Should a dead person’s art be released to the public? Is it possible to own something for longer than one lifetime? What about personal letters? 

Well, it is complicated. Emily Dickinson wrote over 1,700 poems. This figure is likely even higher because she gave some away as gifts and it is unclear if they still exist. Of this massive collection, only ten were ever published by her. Despite being famously secluded in her later life, she was a very social person, writing correspondence letters to friends and family. Of all her letters, those with Susan Gilbert seemed to be special. There is debate on whether or not they were romantic, but it seems very likely. It is impossible to know for sure, not only because they lived in a Puritan Massachusetts town in the 1800s, but Gilbert was also Emily’s sister-in-law. Gilbert lived for another 29 years after Dickinson’s death. So what if publishing these letters would be hurtful or potentially even dangerous for a person who is still alive? Possibly because of this, she had her younger sister promise to burn all of her letters once she died. 

Dickinson frequently blended poetry with regular writing and Gilbert was a poet too. So if all art should be public, then what about situations like this where the line is blurred? The letters are beautiful and important, but also deeply personal. Reading them feels almost invasive. Especially knowing that if it was up to Dickinson, we would never know they existed. But they are inseparably part of her history, and arguably part of LGBTQ history. 

In 1886, Lavina Dickinson, the poet’s sister, kept her promise. She destroyed thousands of personal letters, many of which contained poems. The only reason her sister’s correspondence with Susan Gilbert was preserved was because Gilbert wanted to save them. It seems that releasing a dead person’s art against their will is wrong, but on the contrary, there is a strong, borderline religious argument to be made that art should always be preserved – no matter what. Art is sacred. Every human culture creates art, and an unknowable amount of hours have been dedicated just to preserving or restoring it. Nothing else seems to have such a universally positive impact on us. After all, it outlives us and has the potential to be greater than one person. 

Imagine some great work that you personally connected with–an album, a movie, a book, anything–was never available to the public. These works undoubtedly improve our lives. While we cannot know what we are missing, what stories have disintegrated on old paper, or used for kindling, we should save everything we do have. It is not a renewable resource, it should be considered less valuable than the living, but more valuable than the dead. I am not sure what Dickinson would think of that, but I am sure our culture is better with her poetry.

Photo by: Pixabay via Pexels