860.1864.No Notice gave She, but a Change—
ED copied this poem into Fascicle 38 “about early 1864” (Franklin 1998}
No Notice gave She, but a Change—
No Message, but a Sigh—
For Whom, the Time did not suffice
That She should specify.
She was not warm, though Summer shone L5
Nor scrupulous of cold
Though Rime by Rime, the steady Frost
Upon Her Bosom piled—
Of shrinking ways—she did not fright
Though all the Village looked— L10
But held Her gravity aloft—
And met the gaze—direct—
And when adjusted like a Seed
In careful fitted Ground
Unto the Everlasting Spring L15
And hindered but a Mound
Her Warm return, if so she chose—
And We—imploring drew—
Removed our invitation by
As Some She never knew— L20
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
A biographic interpretation of ‘No Notice gave She, but a Change—‘, F860:
Stanza 1.
No Notice gave She, but a Change—
No Message, but a Sigh—
For Whom, the Time did not suffice
That She should specify.
S1.
I gave no indication of why I changed, but change I did. I wrote no poems explaining why, but when I changed, I sighed. For whom I sighed, I don’t have the time to tell you.
Stanza 2.
She was not warm, though Summer shone Line 5
Nor scrupulous of cold
Though Rime by Rime, the steady Frost
Upon Her Bosom piled—
S2.
Though it was summer, I was not warm nor aware of being cold, even though layer after layer of hoarfrost piled deeper on my bosom.
Stanza 3.
Of shrinking ways—she did not fright
Though all the Village looked— L10
But held Her gravity aloft—
And met the gaze—direct—
S3.
“I wasn’t afraid of withdrawing into my father’s house, though all Amherst thought me strange. When people came to my front door, I met their gaze with my gaze — direct!”
Stanza 4.
And when adjusted like a Seed
In careful fitted Ground
Unto the Everlasting Spring L15
And hindered but a Mound
S4.
And when I intentionally withdrew into my house, I wanted to die. I wanted my soul to fly straight into God’s Heaven, but, unfortunately, my soul’s way was blocked by a mound.
Stanza 5.
Her Warm return, if so she chose—
And {Us}—imploring drew—
Removed our invitation by
As Some she never knew— L20
S5.
If I had wanted to return to a warm relationship with Amherst friends, I could have, but I didn’t. I stopped inviting visitors and, if they knocked at the front door, I acted as if I had never known them.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Alternate Words or Phrase
ED suggested seven alternative words or phrases. I like all her originals except for one: In Line 18, I prefer her alternate word “Us” because “Some” is vague. I used “Us” in my biographic interpretation (above).
………………………………………………………………………………………
Adam DeGraff’s Questions about Line 16, Stanza 4, on ‘The Prowling Bee’ blog:
On December 14, 2025 on TPB, Adam commented on ‘No Notice gave She, but a Change—’ and in his comment he asked two astonishing questions. Here is Stanza 4:
Stanza 4
“And when adjusted like a Seed
In careful fitted Ground
Unto the Everlasting Spring Line 15
And hindered but a Mound”
Adam’s questions are about Line 16: “And hindered but a Mound”:
[1] Could mound be a slant allusion to pregnancy?
[2] Has the narrator, the dead living woman, somehow hindered a pregnancy, or had her pregnancy hindered?
There is a third possibility:
[3] Has the “dead living woman” experienced a miscarriage?
Adam, I think correctly, identifies the “dead” woman as Emily Dickinson, so [take a deep breath], Adam is asking if Emily Dickinson was ever pregnant. Adam is not the first to ask this question.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
‘The Marriage of Emily Dickinson’ Shurr, W. H., 1983
In 1983, William H. Shurr published a controversial book, ‘The Marriage of Emily Dickinson’. His book must be anathema to academicians in their English Department Ivory Towers because it has been cited only six times over the last 43 years.
In the last subsection of the last chapter (pp, 171-193; Shurr saved the best for last), Shurr asks:
“Was Emily Dickinson ever pregnant? The question may offend for its too close inquiry into a private life, its too close linking of biography with poems. It cannot, however, be ruled out of literary analysis, as if there were a priori limitations to the subjects an author might be expected to treat, whether as real phenomena or as groundwork for a trope. The obligation of the reader is to remain open, attentive to whatever topics these poems bring forward. Is there still another event remaining to be considered, naturally linked to the marriage narrative we have been following [in the previous pages]?”
“In a chronological reading of Dickinson’s poems there is an important crux in the developing narrative. Early poems state resistance to, refusal of, sexual intercourse.”
“A private poem (J213, F134; ‘about late 1860’) did not find its way into the fascicles”:
“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?”
“[The Harebell] resists intercourse on the traditional grounds that the lover would lose his respect for her afterward, and for himself as well. The poem is dated by handwriting at “about [late] 1860”, the year of Wadsworth’s first visit.” (Shurr 1983)
Wadsworth’s visit to ‘Homestead’ occurred in summer 1860, and ED wrote this poem “about late 1860” (Franklin 1998).
…………………………………………………………………………………
Almost all publications of ‘Did the Harebell loose her girdle’, including the publication in The Prowling Bee blog, 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, and I have used italics and bold font for these words in my interpretation of this poem. …………………………………………………………………………………………
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?
No wonder ED did not put this poem into a fascicle!
ED’s “Earl” was a conservative Presbyterian minister from Philadelphia, Charles Wadsworth, who, a month or two before ED wrote this poem, visited her at Homestead at her invitation. For an explication of their evening’s activities, see F856, ‘I play at riches’:
https://ed-larryb.com/2026/08/856-1864-i-play-at-riches-to-appease/
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
References:
(Shurr 1983) Franklin 1998
………………………………………………………………………………….
Susan Kornfeld, the founder of ‘The Prowling Bee’, wrote a delightful explication of ‘Did the Harebell loose her girdle’ [F134]:
https://bloggingdickinson.blogspot.com/2011/11/f133-1860-213.html
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………