Emily Dickinson

God is a distant, stately Lover,

God is a distant, stately Lover,
Woos, so He tells us, by His Son.

vicarious courtship

Vicarious = experienced through another person. God sends Jesus to woo souls instead of wooing directly—proxy romance.

Surely a vicarious courtship!
Miles' and Priscilla's such a one.

Miles and Priscilla

Longfellow's *The Courtship of Miles Standish* (1858): Miles sends John Alden to propose to Priscilla, who famously asks, 'Why don't you speak for yourself, John?'

But lest the soul, like fair Priscilla,
Choose the envoy and spurn the Groom,

hyperbolic archness

Hyperbolic = exaggerated. Archness = playful cunning. The doctrine claims an absurd solution with coy cleverness.

Vouches, with hyperbolic archness,
Miles and John Alden
Are synonym.

Are synonym

Not 'synonyms' (plural). Trinity doctrine says Father and Son are identical—one word with two names. Grammatically odd on purpose.

Source Wikipedia Poetry Foundation

Reading Notes

The Longfellow Problem

CONTEXT Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's *The Courtship of Miles Standish* (1858) was wildly popular when Dickinson wrote this. The plot: Captain Miles Standish, too busy for romance, sends his friend John Alden to propose to Priscilla Mullins on his behalf. Priscilla's response became famous: 'Why don't you speak for yourself, John?' She chooses the messenger over the sender.

Dickinson maps this onto Christian theology with surgical precision. God (Miles) sends Jesus (John) to woo human souls (Priscilla). The envoy is the one doing the actual talking, appearing, dying, rising—all the courtship work. The problem: what if souls fall for Jesus and ignore God the Father? What if we pick the accessible messenger over the distant sender?

The Trinity doctrine solves this by declaring them synonym—not synonyms (plural), but one synonym. Father and Son are supposedly identical, so choosing one is choosing both. Dickinson's grammar is deliberately wrong here. 'Are synonym' sounds off because the logic is off. She's exposing the doctrine's attempt to paper over a theological problem with verbal sleight-of-hand.

Dickinson's Courtship Theology

Dickinson frequently imagined herself as Christ's bride, drawing on both biblical imagery (the church as bride of Christ) and her own spinsterhood. But here she's not swooning—she's interrogating the setup. Why does God need a vicarious courtship? Why can't an omnipotent deity woo directly?

The word stately does double work: dignified, yes, but also static, remote, uninvolved. A stately lover doesn't pursue—he delegates. The phrase 'so He tells us' is quietly devastating. We only know about this courtship because God says so through scripture. There's no direct experience of the Father's love, only reports filtered through the Son.

'Hyperbolic archness' captures Dickinson's view of theological explanations that try too hard. The Trinity doctrine vouches (guarantees, promises) that this proxy arrangement is actually direct contact—but does so with exaggerated cleverness, like a lawyer finding a loophole. The poem's repetition (it prints the same stanza twice) might be textual corruption, or it might be Dickinson showing how doctrine repeats itself without adding clarity.