Close Encounters with the Third Kind: The Duality of Reverence and Revulsion in Artistic Depictions of Androgynous Figures Zoen Snyder !1 Androgyny and the gender 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 Hermaphroditus. 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 Diodorus Siculus 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 intersex deity.1 This indicates that the cause of Hermaphroditus’s androgyny was not particularly important for the rites of the cult, as it was only later that Ovid’s Metamorphoses gave a more in- depth account of Hermaphroditus’s origins, serving as an explanation for why Salmacis’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 nymph Salmacis3. Ovid’s version of the myth 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 Agdistis, who was castrated while in a drunken slumber by Dionysus.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 satyrs in the role of a maenad led to their association with maenads in general, which were commonly depicted in sleep, such as on vases that portray a satyr revealing the genitals of a sleeping maenad (figure 2).12 This could explain why Hermaphroditus appears asleep in some statues despite no existing myths involving sleep. Depicting Hermaphroditus in sleep utilizes the common sleeping maenad scene while evoking a 6 A. Ajootian, “The Only Happy Couple: Hermaphrodites 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 Louvre. 7 Ajootian, The Only Happy Couple, 220; J. Trimble, “Beyond Surprise: Looking Again at the Sleeping Hermaphrodite 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, “Ariadne 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 Athens 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.