837.1864.I make His Crescent fill or lack—

837.1864.I make His Crescent fill or lack—

I make His Crescent fill or lack—
His Nature is at Full
Or Quarter—as I signify—
His Tides—do I control—

He holds superior in the Sky
Or gropes, at my Command
Behind inferior Clouds—or round
A Mist’s slow Colonnade—

But since We hold a Mutual Disc—
And front a Mutual Day—
Which is the Despot, neither knows—
Nor Whose—the Tyranny—

Pronoun identities: “I” is the Sun and “He/Him” is the Moon.

If these identities are correct, this poem is unusual. I can’t remember a single other ED poem where “I” means anything but ED/Poet.

Here’s my interpretation of the poem, stanza by stanza:

I make the Moon’s crescent wax or wane. I command whether the Moon is full or quarter. I control the tides.
.
I also command whether the Moon is superior in the night sky or struggles with clouds and mist that block his face from view.
.
But since We have the same round face: a full Moon at night and a bright orb during the day, which of us is the despot, which creates the fear?

PS. “Day” must mean one 24-hour day because both Sun and Moon “face” it.

PPS. Adam’s explication of this poem on TPB is excellent, but it ends without explaining the last line: “Nor Whose—the Tyranny”. Does the Sun tyrannize the Moon, or the Moon tyrannize the Sun? Is one of them really a “Despot”?

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.