In light of the interplay of performative and constative, the ritual elements of the invocation take on further significance. Burnett makes much of Sappho’s definition of Aphrodite as the goddess who can best grant the wishes expressed in the prayer. I would like to extend her argument further, since I think I have exposed a further reason for that definition. As I noted above in my exploration of the ritual called up by the performative utterance λίσσομαι, prayer-ritual relies on an unchanging conception of itself, founded on the sacred nature of ritual and its identification with the absolute who is entreated. The invocation is an integral part of the ritual of a prayer. As such, the invocation is also an integral part of the performative structure of the poem (the structure composed of the various performative elements which together enact the prayer). The formal epithets call on the goddess in the proper manner, performing the ritual action of invocation. Like λίσσομαι, the motivating verb of the whole ritual speech act, the naming of the goddess by formal epithets appeals for its authority to the unchanging tradition, which identifies itself with the invoked, the goddess.

That the unchanging divinity can never exist except in an imaginary, unattainable, non-linguistic prayer does not lessen the significance of the difference which appears within the goddess at the sound of Sappho’s epithets. Sappho’s language, simply through the presence of its differing element, re-makes the goddess for its own ends: within the context of the prayer the alleviation of pain. Burnett’s use of the word “definition” gains new meaning in this light. The tension in the language of the poem exposes a startling demarcation and definition taking place in the words of the invocation. Not only does Sappho describe (the descriptive speech act alone, in the absence of an overarching performative) the deity she invokes, but she actually defines her goddess, marking out her Aphrodite’s boundaries against the tradition invoked by the ritual performative.

As the prayer continues, the definition of Sappho’s Aphrodite from the ritual’s traditional Aphrodite and the definition of Sappho’s prayer against the prayer tradition continue in the tension between the ritual and the different. The very word λίσσομαι, as I noted in Chapter II, has a differing constative force of supplication (as opposed to avowal or vaunting). In fact this word which provides the nexus of the ritual perfromative is perhaps the best place to illustrate the difference which arises in the initial invocation and entreaty. In saying λίσσομαι Sappho starts to enact a prayer. Yet the word carries also a different, descriptive force in its difference from other prayer words like εὔχομαι, as I mentioned in Chapter II. That difference makes the word unable to remain consistent to the simple, traditional force of the ritual performative. To repeat, that ideal performative, which would identify absolutely with tradition, is unattainable. But as I noted in my {28|29} initial discussion of ritual, every prayer validates itself by identification with the perceived-as-unchanging tradition in its ritual performative aspect.

Just as no real, spoken prayer can ever be purely ritual performative because of the very existence of constative difference, the Aphrodite with whom the prayer ritual identifies can never truly exist in prayer. Out of the necessity of different language (in the sense I outlined in Chapter II) arises the difference, which we may see from this perspective as the difference between the ideal and the possibility of prayer’s language attaining it. From that difference comes the constative difference of the ritual force of λίσσομαι from its different, descriptive force. Because the performative utterance experiences the differentiation we see in λίσσομαι, the ritual, absolute, unchanging conception of Aphrodite becomes re-defined and thus differentiated simply by her invocation in the language of prayer; the prayer identifies with her unchangingness for its validity and so, because prayer must differ from itself (as unchanging ritual), the goddess in prayer must differ from herself (as unchanging object of the invocation).

My remarks about the formal epithets and the single word λίσσομαι apply also to the rest of the performative structure of the poem. The next part of the structure is the imperative μὴ δάμνα, which expresses the object of Sappho’s prayer. I noted in Chapter II that the imperatives of the poem extend the ritual performative motivated by λίσσομαι. Re-examining that continuative force now, we notice that as λίσσομαι has also different, descriptive force, so μὴ δάμνα has a different sense, besides its extension of the ritual structure: it describes what Sappho wants Aphrodite to do. Without the constative difference provided by the different force of the imperatives in the poem, the prayer could not be a prayer even though it had λίσσομαι; Sappho could not describe her desire.

I am advancing a view of a relationship of mutual dependence of the ritual and the different in the poem. The two could not exist independently of one another within the context of the prayer, else the prayer would not exist. Without the different, the ritual prayer would lack the ability to define its objects. Without the ritual performative, the poem would be at most a parody of prayer and at least a poem with some sacral language thrown in; it would be unable to accomplish a persuasion of the goddess, lacking the essential self-validation through identification with her which only a description can give. The two sides of the language of prayer together create the constative difference between them which I am here exploring. In a valid prayer, one within which exists the difference of the ritual and the different, the different re-defines and so re-makes the ritual and the tradition with which the ritual identifies.

The analogy to epic now reduces to the correspondence of those two differences. Clearly the epic moment, the re-making of The Song, consists of an invocation of the epic tradition just as a prayer invokes its own tradition. Even if no focal performative {31|32} utterance like “I pray” occurs in the epic, the very telling of a tale which is supposed to be the exact one handed down for eternity implies the performative act of invocation. In fact, the beginnings of epics are characterized by the imperative invocation to the divine source of inspiration, μῆνιν ἄειδε θεά being only the best known example. As we saw in the case of the imperatives of Sappho’s prayer, the imperative implies a performative utterance like “I pray.” The epic moment contains also the same sort of different remaking of the performative tradition which we observed in Sappho. The way the bard recounts the story contains the seeds of dissent from the tradition in that it always differs from the non-existent ideal, as Lord demonstrated.

Lord’s study provides an ethnographic basis for my study of the forces of difference at work in prayer. The same forces give rise to the tradition (when viewed from the outside) of epic performance by individuals. From one perspective the difference between the forces takes the form of the individual: in the case of epic, the bard; in the case of prayer, the suppliant. The parallel case of epic provides a simple—at least in terms of variables—manifestation of the difference which inheres in both it and prayer. Another striking parallel with epic will further clarify the effect of the differences between the forces in the Sappho’s poem.

Martin’s findings bear directly on Sappho’s poem in that we see the same tension and difference of mutually dependent speech acts; the non-traditional different re-makes the traditional, shaping it for its own ends. As an Iliadic hero tries to win honor through his persuasion of others in persuasive muthoi, Sappho tries to gain aid from Aphrodite in the invocation, entreaty, and epiphany. The first strophe of Sappho’s prayer, with the formal epithets and the imperative μὴ μ’ ἄσαισι μηδ’ ὀνίαισι δάμνα, / πότνια, θῦμον, takes the ritual motivated by λίσσομαι and re-makes it into a statement of Sappho’s specific desires. The overarching traditional structure of prayer-ritual comes into contact with Sappho, and like a epic hero she uses it towards her own ends. The most important conclusion to be gained here for my investigation is that the character of the individual performer arises as a result of the difference between this ritual structure and the different speech acts necessary for an individual to use it. Without that difference the heroes of epic would be simply fighting and pillaging machines; with the difference, their figures are rich and variegated. Without that difference Sappho could not express her desire to her goddess; with the difference she sends her prayer to the source of her aid. Martin’s uncovery of the crucial importance of memory in establishing the worth and character of the hero recalls Burnett’s emphasis on memory in Sappho’s poem. The remembered epiphany of Aphrodite which Sappho calls up in the prayer (αἴ πότα κἀτέρωτα) offers a parallel to the stories which the heroes call on for validation. I return to this use of memory in my reading of the epiphany in Chapter IV.

Likewise the epithet πότνια which further defines the goddess and Sappho’s placement of the goddess’ subdual in her θῦμος continue the same motion of the ritual and the different. Πότνια defines Aphrodite as Sappho’s own patroness, worthy of aid rather than pain. Sappho’s locating the pain in her spirit simply works as a further constative difference created by the different aspect of the imperative. By supplying this detail Sappho makes the prayer even more her own statement of desire.

In this Chapter I have attempted to establish the foundation of a reading of the poem informed by the interplay of performative and constative forces in Sappho’s prayer. The invocation and entreaty which begin the poem serve as the basis for the rest of the prayer, providing the overarching structure of ritual which allows Sappho’s own re-{35|36}making, her own expression of prayer and so eventually the aid she asks for. Chapter IV builds upon this foundation, exploring the relation of the ritual and the different in the epiphany of Aphrodite which stands at the heart of the poem. {36|37}