A Few Choice Inquiries Regarding Anne Bradstreet
Primo: Mrs. Bradstreet, in the first poem, claims that her "ill-form'd offspring" were snatched from her and published by well-meaning friends without her consent. How much of that is actually true? The last two lines of the poem suggest that she sent them "out of door" in hopes making some cash (such as it was). (A point could be made here regarding her implicit focus on the worldly, and indeed, it turns out I just did.)
The question following then is, did she actually get any money off of her work? (Technically, secundo.) My guess is-- probably, considering its popularity and her efforts afterward in preparing a second edition. The second edition leads me to believe that she did want them published or else was later encouraged by the first edition's success.
So (tertio), was all this deprecation an attempt to devalue her own poems in order to make them more palatable to the male dominated English poetry scene?!
Lastly, I just wanted to point out that Anne Bradstreet seems to me to be an all-round smashing good poetess and a rather ravishing woman at that. (!) The point is, I think, that her poems have the riveting quality of constantly working at multiple levels at once, the expected level, the ironic level, the metaphysical level and the crazy awesome poetical level. (Et al?)
And for a little comparison to top off this post, if we take her conviction that her poems have inherent defects as true and her ambivalence at having them published as sincere, then there is ample precedent. Countless authors were only put into print after their death. Kafka's works, for instance, exist entirely because Max Brod refused to honor Kafka's last wishes and burn all his manuscripts. A side question (quarto): Do those silly (genius) authors really know what they're doing?
So the final question then is (quinto), on how many levels, exactly, is Mrs Bradstreet working?
-- Matthew Weiss
The question following then is, did she actually get any money off of her work? (Technically, secundo.) My guess is-- probably, considering its popularity and her efforts afterward in preparing a second edition. The second edition leads me to believe that she did want them published or else was later encouraged by the first edition's success.
So (tertio), was all this deprecation an attempt to devalue her own poems in order to make them more palatable to the male dominated English poetry scene?!
Lastly, I just wanted to point out that Anne Bradstreet seems to me to be an all-round smashing good poetess and a rather ravishing woman at that. (!) The point is, I think, that her poems have the riveting quality of constantly working at multiple levels at once, the expected level, the ironic level, the metaphysical level and the crazy awesome poetical level. (Et al?)
And for a little comparison to top off this post, if we take her conviction that her poems have inherent defects as true and her ambivalence at having them published as sincere, then there is ample precedent. Countless authors were only put into print after their death. Kafka's works, for instance, exist entirely because Max Brod refused to honor Kafka's last wishes and burn all his manuscripts. A side question (quarto): Do those silly (genius) authors really know what they're doing?
So the final question then is (quinto), on how many levels, exactly, is Mrs Bradstreet working?
-- Matthew Weiss
10 Comments:
oh snap, matthew weiss steppin it up with the first topic post :P
Primo: hmm... i think what she's saying is that she's a poor mother basically, both in the monetary and quality sense. she makes an effort to improve their lives: "yet being mine own, at length affection would thy blemishes amend, if so i could"
but everytime she tries she makes it worse: "and rubbing off a spot still made a flaw"
i don't think she had her friends take care of her children because of money, but a genuine interest in her children's welfare.
perhaps she only wanted to vent some feelings and didn't really want to get this published, but did want to get other poems published.
secundo: i agree with you to a certain extent. she was poor and she needed money, so what better way to do it by selling stuff you write?
however, the biography proposes that she had a genuine love for poetry. on top of all the household duties she performed, bradstreet still managed to find time to write poetry. so maybe the prospect of making money wasn't a big factor, but she probably did make a few bucks.
tertio: i doubt it. she seemed to be a real big pusher of women's rights (an oddity in the 17th century). so saying that her work sucks doesn't seem to be a great pillar to start on when thinking about equality for women.
i agree that bradstreet is a gifted poet. she genuinely loved poetry and spent time and effort in it and produced fabulous works.
quarto: hm... many famous artists and poets who did not want to publish their works were arguably talented, possibly the best of their times. however, there is a general trend of mental instability in each artist/poet.
perhaps i'm jumping the gun here but that's what i see.
quinto: i'll list two that i can think of right now
1. she's a genuine lover of poetry and uses poetry as a diary pretty much (children's death, love for her husband, queen elizabeth, etc)
2. she was an extremely brilliant lady who knew how to pull which strings at what times to help her spread her poetry.
question: would writing about sex as subtly as she does (second to last page/side before the first poem) cause a lot of commotion among her readers?
i think it might. the people reading poetry should have a fairly high intelligence and be able to discern an innuendo when it arises.
knowing this, and the fact that people gasp at the sight of a woman's ankle, i think it probably would've caused a stir when it was published. a big one? eh, probably not since it was nothing heretical, just a social tabboo. what d'y'all think? (oh yeah, double apostrophe)
btw, there's this mayflower special on the history channel i think next sunday. looks kinda interesting.
Ah Annie!
To respond to both Matt and Albert...
1. I think Anne claims her poems were snatched by well meaning friends to relieve some of the Puritan citicisms. My guess is that she did want these poems published, but she feared being ostrasized by the Puritan community. Rememeber, she comes from the same society that banished Anne Hutchinson for her radical ideas. By blaming the publication on friends, Anne does not have to take accountability for defying traditional female roles in Puritan life.
2. Her husband probably received money for her poems, so I do not believe money was a major motivating factor. Her husband was a magistrate, so I doubt they needed the money. I think "poor" describes the quality of her writing, not her financial state.
3. The deprecation reflects an internal struggle. Anne fears being shunned by other Puritans, but she does not really believe women are inferior to men. Her poetry reflects the conflicting views of Puritan doctrine and Anne's personal beliefs. I do not think she intentionally critisizes her work to sell to males. Rather, this behavior stems from her own doubts.
Now my own question- What does this line mean... "If for the Father askt, say, thou hadst none"
I thought that the child was a metaphor for Anne's books. Anne would then be the mother. Is the father God?
By the way, Matt, I find it frankly disturbing that you refer to a dead Puritan woman as "rather ravishing." But I won't judge you. (Actually I am).
Albert... Writing about sex probably did cause a stir. Anne seems to write about many things the Puritans would consider evil. She is very attached to material goods, and she expresses religious doubt on more than one occasion. I wonder why she wasn't banished or punished at least?
While it is certain that Bradstreet was insecure about her work in its infancy, it is not clear at all that those feelings continued. If she really had a crippling case of self-doubt, then she would have actively stopped the publication or at least not contributed this prologue. It is true that she had all sorts of difficulty with Puritainisn and her worldly desires, but I don't think this stems from it. I think she really was trying to make it more acceptable to her audience (male, of course). But I think for a more subtle reason. She was taught using male paragons, told that that was the way to write poetry, given male themes, and male images and male desires in a male world. I think she was trying to make her work more palatable, not because she felt that she had no skill, but because she knew that she had to have no skill in order to be noticed. Mostly I feel this because of the tone of her writing. It's not quantifiable, but I get sort of a facetious undertone reading it. Maybe that's just me.
On top of that, I question the validity of trying to ascertain the exact reasons someone did something for centuries ago. General timely themes and modern day biography give us only so much.
And lastly to address what seems to be a widespread concern: Yes, admittedly, I have a thing for lyrical women. I cried when I learned Sappho was a lesbian. ;)
alright
i just reread the first poem and just realized that it is really about her poems and not her kids...
how silly of me
for her poem about the burning of her house, i found it quite peculiar. like liz says, it does seem that bradstreet did want her house and all of her possessions to be engulfed by flames. however, she makes numerous references to biblical verses and most especially Job. instead of cursing god for letting her house burn down, she instead remains apathetic toward the whole matter. in other words, she wishes to be pious by not cursing god. this is evidenced by line 14: "I blest his grace that gave and took"
she realizes the omnipotence of God and his power to giveth and taketh away.
but i'm not entirely sure the significance of the lines that liz mentions. it's weird to be so faithful to god that she wants all of her things burned. perhaps she wants to disprove her image of being a materialist.
she does show a little ambivalence though. she nostalgically remembers all of the pleasantries that existed in her house, but the only material items she mentioned was a roof and a table. all of her other pleasantries are conversation, memories, light, and voices. she evens bids adieu to vanity.
after typing all this i have reached a conclusion: being considered a materialist, bradstreet wishes to prove herself as a pious individual adhering strongly to the puritan doctrines, i.e. non-materialism. writing this poem gives her the image of being pious (bible references) and a non-material (wishing her house to burn down).
bradstreet, brilliant poet and all, seems to be pretty vain about her public image.
(1.) I posted my thoughts as to the parent-child analogy in Bradstreet's first poem as a comment to the guidelines; however, I'll add to what I wrote (and copy-and-paste from my other post). In the biography of Bradstreet, it says that her brother (or half-brother, I forget) stole her manuscript/poems and published them over in England. If the biographer is to be believed, then Bradstreet's allusions to the "theft/borrowing" of her poetry are valid, honest, etc.
"If for thy Father askt, say, thou hadst none; / And for thy Mother, she alas is poor, / Which caus'd her thus to send thee out of door." To me, it seems that Bradstreet is (yet again) making a comment insinuating that women are inferior to men. I translate the above excerpt to mean that "If someone asks you who wrote you, tell them that it was not a man (who would be held to a high standard) but rather, a woman. Tell inquiring minds that the woman who wrote you only published you (and your poor-quality work) because she needed money." I don't think it has much to do with the love of a parent, at least not in those lines.
The mention of her lack of wealth is merely another excuse for the "poor quality" of her work. It's merely another embodiment of Bradstreet's insecurity and fear of criticism.
Sure, Bradstreet made money off of her work. She had a very original voice in a time dominated by male writers, as Matt said, so she had a unique perspective to offer.
(3.) I don't think she insulted her work merely as a ploy to make it more acceptable. I believe she truly felt it to be inferior to others' work, which is a valid concern as her work and style developed a lot between her first published collection of poems to her later, more famous collection(s).
ALBERT: In reference to your point, "she realizes the omnipotence of God and his power to giveth and taketh away," I have to disagree. Bradstreet never truly convinced me of her piety and strength of belief in God. My basis for this belief is delineated below...
(Copied from my other post:)
An exerpt from one of her poems reads, "for were earthly comforts permanent, who would look for heavenly?" This is a clear example of Bradstreet's constant questioning of her faith. It's obvious from this quote (and from similar others) that Bradstreet's belief in God and heaven is in large part based on the DESIRE that such a place/thing exists... This further backs up the assertion that Bradstreet's "outward faith" was heavily influenced by societal pressures and norms.
And with that, I bid you all good night and good luck.
danielle: i never said she was truly pious, but like you said, she was trying to look pious.
and about bradstreet's position on women's status in society (you always seem to bring this topic up :P), perhaps she's putting in a flair of satire, mocking the male dominated society she lived in?
so basically, one could look at bradstreet as a highly intelligent and gifted poet that knows exactly how people will react to what words, or she truly was a psychological wreck and was truly reluctant about having her work published.
it's a tough choice
you can't just either pity or envy her.
So the feminist attacks begin with Danielle holding up the fort. I am right there with you (for now).
Danielle- I totally agree with your interpretation of "If for thy Father askt, say, thou hadst none; / And for thy Mother, she alas is poor." For some reason, I kept thinking that "none" referred to an omitted noun. It makes more sense that Bradstreet is affirming that the poem was written by a woman. Thanks for that.
I am unsure of whether Anne is intentionally insulting her work or not. She does seem to be very self-conscious of her poetry, as the biography appears to indicate. So I guess her demeaning references to her work are not deliberate.
Elizabeth, as for the quote in "Verses upon the Burning of our House"-
"That fearful sound of fire and fire,/Let no man know is my Desire."
I thought that her desire was to save her house and possessions. Anne does not want any man to know that she has such vain and material attachments to her property, so she must suppress her grief. Puritanism is not conducive or accepting of materialism, which an possesses in abundance.
I interpreted this poem very differently than Albert. I thought Anne was questioning her faith, not trying to appear pious. The lines "And when I could no longer look,/ I blest his grace that gave and took" convey barely concealed sarcasm. The whole poem depicts an intense religious struggle. Anne must convince herself that God is good and heaven is worth losing her house. I am unconvinced of her Puritan piety. It is too contradictory to her innate inclination towards materialism. Anyone else have opinions on the message of this poem?
I like that Bradstreet uses everyday things in her life, such as children, as metaphors. Her poems reveal more of the day-to-day struggles in the Puritan community than Taylor's works. Like Taylor, Anne references metal in some of the poems, such as in line 5 of "To My Dear and Loving Husband." It sounds a little awkward when she does this, almost as if she is trying to prove she can write like more sophisticated male poets. I prefer the simple themes of love and loss to this mimicking.
I think that the reason she reacted this way about her brother-in-law publishing the poems was mainly based in fear. The consequences of a woman publishing her work (or having her name associated with the piece, in this case) could be detrimental. Not only for her but also for all people who were related to her. Her husband was a magistrate (I think it was mentioned earlier?) and therefore, he was respected in society. Female education was frowned upon and it could cause problems for her husband's position. Her entire family could have been alienated by the public for Bradstreet’s demonstration of her knowledge. This is at least what I took from the poem. I do agree though with the thought that it was also due to her being a psychological wreck. She did have, oh, like eight kids (I think) that she cared for alone. The writing seems to be a release for her and so she may not have intended her writings to go to a printer when they were so private.
Question: In the second poem, the line “This mean and unrefined ore of mine/Will make you glist’ring gold but more to shine.” I understand that the firs part is in reference to her book, that is clear. I am having trouble understanding the second part. Who is you? Is it the entire male population? What is “glist’ring gold” referring to, is it writings by male authors or is it the actual male writers? I know that this may seem painfully obvious to every one, I just need a little clarification!
Thanks, Rachel
I forgot to mention something else.
Theresa: I agree about the lines from the third poem about Bradstreet not wanting to reveal that she valued material goods. I also agree with the obvious sarcasm portrayed when Bradstreet tries to justify the fact that her home was just ruined because it was God's will. She continues to show her devastation about the loss of her belongings by the repetition of No and Nor in reference to what can no longer be done in what used to be the house and what cannot be used.
The poem "In Memory of My Dear Granddaughter..." Bradstreet's attempt to appear pious is exemplified by her saying
"Blest babe, why should I once bewail my fate, /Or sigh they days so soon were terminate, /sith thou art settled in an everlasting state."
She obviously is upset about the loss of her grandchild, why else would she write a poem saying "Farewell" to the deceased child? I think that the reference to eternal life after death was an attempt to keep from losing hope that one day, according, to Puritanism; they will be together in Heaven, which is convenient for a person who lost someone.
I wanted to comment about the handouts we recieved on Wednesday. (still don't know how to start a new topic so hopefully somebody finds this comment here...)
On Nathaniel Ward's "On Women and Their Fashions" I was confused about the last two lines. In the first paragraph, Ward makes it clear that he believes that women who take interest in trivial matters such as fashion are worth nothing and "fitter to be kicked."
It seems that the last two lines are referring to women's interests in a broader sense. Is Ward saying that whenever women care for and take interest in something trouble results?
I am also confused by part of Hooker's "A plain and powerful ministry." I understand the basic idea of the excerpt but I can't figure out what the third paragraph means and where it fits in with the excerpt as a whole...
that's it for now...thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home