735.1863.The Moon was but a Chin of Gold

The Moon was but a Chin of Gold
A Night or two ago —
And now she turns Her perfect Face
Upon the World below —

Her Forehead is of Amplest Blonde —
Her Cheek — a Beryl hewn —
Her Eye unto the Summer Dew
The likest I have known —

Her Lips of Amber never part —
But what must be the smile
Upon Her Friend she could confer (bestow)
Were such Her Silver Will —

And what a privilege to be
But the remotest Star —
For Certainty She take Her Way
Beside Your Palace (twinkling, glimmering) Door —

Her Bonnet is the Firmament —
The Universe (Valleys) — (are) Her Shoe —
The Stars — the Trinkets at Her Belt —
Her Dimities — of Blue —

ED probably intended 19th century comic relief with that last line, “Her Dimities – of Blue – ”. That’s the tone of Gilbert and Sullivan’s chorus in their comic opera, ‘Pirates of Penzance’, which débuted in New York City in 1879, seventeen years after ED composed this poem:

Male chorus: “Pray observe the magnanimity / We display to lace and dimity!”

Response of female chorus: “Pray observe the magnanimity / They display to lace and dimity!”

I say “comic relief” because this poem doesn’t feel to me like a “what you see is what you get” poem.

‘The Moon was but a Chin of Gold’ (Fr735, 1863) is probably not about The “perfect Face” of the Woman in the Moon, AKA Sue. Rather, it may be a snapshot of a disintegrating teenage infatuation between ED and Susan Gilbert Dickinson (*). Stanzas 3 and 4 of ‘The Moon was but a Chin of Gold’ beg sadly for what the poet really wants from Sue:

“Her Lips of Amber never part –
But what must be the smile
Upon Her Friend she could confer
Were such Her silver will –“

And what a privilege to be
But the remotest star –
For Certainty she take Her way
Beside Your Palace Door –

The two girls, born nine days apart in December 1830, first met about 1848 when both were 17. Despite differences in social class and family wealth, they formed a close friendship based on their shared love of poetry and Shakespeare. As teenagers, ED and Sue devoured ‘Antony and Cleopatra’ and even adopted respective nicknames and roles of the prince and his queen.

In 1856, Sue married ED’s Harvard-educated lawyer-brother, Austin. The marriage spelled doom for the girls’ teenage infatuation, and, gradually, personal estrangement grew between them. For example, Sue loved to plan and host social gatherings at her new home, Evergreens, but ED was not invited. Perhaps ED disliked party chit-chat or perhaps her party conversation occasionally took unpredictable turns that Sue considered inappropriate for Amherst social prattle. In any case, ensuing alienation, evinced by this poem and the previous one (F734), resulted in a 15-year hiatus in ED’s visits to Evergreens (1868-1883).

In 1891, five years after ED’s death, Sue wrote ‘Minstrel of the passing days’, a 12-line poem by an increasingly conservative Christian who ambiguously mentioned ED’s “gaudy shameless tints / That fire the passions of the prince” and unambiguously complained about ED’s “Strangling vines clasping their Cleopatras”. On a positive note, Sue’s poem closes with a complement, “our common quest” of poetry:

“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 Gilbert Dickinson, about 1891

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.