WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT PAPER - 8
Department of English,M. K. Bhavnagar University
Name :- Niyati Vyas
Roll No :- 14
Department :-M. A.English department
Submitted to :- Dr. Prof. Dilip Barad
Semester :- 2
Paper No :- 8 THE AMERICAN LITERATURE
UNIT - 2 EARNEST HEMINGWAY'S FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS.
ASSIGNMENT TOPIC - Discuss the religious symbolism associated with Robert Jordan.
In For Whom the Bell Tolls, Hemingway uses third-person omniscient narration to accommodate a great variety of opinions through the voices of his characters. The perspectives of peasant Republicans, Spanish women, Fascists, American interventionists, and Russian Communists are all incorporated in the text. Literary critic Anton Nilsson credits this technique as one of “many indications in the novel of Hemingway’s ambition to give a multifaceted and dynamic account of the war” as the “omniscient third-person narration technique…allows the author to express the private feelings of characters other than the protagonist when needed” (89). In order to present this historical moment with adequate complexity, Hemingway must incorporate viewpoints which he himself may not sympathize with. This technique may render attempts to identify Hemingway’s personal opinion fruitless; his mission is not to choose sides, but to reveal their common humanity rather than perpetuate conflict by defaulting to the American perspective and exclusively supporting the republicans.
Hemingway establishes a dualism in the texts between Fascism and Republicanism that mirrors their adverse relationship historically. Using individual characters as representatives of entire ideologies, a binary continuum of “old” and “new” values surfaces. The Fascists personify “Old Spain,” and their professions of Catholic faith embody the traditionalism and their fidelity to a strict social hierarchy. Meanwhile, Robert Jordan and his comrades defend the “New Spain,” representing values of modernity such as secularism and egalitarianism. According to literary critic Stacey Guill, Hemingway encapsulates this concept of a “New Spain” using his strong female characters, Pilar and Maria, as Republicanism transformed the role of women in Spain. The assertive nature of Pilar and her genuine passion for the republic mirrors the values of the Mujeres Libres, a Spanish anarchist feminist group of the time (Guill 9). However, Hemingway does not simply encapsulate the “old” and “new” in his depictions of women; all of his characters reflect some aspect of the distinction. Considering the polarization of ideology that characterized the division of Spain, Hemingway’s wealth of personifications are critical tools for communicating these networks of belief in order to illustrate underlying similarities between these distinct ideologies.
Just as Hemingway embodies the feminist ideologies defended in the conflict, his personifications also address differences in religiosity between these combative sides. The Spanish Church was a long-standing symbol of an “Old Spain” and the values of hierarchical and unchanging Catholicism would prove to be a polarizing issue in the schism of Spanish politics. For Fascists, the Church was a critical institution that solicited devotion both to God and to the Spanish cause. Meanwhile, the liberal Spanish recognized long-recurring corruption within the Church, and with Marxist leanings, released their ties with Catholicism. Robert Jordan summarizes this sentiment as he evaluates the relationship between Spanish liberals and the Church, reflecting, “The people had grown away from the Church because the Church was in the government and the government had always been rotten” (Hemingway 355). This statement does not point to fallibility in the nature of faith or religiosity, but rather in human error and exploitation. Therefore, Hemingway does not suggest fault in spirituality, but rather condemns a corrupt institution. This distinction between genuine faith and formal institutions is significant for the number of Hemingway’s characters who repeatedly construct and deconstruct their own codes of belief.
For some of Hemingway’s characters, this renouncement of faith in the Church contributes to inner turmoil. Anselmo, a former peasant now fighting in a rebel guerilla band, professes this loss of faith during one of his earliest appearances in the text. While he claims to have abandoned his religiosity in allegiance to the Republican movement, his understanding of morality and commitment to the movement reflect a conviction much like that of faith. Regarding Spain and the evils of war, Anselmo exclaims, “we do not have God here any more” (Hemingway 41). But by clarifying that God is not in Spain “any more,” Anselmo suggests His presence was once there, rather than never having existed at all. An admitted conception of God also characterizes Anselmo as a non-Communist. Incompatibility with religious faith is central tenet of Communism, yet here this professed Republican acknowledges the Catholic faith. He admits, “Clearly I miss Him, having been brought up in religion. But now a man must be responsible to himself” (41). By admitting he misses God, Hemingway presents Anselmo’s faith as having been a deep, interpersonal connection; the Spaniard speaks as though his faith was once a personal relationship and his change in belief has been a genuine loss. Yet Anselmo firmly professes many ideals that suggest a sense of faith within him, whether it be of a Catholic basis or not. He argues, “a man must be responsible to himself,” suggesting a commitment to self-affirmed morality despite his change in religiosity. Such a profession is again anti-Communist, as it asserts a sense of self-interest over collective belief. In fact, this concept of personal responsibility is more reflective of democratic principles, though it still falls beneath liberal sentiment on the political spectrum. Hemingway thereby accounts for many individuals forced to choose a side in the Civil War without personally subscribing to either. While Anselmo may not favor Fascism or Republicanism completely, this character is not without a sense of conviction. He asserts this idealism further as he firmly states, “with or without God, I think it is a sin to kill” (41). Anselmo may not practice Catholicism anymore, but it is unfair to argue he lives without belief. The religious connotation of the word “sin” is especially powerful in this dialogue, as it suggests a retention of certain Catholic values within Anselmo despite Republican abandonment of the church itself. “With or without God,” this Spaniard presents a retention of moral value, challenging traditional notions that religious influence is necessary for maintaining ethical principles within a society. Through Anselmo, Hemingway suggests the possibility of idealism and ethical responsibility even in a world without religion. Furthermore, Anselmo’s ideology against the killing of man speaks to Hemingway’s own demonstrated belief in a common humanity while underscoring the very complexity of such a conflict; in order to protect the rights of mankind, the Republican characters must deprive their fellow man of life and defy the very ideology their efforts aim to protect.
The similarly fervent belief in the republic professed by Republican characters in For Whom the Bell Tolls resembles the devoted Catholic faith of their Fascist enemies. The role of “orders” and their indifference to the individual will of those they apply to resembles the influence of religious doctrine. In the same way that the Bible’s Christ story encourages self-sacrifice in the name of a greater cause, orders function by overriding the personal interests of many of Hemingway’s characters. Ruminating on the presumed suicide mission he has been asked to carry out, Robert Jordan notes, “there are necessary orders that are no fault of yours and there is a bridge and that bridge can be the point on which the future of the human race can turn” (43). The grand consequence of Robert Jordan’s mission as a potential influence of “the future of the human race” simulates an air of religiosity by identifying a larger purpose beyond his individual existence. Robert Jordan and his comrades have relinquished their own free will and humanly wants in the name of this greater cause, a mindset which Hemingway relies upon to explain the heart-wrenching violence his characters must conduct and even fall victim to. As the characters’ devotion to their cause is continuously tried by increasingly dangerous situations, Hemingway challenges the division between the spiritual and the political even further.
In a later assault of the Republican guerrilla band of Sordo, Hemingway uses the threat of death to manipulate the line between religiosity and political conviction further. While the men lay surrounded by Fascist enemies, awaiting death, some begin to taunt their comrade Joaquin, a professedly passionate Communist. They tease, “send for thy Passionaria. She alone can help us” (311). La Pasionaria was a significant figurehead in the Spanish Communist movement, and as an empowered woman, symbolized the values of “New Spain” (Guill 8). The remarks of Joaquin’s comrades charge him with a religious sense of devotion to Communism, and suggest his commitment to the movement involves a passion that rivals spirituality. Yet, in some of his final moments, even Joaquin defaults to the Catholicism of “Old Spain.” In the crossfire of battle, Joaquin reassures himself, “‘Passionara says ‘Better to die on thy—’” but halts, switching instead to the Catholic “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee” (321). This transference between reliance on Communist ideology and Catholic religion suggests a universal impulse for faith not fully sufficed by either doctrine. Yet, Joaquin still strives to reassure himself through spirituality. At this critical moment of desperation, Hemingway reveals an attachment to belief within the human spirit. Only at the height of crisis are we provided with a window to resolution; in the final test of death, Hemingway portrays these adversaries with a unanimous need for faith proving their common humanity. The line between political duty and religious faith again is obscured as Anselmo prepares for his awaited mission to blow the bridge. The old man prays, “Help me, O Lord, tomorrow to comport myself as a man should in his last hours. Help me, O Lord, to understand clearly the needs of the day” (327). In this moment, the force of orders and the force of God fold into one: Anselmo employs his spirituality in order to serve successfully this secular cause. This blending of two ideologies therefore obscures the need for war at all; Anselmo displays a possibility for compromise between traditionalists and modernists through his personal ideologies.
Scholars have criticized Hemingway of lacking complete sympathy for the liberal position in the text, especially in the story of the execution of Fascists in the village of Pablo. Remaining true to his multifaceted perspective in the novel whilst still underscoring a universal humanity, Hemingway entertains a shared evil between his Republican heroes and their Fascist enemies. At this critical point in the text, the capacity for cruelty, even amongst fanatics of idealism, is made apparent as individual Fascists are dragged from the town hall. While the group prays inside with the village priest, each Fascist is taken, beaten, and thrown from the cliff in a town square. Pilar tells this dark story to Robert Jordan and Maria, remembering “men were screaming as horses scream in a fire. And I saw the priest with his skirts tucked up scrambling over a bench and those after him were chopping at him with the sickles” (125). In this instance, the forces of anger and chaos beneath the political conviction of the Republicans surfaces in a mindlessly violent scene. While attacking a priest certainly deflects sympathies for the Republican side in this instance, this moment provides an excellent historical metaphor for tensions between the people and governing institutions at the start of the movement. Acting as a symbol of the Spanish Church, the priest ironically embodies both morality and corruption because of the ties between this institution and the government. Hemingway emphasizes this distinction by the priest’s housing in the ayuntamiento, or town hall, rather than a church signifying that he acts as part of the state during this moment in the text. Furthermore, the Republicans attack the priest with sickles—a symbol of Communism—suggesting that this is distinctly a battle of ideologies and common frustration with the Spanish government, rather than interpersonal hatred. Hemingway therefore presents the Spanish people as equal victims of a government that has failed them, rather than as natural enemies to one another. Mistaking Hemingway’s illustration of mindless violence in the Republican uprising as an insult to their cause, critics have failed to understand this chapter as another example of commonality between these combating groups.
For Whom the Bell Tolls is paradoxical in the unity it suggests despite our societal tendencies towards dualism, revealing an inner human spirit that no interpersonal conflict can violate. In bridging the gap in ideologies between radicals and fascists, Hemingway relieves the Spanish Civil War of its very propagator: disunity in the beliefs of a people. Using third-person omniscient narration, Hemingway brings readers inside the mind of dozens of Spaniards, and reveals a unified moral undercode beneath external allegiances to various parties. In the context of civil war, such an enlightening presence surely reflects a greater inclination towards unity than modern politics might otherwise indicate. The problem of political divergence is not a remote issue of the past. Hemingway’s presentation of ideological unity might be applied to the recent divisiveness in this time of considerable polarization in the contemporary West. Despite the lessons of the Second World War, right-wing authoritarians have reemerged in Europe; for example, Hungarian leader Viktor Orban and Italian deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini have been labeled as fascists. While the direct threat of another civil war is yet to pose itself to the United States, the methods of President Trump have been equated to some of the most controversial leaders in history, including Adolf Hitler. Loud reactions against Trump on behalf of liberalism have populated recent news stories, and incidents such as the Charlottesville protests also resonate with the extremism addressed by Hemingway in his novel. Though the world has yet to arrive at Hemingway’s great understanding, For Whom the Bell Tolls and texts like it are invaluable tools for addressing even the most complex disputes.
The use of the formal "thee," "thou," and "thy" in Hemingway's novel may serve three purposes. First, Hemingway meant his dialogue to be a direct translation from Spanish, since the novel is set in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. In Spanish, the pronoun you has two forms, the formal usted and the familiar tú. Throughout the novel, Hemingway uses odd translations and, of course, censors the profanity which is common in the dialogue of the Spanish characters (he simply replaces the profanity with words such as "obscenity" and "muck").
Second, Hemingway uses these formalities to suggest the camaraderie of the characters who are fighting for a cause they are willing to die for. Rather than referring to each other as señor, señora or señorita, the characters refer to each other on equal terms as thee and thou. It is similar to the communist term comrade which is also a term of equality. The rebels during the civil war were attempting to bring freedom and equality to Spain, in contrast to their fascist opponents.
Third, the terms may be an allusion to religious symbolism and the Bible. Patrick Cheney, in his article "Hemingway and Christian Epic: The Bible in For Whom the Bell Tolls" argues that the novel is replete with Christian imagery, including the constant use of the biblical "thee" and "thou" (of course, these words were first used in the English translation, the King James Bible). An example of this imagery and symbolism is the description of El Sordo's death and the implication that he is a martyr for the cause of the Spanish Republic. He dies on a hill and in a direct reference to Jesus Christ (who was crucified on Calvary Hill), Robert Jordan says,
If he had known how many men in history have had to use a hill to die on it would not have cheered him any for, in the moment he was passing through, men are not impressed by what has happened to other men in similar circumstance...
Thus, all of the thees and thous give Hemingway's work a biblical effect and may even suggest that Robert Jordan and the Republicans he is fighting with are on the side favored by God. Hemingway, however, would certainly recoil from this link, as he did when critics used biblical references in their analysis of The Old Man and the Sea.
WORDS - 3,188
Comments
Post a Comment