Euthph 3.b.5
Apol 31.d.1
Apol 40.a.4
Crat 398.c.3
Theaet 151.a.4
Symp 202.d.13
Symp 203.a.5
Phaedr 242.b.9
Alc1 103.a.5
Theag 128.d.3
Theag 128.e.5
Theag 129.a.3
Theag 129.b.8
Theag 129.e.2
Theag 129.e.8
Theag 131.a.2
Euthd 272.e.4
Ion 539.a.1
Resp 382.e.6
Resp 469.a.4
Resp 496.c.4
Resp 531.c.5
Resp 614.c.1
Criti 117.b.7
Epin 992.d.2
Phaed 107.d.6
Phaed 113.d.2
Crat 398.c.1
Crat 438.c.6
Symp 202.d.13
Phaedr 240.a.9
Resp 617.e.1
Leg 730.a.1
Leg 804.a.2
Leg 818.c.1
Ep 336.b.4
Ax 371.c.6

A. δαίμων in the Greek and Hellenistic World.
1. A basic animism underlies the Greek δαίμων concept. This persisted amongst the Greeks. In the historical period especially it was obviously combatted by educated and especially philosophical circles from which we draw almost all our knowledge of all levels of Gk. thought. Yet even these circles had to orientate themselves by popular ideas and thus give evidence of the common view to varying degrees. Hence we can fully understand the δαίμων concept only against the background of popular animistic beliefs. We may begin with the solid fact that the term δαίμων is used both for deity or minor deity and also in a philosophical sense, and that animistic views underlie the latter usage and thus demand our attention.1

The etymology of δαίμων is uncertain. The root ΔΑΙ is basic, and cf. δαίομαι,2 though the sense is doubtful. W. Porzig3 is perhaps right in suggesting disruption or rending apart, and therefore in his conception of the δαίμων as that which consumes the body. This would certainly be in keeping with the animistic basis.4

Even in Homer the meaning is debated.5 Certainly in the earliest periods known to us δαίμων is rather less precise than θεός. From its total usage we may perhaps best define it as a “supernatural power.”
δαίμων as a Term for Gods and Divine Powers.

It is first used a. to denote “gods,” and may still be used in this sense in Hellenism.6 More specifically, it is used b. for “lesser deities.” This is Plato’s allusion when he defines δαίμονες as θεοί or θεῶν παῖδες νόθοι ἢ ἐκ νυμφῶν ἢ ἔκ τινων ἄλλων (Ap., 27cd), appealing to the popular view: ὧν δὴ καὶ λ�*γονται.7 Thus we also read of δαίμονες πρόπολοι in the train of the gods,8 of a Ἁδρεὺς δαίμων which has his name from the ingathering of fruits,9 or of a δαίμων ἐπιμύλιος, ἔφορος τῶν ἀλετῶν.10 These figures may have been gods originally, but the decisive point is that their character had changed at the time of writing.

Since δαίμων is more general than θεός, it is used c. when an “unknown superhuman factor” is at work: Philostr. Vit. Ap., IV, 44: ἐς ἔννοιαν ἀπην�*χθη δαίμονος … ἔδοξε τῷ Τιγελλίνῳ ταῦτα δαιμόνιά τε εἶναι καὶ πρόσω ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ὥσπερ θεομαχεῖν φυλαττόμενος …11 Again, especially in the tragic dramatists, it denotes d. “anything which overtakes man,” such as destiny, or death, or any good or evil fortune, Eur. Alc.: τὸν παρόντα δαίμονα,12 cf. also Epict. Diss., I, 19, 19: κατά τινα δαίμονα == “by chance,” and Jos. → 10. It can also be used generally for “fate,” as in Soph. Oed. Tyr., 828 f.: ἆρʼ οὐκ ἀπʼ �*μοῦ ταῦτα δαίμονός τις ἂν κρίνων ἐπʼ ἀνδρὶ τῷδʼ ἂν ὀρθοίη λόγον;

From this sense it is only a step to e. that of a “protective deity” watching over a man’s life, or certain portions of it. Thus Pindar Olymp., 13, 105 speaks of the δαίμων γεν�*θλιος, and an unknown writer speaks of a new δαίμων beginning on the wedding night.13 Menander Fr., 18 is particularly clear: ἅπαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ συμπαρίσταται εὐθὺς γενομ�*νῳ μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίου ἀγαθός.14 By the time of the Orphics this had led to the coining of the words εὐδαίμων and κακοδαίμων.15, 16 The thought was then applied in different ways. Heracl. Fr., 119 (I, p. 100, 11, Diels) coined the phrase ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων. Plato worked it out as follows (Resp., X, 617e, cf. 620d): οὐχ ὑμᾶς δαίμων, λήξεται, ἀλλʼ ὑμεῖς δαίμονα αἱρήσεσθε. In Stoicism δαίμων then became f. a term for the “divinely related element in man”: τὸ μὴ κατὰ πᾶν ἕπεσθαι τῷ ἐν αὑτῷ δαίμονι συγγενεῖ τε ὄντι καὶ τὴν ὁμοίαν φύσιν ἔχοντι τῷ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον διοικοῦντι.17 The reference was to the νοῦς, the divine part in man, as explicitly in M. Ant., V, 27: ὁ δαίμων, ὃν ἑκάστῳ προστάτην καὶ ἡγεμόνα ὁ Ζεὺς ἔδωκεν ἀπόσπασμα ἑαυτοῦ. οὗτος δ�* ἐστιν ὁ ἑκάστου νοῦς καὶ λόγος. In Epictetus the term amounts to much the same thing as conscience,18 Diss., III, 22, 53: βούλευσαι ἐπιμελ�*στερον, γνῶθι σαυτόν, ἀνάκρινον τὸ δαιμόνιον, δίχα θεοῦ μὴ ἐπιχειρήσῃς. It is along these lines that we have reference to a τιμωρὸς δαίμων or to τιμωροί (Corp. Herm., I, 23; XIII, 7b). In the same context we may mention the use of the word for the interpretation of natural occurrence. It cannot be said with certainty whether the statement of Thales: νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου τὸν θεόν, τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες,19 belongs to this category, but there are echoes of the thought in Epict. Diss., III, 13, 15: οὐδεὶς Ἅιδης οὐδʼ Ἀχ�*ρων … ἀλλὰ πάντα θεῶν μεστὰ καὶ δαιμόνων. Similarly the stars are called δαίμονες.20

3. The Influence of Popular Religion on the Philosophical Systems.
In the above presentation δαίμων is philosophically understood as a general divine power and thus incorporated into the stream of Greek thinking. Yet philosophy could not stop at this. It was unable to carry through with full consistency its understanding of the world as a κόσμος of abstract forces. It also introduced δαίμονες as personal intermediary beings. This was helpful in the attack on myths and in their explanation. Oriental influences were also at work, as was the need for a theodicy. But the formulation of the doctrine of δαίμονες as controlling and disposing forces was mainly determined by the popular belief which we can here see at work and which can be largely reconstructed from the philosophical conceptions.21 Thus Plutarch refers to the Ἀλάστορες as an example of evil demons (Def. Orac., 14. II, 417d).

A first instance of the influence of popular belief is to be seen in the fact that philosophy, too, sets heroes alongside demons. In popular belief it is hard to separate the two. Perhaps they are one and the same, as some philosophers assume. More specifically, however, the development led to a separate class of ἥρωες. The idea of intermediary beings was more systematically worked out in the course of time, and in the Neo-Platonists we thus find several classes of intermediaries. In philosophy the main task of these beings is to be messengers between the gods and men, i.e., to exercise supervision over men. Thus Hesiod Op., 122 f. already calls them φύλακες θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων. Plato lays down the lines of future development in Symp., 202e: πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ … Ἑρμηνεῦον καὶ διαπορθμεῦον θεοῖς τὰ παρʼ ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀνθρώποις τὰ παρὰ θεῶν, τῶν μὲν τὰς δεήσεις καὶ θυσίας, τῶν δὲ τὰς ἐπιτάξεις τε καὶ ἀμοιβὰς τῶν θυσιῶν, ἐν μ�*σῳ δὲ ὂν ἀμφοτ�*ρων συμπληροῖ, ὥστε τὸ πᾶν αὐτὸ αὑτῷ ξυνδεδ�*σθαι. διὰ τούτου καὶ ἡ μαντικὴ πᾶσα χωρεῖ καὶ ἡ τῶν ἱερ�*ων τ�*χνη τῶν τε περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶ τὰς τελετὰς καὶ τὰς ἐπῳδὰς καὶ τὴν μαγγανείαν πᾶσαν καὶ γοητείαν. The Stoics adopt this view, and Posidonius integrates the demons into the great σύνδεσμος of nature.22 For Plutarch the demons are mediators (e.g., Def. Orac., 13, II, 416e), and Max. Tyr. gives the following definition in VIII, 8: εἰσὶ δʼ αὐτῷ (sc. θεῷ) φύσεις, ἀθάνατοι δεύτεροι, οἱ καλούμενοι δεύτεροι ἐν μεθορίᾳ γῆς καὶ οὐρανοῦ τεταγμ�*νοι· θεοῦ μὲν ἀσθεν�*στεροι, ἀνθρώπου δὲ ἰσχυρότεροι· θεῶν μὲν ὑπηρ�*ται, ἀνθρώπων δὲ ἐπιστάται· θεῶν μὲν πλησιώτατοι, ἀνθρώπων δὲ ἐπιμελ�*στατοι.23 This leads Porphyrius to the view that everything in nature is controlled by demons.24

In the more detailed development of the doctrine that demons are intermediary beings, regard is had to popular belief at three specific points.

First, it is noteworthy that demons are brought into special connexion with those parts of the cultus and religion which are closest to animism, i.e., with magic and incantations. We can see this even before Plato in Empedocles,25 and Xenocrates in particular traces back the apotropaic cult to evil demons,26 while Stoicism attributes Manticism to demons.27 This is true of Plutarch, and in Apuleius De Deo Socratis, 6 we read: cuncta denuntiata et magorum varia miracula omnesque praesagiorum species reguntur (i.e., by demons). In Xenocrates there emerges already a distinction between the higher forms of religion and the lower and more popular forms with which demons or evil demons are connected. In the developed form of this conception demons are forces which seek to divert from true worship, as in Porphyr. Abst., II, 40: ἓν γὰρ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς μεγίστης βλάβης τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν δαιμόνων θετ�*ον, ὅτι αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι τῶν περὶ τὴν γῆν παθημάτων, οἷον λοιμῶν, ἀφοριῶν, σεισμῶν, αὐχμῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, ἀναπείθουσιν ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἄρα τούτων αἴτιοί εἰσιν οἵπερ καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων, ἑαυτοὺς ἐξαίροντες τῆς αἰτίας … τρ�*πουσίν τε μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ λιτανείας ἡμᾶς καὶ θυσίας τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν θεῶν ὡς �*ργισμ�*νων. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ποιοῦσιν, μεταστῆσαι ἡμᾶς ἐθ�*λοντες ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρθῆς ἐννοίας τῶν θεῶν καὶ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιτρ�*ψαι. At an earlier stage already Apuleius De Deo Socr., 14 had traced back the cults of individual peoples to demons,28 also ascribing unworthy myths to them (cf. Plutarch).

Secondly, it is to be noted that the demons as rulers of human destiny are specifically connected with misfortune and distress. This hurtful sway of demons is made to serve a positive goal in Corp. Herm., XVI, 10 f.: τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν ἐπιταττόμενα ἐνεργοῦσι θυ�*λλαις καὶ καταιγίσι καὶ πρηστῆρσι καὶ μεταβολαῖς πυρὸς καὶ σεισμοῖς, ἔτι δὲ λιμοῖς καὶ πολ�*μοις ἀμυνόμενοι τὴν ἀσ�*βειαν … θεῶν μὲν γὰρ τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν, ἀνθρώπων δὲ τὸ εὐσεβεῖν, δαιμόνων δὲ τὸ ἐπαμύνειν.29 Similarly Plutarch, appealing to the disciples of Chrysippus, can say in Quaest. Rom., 51 (II, 276f/277a): οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον οἴονται φιλόσοφοι φαῦλα δαιμόνια περινοστεῖν, οἷς οἱ θεοὶ δημίοις χρῶνται κολασταῖς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνοσίους καὶ ἀδίκους ἀνθρώπους.

Thirdly, many philosophical systems have assimilated the doctrine of demons possessing men. Extraordinary conditions are popularly ascribed to indwelling deities, especially in the tragic dramatists and e.g. Hippocrates.30 This was called δαιμονᾶν or δαιμονίζεσθαι, a view which is developed in Porphyrius Abst., II, 36 ff.31 to the effect that evil demons clothe themselves with flesh and blood in the human body to kindle evil desires. But Plutarch already speaks plainly of demons which undermine virtue in Dio, 2, 3 (I, 958e): οὐκ οἶδα μὴ τῶν πάνυ παλαιῶν ἀτοπώτατον ἀναγκασθῶμεν προσδ�*χεσθαι λόγον, ὡς τὰ φαῦλα δαιμόνια καὶ βάσκανα προσφθονοῦντα τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσι καὶ ταῖς πράξεσιν ἐνιστάμενα ταραχὰς καὶ φόβους ἐπάγει σείοντα καὶ σφάλλοντα τὴν ἀρετήν, ὡς μὴ διαμείναντες ἐν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀκ�*ραιοι βελτίονος ἐκείνων μοίρας μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν τύχωσιν. In Corp. Herm., XVI, 15 this view is then linked with astrology. In an ethical spiritualisation of the doctrine there can then be reference to a δαίμων τιμωρός, ὅστις τὴν ὀξύτητα τοῦ πυρὸς προσβάλλων τοῦτον (sc. τὸν ἀσεβῆ) βασανίζει καὶ ἐπʼ αὐτὸν πῦρ ἐπὶ τὸ πλ�*ον αὐξάνει καὶ θρώσκει αὐτὸν αἰσθητῶς καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτὸν ὁπλίζει, ἵνα τύχῃ μείζονος τιμωρίας,32 and on the other hand it can be argued that falsehood belongs to the very essence of demons.33 This development is, however, comparatively late.34

Philosophy incorporated these intermediaries into its system and world view by ascribing πάθη to demons35 and by giving at least to evil demons a location close to the earth. The doctrine that demons are ἐμπαθεῖς is old, going back at least as far as Empedocles.36 According to Plato37 it was worked out by Xenocrates,38 and was shared by Chrysippus as well as Posidonius, and by Plutarch as well as Apuleius and the Neo-Platonists.39 Similarly, we already find the idea of their location in the air in the Epinomis.40 This is greatly expanded in connexion with the πάθη doctrine,41 and is then incorporated by the Neo-Platonists into a great system of intermediaries which become the more imperfect and wicked the closer they approximate to earth.42 Thus the demons become spatial, and their place in the great ladder from God to man and spirit to matter is that of beings which are superior to man but still imperfect. Their imperfection does not affect their relative divinity. Their wickedness is not simply that of an implacably and causelessly evil will; it is due to their link with matter, and may thus be regarded as an impulsion by cravings which are only too familiar to man, whether in the form of envy, or a self-seeking desire for honour, or the thirst for blood and the odour of sacrifice.43 Although this view of the πάθη and location of demons corresponds to the impulse of Greek thinking, it is simply a reflection of the popular view of spirits. In animistic belief spirits are radically incalculable, and their operations are conceived after the analogy of men and their passions; they are easily provoked to wrath and envy.

4. δαίμων in Popular Greek Belief.
So far as concerns popular belief and its animistic basis we may simply say a. that demons are fundamentally the spirits of the departed.44 In general, poetry and philosophy made a distinction between δαίμονες and ἥρωες, or spoke only of μάκαρες δαίμονες: Eur. Alc., 1002 f.: αὕτα ποτὲ προὔθανʼ ἀνδρός, νῦν δʼ ἐστὶ μάκαιρα δαίμων.45 But Lucian gives us a clue to popular belief when he causes Peregrinus Proteus to pronounce through Theagenes that the one burned will appear as δαίμων νυκτόφυλαξ (Pergr. Mort., 27). We find the same idea in a phrase like δαίμονάς τινας εἶναι καὶ φαντάσματα καὶ νεκρῶν ψυχάς, Luc. Philopseudes, 29, or the reference in Hippocrates De Morbo Sacro, 1 (VI, p. 362, Littré): ὁκόσα δὲ δείματα νυκτὸς παρίσταται καὶ φόβοι καὶ παράνοιαι καὶ ἀναπηδήσιες ἐκ τῆς κλίνης καὶ φόβητρα καὶ φεύξιες ἔξω, Ἑκάτης φασὶν εἶναι ἐπιβολὰς ἢ ἡρώων ἐφόδους. The reference in Plinius Hist. Nat., XVIII, 118 is to the same effect, namely, that the Pythagoreans avoid beans because mortuorum animae are in them.46 A particular role is played at this point by the souls of the disinherited or of those who have met violent death47—an animistic trait which is also seen in the particular connexion between Hecate and the other deities of the underworld on the one side and belief in demons or especially possession on the other: Eur. Hipp., 141 ff.: σὺ γὰρ ἔνθεος, ὦ κούρα, εἴτʼ ἐκ �*ανὸς εἴθʼ Ἑκάτας ἢ σεμνῶν Κορυβάντων ἢ ματρὸς ὀρείας φοιτᾷς; Porphyr. De Philosophia ex Oraculis Haurienda, III, 164 bc: τοὺς δὲ πονηροὺς δαίμονας οὐκ εἰκῆ ὑπὸ τὸν Σάραπιν ὑποπτεύομεν … ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ τῷ �*λούτωνι ὁ θεός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα δαιμόνων ἄρχων.48

According to popular belief demons are b. “shades” which appear in all kinds of places, especially the lonely, at all possible times, especially at night, and in the most varied forms, especially those of uncanny beasts. Lucian is again our best witness when in Asin., 24 he causes the robbers to overtake the pursued maiden at a cross-roads and in mocking to say: ποῖ βαδίζεις ἀωρίᾳ, ταλαίπωρε; οὐδὲ τὰ δαιμόνια δ�*δοικας; or again when he writes in Philopseudes, 17: μόνος γὰρ Ἴων … τὰ τοιαῦτα εἶδεν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ δαίμοσιν ἐντετυχήκασιν, οἱ μὲν νύκτωρ, οἱ δὲ μεθʼ ἡμ�*ραν … (ibid., 31) αὐχμηρὸς καὶ κομήτης καὶ μελάντερος τοῦ ζόφου …, ἄρτι μὲν κύων, ἄρτι δὲ ταῦρος γιγνόμενος ἢ λ�*ων (of a demon). Furthermore, the demons are “spirits” manifested in the most diverse mischances. Happenings are often mysterious until it is recognised that a demon is at work. Thus we read in Dio Chrysostomus that in Olympia the horses shied at one spot on the racecourse, and the narrative continues (Or., 32, 76): ἔδοξεν οὖν τοῖς Ἠλείοις ὡς δαιμονίου τινὸς ὄντος ἱδρύσασθαι βωμόν. καὶ τὸ λοιπόν φασιν ἀπʼ ἐκείνου γεγον�*ναι τὸν τόπον ἀσφαλῆ. The demon simply wanted its sacrifice; it was ἐμπαθής.49 Other harmful demons have to be countered by the most drastic means, as when Apollonius of Tyana stoned the pest demon.50 At this point we may recall the many popular names for demons or groups of demons, such as Ἀλεξίκακοι, Ἀλάστορες, Ἐμποῦσα, Λαμία and many others.51 The belief in possession is also a part of popular belief, this being reflected in the tragic dramatists and spiritualised to some degree by the philosophers. This belief leads us directly to magic. Thus Plutarch tells us in Quaest. Conv., VII, 5, 4 (II, 706d/e): οἱ μάγοι τοὺς δαιμονιζομ�*νους κελεύουσι τὰ Ἐφ�*σια γράμματα πρὸς αὐτοὺς καταλ�*γειν καὶ ὀνομάζειν. Philostratus narrates the healing by Apollonius of many who were possessed.52 Ps.-Plutarch mentions a stone in the Nile which, when held to the nose of the possessed, expels the demon, so that he can say of it (De Fluviorum et Montium Nominibus, 16, 2, II, 1159d): ποιεῖ δὲ πρὸς τοὺς δαιμονιζομ�*νους. Not so common, but no less clear, is the view that illnesses may be traced to demons.53 Thus we read in Plato Leg., VII, 790d/e that nurses and αἱ περὶ τὰ τῶν Κορυβάντων ἰάματα τελοῦσαι walk around with young children who cannot sleep, and sing, καθάπερ αἱ τῶν ἐκφρόνων βακχειῶν ἰάσεις. Similarly, Plinius Hist. Nat., II, 16 refers to a demon of fever (cf. Philostratus Vit. Ap., IV, 10, 147 f. → n. 50).54

This leads us to the magic literature. Here are reflected both the myths and figures of the official cult and also popular ideas. Prescriptions are given against δαιμονῶντες, δαιμονιζόμενοι, δαιμονιόπληκτοι55 and δαιμονοτάκται.56 Their main content is the conjuring of a demon, god, κύριος or similar spirit57 who with the help of magic formulae and practices, or through the power of a higher name, can be impressed into service (Preis. Zaub., V, 164 ff.: ὑπόταξόν μοι πάντα τὰ δαιμόνια, ἵνα μοι ἦν ὑπήκοος πᾶς δαίμων οὐράνιος καὶ αἰθ�*ριος καὶ ἐπίγειος καὶ ὑπόγειος) or warded off (ibid., IV, 2698 ff.: φύλαξόν με ἀπὸ παντὸς δαίμονος ἀερίου καὶ ἐπιγείου καὶ ὑπογείου καὶ παντὸς ἀγγ�*λου καὶ φαντάσματος καὶ σκιασμοῦ καὶ ἐπιπομπῆς). A special role is played here, too, by the spirits of the dead, a νεκύδαιμον being invoked in Preis. Zaub., IV, 361, cf. εἴδωλα τῶν νεκύων in IV, 1474 f. More sophisticated ideas are also found, e.g., in the 8th Book of Moses58: οὗ αἱ ἀγαθαὶ ἀπόρροιαι τῶν ἀστ�*ρων εἰσὶν δαίμονες καὶ Τύχαι καὶ Μοῖραι, ἐξ ὧν δίδοται πλοῦτος, εὐκερασία, εὐτεκνία, τύχη, τροφὴ ἀγαθή. The god who rules over life is called δαίμων in Preis. Zaub., XIII, 708 ff.: σὺ δὲ πυνθάνου· δ�*σποτα, τί μοι εἵμαρται; καὶ ἐρεῖ σοι καὶ περὶ ἄστρου καὶ ποῖός ἐστιν ὁ σὸς δαίμων καὶ ὁ ὡροσκόπος καὶ ποῦ ζήσῃ καὶ ποῦ ἀποθανεῖσαι. There is also invocation of the demons which control the elements in the sense of Neo-Platonic systematisation, e.g., Preis. Zaub., IV, 460 (Horus): δαῖμον ἀκοιμήτου πυρός.59 Ibid., VII, 579 ff. distinguishes demons from ghosts.

In sum, we may say that in popular Greek belief the δαίμων is a being, often thought of as a spirit of the dead, endowed with supernatural powers, capricious and incalculable, present in unusual places at particular times and at work in terrifying events in nature and human life, but placated, controlled or at least held off by magical means. Philosophy tried to fashion these notions into the conception of the δαίμων as a divine force, but it had to take the popular belief into account, and to varying degrees it thus incorporated demons into its system as intermediary beings, and also found a radical place for popular belief with its doctrine of the πάθη of demons. Fundamentally, the whole Greek and Hellenistic view of demons is marked by the fact that everything demonic is brought into conjunction with the divine. The specific task of the πάθη doctrine is to make it possible to speak of the evil operations of divinely related beings.60 There can be no thought of an absolute gulf between the divine and the demonic, even the spirits being also sinister powers.61

5. Demon Terminology in the Greek and Hellenistic World.
With a view to NT usage our primary concern here is with the difference between δαίμων and δαιμόνιον. The former is the usual term for the whole field; the latter is more limited in time and content. Δαιμόνιον is originally the neuter of the adj. δαιμόνιος. The meaning of the adj. brings out most clearly the distinctive features of the Gk. conception of demons, for it denotes that which lies outside human capacity and is thus to be attributed to the intervention of higher powers, whether for good or evil.62 Τὸ δαιμόνιον in pre-Christian writers can be used in the sense of the “divine.” The context sometimes makes it plain that it is not thought of as a true substantive.63 This use midway between adj. and subst. is closely linked with the application of the term, and is to be interpreted in the light of it. It might be used in indefinite and comprehensive connotation of the divine generally, as in the Delphic inscription:64 τὰν πᾶσάν τε σπουδὰν ποιούμενος τᾶς εἰς τὸ δαιμόνιον εὐσεβείας;65 or especially of fate, where the use of the neuter of the adj. may be explained by the haziness of the belief in fate, cf. Demosth., 19, 239: οἱ θεοὶ δὲ εἴσονται καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον τὸν μὴ τὰ δίκαια ψηφισάμενον.66 In Epictetus τὸ δαιμόνιον does not mean only fate,67 but also the good spirit in man: Diss., III, 22, 53: ἀνάκρινον τὸ δαιμόνιον, called δαίμων in I, 14, 12 and 14. In the work περὶ ὕψους, 9, 8 δαιμόνιον is, of course, used more generally for the divine, but in 9, 5 the horses of the gods are called δαιμόνια. Plutarch plainly uses δαιμόνια for intermediary beings, more specifically the evil: Quaest. Rom., 51 (II, 276 f./277a → 5); Dio, 2, 3 (I, 958e): τὰ φαῦλα δαιμόνια καὶ βάσκανα προσφθονοῦντα τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσι; though Max. Tyr. can say68 that Homer Ἀθηνᾶν καλεῖ τὸ δαιμόνιον. Here τὸ δαιμόνιον has become a subst. In the magic pap. the term is comparatively frequent. This fact has not yet been adequately explained. It is perhaps because the subst. is rooted in popular belief, possibly as a diminutive of δαίμων.69 As we can see from the LXX (→ 12), the subst. is considerably older than is shown by the literary attestation.

Among other names for intermediary beings in the pre-Christian Gk. world we need refer only to ἥρως, εἴδωλον and ψυχή. Only in the post-Christian era do we find the words πνεῦμα and ἄγγελος, undoubtedly under Judaic influence.