Rodriguez 1

Jorge Rodriguez

Mrs. Brush

English 4AP

September 7, 2010

Eros Contras and Contrast Essay

Eros, god of love, has always been one of the most known gods in Greek mythology. His

connection with love makes him ever present in human life. He is either loved or hated, as depicted in

both of these poems, “Eros,” by Robert Bridges and Anne Stevenson. In Bridges’ poem Eros is revered

and idolized while in Stevenson’s poem he is put down and degraded. In comparison, they both

characterize him as a good-hearted and noble persona.

Eros’ conflicting images of greatness and meaningless are evident in both poems. In line three

of the first stanza of Bridges’ poem, Eros is described as a tyrant, “Thou tyrant of the human heart.”

Eros is considered to be someone with absolute power and rule in the first poem while in the second

poem he is the opposite. In Stevenson’s poem, last stanza, first line, “We (Gods) slaves who are

immortal,” Eros refers to himself as a slave of humanity. Eros’ concept of strength in the first poem is

contrasted by his frailty in the second poem.

In addition, Eros’ physical portrayal is greatly differential in both poems. In the first poem, Eros

is physically described as a being with beauty obtainable only by gods. In Bridges’ poem, “With thy

exuberant flesh so fair, That only Pheidias might compare,” Eros’ physical beauty is considered

incomparable by normal beings, it takes an expert to fully analyze his beauty. Eros’ beauty is constantly

being identified in the first poem, “Surly thy body is thy mind,” Eros’ body is unparallel in beauty which

can only signify that his mind is also great and beautiful. Eros’ physical beauty in the first poem is

contrasted by his description in the second poem. Eros is harshly described as a repulsive and beaten up

figure. In the first stanza, he is described as a “thug with broken nose.” The previously perfect figure is

Rodriguez 2

now shown mauled and deformed, “with boxer lips,” first stanza line seven of Stevenson’s poem. Eros’

concept of beauty in the first poem is contrasted by his concept of weakness and defeat in the second.

Furthermore, Eros’ concept as a rather good natured God is present in both poems. In Bridges’,

Eros is shown as never having a victim; “Ah yet no victim of thy grace, None who e’er long’d for thy

embrace.” Saying that Eros has never had a victim means that he has never forced his love onto anyone.

This concept is further supported by the following line by stating that all those who Eros gave love to,

wanted love to begin with, for they were seeking him first. In the Stevenson’s poem, Eros good natured

aspect is also present. In the last stanza, “Better my battered visage, Bruised but hot, Than love

dissolved in loss or left to rot,” Eros’ nobility and dedication to love is clear as he states that he is willing

to take all the pain there may exist in order to save love from being destroyed. Not any God would take

a blow for a mere human; Gods are, after all, above humans. Eros’ care for humanity is evident in both

poems.

There are two prevalent techniques used by Bridges and Stevenson to create the two different

concepts of Eros. In the first poem, Bridges, in order to show Eros as a god of beauty and prestige, used

a flowing A B rime scheme. Retelling the poem with constant rimes gives the effect of a soft voice,

allowing for strong words to have less potential, which in turn allows for strong oxymoron such as

“tyrant” and “idol.” The overuse of oxymoron also helps render the image of Eros as a people’s God for

he is, as in the previous example, neither an idol nor a tyrant. If idol were to signify heaven and tyrant

hell, Eros would be in the middle, or what would be earth, meaning he would be not with the Gods but

with the people.

Stevenson, in order to create Eros’ concept as a weak and defenseless creature, uses strong

syntax. She constantly implements strong words such as brute, thug, blows, slaves, bruised, and

battered, to create the effect of savagery and wildness. Since, Eros, being the God of love, is typically

Rodriguez 3

associated with kindness and beauty, overuse of strong words is necessary to shift Eros’ concept of

kindness to dreadfulness.

Overall, both poems do a good job creating do distinct yet related concepts of Eros. Both poems

compromise on the fact that Eros would give all for love, and differentiating on the concept of Eros’

beauty and mentality. Eros’ characterization could not have been possible without Bridges’ and

Stevenson’s literary techniques. One can try and depict Eros as dreadful, but his connection with love

makes it almost impossible.