The most striking things about the stories of Procne and Medea are the sharply, sometimes brutally rendered details.
In particular, in Procne's story, the detail about Pelias seizing Philomela's hair and using it to tether her arms behind her back, and then severing her tongue. Then, "her tongue’s root was left quivering, while the rest of it lay on the dark soil, vibrating and trembling, and, as though it were the tail of a mutilated snake moving, it writhed, as if, in dying, it was searching for some sign of her."
It always genuinely surprises me when passages like this appear in old texts. Today, gore similar to this might be used for shock value. Is that what this was meant to accomplish? Was reinforcing some kind of moral lesson? Probably not, since this is a story that explains something in nature. I would guess that this description was included for the sake of detail and storytelling. There are similar descriptions that don't speak to senses, but emotional reactions:"Without delay, she dragged Itys off, as a tigress does an un-weaned fawn, in the dark forests of the Ganges. As they reached a remote part of the great palace, Procne, with an unchanging expression, struck him with a knife, in the side close to the heart, while he stretched out his hands, knowing his fate at the last, crying out ‘Mother! Mother!’ and reaching out for her neck. That one wound was probably enough to seal his fate, but Philomela opened his throat with the knife."
This passage isn't as vivid as the last one, but it does at least contribute to the plot in showing how far Procne's desire for revenge reaches.
For anyone rewriting this story, special attention would have to be paid to both of the above passages. How would someone handle Philomela's tongue being cut out? Could more emotional nuance be added, or is it assumed as is? Would it be better to omit them altogether?
Image: Philomena and Procne, by Elizabeth Jane Gardner. Web source.
No comments:
Post a Comment