In today’s popular culture, the Greek god Eros is more widely known by his Roman name, Cupid, and in his cherubic rather than blindfolded, young male form. In the poems “EΡΩΣ”, by Robert Bridges, and “Eros”, by Anne Stevenson, both poets refer to the youthful male form of the god of love portrayed by the Greeks, rather than the angelic baby the Romans and modern Valentine’s Day depict. Despite their similar use of Greek Eros, the poems differ in the fact that Bridges’ poem is a monologue that praises and esteems the god, while Stevenson holds a rather argumentative dialogue with the young Eros.
Both Bridges and Stevenson chose to use youthful diction, in order to portray Eros as a boy/young man of immense beauty. In the opening stanza of
…show more content…
his poem, Bridges describes Eros as “the flower of lovely youth” (4), a description that attests to the poet’s desire to portray love as young and full of spirit. In a similar fashion, Stevenson refers to Eros as a “bully boy” (5) in the opening lines of her poem. As youth is traditionally associated with innocence and an energetic spirit, both poets attempt to characterize the love they describe as guiltless and vibrant. This initial depiction of Eros is used by Stevenson to later describe how Eros’ innocence has been destroyed by various infractions against pure love. Similarly, Bridges uses Eros’ image of youthful innocence to describe how love initially seems to be pure to humanity, but can be conflicted with feelings of “secret sensuous innocence” (18). However, after their characterization of young and beautiful Eros, the two poems begin to diverge, especially in the format the poets comment on love. In Bridges’ poem, love and Eros are described in a monologue, but in Stevenson’s poem, she has a dialogue with the god of Love.
In Bridges’ poem, he discusses both love, and its interactions with humanity, from the perspective of a person deep in introspective contemplation. For example, Bridges writes, “What is thy thought? I dream thou knowest it is nought” (19-20). The fact his poem is written as a monologue allows Bridges to ask rhetorical questions to Eros, and then answer them, in order to put further emphasis on the general message of the poem. On the other hand, Stevenson comments on love by directly addressing its personified form. In the quotation, “‘Madam’, cries Eros, ‘Know the brute you see is what long overuse has made of me’” (9-12), Stevenson depicts Eros stating how offenses against love have tarnished its beauty. This dialogue format allows Eros to stand trial and give a formal statement against the accusations made by Stevenson in the first stanza. Stevenson addresses Eros in the quotation, “‘Can this be you, with boxer lips and patchy wings askew?’” (6-8). Here, Stevenson accuses personified form of love of being a broken image of its former self. While Bridges and Stevenson differ in the way they converse with Eros, the two poems also diverge in the tone with which the poets address the
deity. While Bridges’ poem keeps a rather praiseful and respectful tone towards Eros, Stevenson’s poem is argumentative towards the Greek god of love. Bridges uses phrases such as “image of eternal Truth” (6) and “With thy exuberant flesh so fair” (7) to describe Eros. Throughout his poems, Bridges address personified love as though it were blameless in the faults in contains. Oppositely, Stevenson addresses Eros in an irate tone; using phrases such as the sarcastic quotation, “I call for low but help me, who arrives? This thug with broken nose and squinty eyes” (1-4). Stevenson lacks a degree of respect for the Greek god of love and address him as one would address a person of disagreeable conduct and appearance. These differences in tone are used by both poets to enforce their distinct view on why love is not perfect. The poem, “EΡΩΣ” by Robert Bridges, and the poem, “Eros” by Anne Stevenson, both offer a commentary on love in the personified form of a youthful Greek god. While Bridges respectfully ruminates by himself on the problems with love, Stevenson angrily accosts the Greek deity. Neither poet believes love is truly the innocent cherub portrayed in today’s popular culture; both poets agree love has been scarred by humanity. Hence, love is never as perfect as we desire it would be, but rather love contains the faults of past mistakes. Both poets are attempting to inform the reader that despite its various faults, love is still worthwhile; better the “battered visage” of love than a complete lack of it.
In the poems, “EΡΩΣ” by Robert Bridges and “Eros” by Anne Stevenson both have similar yet distinct concepts of the God of love. “EΡΩΣ” describes the concept of love as being conflicted between humans view of Eros as the god of love and lust; where as Stevenson’s poem describes Eros as being bruised and beat up as a result of this constant misunderstanding by humanity. Thus, both poems are similar with their description of Eros’ constant struggles with human nature.
Two different poems regarding to Eros open with a call out to the god of Eros and long for an answer. Both poems begin with a description of Eros’s face that defines who is Eros in two different perspectives. Although the subject matter and the structure of the poem are similar between the two, the use of figurative speech, such as apostrophe and imagery, and rhyme completely changes the meaning. Bridges sets Eros as a distant god placed above humans, while Stevenson identifies a god as a slave bruised by human desires.
In the 1930s, who would have perpetrated violent acts against women in the name of sexual gratification yet still hold expectations that women take care of them? By making men in general the placeholder for “you” in the poem, it creates a much stronger and universal statement about the sexual inequality women face. She relates to women who have had “a god for [a] guest” yet it seems ironic because she is criticising the way these women have been treated (10). It could be argued, instead, that it is not that she sees men as gods, but that it is the way they see themselves. Zeus was a god who ruled Olympus and felt entitled to any woman he wanted, immortal or otherwise.
The Rhyme scheme in the poem adds to the characterization of Eros. Stevenson’s pattern, however consistent, seems off and out of place. By rhyming line two to four and line six to eight in every stanza, Stevenson brings Eros to life in
The use of formal language is more associated with dignity and respectfulness, which Bridges’ was trying to aim for in his poem. This makes the Eros in Bridges’ poem more disconnected from reality. Using modern language makes Eros seem more “human-like”, because of the hits he has taken from human lust and is seen as more vulnerable. The dialogue (or lack thereof) causes a difference in how Eros is seen. The rhyme schemes helped convey different feelings within the two poems. Bridges’ has a more formal and traditional rhyme scheme while Stevenson has a disjoint simple 4-line scheme. Bridges’ poem, Eros is simply admired from far away, while Stevenson’s poem has the speaker and Eros actually engage in dialogue. Both are similar however, in that they convey a message of not understanding love. In Bridges’ poem the speaker cannot fully understand love because he cannot see Eros’ face, and in Stevenson’s poem the speaker, as well as others cannot understand love, because they deceive themselves into what they think actual love
Use of Satire and Irony in The Widow of Ephesus by Gaius Petronius and the poem “True Love” by Judith Viorst
Archilochus wore this persona as well, believed to have gone through an initiation brought on by the muses (Heller “Greek Lyric Overview”). For Archilochus, the function that he was putting forward the muses’s words can serve as a blurred line that helps to separate his work from his own individual poetic agendas. Yet, his individual agency cannot be circumvented. In “To An Ex-Mistress” we see Archilochus’s own qualms come to bare, “such was the lust for sex that, worming in under my heart, quite blinded me and robbed me of my young wits…” (fr. 191W). Reminiscent of Sappho, Archilochus brings in sexuality as a topic of investigation and one can only imagine what social setting Archilochus might have chosen to degrade his ex-lover. Was this piece presented for humor or was this piece a serious analysis of man’s own fragility to his sexual desires? Here, we see how social context can certainly illuminate the impact of the poet’s
the time of Socrates and Plato. To them love was eros, a direct translation of
Throughout his life... was a man self-haunted, unable to escape from his own drama, unable to find any window that would not give him back the image of himself. Even the mistress of his most passionate love-verses, who must (one supposes) have been a real person, remains for him a mere abstraction of sex: a thing given. He does not see her --does not apparently want to see her; for it is not of her that he writes, but of his relation to her; not of love, but of himself loving.
The meaning of love is as intricate and unique as the purpose that it serves. It seems that the nature of love is found in the mind, the body and the soul. In Plato’s Symposium each member of the drinking party gives their own interpretation of love. As each speaker engages in their discourse, the concept of love is evaluated from different angles. According to Phaedrus, homoerotic love is the highest form of love and that sacrificing oneself for love will result in a multitude of rewards from the gods, while Pausanias believes that there are two forms of love: Commonly and Heavenly. As a physician, Eryximachus claims that love appears in every part of the universe, including plants and animals and that protection results from love. Before starting his speech, Aristophanes tells the group that his discussion about love may seem completely absurd, as he explains that in the beginning one body had two people who were eventually split in half by Zeus. This is meant to explain why people are constantly looking for their “other half”. Moreover Agathon, the poet the symposium is celebrating, critiques the previous speakers by stating that they failed to praise the god of love. He claims that love rejects feebleness and embraces youthfulness while also implying that love creates justice, courage and wisdom.
Love, in classical Greek literature, is commonly considered a prominent theme. Love, in present days, always appears in the categories of books, movies, music, etc. Interpreted differently by different people, Love turns into a multi-faceted being. In Plato’s work Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausania, Eryximachus, Aristophane and Agathon, each of them presents a speech to either praise or definite Love. Phaedrus first points out that Love is the primordial god; Pausanias brings the theme of “virtue” into the discussion and categorizes Love into “good” one or “bad” one; Eryximachus introduces the thought of “moderation’ and thinks that Love governs such fields as medicine and music; Aristophanes draws attention to the origin and purposes of Love; Agathon enunciates that the correct way to present an eulogy is first to praise its nature and gifts.
Cardinal Wolsey’s introduction of Metamorphoses into the English schooling curriculum during the sixteenth century gave prominence to Ovid’s influence at the time. It became popular to students, such as Shakespeare, to learn the poem so that they could adapt and imitate it in Latin verse. Though Shakespeare was familiar with the poem in its Latin form he preferred Arthur Golding’s 1567 translated adaptation. Golding was a moralist whose interpretation of Metamorphoses was that the poem “was a punishment for sexual unnaturalness” howsoever, writers such as Shakespeare and Marlowe were more interested in the romanticism in the poem rather than moralising the characters’ actions. Greek mythology was an essential focus in poetry as it constituted the erotic love narrative background which was a flourishing poetic theme towards the end of the sixteenth century. Shakespeare would have been aware of the fantastic reception of these narrative poems and this is why he contributed to the subject by writing the epyllion of Venus and Adonis in April 1593 which...
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
Two of the greatest masters of British literature, Shakespeare and Chaucer, tended to look to the classics when searching for inspiration. A lesser-known example of this lies in an ancient tale from Greece about two star-crossed lovers. There are many variations on the names of these lovers, but for the purpose of solidarity, they shall henceforth be referred to as “Troilus and Criseyde” for Chaucer and “Troilus and Cressida” for Shakespeare. Chaucer’s “Troilus and Criseyde” offers up a classic tale of love that is doomed, whereas Shakespeare’s “Troilus and Cressida” is not only tragic but also biting in its judgment and representation of characters. This difference may be due to the differences in time periods for the two authors, or their own personal dispositions, but there can be no denying the many deviations from Chaucer’s work that Shakespeare employs. Shakespeare’s work, by making the characters and situations more relatable, builds upon Chaucer’s original work, rather than improving it or shattering it.
The Greek God of love, Eros, was a symbol of romantic affection throughout Greek history. Different time periods depict Eros in a different light, as portrayed in Bridge’s poem in 1899 and Stevenson’s poem in 1990. Although both these works are an ode and appreciation for Eros, Bridges’ portrays him as a powerful and idyllic deity while Stevenson displays him as a worn mortal.