Variations on the Myth of the Abduction of Ganymede Intertextuality and Narratology Polyxeni Strolonga Hellenic Open University [email protected] Abstract This article explores the verbal and the mythological intertextuality of the archaic Greek sources that relate the abduction of Ganymede and either omit or overempha- size the compensation of horses provided by Zeus to Ganymede’s father. By employing focalization, I trace the myth’s re-presentation in different narrative contexts and I investigate its reception by Hellanicus and Apollodorus. I argue that although the myth is tailored differently according to the narrative purposes of each work, its narratolog- ical function as a hortatory analepsis and a celebratory myth is consistent. Keywords Ganymede – intertextuality – narratology – Homer – reciprocity The abduction of Ganymede,* a popular story in art and literature, is men- tioned twice in the Iliad, in passages that differ significantly from each other.1 The passage in Iliad 5 (263–273) focuses on Zeus’s compensation to Tros in * I would like to thank the participants and the two organizers, Vassiliki Panoussi and Andro- mache Karanika, of the conference “Emotional Trauma in Greek and Roman Culture,” where a version of this article was first presented. I am also grateful to Deborah Lyons and David Sansone for their insightful comments. Translations are my own unless noted otherwise. 1 Provencal points out that Ganymede’s myth survives through citation only and “no complete or autonomous account of Ganymede’s abduction to Olympus exists, nor is known to have existed, in Greek literature” (2005: 90). Cf. Lucian’s Dialogueof theGods 10, a dialogue between Zeus and Ganymede after Ganymede’s abduction. For representations of Ganymede’s abduc- tion in art, see Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae 4, Ganymede nos. 7–56; Sichter- mann 1953, 1959: 10–15. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/24688487_00201007Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 04:28:37PM via free access variations on the myth of the abduction of ganymede 191 the form of the god’s own horses and alludes only briefly to the abduction. This scene deals with the special value of Aeneas’s horses, which descend from Zeus’s. The passage in Iliad 20 (230–235) provides a description of Ganymede’s abduction by the gods without reference to any compensation. The story fig- ures in Aeneas’s recitation of his genealogy. A similar treatment of the myth can be found in two passages in Apol- lodorus’s Library (2.5.9, 3.12.2) where the two parts of the story (Zeus’s compen- sation to Tros and Ganymede’s transference to Olympus) are found as well in two different mythological strands. As in Homer, Zeus’s reparation is employed as a means to illustrate the high value of horses, which in the Library’s ver- sion belong to Laomedon. These are promised to Heracles for the rescue of Laomedon’s daughter. Also like in Homer, in another section of the Library Ganymede’s abduction is incorporated in a genealogy, this time of Dardanus, and the recompense is omitted. Apollodorus’s use of the compensation theme in Hesione’s story may stem from Hellanicus of Lesbos (Troica frr. 26b–d Fow- ler), who offers the most detailed narrative of the first sack of Troy and uses as well only the compensation theme from Ganymede’s myth. The interrelation between the two parts of the story (abduction and com- pensation) can be further illuminated by two other versions of the myth. In the Little Iliad (PEG F29 = F6 Davies = F6 West) Zeus’s compensation is again the only focus of the story, but in this version it takes the form of a golden vine, instead of immortal horses. In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (202– 214), the two narrative elements are interwoven in an elaborate description of Ganymede’s abduction along with Zeus’s offer of compensation to the dis- tressed father. This article explores the mythical and verbal intertextuality of these sources in order to trace the evolution of the myth of Ganymede’s abduction and its adaptation in different narrative contexts. The focus of Ganymede’s myth in each of these sources depends on the focalizer’s emphasis either on the spe- cial value of the compensation or on the exceptional fate of Ganymede (or both). I argue that although the myth is tailored differently according to the narrative purposes of each work, its main narratological function is consistent. Regardless of the narrator’s focus, the myth serves to lend grandeur to another entity, either the descendants of Zeus’s horses (Aeneas’s or Laomedon’s) or the descendants of Ganymede: Aeneas in the Iliad, Anchises in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, and Dardanus in the Library. Ganymede’s story is employed in a genealogy of animals or people and has the function of a hortatory analepsis, which motivates a hero to perform a courageous task. These variants therefore share more similarities than mere verbal and mythical cross-references. Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 04:28:37PM via free access 192 strolonga Ganymede’s Myth as a Compensation Story In the first passage of the Iliad (5.263–273), Ganymede’s abduction is only implied in a brief reference to Zeus’s compensation: Αἰνείαο δ’ ἐπαΐξαι μεμνημένος ἵππων, ἐκ δ’ ἐλάσαι Τρώων μετ’ ἐυκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς. τῆς γάρ τοι γενεῆς, ἧς Τρωί περ εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς δῶχ’ υἷος ποινὴν Γανυμήδεος, οὕνεκ’ ἄριστοι ἵππων, ὅσσοι ἔασιν ὑπ’ ἠῶ τ’ ἠέλιόν τε· τῆς γενεῆς ἔκλεψεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγχίσης, λάθρῃ Λαομέδοντος ὑποσχὼν θήλεας ἵππους· τῶν οἱ ἓξ ἐγένοντο ἐνὶ μεγάροισι γενέθλη. τοὺς μὲν τέσσαρας αὐτὸς ἔχων ἀτίταλλ’ ἐπὶ φάτνῃ, τὼ δὲ δύ’ Αἰνείᾳ δῶκεν, μήστωρε φόβοιο. εἰ τούτω κε λάβοιμεν, ἀροίμεθά κε κλέος ἐσθλόν. but remember to rush at the horses of Aeneas and drive them away from the Trojans to the well-greaved Achaeans. For they are of that stock from which Zeus, whose voice resounds afar, gave to Tros as recompense for his son Ganymedes, because they were the best of all horses that are beneath the dawn and the sun. From this stock the lord of men Anchises stole, putting his mares to them while Laomedon knew nothing of it. And from these, six were born to him in his halls; four he kept himself and reared at the stall, and to Aeneas he gave the other two, devisers of rout. If we could take these two, we should win glorious renown. trans. Wyatt 1999 In this passage Diomedes responds to Sthenelus, who warns him that Pan- darus and Aeneas are about to attack and suggests that they flee with the chariot. Diomedes rejects the proposition and orders Sthenelus to capture Aeneas’s horses, if Diomedes defeats the two Trojans. Diomedes then explains the importance of these animals by providing their lineage. Originally, Zeus had offered them to Tros as a poinē (penalty or fine) for the abduction of Ganymede. After Tros apparently handed them to his grandson Laomedon, Anchises (Laomedon’s nephew) secretly mated his mares with the divine horses. From this mating six horses were born: Anchises kept four and gave two to his son, Aeneas. In narratological terms Diomedes’s story of the ancestry of Aeneas’s horses is an example of analepsis, “the narration of an event, which took place before Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 04:28:37PM via free access variations on the myth of the abduction of ganymede 193 the point in the story where we find ourselves” (de Jong 2001: xi).2 In this pas- sage, analepsis is actorial, provided by the character, and external, referring to events that take place outside the time limits of the main story. It has also an argument function, since it is hortatory (de Jong 2001: xii). It particularly aims to encourage Sthenelus to capture the horses (5.273), which Sthenelus eventually does (5.319–327). Moreover, the analepsis serves as a description, which, as is common in such narratives, is marked by the use of the particle γάρ (5.265). According to Irene de Jong’s definition, description marks “a passage in which features are ascribed to characters, objects, or locations,” and in the case of “explicit actorial charac- terization (in a speech),” there is “dynamic description of objects … in the form of an external analepsis, which recounts the history of an object” (2001: xiii). The lineage ascribed to Aeneas’s horses and the recollection of their ancestors’ interbreeding with Zeus’s horses explains their trait of semi-immortality.3 In Diomedes’s narration, the description and the history of Aeneas’s horses receive the form of a genealogy, which, as in the case of heroes, has a celebratory func- tion. As will be shown in the other variants, Ganymede’s myth is commonly incorporated in genealogies and it is attached to the memory of the heroic past. The abduction of Ganymede, narrowed down to the compensation given to Tros forms an embedded story. It is inserted in the main narrative and in an allusive manner, since the speaker focuses only on those aspects of the story that are important to his own message (de Jong 2001: xiii). As the focal- izer, Diomedes concentrates entirely on the value of the horses; the abduction of Ganymede is only implied in the compensation offered to his father. Zeus acts foremost as the compensator, who pays a poinē, and only secondarily by implication as the abductor.4 The role of exacting poinē for harm is usually reserved for the father of the victim or other relatives or companions, but Zeus in this atypical case offers poinē voluntarily (Wilson 2002: 30, 69n46).5 The focus turns from the abduction of Ganymede to Zeus’s payment of horses in order to demonstrate the high value of Aeneas’s horses as booty.