734.1863.No matter — now — Sweet —

No matter — now — Sweet —
But when I’m Earl —
Won’t you wish you’d spoken
To that dull Girl?

Trivial a Word — just —
Trivial — a Smile —
But won’t you wish you’d spared one
When I’m Earl?

I shan’t need it — then —
Crests — will do —
Eagles on my Buckles —
On my Belt — too —

Ermine — my familiar Gown —
Say — Sweet — then
Won’t you wish you’d smiled — just —
Me opon?

As a history/biography nut, I have to wonder who the “you” is in this poem, F734.

The poet was hurt and angry because a friend or lover had, in her opinion, slighted her poetry or person. My candidates for guilty are Charles Wadsworth or Susan Dickinson or both.
Sam Bowles rarely replied to her letters and poems, so nothing was expected from him, and both ED and Wadsworth arranged for burning all mutual letters when they died, so we have no direct evidence that she ever called him “Sweet”.

Sue’s story was more complicated:

My count is that ED referred to Sue as “Sweet” at least seven times in previous poems and, I think, twice in this poem, F734: Line 1, “No matter-now-Sweet,” (Line 1) and “Say – Sweet – then”, (Line 14).

As teenagers, Emily and Sue devoured Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra together and proudly adopted respective roles of “prince” and “his” queen. But for Sue, marriage, socializing, and children ended those playful patterns. Sue loved to plan and host social gatherings at Evergreens, to which ED was not invited. Perhaps ED disliked chit-chat, or perhaps her conversation took unpredictable turns inappropriate for Amherst social prattle.

In any case, ensuing estrangement, evinced by this poem, resulted in a 15-year hiatus in ED’s visits to Evergreens (1868-1883). Fortunately, estrangement did not extend to their shared love of poetry, “our common quest”, as Sue said in her eulogy below. A lifelong flow of poems and notes crossed the meadow between ‘Homestead’ and ‘Evergreens’, at first via hired help or postal mail, later by Sue’s children.

Five years after ED’s death, Sue described her “strangling” relationship with ED, “the prince / Strangling vines clasping their Cleopatras”, Susan:

“Minstrel of the passing days
Sing me the song of all the ways
That snare the soul in the October haze
Song of the dark glory of the hills
When dyes are frightened to dull hues
Of all the gaudy shameless tints
That fire the passions of the prince
Strangling vines clasping their Cleopatras
Closer than Antony’s embrace
Whole rims of haze in pink
Horizons be as if new worlds hew
Shaping off our common quest –“

(Susan Dickinson 1891):

It was too late for ED to reply, but I’m sure it would have been a zinger.

Susan Dickinson, 1891, Downloaded July 31, 2022, https://archive.emilydickinson.org/susan/tmins.html

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.