Unveiling the Hidden Face of Antiquity:

Mysteries and Cryptic Cults

Unveiling the Hidden Face of Antiquity:
Mysteries and Cryptic Cults

Menelaos Christopoulos – Marion Meyer –

Athina Papachrysostomou (eds.)

Offprint

Phoibos Verlag, Wien 2023

Printed with support from the Department of Philology, University of Patras

in memory of Richard Seaford

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbiblio-
grafie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abruf bar.
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
Cover: Eleusis, Telesterion, © Marion Meyer
www.phoibos.at; offi[email protected]
Printed in the EU: Prime Rate Kft., Megyeri út 53, H-1044 Budapest
ISBN 978- 3- 85161- 300-1 (printed edition)
ISBN 978- 3- 85161- 301- 8 (E-book, PDF)
 Table of Contents

Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I. Eleusinian Mysteries

Marion Meyer
What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the
Eleusinian Mysteries ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mattia De Poli
Aeschylus and the Eleusinian Mysteries: Further Sources for a “Famous” Accusation ? . . . . . . 27
Alice Clinch
Epiphanic Encounters at Eleusis: Incandescent and Ephemeral Forms of Epiphany . . . . . . . . 39
Eleni Fassa
A Eumolpid in the Hellenistic oecoumene: The Case of Timotheus, the
Eleusinian exegetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

II. Other Gods and Heroes

Menelaos Christopoulos
Dionysus’ Katabasis and the Mysteries of Lerna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
George W. M. Harrison
Rome’s Embrace of Heracles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Ronald Blankenborg
‘I will Pray to You as a God’: Menelaus’ Previewed Deification in the Odyssey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Chiara Di Serio
Julian and the Statue of the Mother of the Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Andrea Sánchez i Bernet
Ares’ Chthonic Connections in Classical Attic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Elo-Mall Toomet
Mysteries of the Argive Plain – Mysteries of the Argive polis ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

III. Ritual and Initiation

Olga Levaniouk
Mystery Cows: Bovine Subplots in Initiation Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Philip R. Bosman
Julian the Sacrificer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Marios Koutsoukos
Visions of the Mithras Liturgy: The Role of Self-Initiation in Theurgic Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Alessandra Giannuzzi
Μονοκρήπιδες: The Symbol of the Barefoot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Jordi Redondo
Literature, Ritual, Myth, and Gender Change: Mysticity and Mysticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

5
 Table of Contents

IV. Poetry and Philosophy

Richard Seaford †
Parmenidean Metaphysics and Mystic Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Natasha Bershadsky
Odysseus Running: Looms, Mirth, Dung, and Divine Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Giuseppe Zanetto
“Liturgical Eros”: Sacred Space as a Space for Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Smaro Nikolaidou-Arampatzi
Paizein in Hades: Afterlife Bliss as a Playful and Innocent Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Efthymia Kafritsa
Ἔρως as Mystic Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

V. Mysteries and Theater

Vasiliki Kousoulini
Dionysian Choreia as a Multisensory Experience in Ancient Greek Theater and
Ancient Greek Literary Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Athina Papachrysostomou
Blissful Afterlife and para prosdokian in Middle Comedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Index of ancient names of persons and locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

6
 Prologue

This volume contains twenty-two studies focusing on a variety of topics related to mysteries, ini-
tiation rituals, and mystic cults in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Much of this material
was presented during an International Conference organized by the Centre for the Study of Myth
and Religion in Greek and Roman Antiquity at the University of Patras in 2022.

The Centre for the Study of Myth and Religion in Greek and Roman Antiquity (http://mythandreli-
gion.upatras.gr/) was founded in 2004 at the Department of Philology of the University of Pa-
tras by Professor Menelaos Christopoulos. Its main purpose was “to host an ongoing academic
dialogue responsive to international scientific approaches and emerging research data, continually
stimulated by new academic research”. To serve this priority the Centre organizes, amongst other
activities, international conferences focusing on issues which either have not received the due at-
tention in relevant scholarship or are of permanent interest within the field of ancient myth and
religion. Seven conferences have been organized so far (the Proceedings of these conferences have
already been published):
• Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek and Roman Mythology and Religion (Patras 2007)
• The Greek Epic Cycle (co-organized with CHS-Harvard, Ancient Olympia 2010)
• Time and Space in Greek Myth and Religion (Patras 2015)
• Greek Satyr Play: Reconstructing a Dramatic Genre from its Remnants (Patras 2016)
• Mythical History and Historical Myth: Blurred Boundaries in Antiquity (Patras 2019)
• Mysteries, Mysticism, Cults, and Cultism in Antiquity (Patras 2022)
• International Conference in Honour of Professor Menelaos Christopoulos (Patras 2023)
The present volume, under the title Unveiling the Hidden Face of Antiquity: Mysteries and Cryptic
Cults, hosts many (peer-reviewed) papers originally presented, as mentioned, at the Mysteries
Conference (2022), along with some additional (peer-reviewed) papers providing a fuller survey
of the book’s theme.
By definition, this subject can only be covered through interdisciplinary research involving
philological, archaeological, historical, anthropological, and philosophical approaches. To better
display this rich material, the twenty-two chapters of the volume have been classified under five
thematic parts:
• Eleusinian Mysteries
• Other Gods and Heroes
• Ritual and Initiation
• Poetry and Philosophy
• Mysteries and Theater

Part I (Eleusinian Mysteries) was de jure expected to have a place in a volume thematically ori-
ented towards mysteries and cryptic cults.
In this Part, Marion Meyer (“What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the
Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?”) studies three rare fifth-century images of Eumolpos
(= the eponymous hero of the genos who provided the hierophant) and of Keleos (= the king of
the Eleusinians who hosted Demeter) which, together with Euripides’ Erechtheus, are the earliest
evidence for the genealogy of the Mysteries’ mythical founder.

7
 Prologue

Mattia De Poli (“Aeschylus and the Eleusinian Mysteries: Further Sources for a “Famous” Accu-
sation ?”) studies the sources related to Aeschylus’ accusation of impiety with regard to the Eleusi-
nian Mysteries, adding new evidence and connecting these accusations to Aeschylus’ travels to
Sicily towards the end of his life.
Alice Clinch (“Epiphanic Encounters at Eleusis: Incandescent and Ephemeral Forms of Epi-
phany”) deals with Demeter’s epiphanies in Eleusis and, in particular, with non-anthropo-
morphic epiphanies, focusing mainly on revelations of the goddess experienced through fragrance
and light.
Eleni Fassa (“A Eumolpid in the Hellenistic oecoumene: The Case of Timotheus, the Eleusi-
nian exēgētēs”) closes Part 1 suggesting that, in the Hellenistic period, mystic experience could
eventually be accessible even far from Eleusis as presumed by the activity of the Eumolpid Ti-
motheus who performed his hierophantic skills outside Eleusis and, in particular, in Ptolemaic
Alexandria.

Part II (Other Gods and Heroes) deals with rituals and cults related to gods – and heroes –
other than Demeter and Persephone.
This Part opens with Menelaos Christopoulos (“Dionysus’ Katabasis and the Mysteries of
Lerna”), who studies a highly indecent narrative concerning Dionysus’ descent to the Under-
world through the lake Alkyonia of Lerna, his encounter with Prosymnos, and the mystic cults
performed on this occasion including a possible ritual re-enactment of that narrative.
George W. M. Harrison (“Rome’s Embrace of Heracles”) studies the reception of Heracles
in Rome and the two main concepts defining his heroic identity. During the Republic Heracles
appears as “soterios”, (Hercules custos), a hero performing beneficial deeds. During the Empire
this concept remains vigorous but a second Heracles emerges, a more “private”, sympotic Hera-
cles, whose labors are paired with excess of power and outsized appetites.
Ronald Blankenborg (“‘I will Pray to You as a God’: Menelaus’ Previewed Deification in
the Odyssey”) focuses on Menelaus’ deification announced by Proteus in Odyssey 4 (in which he
spots an aspect of mysticism) and associates this narrative with the worship of Menelaus and He-
len in Sparta.
Chiara Di Serio (“Julian and the Statue of the Mother of the Gods”) analyzes the journey
of the statue of the Mother of the Gods from Phrygia to Rome and the display of the statue’s di-
vine powers as narrated in Julian’s Hymn to the Mother of the Gods and elucidates the Greco-Ro-
man ideas concerning the relationship between the gods and their statues.
Andrea Sánchez i Bernet (“Ares’ Chthonic Connections in Classical Attic Sources”) exam-
ines the chthonic elements of Ares’ cult in Attica. Although his relation to war is dominant, the
author detects some further characteristics related to frenzy and madness which may unexpect-
edly suggest a comparison with Dionysus.
Elo-Mall Toomet (“Mysteries of the Argive Plain – Mysteries of the Argive polis ?”) closes
the second Part by studying the cults of Dionysus, Demeter, and Hera in the Argive plain and ex-
ploring the incorporation of specific mythical narratives and cults into the official religion of the
city of Argos.

Part III (Ritual and Initiation) features papers associated with initiation rites.
Olga Levaniouk (“Mystery Cows: Bovine Subplots in Initiation Narratives”) opens this
Part with a chapter focusing on the phraseology, imagery, and symbolism generally associated
with cows in narratives on Greek mysteries, whilst exploring, in particular, the specific signifi-
cance attributed to bulls, cows, and calves.

8
 Prologue

Philip R. Bosman (“Julian the Sacrificer”) questions the story about Julian’s sacrificial practices,
an odd story indeed since blood sacrifice was rather in decline in late antiquity. Julian’s practice
may be linked to his theurgic persuasion (being one of Iamblichus’ disciples), his initiation into
the Metroac mysteries and, finally, to the role he assigned to himself as emperor-priest.
Marios Koutsoukos (“Visions of the Mithras Liturgy: The Role of Self-Initiation in Theur-
gic Ritual”) studies one of the most detailed descriptions of epiphanic experience we possess
from Late Antiquity ( the ‘Mithras Liturgy’ found in the corpus of the Greek Magical Papyri) and
tries to discover parallels between self-initiatory magical texts and Neoplatonic theurgy.
Alessandra Giannuzzi (“Μονοκρήπιδες: The Symbol of the Barefoot”) studies the case of
μονοκρήπιδες (persons wearing only one shoe) classifying them into three categories: 1) people
who are about to be initiated 2) soldiers of primitive armies 3) people involved in a religious rite.
She cites mythical examples for these categories and further questions the relationship between
wearing one shoe and lameness.
Jordi Redondo (“Literature, Ritual, Myth, and Gender Change: Mysticity and Mystical-
ity”) studies literary evidence on cult and ritual concerning in particular gender change; he inves-
tigates Indo-european antecedents and explores the way hermaphroditism, transvestism, and
bisexuality are perceived in the ancient Greek world.

Part IV (Poetry and Philosophy) deals with literary genres associated par excellence with mys-
teries and cryptic cults.
Richard Seaford (“Parmenidean Metaphysics and Mystic Initiation”) studies Parmenides’
thought starting from the assumption that Parmenides presents his ideas as if revealed in mystic
initiation; further on, he explores the influence of mystic doctrine on the content of Parmenides’
thought, and in particular the unity of the cosmos and the unity of subject with object.
Natasha Bershadsky (“Odysseus Running: Looms, Mirth, Dung, and Divine Presence”) ex-
amines the images on a skyphos from the Theban Kabiric sanctuary, which portray Odysseus
with Circe on one side, and Odysseus running over the waves on the other, in combination with
a scene of a footrace between Odysseus and Ajax from Iliad 23, featuring a simile of a weaving
woman. She argues that in both cases the seemingly comical scenes contain references to the cul-
tic subtext, respectively the banquets for the Kabiri in the case of the skyphos, and the Panathe-
naic festival in the Iliad scene.
Giuseppe Zanetto (“Liturgical Eros: Sacred Space as a Space for Love”) studies religious fes-
tivals as a frequent topos where a girl and a boy meet for the first time and fall in love, and cites
characteristic examples from Callimachus, Xenophon of Ephesus, and Chariton; he argues that,
although this motif is mainly found in Hellenistic poetry and Greek novel, it can be considered
as a variation of the Archaic oarismós already encountered in the Iliad.
Smaro Nikolaidou-Arampatzi (“Paizein in Hades: Afterlife Bliss as a Playful and Innocent
Condition”) argues that paizein depictions of the Underworld illustrate afterlife bliss as an inno-
cent and playful condition, which can be considered as an eschatological version of immortality;
she brings forward relevant examples from Pindar, Aristophanes, Plato, and Heraclitus indicating
their subtle convergence and divergence.
Efthymia Kafritsa (“Ἔρως as Mystic Initiation”) closes Part IV studying the representation
of ἔρως as mystic initiation in Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus, whilst searching for similar con-
cepts in earlier texts (i. e. Aeschylus and Sophocles). She also stresses the similarity of structure
that underlies the connection between erotic and mystic initiation.

9
 Prologue

Part V (Mysteries and Theater) explores the relation between mysteries and theater focusing, in
particular, on Dionysian choreia and Greek Comedy.
Vasiliki Kousoulini (“Dionysian Choreia as a Multisensory Experience in Ancient Greek
Theater and Ancient Greek Literary Theory”) studies the performative forms in the dramatic ap-
pearances of Dionysian choreia in ancient Greek theater and examines their ‘reception’ by ancient
Greek literary criticism, thereby displaying the interaction between ritual forms and aesthetic
forms within the theatrical performance.
Athina Papachrysostomou (“Blissful Afterlife and para prosdokian in Middle Comedy”) ex-
plores the way comic poets tried to exploit the mysteries without openly parodying them. To that
end, she studies two representative comic fragments from Middle Comedy, where the play-
wrights satirize the belief about blissful afterlife through the ‘technique of disguise’, with no di-
rect reference to the mysteries themselves.

On the ground of the above mentioned studies, the editors hope that this volume provides a reli-
able, well documented, and multidimensional survey of the main questions pertaining to mys-
teries and cryptic cults in Greek and Roman antiquity.
Our deepest thanks are addressed to the Department of Philology of the University of
Patras for generously covering part of the expenses for the publication of this volume.

Patras and Vienna, September 2023 Menelaos Christopoulos

Marion Meyer
Athina Papachrysostomou

On December 6, 2023, our colleague and friend Richard Seaford passed away. We will greatly
miss him and always remember him with admiration. Gratefully, we dedicate this volume to his
memory.

10
 Marion Meyer

What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of

the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

Abstract
According to the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, the goddess instructed five Eleusinian nobles
in her Mysteries. Three of them appear in the visual record: Triptolemos, Eumolpos, and
Keleos. Triptolemos is frequently represented since late Archaic times. The focus of this pa-
per is on the rare 5 th-century images of Eumolpos, the eponymous of the genos who pro-
vided the hierophant, and of Keleos, the leader of the Eleusinians who hosted the goddess.
Three images of Eumolpos throw some light on the construction of this complex persona: a
skyphos of ca. 480 shows him as an Eleusinian noble, a singer, and Poseidon’s son; on a
slightly later cup he is depicted as a young warrior in Eleusinian company. Both vessels
prove that in the early 5 th century an image of Eumolpos could evoke his function in cult
(as the priestly singer in the Mysteries) as well as his function in myth (as a warrior who
attacked Erechtheus). In the later 5 th century Eumolpos, the founder, was said to be a de-
scendant of a first Eumolpos and the son of Mousaios. Euripides’ play Erechtheus and a
pelike of ca. 410 are the earliest evidence for this genealogy.

Key words: Eleusis, Homeric Hymn to Demeter, foundation of Mysteries, Eumolpos,

Keleos, Poseidon, Euripides, Erechtheus, Eleusinian War, construction of
genealogy

Literary evidence
The celebration of the Mysteries in Eleusis had to remain a secret. The tale of its origins, how-
ever, was well-known. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter tells about the abduction of the goddess’
daughter Kore by Hades, the mother’s search for her child, her stay in Eleusis, and the solution
(Kore spends one-third of the year with her husband and two-thirds of it with her mother).1
The Hymn also tells about the institution of the Mysteries by the goddess herself. Demeter,
before leaving Eleusis, “revealed the conduct of her rites and taught her Mysteries” (hierà and ór-
gia, HH 2.476) to five Eleusinian basileis: Triptolemos, Diokles, Eumolpos, Keleos, and Polyxei-
nos (HH 2.473 – 479). Three of them were later represented in images. Triptolemos appears
frequently.2 Eumolpos, “blameless” and “mighty” (HH 2.154 and 475), and Keleos are far less
conspicuous. Their images are the focus of this paper.
Whereas Triptolemos is not exclusively associated with the Mysteries, 3 Eumolpos with his
speaking name (“good singer”) is; he is the first hierophant, 4 the highest Eleusinian priest and

1 Richardson 1974; Parker 1991, 1–17; Foley 1994 3 Clinton 1992, 96 – 99, 113; Clinton 1994, 163 –
(all the translated passages of the Hymn are from Foley). 164, with reference to the Thesmophoria.
On the tradition of the myth, see Cosmopoulos 2015, 8 – 4 Andron (FGrHist 10 F 13): founder of the Mys-
11. – All dates referring to ancient times are BCE unless teries and first hierophant. Marmor Parium (FGrHist
stated otherwise. 239, 15), Plut. Mor. 607B, and Luc. Dem. 34: founder
2 On Triptolemos and his images: Hayashi 1992; of the Mysteries. Hesych. s. v. Eumolpidai: first hiero-
Schwarz 1997, 56 – 68 with figs.; Clinton and Palagia phant. – The hierophant as singer: Philostr. VS 2.20.
2003, 264; Junker and Strohwald 2012, 14–30; Schwarz Toepffer 1889, 24–25; Clinton 1974, 45; Richardson
2013, 439 – 450. 1974, 197–199; Kearns 1989, 69.

13
 Marion Meyer

the main official of the Mysteries.5 Because there is no mention of Athens in the Hymn the
poem suggests that the Mysteries were founded when Eleusis was independent. Other scholars,
however, are more qualified to discuss the date of the Homeric Hymn (ca. 650 – 550)6 and the
early history of Attica with the incorporation of Eleusis into the state of the Athenians.7 At any
rate, the Hymn anchors the foundation of the Mysteries in a time when Demeter was hosted by
a local authority, “wise Keleos”, the koíranos (ruler) of Eleusis, 8 and instructed local nobles.
There is a later tradition of the foundation of the Mysteries. In Euripides’ tragedy
Erechtheus (performed ca. 420 and preserved in fragments), 9 Eumolpos, son of Poseidon and
Chione, attacks Erechtheus, king of Athens, with an army of Thracians, and only at the end of
the play is his affiliation to Eleusis (implicit in his name) confirmed by calling him ancestor of an-
other Eumolpos who is connected to the Mysteries (F 370, 100 –110). The myth upon which
the plot was based was about the Athenians’ successful defense against the Eleusinians10 (and the
attacker’s name Eumolpos testifies to the persistence of this tradition). This invasion myth is set
in a time when a war between Athens and Eleusis was plausible – before the synoikismos, as Thu-
cydides, Euripides’ contemporary, informs us.11 The issue of different time strata is addressed in
the tragedy when, in the – very poorly preserved – closing lines, Demeter, Kerykes, and arreta
are mentioned after the introduction of a second Eumolpos (F 370, 100 –110). Very probably,
the verses are about the institution of the Mysteries – by a descendent of the attacker (F 370,
100), that is, in the time after the reign of Erechtheus. Later sources give a time span of five gen-
erations between the first Eumolpos and the founder of the Mysteries.12 It is thus suggested that
the foundation occurred when Eleusis belonged to the state of the Athenians. This political claim
had priority over the pride in celebrating a festival with a long tradition.13 The time gap con-
structed between the attack on Athens (in Erechtheus’ reign) and Eumolpos (the founder of the
Mysteries) is thus bridged by another Eumolpos, the invader, a homonymous ancestor of the
founder (an Athenian invention, an Eleusinian by name).
I have argued elsewhere that neither the construction of Erechtheus’ opponent Eumolpos
as Poseidon’s son nor the god’s involvement in this conflict of mortals were Euripides’ inven-
tions. Rather, he was drawing on a new version of the invasion myth that linked a conflict of
mortals with the conflict of gods (Poseidon’s challenge of Athena as tutelary goddess of the Athe-
nians) and provided the aition for the foundation of a joint cult of Poseidon and Erechtheus
(who had killed Eumolpos), first attested in the mid-5 th century. I suggested that the new version
of the myth was an element in the re-focusing of Erechtheus’ persona when he became one of the
eponymous heroes in the Kleisthenic reform. Because at this time Eleusis was part of the Athe-
nian state and a war between Eleusis and Athens would have been not only anachronistic but
also an unwelcome reminder of strife within Attica, the attacker was an Eleusinian only by impli-

5 Clinton 1974, 8, 32 – 47; Graf 1974, 163 –164; these structures (HH 2.296 –300).
Clinton 1992, 75 – 76; Schipporeit 2013, 361, 391, 397; 9 Kannicht 2004, 393 – 418 F 349 –F 370 (fragments
Cosmopoulos 2015, 7. are cited according to his edition); Sonnino 2010; Prima-
6 Richardson 1974, 5 –12; Parker 1991, 6; Foley vesi 2016, 92 –111.
1994, 29 –30, 143; Rönnberg 2021, 68 – 69. – For (di- 10 Meyer 2017, 377–378.
verging views of ) the date of the Mysteries: Clinton 1 1 Thuc. 2.15.1–2: before the unification of Attica by
1992, 28 –37, 96 – 99; Schipporeit 2013, 360 – 406; Cos- Theseus.
mopoulos 2015, 155 –166. 12 see below with n. 51.
7 Most recently: Rönnberg 2021, 64– 82. For icono- 13 Cf. Sch. Eur. Phoen. 854 (Schwartz 1887), founda-
graphical evidence, see Simon 1997, 97. For the construc- tion of the Mysteries after Eumolpos’ war against
tion of genealogical links of Eleusinian gene to Athens, see Erechtheus: Eumolpos συνεμάχησεν Έλευσινίοις στασιά-
below n. 63. ζουσι. However, a tradition of the priority of the Mysteries
8 HH 2.96 – 97, 160 –163. When Demeter ordered persisted, see Paus. 1.38.3: After the war with the Athe-
the demos to build her a great temple and an altar (HH nians, the Eleusinians were κατήκοοι (subject) to the Athe-
2.270 –274), Keleos, the “leader of the people” (HH nians but celebrated the Mysteries ἰδίᾳ (on their own).
2.475) assembled the Eleusinians and asked them to erect Kearns 1989, 114.

14
 What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

cation (by his name and as ancestor of the founder of the Mysteries) and the invading army came
from Thrace.14
The tragedy presented its own version of the myth (with variations that are not of rele-
vance here) and also incorporated more-recent innovations, like Eumolpos’ (the warrior’s) de-
scent from Chione, the daughter of Boreas and Erechtheus’ daughter Oreithyia, 15 which
presupposes Boreas’ inclusion in the Athenian royal family after the Persian Wars.16 The dating
of the foundation of the Mysteries – not a concern of the myth – in the time after Erechtheus is
first attested by Euripides’ play.
In the literary sources Eumolpos, Erechtheus’ opponent, has overshadowed Eumolpos, the
founder of the Mysteries. This makes it all the more interesting to study how Athenian imagery
(re)presented “Eumolpos” prior to Euripides’ play and to ask which conclusions can be drawn for
the Athenians’ perception of this/these prominent Eleusinian figure/s.

The earliest image of Eumolpos, the singer

The earliest image that undeniably includes Eumolpos 17 is an exquisite piece of workmanship at-
tributed to the Athenian vase painter Makron. He added names to all his figures on a large sky-
phos made ca. 480 (fig. 1).18
The main scene celebrates Eleusis in the most explicit way. Triptolemos, a youth on a seat
with wheels and wings and accompanied by a snake, holds ears of grain and a phiale to be filled
by Persephone. Demeter, clad in a chiton and a himation with lavish figurative decoration,
stands to his right with more ears of grain, revealing that she is the source of this precious good.
Both goddesses hold torches. Another female figure, labeled Eleusis, stands behind Persephone
and, in contrast to the goddesses, is concentrated on herself. She lifts her chiton with her left

Fig. 1: Eumolpos (seated, with swan) watching Triptolemos’ departure from Eleusis. Skyphos in London, BM
1873, 8 –20.375 (ca. 480 BCE). after: Furtwängler, A., and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei III
(München 1932) pl. 161

14 Meyer 2017, 377– 415. Cf. Kearns 1989, 115; Son- when Boreas was adopted into the royal family (a tondo of
nino 2010, 88 – 89. The earliest evidence for the joint cult ca. 470 might be the earliest image of Chione, see n. 47).
of Erechtheus and Poseidon: IG I3 873; Meyer 2017, 244– Boreas came from Thrace, as did Eumolpos.
250. Cf. n. 13. 17 The suggestions to identify him in earlier images are
1 5 Chione is first attested in Lyc. 1.98, before the unconvincing; see below n. 37 on BAPD 404. Hayashi
citation from Euripides’ Erechtheus. Apollod. 3.15.4; 1992, 94, 128 n. 46 no. 5 pl. 3.1 mistook the kithara
Paus. 1.38.2. On Boreas and Oreithyia, see Meyer 2017, player on BAPD 4 as bearded. - The (later) pelike BAPD
384–393; Zarkadas 2022, 357–377. 220499 (n. 52) has another figure labeled Eumolpos. For
16 Whereas Eumolpos’ father Poseidon was crucial for an alleged third representation, see n. 88.
the myth, his mother was not (and therefore a figure open 18 London, British Museum 1873.8 –20.375: BAPD
for associations). This genealogy made Eumolpos the great- 204683; Beazley 1955, 95 – 96 pl. 78 – 79; Harrison
grandson of his opponent Erechtheus (narratives and ge- 2000, 274–276 figs. 8 – 9; Shapiro 2013, 93 –100 figs.
nealogies clash frequently). It would have been constructed 1–2; Meyer 2017, 385 n. 3089 figs. 377–378 (see below

15
 Marion Meyer

hand in a gesture of grace and holds a tendril in her raised right hand. Like the goddesses, she
wears a stephane and earrings, but unlike the goddesses, she is veiled. This figure is the earliest
geographical personification identifiable by a label.19 It adds a message to the scene of Triptole-
mos’ departure, frequently shown on Athenian vases from ca. 530 on: 20 Demeter and Perse-
phone reside in Eleusis; the goddess bestows her gift, the grain, in Eleusis; and Triptolemos has
been sent to mankind from Eleusis.21
These four figures are framed by Poseidon and Eumolpos, seated underneath the handles
with their backs toward the goddesses but turning their heads to them. Both are bearded, clad in
chitons and himations, and hold scepters, the attribute of gods and kings (and of the hiero-
phant).22 Eumolpos’ long hair covers his shoulder, whereas Poseidon has his hair tied up. Both
wear wreaths. Poseidon holds a dolphin in his left hand, and so does his wife Amphitrite who
stands in front of him (on the back side of the vessel) and likewise looks toward the main
scene.23 Eumolpos has his scepter in his left hand and his right hand on his chiton. The swan at
his side visualizes his quality as a singer.24 This points to his role in ritual – his function as the
first hierophant – and as a hierophant he is an adult, bearded man.25
Eumolpos as the holder of the highest office in the Eleusinian cult is included in the image
as a further elaboration on the main theme ‘Eleusis’. His presence evokes the cult practiced for
the goddesses and adds temporal depth to the scene. As the ancestor of the Eumolpidai (the genos
who provided the hierophants), 26 he reminds not only of his own office but also of all his descen-
dants who, as future hierophants, guarantee the continuity of the celebration of the Mysteries.
The image thus celebrates both gifts that mankind owes to Demeter: grain and the Mys-
teries, and it promises the permanence of cult practice in Eleusis.
Poseidon’s role in this image is less obvious. The god was the father of an Eleusinian hero,
Hippothoon, one of the ten eponymous heroes. This affiliation was, apparently, an issue in several
tragedies.27 However, Hippothoon is conspicuously absent. The composition connects Poseidon
with Eumolpos, both seated in corresponding positions and postures. A figure being seated is al-
ways a motif that calls for an interpretation. In this case it is formally justified by the figures’ place-
ment below the handles, but it also draws attention to the mortal who is seated next to the
standing goddesses, although he is not an old man – and it points to Poseidon. The god is not
shown as a cult associate of Demeter, 28 but as a counterpart of Eumolpos. It has convincingly
been suggested that Poseidon is present here because he was thought to be Eumolpos’ father.29

n. 29). 24 Beazley 1955, 96 (with reference to Artemidoros

19 Meyer 2006, 133 –145 (on earlier examples, identi- 2.21); Richardson 1974, 197; Simon 1981, 121; Kearns
fiable by context); Shapiro 2013, 90 –118. It is also the first 1989, 114; Clinton 1992, 75; Clinton 2015, 133.
image that adds a snake to Triptolemos’ seat (cf. Soph. 25 On the age of hierophants, see Clinton 1974, 44;
Triptolemos, performed in 468; Beazley 1955, 95; Radt Geominy 1989, 256 –260. An Athenian votive relief of the
1977, 447 F 596) and is one of the first representations Antonine period shows a bearded hierophant (with a scep-
of the scene with a libation. Schwarz 1997, 67. On more ter): Clinton 1992, 75, 139 no. 1 fig. 55; Harrison 2000,
innovations see Shapiro 2013, 94–100; Mangieri 2019, 275, 277 fig. 10; Clinton 2015, 133 with fig. 4.
154. On the libation as a visualization of peacemaking, 26 Toepffer 1889, 24– 80; Clinton 1974, 8 – 46, 114–
see Hayashi 1992, 84; Clinton 1994, 166. On libation 116.
scenes, see Meyer 2020, 87– 96. 27 On Hippothoon see below with n. 70.
20 Hayashi 1992, 13 –16, 126 –131 pls. 1–3; Schwarz 28 Shapiro 1989, 110 wanted to see the image as the
1997, 57, 66 no. 5. earliest (!) reflection of cult connections of Demeter and
2 1 For more images with the personification of Eleusis, Poseidon in Athenian art. Simon 1981, 121 took Posei-
see Shapiro 2013, 104–118 figs. 6, 8, 9, 12, 13. don’s presence (and the dolphins on Demeter’s dress) as
22 Pointed out by Clinton 1992, 75, 77, 96, with references to the Battle of Salamis; followed by Schwarz
reference to the relief mentioned in n. 25. 2013, 441– 442. For Demeter’s help in the Persian Wars,
23 The dolphins in the hands of both figures mark see Boedeker 2007, 65 – 82.
them as partners. Poseidon usually holds a trident. Amphi- 29 Beazley 1955, 96; Clinton 1994, 166; Tsiafaki
trite’s presence does not imply that she is Eumolpos’ 1998, 126; Harrison 2000, 274; Clinton and Palagia
mother. – Two more figures stand on this side of the 2003, 271–272; Shapiro 2013, 96 – 97 (however, with a
vase: Dionysos and Zeus. reference to Eumolpos, the warrior). – Here I revise my

16
 What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

However, the only additional source for a connection of Eumolpos, the singer, with Poseidon is
Aelius Aristides (2 nd century CE) who says that the Eumolpidai claimed descent from Poseidon.30
The vase focuses on Eleusis and the Eleusinian goddesses. It was produced about a genera-
tion after Poseidon had gained importance for the Athenians (as the divine father of Theseus and
as the recipient of a joint cult with Erechtheus on the Acropolis), 31 but in the image he has, lit-
erally, a peripheral role. This is also true for Eumolpos, who represents the local nobles (visu-
alized by the scepter) among whom he excels because he is the hierophant (visualized by the
swan), and his status is enhanced by the presence of his divine father.
The image is an important piece of evidence for the Athenians’ view of Eumolpos in the
early 5 th century. It is completely in line with the Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Eumolpos is one
of the Eleusinian nobles who witness Demeter’s presence and receive her gifts, Triptolemos
brings grain to mankind, and Eumolpos is the first hierophant to sing at the Mysteries. The vase
proves that in the early 5 th century the downdating of the foundation of the Mysteries and the
construction of a founder who was a descendant of an homonymous Eumolpos had not yet oc-
curred.

The earliest image of Eumolpos, the warrior

An Athenian cup in Frankfurt (ca. 470)32 offers a different view on Eumolpos (figs. 2 –3). The
identification of the figures depends, however, on iconographic analysis because there are no
labels.
One side has the earliest preserved image of a tale connected with the Athenian charter
myth, the birth of Erechtheus / Erichthonios by Gaia and the adoption by Athena: 33 one or two
of the Kekropids disobey the goddess’ order not to open the chest entrusted to them, and when
they see the snake next to the baby, they get terrified and hurl themselves from the Acropolis.34
On the cup, two girls flee from a huge snake, but they do not run to a cliff, they run to a palace
(indicated by a Doric column) where they are received with open arms by their family.
The other side shows Triptolemos’ mission. The youth, seated to the right on his wheeled
and winged vehicle, holds ears of grain and a phiale (fig. 3). He faces Demeter, who reaches out
for him and holds a flower in her raised right hand. The goddess and, behind her, Persephone
with a burning torch stand inside a building, indicated by a Doric column, which highlights the
contrast between them (staying) and Triptolemos (departing). An enthroned male figure with a
scepter and a phiale sits behind them in another building, indicated by a separate column and an
architrave. He is thought to be Keleos, 35 who hosted Demeter in his house. Keleos, identified by
a label, appears in a scene of Triptolemos’ departure on a contemporary vase where, however, he
is just a bystander, formally and semantically a peripheral figure.36 The man on the Frankfurt
cup sits on a throne that is covered with blankets, inside a building, like the goddesses. I think
this majestic figure, seated behind Persephone, is her husband Hades in the Underworld, a space
separated from that of Demeter (a fact visualized by the separate architecture).37
Behind Triptolemos, in the left part of the scene, there are four figures (fig. 2). A winged fe-
male (Iris), shown frontally, with an oinochoe in her right hand, invites her left neighbor to hold

view expressed in Meyer 2017, 387 n. 3101. Meyer 2017, 362 –369.
30 Aristid. Or. 22 (Eleusin.) 4. Humbel 1994, 62 – 63, 34 Meyer 2017, 274–279, 317–320.
95 – 96. A cult for Poseidon (Pater) in Eleusis is attested in 35 Weidauer 1988, 58 no. 20; Proskynitopoulou 1990,
the Roman Imperial period (Paus. 1.38.6). Shapiro 1989, 982 – 983 no. 1 with fig.; Brinkmann 2016, 159 no. 25.
102; Tiverios 2004, 154 n. 51. 36 see below n. 68.
3 1 see n. 14. 37 The man seated behind Persephone and Hermes on
32 Frankfurt, Liebieghaus ST V 7: BAPD 204131; the late 6 th-century black-figure belly amphora BAPD 404
Meyer 2017, 276, 399 n. 3184 figs. 332 –336. is also Hades. Shapiro 1989, 77 pl. 35A compares the
33 In the 5 th century, when this myth appears in Athe- Makron skyphos and suggests Eumolpos. However, on
nian imagery, the name of the newborn was Erichthonios. the skyphos Eumolpos is seated as a counterpart to the

17
 Marion Meyer

Fig. 2 –3: Eumolpos (standing warrior) watching Triptolemos’ departure from Eleusis. Cup in Frankfurt,
Liebieghaus ST V 7 (ca. 470 BCE). © Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung, Frankfurt am Main

her phiale for a libation. Hekate, with two torches, is about to leave the scene but looks back.38
The fourth figure is a beardless warrior, depicted in profile. He wears a short chiton and cuirass,
a helmet, and greaves, and is equipped with a shield and a spear. In his right hand he holds a
phiale – a gesture that connects him with the figures in front of him, namely Iris (with oino-
choe) and Triptolemos and Hades (with phialai).
Triptolemos is quite literally the center of the composition. However, the focus of this im-
age is less on his reception of Demeter’s gift (and Demeter does not hold any grain) and more on

seated Poseidon; see above. 7; Clinton 1992, 33 –34, 98, 116 –120 (he is not per-
38 Cf. Hekate (labeled) on London E 183; BAPD suaded by the identification of the torchbearer); Parker
215772 (ca. 430). On Hekate in Eleusis, see Parker 1991, 2005, 340.

18
 What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

his share in the community of divine beings and on the solemnity of the scene, visualized by the
instruments for libation.
The warrior is not another divine figure. His chiton – not an ordinary one, but a garment
of stiffer material, with a crisscross pattern and fringes – marks him as a mortal. A mortal warrior
in this Eleusinian scene would be Eumolpos.39 The image is not narrative and therefore can
evoke various associations. Eumolpos, as an Eleusinian, can mark the location from where Tripto-
lemos departs. He is differentiated from other Eleusinian nobles by his characterization as a war-
rior – an arete that had been highlighted by the new version of the invasion myth introduced a
generation before the vase was made. In that myth, he was a leader of Thracians40 – not a Thra-
cian himself.41 His fringed chiton was taken as a Thracian element, 42 but figures in Thracian gar-
ments usually wear an ordinary thin, plain chiton;43 fringed chitons can also be worn by hoplites
(warriors in non-Thracian outfits).44
In the tondo inside the cup Poseidon, holding his trident, pursues a fleeing female. Com-
positions of sexual pursuit were popular throughout the 5 th century.45 Poseidon’s favorite vic-
tim was Amymone, but without her hydria this identification is not probable.46 U. Kron was
the first to suggest Chione, Eumolpos’ mother.47 This is a hypothetical interpretation, but be-
cause it connects the tondo with one of the images on the outside of the cup48 I think it is a
very plausible one.
The Makron skyphos and the Frankfurt cup – the earliest representations of Eumolpos, if
the identification of the figure on the latter is accepted – reveal the Athenians’ view of this hero
in the first decades after the Persian Wars. As one of the Eleusinian nobles he can ‘enrich’ scenes
that put emphasis on the location Eleusis (on both vases). He can be represented as a singer, the
ancestor of the hierophants, and thereby be associated with the Mysteries (on the skyphos). The
Frankfurt cup includes the warrior in an Eleusinian scene (whereas the warrior’s link to Eleusis is
only implied in Euripides’ later tragedy) and evokes his role in a version of the invasion myth
which had been introduced only recently. The construction of Eumolpos, the founder, as a de-
scendant of Eumolpos, the warrior (first attested by Euripides), apparently postdates the cup. Eu-
molpos’ status can be enhanced by marking him as Poseidon’s son (an interest revealed by both
vases). As the hierophant, he is bearded. As the warrior, he is young and beardless.
In the original version of the invasion myth (the war of the Eleusinians against the Athe-
nians, without the strife of the gods) the leader of the attackers might well have been Eumolpos,
the founder of the Mysteries.49 This would be the easiest explanation for the phenomenon that –
in the times when the founder and the warrior were seen as distinct figures – both had Poseidon
as their father.

39 Kron 1976, 70 pl. 6; Weidauer 1988, 58 no. 20; (see Meyer forthcoming 2024).
Tsiafaki 1998, 127, 130, 133. Skeptical: Clinton 1992, 77, 42 Kron 1976, 70 pl. 6.
139 no. 18. 43 Thracians wore a chiton and an embroidered cloak
40 The new version made him a leader of Thracians in (zeira), an alopekis and embades (Hdt. 7.75.1). On images
order to avoid any insinuation of an Eleusinian attack on of Thracians and figures in Thracian outfit (common on
Athens; see above with n. 14. When, after the Persian Wars Athenian vases from ca. 530 on), see most recently Tsiafaki
and maybe at the time the cup was made, he was given a 2021, 249 –261.
Thracian grandfather (Boreas), he was also given an Athe- 44 E.g., BAPD 201348 (ca. 500).
nian grandmother (Oreithyia) and great-grandfather 45 Kaempf-Dimitriadou 1979; Stewart 1995, 74– 90.
(Erechtheus), see n. 16. 46 Kaempf-Dimitriadou 1979, 26 –30. She suggests
4 1 Only Istros (see n. 56) and Luc. Dem. 34 call him a Aithra (26, 97 no. 266); contra: Kron 1986, 270.
Thracian (cf. Sch. Soph. OC 1053: the Eumolpidai are 47 Kron 1976, 70; Kron 1986, 269 –270 no. 1 with
xenoi). He is called king of Thracians by Demaratos fig.; followed by Brinkmann 2016, 159 no. 25.
(FGrHist 42 F 4) and Sch. Eur. Phoen. 854 (Schwartz 48 The three images of a cup might or might not be
1887; the first xenos to celebrate the Mysteries and the linked. In this case a connection seems likely, because even
eponymos of the hierophants). Tsiafaki 1998, 123. Mod- in the images on the outside (both with scenes of early
ern scholars usually see him as a Thracian (as I did pre- Athens, albeit different subjects) there are correspondences
viously: Meyer 2017, 384–388), but his genealogy (son of (the libations, the architectural frames).
Poseidon and Chione (see n. 40) hardly supports this view 49 Toepffer 1889, 24, 27–30; Kearns 1989, 114.

19
 Marion Meyer

Later images of Eumolpos

In Euripides’ play Erechtheus, both figures by the name of Eumolpos are separated only chronolo-
gically. As the ancestor of the founder, the warrior Eumolpos is ascribed part of the role that the
founder traditionally had: the role of the eponymous of an Eleusinian genos. Eumolpos,
Erechtheus’ opponent, is tied to Eleusis not just by his name but by the genealogy that starts
with him as well.
This genealogy is specified by later sources as follows: Eumolpos – Keryx50 – Eumolpos –
Antiphemos – Mousaios, the poet – Eumolpos.51 The first Eumolpos (Poseidon’s son) is
Erechtheus’ opponent, the last one is the founder.
A pelike made in Athens ca. 410, a few years after the performance of Euripides’ play,
proves that this genealogy was common knowledge at the time. It shows Mousaios, in Thracian
costume, surrounded by some of the Muses, and Deiope with a baby, labeled Eumolpos.52 This
is the only figure securely identified as Eumolpos in addition to the one on the Makron skyphos
(fig. 1). Both Eumolpoi could not be more different in iconography and context. In the later im-
age, Eumolpos is just an addition to Mousaios, the main figure. Mousaios is included in various
genealogies, but, as his name suggests, he is always connected with the Muses and with music, a
kind of “Orphée attique”, as A. Kauffmann-Samaras put it.53 His Thracian costume connects
him visually to Orpheus, the most famous Thracian singer. 54 He is an appropriate father of the
founder of the Mysteries, the first hierophant.55
With the evidence at hand – the Makron skyphos, the Frankfurt cup, Euripides’ closing
lines, the pelike – the creation of Eumolpos’ extended genealogy (with the late founder) can be
dated to the time after ca. 470 and before ca. 420.
It did not create a consistent tradition. The 3 rd-century historian Istros comments on the
origins of the Eumolpids and says that according to “some” the first Eumolpos, son of Deiope,
the daughter of Triptolemos, introduced the Eleusinian Mysteries, not “the Thracian”.56 Ob-
viously, the issue here is not the date of the foundation, but the insistence on its Eleusinian set-
ting. The arguments, however, are based on the extended genealogy constructed in the 5 th
century, with Deiope and Mousaios as the parents of the (fifth) Eumolpos.57 Deiope’s affiliation
with Triptolemos 58 makes Eumolpos, the founder, the grandson of the noble who brought De-
meter’s grain to mankind.
The insistence on the first Eumolpos’ being the founder of the Mysteries will reflect an
Eleusinian tradition (and the Eleusinians would have continued to see Eumolpos as Triptolemos’
contemporary, not his grandson).59 The construction of Mousaios as the founder’s father does

50 Cf. the Kerykes’ previous construction of their gene- from Thrace (with whom the Eumolpidai do not connect
alogy (see below with nn. 61– 63). themselves), a son of Apollo and Astykome, and a son of
5 1 Androtion (FGrHist 324 F 70) and Andron Mousaios and Deiope. – According to Philochoros
(FGrHist 10 F 13), emphasizing that the founder was the (FGrHist 328 F 208), Mousaios is the son of Eumolpos
fifth after the first Eumolpos (confirmed by Akestodoros, and Selene.
FGrHist 334 F 22). The tradition of this genealogy is older 56 FGrHist 334 F 22. On “the Thracian” see above n.
than these three authors (cited in scholia of Soph. OC 41.
1053, discussed by Jacoby 1954, 171, 641– 642); it goes 57 The Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239 F 12 and 15)
back to the 5 th century (see below with n. 52). also has the son of Mousaios (name not preserved) as
52 New York, MMA 37.11.23: Weidauer 1988, 56 no founder of the Mysteries, in the reign of Erechtheus, about
1 with fig.; Kauffmann-Samaras 1992, 687 no. 13; Tsiafaki a decade after Demeter’s arrival in Eleusis and her recep-
1998, 108 –110, 125 –126 fig. 31; BAPD 220499. Graf tion by Triptolemos, son of Keleos.
1974, 163 –164. – I have not added an image because 58 Does Istros omit the name of the founder’s father
the MMA charges US $ 225 for it. because it was unknown or because it was Poseidon, and
53 Kauffmann-Samaras 1992, 685 – 687 (citation: mentioning it would have weakened the differentiation
687). Tsiafaki 1998, 107–123. between the first Eumolpos and “the Thracian”?
54 Kearns 1989, 114; Gerezou 1994, 81–105; Clin- 59 Jacoby 1954, 642 (on FGrHist 334 F 22), however,
ton and Palagia 2003, 271 n. 36. thought that the Eumolpidai constructed Eumolpos as a
55 Cf. Apollo as father: Photius s. v. Eumolpidai, grandson of Triptolemos.
knows three Eumolpoi, one who came with an army

20
 What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

not preclude alternative genealogies. The Kerykes, the members of the second genos in Eleusis
who provided cult officials, 60 lived with two genealogies for their eponymous. One saw Keryx as
Eumolpos’ son61 and thus tied the origin of the genos to one of the nobles named in the Home-
ric Hymn, acknowledging Eumolpos’ superiority in regard to Keryx. This genealogy would have
emerged at a time when the Kerykes, yet unmentioned in the Hymn, had gained importance in
Eleusinian cult.62 Another tradition connected the genos with ancient Athens, with Keryx as the
son of Hermes and one of Kekrops’ daughters.63
The Eumolpidai’s claim of descent from Poseidon is attested for Roman Imperial times.64
The Makron skyphos suggests that Poseidon was regarded as the first hierophant’s father much
earlier, and this tradition might have persisted throughout the centuries. However, it seems to
have been of little interest. In the invasion myth Eumolpos’ divine father was a crucial figure and
in fact the very reason for his son’s attack on Athens. Eumolpos’ death led to Erechtheus’ death
by the revengeful father and the foundation of a joint cult of Erechtheus and Poseidon.65 For the
cult in Eleusis, however, Eumolpos himself was the crucial figure – as one of the founders of the
Mysteries, as the first hierophant and eponymous of the Eumolpidai. In the Homeric Hymn to
Demeter, the Eleusinian nobles do not have genealogies;66 they are “simply there”.67 For the Eu-
molpidai their eponymous, not a divine ancestor, was their point of reference.

Eleusinian nobles in later images of the Classical period

On two vases of ca. 470, Triptolemos’ departure is framed by bearded figures labeled Keleos and
Hippothoon68 and Hippothoon and Kalamites, respectively.69 Obviously, not only the men in-
structed in the Mysteries by Demeter qualified as representatives of Eleusis. Hippothoon, son of
Poseidon and the Eleusinian Alope, was (although not mentioned in the Homeric Hymn to De-
meter) a figure of local importance before he gained pan-Athenian prominence as one of the
eponymous heroes of the ten Kleisthenic phylai.70 Kalamites, represented only on this one vase
(which includes Theos and Eleusis on its back side), was the eponymous of a festival.71 His pre-
sence warns against spontaneous interpretations of uninscribed figures.
The identification of generic figures is not possible – and was apparently not intended.
Bearded figures in scenes of Triptolemos’ mission72 would have been taken as Eleusinian nobles
and/or heroes. However, because Eumolpos, Keleos, and Hippothoon were more prominent than

60 Toepffer 1889, 25, 80 – 92; Clinton 1974, 8, 47– Eleusinian nobles (see below with nn. 75, 77, 78).
68, 76 – 86, 114–116. 67 Clinton and Palagia 2003, 272; 269 –272 on Eu-
61 Paus. 1.38.3. Cf. Eumolpos’ extended genealogy, molpos, contra Harrison 2000, 267–291.
see above with n. 51. 68 Bell krater, Palermo, Museo Archeologico Regio-
62 Clinton 1974, 115 –116. nale V 779: BAPD 205990; Kron 1990, 471 no. 10
63 Aristid. Or. 22 (Eleusin.) 4. – All three daughters with fig.; Proskynitopoulou 1990, 982 – 983 no. 2. Both
are mentioned as Keryx’s mother. If Herse is the best- are wrapped in their cloaks and hold scepters. Keleos raises
attested one, as Simon 1992, 36 –38 argues, this geneal- his hand in a gesture of reverence.
ogy, which linked the Kerykes to the center of the polis in 69 Dinos, Malibu 89.AE.73 (BAPD 43376): Eleusis,
location and time, is not earlier than the 5 th century (when in front of Hippothoon, prepares a libation; the unlabeled
Herse was constructed, see Meyer 2017, 278 –279). man behind her might be Keleos. All male figures are
64 see above n. 30. bearded. Shapiro 2013, 105 –109 figs. 5 – 8.
65 Eur. Erechth. F 370, 92 – 93: because the god had 70 Paus. 1.5.2. Kron 1976, 177–182; Shapiro 2013,
killed him (who had killed his son Eumolpos). 105 –109.
66 Only Keleos is marked as son of Eleusinios (HH 7 1 Shapiro 2013, 106.
2.105), see Richardson 1974, 183; Shapiro 2013, 98. – 72 Two men: BAPD 206948; BAPD 207137 (they
Keleos is the father of Triptolemos only in sources from have staffs, not scepters). One man: BAPD 212188;
Hellenistic and Roman Imperial times (and in one of sev- BAPD 206972; BAPD 206978. Proskynitopoulou 1990,
eral genealogies): Mar. Par. (FGrHist 239 F 15); Paus. 982 nos. 5, 10 –13. – Figures on the back side of the
1.14.2; Apollod. 1.5.2. In the Hymn Keleos is the father vase might or might not refer to the Eleusinian scene:
of four daughters and one late-born son, Demophon. BAPD 205593 and BAPD 206833 (Proskynitopoulou
Schwarz 1997, 57. The presence of an old man in some 1990, 982 nos. 8 – 9) and BAPD 202613 (Weidauer
5 th-century scenes of Triptolemos’ departure is the earliest 1988, 56 no. 5).
evidence for a differentiation of generations among the

21
 Marion Meyer

other Eleusinians it seems likely that the presence of a bearded man73 with a scepter in a scene
of Triptolemos’ mission evoked one of these names.74
The man with white hair and beard who stands behind Persephone on a belly amphora in
London (ca. 470/60) – the only figure added to the three protagonists – has been interpreted as
Hades.75 Indication of old age is attested for the god by some images of the 5 th century, 76
whereas the figure labeled Keleos (see above) has dark hair. However, the old man on the am-
phora is conspicuously accompanied by a dog, not by Cerberus. He would be one of the Eleusi-
nian nobles, and their leader Keleos seems to be the most likely candidate.77 On two vases of the
second quarter of the 5 th century, one of the two bearded men flanking Triptolemos’ departure
is distinguished by his white hair78 and might depict Keleos in the company of another Eleusi-
nian noble.
The warrior Eumolpos was represented as opponent of Erechtheus, about to fight him, in a
group of bronze statues erected on the Acropolis after the death of the strategos Tolmides in
447/46.79 The heroes’ presence highlighted the strategos’ merits in defending Athens (and his tra-
gic death in the fighting). The prominent location on the Acropolis not only reminded of
Erechtheus’ (and Tolmides’) extraordinary performance, their victories and their heroic deaths,
but also of Eumolpos’ role as a warrior.
The only preserved image of Eumolpos fighting Erechtheus, on an Athenian hydria found
in Pella (ca. 400), shows both men as naked youths, equipped with Corinthian helmets, shields
and spears, and advancing toward each other, bent forward for an attack.80 Their fight, placed
in the upper part of the vase, is an addition to the main scene, an elaborated version of the
strife of Athena and Poseidon that is inspired by the west pediment of the Parthenon but does
not copy its composition. It has to remain open whether (and to what extent) the fighting war-
riors mirror the statue group on the Acropolis (and whether the bronze statues depicted beard-
less youths, too).
As a warrior Eumolpos was seen as a youthful figure – on the Frankfurt cup, the Pella hy-
dria, and also on a late 5 th-century Lucanian pelike that shows him on horseback, riding next to
his father Poseidon (toward Athena’s chariot on the other side of the vase).81 He is also a good
candidate for the beardless figure wearing an exomis and equipped with an Attic helmet, shield,
and spear who stands next to Kore and Demeter on the fragment of an early 4 th-century Athe-
nian bell krater.82 Because this youthful characterization is persistent (albeit unknown for the sta-
tue group on the Acropolis) it would be due to Eumolpos’ role in the myth. We can deduce that
the invasion myth contrasted Erechtheus, the defender, king, and father83 with Eumolpos whose
youth gave his zeal to replace Athena with his father Poseidon more force and emphasis.

73 I doubt that beardless figures in interaction with the 75 – 96 is speculative.

goddesses or as observers of Triptolemos’ departure repre- 80 Pella, Arch. Mus. 80/514: BAPD 17333; Meyer
sent Eumolpos, as Clinton 1992, 76 figs. 61– 62 and 2017, 402 – 403 figs. 384–392. The warrior on Athena’s
Harrison 2000, 276 –278 figs. 11–13 suggest. For youths side (Erechtheus) is beardless; his opponent’s chin is con-
in Demeter’s entourage on later vases, see below. cealed by the shield, but his hair (curls covering his neck)
74 For hypothetical identifications of them, see Prosky- and equipment are very similar to that of Erechtheus (with
nitopoulou 1990, 982 – 983 nos. 3 –13; Weidauer 1988, the addition of a folded cloth).
57, 59 nos. 4– 9; Kron 1990, 470 – 473 nos. 9, 11–17. 8 1 Policoro, Mus. 35304. Weidauer 1988, 58 – 59 no.
Cf. below with n. 75, 77, 78. 19; Meyer 2017, 399 figs. 379 –380.
75 Lindner 1988, 374 no. 37 with fig.; BAPD 206725. 82 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1956.355; BAPD
76 Lindner 1988, 373 –375, 390, 393. 13368. Suggested by Weidauer 1985, 200 –202 fig. 5;
77 Proskynitopoulou 1990, 982 no. 7. Weidauer 1988, 58 – 59 no. 21; Tsiafaki 1998, 129 –130;
78 BAPD 201977 (ca. 475/60): Proskynitopoulou Tiverios 2004, 156 pl. 38, 2. Clinton 1992, 91 n. 146
1990, 982 – 983 no. 3; Tsiafaki 1998, 127. – BAPD doubts an Eleusinian context. – Tsiafaki 1998, 130 specu-
206956 (ca. 450): Proskynitopoulou 1990, 982 – 983 no. 4. lated that one of the two youths in Thracian cloaks on
79 Paus. 1.27.4– 5; 9.30.1. Meyer 2017, 398 –399 fig. BAPD 47029 (ca. 440) might be Eumolpos.
376 (uninscribed base attributed by M. Korres). – The 83 On the Pella hydria (see n. 80) he is, however,
identification of these two heroes’ statues with the Riace depicted as a youth, too.
bronzes by Brinkmann 2016, 112 –125, 163 cat. 35 figs.

22
 What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

Eumolpos might also be among the heroes depicted in images of myths of early Athens in archi-
tectural sculpture of the 5 th century.84
On Athenian vases of the late 5 th and 4 th centuries Demeter and Kore are presented in
scenes without any action, surrounded by various figures of their entourage (and occasionally
with additional gods and/or heroes). Young men, clad in short or long garments, who stand or sit
next to the goddesses have been suggested as depicting Eumolpos.85 Their youthfulness cannot
serve as an argument, given the general tendency of the time to show heroes at a young age. The
identification remains speculative, because there are other youthful male figures associated with
the Eleusinian goddesses (e. g. Triptolemos, Iakchos), 86 and boots or Thracian attire are com-
mon for singers from the later 5 th century on.87 It is an open question whether torchbearers can
represent Eumolpos88 (or his descendants as hierophants) 89 or whether this iconography is speci-
fic to those who hold an office as dadouchoi.90

Summary
According to the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, the goddess herself instructed five Eleusinian no-
bles in her Mysteries. Of these founding figures only Triptolemos appears frequently in images,
bringing grain, Demeter’s gift, to mankind. Keleos who hosted the goddess in Eleusis represents
this location in a scene of Triptolemos’ departure on an Athenian vase of ca. 470, together with
Hippothoon (who is not mentioned in the Hymn). He is a plausible candidate for being the old
man in other images of this scene.
Eumolpos is the most intriguing figure. From the early 5 th century on, two personae of Eu-
molpos are represented in images before they are attested for the first time by Euripides’ play
Erechtheus (ca. 420): Eumolpos the singer, the hierophant in the Mysteries (Makron skyphos, ca.
480) and Eumolpos the warrior (cup in Frankfurt, ca. 470). Both are shown as Poseidon’s son.
In later images of the 5 th and 4 th centuries, Eumolpos appears as a warrior fighting Erechtheus
(statue group on the Acropolis, Pella hydria), and possibly as an Eleusinian hero in Athenian ar-
chitectural sculpture and as a member of Demeter’s entourage on vases.
After ca. 470 and before ca. 420, a genealogy was constructed that made Eumolpos, the
founder of the Mysteries, a fifth-generation descendant of a first Eumolpos and a son of Mou-
saios. Euripides’ play reveals the motivation, which was to push the date of the foundation of the
Mysteries to a time after Erechtheus, to a time when Eleusis was part of the state of the Athe-
nians. The image on a pelike of the late 5 th century proves that this extended genealogy was com-
mon knowledge at the time, because it shows Eumolpos (as a child) with his father Mousaios
(fourth generation).

Marion Meyer, University of Vienna, [email protected]

84 Suggested for the Parthenon, the Hephaisteion, and of a youthful torchbearer who confronts an initiate on a
the temple of Athena Nike. Weidauer 1988, 56 – 57 nos. 2, late 5 th -century fragment in Boston, MFA 03.842 (Wei-
16 –18; Tsiafaki 1998, 132; Harrison 2000, 279 –285. dauer 1988, 58 no. 22; Simon 1993, 35 – 42 fig. 1;
85 Clinton 1992, 75 – 76, 138 figs. 22 –23, 30, 56 – BAPD 220516). A new photograph proves that only the
60; Weidauer 1988, 57– 59 no. 10 –14 with figs. two last letters are visible. This settles an old debate, see
86 See the discussion by Böhr 1984, 107–110 pl. 50 Clinton 2015, 133 –140 (with figs. 2, 4 and 5) and n. 90.
on BAPD 230440 (Weidauer 1988, 57 no. 10) and, 89 K. Papangeli in: Kaltsas and Shapiro 2008, 148 –
furthermore: BAPD 5791, 10935, 10107, 230426 (Wei- 149 no. 65 with fig. (= Weidauer, 1988, 58 no. 23; BAPD
dauer 1988, 57 nos. 11–14). On Iakchos, the leader of the 213653)
mystai, see Graf 1974, 51– 66; as torchbearer, see Geo- 90 Simon 1992, 36 –38 reminds of images with more
miny 1989, 253 –264; Clinton 2015, 139 –140. than one torchbearer and claims that neither the functions
87 Kauffmann-Samaras 1992, 687 (see above nn. 52 nor the iconography of hierophants and dadouchoi were
and 53); Gerezou 1994, 99 –105; Nercessian 1994, 902 – strictly separated. Clinton 2015, 133 –140 argues that the
904. hierophants (Eumolpidai) and the dadouchoi (Kerykes)
88 Their identification with Eumolpos (Weidauer had different duties and that there is no attested image of
1988, 58 – 59 nos. 22 –31 with figs.; Tsiafaki 1998, Eumolpos as a torchbearer (cf. n. 88). Cf. Geominy 1989,
127–129) was based on the reading -]ΠΟΣ as the label 256 –260 (young torchbearers, bearded priests).

23
 Marion Meyer

Bibliography
BAPD = Beazley Archive Pottery Database: http://www.beazley.ox.ac
Beazley, J. D. 1955. “Makron,” in Greek Vases. Lectures by J. D. Beazley, ed. D. C. Kurtz, Oxford 1989, 84– 97.
Boedeker, D. 2007. “The View from Eleusis. Demeter in the Persian Wars,” in Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars.
Antiquity to the Third Millennium, ed. E. Bridges, E. Hall, and P. J. Rhodes, Oxford, 65 – 82.
Böhr, E. 1984. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Tübingen 4, München.
Brinkmann, V., ed. 2016. Athen. Triumph der Bilder, Petersberg.
Clinton, K. 1974. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Philadelphia.
Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and Cult. The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Stockholm.
Clinton, K. 1994. “The Eleusinian Mysteries and Panhellenism in Democratic Athens,” in The Archaeology of Athens and
Attica under the Democracy, ed. W. D. E. Coulson et alii, Oxford, 161–172.
Clinton, K. 2015. “Eleusinian Iconography: The Case of the Phantom Pi,” ZPE 193, 133 –140.
Clinton, K., and O. Palagia 2003. “The Boy in the Great Eleusinian Relief,” MDAI(A) 118, 263 –280.
Cosmopoulos, M. B. 2015. Bronze Age Eleusis and the Origins of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Cambridge.
Foley, H. P., ed. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Princeton.
Geominy, G. 1989. “Eleusinische Priester, ” in Festschrift für Nikolaus Himmelmann: Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Herme-
neutik, ed. H.-U. Cain, H. Gabelmann, and D. Salzmann, Mainz, 253 –264.
Gerezou, M-X. 1994. “Orpheus,” in LIMC VII, Zürich/München, 81–105.
Graf, F. 1974. Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Berlin.
Harrison, E. B. 2000. “Eumolpos Arrives in Eleusis,” Hesperia 69, 267–291.
Hayashi, T. 1992. Bedeutung und Wandel des Triptolemosbildes vom 6.– 4. Jh. v.Chr., Würzburg.
Humbel, A. 1994. Ailios Aristeides, Klage über Eleusis (Oratio 22). Lesetext, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Wien.
Jacoby, F. 1954. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIIb Suppl., Leiden.
Junker, K., and S. Strohwald 2012. Götter als Erfinder, Darmstadt.
Kaempf-Dimitriadou, S. 1979. Die Liebe der Götter in der attischen Kunst des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Basel.
Kaltsas, N., and A. Shapiro, eds. 2008. Worshiping Women. Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens, New York.
Kannicht, R. 2004. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta V.1, Göttingen.
Kauffmann-Samaras, A. 1992. “Mousaios,” in LIMC VI. Zürich/München, 685 – 687.
Kearns, E. 1989. The Heroes of Attica, London.
Kron, U. 1976. Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen. Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen, Berlin.
Kron, U. 1986. “Chione,” in LIMC III, Zürich/München, 269 –271.
Kron, U. 1988. “Erysichthon II,” in LIMC IV, Zürich/München, 18 –21.
Kron, U. 1990. “Hippothoon,” in LIMC V, Zürich/München, 468 – 475.
Lindner, R. 1988. “Hades,” in LIMC IV, Zürich/München, 367–394.
Mangieri, A. F. 2019. “Makron’s Eleusinian Mysteries: Vase-Painting, Myth, and Dress in Late Archaic Greece,” in
Greek Art in Motion. Studies in Honour of Sir John Boardman on the Occasion of his 90 th Birthday, ed. R. Morais,
D. Leão, and D. Rodríguez Pérez, Oxford, 153 –163.
Meyer, M. 2006. Die Personifikation der Stadt Antiocheia. Ein neues Bild für eine neue Gottheit, Berlin.
Meyer, M. 2017. Athena, Göttin von Athen. Kult und Mythos auf der Akropolis bis in klassische Zeit, Wien.
Meyer, M. 2020. “The Athenians as Warriors, oikos Members, Worshippers. Defining the Citizen,” in Innovations and In-
ventions in Athens c. 530 to 470 BCE – Two Crucial Generations, ed. M. Meyer and G. Adornato, Wien, 85 – 98.
Meyer, M. forthcoming 2024. “Euripide e la difesa di Atene. La guerra dei maschi e il sacrificio delle femmine,” Dioniso
n.s. 14.
Nercessian, A. 1994. “Thamyris, Thamyras,” in LIMC VII, Zürich/München, 902 – 904.
Parker, R. 1991. “The Hymn to Demeter and the Homeric Hymns,” Greece and Rome 38, 1–17.
Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.
Primavesi, O. 2016. “König zwischen zwei Göttern: Die Erechtheus-Tragödie des Euripides,” in: Brinkmann 2016, 92 –
111.
Proskynitopoulou, R. 1990. “Keleos,” in LIMC V, Zürich/München, 981– 983.
Radt, S. 1977. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta IV, Göttingen.
Richardson, N. J. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford.
Rönnberg, M. 2021. Athen und Attika vom 11. bis zum frühen 6. Jh. v. Chr., Rahden.
Schipporeit, S. Th. 2013. Kulte und Heiligtümer der Demeter und Kore in Ionien, Istanbul.
Schwarz, G. 1997. “Triptolemos,” in LIMC VIII, Zürich/Düsseldorf, 56 – 68.

24
 What Can Images Tell Us about the Athenians’ View of the Founder(s) of the Eleusinian Mysteries ?

Schwarz, G. 2013. “Theseus und Triptolemos,” in Calamus. Festschrift für Herbert Graßl zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. R. Breit-
wieser, M. Frass, and G. Nightingale, Wiesbaden, 439 – 450.
Shapiro, H. A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz.
Shapiro, H. A. 2013. “The Origins of Greek Geographical Personifications,” in Geographische Kenntnisse und ihre konkre-
ten Ausformungen, ed. D. Boschung, T. Greub, and J. Hammerstaedt, München, 90–118.
Simon, E. 1981. Die griechischen Vasen, 2 nd ed., München.
Simon, E. 1992. “Keryx,” in LIMC VI, Zürich/München, 36 –38.
Simon, E. 1993. “Eumolpos,” in Religio Graeco-Romana. Festschrift für Walter Pötscher, ed. J. Dalfen, G. Petersmann, and
F. F. Schwarz, Graz/Horn, 35 – 42.
Simon, E. 1997. “Eleusis in Athenian Vase-Painting: New Literature and Some Suggestions,” in Athenian Potters and
Painters, ed. J. H. Oakley, W. D.E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, Oxford, 97–108.
Sonnino, M. 2010. Erechthei quae exstant, Firenze.
Stewart, A. 1995. “Rape ?” in: Pandora. Exhibition Catalogue Baltimore, ed. E. D. Reeder, Princeton, 74– 90.
Tiverios, M. 2004. “Artemis, Dionysos und eleusinische Gottheiten,” MDAI(A) 119, 147–152.
Toepffer, J. 1889. Attische Genealogie, Berlin.
Tsiafaki, D. 1998. Η Θράκη στην αττική εικονογραφία του 5ου αιώνα π. Χ. Προσέγγισεις στις σχέσεις Αθήνας και Θράκης,
Komotini 1998.
Tsiafaki, D. 2021. “Thracian Warriors Linking (?) Greeks and Thracians,” in Griechische Vasen als Medium für Kommuni-
kation. Ausgewählte Aspekte. CVA Österreich Beih. 3, ed. C. Lang-Auinger and E. Trinkl, Wien, 249 –261.
Weidauer, L. 1985. “Eumolpos und Athen. Eine ikonographische Studie,” AA, 195 –210.
Weidauer, L. 1988. “Eumolpos,” in LIMC IV, Zürich/München, 56 – 59.
Zarkadas, A. 2022. “Boreas and Oreithyia: The Abduction of a Kanephoros in the Panathenaic Procession,” in From Kal-
lias to Kritias. Art in Athens in the Second Half of the Fifth Century B. C., ed. J. Neils and O. Palagia, Berlin, 357–
377.

25