Last Name 1

Last name First name

Professor’s name

Course Code

Date

The Scarlet Letter: The Symbolism of the Rose Bush

     In Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel 'The Scarlet Letter', the rose bush is one of the essential

symbolic features (Mohammed and Yahya 28). Hawthorne states that "it may serve, let us hope,

to symbolize some sweet moral blossom or relieve the darkening close of a tale of human frailty

and sorrow" (29). There are two symbolic interpretations of the rose bush within the context of

the story’s moral lesson based on the statement above. 

     Firstly, it refers to the sweet moral blossoming of morality. Thereby, the reader can learn that

natural good, the rose, can still emerge even in the presence of hardship and evil, like the prison

and the people presumably in it. Life's goodness is represented by Pearl's innocence, who still

finds her way despite the reprimanding sin and vileness around her. The sin is symbolic in the

roles of Hester, while Chillingworth represents evil. The rose is a fitting metaphor for the

fragility amid vigor since it is a beautiful flower that grows among dangerous thorns. 

     Secondly, the bleak tale of humanity as a fragile and sorrowful existence is symbolized as

well. Even so, the statement means that even in the hardest of circumstances, a positive lesson

can be learned. The author uses this pretext to justify the efforts made to create a beautiful story

using within a tragedy. The rose, and thereby Pearl, represents the silver lining that even in the

hardest times, people can learn the most profound lessons.

 Last Name 2

    In conclusion, the multiplicity of the statement makes two symbolic lessons clear. Nature

persists despite human intervention, and beautiful teaching can be derived from an ugly

situation. 
 Last Name 3

Works Cited

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. New York, Signet Classic, 1988.

Mohammed, B. Ali and Yahya, H. Salam. “Symbolism in the Scarlet Letter.” IOSR Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, vol. 22, no. 4, 2017, pp. 26-34.