sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aphroditus, Hermaphroditus, Salmacis (fountain)

Close Encounters with the Third Kind: The Duality of Reverence and Revulsion in Artistic Depictions of Androgynous Figures Zoen Snyder 1

Androgyny and the ambiguity that usually accompanies it are gradually becoming more accepted by Western society. This has allowed a safer space to be carved out by gendered others: people on the fringes of normative ideas of gender expression and roles. In the recent past, peoples’ attitudes have been staunchly opposed to anything other than a distinct gender bi- nary. But in antiquity, visual representations could be more fluid. A striking parallel between an- cient and modern attitudes toward androgynous figures is seen in the duality of both attraction and revulsion that is often directed at them. One figure in particular who is frequently depicted as androgynous is the deity . Their representation in both sculpture and painting reflects societal attitudes towards this divinity and others like them. This examination will cover a few examples of portrayals of Hermaphroditus and other androgynous figures as objects of both desire and disgust by looking at the differences between artistic and literary representations of them; covering the predominant artistic types and their origins in the art of binary figures; and analyzing the similarities in ancient and modern attitudes towards these images. For the purposes of this examination, the term ‘nonbinary’ will be used in its broadest sense to describe Hermaphroditus and others like them as neither fully male nor female. Gender neutral language, such as the singular pronoun ‘they/them’ will be utilized for these figures. Though traditionally ‘he/him’ has been used for figures like Hermaphroditus in most translations, other variations have been employed, reflecting the changing attitudes of modern scholars and ongoing disagreement over accurate pronouns. Hermaphroditus is a lesser-known deity and does not occur often in mythology or litera- ture in general, though they do appear more frequently in art. This may reflect a lack of interest in their story and experiences in favour of fetishizing their body. One of the few literary repre- sentations comes from who describes Hermaphroditus as having a body that is a mix of male and female in form and that they were born this way, implying they were a sort of deity.1 This indicates that the cause of Hermaphroditus’s was not particularly important for the rites of the cult, as it was only later that ’s gave a more in- depth account of Hermaphroditus’s origins, serving as an explanation for why ’s spring feminizes men.2 Ovid’s account altered the story and had Hermaphroditus start off as a young man who was only made androgynous by fusing with the Salmacis3. Ovid’s version of the describes Hermaphroditus as not a man or a woman but as both and neither.4 While origi-

1 Diod. Sic. 4.6.5.

2 Ov. Met. 4.285-388.

3 Salmacis is mentioned alongside Hermaphroditus prior to Ovid in an inscription from Halicar- nassus, but Hermaphroditus is here once again conceptualized as born ‘dual-sexed’ and Salmacis is simply their nurse (von Stackelberg 413). This indicates that Ovid’s alterations were primarily to explain Hermaphroditus’s sex and to fit into the theme of transformation in his work.

4 Ov. Met. 4.378-379. 2 nally a man in Ovid’s version, Hermaphroditus is still considered to have a completely androgy- nous mix of masculine and feminine characteristics by the end of the story. These descriptions are significant since they differ from how Hermaphroditus is depicted in artworks. These literary accounts both describe them as a mix of male and female and neither fully masculine nor feminine in appearance. The artistic depictions, however, tend to portray Hermaphroditus as much more feminine than masculine. Most commonly they are given a body that is almost entirely female but with male genitals instead of a more blended appearance; by contrast, there are no depictions of Hermaphroditus as male-bodied but without a penis.5 Yet de- pictions in paintings are a bit more androgynous likely because a revelation cannot be used to the same effect in two dimensions.

5 A. Stewart (1997) mentions the existence of a sculpture of Hermaphroditus that does have both male and female genitals (p. 229) and K.T. von Stackelberg (2014) argues that the existence of the female genitals is suggested to the viewer by the presence of secondary sex characteristics like breasts (p. 403). Considering both that the female genitals would be hidden under the male ones and that the genitals on most female statues tend to be very basic and more implied, it would make sense for the female genitals to also be implied on statues of Hermaphroditus and for the ancient viewer to simply assume that both are present on the statue. But even with both genitals present, the statues still primarily appear female and it does not diminish the shock of a penis being present on an otherwise feminine figure. 3

There are three common statue types depicting Hermaphroditus: the Borghese, the Pergamene, and the Dresden. The Borghese type, also known as the sleeping type, is particularly widespread.6 This sculptural type (figure 1) is meant to be approached from the back where the carefully carved lines of the body draw the viewer around to the front.7 The Borghese type is one of the most feminizing, which is completely intentional as the goal is to trick the viewer into be- lieving they are seeing a beautiful, defenseless woman, who is then revealed to be Hermaphrodi- tus as the viewer walks around the statue and notices the presence of a penis.8 This represents another departure from the literature since there is no literary account of Hermaphroditus in sleep,9 but there is one such account of the nonbinary deity , who was castrated while in a drunken slumber by .10 A. Ajootian argues that the sleeping statues could have been depicting Agdistis and may have been commissioned for the temple of Cybele.11 S. McNally suggests that depictions of Hermaphroditus alongside in the role of a led to their association with in general, which were commonly depicted in sleep, such as on vases that portray a revealing the genitals of a sleeping maenad (figure 2).12 This could explain why Hermaphroditus appears asleep in some statues despite no existing involving sleep. Depicting Hermaphroditus in sleep utilizes the common sleeping maenad scene while evoking a

6 A. Ajootian, “The Only Happy Couple: and Gender,” in Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (New York: Routledge, 1997), 220. The most famous example of this type is found in the .

7 Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 220; J. Trimble, “Beyond Surprise: Looking Again at the Sleeping in the Palazzo Massimo,” in Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Con- sumption: Familiar Works Reconsidered (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018), 14, 16.

8 Trimble, Beyond Surprise, 23; Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 231.

9 S. McNally, “ and Others: Images of Sleep in Greek and Early Roman Art,” Classical Antiquity 14 (1985): 154.

10 Arn. Adv. nat. 5.5-6.

11 Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 231. The fact that this statue type is so feminine-looking could further support its identification as Agdistis, who was considered ‘dual-sexed’ like Her- maphroditus, but whose conflation with the mother goddess Cybele (Bremmer 551-552; Strabo 12.5.3) meant they were seen as more feminine. The sleeping type is also portrayed on a rocky base with the figure lying on an animal skin, which hints at Agdistis’s wild nature as a mountain deity (Paus. 7.17.10).

12 McNally, Ariadne and Others, 174. The sleeping maenad statue from the Archaeological Mu- seum of has an identical pose to the Borghese type and dates to just prior to the proposed construction dates of many of the sleeping Hermaphroditus works (Trimble 13). This means that more viewers had the potential to be surprised by the sleeping Hermaphroditus if they initially assumed the statue was of a maenad. 4 new reaction from the viewer through the addition of masculine genitals. Using the more an- drogynous body described in the literature would immediately alert the observer that the figure may not be female, so a fully feminine body is necessary for these revelation statues. Even the act of sleep serves to lull the viewer into a false sense of security by adding a level of vulnerabil- ity to the figure, which later enhances the shock of the viewer when the male genitals are discov- ered (figure 3). Some scholars argue that the sleeping Hermaphroditus has an erection which serves as a threat to the observer13 and sharply contrasts with the perceived vulnerability of the figure. The once alluring woman becomes potentially threatening due to the intent the erection would signify to the viewer. This is enhanced by the flirtatious pose: although lying prone, the figure is still facing the viewer and playfully kicking their legs in the air, inviting the viewer to approach. The statue is deliberately enticing as a sort of bait for the intended reaction from the viewer. Since the sleeping type was common, one might suspect that the effect would be dimin- ished as people would eventually be able to recognize the trap that was being set for them. But this statue was not simply designed for the initial surprise but for multiple viewings since the ‘choppy and angular’ front of the statue served to repel the viewer back to the rear view where they could once again look at the features that originally drew them in.14 The pose is meant to perpetually pull in and repel the viewer.

13 R. Groves, “From Statue to Story: Ovid’s Metamorphosis of Hermaphroditus,” Classical World 109 (2016): 340; Stewart, Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece, (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 1999), 229; Trimble, Beyond Surprise, 17.

14 Trimble, Beyond Surprise, 17-19. 5

While the Borghese type is very feminine in order to prompt a revelation that sparks shock and then possibly disgust, Hermaphroditus’s depiction on vases provides a more androgy- nous view. Being a child of naturally made Hermaphroditus one of the , also known as cupids.15 These winged deities were associated with love, sex, and desire, with Her- maphroditus specifically connected to as the inscription from states.16 These vase paintings depict Hermaphroditus with wings in various scenes (figures 4-6), and they are portrayed more androgynously than in sculpture, to the point that they are often identified as ‘androgynous ’ or simply ‘Eros’. But this pair of oinochoai (figure 4) clearly display the dif- ferences between Eros and Hermaphroditus since these figures are functioning in the same ca- pacity and are drawn in the same style and pose, except one is androgynous while the other ap- pears masculine. Hermaphroditus is painted with curves, but they are not as dramatic and femi- nine as the Borghese statues. The chest is ambiguous and could depict either small breasts or prominent pectorals, though some vases show more clearly defined breasts than others. They are nude except for the jewelry they wear, so their penis is visible as well as their slightly muscled torso. They also have androgynous facial features and long hair wrapped up into a feminine hair- style. Portrayed as dignified and ceremonious, their role on many of these vases appears religious in tone. In figure 5 they are holding crowns with garlands, and the woman on the leftmost vase is holding a patera. The woman from figure 6 is identified as holding a wedding box while Her- maphroditus holds a . The oinochoai (figure 4) both depict the figures leading ’s chariot which is yet another indication that Hermaphroditus is acting in a formal capacity on these vases. The other figures in the scenes neither pursue nor run from Hermaphroditus, demon- strating an acceptance towards them only as long as they are functioning within their established religious role.17 This suggests that Hermaphroditus and their nonbinary body are only acceptable because they are a deity. This is further supported by Diodorus Siculus’s statement that when in- tersex people were born, they were seen as monstrosities and bad omens rather than something to be celebrated.18 The Pergamene type is another of the common kinds of statues found to depict Hermaph- roditus. Also known as the anasyromenos type, it involves lifting up the clothing to reveal the genitals (figure 7). There are between thirty and fifty surviving instances of this type, ranging from the fourth century BCE to the third century CE.19 Most of the finds of this statue type are

15 Cicero refers to Hermaphroditus as the second ‘Cupidus’ in his De Natura Deorum (3.21-23).

16 A.J. Romano, “The Invention of Marriage: Hermaphroditus an Salmacis at Halicarnassus and in Ovid,” The Classical Quarterly 59 (2009): 544.

17 This phenomenon can also be seen in depictions of Hermaphroditus interacting with the infant erotes in the role of a kourotrophos or nurse. These sculptures are less provocative and more se- rious in tone, fitting into the context of a religious statue, rather than a playful, comedic one.

18 Diod. Sic. 4.6.5.

19 Groves, From Statue to Story, 329. 6 smaller votive figurines made of terracotta, with larger sculpted versions being much rarer.20 The anasyromenos pose has a long history of association with Hermaphroditus since the oldest artis- tic depiction of the deity is a fragmentary mould of this type from fourth century Athens, but this type had an artistic tradition long before Hermaphroditus.21 The practice of anasyromenos began with Eastern female divinities in the second millennium BCE and had not only an apotropaic function but also an association with fertility.22 Pliny the Elder testifies to the powerful effect this act had on banishing storms and even deterring vermin that would damage crops.23 This statue type presents another instance where Hermaphroditus is portrayed in an iconographic tradition that was originally for women. The tendency to expect a woman in this kind of revelatory pose added a layer of surprise to these depictions of Hermaphroditus similar to that of the sleeping type. The anasyromenos pose encapsulates both the aspects of fear and desire in depictions of androgynous figures since the revelation is both exciting and shocking for the viewer. This is es- pecially true since the act was sometimes viewed as a desire for sex in the female figural tradi- tion,24 so it could be seen as possibly threatening to the viewer.25 The apotropaic nature of the anasyromenos was strengthened by the addition of a penis – an apotropaic symbol in its own right.26 These statues were desirable due to their ability to protect a space by using the revelation of their genitals to repel threats.

20 Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 221.

21 Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 222-223; K.T. von Stackelberg, “Garden Hybrids: Her- maphrodite Images in the Roman House,” Classical Antiquity 33 (2014): 399.

22 Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 223-224; Groves, From Statue to Story, 331.

23 Plin. HN 28.23.

24 Groves, From Statue to Story, 331.

25 The ambiguous nature of androgynous figures meant it was unclear which role (active or pas- sive) they would take in a sexual encounter. The presence of an erection in the anasyromenos pose suggests that Hermaphroditus would be taking on the more active role.

26 O. J. Brendel, “The Scope of Temperament of Erotic Art in the Greco-Roman World,” in Stud- ies in Erotic Art (New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers, 1970), 4. The anasyromenos pose was also later adopted by the god (Groves 332) whose iconography is very similar to that of Hermaphroditus. This association with Priapus further functions to sexualize Hermaphroditus since Priapus was a fertility god most often portrayed with a large and unwieldly erection. The anasyromenos pose was viewed both positively for its apotropaic qualities in protecting a space, usually a garden (Clarke 2007 181; von Stackelberg 410-411), and negatively because of the shock value of the revelation of a penis on a normally female figure. 7

Another androgynous deity that is portrayed as both appealing and undesirable is , the eunuch consort of Cybele.27 Attis’s artistic portrayal is almost the opposite of Hermaphrodi- tus’s in that Attis has a more masculine face and body but without a penis (figure 8). Attis is still somewhat feminine but not to the same degree as Hermaphroditus, and the feminine features are likely due to the fact that Attis was a κοῦρος (kouros) and ‘πάις καλός,’ (pais kalos) so they were expected to appear effeminate.28 The accepted androgyny and passivity of Greek κοῦροι (kouroi) indicate that strong aspects of liminality were involved in their gender29 and allowed these youths to temporarily inhabit a sort of , as an ἐρώµενος (eromenos),30 with its own established gender roles. But this was not a permanent gender identity; instead, it was a sort of temporal or ‘chrono-gender.’ They would eventually take on the role and status of a citizen male in a that symbolized rejecting femininity and passivity.31 Attis, as popularized in Rome by Catullus, was a desirable young Greek who was not willing to transition from androgynous youth to masculine adult, and through castration, they solidified their position as a liminal figure32 and their gender as nonbinary. These kinds of liminal identities were seen as having a mix of both ‘lowliness and sacredness’,33 just as the cult of Cybele was seen with both reverence as an im- portant state cult and revulsion as a foreign one that employed castration.34 This idea that castra- tion could keep a youth in this stage of life is seen in Procopius when he details that the most beautiful slave boys were picked to become eunuchs before they were sold to the highest

27 There are many androgynous statues that depict nonbinary figures other than Hermaphroditus, such as Attis and . While the figures from the above artworks are identified as Her- maphroditus, mainly because of their nonbinary appearance, many of the androgynous statues that are found are simply labeled as ‘hermaphrodites.’ The word ‘androgyne’ could just as easily be substituted since it was one of the words used in antiquity to describe intersex people (Plin. HN. 7.3), and it does not have the same negative connotations that the word ‘hermaphrodite’ cur- rently holds, making this less problematic descriptor just as accurate.

28 M. B. Skinner, “Ego Mulier: The Construction of Male Sexuality in Catullus,” in Roman Sex- ualities (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), 135-137. A κοῦρος (kouros) was a Greek youth, and πάις καλός (pais kalos) means ‘beautiful boy’.

29 Skinner, Ego Mulier, 136; A. de Villiers, “Liminality and Catullus’s Attis,” 44 (2017), 165.

30 ἐρώµενος (eromenos) refers to the passive partner in a Greek pederastic relationship.

31 J. E. Robson, “Bestiality and Bestial Rape in Greek Myth,” Rape in Antiquity (London: Duck- worth, 1997), 69-70; Skinner, Ego Mulier, 135-136.

32 Skinner, Ego Mulier, 137; de Villiers, Liminality and Catullus’s Attis, 165.

33 V. W. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (London: Aldine de Gruyter, 1969), 96.

34 De Villiers, Liminality and Catullus’ Attis, 161. 8 bidder.35 Castration was employed to keep these youths from developing into masculine adult men.36 This attests to the sexual desirability of eunuchs who were seen as neither male nor fe- male.37 They were seen as desirable for the novelty of their bodies, but also shunned as outcasts in society for that same reason. In figure 8, a piece from Ostia, the figure is reclining similarly to statues of Hermaphro- ditus, but they are not asleep. The pose is reminiscent of those found on sarcophagus lids which hints at Attis’s association with death.38 Additionally, the rocky ground and the head of a bearded god under their left arm suggest that Attis is reclining on the bank of the river Gallus, where they died after their castration.39 This piece is particularly interesting since we do not know the specif- ic methods of castration employed by the eunuch priests who worshipped Cybele, known as the Galli or Gallae,40 but Pliny notes that the Gallae did not use dangerous methods for castration.41 The absence of genitals on this statue of Attis is unusual, since Attis’s self-castration in mytholo-

35 Procop. Goth. 8.3.15.

36 S. Tougher, “The Aesthetics of Castration: The Beauty of Roman Eunuchs,” in Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages (New York: D.S. Brewer, 2013), 49-50.

37 De Villiers, Liminality and Catullus’s Attis, 160, 167; J. L. Lightfoot, “Sacred Eunuchism in the Cult of the Syrian Goddess,” in Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond (London: Duckworth, 2002), 82.

38 B. Arkins, An Interpretation of the Poems of Catullus, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1999), 56

39 S. Hales, “Looking for Eunuchs: The Galli and Attis in Roman Art,” in Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond (London: Duckworth, 2002), 97; M. J. Vermaseren, The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 36.

40 Considering that Cybele’s cult and her priests were Near Eastern in origin, the castration prac- tices they employed were likely based on those from the Near East. Cheikh-Moussa transmits an account by the eighth century CE Arabic author Ğāḥiẓ who wrote about castration practices. There were three main methods of castration: al-Ğibāb, al-H̱ iṣā', and al-Wiğā'. Al-Ğibāb was the most invasive and risky as it involved removal of both the testicles and penis in two separate op- erations, then a metal rod was placed in the urethra to keep it from healing shut (Cheikh-Moussa 192). The failure rate for this procedure was high especially since it sometimes involved abdom- inal surgery as well (192), so it was likely not as common. With the second method, al-H̱ iṣā', only the testicles were removed through an incision in the scrotum using a red-hot knife to pre- vent hemorrhage (193). The last method, al-Wiğā', was often used for animals as well and in- volved tying the testicles until they began to atrophy then crushing them with a hammer (193-194). The second two methods were most likely employed by the Gallae, especially since their castration was self-practiced. The seventh century CE doctor, Paul of , also confirms that the second two methods were commonly practiced (Tougher 48).

41 Plin. HN 11.261, 35.165. 9 gy is carried out hastily with a sharpened rock42 and could not have involved the multiple stages that were required for complete removal of the genitals. S. Hales notes that this statue was dis- covered in the innermost area of the temple and was meant to be seen by cult members only,43 which could mean that artistic liberties were taken with the statue. Attis is often called a ‘her- maphrodite,’44 so it is possible it was not meant to depict a typical eunuch. The genitals are com- pletely smooth and featureless, much like those of female statues. Combined with the fact that the Gallae wore feminine clothing and hairstyles45 and used feminine pronouns and appellatives when speaking to each other,46 there is reason to believe that some of the Gallae identified as women and therefore, would naturally portray their deity that way in spaces where only initiates would see it. Furthermore, this relief of Attis’s castration (figure 9) depicts only their severed tes- ticles between their legs47 which suggests that the penis was indeed left intact. These statues are significant since this cult had a following of real eunuchs, which means it is easier to uncover the attitudes towards such liminal figures in ancient Roman society. The rarity of intersex births means that most people would never have knowingly met an intersex person, and the majority were not allowed to grow to adulthood because although they were seen as connected to Hermaphroditus, they were often viewed negatively as monstrous omens and rit- ually exposed.48 The Gallae were more common and obviously marked out by their feminine hair and clothing, as depicted in figure 10 on the statue of a gallus. Their clothing and associated cult symbols were, in fact, the main signifiers of their status as eunuchs in art, not the very character- istic that made them eunuchs.49 The Gallae were generally disliked, but tolerated, in ancient

42 Ov. Fast. 4.223-46.

43 Hales, Looking for Eunuchs, 97.

44 Arkins, An Interpretation of the Poems of Catullus, 59; Hales, Looking for Eunuchs, 97; Ver- maseren, The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art, 36.

45 Hales, Looking for Eunuchs, 91; Lightfoot, Sacred Eunuchism in the Cult of the Syrian God- dess, 76-77; R. R. Nauta, “Catullus in a Roman Context,” 57 (2004): 602, 608.

46 Lightfoot, Sacred Eunuchism in the Cult of the Syrian Goddess, 82.

47 Vermaseren, The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art, 35.

48 Diod. Sic. 4.6.5.

49 Hales, Looking for Eunuchs, 93. There is a striking similarity between the Gallae and Indian hijras who fulfilled a similar societal role. Hijras also undergo castration before donning femi- nine clothing, many identify as women, and their main social function involved singing and dancing at liminal ceremonies (Bullough 3). Additionally, they would take in intersex babies (Bullough 3), and it is possible the cult of Cybele also acted as a refuge for gendered others. The societal attitudes towards both groups are also similar. 10

Rome due to the protected status they enjoyed as part of a state cult.50 This begrudging tolerance by the general public explains the aversion to portraying the bodies of these gendered others since artworks such as the ones above are rare. Most depictions of Attis show them with intact genitals clearly visible (figure 11) where the outfit splits open at the hips, almost as if cut,51 which could perhaps be a visual metonym for castration. This discomfort with realistically sexu- ally divergent bodies is further attested by Quintilian who states that eunuch priests were unsuit- able as subjects for art.52 To contrast the paucity of nude portrayals of eunuchs, the nude depic- tions of Hermaphroditus were common because they displayed an idealized image of androgyny that was most often objectifying. This clearly illustrates the duality of revulsion and desire to- ward gendered others in art as they are only tolerated when they conform to the visual standards accepted by the viewers and not to the bodily realities of the subjects depicted. The goddess that the Gallae worshipped, Cybele, is also associated with androgyny in her own right, since she was conflated with the nonbinary deity Agdistis who was born with both male and female genitals and who was castrated by the gods who feared them.53 Some accounts say that Agdistis became Cybele when castrated, and Strabo lists them as being the same deity.54 This forcible castration is a clear act of violence sparked out of fear and ignorance, but it is very interesting that even the gods were frightened by a liminal figure such as this, and it is this same kind of violence that is frequently directed at Hermaphroditus as well. The violence and disgust that is directed at gendered others is most obviously displayed in the Dresden type, also known as the struggling type. There are over twenty copies of this sculptural group,55 and these artworks very clearly show the tendencies towards both fetishiza- tion of and violence towards Hermaphroditus primarily because they show a physical struggle unfolding. Figure 12 depicts Hermaphroditus forcefully pushing away a satyr whose legs are wrapped around them. There is also a painting from (figure 12) based on this sculpture56 with an identical pose as Hermaphroditus attempts to deter the satyr. Satyrs are prone to sexual

50 Hales, Looking for Eunuchs, 93; L. E. Roller, In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anato- lian Cybele (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 1999), 319.

51 Hales, Looking for Eunuchs, 96.

52 Aristid. Quint. 5.12.19-21.

53 Paus. 7.17.10.

54 J. N. Bremmer, “Attis: A Greek God in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan Rome,” Mnemosyne 57 (2004): 551-552; Strab. 12.5.3.

55 M. Bieber, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 146.

56 Bieber, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, 147. 11 violence,57 so this piece shows both the lustful nature of satyrs and the desirability of Hermaph- roditus. It is important to note how their body is turned away from the satyr with their penis hid- den by their leg. The satyr does not know the identity of the figure, and neither does the viewer since Hermaphroditus’s genitals are hidden in most of the viewpoints. This interaction with the statue adds a revelation aspect once again, leading the viewer to believe they are seeing a satyr pursuing a nymph or maenad when they first approach the statue, then exposing Hermaphrodi- tus’s identity once they move around the piece. Both the front and back views hide the penis (figure 13) while it is slowly revealed as the viewer walks around the side of the statue to face the satyr. This is strengthened by the similarly posed statues that depict a satyr grabbing a nymph who pushes him away (figure 14), since it connects Hermaphroditus once again to the female sculptural tradition. In most of these works, Hermaphroditus and the satyr are evenly matched, which K. T. von Stackelberg has suggested puts Hermaphroditus in a more active role,58 though not all the Dresden statues follow this pose. Figure 15 depicts a satyr aggressively groping Her- maphroditus as they turn to push him away, clearly showing that Hermaphroditus is the victim; but depictions of the satyr pursuing Hermaphroditus, can quickly change their tone. In many of these artworks, once it is revealed that the object of the satyr’s affections is Hermaphroditus the satyr immediately turns to flee in disgust as if angry at being tricked by the feminine figure, but Hermaphroditus now takes on a more obvious active role as a threat to the satyr. This aversion to Hermaphroditus is particularly striking given the satyr’s tendency in mythology and art to have sex with anyone or anything, including many wild animals.59 This added an element of comedy to the piece in antiquity since satyrs were already associated with humorous actions,60 and a lusty satyr turning down a chance to have sex was employed for comedic effect – a trope that was clearly common in art of the Hellenistic.61 This aspect of com- edy is significant since laughter had an apotropaic function, so these images could serve to ward off evil62 just like the anasyromenos depictions of Hermaphroditus. In addition to this role, satyrs were often used as stand-ins in art to depict exploits that were not acceptable for humans,63 which only increased the humour of the piece if even a satyr was disgusted by Hermaphroditus. It must then be the perceived threat of violence being directed at him in combination with his repulsion that causes the satyr to flee. Figure 16 shows Hermaphroditus, having just been awok-

57 Groves, From Statue to Story, 333.

58 Von Stackelberg, Garden Hybrids, 400.

59 Robson, Bestiality and Bestial Rape in Greek Myth, 66.

60 Brendel, The Scope and Temperament of Erotic Art, 17.

61 Brendel, The Scope and Temperament of Erotic Art, 54.

62 J. R. Clarke, Looking at Laughter: Humour, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Cul- ture, 100 B.C. – A.D. 250 (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2007), 65.

63 Robson, Bestiality and Bestial Rape in Greek Myth, 66. 12 en, grabbing the fleeing satyr by the wrist who has just lifted Hermaphroditus’s robe and seen their penis. The paintings differ from the sculptural tradition in making the viewer the passive observer of the satyr who is now the one to reveal Hermaphroditus’s genitals.64 This is because there is only one vantage point available to the viewer with wall paintings, so they see the scene play out and the satyr’s reaction to the surprise,65 as shown in figure 17 where Hermaphroditus has just removed their clothing to reveal their penis to the satyr, who turns to flee in disgust. Despite the frequency of negative reactions, not every encounter results in repulsion to- wards Hermaphroditus. For example, figure 18 depicts approaching Hermaphroditus from behind and looking at their erect penis with approval.66 A statue (figure 19) of the Berlin- Torlonia type also depicts a more pleasant interaction between Hermaphroditus and a satyr and is considered to be ‘entirely Italian in inspiration’,67 which attests to the improvement in attitudes towards gendered others in the Hellenistic compared with earlier periods where revulsion is the dominant reaction to Hermaphroditus and androgynous people. One copy of this type depicts Hermaphroditus with an erection (figure 20), which again gives them sexual agency.68 There are sources from both Pliny and Plutarch that attest to the desirability of intersex people in later an- tiquity who were used as sex workers since they were sought after for their exoticism and rarity.69 Procopius alludes to the desirability of eunuchs as well,70 but the desire for these indi- viduals objectified them, as it meant owning them as slaves and dehumanizing them as curiosi- ties to collect, an attitude which clarifies the underlying harm in fetishizing these androgynous people. The liminal status of these figures likely contributes a great deal to both the fear and the attraction to them by the viewer. Considering the apotropaic nature of certain gods like Priapus, there is a strong association with the revelation of a penis and violence since there was an impli- cation that Priapus would punish thieves with rape.71 In addition, because there was no set social group nor role for these nonbinary people, they were viewed as unpredictable, which caused an uneasiness that would not surround a homosexual pederastic encounter where both partners

64 J. R. Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 B.C. – A.D. 250 (Berkeley: U.C. Press,1998), 53-54.

65 Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking, 54.

66 D. Frederick, “Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: Erotic Painting and Visual Pleasure in the Ro- man House,” Classical Antiquity 14 (1995): 281.

67 Von Stackelberg, Garden Hybrids, 399, 401.

68 Von Stackelberg, Garden Hybrids, 401.

69 Plin. HN 7.3; Plut. Mor. 520.

70 Procop. Goth. 8.3.15.

71 Clarke, Looking at Laughter, 185. 13 would know their roles and nothing unexpected would happen. Hermaphroditus was active and passive, male and female all at once, which caused confusion and uneasiness as well as reactions of both desire and repulsion.72 The attitudes towards these androgynous figures closely mirror modern sentiments about gendered others, especially in regard to the fetishization of people in our society, specifically transgender women. This is significant since not only have gender nonconforming people existed since antiquity, but the attitudes toward androgyny and gender nonconformity have not changed significantly over the years, which suggests that there is still a great deal of progress to be made in peoples’ attitudes going forward. The treatment in modern media of peo- ple outside the binary parallels the depictions in ancient art. Transgender women are portrayed in media as hypersexualized and objectified in pornography as ‘traps’73 which is the exact idea be- hind the revelations in the depictions of Hermaphroditus, and a main reason why Hermaphrodi- tus’s portrayal as completely female-bodied except for a penis is significant, because modern nonoperative transgender women who have hormonally transitioned have this same kind of body. This strengthens the similarities between the ancient and modern attitudes toward gendered oth- ers since Hermaphroditus is never shown as a masculine androgyne with a beard and no penis, even though it is a reasonable interpretation given the literary accounts. The statue of Attis from Ostia is the closest to this description, but it was not sexualized the way images of Hermaphrodi- tus were, nor is there a revelatory aspect.74 The reveal is essential in evoking these negative atti- tudes, and slurs like ‘trap’ play into the unfounded idea that transgender women are trying to trick men, just as these sculptures were designed to do in antiquity. The fetishization specifically of the more feminine-bodied Hermaphroditus in antiquity is noteworthy because of the direct parallels with the bodies of modern transgender women, while transgender men and genderqueer people are not portrayed in media quite as often and are not subject to the same level of hyper- sexualization and violence as their counterparts. This mirrors the lack of representation of trans- masculine bodies in ancient art. But there are literary accounts of ancient transgender men such as Iphis and Caeneus whose myths both have happy endings.75 This is consistent with ancient sentiments since wanting to become a man, the ‘superior’ sex, was more accepted and even laud- ed, while effeminate men were chastised, shunned and called terms like cinaedus and semivir,

72 Frederick, Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne, 281.

73 The tendency to portray transgender women as deceitful leads to the idea that violence against them is justified, which is a form of victim-blaming (Teal 13).

74 The lack of trans-masculine representation in ancient art evokes the erasure of transgender men in modern media.

75 Ov. Met. 9.666-797, 12.146-209. Historical accounts from Diodorus Siculus follow this same trend where intersex people who were originally assigned female at birth are allowed to live as men once it is revealed that they are intersex (32.10-12). 14 common names for the feminine Gallae.76 Stories about trans-feminine transformations are either temporary, in the case of ,77 or result in misery for the character, as in the accounts of At- tis and Hermaphroditus.78 This indicates that trans-feminine bodies were more subject to disap- proval in antiquity than trans-masculine bodies, just as they are in modern society. The ancient reaction to statues like the sleeping Hermaphroditus was both apotropaic laughter and distress relating to the ambiguity of whether Hermaphroditus would take an active or passive role; but modern heterosexual men can react a similar way when exposed to gender non-conforming people, with reactions ranging from amusement and curiosity to discomfort at having to question their sexuality.79 This discomfort can cause a negative response often rooted in homophobia, as seen in men’s violent reactions to transgender bodies reflected in modern homicide rates.80 Violence towards transgender and gender nonconforming people, specifically transgender women of colour, is disproportionately high81 despite how much they are sought out as sexual objects. According to Pornhub’s analytical data, over a million searches per day are for transgender pornography, with men being more likely to search for it.82 Not only is the incidence of murder high for transgender people, but it also involves the phenomenon of ‘overkill’: the use of extreme violence far past the point of causing death.83 This kind of aggression is commonly seen in hate crimes where the intense and often irrational emotional response of the perpetrator

76 Cinaedus and semivir were derogatory terms for queer men in antiquity. Cinaedus was a slur directed at effeminate or passive men, while semivir means ‘half man’. Lightfoot, Sacred Eu- nuchism in the Cult of the Syrian Goddess, 76; Nauta, Catullus 63 in a Roman Context, 611.

77 Ov. Met. 3.316-338.

78 Catul. 63; Ov. Met. 4.274-316.

79 J. L. Teal, “Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack”: Gender Non-Conforming Homicide Victims in the US 1995-2014 (Arcata: Humboldt State University, 2015), 13-14, 31, 33, 34.

80 Teal, Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack, 1-2, 10, 13-14, 28-30.

81 Teal, Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack, 50, 75.

82 “Transgender Porn Searches,” Pornhub Insights (2017). www.pornhub.com/insights/transgen- der-searches. Men are the primary perpetrators of violence against transgender people (Teal 23-24), so it is significant that they are also the top consumers of transgender pornography. It would be beneficial to examine the most common search terms used by men to find transgender pornography, as it is highly likely most of them would be derogatory terms for transgender women. This would reveal a great deal about the attitudes of the people who seek out media that intentionally fetishizes a vulnerable minority.

83 Teal, Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack, 23, 30. 15 leads to the use of brutal force that has the capacity to kill the victim multiples times over.84 Fur- thermore, this violence is often directly in response to transgender women revealing the fact that they are transgender to their heterosexual male partners.85 This shows that the revelation is key in sparking these strong reactions, just as in antiquity. It is also significant that modern transgender people are at their most vulnerable when they appear androgynous, which demonstrates that the negative reactions towards them are directly due to their ‘violation of gender norms’ and the sub- sequent confusion caused by their gender presentation.86 One final piece that embodies these ideas of the duality of fetishization and disdain to- wards gendered others is figure 21, a small, relatively recent, bronze copy of the sleeping Her- maphroditus from 1639. This piece is neither thoroughly ancient nor modern and demonstrates the consistency of these attitudes over time. The front view of the statue has an inscription that reads: ‘DVPLICEM FORMAM VNO IN CORPORE VIDES MIRARE PVLCHRITVDINEM,’87 while the revelatory side of the piece has a similar inscription that warns: ‘DVPLEX COR VNO IN PECTORE SAEPE INVENIES CAVE INSIDIAS.’88 ‘Cave insidias’ here means literally ‘beware the trap.’ These examples of depictions of nonbinary figures like Hermaphroditus in art and litera- ture show that they truly were and still are seen with both reverence and revulsion. By examining the differences in their portrayals in the artistic and literary record, the most common icono- graphic traditions, their roots in images of binary figures, and the attitudes reflected in these rep- resentations, a strong parallel with modern ideas and portrayals of gendered others becomes ap- parent. Despite the pervasiveness of these attitudes today, they are slowly improving through the increasing visibility of gender minorities in media which normalize the bodies of gendered oth- ers, as well as through further examinations such as this that indicate how gender variance in the Western world is not a new phenomenon nor a mere trend but has truly existed for thousands of years.

84 Teal, Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack, 30. There are incidences of overkill in antiquity where intersex infants were ritually exposed by being burned alive (Diod. Sic. 4.5.6).

85 Teal, Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack, 23-24, 64-65.

86 Teal, Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack, 28. This mirrors the confusion caused by Her- maphroditus’s gender presentation.

87 Translation: You see a double form in one body, admire the beauty.

88 Translation: Often, you will discover a double heart in one chest, beware the trap. 16

Figures

Fig. 1: Sleeping Hermaphroditus, back.‑89

Fig. 2: with satyr and sleeping maenad.90

89 Sleeping Hermaphroditus, Zoen Snyder (Rome: Palazzo Massimo alle Terme) 2019.

90 Lekythos, Zoen Snyder (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2019. 17

Fig. 3: Sleeping Her- maphroditus, front.91

91 Sleeping Hermaphroditus, front, Zoen Snyder. (Rome: Palazzo Massimo alle Terme) 2019. 18

Fig. 4: Hermaphroditus (left) and Eros (right) leading Nike’s chariot.92

92 Pair of oinochoai of Hermaphroditus and Eros, Zoen Snyder (New York: Metropolitan Muse- um of Art) 2019. 19

Fig. 5: Two Apulian bell craters (left and right) and an Apulian (centre) depicting Her- maphroditus holding crowns and garlands.93

Fig. 6: Hermaphroditus with fan and sistrum and woman holding a wedding basket.94

93 Androgynous depictions of Hermaphroditus, Zoen Snyder (Agrigento: Archaeological Muse- um of Agrigento) 2018.

94 Apulian with Hermaphroditus, Zoen Snyder (Florence: National Archaeological museum of Florence) 2019. 20

Fig. 7: Terracotta figurine (left) and statuette (right) displaying the anasyromenos pose.‑95

95 Terracotta figurine (left), Stefanie Oehmke, 2004, Wikimedia Commons commons.wikimedi- a.org/wiki/File:Terrakotta_anasyromenos_statuette,_Nymphenheiligtum_bei_Locri.JPG; stat- uette (right), Aileen Ajootian, “The Only Happy Couple: Hermaphrodites and Gender.” Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (New York, 1997) 222, fig. 48. 21

Fig. 8: Attis reclining on the bank of a river.96

96 Reclining Attis from Ostia, Stolen History accessed August 28, 2019 www.stolenhistory.org/ threads/attis-the-castrated-mother.518/. 22

Fig. 9: Attis with detached testicles between their legs.97

97 Attis castration relief, October 25, 2015, Wikimedia Commons commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Attis_morente,_II_secolo,_dal_santuario_di_attis.JPG. 23

Fig. 10: Gallus statue in typical feminine clothing.98

98 Statue of a gallus, August 25, 2009, Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Statue_of_Gallus_priest.jpg. 24

Fig. 11: Bronze Attis with genitals intact.99

99 Bronze Attis, Thomas Zühmer, Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier Digital Museum accessed January 11, 2020 rlp.museum-digital.de/index.php?t=objekt&oges=3534&cachesLoaded=true. 25

Fig. 12: Hermaphroditus grappling with a satyr in a statue (left) and painting (right).100

Fig. 13: Both the front and back viewpoints of this statue hide Hermaphroditus’s genitals.101

100 Struggling Hermaphroditus and satyr statue, New York Times accessed August 28, 2019 www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/27/arts/design/statue-hermaphrodite.html; struggling Hermaphroditus and satyr painting: Carlo Raso, October 13 2017, Flickr Commons www.flickr.- com/photos/70125105@N06/37742536915.

101 Hermaphroditus and satyr, front and back views, Liverpool Museums, accessed January 11, 2020 www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/wml/collections/antiquities/roman/ince-blundell/ item-442116.aspx. 26

Fig. 14: Satyr and nymph in a similar pose.102

Fig. 15: Satyr groping Hermaphroditus.103

102 Struggling nymph and satyr, Bonhams, accessed April 2, 2019 www.bonhams.com/auctions/ 11597/lot/225/.

103 Satyr groping Hermaphroditus, Kuntsvensters accessed December 23, 2019 kunstvensters.- com/2019/09/24/gender-issues-in-de-kunst-van-hermafroditus-tot-nu/satyr-hermaphroditus/. 27

Fig. 16: Hermaphroditus grabs a satyr by the wrist who is turning to flee.104

Fig. 17: Hermaphroditus reveals their body to a satyr.105

104 Hermaphroditus grabbing a satyr’s wrist, Tyler Bell, 2001, Flickr Commons www.flickr.com/ photos/tylerbell/4099753514/.

105 Fleeing satyr, Zoen Snyder (Naples: National Archaeological Museum of Naples) 2018. 28

Fig. 18: Silenus and (seated) Hermaphroditus with maenad.106

106 Silenus and Hermaphroditus painting, March 13, 2009, Wikimedia Commons https://com- mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pompeii_-_Hermaphroditus_and_Silenus.jpg. 29

Fig. 19: Hermaphroditus and satyr, Berlin-Torlonia type.107

Fig. 20: Hermaphroditus with erection.108

107 Berlin-Torlonia Hermaphroditus and satyr, Google Arts and Culture accessed December 23, 2019 artsandculture.google.com/asset/satyr-und-hermaphrodit/NgG4keFXH2-T6Q.

108 Berlin-Torlonia Hermaphroditus with erection in Von Stackelberg, K. T. 2014. “Garden Hy- brids: Hermaphrodite Images in the Roman House.” Classical Antiquity 33: 395-426, fig 7. 30

Fig. 21: Modern bronze sleeping Hermaphroditus.109

Fig. 22: Modern bronze Hermaphroditus, front view.110

109 Modern bronze Hermaphroditus, back, Zoen Snyder (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2019.

110 Modern bronze Hermaphroditus, front, Zoen Snyder (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art) 2019. 31

Bibliography Ajootian, A. 1997. “The Only Happy Couple: Hermaphrodites and Gender.” Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology. New York. 220-242. Arkins, B. 1999. An Interpretation of the Poems of Catullus. Lewiston. Bieber, M. 1961. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. New York.

Bremmer, J. N. 2004. “Attis: A Greek God in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan Rome.” Mnemosyne 57: 534-573.

Brendel, O. J. 1970. “The Scope and Temperament of Erotic Art in the Greco-Roman World.” Studies in Erotic Art. New York. 3-108.

Bullough, V. L. 2002. “Eunuchs in History and Society.” Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond. Lon- don.

Cheikh-Moussa, A. 1982. “Ğāḥiẓ et les Eunuques ou la Confusion de Même et de l’Autre.” Arabbica 29: 184-214.

Clarke, J. R. 1998. Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 B.C. - A.D. 250. Berkeley.

_____ 2007. Looking at Laughter: Humor, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Culture, 100 B.C. - A.D. 250. Berkeley.

De Villiers, A. 2017. “Liminality and Catullus’s Attis.” Helios 44: 157-179.

Frederick, D. 1995. “Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: Erotic Painting and Visual Pleasure in the Roman House.” Classical Antiquity 14: 266-288.

Groves, R. 2016: “From Statue to Story: Ovid’s Metamorphosis of Hermaphroditus.” Classical World 109: 321-356.

Hales, S. 2002. “Looking for Eunuchs: The Galli and Attis in Roman Art.” Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond. London. 87-102.

Lightfoot, J.L. 2002. “Sacred Eunuchism in the Cult of the Syrian Goddess.” Eunuchs in Antiqui- ty and Beyond. London. 71-86.

McNally, S. 1985. “Ariadne and Others: Images of Sleep in Greek and Early Roman Art.” Clas- sical Antiquity 14: 226-288.

Nauta, R. R. 2004. “Catullus 63 in a Roman Context.” Mnemosyne 57: 596-628. 32

Robson, J. E. 1997. “Bestiality and Bestial Rape in Greek Myth.” Rape in Antiquity. London. 65- 96.

Roller, L. E. 1999. In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele. Berkeley.

Romano, A. J. 2009. “The Invention of Marriage: Hermaphroditus and Salmacis at Halicarnassus and in Ovid.” The Classical Quarterly 59:543-561. Skinner, M. B. 1997. “Ego Mulier: The Construction of Male Sexuality in Catullus.” Roman Sexualities. New Jersey. 129-150. Stewart, A. 1997. Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece. Berkeley.

Teal, J. L. 2015. “Black Trans Bodies are Under Attack”: Gender Non-Conforming Homicide Victims in the US 1995-2014. Arcata.

Tougher, S. 2013. “The Aesthetics of Castration: The Beauty of Roman Eunuchs.” Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages. New York. 48-72. “Transgender Porn Searches.” Pornhub Insights. 13 September 2017, www.pornhub.com/in- sights/transgender-searches. Trimble, J. 2018: “Beyond Surprise: Looking Again at the Sleeping Hermaphrodite in the Palaz- zo Massimo,” Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption: Familiar Works Recon- sidered. Ann Arbor. 13-37.

Turner, V. W. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. London.

Vermaseren, M.J. 1966. The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art. Leiden. Von Stackelberg, K. T. 2014. “Garden Hybrids: Hermaphrodite Images in the Roman House.” Classical Antiquity 33: 395-426.