Year: 2025

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

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

Out of sight? What of that?
See the Bird—reach it!
Curve by Curve—Sweep by Sweep—
Round the Steep Air—
Danger! What is that to Her?
Better ’tis to fail—there—
Than debate—here—

Blue is Blue—the World through—
Amber—Amber—Dew—Dew—
Seek—Friend—and see—
Heaven is shy of Earth—that’s all—
Bashful Heaven—thy Lovers small—
Hide—too—from thee—

ED imagines herself a bird, “Out of sight? What of that? // Danger! What is that to Her?”.

Watch out “Bashful Heaven” with “thy Lovers small”!

Watch out “Earth”, ED is ready to play: “Blue is Blue – the World through – / Amber -Amber – Dew – Dew –”.

Could ED be riffing on the previous poem (F732, second half of 1863) about a shy visitor, perhaps a minister, who is “Bashful Heaven – with “Lovers small”? As she said, “Heaven is shy of Earth –”.

Could ED be imagining / imaging herself as “Earth”, a brash, bold Earthy lover? You bet she could, just “Seek – Friend – and see -”!

Poor Reverend Wadsworth, if he was the shy visitor of the previous poem, he had no idea whom he was visiting.

A first Mute Coming—
In the Stranger’s House—
A first fair Going—
When the Bells rejoice—

A first Exchange—of
What hath mingled—been—
For Lot—exhibited to
Faith—alone—

ED gives us few clues to decipher F732. She mentions the Old Testament character, “Lot”, and she emphatically repeats , “A first” in Lines 1, 3, 5: “A first Mute Coming”, “A first fair Going”, “A first Exchange”. Lot’s life before disguised angels arrived at his door was an exhibition of faith in God, just as the relationship between visitor and visitee, who had never met in person, had “mingled – been – ” by years of shared correspondence.

An interpretation:

A mute (shy) person came to the house of someone he had never met, and they exchanged something that they had previously shared in correspondence but not in person. Like Lot whose steadfast faith in God spared his family when Sodom and Gomorrah burned, the visitor and visitee have built a trusting relationship by “Faith – alone -” during extended correspondence, and now they meet face-to-face. During this initially bashful but later joyful visit they exchange some tangible token of their love for each other, and then they part, “A first fair Going – / When the Bells rejoice –”, metaphorical wedding bells for a metaphorical bride and groom.

Several contemporary accounts attest Wadsworth was painfully shy among strangers and new acquaintances. For example, five months after Wadsworth’s death, ED wrote his best friend, James D. Clark (L994, August 22, 1882):

“Dear friend,

“. . . . . In an intimacy of many years with the beloved Clergyman, I have never before spoken with one who knew him, and his Life was so shy and his tastes so unknown, that grief for him seems almost unshared. . . . .

“E. Dickinson.”

A Thought went up my mind today –
That I have had before –
But did not finish – some way back –
I could not fix the Year –

Nor where it went – nor why it came
The second time to me –
Nor definitely, what it was –
Have I the Art to say –

But somewhere – in my Soul – I know –
I’ve met the Thing before –
It just reminded me – ‘twas all –
And came my way no more –

My poet wife, Louise, once told me that a mystical experience is something our body/mind creates when our body/mind needs a mystical experience. Circular? Perhaps. ED says “it came / The second time to me”, whatever the “it” is, and then “it” came my way no more.

As a quantitative scientist, I would say that the probability the wordings of these two couplets are similar due to random chance is less than 1 in 10,000:

“Nature” is what We know –
But have no art to say”

and

“Nor definitely, what it was –
Have I the art to say” ,

In statistical language, the probability is in the neighborhood of P < 0.0001. A scientist would reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the lines if the chances they were unrelated were less than 1 in 100 (P < 0.01), and P < 0.0001 is one hundred times less likely than P < 0.01.

Cutting the jargon, these two poems are extremely likely to be closely related, and, if so, their interpretations must also be closely related, which brings me back to hypothesize that “it” is one or more mystical experiences. The circumstantial evidence is compelling to me.

Their Hight in Heaven comforts not—
Their Glory—nought to me—
’Twas best imperfect—as it was—
I’m finite—I can’t see—

The House of Supposition—
The Glimmering Frontier that skirts the Acres of Perhaps—
To Me—shows insecure—

The Wealth I had—contented me—
If ’twas a meaner size—
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow Eyes—

Better than larger values—
That show however true—
This timid life of Evidence
Keeps pleading—”I don’t know.”

The antecedent of “Their” in Lines 1&2 is anybody’s guess; mine is angels. ED remained skeptical about heaven and resurrection her entire life. She wanted credible evidence. A letter to ED from Reverend Washington Gladden, dated May 27, 1882, quotes her question from a missing letter: “Is immortality true?”

His reply: “My friend: ‘Is immortality true?’ . . . . Absolute demonstration there can be none of this truth; but a thousand lines of evidence converge toward it; and I believe it.” (Miller and Mitchell 2024, p.682). I doubt ED was convinced.

Stanzas 1 & 2 cleverly enjamb: “I’m finite – I can’t see // The House of Supposition – / “The Glimmering that skirts / The Acres of Perhaps”. This description of Heaven feels too modern, too skeptical to have come from the pen of a mid-19th century rural recluse.

Stanzas 3 & 4 also enjamb: “It pleased my narrow Eyes // Better than larger values / that show, however [whether or not] true”. [My interpretation of “however” In brackets]

ED’s last two lines beg like an honest scientist:

“This timid life of Evidence
Keeps pleading – ‘I don’t know’”

OED lists 1500 AD as the most recent use of the Old English word “hight” to mean “height”. We can safely assume “hight” is an example of ED’s (intentional?) misspelling of a few common words, such as “opon” for “upon”.

Cristanne Miller and Domhnall Mitchell, eds., 2024. The Letters of Emily Dickinson, Harvard U. Press. Cambridge, MA, p. 683, Kindle edition.

ED’s alternative words in parentheses:

Each Life converges to some Centre—
Expressed — or still —
Exists in every Human Nature
A Goal —

Embodied (Admitted) scarcely to itself — it may be —
Too fair
For Credibility’s presumption (temerity)
To mar (dare)—

Adored (Beheld) with caution — as a Brittle Heaven —
To reach
Were hopeless, as the Rainbow’s Raiment
To touch —

Yet persevered toward — surer (stricter) — for the Distance —
How high —
Unto the Saints’ slow diligence (industry) —
The Sky —

Ungained — it may be — in a Life’s low Venture —
But then —
Eternity enable the endeavoring
Again.

ED’s eight alternative words suggest she wasn’t entirely happy with this poem, but they may give us a clue as to where she wanted go:

In Line 5, I prefer “Admitted” because it seems to imply ED’s true feelings.

In Lines 7 & 8, I prefer the alternative “temerity” because it implies assertiveness that would “mar”, my preferred final word in the stanza.

In Line 9, I prefer ED’s alternative verb “Beheld” because its subject is “Centre” in Line 1, and “Adored” puts a too positive spin on its subject.

In Lines 13 & 15, I prefer ED’s original words over her alternatives because they fit better in their contexts.

Pronouns “itself” and “it” in Stanzas 2 and 5 refer to “Centre” and “Goal” in Stanza 1. For ED, one would think poetry would be Life’s “Centre”/ “Goal”, and it was, but known only to herself and her friends. She knew that writing for publication would hamstring her freedom to write whatever she wanted whenever she wanted, without kowtowing to some (old male!) editor. Nevertheless, ED dreamed of eventually taking her place among poets of the ages (e.g., F470, 1862):

“That first Day, when you praised Me, Sweet,
And said that I was strong —
And could be mighty, if I liked —
That Day — the Days among —

“Glows Central — like a Jewel
Between Diverging Golds —
The Minor One — that gleamed behind —
And Vaster — of the World’s.”

Stanza 5 seems to rule out poetry as the “Centre/ Goal’ of Stanza 1 unless ED plans to compose poems in Heaven or Hell for Angels or Demons:

“But then-
Eternity enable the endeavoring
Again.”

Nevertheless, there is something “Eternity” might “enable” in the afterlife. By 1863 it was clear to ED that her two attempts at love relationships, Susan Gilbert and Charles Wadsworth, would be “Ungained . . . by a Life’s low Venture -”. Maybe in “Eternity” she’ll get a second chance at love. Oddly, ‘Each Life converges to some Centre’ may be a love poem for Sue or Wadsworth or both, like the dual-purpose ‘You left me – Sire – two Legacies –’ (F713, 1863 ).

In this poem, ED uses a single iamb in nine consecutive even-numbered lines, L4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and L20, which feels a bit contrived but gives the poem’s sound the rhythm of a song. As it reads now, only even-numbered L2 breaks this repetition with two iambs. If her manuscript didn’t firmly format Stanza 1, I would suspect she intended a single iamb in Line 2:

“Each Life converges to some Centre— Expressed —
[O]r still —
Exists in every Human Nature
A Goal —”

A mundane question: What is the subject of the verb “Exists” in Line 3? Clearly, ED intends “Centre” to be the subject, but the lines don’t make sense to me as written. Perhaps she intended an understood subject: “It] Exists in every Human Nature”. I guess if the test is “Does it communicate what the poet meant” then ED gets a free pass for the missing subject.