When reading A Critical History of The Scarlet Letter, what struck me was the discussion the novel’s state as a moral tale, how early Christian interpretations claimed that The Scarlet Letter “was actually a morally instructive, even puritanical, work that warned against the pitfalls of sensuality in general and adulterous misdeeds in particular” (274). In regards to this stance, I sided with the minority (James and Duyckink) who dismiss this claim of immorality. Accepting this puts fourth the relativity of morality and how perspective can affect what is viewed as right and wrong. From the Christian lens, devotion and commitment are values held highly, while James argues that the book is “highly moral in character” (276). This morality holds truth in love higher.

Relativity in moral character becomes even more important in the new formalist criticism and feminist criticism. With criticism came analysis of Hawthorne’s use of symbols to convey morality, with Pearl being utilized for this purpose. By using this character, it was shown that that “humanity, not nature, is the source of the morality” (280). And this strengthens the argument that morality is relative to specific persons.  Each lens of criticism seems to view the different ways in which morality is expressed and explored in the novel, which can even be seen in the clash between Hester and the Puritans. Right and wrong and be relative, and for society, that can be a dangerous notion.