+------------------------------------------+
               | "Woes that defy the world's religions -- |
               | The Spirit's brooding ills --            |
               | We scatter, like a flock of pigeons,     |
               |     With pills."                         |
               +------------------------------------------+

> AS>  We scatter like a flock of pigeons when it is startled. But
> AS>  how does your reading treat the complement "with pills"?
>
>            More examples:
>
>                 The dog retreated with its tail between its hind
> legs. The butler absconded with the family silver.
>                 The train departed for Montreal with Harriet on
> board. John left without saying goodbye.

I have no objections to your examples, but somehow cannot
interpret Bierce's verse in this manner. Do we scatter like a
flock of pigeons, with pills stuffed into our pockets by way of
a reassuring ballast :-?

> I would describe "with [...]" as an adverbial phrase,
> however....  :-)

In that sense, yes. It modifes the verb: retreat, abscond, depart,
but I can't help but consider "with pills" in an instrumental sense.
I trow I shall take a pause, or maybe ask my question otherwhere
and compare the answers :-P

> AS>  And what are "woes" and "ills" if not the objects of
> AS>  "scatter"?
>
>            I interpret these "woes" and "ills"... which may be
> psychological or physical or both... as what often motivates
> human beings to use pills.  The way Bierce alludes to the former,
> however, implies a bit of poetic licence....  :-)

So do I, but what is their grammatical role in the sentence. We
learners are possessed by the grammatical devils, aren't we? Oh
yes, we suretainly are... Grammar comes with a second language.

---