LarryB

A first Mute Coming—
In the Stranger’s House—
A first fair Going—
When the Bells rejoice—

A first Exchange—of
What hath mingled—been—
For Lot—exhibited to
Faith—alone—

ED gives us few clues to decipher F732. She mentions the Old Testament character, “Lot”, and she emphatically repeats , “A first” in Lines 1, 3, 5: “A first Mute Coming”, “A first fair Going”, “A first Exchange”. Lot’s life before disguised angels arrived at his door was an exhibition of faith in God, just as the relationship between visitor and visitee, who had never met in person, had “mingled – been – ” by years of shared correspondence.

An interpretation:

A mute (shy) person came to the house of someone he had never met, and they exchanged something that they had previously shared in correspondence but not in person. Like Lot whose steadfast faith in God spared his family when Sodom and Gomorrah burned, the visitor and visitee have built a trusting relationship by “Faith – alone -” during extended correspondence, and now they meet face-to-face. During this initially bashful but later joyful visit they exchange some tangible token of their love for each other, and then they part, “A first fair Going – / When the Bells rejoice –”, metaphorical wedding bells for a metaphorical bride and groom.

Several contemporary accounts attest Wadsworth was painfully shy among strangers and new acquaintances. For example, five months after Wadsworth’s death, ED wrote his best friend, James D. Clark (L994, August 22, 1882):

“Dear friend,

“. . . . . In an intimacy of many years with the beloved Clergyman, I have never before spoken with one who knew him, and his Life was so shy and his tastes so unknown, that grief for him seems almost unshared. . . . .

“E. Dickinson.”

A Thought went up my mind today –
That I have had before –
But did not finish – some way back –
I could not fix the Year –

Nor where it went – nor why it came
The second time to me –
Nor definitely, what it was –
Have I the Art to say –

But somewhere – in my Soul – I know –
I’ve met the Thing before –
It just reminded me – ‘twas all –
And came my way no more –

My poet wife, Louise, once told me that a mystical experience is something our body/mind creates when our body/mind needs a mystical experience. Circular? Perhaps. ED says “it came / The second time to me”, whatever the “it” is, and then “it” came my way no more.

As a quantitative scientist, I would say that the probability the wordings of these two couplets are similar due to random chance is less than 1 in 10,000:

“Nature” is what We know –
But have no art to say”

and

“Nor definitely, what it was –
Have I the art to say” ,

In statistical language, the probability is in the neighborhood of P < 0.0001. A scientist would reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the lines if the chances they were unrelated were less than 1 in 100 (P < 0.01), and P < 0.0001 is one hundred times less likely than P < 0.01.

Cutting the jargon, these two poems are extremely likely to be closely related, and, if so, their interpretations must also be closely related, which brings me back to hypothesize that “it” is one or more mystical experiences. The circumstantial evidence is compelling to me.

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.

ED’s alternative words in parentheses:

Each Life converges to some Centre—
Expressed — or still —
Exists in every Human Nature
A Goal —

Embodied (Admitted) scarcely to itself — it may be —
Too fair
For Credibility’s presumption (temerity)
To mar (dare)—

Adored (Beheld) with caution — as a Brittle Heaven —
To reach
Were hopeless, as the Rainbow’s Raiment
To touch —

Yet persevered toward — surer (stricter) — for the Distance —
How high —
Unto the Saints’ slow diligence (industry) —
The Sky —

Ungained — it may be — in a Life’s low Venture —
But then —
Eternity enable the endeavoring
Again.

ED’s eight alternative words suggest she wasn’t entirely happy with this poem, but they may give us a clue as to where she wanted go:

In Line 5, I prefer “Admitted” because it seems to imply ED’s true feelings.

In Lines 7 & 8, I prefer the alternative “temerity” because it implies assertiveness that would “mar”, my preferred final word in the stanza.

In Line 9, I prefer ED’s alternative verb “Beheld” because its subject is “Centre” in Line 1, and “Adored” puts a too positive spin on its subject.

In Lines 13 & 15, I prefer ED’s original words over her alternatives because they fit better in their contexts.

Pronouns “itself” and “it” in Stanzas 2 and 5 refer to “Centre” and “Goal” in Stanza 1. For ED, one would think poetry would be Life’s “Centre”/ “Goal”, and it was, but known only to herself and her friends. She knew that writing for publication would hamstring her freedom to write whatever she wanted whenever she wanted, without kowtowing to some (old male!) editor. Nevertheless, ED dreamed of eventually taking her place among poets of the ages (e.g., F470, 1862):

“That first Day, when you praised Me, Sweet,
And said that I was strong —
And could be mighty, if I liked —
That Day — the Days among —

“Glows Central — like a Jewel
Between Diverging Golds —
The Minor One — that gleamed behind —
And Vaster — of the World’s.”

Stanza 5 seems to rule out poetry as the “Centre/ Goal’ of Stanza 1 unless ED plans to compose poems in Heaven or Hell for Angels or Demons:

“But then-
Eternity enable the endeavoring
Again.”

Nevertheless, there is something “Eternity” might “enable” in the afterlife. By 1863 it was clear to ED that her two attempts at love relationships, Susan Gilbert and Charles Wadsworth, would be “Ungained . . . by a Life’s low Venture -”. Maybe in “Eternity” she’ll get a second chance at love. Oddly, ‘Each Life converges to some Centre’ may be a love poem for Sue or Wadsworth or both, like the dual-purpose ‘You left me – Sire – two Legacies –’ (F713, 1863 ).

In this poem, ED uses a single iamb in nine consecutive even-numbered lines, L4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and L20, which feels a bit contrived but gives the poem’s sound the rhythm of a song. As it reads now, only even-numbered L2 breaks this repetition with two iambs. If her manuscript didn’t firmly format Stanza 1, I would suspect she intended a single iamb in Line 2:

“Each Life converges to some Centre— Expressed —
[O]r still —
Exists in every Human Nature
A Goal —”

A mundane question: What is the subject of the verb “Exists” in Line 3? Clearly, ED intends “Centre” to be the subject, but the lines don’t make sense to me as written. Perhaps she intended an understood subject: “It] Exists in every Human Nature”. I guess if the test is “Does it communicate what the poet meant” then ED gets a free pass for the missing subject.

ED’s alternate words in parentheses:

Have any like Myself
Investigating March,
New Houses on the Hill descried—
And possibly a Church—

That were not, We are sure—
As lately as the Snow—
And are Today—if We exist—
Though how may this be so?

Have any like Myself
Conjectured Who may be
The Occupants of the Adobes—
So easy to the Sky—

Twould seem that God should be
The nearest Neighbor to—
And Heaven—a convenient Grace
For Show, or Company—

Have any like Myself
Preserved the Charm secure (Vision sure, Vision clear)
By shunning carefully the Place (Spot, Site)
All Seasons of the Year,

Excepting March—’Tis then
My (The) Villages be seen—
And possibly a Steeple—
Not afterward—by Men—

In Line 13, ED omitted the contracting apostrophe of “‘Twould”, which is not her usual practice (Fr574). Both Johnson (1955) and Franklin (1998) emend her omission, which seems reasonable to me. In Line 18, I prefer ED’s alternative “Vision clear” over “Charm secure” because it emphasizes that ED realizes the “Villages” are a “Vision”, not real. In Line 19, I prefer “Spot” over “Place” because of its alliteration with “shunning” and the firm sound of the final “t”. In Line 22, I like the possessiveness of “My” better than the alternative “The”.

In New England March, bright blue skies and puffy white clouds occasionally break the dreariness of winter. It’s hard to resist a walk on such a day, and if a poet feels her imagination stirring, she could easily see houses and a steeple in the clouds behind a hill’s horizon. Return tomorrow, it’s likely gone, “Not [seen] afterward – by Men –”.

Stanzas 1-3 describe this mystical village and conjecture who lives there. Her first two lines of Stanza 4 (L9-10) guess that God should live there because the village lies between Earth and Heaven.

Then, suddenly, Lines L11-L12 slam a question in our face. Is “Heaven – a convenient Grace / For Show, or Company?” What happened to the village in the sky with new houses and a steepled church? That question about Heaven sure seems skeptical and even sarcastic to me.

A village that appears once a century is an old German motif, most recently revisited in Brigadoon (1947 musical by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe). Brigadoon’s precursor, ‘Germelshausen’ is an 1860 German story by Friedrich Gerstäcker about a young artist being forever separated from his love, but the motif predates 1860.

“A cursed village that sank into the earth long ago is permitted to appear for only one day every century. The protagonist happens to be traversing the area as Germelshausen appears. He encounters, and becomes smitten with, a young woman from the village. The romantic tale ends with him leaving the vicinity just in time to avoid becoming entombed with the village and its denizens, but thereby he loses the love of his life.”

ED’s village appears once a year, but the result is the same, gender reversed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germelshausen

ED’s alternate words in parentheses:

Upon Concluded Lives
There’s nothing cooler falls –
Than Life’s sweet (new) Calculations
The mixing Bells and Palls –

Make Lacerating Tune—
To Ears the Dying Side—
‘Tis Coronal—and Funeral—
Saluting (confronting, contrasting) —in the Road—

In both alternative-word cases, I prefer the published words, “sweet” and “saluting”.

EDLex’s definition of “coronal” is triptych: (1) “Crown; gold circlet; royal headpiece”, (2) “coronation; ceremony of crowning; endowment of a royal status”, and (3) “[metaphor] resurrection; sanctification.”

This poem deals with ED’s dueling feelings, her love of this Earth’s “Nature” and her dreams of Heaven’s supernatural “Queen of Calvary” crown, specifically, her heavenly title, “Mrs. Wadsworth”:

• ‘Title divine, is mine’ (F194),
• ‘Rearrange a “Wife’s” Affection!’ (F267),
• ‘There came a Day—at Summer’s full’ (F325),
• ‘He touched me, so I live to know’ (F349),
• ‘I know that He exists’ (F365),
• ‘Ourselves were wed one summer — dear —’ (F596).

To the dying person, the two stanzas enjamb painfully:

“The mixing Bells and Palls – //
Make Lacerating Tune—
To Ears the Dying Side—”

but,

“To Ears the Dying Side—
‘Tis Coronal—and Funeral—
Saluting—in the Road—”

The competing desires salute, like two passing ships,

ED has been here before:

“So—faces on two Decks—look back—
Bound to opposing Lands—” (F325, 1862)

In eight short lines ED paints her ambivalent feelings about death, the pain of leaving life, particularly nature, and the joy of entering heaven, “if true”.

“Nature” is what We see—
The Hill—the Afternoon—
Squirrel—Eclipse—the Bumble bee—
Nay—Nature is Heaven—

“Nature” is what We hear—
The Bobolink—the Sea—
Thunder—the Cricket—
Nay—Nature is Harmony—

“Nature” is what We know—
But have no art to say—
So impotent Our Wisdom is
To Her Sincerity—

In F721, ED returns to “the Conscious Ear” of F718 and, for good measure, adds the Conscious Eye. Once again, in F721, she distinguishes between natural and supernatural. Natural nature is tangible things we see, “The Hill – the Afternoon – / Squirrel – Eclipse – the Bumble bee”, and hear, “The Bobolink – the Sea – / Thunder – the Cricket –”.

But is that all “Nature is”? “Nay”, she firmly injects:

“Nature is Heaven” //
“Nature is Harmony” //
“Nature is what We know / But have no Art to say –”.

Spiritual Nature is inexplicable, “So impotent our Wisdom is / To Her Sincerity”. Just as any honest scientist will tell us, “Humans can never know exactly what is true in nature; we can only approximate truth”, likewise, ED says, “I have no Art to say” exactly what Nature is, only that it is “Heaven”, it is “Harmony”, it is “Melody” that can only be heard and seen with the “Conscious Ear” and Eye. Neither scientists nor ED can explain why some people hear the music of the spheres (Wikipedia, 2024), “the spirit ditties of no tone” (Keats, 1819), “The Singing Wilderness” (Olson, 1961).

Shakespeare’s Lorenzo tells Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, that only immortal souls can hear the music of the spheres:

“Such harmony is in immortal souls,
But whilst this muddy vesture of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.”

ED would disagree; she heard the “Harmony”, “But have no Art to say -”. Nor did Shakespeare, Keats, or Olson “have . . . art to say”.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis
• Shakespeare, 1598, ‘The Merchant of Venice’, Act 5, Scene 1
• John Keats, 1819 ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’
• Sigurd F. Olson, 1961, ‘The Singing Wilderness’