So what do you think of Anne Bradstreet’s poem “The Flesh and the Spirit”? The poem personifies these two abstractions — aka the material and the spiritual, the worldly and the heavenly — and is structured as a debate between them. But it doesn’t really seem to be a fair fight. It uses the form of a debate yet gives all the best lines to the Spirit in order to demonstrate the Spirit’s superiority. The game is rigged. Recast the poem as TV politicotainment, and the Spirit would be Hannity and the Flesh would be that perpetual punching bag, Colmes. The Flesh never makes its strongest argument. (Perhaps Bradstreet doesn’t even believe the Flesh has a stronger argument.)
After first suggesting that the Spirit is crazy (“Art fancy sick, or turned a sot?”), the Flesh suggests that it’s better to pursue honor, fame, riches, and pleasure than things known “only in mind.” Wouldn’t it have been less partial to have the Flesh argue for such material goals as the creation of a just society and the alleviation of physical suffering? The Spirit claims that people in heaven do not suffer “From sickness and infirmity,” so she obviously thinks these are bad things; why not work with the Flesh to alleviate them in the here and now of the material world? Why not try to create a little more heaven here on earth? Come to think of it, why do the material and the spiritual have to be locked in a “deadly feud” in the first place?
Also, maybe the Spirit’s case is not as strong as at first appears. After dissing material wealth (“My garments are not silk nor gold, / Nor such like trash”), she describes the beauty of heaven using images of, well, material wealth: “precious jasper stone,” “gates of pearl,” and “streets [of] transparent gold.” If material wealth is “trash,” how can it be an effective metaphor for spiritual value? It’s a bit like saying “Roses are trashy” and then saying “Ah, my love is a rose”! Could it be that the poem’s spiritual message is undercut by the force of its material imagery?
To put it another way, does the very thing (the rich imagery) that does so much to strengthen the poem as a poem work against its effectiveness as a theological statement?
To put it yet another way, is the poem’s form at odds with its content? Or do they in some sly way work together?
Wednesday, September 9
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Flesh versus Spirit seems to be at the core of the Christian argument. Deny the flesh, embrace the spirit, etc., etc. It seems pretty obvious that a fair argument regarding these two is out of the question since the poem is coming from a Puritan Christian woman. It might have even been dangerous for her to make the argument impartial. Who knows what the Puritans would have done, burn her at the stake?
The thing to keep in mind here is the intended audience of the poem, which happened to be a bunch of people with the same values and beliefs of the author. It was written to encourage them in their faithfulness to God. Therefore, things like a just society and alleviation of physical suffering wouldn't be brought up because they would make the message too convoluted. She is not looking for a philosophical argument here, just a message to encourage her troops.
Mazel’s point that the imagery of the poem works against itself is a poignant one. Rebuking the appeal of wealth and describing the heavens in these same terms seems counterproductive. Bradstreet seems to be falling victim to thoughts of the flesh in her very own poem by describing heaven in this way, but really she is just following the example of the writers of the Bible. I’m not too versed in the Bible, but I did quickly find a spot in Revelation’s fourth chapter where the heavenly host are described with “crowns of gold on their heads,” and an instance where “A rainbow, resembling an emerald,” was brought up. The problem with describing the heavens is that nobody has seen them. So how do we describe this most wonderful place? With the most wonderful things we can think of… gold and jewels.
Overall, I don’t think this took anything away from the poem itself. The Puritans probably understood the difference between material wealth and heavenly wealth.
I very much agree with Dan in that people find it hard to describe heaven in non-materialistic terms, because they have not seen it. Anne would not describe any heavenly architecture using some common material, but one that is very rare and precious. I do agree that saying material is a bad thing of the flesh, and yet using it to describe the heavenly wonders seems to be a little bit of an oversight on Bradstreet's behalf, though she may have just been trying to use biblical references.Though, I think that perhaps she should not have condemned "Pearl" in one case, and then exulted it in another.
I do not think the form is bad for what she was trying to get across, but perhaps if she said some good things about the flesh, like "Though the flesh may blah blah, that is true, I, the spirit, blah blah." Like give the flesh perhaps its good qualities that it actually has, but then say why the spirit is better.
This conflict of Flesh vs Spirit in Christian theology is a difficult subject that Christians of that time, particularly struggled with. I think, for them, demonizing the flesh, makes it easier for them to be "good" Christians. They don't want to think of the good things about flesh because they do not want to become completely obsessed with it, and forget their spiritual needs.
I think all literature has strengths and weaknesses, and Bradstreet's is no exception, as Dr. Mazel pointed out.
I don't think that the style and descriptive imagery take away from the poem as a poem. I think the poem in itself is interesting. I think that the imagery is good. AndI like it because it was written by a seventeenth century woman. I'm big on them. The one-sidedness of it is comical to me. Of course a Puritan woman is going to be partial, she's a puritan woman. It is absolutely ridiculous in my eyes to tell someone not to want the wonders and treasures of this world because you'll get them in heaven. Is life reduced to a game with god where he dangles riches, fame, fortune and honor in front of you to see if you'll go for it here? And if you do, that's what condenms you to hell? And if you do make it to heaven it's adorned with all the things you weren't supposed to crave? I think giving it that much thought in Anne Bradstreet's day would probably have lead to my exile or burning. I think by the poem being so biased, we were able to see the darker and more confusing side of the spirit. I don't think that Anne Bradstreet did this inentionally, but the fact remains it shows a little hypocrisy which always seems to be around every religion I have ever come in contact with. The theological message is there, it just comes across in a much different way nowadays I guess. I think that form of the poem is interesting because it's in the form of a debate between two sisters. Is Bradstreet then saying that no matter what the two are related?
I don't care for this poem at all! It has all the elements of religion that make me sick. Some of these elements include: eternal-damnation, penance and pleading for forgiveness. Why not just write a much shorter poem that says,"We all deserve to burn in hell for being such beasts, lucky God (in all his infinite wisdom) still created and loves us, when we do whatever he commands."
Why can't religious Zealots ever embrace the God of the New Testament? Also, I feel that Bradstreet (along with all the other religous fanatics) should stop pretending that they know what the will of God is. Isn't that a major sin!
As for the language of the poem, I think that it works well to spread the message of the poem. Which, in my opinion, is that humans are innately evil and the only good thing about our species is that we were created by such an understanding/loving God.
What I'm seeing in this poem is a lot of what I was taught in church growing up. I don't see this as being an argument between the Flesh and the Spirit, just because it is implied that they are equals. Instead what I'm seeing here is Flesh tempting the spirit with worldly things while mocking the things Spirit treasures and hopes for.
In the second section I see Spirit filling the time honored role of rebuking Flesh. Perhaps she was merely being political to avoid persecution, but I really think she tried to make an common theme interesting by forcing it into a form where it didn't really fit.
i felt that the "wealth of heaven" imagery from the spirit's point of view does undercut the message. however i do understand that that is the only way to convey the message of GLORY of god, and the simple life. the flesh however sounds much more appealing to a more modern audience. not an audience that wears black plain clothes and speaks in plain language. not simply a christian mentality but a puritan mentality.
The poem undermines itself because we arent supposed to value the material on earth because the things in the afterlife are so much better and can only be valued and understood by the soul, or the immaterial. However, I see Bradstreet using a comparison of the material on earth with the great things in Heaven because it's easier to understand and get the idea that there is abundant wealth in the afterlife in the Christian view like there is gold and jewels on earth. But as far as really telling and preaching how grand the soul can prosper in Heaven, this poem doesnt work because its contradicting the material with the immaterial.
I agree that the game is rigged. Anne Bradstreet gives all of the best lines to the spirit side because she is a puritan and their beliefs are to deny the material and embrace the spiritual. She's obviously intending this for the puritan audience and they most likely ate it up. If she were to have actually pitted the two against each other in a "fair fight" so to speak, they would've most likely killed her and this would have never been published.
Her picture of heaven that she paints with her words do speak of what we would see as material gain. The argument is though that you are then a spirit in heaven and thus you have "earned" this.
Post a Comment