7s 7v 'OXv,ur v
of the letters are exactly the same as in I.G., 112, raat , vacat
Ev JITr7V a9ptfUT-P -1vpa tKa
3693. The only differences betweenthe two are very
[Tu~~~~I
fo\]o IpVKE1vKO]s JAqTf'pa.g
slight: the letters of our inscriptionare greater in
heightby halfa centimeter,and our inscriptionhas an There is enough space at the beginningof line 1 to
engraved left margin. Thus it is very probable that restorea title of Rufina,such as that of a priestess.
lines 7-8 of our text should be restoredto read as in For commentarysee above, pp. 79-80.
of the two in-
3693: TqV a<' CoUTLas.The similarity
scriptions (which extends even to the use of the
ligature f
in lines 3 and 6) would seem to. indicate
that they were erected within a short time of one
another. According to line 3 in both cases, their
father Claudius Philippus the daduch was already
dead. He either died before they became hearth-
initiates,or the inscriptionswere set up at a later time
in their lives. The formeralternative is favored by
phant and the secretary of the Boule and Demos; apparently
they were intended to be inscribed but never were; the third
of these names would have been the herald of the Boule and
Demos.
15 I.G., JJ2, 1768, is an apparent exception, but see above,
p. 60, fora possible solution.

16 Nor does the pyrphorosever appear ahead of any other
Eleusinian priest.
I For the corrected reading of this part of I.G., JJ2, 3693 see
above, p. 111. FIG. 16. IC., Il2, 4075.
VOL. 64, PT. 3,1974] APPENDIX 125
that theybelongedtogetherbecause of theirproximity
in Spon's edition becomes more dubious. Certainly
the three men saw them as separate inscriptions,
though probably lying close together. The main
support of Boeckh's conjecture is gone, and whether
it has any validity at all must be examined in the
light of the furtherhistory of these inscriptions.
When theywere nextseen and recorded,by Kirchner,2
they were at the Monastery of Phaneromene on
Salamis, and Kirchnerprinteda text of themtogether
(I.G., IJ2, 3531). But if they were separate at
Eleusis, it is scarcely likely that someone had joined
them before building them into the church: 1l\eritt
reckons that these stones were taken from Eleusis
and builtinto the churchat the end of the seventeenth
century (op. cit., 225). Thus Kirchner's text needs
FIG. 17. I.G., 12, 4083.
to be examined carefully. He saw the stone in 1907
and wrote (ad I.G., JJ2, 3531) that he was unable to
VIII. I.G., 112, 3531 read much of it: "litterae,quarum pleraeque corrosae
aut evanidae. . . ." But he did not state exactly
In 1949 (Hesper'ia,Supplement 8: p. 226) M/Jerittwhich areas could not be read. ProfessorGunther
expresseduncertaintywhetherlines 1-2 belong to the Klaffenbachhas kindly sent me Kirchner's squeeze
same stone as lines 4-10 and suggested that doubt of this inscription which is now in the Deutsche
might be resolved by an examination of the stone. Akademieder Wissenschaften.3Neither he nor I can
I tried to see the stone at the Monastery of Phane- make out any certainlettersbelow line 3, and so one
romene in the summerof 1969 but could not findit. could assume that Kirchneralso was unable to read
Kirchnersaw it in 1907 and stated that it was located lines 4-10, though the squeeze shows that space
on the outside rear wall of the church. At the base existed on the stone forthose lines.
of this wall thereare now heavy layers of whitewash; Considering the improbabilityof anyone joining
and if it is in that part of the wall, it has been com- these two inscriptionsbeforethey were built into the
pletelycovered over. church,we have to assume that Spon, Wheler, and
Our text of this inscriptionis based essentiallyon Vernonsaw the same stone as Kirchnerand, like him,
the text of Sir George Wheler which Spon published were unable to read anythingbeyond line 2. They
in Voyaged'Italie, de Dalmatia, de Gr?ceet du Levant saw a whole stone (or at least one preservedto an ex-
(Lyons, 1678) 3, 2: p. 125. However, Spon did not tentof several lines below the firsttwo lines), whichis
edit lines 1-2 as part of the same inscription. This probably why Spon did not write "Fragment"above
was first done by Boeckh (C.I.G., 396), who re- it, as he did for the acephalous inscriptionwhich he
marked: "Vss. 1.2. apud Sponium ita separati sunt, publishedafterit. Boeckh's conjectureis accordingly
ut aliquis putet duas esse inscriptiones:sed una haud impossible; these two texts should now be considered
dubie est, unoque articuloa Sponio comprehenditur." as separate inscriptions.
Spon's articulumis "La aupres," after which follow The followingcan be read fromthe squeeze:
lines 1-2 of I.G., 112, 3531; below this is the heading
"Fragment,"followedby lines 4-10 of I.G., JJ2, 3531. EMMIONIABEI
There is nothingto indicate that the "Fragment"is NHIIEANAPON
part of the same inscription;the only thing certain g0N
is that Spon wanted to indicate that both inscriptions
were located roughly in the same place. Meritt This reveals that Wheler's transcript -(B.M. Add. MS.
broughtto lightthe fact that Wheler,in a manuscript 35, 334, no. 358) is garbled. He has:
of his own which is now in the BritishMuseum (Add.
MS. 35, 334), also edited the two textsseparately,and PAIONMEMMIONZABEINONHE1ZANAPON
that Francis Vernon, who saw the stones indepen- EIIIIEPEIAZXAATIAZAAOAAMIA2
dentlyofSpon and Wheler,also editedthemseparately
and
(Hesperia, loc. cit.). In fact, Vernon did not edit He combined the firstand second lines into one
added a separate inscription, I.G., I 12, 4753. Vernon's
the texts consecutively,as did Spon and Wheler; his
manuscript(MS. 73 of the Royal Society)1has seven
2 Dittenberger published them as I.G., III, 722, but did not
inscriptionsin between. Thus Boeckh's conjecture
see the stones.
I I wish to thank the library of the Royal Society for sending I I would also like to thank him for helpful criticism of the
me a photocopy of page 9 verso, which contains these inscriptions. manuscriptof this appendix.
copy is much moreaccurate: Vernonshowsless space to the leftof sctXo'

rarptv. But
neither transcriptwould seem to allow space for
PAION MEMMION 2ABEI
(pLXoKaLToapato be restored before (ptXo6rarptv,if the
HIZANAPON left marginremainedeven at this point, unless part
Althoughhe has mistakenII forE in the second line of ScLXoKaLo-apawent on the previous line. This is
(or omitted the E), it is noteworthythat the second quite possible, but the transcript of Vernon and
line is reasonablyaccuratelyplaced in relationto the Wheler and the text that I thinkcan best be derived
firstline,whereasSpon's second line,and consequently fromthem suggestthat the right-handsection of the
that of all later editors, certainlyis not. The text inscriptionwas well preserved. Perhaps the most im-
should probablyread: portant considerationis that all other certain occur-
rencesofthisphrase5at AthenscontainKat: SctXOKatoap
raFwvMiuwov 2a#c-3 Kal 5otXoirarpts. And it seems impossibleto fitbothKat
vovHElcwav6v into the available space. Perhaps
and (PLXoKaLo-apa
[ ca. 9
_ ON only (ptX6irarptvor [rov] (ptX6irarptv or [KaiJ] 5tX67rarptv
stood in the centerof thislinejust as rov ctXo7rarptv was
[E] originallycenteredat the bottom of I.G., JJ2, 3620
For the other inscriptionthe followingtext of lines (see above, p. 84, n. 28), or perhaps we should read
1-6 seems to fitbest the dispositionof both Wheler's [Kal TOv] (PtXoirarptv. The textof the entireinscription
and Vernon's transcripts: is then to be read as follows:
[?] [?]
[Kal K]}JpvKEvoavTa Kalt [Kal K]7qJPVKEvoavTa Kal
[Ev,]vaatapX'oravra 3ls [-yvA]vaotapX'oravra 3ls

[Kal Ay]cwo60E7cTroavra TCoV [Kal a&y]cwov6CoTroavra TCoV
4 [McyX]aXcovKatoapcscov ZEf3 ao
4 [MeyaX]cov Katoap'cov 2e;,3ao-
[TrCo Kat] oTrparJyf7oTa-ara
[TrCo Kai] oTrparTyyr7oTavra
[ 'r~rI]s
[E'7rc 'lrXEi'ras
rov] 0rAlac 8ts
LS.
[eirl roiv]s o6rXcELaS 3Ls
This yields, according to their transcripts,an even [vacat?] crXo7rarptv vacat
left margin with no difficulties,and eliminates the 8 [KX 'AOj]KXn7rCo0[rov..]
very improbablebreak of syllabic division previously
[. K]av5la [----]
restored between lines 5-6. The restorationof Kat
beforeeach participleseems necessarybecause of its [rov EavT7Jls wra[,rpa].
occurrencein line 1. For lines 6-10 Wheler4 (and
Below this Vernon seems to record a vacant space
Spon approximately)transcribed: and then on the lower right: Q2;. The formof the
ZOIAEI TAZAIZ
end stronglysuggeststo me that the name preceding
KXavbta was that of herfather,the man honoredin this
IAOIIA TPIN inscription. The form of the dedication, with the
N-II10A names of the dedicatee and dedicator at the end, re-
ATAIA semblesI.G., JJ2, 3613 or 3670. For the name in line 8
HZIIA Merittsuggests['AO-]KXnq7rCo06[r7n]or ['Ao-]KX7nirCodC,[pa]
Vernonhas: as possible names of a dedicator. In this case we
would have two dedicators, and somethinglike rov
ZIOIIAEITAZ AIZ
EavT?7s avbpa would also have to be in the lacuna of
(JAOIIATPIN lines 8-9, and the man's name at the beginningof the
AIIIIIO,AO inscription;this is possibleonly ifwe regardthe mar-
ATAIA gins of lines 8-10 as different fromthose of lines 1-7.
H1TIA
5 See the list compiled by J. H. Oliver, Expounders p. 88.
4B. M. Add. MS. 35, 334. Through the courtesy of the I.G., JJ2, 3283A has [xOCXoIiKatap SotXo]7raTpts, but the arrange-
British Museum I examined this manuscript in the summer of ment of the text on the stone offersno difficultyagainst in-
1969. sertingKal here.
ABBREVIATIONS
A.J.A.-American JournalofArchaeology. J.H.S.-Journal ofHellenic Studies.

A.J.P.-American JournalofPhilology. J.R.S.-Journal ofRoman Studies.
1910-(continuing L.S.J.-Liddle and Scott,Jones,Greek-English
'Apx. 'E.p.-'ApXatoXo^ytK7'E<nq,uepLs, Lexicon
'Eyprn.tspis 1883-1909).
'ApXaLoX0oYLKW, (ninthedition,Oxford).
Ath.Mitt.-MitteilungendesDeutschenArchdologischen Mem. Inst.-M6moires de l'InstitutfranSais d'archeb-
Instlituts,
AthenischeAbteilung. ologieorientale.
B. C.H.-Bulletin de correspondance hellenique. N.P.A.-J. Sundwall, Nachtragezur Prosopographia
B.S.A.-Annual of theBritishSchoolat Athens. Attica (Ofversigtaf Finska Vetenkaps-Societetens
C.I.G.-Corpus InscriptionumGraecarum. Forhandlingar52 [1909/10], Helsingfors,1910).
C.I.L.-Corpus InscriptionumLatinarum. O.G.I.-Orientis Graeciinscriptiones
selectae.
C.P.-Classical Philology. P.A .-J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica (Berlin,
1901-3).
C.Q.-Classical Quarterly.
P.I.R.2-Prosopographia ImperiiRomani(ed. 2,Berlin,
C.R.-Classical Review.
1933-).
AEXTlOV-'ApXalOXOYlK6VAEXTLO
P.
IIpaKlKa'-HpaKclKaT T77S V 'A6'wats 'ApXatoXoyLK?7S
Eleusis-George E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleu- 'EraLpELa .
sinian Mysteries(Princeton,1961).
R.E.-Realencyclopddiederclassischen Altertumswissen-
'ApXaLoXo'yLK7(see 'Apx. 'Erp.).
'Esp. 'ApX.-'E(pqjAMEpIs schaft(Stuttgart,1894-).
Expounders-James H. Oliver, The Athenian Ex- R.E.A.-Revue des etudesanciennes.
poundersoftheSacredand AncestralLaw (Baltimore,
1950). R.E.G.-Revue des etudesgrecques.
Geschichte-MartinP. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechi- S.E.G.-Supplementum EpigraphicumGraecum.
schenReligion (Munich, 1955-68). S.I.G.-Sylloge InscriptionumGraecarum.
G.R.B.S.-Greek, Roman and ByzantineStudies. Supplement-Franciszek Sokolowski,Lois sacrees des
H.S. C.P.-Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Citesgrecques,Supple'ment(Paris, 1962).
H. Th.R.-Harvard TheologicalReview. Y. C.S.- Yale Classical Studies.
I.G.-Inscriptiones Graecae. Z.P.E.-Zeitschrift fur Papyrologieund Epigraphik.
127
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOWERSOCK, G. W. 1969. GreekSophistsin theRoman Empire METZGER, HENRI. 1965. Recherchessur l'imagerie athe'nienne
(Oxford). (Paris).
BOYANCF, PIERRE. 1962. "Sur les Mysteres d'Rleusis." MYLONAS, GEORGE E. 1960. "EXevaLSKat ALotvaos."'ApX. 'Eop.
R.E.G. 75: pp. 460-482. 1960: pp. 68-118.
CLINTON, KEVIN. 1971. "Inscriptions from Eleusis." 'Apx. 1961. Eleusis and theEleusinian Mysteries(Princeton).
'Ewp. 1971: pp. 81-136. NILSSON, MARTIN P. 1942. "Die Eleusinische Religion." Die
DEUBNER, LUDWIG. 1932. AttischeFeste (Berlin). Antike 18: pp. 210-231.
DITTENBERGER, W. 1885. "Die Eleusinischen Kerykes." 1951-1960. Opuscula Selecta, I-II (Lund).
Hermes 20: pp. 1-40. 1955-1968. Geschichteder griechischenReligion (Munich).
Dow, STERLING. 1937. "Athenian Decrees of 216-212 B.C." NOACK, FERDINAND. 1927. Eleusis: Die baugeschichtliche
Ent-
H.S.C.P. 48: pp. 111-120. wickelungdes Heiligtumes (Berlin).
Dow, STERLING, and ROBERT F. HEALEY. 1965. A Sacred NOTOPOULOS, JAMES A. 1949. "Studies in the Chronology of
Calendar of Eleusis, Harvard Theological Studies 21 (Cam- Athens under the Empire." Hesperia 18: pp. 1-57.
bridge, Mass.). OLIVER, JAMES H. 1941. The Sacred Gerusia,Hesperia, Supple-
FEAVER, DOUGLAS D. 1957. "The Priesthoods of Athens." ment 6 (Princeton).
Y.C.S. 15: pp.123-158. 1950. The AthenianExpoundersoftheSacred and Ancestral
FOUCART, PAUL. 1914. Les Mysteresd Eleusis (Paris). Law (Baltimore).
GEAGAN, DANIEL J. 1967. The AthenianConstitution after 1950. "On the Order of the Athenian Catalogues of
Sulla, Hesperia, Supplement 12 (Princeton). Aiseitoi." H.Th.R. 43: pp. 233-235.
GIANNELLI, GIULIO. 1914-1915. "I Romnani ad Eleusis." Atti 1950. "Three Attic Inscriptions concerningthe Emperor
della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 50: pp. 319-333, Commodus." A.J.P. 71: pp. 170-179.
369-388. 1952. "The Eleusinian Endowment." Hesperia 21: pp.
GRAINDOR, PAUL. 1922. Chronologiedes archontes athe'niens 381-399.
sous l'empire, Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des 1970. Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural
lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, Memoires, 2eme Policy in theEast, Hesperia, Supplement 13 (Princeton).
serie, 8, fasc. 2 et dernier (Brussels). PHILIOS, D. 1895. "'E7r-ypalcdet EXEvalvos." B.C.H. 19: pp.
1927. A thenessous Auguste (Cairo). 131-133.
1930. Un Milliardaire antique: H6rodeAtticuset sa famille PRINGSHEIM, H. G. 1905. ArchdologischeBeitrdgezur Geschi-
(Cairo). chtedes eleusinischenKults (Munich).
1931. Athenesde Tibered Trajan (Cairo). ROUSSEL, P. 1930. "L'initiation prealable et le symbole
-- 1934. Athenes sousHadrien(Cairo). eleusinien." B.C.H. 54: pp. 51-74.
HARRISON, EVELYN B. 1953. The Athenian Agora, I, Portrait 1934. "Un Nouveau Document concernant le genos des
Sculpture (Princeton). KHPTKE2:." Ml1anges Bidez, A nnuaire de l'Institut de
HEALEY, ROBERT F., and STERLING Dow. 1965. A Sacred philologieet d'histoireorientales2: pp. 819-834.
Calendar of Eleusis, Harvard Theological Studies 21 (Cam- RUDHARDT, J. 1960. "La definitiondu delit d'impiete d'aprbs
bridge,Mass.). la le'gislationattique." Museum Helveticum17: pp. 87-105.
KERENYI, C. 1967. Eleusis, ArchetypalImage of Mother and SARIKAKIS, T. C. 1951. The Hoplite Generalin Athens. Diss.
Daughter (New York). Princeton (Athens).
KERN, OTTO. 1935. "Mysterien." R.E. 16: coll. 1209-1314. SOKOLOWSKI, FRANCISZEK. 1955. Lois sacreesdel'Aise Aineure
KOUROUNIOTES, K. 1923. "'EXEvo-maK, AEXTriv8: pp. 155-174. (Paris).
1937. "'EXEvo-LvaK) b6govxLa." 'ApX. 'ER. 1937: pp. 1962. Lois sacre'esdes Citesgrecques,Supple'ment(Paris).
223-253. 1969. Lois sacreesdes Cite'sgrecques(Paris).
JACOBY, FELIX. 1949. A/this(Oxford). STENGEL, PAUL. 1920. Die griechischen Kultusaltertuimer
MACKENDRICK, PAUL. 1938. "De gente Attica Eumolpi- (Munich).
darum." Diss. Harvard (non vidi). TOEPFFER, JOHANNES. 1889. AttischeGenealogie (Berlin).
1969. The Athenian Aristocracy,399 to 31 B.C. (Cam- WOLOCH, G. MICHAEL. 1966. "Roman Citizenship and the
bridge, Mass.). Athenian Elite: A Prosopographical Survey." Diss. Johns
MARTHA, JULES. 1881. Les Sacerdocesath6'niens(Paris). Hopkins University (forthcoming;page referencesare avoided
MERITT, BENJAMIN D. 1961. The Athenian Year (Berkeley). whereverpossible in the presentstudy).
ADDENDUM
To p. 38: Hierophantno. 25 is also mentionedin an mediatelybeforethat of the hierophant,may be the
inscriptionconcerningfinancialmatters,Hesperia 29 name of the hierophant'sfatheror some otherrelative
(1960): pp. 29-32, no. 32. In a discussion of the (Les Empereurs Romains d'Espagne [Paris, 1965]:
inscriptionOliver points out that the name Julius p. 127, n. 6). It is equally possible, in my opinion,
Secundus, which appears in the genitive case im- that Secundus is not related to the hierophant.
CORRIGENDUM
In the headingof AppendixV, p. 124, the referenceto
'Evo. 'Apx. 1897: col. 60, no. 42 was mistakenly
assigned
to the lefthandfragmentwhen in fact it refersto the
firsteditionof IG, JJ2, 3713. The lefthandfragment
seemsnot to have been publishedpreviously.
128
PASSAGES CITED
PAGE PAGE
Aelian, Varia Historia, frag. 10 39, 46 Cicero
Aristides (ed. Keil and Oliver) Ad Atticum,5, 2 (ed. Shackleton Bailey) 93
Eleusinian Oration Ad fam., XVI, 21, 5 83
2 56
4 10, 47 [Demosthenes]
Panathenaic Oration Against Macartatus,49 54
230 (Oliver) 65 Against Neaera
249 (Oliver) 65 78 76
257 (Oliver) 65 116 12, 16-17
XLVII, 36 37 117 17
Aeschines (ed. Blass) Didymus
Against Ctesiphon,18 46, 115 Didymi de DemostheneCommenta(ed.
Andocides Diehls and Schubart)
On the Mysteries(ed. MacDowell) col. 13, 41-58, and col. 14, 35-49 17, 50
85 93 col. 14, 40-46 18
110-116 90-91, 93 Dinarchus, frag. 30 (ed. Muller) 23
112 32, 49-50 Dio Chrysostom (ed. H. von Arnim)
115 48 Oratio XII, 33 (Vol. I, p. 163) 48
116 10, 12 Oratio XXXI, 90, 22-23 (Vol. I, p. 245) 107
124-127 49-50 XXXI, 121 36
132 12 Diogenes Laertius (ed. Long)
[Andocides], Against Alcibiades, 13 49 Aristippus, II, 101 21
Anecdota Graeca (ed. Bekker), p. 204 99 Aristotle,V, 5 21
Apollodorus Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Library, II, 5, 12 107 Roman Antiquities,II, 22 83
On theGods (F. Gr. Hist., 244) Opuscula (ed. Usener and Radermacher)
F110b 47 I, p. 314, 12-17 23
Aristodemus (F. Gr. Hist., 104)
F13 47 EtymologicumMagnum, s.v. 7ipepoKaXX's 33, 96
Aristophanes Eunapius, Lives of theSophists (ed. Gian-
Acharnians, 747 113 grande) VII, 3, 1-4, 9 43
Clouds, 64 32 X, 8 43
Eccl., 443 71 Eusebius: See Porphyry
Frogs, 338 113 Eustathius, Iliad, XVIII, 492 68
Peace, 374-375 13, 113
Thesm.,83, 282, 295 71 Harpocration, s.v.
296 36 &w' eoritas/v=7R6vat 100
Scholion to Clouds, 64 47 AvataX7rs 23
Scholion to Frogs,369 46, 78 IEPoWpdLvT77s 10
Scholion to Frogs,479 68 Hesychius, s.v.
Scholion to Knights,408 103 ELO?7XVOLOv 26
Aristotle b6pav6s 98
Ath. Pol. Index LibrorumHesychii (ed. During)
8 100 189 21
39,2 8 Homer, Iliad, II, 186 43
47,1 20 Homeric Hymn to Demeter,236-240 99
57 23 Hyperides, frag. 198 (ed. Jensen) 21, 44
frag.5 (ed. Oppermann) 53
Politics, 1299a, 14-19 14 INSCRIPTIONS
1368b, 7-9 93 Annuario della Scuola Archeologicadi
Rhetoric,1373b 93 Atene 37-38 (1959-1960): pp. 421-427 38-39
1405a, 20 49 'ApXatoXO-YLK?)
'Ejp77,uepLs
Poetae Melici Graeci (ed. Page) 1897: col. 60, no. 42 + I.G., II2 3713
no. 842 21 + 4089 61, 63, 124
Lexicon of Patmos scholion to Ath. Pol. 1950-1951: p. 47, no. 29 80
frag. 5 (ed. Oppermann) 53 1964: pp. 120-123 108
Arabic Lives of Aristotle 21 1968: p. 190, no. 18 74
Arrian, 218b-c Discourses of Epictetus, p. 191, no. 19 108
III, 21, 16 (ed. Schenkl) 32-33, 44 1971: pp. 114-115, no. 7 101
Athenaeus, Deipnosophists pp. 115-116, no. 8 36-37
I, 21e 32-33 p. 116, no. 9 75, 92
V, 218b-c 48 pp. 116-117, no. 10 109
XV, 696a-697b 20 p. 118, no. 12 40
129
PAGE PAGE
pp. 119-120, no. 15 57, 59 p. 216, no. 66 18
p. 123, no. 17 66 pp. 212-220, no. 76 57
pp. 128-129, no. 23 29 29 (1960): pp. 29-32, no. 32 128
p.129,no.24 114 p. 417 24-27
pp. 129-130, no. 25 72 30 (1961): pp. 231-234, no. 31 63
pp. 130-131, no. 26 57 p. 272, no. 107 64
p. 131, no. 27 72, 74, 109 p. 272, no. 110 85
p.131,no.28 110 32 (1963): p. 26, no. 27 42
pp. 131-132, no. 29 78, 109 pp. 42-43, no. 48 73
no.31 92 33 (1964): p. 212, no. 57 54
pp. 135-136, no. 32 113 p. 220, no. 65 59-60
Ath. Mitt. 18 (1893): p. 208,no.2 112-113 34 (1965): p. 97, no. 7 59-63
B.S.A. 21 (1914-1916): p. 159 55 35 (1966): p. 247, no. 8 30
B.C.H. 20 (1896): p. 719 76 36 (1967): p. 237, no. 47 98
22 (1898): p. 394, no. 42 73 37 (1968): p. 289, no. 29 72, 100, 106
73 (1949):p. 359 85 Suppl. 6 (1941): nos. 24-25 63
83 (1959): pp. 191-192 74-75 no. 27 98
94 (1970): p. 912 98 no. 31 42
C.I.G. Suppl. 8 (1949): p. 117 29
I,188b 122 p. 225 54
I,396 125 p. 249 88
I,405 42 p. 250-251, no. 2 42, 88
II,1948 44 p. 252, no. 3 42
C.I.L., VI, 537 66 p. 254, no. 4 42
VI,2250 74 p. 282 80
IX, 4133 74 Suppl. 12 (1967): append. III 85, 88, 112
IX, 5890 74 Suppl. 13 (1970): no. 1 60-63, 81, 116,
12, p. 231 74 122-123
AeXTwov 21 A (1966): p. 141, no. 3 112 I.G., III
25 (1970): p. 187, no. 6 30 331 87
H.S.C.P. 51 (1940): p. 121 97 722 125
Hesperia 921 72
3 (1934): p. 147 98 990 57
p.158 83 1038 122
no.43 122 IV 955 65
4 (1935): p. 49, no. 11 38, 64, 83, 122 XII, 8 26 83
pp. 178-183, no. 45 40 XIV 1389 62
7 (1938): no. 20 27 12 5 11, 70
8 (1939): p. 178 19 6 10-13, 26, 69, 77,
9 (1940): pp. 104-105, no. 20 28 81-83, 86, 88, 99,
10 (1941):no. 1 49 107
p. 97, no. 18 21,69 76 8, 11, 14-16, 18,
p.260,no.64 111 49, 70, 90-91
11 (1942):no. 1 122 77 13-14
p. 32, no. 2 123 81 14, 69, 72, 89
p. 33, no. 4 94, 123 190 70
p. 34, no. 5 94, 122-123 248 20
p. 36, no. 6 79, 122-123 311 11
p. 39, no. 8 78 313/314 11, 13, 26
p. 43, no. 12 61,83-84 IJ2 140 91-92
p. 50, no. 18 38, 59, 79, 122-123 204 8, 15, 50, 71, 76
p. 55, no. 21 83 275 19
no.23 122 683 23
p. 60, no. 25 80 776 69
p. 66, no. 31 79 843 70
p. 70, no. 36 122-123 847 12, 23
p. 75, no.38 20 912 72
p. 265, no. 51 23,71 949 12, 23, 27
pp. 293-298, no. 58 24-27 992 23
12 (1943): p. 77, no. 23 122 1008 92
14 (1945): pp. 66-81 10-13 1011 100
15 (1946): pp. 249-253 10-13 1012 26
16 (1947): p. 180, no.84 40 1013 28-29
p. 182, no. 87 123 1034 54-55
17 (1948):pp.86-111 10,95 1036 55
21 (1952):pp.381-399 35 1039 52
23 (1954): p. 233, no. 1 66 1044 29, 72
p.257,no.42 74 1045 23-24, 26-27,
26 (1957): pp. 57-58, no. 12 23 119-120
pp. 79-80, no. 25 70 1072 78
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 19741 PASSAGES CITED 131
PAGE PAGE
1076 40 1794 38, 60-61, 83-84,
1077 40, 60, 63-64, 79, 122
85, 95, 122-123 1795 38, 85, 122
1078 23, 42, 95 1796 38, 85, 122-123
1079 95 1797 38,122-123
1092 35-36,60,75-76, 1798 38, 79, 83-84, 122
89-90, 94-95, 1799 122
97-99, 110 1801 94
1108 63 1802 94
1177 71 1803 39,94
1184 71 1806 40,63,79,122-123
1185 19 1806a 40, 79,111,122
1186 19 1808 38,123-124
1188 18-20 1815 123
1193 19 1817 80
1227 28 1824 94
1229 99 1825 94
1231 23 1826 80
1235 12, 14, 23-24, 26, 1832 80
33 1933 20
1236 23-24 1934 20, 22
1283 99 1935 20,29
1292 107 1937 55,58
1293 107 1941 97
1299 12,26 1945 36
1304 12 1947 78
1333 107 1961 55,57
1357 70 1963 28
1363 22,70-71,77,89 1974 29
1366 107 2021 108
1368 26 2024 74
1496 20 2029 78,96
1540 17,70 2037 80
1544 20 2044 32
1638 49 2047 97
1640 49 2048 97
1652 49 2067 32,61
1653 49 2068 37
1672 19-21, 26, 50, 71, 2079 80
82,89,91,98 2081 80
1700 22 2085 80,83-84
1713 29 2086 32
1714 73 2109 39-40
1718 98 2124 63
1721 83 2125 63
1727 98 2193 38,64
1730 101 2197 63
1736 59 2199 80
1768 38, 59-60,123-124 2201 63-64
1769 38,59-60,122 2219 64
1772 37, 97 2222 64
1773 30, 36, 38, 59, 61, 2230 80
79,122 2241 80
1774 36, 38, 59, 75, 79, 2242 80
85,122 2332 24,27
1775 38, 59, 61, 79, 2336 97
83-84,122 2340 63,85
1776 38, 59, 79, 83-85, 2341 31
122 2342 43, 57, 59, 61, 76,
1781 38, 59, 79, 83-84, 78
122 2393 22
1782 38, 60-61, 79, 122 2445 98
1788 38, 60-61, 79, 2452 28, 54, 72, 97, 100
83-84,122-123 2464 20, 29,83
1789 40,63,78-79,121-
2478 30
123
1790 2776 59
40, 63, 79,
122-123 2798 22
1792 38-39, 61, 79, 84- 2879 73
85,94,122 2931 96
1793 64 2944 23
PAGE PAGE
2954 68,74 3604 A 108
3012 80 3606 33
3187 78 3608 75, 110
3198 96 3609 57,59,112
3220 23, 72 3610 57,59
3242 77 3611 59,109
3261 73 3612 57
3283 56-57 3613 126
3283 A 126 3614 57, 61, 79
3315 109 3615 57,61
3411 21, 38-39, 69 3616 59
3468 71 3619 109
3469 27-28 3620 37-38, 83-85, 87,
3475 + 3476 124 126
3477 100 3621 75
3478 100 3627 109
3480 100 3628 38,44
3487 54,92 3632 88
3488 98,101 3633 87-88
3490 73,92 3637 89,110
3491 100 3639 38-39
3492 100 3641 39
3495 72 3646 112
3498 73,101 3647 110
3499 101 3648 37,110
3507 54 3657 109
3508 54 3658 98
3509 + 3510 52,54-57 3661 42
3511 55-57,108 3662 42,112
3512 28 3664 42,95
3514 86 3665 41,79
3517 101 3666 79
3518 101 3667 79, 96
3519 101 3668 64,79
3527 86 3669 96
3529 101 3670 96,126
3530 73,75 3671 96
3531 84,108,125-126 3674 42-43
3536 56-57 3676 109
3546 29-30, 74, 87 3677 111
3547 74 3679 58,112
3548a 29 3684 63-64
3549 87 3686 111
3551 110 3687 62,75
3552 108 3688 41,60,88,110-111
3553 86, 108,111 3689 66
3554 109 3690 66
3557 74, 87,r109 3693 61, 63, 111,'124
3559 74 3697 112
3560 74 3705 97
3568 74-75,109 3706 112
3569 109 3707 80,111
3570 124 3708 112
3571 78 3709 42, 88
3573 78 3710 61, 63,112
3574 78 3713 + 4089 61, 63, 124
3575 87-88 3715 64
3577 109 3718 44
3581 108 3723 75,114
3584 74 3724 113
3585 74, 82,87 3727 114
3586 74,109 3733 96
3587 74 3734 97
3588 74 3744 59
3591 36 3748 39-40
3592 31, 33, 36-38, 45, 3762 94
75 3764 64,88
3593 37 3798 78
3595 74 3802 85
3604 73,110 3811 40
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] PASSAGES CITED 133
PAGE PAGE
3812 40, 41 85-86 29
3814 80-81 86 57, 67
3928 56-57 429 65-66
3929 109 430 66
3966a 35 431 65-66
3981 59 691 79
3984 30-31, 83, 87 Inscriptionsde Delos
4007 59,85 2535 108
4037 97 2536 80
4042 56-58 2610 100
4058 46 Fouilles de Delphes
4062 87 III, 2, 2 97
4066 80 10 58, 83
4069 40, 78, 109 11 92
4070 40, 78, 109 13 55
4075 + 4083 79-80, 124-125 14 97
4077 61, 111 15 54, 92, 94
4083 + 4075 79-80,124-125 25 97
4084 + 4087 59 28 97-98
4088 61,63 47 92
4089 + 3713 61, 63, 124 Kourouniotes, Eleusiniaka 1 (1932):
4094 63 pp. 223-236 50-53
4096 75 M6m. Inst. 42 (1925): nos. 1265 and 1889 64-66
4175 56-57 Oliver, Expounders
4176 56-57 1 16 92
4222 66 19 92
4441 32 21-26 88
4479 29 29-30 92
4481 78 38 92
4560 71 44-45 92
4680 48 47-50 112
4690 72 52 76, 88, 112
4701 97 53 92
4704 73 O.GI., 720-721 64-66
4714 83 Peek, GriechischeVersinschriften (Berlin,
4716 73 1950), 1029 116
4720 73 Sokolowski, Lois sacre'esdes Cites
4721 73 grecques,46 99
4722 73 Lois sacreesde l'Asie Mineure, 11 107
4750 75 Supplement, 1 10, 95
4753 74,125 2 10
4754 74 3 10
4767 74 10 70
4768 76 12 17 91-92
4771 96-97 14 27
4772 96-97 18 70
4777 75 19 22
4816 94 S.E.G., III 104 24, 119
4822 63-64 X 24 8,11,12,115
4824 76 321 69
4831 64-65 XI 408a 29
4868 74 409 29
5022-5079 89-90,120-121 XII 2-3 10, 95
5024-5025 36 140 63
5043 81 XVII 72 57
5044 96 XXI 3 10, 69
5048 77,95 4 10
5050 94 5 10
5053 87 496 54
5077 98 XXII 113 57
5083-5164 36 124 24-27
5111 87 XXIII 119 64
6054 19 XXIV 229 112
6400 44 S.I.G.3, 412 26
7221 22 704 E 23
11674 116 877 D 79
12142 66 1018 107
IV2 82-84 29 1020 52
83 12 1106 26
84 12
134 CLINTON: THE ELEUSINIAN MIYSTERIES [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.
PAGE PAGE
Isaeus, On theEstate ofA pollodorus,9 17 Numa, 9, 8 36
On theEstate ofHagnias 53 Pelopidas, 10 16
On theEstate ofPhilectemon,33 17 Sulla, 13, 3 86
Isocrates, Panegyricus,157 (ed. Blass) 46, 78 De Iside et Osiride,362a 9
Ister of Cyrene (F. Gr. Hist., 334), F29 33, 86 On theSign of Socrates,596e 16
Progressin Virtue,81e 46
Julian, Oratio V, 173c-d (ed. Hertlein) 46, 96, 116 Quaestiones Conviviales,VIII, 4 59
IX, 5, 12, 13 59
Lucian, Lexiphanes, 10 9 [Plutarch], Lives of the Ten Orators,843b 76
Lysias, XIX, On thePropertyof 843c 55-57
A ristophanes,48 48-49 Pollux (ed. Bethe)
[Lysias], Against Andocides, 10 90, 93 I, 35 96-98
51 16, 32, 46 II, 30, Vol. I, p. 90 104
54 10, 93 IV, 116, Vol. I, p. 235, line 7 33
VII, 69 23
Malalas, XI, 280-281 37
Porphyry,De A bstinentia,IV, 5 99
Marinus, Proclus,28, p. 22 (ed. Boissonade) 43-44
apud Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica,
Nepos, Alcibiades, 6, 5 16 III, 12, 4 (ed. K. Mras) (= flepL
Pelopidas, 3 16 a'yaX,ua'rv, frag. 10, p. 22*, ed. Bidez) 8-9
Proclus, Platonic Theology,III, 18, p. 151
Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto, III, 6, 23-26 74 (ed. Portus) 56
Palatine A nthology,IX, 688 42 ScriptoresHistoriae A ugustae

Pausanias, I, 22, 3 96 Vita Pii, 7, 11 38
1, 22, 8 96 Vita Veri,6, 9 37
1, 28, 6 20 8, 1 37
I, 37, 1 53-56, 58 Vita Marci, 27 39
1, 38, 6 94 Sopater (ed. Walz, RhetoresGraeci,VI II)
II, 14 44 p. 118 81
II, 30, 2 94 p. 121, 11-12 68
Philostratus,Life of Apollonius, IV, 18 29 p. 123, 3 46
Lives of theSophists (ed. Kayser) Strabo, 1, 1, 16 99
pp. 63, 67-9, 71, 73 61-63 Suda, s.v. ALoSKw'LCOZ 68
p. 91 47 waKKo17rXovros 47
p. 95 85 MLvovKtavos 65
II, 20, p. 103 40, 42 NtKa,yopas 80-81
p. 127 80-81 Suetonius, Augustus,93 38
Photius, s.v. lepo'avnbrus 89 Nero, 34 46, 78
4t?XX5eat 68
Pindar, Isthmian VII, 3-4 47 Tacitus, Histories, IV, 83, 2 9
Plato, Laws, 700b 21 Theon of Smyrna, On the Utilityof
758e-759c 14 Mathematics(ed. Hiller)
Republic, 607a 21 p. 14 78
Plutarch, Alcibiades, 8 49 p. 15 33
22, 4 15, 32, 46, 49, 70, Theophilus (ed. Edmonds), II, p. 568, 1, 4 13
76 Thucydides, VIII, 53, 2 16, 49
33 16, 70
A ristides,5 47 Xenophon, Hellenica, II, 4, 20 77
5, 6-7 33 VI, 3, 2-6 49
25 47
Demetrius,26 50 Zosimus, IV, 18 (ed. Mendelssohn) 43
GENERAL INDEX
(Chronologicallists of hierophants,daduchs, priestessesof Demeter and Kore, sacred heralds, altar-priests,

and hierophantidsare given above, pp. 117-119; a list of exegetesof the Eumolpidae is given on p. 92.)
Accame, S., 29 Agenor son of Apollonius, kitharistesat Apolexis son of Apellicon of Oion, 51
Acestion, daughter of daduch no. 12, Delphi in 128/7, 92 (line 20)
Xenocles, 54-55 agonothete,30, 55, 61, 63-64, 78-80, 84-85, Apollinarius: see Claudius A.
Acharnae, daduchic familyfrom,52-58 96, 108, 126 Apollo, 18, 27, 54; priest of, 100; Apollo
Achilles, 43 Agora in Athens, 33-35 Delius, priest of, 74; Apollo Patrous,
Acropolis, 20, 94, 96 Alaric, 43 priest of, 75, 112; Apollo Pythius, 22,
adlection into Eumolpidae, 37 Alcamenes, pyrphorosno. 2, 94 75, 112; priest of, 51, 89, 121; Apollo
adoptio testimentaria, 30 Alcibiades, 15-16, 49, 70, 76, 81, 93, 114 Zosterius,priestof, 120
Adrian, sophist, 47 Alcibiades: see Flavius A. Apollodorus, 17
aediculum,43-44 Alexander the Great, 21, 58, 112 Apoll[odorus ?J: see Claudius A.
aeisitoi, 14, 38, 40, 42, 59-61, 64, 68, 79, Alexander son of Agathocles of Leukono- Apollonius, fatherof priestessof Demeter
81, 83-86, 94-95, 121-124 ion, 51 (line 29) and Kore no. 4, 72
Aelia Cephisodora, daughter of daduch Alexandria, 8-9, 43 Apollonius son of Apollonius, hierophant
no. 19, Lysiades, 59 altar, 73; altars of Demeter and Kore, 82, no. 29, 40
Aelia Epilampsis daughter of Aelius Gelos 85-86 Apollonius of Acharnae, fatherof Ctesicl-
of Phaleron, priestess of Demeter and altar-priest,8-9, 82-86 eia, wife of daduch no. 13, 54, 58
Kore no. 16, 75 ambassador, 30, 36, 68, 80 Apollonius son of Ctesicles ofAcharnae, 51
Publia Aelia Herennia, hierophantid no. Ameinocleia daughter of Philanthus of (line 24), 55, 58
11, 88 Phyle, priestess of Demeter and Kore Apollonius son of Jason of Cholleidai, 96
Publia Aelia Herennia daughter of P. no. 6, 72 Apollonius son of Agenor of Erikeia, exe-
Aelius Apollonius, hearth-initiate, no. Amelung, 101 gete no. 3, 92
43, 111 Ammonius, father of Aristaechmus of Apollonius son of Eudemus of Hermos,
Aelius of Acharnae, pyrphorosno. 3, 94 Anaphlystos, 51 (line 26) fatherof sacred herald no. 6, 41, 79
Aelius Apollonius, cosmete ca. 217/8, 64 Ammonius son of Demetrius, ephebe in Apollonius of Melite, father of hearth-
Aelius Apollonius, ephebe ca. 217/8, 64 80/79, 52 initiate no. 20, 108
P. Aelius Apollonius of Antinoeis,archon, Amphias of Philaidai, father of hiero- Apollonius of Tyana, 29
father of hearth-initiateno. 43, 41, 64, phantid no. 1, 86 Apollonius: see Aelius, Cassius, Julius
111 Amynomachus son of Eucles of Halai, Cassianus A.
Aelius Ardys, high-priest,62, 75 hierophantno. 12, 27 apometra,70
Aelius Aristides, 39, 47. See also Pas- Anactoron, 39, 41-42, 44, 46-47, 64 archeis,76
sages Cited anagraphe,24, 50, 56 Archias, hierophantno. 3, 16-17
P. Aelius Dionysius of Antinoeis, daduch Andocides, 16-18, 68, 90. See also Passages Architimusson of Architimusof Sphettos,
no. 22, 60, 64 Cited 51 (line 22)
Aelius Dionysius of Antinoeis, ephebe in anepsios, 53-54 archon,30, 36, 41, 59, 61, 63-64, 73, 79-80,
205/6, 64 M. Annius Pythodorus,husband of priest- 83-85, 87, 89, 96, 98, 100-101, 108, 111,
Aelius Gelos of Phaleron, fatherof priestess ess of Demeter and Kore no. 10, 74 121
of Demeter and Kore no. 16, Aelia Annius Thrasyllus, son of priestess of archon of Eumolpidae, 35-36
Epilamnpsis,75 Demeter and Kore no. 10, 74 archon of the Kerykes, 98
Aelius Praxagoras son of Themistocles of announcement: see prorrhesis archon of the Panhellenion, 109
Melite, daduch no. 23, 60-63 antigrapheus,123 archon of the Sacred Gerousia, 98
Aelius Themison, 60 antikeryx,60, 123 Ardys: see Aelius A.
P. Aelius Timosthenes son of Aelius Zenon Antiochus,44 Areopagus, 22, 42
of Berenikidai, hearth-initiate no. 51, Antiphon,archon of 258/7, 27 Ares t_nyalius,priestof, 78
112 Antiphon,altar-priestno. 3, 82 aresterion,18, 71
Aelius Zenon of Berenikidai, father of Antiphon,daduch no. 8, altar-priestno. 4, Argeius son of Argeius of Trikorynthos,
hearth-initiateno. 51, 112 53, 82 archon in 98/7, 98
Aeolion: see Vipsanius A. Antoninus Pius, 32, 34, 37-39, 84 Argeius son of Aristodemus of Trikoryn-
Aerarius Sosipater, daduch no. 29, 64 Antonius Cornelianus, 35 thos, 98
Agathocles, father of Alexander of Leu- Antonius Sospis, rhetor,59 Aristaechmus son of Ammonius of Ana-
konoion, 51 (line 29) aparche, 11, 14-15, 49, 70, 76, 90 phlystos,51 (line 26), 52
Agathocles of Marathon, fatherof hearth- Apellicon, father of Apolexis of Oion, 51 Aristides: see Aelius A.
initiate no. 41, 111 (line 20) Aristion,86
Agathon: see Flavius A.
Aphrodeisius son of Stephanus of Mara- Aristocleia, granddaughterof priestess of
Agathopus son of Phronton of Marathon, Demeter and Kore no. 10, 74
thon, priest of Triptolemus,97
hearth-initiateno. 24, 109 Aristocles of Perithoidai, hierophant no.
son of Epaphrodeitus of
Agenor of Erikeia, fatherof exegete no. 3, Aphrodeisius 11, 24-27, 56
92 Paiania, hieraules,123
Aristocratesof Sparta, 57
Agenor son of Apollonius of Erikeia, Aphrodite Pandemos, 96 Aristodemus,fatherofArgeiusof Trikoryn-
ephebe in 119/8, pythaist,92 apogonos,meaning of, 31 thos, 98
Agenor son of Apollonius, pythaist in apographai, 56 Aristodemus son of Argeius of Trikoryn-
138/7, 92 Apolexis, archon in 20/19, 50, 101 thos, hymnagogos, 97
135
aristopoliteia,109 Bellicus Tebanianus, 30 chastity, 116; of hierophant,44-46

Aristotle, 13, 21, 67. See also Passages bema: see prytany-secretary chiton,48, 101-108
Cited Bendis, 99 chorus, 111, 113
Arria: see Calpurnia Arria Biottus, 20 Chrestus,of Byzantium, sophist, 85
Artaxerxes,47 Blass, F., 17, 48-49 Christianwriters,8-9
Artemidorus,57 Bloch. H., 90-91 Chrysilla,50
Artemis Epipyrgidia, priest of, 73, 94; Boeckh, 122, 125 Cicero, 93
ArtemisPropylaea (at Eleusis), 94 boots of hierophant,33 Cichesias son of Leon of Aixone, 51 (line
Artemon,fatherof Lysias of Paiania, 100 Boule, 26, 35, 42, 45, 90, 93 24)
Asclepieia, Greater, 61, 67 Bouleuterion, 15 citizenship,Roman, 30, 36
Asclepieum, 79; epimeleteof, 78 Bousquet,J.,74 Claudia Alcia daughter of Ti. Claudius
AsclepiodoEra], 126 Boyance, P., 13, 46 Hipparchus of Marathon, hearth-initi-
AsclepiodoEte], 126 Bowersock, G. W., 38, 41-42, 81 ate no. 15, 108
AsclepiodoEtus]; see Claudius A. bowls, gymnasiarchwith,36
Claudia Elpinice daughter of Claudius
Asclepius, 96; at Eleusis, 29; priestof, 59, Bowra, C. M., 21
Herodes of Marathon, hearth-initiate
68, 108, 121; Asclepius Amphiaraus, 32; Bradua: see Claudius Appius Ateilius B.
no. 35, 110
Asclepius Soter, priestof, 66 Britain, 80
asebeia: see impiety Broneer,O., 71 Claudia Menandra daughter of Claudius
Ashmole, B., 102 Brussels, 33 Philippus of Melite, hearth-initiateno.
Asia, 66 Buetler, R., 43 47, 112, 124
Asprenas Calpurnius Torquatus, 30 Burrus, husband of hierophantidno. 8, 87 Claudia Philoxena daughterof Ti. Claud-
Ateimetus: see Flavius A. Busolt, 11 ius Patron of Melite, hierophantid no.
ateleia, 19-20 Butadius: see Musonius 7, 87
Athena, 43, 109; priestessof,29, 35-36, 69, Claudia Praxagora daughter of Claudius
76, 100; weaver of robe of, 54-55; Caesarea, Great, 78 Demostratus of Melite, hearth-initiate
Athena Horia, priest of, 51, 98 Calamaea, 27, 47, 72, 76 no. 40, 111
Athenaea, 55 Callaeschus: see Flavius C. Claudia Tatarion daughter of Menander
Athenaeus (also Epaphrodeitus) son of Callias (II) son of Hipponicus (I) of of Gargettos, priestess of Demeter and
Athenaeus of Phlya, hearth-initiateno. Alopeke, daduch no. 1, 47-48 Kore no. 12, 74
26 Callias (III) son of Hipponicus (II) of Claudia Themistocleia daughter of Claud-
Athenagoras of Melite, father of hearth- Alopeke, daduch no. 2, 48-50, 90-91, 93 ius Philippus of Melite, hearth-initiate
initiate no. 5, 100 Callias (IV) of Alopeke, grandson of da- no. 46, 111-112
Athenais, 58 duch no. 2, 48 Claudia Timothea daughter of Timotheus
Athenais, hearth-initiateno. 19, 108 Callicratides of Trikorynthos, father of of Gargettos, priestess of Demeter and
Athenophilus:see Athenaeus son ofAthen- hierophantno. 18, 29 Kore, no. 11, 74
aeus of Phlya Callicratides son of Syndromus of Triko- Claudii of Melite, 43, 53, 57-63, 67
Athens, Athenians, passim: administra- rynthos,30 Ti. Claudius Apollinarius son of Apoll-
tion of Eleusinian sanctuary, 8; borrow- Calligeneia: see Kalligeneia
[odorus] of Acharnae, hierophant no.
ing money from fund of Demeter and Callimachus, 111 26, 39-40
Kore, 12; Constantine, 65; state and Callimachus of Leukonoion, father of
Ti. Claudius ApollEodorus?] of Acharnae,
Mysteries, 10 altar-priestno. 10, 51 (line 9), 83
fatherof hierophantno. 26, 39
Athens, modern,33 Calpurnia Arria, 30
Attalus, 121 Campbell, D. A., 21 Ti. Claudius Appius Ateilius Bradua son
audit of Eleusinian priests,46, 115 Caracalla, 38 of Claudius Herodes of Marathon,
Augustan Games, Great, 84-85, 126 Caria, 73 hearth-initiateno. 34, 110
Augustus, 37-38, 57, 73-74 Casianus of Steiria, sacred herald no. 10, Claudius Asclepiodotus, 126
Aurelia Magna (also Hermione) daughter hearth-initiateno. 42, 80, 111 Claudius Demostratus of Melite, son of
of Aurelius Epaphrodeitus of Pithos, Cassianus Philippus, 80 daduch no. 20, Sospis, 59-63, 111
hearth-initiateno. 37, 110 Cassianus: see Julius C. Ti. Claudius Demostratus son of T.
Aurelia Paramona daughter of Aurelius C. Cas(sius) Apollonius of Steiria, archon Claudius Nicoteles of Sounion, exegete
Paramonus of Lamptrai, hearth-initiate in 207/8,41 no. 6, hearth-initiateno. 14, 92, 108
no. 36, 110 Cassius Dio, 84 Claudius Eumolpus son of Eumolpus of
Aurelios and Aurelioi, 94 Cassius: see Julius C. Marathon, 40
Aurelius of Lamptrai, pyrphorosno. 4, 95 Cawkwell, G. L., 18 Ti. Claudius Hipparchus of Marathon,
Aurelius Epaphrodeitus of Pithos, father Cephalus, 90-91, 93 fatherof hearth-initiateno. 15, 108
of hearth-initiateno. 37, 110 Cecropidae, 39 Claudius Illyrius,66
M. Aurelius Miltiades son of Agathocles Cephisodora: see Aelia C. Ti. Claudius Leonides of Melite, daduch
of Marathon, hearth-initiateno. 41, 111 Cephisodorus son of Philistides of Hag- no. 18, 57
Aurelius Paramonus of Lamptrai, father nous, altar-priestno. 7, 82
Claudius Lysiades of Melite, son of hiero-
of hearth-initiateno. 36, 110 Ceryces: see Kerykes
phantid no. 7, 87
M. Aurelius Prosdectus son of Pistocrates Chaeretius son of Prophetes of Eleusis,
hierophantno. 10, 8, 23 Ti. Claudius Lysiades son of Leonides of
of Kephale, 98
Chalcis, 21 Melite, daduch no. 19, 59
Baillet,J.,64-66 Charias, 20 Ti. Claudius Lysiades of Melite, son of
bakchoi,103 Charicles son of Theodorus of Phaleron, 22 daduch no. 20, Sospis, high-priest,59,
Barnes, T. D., 37 Charidotes: see Hermes 61-62, 85
basileus, 23, 41, 73, 96, 98, 100, 111, 113, Charion daughter of Dionysius of Mara- Ti. Claudius Nicoteles of Sounion, father
121 thon, priestessof Demeter and Kore no. of Ti. Claudius Demostratus, 108
Bassa: see Nummia B. 7, 73 Ti. Claudius Oenophilus son of Callicra-
Beazley, J. P., 48-49 charisterion,97 tides of Trikorynthos,hierophant no.
Behr, C. A., 38 Charites: see Graces 18, 29
VOL. 64, PT. 3, 1974] GENERAL INDEX 137
Ti. Claudius Patron of Melite, father of Ctesicles of Acharnae, son of daduch no. Diodorus, fatherof Diotimus of Halai, 50
hierophantidno. 7, 87 13, Sophocles, 55, 58 (lines 7, 20)
Ti. Claudius Philippus son of Demostratus Ctesicles,fatherofApollonius ofAcharnae, Diogenes, 121
of Melite, daduch no. 24, 63 51 (line 24) Dione, priestessof Demeter and Kore no.
Claudius Polyzelus of Acharnae, brother Cumont, F., 3 14, 74-75
of hierophantno. 26, 39-40, 92 curse, 16, 70 Dionysia daughterofL. Gellius Xenagoras,
Claudius Praxagoras: see Aelius P., daduch Cybele, 47 76
no. 23 Cyprus, 42 Dionysia, wifeof Lacrateides of Ikaria, 97
C. Claudius Seilianus Polycritus, hearth- Dionysia at Eleusis, 19, 26
initiate no. 29, 109 daduch, 3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 20-21, 29, Dionysiac Artists,92
Ti. Claudius Sospis son of Lysiades of 47-68, 71; appointment of, 52-53, 55- Dionysiac Mysteries, 104
Melite, daduch no. 20, 59 56, 60; hair-style,47-48; at Thargelia, Dionysius, father of Metrophanes of
Ti. Claudius Sospis son of Ti. Claudius 54. See also costume Athmonon,50
Lysiades of Melite, altar-priest no. 13, daduchic familyfromAcharnae, 52-58 Dionysius of Halai, fatherof hearth-initi-
85 daduchic familyfromHagnous, 52-58 ate no. 4, 100, 124
Claudius Themistocles of Melite, son of daduchic family of Claudii of Melite, 43, Dionysius son of Sostratus of Ikaria, 97
daduch, no. 18, Leonides, 58 53, 57-63, 67 Dionysius of Marathon, fatherof priestess
Claudius Themistocles of Melite, fatherof Daeira, 98 of Demeter and Kore no. 7, Charion, 73
daduch no. 23, 61 Daeirites, 98 Dionysius ofMarathon, Iakchagogos,96-97
Clea, wifeof hierophantno. 34, Erotius, 42 Damoteles, daduch no. 27, 64 Dionysius son of Eirenaeus of Paiania, 97
Cleadas, son of hierophantno. 34, Erotius, Davies, J. K., 19, 47-49 Dionysius son of Demostratus of Pallene,
42-43, 64 Degrassi, A., 65 sacred herald no. 2, 51 (lines 12, 25), 77
Cleitus of Phlya, father of priestess of Delos, 49, 100 Dionysius: see Aelius D.
Demeter and Kore no. 10, 74 Delphi, 21, 55, 65, 74, 76, 112. See also Dionysodorus son of Dionysodorus of
Cleo daughter of Eucles of Phlya (born: oracle Deiradiotai, 51 (lines 23, 27, 28)
daughter of Nicodemus of Hermos), Delz, J.,9 Dionysus, 17, 116; hierophantsin cult of,
priestessof Demeter and Kore no. 9, 73 demarch of Eleusis, 15, 18, 27, 72 3; priest of, 36; Dionysus Eleuthereus,
Cleo: see Nummia C. Demeas, father of Seleucus of Halai, 51 priestof, 75
Cleocrateia daughter of Oenophilus of (line 30) Diophantus son of Jason of Cholleidai, 96
Aphidna, priestessof Demeter and Kore Demeter Chloe, priestessof, 75 [Diot]ima, hearth-initiateno. 8, 101
no. 8, 73 Demeter and Kore, passim: designation Diotimus son of Diodorus of Halai, 51
Cleocritus,sacred herald no. 1, 77 of, 65; treasury of, 12-13; priestess of, (lines 7, 20), 77, 88, 100-101
Cleomenes of Marathon, fatherof hearth- 11, 13, 20, 23, 29, 68-76: title, 69, 76; Diphila, mother of hearth-initiateno. 6,
initiate no. 13, 101 perquisites,69-71, 75 100
Cleomenes, father of Dositheus of Mara- Demetrius, father of hierophantid no. 6, Dittenberger,W., 15, 52, 75, 87, 122
thon, 98 87 Dodwell, 124
Clinton, Jacquelyn Collins, 4, 101 Demetrius of Gargettos,subsecretary,123 dokimasia of daduch, 68
comes,66 Demetrius of Phaleron, 22 Dositheus son of Cleomenes of Marathon,
Commodus, 38-39, 41, 84, 88, 111 Demetrius Poliorcetes,37, 50 98
Conon, 58, 111-112 Demochares son of Menander of Azenia, Dow, Sterling,4, 10, 13-14, 22, 38, 70, 73,
Conon: see Flavius C. 51 (line 2 1) 77, 83, 97
Constantine, 65-66 Demochares, fatherofMenander ofAzenia, Dresden, 33
Constantinople,65 51 (line 26) dress: see costume
Constantius, 36, 65 Demophilus, 21 Duiring,I., 21
consul, 85 Demos, priest of (?), 73 Dussaud, R., 73
consulate, 65 Demos and Graces, priest of, 73-74, 78
Copenhagen, 102 Demos and Graces and Rome, priest of, Edmonson, Colin N., 4, 17, 91-93, 99
T. Coponius Maximus of Hagnous, sacred 124 eggonos,meaning of, 31
herald no. 3, 78 Demosthenes, 17, 34 Egypt, 65-66
T. Coponius Maximus of Hagnous, son of Demostratus of Pallene, father of sacred Egyptian cults, 9
sacred herald no. 3, 78 herald no. 2, 77 Eileithyia, 80
Corinth, 17, 33, 59 Demostratus of Pallene, son of sacred Eirenaeus son of Eirenaeus of Paiania, 97
Cornelia Ph[- - -], 32 herald no. 2, Dionysius, 51 (line 25), 77 Eiresione, 116
Cornelianus: see Antonius C. Demostratus: see Claudius D. eisagoge,26
Cos, 26 Deubner, L., 17, 22, 27, 40, 72, 99 eisagogion,26
cosmete, 39, 63, 97 Dexicles: see Phileto eiselysion,26
Dexippus: see Herennius D.
Costobocs, 38-39 Eisidora: see Flavia E.
diadochosStoikos,78
costume, 116; of hierophant, 32-35, 41, ekplexis,56
Diagoras, 16
45-46; of daduch, 32-33, 47-48, 68; of Eleusinia, 20, 26, 65-66, 70, 108-109
diagraphe,24
hearth-initiate,101-108, 113 Eleusinion in Athens, 10-11, 69-70, 90,
diataxis, 35
courtyardof Eleusinian sanctuary, 12, 17, 99, 104-106, 108, 119-120
29 Dikaiosyne: see Justice
Dilke, 0. A. W., 120 Eleusinion at Eleusis, 15
Crete, 109 Dinsmoor, W. B., 15, 50, 73, 77 Eleusis, 29; agora, 19; cult of Asclepius
Croconidae, 99 Dio Cassius: see Cassius D. and Hygeia at, 29; deme of, 8, 18-20,
Cronert, 11 Diocles, son of hierophantno. 1, 10, 93 22; Dionysia at, 19, 26; Dionysion, 19;
crown,33-35, 81, 89, 116; gold, 18; laurel, Diocles of Hagnous, son of daduch no. 16, theater, 18-19; sanctuary, 12: adminis-
103; myrtle, 19, 23, 35, 46, 48-49, 71, Themistocles,56-58 tration of, 8, 18, 35, 54, 69, 115; court-
82, 86, 101-108, 113, 116, 119-120; Diocles son of Diocles of Melite, 51 (line yard of, 12, 17, 29; repair of, 17;
olive, 23, 103-104; votive, 69 22) Propylaea Greater, 12. See also
Ctesicleia, wife of daduch no. 13, Sopho- Diocles, fatherof Sarapion and Diocles of Telesterion
cles, 54 Melite, 51 (line 22) Eleusis, Alexandrian, 8-9
Elpinice: see Claudia E. Euryale daughterof Glaucus of Marathon, Flavius Heracleitus of Paiania, prytanis
emoluments: see fees wifeof hierophantno. 33, 42 in 162, 37
Emperor, priest of, 77 Eurycleides, hierophantno. 8, 21-22 Flavius Leosthenes, ephebe in 155/6, 37
Endowment, Eleusinian, 35-36, 46, 60, 68, Eurymedon,hierophantno. 7, 21 Flavius Leosthenes of Paiania, grandfather
75, 81, 85-86, 94, 96-99, 109-110, Eustrophus of Peiraeus, father of hiero- of hierophantno. 24, 36
115-116 phant no. 14, 28 T. Flavius Leosthenes son of T. Flavius
Enyo, priest of, 78 Euthias of Eleusis, 19 Alcibiades of Paiania, hierophant no.
Epaphrodeitus: see Athenaeus Euth[ias son of Gna]thon of Eleusis, 19 24, 31, 36-38
Epaphrodeitus: see Aurelius E. Euthycomas: see Flavius E. T. Flavius Leosthenes of Paiania, father
eparchosarchitectonon, 30 exegesis, 15, 48 of hearth-initiateno. 39, 110
ependytes,48 exegetes,35-36, 39, 88; exegete appointed T. Flavius Menander son of T. Flavius
ephebes, 42 by the Demos, 88-90; exegetes of the Euthycomas of Paiania, 31
Epicrates son of Callimachus of Leuko- Eumolpidae, 8, 35-36, 88-93. See also T. Flavius Pantaenus of Gargettos,30
noion, altar-priestno. 10, 83 pythochrestus Flavius Pom, daduch no. 31, 66-67
Epidauria, 109 T. Flavius Sophocles son of T. Flavius
Epidaurus, 57, 65-66 Fabius, hearth-initiateno. 53, 112 Conon of Sounion, hearth-initiateno.
Epigenes of Archarnae, son of priestess of Fabius of Marathon, daduch no. 26, 63-64 17, 108
Demeter and Kore no. 3, 70 Fabius Fabianus of Marathon, herald of T. Flavius Straton, hierophant no. 20,
Epigonus of Sypalletos, fatherof priestess the Boule and Demos in 182/3, 64 30-31
of Demeter and Kore no. 18, 75 C. Fabius Thisbianus of Marathon, archon T. FlaviLis Straton of Paiania, altar-priest
Epilampsis: see Aelia E., Pomponia E. in 186/7, 64 no. 11, 31, 83
epimelete of Asclepieum, 78 Fasti Praenestini,73 Flavius Straton, archon ca. 194, 31, 85
epimelete of the city, 30, 78 Fates, priestessof, 36 Flavius Xenion son of Zenophilus of
epimelete of Delos, 101 Fauvel, 44 Marathon, hearth-initiate no. 32, 85,
epimelete of the gymnasiarchia,41, 111 Favorinus, 21 109, 114
epimelete of the Mysteries,28 Feaver, D., 76 T. Flavius Zoilus son of Glaucus of
Epiphaneia daughter of Athenagoras of fees to priests, 10, 13, 26, 68-71, 75, 81, Marathon, brother of hierophant no.
Melite, hearth-initiateno. 5, 100 116 32, 42
epi Skiados, 123 Ferguson, W. S., 77 Foucart, P., passim
epistatai, 11, 20 Festus: see Rufius F. Frazer, J. C., 45, 96
eponymosof prytany,83-84, 94 Fiechter,E., 120-121 P. Fulvius Maximus of Sounion, fatherof
eponymosof Sacred Gerousia, 63 fillet,101 hearth-initiateno. 18, 108
epoptai, 16 Fine,J.,17 P. Fulvius Metrodorus son of P. Fulvius
epopteia,33, 50, 57, 68, 84 fire,95 Maximus of Sounion, hearth-initiateno.
equestrian order,30, 42, 66 Firmus of Gargettos,hierophantno. 21, 31 18, 108
Erinyes, 20 Firmus of Gargettos, son of hierophant Furtwangler,105, 108
Erotius, hierophantno. 34, 42-43, 64 no. 21, 32
errephoros,109 Firmus son of Firmus of Gargettos, 32 Galatia, 30
eschara, 12, 17, 99 Flavia [..]crateia, hierophantidno. 5, 87 Gallienus, 33-34, 66
eschatiai, 18 Flavia Eisidora, 110 Gaul, 43
Esdaile, K., 101, 108 Flavia Eunice daughter of T. Flavius Gavinius Saturninus,63
Eteobutadae, 53, 56 Callaeschus of Marathon, 88 Ge Hemeros,priest of, 96
Eubiotus: see Ulpius E. Flavia Laodameia daughter of Cleitus of Ge Koutrotrophos, 96
Eubouleus, priest of, 97 Phlya, priestess of Demeter and Kore Geagan, D. J., 36-38, 46, 56, 61, 64, 76,
Eucles, 90 no. 10, 74 78, 85, 110, 112, 123
Eucles of Halai, adoptive fatherof Amy- Flavianus: see Vipsanius F. Gellii of Delphi and Athens, 43
nomachus, hierophantno. 12, 27 T. Flavius, altar-priestno. 14, 85 L. Gellius Menogenes, 88
Eucles son of Eucles of Halai, 27 T. Flavius [ ......] of Acharnae, hearth- L. Gellius Polyzelus son of L. Gellius
Eucles of Perithoidai, son of hierophant initiate no. 48, 112 Xenagoras, hearth-initiateno. 49, 88,
no. 11, Aristocles,27 T. Flavius Agathon of Peiraeus, fatherof 112
Eucles of Phlya, adoptive fatherof priest- hearth-initiateno. 45, 111 L. Gellius Xenagoras son of L. Gellius
ess of Demeter and Kore no. 9, 73 Flavius Alcibiades, ephebe in 155/6, 37 Xenagoras, hearth-initiate no. 44, 76
Euctemon, 16 Flavius Alcibiades of Paiania, great-grand- 111
Eudemus, father of Gorgippus of Melite, fatherof hierophantno. 24, 36 Gelos: see Aelius G.
51 (line 15) T. Flavius Alcibiades of Paiania, fatherof general, 80; general of the city, 39. See
Eudemus: see Apollonius son of E. of hierophantno. 24, 36 also hoplite general
Hermos Flavius Alcibiades son of Alcibiades of genos,gene,3, 8, 23-24, 28, 31, 41, 93
eugeneia,50, 67 Paiania, brotherofhierophantno. 24, 37 Gerousia,41, 83. See also Sacred Gerousia
Eumolpid priesthoods,116 Flavius Arrianus,historian,85 Giannelli, G., 36-37, 39
Eumolpidae, 8, 10-18, 22-23, 29, 31, 37- T. Flavius Ateimetus son of T. Flavius Gigon, O., 21
38, 42, 46-48, 53, 56, 69-70, 75, 93, 115, Agathon of Peiraeus, hearth-initiateno. Gilliam, J. F., 37, 94
119-120; archon of: see archon 45, 111 Glauce daughter of Menedemus of Kyda-
Eumolpus: see Claudius E. T. Flavius Callaeschus of Marathon, 88 thenaion,priestessof Demeter and Kore
Eunapius, 43 T. Flavius Conon of Sounion, father of no. 5, 72
Eunice: see Flavia E. hearth-initiateno. 17, 108 Glaucus, poet, grandson of hierophantid
eupatridae, 56, 88 T. Flavius Euthycomas of Paiania, son of no. 10, 88
euphonia,41, 77 altar-priestno. 11, T. Flavius Straton, Glaucus: see Flavius G.
Euphron son of Euphron of Marathon, 51 30-31, 83, 87 Gnathon of Eleusis, 19
(line 29) T. Flavius Glaucus son of T. Flavius God and Goddess, priestof, 97
Euphrosynus son of hierophantno. 17, 29 Glaucus of Marathon, hierophant no. Gonzenbach, V. von, 104
Eupolis, Flatterers,49 32, 42 Gordian, 41-42
Gorgippus son of Eudemus of Melite, 51 Hesychius, 69. See also Passages Cited Iophon son of Dionysodorus of Deiradiotai,
(line 15) hiera, 14, 42, 46-47, 69, 76 51 (line 28)
Gould,J.,33, 99 hierarchy:see protocol Isaeus, sophist, 88
Graces, priest of, 94, 96, 121. See also hieraules,123 Isaeus, father of hierophantid no. 10,
Demos and Graces Hierocleides, daduch no. 3, 50 Isidote, 88
graffiti,
64-66 Hierocleides, daduch no. 6, 53 Ischomachus, 49
Graindor, P., 30, 32, 36-38, 41, 57, 59, 65, Hierocleides, altar-priestno. 2, 82 Isidote daughter of Isaeus, hierophantid
84-85, 123 Hierocleides son of Teisamenus of Paiania, no. 10, 42, 88
grammateia,24 hierophantno. 5, 18 Isis, 114
Groag, E., 66, 85 hierodeiktes, 46 Ithace, priestess of Demeter and Kore
gymnasiarch, 30, 36, 63-64, 78, 108, 126 hierokeryx: see sacred herald no. 17, 75
gymnasiarchia,111 hieromnemon, 121 lustitia, priest of, 74; lustitia Augusta,
Hieron, hearth-initiateno. 56, 113 priest of, 73-74
Habryllis daughter of Micion of Kephisia, hieronymy,9-10, 22, 28-29, 40, 65-67,
100 80-81, 83, 87 Jacoby, F., 90, 92
Hadrian, 59, 61, 74, 87-88; initiation of, hierophant, 8-47, 50; costume of, 32-35, Jannoray, J.,76
83-84 45-46; at Calamaea, 27; at Proerosia, Jason (also Logismus) son of Zethus of
Hadrian Eleuthereus, priestof, 121 22; at Thargelia, 27, 54; hierophants Hagnous, panages no. 2, 42, 95-96
Hadrian Panhellenius, priest of, 62 outside Attica, 3 Jeffery, L. H., 10, 95
Hadrianeia, 80 hierophantid,9, 33, 86-89 Jones, C. P., 60, 74, 87
Hagnias, 53-54 hieropoioi,11, 15, 21, 55, 70 D. Ju[....] of Peiraeus, hierophant no.
hagnistes,98 high-priest of imperial cult, 34-36, 59, 22, 32
Hagnous, daduchic familyfrom,52-58 61-62, 73, 75, 84-85, 121; headgear of, Judeich,W., 96
hair-style,33-34, 101-108 34-35 Julia Domna, 40
Haloa, 17, 26, 69-70, 72 Hilara: see Nicobule Julia Rufina, 80
Harrison, A. R. W., 53-54, 93 Hiller von Gaertringen,11-13, 15, 57 Julian,43
Harrison, E. B., 32-34, 104-107 Hipparchus: see Claudius H. Juliiof Steiria, 80
Harvey, A. E., 21 Hipparete, sister of daduch no. 2, 49 [Ju]lius, hierophantno. 19, 30
Hausmann, U., 107 hippeus, 98 Julius,hierophantno. 25, 38-39
Healey, R. F., 22, 70, 77, 97 Hipponicus (I) of Alopeke, father of Julius, son of Julius Musonius of Steiria,
hearth: see hestia daduch no. 1, 47 sacred herald no. 9, 79-80, 124
hearth-initiate,3, 8, 11, 34, 98-114; desig- Hipponicus (II) of Alopeke, son of daduch C. Julius Cassianus Apollonius, cosmete
nation of, 109, 113-114; dress of, 101- no. 1, Callias, 47-48, 90-91 in 161/2, 80
108, 113; sculptures of, 101-108, 111 Hipponicus (III) ofAlopeke, son ofdaduch C. (Julius) Cas (sianus) Apollonius of
Hegias: see Pomponius H. no. 2, Callias, 48 Steiria, archon in 207/8, 80
Helbig, 101 Hipponicus (IV) of Alopeke, grandson of C. Julius Cassius of Steiria, archon in
Helico, 114 daduch no. 2, 48 125/6, 80
Helico daughter of Theogenes of Leukono- Honoratiana Polycharmis (also Phaena- JuliusMusonius of Steiria, fatherof sacred
ion, 114 rete) daughter of Honoratianus Poly- herald no. 9, 79-80, 124
Hellanicus, 10 charmus, hearth-initiateno. 50, 112 Julius Optatus, 80
Heracleia (in Caria), 73 Honoratianus Polycharmus, father of Julius Theodotus, sophist, 59, 62
Heracleides, hierophantno. 30, 42 hearth-initiateno. 50, 112 Junia Melitine daughter of Junius Patron
Heracles, 49, 107 hoplite general, 30, 36, 38, 41, 61, 78, 80, of Berenikidai, hierophantid no. 9, 87-
herald, 126. See also antikeryx 83, 101, 108, 111, 126 88, 109
herald of the Areopagus, 30, 36-37, 41, 75, house, of daduch, 50, 68; of Kerykes, 20; Junia Nicostrate daughter of D. Junius
79-80, 83, 108, 111 of priestess of Demeter and Kore, 71; Menneas of Berenikidai, hearth-initiate
herald of the Boule, 15 of priestsand priestesses,20 no. 38, 110
herald of the Boule and Demos, 30, 60, Hubbe, 26 Junia Themistocleia, hearth-initiate no.
64, 123-124 Htittl,W., 37 52, 112
Herennia: see Aelia H. Hussey, G. B., 107 D. Junius Menneas son of D. Junius
P. Herennius of Hermos, sacred herald no. hydranos,98 Patron of Berenikidai, hearth-initiate
8, 79 Hygeia, 96; at Eleusis, 29 no. 31, 109
P. Herennius son ofApollonius of Hermos, hymnagogos,8, 97-98 M. Junius Minucianus, father of daduch
sacred herald no. 6, 79 hymnetriai:see hymnagogos no. 30, 64-66
P. Herennius Dexippus son of Ptolemaeus hymnodoi:see hymnagogos M. Junius Nicagoras son of Minucianus,
of Hermos, panages no. 3, 96 hyposophronistes, 32 daduch no. 30, 64-66
P. Herennius Ptolemaeus of Hermos, M. Junius Nicagoras son of Mnesaeus,
fatherof panages no. 3, 79, 96 Iakchagogos,96-98, 121 sacred herald no. 11, 65, 80
Hermaiscus of Cholleidai, 95 Iakchos, 96-97 D. Junius Patron of Berenikidai, fatherof
Hermes Propylaeus, 96; Hermes, Patrous, Ilissos, 107 hierophantidno. 9, 74, 87
priest of, 51; Hermes Pyletes and Illyrius: see Claudius I. Justice,priestof, 73
Charidotes, priest of, 94, 96 impiety,16, 21-22, 49
Hermias of Atarneus, 21 Inan,J.,35 Kal[ligeneia?], priestessof, 36
Hermione: see Aurelia Magna H. Ince Blundell Hall, 102 kanephoros,73, 100-101, 109, 114
Hermitage, 119 Ingholdt, H., 34 Kapetanopoulos, E., 36-37, 43, 55-59, 74,
Hermogenes,archon in 183/2, 27 initiates, 10-14, 16, 22, 26, 38, 46, 65, 87, 96, 98, 108, 110, 112
Hermotimus,daduch no. 5, 53 77, 104; iryqy.tcW'AVOTtLKOs, 112;
2'y7e p Kavvadias, 66
Herodes Atticus, 59, 61-64, 85, 110 IIvaOCTO, 112; representation of, 48-49. Keil, B., 40
Herrmann, P., 92 See also hearth-initiate Kent,J. H., 59
Herulians, 96 initiation,29, 84. See also myesis Kerenyi, C., 46, 49
hestia,99, 113 intestines,98 Kern, O., 99
Kerykes, 8, 11-14, 16-18, 20, 22-23, 31, Lysiades, 58 Micion son of Philocrates of Peiraeus, 51
41-42, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56-57, 61-62, 67, Lysiades, archon in 148/7, 27 (line 30)
69, 75, 77, 82, 90, 112, 115, 120; house Lysiades: see Claudius L. Miletus, 23
of, 20 Lysias son of Artemonof Paiania, hearth- Millar, F., 66, 79, 96
Kirchhoff,A., 11-12, 15 initiate no. 1, 100 Miltiades: see Aurelius M.
J.,passim
Kirchner, Lysistrate,priestessof Demeter and Kore mint magistrate,55-56
Klaffenbach,Gunther,4, 5 7, 125 no. 1, 69 Minucianus, grandfatherof sacred herald
knife,103 no. 12, 65
Koehler, 20 Maas, P., 69 Minucianus: see Junius M.
Korte, A., 112-113 Maass, M., 94-95, 120-121 Mithraism,43
Kore, in the underworld, 98. See also MacDowell, D., 10, 47-49 Mitsos, M., 30, 80, 85
Demeter and Kore McGregor, M. F., 14-15 Mnesaeus, fatherof sacred herald no. 11,
KOT/Iw, 69 MacKendrick, P., 8 80
kourotrophos,98 Magie, D., 39 Mnesiarchus son of Nuphrades of Peri-
Kourouniotes, K., 14, 48, 50, 52, 94, magistermemoriae,66 thoidai (=hierophant no. 9?), 22
104-105 Magna: see Aurelia M. Molottus, 20
Krister,H., 98 Malta, 38 Mommsen, A., 99
krobylos,33 Mamertinus: see Valerius M. Monastery of Phaneromene, 125
Manganaro, G., 38-39 Moraux, P., 98
Lacedaemonians, 29 manteis,89 Moretti, L., 80
Lacey, W., 17, 54 Marathon, 47 Moreux, B., 47
Lacrateides, hierophantno. 4, 17 Marcus Aurelius, 31, 37, 39, 60-63, 67, 77, Mos[ch- - -], hierophantidno. 2, 85
Lacrateides son of Sostratus of Ikaria, 79, 81, 84, 88, 111, 121-122 Mother of the Gods, priestessof, 112
priestof God and Goddess no. 1, 97 Martha,J.,14 Mundicia Secundilla, daughter of hiero-
Laeliana: see Vipsania L. Maximus: see Coponius M., Fulvius M. phantid no. 8, 87
lakkoploutos,47 Meautis, G., 99 Musonius (also Butadius), grandson of
Lamidion daughter of Apolexis of Oion, Medeius son of Lysander of Peiraeus, hierophantno. 21, 32
hearth-initiateno. 12, 101 exegete no. 2, 56, 92 Musonius: see Julius M.
Lamprias: see Statilius L. Medeius son of Medeius of Peiraeus, exe- myesis,13, 68-69, 99-100, 113
Laodameia: see Flavia L. gete no. 4, 92, 100 Mylasa-Olymos, 73
Latte, K., 44, 66, 73 Megarians, 18 Mylonas, G. E., 3, 8-9, 12, 33, 94, 103-104,
leader, mystic, of Meiggs, R., 14-15 107, 113
initiates: see hearth-initiate Meisterhans-Schwyzer,12 myrtle:see crown
Leconfield,103 Melite, 71; daduchic family, Claudii of, myrtle-staff, 48, 101-108
lectisternium of Pluto, 20, 22, 29, 83 43, 53, 57-63, 67 mystagogos, 49, 112
legate of Galatia, 30 Melitine: see Junia M. Mysteria,passim: as opposed to Eleusinia,
legomena,46 L. Memmius of Thorikos, altar-priestno. 65-66; Greater, 13, 50, 69; Lesser, 13,
lemniskos,106 12, 83-85 50, 69
Lenaea, 68 C. Memmius Sabinus Peisander, 126 mysterion, 42
Leningrad, 119 Menander,fatherofDemochares ofAzenia,
Leon, corrupt reading for Leontius (of 51 (line 21) National Museum, Athens, 34
Acharnae, daduch no. 7), 53 Menander son of Demochares of Azenia, Neaera, 17
Leon, father of Cichesias of Aixone, 51 51 (line 26) neokorion,98
(line 24) Menander of Gargettos,fatherof priestess neokoros,98
Leon son of Pythonax of Azenia, 100 of Demeter and Kore no. 12, 74 Nero, 30, 78
Leonardos, 12 Menander son of Asclepiodorus of Gar- Nestorius, hierophantno. 36, 43
Leonides: see Claudius L. gettos, 74 Newman, W. L., 14
Leontius of Acharnae, daduch no. 7, 53 Menander: see Flavius M. Nicagoras: see Junius N.
Leontius son of Sophocles of Acharnae, Menandra: see Claudia M. Nicobule (also Hilara) daughter of Theo-
altar-priestno. 8, 82-83 Menecleides son of Theophemus of Kyda- timus of Hermos, 75
Leontius son of Timarchus, pythaist in thenaion, hierophantno. 13, 28 Nicodemus of Hermos, fatherof priestess
106/5, 94 Menecrates of Cholleidai, fatherofpanages of Demeter and Kore no. 9, 73
Leontius son of Timarchus of Kephisia, no. 1, 95 Nicomachus, 10, 70, 90-91
pyrphorosno. 1, 94 Menedemus of Kydathenaion, father of Nicostrate daughter of Diocles of Melite,
Leosthenes: see Flavius L. priestess of Demeter and Kore no. 5, wifeof daduch no. 16, 100
Lepri, L., 54 72 Nicostrate: see Junia N.
Lerna, 42-43, 64 Menneas son of Zopyrus, 98 Nicoteles: see Claudius N.
Leucius, father of hearth-initiateno. 21, Menneas son of Menneas of Azenia, Nigrinus: see Nummius N.
109 hymnagogos, 98 Niinnion tablet, 103
Lewis, D. M., 14-15, 33, 47-48, 99 Menneas: see Junius M. Nilsson, M. P., 8-9, 13, 15, 17, 42, 68, 88,
libraryof Pantaenus, 30 97-99, 104, 113, 116
Meno of Agryle, father of priestess of
light in Telesterion,46, 68 Demeter and Kore no. 2, 70 Noack, F., 44
Lippold, G., 101
Menogenes: see Gellius M. Nock, A. D., 13
lithophoros, 98
Menophilus son of Satyrus of Berenikidai, nomospatrios,93
lithos,98
Logimus, hierophantno. 31 51 (line 6) Notopoulos, 38-41, 50, 52, 61, 63-64, 79-
Logismus: see Jason Meritt, Benjamin D., 4, 10-13, 15, 23-24, 80, 94-95, 121-123
L'Orange, H. P., 33 26-27, 47, 98, 121, 125-126 Nummia Bassa, daughter of sacred herald
Louvre, 102 metragyrtes,49 no. 3, 40, 78-79
Lucius Verus, 37, 62, 84 Metrodorus: see Fulvius M. Nummia Cleo daughter of L. Nummius
Lysander of Peiraeus, father of exegete Metrophanes son of Dionysius of Athmo- Phaedreas of Phaleron, hearth-initiate
no. 2, 92 non, 50 no. 33, 109
Nummius, sacred herald no. 7, 79 Pericles of Oion, father of hierophantid Polycharmis: see Honoratiana P.
Nummius of Phaleron, hierophantno. 27, no. 4, 87 Polycharmus of Azenia, fatherof hearth-
40 Perses, neokoros,98 initiate no. 11, 101
L. Nummius Nigrinusof Gargettos,sacred perquisites: see fees Polycharmus son of Eucles of Marathon,
herald no. 4, 78 Phaedreas: see Nummius P. 75
L. Nummius Phaedreas of Phaleron Phaenarete, mother of hearth-initiateno. Polycharmus: see Honoratianus P.
fatherof hearth-initiateno. 33, 40, 78- 8, 101 Polycritus: see Claudius Seilianus P.
79, 109 Phaenarete: see Honoratiana Polycharmis Polyzelus son of Apollodorus of Acharnae,
Nuphrades of Perithoidai, fatherof hiero- Phaenippus of Alopeke, 47 39-40
phant no. 9 (?), 22 phaidyntes,13, 77, 95 Polyzelus: see Claudius P., Gellius P.
phaidyntesof Zeus at Olympia, 80 Pom(---): See Flavius P.
[O]cnia (?) daughter of Polycharmus of Phaneromene: see Monastery Pompeia Polla, 31
Azenia, hearth-initiateno. 11, 101 Philanthus of Phyle, fatherof priestessof Pom(peius ?), daduch no. 21, 59
Oenophilus of Aphidna, fatherof priestess Demeter and Kore no. 6, Ameinocleia, Pompeius, daduch no. 25, 63
of Demeter and Kore no. 8, 73 72 Pompeius Pleistarchus, philosopher,31
Oenophilus: see Claudius 0. Philemon son of Philemon of Melite, Pomponia Epilampsis, granddaughter of
Oliver, James H., passim hymnagogos, 98 priestess of Demeter and Kore no. 16
Olympia, 80 Phileto daughter of Dexicles, 71 75
Olympian games, 47, 80 Phileto daughter of Cleomenes of Mara- [Pompon]ius, daduch (?), 60
Onesime: see Papia 0. thon, hearth-initiateno. 13, 101 Pomponius Hegias, grandson of priestess
Onesimus: see Papius 0. Philios, D., 28, 44, 97 of Demeter and Kore no. 16, 75
Optatus: see Julius 0. Philip the Arab, 80-81 PontifexMaximus, 36
oracle at Delphi, 15, 17-18. See also Philippe, priestessof Athena, 76 Poseidon, 40; Poseidon Erechtheus, priest
Delphi Philippus: see Cassianus P., Claudius P. of, 56, 68, 108; Poseidon Prosbaterius,
orator, 65, 81, 88 Philiste daughter of daduch no. 23, Praxa- priestof,51, 98; Poseidon Themeliuchus,
orgas: see Sacred Orgas goras of Melite, 111 priest of, 51, 98; Poseidon at Hali-
orgeones,99 Philistides of Hagnous, altar-priestno. 5, carnassus, priestof, 52
orgia, 38-39, 44 daduch no. 9, 53-54, 82 Pothos, priest of, 96
orphans, 12 Philistion daughter of Dionysius of Halai, Poulsen, V. H., 101-102
orthapton,23 hearth-initiateno. 4,100 praefectuscohortisII Hispanorum, 30
Ostwald, M., 14 Philleidae, 68, 74, 76 praefectus fabrum,30
Philochorus, 17-18 Pratolaus, 63
pais: see hearth-initiate,Sacred Pais Philocrates, fatherof Micion of Peiraeus, Praxagora: see Claudia P.
Palazzo dei Conservatori, 101-108 51 (line 30) Praxagoras of Melite, gymnasiarch,63
Pammenes son of Pammenes of Marathon, philokaisar, 126 Praxagoras: see Aelius P.
exegete no. 5, 92 Philonautes, 24 precedence: see protocol
panageis priestesses,69, 98 philopatris,84-85, 126 pre-initiation:see myesis
panages, 13, 95-96 philosopher,65-66, 81, 88 Premerstein,A. von, 38-40
Panathenaea, 55, 61, 96, 100, 108 Philostratus, 46, 81; date of composition presbys,112
panegyriarch,36-38, 46, 59, 61, 96 of Lives qf the Sophists,41-42, 81. See Preuner,A., 44, 99
panegyris,28-29, 47 also Passages Cited priesthoods, holders of multiple, 115-116
Panhellenion, 109 Philotas, adoptive father of Sophocles of priests, passim: appointment of, 60-61;
Pantaenus: see Flavius P. Sounion, 51 (line 27) characteristics of, 114-115; defined as
Papia Onesime daughter of Papius One- Philoxena: see Claudia P. magistrates, 14; explanation of term
simus of Besa, motherof hearth-initiate Philoxenidesson of Philistidesof Hagnous, "priest," 8; graingiven to, 20; of Eleusis,
no. 45, 111 daduch no. 11, altar-priestno. 6, 54, 82 16; Eumolpid, 116; "priestesses," 14,
Papius Onesimus of Besa, 111 Phlius, Mysteriesat, 44 22, 27, 33, 47, 69-70, 72, 88-89; priest-
Paramona: see Aurelia P. Phocion, 21 esses panageis, 69, 98. See also high-
Paramonus: see Aurelius P. phoinikis,33 priest,phratry,Pontifex Maximus, and
Paribeni, E., 102 Photius, 74 the following deities: Apollo, Apollo
Parsons, A. W., 30-31 phratry,68; priest of, 50 Delius, Apollo Patrous, Apollo Pythius,
Parthenon,43 Phronton of Marathon, father of hearth- Ares Enyalius, Artemis Epipyrgidia,
Pasitelean school, 107 initiate no. 24, 109 Asclepius, Asclepius Soter, Athena,
pater in Mithraic dult, 43 Pickard-Cambridge,33, 99 Athena Horia, Demeter Chloe, Demeter
patria, 14-15, 17, 24, 56, 91-93 piglet, 101-108, 113 and Kore, Demos, Demos and Graces,
patrios agon, 26 Pinarius, sacred herald no. 5, 79 Demos and Graces and Rome, Dionysus
Patron of Berenikidai, exegete, grand- C. Pinarius Proculus of Hagnous, 79 Eleuthereus, Enyo, Eubouleus, Fates,
fatherof hierophantidno. 9, 88 Pistocrates, fatherof Aurelius Prosdectus Ge Hemeros,God and Goddess, Graces,
Patron: see Claudius P., Junius P. ofKephale, 98 Hadrian Eleuthereus, Hadrian Panhel-
patronus,30 Pittakys, 29, 122 lenius, Hermes Patrous, Hermes Pyletes
Pausanias, 43-45. See also Passages Cited Plato, 13, 65-66; Protagorasof, 49 and Charidotes, Iustitia, Iustitia Augu-
Peek, W., 27, 29, 44, 57, 66-67. See also Pleistarchus: see Pompeius P. sta, Justice,Kal[ligeneia ?], Mother of
Passages Cited Plutarch, philosopher, son of hierophant the Gods, Pluto, Poseidon Erechtheus,
Peiraeus, 77 no. 36, Nestorius, 43 Poseidon at Halicarnassus, Poseidon
Peisander: see Memmius Sabinus P. Plutarch of Chaeroneia, 43, 65, 68, 80-81. Prosbaterius, Poseidon Themeliuchus,
Peitho, 96 See also Passages Cited Pothos, Rome, Rome and the Emperor,
Pelopidas, 16-17 Pluto, 20, 22, 29, 83, 98; priestess of, 97 Sarapis, Senate of Rome, Thesmophoroi,
Peloponnesians, 49 poet, 88 Triptolemus, Zeus Geleon, Zeus Horius,
Pentakosiomedimnoi,20 polemarch, 79, 121 Zeus Olympius. See also the priests
Pergamum, 107 Polla: see Pompeia P. and priestesses listed in the table of
Pericles, 58, 93, 112 pollution,91 contents
princepsA theniensium,83 sacred house, 20 Sophocles son ofTheophrastusofHagnous,

Pringsheim,H. G., 3, 13, 33, 103-104 "sacred official,"explanation of term,8 brotherofdaduch no. 16,57
Pritchett,W. K., 30, 69 Sacred Orgas, 17, 50, 71, 114 Sophocles son ofPhilotas ofSounion (born:
processionof the Mysteries,36, 40, 42, 46, Sacred Pais of the Pythian, 112 son of Dionysodorus of Deiradiotai), 51
68-69, 76, 81, 86, 97, 111, 113 Sacred Stone (hieroslithos),98 (line 27)
proconsul,66 Sacred Way, 14, 40 Sophocles: see Flavius S.
Proculus: see Pinarius P. sacrifice,15, 17-18, 46, 70-71, 76, 82, 86. sophronistes, 32
procuratorof Cyprus, 42 See also prothymata Sosipater: see Aerarius S.
Proerosia, 22, 47, 76, 78, 81 sacrificialfire,95 Sospis: see Antonius S., Claudius S.
Prohaeresius,43 Salaminians, demos of, 28 Sostratus of Ikaria, fatherof Lacrateides,
prohedria,36, 87, 95, 98, 120-121 salaries: see fees 97
prokritoi,99-100, 113 sanctuary: see Eleusis sanctuary Sostratus son of Lacrateides of Ikaria, 97
promystis,111 sanidia, 26 Sparta, 47, 49, 57
prorrhesis,22, 46, 68, 78, 81 Sarapion son of Diocdes of Melite, 51 Spaulding, L., 101, 107
Protagoras, 44 (line 21) Spon, 125-126
proteleia,12 Sarapis, 73, 101; priestof, 100 spondophoroi,23, 47
prothymata,12 Sarikakis, T. C., 41, 83 stamnos, red-figure, 48
protocol,35-36, 115-116, 123-124 Sarmatians, 39 T. Statilius Lamprias, 29, 57, 67
proxenos,47, 49 Saturninus: see Gavinius statue bases, re-used, 107
Prytaneum, 14, 99 Satyrus, fatherof Menophilus of Bereniki- Stegemann, W., 64-66, 80-81
Prytanis,39, 64, 83-84, 96-98 dai, 51 (line 6) stemmata,33
prytanylist, 38, 59, 79 scalp-lock, 101-108, 113 Stengel, P., 98
prytany-secretary, 111, 123 Schaeffer,49 TEaEcavW,69
Ptolemaeus: see Herennius P. Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg,A., 37 Stephano, 69
Ptolemy I, 9 Schiff,8 Stephanus, father of Aphrodeisius of
Publia: see Aelia Herennia Schissel, O., 64-66, 80-81 Marathon, 97
Pulytion, 16, 49 Schmid, W., 37 o,rX,E-y,yL-s kKT?7TOt, 49
purple, 23, 33, 46, 68 Schmidt, 109 Stoa Poecile, 46, 68
Pyanopsia, 22, 47 sculptures,of hearth-initiate,101-108; of Stoic School, 78
pyrphoros,9, 94-95, 122-123; from the hierophant,33-35 Stokes, Michael C., 4
Acropolis,95, 121 Sebasta: see Augustan Games Stone: see Sacred Stone
Pythais, 97-98, 100 Sebaste Dikaiosyne: see lustitia Augusta Straton son of Jason of Hagnous, 96
pythaist,55, 97; fromthe Kerykes, 55, 83 secret of the Mysteries, 8-9, 38-39. See Straton: see Flavius S.
pythochrestusexegete, 36, 87-90, 101, 112 also hiera,legomena strophion,33-35, 37, 45-49, 60, 67-68, 82,
Pythodorus,daduch no. 4, 50 secretaryofthe Boule and Demos, 123-124 101, 106-108, 116
Pythodorus: see Annius P. secretaryof the bouleutai,123 subsecretary,123
Secundilla: see Mundicia S. Suda, 66. See also Passages Cited
Quintilii,62-63 Seeck, 66 Sulla, 86
Seilianus: see Claudius S. Sundwall, J., 52, 72, 83, 98
Rarian Field, 20, 22, 46, 114 Seilon son of Apollonius of Melite, hearth- symbola,60
Raubitschek, A. E., 30, 47, 64, 80, 94, 108, initiate no. 20, 108-109 syngraphe,15
122, 124 Seleucia, 37 synkletos:see Senate
Regilla, 110 Seleucus son of Demeas of Halai, 51 (line syrigges,64-65
register:see anagraphe 30) systremmatarch,63
Reinach, 102 Semon, altar-priestno. 1, 82
Reinmuth,O., 50, 101 Senate of Rome, priestof, 74 table, in cult of Athena, 69; in cult of
Rheitos,14, 69, 114 senatorial order, 109, 112 Pluto, 20, 22, 29, 83
Ridgeway, B. S., 101 Septimius Severus, 38, 40 tainia, 106-107, 113
Rizzo, G. E., 32-33 Severeia, Greater, 63 tainidion, 106-107
Robert, J., 22, 24-26, 32, 36, 41, 110 Sextus, philosopher,80 Tatarion: see Claudia T.
Robert, L., 22-26, 32-33, 35-36, 41, 45, Seyrig,H., 33 taxiarchoi,28
60, 73, 95, 106-107, 110 Sicyon, 102 Tebanianus: see Bellicus T.
Roberts-Gardner,12, 15 signum Iustitiae Augustae, 73 Teisamenus of Paiania, father of hiero-
Rome, 36-37, 101-108; priestof, 121; and Sinope, hetaera, 17 phant no. 5, 19
the Emperor, priestof, 77 siroi, 15 Teisamenus of Paiania, son of hierophant
Rosenbaum, E., 35 Skias, A., 19, 36, 73, 101 no. 5, 20
Roussel, P., 13, 50, 52-53, 56, 58, 98 skolion,21 Telesterion, 13, 17, 39, 4647, 76, 81, 88;
Rubensohn, O., 46 Smyrna, 106 courtyardof, 12
Rudhardt, J., 16, 21, 93 Smyth, H. W., 21 telete,13, 29, 33, 38-39, 44, 64, 68-70, 76,
Rufina, motherof sacred herald no. 9, 124 Sokolowski, F., 10-12. See also Passages 84, 88, 99, 111, 113
Rufina: see Julia R. Cited Terens, archon, 66
Rufius Festus, 66 Terme Museum, 102
Solon, 10, 90
Russu, I., 38
"son of Greece," 110 terracotta,108
Sabinus: see Memmius S. sophist, 41, 65, 79, 81 Tertia daughterof Leucius, hearth-initiate
4"sacred calendar," 22 Sophocles son of Leontius of Acharnae, no. 21, 109
Sacred Fig, 40 daduch no. 10, 54 thakeion,20
Sacred Gerousia, 59, 63, 98 Sophocles son of Leontius of Acharnae, Thargelia, 27, 54, 89
sacred herald, 8-9, 11, 13, 22, 49, 76-82, altar-priestno. 9, 83 Theano daughter of Menon of Agryle,
120-121; designation of, 76-77; and Sophocles son of Xenocles of Acharnae, priestessof Demeter and Kore no. 2, 16,
Proerosia, 76 daduch no. 13, 54 70
Theater of Dionysus, 34, 36, 50, 60, 68, Thespiae, 43 Vernon, Francis, 125-126
81, 87, 94-96, 98, 120-121. See also Thessalus son ofCimon of Lakiadai, 15 Vipsania Laeliana, mother of hearth-
prohedria thiasotai, 116 initiate no. 27, 109
Thebes, 16, 47 Thisbianus, daduch no. 28, 64 L. Vipsanius Aeolion of Phlya, exegete no.
Thebes (Egyptian), 64-66 Thisbianus: see Fabius T. 7, 92
Themison: see Aelius T. Tholos, 14, 38 T. Vipsanius Flavianus ofKephisia, hearth-
Themistocleia: see Claudia T., Junia T. Thompson, D. B., 108 initiate no. 27, 109
Themistocles,archon of 493/2, 56, 58 Thompson, M., 54-55
Themistocles, first mint magistrate in Thrasyllus: see Annius T. Walton, F., 10
149/8, 55 Threatte, Leslie L., 4, 14 Welles, C. B., 107
Themistocles son of Theophrastus of Threpsiades, I., 50, 53 wheat, 86
Hagnous, daduch no. 16, 56-57 Thriasian plain, 16 Wheler, Sir George, 125-126
Themistocles son of Xenocles of Hagnous, throneof hierophant,20, 44, 47 Wilamowitz, 19
51 (line 23), 58, 77 Thummer,E., 47 Wilhelm, A., 11, 23, 26-29, 41-42, 73, 96
Themistocles: see Claudius T. Thyiades, 76 Woloch, M., 30, 32, 36, 42, 57, 59, 61-62,
Theobulus son of Theophanes of Peiraeus, Tiberius, 73 64, 74, 75, 78, 80, 83, 87, 108-110, 112
22 Timarchus, father of Leontius, pythaist Wormell,D. E. W., 21
Theodorus, hierophantno. 2, 16 in 106/5, 94 wreath: see crown
Theodorus, panages no. 4, 96 Timarchus of Kephisia, fatherofpyrphoros Wycherley,R. E., 69, 73
Theodorus, philosopher,22 no. 1, Leontius, 94 Wyndham, M., 103
Theodorus of Phegaia, 16, 49 Timarchus, father of Timosthenes of
Theodosius, 43 Kephisia, 51 (line 25) Xenagoras, fatherof hierophantno. 35, 43
Theodotus son of Eustrophus of Peiraeus Timosthenesson ofTimarchus ofKephisia, Xenagoras: see Gellius X.
(= hierophantno. 14 ?), 28 51 (line 25) Xenion: see Flavius X.
Theogenes of Leukonoion, fatherof Helico, Timosthenes: see Aelius T. Xenocles, daduch no. 12, 83
114 Timothea daughterof Medeius ofPeiraeus, Xenocles son of Sophocles of Acharnae,
Theophemus of Kydathenaion, father of hearth-initiateno. 6, 100 daduch no. 12, 54
hierophantno. 13, Menecleides, 28 Timothea: see Claudia T. Xenocles of Hagnous, son of daduch no.
Theophemus son of Menecleides of Kyda- Timotheus, exegete no. 1, 9, 43, 92 14, Themistocles,51 (line 23), 55, 58
thenaion, hierophantno. 15, 28 Timotheus of Gargettos,fatherof priestess Xenophon, Symposium,49
Theophilus son of Hermaiscus of Chol- of Demeter and Kore no. 11, 74
leidai, 95 Toepffer,
J.,passim Young, John H., 4
Theophilus son of Menecrates of Chol- Traill, John S., 4, 39, 94, 121
leidai, panages no. 1, 95 Trajan, 85 Zacorus, hierophantno. 1, 10
Theophrastus, mint magistrate in 109/8, trapezophoros, 69 zakoros,29, 96
55 1-pawrEtc, 69 Zenon: see Aelius Z.
Theophrastus ofHagnous, fatherofdaduch Travlos, J., 14, 20, 44 Zenophilus of Marathon, fatherof hearth-
no. 14, 55 treasurerof Athena, 19 initiate no. 32, 109
Theophrastus son of Themistocles of treasuryof Demeter and Kore, 12-13 Zethus of Hagnous, fatherof panages no.
Hagnous, daduch no. 15, 55 Triptolemus,49; priestof, 97 2, Jason, 95-96
Theopompus, 53-54 Tryphon, 38 Zeus, priest of, 36; Zeus Geleon, priest of,
theoroi,23 78; Zeus Horius, priest of, 51, 98; Zeus
Theotimus son of Tryphon of Hermos, vLos'EXX'cios,110 Olympius, priestof, 75, 80
prytanisin 167/8, 75 Ulpius Eubiotus, 42 Ziegler, K-H., 37
TheourgikeAgoge,44 Universityof Constantinople,65 Ziehen, L., 13, 15, 69
Thesmophoria, 36, 71, 76, 97 Zijderveld, C., 13
Thesmophoroi,priestessof, 71 M. Valerius Mamertinus,archon in 166/7, Zoilus: see Flavius Z.
thesmophoroi theai, 32 41, 61-62, 77, 79, 116, 122-123 Zopyrus, fatherof Menneas, 98
thesmos,40, 43 Vallois, R., 50, 52 Zopyrusson ofZopyrusof Peiraeus, hearth-
thesmothete,97, 101, 120-121 Vanderpool, Eugene, 4, 26-27, 32, 112 initiate no. 30, 109

The Sacred Officials of The Eleusinian Mysteries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sacred Officials of The Eleusinian Mysteries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries

Author(s): Kevin Clinton

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

NEW SERIES-VOLUME 64, PART 3

THE SACRED OFFICIALS OF THE

THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

was apparently no needto consultthedeme.

E'yKX7/,a 6rL Cvw6cv

[E]ep6, TOS vE [,UVOgVO]

which affectedits own interest,such as the availability of the 20

defend elsewhere Meritt's date of 416/5 or 415/4, as argued in to be undertaken.

6ElKVVEC Ta Cp'a KaC ovo/aI

larly worded charge of impersonatingthe hierophant is made

aLKa07T?JpLq) acLrE03oIwTa Kal GiovTa 7rapa Ta 7raTpLa

payment is obtained fromthe historicalevents mentionedin the Blass, AttischeBeredsamkeit,JJ2, p. 552.

from those set by the committeeappointed by the 4 TEl]aMEVoi HalaVLE

in the Eleusinion in Athens."5 [6O6077Uos 6'EXrEvoV]vz'cP [EojmLrco]avo!

My own restorationsare: lines 10, 11 except [gtaj,

Line 19: rP fills the space and extends slightlyto

The motivationexpressedby thedecreeforhonoring

329/8 An unnamedhierophantappears in an inscription64

59This is also apparent in line 293. 67 Pausanias, I, 28, 6.

7. Evpv,u4&cv.Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle,5 (ed. Evpv,ut6v ror' cilEXV 'Aptoororn'v a-Eclas

monumentforhim as fora mortal,nor would I have 17 (1960): pp. 92-93.

Ta 7rep'TcO NCOE,and it would have been con-

Line 12: htXoEav{T]ov Meritt. CypwLn77 elEpeL'L7ev is unparalleled;'y"',sn77

a photographof I.G., I 12, 1045. ?1KOVT(ES is not clear. A. Wil-

13. MEVPEKXEL6lS03EoS,ct1ov I.G., 112,3512;

FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY B.C. 18. TLf3'pLosKXavAiosOlpoSCLXosKaXXLKparL6ov

p. 20, note 65. 128 Life of Apollonius, IV, 18.

[K]aO Vouivn[DaTt] ErEL Ev,uoX7rtL6ts

'IJpo ctzra'Tsra py77rrt0s @eEO-ISCOPOpOtla Oeais 'Aeyobol%os t1EpoCabrTqs. The name

or purplecloaks.149 rpCora OEWVKO/Io&JvTas EOELpats.

line 7 (ed. Bethe) mentionsthe in a list of stage garments; followinghead.

&awrEwrOLKLXvOv, c, XpCoTraL 7rpo'S r'a 'A7votv,

Gallienus, now in the National Museum in Athens.160

This was to be elaborated by Ingholt in an article "soon to

Flavius Leosthenes, son of Flavius Alcibiades, honored in I.G.,

visited Athens is not substantialenough even to dis- 168/9, in the eighthprytany,anotherhierophant,a

Philologie 1893: pp. 205-207. the date see above, n. 200.

(1963): p. 26, no. 27, line 14. /IaKapC,V /1UVT77pL0V.

236 Beitrdge zur griechischenInschriftenkunde(Wien, 1909), 239 1922: p. 217.

"daduch" on a red-figureskyphos in Brussels (Corpus Vasorum LTVVPKEL O wcwrv

17 Pseudo-Andocides, Against Alcibiades, 13. 24

hierophantLacrateides and the daduch Hierocleides. fatherTheophrastusand from"eightotherancestors,

7raayov3 K'4pVXOS 0eeOPlXOV TOV

[K]7ylpEtciO(o6wcpOv crl7rla7rroS6(E (0)CE/UITOKX(E-OVSTOV 7raLr7rov aVTOV, O[S]

60 Xov TOVLKQatpolv TL/rLacJLKaL

64 WIV E7rLPVWULV Ka7L T?) qL07VJIEJX-r7KOTCLa /7' povov

KLaP -yE-yovvLas Ert 7ro,\X\a3

7rEp[L] ai)To)v YLOT{IoE]]1L/ILC ELa TEs TWIv EKXENEL E 7rCaTpLtwv

KT?7Jtv, EtL7EJoavo7s Tn7SWEpt Tas aroOypaya3 ?IqT-Jewss WoXNa' [KaL]

68 [gJf[{y]6Xa oLa7rE7rp6Xoat Lt [ .] 1 TOT[. . Tr]Av 7wpoanKOvo-aV ....

SIGNIFICANT CORRECTIONS family succeeded, and Dittenberger34 held that the

38 Cf. Roussel, op. cit., p. 831. 40Op. cit., p. 234.

firstpriesthoodavailable to a son of Sophocles (I) was investigationwould "occur." The investigationor

Ctesicles Theophrastus Xenocles

60, no. 42). Woloch, 1966: Aelius no. 51. KX eE-

INSTALLATION while Themistocles (no. 16) seems to have done re-

Ca. 416 B.C. Thus the firstgroup of sacrificeswas performedby

FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY A.D. In none of the inscriptionswhichwereerectedwhen

Kaitapav-qS?'v i- 3OovuXa,oS GEiSrmvLKE-71plaV.

Name Date Testimonia