Sees every Man a King—
And Poverty of Monarchy
Is an interior thing—
No Man depose
Whom Fate Ordain—
And Who can add a Crown
To Him who doth continual
Conspire against His Own
-Fr859, J803, Fascicle 38, 1864
The language of royalty litters Emily Dickinson's poems. Words like "King," "Monarchy" and "Crown" show up dozens and dozens of times.
One of Dickinson’s aims seems to be to depose our idea of King and replace it with something more worthwhile. She inverts the norm and shows us in poem after poem how true royalty is something earned.
This poem explores inner sovereignty, the idea that true wealth comes from self-mastery. Someone who has “court within Himself” is a king regardless of poverty. Conversely, someone who works “against his own” inner self cannot be given a crown and no external wealth can compensate.
The language of royalty litters Emily Dickinson's poems. Words like "King," "Monarchy" and "Crown" show up dozens and dozens of times.
One of Dickinson’s aims seems to be to depose our idea of King and replace it with something more worthwhile. She inverts the norm and shows us in poem after poem how true royalty is something earned.
This poem explores inner sovereignty, the idea that true wealth comes from self-mastery. Someone who has “court within Himself” is a king regardless of poverty. Conversely, someone who works “against his own” inner self cannot be given a crown and no external wealth can compensate.
Who Court obtain within Himself / Sees every Man a King—
If someone possesses their own inner royal court, which I personally take to mean cultivating both Truth (integrity) and Beauty (inner richness), then it follows that they will be able to recognize the inherent nobility in all people. Equality is rooted in inner worth, not external hierarchy.
Being able to see every man (and woman) as King is a beautifully democratic ideal.
And Poverty of Monarchy / Is an interior thing—
A King may be poor inside, with an impoverished inner world and a lack of self-government. True monarchy is psychological, not material.
I think about this often. It has become apparent to me that people who have exterior wealth are often living in inner poverty, and vice versa. In my travels I've noticed there is so much more laughter and dancing in the poorer countries that I’ve been to than there are the rich ones. If you are looking beneath the surface, then the meek do, indeed, inherit the earth.
No Man depose / Whom Fate Ordain—
Your deepest Self, your inherent nature, your “Fate,” has made you sovereign. If you are rooted in this Self, then no external force can take that away. It’s the idea that inner authority is “ordained” by who you fundamentally are, not by what society grants you. No one can “depose” you then, because this kind of power is not external in the first place.
And Who can add a Crown
To Him who doth continual
Conspire against His Own
If a person constantly undermines themselves, through self-doubt, self-sabotage, guilt, shame, etc, then no “crown” can fix it. A crown (any external validation) is meaningless for someone at war with their own mind.
Dickinson’s poems comprise a masterclass of lessons in living a meaningful life. Keep court within, not without. If you don't conspire against your own mind then you will find that you won't conspire against anyone else's mind either. You will see everybody as divinely appointed.
One great thing about this poem is that it begins and ends with an echo of the sound of the word CROWN. You see it in the opening of the poem in the phrase “Court obtain,” and then the poem ends with “Conspire against his own” which is a drawing out of the sound of "Crown," as if hidden with the sound of the word "CROWN" is the idea: “ConspiRe against His OWN.”
Emily Dickinson is King.
-/)dam Wade l)eGraff
Hailee Steinfeld playing Emily Dickinson.
The crown of flowers is a nice touch.

Hey Adam!
ReplyDeleteMy guess at the first stanza: When the self is debated all men and women are regal. (The self is always debated.) In other words, if one’s thoughts are contests between many voices, then all deeds are resolutions and carry the heft of government. If everyone’s a king, any external monarchy is a farce. And so monarchy has meaning only as one’s rule over one’s self. So the poverty of monarchy would be an impoverished view of that rule, as more cohesive and one-voiced.
The second stanza: The sovereignty of the self is non-negotiable. We’re all God’s children, and so are all of the clamoring voices inside of us. The only un-kingly thing you could do would be to conspire against such sovereignty. Deny another their place in court. Deny yourself, or part of yourself. (So, I’m totally with you on that point.)
And so, yeah, Emily’s redefining royalty. But I’m not sure that it’s something earned. It’s automatic (and like you say, democratic). And yeah, Emily’s equating royalty with self-mastery. But I think the only poverty here is intellectual failure to recognize that as automatic. You can’t help but be mastered by yourself. There’s nothing special about doubt. It’s just one of the many voices within. Doubt is a bishop. Shame is a queen.
My first read of court was as part of the king’s government. Like, the folks that would advise and execute on his behalf. Seems like your read is closer to a cultured society. But that still connotes multitudes and hierarchy. (Shame is a queen.)
I too questioned "earned" and you may be right there. But the momentous work of obtaining court within oneself, that seems like something earned to me. Very hard to do.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your take, Nate. I'm still mulling it over. Shame is a queen? Do you mean any heirarchy leads to shame for those on bottom? Hmm. Doubt is a bishop and shame is a queen? Is that your figuration? It's worthy of ED. Refers back perhaps to "There is a Shame of Nobleness—"?
Your idea that self-mastery is automatic is terrific. I don't know though! To keep trying takes some will power.
Shame is a queen. Yeah, but so is Pride? Flip side.
I think you are onto something though with the critique. Your way of seeing court at the beginning is fascinating once I got it, but as it is the flip side of how I got it, I had to invert the cube. It's wild how you can do that with poetry sometimes. Keeping court as something troubling, doubling and dubious.
Great to have that perspective too.
Shame as a queen in the sense that she'll be heard and have her way. The shadow of altruism. Heaven's torturer.
DeleteSo, yeah Pride's in there too, having her say. Although that "Shame of Nobleness" poem complicates things, multiplies pride (Susan's notes are great.) The Pride of Humility is a Queen for sure. But she's just visiting.
I get your point about a court-within being a momentous thing. But maybe it's one of those longer-than-life situations. Earned by forebears.
DeleteAnarchy in the U.S.A.
ReplyDelete