The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre Author(s): Richard Janko Reviewed work(s): Source: Hermes, 109.

Bd., H. 1 (1981), pp. 9-24 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of 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'

havetended Previousstudiesof the HomericHymnsas literarydocuments to concentrate on their functionin relationto the longerepic poemsthat they mayhave introduced,whileneglectingthe formalelementsthat composetheir structure,although these have been studied in relationto the proem of the The view and WILAMOWITZ2. Theogony by such scholarsas FRIEDLANDER as a genreis widelyheld, e. g. by that the Hymnscan readilybe distinguished RICHARDSON3, without a close scrutiny of how the Hymns resemble one anotherand how they differ. The need for such scrutinyhas recentlybeen in his similar work on Pindar: he refers to an pointed out by HAMILTON4 which distinguished the unpublished study by THOMAS WEISCHADLE following strongnorms in the Hymns: a) In the first line we find the name of the god, an attribute, and the invocationverb. b) The nameof the god is alwaysin the accusativeand occursfirstin the line, if possible; if not, adjustmentsare made so that it appearsas 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) Veryshort poems tend not to have a Poet's Task at the end, whereaslong
Hymns do.

e) The sections before and after the 'myth' remain relativelyconstant no matter how long the whole hymn (except for very long Hymns where the 'myth' is a definite story as opposedto generaland summaryremarks).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. CASSOLAis less certain, Inni Omerici, p. ix. 4 HAMILTON, Epinikion, p. 113.

10

RICHARDJANKO

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 WEISCHADLEappear 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 WEISCHADLEsays, 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.

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

11

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 WEISCHADLE 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 and summary remarks<, but does not elaborate. In fact it is vital to >>general 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

RICHARDJANKO

is causedby the ambiguousnatureof St. Elmo'sfire, the manifestation of the Dioscuri,whichcould be thought of as a presentAttribute(as apparently by Alcaeus, 34 L.-P.) or a past apparition,as here after the initial hesitation. Occasionally past tenses are used for the choiceby or allocationto a deity of his presentsphereof activity:Hy. 14, Hy. 22; Hy. 29, 3; cf. Aphr.9. 10. 18. 21. The verbsused are F,USa6cv, and Ue. The only use of t&ioctvto, ct.aXe past tenses in Attributeswhich cannot be explainedin these ways is Hy. 19, 12- 13, whichwill be discussedbelow9. Poems withno morethan Attributive sectionsare neverlongerthan about twenty-fivelines, as of course the descriptioncould not hold its interestfor longer. Thereis howevera methodavailablefor extendingthe Hymn, which we find seven times (includingthe Hesiodic proems in our corpus): simple AttributiveHymns comprisefourteenof our thirty-fiveHymns1?.The type continuedto be imitatedlater, e. g. in Aratus'proem to his Phaenomena. The AttributiveHymnmay be extendedonly by the additionof a Priamel leadinginto a Myth. For obvious reasonswe will call such a Hymn 'Composite'.
b) The Priamel

A Priamelis hardlyever found in the Hymnsexceptas a bridgebetween Attributiveand Mythicmaterial:the exceptionswill be discussedbelow. It is neverused to introducethe poem, as in Callim.Hy. I 4ff. However,some of the Priamelsare vestigial, and these are laterin our list: PAp. 207 - 216, a choice offered betweenApollo's wooing and the foundation of his oracle. Hy. 1, 1 - 5, different birth-placesfor Dionysus, eventuallychoosing Nysa (v. 8), wherethe myth surelybegins. Aphr.2 ff., 34ff. A remarkable case,wherea condensedPriamelof the extent the exof Aphrodite'sreign surroundsan Attributive (?) passage,describing ceptionsto it. The Myth is not directlyintroducedby it. DAp. 19 A Priamelline is offered, but the fact of choiceis then glossedover. Hy. 19, 27 ff. The song of the Nymphsabout the gods and Olympus,settling on Hermesfatherof Pan. Th. 11ff. The song of the Musesaboutthe gods precedes,but does not introto Hesiod, whichis introduced duce,the Mythof theirapparition 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 abbreviatedsong of the Musesabout the gods precedesthe Mythof their first appearance on Olympus,which is introducedby a relative pronoun. The extent of the Attributivepassages precedingthe 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 reasonablefor complete AttributiveHymns. In each one, instead of proceedingto the conclusionat once, the poet smoothesthe transitionto Myth with a Priamelor device for focussingon one particular theme. One varietyof this is a song on manytopics, as in Hy. 19. Even when poetsmay not havewishedto use a Priamel,tracesof one can alwaysbe found at this point. Thus the peculiarsongs in the Theogony can be explainedas vestigialPriamelsof the song type. This is corroborated by Hy. 27 to Artemis, which closes with a song of the Muses and Graces describingthe birth of Leto's children.The song could easilyhave been used to lead into a Myth of Artemis' birth, but instead the poet chose to bring the Hymn to its close. Comparealso the song at PAp. 189ff. Apart fromthe strangecase of Aphr., the Priamelis found only once elsewhere,to modulateback from Mythto Attributesat DAp. 140ff.: unless we wish to explain the past tenses at Hy. 19, 12- 15 as a misplacedvestigial priamel,comparingDAp. 141- 142. In Aphr. the techniqueis retained,but used by the poet in a startlingand originalmanner.

c) Myth

In many Hymnsthe Myth follows the Introduction directly.Of thirty-five Hymns, thirteenare of this type. As we have seen, Mythmay also be introducedby a Priamelafter an Attributivepassage. We have definedMythby its pasttenses, but it may be open to a closer definition. ManyMyths includethe birth of the deity - thirteenout of twenty examplesdo so. One prominentfeaturethat appearsseveraltimesis the amazementof the onlookers,e. g. DAp. 134ff., Hy. 19, 35ff. In Hy. 6 Aphrodite's fromthe sea to amazedspectatorsis depicted.This givesus a clue appearance to the commonelementsharedby all the Myths:that of apparition,of which birth is but the commonest form. Epiphaniesoccur in all poems where no birthis involved,exceptHy. 20 to Hephaestus,who was perhapsthoughttoo
unprepossessing:

14

RICHARDJANKO

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 readily 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 blessings 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).
1I 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 description 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 Conclusion 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 reference 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 Attributes 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 consisting 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 icpfj; tFlgvfio3aGx dtot8fi; (Hy. 1, 18-19). If this nil ?onI / atit' tXiiOoptF04vo) 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

JANKO RICHARD

to the Hymn to the Musesof Olympus,at the end of whichthey receivedue Salutation.Its absencein Dem. can be accountedfor by supposingthat the vocativein 492 servesinstead,and we also noticethat a vocativehasjust introducedthe shortHymn 24. Note the use of two prayersof invocationin gpx?o: here may be equivalentto the Salutation,which of courseare the imperatives fulfil the samefunction. formallyimperatives.The greetingsXalps and YTXSt and from This is clear from the fact that they have a suppletivedistribution, DAp. 165 166:
6X1' 6-y?O' i%kxoI gtv 'Aiot6Xow 'ApT?@16t t3V,
%aip?T? 6' 6gt7g
raoatl

...

The phrasingsuggests that the two verbs are equivalent;the choir are flatteredby beingaddressedon the same termsas the god, in a mannermost untraditional for the genre. In the ErgaxX5iOt standsin placeof the usualsalutation.Is this perhapsin transitionto the Orphicand later usage, as seen for exampleat Hy. 8, 9? This seemsmore plausiblethan to supposethat the later usageis developedfrom the epic formatfor prayersas at e. g. E 115, wherexXfOt precedesthe deity's name in the vocative, followed by a referenceto past servicesbefore the presentrequest. It is of interestto note that these prayersare found alone our genre. (Hom. Epigr.6 and 12M.), but theydo not seemto haveinfluenced and Hymnscan be tracedin the poems However,the evidenceof both Prayers of Sappho (e.g. 1. 2. 5 L.-P.) and Alcaeus (34. 45. 308 L.-P.); this would repaycloser analysis.

4. Notes on Particular Hymns

Having elucidated the general structureof the Hymns it remains to reinstances.To avoid unnecessary of particular commenton the peculiarities will be given for minor Hymnswhich have already petition cross-references been discussed. Hymnwe possesspartof a Priamel Hymn 1 to Dionysus: Of this fragmentary leadinginto a Myth of birth, togetherwith the end of the Myth andthe Conclusion. This is enough to enable us to presumethat this was a Composite and about twentylines Hymn; we have almost certainlylost the Introduction beforethe Priamel,althoughit is impossibleto gaugehow much of Attributes that at Mythhas beenlost. It seemsmost unlikelythatthe Priamelresembled the opening of Call. Hy. 1, which is used to begin the poem. evidencegiven above Hymn to Delian Apollo: In the lightof the comparative to arguethat this is an independent Hymncomplete it shouldnot be necessary

The Structure of the HomericHymns:A Studyin Genre

17

in itself, althoughthe contraryis still maintainedby a few scholars'3.Nonetheless, the Hymn displayssome very remarkablefeatures, in almost every sectionof the poem. (i) After the Introduction the poet clumsily chose an Attributive scene incapableof narrationin the presenttense without absurdity.He began with presenttenses in vv. 2 - 4, but then realisedthat the scenedepictedcould not happen once the gods were familiar with Apollo's appearance.Thus he switchedto the past tenses of vv. 5- 10, turningthe passageinto something closer to the common descriptionof a deity's first arrivalon Olympus(cf. on Th. 68). M. L. WEST'S WEST suggestion'4that this debAcleis due to the poet attemptingto outdo PAp. here is plausible;thereis certainlyno good reasonto absolvethe poet from his blunderby assigningthese versesto an into the present:this is open to two explaterpolator 1I. In v. 12 the poet returns nations. Perhapsthe poet is simplyrecallingthat the scene was meant to be Attributive, and wants to make this clear before the close. Alternatively, 16has suggestedthat the returnto the presenthere is equivalent RICHARDSON to a Prolongation,as at Dem. 485, in preparation for the invocationof Leto. The idea that DAp. 1 - 18could have formeda completeHymn is appealing: compareHymn 27 to Artemis. However, the poet was then faced with the problemthat he was givingSalutationto a deitywhom he had not introduced at the start. Thisis possible,as it is also found at Dem. 493 and Hy. 29, but we neverfind the originalgod left out. So insteadof a Conclusion,the addressto Leto becomes a 'trailer', which could have led straight into the Myth of Apollo's birth(note that it is placedsecond). But insteadthe poet resortsto a Priamelline (= PAp. 207). Awkwardness is apparent even here: fromthe contextthe o' of v. 19 ought to referto Leto, not Apollo, and the poet has to inserta vocativeinto the next verseto show thatthe latteris intended.Then, despitethe Priamelline, no real choiceis offered, and the fact is glossedover by a list of naturalfeaturesthat delight Apollo - almost a 'trailer' for the list of peaks and headlandsat v. 30ff. At v. 25 ff. the poet offers to tell of Apollo's birth on Delos - a repeated'trailer'.Finallyat 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 asyndetonat 30 ought to indicatethat it is picking up 29)<<. There seems little doubt that the poet is
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. 161ff. 4 Art. cit. 15 So G. S. KiRK,YCS XX (1966) 167f. 16 ad Dem. 483 - 489. 17 In personal communication.
2
13

18

RICHARD JANKO

treatingtraditionalelementsin the genre in quite a novel manner,although of PAp. is far more opinionsmay vary as to his success;clearlythe structure traditional, as there is no unique Salutationto Leto, a more normal and (I think) less awkwarduse of the Priamel,and no 'trailers'. unique; it is (ii) The end of the Hymn is more competent, but structurally somewhatsimilarto the second proem to the Theogony. It is interestingto note that both of these innovativepoets adorn their work with a sphragis. beginat the end of the Myth:we maytermwhatfollows Herethe peculiarities a Prolongationto an Attributivepassage,followedby a full and uniqueConclusion. The first unique feature is the use of a Priamelto move from the Myth back to the present: 133- 139: The new-born god walked off, causing amazementetc. (Past: Myth) 140- 142: You, Apollo, wanderedon Delos and elsewhere.(Past: Myth) 143- 145: Manytemples,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 Priamelabout them, althoughtechnicallystill in the Myth: an almost exact is found at Hy. 19, 10- 15, wherein an Attributive conversecorrespondence passage the poet falls into past tenses in a descriptionreminiscentof a priamel,a list of the god's frequentactivities.The transitionin tensesis then mediatedthrough 143- 145, wherethe predicativeverb is left to be underX8 stood: cf. the same deviceabove at vv. 30 - 44, and also Th. 75 - 79. WEST as this he thinks at point, has in fact suggestedthat a true Priamelonce stood that 143- 145 have replaced179-180. Note the common use of the second personin Priamels,cf. Hy. 1, 1ff.; PAp. 207ff., whichsupportshis idea. The use of the secondpersonis no doubt due to the shift to the secondpersonat the end of the Attributive passage,whencethe poet wouldbe readyfor either the Salutationand Conclusionor a Priameland Myth. Here alone the device is employedto introducean Attributivepassage. Not only does the poet The Conclusionof the poem is also untraditional. hail the chorusof Deliangirls on the same termsas Apollo (165- 166)19,but he then abandonsthe usualpoetic anonymityto indulgein a sphragisat some length(166- 176), in placeof the prayerusual here in Hymns that end with a request Attributes.Thisis provedby the fact that he includesin the sphragis to the maidensto spreadhis fame, which is no doubt why they receive the to anothersong Salutationat v. 166. At leasthe closeswith theusualreference (vv. 177- 178: 179- 181 are out of place).

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

The Structure of the HomericHymns:A Studyin 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. 11f. 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*riovin 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 2*

But cf. WEST ad lOc.

20

RICHARDJANKO

past. This follows a list of his frequentpursuitsin the present,introducedby dlo'r?, ... cO)ots. This is reminiscentof Priamel, and DAp. 141- 142 is
closely similar (dlXoTs
...

dXXoTs, with past tenses). Perhaps the thought of

the impendingtransitionto Myth influencedthe poet here. Hymn21 to Apollo: On the openingvocative, and uniquelack of a relative, see above pp. 10- 11. Hymn 22 to Poseidon: On the aorist A8aaavto see page 12. Hymn25: The middlesection is uniquelyintroducedby y&p. Does this show that the Hymn is merelya cento from Th. 94 -97 ? caseof Prolongationto Attributes, Hymn31 to Helios: This is an interesting introducedby a relative pronoun at v. 8 after the myth. Note that a full The reference to the Conclusionfollows, as if the Hymnhad beenAttributive. in Hymn32 andof courseTh. 105, exactsubjectof the next song is paralleled cf. 33. Hymn 32 to Selene: Here a Myth of birth is tacked on to the Attributive eventhough passageby a relativepronoun(vv. 15- 16). Thisis untraditional, Selene'sown birthis not described.However,the Conclusionis a full one, as if a purelyAttributiveHymn had preceded. The Mythof birthis Hymn33 to theDioscuri:This has an unusualstructure. prolonged into an Attributivepassageabout St. Elmo's fire, in the present is reallya case tense(vv. 6- 11), but thenthe poet decidesthatthis apparition for past narration(vv. 12- 17). The shorter Conclusion accords with the classificationof what precededas Myth. individuality.Nonetheless, Hesiod's Theogony:This displaysextraordinary numerous scholars have already recognised its Hymnic form, and P. FRIEDLANDER21 long since drew attention to its bipartite structure, dividingit at verse35. Thisis quitecorrect:we will call the two partsProemA and Proem B, vv. 1 - 34 and 36- 104respectively.The two are joined by the unconvincing device of v. 35:
&XXdt tlrl got 'raOTa niPri 6Pt3Vfj ipi 7t?1pilv;

In fact both partsarecompositeHymns,the first to the Musesof Helicon, the secondto those of Olympus.ProemA is uncomplicated. The Introduction (v. 1) leads by a relativepronouninto an Attributivepassagedescribingthe Muses (2- 10). The past tenses in 7- 10 are requiredby the fact that they cannot always be singingthis particularsong (cf. Hy. 19, 29). However,as FRIEDLANDER remarked, Hesiod is also envisagingthe goddesses'movement down the mountainon the specificoccasionwhen they met him. Thereis less awkwardness than in DAp., as thereis 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 - 115.

The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre

21

not acceptWEST'S assertion(ad loc.) that thesepast tensesare timeless,as his parallelsfrom the Hymnshave all been accountedfor in other ways22. After this the Muses sing a song covering a wide range of deities (vv. 11- 21). We are alreadyfamiliarwith the song as Priamel(e. g. Hy. 19, 29ff.) for the selectionof the Myth. Hesiod could not do this here, given the Mythhe wishedto tell, and was obliged to resortto a relativepronoun(22). The song howeverremains, a vestigial Priamel: comparethe song at PAp. 190ff. The poet thendescribes how the Musesonceappeared to him, andcasually tells us his name. The use of a sphragisat this point is not traditional.The Musesbid him sing the Theogony,and of themselvesfirstand last. Reference to singingof a deity firstand last occursbeforethe Salutationin Hy. 1 and 21, and after it in Hy. 9. Thus this bears some resemblanceto a concluding formula, and is in the rightplace here. Of course Hesiod suppressesthe real Conclusion,but we have a veiled referenceto anothersong (the Theogony) and this closing formula.Thereis no Salutation,whichconfirmsthat Hesiod had alreadydecidedto continuethe proem while composingthese lines. ProemB is less simple, andits structure recallsDAp. Butat first all is familiar - Introduction,Attributes,a song as a vestigialPriamel(more abbreviated, but introducingthe idea of the generations;there is no problem over the tenses), and then the Myth of the Muses' birth introducedas usual by a relativepronoun (vv. 53 -60). At v. 60 Hesiod uses yet anotherrelativeto usherin a returnto the present(Prolongation):but this is brief, as at 65 the Musesare singingagain(a vestigialPriamel).Hesiod hurriespast this: it is not quite as clumsy as it sounds, as singing is prominentamong the Muses' Attributes.At v. 68 the poet again employs a relativepronoun to begin the Myth of their first appearance on Olympus,and how they then sang of how Zeuscame to power. This song is also not entirelyredundant,as we hear for the first time, after slight and vague foreshadowingat v. 66f., of the distributionof the gods' spheres of activity by Zeus. Thus despite their apparentoriginsas vestigialPriamelswhich fit in with the Attributesof the Muses, Hesiod uses these four songs for a gradualunveilingof the matterhe intendedhis Theogonyto contain. The past tensescontinueto v. 75, and then thereis a subtletransitionback to the presentvia the namesof the Muses, and the statementthat Calliope is the eldest. From v. 80 on a long Attributive passage(Prolongationto Attributes)stretchesto the Conclusionat 104- 105, whichis a full one, as we expectwhenAttributeshave preceded.ThusHesiod
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

RICHARDJANKO

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 instead of a Salutation. Otherwise it is a normal Attributive use of xXi3O0I 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 directions. Firstly we may look at the development of the genre as strictly defined. The Hymns of Callimachus depart radically from the Homeric canons: 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

furtherstudy in the evolution of the Hymn towards the Orphictype, with xXi50 for the Salutation,and the middle being squeezedout by the ends, in particular by the piling up of introductory epithets, as in Hy. 28: althoughit might also be worth consideringhow much the Orphic Hymn owes to the phraseology of the prayersfound in Homer, and which, along withthe Hymn as here defined, clearly influencedSappho and Alcaeus. There is plenty of scope for more work in all these fields, which it would be inappropriate to discussat greatlength here24. Of the four genresof early Greekhexameterpoetry - Hymn, epic narrative, catalogueand didactic - the Hymn is the only one distinguishedby a formalstructure;indeed, it was used to providea formalopeningto each of the others25. It is also representedby the largest number of complete examples, which gave us the opportunityfor this detailed analysis of the formalelementsin the genre, and how they were obeyed or exploitedby the poets who composedthe Hymns26.
Appendix:Analysesof 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 the Prayer(s) are marked P, and the.reference to another song S. A reference to song in the W1x0t; 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 / x PS S Hy. 6 12 M (note full ending) Hy. 7 I2 M" / x S Hy. l5 II M- / x P / x PS Hy. 16 I2 M / x Hy. 17 mI2 M / x Hy. 18 13 M Sx (note ending) Hy.20mIlM/i P / x P Hy. 26 I2 M
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'snew commentary (Hesiod, Works and Days, Oxford 1978) ad loc.

24

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

/ x S Hy. 28 I4 M Hy. 31 mr2 M-A / x P S S Hy. 33 m13 M-M / x

(Prolonged to Attributive) (Prolonged to Myth!)

(ii) Composite Hymns (Archetype (m) IA = M/xS; length 49- 365 vv.) Hy. 1 (m?I A) = (m?I)A = PAp. Aphr. mI2=A = Hy. 19 mI2 A = II A = Th. A M / M" / M"/ M / M / iS x xS xS xS (S PS) (I and A lost)

(vv. 1-34)

(iii) Composite Prolonged (Archetype prh. (m?) IA = M-A/xPS; length 69 - 178 vv.) DAp. Th. B I1 A = M= A/ i sphragis S I1 A = M- =M- = A/xPS(vv.

35-105)

(iv) Attributive Hymns (Archetype (m) IA / x PS S; length 4- 22 vv.) Hy. 9 Hy. 10 Hy. 11 Hy. 12 Hy. 14 Hy. 21 Hy. 22 Hy. 23 Hy. 24 Hy. 25 Hy. 27 Hy. 29 Hy. 30 Hy. 32 Erga mI2 A I1 A I2 A II A mI2 A Vi A I3 A I2 A VI A I1 A I3 A VI A 12 A mI2 A mI2A / x P. S /x PS S / x P (x / xS /x PS / x P / i / P PS /x PS S / x S S /X / x PS S / x S /xXt3))iPS PS prh. lost)

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

JANKO RICHARD