 |
| Illustration by Tina Berning |
The
poems of Emily Dickinson began as marks made in ink or pencil on paper,
usually the standard stationery that came into her family’s household.
Most were composed in Dickinson’s large, airy bedroom, with two big
windows facing south and two facing west, at a small table that her
niece described as “18-inches square, with a drawer deep enough to take
in her ink bottle, paper and pen.” It looked out over the family’s
property on Main Street, in Amherst, Massachusetts, toward the
Evergreens, her brother’s grand Italianate mansion, nestled among the
pines a few hundred yards away. Dickinson had a Franklin stove fitted to
a bricked-up fireplace to keep her warm, which meant that she could
write by candlelight, with the door closed, for as long as she wanted.
In much of the rest of the house, the winter temperature would have been
around fifty degrees. Though she usually composed at night, Dickinson
sometimes jotted down lines during the day, while gardening or doing
chores, wearing a simple white dress with pockets for her pencils and
scraps of paper. A younger cousin recalled her reciting the “most
emphatic things in the pantry” while skimming the milk.
The
way that Dickinson’s poems made it out of that house, eventually
reshaping American literature, is a story that is still unfolding. Only
ten of her poems were published in her lifetime, all anonymously;
publication was, as she put it, as “foreign to my thought, as Firmament
to Fin.” Not that she intended her poems to go unread—she often sent
them in letters to friends, sometimes with other enclosures: dried
flowers, a three-cent stamp, a dead cricket. She also tried a form of
self-publishing: from around 1858 until roughly 1864, she gathered her
poems into forty homemade books, known as “fascicles,” by folding single
sheets of blank paper in half to form four consecutive pages, which she
then wrote on and, later, bound, one folded sheet on another, with
red-and-white thread strung through crudely punched holes. These books
were found in Dickinson’s room after her death, in 1886, by her sister,
Lavinia, along with hundreds more poems in various states of
composition, plus, intriguingly, the “scraps,” a cache of lines that
Dickinson wrote on scavenged paper: the flap of a manila envelope, the
backs of letters, chocolate wrappers, bits of newspaper.
There
were now two separate troves of Dickinson’s poems. The ones from her
bedroom belonged to Lavinia. A second group, of more than three hundred
poems sent in letters, belonged to Susan Gilbert Dickinson, the wife of
Emily’s brother, Austin. Lavinia, soon after entrusting her collection
to Susan for editing, abruptly reclaimed it, and delivered the work
instead to Austin’s mistress (and Susan’s nemesis), Mabel Loomis Todd,
who, with Thomas Higginson, a mentor of sorts to Dickinson, put out the
first editions of Dickinson’s poems, in the eighteen-nineties.
Soon,
a wide readership formed and her posthumous fame grew, nourished by the
stories people passed around. After a gregarious girlhood, it was said,
Dickinson had gradually become a near-total recluse, known around
Amherst as “the myth.” Children boasted of catching a glimpse of her at
an upstairs window. Some thought she was a mystic. Later readers assumed
that she was in love with Susan. Lyndall Gordon, a recent biographer,
argued that Dickinson was epileptic and feared suffering one of her
seizures in public. You can find support for any of these theories, and
many others, in the poems; their quirks, though evened out by her early
editors, nevertheless lend credence to the idea that she was a familiar
New England stereotype, the flighty, eccentric, proto-spinster daughter.
Much
of Lavinia’s pile ended up at Amherst College, the cornerstone of its
special collections; Susan Dickinson’s batch went to Harvard, along with
several household treasures that had been preserved at the Evergreens.
Most of the scraps remained in Amherst’s archive, curiosities sought out
by tenacious Dickinson scholars but unknown to the public at large.
Then, in 2013, a handsome facsimile edition, “
The Gorgeous Nothings,” was published by New Directions, followed, this fall, by a compact selected edition, “
Envelope Poems,”
the fruits of a collaboration between the Dickinson scholar Marta
Werner and the poet and visual artist Jen Bervin. These volumes
complement an astounding new digital resource. In 2013, Harvard launched
the Emily Dickinson Archive, with the coöperation, if not exactly the
blessing, of Amherst, which insisted on open access to all manuscripts.
(Harvard, which hoards its Dickinson materials in Houghton Library,
reportedly wanted users to buy subscriptions.) Readers can now find
Dickinson’s scraps in print and in digital facsimile. Like many previous
Dickinson drops, going back to the eighteen-nineties, they radically
alter our vision of perhaps the greatest poet to write on American
soil—and, somehow, they’ve emerged on the other side of print culture.
It is a pleasant fancy to imagine that Dickinson, ever the tortoise in
relation to rushing time, knew that, in the end, we would catch up to
her.
There
are countless expressive features of a Dickinson manuscript, all but a
few of them effaced when her poems enter a standard print edition.
First, there is Dickinson’s handwriting, long a source of fascination.
Higginson famously compared Dickinson’s hand to “fossil bird-tracks,” an
insight about the shape and the saturation of her letters, and also
about their flickering gait as they cross the white of the page. The
Dickinson scholar Domhnall Mitchell and others have suggested that “the
layout of a Dickinson autograph is deliberate or motivated” in
potentially every regard, from the capital letters of various sizes, to
the spaces between letters and words and lines, to the marginalia, which
are often crammed with variant choices of word or phrase. Dickinson’s
dashes are ubiquitous in all but the earliest editions of her poems, but
fewer editions reproduce her plus signs, which mark an unfinished or
provisory line, later to be filled in. There are watermarks and
embossments around which Dickinson steers her words. The paper is ruled,
except when it is not. Now that the Internet has destabilized the
conventions of the printed page—in which a poem is a block of language
so many inches wide and so many inches long, with pure white space
surrounding letters and phrases set at fixed intervals—it is harder than
ever to defend the translation of Dickinson’s wild, dynamic graphic
surfaces into such confines.
It
has been argued that Dickinson refused publication exactly because it
was synonymous with print, whose standardizing tendencies she knew would
miscarry her precision effects. When, in 1866, Dickinson’s “A narrow
Fellow in the Grass” appeared in the Springfield Daily Republican (under
a title likely chosen by its editors, “The Snake”), Dickinson
complained to Higginson that, among other problems, she was
“defeated . . . of the third line by punctuation.” Her manuscript had
read, “You may have met Him—did you not / His notice sudden is—.” But,
when the poem appeared, the editors had supplied a question mark: “You
may have met him—did you not? / His notice instant is.”
The question mark makes the second half of line three auxiliary to the first: “You may have met him—did you not [meet him] ? / His
notice instant is.” But Dickinson’s preferred punctuation, while it
leaves the possibility of the auxiliary clause intact, allows for other
syntactical relations: “You may have met him—[if you haven’t, you should know that] / His
notice instant is.” The words “notice” and “not” reflect each other
more vividly without the hard stop of the intervening question mark.
Dickinson seems to have preferred “instant” over “sudden” in later
drafts of the poem, but when it appeared in the second edition of her
work, edited by Todd and Higginson, a comma materialized in the spot
where the question mark had gone. “I had told you I did not print,”
Dickinson once wrote to Higginson, suggesting that it wasn’t shyness or
modesty that kept her from publishing; it was a fierce constancy to her
vision of the page.
The
envelope poems suggest the current exhilarating paradox of Dickinson’s
work: her unique actions of mind are bound in unusually dramatic ways to
slips of paper a hundred and fifty years old or more, rarities whose
near-perfect reproductions are nevertheless now widely and freely
available online. It sometimes feels as though Dickinson’s sojourn in
print, so fraught from its inception, was a temporary measure, now
nearing its end as it’s replaced by a better technology. To write this
paragraph, I looked hard at an envelope: what a mercurial object it is,
more like origami than like a sheet of paper. If you use the back of a
closed envelope, as Dickinson did in “A 496/497,” you get three squat
triangles, like faces of a flattened jewel. She wrote within, and
occasionally across, the folds and creases of this complex surface. To
read the lines, you have to turn the image counterclockwise. The
vertical column of the first panel then becomes a broad horizon, which,
when the poet runs out of space, picks up on the third blank panel. The
pleasures and the challenges of this kind of reading are impossible to
ignore; next to a clear facsimile of these manuscripts, a print version
seems, at best, a kind of crude trot. “Letters are sounds we see,” the
poet Susan Howe, a major force in Dickinson studies, wrote. Handwritten
letters express a far greater variety of sounds than printed ones. And,
if the letters are sounds, so, too, are the spaces between the letters,
the margins and gaps, the shape and other material aspects of the paper
she chose.
There
are no masterpieces hidden among the envelope poems, but Dickinson’s
incandescent thinking is everywhere on display, and the makeshift nature
of the scraps gives us a vivid idea of what composition must have felt
like for a woman whose thoughts raced far ahead of her ability to
capture them. Who knows how many of Dickinson’s lines were forgotten
before the poet had a chance to write them down? Her idiosyncratic
punctuation sometimes feels like triage for the emergency conditions of
her muse. Her dashes stand for all the nonessential and time-taking
aspects of syntax: she is a process poet even in her finished drafts,
preserving the urgency of composition. The poems often detail their own
state of evanescence: in “A 316,” Dickinson addresses the “sumptuous
moment” and entreats it to “Slower go / That I may gloat on thee.”
Except that the actual manuscript has multiple anomalies, cross-outs,
and alternate words surrounding the lines I have just quoted. The brief
“moment” that the poem describes is enacted by the cramped space on
which it’s written. Time, on these little scraps, is a function of
space: both run out at the same instant.
A
fragment such as “A 316” isn’t like anything except itself. It defeats
categorization. It’s worth calling it a poem only if we reinstate the
prestige of “poetry” that the scraps, in effect, deconstruct. But
neither is it a mere draft: the scraps represent the audacious pinnacle
of Dickinson’s mingled verbal and graphic gifts. The envelope poems are
not purely works of visual art, like calligraphic screens or
proto-modernist collages. Dickinson’s handwriting, though occasionally
illegible, isn’t like the script in a Cy Twombly blackboard painting; it
is meant to be read. What the scraps suggest to me is more radical:
they are a unique category of verbal notation, significant both for
their literary power and for their physical appearance on the page.
They
are also one more physical tie to a figure who, oddly, seems to grow
nearer as time passes. Firsthand stories about the Dickinsons were still
told in the early nineteen-nineties, when I was a student at Amherst.
The Evergreens was a private residence until 1988; that year, the last
inheritor of the property, Mary Hampson, passed away. The place sat
largely empty until 2001, when its rooms were entered again, and found
weathered but essentially unchanged since the nineteenth century. The
discovery of a new Dickinson treasure in the course of an attic cleanout
or a basement purge is a perennial, if distant, possibility. Bits of
poems turn up occasionally at auction, and an image of Dickinson, or
someone looking very much like her, was sold on eBay in 2000. Thomas
Johnson, the editor of an important edition of her work, was so
convinced that there were lost Dickinson letters in New England closets
that, with the help of the poet James Merrill, a friend, he once
contacted Dickinson through a Ouija board and asked her for a couple of
hints. She provided, according to Merrill’s biographer, Langdon Hammer,
“plausible-sounding names and addresses,” and letters were mailed, only
to be returned to sender.
But
Dickinson’s genius always kept a fixed address. She was a scholar of
passing time, and the big house on Main Street was the best place to
study it. Because her subject was longitudinal change across the span of
hours, days, and years, she needed to set her spatial position in order
to see time move across the proscenium of her subjective imagination.
In the 1850 national census, Dickinson listed her occupation as “keeping
house”; the scraps might have kept her as she did so. Her own
transformative power, often frightful even for her to contemplate, is
their presiding subject: the “still—Volcano—Life” she describes as ever
churning under her daily rounds.
This
is an extraordinary time to read Dickinson, one of the richest moments
since her death. The publication of “Envelope Poems” and the growing
collection of Dickinson’s manuscripts, available online and in
inexpensive print editions, coincides with an ambitious restoration of
the Dickinson properties in Amherst, including a reconstruction of the
poet’s conservatory—a space that was second only to her bedroom in its
importance to her art. Those looking for an even closer connection to
Dickinson can rent her bedroom for an hour at a time and see precisely
what she saw. The other elements of the picture, sun and moon and wind
and birdcall, are just as she left them. She is the only thing missing. ♦
