Abstract
As we conclude these two years of lectures, we return to the importance of the point of view adopted in the documents invoked to understand the categorization of the superhuman world in ancient Greece. Depending on whether we approach the problem from the point of view of the cult actor who questions an oracle or writes a dedication, from the point of view of Homer who makes the gods act within a plot, of Hesiod who brings them into the world, from the point of view of Pausanias, who visits a place of worship and tries to understand who is honored there, or from the point of view of Plato, who dreams of his ideal city, the use of the terms theos, daimōn, hērōs is subject to interesting fluctuations. The porosity between terms is once again attested, even if certain trends emerge, beyond the inevitable intersections of a fluid, non-dogmatic system.
