What do you think?
Rate this book
The Scarlet Letter and Other Writings (Second Edition)
This perennially popular Norton Critical Edition has been revised to reflect the most current scholarly approaches to The Scarlet Letter—Hawthorne’s most widely read novel—as well as to the five short prose works—“Mrs. Hutchinson,” “Endicott and the Red Cross,” “Young Goodman Brown,” “The Minister’s Black Veil,” and “The Birth-mark”—that closely relate to the 1850 novel.
This Second Norton Critical Edition also · Revised and expanded explanatory footnotes, a new preface, and a note on the text by Leland S. Person.· Key passages from Hawthorne’s notebooks and letters that suggest the close relationship between his private and public writings· Seven new critical essays by Brook Thomas, Michael Ryan, Thomas R. Mitchell, Jay Grossman, Jamie Barlowe, John Ronan, and John F. Birk.· A Chronology and revised and expanded Selected Bibliography.
This Second Norton Critical Edition also · Revised and expanded explanatory footnotes, a new preface, and a note on the text by Leland S. Person.· Key passages from Hawthorne’s notebooks and letters that suggest the close relationship between his private and public writings· Seven new critical essays by Brook Thomas, Michael Ryan, Thomas R. Mitchell, Jay Grossman, Jamie Barlowe, John Ronan, and John F. Birk.· A Chronology and revised and expanded Selected Bibliography.
752 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1949
71 people are currently reading
923 people want to read
About the author
Nathaniel Hawthorne
5,342 books3,513 followersNathaniel Hawthorne was a 19th century American novelist and short story writer. He is seen as a key figure in the development of American literature for his tales of the nation's colonial history.
Shortly after graduating from Bowdoin College, Hathorne changed his name to Hawthorne. Hawthorne anonymously published his first work, a novel titled Fanshawe, in 1828. In 1837, he published Twice-Told Tales and became engaged to painter and illustrator Sophia Peabody the next year. He worked at a Custom House and joined a Transcendentalist Utopian community, before marrying Peabody in 1842. The couple moved to The Old Manse in Concord, Massachusetts, later moving to Salem, the Berkshires, then to The Wayside in Concord. The Scarlet Letter was published in 1850, followed by a succession of other novels. A political appointment took Hawthorne and family to Europe before returning to The Wayside in 1860. Hawthorne died on May 19, 1864, leaving behind his wife and their three children.
Much of Hawthorne's writing centers around New England and many feature moral allegories with a Puritan inspiration. His work is considered part of the Romantic movement and includes novels, short stories, and a biography of his friend, the United States President Franklin Pierce.
Shortly after graduating from Bowdoin College, Hathorne changed his name to Hawthorne. Hawthorne anonymously published his first work, a novel titled Fanshawe, in 1828. In 1837, he published Twice-Told Tales and became engaged to painter and illustrator Sophia Peabody the next year. He worked at a Custom House and joined a Transcendentalist Utopian community, before marrying Peabody in 1842. The couple moved to The Old Manse in Concord, Massachusetts, later moving to Salem, the Berkshires, then to The Wayside in Concord. The Scarlet Letter was published in 1850, followed by a succession of other novels. A political appointment took Hawthorne and family to Europe before returning to The Wayside in 1860. Hawthorne died on May 19, 1864, leaving behind his wife and their three children.
Much of Hawthorne's writing centers around New England and many feature moral allegories with a Puritan inspiration. His work is considered part of the Romantic movement and includes novels, short stories, and a biography of his friend, the United States President Franklin Pierce.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews
December 14, 2020
Once upon a time I took a Hawthorne class & got thoroughly hooked. Though I have not read all his short stories, all the novels I have and I've imagined them as being some of the best ever written. Maybe the stories themselves lack quicker plot/pace, but the writing is FLAWLESS. "Scarlet Letter", "House of the Seven Gables", "The Blithedale Romance" & "The Marble Faun" are all part of the literary canon because Mr. Hawthorne seems to touch upon very dark elements (sprites & devils... magical fauns... haunted houses...). There is suggestion, which totally works for horror films, as well as these semi-horror tableaux. "The Scarlet Letter" is a quick read, a very interesting exercise in symbolism and mood. It is absolutely a ROMANCE. It is also undoubtedly a classic, since it relates to Salem's trials, early colonial tribulations, etc. Very relevant to U.S. history-- AND one of the best documents of being TRUE to oneself, above all.
Sometimes sins can take a life all their own.
Also, I must add that the moments of deus ex machina, here, with an enormous "A" ablaze in the middle of the sky, the searing of Dimmsdale's chest... all these may-have-beens, bordering on the impossible, make this a magical work. I feel accomplished--- knowing Hawthorne well enough, and still wholly dizzy in awe.
PS: TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE AUTUMN... or winter!
Sometimes sins can take a life all their own.
Also, I must add that the moments of deus ex machina, here, with an enormous "A" ablaze in the middle of the sky, the searing of Dimmsdale's chest... all these may-have-beens, bordering on the impossible, make this a magical work. I feel accomplished--- knowing Hawthorne well enough, and still wholly dizzy in awe.
PS: TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE AUTUMN... or winter!
September 5, 2009
This is a GORGEOUS novel. ARGH! I have to eat every comment I ever made about Hawthorne. He is a genius. I sort of hate myself for missing everything important about this novel the first time -- the beautiful love story, the strong protofeminist single mother Hester Prynne, and the tightly constructed web of symbolism. I am officially abashed, but happily so!
June 21, 2009
I hadn't read The Scarlet Letter since I was in high school, and it was quite amazing to revisit it. I am looking forward to teaching it in American Lit this fall!
October 13, 2018
Once I cleared the Custom-House, I found The Scarlet Letter to be a thrilling Gothic page-turner, and one that I have no conscious recollection of having read previously. (Also I must have missed the Demi Moore movie along the way; just as well.) [Update: Young Goodman Brown review follows.]
Our narrator is the Surveyor of the Customs for the sleepy port town of Salem, Massachusetts (where Hawthorne and his ancestors were from) in the mid-1800s. After describing the perfectly mediocre personalities of the civil servants that populate such a place, he finds in a dusty corner, inside a package "a certain affair of fine red cloth," along with a "dingy paper containing many particulars respecting the life of one Hester Prynne," whose story took place 1640-90 (and written about 100 years later by a former Surveyor). Finally, we are off to Salem at the time of the witch trials.
As soon as the narrator starts to ponder the story, he is immersed in ever-warring spiritual forces, represented by Hawthorne with imagery of light and dark - the "cold spirituality of the moonbeams" vs the warmer light of the coal fire communicating "a heart and sensibilities of human tenderness" - Puritanism and its cold, dark judgement vs the hot, red, somewhat Devil-ish nature of humanity.
When we meet Hester Prynne, she's coming out of the jail with a child we know is the result of an adulterous affair, and most of what we learn over the course of the story is that she keeps the secret of the child's paternity, and that her lover, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, is in agony because he keeps it too. Another secret is inserted as Hester is doing her time on the pillory for adultery: her former husband from the Old World, Roger Chillingworth, whom she thought lost at sea (and with no love lost between them), arrives in Salem. They agree to keep their marriage a secret, but Chillingworth of course wants to know her secret, and these two secrets interact to create the triangle of love, hate, and shame at the heart of the story.
The scarlet letter that Hester wears is imbued with supernatural powers - though it is a "red-hot brand" with Satanic implications, it gives Hester a "sympathetic knowledge of the hidden sin in others hearts." Puritans believed in Calvinism and the doctrine of Predestination - that some were elected by God to go to Heaven while others were destined for Hell. The only way that people could tell if they were part of the Elect was through constant introspection about their sinful behaviors and searching for evidence of salvation in their lives. Hawthorne portrays Hester as someone who is publicly doomed for her sinful action, but privately lives a life of piety and penitence through good works - thus embodying one of the fundamental religious arguments between Protestantism and Catholicism. Hester comes off as a bit too good to be true, insisting on carrying the shame for having a child out of wedlock on her own: "And would that I might endure his agony, as well as mine!" By contrast, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is weak and miserable because all he does is introspect - and the more his congregation reveres him for his faith (and his appearance as a member of the Elect), the more agonized he becomes. Dimmesdale professes that confession would be the easy way out, and he'd rather die and face his Judgement, which would be the ultimate punishment and the one he deserves. Hawthorne recreates the societal atmosphere at the time of the witch trials by portraying this relentless internal shaming and helplessness to absolve oneself, the fear of which damnation was acted out on others with suspicion, accusations, and capital punishment.
The woods outside the town are a haven from spiritual introspection and torment (and the relentless nosiness of neighbors). Here townspeople can relax and show their "animal natures," ride around on their broomsticks (which everyone knows about), converse honestly, and occasionally encounter The Black Man, returning "wiser, with a knowledge of hidden mysteries." Here again Hawthorne uses the quality of light and the time of day to conjure mood and expose the layers of human nature and society at play: "They stood in the noon of that strange and solemn splendor, as if it were the light that is to reveal all secrets, and the daybreak that shall unite all who belong to one another." By contrast, the town, with its human market-place, "its general tint was the sad gray, brown, or black of the English emigrants," is cold, dark and gloomy.
Over the course of the story, outward appearances reveal inner character. Because of Hester's good works and inner fortitude, the scarlet letter becomes more of a talisman than a brand, "a passport where other women dared not tread," with the "effect of the cross on a nun's bosom," and with A standing more for Able than for Adulterer. Arthur becomes prematurely old, sick, and too weak to make a break to a new life, despite his public sanctimoniousness as a clergyman. Hester, who has fought for her own survival and Pearl's, is surprised that he'd rather die for his sin than go live somewhere else with them.
I wasn't that interested in Chillingworth (insert viper in the Garden metaphor), so I'm going to skip over him, but the one character I couldn't understand Hawthorne's view of was Pearl, Hester's daughter. She is a truth-teller, constantly bringing up her mother's scarlet letter and Dimmesdale's habit of clutching his breast in the same place. She's also described as witch-like and elven. Other children shun her because she's grown up so isolated that she doesn't know to interact, though her instinct is to shun those who have shunned her, rather than to try to fit in. Is Pearl's wild-child character another punishment for Hester? Is she the truth-telling jester? She is always dressed in rich, colorful, non-Puritan garb. Is she the anti-Puritan? I'll wait for book club to find out!
UPDATE: By book club request, I also read Young Goodman Brown, and found it to be one of the creepier stories I've read (horror is not my genre). Young Goodman tells his lovely young wife of three months (aptly named Faith) that he has to go into the woods that night, no reason given, despite her admonishments to stay home. His "evil purpose" is not named, but he heads off into the gloom and encounters a familiar-looking traveller, who says he knows Brown's Puritan ancestors well (wink, wink). YGB thinks he stands his ground and merely dreams about attending a Satanic/witch conversion ceremony (along with everyone else from town), but either way, his trust in mankind (and his wife) is shaken such that he becomes "a stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man did he become from the night of that fearful dream." His loss of Faith is the loss of his goodwill.
Our narrator is the Surveyor of the Customs for the sleepy port town of Salem, Massachusetts (where Hawthorne and his ancestors were from) in the mid-1800s. After describing the perfectly mediocre personalities of the civil servants that populate such a place, he finds in a dusty corner, inside a package "a certain affair of fine red cloth," along with a "dingy paper containing many particulars respecting the life of one Hester Prynne," whose story took place 1640-90 (and written about 100 years later by a former Surveyor). Finally, we are off to Salem at the time of the witch trials.
As soon as the narrator starts to ponder the story, he is immersed in ever-warring spiritual forces, represented by Hawthorne with imagery of light and dark - the "cold spirituality of the moonbeams" vs the warmer light of the coal fire communicating "a heart and sensibilities of human tenderness" - Puritanism and its cold, dark judgement vs the hot, red, somewhat Devil-ish nature of humanity.
When we meet Hester Prynne, she's coming out of the jail with a child we know is the result of an adulterous affair, and most of what we learn over the course of the story is that she keeps the secret of the child's paternity, and that her lover, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, is in agony because he keeps it too. Another secret is inserted as Hester is doing her time on the pillory for adultery: her former husband from the Old World, Roger Chillingworth, whom she thought lost at sea (and with no love lost between them), arrives in Salem. They agree to keep their marriage a secret, but Chillingworth of course wants to know her secret, and these two secrets interact to create the triangle of love, hate, and shame at the heart of the story.
The scarlet letter that Hester wears is imbued with supernatural powers - though it is a "red-hot brand" with Satanic implications, it gives Hester a "sympathetic knowledge of the hidden sin in others hearts." Puritans believed in Calvinism and the doctrine of Predestination - that some were elected by God to go to Heaven while others were destined for Hell. The only way that people could tell if they were part of the Elect was through constant introspection about their sinful behaviors and searching for evidence of salvation in their lives. Hawthorne portrays Hester as someone who is publicly doomed for her sinful action, but privately lives a life of piety and penitence through good works - thus embodying one of the fundamental religious arguments between Protestantism and Catholicism. Hester comes off as a bit too good to be true, insisting on carrying the shame for having a child out of wedlock on her own: "And would that I might endure his agony, as well as mine!" By contrast, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is weak and miserable because all he does is introspect - and the more his congregation reveres him for his faith (and his appearance as a member of the Elect), the more agonized he becomes. Dimmesdale professes that confession would be the easy way out, and he'd rather die and face his Judgement, which would be the ultimate punishment and the one he deserves. Hawthorne recreates the societal atmosphere at the time of the witch trials by portraying this relentless internal shaming and helplessness to absolve oneself, the fear of which damnation was acted out on others with suspicion, accusations, and capital punishment.
The woods outside the town are a haven from spiritual introspection and torment (and the relentless nosiness of neighbors). Here townspeople can relax and show their "animal natures," ride around on their broomsticks (which everyone knows about), converse honestly, and occasionally encounter The Black Man, returning "wiser, with a knowledge of hidden mysteries." Here again Hawthorne uses the quality of light and the time of day to conjure mood and expose the layers of human nature and society at play: "They stood in the noon of that strange and solemn splendor, as if it were the light that is to reveal all secrets, and the daybreak that shall unite all who belong to one another." By contrast, the town, with its human market-place, "its general tint was the sad gray, brown, or black of the English emigrants," is cold, dark and gloomy.
Over the course of the story, outward appearances reveal inner character. Because of Hester's good works and inner fortitude, the scarlet letter becomes more of a talisman than a brand, "a passport where other women dared not tread," with the "effect of the cross on a nun's bosom," and with A standing more for Able than for Adulterer. Arthur becomes prematurely old, sick, and too weak to make a break to a new life, despite his public sanctimoniousness as a clergyman. Hester, who has fought for her own survival and Pearl's, is surprised that he'd rather die for his sin than go live somewhere else with them.
I wasn't that interested in Chillingworth (insert viper in the Garden metaphor), so I'm going to skip over him, but the one character I couldn't understand Hawthorne's view of was Pearl, Hester's daughter. She is a truth-teller, constantly bringing up her mother's scarlet letter and Dimmesdale's habit of clutching his breast in the same place. She's also described as witch-like and elven. Other children shun her because she's grown up so isolated that she doesn't know to interact, though her instinct is to shun those who have shunned her, rather than to try to fit in. Is Pearl's wild-child character another punishment for Hester? Is she the truth-telling jester? She is always dressed in rich, colorful, non-Puritan garb. Is she the anti-Puritan? I'll wait for book club to find out!
UPDATE: By book club request, I also read Young Goodman Brown, and found it to be one of the creepier stories I've read (horror is not my genre). Young Goodman tells his lovely young wife of three months (aptly named Faith) that he has to go into the woods that night, no reason given, despite her admonishments to stay home. His "evil purpose" is not named, but he heads off into the gloom and encounters a familiar-looking traveller, who says he knows Brown's Puritan ancestors well (wink, wink). YGB thinks he stands his ground and merely dreams about attending a Satanic/witch conversion ceremony (along with everyone else from town), but either way, his trust in mankind (and his wife) is shaken such that he becomes "a stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man did he become from the night of that fearful dream." His loss of Faith is the loss of his goodwill.
October 1, 2008
When I read this book in high school, I drudged bitterly through a couple meaningless symbols, wrote some half-hearted papers about "The question of morality," and shrugged off what I'd deemed a cliche, over-done little story.
Upon a re-introduction to the novel in college, I was confronted with, not Hawthorne's dramatic "social commentary," but his HUMOR!! I fell in love with the antics of the 'demon-child,' I laughed at Hester's subtle attitude, and I was generally just blown away by how much I had missed in high school.
I assume most readers have been forced to read it in their youth.
Please. For the sake of neglected laughter: read it again!
Who'd have thought a book about shame, adultery and isolation could produce such scenes that cause me, the unsuspecting reader, to laugh aloud at the pleasantly subversive humor speckled about the shadows
Upon a re-introduction to the novel in college, I was confronted with, not Hawthorne's dramatic "social commentary," but his HUMOR!! I fell in love with the antics of the 'demon-child,' I laughed at Hester's subtle attitude, and I was generally just blown away by how much I had missed in high school.
I assume most readers have been forced to read it in their youth.
Please. For the sake of neglected laughter: read it again!
Who'd have thought a book about shame, adultery and isolation could produce such scenes that cause me, the unsuspecting reader, to laugh aloud at the pleasantly subversive humor speckled about the shadows
December 29, 2016
This novel has become more than a classic. It is a myth, a cult. To cover this romance properly we would have to explore so many levels and details that thousands of pages would not be enough. I will concentrate on the child, Pearl, and then widen the discourse to the novel’s historical value.
We must keep in mind that the twelve gates of the messianic Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation are twelve pearls in a wall of jasper on twelve precious gem foundations:
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. (King James Bible, Book of Revelation 21:18-21, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/..., accessed December 29, 2016)
Hence the child is the gate to this messianic Jerusalem that the Puritans pretended they were building in New England. Note the great pretention of these Puritans since this Jerusalem of the future has to be Messianic, has to be revealed by the Messiah, by Jesus, after his Second Coming and after the Apocalypse and the Last Judgment on Doomsday. This gives the fundamental meaning of the child in the book: She is a direct criticism of any puritan, moralistic, fundamentalist we would say today, approach of religion. Especially since this Pearl will disappear at the end of the book and will exist somewhere else that is not mentioned but we understand is England since Roger Chillingworth gave her land in America and in England. Anyway Boston was certainly not the Messianic Jerusalem the Puritans had in mind. And that rejection is based on the blasphemous character of this pretention. They made themselves a direct embodiment of Jesus Christ and God. They pretended they were Jesus Christ and God.
This is fundamental. The book was published in 1850 and when it appeared it was absolutely clear that there was no separation between the state and the church in the USA. There was no separation between the state and religion and this is still true. But at the time there was no separation of the state and the church, not one particular denominational church but the church in general: any one could be a member of the church of their choice, well within the limits of the area where they were living, residing and working, but the state was a direct emanation of the church in general, an abstract omni-denominational church that excluded the Jews and the Catholics. The exclusion of the Muslims was of course “natural.” The end of the book is typical: the new governor on Election Day had to be instated b y a sermon by the preacher and minister of the (only) local church. We must understand clearly that this story may be situated one century before or more, hence under English rule, but it is “revealed” to the public in 1850 and it is in phase with that public. That’s where the USA are coming from and how they accepted to be depicted in 1850.
The second element is that Pearl is seen as unchristian because she is born out of “fornication”, “adultery”, though in fact out of passion and love. This is clearly shown by the rejection this Pearl is forced to suffer along with her mother, as if this Pearl that should open onto the Messianic Jerusalem and the trees of life that bear twelve crops of fruit a year and whose leaves are the cure for the nations (which may imply all nations, at least all Christian nations in their diversity):
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. . (King James Bible, Book of Revelation 22:2-4, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/..., accessed December 29, 2016)
But this Boston could not be seen as such a Messianic Jerusalem since it was opening on the wilderness, or at best the ocean since this Pearl gate lived on a peninsula. There is no cure in Boston for those who are not perfect according to the decrees of the Puritans. There is no forgiveness, no tolerance, no freedom either there. One essential Christian value is missing and it is love. This story is a love story in Puritan garb or under Puritan duress. It is the glorification of love that is stronger than anything else, than any punishment, any estrangement, any rejection. Note, and it is only hinted at a few times, Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale did not commit any sin against Roger Chillingworth since he had disappeared and had been “captured” by Indians and it was two years before he reappeared on Hester Prynne’s public exposition on the scaffold. The sin is in the fact they did not respect the proper rules like making their love public and sanctified by some marital rite. But love it is and it is clearly explained during the meeting of Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale in the forest when they decide to go away from Boston.
It is important here to understand a common trick of the 19th century and the play on names.
Chillingworth is simple: he is bringing the chill of dying and death. He is worth the chilling experience of mental torture. Dimmesdale is also simple since he is a dale of dimmer existence and things, the dale of unpublicized love, the dale of secret penance and punishment. But Hester Prynne is quite another story.
We could be satisfied with the Biblical Book Esther and the Jewish character during the Babylonian exile who became queen and saved the Jewish people. She thus becomes the savior of the community of Boston, of the New Jerusalem, of the Puritans themselves. But that’s not enough. Hester comes from Oistir in Welsh and Irish tradition and has a Germanic origin where it is connected with a beech tree, and is a reduced Anglicized form of a Gaelic word, Ó hOistir ‘descendant of Oistir.’
This last element is complicated in Irish tradition: “** spl Ostuarii, doorkeeper to the monastery of Iona. The first of the family came over from Ireland with "Colum Cille," but causing the displeasure of that saint, he invoked a curse on him, by which it was decreed that never more than five of his clan should exist at the same time. Accordingly, when a sixth was born one of the five was to look for death, which always happened until the race was extinguished. A female who died about the middle of the 18th. century, in Iona, was the last person who could trace a lineage to the doorkeepers of this monastery.” http://www.cairnwater.co.uk/gaelicdic..., accessed December 29, 2016. Hester then would represent the end of an exclusion, the final redemption beyond the curse. Hence the Puritan tradition would be identified as a curse.
If we go back to the “beech” another connection has to be developed in the runic tradition, the runes of Germanic and Scandinavian origin vastly present in the Anglo-Saxon world, hence in the English heritage. Two runes refer to a beech tree, both meaning black. “Nauthiz” carries a bunch of key concepts: “Need, resistance, constraint, conflict, drama, effort, necessity, urgency, hard work, need-fire, life lessons, creative friction, distress, force of growth, the consequence of past action, short term pain for long term gain.” (http://runesecrets.com/rune-meanings/..., accessed December 29, 2016) “Peorth” carries a very dense meaning. It is the “rune of fate and the unmanifest. Rune of probability and the role of luck in the evolutionary process of the all things. Universe at play.” (http://runesecrets.com/rune-meanings/..., accessed December 29, 2016) This meaning gives Hester a tremendous power in the story. She is fate and she is going to bring down the Puritan dictatorship in the field of love, mental and sentimental freedom, and through her own daughter she will bring salvation, at least escape.
And her surname “Prynne” is also meaningful. The origin is Norman and the name was introduced by the Normans after Hastings ‘1066). “'Prin' is a 'descendant' of the Latin 'primus' meaning 'first' and it was given as a baptismal name to the first born male child of a family. Some learned academics of the 20th century have suggested that the name may be a nickname for one with 'lordly airs', but this seems unlikely. The similarity with the surnames 'Prince' (originally the French 'prins'), and 'Prime', which is directly from 'primus' cannot be avoided.” (http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Pryn..., accessed December 29, 2016) Thus she is the person of first importance who is going to lead this Puritan settlement to salvation.
To go back to Pearl, she is also the symbol of what must go along with forgiveness and love, which is repentance, but not the repentance that is imposed as a punishment onto the “sinner”, but the repentance that comes from the soul, from God, from the heart. The book clearly shows that public – though here imposed – repentance is torture but a bearable torture that strengthens the victim of the punishment, whereas secret repentance is an unbearable self-inflicted torture that gnaws at the heart, the soul, and the body of the person who is refused the possibility of public repentance. At the same time the book hints at the possibility that Roger Chillingworth used his knowledge in plants to slowly poison Arthur Dimmesdale to satisfy his own vengeance.
And this is because there is no forgiveness in this society, no possibility for the sinner, no matter who he is and what position he holds, to be forgiven if he repairs the harm he has done, in this case if he marries the mother, since the husband of this mother had disappeared two years before and re-appear under another name. Pearl becomes the symbol of this forgiveness at the very end of the novel, the being who is willing to forgive publicly in front of those who had refused to forgive for more than seven years. That desire of hers to be held by the Minister in front of everyone, and her desire to hold the Minister in front of everyone and eventually to kiss him and let him kiss her was a constant demand from her to her mother.
In other words, Pearl becomes the signpost on the road to love and also some kind of angel or even archangel who shows the way to human salvation, and God's salvation is always on the side of repentance, reparation, forgiveness and love, never on the side of permanent or irreversible human punishment. In fact, the only judge is God, the only one who has the power to judge, what's more to try, is God, and God has entrusted humanity with the mission to enable sinners to repent and be forgiven, not to punish, or even torture or execute. This religious meaning is absolutely obvious all along and can only be the conclusion at the end. If Hester comes back to Boston it is to prove that the redemption has worked, that they have learned how to forgive the sins of others. Note it is never said or hinted that by forgiving the sins of others you open the ^possibility of your own sins to be forgiven by the same others. This egocentric way of forgiving is not Christian and is not envisaged I this book.
Pearl is thus the symbol of an open reading of the Gospels and in a way the signpost on the road to some better future for human beings on earth. This better future is definitely expressed by the post mortem contrition and repentance of Hester's first husband who adopts Pearl as his heiress, hence his own child. His repentance comes after seven years of vengeance, but it does come, and he is the only one to repent among the hostile people in Boston. Though the lack of hostility against Hester after her return seems to indicate the change has occurred, and Hester is there to remind everyone of the “episode” since she will be wearing her Scarlet Letter till death them does not part, in fact unites them forever.
If thus the sinners' child, Pearl, is redeemed at the end of the book and escapes the punishing Puritans, it is because she represents light, sunshine, God's illumination. She is the star that should lead us on the way to the future on earth and beyond: forgiveness and love, and we all must respect love as a divine and sacred value that is stronger than any law, rule, habit or custom, and the lack if not the refusal of respect for love is the direst and ugliest sin a human being, a creature of God can commit.
Hawthorne is the author that illuminates best the worst gothic context and produces a shiny romance with the darkest and bleakest material. And this romance becomes the testimony that in the middle of the 19th century a change was taking place in the USA: the recognition of the freedom to love not as a simple Christian obligation but as a human dimension. And this emphasis shows a debate at the time not only on love and society but on the concept of God himself.
The concept of God is ever present but never really expressed and specified in words. Not one single sermon by Arthur Dimmesdale is ever given. The final Election Sermon is only indirectly evoked. The concept of God obviously is that of the punishing God of the Puritans founded on the vision of Him we can get in many biblical texts or many Christian or non-Christian documents from the first century CE, after Jesus' death, from the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. This very strict respect of the Law and its requirements has always survived in Christianity as a dark background for many centuries and then as a reference when Puritanism emerged as a religion per se.
One is pure or one isn't. If one is pure, one must not in any way live with someone who is not pure and if someone is not pure the community of the pure ones (that does not include the non-pure ones who are expelled from the community itself) has to reject him or her, and that rejection must become God's punishment, in no way human but entirely divine. This punishment has to be both public and totally interiorized. And here is one of the most important theme of the novel: Hester can satisfy these two characteristics with the scarlet letter and her interiorization of her « sin ». But her lover who is condemned by her (is it only her or do they agree on that point?) to remain unknown can only be punished inside his own self, hence he can only punish himself.
This excuses the « husband » who will avenge himself on this lover because this « husband » will become the punishing tool used by God, and yet the interiorization of the punishment by the lover himself will enable him to evade and escape the vengeance of this “husband” by making his sin, his contrition and his reparation public on the scaffold with Hester and Pearl, and the “husband” will in the end be frustrated of his vengeance and punished in his turn. Is that God's punishment?
Yet there is another concept of God that is emerging and ever present in the novel. It is the concept of a God of love. Love is threefold in this perspective. It is sensual first and it may lead to sin when it is not controlled and when it breaks a moral rule. Then it is love coming from human reason which may lead to insanity when a social reasonable rule is broken and no repair can be found, and there is no repair except through a social punishment that does not repair anything but is a repayment for the unreasonable fault. Finally, it is also spiritual and in this dimension love becomes Christian because it leads to forgiveness and love for one's enemies and love beyond mistakes and faults.
This love calls for repentance but not for punishment, at least not in the hands of men. Repentance is a great privilege for someone who « sins » but repentance has to be public in order to lead to forgiveness. If there is no forgiveness in society their God is not a really Christian God. If there is no repentance on the side of the “sinner” he or she is not Christian since she or he refuses to be forgiven or he or she makes forgiveness impossible. We can see that Hester in her repentance leads the whole community to forgiving her, whereas Arthur, her lover, not being able to repent publicly, is forced to repent in silence in his own soul without any possible forgiveness from anyone.
If there is no forgiveness there is no salvation possible, there is no Christian solution.
This leads to the ending of this book: Arthur is literally forced to live his repentance as a slow sacrifice in the eyes of God: he has to die to redeem himself, his society, Hester and Pearl, to « crucify » himself on the scaffold with his women at his feet.
But what about Hester who needs in the novel Arthur's sacrifice to be fully redeemed?
And what about Pearl who can only find the strength to kiss her father, hence to forgive him, hence to love him, when the sacrifice comes to its end?
Is Hester vain and selfish in her human love for Arthur by condemning him to suffer in silence?
Is Pearl beyond any Christian definition in her incapability to love her father except when it is too late to save him?
Is the romance a condemnation of puritanism and a vindication of human sensuality and sensitivity as the only way to redeem humanity?
Is the concept of God limited in time and space? And then is the future godless?
These questions that you are free to answer the way you want are showing a tremendous turning point has been reached in American history and probably in human history. But the point that has to be made is that hardly ten years later history will completely put this perspective upside down. Indians are seen as marginal or rejected to the wild forest in this book with the distant and undescribed exception of Apostle Eliot and his Indian converts who live far away from Boston. But slaves are not even mentioned, not even as indentured workers who were common in New England at the time of the story. And history will come back on this emerging love concept with the Civil War and one extra century of segregation and an unspecified number of decades more of PTSS, and we have not reached the end of this long-lasting hatred and un-forgiveness and lack of justice.
The freedom of love is maybe not that simple to develop in any society, human society, meaning a society torn between the two sides of man, or woman as for that, the loving nature of human beings some call libido and the death instinct often articulated on the survival instinct of the human species. But yet it is the first expression of the freedom of love in modern society, and as such it is just as dramatic as Romeo and Juliet, but it is also maybe less tragic. There is hope somewhere in this story, whereas I don’t see any in Romeo and Juliet.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
We must keep in mind that the twelve gates of the messianic Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation are twelve pearls in a wall of jasper on twelve precious gem foundations:
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. (King James Bible, Book of Revelation 21:18-21, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/..., accessed December 29, 2016)
Hence the child is the gate to this messianic Jerusalem that the Puritans pretended they were building in New England. Note the great pretention of these Puritans since this Jerusalem of the future has to be Messianic, has to be revealed by the Messiah, by Jesus, after his Second Coming and after the Apocalypse and the Last Judgment on Doomsday. This gives the fundamental meaning of the child in the book: She is a direct criticism of any puritan, moralistic, fundamentalist we would say today, approach of religion. Especially since this Pearl will disappear at the end of the book and will exist somewhere else that is not mentioned but we understand is England since Roger Chillingworth gave her land in America and in England. Anyway Boston was certainly not the Messianic Jerusalem the Puritans had in mind. And that rejection is based on the blasphemous character of this pretention. They made themselves a direct embodiment of Jesus Christ and God. They pretended they were Jesus Christ and God.
This is fundamental. The book was published in 1850 and when it appeared it was absolutely clear that there was no separation between the state and the church in the USA. There was no separation between the state and religion and this is still true. But at the time there was no separation of the state and the church, not one particular denominational church but the church in general: any one could be a member of the church of their choice, well within the limits of the area where they were living, residing and working, but the state was a direct emanation of the church in general, an abstract omni-denominational church that excluded the Jews and the Catholics. The exclusion of the Muslims was of course “natural.” The end of the book is typical: the new governor on Election Day had to be instated b y a sermon by the preacher and minister of the (only) local church. We must understand clearly that this story may be situated one century before or more, hence under English rule, but it is “revealed” to the public in 1850 and it is in phase with that public. That’s where the USA are coming from and how they accepted to be depicted in 1850.
The second element is that Pearl is seen as unchristian because she is born out of “fornication”, “adultery”, though in fact out of passion and love. This is clearly shown by the rejection this Pearl is forced to suffer along with her mother, as if this Pearl that should open onto the Messianic Jerusalem and the trees of life that bear twelve crops of fruit a year and whose leaves are the cure for the nations (which may imply all nations, at least all Christian nations in their diversity):
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. . (King James Bible, Book of Revelation 22:2-4, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/..., accessed December 29, 2016)
But this Boston could not be seen as such a Messianic Jerusalem since it was opening on the wilderness, or at best the ocean since this Pearl gate lived on a peninsula. There is no cure in Boston for those who are not perfect according to the decrees of the Puritans. There is no forgiveness, no tolerance, no freedom either there. One essential Christian value is missing and it is love. This story is a love story in Puritan garb or under Puritan duress. It is the glorification of love that is stronger than anything else, than any punishment, any estrangement, any rejection. Note, and it is only hinted at a few times, Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale did not commit any sin against Roger Chillingworth since he had disappeared and had been “captured” by Indians and it was two years before he reappeared on Hester Prynne’s public exposition on the scaffold. The sin is in the fact they did not respect the proper rules like making their love public and sanctified by some marital rite. But love it is and it is clearly explained during the meeting of Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale in the forest when they decide to go away from Boston.
It is important here to understand a common trick of the 19th century and the play on names.
Chillingworth is simple: he is bringing the chill of dying and death. He is worth the chilling experience of mental torture. Dimmesdale is also simple since he is a dale of dimmer existence and things, the dale of unpublicized love, the dale of secret penance and punishment. But Hester Prynne is quite another story.
We could be satisfied with the Biblical Book Esther and the Jewish character during the Babylonian exile who became queen and saved the Jewish people. She thus becomes the savior of the community of Boston, of the New Jerusalem, of the Puritans themselves. But that’s not enough. Hester comes from Oistir in Welsh and Irish tradition and has a Germanic origin where it is connected with a beech tree, and is a reduced Anglicized form of a Gaelic word, Ó hOistir ‘descendant of Oistir.’
This last element is complicated in Irish tradition: “** spl Ostuarii, doorkeeper to the monastery of Iona. The first of the family came over from Ireland with "Colum Cille," but causing the displeasure of that saint, he invoked a curse on him, by which it was decreed that never more than five of his clan should exist at the same time. Accordingly, when a sixth was born one of the five was to look for death, which always happened until the race was extinguished. A female who died about the middle of the 18th. century, in Iona, was the last person who could trace a lineage to the doorkeepers of this monastery.” http://www.cairnwater.co.uk/gaelicdic..., accessed December 29, 2016. Hester then would represent the end of an exclusion, the final redemption beyond the curse. Hence the Puritan tradition would be identified as a curse.
If we go back to the “beech” another connection has to be developed in the runic tradition, the runes of Germanic and Scandinavian origin vastly present in the Anglo-Saxon world, hence in the English heritage. Two runes refer to a beech tree, both meaning black. “Nauthiz” carries a bunch of key concepts: “Need, resistance, constraint, conflict, drama, effort, necessity, urgency, hard work, need-fire, life lessons, creative friction, distress, force of growth, the consequence of past action, short term pain for long term gain.” (http://runesecrets.com/rune-meanings/..., accessed December 29, 2016) “Peorth” carries a very dense meaning. It is the “rune of fate and the unmanifest. Rune of probability and the role of luck in the evolutionary process of the all things. Universe at play.” (http://runesecrets.com/rune-meanings/..., accessed December 29, 2016) This meaning gives Hester a tremendous power in the story. She is fate and she is going to bring down the Puritan dictatorship in the field of love, mental and sentimental freedom, and through her own daughter she will bring salvation, at least escape.
And her surname “Prynne” is also meaningful. The origin is Norman and the name was introduced by the Normans after Hastings ‘1066). “'Prin' is a 'descendant' of the Latin 'primus' meaning 'first' and it was given as a baptismal name to the first born male child of a family. Some learned academics of the 20th century have suggested that the name may be a nickname for one with 'lordly airs', but this seems unlikely. The similarity with the surnames 'Prince' (originally the French 'prins'), and 'Prime', which is directly from 'primus' cannot be avoided.” (http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Pryn..., accessed December 29, 2016) Thus she is the person of first importance who is going to lead this Puritan settlement to salvation.
To go back to Pearl, she is also the symbol of what must go along with forgiveness and love, which is repentance, but not the repentance that is imposed as a punishment onto the “sinner”, but the repentance that comes from the soul, from God, from the heart. The book clearly shows that public – though here imposed – repentance is torture but a bearable torture that strengthens the victim of the punishment, whereas secret repentance is an unbearable self-inflicted torture that gnaws at the heart, the soul, and the body of the person who is refused the possibility of public repentance. At the same time the book hints at the possibility that Roger Chillingworth used his knowledge in plants to slowly poison Arthur Dimmesdale to satisfy his own vengeance.
And this is because there is no forgiveness in this society, no possibility for the sinner, no matter who he is and what position he holds, to be forgiven if he repairs the harm he has done, in this case if he marries the mother, since the husband of this mother had disappeared two years before and re-appear under another name. Pearl becomes the symbol of this forgiveness at the very end of the novel, the being who is willing to forgive publicly in front of those who had refused to forgive for more than seven years. That desire of hers to be held by the Minister in front of everyone, and her desire to hold the Minister in front of everyone and eventually to kiss him and let him kiss her was a constant demand from her to her mother.
In other words, Pearl becomes the signpost on the road to love and also some kind of angel or even archangel who shows the way to human salvation, and God's salvation is always on the side of repentance, reparation, forgiveness and love, never on the side of permanent or irreversible human punishment. In fact, the only judge is God, the only one who has the power to judge, what's more to try, is God, and God has entrusted humanity with the mission to enable sinners to repent and be forgiven, not to punish, or even torture or execute. This religious meaning is absolutely obvious all along and can only be the conclusion at the end. If Hester comes back to Boston it is to prove that the redemption has worked, that they have learned how to forgive the sins of others. Note it is never said or hinted that by forgiving the sins of others you open the ^possibility of your own sins to be forgiven by the same others. This egocentric way of forgiving is not Christian and is not envisaged I this book.
Pearl is thus the symbol of an open reading of the Gospels and in a way the signpost on the road to some better future for human beings on earth. This better future is definitely expressed by the post mortem contrition and repentance of Hester's first husband who adopts Pearl as his heiress, hence his own child. His repentance comes after seven years of vengeance, but it does come, and he is the only one to repent among the hostile people in Boston. Though the lack of hostility against Hester after her return seems to indicate the change has occurred, and Hester is there to remind everyone of the “episode” since she will be wearing her Scarlet Letter till death them does not part, in fact unites them forever.
If thus the sinners' child, Pearl, is redeemed at the end of the book and escapes the punishing Puritans, it is because she represents light, sunshine, God's illumination. She is the star that should lead us on the way to the future on earth and beyond: forgiveness and love, and we all must respect love as a divine and sacred value that is stronger than any law, rule, habit or custom, and the lack if not the refusal of respect for love is the direst and ugliest sin a human being, a creature of God can commit.
Hawthorne is the author that illuminates best the worst gothic context and produces a shiny romance with the darkest and bleakest material. And this romance becomes the testimony that in the middle of the 19th century a change was taking place in the USA: the recognition of the freedom to love not as a simple Christian obligation but as a human dimension. And this emphasis shows a debate at the time not only on love and society but on the concept of God himself.
The concept of God is ever present but never really expressed and specified in words. Not one single sermon by Arthur Dimmesdale is ever given. The final Election Sermon is only indirectly evoked. The concept of God obviously is that of the punishing God of the Puritans founded on the vision of Him we can get in many biblical texts or many Christian or non-Christian documents from the first century CE, after Jesus' death, from the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. This very strict respect of the Law and its requirements has always survived in Christianity as a dark background for many centuries and then as a reference when Puritanism emerged as a religion per se.
One is pure or one isn't. If one is pure, one must not in any way live with someone who is not pure and if someone is not pure the community of the pure ones (that does not include the non-pure ones who are expelled from the community itself) has to reject him or her, and that rejection must become God's punishment, in no way human but entirely divine. This punishment has to be both public and totally interiorized. And here is one of the most important theme of the novel: Hester can satisfy these two characteristics with the scarlet letter and her interiorization of her « sin ». But her lover who is condemned by her (is it only her or do they agree on that point?) to remain unknown can only be punished inside his own self, hence he can only punish himself.
This excuses the « husband » who will avenge himself on this lover because this « husband » will become the punishing tool used by God, and yet the interiorization of the punishment by the lover himself will enable him to evade and escape the vengeance of this “husband” by making his sin, his contrition and his reparation public on the scaffold with Hester and Pearl, and the “husband” will in the end be frustrated of his vengeance and punished in his turn. Is that God's punishment?
Yet there is another concept of God that is emerging and ever present in the novel. It is the concept of a God of love. Love is threefold in this perspective. It is sensual first and it may lead to sin when it is not controlled and when it breaks a moral rule. Then it is love coming from human reason which may lead to insanity when a social reasonable rule is broken and no repair can be found, and there is no repair except through a social punishment that does not repair anything but is a repayment for the unreasonable fault. Finally, it is also spiritual and in this dimension love becomes Christian because it leads to forgiveness and love for one's enemies and love beyond mistakes and faults.
This love calls for repentance but not for punishment, at least not in the hands of men. Repentance is a great privilege for someone who « sins » but repentance has to be public in order to lead to forgiveness. If there is no forgiveness in society their God is not a really Christian God. If there is no repentance on the side of the “sinner” he or she is not Christian since she or he refuses to be forgiven or he or she makes forgiveness impossible. We can see that Hester in her repentance leads the whole community to forgiving her, whereas Arthur, her lover, not being able to repent publicly, is forced to repent in silence in his own soul without any possible forgiveness from anyone.
If there is no forgiveness there is no salvation possible, there is no Christian solution.
This leads to the ending of this book: Arthur is literally forced to live his repentance as a slow sacrifice in the eyes of God: he has to die to redeem himself, his society, Hester and Pearl, to « crucify » himself on the scaffold with his women at his feet.
But what about Hester who needs in the novel Arthur's sacrifice to be fully redeemed?
And what about Pearl who can only find the strength to kiss her father, hence to forgive him, hence to love him, when the sacrifice comes to its end?
Is Hester vain and selfish in her human love for Arthur by condemning him to suffer in silence?
Is Pearl beyond any Christian definition in her incapability to love her father except when it is too late to save him?
Is the romance a condemnation of puritanism and a vindication of human sensuality and sensitivity as the only way to redeem humanity?
Is the concept of God limited in time and space? And then is the future godless?
These questions that you are free to answer the way you want are showing a tremendous turning point has been reached in American history and probably in human history. But the point that has to be made is that hardly ten years later history will completely put this perspective upside down. Indians are seen as marginal or rejected to the wild forest in this book with the distant and undescribed exception of Apostle Eliot and his Indian converts who live far away from Boston. But slaves are not even mentioned, not even as indentured workers who were common in New England at the time of the story. And history will come back on this emerging love concept with the Civil War and one extra century of segregation and an unspecified number of decades more of PTSS, and we have not reached the end of this long-lasting hatred and un-forgiveness and lack of justice.
The freedom of love is maybe not that simple to develop in any society, human society, meaning a society torn between the two sides of man, or woman as for that, the loving nature of human beings some call libido and the death instinct often articulated on the survival instinct of the human species. But yet it is the first expression of the freedom of love in modern society, and as such it is just as dramatic as Romeo and Juliet, but it is also maybe less tragic. There is hope somewhere in this story, whereas I don’t see any in Romeo and Juliet.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
March 30, 2019
The Scarlet Letter is a novel I hold dear to my heart with a melancholy delight that borders on awe, reverence, and even love. Rich in highly wrought and dense language that deals with psychological precision and nuance as well as eloquent imagery, superb in its delineation of character that is at once archetypical and real, prophetic and truly American in the way it makes space for feminist and individualist discourse in the person of Hester Prynne, and subtle and ambiguous in the moral intertwining of good and evil in this dark tale of woe, Hawthorne’s romance has a place in my heart alongside works such as Blood Meridian, Heart of Darkness, Atonement, Lolita, and other works that mix great language and dark subject matter.
Key words that can be applied to The Scarlet Letter are “ambiguous” and “ambivalent.” This describes the way the central symbol is treated in the novel, originally as a symbol of the crime that brings shame to Hester, and later as an emblem of the service she does, and finally as a symbol of sorrow and reverence at the same time. Hester wants to shun the pain this symbol brings to her, and yet she chooses to accept it in the end. The narrator struggles between acceptance and criticism of Hester, yet, in my reading, is ultimately motivated by awe, reverence, love, and sympathy for Hester. Ambivalence also moves the conflicted and complicated reactions I have, and I think Hawthorne had, to Pearl, Roger Chillingworth, and Arthur Dimmesdale. Pearl is nature’s child deprived of the sympathy that would make her human, Roger is a great prober into human nature and a broken man who is reduced by his vengeance, and Arthur is a hypocrite driven by remorse and moved to eloquent speech that is sacred in its pollution. Unlike some readers who are moved by loathing for the male characters, I have a complicated response to them. I detest Roger’s malice and Arthur’s hypocrisy. Yet I pity Roger for how he embodies the perversion of once noble qualities to base uses, and his lack of revengeful motivation against Hester is significant to note. Arthur is remembered as a hypocrite, and I do hold it against him. Yet I cannot help but see why Hester authentically loves him, appreciate his defense of Hester’s rights as a mother, be moved by his emotional journey of torment and struggle, and wonder at his final public repentance. I will mention that Roger Chillingworth, however evil he appears in the narrator’s eyes and to readers’ eyes, has a special affinity with Shakespeare’s great villain Iago and John Milton’s Satan. An admirer of Milton’s Satan and a wonderer at Iago, I cannot help but, despite my hatred for Chillingworth’s destructiveness, stand in admiration at his acceptance of the wrong that his marriage did to Hester, the fatefulness of his revenge to which he has committed, his decision to plead that Hester be destigmatized, and his bequeathing his considerable inheritance to Hester and to Pearl. Chillingworth, however inferior he is to Hester, does have shades of brilliance.
I will touch a little on Hawthorne’s ambivalence before I elaborate on Hester. I am in awe at the way Hawthorne creates a Puritan setting while writing as an ambivalent Romantic writer. A Democrat critical of public mob mentality, a Romantic who cannot fully accept Emersonian optimism or pantheistic worship of nature, a sharp critic of Puritan morality and metaphysics who is deeply shaped by Puritan theology, Hawthorne plays a beautifully complicated balancing act where he straddles the 17th-century and the 19th-century, and he does this through the art of “romance,” mixing the actual and the imaginary, giving us something that is both archetypical in its symbolic import and historically plausible for both specific situations and for any situation where there is repression, statism, shame, and human nature. For Hawthorne, as for Faulkner, and for myself, the past is not truly dead. But we can learn from the past, and look at it ambivalently. That might be the best way to see it in all its sins and glories.
I must now turn to Hester, the heroine of The Scarlet Letter. A woman of stature, beauty, richness, complexity, and heroism, Hester Prynne is one of the finest characters ever created in fiction. She is a multifaceted character who can feel the guilt of a society that considers her wrong for expressing her desires in a transgressive way, but who looks forward to a world where sacred love and mutual happiness will be the order of the day. Hawthorne’s narrator treats the character with great sympathy, and even as he critiques her “wanderings,” there is a sense where the novel’s moral and aesthetic sympathies lie with Hester. Though her extreme rebellion as typified in “Another View of Hester” is viewed as the other side of the puritanic repression she is opposed to, the “Conclusion” and various other moments highlight and radiate her rebellion, her elevation of the sacredness of the heart’s truths over the social order and over the satanic attacks of Roger Chillingworth, and over the guilt-ridden doubts of the hypocritical Dimmesdale.
One of the best moments in the book, besides the dignified entry in chapter 2, is where she is on the scaffold and all her memories of Old England flash in front of her mental vision. I think this is one of Hawthorne’s most artistically resonant and dignified moments, allowing us to get a glimpse of Hester’s past without going into a loose and baggy realist excess. I am not saying that Tolstoy, had he handled this material, would do poorly; in fact, if Anna Karenina is evidence (which I will read soon), I am sure he would have handled it with special brilliance. But Hawthorne’s romantic intensity, and his artistic decision to condense it into a psychological flash, was a brilliant choice in allowing Hester to experience the flow of memory at this moment which would forever define her life.
The style of the novel, with its long sentences, its probing psychological insight, its containment of historical and descriptive brilliance, appeals to the novel’s richly wrought and spectacular aesthetic. Viewed as overrich in some eyes, I think the heightened eloquence in the novel’s voice, and the reasonably elevated cadences of much of the dialogue (notwithstanding some strangeness in a child’s using thee and thou in a novel), fit and engross the reader who is prepared to accept Hawthorne’s rich novel. I could quote passages, but as this review is one of general observations, I would restrain myself from padding out the review.
For me, The Scarlet Letter is a novel I think about as a touchstone for great art. Like Paradise Lost, Macbeth, Lolita, Moby-Dick, Hamlet, King Lear, The Iliad, The Odyssey, it does not provide easy answers, nor does it always give easy satisfaction. But in its portrayal of richly wrought characters in Hester and Chillingworth and Dimmesdale and Pearl, in its eloquent and sonorous style that accommodates psychological realism and rich description of the most lavish and fertile gorgeousness, in its splendid play of history and romance, and in its overall spellbinding effect, The Scarlet Letter earns the word “masterpiece” and becomes to me a something to be sorrowed over and yet read and thought about with awe and reverence and love.
Key words that can be applied to The Scarlet Letter are “ambiguous” and “ambivalent.” This describes the way the central symbol is treated in the novel, originally as a symbol of the crime that brings shame to Hester, and later as an emblem of the service she does, and finally as a symbol of sorrow and reverence at the same time. Hester wants to shun the pain this symbol brings to her, and yet she chooses to accept it in the end. The narrator struggles between acceptance and criticism of Hester, yet, in my reading, is ultimately motivated by awe, reverence, love, and sympathy for Hester. Ambivalence also moves the conflicted and complicated reactions I have, and I think Hawthorne had, to Pearl, Roger Chillingworth, and Arthur Dimmesdale. Pearl is nature’s child deprived of the sympathy that would make her human, Roger is a great prober into human nature and a broken man who is reduced by his vengeance, and Arthur is a hypocrite driven by remorse and moved to eloquent speech that is sacred in its pollution. Unlike some readers who are moved by loathing for the male characters, I have a complicated response to them. I detest Roger’s malice and Arthur’s hypocrisy. Yet I pity Roger for how he embodies the perversion of once noble qualities to base uses, and his lack of revengeful motivation against Hester is significant to note. Arthur is remembered as a hypocrite, and I do hold it against him. Yet I cannot help but see why Hester authentically loves him, appreciate his defense of Hester’s rights as a mother, be moved by his emotional journey of torment and struggle, and wonder at his final public repentance. I will mention that Roger Chillingworth, however evil he appears in the narrator’s eyes and to readers’ eyes, has a special affinity with Shakespeare’s great villain Iago and John Milton’s Satan. An admirer of Milton’s Satan and a wonderer at Iago, I cannot help but, despite my hatred for Chillingworth’s destructiveness, stand in admiration at his acceptance of the wrong that his marriage did to Hester, the fatefulness of his revenge to which he has committed, his decision to plead that Hester be destigmatized, and his bequeathing his considerable inheritance to Hester and to Pearl. Chillingworth, however inferior he is to Hester, does have shades of brilliance.
I will touch a little on Hawthorne’s ambivalence before I elaborate on Hester. I am in awe at the way Hawthorne creates a Puritan setting while writing as an ambivalent Romantic writer. A Democrat critical of public mob mentality, a Romantic who cannot fully accept Emersonian optimism or pantheistic worship of nature, a sharp critic of Puritan morality and metaphysics who is deeply shaped by Puritan theology, Hawthorne plays a beautifully complicated balancing act where he straddles the 17th-century and the 19th-century, and he does this through the art of “romance,” mixing the actual and the imaginary, giving us something that is both archetypical in its symbolic import and historically plausible for both specific situations and for any situation where there is repression, statism, shame, and human nature. For Hawthorne, as for Faulkner, and for myself, the past is not truly dead. But we can learn from the past, and look at it ambivalently. That might be the best way to see it in all its sins and glories.
I must now turn to Hester, the heroine of The Scarlet Letter. A woman of stature, beauty, richness, complexity, and heroism, Hester Prynne is one of the finest characters ever created in fiction. She is a multifaceted character who can feel the guilt of a society that considers her wrong for expressing her desires in a transgressive way, but who looks forward to a world where sacred love and mutual happiness will be the order of the day. Hawthorne’s narrator treats the character with great sympathy, and even as he critiques her “wanderings,” there is a sense where the novel’s moral and aesthetic sympathies lie with Hester. Though her extreme rebellion as typified in “Another View of Hester” is viewed as the other side of the puritanic repression she is opposed to, the “Conclusion” and various other moments highlight and radiate her rebellion, her elevation of the sacredness of the heart’s truths over the social order and over the satanic attacks of Roger Chillingworth, and over the guilt-ridden doubts of the hypocritical Dimmesdale.
One of the best moments in the book, besides the dignified entry in chapter 2, is where she is on the scaffold and all her memories of Old England flash in front of her mental vision. I think this is one of Hawthorne’s most artistically resonant and dignified moments, allowing us to get a glimpse of Hester’s past without going into a loose and baggy realist excess. I am not saying that Tolstoy, had he handled this material, would do poorly; in fact, if Anna Karenina is evidence (which I will read soon), I am sure he would have handled it with special brilliance. But Hawthorne’s romantic intensity, and his artistic decision to condense it into a psychological flash, was a brilliant choice in allowing Hester to experience the flow of memory at this moment which would forever define her life.
The style of the novel, with its long sentences, its probing psychological insight, its containment of historical and descriptive brilliance, appeals to the novel’s richly wrought and spectacular aesthetic. Viewed as overrich in some eyes, I think the heightened eloquence in the novel’s voice, and the reasonably elevated cadences of much of the dialogue (notwithstanding some strangeness in a child’s using thee and thou in a novel), fit and engross the reader who is prepared to accept Hawthorne’s rich novel. I could quote passages, but as this review is one of general observations, I would restrain myself from padding out the review.
For me, The Scarlet Letter is a novel I think about as a touchstone for great art. Like Paradise Lost, Macbeth, Lolita, Moby-Dick, Hamlet, King Lear, The Iliad, The Odyssey, it does not provide easy answers, nor does it always give easy satisfaction. But in its portrayal of richly wrought characters in Hester and Chillingworth and Dimmesdale and Pearl, in its eloquent and sonorous style that accommodates psychological realism and rich description of the most lavish and fertile gorgeousness, in its splendid play of history and romance, and in its overall spellbinding effect, The Scarlet Letter earns the word “masterpiece” and becomes to me a something to be sorrowed over and yet read and thought about with awe and reverence and love.
January 28, 2025
I have several editions of The Scarlet Letter, because I fell in love with it at age 10 when my sister was reading it for her highschool English class, and every time I re-read it I love it even more. This particular Norton edition is especially excellent, great footnotes and extras at the end. I'm still forever disappointed that I cannot find more essays discussing my favorite details, Carlanda Green comes closest with her "The Custom-House: Hawthorne's Dark Wood of Error," but I'd really like to participate in a discussion on how Hawthorne continued these allusions through the book (especially with chapter XX: The Minister in a Maze). I suppose I'll have to write it myself someday.
July 22, 2022
this book is single-handedly the most aggravating piece of literature i have ever had to read for class. it was INFURIATING. for so many different reasons. ugh.
June 1, 2023
3,5
Surprisingly entertaining. All in all a good story, but not really my thing.
Surprisingly entertaining. All in all a good story, but not really my thing.
February 7, 2025
I read it ONCE A YEAR!!!!!
March 5, 2017
While there is still plenty to read, what is left is criticism and analysis, I have finished The Scarlet Letter. In theory, I read this in HS, in reality I probably didn't get past 10 pages. All I remember is I hated the book and hated Hawthorne. Recently, I read a collection of Hawthorne's short stories and liked it. So, after many, many, many years, I decided to go back and finally read The Scarlet Letter. This time around I finished the book and I enjoyed it. The Custom House was a fun introduction that has a lighter tone than the book itself. Hawthorne creates a vivid picture of the custom house and it's occupants. It does take a little effort to get used to the language of the period and Hawthorne's writing style. This is probably the reason (along with the slow pace) why I disliked the book in HS (that and my general lack of interest in literature at the time). Yet, what I disliked about the book in HS, are some of the strengths of the book. The pace isn't slow, Hawthorne uses the pace to develop the characters and the story. By the end, I couldn't put down the book because I wanted to see what happened. Hawthorne does a nice job of putting you in Puritan Boston, you can see the streets, the people, and even the forest. My only criticism is that I wish we got to know the main characters a little better.
April 15, 2010
The Scarlet Letter is a classic book that keeps you on the edge on of your seat as the plot slowly unfolds into a dramatic tale of two lovers and their hidden secrets as they go about their daily lives. The setting takes place during the sevententh century with a little purtian society in Boston as we see the fight of a young adulterous woman Hester face the judgers in her town while trying to raise a feisty child (pearl) on her own in a isolated cabin on the edge of town life, all the while the dark secrets of a young pastor Mr. Dimmesdale lome quietly in the shadows of his broken heart. Though it may not seem like it, this book is very relatable through their use of symbolism, not everything is at it originally seems to be, and almost everyone can relate to a specific character; whether that be Hester with the depression of her past but still having a peace of heart, or Mr. Dimmesdale with his constant self guilt, or even Pearl as she finds herself helplessly in the middle of a big mess. In the end this book leaves you with a peace in your heart and a settled knowledge that in the end, all are equal.
August 7, 2018
There was a time when I'd read Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter every year. I still think it's among the great American novels. The appeal, for me, is Hester Prynne as the strong female protagonist, and the writer Hawthorne's reluctance to endorse a fully Romantic view of the world. The world is on the one hand stark and unfair, and people are judgmental and hypocritical, and so on, but there is at the same time this beautiful significance that we as human beings can always read into the world. Hester has sex outside of marriage, has a child, and is forced to wear an A. But the A, signifying adultery, is embroidered boldly. Hester has chosen to embroider it so well. And the A does not always mean the same thing at all times. Sometimes, people choose to read it as A. Sometimes Hester herself is taken as a kind of savior. And though her sentence is harsh, Hester has this practical wisdom to turn her skills outward and become more selfless. This really is just such a beautiful work. Books like this, and The Great Gatsby, are both such wonderfully inspiring books, and tell us so much about America and the human condition.
October 30, 2018
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne is not worth the read. Don’t get me wrong, I quite enjoy gruesome and bleak stories; they make for captivating reads. But this gothic/romantic/dramatic tragedy was a little excessive. If you enjoy slow moving books-I’m talking pouring molasses out of the jar slow-pages full of characters' feelings, and the reasons they feel that way then by all means read the Scarlet letter. But I am not kidding about pages full of feelings. The title of the book should be The Superfluous Letter.
Albeit, there were a few redeeming qualities in the book: morals, sin, and underlying themes of feminism. Consequently, The Scarlet Letter is a well written “classic,” and (so I’ve heard) beloved in many circles. If you decide to read it, it’s great for the purpose of impressing your literature-loving friends. Although some readers such as myself might find The Scarlet Letter to be tedious, others might enjoy some aspects of it and find that, if nothing else, getting to the end of the novel is an impressive achievement.
Albeit, there were a few redeeming qualities in the book: morals, sin, and underlying themes of feminism. Consequently, The Scarlet Letter is a well written “classic,” and (so I’ve heard) beloved in many circles. If you decide to read it, it’s great for the purpose of impressing your literature-loving friends. Although some readers such as myself might find The Scarlet Letter to be tedious, others might enjoy some aspects of it and find that, if nothing else, getting to the end of the novel is an impressive achievement.
May 19, 2010
Okay, um so the edition that I read is one-third The Scarlet Letter and two-thirds people talking about The Scarlet Letter. I fully intended to read some of the essays and criticisms, etc. But that shit is annoying. Even the preface by the author is intolerably flowery and unreadable.
This was one of those books that we studied in high school without ever actually reading it. I also knew the general story from hearing Demi Moore talk about it on Oprah one time, too.
It's so good. Well-written. Poetic language. Great ideas. Compelling story. Deep philosophies. Historical account. A true classic in the cannon of world literature.
I expect to read this again in 10 to 15 years with my kids.
March 18, 2018
The Scarlet Letter is a classic for a reason. Literature can be read again and again and the reader can still gain a new insight each time, and TSL is literature with a capital "L." Although I read for a class, I am glad I was scheduled to do so - too many endeavors which are truly enriching we pass up because of time constraints. In the novel's pages are the seeds of literary types and tropes which are still sown in current literary endeavors; as Solomon said there exists nothing new under the sun. This novel is as much a map of past as a template for future authorship. Anyone who wishes to write well could learn from its pages.
January 29, 2016
This book was amazing. Sweetly and complicatedly written, this book pulled me into the tragic story and left my heart hurting. It was so somber, so sad, so unbearable. Even though the style and rules of writing have shifted to a different level since that day, the writing was no less glorious. The big words and fancy style in some ways made it more enjoyable, especially because it was so detailed and flowed so easily. Definitely a book worth reading!
May 22, 2007
i think waiting to read this until college really made this better. for a laugh, compare the scene with hester and arthur in the woods to the scene in The Age of Innocence with ellen and whats-his-name in the met. and not just because i wrote a paper on it. good times!
November 3, 2018
Of all the books I read in high school, The Scarlet Letter was my least favorite by leaps and bounds. Twelve years later (oh god) I'm now of the mind that maybe high schoolers just shouldn't have to read Hawthorne! Which is to say, I liked it a LOT more now, and I also really dug (most) of the short stories!
September 9, 2009
This could stand for a re-read; especially the critical essays.
March 9, 2015
I have tried however, I am just not a fan of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Best part was when Pearl didn't know her mother, Hester, when she wasn't wearing her A. Otherwise, the book dragged.
March 9, 2016
ah yes the canon, quite, indeed *jerk-off motions*
September 21, 2020
An excellent edition of Hawthorne's masterpiece which includes a selection of his short stories and over 500 pages of essays covering every possible interpretation of the novel
September 24, 2023
I haven't read all of Hawthorne, but The Scarlet Letter is more difficult than The House of Seven Gables and The Blithedale Romance. So I recommend paying for the Norton Critical Edition, because the footnotes really help the reader get through the text. I'd read Scarlet Letter twice in the distant past, never really liking or understanding it. This time I really got the power of the author's challenging prose, and the complexity of the issues that spring forth from the main cluster of characters (Hester, Pearl, Dimmesdale, and Chillingworth). This is not necessarily the most entertaining of the classics but it's really interesting as a study of how one "sin" can ripple quite differently through the lives of those touched by it. I'm glad I gave this a third try.
November 11, 2025
Always a good read. This year, I had my students read it from a feminist literary criticism standpoint, looking for Hawthorne's attitudes about women and their place in the world. We've had some great conversations so far, and our Socratic seminar is on Thursday, with a timed essay the next day. Looking forward to seeing the results. I also recorded myself reading the book aloud for my less competent readers to use as they followed along. There were more than a few sentences that I had to record multiple times to get the rhythms right, but it was a good experience for me. I learned to appreciate his cadences more.
September 5, 2022
I finished the first edition 1850 published in 1994.
Get your dictionaries out.
It’s not just about her but the people in her life.
The religion of the times.
The expectable social ways of the time.
Life in Salem after the witch trials.
Life as a Puritan with child. Living in jail or in the out skirts of town.
And, the same people that shunned her bought her fine needlework.
Appropriate reading estimated in High school level.
Get your dictionaries out.
It’s not just about her but the people in her life.
The religion of the times.
The expectable social ways of the time.
Life in Salem after the witch trials.
Life as a Puritan with child. Living in jail or in the out skirts of town.
And, the same people that shunned her bought her fine needlework.
Appropriate reading estimated in High school level.
August 7, 2022
I wrote an essay on this book junior year of highschool. Partially because we had to but I choose a theme that forced me to look at the constant symbolism that was not of course the scarlet letter. And I always get taken back to the scene in the first with her daughter. And the talk of dolls. Something in my heart just won’t let go of that scene even three years later today.
December 19, 2022
I can understand why this story is a classic. The story has it all, star-crossed lovers, deceit, murder, religious fanaticism, and I’m probably missing some.
What I can’t understand is why it’s a Banned Book. No sex actually happens in the story, the act takes place before the story begins. No murder happens, no actual violence on Hester. 🤷♀️
What I can’t understand is why it’s a Banned Book. No sex actually happens in the story, the act takes place before the story begins. No murder happens, no actual violence on Hester. 🤷♀️
June 14, 2023
Always a bit of a trip reading these 19th century authors as they're so verbose. I had trouble deciding whether this was proto- feminism or whether he really believed some of the stuff he was spouting about sin and the devil.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews