Endow the Living —
with the Tears —
You squander on the Dead,
And They were Men and Women — now,
Around Your Fireside —
Instead of Passive Creatures,
Denied the Cherishing
Till They — the Cherishing deny —
With Death's Ethereal Scorn —
You squander on the Dead,
And They were Men and Women — now,
Around Your Fireside —
Instead of Passive Creatures,
Denied the Cherishing
Till They — the Cherishing deny —
With Death's Ethereal Scorn —
Fr657
(1863) J521
There's a sad yet understandable irony in how
we often shower the dead with more concentrated attention and affection than we
showed while they were alive. In this short poem, Dickinson tersely instructs
us to instead 'Endow the Living'.
That's a reversal, as normally endowment
flows from the dead to the living. But Dickinson neatly leaves the dead
completely out of it. Instead, the living should cherish the living and
'squander' no sentiment on the Dead who are nothing but 'Passive Creatures, neither
wanting nor needing attention.
Yet despite their passivity, the dead retain
some pride. They react to the post-mortem Cherishing with 'Ethereal Scorn'.
It's phony. It's too-little-too-late. It is irrelevant.
While I don't think there are dazzling
insights in this poem, I find the format of
its sensible meaning rather droll. The entire poem is written as a
single sentence. The first word, 'Endow', lends a certain legalist cast. The chiasmic
reversals of "Denied the Cherishing / Till They – the Cherishing deny
–" are clever and build on the theme of logic rather than sentiment.
I'm
not sure, nonetheless, how to respond to the poem in general. It has an overall
polished feel to it – a mood at odds with the extended deep grieving Queen
Victoria had been practicing since Prince Albert died two years before
Dickinson wrote this poem. It is also at odds with the national mood as tens of
thousands of soldiers were dying in Civil War battles.
The
poem's central assumption is that the dead were not cherished in their
lifetimes. But is that what Dickinson is really getting at? Perhaps she was
thinking more broadly and the endowing and the cherishing aren't so tightly
linked. A queen, for example, might devote herself to her people rather than
her dead prince. Governments might forgo ritualized grieving for the dead,
choosing instead to serve the living.
I don't really believe the poem can be read
this way, however. I think it more likely that Dickinson sharpened her poetic
wit in response to particular funerals and grievings in her very own Amherst.