Linda's Literary Home

Tag: character sketches

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Hon. Henry Bennett”

    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 https://francisquirk.blogspot.com/2017/03/visit-to-national-portrait-gallery.html

    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.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Louise Smith”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Louise Smith”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ American-Innovative sonnet, “Louise Smith” is a woman, who was jilted after an eight-year engagement.

    Introduction and Text of “Louise Smith”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Louise Smith” from his American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker laments allowing her love for the man who jilted her to turn into hate.  This epitaph is offered in the form of an American-Innovative sonnet.

    Louise is speaking many years after the sorrowful event.  She becomes very philosophical about what happened to her.  Thus Louise is offering advice to others about selfish wishes and the nature of the soul.

    Louise Smith

    Herbert broke our engagement of eight years
    When Annabelle returned to the village
    From the Seminary, ah me!
    If I had let my love for him alone
    It might have grown into a beautiful sorrow—
    Who knows?—filling my life with healing fragrance.
    But I tortured it, I poisoned it,  
    I blinded its eyes, and it became hatred—  
    Deadly ivy instead of clematis.
    And my soul fell from its support,
    Its tendrils tangled in decay.
    Do not let the will play gardener to your soul
    Unless you are sure  
    It is wiser than your soul’s nature.

    Commentary on “Louise Smith”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ American-Innovative sonnet, “Louise Smith,” feature the drama of a woman who was jilted after an eight-year engagement.

    First Movement:  An “Ah, Me!” Moment

    Herbert broke our engagement of eight years
    When Annabelle returned to the village
    From the Seminary, ah me!

    Louise says that after Annabelle came back to Spoon River “from the Seminary,” her fiancé Herbert broke their eight-year engagement.   Louise then heaves a verbal indication of a sigh, “ah me!”

    Second Movement:  Waxing Philosophical

    If I had let my love for him alone
    It might have grown into a beautiful sorrow—
    Who knows?—filling my life with healing fragrance.

    Louise has garnered a philosophical stance regarding her unpleasant situation with Herbert.   She has turned over the situation in her mind and concluded that if she had simply allowed herself to continue loving him and thus allowed herself to grieve, that love “might have grown into a beautiful sorrow.”

    This “beautiful sorrow” likely would have led to a healing; she express that sentiment gently and graciously, “filling my life with healing fragrance.”   The reader then realizes that Louise will possibly be announcing how she took a different route and the “healing fragrance” eluded her.

    Third Movement:  A Confession

    But I tortured it, I poisoned it,  
    I blinded its eyes, and it became hatred—  
    Deadly ivy instead of clematis.

    Louise then confesses that she “tortured” and “poisoned” that love.  She “blinded its eyes,” and love transformed into hate.   Louise allowed herself to become bitter, concentrating not on what the love had been but simply that Herbert had dumped her for Annabelle.  

    No doubt, Louise’s hatred was doubled as she included Annabelle in that violent emotion.  Louise likens metaphorically her embattled loathing to “deadly ivy” whereas it had been “clematis.”   Louise’s own hatred poisoned her mind and heart.

    Fourth Movement:  Poisoning Her Soul

    And my soul fell from its support,
    Its tendrils tangled in decay.

    By allowing her heart and mind to poison her soul, to turn the beauty of clematis into the lethality of ivy, Louise caused her soul to fall “from its support.”    Continuing with the plant metaphor, Louise says her soul support’s “tendrils tangled in decay.”  Clematis produces lovely flowers as it climbs up a wall or trellis, but deadly ivy is poison ivy that can kill.  Both grow on stems that are called tendrils.  

    Louise’s metaphor focuses on the tangling of the deadly ivy that would cause decay because the tangled stems would choke the plant keeping out air and sunlight.   She is thus showing how her negative attitude choked off her positive emotions, which caused her love to become tangled in a web of hate where it decayed.

    Fifth Movement: Advice to the Love-Lorn

    Do not let the will play gardener to your soul
    Unless you are sure  
    It is wiser than your soul’s nature.

    Louise offers advice based on her own experience.  She counsels others, “[d]o not let the will play gardener to your soul / Unless you are sure / It is wiser than your soul’s nature.”

    Remaining with the plant metaphor, she tells her listeners not to allow selfish wishes to tend the soul, as a gardener would tend plants—that is, unless you know that those selfish wishes are more intelligent and “wiser” than the soul.   Because the soul is always wiser than selfish wishes, Louise accomplishes the goal of her advice.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Nellie Clark”

    Image:  Edgar Lee Masters -  Alchetron https://alchetron.com/Edgar-Lee-Masters
    Image:  Edgar Lee Masters –  Alchetron

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Nellie Clark”

    Nellie Clark’s report focuses on the traumatic event she experienced at only eight years of age.

    Introduction and Text of “Nellie Clark”

    The speaker of Edgar Lee Masters’ epitaph titled “Nellie Clark” from his American classic, Spoon River Anthology, begins her blunt report by describing a horrific event that certainly influenced the direction of her life and likely shortened her life.

    Although this character remains simplistic, lacking much depth of experience and feeling, she does communicate her confusion  and life of horror as she focuses on the despicable act that ruined her life.

    Nellie Clark

    I was only eight years old;
    And before I grew up and knew what it meant
    I had no words for it, except
    That I was frightened and told my Mother;
    And that my Father got a pistol
    And would have killed Charlie, who was a big boy,
    Fifteen years old, except for his Mother.
    Nevertheless the story clung to me.
    But the man who married me, a widower of thirty-five,
    Was a newcomer and never heard it
    Till two years after we were married.
    Then he considered himself cheated,
    And the village agreed that I was not really a virgin.
    Well, he deserted me, and I died
    The following winter.

    Commentary on “Nellie Clark”

    Nellie Clark’s report focuses on the traumatic event she experienced at only eight years of age.

    First Movement:  A Violent Experience

    I was only eight years old;
    And before I grew up and knew what it meant
    I had no words for it, except
    That I was frightened and told my Mother;

    When she was only eight years old, Nellie was raped by Charlie, an older boy of fifteen. The little girl did not even realize what had happened to her, and she could not even give that act a label; as she explains, she had “no words for it.”

    However, Nellie did describe the act to her mother because she did experience fear after she was violated.   Although Nellie has no word for crime at only age eight, even as she reports as an adult, she never uses the term “rape.”  

    However, no reader can come away from Nellie’s description without knowing what had occurred and know that the term “rape” does apply to what happened to the little girl.  As an eight year old, there is no way that Nellie could have consented to that violent assault that took her virginity.  

    Second Movement:  Violent Intentions

    And that my Father got a pistol
    And would have killed Charlie, who was a big boy,
    Fifteen years old, except for his Mother.
    Nevertheless the story clung to me.

    After learning about what happened to his daughter, Nellie’s father took out his pistol with intentions of killing the boy, Charlie, who had raped his daughter.  Nellie’s father, however, did not kill the boy.  And it remains somewhat unclear who managed to stop him.  

    Nellie states it this way:  ” . . .  my Father got a pistol /  And would have killed Charlie, who was a big boy, / Fifteen years old, except for his Mother.” It remains unclear whether the “Mother” was the mother of Nellie’s father or the mother of Charlie, the boy who raped Nellie.

    It is likely Charlie’s mother.  Nellie would possibly have said her grandmother, if Nellie’s father’s mother has been the one to stop him. Either way, some mother prevents Nellie’s father from becoming a murderer, which would have further traumatized the young girl.

    Third Movement:  Nellie’s Husband

    But the man who married me, a widower of thirty-five,
    Was a newcomer and never heard it
    Till two years after we were married.

    Nellie then reports that she had to live with the story following her throughout her life; she expresses it as, “the story clung to me.”   Eventually, Nellie marries a man who had relocated to Spoon River and who did not know about the crime perpetrated against Nellie. 

    Nellie’s husband had been a widower and was thirty-five years old.  It is unclear the exact age of Nellie at the time of marriage, but she appears to suggest that she was still in her teens or likely in her early twenties.

    Nellie and her husband had been married only two years when he learned that Nellie had been raped when she was eight years old.  The man’s “newcomer” status had prevented him from being aware of the story clinging to the young Nellie.

    Fourth Movement:  He Felt Cheated

    Then he considered himself cheated,
    And the village agreed that I was not really a virgin.
    Well, he deserted me, and I died
    The following winter.

    After learning about Nellie’s attack and therefore her lack of virginity, her husband leaves her.  He claimed that he felt “cheated.”  Nellie asserts that, “the village agreed that I was not really a virgin.” Then after being abandoned by her husband, Nellie dies the “following winter.”   Nellie offers no indication as to how she died.

    Nellie, thus, leaves her listeners wondering how old she was when she died and what caused her early death, but those two details pale in comparison to the grizzly scene Nellie had earlier in her report planted in the mind’s eye of her readers.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Homer Clapp” 

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Homer Clapp” 

    “Homer Clapp” is the third epitaph in the series which began with “Aner Clute.” Homer is a pitiful character, who feels sorry for himself because of the way he was treated by Aner Clute.

    Introduction and Text of “Homer Clapp”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ epitaph titled “Homer Clapp” from Masters’ American classic Spoon River Anthology, the character laments an existence which resulted in his considering himself one of “Life’s fools.”

    Masters’ epitaph “Homer Clapp” is the third in the series beginning with “Aner Clute” and followed by “Lucius Atherton“; Homer is a sorry character, who complains that he was played for fool by Aner Clute.

    Homer Clapp

    Often Aner Clute at the gate  
    Refused me the parting kiss,
    Saying we should be engaged before that;  
    And just with a distant clasp of the hand  
    She bade me good-night, as I brought her home
    From the skating rink or the revival.  
    No sooner did my departing footsteps die away  
    Than Lucius Atherton,
    (So I learned when Aner went to Peoria)
    Stole in at her window, or took her riding
    Behind his spanking team of bays
    Into the country.
    The shock of it made me settle down,  
    And I put all the money I got from my father’s estate  
    Into the canning factory, to get the job
    Of head accountant, and lost it all.
    And then I knew I was one of Life’s fools,
    Whom only death would treat as the equal  
    Of other men, making me feel like a man.

    Commentary on “Homer Clapp”

    The third epitaph in the series “Homer Clapp” begins with “Aner Clute” followed by “Lucius Atherton.” Homer is a pitiful character, who feels sorry for himself because of how he was treated by Aner Clute.

    First Movement:  A Ridiculous Spectacle 

    Often Aner Clute at the gate  
    Refused me the parting kiss,
    Saying we should be engaged before that;  
    And just with a distant clasp of the hand  
    She bade me good-night, as I brought her home
    From the skating rink or the revival.  

    The character “Homer Clapp” is sad man, whose association with Aner Clute, the prostitute, left him degraded and beaten.  Aner had claimed that she began her life as a hooker because of being rebuffed by Lucius Atherton.  

    Later, however, Aner recants her story and claims ridiculously that she started living the life because of the way society views prostitutes—kind of like the way society views a boy who steals apples from a grocery store.  

    Homer commences his pathetic story “at the gate” with Aner Clute refusing to kiss him goodnight. She always refused to give him a good-bye kiss after he had taken her on a date either to “the skating rink”  or “the revival.”  

    Aner would extend to him only  a “distant clasp of the hand,” remarking that before she would permit him to kiss her, they would have to have become “engaged” to be married.  This ridiculous spectacle shows clearly Aner’s disingenuous nature and dramatizes her behavior which is full of deceit, making her resemble so many of the other dissembling Spoon River characters.

    Second Movement:  Town Gossip

    No sooner did my departing footsteps die away  
    Than Lucius Atherton,
    (So I learned when Aner went to Peoria)
    Stole in at her window, or took her riding
    Behind his spanking team of bays
    Into the country.

    Homer then appears to be providing town gossip as he claims that after he had left Aner at the gate, Lucius Atherton came sneaking in at Aner’s window.  The two then went about with “her riding / Behind his spanking team of bays.” 

    The window sneaking sounds like an over-dramatic claim. It remains somewhat vague and a shaky notion that Lucius would need to sneak in to take Aner for a ride.   However, Homer does report that he found out about Aner’s deceptive behavior only after she had relocated to Peoria.  The timeline seems to impart the notion that Aner had actually moved to Peoria for the purpose of becoming a prostitute.

    Aner, however, had concocted  her narrative about being jilted by Atherton before she moved from Spoon River. Still, it seems that Homer had heard about this claim of Aner’s  only after she had left Spoon River for Peoria.

    Homer’s bit of gossip that Atherton owned “a spanking team of bays” might hint that Atherton had, in fact, been considered a “rich man” by Aner and other Spoon River residents who were less well off than Atherton was.

    Third Movement:  No Kiss Until Engaged

    The shock of it made me settle down,  
    And I put all the money I got from my father’s estate  
    Into the canning factory, to get the job
    Of head accountant, and lost it all.

    Homer’s story turns out to be that because of Aner’s deception of dating Homer while leading him on and demanding that they be engaged before a kiss, and at the same time fooling around with Lucius, Homer experienced “shock.” 

    That shock caused Homer to sink his inheritance into the canning factory. and after placing all that money into the canning factory in order “to get the job / Of head accountant,” Homer “lost it all.”  

    Apparently, Homer lost his job along with his money as well as any chance for marital happiness.  However, Homer remains quite vague at this point and does not make clear what he means when he says he lost “it all.” 

    Fourth Movement:  Just a Fool

    And then I knew I was one of Life’s fools,
    Whom only death would treat as the equal  
    Of other men, making me feel like a man.

    Homer complains that his experiences in life, especially the Aner situation and loss of his money have convinced him that “[he] was one of Life’s fools.”  Homer considers himself the type of fool that, “only death would treat as the equal / Of other men.”  

    Therefore, because death will come to all men equally, Homer can “feel like a man,” with the knowledge that death would definitely arrive for him just as it will do for all other men.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Aner Clute”

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters https://www.best-poems.net/edgar_lee_masters/index.html#google_vignette
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Aner Clute”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ speaker in “Aner Clute” compares her choosing “the life” to a boy stealing an apple from a grocery store.

    Introduction and Text of “Aner Clute”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Aner Clute,” from Spoon River Anthology, the speaker is a prostitute, who blames others for her own life choices, as many of the Spoon River soliloquists are wont to do.

    The bulk of Aner Clute’s drama plays out in her comparison of her choosing “the life” to a boy stealing an apple from a grocery store.  Like many other Spoon River speakers, Miss Clute dabbles in a ridiculous fantasy designed solely to relieve her of her own guilty life choices.

    Aner Clute

    Over and over they used to ask me,
    While buying the wine or the beer,
    In Peoria first, and later in Chicago,
    Denver, Frisco, New York, wherever I lived,
    How I happened to lead the life,
    And what was the start of it.
    Well, I told them a silk dress,
    And a promise of marriage from a rich man—
    (It was Lucius Atherton).
    But that was not really it at all.
    Suppose a boy steals an apple
    From the tray at the grocery store,
    And they all begin to call him a thief,
    The editor, minister, judge, and all the people—
    “A thief,” “a thief,” “a thief,” wherever he goes.
    And he can’t get work, and he can’t get bread
    Without stealing it, why the boy will steal.
    It’s the way the people regard the theft of the apple
    That makes the boy what he is.

    Commentary on “Aner Clute”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ speaker in “Aner Clute” compares her choosing “the life” to a boy stealing an apple from a grocery store.

    First Movement:  Getting into “The Life”

    Over and over they used to ask me,
    While buying the wine or the beer,
    In Peoria first, and later in Chicago,  
    Denver, Frisco, New York, wherever I lived,
    How I happened to lead the life,
    And what was the start of it.

    Aner begins her drama by reporting that her johns (customers of a prostitute) would ask her how she got into “the life,” which is a euphemism for prostitution.  They supposedly wanted to know “what was the start of it.”   

    These johns in Peoria, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, New York, or “wherever [she] lived” would put these questions to her as they were “buying the wine or the beer.”

    No doubt, they asked not so much because they cared how she became a “working girl,” but likely just to have something to say.   They probably had little else in common with their companion for the night, and such a question would seem personal enough yet non-intimidating.

    Second Movement:  Blame it on a Dress and a Promise

    Well, I told them a silk dress,  
    And a promise of marriage from a rich man—
    (It was Lucius Atherton).  

    Aner claims she would tell them she got into the business because of “a silk dress, / And a promise of marriage from a rich man.”  She even names the man, Lucius Atherton.

    Third Movement:  A Lie and Ludicrous Comparison

    But that was not really it at all.
    Suppose a boy steals an apple
    From the tray at the grocery store,
    And they all begin to call him a thief,  
    The editor, minister, judge, and all the people—  

    Aner then admits that her claim about the marriage promise and the silk dress was a lie, and she begins a ludicrous comparison of her choice to sell sex for a living to a boy stealing an apple from a grocery store.   Clute’s pitiful plaint is that “the editor, minister, judge, and all the people” took up the refrain of calling the boy “a thief.”

    Fourth Movement:  The Label Makes the Man

    “A thief,” “a thief,” “a thief,” wherever he goes.
    And he can’t get work, and he can’t get bread
    Without stealing it, why the boy will steal.  
    It’s the way the people regard the theft of the apple
    That makes the boy what he is.

    Clute continues her analogy and chorus of “all the people” calling the boy, “A thief,” “a thief,” “a thief.”  Everywhere the poor lad goes someone calls him a thief.   The boy’s reputation as a thief prevents the boy from finding any job.  He cannot even supply his own meals, so the boy can do only one thing—continue to steal.

    According to Aner, the boy’s predicament was not engendered by the boy stealing an apple; his life as a thief resulted from “the way the people regard the theft of the apple.”  Their heartless taunting “ma[de] the boy what he is.” 

    The reason that Aner’s analogy to the boy-turned-thief sounds utterly asinine is because it is.  She is implying that because she took money once for sex, she had to continue because everywhere she went, people would call her names like whore, slut, slattern or whatever.  

    So Aner’s difficulty was not her own making.  Her downfall was having other people label her a whore that made her actually become a prostitute.  Such is the convoluted thinking of many of these Spoon River cemetery inmates.  They are never to blame for their choices—they blame society in the town of Spoon River.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “A. D. Blood”

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters https://chicagoliteraryhof.org/inductees/profile/edgar-lee-masters
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters – Chicago Literary Hall of Fame

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “A. D. Blood”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ character A. D. Blood, who led a crusade to eliminate sin in Spoon River, is now suffering the agony of having a couple use his grave for trysting.

    Introduction and Text of  “A. D. Blood”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “A. D. Blood” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker offers a report that is short and distinct; he has a simple complaint that he hurls at the Spoon River folk in the form of a question. Mr. A. D. Blood is bemoaning the agony he suffers from having a couple employ his grave as a bed where they engaging in the act of fornication.

    A. D. Blood

    If you in the village think that my work was a good one,  
    Who closed the saloons and stopped all playing at cards,  
    And haled old Daisy Fraser before Justice Arnett,
    In many a crusade to purge the people of sin;  
    Why do you let the milliner’s daughter Dora,
    And the worthless son of Benjamin Pantier  
    Nightly make my grave their unholy pillow?

    Commentary on “A. D. Blood”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ character A. D. Blood is complaining that a couple has been using his grave for trysting, and the righteous Blood, who fancies he ridded the town of sin, does not take kindly to that unholy act.

    First Movement:  Appreciation Doubted

    Mr. Blood cautiously assumes that the village of Spoon River appreciated the fact that he went about on “a crusade to purge the people of sin.”  Mayor Blood was instrumental in closing saloons and shutting down gambling.  

    Mr. Blood even snitched on Daisy Fraser’s prostitution activity, causing her to be hauled up in from of Judge Arnett repeatedly. Mr. Blood is sure that his work was good, but he can only surmise that the town agreed with him; thus he is forced to place his activities in an “if” clause and then ask his pertinent question.

    Second Movement:  A Legend in His Own Mind

    Because Mr. Blood had such a good influence on Spoon River, at least in his own mind, he now wonders why the town allows this impertinent couple to fornicate on his grave. Mr. Blood names the couple:  “the worthless son of Benjamin Pantier” and “the milliner’s daughter Dora.” 

    Mr. Blood colorfully refers to their dirty deed as “[n]ightly mak[ing] my grave their unholy pillow.”   But was Mr. Blood correct in calling Reuben Pantier “worthless”?  Emily Sparks offers a different opinion regarding Reuben.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Justice Arnett”

    Image:  Edgar Lee Masters -  Alchetron https://alchetron.com/Edgar-Lee-Masters
    Image:  Edgar Lee Masters –  Alchetron

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Justice Arnett”

    Justice Arnett is featured in his own poem where he demonstrates weakness and confusion, commensurate with many other of his fellow citizens of Spoon River.

    Introduction and Text of “Justice Arnett”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Justice Arnett” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology features a character, who died after his court docket fell and gashed his bald head.  This character is mentioned in three other anthology entries: “Daisy Fraser,” “Lydia Puckett” and “A. D. Blood.”

    Justice Arnett

    It is true, fellow citizens,
    That my old docket lying there for years
    On a shelf above my head and over  
    The seat of justice, I say it is true
    That docket had an iron rim
    Which gashed my baldness when it fell—  
    (Somehow I think it was shaken loose
    By the heave of the air all over town  
    When the gasoline tank at the canning works  
    Blew up and burned Butch Weldy)—
    But let us argue points in order,  
    And reason the whole case carefully:
    First I concede my head was cut,
    But second the frightful thing was this:
    The leaves of the docket shot and showered
    Around me like a deck of cards  
    In the hands of a sleight of hand performer.
    And up to the end I saw those leaves
    Till I said at last, “Those are not leaves,
    Why, can’t you see they are days and days
    And the days and days of seventy years?  
    And why do you torture me with leaves  
    And the little entries on them?”

    Commentary on “Justice Arnett”

    Justice Arnett demonstrates weakness and confusion, similar to  many of the other weak  and/or corrupt citizens, portrayed in the Spoon River collection of epitaphs.

    First Movement:   Confirming a Rumor

    It is true, fellow citizens,
    That my old docket lying there for years
    On a shelf above my head and over  
    The seat of justice, I say it is true
    That docket had an iron rim
    Which gashed my baldness when it fell—  

    Opening his monologue, the justice seems to be confirming the details of his demise as if there had been some speculation about it.  To end the speculation, he confirms, “It is true, fellow citizens.”  The docket that had been lying above his head for many years did, in fact, fall, and when it did, it “gashed [his] baldness.”

    Arnett positions the docket on a shelf not only above his head but also “over the seat of justice.”  He seems to need to emphasize that he occupied this “seat of justice,” for he wants to put himself in the best light, as most of the Spoon River speakers do.

    Second Movement:  The Cause of the Falling Docket

    (Somehow I think it was shaken loose
    By the heave of the air all over town  
    When the gasoline tank at the canning works  
    Blew up and burned Butch Weldy)—

    The reader then learns what caused the docket to fall.  The reader will recall the “Butch” Weldy incident, in which Weldy suffered two broken legs and was blinded for life.  Weldy was pouring gasoline into the tank at the canning factory when the tank blew up.  

    Arnett makes light of Weldy’s injuries by merely stating the accident “burned Butch Weldy.”  But the justice speculates that the explosion so “heaved the air all over town” that it shook loose the docket and caused it to fall.

    Third Movement:    Points of Order on Dying

    But let us argue points in order,  
    And reason the whole case carefully:
    First I concede my head was cut,
    But second the frightful thing was this:

    The justice then shifts to legalese to inflate his philosophizing about his ultimate demise:  “let us argue points in order.”  He has two points to “argue”:  one is that his “head was cut,” and two is that there was a frightful component to this incident.  

    The reader will sense that the justice sounds somewhat demented in his explanation.  The dementia might stem from Alzheimer’s disease or it might simply be the trauma of having been conked on the noggin by a big, heavy, metal-edged book.

    Fourth Movement:   The Image of Leaves

    The leaves of the docket shot and showered
    Around me like a deck of cards  
    In the hands of a sleight of hand performer.

    Arnett describes the events of the frightful occurrence, “[t]he leaves of the docket shot and showered / Around me like a deck of cards / In the hands of a sleight of hand performer.”  This description sounds quite realistic, and Arnett’s listeners can readily see the image he presents.

    Fifth Movement:   Logic and Dementia

    And up to the end I saw those leaves
    Till I said at last, “Those are not leaves,
    Why, can’t you see they are days and days
    And the days and days of seventy years?  
    And why do you torture me with leaves  
    And the little entries on them?”

    Arnett’s final words reveal the fright, possible dementia, and as well as a fairly well grounded logic.  The deck-of-card image turns back to leaves, which makes sense because pages in a book are called “leaves.” But then the justice recounts that he “said at last, ‘Those are not leaves’.” 

    Suddenly, Arnett is speaking as if refuting someone who has accused him of having nothing more than “leaves” in his court docket.  He reprimands his imaginary accuser, “Why, can’t you see they are days and days / And the days and days of seventy years?” 

    The justice disabuses his accuser of the notion that his docket was merely filled with leaves; it was filled with his life’s work.  Day after day for seventy years, he has recorded his life’s work in that docket.

    But then the justice makes a remarkable confession when he asks, “And why do you torture me with leaves / And the little entries on them?”

    Suddenly those days and days of the justice’s life’s work are again reduced to leaves with “little entries on them.”  In his fright and confusion, he is no longer certain that his life has made sense or even had any value.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Lois Spears”

    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 https://francisquirk.blogspot.com/2017/03/visit-to-national-portrait-gallery.html

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Lois Spears”

    The epitaph and character of “Lois Spears” will delight readers who have grown somewhat jaded with the jaded characters offered them in Masters’ Spoon River Anthology.

    Introduction and Text of  “Lois Spears”

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Lois Spears” from American classic Spoon River Anthology surprises readers with its simple purity.  The many complaints from those who pursued lives on the seamy side and then tried to blame others for their misfortunes resonant with such volume that encountering a soul such as Lois provides a shock albeit a pleasant one.  

    This poem features only three movements.  The first movement’s opening sounds as if a third party is reporting for Lois, but then it becomes clear that it is Lois speaking in the last parenthetical line.   

    It is also important to note that the information in the parenthetical is deemphasized, though for the world it is of great moment.  The second movement finds Lois proclaiming herself “the happiest of women,” while the third and final movement reveals the reason for her height of happiness.

    Lois Spears

    Here lies the body of Lois Spears,
    Born Lois Fluke, daughter of Willard Fluke,
    Wife of Cyrus Spears,
    Mother of Myrtle and Virgil Spears,
    Children with clear eyes and sound limbs—
    (I was born blind).
    I was the happiest of women
    As wife, mother and housekeeper,
    Caring for my loved ones,
    And making my home
    A place of order and bounteous hospitality:
    For I went about the rooms,
    And about the garden
    With an instinct as sure as sight,
    As though there were eyes in my finger tips—
    Glory to God in the highest.

    Commentary on “Lois Spears”

    Edgar Lee Master’ epitaph “Lois Spears” will be a welcome delight to readers who have grown somewhat annoyed  with the jaded characters offered them in the American classic Spoon River Anthology.

    First Movement:  Official Announcement

    Here lies the body of Lois Spears,
    Born Lois Fluke, daughter of Willard Fluke,
    Wife of Cyrus Spears,
    Mother of Myrtle and Virgil Spears,
    Children with clear eyes and sound limbs—
    (I was born blind).

    Lois begins her report with a rather official sounding declaration, “Here lies the body of Lois Spears.”   She continues by identifying herself further with her maiden name, “Lois Fluke,” and that she was the “daughter of Willard Fluke.”  

    The significance of her maiden name becomes apparent as the reader encounters the strange, delightful character she exhibits.  She is, indeed, a fluke of nature, especially when found among the many disingenuous and shady characters of Spoon River.

    Lois further defines her identity by stating that she was the wife of “Cyrus Spears, / Mother of Myrtle and Virgil Spears.”  Her children, she is no doubt happy to report, both had “clear eyes”—they were not born with the same affliction that their mother had to endure.  

    Her children, furthermore, were otherwise healthy with “sound limbs.”  It is only after Lois has revealed the rudimentary biographical facts that she imparts the crucial information that she “was born blind.”

    Second Movement:  No Need for Pity

    I was the happiest of women
    As wife, mother and housekeeper,
    Caring for my loved ones,
    And making my home
    A place of order and bounteous hospitality:

    Lest her hearers begin to pity her, Lois immediately dispels the notion that she requires any by declaring herself, “the happiest of women.”  She was so happy because she cared for her “loved ones” and made her home “a place of order and bounteous hospitality.”  

    The magnanimity of such a remark offers solace to all who have struggled with positions that they deem beneath them—the lowly housewife, who was also blind, was able to function as the happiest of women simply by nurturing and making a home for her loved ones.

    Third Movement:   All Glory to God

    For I went about the rooms,
    And about the garden
    With an instinct as sure as sight,
    As though there were eyes in my finger tips—
    Glory to God in the highest.

    In the final movement, Lois proclaims that all glory belongs to “God in the highest.”  Lois was able to go about the rooms of her home and even grow a garden and claims she did so “with instinct as sure as sight.”   

    Lois Spears worked and achieved high accomplishments “[a]s though there were eyes in [her] finger tips.” That Mrs. Spears praises the Divine for her happy fluke of a life lifts her capital to further heights.   Mrs. Lois Spears takes her rank as one of the fine, pure souls who inhabited the otherwise carping village of Spoon River.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Dr. Siegfried Iseman”

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters https://www.best-poems.net/edgar_lee_masters/index.html#google_vignette
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Dr. Siegfried Iseman”

    Dr. Siegfried Iseman is the typical Spoon River speaker who blames others for his own destructive path.

    Introduction and Text of “Dr. Siegfried Iseman”

    The speaker in Edgar Lee Masters’ “Dr. Siegfried Iseman” from Spoon River Anthology is a disgraced physician who goes to imprison for peddling a concoction he called the “Elixir of Youth.” 

    Dr. Siegfried Iseman will be recognized as the typical Spoon River epitaph speaker who touts himself as a victim, as he huffs and puffs, blaming others for his own crimes on his path to self-destruction. 

    As scoundrels often justify their own perfidy, they not only blame others for their mishaps but they also feel an inner high-moral ground that sounds logical only to their misguided and twisted thinking.

    Dr. Siegfried Iseman

    I said when they handed me my diploma,
    I said to myself I will be good
    And wise and brave and helpful to others;  
    I said I will carry the Christian creed  
    Into the practice of medicine!
    Somehow the world and the other doctors  
    Know what’s in your heart as soon as you make  
    This high-souled resolution.  
    And the way of it is they starve you out.
    And no one comes to you but the poor.
    And you find too late that being a doctor  
    Is just a way of making a living.  
    And when you are poor and have to carry
    The Christian creed and wife and children  
    All on your back, it is too much!
    That’s why I made the Elixir of Youth,
    Which landed me in the jail at Peoria
    Branded a swindler and a crook  
    By the upright Federal Judge!

    Commentary on “Dr. Siegfried Iseman”

    Dr. Siegfried Iseman is the typical Spoon River speaker who blames others for his own destructive path.

    First Movement:  The No-Witness Convenience

    I said when they handed me my diploma,
    I said to myself I will be good
    And wise and brave and helpful to others;  
    I said I will carry the Christian creed  
    Into the practice of medicine!

    Dr. Iseman begins his confessional by recalling that at the beginning of his entry into the profession of medicine, he promised to be a good Christian doctor.  He intended to be “good / And wise and brave and helpful to others.” Even as Iseman was “handed” his diploma, these promises he mouthed to himself.  

    Interestingly, because the doctor had only silently “said” these things, there is conveniently no witness to his testimony. The lack of any evidence that Iseman had intended to acquit himself honorably allows him to backslide at least without others knowing about this original intentions, a fact that, no doubt, in the beginning of his moral failure gave him a sense of comfort.

    Second Movement:   Scoundrel Justification

    Somehow the world and the other doctors  
    Know what’s in your heart as soon as you make  
    This high-souled resolution.

    Siegfried then philosophically laments that making such a “high-souled resolution” opened him to the fraud, greed, and graft of “the world and the other doctors.”    Completely without substantial support for the claim, Iseman decries the fact that they all “know” what is the heart of the man of good intentions.  But this kind of conclusion is necessary when a scoundrel needs to justify his own improprieties.

    Third Movement:  Self-Victimized

    And the way of it is they starve you out.
    And no one comes to you but the poor.
    And you find too late that being a doctor  
    Is just a way of making a living.  

    Because Siegfried had made a pledge to himself to be good and noble, he became a victim of the other doctors who were not bound by such high-souled intentions.  They were free to “starve [him] out.”  

    Because only the poor came to Dr. Iseman, he found that he could not thrive financially as the others did.   Iseman’s lack of financial success ultimately led him to believe that, “being a doctor / Is just a way of making a living.”  And he learned this lesson “too late”—this is, too late to change his good intentions and thus begin acting unconscionably as the others had.

    Fourth Movement:  The Burden of Duty

    And when you are poor and have to carry
    The Christian creed and wife and children  
    All on your back, it is too much!

    Poor Siegfried, who remained poor, despite his medical practice became burdened by his “Christian creed” as well as by a “wife and children.”   With such heavy responsibilities “on [his] back,” Iseman exclaims, “it is too much!”

    Fifth Movement:   It’s the Judge’s Fault

    That’s why I made the Elixir of Youth,
    Which landed me in the jail at Peoria
    Branded a swindler and a crook  
    By the upright Federal Judge!

    Siegfried finally reveals that he concocted “the Elixir of Youth,” and that concoction “landed [him] in jail in Peoria.”   Iseman’s reputation was ruined, and he was “[b]randed a swindler and a crook.”  

    He sarcastically blames “the upright Federal Judge” for his predicament. Dr. Siegfried Iseman’s testimony from the grave resembles so many other Spoon River deceased, who excuse their own behavior by claiming  themselves victims of someone else.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Jacob Goodpasture” 

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

    Edgar Lee Masters‘ “Jacob Goodpasture” 

    The speaker in the epitaph “Jacob Goodpasture” is lamenting the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861-8165). He considers the war unjustified, and he has lost his son, who served as a soldier in the war.

    Introduction and Text of “Jacob Goodpasture”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Jacob Goodpasture” from Masters’ American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker disparages his own long life as he parallels it with the condition of his country.

    As Jacob Goodpasture laments the outbreak of the American Civil War 1861-8165 [1], he makes it clear that he believes the war to be unjustified.  He suggests that freedom itself is belong lost in an unnecessary war, and he is no doubt speaking from the position of a father in mourning; he lost his soldier son to the war effort.

    Jacob Goodpasture

    When Fort Sumter fell and the war came  
    I cried out in bitterness of soul:
    “O glorious republic now no more!”
    When they buried my soldier son
    To the call of trumpets and the sound of drums
    My heart broke beneath the weight
    Of eighty years, and I cried:
    “Oh, son who died in a cause unjust!
    In the strife of Freedom slain!”
    And I crept here under the grass.
    And now from the battlements of time, behold:  
    Thrice thirty million souls being bound together
    In the love of larger truth,  
    Rapt in the expectation of the birth
    Of a new Beauty,
    Sprung from Brotherhood and Wisdom.  
    I with eyes of spirit see the Transfiguration
    Before you see it.
    But ye infinite brood of golden eagles nesting ever higher,
    Wheeling ever higher, the sun-light wooing
    Of lofty places of Thought,  
    Forgive the blindness of the departed owl.

    Commentary on “Jacob Goodpasture”

    Jacob Goodpasture is one of the epitaph speakers who is suffering the pangs of life.  He laments having lived during wartime and losing a son to the war effort.  But he also offers a prediction about the republic, as well as an apology for his generation’s failure.

    First Movement:   A Father’s Grief

    When Fort Sumter fell and the war came  
    I cried out in bitterness of soul:
    “O glorious republic now no more!”

    As a grieving father, Goodpasture commences his lamentation, exclaiming in deep agony that as the war began with the firing on Fort Sumter, his pain and anguish caused him to believe that the end of the republic had been foisted upon the citizens.

    Goodpasture begins his epitaph looking back from a position sometime in the future.  But he appears to conflate his own death with that future time; thus his time-line remains somewhat muddled.  

    Second Movement:   An “Unjust” War

    When they buried my soldier son
    To the call of trumpets and the sound of drums
    My heart broke beneath the weight
    Of eighty years, and I cried:
    “Oh, son who died in a cause unjust!
    In the strife of Freedom slain!”

    Goodpasture is suffering after the death of his son, who has become a casualty of the war.  Goodpasture deems the war “unjust.”  His suffering  became intense as he listened to the trumpets and heard the sound of the drums beating for his son’s military funeral. 

    The eighty-year-old Goodpasture senses the heavy burden of his long life; he is unable to find any comfort in having his son give his life for the protection of his freedom. Goodpasture is decrying the death of his son, but he is also insisting that even freedom itself was “slain” in the unjust war. 

    That Goodpasture seems to suggest he was eighty years old when his son dies adds a puzzling quirk to the narrative.  Eighty years old seems a bit old have a son die in war; perhaps a grandson or even a great-grandson would be more likely.  Soldiers going off the fight in the Civil War were, of course, all ages, but the majority of them were likely in the twenties.

    On the other hand, Goodpasture could be implying that it was much later that his “heart broke” at the sound of the military funeral, although the juxtaposition of his claims places his age and his death at the same time and contingent upon the death of his son.

    Third Movement:   Foreseeing a New Golden Age

    And I crept here under the grass.
    And now from the battlements of time, behold:  
    Thrice thirty million souls being bound together
    In the love of larger truth,  
    Rapt in the expectation of the birth
    Of a new Beauty,
    Sprung from Brotherhood and Wisdom.
    I with eyes of spirit see the Transfiguration
    Before you see it.
    But ye infinite brood of golden eagles nesting ever higher,
    Wheeling ever higher, the sun-light wooing
    Of lofty places of Thought,  
    Forgive the blindness of the departed owl. 

    Goodpasture dramatizes his emotion, signifying this own death by remarking dramatically, “I crept here under the grass.”  Goodpasture then asserts an outrageous claim that he perceives truths that others fail to see.  He makes a prediction about his country, the United States, after its population has tripled in size:  “thrice thirty million.” 

    The U.S. population, indeed, was about 32 million [2] at the outset of the Civil War years.  Goodpasture offers his prediction that the 90 million American souls will unite in “the love of larger truth.”  He suggests that “a new Beauty” will come to fruition in “Brotherhood and Wisdom.”

    The U.S.A. reached that 90,000,000 mark in 1909, less than a decade before it became embroiled in War War I, as Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes [3] were still blighting the American South.  

    Also, it was close to six decades before enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [4] that finally demanded American blacks be able to enjoy their full citizenship as originally granted by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.  Thus Goodpasture’s prediction was less than stellar.

    Despite the fact that Goodpasture labels the war “unjust” and not needed, he somehow remains optimistic that later generations will benefit from the true goal of this supposed unjust conflict.  

    Of course, the very purpose of the war was do just what Goodpasture thinks will happen in future.   As the speaker is reporting from a state of mourning, he is likely attempting to assuage his own pain, so his predictions miss the mark by several decades.

    Goodpasture asserts that he can know the future of his country before the living residents perceive it.  He metaphorically compares the coming generation to “golden eagles,” asking them to forgive his war-mongering generation, which resembles a blind owl that has now left the picture.

    Uncertain Time-Frame

    The timing of Goodpasture’s prediction raises problematic issues.  The reader may gather that he died around age eighty.  But it remains unclear if he was, in fact, age eighty at the outbreak of the war.    

    If Goodpasture has lived around twenty years after the war, he likely could have seen certain results of the war effort. Yet in order to brag up his prediction, he has to be asserting that he possessed the foresight to predict those war results. 

    Goodpasture’s patriotism seems to be aligned with the death of his son; yet he is lamenting the son’s death as well as his opinion that the war has caused also the death of freedom.  

    Goodpasture seems to be trying to have it both ways—the war caused the death of freedom, yet in future he seems to perceive the rise of freedom; in his prediction, however, he was off by about six decades and one million in population: a semblance of that golden age he seems to predict came as the population reach 191 million rather than the 90 million he claims to foresee.

    Sources

    [1]  Editors. “American Civil War—Facts, Events and Information.” History.net.  Accessed August 10, 2026.

    [2]  Research Department. “U.S. Population 1776-date.”  Armstrong Economics.  Accessed August 10, 2026..

    [3]  Jason Shvili.  “Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws.”  WorldAtlas.  November 8 2021.

    [4]  Curators. “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom.”  Library of Congress.  A Accessed August 10, 2026..