Martha muses about the secret lives of flowers in this week’s podcast. She’s been pondering the lexical legacy of Carolus Linnaeus, the great Swedish botanist who nearly 300 years ago was criticized for his fascination with what was a new discovery at the time: The fact that plants reproduce sexually. Prepare to fan yourself as Martha reveals her thoughts about lex and the single flower.
Transcript of “The Secret Lives of Flowers (minicast)”
Welcome to the summer podcast edition of A Way with Words. I’m Martha Barnette. My co-host
Grant Barrett is off reading about the secret life of fricatives. If you don’t know what
a fricative is, you might want to look it up. In the meantime, I’m sitting here thinking
about the secret life of flowers. But first, let’s talk about the secrets tucked inside
their names. Take the flower called a gladiolus. Do you think its name comes from the fact that
you’re glad when it blooms? Well, no. The name gladiolus comes from the Latin gladius, which
means sword. And as you might have guessed, gladius is a linguistic relative of the word
gladiator. And the name gladiolus refers to the long pointed leaves of the plant.
Some flowers are named for botanists. If you’ve ever sniffed a begonia or pruned camellias or
picked the dahlia, then you’ve run into a flower that commemorates one of these experts.
Which brings us to one of the greatest botanists of all time, Carolus Linnaeus. He was born 300
years ago this summer in Sweden. Now, you may remember that Linnaeus was the guy who developed
the system of binomial nomenclature. That’s the method of classifying plants and animals using
Greek and Latin names. He was also fascinated by a notion that was just beginning to take hold in
the scientific world in those days. And that was the idea that plants reproduce sexually.
There’s a certain orchid looks exactly like a certain insect. So the insect is drawn to this
flower. It’s double, it’s soulmate and wants nothing more than to make love to it.
After the insect flies off, spots another soulmate flower and makes love to it, thus
pollinating it. And neither the flower nor the insect will ever understand the significance of
their lovemaking. At the time, all that talk about stamens and pistils was downright revolutionary.
And Linnaeus was so enthusiastic about this idea that his prose sometimes got a little,
well, flowery. He wrote,
The flower’s leaves serve as bridal beds, which the Creator has so gloriously arranged,
adorned with such noble bed curtains and perfumed with so many soft scents
that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials
with so much the greater solemnity.
Wow!
Yes, he went on to say, love comes even to the plants.
Well, the way that Linnaeus went on and on about pollination absolutely scandalized some of his more prudish colleagues.
One of those critics was Johann Sigisbeck.
He denounced those descriptions as loathsome harlotry.
And he went on to say,
Who would have thought that bluebells, lilies, and onions could be up to such immorality?
Well, as it turns out, Linnaeus had the last laugh.
There’s now a stinky, trashy weed in Europe.
It grows in the mud, and it bears the scientific name Sigusbeckia orientalis.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve read that some herbalists say that Sigusbeckia is good for erasing stretch marks.
Well, if you’re interested in the origins of flower names or digging up any other word by its roots,
email us. The address is words at kpbs.org.
Or you can leave us a phone message anytime.
The number’s 1-877-929-9673.
Thanks for joining us. I’m Martha Barnette.
Thank you.
Listening to Martha’s latest podcast, “The Secret Lives of Flowers,” I was wondering the following: Linneaus was highly criticized for the “sexuality” he found in flowers. How about the sexual connotation of the verb “to deflower”? Does it precede Linnaeus’s studies? Is it related to him or his controversial studies in any way?
Piotr, the OED says the word “deflower” has been used in that sense since the 14th century. So yes, it precedes ol’ Linnaeus.
Didn’t we get the term “deflower” from Latin’s défl?r?re?
My question is, why doesn’t Martha get a snazzy background color for her posts? Showboating, Grant?
😉
It’s all random, Mark, done by the code. Artiste in the machine or something.
Ah, I see it’s the “admin” posts that are in the other color. When Grant posts under his own name, it’s like the other posts.
Just listened to the podcast. Martha should stay away from the risqué stuff. She gets a bit too much into it.
😉
Kurt: Ultimately, yes.
Marc: As I always say: “Who says etymology isn’t SEXY?”
(Then again, maybe I need to get out more! 🙂
Sexy is good, Martha. I enjoyed the show. You go!
Thanks, Ann. And no need to use the past tense here! We’re already talking with moneyed types who’re determined to ensure (not insure) that the show not only goes on, but is better than ever! So stay tuned through our email newsletter….