Sunday, September 14, 2014

Blog Post #3 -> Carson's words used on Sappho and Theognis

Sapho – Fragment #1:
Immortal Aphrodite on you richly crafted throne,
daughter of Zeus, weaver of snares, I beg you,
do not wit hsorrows and with pains subdue
                my heart, O Lady,  

but come to me, if ever at another time as well,
hearing my voice from far away,
you heeded it, and leaving your father’s house
                of gold, you came,

yoking your chariot. Graceful sparrows
brought you swiftly over the black earth,
with a thick whirring of wings, from heaven down
                through the middle air.

Suddenly they were here, and you, O Blessed,
with a smile on your immortal face
asked me what was wrong this time, and why
                I called you this time,

and what in my maddened heart I wanted most
to happen. “Whom shall I persuade this time
to welcome you in friendship? Who is it,
                Sappho, that wrongs you?

For if she flees now, soon she shall pursue;
if she refuses presents, she shall give them;
if she does not love, soon she shall love
                even against her will.”

Come to me now as well; release me from
this agony; all that my heart yearns
to be achieved, achieve, and be yourself
                my ally in arms.

In this fragment, Sappho seems to describe her feelings and relationship to with the goddess of love, Aphrodite. Aphrodite here may indeed be a euphemism for love itself, and Sappho describes her ongoing struggle with different loves. Part of the fragment italicizes the worse “this time”, emphasizing how this struggle and relationship with love seems to be quit repetitive. There’s almost a sense of annoyance within the line, suggesting a sense of hopelessness for the love that is coming up “this time” around. Sappho relationship with love is one of over exhausted usage and constant back-and-forth with little luck or direction. Carson’s use of the metaphor describing Eros as the sensations of hot and cold during blacksmithing fits well here. The way in which Sappho seems to bounce from one love to the next with little control is similar to the way a blacksmith hammers down a sword going back and forth between hot and cold. Sappho has little control in the direction of love in a similar fashion to the sword the blacksmith is hammering down.

Theognis – Fragment #22:

A boy and a horse are alike in mind, for the horse does not
                weep for its rider when he lies in the dust,
but, fed full with barley, it carries the next man;
                and in just this way the boy too loves whoever is at
                hand.

Theognis’ fragment describes the inevitability of dwindling love. The partnership between a boy and his horse is still capable of severance when their mutual need or use for each other fades. The way in which the horse “carries the next man” interprets the relationship the horse has with its master as one of utility. The horse will indeed follow whoever feeds it “full with barley”. According to Theognis, the horse indeed lacks loyalty. Similarly, the boy “loves whoever is at hand” portrays how love here is indeed attached to utility and proximity. The boy’s love for the horse here is fleeting when it no longer sees its value. In his chapter, “Gone”, Carson describes how desire come from “what is lacking”, and identifies the precursor to love as one associated with utility or need. The horse will respond to its need to feed, and will follow whoever provides it barley. The boy requires a steed, and will love whoever provides that transportation need. Love or desire is subject to the requirement of use or need.  

1 comment:

  1. Overall this is very thorough, though in the Sappho analysis I would have liked to have seen a citation from Carson. Don't take my knowledge of Carson for granted, but show the specific point in her analysis that this occurs. It is in fact her own citation of Anacreon - what does she say about the passage? Also, your reading of Theognis didn't quite parse the simile right - the boy is compared to the horse, the "rider" in both cases is the man. I'm pointing this out not to heighten its salaciousness but to show that you have to be careful with how poets set up their comparisons, as it is key to understanding the broader rhetorical argument.

    ReplyDelete