DOI chapter:
The mythology of Athenian local cults
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61302#0088
Ixxvi
MYTHOLOGY AND MONUMENTS
and earlier work of art may perhaps hint at a different aspect
of the case.*
On the chest of Cypselus, Pausanias (v. 19, 1) saw the
myth of Oreithyia—“ On the fourth side of the chest, as you go
round from the left, there is Boreas, who has seized Oreithyia;
he has the tails of serpents instead of feet.” Boreas was repre-
sented, then, somewhat after the fashion of the giants on the
Pergamene altar or the Typhon of archaic art. Pausanias was
of course accustomed to the stock representation of Boreas,
with wings indeed but otherwise human, as he appears on
vases ·, hence his surprise and the special note he makes. What
surprises us is not so much that Boreas should have serpents’
tails, but that his rape of Oreithyia, a supposed purely Attic myth,
should appear at all upon the chest of Cypselus (dating about
600 B.C.), with its mixed Corinthian and Ionian typology. So
astonishing does this seem that Dr. Robert supposes Pausanias
misinterpreted the representation, and that in reality what he
saw was not Boreas but a Typhon or some such monster
carrying off a maiden. This would be possible, and even
probable, only, supposing it to be true that Boreas was repre-
sented after such peculiar fashion, what made Pausanias think
of Boreas at all unless there was an inscription explaining the
scene ? The conclusion is, I think, certain. The rape of
Boreas was represented and attested by an inscription; and
hence, appearing as it did on a Corinthian monument of 600
B.c., it proves that the rape of Oreithyia was not an indigenous
Attic myth. We must look elsewhere than to Attica if we
would trace its rise.
Nor need we look far. The first mention of Oreithyia,
though it is purely incidental and has nothing to do with the
rape, is in Iliad xviii. 39. There we find her in unexpected
company; she is one of the Nereids who flock around Thetis.
It may be said that this is a mere coincidence of name. Be
that as it may, the fact that Oreithyia is a Nereid’s name is
all-important. However late and “ Hesiodic ” the catalogue
is, it is the first mention of an Oreithyia. Now let us see if
* The whole of the argument that follows is based on Dr. Loeschke’s brilliant
pamphlet, “ Boreas und Oreithyia am Kypseloskasten,” in the Dorpater Pro-
gramm for 1886.
MYTHOLOGY AND MONUMENTS
and earlier work of art may perhaps hint at a different aspect
of the case.*
On the chest of Cypselus, Pausanias (v. 19, 1) saw the
myth of Oreithyia—“ On the fourth side of the chest, as you go
round from the left, there is Boreas, who has seized Oreithyia;
he has the tails of serpents instead of feet.” Boreas was repre-
sented, then, somewhat after the fashion of the giants on the
Pergamene altar or the Typhon of archaic art. Pausanias was
of course accustomed to the stock representation of Boreas,
with wings indeed but otherwise human, as he appears on
vases ·, hence his surprise and the special note he makes. What
surprises us is not so much that Boreas should have serpents’
tails, but that his rape of Oreithyia, a supposed purely Attic myth,
should appear at all upon the chest of Cypselus (dating about
600 B.C.), with its mixed Corinthian and Ionian typology. So
astonishing does this seem that Dr. Robert supposes Pausanias
misinterpreted the representation, and that in reality what he
saw was not Boreas but a Typhon or some such monster
carrying off a maiden. This would be possible, and even
probable, only, supposing it to be true that Boreas was repre-
sented after such peculiar fashion, what made Pausanias think
of Boreas at all unless there was an inscription explaining the
scene ? The conclusion is, I think, certain. The rape of
Boreas was represented and attested by an inscription; and
hence, appearing as it did on a Corinthian monument of 600
B.c., it proves that the rape of Oreithyia was not an indigenous
Attic myth. We must look elsewhere than to Attica if we
would trace its rise.
Nor need we look far. The first mention of Oreithyia,
though it is purely incidental and has nothing to do with the
rape, is in Iliad xviii. 39. There we find her in unexpected
company; she is one of the Nereids who flock around Thetis.
It may be said that this is a mere coincidence of name. Be
that as it may, the fact that Oreithyia is a Nereid’s name is
all-important. However late and “ Hesiodic ” the catalogue
is, it is the first mention of an Oreithyia. Now let us see if
* The whole of the argument that follows is based on Dr. Loeschke’s brilliant
pamphlet, “ Boreas und Oreithyia am Kypseloskasten,” in the Dorpater Pro-
gramm for 1886.