The Absence of an Eye—
Except its Mind accompany
Abridge Society
As slightly as the Routes of Stars—
Ourselves—asleep below—
We know that their superior Eyes
Include Us—as they go—
-Fr771, J993, fascicle 34, 1863
This poem is similar to Fr769, in that it "sees" seeing. In that poem the poet envisions the last vision. In this one, going a step further, beyond death, the poet sees the absence of being seen:
We miss Her, not because We see—
The Absence of an Eye—
The Absence of an Eye—
But its not the absence of the the eye we miss, but the mind behind that eye, because the loss of Her mind is a loss to our society:
Except its Mind accompany
Abridge Society
It’s not Her physical self (her Eye) that we'll miss so much as the playful liveliness of the response of Her mind, says the poet.
Following from the idea that “the absence of Her mind abridges (lessens) society" we are given a comparison:
“As slightly as the Routes of Stars—”
Abridge Society
It’s not Her physical self (her Eye) that we'll miss so much as the playful liveliness of the response of Her mind, says the poet.
Following from the idea that “the absence of Her mind abridges (lessens) society" we are given a comparison:
“As slightly as the Routes of Stars—”
An alternative line Dickinson leaves us in the fascicle is “As scarcely as the Flights of Stars." I like the alternative because it gives us the sense of a rare shooting star lessening society by flying away, but the line Dickinson went with, "as slightly as the routes of stars" gives us more of a sense of a barely perceptible, but momentous movement. It's a whole different poem really, depending on which line you use. In this version, the "mind accompany" has now gone above, the loss of which is affecting the poet, and it is like the stars' slow and steady movement onward. But never fear, for those eyes, when we close ours, will take us with them:
Ourselves—asleep below—
We know that their superior Eyes
Include Us—as they go—
The poet is “asleep” below, her eyes, ironically, closed. The eye of the beloved has ascended, and can no longer be seen, and moreover, the mind behind that eye, sadly, will no longer affect society. But in the poet’s dreams, the mind of the dearly departed is still affecting her like the superior stars do. The eye of the beloved has become superior like the eyes of the stars. Both the stars, and the lover's mind that has joined them, take the sleeper “as they go.”
The stars, and the eyes of our lost loved ones, are enroute. They are superior now to our own eyes and are taking us with them, if we will but follow.
-/)dam Wade l)eGraff
I like the double meaning in “superior Eyes” here. They are superior due to the knowledge they now have, which the living do not. They are also superior in the sense of being located above us (Latin “super,” above) in the sky — perhaps in heaven.
ReplyDeleteLong time reader, first time commenter. Small point/question - in my Franklin, the third line is “except it’s Mind accompany -“ whereas above you have “its”. I understand the line better with “its” but if that is not a typo in Franklin that phrase is a little baffling to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I thought the first and second stanza were enjambed, creating a logical fallacy, but a period at the end of Stanza 1 solved the problem. If Stanza 1 is a complete thought, then Stanza 2 also becomes a complete thought and ends with a period. With ED’s alternate words in parentheses and my emendations, each stanza becomes a prose sentence:
ReplyDelete“We miss Her, not because We see— / The Absence of an Eye— / [Unless] its Mind [is also absent, and] / (Deprive)[s] Society[.]
“As slightly as the (Flights) of Stars— / [Deprive] Ourselves—[of sleep] below—[,] / [Yet] We know that their superior Eyes / Include Us — as they go—[.]”
When ED says she misses some influential person who looks down on us from the stars, my immediate hypothesis is Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-June 1861), whose 11,000-line poem/novel, ‘Aurora Leigh’, called for recognition of female poets and captured ED’s “white heat” poem forge.
ED “owned two copies of ‘Aurora Leigh’ [1856], and one contains passages she marked in pencil, indicating careful reading and engagement with the text” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian Web).
We know that EBB’s death was heavy on ED’s mind in late October, 1861, when she wrote her cousin, Louisa Norcross (JL311):
“Mrs Browning . . . and George Sand (1804-1876), women, now, queens, now! And one in the Eden of God. I guess . . . little stars . . . twinkling at last. Take heart, little sister, twilight is but the short bridge, and the moon stands at the end. If we can only get to her! Yet, if she sees us fainting she will put out her yellow hands.”
……………………………
ED's two manuscripts of Fr771, Variants A and B, use “ït’s” as possessive, which is incorrect by modern standards. A quick check of 20 poems, F771-F790, turned up two more examples of this "error" in ED's handwriting.
Google AI has this to say:
“The possessive form "its" without an apostrophe became the accepted possessive form in the 18th century, replacing the earlier usage of "it's" with an apostrophe. Originally, "it's" was used for both the possessive and the contraction.” Much of ED's reading was pre-1800 books, and the same was true of ED's contemporary, Herman Melville, who frequently used "it's" as both possessive and a contraction.