How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
It is essential to say a few words respecting the victim of this now almost forgotten murder. He was an old bachelor, and possessed of great wealth, in addition to the house and real estate which constituted what remained of the ancient Pyncheon property. Being of an eccentric and melancholy turn of mind, and greatly given to rummaging old records and hearkening to old traditions, he had brought himself, it is averred, to the conclusion that Matthew Maule, the wizard, had been foully wronged out of his homestead, if not out of his life. Such being the case, and he, the old bachelor, in possession of the ill-gotten spoil, – with the black stain of blood sunken deep into it, and still to be scented by conscientious nostrils, – the question occurred, whether it were not imperative upon him, even at this late hour, to make restitution to Maule's posterity. (1.29)
This "murder" – actually a natural death made to look like murder – takes place in living memory of the novel, 30 years before the events of the book. Uncle Jaffrey Pyncheon feels so guilty about Colonel Pyncheon's treatment of Matthew Maule that he wants to give the House of the Seven Gables back to the Maule family. He dies before he can do this, though. We admire Uncle Jaffrey Pyncheon's moral fiber, but let's think for a second about the timing of his research. Matthew Maule is murdered in the late 1600s. This guy dies in the 1820s. So over 100 years have passed between Matthew Maule's hanging and Uncle Jaffrey Pyncheon's research. Should there be a statute of limitations on this case? Why does the Pyncheon family continue to keep the case of Matthew Maule alive? And how do you think it would be appropriate for the Pyncheon family to make amends to the Maule family?
Quote #2
Our miserable old Hepzibah! It is a heavy annoyance to a writer, who endeavors to represent nature, its various attitudes and circumstances, in a reasonably correct outline and true coloring, that so much of the mean and ludicrous should be hopelessly mixed up with the purest pathos which life anywhere supplies to him. What tragic dignity, for example, can be wrought into a scene like this! How can we elevate our history of retribution for the sin of long ago, when, as one of our most prominent figures, we are compelled to introduce—not a young and lovely woman, nor even the stately remains of beauty, storm-shattered by affliction—but a gaunt, sallow, rusty-jointed maiden, in a long-waisted silk gown, and with the strange horror of a turban on her head! Her visage is not even ugly. It is redeemed from insignificance only by the contraction of her eyebrows into a near-sighted scowl. And, finally, her great life-trial seems to be, that, after sixty years of idleness, she finds it convenient to earn comfortable bread by setting up a shop in a small way. Nevertheless, if we look through all the heroic fortunes of mankind, we shall find this same entanglement of something mean and trivial with whatever is noblest in joy or sorrow. Life is made up of marble and mud. (2.18)
You would think, given the grand themes of this novel (as Hawthorne puts it, "retribution for the sin of long ago"), that the heroes would be similarly grand. But no, Hawthorne "endeavors to represent nature," and that means ordinary folk. Because Hawthorne is making the claim that he is writing fiction that reflects the truth of the world, he can't choose to focus only on tragic or awe-inspiring characters. The proud, miserable Hepzibah Pyncheon is a realistic character for Hawthorne's time – indeed, as he points out, hers is only one of "several little shops," each run by a "decayed gentlewoman" (2.15) much like her. Of course, figures like Hepzibah may have been common in 1851, but how much sympathy do you feel for her character now? Do you recognize the "nature" Hawthorne is trying to represent in this chapter?
Quote #3
"Why, sometimes," answered Hepzibah, "I have seriously made it a question, whether I ought not to send [Mr. Holgrave] away. But, with all his oddities, he is a quiet kind of a person, and has such a way of taking hold of one's mind, that, without exactly liking him (for I don't know enough of the young man), I should be sorry to lose sight of him entirely. A woman clings to slight acquaintances when she lives so much alone as I do."
"But if Mr. Holgrave is a lawless person!" remonstrated Phoebe, a part of whose essence it was to keep within the limits of law.
"Oh!" said Hepzibah carelessly, – for, formal as she was, still, in her life's experience, she had gnashed her teeth against human law, – "I suppose he has a law of his own!" (5.60-2)
At first we found it a little surprising that Phoebe, for all her youth and energy, is more attached to the importance of law than Hepzibah. When Phoebe hears that Mr. Holgrave has a lot of activist friends, she starts to freak out. Meanwhile, Hepzibah, who is so "formal" and old-fashioned, seems not to care at all about human law. But if you think about it, it makes sense. First, obviously, there is a plot-level reason for Hepzibah's resentment of human law, which unjustly imprisoned her brother. But it also seems somewhat in keeping with her aristocratic ways: after all, the idea that laws should apply inflexibly and equally to everybody is a relatively democratic one. Having a "law of [one's] own" is a pretty aristocratic attitude, really.
Quote #4
Not to speak it harshly or scornfully, it seemed Clifford's nature to be a Sybarite. It was perceptible, even there, in the dark old parlor, in the inevitable polarity with which his eyes were attracted towards the quivering play of sunbeams through the shadowy foliage. It was seen in his appreciating notice of the vase of flowers, the scent of which he inhaled with a zest almost peculiar to a physical organization so refined that spiritual ingredients are moulded in with it. It was betrayed in the unconscious smile with which he regarded Phoebe, whose fresh and maidenly figure was both sunshine and flowers, – their essence, in a prettier and more agreeable mode of manifestation. Not less evident was this love and necessity for the Beautiful, in the instinctive caution with which, even so soon, his eyes turned away from his hostess, and wandered to any quarter rather than come back. It was Hepzibah's misfortune, – not Clifford's fault. How could he, – so yellow as she was, so wrinkled, so sad of mien, with that odd uncouthness of a turban on her head, and that most perverse of scowls contorting her brow, – how could he love to gaze at her? But, did he owe her no affection for so much as she had silently given? He owed her nothing. A nature like Clifford's can contract no debts of that kind. It is—we say it without censure, nor in diminution of the claim which it indefeasibly possesses on beings of another mould—it is always selfish in its essence; and we must give it leave to be so, and heap up our heroic and disinterested love upon it so much the more, without a recompense. Poor Hepzibah knew this truth, or, at least, acted on the instinct of it. So long estranged from what was lovely as Clifford had been, she rejoiced—rejoiced, though with a present sigh, and a secret purpose to shed tears in her own chamber that he had brighter objects now before his eyes than her aged and uncomely features. (7.32)
This is a rather bizarre assessment of Clifford. The narrator says he cannot help but be a "Sybarite" – a lover of beauty. Because he loves beauty so much, he enjoys looking at Phoebe and at the roses and turns away from poor old Hepzibah with distaste. But Hepzibah is the one who has loved him and missed him for all of these years. And she forgives him for turning away from her, because she's wrinkled, yellow, and ugly. How does this description of Clifford make you feel about his character? What seems to be the narrator's assessment of Clifford's moral character? How does the narrator judge Clifford's love of beauty?
Quote #5
For example: tradition affirmed that the Puritan had been greedy of wealth; the Judge, too, with all the show of liberal expenditure, was said to be as close-fisted as if his gripe were of iron. The ancestor had clothed himself in a grim assumption of kindliness, a rough heartiness of word and manner, which most people took to be the genuine warmth of nature, making its way through the thick and inflexible hide of a manly character. His descendant, in compliance with the requirements of a nicer age, had etherealized this rude benevolence into that broad benignity of smile wherewith he shone like a noonday sun along the streets, or glowed like a household fire in the drawing-rooms of his private acquaintance. The Puritan—if not belied by some singular stories, murmured, even at this day, under the narrator's breath—had fallen into certain transgressions to which men of his great animal development, whatever their faith or principles, must continue liable, until they put off impurity, along with the gross earthly substance that involves it. We must not stain our page with any contemporary scandal, to a similar purport, that may have been whispered against the Judge. The Puritan, again, an autocrat in his own household, had worn out three wives, and, merely by the remorseless weight and hardness of his character in the conjugal relation, had sent them, one after another, broken-hearted, to their graves. Here the parallel, in some sort, fails. The Judge had wedded but a single wife, and lost her in the third or fourth year of their marriage. There was a fable, however, – for such we choose to consider it, though, not impossibly, typical of Judge Pyncheon's marital deportment, – that the lady got her death-blow in the honeymoon, and never smiled again, because her husband compelled her to serve him with coffee every morning at his bedside, in token of fealty to her liege-lord and master. (8.21)
Colonel and Judge Pyncheon are both willing to let other men suffer for crimes they didn't commit. Colonel Pyncheon's treatment of Matthew Maule and Judge Pyncheon's treatment of Clifford Pyncheon are their greatest sins. Hawthorne also takes care to sketch out other flaws in their characters. They are both misers. Both show themselves to be energetic, which people mistake for kindliness (so they are hypocrites). Hawthorne is a little euphemistic in getting this across, but he strongly implies that both like lots of sex, no matter what kind of "faith or principles" they are supposed to have. And both are tyrants in their private lives, having basically bossed their wives to death. What do all of these character flaws and crimes have in common? How do these flaws add up to a complete portrait of each man's character?
Quote #6
"Softly, Mr. Pyncheon!" said the carpenter with scornful composure. "Softly, an' it please your worship, else you will spoil those rich lace-ruffles at your wrists! Is it my crime if you have sold your daughter for the mere hope of getting a sheet of yellow parchment into your clutch? There sits Mistress Alice quietly asleep. Now let Matthew Maule try whether she be as proud as the carpenter found her awhile since." (13.82)
Why should Alice Pyncheon have to pay the price of Gervayse Pyncheon's grasping, greedy ways? Why is it always the weaker figures of the family – Alice and Clifford Pyncheon for example – who pay the worst price for the maintenance of the Pyncheon family fortune? The other thing that's interesting about Matthew Maule II's behavior here is his relative loss of the moral high ground. He insists that he is "the strongest spirit" (13.84), but what does that strength do for him except to make him as cruel as the Pyncheons? Hawthorne is not making it easy for us to decide who's in the right and who's in the wrong in this novel: frankly, all these people seem messed up by their families. Maybe Mr. Holgrave is right, and we should just forget about the idea of family heritage entirely.
Quote #7
The Judge, beyond all question, was a man of eminent respectability. The church acknowledged it; the state acknowledged it. It was denied by nobody. In all the very extensive sphere of those who knew him, whether in his public or private capacities, there was not an individual— except Hepzibah, and some lawless mystic, like the daguerreotypist, and, possibly, a few political opponents—who would have dreamed of seriously disputing his claim to a high and honorable place in the world's regard. Nor (we must do him the further justice to say) did Judge Pyncheon himself, probably, entertain many or very frequent doubts, that his enviable reputation accorded with his deserts. His conscience, therefore, usually considered the surest witness to a man's integrity, – his conscience, unless it might be for the little space of five minutes in the twenty-four hours, or, now and then, some black day in the whole year's circle, – his conscience bore an accordant testimony with the world's laudatory voice. (15.16)
Not only does everybody (with some minor exceptions) agree that Judge Pyncheon is a righteous man, but Judge Pyncheon himself thinks he's a good guy. He has a conscience, but it doesn't acknowledge anything wrong with his persecuting poor, defenseless Clifford. This aspect of Judge Pyncheon's characterization is interestingly at odds with a lot of sentimental fiction of the 19th century, which insists that if you do something bad, you have to feel guilty for it, that guilt is one of the natural consequences of evil behavior. Hawthorne does admit that somewhere deep down, "a daily guilt might have been acted by him" (15.16) without Judge Pyncheon being aware of it. This raises a question sort of along the lines of, "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?" If Judge Pyncheon experiences "daily guilt" without knowing or being aware of it, does that guilt even count? How can you feel guilty without feeling guilty?
Quote #8
But for these poor rogues, the bank-robbers, – who, after all, are about as honest as nine people in ten, except that they disregard certain formalities, and prefer to transact business at midnight rather than 'Change-hours, – and for these murderers, as you phrase it, who are often excusable in the motives of their deed, and deserve to be ranked among public benefactors, if we consider only its result, – for unfortunate individuals like these, I really cannot applaud the enlistment of an immaterial and miraculous power in the universal world-hunt at their heels! (17.42)
Clifford seems to feel that most murderers and bank robbers are good fellows at the heart – society just doesn't understand them! Of course Clifford – after his 30 years in prison and his joy at the death of his persecutor, Judge Pyncheon – would feel that way. All the same, what do you think of this idea that the cops shouldn't use the telegraph machine against robbers because it puts the criminals at too much of a disadvantage? Should the relationship between an individual and the law be one of fairness? Why or why not?
Quote #9
The artist hesitated. Notwithstanding what he had just said, and most sincerely, in regard to the self-balancing power with which Phoebe impressed him, it still seemed almost wicked to bring the awful secret of yesterday to her knowledge. It was like dragging a hideous shape of death into the cleanly and cheerful space before a household fire, where it would present all the uglier aspect, amid the decorousness of everything about it. Yet it could not be concealed from her; she must needs know it. (20.10)
Mr. Holgrave has to tell Phoebe what has happened, but he hesitates to share it with her. He drops all of these odd hints about Clifford and Hepzibah not being guilty of anything, which really freaks Phoebe out. And then, when Phoebe asks point blank, he still hesitates to tell her that Judge Pyncheon is dead. Instead of saying the words, Mr. Holgrave shows Phoebe before-and-after photographs of Judge Pyncheon alive and dead. This increases the drama of the moment for the reader, but it also seems pointlessly dramatic and almost cruel. What do you think of Holgrave's method of revelation? Why does he choose to draw out informing Phoebe of Judge Pyncheon's death? Why does he show her the photograph of Judge Pyncheon's corpse before telling her what has happened?
Quote #10
After such wrong as [Clifford] had suffered, there is no reparation. The pitiable mockery of it, which the world might have been ready enough to offer, coming so long after the agony had done its utmost work, would have been fit only to provoke bitterer laughter than poor Clifford was ever capable of. It is a truth (and it would be a very sad one but for the higher hopes which it suggests) that no great mistake, whether acted or endured, in our mortal sphere, is ever really set right. Time, the continual vicissitude of circumstances, and the invariable inopportunity of death, render it impossible. If, after long lapse of years, the right seems to be in our power, we find no niche to set it in. The better remedy is for the sufferer to pass on, and leave what he once thought his irreparable ruin far behind him. (21.9)
Society now recognizes that Clifford is innocent, but it's too little and too late. Clifford has already spent his best years in prison. There's no way to repair what's been done to him, although he does find himself in much better spirits and health after Judge Pyncheon's death. But what do you make of Hawthorne's conclusion that the best thing for Clifford to do is to "pass on" and leave his "irreparable ruin" behind him? How do you interpret the phrase "pass on"? Does it mean the only thing left for Clifford to do is to die? Or is it just a suggestion for him to move away? Can you imagine what you would do under similar circumstances?