Linda's Literary Home

Author: Linda Sue Grimes

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Judge Somers”

    Image:   Edgar Lee Masters http://www.jackmasters.net/mastelm.html Jack Masters
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters – Jack Masters

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Judge Somers”

    Judge Somers’ complaint demonstrates that he is jealous of a man whom he deems to occupy a lower rung on the social status ladder than himself. 

    Introduction and Text of “Judge Somers”

    The class warfare that rages in the Spoon River reportage becomes evident as readers make their way through Edgar Lee Masters‘ American classic, Spoon River Anthology.  

    Businessmen, doctors, lawyers, judges, and politicians are the special targets of many of those whose employment ranges from simple shopkeepers, to farmers, to teachers, and householders whose outside job or career is never named.  Of course, preachers and other religious figures seldom come off well in these dramas either, likely owing to the atheist leanings of their creator.

    And the truly lowly dregs of society—murderers, prostitutes, adulterers, drunks, and thieves—are often given a bit too much of the benefit of doubt.  The good-hearted prostitute is often more credible than the banker despite the fact that his heart may be of equal goodness. 

    As in contemporary society where racism remains the primary cudgel of race-baiting hypocrites, back a century or so ago, the -ism du jour was classism, thus the emphasis on class warfare.

    While many of the epitaphs in Edgar Lee Masters’ American classic reveal issues motivated by class warfare, “Judge Somers” offers one of the most pronounced, as the judge deems himself better than his peers.

    The speaker in the epitaph “Judge Somers” is the judge himself, who wants to know why a man of importance, such as himself, has died unnoticed while the town drunk has been well noted.

    Judge Somers

    How does it happen, tell me,
    That I who was the most erudite of lawyers,
    Who knew Blackstone and Coke
    Almost by heart, who made the greatest speech
    The court-house ever heard, and wrote
    A brief that won the praise of Justice Breese—
    How does it happen, tell me,
    That I lie here unmarked, forgotten,
    While Chase Henry, the town drunkard,
    Has a marble block, topped by an urn,
    Wherein Nature, in a mood ironical,
    Has sown a flowering weed? 

    Commentary on “Judge Somers”

    Judge Somers’ complaint demonstrates that he is jealous of a man he deems to occupy a lower rung on the social status ladder than he does.

    First Movement:  Why Me?

    How does it happen, tell me,
    That I who was the most erudite of lawyers,
    Who knew Blackstone and Coke
    Almost by heart, who made the greatest speech
    The court-house ever heard, and wrote
    A brief that won the praise of Justice Breese— 

    This poem consists of two movements each beginning with a command embedded in a question.  The judge is demanding an answer to his question in both instances.  

    Judge Somers begins by asserting his demand/question, posited with “How does it happen, tell me.”  But in the first movement, he does not finish the question proper; he merely prefaces it by reporting all of his achievements.

    The judge feigns no modesty in his self-evaluation but flatly asserts that he was the most brilliant of attorneys.  Part of his erudition and brilliance was due to his having “almost by heart Blackstone and Coke.”  

    The judge is alluding to two British legal writers—Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), who wrote the Commentaries, and Sir Edward Coke(1552-1634), who wrote and published treatises titled Institutes of the laws of England.

    The judge’s knowledge of these works sounds much more important than it is; a lawyer or judge practicing in a 19th century Illinois rural community would hardly be confronted with issues dealt with in these obscure legal works.

    Judge Somers then boasts that he “made the greatest speech / The court-house ever heard.”  In his own mind, not only was he a great orator, but he also “wrote / A brief that won the praise of Justice Breese.”  

    Again, the fictional speaker Somers alludes to a real-life justice, Justice Sidney Breese, who served on the Illinois Supreme Court as both a judge and as chief justice.  

    Second Movement:  How Does It Happen to Me?

    How does it happen, tell me,
    That I lie here unmarked, forgotten,
    While Chase Henry, the town drunkard,
    Has a marble block, topped by an urn,
    Wherein Nature, in a mood ironical,
    Has sown a flowering weed?

    So with such a shining reputation for accomplishment, the judge again poses his demand/question:  “How does it happen, tell me.”  He then completes the question for he wants to know why he is left to “lie here unmarked, forgotten.”  

    And to make matters worse, that “town drunkard” and scoundrel “Chase Henry” has been afforded “a marble block, topped by an urn.”  The judge adds that, “Nature,” with a splash of irony “has sown a flowering weed.”   

    The jealous judge then takes a bit of comfort from the ironic weed, but still he continues to chafe at the fact that he is forgotten while the town drunk seems to be celebrated.

    The reader knows a secret that the judge obviously does not know: that Henry’s memorial has nothing to do with Henry but can be laid at the door of rivalry between the Protestants and the Catholics.

  • Glimmer through the Dusk

    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem
    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem

    Glimmer through the Dusk

    Glimmer in the dusk
    Above the silent hills
    Shining beyond the dusk

    Winking in webs of sky
    The east and west of light
    Glimmer in the dim dusk

    Drifting toward bright flame
    A place to chart a true course
    Shining beyond the dusk

    In the cradle of dark
    Glow bright sparks of wonder
    Glimmer in the dusk

    Seeds of glowing fire
    Flash and flare
    Shining past the dusk

    Let the cosmos sing
    Shining by the dusk
    Glimmer through the dusk

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Harry Carey Goodhue”

    Image:  Edgar Lee Masters - Portrait by Francis J. Quirk https://francisquirk.blogspot.com/2017/03/visit-to-national-portrait-gallery.html
    Image:  Edgar Lee Masters – Portrait by Francis J. Quirk

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Harry Carey Goodhue”

    Harry Carey Goodhue announces the special grudge he harbors against the citizens of the town of Spoon River while revealing how he finally got his revenge.

    Introduction and Text of “Harry Carey Goodhue”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Harry Carey Goodhue” from his American classic Spoon River Anthology,  the speaker, as many of these speakers do, dramatizes his complaints against the citizens of the town while also announcing how he finally was able to avenge himself.

    Harry Carey Goodhue

    You never marveled, dullards of Spoon River,
    When Chase Henry voted against the saloons
    To revenge himself for being shut off.
    But none of you was keen enough
    To follow my steps, or trace me home
    As Chase’s spiritual brother.
    Do you remember when I fought
    The bank and the courthouse ring,
    For pocketing the interest on public funds?
    And when I fought our leading citizens
    For making the poor the pack-horses of the taxes?
    And when I fought the water works  
    For stealing streets and raising rates?
    And when I fought the business men  
    Who fought me in these fights?
    Then do you remember:
    That staggering up from the wreck of defeat,
    And the wreck of a ruined career,
    I slipped from my cloak my last ideal,
    Hidden from all eyes until then,
    Like the cherished jawbone of an ass,
    And smote the bank and the water works,
    And the business men with prohibition,
    And made Spoon River pay the cost  
    Of the fights that I had lost?

    Commentary on “Harry Carey Goodhue”

    In “Harry Carey Goodhue,” the speaker is dramatizing his complaints against the citizens of the town while also announcing how he finally exacted revenge for himself.

    First Movement:   His Dull Listeners

    You never marveled, dullards of Spoon River,
    When Chase Henry voted against the saloons
    To revenge himself for being shut off.
    But none of you was keen enough
    To follow my steps, or trace me home
    As Chase’s spiritual brother.

    Harry addresses his listeners by calling them “dullards of Spoon River.” He brings to mind that the townspeople “never marveled,” that the alcoholic Chase Henry  had incredulously voted to close down the bars. 

    It might seem odd that a hard-drinker would vote for Prohibition, but the bars had stopped giving Chase credit, and so he could no longer patronize them anyway; therefore, Chase got his revenge by voting to shut them down.

    Harry gives his listeners credit for not finding anything odd about Chase Henry’s revenge, but he then zaps them for their lack of awareness about Harry, who calls himself “Chase’s spiritual brother.”  This appellation alerts the reader that Harry must have rebelled in some way that the townspeople did not recognize.

    Second Movement:   Questions for His Fellows 

    Do you remember when I fought
    The bank and the courthouse ring,
    For pocketing the interest on public funds?
    And when I fought our leading citizens
    For making the poor the pack-horses of the taxes?
    And when I fought the water works  
    For stealing streets and raising rates?
    And when I fought the business men  
    Who fought me in these fights?

    Harry then asks his phantom listeners if they remember when he “fought / The bank and the courthouse ring / For pocketing the interest of public funds?”  Harry does not reveal how he fought these entities, but he continues by asking another question.  He asks if the Spoon River citizens remember when he fought “our leading citizens / For making the poor the pack-horses of the taxes?” 

    Harry also wants to know if they remember when he “fought the water works / For stealing streets and raising rates?” and finally, he wonders if they recall when he “fought the business men / Who fought me in these fights?” 

    Harry leaves his listeners wondering just how he did all of this fighting without their knowing it. And too, his hearers must wonder how successful all that fighting has been.  But Harry saves his surprise until the last few lines for the most impact.

    Third Movement:   Fighting to Defeat

    Then do you remember:
    That staggering up from the wreck of defeat,
    And the wreck of a ruined career,
    I slipped from my cloak my last ideal,
    Hidden from all eyes until then,
    Like the cherished jawbone of an ass,
    And smote the bank and the water works,
    And the business men with prohibition,
    And made Spoon River pay the cost  
    Of the fights that I had lost?

    In a final question, Harry then reveals that all of this fighting resulted in his own defeat: he wonders if anyone saw him “staggering up from the wreck of defeat.”  Harry lost his battle; he even lost his own job, “the wreck of a ruined career.”

    He does not reveal what his career was, just that it was ruined because of his standing up for his ideals. But because of all of this defeat, he “slipped from [his] cloak” his “last ideal,” which he had kept hidden.  This last ideal made him vote for Prohibition along with his “spiritual brother” the drunkard, Chase Henry. 

    Thus,Harry contends that as Samson (Judges 15:16) wielded the “jawbone of an ass” and killed a thousand enemies, Harry did the same with his vote for Prohibition.  He claims that he “smote the bank and the water works, / And the business men.”  With one vote, Harry made Spoon River pay for all “the fights that [he] had lost[.]”

  • My Time I Must Keep 

    Melting clock with Roman numerals hanging from tree branch in surreal landscape
    Image created by AI on WordPress

    My Time I Must Keep 

    Their self-worth, a dwarf star in vast cosmic seas,
    From my wild scrawls, they harvest bitter bees,
    Extracting venom from my placid inky streams,
    Convinced their downfall in my verses gleams.

    Their love, they vow, burns like a supernova—
    Yet longs for me to shed my true persona,
    To mirror their minds’ chosen design,
    To think and speak in perfect paradigm.

    I’ll sail on through this strange lexical sea—
    Casting wishes: peace, love, harmony’s key,
    As they trawl depths for words that sting and burn,
    Imagining each catch proves how I spurn.

    Why they crave my scorn, an enigma deep,
    I ponder no more—my time I must keep . . .

  • The Reality of Human Differences

    Image created by ChatGPT/Grok inspired by the poem
    Image created by ChatGPT/Grok inspired by the poem

    The Reality of Human Differences

    We live in a world where no two people are exactly alike. Human beings possess differing interests, ideas, and intentions, a fact that makes relationships inherently difficult. When you look at how distinct we all are on the inside, it is no wonder that it is so rare for any one human being to develop a peaceful and purposeful relationship with another.

    The Root of the Difficulty

    This struggle for human beings to get along is built right into the fabric of creation. As the unmanifested Spirit, God is pure Bliss, but to create the world, He utilized a cosmic deception called maya—the grand magical measurer [1]. Paramahansa Yogananda explains this cosmic setup [2]:

    Spirit overspread and permeated Its creative desire with cosmic delusion, a grand magical measurer described in Hindu scriptures as maya (from the Sanskrit root ma, “to measure”). Delusion divides, measures out, the Undefined Infinite into finite forms and forces.

    Delusion divides the Undefined Infinite into finite forms. Because of this division, we all navigate existence with avidya, or individual illusion, which makes us feel completely separate from everyone else. Trapped in individual egos, our human condition unfolds through a multiplicity of perspectives.

    Most of our trouble comes from the fact that we look at life through our five senses and limited human minds, yet the senses are unreliable, catching only what happens on the changing, physical level. 

    When the Infinite is chopped up into billions of separate human beings—each shaped by unique experiences, temperaments, and aspirations—individual persons develop their own unique set of desires and motives. With so many different minds running around, it is a mathematical certainty that our intentions will eventually clash.

    The Myth of Effortless Harmony

    These divergences extend beyond mere preferences into our core intentions—the silent drivers of daily choices and long-term paths. Relationships, by their nature, require constant negotiation between these distinct inner worlds.

    The family unit, often idealized as a sanctuary of unconditional unity, frequently illustrates this 

    challenge most acutely. Siblings raised in the same household may develop opposing worldviews, while parents and children encounter generational shifts in values that widen the gap between expectation and reality. 

    Similarly, the marital bond confronts the daily reality of two separate consciousnesses attempting to merge trajectories, and friendships dissolve when evolving intentions pull individuals in irreconcilable directions.

    Because we are wrapped up in personal illusions, finding true harmony with another person is incredibly rare. To achieve a peaceful and purposeful relationship, two people must quiet their egos enough to see past their own selfishness. 

    The inner world of another person—their hurts, thoughts, and true intentions—is entirely ineffable. It resembles the experience of tasting an orange: on the material plane, you can try to describe the taste to someone, but they will never truly know it until they taste it themselves. We can never perfectly climb inside someone else’s mind.

    Dr. David Frawley notes that to find true harmony, we must look deeper [3]:

    We can discover that Divine face and presence of consciousness everywhere, but for this to occur, we must first discover it within our own hearts and in the hearts of all beings.  Most people have not found that presence within themselves yet, so they remain stuck in the outer shell of the ego. And where there is ego, there is friction.

    Redefining Relationship Fractures

    With human nature structured this way, we should not be shocked when things fall apart. Fractured family relationships, broken marriages, and ended friendships are natural phenomena in a dualistic universe. 

    In a material world defined by constant change and division, things come together and things fall apart. Just as creation itself goes through cycles of manifestation and dissolution [4], human relationships go through cycles too. When the underlying reasons that brought two people together expire, the relationship naturally dissolves.

    Society loves to play the blame game, immediately searching for a villain when a relationship fails. Much suffering arises from the imposition of these unrealistic ideals—the belief that true love conquers all differences effortlessly, or that familial duty demands perpetual agreement. When reality falls short, individuals internalize failure or assign fault.

    Assigning bitter blame is usually a mistake. It assumes that everyday human beings have the spiritual power to override the laws of maya at will. Until a person learns to completely quiet the body and the mind so the soul can take over, they will be pushed and pulled by their changing ideas and desires. 

    Broken marriages often reflect the honest recognition that continued union would stifle the authentic development of one or both partners; ended friendships signify the natural completion of a shared chapter rather than betrayal.

    Removing Blame and Accepting Reality

    If we want to have peace of mind, we must accept reality without holding onto resentment. I am Linda Sue Grimes, and as I have mentioned before, I have many aspects and nicknames—Sissy to my sister, Grammy to my grandkids, and Nubbies to my husband. Those roles are a part of my life, but they are not the eternal soul. Human relationships are temporary arrangements on the physical plane.

    By recognizing relationships as dynamic interactions between distinct souls rather than proofs of personal merit, we cultivate compassion and remove blame. When a relationship ends, it is not always because someone is an evil person, but simply because the temporary alignment of their interests has come to a natural end. Accepting this truth softens the blow for postmodern minds constantly hurt by broken hearts.

    When two people do manage to bridge that massive gap and create a beautiful bond, it stands as a genuine, transcendent blessing.  Such connections require conscious cultivation: patience to listen beyond surface disagreement, humility to release the need for complete agreement, and wisdom to honor the other’s path even when it diverges. 

    This understanding aligns with broader spiritual insight. The difficulties of human connection invite the development of virtues—forgiveness, adaptability, and non-attachment—that facilitate progress on the spiritual path.

    Ultimately, the human journey involves balancing the longing for connection with the reality of separateness. When intentions can harmonize sufficiently to allow mutual flourishing, something sacred occurs. When they cannot, releasing the bond with understanding preserves dignity and opens space for new possibilities.

    An Important Caveat

    However, a crucial distinction must be made: relinquishing blame and judgment of others does not mean we suffer fools and criminals. It must be acknowledged that evil does exist in this world of maya delusion, and evil individuals do try to victimize the innocent. 

    The understanding that human intentions diverge because of individual illusion is a philosophical tool for personal peace, not an excuse for passivity or a license for others to do harm.

    Criminals must still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Society requires structure and protection from those whose delusions manifest as destructive violence or fraud. Furthermore, evil acts that may not be punishable by civil law still require banishment from one’s life. 

    Boundaries are essential; recognizing that an individual is acting out of ignorance or avidya does not mean you must allow them to remain a toxic presence in your domestic or social circle.

    It is simply that crimes against us can be forgiven by us even if they are not forgiven by the legal system. The legal system must punish the act to preserve order on the material plane, but the individual victim can choose to release the burning resentment within their own heart. 

    Forgiveness is a spiritual function of the soul that frees the victim from the karmic tie of hatred, allowing them to move forward in quietude, even as the law takes its necessary course.

    Sources

    [1] Paramahansa Yogananda.  “Maya.”  Self-Realization Fellowship.  Accessed June 22, 2026.
    [2] Editors. “Law of Maya.” Paramahansa Yogananda: The Royal Path of Yoga. Accessed June 22, 2026.
    [3] David Frawley. “Is Hinduism a Monotheistic Religion?American Institute of Vedic Studies. August 27, 2014.
    [4] Swami Sri Yukteswar. The Holy Science. Internet Archive.  Originally published by Self-Realization Fellowship.

    Sri Yukteswar and “Forget the Past” quotation
  • Song of a Father’s Legacy

    Daddy on Fish Box
    Image:  “Daddy on the Fish Box” – Bert Richardson, circa 1960, Elkorn Lakes

    Song of a Father’s Legacy

    In Memoriam:  Bert Richardson
    January 12, 1913 – August 5, 2000

    God knows fathers are not flawless.
    They stumble, they learn, they strive.
    If my father were here with me now,
    I would thank him for all he gave—
    I’d honor the strength in his steady hands,
    The wisdom that shaped who I’ve become.

    The lessons he taught me in silence
    Are gifts I carry deep within my soul.
    Maybe time has softened the edges of truth.
    I can’t claim to know all he endured,
    But I cherish the man he was to us all:
    I didn’t need him to speak as I spoke.

    I didn’t need him to dream as I dreamed.
    I just hope—he senses that I admired him.
    Do you ever wonder how much he achieved?
    Do you see the quiet sacrifices he made?
    Do you feel the depth of his love,
    Even when words were few?

    Do you ever pause to honor his journey?
    God knows he wasn’t perfect,
    But his heart was steadfast and true.
    My own life is richer because of him—
    More than words could ever convey:
    His legacy lives in the lives he touched.

    I’m just a child with a lasting wish:
    O, how I hope he knows I admire him still.

    The Big Pond - Elkhorn Lakes
    The Big Pond – Elkhorn Lakes
  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Serepta Mason,” “Amanda Barker,” “Constance Hately,” and “Chase Henry” 

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters https://factfile.org/10-facts-about-edgar-lee-masters#google_vignette
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Serepta Mason,” “Amanda Barker,” “Constance Hately,” and “Chase Henry” 

    The four characters from Edgar Lee Masters’ Spoon River Anthology—”Serepta Mason,” “Amanda Barker,” “Constance Hately,” and “Chase Henry”— offer very specific complaints against others in the town who affected their lives in deleterious ways.

    Introduction: Four Flawed Characters Reveal Their Thoughts

    Serepta Mason accuses Spoon River residents of stunting her growth, as she likens herself to a flower.  Amanda Barker died in childbirth and blames her husband for killing her because he knew her poor health made her unable to bear a child.

    “Constance Hately” and “Chase Henry” offer brief sketches of two Spoon River curmudgeons.  The poems feature ten and eleven lines respectively.  Both reveal flawed characters who feel the need to unload the thoughts they lived with.  

    As most of the Spoon River characters confess sins, these two are no exception.  Constance seems to be trying to set the record straight, while Chase boasts about the irony that sometimes attaches to good vs evil intentions.

    Text of “Serepta Mason”

    My life’s blossom might have bloomed on all sides
    Save for a bitter wind which stunted my petals
    On the side of me which you in the village could see.
    From the dust I lift a voice of protest:
    My flowering side you never saw!
    Ye living ones, ye are fools indeed
    Who do not know the ways of the wind
    And the unseen forces
    That govern the processes of life.

    Reading of “Serepta Mason”  

    Commentary on “Serepta Mason”

    Serepta complains that the “fools” “in the village” were ever unable to understand that she had a good side as a well as a not so good one.  She begins her lament by announcing that she might have been a well-rounded, fully developed personality if she had not been “stunted” by the nastiness of the people in her town.

    She metaphorically likens her growth to a flower: “my life’s blossom,” which “might have bloomed on all sides.”  But because of the “bitter wind” “her petals” were kept from developing fully, and that “stunted” side of her was all that the villagers saw.

    Therefore, as the other ghosts from the Spoon River cemetery do, she raises her “voice of protest.”  She enlightens the villagers that she did, in fact, have a “flowering side,” but they never saw it.  She foists all the blame on the villagers, not considering her own share of blame that might be part of the equation.

    Serepta concludes her accusation with a rather grandiose philosophical attempt to convince herself that she is, in fact, accurate in her assessment:  she calls the “living ones” “fools” because they “do not know the ways of the wind / And the unseen forces / That govern the processes of life.”  The recurrence of the metaphor “wind” implies that she is castigating the townies for being gossip-mongers.

    Serepta’s complaint implies that she was damaged and her growth stunted by town gossip signified by “wind”:  “a bitter wind which stunted my petals” and “Who do not know the ways of the wind.”  

    Text of “Amanda Barker”

    Henry got me with child,  
    Knowing that I could not bring forth life
    Without losing my own.  
    In my youth therefore I entered the portals of dust.
    Traveler, it is believed in the village where I lived
    That Henry loved me with a husband’s love,
    But I proclaim from the dust
    That he slew me to gratify his hatred.

    Reading of “Amanda Barker” 

    Commentary on “Amanda Barker”

    Unlike Serepta who waxes poetic and philosophical with metaphoric comparison and aphoristic critique, Amanda speaks her mind very plainly and bluntly.  Amanda was married to Henry, who was aware that Amanda could not procreate children. 

    Henry knew that pregnancy would kill Amanda. Henry, however, impregnated Amanda while knowing that deadly fact, and sure enough, Amanda died young:  “In my youth therefore I entered the portals of dust.”

    Calling those who might have stumbled upon her tombstone “traveler,” Amanda offers her lament to those vague persons. She insists that the Spoon River citizens  found nothing wanting in Henry’s love for Amanda, but Amanda knew the truth:  Henry hated her and deliberately killed her out of that hatred. Amanda’s main focus in on having returned to “dust” before having lived her life.

    Constance Hately

    You praise my self-sacrifice, Spoon River,
    In rearing Irene and Mary,
    Orphans of my older sister!
    And you censure Irene and Mary
    For their contempt for me
    But praise not my self-sacrifice,
    And censure not their contempt;
    I reared them, I cared for them, true enough!—
    But I poisoned my benefactions
    With constant reminders of their dependence.

    Reading of “Constance Hately”

    Commentary on “Constance Hately”

    Constance addresses Spoon River residents, calling attention to the fact that they were always commending her for raising “Irene and Mary,” the orphaned daughters of her older sister.  She further reminds them that they also condemned Irene and Mary because they did not offer gratitude for their aunt’s sacrifice.

    Constance now reveals that the citizens’ appraisal of her “self-sacrifice” and the nieces’ attitude was flawed and inaccurate on both counts:  she reports that she does not deserve “praise” for her sacrifice, and the nieces, Irene and Mary, do not deserve the town’s scorn for their disrespect for her.  

    Constance admits that, indeed, she did raise them and she cared for them, but while she was doing so, she “poisoned” the girls’ minds “With constant reminders of the dependence.”  

    Her confession perhaps reveals a measure of remorse for her failure with her nieces, but on the other hand, she seems to be gloating that the town got it so wrong about her relationship with them.


    Text of “Chase Henry”

    In life I was the town drunkard;  
    When I died the priest denied me burial
    In holy ground.  
    The which redounded to my good fortune.  
    For the Protestants bought this lot,
    And buried my body here,  
    Close to the grave of the banker Nicholas,  
    And of his wife Priscilla.  
    Take note, ye prudent and pious souls,
    Of the cross-currents in life
    Which bring honor to the dead, who lived in shame.

    Reading of “Chase Henry”  

    Commentary on “Chase Henry”

    Chase Henry played his role in life as the town drunk, to which he seems gleeful to admit.  Of course, that was “in life.”  Now, he, like many of the Spoon River deceased, can wax philosophical and indignant about how he was treated “in life.”

    Chase’s indignity centers on the fact that after he died, his body was not allowed “burial / In holy ground.”  The priest would not accept the body of an immoral “drunkard” to foul the cemetery of the Catholic Church.

    But Chase deems that he has the last laugh because Protestants defied the Catholics by purchasing a burial plot for the drunkard.  Now he rests “Close to the grave of the banker Nicholas, / And of his wife Priscilla.”  Chase can boast that he has come up in the world—a lowly drunkard buried nearby to a highly regarded banker.

    Chase, in his best condescending, supercilious tone, offers a piece of advice to all “ye prudent and pious souls.”  He warns them that circumstances can change because of the “cross-currents of life,” and those who “lived in shame” can find “honor” in death.

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters – Commemorative Stamp
  • Waltzing with Shadows

    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem
    Image created by Grok inspired by the poem

    Waltzing with Shadows

    Crimson leaves crunch beneath
    Bare toes as she threads
    Through autumn’s embrace
    Spinning in glimmering sunbeams.

    Visions of dark starlight spread
    Gleaming over the fresh paint
    Of sacred dawn. Azure fires
    Streak patches of emerald moss.

    Mist over the waters rises
    Bringing noon’s bright visage–
    A trail of dusty signals
    Damp life, panting and parting.

    Each pluck of melody’s string
    Spews seeds for future poppies
    To settle in quiet twilight, waltzing
    With shadows, ancient and alone.

  • Emily Dickinson’s “Going to Heaven!”

    Image: Emily Dickinson - Amherst College - Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 - likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet
    Image: Emily Dickinson – Amherst College – Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 – likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet

    Emily Dickinson’s “Going to Heaven!”

    The speaker of “Going to Heaven!” muses on the certainty of heaven with equal measures of astonishment and earthly attachment, moving through three stanzas of tender, searching honesty.

    Introduction and Text of “Going to Heaven!”

    The speaker in Emily Dickinson’s “Going to Heaven!” addresses an unnamed listener, confessing her astonishment at heaven’s inevitability while simultaneously expressing a glad reluctance to leave the Earth behind.

    On the literal level, the poem is a musing on what the speaker does and does not know about dying and what follows. She knows heaven is coming; she does not know when or how, and that gap between certainty and comprehension is the poem’s central drama. 

    On my literary website, Linda’s Literary Home, I have argued that the concept of immortality was one of Dickinson’s deepest preoccupations throughout her creative life, a question she returned to with unfailing curiosity and spiritual seriousness.

    The poem moves stanza by stanza from bewilderment, to communal longing, to a final and deeply personal grief held alongside gladness. The speaker never resolves the tension between loving the Earth and accepting heaven; she simply holds both, honestly and without apology. That honesty is what gives the poem its enduring emotional power.

    Going to Heaven!

    I don’t know when –
    Pray do not ask me how!
    Indeed I’m too astonished
    To think of answering you!
    Going to Heaven!
    How dim it sounds!
    And yet it will be done
    As sure as flocks go home at night
    Unto the Shepherd’s arm!

    Perhaps you’re going too!
    Who knows?
    If you should get there first
    Save just a little space for me
    Close to the two I lost –
    The smallest “Robe” will fit me
    And just a bit of “Crown” –
    For you know we do not mind our dress
    When we are going home –

    I’m glad I don’t believe it
    For it would stop my breath –
    And I’d like to look a little more
    At such a curious Earth!
    I’m glad they did believe it
    Whom I have never found
    Since the mighty Autumn afternoon
    I left them in the ground.

    Commentary on “Going to Heaven!”

    The speaker’s musing enacts a spiritual journey moving from bewilderment through communal longing to grief and gladness held together in the same breath. Each stanza adds a new layer to the speaker’s understanding of what heaven means and what it will cost her.

    First Stanza: What I Do Not Know

    I don’t know when –
    Pray do not ask me how!
    Indeed I’m too astonished
    To think of answering you!
    Going to Heaven!
    How dim it sounds!
    And yet it will be done
    As sure as flocks go home at night
    Unto the Shepherd’s arm!

    The speaker opens by announcing plainly that she cannot answer her listener’s questions about when or how she will go to heaven, not because she doubts it, but because the fact of it leaves her too astonished to speak. 

    The exclamation “Going to Heaven!” is less a cry of joy than a gasp of disbelief that such a thing should be true. The speaker is not refusing to answer; she is genuinely overwhelmed.

    She then makes a striking admission: heaven “sounds” dim to her, meaning the word itself feels thin and inadequate against the magnitude of what it names. This insight spring from a characteristically Dickinsonian observation—the language of religion, worn smooth by repetition, fails to convey the actual force of the reality it describes. The speaker senses the reality is immense; she simply cannot yet grasp it.

    Yet the stanza closes in warmth and confidence, comparing the soul’s going to heaven to flocks returning to the shepherd’s arm at nightfall. Paramahansa Yogananda teaches, in his “On Understanding Death and Loss,” that death is not a catastrophe but a natural passage of the soul into greater freedom and divine awareness. 

    The speaker’s shepherd simile expresses exactly that understanding: going home is the soul’s most natural motion, as inevitable and as gentle as a lamb finding its shepherd at dusk.

    Second Stanza: You, too, maybe!

    Perhaps you’re going too!
    Who knows?
    If you should get there first
    Save just a little space for me
    Close to the two I lost –
    The smallest “Robe” will fit me
    And just a bit of “Crown” –
    For you know we do not mind our dress
    When we are going home –

    The speaker now turns to her listener with sudden warmth, wondering aloud whether that person, too, may be going to heaven. “Who knows?” she asks—a phrase of genuine spiritual humility, acknowledging that she cannot determine the soul’s schedule, her own or anyone else’s. The tone shifts from private astonishment to something communal and tender.

    She then makes her most touching request: that a small space be saved for her near “the two I lost.” The term “two” points to specific, beloved persons already departed, whose identity the speaker keeps private but whose absence she carries openly. 

    The capitalized “Robe” and “Crown” gently deflate the grandeur traditionally associated with heavenly reward; the speaker asks for the smallest of each, expressing a humility that is as genuine as it is quietly playful.

    The stanza closes by returning to the phrase “going home,” linking it directly to the shepherd simile of the first stanza and reinforcing the poem’s central conviction that death is not exile but return. 

    Paramahansa Yogananda’s  teachings explain that the soul is a perfect reflection of God’s consciousness and that its passage beyond the physical plane is a homecoming to its Eternal Source. 

    The speaker’s easy dismissal of heavenly dress—“we do not mind our dress / When we are going home”—reflects that same priority: the reunion matters infinitely more than the clothing.

    Third Stanza: Glad for not Believing

    I’m glad I don’t believe it
    For it would stop my breath –
    And I’d like to look a little more
    At such a curious Earth!
    I’m glad they did believe it
    Whom I have never found
    Since the mighty Autumn afternoon
    I left them in the ground.

    The speaker now delivers the poem’s most surprising statement: she is glad she does not yet fully believe in her going to heaven, because that belief, fully realized, would stop her breath and take her from “such a curious Earth.” 

    She is not denying heaven; she is confessing that she still loves the Earth too much to be entirely ready to leave it. On my literary website Linda’s Literary Home, I have discussed Dickinson’s deep attentiveness to the natural world alongside her spiritual curiosity as a parallel devotion, neither canceling out the other.

    The speaker then turns her gladness in a new direction: she is glad that “they did believe it”—those she has not seen since a mighty autumn afternoon when she left them in the ground. 

    That single phrase, “left them in the ground,” is the poem’s most direct and devastating moment, stripping away all metaphor to name the plain fact of burial. Their belief in heaven was their comfort in dying, and she honors it with a gladness that is inseparable from grief.

    Paramahansa Yogananda teaches that souls who have departed dwell in expanded freedom and love, and that the bonds of deep spiritual friendship are not broken by death but simply suspended until reunion. 

    The speaker closes the poem holding two kinds of gladness at once —gladness to remain a little longer on the curious Earth, and gladness that those she loved and buried believed in the heaven toward which she, too, is inexorably going.

  • Time’s Hands

    Image created by Gemini inspired by the poem
    Image created by Gemini inspired by the poem

    Time’s Hands

    Time’s hands unveil as morning’s glow fades,
    A silver face like pewter forward parades.
    In silence, like the dove on fence post still,
    The pewter visage moves with quiet will.

    The mind holds desires in a brimming cup,
    No calming stone of regret to lift up.
    As blood flushes cheeks in meandering flow,
    A vein in the brain bursts, letting life go.

    Skin stays unchanged through centuries long,
    Where invented wheels roll, heavy and strong.
    Unswayed by mourners’ destiny so grim,
    An endless route of minds, intruding, skims.

    The turtle’s dark lips part in silent speech,
    Each soul burns star-like, beyond earthly reach.
    Over rocks of intrigue and fury they soar,
    As mapping songs on breezes gently pour.

    Stone wise, the world remains a place so hard,
    Brute gales and pestilence, hidden, stand guard.
    Tempting the margins with blasts of sin’s might,
    The devil plays judge, spinning games of spite.