To the Greek, then, the gods were everywhere, all nature being full of divine life. They were innumerable, and naturally they differed much in rank. In later times we find a distinction between the gods (Not), and the daimones /lover ), inferior spirits, usually malevolent, though the name is also applied to a host of lesser powers occupying a place between the greater gods and men, and including the heroes and spirits of the dead. These gods have full control over the world and the forces of nature, but the world is not their creation; they are im mortal, but they have a beginning. The various cosmogonies and legends of successive dynasties of gods are scarcely parts of the religious system, still less are they reminiscences of the supplant ing of earlier religions by the cult of Zeus and his kindred. The gods were generally considered to have the form of men, though possibly of somewhat greater size. Thq huge dimensions as signed to Ares in the Iliad are quite exceptional. Though regarded as possessing unlimited powers of transformation, they are quite removed from the monstrous or grotesque. The Greek love of moderation is as influential in religion as in art or literature. In general, the gods were divided into those of the heaven, the earth, and the sea, though often the latter are omitted. The heaven ly gods dwell in the sky, or on some lofty moun tain, usually Mount Olympus in Thessaly. The earth or chthonic deities are conceived of as on or under the earth, and naturally often include the heroes and the dead. It should be noted that the line between these classes is very indefinite, and the same divinity is sometimes found in one and sometimes in the other. Space will permit only a brief outline of the grouping of the gods in the popular mythology. At the head was Zeus, `father of gods and men,' and the supreme ruler of the universe, though bound in some mysterious way by the decrees of fate. His wife was Hera, queen of heaven, and the special guardian of the sanctity of marriage. Associated with them as the chief divinities of heaven were Hepluestus, god of fire and the patron of the workers in metal; Athena, the virgin daughter of Zeus; Apollo and his sister Artemis; Ares, the god of war; Aphrodite, goddess of love; Hermes, the divine messenger; and Hestia, guardian of the hearth. Around these greater gods are grouped a host of lesser deities, some of whom enjoyed high honor in certain localities. Such are Helios, the sun, Selene, the moon, and other heavenly bodies; the attendants on the Olympians, as the Horne or seasons, the Charites or Graces, the Muses, Iris, Hebe, and Ganymede. The sea was ruled by Poseidon, the brother of Zeus, and second in power to him alone. With him was often worshiped his wife Amphitrite, while about them were grouped the Nereids, Tritons, and other less important sea-gods. The chief chthonic di vinities were Hades, the ruler of the lower world, and his wife, Persephone, the daughter of Demeter. Demeter herself was usually reckoned among the Olympians, but her sphere of activity was more closely connected with the earth, as the giver of grain and the knowledge of agriculture to men. On earth also belonged Dionysus, god of wine, with his bands of Mmnads, Satyrs, and. Sileni, though he, too, is frequently found with his father, Zeus, in heaven. Gcca, the earth-mother, plays a larger part in legend than in cult, but Asclepius, the god of healing, Pan, the great god of the Arcadian herdsmen, and some others, seem to have been more frequently objects of worship than of narrative. Characteristic of the Greek religion is the specialized conception of each god, who is, on the whole, limited to a specific, though often wide, field of activity. Henotheism, so prominent in the Vedas, by which the special ob ject of worship seems for the time being to possess all the powers of all the deities, is scarcely found in Greece, and it may well be doubted whether there is any real approach to monotheism outside of some of the philosophical schools. The general conception of divinity does not lead to a conception of one Divine Being. If we turn from the literature to the evidence afforded by inscriptions, or such works as the guide-book of Pausanias, it is at once clear that there were an immense number of local cults, sometimes attached to the names of the great gods, but more often connected with the name of some local hero, who was doubtless often an old divinity fallen from his high estate. Certainly
the country population was far removed from any thought of one god.
It is a striking fact that at its first appearance in literature the Greek religious system had al ready received its definitive form. Some new divinities were introduced later, but the Homeric poems show us the hierarchy of the gods in sub stantially the organization which it retained till it was extinguished by the new faith. The origin of this religion was a mystery to the Greeks themselves, though they speculated not a little on the subject, and in a somewhat crude form anticipated many later theories. Herodotus thought that many of the names of the gods had been learned from the Egyptians; Prodicus, the sophist, seems to have taught that the gods were mere personifications of the objects that brought blessings to men, such as the sun, air, light, agriculture, etc.; while Euhemerus (q.v.) gave elaborate expression to ideas long prevalent when he interpreted the myths as distorted history and the gods as idealized men of the past. It is not possible in this article to give a detailed survey of the many theories of Greek religion which have been advanced, only to be discredited. Two views were long prominent. One saw in the Greek religion only a corruption of an original revela tion, and much ingenuity was displayed in trac ing biblical teachings in the Hellenic myths. The other bore some relation to this in that it as sumed that the Greek mythology and the popular beliefs were but the symbolic forms in which the priests clothed the most profound truths which were too deep for the popular mind. The great exponent of this theory was Fr. Creuzer (Symbolik end Mythologic der alien Volker, 2d ed., Darmstadt, 1820-24; Fr. ed., enlarged by Gui gniant, Paris, 1825-51), but it exercised a power ful influence during the first half of the nine teenth century, especially in the explanation of the Greek vases and other works of art. With the growth of the science of comparative philol ogy and a clearer recognition of the connection between the Indo-European peoples, a flood of light was thrown on the names of many of the Greek gods; and as etymological identity with Vedic and sometimes northern deities seemed ob vious in many cases, it was naturally believed that here at last was the key to unlock the past. Many of the Vedic deities are clearly personifica tions of the powers of nature, and this is doubt less true of some of the Greek gods, but the attempt to resolve the Greek religion into a pure nature-worship has been unsuccessful. One diffi culty is that original identity of name does not mean later identity in the conception of the deity to whom the name is attached. Dyaus and Zeus may be the same word, but the former is only a shadow in the Vedic mythology, while the latter is the greatest of the gods. Explana tion has also been sought, with very good results, through the researches of anthropology into the primitive ideas of savage tribes and the sur vivals of primitive customs and superstitions among more civilized races. These studies have led to the theory which finds in animism, or worship of spirits, usually malevolent, the kernel of all religion, and traces its development by a strict process of evolution. This undoOtedly ex plains much in Greek religious rites and concep tions, but it cannot be regarded as completely satisfactory. It seems as though the solution, if it can ever be reached, must be sought by a com bination of these various lines. The names of the gods must be studied by the aid of compara tive philology that the original conception em bodied therein may be brought to light. Local cults, ritual usages, and superstitions must be collected and compared with similar rites among kindred or primitive peoples, and the history and development of the several myths examined. It is necessary, also, to consider the problem of foreign influence and contamination by the union of originally diverse conceptions under a com mon mime. At one time the tendency was to explain everything as an importation; and in the reaction against this extravagance K. O. Mailer and his followers doubtless went too far in their claim that all was autochthonous unless there is historical proof of foreign origin. Lately, the tendency has been to admit a larger share of foreign influence, though it must not be forgotten that the Greeks assimilated and transformed whatever they derived from their intercourse with other nations.