No matter — now — Sweet —
But when I’m Earl —
Won’t you wish you’d spoken
To that dull Girl?
Trivial a Word — just —
Trivial — a Smile —
But won’t you wish you’d spared one
When I’m Earl?
I shan’t need it — then —
Crests — will do —
Eagles on my Buckles —
On my Belt — too —
Ermine — my familiar Gown —
Say — Sweet — then
Won’t you wish you’d smiled — just —
Me opon?
-F734, J704, Fascicle 35, 1863
Though this poem is, as far as Emily Dickinson poems go, fairly easy to follow, there is, nonetheless, a complex and subtle mix of tones. This poem both pushes and pulls, is both yearning and dismissive, insecure (“this dull girl”) and confident (“When I’m Earl”), censorious and coy, light and heavy, sweet and bitter.
Almost all of us have been in the position of being snubbed, and, if we are honest, most of us have also been in the position of being the snubber, even if it was unthinkingly. This poem has something to say to both sides of this equation.
If you are the snubber, this poem reminds you that it is such a “trivial” thing to smile, to just say a kind word. The word “trivial” isn’t trivial here. You can tell because Dickinson uses the word twice. Dickinson poems are extremely concise and every word counts, so if a word is used twice, take note. Another word that is used twice in this poem is “Sweet.” This also tells you something important. If this poem seems bitter, the extra “Sweet” reminds us that any anger is tempered within the confines of a familiar relationship.
If, on the other hand, you are the one who has been snubbed, this poem reminds you to remember your royal nature. You have an “Earl” emerging inside of you. Don’t forget it.
There is a self-assured knowingness that this narrator has that is inspiring. She isn’t whining about the lack of attention. Rather she is, sweetly, instructing the person who is inattentive. She knows that she possesses a royal nature. Dickinson often writes of herself in such royal terms. She knew her true worth. Do we know ours?
This poem is perhaps most notable for its gender fluidity. We have a 19th century girl from Amherst dressing up like an 18th century English earl. One suspects this poem was written for Emily's sister-in-law Sue. Maria Popova, in an essay on Dickinson's letters to Sue, writes,
“Dickinson would frequently and deliberately reassign gender pronouns for herself and her beloveds, recasting her love in the acceptable male-female battery of desire. Throughout her life, she would often use the masculine in referring to herself — writing of her “boyhood,” signing letters to her cousins as “Brother Emily,” calling herself a “boy,” “prince,” “earl,” or “duke” in various poems. Again and again, she would tell all the truth but tell it slant, unmooring the gender of her love objects from the pronouns that befit their biology. Later in life, in flirting with the idea of publication, she would masculinize the pronouns in a number of her love poems — “bearded” pronouns, she called these — to fit the heteronormative mold, so that two versions of these poems exist: the earlier addressed to a female beloved, the later to a male.”
In this poem the narrator starts off as a dull girl, and then blossoms to become a fancy Earl. The transformation from a feminine signifier to a traditionally masculine one happens within the poem itself. There are other examples of this, like in F225, for example, where Dickinson goes from wife to Czar. The narrator doesn’t become male so much as transform into a powerful figure who is traditionally male. This move has a twofold effect; not only does it subverts patriarchal roles, but it also broadens the definitions for women.
Just look at the language that accompanies this transformation! There is the “crest,” with its double meaning; both royal crest and tip top. Then there are those eagles. Not only are they on the earl's buckle, but we find out they are on the belt too. They appear to be proliferating even as this "dull girl" is transformed into an Earl. In the "crest" of sky, this poem implies, eagles will fly. This poem may, itself, be seen as the crest of the poet's eagle-like flight. Watch out little ermine.
If, on the other hand, you are the one who has been snubbed, this poem reminds you to remember your royal nature. You have an “Earl” emerging inside of you. Don’t forget it.
There is a self-assured knowingness that this narrator has that is inspiring. She isn’t whining about the lack of attention. Rather she is, sweetly, instructing the person who is inattentive. She knows that she possesses a royal nature. Dickinson often writes of herself in such royal terms. She knew her true worth. Do we know ours?
This poem is perhaps most notable for its gender fluidity. We have a 19th century girl from Amherst dressing up like an 18th century English earl. One suspects this poem was written for Emily's sister-in-law Sue. Maria Popova, in an essay on Dickinson's letters to Sue, writes,
“Dickinson would frequently and deliberately reassign gender pronouns for herself and her beloveds, recasting her love in the acceptable male-female battery of desire. Throughout her life, she would often use the masculine in referring to herself — writing of her “boyhood,” signing letters to her cousins as “Brother Emily,” calling herself a “boy,” “prince,” “earl,” or “duke” in various poems. Again and again, she would tell all the truth but tell it slant, unmooring the gender of her love objects from the pronouns that befit their biology. Later in life, in flirting with the idea of publication, she would masculinize the pronouns in a number of her love poems — “bearded” pronouns, she called these — to fit the heteronormative mold, so that two versions of these poems exist: the earlier addressed to a female beloved, the later to a male.”
In this poem the narrator starts off as a dull girl, and then blossoms to become a fancy Earl. The transformation from a feminine signifier to a traditionally masculine one happens within the poem itself. There are other examples of this, like in F225, for example, where Dickinson goes from wife to Czar. The narrator doesn’t become male so much as transform into a powerful figure who is traditionally male. This move has a twofold effect; not only does it subverts patriarchal roles, but it also broadens the definitions for women.
Just look at the language that accompanies this transformation! There is the “crest,” with its double meaning; both royal crest and tip top. Then there are those eagles. Not only are they on the earl's buckle, but we find out they are on the belt too. They appear to be proliferating even as this "dull girl" is transformed into an Earl. In the "crest" of sky, this poem implies, eagles will fly. This poem may, itself, be seen as the crest of the poet's eagle-like flight. Watch out little ermine.
-/)dam Wade I)eGraff
P.S. Christine Miller, in "Poems as She Preserved Them,” changes the “opon” in the final line to “upon.” But I’m more inclined to leave it the way it is. Dickinson has this same spelling in other poems, so I believe it is her preference. I don’t know why Dickinson would prefer it this way, but I bet she had a good reason. Any guesses as to why?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour Maria Popova quote is perfect in this explication. And, what a perfect picture in closing. That is one beautiful earl.
ReplyDeletePS. An “earl” is a male; the female equivalent is a “countess”.
PPS. ED uses the word “Earl” in this and eight previous poems, but only in this poem, F734, is “Earl” a self-reference (Lines 2 & 8).
in F705 she mentions having "Skill to hold my Brow like an Earl—"
DeleteYes, F705 is one of the "eight previous poems". "When I’m Earl" is an example of verbal gender switching, female to male. For me, "Skill to hold my Brow like an Earl—" doesn't involve a verbal gender switch, AKA, poetic cross-dressing.
DeleteAdam, in your F731 exposition, asked whether ED wrote any poems that were “what you see is what you get” poems. My answer was “no”, but this poem, F734, changes my “no” to “yes, maybe, rarely”.
ReplyDeleteAs a history/biography nut, I have to wonder who the "you" is in this poem, F734.
ReplyDeleteThe poet was hurt and angry because a friend or lover had, in her opinion, slighted her poetry or person. My candidates for guilty are Charles Wadsworth or Susan Dickinson or both.
Sam Bowles rarely replied to her letters and poems, so nothing was expected from him, and both ED and Wadsworth arranged for burning all mutual letters when they died, so we have no direct evidence that she ever called him “Sweet”.
Sue’s story was more complicated:
My inference is that ED referred to Sue as “Sweet”, at least seven times in previous poems and, I think, twice in this poem, F734: Line 1, “No matter-now-Sweet,” (Line 1) and “Say - Sweet – then”, (Line 14).
As teenagers, Emily and Sue devoured Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra together and proudly adopted respective roles of “prince” and “his” queen. But for Sue, marriage, socializing, and children ended those playful patterns. Sue loved to plan and host social gatherings at Evergreens, to which ED was not invited. Perhaps ED disliked chit-chat, or perhaps her conversation took unpredictable turns inappropriate for Amherst social prattle.
In any case, ensuing estrangement, evinced by this poem, resulted in a 15-year hiatus in ED’s visits to Evergreens (1868-1883). Fortunately, estrangement did not extend to their shared love of poetry, “our common quest”, as Sue said in her eulogy below. A lifelong flow of poems and notes crossed the meadow between ‘Homestead’ and ‘Evergreens’, at first via hired help or postal mail, later by Sue’s children.
Five years after ED’s death, Sue described her “strangling” relationship with ED (Susan Dickinson 1891):
“Minstrel of the passing days
Sing me the song of all the ways
That snare the soul in the October haze
Song of the dark glory of the hills
When dyes are frightened to dull hues
Of all the gaudy shameless tints
That fire the passions of the prince
Strangling vines clasping their Cleopatras
Closer than Antony's embrace
Whole rims of haze in pink
Horizons be as if new worlds hew
Shaping off our common quest –“
It was too late for ED to reply, but I’m sure it would have been a zinger.
• Susan Dickinson, 1891, Downloaded July 31, 2022, https://archive.emilydickinson.org/susan/tmins.html
If I were to liken this poem to a song from the "My Fair Lady" musical, it would be to "Just You Wait" rather than "Without You." To me, it sounds like overcompensation.
ReplyDelete