It appears that these poets are basically comparing Euclid to some sort of a math messiah. The capitalization of Beauty implies that it may be a metaphor for God, which Euclid has somehow brought to earth. Also the references to Greek mythology, as well as biblical languages, and references to paeans (which to my knowledge are like church hymns) suggest that Euclid's work is being highly appreciated.
I argue Millay was trying to convey in her poem that these fundamental principles being built into logical arguments is "beauty" in its purest form. There is no debate about how these principles work and they will always work. When Euclid first introduced this type of reasoning to the world, he introduced the world to pure "beauty".
On initial impression, it appears to me that Kramer is suggesting that even with Euclid's contributions, we still do not truly see "Beauty" in all its glory. In my personal view, I think that he is suggesting how few people, and maybe even Millay, herself, truly understand the workings of Euclid. Also how much easier it is to "see Beauty clothed" which I believe implies that we see and understand the aftermath of these discoveries/principles, but we don't really know them truly.
Just some of my five cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment