on 7/13/01 10:53 PM, Jill Jones at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> on 14/7/01 12:36 PM, Candice Ward at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, and is there any (grammatical) reason why Frag. 31 can't be read as
>> allewding to a homosocial occasion?
>
>
> Anne Carson, in her Eros the Bittersweet, has an interesting essay on this
> fragment. She argues against the poem being about jealousy or that the poet
> wants to be in place of the man. She says "Sappho perceives desire by
> identifying it as a three part structure ... For, where eros is lack, its
> activation calls for three structural components -lover, beloved and that
> which comes between them ... The third component plays a paradoxical role
> for it both connects and separates, marking that two are not one,
> irradiating the absence whose presence is demanded by eros ... For in this
> dance people do not move. Desire moves. Eros is a verb." (pp.16-17).
>
> Cheers,
> Jill
Thanks, Jill--this _is_ interesting (as always with Carson), more
interesting than my question, admittedly. But I'd still like to know if the
widespread position on the "you" addressed as presumptively female is based
on case or is just another case of patriarchal androcentric dirtymindedness.
Candice
