The letting go
A Presence—for an Expectation—
Not now—
The putting out of Eyes—
Just Sunrise—
Lest Day—
Day’s Great Progenitor—
Outvie
Renunciation—is the Choosing
Against itself—
Itself to justify
Unto itself—
When larger function—
Make that appear—
Smaller—that Covered Vision—Here—
-F782, J745, Fascicle 37, 1863
This is what David Preest refers to as “a definition poem of an abstract idea.” There are two more of them in this fascicle, FR775, "Suspense—is Hostiler than Death—" and FR781, the poem before this one in the fascicle, "Remorse—is Memory Awake—" Together, they comprise a kind of series.
This one is difficult and esoteric, but its truth is a correspondingly deep one.
Renunciation—is a piercing Virtue—
The letting go
A Presence—for an Expectation—
If you let go of your expectations, you are left with Presence. I find this axiom to be very meaningful. It reminds me of William Blake’s poem “Eternity”:
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in Eternity’s Sunrise
The adjective “piercing” here is rich. Piercing implies pain. Renunciation hurts. But piercing also implies depth. Piercing is an adjective and verb at once, and it sums up the paradox of the poem; in the piercing pain can be found the piercing Presence. (Compare this with the previous poem about "Remorse" in the fascicle, which may be summed up, "when you burn you learn.")
Renunciation—is a piercing Virtue—
The letting go
A Presence—for an Expectation—
If you let go of your expectations, you are left with Presence. I find this axiom to be very meaningful. It reminds me of William Blake’s poem “Eternity”:
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in Eternity’s Sunrise
The adjective “piercing” here is rich. Piercing implies pain. Renunciation hurts. But piercing also implies depth. Piercing is an adjective and verb at once, and it sums up the paradox of the poem; in the piercing pain can be found the piercing Presence. (Compare this with the previous poem about "Remorse" in the fascicle, which may be summed up, "when you burn you learn.")
"The letting go" is an echo from one of Dickinson's most famous lines, from FR372, "First—Chill—then Stupor—then the letting go—"
You see this line anew. It's not a letting go. It's THE letting go.
I love that two word stand-alone line following this opening:
“Not now—”
Forget your expectation of immediate gratification, sir! Not now!
The putting out of Eyes—
Just Sunrise—
Forget your expectation of immediate gratification, sir! Not now!
The putting out of Eyes—
Just Sunrise—
These lines are a puzzle. On a surface level, you could say that the putting out of eyes, the putting to sleep of eyes, leads to Sunrise the next morning. But I think, in the context of the rest of the poem, they mean something like; the shutting of the eyes to desire leads us to the opening of a greater vision, the Sunrise.
Lest Day—
Day’s Great Progenitor—
Outvie
Here, I think, Day represents the self, and the Great Progenitor is equivalent to Presence and Sunrise. If we close our eyes to the day, then that day does not attempt to “outvie” (compete) against the Source of that day. We close our eyes to our desires, and we come into Presence with the Source of the desire itself.
Renunciation—is the Choosing
Against itself—
Itself to justify
Unto itself—
What?! This is difficult to untangle because we don’t quite know what the “it” refers to here. It seems at first that “it” refers back to renunciation, but that doesn’t quite gel. Put into prose it would be; renunciation is the choosing against renunciation to justify renunciation unto renunciation? That’s doesn’t make sense to me. But if “it” refers to the object of desire, then I think we are getting somewhere. Renunciation is the choosing against the desired object, justifying the desired object unto itself. In “letting go” you are also “letting be.” The object of desire is free to be. You have "justified" it.
When larger function—
Make that appear—
Smaller—that Covered Vision—Here—
Larger function = the Presence, the Great Progenitor, the Sunrise. (Notice Dickinson’s avoidance of the fraught word "God" here, even though she dances all around it.) When the shutting of the eyes allows that larger function, then that larger function makes the renounced object of desire appear smaller, and, then, paradoxically, that covered vision appears... “—Here—”
"Here" is set off between dashes, full of portent and Presence.
Here!
Lest Day—
Day’s Great Progenitor—
Outvie
Here, I think, Day represents the self, and the Great Progenitor is equivalent to Presence and Sunrise. If we close our eyes to the day, then that day does not attempt to “outvie” (compete) against the Source of that day. We close our eyes to our desires, and we come into Presence with the Source of the desire itself.
Renunciation—is the Choosing
Against itself—
Itself to justify
Unto itself—
What?! This is difficult to untangle because we don’t quite know what the “it” refers to here. It seems at first that “it” refers back to renunciation, but that doesn’t quite gel. Put into prose it would be; renunciation is the choosing against renunciation to justify renunciation unto renunciation? That’s doesn’t make sense to me. But if “it” refers to the object of desire, then I think we are getting somewhere. Renunciation is the choosing against the desired object, justifying the desired object unto itself. In “letting go” you are also “letting be.” The object of desire is free to be. You have "justified" it.
When larger function—
Make that appear—
Smaller—that Covered Vision—Here—
Larger function = the Presence, the Great Progenitor, the Sunrise. (Notice Dickinson’s avoidance of the fraught word "God" here, even though she dances all around it.) When the shutting of the eyes allows that larger function, then that larger function makes the renounced object of desire appear smaller, and, then, paradoxically, that covered vision appears... “—Here—”
"Here" is set off between dashes, full of portent and Presence.
Here!
I find this poem especially poignant during this season of Lent.
-/)dam Wade l)eGraff
-/)dam Wade l)eGraff
Notes:
1. It would be remiss not to talk about the form of this poem, with its wildly fluctuating meter, and its heavy use of dimeter. The only poem that seems in line with this one so far in the first 782 poems of Dickinson's oeuvre is the one a few poems back in this fascicle, FR778. This one feels wholly experimental to me, but I’d love to know if there is an antecedent for it. Perhaps it is worth noting that the poem starts out with iambic pentameter and ends with trochaic pentameter, but all the lines between are seemingly random. Still though, the rhythm and rhyme have a satisfying flow and finish. It's disjointed, but feels right. Perhaps this is in line with Renunciation itself.
2. I recently learned that Dickinson’s library contained a volume of William Blake. I’ve always wondered about that, since there are so many similarities between the two poets. Not only is the Sunrise in this poem reminiscent of Blake's Eternal Sunrise, but I can feel Blake's epigrammatic concision in, "The putting out of eyes/ Just Sunrise." It just occurred to me that Blake, himself, may have been alluding to Alexander Pope’s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”
Thanks for the beautiful analysis. Just a few ideas: what if the IT in itself refers to the Choosing, not the object of desire? Renunciation could be choosing not to choose.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense to me and in a way and it corresponds to Emily Dickinson's attitude towards the act of conversion and towards action in general. Choosing God would be much easier than not doing it and yet she stalls.
As for "the putting out of eyes" I too believe it is the act of closing them, eliminating sight from the equation, which again is quite a recurrent image in her poetry.
Not sure why but it immediately made me think of J465 "and then the Windows failed - and then/ I could not see to see", I find the image of "sight failing" standing for "closing of one's eyelids" very similar.
I like that idea, of the IT referring to choosing, but it would mean reading this whole poem as a critique of renunciation. I tried to read it that way, but couldn't quite make it fit. You might be able to? No, I don't think Dickinson was a "convert," but rather I believe she had her own sense of what renouncing means, and can even be seen as renouncing Grace itself. (This seems to be a bit of a theme in this fascicle.) I think Dickinson did see herself as a renunciate of sorts though, but what that entails is mysterious.
DeleteI love the connection with J465. Thank you for that. I think a study could be (and probably has been) done on the closing of the eyes in Dickinson's ouevre.
Thank you for helping me think deeper about this poem.
I am reminded of F336 "Before I got my eye put out-".
DeleteThe way I'm reading it is that it is expectation itself that is being renounced.
ReplyDeleteI think what is being renounced is left unstated. The renunciation creates a space / presence for an expectation. You let go of what you could have now and expect something better in the future.
DeleteMakes sense?
Ah yes, that's a terrific way to read it too. The syntax for those lines allows for it either reading I think. You let go of expectation and you get Presence. But in this reading you renounce and you are left in expectation of Presence. I suppose the syntax could also be read as letting go of a Presence (a desired love?) for the expectation of something beyond, just as the Progenitor of the day is beyond the day itself.
DeleteMaybe choosing not to choose is a kind of renunciation? If you truly have no expectations, what is there to choose?
ReplyDelete782.1863.Renunciation—is a piercing Virtue—
ReplyDelete(ED’s alternate words in parentheses):
Renunciation—is a piercing Virtue—
The letting go
A Presence—for an Expectation—
Not now—
The putting out of Eyes—
Just Sunrise—
Lest Day—
Day’s Great Progenitor—
Outvie (Outshow, Outglow)
Renunciation—is the Choosing
Against itself—
Itself to justify
Unto itself—
When larger function—
Make that appear—
Smaller—that Covered (flooded, sated) Vision—Here—
“d. scribe” (above) suggests this poem is about a “letting go of a Presence (a desired love?) for the expectation of something beyond”. This take is also mine, with a further suggestion that the seed of this poem is ED’s “letting go” of her pathological infatuation for Rev. Charles Wadsworth for her “Vision” of future poetic fame . She was 24 when she first heard him preach; he was 16 years older, married with two children, and a pew-filling pastor at Philadelphia’s Arch Street Presbyterian. She felt spiritual kinship with him, and he may have been her muse for some poems, but romantic partner he was not.
For a fuller explanation of the biographical history between ED and Wadsworth, see my comments on the ‘ED-LarryB’ blog
Biographic History of ED and Reverend Charles Wadsworth
https://ed-larryb.com/2025/05/652-1863-that-i-did-always-love/
An interpretation of ‘Renunciation—is a piercing Virtue’ (F782, ED’s alternate words in parentheses):
L1-L3:
Renunciation is a painful virtue,
The letting go of
A cherished bond for a greater goal.
L4-L8:
Not now
Abandoning my vision of being a poet,
But rebirth,
Lest infatuation,
Love’s great progenitor,
(Outglow) my dream.
L9-L12:
Renunciation is the choosing
Against myself,
Myself to justify
Unto myself.
L13-L16:
When larger vision
Make that romance appear
Smaller, my flooded “Vision” has won.
About the time Charles Wadsworth resigned from Arch Street Presbyterian in Philadelphia and sailed to San Francisco (May 1, 1862), ED decided to wear only white for the rest of her life, including her funeral dress and her coffin. My guess is that white was an outward sign of her “trothed” lifelong faithfulness to him and/or of her resolution to devote her life to poetry.
Sixteen years later, when a real suitor, Judge Otis Lord, asked her hand in marriage, or at least some mutually satisfying relationship (e.g., ED’s favorite female author, ‘George Elliot’, and her partner, George Henry Lewes) she said “No”:
ED’s letter (JL562) to retired Chief Justice (Massachusetts) Judge Otis Phillips Lord, about 1878, heavily censored by someone after ED’s death, probably her brother, Austin:
[Top of sheet cut off]
“Dont you know you are happiest while I withhold and not confer - dont you know that "No" is the wildest word we consign to Language
. . . . to lie so near your longing - to touch it as I passed, for I am but a restive sleeper and often should journey from your Arms through the happy night, but you will lift me back, wont you, for only there I ask to be - I say, if I felt the longing nearer - than in our dear past, perhaps I could not resist to bless it, but must, beacuse [sic] it would be right.
“The "Stile" is God's - My Sweet One - for your great sake - not mine - I will not let you cross - but its all your's [sic], and when it is right I will lift the Bars, and lay you in the Moss - You showed me the word.
“I hope it has no different guise when my fingers make it. It is Anguish I long conceal from you to let you leave me, hungry, but you ask the divine Crust and that would doom the Bread.
[bottom of sheet cut off]
………………………………………………………
“It may surprise you I speak of God - I know him but a little, but Cupid taught Jehovah to many an untutored Mind - Witchcraft is wiser than we –”
Unsigned
“A majority of the poems written before this one in Dickinson’s oeuvre exhibit a painful yearning for a Beloved. In this one the Beloved has been internalized as Self.”’
ReplyDeleteYour quote on the next poem, F783, Adam, describes exactly and in fewer words my comment on the previous poem, ‘Renunciation—is a piercing Virtue—’. As always, ED said it best, but camouflaged (L9-L12):
“Renunciation—is the Choosing
Against itself—
Itself to justify
Unto itself—”
An interpretation:
“Renunciation—is the Choosing
Against myself—
Myself to justify
Unto myself—”
In few words, she renunciates romance and commits herself to poetry. In her coined word of 1882, she leaves “Little Girl”hood behind and becomes an adult. To her credit, she cherished Charles Wadsworth until she died:
“He was my Shepherd from “Little Girl”hood and I cannot conjecture a world without him, so noble was he always – so fathomless – so gentle (ED Letter 994 to James D. Clark, Wadsworth’s best friend, August 22, 1882, four months after his death and four years before her own.)
Miller, C, and D. Mitchell, 2024, The Letters of Emily Dickinson’ (p. 687). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.