the Prince of Mines

’T IS little I could care for pearls
Who own the ample sea;
Or brooches, when the Emperor
With rubies pelteth me;

Or gold, who am the Prince of Mines;
Or diamonds, when I see
A diadem to fit a dome
Continual crowning me.

~Emily Dickinson

Last week I fell prey to an acute upper respiratory infection that landed me in Urgent Care and resulted in two unexpected days of laying in bed. Being sick for a day or two I can handle, but I am really a very horrible patient because I am impatient, and after several days of being sick I have had enough. I hit a low point this afternoon and launched a full-on pity party for myself. Thankfully, this poem is here to remind me to keep things in perspective.

Gossip?

The leaves, like women, interchange
Sagacious confidence;
Somewhat of nods, and somewhat of
Portentous inference,

The parties in both cases
Enjoining secrecy,—
Inviolable compact
To notoriety.

~Emily Dickinson

In my edition of Dickinson’s poems, this one has been titled “Gossip.” It’s interesting how a title can interpret and shift the meaning of a poem. Is Dickinson really talking about gossip? Does she mean to imply all that that loaded word conveys?

I’m not sure what to do with this poem, and it’s possibly at least in part because of that superimposed title. We’ve all been taught that gossip is bad. But what about “sagacious confidence”? That doesn’t sound bad. Is Dickinson being facetious? What does she mean by this?

It seems significant that the simile here is between women and leaves, a part of the natural world that, in “whispering” in the breeze, are doing exactly what leaves are supposed to do. No judgment there. Yet human gossip is a bad thing–and an activity stereotypically linked to women.

If the leaves are part of nature, aren’t the women part of it as well? Maybe the focus isn’t so much on what they’re saying as why they’re saying it in this way. I wonder how much of women’s whispered gossip has historically been subversive. Women in Western cultures have traditionally been silenced, left to whisper amongst themselves, their “sagacious confidence” dismissed as “gossip,” painted as petty and harmful.

Whose is the notoriety here? That of the people being talked about, or the women themselves? I have so many questions about this small poem, but I feel like Dickinson wouldn’t just go for the obvious–oh, look gossipy women, bad!! I feel like there’s more to her words than appears on the surface–I’m just not exactly sure what that is.

“The Moon is distant from the Sea”

The Moon is distant from the Sea –
And yet, with Amber Hands –
She leads Him – docile as a Boy –
Along appointed Sands –


He never misses a Degree –
Obedient to Her eye –
He comes just so far – toward the Town –
Just so far – goes away –


Oh, Signor, Thine, the Amber Hand –
And mine – the distant Sea –
Obedient to the least command
Thine eye impose on me –

~Emily Dickinson

I chose this poem in honor of February’s full moon, the Snow Moon. Last night the clouds hung heavy with snow and the light of the moon, amber or otherwise, didn’t touch my little patch of earth. But the moon is still there, irrevocable as the tides, pulling and tugging at consciousness even when invisible.

This is yet another in the category of “Is It a Love Poem??” It easily could be, but the “Signor” could be God as easily as the beloved. Rather than comment on that, I want to focus instead on the gender reversal in this poem.

Dickinson begins with the Moon as “She” and the sea as “Him.” The moon has for thousands of years been associated with the feminine, so there’s nothing surprising her. The interesting thing happens in the third stanza–the female speaker takes the place of the masculine sea, and “Signor,” whoever he is, takes on the feminine role of the moon. I love this kind of gender-bending; it happens occasionally in Dickinson’s poems, and while I don’t know what exactly it means, I find it fascinating.

If we go with a religious reading, there’s precedent for this, of course, in descriptions of God as not only a masculine force, but also a mother bird gathering her chicks under the nurturing shelter of her wings. But why the gender reversal partway through the poem?

Maybe it’s because, in any sustained relationship, socially-constructed notions of gender have to blur from time to time. No one can be the sole nurturer; no one can be the sole protector. Our roles wax and wane over the cycles of time like the phases of the moon. Roles that are stereotypically “feminine” can and should be played by both partners in a relationship, and so should the stereotypically “masculine” ones. I can’t know if Dickinson was thinking anything along these lines, but the fact that she so easily compares the influence of the masculine (God, the beloved) to a feminine power (the moon) is suggestive.

There are so many interesting features in this poem–the gorgeous evocations of the moon’s amber light, the poignancy of the repeated emphasis on the impossible distance between the speaker and the object of her devotion, the sheer beauty of Dickinson’s language. No matter how you read it, it’s a lovely poem to read under the light of the full moon.