The Yijmn to Delos responds in many ways to the preceding hymn (Haslam 1993:117). There Artemis, here Apollo again (AfjXov, ’A7rôX,X,covoç, 2; AfjXoç ô’ ’AtiôXXcûvi, 24). There a narrator presented as prolix, his hymn feigning its end several times, here a non-ironised narrator w ho begins with a striking question to himself, and frames the
whole song as a deliberation (i.e. as a sort o f beginning. Artemis is systematically
marginalised in H.4, and the narrator o f H.4 should be seen in terms o f Artemis against ApoUo, as weU as in relation to the narrator o f H.3.
After the àoi86ç o f the Hymn to Artemis (cf. H.3.1), we read in H.4 OoîPov ocoiSoccov
|X£6éovxa (5). Mineur (1984:55) objects to Mair’s (1955:85) translation o f àoiSàcov as “minstrels”, com menting that nothing suggests the masculine here, so that “songs” m ust be right (though citing the possible paraUel o f Xenophanes F6.4D -K for àoiôàœv as “minstrels”). But there might be a deliberate ambiguity here, given the attention in the opening lines to the narrator, and the subsequent:
œç M ohaai xov àoiôôv ô pii nigTcXEiav aeicrri
exGougiv, TCÛÇ 4>oîpoç ÔTiç AiqA-oio X,a0r|Tai. (7-8)
This in itself echoes the final Unes o f H.3 on no t incurring the anger o f Artemis, and in the light o f the less-than-perfect narrator o f her hymn, and her treatm ent in H.4, we might w onder about the aUegiance o f the àoiôôç there and here — to 0ot(3ov
àoiôâcûV pEÔ ÉO V TO Cp
In any case, the account o f ApoUo’s birth in H.4 seems to airbrush Artemis out o f
the myth. Leto is described as if she was to bear only ApoUo (ouvekoc pouvr)/ ZtivI
TEKEÎV tipeX^e (piXaiTEpov ’'ApEoç u ia, 57-8), and suffers greatly in chUdbirth, neither
o f which squares with:
fjai gE M oipai
YElVOpévTlV TO TCpcOTOV E7CEKA,11pC0aav à p flY E lV , oT T i pE K a l T iK T o n o a K a l oùk TjA,T|YT|CE ( p é p o u a a
à X X ocpoYTjTi (piXcov ocTceGiiKaTo y'oicov. (H.3.22-5)
This alludes to Artemis as Eileithyia, and to the tradition that, born on the day before Apollo, she assisted at his birth (cf. D.L.ii.44). But Leto in H.4 has no assistance from Artemis or Eileithyia. Instead, the DeHades sing the ’EXeiGuiriç lEpov péXog (H.4.257). The precocious Artemis-child o f H.3 (5, 72) is outdone by her brother,
w ho not once but twice prophesies ex utero at H.4.88-98 and 162-95. The narrator’s
question in 24 - r i 6è axi(3apa)Tepov ëpKoç;, and his exclamation xoîoç oe PoriGôoç àpcpiPéptiKEv in 27, imply that Artemis’ Ephesus, a topic near the end o f H.3, is not so well-defended as Delos (cf. ’E(pécyou yàp àEi xEà to ^ a TipÔKEixai, H .3.258), for aU that péa HuGiova TcapéXGoi (H.3.250). Furtherm ore one o f Artemis’ cult-names, OuTtiç (cf. H .3.204, 240) is appropriated as the name o f one o f the original DeHades (H.4.292), and where Artemis appears in H.4, it is in a simile at 228ff. But she is no t
even the topic o f comparison, but appears peripherally as the owner o f the dog to
w hom Iris is compared. Mineur (1984:137) discerns her, well hidden, in xà ZTivôç...x£Kva at H.4.111, which only serves to confirm her unim portance in the hymn. Some, however, have seen her in the final farewell:
iaxirj œ vtictcoveùéctxie, %aîpE pcv aùxri,
Xaipoi Ô’ ’A;côXXcov xe Kal t^v èXoyEuqaxo Anxœ. (325-6)
Thus the paradosis seems to bid farewell to “she w hom Leto bore”, i.e. Artemis.
Given her absence in the rest o f the hymn, this has been suspected, and emended away, the best suggestion being W üamowitz’s i^v EXo/Eticao Arjxd) (followed by Pfeiffer’s text; “...y aqueUa, Leto, a la que tu, Delos, asististe”, Femandez-GaHano 1976-80:400 ad Xo%EUopai). But Mineur, uncom fortable with the rapid changes o f
subject, suggests following Verdenius {apud McKay 1962b:169 with n.3; McKay
suggests Artemis as the midwife) and keeping the text as it stands, translating “and
may Apollo fare well and Leto, w hom he [my itahcs] deHvered”, because in H.4
Apollo him self “w ithout help from Eileithyia or anybody else ‘jum ped forward’ from L eto’s w om b.” (Mineur 1984:252). W e can extend this insight — the ambiguous
phrasing o f the final lines alludes to Artemis, but has ApoUo usurp his sister’s
Into this background fits the narrator, not presented as prolix and a subject for self- irony as in H.3. The Archaic and lyric models used in H .4 are correspondingly not used to satirise the narrator, but to draw attention to his difference from that o f H.3. The style is m uch m ore lively and engaging, as dem onstrated by the treatm ent o f places Leto visits. This is invested with m ore variety than the catalogue o f Leto’s wanderings at H H 3.30-44. Callimachus does not merely list the places, but places Iris on Mimas (67, m entioned in the catalogue at HH3.39) as a guardian, and describes the flight o f towns, hills and rivers (cpEuye pèv ’ApKaSirj, cpeuyev Ô’ ôpoç iepov Auyrjç/ napGÉviov, (peûyev...., 70-5). W hen the nymph MeHa, at the sight o f Helicon shaking u%6%Xoov EO%E TuapEiiiv/ tjliKog aoG paivouaa TCEpi ôpuôç (80-1), the narrator intervenes “out o f his concern for MeHa” (Mineur 1984:118) by asking the Muses a question about the relationship between nym ph and oak. This em otional involvement is characteristic o f the hymn, and further enhvens the account o f Leto’s wanderings. The question to the Muses is foUowed by A pollo’s first speech from the womb, and his condem nation o f Thebes (88-98), the narrator’s challenge to Hera (106ff), and the scene o f Leto and Peneios (see below).
The contrast with the style o f H.3 can also be brought out by the different purpose to which slowing the narrative and surprising the audience are put in H.4.228ff. Iris has excused herself for having failed to prevent Asteria from offering Leto assistance (218-227). There then follows a lengthy simile (228-232), where Iris is com pared to a hunting-dog o f Artemis, ever ready to receive the call o f the goddess. But this section is extended further — Iris never forgets her seat, even w hen sleeping (233-4), but sleeps by the throne with her head bent (235-6). N or, we are told, does she loose her girdle or hunting-boots in case Hera gives her a com m and (237-9). Then, at last, after 12 Hnes “o f frustrating interlude” (McKay 1962b: 163) H era repHes. Why the delay? McKay (1962b: 162) thinks the audience anticipates H era’s punishm ent o f Asteria, and CaUimachus is striving for suspense. But what foUows the long characterisation
o f Iris is real surprise that Hera does n ot delay Leto further — in the Homeric Hymn to
Apollo her labour lasts èvvfjpap te Kai èvvéa vuKtaç (91), to which the narrator there
devotes Hnes 91-114. Leto’s travails are only eased w hen Iris fetches Eileithyia to
Delos. H ence in CaUimachus the concentration on the scene prepares the audience for further delay, which does not materiaUse, ApoUo’s birth foUowing swiftly on the
end o f H era’s speech at 249ff., and so ultimately forms a replacement for the delaying o f the birth. But this play with audience and m odel does n ot underm ine the narrator.
O ur attention is drawn to the narrator at the very opening o f the hymn:
Tf|v leptiv, Ü) GupÉ, xiva xpovov -j-TiTToxf aeiaeiq AfjXov, 'ATToXXcovoq Koupoxpocpov; (1-2)
While postponing the god’s name until the second line in a hexameter hymn is unconventional (Mineur 1984:49, Janko 1981:9), m ore remarkable still is the self
apostrophe o f the narrator (no similar opening in the other Hymns, nor the Homeric
Hymns). Mineur (1984:49) objects to the suggestion o f Giangrande (1968:58-9) that this is a pointed imitation o f Pindar’s 0.2.89 Gupé* xiva and N .3.26 Gnpé, xiva
because “elsewhere in Delos the part Pindar plays as a source o f reference is rather
restricted” and “the com bination o f words is in fact rather meaningless.” But Mineur bases this view o f Pindaric reference principally on the use o f lyric vocabulary (1984:22), and an opposition to attempts to see a lyric structure in H.4 (1984:8-9), which leads him to ignore the context and function o f the self-apostrophe. W hüe
there is perhaps no direct reference to a particular passage in Pindar, there is the
prom inent use o f a Pindaric technique. Pindar addresses him self at the beginning o f a poem at 0 .1 .4 (piXov fjxop, 0.9.6ff. (imperatives), 0 .1 0 .Iff. (imperative), and can question him self about the subject o f a song (0.2.89-90 — “Gupé, at w hom do we shoot?”, N.3.26ff. — “Gupé to w hat headland are you driving?”).
The address to the ’Ava^Kpôppiyyeç upvoi in 0 .2 .Iff. and the subsequent questions about w hat god, hero and man to sing about combine these usages. T he address approaches self-apostrophe, and again concerns the selection o f a subject for song.
T hat this device was particularly prom inent in Pindar is indicated by the nature o f
narratorial self-apostrophes in other Archaic poets: Archilochus F128 (to Gupé, teUing him self to resist foes), Theognis 213-4, 695-6, 877-8, 1029-36 (to Gupé,
possibly the addressee o f the poem rather than poet, with advice), Ibycus F317(b)
(“always, 6 cpiXe Gnpè, as the long-winged purplebird” — context unclear), Simonides fr.eleg.21.3 (\(/D%[Ti], possibly to addressee, declaring “I cannot be your watchful guardian”). Significantly none o f these other self-apostrophes comes in the context
o f the selection or control o f material for a poem or narrative, b u t o f advising the Gnpôç.
The self-address immediately focuses attention on the narrator, and points him up as autonom ous, not requiring to ask the god hymned or the Muses for inspiration. Even w hen he turns to ask the Muses a question, he describes them w ith a possessive pronoun:
èjial Geai. eÏTcaTE M ohoai,
fj p’ èxEÔv èyévovTo xoxe 5pueç fiviKa Nupcpai; (82-3)
This claim o f ownership o f Muse being invoked is w ithout precedent (so Mineur
1984:118). The closest paraUel is Pindaric: 6 icoxvia M obaa, paxep otpexépa (N.3.1),
and CaUimachus may intend a simUar claim o f kinship. The question to the Muses, foUowed by their answer in 84-5 (Mineur 1984:117), reminds the reader o f the
structure o f Jietia 1 -2. Even if the Yiymn to Delos was originaUy written before A.etia 1 -
2, a coUected edition o f the Hj/nns would have come after it. If the narrator o f Æ tia
1-2 was “CaUimachus” , the narrator o f H.4 is thus also associated, for a reader o f the
Hymns as a coUection, with “CaUimachus”. Though such a persona could be
underm ined and treated ironicaUy (especiaUy in the Iambi — see 3.5.1 below), it is
perhaps one reason here for the m ore straightforward treatm ent o f the narrator. It is also consistent with, though hardly impUes, perform ance at a Museum occasion such
as that suggested by Mineur (H.4 as genethliakon 1984 passim, rightly criticised by
Griffiths 1988:231).
The relatively autonom ous narrator thus portrayed is mitigated to a certain extent by the framing o f m ost o f the hymn as a deUberation (so H arder 1992:387, with com ments on how this resolves the problem o f the narrator’s omniscience), again o f
the sort often found at the beginning o f a poem (compare the endings o f H.3, in
particular its priamel-like catalogue at 259-68):
el ôè Xirjv TroXéeg ae Tcepixpoxocoaiv àoiôal, TTolri èviTcXé^co ae; xi xoi Gnpfjp^? ocKobaai; TI cbg XÙ Tcpœxiaxa péyaç Geôç oupea Geivcov ocopi xpiyXœxivi...
eivaA-iaç elpyot^eTo (28-32)
The rest o f the hymn follows on from this question about w hether (ii cbç) to sing about the fixing o f the islands. This parallels HH3.25ff. (Harder 1992:387 n.l5), where the narrator asks Apollo whether he should tell o f Leto giving birth to him on Delos:
Tl cbç C5E TlpCOTOV Arjtcb TÉKE, %àp\ia ppOXOÎCTl..,
Lines 19-29 o f the Homeric Hymn to Apollo “dramatize a process o f poetic decision
making” (Müler 1986:23). In H H 3, however, there is a stronger sense o f starting the
narrative by going back to the beginning, after the question has been put to the god.
Lines 30ff., following the question, begin as a catalogue o f peoples (occouç Kpi^TTi x
èvxôç E%Ei, 30), but by 45 have become a catalogue o f places (xoaaov eti’ œSivonaa 'EKr|pôX,ov ÏKETO Arjxœ, see Miller 1986:32-3), but in any case take us back to Leto’s wanderings, the beginning o f the narrative. The sense that the question has been answered and the narrative selected is strong. The return to the start is also apparent in the similar selection o f song later in H H3, at 207ff., where again the narrator asks ApoUo how to sing o f him, introducing the narrative chosen thus:
Ti d)C TO T t p w T o v x p r j a x t i p i o v ocv0pd);iQicTi
^TjXEUcov Kaxà yociav ëpriç, ÉKcxxriPôX,’ ’'AtcgA-Xov; (214-5)
The next Une takes us to Pieria, the beginning o f ApoUo’s travels (FIiEpiTiv pèv Trpcüxov, 217). In H.4, however, the narrative foUows cUrectly on the question, w ithout returning to the beginning, as if it was stiU part o f the question itself:
vép0E Ôè Ttàoaç
ÈK vEocxcûv œx^iocTE [sc. Poseidon] Kal ElaEKuXiOE 0aXcxaaTi;
Kal xàç pÈv Kaxà Puoctôv, ïv’ TiTCEipoio Xà0covxai,
7tpnpv60Ev Èppl^cocTE' aè ô’ oûk e0X,i\|/ev àvàyKTj... (32-35)
The question, and the narrative o f Poseidon’s fixing o f the islands, continues through
Kal xàç pèv (34), which is balanced by cyè 5’ (35), which begins the narrative o f ApoUo’s birth on Delos. Many priamels, however, have a m uch sharper break
between potential subjects and that chosen. The catalogue o f T heban glories on
which Thebe is questioned at Pindar \.l.init. is broken o ff oXKh noXoxa yocp/ ebSei
Xàpiç (16-17), and praise o f the victor foUows instead. The blurring o f the distinction between the deliberative question and the selected narrative seems designed to structure the rest o f the hymn as a deUberation. Such a strategy in H .4 has a paraUel in Pindar’s framing o f m uch o f P.3 as the apodosis o f a counterfactual conditional
(what Pindar m uld pray for, if it were right (2-3), cf. Y oung 1968:28-33).
A part from the opening self-apostrophe, and the deUberation in 28ff., attention is kept on the narrator in the opening section o f the hymn through a first-person promise to give Delos her share o f song (àTuoôàcyaopai, 9) to gain praise (for pe, 10) from ApoUo, and the rhetorical question in 24 and exclamation in 27 (quoted above) which portray the narrator as a praiser o f Delos, and, m ore obUquely, ApoUo. Indeed the encomiastic function o f the narrator is m ore expUcit in H.4 than in any other o f the Hymns, as the longest Ptolemaic passage in the Hymns (165-90) indicates, predicting the birth o f PhUadelphus on Cos, the Celtic attack on Delphi, and the Celtic rebeUion against PhUadelphus. This may explain in part why the narrator is not comprehensively undercut in the manner o f H.3.
Scholarship is also put to a different purpose in H .4 as com pared to H.3. Parentheses such as that on the old name o f Lipare at H .3.47-8 were peripheral to the main narrative, but even such elements in H.4 as the parenthesis about Samos — gutcco yotp erjv Zàpoç (49), and the etymology o f Delos in 52ff. are “central” — foUowing
naturaUy in a Hymn to Delos from singing about how Poseidon made the islands in the
sea (30ff.), with a narrative set so long ago that even ApoUo has n o t yet been bom . But this aetiological and etymological lore is n o t so m uch a typicaUy HeUenistic display o f erudition as part o f the m ore serious dimension to HeUenistic interest in aetia and local myths and heroes, which could form a link between the present and a splendid past (Cairns 1979:13, Zanker 1987:16). The etymologies above, and in particular the closing section o f the hymn on m odem DeUan ritual (275-324), are m eant to emphasise the links between the mythic and HeUenistic Delos. Pointing up a connection between past and present need not coincide with a DeUan connection for the first perform ance o f the hymn, particularly as it seems to build on the final
festival with a chorus o f Arj^iàSeç etc.). But it provides a m ore plausible explanation for the final section than M ineur's suggestion that the rites connect to H.4 as a
birthday poem (the àpcpiereîg ôc7rap%ai, 278, referring to the usual birthday-gifts sent
to the Ptolemies, the rites o f passage o f the Delian youths, 269ff, and sailors, 316ff. as relating to Callimachus as a fresher in the M useum etc.. Mineur 1984:222), part o f a misguided general programme to relate as m uch as possible in the hymn to its original performance (see 3.2.3 above).
As in H.3 from 72ff., after an opening in er-Stil, there is almost constant apostrophe in H.4 from 27ff, where the narrator addresses AfjA,e cpiX,r| in an exclamation about her protector. This emotional employment o f apostrophe is a marked feature in H.4, marking the narrator out as m ore involved with his narrative than Homeric or
Homeric Hymn narrators (though the H omeric narrator does occasionally apostrophise characters, see 2.3.4 above). It also plays a m ore central role in the structuring o f the poem than in H.3 — the successive addresses to Delos form the framework o f the story (Mineur 1984:6-7), and mark the different stages o f the song. There is also m ore variety in addressee and purpose than in H.3 — there only Artemis was addressed, here (in addition to the opening self-apostrophe), we have Delos, the Muses, Hera, and the oblique optative farewell to Leto and ApoUo in 326 (and see below for the quasi-narratorial address by ApoUo to PhUadelphus at 188ff).
In the address at 106ff. to H era there is a marked accusatory tone:
"HpTj, (TGI 5’ ETI Tfjpoç CtVr|^££C f|TOp EKEITO
otiSè KocTEKlacGrig te Kal œKTiaaç. f^viKa tutixeiç
àpcpoTÉponç opEyonoa pàTTjv ècpGéy^aTo Toîa...
This in itself is unusual, as an apostrophe generaUy indicates narratorial sympathy