To Know No More: A Discussion of Women’s Letters in Early United States History
Anne Bradstreet lived from 1612-1672. She was one of the original settlers of Boston, Massachusetts. Her father, Thomas Dudley, took care to provide her with the best education then available to women. As a little girl, the apple of her father's eye, she would write humorous short poems to please her father and to practice different structures. When she married Simon Bradstreet at age 16, it was certainly expected that her interest in poetry would cease. This expectation was placed on her by the patriarchal order in Puritan New England. The Puritans read The Bible with an understanding that every verse of it was meant to apply literally to all people and to all times and cultures. The advice of Peter: “Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands,” and Yahweh’s commandment to Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” were applied literally by the Puritans, and as though it had been spoken yesterday. The Bible had certain statements to make about equality between the sexes as well but these were to be interpreted in a very specific way. The Lawes Resolution of Womens Rights from English common law laid that interpretation out:
It is true that man and wife are one person, but understand in what manner. When a small brooke or little river incorporateth with . . . the Thames, the poor rivulet looseth her name . . . A woman as soon as she is married is called covert . . . that is ‘veiled’; as it were, clouded . . . she hath lost her streame . . . Her new self is her superior; her companion, her master.
After Bradstreet’s marriage, therefore, she was expected to abandon any personal desires and focus her life on the upkeep of her husband’s domestic life. As Milton has Eve say to Adam, so Bradstreet was expected to say to Simon Bradstreet: “My Author and Disposer, what thou bidst unargu’d I obey; so God ordains, God is thy Law, thou mine: to know no more is womans happiest knowledge and her praise.” She did not remain silent, however, and kept a beautiful journal of her poetry. In many ways she spoke from within that patriarchal society and sustained it. She therefore begins her literary life apologetically, stating, “to sing of wars, of captains and of kings . . . for my mean pen are too superior things.” She goes out of her way to demonstrate that she is not writing as an entrance into male pursuits, but to be “simple . . . according to my skill.” She makes a full concession to the patriarchal order of her artistic world:
Let Greeks be Greeks, and women what they are;
Men have precedency and still excel,
It is but vain unjustly to wage war;
Men can do best, and women know it well.
In another sense, however, Bradstreet speaks quite outside of any sympathy for Puritan patriarchy. In this same poem in which she owns the fact that she is a Puritan and her entrance into the literary world is wrong according to Puritanism, she states emphatically that she is entering it nonetheless:
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.
Further evidence of Bradstreet’s independence comes from her poem in praise of Queen Elizabeth. Entitled “In Honor of That High and Mighty Princess Queen Elizabeth of Happy Memory,” this is a radical poem in two ways. First it is radical because it deals with “wars, of captains, and of Kings,” which she herself said was not an appropriate topic for a Puritan woman. Second, the content of the poem is radical in that it uses Queen Elizabeth as an example of why the patriarchal order is defective.
“She hath wiped off th' aspersion of her sex,
That women wisdom lack to play the rex.”
This is more than just praise for a monarch; it is praise for the exception Queen Elizabeth made to a dysfunctional rule. Bradstreet is teaching the world that women are as capable as men of reason, leadership, and rule. She is speaking out boldly against the assumption that women are intellectually inferior to men, which she herself had advocated in her earlier poem “The Prologue”. In defense of her own right to be a poet she thundered, “Let such as say our sex is void of reason, know ‘tis slander now but once was treason.” In this way she was not only America’s first poet of international renown, but a proto-feminist also.
Unfortunately Bradstreet’s logical pleas were mostly not heard or listened to. She herself presaged the reason for this: “For such despite they cast on female wits: if what I do prove well, it won't advance, they'll say it's stol'n, or else it was by chance.” Thus in the introduction to her first published book of poems her own brother-in-law, Reverend John Woodbridge, had to assert by authority of his own credentialed status within the Puritan intelligentsia that it was in fact, “the work of a woman.” This was to preemptively refute what he knew Bradstreet’s readers would claim: some man had written this and claimed it was written by Bradstreet. He also felt the need to defend her status, because of her prolific writing, as a strictly puritanical woman. He emphasized that she was, “honored and esteemed where she lives, for her gracious demeanor, her eminent parts, her pious conversation, her courteous disposition, her exact diligence in her place, and discreet managing of her family occasions.” Woodbridge stresses that Bradstreet’s poetry did not distract her from the duties the patriarchy had placed on her since, “these poems are the fruit of some few hours, curtailed from her sleep and other refreshments.”
That was the state of inequality between the sexes for centuries. Women may have been permitted to pursue artistic talents, but only at the cost of their sleep or their nutrition. It was against such injustice that our next salient female author spoke. Abigail Adams was the wife of the second president of the United States, John Adams. Despite being, “wholly neglected in point of Literature,” in her education because she was a female, she taught herself literature by accessing her father’s personal library. She soon became a master of literature, exhibiting in her correspondence an unparalleled knack for recalling the words of eminent authors and scholars. Sometimes she has been criticized for adding to, taking away from, or in other ways distorting the quotations that she makes. This, however, is representative of her familiarity with her citations, rather than unfamiliarity with them. It shows that she was recalling, paraphrasing, them from memory without looking up the reference. Any student of literature will appreciate this knack if a random sample of her correspondence is taken and all of her literary allusions analyzed. Her most famous passage from her correspondence is a letter that she wrote to her husband while he was participating in the Philadelphia delegation against the King of England.
In the Spring of 1776 it was apparent to all citizens of the American colonies, Abigail Adams inclusive, that a declaration of independence from England was imminent. Adams thrilled at that notion and wrote to her husband in a spirit of “gaiety de coeur,” to urge him forward to such a declaration. Throughout this letter she has a playful spirit of boldness and exultation. To describe her own condition and that of his children she told John Adams, “We feel as if we might sit under our own vine and eat the good of the land . . . I think the sun looks brighter, the birds sing more melodiously, and nature puts on a more cheerful countenance.” In the spirit of her exuberance she spoke openly and with honesty about the fact that the presence of slaveholders among those men vying for liberty was hypocritical: “the passion for Liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs.” One can see the progressive and correct thinking of such a mind in that passage.
It is, however, in the closing of this letter that Adams truly shines. After her sentiments about the advent of spring Adams closes by saying:
I long to hear that you have declared an independency, and by the way, in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation. That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?
The lengthy passage is included in full to demonstrate how well Adams’ words stand all by themselves as logically persuasive and aesthetically attractive. It is by digging into the numerous allusions in this passage that the true brilliance of Adams is discovered. A careful reading reveals to the reader that Abigail was quoting books from John’s own library, and those too that were dearest to him, and using them to make her argument. Her warning, “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands,” is actually a paraphrase of John Locke’s treatise On Government. In the 61st resolution of that treatise Locke says, “we are born free as we are born rational, not that we have actually the Exercise of either: Age that brings one, would bring with it the other were monarchs denied that unlimited power by which they deny our birthright.” Her next line, “Remember all men would be tyrants if they could,” is a quotation from Daniel Defoe’s Jure Divino: A Satire, in which Defoe says, “mankind was always with this temper cursed, that all men would be tyrants if they durst.” Finally Adams refers to Patrick Henry’s Stamp Act Resolutions, by stating, “we . . . will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation.” Henry’s statement is, “the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them . . . is the only security against a burthensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.”
In a qualitative sense a survey of some few works by just two female authors, leads us to conclude inarguably that the United States literary canon can be righteously proud of its female contributors. Yet we are still fighting against the urge to ascribe such genius in females as, “stolen,” or, “by chance,” as can be seen in Bradstreet’s case. In the case of Abigail Adams critics do something worse, and they do it to this day. They do not take her seriously. It is not surprising, John Adams said after reading the letter, “I cannot but laugh,” but it is still upsetting. David McCullough, in his 651 page literary masterpiece treatment of the life of John Adams, dedicates 2 sentences to an analysis of Abigail’s letter, here they are: “She was not being entirely serious. In part, in her moment of springtime gaiety, she was teasing him.” Look up the references to which Abigail Adams alluded. Feel free to use the Works Cited page of this essay. How long did it take? Imagine locating those passages in an immense library. Find those passages in a day before computers or indices. This was no joke. This was a passionate plea, coined with masterful rhetorical awareness, in terms of wit. She meant precisely what she said. She is saying it to us still.
Works Cited
Adams, Abigail. Braintree, March 31, 1776. Vol. I, in Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History, edited by Eric Foner, 112-113. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2008.Adams, John. Philadelphia, April 14, 1776. Vol. I, in Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History, edited by Eric Foner, 113-114. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2008.
Baym, Nina. Anne Bradstreet c. 1612-1672. Vol. I, in Norton Anthology American Literature, edited by Nina Baym, 207. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2012.
Baym, Nina. John Adams 1735-1826 Abigail Adams 1744-1818. Vol. I, in Norton Anthology American Literature, edited by Nina Baym, 625-626. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 212.
Bradstreet, Anne. In Honor of that High and Mighty Princess Queen Elizabeth. Vol. I, in Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Nina Baym, 209-211. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2012.
Bradstreet, Anne. The Prologue. Vol. I, in Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Nina Baym, 208-209. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2012.
Defoe, Daniel. Jure Divino: A Satire. Vol. III, in The Works of Daniel Defoe with a Memoir of His Life and Writings, edited by William Hazlitt, 20. London: J. Clements, 1843.
Henry, Patrick. Virginia House of Burgesses Stamp Act Resolutions May 30, 1765. Vol. I, in Documents of American History, edited by Henry Steele Commager, 55-56. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Locke, John. On Government. Vol. II, in The Works of John Locke, Esq., edited by John Churchill, 102-211. London: John Churchill at the Black Swan, 1714.
McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2001.
Milton, John. "Paradise Lost." In Great Books of the Western World: John Milton, edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins, 93-334. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1952.
The Holy Bible. Authorized King James Version. Salt Lake City, Utah: Intellectual Reserve, 1979.
Woodbridge, Reverend John. "Epistle to the Reader." In The Works of Anne Bradstreet, by Anne Bradstreet, edited by Jeannine Hensley, 3. Boston, Massachusetts: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1967.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1980.
Comments