For some reason, I found these absolutely beautiful.

Three facings to the same rather large (as in, it’s around two meters tall) marble block, unearthed at Corinth in 1974 – it’d been shifted and integrated into a Byzantine-era wall.

The female figures are reasonably straightforwardly identified as Kore (Persephone) and Demeter, with the male figure generally presumed to be Zeus Chthonios (‘Of the Earth’). Thus concording with the travelogue notes of Pausanias [II 2 8?] for the site. [‘Hades’ and ‘Pluto’ also show up as theonymics in application to the figure in the academic literature, and understandably so]

Spaeth, however, has suggested that instead these may be Roman deifics (well, ‘facings’ to the same deifics) – these being Proserpina / Libera and Ceres, as applies the feminine figures … and Spaeth suggests the ‘Genius of the Colony’ for the male figure instead of a more ‘Chthonic’ deific. (Part of the rationale to all of this hinges around another marble block – unfortunately, in much worse condition – found near the same site some five years later. But we shan’t get into that for today)

As for my own interpretation ?

Well, I’m going to proffer something radical here – by my own standards, at any rate – and suggest that (to a certain extent) the seeking to precisely delineate the relevant deific presentations as being either, say, Persephone OR Proserpina (or, of course, Zeus Chthonios OR a rather agrarian Hades / Plouton ) is rather … unnecessary.

And I say that’s “something rather radical” in my terms, because I am often quite pointed about the importance of actually utilizing the right specific theonymic / Aspect, within the right context, as applies actual ritualistic undertakings.

Except that’s just the thing. Notwithstanding the occasional interesting things some persons get up to with my output … we aren’t seeking to engage with these fine deific representations in a ritual context. In fact, we can’t even engage with them archaeologically in their original religious context, due to the aforementioned relocation of the block from its archaic situation for yon Byzantine masonry.

And so, to a certain extent – a certain extent – it is, perhaps, enough to be able to say that we’re fairly confident as to the underlying deific complexes even if not necessarily the precise and very specific ‘expression(s)’ as to same.

Now this is not, of course, to seek to suggest that there’s no real difference between the Greek and the Roman IE religions and mythologies … and note that plural there – it’s not ‘dual case’, but rather seeking also to acknowledge the significant diversity as to these matters within, say, the Hellenic sphere upon an oft-heavily loka-lized basis.

Because yes, yes there most certainly are. The classic example (in terms of mythology – and a certain side to the theology) being how Ares is portrayed in the Iliad … as compared to the manner with which Mars is connotatively perceived within Rome. Or, as applies the actual ‘doing’ department (i.e. the religious praxeology which constitutes another side to the theology), something like the well-remarked upon efforts by Roman state authorities to “reform” the Bacchanalia (with the end result of a quite a lot more ‘restrained’ – dare we suggest … ‘Roman’ – style of observance than that previously beheld amidst the Italo-Greeks) springs to mind.

And yes, in that sense – these distinctions absolutely do matter. After all, at the very least – even if it’s something as potentially somewhat arbitrary as ‘Proserpine’ or ‘Persephone’, this axiomatically suggests that the language of approach (and, indeed, the attendant suite of liturgy or the choice of ritual formulations) is going to change accordingly. It would feel a bit peculiar to be approaching the Hellenic Facing to a Deific in Latin, with Roman ritual structuring … or, conversely, the Roman Facing to a Deific in Ancient Greek, and with likewise potentially differing ritual orientation.

That is before we countenance the potential prospect for the not-necessarily-entirely-coterminous ‘characterizations’ for a given God across the various IE spheres to render other (underlying) deifics more appropriate to petition upon a given matter as and when the ‘context’ changes between spheres.

And, similarly, as we have often sought to emphasize … even where one is fairly certain that it’s a given Deific – differing Aspects thereto are wise to be aware of. ‘Demeter Erinys’ presents a rather more terrific facing than one might be anticipating if one had simply sought for ‘Demeter’, for example.

But I am digressing rather widely.

That which I had meant to say at this point was that the differences – surface-level (in terms of iconographic portrayal etc.) or more ‘substantive’ – between different ‘expressions’ for the same underpinning IE deific complexes, is not only something observable between different IE cultures, or even within the same singular one when it comes to regional variations or specialized initiatory understandings etc.

It’s also something which applies chronologically, as well. The Past, as I have often quoted, can be just as much of a ‘different country’ as a contemporary foreign one – the language changes, and they can indeed “do things differently, there”. And yet also “recognizably” (or at least “resonantly” – with the right kinds of perception) of the same ‘essence’ as that which comes along later from the same rooted tree(s) of faith.

Now as to where I am going with this (other than, conceivably, “on for too long”) – is Pylos (inter alia), and certain textual occurrences which would seem to evince both Demeter and Kore / Persephone in amidst the Mycenaean milieu of the most archaic Hellenic religion.

It is not our purpose to get too heavily embroiled with this (famous last words where I am concerned, no doubt); however a brief sampling is perhaps nevertheless in order.

The most prominent, of course, is the “Wa-Na-So-i”, generally (although not entirely uncontestedly) reconstructed to be the feminine equivalent (‘Wa-Na-Sa’ – ‘Wanassa’) for the masculine ‘Wanax’ (‘Wa-Na-Ka’; developing into Anax’ [ἄναξ] in later Ancient Greek – effectively, ‘Lord’; figuratively, ‘King / Chief’, often interpreted to mean ‘War-Leader’; c.f. Hera in Her Orphic Hymnal hailed as ‘πάντεσσί τ’ ἀνάσσεις’ [‘Pantessi T’ Anasseis’], i.e. ‘All-Ruling’), and encountered there in dative dual case : i.e. “To The (Two) ‘Wanesses'”, “To The (Two) Queens”.

The Two Queens in question being, of course, assumedly the Two Goddesses of later attested prominence … and by that, of course, I rather literally do mean the “τὼ θεώ” [‘To Theo’ – ‘The Goddesses’] (and, for that matter, the “τὼ θεσμοφόρω” [ ‘To Thesmophoro’ ], and “Δημήτερες” [‘Demeteres’] – ‘The Thesmophores’, and The ‘Demeters’, respectively) as illuminated for us via Nilsson in his ‘Geschichte der Griechischen Religion’. Stallsmith also brings to our attention the “αἱ θεαἱ” [‘Ai Theai’] and other such hailings, noting that as applies both ‘Goddess’ and ‘Thesmophoros’ (i.e. ‘Law-Bringer’ or “Law-Giver”… as he points out, Divine Law, “the law of fate, or even the law of the universe”, with ‘Thesmia’, the plural, indicating “laws or rites”), there appears quite the pattern for theonymics “which frequently [appear] in the dual [case] without either of Their names.” He goes on to add that “the dual is not standard for other divine pairs” – and, indeed, that as a grammatical feature the dual had substantively faded out of Attic Greek, to the point that by “the 4th century Bc […] it was limited to a few traditional expressions.”

We would also quote from Bauer, in her “Nominal Apposition in Indo-European: Its Forms and Functions, and its Evolution in Latin-Romance” (she also cites a “Cereres” – i.e. ‘The Cereses”, Ceres in plural, Latin having no ‘dual’ directly) as applies the effective underpinning to this – the why for such a ‘dual case’ occurrence:

“Interestingly in Mycenaean, plural Πότναι (‘Ladies’) is attested, referring to Demeter (La. Ceres) and her daughter Persephone (La. Proserpina; Puhvel 1987: 129). Originally mother and daughter formed one divine entity because Ceres not only was the goddess of earth but also of the interior of the earth. In later times the goddess was split into two deities: Ceres assuming the function of goddess of earth and her daughter Proserpina becoming the goddess of its interior, where she spent part of the year. Consequently Ceres and Proserpina were strongly connected—reflecting two aspects of the original deity—and therefore complementary personalities.”

Now, with this I do not quite agree – as I believe that a ‘split’ of sorts was there right from the beginning. And, instead of it being something occasioned “in later times” – I would submit that the proper understanding is that the nature as to said “split” is what changed in its human relativization. That is to say, the explanatory detailing for it changed – and something rather essential was often lost to the relevant culture’s mythos (at least, pop-culturally) in the process.

I have previously pointed out that we can see this ‘in motion’ (to a limited extent – insofar as it never grew wild and outpaced the truth as to the situation) within the Sanskrit / Hindu reckoning. Therein, one will occasionally find mention for Kālī with relation to Parvati as being a ‘Daughter’ thereof. In some cases, it’s simply the potential meaning as to the word – “Kanyakā”, as at Shiva Purana VII 1 25 38, in an element of narrative occurrence that directly parallels a part (well, several parts, per individual local recensions) of the Demeter-Persephone mythic cycle as we have detailed capaciously elsewhere. What does that mean? “Daughter”, or “Young Girl / Maiden” – that is to say, “Kore” [ Κόρη ], were we to speak it in Ancient Greek. Albeit in that case, it is quite clearly not a ‘daughter’ in the conventional sense of which we are speaking – as it is the Dark (Wrathful, Death-associated) Visage of the Goddess which has been (so to speak) ’emanated’ out from Her via a necessity which should soon arise for just such a ‘Warrior’/’Destroyer’ Form; Kauśikī being the name for the ‘Skin’ / ‘Form’ in question (ref. the “krsnām kośīm”, or ‘dark skin’, described at Skanda Purana III 58 2 per the Yokochi rendition, in terms of its effective underpinning meaning).

And yet, in at least one other case – that being the detailing encountered at Skanda Purana III 67 19-20 – we seem to observe this Goddess[-Form] declaring an intent to see Her ‘Father & Mother’ … Lord Shiva & Uma / Bhavani (and it is perhaps rather further interesting to hear at verses 41-42 & 52-54 that the Earth blooming with flowers in relation to this (re-)encounter is mentioned prominently). This cannot, of course, be taken literally (notwithstanding how well it should otherwise ‘match up’ viz. Zeus & Demeter with relation to Persephone, otherwise – in fact, that is rather the point). After all, there is no such mention for a ‘paternity’ involved at, say, Kaushiki’s emanation earlier in the same text – Skanda Purana III 60 5 simply has the Devi, as Yokochi’s synopsis puts it for the verse : “splitting Herself in two, [sending] one half of Herself – namely Kauśikī – away to annihilate demons.” Skanda Purana III 58 8 also simply features Kaushiki ‘generated’ from the Dark Skin of the Devi (“tasyāṃ kośyāṃ samabhavatkauśikī”), and just a few lines later in any case is declared to be “mūrtisthānaṃ mamā” (III 58 16), translated by Yokochi as “A Locus For My i.e. Parvati’s Embodiment” (in the introduction to the volume), or “Standing for an Embodied Manifestation of Me [Parvati] […]” (in the synopsis for the verse itself); Yokochi pointing out that the text rather directly ‘re-combines’ the Two at a litany of subsequent points wherein the deeds it presents as carried out by the One (or qualities, epithets, adornments, functions, etc.) are listed amidst the hailings also of the Other.

Oh, and for bonus points … the pool at which this Emanation via Dark Exterior is reputed to have occurred, is named via Skanda Purana III 69 54 & 62-63 as Nīlakuṇḍa : a titling with a network of interlocking associations for the Demeter / Persephone mythos (and, most pointedly, Hades, via Shiva, with relation thereto). To quote some of that material briefly for the reader who (understandably) doesn’t want to go off spelunking through the Arya Akasha website in its direct pursuit …

“Rather remarkably, we also hear of an identically named Pool or Spring in Kashmir – and I say ‘rather remarkably’ due to the cluster of associations attributed to it per the Nilamata Purana in syzygy with the famed Rajatarangini. The latter (clarified via the footnoting to I 28 in the Stein translation) attests this to be the origin for the River Vitasta – this river being identified as another form to Gauri (Rajatarangini I 29) / Sati (Nilamata Purana 262), and resultant from the (archaic, foundational) application of the Divine Spear of Shiva in rather agricultural utilization as a ‘plough’ (in order to ‘rend the earth’; apparently with a view to removing that ‘blue’ covering to the fertile land which was the Water named as Sati’s : ‘SatiSara’), with the water in question flowing from the Underworld [ Rasātala ] and having significant saliency viz. purificationary rites of bathing etc. (Nilamata Purana 251-264); said Spring of the (Kashmirian) Nilakunda also providing the dwelling (or ‘royal parasol’, apparently) for a certain draconic/serpentine water/spring spirit, the Naga Nila (Rajatarangini I 28) – Who is also stated, at Nilamata Purana 217-218, to have to divide His time for half of the year dwelling amidst Men and the other six months amidst Pishachas [i.e. Demons , notably Corpse-associated].

Why’s all that ‘rather remarkable’?

Because on Sicily, said to be very much the land of both Demeter and Persephone (and most especially the latter – see Pindar’s 1st Nemean Ode, and Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheka V for the attestation of Sicily having been granted to Her as a wedding-present by Zeus Himself) not least in relation to its archaic (and pre-eminent / leading / originating) agricultural saliency. And there, we hear of the Spring of Kyane (again, like ‘Cyan’ ; πηγὴν […] Κυάνην being the original Greek utilized in Diodorus Siculus’ account, at V 4 1) – this being the apparent location wherein Hades / Plouton is reputed to have ‘Rent the Earth’ ( γῆν ἀναρρήξαντα , at V 4 2; we assume, perhaps, with His Mighty Spear / Bident ) so as to head down into the Underworld with His Intended Bride … with this also therefore causing the upwelling of the aforementioned ‘Kyane’ Spring as the direct result. […]

Ovid’s Metamorphoses presents the situation as one of the Sicilian Spring being the demesne of a Nymph, the eponymous Cyane, Who ‘dissolves’ into the waters following the passage of Pluto & Persephone via this pool’s way. As Ovid himself puts it – ” Haud ultra tenuit Saturnius iram, / terribilesque hortatus equos in gurgitis ima / contortum valido sceptrum regale lacerto / condidit. Icta viam tellus in Tartara fecit / et pronos currus medio cratere recepit.” That is to say – the ‘[Son] of Saturn’ , no longer containing His Fury, drove His Dread Horses for the depths of the whirlpool/abyss ; a mighty twist of His Royal Scepter [‘Sceptrum Regale’] thrust by His Arm making the Earth [Tellus] bear a Way [Viam] down into Tartarus, His Chariot turning forward and down as the middle to the Crater [i.e. (Offering) Bowl, or Volcanic .. er .. Crater – body of water, in any case, particularly] received Them.

As I say – sounds suspiciously familiar to the above suite of Hindu conceptry viz. Nīlakuṇḍa …the major point of difference being that Cyane is, in these Classical interpretations, a (Water) Nymph – whereas we would instead suggest the ‘Dark-Blue’ to be the (Blue-Black) Exterior Visage as to Devi (and c.f. that earlier-aforementioned detailing from Ptolemy Chennus viz. Demeter turning the water of the Styx which flows in Arcadia black in what most likely would have been Her Bathing therein).

This ‘exterior visage’ conceptry musters additional support when one considers the description for Demeter in Her Homeric Hymnal as being shrouded within a ‘Cyan’ Cloak or Veil ( κυάνεον δὲ κάλυμμα / κυανόπεπλος – ‘kuaneon de kalumma’ / ‘kuanopeplos’; κάλυμμα / ‘kalumma’, as noted above, being also from PIE *ḱel-, and therefore correlate with ‘Kali’, etc.) … this Cloak / Visage being ‘cast aside’ ( ἀπωσαμένη / ‘aposameni’ – ‘thrusting away’) as She ‘changes form’ (εἶδος ἄμειψε – ‘eidos ameipse’), Her ‘old age’ (γῆρας / ‘giras’) becoming replaced with the rather literally radiant beauty (κάλλος / ‘kallos’ – cognate with Sanskrit कल्य ‘kalya’ (‘auspicious’, ‘healthy’, etc. – and figuratively can mean ‘Daybreak’, a seemingly apt summation of the situation of Demeter’s ‘unveiling’) and कल्याण ‘kalyana’ (‘beautiful’, ‘agreeable’, ‘lovely’, ‘charming’, etc.)).”

There’s a point we might wish to make here about the Serpentine Aspect(s) of the Sky Father with relation to the positive and life-giving saliency for He in relation to the Earth (and, for that matter, in terms of ‘myth’, for Zeus with direct linkage viz. Persephone, and also Rhea / Demeter, in serpentine forms, likewise : it turns out that Athenagoras [‘Plea to the Christians’, XX & XXXII] can be somewhat useful for ‘pagan’ causes, after all – in their preservation!) ; but we shall save that, I think, for another occasion.

To return to that which we had intended to (un)cover within this text … our eye had been drawn via the comment of one C.J. Ruijgh concerning the potential for what would, in later Ancient Greek, be “γραῖα” (‘Graia’), or “old woman” to explicate the “Mycenaean spellings Ka-Ra-U-Ja and Ka-Ra-Wi-Ja (TH Fq 169.4; etc.)”; with these apparently being interprable “as Grawyāi ‘for the Old Goddess’ referring to Demeter as against Her Daughter Ko-Wa, Korwāi (TH Fq 169.2; etc.) ‘for the Young Goddess’ (Godart – Sacconi 1996, 110).” Godart & Sacconi , for their part, connect the hailing to a ‘Δωμάτηρ Γραῖα’ (viz. ‘Damatira / Doimata Grahis / Graiva’ – “Δημήτηρ / Δωμάτηρ Γραῦς / Γραῖα” in Messapian terms, per ‘Der Kleine Pauly’ IV 648), going on to point out that this epithet is exhibited “en relation avec la version du mythe selon laquelle Déméter à la recherche de sa fille Korè” had come to Eleusis and done so in the form of an old woman. As noted above – this is well familiar even within Her Homeric Hymn (the Second – i.e. the first to Demeter within that corpus), and ‘veiled’ in pointedly Blue-Black Exterior, to boot.

Godart & Sacconi also then make reference for the work of the inveterate L.R. Palmer, with regard to a potential “Horse God” at Pylos (“un dieu «cheval» à Pylos”, apparently viz. “PY Fa16 et Ea 59.5”), the masculine counterpart (“le correspondant masculin”) for the “Po-Ti-Ni-Ja I-Qe-Ja” [ PY An 1281.1 ], which he phrases as “Potnia Hippeia” … “Potnia” [ πότνια – ref. Sanskrit ‘Patni’, i.e. ‘Wife’, relative to ‘Pati’ ], ‘Mistress’ / ‘Lady’ and ‘I-Qe-Ja’ being, effectively, ‘Equine’ : PIE *h₁eḱ-u- (‘Horse’) => Mycenaean ‘I-Qo’ (ref. Hittite *Ekku- , Old Irish ‘Ech’, per de Vaan’s entry for Latin ‘Equus’).

We think he might be on to something. Poseidon, after all, being quite prominently ‘the’ Horse God … and, would certainly appear to have a ‘Patni’ of such relation per the well-known mythic occurrence featuring (both Himself and) Demeter in Equine Form (which also, per Pausanias VIII 25 5-7, 37 9 (37 1 having an Artemis as Daughter of Demeter), 42 1-2 (and onwards), features a ‘Daughter’ a la Persephone / Kore , oft hailed as ‘Despoina’, or ‘Mistress of the House’ in counterpart to ‘Despotes’) that is also connected pointedly to this Black / Furious ‘Facing’ to Demeter (Kopaka observing ‘Potniades’ applying both to horses “when, in a state of fury[…]” [per Strabo, IX 2 24 4-5] but also to Maenads [“Lid. Sc. 1455”]), and the general Persephone cyclic narrative.