Explication of Emily Dickinson’s Poem 709J/788F
This emphatic poem against publication belies Emily Dickinson’s personal ambivalence towards being published. At least two instances suggest that she considered publication both early and late in her career. The first occurred when she wrote to Thomas Wentworth Higginson asking his opinion of her verses. The second is her request that fellow writer, Helen Hunt Jackson, serve as her literary executor. The first experience and Higginson’s discouragement, perhaps, occasioned this vehement response.
The angry tone is established from the opening line. The use of a strident 8.5.8.5 trochaic meter, with stress at the beginning and end of each line, forcefully marshals the argument which is framed top and bottom by equivalent statements. Dickinson’s first volley declares that "Publication – is the Auction of the Mind of Man." The last two lines emphatically restate this position with only a trace of the initial metaphor that publication "reduce[s] … Human Spirit to Disgrace of Price." The only hint of ambivalence in this sixteen-line poem is that the first stanza is composed of two couplets while the other three stanzas alternate rhyming lines.
Although the structure of the one stanza differs, each stanza expresses a single idea. The first stanza introduces the metaphor of the auction as applied to publication. The speaker says that "Poverty," leaving the reader to infer perhaps only poverty, could justify such an action, "so foul a thing." The second stanza conditions that stance with the opening word "Possibly." The speaker rejects even desperation as a condition for publishing. The third establishes the origin (of whatever might be published) with the White Creator. This reference suggests a moral responsibility to refuse to publish. The fourth stanza reiterates that publication degrades the human spirit by putting a price on it. Although this is the gist of each stanza, at the end of the eleventh line dangles the word "sell."
It appears that the speaker now turns to the reader and addresses her directly, almost defiantly, with the imperative "Sell the Royal Air." This sentence both reinforces the notion that "thought belongs to Him who gave it" and that only physical poverty or poverty of spirit/pride could justify publication. It also serves to introduce the climactic comment on the disgrace associated with publishing.
In searching for the source of the anger, that sense of disgrace, which the speaker may have personally suffered, two things are particularly worth looking at in detail. The first is Dickinson’s use of the auction image. An auction has 1) someone who provides, voluntarily or involuntarily, the property to be auctioned; 2) an auctioneer; and 3) at least two people, the public in "publication," who will bid or not on the property offered. There is no real control of price in an auction even though the item(s) may be withdrawn if a minimum bid is established and not met. The value of the product will be arbitrarily established: first, perhaps, by the author; second, by the auctioneer who would begin the bidding; and third, by the public who will or will not bid. This is where Dickinson’s familiarity with auctions could be interesting. Certainly slaves were auctioned and that couldn’t be beyond her realm of knowledge. Possibly she had firsthand knowledge of people’s possessions being publicly auctioned to satisfy debts since her grandfather was a bankrupt. In a further thought related to the auction image, the owner in a sense prostitutes herself for whatever someone else offers her. Could this be the source of foulness, contrasted with virginal whiteness in the next stanza? Dickinson’s suggestion of "Poverty" as justification for publishing indicates desperation. On the other hand, "Rather" is in stark contrast to the condition of poverty. On emotional balance, one could reasonably expect a resounding "never!" as opposed to the mild "rather." The implication of choice changes the meaning of Auction from monetary to value of the person.
The shift to personal value coincides with the second major thought, the concept of intellectual property. If "Him" is the White Creator, possibly God, and if "Thought" refers back to the Mind of Man, then whatever is produced for publication is given, in the sense that Snow is given. The use of belong instead of belongs implies "should belong." Or is this an instance of non-agreement and should be "belongs"? In fact, when the poem was first published in 1929, the editors changed "belong" to "belongs." The lack of agreement could be acting as a signal or emphasis. Is the writer saying "Belong," given for use, but not owned by the recipient, therefore unavailable for auction/publication? Or is the speaker implying a sequence? Thought belongs first to the White Creator, then to someone Who bears. The divine origin evidently implies a moral responsibility not to publish, not to prostitute, not to auction.
Both the image of auction and the idea of thought being a gift are stated clearly. It would appear that the speaker knows exactly where she stands and why. Does she? The third stanza forms the heart of the speaker’s argument, however, it is just at this point that the array of persons named or suggested in the poem becomes so bewildering. The first line of the second stanza introduces a "We," the speaker and who else? The dashes frame the phrase "but We" which underscores the difference from those impoverished and therefore desperate enough to seek publication and the speaker and others like her who do not. The plural possessive "our" (in lines 5 and 8) continues the collective "We."
The second pronoun is "Him" which appears in the first line of the third stanza and presumably refers to the "White Creator." In line 10 the ambiguous "Him" appears again. And again, there seems to be an error of agreement between "Him" and "bear." What makes this instance more ambiguous (coupled with the non-agreement) is that the singular "Him" appears to be in actuality the plural "We." Has the speaker included the reader? This is at least suggested by the apostrophe which follows.
Immediately preceding the apostrophe is the eleventh line which begins with "It’s". The word, which should most likely be understood as the possessive not the contraction, is stepped on at the beginning of the line and runs into the first syllable of "Corporeal." "Corporeal" and "illustration" are the only instances of four-syllable words in the poem, appearing side by side. This line is difficult to read, nearly impossible to speak aloud. Possibly because the concept itself is difficult. This line is overlong, the next is short. This overemphasizes the key word "sell" dangling at the end of eleven.
Even though the rationale, the heart of her argument, is clear, though buried in a confusion of pronouns, the speaker then returns to her initial position with a derogatory reference to Catholicism under the allusion of merchandising "the Heavenly Grace." The definite article would seem to indicate that either there is only one "Heavenly Grace" or that the particular grace in question has already been introduced.
Throughout this poem the tone of anger is apparent. Is it righteous indignation as suggested by the reference of going "white -- / unto the White Creator"? Or is it, perhaps, from a personal sense of shame at having her own verse rejected? One thing is clear: the speaker in this poem took a passionate position against publication.
© Cheryl Hagedorn, 2004.