Vesuvius at Home: The Power of Emily Dickinson

In “Vesuvius at Home: The Power of Emily Dickinson,” Adrienne Rich deconstructs popular portrayals of Emily Dickinson and mainstream interpretations of her poetry, revealing the patriarchal attitudes underlying much of the existing scholarship on Dickinson. Rich relies upon historical contextualization in combination with literary devices such as anecdote, imagery, and allusion to support her alternative interpretation of Dickinson’s poetry and conception of Dickinson’s character. Through the specific case of Dickinson, Rich constructs an argument for feminist re-readings of old texts, particularly those of women writers, suggesting that women can provide insight into the thought processes of other women.

Though Rich critiques some of her contemporaries, this essay is not simply a rebuttal of their misguided interpretations. Rich’s conversational tone and language indicate that she intended this essay to reach a broader public beyond the halls of academia where the essay’s concept originated. It is clear, however, that she originally wrote this essay for the audience of a university lecture, as Rich poses questions repeatedly throughout the essay, refusing to give away all of her answers but rather allowing the reader to make connections alongside her. Questions such as “Suppose Jonathan Edwards had been born a woman […]?” have the effect of drawing readers into an act of imagination parallel to Rich’s attempts to reconceptualize Dickinson and (implicitly) to Dickinson’s own creative work (179). Beyond proposing a new reading of Dickinson, Rich seeks to help readers inhabit the mindset of a female writer through “Vesuvius at Home.”

Rich’s own vocation lends her credibility in this, but Rich also employs various strategies to bolster the legitimacy of her claims. At the start of the essay, Rich introduces a simile in which she compares herself to a “fly” buzzing against the screen of Dickinson’s existence, immediately establishing Rich’s extensive study of Dickinson and thus appealing to ethos: Dickinson is Rich’s area of expertise. Rich also appeals to ethos by emphasizing the connection between herself and Dickinson, drawing upon their shared geography and gender. In addition, Rich references a variety of primary sources to craft her alternative conception of Dickinson’s character, including quotes from Dickinson’s family, friends, and colleagues, as well as Dickinson’s own poetry and correspondences.

One of the main themes that Rich explores is Women in Patriarchal Society. Rich develops this theme by arguing that much of the criticism and myth surrounding Dickinson is rooted in misogynistic attitudes and expectations of women—in particular, the pressure to subordinate their own needs and desires in service of a husband and children. With this in mind, Rich proposes that Dickinson was not an antisocial hermit but a practical woman who chose her company wisely and reserved her time and energy for her vocation. If Dickinson had been a male poet, Rich argues, people would not be so shocked by her behavior and social habits. Rich also critiques portrayals of Dickinson as a “frail” woman and posits that Dickinson was a “figure of powerful will” (180), describing how Dickinson undermined the authority of her magazine editor and expressed her “volcanic propensities” through her writing.

Rich further develops the theme of women under patriarchy by emphasizing the risks that Dickinson faced as a woman poet in the 19th century. Rich suggests that Dickinson stood to lose her perceived femininity by pursuing her passion and “taking hold of her forces” (184). On page 190, Rich considers a poem in which Dickinson portrays herself as both a “hunter” and a gun. Rich explains that this dichotomy between aggressive agent and passive object demonstrates the tension between Dickinson’s inner and public persona: the tension of being an artist and creator in a world that condemns “active willing and creation in women” (190).

Continuing to investigate The Poet’s Private Versus Public Personas, Rich explains that this feeling of being “split” is not unique to Dickinson but a familiar experience for women throughout time. Rich emphasizes that it was courageous for Dickinson to give voice to her psychological torments through language, especially considering the culture of silence in the 19th century surrounding mental illness.

A third theme that permeates Rich’s essay is The Relationship Between Poet and Poem. Rich particularly focuses on Dickinson’s use of romantic and religious imagery, as well as her choice of pronouns. Ultimately, Rich claims, poetry arises from the unconscious, so what these stylistic choices do is paint a portrait of Dickinson’s own mind. More specifically, Rich argues that many of Dickinson’s poems use such language to symbolize “the poet’s relationship to her own power” because 19th-century society did not conceive of women possessing such power (184). While Dickinson’s framing of her creative power as masculine might seem like a concession to patriarchal gender norms, it is also subversive, as it appropriates the language of two seats of patriarchal power—religion and heterosexual marriage—to express female power.