Linda's Literary Home

Tag: Spoon River Anthology

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Wendell P. Bloyd”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Wendell P. Bloyd”

    Basically a flaming atheist, Wendell P. Bloyd, blames his ultimate death on his blasphemy, which, in fact, merely consisted of his misinterpretation of a few lines from the Genesis creation story.

    Introduction and Text of “Wendell P. Bloyd”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Wendell P. Bloyd” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker professes a flawed interpretation of the Genesis creation myth, implying that he ultimately died because of his “blasphemy.”  Likely, Bloyd wants his listeners to infer either some irony or logical consequence after he reports that he was, “beaten to death by a Catholic guard.”

    Wendell P. Bloyd

    They first charged me with disorderly conduct,
    There being no statute on blasphemy.
    Later they locked me up as insane
    Where I was beaten to death by a Catholic guard.
    My offense was this:
    I said God lied to Adam, and destined him
    To lead the life of a fool,
    Ignorant that there is evil in the world as well as good.
    And when Adam outwitted God by eating the apple
    And saw through the lie,
    God drove him out of Eden to keep him from taking
    The fruit of immortal life.
    For Christ’s sake, you sensible people,
    Here’s what God Himself says about it in the book of Genesis:
    “And the Lord God said, behold the man
    Is become as one of us” (a little envy, you see),
    “To know good and evil” (The all-is-good lie exposed):
    “And now lest he put forth his hand and take
    Also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever:
    Therefore the Lord God sent Him forth from the garden of Eden.”
    (The reason I believe God crucified His Own Son
    To get out of the wretched tangle is, because it sounds just like Him.)

    Commentary on “Wendell P. Bloyd”

    The flaming atheist, Wendell P. Bloyd, blames his ultimate death on his blasphemy, which, in fact, merely consisted of his misinterpretation of a few lines from the Genesis creation story.

    First Movement:  Committed

    They first charged me with disorderly conduct,
    There being no statute on blasphemy.
    Later they locked me up as insane
    Where I was beaten to death by a Catholic guard.

    Wendell P. Bloyd reports that he had been committed to an insane asylum, where he was killed by a Catholic guard.  Bloyd begins his diatribe by railing against an amorphous “they” who first charged him with “disorderly conduct.”

    According to Bloyd “they” charged him as disorderly for the simple reason that “there [is] no statute on blasphemy.”  Then this nameless “they” committed him to an asylum for the insane, where he met his death at the hands of the guard.  Of course, it is important to note that the guard was “Catholic.”

    Second Movement:  Interpretation

    I said God lied to Adam, and destined him
    To lead the life of a fool,
    Ignorant that there is evil in the world as well as good.
    And when Adam outwitted God by eating the apple

    Bloyd then begins to explain what his real offense was.  He was not disorderly or insane, he merely offered his interpretation of Genesis, specifically Genesis 3:22:

    And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. (King James Version)

    “They” used the excuses of disorderedly conduct and insanity to lock Bloyd up because of his belief that God lied to Adam and Eve and then expelled them from the Garden of Eden before they could become immortal.   Bloyd claims that God lied to Adam and Eve and influenced them to lead their lives as fools, unaware that both good and evil exist in the world.

    Third Movement:  Outsmarting God

    And when Adam outwitted God by eating the apple
    And saw through the lie,
    God drove him out of Eden to keep him from taking
    The fruit of immortal life.

    Bloyd continues his dimwitted interpretation by claiming that Adam outsmarted God when he and Eve ate the apple and thus understood that they had been lied to. And then God drove them from the Garden before they could acquire the ability to become immoral.

    Fourth Movement:  Exposing a Lie

    For Christ’s sake, you sensible people,
    Here’s what God Himself says about it in the book of Genesis:
    “And the Lord God said, behold the man
    Is become as one of us” (a little envy, you see),
    “To know good and evil” (The all-is-good lie exposed):
    “And now lest he put forth his hand and take
    Also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever:
    Therefore the Lord God sent Him forth from the garden of Eden.”
    (The reason I believe God crucified His Own Son
    To get out of the wretched tangle is, because it sounds just like Him.)

    In this final movement, Bloyd quotes the excerpt from the Bible, Genesis 3:22 from which he has gleaned the notion that God told Adam and Eve a lie but Adam exposed the lie and thus was expelled from paradise.   The problem with Bloyd’s conclusion is that he misunderstands the reason for Adam and Eve’s having been admonished against eating the “apple.”

    Eating the apple, which is a metaphor for engaging in sex and animal propagation, was forbidden because that activity would cause the consciousness in the newly created beings to fall from the brain down the spine to the coccyx.

    In the Genesis story of creation, the “tree of life” is the human body, not life in general.  The “knowledge of good and evil” also does not refer to those qualities in the world but as the human mind and body falling under the spell of the dualities and having to live under that spell.

    Before the consciousness fell from the brain to the coccyx, the human’s consciousness was God-united, superconsciousness.  As long as the human consciousness was God-united, it was already like God, comprehending all, possessing all power, and aware that it existed eternally.

    It was after the fall that human consciousness became confined, having to live under the spell of mayic (satanic) delusion, the qualities of good and evil, unable to access the astral and causal levels of existence with ease as it would have been before.

    God complained, “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”  God is not saying that before the fall man did not know the difference between good and evil, but instead he saying that man did not have to live according to the restraints of the dualities of the physical world before the fall.

    Before the fall, for example, humans could bring children into existence without sexual intercourse between the pair and the woman having to carry the new life in her womb and then give birth.  They could procreate immaculately, simply by thinking the new being into existence.  When man became “as one of us,” he did not, in fact, become as a god; quite the opposite, he lost that quality.

    Man by disobeying his first commandment demonstrated a hubris that made him think he could disobey without punishment.  In other words, God is saying, “man now only thinks he is one of us, thus we must preclude his ability to live forever with this fallen, delusive state of mind.”

    Therefore, God merely completed the process that Adam started when he ate the “apple.”  But because Adam and Eve were now destined to live under Maya—the world of dualities of good and evil—God completed the expulsion from paradise in order to keep fallen humankind from living forever in that fallen state.

    In order to live forever, the human being must once again take his consciousness up the spine to the brain where it will again unite with true Divine Consciousness, as it had been in the beginning of its creation.

    Bloyd’s Parenthetical

    Bloyd’s final remark rests in parentheses:

    (The reason I believe God crucified His Own Son
    To get out of the wretched tangle is, because it sounds just like Him.)

    This remark puts the final cap on Bloyd’s useless and impaired reasoning, and it does so in a clumsy rhetorical structure as it gums up Bloyd’s stance of the issue.

    Perhaps Bloyd thinks that by perpetuating another outrageous act, God could divert the attention of folks away from this initial “wretched” situation. But, in fact, if folks have great difficulty understanding the Genesis creation story, they will not let God off the hook for “crucif[ying] His Own Son.”

    Despite his seeming atheism, the interesting factoid about this final parenthetical is that Bloyd sounds almost as if he is simply angry with God, not that he does not even believe in the existence of God.  Or maybe he just hates Catholics!

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “State’s Attorney Fallas”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “State’s Attorney Fallas”

    Attorney Fallas’ life was dedicated to acquiring knowledge about ministering to the mentally challenged in order to care for his son, who suffered brain damage while being born.

    Introduction and  Text of State’s Attorney Fallas

    State’s Attorney Fallas became the seeker of justice for the wife murderer, Barry Holden.  But his own life was influenced by an accident of birth when his son was left mentally challenged by the actions of a doctor.

    State’s Attorney Fallas

    I, the scourge-wielder, balance-wrecker,
    Smiter with whips and swords;
    I, hater of the breakers of the law;
    I, legalist, inexorable and bitter,
    Driving the jury to hang the madman, Barry Holden,
    Was made as one dead by light too bright for eyes,
    And woke to face a Truth with bloody brow:
    Steel forceps fumbled by a doctor’s hand
    Against my boy’s head as he entered life
    Made him an idiot.
    I turned to books of science
    To care for him.
    That’s how the world of those whose minds are sick
    Became my work in life, and all my world.
    Poor ruined boy! You were, at last, the potter
    And I and all my deeds of charity
    The vessels of your hand.

    Commentary “State’s Attorney Fallas”

    Attorney Fallas’s life was dedicated to acquiring knowledge about ministering to the mentally challenged in order to care for his son, who suffered brain damage while being born.

    First Movement:  Self-Portrait

    I, the scourge-wielder, balance-wrecker,
    Smiter with whips and swords;
    I, hater of the breakers of the law;
    I, legalist, inexorable and bitter,
    Driving the jury to hang the madman, Barry Holden,
    Was made as one dead by light too bright for eyes,
    And woke to face a Truth with bloody brow:

    The state attorney begins by describing himself.  He paints a picture of a severe man who is a “hater of the breakers of law.”  He is a bitter man, and he freely admits it.  He also embellishes his past action with claims such as “smiter with whips and swords,” more likely with words and arguments because after all he is a “legalist.”

    In that role as legalist, State Attorney Fallas managed to persuade a “the jury to hang the madman, Barry Holden.”  Interestingly, Fallas rather glides over Barry Holden by making the simple claim that he was able to bring about the corporal punishment of the wife murderer.

    Readers are just coming off the “Barry Holden” epitaph, in which they learned of the depravity of Holden, who was influenced by watching a jury trial of a doctor who murdered his pregnant lover.  While readers might hanker for more information about Holden, they can be slaked just to know that Holden did hang for his crime.

    Now we must move on to the man, who was able to have the madman hanged.  And the state attorney turns out to be a rather colorful and wide-ranging character.  Though a sad and bitter man, he turns out to be a compassionate man, who tried to offer aid and comfort to his disabled son.

    Second Movement:  Damaged Son

    Steel forceps fumbled by a doctor’s hand
    Against my boy’s head as he entered life
    Made him an idiot.

    The central motivating factor in the state attorney’s life is described in this movement.  As the man’s son was coming into this world, a doctor employed the use of forceps but badly mishandled the instrument, leaving the boy to live with a damaged brain.

    Attorney Fallas frames the boy’s condition a being that of an “idiot.”  This term used be a technical term used in psychology in a classification system for mental retardation.  Now the system, the terms, even the term “mental retardation” have all been axed, yielding to the creeping distortions of political correctness.

    Therefore, Fallas was not calling his son an offensive name; he was giving the prevailing label of those with an I.Q. rating of under 25 and the mental capacity of under three years old.

    Third Movement:  Loss of Equanimity

    I turned to books of science
    To care for him.
    That’s how the world of those whose minds are sick
    Became my work in life, and all my world.

    Attorney Fallas then reports that because of his son’s infirmity he started to read “books of science” to figure out the best methods for caring for his severely mentally challenged son.  The attorney then makes the startling claim that the world of those mentally sick became his main focus in life.  That study become “all my world.”

    His intensity in pursuing knowledge regarding the mentally challenged flooded his life, likely making it difficult to face certain legal cases with equanimity.  As the attorney faced down the madman, Barry Holden, he was likely keenly aware of the difference between the mentally challenged and the criminally insane.

    Fourth Movement:  Molded by Circumstances

    Poor ruined boy! You were, at last, the potter
    And I and all my deeds of charity
    The vessels of your hand.

    The attorney then address his son, exclaiming, “Poor ruined boy!”  Fallas again makes a startling claim:  metaphorically, he likens himself to a piece of clay that has continued to be molded on a potter’s wheel by his son and his son’s condition.  The son has served as the “potter,” who molded the attorney’s life.

    All the ministrations the state attorney has offered his son and all that the attorney has done for “charity” have come about because of his son’s mental challenge, which the state attorney wished to ameliorate with his care and attention.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Barry Holden”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Barry Holden”

    “Barry Holden” became fascinated by the murder trial of Dr. Duval, who stands accused of murdering his pregnant lover Zora Clemens.

    Introduction and Text of “Barry Holden”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Barry Holden” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker begins by letting his listeners know that he is the brother of Nancy Knapp, who in a fit of insanity burned down her own house.

    By the time he is finished, the reader will cringe at the brutal act he commits.  That Holden couples his confession with what he heard at a murder trial just piles more flaws onto his already flawed character.

    Barry Holden

    The very fall my sister Nancy Knapp
    Set fire to the house
    They were trying Dr. Duval
    For the murder of Zora Clemens,
    And I sat in the court two weeks
    Listening to every witness.
    It was clear he had got her in a family way;
    And to let the child be born
    Would not do.
    Well, how about me with eight children,
    And one coming, and the farm
    Mortgaged to Thomas Rhodes?
    And when I got home that night,
    (After listening to the story of the buggy ride,
    And the finding of Zora in the ditch,)
    The first thing I saw, right there by the steps,
    Where the boys had hacked for angle worms,
    Was the hatchet!
    And just as I entered there was my wife,
    Standing before me, big with child.
    She started the talk of the mortgaged farm,
    And I killed her.

    Commentary on “Barry Holden”

    “Barry Holden” couples his own desperate and despicable act with the murder trial of Dr. Duval, who stands accused of murdering his pregnant lover Zora Clemens.

    First Movement:  A Murder Trial

    The very fall my sister Nancy Knapp
    Set fire to the house
    They were trying Dr. Duval
    For the murder of Zora Clemens,
    And I sat in the court two weeks
    Listening to every witness.

    During the same autumn season that his sister, Nancy Knapp, burned down her house, Barry Holden sat in a courtroom for two weeks listening to the witnesses give testimony in a murder trial. Dr. Duval was on trial for the murder of Zora Clemens.

    It is unclear if Barry is suggesting that he was serving as a juror or whether he was just fascinated by the details of the murder as he listened carefully to each witness.  It may be that he is trying to establish his good character or perhaps he is just a crazy, addled-brain criminal just as his sister was.

    It does seem odd that he would continue to come to court every day for two weeks, unless he was, in fact, serving on the jury.  But because it remains unclear whether Barry was a juror, the reader must simply take it as a fact that what he heard must have encouraged him in his final despicable act.

    Second Movement:   The Nature of the Trial

    It was clear he had got her in a family way;
    And to let the child be born
    Would not do.
    Well, how about me with eight children,
    And one coming, and the farm
    Mortgaged to Thomas Rhodes?

    Barry then gives some terrifyingly pertinent information about the nature of the trial.  After getting Zora Clemens pregnant, the doctor could not allow her to carry that baby to term.  Barry expresses it that allowing the baby to be born, “Would not do.”

    Then Barry switches gears rapidly.  Informing his listeners that he is in a similar situation, or no, worse!  Barry already has eight children, and his farm is mortgaged to Thomas Rhodes (more about Rhodes in #104).  Pile on top of that, his wife is pregnant with child number nine.

    In order to show his lamentation over his situation, Barry forms his information into a question.  That question is meant rhetorically to put the listener squarely in Barry’s mind with the only answer:  what else could you do?

    Third Movement:   The Hatchet

    And when I got home that night,
    (After listening to the story of the buggy ride,
    And the finding of Zora in the ditch,)
    The first thing I saw, right there by the steps,
    Where the boys had hacked for angle worms,
    Was the hatchet!

    So after hearing the details of Zora’s murder, how there had been a buggy ride and Zora was found in a ditch, Barry goes home.  And the first thing he sees is the hatchet lying out by the steps.  His sons had been “hack[ing] for angle worms.”

    One might, at this point, expect that Barry would be on the warpath to upbraid his sons for leaving the hatchet lying out.  But Barry’s mind does not work that way.  He is even more selfish and self-important than behaving as a boorish parent would indicate.  So he enters his house.

    Fourth Movement:   Desperate and Despicable

    And just as I entered there was my wife,
    Standing before me, big with child.
    She started the talk of the mortgaged farm,
    And I killed her.

    The first thing Barry sees upon entering the house is his wife “big with child.”  She begins to talk about the farm being mortgaged. And Barry calmly says, “And I killed her.” Interestingly, Barry seems to imply that he killed his wife with the hatchet, but he does not state so directly.

    The reader, however, will be led to assume that he picked up the hatchet before entering the house, even though he does not say that he did.   Of course, it ultimately does not matter how Barry Holden killed his wife.

    What matters is that this despicable character existed, exists, and will continue, for all we know, throughout the existence of this physical planet Earth. Plus, he may have been serving as a juror!

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Nancy Knapp”

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters, Esq. https://librarycollections.law.umn.edu/darrow/trials_details.php?id=4 Clarence Darrow Law Library
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters, Esq. – Clarence Darrow Law Library

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Nancy Knapp”

    The epitaph spoken by “Nancy Knapp” remains one of the more baffling reports.  While miffed by life’s events, Nancy keeps her listener in the dark about important facts that would shed light on how she and her husband died.

    Introduction and Text of “Nancy Knapp”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Nancy Knapp” from his American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker offers a vague report.  Most epitaphers reveal how they died, but Nancy does not. 

    The speaker offers only a glimpse into her life.  She is obviously upset with how things turned out.  She undoubtedly thinks her siblings-in-law caused her husband and her to have a miserable life.

    Nevertheless, Nancy puts forth some interesting images and claims, but they offer no clues about vital facts that would clarify important issues.   This epitaph leads its readers to hope that some future speaker will shed more light on this subject as does happen in some of the related series.

    Nancy Knapp

    Well, don’t you see this was the way of it:
    We bought the farm with what he inherited,
    And his brothers and sisters accused him of poisoning
    His father’s mind against the rest of them.
    And we never had any peace with our treasure.
    The murrain took the cattle, and the crops failed.
    And lightning struck the granary.
    So we mortgaged the farm to keep going.
    And he grew silent and was worried all the time.
    Then some of the neighbors refused to speak to us,
    And took sides with his brothers and sisters.
    And I had no place to turn, as one may say to himself,
    At an earlier time in life; “No matter,
    So and so is my friend, or I can shake this off
    With a little trip to Decatur.”
    Then the dreadfulest smells infested the rooms.
    So I set fire to the beds and the old witch-house
    Went up in a roar of flame,
    As I danced in the yard with waving arms,
    While he wept like a freezing steer.

    Commentary on “Nancy Knapp”

    The epitaph spoken by “Nancy Knapp” remains one of the more baffling reports.  While miffed by life’s events, Nancy keeps her listener in the dark about important facts that would shed light on how she and her husband died.

    First Movement: No Name Husband

    Well, don’t you see this was the way of it:
    We bought the farm with what he inherited,
    And his brothers and sisters accused him of poisoning
    His father’s mind against the rest of them.
    And we never had any peace with our treasure.

    Nancy is speaking; she never reveals he husband’s name. Thus he will henceforth have to be known simply as Mr. Knapp.  She reveals that he inherited enough cash which with they “bought the farm.” Interestingly, the expression “bought the farm” has come to mean “die.”

    The origin of “bought the farm” becoming an idiom for “died” is unknown, but apparently it did not appear as that exact form until 1955.  Might the idiom’s origin have been Master’s use of it in this poem?  While various other speculations exist, none is conclusive.

    Nancy begins her beef with the fact that her husband’s brothers and sisters accused Nancy and Mr. Knapp of turning the old man, Mr. Knapp’s father, against them.  

    Mr. Knapp became the only beneficiary of the father’s inheritance. Because of the accusation from the Knapp siblings, Nancy and her husband were unable to enjoy their good fortune.  She frames it this way:  “we never had any peace with our treasure.”

    Second Movement:  Trials, Tribulations, and Loss

    The murrain took the cattle, and the crops failed.
    And lightning struck the granary.
    So we mortgaged the farm to keep going.
    And he grew silent and was worried all the time.

    Nancy reports that they lost their cattle to a dreadful disease.  They also lost their crops.  Then Mother Nature interceded to destroy their granary with lightning. 

    These sorrowful events led to their having to mortgage the farm just “to keep going.”   But the sad events lead to Mr. Knapp becoming depressed.    Mr. Knapp stopped talking, and he was filled with worries that led to his depressed state.

    Third Movement:  Then Things Got Worse

    Then some of the neighbors refused to speak to us,
    And took sides with his brothers and sisters.
    And I had no place to turn, as one may say to himself,
    At an earlier time in life; “No matter,
    So and so is my friend, or I can shake this off
    With a little trip to Decatur.”

    Then things got worse.  Their neighbors turned against them and would not speak to them.  Those neighbors “took sides with the brothers and sisters” of Mr. Knapp.

    Nancy, who seems to be in a rambling mood of blabbering, then states that earlier in their lives they could have shaken off their difficulties with a “trip to Decatur.” The speaker implies that now things were so bad that they could no longer soothe their sorrows with distractions such as pleasure trips.

    Fourth Movement:  Bizarre Confession

    Then the dreadfulest smells infested the rooms.
    So I set fire to the beds and the old witch-house
    Went up in a roar of flame,
    As I danced in the yard with waving arms,
    While he wept like a freezing steer.

    Nancy concludes with a truly bizarre confession.  She complains that every room in the house became plagued with “the dreadfulest smells.”  Unfortunately, she gives no indication of what those smells might be.

    Did Mr. Knapp die in the house and his corpse become the source for those “smells”? No, he appears in another odd image at the end of the poem. Did they both just become so downtrodden that they no longer practiced cleanliness and hygienic routines?  

    This speculation seems to remain the only logical one. Whatever the origin of the smell, Nancy’s reaction to them is nothing but disastrous: she burns the house down.

    First, she set fire to the “beds.”  Is she implying that the beds were the origin of  all the smells?  Did she stop changing the sheets? Then she says that “the old witch-house / Went up in a roar of flame.”

    She refers to her home as a witch-house, seeming to imply that the place was haunted.  But again the speaker’s vagueness does not allow the reader much room to speculate about actual events.

    Then without adding any clarity to the entire episode or their lives in general, Nancy concocts a stark, raving mad image of herself, dancing and waving her arms out in the yard, as her home burns down.

    And while Nancy does her mad dance, her husband is weeping “like a freezing steer.”  This speaker leaves her listeners not having a clue as to how either she or Mr. Knapp died. Nancy Knapp’s report is one of the vaguest and oddest of the Spoon River epitaphs.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “John Horace Burleson”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “John Horace Burleson”

    The character John Horace Burleson is a failed writer, whose ambitions did not match his abilities.

    Introduction and Text of “John Horace Burleson”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “John Horace Burleson” from his American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker remains rather vague about important details of his life.  The speaker had the unfortunate luck to win a prize for a school essay, and that bad luck tainted his view of his talent.

    Even though Burleson was later lucky enough to publish a novel, he yearned to write a great epic about the war.  As many mediocre and moderately talented artists do, Burleson overrated his abilities and then ends up blaming his marriage and his job for his failure to become known as the great writer he fancies he is.

    John Horace Burleson

    I won the prize essay at school
    Here in the village,
    And published a novel before I was twenty-five.
    I went to the city for themes and to enrich my art;
    There married the banker’s daughter,
    And later became president of the bank—
    Always looking forward to some leisure
    To write an epic novel of the war.
    Meanwhile friend of the great, and lover of letters,
    And host to Matthew Arnold and to Emerson.
    An after dinner speaker, writing essays
    For local clubs. At last brought here—
    My boyhood home, you know—
    Not even a little tablet in Chicago
    To keep my name alive.
    How great it is to write the single line:
    “Roll on, thou deep and dark blue Ocean, roll!”

    Commentary on “John Horace Burleson”

    The character speaking this epitaph is John Horace Burleson, a failed writer, whose ambitions did not equal his abilities.  Comically, one might think of him as “Writing while pathetic.”

    First Movement:  Winning Can Be Bad

    I won the prize essay at school
    Here in the village,
    And published a novel before I was twenty-five.

    John Horace Burleson begins his epitaph by announcing that while a boy in school in the town of Spoon River, he enjoyed the pride of having won an essay contest. The speaker’s writing ability later landed him a publishing deal, and he came out with a novel before he had attained the age of twenty-five.

    These Spoon River speakers customarily begin with some past memory that has made a deep impression on them.  Burleson’s memory puts him at the beginning of what should have been a career in writing.

    Second Movement:  A Fly in the Ointment

    I went to the city for themes and to enrich my art;
    There married the banker’s daughter,
    And later became president of the bank—
    Always looking forward to some leisure
    To write an epic novel of the war.

    The speaker then begins to open up about what will turn out to be a fly in his ointment, that is, an eventuality that leads him astray.  He moved to the city, which is Chicago, of course, as Spoon River is a fictional town in Illinois.  Burleson then asserts that he moved to the city to bolster his writing career.  He hoped to acquire subject matter for writing.  He claims he wanted to, “enrich [his] art.”

    Then the speaker reveals that he took the daughter of a banker for his wife.  Later Burleson himself even became the bank’s president.  As a man with the heavy responsibilities of husband and bank president, he does not have the time and wherewithal to do much writing.

    However, the would-be writer could dream!  And that’s what he did.  Instead of writing, he just continually kept waiting until he could get sufficient time for the “leisure” that would afford him space to write his great American novel.

    Burleson claims he had in mind to pen “an epic novel of the war,” which gives one pause.  Perhaps he was chasing after the wrong goal.  With his experience of winning a childhood essay contest, publishing a nondescript novel, and serving as a bank president, what experience did he have for writing about war, much less an epic about said subject?

    Third Movement:  Art Friendly

    Meanwhile friend of the great, and lover of letters,
    And host to Matthew Arnold and to Emerson.

    As his life progresses, Burleson remains a friend of the arts and the great writers of the day because he fancied himself a great “lover of letters.”  He claims to have entertained Matthew Arnold, the poet who composed the great and challenging poem “Dover Beach.”

    Burleson also claims to have hosted Ralph Waldo Emerson, who composed many important, classic American essays and poems. The speaker merely name drops as he does not even make clear anything about the event during which he served as “host” to these great writers.   Both Arnold and Emerson did lecture in Chicago—Emerson in 1867 and Arnold in 1884, nearly twenty years apart.

    The visiting lectures of these writers reveal that Burleson could have, in fact, hosted each of them, but his failure to elaborate implies that he might be making up his claims and not actually had the privilege of meeting and greeting these great writers.  Burleson offers no indication that he absorbed any influence or even acquired any lasting impressions of the writers.

    Fourth Movement:   Talentless and Driveless

    An after dinner speaker, writing essays
    For local clubs.

    Nevertheless, Burleson’s life continues and he does find himself capable of giving after-dinner speeches from time to time.  He also composes essays for “local clubs.”  Again, the speaker remains mum about the subject matter involved in his speeches.

    Burleson also offers no clue about what he wrote about for the clubs. The purpose of this omission is to likely throw suspicion on Burleson’s true talent as a writer.  He claims to have had great ambitions but he makes it clear that he did not possess the talent and drive to accomplish his worthy goals.

    Fifth Movement:   Garnering no Notice

    At last brought here—
    My boyhood home, you know—
    Not even a little tablet in Chicago
    To keep my name alive.

    And now Burleson’s death has brought him back to Spoon River, which is his “boyhood home.”  And his next revelation is both telling and pathetic. Burleson’s life has made little impression on Chicago. 

    He has not even become well-known enough the merit a mention in the local newspapers.  His name will die because no one has cared to even take note of his life and death.  Thus it is, no doubt, likely that he is the only one who is taking note of his passing.  And what happened to his wife?  Did he spawn any offspring?

    All the reader can glean from the little biographical information he offers is that Burleson yearned to write a great novel, met two of the biggest names in the field of the day but did not produce enough creatively to garner any notice.

    Sixth Movement:  How Great to Write . . .

    How great it is to write the single line:
    “Roll on, thou deep and dark blue Ocean, roll!”

    Burleson’s final lines put the proper cap on his complaint.  He singles out a line from Lord Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, Canto 4, Section 179, “Roll on, thou deep and dark blue Ocean, roll!“

    Regarding this line, Burleson remarks how “great it is to write” such a line. Thus again the speaker is leaving his listeners scratching their heads wondering just what Burleson’s goal was.

    Although he claimed he had the great desire to pen an epic war novel, he had won an essay contest, and had, in fact, published a novel, yet he selects a line from a poem to exalt as a model.   Instead of writing, Burleson’s talents must have resided elsewhere, and he obviously did not know it; thus his claimed, chosen goal continued to elude him.

    Ephemeral Fame

    Many of the Spoon River soliloquists have been guilty of not truly being aware of their own intentions.  Burleson’s true goal was likely just to achieve fame, not to actually become a great writer.  And the great poet Emily Dickinson has succinctly summed up the ephemeral character of “fame”:

    Fame is a bee.
    It has a song –
    It has a sting –
    Ah, too, it has a wing.

    Burleson’s bee of fame stung him and fled on its wing, leaving him little to sing about but his own sense of loss.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Blind Jack”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Blind Jack”

    Poor Blind Jack the Fiddler dies because of two drunken louts who drove a set of horses too fast and landed them all in a ditch.  But Jack has an important report to offer from his seat in the afterlife.

    Introduction and Text of “Blind Jack”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Blind Jack” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker reports his drama in the form of an American sonnet, also known as an Innovative sonnet (American-Innovative Sonnet).

    This sonnet is the epitome of “innovative.”  The poem displays itself in four movements, offering a cinquain, a tercet, a couplet, and a quatrain. The poem eschews both rime and rhythm, opting nevertheless for a surprise conclusion that is both gripping and a bit shocking but in the final analysis nothing short of fascinating.

    Blind Jack

    I had fiddled all at the county fair.
    But driving home “Butch” Weldy and Jack McGuire,
    Who were roaring full, made me fiddle and fiddle
    To the song of Susie Skinner, while whipping the horses
    Till they ran away.

    Blind as I was, I tried to get out
    As the carriage fell in the ditch,
    And was caught in the wheels and killed.

    There’s a blind man here with a brow
    As big and white as a cloud.

    And all we fiddlers, from highest to lowest,
    Writers of music and tellers of stories,
    Sit at his feet,
    And hear him sing of the fall of Troy.

    Commentary on “Blind Jack”

    Poor Blind Jack the Fiddler dies because of two drunken louts who drove a set of horses too fast and landed them all in a ditch.  But Jack has an important report to offer from his seat in the afterlife.

    First Movement Cinquain:  Drunken Louts of Death

    I had fiddled all at the county fair.
    But driving home “Butch” Weldy and Jack McGuire,
    Who were roaring full, made me fiddle and fiddle
    To the song of Susie Skinner, while whipping the horses
    Till they ran away.

    Blind Jack begins by asserting that he had been playing his fiddle all day at the county fair.  No doubt he was tired and eager to get home to rest. Jack was riding in a buckboard with two drunken louts, “Butch” Weldy and Jack McGuire.

    The two drunks insisted that Blind Jack keep playing his fiddle.  Seems they were partial to the tune “Susie Skinner.”  So they insisted that Jack keep playing that song. Jack reports that they kept whipping the horses to make them run faster and faster.  But the horses with horse-minds of the own then ran wild and landed the trio in a ditch.

    Second Movement Tercet:  Trapped by Wheels

    Blind as I was, I tried to get out
    As the carriage fell in the ditch,
    And was caught in the wheels and killed.

    Jack then claims that even though he was blind he tried to save himself by jumping from the buckboard as it was tumbling into the ditch.  Unfortunately, the blind fiddler became trapped by the wheels of the vehicle and was killed.

    Third Movement Couplet:  Finished His Earthly Talk

    There’s a blind man here with a brow
    As big and white as a cloud.

    Jack the blind fiddler has now finished his earthly tale and begins his report of things from where his soul now exists.  He reveals that he has encountered another blind man, and this man’s brow is “as big and white as a cloud.”  This revelation, of course, implies that Jack can now see.  Otherwise, he would not know that this blind man had such a brow.

    Fourth Movement Quatrain:  Greek Poet, Homer

    And all we fiddlers, from highest to lowest,
    Writers of music and tellers of stories,
    Sit at his feet,
    And hear him sing of the fall of Troy.

    Jack, in his final movement, confides that the “blind man” with the cloud-like eyebrows is none other than the famous Greek poet, Homer.  Jack does not mention the poet’s name, but his description makes it abundantly clear to whom he is referring.

    Jack also reports that all types of creative writers sit at the poet Homer’s feet listening to him tell the tales that have come down to us as The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid.    And, of course, all flavor of musicians, especially fiddlers “from highest to lowest” place themselves among those craving to hear a good yarn.

    Homer’s Appearance and How Blind Jack Would Know

    Interestingly, most of the images and busts of the poet Homer that we have today do not show that he had such a prominent brow.  Likely, the blind fiddler is merely exaggerating for effect.  He probably surmises that extraordinary, creative folks like Homer would also be extraordinary in appearance.

    Also Jack’s description raises another puzzle:  was Jack able to see at some point in his life?  was he not born blind?  had he actually seen any of the busts and likenesses that exist of Homer?

    However, if before he lost his sight, Jack had seen an image of what Homer has been considered to look like, one can only accept that his postmortem description is, in fact, pure exaggeration.

    On the other hand, readers may simply interpret Jack’s ability to see after death as the soul’s immutable ability and that Jack is now able to correct all the images that do not push forth the big and cloud-like brow that belongs on Homer.

    Image 2:  Homer https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_T-6-13 - British Museum
    Image:  Homer – British Museum
  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “The Circuit Judge”

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters http://www.poorwilliam.net/al-082314.html Poor William’s Almanack
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters – Poor William’s Almanack

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “The Circuit Judge”

    The speaker in the Spoon River epitaph series titled “The Circuit Judge” indicts the legal system, using himself as a symbol.   The judge is actually judging his own life.

    Introduction and Text of  “The Circuit Judge”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “The Circuit Judge” from Masters’ American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker is a circuit judge who judges himself rather harshly.    While he remains indignant that the weather has etched little notches in his tombstone, in the end, he seems to deserve every indignity he might have suffered in life and now in death.

    This judge sentenced the character “Hod Putt” to death, and Putt then died by hanging.  But the judge’s final judgment about his own character is shocking as it reveals the hell to which the judge seems to be condemning himself and his profession.

    The Circuit Judge 

    Take note, passers-by, of the sharp erosions
    Eaten in my head-stone by the wind and rain—
    Almost as if an intangible Nemesis or hatred
    Were marking scores against me,
    But to destroy, and not preserve, my memory.
    I in life was the Circuit Judge, a maker of notches,
    Deciding cases on the points the lawyers scored,
    Not on the right of the matter.
    O wind and rain, leave my head-stone alone!
    For worse than the anger of the wronged,
    The curses of the poor,
    Was to lie speechless, yet with vision clear,
    Seeing that even Hod Putt, the murderer,
    Hanged by my sentence,
    Was innocent in soul compared with me.

    Commentary on “The Circuit Judge”

    The speaker in the Spoon River epitaph series titled “The Circuit Judge” makes a clear indictment of the legal system as symbolized by the judge as he judges his own life.

    First Movement:  Pointing out Flaws

    Take note, passers-by, of the sharp erosions 

    Eaten in my head-stone by the wind and rain—

    The circuit judge begins his testimony by commanding his listeners and readers to observe that his tombstone has been etched with “sharp erosions.”  These etchings have been colorfully “eaten” into his marker by the “wind” and “rain.”

    The judge immediately identifies his complaint as one that will include all of nature conspiring against him.  Even the wind and rain have joined in the battle against this man by carving little “erosion” into the very stone that will give the judge his final presence.

    Second Movement:  A Destructive Conspiracy 

    Almost as if an intangible Nemesis or hatred
    Were marking scores against me,
    But to destroy, and not preserve, my memory. 

    The judge’s complaint then begins to describe what he feels is the conspiracy to “destroy” his memory.  While etchings in tombstones are placed to “preserve” the memory of the deceased, these eroded markings made by the elements function to obliterate the judge’s memory.

    The judge likens the fact of the etchings to the work of an “intangible Nemesis” which is marking “scores” against the judge.  This Nemesis can also be thought of as simple “hatred” against the men.

    Third Movement:  Passing the Buck

    I in life was the Circuit Judge, a maker of notches,
    Deciding cases on the points the lawyers scored,
    Not on the right of the matter. 

    The speaker then reports the while living he served as the “Circuit Judge.”  He states that his function was to make notches.  But instead of deciding cases on their merits, he had to judge them from the presented “points” that the “lawyers scored” as they argued before this bench.

    The judge is beginning to pass the buck when he whines that he had to judge cases based on the argument of the lawyers instead of what was “right” in each case.

    The judge is implying that he would have preferred to judge differently from what he did.  He would have preferred to judge by the “right of the matter.”    With this complaint the judge is implying that the law and the lawyers were corrupt, and he was merely an innocent victim sucked into the quagmire of corruption.

    Fourth Movement:  Commanding the Weather

    O wind and rain, leave my head-stone alone!

    The speaker, however, remains fairly vague about his complaint, offering no example of corrupt law or lawyers who argued without merit.  But then the judge yells out to the wind and rain, demanding that they cease carving their marks into his headstone. 

    Instead of confronting any living human being who might have been responsible for passing poor laws or addressing any of the lawyers who argued them, the judge rails at the natural elements of wind and rain.  Knowing that these elements will not choose to refute his claims, the judge feels safe in demanding that the wind and rain leave his tombstone in peace.

    Fifth Movement:  Injustices from the Bench

    For worse than the anger of the wronged,
    The curses of the poor,
    Was to lie speechless, yet with vision clear,
    Seeing that even Hod Putt, the murderer,
    Hanged by my sentence,
    Was innocent in soul compared with me.

    The speaker then makes his odd conclusion: he shows that because of his judicial decisions, he has suffered “the anger of the wronged.”  He has also had to live with “curses of the poor.”  But as bad as these indignities have been, it is far worse that he now has to lie in his grave where he cannot speak out against those indignities. 

    Yet, the judge then makes a stunning confession.  He claims that even the murderer, Hod Putt, whom the judge condemned to death by hanging, was a more innocent soul than the judge himself.

    If the judge is more culpable then a murderer whom the judge had sentenced to hang, then it must be assumed that he caused many deaths and a multitude of other injustices from the bench.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “William and Emily”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “William and Emily”

    The speaker’s epitaph is titled, “William and Emily,” with no details offered about the pair.  But the gravity of the message is unique and interestingly appropriate.

    Introduction and Text of “William and Emily”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “William and Emily” from his American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker makes a profound statement about the cessation of passion in a marriage.  It is quite likely that he does so unwittingly.

    William and Emily

    There is something about Death
    Like love itself!
    If with some one with whom you have known passion,
    And the glow of youthful love,
    You also, after years of life
    Together, feel the sinking of the fire,
    And thus fade away together,
    Gradually, faintly, delicately,
    As it were in each other’s arms,
    Passing from the familiar room—
    That is a power of unison between souls
    Like love itself!

    Commentary on “William and Emily”

    The speaker’s epitaph is titled “William and Emily”  with no details offered about the pair.  But the gravity of the message is unique and interestingly appropriate.

    First Movement:  Death and Love

    There is something about Death
    Like love itself!

    The speaker begins with an intriguing proposition, vaguely offering, “there is something about Death.”  Don’t we all know that?  We dread it, we crave it, we mostly wonder about it, but yes, dude, there is definitely something about “Death.”  What the reader is not expecting is that someone would assert that death is “like love itself.”  

    Readers have come to expect all sorts of nonsense from the residents, or might one say, inmates of the Spoon River cemetery. So when one of them asserts that death and love have something in common, readers might not blink an eye, as they curiously wait to find out what this dude thinks death and love have in common.

    Second Movement:  Reason Is an “If”

    If with some one with whom you have known passion,
    And the glow of youthful love,
    You also, after years of life
    Together, feel the sinking of the fire,
    And thus fade away together,

    The speaker then offers his reason for making such a statement that love and death have something in common.   The curious speaker begins with an “if” clause—if you have known someone with “passion” and “the glow of youthful love,” but you start losing that fiery passion of youth.

    Third Movement:  A Fiery Thought

    Gradually, faintly, delicately,
    As it were in each other’s arms,
    Passing from the familiar room—
    That is a power of unison between souls
    Like love itself!

    The speaker then breaks the fiery thought.  This slow loss, “Gradually, faintly, delicately” builds up a drama that might have easily been glossed over.  It is a cliché that sexual passion fades with the age of the paramours, but if it is lost slowly, the loss takes on a different context. 

    The cessation of violent sexual passion between two individuals is scheduled by nature to occur.  That cessation allows room for the spiritual bond between them to flower.  After all, sexual passion has only one true purpose—to create other human beings. 

    Once the physical ability to give birth has passed, there is no longer a need for sexual passion, even though, as many erroneously believe otherwise, the ability to be sexually aroused does not subside, unless, of course, there are health issues. 

    Perfectly healthy octogenarians are as capable of basking in the “glow of youthful love” as they were in their twenties, thirties, etc,—but should they?  What do they lose if they do?  

    Fourth Movement:  Soul Unity

    That is a power of unison between souls
    Like love itself!

    They lose “the power of unison between souls”—a man who continues to pound his wife as a sex object past the age of the ability to conceive and spawn offspring can hardly be considered a soul-living creature.   

    The main purpose of sexual coupling long past, all that is left is that “shudder in the loins” that speaks only one word, “selfishness.”  Or perhaps two words, “selfish ignorance.”   It is the “power of the unison between souls” that speaks to the union with “love itself.”

    So what is there about “Death” that is like “love itself”? God is love—pure love:  not sex, not physical passion that leads to procreation, which is only a tiny aspect of God.  As the human being grows older, s/he becomes more aware of the necessity of knowing God. 

    After procreating, the human body/mind has only one true, dual-pronged purpose:  to pursue and find itself as a soul connected it to the OverSoul, or God.  After the human being leaves the body/mind at “Death,” it craves only the company of its Creator.   A little preparation beforehand is always advisable on this mud ball of planet Earth.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Mrs. Williams” 

    Image: Edgar Lee Masters http://www.poorwilliam.net/al-082314.html Poor William’s Almanack
    Image: Edgar Lee Masters – Poor William’s Almanack

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Mrs. Williams” 

    Mrs. Williams is the mother of Dora Williams, a despicable character if ever there was one.  But Mrs. Williams has a philosophical turn of mind and has some advice for the wives of Spoon River.

    Introduction and Text of  “Mrs. Williams”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Mrs. Williams” from his American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker is the mother of “Dora Williams,” who after a life of prostitution, married and then killed two wealthy husbands.

    It is possible that she was poisoned by her third husband, who was an Italian count, likely one of those impoverished Europeans who attached themselves to wealthy American women in order to continue their opulent life-styles—at the same time

    giving the women royal titles that were not the custom in the United States.

    This phenomenon marked a period of American history known as the “Gilded Age.”

    A real-life example of such a marriage is that of  Barbara Hutton, heiress of the Woolworth fortune,  and Count Kurt Haugwitz-Reventlow, who married in 1935.

    Hutton’s marriage to the count was stormy, and they divorced in 1941; she had given the man nearly two million dollars when they first married and roughly an equal amount at their divorce.

    In her epitaph, Mrs. Williams shows that she is miffed because the reputation of her miscreant daughter splattered her with shame.  She understood that the Spoon River residents blamed Dora’s upbringing for her misdeeds in becoming a prostitute.  But this mother has observed that the women of Spoon River could avoid losing their husbands to prostitutes if they would simply dress better.

    Then again, if those women decided to dress better, they would have to visit the milliner to purchase a spiffy hat or a nice set of “buckles and feathers.”  So Mrs. Williams’ advice comes as a commercial for her own business venture.

    Mrs. Williams

    I was the milliner
    Talked about, lied about,
    Mother of Dora,
    Whose strange disappearance
    Was charged to her rearing.
    My eye quick to beauty
    Saw much beside ribbons
    And buckles and feathers
    And leghorns and felts,
    To set off sweet faces,
    And dark hair and gold.
    One thing I will tell you
    And one I will ask:
    The stealers of husbands
    Wear powder and trinkets,
    And fashionable hats.
    Wives, wear them yourselves.
    Hats may make divorces—
    They also prevent them.
    Well now, let me ask you:
    If all of the children, born here in Spoon River
    Had been reared by the County, somewhere on a farm;
    And the fathers and mothers had been given their freedom
    To live and enjoy, change mates if they wished,
    Do you think that Spoon River
    Had been any the worse?

    Commentary on “Mrs. Williams”

    Mrs. Williams is the mother of Dora Williams, one of the most despicable characters of Spoon River.  Her mother, however, has a philosophical turn of mind and has some advice for the wives of Spoon River.

    First Movement:  The Sins of the Mothers

    I was the milliner
    Talked about, lied about,
    Mother of Dora,
    Whose strange disappearance
    Was charged to her rearing.
    My eye quick to beauty
    Saw much beside ribbons
    And buckles and feathers
    And leghorns and felts,
    To set off sweet faces,
    And dark hair and gold.

    Mrs. Williams begins by stating her profession—she was a milliner.  She identifies herself as the “Mother of Dora.”   But Mrs. Williams also reports that she was “talked about” and “lied about,” and she disdains the fact that she has been blamed for Dora’s misdeeds.

    Mrs. Williams then reveals that there was more to her knowledge than having an eye “quick to beauty”; she wants to state that she knew more about human nature than it might have seemed.  

    Thus Mrs. Williams claims that she understood more about things than mere “ribbons /  And buckles and feathers /  And leghorns and felts,  /  To set off sweet faces.”  Mrs. Williams then announces that she will reveal her philosophical observations with two things:  one she “will tell you” and the other she will “ask.” 

    Second Movement:  Pearls of Wisdom

    One thing I will tell you
    And one I will ask:
    The stealers of husbands
    Wear powder and trinkets,
    And fashionable hats.
    Wives, wear them yourselves.
    Hats may make divorces—
    They also prevent them.

    Mrs. Williams announces that she will reveal on thing and then ask about another.  She then sets about spreading her pearls of wisdom; she says that the strumpets who lure husbands away from their wives, “Wear powder and trinkets / And fashionable hats.”  

    Mrs. Williams drops a bombshell, telling wives to dress the way the strumpets do.  She intimates that although “hats” may lead to divorce,” on the other hand, they may “also prevent them.”

    So if only wives would avail themselves of Mrs. Williams wares, they could save their marriages, keep their husbands from divorcing them and taking up with those women who have already availed themselves of Mrs. Williams items for sale.

    It is interesting that her observation works like a commercial for her business.  Although she thinks she is offering solid advice to the poor wives of Spoon River, she is able to look back and see how she could have been enriched if the wives had been able to follow her advice.

    Third Movement:  Let the State Raise the Brats

    Well now, let me ask you:
    If all of the children, born here in Spoon River
    Had been reared by the County, somewhere on a farm;
    And the fathers and mothers had been given their freedom
    To live and enjoy, change mates if they wished,
    Do you think that Spoon River
    Had been any the worse?

    Finally, Mrs. Williams asks a question that reveals an incredibly decadent mindset:  she wants to know if the social fabric of Spoon River would be any worse off if “the County” had raised the children “somewhere on a farm,” thus allowing the fathers and mothers “freedom to live and enjoy” life, changing partners as they wished.  

    When one considers Dora’s situation, one is inclined to give that insane suggestion some serious thought.

  • Edgar Lee Masters’ “Dora Williams”

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

    Edgar Lee Masters’ “Dora Williams”

    “Dora Williams” is reporting from Camp Santo in Genoa, Italy, instead of from the Spoon River graveyard.

    Introduction and Text of “Dora Williams”

    In Edgar Lee Masters’ “Dora Williams” from the American classic Spoon River Anthology, the speaker, unlike the other posthumous reporters who announce themselves from the graveyard in Spoon River, is offering her shout-out from Campo Santo in Genoa, Italy.   The none-too-subtle allusion to Columbus offers an opening salvo of the trash-America-first bunch, who begin with the Columbian discovery of a New World.

    Dora Williams

    When Reuben Pantier ran away and threw me  
    I went to Springfield. There I met a lush,  
    Whose father just deceased left him a fortune.  
    He married me when drunk. My life was wretched.
    A year passed and one day they found him dead.
    That made me rich. I moved on to Chicago.
    After a time met Tyler Rountree, villain.
    I moved on to New York. A gray-haired magnate
    Went mad about me—so another fortune.  
    He died one night right in my arms, you know.
    (I saw his purple face for years thereafter.)
    There was almost a scandal. I moved on,  
    This time to Paris. I was now a woman,
    Insidious, subtle, versed in the world and rich.
    My sweet apartment near the Champs Élysées
    Became a center for all sorts of people,
    Musicians, poets, dandies, artists, nobles,  
    Where we spoke French and German, Italian, English.
    I wed Count Navigato, native of Genoa.
    We went to Rome. He poisoned me, I think.
    Now in the Campo Santo overlooking
    The sea where young Columbus dreamed new worlds,
    See what they chiseled: ”Contessa Navigato
    Implora eterna quiete.”

    Commentary on “Dora Williams”

    “Dora Williams”  offers her report from Camp Santo in Genoa, Italy, instead of from the Spoon River graveyard. Yeah, funny how that works!

    First Movement:  Making Her Life Miserable

    When Reuben Pantier ran away and threw me  
    I went to Springfield. There I met a lush,  
    Whose father just deceased left him a fortune.  
    He married me when drunk. My life was wretched.
    A year passed and one day they found him dead.
    That made me rich. I moved on to Chicago.
    After a time met Tyler Rountree, villain.

    Readers will remember meeting Dora as part of the fornicating couple, whom A. D. Blood castigated for using his grave as their “unholy pillow.”  The reader will not be surprised to learn the particulars of Dora’s ultimate history. 

    Dora begins with a brief mention of “Reuben Pantier,” who dumped her and “ran away.”  But after Reuben ran off, so did Dora; she “went to Springfield.”  There she met “a lush”; she reports that the lush’s father had died and left him a fortune.   The lush ends up married to Dora (she blames it on his being drunk at the time) and makes her life miserable.

    After a year of this wretched existence, “one day they found him dead.”  What’s Dora’s response?  “That made me rich.  I moved to Chicago.”  No word of concern for the man with whom she had lived, just the unadorned report that “they found him dead.”   And after relocating to Chicago, Dora meets another man, Tyler Rountree, whom she claims was a “villain.”  She gives us no further details about Tyler.  Thus she moves on.

    Second Movement:  Moving On

    I moved on to New York. A gray-haired magnate
    Went mad about me—so another fortune.  
    He died one night right in my arms, you know.
    (I saw his purple face for years thereafter.)
    There was almost a scandal. I moved on,  

    Dora then moves to New York, where the lucky gal again manages to marry a fortune, “a gray-haired magnate,” who again dies.  This time in her arms.  And Dora claims that she “saw his purple face for years thereafter.”  She also admits, “[t]here was almost a scandal.”  But then she moves on.

    Third Movement:   Entertaining the Rabble

    This time to Paris. I was now a woman,
    Insidious, subtle, versed in the world and rich.
    My sweet apartment near the Champs Élysées
    Became a center for all sorts of people,
    Musicians, poets, dandies, artists, nobles,  
    Where we spoke French and German, Italian, English.

    Now, Dora finds herself in Paris, and she is “now a woman,” and she describes herself as “[i]nsidious, subtle, versed in the world and rich.”  She lived in a “sweet apartment near the Champs Élysées.”  

    Dora’s pad became a hang-out for such rabble as “Musicians, poets, dandies, artists, nobles.”  They spoke “French and German, Italian, English.”  Dora has the need to make herself look very sophisticated and cosmopolitan.

    Fourth Movement:    Marrying a Count

    I wed Count Navigato, native of Genoa.
    We went to Rome. He poisoned me, I think.
    Now in the Campo Santo overlooking
    The sea where young Columbus dreamed new worlds,
    See what they chiseled: ”Contessa Navigato
    Implora eterna quiete.”

    While in Paris, Dora marries again, possibly a man with a fortunate, but maybe not.  His name is “Count Navigato,” and he is a “native of Genoa.”  They relocate to Rome, where the count poisons Dora; at least, she thinks he poisoned her. 

    Dora is reporting from a cemetery called “Campo Santo,” which is supposedly “overlooking / The sea where young Columbus dreamed new worlds.”  On Dora’s tombstone, the following is engraved:  “Contessa Navigato / Implora eterna quiete,” which roughly translates as “Countess Navigato – Rest in Peace.” 

    The irony is thick and Dora gets it:  she lived anything but a peaceful life, having murdered at least two husbands and finally being murdered by her third.  Dora—being the “[i]nsidious, subtle, versed in the world” woman that she is—understandably doubts that her rest will be peaceful.