Category: Edgar Lee Masters

Edgar Lee Masters’ “Sersmith the Dentist”

Edgar Lee Masters’ character, a dentist named Sersmith, pontificates on the political atmosphere, using rhetorical questions to emphasize his stance. 

Introduction and Text of “Sersmith the Dentist”

In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Sersmith the Dentist” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker asks four rhetorical questions and then offers a final philosophical summation. 

This dentist proves to be one of the more bankrupt characters of the lot.  He sees everything in terms of money.  Although he does not offer a personal complaint as most of the speakers do, he goes on carping about societal and political issues.

Unfortunately, Sersmith’s clouded mind remains a one dimension of mediocrity and error.  Misinterpreting religious and historical events leads him to ludicrous conclusions.   While Sersmith the Dentist surely thinks himself clever as he remarks about the hollow tooth filled up with gold, his quip merely signals the hollow mind of the speaker.

Sersmith the Dentist

Do you think that odes and sermons,
And the ringing of church bells,
And the blood of old men and young men,
Martyred for the truth they saw
With eyes made bright by faith in God,
Accomplished the world’s great reformations?
Do you think that the Battle Hymn of the Republic
Would have been heard if the chattel slave
Had crowned the dominant dollar,
In spite of Whitney’s cotton gin,
And steam and rolling mills and iron
And telegraphs and white free labor?
Do you think that Daisy Fraser
Had been put out and driven out
If the canning works had never needed
Her little house and lot?
Or do you think the poker room
Of Johnnie Taylor, and Burchard’s bar
Had been closed up if the money lost
And spent for beer had not been turned,
By closing them, to Thomas Rhodes
For larger sales of shoes and blankets,
And children’s cloaks and gold-oak cradles?
Why, a moral truth is a hollow tooth
Which must be propped with gold.

Commentary on “Sersmith the Dentist”

While Sersmith the Dentist no doubt thinks himself a clever fellow as he remarks about the hollow tooth filled up with gold, his quip merely signals the hollow mind of the dentist.

First Movement:  The Rhetorical No

Do you think that odes and sermons,
And the ringing of church bells,
And the blood of old men and young men,
Martyred for the truth they saw
With eyes made bright by faith in God,
Accomplished the world’s great reformations?

First, Sersmith denigrates religion.  His question reveals that he thinks “odes and sermons,” “the ringing of church bells,” and people whose faith brighten their spirit did not, in fact, “accomplish [ ] the world’s great reformations.”  

By forming his deliberations into questions, Sersmith tries to emphasize the resounding “no” that he believes is the correct answer to each query.   In fact, the dentist’s narrow-minded view can easily be refuted by pointing to the meaning of great historical movements:  the birth of each of the world’s five major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam demolishes his putative claims utterly.  

Each religion has had its martyrs and their names live in the hearts of the reformed.  Thus the “no” that Sersmith expects is not forthcoming.  Rhetorical questions can also be employed as weasel questions signaling that the questioner is basically unsure of his stance.  While the effective rhetorical question offers a unique emphasis for its truth, when employed by imbeciles and jerkwaters, the device falls flat.

Second Movement:   Revisionist History

Do you think that the Battle Hymn of the Republic
Would have been heard if the chattel slave
Had crowned the dominant dollar,
In spite of Whitney’s cotton gin,
And steam and rolling mills and iron
And telegraphs and white free labor?

Sersmith’s second question is merely foolish.  Slavery was abolished primarily because of moral reasons, not economical ones.  Those who take the bash-America-first side always look for ways to malign events that prove otherwise.  

Those who continue to disparage the United States over slavery turn a willful blind eye to the fact that hundreds of thousands of brave men and women died in order to accomplish that feat.  As an educated man, Sersmith should know this historical fact.

Third Movement:   Lack of Credibility

Do you think that Daisy Fraser
Had been put out and driven out
If the canning works had never needed
Her little house and lot?

Sersmith now alludes to the character, “Daisy Fraser,” a prostitute who seems to know all kinds of lurid details about other members of the Spoon River community. Unfortunately, Daisy’s credibility is suspect, and now by associating his lot with hers. Sersmith adds yet another block of incredulity to his stack.  

Fourth Movement:   The Spoonian Evil

Or do you think the poker room
Of Johnnie Taylor, and Burchard’s bar
Had been closed up if the money lost
And spent for beer had not been turned,
By closing them, to Thomas Rhodes
For larger sales of shoes and blankets,
And children’s cloaks and gold-oak cradles?
Why, a moral truth is a hollow tooth
Which must be propped with gold.

Beginning to repeat himself, again Sersmith decries the selling off of one establishment in order to benefit another.  He invokes the name, “Thomas Rhodes,” which becomes a spoonian meme for evil.  “Thomas Rhodes” turns up often throughout the Spoon River Anthology, whenever a villain is needed.

Fifth Movement:  The Vacuous Mindset

Why, a moral truth is a hollow tooth
Which must be propped with gold.

Sersmith’s final couplet attempts to couple his dental wisdom and his political acumen by likening a “moral truth” to a “hollow tooth” which is filled with gold.  The dentist’s quip is more comical than wise, more pathetic than informative.  Such is the nature of this mindset, forever and anon.

Origin of the “Sexsmith” Error

The title of this Edgar Lee Masters’ epitaph “Sersmith the Dentist” is often misspelled across the Internet as “Sexsmith the Dentist.”  In all published print copies of the Spoon River Anthology in which that epitaph appears, beginning with the 1916 edition published by Macmillan in New York, the spelling is “Sersmith” not “Sexsmith.” 

The “Sexsmith” misspelling appears in a number of contemporary sources, such as a bartleby.com entry from July 1999.  Other current reprints replicate this error, including youtube.  Other errors appear here, here, and here.  Unfortunately, these sites are not the only ones perpetuating this error.

Fraktur:  Possible Reason for the Error

This misspelling likely comes from an optical character recognition (OCR) error in reading the ornate typeset in which the titles were displayed in that early edition of the Spoon River Anthology.

In that first edition in which the Sersmith epitaph appears, titles are displayed in a font called “Fraktur,” which is a typeface style developed in the early 16th century in Germany.

The typeface Fraktur is ornate, rather flowery with curves and spikes, and thus it is highly decorative. It was widely used in German printing until the 20th century. (See image below.)

Edgar Lee Masters’ “Griffy the Cooper”

Griffy waxes philosophical about life from his experience as a cooper. But his thinking  results in an unprincipled point of view.  He shows himself to be weak as his diatribe remains trivial even nonsensical.

Introduction and Text of “Griffy the Cooper”

In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Griffy the Cooper” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker, known only as Griffy, expounds on his expertise as a maker of tubs, extending his knowledge to a supposed profound conclusion that because of societal moral restraints, living life is like a living in a tub.

While the speaker’s metaphor is somewhat clever, it eventually falls flat because his attempt to give advice remains weak and ineffectual.  Griffy’s premise that to escape the “tub” citizens should break societal “[t]aboos and rules” remains dangerously faulty.  Such nonsense would ultimately lead to the penitentiary, the biggest “tub” of all.

This speaker apparently is unaware that to break out the societal prison, one must look within, not try to interfere with the very laws and rules that allow society to function.   Griffy is simply a name-calling lout, among the many others like him, trying to elevate his own worth by lessening that of others, as he spouts is pedestrian view of behavior.

Griffy the Cooper

The cooper should know about tubs.
But I learned about life as well,  
And you who loiter around these graves
Think you know life.  
You think your eye sweeps about a wide horizon, perhaps,  
In truth you are only looking around the interior of your tub.
You cannot lift yourself to its rim
And see the outer world of things,
And at the same time see yourself.
You are submerged in the tub of yourself—
Taboos and rules and appearances,  
Are the staves of your tub.  
Break them and dispel the witchcraft  
Of thinking your tub is life!
And that you know life!

Commentary on “Griffy the Cooper”

Griffy waxes philosophical about life from his experience as a cooper. But his thinking  results in an unprincipled point of view.  He shows himself to be weak as his diatribe remains trivial even nonsensical.

First Movement:  What He Should Know About

The cooper should know about tubs.
But I learned about life as well,  
And you who loiter around these graves
Think you know life.  

Griffy begins by touting his own knowledge about what he should know and that is, of course, “about tubs.”  But he then begins his discourse on learning about life in addition to his expertise in tub-making.  

Griffy then insults the folks who would come around “these graves” by calling them loiterers who think they know about life.  But Griffy has some news for them, and he will show them that they do not know about life, but he does.

Second Movement:  Inside Their Own Tubs

You think your eye sweeps about a wide horizon, perhaps,  
In truth you are only looking around the interior of your tub.

Griffy says to those who loiter about the graves that they think they see so widely “about a wide horizon,” but in fact they are really only seeing the “interior of [their] tub.”   A useful example would have added to Griffy’s discourse, but then his offering such an example likely would have detracted from Griffy’s intellectual bankruptcy.  Thus Griffy’s diatribe remains vague and hollow.

Third Movement:  No True Frame of Reference

You cannot lift yourself to its rim
And see the outer world of things,
And at the same time see yourself.

So, with the metaphor established that all of the grave-loiterers are firmly ensconced in their own tub, Griffy explains that from that tub they cannot lift “[themselves] to its rim.” 

Because they cannot lift themselves, they cannot see what is actually happening outside of their tubs.  He says they have no true frame of reference, because they cannot see “the outer world of things” and “at the same time see [themselves].”  At this point, Griffy has begun a useful analogy, but can he make it work for a useful conclusion? 

Fourth Movement:  A Tub of Rules

You are submerged in the tub of yourself—
Taboos and rules and appearances,  
Are the staves of your tub.  

According to Griffy, the people are “submerged in the tub of [themselves].”  And societal rules, taboos, and outward appearances form the “staves of [their] tub.”  In other words, people are imprisoned by the very schema that allows a civilized society to function.  Maybe Griffy should have tried a little harder to see over the lip of his own tub before drawing conclusions that would hold less water than his tubs.

Fifth Movement:  The Efficacy of Breaking Rules

Break them and dispel the witchcraft  
Of thinking your tub is life!
And that you know life!

The bankruptcy of Griffy’s philosophy is conclusively revealed by his last proclamation.  He simply commands his audience, that is, those loitering around the graves, to break those annoying “staves” and just stop thinking “your tub is life!”  

That is Griffy’s advice: “Break them and dispel the witchcraft / Of thinking your tub is life!”  “Them” invariably includes all the laws that keep society functioning.    And. no doubt, while Griffy is referring to religious law as “witchcraft,” he has no substantial knowledge about the history and purpose of the great world religions.

Griffy implores his listeners to stop thinking “that you know life!”  Then what?  He then puts a hold on his diatribe before he could fill out his philosophy and explain the consequences of his demands. 

This state of affairs remains rather typical for the Spoon River inmates who are big on hot-air inflated rhetoric and small on truth and logic. The reader will assign Griffy to the category of pathetic blow-hards whose epitaphs reek of a pompous nihilism.

Edgar Lee Masters’ “Hon. Henry Bennett”

Henry Bennett is a pathetic character, who realizes too late that he has been played for fool by his wife.

Introduction and Text of “Hon. Henry Bennett”

Edgar Lee Masters’ again allows his Spoon River lamenter to fashion his lament in an American-Innovative sonnet.  Featuring the traditional fourteen lines, the sonnet remain rimeless and without a definite rhythm patters.

In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Hon. Henry Bennett” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker laments his rapacious wife’s treachery:  she effectively “loved” him to death, but not out of love.    His wife had in mind to inherit Henry’s fortune and then marry the man of her dreams, the one with big muscles and a small brain.

The Honorable Henry Bennett is one of Spoon River’s more pathetic characters.  His wife, who was much younger than the judge, literally screwed the man to death.  By the time he realized what was happening, he was on his deathbed.   The wife’s treachery rendered the poor man a fool.

Hon. Henry Bennett

It never came into my mind
Until I was ready to die
That Jenny had loved me to death, with malice of heart.
For I was seventy, she was thirty-five,
And I wore myself to a shadow trying to husband
Jenny, rosy Jenny full of the ardor of life.  
For all my wisdom and grace of mind
Gave her no delight at all, in very truth,
But ever and anon she spoke of the giant strength
Of Willard Shafer, and of his wonderful feat
Of lifting a traction engine out of the ditch  
One time at Georgie Kirby’s.
So Jenny inherited my fortune and married Willard—
That mount of brawn! That clownish soul!

Commentary on “Hon. Henry Bennett”

Henry Bennett is a pathetic character, who realizes too late that he has been played for fool by his wife.

First Movement:  “Loved” to Death

It never came into my mind
Until I was ready to die
That Jenny had loved me to death, with malice of heart.

Judge Bennett confesses that it had not occurred to him until he was on his death bed that his young wife, Jenny, had deliberately tried to kill him by engaging him in too much sexual activity. 

The young Jenny literally “loved him to death.”  Euphemizing lascivious marital relations as “love,” the judge, nevertheless, now realizes that her intention had nothing to do with love and affection but with “with malice of heart.”

Second Movement:  Twice Her Age

For I was seventy, she was thirty-five,
And I wore myself to a shadow trying to husband
Jenny, rosy Jenny full of the ardor of life.  

The Honorable Henry Bennett was seventy years old when he married the woman, Jenny, who was half his age.  She was “full of the ardor of life”—another veiled reference to her oversexualized comportment.  

In the judge’s supposed husbandly duties, the poor Henry “wore [himself] to a shadow” attempting to keep Jenny satisfied.  He also describes Jenny as “rosy,” indicating the rush of blood that appears on the skin after a sexual encounter.

Third Movement:  No Interest in His Mind

For all my wisdom and grace of mind
Gave her no delight at all, in very truth,
But ever and anon she spoke of the giant strength
Of Willard Shafer, and of his wonderful feat
Of lifting a traction engine out of the ditch  
One time at Georgie Kirby’s.

Jenny demonstrated no interest in the judge’s “wisdom and grace of mind.”  We have to take Henry’s word for it that he possessed such praiseworthy qualities, but whatever his redeeming qualities might have been, his wife showed no interest in them.

Instead, the wife admired physical strength.  She was always taunting Henry by repeating the story that Willard Shafer had “lift[ed] a traction engine out of the ditch / One time at Geogrie Kirby’s.”  

His wife likely used this story repeatedly to entice Henry to service her sexually in order weaken Henry’s health.  But of course, as Henry said, he did not realize the nasty game Jenny was playing until it was too late.

Fourth Movement:  Rich Enough to Marry Her Stud

So Jenny inherited my fortune and married Willard—
That mount of brawn! That clownish soul!

To make a long story short, Henry quickly sums up his lament by reporting that after his death, Jenny married the man of the “giant strength,” Willard Shafer, after inheriting Henry’s fortune.  Jenny’s scheme succeeded, and Henry is left to name-call Jenny’s new husband, “That mount of brawn!  That clownish soul!”

Lacking the “wisdom and grace of mind” of the Honorable Henry Bennett, the strongman Willard Shafer wins the woman and the judge’s money.  And the Hon. Henry Bennett is not at all happy, definitely not resting in peace.