The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in GenreAuthor(s): Richard JankoReviewed work(s):Source: Hermes, 109. Bd., H. 1 (1981), pp. 9-24Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476188 .Accessed: 06/11/2011 01:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: A STUDY IN GENRE'

Previous studies of the Homeric Hymns as literary documents have tended to concentrate on their function in relation to the longer epic poems that they may have introduced, while neglecting the formal elements that compose their structure, although these have been studied in relation to the proem of the Theogony by such scholars as FRIEDLANDER and WILAMOWITZ2. The view that the Hymns can readily be distinguished as a genre is widely held, e. g. by RICHARDSON3, without a close scrutiny of how the Hymns resemble one another and how they differ. The need for such scrutiny has recently been pointed out by HAMILTON4 in his similar work on Pindar: he refers to an unpublished study by THOMAS WEISCHADLE which distinguished the following strong norms in the Hymns: a) In the first line we find the name of the god, an attribute, and the invocation verb. b) The name of the god is always in the accusative and occurs first in the line, if possible; if not, adjustments are made so that it appears as close to the beginning as possible (e. g. by adding dj(pi). c) The central 'mythic' portion is always introduced by 6 and this 6 is always the first one to occur in the Hymn. d) Very short poems tend not to have a Poet's Task at the end, whereas long Hymns do. e) The sections before and after the 'myth' remain relatively constant no matter how long the whole hymn (except for very long Hymns where the 'myth' is a definite story as opposed to general and summary remarks). The first part of the Hymn is the most rigid and within it the first line.

HAMILTON remarks on the wide analytic possibilities offered by this approach. However, it obscures several important distinctions which offer even greater insights. We may examine the poems in three segments - satisfyingly enough, beginning, middle and end: then we will turn to look at the peculiar features of individual Hymns.

I HAMILTON'S ideas were kindly communicated to me by R. D. PULVERMACHER, at whose prompting this article was written. I am grateful to Prof. G. S. KIRK for encouragement, and to Dr. N. J. RICHARDSON for detailed criticisms. As this paper is rather a parergon to more detailed philological work on the major Hymns, I have not been able to comb the secondary literature for ideas about structure as thoroughlv as I would have liked.

2 V. infra p. 20- 22. 3 Hymn to Demeter, p. 3 - 4. CASSOLA is less certain, Inni Omerici, p. ix. 4 HAMILTON, Epinikion, p. 113.

10 RICHARD JANKO

1. Introduction

When we come to classify the Hymns in terms of the structure of the middle section, it will become apparent that the form and length of the introduction does not relate to the rest of the Hymn. Nor does the eventual length of the Hymn affect the introduction. This is not surprising when we consider the probable origins of the genre in oral poetry. We may therefore examine the introductions alone.

There are two Hymns which must have lost their Introductions - Hy. 1 to Dionysus, and the Hymn to Pythian Apollo. With three exceptions, the norms enunciated by WEISCHADLE appear to be correct. The exceptions are Hy. 21, 24 and 29, which open with plain vocatives of the deity's name as first word. This seems to be a rare sub-type: it may be pure coincidence that all three happen to be Attributive Hymnss.

As WEISCHADLE says, it is usual for the god's name to precede the verb, but there are exceptions - DAp. and Aphr.6. The proem of the Erga, otherwise of Attributive type, is remarkable in that a whole line of invocation of the Muses precedes the name of Zeus, which is not dignified by any epithet. The epithet is also absent in Hy. 25, where three gods are named, and in the second proem to the Theogony (v. 36), as we shall see below. The verb of singing is postponed to the beginning of the second line in Hy. 6 and 7 only.

On occasion the epithets are piled up to a considerable length, as in Herm., Hy. 19 or Hy. 28, where up to three lines are so filled, almost approaching the style of the Orphic Hymns. Compare the instrusive Hy. 8, where epithets occupy more than five lines: it appears that in the evolution of the genre the introductory and closing sections may have developed to such an extent that the middle section entirely disappeared (in Hy. 8 it may be represented by the clause with a main verb in v. 8, before xXi30 begins the conclusion). It is noticeable however that Herm. is the sole exception to the generalisation that in our corpus only short Hymns have Introductions of more than two lines. Herm., Hy. 18 and Hy. 22 have nearly three lines, Hy. 27 and 33 (each twenty or so lines long) have three whole lines of Introduction. This might be a chronological pointer (but it might not!).

We have defined the Introduction as the material down to the first relative pronoun. The only cases where a relative clause does not introduce the middle section are Hy. 7 (6; instead, unless this is a metagrammatic corruption of o6; heavy before a vowel, but cf. Hy. 19, 29, 27; 19), Hy. 25 (yap instead), and the extremely odd Hy. 21 (in the other two cases where a vocative comprises

5 V. infra p. 13f. 6 Note the following abbreviations: Dem., Hy. 2 to Demeter: DAp., PAp., Hymns to

Apollo, Delian and Pythian respectively: Herm., Hy. 4 to Hermes: Aphr., Hy. 5 to Aphrodite.

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 1 1

the introduction, a relative pronoun follows). In Hy. 13 there is no middle section: the relative clause is presumably lost in Hy. 1 and PAp.

There is one irregular factor which disturbs the tidy schema of WEI-

SCHADLE here: the optional Appeal to the Muse(s). This is found in eleven of our Hymns, or about a third. Its presence cannot be correlated with any other feature - length of Hymn, internal structure, length of the introduction or perhaps even date. An invocation to the Muse is present in the Introduction of four non-Hymnic works we possess (Ii., Od., Thebais and Epigoni), and absent in only one (Ilias Mikra), but this is rather too small a sample on which to base a theory that the rightful place of the Appeal was in the work that followed the Hymn, not in the Hymn itself, at any stage in the tradition.

2. The Middle Section

WEISCHADLE hints at a distinction between what he terms 'myth' and >>general and summary remarks<, but does not elaborate. In fact it is vital to make such a distinction, as our comprehension of the whole Hymnic genre depends upon it. In what follows 'Myth' is defined quite simply as events that happened in the past, i. e. simply as narrative in the past tense. All 'non-myth' is defined as happening in the present, i. e. by its present tenses. Since most of this material in fact described the deity in terms of his attributes - appearance, possessions, haunts and spheres of activity, it is proposed to term it 'Attributes'. A Hymn whose middle portion consists of Attributes will be called an 'Attributive' Hymn, while a Hymn with a Myth as central portion will be called a 'Mythic' Hymn. This distinction is entirely fundamental to our classification of the Hymns.

a) Attributes

After the Introduction the poet can either enter a Myth directly or describe the Attributes of his deity. An alternative to straightforward description seems to be a scene of festivity on Olympus, e. g. DAp. 2ff., PAp. 186ff., Hy. 12, 4 - 5, Theogony 36 ff. The observation that these scenes are normally in the present tense helps us to elucidate some exceptional cases: for example, the variation in tenses between present and past in DAp. 2- 13 can be ascribed to the poet's choice of an Attributive scene which he then realised (as many scholars have since remarked) could not possibly occur frequently7. Similar examples are Th. 7 - 10, Hy. 19, 298. The variation in tenses in Hy. 33, 19 - 17

7 V. infra p. 17. 8 V. infra p. 12. 19f.

12 RICHARD JANKO

is caused by the ambiguous nature of St. Elmo's fire, the manifestation of the Dioscuri, which could be thought of as a present Attribute (as apparently by Alcaeus, 34 L.-P.) or a past apparition, as here after the initial hesitation. Occasionally past tenses are used for the choice by or allocation to a deity of his present sphere of activity: Hy. 14, Hy. 22; Hy. 29, 3; cf. Aphr. 9. 10. 18. 21. The verbs used are F,USa6cv, t&ioctvto, ct.aXe and Ue. The only use of past tenses in Attributes which cannot be explained in these ways is Hy. 19, 12- 13, which will be discussed below9.

Poems with no more than Attributive sections are never longer than about twenty-five lines, as of course the description could not hold its interest for longer. There is however a method available for extending the Hymn, which we find seven times (including the Hesiodic proems in our corpus): simple Attributive Hymns comprise fourteen of our thirty-five Hymns1?. The type continued to be imitated later, e. g. in Aratus' proem to his Phaenomena.

The Attributive Hymn may be extended only by the addition of a Priamel leading into a Myth. For obvious reasons we will call such a Hymn 'Compo- site'.

b) The Priamel

A Priamel is hardly ever found in the Hymns except as a bridge between Attributive and Mythic material: the exceptions will be discussed below. It is never used to introduce the poem, as in Callim. Hy. I 4ff. However, some of the Priamels are vestigial, and these are later in our list: PAp. 207 - 216, a choice offered between Apollo's wooing and the founda- tion of his oracle. Hy. 1, 1 - 5, different birth-places for Dionysus, eventually choosing Nysa (v. 8), where the myth surely begins. Aphr. 2 ff., 34ff. A remarkable case, where a condensed Priamel of the extent of Aphrodite's reign surrounds an Attributive (?) passage, describing the ex- ceptions to it. The Myth is not directly introduced by it. DAp. 19 A Priamel line is offered, but the fact of choice is then glossed over. Hy. 19, 27 ff. The song of the Nymphs about the gods and Olympus, settling on Hermes father of Pan. Th. 11 ff. The song of the Muses about the gods precedes, but does not intro- duce, the Myth of their apparition to Hesiod, which is introduced by a relative pronoun.

9 p.'9. 10 This total is obtained by omitting Hy. 8, and counting the two Hymns to Apollo, the proem

to the Erga, and the double proem to the Theogony as two Hymns.

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 13

Th. 44ff. The song of the Muses about the gods precedes, but does not introduce, the Myth of their birth, which is introduced by a relative pronoun. Th. 65 - 67. An abbreviated song of the Muses about the gods precedes the Myth of their first appearance on Olympus, which is introduced by a relative pronoun.

The extent of the Attributive passages preceding the Priamel is thus as follows: Hy. 1 unknown, PAp. 25+ lines, DAp. 18 lines, Hy. 19 26 lines, Th. A 10 lines, Th. B c.7 lines, and c.5 lines.

These lengths are reasonable for complete Attributive Hymns. In each one, instead of proceeding to the conclusion at once, the poet smoothes the transition to Myth with a Priamel or device for focussing on one particular theme. One variety of this is a song on many topics, as in Hy. 19. Even when poets may not have wished to use a Priamel, traces of one can always be found at this point. Thus the peculiar songs in the Theogony can be explained as vestigial Priamels of the song type. This is corroborated by Hy. 27 to Artemis, which closes with a song of the Muses and Graces describing the birth of Leto's children. The song could easily have been used to lead into a Myth of Artemis' birth, but instead the poet chose to bring the Hymn to its close. Compare also the song at PAp. 189ff.

Apart from the strange case of Aphr., the Priamel is found only once else- where, to modulate back from Myth to Attributes at DAp. 140ff.: unless we wish to explain the past tenses at Hy. 19, 12- 15 as a misplaced vestigial priamel, comparing DAp. 141 - 142. In Aphr. the technique is retained, but used by the poet in a startling and original manner.

c) Myth

In many Hymns the Myth follows the Introduction directly. Of thirty-five Hymns, thirteen are of this type. As we have seen, Myth may also be intro- duced by a Priamel after an Attributive passage.

We have defined Myth by its past tenses, but it may be open to a closer de- finition. Many Myths include the birth of the deity - thirteen out of twenty examples do so. One prominent feature that appears several times is the ama- zement of the onlookers, e. g. DAp. 134 ff., Hy. 19, 35 ff. In Hy. 6 Aphrodite's appearance from the sea to amazed spectators is depicted. This gives us a clue to the common element shared by all the Myths: that of apparition, of which birth is but the commonest form. Epiphanies occur in all poems where no birth is involved, except Hy. 20 to Hephaestus, who was perhaps thought too unprepossessing:

14 RICHARD JANKO

Dem. 188ff., 275ff.; PAp. 440ff.; Aphr. 81ff. (?), 173ff.; Hy. 7, 2 etc.; Th. 22 - 34, where the Muses appear to Hesiod; Th. 68ff., where the Muses appear on Olympus for the first time.

The reason for this suppletive distribution of birth and apparition is readi- ly perceived: birth is a major type of apparition, and the onlookers are equally amazed at both.

The development of the Myth may proceed unhindered by any forces of genre to whatever length the poet wishes or his audience might require. Poems with a central myth vary from 5 to 580 verses. It may well be mere chance that our two longest Hymns (Dem. and Herm.) belong to the type where the Myth starts at once after the Introduction. Even a Myth in a Composite Hymn may be short (e.g. Hy. 19, 28-47) or long (e.g. PAp. 214-544) as desired.

The study of narrative techniques within the Myth belongs with the study of epic narrative in general, and cannot be looked at here. Note however the tendency to end the Myth with the words of the god (PAp. Aphr., Hy. 7)".

d) Prolongation

At the end of the Myth a few lines may be devoted to bringing it up to the present time 12. If this passage is extended we may feel that we are returning to an Attributive passage, and there is evidence that the poets thought so too. The following list is arranged by length: Hy. 15, 7 - 8 The present bliss of Heracles on Olympus after his labours. Herm. 576- 578 The present activities of Hermes. Hy. 20, 5 - 7 The present improvements in man's comforts due to Hephaestus. Dem. 485 - 489 The present residence of Demeter on Olympus, and her bless- ings to mortals. Th. 60- 67 (The Muses' birth, followed by) their present activities on Olympus. Hy. 31, 8- 16 (The birth of Helios, followed by) his present Attributes. (Hy. 33, 7 - 17 [Birth of the Dioscuri, followed by] their Attribute, St. Elmo's fire; but owing to the nature of this phenomenon, the poet modulates back to a past tense, thus producing a unique sub-type).

1 I Cf. RICHARDSON ap. JHS 97 (1977) p. 175, who remarks that this supports the integrity of the closing lines of PAp.

12 RICHARDSON ad. Dem. 483 - 489, with a useful list of parallels. However, he incorrectly relates Prolongation to the past tenses in Attributive passages which have been shown above to be exceptional. Yet it is true that the analogy of Prolongation may account for the return to the present tense at DAp. 12, especially if we punctuate at the end of v. 11 (as he has pointed out to me in personal communication).

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 15

DAp. 140 - 164 Sly modulation to present tenses via a Priamel leads to a de- scription of Apollo's present festival on Delos. Th. 75- 104 After the Myth of the Muses' first appearance on Olympus, a modulation via a list of their names to their present Attributes.

The length of these 'Prolongations', as we shall term them, does not depend on the length of the preceding Myth. We can distinguish two types: 'short' Prolongations, in effect of not more than five lines, where the Conclu- sion of the poem is unaffected, and the 'long' Prolongations of Hy. 31, DAp. and Th. 75 - 104, where we will find a more elaborate Conclusion typical of Attributive Hymns. Long Prolongations are in fact a return to an Attributive passage after the Myth, and the poets end as if they had just composed an Attributive Hymn.

3. Conclusion

The Conclusion may contain up to three elements: a) The Salutation, xalp? or ?\lrOt (or iX'nxot, DAp. 165). b) A Prayer or Prayers, often with refe- rence to the song. c) A reference to moving on to Another Song (Poet's Task).

Where all three elements are present, this order occurs in nine out of ten examples, if we allow that xU0t takes the place of the Salutation in the Erga, and a sphragis replaces the prayer in DAp. The only exception is Hymn 29, where the salutation and prayer are inverted.

As already remarked, only Attributive Hymns or those ending in Attribu- tes tend to have a full conclusion of this sort. Nine out of seventeen such Hymns have this (excluding Hy. 12 which lacks a conclusion altogether, and Hy. 13 that has no middle), while only two of the other Hymns have such an ending (Dem. and Hy. 6). If a poem ending in Myth is given a Conclusion con- sisting of three elements, the third will be a repetition of the Salutation (Hy. 1; 18): This type of ending is not found in Attributive Hymns.

As WEISCHADLE noted, the Poet's Task is often omitted from shorter Hymns. Of Hymns under forty verses long, about thirteen have this and twelve omit it. The uncertainty is due to the difficulty of distinguishing a prayer for the song from a reference to Another Song, in such cases as oi &E nil ?onI / atit' tXiiOoptF04vo) icpfj; tFlgvfio3aGx dtot8fi; (Hy. 1, 18-19). If this is a prayer, then two longer Hymns (Hy. 1 and 7) have no reference to another song: this seems less likely. The absence of the Poet's Task from many shorter Hymns may be due to chronological factors, as these have often been thought later: but it is easy to think of other explanations.

It is very unusual to omit the Salutation: this occurs only in Dem., Hy. 24 and of course the first proem to the Theogony, where it may be supposed that Hesiod already intended to proceed from his Hymn to the Muses of Helicon

16 RICHARD JANKO

to the Hymn to the Muses of Olympus, at the end of which they receive due Salutation. Its absence in Dem. can be accounted for by supposing that the vocative in 492 serves instead, and we also notice that a vocative has just intro- duced the short Hymn 24. Note the use of two prayers of invocation in gpx?o: the imperatives here may be equivalent to the Salutation, which of course are formally imperatives. The greetings Xalps and YTXSt fulfil the same function. This is clear from the fact that they have a suppletive distribution, and from DAp. 165 - 166:

6X1' 6-y?O' i%kxoI gtv 'Aiot6Xow 'ApT?@16t t3V,

%aip?T? 6' 6gt7g raoatl ...

The phrasing suggests that the two verbs are equivalent; the choir are flattered by being addressed on the same terms as the god, in a manner most untraditional for the genre.

In the Erga xX5iOt stands in place of the usual salutation. Is this perhaps in transition to the Orphic and later usage, as seen for example at Hy. 8, 9? This seems more plausible than to suppose that the later usage is developed from the epic format for prayers as at e. g. E 115, where xXfOt precedes the deity's name in the vocative, followed by a reference to past services before the present request. It is of interest to note that these prayers are found alone (Hom. Epigr. 6 and 12M.), but they do not seem to have influenced our genre. However, the evidence of both Prayers and Hymns can be traced in the poems of Sappho (e.g. 1. 2. 5 L.-P.) and Alcaeus (34. 45. 308 L.-P.); this would repay closer analysis.

4. Notes on Particular Hymns

Having elucidated the general structure of the Hymns it remains to comment on the peculiarities of particular instances. To avoid unnecessary re- petition cross-references will be given for minor Hymns which have already been discussed. Hymn 1 to Dionysus: Of this fragmentary Hymn we possess part of a Priamel leading into a Myth of birth, together with the end of the Myth and the Con- clusion. This is enough to enable us to presume that this was a Composite Hymn; we have almost certainly lost the Introduction and about twenty lines of Attributes before the Priamel, although it is impossible to gauge how much Myth has been lost. It seems most unlikely that the Priamel resembled that at the opening of Call. Hy. 1, which is used to begin the poem. Hymn to Delian Apollo: In the light of the comparative evidence given above it should not be necessary to argue that this is an independent Hymn complete

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 17

in itself, although the contrary is still maintained by a few scholars'3. None- theless, the Hymn displays some very remarkable features, in almost every section of the poem. (i) After the Introduction the poet clumsily chose an Attributive scene incapable of narration in the present tense without absurdity. He began with present tenses in vv. 2 - 4, but then realised that the scene depicted could not happen once the gods were familiar with Apollo's appearance. Thus he switched to the past tenses of vv. 5- 10, turning the passage into something closer to the common description of a deity's first arrival on Olympus (cf. WEST on Th. 68). M. L. WEST'S suggestion'4 that this debAcle is due to the poet attempting to outdo PAp. here is plausible; there is certainly no good reason to absolve the poet from his blunder by assigning these verses to an in- terpolator 1I. In v. 12 the poet returns to the present: this is open to two expla- nations. Perhaps the poet is simply recalling that the scene was meant to be Attributive, and wants to make this clear before the close. Alternatively, RICHARDSON 16 has suggested that the return to the present here is equivalent to a Prolongation, as at Dem. 485, in preparation for the invocation of Leto. The idea that DAp. 1 - 18 could have formed a complete Hymn is appealing: compare Hymn 27 to Artemis. However, the poet was then faced with the problem that he was giving Salutation to a deity whom he had not introduced at the start. This is possible, as it is also found at Dem. 493 and Hy. 29, but we never find the original god left out. So instead of a Conclusion, the address to Leto becomes a 'trailer', which could have led straight into the Myth of Apollo's birth (note that it is placed second). But instead the poet resorts to a Priamel line (= PAp. 207).

Awkwardness is apparent even here: from the context the o' of v. 19 ought to refer to Leto, not Apollo, and the poet has to insert a vocative into the next verse to show that the latter is intended. Then, despite the Priamel line, no real choice is offered, and the fact is glossed over by a list of natural features that delight Apollo - almost a 'trailer' for the list of peaks and headlands at v. 30ff. At v. 25 ff. the poet offers to tell of Apollo's birth on Delos - a repeated 'trailer'. Finally at v. 30 the Myth begins - but this is not at once apparent. RiCHARDSON has pointed out to me'7 that vv. 30ff. are both Attributive and Mythical, >>i. e. they seem at first to expand line 29, but at the end turn out to be the list of Leto's wanderings (the asyndeton at 30 ought to indicate that it is picking up 29)<<. There seems little doubt that the poet is

13 E. g. by W. UNTE, Studien zum homerischen Apollonhymnus, Berlin 1968. For a recent chorizontic view see M. L. WEST, Cynaethus' Hymn to Apollo, CQ 1975, pp. 161 ff.

4 Art. cit. 15 So G. S. KiRK, YCS XX (1966) 167f. 16 ad Dem. 483 - 489. 17 In personal communication.

2

18 RICHARD JANKO

treating traditional elements in the genre in quite a novel manner, although opinions may vary as to his success; clearly the structure of PAp. is far more traditional, as there is no unique Salutation to Leto, a more normal and (I think) less awkward use of the Priamel, and no 'trailers'. (ii) The end of the Hymn is more competent, but structurally unique; it is somewhat similar to the second proem to the Theogony. It is interesting to note that both of these innovative poets adorn their work with a sphragis. Here the peculiarities begin at the end of the Myth: we may term what follows a Prolongation to an Attributive passage, followed by a full and unique Con- clusion. The first unique feature is the use of a Priamel to move from the Myth back to the present: 133- 139: The new-born god walked off, causing amazement etc. (Past: Myth) 140- 142: You, Apollo, wandered on Delos and elsewhere. (Past: Myth) 143 - 145: Many temples, groves etc. dear to you. (Past or present?) 146ff.: But you like Delos best of all, where ... (Present: Attributes)

The end of the Myth is carefully blurred. 140- 142 have a hint of a Priamel about them, although technically still in the Myth: an almost exact converse correspondence is found at Hy. 19, 10- 15, where in an Attributive passage the poet falls into past tenses in a description reminiscent of a priamel, a list of the god's frequent activities. The transition in tenses is then mediated through 143 - 145, where the predicative verb is left to be under- stood: cf. the same device above at vv. 30 - 44, and also Th. 75 - 79. WEST X8

has in fact suggested that a true Priamel once stood at this point, as he thinks that 143- 145 have replaced 179-180. Note the common use of the second person in Priamels, cf. Hy. 1, 1 ff.; PAp. 207 ff., which supports his idea. The use of the second person is no doubt due to the shift to the second person at the end of the Attributive passage, whence the poet would be ready for either the Salutation and Conclusion or a Priamel and Myth. Here alone the device is employed to introduce an Attributive passage.

The Conclusion of the poem is also untraditional. Not only does the poet hail the chorus of Delian girls on the same terms as Apollo (165 - 166)19, but he then abandons the usual poetic anonymity to indulge in a sphragis at some length (166- 176), in place of the prayer usual here in Hymns that end with Attributes. This is proved by the fact that he includes in the sphragis a request to the maidens to spread his fame, which is no doubt why they receive the Salutation at v. 166. At least he closes with the usual reference to another song (vv. 177- 178: 179- 181 are out of place).

18 Art. cit. 19 V. sup. p. 16.

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 19

Hymn to Pythian Apollo: the conservative structure of this Hymn requires little comment, apart from that given above in relation to DAp. On the authenticity of the ending cf. note 11. Hymn to Aphrodite: This Hymn is basically Composite, with Introduction, Attributive passage and then Myth: but the Attributive passage is remarkable in content, and the Myth is curiously introduced. After the Introduction we find what one is tempted to class an abbreviated Priamel, of the extent of the powers of Aphrodite: but instead of choosing one particular example (and thus being as untraditional as Callimachus by starting a Myth at once with a Priamel), the poet then details the three goddesses who are not subject to her, in passages resembling short Hymns - Attributive to Athene and Artemis, and a Prolonged Mythic type for Hestia (note the relative clause, v. 22). The poet then uses Ring-composition to return to the 'Priamel' theme of Aphrodite's invincibility. We now expect a detailed Mythic instance, and indeed we are told that she deceived even Zeus (36ff.). But to our surprise, this example is not extended, but diverted into an honorific mention of Hera. Then the poet stands his whole theme on its head by finally choosing as his story Zeus' revenge on Aphrodite, when he makes her feel desire! The original artistry and skilful manipulation of the audience's expectations is typical of this poet, and in my opinion more successful than that in DAp. Hymn 6 to Aphrodite: Uniquely, this Mythic Hymn has a full Conclusion. Hymn 12 to Hera: This Hymn alone has no Conclusion at all. Hymn 13 to Demeter: Only this Hymn has no middle section. Hymn 14 to the Mother of the Gods: This is an Attributive Hymn. The past tense in v. 4 is explained above, p. 11 f. It might be termed an 'Attributive' past tense, as 'has been pleased by / has been allotted' equals 'has chosen' (as Attribute). Hymn 15 to Heracles: For a Myth of birth followed by exploits, and then brought up to the present, cf. Herm. Hy. 20 is derived from this type. Hymn 19 to Pan: This is the shortest Composite Hymn that we possess. The Attributive passage continues to c. v. 30, where a Priamel 'Hymn' to Hermes is used to select the story of Pan's birth. Note that the past tense Evv*riov in v. 29 is used because the Nymphs cannot always be singing the same song; the same holds for the past tenses at Th. 7 - 1020. The song is very close to a Hymn: the god's name, epithets, verb, and then a relative ci)S, cf. Hy. 7, 2, used of a similar song at Hy. 27, 19. But instead of introducing the Myth at once the poet has to refer to Hermes' present role of divine messenger before he can launch into the past tenses of 31 ff.

The unusual feature of this Hymn is the use of past tenses in the Attributive passage at 12-15, where a list of Pan's frequent pursuits is in the

20 But cf. WEST ad lOc.

2*

20 RICHARD JANKO

past. This follows a list of his frequent pursuits in the present, introduced by dlo'r?, ... cO)ots. This is reminiscent of Priamel, and DAp. 141 - 142 is closely similar (dlXoTs ... dXXoTs, with past tenses). Perhaps the thought of the impending transition to Myth influenced the poet here. Hymn 21 to Apollo: On the opening vocative, and unique lack of a relative, see above pp. 10- 11. Hymn 22 to Poseidon: On the aorist A8aaavto see page 12. Hymn 25: The middle section is uniquely introduced by y&p. Does this show that the Hymn is merely a cento from Th. 94 -97 ? Hymn 31 to Helios: This is an interesting case of Prolongation to Attributes, introduced by a relative pronoun at v. 8 after the myth. Note that a full Conclusion follows, as if the Hymn had been Attributive. The reference to the exact subject of the next song is paralleled in Hymn 32 and of course Th. 105, cf. 33. Hymn 32 to Selene: Here a Myth of birth is tacked on to the Attributive passage by a relative pronoun (vv. 15 - 16). This is untraditional, even though Selene's own birth is not described. However, the Conclusion is a full one, as if a purely Attributive Hymn had preceded. Hymn 33 to the Dioscuri: This has an unusual structure. The Myth of birth is prolonged into an Attributive passage about St. Elmo's fire, in the present tense (vv. 6- 11), but then the poet decides that this apparition is really a case for past narration (vv. 12- 17). The shorter Conclusion accords with the classification of what preceded as Myth. Hesiod's Theogony: This displays extraordinary individuality. Nonetheless, numerous scholars have already recognised its Hymnic form, and P. FRIEDLANDER21 long since drew attention to its bipartite structure, dividing it at verse 35. This is quite correct: we will call the two parts Proem A and Proem B, vv. 1 - 34 and 36- 104 respectively. The two are joined by the unconvincing device of v. 35:

&XXdt tlrl got 'raOTa niPri 6Pt3V fj ipi 7t?1pilv;

In fact both parts are composite Hymns, the first to the Muses of Helicon, the second to those of Olympus. Proem A is uncomplicated. The Introduction (v. 1) leads by a relative pronoun into an Attributive passage describing the Muses (2- 10). The past tenses in 7- 10 are required by the fact that they cannot always be singing this particular song (cf. Hy. 19, 29). However, as FRIEDLANDER remarked, Hesiod is also envisaging the goddesses' movement down the mountain on the specific occasion when they met him. There is less awkwardness than in DAp., as there is no shift back to the present. Thus 1 do

21 Hermes 1914, pp. 1 - 16; for the extensive scholarship since then, v. WEST ad Th. I - 1 15.

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 21

not accept WEST'S assertion (ad loc.) that these past tenses are timeless, as his parallels from the Hymns have all been accounted for in other ways22.

After this the Muses sing a song covering a wide range of deities (vv. 11 - 21). We are already familiar with the song as Priamel (e. g. Hy. 19, 29ff.) for the selection of the Myth. Hesiod could not do this here, given the Myth he wished to tell, and was obliged to resort to a relative pronoun (22). The song however remains, a vestigial Priamel: compare the song at PAp. 190ff.

The poet then describes how the Muses once appeared to him, and casually tells us his name. The use of a sphragis at this point is not traditional. The Muses bid him sing the Theogony, and of themselves first and last. Reference to singing of a deity first and last occurs before the Salutation in Hy. 1 and 21, and after it in Hy. 9. Thus this bears some resemblance to a concluding formula, and is in the right place here. Of course Hesiod suppresses the real Conclusion, but we have a veiled reference to another song (the Theogony) and this closing formula. There is no Salutation, which confirms that Hesiod had already decided to continue the proem while composing these lines. Proem B is less simple, and its structure recalls DAp. But at first all is familiar - Introduction, Attributes, a song as a vestigial Priamel (more abbreviated, but introducing the idea of the generations; there is no problem over the tenses), and then the Myth of the Muses' birth introduced as usual by a relative pronoun (vv. 53 -60). At v. 60 Hesiod uses yet another relative to usher in a return to the present (Prolongation): but this is brief, as at 65 the Muses are singing again (a vestigial Priamel). Hesiod hurries past this: it is not quite as clumsy as it sounds, as singing is prominent among the Muses' Attributes. At v. 68 the poet again employs a relative pronoun to begin the Myth of their first appearance on Olympus, and how they then sang of how Zeus came to power. This song is also not entirely redundant, as we hear for the first time, after slight and vague foreshadowing at v. 66f., of the distribution of the gods' spheres of activity by Zeus. Thus despite their apparent origins as vestigial Priamels which fit in with the Attributes of the Muses, Hesiod uses these four songs for a gradual unveiling of the matter he intended his Theogony to contain. The past tenses continue to v. 75, and then there is a subtle transition back to the present via the names of the Muses, and the statement that Calliope is the eldest. From v. 80 on a long Attributive passage (Prolongation to Attributes) stretches to the Conclusion at 104 - 105, which is a full one, as we expect when Attributes have preceded. Thus Hesiod

22 The tense at Aphr. 261 can be accounted for by the influence of Th. 2 - 8 (with Th. 2 cf. Aphr. 258, which violates formulaic economy, cf. Aphr. 285: tppcx,avto transitive at Aphr. 261 is secondary to the usage of Hesiod at Th. 8, and also to that of Q 616: but note that the peculiar past tense there could indicate that this is a stereotyped usage in this verb).

22 RICHARD JANKO

reduplicates the structure of what may be termed the Prolonged Composite Hymn seen in DAp. and Th. 36 - 67. This may be represented schematically: if DAp. is y abc z, then Th. 1 - 105 is y ab z/y abcbc z. Hesiod's Erga: This is original in both Introduction (the long address to the Muses, and the lack of an epithet for Zeus, for which cf. Aratus 1), and in the use of xXi3O0I instead of a Salutation. Otherwise it is a normal Attributive Hymn23

5. Conclusion, and the prospects for further study

The purpose of this paper has been to examine the formal elements in the structure of the Homeric Hymns. Only by taking all the evidence into account can we hope to identify and evaluate what is traditional and what is less usual and therefore likely to be innovative: we can also classify the different types of Hymn that existed. Fundamental to our analysis is the distinction between Myth and Attributes, based on past versus present narration.

As so few Hymns are reliably datable, either absolutely or in relation to each other, the analysis of these traditional patterns cannot provide an indicator of date on which we may depend.

It is worth pointing out that the patterns described offer considerable flexibility and variety, and (except during a Myth) they can usually be brought to a rapid close if necessary. This indicates that they may have arisen from the pressures of oral composition, where the poets did not know that they would be able to continue singing for as long as they wish. Such uncertainty may account for the hesitant beginning of the Hymn to Delian Apollo, which could have been brought to a hasty end anywhere between v. 14 and v. 44: the poet tells us he was blind, which favours an oral origin for the poem. However,the presence of the traditional patterns that have been delineated in any particular Hymn must not be taken as evidence that it was composed orally.

The results of this study can be extended to later Greek literature in two di- rections. Firstly we may look at the development of the genre as strictly defined. The Hymns of Callimachus depart radically from the Homeric ca- nons: in particular they make no clear distinction between Mythic and Attributive material. The proem to Aratus' Phaenomena is far more traditional, recalling that of the Erga; there is no epithet for Zeus, and an invocation of the Muses, although these are untraditionally invoked at the Conclusion, and given a Salutation of their own. Theocritus XVII is strongly influenced by the traditional patterns, but there are innovatory tendencies in the reference to first and last at the beginning. The end is formalised, but again the classification of the middle causes difficulty. There is also room for

23 V. SUp. pp. Ilf.

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre 23

further study in the evolution of the Hymn towards the Orphic type, with xXi50 for the Salutation, and the middle being squeezed out by the ends, in particular by the piling up of introductory epithets, as in Hy. 28: although it might also be worth considering how much the Orphic Hymn owes to the phraseology of the prayers found in Homer, and which, along with the Hymn as here defined, clearly influenced Sappho and Alcaeus. There is plenty of scope for more work in all these fields, which it would be inappropriate to discuss at great length here24.

Of the four genres of early Greek hexameter poetry - Hymn, epic narra- tive, catalogue and didactic - the Hymn is the only one distinguished by a formal structure; indeed, it was used to provide a formal opening to each of the others25. It is also represented by the largest number of complete examples, which gave us the opportunity for this detailed analysis of the formal elements in the genre, and how they were obeyed or exploited by the poets who composed the Hymns26.

Appendix: Analyses of the Hymns' Structure

It may assist the reader to appreciate the basic types of Hymns and the place of individual poems if these are summarised in symbolic form. The following symbols are used. I = Introduction, as defined above. The number of lines (complete or incomplete) up to the first relative pronoun is given by the number following. 'm' denotes the presence of an invocation to the Muse(s). V denotes the use of a vocative (instead of a full-scale Introduction: or instead of the Salutation, in Dem). M = Myth, as defined above (Myth ending with the direct speech of the god is marked 'M'). A Prolongation to the present is marked -. If the Prolongation is so long that it affects the Conclusion as Attributes do, it is marked -A. A stands for an Attributive passage, =

for a Priamel. The Conclusion is marked off by /. The Salutation is marked x for Xalpe, i for W1x0t; the Prayer(s) are marked P, and the.reference to another song S. A reference to song in the first two is denoted by a following subscript s.

(i) Mythic Hymns (Archetype (m) IM (-) / xS; length 5- 580 vv.) Dem. I2M- /VPS S Herm. m13 M- / x S Hy. 6 12 M / x PS S (note full ending) Hy. 7 I2 M" / x S Hy. l5 II M- / x P Hy. 16 I2 M / x PS Hy. 17 mI2 M / x Hy. 18 13 M / x S x (note ending) Hy.20mIlM- /i P Hy. 26 I2 M / x P

24 cf. E. NORDEN, Agnostos Theos (1923) pp. 143 - 176. 25 For a recent discussion of this see RICHARDSON, Hymn to Demeter pp. 3 f. 26 On the Hymns see now L. H. LENZ, Der homerische Aphroditehymnus und die Aristie des

Aineias in der llias (Bonn 1975), 9 ff. and Appendix I, containing many valuable observations. On Erga I - 10, see WEST's new commentary (Hesiod, Works and Days, Oxford 1978) ad loc.

24 RICHARD JANKO: The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre

Hy. 28 I4 M / x S Hy. 31 mr2 M-A / x P S (Prolonged to Attributive) Hy. 33 m13 M-M / x S (Prolonged to Myth!)

(ii) Composite Hymns (Archetype (m) IA = M/xS; length 49- 365 vv.)

Hy. 1 (m?I A) = M / iS x (I and A lost) PAp. (m?I)A = M" / xS Aphr. mI2=A = M"/ xS Hy. 19 mI2 A = M / xS Th. A II A = M / (S PS) (vv. 1-34)

(iii) Composite Prolonged (Archetype prh. (m?) IA = M-A/xPS; length 69 - 178 vv.)

DAp. I1 A = M= A/ i sphragis S Th. B I1 A = M- =M- = A/xPS(vv. 35-105)

(iv) Attributive Hymns (Archetype (m) IA / x PS S; length 4- 22 vv.)

Hy. 9 mI2 A / x P. S Hy. 10 I1 A /x PS S Hy. 11 I2 A / x P Hy. 12 II A (x PS prh. lost) Hy. 14 mI2 A / xS Hy. 21 Vi A /x PS Hy. 22 I3 A / x P Hy. 23 I2 A / i Hy. 24 VI A / P PS Hy. 25 I1 A /x PS S Hy. 27 I3 A / x S Hy. 29 VI A /X S Hy. 30 12 A / x PS S Hy. 32 mI2 A / x S Erga mI2A /xXt3))iPS

(v) Defective Hymns

Hy. 12 I1 A (x PS prh. lost) Hy. 13 12 /x P S (A prh. lost)

The two basic types are Mythic and Attributive. The resultant blends are Composite and

Mythic Prolonged, as in Hy. 31: when these are conjoined we obtain the Composite Prolonged type.

Trinity College, Cambridge RICHARD JANKO