Christopher Benfey examines why this big news continues to turn up missing in the near-beatification of one of this world's greatest poets.
Christopher Benfey examines why this big news continues to turn up missing in the near-beatification of one of this world's greatest poets.
Last time I read anything about Emily's love life, it was a piece by a queer theorist insisting she'd had a long affair with Sue Dickinson, her sister-in-law. Whew. An Amherst Marriage as opposed to a Boston Marriage, I presume.....
ReplyDeleteSee, I never thought of her as being a celibate type; and, I don't think her poetry deserves to be raked over the coals on those grounds, anyway; but, whether she was straight or gay, she's still my numero-uno dame, regardless of what they suggest, imply, unearth, or say. I was born a Modernist; and, I s'pose I shall die one, too (not unlike you); but, I don't think a writer's personal life has much to do with The Book of Eternity; and, that reminds me; that's how Frank and I met!
ReplyDeleteIt was over a Brit author's announcement of being struck with Alzheimer's, a terrible disease that took my mom; but, that's another story, Morning Glory :).
p.s. What's the difference between an Amherst marriage and a Boston one? (Cream pie?)
Oh, it's a wee joke. A "Boston marriage" is an old American phrase that refers to two spinsters living together to share expenses. A 19th-century concept, co-opted in the late 20th by lesbian theorists who said many of these couples were way more than roommates and that "marriage" was hardly an ironic term in their cases.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt it's true for some of them, too. My joke plays on Amherst as, of course, that is where Emily D. spent her life. I love her poems too: Her verses and feelings amaze me, even when I don't quite know what she's talking about or who referring to. They work even when you don't know, which is what I think makes her so great. Of course she had passion in her life -- her poems are all about love, loss, passion, and I don't think they could have been written by someone who did not herself experience those things.
Not to belabor the point, but this need to see ED a certain way reminds me of the scholars who could not bear to admit that Thomas Jefferson had fathered several children with his slave Sally Hemings. It just didn't fit the image they wanted to have of the Sage of Monticello, and it took DNA evidence to convince some of them (and some were never convinced).
It is interesting, to me, how frequently and unbidden, so many of her lines run through my head during times of distress or jouissance or . . . A kind of comforting sense in the sound and better than tranks, I think. Thanks for the distinguishing on marriage types; I'd rather hoped one involved getting creamed with pie :).
ReplyDeleteBelabour, Susan? Ha! I believe Sally's offspring were his; and, I don't have any problem with it except that it must have hurt her terribly to be loved first-classily and treated second-classly. The jury, apparently, is still out on whether it was an equal relationship or coercion or whatever. I suppose I would like to think Jefferson wouldn't ill-treat a woman; but, then again, I've come to learn, there is something about most human beings that, given the option, if they think they can get away with whatever, most people take the low road, sadly . . . then?
They end up in those hotel rooms where you feel their presence long after the fact :). Not me; I have fun hiding all the advertising in the drawers and pretending I'm the only person in the world and that Bible stays put (unless I'm with someone else, of course; then, the Bible still stays put!).