Dani Duffy

3/9/2015
EN 370
Test

Question one:
William Bradford serves as a significant link connecting modern
readers to the lives of the Puritans during the 1620s. Bradford describes the
journey and hardships of a group of individuals who wish to secede from the
Church of England through his piece Of Plimoth Plantation. We discover early
on through Bradfords work, that he and his fellow separatist have been
under sharp persecution by community members as well as authority
members.
Bradford accounts for the journey across unfamiliar terrain, to an
unknown land. Upon describing the land which his fellow Puritans and
himself have been forced upon, he writes:
What could they see but a hideous & desolate wildernes, full of wild
beast & wild men? And what multituds ther might be of them they
knew not. Nether could they, as it were, goe up to the tope of Pisgah,
to vew from this wildernes a more goodly cuntrie to feed their hops; for
which way soever they turnd their eys (save upward to the heavens)
they could have a little solace or content in respecte of any outward
object.
What could now sustaine them but the spirite of God & his grace?
This section captures the fear and hesitation the Puritans faced. They
wished to live a simple life free of distractions so they could focus on serving
God. Unfortunately even in this new world there were many distractions. The

monsters that they encountered in their previous homeland took on a new

form in the New England colony. Before they had feared persecution from
the Church of England, now they feared real beast and the threat of savage
men.
Bradford mentions, the tope of Pisgah, which is directly related to
the book of Deuteronomy. In this passage of the bible God commands Moses
to scale the Pisgah, which in that case was Mount Nebo. It is there at the
summit that Moses can view the entirety of the promise land. Bradford is
relating their new settlement to the promise land. The mention of the
promise land was first made in the book of Genesis. God told Abraham to
leave his home and family and travel to the land he intended him to have.
The Puritans view the new settlement as their promise land, and that overall
God is pleased with their efforts. Bradford notes several times that God had
smiled on their journey.
It is interesting that the word Pisgah was used because this relates
directly to Moses. Moses was never actually permitted to enter the promise
land, because of his disobedience. Bradford expresses that viewing the land
and the situation from afar provides them with hope and comfort that they
cannot achieve while immersed in the situation.
The last line, What could now sustaine them but the spirite of God &
his grace? proves how strong the faith of the Puritans actually was. They
were uncertain if this was their actual promise land. Perhaps they had
displeased God at some point during their journey, and maybe they were
banned from entering like Moses had been. With all the unknowns and the
fears associated with the Native Americans and the strange new animals,

they put their fate into the hands of God. They believed that God is the only
one that can determine their fate and the entrance of the promise land.
Overall the Puritans encountered many hardships throughout their
journey. Despite these hardships and after many years of perseverance, they
were able to establish their spiritual independence. Although they would
struggle financially and often times physically, they never struggled with
their faith in God.

Question four:
Because we are not able to travel through time, we must rely on
written and oral accounts to understand the past. Unfortunately this forces
us to depend on the author or the story teller for authenticity. Mary
Rowlandson depicts a very different perspective of Native American culture
in her captivity narrative The Sovereignty and Goodness of God, than the
Seneca Iroquois depict through The Origin of Folk Stories.
Through The origin of Folk Stories we discover a culture built on
tradition. The people of the Native community value history and morals.
Native Americans did not use the written word to capture stories and history,
instead they were performed. By performing these pieces in the forms of
songs, chants, and stories, the story tellers could put much more emotion
and excitement into their pieces. Their body language and tone of voice
would give the audience a more lively show. In contrast, the Puritans
believed they should not make a spectacle of themselves. Anything that took
their attention away from God was considered sinful.

It is common in Native American culture for non-living objects or

animals to take on human characteristics. In The Origin of Folk Stories the
mountain speaks to the main character Crow. This mountain not only speaks
to the boy, but also has its own personality and humanistic traits. Europeans
have historically ridiculed animist perspectives and beliefs. This ridicule is
somewhat hypocritical of a Christian based culture because throughout the
bible we see examples of animals and nonliving objects taking on human
traits. When Eve encounters the serpent in the Garden of Eden, he speaks to
her without causing alarm. The prophet Balaam had a donkey that was given
the ability to speak to him. However the bible continuously portrays cultures
with an animist belief system in a negative light. Because of this portrayal it
is no surprise that the Europeans, specifically the Puritans, would reject
Native American beliefs and culture.
Mary Rowlandson is familiar with religious persecution. The only reason
she and her family are located in New England is because they wished to
practice their religion without the interference of the Church of England . One
would think the Puritans would be able to empathize with the Natives. In
retrospect both cultures ultimately want to be left alone to practice their own
beliefs.
Rowlandson consistently describes the natives as barbaric savages.
She uses blood and violence to draw in her audience. She informs her
readers of the cruelty and viciousness of the Indians as they attack her
peaceful home. She neglects to inform her readers of the same cruelty
inflicted by her people onto the Native Americans. It is undeniable that Mary
Rowlandson was not treated with the utmost respect and care, but it is
questionable just how much she suffered while in the Natives possession .
Rowlandson does not admit to any acts of kindness or humanity but she

describes several situations where her captors appear to be acting of

compassion.
In one scene Rowlandson describes how her child was sick and
wounded. Instead of forcing her to carry her child, one of the Native
Americans allow her to ride his horse. Rowlandson makes no mention of
gratuity to the individual. Later the child dies, instead of leaving the corpse
out to rot or be eaten by animals, the natives bury the child on a hill. They
respectfully take the grieving mother to the burial site. Rowlandson was
never chained or bound. She was given food, although it was not food she
was accustom to, she was not starving to death.
Rowlandsons account of her captivity has an advantage over the oral
accounts of the natives. Because Rowlandson was able to transcribe her
perspective of the situation into the written word, she was able to reach a far
more vast audience. Not only could she describe the situation, she could also
add her opinions and omit situations that did not relate to those opinions.
The Natives could not reach the amount of people Rowlandson did through
oral accounts. The Native perspective was dependent on the individuals
involved. If they died before passing on their story the story was also lost.
It is impossible to know exactly what occurred between Rowlandson
and the tribe of Native Americans. Without other perspectives and accounts
it is difficult to see the situation from an unbiased perspective. With a
combination of storytelling and written stories we can piece together history
to find the truth.

Question two:
During 1970 there was ideological divide between mainstream society
and Native Americans. In many ways this divide is ever present in our
modern society. Wamsutta, a Wampanoag man was asked to deliver a
speech in celebration of the 350th anniversary of the pilgrims arrival to
Plymouth Rock. He was not permitted to present his speech because it did
not coincide with the ceremonies objective.
The ceremony was to be held as a celebration. From a European
perspective and from the accounts written in textbooks, one may assume the
Europeans arrival to the new land was civil. Schools educated students to

believe the colonists and the Native Americans worked together with little
conflict. Students learned about the mutual benefits each culture received
from the arrival of the Europeans. Wamsutta intended on exposing the parts
of history that were often overlooked by mainstream society.
Wamsutta describes how less than one week from the time the Pilgrims
landed on American soil, they began to destroy the Native Americans way of
life. They took the land as their possession, a concept which was foreign to
the native people. How could an individual own the earth? The earth was a
provider, a home of equal entitlement. When the Europeans arrived they
stole their crops and seeds, they forced their culture down the Natives
throats.
The mainstream society had rewritten history to portray the Native
Americans as an uncivil society. They were portrayed as savages and
animals. Instead of explaining why the Natives needed to be defensive in
order to live. History books would omit the period of time where Natives
were captured and force into slavery. However the captivity of a European
such as Mary Rowlandson, would not be ignored.
Years later the Native Americans would be given reservations to live on
as a condolence. This was an insult in itself. From the Native perspective, the
land was their home. They were stripped of their home, and given a small
area to dwell. This gesture was empty, and most likely to make the people of
European decent feel better about themselves.
Although Wasutta was not able to deliver the speech he had prepared,
his writing did eventually shed light on the unrealistic perception of the
Natives and the Colonists. There are still misconceptions surrounding the

topic, especially within the American public school system, but we now have
two sides of the story.

Question three:
John Winthrops sermon A Model of Christian Charity focuses on
several different themes. He preaches about charity and the importance of
unity. Winthrop uses several sections of the bible to reinforce his lesson

including scripture from the prophet Micah and readings from the book of
Matthew.
Winthrop begins his sermon by explaining the need for different
socioeconomic classes. He explains that the rich should help the poor to
demonstrate to god their charity and work. The poor in return show gratitude
and demonstrate patience. This cycle makes for a stronger community, one
built on fellowship and comradery. Because the Puritans were entering a
foreign world, unity was crucial to their survival.
The prophet Micah wrote about how the rich often have an upper hand
and use their power to take advantage of the less fortunate. He called for
citizens to have good morals, and act as one community. Micah 6:6-8 reads
And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and
to walk humbly with your God. This was incredibly important for the
Puritans to practice. With tensions running high in an unfamiliar place, it
would be possible for the Puritans to forger the importance of being just and
humble.
Winthrop also uses a section of the book of Matthew. This section
reads, You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under bucket, but on the lampstand; and
it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in
such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who
is in heaven." This also suggest a society with strong morals. Winthrop is
asking the Puritans to be charitable. He wants to glorify god through these
humble acts of charity.
The purpose of Winthrops sermon was to prepare the Puritans for the
inevitable hardships. By facing challenges as a community they would be

able to play to their many strengths, instead of standing alone. Winthrop

believed that the poor and the rich had important roles in society, but more
importantly in the way they could serve God.

Question five:
Anne Bradstreets poem To My Dear and Loving Husband, is a well
composed piece, embedded with literary elements and strategies. The piece
was written for Bradstreets husband to express both the strength and value
of the love they share.
Early on in the poem Bradstreet describes herself and her husband as
one being, they are incomplete without the others presence. She describes
the union between them as something for others to envy. Interestingly
Bradstreet focuses on their love with no mention of God or her faith until
midway through the poem. As a Puritan, Bradstreets faith portrayed
marriage as a sacred union. Divorce was not tolerated or condoned in the
Puritan society. The union between a man and woman was inferior to the
relationship expected between individuals and God. It is strange that
Bradstreet puts so much focus on her husband instead of devoting her focus
to her faith.
From the first few lines Bradstreet incorporates both alliteration and
repetition in her piece. In the opening line we find alliteration with the
repetition of the W sound. If ever two were one, then surely we. The
following line begins with the same phrase, If ever man were loved by wife,
then thee; She continues to use words with the W sound to tie the two
lines together, but also to create fluidity within the piece. The first and
second lines are brought together through rhyme. This rhyming scheme of
two consecutive lines continues throughout the end of the poem.
Although the beginning of Bradstreets piece is written with passion
and strong emotion, she puts too much focus on herself instead of remaining
self-less. She tributes herself to the success of their relationship equally to

his. From the first line she describes them as two halves of a person. This
implies that they are both equals, which does not coincide with the gender
roles of the time period.
The third line begins with, If ever but differs greatly from the first
two lines. If ever wife was happy in a man, This line is an incomplete
thought. It is only an extension of the following line which reads, Compare
with me, ye women, if you can. This is a bold declaration for Bradstreet to
make. It is an example of an imperative sentence. Woman of this time period
would not readily make a command with such authority and confidence. This
line is also interesting because she seems to call out an audience. This piece
was written for her husband, so the recognition of a female audience seems
out of place.
The next two lines read, I prize thy love more than whole mines of
gold or all the riches that the east doth hold. Bradstreet is referring to East
India and China. These areas were known for containing exotic valuables
including spices, silk, and gold. Bradstreet chooses to express the value of
their love to gold, similar comparisons are made throughout the bible . For
example Psalms 119:127 reads, Therefore I love your commandments
above gold, above fine gold. The bible often uses gold to express the
greatest value imaginable to man.
The seventh and eighth lines read, My love is such that rivers cannot
quench, Nor ought but love from thee, give recompense. This is a quote
from the Songs of Solomon in the bible. This is the first reference Bradstreet
makes to her faith. After the seventh line the focus changes from love for
her husband to a more spiritual onset. She describes their love as something
rewarding. Bradstreet expresses that she is worthy of this reward in a self-

righteous tone. Throughout the piece Bradstreet only breaks confidence and
authority once, this occurs in the following lines.
The ninth and tenth line read, Thy love is such I can no way repay,
The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray. This is the first time Bradstreet
portrays herself in a vulnerable manner. Bradstreet is showing gratitude for
the love her husband gives to her. She expresses that she cannot repay him
for the reward of love he so graciously gives her, but God will repay him
plenty.
The final lines read, Then while we live, in love, so persevere That
when we live no more, we may live ever. Bradstreet believes their love is
everlasting. Death is not even strong enough to sever the bond between
them. This eternal bond can be compared to the eternal bond the Puritans
believe God will reward them with for their servitude and devotion.
Throughout her piece, To My Dear and Loving Husband, Bradstreet
remains passionate and insistent on convincing her reader of the magnitude
of love her and her husband share. She uses her own logic as well as biblical
references to deliver a message that challenges the reader to compare their
own relations to the passion she feels. Bradstreets successes is evident by
creating a piece that has become a symbol of ideal romance.