I have just come back from the Classical Association Conference, the biggest classics conference in the UK, which this year was held in Edinburgh. This was a very good ‘vintage’, with among other things, a wonderful panel on crime writing and the classics (including Ian Rankin and Lindsey Davis), Scottish dancing, a bagpipe performance by distinguished classics Professor Ewen Bowie, and – lest I forget – some great academic papers.
Ancient science and medicine was well represented this year, as we had a double panel on Ancient Botany: Text and Practice, with seven papers in total (see here for the Tweets generated by the panel). Theophrastus was surprisingly little mentioned, but we heard much about Pliny the Elder, Dioscorides – and Ovid. Now Ovid is not usually an author that historians of science study very much, although his cosmetic recipes do get mentioned now and again. His stories of plant metamorphoses, on the other hand, are usually examined for their literary value, and for the political/messages they convey – but not for their ‘science’. Yet, stories telling the metamorphoses of mythical characters into plants or animals do raise questions about what it means to be a human, an animal, or a plant – and that is perhaps one of the most important questions in ancient science.
In antiquity, some philosophers believed that the human embryo was like a plant or ‘lived the life of the plant’: it only possessed the lowest part of the soul, which is sometimes called the ‘vegetative part of the soul’. It acquired other faculties (the senses and the capacity to think) later in the pregnancy or after birth. Now, when a human is transformed into a plant s/he regresses almost to the embryological stage, losing first the capacity to sense in a human way, and then the capacity to speak. Ovid’s beautiful stories make us wonder whether the being that has been transformed into a plant can somehow still feel and cry within. For instance, the story of Myrrha, who was metamorphosed into a myrrh tree, ends as follows:
Though she has lost with her body her former senses,
She weeps still, and the lukewarm drops trickle from the tree.
There is honour also in her tears, and the myrrh that drops from her bark
Keeps the name of its mistress, about which no age will keep silent.
Ovid, Metamorphoses 10.499-502
It is with all these thoughts of metamorphoses that I embarked on my journey home. The train journey was to last seven hours! I was frankly too tired to do any work, or even to read a novel. So I mostly dozed and listened to music. One of the albums I listened to is Annie Lennnox’s Medusa, which I really love. Now, there is no ‘Medusa’ song in this album. As the editors of the Medusa Reader (a collection of documents relating to the myth of Medusa across the centuries) note, the album title must refer to Lennox’s ability to manipulate ‘her own arresting image’ (p. 7). Lennox is the Medusa who can transform us into stones.
I suspect there is much more, and the opening song of the album ‘No more I love you’s’ must be part of the answer. This is a song about slaying one’s demons (those of despair and desire), and yet not finding happiness. The chorus goes as follows:
No more “I love you’s”
The language is leaving me
No more “I love you’s”
The language is leaving me in silence
No more “I love you’s”
Changes are shifting outside the words
Now, Annie Lennox did not write those words. The song was first composed in 1985 by The Lover Speaks, a new wave duo. As I said, I had a long journey, so I did a bit of <cough>Wikipedia<cough> reading on the duo. They were clearly well-read, as they called themselves after Roland Barthes‘ book A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments (1977), a series of short essays on love.
Someone much more versed in cultural studies might explain to me how Barthes’ reflections inspired The Lover Speaks. I am more directly interested by Lennox’s rendition and what it may mean in the context of an album entitled Medusa. For Medusa is the monster who can turn people into stone through her stare. She is slain by Perseus, and in Ovid’s rendition of the myth, her bleeding head, deposited on seaweeds, gives birth to coral – the ‘plant’ (the ancient believed it was a plant) transformed into stone in contact with the air (see here for a post I wrote on the story).
In ‘No more I love you’s’, the narrator loses the ability to speak; changes are now ‘shifting outside the words’. This is a very arresting description of what would happen to someone who is metamorphosed, to someone who is turned into stone under the gaze of Medusa. But why would anyone ever say ‘I love you’ in the presence of the Gorgon? She is supposed to be an ugly monster. Well, not in all versions of the myth. In some she is described as beautiful. In Ovid’s version (at the very end of Book IV), she is a stunning maiden, before Miverva transforms her into a terrifying beast.
I could go further and refer to the feminist re-appropriation of Medusa, but language is leaving me in silence.