The question of whether Samuel Bowles, the influential editor of the Springfield Republican, should have published the poetry of his friend Emily Dickinson is a nuanced one, deeply embedded in the complexities of their relationship and Dickinson’s own ambivalent stance on publication. While there is no simple yes or no answer, an examination of their correspondence, Dickinson’s known views, and the context of their era reveals a multifaceted literary and ethical dilemma.

Dickinson and Bowles maintained a significant and enduring friendship. She shared a considerable number of her poems with him, sending him over 50 during their correspondence. This act of sharing suggests a degree of trust and a desire for her work to be read, at least by a select audience. For a poet who was famously reclusive, entrusting her work to a prominent editor was a significant gesture.

However, Dickinson’s feelings about the publication of her poetry were far from straightforward. She famously wrote, “Publication – is the Auction / Of the Mind of Man,” expressing a clear aversion to the commercialization and public exposure of her deeply personal art. Evidence suggests that the handful of her poems that were published during her lifetime, including some in Bowles’s Springfield Republican, may have been done so without her explicit consent. Furthermore, when her work was published, it was often subjected to editorial alterations to fit the conventional poetic standards of the time, a practice that frustrated Dickinson.

The poems that appeared in the Springfield Republican were not necessarily the ones she had directly sent to Bowles in their personal correspondence. This raises the question of how the newspaper obtained them and whether Bowles made the decision to publish them. If he did, he would have been going against the implicit, and at times explicit, wishes of a friend who valued her privacy and artistic control.

On the other hand, one could argue that Bowles, as an editor who recognized Dickinson’s genius, had a responsibility to bring her work to a wider audience. Proponents of this view might suggest that he would have been doing a service to literature by not letting her remarkable poetry remain in obscurity. However, this perspective prioritizes the public’s access to art over the expressed desires of the artist.

Scholarly debate continues on the precise nature of Dickinson and Bowles’s relationship. Some scholars posit that Bowles may have been one of the figures addressed in Dickinson’s passionate “Master” letters, suggesting a romantic element to their connection. This interpretation would add another layer of complexity to the question of publication, potentially casting Bowles’s actions in a different light, whether as a betrayal of intimacy or an act of profound, if misguided, admiration.

Ultimately, the question of whether Samuel Bowles should have published Emily Dickinson’s poetry remains a subject of speculation and ethical consideration. To have published her work against her wishes would have been a breach of trust. Yet, the world of literature would be immeasurably poorer without the poems that eventually saw the light of day. The debate itself underscores the tension between an artist’s right to privacy and the public’s desire for access to great works of art.