[1\6: _H. Cer._ 270 ff. (Demeter speaks) ~all' a/ge moi nêo/n te me/gan kai\ bômo\n hup' autô=| teucho/ntôn pa=s dê=mos hupai\ po/lin aipu/ te tei=chos, Kallicho/rou kathu/perthen, epi\ prou/chonti kolônô=|. _o/rgia d' autê\ egô\n hupothê/somai_, hôs a\n e/peita euage/ôs e/rdontes emo\n me/nos hila/skêsthe~. Building of the temple: 298 ff., and following that the instructions of the goddess as to the ~drêsmosu/nê hierô=n~ and the ~o/rgia~, 474 ff.] [2\6: See Lobeck, _Agl._ 272 ff.] [3\6: 487 ff. I will not stop to answer the attacks made on the concluding part of the hymn nor to defend the many lines which editors have rejected. None of the attacks seem to me justified.] [4\6: Körte, _Ath. Mitt._ 1896, p. 320, dates the decree in the year 418.] [5\6: ~kata\ ta\ pa/tria kai\ tê\n mantei/an tê\n ek Delphô=n~, _SIG._ 20, l. 5; 26 f.; 35 [_IG._ i, _Supp._, p. 59, 27_b_]. In Sicily the Eleusinia are already well known in the time of Epicharmos: Epich. ~en Odussei= automo/lô|~ ap. Ath. 374 D = 100 Kaib. _EM._ 255, 2; cf. K. O. Müller, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 259.] [6\6: We can only state this definitely of the Eumolpidai who provided the male and female hierophants. Severely as the genealogy of this family has suffered on all sides through fictitious accretions and combinations there can be no doubt of its Eleusinian origin. On the other hand, it is a striking fact that none of the ~ge/nê~ who are known to have shared in the direction of the Eleus. mysteries derived their origin from the Eleusinian princes mentioned in _h. Cer._ 475-6 as receiving with Eumolpos the instructions of the goddess (Triptolemos, Diokles, Keleos). The Krokonidai and Koironidai did, it is true, claim Triptolemos as their ancestor, but their connexion with the sacred festival is obscure and dubious (see K. O. Müller, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 255 f.). The Kerykes (in whose family the posts of Dadouchos, Herald of the Mysteries, Priest ~epi\ bômô=|~, etc., were hereditary) were only connected with Eumolpos by a tradition which the family itself regarded as apocryphal (Paus. 1, 38, 3); they themselves traced their descent from Hermes and Herse the daughter of Kekrops (s. Dittenberger, _Hermes_, xx, 2), and therefore evidently regarded themselves as an Athenian family. We know too little of these relationships to venture to say that this claim was unjustified (as Müller, p. 250 f., is inclined to do). Nothing need prevent us from supposing that this is one of the many innovations introduced at and after the union of Eleusis and its festival with Athens--many of them are quite evident--and that in addition to the old Eleusinian priestly families the Athenian family of the Kerykes was given a regular part in the ~drêsmosu/nê hierô=n~. This would then be part of the compromise (~sunthê=kai~, Paus. 2, 14, 2) between Athens and Eleusis upon which the whole relationship between the two states and their religious cults rested.] [7\6: See above, chap. v, n. 18.]