This volume offers a systematic and contextualised study of the full range of Zeus’ cult epithets at Athens, from the Archaic period through the Roman era. Although scholarly interest in divine epithets has a long history,[1] this work belongs to the recent renewal of research on divine onomastics, notably fostered by the Mapping Ancient Polytheisms (MAP) project, to which Sylvain Lebreton is a contributor.
Lebreton’s primary objective is to elucidate one of the most intriguing features of Greek polytheism, namely the tension between the unity of a divine figure, embodied in its name, and the multiplicity of epōnymiai by which it may be designated (the “One vs. Many” problem). This issue is particularly pertinent in the case of Zeus, the god who bears the greatest number of epithets and who, moreover, has not been the subject of a comprehensive synthesis since A.B. Cook’s monumental three-volume monograph.[2] The focus on Athens is readily justified by the exceptional abundance of available evidence: indeed, Athens is the only polis in which it is possible to trace the development of Zeus’ figure over the long term. To this end, Lebreton draws on the full range of available sources in order to follow the evolution of Zeus’ epithets at Athens—above all epigraphic evidence, but also literary sources (notably theatrical texts, to which I shall return), as well as archaeological and iconographic material. In addition to a foreword and a substantial introduction, the book is organised into five chapters, followed by a concluding synthesis (“Bilan”), three appendices devoted to individual epithets, a bibliography, and several useful indices.
The introduction clearly articulates Lebreton’s historiographical position with regard to Greek polytheism. In contrast to approaches that tend to emphasise the seemingly incoherent character of ancient polytheism, such as that of H. S. Versnel,[3] Lebreton instead adopts a perspective that “rests on the postulate of the intelligibility of polytheism”,[4] that is, on the assumption that it is structured in such a way as to be decipherable. This approach comes fully into focus in the book’s concluding synthesis. In the introduction, Lebreton also addresses several terminological difficulties inherent in the study of divine onomastics (notably the distinction between epithet and epiclesis, or between topographical and functional epithets) and insists on the necessity of understanding these designations in context: where, on what occasions, by whom, how, and for what reasons such epithets were employed.
The first chapter functions as a second introduction: it provides an initial point of entry by adopting a case-based approach that is less systematic than that of the subsequent chapters. It examines the various figures of Zeus that emerge from three different types of evidence, each of which offers a distinct perspective on the functioning of Zeus’ cult epithets: Xenophon’s Anabasis, the sacrificial calendar of the deme of Erchia, and the inscriptions related to the proedria seats of the Theatre of Dionysus. The case of the Anabasis is particularly instructive in that it analyses the way in which a member of the Athenian elite (Xenophon) stages his quasi-personal relationship with a god in his multiple manifestations—most notably as Basileus, Sōtēr, and Meilichios—within the context of a military expedition. The chapter concludes by proposing a tripartite structuring of Zeus’ figure, developed in part via a discussion of Dumézil’s trifunctional theory: a Zeus of the heights, a Zeus who guarantees social relations, and a Zeus who protects the city, the latter itself subdivided into two poles. This framework subsequently serves as the organising principle for the remainder of the book.
The following four chapters offer an exhaustive and systematic analysis of the cultic epithets of Zeus at Athens. This analysis broadly takes the form of a catalogue, proceeding epithet by epithet, each receiving treatment of varying length depending on its frequency, the diversity of its attestations, and the historiographical problems it raises. These individual analyses are most often complemented by a synthetic discussion at the end of each chapter, which reflects on the coherence of the particular Jovian figure under consideration. Although this method necessarily entails frequent chronological back-and-forth, it allows Lebreton to trace the diachronic development of each epithet (where the sources permit it) and to propose correlations with broader social and political changes in the Athenian polis.
Chapter II is devoted to the numerous epithets that ascribe to Zeus an elevated position, presenting him as a god of heights and mountains, and examines the relationship between this spatial elevation and his meteorological—and therefore agricultural—functions (rain, storms, lightning, etc.). This elevated position further leads to his characterization as a giver of signs, a function confirmed by epithets such as Sēmios and Sēmaleos. Lebreton also offers a particularly insightful analysis of the semantic value of Zeus’ epithets as a dispenser of rain or drought, which may designate either what is expected of the god (Ombrios)or what is to be averted by him (Auantēr), or, alternatively,may name him through euphemism (Apēmios).
Chapter III examines Zeus in his role as guarantor of social relations. Zeus intervenes in numerous domains of social life: the delimitation of landed property (Horios), marriage (Teleios), friendship (Philios), and the reception of foreigners (Hikesios). Lebreton devotes particular attention to Zeus Meilichios, an epithet with an especially broad sphere of action, notably associated with prosperity and the avoidance of pollution.
Chapters IV and V address Zeus as a “political” figure. Chapter IV focuses more specifically on the numerous epithets that, at different scales, present Zeus as the guarantor of the unity of the community, ranging from the level of the oikos to that of the city as a whole, including phratries, tribes, and demes. Certain epithets are themselves capable of linking these different levels, such as Herkeios, which plays a central role in the definition of civic identity. The disappearance of several of these epithets in the Hellenistic period (Herkeios, but also Phratrios and Ktēsios) thus marks a profound transformation in the social frameworks of the city.
Chapter V examines Zeus’ relationship to notions of power and sovereignty, whether as protector of the city as a whole (Polieus), of specific civic institutions—particularly deliberative ones (Agoraios and Boulaios)—or in the context of broader political concerns, such as the protection or salvation of the community (Sōtēr, Eleutherios, Olympios). The chapter opens with a long and detailed discussion of the figure of Polieus,[5] especially concerning its proper interpretation (is it Zeus of the Acropolis or Zeus of the city?) and its relationship with Athena Polias, accompanied by a highly persuasive argument for abandoning the vague notion of a “poliad” deity. The section devoted to the figure of Zeus as Savior, and in particular Zeus Sōtēr, is by far the most extensive in the book (pp. 267-323), owing in particular to the abundance of documentation and the variety of contexts in which it is employed. This allows for a long-term analysis of the figure of Sōtēr and demonstrates its increasing importance from the fourth century BCE onward. The chapter concludes with the sovereign, dominant, and thus “elevated” aspects of Zeus, thereby bringing full circle the spectrum of the god’s spheres of activity, first introduced in Chapter II with Zeus as the god of the heights.
In the substantial “Bilan” (pp. 359-383), Lebreton offers a synthetic and explicit account of his understanding of how a divine power as multifaceted as that of Zeus operates—an understanding that had at times been sketched in the course of earlier chapters. In this section, Lebreton effectively tests several interpretative models intended to capture “the mental framework through which the Athenians conceived Zeus”.[6] Two models appear to be particularly favoured by Lebreton. The first, inspired by Cook, posits a continuum beginning with the summit-god Zeus and linking, step by step, each of his functions, ultimately forming a circular arrangement of his spheres of competence. The second is that of a polynuclear network, which Lebreton represents schematically as a map of the potential uses of divine power (see fig. 2, p. 364).
Lebreton nevertheless stresses the still overly schematic nature of such models, insofar as they fail to take sufficient account of the social, chronological, and spatial contexts in which the epithets of Zeus were employed. The second part of the concluding assessment therefore undertakes a synthetic description of the major structuring principles and underlying trends in Zeus’ activity at Athens—an approach that is necessarily less formal, but one that more adequately reflects the diversity of Zeus’ spheres of action and their evolution over time in Athens.
It is not possible here to do justice to all aspects of the book, but one must emphasise the skill with which Lebreton multiplies both analytical criteria and scales of analysis, thereby enhancing the intelligibility of divine power. Particular mention should also be made of the highly stimulating use of texts from the literary tradition—especially dramatic texts—as a counterpoint to the epigraphic evidence. This is notably the case in the analysis of the role of Zeus Hikesios in Aeschylus’ Suppliants, which receives a particularly developed interpretation closely linked to the meaning of the play and to the Athenian political context (pp. 145–155). Similarly, one of the most original sections of the book is undoubtedly the analysis of oaths sworn by Zeus Sōtēr in Aristophanes, in which Lebreton demonstrates their coherence with the divine figure of Sōtēr as otherwise attested (pp. 287–290).
To conclude, let us return to the central problem addressed in Lebreton’s book: the tension between unity and diversity, the One vs Many. While the various ways of understanding the plurality of Zeus’ epithets constitute the core subject of the study, one may wonder whether greater attention might have been paid to the theonym itself, Zeus, and to what it may have signified—if not for the Greeks as a whole, then at least for the Athenians in particular. Admittedly, the author rightly notes that invocations of Zeus simpliciter are rare. Nevertheless, it might have been fruitful to include in the analysis the various ancient etymologies of the name Zeus found, inter alia, in Athenian literary texts, which are likewise revealing of contemporary conceptions of divine power.[7] Zeus is indeed often associated either with the verb ζῆν, “to live” (e.g. Euripides, Orestes 1635), or with the preposition διά (e.g. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1485–1488), and thus becomes, in Plato, the one who is “the cause of life” (δι᾽ ὃν ζῆν, Cratylus 396b).
These remarks are, of course, marginal in relation to the book’s main concerns, whose ambitions are fully realised. Beyond its evident usefulness for anyone working on Zeus and his cult epithets—particularly given its catalogue-like presentation of the epithets—the book offers an original and stimulating reflection on Greek polytheism, which ultimately prompts a reassessment of Athenian society as a whole across a broad chronological spectrum, as well as of the central role occupied by Zeus in nearly all aspects of daily and civic life.
Bibliography
Bouchard 2024: Elsa Bouchard “Rendre raison des dieux: théonymie et pouvoir des noms chez Hésiode, Eschyle et Platon”, Lalies, 42, p. 63‑131.
Cook 1914-1940: Arthur B. Cook, Zeus. A study in Ancient Religion, 3 vol., Cambridge, 1914-1940.
Felisi 2026: Claudio Felisi, Hadès aux multiples noms. Histoire onomastique d’un dieu grec d’Homère à Platon, Paris.
Gagné 2021: Renaud Gagné, “Sémantique de l’épithète divine: origines et compétence”, dans C. Bonnet et G. Pironti, Les dieux d’Homère III: attributs onomastiques, Liège, 2021, p. 23-52.
Lebreton 2015: Sylvain Lebreton, “Zeus Polieus à Athènes. Les Bouphonies et au-delà”, Kernos, 28, 2015, p. 85-110.
Versnel 1990-1993: Hendrik S. Versnel, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman religion, 2 vol., Leiden, 1990-1993.
Notes
[1] For a historiographical overview, see Gagné 2021.
[2] Cook 1914-1940.
[3] Cf. Versnel 1990-1993.
[4] “repose sur le postulat de l’intelligibilité du polythéisme” (p. 19).
[5] This passage is an expanded version of Lebreton 2015.
[6] “le canevas mental de la conception que les Athéniens avaient de Zeus” (p. 364).
[7] For such an approach to Greek thinking on the names of gods, see the recent works of Bouchard 2024 or, in the case of Hades, of Felisi 2026.