712.1863.I could suffice for Him, I knew—

ED’s alternate words in parentheses:

I could suffice for Him, I knew—
He—could suffice for Me—
Yet Hesitating Fractions—Both
Surveyed (Delayed; Deferred) Infinity

“Would I be Whole” He sudden broached—
My syllable rebelled—
‘Twas face to face with Nature—forced—
‘Twas face to face with God—

Withdrew the Sun—to Other Wests—
Withdrew the furthest Star
Before Decision—stooped to speech—
And then—be audibler

The Answer of the Sea unto
The Motion of the Moon—
Herself adjust Her Tides—unto—
Could I—do else—with Mine?

A bar friend once asked what I’d been up to. My answer: Dealing with a difficult girlfriend. Just dump her, he shot back. I can’t, I said, she died 150 years ago. He gave a weird look and turned on his stool to a different conversation.

“It would be instructive to get a vote from you which way you believe this poem leans, toward a yes to the beloved, or a yes to withdrawal. Or would you agree that this poem is caught in limbo, leaning both ways at once?”

My vote is not genius or generous or “yes”. When I read this poem I heard anger of a jilted lover. ED’s God, Charles Wadsworth, had just abandoned her in Amherst and moved to San Francisco, a universe away in 1863. Her answer was “NO!”

An interpretation: [Brackets mine; CW ≡ Charles Wadsworth]

Stanza 1

The poet “knew” she “could suffice for” her lover in a long-term relationship and “He – could suffice for me”. Both had “Hesitations” and “delayed” [ED’s alternative word for “Surveyed”] full commitment to each other. What a weird way to begin a love poem, especially when “He”, CW, was married, with two children, and 16 years older, 48 vs 32.

Stanza 2

“Sudden[ly]” CW, superstar minister, “broached” a question, “Would I be Whole”? ED’s curt answer to CW’s question was a rebellious NO!, “My Syllable rebelled –”, leading to a Mexican standoff:

“[CW] ‘Twas face to face with Nature – forced [ED]”
“[ED] ‘Twas face to face with God – [CW]”

Stanza 3

Predictably,

“Withdrew the Sun [CW] – to other Wests [San Francisco]–
Withdrew the furthest Star [ED]
Before Decision – stooped to speech –
And then – be audibler”

CW [the Sun] and ED [the furthest Star] withdrew without further discussion, emotionally distanced themselves, and CW moved to San Francisco. Their conversation never had a chance to be “audibler”.

Stanza 4

Just as “the Sea” “answers” to the “Motion of the Moon – / Herself adjust Her Tides – unto -”, ED asks, “Could I – do else – with Mine?”

The poet asked the “Could I – do else – with Mine” question rhetorically to rationalize the rebellious one-syllable answer to a reasonable lover’s question, “Would I be Whole”? A credible inference is that that rebellious one-syllable answer was a curt “No!”, which killed the conversation. Such a defensive appeal as “Could I – do else – with Mine”? shifts blame onto the lover both autocratically and aristocratically. Life with this poet, male or female, would be impossible for almost anyone.

Notes:

Line 5 – The poet’s verb choice, “Broached”, is a loaded word, derived from Late Latin, “brocca”, spike, pointed instrument. Definitions of Broach: (ED Lex) “to open for discussion; make public for the first time”; (Cambridge English Dictionary) “to begin a discussion of something difficult”.

Line 16 – “Could I – do else – with Mine?”, was the 10th time in Franklin’s chronological order, F1-F712, that the poet used “Could I” as a rhetorical question:

F188, Could I – then – shut the door?-
F268, Could – I – forbid?
F346, Could I further “No”?
F382, How could I-of Him?
F433, How could I break My Word?
F443, Could — I do more — for Thee?
F483, Could I such a plea withstand?
F585, Could I infer his Residence?
F706, Could I stand by?
F712, Could I – do else – with Mine?

Answering a question with another question may be a tool to win a debate, but it sure sidetracks a conversation.

HOME

After commenting on Poems 1-763 (Franklin) on The Prowling Bee’, I am convinced that (virtually) all of Emily Dickinson’s (ED’s) poems have a factual historical level in addition to their various poetic levels of meaning. The reason for her instant and continuing public adulation (1890 - present) was and is, by far, poetic. She is one of the "Greats" that she always dreamed to be, despite her lifelong refusal to publish. That refusal freed her from criticism and allowed her to explore the outer boundaries of poetic power.

More than a century of scholarly research has resulted in somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 books and published academic papers about ED. A large majority of these publications focus only on the “poetic levels” of one or more of ED’s poems. Publications that consider both the “historic level” and “poetic levels” comprise a small minority. Publications that focus only on the factual history of her life probably number less than 100. (All numbers in this paragraph are my estimates.)

Unfortunately for ED’s universe of readers, these two basic levels (historical and poetic) cannot be separated into two ivory towers. Every history-level publication that I know of includes at least some discussion of the poetic level(s).

The reverse is not true. In fact, authors of the “poetry-level” school seem to avoid commenting on the historical level, sometimes admonishing that a poem must stand on its own, without concern for its historical roots. To my knowledge, there are (virtually) no published “history-level” books or articles that totally ignore ED’s poems and their poetic levels.

Of course, ED’s refusal to publish her poems was only possible because of lifelong financial and daily social/housekeeping support by her family, especially her father and sister, respectively. In addition, throughout her life, the Dickinsons hired servants, first Negro and later Irish, some of whom became much more than housekeepers for ED.

My point is that our appreciation of ED's poems can be enhanced by understanding both poetic and historical levels of her sound and sense. We impoverish ourselves if we ignore their historical base.