Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson were both 19th century writers whose works have heavily influenced the literary genre and are widely taught in schools today. Furthermore, both poets are known for the queer influences within their writing at a time when such things were frowned upon. Even more impressive is the fact that their poetry resonates even with contemporary audiences, despite being two centuries out of date. Their poetry remains timeless because the poets use ambiguous language that is not specific to the experience of a person living in the 19th century. Through the usage of ambiguity, both poets transcend the rigid sexual demarcations of their 19th-century context and their focus on the fluid nature of human connection first and foremost has a timelessness to it, not only connecting it to the 21st century but arguing for the validity of queer relationships by framing them in terms of human experience. This paper will utilize modern terms such as “queer” and “LGBTQ+” to describe the experience Whitman and Dickinson write about, though they themselves did not have such language at the time.

Whitman and Dickinson both use ambiguous language like general pronouns or masked innuendo to hide queer imagery within their poetry. In Whitman’s Song of Myself, he writes “There is that in me —I do not know what it is—but I / know it is in me . . . / I do not know it—it is without name—it is a word unsaid, / It is not in any dictionary, utterance, symbol” (Whitman 1355, Section 50). This language is evocative of the queer experience, with notes of this hidden ‘thing’ (queerness) being unsaid, partially because the language to talk about such experiences did not exist at the time. His writing often references a type of bisexuality—“I am the mate and companion of people, all just as immortal and / fathomless as myself”—where he is not just the lover of women, but the lover of ‘all people,’ a hidden reference of sorts to being with men as well (Whitman 1317, Section 7). Dickinson does something similar, with a few more references to the physical in an ambiguous way that places the narrator of the poem in control of the sexual encounters in a way that subverts traditional expectations of sexuality. She writes: “Wild nights – Wild nights! / Were I with thee / Wild nights should be / Our luxury! … Rowing in Eden – / Ah – the Sea! /Might I but moor – tonight – / In thee!” (Dickinson 1664, Poem 269). There is ambiguity here, with no gender referenced, and the wording of ‘moor tonight’ implies a dominance and penetration occuring on the part of the narrator, implying that she is ‘mooring’ within another woman. Further, the phrasing of “were I with thee’ implies that the two are forced to be separate, possibly by societal expectations. Similar phrasing is seen in another poem, where Dickinson writes “Of Visitors – the fairest – / For Occupation – This – / The spreading wide my narrow Hands / To gather Paradise” (Dickinson 1675, Poem 466). The word ‘fairest’ implies that her visitor is female, and the ‘spreading wide to gather paradise’ is sexual in nature, referring again to the sexual acts that could only occur when in a position of dominance with another woman. Careful of their times, Whitman and Dickinson both use ambiguous language to refer to acts of love and sex between two lovers of the same gender, and these acts have remained the same throughout time. Regardless of sexuality, the emotion is universal.

While Whitman and Dickinson both use ambiguous language, the way they discuss sexuality and gender differs on account of their different lived experiences as a man and woman respectively, reflecting differences that have existed since the beginning of human memory. Whitman is happy to tout equality of genders in his poem, writing “I am the poet of the woman the same as the man, / And I say it is as great to be a woman as to be a man, / And I say there is nothing greater than the mother of men.” (Whitman 1327, Section 21). In “One’s Self I Sing”, he writes that “I / say the Form complete is worthier far, / The Female equally with the Male I sing” (Whitman 1312). The latter references the ‘form complete’, the old Greek idea that humans once had two heads and eight limbs, and that Zeus separated humans into man and woman. He creates an ambiguity of gender where Man and Woman are one, referencing the idea that he ‘sings’ (with sexual connotation) with both men and women, not seeing a difference. However, Whitman’s ability to not see a difference between genders in his love life comes from an inherent position of power; he has the privilege to not see gender. Dickinson has no such privilege, pointedly noting differences between the two in her poetry in regards to sex between men and women: “I like a look of Agony, / Because I know it’s true – / Men do not sham Convulsion, / Nor simulate, a Throe-” (Dickinson 1667, Poem 339). Dickinson notes that sex with men and women is different, mainly that men do not fake ‘convulsion’ (orgasms) like many women are forced to do. Dickinson is far more aware than Whitman of the differences in her relationships with men and women, while Whitman’s male privilege allows him to look past that and not experience such differences. Even in the 21st century, there are differences in how queer women or men are treated and how they navigate relationships, speaking to the timelessness of said themes in Whitman’s and Dickinson’s poetry.

Whitman’s and Dickinson’s differences extend beyond their portrayals of gender and into the way they interpret the nature of queer relationships. Through his poetry, Whitman portrays the idea of narcissism being present in queer relationships without a gender difference. He writes that “This is the touch of my lips to yours, this the murmur of yearning, / This the far-off depth and height reflecting my own face, / This the thoughtful merge of myself, and the outlet again” (Whitman 1325, Section 19). Whitman sees himself reflected in the men he writes about romantically: chest mirroring chest, beard mirroring beard. It is not just a ‘thoughtful merge’ but physical: “If I worship one thing more than another it shall be the spread of my own body, or any part of it, / Translucent mould of me it shall be you! / Shaded ledges and rests it shall be you! / Firm masculine colter it shall be you! … Mix’d tussled hay of head, beard, brawn, it shall be you! / Trickling sap of maple, fibre of manly wheat, it shall be you!” (Whitman 1330, Section 24). There is a slight sense of perverseness to the imagery of Whitman worshipping his own body, and evokes the idea of the literary double, a figure that one can push all of the blame for wrongdoing onto. On the other hand, Dickinson interprets the queer relationship not just as physical, but as emotional and spiritual, and thus avoids the more taboo nature. She writes “when Sense from Spirit – files away – / And Subterfuge – is done – … Behold the Atom – I preferred – / To all the lists of Clay!” (Dickinson 1664, Poem 279). While the world ‘subterfuge’ indicates the need to hide their love, there is no negative connotation to said love, instead focusing on how she prefers the essence/personality (atom) of a person to their physical body (clay). While Dickinson does focus on physicality in other poems in ambiguous language, her overall attitude towards queer relationships is more positive than that of Whitman, whose poetry has a slightly narcissistic nature to it. 

In contrast to their disagreement over the internal nature of being LGBTQ+, both Whitman and Dickinson agree that a key tenet to queer relationships in the 19th century involved separation due to societal pressures. In Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, Whitman writes that he “Felt their arms on my neck as I stood, or the negligent leaning of their flesh against me as I sat, / Saw many I loved in the street or ferry-boat or public assembly, yet never told them a word, / Lived the same life with the rest” (Whitman 1366, Section 6). Dickinson echoes this sentiment, stating “So we must meet apart – / You there – I – here – / With just the Door ajar” (Dickinson 1684, Poem 706). Both authors discuss not just the separation between two people in love, but how there is a certain safety in being close to other queer people in public in the liminal space where neither acknowledge what is occuring: “the door ajar,” or “never told them a word.” It is also disheartening, however, to know that despite the trueness of their emotions, they could never be verbalized due to the danger. Despite occasional moments of safety in public, societal pressures overall meant that couple had to be separated. Whitman identifies another point of separation, writing that “As the hugging and loving bed-fellow sleeps at my side through the night, / and withdraws at the peep of the day with stealthy tread” (Whitman 1314, Section 3). Nighttime provided another temporary avenue of safety. Dickinson on the other hand, mourns what comes after the relationship, asking “Could I stand by / And see You – freeze – / Without my Right of Frost – / Death’s privilege?” (Dickinson 1684, Poem 706). She points out that heterosexual couples get the privilege of mourning one another publically, of being buried together in death in a way that queer couples do not. Even if a queer person loses the love of their life, they cannot publicly mourn them. Forbidden relationships have long existed in straight couples as well—Romeo and Juliet, for example—and using ambiguous language to focus on the forbidden nature of the relationships allows for the poetry to connect with a wider audience. 

The lack of public acknowledgement in queer relationships extends to marriage in Whitman’s and Dickinson’s writing, and they explore the more spiritual connection between queer couples. Dickinson writes “Title divine, is mine. / The Wife without the Sign” (Dickinson 1661, Poem 194). She has the title of wife without actually being married; it is symbolic, a representation of a spiritual union that while not legal, is still just as strong as a heterosexual couple with a marriage license and wedding rings. Whitman explores this in nature in this poem From Pent Up Aching Rivers, writing “O that you and I escape from the rest and go utterly off, free and lawless, / Two hawks in the air, two fishes swimming in the sea not more lawless than we” (Whitman 1357). Similar to the LGBTQ+ community at the time, hawks and fish have no concept of marriage as we recognize it either, but that does not make their relationships less valid. He draws a parallel between the animals in nature and the queer community, finding freedom in the idea of lawlessness and a society without oppressive rules against LGBTQ+ people. The LGBTQ+ community only recently gained the right to federally recognized marriage, and before that, Dickinson’s and Whitman’s concepts of ‘lawlessness’ and ‘divine unions’ would have still held true for the contemporary queer person.

Ultimately, the poetry of Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson is timeless because through their use of ambiguous language, they transcend the rigid sexual demarcations of the 19th century and offer insight into the fluid nature of human connection. For a very long time, safe love and relationships were just out reach for the queer community—possible, but dangerous and fleeting. Emily Dickinson puts it best: “I cannot live with You – / It would be Life – / And Life is over there – / Behind the Shelf” (Dickinson 1683, Poem 706). It was not just the right to marry that was out of reach, but the right to live their lives freely, true to themselves, in safety. Even in the 21st century, LGBTQ+ people are subject to gaybashings, to shootings, to oppression that has shifted form but still exists. While queer poetry has evolved as well, it too encapsulates similar concepts, speaking to the timelessness of Whitman and Dickinson. Their focus on human connection creates empathy for readers who might not otherwise feel such a thing for the queer community, slowly softening the hearts of their readers. Perhaps one day, in the future, the world will have evolved such that this poetry is not relatable or necessary, that the LGBTQ+ only ever knows safety and acceptance. Today, that is not the case.

Works Cited

Dickinson, Emily. “Poem 194: Title divine, is mine.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1661.

Dickinson, Emily. “Poem 269: Wild nights – Wild nights!” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1664.

Dickinson, Emily. “Poem 279: Of all the Souls that stand create -.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1664.

Dickinson, Emily. “Poem 339: I like a look of agony.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1667.

Dickinson, Emily. “Poem 466: I dwell in possibility.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1675.

Dickinson, Emily. “Poem 706: I cannot live with You.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1683.

Whitman, Walt. “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1364-1367.

Whitman, Walt. “From Pent-up Aching Rivers.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1357

Whitman, Walt. “One’s Self I Sing.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1312.

Whitman, Walt. “Song of Myself.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, pp. 1312.