East of Eden and Spiritual Transcendence

While reading through East of Eden, I was struck by the great diversity of characters and the lives they lead; there were the mundane and superficial, the zealous and overbearing, the protectors and predators, all wrapped up somehow under one cover. Steinbeck of course wrote each character carefully and beautifully, but one in particular stood out to me.

It’s probably no surprise to anyone reading this that I believe the greatest character in East of Eden is Samuel Hamilton. From his introduction, his presence is that of vitality; he is described as “remarkable well educated and well read” and “connected and related to very great people and very small people”. With a “rich deep voice” and an unequal ability for “soothing hysteria and bringing quiet”, Samuel brought his richness of character and let it saturate the bones of everyone he interacted with.

One thing I find so fascinating about his character is his ability to balance such a monumental set of morals with such a low profile of life. Never once does Samuel forcibly put himself in the spotlight. He is hardly ever mentioned to leave his dilapidated ranch, seldom to offer his hand to those in need- a hand that was rarely paid for the work it did. He is mentioned to have kept a “foreignness” about himself, and I take that to mean both in terms of his physical life- living secluded on his ranch- and in terms of his inner world.

We are offered insight into his inner world only on rare occasions. In one of their first conversations, Lee says of Samuel that he is “one of the rare people who can separate [his] observation from [his] preconception”. This openness to people, as is demonstrated by this interaction, is what has made him a figure of light in a setting of people burdened by deep and heavy darkness. In Samuel’s head, there are no preconceptions, only abundant grace and hospitality. Fundamentally, he is good.

But what is Steinbeck trying to say about what is ‘good’ through Samuel’s character? I see the answer in the comparison Steinbeck draws between Samuel and Cathy. Arguably, the two symbolize the poles of the light and dark spectrum; Samuel the light and good, Cathy the evil and dark. Steinbeck’s list of contrasts between the two are numerous; Samuel is good hearted and open, Cathy is closed off and cold; Samuel is poor and happy, Cathy is greedy for wealth and power and often find herself stuck in undesirable situations; Samuel gives blood, Cathy sucks it from a man till he lays dry. But of course, being good hearted or charitable is not entirely indicative a genuinely ‘good’ person. Every person is with their faults, and many times they are used as facades for people with darkness hidden underneath, so then what makes Samuel different?

Unfortunately, I don’t know if that question can be pinned down, at least not in a satisfactory way. Samuel’s light, for me, is a mystery; but frankly, that is what makes his figure so powerful to me. I am drawn to his character because of his inexplicable capacity for goodness and giving; in a way it gives freedom to find the same in myself. There are no hard set of rules, no holy words inscribed in stone, just a deep sense of spirituality and connection with others that can stem from, well, anywhere. Surprise me.

Maybe some people are just born that way, and I’d argue that’s the case for Samuel. Their destined to live low profiles that have the largest influence. Instead of changing the world, they change their world. But maybe for whoever is reading this, that isn’t good enough. I understand that, it’s easy to feel insignificant when in the face of those kinds of people; we’re jealous of their “perfectness”, but that is a fallacy that’s easy to become trapped in.

I’ve found that people are quick to assume good people are perfect. They’re not. In the case of Samuel, it is abundantly clear that he is burdened by his own thoughts of the world. This is visible in his reflections of how sin is the last thing a man will give up for himself. Below this statement lies the reality of his own sins; his constant reflections on his mistakes, while they are not specified, are there and they drain him. I believe what consumed him throughout his life was an inner, unconscious quest to purify every person of their evils. Unfortunately, we see how exhausted he becomes, especially with his many interactions with Adam that cause progressively greater frustration, leading to the point where he physically attacks him. His language in this scene shifts suddenly from his normally honey toned words to visceral condemnations that bring forth his wrath, not unlike that of a certain deity. With Cathy, we watch the life drain from Samuel after she bites his hand during the birthing scene, showing the strength of her evil and its ability to harm even the brightest of souls.. Both Characters prove to be, at least in his lifetime, immovable against Samuel’s will; Adam in his stubbornness, Cathy in her pure evil. For all his goodness he could not touch everyone directly.

But that is not to say in the end he had no influence. Sure, Cathy essentially poisoned Samuel, possibly even killed him, however what is important to note is that Samuel’s presence did the same to her. It is Samuel that first instills a true sensation of fear in Cathy, an emotion usually controlled by her, now being used against her. This fear is covered up quickly, but ferments deep inside Cathy for the rest of the novel. She gains weight, she becomes increasingly paranoid, she begins to feel the weight of her fear all around her until it finally crushes her into nothingness. In Adam, Samuel’s influence lingers as well, his support wisdom lying hidden under his subconscious. For once, Adam begins to look outward into the world, eventually establishing some relationships with his boys. He absorbs Samuel’s strength in order to face and denounce Cathy, another crippling blow to her character. And in the end, lying on his deathbed, he makes his choice- timshel- and is released from his burdens and is transcended, much the same way as Samuel.

In the end, Samuel transcends the bounds of the physical world, “his white hair shining with starlight”. No matter his struggles, no matter his faults, he always was intentional about his choice. That, I believe, is Steinbeck’s true message of the novel; regardless of your character, whether “good” or “bad”, the final judgement comes in your own choice. You do not have to be a saint in order to be forgiven. You do not have to be perfect in order to live a good life. You only have to make the hard choice.

I know this is a long blog, but I guess I just have a lot to say. Samuel Hamilton is a remarkable character, and was a remarkable man. It’s eye opening, absorbing his quiet virtue through the words of Steinbeck. Refreshing too. Who knows, maybe I could be like him some day. That would be a great gift.