The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne

The Scarlet Letter is Nathaniel Hawthorne’s very famous novel. Written in 1850, this book has become a cornerstone of American literature. Many consider it to be the first great American novel.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it is set in 1640s Puritan Massachusetts. Hester Prynne is a resident of the colony. She is in a loveless marriage, and her husband may be lost at sea. She is shamed and vilified when she conceives a daughter, Pearl, through an extramarital affair. She is forced to ear a scarlet “A” on her clothing as a symbol of her sin.

Though Hester refuses to reveal the identity of Pearl’s father, the reader quickly learns that it is The Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, a respected member of the community. Though young, Dimmesdale is considered a learned theologian. When Roger Chillingworth, Hester’s much older husband, arrives in Massachusetts, very much alive, he keeps his identity secret to everyone except Hester and plots revenge. Suspecting that Dimmesdale is Pearl’s father, he befriends the minister in an elaborate attempt at retribution. As seven years pass, Pearl grows into an extraordinary child and Hester becomes more and more a free thinker.

There is so much going on in this book in terms of history, characters, plot, themes, etc. I could devote a series of blog posts to this work. As I often do, I am going to follow one particular path that I find to be interesting.

First, I want to write a few words about how I am approaching this novel in terms of history. Though Hawthorne was very interested in seventeenth century Puritan history, a Google search shows that there is still debate over the historical and ideological accuracy of the story. Though I think that this is a topic worthy topic of exploration, I will put that aside when talking about the novel in this post.  Generally, I would rather comment upon real Puritan society based upon history books anyway. Thus, I will consider the world that is talked depicted between these pages as fictional, regardless of how closely accurate it is or not.

Ironically, Hester is the most virtuous character in the book. However, her sin is not excused. She is remorseful for it. In fact, it is eventually revealed that she tries to show regret for it decades after the fact. Yet, she is surrounded by the hypocritical, the malicious and the cowardly whose flaws eclipse hers. The hypocrisy is illustrated by the fact that the text implies that all sorts of sexual and other indiscretions are going on in Massachusetts. Witches meet in the forest. Chillingworth is vengeful and malicious. Dimmesdale, though not without virtue, behaves with cowardice and allows Hester to suffer the scorn of society while he hides his indiscretion.

Though Hester is flawed, it seems that Hawthorne is illustrating what he believes is positive and good in the world when he points out the many admirable aspects to her nature. Hester takes responsibility for her actions, thinks for herself, is a good mother, etc. These virtues, as well as the wild naturalness that seems to be inherent in Pearl, seem to be related to the transcendental belief system, which was becoming popular in America at the time that this book was written. A discussion of Hester’s positive character traits, Pearl’s nature and how this all relates to the book’s philosophy can fill many pages.

The comparison between Hester and Dimmesdale is interesting. There is obvious irony when one compares the two. To the citizens of Massachusetts, there is a contrast. In their eyes, Hester is a sinful and guilty woman exposed to public shame. Dimmesdale is the upright and moral minister. He is respected and considered a great mind and a teacher. He is Hester’s minister and presumably provides her with spiritual guidance.

Yet, beneath the surface, the roles are reversed. Hester bears her guilt and the responsibility for her actions openly. She is psychologically distressed but not hysterical. In contrast, Dimmesdale hides his guilt. Inwardly he has become a wreck. His inner turmoil manifests itself in physical illness. At one point, he experiences what in modern times would be described as a panic attack,

"Mr. Dimmesdale was overcome with a great horror of mind, as if the universe were gazing at a scarlet token on his naked breast, right over his heart. On that spot, in very truth, there was, and there had long been, the gnawing and poisonous tooth of bodily pain. Without any effort of his will, or power to restrain himself, he shrieked aloud: an outcry that went pealing through the night, and was beaten back from one house to another, and reverberated from the hills in the background; as if a company of devils, detecting so much misery and terror in it, had made a plaything of the sound, and were bandying it to and fro."

Over the course of the seven years that the novel covers, Hester develops a coherent worldview. Faced with mindless and unrelenting shaming, she rejects the restraints of Puritan society and many of the institutions inherent in the world around her,

“Her intellect and heart had their home, as it were, in desert places, where she roamed as freely as the wild Indian in his woods. For years past she had looked from this estranged point of view at human institutions, and whatever priests or legislators had established; criticising all with hardly more reverence than the Indian would feel for the clerical band, the judicial robe, the pillory, the gallows, the fireside, or the church.  been to set her free. The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers— stern and wild ones— and they had made her strong”

Dimmesdale, on the other hand, has wallowed, untethered in an intellectual and moral abyss. His actions are cowardly. When Hester finally suggests that he give up his life and run away to Europe with her, he meekly agrees. Hester has become his teacher.

There is so much more to this book. It is deeply philosophical and digs into the issues of religion, theocracy, transcendentalism, guilt-free thinking, gender, etc.  Chillingworth and Dimmesdale are complex and interesting characters in their own right. I barely touched upon Pearl, who is an extraordinary child who seems to represent nature, honesty and a wildness inherent in the world. The prose and dialogue are rich. The story is interesting.

As mentioned above, this is a reread for me. I picked up so much more this time around. I think that folks who only read this book when young may get a lot more out of it when reading it later. This is a reminder to me of just how important rereading is. Thus, I recommend this as both a reread and a first time read for anyone interested in American literature.

Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson is an essay by the very influential American philosopher. Emerson, whose life spanned from 1803 to 1882, introduced the philosophical school known as Transcendentalism. I am slowly working my way through this philosopher’s major works and becoming acquainted with his worldview.

One problem that I have with Emerson, at least compared to the limited number of other philosophers that I have read, is that he tends to stay general and does not always drill down into historical, fictional or real life examples on the points that he is attempting to make. This makes him very difficult to pin down. Most interpretations of his meaning and intentions lend themselves to a counterargument that he is being misinterpreted.

Self Reliance is both a positive exhortation of the intellectual and spiritual self, paired with the negative rejection of outside influences upon the psyche. He decries the idea of individuals following particular philosophies, political parties, organized religions etc. One basis for his arguments is that there is a universal spirit of wisdom endowed by God and nature that is inherent in all people.

“Here are the lungs of that inspiration which giveth man wisdom and which cannot be denied without impiety and atheism. We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organs of its activity. “

Following external organized belief systems can never lead to an understanding of the essence of this inner wisdom.

Emerson goes further down this path as he even rejects the over-reliance on reason as being essentially an external belief system and instead exhorts the reader to follow their instincts and gut feelings when determining what is right and what is moral.

“When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow a passage to its beams. If we ask whence this comes, if we seek to pry into the soul that causes, all philosophy is at fault. Its presence or its absence is all we can affirm. Every man discriminates between the voluntary acts of his mind and his involuntary perceptions, and knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due. “

Emerson keeps going as he identifies even our past beliefs and perceptions as external and therefore factors that should not be relied upon.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”

Later, he rejects other things such as personal property, searching for truth through science and even European influence upon American architecture as counterproductive overreliance on the external.

On the positive side, the essay is full of exhortations for the individual to trust their own mind as well as to disregard the approval of others. When one contemplates the plethora of self-help books that are so popular these days and whose authors urge one to become self-actualized by loving oneself and rejecting the opinions of others, one discerns Emerson’s influence.

As a firm believer in independent thinking and intellectual independence, I find some of Emerson’s views here very much in line with my own. For instance, when it comes to the issue of not conforming to the ideas of loved ones just to go along and be accepted, while at the same time balancing this independence with the value in the relationships themselves, Emerson writes,

“Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse. Say to them, 'O father, O mother, O wife, O brother, O friend, I have lived with you after appearances hitherto. Henceforward I am the truth. Be it known unto you that henceforward I obey no law less than the eternal law. I will have no covenants but proximities. I shall endeavour to nourish my parents, to support my family, to be the chaste husband of one wife,— but these relations I must fill after a new and unprecedented way. I appeal from your customs. I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you. If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. “

But then the philosopher descends into what for me is untenable territory,

“If you are noble, I will love you: if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. “

I believe that the above represents an extreme intolerance towards belief systems that one does not agree with and is thus the road to strident closed-mindedness. Furthermore, cleaving only to those who agree with one’s self is surely the path to intellectual stagnation. In addition, Emerson’s criticism of science and reason does not, in my opinion, reflect a realistic way to find truth in life.

Despite the fact that I mostly disagree with Emerson’s worldview and the fact that I believe he takes what are some great ideas to unnecessary extremes, this is an interesting and important work. In addition, his proses are a joy to read. Emerson was an innovative and lively thinker and his viewpoints have had a significant influence upon the modern world. 

My commentary on Emerson's Nature, is here.

Nature - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I like it when thinkers try to devise a theory of everything. Never mind whether or not I find the belief system to be valid or not, I just love to explore these little models of the Universe that great minds attempt to create.

In his essay Nature, Ralph Waldo Emerson sets out to create a new theology. He declares that it is time for modern man to break from the ideas of the past and formulate their own philosophies.

“The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry  and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? “

Emerson next sets out to paint a picture of the ALL. At times his view is cryptic and difficult to envision. However, he ultimately creates the outlines of a coherent thought system. As per this Wikipedia entry, Nature put the philosophy known as Transcendentalism on the map.

Though at times murky as to his exact meaning, Emerson describes a world where spirituality is of prime importance.  Spirit flowing through people actually creates the external world. The matter that we see around us is a creation of the human mind and soul. People were once greater, but have somewhat lost touch with spirituality and nature, and have thus been diminished in relation to the world around us.

'Man is the dwarf of himself. Once he was permeated and dissolved by spirit. He filled nature with his overflowing currents him sprang the sun and moon; from man, the sun; from woman, the moon. The laws of his mind, the periods of his actions externized themselves into day and night, into the year and the seasons. But, having made for himself this huge shell, his waters retired; he no longer fills the veins and veinlets; he is shrunk to a drop.” 

Reading this work, one is struck by how exuberant Emerson was about creation. The man absolutely loved existence. Virtue and good are woven into the fabric of reality.

“The axioms of physics translate the laws of ethics. “

Emerson devotes pages upon pages to the redemptive and sublime connection between people and nature. He criticizes science as well as the old religions as unnaturally separating humankind from the spiritual and natural. There are implications that the worship of a patriarchal God as opposed to appreciating the wonders of the natural world has stifled our existence. He eventually concludes that once humans have freed their thoughts from such rigid beliefs, that people will achieve amazing influence over their environment and a paradise on Earth will be achieved.

All this philosophizing is accomplished with prose that is often soaring as well as poetic. The above passages are just a few examples.

This is the first work that I have read by Emerson; however, I have read Walt Whitman extensively. Any reader of both will clearly see just how much Emerson was an influence upon the great American Poet. I highly recommend Emerson for the Whitman fan and vice a versa.

I cannot say that I agree with much of Emerson’s nuts and bolts view of the world. However, his enthusiasm and optimism about life, as well as the world around us, is inspiring and contagious. For those readers who, like myself, love exploring the “big ideas”, this is a must read.