Surviving eight almost fatal child births, Anne Bradstreet was accustomed to the extensive pain of labor and subsequent joy in having a child. This fragile and often strenuous maternal relationship is seen in her own literary struggle against the patriarchal standards of the Puritan Society. In the poem “The Author to Her Book” she compares her poetry to a child, saying it is the “ill-formed off-spring of my feeble brain.” There is no doubt Bradstreet wrestled with insecurities about her writing, arguably as a result of the Puritan’s prejudiced beliefs, but it is now evident to the modern world that her “children” (poems in her book “The Tenth Muse”) revolutionized the American Colony’s literary world. Anne Bradstreet’s “The Prologue” is the introductory poem in her book and establishes this uncertainty in her poetical ability as she negatively compares herself to men. Yet, as she confirms her intellectual subordination through self-deprecating lines, the use of irony and classical references imply an added meaning that counters the negative stereotype she is seemingly reinforcing. As Bradstreet’s literary genius is influenced by her maternal role, she uses an intimate and humble perspective to covertly challenge the Puritan’s belief in women’s inferiority. 

In the 1600’s in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Anne Bradstreet witnessed Anne Hutchinson bravely challenge prominent religious figures on their understanding of God’s covenant and consequently be exiled by the General Court. Bradstreet even noted she felt her own sense of resistance to the “new world and new manners” and found her own means of expression through writing poetry (The Norton). Hutchinson’s consequences in the Antinomian Affair may have influenced Bradstreet’s illusiveness and cryptic language when challenging the authority and superiority of men. Therefore, Bradstreet begins “The Prologue” with undermining her poetic skill, stating she cannot keep up with the “poets and historians” and her “obscure lines shall not so dim their worth” (6). As her inferior attitude is congruous with the Puritan’s expectations, the use of “obscure” may implicate a concealed meaning in her poem. Her humbleness continues in the second stanza when envying the famous French author, Guillaume du Bartas: “A Bartas can do what a Bartas will/ But simple I according to my skill” (11,12, Footnote 2). Bradstreet uses a prominent male literary figure to compare her inferior self to, but in lines 9 and 10 she says, “Fool I do grudge the Muses did not part/ Twixt him and me that overfluent store.” While this line reaffirms her lack of talent, her allusion to the Greek Muses- “Goddesses of arts and sciences-” implies it was women that imparted the artistic talent upon Bartas. This implication subtly undermines the male’s authority and suggests women’s role in the creation of the arts. The Muses represent the power, intelligence, and artistic capabilities of women, therefore her references work to challenge the lowly, confining position of women in the Colonies. 

As seen throughout the poem, Anne Bradstreet’s lyrical and intimate style, plus her flawless form, contradicts her self-deprecating lines. She begins by stating a few laws of nature and applies the same logic to her poetic ability:

From a schoolboy’s tongue no rhet’ric we expect, 

Nor yet a sweet consort from broken strings, 

Nor perfect beauty where’s a main defect: 

My foolish, broken, blemished Muse so sings, 

And this to mend, alas, no art is able, 

‘Cause nature made it so irreparable. (13-18)

By diminishing expectations for her poetry because of her faulted “nature” as a woman, Bradstreet appears to be confirming the Puritan’s notion of women’s inferiority. She introduces the idea of art and nature as two separate beings: “No art is able” to fix her Muse because of her subordinate “nature” (17,18). But, there is an ironic undertone to her lines as her self-deprecating sentiment is incongruous with the poetry itself. Even though Bradstreet is undermining her own talent, her poetry still “sings” in perfect iambic pentameter and lyrical style, contradicting the statement that it is “foolish, broken, blemished” (16). Art, the act of writing poetry, cannot fix her nature because even if her work is perfect, society will dismiss it because she is a woman; her “nature” is defined by society as inherently weak and flawed, which prompts her self-consciousness. Therefore, her persistence in creating meaningful, skillful art disproves the very “nature” her critics would expect of her. 

Through expressing her inadequacy as a woman writer Anne Bradstreet continues to ironically confirm negative prejudices in order to shed light on the absurdity of their logic. In the next stanza she references the classical Greek figure of Demosthenes, who overcame a speech impediment through art (The Norton). Again she returns to personifying “art” that has a remedying effect: “a full requital of (Demosthenes) striving pain,” then contradicts her statement by saying “Art can do much, but this maxim’s most sure: / A weak or wounded brain admits no cure” (23-25). Bradstreet isolates and deprecates the nature of women by defining it as incurable. Considering her “weak or wounded brain” is a product of society’s harsh prejudices, art cannot remedy her feelings of inadequacy and the “striving pain” she identifies with because no quality of art will change her critic’s mind on the nature of women. Writing poetry will not cure her mind because the society that inflicted her wounded brain will not accept the worthy art that it produces. It is a losing battle, but she still writes despite of her lowly place. 

After expressing her own self-doubts in the first half of the poem, Bradstreet shifts the perspective in stanza 5 to imagining her reader’s criticisms of her work; the clever use of irony subtly deprecates the idea that women are subordinate to men. Anne Bradstreet writes:

  A Poet’s pen all scorn I should thus wrong

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. (27-30) 

Bradstreet confirms that even good art (her poetry) will not remedy the Puritan’s stigma of women’s intellectual inferiority: the men will immediately discount her talents. The irony is found in the incongruity between the validity of her work and society’s unwillingness to acknowledge its worth. Her humble and self-deprecating tone masks the directness of this criticism so her male reader’s ego would remain intact, and they might stay engaged with the reading. Continuing to highlight the flaws in her critic’s beliefs, stanza 6 returns back to Classical Greek allusions: 

But sure the antique Greeks were far more mild

Else of our sex, why feigned they those nine

And poesy made Calliope’s own child; (31-33)

Her reference to the Greek Muses- who were Goddesses- is a direct way of highlighting the true nature of women and the absurdity of society’s prejudice. She is using irony to point out the inconsistency with believing in the Greek Muses’ artistic authority yet denying the intellectual abilities and artistic talents of women in general. Bradstreet personifies poetry as “Calliopes own child,” who is the mother of art and poetry, to evoke a maternal relationship that contradicts the traditional position of women as merely child bearers; she is signifying a different type of feminine role as intellectuals who have the capacity to birth great art and poetry (33, The Norton). 

While stanza six comprises her most explicitly ironic language, Bradstreet continues to use the reoccurring motif of the Muses to prove women’s artistic capabilities and the foolishness of revoking women’s intellectual potential. The end of “The Prologue” appears to consent to men’s supremacy, but her subtle irony undermines their authority and challenges the reader to consider her work. She begins Stanza 7 with a statement about nature: “Let Greeks be Greeks, and women what they are;” which appears to separate the divine talents of the Greeks and lowly status of women (37). Again, it is her humble tone that allows the irony to be unobtrusive yet effective. Her statement on the fixed nature of women is shedding light on its foolish logic: women are equal and it is senseless to accept the talents of the Greeks and reject the intelligence of Puritan women. Anne Bradstreet goes onto reassure men of their superior position, confirming their egos, and only asks that they “grant some small acknowledgment” of women (42). Similarly, Stanza 8 is a humble assertion of men’s supremacy, but in denouncing her own poetry’s worth, she still asks for minimal credit, which may be the only strategy in provoking a change of mind. Her self-deprecation and humble tone with its underlying irony pushes back against the negative stereotype of women without explicit, grandeur statements- like Anne Hutchinson’s- that would put the male reader on the defensive.  

 “The Prologue” is a complex and intimate introductory poem to Anne Bradstreet’s work. She challenges the Puritan literary norm with a direct address to her reader and introduces an intimate and self-conscious perspective that appearing to confirm the imagined critics’ beliefs, serves as a didactic puncture to the patriarchal ideals of the Puritans. Her poetical skill, use of irony, and Greek references allude to a deeper connotation that challenges the prejudiced beliefs of the Puritan Society: that women are not only house wives, but have the capacity to create art and an occupation outside of the confinement of the home. The confirmation of her dissident attitude toward the Puritan’s gender bias is ultimately in the act of writing itself; she continues to create and give birth to poetry even when the painful opinions and standards of normal life attempt to dissuade her efforts- writing is her ultimate defiance. 

Works Cited

The Norton Anthology of American Literature. W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.