Farnell contends valiantly in support of his theory that Athena represents no physical force in nature, but wisdom. In antiquity he acknowledges that some philosophers did regard Athena in the other light. Aristotle looked upon her as the moon. The stoic Diogenes Babylonius gave a physical explanation of her birth. He recalls also a comment of a scholiast to Pindar, which tells that Aristocles said that the goddess was concealed in a cloud, and that Zeus, striking the cloud, made the goddess appear. He remarks that philosophers then, in their vagaries, were no better than modern scholars, but that the conceptions which the Greek people and poets had are important for us in reaching a true conclusion; so he endeavors to prove that neither in the accounts of the poets nor in the minds of the Greeks was there any physical conception of the goddess. In the hymn quoted above he reminds us that there is no thunder which could not be left out if this were the description of a storm. He says also that there is nothing physical in the picture which Pindar gives us, unless the terrible cry of a deity must be taken to mean thunder. Lucian tells of no storm, and Philostratus, who is so fond of finding remote allusions does not seem to find any indication of a clash of the elements. The only physical feature in his description is the comparison of the panoply of Athena to a rainbow. So Farnell says: "It may be admitted, then, that these poetical descriptions do not consciously express the physical fact. To make them serve the other theories we must regard their highly wrought phrases as mere survivals of an ancient poetical symbolic diction which did more clearly express this." If this were true, would not the earlier accounts preserve this diction for us? But they do not, for this symbolic language is not found in either Homer or Hesiod. He says: "Is it not more natural to say that as imagination dwelt upon her birth the poets tended to embellish it with the richest phraseology, to represent it as a great cosmic incident in which the powers of heaven and earth were concerned?" His opponents seem to base all their interpretations upon the later accounts, beginning with the Homeric hymn, for this story which Hesiod gives is in the way as there is no phenomenon in the world of nature corresponding to the swallowing of Metis. Metis is Thought or Counsel and is a personification of this abstract idea as Hesiod shows by calling her the most knowing of gods and men. Preller objects to this, and affirms that this primitive language does not deal with abstractions, and that the adjective thus applied to her by Hesiod simply connects her with the water, as there is a sea nymph of that name. But in all the myths which mention Metis, she appears as Thought or Counsel, and it is absurd in a language which personifies grace, righteous indignation, and law not to allow Metis (Thought) to be a similar personification.