Thomas W. Allen, E. E. Sikes, Commentary on the Homeric Hymns

[262] θάνατον . . ἁλύξαι=Il. 21.565, Od. 17.547 “, χ” 66. Hence Huschke's “γῆρας” should not be received, although Apollonius has “γῆρας ἀλάλκοι” (see on 237).

265-267. The text is certainly sound (with the sole correction of “συναυξήσους᾿” to “συνάξους᾿”, for which cf. Il. 2.381 “, Ξ” 149, 448): “when Demophon is a man, the Eleusinians will always be fighting with one another.” Editors have assumed a lacuna before 265 and after 267, or at all events after the lines. It was supposed that the lost passage or passages referred to the death of Demophon, or to his leadership in the war, or mediation between the parties. This supposition is quite gratuitous; 265 simply marks the time, “when he has grown to manhood,” and has no closer connexion with the preceding or succeeding lines. There is no trace in myth or history of an Eleusinian civil war; hence Matthiae (followed by Baumeister) substituted “Ἀθηναίοισι” for “ἐν ἀλλήλοισι”, assuming that Demophon was the leader of the Eleusinians in their war against Athens. The corruption is most improbable, not to mention the further difficulty that tradition made Eumolpus, not Demophon, the leader of the Eleusinians ( Thuc.ii. 15, Isocr. Paneg. 19, Apollod.iii. 15. 4, in Leocr. 24, Paus.i. 38. 3). There are so few allusions to early Eleusinian history in Greek literature, that it would not be surprising if mention of a civil war were found in this passage only. But Creutzer was no doubt right in explaining the lines by reference to the “βαλλητύς”, or sham fight, which is expressly connected with Demophon by Hesychius s.v., “ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησιν ἐπὶ Δημοφῶντι τῷ Κελεοῦ ἀγομένη”. Lobeck (Aglaoph. p. 206) quotes an anonymous verse in Artemid.i. 8“ταύροις ἐν Ἰωνίᾳ παῖδες Ἐφεσίων ἀγωνίζονται καὶ ἐν Ἀττικῇ παρὰ ταῖς θεαῖς ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι: κοῦροι <*>αθηναῖοι περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν”; but it is not clear whether this line has any connexion with the “βαλλητύς”. According to A. Mommsen and Lenormant the “βαλλητύς” took place at the end of the festival. It may, however, have been a ceremony during the initial stage of purification (see Introd. p. 10). The rite was like that at Troezen ( Paus.ii. 32. 2, called “λιθοβόλια”). See Gruppe G. Myth. p. 901. Similar customs are quoted by Bather in J. H. S. xiv. 253, Jevons p. 292. It need not be supposed that the origin of such “λιθοβόλια” was always the same; in the present case the mystae may have stoned one another to draw blood as a means of communion with the Corn-goddess, or the blood may have been thought to increase the fertility of the land. The latter idea is probably at the root of some, if not all, of the numerous parallel examples which shew that fights, either sham or more serious, have taken place to ensure a good harvest. This, as a European custom, was first clearly demonstrated by Mannhardt B. K. p. 548 f.; for instances from savage tribes see Frazer on Paus.ii. 30. 4.As often, the meaning of the rite was lost at Eleusis, where the mock-battle was supposed to commemorate an early civil war.