Arnold van Gennep was, by the standards of the French academic establishment of his era, an improbable person to make a foundational contribution to the human sciences. He held no permanent university position. He was half-Dutch in a milieu that prized a certain kind of French intellectual pedigree. He had educated himself across ethnography, folklore, classical studies, and linguistics simultaneously, in the omnivorous, undisciplined way that produces either dilettantes or synthesizers — and the establishment, which could not easily categorize him, tended to assume the former. He spent much of his career working at the margins of institutional respectability, reviewing books, translating texts, compiling the enormous multi-volume manual of French folklore that would occupy the last decades of his life. He was, in the precise sense of the word, an outsider — which may be exactly why he was able to see what the insiders, each absorbed in their own disciplinary enclosure, could not.
What he saw was a structure. Not a structure he invented or imposed, but one he found, with gathering astonishment, repeated across the full range of human social practice wherever he looked — in tribal cultures from West Africa and Australia and North America, in the classical scholarship on ancient Greek and Roman religion, in the folklore of European peasant communities. The structure was always the same, in its deep form, regardless of the surface differences in costume and symbol and belief. And it appeared, with particular consistency, at the moments of greatest human vulnerability: at birth, at the threshold of adulthood, at marriage, at death, at the crossing from one territory into another. The moments, in other words, when something about a person’s place in the world was fundamentally changing, and when the community around them had developed, through long accumulated experience, elaborate ceremonial means of managing that change.
The intellectual climate into which van Gennep was writing in 1909 did not make this observation easy to pursue. The dominant tradition in the anthropology of his era was evolutionary: it arranged the world’s cultures along a single developmental axis from primitive to civilized, and it treated the ritual practices of non-Western cultures primarily as evidence of cognitive failure — as the responses of minds not yet capable of scientific thinking to problems that science would eventually solve properly. Van Gennep’s counter-proposition was quiet but radical: that this was entirely the wrong way to look at it. Ritual was not failed technology. It was successful technology of a different kind — a technology not for manipulating the physical world but for managing the social and psychological crises produced by transition. Communities that performed initiation ceremonies produced, with remarkable consistency, individuals who were recognized by themselves and by their communities as having genuinely changed — as having crossed from one mode of being to another in a way that was socially acknowledged, psychologically real, and personally transformative.
His answer was Les Rites de Passage, published in the same year as Freud’s Five Lectures on Psycho-Analysis and Rank’s The Myth of the Birth of the Hero — 1909 being, in retrospect, an extraordinary year for the sciences of the human interior. The book’s central argument can be stated in a single sentence: all rites of passage, across all cultures, share a tripartite structure consisting of separation, transition, and incorporation. Van Gennep’s own French terms are more evocative: séparation, marge, agrégation. The middle term — marge, margin, threshold, border — carries a spatial metaphor that the argument depends on. The person in transition is literally, in the symbolic geography of the ritual, between places. They have left where they were. They have not yet arrived where they are going. They are, for the duration of the middle phase, nowhere.
The separation phase is the ritual’s announcement that the transition has begun. The individual is removed — sometimes gently and sometimes violently — from their existing social position and the identity that position confers. Among the Ndembu of Zambia, initiates are taken from the village at night, blindfolded, and led into the bush: the ordinary world is literally put out of sight. In the Eleusinian Mysteries, the initiates underwent preliminary purification rites at Athens before the great procession to Eleusis. The specific forms vary enormously. The function is consistent: the person’s old identity is declared, symbolically or legally or socially, to be ended.
The incorporation phase performs the complementary operation: the transformed individual is formally received into their new social position, and the community is bound to acknowledge them in their new identity. The reintegration is not merely a social formality. It is a second transformation — the transformation of the individual’s changed interior condition into a changed social fact, recognized and ratified by the community that will henceforth relate to this person differently.
Between separation and incorporation lies the marge — and it is here that van Gennep’s analysis opens onto territory whose richness he identified but did not fully explore. The liminal period is the ritual’s interior, its most carefully guarded and most elaborately developed phase: the phase of ordeal and instruction, of symbolic death and symbolic rebirth, of the communication of sacred knowledge that the community judges the initiate to be ready, for the first time, to receive. The initiate in the marge is a source of potential danger, a being whose ambiguous status threatens the categorical distinctions that social order depends on. They must be kept separate, contained, supervised by those who have undergone the process themselves and know its hazards.
Van Gennep documented the tripartite structure with exhaustive comparative evidence, demonstrating it in birth rites, puberty ceremonies, marriage practices, funeral customs, seasonal ceremonies, and territorial rites across dozens of cultures. The structure held across all of them, with variations in elaboration and emphasis but with the tripartite form consistently present.
The correspondence to what Campbell would eventually call Departure, Initiation, and Return does not need to be argued. It announces itself. Van Gennep’s séparation is Campbell’s Call to Adventure and Crossing of the First Threshold. His marge is the Road of Trials, the Innermost Cave, the Supreme Ordeal. His agrégation is the Road Back and Return with the Elixir. The seventeen stages are an elaboration of the three phases. The three phases are the armature on which the seventeen stages are hung.
This correspondence is the most important structural fact in the intellectual history this series is tracing, and it deserves to be held for a moment. Campbell, writing in 1949, had read van Gennep. He acknowledged him. But the acknowledgment understates the depth of the structural debt — and more significantly, it obscures the philosophical transformation that Campbell performed on van Gennep’s framework in the borrowing. For van Gennep, the tripartite structure is a sociological observation: it describes what communities do to individuals in order to manage the social dangers of transition. The individual is the object of the ritual process; the community is its subject.
Campbell inverts this entirely. In the monomyth, the hero is the agent — the one who hears the call, crosses the threshold, undergoes the ordeal, and returns. The community is the backdrop, the origin and destination, the beneficiary of what the hero brings back. What was a social technology becomes a psychological drama. What was done to the initiate becomes what the hero does.
This transformation is not a distortion, exactly — it is an interpretation, and a generative one. But it is also a loss. What drops out when the sociological framework is replaced by the psychological one is the community: the elders who designed the liminal experience, the peers who undergo it together, the social fabric that receives the transformed individual back and makes the transformation real by acknowledging it. Recovering that lost dimension — giving the elders back their agency and their knowledge, understanding the initiation as a social technology before it is a psychological metaphor — is the specific work of this essay.
✦
Victor Turner arrived in northern Zambia in 1950 as a young British social anthropologist trained in the structural-functionalist tradition. He came to study the Ndembu, and he stayed long enough, and looked carefully enough, that the Ndembu ended up teaching him something his training had not prepared him to receive: that the liminal phase of initiation was not a gap between two social states but the most significant phase of the entire process — the most elaborately designed, the most carefully supervised, the most philosophically serious. What van Gennep had identified from the outside, Turner watched from the inside.
Turner’s central contribution is the concept he derived from van Gennep’s marge and elaborated into one of the most productive ideas in twentieth-century social thought: liminality. The term is from the Latin limen — threshold, the stone at a doorway, the boundary between inside and outside. The liminal phase is the threshold experience in the most literal possible sense: the initiate is neither inside nor outside, neither what they were nor what they will be, occupying a position that ordinary social categories do not have a place for.
The first thing Turner established about the liminal phase is that it is not the absence of structure. It is the deliberate dismantling of structure — a distinction that sounds subtle and carries enormous implications. Ordinary social life is organized around hierarchies of rank and age and gender, around roles that assign specific behaviors to specific persons, around categorical distinctions that make social coordination possible. To be someone, in the social sense, is to occupy a position within this structure — to be recognizable to oneself and others through one’s place in the social fabric.
The initiation ceremony begins by destroying all of this. The initiate is stripped — sometimes literally, often symbolically — of every marker of social identity. Among the Ndembu, initiates are separated from their mothers, removed from the village, subjected to physical operations that mark their bodies permanently, addressed not by their names but by collective terms, housed in temporary structures that belong to no established social space. The message, delivered through every sensory and social channel simultaneously, is unambiguous: the person you were no longer exists. The person you will be has not yet been created. What you are now is the raw material from which something new will be made.
Turner calls this condition anti-structure — not chaos, but the deliberate creation of a space in which the ordinary coordinates of social existence are held in abeyance so that something that ordinary social existence cannot produce becomes possible. The liminal space is very precisely governed, by the elders who design and administer it. But it is governed by a different logic than the logic of ordinary social life. You cannot rebuild a structure while its existing form is still bearing weight. The deconstruction must precede the reconstruction.
The second concept Turner derived from his fieldwork is communitas — the mode of human relationship that emerges when all social distinctions are stripped away, when hierarchy and roles have been suspended and what remains is the unmediated fact of shared humanity. Turner distinguishes it carefully from ordinary social solidarity, which is always solidarity within a structure. Communitas is the experience of connection that becomes available precisely when the structure is gone: when two human beings encounter each other not as elder and junior, not as high-born and low-born, but as two instances of the same condition — mortal, vulnerable, conscious, thrown into existence without having chosen it.
Turner was careful to insist that communitas is not sentimental. It is, at its most intense, an overwhelming experience of the fundamental equality and mutual dependence of human beings — an experience that is often, in the ritual context, accompanied by terror and the dissolution of the ego-boundaries that ordinarily separate one person from another. The initiates who undergo it together have seen each other without the armor that social identity provides.
The implications for the Hero’s Journey are direct. The hero’s encounter with allies and companions in the liminal phase — the figures who appear in the special world and with whom the hero forms bonds of unusual intensity — is the literary encoding of communitas. The extraordinary intimacy and loyalty of the heroic fellowship answers to something real in human experience: the specific form of relationship that the liminal condition makes possible and that ordinary life forecloses.
Turner’s deeper contribution is his analysis of what the liminal phase actually accomplishes. The answer he arrived at is that the liminal experience is a technology for the destruction and reconstruction of the self at a level that ordinary experience cannot reach. Human identity is deeply sedimented — built up over years of social interaction, reinforced by every exchange and every role performance, anchored in the body’s habits and memory’s associations. This depth is, in ordinary circumstances, a strength. But it is also, at certain critical thresholds of development, an obstacle. The transformation requires the dissolution of what exists before the new form can emerge — and the dissolution must reach down to the foundations if what emerges is to be genuinely new rather than superficially modified.
The physical ordeals of the liminal phase — pain, hunger, sleep deprivation, extreme cold — are not punishments. They are instruments for reaching the depth at which the sedimented identity is anchored. The body is the deepest archive of the self. To reach that depth requires experiences that bypass conscious reflection entirely and work directly on the nervous system’s most basic responses. Pain and fear and exhaustion do this. They strip consciousness of its ordinary protective layers and make available what those layers normally conceal.
Turner’s concept of the liminal figure brings the analysis to its sharpest focus. The initiate in the middle phase is simultaneously the most powerless and the most potentially powerful person in the social field. Stripped of social identity and therefore of all the protections it provides, they are in a condition of absolute vulnerability. In many ritual traditions, the liminal figure is associated with death, with ghosts, with the dangerous ambiguity of things that do not belong to the living or the dead. And yet the liminal figure is also the locus of potential that the social structure cannot contain. Precisely because they are outside structure, they are outside its constraints. The hero’s extraordinary capacities in the special world — the access to power and knowledge that ordinary social beings do not possess — have their precise ritual correlate in this quality of the threshold figure. The stripping is not a diminishment. It is a preparation.
✦
The question that the tribal evidence raises — whether the initiatory structure survives when the small community becomes a city-state and the ceremony becomes a state institution — is answered with unusual directness by the Greek and Roman mystery religions. The ancient Mediterranean world produced, across roughly two millennia, institutions that applied the initiatory structure at civilizational scale with the deliberate self-consciousness of traditions that understood exactly what they were doing. What those institutions reveal is that the structure not only survives the scaling but acquires, in the new context, dimensions of philosophical and spiritual significance that the tribal form does not fully develop. The mysteries are where the enacted pattern begins, self-consciously and systematically, to become a map of something larger than the adolescent’s passage to adulthood: a map of the soul’s relationship to existence itself.
Of all the mystery traditions of the ancient world, none was more prestigious, more philosophically significant, or more carefully preserved in the literary and archaeological record than the Eleusinian Mysteries. Celebrated at Eleusis, a small town on the Attic coast roughly fourteen miles west of Athens, they operated continuously for approximately two thousand years — from their probable origins in the Mycenaean period, around 1500 BCE, to their suppression by the Christian emperor Theodosius in 392 CE. In the interval they initiated, among others, Sophocles, Plato, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, and Hadrian. The philosopher who wrote the Republic and the emperor who presided over the apogee of Roman power knelt in the same darkness, underwent versions of the same experience, and emerged speaking in the same register of transformed conviction.
The mythology enacted was the myth of Demeter and Persephone — Persephone seized by Hades and dragged into the underworld, Demeter’s inconsolable search, the negotiated partial return — which the Eleusinian tradition understood as the narrative frame for an initiatory experience that would transform the initiate’s relationship to death. The structure maps onto van Gennep’s three phases with a precision that is almost diagrammatic, refined by two thousand years of practice.
The separation began months before the initiates reached Eleusis, with the Lesser Mysteries near Athens in early spring — rites of purification, preliminary instruction, the assumption of the status of mystai, initiates-in-waiting occupying a liminal position relative to the liminal position itself. The Greater Mysteries, celebrated in late September, began the full initiatory sequence with ritual purification and sacrifice at Athens before the great procession departed along the Sacred Way.
The procession was a masterwork of ritual engineering. Fourteen miles is long enough to be a genuine journey — long enough for the participants to feel, in their bodies, that they are moving away from the world they know. The procession was loud and joyful at the outset, a crowd of thousands moving through the Attic countryside as night fell. The passage across the Kephisos River was marked by ritual insults from a bridge — a comic inversion, a signal that the ordinary rules were beginning to loosen. By the time the procession arrived at Eleusis after hours of walking, the initiates were physically tired, emotionally opened, and experientially removed from the world they had left. The separation was achieved not through sudden rupture but through the cumulative effect of sustained ritual action on the body.
What happened inside the Telesterion — the great Hall of Initiation, which at its largest could accommodate several thousand people simultaneously — is the most carefully preserved secret in ancient history. The initiates took vows of silence that the overwhelming majority kept, across two thousand years and millions of initiations. The ancient sources agree that the highest grade of initiation, the epopteia, involved three categories of experience: dromena (things enacted), deiknumena (things shown), and legomena (things spoken). The initiates were plunged into darkness, then subjected to the sudden blaze of light that accompanied the central revelation. Plutarch compares the moment of death to the moment of initiation, in both cases a passage through darkness and confusion toward light and understanding. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter promises that those who have seen the mysteries will have a different condition after death from those who have not.
What was the revelation? The ancient evidence will not say. What it does establish, with remarkable consistency across sources spanning many centuries, is that the experience was not the acquisition of new information about death. It was an encounter — direct, experiential, and transformative — with something that permanently altered the initiate’s relationship to the fact of mortality. Cicero describes the Mysteries as having taught us how to live with joy and how to die with better hope. Pindar speaks of those who have seen the sacred things as knowing the end of life and its Zeus-given beginning.
The reintegration was both personal and civic. The initiates returned to Athens as epoptai — those who have seen — bearing a transformed relationship to mortality that distinguished them, in the community’s acknowledgment, from the uninitiated. The community had a formal category for what they had become. Van Gennep’s agrégation was achieved not merely through the ceremony at Eleusis but through the Athenian social fabric’s ongoing recognition of the initiated as a distinct class of persons.
The significance for the series’ argument is this: the Eleusinian Mysteries are the point at which the initiatory pattern, which van Gennep found operating at the level of tribal social management and Turner found operating at the level of individual psychological transformation, begins explicitly to engage the deepest questions of human existence. The tribal initiation manages the adolescent’s passage to adulthood. The Eleusinian Mysteries manage the adult’s passage toward death. The pattern has not changed. What has changed is the threshold it is being used to cross.
The Orphic tradition carries the pattern one step further — from the management of a single threshold, however ultimate, into a comprehensive map of the soul’s entire career across multiple lives. Where the Eleusinian Mysteries were institutional, Orphism was itinerant and esoteric, organized around wandering teachers offering initiatory rites to individuals and small groups. The movement took its mythology from Orpheus — the poet-musician who descended to the underworld in search of Eurydice, almost succeeded, and failed at the final threshold because he turned to look before they had fully crossed. The Orphic myth is the initiatory descent in its starkest form.
The Orphic gold tablets, thin sheets of gold foil inscribed with ritual instructions and buried with the dead across the Greek-speaking world from the fifth century BCE onward, are the most remarkable physical evidence of the initiatory pattern’s extension into the metaphysical domain. They are, quite literally, maps — instructions for navigating the underworld, intended to guide the soul through the dangers of the post-mortem liminal state. The soul is told which spring to avoid and which to drink from, what to say to the guardians, how to establish its credentials as an initiate rather than an ordinary shade. The structural logic is consistent: the soul faces separation from ordinary existence at death, navigates a liminal space full of trials and choices, and arrives — if properly prepared — at reintegration into a condition of blessedness.
What the gold tablets represent is the initiatory structure having migrated entirely from the social to the metaphysical domain. Van Gennep’s three phases are still present, but they no longer describe what a community does to its members at a social threshold. They describe the structure of the soul’s career after death. The ritual enacted during the initiate’s lifetime is a rehearsal — a controlled encounter with the liminal that equips the soul to navigate the uncontrolled encounter that death will bring.
This extension — from social technology to metaphysical map — is the development that connects the pre-literary ritual tradition to the literary and philosophical traditions that Essay 3 will address. Plato’s use of the journey metaphor in the Phaedo, the Republic, and the Phaedrus draws directly on the Orphic tradition. When Socrates describes the philosopher as someone who has been practicing dying throughout their life, deliberately rehearsing the soul’s separation from the body, he is not inventing a metaphor. He is translating into philosophical argument an understanding that the Orphic tradition had already encoded in practice.
✦
The initiatory traditions this essay has been tracing were, at their most fundamental, technologies for producing a specific kind of knowledge — knowledge that does not travel well through texts. The Greek mystery traditions acknowledged this with architectural precision: the knowledge communicated in the Telesterion was not the kind that could be written down and distributed, which is why the initiates’ vow of silence was not a bureaucratic requirement but a statement about the nature of what they had received. What they knew, they knew in their bodies. The body’s archive does not translate.
The ordeals of the liminal phase were not tests of endurance inserted to ensure only the committed proceeded. They were instruments for accomplishing something that gentler means could not. What they accomplished was the disruption of the ordinary self’s defenses: the loosening of the habitual structures of perception and response through which the ego manages its relationship to experience. These structures are, in ordinary circumstances, useful. They are also, at the critical thresholds of genuine development, precisely what prevents development from occurring. The self that needs to change is the self most invested in remaining as it is.
Physical extremity bypasses these structures entirely. Pain, exhaustion, hunger, and cold reach the self below the level at which the ego’s management operates — into the substrate where the self’s most fundamental orientations are stored. The body, subjected to extreme conditions, cannot maintain the habitual postures that constitute the ordinary self. It is forced into a relationship of immediacy and vulnerability in which what was previously held at arm’s length is suddenly present in full. This is not a theory the ancient traditions held about their practice. It is what the practice knew, encoded in its design.
The pedagogical structure that accompanied the ordeal is the second dimension of this knowledge. The elders did not simply subject initiates to ordeal and send them back. They instructed them — in myths of origin, cosmological narratives, the specific knowledge about social roles and the structure of the world that the community judged them, in their pre-initiatory condition, unable to receive. This instruction was not separable from the ordeal. The same words, transmitted to an uninitiated person in an ordinary context, would have been information — processed by cognitive structures already in place. Transmitted into the raw, de-structured condition of the liminal subject, they became something different: knowledge that entered below ordinary cognitive processing. The initiates who took the vow of silence were acknowledging that what they had received was inseparable from the conditions under which it had been acquired, and that those conditions could not be reproduced through description.
The myth was not, in most of these traditions, a separate thing from the ritual. It was the ritual’s interpretive frame — the narrative within which the enacted sequence was understood to be occurring. The Eleusinian Mysteries enacted the myth of Demeter and Persephone: initiates underwent an experience structured to put them in the position of Persephone — in the darkness, encountering death, and then in the sudden light understanding the return. The ritual was the myth made real in the body; the myth was the ritual made communicable in words.
The myth and ritual co-developed, each shaping the other over centuries, the narrative clarifying the meaning of the enacted sequence while the enacted sequence kept the narrative from becoming merely literary. The myth without the ritual became theology — operating entirely in the register of belief rather than experience. The ritual without the myth became technique. The two together constituted a complete initiatory system: the practice that produced the experience, and the narrative that made the experience comprehensible and capable of organizing the life that followed it.
When the ritual dimension eventually attenuated — when the practices that produced the liminal experience were no longer operating — what remained was the narrative. The myth survived the ritual that had given it its meaning, carrying within its structure the memory of the experience it had been developed to interpret. This is why the Hero’s Journey appears in the literary tradition in forms that retain the structural logic of the initiatory sequence without retaining the specific practices that originally produced it. Homer’s Odysseus descends to the underworld without undergoing the preparations an Eleusinian initiate would have undertaken. But the descent retains the structural logic of the initiatory descent — the crossing into the realm of death, the knowledge acquired in the liminal space, the return bearing what that knowledge makes possible — because the narrative had been shaped by centuries of engagement with the ritual tradition from which it descended.
The literary Hero’s Journey is, in this precise sense, the body’s knowledge translated into words — imperfectly, inevitably, but with enough fidelity that the translation retains the power to produce, in a reader whose body has never undergone the literal initiatory sequence, something recognizable as the echo of the experience the sequence was designed to produce.
✦
The social and anthropological account, for all its explanatory power, reaches certain limits — and those limits are worth naming clearly, because they are where one mode of explanation hands off to another.
The first limit is marked by a phenomenon the social account cannot reach: the consistent reports, across cultures and centuries, of an initiatory experience that exceeds what a purely sociological account would predict. The Eleusinian initiates did not merely acquire a new social status. They reported — across seven hundred years of independent testimony from some of the most intellectually sophisticated people in the ancient world — a transformation of their relationship to existence itself. Cicero’s account is not that of a man who has undergone a useful social ceremony. It is that of a man who has encountered something that changed what he understood mortality to be. Pindar’s fragment describes a knowledge the initiate carries forward into death — knowledge that the social world, as ordinarily constituted, does not contain and cannot confer. The social account identifies the container. It does not fully describe the contents.
The second limit concerns the felt significance of the pattern in its literary forms. The social account, pressed to its logical conclusion, would predict that the Hero’s Journey should feel, to a modern reader, like an interesting structural observation — historically illuminating but not personally urgent. This is not, famously, what happens. The encounter with the pattern — in Homer, in Dante, in Shakespeare, in film — tends to produce something quite different: a sense of recognition that operates below the level of intellectual analysis, a feeling of being addressed by something that knew something about the reader’s situation before the reader had articulated it. Campbell noticed this and took it seriously. What he proposed, via Jung, was that the pattern corresponds to the structure of the unconscious — a serious proposal that Essay 8 will examine. But the ritual evidence suggests that the felt significance of the Hero’s Journey may be explained not by the correspondence between the narrative structure and the structure of the unconscious, but by the correspondence between the narrative structure and the structure of experiences that every human being undergoes in the living of a life — experiences of loss, of disorientation, of the confrontation with what cannot be controlled, of the necessity of becoming something different from what one currently is. The pattern resonates because it describes the shape of genuine change as human beings actually experience it.
The third limit is the most structurally significant for the series as a whole. Van Gennep’s framework is fundamentally about the individual in relation to the community — about the pattern of the person who is separated, transformed, and returned. But the ritual evidence hints, at its edges, at something the framework does not fully develop: that the liminal space is populated not only by the initiate but by the figures the initiate encounters there — the threshold guardians, the adversaries, the forces of resistance. In the ritual’s logic, these figures exist to be overcome, to provide the resistance against which the transformation is accomplished. What the ritual tradition does not develop is the question of what these figures undergo in the encounter — what the adversary’s arc looks like from the adversary’s perspective, whether the pattern of transformation that the initiate undergoes has any structural analog in the experience of the figure whose resistance makes the transformation possible.
This is the question that the Western literary and philosophical tradition has, with few exceptions, also largely declined to pursue — treating the antagonist as a function of the hero’s journey rather than as the subject of a journey of their own. It is, as the final essay of this series will argue, the question that the ancient Indian epic and Puranic traditions pursued with extraordinary seriousness — producing an account of the adversary’s arc that is as structurally complete and as philosophically rigorous as the initiatory tradition’s account of the hero’s. That account belongs to the second series, not this one. But noting, at this early stage, that the ritual evidence already suggests the question is the honest beginning of acknowledging what the Hero’s Journey, as a complete account of the pattern, has always left in shadow.
The path to understanding that shadow runs through the full history of what the Western tradition did develop. The next step is the step from enactment to theory — from the practice that produced the transformation to the philosophical attempt to understand what the practice was doing and why. It is a step that happens in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, among people who had almost certainly undergone initiation themselves and who brought to their theoretical work the body’s knowledge of what they were theorizing.
Aristotle watching tragedy in the theater of Dionysus was not simply an aesthetician evaluating a literary form. He was a man in a culture saturated with initiatory practice, watching a ceremony that his culture understood to be doing something specific to the people who underwent it. The theory he developed to account for what he observed — that tragedy produces catharsis through the mimesis of action, that the structure of peripeteia and anagnorisis satisfies the watching mind by enacting something it recognizes as the shape of meaningful experience — is the first systematic literary theory in the Western tradition. It makes full sense only when understood against the background of the initiatory tradition from which the tragic form descended.
Plato’s answer reaches further still: the philosopher’s ascent from the Cave toward the light of the Good is not a literary metaphor. It is a metaphysical map drawn, with full deliberateness, from the language and logic of initiation. The Cave is the liminal space. The philosopher who turns from the shadows is the initiate being led from darkness toward revelation. The return to the Cave, to share what has been seen, is the reintegration that completes the pattern.
These are not analogies. They are the same structure, encountered at different levels of the same tradition, by minds sufficiently serious to understand that the pattern they were working with was not merely a narrative convention. It was the shape that genuine transformation — philosophical, moral, existential — actually takes, whenever it occurs, in human beings who have been serious enough about it to let it happen.
How those minds understood that shape, and what their understanding adds to what the ritual tradition had already established through practice, is the subject of the essay that follows.
Primary Sources
Campbell, Joseph. 1949. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: Pantheon Books.
Cicero. 1928. De Re Publica, De Legibus. Translated by Clinton W. Keyes. Loeb Classical Library 213. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [De Legibus II.36 contains Cicero’s direct testimony on the Eleusinian Mysteries.]
Graf, Fritz, and Sarah Iles Johnston. 2013. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. [Standard scholarly edition of the Orphic gold tablets with Greek text, translation, and commentary. First edition 2007.]
Pindar. 1997. Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments. Edited and translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library 485. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [The Eleusinian fragment cited in the essay appears as Fragment 137 in the Bergk numbering and Fragment 133 in the Snell-Maehler edition.]
Plutarch. 1969. Moralia, Volume XV: Fragments. Edited and translated by F.H. Sandbach. Loeb Classical Library 429. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Richardson, N.J., ed. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [The standard scholarly edition with Greek text, translation, and full commentary. The primary mythological text of the Eleusinian tradition.]
Themistius. [Date uncertain.] Orations. [Themistius is the ancient source for the tripartite classification of the Eleusinian experience as dromena, deiknumena, and legomena — things enacted, things shown, and things spoken. The specific oration number in standard editions requires verification before citation.]✦ The specific oration number and a reliable modern edition citation require verification. Penella’s 2000 University of California Press translation of the private orations may not contain this passage; confirm which oration and edition.
van Gennep, Arnold. 1909. Les Rites de Passage. Paris: Émile Nourry. English translation: The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffée. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Wasson, R. Gordon, Albert Hofmann, and Carl A.P. Ruck. 1978. The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.✦ Publisher and date are fairly confident but should be verified. A 30th anniversary edition was published by Hermes Press in 2008.
Secondary Sources
Burkert, Walter. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [The standard modern scholarly treatment of the major Greek and Roman mystery religions, concise and authoritative.]
Campbell, Joseph. 1949. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: Pantheon Books. [See Primary Sources above.]
Eliade, Mircea. 1958. Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper and Row. [Originally published in French as Naissances mystiques, 1959 — note that the English translation preceded the French publication in its current form. Eliade’s comparative treatment of initiation patterns across cultures.]
Mylonas, George E. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [The most comprehensive archaeological and literary study of Eleusis in the English language, drawing on Mylonas’s own excavation work at the site.]
Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Turner’s first major collection of essays on Ndembu ritual, including the foundational analysis of liminality that underlies The Ritual Process.]
Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. [The central text for Turner’s theory of liminality, communitas, and anti-structure, drawn primarily from Ndembu fieldwork but extended to broader theoretical application.]
Turner, Victor. 1974. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Extends the liminal framework to social drama and processual analysis beyond the ritual context.]
Suggestions for Further Reading
The following works extend the essay’s argument in productive directions. Each is accompanied by a brief note on its particular relevance and angle of approach.
Burkert, Walter. 1983. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Translated by Peter Bing. Berkeley: University of California Press.A demanding but essential study that situates the Greek mystery traditions within a broader anthropology of sacrifice and ritual. Burkert traces the deep connection between the initiatory pattern and the sacrificial logic that underlies much of Greek religious practice. Not for the casual reader, but rewarding for anyone who wants to press deeper into the ritual substrate of Greek myth.
Graf, Fritz. 1993. Greek Mythology: An Introduction. Translated by Thomas Marier. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.An accessible and methodologically sophisticated introduction to the study of Greek myth, with particular attention to the relationship between myth and ritual. Useful as a context-setting companion to the more specialized studies in this bibliography.
Kerényi, Carl. 1967. Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New York: Pantheon Books.The classic imaginative reconstruction of the Eleusinian tradition, written from a broadly Jungian perspective. Less strictly archaeological than Mylonas but richer in its engagement with the mythological depth of the Demeter-Persephone narrative. Kerényi reads the Mysteries as an encounter with the archetypal rhythm of loss and return that underlies all experience of mortality. Essential reading alongside the more scholarly accounts.
Lincoln, Bruce. 1981. Emerging from the Chrysalis: Rituals of Women’s Initiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.An important corrective to the male-centered bias of most initiatory scholarship. Lincoln analyzes female initiation ceremonies across cultures and argues that they encode a distinct symbolic logic — one oriented toward transformation within the body rather than departure from it — that the van Gennep-Turner model, derived primarily from male initiation, does not fully capture. Necessary reading for any serious engagement with the universality claims the essay makes.
Seaford, Richard. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.A rigorous scholarly study of the relationship between ritual practice and literary form in archaic and classical Greece. Seaford argues that the specific formal features of Homeric epic and Attic tragedy — including their treatment of the hero’s suffering and transformation — are directly shaped by the initiatory and sacrificial ritual traditions within which they were produced and performed. The most technically demanding work in this list, but the one most directly relevant to the series’ central argument about the ritual origins of literary structure.
Turner, Edith. 1992. Experiencing Ritual: A New Interpretation of African Healing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Edith Turner’s remarkable account of participating in a Ndembu healing ritual and undergoing something she could only describe as a genuine encounter with the spirit world — an experience that challenged the boundaries of anthropological objectivity and raised fundamental questions about the epistemological status of ritual knowledge. The closest available first-person account from within the liminal experience that Victor Turner described from the outside. Essential, and unlike anything else in this bibliography.
Glossary of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used in Essay Two. Greek and Latin terms are given in their anglicized forms as they appear in the text; original-language forms are noted where relevant. Terms that appear in multiple essays in this series will be defined
agrégation(French)
Arnold van Gennep's term for the third and final phase of a rite of passage: the formal reincorporation of the transformed individual back into the community in their new social identity. The community ratifies the transformation by acknowledging the person differently from how they were acknowledged before. In Campbell's monomyth, this phase
Boedromion(Ancient Greek)
The third month of the Athenian calendar, corresponding roughly to late September to mid-October in the modern calendar. The Greater Eleusinian Mysteries were celebrated during this month, beginning around the fifteenth of Boedromion and reaching their culmination several days later with the initiatory ceremonies at Eleusis.
communitas(Latin/sociological)
Victor Turner's term for the distinctive mode of human relationship that emerges in the liminal phase of initiation, when ordinary social hierarchies and distinctions have been stripped away. Communitas is not the solidarity of people who share a social position — it is the unmediated encounter between human beings stripped of their social armor, recognized by Turner as simultaneously terrifying and profoundly bonding. The intense loyalty of heroic fellowships in literary narrative is, in Turner's framework, the literary
deiknumena(Ancient Greek)
"Things shown": one of the three categories of experience at the climax of the Eleusinian initiation, identified by the ancient orator Themistius. The deiknumena involved the display of sacred objects — whose precise nature remains the most closely guarded secret of the tradition — at the central revelatory moment of the ceremony. Scholars have proposed various identifications, including an ear of grain reaped in silence, though no consensus has been reached. See also dromena; legomena.
dromena(Ancient Greek)
"Things enacted": one of the three categories of experience in the highest grade of the Eleusinian initiation. The dromena were a dramatic performance — probably a representation of the myth of Persephone's abduction and return — experienced by the initiates as participants rather than spectators. See also deiknumena; legomena.
epoptai(Ancient Greek)
"Those who have seen": the designation for Eleusinian initiates who had undergone the highest grade of initiation, the epopteia. The term is the plural of epoptes. On returning to Athens after the ceremony at Eleusis, initiates bore this recognized social status, which distinguished them from the uninitiated in the community's formal acknowledgment of their transformed relationship to mortality.
epopteia(Ancient Greek)
The highest grade of Eleusinian initiation — "the full seeing" — in which the initiate underwent the complete sequence of the liminal experience inside the Telesterion: the dromena, the deiknumena, and the legomena. Candidates were typically required to have
hierophant(Ancient Greek)
The hereditary chief priest of the Eleusinian Mysteries, responsible for presiding over the initiatory ceremony inside the Telesterion and for performing the central revelation of the rite. The title derives from hieros (sacred) and phainein (to show): the hierophant was, literally, the one who shows the sacred things. The office was held by members of the Eumolpid family and was among the most prestigious religious positions in the ancient
kykeon(Ancient Greek)
The ritual drink consumed by the Eleusinian initiates as part of the preparatory rites before entering the Telesterion, described in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter as a mixture of barley, water, and pennyroyal. The kykeon replicated the drink that Demeter accepted when she broke her fast during her search for Persephone. The controversial hypothesis advanced by Wasson, Hofmann, and Ruck in 1978 proposed that the kykeon contained a psychoactive ergot derivative, though this claim remains disputed among scholars.
legomena(Ancient Greek)
"Things spoken": the third category of Eleusinian initiatory experience identified by Themistius, referring to words or formulas transmitted directly from the hierophant to the initiates at the climax of the ceremony. The legomena were delivered into the condition of maximum openness produced by the dromena and deiknumena that preceded them. See also dromena; deiknumena.
liminality(from Latin limen (threshold))
Victor Turner's theoretical elaboration of Arnold van Gennep's concept of the marge or threshold phase of initiation. The liminal phase is the period during which the initiate has been separated from their former social identity but has not yet been reincorporated into a new one: they are, in Turner's analysis, "betwixt and between" all established categories. Turner identified liminality not as an absence of structure but as the deliberate creation of anti-structure — a governed space in which the ordinary rules of social life are suspended
marge(French)
Arnold van Gennep's term for the middle phase of a rite of passage: the liminal or threshold period between separation and reincorporation. The word carries a spatial metaphor — margin, border, edge — that captures the initiate's condition of being between social states. Victor Turner's concept of liminality is an elaboration of the marge. In Campbell's monomyth, the marge corresponds to the Initiation phase, encompassing the Road of Trials, the Innermost Cave, and the Supreme Ordeal.
mystai(Ancient Greek)
"Initiates" or "initiates-in-waiting": the term for those who had undergone the preliminary purification rites of the Lesser Mysteries and were formally enrolled as candidates for the Greater Mysteries at Eleusis. The mystai occupied a transitional status between the uninitiated and the fully initiated epoptai — a preliminary liminality that prepared them for the main liminal phase of the initiatory sequence.
monomyth(English (from James Joyce))
The term Joseph Campbell adopted from James Joyce's Finnegans Wake to describe the cross-cultural pattern he identified as underlying the world's hero narratives. Campbell defines the monomyth in The Hero with a Thousand Faces as a single narrative schema — departure, initiation, return — which he elaborated into seventeen stages. The monomyth is the central subject of this series: tracing its intellectual genealogy before Campbell is the series' governing purpose.
Ndembu(proper noun)
A Bantu-speaking people of northwestern Zambia whose elaborate ritual practices, particularly their initiation ceremonies and healing rites, were the primary subject of Victor Turner's fieldwork from 1950 to 1954. Turner's observations of Ndembu initiation — specifically the boys' circumcision ceremony called Mukanda — provided the empirical
séparation(French)
Arnold van Gennep's term for the first phase of a rite of passage: the formal detachment of the individual from their existing social position and the identity it confers. The separation may be achieved through physical removal from the community, symbolic marking of the body, ritual declaration of changed status, or some combination of these. In Campbell's monomyth, séparation corresponds to the Departure phase, including the Call to Adventure
Telesterion(Ancient Greek)
The Hall of Initiation at Eleusis, the large enclosed structure in which the central rites of the Eleusinian Mysteries were performed. At its greatest extent, the Telesterion could accommodate several thousand initiates simultaneously. Its interior arrangement — with tiered seating around a central performance area and provision for the sudden illumination that accompanied the central revelation — was carefully designed to produce specific experiential effects in the assembled initiates. The building was excavated in the twentieth century; its architectural remains are among the principal pieces of physical evidence for the Mysteries.
tripartite(from Latin tripartitus (divided into three parts))
Consisting of three distinct parts or phases. Van Gennep's central claim is that all rites of passage share a tripartite structure: séparation, marge, agrégation. The tripartite form is the deep grammar underlying the surface variation of initiation ceremonies across cultures, and it is the structural antecedent of Campbell's three-phase monomyth.
ओम् तत् सत्
Member discussion: