SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

Myesis, Telete, and Mysteria 
Robert M. Simms 

llHE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES of Demeter and Kore com­
prised two distinct rites collectively termed n:AE'tll: the 
Lesser Mysteries in Anthesterion and the Greater in Boe­

dromion. The former served as a preparation-if never quite a 
prerequisite 1-for the latter. Initiation in the Mysteries likewise 
comprised two degrees: Jl.Ull(H~ and £1t01t'tEia., the former 
required for the latter (Plut. Dem. 26). The epopteia is known 
to have been a distinct rite conducted in Boedromion at the 
Greater Mysteries (Plut. Dem. 26), while myesis was generally 
understood as 'initiation' in general, i.e., the total experience of a 
mystes at the Lesser and Greater Mysteries. Some scholars, 
however, have sought to restrict its meaning. 2 H. PRINGSHEIM, 
the most influential of these,) argued that myesis was a rite 
distinct from the telete of the mysteria, constituting a "pre­
initiation" (Einweihung) conducted individually by members of 
the two leading priestly gene at Eleusis, the Eumolpidai and 
Kerykes, at either Athens or Eleusis, and at any time of year. 
This separation of myesis and mysteria has been generally ac­
cepted, 4 but without, I think, the close scrutiny it warrants. 

Pringsheim (40f) drew his evidence from the fifth and fourth 
centuries, but appears to have believed that his thesis applied to 
the entire history of the cult. Kevin Clinton (supra n.1: 13 n.15), 
on the other hand, while concurring with Pringsheim for the 

1 K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (=TAPS N.S. 

64.3 [Philadelphia 1974]) 13 n.D. While the Lesser Mysteries clearly looked 
towards the Greater as a purification (l: Ar. Pluto 845; cf Polyaen. Strat. 5.17), 
there is no evidence that they were a formal prerequisite; and the vast 
disparity between the receipts from the Greater and Lesser Mysteries in 408/7 
(4,399 2/3 vs 45 1/6 drachmas: I G P 386.144ff) indicates that the latter could 
be very sparsely attended. 

2 See P. Roussel, BCH 54 (1930) 53-67, for a conspectus. 
3 Archaologische Beitrage zur Geschichte des eleusinischen Kults (Munich 

1905: hereafter 'Pringsheim') 39ff. 
4 A. D. Nock, Mnemosyne SER.4 5 (1952) 179; Nilsson, GGR P 656; K. Clin­

ton, ArchEph 1971, 91. 

183 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

184 MYESIS, TELETE, AND MYSTERIA 

two earlier centuries, has recognized that the thesis cannot be 
maintained for the years after 300. I shall, accordingly, take 
Pringsheim's thesis with Clinton's restriction as the current 
interpretation to be tested. 

Pringsheim's chief epigraphical evidence is a single inscription, 
IG 13 6 (before 460) c.40-46: 

40 [.]~[ .... ]£V 'tOY [o]pcp[avov ..... ] 
[.] 'to<; op<pavo<; 7tal[oa<; Kat'tO<;] 
[Il]uo'ta<; h£Kaoioll 1= [ ........ ] 
['t]o<; Iluo'ta<; to<; 'EAduotVl ... ] 
[.]£vo<; EV tEt aUAEt [EV'tO<; to h ] -

45 [tr£po, to<; o£ EV aO'tEl [ ....... ] 
[.] EV 'tOl 'EA.c:UOlVlOl. [vac.] 

A succession of restored texts, prematurely accepted as valid, 
has led to sweeping conclusions. Kirchner's version, for exam­
ple (IG 12 6 c.123-29), decrees a monthly gathering of mystai at 
Athens and Eleusis for myesis: 

[a] ~[Aa7tt]£v tOV [o]pcp[avov Il£b' E<;] 
'to<; op<pavo<; hi I [ ...... 'to<; Il]-

125 uota<;. h£Kao'to Ildvo<; (o)uvay£v] 
[t]o<; Iluo'ta<; to<; 'EAduotVl Iluo]­
[Il]£vo<; EV tEL aUAEt [tEL 7tPO to] 
[i]£po, to<; b£ EV aotEl [IlUOIl£VO]­
<; £V 'tOl 'EA.c:UOlVlOl. 

Other versions specify such actions as a monthly enrollment of 
mystai by the Eumolpidai,5 a sacrifice by the mystai before (?) 
their myesis in the hieron court or Eleusinion, and proteleia 
(hiera) by mystai. 6 These versions differ both in their res­
torations and in their authors' identification of letters on the 
stone; as sources for the nature of myesis, they are useless. 7 

5 B. Merritt, Hesperia 15 (1946) 253, c.38-46. 
6 B. Merritt, Hesperia 14 (1945) 77, c.40-46; Sokolowsk~ LSeeS 3 c.36-42. 
7 Crucial to these versions is the restoration J.LUOJ.Ltvo~ in lines 126£ and 128f 

Kirchner. Pringsheim and others have taken this closely with tV 'tEt auAit 
(127) and tv 'tOt 'EA£umvun (129), thus localizing myesis (on demand) in these 
two places, and presumably distinguishing it from the mysteria. The passage 
need not, however, be read in this way: J.LUOJ.Ltvo~ could be understood with 
'EAtUoivt (126) and tv a(Htt (128), rather than with the court and Eleusinion, 
while the latter might specify where a related action, not myesis itself, is to 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

ROBERT M. SIMMS 185 

Our only recourse, in the case of so intractable a document, is a 
bare version limited to verifiable readings and defensible restora­
tions, such as that of P 6 above. Let us see what modest-but 
incontestible-conclusions it yields. 

First, there were mystai8 at Athens and Eleusis (/lu()'ta~ 'to~ 
'EAE[UO'iVl] ... 'to<; OE EV ao'tEl). But this hardly calls for the 
invention of new rites or ceremonies. We already know of one 
occasion for the presence of mystai at Eleusis: the Greater 
Mysteries in Boedromion; and of two occasions for a gathering 
at Athens: the Athenian portion of the Greater Mysteries 
(15-18 Boedromion) and, more appropriately, the Lesser 
Mysteries at Agrai in Anthesterion. 9 It is also clear that the 
mystai at Eleusis had something to do with the hieron court, as 
did those at Athens with the city Eleusinion. This, too, is 
congruent with the program of the Greater Mysteries;lO while 
even the Mysteries at Agrai can certainly have afforded some 
role, albeit minor, to the Eleusinion in the city.11 Since this 

take place. The structure of the passage, in fact, favors some such specification, 
applied to mystai during their myesis (I!uoI!£vo<;); and it will be noted that all 
the versions above (except Merritt's first [supra n.6]) posit an action ancillary 
to myesis, affecting the mystai either as object (the gathering of mystai, their 
enrollment) or subject (their performance of proteleia). Nor is I!UOI!£vo<;, despite 
its privileged status since Kirchhoff, even a necessary restoration of the lacuna: 
Sokolowski (supra n.6) suggests 9uol!£vo<;. The point is that the inscription in 
its present condition provides no basis for a choice of restoration here. 

8 The term I!UO'tl1<; signified either an initiate or-as here-an initiand, pace 
LS] s.'V.; W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge [Mass.] 1987) 136 
n.33. 

9 Despite the location of Agrai outside the Athenian city wall (£/;O) 'til<; 
1tOA.Eo)<;, Anecd.Bekk. 334.11; 1tPO 'til<; 1tOA.Eo)<;, Steph. Byz. S.'V. "Aypa Kat 
"Aypm), it was nonetheless tv ao'tEl for the demesmen of Erchia: BCH 87 
(1963) 606 A.38f [SEC XXI 541; Sokolowski, [SCC 18]. For the dates of the 
Mysteries see J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Ci'Vil Calendar of the Athenian 
Year (Princeton 1975) 65 (Greater), 120f (Lesser). 

10 For the city Eleusinion in the program of the Greater Mysteries see G. 
Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton 1961) 246ff with 
n.120. 

11 Duris of Samos (FCrHist 76F13=Ath. 253D-F) quotes from an ode stating 
that Demeter "is corning to perform the sacred mysteries of Kore" (X~ I!£V 'tU 
OEI!VU 'til<; KOPl1<; l!uo'tlJpta £PXE9' tva 1tOtlJon). If "'the mysteries of Kore" were 
those at Agrai p: Ar. Pluto 845), then one wonders from where Demeter is 
corning (travel would of course be unnecessary for the local Demeter of Agrai: 
Anecd. Bekk. 334.11 S.'V. "Aypat). r suggest that the Demeter to whom the ode 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

186 MYESIS, TELETE, AND MYSTERIA 

unfortunately lacunose passage can, as it stands, be reasonably 
interpreted to refer to attested rites, it therefore seems prudent 
and economical to avoid building new hypotheses upon its 
shaky foundations. 

The same considerations apply also to a second passage from 
the same inscription, c.26-31: 

KEpuKa~ of: J.1U[EV ..... ] 
[ .. ] J.1ua'ta~ hEKaa'tov [Kat EuJ.1O]-
[A,7ttO]a~ [K]a'ta 'ta[u]'tu· ([ ....... ] 
[.] 7tA£io~ £u9uv£cr9a[ t XtA,tua]-

30 [t] opa[X]J.1fcrt· J.1UEV of: h rot elV h£~]­
oat K£PUKOV Kat EU[J.1oA,7ttOOv·] 

This passage clearly makes an important point: the Kerykes and 
Eumolpidai had the power of practicing myesis. Through 
restoration it has also been made to refer to individual myesis, as 
in Merritt's 1945 version (supra n.6): 

KEpuKa~ of: JlU[EV 'to~ VE]­
[o]~ Jlua'ta~ hEKaa'tov [Kat EUJlO]­
[A,7ttO ]a~ Ka'ta 'tau'ta' E[ av of: Ka't] 
a 7tA,E8o~, £u8uv£cr8a[ t K'tA. 

The reading 7tAE9o~ in line 29, however, was corrected to 7tA£io~ 
by Merritt in 1946. Further, Clinton has reported that he could 
not see a sigma before J.1ua'ta~ in line 27.12 These two alterations 
have opened new possibilities for restoration that either do not 

refers is Demeter Eleusinia, and that the visitation in question is parallel to 
that attested for the beginning of the Greater Mysteries, when the Eleusinian 
hiera, having been carried in procession from Eleusis to Athens, were de­
posited in the city Eleusinion and their presence announced to the priestess of 
Athena Po lias by the cpat8,\)v'ti)~ 'tOlV 8EOlV (lG IP 1078.13-18). As this official 
was evidently the caretaker of the goddesses' statues at Eleusis (Mylonas 
[supra n.10] 235f with n.58), it is likely that some representations or tokens of 
Demeter and Kore were among the hiera carried to Athens (cf Farnell, Cults 
III 165). Since the priesthood of Eleusis officiated at the Lesser as well as the 
Greater Mysteries (lG P 6 l.c.9-14), it is possible that on both occasions 
representations or tokens of Demeter E leusinia were brought from Eleusis 
and deposited in the city Eleusinion. 

12 Merritt (supra n.5) 251; Clinton (supra n.1) 11, line 27 with note ad loco 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

ROBERT M. SIMMS 187 

involve or actually contradict individual myesis. 13 The first re­
sults in a reference not to the number of mystai but to the costs 
of myesis. Since this face of the stone elsewhere concerns the 
fees to be received from mystai by the various Eleusinian sacred 
officials, and since lines 20ff begin this specification for the 
Eumolpidai and Kerykes (E [u ]J..l[ OA.7t{O]u~ Kuli KEp[ U ]KU~ 
AUJ..l~av[Ev 1tUpa] 'to' J..llucr't[o h']EKacr'to 1tEv[n: 6~OAO~), lines '26f 
may' be restored KEpUKU~ OE ~u[£v ~oaoul'to (='tocrou'tou)] 
J..lucr'tu~ hEKUcr'tOV, as a recapitulation of the amount to be 
received per head (hEKUcr'tOV). This recapitulation could also 
introduce a prohibition on the gene from exacting more money 
than specified: that is, 7tAEio~ in 29 may refer to 7tAdo~ O~EAO~, 
not J..lucr'tu~. In this case, hEKUcr'tOV in 27 would no more suggest 
individual initiation by a given Eumolpid or Keryx than does the 
same word in lines 20ff above imply individual attention to 
mystai, beyond the simple collection of fees. Both uses would 
serve an accounting function only, and nothing would be 
implied about individual or group myesis. 

A second possibility for restoration in these lines assumes that 
they do indeed refer to the number of mystai per Eumolpid or 
Keryx, but allows this number to exceed one. The lacuna in 26f 
may be replaced by a number: the options are (for com­
pleteness) [KUS' hEvu], [Ku'tcl ouo], [KUS' hEX<;], [KU't' OK'tO], 
[hEVOEKU], and [hEKU'tOV] (hEKUcr'tOV in 27 would then be taken 
with KEPUKU<; as subject). This possibility, of course, explicitly 
contradicts any "prohibition of group myesis. "14 

Two fourth-century Eleusinian epistatai accounts were also 
used in Pringsheim's argument. IG II 2 1673 (ca 327/6) contains 

13 These possibilities were first raised by M. Jameson ap. N. J. Richardson, 
The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford 1974) 21 n.l (ef his apparatus to IG 
P pp.llf). 

14 In I G IF 1673 (ea 327/6; see discussion infra) the epistatai 'EN:uow60£v 
record their myesis of five public slaves (lines 24f), appending also the total 
cost: aVl1A.cOOaJ.lE[v r~~n -]. Clinton ad loe. (supran.4: 91) calls this -a clear 
violation" of the prohibition on group myesis. Even if there were such a pro­
hibition, I do not agree: whatever the meaning of J.lul1<H~ here (see below), the 
mere fact that the men were accounted as a group hardly requires that they 
underwent myesis as a group (nor, for that matter, is it even clear that the 
expenditure was given as a lump sum: the lacuna could just as well contain e.g. 
[v .1n h:a.o'tql or lCa't' o.VOPCll1tOV]. But there is, as argued supra, still greater 
cause for doubt that these lines violated a prohibition on group myesis, 
namely, the likelihood that there was in fact no such prohibition. 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

188 MYESIS, TELETE, AND MYSTERIA 

an apparent sequence: (24) ['t]rov 01lJ.lOcrirov E~'Uilcra~ev 7tEv'te 
avopa<; 'to\><; EV 'tip tepip aValca8aipov'ta<;; (42) EV 'tOl<; 
~'Ucr['tllpi]Ol<;; (44) ~e'ta ~'Ucr't"pla. Pringsheim (40) took this 
myesis of five public slaves, their cleansing within the hieron, 
and some building activities in subsequent lines as preparations 
for the mysteria in line 42-and thus prior to them. But this 
apparent priority of myesis to mysteria is illusory, as the 
inscription as a whole is out of order: for example, activities for 
Metageitnion, the month before that of the Mysteries, are not 
listed until line 64, while some ancillarr costs of the slaves' 
myesis in line 24 are similarly delayed unti line 62. 

Pringsheim's second inscription is IG IF 1672 (ca 329/8). This 
account does appear to proceed in order by prytany, and in line 
207 under the sixth prytany (3 Gamelion-8 Anthesterion) we 
find ~Ullcrl<; O'UOlV 'trov 01l~ocriwv: /)./)./).. Neither of the two 
regular Mysteries fell within this period: the Lesser Mysteries, 
however, were observed soon afterward, and Richardson has 
pointed out that in line 204 our inscription also lists expenses for 
the Choes of the Anthesteria (12 Anthesterion) under the sixth 
prytany.15 The explanation, of course, is that this inscription, like 
the previous one, is first and foremost an account of expen­
ditures, not events: the actual outlay for the Choes was clearly 
made prior to the festival, and the same may well have been true 
of the expense for myesis, which can then be associated with the 
Mysteries later in Anthesterion. 

Thus the epigraphical support for Pringsheim's thesis is far 
from convincing. But what of the literary evidence? A key pas­
sage is Plutarch's famous account of the initiation of Demetrius 
Poliorcetes (Dem. 26) : 

'to'tE 0' oi)v ava~E\)yvuwv d<; 'ta<; 'A8i)va<; (~THl.i)'tP\.O<;) EypmjlEV, on 

60uAe'tat xapayevoMevo~ eu8u~ Muu8uvat Kal 'tbv 'tEAE'tbv axaqav 
uxo 'trov MtKProV axpt 'trov Exox'ttlcrov xapaAa6e'iv. 'tolho 0' OU 
8qu'tov ~v OUOE y£"(ovo<; xpo'tepov, aAAa 'ta J.LtKpa 'tou 'Av8e­
O'tl1ptrovO<; E'tEAouv'to, 'ta OE J.L£,,(a.Aa 'tou B0110p0J.Ltrovo<;· Em01t'tEuoV 
OE 'tOUAa.XtO'tov UXo 'trov J.L£,,(a.AWV EVtau'tov OtaAetxov'te<;. ava­
yvwo8tv'twv OE 'trov ypaJ.LJ.La.'twv.... L'tpa'tOlcAEoU<; yvroJ.L l1V elXOV­
'to<;, 'A v8eo'tl1P trova 'tOY Mouvuxtrova \j111<ptOaJ.LEVOU<; KaAe'iy Kal 
YOJ.Ll~EtV, hEAouv 'tq> ~l1J.Ll1'tPlql 'ta xpo<; "A ypav' Kal J.LE'ta 'tau'ta 

15 Richardson (supra n.13) 21 n.2. The Eleusinia are dated with the period 
20-26 Anthesterion: Mikalson (supra n.9) 120f. 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

ROBERT M. SIMMS 189 

7t(iAl.V E~ 'AvSEO''tl1Pl.OOVOC; <> MouvuXl.CI)V 'YEv6~EVOC; B0110pO~l.CDV 
EOE~a'to 'tl)V AOl.1tl)V 'tEAE'tTtV, (i~a Kat 'tl)V bto1t'tElav 'tou 
.t:\l1~l1'tP(OU 1tpooE1ttA.a.P6v'toc;. 

Pringsheim distinguished Jlu1l6ilvat in these lines from 'titv 
't£A£'tTtV a.1W.auv, and took this as proof of a separation of myesis 
from telete. Let us look more closely at the passage. Demetrius 
demanded myesis "immediately" (Eu6u<;) on his arrival. But why 
should this be necessary if myesis were normally available at any 
time? This sentence, in fact, sets up a weak hendiadys: Eu6u<; 
gives the time, while 'tTtv ... 1tapaAa~Elv gives the degree or 
extent, of the myesis desired. Nor is there any subsequent 
account of Demetrius being accommodated with a pre-initiation 
followed by telete: the Athenians' only response to Demetrius' 
demand for myesis was to reschedule the Mysteries. 

Even if there were no contrary evidence, the material above 
would lend dubious support at best to the separation of myesis 
and mysteria even before 300: but there is evidence, and plenty 
of it, against any such separation. Given that IlUElV, IlUllO"l<;, and 
JluO''tTtpta are etymologically cognate, one would expect them to 
reflect a single entity ab initio. 

Our earliest source is Herodotus 8.65, referring to the mys­
teria: 'tUv ,,' op'tUv 'tau'tllv ... a.YOUO'l 'A61lvalOt avO. 1tav'ta En:a 
'ttl Mll'tpt Kat 'ttl KOPTI, Kat au'twv 'tE 0 ~OUAoIlEVO<; ... bLu£l'tat. 
This is very close to an explicit linking of myesis and mysteria. 
Early in the fourth century, Andocides (De Myst. 11) quotes 
Pythonicus, Alcibiades' accuser, as offering to prove that a 
parody of the Mysteries had taken place by producing a witness 
who aJluTl'to<; roy EpEl. 'to. JluO''tTtpta: one having experienced 
IlUllO"l<;, then, would know the content of the mysteria. On the 
same occasion, [Lysias] (In Andoc. 51) attacks Andocides, 
claiming that oi)'to<; yap EVbu<; O"'tOATtV IllIl0UJlEVO<; 'to. iEPo. 
E1tEbdKVU 'tOl<; aIlUTt'tOt<; Kat et1tE 'ttl CPWvtl 'ta a1toPPll'ta. This 
looks superficially as though a preliminary stage of IlUllO't<; was 
prerequisite for seeing the hiera in the Mysteries: but here the 
emphasis is not on the allull'tot, but on the unqualified person 
acting as "Hierophant": presumably the aJlull'tot were not amiss 
in viewing the hiera and hearing the aporrheta, but in viewing 
and hearing at the hands of an imposter. This is exactly the point 
of Diogenes Laertius' well-known report of the exchange 
between Theodorus and the the Hierophant Euryclides (2.101): 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

190 MYESIS, TELETE, AND MYSTERIA 

tlt Af:YE ~Ol," eCPll (0 8E6oropo~), tit Eu pUKAEiOll , 'tlVE~ dolv oi. aOE­
~OUV'tE~ 1tEpl 'tu ~uo'tftpu:x.;" d1t6v'to~ O' iKEivOU, tltoi.'tot~a~uft'tol~ 
au'tu iKcpipov'tE~," - aOE~Et~ apa: eCPll, -Kat au, 'tOt~ a~uft'tol~ 
Oll1-yoU~~ ... 

That is, the mysteria are regularly shown to clJ,l{>T\,tOt, those who 
are being initiated-the important distinction being by whom; 
and again, myesis does not precede mysteria. Later in the fourtp 
century, Plato (Gorg. 497c) makes Socrates say EUOCltJ,lCl)V £I, cb 
KClA,A,tKA,Et<;. Ott 'teX J,lEyaA,Cl (J,lUO'tTtptCl) J,lEJ,lU110Clt 1tptV 'teX 
OJ,ltKpa. Here too 'to J,lUEl09Clt is identified with 'teX J,lUO'tTtPtCl. 
Still more explicit is [Dem.] In Neaeram 21: 

Auola~ ... i~ouAft9rt 1tP~ 'to'i~ aAAol~ avaAcO~aolV oi~ avTtAlOKEV d~ 
au'tTtv Kal ~uiloal ('tftv MuavElpav), itYOU~EVO~ ... a ... Civ d~ 'tTtV 
Eop'tTtV Kat 'tu ~uo'tftpla {mEp au'til~ avaAcOOn, 1tpO~ au'tTtv 'tTtV 
avBpC01tov XaplV Ka'taBftoEoBal. iOEft911 o-ov 'til~ NlKapE'tll~ iA9EtV 
d~ 'tU ~uo'tf}pla ayouoav 'tTtV ME'tavElpav, '(va ~ullBn, Kat au'to~ 
{mEoXE'to ~uftOElv. 

In these lines the singular and exclusive connection of J,l u11-
Otc;lJ,lUElV wi th 'tllv EOp'tTtV /'teX J,luo'tTt ptCl is unmistakable: this, 
Metaneira's first experience of initiation, is no "pre-initiation" 
ceremony, but the Mysteries themselves, the EOp'tTt. 

After the fourth century countless sources use myesis and its 
cognates in intimate connection with telete and the annual 
mysteria: one example is 1: Soph. OC 1053 : ttVE<; O£ <pClOt KClt 'tOY 
EUJ,loA.1toV Eupdv 'tllv J,lU110tV 'tllv ouv'tEA.OUJ,l£V11V KCl't' (VtClU'tOV 
(V 'EA,EUOlVt L\TtJ,ll1'tPt KClt Kopn. But the identity of myesis and 
mysteria is scarcely less clear for the earlier period as well. Thus 
I believe that it is safe to reject the notion of any free-floating 
myesis-"'pre-initiation" separate from the Eleusinian Mysteries. 
On the contrary, myesis formed the very core of these 
Mysteries-as the respective names clearly indicate. 

One point now remains to be clarified. We observed above 
that IG 13 6 c.26-31 does grant to the Eumolpidai and Kerykes 
the right to perform myesis. This right is also implied about a 
century later (ca 367-348) in a law concerning the Mysteries:16 

(eXv O£ n<; J,lufl[t E]UJ,loA,[1ttOooV 11 K11PUKCl)V OUK (bv E]iOro<;, 11 (eXv 
1tpooaY'lt n<; J,lU1100J,lE[vov. I have argued above that myesis was 
conducted exclusively at the mysteria, and have implied that this 

16 Clinton, Hesperia 49 (1980) 263-68, A27 [SEC XXX 61]. 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

ROBERT M. SIMMS 191 

was the province of the Hierophant and other sacred officials of 
the festival. What power of myesis, then, belonged to every 
member of the Eumolpidai and Kerykes without distinction? To 
answer this we need to survey the range of meanings of JlUELv. 
Although most occurrences of this word have the simple deno­
tation ~initiate', we find one noteworthy exception. In the 
passage already cited from InN eaeram 21, L ysias wishes to 
"initiate" (JlUTlO'Ul.) his mistress Metaneira. Now, there is no 
evidence whatever that the 'initiator' was a member of the 
Eumolfidai or Kerykes, and in any case his myesis is clearly an 
item 0 expense (1tPO~ 'to'i~ iiAAOl.~ avuA.cOJluO'l.V ot~ avllAl.O'KEv), 
not of ritual. Thus in the fourth century, and probably earlier 
still, JluE'iv could have the connotation 'pay/arrange for, or 
contribute to, one's myesis. '17 

This, I think, is the key for understanding JluE'iv as applied to 
the Kerykes and Eumolpidai. Members of these gene were 
charged with a highly significant contribution to myesis: that 
contribution, I suggest, which has long been associated with the 
office of mystagogos. 18 Mystagogoi evidently conducted the 
indoctrination of mystai early in the Mysteries which would 
prepare them for the confusing and perhaps frightening events 
to come, then accompanied their charges through much of the 
ceremony.19 That these officials were drawn from the Eumol-

17 "Presentation for myesis": Roussel (supra n.2) 55. The English verb 
'marry' illustrates the principle: the cleric or justice of the peace marries man 
and woman, but woman 'marries' man, and vice versa, and father 'marries 
(off)' child. Two other possible cases of J.lU£1V as 'payor arrange for myesis' 
appear in IG IF 1672.207, and 1673.24 (supra 181 and n.14): for the latter, cf. 
Clinton (supra nA). A doubtful instance is Andocides De Myst. 132: aAAa 
yap. J, livbp£<;. bta tt 1tOt£ t01<; EJ.lOI. VUVI. E1tttt9£J.l£vot<; ... tpta J.lEv ihTl 
£1ttOTlJ.lrov 1(0.1. T11((a)v h: K{mpou OU1( &'o£~£iv EOO1(OUV nUt01e; • J.lurov J.lEv 'A ... 
(tOY) d£MpOV, Etl be liAA.OUe; ~£voue; EJ.lnUtOu.... If Andocides was in a fact a 
member of Kerykes ([Plut.] Vito Andoc.; J. Toepffer, Attische Genealogie 
[Berlin 1889] 83ff. contra, F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit J2 [Leipzig 1887] 
281 n.2; Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen [Berlin 1893] II 74 n.5; J. K. 
Davies, Athenian Propertied Families [Oxford 1971] 27), then the myesis he 
conducts here is that authorized in IG P 6, etc., for members of the two gene. 
If not, then his myesis will, as above, take the connotation 'arrange for 
initiation' (·sponsoring ... for initiation": Richardson [supra n.13] 21). 

18 See O. Kern, RE 16 (1935) 1209. 
19 Hesych. S. v. J.luotaY(a)yoe;; Liban. DecL 13.19; Pluto Ale. 34.6. Livy (31.14.7f) 

writes of two uninitiated Acharnanian youths who wandered into the hieron 
at Eleusis late in the telete and gave themselves away by their ignorant ques-



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

192 MYESIS, TELETE, AND MYSTERIA 

pidai and Kerykes is an old suggestion of Foucart20 that warrants 
reconsideration. Though it has no explicit attestation,2l the idea 
provides a reasonable and economical link between two well­
known Eleusinian institutions, answering such long-standing 
questions as "Who were the mystagogoi?" 

Moreover, the evidence supposed to support myesis (on de­
mand) can apply, pari passu, to mystagogia. The inscription 
quoted above, for example, comprises two acts: leading a mystes 
to a Eumolpid or Keryx for myesis (lav 1tpOaa"fTll nc; JlUl1-
aOJlE[vov]), and then the actual myesis (lav OE nc; JlUTl[l] ... ). 
Clinton (supra n.16: 279) comments: "A prospective initiate ... 
had somehow, in the days before the Mysteries, to find 
someone who could give him myesis, and he usually had to pay 
for this service .... There were men posing as members of either 
of these clans, and others were ready to introduce people to the 
imposters." Exactly the same could reasonably be said with 
mystagogia replacing myesis: that is, mystagogoi also must have 
been qualified personnel, had somehow to be found by the 
mystai before the telete, and must have received pay-creating, 

tioning of others (absurde quae dam percunctantes): at least part of the crucial 
knowledge of the mystai around them will have been owed to mystagogoi. 

20 P. Foucart, Les Grands Mysteres d' Eleusis (Paris 1900) 281-84; Farnell, 
Cults III 161 n.b; Kern (supra n.18). 

21 The one Attic inscription that mentions mystagogoi a. H. Oliver, 
Hesperia 10 [1941] 65-72 no. 31 [Sokolowski, LSCGS 15]: first century B.C.) 
does name the two gene (line 22) in a section containing frequent references to 
mystagogoi (18,25, 35, 41). The immediate context of the reference is as follows 
(lines 17-25 Sokolowski): 

------ h:ucr'tTl ['troY cpU]A[rov---]v't[-----
---'t] roy J.L ua't a yroyro [v .. ] K A Tl cr [ ---- ----0 i ftU P E]-
[OpOl 'tou ~ao]i;Vro~ ·Kal ot ·eftiJ.LEATl't<Xl 'troY J.Lucr'tTlpirov [-----

20 [--]~, AEt'tOUpYEt'trocrav O£ 't[ ° ]'i~ 'tEA[ OUJ.LtvOl~· o~----­
[Kal o{ iEPE'i]~ Ot 'tE OTlJ.L6crlOl iuv't[i]~ [Kal----Kal oil 
[imo 'trov] KTlPUKrov Kal EUJ.L0AftlOrov [aftOOEtKVUJ.LEV01--£XOV'tE~] 
['trov 0TlJ.L0cri] rov 'tou~ iKavou~ Ka l [----------EAau]-
[YEW O£ Ka't'a] 'tu;W Kal 't:riv ftopdav c[uK6crJ.Lro~ ft01E]'i[V] 

wcr't[ E] a't[ ----] . 
2'5 [--ea]v ~£ ot J.Lucr'tayroyol J.L~ q,!~~[OpE]~,?~:~~ 't?'i~ [J.Lucr't<X\~----] 

The officials who are to "'serve the initiates" (20: Oliver restores 't[o]'i~ 'tEA.,[ml]) 
will certainly have included the mystagogoi, and in 21£ one could restore· e.g. 
--- Kal oi J.Lucr'tayroyol oi eK 'trov] KTlPUKroV Kal EUJ.L0AftlOrov ['tE'taYJ.LEvOl]. 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

ROBERT M. SIMMS 193 

therefore, an opportunity for imposters and their accomplices. 
Assuming that this was so, the state will surely have issued 
regulations for the costs and conduct of mystagogia; and it is 
incredible that we have no record of this in IG P 6 or elsewhere. 
Again the economical solution is to recognize the regulation of 
mystagogia for the Eumolpidai and Kerykes in P 6, under the 
term myesis. 22 Moreover, on Clinton's reasonable assumption 
that a typical mystes would seek myesis just before the telete, 
we should have to imagine hundreds and thousands of mystai 
looking about before the Mysteries for people to perform two 
distinct services-myesis and mystagogia. Both economy and 
order, therefore, are served if myesis=mystagogia. 

In this connection it is important, though insufficiently 
noticed,23 that Jl'Ucr'ta'Y(()'Y6~ and its cognates are relatively late 
words. Jl'Ucr'ta'Y(()'Y6~ is attested only twice before the first cen­
tury A.D.: first in a fragment attributed to Menander,24 next more 
than 200 years later in an Attic decree of the first century B.C. 
(supra n.2I). Plutarch (Alc. 34.6) projects the word back to fifth­
century Athens, but this is very likely an anachronism. 25 There 

22 The specification of their individual fee for myesislmystagogia is then to be 
found in c.20-23: E[u]~[oA.1tio]ac; lealt Ktp[u]leac; A.a~~av[Ev 1tapa] 'to ~Iucr't[o 
h ]E~acr'to ~~~['tE O~oA.OC;·'t]I~ [app]tvov, 8£At1.6[V· 5£ -Cp£te; 1. 

23 See Foucart (supra n.20) 93. 

H Fr.714 K.: o.1tavn oai~CI)v avopl cru~1tapicr'ta'tat Eu8uc; YEvo~tVCP, 
~ucr'tayroyoc; 'tou ~iou aya8oc;. 

25 This is the most famous account of Alcibiades' armed escort of the pompe 
of the Greater Mysteries from Athens to Eleusis under the eyes of the Spartans 
(cf Xen. Hell. 1.4.20): iEPEtC; o£ leat ~ucr'tae; leal ~ucr'tayCl)youc; avaA.a~cOv leal 
'tote; 01tA01C; 1tEp1.leaAu\jlac;. ~YEV £.v le6cr~cp leal. ~E'ta cr1.CI>1tilc;. 8ta~a crE~vov leal. 
8£01tPE1t£C; 'tf)V cr'tpa'tTlyiav £'leElVTlV £.1ttOt1.1CVU~EVOC;, ;'>1tO 'trov ~f) cp8ovouv'tCl)V 
iEpo<pav'tiav leal llucr'taYCl)yiav 1tpocrayopEuolltVTlv. Plutarch's source for this 
story was probably either Ephorus or Theopompus (see 32.2), but the question 
is to what extent his use of ~ucr'tayCl)y6c; and ~ucr'tayCl)yia is a personal 
elaboration of his material based upon his familiarity with the Eleusis of his 
own day. The text does claim that Alcibiades' generalship on this occasion was 
actually described (1tpooayopEuo~tVTlv) as mystagogia. But two things should 
make us doubt that this is an exact quotation from a fourth-century source. 
First, abstractions, especially those in -ta, are a characteristic feature of 
Plutarch's style. Second, we have an apposite example of how Plutarch uses his 
sources: in Dion 54.1, describing the friendship of Dion with the Athenian 
Callippus, Plutarch 'quotes' [Plato] (Ep. 7.333E) to the effect that Callippus OUle 
a1to 1tatodae;. aU.: £.le ~ucr'tayCl)ytrov leal 'tile; 1tEpt'tPExoucrTle; hatpdae; 
yvc.OPt~OV au'tql yEvtcr8at leal cruvTj8Tl. [Plato], however, had written of the 
brothers Callippus and Philostratus as OUle £.le <ptA.ocro<piae; YEYOVO't£ <piAro ('tql 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

194 MYESIS, TELETE, AND MYSTERIA 

is an explosion of appearances of J.1'U(J'ta:yroyoc:; in the period after 
ca A.D. 100, especially in Christian writers, who apply it meta­
phorically to saints, priests, Christ, etc. 26 

I suggest that the late and meager attestation of J.1'U(J'tClYroyOc:;, 
J.1'U(J'tClyroytCl, etc., is significant and that these terms are not at­
tested before ca 300 B.C. because they were not in use at Eleusis, 
but were adopted there in Hellenistic times as a replacement for 
J.1'U£tV, in the sense of what the Eumolpidai and Kerykes did at 
the Mysteries. It is also significant that in its later development 
J.1'U(J'tClyroy£tV exhibits two meanings: 'initiate' and 'guide'.27 At 
first sight, 'initiate' is odd: mystagogoi almost certainly did not 
perform any formal initiation, but were limited to instructing 
mystai and leading them through the Greater Mysteries. In what 
sense, then, did the mystagogoi initiate? Just as I have argued in 
respect to the Eumolpidai and Kerykes, the mystagogoi initiated 
in the sense of 'contributing to another's initiation'; and I suggest 
that the later equation J.1'U(J'tClyroYElV= J.1'UEtv arose from the earlier 
use of J.1'UEtV to connote this same contribution. 

If, then, the two gene had exclusive rights to mystagogia, 
would there have been enough of them to service the crowds of 
mystai each year? There would, if-as I have tried to show-we 
need not assume a 1:1 ratio. One possibility mentioned above, 
1:11, would have required 200 gennetai to be on hand for the ca 

a{COVt}, aA,A,' Ex: 'tile; 1tCpt'tpcxou<JT\e; hCltp{Cle; 'tClU'tT\e; 'tile; 'troY 1tA.t{<J'tcov <p{A,COV, 
TtV be 'tou l;CVl~CtV 'tc KCl1 J.I.'UClV KCl1 £1t01tUUtlV 1tpaYJ.l.ClUuoV'tat. Obviously, 
Plutarch's 'quotation' is quite loose, and for his source's J.I.'UClV KCl1 £1t01tUUEtV 
he has substituted J.I.'U<J'tClyCOylCl (J.I.'UClV here, incidentally, appears to have an 
intransitive meaning unnoticed by LSJ). With this example in hand, then, it is 
hardly necessary to imagine that in Ale. J.I.'U<J'tClyCOylClV, or for that matter 
J.I.'U<J'tClyCOYOUC;, derives from Plutarch's source(s): for another example of 
·stylistic elaboration" reflecting -the limitations of Plutarch's grasp of the finer 
nuances of the fifth- and fourth-century source material to which he had such 
enviable access, n see D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986) 
305-08. 

26 Origen XVII, p.32 (Migne, P G); Photo Bibl. 232.287 A; Joh. ehrys. 
Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos 174, In catenas saneti Petri 36; Joh. 
Philoponus De opi[tcio mundi 204; etc. 

27 Plutarch (Mor. 7950) uses J.I.'U<J'tClyCOy£lV as the exact antonym of J.I.'UcloBClC 
ou'tCOt; 0 't£A.£COe; 1tOA,t'ttKOe; avTtp 't<l J.I.£V 1tpro'tCl J.l.Clv9avcov E'tt 1tOA,t't£Ut'tat KCl1 
J.I.'UOUJ.I.£VOe; 't<l ~' £<JXCl'tCl ~t~a<JKcov KCl1 J.I.'U<J'tClyCOyroV. The initiand is thus a 
learner, while the mystagogoslinitiator is a teacher. For the meaning 'guide' 
see Strab. 17.1.38, Alciphr. 2.28.2; cf LSJ s. V. 



SIMMS, ROBERT M., "Myesis, Telete", and "Mysteria" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
31:2 (1990:Summer) p.183 

ROBERT M. SIMMS 195 

2,200 initiates of the year 408/7. 28 Other ratios, of course, are also 
possible.29 

Thus it appears that myesis and mysteria were always united, 
and that the myesis allotted to the Eumolpidai and Kerykes, 
ultimately termed mystagogia, was the distinctive and crucial 
contribution of these priestly gene to the general myesis of the 
festival. 

EMMA WILLARD SCHOOL 
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ALBANY 
September, 1990 

28 Clinton (supra n.1) 13 n.13 with I G P 386.145. These possibilities were 
discussed supra as restorations of IG P 6 c26--31. 

29 Since there is no need to suppose that c.26-31 contained anything about 
number of mystai per mystagogos, we are not restricted to the numbers listed 
supra that happen to fit the lacuna in 2M.