I am travelling at the speed of time, along the Massachusetts Turnpike. For months, for years, for most of my life, I have been hovering like an insect against the screens of an existence which inhabited Amherst, Massachusetts, between 1831 and 1884. The methods, the exclusions, of Emily Dickinsons existence could not have been my own; yet more and more, as a woman poet finding my own methods, I have come to understand her necessities, could have been witness in her defense.
Home is not where the heart is, she wrote in a letter, but the house and the adjacent buildings. A statement of New England realism, a directive to be followed. Probably no poet ever lived so much and so purposefully in one house; even, in one room. Her niece Martha told of visiting her in her corner bedroom on the second floor at 280 Main Street, Amherst, and of how Emily Dickinson made as if to lock the door with an imaginary key, turned and said, Matty: heres freedom.
I am travelling at the speed of time, in the direction of the house and buildings.
Western Massachusetts: the Connecticut Valley: a countryside still full of reverberations: scene of Indian uprisings, religious revivals, spiritual confrontations, the blazing-up of the lunatic fringe of the Puritan coal. How peaceful and how threatened it looks from Route 91, hills gently curled above the plain, the tobacco-barns standing in fields sheltered with white gauze from the sun, and the sudden urban sprawl: ARCO, McDonalds, shopping plazas. The country that broke the heart of Jonathan Edwards, that enclosed the genius of Emily Dickinson. It lies calmly in the light of May, cloudy skies breaking into warm sunshine, light-green of spring softening the hills, dogwood and wild fruit-trees blossoming in the hollows.
From Northampton bypass theres a 4-mile stretch of road to AmherstRoute 9between fruit farms, steakhouses, supermarkets. The new University of Massachusetts rears its skyscrapers up from the plain against the Pelham Hills. There is new money here, real estate, motels. Amherst succeeds on Hadley almost without notice. Amherst is green, rich-looking, secure; were suddenly in the center of town, the crossroads of the campus, old New England college buildings spread around two village greens, a scene I remember as almost exactly the same in the dim past of my undergraduate years when I used to come there for college weekends.
Left on Seelye Street, right on Main; driveway at the end of a yellow picket fence. I recognize the high hedge of cedars screening the house, because twenty-five years ago I walked there, even then drawn toward the spot, trying to peer over. I pull into the driveway behind a generous 19th-century brick mansion with wings and porches, old trees and green lawns. I ring at the back doorthe door through which Dickinsons coffin was carried to the cemetery a block away.
For years I have been not so much envisioning Emily Dickinson as trying to visit, to enter her mind, through her poems and letters, and through my own intimations of what it could have meant to be one of the two mid-19th-century American geniuses, and a woman, living in Amherst, Massachusetts. Of the other genius, Walt Whitman, Dickinson wrote that she had heard his poems were disgraceful. She knew her own were unacceptable by her worlds standards of poetic convention, and of what was appropriate, in particular, for a woman poet. Seven were published in her lifetime, all edited by other hands; more than a thousand were laid away in her bedroom chest, to be discovered after her death. When her sister discovered them, there were decades of struggle over the manuscripts, the manner of their presentation to the world, their suitability for publication, the poets own final intentions. Narrowed-down by her early editors and anthologists, reduced to quaintness or spinsterish oddity by many of her commentators, sentimentalized, fallen-in-love with like some gnomic Garbo, still unread in the breadth and depth of her full range of work, she was, and is, a wonder to me when I try to imagine myself into that mind.
I have a notion that genius knows itself; that Dickinson chose her seclusion, knowing she was exceptional and knowing what she needed. It was, moreover, no hermetic retreat, but a seclusion which included a wide range of people, of reading and correspondence. He sister Vinnie said, Emily is always looking for the rewarding person. And she found, at various periods, both women and men: her sister-in-law Susan Gilbert, Amherst visitors and family friends such as Benjamin Newton, Charles Wadsworth, Samuel Bowles, editor of the SpringfieldRepublican, and his wife; her friends Kate Anthon and Helen Hunt Jackson, the distant but significant figures of Elizabeth Barrett, the Brontës, George Eliot. But she carefully selected her society and controlled the disposal of her time. Not only the gentlewomen in plush of Amherst were excluded; Emerson visited next door but she did not go to meet him; she did not travel or receive routine visits; she avoided strangers. Given her vocation, she was neither eccentric nor quaint; she was determined to survive, to use her powers, to practice necessary economies.
Suppose Jonathan Edwards had been born a woman; suppose William James, for that matter, had been born a woman? (The invalid seclusion of his sister Alice is suggestive.) Even from men, New England took its psychic toll; many of its geniuses seemed peculiar in one way or another, particularly along the lines of social intercourse. Hawthorne, until he married, took his meals in his bedroom, apart from the family. Thoreau insisted on the values both of solitude and of geographical restriction, boasting that I have travelled much in Concord. Emily Dickinsonviewed by her bemused contemporary Thomas Higginson as partially cracked, by the 20thcentury as fey or pathologicalhas increasingly struck me as a practical woman, exercising her gift as she had to, making choices. I have come to imagine her as somehow too strong for her environment, a figure of powerful will, not at all frail or breathless, someone whose personal dimensions would be felt in a household. She was her fathers favorite daughter though she professed being afraid of him. Her sister dedicated herself to the everyday domestic labors which would free Dickinson to write. (Dickinson herself baked the bread, made jellies and gingerbread, nursed her mother through a long illness, was a skilled horticulturalist who grew pomegranates, calla-lilies, and other exotica in her New England greenhouse.)
Upstairs at last: I stand in the room which for Emily Dickinson was freedom. The best bedroom in the house, a corner room, sunny, overlooking the main street of Amherst in front, the way to her brother Austins house on the side. Here, at a small table with one drawer, she wrote most of her poems. Here she read Elizabeth Barretts Aurora Leigh, a woman poets narrative of a woman poets life; also George Eliot; Emerson; Carlyle; Shakespeare; Charlotte and Emily Brontë. Here I become, again, an insect, vibrating at at the frames of the windows, clinging to panes of glass, trying to connect. The scent here is very powerful. here in this white-curtained, high-ceilinged room, a redhaired woman with hazel eyes and a contralto voice wrote poems about volcanoes, deserts, eternity, suicide, physical passion, wild beasts, rape, power, madness, separation, the daemon, the grave. Here, with a darning-needle, she bound these poemsheavily emended and often in variant versionsinto booklets, secured with darning-thread, to be found and read after her death. Here she knew freedom, listening from above-stairs to a visitors piano-playing, escaping from the pantry where she was mistress of the household bread and puddings, watching, you feel, watching ceaselessly, the life of sober Main Street below. From this room she glided downstairs, he hand on the polished banister, to meet the complacent magazine editor, Thomas Higginson, unnerve while claiming she herself was unnerved. Your scholar, she signed herself in letters to him. But she was an independent scholar, used his criticism selectively, saw him rarely and always onherpremises. It was a life deliberately organized on her terms. The terms she had been handed by societyCalvinist Protestantism, Romanticism, the 19th-century corseting of womens bodies, choices, and sexualitycould spell insanity to a woman genius. What this one had to do was retranslate her own unorthodox, subversive, sometimes volcanic propensities into a dialect called metaphor: her native language. Tell all the Truthbut tell it Slant. It is always what is under pressure in us, especially under pressure of concealment that explodes in poetry.
The women and men in her life she equally converted into metaphor. The masculine pronoun in her poems can refer simultaneously to many aspects of the masculine in the patriarchal worldthe god she engages in dialogue, again onherterms; her own creative powers, unsexing for a woman, the male power-figures in her immediate environmentthe lawyer Edward Dickinson, her brother Austin, the preacher Wadsworth, the editor Bowlesit is far too limiting to trace that He to some specific lover, although that was the chief obsession of the legend-mongers for more than half a century. Obviously, Dickinson was attracted by and interested in men whose minds had something to offer her; she was, it is by now clear, equally attracted by and interested in women whose minds had something to offer her. There are many poems to and about women, and some which exist in two versions with alternate sets of pronouns. Her latest biographer, Richard Sewall, while rejecting an earlier Freudian biographers theory that Dickinson was essentially a psycho-pathological case, the by-product of which happened to be poetry, does create a context in which the importance, and validity, of Dickinsons attachments to women may now, at last, be seen in full. She was always stirred by the existences of women like George Eliot or Elizabeth Barrett, who possessed strength of mind, articulateness, and energy. (She once characterized Elizabeth Fry and Florence Nightingale as holyone suspects she merely meant, great.)
But of course Dickinsons relationships with women were more than intellectual. They were deeply charged, and the sources both of passionate joy and pain. We are only beginning to be able to consider them in a social and historical context. The historian Carroll Smith-Rosenberg has shown that there was far less taboo on intense, even passionate and sensual, relationships between women in the American 19th-century female world of love and ritual, as she terms it, than there was later in the 20thcentury. Women expressed there attachments to other women both physically and verbally; a marriage did not dilute the strength of a female friendship, in which two women often shared the same bed during long visits and wrote letters articulate with both physical and emotional longing. The 19th-century close woman friend, according to the many diaries and letters Smith-Rosenberg has studied, might be a far more important figure in a womans life than the 19th-century husband. None of this was condemned as lesbianism, We will understand Emily Dickinson better, read her poetry more perceptively, when the Freudian imputation of scandal and aberrance in womens love for women has been supplanted by a more informed, less misogynistic attitude toward womens experiences with each other.
But who, if you read through the seventeen hundred and seventy-five poemswhowoman or mancould have passed through that imagination and not come out transmuted? Given the space created by her in that corner room, with its window-light, its potted plants and work-table, given that personality, capable of imposing its terms on a household, on a whole community, what single theory could hope to contain her, when shed put it all together in that space?
Matty: heres freedom, I hear her saying as I speed back to Boston along Route 91, as I slip the turnpike ticket into the toll-collectors hand. I am thinking of a confined space in which the genius of the 19th-century female mind in America moved, inventing a language more varied, more compressed, more dense with implications, more complex of syntax, than any American poetic language to date; in the trail of the genius my mind has been moving, and with its language and images my mind still has to reckon, as the mind of a woman poet in America today.
In 1971, a postage stamp was issued in honor of Dickinson; the portrait derives from the one existing daguerrotype of her, with straight, center-parted hair, eyes staring somewhere beyond the camera, hands poised around a nosegay of flowers, in correct 19th-century style. On the first-day-of-issue envelope sent me by a friend there is, besides the postage stamp, an engraving of the poet as popular fancy has preferred her, in a white lace ruff and with hair as bouffant as if she had just stepped from a Boston beauty-parlor. The poem chosen to represent her work to the American public is engraved, alongside a dew-gemmed rose, below the portrait:
Now this is extremely strange. It is a fact, that in 1864, Emily Dickinson wrote this verse; and it is a verse which a hundred or more 19th-century versifiers could have written. In its undistinguished language, as in its conventional sentiment, it is remarkably untypical of the poet. Had she chosen to write many poems like this one we would have no problem of non-publication, of editing, of estimating the poet at her true worth. Certainly the sentimenta contented and unambiguous altruismis one which even today might in some quarters be accepted as fitting from a female versifiera kind of Girl Scout prayer. But we are talking about the woman who wrote:
Much energy has been invested in trying to identify a concrete, flesh-and-blood male lover whom Dickinson is supposed to have renounced, and to the loss of whom can be traced the secret of her seclusion and the vein of much of her poetry. But the real question, given that the art of poetry is an art of transformation, is how this womans mind and imagination may have used the masculine element in the world at large, or those elements personified as masculineincluding the men she knew; how her relationship to this reveals itself in her images and language. In a patriarchal culture, specifically the Judeo-Christian, quasi-Puritan culture of 19th-century New England in which Dickinson grew up, still inflamed with religious revivals, and where the sermon was still an active, if perishing, literary form, the equation of divinity with maleness was so fundamental that it is hardly surprising to find Dickinson, like many an early mystic, blurring erotic with religious experience and imagery. The poem I just read has intimations both of seduction and rape merged with the intense force of a religious experience. But are these metaphors for each other, or for something more intrinsic to Dickinson? Here is another:
These two poems are about possession, and they seem to me a poets poemsthat is, they are about the poets relationship to her own power, which is exteriorized in masculine form, much as masculine poets have invoked the female Muse. In writing at allparticularly an unorthodox and original poetry like Dickinsonswomen have often felt in danger of losing their status as women. And this status has always been defined in terms of relationship to menas daughter, sister, bride, wife, mother, mistress, Muse. Since the most powerful figures in patriarchal culture have been men, it seems natural that Dickinson would assign a masculine gender to that in herself which did not fit in with the conventional ideology of womanliness. To recognize and acknowledge our own interior power has always been a patch mined with risks for women; to acknowledge that power and commit oneself to it as Emily Dickinson did was an immense decision.
Most of us, unfortunately, have been exposed in the schoolroom to Dickinsons little-girl poems, her kittenish tones, as in Im Nobody! Who Are You? (a poem whose underlying anger translates itself into archness) or
or the poems about bees and robins. One criticRichard Chasehas noted that in the 19thcentury one of the careers open to women was perpetual childhood. A strain in Dickinsons letters and somethough by far a minorityof her poems was a self-diiminutization, almost as if to offset and denyor even disguiseher actual dimensions as she must have experienced them. And this emphasis on her own littleness, along with the deliberate strangeness of her tactics of seclusion, have been, until recently, accepted as the prevailing character of the poet: the fragile poetess in white, sending flowers and poems by messenger to unseen friends, letting down baskets of gingerbread to the neighborhood children from her bedroom window; writing, but somehow naively. John Crowe Ransom, arguing for the editing and standardization of Dickinsons punctuation and typography, calls her a little home-keeping person, who, while she had a proper notion of the final destiny of her poems . . . was not one of those poets who had advanced to that alter stage of operations where manuscripts are prepared for the printer, and the poets diction has to make concessions for the publishers style-book. (In short, Emily Dickinson did not wholly know her trade, and Ransom believes a publishers style-book to have the last word on poetic diction.) He goes on to print several of her poems, altered by him with all possible forebearance. What might, in a male writera Thoreau, let us say, or a Christopher Smart or William Blakeseem a legitimate strangeness, a unique intention, has been in one of our two major poets devalued into a kind of naivet, girlish ignorance, feminine lack of professionalism, just as the poet herself has been made into a sentimental object. (Most of us are half in love with this dead girl, confesses Archibald MacLeish. Dickinson was fifty-five when she died.)
It is true that more recent critics, including her most recent biographer, have gradually begun to approach the poet in terms of her greatness rather than her littleness, the decisiveness of her choices instead of the surface oddities of her life or the romantic critics of her legend. But unfortunately anthologists continue to plagiarize other anthologies, to reprint her in edited, even bowdlerized versions; the popular image of her and her work lags behind the changing consciousness of scholars and specialists. There still does not exist a selection from her poems which depicts her in her fullest range. Dickinsons greatness cannot be measured in terms of twenty-five or fifty or even 500 perfect lyrics, it has to be seen as the accumulation it is. Poets, even, are not always acquainted with the full dimension of her work, or the sense one gets, reading in the one-volume complete edition (let alone the three-volume variorum edition) of a mind engaged in a lifetimes musing on essential problems of language, identity, separation, relationship, the integrity of the self; a mind capable of describing psychological states more accurately than any poet except Shakespeare. I have been surprised at how narrowly her work, still, is known by women who are writing poetry, how much her legend has gotten in the way of her being re-possessed, as a source and a foremother.
I know that for me, reading her poems as a child and then as a young girl already seriously writing poetry, she was a problematic figure. I first read her in the selection heavily edited by her niece which appeared in 1937; a later and fuller edition appeared in 1945 when I was sixteen, and the complete, unbowdlerized edition by Johnson did not appear until fifteen years later. The publication of each of these editions was crucial to me in successive decades of my life. More than any other poet, Emily Dickinson seemed to tell me that the intense inner event, the personal and psychological, was inseparable from the universal; that there was a range for psychological poetry beyond mere self-expression. Yet the legend of the life was troubling, because it seemed to whisper that a woman who undertook such explorations must pay with renunciation, isolation, and incorporeality. With the publication of theComplete Poems, the legend seemed to recede into unimportance beside the unquestionable power and importance of the mind revealed there. But taking possession of Emily Dickinson is no simple matter.
The 1945 edition, entitledBolts of Melody, took its title from a poem which struck me at age sixteen and which still, thirty years later, arrests my imagination:
This poem is about choosing an orthodox feminine role: the receptive rather than the creative; viewer rather than painter, listener rather than musician; acted-upon rather than active. Yet even while ostensibly choosing this role she wonders how the fingers feel/ whose rare-celestialstir/ Evokes so sweet a Torment and the feminine role is praised in a curious sequence of adjectives: Enamoredimpotentcontent. The strange paradox of this poemits exquisite ironyis that it is about choosing not to be a poet, a poem which is gainsaid by no fewer than one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five poems made during the writers life, including itself. Moreover, the images of the poem rise to a climax (like the Balloon she evokes) but the climax happens as she describes, not what it is to be the receiver, but the maker and receiver at once A privilege so awful/ What would the Dower be,/ Had I the Art to stun myself/ With Bolts of Melody! a climax which recalls the poem: He fumbles at your soul/ As Players at the Keys/ Before they drop the Music on And of course, in writing those lines she possesses herself of that privilege and that Dower. I have said that this is a poem of exquisite ironies. It is, indeed, though in a very different mode, related to Dickinsons little-girl strategy. The woman who feels herself to be Vesuvius at home has need of a mask, at least, of innocuousness and of containment.
Power, even masked, can still be perceived as destructive.
Dickinsons biographer and editor Thomas Johnson has said that she often felt herself possessed by a demonic force, particularly in the years 1861 and 1862 when she was writing at the height of her drive. There are many poems besides He put the Belt around my Life which could be read as poems of possession by the daemonpoems which can also be, and have been, read, as poems of possession by the deity, or by a human lover. I suggest that a womans poetry about her relationship to her daemonher own active, creative powerhas in patriarchal culture used the language of heterosexual love or patriarchal theology. Ted Hughes tells us that
the eruption of (Dickinsons) imagination and poetry followed when she shifted her passion, with the energy of desperation, from (the) lost man onto his only possible substitute, the Universe in its Divine aspect . . . Thereafter, the marriage that had been denied in the real world, went forward in the spiritual . . . just as the Universe in its Divine aspect became the mirror-image of her husband, so the whole religious dilemma of New England, at that most critical moment in its history, became the mirror-image of her relationship to him, of her marriage in fact.
This seems to me to miss the point on a grand scale. There are facts we need to look at. First, Emily Dickinson did not marry. And her non-marrying was neither a pathological retreat as John Cody sees it, nor probably even a conscious decision; it was a fact in her life as in her contemporary Christina Rosettis; both women had more primary needs. Second: unlike Rosetti, Dickinson did not become a religiously dedicated woman; she was heretical, heterodox, in her religious opinions, and stayed away from church and dogma. What, in fact,didshe allow to put the Belt around her Lifewhatdidwholly occupy her mature years and possess her? For Whom did she decline the invitations of other lives? The writing of poetry. Nearly two thousand poems. Three hundred and sixty-six poems in the year of her fullest power. What it was like to be writing poetry you knew (and I am sure she did know) was of a class by itselfto be fuelled by the energy it took first to confront, then to condense that range of psychic experience into that language; then to copy out the poems and lay them in a trunk, or send a few here and there to friends or relatives as occasional verse or as gestures of confidence? I am sure she knew who she was, as she indicates in this poem:
This is a poem of the great year 1862, the year in which she first sent a few poems to Thomas Higginson for criticism. Whether it antedates or postdates that occasion is unimportant; it is a poem of knowing ones measure, regardless of the judgments of others.
There are many poems which carry the weight of this knowledge. Here is another one:
Im cededIve stopped being Theirs
Now, this poem partakes of the imagery of being twice-born or, in Christian liturgy, confirmedand if this poem had been written by Christina Rosetti I would be inclined to give more weight to a theological reading. But it was written by Emily Dickinson, who used the Christian metaphor far more than she let it use her. This is a poem of great pridenot pridefulness, butself-confirmationand it is curious how little Dickinsons critics, perhaps misled by her diminutives, have recognized the will and pride in her poetry. It is a poem of movement from childhood to womanhood, of transcending the patriarchal condition of bearing her fathers name and crowingon my Fathers breast. She is now a conscious Queen, AdequateErect/ With Will to choose, or to reject.
There is one poem which is the real onlie begetter of my thoughts here about Dickinson; a poem I have mused over, repeated to myself, taken into myself over many years. I think it is a poem about possession by the daemon, about the dangers and risks of such possession if you are a woman, about the knowledge that power in a woman can seem destructive, and that you cannot live without the daemon once it has possessed you. The archetype of the daemon as masculine is beginning to change, but it has been real for women up until now. But this woman poet also perceives herself as a lethal weapon:
Here the poet sees herself as split, not between anything so simple as masculine and feminine identity but between the hunter, admittedly masculine, but also a human person, an active, willing being, and the gunan object condemned to remain inactive until the huntertheownertakes possession of it. The gun contains an energy capable of rousing echoes in the mountains and lighting up the valleys; it is also deadly, Vesuvian; it is also its owners defender against the foe. It is the gun, furthermore, whospeaks for him. If there is female consciousness in this poem it is buried deeper than the images: it exists in the ambivalence toward power. which is extreme. Active willing and creation in women are forms of aggression, and aggression is both the power to kill and punishable by death. The union of gun with hunter embodies the danger of identifying and taking hold of her forces, not least that in so doing she risks defining herselfand being definedas aggressive, as unwomanly, (and now we hunt the Doe) and as potentially lethal. That which she experiences in herself as energy and potency can also be experienced as pure destruction. The final stanza, with its precarious balance of phrasing, seems a desperate attempt to resolve the ambivalence; but, I think, it is no resolution, only a further extension of ambivalence.
The poet experiences herself as a loaded gun, imperious energy; yet without the Owner, the possessor, she is merely lethal. Should that possession abandon herbut the thought it unthinkable: He longermustthan I. The pronoun is masculine; the antecedent is what Keats called The Genius of Poetry.
I do not pretend to haveI dont even wish to haveexplained this poem, accounted for its every image; it will reverberate with new tones long after my words about it have ceased to matter. But I think that for us, at this time, it is a central poem in understanding Emily Dickinson, and ourselves, and the condition of the woman artist, particularly in the 19thcentury. It seems likely that the 19th-century woman poet, especially, felt the medium of poetry as dangerous, in ways that the woman novelist did not feel the medium of fiction to be. In writing even such a novel of elemental sexuality and anger asWuthering Heights, Emily Bronte could at least theoretically separate herself from her characters; they were, after all, fictitious beings. Moreover, the novel is or can be a construct, planned and organized to deal with human experiences on one level at a time. Poetry is too much rooted in the unconscious; it presses too close against the barriers of repression; and the 19th-century woman had much to repress. It is interesting that Elizabeth Barrett tried to fuse poetry and fiction in writing Aurora Leighperhaps apprehending the need for fictional characters to carry the charge of experience as a woman artist. But with the exception of Aurora Leigh and Christina Rosettis Goblin Marketthat extraordinary and little-known poem drenched in oral eroticismEmily Dickinsons is the only poetry in English by a woman of that century which pierces so far beyond the ideology of the feminine and the conventions of womanly feeling. To write it at all, she had to be willing to enter chambers of the self in which
and to relinquish control there, to take those risks, she had to create a relationship to the outer world where she could feel in control.