The Collected Poems - Cavafy (Part 2)

Story Summary:

The Collected Poems is Evangelos Sachperoglou’s translation of C.P. Cavafy’s poetry; Cavafy often uses history as a context for his fictional poems, which frequently comment on overarching themes such as homosexuality, art, and beauty.

Reflections:

Cavafy’s poem “In Despair” on page 141 tells the story of two lovers’ tragic split. It is narrated in third person, with the subject(s) of the poem only named as “He.” By analyzing the diction and syntax used in the poem, the reader can conclude that the relationship in question is homosexual, and more than one man is the subject of the poem. Because the references to “he” and “him” are left ambiguous, we are uncertain which lover is being referred to at which time. In the middle stanza, there is the possibility of a role reversal between the two men and which man is speaking. The first stanza of the poem starts with man A mourning the loss of man B; the last stanza of the poem can be read as man B mourning the loss of man A, with the switch occurring in the middle stanza. Reading the poem in this way indicates that both men truly loved one another, and are unsatisfied with their decision to separate due to social and moral pressures.

The middle stanza of the poem contains the lines, “he wanted to be saved from such a stigmatized, wasteful carnal pleasure, / from such a stigmatized, carnal pleasure of shame. / There was still time—so he said— for him to save himself.” The concurrent lines about “carnal pleasures” indicate a possible switch in speaker—here, the same thought is rephrased in a very similar, but slightly different way. The similarity accounts for the men’s common experience and emotions, but the difference portrays each man’s own account of what happened. This is further supported by how the lines about “carnal pleasures” are accompanied. The first section of the stanza, reads that man B told man A, “he wanted to be saved” (from carnal pleasures). Then the switch occurs—here man A is telling man B that he could “save himself” (from carnal pleasures). “He wanted to be saved,” is a passive statement—man B believes that someone else must do the saving. However, “save himself,” is active—man A takes initiative for this saving. Because “he wanted to be saved,” and “save himself,” are incongruent, the poem indicates a possible switch in subject.

Man A starts off the poem mourning man B; he loves man B and attempts to find someone who he can love in the same way. The middle stanza starts with man B explaining to man A why he cannot be with him (social/moral pressures). Then the switch occurs—man A explains back to man B why he can’t be with him. Their reasons are the same, and we believe that although both men loved one another, they forced a reason to justify their separation. In the last stanza, man B is mourning the loss of man A and has similar thoughts—he too is searching for someone to remind him of his lover in a feeble attempt to relive their forbidden love.

Ultimately, reading the poem with the switch between male subjects indicates that both men truly loved one another in a very similar way. Their lost love is tragic for both parties, not just one of them (as could be assumed upon reading the poem without the switch).

Words: 539

The Collected Poems - Cavafy (Part 1)

Story Summary:

The Collected Poems is Evangelos Sachperoglou’s translation of C.P. Cavafy’s poetry; Cavafy often uses history as a context for his fictional poems, which frequently comment on overarching themes such as homosexuality, art, and beauty.

Reflections:

Although “Satrapy” contains no explicit references to homosexuality, the poem’s content can be read symbolically as a man’s inner struggle with his sexuality. The poem is written to a man who is pressured into leaving his home land to live in a territory ruled by the satrap Artaxerxes. Despite the literal subject of the poem—satrapies—homosexuality is a reasonably inferred theme. The subject of the poem gives up his personal and innate desires in exchange for social acceptance; this concept is easily applied to closeting oneself in order to achieve a presumably “normal” and accepted lifestyle.

Under the “History” section of the introduction, Peter Mackridge writes that, “The ‘poet-historian’ subverts the work of the historian in order to see, by means of sensual intuition, something different in it, something personal, individual, and subjective, and to present an alternative view to the prevailing one” (xxvi). Essentially, it is entirely plausible that Cavafy wrote his historical poems to evoke emotion pertaining to a different, but related, issue. Cavafy uses history in “Satrapy” to tell the story of a man’s struggle with territories and rulers, but the “alternative view” could be the man’s struggle with his own homosexuality—an issue that is “personal, individual, and subjective.” Although “Satrapy” isn’t necessarily about homosexuality, it is reasonable to read it through that lens.

The poem starts off with, “What a misfortune, though you’re made for noble and prodigious deeds, this unjust fate of yours always denies you encouragement and success” (29). The introduction states that Cavafy most likely believed that one is born homosexual (xx). With this context, the first line of “Satrapy” can be read as an indirect comment on this belief; “though you’re made for noble and prodigious deeds” implies that the subject of the poem was indeed born homosexual, and that homosexuality should be celebrated and embraced. The second clause, “this unjust fate of yours always denies you encouragement and success,” describes how homosexuality is viewed by society—as something inherently bad and dooming to a person’s reputation. Through no fault of his own, the subject was born homosexual and condemned for it, which leads him to “give in” to societal pressures and adhere to social norms, i.e. closet himself. The speaker comments on how tragic this is, saying, “what a frightful day when you give in.”

When offered satrapies by Artaxerxes, the subject “accept[s] them in despair, those things [he does] not want.” The speaker continues, telling the subject, “Your soul craves other things.” Here, the subject is scrutinized for his choice to conform to the social norms that go against his very being. The subject “gives up” his innate homosexual lifestyle and hides his desires in order to attain social acceptance. The poem ends with the lines, “How can you get any of these from Artaxerxes? Where in a satrapy can any of these be found; and what a life, without them, will you live?” The speaker frantically questions the subject; implying that if he continues to suppress his desires, his life will be tragic and wasted.

Although “Satrapy” has no explicit reference to homosexuality, Cavafy may have used history in this poem to indirectly comment on the inner struggle for acceptance that homosexuals face. Furthermore, the struggle is not simply pointed out; the speaker urges the subject to accept his innate homosexuality, regardless of social scrutiny. Although history and literal meanings take first precedence in Cavafy’s “Satrapy,” homosexuality can be reasonably deduced as an underlying theme.

Words: 578

The Importance of Being Earnest - Oscar Wilde

Story Summary:

The Importance of Being Earnest is a play by Oscar Wilde about the lives of two young men, Jack and Algernon, and their invented alter-egos, both named Ernest; when pursuing their love interests, the men find themselves caught in their lies as both fake Ernests are revealed.

Reflections:

In The Importance of Being Earnest, the four main characters take great pains to establish themselves as different from the social norm. They each strive to ensure they don’t fall into the category of “typical,” as being typical is boring and unfashionable. Consequently, the characters are drawn to one another and form relationships based upon this common desire.

On page 22, Cecily hopes that a novel being discussed will end tragically, saying, “I hope it didn’t end happily? I don’t like novels that end happily. They depress me so much” (22). This statement defies the social standard in two ways. It can be assumed that the majority of novels written in her time period end happily; Cecily announces her preference for sad endings, because sad endings are less common. Furthermore, Cecily goes against the social norm when she asserts that happy novels “depress” her. Generally, happy endings make a person feel happy, and tragic endings make a person feel sad. Cecily refuses to let herself fall into this standard category, so she decides to reverse the typical emotions evoked from a happy story in order to differentiate herself from mainstream society.

Cecily’s main goal throughout the story is to assert herself as being unique, and she chooses her relationships based upon the same sentiment. Cecily is drawn to Algernon, even before their first interaction, because she idealizes him as being “wicked” and possessing a major disregard for socially sanctioned rules. On page 24, she says, “I have never met any really wicked person before. I feel rather frightened. I am so afraid he will look just like everyone else.” Cecily is not really afraid of Algernon’s “wickedness,” she relishes it because it separates him from conventional society—the biggest disappointment at risk is the possibility that Algernon will be completely normal. Fortunately for Cecily, Algernon defies social standards as well. On page 1 of the novel, he tells Jack, referring to the piano, “I don’t play accurately—anyone can play accurately—but I play with wonderful expression.” Like Cecily, Algernon takes great strides to make sure people know that he’s different from the average citizen and breaks social norms on a regular basis.

Jack and Gwendolyn also establish their desire to escape monotonous social standards. Jack quite blatantly vocalizes this desire several times throughout the play, saying things such as, “For Heaven’s sake, don’t try to be cynical. It’s perfectly easy to be cynical,” and, “I am sick to death of cleverness. Everybody is clever now-a-days” (7 & 16). Jack feels the need to make sure his comrade knows his utmost disdain for the average. Gwendolyn illustrates the same sentiment as well, saying, “I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John.” (11) Gwendolyn decides she could never be with a man who has such a common name as “Jack” or “John,” because it’s not fashionable to be like everybody else. In this sense, Jack and Gwendolyn are a perfect match, just as Algernon and Cecily are; each character despises the idea of being “typical,” and seek what is atypical.

Words: 537

Philosophy in the Bedroom - Marquis de Sade

Story Summary:

Marquis de Sade’s shockingly graphic dialogue Philosophy in the Bedroom follows several libertine characters and their efforts to corrupt and sexualize a young virgin girl named Eugenie; Dolmance, the assumed expert and primary teacher, converts her by demonstrating acts of sodomy, torture, and sexual orgies with the other educators—teaching her to seek personal bodily pleasure no matter what the cost to anybody else.

Reflections:

Dolmance, Eugenie’s primary “educator,” uses Nature as an alternative to God as a basis for his libertine teachings. He explains and justifies his actions throughout dialogue V by insisting that Nature—essentially human impulse—propels his selfish and “criminal” sexual conduct. Although Dolmance is successful in convincing young Eugenie that using Nature as a means of justification for libertinism is gospel truth, his argument is consistently flawed and full of contradictions.

One of the most obvious contradictions apparent in the text concerns Dolmance’s relationship with women. He tells Eugenie over and over again that as a woman, it is her life’s duty to “fuck,” and essentially succumb to a man’s sexual wishes as demanded by Nature. At the start of Eugenie’s “education,” Dolmance tells her to, “Consider that every provocation sensed by a boy and originating from a girl is a natural offertory, and that your sex never serves Nature better than when it prostitutes itself to ours; that ‘tis, in a word, to be fucked that you were born, and that she who refuses her obedience to this intention Nature has for her does not deserve to see the light longer” (267). Here, Dolmance is telling Eugenie that sex between a man and a woman is Natural, with the woman being the passive lover. Later, when offered Eugenie’s virginity, Dolmance refuses, saying, “Tis out of the question, my angel, I’ve never fucked a cunt in life” (291). Dolmance will only take part in anal intercourse, and indicates an obvious preference to men. Although he argues that anal sex is Natural, he also established that traditional intercourse between a man and a woman is supremely Natural. Therefore, by refusing to take part in vaginal intercourse, Dolmance is essentially refusing a large part of Nature itself, the thing in which he bases his entire life off of.

The concept of sympathy is also another large contradiction within Dolmance’s standard of Nature. On page 283, Dolmance says that “There is no possible comparison between what others experience and what we sense; the heaviest dose of agony in others ought, assuredly, to be as naught to us… the immense sum of other’s miseries, which cannot affect us.” He argues that any other human’s feelings do not matter, as one can only feel their own. Therefore, inflicting pain for one’s own personal pleasure is a Natural act—sympathy does not play a role in this. However, when Eugenie is painfully stripped of her virginity, Madame de Saint-Ange, a libertine naturalist as well, says, “Dear heart, kiss me, I sympathize with you” (293). The fact that Madame feels bad for Eugenie disproves Dolmance’s teaching that Nature is not sympathetic; clearly sympathy naturally arose within Madame.

Furthermore, Dolmance teaches that there is no benefit to pleasing someone else, as one can only feel their own body. On page 345, he says, “Tis false as well to say there is pleasure in affording pleasure to other; that is to serve them, and the man who is erect is far from desiring to be useful to anyone else.” However, during several of their orgies in the beginning of dialogue V, Dolmance insists upon every member having an orgasm together. This suggests that Dolmance indeed has desire to experience pleasure together; the pleasure of his partners enhances his own. Dolmance’s Natural instinct during sex was to enhance the pleasure of each person—a direct contradiction to his argument that Nature is supremely selfish and the feelings of others are irrelevant.

Although Dolmance uses Nature as the basis for his teachings, many of his arguments are severely flawed. Dolmance argues that sex between a man and a woman is Natural, and yet he won’t partake. He also argues that is Natural not to sympathize with any other being’s emotions but one’s own—and yet, clearly sympathy Naturally arises. Ultimately, these contradictions within his argument undermine his justification for a libertine naturalist lifestyle.

Words: 652

Edward the Second - Christopher Marlowe

Story Summary:

Christopher Marlowe’s Edward the Second is a historical play about England’s King Edward II, who shirks his kingly duties in order to instead dote upon his lover, Gaveston; Gaveston, hated by the nobles of England, is subsequently killed, and his death leads to a huge revolt between King and noblemen that results in Edward’s demise.

Reflections:

Although homosexuality in Edward the Second could easily be seen as the play’s primary topic of concern, a deeper problem is responsible for the King’s eventual demise. The nobles of England did not reject Edward solely because of his lover Gaveston—they rejected him because he was majorly disrupting the social order. On page 76, Lancaster says, “The worst is death, and better die to live, / Than live in infamy under such a king” (76). As Gaveston is long dead and therefore no longer an issue at this point in the play, “such a king,” is referring to a much bigger problem. Edward directly defies several main staples of the social order, such as distinct class divisions and their monarchic society as a whole. The nobles then revolted against their King, fearing this terrible disruption that jeopardized the organization of their favorable society.

King Edward rejects social order when he defends Gaston’s less-than-noble class. Gaston is oftentimes referred to as “base,” a slang word for bastard that also connotes lower class. Mortimer Junior shows his obvious disdain for Gaveston’s class when he says, “But this I scorn, that one so basely born / Should by his sovereign’s favour grow so pert” (37); this sentiment is a common theme amongst the other nobles as well. Not only does Edward disregard Gaveston’s lower class by accepting him as his cherished lover, he also defends it and threatens to completely overturn their social order, saying, “Were he a peasant, being my minion, / I’ll make the proudest of you stoop to him” (21). This risks everything that the nobles hold sacred—their very wellbeing depends upon class division. By threatening to make nobles bow down to someone so “base,” Edward is defying one of the most important social norms. Even worse is when the king brings Gaveston up to his own level, saying, “Embrace me, Gaveston, as I do thee! / Why shouldst thou kneel; knowest not who I am?” (11). Edward, being king, is the top tier in the social ladder—even his wife Isabella addresses him as “my lord.” By allowing Gaveston to embrace him in greeting, rather than address him with traditional titles and respect, Edward shatters all social norms regarding class division.

Edward’s clear disregard for his kingly duties is another way in which he rejects social order. Not only does he shirk his duties, he often vocalizes how much he doesn’t want to be king. This instills fear in the nobles, as their monarchy—the government system used for centuries—is ultimately threatened. On page 22, the King tells Pembroke to, “Make several kingdoms of this monarchy, / And share it equally amongst you all, / So I may have some nook or corner left / To frolic with my dearest Gaston.” His priorities here are clearly personal; he has no interest in being king, he only has interest in his lover. He even goes as far as to suggest breaking up the entire monarchy of England—a grave offense to the nobles. Furthermore, Edward disregards the country’s wealth when he states, “And could my crown’s revenue bring him back, / I would freely give it to his enemies” (31). Edward’s clear neglect for his kingdom disrupts the social foundation on which his country thrives; this same threat ultimately leads to his demise.

Although Edward’s love for Gaveston is the primary contributing factor to his failure as king, the real issue at hand is his eagerness to overturn England’s social order. On page 35, Mortimer Senior admits that, “The mightiest kings have had their minions.” Had King Edward “had his minion” without disrupting social norms, he could very well have successfully reigned as king. However, because his love for Gaston resulted in his total disregard for the social hierarchy, he was eventually overturned.

Words: 636

Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500—1800 (Part II)

Story Summary:

Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500—1800 studies how homosexual behavior was perceived and received in the time and place outlined in the title; the author argues that the phrase “homosexual” and its current meaning did not exist during that time, and that “homosexual” behavior was instead broken down into separate actions and mannerisms that took on very different social contexts.

Reflections:

In Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500—1800, the concepts of “refinement,” the “inclination to beauty,” and “passionate love,” seem to be very closely related. However, although connected, the way in which the concepts relate to one another does not always match up. El-Rouayheb offers factual evidence that seems to occasionally undermine other evidence. For example, he established a clear connection between “refinement,” and the appreciation (or inclination) of beauty and poetry. This establishes that the love of beauty is a primarily positive thing—one associated with education and status. However, in his discussion of “ishq,” or “passionate love” the love of beauty is portrayed (partly) as negative; something that leads to sexual passiveness. The three concepts both relate to and compete with one another.

On page 57, El-Rouayheb establishes “the connection between refined character and the sensitivity to human beauty.” Furthermore, the “ideal of refinement and elegance was partly defined in opposition to the course, the uncouth, and the vulgar” (59). Essentially, the appreciation of beauty is portrayed as a desirable characteristic, one associated with refinement and entirely dissociated with vulgarity. A direct connection between “refinement,” and the “inclination to beauty” is established. On page 85, a quote reads that, “ishq (passionate love) is an attraction of the heart to the magnet of beauty.” Here, a direct connection between “ishq” and the “inclination to beauty” is made. Shortly after, a connection is made between “ishq” and “refinement” on page 86, where it reads that passionate love “only afflicted those who soul was sufficiently delicate and sensitive” (86). By looking at the nature of these associations, it is reasonable to assume that because “refinement” is connected with “ishq,” “ishq” would be established as a positive thing. However, we see later that this is not necessarily the case.

Passionate love was generally described as a disease—a term that in and of itself holds a very negative connotation (86). Although it was also “a testimony to the possession of a refined and sensitive character,” ishq was considered a “pathological affliction” (86). Passionate love is nearly always attributed to the pursuer in a pederastic relationship, or within an unmarried heterosexual relationship; because it was (sometimes) associated with sex, it was seen as a bad thing. However, the negativity associated with “ishq” seems to run even deeper than that—the ultimate disapproval stems not from religiously-condemned promiscuity, but the threat of disrupting the social order. El-Rouayheb writes that “the lover (the man) was invariably the subordinate partner, humbly kept in awe by the unattainable beauty of the beloved”… therefore, “Love tended to overturn the established social order, causing a master to be enthralled by his slave” (90). Earlier in chapter one, the text establishes passive sodomy as one of the carnal sins. Taking on the role of passive sexual partner (like a woman) is essentially relinquishing all masculine power. Passionate love could be seen as “addictive submission,” which is dangerous to enforcing societal norms, and therefore highly dishonorable. El-Rouayheb gives evidence that a person must be “refined” (a good thing) to fall into passionate love (a bad thing); a concept that seems inherently contradictory.

Because passionate love is oftentimes considered a negative thing, the inclination to beauty can also be taken as a bad thing. This contradicts earlier passages, when it is established as ultimately good. The “realists” believed that “ishq” was the “consequence of looking at an attractive woman or boy”; therefore, one should avoid admiring beauty. (91) However, if one avoids admiring beauty, one cannot hope to be “refined.” On the other hand, if one is not “refined,” then one musn’t worry about the disease of “ishq.” It is important to note that the “idealists” offered a solution for this issue by separating passionate love from sexual deviation; therefore, “ishq” was not necessarily a terrible thing. And yet, on the whole, “ishq” is portrayed very negatively while simultaneously being associated with positive things. Although El-Rouayheb gives us a good sense of what the Arab-Islamic World was like in 1500—1800, the competing concepts complicate the whole picture and requires more teasing out.

Words: 681