Cook, Arthur B.: Zeus: a study in ancient religion (Band 3,1): Zeus god of the dark sky (earthquake, clouds, wind, dew, rain, meteorits): Text and notes (Cambridge, 1940)

The birth of Athena in art 711

somewhat difficult to explain. She is hurrying forward, with both
arms partly stretched out; the right hand certainly held nothing,
but the left was grasping something that must have been either a
torch or a bow.' He suggests 'that she has just discharged an
arrow...and that the action of the archer still lingers, so to speak,
in the hands.' I should prefer to think that the original type, taken
over by Pheidias from the painters' tradition, represented Artemis
hasting to greet the new-born goddess.

We come now to the extant marbles—a topic less precarious
but almost equally problematic. And first for the maidenly figure
('Iris') escaping towards the left. Iris she cannot be; for, as
A. H. Smith1 points out, she has neither the wings nor the regular
costume of that goddess. Besides, her action is not that of a steady
night through the air, but rather that of a person starting aside in
alarm. Latterly the opinion has been gaining ground that she is
Eileithyia. This was conjectured in 1876 by G. Loeschcke2, and
was for some time maintained by A. S. Murray3. J. Overbeck4 was
|nclined to follow suit, but doubted whether Eileithyia could be so
Juvenile in appearance. W. R. Lethaby5, to whose restoration of
the figure I am much indebted, speaks of her as ' Ilithyia?' What,
to my thinking, makes this identification practically certain is the
fact that the vase-paintings of Athena's birth show two and only
two persons flying from the scene. One is Hephaistos; the other,
Eileithyia (fig. 526)6. If, then, Pheidias designed his gable with
reference to the existing ceramic tradition, an escaping female
ngure must be Eileithyia. Overbeck's objection that this figure is
too youthful loses its force when we remember that, according to
Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and half a dozen later writers7, Eileithyia
Was the daughter of Hera, indeed—if we may argue from the
Hesiodic genealogy—was younger even than Hebe8.

1 A. H. Smith in the Brit. Hut. Cat. Sculpture i. nof. no. 303 G, A Guide to
e ScHlj>iures of the Parthenon London 1908 p. 23 f. no. 303 G, id. The Sculptures of the
"rthenon London 1910 p. 11 fig. 19 and pi. 3. Other good photographs in M. Collignon
e Parthenon Paris 1909—r9i2 pi. 49.

G. Loeschcke in the Arch. Zeit. 1876 xxxiv. 118.

A- S. Murray A History of Greek Sculpture London 1883 (ed. 2 London 1890) ii.
U?'ff" PL 4- Id. The Sculptures of the Parthenon London 1903 p. 39 f. regards her as a
hlrd Hora.

I 0verbeck Gr. Plastic i. 408.
(•■■ Lethaby Greek Buildings represented by fragments in the British Museum

Jhe Parthenon) London 1908 p. 129 fig. 128.
7 Supra p. 709 fig. S26 and pi. lvi.

I have collected and sifted the literary evidence in the Class. Rev. 1906 xx. 367.

'Iris' has been identified with Hebe by H. 13runn in the Sitzungsber. d. kais. bayr.