Mini mémoires S1.

PHILOSOPHIE : Xavier Kieft
xavier.kieft@gmail.com

Le travail se basera sur la lecture de trois textes et leur confrontation dans un petit document de synthèse à rédiger en anglais (6 pages max). Chaque question sera traitée séparément. Le devoir sera à envoyer en format PDF de préférence (l’étudiant veillera à indiquer son nom dans le titre du doc).

Les textes ont été transmis en cours.
textes philo

1. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, New York/London, Routledge, 1990, chapter 3:
«Subversive bodily acts», p. 79-141 (esp. p. 128-141). (page 91 PDF).
2. David Wiggins, Sameness and Substance Renewed, Cambridge, CUP, 2001, esp. p. 193-
225. (page 209 PDF).
3. Giorgio Agamben, The Use of the Bodies, Stanford, Stanford UP, 2016, I.1-I.4, p. 3-48
(L’uso dei corpi, Vicenza, Neri Pozza, 2014, p. 24-77). (page 26 PDF).

Questions de synthèse (à rédiger en anglais) :

1. Where does the unity of the body come from?

In Gender Trouble, Judith Butler talks about where the gender, the body come from. In her book, she talks about the theory of Lacan - she doesn't agree with what he says in his work, because he generalizes heteronomativity, and male power. From the way she shows it, it seems that the body (which represents here the gender) might come from your mind. If you are used to consider yourself as a girl for you whole life, then you are a girl – but what if your biological body says otherwise ? This is an actual problem in our society, where our body is too much seen as a description of who we are. Does our body really says everything about us ? Can we actually say that our body is a reflection of our mind ? If I deeply know that I am a girl in my head, but my body is masculine (so doesn’t “follow” my identity), what is the actual truth ?
If we follow the logic of Aristotle, we could say that the unity of the body is actually made by the presence of both mind and body. It is like a duo which can’t work if they are apart – the mind is to the body what gas is to a car. Since the Greeks deeply thought that each thing had its role to play in the cosmos, it seems “normal” that the unity of the body depends for them on different players.

There is another face of the unity of the body which is given here. Judith Butler wrote : “By giving birth, the women enters into contact with her own mother ; she becomes, she is her own mother”. Could it mean that the unity also comes from physical mimicry ? Considering that we rose the hypothesis that the unity of the body could be in the mind, this opposes to the idea of mimicry. Could we say that the body’s unity comes, in fact, from both the mind and the body ? It could mostly come from the mind, since the mind is who we “really” are, and the body is just a “shell”, but is it really the case ?
If the act of giving birth actually make you in contact with your mother, does it mean that your body is as much willing to unite you with someone as your mind ? Can you create relations with people only thanks to your body, and without your “self” (which is here represented by your mind) ? So, if the physical mimicry actual put you in contact with other people, could it mean that the unity of the body could come from the body itself, just like it can come from your ‘self’, your mind ?

2. Does any body have to be of one kind or another?

To go back with what Judith Butler tells in Gender trouble, the proper of the gender identity is to change through experience. Like a river which constantly flows, never stops moving. She says that, for Foucault, the body gains its “meaning” (its unity) through time and experience. So, is the gender really defined by your body, more than by your feelings and what you’ve experienced in life ? Which one of them should be the more “trusted” ? Does your physical gender really define who you are ? If it (the gender) is fluid, it means that it is changing – and that it is not or X or Y, but evolves, moves and slaloms between both of them.
David Wiggins said, in Sameness and Substance Renewed : “For if A and B are persons and human beings, then A could never be the same person as B and not the same human being as B; or the same human being as B and not the same person.” If we say that a person could never be the same as another (this is showed here with the example of the “A” and the “B”) how could we say that there are “kinds” of bodies ? Isn’t each body different, and unique in it’s way ? Can we really ask ourselves if there is two kind of bodies, rather than a multiplicity that cannot be counted ?Rather than a “A” and “B”, we could say instead “1”, “2”, “3” and never stop counting since each kind doesn’t have a “twin”. We usually say that each human being is unique – could it also be the case of the body ? Here, this quote from Sameness and Substance Renewed seems to enhance this idea.

3. How could I use a body?

Humans are not like animals - in the myth of Prometheus, he is the only living being forgotten by the gods and has no natural abilities. This is when Prometheus steals the fire (which represents technical) to the gods Hephaestus and Athena, and give it to the humans. This is when humans got their technical, which permitted them to grow stronger and survive in the wild. Here, the body seems to be a way for us to survive and the main way to use it is to do handcrafts which allows us to create what we lack (such as coats because we don't have fur, etc).
This theory is enhanced by the work of Aristotle over the question of the use of the body. Indeed, he says in Nicomachean ethics:  “The soul is to the body as the master is to the slave”. So, the body appears as as important as the soul – and that they work together. There is no slave if there is no master – and there is no body if there is no soul to guide it. The soul is the one who controls the body – if I want to use my body, I need to use my soul. But is it really what it is ?

There are different ergons (which means functions) for the body, depending on the place of the person in the cosmos. For instance, the slave is considered as “the being whose work is the use of the body” - so, all he has to do is to use his body, without thinking about it and using his mind. So, the metaphor of the slave which has been quoted later might be wrong – can we really say that the soul is to the body what the master is to the slave, if the slave isn’t required to use his mind ? Could we say that the master takes the role of the “soul” for the slave ? Aristotle says that slaves are human, because they use their body – so if they use their body, it means that they use their mind. This is why, for him, the slave “is and remains a human being is [...] beyond question”. But the ergon of the shoemaker isn’t exactly the same as the slaves. The shoemaker has to use his body for making shoes, etc – while the slave use his body to work in the fields, clean the house, take care of the beasts, etc. So, can we say that the shoemaker knows “better” how to use his body than the slave, because he is doing handcrafts which are improving human’s body ? But can we really say that one human knows better how to use his body than another ?
We could say that there are many different ways to use a body – but that the main purpose is to follow the technical and use it to make humans more likely to survive the wild, the Nature ? Since humans are not as adapted as animals to live in the wild, their proper is actually to create more and more things thanks to their body, like a shield, an armor so they can live.

LITTÉRATURE FRANÇAISE ; Sophie Albert
sophie_albert@orange.fr

Supports :
- Fascicule 1 : « Images et projections »
- Fascicule 2 : « Rites de passage et construction du genre »
- Fascicule 3 : « Transformations »

Consignes de rédaction
- Réponses en français. Taille approximative : 4 à 6 pages en tout.
- Times New Roman, police 12, interligne 1,5. Format [.doc] ou [.pdf].

Études de texte (sur 12 points)

Pour répondre aux questions suivantes, vous appuierez vos développements sur des références précises aux textes des fascicules : citation exacte entre guillemets, n° de fascicule, n° de page. Vous avez également toute latitude pour mobiliser dans vos analyses des images et objets étudiés au cours du semestre.

Question 1/
Le corps s’écrit dans une tension entre le fragment et l’unité organique. Vous le montrerez en vous appuyant sur des exemples tirés des fascicules 1 et 3.

Il semble, à travers cette question, que le corps puisse être perceptible dans une tension crée entre le fragment et l’unité organique – il naît de ces deux thématiques qui s’entrechoquent, se frottent. Cela voudrait donc dire que le corps est à cheval entre le fragment et l’unité ? Dans le premier fascicule, à travers la figure de Narcisse, nous pouvons considérer son amour pour lui-même comme un amour envers un « fragment ». En effet, dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, Homère dit qu’« il prend pour un corps ce qui n’est qu’une ombre ». Ainsi, la beauté de Narcisse (dont ce-dernier tombe amoureux) pourrait être l’incarnation de ce « fragment » de son corps – il n’est pas amoureux de « lui », mais d’une parcelle de « lui » ce qui rend son amour de lui-même « fragmenté ». De ce fait, son corps apparaît dans un fragment – mais qu’en est-il de l’unité organique ? Elle peut être retrouvée dans la transformation de Narcisse en fleur – en effet, après être tombé amoureux d’un « fragment » de son corps, ce-dernier s’inscrit dans une unité à travers sa transformation végétale.

A travers la malédiction d’Actéon, que l’on peut observer dans l’Ovide moralisé, cette théorie peut également être visible. En effet, quand Actéon découvre Diane nue, ses suivantes nymphes se pressent autour d’elle pour la cacher – ne laissant visible que la tête de la déesse. De ce fait, la tension entre l’unité organique et le fragment est bien visible – puisque le corps semble être ici avant tout perçu dans les formes de Diane. Si sa tête est toujours visible, elle peut être perçue comme un « fragment » de la déesse. Le fait que ses suivantes s’affolent, et masquent le corps de la déesse (laissant son visage « rouge de honte » visible au chasseur) montre bien la vision du corps. L’unité organique est un tout, mais chaque fragment a une perception différente – ainsi, voir le visage d’une femme est considéré comme moins « intime » que son corps dénudé. Diane étant une déesse vierge, son corps est d’autant plus « précieux » puisqu’il se doit de rester « propre » du passage (ou regard) de tout homme (ou femme).
Dans Nos secrètes amours, Lucie Delarue-Mardrus offre également une vision qui met en scène à la fois le fragment et l’unité organique. Si l’on s’intéresse à « Epousailles », on peut remarquer l’utilisation de nombreux « fragments » du corps (« ma tête nattée », « mes yeux noirs », « yeux bleus et froids », « cheveux pâles »). Ces fragments de corps sont par la suite opposés à l’unité organique entre ces deux corps différents. « Et par certaines nuits nous roulerons ensemble » - ainsi, dans de poème, l’unité organique est représentée à travers l’union de deux corps différents (deux corps qui sont eux-même présentés à travers des fragments).

Question 2/
Quels rapports entre les objets et les corps les textes littéraires mettent-ils en mots, en récits et en scènes ? Vous répondrez à cette question à partir des fascicules 1 et 2.

Si l’on commence par prendre se pencher sur la figure d’Olympia, qui est présente dans le premier fascicule, nous pouvons voir que l’objet n’est pas là pour cacher le corps, mais pour le rendre désirable. En effet, la présence de bracelets, de la fleur rose dans les cheveux, du nœud dans le cou, des chaussures aux pieds d’Olympia crée un rapport de sublimation entre le corps et les objets. Ce rapport de sublimation apporte une notion d’érotisme également, comme cela est expliqué par Michel Leiris dans « Le ruban autour du cou d’Olympia ». Il y explique que certains objets offrent une connotation plus sensuelle et érotique, tels que le nœud au cou d’Olympia qui symbolise le « cadeau à déballer » ou bien la fleur qui pourrait rappeler l’organe féminin. Ainsi, nous pouvons nous essayer à dire que la présence des objets est, comme le dit Michel Leiris, un rappel à l’érotisme et au corps de la femme, qui est sublimé de diverses façons subtiles en dehors de la nudité apparente du corps d’Olympia. La présence du chat contribue également à mettre en scène une atmosphère sensuelle, puisque le chat noir peut aussi rappeler la panthère - prédatrice. Olympia est donc représentée comme une femme lascive, mais également nonchalante – c’est là ce que Michel Leiris sous-entend dans « Le ruban au cou d’Olympia ».

Dans le fascicule deux, nous pouvons voir à travers la figure d’Angélique dans Le Rêve que l’objet (ici, le tissu) est représenté comme un « guide » pour Angélique, à travers ses différents états et corps. Le tissu qu’elle brode l’accompagne quand elle est enfant, puis jeune fille, puis malade et enfin future mariée – il fait office de guide, ou de compagnon. Et, lors de sa mort, Zola se concentre sur la robe de mariée que Félicien tient entre ses doigts - cette robe de mariée qui rappelle Angélique. « Félicien ne tenait plus qu’un rien très doux et très tendre, cette robe de mariée, toute de dentelles et de perles, la poignée de plumes légères, tièdes encore, d’un oiseau. » écrit-il dans le dernier paragraphe de son roman – le choix de se focaliser ici sur la robe de mariée avant de parler d’Angélique elle-même montre bien l’importance de l’objet, puisqu’il semble être drastiquement « lié » à l’identité d’Angélique. Si l’on choisit d’observer cette question à travers l’adoubement de Perceval, nous pouvons parvenir plus au moins au même raisonnement. Ici, l’objet qui « accompagne » Perceval dans sa quête est son armure – elle lui octroie son « rang », tandis que l’épée qu’il obtient lui accorde sa « virilité ». En effet, le passage de l’armure permet à Perceval de pouvoir obtenir son « rang » de chevalier, puisqu’elle fait office d’un rite de passage bien spécifique. Il en va de même pour son épée – apprendre l’art du combat permet à son corps de se développer, et lui offre donc une « masculinité », le faisant passer de jeune homme à homme.

Proposition d’écriture (sur 8 points) – D’un corps à l’autre
Vous rédigerez, à la 1e, la 2e ou la 3e personne, un récit qui relate la transformation d’un sujet :
- soit d’un genre à l’autre,
- soit d’une espèce (humaine, végétale, animale, minérale) à une autre.

Ce récit fera une place essentielle à l’écriture du corps en transformation : description, étapes, ressenti. Il intégrera un commentaire qui pourra être moral, allégorique, métatextuel, littéraire... et adoptera la forme de votre choix : glose explicative en début ou en fin de texte, commentaire tissé aux diverses étapes du récit, commentaire placé dans la bouche d’un personnage.

Pour les types de transformation et/ou de commentaire, vous pouvez vous inspirer des exemples étudiés en cours : Narcisse, Actéon, Arachnè, Marine, Silence. Sur le plan de l’expression, vous pouvez reprendre des formules ou des images au texte de Serge Pey donné à la suite de ce sujet.

---

- une femme se vante d'être dotée d'une beauté dépassant celle d'aphrodite
- aphrodite, jalouse, la transforme en rosier en lui disant "mdr comme ça tu seras belle pour toujours"
- morale : vantardise n'amasse pas mousse lolilol

- Pensais-tu que ta vantardise resterait impunie, fanfaronne, impotente ? Tu es fière de ta beauté, clames me dépasser en Splendeur ? Tu seras donc belle pour l'éternité, puisque c'est tout ce qui semble t’intéresser ! Et, sur ces mots, Aphrodite l'éclaboussa de quelques gouttes de son eau de toilette, qu'elle avait emportée avec elle.

Ce fut agréable, au début. Pendant quelques secondes, Aglaé eut l'impression de s'envoler, de flotter au milieu d'un lac parfumé de fleurs aux senteurs exquises. Mais ce sentiment fut de courte durée. Ces quelques secondes de plénitudes passées, elle se mit à suffoquer. Sa réaction première fut de porter ses mains à son cou, comme si elle cherchait à attraper l'air pour le faire entrer dans sa gorge. 

Quelle était cette impression ?  

Étaient-ce ses doigts qui s'allongeaient, se durcissaient ainsi ? Et cette sensation de lourdeur ... ses pieds s'enfonçaient dans le sol, comme happés par ce-dernier. Sa peau se rigidifiait, elle le sentait - cette illusion d'être plongée dans le plâtre, si désagréable, ne faisait qu'accélérer sa suffocation. 

Allait-elle mourir ainsi ?  

Qu'elle serait laide, avec le visage bleu et gonflé ! Pourquoi ne pouvait-elle pas mourir belle ?

C'était comme si tout devenait plus grand autour d'elle. Ou bien était-ce elle qui s'enfonçait dans le sol ? Elle sentit le bas de son corps s'unifier, à la manière d'une unique jambe. Rêvait-elle ? Aglaé jeta un regard au sol, et poussa un glapissement de terreur - des racines ! Ses jambes ! - elles étaient devenues racines ! Ce n'était donc pas une impression ? Elle pouvait sentir ses veines pulser au rythme tranquille de la terre, en opposition avec les battements affolés de son coeur. Et son sang s'alourdissait, s'épaississait - était-ce cela que d'avoir un sang fait de sève ?
 
Ses bras s'allongeait, s'affinaient. Comme s'ils cherchaient à atteindre le ciel, ils grandissaient, s'étendaient dans la direction de ce-dernier. Mais Aglaé, elle, s'enfonçait un peu plus dans le sol à chaque tentative de reprendre son souffle. Tout son corps se transformait, sous les effets de la malédiction de la cruelle déesse à la fierté meurtrie. Elle pouvait sentir chaque parcelle de sa peau durcir, brunir, se couvrir d'épines. Chaque poil se hérissait, et devenait feuille - elle tenta de crier, mais pas un son ne sortit.

Ses yeux azurés se voilèrent subitement – comme recouverts d’une écorce brute, verte. Elle tenta de poser ses mains sur son visage pour en chasser le poids dur qui venait de se faire sentir – mais rien, son corps ne suivait pas.
 
Il était trop tard pour Aglaé. Ses cheveux se dressèrent et s'agitèrent, à la manière de Méduse la Sifflante - ce ne furent pas des serpents qui vinrent remplacer sa rivière d'or, non. 

Aphrodite la Belle était bien plus mesquine qu'Athéna la Sage.

Ils se tressèrent d'eux-même, s'enroulèrent, à la manière d'une tapisserie adroite. Ils tiraient sur le crâne durcit de la malheureuse, qui ne pouvait même pas gémir de douleur : plus elle tentait de bouger, plus sa peau se déchirait, trahissant son supplice. Quatre tresses serrées, pour quatre roses d'un rouge écarlate. Son sang. Il n'avait pas disparu, mais avait traversé son corps jusqu'à teinter les pétales.

Tout était noir autour d’elle. Que voyait-elle ? Absolument rien. Pas même une silhouette – que du noir épais, étouffant. Elle ne sentait plus rien non plus, à part l’odeur de la sève.

Ainsi fut scellé le sort de l'Orgueilleuse, dont la Superbe avait fait murmurer tout le village. Elle aurait dû le savoir, pourtant. Aphrodite était, de toutes les déesses, celle dont l’ego était le plus fragile - et dont la Rancune était la plus tenace. Nombre de femmes étaient passées entre ses filets - et Psyché elle-même avait eu à affronter ses foudres.

Comment avait-elle pu penser qu'elle serait épargnée ? Quelle inconscience. Peut-être aurait-elle dû écouter ses parents, et se faire plus discrète, moins coquette. Un tel sort aurait pu être évité.

- Ta vantardise aura eu raison de toi. Aurais-tu renoncé à ta superbe, rien de tout cela ne serait arrivé ! Les mortels doivent apprendre à rester à leur place, vous devriez le savoir.

Le rosier ne répondit pas. 

Et quand le vent passa entre ses feuillages ce fut comme un gémissement, une plainte sempiternelle s'échappant du bruissement des roses sanguines.

AMERICAN LITERATURE ; Clément Oudart
c.oudart@gmail.com

Paying particular attention to the body (namely its functions, values and representations) in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter (1850), write a literary analysis of the following excerpt from Chapter 23 (“The Revelation of the Scarlet Letter”), pp. 220-222.

Use the font style Times New Roman, size 12, single spacing. Skip 2 lines after your introduction (which falls into 2 or 3 short paragraphs), then skip 1 line between each main part (2, 3 or 4 main parts, each divided into several paragraphs), and skip 2 lines before your conclusion. From 3 pages to 5 pages (1,800 words to 3,000 words). Provide all your references in footnotes and in a short bibliography at the end of your commentary.

texte:

The text presented here is an excerpt from The Scarlet Letter written by Nathaniel Hawthorne in 1850. It is a gothic and romantic novel, which also gives an historic view of America by the 17th century. This extract is from the 23rd chapter, which is the penultimate’s of the novel. The Scarlet Letter also gives a lot of symbols, which have to be found by the reader (and interpreted). The story takes place in Boston, in a Puritan Colony – indeed, in this novel, we can see how much the Puritan Society lifestyle depends and takes its basis on religion.
In the excerpt which has been given to us, we are left with the character of Arthur Dimmesdale who is overwhelmed by the weight of his sins. Indeed, in front of the whole town, he recognizes his parenthood with Pearl, and the fact that he actually is Hester’s lover. This passage is important because it finally gives the final say on the plot and the fate which is left for the characters. All of the main characters are present in this chapter, which doesn’t happen a lot in the novel (they mostly appear as duos like Hester and Dimmesdale, Pearl and Hester, Dimmesdale and Chillingworth, Chillingworth and Hester) which is interesting to see.
There is a huge importance which is given to the body in this extract – in fact, it almost appears that the body is sort of used ton enhanced the fate of the characters. This can lead us to ask ourselves : how does the references to the body (and body language) influe over the characters’ fate ? We will begin by studying the controversial view of the Body, then we will focus on the Body as a lead to the Hereafter.


First of all, we can notice the fact that there is a controversial view of the body in this extract – we will split these views in three different parts. Here, it translates a source of highness. Dimmesdale, in this excerpt, rose upon the audience – indeed, it is said the “The sun […] gave a distinctness to his figure”. The light of the sun sort of sublime the apparition of the reverend , and can also be interpreted as a divine apparition from God. The sun had always been a reference to the god who knows and sees everything. ( 1 ) Maybe the fact that the sun is rising upon the audience means that God sees all their sins and faults, especially Dimmesdale’s one since he is about to recognize his ? His body translates a determination and a strength, even in his “weakness” (he is sick because Chillingworth poisoned him for a long time). So, here, it seems that, indeed, the references to the body of Dimmesdale (enhanced by the light of the sun, which can be a symbol for “the light of God” and “God’s sight over his sins”) can convey the idea of highness, holiness – a sort of fallen angel, ready to let himself in the hand of God.
But the body can also express the concept of punishment. The extract begin with that sentence “Partly supported by Hester Prynne, and holding one hand of little Pearl's, the Reverend Mr.
Dimmesdale turned to the dignified and venerable rulers” - through his body, he shows that he is ready and fully accept his fate. It is said, in the same paragraph as the one in which the sun rise, “[,,,] as he stood out from all the earth to put in his plea of guilty at the bar of Eternal Justice.” Dimmesdale seems ready to accept his fate, and to be punished for the sins he committed. He seems to be completely aware of the fact that he “needs to be punished” for his faults. From where he stands, in front of the whole town, he says : « I stand upon the spot where, seven years since, I should have stood ». The word “stand” (/”stood”) refers to his body – he is standing on his feets, facing everyone (and himself, most importantly). His body is a way for him to get the punishment he deserves – and needs – to find Peace (indeed, for a huge part of the novel, he did punish himself alone by molesting his own body – pain was a way for him to feel like he was actually “paying” for his sins, but it came out that it wasn’t enough).i
There is a third view of the body which is given in this extract. After being perceived as a source of highness, and a way of getting punishment, it is also represented as a redemption giver. These three perceptions of the body seems to complete each others and to follow the upcoming of the novel. It is written “Pearl kissed her limps. A spell was broken.” Here, the kiss given by Pearl to her father can be interpreted as a “divine” pardon – the “spell” representing his sins, his faults. The interaction between the two bodies (daughter and father), which has been avoided during the whole novel (Pearl didn’t want her father to touch her, and ran away from him) finally takes place and frees Dimmesdale from his faults. Dimmesdale is not the only one to be “saved” from something in this extract – his daughter, Pearl, too. Hawthorne wrote : “and as her tears fell upon her father's cheek, they were the pledge that she would grow up amid human joy and sorrow, nor for ever do battle with the world, but be a woman in it.” By getting the chance to forgive her father, and to interact with him (such as being openly recognized as his daughter), she is “freed” from her role of incarnation of Hester’s fault. She obtains her redemption too – even though it was a different form of redemption from Dimmesdale’s. She is forgiven for behaving like a little “witch” and seems to get instantaneously rid off her “elfic” attitude – as if all the things that were bad in her disappeared at the same time her father was forgiven.


Now, we can talk about the body as a lead to the Hereafter. In fact, in this whole excerpt, the body (through the body language, or just the body itself) seems to be, for Dimmesdale, a way to die peacefully and freed from all the wrong he has done. The first thing that strikes us is the fact that the body translates his full acceptation of the sin. Indeed, the narrator specifies that “he threw off all assistance, and stepped passionately forward a pace before the woman and the child.”.  Where, a few times ago, he would have ran away and deny his faults, the Reverend seems to fully embrace them here – like if he was actually impatient to tell the truth to the population. Then “with a convulsive motion he tore away the ministerial band from before his breast” - he is still acting in a passionate way, and reveal to everyone the “proof” of his faults (although people will not perfectly agree later on what they saw on his chest – but the fact that they saw a “A” similar Hester’s will stay). Before dying, there is one more thing that Dimmesdale has to do. “"My little Pearl," said he feebly,--and there was a sweet and gentle smile over his face, as of a spirit sinking into deep repose;” - this is the final act which will lead him to redemption and forgiveness : recognizing Pearl as his daughter, which he refused to do for the whole novel. His facial language, like as his body’s, translate his feeling of satisfaction and peacefulness as he says his last words – by accepting Pearl, he crosses the last barer between him and forgiveness.
After leading Dimmesdale to the acceptation of the sin, his body shows his “Fall”. Suddenly, after exchanging his words with Pearl he “he sank upon the scaffold!”. Here, his body translates his way to the Hereafter – indeed, Dimmesdale is dying. His body can’t hold him anymore – and now that he has accepted his sins, and started to make out for them, it lets him go. “Old Roger Chillingworth knelt down beside him, with a blank, dull countenance, out of which the life seemed to have departed” : here, the fact that Chillingworth kneel next to Dimmesdale is also a way to translate a “fall”. Chillingworth finally tells the truth to Dimmesdale and reveals him that he wath only with him to torment him. With both of their bodies, the ‘fall” is a sign of redemption and acceptation – their bodies enhance their feelings, and their thoughts. They both fall for their sins – and their bodies are weak against the sight of the Almighty.
fall for his sins, finally : bend the knee and let Dim. Understand that he was with him to torment him
Finally, after being represented as an acceptation of the sins, and a representation of the “Fall”, we can say that the body also holds the role of a “guide” in death. As soon as Dimmesdale faints, Hester rushes to him. In fact, it is specified in the text “Hester partly raised him, and supported his head against her bosom.” While her lover is dying, Hester stays by him and accompanied his beloved in the Hereafter. We could say that it is sort of ironic, because the body that was once source of sin, desire (everything that is negative to the eye of the Puritan Society) is now showed as a maternal presence. Indeed, while Hester and Dimmesdale both sinned by falling in the pleasures of the flesh, their bodies’ interpretation and use slowly changed.


To put in a nutshell, we studied different forms and representations of the body in this extract – such a body language, facial language, the presence of the body itself. We noticed that these fragments of the body were mostly used to enhance the fact that the characters were all making out for their mistakes, and their sins. To push it further, we split these body’s interventions in different parts such as the body as a source of highness, the reach of punishment and redemption. Then, we presented the body as a guide in the Hereafter, since it was a way to interpret it – like the fact the the body translated the transition between many different phases of the acceptation of the sin.
This extract was very theatrical. As a matter of fact, the main character of this extract is standing on a scaffold, which can be both related to theater (it could be seen as a scene) and death (since this is a place where executions take place). Also, the way Dimmesdale’s talk to the audience is very dramatical – he sounds like a shakespirian character, about to die. So, this could have also been an interesting point of view for a study of this chapter (or maybe another).

( 1 ). Helios, in greek mythology, was considered as “the god who sees and knows everything” (since the sun sees all what happens on Earth). As a matter of fact, in the Odissey Helios is the one who reveals to Hephaestus his wife’s affair, Aphrodite, with the war God Ares. He also tells to Demeter that Hades is the one who kidnapped her daughter Persephone. These are a few examples – there are other greek myths in which Helios is solicited for his universal sight.