17. Emily Sparks
What to make of Emily Sparks? That she was a caring, motherly, school teacher who is able to see aspects of her students others are oblivious to is evident in her epitaph. That she is a woman of faith is just as obvious. The question I ponder is whether her devotion to Reuben Pantier is entirely healthy.
That Emily Sparks is a lonely old spinster is plain to see. And she appears not to have any cats! All the natural love and desire for affection of a healthy human being has to find expression one way or another. The longing of her first line - "Where is my boy, my boy - " - implies she lavishes hers upon the idea of Reuben Pantier. As there is no suggestion, either in this epitaph or the previous one, of untoward behaviour, we can accept that Emily Sparks is a morally upstanding woman - with perfectly natural feelings and desires!
Her letter to Reuben Pantier, "Of the beautiful love of Christ" is a sublimated expression of her love/attraction to a boy for whom she should have no such feelings.
There is no denying a possible sexual element to deep faith in Jesus Christ. Even in the Old Testament, in the Song of Songs, we read, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" (cf. Song 1:1) and Christ spoke of himself as the bridegroom (cf. Jn. 3:29, Mt. 9:14-15). Freud recognised this possibility when he said of sexuality, "The elements of the sexual instinct are characterized by a capacity for sublimation; for changing their sexual aim into another of a different kind and socially more worthy" (cf. Roberto Assagioli). Expanding on Freud's idea, Roberto Assagioli suggests that "[o]ne can also observe the different steps leading from human love to love for a higher Being, such as the Christ, or for God Himself; this is the sublimation of the emotional aspect." (ibid.)
We might want to simply take Emily Sparks at her word, that she "made them all my children". Yet, as she herself makes clear, Reuben Pantier was more than merely one of her children. She singles him out as "The boy I loved best of all in the school?". She can not help but be aware of the kind of life led by he whom she calls "My boy", so, when she petitions him to "[w]ork for your soul's sake", that "all of the dross of you, / May yield to the fire of you, / Till the fire is nothing but light", one wonders whether she could really expect such a one as Reuben Pantier to be so transformed?
Well, she might...
What makes it difficult to simply take Emily Sparks at her word is the nature of the epitaphs so far encountered, wherein we have met individuals who lie, cheat and murder. Benjamin Pantier failed to fully articulate the reality of his situation, as did his wife, who, like many in the Anthology, sought more to absolve herself of blame. Though dead, the people of Spoon River still have axes to grind, guilt to assuage, blame to apportion, truths to hide, and images to maintain.
We might look at 16. Reuben Pantier as evidence that Emily Sparks did indeed only have his best interests at heart. It just seems unlikely that, in an Anthology such as this - in which only a few epitaphs ago, Chase Henry could celebrate his good fortune resulting from the spiteful bickering between the Protestants and the Catholics - we'd be likely to find a soul of such purity that miraculous transformations should be taken at face value. Especially as, despite his expression of gratitude, Reuben Pantier seems to have wrought his own awakening.
We are wont to find redeeming qualities in the murkiest of places - and hearts - to nourish our hopes that humanity is basically good. So, we read Emily Sparks' epitaph with a need to believe in her goodness. However, we human beings are transactional creatures - there must always be something in it for us. Though there is no obvious reason to doubt Emily Sparks' sincerity - or that of mystics from "all times, places and religions" (cf. Assagioli) - there is ample reason to believe the lonely old spinster gained some reward for her devotion to Reuben Pantier.
That Emily Sparks is a lonely old spinster is plain to see. And she appears not to have any cats! All the natural love and desire for affection of a healthy human being has to find expression one way or another. The longing of her first line - "Where is my boy, my boy - " - implies she lavishes hers upon the idea of Reuben Pantier. As there is no suggestion, either in this epitaph or the previous one, of untoward behaviour, we can accept that Emily Sparks is a morally upstanding woman - with perfectly natural feelings and desires!
Her letter to Reuben Pantier, "Of the beautiful love of Christ" is a sublimated expression of her love/attraction to a boy for whom she should have no such feelings.
There is no denying a possible sexual element to deep faith in Jesus Christ. Even in the Old Testament, in the Song of Songs, we read, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" (cf. Song 1:1) and Christ spoke of himself as the bridegroom (cf. Jn. 3:29, Mt. 9:14-15). Freud recognised this possibility when he said of sexuality, "The elements of the sexual instinct are characterized by a capacity for sublimation; for changing their sexual aim into another of a different kind and socially more worthy" (cf. Roberto Assagioli). Expanding on Freud's idea, Roberto Assagioli suggests that "[o]ne can also observe the different steps leading from human love to love for a higher Being, such as the Christ, or for God Himself; this is the sublimation of the emotional aspect." (ibid.)
We might want to simply take Emily Sparks at her word, that she "made them all my children". Yet, as she herself makes clear, Reuben Pantier was more than merely one of her children. She singles him out as "The boy I loved best of all in the school?". She can not help but be aware of the kind of life led by he whom she calls "My boy", so, when she petitions him to "[w]ork for your soul's sake", that "all of the dross of you, / May yield to the fire of you, / Till the fire is nothing but light", one wonders whether she could really expect such a one as Reuben Pantier to be so transformed?
Well, she might...
What makes it difficult to simply take Emily Sparks at her word is the nature of the epitaphs so far encountered, wherein we have met individuals who lie, cheat and murder. Benjamin Pantier failed to fully articulate the reality of his situation, as did his wife, who, like many in the Anthology, sought more to absolve herself of blame. Though dead, the people of Spoon River still have axes to grind, guilt to assuage, blame to apportion, truths to hide, and images to maintain.
We might look at 16. Reuben Pantier as evidence that Emily Sparks did indeed only have his best interests at heart. It just seems unlikely that, in an Anthology such as this - in which only a few epitaphs ago, Chase Henry could celebrate his good fortune resulting from the spiteful bickering between the Protestants and the Catholics - we'd be likely to find a soul of such purity that miraculous transformations should be taken at face value. Especially as, despite his expression of gratitude, Reuben Pantier seems to have wrought his own awakening.
We are wont to find redeeming qualities in the murkiest of places - and hearts - to nourish our hopes that humanity is basically good. So, we read Emily Sparks' epitaph with a need to believe in her goodness. However, we human beings are transactional creatures - there must always be something in it for us. Though there is no obvious reason to doubt Emily Sparks' sincerity - or that of mystics from "all times, places and religions" (cf. Assagioli) - there is ample reason to believe the lonely old spinster gained some reward for her devotion to Reuben Pantier.
Comments
Post a Comment