The story of Iphis and Ianthe is full of contradictions, manipulations, and ambiguities. I think Boehringer makes a key point (although it may get lost in the details) that what makes female same-sex love "impossible" for Ovid is the essential structural understanding of sex in Roman society: that it must involve a hierarchical relationship and must involve at least one man. If those elements aren't present, the relationship--no matter how obviously romantic-- cannot be fit into the conceptual category of "a romantic/sexual relationship." If this seems quaint and ridiculous, let me point out that it wasn't all that long ago that people sincerely asked lesbian couples "which one of you is the man?"
From a modern point of view, the story of Iphis and Ianthe begs to be understood as a transgender myth. But Boehringer makes an excellent point that nowhere within the story is Iphis presented as understanding her identity as masculine. At every turn, she not only is framed as considering herself to be a maiden, but is treated as such in terms of her upbringing and her anticipated marriage. And when the idea of resolving her dilemma with a change of sex arises--well before the goddess Isis implements that idea--Iphis would be happy if either she or Ianthe were transformed, it doesn't matter which as long as they are able to marry as a result. (This same motif shows up in John Lyly's Gallathea, which has Iphis as one of its inspiratoins.)
The essential metamorphosis here, Boehringer asserts, is not the change of Iphis from woman to man, but the change in the relationshp from woman/woman to man/woman, thus aligning it with the Roman understanding of "nature" and changing the relationship from impossible to possible. And yet...you can't argue that female same-sex love was "unimaginable" for Ovid and his audience, because he requires us to imagine it, even if only to erase it.
Comments