856.1864.I play at Riches—to appease

I play at Riches—to appease
The Clamoring for Gold—
It kept me from a Thief, I think,
For often, overbold

With Want, and Opportunity—
I could have done a Sin
And been Myself that easy Thing
An independent Man—

But often as my lot displays
Too hungry to be borne
I deem Myself what I would be—
And novel Comforting

My Poverty and I derive—
We question if the Man—
Who own—Esteem the Opulence—
As We—Who never Can—

Should ever these exploring Hands
Chance Sovereign on a Mine—
Or in the long—uneven term
To win, become their turn—

How fitter they will be—for Want—
Enlightening so well—
I know not which, Desire, or Grant—
Be wholly beautiful—
………………………………………………………………………………

My biographical interpretation of F856, ‘I play at Riches—to appease’, with ED’s alternate word and phrases in {curly brackets} and ED Lexicon definitions in [straight brackets]:

Stanza 1.

I play at Riches—to appease
The Clamoring [intense, noisy desire] for Gold—
It kept me from a Thief, I think,
For often, overbold [Stanzas 1 & 2 enjamb]

S1.

I write poetry – to appease my “Clamoring”, my [intense, noisy need] for love. Yet, poetry protected me from Wadsworth’s seduction and loss of my virginity. “For often, overbold” [enjambed with Line 5] ….

Stanza 2.

With Want, and Opportunity —
I could {might} have done a Sin
And been Myself that easy {distant} Thing
An independent Man— [EDLex Def. 11 of “Man”: a person, human being]

S2.

…. “with want, and opportunity, I {might} have sacrificed my poetry “and been that easy thing”, a [person] without a purpose.

Stanza 3.

But often as my lot displays
Too hungry to be borne
I deem Myself what I would be—
And novel {so much} Comforting

S3.

“But often” when my choice to be a poet seems too heavy “to be borne”, I remind myself of what I want to be, a world-class poet, and that renews my “Comfort” that I made the right choice.

Stanza 4.

My Poverty and I derive—
We question if the Man—
Who own—Esteem the Opulence—
As We—Who never Can—

S4.

My loneliness “and I derive” from my choice to dedicate myself to poetry. I “question” whether someone who “owns and esteems” great material wealth, as I “Who never can”, could ever esteem poetry as I do.

Stanza 5.

Should ever these exploring Hands
Chance Sovereign on a Mine—
Or in the long—uneven term
To win, become their {my} turn—

S5.

If my “exploring Hands” “Should ever” / Chance” to own “a Mine / Or in the long” unpredictable “term / to win” “their turn”, . . . [Line 16, Stanza 5, enjambs with Line 17, Stanza 6]

Stanza 6.

How {‘Tis} fitter they [my hands] will {I will} be—for {by} Want—
Enlightening so well—
I know not which, Desire, or Grant {Right; sight} —
Be wholly {chiefest • utmost} beautiful—

S6.

{‘Tis} fitter {I will} be, {by} Want / Enlightening so well”. How happier my hands will be as a result of sacrificing an ordinary life. I do not know which, desire for wealth and love of family life or achieving poetic immortality will be {chieftist} beautiful.
………………………………………………………………………

A moment of truth?:

Stanza 1.

I play at Riches—to appease
The Clamoring for Gold—
It kept me from a Thief, I think,
For often, overbold [enjambed]

With Want, and Opportunity —
I could {might} have done a Sin

I think ED is lying about her sexual experience with Wadsworth in summer 1860 [this poem, Lines 3-6]:

“It [writing poetry] kept me from a Thief, I think,
For often, overbold [enjambed]

With Want, and Opportunity —
I could {might} have done a Sin”

Note the weasel phrase, “I think” and the wishy-washy “might have done” in Line 6. Either because she is subconsciously blocking it out or because she’s protecting her reputation from prying eyes, she fabricates a plea of Not Guilty.

My evidence rests on Lines 9-10 of F841, ‘Struck, was I, not yet by Lightning—‘, where she tells a contradictory and probably true recollection of the “Robbery”:

“Robbed—was I—intact to Bandit—
All my Mansion torn—”

ED says her hymen was “intact” before she was robbed, and afterward her hymen was “torn”.

Poem F841, ‘Struck, was I, not yet by Lightning’, is a description of what happened in the ‘Homestead” orchard at dusk on a summer night in 1860. Wadsworth and ED were taking a walk after supper, at her suggestion, and she intentionally did not take ‘Carlo’, her massive Newfoundlander, with them, even though, for protection, she had always taken him on her walks before that night.

I doubt that Carlo would have understood two humans copulating in the orchard and seriously interfered, as he weighed well over 120 pounds, while ED had told Higginson she was “big as a wren”. Carlo was probably bigger than ED by 20-40 pounds.

ED said in her first letter [JL261] to Higginson, April 25, 1862: “You ask of my Companions. Hills – sir – and the Sundown, and a Dog large as myself, that my Father bought me.”
………………………………………………………………………..

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.