Why Anne?

Regarding the debate we had towards the end of class Thursday...

There is no doubt Anne Bradstreet was an incredibly unique case. She was the first American poet, and the fact that no other women even attempted her level of sophisticated poetry for years to come sets her apart.

Why? Why was she so unique?

How many other fathers at this time allowed their daughters to be educated at the level Anne was? How many fathers allowed their 10-year-old daughters to enter religious, political and historical conversations with men? Poetry is a difficult field in its own right: How many other people, much less women, had her kind of talent? How many women at that time were of the appropriate social status to be respected as a gentlewoman? How many women at the time knew enough important people (men) who would fight for their cause and actually be listened to? How many women would have known how to (and would be able to) carefully walk that tight-rope, balancing their faith, responsibility as obedient wife, their place in the social hierarchy, their daily chores, their education and their own artistic work? How many women had the ever-present and relentless thirst for knowledge, to challenge their mind?

There are so many what-ifs in Anne's world that fell perfectly into place, allowing her to become the poet that she was. A combination of her own wit and intelligence, the open-mindedness (ironic?) and support of the men in her life, and her socioeconomic position in life all helped her achieve success as a poet. Considering all of the prejudices and suspicions of women during the 18th century, it is little wonder why Anne was not one of many women writers. She may indeed have changed the way many people viewed women at the time, but perhaps it doesn't show in the history books because no other woman was able to have the considerable luck (or Godly blessing, as Anne would say) for it to work out for her.

Scientific Thinking

As a (somewhat) scientific thinker, I was interested the various ways of observing and making sense of the world. I found these definitions of inductive (Bacon) vs. deductive (traditional) methods online at http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html:

The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method "turned upside down". The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works

In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.


Here's the problem I have with the inductive method: Couldn't you find any observation in nature that will allow you to form any theory? Did Bacon recognize this as a problem, or did he leave that problem to those who followed him in developing what today is known as the scientific method?

I suppose this isn't too much of a stretch, considering that many religious groups of the time shared exactly in this kind of mindset. They say that anyone could justify anything from the Bible. But weren't people at this time claiming "Sola Scriptura" - only the Bible - without any guidance whatsoever from hierarchial figures or unifying doctrines? One small excerpt from a passage, even taken out of context, could justify an entire religious movement. This idea of microcosm as proof of macrocosm seems to be popular at this time in history.

To some extent, I would say this is true. But taken to the extreme, and we have problems.

Turn and Face

The idea of black-face, when white actors paint their faces black to embody colored characters, reminded me of our discussion of stereotypes last semester.

While it may be considered "progress" for black characters to be written in plays as noble characters and played by prominent actors, isn't it degrading for all those prominent actors to be white?

Was this custom really reinforcing traditional beliefs that dark skin on the outside of the body was somehow related to (or indicative of) a way-ward, untrustworthy and unstable inner self? After all, after each performance those famous actors would wash off the dirty tar from their faces and enter the "real world" with shining white faces, cleansed of any sign of the character they were so "proud" to embody on stage.

Oh, the Tragedy

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
Has lost as much as you?
Due to the plan
Of a cold-hearted man
Who you thought you knew!

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
has never felt jealous before?
But too far you took it
Once your fire was lit
You didn't pause to learn more.

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
hasn't given his lover a gift?
Your hankerchief, red on white,
Was at the heart of the fight
That caused all fortunes to shift.

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
has trusted his eyes so completely?
Believing nothing but what you saw
Although the visual scenes were flawed
Caused you to discard your love so quickly.

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
could have seen this coming?
Power, love and riches were yours
But when it rains, it pours
And now you have nothing.