Images | Bibliography | Home
The Apotropaic Phallus:
Erotic or Apotropaic?
Looking back to ancient times, many view Greco-Roman art as being erotic. The large amount of decorative arts portraying male genitals has led to this suggestion. However, these representations from the Greek and Roman periods might not be as sexual as many perceive. It was during this time, and even today, that certain people had an “Evil Eye.” This “Eye” could cause great harm when cast, and many people of the time employed devices to protect themselves from the danger of the Evil Eye. Defense mechanisms used against the Evil Eye are known as apotropaic devices. These objects often took many different representations. During the Greek and Roman period, a common form seen was the penis. They could be seen on amulets worn around the neck, on rings, decorating walls, and even on objects worn by animals. Knowing this information, viewers can now look at these objects that once seemed “pornographic,” with fresh eyes and see how these phallic images were not meant to entice, but to protect.
The Evil Eye is the belief that just one glance could cause damage to life and property. This idea of the Evil Eye was not only prevalent in Greco-Roman period, but is still found today. The Evil Eye was dangerous in not only the sense that it could destroy life and property, but that it could be possessed by anyone and that everyone was susceptible to its dangers. Almost anybody could possess the Evil Eye if they were to become envious of others in such areas as beauty, wealth, and health. This envious nature put more prominent people in danger because of their status. Babies and young children were thought to be susceptible as well. Animals were also thought to be effected by the Eye, especially horses, because of their economic productivity. With this deep belief in the Evil Eye, certain measures were taken to protect oneself from the destructive powers imposed by the Eye. As a result of this belief of the Evil Eye one can see the adoption of jewelry and home goods with apotropaic designs on them, such as amulets, rings, paintings, mobiles, and other objects.
The apotropaic devices needed to be “ . . . striking [in] appearance, often sexual, in order to attract, to startle, to divert the attention of the wearer of it so that he or she could escape unscathed.”(Berry, 251) This explanation touches briefly on how sexual images were used to protect from the Evil Eye. The need for adoption of erotic images is clearly illustrated in Catherine Johns’ book Sex or Symbol: Erotic Images of Greece and Rome. She states that, “The use of male genitals as a charm was greatly facilitated by the fact that they are easy to represent in simple and stylized form, divorced from the rest of the human figure, without becoming to ambiguous.”(Johns, 62) The use of phalluses has even deeper roots. Veronica Berry in her article “Neapolitan Charms Against the Evil Eye,” writes about an explanation given by Alexandre Dumas-- a French writer in the nineteenth century-- about the use of phallic imagery to drive away the Evil Eye. In Greco-Roman mythology,
" . . . Venus the wife of Bacchus, [became] pregnant, [and] hid herself modestly in Paphos without publishing the news. Juno, however, being of a jealous nature, guessed the reason and vowed that she would cast the Evil Eye on the child. Thus when Venus went into labor, Juno appeared by her bedside disguised as a midwife. [She took] Priapus in her arms as soon as he was born and prepare[d] to fix on him her terrible gaze, Juno herself was transfixed with astonishment and her attention [was] diverted by the child’s abnormal erection. The circumstance to which Priapus owed his lucky escape could not be quiet and it needed nothing more to convince the ancients that in the phallus they had discovered the answer to the Evil Eye." (Berry, 251) From this story, and the knowledge of the Evil Eye, one can see that phallic imagery from the Greco-Roman time was less meant to be sexual, but as a good-luck charm.
Phallic imagery was incorporated into dress, jewelry, and even in public spaces by decorative arts and objects found in the home. Some phallic imagery has even been found on harness-trappings for horses from this time. Mobiles are another example of where phallic imagery has been found. These mobiles were intended to be hung in the courtyard of a house and usually included bells so that when the wind blew they would make noise. Bells also possessed power to ward off the Evil Eye, which will be discussed later. Vases found in homes and tombs that were used for dining purposes also had apotropaic phalluses depicted on them. W.L. Hildburgh suggests in “Apotropaism in Greek-Vase Paintings,” that these apotropaic devices might prevent contamination of the contents in the bowl and while they were being consumed. The explanation for these devices on dining ware might also be explained by the envious natures that guests could succumb to while at the host’s home. The guests might suddenly posses the Evil Eye and injure the host.
Phallic imagery functioned as not only “personal good-luck charms,” but were also seen on walls and in buildings. Pompeii is a wonderful example in which phallic imagery is abundant. When Pompeii was excavated, many images of nude bodies were found. Some of these images might have been sexual, but many “ . . . adorned the public, no less than the secluded, areas of stylish and would-be stylish houses.”(Beard, 33) Johns points out that these public images were usually placed in areas of “potential danger” like corners, bridges, and entrances. Bathhouses especially had many, since men felt vulnerable when naked.
As previously discussed apotropaic phalluses could be seen on personal charms, such as amulets, on buildings, mobiles, horse harnesses, and vases. One must now look closely at what was displayed on these objects and the primary wearer of the phallus. Johns states that, “The simple phallus, made of bronze, brass, bone, or even gold was worn as an amulet . . .”(Johns, 63) She goes further to state that as an “ . . . amulet to be worn on the person, some of the most charming [were] the tiny gold finger-rings . . .”(Johns, 63) These rings were small and were most likely intended for younger children to protect them, as stated earlier, they were more susceptible to the Evil Eye. On many of these amulets and other objects, like the ring, the phallus is either depicted alone or with other motifs. When it is depicted alone, argues Johns, it is generally a simple rendering of the form. When depicted with other designs, the phallus then becomes more elaborate. This inclusion of other motifs is not necessarily to show more decoration, but might have meant to make “. . . its apotropaic function even more explicit.”(Johns, 66)
Phalluses were not the only design that was thought to be apotropaic. Eyes also had this same function. Phalluses shown with eyes, or an eye, showed how the penis dominated the Evil Eye as well as, how the eye could be used as a charm against the Evil Eye. Amica Lykiardopoulos in her article “The Evil Eye: Towards an Exhaustive Study,” goes further by stating that “ . . . the eye amulets may be based on the assumption that ‘like cures like’ . . .”( Lykiardopoulos, 227) As a result, eyes that were thought to be apotropaic could increase the protective power of the object or charm when combined with the phallus.
Since certain animals were also thought to ward off the Evil Eye, often times animal parts could be seen with the image of a phallus. This also increased the power of the apotropaic device. Johns states that “ . . . the power of the phallus is underlined by associating and even almost conflating it, not only with deities . . . but also with certain animals which were supposed to be well endowed with sexual vigor and general vitality.”(Johns, 68) With this idea of animals as being apotropaic, one must also look at the material that some of these objects were made of. If made from animal bone or deer antlers, for example, power might be added to the object with this connection to animals.
As mentioned earlier, bells were used on phallic mobiles. Bells were also thought to be an apotropaic device believed to keep evil at a safe distance. There are many mobiles that are not only phallic and include bells, but also use animals, tripling its protective power.
So why so many apotropaic devices depicting male genitals? The story recounted earlier gives some insight to why penises were used, but couldn’t women’s genitalia also have the same effect? Catherine Johns brings up this point in her book and cites examples of phallic images combined with a hand that might represent female sexual parts. These amulets depicting a hand are either with a phallus or alone and often make a “. . . specific gesture in which the fingers are curled and the thumb thrust between the index and middle fingers,” representing a penis in the vagina.(Johns, 63) Women’s sexual parts therefore do have apotropaic function, but why not show a detailed description of them?
Johns offers a strong argument about why female genitalia is not depicted. She states, “The vulva is rarely seen: its situation makes it invisible in any normal position even to its owner . . . In contrast, the male genitals are visible in most positions in a state of undress.”(Johns, 72) She goes further, stating that when the vulva is revealed it is “ . . . artistically an inconvenient and ill-defined shape, lacking the clear and characteristic outlines of the male organs which makes it possible to draw or model them as a completely detached unit . . .”(Johns, 72) Johns gives a strong argument as to why artistically it is easier to represent males, and henceforth women genitals have been represented by hand gestures. However, she does not just leave it at the explanation of the difficulty of drawing. Johns looks at it from a psychological point of view as well. She states, “Psychologists consider that the female genitals, as symbols of the female power and mystery, can appear dangerous and threatening . . .”(Johns, 72) This view not only shows the patriarchal nature of society, but also empowers women in the sense that they have this type of power over men, just with their hidden genitalia.
The Greek and Roman periods of art produced many sexual images. However, the depictions of genitalia were not all erotic in nature. With an extreme belief in the Evil Eye during this period, many phallic imagery, and images of women’s genitalia, could have been used to function as an apotropaic device, instead of being solely sexual. Such apotropaic devices took on many different forms ranging from jewelry to decorative objects found in the home. There are also examples of animals wearing apotropaic imagery on their garments. The lack of the female genitalia is another point that apotropaic objects present. Johns brings up the fact that the vulva is difficult to portray, but she also mentions how female sexual organs might have been even more threatening then the Evil Eye. Through the study of phallic imagery of apotropaic devices, one can see the prevalence of the Evil Eye during the time of the Greek and Romans and that images often associated as pornographic functioned as “good-luck charms.”