Meditations on First Reading
|
|
Thomas Nast 1864 Slave Auction Illustration © Son Of the South.net |
Publication -- is the Auction
Of the Mind of Man -- Poverty -- be justifying For so foul a thing Possibly -- but We -- would rather
Thought belong to Him who gave it --
In the Parcel -- Be the Merchant
|
Publication - is the Auction
The dash functions almost as a hmmm rather than just a pause.
The definite article is what makes the line which follows necessary (auction of what?). What was the definition of publication to ED? What sorts of auctions might she be familiar with? 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 There is no real control of price in an auction even though the item(s) may be withdrawn if a minimum is established and not met. Why is Auction capitalized? Would Publication be capitalized even if it were not at the beginning of the line? Of the Mind of Man -
Why are Mind and Man capitalized? Are they to be considered separately and then linked together to form a new composite? Man is the owner, mind is what is being published/auctioned. 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. Does Mind signify more than just a thought? Think of a painting - it's not just the subject but perspective, execution, etc. Personal expression vs. simple declaration (what's so simple about declaration?!) The dash at the end of the line seems almost like a period concluding a complete thought. There are now four nouns in two lines. Poverty - be justifying
Where does Poverty come from? What is its association to Publication and Auction? This is where ED's familiarity with auctions could be interesting. Certainly slaves were auctioned and that couldn't be beyond her realm. Were people's possessions also auctioned to satisfy debts? What about the eventual bankruptcy of her grandfather? Is Poverty the only justification for attempting to publish? Does publishing indicate a personal sort of poverty to begin with? What would this indicate about the definition of poverty? Poverty of Mind. Does publishing reduce the publisher to poverty (what kind)? Although the metaphor of Auction carries the idea of money/currency, what else might someone who publishes be looking to gain? The use of justifying allows this line to sort of hang there, not pushing you to the next. Poverty is the fifth noun. For so foul a thing
This obviously continues from justifying. What is it that is so foul? Publication = Auction (with the twist that what's being auctioned is the Mind of Man). Only the desperate condition of Poverty could be the justification for publication. With this emphasis, the definition of Poverty needs to be looked at again. The generic "thing" as opposed to action further deprecates the activity of publishing. How strong is foul? Thing is the sixth noun but is not capitalized. End of the first stanza. Possibly - but We - would rather
By placing Possibly at the beginning of the line, it's like querying the argument that proceeds it. As if ED had just presented the worst case scenario and then says, no, not even then would it be justified. We - is this the royal we? Who is we? Is it the author of this poem? Or a particular set or type of authors? Is ED inside or outside the group? Why is We capitalized? What are the dashes doing? Framing the distinctive We. "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. From Our Garret go
Garret today conjures starving artist; what did it mean to Dickinson? What were the associations then? Go: where would they go? If an auction brings concrete items into view, where will they take what they have (presumably out of view)? The use of our is consistent with the We in the preceding line but isn't the sharing of a Garret a bit of a stretch? Or is it like Poverty, a condition? Garret is the sixth noun that is capitalized. White - unto the White Creator -
White, unstained, not foul. We want to go in a fashion, in a state of purity. Publication is now a "how" to go, how to be in one's life. White Creator: first, there is the pairing of going white to an associated white creator. Who is the White Creator? Is white an attribute describing the Creator or is it that the Creator has created white? Second, the implication of value by the White Creator on whiteness. The Creator in Protestantism is also the ultimate judge (of whiteness). Creator is the seventh noun to be capitalized. Than invest - Our Snow -
Invest brings us back to money. How can one invest Snow? In an auction, one puts something out there hoping to make money so in a sense it is an investment. Snow is the eighth noun to be capitalized. It is white, if melted clear. People don't produce snow. In a sense it is given to them. Snow comes and goes. You can't keep it. It has no real value. Snow is the eight capitalized noun. End of the second stanza. This one, however does not end without punctuation as did the first. Thought belong to Him who gave it -
Him presumably is the White Creator. Thought refers back to the Mind of Man. Gave, in the sense that Snow is given? The use of belong instead of belongs implies "should belong." The proper audience or public is He. Or is this an instance of non-agreement and should be "belongs." The lack of agreement could act as a signal or emphasis. Belong: given, for use?, but not owned by the recipient, therefore unavailable for auction/publication? What does this tell us about ED's view of where "thought" or human creations come from? Or the role of the human in so-called creation? Then - to Him Who bear
Then, in consequence: if Thought comes from the White Creator, then what? Or: in sequence. Thought belongs first to the White Creator, then to someone Who bears. Him: is this the same Him as in the line above? What is there, or was there to be borne? Why is there no agreement between Him, singular, and bear, plural? The capitalization of Him and Who is consistent. The line is incomplete and forces the reader to the next. It's Corporeal illustration - sell
It's should be its? The corporeal illustration of thought is borne by humans, those who have bodies. What a curious idea that bodies are an illustration of thought! We now come back to the dilemma of the royal We coupled with the singular pronoun in the line above because it is now apparent that the Him is Us. Sell refers back to Auction. What is being sold is the corporeal illustration? If this line stood alone, it would sound like an imperative. Cor por` e al Why is Corporeal capitalized? Why isn't illustration? The Royal Air -
The Royal Air has its counterpart in Snow. It is something given. Although the air is in this line royal, it is still air. How can air be sold? Why would someone buy air? The White Creator is Royal. The King has ownership. Air could be a pun since poems could be considered airs? Is it important that air cannot be seen? Is there a whole range of associations with seeing that is implied here? Heir End of the third stanza. In the Parcel - Be the Merchant
Parcel: is this the same as a "lot"? Auctions often group items into lots. Is the air in the parcel? Can you put air in a box? Is the merchant in the parcel? Again, there is the imperative "be" as in the line above "sell" Merchant implies choice which goes back to the "rather." Auctions are not ongoing; merchandizing is. Note again the capitalization. What does the dash do here that it didn't do elsewhere? Of the Heavenly Grace -
What a difference is makes to move from the line above to this one. The thought is now complete: be the Merchant of the Heavenly Grace. Why the definite article in front of Heavenly? Is there a particular grace that we should infer from the poem? Heavenly is the fourth adjective to be capitalized. Does Grace pair with Creator in the sense of God? What is a grace? Does Heavenly have to carry the religious meaning only? Why would ED tell the reader to merchandise grace? Is this acceptable behavior? Or is the allusion familiar enough to be repugnant and therefore serves to reinforce the foulness of publication? If the allusion is followed, who would be the merchant of grace? If the word "priest" springs to mind, what does this further suggest about the relationship of the "We" to the White Creator? But reduce no Human Spirit
Reduce is associated to Poverty. Human Spirit is assoicated with Mind of Man. What is the difference between grace and thought? How much more effective would placing the but at the end of the preceding line have been? Why reduce instead of subject? Continues the idea of valuation. The thought is incomplete and moves the reader to the final line. To Disgrace of Price -
Why is Price a disgrace? Like a play on the word priceless. How does Human Spirit relate to Corporeal illustration? Poem ends with a dash. Observations
|