ED-LarryB

The Veins of other Flowers
The Scarlet Flowers are
Till Nature leisure has for Terms
As “Branch,” and “Jugular.”

We pass, and she abides.
We conjugate Her Skill
While She creates and federates
Without a syllable.

Do you know your birds? Do you know the muscles, bones, and organs of the cat we dissected in Biology lab? What is that wildflower called? When we learn these names, we say we “know” something about nature. ED asserts in these eight lines, we know nothing about nature, about physical reality. If we spoke a different language, those English names would be meaningless, but birds, bones, and wildflowers would be the same, as they were long before humans invented languages.

Our faux knowledge of nature is a symptom of a mindset disease we call anthropocentrism. It’s a disease that explains why we all pump too many fossil CO2 molecules that will gradually reduce quality of life of our grandchildren and much more so their descendants for a thousand generations. With whatever plant and animal species we leave extant when our dark curtains fall, Nature will “create and federate / Without a syllable”.

ED was a prescient poet.

ED’s alternative add-on phrase in parentheses:

Truth — is as old as God —
His Twin identity
And will endure as long as He
A Co-Eternity —

And perish on the Day
(That he) Himself is borne away
From Mansion of the Universe
A lifeless Deity.

The trouble with “truth” is that it means something different to everyone who uses it. What did ED mean by “Truth” in Line 1?

EDLex defines “Truth” as:

1. Reality; facts; actual state of things.
2. Being; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.
3. Wisdom; verity; orthodoxy; real doctrine; sound philosophy; veracious principles; true religious belief.
4. Veracity; purity from falsehood.
5. Fact; principle; essence, as distinguished from an imitation.
6. Sincerity; practice of speaking truth; habitual disposition to speak correct principles.
7. Constancy.
8. Correct opinion.

OED Definitions of “Truth” stretch 38 pages and 8800 words. “Truth” is an early Old English word and most of OED’s definitions are now obsolete. Here are two definitions that are not obsolete:

Truth Def II.5.c. Understanding of nature or reality; the totality of what is known to be true; knowledge.

2005 “Foucault did not reconstruct the development of truth but what was considered true at a given point of time in the human sciences”, T. Teo, Critique Psycholog.

Def II.6.a. Religious sense: spiritual reality as the subject of revelation or object of faith

1567 “Forasmuche as god is the truthe, & [the] truth is god, he [that] departeth from one, departeth from thother.” T. Palfreyman, Morall Philos.

As Teo said in 2005, objective “truth” changes with new discoveries in science. We like to think “truth” in the religious sense doesn’t change, but it does. For one example, the Old Testament focuses on God as vengeful, the New Testament on God as loving and forgiving. Clearly, there is no such thing as an immutable “Truth”, either in the objective or religious sense.

Purely coincidentally, Palfreyman’s 1567 “truth is god” is virtually identical to Adam’s first explication line, which is perhaps an intentional straw man: “Truth equals God, and always will.”

Our problem is deciding whether ED meant “Truth” in a mutable or immutable sense. My take on this poem is she intended the latter sense, immutable, which is wishful thinking.

Stanza 1

Lines 1-2 don’t say “Truth is God” or “God is Truth”. Rather, they tell us “Truth” is as old as God” and God’s “twin identity”. I think “His” in Line 2 does refer to God in Heaven, but “Truth” in Lines 1 & 2 refers to religious “truths” in sermons of Reverend Charles Wadsworth.

Lines 3-4

I think “He” in Line 3 refers to God in Heaven, and, for ED, Wadsworth’s “Truth” will “endure as long as God in Heaven / A Co-Eternity”. And, just in case folks don’t understand his sermons, ED claimed in F791 that she, or presumably her poems, would be “the undivine abode / Of His [Wadsworth’s] Elect Content —”:

“So I — the undivine abode
Of His Elect Content —
Conform my Soul — as ’twere a Church,
Unto Her Sacrament —”

Stanza 2

Lines 5-6: “Truth” is Wadsworth’s “truths” in his sermons, and they will “perish on the Day / Himself is borne away” (unless people read her “Elect Content”, her poems). I think “Himself” (Line 6) refers to Wadsworth’s corpse.

Lines 7-8 conclude with ED’s statement of implied atheism: Wadsworth’s body will “be borne away”, nothing but “a lifeless” hunk of flesh that was a “Deity” while He lived in our “Mansion”, the known physical “Universe”. The final line, “A lifeless Deity” sounds unhopeful. To me it suggests ED thinks there’s no immortality to be found in “the Universe”: God is dead.

In this poem ED seems to suggest we can forget about “Eternity” after death. Eighteen years later, Nietzsche said the same thing (1882, ‘The Gay Science’).

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.

I meant to have but modest needs —
Such as Content — and Heaven —
Within my income — these could lie
And Life and I — keep even —

 

But since the last — included both —
It would suffice my Prayer
But just for One — to stipulate —
And Grace would grant the Pair —

 

And so — upon this wise — I prayed —
Great Spirit — Give to me
A Heaven not so large as Yours,
But large enough — for me —

 

A Smile suffused Jehovah’s face —
The Cherubim — withdrew —
Grave Saints stole out to look at me —
And showed their dimples — too —

 

I left the Place, with all my might —
I threw my Prayer away —
The Quiet Ages picked it up —
And Judgment — twinkled — too —
That one so honest — be extant —
It take the Tale for true —
That “Whatsoever Ye shall ask —
Itself be given You” —

 

But I, grown shrewder — scan the Skies
With a suspicious Air —
As Children — swindled for the first
All Swindlers — be — infer —

 

An interpretation

Stanza 1

The poet imagines a perfect plan for the remainder of her life: contentment “within her income” and “Heaven”, which for her would be continued correspondence with Charles Wadsworth living in Philadelphia, close enough for him to occasionally visit, as he did in 1860 and possibly 1861.

Stanza 2

On second thought, she deletes “Content” from her “Prayer”, because if she had “Heaven” as described, she would be content. And she could have that Heaven if just one person, Wadsworth, would so “stipulate”, “And Grace would grant the Pair –”, both contentment and Heaven.

Stanza 3

She asks little in her “Prayer”, and she asks in an endearing way:

“Great Spirit -Give to me
A Heaven not so large as Yours,
But large enough -for me –”

Stanza 4 [brackets mine]

“A [paternalistic] Smile suffused Jehovah’s face –
The Cherubim [young angels attending God]-withdrew –
Grave Saints [Severe old men] stole out to look at me –
And showed their dimples – too –” [also smiled in amusement]

Stanza 5 [brackets mine]

Disgusted by Heaven’s pseudo-smile paternalism, ED stormed out of “the Place – with all my might –” and “threw my Prayer away -”. For ages Christian readers “picked it up” and read her prayer approvingly. Even St Peter at the pearly gates “twinkled” with approval because there had been one living person so honest [gullible] that she took “the Tale for true -”

Stanza 6

“The Tale”, told twice, in Matthew 21: 21-22 & John 14: 12-14, was:

“Whatsoever Ye shall ask –
Itself be given You” –

As a child ED believed that promise lock, stock, and barrel, but when her prayers went unanswered, she grew skeptical of Resurrection, Heaven, and the Judeo-Christian God, and, like a swindled child, now infers all such promisers are swindlers, including God and Wadsworth.

Matthew 21:21-22:

21: Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
22: And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 14: 12-14:

12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

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.

ED’s alternate word in Line 3 and phrase in Line 4 are in parentheses

Me from Myself — to banish —
Had I Art —
Invincible (Impregnable) my Fortress
Unto All (To foreign) Heart —

But since Myself — assault Me —
How have I peace
Except by subjugating
Consciousness?

And since We’re mutual Monarch
How this be
Except by Abdication —
Me — of Me?

Joyce Carol Oates’ essay (2016) on this poem in her book ‘Soul at the White Heat: The Romance of Emily Dickinson’s Poetry’’ illuminates our common quest to interpret each ED poem in a way that speaks personally. Oates, a top-gun reader of ED if ever there was one, muses, “what is challenged is, perhaps, ‘meaning’ itself.” (Thank you Adam DeGraff, webmaster at The Prowling Bee, for sharing Oates’ essay.)

An interpretation of ‘Me from Myself – to banish’:

If only I had the ability to banish my heart from my brain, my poetry furnace would be impregnable to another person’s heart, especially an impossibly “foreign Heart” like Wadsworth’s.

But if my heart assaults my brain, how can I find peace except by numbing my heart’s desire, “subjugating / Consciousness”.

But since my heart and brain both rule my life, how can one subjugate the other,

“Except by abdication –
Me – of Me -?”

Which will it be?

‘Me from Myself – to banish –’ peers into a lover’s inner quarrel of head and heart. This poem must surpass in psychological imagination anything written anywhere before 1863, except by the Bard himself.

“Me from myself to banish // But since Myself – assault Me – ”.

And then there’s that last stanza that simply leaves mid-19th century poetry in its dust:

“And since We’re Mutual Monarch
How this be
Except by Abdication –
Me – of Me -?”

What universe does ED come from? Perhaps Miranda said it best in ‘The Tempest:

“Oh brave new world,
That has such people in’t.”

 

By 1863, ED had failed twice at love affairs, first with Sue and second Wadsworth. If we use ÉD’s alternate word and phrase in Stanza 1,

“Me from Myself — to banish —
Had I Art —
Impregnable my Fortress
To Foreign Heart —”,

The poem could be about either Charles Wadsworth or Susan Dickinson, but Sue’s heart was not “foreign” to ED, certainly not as foreign as Wadsworth’s heart.

It would not surprise me if ED wrote two variants, one for Sue, the other Wadsworth.

ED’s alternate words/phrases in parentheses; EDLex definitions in {curly brackets}; my preferences in italics (Lines 3, 4, 7, 8):

Size circumscribes—it has no room
For petty furniture—
The Giant tolerates (entertains) no Gnat
For Ease of Gianture (simple Gianture; Because of Gianture) —

Repudiates it, all the more—
Because intrinsic size
Ignores (Excludes) the possibility
Of Calumnies {Jealousies}—or Flies.

ED invents vocabulary with impunity. Neither OED nor Google recognizes “gianture” as a word. Howard (1957) counts 159 such ED-invented words in the 1775 poems known at that time. Apparently, her dislike of crossing Homestead’s boundaries did not extend to lexicography.

William Howard. 1957. Emily Dickinson’s Poetic Vocabulary. PMLA 72(1): 225-248.

Line 3 in ED’s manuscript introduces two actors, “Giant” and “Gnat” and two alternative verbs, “tolerates” and “entertains”. Both verbs are judgmental, one harsher and one gentler. I prefer “tolerates”.

EDLex only defines “Gnat” as a small bug, but OED definition 1b adds a metaphor: [someone] insignificant, for example, “We find it a little amusing that he … should so summarily avenge himself upon the little gnat of a writer…”.

Line 8 introduces “Flies”, apparently equivalent to “Gnat” and both an annoyance to “Giant”.

ED’s trademark, ambiguity, leaves us wondering who the Giant and who the “Gnat … Fly”. Two possibilities for “Giant” come to mind, ED the poet and Wadsworth the preacher. Given ED’s obscurity as a poet and Wadsworth’s fame as a superstar preacher in both Philadelphia and San Francisco, he would seem to be the “Giant”.

The “Gnat” or “Flies” could be lesser preachers harping about Wadsworth’s box-office-busting sermons or ED, who occasionally was a pesky gnat / biting fly, both personally and poetically. Just ask Higginson. After his first two meetings with her (August 16, 1870, morning and afternoon), he wrote his wife, Mary, “I never was with any one who drained my nerve power so much. . . . I am glad not to live near her.”

Habegger, A. 2002. My Wars Are Laid Away in Books. p. 622. Kindle Edition.

ED’s two alternative words in Lines 7-8 make more sense to me than Johnson’s and Franklin’s choices:

“Repudiates it, all the more –
Because intrinsic size
[Excludes] the possibility
Of [Jealousies]-or Flies –“

Finally and possibly apropos:

“He [Wadsworth] impressed believers and unbelievers alike, including Mark Twain, who heard him in San Francisco and liked his humorous glare.” (Habegger 2001). Given Twain’s well-known antipathy toward Christianity, his “humorous glare” is high praise for Wadsworth.

Habegger, Alfred. 2001. My Wars Are Laid Away in Books: The Life of Emily Dickinson (p. 377).

That last alternate, EDLex definition of “Jealousies” for “Calumnies” jumps out, practically screams that this poem could relate not to Wadsworth’s perceived stature in the eyes of other preachers or his congregation but rather to ED’s concern that her personal poems and letters to Wadsworth might be taken as evidence of a romantic relationship rather than the spiritual soulmate relationship that it is.

In summary, this poem may be saying that “Giants” should ignore “Gnats” because “Gnats” often generate jealousies, which may imperil “Giants”.

Adam DeGraff came to a similar conclusion about this poem on his blog, The Prowling Bee:

“This is a poem which tells us to go big if we are feeling big, but just make sure all the details count. Then ignore all the little annoyances and repudiate the inevitable malice and lies that come with the territory.”

 

PS. Speaking of “Giants”, when ED wasn’t protesting that she was “small, like the Wren” (L268 to Higginson), she considered herself a “Giant” (two poems):

‘One Year ago—jots what?’ (F301, Stanza  3, Lines 17-24):

‘You said it hurt you—most—
Mine—was an Acorn’s Breast—
And could not know how fondness grew
In Shaggier Vest—
Perhaps—I couldn’t—
But, had you looked in—
A Giant—eye to eye with you, had been—
No Acorn—then—

‘They shut me up in Prose —’ (F445, 1862):

“They shut me up in Prose —
As when a little Girl
They put me in the Closet —
Because they liked me “still” —

“Still! Could themself have peeped —
And seen my Brain – go round –
They might as wise have lodged a Bird
For Treason – in the Pound –

“Himself has but to will
And easy as a Star
Abolish his Captivity —
And laugh — No more have I —”