An underlying assumption in the first book of Underneath the Bough is that Love adheres to the ancient Greek conception of it. To the Greeks, Eros (or Cupid) is an outside force that acts upon a person; love is inescapable and imposed upon a person, not something you choose. This theory of love is central to the way the poems approach Cupid as a character and the love of the speakers.
Most ancient Greeks thought of emotions in general as an outside force that acts upon a person, rather than coming from within (as we think of it today). Aristotle sees emotions as responses to external stimuli acting upon an individual. This is clearly explained by how the Greeks saw their gods – Ares brings anger, Aphrodite brings love, the Furies physically attack those who are guilty. Ancient deities were often seen as transferring XYZ emotion to a person; your emotions were not always your fault. This is clearly evident in stories of Love and Desire – so many myths follow the stories of people struck with lust/love for something perverse or unattainable, yet unable to stop themselves from feeling because it was brought on by an outside force. Think of Poseidon cursing Pasiphaë to fall in love with a bull to create the Minotaur, Phaedra falling for her stepson Hippolytus, or Cupid cursing Apollo to fall for the nymph Daphne. So many stories have Cupid striking down people with his arrows of uncontrollable desire, symbolizing love as an outside force thrust upon a person.
With the context of knowing Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper were classically trained and pagan themselves, it is not a stretch to assume they knew of these stories. Furthermore, it can be assumed that they understood Cupid, and therefore Love, as an external force, uncontrollable and unescapable. They put this version of Cupid in their poems.
Let us swell the praise of him
Who is tyrant of the heart,
Cupid with his flaming dart!
Pride before his face is bowed,
Strength and heedless beauty cowed;
Underneath his fatal wings
Bend discrowned the heads of kings;
Maidens blanch beneath his eye
And its laughing mastery;
Through each land his arrows sound,
By his fetters all are bound.
With this underlying assumption about Love, the rendering of this character in Michael Field’s poems becomes all the more sinister. While the speaker is giving praise to him, the threat of his power is emphasized. Cupid is a being that conquers all, kings and maidens alike. “Pride” must bow before him, as he is able to overcome and hijack all sense of self and identity. His arrows ‘bound’ individuals in an inescapable trap – reason cannot overcome it. In this section of the poem, Cupid seems almost like a wicked, corrupt figure, one who laughs at the misfortune he causes. This is pretty in line with many classical stories we have about Cupid, who wields immense power with little responsibility. In contrast, the poems make the figure of Death, or Thanatos, into a more benevolent figure, deeply in contrast to how we see Love and Death today.
The speaker in the poem knows to be weary of Cupid, to stay on his good side. They also seem to be announcing that we are all equally humble at the hands of Cupid. Love is an equalizer. In this way, one could argue that homosexual love is just as inescapable as heterosexual love. This could connect to the relationship between Katherine and Edith, as they almost seem to be saying that homosexual love is not a choice.
I definitely see the connection and rationalization for Ancient Greek conceptions of love as they apply to Underneath the Bough. I think you’re spot on in your assessment that in framing love as inescapable and something beyond the control of humans, Cooper and Bradley are perhaps trying to rationalize or legitimize homosexual love and intimacy. It’s interesting to think about how a lot of these notions still persist—I tend to prescribe to the notion that we don’t choose who we fall in love with, but perhaps not in the more extreme and threatening Ancient Greek context.
I really like how you contextualized Cupid within the framework of Michael Field. I think it is really interesting to me when you say that “love is inescapable” and that Cupid was often portrayed as irresponsible. I’m curious if you think that puts love in a negative light and if the inability for a person to have agency over who they fall in love with can be more harmful than helpful. Especially if we connect this with the biographical information we have learned about Michael Field, do you think it is possible for them to dislike the love that they share for each other?
I love this analysis of Cupid, who I have always thought of as a threatening force, although unable to articulate it the way you have. I appreciate you introducing the way that the Ancient Greek mindset of external vs. internal emotions is reinforced through the characterization of their gods. The way that you lay this out gives me a new appreciation for the dynamics in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which I reread recently for a class. Knowing that early modern English society drew on both Christian and pagan/classical elements in their literary society, understanding the lovers’ interactions through the understanding of external emotion — see the “love juice” that Oberyn and Puck use — rather than internal conflict is fascinating. I have always viewed these interactions in the play as a violation of consent, and additionally have always been wary of Cupid in many iterations of mythology: not only is he an impulsive child, but he is both biddable and not, entirely too powerful in every way. I wonder what conversation Cupid’s implied presence could bring into other classical texts where mythological figures fall in love but Cupid isn’t explicitly referenced. Is that Ancient Greek understanding of external emotion still present in those moments? To what degree do classical figures have control over their own actions when gods are not present but associated emotions are? I am currently thinking specifically of the Iliad, but there are many other moments I’m sure you can call to mind better than me!
I also join the chorus in finding this analysis very interesting! We discussed it somewhat in class, but this really remind me of the fundamental connections between classical goddesses who embodied both love and war, namely Ishtar/Inanna. I believe she represented the physical side of love, which I guess makes sense if you consider both love and war a struggle for domination? But as you eloquently point out, the physical side and threat in Greek tradition is instead enacted by Cupid’s militaristic arrows. And I suppose if you consider Aphrodite’s parents to be Uranus+ sea foam, love originates in violence…