''INTER-LOVE": CAVAFY,S HUMANISTIC

ANSWER BRIDGING THE GAPS

by

Michael Pieris
University of Cyprus

No fashionable theory or m£thodological revolution-however effec-

tive it may appear-can exercise absolute power without the risk
of intellectual impoverishm£nt and sophistry. The study of aliter-
ary work is too serious and too difficult a matter to allow any ar-
bitrary exception of any possible evidence. One thing is certain.
That the work itself will finally dictate the manner and the m£ans
of approach to itself, assuming the manner and the m£ans do exist.
As for the rest let us leave the terrorism (and/or fear) of m£thods to
the «unsuspecting Antiochians" {to quote Cavafy]. The scholarly
critic does not use weapons; he or she uses tools and instrom£nts of
knowledge, of interpretation and of research which he or she
chooses according to the subject and according to the reader's cul-
ture, as well as their needs or potential, which also m£ans, to a
certain extent, according to the needs or possibilities of the histor-
ical period, always taking care to be direct, pertinent and substan-
tial. As the poet [Manolis Anagnostakis} puts it: «It is a question
of knowing when and how."
Pan. Moullas (1980)

RECENT TRENDS IN literary and scholarly commentary on Cavafy's po-

etry can be divided into two different streams. The first represents a
"mixed" method of analysis in which we have the selective and judicious
exploitation of tools offered from various, traditional or modem, methods
of critical analysis of literary texts. Indeed, with this approach the "theory"
emerges chiefly from the critic's dealings with specific literary works .1

221
222 Michael Pieris "Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 223

The second stream represents the unquestioned appropriation of principles They had him in a large room,
derived from recent critical theory and the catachrestic (if not procrustean) and from the corner where I stood 10
application of models of analysis without any hesitation, even if the text I could catch a glimpse of it: all precious carpets,
does not lend itself to the chosen model.2 and vessels in silver and gold.
The above introductory comment may give the impression of some-
one who is blindly against theory, therefore, it will be necessary for the I stood and wept in a corner of the corridor.
And I thought how our parties and excursions
sake of clarity to declare that I am only against the specific use of theory as a
wouldn't be worthwhile now without Myris; 15
weapon to terrorize the next critic or reader who does not agree with a par-
and I thought how I'd no longer see him
ticular approach. Fu_rthermore, the point should be made that theory does at our wonderfully indecent night-long sessions
indeed help one to be an adequate reader of literature, but, "only if theory enjoying himself, laughing, and reciting verses
is treated as hypothesis, not as a dogma, and if it is clearly presented as the with his perfect feel for Greek rhythm;
servant, not the master, of literature.''3 and I thought how I'd lost forever 20
An Italian colleague, Professor Massimo Peri, published an exten- his beauty, lost forever
sive analysis of the magnificent Cavafian poem "Myris: Alexandria 340 the young man I'd worshipped so passionately.
B.C."4 In this analysis, which was translated into Greek in 1986,5 the -au-
thor makes some serious errors due to an inadequate understanding and Some old women close to me were talking with lowered voices
application of the Genettean narrative model,6 or the misunderstanding of about the last day he lived:
some crucial points of an earlier analysis of mine.7 I am of the opinion that the name of Christ constantly on his lips, 25
his hand holding a cross.
these mistakes are of little common interest and have therefore decided
Then four Christian priests
not to discuss them here.
came into the room, and said prayers
Nevertheless, I owe a detailed answer (not merely to Professor fervently, and orisons to Jesus,
Peri, but hopefully to readers of this poem) regarding a critical element in or to Mary (I'm not very familiar with their religion). 30
Professor Peri's treatment of the context of the poem, the purpose of which
was to support an interpretation derived from his inflexible application of a We'd known of course that Myris was a Christian,
specific model of analysis. In this instance, Professor Peri seems not to known it from the very start,
make use of the theory in order to achieve a more profound understanding when he first joined our group the year before last.
of the poem; but to use the poem as a medium in order to prove to himself But he lived exactly as we did:
and to the reader that he is in a position to enforce upon a literary text the more devoted to pleasure than all of us, 35
Genettean concept about interior monologues . he scattered his money lavishly on amusements.
To prove these claims, it will be necessary to present Professor Not caring what anyone thought of him,
he threw himself eagerly into night-time scuffles
Peri's interpretation in relation to mine. First of all, a translation of the
when our group happened to clash
poem by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard follows: 8
with some rival group in the street. 40
He never spoke about his religion.
MYRIS: ALEXANDRIA, A.D. 340 And once we even told him
that we'd take him with us to the Serapeion.
When I heard the terrible news, that Myris was dead, But - I remember now-
I went to his house, although I avoid he didn't seem to like this joke of ours. 45
going to the houses of Christians, And yes, now I recall two other incidents.
especially during times of mourning or festivity. When we made libations to Poseidon,
he drew himself back from our circle and looked elsewhere.
I stood in the corridor. I didn't want 5 And when one of us in his fervor said:
to go further inside because I noticed "May all of us be favoured and protected 50
that the relatives of the deceased looked at me by the great, the sublime Apollo"-
with obvious surprise and displeasure. Myris, unheard by the others, whispered: "not counting me."
222 Michael Pieris "Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 223

The second stream represents the unquestioned appropriation of principles They had him in a large room,
derived from recent critical theory and the catachrestic (if not procrustean) and from the corner where I stood 10
application of models of analysis without any hesitation, even if the text I could catch a glimpse of it: all precious carpets,
does not lend itself to the chosen model.2 and vessels in silver and gold.
The above introductory comment may give the impression of some-
one who is blindly against theory, therefore, it will be necessary for the I stood and wept in a corner of the corridor.
And I thought how our parties and excursions
sake of clarity to declare that I am only against the specillc use of theory as a
wouldn't be worthwhile now without Myris; 15
weapon to terrorize the next critic or reader who does not agree with a par-
and I thought how I'd no longer see him
ticular approach. F~rthermore, the point should be made that theory does at our wonderfully indecent night-long sessions
indeed help one to be an adequate reader of literature, but, "only if theory enjoying himself, laughing, and reciting verses
is treated as hypothesis, not as a dogma, and if it is clearly presented as the with his perfect feel for Greek rhythm ;
servant, not the master, of literature.''3 and I thought how I'd lost forever 20
An Italian colleague, Professor Massimo Peri, published an exten- his beauty, lost forever
sive analysis of the magnificent Cavafian poem "Myris: Alexandria 340 the young man I'd worshipped so passionately.
B.C.''4 In this analysis, which was translated into Greek in 1986,5 the-au-
thor makes some serious errors due to an inadequate understanding and Some old women close to me were talkjng with lowered voices
application of the Genettean narrative model,6 or the misunderstanding of about the last day he lived:
some crucial points of an earlier analysis of mine.7 I am of the opinion that the name of Christ constantly on his lips, 25
his hand holding a cross.
these mistakes are of little common interest and have therefore decided
Then four Christian priests
not to discuss them here.
came into the room, and said prayers
Nevertheless, I owe a detailed answer (not merely to Professor fervently, and orisons to Jesus,
Peri, but hopefully to readers of this poem) regarding a critical element in or to Mary (I'm not very familiar with their religion). 30
Professor Peri's treatment of the context of the poem, the purpose of which
was to support an interpretation derived from his inflexible application of a We'd known of course that Myris was a Christian,
specific model of analysis. In this instance, Professor Peri seems not to known it from the very start,
make use of the theory in order to achieve a more profound understanding when he first joined our group the year before last.
of the poem; but to use the poem as a medium in order to prove to himself But he lived exactly as we did:
and to the reader that he is in a position to enforce upon a literary text the more devoted to pleasure than all of us, 35
Genettean concept about interior monologues. he scattered his money lavishly on amusements.
To prove these claims, it will be necessary to present Professor Not caring what anyone thought of him,
he threw himself eagerly into night-time scuffles
Peri's interpretation in relation to mine. First of all, a translation of the
when our group happened to clash
poem by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard follows: 8
with some rival group in the street. 40
He never spoke about his religion.
MYRIS: ALEXANDRIA, A.D. 340 And once we even told him
that we'd take him with us to the Serapeion.
When I heard the terrible news, that Myris was dead, But -I remember now-
I went to his house, although I avoid he didn't seem to like this joke of ours. 45
going to the houses of Christians, And yes, now I recall two other incidents.
especially during times of mourning or festivity. When we made libations to Poseidon,
he drew himself back from our circle and looked elsewhere.
I stood in the corridor. I didn't want 5 And when one of us in his fervor said:
to go further inside because I noticed "May all of us be favoured and protected 50
that the relatives of the deceased looked at me by the great, the sublime Apollo"-
with obvious surprise and displeasure. Myris, unheard by the others, whispered: "not counting me."
224 Michael Pieris
The Christian priests were praying loudly
for the young man's soul.
I noticed with how much diligence, 55
how much intense concern
for the forms of their religion, they were preparing
everything for the Christian funeral.
And suddenly an odd sensation took hold of me:
indefinably I felt 60
as if Myris were going from me:
I felt that he, 1l Christian, was united
with his own people and that I was becoming
a stranger, a total stranger. I even felt
a doubt come over me: that I'd been deceived by my passion 65
and had always been a stranger to him .
I rushed out of their horrible house,
rushed away before my memory of Myris
could be captured, could be perverted by their Christianity.
In this poem, written in 1929-four years before the poet's death-the
theme of "Inter-love" as a humanistic bridge over the gaps created by con-
flicting ethnic, religious, or other cosmotheoretical systems is pre-emi-
nent. 9 The poor pagan narrator of the poem had a love-relationship with
the rich Christian M yris, despite the fact that they knew "from the very
start" that they had different religious and social backgrounds, 10 and that
the historical period they lived in, namely, 340 A.D., was a period of ex-
treme religious fanaticism leading to the creation of social ghettos of
Christians and pagans.11 When the Christian Myris died unexpectedly,
his pagan lover went to his house to attend his Christian funeral. There,
because of the hostility of Myris's relatives {lines 5-8), the lies or exagger-
ations of the old women about his last day {lines 23-26) and, above all, be-
cause of "the intense concern for the forms of their religion" on the part of
the four Christian priests with regard to the ritual of the Christian funeral
(lines 55-56), he experienced that "odd sensation." He felt as if he were
not only at that moment isolated by Myris's social and religious environ-
ment "in a corner of the corridor"; as if he were not only at that moment
the stranger in that "horrible house," but that maybe he had always been a
stranger to his own Myris . In the face of this terrible doubt, the pagan
friend "rushed out of the house" in order to save the memory of his Myris;
that is, before this sacred memory of their "inter-love" relationship could
"be captured or perverted." This is, in a few words, the contextual outline
of the poem's "story."
An examination will be made now of the technical matter on which
Professor Peri's objection to my analysis is based. The poem is a narrative,
therefore, most of the tenses are in the past: "I heard," "I went," "I stood," I
thought," "I noticed," and so on. The "anomaly," which I was the first to
"Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 225
comment on, is connected with the appearance of the present tense in lines
44-46.12 The question arising is this: when did the speaker remember the
two additional incidents which further prove that Myris never ceased to be
a Christian-even though he decided to lead a different kind of life and
was bold and free enough to allow himself to have a love-relationship with
a pagan. Was it at the moment when, as a poet, he was writing the poem;
when as the narrator, he was narrating the poem; or when, as a character of
the story, he was inside Myris's house?
In finding an answer to this, I was aided by the poet's written com-
ment which I found in his archives. Cavafy, on a similar occasion, indicates
that the "now" refers to "the actual time he is writing the poem."13 This
comment, as well as the narrative structure of the poem as a whole-in re-
lation to its obvious thematic aim {the meditation on the issue of "inter-
love")-allows me to argue that the lines in the present tense possibly be-
long to the narrator, as these lines clearly imply a listener.
Professor Peri, on the other hand, disagrees with this explanation
because, according to what he has understood from Gerard Genette's theo-
retical model on interior monologues, this should definitely be an interior
monologue on the part of the protagonist.
Up to this point there is no objection. It is a technical matter and
everybody is free to choose his or her own version: it is either the "time of
narrative" or the "time of history." But a really serious problem arises
when Professor Peri goes on to argue that we are obliged to read the rele-
vant lines of the poem as an interior monologue of the protagonist.
Otherwise-he argues-there is no logical cause for the protagonist leaving
the house. He specifically says:
Let us suppose that the memory referred to in lines 42-53, and especially
the present tense of the lines 44-46 are pronouns (they come into mind)
at the moment when the poet is writing the poem [as Michael Pieris has
argued]. But then you have to explain why the protagonist, if he didn't
remember anything, felt suddenly "a total stranger" and rushed away.
The doubt, the fear, the exit of the protagonist can be explained without
any logical problems only if the protagonist {and not the narrator) re-
membered; only if that "now" is the "now" of the protagonist. I mean to
say only if we are capable of perceiving the "interior monologue."14
Perhaps it is not surprising that, with this exegesis, Professor Peri agrees
with the impressionistic interpretation of George Themelisl5 and over-
turns, ostensibly from a modern theoretical point of view, the so-called
traditional interpretations of scholars and critics like Yannis Sareyannis, 16
Nikolas Kalas,l1 Edmund Keeley18 and myself;19 scholars and critics who,
having examined the poem from different historical and critical perspec-
tives, have all agreed upon this: the pagan lover "rushed out of their horri-
ble house," not because he remembered two more incidents which con-
224 Michael Pieris
The Christian priests were praying loudly
for the young man's soul.
I noticed with how much diligence, 55
how much intense concern
for the forms of their religion, they were preparing
everything for the Christian funeral.
And suddenly an odd sensation took hold of me:
indefinably I felt 60
as if Myris were going from me:
I felt that he, -a Christian, was united
with his own people and that I was becoming
a stranger, a total stranger. I even felt
a doubt come over me: that I'd been deceived by my passion 65
and had always been a stranger to him.
I rushed out of their horrible house,
rushed away before my memory of Myris
could be captured, could be perverted by their Christianity.
In this poem, written in 1929-four years before the poet's death-the
theme of "Inter-love" as a humanistic bridge over the gaps created by con-
flicting ethnic, religious, or other cosmotheoretical systems is pre-emi-
nent.9 The poor pagan narrator of the poem had a love-relationship with
the rich Christian Myris, despite the fact that they knew "from the very
start" that they had different religious and social backgrounds, 10 and that
the historical period they lived in, namely, 340 A.D ., was a period of ex-
treme religious fanaticism leading to the creation of social ghettos of
Christians and pagans.ll When the Christian Myris died unexpectedly,
his pagan lover went to his house to attend his Christian funeral. There,
because of the hostility of Myris's relatives (lines 5-8), the lies or exagger-
ations of the old women about his last day (lines 23-26) and, above all, be-
cause of "the intense concern for the forms of their religion" on the part of
the four Christian priests with regard to the ritual of the Christian funeral
(lines 55-56), he experienced that "odd sensation." He felt as if he were
not only at that moment isolated by Myris's social and religious environ-
ment "in a corner of the corridor"; as if he were not only at that moment
the stranger in that "horrible house," but that maybe he had always been a
stranger to his own Myris. In the face of this terrible doubt, the pagan
friend "rushed out of the house" in order to save the memory of his Myris;
that is, before this sacred memory of their "inter-love" relationship could
"be captured or perverted." This is, in a few words, the contextual outline
of the poem's "story."
An examination will be made now of the technical matter on which
Professor Peri's objection to my analysis is based. The poem is a narrative,
therefore, most of the tenses are in the past: "I heard," "I went," "I stood," I
thought," "I noticed," and so on. The "anomaly," which I was the first to
"Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 225
comment on, is connected with the appearance of the present tense in lines
44-46.12 The question arising is this: when did the speaker remember the
two additional incidents which further prove that Myris never ceased to be
a Christian~ven though he decided to lead a different kind of life and
was bold and free enough to allow himself to have a love-relationship with
a pagan. · Was it at the moment when, as a poet, he was writing the poem;
when as the narrator, he was narrating the poem; or when, as a character of
the story, he was inside Myris's house?
In finding an answer to this, I was aided by the poet's written com-
ment which I found in his archives. Cavafy, on a similar occasion, indicates
that the "now" refers to "the actual time he is writing the poem."13 This
comment, as well as the narrative structure of the poem as a whole-in re-
lation to its obvious thematic aim (the meditation on the issue of "inter-
love")-allows me to argue that the lines in the present tense possibly be-
long to the narrator, as these lines clearly imply a listener.
Professor Peri, on the other hand, disagrees with this explanation
because, according to what he has understood from Gerard Genette's theo-
retical model on interior monologues, this should definitely be an interior
monologue on the part of the protagonist.
Up to this point there is no objection. It is a technical matter and
everybody is free to choose his or her own version: it is either the "time of
narrative" or the "time of history." But a really serious problem arises
when Professor Peri goes on to argue that we are obliged to read the rele-
vant lines of the poem as an interior monologue of the protagonist.
Otherwise- he argues-there is no logical cause for the protagonist leaving
the house. He specifically says:
Let us suppose that the memory referred to in lines 42-53, and especially
the present tense of the lines 44-46 are pronouns (they come into mind)
at the moment when the poet is writing the poem [as Michael Pieris has
argued]. But then you have to explain why the protagonist, if he didn't
remember anything, felt suddenly "a total stranger" and rushed away.
The doubt, the fear, the exit of the protagonist can be explained without
any logical problems only if the protagonist (and not the narrator) re-
membered; only if that "now" is the "now" of the protagonist. I mean to
say only if we are capable of perceiving the "interior monologue."14
Perhaps it is not surprising that, with this exegesis, Professor Peri agrees
with the impressionistic interpretation of George Themelisl 5 and over-
turns, ostensibly from a modern theoretical point of view, the so-called
traditional interpretations of scholars and critics like Yannis Sareyannis, 16
Nikolas Kalas,l7 Edmund Keeley18 and myself; 19 scholars and critics who,
having examined the poem from different historical and critical perspec-
tives, have all agreed upon this: the pagan lover "rushed out of their horri-
ble house," not because he remembered two more incidents which con-
226 Michael Pieris "Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 227

firmed what he knew from the very beginning, but, as the poem puts it, be- According to the former interpretation, 27 the "now" in lines 44-46
cause of an "odd sensation" created from the fanatical adherence to the so- refers to the narrator and reasserts with emphasis what he considers of vi-
cial conventions of the religious ceremony. It is, in other words, a "drama tal importance for his listener: that he always knew of the real religious
of [social] isolation," as Sareyannis argued sixty years ago in his still ad- feelings of Myris (especially he who, as his lover, was constantly listening
mirable "Comments on Myris"20 and not a "drama of revelation in the dis- and paying attention to Myris, much more so than to other companions):
covery of hypocrisy" (as G. Themelis suggested twenty years ago in his im-
pressionistic analysis and Professor Peri in his recent trendy one). Myris, unheard by the others, whispered: "not counting me." (line 52)
According to these two explanations, the love-relationship between
Myris and his pagan friend was "a pure deceit;" the pagan friend "never Nevertheless, this deep knowledge of Myris's actual religious affiliation
succeeded at probing into Myris's internal life and therefore failed to have was never an obstacle to their "inter-love" relationship, not to Myris's par-
a deep knowledge of him." This is due to the fact that Myris "was always ticipation in that pagan group of young men, sharing, above all, aesthetic
open to him only with his [pagan] mask, hiding carefully his true face. 21 and sensual experiences:
And this "lie and hypocrisy" was to be revealed on the day of Myris's fu-
neral, because only on that day and through his "interior monologue"22 did And I thought how our parties and excursions
the pagan friend discover that Myris had always been a Christian. wouldn't be worthwhile now without Myris;
In my opinion, the poem does not allow such a blatant misunder- and I thought how I'd no longer see him
standing. According to the poem's words, the relationship was based on at our wonderfully indecent night-long sessions
true and deep and honest love. The "happiness of love" (to quote from an- enjoying himself, laughing, and reciting verses
with his perfect feel for Greek rhythm; (lines 14-19)
other Cavafian poem) 23 was achieved and existed "for two years" despite
the awareness of their different social and religious backgrounds. In this
So, the pagan lover "rushed away" from the house not because he suddenly
case, the "terrible doubt" concerning the quality of this relationship (and
discovered-during the ceremony-that Myris was always a Christian. But
not Myris's religious feelings) was a momentary (and possibly ephemeral)
because he felt that the rigidity of the ceremonial procedure absorbed his
self-delusion, subverted by the pagan friend's decisive and timely exit
mind to such an extent that he felt an "odd sensation." It was this "odd
from the "horrible house"-that is, before the completion of the cere-
sensation" that nearly "captured" not the whole Myris (the always
mony.24
Christian Myris) but the "memory" of his Myris. The memory, that is, of
This is the most remarkable element about this masterly poem: that the fact that he was fortunate and powerful enough to have Myris for two
Cavafy was bold enough to suggest that the love of Myris and his friend years, regardless of their different social and religious backgrounds.
existed even though they knew very well, and from the very beginning,
This is what the protagonist is desperately struggling to keep vivid
that the one was Christian and the other pagan. As Edmund Keeley rightly
in his memory by his decisive exit from the "horrible house": this memory
points out, "what emerges from 'Myris' is not a position antagonistic to
of a conscious "inter-love" and other sensual and aesthetic experiences,
Christian ritual or favorable to pagan practice, but an evocation once again
which were the humanistic bridge over the gaps created by conflicting
of an ideology, a commitment to a way of life, that transcends any specific
value systems.
religious conviction or practice."25
No doubt the two lovers shared the conscious awareness that their
According to the second interpretation, 28 the "now" could not be
love was an "inter-love." What they didn't expect was that the memory of
pronounced by the narrator but only by the protagonist of the poem. The
this extraordinary relationship was close to being "captured" or "perverted"
latter discovered, during the ceremony and through the recollection of two
by "their Christianity;" that is, not by the Christian faith of an individual
person (Myris) but by the social ceremony of a specific religion. 26
1 more incidents, that Myris had always been a Christian and therefore the

•••
d protagonist had been deceived, along with the other members of the group,
about his religious convictions. Thus, in order to save this self-delusion, to
protect the lie and the hypocrisy from perversion, he left the house.
Let me now present my commentary from a methodological point of In other words, "he rushed away" not because he wanted to protect
view. At the same time I will try to describe the versions of the poem as the "memory" or their love relationship, that is to say the proof-and at the
suggested to the reader by these two radically different interpretations. same time the proud truth-that he had Myris "for two years not for a
226 Michael Pieris
firmed what he knew from the very beginning, but, as the poem puts it, be-
cause of an "odd sensation" created from the fanatical adherence to the so-
cial conventions of the religious ceremony. It is, in other words, a "drama
of [social] isolation," as Sareyannis argued sixty years ago in his still ad-
mirable "Comments on Myris"20 and not a "drama of revelation in the dis-
covery of hypocrisy" (as G. Themelis suggested twenty years ago in his im-
pressionistic analysis and Professor Peri in his recent trendy one).
According to these two explanations, the love-relationship between
Myris and his pagan friend was "a pure deceit;" the pagan friend "never
succeeded at probing into Myris's internal life and therefore failed to have
a deep knowledge of him." This is due to the fact that Myris "was always
open to him only with his [pagan] mask, hiding carefully his true face. 21
And this "lie and hypocrisy" was to be revealed on the day of Myris's fu -
neral, because only on that day and through his "interior monologue"22 did
the pagan friend discover that Myris had always been a Christian.
In my opinion, the poem does not allow such a blatant misunder-
standing. According to the poem's words, the relationship was based on
true and deep and honest love. The "happiness of love" (to quote from an-
other Cavafian poem) 23 was achieved and existed "for two years" despite
the awareness of their different social and religious backgrounds. In this
case, the "terrible doubt" concerning the quality of this relationship (and
not Myris's religious feelings) was a momentary (and possibly ephemeral)
self-delusion, subverted by the pagan friend's decisive and timely exit
from the "horrible house"-that is, before the completion of the cere-
mony.24
This is the most remarkable element about this masterly poem: that
Cavafy was bold enough to suggest that the love of Myris and his friend
existed even though they knew very well, and from the very beginning,
that the one was Christian and the other pagan. As Edmund Keeley rightly
points out, "what emerges from 'Myris' is not a position antagonistic to
Christian ritual or favorable to pagan practice, but an evocation once again
of an ideology, a commitment to a way of life, that transcends any specific
religious conviction or practice."25
No doubt the two lovers shared the conscious awareness that their
love was an "inter-love." What they didn't expect was that the memory of
this extraordinary relationship was close to being "captured" or "perverted"
by "their Christianity;" that is, not by the Christian faith of an individual
person (Myris) but by the social ceremony of a specific religion.26
•••
Let me now present my commentary from a methodological point of
view. At the same time I will try to describe the versions of the poem as
suggested to the reader by these two radically different interpretations .
"Inter-Love": Cavafy's Hu11_1anistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 227
According to the former interpretation,27 the "now" in lines 44-46
refers to the narrator and reasserts with emphasis what he considers of vi-
tal importance for his listener: that he always knew of the real religious
feelings of Myris (especially he who, as his lover, was constantly listening
and paying attention to Myris, much more so than to other companions):
Myris, unheard by the others, whispered: "not counting me." (line 52)
Nevertheless, this deep knowledge of Myris's actual religious affiliation
was never an obstacle to their "inter-love" relationship, not to Myris's par-
ticipation in that pagan group of young men, sharing, above all, aesthetic
and sensual experiences:
And I thought how our parties and excursions
wouldn't be worthwhile now without Myris;
and I thought how I'd no longer see him
at our wonderfully indecent night-long sessions
enjoying himself, laughing, and reciting verses
with his perfect feel for Greek rhythm; (lines 14-19)
So, the pagan lover "rushed away" from the house not because he suddenly
discovered-during the ceremony-that Myris was always a Christian. But
because he felt that the rigidity of the ceremonial procedure absorbed his
mind to such an extent that he felt an "odd sensation." It was this "odd
sensation" that nearly "captured" not the whole Myris (the always
Christian Myris) but the "memory" of his Myris. The memory, that is, of
the fact that he was fortunate and powerful enough to have Myris for two
years, regardless of their different social and religious backgrounds.
This is what the protagonist is desperately struggling to keep vivid
in his memory by his decisive exit from the "horrible house": this memory
of a conscious "inter-love" and other sensual and aesthetic experiences,
which were the humanistic bridge over the gaps created by conflicting
value systems.
According to the second interpretation, 28 the "now" could not be
pronounced by the narrator but only by the protagonist of the poem. The
latter discovered, during the ceremony and through the recollection of two
more incidents, that Myris had always been a Christian and therefore the
protagonist had been deceived, along with the other members of the group,
about his religious convictions. Thus, in order to save this self-delusion, to
protect the lie and the hypocrisy from perversion, he left the house.
I n other words, "he rushed away" not because he wanted to protect
the "memory" or their love relationship, that is to say the proof-and at the
same time the proud truth-that he had Myris "for two years not for a
228 Michael Pieris
house or a villa on the Nile" (to quote here from a kindred poem with a
similar context); 29 but because he wanted to save the lie and the hypocrisy
that his Myris had not been the always Christian Myris, but a Christian
who abandoned his religious faith in order to be able to participate in a sen-
sual life, fully devoted to "hedonism and art."30
After such a treatment of the poem, it is not surprising that
Professor Peri is the only Cavafian critic so far to perceive that Myris was
initiated to paganism: "iniziazi.one al paganesimo."31 As if this were a nec-
essary presupposition for their "inter-love" relationship! And alas! All this
anachronistic arguing only because of the critic's desire to display that he is
able to fasten a theoretical corset on the body of a certain poem.
Nevertheless, let me close this belated but indispensable public re-
ply to Professor Peri by asserting that, as a critic and as a devoted reader of
Cavafy's poetry for more than twenty years, I am completely confident that
the Alexandrian poet would have never consigned or approved such a reac-
tionary poem like the version of "Myris" that Professor Peri asks us to read.
NOTES
This article in a slightly diffe rent form and with the title "The Present State of
Scholarly Commentary on the Work of Cavafy" was originally presented to
membe rs of the Departme nt of Classical Studies of Melbourne University on
June 1, 1990.
1. The avant-garde and modem character of Cavafy's poetry rendered it
a challenge which induced the sharpening and at the same time the maturing of
literary criticism in Greece. The most worthwhile texts of literary criticism in
modem Creek literature are the ones which were written in order to analyze and
interpre t Cavafy's poetry and poetics. Besides the historical older texts by
Xenopoulos, Vrisimitzakis and Sareyannis, even some by Malanos, Tsirkas, of
course, and especially, Seferis, I shall restrict myself to referring only to the spe-
cial issues of various literary magazines as well as to some special volumes be-
ginning in 1932, when the first significant special issue of the periodical KvKAos
appeared, up to 1983 when, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of
Cavafy's de ath, multifarious articles dedicated to his poetry were published:
KvKAos- (1932), Nla 'E<JT[a (1933, 1963), 'ErrdJEc!JPTJCTTJ TlXVTJS" (1963), tllt..\6..\oyos-
(1977), ilta{3d(w (1983), Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora (1983), Grand Street
(1983), KvK>.os Ka{3dlf>T'I (1983), 'H Al(T'/ (1983), Mind and Art of C. P. Cavafy.
Essays ·on His Life and Work (1983), XdpTT'/S" (1983). Most of the articles included
in those issues indicate a progress towards a more scientific and, in some cases, a
theoretically more advanced approach to Cavafy's poetry thus setting up a critical
discourse of high standard in modem Greek literature.
2. The extreme example of this second direction in modem Creek lit-
"Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 229
erature is the mechanical application of a structural model of analysis on the late
fifteenth-century poetical work ~ 1TOK01TOS" by Yorgos Kehayoglou who had pro-
posed to cut out almost one quarte r from the 558 lines of the first edition. See
Yorgos Kechayoglou, "Z11n'l~aTa PTtTOpLK"f!S", X.oyLK"fls KaL 6€~anl<"fls ~i]s crrov
'Arr6Korro TOU Mn£pya8i]," AVTlX«PT'/ (Athens: E.L.I.A., 1984):239-56.
3. · Leonie Kramer, "The Humanities Must Cast or Can't Sell Their
Philosophy," The Australian (June 25, 1990):13.
4. Massimo Peri, "Le Voci di Cavafis," Lirica greca da Arhiloco a Elitis.
Studi in onore di Filippo Maria Pontani (Padua, 1984):377-97.
5. Massimo Peri, "OL c~Kuvls TOU Kal3«4>11.'' 0 tllt..\6..\oyos-, 44 (Summe r
1984):119-40.
6. For example, the reference to lines 14-22 of the poem as
"analepses," according to Cenette's far fetched term (or "flashback"), rather than
the evident "cast forward," the projection to the future. The same mistake is
made by Helen Catsaounis in "Cavafy and the Theatrical Representation of
History," Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, X (1 & 2) (Spring-Summer 1983):114.
7. It is, e.g. , enigmatic how Professor Peri picked out from my analysis
that I had proposed that the narrator was physically able to enter or exit Myri's
house, when I have clearly, throughout my essay, distinguished between the time
when the events took place (the "£lTH<J08LaK6S xp6vos") and the time when they
are narrated (the "a4>11'Y11~anK6s" or the "noL11TLK6s xp6vos"). In other words, I
have distinguished between "the time of history" and "the time of narrative." For
a detailed comparison of the recent narrative methods and terminology, see
Wallace Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative (Comell University Press, 1986).
8. C. P. Cavafy, Collected Poems, translated by Edmund Keeley and
Phillip Sherrard and edited by C. P. Savidis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1975), p. 155-56.
9. I would like to thank Dr. Desmond Cahill, an associate professor in
the School of Community Services and Policy Studies at RMIT University in
Melbourne, Australia and Mr. M. A. Sophocleous, a lecturer in modern Creek
literature at the same institution, for the stimulating discussions we have had
about the "inter-marriage" issue (a major question of the "multicu,ltural society" of
today's Australia), an issue which is very close to one of the most conspicuous
subjects in Cavafy's poetry: that of "inter-love." By this I refer to problems aris-
ing from the love relationship between persons with different ethnic, religious, or
social backgrounds, e.g., between a pagan and a Christian, or a Creek and a Jew,
and so on.
10. The different social status between Myris and his pagan friends is ev-
ident in lines 11-12. Although deeply depressed the pagan friend is deeply im-
pressed by the richness of the house; he pays attention to the "precious carpets"
and the "vessels in silver and gold." It is also evident in line 36: "he scattered his
money lavishly."
11. According to C. P. Savidis's note, "The protagonist and the scene are
imaginary. The date situates them in a time of great political and religious
upheaval: civil strife between the sons of Emperor Constantine the Great, and re-
ligious clashes between the supporters of Arius and Athanasios in Alexandria,
(Cavafy, Collected Poems, p. 238).
12. Michael Pieris, "To 'M€oa' Ka L TO "E~w· <JTTtV no(11<J11 TOU
228 Michael Pieris
house or a villa on the Nile" (to quote here from a kindred poem with a
similar context); 29 but because he wanted to save the lie and the hypocrisy
that his Myris had not been the always Christian Myris, but a Christian
who abandoned his religious faith in order to be able to participate in a sen-
sual life, fully devoted to "hedonism and art."30
After such a treatment of the poem, it is not surprising that
Professor Peri is the only Cavafian critic so far to perceive that Myris was
initiated to paganism: "iniziazione al paganesimo."31 As if this were a nec-
essary presupposition for their "inter-love" relationship! And alas! All this
anachronistic arguing only because of the critic's desire to display that he is
able to fasten a theoretical corset on the body of a certain poem.
Nevertheless, let me close this belated but indispensable public re-
ply to Professor Peri by asserting that, as a critic and as a devoted reader of
Cavafy's poetry for more than twenty years, I am completely confide nt that
the Alexandrian poet would have never consigned or approved such a reac-
tionary poem like the version of "Myris" that Professor Peri asks us to read.
NOTES
This article in a slightly different form and with the title "The Present State of
Scholarly Commentary on the Work of Cavafy" was originally presented to
members of the Department of Classical Studies of Melbourne University on
June 1, 1990.
1. The avant-garde and modern character of Cavafy's poetry rendered it
a challenge which induced the sharpening and at the same time the maturing of
literary criticism in Greece. The most worthwhile texts of literary criticism in
modern Greek literature are the ones which were written in order to analyze and
interpret Cavafy's poetry and poetics. Besides the historical older texts by
Xenopoulos, Vrisimitzakls and Sareyannis, even some by Malanos, Tsirkas, of
course, and especially, Seferis, I shall restrict myself to referring only to the spe-
cial issues of various literary magazines as well as to some special volumes be-
ginning in 1932, when the first significant special issue of the periodical KvKAos-
appeared, up to 1983 when, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of
Cavafy's death, multifarious articles dedicated to his poetry were published:
KvKAos- (1932), Nta 'ECJTla (1933, 1963), 'ErrdJaJpTJOTJ TlxVTJs- (1963), cf>t..\6..\oyos-
(1977), ilta{Jd(w (1983), Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora (1983), Grand Street
(1983), KuKAos- Ka{Jd<PTt (1983), 'H Ai(Tl (1983), Mind and Art of C. P. Cavafy.
&says ·on His Life and Work (1983), XdpTT]S' (1983). Most of the articles included
in those issues indicate a progress towards a more scientific and, in some cases, a
theoretically more advanced approach to Cavafy's poetry thus setting up a critical
discourse of high standard in modem Greek literature.
2. The extreme example of this second direction in modem Greek lit-
"Inter-Love": Cavafy's Humanistic Answer Bridging the Gaps 229
erature is the mechanical application of a structural model of analysis on the late
fifteenth-century poetical work 'Arr6K01TOS' by Yorgos Kehayoglou who had pro-
posed to cut out almost one quarter from the 558 lines of the first edition. See
Yorgos Kechayoglou, ''Zrrr~~aTa pTJTOpuc~s-. XoyL~S" KaL &~an~s- ~TJS CJTOV
'Arr6Korro TOll Mtr£pya8fJ," AVTlxaPTl (Athens: E.L.I.A., 1984):239-56.
3. · Leonie Kramer, "The Humanities Must Cast or Can't Sell Their
Philosophy,'' The Australian (June 25, 1990):13.
4. Massimo Peri, "Le Voci di Cavafis," Lirica greca diJ Arhiloco a Elitis.
Studi in onore di Filippo Maria Pontani (Padua, 1984):377-97.
5. Massimo Peri, "OL cf>wvls- TOll Kal3<icpTJ," 0 cf>t..\6..\oyos-, 44 (Summer
1984):119-40.
6. For example, the reference to lines 14-22 of the poem as
"analepses," according to Genette's far fetched term (or "flashback"), rather than
the evident "cast forward," the projection to the future. The same mistake is
made by Helen Catsaounis in "Cavafy and the Theatrical Representation of
History," Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, X (1 & 2) (Spring-Summer 1983):114.
7. It is, e.g., enigmatic how Professor Peri picked out from my analysis
that I had proposed that the narrator was physically able to enter or exit Myri's
house, when I have clearly, throughout my essay, distinguished between the time
when the events took place (the "£tr£LCJ08LaK6S" xp6vos-") and the time when they
are narrated (the "a.Pll'Yll~anK6s-" or the "trOLl)TLK6s- xp6vos-"). In other words, I
have distinguished between "the time of history" and "the time of narrative." For
a detailed comparison of the recent narrative methods and terminology, see
Wallace Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative (Comell University Press, 1986).
8. C. P. Cavafy, Collected Poems, translated by Edmund Keeley and
Phillip Sherrard and edited by G. P. Savidis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1975), p. 155-56.
9. I would like to thank Dr. Desmond Cahill, an associate professor in
the School of Community Services and Policy Studies at RMIT University in
Melbourne, Australia and Mr. M. A. Sophocleous, a lecturer in modem Greek
literature at the same institution, for the stimulating discussions we have had
about the "inter-marriage" issue (a major question of the "multicu,ltural society" of
today's Australia), an issue which is very close to one of the most conspicuous
subjects in Cavafy's poetry: that of "inter-love." By this I refer to problems aris-
ing from the love relationship between persons with diffe rent ethnic, religious, or
social backgrounds, e.g., between a pagan and a Christian, or a Greek and a Jew,
and so on.
10. The different social status between Myris and his pagan friends is ev-
ident in lines 11-12. Although deeply depressed the pagan friend is deeply im-
pressed by the richness of the house; he pays attention to the "precious carpets"
and the "vessels in silver and gold." It is also evident in line 36: "he scattered his
money lavishly."
11. According to G. P. Savidis's note, "The protagonist and the scene are
imaginary. The date situates them in a time of great political and religious
upheaval: civil strife between the sons of Emperor Constantine the Great, and re-
ligious clashes between the supporters of Arius and Athanasios in Alexandria,
(Cavafy, Collected Poems, p. 238).
12. Michael Pieris, "To 'Micra' KaL TO "E~ w· CJTl)V trO(l)CJl) TOll
230 Michael Pieris

Kal3<i<fl11," XdpTTJS', 516 (April1983):686.

13. From a still unpublished comment by Cavafy concerning the poem
"Walls" (Cavafy Archives, f. 84). For a detailed report about Cavafy's comments
on his poems, see Diana Haas, "~x6>..La TO\J Ka~d<fl11 CT€ IloL"l11J.aTd TO\J.
AvaKo(vwUll avlK8oTov \JALKOlJ a1r6 TO Apxdo Ka~d<f111." KuKAOS' Kaf3dt/Jry
(Athens, 1983):81-109.
14. Massimo Peri, "Le Voci di Cavafis," p. 389; Massimo Peri, "0 L
<flwvls Tov Kaj3d.<flll," p. 132.
15. George Themelis, 1/ llolry07J Toil Kaf3dt/Jry. ilLaCTTdaELS' Kal "OpLa
(Thessaloniki 1970), pp~ 71-74.
16. Yannis Sareyannis, .Ex6,\La an)v Kaf3dt/JTJ (Athens: Ikaros, 1973),
pp. 99-103 (first published 1932).
17. Nikolas Kalas, KElJlEIIQ JlOLTJTLKifS' Kal AlaOrynKifS' (Athens :
Plethron, 1982), pp. 96-97 (first published 1932).
18. Edmund Keeley, Cavafy's Alexandria: Study of a Myth in Progress
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), pp. 135-39.
19. Pieris, "To 'Mlaa' KaL To ''E~w' CTTTJV 1T0(11Ull TO\J Ka~<flll."
20. Sareyannis, .Ex6A.La aTOll Kafkit/JTJ, p. 101.
21. Themelis, 1/ llolTJO"TJ TOU Kaf3df/Jry, p. 72.
22. Peri, "Le Voci di Cavafis," p. 389; Peri, "OL <flwvls TO\J Kal3<i<fl11," p.
132.
23. See the last lines from the kindred poem ''Two Young Men, 23 to 24
Years Old": "And when the expensive drinks were finished I and it was close to
four in the morning, I happy, they gave themselves to love," in Cavafy, Collected
Poems, p. 142.
24. "In a city of many religions, like Alexandria, Cavafy may have
"verified,' indeed have lived this poem and most painfully. A friend of his once
told me that it exactly expressed his own feelings at a Jewish funeral." See
Robert Liddell, Cavafy: A Biography (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), p. 201.
25. Keeley, Cavafy's Alexandria, p. 184.
26. According to Diana Haas religion starts to play a social role in
Cavafy's poetry from 1905 in the poem "Manuel Komninos,'' see Haas, Le
Probleme religieux dans l'oeuvre de Cavafy les annees de formation (1882-1905), vol.
11, These presentee a l'Universite de Paris IV-Sorbonne en vue de ['obtention du
Doctorat d'Etat es sciences humaines (Paris, 1987):434-58.
27. Pieris, "To 'Mlaa ' KaL To "E~w· O"TTJV 1T0(11Ull TO\J Ka~<flll . "
28. Peri, "Le Voci di Cavafis,"; Peri, "OL <flwvls TO\J Ka~d<flll . " .
29. See the poem "In the Tavernas" in Cavafy, Collected Poems, p. 136,
lines 4-5.
30. See the poem "Of the Jews (A.D. 50)" Ibid., p. 94; "The Hedonism
and Art of Alexandria I kept him as their dedicated son," lines 14-15.
31. Peri, "Le Voci di Cavafis," p. 385; Peri, "OL <flwvls TO\J Kaj3d.<flll ," p.
128.