Emily Dickinson Museum Poetry Discussion Group November 8, 2019

Emily Dickinson Museum Poetry Discussion Group

November 8, 2019

Topic: Dickinson and Robert Browning

Facilitator: Paraic Finnerty

Paraic. The topic, really, is Robert Browning, and his creation of dramatic lyric. I have some definitions here. In the twentieth century these poems became known as dramatic monologues, but in the nineteenth century they were known as dramatic lyrics. That's what Robert Browning called them, and I think that's important to remember, because dramatic monologue is sort of a twentieth century idea some of Browning's poems fit into and some of them don't

“A development of the soliloquy, but not written for the stage or forming part of a play, the dramatic monologue is a poem consisting of a speech by a single character who reveals his thoughts, character and situation. In the 19th century, when literature became increasingly preoccupied with the individual viewpoint, Robert Browning found it an ideal form and Tennyson several times used it.” from The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English

And, there's another definition.

“A poetic form in which the poet invents a character, or, more commonly, uses one from history or legend, and reflects on life from the character's standpoint. Tennyson was the first to use the form, taking the standpoint of characters in Greek myth and causes them to express emotions relevant to their predicaments. The emotions, however, are really more relevant to those of Tennyson's own age, but the disguise enables him to express himself without inhibition, and particularly without involving himself in the responsibility of having to defend the attitudes that he is expressing (E.g. his monodrama Maud (1855). However it was Robert Browning who used the form most profusely, and with whom it is most associated, eg My Last Duchess (1845). Browning used it differently from Tennyson: his characters are more detached from his own personality.” From The Bloomsbury Dictionary of English Literature

I think Tennyson writes in more contemporary terms, while Browning is more of an historicist. He gets into the character from that particular point of view. Just to give you a taste: [ Plays a recording of "My Last Duchess," by Robert Browning.

That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall,

Looking as if she were alive. I call

That piece a wonder, now; Fra Pandolf’s hands

Worked busily a day, and there she stands.

Will’t please you sit and look at her? I said

“Fra Pandolf” by design, for never read

Strangers like you that pictured countenance,

The depth and passion of its earnest glance,

But to myself they turned (since none puts by

The curtain I have drawn for you, but I)

And seemed as they would ask me, if they durst,

How such a glance came there; so, not the first

Are you to turn and ask thus. Sir, ’twas not

Her husband’s presence only, called that spot

Of joy into the Duchess’ cheek; perhaps

Fra Pandolf chanced to say, “Her mantle laps

Over my lady’s wrist too much,” or “Paint

Must never hope to reproduce the faint

Half-flush that dies along her throat.” Such stuff

Was courtesy, she thought, and cause enough

For calling up that spot of joy. She had

A heart—how shall I say?— too soon made glad,

Too easily impressed; she liked whate’er

She looked on, and her looks went everywhere.

Sir, ’twas all one! My favour at her breast,

The dropping of the daylight in the West,

The bough of cherries some officious fool

Broke in the orchard for her, the white mule

She rode with round the terrace—all and each

Would draw from her alike the approving speech,

Or blush, at least. She thanked men—good! but thanked

Somehow—I know not how—as if she ranked

My gift of a nine-hundred-years-old name

With anybody’s gift. Who’d stoop to blame

This sort of trifling? Even had you skill

In speech—which I have not—to make your will

Quite clear to such an one, and say, “Just this

Or that in you disgusts me; here you miss,

Or there exceed the mark”—and if she let

Herself be lessoned so, nor plainly set

Her wits to yours, forsooth, and made excuse—

E’en then would be some stooping; and I choose

Never to stoop. Oh, sir, she smiled, no doubt,

Whene’er I passed her; but who passed without

Much the same smile? This grew; I gave commands;

Then all smiles stopped together. There she stands

As if alive. Will’t please you rise? We’ll meet

The company below, then. I repeat,

The Count your master’s known munificence

Is ample warrant that no just pretense

Of mine for dowry will be disallowed;

Though his fair daughter’s self, as I avowed

At starting, is my object. Nay, we’ll go

Together down, sir. Notice Neptune, though,

Taming a sea-horse, thought a rarity,

Which Claus of Innsbruck cast in bronze for me!

Paraic. This is one of Browning's most celebrated dramatic lyrics. What we have is a sense of a character here, the duke, who's not a very nice man. He's so angry that his wife acts toward him as she does to everybody else, he has her killed. And, at the end of the poem, we get the sense that he's talking to a diplomat, arrangeing a new marriage, obviously, and this is probably not the best situation to involve this new woman in. This is someone who gives commands, who will not stoop. This is very much an aristocratic, powerful, nasty, cruel speaker. And, this poor wife is killed, and I think it's interesting that she is as if alive in the painting. The painting is a controlled space, not everybody can see.

   So, when Robert Browning talked about what he was doing, this was quite revolutionary for the nineteenth century, because a lot of poets were writing from their own perspective and using that lyric "I" voice, and people were very confused when they started reading the poems, and they were about mad people and these crazy dukes and these killers. And so, he had to put an advertisement attached to the lyrics to explain, "Please, don't assume this is me - don't assume that I'm doing these awful things to Elizabeth Barrett Browning [laughter]. And remember, Elizabeth Barrett Browning was a much more famous poet than Robert Browning, who is really in the end of the 1860's that he comes into his own. Before that, he's Elizabeth Barrett Browning's husband. So, he called these "dramatic lyrics," and used the following definition to explain what he was doing.

"though for the most part Lyric in expression, always dramatic in principle, and so many utterances of so many imaginary persons, not mine” Prefatory Advertisement to Dramatic Lyrics (1842) Don't worry about poor Elizabeth Barrett Browning - don't worry [laughter]

But Tennyson, who's Robert Browning's rival at this time - and in many ways Tennyson is a much more famous, important poet (He becomes poet lauretate in 1850) - says:

"A dramatic poem," -  because he was also writing them in terms of Maude and Ulysses, which Dickinson knew - " and Dramatis Personae are imaginary. Since it is so much the fashion in these days to regard each poem and story as a story of the poet's life or part of it, may I not be allowed to remind my readers of the possibility, that some event which comes to the poet's knowledge, some hint flashed from another mind, some thought or feeling arising in his own, or some mood coming – he knows not whence or how – may strike a chord from which a poem evolves its life”  (Tennyson, Memoir, 1897, p.329)

So, there's a clear sense that both Robert Brownining and Tennyson are trying to do something new. It's not always been totally understood by readers, and Tennyson starts to move into more personal poems with In Memorium in 1850, and this is the same year he becomes the poet laureate. But, Robert Browning continues in these dramatic [inaudible]. And, of course, our friend Emily Dickinson tells Higginson:

“When I state myself, as the Representative of the Verse - it does not mean - me "

Again, she's echoing Browning. Any collection of Robert Browning would have had this warning- it does not means me, but a supposed person. This is one of her early letters to Higginson, where she's defining herself, what she's doing. And then she says - and I don't know what this part means -

"You are true, about the 'perfection. Today, makes Yesterday mean."

I don't know what that means. But then she says:

"You spoke of Pippa Passes - I never heard anybody speak of Pippa Passes - before. You see my posture is benighted”. (Dickinson to Higginson, July 1862, L268)

In one of her earliest letters, she tell him that among her favorite poets are the Brownings and Keats. So, not knowing Pippa Passes makes her seem as if she's not as aware of Browning as she should be. Now, what I think we have to think about is, what did Higginson write to her? Now Higginson, from the 1840's is one of the great promoters of Browning. The Americans are the first to read and recognize the importance of Robert Browning, as they are first to recognize the importance of someone like Tennyson. So there's a sense that Higginson knows Browning. Higginson would have read Browning, and I think that when she tells him that she loves the Brownings, I think he starts to talk to her a little bit about Browning, and I think he mentions Pippa Passes, but Pippa Passes is a very odd poem. It centers on this figure, Pippa Passes, who, on her one day off from work, she sings. And she goes around her town of Oslo, and sings. And as she sings, the various characters, who are not very nice - we've got adultery, murder, political intrigfue - her song echoes the idea of God is in his heave, all's right with the world. This is one of Browning's famous lines, and Pippa sings this, and that's the same moment that this couple, who are a bit like MacBeth and Lady MacBeth, are probably going to kill each other - or committ suicide, because they have just organized the murder of the husband - they're in an adulterous relationship.

            So, I think that one of the important books, that hasn't gotten enough recognition, in terms of Dickinson, is Men and Women. This is Robert Browning's very important collection, where he offers many different dramatic lyrics from the perspective of both men and women. There's a copy of it in the Frost Library - Dickinson's copy is down there. There are a couple of marks on some of the poems. In 1871 Dickinson told Higginson, "This is a broad book," and in her later life, she quotes from five of these poems. That's more - as far as I know - than from any other collection. Now, you might say that My Last Duchess isn't very much like anything Dickinson wrote, and I think there are two types of dramatic lyrics. One type that Robert Browning uses will be spoken by a main character, as in the Duke. Often these are historical poems, and the character will describe at length his or her present or past life. However, there's another type of poem, where we don't have a character's name, but rather, we have a figure, in this case a woman, who's describing a particular situation - so, a lot closer to what Dickinson would write. I'll just read this one quickly. "A Woman's Last Word" from Men and Women.

Let's contend no more, Love,

Strive nor weep:
All be as before, Love,
---Only sleep!

What so wild as words are?
I and thou
In debate, as birds are,
Hawk on bough!

See the creature stalking
While we speak!
Hush and hide the talking,
Cheek on cheek!

What so false as truth is,
False to thee?
Where the serpent's tooth is
Shun the tree---

Where the apple reddens
Never pry---
Lest we lose our Edens,
Eve and I.

Teach me, only teach, Love
As I ought
I will speak thy speech, Love,
Think thy thought---

Meet, if thou require it,
Both demands,
Laying flesh and spirit
In thy hands.

That shall be to-morrow
Not to-night:
I must bury sorrow
Out of sight:

Must a little weep, Love,
(Foolish me!)
And so fall asleep, Love,
Loved by thee. 

Now, I think this is a fascinating poem for a man to write - from the perspective opf a woman, the idea that tomorrow, there will be the compliant, tomorrow there will be the supliant figure, tomorrow the woman will align her thoughts, her speech, with husband. This is a moment of different possibilities, where the wife isn't necessarily compliant, isn't particularly happy. Here we have a divided speaker. The woman on the surface, and in the day world is responding to her husband as she has been required to do in the nineteenth century. But this is a nice world moment, where she's reflecting on that. It's a performance; it's not really her, She's got a script. So, this brings up that doubleness. On one level Robert Browning is asking us to consider, who is this characer? Where are they speaking? What's the occasion? And, what's the difference between what the character says, and what the character means - what the character says, and what the poem means. I think it's that sense of women's divided consciousness. On the one level, having to conform to the conventions of being a wife, a woman, and at the same time, having all of these different possibilities, that aren't, somehow, permitted at this time. Robert Browning. in this poem, is capturing this. I guess he's expecting his reader to have to navigate between these two possibilities. He's asking what the character is.

So, as we dive into the Dickinson poems, what I'd ask is to considerL

•      Who is the speaker?

•      What is the speaker’s situation?

•      What is the occasion of the poem?

•      What does the speaker (inadvertently) reveal about themselves?

•      Can we distinguish between what the speaker says and what the poem (or poet) means?

We're used to thinking of Dickinson either writing about herself, or using a persona. What I'm asking is, does Dickinson sometimes create a speaker that she doesn't like - that she doesn't want us to like? Is she asking us, following on from Browning, whom she said she loved, following on from the fact she says she creates these supposed persons, is it not possible, that given all of that we may read some of her poems as creating characters that she may not like - that she doesn't want us to like.

Shall we start with the letter to Higginson, maybe? [http://archive.emilydickinson.org/correspondence/higginson/l261.html]

Jule. If she wrote poems as a "supposed person," might we carry that over to the letters also?

Paraic. That's a good poinr, and I guess we could begin to think of Higginson's letter in that way. She's constructing a particular image of herself. I'll just say, I don't think this will work for every poem. It's just about thinking about the poem in a different way. Some poems, that are sometimes problematric, maybe for a representation of race for example. Well, what if this is not about Dickinson's issues, let's say, with race, but rather about Dickinson constructing a speaker that she doesn't want us to like. And, some of the other poems I've picked, for example, What soft cherubic Creatures. You could argue quite a problematic representation of women, particularly the line One would as soon assault a Plush/ Or violate a Star. Is Dicksinson a person who wants women to be assaulted? - rather than thinking that Dickinson is criticizing a particular type of femininity that's being promoted. Well, what if we think that this speaker that she has creater, she doesn't necessarily have to agree with - that she doesn't necessarily like. And, she doesn't want us to think that a woman, just because she's soft and seeming like an angel, that's an invitation to have this woman violated. From what I know about Dickinson, I don't think Dickinson would. I've deviated from your question about the letters, but I guess we could. Think about whom she is speakin to, and how she's constructing herself.

Greg M. Her brother, Austin, said of her letters, especially those to Colonel Higginson, that she definitely posed in those letters.

Paraic. And that's interesting where she says, "You see my posture is benighted" [L268] in that letter.

Polly. It's also exemplifying a stance, and then investigating what that's like, inviting the reader to do the same.

Paraic. Yes, and Robert Browning was criticized in Britain. They didn't like him. Americans lover him. He was more popular in America. I think America liked that challenge. Browning would often talk about, in his writings, readers collaborating with him - co-authoring with him. He's obscure because he wants the reader to participate. So perhaps Robert Browning offered Dickinson the idea of a productive obscurity, and the idea of co-creating that you're talkin about. And Americans liked that. They didn't want to be told, Oh, this is what the poem meant, this is the genre. They wanted to engage with Robert Browning, and the Robert Browning societies that came up and were established in the 1870's were often in America, Higginson was one of the founders of the Boston Browning Society. Many of his essays focused on how popular - he talks about the way Margaret Fuller loved Robert Browning. He talks about how they in the transcendental circle like Robert Browning, for the very reason you're saying; they gave readers a chance to engage with the language. That's why the British didn't like it - that he was breaking th rules, and Americans appreciated this rule-breaker. Of course, they could see themselves as kind of similar rule-breakers. I think that's an excellent point.

Melba. The idea of the [inaudible] in the poems, of who's the speaker in the poems, and what's the situation - what's the world that's being created, gives me another way to read this statement in the letter, "My business is circumference—An ignorance, not of Customs, but if caught with the Dawn—or the Sunset see me—Myself the only Kangaroo among the Beauty." And,  that's a little bit hard to assemble a meaning for, but your idea raises the possibility that she's just leaping to the periphery of herself, or of an attitude, or a situation, and then, sitting to the circumference, she gets a look from a different perspective, and then she fleshes that out into a world, and she understands that's not the usual process. That's not according to custom. But I've always wondered, what is the significance of the kangaroo? That ability to just take this huge leap to another spot in this surprising and stunning way. It just appeals to me.

Paraic. I love what you've just said, and it also fits into the earlier part of the letter, when she refuses to give him a portrait. That would be a physical likeness of herself. What she offers instead is a description - a textual image of herself, much more vague and unclear - so that would fit in with that idea that language allows a flexibility that the visual makes more concrete.

[interlude]

Paraic. I would add just one thing. What's interesting here for me is, Dickinson is the nobody. Higginson is the famous writer. This is a reverse, because normally, it's the fan who asks for the famous person to give a portrait. This is the age of celebrity. This is what people did. Emerson would send Carlyle his portrait, and Carlyle would return. So, it's interesting - Higginson, the famous person, asks for her portrait - she says no, I'll just give you a textual. It would be something like Beyonce asking me,"Oh, could I have a portrait of you?" [laughter] But it is, because Thomas Wentworth Higginson is a very important man - a famous essayist, connected with the Atlantic Monthly.

Jule. The question is, why does he want her portrait?

Paraic. Because he wants to make her real. I think, as a concretizer, to make her that he knows that she exists. She doesn't want to be fixed, I think, in that way, and I think this follows on from the idea of Browning. Browning, in his messages about what he's doing, he says, I'm creating imaginary people. I don't want you to talk about me. Don't think that I'm doing these things. So I think that it's interesting. She's saying, these poems aren't bout me, they're about supposed persons - I'm doing it too.

[ Interlude ]

The first poems I chose are four poems that she sent to Higginson, either after or before she tells him that when she speaks it is a supposed person. She's testing this man who knows about Browning, about Pippa Passes, who perhaps told her about his work to establish Browning's reputation, and then she send him these four poems. Now, if I were Higginson, and I get these poems, and I've been told by her that she's created a person - this is not me - this is the test. Now I'm asking you whether these poems work. I think the first two are more challenging for us: Your Riches taught me Poverty, There came a Day at Summer full. We know that Your Riches taught me Poverty was sent to Sue, and she said, "You see, I remembered." And, There came a Day at Summer full has been read alot as sort of a bridal poem. The others would be Before I got my eye put out and I cannot dance upon my Toes.

Burleigh reads.
Before I got my eye put out

I liked as well to see—

As other Creatures, that have Eyes

And know no other way—

But were it told to me—Today—

That I might have the sky

For mine—I tell you that my Heart

Would split, for size of me—

The Meadows—mine—

The Mountains—mine—

All Forests—Stintless Stars—

As much of Noon as I could take

Between my finite eyes—

The Motions of the Dipping Birds—

The Morning's Amber Road—

For mine—to look at when I liked—

The News would strike me dead—

So safer—guess—with just my soul

Upon the Window pane—

Where other Creatures put their eyes—

Incautious—of the Sun—

                               -J327/Fr336/M177

[ To hear this poem read aloud, go to https://youtu.be/wyXV71lZ3UE ]

Paraic. You've got your own reading, but, just to remind you, who's the speaker? What is the speaker's situation? What is the occasion of the poem? What does the speaker inadvertently reveal about him or herself? And, can we distinguish what the speaker says and what the poem might mean? These are the questions if we're interested in thinking about this in a Browning way.

Nancy. Not pertaining to what you just said [laughter], I thought it was interesting that in the first line, eye is singular, and that if you have one eye put out you lose depth and perspecive.

Paraic. Dickinson loved Shakespeare - King Lear, who lost his eyes. Not to bully you into a readingbut, it's a horrible scene. Reading it's awful, seeing it staged is awful. Having your eye put out is quite interesting if you're thinking about character.

Despina. What about Oedipus?

Paraic. Oedipus, yes.

Greg D.. What you were saying about the horror - the poem skips right over that part - leaves it behind and goes right on to the next - the intellectual stage.

Paraic. This is brilliant. Yes, that's true, isn't it?

Greg D.. I often see this as not a dramatic situation, but as a character. It's some kind of a personal, perceptual or psychological situation within her. Having her eye put out is, maybe, having the way she saw things no longer available. It's like she can't see something the same way at all anymore.

Don. The Blakean infinite eye, I think, is also interesting. One of her finite eyes, her finite vision, she's transcended that, and she looked through the infinite eye, like Blake. So, she is differentiating herself from other creatures. It's interesting - it runs through all her poems. One one hand she has this wonderful contact with the world, and then there's the other side, the transcendental side, and she sort of tries to bring the two together.

Paraic. It's quite different from Emerson's "transparent eyeball," isn't it? [general agreement]

Melba. I'm not that familiar with Blake, but she does contrast the typical eye that I think she starts out with, and then at the end of the poem, she says, it's safer to put my soul on the window pane. And so, I'm trying to determine why [inaudible] and the initial confusion to me was that the actual eye confused her, and that she thought seeing something was the same as possessing it, because she goes through The Meadows—mine—/ The Mountains—mine—; that's the finite eye, but somehow the speaker comes to the conclusion that it's safer to see differently - with the soul. And, all I can get so far is that it avoids some kind of deception - that she experienced previously.

Greg M. Well, the metaphor for what she's safer from is the brightness of the sun, looking into the sun. So it's something like that, if it's anything at all.

Clare. It reminds me of the line "Too bright for our infirm Delight/ The Truth's superb surprise.

Paraic. This might be a leap that you might not want to take, but, if we go with the Browning idea, to what extend is Dickinson presenting us with a certain type of character? If I was Higginson, and I get a letter; I don't write about myself - a "supposed person," etc. The next letter comes through - two lovely poems - so these are her supposed persons. Who are these people? She's defying him. These are not about me. Now you see, we can interpret them as we wish, but she's actually asking him. If this is one of her supposed people, who is this person?

Greg M. Maybe it's someone who's not a poet, who doesn't have the gift. She has The meadow, she has The mountains, she has the Sky, so this is someone who doesn't.

Paraic. OK. That's interesting - because, again, the poem also has a divided speaker. At some stage they possess these things, and then they somehow lost them. Browning is very interested in characters. Remember the woman who, on one level, performs the duties of wife, but yet, Browning hints at all these other possibilities that are there. So, is this similarly a Browning-like supposed person, who's offering us both? What it was like to see and possess, and then, in some way, to think that maybe that's not the right way?

Clare. The duality.

Paraic. The duality, yes. I'm only testing. You can say "You're wrong, you're wrong!? I'm just saying, if you were Higginson, and this is what she's told you, you either ignore her -

Brooke. I've always been aware in Dickinson - she's telling you "I can't do this thing, I can't see the thing, I can't feel the thing, I can't dance that way," and then going on and doing it anyway, = right? - for the majority of the poem, in descriptive, gorgeous, sparkling language. And there's kind of a power in that.

Clare. I wonder if it exemplifies her internal process when, "I can't do this, and I can't do this," because sometimes when you express that, you go on and you're able to do it. There's greater congruence between your inside and what you're able to transcend.

Everett. It's like when somebody's about to give a speech, and they say, "I'm really nervous." Then, they relax.

Paraic. But, to go back, what Dickinson is doing, and what I think is her real power as a poet, is that complexity of psychology that Brooke just mentioned - that kind of doing/ not doing. And yet, somehow fusing those together in a consciousness, or psychology - a voice.

Brooke. It makes me think of her posture in the letter that we just looked at. "I'm your scholar - you're going to be my preceptor - and then WHOA! [laughter]. It's a little bit of that same posture to me.

Greg D. And your question - what type of person is this? You can come up with some attributes; I'm not sure if you can come up with a character. It seems that it's someone who has suffered a huge loss, right? And the rest of the poem is sort of like, what if - even though I have suffered this loss, what if it were told to me today that I could actually return, but even with more intensity of experience than I had before. So, you sort of build out the character through attributes, or character, or imagined dramatic situations. I don't know how you could apply that - you call it Brownian ...

Paraic. I like what you just said. That loss, and then whether you would not want that loss, looking back.

Greg D. Right, or that somehow that loss transformed you. But, it's hard to say exactly who the character is. I mean, I can't imagine [inaudible].

Paraic. Yes. I think, in My Last Duchess, there's a character. But in the other poem, [A Woman's Last word, https://allpoetry.com/A-Woman%27s-Last-Word ] we just find out about her divided consciousness. Right, I don't think Dickinson tends to write like My Last Duchess, where there's a character, though, when we get to The Malay took the Pearl, we can think about that. I think it's more like A Woman's Last Word - that same trying to create - I think you used the word fractured.

Greg D. Different fragments, or whatever.

[interlude]

Melba. If we could take more seriously this line in her letter [http://archive.emilydickinson.org/correspondence/higginson/l268.html]: "Sir, if you please, it afflicts me, and I thought that instruction would take it away." It's as if there's some kind of vision, or experience of the world - some sight - that Dickinson's putting on the line by taking instruction from Higginson. I guess this poem is making me wonder if this is more fraught than I initially thought, because she's seeking someone else's help.

Paraic. To develop that, if we think about Higginson trying to correct her, trying to get her to be normal.

Melba. Not to be "spasmodic."

Paraic. Not to be spasmodic. Browning was one of the spasmodics. Tennyson was one of the spasmodics. Aurora Leigh is one of the spasmodics. So to call her spasmodic - Dickinson's probably thinking, well, these are people that I love. [laughter] But, I think what you're saying is to correct her gait - to make her able-bodied - to make her see as others do. In some way, if we read the letter linked to this poem - she's coosing; I would rather have lost that way of seeing than the way I see.

Judith. Because, it's not about disability, it's about different ability.

Melba. But when the speaker gets to the fifth stanza, So safer—guess—with just my soul/ Upon the Window pane—, it sounds like one of those regretful conclusions of ageing. "But." There does seem to be a sense of loss.

Brooke. And then, some sort of appreciation, that has depth, that follows, right? A small resolve of some sort?

Melba. OK, that's a good point.

Susan. She wrote this, supposedly, in 1862, and it's two years later that her eye trouble is so severe that she really had to endure a lot of pain, a lot of darkness, and whether the signs of that were beginning, I don't know.

Paraic. Would it be OK to move on to the next poem?

Greg M. reads.
I cannot dance upon my Toes —

No Man instructed me —

But oftentimes, among my mind,

A Glee possesseth me,

That had I Ballet knowledge —

Would put itself abroad

In Pirouette to blanch a Troupe —

Or lay a Prima, mad,

And though I had no Gown of Gauze —

No Ringlet, to my Hair,

Nor hopped to Audiences — like Birds,

One Claw upon the Air,

Nor tossed my shape in Eider Balls,

Nor rolled on wheels of snow

Till I was out of sight, in sound,

The House encore me so —

Nor any know I know the Art

I mention — easy — Here —

Nor any Placard boast me —

It's full as Opera —
                        - J299/Fr418/M165

Paraic. Now again, you're Higginson. You've got this letter - "supposed person" ...

Jule. All he wanted was a picture. [ laughter ]

Greg M. Well, she confesses at the end that she has an Art that's full as Opera. That must have intrigued him. That's quite a claim to make.

Paraic. It is, even though ther Placards don't boast her; nobody knows about her.

Clare. Also her claim that she can't dance upon her toes because no guy taught her. It's such a wonderful assertion to begin with, right?

Paraic. Right - to the man she's asking to teach her.

Susan. It's such a wonderful description of what dancers do ... she does a perfect pirhouette in here

Paraic. And for me, the line, The House encore me so - She's imagining the applause. She's imagining all these people thinking, "How Wonderful! Come out again! Dance again!" It's one of the great poems - this is about somebody imagining what it would be like. You've got all these younger people today who want to be famous. [inaudible] There's something in this, and yet, she's not. It's her imagining that.

Greg D. For me that's the Art - Nor any know I know the Art. That's the art that she's mentioning here. She mentions it just briefly here, but she mentions it significantly. To me, it's dancing in the mind. I cannot dance upon my Toes, but, in my mind.

Clare. And then, the poem is a dance, right? Watch this! Look at this!

Greg D. It's a demonstration.

Burleigh. In both of these poems, she's imagining she can see; she's imagining she can dance, and in the end, returning to a sacred position.

Paraic. I really want to get your opinion on some of the later poems, so, shall we move to the next?

Greg D. reads.
Your Riches—taught me—Poverty.

Myself—a Millionaire

In little Wealths, as Girls could boast

Till broad as Buenos Ayre—

You drifted your Dominions—

A Different Peru—

And I esteemed All Poverty

For Life's Estate with you—

Of Mines, I little know—myself—

But just the names, of Gems—

The Colors of the Commonest—

And scarce of Diadems—

So much, that did I meet the Queen—

Her Glory I should know—

But this, must be a different Wealth—

To miss it—beggars so—

I'm sure 'tis India—all Day—

To those who look on You—

Without a stint—without a blame,

Might I—but be the Jew—

I'm sure it is Golconda—

Beyond my power to deem—

To have a smile for Mine—each Day,

How better, than a Gem!

At least, it solaces to know

That there exists—a Gold—

Altho' I prove it, just in time

Its distance—to behold—

Its far—far Treasure to surmise—

And estimate the Pearl—

That slipped my simple fingers through—

While just a Girl at School.
                                - J299/Fr418/M165

[ To hear this poem read aloud, go to https://youtu.be/K43cuiEs51Q ]

Polly. What's Golconda

Greg M. It's a diamond mine in South America

Paraic. There's a danger of reading this as being about Sue, but remember, Higginson doesn't know this, and this is supposed to be about a supposed person. I'm just saying that this is another way of reading the poem that Higginson is being encouraged to have.

Brooke. If she's having it both ways, and if she sends it to somebody assuming it isn't necessarily herself, then she gets to engage with that person and is actually craft and practice the consciousness around this poem poem as also being a persona of someone else, right? It's a construct that she chooses to do, unbenownst to him - and he doesn't have to.

Paraic. She's also taking the reader on a kind of global journey between one location and another. She's got the Jew there as well, to bring in another context.

Melba. What I see - the difference between what Browning is doing in My Last Duchess, he was creating a persona that exists in the poem fully formed for the duration of that poem, and Dickinson creates at least two personas, a past an a present, and somehow the poems are short enough that you manage to get both in view. You can hold both in your head, at least for a brief period. They coexist, and the [inaudible] is somewhat different. So, I guess there's persona potential in here that sort of moves in and out of focus.

Paraic. Just to play devil's advocate, though, with the Browning poem it's a particular type of speaker, who dosn't "stoop," who's quite arrogant, who's quite proud, and does deal with the past - "my last duchess," and the future - the new duchess. What I really like about what you said is that Dickinson's speaker - assuming that it's not her for a second - is also doing that. She's got a past - she's thinking about a complex consciousness, and here.

Susan. There's a bitterness about this poem. "I've missed something." She never really tells us what it is. Is it a particular relationship, or love for a particular person, or whatever. But, I prove it, just in time/ Its distance - to behold, is really difficult. And then, Its far—far Treasure to surmise - to know, not to have. And, estimate the Pearl. "I can'e even tell you what it is I've lost - or never had, and I'm different, because I don't have it.

Greg M. If I'm Higginson, and I'm reading this, this is definitely a poem about loss, and it's probably something I must have experienced in my life at some point, as every one of us can, and, if we read it as a poem about loss, and not about a specific thing, or incident, or person, we can relat to it better, because now it becomes about our own experience. She writes, "I had a guinea golden/ I lost it in the sand." It's a similiar poem. It's something we can all relate to - even if we don't know who wrote this.

Greg D. The second person also makes it more real. It's a real person. It feels that way, rather than just a meditation about loss.

Greg. Yes, Yes, it does.

Paraic. I really want to get on to this next one.

Susan reads.

What Soft—Cherubic Creatures—

These Gentlewomen are—

One would as soon assault a Plush—

Or violate a Star—

Such Dimity Convictions—

A Horror so refined

Of freckled Human Nature—

Of Deity—ashamed—

It's such a common—Glory—

A Fisherman's—Degree—

Redemption—Brittle Lady—

Be so—ashamed of Thee—
                            - J401/Fr675/M418

[ To hear this poem read aloud, go to https://youtu.be/_vbqlrYG29g  ]

Paraic. This is a hard one, that's why I picked it. I mean the speaker, here. Is this someone that Dickinson likes? If you go with me on the Browning thing, maybe this is someone Dickinson doesn't. There's a few levels here. There's Dickinson. There's the women that are being described, and there's the speaker. Dickinson may agree on some level on some aspects of these women, but does she really agree with the speaker? :That One would as soon assault a Plush—  / Or violate a Star?

Greg M. Well, these are two things we would not want to do, and that is her attitude in this verse, right?

Brooke. But, it's a little disturbing that in the first verse about these Soft Cherubic Creatures that she's thinking about violiating them.

Don. Well, certainly here the Plush and the Star are ironic. The women described here are superficial, arrogant, polite society women who are dressed to the nines, and they are not Plush, they are not Stars.

Greg M. I think we know that Dickinson did not suffer fools gladly. She saw shallowness in people. She recognized it, and so I think the speaker of this poem is someone whom she could have aligned herself very easily.

Brooke. About the word Dimity. I'm familiar with the light cotten fabric, but, according to the lexicon, it can also mean "Weak in argument," which is really interesting, as rather further kind of maligning them.

Greg M. Could :Redemption be a reference to the Day of Judgement - whether we are redeemed or not? Could Fisherman be an allusion to the apostles? Some of them were fishermen.

Polly. But the line, Of Deity ashamed - I'd like someone to explain that.

Greg M. God is in human nature, and if you're looking down on other people, you're looking down on God's creations?

Polly. I see. But, she's looking down on these brittle ladies, isn't she?

Greg M. Exactly! She contradicts herself!

Polly. I don't think it's contradiction so much as -

Greg M. She's doing in the poem what she's accusing others of doing.

Paraic. I really like what you just said, because this is the kind of Browning esthetic idea -that contradiction. So it would be Dickinson the artist creating as speaker who's saying something and contradicting that message, as you just said, that she shouldn't judge.