All Poems

865.1864.Expectation — is Contentment —

Expectation — is Contentment —
Gain — Satiety —
But Satiety — Conviction
Of Necessity

Of an Austere trait in Pleasure —
Good, without alarm
Is a too established Fortune —
Danger — deepens Sum —
………………………………………………………..

My interpretation of F865, ‘Expectation — is Contentment —’:

Stanza 1

Expectation — is Contentment —
Gain — Satiety —
But Satiety — Conviction
Of Necessity

S1.

Getting there is all the fun. Once there, there becomes ordinary, but being there convinces us that being there is a necessity.

Stanza 2.

Of an Austere trait in Pleasure —
Good, without alarm
Is a too established Fortune —
Danger — deepens Sum —

S2.

Self-disciplined pleasure is good, without alarm, but a too established fortune is not. Risk deepens pleasure’s sum.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

864.1864.A Plated Life – diversified

A Plated Life – diversified
With Gold and Silver Pain
To prove the presence of the Ore
In Particles – ’tis when

A Value struggle – it exist –
A Power – will proclaim
Although Annihilation pile
Whole Chaoses on Him –
……………………………………………………………..

ED Lexicon Def. 1 of “plated”:

“Impure; covered with a thin layer of precious metal on the surface which deceptively conceals an interior of baser metal; [fig.] counterfeit; hypocritical; dissembling; duplicitous; two-faced.”
……………………………………………………………..

My biographical interpretation of F785:

Stanza 1.

A Plated Life – diversified
With Gold and Silver Pain
To prove the presence of the Ore
In Particles – ’tis when [enjambed with Stanza 2]

S1.

Wadsworth leads a hypocritical life, a charismatic minister in public and a seducer of troubled young women in private. Yes, his personality includes bits of gold and silver Christianity, which suggests sincerity, but he uses those qualities to gain and betray trust, causing much pain. I know . . . [enjambed with Stanza 2]

Stanza 2

A Value struggle – it exist –
A Power – will proclaim
Although Annihilation pile
Whole Chaoses on Him –

S2.

. . . a value struggle exists his soul, a struggle between good and evil, but when he dies annihilation will pile whole chaoses on his soul.
………………………………………………………………….

An immediate clue to the recipient of this poem is the capitalized “Him” at the end of this poem. ED honors only God and Reverend Wadsworth with the capitalized pronoun, “Him”, and the context proves ED’s not talking about God.

A further clue is in Line 1 of F785, ‘It dropped so low — in my Regard —’, where ED castigates Reverend Wadsworth for seducing her in summer 1860, then leaving town and not responding to her letters and poems sent to him.
………………………………………………………………………………………..

P.S.  In 1879, 15 years after she wrote F864, ‘A Plated Life – diversified’, ED composed a camouflaged quatrain that said she would like to know how Wadsworth was doing. For the 12th and last time she used her codeword for him: Calvary:

Spurn the temerity –
Rashness of Calvary –
Gay were Gethsemane
Knew we of thee –

Apparently, ED sent the poem to Wadsworth who took her poem as an invitation to visit because he arrived unannounced at her front door in 1880. No doubt, after the 20-year hiatus, the maturer twosome spent an afternoon strolling down memory lane.

In an 1886 letter, written to George Clark one month before her death, ED described Wadsworth’s visit in endearing terms:

“. . . . . Going Home,” was he not an Aborigine of the Sky? The last time he came in Life [summer 1880], I was with my Lilies and Heliotropes, said my Sister to me, “the Gentleman with the deep voice wants to see you, Emily,” hearing him ask of the Servant. “Where did you come from,” I said, for he spoke like an Apparition.

“I stepped from my Pulpit [an invited sermon in Northampton, MA, 12 miles SW of Amherst] the Train” was [his] simple reply, and when I asked “how long”, “Twenty Years” said he with inscrutable roguery – but the loved Voice has ceased . . . . .”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………

785.1863.It dropped so low — in my Regard —

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 —

Yet blamed the Fate that fractured — less
Than I reviled Myself,
For entertaining Plated Wares
Upon My Silver Shelf —
……………………………………………………………………….

ED Lexicon Def. 1 of “plated”:

“Impure; covered with a thin layer of precious metal on the surface which deceptively conceals an interior of baser metal; [fig.] counterfeit; hypocritical; dissembling; duplicitous; two-faced.”
……………………………………………………………………..

My biographical interpretation of F785, ‘It dropped so low — in my Regard —’:

Stanza 1

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 —

S1

Wadsworth’s reputation dropped so low in my regard, I heard it hit the ground and shatter on the stones at the bottom of my Mind.

Stanza 2

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

S2

However, I blamed Wadsworth less than I blamed myself for participating in his hypocritical seduction in the orchard behind my house.
…………………………………………………………………………….

For the first time, ED did not copy her alternative words and phrases in ink at the same time she copied her poem. Instead, she waited 17 years (1880) and then penciled her alternatives between her original ink lines.

Both Johnson (1955, ‘Complete Poems’) and Franklin (1998, ‘Poems of Emily Dickinson’) published Line 4 without using ED’s 1880 alternate phrase, which was their standard protocol, but they published her 1880 alternates in Lines 5 and 6, which was definitely not their usual protocol. They may have been “protecting Emily” by ignoring protocol in Lines 5 and 6 and not in Line 4. Whatever their reasons, they improved her poem:

Original Stanza 1 sounds better than

“It dropped so low — in my Regard —
I heard it hit the Ground —
And go to pieces {in the Ditch}
At bottom of my Mind —”

And modified Stanza 2 sounds better than her original (above):

“Yet blamed the Fate that {flung it} — less
Than I {denounced} Myself,
For entertaining Plated Wares
Upon My Silver Shelf —”

Line 6, “Than I reviled myself”, may reveal how ED felt in 1863, but apparently she had mellowed by 1880.

The postcendant of “It” (Line 1) is “Plated Wares” (Line 7), a metaphor for “anything you once fell for” but no longer revere (Adam DeGraff, AKA d. scribe, ‘The Prowling Bee’). “It” may be ED’s adolescent romantic infatuation (at age 25-32) with Rev. Charles Wadsworth, which I think is the seed of this poem, or the unfinished quality of the poem itself, which ED apparently realized in 1880, or, something else.

There must be a reason ED would juxtapose this poem, F785 (Poem 13), an initially flawed text but objective truism, with F784 (Poem 12), a “Mulling Suicide” poem that seems a painful cry for help.

Perhaps she’s reminding herself of where she’s been (sidetracked by infatuation, “Plated Wares”) and where she wants to go (poetic immortality). It’s inconceivable to me she composed these two poems contemporaneously, despite their copied  juxtaposition in Fascicle 37 and identical estimated copy dates (“about late 1863”).

863.1864.This Bauble was preferred of Bees –

This Bauble was preferred of Bees –
By Butterflies admired
At Heavenly – Hopeless Distances –
Was justified of Bird –

Did Noon – enamel – in Herself
Was Summer to a Score
Who only knew of Universe –
It had created Her –
…………………………………………………………………………

This from David Preest’s ‘Analysis and Notes of Emily Dickinson Poetry’, © 2012. Unfortunately, Preest’s poem summaries are no longer available on the Internet]:

“Poem F863 ‘This Bauble was preferred of Bees’

“Judith Farr believes that the ‘Bauble’ of this poem is Sue. She was ‘preferred’ and ‘admired’ by the ‘bees’ and ‘butterflies’ of Amherst society, and even the bird that was Emily regarded her as good and ‘Heavenly’ – at a ‘Hopeless Distance.’ If only ‘Noon’ could have made this Bauble in lasting enamel, she could have been a whole Summer to a score of people who thought her the best thing in the world, instead of just the Bauble of a moment.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Based on Judith Farr’s insight and David Preest’s reputation as an interpreter of Emily Dickinson’s poems, here is my biographical interpretation, with ED’s alternate words and phrase in {curly brackets}:

Stanza 1:

This Bauble was preferred of Bees –
By Butterflies admired {adored; desired}
At Heavenly – Hopeless Distances –
Was justified of Bird – {Of Bird – was justified -}

S1:

Sue’s wit and charisma attracts the admiration of Amherst’s social bees and butterflies. I, a little wren who admires Sue from a heavenly yet hopeless distance, find Sue’s personal charisma and poetic insights irresistible, but sometimes her empathy with others seems superficial.

Stanza 2:

Did Noon – enamel {enable; embellish} – in Herself
Was Summer to a Score
Who only knew of Universe –
It had created {afforded} Her –

S2:

If only Sue could enable her party personality to shine light into the lives of a score of people, she could brighten their days, but Sue feels that the Universe created her for herself. [Note the reverentially capitalized “Her” in Line 8, a sign of ED’s high regard for Sue.]
………………………………………………………………………………………

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.
………………………………………………………………………………….

861.1864.They say that ‘Time assuages’ –

They say that “Time assuages” –
Time never did assuage –
An actual suffering strengthens
As Sinews do, with Age –

Time is a Test of Trouble –
But not a Remedy –
If such it prove, it prove too
There was no Malady –
…………………………………………………………………………………

My prose interpretation of F861, ‘They say that “Time assuages”’:

Stanza 1.

They say that “Time assuages” –
Time never did assuage –
An actual suffering strengthens
As Sinews do, with Age –

S1.

They say that “Time heals all wounds”, but time never did that. Overcoming a challenge strengthens us, and we do better the second time around.

Stanza 2.

Time is a Test of Trouble –
But not a Remedy –
If such it prove, it prove too
There was no Malady –

S2.

Time doesn’t heal wounds, but it does test us with adversities. Often it turns out that our troubles were not troubles at all.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

My prose interpretation of F861, ‘They say that “Time assuages”’:

Stanza 1.

They say that “Time assuages” –
Time never did assuage –
An actual suffering strengthens
As Sinews do, with Age –

S1.

They say that “Time heals all wounds”, but time never did that. Overcoming a challenge strengthens us, and we do better the second time around.

Stanza 2.

Time is a Test of Trouble –
But not a Remedy –
If such it prove, it prove too
There was no Malady –

S2.

Time doesn’t heal wounds, but it does test us with adversities. Often it turns out that our troubles were not troubles at all.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..