PREFACE

TmsBOOKis identical with none of the earlier works I have pub- lished on the same subject. Issued in a pocketbook series, the Dutch volume : de heiligste mysterien van Griekenland was neces- sarily limited in length. Similar considerations led me to limit the scope of the German volume Die Mysterien von Eleusis. Even so, it contained more than an attempt at reconstruction. Unfortunately, it was already in print when G. E. Mylonas' book Eleusis and the Eleusin- ian Mysteries appeared. This publication for the first time made possible a complete survey of the results of excavations and a dis- cussion of their interpretation by archaeologists. It called for an en- largement of my book. Another difference followed from my conviction that the Eleusinian gods should be numbered among the "Archetypal Images." This point of view was stressed neither in the Dutch nor in the German volume, but is expressed in my earlier essay on the Divine Maiden. It is developed in the present work, which treats the problem of the Mysteries more fully, from the standpoint not only of Greek ex- istence—this was the central theme of the German version—but also of human nature. It is human nature, man as a whole, in his concrete reality, that is sometimes helped by outward means to achieve an inner light. Such a means at Eleusis was fasting. In addition to hunger, there was another undeniable condition for the accomplishment of the Mysteries, which may be termed the pharmaceutical preparation for them: the drinking of the kykeon. My investigations have now been extended in this direction, which was not considered in the previous versions. I have gained a measure of certainty in this new field from a correspondence with the Basel pharmacologist Dr. Albert Hofmann, to whom I wish to give thanks for his help in this still incomplete inquiry. xvii Preface xviii From the very beginning of this work, I have aimed to take exact account of the results of the archaeological research carried on at the site of the epopteia: in the Telesterion. This research has achieved a high degree of precision thanks to the work of John Travlos. In May, 1964,1 had the privilege of visiting Eleusis with Travlos, who is still carrying on excavations1 and may be expected to provide a new reconstruction of the Telesterion. The hypothesis that a small rise in the rocky ground of the Telesterion was regarded as an "omphalos," and formed the center of the cult, struck us both as erroneous. While I was on the spot, I had occasion to reflect on another question also. It concerns the building which had the form of a temple and whose tympanum was probably decorated with a representation of the rape of , surrounded by figures known to us from the west tym- panum of the . Laid out parallel to the north side of the Telesterion, it was situated on the site—outside the entrance of the Telesterion—which several archaeologists formerly believed to have been occupied by the temple of . Travlos has worked out a theoretical reconstruction of this building. He regards it not as a temple but as a treasure house (thesauros), where the most valuable gifts of the Athenians were kept.2 An answer to this question has no great significance for a recon- struction of the Mystery ceremony. I consider it possible that this building was the sacrarium, which apart from the Hierophants only the Emperor Marcus Aurelius was permitted to enter and of which we shall speak in this book. This would offer a third possibility, in addition to the two others discussed below (pp. uof.), of identifying the Megaron, which the Eleusinians may also have designated as a thesauros. Fortu- nately such uncertainties, which cannot be obviated entirely, have no bearing on anything that is essential from our standpoint. The reader Preface xix should not expect this book to take a position on controversies having little to do with the Eleusinian religion. Nor should he expect the ar- chaeologists to supply an answer as to the content of the Mysteries. Sound solutions can be arrived at only if the two sciences, archaeology and the history of religions, are properly co-ordinated.

Below the reader will find a reproduction of the cup which I now assume to be the earliest extant representation of Persephone. It is from the beginning of the Middle Minoan period (shortly after 2000 B.C.) and was found by Professor Doro Levi in 1955 in his excavation of the first palace of Phaistos. He describes it as follows: "A low cup, the inner surface of which shows a religious scene. Two women are seen dancing in most lively attitudes around the Snake Goddess. The head of the Goddess rests on the top of an elongated triangular body with no arms but with a series of arcs running along each of the sides. The body of the goddess and the snakes immediately remind us of the very similar tubular clay idols, or sacrificial tubes,

Persephone with two companions, in a cup of the Middle Minoan period from the first palace at Phaistos (with transcript). Ar- chaeological Museum of Heraklion, Crete Preface xx found at Prinias and in other early-Hellenic sites of more than iooo years later."3 The tubular clay idols, or sacrificial tubes, assuredly served for communication with the subterranean realm. This realm is indicated by the snake, which figures prominently in one version of the myth of Persephone: Zeus, in the form of a snake, seduces her, his own daughter.4 Snake and incest are archaic motifs in mythology.5 The number three (a triad of personages) can also be regarded as an archaic element. It occurs in the Greek myth of Persephone: her two companions are most often Artemis and Athena.6 The Homeric Hymn to Demeter mentions an indefinite number of Okeanidai who play with Persephone and pick flowers: this fits in with the Homeric style, which effaces and excludes the archaic elements. But we recognize the same scene preceding the abduction of the goddess in the hymn (15; cf. below, p. 34) and in the Phaistos cup: Persephone admiring the flower. * After all, the continuing excavations of John Travlos and my Ap- pendixes—especially Appendix I—serve to show how little one can speak of an end of Eleusinian research. Nothing is further from my mind than to give the impression that with this book all difficulties and contradictions of the known facts are resolved and that the last word has been said. To the contrary. I have intentionally left open the possibility of new conclusions and continued investigation. My book should act as the kykeon of Eleusis in all probability did: as a stimulant—indeed, as an agent rousing other students to seek a more complete historical vision of what Eleusis really was. C. K. Ascona, Switzerland May 27, 1966