The Incidental Dickinson
The Poems of Emily Dickinson by R. W. Franklin; Emily Dickinson; Open Me Carefully: Emily
Dickinson's Intimate Letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson by Emily Dickinson; Ellen Louise
Hart; Martha Nell Smith; The Emily Dickinson Handbook by Emily Dickinson; Gudrun
Grabher; Roland Hagenbuchle; Cristanne Miller
Review by: Mary Loeffelholz
The New England Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 456-472
Published by: The New England Quarterly, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/366892 .
Accessed: 03/04/2013 15:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The New England Quarterly, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
New England Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EssayReviews
THE INCIDENTAL
DICKINSON
MARY LOEFFELHOLZ
The Poems of Emily Dickinson.Edited by R. W. Franklin.(CamPress. 1998. Pp. vi,
bridge:BelknapPress of HarvardUniversity
1654; appendices. $125.00.)
Open Me Carefully:Emily Dickinson'sIntimateLettersto Susan
HuntingtonDickinson.Edited by Ellen Louise Hart and Martha
Nell Smith.(Ashfield,Mass.: Paris Press. 1998. Pp. xxxiv,323.
$39.95 cloth; $19-95 paper.)
The EmilyDickinsonHandbook.Editedby GudrunGrabher,Roland
of MassHagenbuchle,and CristanneMiller.(Amherst:University
achusetts Press. 1998. Pp. 512. $34-95.)
ReviewingThomas H. Johnson's1955 variorumeditionof The
Poemsof EmilyDickinsonin the pages of The New England Quarterly,JayLeyda advisedthatJohnson's"editionshouldbe exploited
soonbythebravermembersofEnglishdepartments";
thecommentatorthenconcludedhisgenerouspraiseforJohnson's
accomplishment
withpropheticwords:"No editionof EmilyDickinson'spoetry,not
even thissplendidvariorum,
shouldbe dismissedas final.For verse
thatis,in herterm,'alive,'thiswouldbe impossible."'Leydawas right
on both counts.Of the three worksbeforeme now, two-R. W.
Franklin'snew variorumedition of Dickinson'spoems and Ellen
Louise Hart and MarthaNell Smith'sOpen Me Carefully,
a selected
editionofDickinson'scorrespondence,
in poemsand letters,withher
Susan Dickinson-representradicallydifferent
editorial
sister-in-law,
solutionsto thestillvexedquestionofhowto bringDickinson'smanuintoprint.The third,The EmilyDickinson
scriptwritings
responsibly
a
collection
of
review
Handbook,
essayson significant
topicsin DickofThePoemsofEmilyDickinson,
ed. ThomasH. Johnson,
New
'JayLeyda,review
England
29 (1956): 239-45.
Quarterly
456
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
457
insonstudies,assessesthe ends to whichscholarshave read Dickinin thelittlemorethana century
sinceitbeganto be pubson'swriting
lishedunderhername.
Franklin'svariorumPoemsis in everywaya splendidsuccessorto
Johnson'spioneeringedition.Because he had access to the original
and was not,like Johnson,forcedto workmainlyfrom
manuscripts
Franklinenjoyssomeconspicuousempiricalas wellas thephotostats,
oreticaladvantagesoverhisprecursor.Beingable to viewand handle
themanuscripts
has allowedFranklinto reconstruct
Dickinson'sfascicles-the hand-sewnbooksintowhichshe copiedherpoemsfromthe
late 1850sthroughthe mid-186os-withmuchgreateraccuracythan
was possibleforJohnson,an achievementearliermade availableto
scholarsin Franklin's1981 facsimileeditionofTheManuscriptBooks
ofEmilyDickinsonand presentedin an appendixto thenewvariorum
Poems.The laborsof firstJohnsonand thenFranklinin thiseditorial
taskwereconsiderable.For example,a set ofmanuscript
pages originallytransmitted
togetheras "Packetlo" in the manuscripts
givento
Harvardby AlfredLeete Hampson-beginningwiththe poem "The
feetofpeople walkinghome"and endingwith"Givelittleanguish"-was redistributed
to no fewerthanthreedifferent
byThomasJohnson
fasciclebooks,numberslo, 23, and 26 in hiscounting.Franklinin his
turnreassignedthe Packetio poemsto twofascicles,13 and 14,with
fromlate
individual
poemsrangingin estimateddatesoftranscription
summer1858 to autumn1862. The new variorumPoems,however,
unlikeFranklin'searlierManuscriptBooksof EmilyDickinson,presentsthepoems notin theirreconstructed
fascicleorderbut accordofindividualpoems;
ingto the date ofthe earliestknownmanuscript
thus,"The feetofpeople walkinghome,"althoughboundintoFascicle 14 in 1862, appears in the new variorumamongthe poems of
versions.It was one of
1858,the date of its two earliestmanuscript
these 1858 manuscripts,
in Franklin'sreconstruction
of events,that
Dickinsonwouldpickup, fouryearslater,and bindintothemiddleof
in early1862 and folFascicle 14,precededbypoemsfirst
transcribed
lowedbypoemsfromautumn1862.
Franklin'smostsignificant
singledeparturefromJohnson'searlier
in editorialtheoryrather
derives
from
a difference
work,however,
thanempiricalpracticeor resources.Franklin'sPoemstreatsall the
versionsofa poem as equivalent,whereasJohnsurviving
manuscript
son had givenpriority
to one version,a practiceLeyda's 1956 review
had eventhencharacterized
as woefully
"antique."For some ofDickinson'spoemswithcomplextextualhistories,
especiallythoseshe sent
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
458
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
to manyrecipients
theramifications
ofthisfundaduringherlifetime,
mentaleditorialdecisionare extensive.
A poem like"Furtherin Summer thanthe Birds,"whicheven in Johnson'seditionoccupies four
pages in threeversions,expandsin Franklin'sPoemsto sixpages and
sixversionsin all,fromtheearliestand fullestsurviving
copy,sentto a
friendin 1865,throughversionssentto ThomasWentworth
Higginson in 1866 and ThomasNilesin 1883,and a finalcopysentto Mabel
LoomisTodd,inwhichDickinsonenclosedan actualcricket(stillpreservedin theAmherstCollegelibrary)-meekmemberofthepoem's
"minorNation."Franklin'searliestversionof "Furtherin Summer"
also showsthatthetwo-quatrain
poem withwhichJohnsonended his
variorum
Poems,"The earthhas manykeys,"availableto Johnsononly
as publishedin MillicentTodd Bingham's1945 collectionBolts of
thefinaltwostanzasof"Furtherin Summer."
Melody,was originally
reluctant
as
he
is to assignfinalintentto anyparticular
variWisely
ant ofa Dickinsonpoem,Franklinis muchbolderthanJohnsonever
was in establishing
a boundarybetweenDickinson'spoetryand her
On
the
betweenDickinson
matter"ofthe"borderline
prose.
"slippery
verseand Dickinsonprose,"as Leyda complainedin his 1956 review
(p. 244), Johnsonseemed simplyto have exercisedhis ownindependentaestheticjudgment:in otherwords,he dignifiedtwo-or threeline passages as poems when he thoughttheyhad some claim to
meterand whenhe especiallyadmiredthem,and whenhe did not,he
in his 1958 ediignoredthemor printedthemas "prosefragments"
tionof Dickinson'sLetters.In Franklin'sedition,however,a passage
must,in at least one of its potentially
versions,
multiplemanuscript
observe Dickinson'sconventionsfor expressingpoetry(capitalizing
first
wordsoflines,beginning
runoverlineson theleftmarginwithout
but
with
blank
as a
capitalization
space at theend) to be characterized
With
reference
to
these
Franklin
adds
to
Dickinson's
criteria,
poem.
canon seventeenpoems not includedas such by Johnsonand subtractsfivetextshe had designatedas poems,amongthemthe famous
passage fromDickinson'sletterof 17 October 1851 to her brother
Austin,which segues fromits chattyopeningpages into a closing
versechallenge--"prithee,
myBrother,intomygardencome!"With
newpoemsadded,somesubtracted,
someseparatedthatJohnson
had
combinedand some combinedthatJohnsonhad separated,Franklin
givesus a Dickinsonwho wrote1789 poems all told,in contrastto
familiar
totalof 1775.
Johnson's
No editorialscholarmyself,I provisionally
accept thatFranklin's
of the fasciclesbringsus closerto an accuratedating
rearrangement
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
459
of which
of variantsof individualpoems and to an understanding
poems Dickinsongroupedwithotherpoems and when she bound
some (but not all) of those groups into fascicles.I appreciate
Franklin'sseventeennew poems as well as the different
poems that
emergefromthe separationand combinationof stanzaslongread in
othercontexts-indeed,I itchto revisetheendingofa chapterin my
own 1991 book on Dickinsonthatreliedon Johnson'srepresentation
of "The earth has many keys" as an independentpoem. Taking
Franklinat hisword,though,whatdifference
does thesumofhisdeforreaderswho maynotbe
parturesfromJohnsonmake---especially
Dickinsonspecialists?
Whatreasonsmaysuchreadersfindforbraving
the ever more complicatedbywaysof Dickinsontextualscholarship
ratherthan sittingdown with Johnson's1955 variorumPoems, if
housedin thelocallibrary,
orJohnson's1960reader'seditionofDickinson'sCollectedPoems,stillin printand moreeasilyaccommodated
thaneithervariorumon mostbookshelvesand,forthatmatter,
within
mostbudgets?
In Open Me Carefully:
EmilyDickinson'sIntimateLettersto Susan
Ellen
Louise Hart and MarthaNell Smith
HuntingtonDickinson,
makethecase thatFranklinhas notgonefarenoughin departing
from
editorial
to
forth
the
most
radical
Johnson's
techniques bring
implicationsof Dickinson'swritings
fora widerreadingpublic.In Hart and
Smith'sview,the Dickinsonwe have come to know,fromthe early
and even Franklin'svarioposthumouscollectionsthroughJohnson's
rumeditions,has been all tootendentiously
edited:editedto makeher
conform
to
of versedecorum,
standards
writings
nineteenth-century
to makethemanswerto conventional
distinctions
betweenpogeneric
and
to
obscure
their
radical
with
etry
prose,
experimentation the materialmediaof writing,
and to obliteratethe life-long
importancefor
Dickinsonof her highlychargederoticand poeticinterchanges
with
in thehousenextdoor,SusanDickinson.
hersister-in-law
Hart and Smith'svolumeof the poet's writingsto Susan aims to
uneditDickinsonon all thesecounts.Open Me Carefullyprintstexts
we have understoodas poems alongside,and withno typographical
distinction
betweenthem,textsconventionally
designatedas letters.
to
call
to
their
in
attention
Although,
origins Emilyand Susan Dickinson'sfamiliar
Hart
and Smith'stitlefortheirvolume
correspondence,
names all the textsas letters,the page layoutof Open Me Carefully
treatsthetextswrittenafterthelate 185osas poetry:Dickinson'sline
breaksare faithfully
and
reproducedas is her distinctive
punctuation
Me
also
of
few
facsimiles
a
seOpen
capitalization.
Carefully provides
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
460
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
lected texts,which allows readers to glimpseDickinson'sshifting
fromMarch 1853-in the earlypoem sent as a signed
handwriting
note to Susan, "Write!Comrade-write!"-througha signed notepoem of the 188os,"To be Susan / is Imagination."Hart and Smith
that
havedesignedtheirvolumeto honorthebookofEmily'swritings
Susan Dickinsonapparentlywantedto assemble immediatelyafter
thepoet'sdeath-a volumeoflettersand verse"morefulland varied"
(p. xvi) than Dickinson'seventualeditorsMabel Loomis Todd and
Thomas WentworthHigginsonthoughtfeasible.Hart and Smith's
with
hope is to representDickinson'swriting-andthe relationship
Susan thattheybelievegeneratedit-in a formthat"can now,more
thana hundredyearslater,finally
speakforitself"(p. xix).
Open Me Carefullyopposes itself directly,then, to one of
Franklin'sguidingeditorialprinciplesin his variorumPoems,his beliefthatthe distinction
betweenpoetryand prosewas one thatDickinsonherselfobservedin herownwriting
by,as outlinedabove,obeying two out of the three most familiarconventionsfor expressing
verse:the treatment
of initialand runoverlines. Franklintherefore
feels justifiedin regularizingDickinson'slineationin her poetry
ratherthanreproducing
her line breaksliterally,
as Hart and Smith
choose to do. At stakein these contrasting
editorialpracticesis not
onlythe difference
(assumingwe wantto makeone) betweenpoetry
and prose but the nature(assumingit has one) of poetryitself.For
Franklin,Dickinson'squalifiedobservanceof conventionalrulesfor
expressing
poetryin manuscript,
coupledwithher stillmorequalified
observanceof conventional
rhymeand meters,indicates,as he put it
in his now well-knownletterof 1985 to poet and Dickinsoncritic
Susan Howe, that "the formlurkingin [Dickinson's]mind is the
stanza."' Privilegingthat form,FranklinoverrulesDickinson'sline
breaksand,in each poem'sapparatus,treatsthemas amongthe"incidental characteristics
of the artifact"(p. 35), thatis, the surviving
physicaldocumentofa givenpoem. As opposedto Franklin'sfacsimile editionof The ManuscriptBooks of EmilyDickinson,the variorum'scentral"aimis to presentthe multipletextsofpoems,nottheir
documentsor artifacts"
that"a workis sep(p. 36), on theassumption
arablefromitsartifact"
(p. 27).
For Hart and SmithalongwithSusan Howe, by contrast,
thereis
no "incidentalcharacteristic"
of a Dickinsonartifact
at
or, least,no a
"See Susan Howe, The Birth-Mark:
theWildernessin AmericanLiterary
Unsettling
PressofNew England,1993),p. 134.
History(Hanover,N.H.: University
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
461
theincidentalfromthesignificant.
Alltheviprioriruleforseparating
sual characteristics
of Dickinson'smanuscripts
are at leastpotentially
even-in well-known
significant,
readingsby Smithand Howe, who
were recentlytakento taskon the pointby DohmnallMitchell-her
squigglycapital"S" in a poem aboutthe sea. Dickinson'sline breaks,
crossthe thresholdof sigHart,Smith,and Howe assume,definitely
nificanceand shouldbe faithfully
preservedin print.Indeed,replying
to Franklin'ssuggestionthatDickinsoncomposedherpoetryin stancharacterof pozas, Howe vigorously
proclaimsthe non-accidental
visual
"As
a
I
thatDickinson
assert
cannot
etry's
appearances:
poet,
in
and
line
stanzas
was
careless
about
breaks.
In the
composed
a
of
the
around
a
each
letter,every
word,
precinct Poetry, word, space
mark,silence,or soundvolatizesan innerlaw of form-moveson a
rigorousline."'3
As a historical
uncomfortable
with
scholar,nota poet,I findmyself
from
this
kind.
The
of
of
control
Dickinson's
arguments
authority
editingby whatHowe calls "gentlemenof the old school"and Haris, indeed, "a feministissue," as MargaretDickie
vard University
headlinesit in her essayon "FeministConceptionsof Dickinson"in
The EmilyDickinsonHandbook.But can feministcriticismfindno
bettermeansforopposingthosegentlementhantheintuitions
ofPofrom
issued
its
secret
Louise
Ellen
etry'shigh priestess,
precinct?
Hartand MarthaNell Smithdo notclaimto speakforPoetrybutonly
to freeDickinson'swriting
to "speakforitself,"a muchmoremodest
kind of editorialpositivismthan Franklin'sbut editorialpositivism
nonetheless.In the end,thankfully,
Franklinjoins Hartand Smithin
the
theoretical
considerations
thateditorsmust,pracacknowledging
while
their
work.
For Franklin,those
ticallyspeaking,forget
doing
considerations
the
of
standard
utility"
urge
"continuing
typography
claimsof the visualimage:"Even withdigital
vis-a-visthe positivist
images,wherethepoemsare in pixels,an editorwillneed typography
to explainthe relationship
of imagesand to transcribe
the texts,conthe
what
not
sees
but
and
understand
firming
eye
may
disclosing
whatthe eye, unaided,cannotdetect"(p. 28). For Hart and Smith,
do
theoryrequiresthattheyrecognizethatDickinson'smanuscripts
3See Howe, The Birth-Mark,
p. 134; MarthaNell Smith,Rowingin Eden (Austin:
ofTexasPress,1992),pp. 83-85; and DohmnallMitchell,"Dickinson'sManUniversity
AmericanLiterature70 (December 1998): 705-37. Smithactuallymakesa
uscripts,"
more complexpointabout Dickinson'shandwriting
in "The Sea Said" than Mitchell
ironize"excluquite acknowledges:she arguesthatDickinson'smimeticletter-forms
sivelymimeticgoalsforlanguage."
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
462
in printevenat theirmostunedited,thatednotspeakforthemselves
itorsalwaysmediatethem:"We call it as we see it, acknowledging
that some of the fun of workingwiththiswriter'smanuscriptart,
and debate"
it intoprint,is the pleasureof interpretation
translating
(p.xxiv).
In the interestsof interpretation
and debate,then,I wouldliketo
from
present for comparisonsome representativetranscriptions
Franklin'svariorumPoemsand Hartand Smith'sOpen Me Carefully.
Whatare the"incidentalcharacteristics"
and whatthepositiveevents
of Dickinson'swriting?
And whichtranscription
best succeeds at seof Dickinsontextualcritiducingunwaryreadersintothepossibilities
cism?Let myreader(hampered,to be sure,forlackoforiginalmanucall itas she sees it:
scriptsor facsimiles)
Theincidents
ofLove
Aremorethanit'sEventsInvestment's
bestexpositor
Is theminute
PerCentsB, datedc. 1870]
[Poems,
poem1172,version
Theincidents
of
Love
Aremorethan
its'EventsInvestment's
best
Expositor
Is theminute
PerCentsEmily
177,datedmid-187os]
[OpenMeCarefully,
letter-poem
True to theirrespectiveeditorialtheories,FranklinrearrangesDickinson's looselywrittenlines into a tightquatrain,while Hart and
SmithpreserveDickinson'slineation,its widelyspaced words and
linesstrungdownthemanuscript's
smallsheetofstationery.
For Hart
and Smith,Dickinson'sclosingsignatureis partof the text;Franklin
abstainfrom
consignsit to the apparatus.Bothversionsdeliberately
but
normalizingDickinson'sidiosyncratic
orthography, the editors
seem to haveseen something
different
as theytranscribed
it: Franklin
and
and
Hart
Smith
saw
saw,
recorded,"it's";
"its',"a form
dutifully
notto be foundin anydictionary.
Franklin
a lower-case
saw
Likewise,
Hart
and
an
Smith
"expositor,"
upper-case.
Which of these editorialdifferences
count as incident,whichas
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
463
Event?To putthequestionin anotherand possiblymorefruitful
way:
how does thispoem (assumingit wantsto be one) wantto be loved?
To takethe poem at its own word,the best partof love lies in incithe smallestindent,the best partof interpretation-exposition-in
crementsof detail.PerhapsHartand Smith'sversion,then,takesthe
prize forrespectingincidentin the formof Dickinson'sincremental
in unitsas smallas a singlesyllawayofcompilingherpoem visually,
ble. Theirtranslation
of Dickinson'smanuscript
artpreserves"Love"
in singularsplendorin thesecondlinebutalso assignsto Love a morphologically
impossibleplural-singular
possessivepronoun-"its'"-in
thefourth
line.If thispoem,as do manyothersin Dickinson'soeuvre,
turnson the relationof part to whole,in this case the relationof
them,does
minutely
pluralincidentsto the singularLove comprising
thisimpossiblepronounsignalthe transcendent
overcomingof part
and whole in Love or graphicallyindicate the unstable textual
mediumin whichsuchovercomings
are bothpositedand undone?
The readermaysense a deconstructive
fitcomingon in thisreadIn
his
fine
review
on
"Dickinson
and LiteraryTheory"in
ing.
essay
The EmilyDickinsonHandbook,Roland Hagenbtichleobserves-in
the course of seekingto accountforhow surprisingly
littleinterest
deconstructive
critics
have
in
taken
Dickinson's
strictly
writing-that
"withDickinson,the deconstructive
act has alreadybeen performed
is notan
bythepoemsthemselves"
(p. 379). AlthoughHagenbtichle's
it
is
I
still
useful; bringit up
entirelyoriginalobservation,
eminently
here because the differencesbetween Franklin'sand Hart and
Smith's editorialtranslationsof Dickinson'smanuscriptstrikingly
I winceto say,Hagenbiichle'sbasic terms.Is
complicate,deconstruct
the apostrophehoveringabove "its"partof "thepoem itself"(in the
classicNew CriticalphrasewhichhardlyanyAmericanpoststructuralismseems,in theend,able to do without)?Is thesignature?
Whatrelationis therebetween"thedeconstructive
act,"so singularly
posited
by Hagenbiichle,and the minutely
pluralincidentsof editorialdecisionmaking?Whathas eitherto do withlove?
AlongwithHagenbiichle,I'd preferEmilyDickinson'swordson
thissubjectoveranyoneelse's. Butagain,hereditors-all ofthemunquestionablyengagedin a labor of love-must representher manuscriptwordsin print.To further
comprehendwhat'sat stakein those
let's
examine
another
Dickinsonworkthatcomments
representations,
between"Event"and "incion,butdifferently
values,therelationship
dent"or,as thistexthas it,"Accident":
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
464
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
Morning
comebyAccidentmight
Sistercomes
Night
Eventby
To believethe
finallineof
theCardwould
foreclose
FaithFaithis Doubt.
SisterShowme
and
Eternity,
I willshow
youMemoryBothinone
packagelain
Andlifted
backagainBe Sue,while
I amEmilyBe next,
what
have
ever
you
been,Infinity246,datedtothe188os]
[OpenMeCarefully,
letter-poem
In Hartand Smith'srepresentation
of it,thismanuscript
flowsseamits
from
lessly
rhymed,althoughmetrically
irregular,openingfour
meteredand
lines,throughits middlesentence,and intoitsstrongly
rhymedclosing,punctuatedby pairedapostrophesto "Sister"Susan
Dickinson.So convincingis this manuscriptas a coherentartistic
wholethatHartsomeyearsago used it as hercentralillustration
in an
influential
on
Dickinson's
letters
and
her
to
sister-in-law.
essay
poems
There Hart arguedthatThomas H. Johnson'sdiscomfort
withthe
or
passionateexchanges,ratherthanany intrinsically
poetic prosaic
theexclusionof"Mornqualitiesofthewriting,
mayhavedetermined
ing,"and otherworkssentto Susan,fromDickinson'spoeticcanon.
Hartasserted,to deny"Morning"statusas a poem conFurthermore,
tributesto biographicalcensorship:"[A]s long as this poem is not
availableto students,
teachers,and generalreaders,as longas scholars
and criticsrelegatethe textto the categories'insignificant'
and 'unreadable,'one morepiece ofevidencethatDickinsonloved Susan all
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
465
that
her lifeand designeda futurein whichto extendand transform
loveis removedfromview."4
Dickinson's
Applyinghis own editorialcriteriafordistinguishing
differhowever,Franklinviewsthemanuscript
prosefromherpoetry,
ently.Althoughhe acknowledgeshis debt to Ellen Hartforplucking
itinto
theletter-poem
outofDickinson'smanuscripts
and introducing
her poeticcanon,whatemergesin Franklin'svariorumas a poem is
this:
ShowmeEternity,
andI willshowyouMemoryBothinonepackagelain
Andlifted
backagainBe Sue,whileI amEmilyBe next,
whatyouhaveeverbeen,Infinity[Poems,
poem1658,datedc. 1884]
Franklinreadsthesecond"Sister"ofDickinson'smanuscript
as Dickown
thus
the
text
into
two
distinct
inson's
closingsignature, resolving
which
a
addresses
Susan
Dickinson
as
"Sister"
genericparts: letter,
of herselfas "Sisand closeswithDickinson'smirroring
subscription
followed
a
of
five
lines.
Letter
and
ter,"
by poem
signatureare indiin
not
Franklin's
cated,although fullyquoted,
apparatusforthepoem.
the five-linepoem is Event and the restof
In Franklin'srendering,
the textAccident,belongingto a different
realmof historicalor bioin whichthe poem is
than
the
realm
literary
graphicalcontingency
lainforeditorialEternity.
Ironically,
perhaps,itis in Hartand Smith'sfulltextthatthislettervoice
oflove,unlikethevoiceof"The incidentsofLove,"sugpoem's
the
of Event to Accident-the verydistinction
that
gests
superiority
drivesFranklin'seditorialtheoryratherthanHartand Smith's.It matters,though,forboth editorialtheoryand forDickinson'stheoryof
lovethattheoppositeofAccidentin thistextis Eventratherthan,say,
designor intent.As printedin Open Me Carefully,
"Morning"-writtenwhenDickinsonwas a womanin herfifties
to a womanwhomshe
had loved in one way and another,by then,forsome thirty
yearsreadsas Dickinson'slatereplyto one ofthefavorite
genresoflovepothedaythatcomesall too soon
etry,theaubade; insteadoflamenting
4EllenLouise Hart,"The Encodingof HomoeroticDesire: EmilyDickinson'sLettersand Poems to Susan Dickinson,1850-1886,"Tulsa Studiesin Women'sLiterature
9 (Fall 1990): 251-72.
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
466
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
to separateyounglovers,thisletter-poemcelebratesthe comingof
love's night.Love's morningis opposed to its nightas accidentis to
event:accidentsare neitheranticipatednor intentionally
significant,
ifnotalwaysanticipatedor inwhereaseventsare alwayssignificant,
tended.To borrowand alterthetermsofEllen Louise Hart'sreading
of thismanuscript,
nightis not entirelya "future"thatcan be "designed,"and in thatquality,we all know,lies some ofitseventfulappeal. (Around1882,byFranklin'sdating,DickinsonsentSusana variationon thefamiliar
prayer:"Now I laytheedownto Sleep- /I pray
theLord thyDust to keep- /Andifthoulivebeforethouwake- /I
befallitssubpraythe Lord thySoul to make-"). Love mayinitially
jects (Dickinsonwould have knownaccident'setymology)out of
nowhere,but its enduranceentailsthe more complexcollaboration
betweencontingency
and will thatmakes Event come out of (and
again, Dickinsonwould have knownevent's etymology)what has
come before-or thatallowsDickinsonin herfifties
bothto willand
she
be
has
become.
to acceptthat and Sue whoeach
As a theoryoflove,perhapsDickinson'sletter-poem
is beautifully
obvious;butperhapswe'reless used to readinghertheoriesoflove as
theoriesof editing(an omissionthatalso marksstudiesof her great
Americancontemporary
Walt Whitman).In its original,complete
text,"Morning"embodiesa moreflexibleand moretime-boundaccount of authorialintentionality
than thatimpliedby the anxiously
momentsof eitherFranklin'sor Hart and Smith'seditorial
positivist
thatcomes best intoviewwhen
theory,an accountof intentionality
comparingFranklin'seditionto Hart and Smith'sratherthanin setor Eventin "Morning"is retrospectlingon eitherone. Significance
embraced
at
least
at
much
as it is prospectively
willed.Unlike
tively
Susan Howe in her responseto Franklin,Dickinsonin thisletterand in contrastto the vocapoem-as in muchof her laterwriting,
tionalclaimsshe sometimesstagedin earlierwork-seems strikingly
unanxiousabout assertingthe authority
of Poet or subscribingher
withintheprecinctsofPoetry.To mymind,themanuscript
of
writing
the letter-poem
to Susan does notcall fornorpreservethepositivist
distinction
betweenpoetryand prose on whichFranklin'svariorum
relies.Whatmakestheletter-poem
stillmoreinteresting,
however,is
thatbythe same tokenit does notrespectthe expressivist
distinction
betweenpoetryand prose-the rigorously
sacralizedauthority
of the
intentional
line-on which,it seemsto me,Hartand Smith,following
Howe, implicitly
rely.
The distinction
betweenpoetryand proseis not,I think,eventful
in
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
467
rethisletter-poem's
text;whatis eventfulis reading,retrospection,
reading."Morning"dramatizestheextenttowhichlovingSusan Dickdifinsonwas forEmilyDickinsona matterofkeepinga complicated,
faithwithherownwriting,
recordedin packetsand on
ficult,
life-long
sheets("The Pile of Years,"a late poem begins)thatshe laid down
overmanyyearsand evidently,
fromtimeto time,liftedout to read
again. Hart and Smithhave done Dickinsonscholarship,and quite
probablythe wideraudiencetheyhope to reach,a service,forthey
have presentedthe fullrangeof Dickinson'swritings
to Susan,comand beautifully
piledin one affordable
producedvolume,whichreaders can read and re-readagainand again.If it gainsthe readershipit
deserves,Open Me Carefullyoughtto dispelthe versionof Dickinson'slife,stillcurrentin muchscholarship(let alone popularmythology),in whichSusan Dickinson,when she figuresat all, figuresas a
prolonged,late-adolescentcrush which graduallysubsided with
Susan's marriageto Austinand Dickinson'syearningfora mysteriouslyunavailablemale"Master."
As JayLeyda rightly
complainedin his 1956 review,ThomasJohnson's 1955 variorumPoemsuncritically
consultedthe "Master"narrativeof Dickinson'slifein dating-and,implicitly,
interpreting-Dickinson's manuscripts;
Johnsondid not hesitate,for instance,to tie
Dickinson'sunaddressed"Master"lettersto events in the life of
PhiladelphiaministerCharles Wadsworth,Johnson'sbiographical
candidateforDickinson'sbeloved. Believingthat"the tendencyto
read thepoemsas autobiography
shouldbe combattednotreinforced
identificabytheeditor"(p. 245), Leydafoundnotjustthisparticular
tionbut the theoreticalassumptionsbehindit deeplysuspect.Hart
and Smith,these several decades later,would largelyagree with
editorialmethods,and theywouldadd a
Leyda'scritiqueofJohnson's
ofJohnson's
editorialand biographical
heteroringingcondemnation
sexism.But Open Me Carefullydoes nothesitateto rootDickinson's
in biography--not
writing
alwaysthesamethingas readingthepoems
as autobiography,
butclose: Hartand Smithaim to "relatethehuman
storybehindthismostgenerativeof literaryand emotionalunions"
editorial"Master"narrative
ofWadsworth,
(p. xxi).AndlikeJohnson's
Hart and Smith'salternative
narrative
of Emilyand Sue (as diehard
Dickinsonians
know,"The BookofEmilyand Sue" was forsomeyears
theworking
titleofOpen Me Carefully)can be challenged.
Some readerswho wholeheartedly
subscribe,as I do, to Hartand
Smith'sreconstruction
of Dickinson'slife-longemotionaland erotic
bond withSusan willnevertheless
findtheireditorialrepresentation
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
468
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
of the relationshipa bit flat. Their understandableeagerness to
counterpathologizingor dismissiveaccountsof Emilyand Susan's
love leads themto riditofitselementsofturmoil,
jealousy
distancing,
and envy,identification
and rivalry,
angerand recovery.Alongwith
Smithand Hart,I thinkofDickinson'srelationship
withSusanas both
eroticand "generative,"
but theseotherelementsseem to me partof
whatmade it so. Readinga late textlike"Morning"in viewofthe entirepreservedcorrespondence
betweenDickinsonand Susan,I'm remindedof JamesJoyce'scharacterRichardin Exilesas he speaksto
the woman he loves: "I have wounded my soul foryou-a deep
woundofdoubtwhichcan neverbe healed. ... It is notin the darknessofbeliefthatI desireyou.Butin restlesslivingwoundingdoubt."
Dickinsonkeptfaithwithher "Sister"in the midstof such doubt,I
so bythetimeof"Morning."Open Me Carefully
suspect-beautifully
as
a
itself
corrective
to mutilatedand censoredversionsof
presents
Dickinson'slifeas well as hertexts,and it is all thatand more.But it
does not attemptto printthe entireextantcorrespondence
between
Dickinsonand Susan;nor,I think,does it sufficiently
whatit
interpret
does print. It glances away from the Dickinson who once, in
Franklin'scrediblereconstruction
of "Now I knewI losther" (poem
an
unfavorable
1274), copied
poem about Susan into a fascicleand
thenmutilatedit by removingthe poem. As an even moreruthlessly
self-editing
twentieth-century
poet remindsus,suchomissionsare not
accidents.
Hartand Smith'sclaimsforSusan'simportancein Dickinson'slife
and workextendto namingheras Dickinson'scollaborator,
indeed(as
in Smith'sessayon "Dickinson'sManuscripts"
in TheEmilyDickinson
Handbook) her sometime"coauthor."Noting that from"the late
feed1850s on, Emily... [was] regularly
sharingdraftsand inviting
back"fromSusan,Hartand Smithgo on to speculatethat"It is likely
thatthisrelationship
is reciprocal,and thatSusan sends Emilyher
own poems forcritiqueas well. One exampleof thisprocessis preservedin the... exchangeofvariousversionsofEmily'spoem 'Safein
theirAlabasterChambers"'(p. 64). As severalessaysin The Emily
DickinsonHandbooktestify,
thisfamousexchange,in whichDickinson rewrotethe originalsecond stanza of the poem in responseto
Susan'sjudgmentthatit was notquite as "frosty"
as the first,
has become something
ofa litmustestamongDickinsoncriticsforloyalty
to
Hartand Smith'scloselymeshedbiographicaland textualinterpretation of Dickinson'swritings.To loyalists,the exchangeillustrates
Susan'sverypracticalwriterly
assistanceto Dickinsonas wellas Dick-
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
469
inson's lovinggratitudefor Susan's intelligentrecognition:"Your
praiseis good-to me-," Dickinsonwroteback,"Because I knowit
knows-and suppose-it means-." To doubters,on the otherhand,
it's a seriousinconvenience
thatHartand Smith'sone exampleis, to
the best of currentknowledge,the onlyextantexampleof Susan's
contribution
to Dickinson'swork.To be sure,as Hart
"coauthoring"
and Smithpointout,nineteenth-century
was
privatecorrespondence
oftendestroyedthroughneglector intent,and reasoningfromabsence is dangerous.Still,countme hereamongthe doubters,includwhoon textualgroundstakesthepositionthatthe
ingR. W. Franklin,
Dickinsonsentnextdoorto Susan,even in thisone premanuscripts
servedexchangeofcriticism,
werefaircopies ratherthanthe messier
workingdocumentsofDickinson'spoetryworkshop.
An even more fundamental
questionforOpen Me Carefullyas a
workin botheditorialtheoryand biography
is wellposed by Suzanne
and the Poet,"the concludingand, I think,in
Juhaszin "Materiality
somewaysthebravestessayin The EmilyDickinsonHandbook.Takin concertwithothereditionsofDickingnoteofOpen Me Carefully
inson's individualcorrespondencesnow progressingalong similar
lines,Juhasztakesissuewiththeirsharedassumption"thattheparticularityof the intendedaudienceor recipientdeterminesthe identity
of a poem or bodyofwriting"
(p. 435). As she pointsout,Dickinson
oftensentversionsof the same poem or phraseto different
correand in manyrecoverableinstancesitseemsnotthatthebispondents,
to an indepenographicaloccasiongenerateda poem latercommitted
dent fair copy but that Dickinson interpretedthe biographical
occasionthroughthe prismof wordsalreadywritten:"The external
contextsor referents
or recipientscan vary,because theyare notthe
occasion
for
these lines of poetry;theyare, rather,stimuli
originary
and echo" (p. 435). This is the Dickinsonof Franklin'seditorialpractice in the new variorumPoems,whichsteadfastly
refusedto declare
anyone recipientor anyone versionofa poemprimary.
The centralEventFranklinmemorializes
in thevariorumPoemsis
not Dickinson'srelationship
to anyone correspondent
but ratherher
over
to
her
own
time,
changingrelationship,
writing.As her letterher
own
poem "Morning"implies,revisiting
writingmusthave been
one of Dickinson'sprimary
modesof keepingher life-long
faithwith
SusanDickinson;butas Franklin's
variorumdocuments,she certainly
did so for other recipientsof her work,otherpeople whom she
eschewsthe sort
loved-and, surely,forherself.Franklinresponsibly
of speculativebiographicaldatingand arrangingof manuscripts
in
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
470
THE
NEW ENGLAND
QUARTERLY
whichJohnsonfromtimeto timeindulged;abstainingfrompegging
Dickinson'swriting
Franklinprovidesinsteada biograto biography,
in his
phy of the writing.The biographicalsubject reconstructed
is a poet who methodically
splendidintroduction
destroysworksheet
draftsin transferring
themto fascicles,who lays in stocksof paper
when anticipating
a creativeperiodand,once in one, workssteadily,
and whorevisits
and reordersherworkat intervals.
Franklin'saccount
registersthe familiarbiographicaltraumasof the Dickinsonmyth
froma carefuldistance,in termsof theireffectson Dickinson's"powe learnthatDicketryworkshop."From Franklin'sreconstruction,
inson settled into her fascicle makingpracticesin 1858-59 and
workedsteadilyat themuntilthe summerof 186o,whenproduction
was mysteriously
in the workshop.Returning
to fascicle
interrupted
makingin 1861-62,she relaxedher approach:she includedalternate
readingsof fasciclepoems and leftsome poems outsidefasciclesin
faircopies. She continuedto produce fasciclesat a greatrate until
1864,wheneyetroublepromptedherto spenda fewmonthsin Cambridge,near a doctorwho was treatingher. She took retrospective
stockofherworkin early1866,as she seemsto havedone in 1861and
1862 as well, when she compiledthe poems she sent to Thomas
Wentworth
Higginsonalongwithan inquiryaboutwhetherherverse
were alive. Retrospection
in 1866 "was appropriate,"Franklinconof 1866 markedtheeffective
end offascicle
cludes,"forthebeginning
in 186o
making.Somethingthathad begunin 1858,seen disruption
and renewalin 1862, disruptionin 1864 and returnin 1865, had
ended forher"(p. 26).
Abstinentas Franklin'snarrativeof Dickinson'swritingis in biographicalterms,it does of coursereflectbiographicalas well as aestheticjudgments,and likethe moreovertbiographicaland aesthetic
Franklin's
judgmentsof Hartand Smithin Open Me Carefully,
judgmentscan be challenged.AlongwithJohnson,
althoughwithoutJohnson'sreasoningbackwardfromeventsin someoneelse's lifeto events
in Dickinson'swriting,
Franklintellsthe storyof Dickinson'swriting
througha versionof the "Master"narrative.In his version,reconstructingthe "Master"crisisinvolvesnot the externalevidence of
Wadsworth's
goingto Californiabutthealignmentofseveralkindsof
textualevidencewithinthe corpus of Dickinson'smanuscripts:
the
second two "Master"lettersthathe dates to 1861 and the "Master"
poems thatbegan to be written-butnot,unusuallyforDickinsonat
this time,incorporatedinto fascicles--inlate 186o, one of which
("Titledivine--ismine!")Dickinsonsentto Samuel Bowles in 1861.
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ESSAY REVIEWS
471
"In some uncertainway,"he concludes,these texts"standnear the
disorderthat came into her workshopfromlate 186o until early
1862."
that"ended"forDickinson
Franklin'semphasison the"Something"
in 1866 reflectshis implicitbiographicalendorsement
ofthe familiar
crisisnarrative
oftheDickinsonmythalongwithhiseditorialand aesin Dickinson's1858-66 fascicles,her "manuscript
theticinvestment
as
his
books,"
1981 editioncalled themwithdeliberateemphasison
theirintentional
finish,as the productivepeak of Dickinson'scareer.
Me
Open
bycontrast,
Carefully,
givesus a versionof Dickinson'slife
withoutthe crisisnarrative,
whetherattributed
to a male or female
love object.AlongwithMartaWernerin her 1995 EmilyDickinson's
as poOpen Folios,Hart and Smithvalue Dickinson'slaterwritings
even
more
more
and
than
the
tentially
experimental
interesting
bound fascicles,an aesthetic position in marked oppositionto
Franklin's.
SettingOpen Me Carefullyand Franklin'svariorumPoemsside by
side, I findmyselfdrawnto the muteepitaphicpathosof Franklin's
life of Dickinson'swriting,his spartandeferralof the human biographicalsubject in favorof the vicissitudesof the text. "Something"-no morecan or need be specified--"hadended forher."At
thesametime,though,I'm remindedofa late Dickinsonpoem,scribbled in pencilon a scrapofwriting
paper-no fascicle,no faircopy-thatlovingly
ironizesexactlythatepitaphicpathos.To borrowRachel
Blau DuPlessis's termforwomen'smodernistwriting,this is truly
beyondtheending:
writing
"Gotellit"-Whata MessageTo whom-isspecifiedNotmurmur-not
endearmentButsimply-we
obeyedObeyed-a Lure?a Longing?
Oh Nature-noneofthisTo Law-said SweetThermopylae
I givemydying
Kisspoem1584,datedc. 1882]
[Poenms,
In all of literary
Dickinsoncould hardlyhave locateda more
history,
canonical instanceof writingthoughtto speak for itselfthan Simonides'epitaphforthe threehundredof Thermopylae.("You ask
me whatmyflowerssaid-then theywere disobedient-I gave them
messages,"Dickinsonhad writtenmanyyearsago, in the first"Master"letterof 1858.) This poem's conceitis thatthe epitaphcan re-
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
472
THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
and thatonce coaxedintodiaspondto the speechofan interlocutor
reserve
it
will
break
down
its
laconic
to sayjust a littlemore
logue
than Simonidesmade it say for itself.To let Dickinson'swriting
"speak foritself"is also Hart and Smith'swish fortheireditionof
to Susan.Whatdoes thispoem haveto sayabout
Dickinson'swritings
thateditorialwish?
In his reviewofJohnson's1955variorumPoems,JayLeyda offered
and up-toa judgmentthateven todaysoundsstrikingly
progressive
date (exceptthatthe sevenpublishedpoemshave nowgrownto ten):
"More thananyromanticfactor,it was the exertionof editorialcontrol,over the knownseven poems publishedin the poet's lifetime,
thatinfluencedher decisionto withdrawfromordinarypublication
methods"(p. 241). Leyda applauded Johnsonfor givingup some
formsof control,such as normalizingcapitalization,spelling,and
and scoldedhimforretainingothers.In theirdifferent
punctuation,
Hart
and
Smithas well as Franklinstriveto relinquisheven
ways,
moreeditorialcontroloverDickinson'swriting
thandid Johnson.On
theevidenceof"'Go tellit'" and ofotherwritings,
however,I suspect
thatDickinsonwould forgiveher past and presenteditorstheirperthatthereis alwaysmore to editingher writing
petual rediscovery
thanallowingit to speak foritself.I hope thatFranklin'svariorum
willlurenew readers
Poemsand Hartand Smith'sOpen Me Carefully
as wellas thoselongfamiliar
withDickinson'sworkintothemultiplicitiesofhermanuscript
writings.
is theauthorof DICKINSONANDTHE BOUNDARIES
MaryLoeffelholz
OF FEMINISTTHEORY(1991) and essayson Dickinsonand othertopics in nineteenth-century
Americanliterature.
She servedas guestcuratorfor the Dickinsonexhibitionmountedin August1999 at the
She is a memberof the
HoughtonLibraryof Harvard University.
and the editorof
English Departmentat NortheasternUniversity
STUDIES IN AMERICAN FICTION.
This content downloaded from 129.10.107.106 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:46:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions