Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homerica
the lower world; but the goddess, by the contriving of Hades, still
remains partly a deity of the lower world. In memory of her sorrows
Demeter establishes the Eleusinian mysteries (which, however, were
purely agrarian in origin).
This hymn, as a literary work, is one of the finest in the collection.
It is surely Attic or Eleusinian in origin. Can we in any way fix its
date? Firstly, it is certainly not later than the beginning of the
sixth century, for it makes no mention of Iacchus, and the Dionysiac
element was introduced at Eleusis at about that period. Further, the
insignificance of Triptolemus and Eumolpus point to considerable
antiquity, and the digamma is still active. All these considerations
point to the seventh century as the probable date of the hymn.
The _Hymn to Apollo_ consists of two parts, which beyond any doubt were
originally distinct, a Delian hymn and a Pythian hymn. The Delian hymn
describes how Leto, in travail with Apollo, sought out a place in which
to bear her son, and how Apollo, born in Delos, at once claimed for
himself the lyre, the bow, and prophecy. This part of the existing hymn
ends with an encomium of the Delian festival of Apollo and of the
Delian choirs. The second part celebrates the founding of Pytho
(Delphi) as the oracular seat of Apollo. After various wanderings the
god comes to Telphus, near Haliartus, but is dissuaded by the nymph of
the place from settling there and urged to go on to Pytho where, after
slaying the she-dragon who nursed Typhaon, he builds his temple. After
the punishment of Telphusa for her deceit in giving him no warning of
the dragoness at Pytho, Apollo, in the form of a dolphin, brings
certain Cretan shipmen to Delphi to be his priests; and the hymn ends
with a charge to these men to behave orderly and righteously.
The Delian part is exclusively Ionian and insular both in style and
sympathy; Delos and no other is Apollo’s chosen seat: but the second
part is as definitely continental; Delos is ignored and Delphi alone is
the important centre of Apollo’s worship. From this it is clear that
the two parts need not be of one date—The first, indeed, is ascribed
(Scholiast on Pindar _Nem_. ii, 2) to Cynaethus of Chios (_fl_. 504
B.C.), a date which is obviously far too low; general considerations
point rather to the eighth century. The second part is not later than
600 B.C.; for (1) the chariot-races at Pytho, which commenced in 586
B.C., are unknown to the writer of the hymn, (2) the temple built by
Trophonius and Agamedes for Apollo (ll. 294-299) seems to have been
still standing when the hymn was written, and this temple was burned in
548. We may at least be sure that the first part is a Chian work, and
that the second was composed by a continental poet familiar with
Delphi.
The _Hymn to Hermes_ differs from others in its burlesque, quasi-comic
character, and it is also the best-known of the Hymns to English
readers in consequence of Shelley’s translation.
After a brief narrative of the birth of Hermes, the author goes on to
show how he won a place among the gods. First the new-born child found
a tortoise and from its shell contrived the lyre; next, with much
cunning circumstance, he stole Apollo’s cattle and, when charged with
the theft by Apollo, forced that god to appear in undignified guise
before the tribunal of Zeus. Zeus seeks to reconcile the pair, and
Hermes by the gift of the lyre wins Apollo’s friendship and purchases
various prerogatives, a share in divination, the lordship of herds and
animals, and the office of messenger from the gods to Hades.
The Hymn is hard to date. Hermes’ lyre has seven strings and the
invention of the seven-stringed lyre is ascribed to Terpander (_flor_.
676 B.C.). The hymn must therefore be later than that date, though
Terpander, according to Weir Smyth 1116, may have only modified the
scale of the lyre; yet while the burlesque character precludes an early
date, this feature is far removed, as Allen and Sikes remark, from the
silliness of the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_, so that a date in the
earlier part of the sixth century is most probable.
The _Hymn to Aphrodite_ is not the least remarkable, from a literary
point of view, of the whole collection, exhibiting as it does in a
masterly manner a divine being as the unwilling victim of an
irresistible force. It tells how all creatures, and even the gods
themselves, are subject to the will of Aphrodite, saving only Artemis,
Athena, and Hestia; how Zeus to humble her pride of power caused her to
love a mortal, Anchises; and how the goddess visited the hero upon Mt.
Ida. A comparison of this work with the Lay of Demodocus (_Odyssey_
viii, 266 ff.), which is superficially similar, will show how far
superior is the former in which the goddess is but a victim to forces
stronger than herself. The lines (247-255) in which Aphrodite tells of
her humiliation and grief are specially noteworthy.
There are only general indications of date. The influence of Hesiod is
clear, and the hymn has almost certainly been used by the author of the
_Hymn to Demeter_, so that the date must lie between these two periods,
and the seventh century seems to be the latest date possible.
The _Hymn to Dionysus_ relates how the god was seized by pirates and
how with many manifestations of power he avenged himself on them by
turning them into dolphins. The date is widely disputed, for while
Ludwich believes it to be a work of the fourth or third century, Allen
and Sikes consider a sixth or seventh century date to be possible. The
story is figured in a different form on the reliefs from the choragic
monument of Lysicrates, now in the British Museum 1117.
Very different in character is the _Hymn to Ares_, which is Orphic in
character. The writer, after lauding the god by detailing his
attributes, prays to be delivered from feebleness and weakness of soul,
as also from impulses to wanton and brutal violence.
The only other considerable hymn is that to _Pan_, which describes how
he roams hunting among the mountains and thickets and streams, how he
makes music at dusk while returning from the chase, and how he joins in
dancing with the nymphs who sing the story of his birth. This, beyond
most works of Greek literature, is remarkable for its fresh and
spontaneous love of wild natural scenes.
The remaining hymns are mostly of the briefest compass, merely hailing
the god to be celebrated and mentioning his chief attributes. The Hymns
to _Hermes_ (xviii), to the _Dioscuri_ (xvii), and to _Demeter_ (xiii)
are mere abstracts of the longer hymns iv, xxxiii, and ii.
The Epigrams of Homer
The _Epigrams of Homer_ are derived from the pseudo-Herodotean _Life of
Homer_, but many of them occur in other documents such as the _Contest
of Homer and Hesiod_, or are quoted by various ancient authors. These
poetic fragments clearly antedate the “Life” itself, which seems to
have been so written round them as to supply appropriate occasions for
their composition. Epigram iii on Midas of Larissa was otherwise
attributed to Cleobulus of Lindus, one of the Seven Sages; the address
to Glaucus (xi) is purely Hesiodic; xiii, according to MM. Croiset, is
a fragment from a gnomic poem. Epigram xiv is a curious poem attributed
on no very obvious grounds to Hesiod by Julius Pollox. In it the poet
invokes Athena to protect certain potters and their craft, if they
will, according to promise, give him a reward for his song; if they
prove false, malignant gnomes are invoked to wreck the kiln and hurt
the potters.
The Burlesque Poems
To Homer were popularly ascribed certain burlesque poems in which
Aristotle (_Poetics_ iv) saw the germ of comedy. Most interesting of
these, were it extant, would be the _Margites_. The hero of the epic is
at once sciolist and simpleton, “knowing many things, but knowing them
all badly”. It is unfortunately impossible to trace the plan of the
poem, which presumably detailed the adventures of this unheroic
character: the metre used was a curious mixture of hexametric and
iambic lines. The date of such a work cannot be high: Croiset thinks it
may belong to the period of Archilochus (c. 650 B.C.), but it may well
be somewhat later.
Another poem, of which we know even less, is the _Cercopes_. These
Cercopes (‘Monkey-Men’) were a pair of malignant dwarfs who went about
the world mischief-making. Their punishment by Heracles is represented
on one of the earlier metopes from Selinus. It would be idle to
speculate as to the date of this work.
Finally there is the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_. Here is told the
story of the quarrel which arose between the two tribes, and how they
fought, until Zeus sent crabs to break up the battle. It is a parody of
the warlike epic, but has little in it that is really comic or of
literary merit, except perhaps the list of quaint arms assumed by the
warriors. The text of the poem is in a chaotic condition, and there are
many interpolations, some of Byzantine date.
Though popularly ascribed to Homer, its real author is said by Suidas
to have been Pigres, a Carian, brother of Artemisia, ‘wife of
Mausolus’, who distinguished herself at the battle of Salamis.
Suidas is confusing the two Artemisias, but he may be right in
attributing the poem to about 480 B.C.
The Contest of Homer and Hesiod
This curious work dates in its present form from the lifetime or
shortly after the death of Hadrian, but seems to be based in part on an
earlier version by the sophist Alcidamas (c. 400 B.C.). Plutarch
(_Conviv. Sept. Sap._, 40) uses an earlier (or at least a shorter)
version than that which we possess 1118. The extant _Contest_, however,
has clearly combined with the original document much other ill-digested
matter on the life and descent of Homer, probably drawing on the same
general sources as does the Herodotean _Life of Homer_. Its scope is as
follows: (1) the descent (as variously reported) and relative dates of
Homer and Hesiod; (2) their poetical contest at Chalcis; (3) the death
of Hesiod; (4) the wanderings and fortunes of Homer, with brief notices
of the circumstances under which his reputed works were composed, down
to the time of his death.
The whole tract is, of course, mere romance; its only values are (1)
the insight it give into ancient speculations about Homer; (2) a
certain amount of definite information about the Cyclic poems; and (3)
the epic fragments included in the stichomythia of the _Contest_
proper, many of which—did we possess the clue—would have to be referred
to poems of the Epic Cycle.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HESIOD.—The classification and numerations of MSS. here followed is
that of Rzach (1913). It is only necessary to add that on the whole the
recovery of Hesiodic papyri goes to confirm the authority of the
mediaeval MSS. At the same time these fragments have produced much that
is interesting and valuable, such as the new lines, _Works and Days_
169 a-d, and the improved readings _ib_. 278, _Theogony_ 91, 93. Our
chief gains from papyri are the numerous and excellent fragments of the
Catalogues which have been recovered.
_Works and Days:_—
S Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1090.
A Vienna, Rainer Papyri L.P. 21-9 (4th cent.).
B Geneva, Naville Papyri Pap. 94 (6th cent.).
C Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2771 (11th cent.).
D Florence, Laur. xxxi 39 (12th cent.).
E Messina, Univ. Lib. Preexistens 11 (12th-13th cent.).
F Rome, Vatican 38 (14th cent.).
G Venice, Marc. ix 6 (14th cent.).
H Florence, Laur. xxxi 37 (14th cent.).
I Florence, Laur. xxxii 16 (13th cent.).
K Florence, Laur. xxxii 2 (14th cent.).
L Milan, Ambros. G 32 sup. (14th cent.).
M Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana 71 (15th cent.).
N Milan, Ambros. J 15 sup. (15th cent.).