ABSTRACT While the abduction of Ganymede was traditionally associated with Zeus’ erotic desire and with the boy’s subsequent role as cupbearer to the gods, Virgil’s treatment of the episode in the Aeneid leaves these elements unstated. This article argues that such silence might respond to a set of pressures already present in ancient engagements with this myth. By situating Virgil’s account against its Homeric background, post-Homeric literary developments, philosophical critiques in authors such as Plato, Xenophon, and Cicero, and ancient philological debates on the text of the Iliad, the study reconstructs the range of meanings that may have been available to Virgil and his contemporary readers. His approach thus emerges as a strategic response to the theological and genealogical stakes involved in this myth, particularly their implications for Aeneas and Roman origins.
Stefano Cianciosi (Tue,) studied this question.