While we were in the Houghton Library, we saw the chest of drawers where Emily Dickinson’s poetry was found, her piano, her writing desk, and many other personal belongings. Today, we visited the house in which she lived for most of her life. The house didn’t contain many items that belonged to her growing up, but had been decorated and made to look authentic enough that tours could get the picture. The visit to her house illustrated the conflict we’ve heard so much about on this trip, which appears to be so common among historic preservationists: where is the true spirit of the person and how is his or her history best taught and experienced? Should belongings be removed from museums and placed back into the homes, or vice versa?

Should the drawers be at the house so that tour groups can view the actual piece of furniture where her poems were found? Does Emerson’s desk furniture, currently residing in the Concord Museum, really belong with the Emerson family to place in his home? I can see this debate is reasonable; however, I see it as merely a debate over money and the ability to stake a claim on an historical figure.

The answer, at least with the literary figures we’ve studied these past two weeks, is that it shouldn’t and doesn’t matter where the objects are. In each of the homes, whether or not the true furniture was present, I was aware of the strong spirit of the house, bringing the author and his or her words alive inside of me. These writers are all still partly alive because of the ways they all chose to live. Their writing has brought us into their worlds, and it is certainly detectable all over Massachusetts.