This quote does a great job of summing up Puritan society, and you will see instances of the intertwining of law and religion throughout the novel. Consider these questions:
- While reading The Crucible, we talked about the ability of various opposing/seemingly related ideas to coexist. Do you think that morality and law coexisted in Puritan society? Is morality synonymous with religion in Puritanical society? Is morality always synonymous with religion?
- Why do you think religion played such a huge role in the Puritan's lives? Could it be kind of like the glue of their society? With this in mind, why were Puritans like Hester Prynne so harshly punished and frowned upon by their neighbors?
- Is it possible to be an individual in this strict society? Think about Hester's presence as she stands on the scaffold with her child.
Okay, well since there is no one for me to really respond to, I’ll just take a guess and see how everyone agrees, disagrees or whatever.
ReplyDeleteMorality is definitely coexisting with religion in Puritanical society. Since the basis of their community/belief is religion, their laws and morality (should be considered one since laws outline what is morally right) become intertwined with religion. One quote reads “as befitted a people amongst whom religion and law were almost identical, and in whose character both were so thoroughly interfused, that the mildest and the severest act of public discipline were alike made venerable and awful.” (37). This quote shows the link between laws and religion, furthering the connection between religion and morality. However, Libbey asks whether morality is always synonymous with religion. Although religion strives for morality, I find that in most of the texts we have read so far tell us that religion’s dominating power actually turns those away from reality. In The Crucible we found that many lied in court to go along with the church and its relentless power, even though it is the church itself that declares that “one shall not bear false witness”. Even the leaders recognize the lies and refuse to admit that they were wrong—making the very leaders of the church immoral. In “The Market Place” I saw an entire population denouncing this one woman for a crime that means nothing. Because the church labeled her shameful, the rest of the community just follows their lead, afraid to deny/defy the church’s power even though the church commands its followers to respect one another. It is the church (the center of laws in this society) which turns its people away from what is morally right.
However, as Libbey says, the religion is the “glue of their society”. It may not be morally right, but the church turns society to go against one common enemy, ultimately unifying the community. I am not sure that this is right, and feel free to contradict me, but I feel that the church almost needs to publically humiliate all these people so that the public can visualize and carry out their anger against these people. This as a whole unites the society against this one person while fully supporting the church.
As for the question of individuality, I believe it to be impossible. The entire community is denouncing her for something different. One quote talks about “that early severity of the Puritan character” (37), demonstrating how the Puritans have so many restrictions and rules that one is forced to conform and blend in with everyone else. When describing Hester it reads “Her attire, which, indeed, she had wrought for the occasion, in prison, and had modeled much after her own fancy, seemed to express the attitude of her spirit, the desperate recklessness of her mood, by its wild and picturesque peculiarity.” (40). The individuality she expresses is exactly what leads her to be a shame to her entire community and exactly what causes her to be in jail. She uses her attire to express who she is and as a result is subdued in the walls of a prison cell.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that made much sense...
As far as I can tell, I believe that morality and religion are almost always synonymous in any society, not just the Puritanical society per se. After all, it is ultimately religion that works to teach people of what morality is and how it can aid them in the course of their daily lives. It was religion that brought about the ideas of the Ten Commandments, which essentially define morality - what is "right" and what is "wrong". It is wrong to murder; it is wrong to steal; it is wrong to say the Lord's name in vein; etc. It is right to respect one's parents; it is right to know and respect the Sabbath; etc. Religion is essentially the original founder of morality; without it we would never know exactly what would be "wrong" and what would be "right".
ReplyDeleteThen, it follows logically that since the Puritans respected religion as law, and morality and religion are interchangeable, law and morality are intertwined in Puritanical settings.
Puritans, unfortunately however, are often persecuted as Hester is BECAUSE of these strict beliefs of morality. Morality is often a black-and-white issue and those who don't see eye-to-eye on it will find fault in each other, continuing the age-old power struggle of minority vs. majority. "It might be, than an Antinomian, a Quaker, or other heterodox religionist, was to be scourged out of the town," (Hawthorne, 37).
The question of individuality, however, I believe depends on a certain amount of subtlety. While it most certainly may be possible to stand out from the almost clone-like group of "wives and maidens of old English birth and breeding," (38), it is probably not highly advised to do so, lest shame and degradation be cast upon thon. "Express the attitude of her spirit, the desperate recklessness of her mood, by its wild and picturesque peculiarity," (40). Probably, the best plan of action would be a happy medium between Hester and the "clone".
It is my opinion, (key word; opinion), that it is impossible to be an individual in these strict Puritan societies. In the crucible, we saw this lack of diversity in the morals of the characters, as well as their surrender to religion. To me, an individual is not one who contemplates their ideals in private, but rather argues and announces them in public. On second thought, an announcement or argument isn’t even necessary! An individual is someone who will simply defend their opinions and not surrender them to those around them. In “The Crucible”, people surrendered their opinions to the church as opposed to defending them. More specifically, John Proctor was emphatic that “sprits” and “witches” didn’t exist, and this is what led to his demise. Being an individual is what caused his downfall.
ReplyDeleteIn a society where being an individual leads to being outcast, a certain mold is formed and maintained. A refusal to fit into, or even accept the mold will result in an expulsion from society and due to this, Puritans are notoriously symmetric. Puritan society, or any strict society for that matter, is embodied by a lack of diversity and a lifestyle of strict conformity.
This being said, in my opinion it is impossible for an individual to exist in a strict society. In truth, though, it depends on your definition of an individual. We see that John Proctor is in fact an individual with unique thoughts, but the fact that he doesn’t hold true to them makes him indistinguishable from the rest.
As individuality goes i believe it is possible in this society. As Hester Prynne stands upon the scaffold she appeared to express this individualism, "It had an effect of a spell, taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity, and enlosing her in a spere by herself" (41). "It" is rephering to the "SCARLET LETTER" which appears to be the symbolism of individuality of the society. The embroidery is unique and stands out as a sign of Hester standing out in society.
ReplyDeleteI also saw, although may be off, that because Hester is standing on the scaffold, looking out at the rest of the community she has the ability to have her own "individual" view of her town, (relating back to the transcendentalist ideas of everyones own views because of their individual esxeriences). "Be that as it might, the scaffold of the pillory was a point of view that revealed to Hester Prynne the entire track along which she had been treading, since her ahppy infancy. Standing on that miserable eminence, she saw again her native village, in Old England..." (43).
I would like to go back to what George was saying about morality and religion.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that morality does not exist without religion, and also i disagree that "religion is essentially the original founder of morality". i say this, because i believe people can be completely moral (if not more moral, in some cases) than religious people. As previously mentioned numerous times, we see this in "The Crucible" in that the people were doing something completely and unarguably immoral by lying to the public and accusing people of being witches, ultimately making them murderers. This is in no way moral, however it was only happening due to the influence the church was having on the people. In the "Scarlet Letter," the Church is forcing Hester to be publicly embarrassed because of her mistakes, which she obviously realizes she made, "Hester Prynne, -yes, at herself,(looked)- who stood on the scaffold of the pillory, an infant on her arm, and the letter A, in scarlet, fantastically embroidered with gold thread upon her bosom...she turned her eyes downward...to assure herself that the infant and the shame were real." (Hawthorne 44). How is publicly embarrassing someone for a private mistake she made at all moral?...And all of this is happening due to the Church's influence on the people, forcing them all to follow the lead as both Greg and molly mentioned. however, the lead is immoral. All of the people who are following the command of the church by humiliating this woman who made a mistake, are being immoral. Is life not about forgiveness? these people are showing no forgiveness or sympathy. Again we see this paradox between morality and religion.
Just as a heads up, all of my page numbers are wrong because they’re from my version of the book, I’ll go to the bookroom tomorrow and get myself a copy to match!
ReplyDeleteTo agree with Emma, I think morality and religion are coexisting and are also in conflict within this Puritanical society. To highlight one place in particular, Hawthorne narrates, “an object to remind him of the image of the Divine Maternity…something which should remind him, indeed, but only by contrast, of that sacred image of sinless motherhood, whose infant was to redeem the world. Here, there was the taint of deepest sin in the most sacred quality of human life, working such effect, that the world was only the darker for this woman’s beauty, and the more lost for the infant that she had born” (48). Hester, while being publicly humiliated and condemned for her sin, is likened to the Virgin Mary. Her sin is at once evil according to morality and somewhat holy because of the reference to an essentially holy figure, the Virgin Mary. Society is in conflict, forcing Hester upon the scaffold to suffer for breaking a fundamental code of morality while also recognizing her as a woman to be respected in a religious context (even though her sin breaks a commandment).
To address the question of identity, I think it is possible to be an individual in Puritanical society, even if that role of individualism is one for the outcast. I know the argument against me here is that being an outcast means being outside of society (maybe outcast isn’t the best word here, but I hope you know what I mean) and therefore not actually being an individual within it, but I would argue that Hester does serve a purpose for the Puritanical society, and while she is singled out for her sin, she is not completely expelled from the society for acting as an individual. Here’s a quote I love for this thought:
“that scarlet letter, so fantastically embroidered and illuminated upon her bosom. It had the effect of a spell, taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity, and enclosing her in a sphere by herself” (46)
and back to George again, saying "Religion is essentially the original founder of morality; without it we would never know exactly what would be "wrong" and what would be "right"."...clearly the puritans in this book, as well as the crucible have an askew sense of right and wrong as although Hester did do something "wrong," so are all of the people of the church in judging her, embarrassing her, and seemingly blocking off possibilities of forgiveness. "They were stern enough to look upon her death, had that been the sentence, without a murmur at its severity..." (Hawthorne 42)
ReplyDeletewooops
ReplyDeletei just realized my first sentence didn't make sense!" I disagree that morality does not exist without religion, and also i disagree that "religion is essentially the original founder of morality""
what i MEANT was that i disagree that morality and religion are synonymous. i think that morality can definitely exist without religion and i do not think that "religion is essentially the original founder of morality"
In any historical setting and/or context, whenever religion has taken over government, it has done so in a utterly dominating way. People are left to choose between following religion and being decried as an infidel. Expanding on what Maggie has said, the individual's ideals does have a role in Puritanical society. This role, however, is not an enjoyable one, for said role is to serve as an example to all others who would seek to follow in her footsteps.
ReplyDeleteThe severity of punishments for crimes deters any would-be 'criminals' from following through with their act. The very fact that they can see, were they to trace the path of those before them, that to disobey the church is to walk off the edge into a chasm is demoralizing. Rather than becoming a martyr, the victim exemplifies and solidifies the rule of the church.
The image of Hestor Prynne would be a noble one in any other setting - she is a beautiful, confident women with child, a "sacred image of sinless motherhood, whose infant was to redeem the world" (42). Her actions and demeanor, individual as they are, shed a light on the path ahead of people. Yet, the church, through its denial of that path, has made said light vanish, and in doing so, made it so "the world was only darker for this woman's beauty, and the more lost for the infant that she had borne" (42). The people in the society have glimsed freedom and the path to it. However, just as their eyes began to adapt to the light, it went out, leaving them incapable of seeing in the darkness which returns.
While the people might at one point been able to see the path again, this process of blinding them was perpetuated throughout Puritanical times; the individual was sacrificed to maintain the integrity of a theocratic state.
I think the idea of morality and religion do coexist in The Scarlet Letter. I think that people who can create a balance within themselves based on their religion, and their view of morality (if that is even possible in a society) are the true Transcendentalists of the world. I would like to expand on Molly's point, that Hester expresses individualism with the scarlet letter that she says appears to be the symbolism of individuality in their Puritan society. I completely agree with this claim, because I feel the letter is the physical representation of Hester's differentiation in society, She does not look the same as other women, she does not think in the same way as other women. i think Hawthorne's extensive description of the prison door in chapter 1 was very good thinking on his part, because he introduces the audience to another important symbol of individuality and freedom before he moves on to develop the characters and plot. One quote that I think resembles Hester's undeniable independence is on page 44, when Hawthorne explains," Hester Prynne, -yes at herself- who stood on the scaffold of the pillory, an infant on her arm, adn the letter A, in scarlet, fantastically embroidered with gold thread,upon her bosom!" This quote shows how Hester most certainly does not conform to society and stands alone in a society which is so focused on abiding by their strict religion and from the pressure of their surrounding peers.
ReplyDeleteTo address the question of the coexistence of law and morality in puritanical society, I do not believe it is possible for law and morality to coexist. Though they are both present, coexistence would mean the equal distribution of both forces among society. In my opinion, law is predominantly controlling the puritanical society because no one seems to question the authority. It is impossible for everyone to share the same exact morals, therefore people are restraining the public display of their morals in order to ‘mold’ into society. If people were to break free of this molded society, they would not look at Hester as evil. “Had there been a Papist among the crowd of Puritans, he might have seen in this beautiful woman, so picturesque in her attire and mien, and with the infant at her bosom, an object to remind him of Divine Maternity, which so many illustrious painters have vied with one another to represent, something which should remind him, indeed, but only by contrast, of the sacred image of sinless motherhood, whose infant was to redeem the world”. (Hawthorne 42). I agree with Emma that the church publicly humiliates people in order to take their anger out on people. This release of anger by public humiliation allows people to abide by the law and still be morally correct. “There can be no outrage, methinks, against our common nature- whatever be the delinquencies of the individual,- no outrage more flagrant than to forbid the culprit to hide his face for shame; as it was the essence of this punishment to do” (42). This is also present in The Crucible, when people convicted others of witchcraft.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure whether it is possible for an individual to exist at this time in a Puritanical society. The answer depends on what defines an individual and what defines existence. As Greg stated, a person stands out as an individual if they argue and announce their ideas in public. A person’s actions definitely allow them to be seen as an individual, but I question whether a person is defined as an individual by their actions. Appearances and perceptions are often deceptive. As we discussed regarding The Crucible, morals cannot truly be displayed by actions. This is because the only one who is able to truly know one’s beliefs is oneself. If a person is to partake in certain actions, they may only be a public display and not necessarily represent one’s beliefs. If a person believes something different, are they less of an individual than one who preaches their different belief? Regarding existence, Hester obviously exists, but is being punished for her sins. Does existence mean living void of punishment such as Hester’s? It seems as though in puritanical society, everyone is inevitably led to punishment. “The founders of a new colony, whatever utopia of human virtue and happiness they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison” (36). Could does existence mean being accepted by society? If so, an individual would not be able to exist because they would never be accepted into the mold of ‘moral values’ of the puritanical society.
ReplyDeleteAlright, just as a heads up, my pages are different as well because I have my own copy of the book.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Greg's opinion of the individual in a Puritanical society- it cannot exist. I think this is because in a Puritan society, religion is law, and this is where they get the basis for their morality and life views, ect. I kind of agree with the idea (I forget who said this) that the individual can exist, but if it were to exist the individual would be frowned upon, and they would only be recognized for doing something scandalous or an act that affected the society as a whole.
I don't think that an act of adultery should qualify as an act that affects the entire society, it really only affects the people involved. I think that in talking about the individual once again, one cannot exist because the laws are so tight and rules and regulations are strictly enforced. We didn't see this as much in The Crucible, because the whole town was crazy and accusing others left and right of being involved with witchcraft, which left the society flawed and imperfect. However, thus far in The Scarlet Letter, it's pretty clear that rules are strictly enforced. Hawthorne uses words such as, "identical", "interfused", when describing religion and law in the Puritan society, so this implies that because the law(religion) is governing the people, there is no opportunity to create an identity for yourself. The Bible is what is really governing the people here, and the judges look to the Scriptures for help in figuring out important life matters.
Before Hester Prynne appears on the balcony and scaffolding, a "gossip" says to a crowd of women, "This woman has brought shame upon all of us..." (Hawthorne 36), which I took to be a suggestion that the society is conformist and everyone acts in the same manner, following the same rules so as to not be persecuted as Hester Prynne was, with her Scarlet Letter.
Though the Puritan society was one that was strictly controlled by religios law as well as forced principles, I think that morality was still present within these communites, but on a more subconcious level within the people. The crowd that gathers to see Hester at the market place seems very different from the people of Salem in The Crucible. While that group had completely lost control of themselves and went crazy with delight in the hangings of the accused witches, the people in The Scarlet Letter don't seem to feel the same way about those who break the code. Hawthorne says that, "They were stern enough to look upon her death, had that been the sentence, without a murmur at its severity, but had none of the heartlessness of another social state, which would find only a theme for jest in an exhibition like the present," showing that the people do have recognition of the immorality in their society (Hawthorne 42). Because of this, the people do have a sense of morality, but that morality is shielded by the strict control of their society. These Puritanical societies functioned solely on keeping morality at bay, for if everyone was to express their own morals and personal beliefs, the societies would erupt into chaos, like what happenned in The Crucible. In this case, morality existed in Puritanical societies only as a facade; if the people could accept what was considered to be moral, then they would be able to live a safe life. I find this to be rather ironic, seeing as it makes following a society regardless of its immorality the moral thing to do, due to the alternative of an uncontrolled society where suddenly everyone is immmoral.
ReplyDeleteTo be an individual in these societies wasn't only a danger to yourself, but a danger to the rest of the people, seeing as it only led to even stricter rules and control, as well as tempted the rest of the townspeople to give in to their own morals and beliefs. This ties in with the overall theme of transcendentalism: a free life is only possible in a society that allows it to function. In Puritanical societies, any effort to live a free life would only contribute to the degradation of the society.
ReplyDeleteI really like Kara's point about this quote: "Hester Prynne, -yes at herself- who stood on the scaffold of the pillory, an infant on her arm, and the letter A, in scarlet, fantastically embroidered with gold thread,upon her bosom!" I put a sticky note at this part because of the repetition, the emphasis on why Hester is being isolated, because she is an individual. We had just read a couple of (very long) pages describing this same thing- the infant, the letter, how Hester feels, strict law of society, and yet it is said again to conclude the chapter. Kara said that this quote exemplifies Hester's individualism, un-conformity, in Puritan society of strict religious law. I think what's also interesting about this entire "The Market Place" chapter is the imagery and the descriptions of Hester and the "scarlet letter" she wears, and how those descriptions contribute to/portray the tension in the story between individual and society, and the struggle for balance (if one exists) between religion and morals.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the scarlet letter is described on Hester as "artistically done, and with so much fertility and gorgeous luxuriance of fancy" (40) is what makes it "illuminated" (41) in society because it stands out, a lot of people gossip about it for this reason.
There are a lot of references to light and dark so far, even grey- perhaps the notions of duality:
-"In her arms a child, a baby of some three months old, who winked and turned aside its little face from the too vivid light of day; because its existence, heretofore, had brought it acquainted only with the grey twilight of a dungeon, or other darksome apartment of the prison" (40)
-"Those who had before known her, and had expected to behold her dimmed and obscured by a disastrous cloud, were astonished, and even startled, to perceive how her beauty shown out, and made a halo of the misfortune and ignominy in which she was enveloped....there was something extremely painful in it" (40)
-"Like a black shadow emerging into sunshine" (39)
- **Also in chapter one "The Prison Door"- there is the contrast between the "black flower of civilized society" (36) and the "rose bush" that "sprung up under the footsteps of the sainted Ann Hutchinson, as she entered the prison door" (37)
Like Maggie (such a good point!) used this quote: “an object to remind him of the image of the Divine Maternity…something which should remind him, indeed, but only by contrast, of that sacred image of sinless motherhood, whose infant was to redeem the world. Here, there was the taint of deepest sin in the most sacred quality of human life, working such effect, that the world was only the darker for this woman’s beauty, and the more lost for the infant that she had born”
The part of this quote "only by contrast" reminds me of the Crucible (don't have my book with me but I'll try) when in Act one the narrator discusses how the church only exists because it stems from the duel, opposing force the devil. (Also Jung's theory of archetype's with the bird). This in a way relates to Taylor's point that "The image of Hestor Prynne would be a noble one in any other setting".
"Had a roar of laughter burst from a multitude- each man, each woman, each shrill-voiced child, contributing their individual parts..." (43), I thought the word choice here was interesting. While all of society is staring together at Hestor on the scaffold as she is being shunned for her individualism, the crowd is still referred to and described as "individual parts".
And George, when you said,
"Probably, the best plan of action would be a happy medium between Hester and the "clone""
It reminded me of the "grey area" we discussed in The Crucible. Puritan society is extreme and absolute, Hester is punished because she defies that absolute.
Ok well I got home at 9 so sorry for being late, but I will share my thoughts on the matter after skimming the conversation thus far.
ReplyDeleteI believe that morality and religion indeed coexist in Puritanical society, as religion is based on a set of morals. This is prevalent in the Crucible, as the strict religious principles of the society caused people to act accordingly, doing what they believed to be "morally correct". However misguided these morals may be, however, they are present chiefly because it is in their religious beliefs to follow them. That is of course not to say that a society free from religion cannot be moral. As I have said many times, religion does not need to be taken literally, rather, it is the way that you change your way of living that is its true influence. Religion tells a person to live a certain way, and it sets guidelines to follow. However, when taken too literally, things can get out of hand (the witch trials). So, even a non-religious person can be moral, as long as they do what they feel is right.
This idea of religion, however, often conflicts with law in society, especially Puritanical society. Moral values do not always follow what is lawfully correct, and The Crucible demonstrated this perfectly. Proctor felt the morally right decision would be to stand firm and never admit to a sin he did not commit, but the law said that he had to or else face certain death. However, this would technically be bringing death upon himself, which also went against his morals, so he was in a tight spot. This just goes to show how uncompromising the two can be. Puritans want always to do what is right by their religion and morals, and the law does not always allow them to do so, which can create serious conflict within their society. Thus, I do believe that the two coexisted in Puritan society to an extent, however their effects on each other are generally detrimental to the society.
Sorry again for the late post.
Oh and to make my answer to the question (woops) concrete, I don't think it would be possible to be an individual in puritan society for very long. I wanted to say that you can't be an individual in this sort of society, but I think that Maggie and also Taylor made a good point- that the individual role in society would not be a "enjoyable one", or as Maggie said, and "outcast" role- and that's (I think someone said this) the battle between minority and majority where minority would generally play the more uncomfortable, less enjoyable role.
ReplyDeleteAnd Anna, I agree with you. While I do think that religion and morality are entirely intertwined in Puritanism, I don't think that they co-exist or are defined by each other in all cases. I agree that one did not spring from the other. You don't need religion to be moral, and as our unit has proven, religion doesn't necessarily guarantee morality.
Along with Grace and Anna, I agree that religion and morality are entirely intertwined in Puritanism, however are not defined by each other as Grace states in the post above. It seems as though these two concepts in the novel are present, in order to guide the reader into understanding the importance of morality and religion during this critical time period.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Taylor Peterson's first post, I referred back (to and reread the section) on light and dark and focused more on the importance of the Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne's portrayal of the scarlet letter is mainly what the entire scene is based upon. Hester Prynne's appearance and actions are all referred back to the scarlet letter.
"The point which drew all eyes, and, as it were, transfigured the wearer,-so that both men and women, who had been familiarly acquainted with Hester Prynne, were now impressed as if they beheld her for the first time,- was that SCARLET LETTER, so fantastically embroidered and illuminated upon her bosom. It had the effect of a spell taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity , and enclosing her in a sphere by herself" (Hawthorne 41)
Hawthorne uses the Scarlet Letter in order to portray Hester as a character. From this line, we can assume that Hester is attracting peoples attentions and she is endearing in a sense, because they speak of the embroidery being tight to her bosom. knowing that being tight to a bosom refers to a M
*Mother
ReplyDeleteWe can assume that the child in her arms is her own.
ReplyDeleteSorry for writing this so late!
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Grace,
I think I have to disagree actually. I believe the individual can exist in a Puritan society - simply because (as we learnt in Amstud) - puritans were not actually 'puritanical') We often picture puritans as strict, law abiding citizens. However, very few abided my these laws, or acted in the exact same way. While a small group obeyed, others branched off - forming their own groups and individual ideas.
Perhaps you argue that they were no longer living in a puritanical society, if they did so. However i disagree and think that it still would be considered 'a puritan society' as the individuals are often found in community with other puritan believers.
Perhaps if all were completely 'puritanical' as one would imagine, then yes - the individual is limited from expression of their own ideas. However, this was not the case in the 'tipical' puritan society.
(As we saw in The Crucible, there are differences in character and opinion within society.)
Speaking of morality and religion - I believe they go hand in hand. Hester is looked down upon - as Larissa pointed out, a woman exclaims "This woman has brought shame upon all of us..." (Hawthorne 36).I think its interesting to note how morality is considered a 'group effort' almost - Hester has not brought shame only on herself, but on 'all of us'. Just as religion is a societal/ group idea, so is morality. Morality is controlled by religion. And when religion is controlled by society, morality is also. In this way society, morality and religion are all interconnected.
Greg: TEXTUAL EVIDENCE (but otherwise point well taken)
ReplyDeleteMaggie: great point "To address the question of identity, I think it is possible to be an individual in Puritanical society, even if that role of individualism is one for the outcast"
Taylor: good explansion on Maggie's point "Expanding on what Maggie has said, the individual's ideals does have a role in Puritanical society. This role, however, is not an enjoyable one, for said role is to serve as an example to all others who would seek to follow in her footsteps."
Nicole: thank you for being so good with individual words and their meaning... great point about what it truly means for two thigns to "co-exist" and your consideration of what it really means to be an individual is an important one.
Kaare: absolutely right, both about the dangers of being an individual and about the continued existence of morality even if in contrast to the law (so they are not synonymous but they are also not antonymous)
Grace: you have already honed in on some of the most important symbols of the novel... think about the characters names (Pearl, CHILLINGSworth, DIMMESdale, even Prynne) and what they make you think of not... not so much what their literal meaning is as what the sounds of these names evokes.
also, sorry for the typos... this post comes after 36 hours "in the wild" with Mr. Nulf's class and no caffeine except the coffee I am frantically drinking as I type. (But still, I am an English teacher and am embarrassed of my typos)
ReplyDelete