Rileggendo Eumolpo: un’autoctonia rivisitata1

Rereading Eumolpus: a revised autochthony

Lo studio propone un riesame delle genealogie connesse alla
figura mitica di Eumolpo, alla luce della frattura tra la tradizione
locale eleusina legata a un remoto passato megarese e la
propaganda ateniese di epoca arcaica e classica, che trasforma
l’eroe nel protagonista (barbaro) delle guerre di Eleusi. Obiettivo
dell’indagine è dimostrare la continuità tra l’Eumolpo eleusino
progenitore della stirpe ierofantide e l’omonimo guerriero trace
avversario di Atene.
The study proposes an examen of the genealogies related to the
mythical figure of Eumolpus, in the light of the gap between the
local Eleusinian tradition, linked to a remote megarian past and
the archaic and classic propaganda of Athens, which transforms
the hero into the main (barbarian) character of the wars of
Eleusis. The projects aims to demonstrate the continuity between
the Eleusinian Eumolpus, progenitor of the ierophantic family,
and the homonymic Thracian warrior who opposes to Athens.

Parole chiave: Eumolpo; Eleusi; Atene; Megara; Tracia; Key words: Eumolpus; Eleusis; Athens; Megara; Thrace;
sinecismo. synoecism.

I. Mythographic Aspects, Perspectives of Study

Eumolpo e citato per la prima volta nell’Inno pseudomerico a Demetra: egli figura marginalmente tra i notabili di Eleusi che
recepiscono dalla dea l’insegnamento dei Misteri2. Il poema, pur circolando in una fase in cui Atene da notevole risalto al mito delle
guerre eleusine e al tema della cerealicoltura (due capisaldi della propaganda tirannica) 3, sembra ignorare tanto la tradizione che vuole
Eumolpo protagonista dei conflitti quale avversario trace di Eretteo4, tanto la rappresentazione canonica di Trittolemo quale eroe
civilizzatore, che recepisce ed esporta il sapere agricolo5: lo scenario descritto, dunque, e quello dell’Attica presinecistica.

Eumolpus is mentioned for the first time in the Pseudo-Homeric Hymn to Demeter, where he appears marginally among the
notable figures of Eleusis who receive teachings of the Mysteries from the goddess. The poem, although circulating during a
phase when Athens gave considerable importance to the myth of the Eleusinian wars and the theme of cereal cultivation (two
cornerstones of tyrannical propaganda), seems to ignore both the tradition that portrays Eumolpus as a protagonist of conflicts as

1
We would like to thank Eugenio Amato (University of Nantes / IUF) for the constant support provided during the drafting of this
article. We are equally grateful to Alberto Bernabé (Complutense University of Madrid) for the valuable advice given during the
revision phase.
2
[Hom.], hCer. 153-156 and 473-477. On the analogies between the government of Eleusis – at the top of which there is a group
of rulers subjected to a primus inter pares (Celeo) – and that of the Phaeacians (Hom., Od. VIII 385-391), see Chirassi Colombo
1975, p. 201. More generally, on the list of kings of Eleusis, refer to Richardson 1974, pp. 196-197; Cassola 1975, p. 473; Scarpi
2002, pp. 449-450.
3
The text is generally dated to the period between 650-550 B.C. (Richardson 1974, pp. 5-11; Cassola 1975, pp. 31-33; Foley
1994, pp. 28-31; Al-Maini 2009, p. 95). However, Sonnino (2010, p. 65) places it before the Athenian synoecism, which occurred
before the 7th century B.C. (For the dating of the Eleusinian wars, see also note 26 below).
4
The correction, at verse 267, from "ἐν ἀλλήλοισι" <one another> to "Ἀθηναίοισι" (Picard 1930; De Sanctis 1975, p. 46) would
allow for an interpretation of the reference to an armed conflict. However, most editors prefer to keep the text as it is and agree that
the passage does not allude to the Eleusinian wars but rather to the ritual of βαλλητύς <throwing> (Mylonas 1961, pp. 139-140;
Richardson 1974, p. 246; Cassola 1975, p. 478; Foley 1994, p. 52; Sonnino 2010, p. 50).
5
On the other hand, it is depicted in contemporary ceramics (Richardson 1974, p. 195; Raubitschek 1982; Shapiro 1989, pp. 76-
77 and 81-83; Harrison 2000). Regarding the connection between Eleusis and cereal cultivation, see S., TrGF IV 596-617a F; Marmor
Parium, FGrHist 239 A 12-13; Ou., Fast. IV 507-508; Paus. I 14.2; [Apollod]., I 5; Brelich 1978, pp. 112-113. On the hero's contact
with Orphic myths, see Paus., I 14.3; Richardson 1974, pp. 195-196.
 a Thracian opponent of Erechtheus and the canonical representation of Triptolemus as a civilizing hero who receives and exports
agricultural knowledge. The scenario described, therefore, belongs to prehistoric Attica.

footnote 3.
“Ignorant mortals, you have no sense to foresee
destiny approaching whether good or bad.
verse 267.
You in your foolishness have been incurably harmed.
Let the gods’ oath, the Styx’s cruel water, witness: “Witless are you mortals and dull to foresee your lot, whether of
I would have made your dear child immortal
good or evil, that comes upon you. For now in your heedlessness
and unaging forever and granted him undying honor.
Now he cannot escape death or the death spirits. you have wrought folly past healing; for —be witness the oath of
But undying honor will always be his
the gods, the relentless water of Styx — [260] I would have made
because he lay on my knees and slept in my arms.
In time, as the anniversary of this day returns, your dear son deathless and unaging all his days and would have
the sons of Eleusis will wage war and dread battle
bestowed on him everlasting honor, but now he can in no way
against one another each year on that day.
I am honored Demeter, the greatest source escape death and the fates. Yet shall unfailing honor always rest
of aid and joy for mortals and immortals.
upon him, because he lay upon my knees and slept in my arms.
Come, have all the people build me
a great temple with an altar below the city’s But, as the years move round and when he is in his prime, the
steep walls, on the rising hill above Kallikhoron.
sons of the Eleusinians shall ever wage war and dread strife with
I myself will lay out the rites so that hereafter
you may appease my spirit by acting lawfully.” one another continually. Lo! I am that Demeter who has share of
honor and is the greatest help and cause of joy to the undying
gods and mortal men. [270] But now, let all the people build me a
great temple and an altar below it and beneath the city and its
sheer wall upon a rising hillock above Callichorus. And I myself
will teach my rites, that hereafter you may reverently perform
them and so win the favour of my heart.”

Il primo testimone a noi noto della guerra tra Eumolpo ed Eretteo e un frammento dell’Eretteo di Euripide, dove l’eroe e posto alla
guida un contingente di traci6 affiancato (secondo uno scolio a Tucidide) da truppe eleusine7. L’immagine dello ierofante locale
dell’Inno mal si concilia conquella del comandante di un esercito barbaro: alla spiegazione tradizionale che legge nel soldato di epoca
classica il frutto di una trasformazione del sacerdote arcaico (volta ad evitare la riduzione delle guerre a conflitto civile 8) si e opposto
recentemente Sonnino, che opta in modo semplicistico per la separazione in due eroi distinti 9. E nostra opinione, in vece, che queste

6
E., TrGF V.1, 24, 360 F, 46-49 = 12 Sonnino. Later sources will indicate, as adversaries of Athens, either only the Thracians
(Isoc. IV 68 and XI 193; Lycurg, Leocr. 98; Demar., FGrHist 42 F 4; Str. VIII 7.1; Luc., Anach. 34), or only the Eleusinians (Th. II
15.1; Paus. I 5.2, 36.4, 38.2-3), or both populations (Acestodorus, FHG II 464; [Apollod.], Bibl. III 15.4-5; Sch. in E., Ph. 854). Even
before Euripides, it is possible that the Parthenon <opened 432 B.C.> already incorporated the myth of the warrior Eumolpus: traces
of the theme would indeed be found in the decoration of the western pediment (if one were to recognize, with Stanley Spaeth 1991,
pp. 353-356, Erechtheus and Eumolpus in the two figures placed at the ends of the tympanum as a complement to the struggle
between Athena and Poseidon) and in that of the frieze (admitting, with Connelly 1996, pp. 59-63, that the peplophoros scene actually
represents the sacrifice of Erechtheus's younger daughter to achieve victory over Eumolpus: the semi-nudity of the figure carrying the
peplos – British Museum, Parthenon East Frieze V, fig. 35 – would indicate a scene of dressing, customary in the funeral rite of
virgins). Already Castriota (1992, pp. 134-142) identified in the figurative program of the temple the representation, in a metaphorical
key, of the victory of 480 B.C.
7
Sch. in Th. II 15.1. The Erechtheus was staged in 423/2 B.C.: this dating, based on the reuse of a verse from the tragedy (fr. 10
Sonnino) in Plutarch's Life of Nicias 9, has been recently confirmed by Sonnino (2010, pp. 27-34) against Cropp and Fick (1985, pp.
78-80), who had proposed 416 B.C. based on a mere statistical calculation of iambic trimeter solutions. Regarding these chronological
issues, see also Collard - Cropp - Lee 1995, p. 155 and Jouan - Van Looy 2002, pp. 98-99.
8
See: Parker 1990, pp. 203-204; Calame 2011, pp. 224-225.
due figure debbano essere ridotte ad un unico personaggio: per dimostrarlo, intendiamo proporre uno studio genealogico dell’eroe, i
cui legami di parentela rivelano una stratificazione di elementi di varia provenienza (anche tracia); procedendo a ritroso fino all’alto
arcaismo, ne dipaneremo i vari livelli e descriveremo il processo che porta alla formazione di un eroe bifronte, locale e straniero allo
stesso tempo.

The earliest known witness to the war between Eumolpus and Erechtheus is a fragment from Euripides' Erechtheus, where the
hero leads a contingent of Thracians, accompanied (according to a scholium to Thucydides) by Eleusinian troops. The image of
the local hierophant in the Hymn does not fit well with that of a commander of a barbarian army. The traditional explanation that
interprets the soldier of classical times as the result of a transformation of the archaic priest (aimed at avoiding reducing the
wars to civil conflicts) has recently been opposed by Sonnino, who opts for a simplistic separation of the two heroes. Instead,
we believe that these two figures should be reduced to a single character. To demonstrate this, we intend to propose a
genealogical study of the hero, whose family ties reveal a stratification of elements of various origins (including Thracian). Going
back to the high archaic period, we will unravel its various levels and describe the process that leads to the formation of a two-
faced hero, both local and foreign at the same time.

Un approccio simile non e nuovo. Gia Portulas10 considero gli spunti trasmessi da Androne di Alicarnasso11, che pone l’Eumolpo
fondatore dei misteri a chiusura di una complessa genealogia su cinque livelli comprendente, oltre a due personaggi omonimi, anche
Cerice e Museo: il primo, capostipite di un gruppo sacerdotale; il secondo, poeta tradizionalmente connesso all’orfismo e, di
conseguenza, al mondo trace12. Pòrtulas, non tenendo conto di quest’ultimo dato, si contentò di motivare la natura barbara associata
ad Eumolpo con il carattere di alterità espresso dai riti misterici in Grecia. Il problema genealogico è stato affrontato in modo più
capillare da Sonnino, il quale tuttavia, pur individuando dei collegamenti tra Eumolpo ed altre figure del mondo trace, ha arrestato la
sua analisi all’epoca classica: ciò ha prodotto la falsa impressione dell’esistenza di due eroi distinti, seppur omonimi, laddove lo
studio di livelli più antichi rivela con chiarezza l’assenza di soluzione di continuità tra l’Eumolpo ierofante e l’Eumolpo guerriero. Al
fine di chiarire tali questioni, ci sembra opportuno procedere, innanzitutto, con un esame della tradizione sull’Attica presinecistica
contenuta nell’Inno a Demetra.

An approach similar to this is not new. Already, Portulas considered the insights transmitted by Andron of Halicarnassus, who
places Eumolpus, the founder of the mysteries, at the end of a complex genealogy on five levels, which includes, in addition to
two characters with the same name, also Cerice and Museus: the first, the ancestor of a priestly group; the second, a poet
traditionally associated with Orphism and, consequently, with the Thracian world. Portulas, not taking into account this last
detail, contented himself with attributing the barbarian nature associated with Eumolpus to the sense of otherness expressed by
mystery rites in Greece. The genealogical problem has been more comprehensively addressed by Sonnino, who, however, despite
identifying connections between Eumolpus and other figures from the Thracian world, limited his analysis to the classical period:

9
Sonnino (2010, pp. 63-82) identifies, on one hand, a "pious priest of Eleusis" Eumolpus, born from the Earth and therefore
autochthonous (as attested by the γεγενής in Clem. Al., Prot. II 20.1-3 and Arnob., Nat. V 25.1-2), whose connection with Thrace
would be a later trait influenced by Dionysiac and Orphic elements. On the other hand, there is a "Thracian Eumolpus, son of
Poseidon and Chione, adversary of the Athenians," whose barbarian nature and descent from the god would be the original data. The
connecting element between the two figures is found in Immaradus, the son of Eumolpus whose name indicates a Thracian origin in
connection with the city of Ismarus (cf. Hom., Od. IX 39-40) and who is involved in various ways in the tradition about the wars of
Eleusis (Paus. I 5.2, 38.3; Clem. Al., Protr. III 45.1; Arnob., Adv. Gentes VI 5; see also Picard 1931, p. 4; Carrara 1977, p. 23).
Sonnino, referring to Paus. I 27.4 and I 38.2-4, argues that Immaradus (or Ismarus) is "an ad hoc invention within Attic tradition to
eliminate the duality between the Eumolpus the hierophant and Eumolpus the combatant and to attribute the responsibility for the
conflict with Athens to a character who did not bear the name of the pious hierophant of the Eleusinian mysteries" (p. 60).
10
Pòrtulas 1996.
11
Andro Hal., FGrHist 10 F 13 = F 13 Fowler = PEG ii/iii Musaeus 40 T; cf. infra § 4.
12
Cf. infra nn. 70 e 74.
 this has created the false impression of the existence of two distinct heroes, although with the same name, whereas the study of
earlier levels clearly reveals the continuity between the hierophant Eumolpus and the warrior Eumolpus. In order to clarify these
issues, it seems appropriate to proceed, first and foremost, with an examination of the pre-synoecic Attic tradition contained in
the Hymn to Demeter.

II. DYNAMICS OF THE FRONTIER, OSMOSIS OF LEGENDS.

Jacoby, nel suo fondamentale volume sulla storiografia locale attica, ha descritto le guerre eleusine come «the great event of the
period of the kings»13. I conflitti sono ricordati nel famoso resoconto tucidideo sul sinecismo, di cui lo storico si premura di descrivere
natura e sequenza delle tappe: una prima fase, di tipo militare, oppone Eretteo a Eumolpo nel contesto di scontri interni tra il re e i
capi locali; una seconda fase, di tipo diplomatico, risolve il processo aggregativo senza armi, nella figura di Teseo 14. Un’evoluzione
tutta interna all’Attica, dunque, e pacifica nel suo scioglimento, che però non tiene conto di un’altra tradizione, che vuole Teseo
protagonista di una mattanza di briganti lungo la costa del golfo Saronico 15. Tale tradizione è interpretata positivamente ad Atene,
dove i briganti simboleggiano l’universo precosmico di Posidone 16 poi strutturato in senso cosmico da un protetto di Atena;
diversamente, a Megara, Teseo è colpevole dell’omicidio di Scirone17 e della sottrazione illecita di Eleusi al tempo del re Diocle18. Di
questo Scirone, sono noti i legami con i territori su cui Megara e Atene avanzano delle pretese (Eleusi 19, ma anche Egina e
Salamina20) e, come lui, altri personaggi figurano tanto nelle mitografie megaresi quanto in quelle eleusine: si veda il caso di Diocle,
o di Pandione21.

13
Jacoby 1949, p. 124.
14
Th., II 15.1-2. Sul sinecismo attico, si vedano Nilsson 1951, pp. 25-41; Padgud 1972, p. 135; De Sanctis 1975, pp. 28-50.
15
So, a violent episode that occurs outside the region. Similarly, Thucydides might have omitted any Thracian involvement (and
thus, extraregional) alongside Eumolpus, in order to present the entire conflict as relevant only to the inhabitants of Attica: as
suggested by Sonnino (2010, pp. 76-77), the choice of the phrase μετ᾽ Εὐμόλπου (with Eumolpus) to describe the intervention of
the Eleusinians against Erechtheus could conceal a reference to barbarian troops.
16
On the influence of Eastern traditions that associate the sea with chaos against the dominant order embodied by atmospheric
deities, we refer to De Cristofaro 2004. The centrality of the cult of Poseidon in the Saronic Gulf is evidenced by the presence, in
the area affected by the itinerary of Theseus, of important structures dedicated to the god, such as the sanctuary of Calauria near
Troezen (Schumacher 1993).
17
Sciron is known as a brigand from the perspective of the Athenians (Jacoby 1949, p. 394 n. 23; Piccirilli 1975, p. 101). He is
the eponym of the Scironian Rocks, located along the road that connects Crommyon to Megara (cf. Paus. I 44.6 on an odos Skironis
in Megaris; also see Hsch. σ 26 [s.u. σκιροφόρια]; Phot. 332a25; Sud. σ 623 Adler [s.u. Σκῖρος]).
18
Plutarch, Life of Theseus, 10.3; but also see Strabo, IX 1.4. Diocles, mentioned in [Hom.], hCer. 153, 474, is also connected to
Megara in other contexts: in Aristophanes, Knights 774, a Megarian oath is mentioned in the name of Diocles, while Theocritus,
Idyll XII 27-29, places a local cult of Diocles in the Isthmian city. However, Aristotle indicates his tomb in Thebes (Aristotle,
Politics, 1274a).
19
The relationships of the Sciron mentioned by Plutarch (see supra n. 18) with two other homonyms are not clear. One is the
eponym of Salamis (Strabo, IX 1.9 and Sud. σ 623 Adler [s.u. Σκίρον]), and the other is a Dodonean seer who intervened alongside
the Eleusinians (Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 14 = F 14 Costa and Pausanias, I 36.4). However, De Sanctis (1975, p. 47) and Piccirilli
(1975 on frr. adesp. 14a-b: Sud. σ 623 Adler [s.u. Σκίρον] and Sch. in Clem. Al., Prot. II 17.18-21) synthesize these figures into a
single hero.
20
Indeed, Plutarch (Life of Theseus, 10.2-3) mentions that Sciron is linked to Aeacus (son of Zeus and Aegina), his two sons
Peleus (father of Achilles) and Telamon (father of Ajax), and Cychreus (son of Poseidon and Salamis). Cychreus is Sciron's father-in-
law, while Sciron is, in turn, Aeacus's father-in-law and, consequently, the grandfather of Peleus and Telamon. Thus, a mythical
genealogy is constructed to legitimize the presence of Megara in the Saronic Gulf, through the connection between Sciron (the
mainland), Aeacus (Aegina), and Cychreus (Salamis; see also Plutarch, Solon, 9.7 on an akron Skiradion in Salamis).
 In his fundamental volume on local Athenian historiography, Jacoby described the Eleusinian wars as "the great event of the
period of the kings." These conflicts are mentioned in the famous account by Thucydides about the synoecism, in which the
historian describes the nature and sequence of the stages: a first phase, of a military nature, pits Erechtheus against Eumolpus in
the context of internal clashes between the king and local leaders; a second phase, of a diplomatic nature, resolves the unification
process without arms, with the figure of Theseus. It is an entirely internal evolution within Attica, and the resolution is peaceful.
However, this account does not take into account another tradition, which portrays Theseus as the protagonist of a massacre of
brigands along the coast of the Saronic Gulf. This tradition is interpreted positively in Athens, where the brigands symbolize the
pre-cosmic universe of Poseidon, which is then structured cosmically by a protege of Athena. Conversely, in Megara, Theseus is
seen as guilty of the murder of Sciron and the illicit seizure of Eleusis during the time of King Diocles. Sciron is known to have
ties to the territories over which both Megara and Athens make claims (Eleusis, but also Aegina and Salamis). Other characters,
like Sciron, appear in the mythologies of both Megara and Eleusis, such as Diocles and Pandion.

RE: footnote 18.

Plutarch, Life of Theseus, 10.3
He also slew Sciron on the borders of Megara, by hurling him down the cliffs. Sciron robbed the passers by,
according to the prevalent tradition; but as some say, he would insolently and wantonly thrust out his feet to
strangers and bid them wash them, and then, while they were washing them, kick them off into the sea. 2 Megarian
writers, however, taking issue with current report, and, as Simonides <Fragment 193 (Bergk)> expresses it, “waging
war with antiquity,” say that Sciron was neither a violent man nor a robber, but a chastiser of robbers, and a kinsman
and friend of good and just men. For Aeacus, they say, is regarded as the most righteous of Hellenes, and Cychreus
the Salaminian has divine honours at Athens, and the virtues of Peleus and Telamon are known to all men. 3 Well,
then, Sciron was a son-in-law of Cychreus, father-in-law of Aeacus, and grandfather of Peleus and Telamon, who
were the sons of Endeïs, daughter of Sciron and Chariclo. It is not likely, then, they say, that the best of men made
family alliances with the basest, receiving and giving the greatest and most valuable pledges. It was not, they say,
when Theseus first journeyed to Athens, but afterwards, that he captured Eleusis from the Megarians, having
circumvented Diocles its ruler, and slew Sciron. Such, then, are the contradictions in which these matters are
involved.

Strabo IX, 1.9

4 After Crommyon, and situated above Attica, are the Sceironian Rocks. They leave no room for a road along
the sea, but the road from the Isthmus to Megara and Attica passes above them <≈situated northerly, etc.>.
However, the road approaches so close to the rocks that in many places it passes along the edge of precipices,
because the mountain situated above them is both lofty and impracticable for roads. Here is the setting of the myth
about Sceiron and the Pityocamptes, the robbers who infested the above-mentioned mountainous country and were
killed by Theseus. And the Athenians have given the name Sceiron to the Argestes, the violent wind that blows
down on the travellers left from the heights of this mountainous country. After the Sceironian Rocks one comes to
Cape Minoa, which projects into the sea and forms the harbour at Nisaea. Nisaea is the naval station of the
Megarians; it is eighteen stadia distant from the city and is joined to it on both sides by walls. The naval station, too,
used to be called Minoa.
5 In early times this country was held by the same Ionians who held Attica. Megara, however, had not yet been
founded; and therefore the poet does not specifically mention this region, but when he calls all the people of Attica
Athenians he includes these too under the general name, considering them Athenians. Thus, when he says in the
Catalogue, "And those who held Athens, well-built city," we must interpret him as meaning the people now called
Megarians as well, and assume that these also had a part in the expedition. And the following is proof: In early times

21
The king who allegedly granted control of the Megarid to his fourth son Nisus is mentioned in Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 107
= F 107 Costa) and Androtion of Halicarnassus (FGrHist 10 F 14 = F 14 Fowler).
Attica was called Ionia and Ias; and when the poet says, "There the Boeotians and the Iaonians," <Ἔνθα δὲ Βοιωτοὶ
καὶ Ἰάονες ἑλκεχίτωνες,> he means the Athenians; and Megaris was a part of this Ionia.

8 The city of the Megarians has experienced many changes, but nevertheless it has endured until the present
time. It once even had schools of philosophers who were called the Megarian sect, these being the successors of
Eucleides, the Socratic philosopher, a Megarian by birth, just as the Eleian sect, to which Pyrrhon belonged, were the
successors of Phaedon the Eleian, who was also a Socratic philosopher, and just as the Eretrian sect were the
successors of Menedemus the Eretrian. The country of the Megarians, like Attica, has rather poor soil, and the
greater part of it is occupied by the Oneian Mountains, as they are called — a kind of ridge, which extends from the
Sceironian Rocks to Boeotia and Cithaeron, and separates the sea at Nisaea from the Alcyonian Sea, as it is called,
at Pagae.
9 On the voyage from Nisaea to Attica one comes to five small islands. Then to Salamis, which is about seventy
stadia in length, though some say eighty. It contains a city of the same name; the ancient city, now deserted, faces
towards Aegina and the south wind (just as Aeschylus has said, "And Aegina here lies towards the blasts of the
south wind"), <Frag. 404 (Nauck).> but the city of to-day is situated on a gulf, on a peninsula-like place which
borders on Attica. In early times it was called by different names, for example, "Sciras" and "Cychreia," after certain
heroes. It is from one of these heroes <Scirus> that Athena is called "Sciras," and that a place in Attica is called
"Scira," and that a certain sacred rite is performed in honour of "Scirus," <Scirus founded the ancient sanctuary of
Athena Sciras at Phalerum. After his death the Eleusinians buried him between Athens and Eleusis at a place which
in his honour they called "Scira," or, according to Pausanias (1.36.4 q.v.) and others, "Scirum."> and that one of the
months is called "Scirophorion." And it is from the other hero that the serpent "Cychreides" took its name — the
serpent which, according to Hesiod, was fostered by Cychreus and driven out by Eurylochus because it was
damaging the island, and was welcomed to Eleusis by Demeter and made her attendant. And the island was also
called Pityussa, from the tree. <"Pitys," "pine-tree."> But the fame of the island is due to the Aiacidae, who ruled
over it, and particularly to Aias, the son of Telamon, and also to the fact that near this island Xerxes was defeated by
the Greeks in a naval battle and fled to his homeland. And the Aeginetans also shared in the glory of this struggle,
since they were neighbours and furnished a considerable fleet. And there is in Salamis a river Bocarus, which is now
called Bocalia.

PHILOCHORUS F. 14.
14 (42) HARPOKR. (SUDA Σ 623) s. v. Σκίρον· Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἱερείας (F 46 B1). Σκίρα ἑορτὴ παρ᾽
Ἀθηναίοις, ἀφ᾽ (gen. from) ἧς καὶ ὁ μὴν Σκιροφοριῶν. φασὶ δὲ οἱ γράψαντες Περὶ τε μηνῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν τῶν
Ἀθηνησίν, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Λυσιμαχίδης (366 F 3), ὡς τὸ σκίρον σκιάδ<ε>ιόν ἐστι μέγα, ὑφ᾽ <ὑπὸ> under, by, beneath>
ὅτι <since> φερομένῳ <carrying> ἐξ ἀκροπόλεως εἰς τινα τόπον καλούμενον Σκίρον πορεύονται (march), ἥ τε τῆς
Ἀθηνᾶς ἱέρεια καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἱερεὺς καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἡλίου· κομίζουσι δὲ τοῦτο Ἐτεοβουτάδαι. σύμβολον δὲ τοῦτο
γίνεται τοῦ δεῖν οἰκοδομεῖν καὶ τὸ σκέπας ποιεῖν, ὡς τούτου τοῦ χρόνου ἀρίστου ὄντος πρὸς οἰκοδομίαν. καὶ
Ἀθηνᾶν δὲ Σχιράδα τιμῶσιν Ἀθηναῖοι, ἣν Φιλόχορος μὲν ἐν β᾿ Ἀτθίδος ἀπὸ Σκίρου τινὸς Ἐλευσινίου μάντεως
κεκλῆσθαι, Πραξίων δὲ ἐν β᾿ Μεγαρικῶν (484 F 1) ἀπὸ Σκίρωνος.
“Σκίρον· Lycurgus in his work 'On the Priesthood' (F 46 B1). Skira is a festival among the Athenians, from which
also the month Skirophorion takes its name. The writers of works on the months and festivals of Athens, including
Lysimachides (366 F 3), say that 'skiron' means 'a large parasol,' under which they carried out a procession from the
Acropolis to a place called Skiron. The procession includes the priestess of Athena, the priest of Poseidon, and the
priest of Helios, and it is conducted by the Eteoboutadai. This procession serves as a symbol for the act of building
and constructing, as this time is considered favorable for construction. The Athenians also honor Athena with the
name Skirada, which Philochorus says in Book II of his 'Attica' is derived from a certain Skiros, a seer from
Eleusis, while Praxion in Book II of his 'Megarika' says it is derived from Skiron.”
 Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 107 = F 107 Costa)

Androtion of Halicarnassus (FGrHist 10 F 14 = F 14 Fowler).

Quest’osmosi che lega il passato presinecistico di Eleusi a quello di Megara può essere scorta anche altrove, nel finto dialogo tra
Solone e Creso, in cui la morte del patriota Tello è connessa a una battaglia ad Eleusi, combattuta dagli ateniesi contro non meglio
precisati confinanti: forse, i megaresi22. Notiamo come proprio Solone sembri posto al centro di una propaganda volta a sancire
l’autorità dell’Atene arcaica sui territori al confine con Megara: ciò è evidente nel caso di Salamina, per cui lo statista avrebbe
declamato la famosa elegia parenetica23. La tradizione, nel tributargli il merito di aver scosso gli Ateniesi in un momento in cui il
possesso dell’isola era incerto, potrebbe forse avergli rapportato in blocco il ricordo delle dinamiche di frontiera tra l’Attica e la
Megaride: in quest’ottica, la decisione erodotea di mettere in bocca a Solone un riferimento ad Eleusi (contesa anch’essa tra Atene e
Megara) appare coerente24. Ricordiamo però che le fonti fanno oscillare tra Solone e Pisistrato la conquista di Salamina25: pur non
esprimendoci sulla cronologia dell’annessione, sottolineiamo come l’esigenza di sistemare la tradizione sugli scontri tra Atene e
Megara, e più in generale sul sinecismo, venga avvertita soprattutto in epoca tirannica. Questo vale anche per le guerre eleusine,
momento fondamentale del processo sinecistico: combattute nell’alto arcaismo (a condizione, ovviamente, che se ne ammetta la
storicità)26, tali guerre potrebbero aver ricevuto nel VI secolo una nuova sottolineatura in ottica antimegarese, in concomitanza con
l’acuirsi delle tensioni per Salamina. La resistenza locale alla propaganda ateniese, memore forse della tradizione che considerava

22
L'espressione "πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι" suggests that Eleusis is the stage (and object) of the conflict, and not that
the Eleusinians are adversaries of the Athenians (Herodotus, I 30.5). Otherwise, Herodotus would have said "πρὸς τοὺς Ἐλευσινίους"
to indicate the Eleusinians as adversaries. For more on this issue, see Padgud 1972, pp. 139-140; Cassola 1975, pp. 31-32; Clinton
1993, p. 110.
23
Solon, fragment 2 G.-P.2 = 1-3 W.2. It is worth remembering that Pausanias (I 40.5) reports a Megarian tradition that also
portrays the taking of Salamis in fraudulent terms. The war for Salamis was also fought using propaganda tools, as demonstrated by
the reworking of the Catalogue of Ships, which subordinates the Salaminian fleet to the Athenian one (Homer, Iliad II 546-558).
Verse 557 mentioning Ajax of Salamis, which was criticized by Zenodotus and Aristarchus, is considered, according to the
Megarian tradition reported by Dieuchidas, an insertion by Solon (FGrHist 485 F 6 = F 6 Piccirilli; see Piccirilli 1975, ad loc.; Irwin
2005, pp. 277-280; Noussia – Fantuzzi 2001 and 2011, on Solon fr. 2 G.-P.2 = 1-3 W.2). According to Slings (2000, p. 57),
Dieuchidas would provide evidence of the attribution of some Pisistratid initiatives, such as the practice of interpolating on
Homeric texts, to Solon. Despite the documented Athenian interventions on Homeric texts in the Archaic period, it is difficult to
hypothesize, following Agallis of Corcyra (Sch. in Hom., Iliad XVIII 490), a reference to the Eleusinian wars in Achilles' shield
(Edwards 1991, pp. 200-233 and 602-614).
24
This is the position of Asheri (Asheri - Antelami 1999, ad Hdt., I 30.5), which, however, identifies Salamis and not Eleusis as
the object of contention.
25
Cf. Herodotus I 59 and Plutarch, Solon 8-10. However, Daimachus (FGrHist 65 F 7) denies Solon's involvement. For a recent
analysis on this subject, see Noussia - Fantuzzi 2001 and 2011 on Solon, fragment 2 G.-P.2 = 1-3 W.2.
26
A Solonian law that designates the Eleusinion as the meeting place of the boule (Andocides, Myst. 111) suggests a
consolidated authority of Athens over the frontier center in the late Archaic period (Clinton 1993, p. 121; not supported by
MacDowell 1962, ad loc.). Further evidence of this is found in a passage from the Athenaion Politeia that describes the Mysteries as
supervised by the Archon Basileus, and not the Eponymous Archon, who is responsible for more recent rituals ([Arist.] Ath. 57.1-2;
cf. Rhodes 1981, ad loc.). Since the Eponymous Archon was first appointed in 683/2 BC, the absorption of the Mysteries into the
Athenian cult system predates this period. As a result, the 8th century BC is the latest possible date for the Athenian conquest of
Eleusis (see Jacoby 1949, p. 34). This is further supported by the absence of any mention of an independent Eleusis in the 7th century
BC in Thucydides' account (Hornblower 1991, pp. 262-265; Clinton 1993, pp. 110-111) and the mythical configuration of the
memory of the wars (Cassola 1975, p. 32; Sabbatucci 1979, pp. 178-183; Simms 1983, p. 197). On the other hand, it is difficult to
justify the dating to the 13th century BC proposed by Padgud (1972, pp. 147-150).
l’Eleusi presinecistica come territorio d’influenza megarese, potrebbe aver trovato la sua espressione nell’Inno a Demetra27, che tace
– come già precisato – il ruolo centrale svolto da Eumolpo e Trittolemo nella retorica pisistratica 28. In questo quadro, il pacifico re
allievo di Demetra viene scelto quale avversario di Eretteo. Nel primo testimone certo di questa tradizione (Euripide) figura anche un
elemento barbaro: Eumolpo è infatti posto a guida di un’armata mista di traci ed eleusini 29.

This osmosis that connects the pre-synoecistic past of Eleusis with that of Megara can also be seen elsewhere, in the
fictitious dialogue between Solon and Croesus, where the death of the patriot Tellus is connected to a battle at Eleusis fought by
the Athenians against unspecified neighbors, possibly the Megarians. It is noteworthy that Solon seems to be placed at the center
of propaganda aimed at asserting the authority of archaic Athens over the territories bordering Megara. This is evident in the
case of Salamis, for which the statesman would have declaimed the famous parenetic elegy. The tradition, in attributing to him
the merit of having rallied the Athenians at a time when the possession of the island was uncertain, may have associated him with
the memory of frontier dynamics between Attica and Megarid. In this light, the decision of Herodotus to place a reference to
Eleusis in the mouth of Solon (also a contested territory between Athens and Megara) appears coherent. However, it should be
noted that sources attribute the conquest of Salamis to both Solon and Pisistratus, and the need to address the tradition of
conflicts between Athens and Megara, and more generally, the synoecism, was especially felt during the tyrannical period. This is
also true for the Eleusinian wars, a crucial moment in the synoecistic process. Fought in the early Archaic period (assuming their
historicity), these wars may have received new emphasis in the 6th century, with an anti-Megarian perspective coinciding with
the escalating tensions over Salamis. The local resistance to Athenian propaganda, perhaps mindful of the tradition that
considered pre-synoecistic Eleusis as a territory under Megarian influence, might have found its expression in the Hymn to
Demeter, which, as previously mentioned, omits the central role played by Eumolpus and Triptolemus in the Pisistratic rhetoric.
In this context, the peaceful king, a disciple of Demeter, is chosen as the opponent of Erechtheus. In the earliest certain source of
this tradition (Euripides), there is also a barbarian element: Eumolpus is placed as the leader of a mixed army of Thracians and
Eleusinians.

the Pisistratic rhetoric (of the 6th century) with anti-Megarian perspective, coinciding in time with the escalating
tensions over Salamis (as Salamis had at that time been in control of the Megarians), seems to have contained
important roles played by Eumolpus and Triptolemus (this is only inferred from what the author says)

there might have been a local resistance to such Athenian propaganda, perhaps because the resistance could have
been mindful of the tradition that considered pre-synoecistic Eleusis as a territory under Megarian influence, → such
caution might have found its expression in the Hymn to Demeter, which portrayed Eumolpus as a peaceful king, a
disciple of Demeter, (and not, perhaps, as the Pisistratic version might have had it, as a Thracian warrior?,)

the author’s mention of the tradition here should be understood as the one turning upon the Eleusinian War; and not
the secondary role played by Eumolpus in the Hymn to Demeter; the earliest certain source of this tradition is
Euripides, which contains the barbarian element. it may be that the author sees this barbarian element to have been
contained in the Pisistratic rhetoric of the 6th century, if, as is likely the case, it involved synoecism in general and
the conflict between Athens and Megara, including the Eleusinian wars.

RE: footnote 25.

27
Indeed, we agree on this point, as Simms (1983, p. 199) suggests. Walton (1952) interprets the silence on the Hymn until the
Hellenistic era as evidence of Athens' attempt to suppress the reactionary text.
28
Cf. supra § 1. this information is consistent with the silence concerning Cerice (cf. infra n. 74), who was the progenitor of the
priestly group that assisted the Eumolpids in the management of the mysteries.
29
Cf. supra § 1.
Hdt. I 59. “... Then, relying on the reputation he had won during his command of the expedition against Megara,
during which the capture of Nisaea was not the least of his distinguished services, he asked the people to give him a
guard....”
Plutarch, Solon 8-10
VIII. Once when the Athenians were tired out with a war which they were waging against the Megarians for the
island of Salamis, they made a law that no one in future, on pain of death, should move, in writing or orally, that the
city take up its contention for Salamis. Solon could not endure the disgrace of this, and when he saw that many of
the young men wanted steps taken to bring on the war, but did not dare to take those steps themselves on account of
the law, he pretended to be out of his head, and a report was given out to the city by his family that he showed signs
of madness. He then secretly composed some elegiac verses, and after rehearsing them so that he could say them by
rote, he sallied out into the market-place of a sudden, with a cap upon his head. After a large crowd had collected
there, he got upon the herald’s stone and recited the poem which begins:—

“Behold in me a herald come from lovely Salamis, With a song in ordered verse instead of a harangue.” <Only six
more verses are preserved (Fragments 1–3, Bergk). They contain reproaches of the Athenians for abandoning
Salamis, and an exhortation to go and fight for it.>

This poem is entitled “Salamis,” and contains a hundred very graceful verses. When Solon had sung it, his friends
began to praise him, and Peisistratus in particular urged and incited the citizens to obey his words. They therefore
repealed the law and renewed the war, putting Solon in command of it.

The popular account of his campaign is as follows. Having sailed to Cape Colias with Peisistratus, he found all the
women of the city there, performing the customary sacrifice to Demeter. He therefore sent a trusty man to Salamis,
who pretended to be a deserter, and bade the Megarians, if they wished to capture the principal women of Athens, to
sail to Colias with him as fast as they could. The Megarians were persuaded by him, and sent off some men in his
ship. But when Solon saw the vessel sailing back from the island, he ordered the women to withdraw, and directed
those of the younger men who were still beardless, arraying themselves in the garments, head-bands, and sandals
which the women had worn, and carrying concealed daggers, to sport and dance on the sea shore until the enemy had
disembarked and the vessel was in their power. This being done as he directed, the Megarians were lured on by what
they saw, beached their vessel, and leapt out to attack women, as they supposed, vying with one another in speed.
The result was that not a man of them escaped, but all were slain, and the Athenians at once set sail and took
possession of the island.

IX. Others, however, say that the island was not taken in this way, but that Solon first received this oracle from the
god at Delphi:—

“The tutelary heroes of the land where once they lived, with sacred rites Propitiate, whom the Asopian plain now
hides in its bosom; There they lie buried with their faces toward the setting sun.”

Thereupon Solon sailed by night to the island and made sacrifices to the heroes Periphemus and Cychreus. Then he
took five hundred Athenian volunteers, a decree having been made that these should be supreme in the government
of the island if they took it, and setting sail with a number of fishing boats convoyed by a thirty-oared ship, he
anchored off the island of Salamis, at a point of land looking towards Euboea. But the Megarians in the city of
Salamis, hearing only an uncertain report of what had happened, armed themselves hurriedly and set out for the
place, at the same time dispatching a ship to spy out the enemy. This ship came near and was captured by Solon,
who put her crew in confinement. Then he manned her with the best of his Athenians, and ordered them to sail
against the city, keeping themselves as much concealed as was feasible. At the same time, with the rest of his
Athenians, he engaged the Megarians on land, and while the fight was still raging, the crew of the ship succeeded in
capturing the city.
Now there seems to be a confirmation of this story in certain ceremonies afterwards established. Namely, an Attic
ship would approach the island in silence at first, then its crew would make an onset with shouts and cries, and one
man in full armour would leap out with a shout of triumph and run to the promontory of Sciradium to inform those
who were attacking by land. Hard by that place is the temple of Enyalius <Ares> which was erected by Solon. For he
conquered the Megarians, and all who were not slain in the battle were released on parole.

X. Notwithstanding all this, the Megarians persisted in their opposition, and both sides inflicted and suffered many
injuries in the war, so that finally they made the Lacedaemonians arbiters and judges of the strife. Accordingly, most
writers say that the fame of Homer favoured the contention of Solon; for after himself inserting a verse into the
Catalogue of Ships, he read the passage at the trial thus:—

“Ajax from Salamis brought twelve ships, And bringing, stationed them near the Athenian hosts.” 2

The Athenians themselves, however, think this an idle tale, and say that Solon proved to the judges that Philaeus
and Eurysaces, the sons of Ajax, became citizens of Athens, made over their island to them, and took up their
residence in Attica, one at Brauron, and the other at Μ elite; and they have a township named after Philaeus, namely
Philaïdae, to which Peisistratus belonged. They say, too, that Solon, wishing to refute the claims of the Megarians
still further, made the point that the dead on the island of Salamis were not buried after the Megarian, but after the
Athenian fashion. For the Megarians bury their dead facing the east, but the Athenians facing the west. However,
Hereas the Megarian denies this, and says that the Megarians also turn the faces of their dead to the west. And what
is still more important than this, he says that the Athenians use one tomb for each body, whereas the Megarians (like
the early inhabitants of Salamis) place three or four bodies in one tomb. However, they say that Solon was further
supported by sundry Pythian oracles, in which the god spoke of Salamis as Ionian. This case was decided by five
Spartans, Critolaïdas, Amompharetus, Hypsechidas, Anaxilas, and Cleomenes.
 III. FROM AUTOCHTHONOUS TO STRANGER: GENEALOGICAL QUESTIONS

Toepffer considerò l’elemento trace un’introduzione originale di Euripide 30, ma esso, a ben vedere, risulta frutto di una rielaborazione
tardoarcaica del mito, fondata – come intendiamo dimostrare – sulle genealogie di Eumolpo. Un cambiamento si produce nel
passaggio tra l’epoca arcaica e l’epoca classica, come dimostra la ceramica di inizio V secolo 31: il re privo di genealogia del testo
pseudomerico comincia ad essere rappresentato, insieme agli altri sovrani di Eleusi, quale figlio di Posidone 32. Non è difficile notare
come tale aspetto si sviluppi quasi in contemporanea con la ripresa del mito delle guerre eleusine in età tirannica. Resta da definire in
che fase compaia l’elemento barbaro.

Toepffer considered the Thracian element as an original addition by Euripides, but upon closer examination, it appears to be the
result of a late archaic reworking of the myth, based on the genealogies of Eumolpus. A change occurs between the archaic and
classical periods, as demonstrated by the early 5th-century pottery31: the king without a genealogy in the pseudomeric text starts
to be depicted, along with other kings of Eleusis, as the son of Poseidon32. It is not difficult to notice that this aspect develops
almost simultaneously with the revival of the myth of the Eleusinian wars in the tyrannical period. The remaining question is to
determine at what stage the barbarian element appears.

 Euripides (c. 480-406 BC)

 Plutarch’s citation of F 369.1 in his Life of Nicias suggests that Erechtheus was performed during the Athenian–Spartan
truce of 423–2, so probably at the Dionysia of 422, but this literary allusion may be historically inaccurate, and the
metrical evidence suggests a date a few years later; there are probable allusions to Erechtheus in Aristophanes’ plays of
411 (Lysistrata 1135, cf. F 363; Women at the Thesmophoria 120, cf. F 369d), and in the possibly earlier Horae (‘Seasons’: F
580, 586 PCG, cf. Eur. F 357, 366). The play may have been inspired by the planning or building of the Erechtheum in this
period (cf. F 370.90ff. with note), but the chronological guidance this provides is at best vague. At any rate the play can
confidently be classed with other ‘patriotic’ plays of the Peloponnesian War period, especially the extant Children of
Heracles and Suppliant Women, and its myth with others in which Athens was saved from foreign aggression by the self-
sacrifice of a king (Codrus) or a group of noble daughters (those of Leos, and those of Hyacinthus with whom the
Erechtheids are actually identified in F 370.73–4). It seems unlikely that in dramatizing a myth of this kind Euripides
presented it in an ambivalent light (as Lacore 1995–6 amongst others has argued), although he no doubt emphasized the
tragic character of the episode and its human costs.

 "LIMC IV (1988), «Eumolpos», pp. 56-59" is a reference to a specific entry in the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae
Classicae (LIMC), Volume IV, published in 1988. The entry is titled "Eumolpos" and can be found on pages 56 to 59 of that
volume. The LIMC is a comprehensive reference work that catalogues and analyzes ancient Greek and Roman mythological
and iconographic material. In this case, the entry would likely provide information and images related to the figure of
Eumolpos in ancient art and mythology.

 I apologize for any confusion. There seems to be a misunderstanding. The word "pseudomeric" is not directly related to the
text of Hecataeus in the given context. The term "pseudomeric text" seems to refer to a text that is falsely attributed to

30
Toepffer (1889, pp. 24-80) takes this position, which is rejected by Carrara (1977, pp. 18-19) and Simms (1983, pp. 202-203),
but is adopted by Martínez Díez (1976, pp. 228-229). It is worth noting that according to Toepffer, the Thracians should not be
identified with the historical ethnicity but rather with a mythical population in Boeotia.
31
LIMC IV (1988), «Eumolpos», pp. 56-59.
32
Indeed, Cercione (Choeril., TrGF I, 2 F 1; Sch. in E., Phoen. 150) and Hippothoon (Paus. I 5.2; I 39.3; Hyg., Fab. 187; Hsch.
ι 30 [s.u. Ἱπποώντειον]) are mentioned in this context. For further information, refer to Stanley Spaeth's work in 1991, p. 341.
Pausanias (I 38.6) also recalls the construction of the Temple of Poseidon Pater at Eleusis.
 someone, where "pseudomeric" is derived from "pseudo-" meaning false, and "meric" could possibly be related to "meros,"
meaning part or portion.
 In the context provided, "pseudomeric text" is used to refer to a text that may have been falsely attributed to a certain author,
possibly Euripides or another figure, rather than Hecataeus. The passage discusses how the element of the Thracian
connection to Eumolpus could be a later addition to the myth, and it contrasts different sources and interpretations, including
those of Euripides, Ecateo, and others.
 If you need further clarification or have additional questions, please feel free to ask.

Toepffer betrachtete das Element der Thraker als eine originale Einführung von Euripides, aber es stellt sich bei genauerer
Betrachtung als ein spätarchaisches Umarbeitung des Mythos heraus, die auf den Genealogien von Eumolpus basiert. Eine
Veränderung tritt im Übergang von der archaischen zur klassischen Zeit auf, wie die Keramik des frühen 5. Jahrhunderts zeigt:
Der genealogielose König im pseudomorischen Text wird zusammen mit anderen Herrschern von Eleusis als Sohn des
Poseidon dargestellt. Es ist nicht schwer zu erkennen, wie dieses Element nahezu zeitgleich mit der Wiederbelebung des Mythos
der Eleusinischen Kriege in der tyrannischen Zeit entstanden ist. Es bleibt zu klären, in welcher Phase das barbarische Element
auftritt.

Pausanias 1.5.2
The eponymoi – this is the name given to them – are Hippothoon son of Poseidon and Alope daughter of Cercyon, Antiochus,
one of the children of Heracles borne to him by Meda daughter of Phylas, thirdly, Ajax son of Telamon, and to the Athenians
belongs Leos, who is said to have given up his daughters, at the command of the oracle, for the safety of the commonwealth.
Among the eponymoi is Erechtheus, who conquered the Eleusinians in battle, and killed their general, Immaradus the son of
Eumolpus. There is Aegeus also and Oeneus the bastard son of Pandion, and Acamas, one of the children of Theseus.

In der italienischen Sprache wird das Adjektiv "pseudomerico" normalerweise in einem akademischen oder literarischen Kontext
verwendet, um auf etwas hinzuweisen, das in Bezug auf den Mythos oder die Geschichte von Eumolpos oder den Eleusinischen
Mysterien als nicht authentisch, nachgeahmt oder möglicherweise falsch angesehen wird. Es kann sich auf Texte, Geschichten,
Überlieferungen oder Interpretationen beziehen, die nicht von den ursprünglichen Quellen stammen oder als unzuverlässig
angesehen werden.
In ähnlicher Weise wie im Deutschen, wo "pseudomerisch" auf eine Fälschung oder nachgeahmte Form hinweisen kann, kann
auch im Italienischen "pseudomerico" darauf hindeuten, dass es sich um einen Text oder eine Darstellung handelt, die nicht als
authentisch oder original betrachtet wird und möglicherweise von späteren Autoren oder Gelehrten stammt. Es wird oft in
wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen oder literarischen Analysen verwendet, um solche nicht-authentischen oder nachgeahmten
Elemente zu kennzeichnen.

"Eine Veränderung tritt im Übergang von der archaischen zur klassischen Zeit auf, wie die Keramik des frühen 5. Jahrhunderts
zeigt: Der genealogielose König im pseudomorischen Text wird zusammen mit anderen Herrschern von Eleusis als Sohn des
Poseidon dargestellt." Als ich diese Sätze verstehe: die Keramik des frühen 5. Jahrhundert zeigt eine Veränderung im Gange, und
diese Veränderung muss als das angenommen werden--soweit ich es verstehe--dass eine oder mehrere Figur(en) (vermütlich auf
der Keramik) als der Sohn des Poseidons dargestellt zu sein angefangen hat. Diese Figur ist aber der, wer in dem
pseudomerischen bzw. pseudomorischen (in der Bedeutung von zweifelhafter Authentizität irgendwie) Text als König ohne
Genealogie irgendwie aufgetreten ist (was genau den Zeitpunkt solches Auftretens ausmacht, scheint ohne weiteres schwer
festzustellen). Falls die Darstellung dieser Königfigur, von welcher hier die Rede ist--und weiter ist es in Betracht zu ziehen, dass
der König mit dem bestimmten Artikelwort in dem Satz auftritt--in einem späteren Text stattgefunden haben, beispielsweise in
dem zweiten Jahrhundert nach Christus (A.D.), dann wird der Inhalt des Aussages ganz blass, d.h. etwaige König--ob dies
Eumolpus sein muss, kann dahingestellt sein--als Sohn des Poseidons auf der Keramik des frühen fünften Jahrhunderten vor
Christus dargetan gewesen. Was halten Sie auf meine Auffassung, können Sie etwas zusätzliches beitragen?
 Ihre Interpretation des Textes ist weitgehend korrekt. Lassen Sie mich Ihre Auffassung zusammenfassen und ergänzen:
Der Text spricht von einer Veränderung, die im Übergang von der archaischen zur klassischen Zeit stattgefunden hat. Diese
Veränderung zeigt sich auf der Keramik des frühen 5. Jahrhunderts. Es wird erwähnt, dass auf dieser Keramik eine oder mehrere
Figuren als Söhne des Poseidons dargestellt werden. Diese Figuren sind genealogielose Könige, die in einem pseudomerischen
oder pseudomorischen Text auftreten.
"Pseudomerisch" oder "pseudomorisch" bedeutet in diesem Kontext, dass der Text oder die Darstellung zweifelhafter
Authentizität ist und möglicherweise nicht auf den ursprünglichen Quellen basiert. Es ist also möglich, dass diese Figuren in
einem späteren Text als Söhne des Poseidons dargestellt wurden.
Ihre Überlegung, dass die Darstellung dieser Königfigur(en) in einem späteren Text stattgefunden haben könnte, ist korrekt.
Wenn die Darstellung in einem Text des 2. Jahrhunderts nach Christus stattgefunden hätte, würde dies bedeuten, dass die Könige
möglicherweise als Söhne des Poseidons auf der Keramik des frühen 5. Jahrhunderts vor Christus erschienen sind. Dies würde
die Aussage schwächen, dass die Darstellung dieser Könige auf der Keramik aus der klassischen Zeit stammt.
Es ist wichtig, die historischen und literarischen Kontexte sorgfältig zu berücksichtigen, um zu verstehen, welche Figuren auf der
Keramik dargestellt werden und wie sich die Darstellungen im Laufe der Zeit verändert haben könnten. Die Deutung von solchen
komplexen historischen Texten erfordert oft eine sorgfältige Untersuchung der verfügbaren Quellen und historischen Nachweise.

Cercione, also known as Choerilus, was an ancient Greek poet and playwright. He was born in the 5th century BCE and was a
contemporary of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Cercione was one of the earliest tragic poets and is believed to have
written about 35 tragedies, although none of his works have survived to the present day.
Cercione's plays were performed at the City Dionysia, one of the major festivals in ancient Athens dedicated to the god
Dionysus and featuring dramatic competitions. He was highly regarded in his time and was praised by the ancient scholars for his
poetic talents. However, due to the lack of surviving texts, not much is known about the content or style of his plays.
As with many ancient playwrights, Cercione's works have been lost over the centuries, and only fragments and references to his
plays are found in the writings of later authors. Despite the lack of extant plays, Cercione holds historical significance as one of
the early contributors to the development of Greek tragic drama.

In the following text: 1) il re privo di genealogia del testo pseudomerico comincia ad essere rappresentato, insieme agli altri sovrani di
Eleusi, quale figlio di Posidone; 2) the king without a genealogy in the pseudomeric text starts to be depicted, along with other kings
of Eleusis, as the son of Poseidon; 3) Der genealogielose König im pseudomorischen Text wird zusammen mit anderen Herrschern
von Eleusis als Sohn des Poseidon dargestellt. Are the figures that are being depicted as the son of Poseidon one (singular) or does it
also include those other kings of Eleusis, and hence, plural?

The figures being depicted as the son of Poseidon are plural, including not only the king without a genealogy in the pseudomeric text
but also other kings of Eleusis. So, the correct translation would be:
"The kings without a genealogy in the pseudomeric text start to be depicted, along with other kings of Eleusis, as the sons of
Poseidon."
RE: footnote 31. notes or first impressions on LIMC IV (1998), «Eumolpos», pp. 56-59.

From the description (15) found in Pausanias 1.27.4, the theme is looked for in surviving monuments. (As for what appears to be the
citation of Pausanias 9.30.1, I couldn’t locate it.) The object of the description, however, not surviving, and ‘echoes’ or ‘copies’
not yet having been satisfactorily proven; the description—at least insofar as the latter half of it is concerned; the connection of this
to Lysimache is not clear—concerns large bronze figures of men facing each other for a fight, one of whom they call Erechtheus, the
other Eumolpus, says Pausanias, but he goes on to mention by a way of correction that the one who was killed by Erechtheus was
Immaradus (i.e. Ismarus), the son of Eumolpus, and not Eumolpus himself.
From such a description, an inference is made to the Pelike 19, which depicts a youthful warrior riding on a horse next to his
father Poseidon, fighting against Athens. Pelike 19 stems from 420-410 B.C., and the subject matter thus can be tracked back to
Euripides’ Erechtheus, a dramatic play which dealt with the same mythical subject matter.
A young warrior portrayed in one vase that stems from around 480 B.C. (20), depicts him as holding weapons in one
hand and a libation bowl in the other, and he is situated on the other edge of the vase across from Keleos seated on a throne; and both
seem to be present by the familiar scene of sending away of Triptolemos. Next to a figure (whom we may tentatively assume as being
Eumolpus) stands a young woman holding torches, and next to her, a winged female who has filled the offering bowl for him. And in
respect of the vase (20), something along the following lines could have been implied, the following being the tales connected with
the Kekropidai, and which I constructed from Wikipedia entries:
Eumolopus wird bewußt in die Szene der anderen Schalenseite einbezogen, in der die Verfolgung der
Kekropstöchter dargestellt ist, und diese Einbeziehung geschieht durch den Hinterleib der Schlange.... vielleicht die
Schlange von dem ‘forbidden chest or basket‘ carrying Erechtheus II (a.k.a. Erichthonius), der Gründer der polis. Der
Kekropidai, der Töchter des Kekrops I, der erster König von Athen, waren es verboten gewesen, in dem ‘basket’
einzuschauen.
But, the body of the snake, if it be not related to Kekrops I, the first king of Athens, then it could possibly be related
to the snake placed in the chest or basket in which Erechtheus (a.k.a. Erichthonius)—the founder of the polis, often referred
to later as Poseidon Erechtheus—had been placed by Athena, and into which the daughters of Kekrops I were forbidden to
look into. But this Erechtheus (I) is still somewhat removed from the second Erechtheus who was the husband of Praxithea,
and it is this latter Erechtheus (II) that fought Eumolpus in the Eleusinian War. Between the first and second Erechtheus,
there seems to be, at least according to some accounts, Erichthonius—whom Plutarch conflated with the first Erechtheus but
who may or may not have been the same person—as king, in addition to Pandion I, who was the husband of Zeuxippe. And it
was Pandion I and Zeuxippe that begot Erechtheus II. Hence, the snake or the daughters of Cecrops (I) (Kekropidai) do not
have any direct implication either in the story or the generation time period in which Eumolpus is placed or when the
Eleusinian War was supposed to have taken place.
If this indeed is a depiction of Eumolpus and the vase does stem from around 480 B.C., this piece of evidence might be the earliest one
we have of Eumolpus being depicted both as a warrior, not necessarily of Thracian background, and as a religious figure, whether or
not specifically as the first hierophant. And this would constitute evidence earlier than Euripides’ Erechtheus. And here, Eumolpus
does not seem to be depicted as a king, but stands across from Keleos who seems to have been depicted as the king of Eleusis.
Leaving aside the tale surrounding the dispatch of Triptolemus—the content with which I am not yet familiar—it is perhaps worth
recalling that above, it was stated that the echoes (Nachklänge) or copies (Kopien) of the object of Pausania’s description have not yet
been satisfactorily proven yet. I don’t know if the absence of sastisfactory proof of ‘echoes’ of the described object should be
understood to apply as well in respect of the listed item 20, so that some attitude of mental reservation would be apt in judging the
strength of the support claimed in the commentary with respect to the same item.
As for 21, the connection between Kore facing Demeter holding child or infant Dionysus in her lap, and Eumolpus, is
unclear; perhaps something can be found; but as of yet, it is not immediately clear.
The possibility of Eumolpus being depicted on the west pediment of the Periclean Parthenon seems to be largely independent
of whether the artifacts 19 and 20, stemming from the early 5th century B.C., do indeed depict Eumolpus. If they do indeed depict
Eumolpus as a soldier or warrior, they nonetheless carry with them extraneous elements that do not seem to be inherently connected
to the mythical cycles concerning Eumolopus, whether in their early or later forms.

As for “the revival of the myth concerning the Eleusinian War in the tyrannical period, “ this is an assertion made by the author in her
discussion, and which seems to have had its precursor in the preceding paragraph in the previous section in her discussion of the
Pisistratic rhetoric of the sixth century. These are underlying assumption or assertions that run implicit in her discussion which have
yet to come to explicit explanation by her thus far. That it was the policy of the tyrants, along with the cultural aspects of such policy
of the sixth century Athens, that led to the early fifth century purported depiction of Eumolpus as an warrior in some of the artifacts
has not yet been properly buttressed in my opinion. As to how to view artifacts 19 and 20, which stem from the early fifth century, it
is not entirely clear; the dates seem to correspond closely to the immediate aftermath of the Greco-Persian War than the period of the
tyrants.

Whatever may be the case with respect to latter part of the fifth century after Euripides’ Erechtheus, depiction of characters as son of
Poseidon does not seem to occur in any of the artifacts from the early fifth century described in the referenced material (LIMC IV). It
is merely possible that Eumolpus was depicted as a warrior in those, while the attribute of his being the son of Poseidon does not
occur until 420-410 B.C. (cf. 19)
Strabone riferisce di una tradizione che fa dell’Attica un antico possedimento dei «traci al seguito di Eumolpo» 33. Quest’informazione
è fornita in un passo – interamente derivato, con ogni probabilità, da Ecateo di Mileto 34 – che presenta la Grecia antica come possesso
barbaro. Se la notizia sull’Attica fosse anch’essa di Ecateo, Euripide perderebbe il primato quale testimone della tradizione che pone
Eumolpo a capo di soldati traci. Sarebbe tuttavia errato leggere in Ecateo l’idea di uno scontro di civiltà tra greci e barbari: un
approccio, questo, più congeniale ad Euripide. Segnaliamo, a riguardo, che Sonnino35 vede in Ecateo la fonte di una tradizione36 in
cui Eumolpo affronta Ione: l’eroe, ateniese solo per parte di madre, sarebbe stato poi sostituito da Eretteo allo scopo di eliminare la
difficoltà di un re semi-straniero a difesa di Atene, in linea con la mentalità periclea ostile ai figli di coppie miste 37.

Strabo reports a tradition that portrays Attica as an ancient possession of "Thracians under the leadership of Eumolpus." 33 This
information is found in a passage that likely originates from Hecataeus of Miletus34, presenting ancient Greece as a possession of
barbarians. If the information about Attica is also from Hecataeus, Euripides would lose his primacy as a witness to the
tradition that places Eumolpus as the leader of Thracian soldiers. However, it would be incorrect to interpret Hecataeus as
proposing a clash of civilizations between Greeks and barbarians, an approach more in line with Euripides. Sonnino sees
Hecataeus as the source of a tradition36 in which Eumolpus confronts Ion: the hero, being only half Athenian by his mother,
would later be replaced by Erechtheus to avoid the difficulty of having a semi-foreign king defending Athens, in accordance
with the Periclean mindset hostile to the children of mixed couples.37

It seems to be the contention related by the author that it might have originally been Ion who confronted Eumolpus, it being told that
Sonnino sees Hecataeus as the source of that tradition. And this hero, Ion, was later replaced by Erechtheus as a result of Periclean
mindset hostile to the children of mixed couples. From this perspective, it is not Ion who is attached to the existing framework and

33
Str. VII 7.1.
34
Hecat., FGrHist 1 F 119. The information related to Attica would be Strabo's according to Carrara (1975, pp. 124-130 and
1977, p. 18), and borrowed from another source according to Jacoby (ad loc.). However, Sonnino's proposal seems more convincing,
as he rejects the separation, through punctuation, of the phrase "τὰ ἐντὸς Ἰσθμοῦ καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς δέ" advanced by Carrara (1975, pp.
127-129) following Meineke (1895), and rather agrees with Jacoby's position (ad loc.), which reads the text continuously. Sonnino
connects the section on the Peloponnese - certainly attributed to Hecataeus (... Ἑκαταῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ Μιλήσιος περὶ τῆς Πελοποννήσου
φησὶν διότι πρὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ᾤκησαν αὐτὴν βάρβαροι ...) - with the section related to Attica, thus attributing the testimony on
Eumolpus to the latter (Sonnino 2010, pp. 45-47).
35
Sonnino 2010, pp. 45-58.
36
Having its witnesses in Conon, FGrHist 26 F 1 [XXVII], and Strabo, Geography VIII 7.1.
37
On the Periclean law regarding citizenship, see Ar., Au. 1650; Arist., Pol. 1238a34; [Arist.], Ath. 36.4; Plu., Per. 37; Ael., VH
12.24. The discourse on autochthony and citizenship is central in classical Athens: Athenian presence in the region is considered more
legitimate than that of other Greeks due to their birth from the land of Cecrops and Erichthonius (Kearns 1989, pp. 110-119; Parker
1990, pp. 193-195). Erichthonius (born on the Acropolis) corresponds to Erechtheus (died on the Acropolis): according to Loraux
(1981, pp. 29 and 35-72), these two figures embody a male type of autochthony, which has been recently integrated, by Detienne
(2003, pp. 39-43) and Calame (2011, pp. 221-221 and 234-238), with the female autochthony of Praxithea, the mother of the
Erechtheids. Tragedy will later purify the tradition about an Ion by making him the son of Apollo (E., Io 1468, 1510, 1553, 1595,
1606), while historiography will make the hero a son of Xuthus and an ally of Erechtheus against Eumolpus (Philoch., FGrHist 328 F
13 = F 13 Costa). Historiography also places Forbantes, the son of Poseidon (for more on this, see Berti 2009, pp. 189-192), alongside
Eumolpus (and against Erechtheus), thus making the Eleusinian wars a matter concerning the descendants of the god (cf. Hellanic.,
FGrHist 4 F 40 = F 163 Ambaglio = F 40 Fowler; Andro Hal, FGrHist 10 F 1 = F 1 Fowler). Alongside this connotation of Forbantes,
another conflicting one arises, which obliterates the link with Poseidon and makes the hero the charioteer of Theseus, as well as the
co-author of the abduction of the Amazon queen (Pherecyd., FGrHist 3 F 152 = 23 Dolcetti; this passage from Pherecydes is
transmitted by a scholion to Pindar, N. V 89b, where other versions characterize Forbantes as the introducer of gymnastics to Athens,
through Athena or Theseus).
characters that comprise the story told of the Eleusinian War, but Ion was in it originally, so to speak, as an eponym of the Ionians,
and the character of Ion was replaced through his grandfather Erechtheus.

If Hecataeus is the source of Ion’s role in the Eleusinian War, he also happens to be the source of the tradition that portrayed Attica as
an ancient possession of Thracians under the leadership of Eumolpus.

In a footnote to one of the translations of Strabo, it is said that Eumolpus took possession of Eleusis around 1400 B.C., and it
is he who is ascribed with instituting the mysteries of Ceres. It is stated in a Wikipedia entry that the clan Ceryxes formed a
religious clan in Athens, comparable to and alongside the Eumolpids in Eleusis. Ceryx, originally having had the meaning
analogous to that seen through the figure of the ‘cupbearer’ within the circle of rulers during the Homeric times, will later
become heralds with functions similar to those of ambassadors, proclaimers, and summoners; and they carry the herald’s staff
called kerykeion, like how the rulers are often portrayed as carrying the scepter.

With respect to Ion’s role in the War, Philochorus, coming much later than Hecataeus in time, connected Ion’s involvement in the war
with the festival of “Boedromia”.

Βοηθω: 1. act. auf ein Geschrei herbeieilen, zu Hilfe eilen, helfen, beistehen, beispringen, ... a. ins Feld rücken, ausziehen; 2.
pass. βοηθοῦμαι mir wird geholfen

δρομος. 1. Lauf, das Laufen, in Galopp, in Eile.... bildlich, etwa: um Sein od. Nichtsein ringen. 2. Wettlauf, Wettrennen. 3.
Platz zum Rennen od. Laufen, Rennbahn. ... Rennen, .....

βοηθεῖν πολλῆι σπουδῆι. "to help eagerly" or "to assist with great zeal."

Philochorus F. 13. (33; 34) HARPOKR. s. v. Βοηδρόμια Δημοσθένης Φιλιππικοῖς (3, 31). ἑορτή τις ᾿Αθήνησιν οὕτω
καλουμένη, ἥν φησι Φιλόχορος ἐν β νενομίσθαι, καθ᾿ ἣν ἡμέραν Ἴων ὁ Ξούθου ἐβοήθησε σπουδῆι πολλῆι πολεμουμένοις
᾿Αθηναίοις ὑπὸ Εὐμόλπου τοῦ Ποσει δῶνος, Ερεχθέως βασιλεύοντος βοηδρομεῖν γὰρ τὸ βοηθεῖν ὠνομάζετο, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ
μάχην δραμεῖν.

Harpokration under the entry ""Boedromia" in Demosthenes' Philippics. (3, 31)." A festival in Athens so called, which
Philochorus says in book 2 is to be considered a νενομίσθαι (a festival day), on which day Ion, the son of Xouthus,
hastened with great eagerness to aid the Athenians who were being fought against by Eumolpus, the son of Poseidon,
while Erechtheus was reigning. For βοηδρομεῖν (boedromein) was the term used to denote aiding, meaning "to run to the
battle."

1. did Philochorus consider Ion to be the grandson of Erechtheus, the ruler of the Athenians? yes, he could not have not known
2. where did Ion come from, when he came to Athens to help his grandfather?
a. Is just possible that his Ion (like the Ion of Strabo’s source?), when coming to the help of the Athenians, reigned in the
Tetrapolis, one of the Twelve Towns (F 94).
b. But it seems more likely that he came from Achaia, as in Pausan. 7, I, where he is killed in the battle and buried in the
deme Potamoi
3. what was the pre-Herodotean tradition about the military general Ion?
4. Age (die Aktualität der Sage vom ... in ...
a. how old is the aition—the connection of the Boedromian legend to the origin of the festival?
b. how old is the Boedromian legend itself?
5. the connection
 a. with the sacrifice of the daughters either of Kekrops or Erechtheus (F 105)?
b. Demeter’s arrival in Attica (is usually placed under the reign of Erechtheus and viewed by Jacoby to have preceded thw
war, perhaps only by a few years)
6. Ion introduced the Apollon Patroos (a cult, perhaps practiced in the Ionian settlements in Asia Minor, but also in the
mainland?)
7. when did the war take place?
 Euseb. a. Abr. 650 (var. 648 A; 642 Arm.) ὁ κατὰ Εὔμολπον πόλεμος ἀφ᾽ οὗ οἱ Εὐμολπίδαι ᾿Αθήνησιν; and others.
["the war against Eumolpus, starting from the 28th year of Erechtheus, in which the Eumolpids came to Athens."]
 Euseb. a. Abr. 684 (var. 683/7) which moves Ion down to the fifteenth year of the second Kekrops (the second Kekrops
does not appear in the Parian Marbles) Ion vir fortis (gewesener feldherr der Athener Arm στρατηγὸς γενόμενος
᾿Αθηναίων) ex suo vocabulo Athenienses Iones vocavit

Antiochos-Pherekydes 333 F 2 (a later forger of Attic primeval history possibly neglecting the whole legend)

Strabo VII. 7.1.

THESE are the nations, bounded by the Danube and by the Illyrian and Thracian mountains, which are worthy of record.
They occupy the whole coast of the Adriatic Sea, beginning from the recess of the gulf, and the left side, as it is called, of the
Euxine Sea, from the river Danube to Byzantium.

The southern parts of the above-mentioned mountainous tract, and the countries which follow, lying below it, remain to be
described. Among these are Greece, and the contiguous barbarous country extending to the mountains.

Hecatæus of Miletus says of the Peloponnesus, that, before the time of the Greeks, it was inhabited by barbarians. Perhaps
even the whole of Greece was, anciently, a settlement of barbarians, if we judge from former accounts. For Pelops brought
colonists from Phrygia into the Peloponnesus, which took his name; Danaus <B. C. 1570. He was king of Argos.>
brought colonists from Egypt; Dryopes, Caucones, Pelasgi, Leleges, and other barbarous nations, partitioned among
themselves the country on this side of the isthmus. <The Peloponnesus, which before the arrival of Pelops was called Apia.>
The case was the same on the other side of the isthmus; for Thracians, under their leader Eumolpus, <Eumolpus took
possession of Eleusis B. C. 1400. He is said to have there instituted the mysteries of Ceres.> took possession of Attica;
Tereus of Daulis in Phocæa; the Phœnicians, with their leader Cadmus, <Cadmus, son of Agenor, king of Tyre, arrived in
Bœotia B. C. 1550. The citadel of Thebes was named after him.> occupied the Cadmeian district; Aones, and Temmices, and
Hyantes, Bœotia. Pindar says, ‘there was a time when the Bœotian people were called Syes.’ <Sues, σύας, swine, in allusion
to their ignorance.> Some names show their barbarous origin, as Cecrops, Codrus, Œclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus.
<There were two kings of Athens named Cecrops. The first of this name, first king of Attica and Bœotia, came from Egypt.
Cecrops II. was the 7th, and Codrus the 17th and last king of Attica. Strabo informs us, b. x. c. i. § 3, that Œclus and Cothus
were brothers of Ellops, who founded Ellopia in Eubœa, and gave the name to the whole island.> Thracians, Illyrians, and
Epirotæ are settled even at present on the sides of Greece. Formerly the territory they possessed was more extensive,
although even now the barbarians possess a large part of the country, which, without dispute, is Greece. Macedonia is
occupied by Thracians, as well as some parts of Thessaly; the country above Acarnania and Ætolia, by Thesproti, Cassopæi,
Amphilochi, Molotti, and Athamanes, Epirotic tribes.

Hecat., FGrHist 1 F 119. Strabon VII 7, 1: Ἑκαταῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ Μιλήσιος περὶ τῆς Πελοποννήσου φησίν, διότι πρὸ τῶν
Ἑλλήνων ὤικησαν αὐτὴν βάρβαροι. σχεδὸν δέ τι καὶ ἡ σύμπασα Ἑλλὰς κατοικία βαρβάρων ὑπῆρξε τὸ παλαιόν, ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν
λογιζομένοις τῶν μνημονευομένων· Πέλοπος μὲν ἐκ τῆς Φρυγίας ἐπαγομένου λαὸν εἰς τὴν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κληθεῖσαν
Πελοπόννησον, Δαναοῦ δὲ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, Δρυόπων τε καὶ Καυκώνων καὶ Πελασγῶν καὶ Λελέγων καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων
κατανειμαμένων //// τὰ ἐντὸς Ισϑμοῦ καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς δέ· τὴν μὲν γὰρ ᾿Αττικὴν οἱ μετὰ Εὐμόλπου Θρᾶικες ἔσχον, τῆς δὲ
Φωκίδος τὴν Δαυλίδα Τηρεύς, τὴν δὲ Καδμείαν οἱ μετὰ Κάδμου Φοίνικες, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Βοιωτίαν Ἄονες καὶ Τέμμικες καὶ
 Ὕαντες (ὡς δὲ Πίνδαρός φησιν [F 83] ἦν ὅτε σύας Βοιώτιον ἔθνος ἔνεπον”). καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων δὲ ἐνίων τὸ βάρβαρον
ἐμφαίνεται· Κέκροψ καὶ Κόδρος καὶ Αἶκλος καὶ Κόϑος καὶ Δρύμας καὶ Κρίνακος. οἱ δὲ Θρᾶικες καὶ Ἰλλυριοὶ καὶ Ἠπειρῶται
καὶ μέχρι νῦν ἐν πλευραῖς εἰσιν· ἔτι μέντοι μᾶλλον πρότερον ἢ νῦν, ὅπου γε καὶ τῆς ἐν τῶι παρόντι Ἑλλάδος ἀναντιλέκτως
οὔσης [τὴν] πολλὴν οἱ βάρβαροι ἔχουσι Μακεδονίαν μὲν Θρᾶικες καί τινα μέρη τῆς Θετταλίας, ᾿Ακαρνανίας δε καὶ
Αἰτωλίας (τὰ) ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ (Κλασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη.

Hecataeus of Miletus says about the Peloponnese that it was inhabited by barbarians before the Greeks. Almost the entire
Greece was once a possession of barbarians, considering the accounts they mention. Pelops brought a people from Phrygia
and gave his name to the Peloponnese, and Danaus came from Egypt, and Dryops, Caucones, Pelasgians, Leleges, and other
such people settled both within and outside the Isthmus. The Athenians were held by the Thracians under Eumolpus, the
Dorians possessed Phocis, and the Phoenicians under Cadmus held Cadmeia. The Aeons, Temmices, and Hyantes held
Boeotia, as Pindar says (Fragment 83), "Once upon a time the Boeotian nation was called swine." Some names also indicate
the barbarian origin, like Cecrops, Codrus, Aeclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. The Thracians, Illyrians, and Epirotes are
still on the fringes. In the past, even more than now, where there are still parts of present-day Greece that are indisputably
possessed by barbarians, the Thracians hold Macedonia, some parts of Thessaly, the Aetolians, upper Thesprotians,
Claussopaeans, Amphilochoi, Molottians, and Athamanes, which are Epirus' tribes.

1. How did Pelasgians become Hellenes?

2. De Graecorum Fabulis ad Thraces Pertinentibus

Se già Ecateo faceva di Eumolpo un guerriero, dovremmo constatare la contemporaneità di questa tradizione con quella che fa
discendere l’eroe da Posidone. Tale discendenza, che costituisce per il Sonnino il discrimine tra i due Eumolpi, fornisce invece a
nostro parere la chiave per sintetizzare i due aspetti (quello misterico e quello militare) in un’unica figura 38: difficilmente, infatti, la
tradizione locale eleusina fu immune alle già sottolineate dinamiche di frontiera tra l’Attica e la Megaride, in cui l’opposizione tra
Posidone e Atena giocò un ruolo di prim’ordine. Le connessioni genealogiche che ci apprestiamo ad esaminare sembrano tra l’altro
confermare questa lettura. Procediamo con ordine.

And already Hecataeus <550-476> made Eumolpus a warrior, we should note the contemporaneity of this tradition with the
one that traces the hero's descent from Poseidon. This lineage, which constitutes, according to Sonnino, the distinguishing
factor between the two Eumolpuses, provides, in our opinion, the key to synthesizing the two aspects (the mystical and the
military) into a single figure: hardly, in fact, was the local Eleusinian tradition immune to the aforementioned dynamics of
the border between Attica and Megaris, in which the opposition between Poseidon and Athena played a leading role. The
genealogical connections that we are about to examine seem to confirm this interpretation. Let us proceed in order.

Punto di partenza per l’analisi genealogica sul nostro eroe è la discendenza da Chione e Orizia: le due figure sono, rispettivamente,
madre e nonna dell’eroe. Orizia, poi, è figlia di Eretteo39. All’unione tra Chione e Posidone si allude già nell’Eretteo: un frammento
della tragedia trasmette una localizzazione etiope40, forse connessa al salvataggio da parte di Posidone del piccolo Eumolpo gettato in
mare dalla madre41. Chione nasce, insieme a Zete, Calaide e Cleopatra, dal matrimonio tra Orizia e il vento Borea 42: non stupisce che
χιών, la ‘neve’, sia associata a un vento nordico, conosciuto come trace già dalla tradizione omerica ed esiodea 43. La notizia

38
Cf. supra n. 9.
39
Only the scholiast on Aristophanes' "Peace" 211-215 identifies Cecrops as the father of the maiden.
40
E., TrGF V.1, 24, 349 F: Αἰθιοπίαν νιν ἐξέσωσ’ ἐπὶ χθόνα.
41
L’episodio è narrato estesamente in [Apollod.], III 15.4. La notizia della nascita da Chione e dal dio sarà poi ripresa da Licurgo
(Leocr. 98), mentre Isocrate (IV 68, XII 193) ricorda solo la discendenza da Posidone.
42
[Apollod.], III 15.2.
dell’unione tra Orizia e Borea è trasmessa da Acusilao che attesta dunque la circolazione di questa genealogia già nel tardo
arcaismo44. La stessa tradizione, con una diversa localizzazione della sede del rapimento (non l’acropoli di Atene, ma il Brilesso 45) è
anche nella Naumachia di Simonide46. I nomi di Zete e Calaide ricorrono in un frammento del poema dove sarebbero citati, secondo il
West, quali figli di Orizia e Borea47.

The starting point for the genealogical analysis of our hero is his descent from Chione and Orithyia: the two figures are, respectively,
the mother and grandmother of the hero. Orithyia, in turn, is the daughter of Erechtheus <Poseidon Erechtheus, Erechtheus I?>. The
union between Chione and Poseidon is already hinted at in the Erechtheus: a fragment of the tragedy mentions an Ethiopian location,
possibly connected to the rescue of the young Eumolpus thrown into the sea by his mother. Chione is born, along with Zetes, Calaïs,
and Cleopatra, from the marriage between Orithyia and the wind Boreas: it is not surprising that "χιών" (chion, 'snow') is associated
with a northern wind known as the Tracian wind in the Homeric and Hesiodic traditions43. The news of the union between Orithyia
and Boreas is transmitted by Acusilaus <c.500>, attesting to the circulation of this genealogy already in the late archaic period 44. The
same tradition, with a different location of the abduction (not the Acropolis of Athens, but the Brilessus), is also found in
Simonides' <556-468> Naumachia. The names of Zetes and Calaïs appear in a fragment of the poem, where they are mentioned,
according to West, as the children of Orithyia and Boreas.

• the union between Boreas and Orithyia is transmitted by Acusilaus;

43
Hom., Il. IX 5, XXIII 208-230; Hes., Op. 506, 518, 547, 553; Tyrt., fr. 9.4 G.-P.2= 12.4 W.2. Regarding "χιών" (chion,
'snow') and Thrace, cf. Eur., Andr. 215 and Hec. 81. Another version identifies Chione, not Orithyia, as the maiden abducted by
Boreas: from their union, the first Hyperborean priests of Apollo are born (Hecataeus, Abdera, FGrHist 264 F 12; [Plutarch], Fluv.
5.3). Elsewhere, there is mention of a Chione, daughter of Dedalion, who united with Hermes and Apollo, from whom Autolycus and
Philammon are born, respectively (Ovid, Metamorphoses II 291-309; Hyginus, Fabulae 200-201).
44
Acus., FGrHist 2 F 30 = F 30 Fowler.
45
Acusilaus (cf. supra n. 44) tells of the abduction in terms similar to Thucydides' description (VI 56) of the events leading to the
killing of Hipparchus: Orithyia, like the sister of Harmodius, is prevented from serving as a kanephoros; in both cases, the events take
place on the Acropolis of Athens. On the initiatory significance of the abduction of Orithyia, see Cossu 2009, pp. 189-191.
46
The poem (for which see Agard 1966 and Rutherford 2001) deals with the Battle of Artemisium, during which Boreas was
invoked as the 'son-in-law of the Athenians' on the advice of Delphi. This title was derived from his marriage to Orithyia, daughter of
Erechtheus (cf. Herodotus VII 189 and Pausanias I 19.5).
47
Simonides, in his poem PMG 534 = F 3 W.2, mentions the names of the Boreads in verse 5, while the maiden (kore) mentioned
in verse 11 is to be identified (if the reading Ζήτην καὶ Κάλαϊν proves correct) with Orithyia (cf. West 1992, ad loc. and Rutherford
2001, pp. 36-37). The treatment of the myth in the text is confirmed by the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius I 211-215 c., where
Simonides' version is compared with that of Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F 39) and Stesichorus (PMGF ii S 86). Unlike Simonides, the
latter two place the Sarpedonian rock (where the union takes place) not in Thrace (as also does Pherecydes, FGrHist 3 F 145 = F 145
Fowler = F 14 Dolcetti) but respectively in Cilicia and on an Atlantic island. Cherilo (F 5 Radici Colace) aligns with Simonides when
he presents Orithyia picking flowers (following a recurring abduction pattern: see Radici Colace 1979, pp. 49-58 and Giudice Rizzo
2002, pp. 65-68) near the source of the Cephissus, which collects the waters of the Brilessus. The myth is also treated in a lost tragedy
by Aeschylus, the title of which, Ὠρείθυια, is transmitted by John of Sicily in the commentary on Hermogenes' Περὶ ἰδεῶν (Rhetores
graeci VI p. 225 Waltz); some verses are quoted in [Longinus], De Subl. c. 3.1 (A., TrGF III 281 F). The story will be revisited in a
rationalizing way by Plato (Phaedrus 229b-e), Phyllocorus (FGrHist 328 F 11 = F 11 Costa), and local Megarian historiography. In
Plato, Boreas is the wind that causes the maiden to fall from the cliffs, while in Phyllocorus, a distinction is made between a mythical
Boreas (the wind) and a historical Boreas (son of Astraeus, as in Homer, Odyssey V 296 and Hesiod, Theogony 379-382) who carried
out the abduction (see Costa 2007, pp. 110-115). In Heraclides, FGrHist 486 F 3 = Eragora, F 1 Piccirilli, on the other hand, Boreas
becomes the son of Strymon (cf. also Conon, FGrHist 26 F 1 [IV] and Callimachus, Del. 26).
 • though Chione is later depicted by Euripides as the daughter of the said couple, let’s not assume for the time being that this
element, or the element consisting of Eumolpus being the son of Chione, was originally to be found in the version trasmitted
by Acusilaus
• the union, telling of a different location of the abduction, is found in Simonides; Zetes and Calaïs appear in a fragment of
the poem, mentioned as the children of Orithyia and Boreas
• from this, the possibilty still remains that it was Euripides who superimposed (i.e. added) the name of Chione—or even the
circumstance of Eumolpus being the son of Chione—to the siblings who had been depicted as the daughters of Boreas and
Oreithyia

Both Oreithyia (also spelled Oreithyia) and Chione were abducted in different myths:

1. Oreithyia: In Greek mythology, Oreithyia was the daughter of Erechtheus, the legendary king of Athens. She was
abducted by Boreas, the god of the north wind. Boreas fell in love with her and, in some versions of the myth, sought the
consent of Erechtheus before taking her. They had two sons together, Zetes and Calais, who later played important roles
in the myth of the Argonauts and the Harpies.

2. Chione: Chione was a different character in Greek mythology. She was the daughter of Daedalion and, in some versions
of the myth, she was also a daughter of Boreas. Chione was renowned for her exceptional beauty, and she caught the
attention of both mortals and gods. She was eventually abducted by Apollo, the god of the sun and music.

In summary, Oreithyia was abducted by Boreas, the god of the north wind, while Chione was abducted by Apollo, the god of the
sun. These are two distinct myths involving different characters in Greek mythology.

Procedendo a ritroso nel tempo, notiamo come il ratto compaia in apertura della quarta fascia dell’arca di Cipselo 48, dedica
all’Heraion di Olimpia databile, secondo una recente ricostruzine, al primo anno della quarantottesima olimpiade (588/7 a. C.) o di
quella successiva (584/3 a. C.)49. L’arca costituisce forse la risposta figurata cipselide50 alla rielaborazione del patrimonio mitico
corinzio effettuata da Eumelo per i Bacchiadi e non è da escludere che una qualche sezione non sopravvissuta dei Korinthiaka fosse
dedicata al mito: il che riporterebbe la leggenda addirittura all’alto arcaismo 51.

48
The object (likely a representation or artifact related to the myth of Orithyia and Boreas) is mentioned in a firsthand account by
Pausanias (V 17.5, 19.10). For the earliest material evidence of the myth of Orithyia and Boreas, we refer to Giudice Rizzo 2002, pp.
69-73.
49
See Cossu 2005, pp. 154-155, where the construction of the arch of Cypselus is placed close to the First Sacred War and is
linked to the strengthening of relations between Periander and the Bacchiads and between the Bacchiads and Olympia. The proposed
chronological framework is based on the presumed date of the end of the Cypselid tyranny (584/3 BC) and the presence of Piso in the
depiction (Paus., V 17.9; he was the founder of Pisa, destroyed around 570 BC: Str. VIII 3.30; Paus. VI 22.2). It is worth noting that
Stiglitz (2005, pp. 46-47) has also supported a similar chronology, although more extended, dating the arch to 630-570 BC based on
the presence of Eufemo in the decoration: this figure is associated with the tradition of funeral games in honor of Pelias (Paus. V
17.9) after the foundation of Cyrene in 630 BC. For a comprehensive examination of the bibliography on Piso and Eufemo and the
chronological issues related to them, see Maddoli - Saladino 1995 on Paus. V 17.9; Maddoli - Nafissi - Saladino 1999 on Paus. VI
22.2; Cossu 2005, pp. 91-94.
50
The dedication was perhaps made by Periander or one of the Cypselids in the context of an Olympic victory in a chariot race
(see Cosi 1958, Stiglitz 2005, pp. 47-50, and Ibba 2005, pp. 58-62 for further discussion on this matter). It is difficult to imagine a
dedication by Cypselus himself: the tradition about the tyrant, marked among other things by a series of Delphic oracles related to his
birth and rise to power (6 P.-W. = 5 Andersen, 7 P.-W. = 6 Andersen, 8 P.-W. = 7 Andersen, Hdt. V 92), seems to have been
developed during the time of Periander or in the immediate aftermath.
 As we proceed backward in time, we notice that the abduction (ratto) appears at the beginning of the fourth band of the chest
(arca) of Cypselus, a dedication at the Heraion of Olympia, dating back to the first year of the forty-eighth Olympiad
(588/7 BC) or the following one (584/3 BC), according to a recent reconstruction. The chest possibly represents the
Cypselids' pictorial response to the Corinthian mythical heritage reworked by Eumelos, and it is not unlikely that some
now lost sections of the Korinthiaka were devoted to this myth, which would bring the legend back to the early archaic
period.

arca di Cipselo, a thing dedicated in either 588 or 584 B.C., depicts the abduction of Oreithyia → Eumelos’ reworking → of
the (existing) Corinthian mythical heritage or myth; possibly contained in the now lost sections of the Korinthiaka → the
legend goes further back to the early archaic period

Oltre al ratto, la decorazione dell’arca presenta anche la caccia alle Arpie, di cui Zete e Calaide sono protagonisti: l’illustrazione è
contenuta nella prima fascia, la cui posizione centrale è occupata dai giochi funebri in onore di Pelia 52. Si tratta di due episodi cruciali
del mito argonautico: la stretta vicinanza sullo stesso manufatto lascia intendere che la saga fosse strutturata già da tempo 53. A
dimostrare l’antichità della caccia, del resto, vi sono alcune testimonianze materiali 54: va ascritto al 620 a. C. un vaso, attualmente
disperso, che mostra sull’unico lato sopravvissuto le Arpie in fuga 55; risale invece al 600-585 a. C. un rilievo delfico che ritrae Fineo e
i Boreadi impegnati nell’inseguimento56.

In addition to the rapture, the decoration of the arca also features the hunt of the Harpies, in which Zetes and Calais are the
protagonists: the illustration is found in the first section, whose central position is occupied by the funeral games in honor of
Pelias. These are two crucial episodes of the Argonautic myth: their close proximity on the same artifact suggests that the
saga had already been structured for some time. Some material evidence further demonstrates the antiquity of the hunt: a
vase, currently dispersed <missing>, dating back to 620 BC, depicts the fleeing Harpies on its only surviving side;
meanwhile, a Delphic relief from 600-585 BC shows Phineus and the Boreads engaged in the pursuit.

arca di Cipselo also depicts the hunt of the Harpies.

both the abduction and the hunt are episodes in what is called the Argonautic myth
their depictions are relatively close to each other on the artefact, suggesting that the larger sage had already been structured
for some time (at the time it was dedicated)
additionally, a vase (or a surviving portion of it) and a relief, dating back to 620 B.C. and 600-585 B.C., respectively, each
shows the protagonists engaged in the pursuit

È possibile che Orizia fosse già nota, in questa fase, quale madre dei Boreadi. La delocalizzazione della scena del rapimento rispetto
alla caccia non implica giocoforza la separazione dei due miti, ma è piuttosto indice della necessità di ripartire tematicamente la

51
Debiasi 2005, page 50. On Eumelus of the Bacchiadae, refer to Pausanias II 1.1 and Musti - Torelli 1997, ad loc. For a
collection of testimonies and fragments, see Fowler 2000, pp. 105-109.
52
Paus. V 17.9-11; si veda Cossu 2005, pp. 89-102 e 2009, pp. 124-128.
53
LIMC IV (1988), "Harpyiai", p. 446.1. On the other hand, Vian and Delage (1976, p. 144) believed that there were not enough
elements to demonstrate the connection.
54
Indeed, the hunt is not known in the Homeric tradition, where the Harpies are only mentioned as spirits associated with the
wind and the underworld (Hom., Od. I 241, XIV 371, XX 77).
55
LIMC IV (1988), «Harpyiai», p. 446.I.
56
Delfi Museum 1355, n. 9944 is referenced in LIMC VII (1994), under the entry "Phineus," on page 389, note 15. For further
information on the artifact, you may also refer to the following sources: Amandry 1939, page 105; Burr Carter 1989 (particularly,
page 356, figure 1); Ragucci 2005, pages 182-183 and page 203, figure 12.
decorazione: la quarta fascia, infatti, presenta in serie altri famosi episodi di conquista della sposa 57. Un testimone dell’antichità del
rapporto tra Orizia e Boreadi potrebbe essere il Catalogo delle donne pseudoesiodeo58, che trasmette il nome di Zete in un passo
relativo alla caccia alle Arpie59. L’assenza, nel testo, di Orizia, Calaide (normal-mente associato al fratello nell’impresa) e Fineo (il re
trace liberato in cambio delle indicazioni per attraversare le Simplegadi) è da imputarsi allo stato frammentario dell’opera 60. Che il
mito della caccia fosse ricorrente nella produzione pseudoesiodea è provato anche da Eforo, secondo cui l’arrivo di Fineo, braccato
dalle Arpie, nel paese dei Galattofagi era trattato nel Giro della Terra61. Non è inverosimile sostenere, col West, che la vicenda di
Fineo, discendente di Io, costituisse poi la silloge dello stemma delle Inachidi nel Catalogo delle donne62. I tragici svilupperanno poi
la connessione tra il re trace e i Boreadi in senso genealogico, trasmettendo la notizia del matrimonio di Fineo con Cleopatra, sorella
di Zete e Calaide63 e della Chione, madre di Eumolpo.

It is possible that Orizia <Orithyia> was already known, at this stage, as the mother of the Boreads. The relocation of the
abduction scene compared to the hunt does not necessarily imply the separation of the two myths but rather indicates the
thematic division of the decoration: the fourth section, in fact, presents in sequence other famous episodes of bride
conquest57. A witness to the antiquity of the relationship between Orizia and the Boreads could be the pseudo-Hesiodic
Catalogue of Women58, which mentions the name of Zetes in a passage related to the Harpy hunt59. The absence of Orizia,
Calais (normally associated with his brother in the adventure), and Phineus (the Thracian king liberated in exchange for
directions to pass through the Symplegades) in the text is due to the fragmentary state of the work 60. The recurrent nature of

57
Cossu 2005, pp. 130-131.
58
West (1985, pp. 168-171) declared its inauthenticity and attributed the composition to an Attic poet of the 6th century. For a
detailed examination of the debate on the chronology and provenance of the poet, please refer to Hirschberger 2004, pp. 42-51.
59
In the pseudo-Hesiodic production, Orizia is the mother of the Boreads, but not in the Homeric tradition. She appears in line 48
of a doubtful passage in the Iliad (Hom., Il. XVIII 39-49) which offers an incomplete list of thirty-three Nereids (or thirty-four,
including Thetis, whereas in Hesiod, Th. 243-264 there are fifty). This section has been considered dubious by Zenodotus,
Aristarchus, and Callistratus, as indicated in the scholium ad loc.; codex A (cod. Ven. Graec. 822) also presents an obelus. Zenodotus
identifies a strongly Hesiodic character in the compilation and cannot justify its interruption (which, according to Cerri 2010, pp. 105-
106, is rather a "wise decision of narrative economy"); on the other hand, Callistratus notes the absence of the passage in the Argolid
text. The repetition of the phrase Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν at the beginning and end has been interpreted alternatively as an indication of
interpolation (Leaf 1960, ad loc.; against Edwards 1991, p. 147) or as a signal of a saut du même au même in the Argolid edition
(Apthorp 1980, p. 116).
In any case, this section might be the result of a Pisistratid manipulation based on a more substantial Hesiodic list in which Orizia
was not mentioned; the name will reappear only in Hyginus, praef. 8, and Boriaud (1997, ad loc.) indicates Hesiod as the source of
the passage (it is worth noting that other lists are transmitted in [Apollod.], Bibl. I 2.7 and Vergil, Georg. IV 334-344). The osmosis
between Homeric and Hesiodic texts is well attested in late ancient Athens and is probably attributable to the work of Onomacritus, a
crimologos operating in the tyrannical era: the scholia report his intervention in Hom., Od. II 602-604; one of the verses on the
marriage between Hebe and Heracles indeed corresponds to Hes., Th. 952 and Fr. 25.29 M.-W. (for further information, see
D’Agostino 2007, p. 13). Another example of a compendium of an ancient Hesiodic list is reported by Richardson (1974, ad loc.) in
the comparison between the list of Oceanids in Hes., Theog. 349-361 and the list of Persephone's companions in [Hom.], hCer. 417-
424.
60
West 1988, p. 106.
61
Hes., Fr. 151 M.-W. = Ephor., FGrHist 70 F 42 = Str., VII 3.9.
62
Hes., Fr. 138 M.-W = Sch. in A. R. II 178; si veda West 1985, ad loc.
63
The story, narrated by Sophocles (Ant. 966-987; Tympanistai TrGF IV 636-644 F; Phineus A and B TrGF IV 704-717a F), was
perhaps also treated by Aeschylus in a lost play called "Phineus," performed together with "The Persians," of which only a few
fragments survive (TrGF III 258-260 F; see also A., Eu. 70). Pearson (1963, p. 262) suggests, based on the title "Tympanistai"
(alluding to a Bacchic chorus), a Thracian setting for the Sophoclean narrative; Fineus is, after all, connected to Salmides. Cf. also D.
S. IV 43.3-4 and 44.4; [Apollod.], III 200.
 the Harpy hunt in the pseudo-Hesiodic production is also confirmed by Ephorus, who mentioned Fineus's arrival, chased by
the Harpies, in the land of the Galactophagi in his "Circumnavigation of the Earth."61 It is not implausible to argue, as West
does, that the story of Phineus, a descendant of Io, later became the nucleus of the stemma of the Inachids in the
Catalogue of Women62. The tragedians will further develop the genealogical connection between the Thracian king and the
Boreads, transmitting the news of Fineus's marriage to Cleopatra , the sister of Zetes and Calais63, and of Chione, the mother
of Eumolpus.

Riteniamo, a questo punto, di disporre di dati sufficienti per rispondere al nostro interrogativo di partenza: in che momento e con
quali modalità la tradizione su Eumolpo ingloba l’elemento barbaro? Questo elemento ci sembra certamente veicolato da Chione,
figlia di un vento del nord (Borea) e parente dei protagonisti della caccia alle Arpie, di cui almeno uno (Fineo) è trace. L’unione con il
dio non è attestata prima della rappresentazione dell’Eretteo, ma se la notizia straboniana della presenza di traci al fianco di Eumolpo
fosse effettivamente da ascriversi ad Ecateo, questo dato potrebbe confermare la grande antichità della nascita da Chione: solo in virtù
di questa discendenza, l’eleusino Eumolpo può esser stato connesso, in epoca arcaica, ad un’armata trace.

At this point, we believe we have enough data to answer our initial question: when and how does the tradition about
Eumolpus incorporate the barbaric element? This element seems to be certainly conveyed by Chione, the daughter of a
north wind (Boreas) and a relative of the protagonists of the Harpy's hunt, of whom at least one (Phineus) is Thracian. The
union with the god is not attested before the representation of Erechtheus, but if the information from Strabo about the
presence of Thracians alongside Eumolpus is indeed attributed to Hecataeus, this data could confirm the great antiquity of
the descent from Chione: only because of this ancestry, the Eleusinian Eumolpus could have been connected, in archaic
times, to a Thracian army.

IV. EUMOLPUS, DESCENDANT OF EUMOLPUS.

La sostituzione di Ione con Eretteo64 potrebbe aver prodotto agli occhi degli antichi una contraddizione: Eumolpo, discendente di
Eretteo tramite Orizia e Chione, diventerebbe avversario del proprio antenato. Jacoby spiegava questo salto temporale con la logica
che assegna ai re ateniesi dei ruoli precisi nello svolgimento della storia attica: la forzatura dei due eroi in uno stesso livello
cronologico risulterebbe meno illogica ammettendo che Eretteo svolga, nel quadro della regalità ateniese, la funzione di sconfiggere
le truppe eleusine65.

The substitution of Ion with Erechtheus64 may have created a contradiction in the eyes of the ancients: Eumolpus, a
descendant of Erechtheus through Oreithyia and Chione, would become an adversary of his own ancestor. Jacoby explained
this temporal leap with the logic that assigns specific roles to Athenian kings in the unfolding of Attic history: the forcing
together of the two heroes in the same chronological level would be less illogical if we assume that Erechtheus fulfills,
within the framework of Athenian royalty, the function of defeating the Eleusinian forces 65.

64
Cf. supra § 3.
65
Cecrops would have the function of dividing the region into twelve cities and founding the Areopagus; Theseus, on the other
hand, would have the task of uniting the various local centers under the authority of Athens; Menestheus is the leader who leads the
Athenians to Troy, and so on (Jacoby 1949, p. 126). Regarding the role of Erechtheus in the context of the Eleusinian wars, see
especially Loraux 1981, p. 35, and Parker 1990, p. 201.
L’anomalia viene risolta attraverso l’espediente dello sdoppiamento: se lo scoliaste a Euripide propone un neoteros Erechtheus66,
sembra che già l’Eretteo assegni a due diversi Eumolpi (l’uno discendente dall’altro) il combattimento con il sovrano ateniese e
l’istituzione dei misteri67. Lo stratagemma è adottato anche in una genealogia nota ad Androne di Alicarnasso in cui figurano
addirittura tre Eumolpi, ognuno con una funzione preci sa da svolgere nel livello di appartenenza 68: il primo Eumolpo genera Cerice,
consentendo di descrivere in termini di dipendenza il rapporto tra il clan dei Cerici e quello degli Eumolpidi 69; il secondo Eumolpo,
figlio di Cerice, genera Museo, il celebre poeta orfico70; il terzo Eumolpo, figlio di Museo, è l’istitutore dei misteri e connette così le
dimensioni cultuali dell’eleusinismo e dell’orfismo71.

The anomaly is resolved through the device of duplication: if we read Scoliaste to Euripides proposing a younger
Erechtheus66, it seems that even Erechtheus assigns two different Eumolpuses (one descending from the other) the combat
with the Athenian sovereign and the institution of the mysteries67. The stratagem is also adopted in a genealogy known to
Andron of Halicarnassus, in which three Eumolpuses appear, each with a specific role to play within their respective levels
of affiliation68: the first Eumolpus generates Cerice, allowing the description of the dependent relationship between the
Cerician clan and the Eumolpids69; the second Eumolpus, son of Cerice, generates Museo, the famous Orphic poet70; the third
Eumolpus, son of Museo, is the instructor of the mysteries and thus connects the cultic dimensions of Eleusinian and
Orphic traditions71.

Apologies for the confusion. Based on the text you provided, "se lo scoliaste a Euripide propone un neoteros Erechtheus
(Schol. in E., Phoen. 854.)", it seems that the phrase "neoteros Erechtheus" is part of a scholium (a marginal or interlinear
annotation) to Euripides' play "Phoenissae" (Phoenician Women) in line 854.

In this context, "neoteros Erechtheus" refers to a younger version of the character Erechtheus who appears in the play. The
scholiast, a commentator or annotator, is likely proposing that in Euripides' play, Erechtheus is depicted as a younger
character.

66
Schol. in E., Phoen. 854.
67
E., TrGF V.1, 24, 370 F, 100: "... Εὔμολπος γἀρ Εὐμολπου γεγὼ[ς ... Parker (1990, p. 203) proposes to read in the assignment
of the mysteries to the second Eumolpus the intention to 'dilute', in some way, the Thracian blood."
68
Andro Hal., FGrHist 10 F 13 = F 13 Fowler = PEG ii/iii Musaeus 40 T; For more information, see Lloyd-Jones 1967, pp. 212-
213 e supra n. 11.
69
See below note 74. For an overview of the eponyms of the Attic families, we refer to Kearns 1989, pages 65-72.
70
Museus, an oracle source and author of works related to both cultic spheres, is mentioned in various references. In Pausanias, I
22.7, he is the author of a Hymn to Demeter for the Licomids, containing verses about the ability to fly transmitted by Boreas. In
Suda, μ 1295 Adler (s.u. Μουσαῖος), there is mention of Ypothekai written by Museus for his son Eumolpus. For more information,
refer to Martínez Nieto 2001, PEG ii/iii, and De Cicco 2014.
It is worth noting that Museus and Eumolpus have genealogical and didactic connections dating back to the late 5th century.
Museus is portrayed as the father of Eumolpus around 410 BC (Meidias vase: Richter 1938; LIMC VI (1992), "Mousaios", pp. 685-
687), while in Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 208 = F 208 Costa, Museus is depicted as the son of Eumolpus.
The tradition linking Eumolpus to Museus appears to be later than the one that identifies him as a son of Poseidon. Hence, we
disagree with Sonnino (2010, pp. 67-68), who separates the Eleusinian Eumolpus from the Thracian Eumolpus, considering the
genealogical connection between the former and the Orphic Museus as a later development of the poetic character of the hierophant,
without any connection to the homonymous barbarian warrior. Since the familial ties between Eumolpus and Museus only develop
after the staging of Erechtheus, it seems more logical to assert that the connection between the two characters is facilitated by
Eumolpus' descent from Chione.
71
The connection, instrumental in creating a link between the two religious realities of Eleusinian and Orphism (for which
reference is made to the fundamental study of Graf 1974), may have been facilitated by the description of the Eleusinian hero as
Thracian.
 The use of italics may still serve to emphasize the importance of this particular portrayal of Erechtheus in the play, indicating
its significance in the discussion or analysis of the text.

ΤΕΙΡΕΣΙΑΣ Teiresias

κόπῳ παρεῖμαι γοῦν Ἐρεχθειδῶν ἄπο δεῦρ᾿ ἐκκομισθεὶς τῆς
πάροιθεν ἡμέρας· κἀκεῖ γὰρ ἦν τις πόλεμος Εὐμόλπου δορός, οὗ
καλλινίκους Κεκροπίδας ἔθηκ᾿ ἐγώ· καὶ τόνδε χρυσοῦν
στέφανον, ὡς ὁρᾷς, ἔχω λαβὼν ἀπαρχὰς πολεμίων σκυλευμάτων.
46 “Land of the Erechthidae” is a poetic periphrasis for Athens,
and “sons of Cecrops” for the Athenians. Erechtheus was one of
the most important of the legendary kings of Athens. His temple,
the Erechtheum, stood next to the temple of Athena Parthenos
(the Parthenon) on the Athenian acropolis. Cecrops was another
early king.
It is true that I am weary: I traveled here from the land of the
Erechthidae46 yesterday. There too there was war, led by
Eumolpus,47 and I caused the sons of Cecrops to win a glorious
victory over him. I wear this golden chaplet <crown>, as you see,
which I received as first fruits of the enemy spoils.
47 Eumolpus, king of Thrace, attacked Athens during the reign of
Erechtheus. The attack was averted when, on the advice of seers,
Erechtheus’ daughter gave herself as a voluntary sacrificial
victim, much as Menoeceus does at the end of this scene.
Euripides had dramatized this story in his Erechtheus, put on
probably in 422.

with the following citation, "Andro Hal., FGrHist 10 F 13 = F 13 Fowler = PEG ii/iii Musaeus 40 T;" what is meant by F 13
Fowler = PEG ii/III Musaeus 40 T?

The citation "Andro Hal., FGrHist 10 F 13 = F 13 Fowler = PEG ii/iii Musaeus 40 T" refers to a fragment of a work
attributed to Androtion of Halicarnassus (Andro Hal.), found in the collection of Greek historians known as the FGrHist
(Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum). Specifically, it is fragment 13 in the work of Androtion in this collection, often
abbreviated as FGrHist 10 F 13.
The "= F 13 Fowler" part indicates that this fragment is also referenced in the work of Harold N. Fowler, an editor or
commentator who likely published an edition or translation of the fragment.
The "= PEG ii/iii Musaeus 40 T" part indicates that the same fragment (F 13) is also preserved in another source,
specifically in the work of the poet Musaeus (Musaeus 40 T), which is part of the collection known as the "Poetae Epici
Graeci" (PEG), an anthology of Greek epic poetry. The "ii/iii" suggests that it appears in either book two or book three of the
PEG collection.
In summary, this citation indicates that the fragment is found in the works of Androtion, Harold N. Fowler, and
Musaeus, with the specific location of the fragment in Musaeus' work indicated as 40 T in either book two or book three of
the Poetae Epici Graeci collection.

La moltiplicazione di figure aventi lo stesso nome è spiegabile, normalmente, con il tentativo di conferire una sistemazione ordinata a
una genealogia incerta, ma questo stratagemma permette anche di mantenere livelli di antichità per il capostipite. Ci sembra pertanto
che si possa cogliere, nella moltiplicazione degli Eumolpi, l’intervento del gruppo sacerdotale che da questo eroe prende il nome.

The multiplication of figures with the same name is normally explainable by the attempt to give an orderly arrangement to an
uncertain genealogy, but this stratagem also allows maintaining levels of antiquity for the progenitor. Therefore, it seems
that we can perceive, in the multiplication of the Eumolpuses, the intervention of the priestly group that takes its name from
this hero.

Die Vermehrung von Figuren mit demselben Namen lässt sich normalerweise durch den Versuch erklären, einer unsicheren
Genealogie eine geordnete Anordnung zu verleihen, aber diese List ermöglicht auch das Aufrechterhalten von
 Altertumsniveaus für den Stammvater. Daher scheint es uns, dass man in der Vermehrung der Eumolpi die Intervention
der priesterlichen Gruppe erkennen kann, die von diesem Helden den Namen erhält.

was meint die Autorin dabei, denken Sie, mit dem Ausdruck "das Aufrechterhalten von Altertumsniveaus"
ermöglichen? Was beabsichtigen diejenige, oder was für ein Nützen bringt das Altertumsniveau?

Der Ausdruck "das Aufrechterhalten von Altertumsniveaus" in diesem Kontext scheint sich auf den Wunsch zu
beziehen, eine bestimmte Würde, Tradition oder Bedeutung innerhalb einer genealogischen Linie oder eines
historischen Kontextes zu bewahren. Indem mehrere Figuren mit demselben Namen innerhalb einer Linie oder
Geschichte geschaffen werden, kann das Erbe eines bestimmten Stammvaters oder Helden aufrechterhalten und
dessen Bedeutung über Generationen hinweg verstärkt werden.

In vielen Kulturen kann das Alter oder die Antike eines Namens oder einer Tradition ein Symbol für Weisheit,
Respekt oder Autorität sein. Das Aufrechterhalten dieses Altertumsniveaus kann dazu dienen, die Legitimität oder
den Status einer bestimmten Gruppe, wie z.B. eines priesterlichen Ordens, zu stärken. Es könnte auch dazu
beitragen, die Kontinuität mit der Vergangenheit und die Bewahrung bestimmter kultureller oder religiöser
Praktiken und Überzeugungen zu unterstreichen.

Unico gruppo familiare attivo in epoca storica a riconoscere il proprio capostipite in uno dei re dell’Inno a Demetra72, gli Eumolpidi
hanno certamente contribuito a far emergere Eumolpo dall’oscurità in cui la tradizione locale riflessa nel poema lo aveva posto: se
fosse lecito ricondurre a questa famiglia uno Zakoros e un Lakrateides attivi agli inizi del V secolo a. C. (il secondo dei quali
addirittura arconte)73, avremmo la prova della rilevanza da loro acquisita a cavallo tra l’epoca arcaica e l’epoca classica. Atene, in

72
According to West (1999, pp. 373-374), however, the Eumolpids would originally not be a family but a group that, like the
Homeridai, is structured genealogically because it performs a specific liturgical function. The name of the progenitor, Eumolpus,
alludes to the importance of the voice during the celebration of the mysteries. For further information on this matter, see Scarpi 2002,
pp. 522-523 and p. 560. Already, Brelich (1978, p. 163) has emphasized the functional character of the hero Eumolpus, endowed with
a transparent name and prototype of a priestly activity (that of the hierophant) which is indeed based on the recitation of sacred texts.
73
Zakoros is mentioned in the "Contro Andocide" attributed to pseudo-Lysias (54). On the character, see Toepffer 1889, p. 55;
Kirchner 1901, n. 6182; MacDowell 1962, appendix J; Clinton 1974, p. 10. Lakrateides, on the other hand, is recalled in a proverbial
expression from Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 202, associating the memory of the archon Lakrateides, who lived during the time of
Darius, with periods of severe cold. During his archonship (possibly dated around 522/520 and 512/511 BC), an exceptional
snowstorm is said to have occurred. His association with the Eumolpid group would be justified only by his name's similarity with
two hierophants. The first hierophant was active around 350/349 BC and played a part in a dispute between Athens and Megara
over the boundary of sacred territories during the archonship of Apollodorus II (Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 155 [F 155 Costa] =
Androt. FGrHist 324 F 30; for a commentary on the passage, see Jacoby, ad loc.; Davies 1971 n. 1395 and 1398; Clinton 1974, p. 17;
Harding 1994, pp. 66-67, 125-127, and 2008, pp. 153-154). The second hierophant, however, was commemorated in an Eleusinian
relief from 100 BC (IG II2 4701, for which see Clinton 1992, pp. 51-53). In favor of this connection, Harding 2008, p. 96; Clinton
(1974), on the other hand, does not include the character in the list of Eumolpid priests. See also Develin 1989, p. 48 and Jacoby on
Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 202 (F 202 Costa).
effetti, assegna loro la preminenza nella gestione del rituale misterico 74, che rimane dunque un fatto prettamente eleusino75. Questo
dato, tuttavia, mal si accorda alla tradizione che rende il capostipite degli Eumolpidi un avversario di Eretteo 76: se Sonnino agira
l’ostacolo scindendo il capostipite degli Eumolpidi dall’omonimo nemico degli ateniesi, ci sembra più logico, alla luce dell’analisi sin
qui proposta, pensare piuttosto ad una rifunzionalizzazione in ambito ateniese di un eroe locale eleusino la cui connotazione
originaria (quale re allievo di Demetra) continua a essere saldamente difesa dai gruppi filomegaresi del centro di frontiera con la
composizione dell’Inno a Demetra. Che tali gruppi siano connessi agli Eumolpidi ci sembra possibile: del resto, gli ierofanti hanno
tutto l’interesse a rivendicare l’autoctonia del proprio capostipite; la composizione del poema pseudomerico è indubbiamente legata al
contesto rituale dei misteri, di cui gli Eumolpidi sono i principali officianti77.

The only family group active in historical times to recognize their founder in one of the kings mentioned in the Hymn to
Demeter,72 the Eumolpids certainly contributed to bringing Eumolpus out of the obscurity in which the local tradition
reflected in the poem had placed him. If we were to attribute Zakoros and Lakrateides, both active in the early 5th century
BC (the latter even being an archon),73 to this family, it would provide evidence of their significance during the transition
from the Archaic to the Classical period. Indeed, Athens granted them preeminence in managing the mystery ritual,74 which
remained exclusively an Eleusinian affair.75 However, this fact does not align well with the tradition that portrays the
Eumolpids' progenitor as an opponent of Erechtheus.76 While Sonnino overcomes this obstacle by differentiating the
Eumolpids' founder from the homonymous enemy of the Athenians, based on the analysis proposed so far, it seems more

74
This management is shared with the Cerics, to whom the appointment of the keryx and dadouchos is entrusted, while the
Eumolpids are responsible for the far more important appointment of the hierophant. The subordination of the Cerics to the
Eumolpids is demonstrated in a passage from Pausanias (I 38.3) that transmits two different genealogies of Cerice: the first, of
Eumolpid origin, makes this character a son of Eumolpus; the second, by transforming Cerice into a descendant of Cecrops,
reveals a re-elaboration of the priestly group aimed at claiming their autochthony and autonomy compared to the Eumolpids. For
information on the family connections and functions of the two families in the context of the mystery celebration, see Mylonas 1961,
pp. 234-235; De Sanctis 1975, p. 48; Shapiro 1989, pp. 71-74; Clinton 2004; Lippolis 2006, pp. 115-125.
75
As demonstrated, for instance, by Pausanias I 38.3, it is stated that the Athenians and Eleusinians "resolved" (καταλύονται) the
conflict by acknowledging the submission of Eleusis in all respects, except for the celebration of the mysteries. It is evident that
Pausanias presents a tradition in this context that diplomatically resolves the process of synoecism, as already seen in Thucydides (cf.
supra § 2). It is worth noting that according to Jacoby (1949, pp. 124-125), the source of Pausanias may be Hellanicus, the author of a
work titled Περὶ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἱεροφάντων (On the Genealogy of Hierophants) (Hellenika, FGrHist 4 F 45 = F 168 Ambaglio).
76
We do not agree with Simms (1983, pp. 198-199) who interprets the militarization of Eumolpus as evidence of the priestly
group's growth within the Athenian noble families.
77
Against the mystic characterization of the Hymn, Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1963, 118-123) argue for a theory recently
taken up by Clinton (1993) and Leventi (2007) according to which the text is constructed based on an ancient Thesmophoria
narrative: the final section of the text, describing the teaching of the orgia (orghia), would be a later addition. However, the structural
presence of several references to the salvific dimension (such as the ciceone and the story of Demophon: see Bianchi 1964; Vernant
1969; Chirassi Colombo 1975, pp. 204-208; Scarpi 1976; Parker 1991), combined with the absence of elements related to fertility (a
central element of the Tesmophoria), leads to considering the construction of the Hymn around the mysteries as more plausible. In
any case, while not going so far as to admit, like Clinton (1993, p. 120; cf. Jeanmarie 1939, p. 303), the idea of a salvific development
of the Tesmophoria, we cannot deny a connection between the two cults: Sfameni Gasparro (1986, p. 225) had already spoken of a
common "Demetrian facies (face)," and Miles (1998, p. 22) suggests that the Telesterion and Eleusinion may have hosted both
celebrations. Based on current knowledge, it is more prudent to acknowledge the posteriority of one ritual to the other: the
Mediterranean diffusion of the Tesmophoria suggests an ancient genesis for this rite (Stallsmith 2008, pp. 118-119); for the
mysteries, however, the archaeological evidence does not go beyond the 7th century BC (see Kourouniotes - Mylonas 1933, p. 277
and Lippolis 2006, p. 145). It is impossible to establish, against the excavators of the Eleusinian sacred area, a cultic continuity
between the Mycenaean and Archaic periods: for more on the topic, see Darcque 1981, p. 600; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, p. 149;
Cosmopoulos 2003; Lippolis 2006, p. 158. For a complete bibliography of the years 1864-1985, refer to Travlos 1988, pp. 99-102.
 logical to consider a reinterpretation within the Athenian context of a local Eleusinian hero whose original connotation (as
a king and student of Demeter) is firmly defended by the pro-Megarian groups at the border center through the composition
of the Hymn to Demeter. It is possible that these groups are connected to the Eumolpids: after all, the hierophants have a
vested interest in claiming the autochthony of their founder, and the composition of the pseudo-Homeric poem is
undoubtedly linked to the ritual context of the mysteries, in which the Eumolpids are the principal officiants. 77

Gegen die Charakterisierung im mystischen Sinne des Hymnus halten Allen, Halliday und Sikes (1963, 118-123) eine Theorie fest –
kürzlich wieder aufgegriffen von Clinton (1993) und Leventi (2007) – nach der der Text auf einer alten tesmoforischen Erzählung
aufgebaut wäre: der letzte Abschnitt des Textes, der die Lehre der Orghia beschreibt, wäre eine spätere Ergänzung. In Wirklichkeit
lässt das strukturelle Vorhandensein verschiedener Verweise auf die rettende Dimension (wie der Kykeon und die Geschichte von
Demophontes: siehe Bianchi 1964; Vernant 1969; Chirassi Colombo 1975, S. 204-208; Scarpi 1976; Parker 1991), verbunden mit
dem Fehlen von Elementen, die auf Fruchtbarkeit zurückzuführen sind (zentrales Element der Tesmoforie), den Aufbau des Hymnus
auf den Mysterien als plausibler erscheinen. In jedem Fall, ohne uns dazu zu drängen, mit Clinton (1993, S. 120; vgl. Jeanmarie 1939,
S. 303) die Idee einer Entwicklung im rettenden Sinne der Tesmoforie zuzugeben, können wir eine Verbindung zwischen den beiden
Kulten nicht leugnen: bereits Sfameni Gasparro (1986, S. 225) hatte von einer gemeinsamen 'facies demetriaca' gesprochen, und
Miles (1998, S. 22) nimmt an, dass Telesterion und Eleusinion beide Feiern beherbergten. Nach dem aktuellen Stand unserer
Kenntnisse erscheint es klüger, sich darauf zu beschränken, die Nachzeitigkeit eines Ritus gegenüber dem anderen zuzugeben: die
mediterrane Verbreitung der Tesmoforie lässt eine sehr alte Genese dieses Ritus vermuten (Stallsmith 2008, S. 118-119); für die
Mysterien hingegen erlaubt der archäologische Befund nicht, über das 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. hinauszugehen (siehe Kourouniotes –
Mylonas 1933, S. 277 und Lippolis 2006, S. 145). Es ist unmöglich, gegen die Ausgräber des heiligen eleusinischen Gebietes eine
kulturelle Kontinuität zwischen der mykenischen und der archaischen Zeit festzustellen: wir verweisen, zu diesem Thema, auf
Darcque 1981, S. 600; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, S. 149; Cosmopoulos 2003; Lippolis 2006, S. (Text bricht ab)

BIBLIOGRAFIA

Agard, W. R. 1966: «Boreas at Athens», CJ 61, pp. 241-246.

Al-Maini, D. 2009: «The political cosmology of the homeric hymn to Demeter», JIES 37, pp. 89-114.
Allen, T. W., Halliday, W. R. e Sikes, E. 1963: The Homeric Hymns. Interpretative essays, Oxford.
Amandry, P. 1939: «Rapport préliminaire sur les statues chryséléphantines de Delphes», BCH 63, pp. 86-119.
Apthorp, M. J. 1980: The manuscript evidence for interpolation in Homer, Heidelberg.
Asheri, D. y Antelami, V. 1999: Erodoto, Le Storie. Libro I: la Lidia e la Persia, Milano.
Berti, M. 2009: Istro il callimacheo. Testimonianze e frammenti su Atene e sull’Attica, Tivoli.
Bianchi, U. 1964: «Saggezza olimpica e mistica eleusina nell’inno omerico a Demetra», SMRS 35, pp. 163-193.
Boriaud, J. Y. 1997: Hygin, Fables, Parigi.
Brelich, A. 1978: Gli eroi greci. Un problema storico-religioso, Roma.
Burr Carter, J. 1989: «The chest of Periander», AJA 93, pp. 355-378.
Calame, C. 2011: «Un’autoctonia tragica per la guerra del Peloponneso. Eziologia ed eroizzazione nell’Eretteo di Euripide», en
Beltrametti, A. (ed.), La storia sulla scena. Quello che gli storici antichi non hanno raccontato, Roma, pp. 221-240. Carrara, P. 1975:
«L’Eretteo di Euripide e il fr. 119 J di Ecateo», Prometheus 1, pp. 124-130.
Carrara, P. 1977: Euripide, Eretteo. Introduzione, testo e commento, Firenze.
Cassola, F. 1975: Inni Omerici, Milano.
Castriota, D. 1992: Myth, ethos and actuality. Official art in fifth century B. C. Athens, Madison
Cerri, G. 2010: Lo scudo di Achille. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Roma.
Chirassi Colombo, I. 1975: «I doni di Demeter: mito e ideologia nella Grecia arcaica», en Studi Triestini di Antichità in onore di
Luigia Achillea Stella, Trieste 1975, pp. 183-213.
Clinton, K. 1974: The sacred officials of the Eleusinian mysteries, Philadelphia.
Clinton, K. 1992: Myth and cult. The iconography of the Eleusinian mysteries, Stoccolma.
Clinton, K. 1993: «The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis», en Marinatos, N. e Hagg R. (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries: new
approaches, Londra – New York, pp. 110-124.
Clinton, K. 2004: «A family of Eumolpidai and Kerykes descended from Pericles», Hesperia 1, pp. 39-57.
Collard, J., Cropp, M. J. y Lee, K. H. 1995: «Erectheus», en Euripides. Selected fragmentary plays, t. I, Oxford, pp. 148-194.
Connelly, J. B. 1996: «Parthenon and parthenoi: a mythological interpretation of the Parthenon frieze», AJA 100, pp. 53-80.
Cosi, P. 1958: «Sulla datazione dell’arca di Cipselo», ArchClass 10, pp. 81-83.
Cosmopoulos, M. B. 2003: «Mycenaean religion at Eleusis», en Cosmopoulos, M. B. (ed.), Greek Mysteries, Londra – New York, pp.
1-24.
Cossu, T. 2005: «Il programma figurativo dell’arca di Cipselo e la propaganda politica di Periandro», en Giuman, M. (ed.), L’arca
invisibile. Studi sull’arca di Cipselo, Cagliari, pp. 81-164.
Cossu, T. 2009: L’arca del tiranno. Umano, disumano e sovrumano nella Grecia arcaica, Cagliari.
Costa, V. 2007: Filocoro di Atene. Testimonianze e frammenti dell’Atthis, Tivoli.
Cropp, M. y Fick, G. 1985: Resolutions and chronology in Euripides. The fragmentary tragedies, Londra.
D’Agostino, E. 2007: Onomacrito. Testimonianze e frammenti, Pisa – Roma. Darcque, P. 1981: «Les vestiges mycéniens découverts
sous le Télestérion d’Eleusis»,
BCH 105, pp. 593-605.
Davies, J. K. 1971: Athenian propertied families. 600-300 B.C., Oxford.
De Cicco, P. 2014: «Museo pseudepigrafo, un ponte artificiale tra Orfeo ed Eleusi», DHA 40, pp. 9-44.
De Cristofaro, L. 2004: «Kerkyon: un personaggio del mito tra reminiscenze di età “eroica” e attualità politica», MediterrAnt 7, pp.
773-793.
De Sanctis, G. 1975: ΑΤΘΙΣ. Storia della repubblica ateniese dalle origini all’età di Pericle, Firenze.
Debiasi, A. 2005: «Eumeli corinthii fragmenta neglecta?», ZPE 153, pp. 43-58.
Detienne, M. 2003: Comment être autochtone. Du pur Athénien au Français raciné, Parigi
Develin, R. 1989: Athenian Officials. 684-321 BC, Cambridge.
Edwards, M. W. 1991: The Iliad: a commentary, t. V: books 17-20, Cambridge.
Foley, F. 1994: The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Translation, commentary and interpretive essays, Princeton.
Fowler, R. L. 2000: Early Greek mythography, t. I, Oxford.
Giangiulio, M. 2010: «Oracoli esametrici a Corinto arcaica tra epos e tradizione orale», en Cingano, E. (ed.), Tra panellenismo e
tradizioni locali, generi poetici e storiografia, Alessandria, pp. 411-432.
Giudice Rizzo, I. 2002: Inquieti “commerci” tra uomini e dei. Timpanisti, Fineo A e B di Sofocle: testimonianze letterarie e
iconografiche, itinerari di ricerca e proposte, Roma.
Graf, F. 1974: Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung. Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Berlin.
Harding, P. 1994: Androtion and the Atthis. The fragments translated with introduction and commentary, Oxford.
Harding, P. 2008: The story of Athens. The fragments of the local chronicles of Attika, Abingdon – New York.
Harrison, E. B. 2000: «Eumolpos arrives in Eleusis», Hesperia 69, pp. 267-291.
Hirschberger, M. 2004: Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai. Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen,
Monaco – Lipsia.
Hornblower, S. 1991: A commentary on Thucydides, t. I, Oxford.
Ibba, M. A. 2005: «L’arca di Kypselos: un omaggio agli dei di Olimpia», en Giuman, M. (ed.), L’arca invisibile. Studi sull’arca di
Cipselo, Cagliari, pp. 55-79.
Irwin, E. 2005: Solon and early Greek poetry: the politics of exhortation, Cambridge.
Jacoby, F. 1949: Atthis. The local chronicles of ancient Athens, Oxford.
Jeanmarie, H. 1939: Couroi et courètes. Essai sur l’éducation spartiate et sur les rites d’adolescence dans l’antiquité hellénique,
Lille.
Jouan, F. y Van Looy, H. 2002: Euripide. Tragédies, t. VIII/2. Fragments de Bellérophon à Protésilas, Parigi.
Kearns, E. 1989: The heroes of Attica, Londra.
Kirchner, J. 1901: Prosopographia attica, Berlino.
Kourouniotes, K. y Mylonas, G. E. 1933: «Excavation at Eleusis, 1932 preliminary report», AJA 37, pp. 271-286.
Leaf, W. 1960: The Iliad, edited with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes and appendices, Amsterdam.
Leventi, I. 2007: «The Mondragone relief revisited. Eleusinian cult iconography in Campania», Hesperia 76, pp. 107-141.
Lippolis, E. 2006: Mysteria. Archeologia e culto del santuario di Demetra a Eleusi, Roma.
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1967: «Herakles at Eleusis: POxy 2622 and PSI 1391», Maia 19, pp. 206-229.
Loraux, N. 1981: Les enfants d’Athéna. Idées athéniennes sur la citoyenneté et la division des sexes, Parigi.
MacDowell, D. M. 1962: Andokides, On the mysteries, Oxford.
Maddoli, G., Nafissi, M. y Saladino, V. 1999: Pausania, Guida della Grecia. Libro VI: l’Elide e Olimpia, Milano.
Maddoli, G. y Saladino, V. 1995: Pausania, Guida della Grecia. Libro V: l’Elide e Olimpia, Milano.
Martínez Díez, A. 1976: Eurípides, Erecteo. Introducción, texto crítico, traducción y comentario, Granada.
Martínez Nieto, R. B. 2001: «La Θεογονία de Museo: fragmentos inéditos e intento de reconstrucciòn», Emerita 69, pp. 115-152.
Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1997: «From rulers’ dwellings to temples: architecture, religion and society in early iron age Greece (1100-700
B.C.)», Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 121, Jonsered.
Meineke, A. 1895: Strabo, Geographica, Lipsia.
Miles, G. C. 1998: The Athenian agora: the city Eleusinion, t. 31, Princeton.
Musti, D. y Torelli, M. 1997: Pausania, Guida della Grecia. Libro II: la Corinzia e l’Argolide, Milano.
Mylonas, G. E. 1961: Eleusis and the Eleusinian mysteries, Princeton.
Nilsson, M. P. 1951: Cults, myths, oracles and politics in ancient Greece, Lund.
Noussia, M. y Fantuzzi, M. 2001: Solone. Frammenti dell’opera poetica, Milano.
Noussia, M. y Fantuzzi, M. 2011: Solon the athenian. The poetic fragments, Leida – Boston.
Padgud, R. A. 1972: «Eleusis and the union of Attika», GRBS 13, pp. 135-150.
Parker, R. 1990: «Myths of Early Athens», en Bremmer, J. N. (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology, Londra, pp. 187-214.
Parker, R. 1991: «The Hymn to Demeter and the Homeric Hymns», G&R 38, pp. 1-17.
Pearson, A. C. 1963: The fragments of Sophocles, Amsterdam.
Picard, Ch. 1930: «La prediction de Demeter aux Eleusiniens», RPh 4, pp. 257-265.
Picard, Ch. 1931: «Les luttes primitives d’Athènes et d’Eleusis», RH 166, pp. 1-76.
Piccirilli, L. 1975: ΜΕΓΑΡΙΚΑ. Testimonianze e frammenti, Pisa.
Pòrtulas, J. 1996: «Eumolpo el Tracio», Synthesis 3, pp. 57-66.
Radici Colace, P. 1979: Choerili Samii Reliquiae. Introduzione, testo critico e commento, Roma.
Ragucci, G. 2005: «L’arca di Cipselo – breve appendice iconografica», en Giuman,
M. (ed.), L’arca invisibile. Studi sull’arca di Cipselo, Cagliari, pp. 165-219. Raubitschek, I. K. y Raubitschek, A. I. 1982: «The
mission of Triptolemos», en Studies in Athenian architecture, sculpture and topography presented to Homer
A. Thompson, Hesperia suppl. 20, pp. 109-117.
Richardson, N. J. 1974: The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford.
Richter, G. M. A. 1938: «A new vase by the Meidias Painter», BMM, pp. 262-265.
Rhodes, P. J. 1981: A commentary on the aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford.
Rutherford, I. 2001: «The new Simonides: toward a commentary», en Boedeker, D. e Sider, D. (eds.), The new Simonides. Context of
praise and desire, Oxford.
Sabbatucci, D. 1979: Saggio sul misticismo greco, Roma.
Scarpi, P. 1976: Letture sulla religione classica. L’Inno omerico a Demeter: elementi per una tipologia del mito, Padova.
Scarpi, P. 2002: Le religioni dei misteri. Eleusi, dionisismo, orfismo, t. I, Milano.
Schumacher, R. W. M. 1993: «Three related sanctuaries of Poseidon: Geraistos, Kalaureia and Tanairon», en Hägg, R. e Marinatos,
N. (eds.), Greek sanctuaries. New approaches, Londra – New York, pp. 62-87.
Sfameni Gasparro, G. 1986: Misteri e culti mistici di Demetra, Roma. Shapiro, H. A. 1989: Art and cult under the tyrants in Athens,
Magonza.
Simms, R. M. 1983: «Eumolpos and the wars of Athens», GRBS 24, pp. 197-208.
Slings, S. R. 2000: «Literature in Athens, 566-10 B.C.», en Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (ed.), Peisistratos and the tyranny. A
reappraisal of the evidence, Amsterdam, pp. 57-77.
Sonnino, M. 2010: Euripidis Erechtei quae extant. Introduzione, testo critico, commento, traduzione, Firenze.
Stallsmith, A. B. 2008: «The name of Demeter Thesmophoros», GRBS 48, pp. 115131.
Stanley Spaeth, B. 1991: «Athenians and Eleusinians in the west pediment of the Parthenon», Hesperia 60, pp. 331-361.
Stiglitz, A. 2005: «I saggi tiranni: i Cipselidi. Introduzione storica e geografica all’arca di Cipselo», en Giuman, M. (ed.) L’arca
invisibile. Studi sull’arca di Cipselo, Cagliari, pp. 37-54.
Toepffer, J. 1889: Attische Genealogie, Berlino.
Travlos, J. 1988: Bildlexicon zur Topographie des Antiken Attika, Tubinga.
Vernant, J. P. 1969: «Hestia-Hermes. Sur l’espression religieuse de l’espace et du mouvement chez les Grecs», en Vernant, J. P. (ed.),
Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs, Parigi, pp. 97-143.
Vian, F. y Delage, É. 1976: Apollonios de Rhodes, Argonautiques, Parigi.
Walton, F. R. 1952: «Athens, Eleusis and the homeric Hymn to Demeter», HThR 45, pp. 105-114.
West, M. L. 1985: The hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Its nature, structure, and origin, Oxford
West, M. L. 1988: Hesiod, Theogony, Oxford.
West, M. L. 1992: Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, t. II, Oxford.
West, M. L. 1999: «The invention of Homer», CQ 49, pp. 364-382.