C HAPTER V

The Socie ty o f The G ods!

In writing of the Greek gods - and especially of their birth - the

gaps in the information we possess, and our ignorance concern­
ing their origins, certainly constitute major obstacles. However,
the little knowledge that I may lay claim to on this subject does
not make the task any easier. How can such a vast and complex
problem be tackled in the space of a few pages without much sim­
plification and a certain measure of distortion? Perhaps I may rather
be permitted to discount from consideration a �umber of inter­
pretations that today seem too outda,ted, too dubious, or too pre­
mature to be of any help in understanding the religious facts . .
First, what is the position as regards the proble� of origins
or, to put the question in the terms in which it has been addressed
to me, what do we know of the birth of the Greek gods? An
inquiry into origins is always difficult. In the case of the Greeks
we are completely: in the dark. However far back we maygojnto
the past ( that is to �ay, since the decipherment .of Linear B , as_. far-- .-
_.

as the Mycenaean period), we are confronted with a religious sys-

tem that has already undergone many transformations and bor­
row:ed much, arid- in which i t is very difficult to distinguish what
is Indo-European, Mediterranean, Aegean, or Asiatic. Any attempt
at a global explanation, such as the suggestion that the great male
gods have an Indo-European origin and the greatfemale- deities a
Mediterranean one must be open to question.
Furthermore, what is true for-a linguistic system is also true
<"
••

101

;." .
 M YTH A N D S O C I ETY

for a religious one. I n the study o f a language, etymology offers

possibilities and is sometimes rewarding. In the history of reli­
gions etymology is much more obscure, but even in the case of a
language etymology cannot enlighten us as regards the use of a
term at a particular period, since the native speakers, when they
use it, are unaware of its etymology. Thus a word's meaning
depends not so much on its linguistic past but rather on the place
the word occupies in relation to the general system of the lan-
. guage at the period iIi question. Similarly, a Greek of the fifth cen­
tury may well have known less about the origins of Hermes than
a specialist does today, but that did not stop him from believing
in Hermes and from sensing the presence of the god in certain
circumstances. And what we are trying to understand is precisely
what Hermes represented in the religious thought and life of the
Greeks - the place that this god held in men's existence.
Let us consider one of the examples most favo rable to an
inquiry into origins, that of Zeus, the greatest god in the pan­
theon. It so happens that the name of this god is informative.
Behind the name of Zeus we can detect the Indo-European root
that we find in the Sanscrit dyau'h, meaning "to shine." We can
consequently <;:onnect the Greek Zeus pater with the Latin Jupiter
and the Indian Dyaus pita. But the Greek Zeus is not only an Indo­
European god; he has come into contact with other male deities,
in particular a Cretan cave god with whom he merged. This Cretan
god differs in many respects from the Indo-European Zeus: He is
a child god, Zeus kouros; he is also a god who dies and is reborn.
His tomb used to be pOinted out in Crete. The Greek Zeus is the
result of these fusions and transformations. What we are seeking
to understand is this complex figure, rather more than his affilia­
tion with the ancient Indo-European god.
There is another danger in etymology. We detect in the word
Zeus the root meaning "to shine." So we conclude that Zeus repre­
sents the luminous sky, the shining light of day. We are then
tempted to assume that all the great gods of the pantheon can be
Similarly equated to other natural forces. Thus Zeus is linked with

102 ·
 T H E S O C I ET Y O F T H E G O D S

shining sky, Poseidon with water, Hephaestos with fire, Hera with
air, Hennes with wind, Dionysos with vines, Demeter with wheat,
and so on. Such an interpretation assumes that the universe in our
modern conception can be compared tenn for term with the l
Greeks' image of it; expressed through their religion. This would
be to suggest that their religious thought had the same structure
and same type of organization, and used the same conceptual cate­
gories as our own scientific thought, the only difference being
that in Greek religion natural forces are animated and personified.
______________________ T
""-"'
h�e stu
� dy-.Of religions today: is sufficiently: advanced for no sE""
e-
________

cialist still to be convinced by such simple naturalistic explana-

tions. So, in attacking them, I perhaps appear to be pushing at
doors that are already wide open. But, after all, the only way to
open doors is to push them, and I am hoping that our attack will
carry us rather further than just over the threshold.
Zeus is the shining sky but also, in a way, the night sky. He is .
the master of light and reveals himself in and through light, but
he also has the power to blot it out. And, as we shall see, Zeus is
many other things besides. He is a god in the strict sense of the
word, a th� precisely because he is so many things at the same
time - things connected with what, to our eyes, are completely
distinct or even opposed domains: the world 'of nature, the social
world, the human 'World, and the supernatural world.
It is I who am distinguishing between these different spheres
because they do appear separate to us today, but the religious
-- thought of the Greeks made no such clear-cut distinctions between
: man and:his internal world; the social-world'and its hierarchy,. the
physical universe and the supernatural world or society of the
Beyond made . up of the gods, the daem()ns, the heroes, and the
dea�:.. This is. not to say. that the Greeks confused everything
together and that theirs was a kind of primitive mentality where
everything participated in everything else. The Greeks made dis­
tiI1ci:ions ii� i:hei·rreHgio�s.- tl1?ugh,i:, but not the same 'ones as we
make. They ,c:Iistinguished in the cosmos between different types.
of P?wers -:-: multiple fonns of power that could, take action on
 M Y TH A N D S O C I E T Y

every level o f reality, not just in one o f the domains we have men­
tioned, making interventions within man himself as well as in soci­
ety, in nature, and in the Beyond.
Thus their religion and their pantheon can be seen to be a sys­
tem of classification, a particular way of ordering and conceptu­
ahzing the universe, distinguishing between multiple types of force
< and power operating within it. So in this sense I would suggest that

a pantheon, as an organized system implying definite relations

between the various gods, is a kind of language, a particular way
of apprehending reality and expressing it in symbolic terms. I am
even inclined to believe that, in those ancient times, there existed
between language and religion a sort of co-naturality. When one
considers religion as a type of thought it appears to date back as far
'
as language itself. What characterizes the human level as opposed
to that of other creatures on the animal scale is the presence of
these vast mediatory systems - language, tools, and religion.
. However, man is not aware of having invented this language
of religion. He feels that it is the world itself that speaks this lan­
guage or, to be more precise, that reality itself is fundamentally
' language. The universe appears to him as the expression of sacre<:l,
-
powers that, in their own parbcular different forms, constitute
the true texture of reality, the being behind appearances, the mean­
, ing that lies behind the symbols that manifest it.
" Let us focus our inquiry a little more closely. For the ancient
Greek, the luminous sky above seemed to establish a connection
between him and Zeus. That is not to say that he believed that
the sky was, Zeus, but rather that certain features of the sky, the
influence that it exerted over human life, constituted, as it were,
the ways through which the power of Zeus was �ade manifest
to man. Zeus is made manifest by the sky, but he is at the same
time hidden by it: A power can only be seen by men through what­
ever it is that manifests it, but at the same time that power is always
greater than its manifestations: It cannot be identified with any
single one of them.
So it is not so much that Zeus is the luminous sky, rather that,

1 04 .
 T H E S O C I ET Y O F T H E G O D S

for a certain fonn of power, the luminous sky is simply a way both
. of being visible and concealing itself. What kind of a power is
it? In the case of Zeus, perhaps the least incorrect definition would
be to say that what is concerned is the power of sovereignty. One
of Zeus' essential features is that, both for the gods and for men,
he is enthroned at the summit of the hierarchy, he hold � the
supreme command and possesses a superior strength that (i'llows
him absolute dominion over all others.
Those who are submitted to this sovereign power of Zeus feel
the effects of its double and contradictory character. On the one
hand this power embodied by the sky, with its regular movements
and the periodic cycle of days and seasons, represents a j!l.st and
ordered sovereignty. At the same time, it also comp�ses an ele­
ment of opaqueness and unpredictability. The Greeks make a dis­
tinction in the sky between what they call aither, the sky that is
constantly luminous, the brilliance of an incorruptible zone, and
what they call aer, that is to say the zone o f atmospheric phe­
nomena whose unpredictable violence is of the first importance
in the life of men since it is the source of the winds, clouds, and
beneficial rain, and also of destructive stonns. Zeus' power is a­
compound of regularity and constancy and, at the same time,
unpredictability; it combines aspects of beneficence and of ter­
ror. Seen as the sky, then, Zeus already appears in a complex and ·
ambiguous f0n.!l; he belongs both to the day and to the night and
is both auspicious and at the same time inauspicious. But in a way
Zeus is also presen� in . everything that evokes sovereign domin­
ion_.�He js p.r�sent:on-the mountain tops - on Mount Pelion where
he was worshipped under the name of Zeus akraios, at the summit
of Olympos, the mountain that is so high that it links heaven and
earth together, and whose rugged peak calls to mind the fortress
at Mycenae from which King Agamemnon would survey the flat
countryside over which he reigned. Zeus is present in certain
treeS that are� taller' than - the :rest; · reaching up through-theaer-as
far as the aither: This is Zeus Endendros. He is present in the light­
ning as Zeus Bronte)], Keraun.ios o� _Kataibates; iIi the rain as .
 MYTH A N D S O C I ETY

Ombrios or Huetios, especially i n the fertile rains o f autumn

that herald the season for sowing and thus bring about what can
be seen as the divine marriage between the sky and the earth,
and here he is known as Zeus Gonaios, Genethlios, Georgos,
Maimachtes. Zeus is present in the depths of the earth in the form
of the riches which his fertility produces there: Zeus Chthonios,
Katachthonios, Plousios, Meilichios. Zeus is present in gold, the
metal that is as unchanging as the sky, condensed from the light
of the sun whose dazzling beams evoke the brilliance of sover­
eignty: Here he is Zeus Chrusaor.
However, the power of Zeus is not restricted to these natural
forms. It is also at work in human activities and social relations.
Zeus is present in the person of the king as Zeus Basileus. There
is even a Zeus known as Agamemnon. In particular he is present
in the scepter of the king, enabling his decisions to be put into
force. In the house of a priest a royal scepter can, by its mere pres­
ence, be the focus of the cult addressed to Zeus. Zeus is present
at the king's side in all the circumstances in which the human
sovereign is exercising a power that comes to him from the gods
and that. can only be effective through the intermediary of divine
powers. Thus, when the king leads his army out to battle he is
flanked by Zeus Agetor, Promachos; when he mediates in his coun­
cil, turning over some plan in his mind, it is Zeus Boulaios; in
critical situations, when the people no longer know to which
power to address their prayers and come to beg their king to find
a way of salvation, he is Zeus Soter. Above all, Zeus is present
when the king metes out justice: Just as the sovereignty of Zeus
in the sky makes the earth rich and fertile, similarly the j ustice
of the king brings prosperity to the entire territory dependent
upon him. If the king is unj ust his land produces no wheat, the
herds do not multiply, and the women produce deformed chil­
dren. But if the king respects justice and embodies the sovereign
power of Zeus, his whole kingdom flourishes in endless prosperity.
. This same dominion that Zeus has over the universe and the king
over his subjects is also exercised by the head of each family in

J06
 T H E S O C I ET Y O F T H E G O D S

his own house. So the cult of Zeus also celebrates a number of

aspects ofhim as a domestic deity. When a suppliant who has been
ejected from his own home and cut off from his social roots seeks
shelter at the hearth of the master of the house, begging for his
protection, Zeus Hikesios and Zeus Xenios enter the dwelling with
him. Zeus Gamelios presides over legitimate marriage, the essen­
tial purpose of which is to place a woman under the domination
of her husband and to give her children who will owe respect and
obedience to their father. Zeus Herkeios, the Zeus of the enclo­
sure or of the barrier, encompasses the territory over which the
------'lieaaoftneTamily exercises his power, while Zeus Klarios, the
apportioner, marks out and protects the boundaries between prop­
erties belonging to different masters. Finally, Zeus Ktesios is
enthroned in the cellar of the house, in the shape of a j ar, as he
watches over the riches of the father of the house.
This wide range of epithets given to a god such as Zeus can
perhaps help us to glimpse, one of the essential functions of the ,
supernatural powers. They make it possible to integrate the human
individual into various social groups, each with its own ordered
way of functioning and its own hierarchy; and to integrate these
social groups, in their tum, into the order of nature which is then
made a part of the divine order. So one of the functions of the
gods is to impose social order. Emanating as it does from Zeus,
the power of the king is truly endowed with efficacy, always pro­
vided that it is exercised according to certain rules and in con­
formity with an established order, The king and his subjects are
implicitly agreed upon what might be termed the rules of the
game of sovereignty. If the king exceeds his rights it is not simply
a matter of an individual being wronged or the social hierarchy
being distorted� The whole sacred ordc::r of the universe is brought
'into question by this diste>rtion of just sovereignty. The compro­
mised order has to be reestablished at the expense of the guilty
party.-·Such a reversal of the situation may be seen either as ven­
geance wreaked by Zeus, who is the gtiarantor of sovereign power,
or equally well as a quasiaut�matic way ofreintroducing order by
-> • • • - - -- . - -- -

107
 MYTH AND SOCIETY

restoring the balance between cosmic forces that have been upset.
The two interpretations - the one referring to the vengeance of
Zeus and the other to the fatality of destiny (Nemesis or Moira)
are not contradietory, for there is a Zeus known as Moiragetes.
In this way the power of Zeus establishes the connections
between various types of human activities, social relations, and
natural phenomena. It links them together but does not confuse
them. The Greeks knew perfectly well that a king was not a force
of nature and that a force of nature was not the same as a deity.
Nevertheless, they saw them as linked, interdependent, as differ­
ent aspects of a single divine power.
The expression "divine power" is designed to emphasize the
point that the Greek gods are not individuals each with a particu­
lar single characteristic form and spiritual life. The Greek gods ar�
powers, not persons. It has been correctly noted that, when refer­
rfng to the gods, the Greeks make no clear distinction between
the use of the singular and that of the pluraL The same divine
power is sometimes conceived in the singular, for example charis,
and sometimes in the plural, the charites. In the words of Rohde:
"The Greek is incapable of imagining a god as a singl e deity but
rather envisages a divine power which can be apprehended now
in its unity and now in its diversi ty."
The representations of gods in myth and literary works par­
ticularly emphasize their uni ty. Homer presents us with a Zeus
who, as a 'figure, possesses a relative unity. When a god is wor­
shipped, however, it is rather the aspect of plurality that is stressed.
The living religion of the Greeks knows Zeus not in one single
form but rather as many different Zeuses, each with its own epi­
thet peculiar to the cult that links it with its own particular area
of activity. In worship, the important thing is to address oneself
to the Zeus that is suitable in a particular situation. Thus even
while he is protected by Zeus Soter and Zeus Basileus, Xenophon
is dogged by the anger of Zeus Meilichios to whom he omi tted
to offer a sacrifice on the occasion of the festival of the Diasia.
And he sees nothing strange in being favored by two Zeuses while

,108
 T H E SOCIETY OF T H E GODS

at, loggerheads with a third. Zeus' unity is not that o f a single and
unique person but of a power whose various aspects may be mani­
fested in different ways.
If these remarks are correct they must lead us to eliminate
another method of arialyzing the religious data. Any study that
attempted to define the Greek gods independently fro m one
another, as if they were separate and isolated figures, would be
in danger of missing an essential point about them. Much erudi­
tion has been b�ought to studies of this kind and they provide us
with much highly valued information. However, it is no longer
-�-------------�----p-o-ssiDle toaay to. De satisfieawitn sucn an approaclLTne worK-----�---
of a historian of religion such as Georges Dumezil has clearly shown ,. ' .
that, as with a linguistic system, it is impossible to understand a
religious system without making a study of how the various gods
relate to each other:
Instead of simply drawing up a list of the different deitie�,��
must analyze the structure of the pantheon and show how the vari­
ous po�ers are grouped, associated together, and opposed to and
di�tinguished from each other. Only in this way can the pertinent
features of each god or each group of gods emerge .:.. that is to
say, those that are significant from the point of view of religious
thought; The study .of a god such as �ermes, who is a very com­
plex figure,' must first define his relation to Zeus in order to pick
out what in particular it is that Herri:tes contributes to the wielding
of sovereign power, and then 'compare him with Apollo, Hestia,
Dionysus, and Aphrodite. Hermes has affinities �ith all of the�e
.gods but is distinguished from each of ' them by certain modes of
action that are peculiar to him.
In the third place, it would be. equally mistaken to study the
r
( r�ligi�l1s data as if it :constitut�d an independent world, quite sep"
,_

\,
araie trom the material and soc�al life of the Greeks. I believe that,
to understand a religion, it is necessary to connect it with the
men who lived by it, to seek to understand how these men related
to nature through the intermediary of their tools, and to each other
th�ough the intermediary of their institutions. For a historian of
�

109
 M YT H A N D SOCIETY

religion it is the men who explain the gods, not the reverse. Mean- .
while, it must be pointed out that hitherto the history of Greek
religion has been concerned to study religious representations and
rituals more than to discover the sociology o f religious man, the
sociology of the believer and of the various types of believer. I t
i s a difficult task that scholars have already undertaken where the
great contemporary religions are concerned, but that still remains
to be attempted for the religions of the past. Clearly, the task is
made the more problematic by the need to consult documentary
evidence and the impossibility of pursuing any direct inquiry. But
apart from this there is also a preliminary obstacle to be cleared
away, namely the existence of certain preconcep.t ions.
The fact is that we approach the study of religions burdened
with all the experience contemporary man has inevitably acquired,
and with firmly entrenched ideas about the place of religion in
man's life and its role in society. Now it is impossible tei know
Q priori whether the role played by Greek religion in relation to

the men and so ciety of antiquity was the same as that played by
contemporary religions in relation to the men and societies o f
today. We may well wonder whether the function of religion can
have been the same in archaic societies, where it dominated social
life as a whole, as in modem societies in which the life 'ofthe
community has been almost completely secularized. Is it not to
be expected that, like other important factors in civilization, the
religious phenomena too should have their own history reflect­
ing the transformations and changes in meaning that took place?
We must therefore ask ourselves to 'what extent our own religious
categories of thought, our own �onception of the divine and its
relation to men and our concepts of what is sacred and supernat­
ural are applicable to the Greek reali ty.
For us, the divine is basically external to the world . God
transcends the world, as the theologians and philosophers put it.
This transcendent deity is the creator of the world and of man­
kind. It is related to the universe as a craftsman is related to his
own creation. The creation does, in a way, bear the imprint of

1 10
 THE SOCIETY OF THE GODS

the creator. However, the creator is beyond his production and

moves in a world apart from the world he has produced - and /

produced from nothing.

This god who is foreign to our own world is present within
us. Where else could we find him, since he is outside nature, if
not within ourselves? So this is an interior god: The' point of con- -
tact between the deity and man is within the soul of each indF
vidual and takes , the form of personal communion between the
two. This individual relationship is at the same time universal:
Th/:! link between each separate individual and God is,an expres-
�---------------------------------- ���� � ������� � � � ��,�-�----
sion of the fundamental relationship of man and his creator. I am
-------- � ---- ---- -- ---- ----------

rela-ted to God as a human being and as an individual, not as a

Frenchman, or as the member of a particular profession, a par-_
ticular family, or a particular social group.
Finally, in the life of a contemporary man, the religious sphere
is in general fairly closely defined. We consider most of our social,
economic, cultural" and political activities, our work, our leisure,
our reading, our entertainment, and our family relations to be out­
side the strictly �eligious sphere and as constituting the secular
domain. Religion is thus restricted to one definite sphere of human
existence; the religiOUS life of each individual belongs to one par­
ticula� area of his life with its own objectives.
When I tum to consider Greek religion and the Greek gods I
do not find the features that I have just described in simplified
form. The Greek gods are not external to the world. They are an
integral part of th� cosmos. Zeus and the other Olympians cre­
ated neither the physical �niverse nor living creatures'nor man- ­
kind. 'They were themselves created by primordial powers that
continue to exist, providing a framework and substratum for the
universe. These are Chaos, Gaia, Eros, Nux, Ouranos, and Okeanos.
.
Thus the gods whom the Greeks worship only emerged at a given
point in time; they had not always existed. In re�ation to the ori­
ginal powers they are "late-comers" who seized power for them­
'selves. Zeus established at the same time his own sovereignty and
a world order never again to be brought into quesdon� He- holds
,t _ -

III
 M YTH A N D SOCI ETY

the scepter and is master and king o f the universe, but h e did not
secure this position without difficulty or without a fight. Zeus
is aware of what he owes to the allies who supported him, and
what he has to fear ' from the enemies whom he has put into chains
but who are not all totally disarmed; he knows which are the
powers that he must treat with circumspection and the preroga­
tives that he is obliged to respect. Homer shows us Zeus backing
down before the ancient Nux, N ight , seized with reverential
'
and religious awe.
So the gods are not eternal , merely immortal. Their immor­
'
tality defines them in contrast to the poor life of men, the ''ephem­
eral" beings who appear only to disappear, l'ike shadows or wisps
of smoke. The gods are much more consistent. Their aion, or inex­
haustible vitality, will endure, permanently youthful, throughout
time. Meanwhile, there are certain intermediate levels be�ween
gods and men. First, in between the immortals and the mortals,
there are the makrobioi or makraiones whose existence covers many
myriads of years, such as the Numphai whose destiny is linked with
the cycle of life of the trees in which these deities dwell. Then,
certain gods may experience a waning of their power and vitality,
as did Ares, who was on the point of perishing in the jar in which
two of his brothers had managed to confine him. And finally,
certain men, in particular conditions, may accede to the status
of the gods, and in their company live a blessed existence until
the end of time.
The gods are no more all-powerful or omniscient than they
are eternal. When Hades carries off her daughter into the Under­
world, even as great a goddess as Demeter has to wander the world
over, searching for her, begging to be told where her child has
been hidden. In the end Helios, the sun, does so. It is not, strictly
speaking, that Helios is omniscient, but his round eye, which is
always open up there In the sky, makes him an infallible witness;
his gaze of light misses nothing whatever that takes place on the
surface of the earth or waters. On the other hand, Helios knows
nothing of what the darkness of the future holds. Only deities of

1 12
 T H E S O C I ET Y O F T H E G O D S

another type, the oracular gods such as Apollo, can know the
future. The power of Helios, like his knowledge, is related to the
type of activity peculiar to this star. The function of the god sets
a limit upon it. When he is angered all Helios can do is threaten
to stop illuminating the world. Ifhe attempted to aiter the route
taken by his chariot, the Erinyes would waste no time in bring­
ing him back to the correct path.
What we find then is neit�.�� omniscience nor omnipotence
but specific forms of knowledge and power between which cer­
tai;oppositions rna}' arise. The divine Eowers have natures suffi-
--------�--� ����.
------------------------�
ciently dissimilar for rivalry and conflict to exist between them.
�

In Homer, Olympos is loud with the quarrels of the gods, in par­

ticular the arguments between Zeus and Hera. Of course, the
Greeks were amused by such accounts but they knew very well
that, over and above the anecdotal level,. they expressed a seri-
y, ous truth: They saw the divine cosmos tom by tensions, contra­
dictions, and conflicts over prerogatives and power. At the same
time they were also conscious of the unity of the divine world,
for all these turbulent and diverse gods are held in check by Zeus
and ·his universal law. How�ver, just as in the physical universe
�epends IIpon a balance between oEposed [?�ces - the cold,
the hot, the dry, and the wet ,... and as, in the city, peace results
from agree�ent reached between contemporary groups, so the
unity �f the divine cosmos consists in a harmony between contrary
powers. Although thes� divine powers may come into conflict and
.fight each other, I11an has no right to scorn any one of them, for
each represents an authentic:.aspect·o f being; · expresses one part �- ... .
of reality, stands for a particular type of value without which the
universe would, as it were, be mutilated. Thus, when the pure
.. Hippolytos devotes himself totaIly to Artemis, the virgin goddess,
refuSing to pay homage to Aphrodite, he is rejecting an entire
aspect of the human ·condition. Ap,hrodite takes her revenge and
Hippolytos meets his doom because he has refused to recognize
that there is a part in each one of us that belongs to Aphrodite.
�The gods ar� a part e�en of the contradictions and conflicts
.

1 13
 MYTH A N D SOCI ETY

in the world, and they intervene'in human affairs. The Greek feels
their presence within him in the form of sudden impulses, in the
plans and ideas that come into, his head, in the panic or frenzy
_.that grips the warrior, in a surge of love or a feeling of shame.
This presence of the gods in the entire universe, in social life and
even in men's psychological life, does not mean that there are no
barriers between the divine and the mortal creatures; indeed, the
barriers not only exist but are, in a sense, insurmountable. The
gods are a part of the same universe as men, but it is a universe
\ with a hierarchy, a world of different levels where it is impossi­
ble to pass from one t� anothe o this extent the society formed
�
by the powers of the Beyond is an extension of the hierarchical
organization of human society as it appears in Homer. The g6ds
are as close to and as separate from men as the king is in relation
to his subjects. Perhaps the comparison between the society o f
the gods and that of men can be taken even further. When the
king is the mouthpiece of justice he is not obliged to obey a writ­
ten law fixed in advance. Justice is actually established by his word
and action and executed through his tbemis. Does this mean that
the sovereign may do as he pleases? Not at all. His royal power
\ rests on respect for the timai, the prerogatives, ranks, and tradi­
tional honors that make up the hierarchical order that is insepa­
rable from his sovereignty. Of course, the king can ignore the time
of others, ride roughshod over the rights of the next man, over­
reach his moira, exceeding the ' rol e that is properly his. But if
he does so he unl eashes forces that, by upsetting the order,
recoil against him and threaten his sovereignty. He calls forth a
dangerous curse from the man whose time he has not respected,
a curse that will eventually bear poisonous fruit. In the council
and among the people he arouses hostility, slander, and deri­
sion - in sum, popular "jealousy" that eventually destroys royal
power just as the praise and admiration of his subj ects reinforce
its prestige and authqrity. The fact is that words of blame, defi­
ance, and scornful mockery have the effect of diminishing the king,
cutting him down to size, just as glorification by his people

1 14
 THE SOCIETY O F T H E GOOS

and by the poets increases the luster o f his name and person.
One can see that faults on the part of the king bring into being
powers that are, at one and the same time, religious, social, and
psychological forces. Zeus' situation is very much the same as that
of the king. Greek scholars have often pondered the problem of
Zeus' relation to destiny as portrayed by Homer. At times Zeus
appears to control destiny and it is he who decides it; at others
he seems quite powerless before it and has no choice but to sub­
mit to it. This ha's been seen as a contradiction. But perhaps the
problem has not been PQsed in the correct terms. The fact is that
----H ---'-
--------
omer Cloes not conceive Clestiny as fixeCl once and for all, qui'-te
separate from and above Zeus and the gods as a whole; on the
other hand, no more does he imagine that the gods are aU-power-
ful, free always and everywhere to act as they please. Zeus' power
is exercised subject to the same conditions as that of a king whose
status is higher than that of his peers but whose rule is insepara-
ble from a whole complex of prerogatives and honors. Thus, in
the Iliad (XVI, 433 ff.), Zeus would like to save his son Sarpedon,
who is destined, like all mortal men, to die, and is about to fall
under the onslaught of the enemy. He is hesitating as to whether
to intervene and alter the course of events when Hera gives him
a warning. She tells him he may do as he pleases but she and the
rest of the gods will not agree to support him . . . . If he carries
Sarpedon off alive in defiance of the moira of human beings he
should beware lest another god, in his tum, take it upon himself
to do the same fOLhis own childre�. Zeus heeds the waliling and
__ __ ��<::t�t�_ to sub!l}it'rather than to spark a conflict of forces that
would eventually threaten to topple not only the order of the uni- '
verse but also his own supremacy.
Other expressions of this truth are extremely illuminating. In
th,e Iliad (XVI, 849 ff.), a warrior on the point of giving up the
ghost pronounces the following words, indicating where lies the
" responsibility for his death: "It is sinister destiny [poip' 6ilonlthat
has overcome me; itis the son of Leto [Le., Apollo]; and, among
men, itis Euphorbos."To our way of thinking th�s may seem like

1 15
 MYTH A N D SOCIETY

an over-abundance o f explanations where one would have sufficed.

But the Greek is more demanding. He knows very well that he is
dying because his body has been pierced by the spear of his enemy.
But after all it could have happened the other way about; the vic­
tory might have been his. The reason why it is not so is that he
has had bad luck: He slipped during the fight, was blinded by the
sun, or else his blow missed its mark. Such things can only be
explained by the intervention of some god: Apollo must have inter­
vened on the battlefield to settle an old score; he must have wished
to avenge wrongs previously done him. But at the same time
Apollo's resentment is in conformity with the law of destiny that
insists that every wrong done to the gods shall be paid for and is
the cause for men having be�n made mortal. Thus different expla­
nations can be found for a single event according to which level
of reality one has in mind. The various explanations are not mutu­
ally exclusive precisely because they do not refer to the same level.
\
So we can see how it is that the same religion can compre­
hend a deep feeling of the divine presence in almost everything
that happens in human life and, at tpe same time, the equally
strong conviction that man must manage on his own , that it is
, always first and foremost up to him to save himself. Like any other
Greek, Odysseus believes that warrior frenz;y and panic on the bat­
tlefield are directly inspired in men by the gods, but he also knows
that the morale of a band of men is higher when they are fight­
ing on a full stomach. So, against the advice of Achilles, he rec­
ommends that the soldiers should be fed and refreshed before
returning to battle. There is no denying that the outcome of the
war lies entirely in the hands of the gods, but the leaders should
.
-
�evertheless keep a close eye on the running of it.
At the heart of Greek thought one can perhaps even discern a
similar ambiguity with regard to the relationship between men
and gods. Poets such as Homer and Pindar are constantly declar­
ing that gods and men belong to two entirely separate races and
that man should not se.ek to become the equal of the gods. "Rec­
ognize your limitations," "Be satisfied to be a man," "Know your-

1 16
 T H E SOCIETY O F T H E GODS

self': These are the maxims that express Greek wisdom, And yet,
in certain circles - religious sects or schools of philosophy - we
can detect a very different line of thought. Here, man is advised
to develop the part of himself that is divine, to make himself as
much like the gods as possible, to attempt, through purification,
to accede to the immortality of the blessed, to become a god.
Two trends are also apparent in the kinds of classification of
the powers of the Beyond, in the hierarchy of the society of the
gods. The official religion makes clear distinctions between the
----v rious�categories�of-supematuraLpowers ..-Eirst,_ther_e_ar-.e�tbe theoi,
----a _________

the gods in the strictest sense of the term, with whom the daimones
may be grouped and who occupy the dominant position in the
divine world. Second, and below these, come beings who are con-
nected with different rituals; they are known as � and are
conceived as men who lived in former times on earth but who
are now worshipped by the whole city. Finally there are thos'e who
are sometimes called the "blessed" or the "strong," that is to say
the ordinary dea�..i. they are anonymous powers who are the object
of family piety in every home. Thus between the theoi at the top of
the hierarchy and living men at the bottom of the scale there are
the successive grades of the heroes and the dead. The grades remain
quite separate, however; there is no communication between
them. It is normally impossible for men to escape from their mor-
tal condition. Among the philosophers, however, we find a dif-
ferent system of classification. For one thing the distance between
men and gods is increased. The philosophers rej ect any anthro-
pomorphic image of the divine;-They have a purer and more rig-
orous conception of the divine essence. To this extent, with the
philosophers the world of the gods is set further apart from men.
But at the same time the daimones and the heroes, who have drawn
closer together, constitute a class of intermediary beings whose
function is precisely to mediate between the theoi and men, and
to make ,it possible' f�r the mortals to span the increased distance
that separates them from the gods, allowing them to accede, step
by �tep, �t'o the status of hero, then of daimon, and then of god.

1 17
 MYTH A N D S O C I ETY

Thus, within the religious thought o f the Greeks, there i s as it

were a tension between two poles. Sometimes it postulates a
divine world that is relatively close to men, the gods maki.ng direct
interventions in human affairs and existing alongside the mortals,
while at the same time it conceives it to be impossible to span
the gradations between man and the gods, impossible for man to
escape his human condition. At other times it imagines a more
clear-cut divide and a greater gap between gods and men, but on
the other hand introduces the idea that men may rise to accede
to the world of the gods . .
Finally, this polarity is present in religion itself. On the one
hand we find a civic and political religion whose essentIal func­
tion is to integrate the individual who accomplishes the religious
rites into the social groups to which he belongs, deffning him as
a magistrate, a citizen, the father of a family, a host or a guest,
'
and so on, and not to pluck him out from his social framework in
order to elevate him to a higher sphere. In this religious context,
piety, eusebeia, applies not only to the relations between men and
the gods but also to all the social relations that an individual can
have with his fellow citizens - his relatives, living or d ead, his
children, his wife, his hosts or guests, strangers, and enemies fl n
contrast is a religion whose function is, to some extent, the oppo­
site, and that can be seen as complementing the state religi on.
This cult is addressed to gods who are not political, who have
few or no temples, who lead their devotees away from the towns,
' into nature in the wild, and whose role is to tear individuals away
from their ordinary social relationships and their usual occupa-
tions, alienating them from their own lives and from their very
selves. Because women are less well integrated into the city than
men and are specifically excluded from political life, this type
of religion is especially associated with them. Since, as women,
they are socially disqualified from participating in public affairs
on an equal footing with men, from a religiOUS point of view they
are in a position to take part in cults that are, in a way, the oppo­
site of the official religion. This "mystic" sense of religion, which

1 18
 T H E S O C I ETY O F THE GODS

differs so much from the communally shared Greek piety in its

desire for escape, its cult of madness, mania, and its quest for indi­
vidual salvation, manifests itself in social groups that are them­
selves peripheral to the city and its normal institutions. Thiasoi,
brotherhoods, and mysteries are the basis for types of grouping __

that lie outside the family, tribal, and civk organization . . Thus,
through a kind of paradox, the powers of tht; Beyond that men
created in particular social circumstances in turn have an effect
on those very social conditions and cause new types of groups and
new in�titutions to develop.
How should we conclude an inquiry that is both so long and
at the same time so summary? I hope that, in conclusion, I may
simply be allowed to stress once more the complexity of a reli­
gion such as that of the Greeks. The system itself is complex, as
are the relations between it and social life; and at the very heart
of the ·religious experience there is a polarity and tension, an aware­
ness of the contradictions that exist in man, in the universe, and
in the divine world. There i� no doubt that this religious con­
cept of a world that is at once harmonious and rent by conflict _

should be 'connected with the fact that it is the Greeks who are
the inventors of tragedy.
Their's is a tragic vision because the divine is ambiguous and
opaque, yet at the same time it is optimistic, for man has his own
tasks that he can accomplish. I believe that today we are witness­
ing a kind of rebirth of this sense of the tragic in life; each of us
is aware of the ambiguity of the human condition. Perhaps that
is why these Greek gods who, as I earlier suggested, seem to form
a kind of language, continue, when we listen to them, to mean
something to us: .

1 19