Puritan Portrayal in The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne

1563kilojules

Puritan Board Freshman
I am currently re-reading The Scarlet Letter as I prepare to teach an American literature course next year in a homeschool co-op. One thing that is striking me this time around is the way Hawthorne portrays Puritans and Puritanism (the last/first time I read TSL, I was 13, so I naturally missed a lot of things). On the one hand, they are depicted as being harsh and somber; the children do not play as normal children but almost as mini Puritan legalists. The main character is treated horribly by the townspeople as a result of her sins.

On the other hand, Hawthorne does humanize the Puritan characters in some ways, but it still seems to me that largely they are painted as stiff, legalistic, and graceless. I wonder also if this description comes from what Hawthorne thought of the Puritans, or if it is a function of the story being set in Salem, home to the Salem witch trials. I have other thoughts on the theology in TSL, but they are probably too many to discuss in this post.

I’m wondering if anyone here has read TSL and has thoughts on how Hawthorne portrays the Puritans.
 
I read it as an anti-Puritan. . . really. . . anti Christian tome and did not include it in my home school curriculum. If others found redemptive aspects in this "hit piece" I'd like to know it.

I don't mind Christians, or Puritans, being shown as flawed or sinful human beings. But Scarlet Letter was so over the top. It read like propaganda to me. Perhaps I over-react.
 
I read it as an anti-Puritan. . . really. . . anti Christian tome and did not include it in my home school curriculum. If others found redemptive aspects in this "hit piece" I'd like to know it.

I don't mind Christians, or Puritans, being shown as flawed or sinful human beings. But Scarlet Letter was so over the top. It read like propaganda to me. Perhaps I over-react.
Thanks for your response! I definitely see where you find it over the top. I also see that in some places, and I plan to make that a point of discussion in the class. I’m including it alongside primary Puritan sources to compare (especially since Hawthorne is writing TSL in 1850, which is many years after the height of the Puritans). I also think it’s important to engage with the worldview Hawthorne seems to espouse, in light of the Romantic literary movement he belongs to.

I don’t think of it as a ‘hit-piece’ because he never necessarily says Puritans are evil, or what they believe is evil, though it could be implied. I find the religious and biblical allusions very interesting, and productive to discuss. I see it as a practice in approaching a piece of literature and discerning what is good and bad, true and untrue, in it.

As far as redemptive aspects, I think the fact that Hester is, in some sense, the most free of the main characters because she has confessed her sin and harbors no secrets is significant and makes a good point. There is also the worship of Dimmesdale by his congregants, while all the time he harbors guilt and is not what they think he is. I think there are important things to discuss there. There are consequences for sin and wrongdoing for the main characters. All the characters are deeply flawed and wrong one another, which reaps negative consequences for them all. There’s a lot more, in my opinion, but I can’t think of it all off the top of my head.

I considered leaving it out of the curriculum, but it is such a significant piece in American literature, and I think my students are mature enough to handle the issues present in the novel, as well as—with guidance—discern which ideas are biblical and unbiblical.

The modern novelist, Marilynne Robinson, has written a few essays combating this portrayal / stigma in our own day.
I will look for those!
 
It’s been many, many years since I’ve read TSL (required high school reading), but I’ve been reading Dickens more recently, and he has the same negative attitude toward Christianity. That particular time period seems to have produced a number of authors with very negative, and very vocal, views of the Church and Christians (Hawthorne, Dickens, Twain). There were also a number of glaring social issues going on: slavery in the States; abject poverty, population displacement, and workhouses in England; the Irish famine. Maybe, just maybe, if the portrayals of church goers given by these authors is even remotely realistic, these men were pointing out the failings of the Church, and what they perceived as gross hypocrisy between what was preached, and what was practiced. Dickens and Twain portrayed their perceptions of the current church, and Hawthorne looked back to lay the blame on the Puritans, or at least his idea of what a Puritan would look like.

I’ve used Dickens as an opportunity to talk to my children about the need to be aware of our own particular blind spots, and especially the blind spots we’ve inherited simply from living in the present world we live in. These authors were pointing out issues which perhaps the Church needed to take notice of, and repent of. Our failings and sins and hypocrisy give the heathen reason to blaspheme our God, and I think that’s what these particular books are very good at pointing out.
 
It's tough to say. I'm not really familiar with the book, but I have read quite a bit about the puritans. In general I would imagine they were pretty serious people. And when looking at how the Salem witch trials played out, I would have a very negative attitude towards the people involved as well. Of course we live in different times now, and life is a lot easier, but from what I know of the puritans, I do agree that they needed to just enjoy life more, be more affectionate and playful, and have fun. I would imagine some of them did, but that's not the general vibe I've gotten from them.
 
Last edited:
I’m wondering if anyone here has read TSL and has thoughts on how Hawthorne portrays the Puritans
I'm answering as one who has never read The Scarlet Letter. I hope you don't mind.

But I have read a lot of the Puritans. And it seems that their era was perhaps the first since Christianity began that truly enjoyed sex without guilt. One of Owen's favorite things he says about our relationship with Christ is that it is conjugal. They freely discussed it. They took it seriously, even to the point of censure, if somebody's spouse was withholding sex from their partner. I never heard of a church doing that today. Of course, sex in the world today is wacko. But I think they were freer in their enjoyment of and more natural speaking of sex than any other group in history. We owe them a debt of thanks.
 
Last edited:
It's tough to say. I'm not really familiar with the book, but I have read quite a bit about the puritans. In general I would imagine they were pretty serious people. And when looking at how the Salem witch trials played out, I would have a very negative attitude towards the people involved as well. Of course we live in different times now, and life is a lot easier, but from what I know of the puritans, I do agree that they needed to just enjoy life more, be more affectionate and playful, and have fun. I would imagine some of them did, but that's not the general vibe I've gotten from them.
Hey I had posted something earlier about the Salem stuff, but deleted it as I didnt want the thread to get off-track. But I had mentioned some Puritans of the day writing against it, and the name of the book I was thinking about was "A Candle in the Dark," by Thomas Ady.
 
Hawthorne was born in Salem and descended from some pretty harsh Puritan ancestors, including one of the witch trials judges. He even changed the spelling of his name to avoid being associated with them. I would think that this probably influenced his unfortunate attitude toward Puritans in his writings.
 
Hawthorne was born in Salem and descended from some pretty harsh Puritan ancestors, including one of the witch trials judges. He even changed the spelling of his name to avoid being associated with them. I would think that this probably influenced his unfortunate attitude toward Puritans in his writings.

Man, I didn't know this.

My theory as to why American Puritanism got so messed up is partly (or mainly) because most New England churches were formed by the Independent minority of English Puritans who came to America to practice their independent philosophy of Church Government more freely.

Even the Great Awaking in early 18th century New England, which I so delight to read and re-read from Edwards' accounts, kinda flopped at its end less than ten years after its commencement. As wonderful as the Awakening was, I am confident that many souls were brought to faith and many (more) sleepy saints brought to new life and vigor, yet much damage was done to the American Church–damage that was a precursor to the absolute mess we are in today. Briefly– the already Independent spirit of even the best churches became more radical. It spawned many troublesome and radical new denominations, sects, and a more independent spirit if you can believe it.

The following citation is by Thomas S. Kidd, professor of history at Baylor University. Dr. Kidd is new to me, so read him with care. However, I agree entirely with the author's opening paragraph. Jonathan Edwards, the Church, and the Damaging Great Awakening

The Great Awakening of the eighteenth century strengthened American religion, but damaged America’s churches. The revivalists’ critics, and their more cautious supporters, believed that traditional church life was being jeopardized by the converts’ transcendent spiritual experiences and itinerants’ intrusive ramblings. Although Puritans and other fervent Protestants had assigned a prominent role to lay piety, America’s churches—especially those of the New England Congregationalists—gave a quasi-monarchical role to the pastor, whose theological education and formal ordination set him above his fellow believers as pastor and ruler. Revivalists assailed the churches’ stability by trumpeting the individual’s knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit. The lowliest man or woman in whom the Spirit dwelled could apprehend divine truths in a manner that an unconverted pastor could not, whatever that pastor’s knowledge of systematic theology, Greek, or Hebrew.
Note: There is a short section back of vol. 4 of Edwards' works where Edwards looks back over the 10± whirlwind years and sais as much.
~~~~~~~

Oh, I could continue for pages and pages, but I will stop here, except for an important reminder.

IMPORTANT: I have said this before on the PB, but I think it bears repeating.
I am now speaking to myself and reminding myself that the Church in America is bigger than I often think–a lot bigger!
If you're at all like me, you may find yourself thinking that the Church is comprised of little more than the Reformed. Sound familiar?​
Although "some [churches] have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."[1] yet there are many churches and denominations–and their gradation ranges from those we could comfortably pray with to those we could only pray for. Yet are they true churches of the great King and LORD of the Church. As others have said, these churches, although true as to being, are weak to sick as to well-being.​
We belong to them–and they belong to us. This is the only way to consider even the unthinkable among the poorest true churches.​

[1] WCF, Chap. 25, Sect. 5. – Please read the whole of Chapter 25.
 
I've read it. I've also read a good bit about Jonathan Edwards' times and Benjamin Franklin's times and while there were many good things about the American Puritans, there were some areas where they likely went too far. I would say Hawthorne's story is a bit of a caricature in many ways, but it has some basis in reality.

The American Puritans were a bit of a different breed from the English and Scottish ones.
 
I've read it. I've also read a good bit about Jonathan Edwards' times and Benjamin Franklin's times and while there were many good things about the American Puritans, there were some areas where they likely went too far. I would say Hawthorne's story is a bit of a caricature in many ways, but it has some basis in reality.

The American Puritans were a bit of a different breed from the English and Scottish ones.
This is a helpful conversation about American (mainly) Puritanism. I haven’t thought about it too much since yesterday when I listened. There is a tendency to want to tie every modern apostasy or aberration to something in the past.

 
Hawthorne was born in Salem and descended from some pretty harsh Puritan ancestors, including one of the witch trials judges. He even changed the spelling of his name to avoid being associated with them. I would think that this probably influenced his unfortunate attitude toward Puritans in his writings.
I did not know this, but that would make a lot of sense. It also explains the section ‘The Custom-House’ very well.
 
Didn't the American Puritans - at least in the New England/Northeast region - eventually mutate into unitarians and transcendentalists?
 
Didn't the American Puritans - at least in the New England/Northeast region - eventually mutate into unitarians and transcendentalists?
A couple months ago, I took a trip up to Concord and saw some of the historical/literary sites, including visiting the historic Emerson home/manse (where Hawthorne stayed for some time). As a consequence of that trip, I've been reading The Transcendentalists and Their World which deals with the rise of this individualistic and false (but, in their view, distinctively American) religion.

Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott, etc were all opposed to religion that was was rooted in objective truth as opposed to subjective experience. Ironically, their predecessors (the liberal congregationalists who later became unitarians) were all opposed to the Great Awakening, believing religion to be objective/societal/moralistic and not personal/experiential/doctrinal.
 
A couple months ago, I took a trip up to Concord and saw some of the historical/literary sites, including visiting the historic Emerson home/manse (where Hawthorne stayed for some time). As a consequence of that trip, I've been reading The Transcendentalists and Their World which deals with the rise of this individualistic and false (but, in their view, distinctively American) religion.

Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott, etc were all opposed to religion that was was rooted in objective truth as opposed to subjective experience. Ironically, their predecessors (the liberal congregationalists who later became unitarians) were all opposed to the Great Awakening, believing religion to be objective/societal/moralistic and not personal/experiential/doctrinal.
Did you happen to visit Walden Pond during your time in Concord?
 
Did you happen to visit Walden Pond during your time in Concord?
I did not, due to time constraints.

But I was just reminded about the story that one of the tour guides told us. Thoreau was so anti-social he used to walk an extra hour out of his way every day so that he would never have to interact with anybody.
 
Thanks for your response! I definitely see where you find it over the top. I also see that in some places, and I plan to make that a point of discussion in the class. I’m including it alongside primary Puritan sources to compare (especially since Hawthorne is writing TSL in 1850, which is many years after the height of the Puritans). I also think it’s important to engage with the worldview Hawthorne seems to espouse, in light of the Romantic literary movement he belongs to.

I don’t think of it as a ‘hit-piece’ because he never necessarily says Puritans are evil, or what they believe is evil, though it could be implied. I find the religious and biblical allusions very interesting, and productive to discuss. I see it as a practice in approaching a piece of literature and discerning what is good and bad, true and untrue, in it.

As far as redemptive aspects, I think the fact that Hester is, in some sense, the most free of the main characters because she has confessed her sin and harbors no secrets is significant and makes a good point. There is also the worship of Dimmesdale by his congregants, while all the time he harbors guilt and is not what they think he is. I think there are important things to discuss there. There are consequences for sin and wrongdoing for the main characters. All the characters are deeply flawed and wrong one another, which reaps negative consequences for them all. There’s a lot more, in my opinion, but I can’t think of it all off the top of my head.

I considered leaving it out of the curriculum, but it is such a significant piece in American literature, and I think my students are mature enough to handle the issues present in the novel, as well as—with guidance—discern which ideas are biblical and unbiblical.


I will look for those!
"never necessarily says Puritans are evil, or what they believe is evil,"

I think the author shows, not tells, which is the most powerful narrative form anyway.

Just my opinion.
 
"never necessarily says Puritans are evil, or what they believe is evil,"

I think the author shows, not tells, which is the most powerful narrative form anyway.

Just my opinion.
For sure. But they aren’t portrayed as wholly bad, and are given ‘redeemable’ qualities. I think it’s certainly fair to say that Hawthorne has a low opinion of the Puritans. I don’t think TSL is a hit piece, however. Also just my opinion :)
 
For sure. But they aren’t portrayed as wholly bad, and are given ‘redeemable’ qualities. I think it’s certainly fair to say that Hawthorne has a low opinion of the Puritans. I don’t think TSL is a hit piece, however. Also just my opinion :)
Since he or writing about people 150-200 years before his time, what was he trying to accomplish? I haven’t read it since high school….100 years ago.
 
I mean, it's possible that the Puritans he was aware of were harsh and somber.

My great-grandfather was a well-regarded Dutch Reformed minister in the RCA in his time, but horrendously harsh and strict, to the point of cruelty, to his family. I agree with most of his theology myself, but definitely not for his sake.
 
Since he or writing about people 150-200 years before his time, what was he trying to accomplish? I haven’t read it since high school….100 years ago.
It honestly strikes me, if anything, a commentary on the need to be free of societal constraints and perhaps even organized religion, especially in light of the Romantic literary movement. The setting is definitely a tool in accomplishing such commentary, but I don’t see the setting as being particularly chosen in order to specifically critique Puritanism, though it is true that Hawthorne was uncomfortable with Puritanism. I could be wrong, but as I’m reading, it doesn’t read like a book written with the purpose of tearing down one’s high opinion of the Puritans.
 
I did not, due to time constraints.

But I was just reminded about the story that one of the tour guides told us. Thoreau was so anti-social he used to walk an extra hour out of his way every day so that he would never have to interact with anybody.
Obviously disagree with Thoreau on a myriad of things. However, I think he is correct here LOL
 
Since he or writing about people 150-200 years before his time, what was he trying to accomplish? I haven’t read it since high school….100 years ago.

The Puritans have always had plenty of enemies, from the libertines who gave them the name Puritan to numerous modern academics. I would say it is because they are the scent of life to those who are living, and the scent of death to those who are dying. While they certainly had their failings, individually and as a movement, I think most of the criticism is against the truth they spoke, or against straw-men built by those who feel condemned by anyone trying to live according to God's ways.
 
Since he or writing about people 150-200 years before his time, what was he trying to accomplish? I haven’t read it since high school….100 years ago.
His intent was probably to portray their American evangelical offspring in a bad light. American congregationalism and presbyterianism was still very much influenced by the theological legacy of the Puritans in those days.
 
Back
Top