ED-LarryB

866.1864.This Dust, and its Feature—

This Dust, and its Feature—
Accredited—Today—
Will in a second Future—
Cease to identify—

This Mind, and its measure—
A too minute Area
For its enlarged inspection’s
Comparison—appear—

This World, and its species
A too concluded show
For its absorbed Attention’s
Remotest scrutiny—
………………………………………………………………………..

My interpretation, with ED’s alternate words {in curly brackets}:

Stanza 1

This Dust, and its Feature—
Accredited—Today—
Will in a second Future {Being}—
Cease to identify—

S1.

In afterlife, this body, with all its features, identifiable today, will cease to be recognizable.

 

Stanza 2.

This Mind, and its measure—
A too minute Area
For its enlarged inspection’s
Comparison—appear—

S2

In afterlife, this mind, with all its poetry, will in afterlife appear tiny compared to its enlarged area.

 

 

Stanza 3.

This World, and its species {Nations; Fashions; symbols; standards}
A too concluded show
For its absorbed Attention’s
Remotest scrutiny—

S3.

In afterlife, this world, and all its species, will be a too concluded performance for absorbed attention or remotest scrutiny.
……………………………………………………………………….

If ED really believed these three stanzas in 1864, then she had abandoned agnosticism for a religion, albeit a religion “too concluded . . for its absorbed attention’s remotest scrutiny—”.
…………………………………………………………………………………………

Simple, no?  Well, here’s the invited explication on ‘The Prowling Bee’:

We are living in the era of the rise of what are known as the “large language models,” or LLMs. In this context, one might think of Dickinson’s poems, and this poem in particular, as a miniature language model. Though known as one of the foundational lyricists of the American tradition, Dickinson was also a technician; her hymnlike verses can be analyzed as spiritual machines.

In 2017, a group of eight technical researchers published a seminal paper in the field of deep learning titled “Attention Is All You Need.” In the paper, they introduced the transformer, a piece of technical architecture that made the modern incarnation of artificial intelligence possible. The etymology of the word “attention,” which appears in line 11 of Fr866, is worth considering here: from the Latin tendere, it means to reach for, to stretch or extend. Language itself is a tool for such extension; the M-dash, in the
Dickinsonian context, a kind of reaching for, or stretching toward, a phrase.

Latinate words are notably spatial, constructed as they often are of directional affixes and roots. As with “Attention,” the word “Accredited,” in line two of the poem, from the Latin credere, also implies a kind of reaching or extension, in this case of credit outward (ac-). “This Dust, and its Feature—” writes Dickinson in the first of the poem’s three stanzas,

Accredited—Today—
Will in a second Future—
Cease to identify—

The “Dust” in this case might be dust on a piece of furniture, or dust motes floating in the sunlight, or possibly even the dust – composed of sloughed off skin cells or grime – layered on a woman’s skin. One thinks of the expression “dust to dust.” “Dust” in this instance implies mortality, the ephemeral flesh; that which is “Accredited” – as in extended credence, a kind of credit – in the moment, but which will, in due time, “cease to identify,” to exist. What was once a “Future” inexorably transforms into a present; what was expansively alive will become dead. The credit – of life, love, time – will no longer be extended.

In the second stanza of the poem, Dickinson takes us from “This Dust” to “This Mind” – from the material flesh to the seat of cognition and awareness:

This Mind, and its measure—
A too minute Area
For its enlarged inspection’s
Comparison—appear

Here, once again, the poem becomes spatial – literally an “area,” and a measurable one at that. This area is “too minute,” too small to accommodate the “enlarged inspection’s/ Comparison.” As with “Attention” and “Accredited,” the word “inspection” is Latinate, from the root specere, which means to look, a looking into or inside (the prefix in-). Whereas “This Dust, and its Feature” were accredited, extended outward into the material body and into time, “This Mind, and its measure” try to extend inward; but, alas, its “Area” is “too minute,” not big enough. The divine mystery – of consciousness and its desire to in-spect, or look into, itself – cannot find adequate accommodation in the “measure” of the “Mind.” To return to the analogy with LLMs introduced at the beginning of this commentary, the “measure” of the material mind doesn’t scale, its processing power is inadequate to the task of full spiritual self-awareness.

In the third and final stanza of the poem, Dickinson pans out from the interior inspections of the Mind to the expansive vista of “This World” and “its species.” Here, one might imagine a kind of pastoral scene, of animals and plants – also material, a permutation of this “Dust” – grazing and gamboling along the countryside. Who or what made “This World,” full as it is of material, kinetic life? As with so many of Dickinson’s poems, a sense of divine mystery pervades. The poem functions as both a prayer and paean – a Platonic love poem addressed to a Creator. This Creator, unnamed here, is the locus of a remote, “absorbed Attention” that wishes to “scrutinize,” to inspect “This World.” But alas, “This World” is “too concluded,” too disappointingly finite.

Dickinson’s poetics are preternaturally algorithmic. One might describe her poems as linguistic equations, studded as they are by the quantitative dash. But there is a tragedy inherent in Dickinson’s intentionally composed poems – they seem to promise a summation, a kind of balance or totality, and yet there is always an unsettling remainder, an inability to tally the metaphysical reality. The flesh, including the mind and its cognition, is simply not equipped to make sense of the material context in which it finds itself, no matter how strenuously it extends itself outward or attends. Attention in this case – even that of a writer as sensitive and attuned to the subtleties of language as Dickinson – is simply not enough, or possibly too much.

-Katy Lederer

 

 

865.1864.Expectation — is Contentment —

Expectation — is Contentment —
Gain — Satiety —
But Satiety — Conviction
Of Necessity

Of an Austere trait in Pleasure —
Good, without alarm
Is a too established Fortune —
Danger — deepens Sum —
………………………………………………………..

My interpretation of F865, ‘Expectation — is Contentment —’:

Stanza 1

Expectation — is Contentment —
Gain — Satiety —
But Satiety — Conviction
Of Necessity

S1.

Getting there is all the fun. Once there, there becomes ordinary, but being there convinces us that being there is a necessity.

 

Stanza 2.

Of an Austere trait in Pleasure —
Good, without alarm
Is a too established Fortune —
Danger — deepens Sum —

S2.

Self-disciplined pleasure is good, without alarm, but a too established fortune is not. Risk deepens pleasure’s sum.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

864.1864.A Plated Life – diversified

A Plated Life – diversified
With Gold and Silver Pain
To prove the presence of the Ore
In Particles – ’tis when

A Value struggle – it exist –
A Power – will proclaim
Although Annihilation pile
Whole Chaoses on Him –
……………………………………………………………..

ED Lexicon Def. 1 of “plated”:

“Impure; covered with a thin layer of precious metal on the surface which deceptively conceals an interior of baser metal; [fig.] counterfeit; hypocritical; dissembling; duplicitous; two-faced.”
……………………………………………………………..

My biographical interpretation of F785:

Stanza 1.

A Plated Life – diversified
With Gold and Silver Pain
To prove the presence of the Ore
In Particles – ’tis when [enjambed with Stanza 2]

S1.

Wadsworth leads a hypocritical life, a charismatic minister in public and a seducer of troubled young women in private. Yes, his personality includes bits of gold and silver Christianity, which suggests sincerity, but he uses those qualities to gain and betray trust, causing much pain. I know . . . [enjambed with Stanza 2]

 

Stanza 2

A Value struggle – it exist –
A Power – will proclaim
Although Annihilation pile
Whole Chaoses on Him –

S2.

. . . a value struggle exists his soul, a struggle between good and evil, but when he dies annihilation will pile whole chaoses on his soul.
………………………………………………………………….

An immediate clue to the recipient of this poem is the capitalized “Him” at the end of this poem. ED honors only God and Reverend Wadsworth with the capitalized pronoun, “Him”, and the context proves ED’s not talking about God.

A further clue is in Line 1 of F785, ‘It dropped so low — in my Regard —’, where ED castigates Reverend Wadsworth for seducing her in summer 1860, then leaving town and not responding to her letters and poems sent to him.
………………………………………………………………………………………..

P.S.  In 1879, 15 years after she wrote F864, ‘A Plated Life – diversified’, ED composed a camouflaged quatrain that said she would like to know how Wadsworth was doing. For the 12th and last time she used her codeword for him: Calvary:

Spurn the temerity –
Rashness of Calvary –
Gay were Gethsemane
Knew we of thee –

Apparently, ED sent the poem to Wadsworth who took her poem as an invitation to visit because he arrived unannounced at her front door in 1880. No doubt, after the 20-year hiatus, the maturer twosome spent an afternoon strolling down memory lane.

In an 1886 letter, written to George Clark one month before her death, ED described Wadsworth’s visit in endearing terms:

“. . . . . Going Home,” was he not an Aborigine of the Sky? The last time he came in Life [summer 1880], I was with my Lilies and Heliotropes, said my Sister to me, “the Gentleman with the deep voice wants to see you, Emily,” hearing him ask of the Servant. “Where did you come from,” I said, for he spoke like an Apparition.

“I stepped from my Pulpit [an invited sermon in Northampton, MA, 12 miles SW of Amherst] the Train” was [his] simple reply, and when I asked “how long”, “Twenty Years” said he with inscrutable roguery – but the loved Voice has ceased . . . . .”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………

863.1864.This Bauble was preferred of Bees –

This Bauble was preferred of Bees –
By Butterflies admired
At Heavenly – Hopeless Distances –
Was justified of Bird –

Did Noon – enamel – in Herself
Was Summer to a Score
Who only knew of Universe –
It had created Her –
…………………………………………………………………………

This from David Preest’s ‘Analysis and Notes of Emily Dickinson Poetry’, © 2012. Unfortunately, Preest’s poem summaries are no longer available on the Internet]:

“Poem F863 ‘This Bauble was preferred of Bees’

“Judith Farr believes that the ‘Bauble’ of this poem is Sue. She was ‘preferred’ and ‘admired’ by the ‘bees’ and ‘butterflies’ of Amherst society, and even the bird that was Emily regarded her as good and ‘Heavenly’ – at a ‘Hopeless Distance.’ If only ‘Noon’ could have made this Bauble in lasting enamel, she could have been a whole Summer to a score of people who thought her the best thing in the world, instead of just the Bauble of a moment.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Based on Judith Farr’s insight and David Preest’s reputation as an interpreter of Emily Dickinson’s poems, here is my biographical interpretation, with ED’s alternate words and phrase in {curly brackets}:

Stanza 1:

This Bauble was preferred of Bees –
By Butterflies admired {adored; desired}
At Heavenly – Hopeless Distances –
Was justified of Bird – {Of Bird – was justified -}

S1:

Sue’s wit and charisma attracts the admiration of Amherst’s social bees and butterflies. I, a little wren who admires Sue from a heavenly yet hopeless distance, find Sue’s personal charisma and poetic insights irresistible, but sometimes her empathy with others seems superficial.

 

Stanza 2:

Did Noon – enamel {enable; embellish} – in Herself
Was Summer to a Score
Who only knew of Universe –
It had created {afforded} Her –

S2:

If only Sue could enable her party personality to shine light into the lives of a score of people, she could brighten their days, but Sue feels that the Universe created her for herself. [Note the reverentially capitalized “Her” in Line 8, a sign of ED’s high regard for Sue.]
………………………………………………………………………………………

861.1864.They say that ‘Time assuages’ –

They say that “Time assuages” –
Time never did assuage –
An actual suffering strengthens
As Sinews do, with Age –

Time is a Test of Trouble –
But not a Remedy –
If such it prove, it prove too
There was no Malady –
…………………………………………………………………………………

My prose interpretation of F861, ‘They say that “Time assuages”’:

Stanza 1.

They say that “Time assuages” –
Time never did assuage –
An actual suffering strengthens
As Sinews do, with Age –

S1.

They say that “Time heals all wounds”, but time never did that. Overcoming a challenge strengthens us, and we do better the second time around.

Stanza 2.

Time is a Test of Trouble –
But not a Remedy –
If such it prove, it prove too
There was no Malady –

S2.

Time doesn’t heal wounds, but it does test us with adversities. Often it turns out that our troubles were not troubles at all.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

 

 

 

My prose interpretation of F861, ‘They say that “Time assuages”’:

Stanza 1.

They say that “Time assuages” –
Time never did assuage –
An actual suffering strengthens
As Sinews do, with Age –

S1.

They say that “Time heals all wounds”, but time never did that. Overcoming a challenge strengthens us, and we do better the second time around.

Stanza 2.

Time is a Test of Trouble –
But not a Remedy –
If such it prove, it prove too
There was no Malady –

S2.

Time doesn’t heal wounds, but it does test us with adversities. Often it turns out that our troubles were not troubles at all.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

860.1864.No Notice gave She, but a Change—
ED copied this poem into Fascicle 38 “about early 1864” (Franklin 1998}

No Notice gave She, but a Change—
No Message, but a Sigh—
For Whom, the Time did not suffice
That She should specify.

She was not warm, though Summer shone              L5
Nor scrupulous of cold
Though Rime by Rime, the steady Frost
Upon Her Bosom piled—

Of shrinking ways—she did not fright
Though all the Village looked—                                    L10
But held Her gravity aloft—
And met the gaze—direct—

And when adjusted like a Seed
In careful fitted Ground
Unto the Everlasting Spring                                           L15
And hindered but a Mound

Her Warm return, if so she chose—
And We—imploring drew—
Removed our invitation by
As Some She never knew—                                           L20
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

A biographic interpretation of ‘No Notice gave She, but a Change—‘, F860:

Stanza 1.

No Notice gave She, but a Change—
No Message, but a Sigh—
For Whom, the Time did not suffice
That She should specify.

S1.

I gave no indication of why I changed, but change I did. I wrote no poems explaining why, but when I changed, I sighed. For whom I sighed, I don’t have the time to tell you.

 

Stanza 2.

She was not warm, though Summer shone                           Line 5
Nor scrupulous of cold
Though Rime by Rime, the steady Frost
Upon Her Bosom piled—

S2.

Though it was summer, I was not warm nor aware of being cold, even though layer after layer of hoarfrost piled deeper on my bosom.

 

Stanza 3.

Of shrinking ways—she did not fright
Though all the Village looked—                                                 L10
But held Her gravity aloft—
And met the gaze—direct—

S3.

“I wasn’t afraid of withdrawing into my father’s house, though all Amherst thought me strange. When  people came to my front door, I met their gaze with my gaze — direct!”

 

Stanza 4.

And when adjusted like a Seed
In careful fitted Ground
Unto the Everlasting Spring                                           L15
And hindered but a Mound

S4.

And when I intentionally withdrew into my house, I wanted to die. I wanted my soul to fly straight into God’s Heaven, but, unfortunately, my soul’s way was blocked by a mound.

 

Stanza 5.

Her Warm return, if so she chose—
And {Us}—imploring drew—
Removed our invitation by
As  Some she never knew—                                                       L20

S5.

If I had wanted to return to a warm relationship with Amherst friends, I could have, but I didn’t. I stopped inviting visitors and, if they knocked at the front door, I acted as if I had never known them.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Alternate Words or Phrase

ED suggested seven alternative words or phrases. I like all her originals except for one: In Line 18, I prefer her alternate word “Us” because “Some” is vague. I used “Us” in my biographic interpretation (above).
………………………………………………………………………………………

Adam DeGraff’s Questions about Line 16, Stanza 4, on ‘The Prowling Bee’ blog:

On December 14, 2025 on TPB, Adam commented on ‘No Notice gave She, but a Change—’ and in his comment he asked two astonishing questions. Here is Stanza 4:

Stanza 4

“And when adjusted like a Seed
In careful fitted Ground
Unto the Everlasting Spring                Line 15
And hindered but a Mound”              

 

Adam’s questions are about Line 16: “And hindered but a Mound”:

[1] Could mound be a slant allusion to pregnancy?

[2] Has the narrator, the dead living woman, somehow hindered a pregnancy, or had her pregnancy hindered?

There is a third possibility:

[3] Has the “dead living woman” experienced a miscarriage?

 

Adam, I think correctly, identifies the “dead” woman as Emily Dickinson, so [take a deep breath], Adam is asking if Emily Dickinson was ever pregnant.  Adam is not the first to ask this question.
……………………………………………………………………………………….

 

‘The Marriage of Emily Dickinson’  Shurr, W. H., 1983

In 1983, William H. Shurr published a controversial book, ‘The Marriage of Emily Dickinson’. His book must be anathema to academicians in their English Department Ivory Towers because it has been cited only six times over the last 43 years.

In the last subsection of the last chapter (pp, 171-193; Shurr saved the best for last), Shurr asks:

“Was Emily Dickinson ever pregnant? The question may offend for its too close inquiry into a private life, its too close linking of biography with poems. It cannot, however, be ruled out of literary analysis, as if there were a priori limitations to the subjects an author might be expected to treat, whether as real phenomena or as groundwork for a trope. The obligation of the reader is to remain open, attentive to whatever topics these poems bring forward. Is there still another event remaining to be considered, naturally linked to the marriage narrative we have been following [in the previous pages]?”

“In a chronological reading of Dickinson’s poems there is an important crux in the developing narrative. Early poems state resistance to, refusal of, sexual intercourse.”

“A private poem (J213, F134; ‘about late 1860’) did not find its way into the fascicles”:

“Did the Harebell loose her girdle
To the lover Bee
Would the Bee the Harebell hallow
Much as formerly?”

“Did the “Paradise”—persuaded—
Yield her moat of pearl—
Would the Eden be an Eden,
Or the Earl—an Earl?”

“[The Harebell] resists intercourse on the traditional grounds that the lover would lose his respect for her afterward, and for himself as well. The poem is dated by handwriting at “about [late] 1860”, the year of Wadsworth’s first visit.” (Shurr 1983)

 

Wadsworth’s visit to ‘Homestead’ occurred in summer 1860, and ED wrote this poem “about late 1860” (Franklin 1998).
…………………………………………………………………………………

 

Almost all publications of ‘Did the Harebell loose her girdle’, including the publication in The Prowling Bee blog, ignore ED’s underlining of four words: Line 3, “hallow”; Line 5, “persuaded”; Line 7, “be”; and Line 8, the second “Earl”. These omissions deny the reader important information. ED intended those words to be emphasized, and I have used italics and bold font for these words in my interpretation of this poem. …………………………………………………………………………………………

My interpretation of ‘Did the Harebell loose her girdle’ [F134]:

Stanza 1.

Did the Harebell loose her girdle
To the lover Bee
Would the Bee the Harebell hallow
Much as formerly?

S1.

If the Harebell consented to sexual intercourse with lover Bee, would Bee still respect her in the morning?

 

Stanza 2.

“Did the “Paradise”—persuaded—
Yield her moat of pearl—
Would the Eden be an Eden,
Or the Earl—an Earl?”

S2.

If my vagina [paradise] were persuaded [or “seduced”] to yield its hymen [moat] to my lover, would our romantic love still exist, would my lover’s reputation be ruined?

 

No wonder ED did not put this poem into a fascicle!

ED’s “Earl” was a conservative Presbyterian minister from Philadelphia, Charles Wadsworth, who, a month or two before ED wrote this poem, visited her at Homestead at her invitation. For an explication of their evening’s activities, see F856, ‘I play at riches’:

‎
https://ed-larryb.com/2026/08/856-1864-i-play-at-riches-to-appease/

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

References:

(Shurr 1983)  Franklin 1998

 

 

 

………………………………………………………………………………….

Susan Kornfeld, the founder of ‘The Prowling Bee’, wrote a delightful explication of ‘Did the Harebell loose her girdle’ [F134]:

https://bloggingdickinson.blogspot.com/2011/11/f133-1860-213.html

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………