Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:34:32 -0400 (EDT) on Dickinson and interiority ---------------------------- Joan wrote: As I alluded to in my earlier comments, I think maybe the "Impregnable of = Eye" is describing the " Chambers as the Cedars". If so, I interpret that = as meaning that outsiders cannot look inside. Outsiders cannot penetrate = just by looking. I had felt that this was some kind of reference to the = poet's sense of privacy, perhaps. That, even though poets make their = words available to the reading public, there is still an element of the = personal--the private-- that the poet retains--maintaining an elusivity, = perhaps, while also being open to possibility, i.e., from the reader's = perspective. Am I way off on this? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Al now adds: The closets cannot be seen into (they are impregnable of eye). (Note that "of eye" is not strictly speaking a correct American-English idiom. Yet it does make sense. Is this mere awkwardness, resulting from Emily's attempts to jam huge things into a small contorted poetic space?) So the closets are mysterious. And yet the house is open--lots of windows and no roof. So you have the typical Dickinsonian interiority along with openness of meaning along with complexity of architecture The house of poetry! The house of prose would be closed on the outside (to the outside) and yet open within. Emily's house is open on the outside and closed in the interior spaces. Since we are heading toward Whitman, I might point out that Emily is in this sense just the opposite of Walt. Walt is impatient with interiority. (Let it all hang *out*.) --Al