Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is generally acknowledged that homosexuality experienced renewed popularity as a topic of artistic investigation during the Italian Renaissance, the prevalence and purport of homoeroticism in the works of the era’s male artists have been subjects of greater speculation. This paper focuses specifically on representations of the Greek mythological figure Ganymede, whose tradition as an icon for homosexual desire can be traced back to antiquity. In my analysis of the Ganymedean iconography used by artists like Donatello and Michelangelo, I exemplify how homoerotic subtext reveals itself in Renaissance art through mythological imagery. To ground my visual analyses within the artworks’ historical context, I also refer to classical and Renaissance literature to identify contemporary ideas about love between men, which were shaped by the rise of Neoplatonism and its glorification of Greek pederasty. Identifying the homoeroticism in Renaissance illustrations of the Zeus and Ganymede myth thus upholds the latter’s status as an iconic figure in the history of queer art. More importantly, however, this paper’s analysis demonstrates that Ganymede’s iconographic function was ultimately to visually reinforce the resurrected Florentine version of pederasty and the troubling power imbalance of its lover-beloved relationship model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".