Part 1
# Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homerica ### By Hesiod
---
Produced by Douglas B. Killings, and David Widger
[Illustration]
Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns, and Homerica
by Homer and Hesiod
Contents
PREPARER’S NOTE PREFACE
INTRODUCTION General The Boeotian School Life of Hesiod The Hesiodic Poems I. _The Works and Days_ II. The Genealogical Poems Date of the Hesiodic Poems Literary Value of Homer The Ionic School The Trojan Cycle The Homeric Hymns The Epigrams of Homer The Burlesque Poems The Contest of Homer and Hesiod
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HESIOD HESIOD’S WORKS AND DAYS THE DIVINATION BY BIRDS THE ASTRONOMY THE PRECEPTS OF CHIRON THE GREAT WORKS THE IDAEAN DACTYLS THE THEOGONY THE CATALOGUES OF WOMEN AND EOIAE THE SHIELD OF HERACLES THE MARRIAGE OF CEYX THE GREAT EOIAE THE MELAMPODIA THE AEGIMIUS FRAGMENTS OF UNKNOWN POSITION DOUBTFUL FRAGMENTS
THE HOMERIC HYMNS I. TO DIONYSUS II. TO DEMETER III. TO APOLLO IV. TO HERMES V. TO APHRODITE VI. TO APHRODITE VII. TO DIONYSUS VIII. TO ARES IX. TO ARTEMIS X. TO APHRODITE XI. TO ATHENA XII. TO HERA XIII. TO DEMETER XIV. TO THE MOTHER OF THE GODS XV. TO HERACLES THE LION-HEARTED XVI. TO ASCLEPIUS XVII. TO THE DIOSCURI XVIII. TO HERMES XIX. TO PAN XX. TO HEPHAESTUS XXI. TO APOLLO XXII. TO POSEIDON XXIII. TO THE SON OF CRONOS, MOST HIGH XXIV. TO HESTIA XXV. TO THE MUSES AND APOLLO XXVI. TO DIONYSUS XXVII. TO ARTEMIS XXVIII. TO ATHENA XXIX. TO HESTIA XXX. TO EARTH THE MOTHER OF ALL XXXI. TO HELIOS XXXII. TO SELENE XXXIII. TO THE DIOSCURI
THE EPIGRAMS OF HOMER
THE EPIC CYCLE THE WAR OF THE TITANS THE STORY OF OEDIPUS THE THEBAID THE EPIGONI THE CYPRIA THE AETHIOPIS THE LITTLE ILIAD THE SACK OF ILIUM THE RETURNS THE TELEGONY
HOMERICA THE EXPEDITION OF AMPHIARAUS THE TAKING OF OECHALIA THE PHOCAIS THE MARGITES THE CERCOPES THE BATTLE OF FROGS AND MICE
THE CONTEST OF HOMER AND HESIOD
ENDNOTES
This file contains translations of the following works: Hesiod: _Works and Days_, _The Theogony_, fragments of _The Catalogues of Women and the Eoiae_, _The Shield of Heracles_ (attributed to Hesiod), and fragments of various works attributed to Hesiod. Homer: _The Homeric Hymns_, _The Epigrams of Homer_ (both attributed to Homer).
Various: Fragments of the Epic Cycle (parts of which are sometimes attributed to Homer), fragments of other epic poems attributed to Homer, _The Battle of Frogs and Mice_, and _The Contest of Homer and Hesiod_.
This file contains only that portion of the book in English; Greek texts are excluded. Where Greek characters appear in the original English text, transcription in CAPITALS is substituted.
Project Gutenberg Editor’s Note: 262 footnotes notes previously scattered through the text have been moved to the end of the file and each given an unique number. There are links to and from each footnote.
PREPARER’S NOTE
In order to make this file more accessible to the average computer user, the preparer has found it necessary to re-arrange some of the material. The preparer takes full responsibility for his choice of arrangement.
A few endnotes have been added by the preparer, and some additions have been supplied to the original endnotes of Mr. Evelyn-White’s. Where this occurs I have noted the addition with my initials “DBK”. Some endnotes, particularly those concerning textual variations in the ancient Greek text, are here omitted.
PREFACE
This volume contains practically all that remains of the post-Homeric and pre-academic epic poetry.
I have for the most part formed my own text. In the case of Hesiod I have been able to use independent collations of several MSS. by Dr. W.H.D. Rouse; otherwise I have depended on the _apparatus criticus_ of the several editions, especially that of Rzach (1902). The arrangement adopted in this edition, by which the complete and fragmentary poems are restored to the order in which they would probably have appeared had the Hesiodic corpus survived intact, is unusual, but should not need apology; the true place for the _Catalogues_ (for example), fragmentary as they are, is certainly after the _Theogony_.
In preparing the text of the _Homeric Hymns_ my chief debt—and it is a heavy one—is to the edition of Allen and Sikes (1904) and to the series of articles in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (vols. xv. _sqq_.) by T.W. Allen. To the same scholar and to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press I am greatly indebted for permission to use the restorations of the _Hymn to Demeter_, lines 387-401 and 462-470, printed in the Oxford Text of 1912.
Of the fragments of the Epic Cycle I have given only such as seemed to possess distinct importance or interest, and in doing so have relied mostly upon Kinkel’s collection and on the fifth volume of the Oxford Homer (1912).
The texts of the _Batrachomyomachia_ and of the _Contest of Homer and Hesiod_ are those of Baumeister and Flach respectively: where I have diverged from these, the fact has been noted.
Owing to the circumstances of the present time I have been prevented from giving to the _Introduction_ that full revision which I should have desired.
Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Rampton, NR. Cambridge. _Sept_. 9_th_, 1914.
INTRODUCTION
General
The early Greek epic—that is, poetry as a natural and popular, and not (as it became later) an artificial and academic literary form—passed through the usual three phases, of development, of maturity, and of decline.
No fragments which can be identified as belonging to the first period survive to give us even a general idea of the history of the earliest epic, and we are therefore thrown back upon the evidence of analogy from other forms of literature and of inference from the two great epics which have come down to us. So reconstructed, the earliest period appears to us as a time of slow development in which the characteristic epic metre, diction, and structure grew up slowly from crude elements and were improved until the verge of maturity was reached.
The second period, which produced the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, needs no description here: but it is very important to observe the effect of these poems on the course of post-Homeric epic. As the supreme perfection and universality of the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ cast into oblivion whatever pre-Homeric poets had essayed, so these same qualities exercised a paralysing influence over the successors of Homer. If they continued to sing like their great predecessor of romantic themes, they were drawn as by a kind of magnetic attraction into the Homeric style and manner of treatment, and became mere echoes of the Homeric voice: in a word, Homer had so completely exhausted the epic _genre_, that after him further efforts were doomed to be merely conventional. Only the rare and exceptional genius of Vergil and Milton could use the Homeric medium without loss of individuality: and this quality none of the later epic poets seem to have possessed. Freedom from the domination of the great tradition could only be found by seeking new subjects, and such freedom was really only illusionary, since romantic subjects alone are suitable for epic treatment.
In its third period, therefore, epic poetry shows two divergent tendencies. In Ionia and the islands the epic poets followed the Homeric tradition, singing of romantic subjects in the now stereotyped heroic style, and showing originality only in their choice of legends hitherto neglected or summarily and imperfectly treated. In continental Greece 1101, on the other hand, but especially in Boeotia, a new form of epic sprang up, which for the romance and PATHOS of the Ionian School substituted the practical and matter-of-fact. It dealt in moral and practical maxims, in information on technical subjects which are of service in daily life—agriculture, astronomy, augury, and the calendar—in matters of religion and in tracing the genealogies of men. Its attitude is summed up in the words of the Muses to the writer of the _Theogony_: ‘We can tell many a feigned tale to look like truth, but we can, when we will, utter the truth’ (_Theogony_ 26-27). Such a poetry could not be permanently successful, because the subjects of which it treats—if susceptible of poetic treatment at all—were certainly not suited for epic treatment, where unity of action which will sustain interest, and to which each part should contribute, is absolutely necessary. While, therefore, an epic like the _Odyssey_ is an organism and dramatic in structure, a work such as the _Theogony_ is a merely artificial collocation of facts, and, at best, a pageant. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that from the first the Boeotian school is forced to season its matter with romantic episodes, and that later it tends more and more to revert (as in the _Shield of Heracles_) to the Homeric tradition.
The Boeotian School
How did the continental school of epic poetry arise? There is little definite material for an answer to this question, but the probability is that there were at least three contributory causes. First, it is likely that before the rise of the Ionian epos there existed in Boeotia a purely popular and indigenous poetry of a crude form: it comprised, we may suppose, versified proverbs and precepts relating to life in general, agricultural maxims, weather-lore, and the like. In this sense the Boeotian poetry may be taken to have its germ in maxims similar to our English
“Till May be out, ne’er cast a clout,”
or
“A rainbow in the morning Is the Shepherd’s warning.”
Secondly and thirdly we may ascribe the rise of the new epic to the nature of the Boeotian people and, as already remarked, to a spirit of revolt against the old epic. The Boeotians, people of the class of which Hesiod represents himself to be the type, were essentially unromantic; their daily needs marked the general limit of their ideals, and, as a class, they cared little for works of fancy, for pathos, or for fine thought as such. To a people of this nature the Homeric epos would be inacceptable, and the post-Homeric epic, with its conventional atmosphere, its trite and hackneyed diction, and its insincere sentiment, would be anathema. We can imagine, therefore, that among such folk a settler, of Aeolic origin like Hesiod, who clearly was well acquainted with the Ionian epos, would naturally see that the only outlet for his gifts lay in applying epic poetry to new themes acceptable to his hearers.
Though the poems of the Boeotian school 1102 were unanimously assigned to Hesiod down to the age of Alexandrian criticism, they were clearly neither the work of one man nor even of one period: some, doubtless, were fraudulently fathered on him in order to gain currency; but it is probable that most came to be regarded as his partly because of their general character, and partly because the names of their real authors were lost. One fact in this attribution is remarkable—the veneration paid to Hesiod.
Life of Hesiod
Our information respecting Hesiod is derived in the main from notices and allusions in the works attributed to him, and to these must be added traditions concerning his death and burial gathered from later writers.
Hesiod’s father (whose name, by a perversion of _Works and Days_, 299 PERSE DION GENOS to PERSE, DION GENOS, was thought to have been Dius) was a native of Cyme in Aeolis, where he was a seafaring trader and, perhaps, also a farmer. He was forced by poverty to leave his native place, and returned to continental Greece, where he settled at Ascra near Thespiae in Boeotia (_Works and Days_, 636 ff.). Either in Cyme or Ascra, two sons, Hesiod and Perses, were born to the settler, and these, after his death, divided the farm between them. Perses, however, who is represented as an idler and spendthrift, obtained and kept the larger share by bribing the corrupt “lords” who ruled from Thespiae (_Works and Days_, 37-39). While his brother wasted his patrimony and ultimately came to want (_Works and Days_, 34 ff.), Hesiod lived a farmer’s life until, according to the very early tradition preserved by the author of the _Theogony_ (22-23), the Muses met him as he was tending sheep on Mt. Helicon and “taught him a glorious song”—doubtless the _Works and Days_. The only other personal reference is to his victory in a poetical contest at the funeral games of Amphidamas at Chalcis in Euboea, where he won the prize, a tripod, which he dedicated to the Muses of Helicon (_Works and Days_, 651-9).
Before we go on to the story of Hesiod’s death, it will be well to inquire how far the “autobiographical” notices can be treated as historical, especially as many critics treat some, or all of them, as spurious. In the first place attempts have been made to show that “Hesiod” is a significant name and therefore fictitious: it is only necessary to mention Goettling’s derivation from IEMI to ODOS (which would make ‘Hesiod’ mean the ‘guide’ in virtues and technical arts), and to refer to the pitiful attempts in the _Etymologicum Magnu_ (_s.v._ {H}ESIODUS), to show how prejudiced and lacking even in plausibility such efforts are. It seems certain that “Hesiod” stands as a proper name in the fullest sense. Secondly, Hesiod claims that his father—if not he himself—came from Aeolis and settled in Boeotia. There is fairly definite evidence to warrant our acceptance of this: the dialect of the _Works and Days_ is shown by Rzach 1103 to contain distinct Aeolisms apart from those which formed part of the general stock of epic poetry. And that this Aeolic speaking poet was a Boeotian of Ascra seems even more certain, since the tradition is never once disputed, insignificant though the place was, even before its destruction by the Thespians.
Again, Hesiod’s story of his relations with his brother Perses have been treated with scepticism (_see_ Murray, _Anc. Gk. Literature_, pp. 53-54): Perses, it is urged, is clearly a mere dummy, set up to be the target for the poet’s exhortations. On such a matter precise evidence is naturally not forthcoming; but all probability is against the sceptical view. For 1) if the quarrel between the brothers were a fiction, we should expect it to be detailed at length and not noticed allusively and rather obscurely—as we find it; 2) as MM. Croiset remark, if the poet needed a lay-figure the ordinary practice was to introduce some mythological person—as, in fact, is done in the _Precepts of Chiron_. In a word, there is no more solid ground for treating Perses and his quarrel with Hesiod as fictitious than there would be for treating Cyrnus, the friend of Theognis, as mythical.
Thirdly, there is the passage in the _Theogony_ relating to Hesiod and the Muses. It is surely an error to suppose that lines 22-35 all refer to Hesiod: rather, the author of the _Theogony_ tells the story of his own inspiration by the same Muses who _once_ taught Hesiod glorious song. The lines 22-3 are therefore a very early piece of tradition about Hesiod, and though the appearance of Muses must be treated as a graceful fiction, we find that a writer, later than the _Works and Days_ by perhaps no more than three-quarters of a century, believed in the actuality of Hesiod and in his life as a farmer or shepherd.
Lastly, there is the famous story of the contest in song at Chalcis. In later times the modest version in the _Works and Days_ was elaborated, first by making Homer the opponent whom Hesiod conquered, while a later period exercised its ingenuity in working up the story of the contest into the elaborate form in which it still survives. Finally the contest, in which the two poets contended with hymns to Apollo 1104, was transferred to Delos. These developments certainly need no consideration: are we to say the same of the passage in the _Works and Days?_ Critics from Plutarch downwards have almost unanimously rejected the lines 654-662, on the ground that Hesiod’s Amphidamas is the hero of the Lelantine Wars between Chalcis and Eretria, whose death may be placed _circa_ 705 B.C.—a date which is obviously too low for the genuine Hesiod. Nevertheless, there is much to be said in defence of the passage. Hesiod’s claim in the _Works and Days_ is modest, since he neither pretends to have met Homer, nor to have sung in any but an impromptu, local festival, so that the supposed interpolation lacks a sufficient motive. And there is nothing in the context to show that Hesiod’s Amphidamas is to be identified with that Amphidamas whom Plutarch alone connects with the Lelantine War: the name may have been borne by an earlier Chalcidian, an ancestor, perhaps, of the person to whom Plutarch refers.
The story of the end of Hesiod may be told in outline. After the contest at Chalcis, Hesiod went to Delphi and there was warned that the ‘issue of death should overtake him in the fair grove of Nemean Zeus.’ Avoiding therefore Nemea on the Isthmus of Corinth, to which he supposed the oracle to refer, Hesiod retired to Oenoe in Locris where he was entertained by Amphiphanes and Ganyetor, sons of a certain Phegeus. This place, however, was also sacred to Nemean Zeus, and the poet, suspected by his hosts of having seduced their sister 1105, was murdered there. His body, cast into the sea, was brought to shore by dolphins and buried at Oenoe (or, according to Plutarch, at Ascra): at a later time his bones were removed to Orchomenus. The whole story is full of miraculous elements, and the various authorities disagree on numerous points of detail. The tradition seems, however, to be constant in declaring that Hesiod was murdered and buried at Oenoe, and in this respect it is at least as old as the time of Thucydides. In conclusion it may be worth while to add the graceful epigram of Alcaeus of Messene (_Palatine Anthology_, vii 55).
“When in the shady Locrian grove Hesiod lay dead, the Nymphs washed his body with water from their own springs, and heaped high his grave; and thereon the goat-herds sprinkled offerings of milk mingled with yellow-honey: such was the utterance of the nine Muses that he breathed forth, that old man who had tasted of their pure springs.”
The Hesiodic Poems
The Hesiodic poems fall into two groups according as they are didactic (technical or gnomic) or genealogical: the first group centres round the _Works and Days_, the second round the _Theogony_.
I. “The Works and Days”
The poem consists of four main sections. (_a_) After the prelude, which Pausanias failed to find in the ancient copy engraved on lead seen by him on Mt. Helicon, comes a general exhortation to industry. It begins with the allegory of the two Strifes, who stand for wholesome Emulation and Quarrelsomeness respectively. Then by means of the Myth of Pandora the poet shows how evil and the need for work first arose, and goes on to describe the Five Ages of the World, tracing the gradual increase in evil, and emphasizing the present miserable condition of the world, a condition in which struggle is inevitable. Next, after the Fable of the Hawk and Nightingale, which serves as a condemnation of violence and injustice, the poet passes on to contrast the blessing which Righteousness brings to a nation, and the punishment which Heaven sends down upon the violent, and the section concludes with a series of precepts on industry and prudent conduct generally. (_b_) The second section shows how a man may escape want and misery by industry and care both in agriculture and in trading by sea. Neither subject, it should be carefully noted, is treated in any way comprehensively. (_c_) The third part is occupied with miscellaneous precepts relating mostly to
## actions of domestic and everyday life and conduct which have little or
no connection with one another. (_d_) The final section is taken up with a series of notices on the days of the month which are favourable or unfavourable for agricultural and other operations.
It is from the second and fourth sections that the poem takes its name. At first sight such a work seems to be a miscellany of myths, technical advice, moral precepts, and folklore maxims without any unifying principle; and critics have readily taken the view that the whole is a canto of fragments or short poems worked up by a redactor. Very probably Hesiod used much material of a far older date, just as Shakespeare used the _Gesta Romanorum_, old chronicles, and old plays; but close inspection will show that the _Works and Days_ has a real unity and that the picturesque title is somewhat misleading. The poem has properly no technical object at all, but is moral: its real aim is to show men how best to live in a difficult world. So viewed the four seemingly independent sections will be found to be linked together in a real bond of unity. Such a connection between the first and second sections is easily seen, but the links between these and the third and fourth are no less real: to make life go tolerably smoothly it is most important to be just and to know how to win a livelihood; but happiness also largely depends on prudence and care both in social and home life as well, and not least on avoidance of actions which offend supernatural powers and bring ill-luck. And finally, if your industry is to be fruitful, you must know what days are suitable for various kinds of work. This moral aim—as opposed to the currently accepted technical aim of the poem—explains the otherwise puzzling incompleteness of the instructions on farming and seafaring.
Of the Hesiodic poems similar in character to the _Works and Days_, only the scantiest fragments survive. One at least of these, the _Divination by Birds_, was, as we know from Proclus, attached to the end of the _Works_ until it was rejected by Apollonius Rhodius: doubtless it continued the same theme of how to live, showing how man can avoid disasters by attending to the omens to be drawn from birds. It is possible that the _Astronomy_ or _Astrology_ (as Plutarch calls it) was in turn appended to the _Divination_. It certainly gave some account of the principal constellations, their dates of rising and setting, and the legends connected with them, and probably showed how these influenced human affairs or might be used as guides. The _Precepts of Chiron_ was a didactic poem made up of moral and practical precepts, resembling the gnomic sections of the _Works and Days_, addressed by the Centaur Chiron to his pupil Achilles. Even less is known of the poem called the _Great Works_: the title implies that it was similar in subject to the second section of the _Works and Days_, but longer. Possible references in Roman writers 1106 indicate that among the subjects dealt with were the cultivation of the vine and olive and various herbs. The inclusion of the judgment of Rhadamanthys (frag. 1): “If a man sow evil, he shall reap evil,” indicates a gnomic element, and the note by Proclus 1107 on _Works and Days_ 126 makes it likely that metals also were dealt with. It is therefore possible that another lost poem, the _Idaean Dactyls_, which dealt with the discovery of metals and their working, was appended to, or even was a part of the _Great Works_, just as the _Divination by Birds_ was appended to the _Works and Days_.
II. The Genealogical Poems