Difference between revisions of "Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I found it interesting in this reading the way in which Anne Bradstreet viewed suffering and adversity in her life. She is extremely honest; however, there is an underlying consistency in her faith as she seems to always remind herself of her beliefs. For example, she describes her affliction akin to God having "ground [her] to powder" (101). Then at the conclusion of this same paragraph, she states that "it is the absence and presence of God that makes Heaven or Hell" (101). Bradstreet's writings have given us a glimpse into the Puritan way of life and how her life was marked out in her mind by spiritual milestones. --Ellen S. | I found it interesting in this reading the way in which Anne Bradstreet viewed suffering and adversity in her life. She is extremely honest; however, there is an underlying consistency in her faith as she seems to always remind herself of her beliefs. For example, she describes her affliction akin to God having "ground [her] to powder" (101). Then at the conclusion of this same paragraph, she states that "it is the absence and presence of God that makes Heaven or Hell" (101). Bradstreet's writings have given us a glimpse into the Puritan way of life and how her life was marked out in her mind by spiritual milestones. --Ellen S. | ||
| − | + | == Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 == | |
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara | I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara | ||
