Claire Tuley
ED Paper
2/25/2011
Emily Dickinson’s poetry was meant to be interpreted in several ways. Multiple versions
of poems exist, either through rewrites or embedded into letters. When collected together, the
different versions of poems prompt contradictory readings due to the variants and changes made
between versions. The variants that are included with certain poems indicate audience
participation—rather than choose just one word, she allowed her reader to pick the one that they
thought best suited the work. In some poems, the variants are minor; words are made plural or
“the” is switched to “a.” But in others the variants are major, such as Poem #57, the first line of
which varies between “I robbed the Woods-” and “Who robbed the Woods-”. The two versions
show that by changing the poem’s subject, Dickinson challenged her readers to reinterpret its
meaning. Dickinson used the variants to experiment with questions of identity, authority, and
nature. It is difficult to say if there is one correct version; rather, the two variations of the poem
indicate that Dickinson was aware of the power of language early in her writing career.
The earliest version of the poem is dated to 1859. Unlike Dickinson’s other poems, where
identifying the subject is difficult, she immediately identifies the speaker as the subject of the
poem: “I robbed the Woods-” (1). By posing the speaker as a robber, the reader is encouraged to
regard the speaker’s actions as wrong. Dickinson continues this through her descriptions of the
forest. The woods that she robbed are described as "trusting" (2) and "unsuspecting" (3). Not
only does Dickinson position the woods as the innocent party, she also humanizes them by using
two adjectives that are often applied to people. The speaker continued her robbery when she
“brought out their Burs and mosses” (4). These are not anthropomorphized like the woods and
trees, but the plants that she picks have their own distinctive characteristics. The burs
immediately bring to mind thorns that act as protection. The burs are juxtaposed with the
softness of the moss. By contrasting the sharp and soft, Dickinson shows the range of life in the
woods. Though these are not anthropomorphized in the same manner as the trees, the burs and
the moss could stand in for different types of ‘personalities’ in the forest. Instead of a mass of
trees, there is a varied life within in the woods. By taking out the burs and moss that augment the
woods, the speaker is robbing the forest of the features that make each tree original.
The speaker says that she steals from the forest because it is her “fantasy to please” (5).
The structure of the line implies a lack of agency for the speaker. She is not using the fantasy to
please herself; rather, she is trying to placate her fantasy. This is supported by the following line,
“I scanned their trinkets curious-” (6). In Dickinson’s 1844 edition of Noah Webster's American
Dictionary of the English Language, ‘scan’ is defined as “To examine with critical care; to
scrutinize.” The speaker is looking for something in particular to please the fantasy. When she
finds what she was looking for, she holds on to it tightly. “I grasped- I bore away” (7). Dickinson
does not identify or describe what she has found. The easiest interpretation is that she’s found
something to the mosses and burs; however, by not defining what it is she has found Dickinson
has created an internal variant for her reader. The dashes that replace the noun allow the reader to
insert into that space what they find most appropriate.
After the speaker steals her prize from the forest, Dickinson ends the poem with “What
will the solemn Hemlock- / What will the Oak tree say?” (7-8). By capitalizing the names of the
trees, Dickinson once again humanizes them for her readers. She goes further by calling the
hemlock solemn. Dickinson’s edition of Webster’s includes the definition of solemn as
religiously grave or serious, but the first definition listed in the dictionary is “Anniversary;
observed once a year with religious ceremonies.” Though the editor doubts the accuracy of the
definition, it does imply a certain ritual associated with the hemlock. That hemlock is poisonous
suggests that the ventures into the woods are a regular put dangerous practice; however, it is
possible that Dickinson looked beyond its poisonous properties. Domhnall Mitchell writes that
Dickinson identifies hemlock “with northern climates and races (such as her own)” and “is
nature's aesthete, a saint in the wilderness, a representative of those few people who yearn for the
subtle and not the spectacular” (Mitchell 79). If the forest is to stand for different sorts of
personalities, Dickinson could have included the hemlock as a reference to her own character. In
this way, the speaker is stealing a part of her personality. Whether or not Dickinson identified
similar traits between herself and the hemlock, its inclusion in the poem suggests at first glance
an almost dangerous relationship with nature. Dickinson furthers this by following hemlock with
a dash, suggesting a quick and deadly termination to the sentence.
In the final line, Dickinson gives the oak tree its own agency by alluding to its ability to
speak. Though the tree is not the poem’s speaker, the “will” implies that it is capable of speech
and judgment. By ending with a question, Dickinson leaves the poem in a state of uncertainty. If
the oak tree can somehow express its feelings, what would it say? Words that compare the
speaker to a thief, such as “robbed,” “grasped,” and “bore away” would imply that it would
denounce the speaker’s actions. This reading implies that Dickinson is judging the man’s
destructive relationship with nature by putting the forest in a sympathetic and humanized light.
Another way of looking at the poem puts the speaker’s actions into a very different
perspective. When Dickinson writes that the speaker “scanned their trinkets,” she gives the poem
multiple meanings. This could mean that the speaker was simply looking at the forest’s features;
however, Dickinson’s dictionary also defines scan as “To examine a verse by counting the feet.”
Scan’s alternate definition changes the possible meaning of the poem. By approaching the
actions with the woods through poetic terms, Dickinson presents a poem about writing in which
the speaker goes into the woods for inspiration. The etymology of the word moss provided by the
dictionary indicates that in Greek, the word also stood in for shoots or twigs. With this definition,
the mosses that the speaker brings out are new ideas. In Dickinson’s dictionary, burs are defined
as “rough prickly covering of the seeds of certain plants” which could indicate difficulties of
uncovering inspiration during the creative process. The alternate definitions make it possible to
read the poem as about an author going to nature for inspiration. “What will the Oak tree say?”
can be taken to mean “What will the oak tree say to the author?” By ending it on a question,
Dickinson demonstrates that poems are not created the instant one comes in contact with a
creative source; rather, it takes time to find the inspiration.
An 1861 manuscript edition of the poem continues with the writer-as-robber theme;
however, this version has one very major change. In this version, the speaker is never identified.
Instead of declaring who robbed the woods, the poem begins “Who robbed the Woods-” (1).
This interrogative is furthered by a change made to the punctuation at the end of the second line.
Instead of a dash, the line ends with a question mark which turns these two lines into a clear
question. By making this change, Dickinson not only shifts the blame from the speaker but also
indicates that there might not be a definitive answer to the question.
Beyond shifting the subject from the speaker to an unknown, a further change is made to
subject. In the first version, it can be assumed that the speaker is female though she is never
identified beyond the pronoun “I.” In the 1861 version, the subject is identified as male. If this is
a poem about a poet, then it is significant that Dickinson clearly makes the subject male. A male
subject in a piece about the poetic process would be more appropriate to the expectations of the
time that the author is naturally male. The male subject also makes it less obvious that the piece
is about Dickinson’s poetic power. Instead, by using a male subject, Dickinson presents a more
conventional piece about a strong male figure taking what he needs in order to fulfill his poetic
fantasy; however, this is completely at odds with the 1859 version of the poem.
In Adrienne Rich’s essay “Vesuvius at Home: The Power of Emily Dickinson,” she
provides a view of Dickinson’s poems that offers one explanation for such a radical change
between the two versions. Rich proposes that in Dickinson’s poems about the poet’s relationship
to her power, she presents the poetic muse as male (Rich, 181). With this reading, it is the muse
who becomes a destructive force and robs the woods. This also helps to redefine “robbed.”
Dickinson’s edition of Webster’s lists one definition of robbed as “To plunder; to strip
unlawfully; as, to rob an orchard; to rob a man of his just praise.” Though the definition indicates
a robbery of tangible property, the second example shows that it can be figurative as well. Using
that definition, one possible reading of the opening line “Who robbed the Woods-” reveals that
the muse is robbing the woods of its glory by using it as inspiration. This interpretation suggests
that writers have a destructive relationship with nature because they capture nature’s beauty and
keep it on the page.
Dickinson’s poems defy one definitive reading. At first glance, poem #57 is simply
explained away as a robbery in the woods; however, a second look reveals that Dickinson
layered on several different meanings. The variants, from those that differ between the 1859 and
1861 copies to those suggested by the dashes, create multiple interpretations. This poem
addresses not only man’s destructive relationship with nature, but also the gendered power of the
poet and the forces of inspiration.
Works Cited
Dickinson, Emily. The Poems of Emily Dickinson: Reading Edition. Ed. R. W. Franklin.
Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005. Print.
Dickinson, Emily. The Poems of Emily Dickinson. Ed. R. W. Franklin. Vol. 1. Cambridge:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998. Print.
Mitchell, Domhnall. “Northern Lights: Class, Color, Culture, and Emily Dickinson.” The Emily
Dickinson Journal 9.2 (2000): 75-83. Project Muse. Web. 23 February 2011.
Rich, Adrienne. “Vesuvius at Home: The Power of Emily Dickinson.” Critical Essays on Emily
Dickinson: 175-194. Web. 25 February 2011.