CHAPTER VI

[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.]

[8\6: It is doubtful what part the goddess Daeira played in the Eleusinia: that she played some part must be regarded as certain from the fact that among the official priesthoods of the festival a ~daeiri/tês~ is expressly mentioned (Poll. i, 35). She stands in a certain opposition to Demeter: but though she is nevertheless identified by Aesch. {231} and others with Persephone (K. O. Müller, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 288) the most we may deduce from this is that she also was a chthonic deity. (Acc. to the sacrificial calendar of the Attic Tetrapolis, _Leg. Sacr._ i, p. 48, B. 12. ~Dai/ra| hoi=s kuou=sa~ was offered. This does not point to the identity of this goddess with Persephone--as the editor, p. 52, points out. Pregnant animals were by preference offered to Demeter, though occasionally to Artemis and Athene too.) Daeira seems from all the indications to belong to the ~chtho/nioi~. (Meaning of the name uncertain: ? "the knowing one" or "the (torch) burning one": cf. Lobeck, _Pathol. prol._ 263.) In Eust. on ~Z~ 378, p. 648, 24, among the notices collected from the lexicographers there is one in which Pherekydes makes her the sister of Styx (it is not Pherekydes but the over-subtle scholar to whom Eust. owes his note, who thinks that Daeira signified the ~hugra\ phu/sis~ to the ancients; so also Ael. Dionys. quoting ~hoi peri\ teleta\s kai\ mustê/ria~ in his Lexicon, ap. Eust. 648, 41. This is a worthless allegorical interpretation).--For which reason some made her the daughter of Okeanos (Müller, pp. 244, 288 )--~tine\s de\ phu/laka Persepho/nês hupo\ Plou/tônos apodeichthê=nai/ phasi tê\n Da/eiran~ (648, 40). According to this she would be a Hades-daimon keeping guard over the wife of Aidoneus (cf. the guardian ~Kôkutou= peri/dromoi ku/nes~ in Ar., _Ran._ 472, quoting Eurip.). In this case we can see the origin of Demeter's hostility. Did this Daeira also play a part (as a character) in the Eleusinian ~dra=ma mustiko/n~? Ap. Rh. makes her the same as Hekate, who, however, in the _h. Cer._ (and on vase-paintings) is the helper rather than the enemy of Demeter.]

[9\6: So also in the recently discovered Paean (fourth century B.C.) of Philodamos of Skarpheia addressed to Dionysos (_BCH._ 1895, p. 403), where in the third section we are told how Dionysos, the son of Thyone, born in Thebes, went from Delphi to Eleusis where he was called Iakchos by the mortals to whom he had (in the mysteries) revealed ~po/nôn ho/rmon a/lupon~.--The attempt at historical synthesis, bringing together as many as possible of the different relations and ramifications of the Dionysos nature, is particularly evident in the whole composition of this hymn. The cult of Dionysos was established in Attica by the Delphic oracle--so much is certain; and that is enough for the poet who now makes Iakchos, too, come from Delphi to the people of Attica. Such a conception has no historical significance.]

[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.]

[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~.]

[16\6: ~muei=n d' ei=nai toi=s ou=si Kêru/kôn kai\ Eumolpidô=n~ as the law appoints, _CIA._ i, 1 (more exactly _Supp._ p. 3 f.), ll. 110-11. Thus the ~mu/êsis~ belonged exclusively to the members of the ~ge/nê~ of the Eumolpidai and Kerykes (but to all the members, not merely those serving as officers at the particular festival concerned). Cf. Dittenberger, _Hermes_, 20, 31 f. The Emperor Hadrian, in order to be able to hold the festival in a more sumptuous manner, had himself made ~a/rchôn~ of the ~Eumolpidô=n ge/nos~, having already been made a member of that ~ge/nos~: ins. from Eleusis, _Ath. Mitt._ 1894, p. 172.--There is no reference to the Eleusinia in what is said about the ~muei=n~ of a priestess belonging to the family of the Phyllidai in Phot. ~Phillei=dai~: see Töpffer, _Att. Geneal._ 92.--The exx. of ~mu/êsis~ collected by Lobeck (_Agl._ 28 ff.) do not contradict this law: in the case of Lysias who ~hupe/scheto muê/sein~ the hetaira Metaneira [D.] 59, 21, ~muei=n~ merely means defray the cost of initiation (quite correctly explained by Müller, review of _Aglaoph._, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 56). So, too, in the case of Theoph. (ii, p. 473 K.) ~emuê/thên theoi=s~, i.e. at the expense of my master.]

[17\6: The ~pro/rrêsis~ of the Basileus and the proclamations of the hierophant and dadouchos excluded all ~andropho/noi~ from those taking part in the mysteries: Lob., _Agl._ 15. They were also, it is true, excluded from all other sacred rites: Lob. 17. Even ~toi=s en aiti/a|~ the Archon gave warning ~ape/chesthai mustêri/ôn kai\ tô=n a/llôn nomi/môn~ (Poll. 8, 90): in fact, the person accused of murder was in any case, as "unclean", excluded from _all_ ~no/mima~: Antipho, vi, 36 (in _AB._ 310, 8 read ~nomi/môn~).] {233}

[18\6: ~_ho/sioi_ mu/stai~, Ar., _Ran._ 336. (So, too, the Mystai of the Orphic mysteries are called ~hoi ho/sioi~: Pl., _Rp._ 363 C; Orph., _H._ 84, 3.) ~ho/sios~ is probably here used in its primitive sense = "clean" (~ho/siai chei=res~, etc.). [Pl.] _Axioch._ 371 D refers to ~ta\s hosi/ous agchistei/as~ of the Eleus. Mystai. In the same way ~hosiou=n~ was used of ritual purification and expiation: ~phugai=sin hosiou=n~ the murder, E., _Or._ 515; ~hosiou=n~ the returned homicide, D. 23, 73; (of the Bacchic mysteries ~ba/kchos eklê/thên hosiôthei/s~, E. _fr._ 472, 15). Thus the ~ho/sioi~ are identical with the _~kekatharme/noi~_ as the initiated are called: Pl. _Phd._ 69 C, and frequently. It would be hazardous to suppose that the Mystai called themselves ~ho/sioi~ as the _only_ pious and righteous people (though that is what ~ho/sios a/nthrôpos~ and the like mean elsewhere). Their spiritual self-satisfaction hardly went as far as that, and indeed they did not ascribe so much _personal_ merit to themselves at all.]

[19\6: In a solemn announcement of the Keryx as it seems: the latter acc. to Sopater ~diai/r. zêtêm.~ (Walz, _Rhet. Gr._ viii, 118, 24 f.) ~dêmosi/a| epita/ttei tê\n siôpê/n~ at the commencement of the sacred ritual.]

[20\6: ~ta\ mustê/ria poiei=n~, Andoc., _Myst._ 11-12.--The more clearly descriptive expression, ~exorchei=sthai ta\ mustê/ria~ does not seem to occur before Aristides, Lucian, and the latter's imitator Alciphron. [Lys.] 6, 51: ~hou=tos endu\s stolê/n, mimou/menos ta\ hiera\ **epedei/knue toi=s amuê/tois kai\ ei=pe tê=| phônê=| ta\ apo/rrêta~. The ~apor.~ thus divulged were the sacred formulæ uttered by the hierophant.]

[21\6: At least in later ages there was plenty to hear: ~eis epha/millon kate/stê tai=s akoai=s ta\ horô/mena~, Aristid., _Eleus._ I, 415 Di. [ii, 28 Ke.]. We frequently hear of the beautiful voices of the hierophants, of ~hu/mnoi~ ringing out, etc.]

[22\6: The well-known statements of Pindar, Sophokles, Isokrates, Krinagoras, Cicero, and others are collected by Lobeck, _Agl._ 69 ff. There is a reminiscence of Isocr. in Aristid. _Eleus._ I 421 Di. [ii, 30 Ke.] ~alla\ mê\n to/ ge ke/rdos tê=s panêgu/reôs ouch ho/son hê parou=sa euthumi/a . . . alla\ kai\ peri\ tê=s teleutê=s hêdi/ous e/chein ta\s elpi/das~. id. _Panath._ I, 302 Di. ~ta\s arrê/tous teleta\s hô=n toi=s metaschou=si kai\ meta\ tê=n tou= bi/ou teleutê\n belti/ô ta\ pra/gmata gi/gnesthai dokei=~. Cf. also Welcker's account, _Gr. Götterl._ ii, 519 ff., in which, however, there is a good deal mixed up which has nothing to do with the mysteries.]

[23\6: That is, in the time of still vital religion and in the circles which still retained an unspoilt feeling for it. Apart from these it is true that the allegorical interpretation of myths was already familiar in antiquity, and in learned circles the gods and the stories of the gods were transformed and disintegrated ~eis pneu/mata kai\ rheu/mata kai\ spo/rous kai\ aro/tous kai\ pa/thê gê=s kai\ metabola\s hôrô=n~ as Plutarch complains, _Is. et O._ 66, p. 377 D. These allegorical interpreters from Anaxagoras and Metrodoros onwards are the real ancestors of our modern "nature" mythologists. No one doubts, however, that from their interpretations nothing can be learnt except what the real sense of Greek belief in the gods certainly was _not_. It is worth noticing that Prodikos, because he said that ~hê/lion kai\ selê/nên kai\ potamou\s kai\ leimô=nas kai\ karpou\s kai\ pa=n to\ toioutô=des~ were the real essence of the Greek gods, was looked upon as one of the ~a/theoi~ (S.E., _M._ 9, 51-2 = B 5 Diels). Quam tandem religionem reliquit? asks the Greek whom Cicero is reproducing in _ND._ i, 118, with reference to this ancient prophet of Greek "nature-religion".--For the ancient allegorists Persephone, too, is nothing but ~to\ dia\ tô=n karpô=n phero/menon pneu=ma~ (so Kleanthes: Plu. as above). Acc. to Varro Persephone "means" fecunditatem seminum, {234} carried off by Orcus on the occasion of some crop-failure, etc. (Aug., _CD._ vii, 20). In Porph. ap. Eus., _PE._ 3, 11, 7-9. we actually have the very interpretation which has been recently restored to so much favour--that ~Ko/rê~ is nothing else but a (feminine) personification of ~ko/ros~ = young plant, shoot.]

[24\6: A hint of such an explanation occurs in Sallustius, _de Dis_ iv, ~kata\ tê\n enanti/an isêmeri/an~ (i.e. the autumnal) ~hê tê=s Ko/rês harpagê\ **muthologei=tai gene/sthai; ho\ dê\ ka/thodo/s hesti tô=n psuchô=n~ (from the standpoint of this Neoplatonist at any rate the analogy might be carried through). So, too, Sopater ~diai/r. zêt.~ in Walz, _Rh. Gr._ viii, 115, 3, speaks of ~to\ tê=s psuchê=s pro\s to\ thei=on suggene/s~ as if it were confirmed in the (Eleusinian) mysteries.]

[25\6: It may be mentioned here by anticipation that a real doctrine of the indestructibility of the human soul was first traditionally attributed in antiquity to the Greek philosophers such as Thales or to the _theosophoi_ such as Pherekydes (and Pythagoras too). In what sense this can be regarded as true we shall learn in the course of our inquiry. The mysteries of Eleusis, from which many modern critics would like to derive the belief in immortality among the Greeks, are mentioned by no ancient authority as among the sources of that belief or of such a doctrine. In which they were quite right.]

[26\6: Soph. _fr._ 753 N. [791 P.] ~hôs tri\s o/lbioi kei=noi brotô=n, hoi\ tau=ta derchthe/ntes te/lê mo/lôs' es Ha/idou; toi=sde ga\r mo/nois ekei= zê=n e/sti, toi=s d' a/lloisi pa/nt' ekei= kaka/~.]

[27\6: The privileged position of the initiated is exhibited with striking vigour in the well-known outburst of Diogenes: ~ti/ le/geis, e/phê, krei/ttona moi=ran he/xei Pataiki/ôn ho kle/ptês apothanô\n ê\ Epameinô/ndas, ho/ti memu/êtai?~ Plu., _Aud. Poet._ iv, p. 21 F; D.L. vi, 39; Jul., _Or._ vii, 238 A (p. 308 Hert.).--A homiletic application of Diogenes' saying is made by Philo, _Vict. Off._ 12, ii, p. 261 M. ~sumbai/nei polla/kis tô=n me\n agathô=n andrô=n mêde/na muei=sthai, lê|sta\s de\ e/stin ho/te kai\ katapontista\s kai\ gunaikô=n thia/sous bdeluktô=n kai\ akola/stôn, epa\n argu/rion para/schôsi toi=s teloi=si kai\ hierophantou=si~. Cf. _Spec. Leg._ 3, 7, i, p. 306 M.]

[28\6: Of this nature were the ~hiera/~ which the hierophant "showed" and the other things that were employed in the festival: pictures of gods, relics, and paraphernalia of all sorts (e.g. the ~ki/stê~ and the ~ka/lathos~: O. Jahn, _Hermes_, 3, 327 f.): see Lob., _Agl._ 51-62.]

[29\6: Preller, for example (stimulated by K. O. Müller), is fond of dwelling on the special character and meaning of the worship of the chthonic deities as something quite distinct from other Greek worships of the gods. An example may be found in Pauly-Wissowa^1, s.v. _Eleusis_, iii, p. 108: "The department of religion to which the Eleusinian cult belongs is that of the chthonic deities, which had been indigenous in Greece from the earliest times and was a widely popular cultus. In this cultus ideas of the generous fruitfulness of the earth's soil and of the fruitfulness of death--whose seat seems to be beneath the earth like the Old Testament Sheol--were interwoven in a mysteriously suggestive way: a way which essentially resisted all efforts at clear and distinct comprehension, and could not help leading to mystical or occult suggestions and obscure symbolistic expression." This and further amplifications in the same sense all rest upon the unprovable axiom that the activities of the ~chtho/nioi~ as gods of the soil and as gods of the kingdom of the souls were "interwoven": the suggestive haze of the rest follows naturally. But what in all this is Greek?]

[30\6: ~hê kru/psis hê mustikê\ tô=n hierô=n semnopoiei= to\ thei=on, mimoume/nê tê\n phu/sin autou= pheu/gousan hêmô=n tê\n ai/sthêsin~. Str. 467.] {235}

[31\6: In fact the ancient allegorical interpretations of the mysteries differed widely among themselves: Lob., _Agl._ 136-40.--Even Galen attributed an allegorical sense to the mysteries of Eleusis, but he thinks ~_amudra\_ ekei=na pro\s e/ndeixin hô=n speu/dei dida/skein~ (iv, p. 361 K.). This cannot have been true of the assurances given to the Mystai of a blessed future in Hades.]

[32\6: Such proclamations may have occurred in the ~hieropha/ntou rhê/seis~ (Sop. ~diai/r. zêt.~ Walz, viii, 123, 29; cf. Lob., _Agl._ 189).]

[33\6: Lob., _Agl._ 52, 58 f.]

[34\6: No one says anything of any kind of moral obligation undertaken by the Mystai or of any consequent moral influence of the festival: not even Andokides in whose warnings addressed to the college of judges composed of Mystai (_Myst._ 31) the words ~hi/na timôrê/sête me\n tou\s asebou=ntas ktl.~ are not to be taken with the previous ~memu/êsthe kai\ heôra/kate toi=n theoi=n ta\ hiera/~ but with ~hoi/tines ho/rkous mega/lous ktl., kai\ arasa/menoi ktl.~ He speaks, in fact, of the moral obligation of the jury who have taken the oath, as _judges_ not as Mystai. In Ar., _Ran._, 455 ff., the words ~ho/soi memuê/metha~ stand loosely side by side with ~eusebê= diê/gomen tro/pon peri\ tou\s xe/nous kai\ tou\s idiô/tas~. (Of the Samothrakian mysteries Diodoros says, 5, 49, 6: ~gi/nesthai de/ phasi kai\ eusebeste/rous kai\ dikaiote/rous kai\ kata\ pa=n belti/onas heautô=n tou\s tô=n mustêri/ôn koinônê/santas~--as it seems without effort on their part by a pure act of grace.)]

[35\6: Formal or verbal instruction of a theological or moral kind was not supplied at Eleusis; so much may be stated without fear of contradiction since the work of Lobeck. Thus, the three commandments of Triptolemos, which acc. to Xenokrates ~diame/nousi Eleusi=ni~ (Porph., _Abs._ 4, 22) cannot be regarded as moral precepts proclaimed at the mysteries: indeed, there is nothing to lead one to conclude that they had anything to do with the mystery festival at Eleusis. In character these very simple precepts seem related to the laws of Bouzyges, with whom Triptolemos is sometimes confused (Haupt, _Opusc._ iii, 505) and were very likely, like them, recited at some agricultural festival. Supposing further that the third "law" of Triptolemos: ~zô=|a mê\ si/nesthai~ was really (as Xenokr. seems to have understood it) intended to recommend a complete ~apochê\ empsu/chôn~, then it certainly cannot have been proclaimed at the Eleusinia (though this is what Dieterich thinks happened, _Nekyia_, 165). It is surely unthinkable that the Mystai at Eleusis were, after the Orphic model, absolutely forbidden to eat flesh for the rest of their lives. It remains a possibility that the precept had quite a different meaning--it does not definitely speak of the killing of animals--and that it belongs to some simple farmer's festival (not to the great festival of Eleusis, but rather, e.g. the Haloa) at which the farmer was recommended to spare his live stock (just as the third of the three laws of Demonassa at Cyprus forbade the farmer ~mê\ apoktei=nai bou=n aro/trion~, D. Chr. 64, 3 [329 R., 148 Arn.]; Attic law ap. Ael. _VH._ 5, 14, etc.).--In any case to bring all this into connexion with the mystery festival of Eleusis is absolutely without justification.]

{{236}}

##