LarryB

As if the Sea should part
And show a further Sea —
And that — a further — and the Three
But a presumption be —

Of Periods of Seas —
Unvisited of Shores —
Themselves the Verge of Seas to be —
Eternity — is Those —

Hmmm. In addition to her poetry, ED had the mindset of a scientist. Before she wrote poetry, she collected plant species, accurately identified them, and mounted them on herbarium sheets as professionally as any botanist of her time. More importantly, she questioned dogma and demanded evidence of untested hypotheses like resurrection and heaven. And most importantly, she was a skeptic but kept her mind open to new evidence.

In 1863, when she composed this poem, there were two wars raging, the American Civil War and a Religion/Science War in England and America. Lyell (1830) and Darwin (1859), among others, had challenged Christianity’s dogma of Creation, including how and when it happened. As one might suspect, ED kept a close eye on both wars, avidly reading Bowles’ highly regarded newspaper, ‘The Springfield Republican’, along with ‘The Hampshire and Franklin Express’, and ‘The Amherst Record’. In addition, the Dickinson family subscribed to ‘Harper’s New Monthly Magazine’, ‘Scribner’s Monthly’, and ‘The Atlantic Monthly’ (Capps 1966).

In the poem’s last line, she tries to merge Science and Religion.

An interpretation of ‘As if the Sea should part’ (F720) by a scientist:

Stanza 1 – “To me [ED] the sea seems permanent, but science opened willing eyes, including mine, to possibilities of sea after sea after sea in Earth’s history, but that would be a presumption [hypothesis]”

Stanza 2 – “Those periods of seas – / Unvisited by shores – / Themselves the Verge of Seas to be – / Eternity – is Those –”.

• Charles Lyell, 1830, Principles of Geology,;
• Charles Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species
• Capps, J. L., 1966, ‘Emily Dickinson’s Reading’, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 143 pp.

PS. Hooray! Another ED poem without mention of Charles Wadsworth.

In the July and August 1860 issues of The Atlantic Monthly, Harvard’s Asa Gray, the leading botanist in the United States, published an 11,000-word positive review of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’. Darwin reprinted Gray’s essay as a pamphlet in England.

In the October 1860 issue of The Atlantic, Gray published a , 12,000-word essay countering negative reviews of Darwin’s book, including Louis Agassiz’s. 1859. Essay on Classification (London: Longman). 381 pp.

The Atlantic Monthly was “required reading” in the Dickinson household.

• Juliana Chow. 2014. “Because I see—New Englandly—”: Seeing Species in the Nineteenth-Century and Emily Dickinson’s Regional Specificity. ESQ: A Journal of the American Renaissance, 60(3): 413-449.

• Asa Gray. 1860. “Darwin on the Origin of Species” and “Darwin and His Reviewers”. The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 6 Nos. 33, 34, 36.

If He were living—dare I ask—
And how if He be dead—
And so around the Words I went—
Of meeting them—afraid—

I hinted Changes—Lapse of Time—
The Surfaces of Years—
I touched with Caution—lest they crack—
And show me to my fears—

Reverted to adjoining Lives—
Adroitly turning out
Wherever I suspected Graves—
‘Twas prudenter—I thought—

And He—I pushed—with sudden force—
In face of the Suspense—
“Was buried”—”Buried”! “He!”
My Life just holds the Trench—

Scenario – ED has written letters and composed poems and mailed them to Charles Wadsworth in San Francisco but has heard nothing in reply. Her anger and her love collide – and love wins.

Stanza 1 – I imagine the worst: CW has died in San Francisco. Words fail me; I’m afraid.

Stanza 2 – I wrote him anyway, trying to be strong. “I hinted Changes” that have happened for me: “Lapse of Time”, old wounds healed; years have come and gone. I touched these topics cautiously, “lest they crack” [I learn the truth] – “And show me to my [worst] fears”.

Stanza 3 – In case he or a member of his family has died, “’Twas prudenter – I thought –” / “Reverted to adjoining [nearby] Lives – / Adroitly turning out”

Stanza 4 – “And He I pushed with sudden force / In face of the Suspense [my fear] / [that He] “Was buried” – “Buried”! “He!” / [If He is dead,] My Life holds the [his burial] Trench.”

The phrase, “adjoining Lives”, in Stanza 3 probably refers to “James D. Clark, perhaps Wadsworth’s closest friend” who lived in Northampton, MA, 12 miles southwest of Amherst (Thompson 2018). The Belchertown Railroad connected the two towns in 1853.

By pure coincidence, ED’s father had had business dealings with James D. Clark and had introduced ED to him at Homestead. Whatever the purpose of Clark’s call, it must have taken place between 1858 and 1863” (Habegger 2002).

“One of the poet’s memorable encounters occurred when James [D. Clark] . . . showed up at the Dickinson mansion: “I could scarcely have believed, the Morning you called with Mr Brownell,” she wrote some two decades later [L1048, To James D. Clark, Mar 15, 1883], “that I should eventually speak with you, and you only, with the exception of my Sister, of my dearest earthly friend [Wadsworth].” (Habegger 2002)

• (Thompson, Casey.2018, https://waynepres.org/article/the-story-of-emily-dickinson-and-rev-charles-wadsworth).

Franklin’s (1998) punctuation and ED’s alternate words in parentheses:

The Spirit is the Conscious Ear —
We actually Hear
When We inspect—that’s audible—
That is admitted—Here—

For other Services (purposes)—as Sound —
There hangs a smaller (minor) Ear
Outside the Castle (Centre, City) —that Contain (Present)—
The other —only—Hear—

Here’s my interpretation, using ED’s alternate words when they help and my clarifications in brackets. Lines 1-3 are enjambed into a single sentence, and Line 4 is a single sentence. Lines 5-7 are also enjambed into a single sentence, and Line 8 is a closing sentence.

The Spirit is the Conscious Ear
We actually Hear
When We inspect [what’s] audible— [in our soul].
That [song] is admitted—Here—[in the Conscious Ear].

For other Purposes—such as Sound [physical sounds such as bird songs]—
There hangs a minor Ear, [the physical ear]
Outside the Castle [of our soul, which] Contain[s] the [Conscious Ear].
The other [the minor ear] only Hear[s] [physical sounds].

In a footnote to this poem, Christine Miller (2016, ‘Emily Dickinson’s Poems’) refers readers to ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ (John Keats, 1819, Stanza 2):

“Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone”

Given ED’s interest in “the spirit ditties of no tone”, that is, mystical experiences, her “Conscious Ear” is the one that hears God speaking, the “Ear” Saul used to listen to God on the road to Damascus (KJV, Acts 9:3-5):

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.

4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. . .”

It would be hard for any poet, including ED, to improve on Keats. To me, ED’s “Ear” / “Hear” / “Here” // “Ear” / “Hear” sound clunky compared to Keats’ “Heard”, “unheard” // “ear”, “endear’d”.

The Heaven vests for Each
In that small Deity
It craved the grace to worship
Some bashful Summer’s Day –

Half shrinking from the Glory
It importuned to see
Till these faint Tabernacles drop
In full Eternity –

How imminent the Venture –
As One should sue a Star –
For His mean sake to leave the Row
And entertain Despair –

A Clemency so common –
We almost cease to fear –
Enabling the minutest –
And furthest – to adore –

As ED was often wont to do, ‘The Heaven vests for Each’ (F717, Line 3, late 1863) serves us a disguised pronoun, “it”. Normally, “it” refers to something inanimate, like Heaven, or non-human, like a dog, but not in this poem. ED was a private person, and in this poem she used the neuter gender because the poem is about her.

“It” refers to “Each” (in this poem, ED) and for her, “that small Deity” was Charles Wadsworth (CW). ED recalls the “Glory” she felt on a “bashful Summer’s Day”, which she immortalized in ‘There came a Day—at Summer’s full’ (F325, 1862). On that day, she and CW exchanged crucifixes and pledged (Stanza 7):

“Sufficient troth—that we shall rise—
Deposed—at length—the Grave—
To that new Marriage—
Justified—through Calvaries of Love!”

An interpretation of ‘The Heaven vests for Each’, in poem-prose [brackets mine]:

Stanza 1 – “Some bashful Summer’s Day” / “Heaven vests [invests] for Each [woman; ED] / In that small Deity” [man; CW] / It [she; ED] craved the grace to worship”.

Stanza 2 – “Half shrinking from the Glory [CW] / It [ED] importuned [begged] to see / Till [When] these faint Tabernacles [frail bodies] drop / In full Eternity [Heaven]”.

Stanza 3 – “How imminent [soon] the Venture [Death] / As [if] One should sue [ask] a Star [CW] / For His mean sake to leave the Row [of Stars] / And entertain Despair [like ED’s]”

Stanza 4 – “A Clemency [forgiveness] so common / We [humans; ED] almost cease to fear / Enabling the minutest / And furthest [of us; ED] – to adore [our lover; CW]”

The “Row” of “Stars” in Lines 10-11 may refer to Stanza 1 of ‘I lost a World – the other day!’, F209 (1861) [brackets mine] and perhaps originally to Revelation 12:1-5, ED’s favorite Book in the Bible:

“I lost a World [CW] – the other day!
Has Anybody found?
You’ll know it [Him] by the Row of Stars
Around its [His] forehead bound.”

Revelation 12:1-5:

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

The “woman clothed with the sun” and “crown of stars” was traditionally believed to be the Virgin Mary
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_of_the_Apocalypse), but in ED’s current missing-him mood, the “Crown of Stars” is Charles Wadsworth.

Shells from the Coast mistaking—
I cherished them for All—
Happening in After Ages
To entertain a Pearl—

Wherefore so late—I murmured—
My need of Thee—be done—
Therefore—the Pearl responded—
My Period begin

The word “pearl” occurs 29 times in ED’s 1789 poems, mostly as a metaphor for cherished things: friendship, love of all kinds, Susan Gilbert Dickinson (Sue), Charles Wadsworth (CW), a particular poem, poetry in general. The word “pearl” first appears in F16 (1858), ’The feet of people walking home’ and last in F1012 (1865), ‘Best Things dwell out of Sight’.

Oddly, the word “pearl” doesn’t occur in any of the 777 poems written during the last 20 years of her life, 1866 – 1886.

ED tried twice to establish permanent relationships with lovers, but both attempts failed because of impossible impediments, financial security for Sue and solid long-standing marriage/family ties for CW. By 1863, ED had abandoned dreams of lifelong stability from loving relationships and, instead, committed her life to poetry, the pearl she knew she could trust for the duration.

In this poem “wherefore” probably means “for what reason”. The word dates from before 1200 AD and is now rarely used (OED).

An interpretation of ‘Shells from the Coast mistaking’ (F716):

Stanza 1:

When I was young, I thought all shells from the coast were pearls
When I grew older, I still cherished shells
Because they reminded me of Pearls
I have loved [Sue and CW].

Stanza 2:

Why has it taken me so long – I murmured –
Before my need of Thee [CW] – be done? –
Therefore – the Pearl [Poetry] responded –
My Time begin[s]

What a life-affirming last line.

ED’s alternate words in parentheses:

I could suffice for Him, I knew—
He—could suffice for Me—
Yet Hesitating Fractions—Both
Surveyed (Delayed; Deferred) Infinity

“Would I be Whole” He sudden broached—
My syllable rebelled—
‘Twas face to face with Nature—forced—
‘Twas face to face with God—

Withdrew the Sun—to Other Wests—
Withdrew the furthest Star
Before Decision—stooped to speech—
And then—be audibler

The Answer of the Sea unto
The Motion of the Moon—
Herself adjust Her Tides—unto—
Could I—do else—with Mine?

A bar friend once asked what I’d been up to. My answer: Dealing with a difficult girlfriend. Just dump her, he shot back. I can’t, I said, she died 150 years ago. He gave a weird look and turned on his stool to a different conversation.

“It would be instructive to get a vote from you which way you believe this poem leans, toward a yes to the beloved, or a yes to withdrawal. Or would you agree that this poem is caught in limbo, leaning both ways at once?”

My vote is not genius or generous or “yes”. When I read this poem I heard anger of a jilted lover. ED’s God, Charles Wadsworth, had just abandoned her in Amherst and moved to San Francisco, a universe away in 1863. Her answer was “NO!”

An interpretation: [Brackets mine; CW ≡ Charles Wadsworth]

Stanza 1

The poet “knew” she “could suffice for” her lover in a long-term relationship and “He – could suffice for me”. Both had “Hesitations” and “delayed” [ED’s alternative word for “Surveyed”] full commitment to each other. What a weird way to begin a love poem, especially when “He”, CW, was married, with two children, and 16 years older, 48 vs 32.

Stanza 2

“Sudden[ly]” CW, superstar minister, “broached” a question, “Would I be Whole”? ED’s curt answer to CW’s question was a rebellious NO!, “My Syllable rebelled –”, leading to a Mexican standoff:

“[CW] ‘Twas face to face with Nature – forced [ED]”
“[ED] ‘Twas face to face with God – [CW]”

Stanza 3

Predictably,

“Withdrew the Sun [CW] – to other Wests [San Francisco]–
Withdrew the furthest Star [ED]
Before Decision – stooped to speech –
And then – be audibler”

CW [the Sun] and ED [the furthest Star] withdrew without further discussion, emotionally distanced themselves, and CW moved to San Francisco. Their conversation never had a chance to be “audibler”.

Stanza 4

Just as “the Sea” “answers” to the “Motion of the Moon – / Herself adjust Her Tides – unto -”, ED asks, “Could I – do else – with Mine?”

The poet asked the “Could I – do else – with Mine” question rhetorically to rationalize the rebellious one-syllable answer to a reasonable lover’s question, “Would I be Whole”? A credible inference is that that rebellious one-syllable answer was a curt “No!”, which killed the conversation. Such a defensive appeal as “Could I – do else – with Mine”? shifts blame onto the lover both autocratically and aristocratically. Life with this poet, male or female, would be impossible for almost anyone.

Notes:

Line 5 – The poet’s verb choice, “Broached”, is a loaded word, derived from Late Latin, “brocca”, spike, pointed instrument. Definitions of Broach: (ED Lex) “to open for discussion; make public for the first time”; (Cambridge English Dictionary) “to begin a discussion of something difficult”.

Line 16 – “Could I – do else – with Mine?”, was the 10th time in Franklin’s chronological order, F1-F712, that the poet used “Could I” as a rhetorical question:

F188, Could I – then – shut the door?-
F268, Could – I – forbid?
F346, Could I further “No”?
F382, How could I-of Him?
F433, How could I break My Word?
F443, Could — I do more — for Thee?
F483, Could I such a plea withstand?
F585, Could I infer his Residence?
F706, Could I stand by?
F712, Could I – do else – with Mine?

Answering a question with another question may be a tool to win a debate, but it sure sidetracks a conversation.

Doom is the House without the Door—
‘Tis entered from the Sun—
And then the Ladder’s thrown away,
Because Escape—is done—

‘Tis varied by the Dream
Of what they do outside—
Where Squirrels play—and Berries dye—
And Hemlocks—bow—to God—

English inherited the word “doom” from Germanic languages predating Old English. OED gives ten related definitions of “doom”, eight of them obsolete. Its universal thread through time is death and judgement, usually but not always with negative connotations.

ED Lex gives four definitions of “doom”:

1. Fate; death; tomb; life of sufferings; end; determination affecting the outcome.
2. Final days; last judgement; doomsday.
3. Ruin; destruction; death; final fate.
4. Condemned; damned; destined to death.

Both OED and ED Lex equate doom with death, but not necessarily Hell. Stanza 1’s “House without the Door” could be Heaven or Hell. Neither allows return, “Escape -is done –”.

Stanza 2 states as fact that life after death “Tis varied by the Dream / Of what they do outside -”. In other words, both Heaven and Hell are boring, varied only by memories of Life on Earth: watching squirrels play, berries dye fingers, and hemlocks bow gracefully. Is ED having second thoughts about hurrying to Heaven to meet Wadsworth?

It’s hard to imagine ED having “Hemlocks – bow – to [a Judeo-Christian] God”, but all things are possible. Maybe this is a poem for children. Or is Line 8’s “God” an alias for Mother Nature or Gaia, the personification of Earth and ancestral mother of all life? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia)

New twigs on a hemlock tree or sapling (Tsuga canadensis) bend gracefully downward, but the species is not poisonous. Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) is an herbaceous biennial in the carrot family and can induce illness or death by ingestion or even by handling. Socrates committed suicide by drinking hemlock poison.