Ágnes
Pokol
The
Sociological Dimensions of The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne as a Social
Critic on Democracy and the Woman question. Part II.: Society,
Women, Artists
When thinking about woman’s position
in either the seventeenth or the mid-nineteenth century, it is easy to see in
it the classic scenario of minority versus majority. Regardless of numbers¾the female population did not
necessarily have to be smaller than the male in order to qualify as a minority¾in both seventeenth and mid-nineteenth century
scenarios the power was with the white man.
Looking at the seventeenth century first, it is to be noted that Ann
Hutchinson’s case was exacerbated by the “unfortunate circumstance” of her
being a woman: it was brought up against her that “as a woman she was not fit
to interpret the word of God.”[1] Thus, unhappily, she was the embodiment of
two minorities at once, with her womanhood being to the detriment of her
antinomian endeavors. As to what
antinomianism entailed, it was the propagation of the existence of a certain
“inner light” dwelling in every individual, which in turn presupposed a
spirituality coming from inner experience of the Holy Spirit rather than from
any conformity to religious laws. In
Part I. of this discussion it has been touched upon that this inner light of
antinomianism can be regarded as the ancestor of transcendentalism’s ethos of
self-reliance, with the emphasis on the individual in both cases.[2] Therefore, a parallel can be drawn between
seventeenth-century Puritanism and mid-nineteenth century Unitarianism serving
as majorities, between antinomianism and transcendentalism embodying
minorities, and finally between Ann Hutchinson and Emerson as representatives
of the minorities. What is of special
interest in this arrangement is the fact that transcendentalism is represented
by a man. On the one hand, bearing in
mind Ann Hutchinson’s “double-minority position,” it seems to be a fortunate
thing that the representative of transcendentalism was not similarly burdened
by the social drawbacks of being a woman.
On the other hand, however, this only goes to show that women in the
mid-nineteenth century were still not better off than their seventeenth-century
predecessors. Indeed, even the seemingly
progressive and liberal transcendentalists excluded women when hailing
self-reliance, indicating a clash between these two very important minority
issues of mid-nineteenth century America.
It is at this point that one of the leading contemporary female thinkers
of the time is to be introduced, namely Margaret Fuller who, besides Ann
Hutchinson, actually served as the other model for the figure of Hester
Prynne. However, before turning to the
affinities between Margaret Fuller and Hester Prynne, a more detailed parallel
between Ann Hutchinson and the latter deserves attention.
While Hawthorne does not give any
direct clue as to the affinities between Fuller and Mistress Prynne, he does so
several times in the case of Mrs. Hutchinson.
In fact, the very first reference establishes a link between her and
Hawthorne himself: far from an object of pride, one of the latter’s ancestors
is identified as her “bitter persecutor” (SL 16). That Hawthorne himself as a “writer of
storybooks” (SL 17) is regarded with disapproval by the self-same
ancestors seems to put him on the side of Ann Hutchinson. The second allusion to her has already been
touched upon in Part I., it being connected to the “wild rose-bush” that was said
to have “sprung up under the sainted footsteps of Ann Hutchinson” (SL
60). This indication in connection with
the penal institution of the community merely marks Ann Hutchinson’s and Hester
Prynne’s similar social status as ostracized members, and it is only a page
later with the third allusion that the former’s alleged “crime” is named:
Hawthorne describes the scaffold where Hester is also to be punished as the
scene of chastisement for “an Antinomian, a Quaker” (SL 61). So far, then, with three separate hints, an
affinity between Hawthorne, Hutchinson, Hester and the rose-bush has been set
up.
The fourth allusion is once again
linked to the rose-bush, which “recruits” yet another non-conformist member,
namely little Pearl: at Governor Bellingham’s house she announces to the
flabbergasted Puritan worthies that she “had not been made at all, but had been
plucked by her mother off the bush of wild roses that grew by the prison-door”
(SL 128). This incident opens up
a multitude of associations. Firstly,
Hawthorne himself mentions that this startling answer, besides the rose-bush by
the prison door that they had passed on their way, “was probably suggested by
the near proximity of the Governor’s roses, as Pearl stood outside the window”
(SL 128). That Hawthorne links
the worthy old Puritan Governor’s roses with its two nonconformist equivalents
(Pearl and prison rose-bush) is another hint that what the Puritan community is
so busy persecuting is, in fact, inherent in the most exemplary members as
well. To explain, throughout the seventh
chapter “The Governor’s Hall” and the following chapter “The Elf-Child and the
Minister” some rather surprisingly luxurious traits in the excellent Governor
himself and in his surroundings are referred to: his New England habitation,
which was planned “after the residences of gentlemen of fair estate in his
native land,” has a brilliancy which “might have befitted Aladdin’s palace,
rather than the mansion of a grave old Puritan ruler” (SL 119-120). In fact, after Hawthorne’s allusion to these
seeming contradictions, the Governor himself likens Pearl to one of the “relics
of Papistry” from “merry old England” (SL 124-6), unaware of the outward
signs around him which are “relics of Papistry” as well.
To top all this, his “bitter-tempered
sister” is none other than Mistress Hibbins, the “same who, a few years later,
was executed as a witch” (SL 134)¾thereby being amongst the victims of
the witch-hunt performed by Hawthorne’s second forefather, the son of the
Antinomian / Quaker-hunter (SL 16).
She actually tries to tempt the departing Hester to join her and her
“merry company in the forest,” to which Hester’s answer gives yet another
twist: “I must tarry at home, and keep watch over my little Pearl. Had they taken her from me, I would willingly
have gone with thee into the forest, and signed my name in the Black Man’s book
too, and that with mine own blood!” (SL 134) Thus, ironically, it is Pearl, non-conformism
incarnate, who saves Hester from the witchcraft of the punishing Puritan
worthy’s sister. Good and evil become
thoroughly ambiguous terms, which is only further complicated by Hawthorne’s
own stance: he concludes at the end of this chapter that “even thus early had
the child saved her [Hester] from Satan’s snare” (SL
134), but later on in the thirteenth chapter “Another View of Hester” he refers
to Pearl as the welcome intervention of Hester’s “coming down to us in history,
hand in hand with Ann Hutchinson, as the foundress of a religious sect” (SL
187). It follows, therefore, that the
lives of Mistress Hibbins and Ann Hutchinson are both taken as negative
alternatives from which Hester is luckily saved. Interestingly, then, while at the beginning
an affinity has been discovered between Hawthorne and Hutchinson as people
disapproved by the Puritans, here Hawthorne seems to distance himself from her
by listing her amongst negative examples.
The issue of Pearl’s role as the
savor of her mother from worse walks of life is not only the last reference to
the affinity between Hester and Ann Hutchinson, but it is also the perfect link
between Hester and Margaret Fuller.
Before explaining why this is, a few details about Fuller and about the
women’s rights movement in general should be supplied. As to her childhood, Fuller was brought up as
a prodigy by her father Timothy Fuller, “member of Congress, who had
surrendered his income and profession in order to write a history of his country.” Margaret lived in a great big house in
Cambridge, “surrounded by the cleverest Harvard students,” and consequently
grew up to be nothing less than the “queen of Cambridge.”[3] To take a leap ahead, 1836 should be
highlighted, the year when Fuller sought out and befriended Emerson. In 1839, she started so-called “Conversation”
classes for ladies of the Boston elite, which were attended by the three
Peabody sisters: Hawthorne’s future-wife Sophia, Horace Mann’s fiancée Mary,
and Fuller’s good friend Elisabeth. The
latter two ladies had been lending helping hands and minds to Bronson Alcott as
his aides at the Temple School, a failed but noble attempt at reforming
education by re-introducing the Socratic method. This, however, was only the prelude to their
common endeavors on the field of feminism.
Before Fuller’s “giving birth” to the earliest document of the women’s
rights movement, in 1840 she became the editor of the transcendentalist
magazine The Dial, an occupation that
was to last for two years.
It was during this period in 1841
that the Utopian community of Brook Farm also materialized, bringing along the
meeting of Hawthorne and Fuller. The
former actually refers to his Utopian experience in “The Custom-House” of The
Scarlet Letter as his “fellowship of toil and impracticable schemes with
the dreamy brethren of Brook Farm” (SL 34). Besides George Ripley¾the mastermind of the Farm¾and Hawthorne, a common acquaintance of theirs
was also a permanent inhabitant, namely Elisabeth Peabody. Fuller was amongst the illustrious guests,
along with Emerson, Bronson Alcott, Theodore Parker, Orestes Brownson, and
William Channing. While Ripley “was up
before the dawn, dressed in his blue tunic and cowhide boots, milking, cleaning
the stalls,” or teaching “philosophy and mathematics,” Mrs. Ripley “had a class
in history and a class for Dante in Italian.”
Elisabeth Peabody led a book shop, which was as popular as the visiting
Margaret Fuller’s classes of “Conversation on Education,” where “Emerson often
came to lead the talk; sometimes Bronson Alcott. Theodore Parker, who lived close by […] often walked over for a chat about
philosophy and farming,” while “Brownson’s coming always occasioned a talk on
Catholicism, Pascal or Port Royal.” As
to William Henry Channing, the “Christian socialist,” he “followed the call of
the muses” dabbling in landscape painting, poetry, singing, flute and violin
playing, thereby becoming “the all-attractive entertainer” of the community.[4]
It was a year after Fuller’s having
ceased to be the editor of The Dial
that her essay “The Great Lawsuit” was published in it, which has already been
referred to as the earliest document of the American women’s rights
movement. It was expanded into a book
another year later, bearing the title Woman in the Nineteenth Century. As to the final important date to be
mentioned, 1848 was the year when the first woman’s rights convention was held,
a year before Hawthorne got down to the writing of The Scarlet Letter. It is with a closer look at “The Great
Lawsuit” that the thread about the shortcomings of Emerson’s self-reliance is
to be picked up, which will ultimately lead the discussion to the supposed link
between Hester Prynne and Margaret Fuller.
To enumerate the most important
observations in “The Great Lawsuit,” it may be seasonable to start with her
basic complaint that society sets
excessive limits on women’s rights.
She names exemplary women, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, who, “rich in
genius, of most tender sympathies, and capable of high virtue and chastened
harmony, ought not to find themselves by birth in a place so narrow, that in breaking bonds they become outlaws […].
They find their way at last to purer air, but the world will not take off the brand it has set upon them”
(GL 1613, emphasis added). The
accentuated lines immediately bring to mind Hester Prynne’s case, especially
the image of the brand. Fuller goes on
to suggest that this problem should be solved with giving women “the freedom,
the religious, the intelligent freedom of the universe, to use its means, to
learn its secret as far as nature has enabled them” (GL 1608). This, however, would not necessarily result
in a guaranteed performance superior or even equal to that of men: “Whether much or little has or will be done,
whether women will add to the talent of narration, the power of systematizing,
whether they will carve marble as well as draw, is not important. But that it
should be acknowledged that they have intellect which needs developing,
that they should be considered complete, if beings of affection and habit
alone, is important” (GL 1617, emphasis added). The accentuated lines in this case anticipate
the third important observation of Fuller, namely the inadequacy of the contemporary division between head and heart,
the former being exclusively represented by men while it is only the latter
that is supposed to be the appropriate sphere of operation of women. There is a witty demonstration of this in the
shape of an imaginary dialogue, which is worth quoting:
“She [any wife] is happy enough as
she is. She has more leisure than I [any husband] have, every means
of improvement, every indulgence.”
“Have you asked her
whether she was satisfied with these indulgences?”
“No, but I know she is. She is too amiable to wish what would make me
unhappy, and too judicious to wish to step beyond
the sphere of her sex. I will never consent to have our peace
disturbed by any such discussions.”
“Consent¾you? It is not consent from you that is in
question, it is assent from your wife.”
“Am I not the head of the
house?”
“You are not the head of your
wife. God has given her a mind of her
own.”
“I am the head and she the heart.” (GL 1598)
It is with this very attitude that “the
transcendentalists were firmly preaching self-reliance to all and sundry¾but at the same time allocating to women the
role of dependent helpmate, thus indicating that self-reliance was for men
only.”[5] According to Fuller, however, without the
inclusion of women, the entire program of transcendentalism was suspect.[6] What is of great interest is Hawthorne’s standpoint in this matter,
which seems to be closer to the conservative attitude endorsing the division
between head and heart than to Fuller’s progressive stance.[7] To find support of this, the chapter “Another
View of Hester” should be looked at, in which Hawthorne describes Hester’s life
as having turned “from passion and feeling, to thought,” thereby making her
assume a “freedom of speculation,” which led her, amongst other issues, to
dwell on the situation of the “whole race of womanhood.” Hawthorne goes on to claim that “a woman never overcomes these problems by
any exercise of thought. They are
not to be solved, or only in one way. If her heart chance to come uppermost, they
vanish. Thus, Hester Prynne, whose
heart had lost its regular and healthy throb, wandered without a clew in the
dark labyrinth of mind” (SL 186-7, added emphasis). The passage concerning Pearl’s welcome
influence on her mother’s walk of life has already been touched upon when
looking at the affinities between Hester Prynne and Ann Hutchinson. It is of relevance in this context as well
because it is exactly Hester’s “enthusiasm of thought” that would have led her
to a similar fate as that of Mrs. Hutchinson: “But, in the education of the
child, the mother’s enthusiasm of thought had something to wreak itself
upon. Providence, in the person of this
little girl, had assigned to Hester’s charge the germ and blossom of woman […]” (SL 187).
Indeed,
Hawthorne seems to contend in The Scarlet Letter that self-reliance and true womanhood are
mutually exclusive: if one considers the course of Hester’s life, it is a
transformation from a passionate attractive nonconformist woman to an outwardly
conforming but inwardly secretly speculative self-reliant unattractive woman¾hers is the transformation from heart to head
that masquerades as heart. To explain in
more detail, the stages of this process should be considered. At the outset¾which is a kind of an in medias res¾the reader is presented with the consequences
of Hester’s passionate nature and disregard for the law which is accepted by
the community. She is a tall young
woman, “with a figure of perfect elegance on a large scale,” having “dark and
abundant hair […] and a face which, besides being
beautiful from regularity of feature and richness of complexion, [has] the impressiveness belonging to a
marked brow and deep black eyes” (SL 65). Hair, complexion, stature all speak of a
woman both beautiful and passionate, who is shown to the readers at the outset
in a situation that was brought about by just these attributes: beauty and
passion along with her non-conformist tendencies have born the lawless fruit of
adultery. The consequent necessity¾if she decides to stay at the Puritan
settlement, which she does¾to re-channel the force of passion
dwelling in her has a double effect: from outside it appears that this passion
is transformed into a strength utilized in assisting the community. From inside, however, it generates the
already-mentioned shift from heart (passion) to head (thought).
This double effect, in turn, yields
yet another double effect. From outside,
Hester loses her attractive appearance¾which used to be the outward result
of her inward passion (heart as opposed to head)¾and simultaneously conforms to and
participates in the life of the community; “The attractiveness of her person
had undergone a similar change. […] There seemed to be no longer
anything in Hester’s face for Love to dwell upon; nothing in Hester’s form,
though majestic and statue-like, that Passion would ever dream of clasping in
its embrace; nothing in Hester’s bosom, to make it ever again a pillow of
affection. Some attribute had departed
from her, the permanence of which had been essential to keep her a woman” (SL
185).[8] One may say, then, that this attribute, which
is the essence of womanhood and is generated by passion (woman as heart), is
none other in Hawthorne’s opinion than “the power to inspire sexual desire in
men.”[9] Once a
woman turns from heart to head, her passion and attraction leave her and she
thereby ceases to be a woman. As to
the other effect, it is an internal change, which is none other than the final
attainment of self-reliance, a Hester keeping the “independence of solitude” (SR
28) in the midst of the crowd she is apparently conforming to; “It is
remarkable, that persons, who speculate the most boldly often conform with the
most perfect quietitude to the external regulations of society. The thought suffices them, without investing
itself in the flesh and blood of action.
So it seemed to be with Hester” (SL 187).
It has to be added, however, that
Hawthorne’s exclusion of women from the field of thought (head) and their
“banishment” to the sphere of operation of the heart can only be portrayed
justly if one considers the great importance he attaches to the heart. It is none other than the “seat of
generosity”[10]
and humaneness, without which the most gifted persons turn into monsters: it is always a very dangerous aspect of the gift of insight or knowledge possessed
by his artist and scientist figures[11]
that by disturbing “the counterpoise between mind and heart” (EB
1195), as he puts it in his fine tale entitled “Ethan Brand,” they end up
abusing this power to the detriment of their fellow human beings. The example “closest to home” is that of
Roger Chillingworth, who, “throughout life, had been calm in temperament,
kindly, though not of warm affections, but ever, and in all his relations with
the world a pure and upright man. He had
begun an investigation, as he imagined with the severe and equal integrity of a
judge, desirous only of truth […].
But, as he proceeded, a terrible fascination, a kind of fierce, though
still calm, necessity seized the old man within his gripe, and never set him
free again, until he had done all its bidding.
He now dug into the poor clergyman’s heart” (SL 147), thereby
violating its sanctity. Indeed, the
sinful passion hidden in Dimmesdale’s breast is puny compared to
Chillingworth’s “crime,” which is what Ethan Brand finds in his own heart and
identifies as the Unpardonable Sin: “The sin of an intellect that triumphed
over the sense of brotherhood and reverence for God, and sacrificed everything
to its own mighty claims! The only sin
that deserves a recompense of immortal agony!” (EB 1190)
Finally, the position of the artist
both in seventeenth and mid-nineteenth century American society is to be
considered. This, in turn, leads the
discussion to the affinities between Hester and Hawthorne, which can be best
demonstrated by taking a closer look at the opening chapter of the novel
entitled “The Custom-House.” Severe as
seventeenth-century Puritanism may seem in retrospect, it was far from
discouraging art; not only prophets but artists were also among the chosen ones
for whom the already-mentioned divine gift of insight was in store. True, the Puritan artist’s first and foremost
concern was to convey the divine truth experienced in those special moments of
insight, therefore the aesthetic aspect of art was of secondary importance and
its sensuous appeal downright frowned upon.
Puritan literature was supposed to be plain, clear and simple¾free from extra flourishes of style which only
diverted the reader’s attention from content.
Furthermore, as it was supposed to convey the artist’s insight into the
divine truth, it had to teach and not so much to entertain. It follows, then, that the most important
subjects were religion and history and the most often used literary genres were
sermons, essays and treatises, and surely not fiction, thereby making it easy
to see why Hawthorne refers to his ancestors’ most probable dislike of his
chosen profession. To be “a writer of
storybooks” was in their eyes no “mode of glorifying God, or being serviceable
to mankind” (SL 17).
In the light of this, it may be
assumed that Hawthorne’s decision to take on a position at the Custom-House as
a “Surveyor of the Revenue” was not only a refreshing “change of diet” and the
trying out of “other faculties” (SL 35) of his nature, but also an
attempt at living up to the standards of his Puritan ancestors at last. By trying to prove his mettle on more
practical fields of life, he wanted to discredit the charge of being no more
than an “idler” (SL 17). It has
already been hinted at in connection with the relation between the individual
and society in Part I. how he soon came to find the job not only boring but a
downright danger to his manhood; the deadening routine of a government post was
draining away all his better attributes “that [give] emphasis to manly character,”
namely “sturdy force […] courage and constancy […] truth [and] self-reliance” (SL
50-1). That he was removed from his post
at last was something like a deus ex
machina: it saved him both from remaining there and consequently turning
into a “zombie” like his colleagues, and it also saved him from the “disgrace”
of giving it up on his own accord.
Furthermore, it enabled him to write the story of The Scarlet Letter,
which he found impossible while being under the numbing influence of his bureaucratic
surroundings.
That he returned to writing
“storybooks” after all, may seem as his ultimate failure to satisfy the ghosts
of his Puritan “great-grandsires” and furthermore his inability to conform to
practical-minded mid-nineteenth-century American standards. However, it was exactly to retain a little
bit of decorum that he made up the story about having found the “mysterious
package” along with the “rag of scarlet cloth” in the Custom-House, which had
allegedly been left behind by his predecessor, Mr. Surveyor Pue. That he had been commissioned by Pue’s ghost
to “do justice” to “old Mistress Prynne’s story” (SL 41) and act as an
editor of an authentic document is none other than a clever cover-up: it is a
gesture to transform his story from mere fiction into an account based on
historical facts, thereby making it seem a worthier product of literature in
the eyes of the stern Puritan ancestors.[12] Two things can be inferred in connection with
this. Firstly, the Custom-House itself
can be said to stand for the whole of commerce-oriented materialistic America
with its unfavorable atmosphere for artistic talent (sensibility). Secondly, Hawthorne being at odds with his surroundings
and his ancestry is mirrored in his heroine Hester Prynne’s story.
Ironically enough, however, Hester
seems to succeed where Hawthorne could not: she manages to conform to the
community’s standards, and instead of being drained of her self-reliance, she
gains it throughout her ordeals; she becomes outwardly conforming and inwardly
independent. On the other hand, it has
to be admitted that although she turns into a self-reliant individual, her
artistic talent continues to be “wasted” on “rude handiwork” instead of being
applied to creating beautiful things and “expressing, and thereby soothing, the
passion of her life” (SL 98).
Indeed, just as her passion has been transformed into strength and
thought, its outward expression has also turned from works of art into showing
sympathy and giving assistance to her fellow-citizens. The medium has remained more or less the
same, namely needlework, the only outlet available for women’s imagination¾not only at the time but even as late as the
beginning of the nineteenth century.[13] At the outset of the story, the reader saw
the scarlet letter as a work of art, a “specimen of her delicate and
imaginative skill” (SL 96).
Needlework, then, served her as, say, the brush serves a painter: it was
Hester the artist’s way to give expression to her imagination, her creativity
and her passion for the beautiful.
Accordingly, the scarlet letter was the production of an artistic kind
of needlework. In the course of the
story, as the letter’s meaning commonly accepted by the community changes from
Adultery to Able, Hester’s needlework becomes “worthy” of this new
interpretation, namely her “Ableness” in helping the needy of the community by
putting her skill to use in “rude handiwork”¾with the only exception of dressing
her little girl Pearl, the embodiment of the “warfare of Hester’s spirit” (SL
106), “the scarlet letter endowed with life” (SL 117). But, then again, Pearl grows up and remains
in Europe while Hester returns to the settlement. It is as if the latter had thereby safely
deposited all that Pearl stood for and simultaneously gave her non-conformist
passionate daughter the chance to find happiness in more ideal
surroundings.
Also, with the “disappearance” of
Pearl, Hester buries the last vestiges of her genuine artistic
aspirations. What Owen Warland, the
protagonist of another tale of Hawthorne entitled “The Artist of the
Beautiful,” was incapable of, Hester “succeeds” in doing: first an artist at
odds with society, she gradually manages to find her place in it by producing
things that are useful instead of “merely” beautiful. It is a dubious success indeed, as it shows
that the only way a consensus can be reached between society and the artist is
by “cheapening” one’s art; in other words by lowering one’s standards to fit
the general demand of practical, consumer-oriented society. Consequently, what was termed as Hawthorne’s
“failure” to live up to his Puritan heritage and to conform to the demands of
his time is a disguised but firm refusal to lower his standards and the expression of his belief in the supremacy of
Beauty over Utility, of Art over Life¾at least if it is like life in
mid-nineteenth-century America.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
SR Emerson,
Ralph Waldo. “Self-Reliance.” The Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Vol.1. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1913. 23-49.
GL Fuller,
Margaret. “The Great Lawsuit.” The Norton Anthology of American
Literature.
Ed. Nina Baym. Vol.1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1983.
1592-1626
SL Hawthorne,
Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. London: Collector’s Library, 2003.
EB -.-.-. “Ethan Brand.” The Complete Novels and Selected Tales of
Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Ed.
Norman Holmes Pearson. New York: Random
House Inc., 1937. 1184-1196.
DA Tocqueville,
Alexis de. Democracy in America. Trans. George Lawrence. Ed. J.P.
Mayer. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor-Doubleday, 1969.
Secondary Sources
Baym, Nina.
The Scarlet Letter. A Reading. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1986.
Bollobás, Enikõ. Az Amerikai Irodalom Története. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2005.
Brooks, Van Wyck. The Flowering of New England. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1952.
Claypole, Jonty. “Afterword.”
The Scarlet Letter.
London: Collector’s Library, 2003.
295-302.
Cunliffe, Marcus. American Literature to 1900. Ed.
Marcus Cunliffe. London: Sphere Books,
1986.
Manning,
Susan. “Nathaniel Hawthorne, Artist of
Puritanism.” The New Pelican Guide to
English Literature. Ed. Boris
Ford. Vol. 9. London: Penguin Books, 1991.
Martin, Terence. Nathaniel Hawthorne. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983.
Miller, Perry. “Introduction.” The Puritans: a Sourcebook of their
Writings. Ed. Perry Miller
and Thomas H.
Johnson. Vol.1. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. 1-79.
Sarbu, Aladár. The
Reality of Appearances: Vision and Representation in Emerson, Hawthorne
and
Melville. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó, 1996.
Van Doren, Mark. “The Scarlet Letter.” Hawthorne:
A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed.
A.N.
Kaul. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1966. 129-41.
Waggoner, Hyatt H. Hawthorne: A Critical Study. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of
Harvard UP, 1963.
[1] Claypole 298.
[2] Sarbu 92.
[3] Brooks 246.
[4] All the citations in this paragraph concerning Brook Farm are from Brooks 251-60.
[5] Baym 80-1. See also Bollobás 168, 172-3. Furthermore, she pinpoints the principle of „separate spheres” propagated by the Puritans as another possible factor in women’s exlusion from field of intellectual pursuit.
[6] Baym 80-1.
[7] It is interesting to observe certain critics’ hostile attitude towards feminism: although Van Doren also emphasizes Hawthorne’s belief in the division between head (man) and heart (woman), judging by the tone of his lines, he actually seems to share the latter’s feelings, talking about feminism as a threat: “Hawthorne went to the center of woman’s secret, her sexual power, and stayed there. For him it was not intellectual power. The women he considered, from Mrs. Hutchinson on, he never could praise if their minds had got the better of them. Hester threatens to become a feminist in the injustice of her solitude […] (134).”
[8] To be more precise, it should be added that Hester’s beauty and attractiveness are not irretrievablly lost, they do not become extinct: if passion is re-awakened in her, it brings about these attributes as its result. Cf. chapter eighteen “A Flood of Sunshine” where Hester takes off the scarlet letter and then her cap, and thereby “her sex, her youth, and the whole richness of her beauty, came back from what men call the irrevocable past, and clustered themselves, with her maiden hope, and a happiness before unknown, within the magic circle of this hour” (SL 228).
[9] Baym 80.
[10] For a detailed discussion of Hawthorne’s heart-images, see Waggoner 141-5.
[11] For precision’s sake, let it be added that although Ethan Brand is a lime-burner, he is nevertheless one of Hawthorne’s figures who are usually artists or scientists: he is likewise endowed with a keener sensibility and with a bent on (re)search which ends in tragedy both for himself and for others¾in his case with the destruction of Esther, old Humphrey’s lost daughter. One may compare Ethan with the more obtuse lime-burner Bartram who „troubled himself with no thoughts save the very few that were requisite to his business” (EB 1185). They, in fact, form the same contrast as Owen Warland and Robert Danforth the blacksmith in „The Artist of the Beautiful.”
[12] It should be signaled that the “Custom House,” not surprisingly, has several other functions which, however, do not fall in with the line of thought of this essay. Nevertheless, to give an example, from a stylistic point of view, it is meant to serve as a contrast to the main body of the novel: having completed two-thirds of his story, Hawthorne noticed to his dismay that it was turning out to be much gloomier than he expected it to be. Therefore he resolved to write an introductory piece in order to balance it out with a contrasting, “different kind of writing¾more timely, more cheerful, more humorous, more realistic.” Apart from its contrasting function, a context was given to the story as well. In other words, with “The Custom-House,” Hawthorne created the story of the story. Baym 101.
[13] Bollobás 164.