ceremony, at which the xoanon (ancient wooden statue) of Athena was washed in the river Inachus, a symbol of her purification after the Gigantomachia.
The usual attributes of Athena were the helmet, the aegis, the round shield with the head of Medusa in the centre, the lance, an olive branch, the owl, the cock and the snake. Of these the aegis, usually explained as a storm-cloud, is probably intended as a battle-charm, like the Gorgon’s head on the shield and the faces on the shields of Chinese soldiers; the owl probably represents the form under which she was worshipped in primitive times, and subsequently became her favourite bird (the epithet γλαυκῶπις, meaning “keen-eyed” in Homer, may have originally signified “owl-faced”); the snake, a common companion of the earth deities, probably refers to her connexion with Erechtheus-Erichthonius.
As to artistic representations of the goddess, we have first the rude figure which seems to be a copy of the Palladium; secondly, the still rude, but otherwise more interesting, figures of her, as e.g. when accompanying heroes, on the early painted vases; and thirdly, the type of her as produced by Pheidias, from which little variation appears to have been made. Of his numerous statues of her, the three most celebrated were set up on the Acropolis. (1) Athena Parthenos, in the Parthenon. It was in ivory and gold, and 30 ft. high. She was represented standing, in a long tunic; on her head was a helmet, ornamented with sphinxes and griffins; on her breast was the aegis, fringed with serpents and the Gorgon’s head in centre. In her right hand was a Nike or winged victory, while her left held a spear, which rested on a shield on which were represented the battles of the Amazons with the giants. (2) A colossal statue said to have been formed from the spoils taken at Marathon, the so-called Athena Promachos. (3) Athena Lemnia, so called because it had been dedicated by the Athenian cleruchies in Lemnos. In this she was represented without arms, as a brilliant type of virgin beauty. The two last statues were of bronze. From the time of Pheidias calm earnestness, self-conscious might, and clearness of intellect were the main characteristics of the goddess. The eyes, slightly cast down, betoken an attitude of thoughtfulness; the forehead is clear and open; the mouth indicates firmness and resolution. The whole suggests a masculine rather than a feminine form.
From Greece the worship of Athena extended to Magna Graecia, where a number of temples were erected to her in various places. In Italy proper she was identified with Minerva (q.v.).
See articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie; W. H. Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie; Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des antiquités (s.v. “Minerva”); L. Preller, Griechische Mythologie; W. H. Roscher, “Die Grundbedeutung der Athene,” in Nektar und Ambrosia (1883); F. A. Voigt, “Beiträge zur Mythologie des Ares und Athena,” in Leipziger Studien, iv. (1881); L. R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, i. (1896); J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903), for the festivals especially; O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, ii. (1907). In the article Greek Art, fig. 21 represents Athena in the act of striking a prostrate giant; fig. 38 a statuette of Athena Parthenos, a replica of the work of Pheidias. (J. H. F.)
ATHENAEUM, a name originally applied in ancient Greece (Ἀθήναιον) to buildings dedicated to Athena, and specially used as the designation of a temple in Athens, where poets and men of learning were accustomed to meet and read their productions. The academy for the promotion of learning which the emperor Hadrian built (about A.D. 135) at Rome, near the Forum, was also called the Athenaeum. Poets and orators still met and discussed there, but regular courses of instruction were given by a staff of professors in rhetoric, jurisprudence, grammar and philosophy. The institution, later called Schola Romana, continued in high repute till the 5th century. Similar academies were also founded in the provinces and at Constantinople by the emperor Theodosius II. In modern times the name has been applied to various academies, as those of Lyons and Marseilles, and the Dutch high schools; and it has become a very general designation for literary clubs. It is also familiar as the title of several literary periodicals, notably of the London literary weekly founded in 1828.
ATHENAEUS, of Naucratis in Egypt, Greek rhetorician and grammarian, flourished about the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. Suidas only tells us that he lived “in the times of Marcus”; but the contempt with which he speaks of Commodus (died 192) shows that he survived that emperor. Athenaeus himself states that he was the author of a treatise on the thratta—a kind of fish mentioned by Archippus and other comic poets—and of a history of the Syrian kings, both of which works are lost. We still possess the Deipnosophistae, which may mean dinner-table philosophers or authorities on banquets, in fifteen books. The first two books, and parts of the third, eleventh and fifteenth, are only extant in epitome, but otherwise we seem to possess the work entire. It is an immense store-house of miscellaneous information, chiefly on matters connected with the table, but also containing remarks on music, songs, dances, games, courtesans. It is full of quotations from writers whose works have not come down to us; nearly 800 writers and 2500 separate writings are referred to by Athenaeus; and he boasts of having read 800 plays of the Middle Comedy alone. The plan of the Deipnosophistae is exceedingly cumbrous, and is badly carried out. It professes to be an account given by the author to his friend Timocrates of a banquet held at the house of Laurentius (or Larentius), a scholar and wealthy patron of art. It is thus a dialogue within a dialogue, after the manner of Plato, but a conversation of sufficient length to occupy several days (though represented as taking place in one) could not be conveyed in a style similar to the short conversations of Socrates. Among the twenty-nine guests are Galen and Ulpian, but they are all probably fictitious personages, and the majority take no part in the conversation. If Ulpian is identical with the famous jurist, the Deipnosophistae must have been written after his death (228); but the jurist was murdered by the praetorian guards, whereas Ulpian in Athenaeus dies a natural death. The conversation ranges from the dishes before the guests to literary matters of every description, including points of grammar and criticism; and they are expected to bring with them extracts from the poets, which are read aloud and discussed at table. The whole is but a clumsy apparatus for displaying the varied and extensive reading of the author. As a work of art it can take but a low rank, but as a repertory of fragments and morsels of information it is invaluable.
Editio princeps, Aldine, 1524; Casaubon, 1597–1600; Schweighäuser, 1801–1807; Dindorf, 1827; Meineke, 1859–1867; Kaibel, 1887–1890; English translation by Yonge in Bohn’s Classical Library.
ATHENAGORAS, a Christian apologist of the 2nd century A.D., was, according to an emendator of the Paris Codex 451 of the 11th century, a native of Athens. The only sources of information regarding him are a short notice by Philip of Side, in Pamphylia (c. A.D. 420), and the inscription on his principal work. Philip—or rather the compiler who made excerpts from him—says that he was at the head of an Alexandrian school (the catechetical), that he lived in the time of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom he addressed his Apology, and that Clement of Alexandria was his pupil; but these statements are more than doubtful. The inscription on the work describes it as the “Embassy of Athenagoras, the Athenian, a philosopher and a Christian concerning the Christians, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, &c.” This statement has given rise to considerable discussion, but from it and internal evidence the date of the Apology (Πρεσβεία περὶ Χρίστιανῶν) may be fixed at about A.D. 177. Athenagoras is also the author of a discourse on the resurrection of the body, which is not authenticated otherwise than by the titles on the various manuscripts. In the Apology, after contrasting the judicial treatment of Christians with that of other accused persons, he refutes the accusations brought against the Christians of atheism, eating human flesh and licentiousness, and in doing so takes occasion to make a vigorous and skilful attack on pagan polytheism and mythology. The discourse on the resurrection answers objections to the doctrine, and attempts to prove its truth from considerations of God’s purpose in the creation of man, His justice and the nature of man himself. Athenagoras is a powerful and clear writer, who strives to comprehend his opponents’ views and is
