Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece Theodora Suk Fong Jim full chapter instant download

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient
Greece Theodora Suk Fong Jim

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/saviour-gods-and-soteria-in-ancient-greece-theodora-
suk-fong-jim/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece Tom Phillips
https://ebookmass.com/product/music-text-and-culture-in-ancient-
greece-tom-phillips/
Ancient Women Writers of Greece and Rome Bartolo Natoli
https://ebookmass.com/product/ancient-women-writers-of-greece-
and-rome-bartolo-natoli/
Self-Cultivation Philosophies in Ancient India, Greece,

and China 1st Edition Christopher W. Gowans
https://ebookmass.com/product/self-cultivation-philosophies-in-
ancient-india-greece-and-china-1st-edition-christopher-w-gowans/
Experience, Narrative, and Criticism in Ancient Greece:

Under the Spell of Stories Jonas Grethlein
https://ebookmass.com/product/experience-narrative-and-criticism-
in-ancient-greece-under-the-spell-of-stories-jonas-grethlein/
The Realness of Things Past: Ancient Greece and
Ontological History Greg Anderson
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-realness-of-things-past-
ancient-greece-and-ontological-history-greg-anderson/
How to Do Things with History: New Approaches to

Ancient Greece Paul Millett
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-to-do-things-with-history-new-
approaches-to-ancient-greece-paul-millett/
Madoff Talks Jim Campbell [Jim Campbell]
https://ebookmass.com/product/madoff-talks-jim-campbell-jim-
campbell-2/
Madoff Talks Jim Campbell [Jim Campbell]
https://ebookmass.com/product/madoff-talks-jim-campbell-jim-
campbell/
Centrifugal Separations in Biotechnology 2nd Edition

Wallace Woon Fong Leung
https://ebookmass.com/product/centrifugal-separations-in-
biotechnology-2nd-edition-wallace-woon-fong-leung/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 30/12/2021, SPi
Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece

Saviour Gods and Soteria

in Ancient Greece
THEODORA SUK FONG JIM
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Theodora Suk Fong Jim 2022
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021951165
ISBN 978–0–19–289411–3
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894113.001.0001
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
For my family
Preface
This book tackles the controversial notion of soteria and the bewildering plurality
of gods called ‘saviour’ as a lens through which to explore larger issues concerning
Greek polytheism. The idea came from a then newly published inscription from
Aegae in Aeolis in Epigraphica Anatolica 2009, which speaks ambiguously of a cult
of an unidentified ‘Saviour’ goddess (Soteira) on the one hand, and of a new cult of
Seleucus I and Antiochus I as ‘Saviours’ (Soteres) on the other. From this arises a
series of intriguing questions never tackled before: who is this ‘saviour’ goddess?
What did it mean to call a divinity Soter or Soteira? What was the relationship
between kings and gods similarly called ‘saviour’ in Greek antiquity? The elaborate
text from Aegae is only one among several thousand inscriptions scattered all over
the Greek Mediterranean which attest to a similar phenomenon. The language of
‘saving’ is ubiquitous in the Greek world and especially in the Greeks’ dealings
with their gods, yet its centrality in Greek religion has long been obscured by its
later prominence in Christianity. This book investigates what it meant to be
‘saved’ and the underlying concept of soteria in ancient Greece. Yet it goes beyond
Greek religious vocabulary and cult epithets to investigate the lived religious
experience and thought world of the Greeks.
Inscriptions such as the one from Aegae constitute the most important source
for this project. I was first introduced to the art of epigraphy as a graduate student
at Oxford, and in the course of writing this book I have come to appreciate much
more fully its importance to historians. This is especially true when studying the
religious sensibility and lived experience of the Greeks, which, of all aspects of
ancient Greek religion, I have always found most gripping. Yet the material for the
book is not restricted to inscriptions on stone; it also includes archaeology,
numismatics, prose, and poetry, and the topic reaches beyond Classical antiquity
to early Christianity. The search for some of the least known archaeological sites
has led me up lonely hilltops in Arcadia and down dangerous highways in
modern-day Turkey. The time-span covered by these sources is also long; indeed
longer than I originally intended. In the course of research it became clear that the
subject of soteria cannot be restricted neatly to the Classical and Hellenistic
periods, but must embrace what came both before and after it. The result is a
study which spans from the late Archaic period to the early centuries of
Christianity, though the focus remains on Classical and Hellenistic Greece.
The writing of this book was completed in the Department of Classics and
Archaeology at the University of Nottingham thanks to a period of research
leave, after I first started it in the Department of History at Lancaster
viii 
University. Various other institutions have also provided valuable facilities and
stimulating environments for research: the British School at Athens, the Sackler
Library at Oxford, and the Fondation Hardt at Geneva have all been superb in
providing the necessary resources and intellectual stimuli. In 2020 my visit to the
Center of Hellenic Studies, Harvard, had to be postponed owing to the global
health crisis; nevertheless I am grateful to the CHS for its generous support with
electronic resources and for the opportunity to join their lively virtual community.
I would never have found the courage to tackle such a complex subject had it
not been for the unfailing support and exacting standards of Robert Parker:
I could not have hoped for a wiser and kinder teacher in my life. The reviewers
of Oxford University Press are most perceptive in their observations and insights.
Jan Bremmer, Emily Kearns, Barbara Kowalzig, and Teresa Morgan have read part
or the bulk of the manuscript at various stages of its preparation and provided
valuable comments. Bruno Currie, Lindsay Driediger-Murphy, Gunnel Ekroth,
John Ma, and Shane Wallace kindly discussed with me specific issues. I am
grateful to all of them for generously sharing their time, knowledge, and expertise,
and for challenging me to bring this book to a higher standard. For technical
support, I thank Sergio Quintero Cabello for producing the maps with great skill.
Friends in various parts of the world have been pillars of support in the back-
ground: they all know who they are.
The greatest and deepest debts I owe and can never repay are to my family: to
my parents for unconditional support and the freedom to take the path less taken,
to my sisters for all that they have done heroically, and to the little ones I wish
I could bring with me. This book is dedicated with love to my family and to Faye,
who is 26 as I write.
S. F. Jim
February 2021
List of Illustrations
Cover illustration: Votive relief to Asclepius from the south slope of the Athenian acropolis,
Athens, Acropolis Museum, NM 1341 (© Acropolis Museum, 2012, photo by Socratis
Mavrommatis).
1. Marble relief, Asklepeion at Epidauros, Archaeological Museum of Asklepeion,

inv. 28 (Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture
and Sports/Archaeological Resources Fund). 61
2. Votive stele from Cyzicus, Collection Choiseul-Gouffier, Paris, musée du
Louvre, MA2850 (© RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre), photo by Hervé
Lewandowski). 86
3. Graffito of an elephant in El-Kanais, Egypt, I.Kanais 9bis (after A. E. P. Weigall,
Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts, Edinburgh, London, 1909, pl. 31;
A. Bernand, Le Paneion d’El-Kanaïs, Leiden, 1972, pl. 54.1). 97
4. Votive relief to Asclepius, from the south slope of the Athenian acropolis,
Athens, Acropolis Museum, NM 1341 (© Acropolis Museum, 2012, photo by
Socratis Mavrommatis). 101
5a. Marble column in Ras El-Soda, Egypt, Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities
Museum, BAAM, inv. 25788 (© Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities Museum,
photo by Mohamed Mounir). 102
5b. Marble foot in Ras El-Soda, Egypt, Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities
Museum, BAAM, inv. 25789 (© Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities
Museum, photo by Mohamed Mounir). 103
6. Marble statuette of Hygieia from Epidaurus, Athens, National Archaeological
Museum, NM 272 (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic
Organization of Cultural Resources Development). 105
7. Map of saviour gods, Archaic period. 121
8. Archaic temple of Athena Soteira and Poseidon, Vigla in Arcadia (photo by
author, reproduced by the permission of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Arcadia.
© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Resources Fund,
N. 3028/2002). 123
9. Map of Athena Soteira. 124
10. Map of joint cults of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira. 125
11. Map of saviour gods, c.479–400 . 127
12. Map of saviour gods, fourth century . 128
13. Map of Apollo Soter. 130
xii   
14. Map of Dionysus Soter. 131

15. Map of Heracles Soter. 132
16a. Map of saviour gods, Hellenistic period. 133
16b. Map of saviour gods in mainland Greece and Asia Minor, Hellenistic period. 134
16c. Map of saviour gods in Hellenistic Egypt. 135
17a. Map of saviour gods, Roman period. 137
17b. Map of saviour gods in mainland Greece and Asia Minor, Roman period. 138
18. Map of Zeus Soter. 146
19. Map of Artemis Soteira. 148
20. Map of Kore Soteira. 149
21. Map of Dioscuri Soteres. 155
22. Map of Asclepius Soter. 160
23. Rectangular statue base in honour of Ptolemy I Soter, Egypt, CPI 605. 185
24. Limestone plaque in honour of Ptolemy I and Berenice I as Theoi Soteres, in
the modern village of Kom El-Ahmar in Middle Egypt, CPI 323. 186
25. Rectangular limestone slab dedicated to Ptolemy V, Cleopatra I, and the
Theoi Soteres, provenance unknown, CPI 584. 209
Disclaimer: The author has made every reasonable effort to clear permissions for the use of
Fig. 3, the elephant graffito in El-Kanais, which was first published in A. E. P. Weigall,
Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts (Edinburgh, London, 1909), pl. 31, and subsequently
reprinted in A. Bernand, Le Paneion d’El-Kanaïs (Leiden, 1972), pl. 54.1. Unfortunately the
original publishing house, William Blackwood and Sons, is no longer in operation and
cannot be contacted. The author would like to ask any rights-holders of this image to get in
touch should any issues come to light.
Conventions and Abbreviations
Ancient authors and reference works are referred to as in OCD⁴, and occasionally
LSJ (1996). Epigraphical publications are abbreviated following Supplementum
Epigraphicum Graecum and the recently published ‘List of Abbreviations of
Editions and Works of Reference for Alphabetic Greek Epigraphy’ (accessible
via https://www.aiegl.org/grepiabbr.html). Abbreviations of periodicals follow those
in the American Journal of Archaeology (AJA) 95 (1991), 1–16 (as expanded at
http://www.ajaonline.org), and are supplemented by those in L’Année Philologique.
To the above epigraphic publications should now be added the Corpus of
Ptolemaic Inscriptions, 3 vols (Oxford, 2021–). At the time of writing this book
only the first volume of CPI is published, though a useful concordance of all CPI
texts is provided in the appendix of A. Bowman and C. Crowther (eds) (2020), The
Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford), 269–312.
Translations of quoted texts, where cited from existing editions, are indicated in
the footnotes. Where no translator is stated, the translations are my own. The
spelling of familiar Greek names is Latinized following OCD⁴, whereas Greek
personal names in inscriptions are Hellenized. All dates refer to  unless other-
wise indicated.
Introduction
‘Saviour’ Gods in Greek Polytheism
At some point during the fourth century , a workman in Athens brought an
offering to the shrine of Asclepius. ‘Saved’ apparently from some ‘mighty rocks’,
he thanked Asclepius with a marble relief, depicting himself and his mules
drawing a wagon and approaching the god and his family. Was he injured in a
landslide together with his animals, but fortunately restored to health by the god?
Far away from the Greek mainland, in Byblos in Syria, Apollodoros set up a stone
altar to a god whose name is no longer preserved, but who carries the epithet
‘[S]aviour’ ([S]oter): the inscription tells us that the god had saved him from the
trembling of the earth. In Kollyda in Lydia, a married couple set up a marble altar
to Zeus ‘for the safety (soteria) of themselves and their children’ after two people
were struck dead by lightning. They were not, as one might expect, praying for the
‘salvation’ of the deceased (perhaps their acquaintances?), but their own self-
preservation from the anger of the god.¹
At first sight there appears to be nothing which connects these snapshots, taken
from the lives of little-known individuals separated by time and place. Yet their
different hopes and experiences are expressed similarly with the cognate words
sozein (‘to save’), Soter (‘saviour’), and soteria (‘deliverance’, ‘preservation’,
‘safety’). The same language is used in innumerable prayers, dedications, and
sacrifices all over the Greek world to invoke the gods, asking them for protection,
safety, and deliverance—this is arguably the blessing most frequently sought in the
exchange of charis between man and gods. But what did it mean to be ‘saved’ in a
religion without doctrine, and to whom should the Greeks appeal in a world where
multiple gods reigned? This book is about the multiplicity of ‘saviour’ gods and the
associated blessing of soteria which they could dispense or withdraw. It focuses on
the power of ‘saviour’ gods in the lives of the Greeks, how worshippers searched
for soteria as they confronted the unknown and unknowable, and what this can
reveal about their hopes and beliefs.
The concept of soteria had close, and even entangled, relations with
Christianity. The word is also used in Christian writings, not least the New
Testament, to signify deliverance from the consequences of sin and attainment
¹ IG II/III² 4356 = IG II/III³ 4, 672 (fourth century ); Dussaud (1896), 299 (undated); TAM V.1
360 (33/4 ).
Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece. Theodora Suk Fong Jim, Oxford University Press.
© Theodora Suk Fong Jim 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894113.003.0001
2       
of a blessed afterlife through the mediation of Christ the Saviour. Yet as the above
episodes show, the concept goes back to Greek antiquity, where it had a different
meaning or meanings and entailed a different experience. Its centrality in ancient
Greek religion, however, has been obscured by its later importance in Christianity.
In their concern not to impose Christian notions on Greek polytheism, many
historians may have avoided the Greek concept altogether; or perhaps they have
simply taken it for granted given its prevalence in Greek society. Either way, the
result is that its place in Greek religion is left largely unexplored. Where Greek
soteria is occasionally discussed, scholars have sometimes anachronistically attrib-
uted aspects to the Greek notion which were alien to it.² The challenge for
historians therefore is to set aside our own cultural assumptions and expectations,
and to rethink what we think we know about the Greek word by a thorough
examination of the concept in its ancient context.
Yet this book is not simply about the Greek concept and religious language. At
the heart of the present study is the lived religious experience and thought world
of the Greeks, which the religious vocabulary and cult epithets can help to unravel.
What did the Greeks have in mind when calling a god ‘saviour’? How did they
imagine and experience soteria? This book’s particular emphasis is on worship-
pers’ religious world-views, and how their choices and behaviour were shaped by
their beliefs and perceptions of the divine. After about two decades of lively
debates on the term ‘belief ’, and the extent to which it can apply to the study of
ancient Greek religion, most historians now agree that ‘belief ’ is a useful and even
necessary interpretative tool in understanding Greek religion, that is, if the term is
used broadly in a sense devoid of Christian overtones, and if important distinc-
tions are recognized between belief in Greek polytheism and that in Christianity.
In the present study ‘belief ’ refers to worshippers’ religious world-view, presup-
positions, and statements about the gods. Nevertheless, beyond this broad con-
sensus the investigation of belief seems to have come to a standstill, and much
remains unresolved as to how we can penetrate the beliefs of ancient worshippers
and explore the variety of beliefs they entertained.³ The study of soteria is closely
intertwined with these issues. Not only is the experience of soteria one of the
clearest contexts where belief comes into play, it also illuminates a spectrum of
beliefs ranging from everyday dependence on divine protection to more height-
ened beliefs in the miraculous and extraordinary. In particular, this study will
investigate worshippers’ beliefs through the lens of divine naming—names and
cult titles of gods—which remain a relatively new area of enquiry in Classics.⁴
Despite increased scholarly interest in cult epithets and divine names, the focus
² See Chapter 0.4 below on existing scholarship.

³ Recent discussions of belief: Parker (2011), 31–4; Versnel (2011), esp. 539–59; the useful review
article by Harrison (2015); Pirenne-Delforge (2020), ch. 6; Anderson (forthcoming).
⁴ Theoretical analyses of Greek cult epithets: Usener (1948); Parker (2003); Belayche et al. (2005);
Brulé (2007); Parker (2017a); Bonnet et al. (2018), and forthcoming work from Bonnet’s ERC project.
 3
has been on their theoretical analysis, whereas their potential as a means of

gaining access to worshippers’ deepest fears and desires has yet to be exploited.⁵
The present study will engage with cult epithets—focusing on Soter (‘saviour’),
Soteira (‘saviouress’), and the like—as a different angle from which to approach
the religious thought world of the Greeks.
Soteria for the Greeks, this book will demonstrate, had little or nothing to do
with the afterlife; eschatological hopes, while present among the Greeks, were not
normally expressed in the language of soteria. Unlike the Christian use of the
word, soteria for the ancient Greeks could have a gradation of graver or less
serious meanings depending on context, but almost without exception always with
reference to this world rather than the next. The English word ‘salvation’ is
potentially misleading in this respect: historians often use it loosely to refer to
the afterlife in Greek antiquity, when the Greek words and ideas expressing such
hopes are in fact not soteria; this only furthers the conflation or confusion between
ancient and modern concepts of soteria.⁶ It is therefore preferable to translate the
Greek soteria instead as ‘deliverance’, ‘preservation’, ‘safety’, ‘rescue’, or similar.
Nevertheless, as we shall see in this study, none of these English terms can capture
the full range of meanings of the Greek notion of soteria, and one translation or
another may be more suitable depending on context. It is the multivalent nature of
the concept and the diversity of experiences it encompasses which makes the
subject so challenging and yet so fascinating. Not only will the present study show
that the importance of soteria long predates the rise of Christianity, it will also
demonstrate that soteria for the Greeks entailed a different experience or experi-
ences from the one that we, after two millennia of Christian traditions, have come
to associate with the term.
If Greek soteria had little or no relation with the afterlife, what, then, did the
Greeks need to be ‘saved’ from, and what did soteria consist in? The motif of
divine ‘saving’ and ‘deliverance’ is a prominent theme already in the Homeric
epics, but it is probably not until the Persian Wars, when the Greeks were
confronted with an unprecedented external threat, that the concern for ‘salvation’
and ‘deliverance’ of the Greeks came to be conceptualized and expressed by the
word soteria.⁷ From then on it was used by the Greeks in a range of meanings in a
wide variety of situations. For individuals, soteria might concern safety at sea,
deliverance from war, material security, physical well-being, and so on. For
communities, it could be military victory, liberation from internal or external
⁵ But see the insights of Scheid (2003), 35: ‘to discover the theology behind the practice, we shall
focus on the name of the deity, the deity’s epithets, the objects surrounding the deity’s religious image,
and the ritual actions performed around it’; Parker (2017a), 173: ‘naming—so all modes of address,
including epithets—is essential to a study of ancient and perhaps modern religious psychology’.
⁶ e.g. Parker (1983), 281–307, on ‘Purity and Salvation’; Adluri (2013), Philosophy and Salvation in
Greek Religion, and its various chapters.
⁷ See Chapter 1.
4       
threats, relief from famine, or deliverance from other natural disasters. Unlike
some studies in Greek religion which emphasize the role of either the polis or the
individual at the expense of the other,⁸ this study will attend both to individuals
and to collectives, and demonstrate that the two perspectives are compatible and
provide the necessary complement to each other. Subsequent chapters will exam-
ine more closely the diversity of ‘saving’ experiences of communities and their
members, and the possible interactions and influence between them.⁹ Whatever
the situation and the object concerned, soteria implies safety or preservation from
some force threatening it, whether real or potential, encountered or perceived.
Underlying the concern for soteria is the Greek world-view about the unpredict-
ability of divine action and the instability of human fortune. The importance
attached to soteria in Greek antiquity is further demonstrated in the many Greek
personal names beginning with the root sos-.¹⁰ Whether they relate to personal
circumstances at birth or in life, these personal names must reflect to a certain
extent the hopes and desires of individuals.¹¹ Their prevalence is one index of the
deeply-seated need for soteria in Greek society.
0.1 What Are ‘Saviour’ Gods? Epithets, Power,

and Divine Nature
The seemingly simple, yet notoriously difficult, question of ‘what is a god’ has
stimulated lively discussions among historians.¹² What, then, is a ‘saviour god’,
and how did a god become a ‘saviour’? The earliest known literary references to
Greek gods as soteres are in the Homeric Hymns, where the word refers to
Poseidon and the Dioscuri in their capacity to save at sea. From at least the late
Archaic period, Soter came to be applied as a cult epithet to an increasing number
of major and lesser gods. So quickly did the epithet spread from one god to
another and from place to place that, by the end of the Hellenistic period, there
was hardly any region in the Greek Mediterranean where we do not find traces of
divine ‘saviours’. A god might be called Soter in thanks for and commemoration of
the deliverance he effected for an individual or community; the epithet was
usually, though not exclusively, used retrospectively after divine aid. But one
⁸ See n. 53 below. ⁹ See Chapters 2 and 3.

¹⁰ Female personal names: e.g. Σώτειρα, Σωτηρία, Σωτηρίς, Σωτηρίχα. Male personal names: e.g.
Σωζόμενος, Σώσανδρος, Σωσθένης, Σωσίβιος, Σωσιγένης, Σωσίδημος, Σωσίθεος, Σωσίπολις, Σώσιμος,
Σῶσος, Σωτήρ, Σωτήριος, Σωτήριχος. Particularly popular were Σωτήριχος and Σωσίβιος, attested in
356 and 264 instances respectively across all regions according to LGPN online. Interestingly, some of
these (Soter, Soteira, Sosipolis) also served as divine names or cult epithets, but the Greeks saw no
problem in using them as personal names.
¹¹ On the value of personal names as evidence, see Hornblower and Matthews (eds) (2000).
¹² e.g. Loraux (1991); Lloyd and Burkert (1997); Parker (2011), 64–102.
 5
could also call upon a god as Soter before a risky enterprise or during a crisis.¹³
Depending on the means, initiatives, and vows of worshippers and worshipping
communities, a momentary address to a god as Soter might sometimes be
transformed into a permanent cult for the god under that title.¹⁴ More often
than not, however, the evidence does not permit us to determine whether an
established cult under that epithet lay behind a reference to a Soter, and therefore
in this study I have included occurrences of the epithet regardless of whether a
permanent cult is attested, and whether Soter was used as a permanent epithet or
temporary form of address.
Until recently, divine names and epithets have remained probably the most
under-studied aspect of the divine, and yet this is one of the most illuminating
areas for analysing the gods and the Greeks’ perceptions of them. A cult epithet is,
at the most basic level, a ‘focusing’ device for identifying or focusing attention on a
particular aspect of divine power or a particular cult site of a god.¹⁵ Thus Zeus
Meilichios singles out Zeus’ ‘kindly’ aspect from his other faces, whereas Zeus
Panamaros picks out his cult in Panamara from his many sanctuaries in Asia
Minor. Innumerable cult epithets are attested in the Greek world and new ones
continue to be brought to light with new epigraphic finds. Some of these epithets
were specific to a single deity—such as Phoibos (‘Pure’, ‘Radiant’) for Apollo, and
Phytalmios (‘Producing’, ‘Nourishing’) for Poseidon, whereas others could apply
to more than one god in the Greek pantheon as the divine function they denoted
was not the preserve of a single divinity—such as Epekoos (‘Listener’), Epiphanes
(‘Manifest’), Hegemon (‘Leader’), and Soter (‘Saviour’). Soter was by far the most
popular and widely shared ‘trans-divine’ epithet of this latter kind.¹⁶ Usually used
to invoke a god’s ‘saving’ power within a circumscribed field, Soter could be borne
independently by different gods who could lay claim, if in varying ways, to the
power to ‘save’. Consequently we shall encounter many divinities similarly called
Soter in the masculine, or Soteira in the feminine: Apollo Soter, Heracles Soter,
Zeus Soter, Athena Soteira, Artemis Soteira, Kore Soteira, to name but a few.
This system of cult epithets raises important questions about the unity and
multiplicity of the divine. Given that multiple epithets could be applied to the
same god, how much difference is there between the innumerable Zeuses bearing
different epithets? On one level Zeus Meilichios simply represented an aspect of
¹³ e.g. Arr. Anab. 6.19.4–5, Indica 20.10, 21.2: Nearchus sacrificed to Zeus Soter before setting sail.
¹⁴ e.g. Xen. An. 3.2.9, 4.8.25: the Greek troops sacrificed to Zeus Soter and other gods in fulfilment of
a vow, and instituted games and contests in their honour. On cults founded by private individuals, see
e.g. IG IV 840 = IG IV².2 1236; IG IV 841; I.Egypte métriques, no. 109.
¹⁵ Parker (2003); Parker (2017a), ch. 1. Note that a theonym can be combined with both types of
epithets, the topographical and the functional, and it is not uncommon to find Soter being attached to a
double cultic name: e.g. [Ἀ]π̣όλλωνι Κενδρεισηνῳ σωτῆρι (IGBulg III 919), Ἀπόλλωνι Νισυρείτῃ σωτῆρι
(SEG XLIX 1718), Ἀρτέμιδι Περγαίαι Σωτείρα[ι] (IG XII.3 1350), and Ἀπόλ[λωνι] Διδυμεῖ Σωτῆρι (IG
XII.4 566).
¹⁶ Brulé (2007), 329, uses the phrase ‘épiclèses trans-divines’.
6       
Zeus, and therefore was not intrinsically different from Zeus without any epithet
or with other epithets. But on another level Zeus Meilichios could be depicted with
a different iconography, was invoked separately from Zeus under another epithet,
and received different offerings and cultic actions, as if he had an autonomous
status.¹⁷ Drawing on cognitive dissonance theories, Versnel resolves this apparent
paradox by arguing for the capacity of the human brain to entertain multiple
perceptions of the divine, and to shift from one conception to another by switch-
ing between different registers, so that ‘gods bearing the same name with different
epithets were and were not one and the same, depending on their momentary
registrations in the believer’s various layers of perception’. Given the Greeks’
ability to shift their perception unconsciously from one image of Zeus to another,
the multiplicity of Zeuses in the Greek world was perhaps taken for granted by the
ancients: to ordinary Greeks it was probably a non-issue, even though it may seem
problematic to us today.¹⁸ The phenomenon of ‘trans-divine’ epithets, however,
raises a further set of questions. If the application of different epithets to the same
god could create, as it were, different gods, to what extent then did the sharing of
the same epithet by different gods render them similar in character and function?
How much difference was there between the plurality of gods called Soter? These
are some questions which we shall explore in the course of this study.¹⁹
If the Greek ‘saviour’ gods did not grant ‘salvation’ after death, what power did
they actually exercise, and how did they affect the everyday life of the Greeks? In
comic fantasy, the birds in Cloudcuckooland imagine themselves as new gods
dispensing blessings to mankind: protection of crops, health, wealth, longevity,
happiness, life, peace, youth, laughter, dances, festivals, and even bird’s milk.²⁰ To
this fairly impressive list of divine functions we may add sustenance of life,
marriage, childbirth, child-rearing, coming of age, law and order, justice, political
stability, military victory, trade, craft, and so on. Though involved in many of these
spheres of life, ‘saviour’ gods were not normally the source of the above blessings;
instead, their role was to maintain worshippers’ existing well-being (soteria) in
these fields, or they might be called upon to lend aid in times of trouble so that the
equilibrium in life could be restored and a state of safety or security be attained.
Under normal circumstances the Greeks were unlikely to invoke Zeus Soter for
rain and fertility of the fields. Agricultural prosperity was usually subsumed
within regular sacrifices for ‘the health and safety’ of the polis, and only when
crop failure became a reality would we see the Greeks praying to Zeus Soter
¹⁷ A much-cited example is Xen. An. 7.8.1–6, where Xenophon, despite his regular worship of Zeus
Basileus, had incurred the wrath of Zeus Meilichios for not sacrificing to him. On Zeus Meilichios, see
Cook (1914–40), vol. 2.2, 1091–1160; Jameson, Jordan, and Kotansky (1993), 81–103.
¹⁸ Versnel (2011), esp. ch. 1, quotation at 82 (Versnel’s italics). Non-issue: but see a rare instance of
reflection by Socrates in Xen. Symp. 8.9.
¹⁹ See Chapter 4.
²⁰ Ar. Av. 586ff., 731–4, 1061–71. On areas of divine intervention, see also Mikalson (1983), 18–26;
Burkert (1987), 12–29; Parker (2005b), chs 17–18.
 7
explicitly for favourable weather conditions.²¹ They were unlikely to invoke Zeus
Soter for military success unless in situations of military crisis, and so on.²² When
the Greeks called upon Zeus Soter, they were not invoking a different god from
Zeus without an epithet, but a particular aspect of divine power subsumed within
Zeus’ divine persona. It was usually only when specific needs for ‘deliverance’,
‘protection’, and ‘rescue’ arose that the Greeks would activate this aspect of divine
power by invoking the gods under the epithet Soter. It can therefore be hard to
identify the workings of ‘saviour’ gods outside specific situations when the Greeks
needed deliverance from particular troubles. The power to ‘save’ was a subset of
the gods’ multivalent power, and in many ways the most important.
Multifarious as divine involvement might be, the interventions of ‘saviour’
gods were most clearly discernible in those areas involving the greatest dangers
and human anxieties. Warfare and seafaring gave rise to the largest number of
divine ‘saviours’: Zeus, Artemis, Athena, and Heracles were all popular military
‘saviours’, and Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Athena, the Dioscuri, Heracles, Isis,
Poseidon, and Tyche, among others, are all attested as maritime ones, if with
varying frequency. Political liberation from internal and external threats tended to
be attributed to Zeus Soter, as was deliverance from natural catastrophes such as
earthquakes.²³ Cures from particular illnesses could be sought from Asclepius as
well as, though less often, his family members and Isis, whereas Apollo presided
over plagues.²⁴ These are just some broad spheres in which ‘saviour’ gods were at
work. Their ‘saving’ operations were more highly varied than can be outlined here,
and subsequent chapters will demonstrate the diverse nature of these gods and
their wide-ranging power in the life of the Greeks.
Among the plurality of ‘saviour’ figures available for help, Zeus was probably
the most popular in the Greek world. He was invoked in so many spheres of life
other than the military and political that, as a speaker in Alexis puts it, Zeus Soter
was by far the ‘most useful’ (χρησιμώτατος) of gods to mortals.²⁵ Little less
impressive was the range of ‘saving’ functions of his daughter Artemis. Not only
could she intervene in military operations, she was also, inter alia, a protectress of
the household and a saviouress in sailing. As the examples of Zeus and Artemis
demonstrate, the multiplicity of divine power was the mark of a major Olympian
figure; by contrast, the power of minor divinities was much more delimited.
Asclepius and Hygieia specialized in healing, the Dioscuri in maritime rescue,
Eileithyia in childbirth, and so on. Heroes, though they could also ‘save’, rarely
²¹ e.g. a group of villagers prayed to Zeus Chalazios Sozon (‘Zeus of Hail who Saves’) in Hasluck
(1904), 21–3, no. 4. Other instances related to agriculture will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.
²² See especially Chapter 2.
²³ Political liberation: I.Priene 11 = I.Priene IK 6, and other examples in Chapter 2. Earthquakes:
Dussaud (1896), 299; I.Anazarbos, no. 49; Aristid. Or. 49.38–41 (Hieroi Logoi III) Keil.
²⁴ See Chapters 2 and 3. But neither Asclepius nor Apollo was frequently called Soter in these
particular spheres as they were the chief averters of diseases even without the epithet.
²⁵ Alexis fr. 234 K.–A. = Ath. 15.693a.
8       
carried cult epithets as their power was limited to specific functions in restricted
localities.²⁶ It is important to realize, however, that the demarcation of timai
between different gods is not as rigid as we may think; overlaps, extensions, and
even changes in divine functions are not uncommon. Contrary to what we might
expect, Asclepius Soter could also, exceptionally, be a god of the battlefield and a
saviour at sea.²⁷ Such transgressions are nevertheless restricted and temporary,
and the established powers of the different gods usually held one another in
check.²⁸
Despite their potential to ‘save’, it would be misleading to assume that ‘saviour’
gods were necessarily benevolent helpers of mankind. In fact many of them were
major Olympian figures with both a dark and a positive side. Thus Zeus Chalazios
Sozon (‘Zeus of Hail who Saves’) could send or withdraw rain and hail at his will,
and might have been conceptualized differently from the usual Zeus Soter. Apollo
could send plague as well as cure it. Poseidon could cause storms to rise just as he
could quell them. In one of the episodes which we shall examine later in greater
detail, Poseidon Soter saved the Greek navy, not by protecting it from a storm, but
by wrecking the enemy forces.²⁹ Asclepius and the Dioscuri are exceptions to this
in bringing only aid rather than harm to mankind. How, then, did the Greeks deal
with the multifaceted power of the gods as a simultaneous source of evil and
blessings? Versnel’s idea of shifting foci mentioned earlier is illuminating in this
respect: the human cognitive system could accommodate different and even
contradictory perceptions of, say, Poseidon as a ‘saviour’ who was himself a
most dangerous destructive force. Yet the insights of Versnel and Parker could
be complemented and pushed further by considering the function of the epithet.
In the Greeks’ dealings with their gods, the epithet Soter probably provided a
means of coping with the multivalent nature of divine power. By focusing
attention on the ‘saving’ aspect of the gods, the epithet could bring to the fore
the positive and protective aspect of a divine persona, allowing the other, threat-
ening aspects of divine power to recede temporarily into the background. In other
words, the epithet was a lens by which worshippers could focus on one aspect of
the god and distance themselves from others.
In his discussion of God in the Old Testament, the biblical scholar Westermann
distinguishes between what he calls the ‘saving god’, who intervenes in crises, and
the ‘blessing god’, who keeps the world running by providing rain, crops, and so
on. This is a variant of the distinction in anthropology between ‘high-intensity’
and ‘low-intensity’ rituals.³⁰ It is tempting to think, from what we have just seen,
that the Greek ‘saviour’ gods were predominantly responsible for ‘saving’ rather
²⁶ Heroes: some rare examples are Achilles Soter in the Black Sea (IGDOP 50), Sosipolis in Elis
(Paus. 6.20.2–5, 6.25.4). See also other heroes and heroines in Kearns (1990).
²⁷ IG II/III² 4357 = IG II/III³ 4, 673; IG IV².1 128.57–78; AvP VIII.3, no. 63.
²⁸ Parker (2005b), 388; Parker (2011), 87. ²⁹ Hdt. 7.192, to be discussed in Chapter 1.
³⁰ Westermann (1979), 26–9, 44–5. Anthropological distinction: see e.g. Van Baal (1976).
 9
than ‘blessing’. However, as will become clear as we proceed, they had a ‘blessing’
aspect as much as a ‘saving’ one; that is, they preserved the general well-being of
worshippers as well as providing rescue in emergencies. Compared to divine
interventions in the military and maritime spheres, less dramatic and less readily
visible in the evidence are their roles in such areas of life as childcare, craft, trade,
marriage, and agriculture.³¹ It is hard to see ‘saviour’ gods in action in these fields
as they did not bring immediate benefit or tangible protection. Yet the Greeks
could put their children, household, craftwork, property, crops, and animals
under divine protection by praying for soteria. In the day-to-day experience of
the Greeks, most of the time ‘saviour’ gods would remain in the background
almost unnoticed, preserving the order of the world. It is often only when things
went wrong—family illness, crop failure, natural disasters—that the Greeks might
invoke a relevant god for specialized aid. Whichever terminology we employ to
characterize these two aspects of divine ‘saviours’, the distinction thus made
between them is not clear-cut. It is blurred and fluid since the preservation of
existing well-being and the deliverance from actual troubles are but two sides of
the same coin. No sooner does a man come off safe from danger than he worries
about how long his well-being will last.³² Many thank-offerings commemorating
divine deliverance from a crisis would therefore pray also for continued divine
protection, which shows that their dedicators had both the past and the future in
mind. ‘Saviour’ gods and the soteria they dispensed were both precautionary and
crisis-related, both preventive and curative. Instead of focusing on a particular
‘saving’ action in isolation or putting it in one fixed category or another, we need
to see it as part of a continuum of human experiences oscillating constantly
between safety and danger.
0.2 Human Beings as ‘Saviours’
So far we have mentioned Olympian gods and lesser divine figures called Soter.
Yet the word ‘saviour’ was by no means a preserve of the gods; the Greeks also
used it of human beings who performed a major or lesser service.³³ Some of these
individuals were so called momentarily in a sudden outburst of gratitude without
any implication of cultic worship, whereas others—especially Hellenistic kings
and Roman emperors—were given the title permanently in cult and worship.
³¹ But see Eur. Med. 14–15 for a rare application of soteria to marriage: the nurse reflects that the
greatest soteria is when a woman is not at variance with her husband. Here soteria denotes a state of
married life which is free of trouble.
³² On human life as a mixture of good and bad fortune, see e.g. Hom. Il. 24.527ff.; Solon, fr. 13 West,
with commentary in Noussia-Fantuzzi (2010); Aesch. Supp. 93–5; Eur. HF 62, IT 475–8.
³³ Much rarer in the evidence are non-royal women called soteira: e.g. Eur. Heracl. 588 (Heracles’
daughter); TAM V.1 535 (a prophetess); Bean and Mitford (1965), 43, no. 47 (probably a nurse or wife
of a physician).
10       
Whether human or divine, one might be called Soter for the ‘saving’ (in graver or
less serious senses of the word) he performed or was expected to perform.³⁴ From
this arise interesting questions of whether the title of Soter was a mark of divinity,
and the extent to which monarchs formally honoured under this epithet were on a
par with the traditional gods. Alongside our analysis of ‘saviour’ gods, we shall
explore how human beings were recognized as such and how their roles compared
to that of divine ‘saviours’. In particular, the cults of Hellenistic kings formally
called Soter—such as Demetrius Poliorketes, Ptolemy I, and Antiochus I—will
form the subject of a chapter.³⁵ Instead of limiting our investigation narrowly to a
particular category of ‘saviours’, or dismissing applications of soter to human
beings as ‘non-religious’, a richer and more thorough understanding of the
phenomenon can be achieved by bringing together various kinds of saviours.
The crossover between divine epithets and royal nomenclature, and the different
forces with which the same word was used of different agents, may prove
particularly illuminating for Greek conceptions of ‘saviour’ and the values
attached to it.
0.3 Saviour Gods and the Study of Greek Polytheism
The last few decades have seen a multiplicity of new paradigms in the study of
Greek religion. Instead of focusing on ritual practices, origins, and evolutionary
developments, which had dominated scholarly interest for much of the twentieth
century, there has been a shift of focus back to the gods themselves: the complex
working of Greek polytheism, the system of relations between the gods, the
theology behind it, and ways of conceptualizing and experiencing the divine.³⁶
How, then, does the study of ‘saviour’ gods fit into these existing paradigms? To
what extent can the plurality of ‘saviour’ gods be analysed by using recent
approaches, and can the phenomenon in turn put these frameworks to the test,
thereby confirming, nuancing, or refining their insights?
We have seen how a major god like Zeus Soter and Artemis Soteira could
operate in many different spheres of activity; at the same time a particular area of
life might involve a number of gods variously associated with it. According to the
³⁴ Gods and human beings aside, inanimate objects might occasionally be described as soter or
soteira for their protective functions: e.g. Soph. Eurypylus fr. 211 line 12 Radt: a spearhead as soteira
(ὦ λόγχα, σώτ[ειρα πατρός]). Pl. Symp. 209d4–6: in their role as the guardian of the city, Lycurgus’ laws
are referred to as the ‘saviours of Sparta’ (σωτῆρες τῆς Λακεδαίμονος). Gow–Page, HE, Posidippus XI: the
famous lighthouse on Pharos in Alexandria was referred to as ‘saviour of the Greeks’ (Ἑλλήνων σωτήρ), as
it was built ‘for the safety of mariners’ (Strabo: 17.1.6, 791: τῆς τῶν πλοιζομένων σωτηρίας χάριν).
³⁵ See Chapter 5.
³⁶ See nn. 37–8 below, and the more recent analyses of e.g. Bremmer and Erskine (2010) (with
bibliography at 23 n. 21); Parker (2011), 64–102; Versnel (2011); Bonnet, Pirenne-Delforge, and Pironti
(eds) (2016); Bonnet et al. (2016).
 11
‘structuralist’ approach advanced by Vernant and Detienne,³⁷ when different gods

were involved in the same domain, each of them would contribute to it in a
different way. How that difference is described is controversial; in early formula-
tions a mode of activity was identified that was distinct to a particular god, but that
approach has come to be faulted by Detienne himself as too close to the old
method of differentiating gods through a small number of distinct traits.³⁸
However that may be, in some contexts one can make a case for different gods
involved in the same sphere in different ways. To take seafaring as an example,
while Poseidon could potentially save by stopping turbulence at sea, Athena could
intervene by her metis and her art of navigation. Zeus exercised sovereignty over
the sky and the weather, Aphrodite could exercise her calming influence at sea,
and the Dioscuri could journey on horseback to rescue men from tempests or
appear in the form of twin stars and provide guiding light.³⁹ Despite overlaps in
their general functions, therefore, different gods complemented each other by
contributing their distinct mode of operation, and each could lay claim, in varying
ways, to the power to ‘save’.
Often, however, it is difficult and somewhat arbitrary, at least on the basis of the
evidence available to us, to see the particular contribution of a particular ‘saviour’
god. Unlike some literary narratives detailing the military aid lent by Artemis
Soteira, the interventions of Zeus Soter in this and other spheres cannot be
observed in detail: we hardly, if ever, see him in action. In connection to one of
the most important episodes of Greek history to be discussed later, namely the
expulsion of the Galatians from Delphi in 279 , Zeus was honoured as Soter
with sacrifices and a grand festival when he was not even, or at least not explicitly,
involved in protecting the sanctuary.⁴⁰ The most perhaps we can say is that, since
in a sense ‘everything comes from Zeus’, any major act of saving must ultimately
come from him.
Again, where Zeus Soter was juxtaposed with other ‘saviour’ gods in the same
sphere of life, it is not always easy to tell how each of them contributed to the
soteria of the communities or individuals concerned. In a late dedication appar-
ently related to deliverance from an earthquake, addressed jointly to Zeus Soter,
Poseidon Asphaleios (‘Securer’), and Ge Hedraia (‘Steadfast’), it is unclear why
Zeus should be involved in the domain of his brother, and how they comple-
mented each other in protecting the area concerned.⁴¹ Poseidon and Ge have clear
³⁷ Some classic studies are e.g. Detienne and Vernant (1974); Vernant (1980a); Vernant (1983);
Vernant (1991), 195–206, 246–50.
³⁸ Detienne (1997); Detienne (1998).
³⁹ A good recent book on different maritime gods is Fenet (2016). On the opposing relations
between Poseidon and Aphrodite as gods of the sea, see Pirenne-Delforge (1994), 434–7.
⁴⁰ The event, to be discussed in Chapter 2, is referred to in Callim. Hymn 4, 171ff., Galatea, fr. 378–9;
Diod. Sic. 22.9; Paus. 1.4.4, 10.19.5–10.23; Just. Epit. 24.4–8; Cic. Div. 1.37, 81. Sacrifice and festivals:
IG XII.4 68, and other documents in Nachtergael (1977), appendices II–III.
⁴¹ I.Anazarbos, no. 49.
12       
specific roles: Poseidon Asphaleios could stop the tremor of the earth, whereas Ge
Hadraia was the earth-goddess who remained steadfast. Yet again here Zeus was
involved only in the broad general sense that ultimately he controlled everything
that occurs. A different case is the frequent pairing of Zeus Soter and Athena
Soteira attested in various parts of Greece: it is only a supposition that Athena
contributed metis to complement the power wielded by Zeus, as the sources do not
make explicit how they ‘saved’ together.⁴² Perhaps relevant is the picture in the
Homeric poems of Athena as Zeus’ agent, bringing about his will through direct
action.⁴³ The frequent combination of Athena Soteira with Zeus Soter in cult and
in prayers may also be a manifestation of the goddess’ genealogical and cultic
relations with her mighty father, rather than a reflection of their complementary
modes of actions. We are vividly reminded of representations of her unusual birth
in Attic vase-paintings, where Athena emerged, but was not yet fully separated
from, her father, as if she was integrally related to Zeus.⁴⁴ How sharply aware the
Greeks were of the different contributions of different ‘saviour’ gods is hard to
determine. What we see is their perception of a shared power to save, expressed by
the trans-divine epithet Soter.⁴⁵ So important is this aspect of their power that the
name of gods is sometimes suppressed, leaving us with anonymous gods such as
Theoi Soteres (‘Saviour Gods’) or the bare epithet Soter or Soteira,⁴⁶ which
emphasizes the saving power of the god rather than its identity.
As we shall see throughout this study, the composition, prominence, and
functions of ‘saviour’ gods varied considerably from one local pantheon to
another; yet traditional structuralism has little scope for accommodating change
across time and space. Even when a homonymous god bore the same epithet
Soter, his power could vary notably from place to place, and hence arises the
earlier question about the multiplicity and unity of the divine. What structuralism
does not explain is why some gods’ power could be activated in certain situations
and localities, but remained dormant or absent in others. While some ‘saviours’
(such as Zeus and Artemis) were almost universally worshipped, if with different
local emphases, other gods appeared only in particular localities as saviours and
might exercise prominent saving functions not familiar to us from their usual
share of timai in their Panhellenic persona. One such example we shall encounter
is Hecate: neither prominent nor popular in the Greek mainland, Hecate Soteira
⁴² Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira: e.g. Lycurg. Leoc. 17 (Piraeus); I.Rhamnous, nos. 22, 26, 31
(Rhamnus); Diog. Laert 5.16 (Stagira); IG XII.4 279, 350, 358, 370, 407 (Cos); SEG LIX 1406
A (Aigai in Aiolis).
⁴³ e.g. Hom. Il. 4.70–2. Cf. Aristid. Or. 37.28 Keil, on the notion that Athena was the power (δύναμις)
of Zeus.
⁴⁴ Birth of Athena: Hes. Theog. 924–9; LIMC II.1 s.v. Athena, nos. 343–64.
⁴⁵ Some other epithets come closer to denoting a deity’s mode(s) of action, e.g. Aphrodite Euploia
(‘Fair-Sailing’) in Paus. 1.1.3, IG II/III² 2872, IOSPE I² 168; Aphrodite Galenaia (‘Calmer’) in Callim.
Epigr. 5 and Gow–Page, GP, Philodemus XV = Anth. Pal. 10.21.
⁴⁶ Jim (2015); Graf (2017). See also Chapter 4.4 on anonymous saviour gods.
 13
was a mighty goddess in Lagina who delivered her city from major military crises
through her manifestations.⁴⁷ Her centrality at Lagina seems to stand in sharp
contrast with her attributes in other parts of Greece, so much so that we may
wonder whether this is the same Hecate as the one(s) elsewhere.⁴⁸ Similar issues
have been tackled in a seminal article by Sourvinou-Inwood. Using the case study
of Persephone at Locri, where the goddess apparently presided over wedding and
marriage rather than appearing in her usual form as a goddess of fertility or the
underworld, she reminded us that we cannot simply extrapolate a god’s local
personality from his Panhellenic one or from one local cult to that of another, as
divine personality could be affected by a community’s circumstances as they
developed.⁴⁹ Early structuralism’s emphasis on a single mode of activity gives, as
has often been pointed out, too static a picture, when in practice a community’s
changing needs and circumstances might help to shape the perception, personal-
ity, and functions of an existing divinity or give rise to new cults of ‘saviours’.⁵⁰
Far from being fixed and clearly-defined, the function, personality, and com-
position of ‘saviour’ gods could be continually configured and re-configured,
albeit within certain limits, according to the experiences, needs, and decisions of
communities and individuals. The role of individuals is not to be neglected or
under-estimated in the process. As we shall see in subsequent chapters, worship-
pers might coin new epithets or apply an epithet to a god hitherto not so called
according to their own circumstances. The same deity with the same epithet might
be interpreted differently by different individuals or by the same individual in
different contexts. The open nature of Greek polytheism afforded individuals
much freedom of choice as well as thought: the same worshipper need not always
appeal to the same god or set of gods when dealing with similar situations.⁵¹ How
individuals made choices as to which ‘saviour’ to turn to in their moment of need,
and what their decisions might reveal about their beliefs and perceptions of the
divine, are important questions which we shall explore in this study. It is only
relatively recently that the role of private individuals has been coming back into
focus in the study of Greek religion.⁵² Contrary to some recent critiques, this
⁴⁷ Hecate Soteira at Lagina: I.Stratonikeia, nos. 505, 507, 510, 512; see Chapter 2.
⁴⁸ However, Hes. Theog. 411–52 describes Hecate as a multivalent goddess who has a share in the
earth, the sea, and the sky, and who protects soldiers, horsemen, athletes, herders, and fishermen. The
hymn’s authenticity and its sharp contrast with the goddess’ character in the later periods have been
much discussed. See commentary of West (1966), ad loc.
⁴⁹ Sourvinou-Inwood (1978); see also Kearns (2013), 281–4, on ‘centripetal’ and ‘centrifugal’
tendencies in Greek religion.
⁵⁰ The role of human communities in ordering, delimiting, and shaping divine privileges is
emphasized by Borgeaud (1996), esp. 19–23.
⁵¹ e.g. IG XII.3 Suppl. 1333 (= IG XII.3, 422), 1337, 1347: Artemidorus of Perge addressed various
dedications, apparently all related to safety at sea, to different gods.
⁵² The extensive footnote in Versnel (2011), 121–2, n. 355, summarizes the state of scholarship
on personal religion up to 2009. For more recent treatments of personal piety, see e.g. Jim (2014b),
130–75.
14       
approach is entirely compatible with emphasis on the organizing and regulating

role of the polis,⁵³ and the present study will demonstrate that one must attend
both to individuals and to collectives to understand the highly varied nature of
‘saviour’ gods and the different layers of meanings in the word soteria. It is
through the complex and dynamic interactions between worshippers and wor-
shipping groups, Panhellenic and local pantheons, the communal and individual,
that the world of divine ‘saviours’ was constantly expanded, reconfigured, and
re-interpreted.
The last two decades have seen a variety of new paradigms in the study of Greek
gods, subsequent to the ‘structuralist’ framework associated with Vernant and
Detienne. The post-structural analyses of Parker and Versnel have already been
mentioned. In a series of recent publications, Pirenne-Delforge and Pironti have,
independently or jointly, proposed conceptualizing the gods as a ‘deity network’:⁵⁴
each god constituted a dynamic cluster of different powers, attributes, and activ-
ities which might be activated depending on context; at the same time each deity
(a network on its own) belonged to a larger interconnected network of powers in
the Greek pantheon. According to this model, the core of this ‘deity network’ lay
not in a specific mode of action (as each god could have different modes of
activity) but in the name of the god, which united different figures of the god in
myth and cult, as a power and personality, and at local and Panhellenic levels.
While not completely new or different from the earlier ‘structuralist’ approach
that it seeks to modify, this ‘network’ model has the virtue of allowing a more
dynamic and flexible picture of Greek religion. Where ‘saviour’ gods are con-
cerned, we can imagine, another kind of ‘network’ was in some way created by the
use of the trans-divine epithet Soter. When applied to different gods or to different
cults of a homonymous god, it is true, the same epithet could express saving
functions of different kinds and soteria in different senses of the word, and
therefore it did not necessarily imply the same thing. But amid the multifarious
functions of these saviour gods, the unifying core is their shared power to save.
What mattered most to worshippers was the gods’ efficacy in saving rather than
their specific contribution in a particular situation. The ability of the gods to
provide immediate relief and satisfy the day-to-day needs of worshippers is a
salient feature of Greek polytheism. Whatever terminology we employ to charac-
terize these varying and overlapping paradigms, a central thread in recent schol-
arship is the shared recognition that it is no longer sufficient to analyse the gods
⁵³ Polis religion: Sourvinou-Inwood (1988) and (1990). Criticisms of the polis religion model: e.g.
Kindt (2009), revised in Kindt (2012), 12–35; Eidinow and Kindt (2015); and bibliography in Parker
(2011), 58, n. 57. Evaluations of these critiques: Parker (2011), 57–61; Harrison (2015); Jim (2016);
Pirenne-Delforge (2016).
⁵⁴ Pironti (2007), 285, already speaks of a ‘réseau aphroditéen’; Pirenne-Delforge and Pironti (2009);
Pirenne-Delforge and Pironti (2015) for a brief treatment; Pirenne-Delforge and Pironti (2016) for a
detailed exposition.
 15
separately as individual deities or personalities, but as interrelated powers within a

much wider pantheon, which was capable of expansion, contraction, and
modification.
Scholarship in Greek polytheism has therefore moved forward significantly in
the last half century. The phenomenon of ‘saviour’ gods is too broad and varied to
be captured by any one theoretical framework; instead a combination of
approaches is needed. Without limiting its enquiry to any one divinity or one
pantheon, this book will investigate a plurality of ‘saviours’—major gods, heroes,
foreign deities, natural forces, and human beings—within the complex world of
Greek polytheism, a system made up of not only divine figures but also human
communities and their individual members. By doing so, the chapters which
follow hope to illuminate the rich diversity of the ‘saving’ experiences of the
Greeks, the multiple levels on which the gods operated, and the extraordinarily
flexible and open nature of Greek religion.
0.4 Soteria in Classical and Biblical Scholarship
Despite being such a pervasive phenomenon, the cults of ‘saviour’ gods and the
underlying concept of soteria have attracted remarkably little attention among
Classical scholars. Long ago useful groundwork on divinities called Soter and
Soteira was laid by the relevant entries in Georg Wissowa’s re-edition of Paulys
Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft and Wilhelm H. Roscher’s
Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie.⁵⁵ However,
much of the material is now out of date and needs to be supplemented by new
epigraphic and archaeological discoveries in the last century. Nock’s article on
‘soter and euergetes’ contains many valuable insights, but it is concerned more
with the varied use of these titles for human beings from the Classical to the
Roman periods than the gods.⁵⁶ Where historians discuss ‘saviour’ gods in ancient
Greece, some of them tend to study one specific cult without considering its
relation to other ‘saviours’.⁵⁷ Others are interested in the literary motif of ‘saving’
in a particular text or genre of text, in particular poetry,⁵⁸ but without always
paying close attention to the language used or investigating the wider significance
of soteria in Greek polytheism. More recently, focusing on a different type of text,
namely the Orphic gold leaves and philosophical discourses, the volume edited by
⁵⁵ RE III.A,1 s.v. Soter, Soteria, Sozon, Sozousa; Roscher, Lex. IV, s.v. Soteira, Soter, Soteria
(personification), Sozon, Sozusa.
⁵⁶ Nock (1951).
⁵⁷ Launey (1987), 914–17, on the military significance of Zeus Soter; Delemen (1999), 39–43, nos.
286–91, on the Anatolian rider god Sozon; Raaflaub (2004), 102–17, on the political aspect of Zeus
Soter/Eleutherios.
⁵⁸ e.g. Herzog-Hauser (1931); Burian (1986); Kearns (1990); Faraone (1997); Scullion (2005);
Herrero de Jáuregui (2016); Herrero de Jáuregui (2017); Tordoff (2017).
16       
Vishwa Adluri, Philosophy and Salvation in Greek Religion (2013), is primarily

concerned with ‘salvation’ in its Christian, eschatological sense and, with the
exception of one chapter, its contributors do not consider the actual Greek
usage of soteria and its cognates, so that the book is effectively about eschato-
logical notions rather than soteria in philosophy.⁵⁹
Compared to these piecemeal treatments by Classicists, biblical scholars have,
for a long time, taken a keen interest in the Greek concept. Already in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they were interested in identifying
ancient precedents for Christian uses of Soter and soteria. Preoccupied as they
were with the Christian doctrine of salvation of the soul, some of them looked to
mystery cults in the Graeco-Roman world for apparent parallels, and readily read
the Christian eschatological notion of soteria back into Greek antiquity.⁶⁰ In
claiming that the main function of Greek ‘saviour’ gods was to grant soteria
after death, and that they offered the same spiritual promise for individual
salvation that was later expressed in Christianity, these scholars overlooked
startling differences between soteria in the two religious cultures, and their ideas
in turn influenced, and sometimes distorted, early interpretations of ancient
Mysteries by Classical scholars.⁶¹ Walter Burkert’s Ancient Mystery Cults (1987)
is a reaction to many of these early interpretations. He aptly criticized these
notions by arguing for the worldly character of Greek Mysteries, but his argument
was based on the general nature of these cults rather than the language they used.
While other biblical scholars’ discussions of ancient soteria are more balanced
and devoid of such claims, they still tend to focus on later evidence in the
Hellenistic and Roman periods, and their engagement with ancient Greek sources
is inevitably highly selective.⁶² What results is a fragmentary and often inaccurate
picture of the Greek notion of soteria, and readers should be wary of relying on
these treatments to understand soteria in Greek religion. Much more valuable, by
contrast, are biblical scholars’ discussions of soteria and Soter in Christianity; their
insights will be drawn upon in our comparison between Greek and Christian
conceptions later in this book.⁶³ In particular, the New Testament scholar Franz
Jung’s Soter: Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen
⁵⁹ The exception is the chapter by Menn (2013) in Adluri (2013), 191–216.

⁶⁰ e.g. Anrich (1894); Reitzenstein (1910); Loisy (1914); Angus (1925); Cumont (1929); Macchioro
(1930); Lagrange (1937).
⁶¹ Influence on Classical scholarship: e.g. Frazer (1911–15); Halliday (1925), 240–4; Willoughby
(1929), 30–1, 227–8; Tarn (1952), 353–4. Discussed in Jim (2017b).
⁶² e.g. the article by the Catholic theologian Allo (1926), on ‘Les dieux sauveurs du paganisme gréco-
romain’: while rightly recognizing that Greek gods called Soteres did not in fact grant worshippers a
blessed afterlife, he went on to focus on Greek mystery cults given his primary concern with ‘salut de
l’âme’, and he did not adhere consistently to the actual use of Soter in his discussion. Other, more
recent works are e.g. Foerster and Fohrer (1971), s.v. σῴζω, σωτηρία, σωτήρ, σωτήριος, 965–1024
(966–9 on sozein and soteria in the Greek world); Silva (2014), vol. 4, s.v. σῴζω, 420–35 (420–1 on
ancient Greek uses).
⁶³ See Chapter 6.
 17
Testament (2002) treats the use of Soter in the Septuagint and the New Testament
thoroughly. Nevertheless, his whole treatment is shaped by his concern with the
title of Soter applied to Christ. As a result, his emphasis lies on the application of
this title to human beings rather than on gods called Soter or the concept of
soteria; nor is he interested in the problems internal to the study of Greek
polytheism which will be treated in the present study.
0.5 Sources and Methods
To better understand the Greek conceptions of Soter and soteria, and to develop a
richer and more varied view of the religious attitudes involved, it is necessary to go
beyond the above discussions by stressing epigraphic and archaeological evidence
in addition to the literary, and by focusing on the actual use of the language of
‘saving’ in the ancient sources.
Although references to ‘saviour’ gods are also found in literary sources, it is
epigraphic evidence which can best illuminate the diverse experience of the
Greeks. In a much-quoted passage from Plato on piety, one of the definitions
Euthyphro suggests for ‘piety’ is saying and doing what is pleasing to the gods in
prayer and sacrifice, and this would in return bring security (σῴζει) in domestic
and public affairs.⁶⁴ Whether or not one agrees with his view, divine protection is
clearly an important goal underlying the whole ritual system and the exchange of
charis between man and gods. Whether in times of need or in normal circum-
stances, the Greeks could sacrifice to the gods praying for soteria for themselves,
their family, property, community, and so on. They could also make a vow to the
gods, promising an offering should the soteria hoped for be granted.⁶⁵ As a result
we have thousands of prayers and dedications all over the Greek world, offered by
individuals and communities in hope and/or gratitude for soteria and testifying to
the ‘saving’ power of the gods. This great abundance of epigraphic evidence will
form the bulk of the material in this book. These prayers and dedicatory inscrip-
tions bring us close to the ‘saving’ experience of the Greeks and their interactions
with the gods. Dedicatory inscriptions aside, we have innumerable decrees con-
cerning sacrifices performed for the soteria of the polis and its constituent
groups.⁶⁶ Other epigraphic records we shall come across include, inter alia, decrees
⁶⁴ Pl. Euthphr. 14b. Cf. Eur. fr. 946 Kannicht.

⁶⁵ The votive mechanism is made explicit in a late inscription SEG XXXIX 883 (Chios): a father
vowed to offer σωτήρια (here meaning ‘offerings in gratitude for saving’, see Chapter 0.6 below on
semantics) and an image to the gods according to oracular instruction should they save his son from
illness.
⁶⁶ See Chapter 2.
18       
concerning cult foundation, calendars of sacrifices, other so-called ‘sacred laws’,⁶⁷

temple inventories, graffiti in sanctuaries, honorific decrees, asylia decrees, and
royal correspondence, all of which may contain references to cults of ‘saviours’
and concerns for soteria.
Scattered all over the Greek Mediterranean from Italy and Sicily in the West to
Asia Minor and Syria in the East, and stretching from at least the Archaic period
down to the Roman imperial and beyond, these diverse kinds of epigraphic
evidence on Soter and soteria have not been systematically collected or studied
together. Given the widespread distribution of the material and the long history of
the phenomenon, what is needed is a broad geographical and chronological
framework, which will allow us to trace the growth and diffusion of the cults of
these gods across the Mediterranean and, in the Hellenistic period, the spread
of the epithet from the traditional gods to the Hellenistic kings. This approach has
the added advantage of allowing us to identify variations between different local
pantheons, and to identify changes in the concept of soteria and the use of Soter
over time, thereby illuminating any changes in the character of Greek religion. For
example, the extent to which the many cults of Zeus Soter in different regions were
the same in character, how their functions and nature developed according to
local circumstances, and how Zeus Soter came to be associated with certain
monarchs, are questions which cannot be adequately answered if we limit the
enquiry to too narrow a time frame or geographical area. This book will focus on
ancient Greece and other regions that adopted Greek gods and religious termin-
ology from the Archaic period to the end of the Hellenistic, though it will also
consider phenomena not manifest until later, such as the cult of Sozon in Asia
Minor,⁶⁸ and interactions between the Greek concept and early Christianity.⁶⁹
A comparison with Christian uses of the language is important for clarifying the
concept’s complex and entangled relations with Christianity.
Not only is it an enormous task to deal with evidence scattered so widely in time
and space, it is also difficult to do justice to the diversity of the material available.
Precisely because soteria concerned so many different aspects of Greek societies,
the source material touches on a bewildering range of disparate subject matters—
from warfare, tyranny, natural catastrophes, divine epiphanies, to hero cults, ruler
worship, and many more. Any of these could potentially form an independent
study on its own, and many of them bring the concept of soteria into close contact
with other notions (such as eleutheria, nike, and autonomia). In one of his most
well-known cults set up in Athens after the Persian Wars, Zeus was interchange-
ably called Soter (‘Saviour’) and Eleutherios (‘Liberator’) precisely because the
⁶⁷ The category of ‘sacred laws’ has been questioned: see Parker (2004b); Lupu (2009), 3–112, 502–4;
Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge (2012); Harris (2015). See also the useful website A Collection of Greek
Ritual Norms (CGRN, http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/).
⁶⁸ See Appendix II. ⁶⁹ See Chapter 6.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
CHAPITRE XII
DIEU ET LE ROI
Instabilité, incohérence, insécurité, individualisme destructeur,

prédominance de la médiocrité envieuse, dissolution de la famille,
tels sont les fruits de la démocratie en France, depuis cent trente
ans.
Stabilité, continuité, sécurité, discipline, autorité familiale,
développement des élites, tels furent et tels seront les fruits de la
Monarchie.
Le Roi est le chef-né des pères de famille parce
qu’héréditairement, son intérêt et son devoir se confondent pour qu’il
se conforme à ce beau titre et qu’il soit le père de la grande famille
nationale.
Mais ce pouvoir et cet honneur, il ne les méritera que s’il en fait
remonter l’origine à la Providence et que s’il les place sous l’égide
des prières de l’Église qui, avec la Monarchie, sacrée par elle, a
construit la France.
Un Roi qui serait indifférent à la religion, ou qui partagerait
l’incrédulité, hostile à l’Église, des régimes qu’il remplacera, subirait
bientôt les mêmes revers que les gouvernements qui fondèrent leurs
institutions sur l’athéisme.
Mais le Roi croyant et pratiquant se sera pénétré des maximes
énoncées par le Psalmiste :
« Si le Seigneur n’a bâti la maison, c’est en vain qu’ils travaillent
ceux qui l’édifièrent sans lui.
« Si le Seigneur ne garde la Cité, c’est inutilement qu’il veille celui
qui a charge de la protéger. »
Dès lors, la miséricorde divine lui donnera les lumières dont il
aura besoin pour remplir la tâche sublime que Bossuet lui assigne
dans sa Politique tirée de l’Évangile :
« Soyez parmi vos sujets comme l’un d’eux. Ne soyez point
orgueilleux ; rendez-vous accessible et familier ; ne vous croyez pas,
devant Dieu, d’un autre métal que vos sujets. Mettez-vous à leur
place et soyez-leur tel que vous voudriez qu’ils fussent s’ils étaient à
la vôtre.
« Ayez soin d’eux tous et ne vous reposez qu’après avoir pourvu
à tout. Le repos alors vous est permis.
« Le Roi est un personnage public qui doit croire que quelque
chose lui manque à lui-même quand quelque chose manque au
peuple et à l’État. »
Ainsi le Roi, homme de sacrifice et d’abnégation, se rendra digne
de régner sous l’emblème qui surmonte sa couronne : la croix de
Jésus-Christ.
FIN
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Pages
PRÉFACE 7
CHAPITRE I. — IMPRESSIONS D’ENFANCE 12
— II. — LA GUERRE DE 1870 27
— III. — AU COLLÈGE 41
— IV. — TEMPS PERDU 95
— V. — AU RÉGIMENT 104
— VI. — LE SYMBOLISME 131
— VII. — L’ANARCHIE 160
— VIII. — CHEZ CLEMENCEAU 195
— IX. — LE SILLON 216
— X. — LES LIBÉRAUX 227
— XI. — CHARLES MAURRAS 259
— XII. — DIEU ET LE ROI 316
NOUVELLE LIBRAIRIE NATIONALE
2, Place du Panthéon, Paris, Ve
NOUVEAUTÉS
AVENTINO. — ROME. Flâneries mystiques et silhouettes. Un volume

in-16 sur bel alfa teinté 10 fr.
Colonel GROS LONG. — LA CONNAISSANCE DE LA GUERRE. Un
volume in-16 7 fr.
Pietro GORGOLINI. — LE FASCISME. Traduit par Eugène Marsan.
Préface de Jacques Bainville. Un volume in-16 7 fr.
NEL ARIÈS. — L’ÉCONOMIE POLITIQUE ET LA DOCTRINE
CATHOLIQUE. Préface de Georges Valois. Un volume in-16 10 fr.
LÉON DAUDET. — L’HÉCATOMBE. Un volume in-16 (32e mille) 7 fr.
RENÉ GROUSSET. — HISTOIRE DE LA PHILOSOPHIE ORIENTALE.
Un volume in-8 écu 15 fr.
Mgr SIMON DEGLOIPE. CONFLIT DE LA MORALE ET DE LA
SOCIOLOGIE. Un volume in-8 écu 15 fr.
HENRI MIGUET. — DE SAURET-LA-HONTE A MANGIN-LE-BOUCHER.
Un volume in-16 7 fr.
MORTON-FULLERTON. — AU SEUIL DE LA PROVENCE. Un volume in-
16 sur bel alfa 5 fr.
N.-B. — La Librairie envoie son catalogue franco sur demande.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LA MAISON EN
ORDRE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using
the method you already use to calculate your applicable
taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or
are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.
Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at
the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return
or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical
medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other
copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full

refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy,
if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported
to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece Theodora Suk Fong Jim full chapter instant download

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece Theodora Suk Fong Jim full chapter instant download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient

Greece Theodora Suk Fong Jim

Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece Tom Phillips

Ancient Women Writers of Greece and Rome Bartolo Natoli

Self-Cultivation Philosophies in Ancient India, Greece,

Experience, Narrative, and Criticism in Ancient Greece:

How to Do Things with History: New Approaches to

Madoff Talks Jim Campbell [Jim Campbell]

Madoff Talks Jim Campbell [Jim Campbell]

Centrifugal Separations in Biotechnology 2nd Edition

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece

Saviour Gods and Soteria

1. Marble relief, Asklepeion at Epidauros, Archaeological Museum of Asklepeion,

xii   

14. Map of Dionysus Soter. 131

Conventions and Abbreviations

2       

² See Chapter 0.4 below on existing scholarship.

has been on their theoretical analysis, whereas their potential as a means of

4       

0.1 What Are ‘Saviour’ Gods? Epithets, Power,

⁸ See n. 53 below. ⁹ See Chapters 2 and 3.

6       

8       

0.2 Human Beings as ‘Saviours’

10       

0.3 Saviour Gods and the Study of Greek Polytheism

‘structuralist’ approach advanced by Vernant and Detienne,³⁷ when different gods

12       

14       

approach is entirely compatible with emphasis on the organizing and regulating

separately as individual deities or personalities, but as interrelated powers within a

0.4 Soteria in Classical and Biblical Scholarship

16       

Vishwa Adluri, Philosophy and Salvation in Greek Religion (2013), is primarily

⁵⁹ The exception is the chapter by Menn (2013) in Adluri (2013), 191–216.

0.5 Sources and Methods

⁶⁴ Pl. Euthphr. 14b. Cf. Eur. fr. 946 Kannicht.

18       

concerning cult foundation, calendars of sacriﬁces, other so-called ‘sacred laws’,⁶⁷

Instabilité, incohérence, insécurité, individualisme destructeur,

AVENTINO. — ROME. Flâneries mystiques et silhouettes. Un volume

N.-B. — La Librairie envoie son catalogue franco sur demande.

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

START: FULL LICENSE

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set