Anne Bradstreet

It's not easy being a women let alone being one in a Puritan colony. If a woman were to show any ounce of intelligence it would be seen as something horrible, something sinful. Women couldn't really do anything besides being a wife and mother, never mind being a poet. That is probably why Anne Bradstreet; a Puritan woman of the 1600s, who was in fact a wife and a mother of not one, not two, no not even three, but eight children( Yes eight! Not an easy thing to accomplish in the 1600s); hid the fact that she too was a poet.

"I am obnoxious to each carping tongue

Who says my hand a needle better fits,

A poet's pen all scorn I should thus wrong,
For such despite they cast on female wits:

If what i do prove well, it won't advance,

They'll say its stol'n, or else it was by chance." p. 189

Here is a qoute from Bradstreet's poem The Prologue. In this qoute, she talks about how men viewed the women. They look down on women who would actually use their brain. The men thought that all women were fit to do was to run the home. Be a wife, be a mother, but god forbid be her own person. If a woman were to achieve any amount of success, it would not be by her skill, but by chance, luck if you will. Men refused to believe that women could amount too . . well, basically anything.

"Now say, have women worth? or have they none?

Or had they some, but with our Queen is't gone?

Nay masculines, you have thus taxed us long,

But shem though dead, will vindicate our wrong.

Let such as say our sex is void of reason,

Know 'tis a slander now but once was treason."

This poem has to be my favorite from Bradstreet. It is called In Honor of That High and Mighty Princess Queen Elizabeth of Happy Memory. ( What a mouthful!!!) Now this poem, is all about Queen Elizabeth and basically how amazing the woman was. She was one tough lady. She didn't let men object her to those stereotypes of a woman being docile or submissive. In fact she was the exact opposite. She was independent, strong, and determined. Not one man could boss her around.

I think the Prologue and this poem are consistent in describing the roles of women. Queen Elizabeth was the first woman during that time to show men that women can indeed think for themselves and not have to hide behind a man. She came across a lot of important men who expected her to behave like the woman in discussed in the Prologue and in the poem you can tell just how much Bradstreet admired and revered her. Probably because Bradstreet never really showcased her skills to the public. She hid her intelligence, i think because she was afraid that she would be judged. You can see a bit of her insecurities coming out in The Author to her Book.

" Thou ill-formed offspring of my feeble brain,
Who after birth didst by my side remain,

Till snatched from thence by friends, less wise than true,

Who thee abroad, exposed to public view,

Made thee in rafs, halting to th' press to trudge,

Where errors were not lessened (all may judge)."

In this poem, the readers see a different side of her. She refers to her book as her child, probably as a metaphor to how much her poems meant to her. Unfortunately, someone she trusted published her work without her knowledge. She did not want the world to see her work, at least that is what i get from this poem. I think to her, her poems were private, and not meant for public view. She doubted her work, almost as if she didn't think her poems were all that good. When i read this and compare to the others . . . it seems out of place. At first she talks about how women are not valued and how they are not expected to do anything besides domestic duties. Then she writes about the fierce and strong ruler Queen Elizabeth who let nothing and no one stand in her way. Too her house and possessions burning down and then learning that there just material posessions they don't mean that much (Here Follows Some Verses upon the Burning of Our House). Then she gets all lovey dovey and talks about her love for her husband ( To My Dear and Loving Husband). Of course then there is this that basically shows her insecurites about her work.

I think this particular poem is a little contradictive, although she does maintain some consistency with that of The Prologue and the Queen Elizabeth poem. However, The Author to Her Book kind of contradicts those roles. It doesn't really fit with the others as well. I guess Bradstreet just felt like showing a different side of herself. A more personal and softer side. This poem was about her and her fears. It wasn't about loving her husband, her house burning down, or the Queen. I think that's the reason it comes off as a little contradictive, because this poem was her and not someone else.

Qoutes taken from The Norton Anthology American Literature textbook volume A 7th Edition.

Early Explorers

When i was a kid, one of my favorite movies was Pocohantas. I remember wanting to be like her and fantasizing about my prince charming; in the form of John Smith. (Sad, i know). Now in college i have come to realize just how wrong i was about his character. I thought he was this nice, good guy. Turns out he is an arrogant, egostical fool. It just goes to show that you cannot trust everything you see in the movies. Especially, Disney, they tend to romanticize their stories.

John Smith was creative though, i will give him that. He wrote a book about his role in Jamestown, and his experiences with Native Americans ( I.e. Pocohantas, and her father, Chief of the tribe, Powhatan) to which he referred to them as savages. ( Again, not so nice of a guy). Here is the kicker! He wrote his book--- of his own experiences--- in third person, which again brings up his admirable traits. "--- Captain Smith, who, by his own example, good words, and fair promises---" (p.58)

You ever meet someone who refers to themselves in the third person? It really is quite annoying. I do not want to listen to someone talk about themselves in the third person, let alone read a story like that. Well, in Smith's writings, that is all you get.

When i compare my previous image of the Captain John Smith, the nice good guy, to now, an arrogrant, egostical fool; there seems to be quite a difference. Granted he did play a big role in the settlement of Jamestown; he was the president of the governing council. In his writing though, he made it seem like he played an even bigger role. Basically, he thought he was the major big shot. He saw himself in this greater light and it came off as arrogant.

Another great guy was, the explorer Christopher Columbus. Now, the only thing i can remember of Columbus was that in 1492, he sailed the ocean blue. ( Remember that poem?) Now this poem confused me. It made it seem as if Columbus was this nice guy and along his journey he never encountered any problems. The natives of the land; that he was trying to take, were all very nice and welcoming and shared their limited source of food with he and his sailors. Of course, nothing bad ever happened to Mr. Columbus.

Again, thanks to college, i am no longer confused. Columbus did encounter many problems. The Natives of the lands that he tried to take, were not very nice. In fact, they were hostile, (which is to be expected), they didn't share anything. A lot of bad things happen to Columbus. As it turns out, he sucked at being a leader, and he was somewhat of a donkey's behind. (Thanks to the text, i discovered his real traits). I realize i am being a little harsh on Columbus; he may not have know better, i mean, this is in 1400s. Maybe everyone in that time were a little like that. People are like that now, and its the 21st century.

Columbus though, had to answer to his crimes; of mistreating both the Spanish and the Native Americans. He was imprisoned and badly treated. ( Sad isn't it) However, he did have some brains, he knew that he wouldn't be getting a gold anytime soon. " I did not sail upon this voyage to gain honor or wealth; (really?) this is certain, for already all hope of that was dead." (p. 35) What a guy huh? What a gem.

He did try though to gain pity from his Queen, (which is really pathetic), but he was kind of good at it.
" Heaven have mercy upon me, and may the Earth weep for me--- my soul with be forgotten if it here leaves my body. Weep for me whoever has charity, truth, and justice." (p. 35) Doesn't that just hit the heart? I can already feel tears coming. (Sike!) He was a brave man, to seek pity from a monarchy that basically killed anyone who refused to obey them. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella have more blood on their hands than Freddy Krueger. They would be the last people i sought out pity from.

Now, this explorer, Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca ( Cow's head), was marrooned (exiled) on the Texas Coast, and wandered for about 9 years, in a land no other European had ever heard of, let alone seen. This guy, was alright. He actually was pretty honest in his accounts. He lived with the Native Americans, saw what they had to go through ( starvation and dehydration), and learned from them and about them. Unlike the other explorers who choose to be completely ignorant. Smith and Columbus could have learned a thing or two from Cabeza de Vaca.

Qoutes taken from The Norton Anthology American Literature textbook volume A 7th Edition.
Columbus poem--http://www.mamalisa.com/blog/columbus-day-poem-in-1492-columbus-sailed-the-ocean-blue/