Michael Hals

Article Correction
Annotation/Description: The following poems are both concerned with Eros, the god of love in
Greek mythology. Read the poems carefully. Then write an essay in which you compare and
contrast the two concepts of Eros and analyze the techniques used to create them.
Reflective Paragraph: This poem, like the other poem I have annotated in the portfolio, suffered
from poor time management. I was cut off by the bell before I could even finish my first body
paragraph, and rushing to try and get something passable down influenced the quality of my
work beforehand. I was going to separate the body paragraphs by literary device, discussing how
each poem exploited it to characterize the god of love, and if I had the chance to rewrite it, I
would make sure to actually save enough time to adequately do so in my paper.
Self-Revision:
Eros
The two poems EP, by Robert Bridges, and Eros, by Anne Stevenson, attempt to
characterize love through the embodiment of Eros, the Greek god of love. But while both portray
an overall negative connotation of love, they both have very different interpretations of it, and
characterize love through diction and symbolism.
In Bridges interpretation of love, Eros is characterized in a more traditional sense. It
reflects the traditional Greek archetype of the ancient god, going so far as to use the Greek
spelling for the word EP. The poems choice of diction helps mirror this interpretation,
using eloquent archaic language, Yea, and that standest in thy youth and using references to
Greek culture, like, With thy exubrent flesh so fair,/ That only Pheidias might compare
(Bridges). This choice in diction establishes this ancient image Bridges is going for, and helps
solidify his next point in his symbolic use of Eros in the poem. The author portrays Eros just as
he is: as a god. He characterizes him as an immortal personification of love that is beyond
empathy and responsibility. Only thy soft unchristnd smile,/that shadows neither love nor
guile,/But shameless will and power immense,/In secret sensuous innocence (Bridges). In this
interpretation, men are merely the playthings of an unreasoning, omniscient force that has no
rhyme or reason in afflicting mankind with meaningless passion.
Corrected Essay:
Eros
Throughout history, poets have strived time and time again to quantify love, either by
adoring its beauty or abhorring its power over individuals. The two poems EP, by Robert
Bridges, and Eros, by Anne Stevenson, attempt to do so through the personification of Eros, the
Greek god of love. But while both portray an overall negative connotation of love, they both
have very different interpretations of love itself, and characterize love through both diction and
symbolism.

Michael Hals

In Bridges interpretation of love, Eros is characterized in a more traditional sense. It

reflects the traditional Greek archetype of the ancient god, going so far as to use the Greek
spelling for the word EP. The poems choice of diction helps mirror this interpretation,
using eloquent archaic language, Yea, and that standest in thy youth and using references to
Greek culture, like, With thy exubrent flesh so fair,/ That only Pheidias might compare
(Bridges). This decision establishes this ancient image Bridges is going for, and helps solidify his
next point in his symbolic use of Eros in the poem. The author portrays Eros just as he is: as a
god. He characterizes him as an immortal personification of love that is beyond empathy and
responsibility. Only thy soft unchristnd smile,/that shadows neither love nor guile,/But
shameless will and power immense,/In secret sensuous innocence (Bridges). In this
interpretation, men are merely the playthings of an unreasoning, omniscient force that has no
rhyme or reason in afflicting mankind with meaningless passion. In contrast, Stevensons
interpretation of Eros is more modern, as can be seen by the colloquial use of diction in the first
paragraph. I call for love/But help me, who arrives?/This thug with broken nose/And squinty
eyes. (Stevenson). Unlike Bridges, Stevensons Eros has been warped through many ages of
abuse through love, turning him just as blunt and ugly on the outside. This contrasting image
of the glorious god of love we know from mythology and his modern equivalent would hardly be
as effective without the modern diction to go with it, as such language conjures such bluntness
and irony that the poems message requires.
Alongside diction, symbolism is expertly wielded by both authors to hone their
interpretation of Eros, even if those interpretations may be different. In Bridges poem, Eros
himself is used to symbolize what he feels love truly is a baseless attraction that shows neither
rhyme nor reason when choosing its victims. His thoughtless, careless version of the God shows
no care or emotion, and instead makes humanity his playthings, as seen by the void described in
his face. Why has though nothing in thy face.Ah yet no victim of thy grace,/ None who eer
longd for thy embrace,/Hath cared to look upon thy face. (Bridges). The emptiness in Eros
face symbolizes the emptiness of the love he inspires, and how these attractions only lead people
to become shallow husks of their former selves. On the other hand, Stevenson uses symbolism to
prove that, while love might not be something to look upon now, there was a time when it was a
good thing, and time has caused it to slowly shift into something else entirely. In her poem, Eros
says, Know the brute you see/Is what long overuse/Has made of me./My face that so offends
you/ Is the sum/Of blows your lust delivered/One by one. (Stevenson). Here, Eros symbolizes
the corrupted form of love that exists now, and how what once was such a divine and amazing
thing has been polluted and battered so that it only resembles a shell of its former self.