I am personally convinced of the sapphonic nature of Poulenc’s Socrates, argued by Woods in her article. I am most swayed by her arguments regarding the Princess de Polignac’s sexuality and her specific requests to commission and contribute to the composition of Socrates with Poulenc, and the power of using a Greek text. The Princess’s private life, the fact that she hid her female lovers and relationships, but that they were still somewhat known and she was still a successful patron and salon host, makes her a prevalent lesbian patron and an important figure in queer musical history. Her preference for a Greek text is also sapphic, considering the prevalence of queerness in ancient Greek society and the empowerment that comes from women being able to read a language that only educated, privileged men would have been able to traditionally read. These specific bits of evidence are particularly compelling and are the reason that I am convinced in the specific case of Socrates. But although Dorf and Wood are justified in their readings of specific pieces by Poulenc, I don’t think that their argument can be applied to every piece composed by Poulenc or commissioned by the Princess de Polignac, or even other queer patrons and composers of the time.
There is a fine line between appreciating the connections between someone’s sexuality and the art they compose or consume, and simply assuming that everything they like has to do with their sexuality. When we assume that about someone, we force them into a monolith, only being defined by their sexuality, when we know full well that plenty of other things contribute to how someone consumes or composes art and music. Sapphonics is an interesting concept and I think it applies in very specific circumstances, like with Socrates, but we must be careful to evaluate every piece carefully and its specific situation before declaring it an example of sapphonics, or an example of “queer music,” which is again another very vague term that can become a monolith when applied too heavily in music analysis. Unfortunately, although I appreciate Wood and Dorf’s analysis, we must be careful not to take their argument and try to apply it too heavily or too frequently, or without carefully analyzing a piece to see if it is appropriate. Nothing in their argument is weak, but the misuse of their argument on other pieces or people would be very easy to accidentally be guilty of doing.