Great Eleusis Frieze, Eleusis Museum, Greece, late 5th c. BCE
What was the role of Triptolemos in the Eleusinian Mysteries? This question is still unanswered – and may never be answered – despite considerable attention and voluminous studies spanning many centuries. Even the earliest Patristic commentators like Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, Macrobius and others have done more to confuse than resolve issues regarding well-kept secrets of the Mysteries. As Mylonas said in now-famous words, “We know details of the ritual but not its meaning. The ancients kept their secret well. And Eleusis still lies under its heavy mantle of mystery.” Of all the questions about Eleusis and Triptolemos – whose iconography is fairly well-known – the actual importance of Triptolemos is also mostly unknown other than as apostole of grain, spreading grain cultivation to the world. (1) Triptolemos may be more important than previously held; while speculative, this paper attempts to explore his role in the Mysteries.

According to most interpretations of his myth, Triptolemos had no special significance beyond his mission of spreading grain cultivation. Farnell discussed Triptolemos as an old “culture-hero” of Eleusis, but with a separate shrine as well as an altar and sacred threshing floor on the Plain of Rharus (Rharion). Farnell warned that we can only conjecture and theorize beyond fragments what any “actual revelation” from the “art of the age of belief” may imply about the Eleusinian Mysteries given the prohibitions against profanation. (2) Certainly the popularity of Triptolemos’ mission is well-researched, with many vignettes occurring especially between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars at the height of the Eleusinian Mysteries as described by Mylonas and Clinton. Combining the much earlier Stephani and later Grossman lists, Triptolemos representations exceed 468 examples of the mission of Triptolemos. (3) Whether in a wheeled cart as LIMC depicts in over fifty examples – or wheeled throne as Boardman notes on black figure – or winged chariot (see the above image), the centrality of Triptolemos is undeniable in many of these media, most often either in his dragon vehicle (especially in fifth century vignettes which add serpents) and/or flanked by both Demeter and Persephone.(4) Why is Triptolemos, the human agent of the cultivation of grain, central to this vignette and the divine persona of Demeter subordinate? What aspect of Triptolemos is being presented here – human, semidivine or both together – to become the primary focus?

Triptolemos Vignette, Greek Red-Figured Dinos, Getty Museum, attr. Syleus Painter. Athens, c. 470 BCE
In the typical vase scenes, Triptolemos, often holding grain stalks and with grain heads wreathed his hair, sits in his winged chariot preparing to undertake his apostolic mission to spread grain cultivation to the world with the blessing of Demeter and Persephone. Under the handles, Demeter herself may sit on the Mirthless Rock [’αγελαστος πετρα]. The primary vignette usually has Triptolemos flanked on both sides by a standing Demeter and Persephone – Kore, who may wear a kernos on her head – either of whom pours a libation from an oinochoe into the phiale of Triptolemos seated in his winged chariot with snakes. (5)
Greek vases with the the mission of Triptolemos often emphasize him more centrally than Demeter herself, a human elevation whose global mission brings great benefits. (6) As Mylonas said, “The myth of the mission of Triptolemos proved a most favorite story with the Athenian vase painters.”(7) Carpenter also highlights the popularity of Triptolemos in 5th. c. Athens. (8) Beyond also welcoming initiates to Eleusis, is there also another role of Triptolemos which extends beyond political significance of acknowledged Eleusinian apostole, yet one which would also convey human sympathy and mediatorial power?
Here is the most speculative question of this brief paper: What if Triptolemos had a secret mediatorial role not to be revealed to the uninitiated? Although not necessarily related to the common vase scene, there may exist a hint from Socrates: beyond reminding contemporary viewers in 5th c. Athens of Triptolemos’ great role in the past myth, there may also be a clue to the future but more deeply foundational to the importance of Triptolemos for all Greeks. Socrates calls him a demigod (hemitheos) and a judge (dikastes) of the Underworld. In the Apologia, during his final oration after Socrates is condemned to death by the Athenians [and thus has no fear of profaning the Eleusinian Mysteries which would lead to a redundant death penalty], he claims his judges in the afterlife are better than this Athenian court of false jurors and witnesses:
“If on arrival in the other world, beyond the reach of these so-called judges here,
one will find there the true judges who are said to sit in judgment in those courts, Minos and
Rhadamanthys and Aeacus and Triptolemos, and all those other demigods
who were upright in their earthly life, would that be an unrewarding place to settle?” (9)
Socrates thus adds a fourth judge, Triptolemos, who is not normally cited as one of the judges who determine the fate of the deceased, the other three [Minos, Rhadamanthys and Aeacus] being most commonly cited as those who judge between which souls will go to the fields of Elysium and who will not be so blessed. What is the specific role of Triptolemos as a judge in the Underworld? It must have been required to be a just man in this life, like Triptolemos “whose laws are even written down at Eleusis” (Schwarz). The daughters of King Keleos in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter 149-55 also call Triptolemos, (along with Dioklos, Polyxeinos, Eumolpos, Dolichos and Keleos) a man of great power, honor and wise, “guarding the city by wisdom and true judgments”. The epithet of Triptolemos is even “wise” (pykimedes) (line 153), although “shrewd” or “cautious” are perhaps better connotations where it is otherwise used in Odyssey 1.438. The idea of “true judgment” (‘itheiesi dikesin) “straightforward, fair judgment” (also used, for example, by Hesiod in Theogony 86 about Zeus with the aid of the Muses), which adjective ‘itheiesi presupposes the common knowledge that not all human justice is fair, supplies the precedent for Socrates in the Apologia but applied in this world instead. Beyond these principles it may be difficult to determine the details of Triptolemos’ judgeship on earth or perceived below. Plato also mentions Triptolemos in the Laws 6.782b as the mediator of Demeter and Kore’s benefits: “the gifts (dora) of Demeter and Kore, which Triptolemos, or whoever it was, handed on to us.” Use of the word “gifts” can certainly be grain on the one hand, the usual interpretation, (10) but its plural generality or ambiguity could also incorporate other unspoken gifts. That Plato’s use is plural is important, since as mentioned the surface gift is agriculture itself, but another gift may be only hinted at. As Isocrates (Panegyricus 28) also mentions not one but two gifts, the first gift being agriculture that allows humans to rise above animals, and the second gift being “sweeter hopes (hedious tas ‘elpidas) regarding the end of all life and all eternity.” In this light it should not be overlooked that Plato suggests Triptolemos as mediator of ” gifts” and then slightly dissembles in “or whoever it was”, possibly to avoid profanation, because everyone already knew the general role of Triptolemos as grain apostole. Why else would Plato pretend it wasn’t necessarily Triptolemos as mediator of “gifts” (dora) if the one gift was commonly-known but not the other?
The other judges of the Underworld were known for their justice on earth. Although he only mentions Triptolemos in connection with the gift of sowing grain, Diodorus Siculus noted that Minos was said to have “great renown for his justice” and Rhadamanthys “rendered the most just decisions and inflicted inexorable punishment” on criminals and irreligious malefactors. Of both Rhadamanthys and Minos, “because of his [Rhadamanthys] very great justice, the myth has sprung up that he was appointed to be judge in Hades, where his decisions separate the good from the wicked. And the same honor has also been attained by Minos, because he ruled in accordance with law and paid the greatest heed to justice.” (11) Aeacus, like Minos and Rhadamanthys a son of Zeus, was also known for his great justice, chosen by Poseidon and Apollo to help them build the walls of Troy. But because so little is known about Triptolemos outside Eleusis, his most important realm of justice may not be earthly. Beyond the overwhelming iconography of Triptolemos in his dragon chariot (or winged throne), there are four surviving examples of Triptolemos as Underworld judge along with the other judges represented on Apulian vases, but Clinton no doubt rightly dismisses these Apulian vases as not representing Eleusinian iconography of Triptolemos (only as grain apostole, however) if we accept that is equal to Attic iconography.(12) Clinton’s arguments are mostly compelling, but there may be more than grain apostole at stake.
But perhaps more crucial for this brief essay is that Socrates may have even hinted at one of the specific hopes of the initiates to the Eleusinian Mysteries: the very presence of Triptolemos was possibly believed to load the court in favor of any initiate, perhaps becoming a guarantor of departure to the Elysian fields, which destiny initiation itself seems to promise. Was it possibly believed that Triptolemos trumped the other three afterlife judges by personally claiming an Eleusinian mystes (initiate) for entry into the Elysian Fields? What if a vicarious personal knowledge of Triptolemos through the Mysteries may have counted as equally important to any other factor for candidates to Elysium? Did the dying Socrates reveal here one of the great secrets of Eleusis? In the Apologia, it would be unlikely for any of the Athenians to refute him as it would be their own profaning admission of a secret and thereby equally condemn them to death.
Nor does Plato reveal anything further (or objecting to any possible profanation) other than to ostensibly quote Socrates without drawing condemnation himself by adding any interpretation of the possible revelation of Socrates. By repeating in writing what Socrates has putatively said, why is Plato not equally guilty in writing of profanation and therefore a death penalty? This is a distinct problem in this interpretation, but if he is only recording – not the author of the statement in the eyes of the trial audience – perhaps this mitigates Plato’s possibly complicit profanation into the mere written testimony of Socrates’ perceived “impiety” (profaning the Mysteries), and therefore Socrates’ justifiable death. Thus it would be Socrates, not Plato, actually revealing possible secrets. Socrates is already a virtual dead man – he has nothing to lose – and also thus provokes the judges further by either pretending or claiming to believe in the Mysteries, thus confounding any potential charge of impiety against him by such hermetic knowledge along with a subtle claim of identification with Triptolemos.
Two testimonia from antiquity are apropos. As Sophokles also said in Fragment 719 [Dindorf] (also as Fragment 753 Nauck):
“Thrice happy are those of mortals, who having seen those rites depart for Hades;
for to them alone is it granted to have true life there; to the rest all there is evil.”
Sophokles also wrote a lost play Triptolemos, of which only fragments 596-617 [Radt] survive. It is perhaps important to wonder whether “thrice-happy” here is also hinted at in Triptolemos’ name: τρι + πτολεμος as “thrice mighty [in battle?]” in his hidden role as underworld judge over the other three commonly-known judges, where he becomes the victorious advocate of the thus thrice-blessed initiates. (13) This otherwise unstated blessedness is corroborated by Pindar in Fragment 102 for the initiates of these mysteries:
“Happy is he who, having seen these rites, goes below the hollow earth,
for he knows the end of life and he knows its god-sent beginning.”
Whether or not Socrates was an Eleusinian initiate is not as vital – though dependent thereon – as his reason for adding Triptolemos as the fourth judge. Admittedly speculative, he may have indeed revealed a vital secret of afterlife hope not intended for the uninitiated. Regardless of the ultimate answer to that question, Socrates’ inclusion does underscore the Hellenic importance of Triptolemos beyond Eleusis and the world of the Athenians, who knew how important Eleusis was to them.(14) Of course, it cannot be ruled out that Socrates was provocatively jesting or mocking those of his jurors who were Eleusinian initiates themselves, but this does not necessarily undermine what he might have deliberately revealed in his statement about underworld judges and Eleusinian Mysteries.
The myth role of Triptolemos is wholly human in parentage and yet he is the primary agent of and all first fruits [‘aparchai], perhaps even becoming himself the first human “first-fruit” (‘aparche initiate of Eleusis: “and she [Demeter] showed the conduct of her rites and taught them all her mysteries, to Triptolemos [the first listed initiate]…” (15) While these are mere speculations building on an already-burdened argument from silence, could Paul the Apostle have known about Eleusinian initiates (mystes) as aparchai? In what would be a late Christian borrowing and application of the idea (although there would have been a Jewish sacrificial precedent) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:20, 23 among other New Testament passages, Paul wrote about Jesus as the “first-fruit” [‘aparche] of resurrection. Could Paul have learned something from a Christian convert (perhaps even Dionysius the Areopagite in Acts of the Apostles 17:34?) – who might have been an Eleusinian mystes and knew of Triptolemos’ somewhat-soteriological role and assisted Paul in applying this idea to Christianity, especially because a former initiate would no longer worry about profanation if there was a stronger belief in the supersedence of the new religion? Whether it is the crafty and logical Socrates (or the equally crafty and logical Plato vicariously but almost dangerously acting as the innocent mouthpiece of Socrates without a profaning explanation) who first suggest the underworld judgeship of Triptolemos is yet unknown. Clinton adduced a Priest of Triptolemos (Hiereus Triptolemou) very late in the historic religious hierarchy at Eleusis, (16) circa mid-3rd century CE. It is probably no coincidence that this happened around the time that Christianity was officialized, with only one known officeholder. As Clinton no doubt accurately gauges about this priesthood, “it was added as an afterthought.” It is even possible that some syncretist Christians then saw in Triptolemos a foreshadowing of Jesus in his subtly trinitiarian-allusive name, mediatory role and possibly salvific afterlife hope.
Although some have recently reinterpreted the Great Eleusis Frieze as not representing Triptolemos (especially on the strength of the argument that it would be fairly unique iconographically and not Attic), raising the suggestion of Eumolpos or others as the human subject (above image),(17) based on this essay I would argue the human subject is Triptolemos, as has been mostly assumed since its discovery in 1859, and who would have been perceived as the fourth judge whose authority transcended the other three judges of the Underworld, acting as the human mediator for Eleusinian initiates in the afterlife. On the other hand, the Great Eleusis Frieze may not represent Triptolemos, which does not really affect the question or undermine the primary idea raised here about Triptolemos. Pausanias (1.38.6) briefly mentions the Temple of Triptolemos at Eleusis but omits its location, mostly suggested by scholars as outside the sanctuary itself (for reasons including that no remains exist inside the crowded sanctuary), but until it is found, if ever, this question still remains open. The fact that a temple of Triptolemos has not been found to date inside the sanctuary (an argument from silence itself) cannot rule out that possibility.
In conclusion, not only because in myth Triptolemos was chosen by Demeter to spread the arts of grain cultivation to the world, which elevated his divinely-created human mission, but also because of the enigmatic testimony of Socrates naming Triptolemos as fourth underworld judge and thus demigod, I suggest this latter role as the secret role known or understood only by Eleusinian initiates. Thus the linkage of Triptolemos with the grain deities rightly places Triptolemos at the center of focus as a bridge between the gods and humanity. This brief essay certainly attests to the undeniable importance of Triptolemos in Greek art. Perhaps it also conveys, as Socrates may allude, that his soteriological role may also parallel a poignantly human hope that those gifts offered by the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone may somehow have far greater afterlife meaning to Eleusinian initiates, as Cicero said (18), “to die with a better hope.”
Notes
I first proposed the majority of this argument in a prior publication: Patrick Hunt. “Triptolemos and Beyond in the Stanford Kleophon Krater.” Journal of the Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University, Vol. 1 1998-1999 (2001), 3-8.
(1) Gerda Schwarz, Triptolemos: Ikonographie einer Agrar- und Mysteriengottheit, Grazer Beitrage, Supplementum 2, Horn-Graz, 1987, esp. 160-63; K. Clinton, Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries, The Martin P. Nilsson Lectures on Greek Religion, Swedish Institute in Athens, Paul Astroms Forlag, 1992, 13-27, 101-25; T. Gantz. Early Greek Myth, vol. 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1993, 69 ff; “Triptolemos”. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 1997-98. For patristic quotations, cf. Clement of Alexandria, Protreptikos 2; Lactantius, Div. Inst., epitom. 23; Macrobius, Saturnalia.
(2) L.R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, III, 1907, p. 197: “those who won their friendship by initiation in this life would by the simple logic of faith regard themselves as certain to win blessings at their hands in the next.” Reprinted, New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Bros., 1977 repr., 245 ff;
(3) L.E. Stephani, Compte rendu de la Commission imperiale archeologique, 1859. B. Grossman, The Eleusinian Gods and Heroes in Greek Art, Washington University, 1959, pp. 67-77, 81-2.
(4) Additional Triptolemos vignettes can be found in J.D. Beazley, Attic Black Figure Vase Painters [ABV], Oxford, 1956; J.D. Beazley, Attic Red Figure Vase Painters [ARV], Oxford, 1963, 459.3; and the Beazley Archive Database at Oxford University. Naturally, Triptolemos has appearances on other media, e.g., gems, in A. Furtwangler’s Die antiken Gemmen, 1900, T. 55 & cf. “Triptolemos”, LIMC, 1997-98, vol. VIII 2, Artemis Verlag, Dusseldorf, Plates 30-41. A selection of 159 Triptolemos representations are numbered with 64 shown in Greek and Roman media: Black-figure vase painting (8-12); Red-figure vase painting (33); relief sculpture (7), coins (5), gems or sardonyx plate – see Farnese cup in this note (4); sculptural bust (1); Roman wall painting (1) and other examples not shown of silver ware, situlae, lamps, etc. Based on various interpretations from Visconti and Furtwängler onward, LIMC portrays the famous sardonyx Farnese Cup (Museo Nazionale, Naples, inv. 27611), probably from Hellenistic Alexandria, c. 2nd-1st century, BCE as a possible gift to the Ptolemaic Queen Berenike, showing Triptolemos as the figure standing next to an old Nilotic god (although cornucopiae are also attributes of Underworld gods) “greeting Triptolemos, the first to cultivate grain thanks to the teachings of Demeter”, S. De Caro. The National Archaeological Museum of Naples. Naples: Electa Napoli, 1996, 340.
(5) T. H. Carpenter. Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. London: Thames and Hudson, 1996 repr., 36; S.B. Matheson, Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Classical Athens. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1995, p. 424, Catalog # KLM16 with additional bibliography noted there [by courtesy of an anonymous reviewer of Hunt’s 2001 article on Triptolemos]. Matheson has reviewed the history of the Kleophon Krater at Stanford.
Here are a few well-known Triptolemos vignettes: a) London: British Museum, Makron Painter, BM E 140, b) Palermo: Museo Antonio Salinas, from Agrigento (also Museo dell’ Universita), Red Figure Campanian Crater # 2124, Pittore di Orizia, 460 BCE ; c) Vatican ARV Vatican 385; ABV, p. 374, no. 195 (Leagros Group) D 7 & G AP 21, publ. by C. Albizzati, Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano [n.p., n.d.], pl 54, no. 385; 4) Lenormant Collection [formerly] D 5, G AP 16, publ. by A. B. Cook, Zeus I, Cambridge, 1914, p. 214, figs. 157:a & b; and 5) Wurzburg 197, D 4, G AP 16, publ. by E. Langlotz, Griechische Vasen in Wurzburg, Munich, 1932, p. 34, pl. 51, no. 197. Numbers a)-c) share with the Stanford Kleophon Krater the presence of Dionysus on Side B. Other sources include: H.J. Rose. A Handbook of Greek Mythology, London: Methuen, 1928. p. 92 & ff., esp. 95, Dionysos as Iacchos/Iakchos; Schwenn, Real-Encyclopadie VII A 217 [von Pauly]; Hans v. Giesau. Die Kleine Pauly, Band 5, Munchen: Druckenmuller Verlag, 1975, p. 965.
(6) Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 480 ff.
(7) G. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton, 1961, 229.
(8) Carpenter, 36.
(9) Plato, Apologia 41a, [H. North Fowler, H. Tredennick and H.Tarrant, tr.]; Schwarz, 161-63, also discusses in some detail the role of Triptolemos as Underworld judge (“Richter in der Underwelt-Totenrichter”) without the sugestions made in this article; Schwarz also shows at least 40 images of Triptolemos as grain apostle but only discusses one image as underworld judge in a late 5th c. BCE Dinos Painter krater in Bologna. Schwarz points out that the judgeship of Triptolemos is a late Attic tradition partly to supplant the judgeship of Minos who was an archenemy of Athens, certainly in myths of Theseus and elsewhere by extension.
(10) R. G. Bury. Plato: Laws, vol. 1, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952 repr., 491; Trevor Saunders in John M. Cooper, ed. Plato: Complete Works. Cambridge: Hackett, 1997, 1454
(11) Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. C.H. Oldfather, tr. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952, V.78.2-79.2 on Minos and Rhadamanthys, 311-13; IV.72.5-6 on Aeacus, 47; V.68.2 on Triptolemos, 281. Dioidorus also notes Demeter was the Thesmophoros, great “Lawgiver”, from which her Thesmophoria rites derive, ibid., 281.
(12) Clinton, 1992, 44-5. His impeccable argument is most compelling based on an overwhelmingly nonstandard iconography – no dragon chariot or winged serpent throne and too youthful, among other things – but if Triptolemos’ added unique role as salvific for initiates is intended, the standard iconography of apostole may not only be less important in this relief, it may also be irrelevant.
Clinton’s argument against Triptolemos as nonstandard based on youthfulness cannot be dismissed; on the other hand, youthfulness might either signify his first meeting with the goddesses before he is sent out as apostole, or his mortality contrasted with their immortality, or if Triptolemos is a first-fruit (aparche) of Eleusis here as first initiate, or even a kind of rebirth somewhat mortally akin to Persephone’s rebirth each year in spring, or youthful for some other reason not yet understood. The problems with all these added suggestions are, of course, numerous; the first one being that he is already mentioned as a judge at Eleusis in the Homeric Hymn, the remaining problems require additional data not possible to affirm in any way. Yet, as maintained, the identity of the youth in the Great Eleusinian relief as Triptolemos is not really ultimately crucial to this paper.
(13) from H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper and Bros., 1877, p. 1299. In Pease’s commentary on Cicero’s De Divinatione, Pease suggests that Triptolemos could imply plowing thrice yearly or three crops. A.S. Pease, ed. M.Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Liber Primus. Chicago: University of Illinois, 1920, p. 91. Is Eleusinian triplicity also an allusion to the three ritual mysteries of legomena, dromena, deiknymena (or vice versa) or Triptolemos’ shared soteriology with Demeter and Persephone?
(14) Also see Cicero, De Legibus 2, 14, 36, who also claimed that Athens’ best and most divine gift to the world was the Eleusinian Mysteries.
(15) Homeric Hymn to Demeter 474-7
(16) Kevin Clinton. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1974, 97. Clinton cites IG II.2, 3705 for the third century CE name ([‘Aphr]odeisios Stephanou [Marath]onios and priestly title.
(17) Many, including Bruni Ridgway and H. Metzger, have maintained this relief does not show Triptolemos. H. Metzger. “Le Triptoleme du relief d’Eleusis” Revue Archaeologie 1968, 113-8; B.S. Ridgway. Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981, 138-40.
On the other hand, John Travlos identified him as Triptolemos in Attika, fig. 174 , as has Schwarz in her book already noted. Others, for example, Clinton, 1992, 416-20, identified the youth as Ploutos in his compellingly brilliant and comprehensive iconography; Erika Simon also identifes him as Demophon in “Neues zum grossen Relief von Eleusis” in Archaologischer Anzeiger (1998) 373-87; Evelyn B. Harrison, Hesperia 69.3 (2000) 267-91. esp. 268ff., identifies him as Eumolpos in her careful, equally-compelling and magisterial publication. The debated provenance and find spot of the Great Eleusis Relief (Chapel of Saint Zacharias) – either inside or outside the sanctuary – may be important for interpeting the meaning of the relief if it is indeed about Triptolemos. Clinton and others in the mainstream argue that the Temple of Triptolemos was outside the sanctuary, but the temple has to date not been found. If inside the sanctuary, it suggests its presence and meaning were known only to initiates inside (which could strengthen this argument); if outside, its presence and meaning were known to initiates and its presence might have been known but not necessarily its meaning was known to others, much like the vase vignettes. In this relief, Harrison especially and the others rightly acknowledge the deviation from the standard iconography of Triptolemos being in his winged chariot and thus offer different interpretations as Ploutos, Demophon and Eumolpos respectively. The iconography of the objects held in the hands of the grain goddesses is likewise much-debated. The standard interpretation is that on the right, it appears that Persephone (right) holds a dadouchos torch from her mother’s sorrowful wandering while searching for her, a known iconographic implement in Eleusinian ritual. On the left the element at the top of the staff that Demeter holds (also identified as the scepter of Eumolpos as hierophant in Clinton’s iconography and which Harrison says – p. 275 – is in Eumolpos’ future because he is still a youth) resembles an epicotyledon or germinating plant tip, a reference to Demeter’s vegetative power of plant birth and renewal. Harrison also points out (p. 269) that the youth’s hand is reaching for something not yet fully grasped and which she interprets as a tainia fillet in Demeter’s hand, which I suggest is something (mostly missing) that might symbolize the first initiation at Eleusis and its attendant afterlife blessings. Harrison and others agree that the youth’s sandals are those of travelers, which she interprets as signifying the arrival of Eumolpos at Eleusis, whereas I would suggest the travelers’ sandals refer to his apostole mission. On the other hand, as Harrison wisely points out (p. 276) that initiates should be barefoot, perhaps he is instead symbolically Elysium-bound, wherein his youth (unless renewed) should give way to old age. This would be true unless relative size and age are rendered in contrast to the immortal goddesses, which is an admitted problematic anachronism in this relief if Triptolemos is its human subject. Regarding Harrison’s suggestion (p. 289) that the copying of the Great Eleusis Relief in Italy might evidence historical meaning (however inconsistent with standard Attic representations), I would also affirm but resignify this as the universal religious importance of Triptolemos as as salvific judge outside Greece as well for all Eleusinian initiates.
(18) Cicero, De Legibus 2.14.36 sed etiam cum spe meliore moriendi
Greek Red Figure Vase image from Getty Museum: Red-Figure footed Dinos attributed to the Syleus Painter. Athens, about 470 BCE.
Stanford University
http://www.patrickhunt.net
phunt@stanford.edu
Dr. Patrick Hunt © 2005