Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Milton, Homer, and Hyacinthus: Classical iconography and literary allusion inparadise lost 4.300-303

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Milton’s initial description of Adam atParadise Lost 4.288-303 exhibits three separate but concurrent tendencies: a commitment to depict Adam’s physical constitution as distinct from, but representative of, the divine image in which he has been made; a tendency to model Adam’s physical appearance upon Milton’s own; and a fondness for mythological references that place Adam’s appearance in a tradition of heroic beauty exemplified by his “Hyacinthin locks” (4.301). In concert, these tendencies associate Milton himself with the iconography of classical myth, while endowing the poet’s presentation of Adam with homoerotic overtones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Paradise Lost 4.288-94, in:The Riverside Milton, ed. Roy Flannagan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997). All references to Milton’s verse will be to this edition.

  2. Philip C. Almond,Adam and Eve in Seventeenth-Century Thought (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 9. See Almond 9–11, for a summary of seventeenth-century responses to the notion that “man was made in the image of God and that therefore God was shaped in the form of a man” (9).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold Williams,The Common Expositor: An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis 1527–1633 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948), 73.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Williams, 72.

  5. The Divine Weeks and Works of Guillaume de Saluste Sieur du Bartas, trans. Josua Sylvester, ed. Susan Snyder, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), vol. 1, Sixth Day of the First Week, 511–516. This passage, in turn, echoes a wide range of classical texts on the topics of “Rectus Status” and “Contemplatio Coeli,” for an overview of which see Antonie Wlosok,Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Terminologie der gnostischen Erlösungsvorstellung, Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Jahrg. 1960, 2. Abhandlung (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1960), 8–47.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anthony Nixon,The Dignitie of Man (London: Printed by Edward Allde, 1612), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. This distinction, which is “most certainly the commonest explanation of the passage in question” (Claus Westermann,Genesis: A Commentary, vol. 1:Genesis 1-11, trans. John J. Scullion [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984], 149; German original: Claus Westermann,Genesis, vol. 1:Genesis 1-11 [Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament 1.1] [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974], 206), originates with Philo (DeOpificio Mundi 69). For a condensed account of the exegetical tradition relative to “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1.26, see Westermann, 148–155 (= 204–214).

  8. Philip J. Gallagher,Milton, the Bible, and Misogyny (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1990), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gallagher, 28.

  10. Aristotle,De Partibus Animalium 656a;Historia Animalium 491b, inThe Works of Aristotle, translated into English, gen. eds. J. A. Smith and W. D. Ross, 12 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1910–1931; rpt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), vols. 5 (1912) and 4 (1910), respectively.

  11. For early modern “self-congratulation” concerning the place of humanity in the universe, see Keith Thomas,Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800 (London: Allen Lane, 1983), 31 and following.

  12. Thus John Leonard, ed.,John Milton: The Complete Poems (London: Penguin, 1998), 763 n. 300; Alastair Fowler, ed.,Paradise Lost (London: Longman, 1971), 213 n. iv.300; Scott Elledge, ed.,Paradise Lost (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), 86 n. 300, who glosses “large Front” as “broad forehead”; and Flannagan 451 n. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Flannagan, 451 n. 89.

  14. Thomas Hill,The contemplation of mankinde (London: William Seres, 1571), f. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bartolommeo della Rocca Codes,A brief and most pleasaunt epitomye of the whole art of phisiognomie, trans. Thomas Hill (London: lohn Waylande, [1556]), sig. A7v.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Physiognomica 811b, inThe Works of Aristotle (as above, n. 10), vol. 6 (1927).

  17. Johannesab Indagine,Briefe introductions, both naturall, pleasaunte, and also delectable vnto the art of chiromancy, or manual diuination, and physiognomy (London: Apud Iohannis Day [for Richarde Iugge], 1558), sig. H7r.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Physiognomica 811b.

  19. Roland Mushat Frye,Milton’s Imagery and the Visual Arts: Iconographic Tradition in the Epic Poems (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 272.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frye, 272.

  21. For a detailed study of the Princeton portrait, making the case that it is the original drawing from which Faithorne engraved his frontispiece, see John Rupert Martin,The Portrait of John Milton at Princeton and its place in Milton Iconography (Princeton: Princeton University Library, 1961). For a general discussion of the authenticity and relation between the major surviving portraits of Milton, see Leo Miller,Milton’s portraits: An Impartial Inquiry into their authentication, Milton Quarterly, special issue (Athens, OH: [s.n.], 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Francis Blackburne,The Memoirs of Thomas Hollis (London: [s.n.], 1780), 620.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frye, 271.

  24. For the text of Vertue’s account, see Joseph Milton French,Life Records of John Milton, 5 vols. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1949–1958), 5. 314–315.

    Google Scholar 

  25. John Aubrey, “Mr. John Milton: Minutes,” in: Helen Darbishire, ed.,The Early Lives of Milton (London: Constable & Co., 1932; rpt. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Samuel Johnson,Lives of the English Poets, 2 vols. (London: Dent, 1925), 1.90.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Thomas Corns,Milton’s Language (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 97.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Homer,The Odyssey, trans. A. T. Murray, rev. George E. Dimock, 2 vols., ser. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 6. 224–235 (vol. 1. 222).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott,A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 1270, s.v. “” (B) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Alfred Heubeck, Stephanie West, and J. B. Hainsworth,A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988–1992), 1. 307–308.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth 1.307.

  32. Homers Odysses. Translated according to ye Greeke by Geo. Chapman (London: By Rich. Field, for Nathaniell Butter, 1615), 94.

  33. P[atrick] H[ume],Annotations on Milton’s Paradise Lost (London: Printed for Jacob Tonson, 1695), 145.

    Google Scholar 

  34. The Odyssey of Homer, 6.273-274, in:The Twickenham Edition of the Poems of Alexander Pope, gen. ed. John Butt, 10 vols. (London: Methuen, 1967), vol. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth, 1.308.

  36. Suidae Lexicon, ed. Ada Adler, 4 vols. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1935), s.v. “ΏακίΝθλΝΟΝ”; Henri Estienne,Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, ed. C. B. Hase, W. Dindorf, and L. Dindorf, 9 vols. (Paris: A. Firmin Didot 1831–1865; rpt. Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt, 1954), s.v. “YακίΝθιΝΟΣ”

  37. Liddell and Scott, s.v. “ΏάκιΝθΟΣ,” B. II (p. 1840).

  38. See Theocritus 11.26 in:Greek Bucolic Poets, trans. J. M. Edmonds, Loeb Classical Library 28 (London: Heinemann, 1919); Euripides,Iphigenia at Aulis 1298 in:Euripides, ed. and trans. David Kovacs, vol. 6, Loeb Classical Library 495 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).

  39. Johnson 1.105; T. S. Eliot,On Poetry and Poets (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1957), 162; Stanley Fish,Surprised By Sin: The Reader in “Paradise Lost” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  40. F. R. Leavis,Revaluation: Tradition and Development in English Poetry (London: Chatto & Windus, 1936; rpt. New York: George H. Stewart, 1947), 47; Jean Hagstrum,The Sister Arts: The Traditions of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, rpt. 1987), 126.

    Google Scholar 

  41. W. J. T. Mitchell,Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stephen Orgel, “The Authentic Shakespeare,”Representations 21 (Winter, 1988), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jean Seznec,The Survival of the Pagan Gods: The Mythological Tradition and Its Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art, trans. Barbara Sessions, Bollingen Series 38 (New York: Pantheon, 1953, rpt. 1981), 17 (French original:La survivance des dieux antiques: Essai sur le rÔle de la tradition mythologique dans l’humanisme et dans l’art de la Renaissance, Studies of the Warburg Institute 11 [London: Warburg Institute, 1940, rpt. Paris: Flamarion, 1980], 20).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See, for instance, Tertullian,De Spectaculis, in: Jacques-Paul Migne, ed.,Patrologia Latina, 221 vols, in 222 (Paris, 1844–1903), 1.1.641, 643, and Saint Augustine,Enarratio in Psalmos, Psalm 96.5, inPatrologia Latina 36.1231-32.

  45. See Leonard 712, n. 4; Merritt Y. Hughes, ed.,John Milton: Complete Poems and Major Prose (Indianapolis: Odyssey, 1957), 211, n. 1–4; Fowler 41, n. i.4-5.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Flannagan 451, n. 90; Fowler 213, n. iv.301-308.

  47. Ovid,Metamorphoses, trans. Frank Justus Miller, 2 vols., ser. Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann 1925), 10. 162–219 (vol. 2.74-79).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pierre Bersuire,Metamorphosis Ovidiana Moraliter… Explanata, [facs. rpt. with “Introductory Notes”] by Stephen Orgel, The Philosophy of Images 1 (New York: Garland, 1979), sigs. k2vk3r; my translation.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Alciati,Emblemata: cum commentariis per Claud. Minoem (Paris: F. Gueffier, 1618), 61; qtd. in Leonard Barkan,Transuming Passion: Ganymede and the Erotics of Humanism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  50. George Sandys, trans.,Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished. Oxford 1632, ed. Stephen Orgel, The Renaissance and the Gods 27 (New York: Garland, 1976), 359 (italics as in Sandys).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Natale Conti [Natalis Comes],Mythologiae sive Explicationis Fabularum Libri X… [facs. rpt. with “Introductory Notes”] by Stephen Orgel, The Philosophy of Images 13 (New York: Garland, 1979), 182. Conti was one of the two major mythographic sources for Sandys’ translation of theMetamorphoses.

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. Antonio Tritonio,Mythologia [facs. rpt. with Natale Conti (see preceding note)], 26.

  53. Tritonio, 27.

  54. In my survey of commentary onParadise Lost 4.301, only Edward Le Comte has noted this possibility, remarking that “hyacinthine” may mean, “perhaps, as beautiful as HYACINTH, whom APOLLO loved” (Le C,A Milton Dictionary [New York: Philosophical Library, 1961], 152).

  55. Tritonio, 22.

  56. Sandys, 359 (italics as in Sandys).

  57. Sandys, 359 (italics as in Sandys).

  58. Colin Burrow,Epic Romance: Homer to Milton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  59. It is less probable that Homer’s ΏακίΝθλΝΟΝ άΝθΟΣ alludes to the Hyacinthus-myth. As Laurence and FranÇois Villard have noted, surviving literary references to the myth appear no earlier than Hesiod, and while the cult of Hyacinthus may be “d’origine… préhellénique” (546), its association with pederastic love appears to be of much later date (Laurence and FranÇois Villard, “Hyakinthos,”Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. Hans Christoph Ackermann and Jean-Robert Gisler, 8 vols, in 16 [Zurich: Artemis, 1981–97], 5.1.546-550). What later readers may make of Homer’s phrase is, of course, a wholly different matter.

  60. Fowler, 213 n. iv.301-8.

  61. Stella P. Revard, “Milton, Homer, and the Anger of Adam,”Milton Studies 41 (2002), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  62. John Shawcross,John Milton: The Self and the World (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1993), 55. See 33–60 for the full argument.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Recent commentators on the history of homosexuality have adopted very different views of the historical association between same-sex love and effeminacy, with Randolph Trumbach, for one, arguing that “whenever homosexual behavior surfaced at the [English] royal courts, from the twelfth to the early seventeenth centuries, it was accompanied by what contemporaries viewed as markedly effeminate behavior” (“London’s Sodomites: Homosexual Behavior and Western Culture in the Eighteenth Century,”Journal of Social History 11 [Winter, 1977], 11) and Alan Bray replying that effeminacy was “associated with luxurious living and sexual vice in general” (Homosexuality in Renaissance England [London: Gay Men’s Press, 1982; rpt. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995], 135). In the present instance, however, we are dealing with the more specific case of the child’s role in a man-boy relationship-a role whose gender ambiguities are arguablysui generis.

  64. For the debt to sacred iconography, see Fowler 213, n. iv.303, who in turn cites Cartari and Panofsky to support the point.

  65. Sandys, 359 (italics as in Sandys).

  66. On this aspect of “Lycidas,” see Bruce Boehrer, “‘Lycidas’: The Pastoral Elegy as Same-Sex Epithalamium,”Transactions and Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America 117.2 (March, 2002), 221–236; for the homoerotic character of “Epitaphium Damonis,” see Stephen Guy-Gray,Homoerotic Space: The Poetics of Loss in Renaissance Literature (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gregory W. Bredbeck,Sodomy and Interpretation: Marlowe to Milton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 197.

    Google Scholar 

  68. C. S. Lewis,A Preface to “Paradise Lost” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 112–113.

    Google Scholar 

  69. See Bredbeck, 213–229.

  70. Revard,34.

  71. Claude J. Summers, “Milton, John,” in:The Gay and Lesbian Literary Heritage: A Reader’s Guide to the Writers and their Major Works, from Antiquity to the Present, ed. Claude J. Summers (New York: Henry Holt, 1995), 489.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Michel de Montaigne,The Complete Essays of Montaigne, trans. Donald Frame (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958), 138; French original: Michel de Montaigne,Les Essais. Publiés d’après l’exemplaire de Bordeaux par Fortunat Strowski, vol. I (Bordeaux: Imprimerie Nouvelle F. Pech, 1906; rpt. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1981), 242–243.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Montaigne 138.

  74. I argue this point a length in “Animal Love in Milton: The Case of the ‘Epitaphium Damonis’,”ELH 70 (2003), 787–811.

  75. James M. Saslow,Ganymede in the Renaissance: Homosexuality in Art and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 23.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Francis Blessington,“Paradise Lost” and the Classical Epic (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), 1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Florida State University, William Johnston Bldg., 32306, Tallahassee, FL

    Bruce Thomas Boehrer

Authors
  1. Bruce Thomas Boehrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boehrer, B.T. Milton, Homer, and Hyacinthus: Classical iconography and literary allusion inparadise lost 4.300-303. IJCT 13, 197–216 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856293

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856293

Keywords

Search

Navigation