Year: 2026

790.1863.Growth of Man—like Growth of Nature—

Three alternate words in parentheses, but I prefer ED’s original choices.

Growth of Man—like Growth of Nature—
Gravitates within—
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse (confirm) it—
But it stir—alone—

Each—its difficult (absolute) Ideal
Must achieve—Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life—

Effort—is the sole condition—
Patience of Itself—
Patience of opposing forces—
And intact (direct, distinct ) Belief—

Looking on—is the Department
Of its Audience—
But Transaction—is assisted
By no Countenance—

Stanza 1 is the product of a self-oriented poet living in an anthropocentric world.

Line 3: For plants, the Sun is the Sun. For humans, life gets more complicated.

Line 4: To say, “But it stir—alone—“, is false for everyone. Depending on how the cards of life are dealt, some people get better DNA and some people get better parents. No one “stir[s]” alone.

The referent of “it” (Lines 3 & 4) is “Growth of Man/Nature”. Here “Nature” includes all living creatures other than “Man”, a perfect illustration of anthropocentric thinking: Man is separate from Nature. Most living humans hold this belief, which is why global warming is such a wicked problem.

Stanza 2

The “its” in Line 5 may refer to “Man”, each individual human, or “Nature”, each individual living organism, plant or animal, or both. We never know with ED’s pronouns, but the capitalized “Itself” (Line 7) suggests she’s referring to humans. If so, Line 8 claims that each person can reach their “difficult Ideal” only “Through the solitary prowess / Of a Silent Life”. By “prowess”, ED’s probably thinking of mental / emotional power. Sounds like a precursor of Henley’s 1875 “I am the master of my fate / I am the captain of my soul”. That mindset may have been a Victorian thing, but it certainly helped that ED’s parents provided her an excellent education and free room and board for life.

Stanza 3

This little sermonette augments the debatable beliefs of Stanza 2 but does assert truisms: On a personal level, “Effort / Patience / intact Belief” are useful in attaining “difficult Ideal[s]”.

Stanza 4

Looking on—is the Department
Of its Audience—
But Transaction—is assisted
By no Countenance—

For ED, the “Department of its Audience” was herself and occasionally a few select others. Sue, her sister-in-law, and T.W. Higginson contributed comments on poems ED shared, but ED rarely took their advice, as she admits in Lines 15-16:

“But Transaction—is assisted
By no Countenance —”

789.1863.All but Death, can be Adjusted —

All but Death, can be Adjusted —
Dynasties repaired —
Systems — settled in their Sockets —
Citadels — dissolved —

Wastes of Lives — resown with Colors
By Succeeding Springs —
Death — unto itself — Exception —
Is exempt from Change —

ED’s focus on the finality of “Death” belies any Christian optimism about resurrection and heaven. That perspective is amazing given the milieu of her Amherst childhood.

Saint Paul would disagree with ED (I Corinthians 15: 51-58, KJV):

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

788.1863.Publication – is the Auction

No alternate words or phrases.

Publication – is the Auction
Of the Mind of Man –
Poverty – be justifying
For so foul a thing

Possibly – but We – would rather
From Our Garret go
White – unto the White Creator –
Than invest – Our Snow –

Thought belong to Him who gave it –
Then – to Him Who bear
It’s Corporeal illustration – sell
The Royal Air –

In the Parcel – Be the Merchant
Of the Heavenly Grace –
But reduce no Human Spirit
To Disgrace of Price –

Adam DeGraff’s explication at The Prowling Bee leaves little to be said, except perhaps for Stanza 2:

“. . . . We – would rather
From Our Garret go
White – unto the White Creator –
Than invest – Our Snow –”

EDLex defines “White” (Line 7) as both an adjective and a noun. Among the EDLex adjective definitions of “white” are “virginal, innocent, chaste, pure, clean, untainted”. Among its noun definitions are “purity, virtue, goodness”.

Among the noun definitions of “Snow (Line 8)” are “purity, innocence, good reputation”.

Given those connotations, I would translate Stanza 2 into the prose sentence:

I [ED] would rather emerge from my bedroom innocent and chaste than “sell” my innocence and good reputation for the “Disgrace of Price”.

Translated, ED seems to equate selling her poetry with prostituting her body, “so foul a thing”, except “Possibly” for “Poverty”.

That last exception, “Possibly” for “Poverty”, softens the judgmental tone of this poem for me. ED might consider selling her poems, if not selling meant “Poverty”.

A translation of Fr788’s four stanzas in four sentences:

Publication is the auction of  the mind of man; only poverty justifies so foul a thing, possibly.

I would rather emerge from my bedroom innocent and chaste than sell my innocence and good reputation for the disgrace of price.

Thinking belongs to God who gave it to us, then to Christ who bore its corporeal illustration to sell God’s royal plan.

In that plan resides Christ, who illustrated God’s grace to us; don’t reduce our human spirit to disgrace of price.

785.1863.It dropped so low — in my Regard —

ED copied this poem into Fascicle in ink in 1863, then waited 17 years later (about 1880) to add the alternatives in pencil. ED’s alternates are in parentheses:

It dropped so low — in my Regard —
I heard it hit the Ground —
And go to pieces on the Stones
At bottom of my Mind — (in the ditch)

Yet blamed the Fate that fractured (flung it) — less
Than I reviled (denounced) Myself,
For entertaining Plated Wares
Upon My Silver Shelf —

• Line 4: I prefer her original phrase, “At bottom of my Mind”, because it maintains the meter of the stanza and because ED is talking about her “Mind”, not a “ditch”.
• Line 5: I prefer her alternative, “flung it”, because “”Fate” didn’t “fracture” “It”, the “Stones” did.
• Line 6: I prefer ED’s original “reviled” because it vividly describes her self-disgust.

For the first time, ED did not include alternative words and phrases at the same time she copied her poem into Fascicle 37. Instead, she waited 17 years (“about 1880”) and then penciled her alternatives onto her ink manuscript.

As was her wont, ED began this poem with an orphaned pronoun, “It”. I think ED’s romantic infatuation with Rev. Charles Wadsworth was both the seed of this poem and the unstated cedent of “It”. I also think ED was mad at herself for wasting so much time obsessing over “Plated Wares”.

In retrospect, I think Wadsworth was the muse for some of her finest poems.

PS. . . Both Johnson (1955, ‘Complete Poems’) and Franklin (1998, ‘Poems of Emily Dickinson’) published Line 4 without using ED’s 1880 alternate phrase, “in the ditch”, which was their standard protocol. However, they did publish her 1880 alternates in Lines 5 and 6, which was definitely not their usual protocol. Did they think they were “improving” ED’s poem?

274,1862.Again – his voice is at the door –

ED suggested seven alternate words/phrases, in {curly brackets}:  Line 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 25, 29. My edits in [brackets]:

Again – his voice is at the door –
I feel the old Degree –
I hear him ask the servant
For such an one – as me –

I take a flower – as I go –
My face to justify –
He never saw me – in this life –
I might surprise {not please} his eye!

I cross the Hall with mingled steps –
I – silent {speechless} – pass the door –
I look on all this world contains –
Just his face – nothing more!

We talk in careless {venture} – and in toss –
A kind of plummet strain –
Each – sounding – shyly –
Just – how – deep –
The other’s one – had been – {foot had been}

We walk – I leave my Dog – at home {behind} –
A tender – thoughtful Moon –
Goes with us – just a little way –
And – then – we are alone –

Alone – if Angels are “alone” –
First time they try the sky!
Alone – if those “veiled faces” – be –
We cannot count – {That murmur so – ; That chant so – far -}
On High!
I’d give – to live that hour – again –
The purple – in my Vein –
But He must {should} count the drops – himself –
My price for every stain!
…………………………………………

A close inspection of F274 manuscript PAGE 4 suggests ED intended to break the final nonet (nine-line stanza) into two quatrains, combining LINES 25-26 into one LINE 25. Her sequence of thoughts certainly begs for a stanza break there:

Alone – if Angels are “alone” –
First time they try the sky!
Alone – if those “veiled faces” – be –
We cannot count – On High!

I’d give – to live that hour – again –
The purple – in my Vein –
But He must count the drops – himself –
My price for every stain!
…………………………………………………………………………

ED’s manuscript of this poem fills five pages of her fascicle, more than any preceding poem. It must have been an important poem to her because she continued considering changes in her final fascicle copy, which is atypical of ED.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

• L1: “Again – his voice is at the door –”.  Habegger (1998) tells us “Wadsworth’s deep bass tones, ….., produced an unforgettable effect.”
  .
• L8: “I might surprise his eye!”. ED considered replacing “surprise” with “not please”, which suggests she wanted to please her visitor.
  .
• L10: “I – silent – pass the door –”. ED considered replacing “silent” with “speechless” but didn’t. She certainly was not “speechless” in her conversations (JL342b, 16 August 1870).
  .
• LINE 13: “We talk in careless – and in toss –”. ED considered replacing “careless” with “venture”, but didn’t. Who knows what unspoken words follow “careless” and “toss”. Note that Stanza 4 is a quintain.
  .
• LINES 16-17: “Just – how – deep – / The other’s one – had been –”. ED’s original Lines 16 – 17, written in dark ink with a broad-bibbed pen read, “Just – how – deep – / The other one – had been –”, with no apostrophe “s”.  Perhaps she was implying without stating, “Just – how – deeply in love – / The other one – had been -”.
  .
  She considered replacing “other one – had been” with “other’s foot had been”, editing with lighter ink and a narrow-bibbed pen, perhaps thinking of the cliché “head over heels in love”, but she rejected the idea. Editors have ignored the obvious difference in the two pen tips.

Susan Kornfeld July 11, 2020 at 9:16 AM, [On ‘The Prowing Bee’ blog, TPB]

[ https://bloggingdickinson.blogspot.com/2012/06/again-his-voice-is-at-door.html?showComment=1594484193691#c6232886251522264990 ]

[T]here are too many signals, I think, that the poem refers to some assignation in this earthly life. There is the ‘again’ in the first stanza, there is the conversation as if between two equals and there is the speaker extracting a price from the ‘he’.

Larry B June 11, 2026 at 6:36 AM,  Same TPB URL, [Brackets] mine

Susan, your intuition is right on.
…………………………………………………………………………

Habegger (1998) tells us:

“[ED] was in Washington, DC from Saturday, February 10, 1855, to Friday, March 9. She was in Philadelphia from Saturday, March 10 to [at least Monday, March 26]. She and Vinnie probably attended Wadsworth’s sermon on March [25], 1855, their last Sunday in Philadelphia.

“ED saw Rev Wadsworth only three times in her life: [late March 1855, summer 1860, summer 1880]

“After three weeks of Washington, Edward took his daughters to Philadelphia and then went home, leaving Emily and Vinnie to spend at least two weeks with their friend and second cousin, Eliza Coleman, on Nineteenth Street below Chestnut.

“On Saturday, March 10, 1855, ED and Vinnie arrived in Philadelphia after their visit to Washington, DC, with their father. They checked into the Willards Hotel, probably for one night, and [he] then left them with their friend and second cousin, Eliza Coleman, and returned to Amherst. They stayed with Eliza for two more Sundays, the 18th and 25th. On one of those Sundays, probably March 18 [My guess is March 25, ED’s last Sunday in Philadelphia], Eliza took them to Arch Street Presbyterian Church to hear the famous Rev Charles Wadsworth preach. One sermon was all it took, ED fell in “love”. After preaching, Wadsworth’s habit was to sit bowed at his pulpit, lost in thought; she probably did not meet him personally after the service.”
…………………………………………………………………………

Sometime after 1855, ED began correspondence with Wadsworth, probably by asking him for counsel concerning her mother’s illness. She continued corresponding with him, and he visited her twice at her home in Amherst, probably during the summers of 1860 and 1880.

Habegger (`1998) presents compelling evidence, and I agree, that Wadsworth, 16 years ED’s senior, was the recipient of the three Master Letters, which Franklin dated “about 1858”, “about 1861”, and “early 1862”.

There’s one surviving letter from Wadsworth to ED, probably dated soon after he received ML1. In his letter he misspelled her last name and expressed sincere pastoral concern about her health, probably based on the alarming tone of ML1.

I believe that this poem, “Again – his voice is at the door –”, concerns Wadsworth’s summer 1860 visit with ED. The first word in the poem, “Again”, refers to the first time she heard his voice, on Sunday, March 25, 1855, at Arch Street Presbyterian in Philadelphia. As far as we know, his only other visit with ED in Amherst was during summer, 1880.
……………………………………………………………………..

Susan KornfeldJune 11, 2026 at 10:18 AM on TPB

Thank you for this and your earlier commentary. You make a strong case for Wadsworth!

…………………………………………………………………..

Habegger, Alfred. 1998. My Wars Are Laid Away in Books (p. 373). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

180.ED’s  ‘Ebon Box’

“Historical records indicate that Emily Dickinson’s famous ebony box was given her by George Henry Gould, a close friend and confidant she met while they were both young adults in Amherst.

“Gould gifted her the dark wooden box in 1850. It became a personal repository where she quietly stored her private correspondence and hand-sewn packets of poems. After Dickinson died in 1886, her sister Lavinia inherited the chest and discovered the massive cache of nearly 1,800 poems inside, eventually leading to their publication.”
(Google AI Overview)

…………………………………

This black scarred box is the one Harvard eventually acquired in 1950. From the photo, it’s dimensions appear to be about 12”x12”x18”.

https://iraf.substack.com/p/dickinson-stops-the-clocks#:~:text=Dickinson%20Stops%20the,it%20was%20%E2%80%9Calive.%E2%80%9D

“Historical records indicate that Emily Dickinson’s famous ebony box was gifted to her by George Henry Gould, a close friend and confidant she met while they were both young adults in Amherst.

“Gould gifted her the dark wooden box in 1850. It became a personal repository where she quietly stored her private correspondence and hand-sewn packets of poems. After Dickinson died in 1886, her sister Lavinia inherited the chest and discovered the massive cache of nearly 1,800 poems inside, eventually leading to their publication.”
(Google AI Overview)

…………………………………

For a fuller explanation of its circuitous journey before it was given to Harvard, see:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLaMDv_tx3-/

………………………………

JL189. To John Long Graves, August 1856

“Ah John – Gone? Then I lift the lid to my box of Phantoms, and lay another in, unto the Resurrection – Then will I gather in Paradise, the blossoms fallen here, and on the shores of the sea of Light, seek my missing sands.

Your Coz – Emilie –“

Dickinson, Emily. The Letters of Emily Dickinson (p. 267). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

……………………………………………….

“Emily Dickinson was not referring to the physical death of John Long Graves. Instead, the “event” was his permanent departure from Amherst when he moved away to become the principal of Orford Academy in New Hampshire. This physical separation prompted Dickinson to express deep melancholy, likening her absent friends to memories or “phantoms” in her emotional memory box” (Google AI, downloaded 6/4/2026)

134.1860.Did the Harebell loose her girdle

Did the Harebell loose her girdle
To the lover Bee
Would the Bee the Harebell hallow
Much as formerly?

Did the “Paradise”—persuaded—
Yield her moat of pearl—
Would the Eden be an Eden,
Or the Earl—an Earl?
……………………………………………………………………………….

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

My interpretation of ‘Did the Harebell loose her girdle’ [F134]:

Stanza 1.

Did the Harebell loose her girdle
To the lover Bee
Would the Bee the Harebell hallow
Much as formerly?

S1.

If the Harebell consented to sexual intercourse with lover Bee, would Bee still respect her in the morning?

Stanza 2.

“Did the “Paradise”—persuaded—
Yield her moat of pearl—
Would the Eden be an Eden,
Or the Earl—an Earl?”

S2.

If my vagina [paradise] were persuaded [or “seduced”] to yield its hymen [moat] to my lover, would our romantic love still exist, would my lover’s reputation be ruined?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

ED copied neither this poem (F134) nor the preceding F133, ‘Mute – thy Coronation —’, into her fascicles even though she copied other poems of this vintage into fascicles.
…………………………………………………………………………………..

Almost all publications of this poem ignore ED’s underlining of four words: Line 3, “hallow”; Line 5, “persuaded”; Line 7, “be”; and Line 8, the second “Earl”. These omissions deny the reader important information. ED intended those words to be emphasized.
…………………………………………………………………………………………

A chronological timeline places this poem at a critical and vulnerable interval of ED’s life:

1855 March – ED, age 24, attends one of Rev. Wadsworth’s sermons and falls in love with him, from a distance.

1860 March – Rev. Charles Wadsworth visits ED in Amherst.

1860 “Second half” (Franklin) – ED composes ‘Mute — thy Coronation (F133)’

1860 “Second half” (Franklin) – ED composes ‘Did the harebell loose her girdle (F134)’

1861 Early – ED drafts the second surviving “Master” letter

1861 Summer – ED drafts the third surviving “Master” letter

Reverend Wadsworth (1814-1882) was a charismatic Presbyterian pastor at a large church in Philadelphia. He was 16 years older than ED, married and had two children.
………………………………………………………………………………………..

Given the chronological timeline, Wadsworth was probably the intended recipient of the three “Master Letters” and the protagonist of F133 and F134.

Reverend Wadsworth’s response to one ED’s letters shows deep concern for her mental and emotional condition:

“My Dear Miss Dickenson [sic]

“I am distressed beyond measure at your note, received this moment, – I can only imagine the affliction which has befallen, or is now befalling you.

“Believe me, be what it may, you have all my sympathy, and my constant, earnest prayers.

“I am very, very anxious to learn more definitely of your trial- and though I have no right to intrude upon your sorrow yet I beg you to write me, though it be but a word.

“In great haste
Sincerely and most
Affectionately Yours –“

The manuscript is unsigned and without date, but is in the handwriting of the Reverend Charles Wadsworth, with an embossed crest, “C.W.”
………………………………………………………………………..

In Line 1, ED uses the archaic verb “loose”. The ‘Emily Davidson Lexicon’ defines “loose” as “Release; unbind; set free; remove the restraints from”. Many other dictionaries also define it as “untie”.

Today, the use of the verb “loose” in the sense of “untie” is extremely rare. However, classic literature texts use the archaic form, “loose”, frequently. For example, The verb “loose” or its other forms, “loosed” and “looseth”, are used 63 times in ED’s copy of the King James Bible. (Google AI).

ED knew her Bible backward and forward, which probably explains her use of “loose” in Line 1 of this poem.
……………………………………………………………………………………………

Susan Kornfeld, founder of the Emily Dickinson poetry blog, ‘The Prowling Bee‘, posted a delightful explication of this poem on November 21, 2011:

“A delightful proto-feminist poem, Dickinson is wondering why there are sexual double standards for men versus women. The lovely harebell has perhaps loosened her girdle (“belt” we would say today) to that rogue lover Bee (lucky insect – he gets to stand in for God sometimes, too). The Big Question is: Will he still respect her in the morning? Dickinson selects the word “hallow” – even italicizing it for emphasis to show she really means it – to suggest a religious aspect. Marriage is a sacrament, but just a bit of fun between bees and flowers… well, maybe the Bee is right not to feel that hallow feeling. Except the reader senses this is wrong. The Bee would be quite foolish, as well as stupefyingly arrogant to feel anything other than yummy delight at the Harebell’s delicious, life-giving nectar.

            “But just in case the reader is too thick skulled to follow the metaphor, the poet then moves us closer to the realm of ordinary men and women. “Paradise” is of course a way of referring to that blissful refuge men might find beyond the “moat of pearl” when making love. Here the lover is an Earl (helpfully rhyming with “pearl” or else he might have been a king) and if he had successfully “persuaded” his lady love to “yield” to him, the poet wants to know if Paradise / Eden would still be the same. Or would it become, say, Paradise Lost? Or worse, the lady just some now used-goods fallen woman. But the Earl – would he, too, undergo degradation? Dickinson doesn’t even bother to answer that last question. Yes, the Earl will still be an Earl no matter how many virgins he deflowers.

            “The poem is a very playful and clever way of pointing out this inequity that still bedevils much of the world – and in some countries can be a life-and-death  matter.

            “The poem also is fun to read aloud – it just trips off the tongue. The “Did the” and “Would the” doublings strengthen the metaphor and give a nursery-rhyme feel to this adult-content poem. The rhymes are fun: Bee / formerly; and pearl / Earl. The four 4-letter-word “e”s of the last two lines not only link together visually, but showcase Dickinson’s gift for compaction. In both lines she uses the E word first as a specific and then as a general case. Would the Eden of this blossom still be in the category of unsullied Paradise? Would this particular Earl still belong in the category of princely nobility denoted by “Earl”?”
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Between June 18, 2011 and January 30, 2024 Susan Kornfeld wrote and published explications on the first 878 of Emily Dickinson’s known 1789 poems (Poems F1-F878). Since then, Susan has continued to read and occasionally comment on poems.

The new explicator on ‘The Prowling Bee’ blog is Adam Wade DeGraff, who published his first explication on Poem 879 on February 17, 2026, and is currently (September 18, 2026) writing an explication on Poem 946. Doing the math, that’s 66 poems in 213 days, a prodigious rate of one poem every 3 days — not bad for a guy with a family and a full-time teaching job.
………………………………………………………………………………….