(10) State gods and gods within the State.—Even in the State itself only a few of the gods were wor- shipped by the whole people. These were the @eoi marpeot, yeveOruo, dpxnyéra, With whose worship the safety, honour, and existence of the State were bound up. They have to be distinguished from deol mdrp.ot, a term which includes all the gods legally recognized in the community.
Every set of persons within the city united in any relation had their own god. But voluntary associations for the worship of a god, and united by no other bond but this worship, belong to a later time, including those which were made in a city like Athens by a set of strangers for the purpose of their own national worship: see below, C, § III.
Besides the patron-gods of each city (Aol rarpwor), all gods legally worshipped in the State required respect from the State. If any of them were in- jured, or if their full rights were not given them, their anger was shown not merely against the individual wrong-doer, but also against any one in his company, and against the whole com- munity.* Hence it was only prudent for the State to extend its support to the worship of every god, to contribute to the expense of his sacrifices and festivals (Snuoreh# tepd), and to give dedicatory offerings from time to time. At the same time, it was obviously necessary to guard against the in- troduction of new gods into the State (see (14) below). ’
(11) Extension of the worship of a god.—It de- pended entirely on the worshippers themselves to determine how far their circle should be widened. In some cases a rigid exclusiveness was maintained, and new members were admitted only as a special honour. In the family worship of Zeus Ktesios some did not allow even the domestic slaves to participate (Isaios, Ciron. § 16); but the general custom was to admit the household slaves to the household worship (ef. Aisch. Agam. 1026). To the public worship of some States no strangers were admitted, as was the case in the Panionion (Herod. i. 143). At Argos no stranger could sacrifice in the Heraion
* Asch. Sept. 581; Eur. Hl. 1353 ; Hor. Od. iii. 2. 26, etc.
(Herod, vi. 81). Athens was in general far more hospitable (Dem. Newry. § 79). This exclusiveness is rather a relic of the past than a real character- istic of the Hellenic religion, and it disappeared sensibly as time elapsed. The worshippers were the chief source of revenue to the priests and the temple (Lucian, Phalar. ii. 8), and were generally encouraged to come from all quarters.
Apart from the formal ritualistic service of the temples, viz. the public festivals, admission to which was a matter of public concern, what may be called occasional worship, depending on the wishes and needs of individual worshippers, was a considerable element in the Hellenic religion. The cost of the public ceremonies was defrayed oy the State: private worshippers in the temple also existed. This element was an increasing one, and was encouraged by the Oracle and by the priesthood in general. Pindar’s house in Thebes was close by the temple of Rhea, and he honoured the goddess greatly (Pyth. iii. 77): the term indi- cates not mere vague respect, but practical acts of worship and offering were implied in ‘ honouring a god.’ Neighbourhood to a particular god had the same effect in other cases (Plaut. Bacch. ii. 1, 3): even travellers passing a shrine or a sacred tree ought to show some token of respect, were it only to kiss the hand to it.
It is doubtful how far such worship was ad- mitted from all comers. Probably the strict rule, in older time, was that only the privileged circle of worshippers could be admitted ; and Herodotus (v. 72, vi. 81) shows cases of exclusion of extrane- ous worshippers. But it is probable that these cases were exceptional, that worshippers were rejected only in some excitement of national feel- ing, that the principle of Hellenic religion, which gradually established itself in most of the temples of local cults, was that all Hellenes might worship in Hellenic temples, and that, in such cases as Herodotus mentions, the intending worshipper acted on this principle.
(12) State recognition of the Pan-Hellenic Religion. —The idea of a Hellenic religion of gods common to all Hellenes never gained complete ascendency, but is seen in many individual cases. Zeus Hellenios or Panhellenios was worshipped in Athens (Paus. i. 18. 9; Ar. Hg. 1253) and in Aigina (Pind. Nem. v. 10; Paus. 1. 44. 9). The expression xovvol Oeot and others similar (Herod. ix. 90, ete.) show the same feeling. Invocation of all the gods together is not infrequent (Dem. de Cor., init. ; Mid. § 52). An altar of all the gods (Bwuds Kkowds mdvrwv dedv) existed at Olympia; and at Ilium there was a priest of all the gods (ray rdvrwv Oedv). Altars of the Twelve Gods, as a convenient summary of the chief Hellenic gods, were frequent. Later we find in Messene statues of all the gods érécous voulfovow “EANnves.
(13) The Hellenic Religion a part of the City- State.—In the fully formed Hellenic city the State religion was one part of the commonwealth, and the State gods had a recognized claim to certain
erquisites. The relation of the gods to the State ost the religious and pious character, and came to be conceived as a purely legal matter (voum yap rovs eods voulgouev, Hur. Hec. 800). Here the verb does not mean so much as ‘ believe in the existence of’ nor 80 little as ‘practise the rites of’; it may be paraphrased by the preceding sentence. Not that the law could abolish the gods and their worship. The original thought that the Divine nature was a necessary part of the world, and help from it a necessary element in human life, was indelible and beyond the legal power to alter. A State without religion was as little conceivable as a State without laws; the good citizen and the religious citizen were equivalent expressions.