Kinyras: The Divine Lyre

  Franklin, John Curtis. 2016. Kinyras: The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies Series 70. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

Appendix G. Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’

The pointedly non-divine status of Curio and Amaruco (both sons of Cinaras), and a second, younger Cinaras (son of Curio) definitely segregates these figures. That this relates precisely to Agapenor’s expulsion of the royal line from Paphos is shown by Lusignan’s continuous account, later in the Chorograffia, of “those who have dominated Cyprus.” Here the historian, after discussing Pygmalion and Paffo, states that “Cinara followed next in the kingdom; and other of their descendants; and they held royal power for around 300 and some years.” [30] Probably this three-century interval covers not Cinaras’ own descendants, [31] but the entire dynasty from Pygmalion down to a generation or two after the Trojan War. [32] In any case Lusignan, with no mention of Adonis, immediately goes on to Agapenore who “banished from the kingdom the kings who had descended from the gods”; they “moved to the city of Curias and reigned there and in other Cypriot cities.” [33] That these exiles are Curio and Cinaras II is clear from Lusignan’s account elsewhere of their foundations. [34] The conspicuous omission of Adonis here is of a piece with Lusignan’s statement, in the earlier entry dedicated to Curio, that this son of Cinaras “succeeded to the kingdom of his father” and founded Kourion “to make himself a name.” [35] These scattered passages, when reassembled like this, show clearly that Lusignan at one point envisioned a dynastic sequence Cinaras > Curio > Cinaras II.

There is obviously some artifice here. Curio/Koureus was probably never more than a cardboard eponym that Lusignan mined from Herodian or Stephanos. The younger Cinaras, Curio’s heir, must also be concocted. But several justifications were ready to hand. First, the distinction in Boccaccio/Bustron between an Assyrian and Cypriot Cinyras could have suggested that this was a recurring, even dynastic name. [38] Second, Ovid’s Cinyras must have seemed quite different from Pliny’s, who was a metallurgical inventor, and son not of Paphos but ‘Agrippa’ (sic). [39] Faced with this, Lusignan preserved the metallurgical Cinaras but wished to discard Pliny’s problematic paternity. [40] This was necessary if Cinaras II were to continue the royal line, an idea that I believe was motivated by a desire to accommodate insular tradition. For it is this same Cinaras II whom Lusignan credits with further crafts not found in Pliny; he associates these arts with—quite unexpectedly—Tamassos and Lapethos, where, he says, they were still practiced. [41] This appeal to present conditions strongly suggests that local craftsman maintained professional traditions about Kinyras. Of course they would have insisted that this was the Kinyras. Lusignan, I propose, harmonized his models’ Ovidian account with Cypriot tradition by creating Cinaras II, thus accommodating two seemingly different figures while side-stepping Pliny’s ‘Agrippa’. Note too how Cinaras II, as the end of the royal line, maintains Kinyras’ traditional position as a kind of cultural terminus.

If it seems incredible that Kinyras could have survived so long in Cypriot folklore, consider that fourteenth- and fifteenth-century travelers were entertained with remarkable variants on the Trojan War cycle, whereby Paphos became the site of Helen’s abduction and the gathering of the expedition against Troy. [42] Recall that Kinyras himself had featured in episodes of the Trojan cycle. [43] Such memories are consistent with the long-lasting impact of pagan cult on the island’s Christian landscape. Many basilicas and churches were built on or near ancient sanctuaries. [44] The Cypriot goddess was sometimes fused with Mary as the Panaghia Aphroditissa. [45] Lusignan himself alludes to signs that reverence for the old goddess still lingered. [46] Stones of the sanctuary at Old Paphos were still anointed in the name of the Panaghia, along with other fertility rituals, as late as the 1890s. [47] Comparable are the island’s rag-bushes, often associated with wells or pools believed to have healing properties, that are adorned by women wishing for husbands or babies, and those who are ill and have sick children or relatives. [48] The best known is at Petra tou Romiou near Old Paphos, where the ancient goddess was given by the foam. These great rocks, in one medieval tradition, were interpreted as missiles against the Saracens, thrown by the legendary Digenes defending his Queen—‘Righena’, a ubiquitous figure of Cypriot folklore who inherited many features of the island’s goddess. [49] But Aphrodite’s traditional birth endures at Chrysorogiatissa, whose monks have a legend that their sacred image of the Virgin was carried to Paphos by the waves. [50]

Could some of Lusignan’s unique Kinyras material derive from Xenophon, if not directly—the historian knew little about him—but via some earlier interaction of written and oral tradition? Local lore might well have preserved the name of a famous Cypriot ‘historian’, philosopher, and perhaps teacher of Strabo.


[ back ] 1. For convenience I use the French form that appeared with his Description. In fact he was christened Jacques, and assumed the name Étienne/Stephanos upon entering the Dominican order. He is ‘Estienne’ in the Italian Chorograffia. For this and the following details of his life, see G. Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:iii–xiv, rendering obsolete the remarks of HC 3:1147.

[ back ] 2. Lusignan normally uses ‘Cinara’ (Chorograffia) or ‘Cinare’ (Description). ‘Cinaras’, though found in but a single passage of the Description (p. 224a), can hardly be a typographical error: it reveals the historian’s mind at work, and I have adopted it to help differentiate Lusignan from his predecessors (see below).

[ back ] 3. See p325–326, 360–362, 452–453, and 547.

[ back ] 4. For both texts, Papadopoulos 2004.

[ back ] 5. For ancient analogs, see p337 and n3.

[ back ] 6. Chorograffia pp. 123a–124 (§610–611).

[ back ] 7. The first Cypriot settler is Cethin/Kittim—eponym of Kition in the Table of Nations. See Chorograffia p. 2 (§1), p. 10 (§15), cf. p. 28a (§157), p. 35 (§180), Description pp. 1–1a, p. 39a.

[ back ] 8. Quotation: HC 3:1147. As an illustration, Lusignan envisioned a 140-year period of early Argive (sic!) dominance, beginning in 1572 with the island’s capture by ‘Crassus’ (presumably the Krias(s)os of [Apollodoros] Library 2.1.2 and Eusebios’ Chronicle [1:177 Schoene]) from the Assyrians who had conquered it in the time of ‘Nino’ (Ninos). See Chorograffia p. 12a (§22), p. 27 (§47), pp. 19a–20 (§67, Pygmalion), p. 35a (§180); Description pp. 37a–38.

[ back ] 9. For instance ‘Agrippa’ for probably Argiope/Agriope (see p325 and n24)—unless this is a type-setting error.

[ back ] 10. Chorograffia p. 91 (§608), “per non generare fastidio alli animi delli Lettori.”

[ back ] 11. Herodian, Lentz Gramm. Gr. 3.1 pp. 200.2 and 358.19; Stephanos of Byzantium s.v. Κούριον; Chorograffia p. 17 (§43), p. 19a (§66), p. 20a (§71); Description p. 38a. That Lusignan knew Courio from Stephanos is likely since he also has the story of ‘Calcenore’ (Khalkanor) at Idalion (Chorograffia p. 16a [§42]), for which Stephanos is the only authority I know (for the episode, see p339).

[ back ] 12. Lusignan has no knowledge of Marieus, another son of Kinyras according to Stephanos s.v. Μάριον. While he might have taken Curio from Herodian (200.2 and 358.19), he does not cite Herodian’s testimony that Kinyras’ mother was Ἀμαθοῦς (242.34; cf. Stephanos s.v.). Similarly, Stephanos cites Hellanikos (FGH 4 F 57) for the idea that Pygmalion founded Καρπασία (s.v.), whereas Lusignan confesses that he has no knowledge about this ancient site (Chorograffia p. 12 [§20]), nor is he aware of the further material about ‘Cinaria’ (i.e. Κινύρειον) in Stephanos’ entry (for which see p547n3).

[ back ] 13. Solomon 2011:ix–x.

[ back ] 14. For Bustron’s prominent public career, and the date and character of this work, see Grivaud’s introduction, pp. vii–xii.

[ back ] 15. The name appears in Bustron p. 12 as Thedosio (A) or Theodotio (Paris). Mas Latrie saw here a corruption of Tolomeo, since Bustron had just stated that he would follow Ptolemy’s geographical sequence. But Boccaccio and ‘Theodontio’ are among the authorities listed in Bustron’s preface (p. 7).

[ back ] 16. Bustron p. 12.

[ back ] 17. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.51; Bustron p. 14. The idea derives from ps.-Lactantius Placidus: see p281n7.

[ back ] 18. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.269 (Ex hoc autem Cynara Cyprio preter scelus unum non habemus); Bustron p. 14 (‘Di questo Cinara ciprio non havemo altro che una sola sceleratezza’).

[ back ] 19. Lusignan’s insular focus explains why he does not mention an Assyrian Cinaras.

[ back ] 20. See Chorograffia pp. 19a–21 (§67–76) and p. 35a (§180). An erroneous translation of the latter passage in SHC 10:48 has Lampsacio take Pygmalion’s place in emigrating to Cyprus and founding the royal line: caveat lector.

[ back ] 21. Cinaria appears in his list of Cypriot cities at Chorograffia p. 6 (§4); cf. p. 17 (§43), “Cinaria era città fabricata da Cinara … non sappiamo il luogo, dove l’habbia fabricata: & se di quella sia più vestigio, & che fusse città Plinio la testificata.” At p. 20a (§72) the name is given as ‘Cinerea’; is the second e a relic of the Greek spelling Kinýreia (see p454), or just a typographical error? Étienne is otherwise consistent in rendering Greek υ as Italian i: e.g. Cipro/Κύπρος, Ciro/Κῦρος, Cirenaica/Κυρηναϊκή, etc.

[ back ] 22. Genealogy of the Pagan Gods, Preface 1.4–5, 10 (trans. after Solomon).

[ back ] 23. Chorograffia p. 28a (§157): “Re Dei … li popoli erano quasi costretti di riverire & adorare essi semidei,” etc.

[ back ] 24. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.55: “There was therefore an Adonis, King of Cyprus and husband of Venus, who I think was taken from Venus by a boar or some other death, because in imitation of her tears the ancients had a[n] annual custom of lamenting the death of Adonis.” Cf. Chorograffia p. 20a (§69–70, 73), Description p. 39. This idea was not without ancient parallels (for Servius Auctus on Vergil Eclogues 10.18, see p513–515), although Lusignan’s assertion that ‘Mirra’ was pardoned and returned to Cyprus with Adonis is unique.

[ back ] 25. See p350n74, 361, 558n11 .

[ back ] 26. The text reads “il Dio d’Amore Curio.” Cupid is obviously missing, cf. Lusignan’s discussion at pp. 20a–21 (§74–75). This makes Curio the first figure not qualified as “Dio.”

[ back ] 27. Chorograffia p. 19a (§66).

[ back ] 28. See Chorograffia p. 19a–20 (§67). According to Clement of Alexandria, Pygmalion’s statue was of Aphrodite herself (Exhortation 4.57.3, citing Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 13).

[ back ] 29. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 3.45; Arnobius Against the Pagans 6.6. Cf. Chorograffia p. 20a (§74) and above p222n15, 474.

[ back ] 30. Chorograffia p. 35a (§180): “Seguitò poi nel Regno Cinara, & altri loro descendenti, & tennero quel regno in circa 300. & tanti anni.”

[ back ] 31. So the translation of SHC 10:48.

[ back ] 32. The early chronology at Chorograffia p. 35a (§180) presents several conflicting dates, whether Lusignan’s own faulty calculations, typesetting errors, or both. The archaic conquest by ‘Crassus’ and the Argives is dated to 1572 BCE, and lasted ca. 140 years, i.e. to ca. 1432. Pygmalion’s date of 1459 must therefore be his birth, his Cypriot conquest imagined at the age of ca. 28. Since Lusignan dates the Trojan War to 1166, and at Description p. 213a makes the interval between Pygmalion and Troy 336 years, it seems clear that the 300+ years (and “they held royal power”) must refer to the entire line of Pygmalion down to a generation or two beyond Troy, enough to accommodate Curio and Cinaras II (see below). Yet at Description 224a Cinaras II is dated to 1000 BCE, well past the Trojan War. Perhaps this reflects Cinyras’ 160-year lifespan in Pliny (Natural History 7.48.154), near the passage about the Cypriot king’s discovery of copper (which Lusignan knew). In any event, the various data seem somewhat incoherent.

[ back ] 33. Chorograffia p. 35–36 (§180).

[ back ] 34. Chorograffia p. 7–8 (§9–10), p20a (§71–72).

[ back ] 35. Chorograffia p. 20a (§71): “Curio … successe nel Regno del padre, & per farsi nominare fabricò due città [i.e. ‘Curi’ and ‘Corinea’].” Compare also p. 8 (§10), where Curio’s foundation is mentioned and he is called “brother of the god Adonis,” but there is no attempt to clarify the regnal situation.

[ back ] 36. For Amaruco, see p331–332.

[ back ] 37. Description p. 38a: “Curion, fils du Roy Cinare, bastist … deux villes … Curi, & Corinee, les habitans desquelle l’ont nombré au rang des Dieux. Cinare, fils de Curion, qui estoit fils de Cinare, succeda à son pere aux villes de Curi & Corinee, & edifia d’abondant ceste autre, nomme (sic) de son nom Cinarie: des habitans desquelles il a esté aussi mis au rang des Dieux.”

[ back ] 38. See p559n17.

[ back ] 39. But note that the original was perhaps Kinyras’ mother (if Argiope/Agriope): see p325n24.

[ back ] 40. Chorograffia p. 20a (§72): “Questo Cinara … alcuni dicono, che era fligliuolo di Agrippa; ma di qual Agrippa non sappiamo.”

[ back ] 41. See p325–326.

[ back ] 42. Ludolf of Suchen (after 1350): SHC 8:169; John Adorno (1470): SHC 8:173. For these passages, see p348 and n62.

[ back ] 43. See p1, 343–345.

[ back ] 44. Kypris:228.

[ back ] 45. Frazer 1914 1:36; Kypris:228.

[ back ] 46. Description pp. 92–92a: “Mesme de nostre temps sa memoire n’est encore abolie,” etc.

[ back ] 47. Hogarth 1896:179–180; Frazer 1914 1.36.

[ back ] 48. The exact number of rag-bushes is naturally unknown. Durrell 1959:47 saw one in Keryneia that Turkish Cypriots hung with votives. Grinsell 1990 collected nine examples. Aupert 2000:37 adds the grotto of Ayia Varvara (Amathous).

[ back ] 49. Kypris:136, 10, 73, 228–229; cf. Karageorghis 1998:123.

[ back ] 50. Hogarth 1896:179–180; Frazer 1914 1.36.

[ back ] 51. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103. For this argument, see p360–362.

[ back ] 52. Note that ca. 1564 he engaged in archaeological investigation of tombs at Kouklia and Limassol: Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:v.

[ back ] 53. See the overview in Constantinides and Browning 1993:11–38.

[ back ] 54. Cf. Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:vi: “D’autres liens avec le monde orthodoxe peuvent être avancés puisque Jean, frère aîné d’Étienne, intègre le clergé régulier orthodoxe au couvent d’Antiphoniti et, au titre de hiéromoine, se présente à l’élection pour le siège épiscopal de Solia.”

[ back ] 55. Chorograffia p. 17 (§45, referring to Strabo 14.6.3): Liminea era città, secondo Strabone mediteranea (sic); & si deve dar fede à Strabone, perche fù discepolo di Xenofonte Filosofo, & Historico Cipriotto; similarly Description p. 33a.

[ back ] 56. Chorograffia p. 19a (§66), p. 22 (§87), “Xenofonte filosofo & historico: ma di che luogo, & quando fù non ritroviamo; però fù di Cipro.”

[ back ] 57. Description p. 42a: “Xenofon, Philsophe & Historiographe Salaminien, a esté precepteur de Strabon Historiographe & autres, & a escrit quelques oeuvres.”

[ back ] 58. Strabo 14.5.4.

[ back ] 59. The same reservation would apply to Xenophon of Lampsacus, on whom Strabo drew.

[ back ] 60. Suda s.v. Ξενοφῶν· Κύπριος, ἱστορικός. Κυπριακά· ἔστι δὲ καὶ αὐτὰ ἐρωτικῶν ὑποθέσεων ἱστορία περί τε Κινύραν καὶ Μύρραν καὶ Ἄδωνιν (= FGH 755).

[ back ] 61. Suda s.v. Ξενοφῶν, Ἀντιοχεύς, ἱστορικός. Βαβυλωνιακά· ἔστι δὲ ἐρωτικά. Then: Ξενοφῶν, Ἐφέσιος, ἱστορικός. Ἐφεσιακά· ἔστι δὲ ἐρωτικὰ βιβλία ιʹ περὶ Ἁβροκόμου καὶ Ἀνθίας· καὶ Περὶ τῆς πόλεως Ἐφεσίων· καὶ ἄλλα.

[ back ] 62. Rohde 1914:371–372; Lavagnini 1950:145–147; Kudlien, RE 18/2 [1967]:2058.

[ back ] 63. Diogenes Laertios 2.59.

[ back ] 64. See the overview of Cameron 2004:90–93 for ἱστορία as covering “historical, geographical, mythological, or even scientific information” (quoting D. Russel), with a mythographic sense coming to predominate in early Imperial times. Cf. Lightfoot 1999:257 and 261: “One would very much like to know how Myrrha’s sinful passion for her father was treated in the romance by Xenophon … Did it alter the relationship so that it was no longer incestuous? Did it rationalize it or mitigate it in some way? Did it domesticate Myrrha in the same way the Ninus romance domesticates Semiramis? If so, how did it deal with the metamorphosis and the birth of Adonis?”

[ back ] 65. Diogenes Laertios 2.59: πέμπτος μυθώδη τερατείαν πεπραγματευμένος. For this Xenophon see Rohde 1914:371–372n1; RE 18/2 [1967] 2089 [12]). If he was a contemporary of Demetrios of Magnesia—whom Rohde believed to be Diogenes’ source here (cf. 2.57)—he would been the right age to teach Strabo. But others see Diogenes’ fifth Xenophon as the Lampsacene: cf. NP s.v. Xenphon [8]. A further Cypriot Xenophon was high-priest (arkhiereús) and stratēgós of the island ca. 168–163 or after 124 BCE: SEG 20:200; NP s.v. Xenophon [7]. But this would be too early for Strabo.

[ back ] 66. Athenaios 174f: γιγγραίνοισι γὰρ οἱ Φοίνικες, ὥς φησιν ὁ Ξενοφῶν, ἐχρῶντο αὐλοῖς σπιθαμιαίοις τὸ μέγεθος, ὀξὺ καὶ γοερὸν φθεγγομένοις. For these pipes and their connection with Adonis, see p190n19, 202, 317. As Barker (GMW 1:262n11) notes, γιγγραίνοισι is a poetic form.