Ephemerality versus Eternity
I've taken probably too many classes on death (2), but specifically I took Prof. Henry's class on the history of death, in which we talked for a while about medieval Christian relics. Interestingly, bodies of saints were supposed to have a good scent, smelling like spices or flowers even long, long after death.
The difference between the medieval Christianity and rabbinic Judaism immediately stood out to me. Both claim death is tied to smell, but the associations and rationales are completely different. This line from Green stood out to me particularly:
"And fragrance is also intimately tied to death-- perhaps as a representation of what we desire in that finality-- that death too will be fleeting, temporary, of no consequence" (197).
In comparison, Christian relics are supposed to smell because they are lasting, intended to be preserved, pieces of saints. There is no finality in a relic kept for hundreds of years (or at least, I don't think so).
Overall, I think the concept is fascinating in both religions because... honestly? Death doesn't smell good. Saying something "smells like death" is to say it smells horrible. In that way, at least, Green's idea of associating the ephemerality of fragrance with the ephemerality of death makes more sense to me. Part of the miracle of the saints was the preservation of the pleasant smell, miraculously making the smell unephemeral.
"And fragrance is also intimately tied to death-- perhaps as a representation of what we desire in that finality-- that death too will be fleeting, temporary, of no consequence" (197).
ReplyDeleteWow. What a thought! I'm not sure Green is right about this. You're right - death per se smells bad. But as I said in my response to Zoe, it seems that memory and pleasant aromas are similar, not simply because they are "fleeting, temporary, of no consequence," but on the contrary, because they're like a residual _presence_ or a person, a thing which is absent, but somehow still there, albeit ephemerally, fleetingly.