Part 3
The Hymn is doubtless a very ancient form; but if no example of extreme antiquity survive this must be put down to the fact that until the age of literary consciousness, such things are not preserved.
First, apparently, in the collection stood the _Hymn to Dionysus_, of which only two fragments now survive. While it appears to have been a hymn of the longer type 1115, we have no evidence to show either its scope or date.
The _Hymn to Demeter_, extant only in the MS. discovered by Matthiae at Moscow, describes the seizure of Persephone by Hades, the grief of Demeter, her stay at Eleusis, and her vengeance on gods and men by causing famine. In the end Zeus is forced to bring Persephone back from 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.).
O Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2773 (14th cent.).
P Cambridge, Trinity College (Gale MS.), O.9.27 (13th-14th cent.).
Q Rome, Vatican 1332 (14th cent.).
These MSS. are divided by Rzach into the following families, issuing from a common original:—
Ωa = C
Ωb = F, G, H
Ψa = D
Ψb = I ,K, L, M
Φa = E
Φb = N, O, P, Q
_Theogony:_—
N Manchester, Rylands GK. Papyri No. 54 (1st cent. B.C.—1st cent. A.D.).
O Oxyrhynchus Papyri 873 (3rd cent.).
A Paris, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Graec. (papyrus) 1099 (4th-5th cent.).
B London, British Museam clix (4th cent.).
R Vienna, Rainer Papyri L.P. 21-9 (4th cent.).
C Paris, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Graec. 663 (12th cent.).
D Florence, Laur. xxxii 16 (13th cent.).
E Florence, Laur., Conv. suppr. 158 (14th cent.).
F Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2833 (15th cent.).
G Rome, Vatican 915 (14th cent.).
H Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2772 (14th cent.).
I Florence, Laur. xxxi 32 (15th cent.).
K Venice, Marc. ix 6 (15th cent.).
L Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2708 (15th cent.).
These MSS. are divided into two families:
Ωa = C,D
Ωb = E, F
Ωc = G, H, I
Ψ = K, L
_Shield of Heracles:_—
P Oxyrhynchus Papyri 689 (2nd cent.).
A Vienna, Rainer Papyri L.P. 21-29 (4th cent.).
Q Berlin Papyri, 9774 (1st cent.).
B Paris, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. Graec. 663 (12th cent.).
C Paris, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. Graec. 663 (12th cent.).
D Milan, Ambros. C 222 (13th cent.).
E Florence, Laur. xxxii 16 (13th cent.).
F Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2773 (14th cent.).
G Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2772 (14th cent.).
H Florence, Laur. xxxi 32 (15th cent.).
I London, British Museam Harleianus (14th cent.).
K Rome, Bibl. Casanat. 356 (14th cent.)
L Florence, Laur. Conv. suppr. 158 (14th cent.).
M Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2833 (15th cent.).
These MSS. belong to two families:
Ωa = B, C, D, F
Ωb = G, H, I
Ψa = E
Ψb = K, L, M
To these must be added two MSS. of mixed family:
N Venice, Marc. ix 6 (14th cent.).
O Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2708 (15th cent.).
_Editions of Hesiod:_—
Demetrius Chalcondyles, Milan (?) 1493 (?) (_editio princeps_, containing, however, only the _Works and Days_).
Aldus Manutius (Aldine edition), Venice, 1495 (complete works).
Juntine Editions, 1515 and 1540.
Trincavelli, Venice, 1537 (with scholia).
Of modern editions, the following may be noticed:—
Gaisford, Oxford, 1814-1820; Leipzig, 1823 (with scholia: in Poett. Graec. Minn II).
Goettling, Gotha, 1831 (3rd edition. Leipzig, 1878).
Didot Edition, Paris, 1840.
Schömann, 1869.
Koechly and Kinkel, Leipzig, 1870.
Flach, Leipzig, 1874-8.
Rzach, Leipzig, 1902 (larger edition), 1913 (smaller edition).
On the Hesiodic poems generally the ordinary Histories of Greek Literature may be consulted, but especially the _Hist. de la Littérature Grecque_ I pp. 459 ff. of MM. Croiset. The summary account in Prof. Murray’s _Anc. Gk. Lit._ is written with a strong sceptical bias. Very valuable is the appendix to Mair’s translation (Oxford, 1908) on _The Farmer’s Year in Hesiod_. Recent work on the Hesiodic poems is reviewed in full by Rzach in Bursian’s _Jahresberichte_ vols. 100 (1899) and 152 (1911).
For the _Fragments_ of Hesiodic poems the work of Markscheffel, _Hesiodi Fragmenta_ (Leipzig, 1840), is most valuable: important also is Kinkel’s _Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_ I (Leipzig, 1877) and the editions of Rzach noticed above. For recently discovered papyrus fragments see Wilamowitz, _Neue Bruchstücke d. Hesiod Katalog_ (Sitzungsb. der k. preuss. Akad. fur Wissenschaft, 1900, pp. 839-851). A list of papyri belonging to lost Hesiodic works may here be added: all are the _Catalogues_.
1) Berlin Papyri 7497 1201 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 7.
2) _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ 421 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 7.
3) _Petrie Papyri_ iii 3.—Frag. 14.
4) _Papiri greci e latine_, No. 130 (2nd-3rd cent.).—Frag. 14.
5) Strassburg Papyri, 55 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 58.
6) Berlin Papyri 9739 (2nd cent.).—Frag. 58.
7) Berlin Papyri 10560 (3rd cent.).—Frag. 58.
8) Berlin Papyri 9777 (4th cent.).—Frag. 98.
9) _Papiri greci e latine_, No. 131 (2nd-3rd cent.).—Frag. 99.
10) Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1358-9.
_The Homeric Hymns:_—The text of the Homeric hymns is distinctly bad in condition, a fact which may be attributed to the general neglect under which they seem to have laboured at all periods previously to the Revival of Learning. Very many defects have been corrected by the various editions of the Hymns, but a considerable number still defy all efforts; and especially an abnormal number of undoubted lacuna disfigure the text. Unfortunately no papyrus fragment of the Hymns has yet emerged, though one such fragment (_Berl. Klassikertexte_ v.1. pp. 7 ff.) contains a paraphrase of a poem very closely parallel to the _Hymn to Demeter_.
The mediaeval MSS. 1202 are thus enumerated by Dr. T.W. Allen:—
A Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2763.
At Athos, Vatopedi 587.
B Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2765.
C Paris, Bibl. Nat. 2833.
Γ Brussels, Bibl. Royale 11377-11380 (16th cent.).
D Milan, Amrbos. B 98 sup.
E Modena, Estense iii E 11.
G Rome, Vatican, Regina 91 (16th cent.).
H London, British Mus. Harley 1752.
J Modena, Estense, ii B 14.
K Florence, Laur. 31, 32.
L Florence, Laur. 32, 45.
L2 Florence, Laur. 70, 35.
L3 Florence, Laur. 32, 4.
M Leyden (the Moscow MS.) 33 H (14th cent.).
Mon. Munich, Royal Lib. 333 c.
N Leyden, 74 c.
O Milan, Ambros. C 10 inf.
P Rome, Vatican Pal. graec. 179.
Π Paris, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. graec. 1095.
Q Milan, Ambros. S 31 sup.
R1 Florence, Bibl. Riccard. 53 K ii 13.
R2 Florence, Bibl. Riccard. 52 K ii 14.
S Rome, Vatican, Vaticani graec. 1880.
T Madrid, Public Library 24.
V Venice, Marc. 456.
The same scholar has traced all the MSS. back to a common parent from which three main families are derived (M had a separate descent and is not included in any family):—
x1 = E, T
x2 = L, Π,(and more remotely) At, D, S, H, J, K.
y = E, L, Π, T (marginal readings).
p = A, B, C, Γ, G, L2, L3, N, O, P, Q, R1, R2, V, Mon.
_Editions of the Homeric Hymns_, &c.
Demetrius Chalcondyles, Florence, 1488 (with the _Epigrams_ and the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_ in the _ed. pr._ of Homer).
Aldine Edition, Venice, 1504.
Juntine Edition, 1537.
Stephanus, Paris, 1566 and 1588.
More modern editions or critical works of value are:
Martin (Variarum Lectionum libb. iv), Paris, 1605.
Barnes, Cambridge, 1711.
Ruhnken, Leyden, 1782 (Epist. Crit. and _Hymn to Demeter_).
Ilgen, Halle, 1796 (with _Epigrams_ and the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_).
Matthiae, Leipzig, 1806 (with the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_).
Hermann, Berling, 1806 (with _Epigrams_).
Franke, Leipzig, 1828 (with _Epigrams_ and the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_).
Dindorff (Didot edition), Paris, 1837.
Baumeister (_Battle of the Frogs and Mice_), Göttingen, 1852.
Baumeister (_Hymns_), Leipzig, 1860.
Gemoll, Leipzig, 1886.
Goodwin, Oxford, 1893.
Ludwich (_Battle of the Frogs and Mice_), 1896.
Allen and Sikes, London, 1904.
Allen (Homeri Opera v), Oxford, 1912.
Of these editions that of Messrs Allen and Sikes is by far the best: not only is the text purged of the load of conjectures for which the frequent obscurities of the Hymns offer a special opening, but the Introduction and the Notes throughout are of the highest value. For a full discussion of the MSS. and textual problems, reference must be made to this edition, as also to Dr. T.W. Allen’s series of articles in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ vols. xv ff. Among translations those of J. Edgar (Edinburgh), 1891) and of Andrew Lang (London, 1899) may be mentioned.
_The Epic Cycle_.
The fragments of the Epic Cycle, being drawn from a variety of authors, no list of MSS. can be given. The following collections and editions may be mentioned:—
Muller, Leipzig, 1829.
Dindorff (Didot edition of Homer), Paris, 1837-56.
Kinkel (Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta i), Leipzig, 1877.
Allen (Homeri Opera v), Oxford, 1912.
The fullest discussion of the problems and fragments of the epic cycle is F.G. Welcker’s _der epische Cyclus_ (Bonn, vol. i, 1835: vol. ii, 1849: vol. i, 2nd edition, 1865). The Appendix to Monro’s _Homer’s Odyssey_ xii-xxiv (pp. 340 ff.) deals with the Cyclic poets in relation to Homer, and a clear and reasonable discussion of the subject is to be found in Croiset’s _Hist. de la Littérature Grecque_, vol. i.
On Hesiod, the Hesiodic poems and the problems which these offer see Rzach’s most important article “Hesiodos” in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie_ xv (1912).
A discussion of the evidence for the date of Hesiod is to be found in _Journ. Hell. Stud._ xxxv, 85 ff. (T.W. Allen).
Of translations of Hesiod the following may be noticed:—_The Georgicks of Hesiod_, by George Chapman, London, 1618; _The Works of Hesiod translated from the Greek_, by Thomas Coocke, London, 1728; _The Remains of Hesiod translated from the Greek into English Verse_, by Charles Abraham Elton; _The Works of Hesiod, Callimachus, and Theognis_, by the Rev. J. Banks, M.A.; “Hesiod”, by Prof. James Mair, Oxford, 19081203.
HESIOD
HESIOD’S WORKS AND DAYS
(ll. 1-10) Muses of Pieria who give glory through song, come hither, tell of Zeus your father and chant his praise. Through him mortal men are famed or un-famed, sung or unsung alike, as great Zeus wills. For easily he makes strong, and easily he brings the strong man low; easily he humbles the proud and raises the obscure, and easily he straightens the crooked and blasts the proud,—Zeus who thunders aloft and has his dwelling most high.
Attend thou with eye and ear, and make judgements straight with righteousness. And I, Perses, would tell of true things.
(ll. 11-24) So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with his neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel.