From: LouisFors@aol.com
Message-Id: <daa405aa.34f1e008@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:45:57 EST
To: emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Hymns and ED's indirection
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

I have not followed the thread of the relationship between hymns and
Dickinson"s
poetry as closely as I should have.  But a thought has come to me.  Even if
Dickinson knew hymns of her day, particularly those of Issac Watts, that
knowledge would have translated primarily (only?) into rhythmic matters in her
poetry.  I assume that the hymns being sung in church were clearly understood
by churchgoers, although I'm aware that the rhythmic beat carried the hymn
forward. (The only difficulty I had with hymns when I was a kid was
understanding certain terms.  But those understandings could be cleared up by
talking to the Sunday school teacher.  Meanings were not intentionally
obscure.)  

On the other hand, most of ED's poems are loaded with indirection, with voids
that require real work on the part of the reader/listener.  I don't mean to
dismiss the importance of rhythm, but if one got that quality right (if one
could sing ED's poems to certain tunes, for example) that would not greatly
clarify her meanings.  She demanded the reader/listener to work very hard,
digging around for possibilities, experimenting, often endlessly, with
lexicon, juxtapositions, etc.  

A thought, inviting reaction,

Louis Forsdale

I repeat that I have not followed the hymn thread as closel