tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post3342841340840246249..comments2024-03-29T06:02:33.720-07:00Comments on the prowling Bee: I gave myself to Him —Susan Kornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-53076520939046030112024-03-15T17:23:58.063-07:002024-03-15T17:23:58.063-07:00Just noticed that "Him" in Line 1 is cap...Just noticed that "Him" in Line 1 is capitalized. ED's not marrying God, so that leaves Wadsworth as the only other choice.Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-87082934922682228472023-08-23T14:16:37.521-07:002023-08-23T14:16:37.521-07:00"I gave myself to Him —
And took Himself, for..."I gave myself to Him —<br />And took Himself, for Pay," ED<br /><br />"The woman’s role, or at least the one she took for herself, was to give herself to “Him.” The bridegroom’s role was to provide support, or “Pay.” Now that’s putting the case for marriage in 1800s America succinctly!" SK<br /><br />Both ED and Susan got the marriage "contract / vow" right, and not just for the 19th century. Although there is legal leeway for variation in wording, the courthouse standard vow uses the verb "take":<br /><br />"I, ____, take you, ____, to be my wife (or husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy law, and this is my solemn vow."<br /><br />The ED Lexicon has 56 definitions of "take", none of them in the wedding-vow sense. OED quotes the Old English form of the wedding-vow sense from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 1140 AD, "he toc hire to wiue" (he took her to wife). <br /><br />In short, ED gets a free pass to say "And took Himself, for Pay" without my quibbling over its 2023 political incorrectness.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> from the Anglo-Saxon ChronicleLarry Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-68720835353472548162023-08-21T15:51:32.683-07:002023-08-21T15:51:32.683-07:00Re-reading this poem I'm not sure about what I...Re-reading this poem I'm not sure about what I wrote before but don't have a better response. Thanks for your comments!Susan Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-63067975620830146482023-08-21T13:32:23.023-07:002023-08-21T13:32:23.023-07:00Gift versus purchase aside, Stanza 4 casts a curio...Gift versus purchase aside, Stanza 4 casts a curious light on ED’s vision of marriage. <br /><br />Line 13: The ED Lexicon defines “risk” as “Chance; gamble; hazard; danger; adventure; jeopardy”. EDL editors weren’t omniscient of ED’s mind, but those definitions seem self-evident. However, for what it’s worth, ED Lex also defines “mutual” as “Equal in interchange”, which marriage is not; in fact, marriage is rarely if ever an equal interchange of each of its infinite faces, nor of their sum. Only rank naivete would believe otherwise, and ED was not that naïve, even about marriage.<br /><br />Line 14: By “Mutual Gain” ED may mean each partner perceives the positives of marriage outweigh the negatives in the long run, which implies that “Some” partners disagree with that arithmetic; again, self-evident.<br /><br />Line 15: Aside from its sexual connotation, which sooner or later obviously ain’t true, perhaps ED meant at the end of each day each partner feels, and hopes the other feels, glad to be married.<br /><br />Line 16: This line puzzles me. Susan K suggests “We’ve spent what was paid us the night before, not only in pleasure but in the Daily Own of frictions and annoyances.” “Daily Own” are ED’s words, a modified verb used as a modified noun. The EDL definition that may fit is “acknowledge responsibility for”, which sounds as good as any and much better than some.<br /><br />But who really knows what ED was thinking? Only ED. We’ll have to ask her in the great Bye-and-Bye.<br />Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-20921356367951916292023-08-21T07:20:57.609-07:002023-08-21T07:20:57.609-07:00After sleeping on it, the premise of a contract se...After sleeping on it, the premise of a contract seems null and void. A valid contract involves a willing seller and a willing buyer, in which case Lines 1 & 2 would read:<br /><br />"I sold myself to Him —<br />And accepted Himself, for Pay,"<br /><br />ED spills her beans with her verbs, "gave" and "took". A gift doesn't require reimbursement, and the giver doesn't "take" anything for payment. The transaction was extortion, recorded for posterity by ED's subconscious sense of entitlement. <br /><br />No wonder why, during a 1930's interview, Wadsworth's youngest son, William S. Wadsworth, told ED biographer, George Whicher, that "My father was not one · · · · to be unduly impressed by a hysterical young woman's ravings." (Whicher, GF, 2 July 1949, 'Pursuit of the Overtakeless', The Nation, p. 14).<br /><br />William S Wadsworth, MD, was coroner of Philadelphia, 1899 ~1960: "Wadsworth became known as the unimpeachable expert witness in the courts of law. · · · · By the time he had reached his mid80s, Wadsworth had performed 16,000 autopsies and had been involved in almost 5,000 murder cases." (Rhett, SA et al., 1999, 'Vignette in medical history: William S. Wadsworth and the evolution of the medical examiner', The American Surgeon, Vol. 65, pp 794-5).<br />Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-1764016679564738202023-08-20T16:07:57.710-07:002023-08-20T16:07:57.710-07:00Franklin dates F426 “about autumn 1862”, but his d...Franklin dates F426 “about autumn 1862”, but his dates, based on ED’s ever-changing handwriting, signify when she copied the finished poem for her fascicle, not the date of composition. If F426 was composed during autumn 1862 AND if the “him” was Charles Wadsworth, then ED sincerely felt their verbal contract of marriage-in-heaven was ironclad despite his move to San Francisco. Her certainty does not mean Wadsworth felt the same, but for her poetry that doesn’t matter.Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-18211239006854623152013-03-13T18:19:22.751-07:002013-03-13T18:19:22.751-07:00Hey, thanks for noticing! You reminded me that I s...Hey, thanks for noticing! You reminded me that I should post a note about not blogging, and so I did. Short version: we've been moving into a house we recently bought and doing a bunch of stuff to it. Blogging resumes on the 20th. Cheers! Susan Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-87637420134655747992013-03-13T16:41:04.933-07:002013-03-13T16:41:04.933-07:00I hope you are just on vacation.I hope you are just on vacation.kevin ryannoreply@blogger.com