The Eleusinia in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries B.C. Simms, Robert M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1975; 16, 3; ProQuest pg. 269

The Eleusinia in the Sixth 
to Fourth Centuries B.C. 

Robert M. Simms 

THE ELEUSINIA, a very ancient agonistic festival associated with 
the harvest, was celebrated at Eleusis in honor of Demeter and 
Kore.1 Like other harvest festivals, it was observed annually,2 

but varied from year to year in elaboration. A 'plain' celebration 
without contests occurred in the fourth year of the Olympiad.s The 
remaining observances were agonistic and were segregated into 
separate biennial (trieteric) and quadrennial (penteteric) sequences,4 
the biennial in the first and third Olympiad-years, and the quadren­
nial (,EA€VcLVUX Tn: l.L€yaAa), with greater magnificence and an aug-

1 See schol. Pind. O/. 9.150,166 ;IG XII.5 444.30; Arist. fr.637 (Rose). I amindebted to Professor 
J. D. Mikalson for his advice and encouragement at every stage of this study. Thanks are 
also due Fr. Robert F. Healey, who provided me with a copy of his dissertation. Modern 
accounts of this festival and its Eleusinian background are the following: Robert F. Healey, 
"Eleusinian Sacrifices in the Athenian Law Code," unpubl. diss. (Harvard 1962), hereafter 
HEALEY (unspecified references will be to the author's summary in HSCP 66 [1962] 256-59); 
August Mommsen, Peste der Stadt Athen (Leipzig 1898) 179-204, hereafter MOMMSEN; 
George E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton 1961), hereafter MYLONAS; 
A. R. van der Loefl', De ludis Eleusiniis (Leyden 1903), hereafter VAN DER LOEFF; also Ludwig 
Deubner, Attische Feste2 (Hildesheim 1959) 91-92; J. G. Frazer, The Golden BoughS, pt. V, I 
(New York 1935) 70-88; P. Stengel in RE 5 (1905) 2330-32. 

! Scholars have always claimed that celebrations of the Eleusinia were attested in only 
two or three years of each Olympiad (Mommsen 184-86, van der Loefl' 113-36, Healey 
[diss., supra n.1] 31-37). The evidence, however, pOSitively shows that the festival was 
observed in all four Olympiad-years: (first year) IG II! 1496.126, 130; (second year) IG 112 
1304.13-14, 19-20, 22-26; (third year) IG II! 2336.200, 202-03+G. Daux, REG 47 (1934) 
164--79+S. Dow, HSCP 51 (1940) 121, 122; (fourth year) IG II! 1028.1-16+van der Loefl' 
133 + Dow 119. 

3 See IG lIZ 1672.252--62. This is an account of grain allocations from the sacred Rharian 
Field over a four-year period to "priests and priestesses" (lines 255-57), allocations which 
were evidently intended for sacral use in the Eleusinia since they are distinguished from, 
but ultimately (lines 261--62) combined with, other allocations which were to be used as 
prizes in the games. It will be observed that the sacral dispensations occurred in all four 
years but that those for prizes were restricted to the trieteric and penteteric observances 
(see n.4 infra) which occupied the first three years. This clearly shows that the fourth-year 
celebration comprised sacrifices but not games. 

t IG lIZ 1672.255--62; Arist. Ath.Pol. 54.7. 

269 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



270 THE ELEUSINIA IN THE SIXTH TO FOURTH CENTURIES B.C. 

mented programme of games, in the second.5 The festival was almost 
certainly celebrated in Metageitnion.6 It is thus wholly distinct from 
the Great Mysteries at Eleusis, a fact which was first recognized by 
A. Mommsen (179-82).7 In this century van der Loe:ff, Healey and 
others have Significantly advanced Mommsen's work and have 
produced a description of the Eleusinia which is clear and, for the 
most part, consistent with the evidence. It will now be necessary to 
seek a general interpretation of this important8 festival, and, in 

6 IG ITS 1304.13-14, 18-19, 22-26; so Deubner (supra n.l) 91, Healey 257. The errors of 
earlier scholars in dating these sequences resulted generally from either (1) confusion of the 
Eleusinian Mysteries with the Eleusinia (e.g., U. von Wilamowitz-MoellendorlI, Anstoteles 
und Athen I [Berlin 1893] 230 n.89) or (2) misdating of the relevant inscriptions (e.g., van der 
Loeff 101-36; W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age [Cambridge 
(Mass.) 1931] 212). For an up-to-date account of Athenian archon-years see B. D. Meritt, 
The Athenian Year [Berkeley 1961] 231-38; and for a discussion of early attempts to date the 
festival see Dinsmoor 210-12. 

8 See IG UI 1496.126-32, which makes the Eleusinia follow the Panathenaia (end of 
Hekatombaion) and precede the Sacrifice for the Democracy (12 Boedromion, i.e., the 
commemoration of the XapLc-n/pLa EAw8£plae offered by the victorious democrats after their 
defeat of the Thirty in 404/3 [plut. De glor.Ath. 7; IG III 4992: cf. Stengel (supra n.l) 2331-32, 
van der Loeff 74-79]). Within this interval, Boedromion 1-12 have been effectively dis­
qualified as dates for the Eleusinia by J. D. Mikalson (The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the 
Athenian Year [princeton 1975]), who demonstrates (186-90) that the Ekklesia at Athens was 
not ordinarily convened during state festivals and finds that in Boedromion the dates 9-11 
were meeting days of the Ekklesia and 1-8 were occupied by other state rites and private 
transactions (47-53): in effect, no days remain in Boedromion for the festival. Moreover, a 
date in Metageitnion is favored by the records of two deme sacrifices in that month which 
probably reflect observances of the Eleusinia: IG III 1358.39, 43-44, a biennial sacrifice 
perhaps related to the Eleusinian trieteris; BCH 87 (1963) 607, col. B.I-5. The latter sacrifice 
was performed in Athens on 12 Metageitnion, which was, however, a meeting day of the 
Ekklesia (Mikalson 38) and so cannot have been a state festival day. The days 5-8 and 13-20, on 
the other hand, are completely free of attested events (Mikalson 36-37,39-42), and the second 
interval seems particularly apt for the Eleusinia in view of the deme sacrifice on the 12th. 

7 Cf P. F. Foucart, Les grands mystb"es d'Eleusis (Extr. MhnAcInscr 37, Paris 1900) 144-47. 
Many scholars (Carl Robert, GGA [1899] 536-38; L. R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States 
ill [Oxford 1907] 164-65; E. Pfuhl, De Atheniensium pompis sacris [Berlin 1900] 43ff; Wilamo­
witz [supra n.5] ibid.; even Mylonas 243) have been misled by some late and non-Attic 
sources which applied the term 'EAwclvLa promiscuously to the Mysteries (e.g., Gal. De usu 
part. 7.14; Luc. 19.22; Aristid. 13.182; schol. Ar. Pluto 1014). In Attic inscriptions, however, 
van der Loeff (3-13) conclusively demonstrated that 'EAwelvLa refers exclusively to the 
games (e.g., ArchEph [1914] 167-68, nO.232.35-38, Tove 8E I e1Tov¥pove TOve E1TayylA[A]ovl 
Tae Tel T€ 'EA€vclvLa lCa~ TcZ llalva8~vaLa lCa~ MVc-n/pLa; IG III 1304.24-28). 

8 Monuments recording victories in the Eleusinia have been recovered from Cos (SIG' 
1066.4,17-18), Rhodes (IG XU.l 78.4). Miletus (Milet I.ix [Berlin 1928] no.369 col. B.~) and 
elsewhere. The festival was one of those at which crowns for service to the polis were pro­
claimed (IG III 900.9-10; IT I 958.29-31; al.), and so must have enjoyed a large attendance. 
Most striking of all, it was granted the distinction of a Panhellenic truce (ArchEph [1914] 
167-68, no.232.35-38, supra n.7). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



ROBERT M. SIMMS 271 

particular, to determine the place it occupied in the larger context 
of Eleusinian religion. 

One great impediment, however, to a reasonable interpretation of 
the Eleusinia is its supposed division into 'pre-sacrifices' (7Tpo·dAEUX.) 
and 'festival' (EOp7'?}). The only evidence for such a division is the 
restoration by H. von Prott9 of IG 12 5. 

AthMitt 24 (1899) 253 (= IG 12 5) Early fifth century B.C. 

1 

5 

["EOOXCE]V r: 7'Et ,BOAEt] Kat [7']Ot O€fWt : h6[7']E 
n apat,Ba7'E[ C iypaJ-LJ-La7'EvE] 

[7Tp07'€]'\€ta : O[ V€]v : 7'6C h£€P07TOL6C : 'EAEV­
Ctvtov : Kat [: - - - - - : E]V 

[7'Ot 'EA]€VCW[ tOL : r]Et : H €pJ-LE' 'Evayovtot : 
X I .., [. R 0' . ']' apLcLv : atya: '7T7T0 OOV7't : KpL. ov 

[IIoCE"Lo]oVt : [KptO]V : 'Ap7'€J-LtOt : alya : TEA€Ct­
op6J-Lot : Tp'[7T7'OA€J-LOt : olv?] 

[IIAov7'o ]VL : LI [oAt?]XOL : O€OLV : 7'pt7'7'oav : 
,B6apxov : EV 7'EL : EOp[ 7'EL] 

Prott's restoration of line 2 has dominated all subsequent analysis: it 
has produced fruitless debates regarding the division of the sacrifices 
between 7Tp07'eAEta (line 2) and festival (line 5),10 and the text so 
restored virtually requires that most, if not all, of the offerings be­
longed to the 7TP07'€A€La.ll Moreover, it has encumbered the analysis 
of all new evidence with the necessary decision of whether pre­
sacrifice or festival proper is represented. Thus Healey, after demon­
strating that the fragment of the Athenian State Calendar published 
in Hesperia 4 (1935) 19-29 must refer to the Eleusinia (256-57), con­
cludes that all of the sacrifices represented are those of the 7Tp07'€Ana, 
not of the festival (258-59). To the questionable association of7Tpo7'£Ana 
with this festival, then, is added a most improbable conclusion, i.e., 
that a great deal of evidence survives for the minor pre-sacrifices but 
almost none for the festival itself.12 

• AthMitt 24 (1899) 241-66. 
10 Deubner (supra n.1) 91-92; F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des cites grecques (Paris 1969) 8. 

An exception to the trend is K. Clinton, AJP 92 (1971) 498. 
11 See Deubner (supra n.l) 91-92, Clinton (supra n.l0) ibid. 
11 This is quite apart from the fact that the State Calendar sacrifices can hardly be 

described as 'minor' to the degree that would be expected of preliminary offerings (see 
J. D. Mikalson, "Prothyma," AJP 93 [1972] 577-83). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



272 THE ELEUSINIA IN THE SIXTH TO FOURTH CENTURIES B.C. 

[1TpO·rl]AEW:, however, cannot be the correct restoration in line 2 of 
IG 12 5. For the u in 'T€AE£OC, from which 1TPOT€AE,a must be derived, is 
a false diphthong which is not found in Attic inscriptions before the 
second century B.C.,I3 whereas IG 12 5 dates from the early fifth 
century. The alternatives [1TpoTo]Aua and [aKpo]AEW:, which Prott 
summarily rejected,a are on the other hand not only morphologically 
suitable-both have the genuine diphthong u-but are appropriate 
also in the context of these games. They are defined as follows: 
1TPWTOAEW. (Phot. Lex. [II 118 Naber])· 'TO: a1T(XPYILa'Ta TfjC AELac & 'TOLC 
(J ~, '(J "t ~ ~, 't ,,.., "() EOtC aVEn Ecav 'Y) at TWV Kap1TWV a1Tapxat, 0 ov 1TPW'TO/\'Y)ta. aKpo/\ E £ov 
(Suda [1007 Adler])· a1Tapx~' WC7TEP 7TpWTOA(E),ov.15 While 7TpO'T€A€La 
have never been explained or justified as a component of the Eleusinia, 
aKpOA€La and 7TpW'TOAUa are immediately intelligible in terms of the 
very nature of the Eleusinia as a harvest festival (schol. Pind. al. 
9.150), at which an a1Tapx~ or offering of first-fruits would be promi­
nent. The enumerated sacrifices of IG 12 5 are, of course, animal, not 
the vegetable offerings which we would expect at a presentation of 
first-fruits; but this may actually account for the use of the obscure 
term 7TPWTOAEtajaKpOAEta: a7TapxaL were the original offerings of 
grain (cf. a7TapXEc(Jat, IG 12 76.4), and 7TPW'TOAELajaKpoAELa may have 
been a technical term for the animal sacrifices purchased with the 
income from those offerings. 

Either of these restorations presents still more interesting possi­
bilities if one considers that IG 12 5 is an Athenian decree (decrees of the 
deme Eleusis were invariably so designated). Thus, with 1TpwToAuaj 
aKpOA€La understood, we find certain a1TapX+related sacrifices im­
posed by Athens upon the Eleusinia (Jv Tit: €op[Tit], line 5), a circum­
stance which discourages their attribution to the purely local a1Tapx~ 
of a typical harvest festival. Indeed, there is reason to believe that they 
should be referred instead to the great Athenian-directed Panhellenic 
a7Tapx~ (see IG 12 76; 12 311, etc.)16 and that this a7Tapx~, which has been 

13 Meisterhans-Schwyzer 43 n.275. Prott conceded this difficulty (247 n.1) but evidently 
did not consider it serious. 

1& Prott was followed by L. Ziehen in Leges Graecorum sacrae II (Leipzig 1906) 7 n.ll. 
1S aKpoAwv, 'lTPW'TOALOY cod. A (sic Adler): -At"LOY SM. It is impossible epigraphically to 

choose between these terms. ['lTPOTo]At"La, with nine letters, is perhaps the better in terms 
of available space (see Prott 253). 

16 The great a1TapX'1 is first attested in IG 12 76 (eQ 422 B.C.), which evidently describes an 
expansion of the practice sufficient to require three new CLpol at Eleusis for storage of the 
grain offerings (lines 10-12): an earlier date of origin is indicated by line 4, a'IT&pXEc81U ••• 
KaTO: TO: 1T&'Tpta. From all Athenian farmers the several demarchs were enjoined to collect 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



ROBERT M. SIMMS 273 

associated by scholars with a variety of state festivals,! 7 was actually a 
central element of the Eleusinia. The late orator Aristides provides 
specific testimony (19.257) in support of this view: aywv& 'TE yVP.VLK6V 
YEv€e8aL 7TPW'TOV ' EAEVcivL 'Tfje J4'T'TLKfje. Kat 'T6 &8Aov EtvaL 'TOU Kap7Tou 

TOU cPav{}{VTOC ••• a1T<xYEW 8€ Ka, TOVC ., E'A'Arwac a7l'apx"c TWV Kap7l'WV 
E K eX c 'T 0 'T E .i181}va~E we p'T}'Tp07ToAEL erpwv 'TE av'TWV Kat 'TWV Kap7TWV 'TWV 
.i18'1)vatwv 'Tfj 7ToAH.IS We need not. however. rely upon Aristides 

1/600 of the barley harvest and 1/1200 of the wheat, which they were, in turn, to send to the 
iEP01TO'O~ 'E:\Evnvo(J£V (see n.27 infra) at Eleusis (lines 4-10). Levies were to be conducted 
according to the same formula in the allied cities (lines 14-18), and the rest of the Greek 
world was also to be invited to participate (lines 24-26, 30-34). 

17 See F. Sokolowski, Lois sacn!es des cites grecques, Supplbnent (Paris 1%2) 35. Although at 
one point Mommsen (183-84) implicates the great a1Tapx~ with the Eleusinia-correctly, I 
believe (see n.24 infra)-as a determinant of its date, he does not develop the idea further 
and later explicitly associates the a1TapX71 with the Proerosia (193) and also with the Haloa 
(359ft). The first of these proposals is based upon schol. Ar. Eq. 729, which explains the 
a1TapX71 as a Panhellenic thank-offering for a 1TPOTJPOCLOV (JVCE{av once performed by the 
Athenians on behalf of all the Greeks in time of famine. This scholion does not, however, 
identify the historical festival of the Proerosia, or any other festival, as that to which the 
a1Tapxa{ were sent, and shows evidence of some confusion as well in apparently conflating 
accounts of (1) a festival of Helios and the Hours in Pyanopsion and Thargelion and (2) the 
famine (if. the more consistent schol. Ar. Pluto 1054). The second proposal, based upon a 
likewise-muddled statement in Eust. n. p.772.25, is vitiated by the fact that sacrifices of the 
Haloa were bloodless (Ps.-Dem. 59.116), while those of the a1TapX71 included animal victims. 

Farnell (n.7 supra) 42-43, on the other hand, joins the a1TapX71 to the Great Mysteries, 
under the assumption that the Mysteries were essentially a harvest festival and, in fact, 
"the only festival of Demeter occurring at a convenient time and attracting a vast number 
of visitors." But the Eleusinia is attested as a harvest festival, was even more convenient to 
the harvest than the Mysteries, and also attracted throngs of visitors. 

A more serious proposal. however, is that of F. M. eornford {"The :41Tapxat and the 
Eleusinian Mysteries," Essays and Studies Presented to William Ridgeway [Cambridge 1913] 
153-66), followed by M. P. Nilsson (Opuscula Selecta II [Lund 1952] 576ff), which, in the 
context of the myth of Demeter and Persephone related in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 
identifies the a1TaPX71-grain with Persephone (Kore), the grain-maiden. According to this 
view, Persephone's descent to Hades each year fell in late spring and was equivalent to the 
storage of the a1TapX71 at Eleusis in underground CLpO{ (IG 11 76.10-12). The parched summer 
season was thus the barren time of the myth when Kore was absent (Hymn 399fT). The 
removal of this grain at the time of the fall sowing, then. represented Kore's return and as 
such was celebrated at the Great Mysteries. This is an attractive theory but suffers from 
serious weaknesses: see N. J. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford 1974) 
284-85. Even on a priori grounds it seems more plausible to associate the anxiety and doubt 
represented by Demeter's bereavement with the ominous period between sowing and 
sprouting-in accordance with ancient belief-than with the summer months when the 
grain is secure in its storehouses and one has not yet been required to face the ultimate 
question of its viability. 

18 Aristides' source for this information is probably the Peplos of Aristotle, on the basis 
of the temporal reference 1TPW-rOV which reflects Arist. fr.637 (Rose) 1Tpw-ra P.Ev -reX 'E:\wclvta I 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



274 THE ELEUSINIA IN THE SIXTH TO FOURTH CENTURIES B.C. 

alone, for the festival and a1Tapx~ themselves supply evidence which 
strongly suggests their coincidence. 

First, a peculiarity in the nature of the Eleusinia can be observed in 
the sources: it is variously reported as a thanksgiving, either for the 
current harvest (schol. Pind. 01. 9.150), or for the 'invention' (£vPTlc£c) 
of grain culture itself (schol. Aristides 13.189.5). This second explana­
tion is of great significance, for it obviously refers to the elaborate 
Eleusinian myth of Demeter and Triptolemos (see Soph. Triptolemos: 
Pearson, Fragments II 239-53, nos.596-617; Callim. Cer. 19-21; Ov. Met. 
5.645). And, in fact, the historical festival of the Eleusinia was linked 
at many points with the Triptolemos myth :19 the prizes in the games, 
for example, were grain from the Rharian Field (schol. Pind. Ol. 
9.150; IG IJ2 1672.252-61), which was the first land sown by the hero in 
his legendary world-encompassing journey (see Paus. 1.38.6). But the 
myth of Demeter and Triptolemos is the obvious aitia for the great 
a1Tapx~ as well (see Aristides 19.257, supra).20 Hence the a1Tap~ and 
the Eleusinia shared a common mythological foundation. 

Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that the preparations for the 
Eleusinia were identical with the programme of the a1Tapx~ : in both 
cases, the process began with grain receipts and culminated in animal 
sacrifices derived from those receipts (there would also, of course, 
have been direct offerings of grain to the goddesses: IG 12 76.40-42). 
For the a1Tap~ IG I2 76 is explicit: the animal sacrifices enumerated 
are to be obtained a1TJ ... 'TO 1T£Aavo (line 36), and [a ]1TJ 'TOV KP'OOV Ka~ 
70V 1TVpOV (line 38), i.e., from the proceeds of sale of the a1Tapx~-grain.21 
For the Eleusinia an identical process can be deduced from IG IJ2 1672 
(see n.3 supra), which describes annual allocations of grain from the 
Rharian Field for sacral use in the festival (lines 255-57) and as prizes 
for the aywv£c (lines 258-61). It will be noted that the sacral allocations 

&a T~JI Kap1f~" n;c A.ql''''''poc. That Aristides was aware of this Aristotelian account is proved 
by his statement (13.189.5), TotWWJI (TWJI KUTa ~JI 'EM&&z ciy~JlWJI) ,"pfC{JVra:roC 0 TWJI 

IIa:va:8-qllUlwJI. ~l3E fJov~£" 0 TWJI 'E~£vc&JIlwJI, and schol. 
11 This myth does not belong with the Great Mysteries, as has often been assumed. 

Isocrates (Paneg. 28) sharply distinguishes the two great gifts of Demeter to Athens. Talk ft 
Kap1fOlk ••• Kcrl ~JI T~£T-;f,,: thus far is the First Sower set apart from the sacred rite of the 
Mysteries. Moreover. it is generally accepted (if. Nilsson [supra n.l7] 536ft) that the mythol­
ogy underlying the Mysteries is precisely that of the Homeric Hymn to Demerer. which does 
not admit the story of Triptolemos. 

Ie For discussion of an unlikely aida for the cX'"lIPn see n.17 supra. 
11 Cf. IG II 311; Ziehen (Sltpra 0.14) ~2S. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



ROBERT M. SIMMS 275 

are too large (61 medimnoi annually) to have been sacrificed directly, 
and must, therefore, have been sold to provide animal victims for 
sacrifice, just as were the grain-receipts of the &:rrapx~. 22 This common 
sequence of events suggests that the grain allocated for sacral uses 
from the Rharian Field was, in effect, a portion, though by far the 
most sacred, of the Panhellenic grain offering. 

As regards the animal sacrifices themselves, there is a striking 
correspondence between IG 12 5.5 and 12 76.37 in their specification of a 
TptTTO(t)cx. f36cx.pxoc for the goddesses Demeter and Kore. This rarely­
attested offering occurs elsewhere in no other recognizable Attic 
context than that of the Eleusinia or the great a1Tapx~ (cf IG 12 845). 
That IG 12 5 and 12 76 otherwise contain few correlations has been 
amply noted by Ziehen.23 In fact, it is most improbable that these, or 
any two inscriptions referring to the same festival, should exhibit 
marked similarity, for their purpose is ordinarily to describe revisions 
of existing rites, rather than the rites themselves. The similarities 
which do occur, consequently, are all the more striking as tokens of 
common reference. 

It is very probable, then, that the Eleusinia had for its a1TaPX1J a 
prodigiously expanded institution which involved the whole of 
Greece. This result is corroborated by IG 12 5 if 1TpwToAELa/aKpoAELa be 
substituted for 1TpoTEAE£a in line 2. The new restoration, therefore, 
combines with orthography the virtues of simplicity and consistency. 
And IG 12 5, thus restored, provides the key to a full understanding 
of the Eleusinia; for it not only clearly indicates the central position 
occupied by the Panhellenic a1TapX1J in the festival but also identifies 
the a1TapX1J as the focus of Athenian interest in this nominally Eleu­
sinian institution. 

In light of this identification, it will be recalled that the Eleusinia 
exhibits two distinct natures: that of simple harvest festival and that 
of thanksgiving for the 'invention' of agriculture. As has been re­
marked, the second nature is almost certainly related to the myth of 
Demeter and Triptolemos, a myth about which the celebration of the 
Eleusinia was artificially organized in historical times. Yet this myth 
cannot have played a role in the early history of the festival, which 
was regularly dated from the time of Pandion (ca 1450 B.C.: IG XII.5 

II The ultimate recipients of this grain, whether purchasers or victors in the games, 
surdy used it to bless their own sowing (if. Comford (SlIpra 0.17] 164). 

13 Op.cit. (supra 0.14) 9. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



276 THE ELEUSINIA IN THE SIXTH TO FOURTH CENTURIES B.C. 

444.30; schol. Aristides 13.189.4): the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, of the 
seventh century B.C., knows Triptolemos only as an Eleusinian noble; 
hence, as Nilsson (n.17 supra: p.549) observes, even by this time his 
aspect as the First Sower had not yet been added. Thus the festival's 
<duality' is probably to be interpreted as evidence of two separate 
periods in its development: the first, when it was an unadorned local 
harvest festival, and the second, in which an elaborate superstructure 
centered upon the myth of Demeter and Triptolemos had been 
imposed upon it, and, also in accordance with that myth, its local 
a7Tapx~ had been expanded to international dimensions.24 

So radical a reorganization is unlikely to have arisen at Eleusis, given 
local religious conservatism, but seems rather more typical of Athenian 
manipulation in the period from ca 600 B.C. when the city was be­
ginning to assert her own preeminence in the Greek world. Moreover, 
600 B.C. probably marks the final incorporation of Eleusis into Athens 
(see Solon's story of Tellos in Hdt. 1.30.2-5, Mylonas 63~4), and this 
incorporation would have provided not only the opportunity but also 
a powerful incentive for the Athenians to promote the Triptolemos 
myth. The absorption of Eleusis had rendered Eleusinian mythology 
their own: Triptolemos was now an Athenian as well as an Eleusinian, 
and the site of Demeter's greatest boon to mankind, the Rharian 
Field, was now Athenian territory. Thus Athens' claim to cultural 
superiority in the Greek world could be given concrete expression 
through the expanded festival of the Eleusinia and its international . , 
a1TapXTJ· 

This date of ca 600 B.C. as a terminus post quem for the reorganization 
of the Eleusinia is in accord with other evidence. As observed above. 
the Triptolemos myth itself, upon which the changes were based, had 
not yet arisen by the time of the Hymn to Demeter in the seventh cen­
tury but begins to be represented on archaic vases from ca 650.25 

Archaeological evidence, regrettably, is practically nonexistent. The 
edifices at Eleusis which were specifically associated with the Eleusinia 
(a stadium, IG 112 1682.6; a temple, altar and threshing-floor of 
Triptolemos, Paus. 1.38.6; cLpol, IG 12 76.10) have never been located 

I. The date of the festival in Metageitnion, which is itself suspiciously late for a harvest 
celebration, may also have been the result of a revision to provide sufficient time for receipt 
and tabulation of the grain offerings from abroad (Mommsen 183-84). 

15 See B. Grossman, "The Eleusinian Gods and Heroes in Greek Art," unpubl. diss. 
(Washington Univ., St. Louis 1959). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



ROBERT M. SIMMS 277 

with any certainty (see Mylonas 96-97, 125-27, 185). Moreover, the 
sacred precinct at Eleusis, of which certain altars were used in the 
Eleusinia (6[v€]v . .. [J]v [TaL 'EA]€vav[toL : n;L, IG 12 5.2-3 [supra]; 
potius [J]v [T;t 'EA]WcLV[L aVA];L, O. Rubensohn,jdI 70 [1955] 9 n.42), 
was so thoroughly devoted to the Great Mysteries as to leave no trace 
of its use in the lesser-renowned aywv€C. The presentation, however, 
of Sophocles' Triptolemos in 468 (frr.596-617 P.; IG 112 2325 I.i.5; Plin. 
HN 18.65) is at least a likely terminus ante quem for the reorganiza­
tion. 

More precise dating between these limits (ca 600-468) is necessarily 
conjectural: two periods, however, stand out as particularly likely 
to have produced such alterations. The first is the time of Peisistratos 
(560-527), on general grounds of his zealous promotion of all things 
Athenian and his building program at Eleusis (see Mylonas 77-105). 
Certain of the 'Peisistratean' remains at Eleusis have also been pro­
posed by K. Kourouniotes and J. Travlos (Deltion 15 [1933-35] 75ft) as 
cLpol of the great a'n"apx7j. Finally, there is a nominal analogy between 
the elaborate quadrennial observance of the Eleusinia C E. Ttt f'EY&'Aa, 
IG 112 1304.25; 'n"EVT€'T7}pk TWV 'E., IG 112 1672.262) and of the Pana­
thenaia (n. Ttt f'€y&'Aa, IG 12 45.12; 'n"EVTET1]pk TWV n., Lycurg. 102), the 
latter of which is known to have been established by Peisistratos 
(schol. Aristides 13.189.4). 

The other attractive possibility for reconstruction of the Eleusinia 
is the period 480-468, a time of waxing Athenian pride and extensive 
rebuilding of both Eleusis and Athens. Kimon was Athens' adminis­
trator of the Eleusinian building program in this period, and was 
also among the judges who awarded first prize at the Great Dionysia 
of 468 to Sophocles for his tetralogy which included Triptolemos (Plut. 
Cim. 8.8-9). This perhaps suggests a current state policy of promoting 
the Triptolemos myth which might well have motivated its incor­
poration into a major state festival. Moreover, W. M. Calder has 
persuasively argued (Phi101ogus 118 [1974] 203-05) that Oinomaos 
(Pearson, Fragments II 121-31, nos.471-77) accompanied Triptolemos in 
Sophocles' tetralogy. Since Oinomaos dealt with mythological events 
antecedent to the Olympia, a festival which in the period 472-468 had 
become newsworthy for its administrative upheavals, revised pro­
gram and building plans (Hdt. 4.148; Paus. 5.9.3, 10.2; Pind. 01. 6.1ff; 
A. Andrews, Phoenix 6 [1952] 1-5), its combination with Triptolemos. 
which treated the mytholOgical foundations of the Eleusinia, would 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



278 THE ELEUSINIA IN THE SIXTH TO FOURTH CENTURIES B.C. 

perhaps suggest a topical basis for the tetralogy as a whole, and thus 
imply a recent alteration of the latter festival as well. Beyond these 
conjectures, however, the evidence does not permit us to go, and a 
definite choice between the two times proposed for the reconstruction 
of the Eleusinia is clearly impossible. 

Another Athenian alteration of the structure of the Eleusinia 
which was probably contemporaneous with this great reorganization 
can be inferred from the anomalous distribution of the festival 
observances within the Olympiad as attested by later sources. Such a 
distribution was very probably the result of addition to a simpler 
arrangement. The analogy of the Panathenaic penteteris, which was 
imposed upon an original sequence consisting of identical annual 
observances, is instructive in this context. Presumably the Eleusinia 
originally consisted of simple annual rites with biennial games only, 
and the quadrennial &,.,wv was imposed later by Athens upon one of 
the 'plain' observances. 

The fact that Athenian, not Eleusinian, officials (the iEpo1Tot.ol Ken" 

EJlt.CCV'TOJl, Arist. Ath.Pol. 54.7) administered the Eleusinia supports the 
theory that the Eleusinian penteteris was an Athenian creation. It is 
also noteworthy that these officials were not peculiar to the Eleusinia 
but managed other Athenian quadrennial festivals as well. 

Hieropoioi also directed the non-penteteric observances of the 
Eleusinia: IG III 1496.130,138-39 records that proceeds from the 
sacrifices of the Eleusinia were received "from hieropoioi" in the first 
year of the Olympiad (i.e., that of the trieteris) as well as in the second. 
The record for the other years is lost. It has been generally assumed 
that these hieropoioi for the non-penteteric celebrations were also the 
iEp01TO£O~ KCC7! EV£CCV'TOJI of Aristotle's description. But van der LoefI 
(123) points out that Aristotle probably would not have restricted his 
discussion to the pentetmdes alone had the iEp01TO£O~ KCC'T' EV£CCV'TOJI 

enjoyed a broader responsibility. 
Van der LoefI argues, accordingly, that the hieropoioi of the non­

penteteric celebrations were of some other collegium than those 
described above; but he does not attempt to suggest an alternative. 
If, however, the international &1TCCPX7J was the chief component of the 
Eleusinia, then the hieropoioi in question (as of ca 400 B.C.)26 were the 

.8 In the fourth century B.C. these t£pMToLol were replaced by Athenian t£pomnolly fJov>'~c 
as directors of the non-penteteric observances (IG III 1672.280-98; III 410.23; cf. Foucart 
[supTa n.7] 84, van der Loefl" 77 n.3). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



ROBERT M. SIMMS 279 

Eleusinian lEp07TOW~ 'EAEvcw&BEV27 whose duties in connection with 
the (hTapx~ are recorded in IG 12 76.8-44 and also (as lEP07TOtO;' 'EAEV­
ctVt) in IG 12 311. 

It is natural to see these Eleusinian hieropoioi as the original ad­
ministrators of the Eleusinia in the era preceding the Athenian 
annexation of Eleusis and subsequent domination of the local cults. 

In this process, the penteteris imposed by Athens would naturally 
have received Athenian administration. The observances of the 
remaining years, on the other hand, were allowed to continue under 
the original Eleusinian officials. 

It thus appears that the Eleusinia was a typical harvest festival 
which at some time in the period 600-468 (probably in either 560-527 
or 480-468) was modified and expanded in expression of Athens' 
daim to cultural supremacy in the Greek world through the mission 
of Triptolemos. 

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 

May, 1975 

17 The term 'E'\wcwall£, which is frequently appended to the title of these i£po1rOl.Olon 
the basis of IG II 76.9-10, 17-18 (see J. Oehler in RE 8 [1913] 1585), is far better taken as an 
adverb with 1Tap~,8&va, in lines 9 and 17, respectively (cf. 'Ae"'a~£,line 16; ~1Tl.CThm 'E,\£v­
c&v08£l1,IG II 311.15-16). 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies