All I may, if small,

All I may, if small,
Do it not display
Larger for the Totalness —
’Tis Economy

To bestow a World
And withhold a Star —
Utmost, is Munificence —
Less, tho’ larger, poor.


      -Fr799, J819, sheet 13, early 1864


This was a difficult poem to understand. I read it, blinked, shook my head, and tried again. And again and again. It’s like one of those autostereograms, where you look at a 2 dimensional page, and if you stare long enough, and squint just right, a 3 dimensional object pops out. Most of Dickinson’s poems have some degree of this quality, but some, like this one, take bit more work. 

So I went back and stared longer. Eventually, a cogent reading emerged, like a 3D star, from the page. Once I got it, it seemed obvious. Here is my take, line by line.

All I may, if small

All I have to give, even though it is small…

Do it not display
Larger for the Totalness —

Doesn’t it appear larger for being so total?

’Tis Economy
To bestow a World
And withhold a Star —

It may be economical to give a whole world and keep a star for yourself,

Utmost, is Munificence —

but giving your utmost, everything, is where true munificence (generosity) is.

Less, tho’ larger, poor.

Giving anything less, even if it is actually more than what I have to give, is still poor.

It is better to give everything you have, even if it is small, than to give a lot, but hold back the truly important thing. 

***

I chafe a bit at biographical readings of Dickinson's poems, just because I think they can detract from a poem’s resonance in our own lives, but sometimes they can be helpful. This is, perhaps, the case here. We know this poem was given to Sue, so let’s start there.

This poem reads to me like Fr687,

I asked no other thing —
No other — was denied —
I offered Being — for it —
The Mighty Merchant smiled —

Brazil? He twirled a Button —
Without a glance my way —
“But — Madam — is there nothing else
That We can show — Today”?

In this earlier poem, Emily is offered Brazil but, though an entire country, it isn’t the one thing she really wants, which is all of Sue. Emily offers her whole being, but Sue is holding back the one thing Emily really wants, which is, we assume, her whole being in return. In that poem Emily is saying, I wanted the world, but you just offered Brazil. In this one, the stakes are even larger -you may have given me the whole world, but you kept the star for yourself.  

What I have, it says, may be small, but doesn’t it appear larger for being so total? Meanwhile, you, who have so much to give, are keeping the true thing, the star, for yourself. Both poems seem to say, you are being economical, like a merchant, and bartering, but it's all or nothing I want.

I believe this poem is chiding Sue for holding back. Fr687 does this with a cheeky humor, but this one is more to the point -is not my small gift of my whole Being larger for being total than your large gift is for being partial? 

One wonders if receiving poems like this made Sue retreat even further. And yet, don't we all wish for a love this total? Well, we know Sue was there for Emily at the end, and even made her funeral shroud for her, so perhaps Emily got her star after all.

   -/)dam Wade l)eGraff

The Lovers, by Marc Chagall, 1915

Note: This poem, like many of Dickinson's, can be read in more ways than one. For instance, there is a logically viable reading of the poem I found online which has nearly the opposite meaning from the way that I take it. This other reading extols the wisdom of holding something back when you give. It says that to give a world, but to hold back a small part, a star, is the “utmost, is munificence,” and suggests that true generosity is not in giving recklessly, but rather, giving wisely. The entire poem can be parsed in support of this reading, and it’s compelling. It's a terrific reading, and wise, but I don't think that is what Dickinson is saying here. I believe she is saying the opposite. She’s not praising being economical, but, instead, criticizing it. Love with your whole heart she is telling us.