How “The Scarlet Letter” Reflects Attitudes Toward Intellectual Freedom
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Introduction
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” serves as a profound exploration of intellectual freedom within the rigid confines of seventeenth-century Puritan New England, offering critical insights into the relationship between individual thought and social conformity. Published in 1850, this seminal American novel examines how theocratic societies attempt to control not merely behavior but also the inner life of the mind, revealing the tensions between intellectual independence and community standards. The novel’s treatment of intellectual freedom operates on multiple levels, depicting both the historical reality of Puritan thought control and Hawthorne’s nineteenth-century reflections on the enduring conflict between free inquiry and orthodoxy. Through characters like Hester Prynne, whose social isolation paradoxically liberates her thinking, and Arthur Dimmesdale, whose intellectual capacities are constrained by religious dogma and guilt, Hawthorne illustrates the psychological and spiritual costs of suppressing intellectual freedom. Understanding how “The Scarlet Letter” reflects attitudes toward intellectual freedom requires examining the historical context of Puritan New England, the novel’s critique of intellectual conformity, and its exploration of the relationship between sin, punishment, and free thought.
The significance of intellectual freedom as a theme in “The Scarlet Letter” extends beyond its immediate historical setting to address universal questions about the proper relationship between individual conscience and collective authority. Hawthorne himself lived during a period of intense intellectual ferment in American culture, witnessing the Transcendentalist movement, abolitionist debates, and emerging feminist thought. His novel reflects these contemporary concerns while examining their historical antecedents in Puritan culture. According to Bercovitch (1991), Hawthorne’s treatment of intellectual freedom represents a dialogue between America’s Puritan past and its democratic present, questioning whether true freedom of thought can coexist with strong communal values and religious orthodoxy. By setting his narrative in an era known for intellectual repression while writing during a time of expanding freedoms, Hawthorne creates a productive tension that allows readers to consider both the value and the dangers of unrestricted intellectual liberty. The novel suggests that intellectual freedom, while essential to human dignity and moral development, can also lead to alienation, moral confusion, and social fragmentation when divorced from ethical grounding and human connection.
Puritan Theocracy and the Suppression of Intellectual Freedom
The Scarlet Letter depicts seventeenth-century Puritan New England as a theocratic society fundamentally opposed to intellectual freedom, where religious doctrine and community consensus determine acceptable thought and belief. Hawthorne presents a community in which civil and religious authority are inseparable, creating an environment where questioning theological principles constitutes both heresy and treason. The novel’s historical setting provides a framework for examining how totalizing ideologies suppress intellectual diversity by equating conformity with virtue and dissent with sin. In Puritan Boston, as Hawthorne portrays it, intellectual freedom represents a threat to social cohesion and spiritual purity, requiring constant vigilance and correction by community leaders. The magistrates and clergy who govern the community exercise authority not only over actions but also over thoughts, seeking to ensure that individual minds align with collective religious understanding. Miller (1956) explains that Puritan theology emphasized the importance of correct doctrine and the dangers of individual interpretation unsanctioned by religious authorities, creating a culture where intellectual exploration was viewed with suspicion. This theological framework meant that education itself was carefully controlled, directed toward reinforcing established truths rather than encouraging independent inquiry or critical thinking.
The mechanisms by which Puritan society suppressed intellectual freedom in “The Scarlet Letter” include public shaming, social ostracism, and the constant threat of accusations of witchcraft or heresy for those whose thoughts deviated from orthodoxy. Hawthorne illustrates this through references to Anne Hutchinson, the historical figure who was banished from Massachusetts Bay Colony for her theological views and who is mentioned early in the novel. The narrator notes that “the grass-plot before the jail, in Prison Lane, on a certain summer morning, not less than two centuries ago, was occupied by a pretty large number of the inhabitants of Boston; all with their eyes intently fastened on the iron-clamped oaken door” (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 45). This scene establishes the public nature of punishment and the community’s collective enforcement of intellectual and behavioral norms. The scarlet letter itself functions as a symbol of intellectual control, marking Hester as someone whose actions stem from thoughts and desires that violate community standards. By making her sin visible, the Puritan authorities attempt to make an example that will discourage others from similar intellectual or moral independence. Colacurcio (1984) argues that Hawthorne’s portrayal of Puritan intellectual repression reflects his understanding that American democracy’s emphasis on individual freedom emerged partly as a reaction against such theocratic control. The novel demonstrates how communities that fear intellectual freedom create elaborate systems of surveillance and punishment designed to detect and correct deviant thinking before it can spread or take root.
Hester Prynne’s Intellectual Liberation Through Social Isolation
Hester Prynne’s experience in “The Scarlet Letter” paradoxically demonstrates how social punishment and isolation can liberate intellectual freedom by separating the individual from the constraints of communal thinking. Following her public shaming and ongoing ostracism, Hester occupies a liminal social position that frees her from the obligation to internalize community values and orthodox beliefs. Hawthorne describes this transformation explicitly, noting that Hester’s position “had given her a freedom of speculation which our forefathers, had they known it, would have held to be a deadlier crime than that stigmatized by the scarlet letter” (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 159). This passage reveals Hawthorne’s central insight that intellectual freedom poses a greater threat to authoritarian societies than individual moral transgressions, as independent thought potentially undermines the ideological foundations that sustain social control. Hester’s isolation allows her to question fundamental assumptions about gender roles, religious doctrine, social hierarchy, and moral absolutes—subjects that would be unthinkable for a woman fully integrated into Puritan society. Her scarlet letter, intended as a mark of shame enforcing conformity, instead becomes a badge of her separation from conventional thinking.
The scope of Hester’s intellectual freedom expands throughout the seven years covered by the narrative, as her initial shame gradually transforms into philosophical independence. Hawthorne indicates that Hester’s mind ranges freely over subjects that would horrify the Puritan community, including radical ideas about restructuring society, questioning religious authority, and reimagining women’s roles. The narrator observes that her “scarlet letter had not done its office” in reforming her thinking according to community standards, but had instead enabled her to develop perspectives that “assumed a freedom of speculation, then common enough on the other side of the Atlantic, but which our forefathers, had they known of it, would have held to be a deadlier crime than that stigmatized by the scarlet letter” (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 159-160). This intellectual evolution positions Hester as potentially the novel’s most radical figure, though her ideas remain largely unspoken and therefore invisible to the community that has ostracized her. Baym (1976) interprets Hester’s intellectual development as evidence of Hawthorne’s feminist sympathies, suggesting that the novel recognizes how women’s exclusion from full social participation can paradoxically enable critical perspectives unavailable to those invested in maintaining existing power structures. However, Hawthorne also presents the limitations of Hester’s intellectual freedom, showing how her radical thinking leads to morally questionable conclusions, such as her willingness to deceive Dimmesdale about Chillingworth’s identity and her suggestion that they flee together, abandoning moral responsibility. This ambivalence reflects Hawthorne’s complex attitude toward intellectual freedom: he values independent thought while recognizing its potential to untether individuals from ethical moorings provided by community and tradition.
Arthur Dimmesdale and the Intellectual Bondage of Orthodoxy
In contrast to Hester’s intellectual liberation through isolation, Arthur Dimmesdale’s character illustrates how intellectual freedom can be constrained by professional obligation, religious orthodoxy, and internalized guilt within a theocratic society. As a Puritan minister, Dimmesdale represents the educated elite of his community, possessing intellectual capacities and theological training that should enable sophisticated moral reasoning. However, his commitment to maintaining his position within the religious hierarchy and his fear of exposure prevent genuine intellectual freedom. Hawthorne portrays Dimmesdale as trapped between his conscience, which demands confession, and his investment in orthodox religious frameworks that define his identity and social standing. The minister’s sermons grow increasingly powerful as his guilt intensifies, yet this rhetorical brilliance serves orthodoxy rather than truth, as he cannot speak honestly about his own experience. Reynolds (1993) suggests that Dimmesdale embodies the intellectual contradictions inherent in Puritan theology, which emphasized both individual conscience and submission to religious authority, creating psychological conflicts that could not be resolved within existing theological frameworks. The minister’s intellectual life becomes entirely internal, his most profound thoughts never expressed publicly, illustrating how fear of social consequences suppresses the free exchange of ideas essential to genuine intellectual culture.
Dimmesdale’s intellectual bondage manifests most clearly in his inability to integrate his personal experience with his public theology, resulting in a fragmented consciousness that ultimately destroys him. While Hester’s ostracism frees her to question fundamental assumptions, Dimmesdale’s continued acceptance within the community requires him to suppress any thoughts that might challenge orthodox beliefs or threaten his reputation. His midnight vigil on the scaffold represents an attempt at private acknowledgment that lacks the public dimension necessary for genuine intellectual honesty in a communal culture. Hawthorne indicates that Dimmesdale’s hypocrisy—the gap between his public pronouncements and private knowledge—produces not intellectual freedom but psychological torture. The minister becomes increasingly isolated within his own mind, unable to share his true thoughts with anyone except, eventually, Hester during their forest meeting. Even this moment of potential intellectual liberation is quickly foreclosed when Dimmesdale returns to town and reverts to his role as orthodox minister. Leverenz (1989) argues that Dimmesdale’s character demonstrates Hawthorne’s critique of how patriarchal institutions suppress intellectual freedom even for privileged males when their personal experience contradicts official doctrine. The novel suggests that genuine intellectual freedom requires not merely individual capacity for thought but also social conditions that permit honest expression and dialogue. Dimmesdale possesses intellectual gifts but lacks the social freedom to use them authentically, making him ultimately less intellectually free than Hester despite his educational advantages and social privilege.
Roger Chillingworth and the Perversion of Intellectual Inquiry
Roger Chillingworth’s character in “The Scarlet Letter” represents the dangers of intellectual freedom divorced from moral purpose, illustrating how unfettered inquiry can become destructive when pursued without ethical constraints. Chillingworth arrives in Boston as a scholar and physician, embodying Renaissance ideals of scientific inquiry and learned expertise. His intellectual pursuits initially appear legitimate and beneficial, as he applies his medical knowledge to treating Arthur Dimmesdale’s mysterious ailment. However, Chillingworth’s intellectual freedom becomes corrupted by his desire for revenge, transforming scientific curiosity into psychological torture. Hawthorne describes Chillingworth’s investigation of Dimmesdale’s secrets as a violation of “the sanctity of a human heart,” suggesting that some forms of intellectual inquiry represent moral transgressions regardless of their methodological sophistication (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 195). This characterization reflects nineteenth-century anxieties about science and rationalism, questioning whether intellectual freedom without moral guidance can lead to dehumanization. Chillingworth’s transformation from scholar to demon illustrates the potential for intellectual gifts to be employed destructively, raising questions about the proper limits of inquiry and the ethical responsibilities of those who possess superior knowledge.
The progression of Chillingworth’s intellectual corruption provides a cautionary tale about how the pursuit of knowledge can become morally bankrupt when motivated by revenge rather than genuine understanding or human benefit. His medical and psychological expertise enables him to manipulate Dimmesdale’s mind and prolong the minister’s suffering, demonstrating intellectual freedom used as an instrument of torture. Hawthorne suggests that Chillingworth’s greatest sin involves not sexual jealousy but rather the intellectual violation of penetrating another person’s consciousness without consent and manipulating what he discovers for malicious purposes. The physician’s scholarly detachment becomes chilling as he observes Dimmesdale’s deterioration with scientific interest rather than human compassion. Bell (1991) interprets Chillingworth as Hawthorne’s commentary on the potential darkness within intellectual pursuits, particularly when divorced from emotional connection and ethical purpose. The novel indicates that intellectual freedom becomes monstrous when it treats other humans as mere objects of study or means to personal ends. This critique resonates with contemporary concerns about scientific ethics and the responsibilities that accompany intellectual power. Chillingworth’s eventual physical and spiritual collapse after Dimmesdale’s death suggests that perverted intellectual freedom ultimately destroys those who practice it, as the physician loses all purpose and vitality once his revenge is complete. Through this character, Hawthorne argues that genuine intellectual freedom must be grounded in humanistic values and ethical commitments rather than pursued as an end in itself.
Pearl as Symbol of Unrestrained Thought and Natural Freedom
Pearl, the child of Hester’s adultery, functions in “The Scarlet Letter” as a living embodiment of intellectual and natural freedom unconstrained by Puritan social norms or religious orthodoxy. From infancy, Pearl demonstrates an independence of spirit and mind that alarms the Puritan community, which views her otherworldly behavior as evidence of demonic influence or her mother’s continued sin. Hawthorne describes Pearl as a child who cannot be governed by ordinary rules, possessing “a native audacity and peculiar wildness of nature” that defies parental authority and social convention (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 92). Her intellectual development follows no prescribed pattern, as she learns through direct observation and intuition rather than through formal education or religious instruction. The Puritan authorities’ concern about Pearl’s upbringing reflects their broader anxiety about children raised outside orthodox intellectual frameworks, as the child represents the potential consequences of allowing minds to develop without proper ideological guidance. Pearl’s questions about the scarlet letter and her father’s identity reveal a form of intellectual freedom that cuts through adult euphemisms and rationalizations, seeking truth through direct inquiry rather than accepting authorized interpretations. This childlike intellectual honesty poses a threat to the community’s elaborate systems of meaning and social control.
Pearl’s character also embodies the potential consequences of complete intellectual freedom divorced from social integration and traditional wisdom. While her independence makes her fascinating and vital, it also leaves her isolated, unable to form normal relationships with other children or to experience the full range of human emotions. Hawthorne suggests through Pearl that absolute intellectual freedom, while possessing certain virtues, comes at the cost of human connection and social participation. The child exists in a liminal space between the human community and the natural world, more comfortable among forest creatures than among the Puritan children who taunt and exclude her. Her transformation at the novel’s conclusion—when she finally acknowledges Dimmesdale as her father and sheds human tears—signals her entry into the social world and acceptance of some constraints on her wild freedom. Person (1988) argues that Pearl represents Hawthorne’s ambivalence about intellectual freedom, as the character embodies both its attractive vitality and its potential to create alienation when taken to extremes. The novel suggests that healthy intellectual development requires balancing freedom and structure, independence and tradition, innovation and continuity. Pearl’s eventual inheritance of Chillingworth’s estate and her removal to Europe indicate that she must leave Puritan Boston to fully develop her potential, suggesting that some societies cannot accommodate certain forms of intellectual freedom and that geographic mobility may be necessary for those whose thinking exceeds local boundaries.
The Forest as Space of Intellectual Liberation
Throughout “The Scarlet Letter,” the forest functions as a symbolic space representing intellectual freedom and moral ambiguity in contrast to the town’s rigid orthodoxy and social control. Hawthorne establishes a clear dichotomy between the settlement, where Puritan law and religious doctrine govern thought and behavior, and the wilderness, where conventional rules lose their authority and alternative possibilities emerge. The forest represents not merely physical space but psychological and intellectual territory beyond the reach of communal surveillance and judgment. When Hester and Dimmesdale meet in the forest to discuss their future, they temporarily escape the constraints that govern their thinking within Boston’s boundaries, allowing themselves to imagine possibilities—such as fleeing together—that would be unthinkable within the town. Hawthorne describes the forest as a place where “the scarlet letter had no effect,” suggesting that its meaning derives entirely from social consensus rather than any inherent moral truth (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 183). This observation highlights how intellectual freedom requires separation from the systems of meaning that communities impose, creating space for individuals to think independently about moral questions.
The forest scenes in “The Scarlet Letter” also reveal the dangers and moral complexities associated with intellectual freedom unconstrained by social norms or religious guidance. While the forest liberates Hester and Dimmesdale from Puritan judgment, it also enables them to rationalize ethically questionable decisions, such as Hester’s suggestion that Dimmesdale abandon his ministerial responsibilities and flee with her. Hawthorne presents the forest as morally neutral territory where human conscience must operate without the support or correction of communal wisdom and traditional values. This neutrality can be liberating but also disorienting, as individuals must rely entirely on their own judgment without external reference points. The narrator notes that in the forest, “here was the iron link of mutual crime, which neither he nor she could break,” suggesting that their intellectual freedom in this space is itself constrained by their shared guilt and the consequences of their previous actions (Hawthorne, 1850, p. 185). Matthiessen (1941) interprets the forest as Hawthorne’s symbol for the unconscious mind and for those aspects of human experience that civilized society attempts to suppress or control. The forest allows intellectual and emotional freedom but offers no framework for integrating that freedom with social responsibility or moral truth. The novel suggests that complete intellectual liberation—symbolized by permanent residence in the forest—is ultimately untenable for social beings who require community and shared values. Hester and Dimmesdale’s inability to sustain their forest resolution once they return to town indicates that intellectual freedom must ultimately be negotiated within, rather than in exile from, the communities that shape human identity and provide meaning.
Hawthorne’s Nineteenth-Century Perspective on Intellectual Freedom
While “The Scarlet Letter” is set in seventeenth-century Puritan New England, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s treatment of intellectual freedom reflects nineteenth-century American debates about individual liberty, social conformity, and the proper balance between freedom and order. Writing during the American Renaissance, Hawthorne was surrounded by intellectual movements that challenged traditional authority, including Transcendentalism, abolitionism, women’s rights advocacy, and religious liberalism. His own experience at Brook Farm, the utopian community, gave him firsthand knowledge of attempts to create societies based on intellectual freedom and social experimentation. However, Hawthorne remained skeptical of radical individualism and utopian schemes, believing that complete intellectual freedom could lead to moral chaos and social fragmentation. His novel reflects this skepticism through its ambivalent treatment of Hester’s radical thinking and its tragic portrayal of what happens when individuals challenge orthodox beliefs without having alternative moral frameworks to guide them. Bercovitch (1991) argues that “The Scarlet Letter” represents Hawthorne’s attempt to navigate between Puritan theocracy and Transcendentalist individualism, seeking a middle ground that preserves both communal values and individual conscience.
Hawthorne’s nineteenth-century perspective allows him to critique Puritan intellectual repression while simultaneously questioning whether unrestricted intellectual freedom produces human flourishing or moral confusion. The novel suggests that the Puritan suppression of intellectual freedom was cruel and psychologically damaging, yet it also indicates that Hester’s complete intellectual liberation leaves her isolated, morally uncertain, and unable to function effectively within any community. Through this balanced treatment, Hawthorne addresses concerns of his own era about the consequences of rejecting traditional authority and religious guidance. The rise of religious skepticism, philosophical materialism, and moral relativism in nineteenth-century America created anxieties about whether society could maintain ethical coherence without shared religious foundations. Herbert (1993) notes that Hawthorne’s fiction consistently explores tensions between authority and freedom, tradition and innovation, community and individual, seeking formulations that preserve the valuable elements of each. “The Scarlet Letter” ultimately advocates for intellectual freedom within limits, suggesting that healthy societies permit questioning and independent thought while maintaining certain foundational values and ethical commitments. The novel’s conclusion, which brings Dimmesdale’s public confession but also results in his death, suggests that truth and freedom come at significant costs and that integrating individual conscience with communal values remains profoundly difficult. Hawthorne’s treatment reflects his understanding that intellectual freedom is essential to human dignity but insufficient for human happiness, which requires also connection, purpose, and ethical grounding provided through relationships and shared commitments.
Gender and Intellectual Freedom in the Novel
“The Scarlet Letter” pays particular attention to how gender shapes access to intellectual freedom in Puritan society, revealing the specific constraints placed on women’s thinking and the paradoxical ways these constraints might be subverted. Hester Prynne’s intellectual development represents a feminist dimension of Hawthorne’s exploration, as her gender compounds the restrictions she faces while also making her intellectual independence less visible and therefore less threatening to authorities. Puritan society assumed women’s intellectual inferiority and their need for male guidance in spiritual and intellectual matters, effectively excluding them from formal education beyond basic literacy and from participation in theological or political discourse. The community’s shocked response to Anne Hutchinson’s religious teaching demonstrates the threat posed by intellectually independent women who claim authority to interpret scripture or challenge clerical pronouncements. Hester’s punishment includes not merely the scarlet letter but also her effective silencing, as her voice is largely absent from public discourse throughout the novel. Baym (1976) argues that Hester’s silence represents both the Puritan suppression of women’s voices and Hawthorne’s own limitations in imagining female intellectual authority. The novel suggests that women’s intellectual freedom in Puritan society must remain largely internal and private, unexpressed publicly, making it simultaneously more profound in personal terms and less influential in social terms.
The novel also explores how gender affects the consequences of intellectual freedom, suggesting that women face harsher punishment for intellectual independence than men while also being underestimated in ways that provide unexpected opportunities. Hester’s thoughts are never fully articulated in the novel, remaining largely invisible to other characters and only partially revealed to readers through narrative commentary. This invisibility protects her from accusations of heresy or witchcraft that might have followed from public expression of her radical ideas about restructuring society and reconceiving gender roles. In contrast, Dimmesdale’s intellectual struggles center on his public voice and his role as community teacher, making his intellectual dishonesty more socially significant but also providing him with platforms for expression that Hester entirely lacks. The gendered dimensions of intellectual freedom in “The Scarlet Letter” reflect both seventeenth-century Puritan realities and nineteenth-century Victorian limitations on women’s public intellectual participation. Fetterley (1978) observes that Hawthorne simultaneously sympathizes with Hester’s intellectual isolation and expresses anxiety about female intellectual power, particularly when that power challenges patriarchal authority or conventional morality. The novel’s ending, which shows Hester voluntarily returning to Boston and reassuming the scarlet letter, has been interpreted variously as evidence of the impossibility of female intellectual freedom in patriarchal societies or as Hester’s mature integration of her radical insights with ethical responsibility and human connection. This ambiguous conclusion reflects Hawthorne’s complex attitudes toward gender and intellectual freedom, recognizing both the injustice of restricting women’s thoughts and the potential social disruption that might follow from unrestricted female intellectual independence.
Conclusion
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” offers a nuanced and complex exploration of intellectual freedom that examines both its necessity for human dignity and its potential dangers when divorced from ethical grounding and social responsibility. Through the contrasting experiences of Hester Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale, Roger Chillingworth, and Pearl, the novel demonstrates how intellectual freedom operates differently depending on gender, social position, and the relationship between individual and community. Hawthorne’s portrayal of Puritan New England reveals a society fundamentally opposed to intellectual freedom, where orthodoxy is enforced through social pressure, public shaming, and the threat of accusations of heresy or witchcraft. Yet the novel also shows how repressive social conditions can paradoxically enable certain forms of intellectual liberation, as Hester’s ostracism frees her to question assumptions that more integrated community members cannot examine. The forest scenes and Pearl’s character provide additional symbols for intellectual freedom operating outside social constraints, while Chillingworth’s corruption illustrates how unfettered inquiry without moral purpose becomes destructive. Throughout, Hawthorne maintains a careful balance between celebrating intellectual independence and warning about its potential costs.
The enduring relevance of “The Scarlet Letter” to questions of intellectual freedom stems from Hawthorne’s refusal to provide simple answers about the proper relationship between individual thought and social conformity. The novel suggests that neither Puritan suppression of intellectual freedom nor complete liberation from communal values provides an adequate foundation for human flourishing. Instead, Hawthorne advocates for a difficult middle position that preserves space for independent thinking and moral questioning while recognizing the importance of tradition, community, and shared ethical commitments. His nineteenth-century perspective allows him to critique his Puritan ancestors’ intellectual repression while also questioning whether his own era’s embrace of individualism and rejection of religious authority might leave individuals morally adrift. Modern readers continue to find resonance in “The Scarlet Letter” because contemporary society still grapples with tensions between intellectual freedom and social cohesion, individual rights and communal values, innovation and tradition. The novel reminds us that intellectual freedom, while essential to personal authenticity and social progress, must be exercised with awareness of its potential consequences and with ongoing commitment to ethical principles that transcend individual preference. Hawthorne’s masterwork ultimately suggests that genuine intellectual freedom requires not merely absence of external constraint but also internal capacity for moral reasoning, emotional connection, and recognition of obligations that extend beyond the self.
References
Baym, N. (1976). The Scarlet Letter: A Reading. Twayne Publishers.
Bell, M. D. (1991). Hawthorne and the Historical Romance of New England. Princeton University Press.
Bercovitch, S. (1991). The Office of The Scarlet Letter. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Colacurcio, M. J. (1984). The Province of Piety: Moral History in Hawthorne’s Early Tales. Harvard University Press.
Fetterley, J. (1978). The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Indiana University Press.
Hawthorne, N. (1850). The Scarlet Letter. Ticknor, Reed & Fields.
Herbert, T. W. (1993). Dearest Beloved: The Hawthornes and the Making of the Middle-Class Family. University of California Press.
Leverenz, D. (1989). Manhood and the American Renaissance. Cornell University Press.
Matthiessen, F. O. (1941). American Renaissance: Art and Expression in the Age of Emerson and Whitman. Oxford University Press.
Miller, P. (1956). Errand into the Wilderness. Harvard University Press.
Person, L. S. (1988). Aesthetic Headaches: Women and a Masculine Poetics in Poe, Melville, and Hawthorne. University of Georgia Press.
Reynolds, L. J. (1993). European Revolutions and the American Literary Renaissance. Yale University Press.