Post by ross on Oct 15, 2007 19:05:32 GMT -5
After reading "To My Dear and Loving Husband" by Anne Bradstreet, I found that her writing, when analyzed in relation to her home life, was not entirely consistent with the values of the Puritan rhetoric of consensus. One may note that the validity of Puritanism in her writing remains only on the surface, and she may very well be considered a hypocrite. Specifically, the line we can all recite in our sleep, "I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold" (5) may be more than solely Bradstreet’s claim of material possessions being unimportant to her. A mother of eight children, Bradstreet could not have lived comfortably without a decent amount of income. This notion is evident in her husband’s absence during a majority of her life, who is away due to business obligations. Bradstreet, unable to work due her to frequent illness and demanding needs of children, must have struggled with her situation. Perhaps she really loves her husband more than mines of gold because he is her only source of gold. If I was in Bradstreet’s shoes, which were probably being thrown around like footballs with eight kids running around the house, I would not love that husband of hers more than “the riches that the East doth hold.” Furthermore, Bradstreet’s writing, which may appear plain, is rather passionate for a Puritan. For example, Bradstreet says "My love is such that rivers cannot quench" which again indicates her passionate love for her husband. Although, a true Puritan woman would know better than to become that emotionally involved to what she has in this world, even if it is human life. In her subsequent poem, “Upon the Burning of Our House”, we see how much discipline is required of Bradstreet when she does happen to lose things she was attached to such as her grandchildren and her house. Moreover, if we take into account environmental circumstances in juxtaposition with her writing, it becomes clear that Bradstreet is hypocritical. What do you guys think?