2008-09 Eng.: Analysis of Arthur Dimmsdale in The Scarlet Letter

Jessica Beebe
Mr. Littlefield
English 11
9 October 2008

A Portrait of Sin in Saint Dimmesdale

If one must describe “sin” with a singular utterance, then it must be the word “twisted”. It is the nature of sin to be subtle, but frighteningly damaging: perverting what seems to be good into something abominable. In the case of the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, the distortion of his soul is one that takes place where no adoring layperson has the ability to look. Under the guise of angelic perfection, Dimmesdale’s sin is given time to take root in his heart, girded by stubbornness and fastened by the iron grip of his weakness. In the end, it becomes too engrained into his being to be extracted without fatal consequences--consequences that affect not only himself, but also the members of his church.

The Reverend Dimmesdale is “the very asphodel of spiritual perfection, refined till he is almost translucent and glassy” (Lawrence 246). Even Dimmesdale’s personal torturer, Chillingworth, first observes the minister’s “high aspirations for the welfare of his race, warm love of souls, pure sentiments, natural piety, strengthened by thought and study, and illuminated by revelation“ (141). Dimmesdale affects the whole of his congregation with “the speech of an angel” (76) and is viewed as the epitome of saintliness. He is gripping, spiritually compelling, and a source of great comfort and near worship. Yet in Hawthorne’s tale of sanctity and pecado, Dimmesdale is found to be infected by the “poison of that sin [that] had been thus rapidly diffused throughout his moral system. It…stupefied all blessed impulses, and awakened into vivid life the whole brother hood of bad ones” (237). Dimmesdale’s hypocrisy taxes him furiously, preying upon his unusually active conscience, and draining him of health and vitality.

Dimmesdale is introspective to the point of being egotistical—as oft the case with depressed men. But as also the case with depressed men, all logic and helpful introspection is thrown to Satan’s devils. As the narrator of the tale recounts, “Sad, indeed, that an introspection so profound and acute as this poor minister’s should be so miserably deceived!” (230-31). How ironic! For example, Dimmesdale attempts to shame Chillingworth for urging him to confess when he cries out “But who are thou, that meddlest in this matter?--that dares thrust himself between the sufferer and his God?’” (147).Truth be told, Dimmesdale’s soul-mutilating compromises are more than enough to come between God and himself. He attempts to reason himself out of his guilt, to momentarily numb the pain in wake of his hyperactive conscience. The unconfessed sin warps the very doctrine he was called to preserve. He callously bends Scripture when he explains to Chillingworth that

‘There can be, if I forebode aright, no power, short of Divine mercy, to disclose, whether by uttered words, or by type or emblem, the secrets that my be buried with a human heart…Nor have I so read or interpreted Holy Write, as to understand that the disclosure of human thought as and deeds, then to be made is intended as a part of the retribution’ (143).

Dimmesdale goes even further to say that to stay silent is to delay gratification of confessing sins on the Judgment Day. When his arguments do hold up to the light of truth, he has “a ready faculty, indeed, [for] escaping from any topic that [agitates] his too sensitive and nervous temperament” (145).

Arthur Dimmesdale attempts to bring a sort of twisted good from his deadly sin. But as with most sins, the ensuing consequence does not fall to Dimmesdale alone, but also to church. Commentator Carol Bensick cites the damage done to Dimmesdale’s congregation when she explains that thenarrator implies that the hypocrite minister has created a hypocrite congregation. They think they love God: but they only love Arthur. All these conversions chalked to his credit are false. Believing they are saved, they have in fact fallen into a sin deadlier than adultery. Not aware of it, they cannot even repent it. Instead of helping his parishioners to heaven, Dimmesdale has put them on the path to hell.

In failing to obey God, Dimmesdale brought upon his beloved parish an even more fertile field for Satan’s subtle seeds of idolatry to be sown. Though this is all obvious to the reader, the theological justification for this heretical worship was “to make his congregation fall in love with Christ… [to act as] Christ for his parish, with the intention that they [would] ultimately shift their love to the divine bridegroom.” Dimmesdale’s attempt to not do ill to others by his confession has ultimately lead to great harm.

Though one quickly jumps to the sin of adultery as the main focus of the novel, is it not true that Satan works best in subtly? How clever of Hawthorne, to place his audience in the place of the sheep-like congregation in their perspective of the esteemed reverend, Arthur Dimmesdale! In the conclusion of the novel, it may be tempting to respond as the blind townsfolk did and paint Arthur as a tragic hero. Readers often believe that Arthur’s grievous sin is singularly sown into the flourished threads of the scarlet letter upon Hester’s chest. Sin, however, is no single-headed monster. Rather, it is a lethal virus, bringing the whole of a being’s soul to its knees with a single blow. The inherent, fallen nature of man, not to be outdone by this attack, responds with rebellion towards the Creator. In The Scarlet Letter’s tale of passion, hypocrisy, sin, and holiness; the hand of the Creator’s wrath is heavily upon the wretched minister. The Reverend Dimmesdale’s judgment is the wreckage of his frail life and the uprooting of truth from the Boston.

Works Cited
Bensick, Carol M. "Dimmesdale and his bachelorhood: 'priestly celibacy' in 'The Scarlet Letter.'" Studies in American Fiction (1993). BNet. 1993. BNET Business Network. 10 Nov. 2008 .
Melville, Herman, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Mark Twain. Four Great American Classics. New York: Bantam Classics, 1992.
Worthen, John, Lindeth Vasey, and Ezra Greenspan, eds. Studies in Classic American Literature. New York: Cambridge UP, 2002. Google Books. Google. 10 Nov. 2008 .