[10\6: ~I/akchos~ (there clearly distinguished from ~Dio/nusos) tê=s Dê/mêtros dai/môn~ is described as ~ho archêge/tês tô=n mustêri/ôn~ in Str. 468 (cf. Ar., _Ran._ 398 f.).] [11\6: The ~Iakchei=on~ (Plu., _Arist._ 27. Alciphr. iii, 59, 1).] [12\6: Was the birth of Iakchos any part of the spectacle at the mysteries? It might be thought so from what we are told by Hippol., _RH._ 5, 8, p. 162 D.-S.: the hierophant ~nukto\s en Eleusi=ni hupo\ pollô=| puri\ telô=n ta\ mustê/ria boa=| kai\ ke/krage le/gôn; hiero\n e/teke po/tnia kou=ron Brimô\ brimo/n~. This statement, however, suffers from the disadvantage belonging to all information given by Christian writers on the subject of mysteries when not confirmed by earlier evidence; such information is admissible at most for the actual time of the writer. (Immediately combined with this in Hippol. comes the remarkable assertion that the hierophant was ~eunouchisme/nos dia\ kônei/ou~. Of this Epict. for example (3, 21, 16) knows nothing, but only speaks of the ~hagnei/a~--probably confined to the time of the festival and its preparation--of the hierophant. Still, Jerome, _adv. Jovin._ 1, 49, p. 320 C Vall., speaks of the cicutae sorbitionis castrari of the hierophant. Likewise Serv., _A._ vi, 661.)] {232} [13\6: An opportunity of speaking in more detail of Orphic doctrine will occur later on. Here I will only point out in passing that the ancients themselves never suggested for a moment that Orpheus--the master of every kind of mysticism--had anything in particular to do with the Eleusinia; as Lob. _Agl._ 239 shows.]