By Umbreen
The simplicity in Anne Bradstreet’s writing appealed to me greatly. Also, the strength of her love - both for God and her family - is eloquently depicted. In my response, I want to discuss “The Flesh and the Spirit.”
The poem depicts a conflict of conscience - between the materialistic and spiritual selves. The flesh gives importance to material things. The soul in response, tries to draw the flesh out of this and show that real value does not reside in the object, but in the perception of the individual. Value is not inherent in a worldly object, value is a perception attached to higher ideals. However, the outcome of this conflict is peculiar. Although the promises to combat the flesh until, “Until I see thee laid in th' dust,“ victory appears to be achieved differently. It is not gained by the defeat of one self over the other. Instead it appears that the soul vows to separate itself from the flesh.
“If I of Heav'n may have my fill, / Take thou the world, and all that will."
This is curious, because one would assume that only in the denial of worldly comforts is true victory achieved. Yet here, the flesh is bidden to take what it wants. The only reason this can be, from what I can interpret, is that death will come; and the spirit is preoccupied with that destination, as it says,
“This City pure is not for thee, / For things unclean there shall not be.”
A I read and re-read this poem, I realized that the relationship between the flesh and spirit is not just one of enmity, “Sister we are, yea twins we be, / Yet deadly feud 'twixt thee and me.” Neither side speaks of fighting with the other. In the end, the Spirit seems to be the more powerful one, and thus distances itself from the Flesh, allowing it to remain as it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like Umbreen, I interpreted the poem to be a conflict between the dual self. From a psychoanalytic point of view I saw the representations of the “flesh” and the “spirit” as signifying the internal struggles of the speaker which I believe may be Anne Bradstreet. The poem seems to address the dilemma of a woman who finds herself trapped in the margins of her social world and who is unable to maintain a balance between the yearnings of her body (flesh) and the uncertainty of her mind (spirit). Bradstreet’s biography depicts a woman who questions her Puritan values and beliefs; she wonders about the “truth of the Scriptures” and wonders if the material she reads is “feigned” (187). Even in her daily life she does an “examination of her conscience” (187). I think that this information provides an insight into the psyche of the speaker. In the poem she seems torn between the earthly desires and the spiritual aspirations. From the viewpoint of the physical world, the “flesh” addresses the “spirit and says “Take thy fill, Earth hath enough of what you will. Then let not go, what thou may’st find, For things unknown, only in mind” (33-36). There is seems to be uncertainty where the mind is concerned; it is not as tangible as materialistic things.
ReplyDeleteThe “flesh” I think also represents the unconscious physical nature of the speaker. She seems at a point where the unconscious feelings of her repressed physical state is trying to question and maybe suppress the rational feelings of her spiritual self. In other words I think that her inner psyche is conflicting with the realities of her outer world. This conflict between the “flesh” and the “spirit” may also represent feelings of sin and the hope for redemption. It does seem however, that towards the end of the poem the “spirit” restrains the “flesh” with it’s rationale that it is not the time spent on earth that matters but it is the salvation that is attained when we die that will matter. The speaker says “ The city where I hope to dwell, There’s none on earth can parallel” (85-86) and “ This city pure is not for thee, For things unclean there shall not be. If I of heaven may have my fill, Take thou the world and all that will” (105-108). In the end it seems that unconditional faith prevails and resolves the conflict.
-Vedi Ramdhanie
I would also like to comment on Anne Bradstreet. She was a puritan and had faith in god. Her personality reflects her poems. Bradstreet also was aware of her conscious. I liked the poem, The Flesh and The Spirit, the idea of two sisters, one being named flesh and the other spirit. A difference was made between a human that lived on earth and worried about her self, That was the flesh. The flesh wasn’t a believer. She was selfish and wanted to succeed in life. The spirit was a good example of Bradstreet. I think she vision her self more as the spirit.
ReplyDeleteIn one of her lines she says “the word life is in her meat” I found this line expressive because that meant that everyday she lived it to the fullest. Her life was lived day by day not worrying about the past or future. The poem flesh and the spirit was one of my favorites because of the differences in both sisters. One was religious and the other wasn’t. I agree with Umbreen, I interpret the poem in a similar way. Both are twins despite the fact that they are different they don’t fight with each other. At first I found it weird the names both of the sisters were given, but in the end it all makes sense.
--- TIMUR BRAVO
In her poem, “The Flesh and the Spirit”, Bradstreet attempts to completely separate flesh from spirit. I like the symbolism she used to convey the relationship between these two distinct identities. You can see the struggle that is taking place between the two, she writes, “Be still thou unregenerate part, disturb no more my settled heart”. Her spirit is clearly dominating her flesh, but her flesh is constantly troubling her. She depicts the constant struggles she faces with her flesh, a war that believers engage in throughout their daily walks as Christians. Also, there is something peculiar happening, she writes, “If I of heaven may have my fill, Take thou the world and all that will”. If the flesh were to have its way the spirit will suffer, but she states this in a tone that has assumed a separation. As she mentioned through her metaphor, “Sisters we are, yea, twins we be”, hence, there is a complete separation between the two entities. Conversely, her flesh and her spirit can not be separated; they are a part of her being.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, the poem is powerful in the idea she is portraying, the idea that the flesh and the spirit are always in battle.
-William Castro
Umbreen's point that "[the triumph of the Spirit] is not gained by the defeat of one self over the other. Instead it appears that the soul vows to separate itself from the flesh" was quite a good realization. Indeed though the Spirit commences with a stated desire to engage the Flesh in constant battle, yet it later seeks to ostracize the Flesh completely. The Spirit declares first that "For I have vowed (and so will do) / Thee as a foe still to pursue" (39-40), that "Yet deadly feud 'twixt thee and me" (44), and that "... thou my captive shalt be lead" (64). Conversely, it then launches on a panegyric regarding its heavenly reward (which -- strangely, and eminently paradoxically -- is quite of the flesh, just of a higher quality material). The Spirit then taunts the Flesh by exhorting it to pursue all of its earthly ends, and concludes with the above-metioned "If I of heaven may have my fill, / Take thou the world and all that will" (107-8). Its solution is achieved not via the paradigmatic struggle between the spiritual and the material, but rather unadulterated rejection.
ReplyDeleteAs Umbreen stated, this is apparently quite strange, and antipodal to the struggle-filled norm. Umbreen's explanation, though, does not seem to make sense within the realm of Christian theology either, for never is it preached that the sinner should continue in his or her ways of wantonness; it is demanded, rather, that all sinners repent -- and especially among the Puritans, with whom Anne Bradstreet identified. Nevertheless, I have no solution of my own to this apparent contradiction.