725.1863.Their Hight in Heaven comforts not—

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.

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.