1 “Was not” was all the Statement.
2 The Unpretension stuns—
3 Perhaps—the comprehension—
4 They wore no Lexicons—
5 But lest our Speculation
6 In inanition die
7 Because “God took him” mention—
8 That was Philology—
1. “The relations of textual units to each other within the text, which establishes hierarchy and coherence in the text” (p. 25). “The relation of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of text to each other” (p. 29).
a. “Was not” in Line 1 establishes a death, a not, a something no longer existing. Then in Line 7 the “God took him” gives the reason and explanation for the death.
b. The last words in Line 4 and Line 8 relate to one another. “Lexicons” in Line 4 is a book of language and “Philology” in Line 8 is the love of language. You can use the first to accomplish the last and the last justifies the creation and existence of the first. Death brings us back to God and God is the one who brought us into existence and created the need for death in the first place.
2. “Relations of textual units to other texts . . . especially texts considered to be in the same genre” (p. 25).
a. Line 1 and 7 come from the scriptures. Using the scriptures create the foundation of the poem.
b. Line 4, the word “Lexicon” is referencing dictionaries and the such. The people at Enoch’s time did not have books to help them understand Enoch’s translation.
c. The scriptures and this poem can be considered in the same genre because they both praise God.
3. The relations of the units in the text to the intention of the creatures of the creators of the text (intention defined as the relations of the creator to the context of the text, medium, and audience) (p.25).
a. The relation between creator and context of the text. The text discusses death and the power God exercises in a person leaving this world which may sometimes confuse those who are left behind. Emily is trying to understand the death of her father (see 4a.) and knows she must love and understand God to truly understand death.
b. Words cannot be loved unless they are understood, so a lexicon is needed for philology. Death cannot be understood without loving God, so a ‘translation’ of God’s language/actions is needed for love and peace.
c. Emily’s love of Philology (God) would help her understand the stunning (Line 2) Lexicon of life (which includes death, because without death there can be no life—opposition in all things).
4. The relation of textual units to nonliterary events (reference) (p. 25).
a. The death of her father as discussed in class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I particularly like this passage in your comments:
ReplyDelete"Death cannot be understood without loving God, so a ‘translation’ of God’s language/actions is needed for love and peace."
I find the first line puzzling and wonder if it might refer to this poem of hers, too (see below) where she speaks about death and first determines what she is now, how is is not.
It was not death, for I stood up
BY EMILY DICKINSON
It was not death, for I stood up,
And all the dead lie down.
It was not night, for all the bells
Put out their tongues for noon.
It was not frost, for on my flesh
I felt siroccos crawl,
Nor fire, for just my marble feet
Could keep a chancel cool.
And yet it tasted like them all,
The figures I have seen
Set orderly for burial
Reminded me of mine,
As if my life were shaven
And fitted to a frame
And could not breathe without a key,
And 'twas like midnight, some,
When everything that ticked has stopped
And space stares all around,
Or grisly frosts, first autumn morns,
Repeal the beating ground;
But most like chaos, stopless, cool,
Without a chance, or spar,
Or even a report of land
To justify despair.
Of course it would help to know which of the poems was written first. And I do realize that death features as a topic in a number of her poems, it was just the repetition of the phrase (was not) that struck me here. What do you think?
Your insights are thought-provoking, Aeslina. What other cross-textual and contextual relations could be possible for this poem, besides Enoch and ED's father Edward?
ReplyDeleteI also thought of the Savior, I'll talk about that in class.
ReplyDeletei made two typos. sorry. i meant "what she is NOT, how SHE is not." but i'm sure you got that.
ReplyDelete