In ancient Greece, Pan, a goat-legged youth, was worshipped as a god, mainly in the countryside by shepherds and herdsmen. Pan was chiefly known as a protector, or as a “flock-keeping” god. The Athenians were under the impression that they were aided by Pan during the Persian wars, so after the wars, they established a precinct dedicated to him underneath the acropolis, in a cave (Herodotus p. 133). Although Pan was seen as a god, he was still in an inferior position to the Olympian gods, and thus was worshipped with different types of dedications and rituals. Pan was worshipped in caves, where it was believed he lived with the nymphs, who were seen as goddess-like but still inferior to the Olympian goddesses. Pan represented a form of Greek religion that was very much private and personal, whereas the well-known and worshipped Olympian gods were worshipped by an entire polis. The Olympians were given dedicated visually-pleasing or large scale monumental temples, and often had animal sacrifices dedicated to them by communities, while Pan and the nymphs were honored with natural sanctuaries and votive offerings, usually made by individuals or smaller groups of families. Despite the different methods used in worshipping and types of dedications, piety was equally present throughout all of the rituals and offerings made to both the Olympians and to the lesser gods.
While there are varying characterizations and notions about what constitutes piety, in Euthyphro by Plato, an attempt is made to formulate an ultimate definition for what is pious and what is impious. According to Euthyphro, the most reasonable explanation of piety is tending to the gods, showing reverence and respect for them, or ultimately, doing anything benefitting to the gods. Piety can be narrowed down into simpler terms; it consists of everything that all the gods love, while impiety is everything that all the gods hate. Socrates emphasizes the belief
Cited: Chicago Press, 1979. Connor, W.R Classical Greece.” Classical Antiquity Oct. 1988: 155-189. Phenomenological Research Mar. 1998: 123-142.