I could suffice for Him, I knew—

I could suffice for Him, I knew—
He—could suffice for Me—
Yet Hesitating Fractions—Both
Surveyed Infinity— (+delayed, +deferred)

"Would I be Whole" He sudden broached—
My syllable rebelled—
'Twas face to face with Nature—forced—
'Twas face to face with God—

Withdrew the Sun—to Other Wests—
Withdrew the furthest Star
Before Decision—stooped to speech—
And then—be audibler

The Answer of the Sea unto
The Motion of the Moon—
Herself adjust Her Tides—unto—
Could I—do else—with Mine?


This is a poem that wavers between going forward toward wholeness with a lover and withdrawing from wholeness into solitude. It hesitates between two possibilities. Because this liminal space is so difficult to navigate for the poet, the poem's expression is difficult to parse. The conclusion of this poem could be read two different ways. The poem ITSELF hesitates. Let's go through it line by line.

    I could suffice for Him, I knew—
    He—could suffice for Me—

The poet and her beloved would be enough for each other.

    Yet Hesitating Fractions—Both

But both of them, each only a fraction of the whole, hesitated while they…

    Surveyed Infinity—    (+delayed, +deferred)

This line cuts two ways. We hesitated BECAUSE we both surveyed Infinity, wondering if that is what we wanted, is one way to read it. But if you look at the alternate words Dickinson provided here (delayed, deferred) you see a different reading is also possible. We both hesitated, therefore delaying and deferring infinity. If we didn't hesitate then we could be whole together, infinite. There is a wavering on this phrase, which ripples through the poem. Surveying is quite different from delaying and deferring.

    "Would I be Whole" He sudden broached—

He asks, “Would I be whole with you?” He caught her by surprise with this question.

    My syllable rebelled—

The poet wanted to say yes, but that syllable rebelled against her.

    'Twas face to face with Nature—forced—
    ‘Twas face to face with God—

The syllable “yes” rebels, perhaps, because Dickinson is “forced” to face her own autonomous and withdrawing nature. I say perhaps because the syntax is tricky. In the end of the poem "nature" represents the tides responding to the moon. So the juxtaposition of these two lines could be saying that “natural” attraction, chemistry, or being “face to face with Nature” was “forced” against religious feeling, being “face to face with God—." I come to this conclusion after reading dozens of poems before this one in which there appears to be a conflict between Dickinson’s desire for a lover (probably the Reverend Charles Wadsworth, but possibly Sue Gilbert) and that lover’s duty to God and all that entails. Dickinson has been laying down argument after argument in the poems for choosing natural human love in the here and now over a religious love looking toward a future heaven. There is ALSO the poet's own reticence as hinted at in such poems such as F706, where she says "I cannot live with You –/ It would be Life –." 

As the two lovers hesitate,

    Withdrew the Sun—to Other Wests—
    Withdrew the furthest Star
    Before Decision—stooped to speech—

The Sun went to other Wests (a day or so passed), the stars withdrew (nights passed), before the poet could stoop to speak. It was a long hesitation! The double use of the word “Withdrew” here is significant and recalls the rebellion of the syllable. The stars and sun withdrew just like the syllable did, just like the poet herself does.

"Withdrew the furthest Star” is such a beautifully grand way to say this. Dickinson is the furthest star withdrawing. Stunning lines like this litter Dickinson’s poems like land mines.

It is notable that the poet has to STOOP to speech. In a way that’s what poetry is, the "inexpressible" stooping to words. The feeling for being whole with the lover OR withdrawing and staying a fraction, apart from the lover, is so overwhelming on both sides of the equation that a simple yes or no must, eventually, be stooped to.

But then once it is spoken?

    And then—be audibler

    The Answer of the Sea unto
    The Motion of the Moon—
    Herself adjust Her Tides—unto—
    Could I—do else—with Mine?

Whatever answer the poet gives, yes or no, the response of the tides of the Sea to the motion of Moon, that irresistable force, is even louder (audibler).

You could take this either way, depending on how you see “nature” in this poem. Either the natural attraction of the tides of the sea to the moon is like her irresistible attraction to the lover OR, if you read "nature" here as the poet's withdrawing nature, the tides of the poet must follow the moon of her vocation, and separate in solitude, feeding off "that White Sustenance – Despair –." Is the attraction that speaks louder than her syllable her natural attraction to the lover or to her own independent nature? Even in the ambiguity of this ending this poem “hesitates." 

It would be instructive to get a vote from you which way you believe this poem leans, toward a yes to the beloved, or a yes to withdrawal. Or would you agree that this poem is caught in limbo, leaning both ways at once? 

    -/)dam Wade l)eGraff

                               .

I think Emily would have appreciated this explanation 

of the moon's effect on the tides by Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

Perhaps it would have helped her make a decision?