05 September 2024

On a Columnar Self—

On a Columnar Self—
How ample to rely
In Tumult—or Extremity—
How good the Certainty

That Lever cannot pry—
And Wedge cannot divide
Conviction—That Granitic Base—
Though None be on our Side—

Suffice Us—for a Crowd—
Ourself—and Rectitude—
And that Assembly—not far off
From furthest Spirit—God—


   -F740, J789, Fascicle 36, 1863


This poem is, on the surface, a pretty simple metaphor  telling us that we can be sturdy like a column if we rely on the granite base of conviction, safe in a “tumult” or storm. No lever or wedge can shake our faith.

And the poem is, taken in this way, inspiring. In fact, as I was reading through it the first time my daughter came to me crying because her sister told her that nobody liked her. I read this poem to her and explained it, and I could see that it did help her. She seemed to become columnized.

But Dickinson weirds this poem in a few ways. First is the latinate bent of the language; columnar, tumult, extremity, granitic, suffice, rectitude, etc. I’m not sure what to make of this. Perhaps there is meant to be a link here between Roman columns, and the structural rigidity of the latin language.

In Christanne Miller’s notes on this poem she points out that it may be possibly related to Emerson’s essay, “Self-reliance.” And there does seem to be an echo here. First of all, “On a Columnar Self,” could almost function as the title of an essay. Then there is the echo of “Self” and “rely” in the first two lines. Finally, the last line of Emerson’s essay is “Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles,” which does have a similar meaning to the “Rectitude” that suffices in this poem.

There is though, perhaps, a counter-reading here, when one looks closely. “How good the Certainty” may be read with a sarcastic tone. This uncertainty in the poem is especially possible of a poet that tends to undermine “Certainty” at every step.

For a deep dive into the dissonance I'm talking about, I will quote extensively from a terrific essay on this poem I found online by Emily Cogan.

“The second and fourth line of the first stanza appear to undermine the idea of the columnar self and the action of relying on it. The use of “ample” suggests an easy utility; the easy option, when faced with tumult or extremity, is to rely on the ample columnar self. Similarly, “how good the Certainty” suggests that the feeling of self-reliance or getting through something on your own is a good one, perhaps even a selfish one once the whole stanza is taken together. The second stanza has a slight shift: the columnar self seems to be praised by what it can withstand; the lever and the wedge are mechanical images which the columnar self, by comparison something natural, stands against; the capitalisation of “That Granitic Base” adds a certain grandeur to this self; and, standing alone with conviction “though none be on our side” is an almost universally respected act.

These apparent oppositions are questioned by Dickinson even as she is creating them. As is often the case in her poetry, this effect is achieved through her punctuation. In the first stanza “- or Extremity -“ is isolated from the rest of the stanza by dashes making the desire to read it simply as an alternative term for tumult impossible. It could refer back to ample not only as an alternative term but as an alternative implication. If extremity and ample can be interchanged, the sense that relying on one’s columnar self is the easy option no longer stands. It is, rather, a last resort. The capitalisation of “Certainty”, notably the last word in the stanza, allows it, as both term and concept, to act as a bridge between the two stanzas. … It is not only her punctuation but, as the example of certainty suggests, the ways Dickinson structures and connects the poem that convolutes the notion of the columnar self. Like the stanza before it, the final line of the second stanza straddles both second and third stanza. The columnar self is suddenly plural “though none be on our side.”...The final stanza is littered with group terms— us, crowd, ourself, assembly — which reverts back to the earlier two stanzas, the two possible attitudes towards this notion of columnar self in order to further investigate them.”

Finally, we should look at the alternative Dickinson provides in the fascicle for the last two lines:

And that Companion—not far off
From furthest Good Man—God—

These are easier lines to understand than the ones Dickinson opts for; God as Companion, rather than Assembly, and the idea of the God being not far off from the furthest Good Man rather than the furthest spirit. “Faithful” is also added as an alternative for “furthest,” which is also easier to comprehend. After all, what does “furthest” mean? It seems to mean here, the one who has gone furthest toward God, the most “faithful,” but you may also read it as the one who is furthest away from God. It complicates the poem. You might say it takes the simple Emersonian idea of self-reliance, and archly, subtly, opposes it. Is the self-reliant the furthest toward God, or the furthest away?

I also like “Assembly” better than the alternative “Companion.” To think of God as a Companion isn’t as provocative as thinking of Him as an Assembly. For one thing, an Assembly must be assembled BY something. Is this word suggestion that we assemble God? For another thing, if God is an Assembly, then it is not singular like a column. The word Assembly for God points toward our reliance on each other. 


    -/)dam Wade l)eGraff










6 comments:

  1. To extend Adam’s Emerson quote, the last two lines of ‘Self-Reliance’ are: “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.” If there is counter-reading of ‘On a Columnar Self’ that contradicts Emerson, it eludes me, Coogan’s essay notwithstanding.

    ED Lexicon defines “columnar” as “stony; rigid, like granite; similar to a marble pillar”, and ED’s poem fits that description.

    Stanza 1 states ED’s quasi-religious belief that a stiff spine in times of “Tumult - or Extremity” rewards the true believer or disbeliever with “good” feelings of “Certainty”.

    Stanza 2 reiterates ED’s belief in no uncertain terms: “Lever cannot pry - / And Wedge cannot divide / Conviction - That Granitic Base - / Though none be on our side –“. ED’s refusal at age 16 to stand and accept Christ as her savior, despite Mount Holyoke’s Headmistress’s exhortation in front of a class of schoolgirls, no doubt loomed large in ED’s mind while she composed this poem.

    Stanza 2 closes with royal plural; “our” means “my”. ED has a history of speaking of herself in third person. Line 8 probably means “Though none be on my side”.

    Stanza 3 continues royal plural in Lines 9-10; “Us” and “Ourself” probably mean “Myself”:

    “Suffice Myself - for a Crowd -
    Myself - and Rectitude -”.

    In Line 12, ED pulls an ace from her pocket by adding “God” to her “Crowd”, forming a trio: “Myself”, “Rectitude”, and “God”. It’s always good to have God on your side. As Adam pointed out, she also suggested three alternative words for Lines 11 & 12: “Assembly” [Companion], “furthest” [Faithful], “Spirit” [Good Man].

    Editors Johnson (1955) and Franklin (1998) decided to disregard alternative words in Stanza 3 and keep the royal plural. That wording confuses me. Does “Assembly” refer to “God” or to “Myself – and Rectitude”?

    Inserting all three alternative words and converting royal plural to standard singular, Stanza 3 reads:

    “Suffice Myself - for a Crowd -
    Myself - and Rectitude -.
    And that Companion - not far off
    From Faithful Good Man - God –”

    Now Stanza 3 makes sense; “Crowd” clearly consists of “Myself”, “Rectitude”, and “God”. For once, ED tells us what she means with her alternative words - or does she? ED’s coziness with God, “that Companion – not far off / From Faithful Good Man”, seems strange given her troubled relations with God. Maybe she’s just covering her agnostic bets.

    Shira Wolosky (2000) asks a rhetorical question: “Is New England self-reliance, à la Emerson, a choice preferrable to traditional social interdependence or does it devolve into cold self-defeating stoniness?”

    Her answer: “[W]e can see how desperate, and how self-defeating, this "Columnar Self" [is], for all its array of certain, granitic, language . . . . Posed almost frantically against tremendous, threatening forces — "Tumult," "Extremity" — and assaultive intrusion — a "Wedge" that threatens to "divide" — this self stands in utter isolation, "None be on our side." And the self's rescue costs in fact the self itself: its liberty, its mobility, indeed consciousness itself — for here Dickinsonian selfhood is lapidary [stony], a downward metamorphosis from motive, sentient, conscious being into inorganic stone. What first appears, then, to be a declaration of absolute independence, emerges instead as a defensive, ambivalent contraction of selfhood, unto its own undoing.”

    • Shira Wolosky. 2000. ‘Dickinson's Emerson: A Critique of American Identity’. The Emily Dickinson Journal, 9(2):134-141




    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello ! I admire your interpretations. I was wondering if you have any essays on "My Life had stood- a Loaded Gun" and "Publication- is the Auction" ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Anonymous 9/7/24. Which poems have you commented on?

    Not yet. Those poems are F764 and F788.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like Shira's take on the poem. Though it strikes me that it too is a counter-reading of Emerson's idea of Self Reliance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Emerson’s thesis sentence, “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,— that is genius”, essay Sentence 4, reeks of egoism and ignorance of human nature. You’re right, Adam, Shira’s counter-reading of ED’s poem spotlights her and Emerson’s logical error.

    In my experience, adherence to “That Granitic Base” of a “Columnar Self” often “emerges instead as a defensive, ambivalent contraction of selfhood, unto its own undoing”, stolid stoicism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put.

      Though I'm still not sure if Dickinson wasn't also subtly undermining the idea of self-reliance and rectitude in this poem, even as she appears to be sincerely asserting it. The move from "none be on our side" toward "assembly" is telling. There is a crack, perhaps, in the marble. I think part of what makes her such a great poet is the way she works counterpoint into her poems, so that they can be read against themselves. In a poem that is about certainty, this aspect is especially pertinent.

      Delete