Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T00:12:14.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two rhetorical exercises on Ganymede in John Doxapatres’ Homiliae in Aphthonium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2019

Craig A. Gibson
Craig A. Gibson*
Affiliation:
University of Iowacraig-gibson@uiowa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A pair of anonymous rhetorical exercises in Greek, dating perhaps to the eleventh century, contain a refutation and a confirmation of the myth of Ganymede, in which the young Trojan shepherd is abducted by Zeus in the form of an eagle to live with him in heaven. This article analyses the opposing arguments about divinity and sexuality in the two exercises, argues that they contain a unique aetiological account of the violet, and situates them in the reception history of Ganymede.

Keywords

rhetorical educationprogymnasmatamythologyhomosexualitypederasty
Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , October 2019 , pp. 181 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I wish to thank Jeffrey Beneker, James Davidson, Eleanor Irwin, Derek Krueger, Mark Masterson, James Saslow, Steven D. Smith, participants at the 43rd Annual Byzantine Studies Conference at the University of Minnesota in October 2017 where I delivered an earlier version of this paper, and the editor and referees of this journal for their helpful suggestions and criticisms. Any remaining errors are mine.

References

1 Aphthonius, Corpus Rhetoricum, ed. Patillon, M. (Paris 2008) 112–62Google Scholar; translation in Kennedy, G. A., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta 2003) 89–127Google Scholar.

2 John Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, ed. C. Walz, II (Stuttgart 1835) 69–564. On Doxapatres’ pedagogical approach, see Hock, R. F., ‘Observing a teacher of progymnasmata’, in Hauge, M. R. and Pitts, A. W. (eds.), Ancient Education and Early Christianity (London 2016) 39–70Google Scholar. For Byzantine education more generally, see the useful overview of Markopoulos, A., ‘Education’, in Jeffreys, E., Haldon, J., and Cormack, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (Oxford 2008) 785–95Google Scholar.

3 Hock, R. F. and O'Neil, E. N., The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Classroom Exercises (Atlanta 2002) 244–57Google Scholar; Gibson, C. A., ‘The anonymous progymnasmata in John Doxapatres’ Homiliae in Aphthonium’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102 (2009) 83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For an overview of this educational system, see Penella, R. J., ‘The progymnasmata in imperial Greek education’, Classical World 105 (2011) 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Aphthonius, Corpus Rhetoricum, 120–4; Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 101–3.

6 Aphthonius, Corpus Rhetoricum, 124–6; Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 103–5.

7 On ancient and Byzantine exercises in refutation and confirmation, see Gibson, C. A., ‘True or false? Greek myth and mythography in the progymnasmata’, in Trzaskoma, S. M. and Smith, R. S. (eds.), Writing Myth: Mythography in the Ancient World (Leuven 2013) 289–308Google Scholar.

8 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 349–53, 366–9.

9 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 350 (Refutation sect. 2).

10 For brief overviews of the ancient myths of Ganymede, see Visser, E., ‘Ganymede (1)’, in Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.), Brill's New Pauly (Leiden 2006)Google Scholar. Consulted online on 27 January 2018 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e418930>; Solch, B., ‘Ganymede’, in Moog-Grünewald, M. (ed.), Brill's New Pauly Supplements I – Volume 4: The Reception of Myth and Mythology (Leiden 2011)Google Scholar Sections A-B2. Consulted online on 27 January 2018 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-8647_bnps4_e418930>. See also Davidson, J., The Greeks and Greek Love: A Bold New Exploration of the Ancient World (New York 2007) 209–46Google Scholar; Barkan, L., Transuming Passion: Ganymede and the Erotics of Humanism (Stanford 1991) 27–40Google Scholar.

11 The ἴον ‘is one of the most frequently mentioned flowers in Greek literature and is the name given to three quite different plants’ that are distinguished by their colours. No further information is given about the flower in the exercises, and so we cannot tell which plant is meant. See M. E. Irwin, ‘Evadne, Iamos and violets in Pindar's “Sixth Olympian”’, Hermes 124 (1996) 392, with discussion on 392–5; Giesecke, A., The Mythology of Plants: Botantical Lore from Ancient Greece and Rome (Los Angeles 2014) 131Google Scholar.

12 This is a unique translation of the supposed etymology from the Homeric γανύεσθαι + μήδεα (‘to rejoice in counsels’), which is first mentioned in Xenophon, Symposium 8.30, where Socrates explains that Zeus fell in love with Ganymede's soul, not his body.

13 Translations of both exercises may be found in the appendix to this article.

14 The author does not state explicitly that this was the first violet, but other Byzantine refutation and confirmation exercises focus on the famous first instance: the narcissus in -Nicolaus, Ps., Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, C., I (Stuttgart 1832) 294.10–295.33Google Scholar; the red rose in Pachymeres, George, Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, C., I (Stuttgart 1832) 557.17–561.10Google Scholar; the plane tree in Planudes, Maximus, Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, C., I (Stuttgart 1832) 609.1–614.18Google Scholar.

15 As in, for example, the debate on the relative merits of loving boys and loving women in Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon 2.38, where Menelaus asserts that the sweat of boys (produced in wrestling and sexual intercourse) smells better than the perfumes of women.

16 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 18–27 (Confirmation sect. 7).

17 Visser, ‘Ganymede’.

18 On the violet in Greek myth and culture, see Giesecke, The Mythology of Plants, 131–2; Cook, A. B., ‘Iostephanos’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 20 (1900) 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Pindar, Olympian 6.53–6. See Irwin, ‘Evadne, Iamos and violets’, 385–95.

20 Arnobius, Adversus Nationes 5.7.2–3.

21 Severus, Rhetores Graeci, ed. C. Walz, I (Stuttgart 1832) 537; for a more recent edition with Italian translation and notes, see Amato, E. and Ventrella, G. (eds.), I Progimnasmi di Severo di Alessandria (Severo di Antiochia?): Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Berlin 2009) 53–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 For a list, see Gibson, ‘True or false?’, 308.

23 On allegorical approaches to myth in the Byzantine period, see Goldwyn, A. J. and Kokkini, D. (eds.), John Tzetzes: Allegories of the Iliad (Cambridge, MA 2015) xii-xviGoogle Scholar; Cesaretti, P., Allegoristi di Omero a Bisanzio: ricerche ermeneutiche (XI-XII secolo) (Milan 1991)Google Scholar. For the ancient background, see Russell, D. A. and Konstan, D., Heraclitus: Homeric Problems (Atlanta 2005) xi-xxxGoogle Scholar.

24 Ps.-Nicolaus, Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, C., I (Stuttgart 1832) 298, 307–8Google Scholar.

25 Ovid, Metamorphoses 10.205–16 and 728–39.

26 Greek Anthology 12.221.

27 Barkan, Transuming Passion, 24.

28 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 350–1 (Refutation sect. 4).

29 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 351 (Refutation sect. 5).

30 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 351 (Refutation sect. 5). The pejorative word παιδοφθόρος (‘corrupter of boys’) replaced the positive or neutral word παιδεραστής (‘lover of boys’) in Christian discourse about pederasty. See Niederwimmer, K., The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Maloney, L. M. (Minneapolis 1998) 89 n.7Google Scholar, with further references.

31 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 351 (Refutation sect. 6).

32 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 352 (Refutation sect. 7).

33 Beyond this pair of exercises, there is no sustained discussion of the homosexual/pederastic relationship of Zeus and Ganymede in Byzantine Greek literature, and there are no extant refutation or confirmation exercises on other divine–human homosexual couples from Greek mythology for comparison (e.g., Poseidon and Pelops, Dionysus and Adonis, Apollo and Admetus, Apollo and Cyparissus). General discussions of the Byzantine reception of the ancient Greek discourse on homoeroticism, and of homosexuality/pederasty in Byzantium, are lacking. Some important studies are Pitsakis, K., ‘L'homoérotisme dans la culture byzantine: le cadre normatif et ses reflets littéraires’, in Odorico, P. and Pasero, N. (eds.), Corrispondenza d'amorosi sensi: L'omoerotismo nella letteratura medievale (Alessandria 2008) 1–29Google Scholar; Pitsakis, K., ‘Η θέση των ομοφυλοφίλων στη βυζαντινή κοινωνία’, in Maltezou, C. A. (ed.), Πρακτικά Ημερίδας. Οι περιθωριακοί στο Βυζάντιο (Athens 1993), 171–269Google Scholar; Troianos, S., ‘Kirchliche und weltliche Rechtsquellen zur Homosexualität in Byzanz’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 39 (1989) 29–48Google Scholar; Koukoules, P., ‘Τὰ οὐ Φωνητὰ τῶν Βυζαντινῶν’, Byzantinon Bios kai Politismos 6 (1955) 505–39Google Scholar.

34 On rationalizing versions of the myth, in which Ganymede is abducted by the humans Tantalus or Minos, see Davidson 671 n. 41. These stories continue to be relayed in Byzantine times, in authors including John Malalas, the Suda, George Cedrenus, and Eustathius.

35 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 367 (Confirmation sect. 2). In the twelfth century, Eustathius, in his commentary on Homer's Iliad, also lists Anchises, Boukolion, Deiphobos, Priam (even as an old man), and Hector (even as a dead man) as the most handsome men of Troy: Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, ed. van der Valk, M., III (Leyden 1979) 135Google Scholar.

36 Doxapatres, Rhetores Graeci, II, 367 (Confirmation sect. 3).

37 On conceptions of male beauty in the period, see Hatzaki, M., Beauty and the Male Body in Byzantium: Perceptions and Representations in Art and Text (New York 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Xenophon, Symposium 8.28–30; see note 12.

39 For a brief overview of the reception history of Ganymede, see Solch, ‘Ganymede’. See also the major studies of Barkan, Transuming Passion; Saslow, J. M., Ganymede in the Renaissance: Homosexuality in Art and Society (New Haven 1986)Google Scholar; Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Classical Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago 1980) 250–61Google Scholar.

40 For Ganymede riding the eagle, see illustrations in Saslow, Ganymede in the Renaissance, 24, 129, 133, 165, 181, 183, 188, 189, 191.

41 For the Greek text, see Doxapatres, John, Rhetores Graeci, ed. Walz, C., II (Stuttgart 1835) 349–53, 366–9Google Scholar. The section divisions are mine.

42 ‘Unless’: Walz has ‘if’ (εἴπερ, 351 line 12), but a negative is necessary for the sense.

43 ‘Shoo away’ (ἀπεσόβει) is the word used elsewhere for shooing away birds.

44 I.e., in the form of an eagle.

45 ‘Hare’: I emend Walz's πτῶμα (‘corpse’, 352 line 25) to πτῶκα.

46 ‘Snatched’: I emend Walz's ἀσπαζόμενον (‘greeting/kissing/embracing’, 368 line 26) to ἁρπαζόμενον. The verb ἁρπάζω, which also appears at 350 line 12, 352 line 24, 352 line 27 (compounded with ἐξ-), and 367 line 30 and 368 line 12 (both compounded with ἀνα-), suits the argument much better here, as it describes a violent, terrifying abduction, not the friendly, loving greeting or embrace of ἀσπάζομαι. Moreover, since active forms of ἀσπάζω are not to be found in Byzantine texts outside of grammatical texts and lexica, ἀσπαζόμενον is unlikely to be a passive participle (‘being greeted/kissed/embraced’), and a middle participle (‘greeting/kissing/embracing’) without an expressed object is rare. The only other instance of ἀσπάζομαι in these exercises means to ‘welcome’ (367 line 26).