[14\6: As to the admission of slaves to the Eleusinian initiation ceremonies K. O. Müller, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 56, opposes Lobeck (_Agl._ 19) and suggests a doubt. His main objection is that on the great inscr. dealing with the regulation of the Eleusinia (_CIA._ i, 1) _side by side_ with ~mu/stai kai\ epo/ptai~ there is mention _also_ of ~ako/louthoi~ (but not of ~dou=loi~, Ziehen, _Leg. Sacr._ [Diss.], p. 14 f.)--i.e. presumably slaves, not themselves Mystai, belonging to the ~mu/stai~. But if slaves were initiated that would not prevent there being other slaves, ~ako/louthoi~ of the ~mu/stai~, uninitiated and not reckoned among the ~mu/stai~. It is definitely stated on the official record of building expenses at Eleusis dating from the year 329/8, _CIA._ ii, 834, b, col. 2, 71, ~mu/êsis duoi=n tô=n dêmosi/ôn~ (the state slaves employed in the building operations) ~D D D~ (cf. l. 68). Initiation of the ~dêmo/sioi~ also in _CIA._ ii, 834 c, 24. On this view, when the comic poet Theophilos (ii, p. 473 K.) makes someone speak of his ~agapêto\s despo/tês~ by whom he ~emuê/thê theoi=s~, it will not be necessary to suppose that a freedman (as Meineke, _Com._ 3, 626) is speaking and not a slave.--The generosity implied was all the greater since in many of the most sacred feasts of the gods at Athens slaves were expressly excluded: cf. Philo, _Q. omn. Prob._ 20, ii, p. 467 M. Casaubon on Ath., vol. 12, p. 495 Schw.] [15\6: Isoc. 4, 28, ~Dê/mêtros ga\r aphikome/nês eis tê\n chô/ran . . . kai\ dou/sês dôrea\s ditta/s, hai/per me/gistai tugcha/nousin ou=sai, tou/s te karpou\s kai\ tê\n teletê/n, . . . hou=tôs hê po/lis hêmô=n ou mo/non theophilô=s alla\ kai\ philanthrô/pôs e/schen, hô/ste kuri/a genome/nê tosou/tôn agathô=n ouk ephtho/nêse toi=s a/llois, all' hô=n e/laben _ha/pasi_~ (he means all _Greeks_: cf. 157) ~mete/dôken~.]