Question #1
Robert Bridges’ “EPΏΣ” and Anne Stevenson’s “Eros”
Sample C
The contemporary, Valentine’s Day version of Eros brings to mind a button-faced cherub toting a bow and
quiver of heart-tipped arrows. Robert Bridges and Anne Stephenson provide much different views of the Greek
god of love. Bridges views Eros as an enigmatic and powerful “tyrant,” while Stevenson sees him as a
benevolent, though bloodied, hero of humanity.
From the start of his poem, Bridges displays a questionable attitude towards Eros. He opens with the
question: “Why hast thou nothing in thy face?” This suggests that Eros is hiding something behind a blank
expression and Bridges does not know what to think. He makes some negative associations with Eros, calling
him an “idol” and a “tyrant.” In the following stanza he states that Eros’s smile shadows “neither love nor guide,
but shameless will and power immense.” Again, shameless will negatively implies greed, a characteristic not
expected of a rosy-checked cherub. Eros is known as the divine matchmaker, creating loving couples around the
world, but Bridges refers to these people as “victims of thy grace.” One who falls in love would typically not be
considered a victim, but because all people are at the whim of Eros, they become victims to his “power immense.”
Bridges concludes with a negative comment that could easily be seen as an insult towards Eros: “none who e’er
long’d for thy embrace, hath cared to look upon thy face.” One who longed for Eros’s embrace would be a person
desiring love, but no one that desired love would care how they fell in love as long as it happened. No one
appreciates Eros as a god, they simply appreciate what he does for them.
Contrary to Bridges’s poem, Stevenson’s presents a much more positive view of Eros. Stevenson describes
Eros as a “thug with broken nose and squinty eyes,” another untraditional image. Eros’s explanation of his
injuries reveal that they are the result of man’s lust. He says that he would rather receive the blows upon his
“battered visage” than have them damage love. Lust, which has been the fall of many great relationships or
marriages, could destroy true love, but Eros benevolently protects his endeavors by taking the punches instead.
Stevenson’s poem presents a view that could make man feel guilty for exposing Eros to this beating, but shows
Eros as magnificent for taking it.
These two poems show very different views of the Greek love god Eros. Bridges sees him as an
unappreciated, powerful tyrant, where Stevenson sees him as an innocent whipping-boy, taking hits so that man
can be content.
Sample DD
The poems written about Eros by Robert Bridges and Anne Stevenson take a very different point of view
from each other; yet it is know that both are talking about the same mythical figure.
In the Robert Bridges poem “EPΏΣ” Eros is described as young beautiful creature. The speaker says that
only Pheidias might compare with his sculptors, but they could eventually fade. (Lines 8-10) Eros is also
depicted as having no face. This is where the speaker changes the outlook on Eros. Instead of focusing on Eros’s
body and looks, the speaker sees his mind and is more interested in this aspect of the God of love’s character than
any other. In doing so Bridges shows the God of love not to be about lust for the physical, but for the longing of a
kindred mind. The speaker shows this in lines 24-25. “None who e’er long’d for thy embrace, hath cared to look
upon thy face.” To Bridges love is not about the physical but the emotional relationship; therefore, the speaker
never cared to look upon loves face.
In the poem by Anne Stevenson titled “Eros” the God of love takes on a different form. Brides used the
image of a divinely beautiful creature, but Stevenson goes the opposite way. Using vivid descriptions Eros is
described by Stevenson to an ugly battered boy. When Eros explains his appearance in lines (10-16) he basically
says that he looks the way he does because of this woman’s continued lust. Eros then say “Better my battered
visage, bruised but hot, Than love dissolved in loss or left to rot.” Here Eros is saying that it is better to love him
an ugly and atrotious looking person than to just let a false love rot.
Both Bridges and Stevenson see love as something that is more than just physical. It an emotional and
spiritual feeling that looks should not effect.
Sample G
We may often find ourselves addressing higher deities in order to find reason in our everyday lives. Here,
the speakers of these two passages address Eros, the Greek god of love, with hopes of attaining advice as solace.
One author is formal and reserved while the other takes a more colloquial approach.
In the first passage, the speaker seems to question Eros’s face and his effectiveness due to physical
appearance. The entire passage is a direct address to Eros. The speaker questions why Eros lacks emotion in his
face when he is the “idol of the human race.” This hyperbole exaggerates that we are all lovesick little puppies,
servant to love, the “tyrant of the human heart.” Eros is portrayed as a typical pretty-boy archetype, with
“exuberant flesh so fair” that he may be immortalized through marble. Due to the lack of emotion in his face, the
speaker deduces that Eros must speak through his body. The speaker longs to know what Eros is thinking and
becomes frustrated when he receives no reply. He concludes by stating that anyone who seeks the advice of Eros
will not find it in his face.
The second passage portrays Eros in more modern terms, perhaps to relate him with our own everyday
lives. The speaker here is a woman who calls out for love with hopes of a beautiful young God, much like the one
in the first passage, but instead receives a “thug with broken nose.” She feels disdainful as she looks over this
“bully boy” with “boxer lips and patchy wings askew.” Eros responds to apparent surprise by telling her that his
deformed and rough figure have been caused by “long overuse.” His ugly face is caused by the blows delivered
by lust. He describes Gods such as himself as slaves who are immortal,” ment only to serve and created as
archetypes only to fuel the common desire. However, it is better to view this god of love “bruised but hot,” rather
than a pretty-boy who will only say what we wish to hear.
Sample K
In these two poems the reader is given two different concepts of Eros, the Greek God of love.
The first poem is built around the author’s vision of Eros. The author sees nothing in Eros’ face. This leads
the first poem to be a questioning of who and what Eros really is. By using words like “idol,” “tyrant,” and
“flower of lovely youth that art,” the author reveals his perception of what Eros is and represents. He has always
percieved Eros to be beautiful and pure intention. This is obtained by using words such as “eternal truth”,
“exuberant flesh”, and chaste marmoreal form.” This perception of what the author thought Eros to be is
contrasted with the Eros that the author views. The lack of a face forces the author to question what and who Eros
really is. The conclusions that the second paragraph draws reveal the author’s suspicion that Eros stands for
“shameless will” and “power immense” rather than for pure love.
While the first poem leaves the author questioning what Eros stands for, the second poem, while contrasting
perception with reality also, clearly defines who Eros is and stands for.
The author shows who Eros is by use of dialogue. This dialogue reveals a battered and ugly God. This is
shown by word choice such as “squinty eyes”, and “thug with broken nose”. Through dialogue Eros then defines
himself as a “slave” who willingly takes punishment to save love.
These two poems both use different techniques to compare author’s perception with reality. While the first
poem leaves the question unanswered as to what Eros represents, the second poem reveals the toll being a
“servant” takes on Eros.
Sample O
In the two poems EPΏΣ and Eros, the authors portray the Greek god of love very differently. While both
poems acknowledge the traditional role played by Eros in helping people find love, they abandon the accepted
notion of Eros as the pinnacle of human perfection by noting his shallow beauty and ugliness respectively.
Both poems accept that Eros is the god that causes love, and in doing so, claim that love itself has changed
little from the time of the Greeks. This is developed in the first stanza in Bridges’ poem by presenting a more
recognized view of the god. Eros, and hence love, is the goal, or “idol” of the human race, while at the same time
acts as a “tyrant” to many who have experienced the pain of lost love. The image of a “flower of lovely youth” is
very consistent with imagery associated with love. Other metaphor’s, such as love as the “eternal truth” further
help Bridges show that love is still the important emotion in the 19th century that it was in the classical age. The
physical aspects of love are also emphasized in this poem, with images of “exhuberant flesh” and “proud dress.”
Stevenson also connects on the impact of love, although her 20th century viewpoint avoids any of the clichés that
Bridges’ description contains. She still “calls for love”, expecting Eros to arrive and help her discover that
emotion. She recognizes the archetypes associated with love, but makes the point of stating that in 2000 years
they haven’t really changed significantly. Furthermore, to her, even a “bruised” sort of love is better than none at
all, again portraying love as the most significant emotion.
Bridge’s poem departs from his thread of describing classical love to emphasize the shallowness that Eros,
and the love he represents, can become. His first rhetorical question sets up this description, asking if there is
nothing behind the pretty face that Eros has. He repeats this in his second stanza by claiming there is nothing to
find in the face except a “soft unchristen’d smile.” He goes off the beauty is only skin deep tract to ask if love has
in a way become wasted because only “sensuous innocence” and “shameless will” pass for love. In other words,
the physical parts of love and sex have taken over the more deep and rewarding emotional parts of love. Eros
does not think but instead helps people merely fulfill their physical desires. In addition to imagery and diction,
the author reinforces this viewpoint with his rhyme scheme forming the poem around a very trite and airy
sounding AABB etc., scheme where every line rhymes. That sing-song sound, along with the short stanzas help
to contribute to the shallow views of love that Bridges develops.
Stevenson also says Eros and love are different from the classical stereotype, but emphasizes love’s
imperfections rather than its superficiality. Love is no longer her beautiful winged angel, but instead a “thug with
broken nose/And squinty eyes.” Love is a “bully” and a “brute” that is subverted to the will of all those who call
for it. The author assumes that Eros was once beautiful, perhaps as the Greeks imagined but that human
expectation had fettered him to his present ugliness. The image of “blows” caused by “lust” is especially
powerful because it makes it clear that each time a relationship that made sense in the beginning goes wrong (as
so often happens), the image of love is further ruined in our mind. People still hope for the perfect angel to
provide a wonderful perfect relationship, but it simply doesn’t happen any more. Even so, people still try,
because as the angel says, “bruised but hot” is better than being “left to rot”. A bad relationship is preferable to
none at all, so we still call to Eros.
Clearly both authors accept the importance of love to us, as it was to the Greeks. However, both paint a
much more negative picture through imagery, diction, and structure. The first says love has degenerated to lust,
while the second claims lust is all that one can get, because there is no perfect love anymore.
Sample ZZ
In the first poem the author (speaker) is judging Eros without his reason for being the way he is. The
speaker is condemning Eros for being a tyrant of the times without acknolwdging why Eros must act the way he
does. In the second poem we hear Eros’ side of why he is the way he is. We find he is the way he is because of
the way the first speaker portrays him as being. While they both talk about the same person, they do not both give
the same reasons for condemning the person whom the poem is about. Both poem are broken down into three
stanzas. The second poem has eight lines per stanza and the first one does not have a set number of lines per
stanza. The first poem has an alternating rhyme scheme where the ending word of every line rhyms with the one
below it going a two lines per rhym. Both poems contain lots of imagery and personification.
Sample JJ
In the poem “Eros” by Robert Bridges he describes the perfect being which is Eros. Bridges describes Eros
as being young and beautiful and standing up for what is right. His description of Eros is contrasted in the poem
“Eros” by Anne Stevenson. Stevenson describes Eros as a deformity. In her view Eros is a hideous creature who
is not recognized by anyone.
Both poets use good diction and imagery to help get their points across about Eros. Stevenson mentions a
thug with a broken nose. This description gives the reader a great image of Eros. Eros is seen as an ugly creature
with a very distorted face. A broken nose also gives Eros a stupid look giving Eros a less than intelligent
appearance. Stevenson also mentions patchy wings. This gives Eros a dirty quilt look as he flies through the air.
Bridges, however, gives Eros a more beautiful look. He says that Eros is comparable to a flower in beauty
and youth. Even though flowers do die they are reborn again with indescribable beauty. Eros is also compared to
the beauty of marble statues in the poem. This gives the reader a picture of something sparkling like marble.
Sample WWW
It is often said that man made God in man’s own form. From the development of religion and gods in
Mesopotamia to the Greek fascination with the ideal proportions to portray their gods as embodiments of
Classical beauty to contemporary outgrowths of Christianity, the fact remains that throughout history, humankind
has turned to its gods for inspiration and reassurance. Robert Bridges’s Eros poem and Anne Stevenson’s “Eros”
call upon the same subject—the god of love, yet their concepts of Eros could not be more dissimilar while
Bridges portrays Eros as a cryptic statue that has no way of communicating with the human world, Stevenson
portrays an ironically crippled version of the Classical ideal, and has a dialogue with Eros himself.
Bridges sees Eros as a cold, marble statue that affects so many people’s emotions yet seems either
unbothered by it or blithely unaware. He starts both the first and third stanzas with rhetorical questions. The
whole poem is an address to Eros, who cannot answer. Bridges calls Eros a “tyrant of the human heart,” implying
that love is a powerful force that drives humans to incredible actions. The metaphor “flower of lovely youth” is a
somewhat cliché metaphor comparing Eros to a flower, symbolic of youth and passion. “Flower” also connotes
that emotions like love are fleeting and ephemeral. The allusion to the sculptor Pheidias embodies the attitude of
the god towards humankind. The concept behind Pheidias’s style was that gods were aloof from and unaware that
their actions affected mortals. Thus Bridges portrays a detached relationship between man and god as they face
each other. However, by no means does Bridges suggest that humans are as unfascinated with the gods as the
gods are with humans. Alliteration and consonance in “starry sheen” and “secret sensuous innocence” implies
man’s admiration for Eros and all he stands for. Love is a compelling force that mystifies, Bridges suggests.
Furthermore, the first and last word of Bridges’s poem is “face.” Repetition of this word reflects his
preoccupation with the soul and inner workings of the God’s mind. The poet mentions the “soft unchristen’d
smile,” an outgrowth of the Archaic smile that was meant to convince sculpture viewers that the sculpture was
alive. The smile is also mysterious, and , like many, Bridges wonders what Eros’s face is attempting to tell us.
The face of Eros says it all, in Anne Stevenson’s poem. The simple diction of the poem belies its complex
idea of the psychological manifesting itself physically. In her poem, the speaker has a direct dialogue with Eros,
who ironically, far from the classical ideal of beauty, manifests himself as an injured man with “boxer lips and
patchy cringes askew.” The colloquial language signals a change in time to a more contemporary view of love
and Eros. Alliteration in “bully boy” and repetition of the B sound in “better my battered/image/Bruised but hot”
conveys how battered Eros is and suggests a force buffeting him. Juxtaposition in “long overuse” makes the
concept of love seem even more outdated and cliché. Furthermore juxtaposition of “slaves” and “immortal” in
the same line suggests an ironic reversal of values because gods, usually thought of as immortal rules, are being
abused by mortals, who exploit gods in archetypes that man creates.
While Bridges idolizes the ideal of beauty and love and wonders what Eros’s secret is, Stevenson argues
that there is no secret, because humankind created and perpetuated the ideal and so-called “mystery” itself. The
answer is clearly written in Eros’s face.
Sample HH
Although these two poems concern the same character, Eros, they share several differences.
The poem written in 1899 encompasses writing techniques used in that time period. Dialect used in 1800’s
is seen throughout the poem. More complete thoughts make up the lines of the poem.
The poem composed in 1990 has more modern ideas, styles of writing and is more easily understandable.
This is shown in line 7 when Eros is compared to a fighter with swollen lips and in line 3 is compared to a thug
with a broken nose.
Both poems are directed toward the same characters, yet use different techniques, dialects, and styles of
writing to convey their message.