And walk steady, away,
Requires Energy—possibly Agony—
'Tis the Scarlet way
Trodden with straight renunciation
By the Son of God—
Later, his faint Confederates
Justify the Road—
Flavors of that old Crucifixion—
Filaments of Bloom, Pontius Pilate sowed—
Strong Clusters, from Barabbas' Tomb—
Sacrament, Saints partook before us—
Patent, every drop,
With the Brand of the Gentile Drinker
Who indorsed the Cup—
F404 (1862) J527
Dickinson writes here of renunciation and the suffering that follows when one utterly rejects the world.
She begins by picturing life in this world—family, profession, woods, conventional religion, and beaches—as a "Bundle" that one might put down and walk away from. To do so, however, requires a huge effort, "possibly Agony," and even bloodshed, for this is "the Scarlet way." The world doesn't understand or treat with much charity those who reject it.
The second stanza makes this point more clearly. Jesus renounced the world when he rejected fame and fortune and the wisdom of the elders. His bloody death did indeed put him on the scarlet way. His disciples, those "faint Confederates", wrote about their experiences in pieces that became books of the New Testament. This was also their attempt to "Justify the Road".
The communion cup |
Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, though, and "Gentile Drinker" might have a double meaning here. His ministry changed Christianity from a jewish religion to a gentile one as he metaphorically drank them in. Or Dickinson might be conflating Paul with his gentile ministry for poetic purposes. That Paul also put his brand, or stamp, on all aspects of Christianity is beyond doubt.
If Paul is the Drinker whose teachings are "patent" in the communion cup, then the stanza becomes ironic. It introduces an interpreter into the communion sacrament and that introduces an element of doubt. Have the "Flavors" of the crucifixion been altered somehow by the stamp of Paul? Have christians been unwittingly following Paul rather than Jesus in some subtle but profound way that is bound up in the sacrament of communion?
I don't think Dickinson is distancing herself from the "Scarlet way", though. Her admiration of Jesus' "straight renunciation" seems real. If anything, she is making a veiled warning about letting a sacrament take the place of deeply felt personal renunciation, about accepting something with someone else's brand on it for the real thing.
Is ED not talking about her own path and the Bundle of her world she is putting down for the renunciation needed to bury herself in poetry?
ReplyDeleteWell, I just reread my commentary and changed the last half -- but not along the lines you suggest. But yes, I think she is considering her own life as a basis.
DeleteAccording to the Emily Dickinson Lexicon:
ReplyDeleteindorse (-ed): Claim; accept; agree to pay thirty pieces of silver for; take part as a betrayer behind the back as represented in; (see Matthew 26:14-15)
I think you nailed it when you said, "she is making a veiled warning about letting a sacrament take the place of deeply felt personal renunciation, about accepting something with someone else's brand on it for the real thing." 'Claim' and 'betrayal' are pretty clear.
Apostle Paul insists we are sown in dishonor and corruption (KJV, Corinthians I, 15:41-43):
ReplyDelete41 ∙ ∙ ∙ [O]ne star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It [the body] is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power ∙ ∙ ∙.
ED has a beef with Apostle Paul. “Not so fast! / Apostle is askew!” (F115, ‘Sown in dishonor’):
“Sown in dishonor”!
Ah! Indeed!
May this "dishonor" be?
If I were half so fine myself
I'd notice nobody!
"Sown in corruption"!
Not so fast!
Apostle is askew!
Corinthians 1. 15. narrates
A circumstance or two!
Pre-conversion, Paul, AKA Saul, was a Sadducee Jew and Roman citizen who persecuted Christians for a living. After conversion on the Road to Damascus, he became a “Gentile Drinker” at Communion, as ED attests in ‘To put this World down, like a Bundle’ (F404).
ED starts F404 well enough, but then in Stanza 4 seems to flounder in this abstract religious/philosophical poem. She considers changing three words [CAPS in brackets below], but her editors, Todd and Franklin, rejected all proposed alternatives:
Sacrament, Saints partook [INDORSED] before us—
Patent, every drop,
With the Brand [STAMP] of the Gentile Drinker
Who indorsed [ENFORCED] the Cup—
However, the rejected alternatives show us where ED considered going with Stanza 4:
Sacrament, Saints endorsed before us—
Patent, every drop,
With the stamp of the Gentile Drinker
Who enforced the Cup—
Sure sounds critical of Paul to me. ED seems to posit that Christianity would be less focused on resurrection if Paul hadn’t made such a big deal about it in Corinthians I. ED might have been a Christian had it not been for that "rising from the dead" dogma.