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.
This poem grows on me. Your essay helps. I like it more and more as I read it again and again.
ReplyDeleteThe first two lines are wonderful. Endow and squander are strong words -- evoking money as a metaphor to say "invest in the living" and renounce the profligacy of grief. To make tears transactional -- like coins -- is shocking.
The next three lines play with past and present tense. Does "They" refer to the living or the dead? The past tense -- "were" -- makes it seem as if "they" are the dead. But, the word "now" and the setting at the fireside "instead of passive creatures" makes "they" appear to be living men and women. It is really a projection back to the past. The effect is like a flashback -- the dead brought to life.
Then, these living / dead are brought from the past where they were "Denied the Cherishing" to the present -- where "They -- the cherishing deny" with "Ethereal Scorn". This last phrase is so powerful -- so Dickinsonian. It invokes so much -- the immateriality and atmospheric quality of death coupled with the word "scorn" gives the dead an imperious, almost regal quality. The dead look to the transactions of grief from the first two lines as inconsequential -- beyond notice.
Thank you for this. I think your commentary gets more to the heart of the poem than mine. I had meant to mention, but forgot, that I read a substitution of 'And' for 'As if' in the third line-- which I concluded on the reasoning you offer. The living squander their tears when weepily picturing the dead as still alive and sitting in their accustomed chairs around the hearth. That sounds harsh to our modern ears -- and would have been much harsher in 1863 what with all the Civil War casualties, Victorian grief rituals, etc.
DeleteI was struck by 'Ethereal Scorn', too. I couldn't think of another way to say it -- it is vivid and meaningful and untranslatable... as you say, "so Dickinsonian"!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs JWilton says, “Does ‘They’ refer to the living or the dead?”. Sometimes a wordy interpretation helps, or maybe not. Interpretation of 'Endow the Living' depends on whether ED intended subjunctive mood in Line 3 [brackets mine]:
ReplyDeleteEndow the Living — with the Tears —
You squander on the Dead,
And [if] They were Men and Women — now [alive]
Around Your Fireside —
Instead of Passive [dead] Creatures,
Denied the Cherishing
Till They [died]— [then they would not deny] the Cherishing —
With Death's Ethereal Scorn —
Sure sounds dubious to me.
"When the person over whose dead body you are weeping was still alive, you showed little concern for him. When you had a chance to do something for him, you didn't lift a finger. Now your tears are useless."
ReplyDeleteShe says something similar in Fr 1719 "'Tis easier to pity those when dead." In both instances, ED likely alludes to herself - in the subsequent poem, Fr 658, she is the one left out in the cold. Fr 1719 reminds me strongly of the first season of the TV series "The Morning Show."
There was a time when the dead—the passive creatures of the present—were alive. In that past "now," they were men and women sitting around your fireside, and you denied them your attention and cherishing. At present, the situation is reversed.
DeleteIt is Emily Dickinson who denies our cherishing now.