It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma...

In critic's hands beware thou dost not come,
And take thy way where yet thou art not known;
If for thy father asked, say thou hadst none;
And for thy mother, she alas is poor,
Which caused her thus to send thee out of door.

-- Anne Bradstreet, "The Author to Her Book"

Anne Bradstreet was especially fond of poetry, which she had begun to write herself; her works were kept private though, as it was frowned upon for women to pursue intellectual enlightenment, let alone create and air their views and opinions. She wrote for herself, her family, and close circle of educated friends, and did not intend on publication. One of her closest friends, Anne Hutchinson, who was also a religious and educated woman had made the mistake of airing her views publicly, and was banished from her community.

-- from the biography at AnneBradstreet.com

... but perhaps there is a key, after all.

In class today, we talked about Bradstreet's poem "The Author to Her Book" and how it could be read as either a humble attempt to down-play her own talent and worth as an author, or as a brilliantly clever way to *seem* humble while really taking pride in her work. We talked a little bit about the historical context, in that women of the time - and especially Puritan women - were not to be outspoken or to be seen to be usurping a man's public authority in any way.

What we didn't talk about was specifics such as Anne Hutchinson and the influence that may have had on Bradstreet.

In our modern times, we tend to lose sight of the *serious* consequences that women faced for violating patriarchical rules. It wasn't like today where a woman would just be labeled with "bitch" or "harridan" or "shrew" but would still be legally allowed to participate in society, even if some people didn't like her (and yes, I know there's more that can be - and is - done to women who buck the patriarchy in some ways). We forget that in Bradstreet's time, women were legally the property of their fathers, then of their husbands, and finally of their sons or other male relative. A woman did not exist as a separate legal individual; she could not vote; she could not own property. In such circumstances, to be banished from her community was practically a death sentence.

Coming so soon on the heels of Hutchinson's banishment, this must have seemed a very real and present danger to Bradstreet.

In light of this context, I think "Upon the Burning of Our House" is especially interesting, starting with the title. She claims part ownership of the house: it is "our house," not "my husband's house." She refers to "my goods," "my pleasant things." When speaking of herself in the third person, that is, to "my heart," she says, "thy wealth." She also asserts that she will have her own house in heaven ("Thou has an house on high") rather than considering herself as part of her husband's eternal entourage.

Yes, it's true that the use of "my" here can be taken to be in contrast to "God's," but I also think it can be read in a feminist light, as a claim to equality with men. Was she as subtlely subversive as Phillis Wheatley?

... which leads me to this: When searching for pictures to include in this post, I was really struck by the similarities of this portrait of Anne Bradstreet:


to this one of Phillis Wheatley:


Back when we were studying Wheatley & Equiano, we talked a bit about the way each of them were portrayed in, well, portraiture. I brought up the point that Wheatley is shown with her hand raised to her face, which can be taken to be a pensive gesture, the artist peering into her mind, so to speak, but which can also be taken as hiding her face from the public view. This may have been a way of showing her (Wheatley, a black slave woman) in a posture that would be taken by her audience (mostly educated white men) as non-threatening. I think it's interesting that Bradstreet, a Puritan wife and mother, is shown in the same posture, one that shows her as humble and modest. Bradstreet's Wikipedia page says, "The purpose of the publication [in London of The Tenth Muse] appears to have been an attempt by devout Puritan men (i.e. Thomas Dudley, Simon Bradstreet, John Woodbridge) to show that a godly and educated woman could elevate the position held by a wife and mother, without necessarily placing her in competition with men." When was this portrait made? Was it made to go with the book, or perhaps a later edition?

ADDENDUM: I feel like a broken record, but Norton is being weird again with Anne Bradstreet's work. They are usually "really good" (read: "somewhat obsessive") about pointing out references to the Bible in the authors included in their anthology. They will often include a reference for a single word or short phrase, or even a concept. For example, in "Here Follows Some Verses Upon the Burning of Our House," line 14 says "I blest His name that gave and took," which has a footnote reading, "'The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord' (Job 1.21)."

So I was really surprised to get to the end of "To My Dear Children" and find this sentence (which is a separate paragraph from the rest of the text): "Now to the King, Immortal, eternal and invisible, the only wise God, be honor, and glory for ever and ever, Amen." Where is the footnote telling the reader that this is word-for-word 1 Timothy 1:17 in the King James Version? (also, did Norton "correct" her spelling from "honour" to "honor"?)

I don't know what to make of Norton's inconsistency in this regard. Is there a deeper meaning, or is it just a symptom of shoddy editing?

.