PURITANISM SEEN THROUGH EPHRAIM CABOT
’S
ATTITUDES
IN EUGENE O’NEILL’S
DESIRE UNDER THE
ELMS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
SELVIA MEGAHSARI
Student Number : 084214122
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
i
PURITANISM SEEN THROUGH EPHRAIM CABOT
’S
ATTITUDES
IN EUGENE O’NEILL’S
DESIRE UNDER THE
ELMS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
SELVIA MEGAHSARI
Student Number : 084214122
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA 2014
v
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has
also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot
fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
(ECCKESIASTES 3:11)
When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but
often we look so long at the closed door that we do not
see the one which has been opened for us.
(Hellen Keller)
vi
This undergraduate thesis is dedicated to
My Beloved Parents
Berth. Lembonunu & Yospin. Kopi
Who always be my motivation to get a
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I thank my Lord, Jesus Christ for His everlasting blessing in my
life, especially in finishing this undergraduate thesis. His blessing never lets me give
up in passing through so many hard times. I would like to thank my father and mother
who give love, prayer, and support to me. I could not finish this thesis without your
attention and support. I would also like to thank my beloved sisters, Vita and Bune,
who always support me when I was down in finishing this thesis.
My gratitude and appreciation goes to my Advisor Ni Luh Putu Rosiandani,
S.S., M.Hum. I thank her for being patient in guiding me to finish this thesis. I also
thank my Co-Advisor Drs. Hirmawan Wijanarka, M.Hum., who has given additional
suggestion for my thesis. I also would like to thank all of the lecturers and staff of
English Letters Department, Sanata Dharma University.
I will not forget to give my special thanks to Heru’s family, Bapak, Ibu, Mas
Niko, mbak Ika, and Tyas, for being my family in Yogyakarta. Then, I would also like to thank my brothers Yance Posende and Kristian Tumimomor for their special
support to me. I thank my beloved friends in English Letters Department Rina, Rana,,
Sisil, and Mbak Lia (Alm), for being my best friends.
For last but really not least, I would like to thank my beloved mate, Ryan
Wenur, who always supports me with patience, and also for your love and care, the
happiest and worst day we share together.
Selvia Megahsari.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ……… i
APPROVAL PAGE ……….. ii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE ………. iii
LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ………. iv
MOTTO PAGE ………. v
C. Puritanism Seen through Ephraim Cabot’s Attitudes ……… 41
1. Strong Belief in God’s Commandments in the Bible ………. 42
2. Patriarchal System ………. 45
3. Hard Working ……… 48
ix
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ………. 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……….. 58
APPENDIX ………. 61
Summary of Eugene O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms ………. 61
x ABSTRACT
SELVIA MEGAHSARI. Puritanism Seen through Ephraim Cabot’s Attitudes in
Eugene O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms. Yogyakarta: Department of English
Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2014.
Desire Under the Elms written by Eugene O’Neill is a play about a father who lives in New England with his wives and three sons. Ephraim Cabot is a father who is very strict in keeping Puritanism in his life. He uses Puritanism as his guide of life. His characteristic is very influenced by Puritanism. There are some conflicts that happen between Ephraim Cabot and his family because of Cabot’s characteristics. There are some principles of Puritanism seen through Ephraim Cabot’s attitudes. His attitudes are revealed through his characteristics and conflicts faced by him.
xi ABSTRAK
SELVIA MEGAHSARI. Puritanism Seen through Ephraim Cabot’s Attitudes in
Eugene O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris,
Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2014.
Desire Under the Elms adalah sebuah drama karya Eugene O’Neill telah
menjadi objek dalam penulisan skripsi ini. Drama ini menceritakan tentang seorang ayah puritan yang tinggal di New England bersama istri-istrinya dan ketiga anaknya. Ephraim Cabot adalah seorang ayah yang sangat keras menjaga Puritanisme di kehidupannya. Dia menggunakan Puritanisme sebagai pemandu kehidupannya. Karakternya sangat di pengaruhi oleh Puritanisme. Ada beberapa konflik yang terjadi antara Ephraim Cabot dan keluarganya yang disebabkan oleh karakter Ephraim Cabot dan cara dia memperlakukan keluarganya. Ada empat prinsip Puritanisme yang dapat dilihat melalui sikap Ephraim Cabot.
Ada tiga rumusan masalah dalam skripsi ini. Rumusan masalah yang pertama adalah bagaimana Ephraim Cabot dideskripsikan. Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah konflik apa yang dihadapi oleh Ephraim Cabot. Rumusan masalah yang ketiga adalah Puritanisme dilihat dari sikp Ephraim Cabot.
Teori yang digunakan adalah teori karakteristik dan karakter, dan teori konflik. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan skripsi ini adalah metode studi kepustakaan. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan sosio-kultural-history.Data-data utama diambil dari drama Desire Under the Elms, dan data-data lainnya diambil dari beberapa buku, ensiklopedia, dan beberapa penelitian yang berkaitan dengan topik skripsi ini.
Analisa pertama di studi ini menunjukan bahwa Ephraim Cabot adalah seorang puritan yang sangat keras mempercayai dan mempraktekan Puritanisme dalam kehidupannya. Sebagai seorang puritan, cara dia mengaplikasikan kepercayaannya dapat terlihat melalui caranya memperlakukan istri dan anak-anaknya di kehidupan sehari-hari. Kerasnya karakter memicu pemberontakan dari istri dan anak-anaknya yang tidak menyukai cara dia memperlakukan mereka. Kemudian, penerapan puritanisme di kehidupan Ephraim Cabot dan pemberontakan dari istri dan anak-anaknya menjadi penyebab dari konflik yang terjadi di antara Ephraim Cabot dan keluarganya. Berdasarkan karakteristik dan konflik-konflik tersebut, penulis menemukan bahwa ada empat prinsip Puritanisme dalam drama ini. Ke empat prinsip Puritanisme tersebut adalah kepercayaan terhadap sepuluh hukum Tuhan dalam alkitab, kerja keras, sistem patriaki, dan dosa keturunan. Keempat prinsip Puritanisme tersebut mencerminkan bahwa masyarakat puritan adalah masyarakat yang sangat keras menjaga dan menerapkan kepercayaan mereka.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Drama is designed for theatrical presentation. Drama as one of literary
works, drama is designed to be acted on the stage (Reaske, 1966:55). Reading a
play is different from other literary pieces, such as novels, poems, short stories
that are usually written to be read. A drama can be read but need to be performed
by actors and actresses. Because of it we need a text and a script. Text and script
are two important elements in a play. It is at once a text to be read and script to be
performed (Barranger, 1994: 4).
Drama is a good way to understand the life of human from the character,
the problem and the way they solve the problem. Besides, there is one important
thing in a drama. There are some messages in a drama. We need to understand the
messages. The messages of the overall content of the story in a drama connect
with the reader and audience. There are some important elements of life in a
drama. It helps us to know how to respect our life. According to Barranger,
drama’s best moment lead us to discoveries and reflections about our
personalities, circumstances, desires, anxieties, hopes, and dreams (1994: 7).
Some authors write their work based on specific history or an event. They use
some methods of writing like characterization. The process by which in author or
a playwright create a character is called characterization. Characterization, in
literature, is the presentation of the attitudes and behaviors of imaginary persons
2
is a unique feature of such fictional forms as the short story, novel, drama, and
narrative poetry (Holman, 1995: 291). They connect characterization with the
history. Sometimes the authors want to show the response of the character toward
the specific history or event. We know that characterization is really fundamental
and lasting element in the greatness of any dramatic work (Hudson, 1958: 186).
Eugene O’Neill wrote more than sixty plays. His works are focused on the
problem of human life. His major works are often concerned with the detrimental
effect of materialism, the alienation of man from other nature and God, the death
heritage, of puritanical belief and the psychological furies that may arousing our
pity and fear (Leech, 1963:1)
Desire Under the Elmsis one of O’Neill’s works. It was produced in 1924. It is the last of O’Neill’s naturalistic play and the first which he recreated the
starkness of Greek tragedy. Desire Under the Elms is considered as O’Neill’s
spiritual essence and religion (Oscar, 1995:246)
In this thesis the writer is interested in analyzing a play entitled “Desire
Under the Elms” by Eugene O’Neill. The writer chooses this play because O’Neill
presents the interesting history. In this play O’Neill tries to serve the major
character related to history of puritan.
This drama presents the story of Ephraim Cabot and his family. It takes in
New England farm, in the year 1850. The major character is Ephraim Cabot.
Ephraim Cabot was grown in the Puritanism era. His character is very much
influenced by the custom and the manner of puritan society. He takes Puritanism
as principle of his life. Puritanism is very clearly visible on his point of view of
God and his attitudes.
The setting reflects the historical and emotional connotation of Puritanism
which is well-known with its strictness and stresses in moral and religious values
(Ronald, 1984: 231). Here, in Desire Under the Elms the setting of time deals with the relation of men and God at the period time. It deals with the puritan who, at
the time, began to lose their religious control over men’s moral. In 1850 or in the
mid nineteenth century, when the Yankee’s conscience began to lose its authority
over the external world, was like wise beginning to turn inward, to become
repressed, sinister morally sick, and poisoned but doubt suspicion. The old puritan
was sinking into twilight and no longer permitted to be divine (Bryfonsky,
1978:391).
After reading this drama, the writer is interested to analyze how
Puritanism seen through Ephraim Cabot, as the major character in the play.
Ephraim Cabot keeps Puritanism for moral principle and minimal of conduct. He
uses his belief to guide his life. The writer wants to explore more the Puritanism
seen through Ephraim Cabot’s attitudes in the play.
B. Problem Formulation
In order to understand this drama better, three problems were formulated
as follows.
1. How is the major character described?
2. What are the conflicts faced by the major character?
4
C. Objectives of the Study
Based on the problem formulation, there are three objectives to achieve.
The first objective is the writer wants to analyze the description of major
character. The aim of first objective is to find out the characteristic of major
character that has important role in this play through the dialogue, the character,
and the action. The second objective is the writer wants to find out the conflicts
depicted in the play. The third objective is the writer tries to find out Puritanism
which is seen from the major character’s attitudes. Puritanism is revealed by
characteristics of major character and conflicts faced by the major character in the
play.
D. Definition of term
1. Puritan
Puritan is a group of people who want to purify the Church of England of
certain custom. They dislike the Episcopal organization and the formal liturgy of
that church, believing that it savored too much of Roman Catholicism. That is
why they were called as “Puritans”. They moved and settled Salemn,
Massachusetts, in1628, and the next year several hundred more came to this
settlement (Winther, 1962: 67).
According to Firth, Puritan represents from the first “the Protestantism of
the protestant religion.’’ The aim of those who called themselves puritans was to
restore the Church to what they though its original purity in doctrine, worship, and
government (1929: 10).
2. Puritanism
According to Forner, Puritanism is a set of religious belief and principles
of puritan. It is a view of how society should be organized. He adds that
Puritanism is not only a set of ideas but a state of mind of puritan’s view
(2005:60)
Puritanism is one of the names of new religion that appears to give
reaction to Christian religion. People who believe in Puritanism are called
puritans. The word puritan itself was derived from Latin words, which means for
pure and intended as a criticism of the reformer for being to extreme in their
demands. In addition, Puritanism was a reform movement within English
Protestantism that emerged in the 16th century. Puritanism, itself has a special
purpose. They wanted to purify the Christianity belief; especially they want to
purify the Church of England. Puritan believed that Roman Catholic Church has
6
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
In order to support the analysis, the writer includes some criticism on
Desire Under the Elms. Whinter has commented Desire Under the Elms as a controversial play. This play presents the brutality and human violence on
the stage. The brutality is represented by the characters in the play who
exemplify the greed, lechery, incest, adultery, revenge and murder (Caputy,
1966:462).
Often the modern playwright shocks his audiences and creates
controversy by presenting controversial subjects such as prostitution,
poverty, social discrimination, disease, judicial equities, and adverse
industrial condition (Barranger, 1994:540). In Desire Under the Elms,
O’Neill also presents the controversial play, the bloody tragedy of human
lust and greed. Moreover, Barranger says that modern tragedies present the
conflict between an individual and repressive society, and the failure of
personal ambition. Most of them struggle tragically for “equality,
fulfillment, identity, and dignity” (1994: 541).
This play is not only presenting the brutality and human violence on
the stage but there are some interesting aspects. The play is presenting
psychological and philosophical aspects in the story. This play is a realistic
portrayal of crude lust and elemental passion that is taken from the depth of
human experience. According to Caputy, O’Neill applies the concept of
tragedy in Desire Under the Elms which based on the theory of life and art that rest upon an idea “the way of life” (Caputy, 1966:464). O’Neill’s plays
are written from his personal experiences of life. This concept presents both
the classical and the modern concept at the same time, based on the real
portrayal of life. O’Neill is always trying to interpret life in term of lives,
and is not just in term of characters in fictions or dramas. He sees that there
are forces, fate, and God behind this life, and life is full of mystery (Caputy,
1966:451). This play is written based on his family tragic relationship.
There is a unique characterization of this play, that all the characters in this
play are similar in lust and greed.
Fergusson assumes that O’Neill has not language. His language is
inflated, bombastic, flat, and unprofitable. He states that O’Neill’s work is
only melodramatic plots, characters without universal import, cheap
symbolism, and immature ideas. Like Fergusson, Bentley finds out that
O’Neill’s thinking is shallow, primitive, and inconsequential (Cargill,
1961:12).
However, there are some positive comments toward O’Neill’s
language. We have noted Gabriel’s reference to O’Neill’s “brightness of
words”: his “imagery flares up … in ruddy beauty”: Malone praised
O’Neill’s language as an “asset”; and many more similar comments
8
O’Neill’s language is written by Lionel Abel. In his article entitled “O’Neill
and His Critics” (New Leader, January 6, 1958). Abel states that O’Neill is a
master of speech insofar as the words spoken by his characters convince us
as coming from them, what matters on the stage is not that a speech should
be elegant – unless the character is – but that the words spoken should be
discovered by the character in himself in the act of saying them. O’Neill is
certainly able to make characters speak authentically at the critical points of
their life experience; to do this; one must have a superior command of
language, even if not of the sort which could have imposed itself outside the
theatre.
The critics above contribute to understanding of the play and to
support this study. These criticisms are included to help the writer
understand the play and also to differentiate what other critics have said on
their criticisms and what the thesis is going to analyze.
B. Review of Related Theory
1. Theory on Character and Characterization
Writer used theory on character and characterization. According to
Abram (1981:20), character is a “short, and usually witty, sketch in prose of
a distinctive type of a person”. Character is one of the most important
elements in a work of literature which guide the reader to understand the
story from the characters’ conversation and action. The reader can
understand the characters by their expressions which can be seen from their
speaking, dialogue and action. Characters are persons who have quality of moral,
disposition, and emotional. So, when we are concerned with the behavior,
morality, activity, we speak of character. In The Literary Works Abrams stated: Character is the person presented in a dramatic or narrative work who are interpreted by the readers as being endowed with moral and dispositional qualities that are expressed in what they say – the dialogues – and what they do – the action (1981:20)
Characterization is an ability of a playwright or an author characterizes in
character. The characterization is meant to help the understanding of the character
in the play (Abram, 1981:56).
He adds that character is divided into two types;
a. Major Characters
This is the three-dimensional or round characters. They revealed the bad
and the good qualities. They have goals, ambitions and values that change as the
result of what happen to them. They are also called as the dynamic character.
b. Minor Character
This is the flat or the two-dimensional character. They have only one or
two significant qualities. They are usually all good or all bad. They are also
mentioned as the static characters because they reveal no change.
Dramatist uses all relationship among characters, between words and
actions to reveal the nature of characters that is involved. According to Kernan,
playwrights make their points by comparing and contrasting the characters in
order to reveal the different nature of each character. It is meant to help the reader
10
4. The personality and interpretation of the actor playing the role
Characterization is the process by which the author creates a character. In
A Handbook of Literature, Holman and Harmon stated that there are three basic methods of characterization as quoted below.
1. The explicit presentation of the character by the author through direct
explanation, whether in a block’s introductory or throughout the work which
is illustrated by action (1986: 81)
2. The presentation of the character in action, therefore the reader will be able to
conclude the attributes of character from actions (1986: 81)
3. The representation of the character, without comment on character by the
author, of the impact of actions and emotions on character’s inner self, with
the expectation that the reader will come to clear understanding of the
attributes of the character (1986: 81).
In Writing with A Purpose, McCrimmon also writes characterization is the author method in creating, revealing and developing the change of the characters.
He also points out that:
An author may described character directly, telling the reader what people look like, how they behave and what they think, or an author may reveals characters indirectly, suggesting their appearance, personality, and values through their words and deeds of other (1984: 335).
1. Theory on Conflict
According to Bentley, conflict in drama refers to the clash ideas,
personalities, or action of the characters (1950: 11). Mainly in tragic play, a
conflict becomes the hearth of the problems. In many plays, conflict is an
essential element that makes the play come to life. It is composed to create
suspense, to make wonder what will happen next and who will win or lose at the
end of the play. Guth states that the truly dramatic scenes in a play are often the
conflict of the play. It is the scene where opposing forces confront each other.
Moreover, the exposition of the play often sketches in background of history of
the people or groups who confront the conflicts (1981:739).
Discussing the human conflict, it will always deal with people as the
source of the conflict. The people who play in a work of literature are called
characters. The character becomes so important because everything that character
does is required to identify the motive of the conflict. Kernan point out that in a
play each speed and gesture in some way will qualify the motive. He says, a
dramatic motive forces the character into the world where he can realize the goal
and his motives direct him toward the realization. But as soon as this movement
toward the realization begins to encounter an opposing force, then the conflict will
occur (Kernan, 1963: 10). In other words, conflict develop when a character
strives in one direction to achieve some particular goals, but his movements are
deflected by some other forces such as another character, society, or the nature of
12
Conflict may occur when there is a sharp disagreement or an opposite idea
of one person with another. It also can happen within an individual, when the
hope or willingness failed to be achieved. This understanding is supported by
Guth who says that conflict is created by two people or groups who have opposing
wants or needs. Then he adds that conflict is also possible happening to one
person who has an opposing want or need within him (1981:793).
C. Review the Principles of Puritanism in New England
The puritans acquired their names because they were English Protestant
who in the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth
centuries were resolved to “purify” the Church of England (Perry, 1956:1).
In 1566, puritans who called themselves as unspotted lambs of the Lord
appeared in London. They were many English Protestants who demanded major
changes in ritual and dogma. As their name implied, these Christians wished to
purify the Church from what they considered its false trappings and doctrines.
Four major themes or principles shaped their teachings. First, Puritans, like
Presbyterians, opposed an Episcopal, or bishop-run, church structure. They
preferred a congregational system that vested spiritual and financial authority in
the hands of the laity. Second, these reformers insisted on the right, indeed the
necessity, for individual Christian to read and interpret the Bible. Third, they
stood strongly against the mystical interpretation of the sacrament of Communion,
preferring simple religious exercises to the miraculous rituals led by priest.
Finally, puritans condemned Catholic ceremony as idolatrous. They pointed out
that church had become places of pleasure rather than places of worship. Filled
with beautiful statues and paintings, the sweet smell of incense, and the
magnificent robes priests, the churches distracted the senses and corrupted the
simple message of the Gospel (Henretta, Brownlee, Brody and Ware, 1987:
27-28).
Henretta, Brownlee, Brody, and Ware again say that the puritans of the
Massachusetts Bay colony were avowed Calvinist. Following the teaching of the
great French philosopher, John Calvin, they believed that God was all powerful.
In contrast, human beings were weak, helpless sinner who deserved eternal
damnation. They add yet God in his majesty had chosen to extend salvation to a
few “elect” men and women, presumably the devout membership of Puritan
churches. Furthermore, they say the doctrines of elections and predestination had
bleak and harsh implications. They condemned the non-elect, to a subordinate
status on the earth and to eternal suffering in hell. Elected Saints (member of any
Puritan church) themselves lived in great anxiety. They could never be certain that
they were predestined for salvation (1987:35).
As the patriarchal society, the puritans regard that men have more power
than women and children.
Like other Christians, puritans believed in equality of souls, both women and men could achieve intimacy with God and heavenly salvation. At the same time, women were not equal on the earth. As one English pastor put
it, “The woman is weak creature not imbued with like strength and constancy of mind.” In matter of church and of state, they should be
subordinate to men. They could never be ministers or even lay preachers, but only non-voting members of church ( Henretta, 1987:54).
In Patriarchal culture, children, as well as women, do not have right to
14
ideas. Only adult male in the church who have right to vote on such matters as
choosing a minister, admitting new members, and deciding cases of church
discipline (Webster, 1995: 21).
Reading a Bible and attending sermons were essential aspects of
Puritanism. Some puritans also believe that the churches should be composed only
of visible saints, that is, those who had been reborn and whose lives proclaimed
that they were living without sin. This doctrine especially seemed to attack the
authorities’ attempt to have the church support the state (Lemay, 1989: 173).
Morison in The Oxford History of the American People states that puritan have a common belief in the bible as the guide to life, and a uniform method of
land division (1969:7. The Bible as the authorities word of God, and the Bible
does not inculcate any excessive an asceticism (Parkes, 1947:69).
In Making America, Luedtke states that the puritans have deep respect for the literal word of Bible (1987:95).
Thou shalt honor their parents, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou
shalt not covet their neighbors’ good, thou shalt not make any either God
before God, thou shalt not make any given image, thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy, thou shalt not bear false witness, and thou shalt no commit adultery (1987: 95)
Winther in his book The Story of Our Heritage state that Sunday is the day for concentrated worship. For this reason the puritans believe that they should be
no work on the Sabbath (1962: 131).
Furthermore, Pearce in Colonial American Writing states that Puritans were so sure of their rightness that they refused to call themselves Separatist (as
had the Pilgrims) and insisted they were the only members of the True Church.
All others had somehow been separated, as they said, from the path of
righteousness (1959: 44).
The puritans strongly favored right living and punishment for evil doing.
They believed that, wherever they were, people should live good Christian lives
everyday of the week (Winther, 1962: 131).
Winther states that geographical reasons influence the puritan’s character.
They have to make a living under conditions very different from their land before.
They have to learn the best way to use different kind of climates, soils, landforms,
minerals, and other natural resources. Fortunately the puritans are very practical,
versatile and hard working (1962:102).
The puritans believe that God orders them to be “fruitful and multiply”
and especially to “have dominion over the earth”. It is theirs to cultivate, not
merely to mine or strip, as the Catholics. They believe in transforming the
landscape. Turning wilderness to garden, virgin land to order village, raw
landscape to till soil, water lapping at a shore to commercial harbor, primitive tool
to complex invention (Luedtke, 1987: 305).
Morison in his book The Oxford History of the American People states that the puritans have convince themselves that “they works hard for God” (1969: 73).
Bradley states that the puritans believe indolence and frivolity are sins, and
diligence in good work is a debt which man owed God (1972:22).
New England’s puritan believes in a concept of original sin in their daily
life. The basic belief of puritan’s community came from Calvin’s point of view,
16
political philosophies, and the ideal of civil government. They believe that
ancestor’s sin can fall into their descendents. It has a meaning that the heritage sin
come and pour into one generation to another generation (Edwards, 1952:33).
Like other Calvinist, the puritans affirm the doctrines of sovereignty of
God, original sin, innate depravity, limited atonement, double predestination,
irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saint (Luedtke, 1987:325).
In The United States 1492-1877, in Calvinist doctrine of original sin, the puritans believe that God creates world and Adam who is good and wise. In
Adam’s sin, however, man has forfeited goodness and wisdom, and all of Adam’s
descendants inherited his sinful character. God, they believe, is merciful, and He
has chosen to save a few from the fate that all deserved (Bradley, 1972:21).
Based on the puritan’s Calvinist sense, they believe that the ancestor’s
wrongdoing can fall into their descendents. It has a meaning that the “heritage sin
come and pour into one generation to another generation” (Edward, 1952: 33). In
addition, the doctrine of original sin from the ancestor’s wrongdoing as an inborn
sin influences their descendent. The doctrine of inborn sin also takes step by step
through a slow process of evolution or from the ancestor into the descendent
(Hall, 1995: 23).
C. Theoretical Framework
In Desire Under the Elms, to analyze Ephraim Cabot, the writer uses some theories on character and characterization. Theories on character and
characterization are used to know more deeply toward the characteristics of major
character. The writer needs to use this theory to understand the character. This
theory helps to find out and understand the way to analyze characteristic of major
character. The writer thinks that the use of those theories will help the writer to
solve the problems that is formulated in the analysis. A character must be created
imaginatively, but he must be seen life like. The writer also uses theory on
conflict. The theory on conflict is used to examine the conflicts in the story. There
is relation between character and conflict. The character is the actor of conflict. A
conflict will occur when there is an opposite idea or disagreement between the
characters or within individual.
The review the principles of Puritanism in New England helps to
understand in general condition at the time. By reading out this information, this
18
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
For this thesis, the writer chooses to analyze a play or drama. The object
of the writer’s analysis is Desire Under the Elms, a play by Eugene O’Neill. The
play is divided into three parts with four scenes of each and contains 127 pages.
It was produced in 1924 and published in 1925 by a signet book, the new
American library. The first was printed on March 1952. Desire Under the Elms is one of O’Neill’s big works which brought him to his success. It is the last of
O’Neill naturalistic plays and the first in which he re-created the starkness of
Greek tragedy.
O’Neill wrote Desire Under the Elms based on story of his own life.
Drawing on Greek incest, infanticide, and fateful retribution, he framed his story
in the context of his own family’s conflict. This story of lustful father, a weak
son, and the adulterous wife who murders her infant son was told with a fine
disregard for the conventions of the contemporary Broadway theatre. Because of
the sparseness of its style, its avoidance of melodrama, and its total honesty of
emotion, the play was acclaimed immediately as a powerful tragedy and has
continued to rank among the great American plays of the 20th century.
B. Approach of the Study
In analyzing this work the writer uses socio-cultural-historical approach.
According to Rohrberger and Woods, in their books Reading and Writing about Literature, state that literatures work whose major interest is the socio-cultural
historical show the reality in the society and influences literature’s work.
According to them, the only way to locate the real work with
socio-cultural-historical approach is in reference to the civilization that produces it (1971:90).
They define civilization as the attitudes and actions a specific group of people.
Literature tales these attitudes and actions as its subject matter. It is necessary
then to investigate the social surroundings in which a work was created and
necessarily reflected.
Rohrberger and Woods add that the socio-cultural-historical approach to
the literature usually takes some aspect of the socio-cultural as basic and
combines with an interest in the biographical as well as knowledge in literary
history (1971: 9).
Therefore, the writer draws a relationship between New England and the
history of puritan by using socio-cultural-historical approach. This approach
helps the writer to understand the context of socio-cultural-historical of the
period of Puritanism. Understanding the socio-cultural-historical issues give the
reader a great knowledge to draw conclusion and understand the story well.
This approach is chosen to analyze Desire Under the Elms in order to find out Puritanism through Ephraim Cabot’s attitudes in this play. There are
two reasons why this approach is chosen. The first reason is because Desire Under the Elms is a historical-play. O’Neill’s work “Desire Under the Elms” represents the reality of human being’s problems. It is conceived as no more
replica of surface reality; it is a grim portrayal of crude lusts and elemental
20
Therefore Desire Under the Elms portrays the history. The second one is to be able to find out Puritanism seen through Ephraim Cabot’s attitudes in the play.
This research must also observe the socio-cultural-history background of
Puritanism in New England at the time. The socio-cultural-historical approach
is appropriate to analyze the topic because the researcher takes external factors,
the historical and socio-cultural of puritans as reference. Since the data for
analyzing are taken from extrinsic elements, socio-cultural-historical approach is
used in the analysis.
C. Method of the Study
The writer took some steps in completing this analysis. To support the
study, the writer used two kinds of sources. They were primary source and
secondary source. The primary source of the study was Eugene O’Neill’sDesire
Under the Elms. The secondary sources were the books which related to the study.
The first step was the writer read the play ‘Desire Under the Elms’. The writer read the whole text carefully for several times. After reading the play, the
writer decided what the topic that was going to be analyzed. Then three
problems were formulated as the base of her thesis. After finishing above steps
the writer needed the data to be used as evidences in answering the problems.
The second step was the writer search secondary sources. The writer
looked for and read some books related to the theory of her thesis. Those books
in order to find out puritan history and basic understanding about Puritanism.
Some books about socio-cultural-historical approach such as Reading and Writing about Literature by Rohrberger and wood useful.
The writer also used theory of characterization and character. This theory
helps the writer to understand the character in the play, and also helps the writer to
complete her analysis. The writer also used theory of conflict.
Third step was the analysis and conclusion as the final steps. The writer made
conclusion from the analysis of O’Neill Desire Under the Elms. The analysis
answered the third questions in the problem formulation. The first problem
formulation, the writer analyzed the major character in the play. Second, the writer
tried to explore the conflicts faced by major character in the play. By completing
the first and second problem formulation, the writer tried to describe Puritanism
seen through the major character’s attitudes. After finding all the answer of the
thesis, the writer came to the last step was making the conclusion. It was drawn
22
CHAPTER 1V
ANALYSIS
This study aims to analyze Puritanism in the play Desire Under the Elms. In order to figure out Puritanism, the writer answers the questions based on the problem
formulation stated in the first chapter. This chapter consists of three parts. The first
part is the answer of the first problem about the description of Ephraim Cabot as the
major character in the play. The second part is the analysis of the conflict faced by
Ephraim Cabot in the play. The third part presents Puritanism seen through Ephraim
Cabot‟s attitudes based on the description of main character and the conflicts faced by
Ephraim Cabot.
A. The Description of Ephraim Cabot
Ephraim Cabot is a father of his three sons, Simeon, Peter, and Eben, from his
two ex-wives. He is described physically as a hard and strong man.
Cabot is seventy-five, tall and gaunt, with great, wiry, concentrated power, but stoop-shouldered from toil. His face is as hard if it were hewn out of a boulder, yet there is a weakness in it, a petty pride in its own narrow strength. His eyes are small; close together, and extremely near-sighted, blinking continually in the effort to focus on objects, their stare having a straining, in growing quality
(O‟Neill, 1958:44)
Ephraim Cabot is described as an old man but his mentality can be two times
stronger than a young man. Cabot‟s own son admits that his father is strong.
EBEN: (scornfully) No, ye wouldn‟t ye scared o‟ him. He‟s stronger inside
than both o‟ye put together.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 22)
Cabot is a hard worker. He educates his wives and sons to work hard like him.
Cabot‟s sons hate him for he‟s accused of killing their mothers. He has married three
times, and the two of his wives died because of the overwork for the farm and the
house. He has two sons, Simeon and Peter, from his first wife, and one son, Eben
from the second wife. His first wife is a hard worker like him, but she died because of
the hard work she has to do. His second wife is softer than the first one, but she is
also forced to work very hard in the farm. Both of them are enslaved to death in the
process of making the rocky farm to become fertile. His last wife is Abbie Putnam, a
seductive woman who he marries at his old age. His ambition to make the land fertile
also drives him to enslave his sons almost to death. He forces his three sons to work
along side him in making an efficient farm from stony land.
SIMEON: we‟ve wuked. Give our strength. Give our years. Plough‟ em under
in the ground ( he stamps rebelliously)-rottin‟-makin‟ soil for his crops! (A pause) Waal- the farm pays good for hereabouts.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 12)
He treats his sons like his slaves. He is angry if he finds his sons do not work
in the farm. He keeps ordering and forcing his sons to work in the farm.
CABOT: “whar be they? Ain‟s thar nobody about-, r wuking‟r nothin‟?”
(O‟Neill, 1958: 45).
CABOT (commandingly): “Ye git to wuk!” (O‟Neill, 1958: 46)
Ephraim Cabot does not realize that what he has done to the family actually
caused a great loss to him and the sons. His relationship with his sons is not good.
24
SIMEON: Mebbe he‟ll die soon
PETER: Mebbe
(O‟Neill, 1958: 12)
EBEN: (sitting down on the bed-with vicious hatred) Ain‟t he a devil out
o‟hell? It‟s jest t‟spite us–the damn ole mule!” (O‟Neill, 1958: 27)
Two of his wives have died because of the hardworking, and his sons blame
him for this, and they hate him so much. They even think that he is crazy and they
hope that he will die.
SIMEON: he skinned‟em too slick. He got the best o‟all or‟em. They‟d never
b‟lieve him crazy. (A pause)We got t‟wait –till he‟s under ground.
EBEN (with sardonic chuckle): Honour thy father! (They turn, startled and stare at him. He owl.)I pray he‟s died. (They stare at him. He continues matter – of factly.) Supper is ready.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 13)
Ephraim Cabot hates his sons, Simeon and Peter for being rebellious. They
follow “the easy God” and go to California for gold. While they go to California,
Cabot does not say good words but a cuss for them.
PETER: We‟ll be voyagin‟ on the sea! Whoop! He leaps and down.
SIMEON: Livin‟Free! Whoop (he leaps in turn.)
CABOT (suddenly roaring with rage): My cuss on ye!
(O‟Neill, 1958: 48-49)
Cabot also hates Eben for being soft. He always complains about Eben‟s soft
character. Every time Cabot talks about his son‟s characteristics, it reminds him of his
wife, Eben‟s mother.
CABOT: Like Eben. (A pause.)I‟m gittin‟ t‟ feel resigned t‟ Eben-jest as I got
t‟feel‟bout his Maw. I‟m gittin‟ t‟ learn to b‟ar his softness-jest like
her‟n. I cale‟late I c‟d a‟most tak‟ him- if he wa‟n‟t sech a dumb fool!
(A pause.)I s‟pose it‟s old age a-creepin‟ in my bones.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 63)
Ephraim Cabot does not only force his wives and sons to work hard, but he
also forces himself to gain what he wants for the farm.
PETER: he slaved himself t‟ death. He‟s slaved Sim „n‟ me „n‟ yew t‟death
-on‟y none o‟ us hain‟t died-yit.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 17)
Ephraim Cabot is very arrogant. He is so proud of his strength. He is often
talking to much pride about his strength. His arrogance is seen when he tells his
neighbors about a story which happened before they were born. He tells them that he
is fighting against the Indian alone. He tells them that he will live longer than all of
them.
CABOT: Look at me! I‟d invite ye t‟ dance on my hundredth birthday on‟y ye‟ll be dead by then. Ye‟re sickly generation! Yer hearts air pink, not red! Yer veins is full o‟mud an‟water. I be the on‟y man in the
country! Whoop! See that! I‟m an Injun! I‟ve killed Injuns in the West afore ye was born-an‟skulp „em too!
(O‟Neill, 1958: 96)
The way he talks, as if he underestimates his sons. He tells Abbie that he is
ten times stronger and fifty times harder than Eben when he was young.
Ephraim Cabot is very strict in keeping his farm. He is not going to leave the
farm to his sons or his wife, because he thinks that they are too soft to take care of his
farm. He can not trust them to take care of the farm. He will rather burn his farm than
leave it to his sons.
CABOT: … in my dying hour, I‟d set it attire an‟watch it burn-this house
an‟every ear o‟corn an‟ every tree down t‟the last blade o‟ hay! I‟d sit an‟ know it was all dying with me an‟ no one else‟d evr own what was mine, what I‟d made out o‟nothin‟ with my own blood!
26
Ephraim is a religious person. He views the fertile and sterile land as God‟s
blessing. He believes that his hard work is his service of God so that the farm must be
fertile. Based on his belief, God is hard and strong. It is presented explicitly in
Ephraim Cabot‟s monologue in part 11, scene 11. He likes to work in his hard field
that is full of stones because he thinks that God is hard.
CABOT: … We tracked on „n‟ on. We come t‟ broad medders, plains, what
the soil was black an‟rich as gold. Nary a stone. Easy, ye‟d on‟y to plough an‟ then set an‟ smoke yer pipe an; watch thin grow. I could o‟
been a rich man –but somethin‟ in me fit me an‟ fit me –the voice o‟
God sayin‟ my claim an‟ crops t‟ whoever‟d a mind t‟ take „em. Ay
-eh. I actooly give up what was rightful mine! God‟s hard, not easy! God‟s in the stones! Build my church on a rock – out o‟ stones an I‟ll be in them…
(O‟Neill, 1958: 72)
He believes that God directly speaks to him and he hears what God has said.
He tells Abbie of a time when in despair at so many stones, then he journeys to west.
He goes away from the rock-riddle farm, New England, to the Middle West where
there are no stones. According to Cabot, people who live in the west are soft and
easy. He finds a very fertile land in Middle West. The land is suitable for farming.
The land has an easy soil and ready to plant.
CABOT: “Easy. Ye‟d on;y to plow an‟sow an‟ then sey an‟ smoke yer pipe
an‟ watch thin‟s grow.” (O‟Neill, 1958: 72)
According to his story, then he says that God speaks different thing to him.
God says to him that He orders him to come back and force the rock-riddle farm into
fertility. According to his belief that God is hard, he thinks that there is no salvation
in easy way. He likes to work in his hard field that is full of stones because he thinks
that God is hard. He does not like to work and get rich in easy way.
Ephraim Cabot is a lonely person. He does not have any friends. He needs
woman to share feeling. He has married two times. First was Simeon‟s and Peter‟s
mother. His first wife stands beside him, she works hard too. But Cabot still feels
lonely because his first wife does not understand the way he thinks.
CABOT: … I tuk a wife. She bore simeon an‟ Peter. She was a good woman. she wuked hard. We was married twenty year. She never knowed me. She helped but she never knowed what she was helpin. I was allus lonesome. She died…
(O‟Neill, 1958: 72)
His second wife is pretty and soft. Ephraim acknowledges that she tries to be
hard but fail. He still feels lonely.
CABOT: ... she never knowed me nor nothin‟. It was lonesome „n held with her…
(O‟Neill, 1958: 73)
At the end of his monologue, he realizes that his third wife, Abbie does not
understand him. The reason of his marriage is that he always feels lonely in his life.
CABOT: … then the spring the call come-the voice o‟ God cryn‟ in my wilderness, in my lonesomeness-t‟ go out an‟ seek an‟ find! (Turning to her with strange passion) I sought ye an‟ I found ye1 yew air my
Rose o‟ Sharon! Yer eyes air like… (she turned a blank face, recentful eyes to his. He stares at her for a moment-then harshly) Air ye any the
wiser fur all I‟ve told ye?
ABBIE (confusedly): Mebbe.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 73)
Ephraim Cabot realizes that his wives and sons can not understand him. They
28
him lonely. He believes that only his farm knows and understands him and the cows
give him the warmth and peace to his life.
CABOT (queerly): Down whar it‟s restful-whar it‟s warm-down t‟ the bar. (bitterly) I kin talk t‟ the cow. They know. They know the farm an‟
me. They‟ll give me peace.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 74-75)
B. The Conflicts Faced by Cabot in the Play
1. Conflict between Cabot and His Sons, Simeon and Peter
Simeon and Peter are Cabot‟s sons from his first wife. Simeon‟s physical
appearance signifies that he is a farmer. It is shown by his sun-tanned skin and the
smell of earth from his body. His face does not represent the look of an educated
man. Peter is the second son of Ephraim Cabot. He is thirty-seven years old. He is
tall but squarer built, simpler, and fleshier. His shoulder stoop a bit after years he
works hard in the farm. Their physical appearances show that they are farmer who
work in the field for a long time.
Conflict between Cabot and his sons, Peter and Simeon appear in part one of
the play. Ephraim Cabot is described as a hard father toward the sons and wives. As a
father, Cabot thinks that he has authority over the family. He controls everything in
the family. The wives and sons have to obey and honor their father. They have to
follow what he says. Based on the way he thinks, he starts to be authoritative toward
the sons by ordering and forcing them to work in the farm like his slave. The way he
thinks and treats his sons stimulates the rebellion of Simeon and Peter. They pray for
the death of their father, when he is away for the two months without news. They
hope he will die soon. They do not like when the father forces them to work along
side him in making an efficient farm from stony land during almost 40 years. They
work hard everyday to make the land fertile. They then realize that they give their
strength, but Cabot as their father does not give them anything, wealth and love. They
give their years to work in the field, but it is like they make stone wall for him to
fence them in. For them living in the house is like living in the prison.
Conflict between them also can be seen when Simeon and Peter argue to the
father‟s attitude toward their mother. They hate their father because he does not only
hard to them but also to their mother. She has to work under pressure of the father, to
make the land fertile. Their mother has died because of the overwork for the farm and
the house. She is a hard worker like Cabot, but she died because of the hard work she
must do. This part is a conflict because Simeon and Peter do not agree with the
father‟s sternness and hardness in their mother. They hate when the father treats his
wife like slave, he does not give her a protection and an attention.
The father‟s hardness toward the sons can be seen in the way he talks and
orders them. Before Cabot leaves the farm, he meets Simeon and says that they do
not go every where until he comes back.
30
The way Cabot talks to his son shows his hardness. He talks just like he talks
to his slave. It does not show how a father talks to his son. It represents how Cabot
educates his son. He is very hard to them. Cabot also says that they do not think the
foolish idea that he is dead because he will live for hundred years. When Cabot says
like that, Simeon has no response to him. He does not brave to refuse what Cabot
says. Eben says that they are afraid because their father is stronger than them.
Conflict between Cabot and his sons is more complex when Simeon and Peter
decide to leave home. Their rebellion toward the father is clearly seen when they
decide to leave the father for the goldfields in California, the place which is hated by
the Father. They would like to try their fortune in California.
PETER: “if we plowed in Californi-a, they‟d be limps o‟gold in the furrow!” SIMEON: californi-a‟s t‟other side „earth, a‟tmost. We got t‟cale‟ate.
(O‟Neill 1958: 12)
Ephraim Cabot gets very angry when he knows that Simeon and Peter will
leave for California. It is because they rebel to follow their desire for the easy life.
Cabot curses his sons, Simeon and Peter. According to him, land in California is easy.
The land is fertile, there are no stones. People do not need to work hard in there. It is
different in New England. The land in New England is full of stones. People have to
work hard to make the land fertile. Cabot thinks that people can get something good
with a hard work not in easy way. He never appreciates what his sons have done for
him to fertilize the farm. He does not respect when the sons tell their plan to live in
California. He still orders them to work in the farm.
CABOT (commandingly):Ye git t‟wuk! (O‟Neill, 1958: 46)
The word of „commandingly‟ shows Cabot‟s position in the family. Cabot has
authority that allows him to give orders and his sons have to accept it. There is no
choice for them. They have to follow what their father wants.
Their rebellion toward the father is not only shown when they decide to leave
for California, but they show that they do not respect their father again. Cabot is also
very surprised when he gets the difference of his sons, Simeon and Peter. Before he
leaves home for two month, they always honor their father. When he returns, they
show their hatred to his father for the first time. It is very different with his sons
before. They just laugh when Cabot introduces their new mother. Cabot feels
confused and thinks that they are drunk, but Simeon and Peter say that they are free
now. It means that they can be free to decide something that they want to do and not
to do. They realize that they are the decision maker in their life not the father. They
say that Cabot can burn the farm and they will leave for California. Cabot is very
angry. Crazily, Cabot curses his sons. In turn, Simeon and Peter respond him
scornfully. They still say that they are free. It is the representation of their feeling
against their father, Ephraim Cabot.
2. Conflict between Cabot and Eben
Conflict between Ephraim Cabot and his son, Eben happens because they do
not have similar idea on the role of each of them in the family. Ephraim Cabot, as a
father believes that he has power over his family. As a head of family, he thinks he
32
become hard to his wives and sons. On the other hand, Eben has other idea that a
husband has to give a proper affection toward his wife and his father does not give it
to her mother like a husband should give to the wife. He does not like the way his
father treats his mother. He forces his wife to work hard in the farm and house. Eben
thinks Cabot killed his mother. Ephraim Cabot‟s attitude toward his wife stimulates
the revenge and hatred of Eben toward the father.
The conflict between Ephraim Cabot and Eben happens because the two of
them want to take revenge at each other. Eben wants to take revenge to his father
concerning the death of his mother. While Cabot hates his son, Eben, for being soft
and weak. Everytime he says that Eben is soft and weak like his mother. When he
sees Eben, he always remembers Eben‟s mother. Because of it he does not leave the
farm to Eben because he thinks that Eben is too soft to take care of the farm.
CABOT: Like Eben. (A pause.) I‟m gittin‟ t‟ feel resigned t‟ Eben-jest as I
got t‟feel‟bout his Maw. I‟m gittin‟ t‟ learn to b‟ar his softness-jest like
her‟n. I cale‟late I c‟d a‟most tak‟ him- if he wa‟n‟t sech a dumb fool!
(A pause.) I s‟pose it‟s old age a-creepin‟ in my bones.
(O‟Neill, 1958: 63)
The other conflict between them can be seen when there is opposite idea about
the owner of the farm. According to Cabot, the farm is his own and he does not give
it to Eben. However, Eben claims the farm that belongs to his mother. He thinks that
the farm is his mother‟s before his father steals it from her. He is so happy when he
feels that the farm will return to him. He wishes for the death of his father, who has
EBEN: (with a queer excitement) it’sMaw farm agent! It‟s my farm! Them‟s
my cows! I‟ll milk my durn fingers off for cows o‟ mine! (He goes out door in rear, they (Simeon an Peter) stare after him indifferently)
(O‟Neill, 1958: 35)
Eben‟s rebellion toward his father is also shown when he gives his support to
Simeon and Peter to leave the farm. He knows that they have no money to use the
boat, so they decide to walk. Then Eben steals his father‟s money. He gives six
hundred dollars to Simeon and Peter. They wonder how Eben can have the money
and Eben says that he steals his father‟s money. He knows where his father hides the
money.
PETER: An‟ whar‟d yew git that sum o‟moey, ayways?
EBEN (cunningly): I know whar it‟s hid. I been waitin‟- Maw told me. threateningly at him) Blashphemin‟ fool! (then quickly)Why hain‟t ye t‟ wuk?
EBEN: Why hain‟t yew? They‟ve went. I can‟t wuk it all alone.
CABOT (contemptuously): Nor noways! I‟m wuth ten o‟ ye yit,old‟s I be! Ye‟ll never be more‟n half a man! (Then,matter-of-factly) Waal-let‟s
34
The quotation above shows Cabot‟s hardness toward Eben. He does not
respect how hard Eben works alone in the farm after Simeon and Peter leave home.
His response shows that he underestimates his son. He even says that he is stronger
than Eben when he hears Eben‟s complaint. He thinks Eben should not be respected
because he is a weak man.
One conflict between Cabot and Eben happens while Eben says that the father
is soft now. Eben thinks that the father becomes weak in front of his third wife,
Abbie. Cabot‟s desire for her makes him blind. He is too blind to see Abbie‟s attitude
toward him. He even promises her a farm if she can give a son to him. Cabot gets
angry when Eben says like that. He threats Eben that something bad will be happen at
the future if Eben tries to say something bad about him. He threats Eben that he can
not work in the farm if he says like that once again.
CABOT (his face instantly grim and ominous): Eben was sayin‟? Waal, he‟d best not do nothin‟ t‟ try me „r he‟ll soon diskiver(O‟Neill, 1958: 62)
Quotation above shows that Cabot‟s behavior to his family. He does not see
Eben as his son, but as his slave or servant who has to obey him. Eben has to follow
what his father wants or he will lose his work. According to Cabot, he has authority
as the head of family and he can control them in everything.
The other conflict between Cabot and Eben happens when Eben meets Min, a
Scarlet Woman on Sabbath. He gets very angry and accuses that Eben is a sinner. In
that time, a woman called as Scarlet Woman because she is a sinner. Min is a female
prostitute in the play. Eben meets Min on Sabbath. Based on the religion in that time,
people do not any work on Sabbath. It is the holy day and they have to pray. Cabot
thinks that Eben is a sinner because he meets a Scarlet Woman on Sabbath. Eben is
harassing the religion.
CABOT (rather quiltily): He‟s a sinner – nateral – born. It‟s lust eatin‟ his heart. (O‟Neill, 1958: 65)
On the quotation above, Cabot says that Eben is a natural born sinner. In this
case, Cabot believes that the concept of original sin happens in Eben‟s life. He
believes that Eben is a sinner from birth. Based on his belief, it happens ordinarily to
Eben from his mother‟s sin. Cabot believes in hard working. From this reason, he
believes that Eben‟s mother is a sinner because she is soft and weak. So, when Eben
breaks the rule of the religion, it does not surprise him because he knows that Eben
will be like this like his mother.
In other case, conflict between the father and the son happens when Eben has
an affair with his stepmother, Abbie. He uses his relationship as his revenge to his
father. By being together with Abbie, he feels that he become the winner over his
father. Actually Eben is missing his mother very much. He needs a mother who can
act as a mother. The evidence is shown when Abbie tries to seduce Eben. At first
Eben resents her presence. Moreover, finally he implicitly asks Abbie to give him the
mother love and then she gives him a mother love. They are having the affair until
Abbie then bears a baby. Cabot thinks that the baby is his son, but the father is Eben.
The conflict between Cabot and Eben is also shown when Eben takes revenge
36
to work in the farm. It surprises Cabot. This act implies his desire to get the farm and
to take revenge at the same time.
EBEN: … Waal-ye better git t‟work.
EPHRAIM (grimly amused):air yew bossin‟ me, ye calf?
EBEN (beginning to laugh): Ah-ye! I‟m bossin‟yew1 ha-ha-ha! See how ye like it! Ha-ha-ha! I‟m prze rooster o‟ this roost. Ha-ha-ha! (He goes off toward the barn laughing)
(O‟Neill, 1958: 88)
Then the big conflict is shown here. Cabot gets very angry when he knows the
affair between Eben and Abbie. He talks harshly to them. He then calls the sheriff to
give them the punishment. Eben decides to accompany Abbie to take the punishment
of their sin.
EBEN: I got t‟ take my part o‟ the sin! An‟ I‟ d suffer wuss leavin‟ ye, goin‟ , thinkin‟ O‟ ye day an‟night, bein‟ out when yew was in… (Lowering
his voice) „R bein‟ alive yew was dead. (A pause) I want t‟ share with her, Abbie-prison „t death „t hell „t anything‟! (he looks into her eyes
and forces a trembling smile) if I‟m sharin‟ with ye I won‟t feel lone some, leastways
(O‟Neill, 1958: 123)
The quotation above shows that Eben finds his true love with Abbie Putnam
with whom he can share love. The way he shows his feeling to Abbie shows that
Eben is a responsible and an independent young man. That is seen when he is willing
to accompany Abbie to take punishment that he considers it as the punishment that
they have to accept for their sin. In this case, it can be seen the difference between
Cabot and Eben. Eben gives protection toward Abbie. While Cabot does not treat his
wife like a husband should treat his wife. He does not really know and understand
what his wife is really needed. He only thinks that he needs a new wife to do the
