Timeo deos et dona ferentes:
The Perils of Divine Gifts in the Homeric Hymns

                 Polyxeni Strolonga (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

It is a well established notion in Greek literature that the divine and human realms are separate with communication between them established mainly through the appropriate exchange of “services”. Mortals honor the gods (e.g. through hymns, gifts or sacrifices) and the latter grant (it is hoped) the wishes of the former (Burkert, 1985, 189). However, the gifts that the gods offer, although usually granted with good intention, are not always positive for the mortal recipients. In this paper I therefore focus on two types of perilous gifts presented in the Homeric Hymns to Aphrodite, Demeter and Apollo, specifically gifts that seem beneficial for humans but ultimately are not and those that although beneficial are not perceived as such by humans. In these poems, the poets not only point out the limitations of mortal capacity to comprehend  divine gifts but also  offer a response to this problem by describing the successive reciprocal relationship that is established when the gods offer gifts that satisfy the pragmatic needs of the mortals. 

For instance in the Hymn to Aphrodite, Ganymedes and Tithonos are granted immortality and live together with their divine partners; a gift initially presented as a blessing.  However, their life is marked by pain as Ganymedes is for ever separated from his father and submits to Zeus as if he is a servant. Similarly, due to Eos’ carelessness, Tithonos is not given the accompanying gift of eternal youth and his body withers. Therefore the seemingly positive immortality granted is in both cases later associated with death or destructive loss. On the other hand, in the Hymn to Demeter, Demeter’s attempt to immortalize Demophon is perceived by Metaneira as an attempt at murder. In the Hymn to Apollo, the Cretans also do not initially see the blessing of priesthood of Apollo and express to the god their concerns about the land unfit for harvest. In both cases mortals are called foolish for not fully understanding what they are offered (2.256-8, 3.532-3).

In these examples, we see the communication between mortals and immortals being problematic, with the mortals misunderstanding the gods’ intentions. However, in the end the gods manage to make offers that do in fact address their needs. Aphrodite offers Anchises another type of immortality through procreation (Aineias; Smith (1989), 7) as does Demeter for Demophon by means of eternal fame. Finally, Apollo offers the priests honor for serving him but also satisfies their mortal needs by promising food without toil (Miller (1986), 103). Over all, humans are not ready for some types of gifts and thus the gods sometimes have to revise their standards to accommodate mortals, a fact which underlines the gulf between gods and mortals.  At the same time, the gods’ willingness to revise their standards shows that that gulf is not absolute and unbridgeable.