1. Introduction William Golding is one of the most significant English writers of the 1950s. His novels are referred to as fables or allegories that explore, principally, moral and religious themes, paying special attention to the problems of evil in human beings. As the title of this thesis suggests, it deals, first and foremost, with two most important themes of Golding’s novels--morality and religion--with a particular focus on their symbolism. It touches the problem of good and evil, and it examines other major contradictory elements. In any case, depravity of mankind is depicted in each of the analysed novels of William Golding in this thesis--Lord of the Flies, The Spire, and The Inheritors. To make the argument more interesting, the selected novels are not focused on one period in history; rather, they explore the evil nature of man in different periods and situations--Lord of the Flies (20th century), The Spire (14th century) and The Inheritors (Ice Age). The main objective of this thesis is to stress the importance of moral principles for human beings and to demonstrate a close relation between morality and religion in the novels of William Golding. Furthermore, it intends to investigate the sinfulness and origins of evil in man--i.e. in which situations or under which circumstances the evil arises--and its possible consequences. It also discusses the symbols and elements that Golding puts a great emphasis on in his novels. The thesis is divided into six chapters, including the Introduction. The second chapter briefly comments on biography, bibliography, and aspects of Golding’s writing, and the remaining chapters, i.e. the essential part of the thesis, analyse the above-mentioned novels of William Golding. Additionally, the thesis provides a relatively large number of comments, approaches, and quotations from various critical studies, articles, and other reference sources listed in the bibliography. The final part, Conclusion, includes the summary of the most significant and most relevant observations related to the theme of morality and religion.

1

2. William Golding (1911-1993)--Biography, Bibliography and Aspects of His Novels William Golding was born in Cornwall, England, and was educated at Brasenose University. Together with Lawrence Durrell and Anthony Burghess, Golding wrote experimental novels that differed from the main stream of the 1950s. In 1980 he won the Booker Prize, and in 1983 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He participated in the Normandy invasion, and what is more, in 1940 he joined the Royal Navy. Golding was so influenced by the war experience that it completely changed his attitude to life. This attitude is reflected in his pessimistic novels, full of motifs of darkness. Interestingly, after the war he began to work as a teacher at Bishop Wordsworth’s School (1945-61). Golding’s experience as a teacher was the basis for his first novel Lord of the Flies (1954) that was, at the same time, his most successful and best known work. Lord of the Flies is a moral fable that includes many symbolic elements. It solves, primarily, the conflict between civilized and savage world represented by schoolboys who are shipwrecked on an uninhibited island. Apart from that, it deals with problems of inner evil that is explored in most of Golding’s later novels. The Inheritors (1955), his second novel, is concerned with the theme of innocence and guilt exemplified on the modern and Neanderthal men. It also treats the concepts of sin, evil nature, and inhuman behaviour, and it shows how the wicked tribe of Homo sapiens superseded the gentle tribe of the Neanderthal men. As opposed to the novels that deal with groups, Pincher Martin (1956) focuses on an individual. It describes a problematic life of a naval officer who is a castaway on an island and struggles for survival--again, the symbolical motif of “island” appears. The novel Pincher Martin is followed by The Spire (1964) that debates a religious theme concerning a vision of a dean that leads him to foolish behaviour and evil deeds. This novel discusses the problem of pride and man’s will, either. Other novels of William Golding include The Brass Butterfly (play, 1958), Free Fall (1959), The Pyramid 2

(1967), The Scorpion God (1971), Darkness Visible (1979), The Paper Men (1984), An Egyptian Journal (1985), To the Ends of the Earth: a sea trilogy (1991)--Rites of Passage (1980), Close Quarters (1987), and Fire Down Below (1989)--and several essays, such as The Hot Gates (1965) and A Moving Target (essays and autobiographical pieces, 1982). Though Golding is a novelist, his first work is, surprisingly, a collection of poems--Poems (1934). As far as Golding’s novels are concerned, their main themes deal with the problems of good and evil in human beings and with their sinful nature. His moral perspectives are always perfectly constructed in his novels so that the reader might find them original. Golding presents his moral views without unnecessary preachifying--he does not take over the role of a teacher, as the reader may expect reading his biography. Golding’s novels are mostly pessimistic. The pessimism and disillusionment are symbolically expressed by motifs of evil and darkness that are to be seen in the majority of his novels. Many times, Golding uses symbols, presumably in order to make his novels more attractive. His work, on the whole, is based on symbolical and allegorical meanings. Additionally, he discusses human existence, problems of civilization, and one’s identity. His concept of evil is always projected into human beings, but the human beings usually consider it as an external factor until they comprehend the truth. Golding’s themes and perspectives will be further developed in the following chapters.

3

3. Morality in the Novel Lord of the Flies (1954) 3.1 A Brief Summary of the Novel The story of William Golding’s most popular novel, Lord of the Flies, deals with a group of English schoolboys who, after a plane crash, find themselves on a desert coral island as castaways. Since there are no grown-ups, they must take care of themselves. At first they establish a society and make rules--based on principles they had learned at school--and they endeavour to observe them. It would seem that the boys’ behaviour is sensible, but gradually anarchy develops and their animal instincts, leading to murder of two boys, emerge. In his novel, Golding explores the growing savage behaviour of the boys, paying special attention to its reasons and consequences. At the beginning, the reader sees things differently than at the end of the novel. He is so influenced by the characters’ views of the world that he cannot judge himself, and is forced to accept the presented views that still keep developing until the very end. Lord of the Flies is a very pessimistic novel--this pessimistic view is based, primarily, on Golding’s experience from the Second World War. Like in his other novels, Golding is concerned with morality, and the purpose of the novel is, in fact, to reveal the truth about real human nature. To be more precise, he attempts to find a solution to the problems of good and evil in human beings. John Bayley speaks about Golding’s ability to describe good and evil in his novels: “Good and evil in Golding’s work are all the more convincing, and goodness all the more moving [. . .]. It is their spontaneity which is so moving and so powerful [. . .]” (12).

3.2 Fable and Allegory Many works have been written about Lord of the Flies, especially about its meaning. The novel is usually described as a “fable,” or rather an “allegory,” and in some cases even as

4

a “parable.” As Virginia Tiger states, Golding’s definition of the “fable” is the following: “allegory that has achieved passion” (39). Nevertheless, there is a slight difference between fable and allegory. As far as the general characteristics of these terms are concerned, the term “allegory” is described in the McMillan Dictionary as “a story [. . .] in which the events and characters are used as symbols in order to express a moral, religious or political idea” (35). The definition of “fable” is more or less similar: “a traditional story, usually about animals, that teaches a moral lesson” (493). It can be said that Lord of the Flies is closer to allegory, as it contains many symbols as well as symbolic events. However, its morality refers not only to allegory, but also to fable: “[. . .] what had happened on the island was a fable, reflecting in miniature what was happening in the adult world,” claims Bayley (16-17). The moral view appears most visibly in the behaviour of little boys on the island. Golding attempts to notify us that the evil is hidden somewhere inside the human beings, and it is only the circumstances that allow it to reveal itself, to rise to the surface. The allegoric and symbolic elements in the novel and Golding’s attempt to link together reality and imagination are of high interest.

3.3 Relation to Ballentyne’s The Coral Island Undoubtedly, there are more books inspired by the desert island theme: Robinson Crusoe, The Swiss Family Robinson, The Coral Island, and so forth. As Arnold Johnston points out in his book Of Earth and Darkness, “Golding particularly wishes the reader to associate his novel with R. M. Ballantyne’s The Coral Island (1858)” (9). This is presumably on account of the similarity between Golding’s and Ballentyne’s characters. Two characters in Lord of the Flies have the same names as characters in The Coral Island--i.e. Ralph and Jack. The third one is Peterkin, whose name Golding changed to Simon. Such a choice of characters’ names and the island setting might explain the relation between Lord of the Flies and The Coral Island. For all that, Golding’s novel is much more pessimistic, in contrast to

5

the novel written by Ballentyne. A question can be posed at this point: Is there any difference between these novels? Broadly speaking, the life on the “Coral island” is idyllic and Ballentyne debates the problems of evil not hidden inside the boys, as Golding does, but somewhere else--the evil and cruelty is uncovered during the arrival of the savage cannibals and pirates. And apart from that, it is the natives who become savages, not the boys, as in Lord of the Flies. Virginia Tiger confirms that, “Ballentyne’s children are children free of Original Sin” (49). Ballentyne is also concerned with morality, but Golding does not accept his moral views or his notion of the civilized children, as he considers them to be rather unrealistic. Golding refers to The Coral Island in his novel--even twice. At first the boys allude to the novel: “It’s like in a book. [. . .] Coral Island--” (34), and then the naval officer mentions it: “I should have thought that a pack of British boys--you’re all British, aren’t you?--would have been able to put up a better show than that--I mean--. [. . .] Like the Coral Island” (230). Whereas Ballentyne talks about the “Coral Island,” using words that refer to its beauty, Golding describes the darkness, dirt, and horrors of the island. And in contrast to Ballentyne’s characters, who are not afraid of any ghosts, Golding’s characters express their fear quite often--especially when talking about the Beast. The meaning of these two novels might appear similar, but, as a matter of fact, they are completely different.

3.4 The Root of Evil Animal nature is, according to Golding’s view, “the essential nature of all human beings” (Thornley and Roberts 151). Not only does Golding talk about the sinfulness and the evil nature of man in his novels, he also shows to the reader, what the life far away from the civilized society might look like. What Lionel Trilling claims is that the behaviour of the boys is due to the fact that they “are not finally under the control of previous social habit or

6

convention” (Johnston 10). But is that the right reason? There are statements that disprove Trilling’s opinion. Golding himself said that, “evil arises from man’s essential being” (Johnston 8), which is related to the theme of “the darkness of man’s heart” (Johnston 17). Or rather, in compliance with the definition of Golding’s view by Tiger, “[. . .] the innocence of the child is a crude fallacy, for homo sapiens has by nature a terrible potentiality for evil. This potentiality cannot be eradicated or controlled by a human political system no matter how respectable” (54). This implies that the animal instinct, or inherent evil, is stronger than any political system. The initial innocence and boys’ good behaviour change after the first killing of a pig--they become animal-like creatures that are eager to act evilly. This evil arises out of fear--the Beast--and anger--the hunters’ hatred. It is obvious that the children still look for the evil in the outside world, not in themselves. Golding also points out that, “[. . .] the Evil Tree grows in the human brain, in human consciousness [. . .]” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 21). It only depends on the people, whose consciousness can, or need not be controlled. It is clear that under certain circumstances the evil forces might be eliminated. But is it possible to eliminate them entirely? Similar questions will be explained, in detail, in the following investigations.

3.5 Symbols in Lord of the Flies The meaning of the first novel of William Golding seems to be very clear, and this is probably the reason why it is so popular among the readers. That does not hold true for the meaning of other novels that are not so easy to read. The symbols in Lord of the Flies, however, are not always obvious. There are more interpretations of them, and in some cases they appear to be ambiguous.

7

In general, the life itself of the boys on the island is symbolic. The most important symbol in the book is, undoubtedly, the “Beast”--a symbol of evil within the boys. “The Beast is an externalization of the inner darkness in the children’s (man’s) nature [. . .],” asserts Arnold Johnston (10). All the boys think that the Beast symbolizes evil, which is false and only Simon knows it. “What is wrong on the island is not Jack, as Ralph and Piggy think, or Beast or Devil to be propitiated as Jack thinks. What is wrong is that man is inherently evil [. . .],” explain Mark Kinkead-Weekes and Ian Gregor (44). The Beast is a symbol of savagery and uncivilized world, and it represents the darkness in the boys’ hearts. When Simon talks about the Beast, he expresses an interesting concept: “What I mean is . . . maybe it’s only us” (97). Simon does not imagine the Beast as an animal, but as something completely different. He presumably thinks that people could be frightened of some kind of darkness hidden inside them. However, the boys do not accept Simon’s opinion concerning the Beast. Simon is the only one who understands the meaning of the Beast and who knows the truth about the Beast on the mountain. After an important conversation with the “Lord of the Flies,” which is the key passage of the novel, Simon realizes that the evil is not in the Beast but in every single human being: “You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are what they are?” (161-162). It is obvious that only Simon recognizes the real truth about the evil nature--the Beast is actually himself: “He looks into the vast mouth of hell, and thereby submits to the terror of his own evil” (Tiger 60). Nevertheless, when Simon goes down the mountain to reveal the truth to the boys, to explain “mankind’s essential illness” (97) to them, he is mistaken for the Beast and brutally killed by the savage boys in the middle of their ritual. The embodiment of the Beast appears in the sixth chapter of Lord of the Flies. Notwithstanding, Simon later finds out that it is nothing but a corpse of a parachutist--a victim of a war battle. Hence the title of this chapter: “Beast from Air” (104). The parachutist

8

is a human being, not the Beast, which could possibly imply they are not frightened of the Beast but of themselves. Ralph’s sentence underlines this statement: “I’m frightened. Of us” (178). The title of the book, Lord of the flies, is also very symbolic. This killed pig’s head on a stick with the flies around is a present from the “hunters”--the name of Jack’s tribe (20)--to the Beast. Johnston and other critics explain the essential meaning of this term: “[. . .] the ‘lord of the flies’ is the translation of the Hebrew Ba’al zevuv (Beelzebub in Greek), implying quite effectively that the head is representative of man’s ‘inner devil’” (13). Moreover, Tiger emphasizes the major role of the devil--she refers to the “the chief of the devils” (44). She also explains that the lord of the flies “does not symbolize an evil external to the individual. Rather, it is a symbol of corrupt and corrupting consciousness” (58). This consciousness resounds when the author gives voice to the devil--the devil is presented in the form of the pig’s head on a stick that in one part of the book speaks to Simon. Another very important symbol is the “conch” (11)--a symbol of sensible behaviour, unity, order, and authority. It is used for calling the boys to the assembly, and the one who holds it has the right to speak. The boys often begin their speeches with the following sentence: “I’ve got the conch” (90). Nonetheless, the meaning is actually “in the boys,” not “in the shell,” as Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor allege, and, “The conch’s symbolic meaning depends on the state of the children’s minds” (21). Though the conch gradually becomes of no use, on account of the fact that the hunters do not respect its significance, it remains of great importance for Piggy--as well as the pig’s skull for Simon. Generally speaking, the use of the conch might symbolize an attempt to keep to the rules and order on the island. Finally, when Piggy dies and the conch is destroyed, neither orders, nor authority remains and the society on the island completely breaks down. The conch also symbolizes humanity, communication, and democracy that finally cease to exist.

9

There are “three explanations of what has gone wrong,” according to KinkeadWeekes and Gregor. The first one concerns Piggy and Ralph who “believe in the essential goodness of people of the island,” and if something goes wrong, it is only the fault of the people. The second one depicts the view of Jack who “thinks that evil and destruction are live forces” and he attributes them to the “Beast, Devil, or God” that are more powerful than man and that can be won over only by “ritual, ceremony, [and] sacrifice.” And the third view is that of Simon who declares that “blaming bad men, and the Devil, is both right and wrong, there is evil, but it is not either outside man or confined to certain men, it is in everyone” (45). The novel can be interpreted by means of these three points of view presented to the reader, though Golding, in fact, proposes Simon’s perspective as the most acceptable one. Piggy’s “specs” (41) are another symbol--they represent intelligence and intellectual thinking. The evil forces emerge in Jack when he breaks the glasses, and this evil becomes even stronger when the glasses are stolen from Piggy. The glasses thus symbolize the fall of civilization and the outset of savagery. The specs are connected with another notable symbol, i.e. the fire. It is a symbol of life, rescue, and return to the civilization--those who guard the fire want to be rescued and get back home. Another important symbol in the novel is the island--a symbol of the adult world at war--and the painted faces of the hunters that show their savagery: “‘Well, we won’t be painted,’ said Ralph, ‘because we aren’t savages’” (196). Except for that, Golding often describes the island using the words “dark” and “darkness.” This symbolic colour probably refers to being evil and pessimistic. Red colour, on the contrary, evokes blood and the appearance of the devil.

10

3.5.1 Symbolic Characters The characters, as well as the Beast or the conch, also represent symbols. There are only three characters described in terms of goodness--Ralph, Piggy, and Simon. Two of them are killed--Simon by accident and Piggy intentionally--and one is fortunately rescued, though being not far from death. Ralph is a leader, makes rules, and in contrast to the hunters, who are obsessed with killing pigs, he wants to keep the fire burning. With the support of Piggy, Ralph symbolizes order, humanity, responsibility, common sense, and morality, while Jack represents the lust for power and hunting. They could be described by two contrary terms: democracy--Ralph--and totalitarianism--Jack. Ralph’s appearance reminds of “no devil” (5) at first, yet, in a certain moment, he also reveals his inherent evil, though he does not realize it to such an extent as Simon does: “Ralph too was fighting to get near, to get a handful of that brown, vulnerable flesh” (128). At the end of the novel, Ralph is hunted like a pig, as the hunters want to sacrifice him to the Beast. The naval officer who eventually comes to save the boys does not understand what is happening on the island; he considers it a game. At this point, Ralph realizes the truth about the inner evil and the “cruel game”: “[. . .] Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy” (230). Piggy together with his name is symbolic as well. There is a kind of relation between killing of pigs and killing of Piggy: “the headless body of the sow [of Piggy]” (207) refers both to the body of murdered Piggy and to the body of the killed pig. Piggy embodies intelligence--he has “brains” (84)--and morality, as well as Ralph, and he has the ability to think rationally. In addition to that, he thinks that it is possible to explain everything. He assures the boys that there is no need to be frightened of the Beast, but then he adds: “Unless we get frightened of people” (91). In contrast to Simon, Piggy wants to find out the truth by means of intellectual powers--the intellectuality is still emphasised by his glasses. He wants

11

to do everything as the grown-ups do and therefore, he makes attempts to take over the role of a parent: “[. . .] with the martyred expression of a parent who has to keep up with the senseless ebullience of the children, he picked up the conch [. . .]” (39). In spite of this, Piggy is often ignored and finally killed, after an attempt to communicate to Jack the truth about the wicked behaviour of his hunters. Simon is another symbolic character in this novel. He can be considered a symbol of innocence and goodness. He is very perceptive, brave, and a bit of a loner--the boys think he is a fool. He takes an interest in going to the forest alone, whereas Jack is frightened there. Simon is referred to as a “Christ-figure” or a “saint” by Golding, and apart from that, “He acts as peacemaker between Jack and Piggy” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 29). Simon is killed when he wants to explain the truth about the Beast to the boys. It is at this point that the boys for the first time regard the Beast real and living. When the hunters kill Simon, Ralph and Piggy also feel guilty about it. And in contrast to the hunters, they realize what had happened--they still possess moral principles. As far as Jack Merridew is concerned, it is the other way round. He symbolizes arrogance, violence, aggression, cruelty, and anarchy. He prefers hunting to being rescued, and he claims that there is no animal on the island that could be the reason for being frightened. There is an argument between Jack and Ralph about the rules as Jack starts to break them--it is a sign of non-civilised behaviour. Jack shouts: “Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong--we hunt!” (100). Nevertheless, while Jack wants to take over the leadership from Ralph, he fails, and as a consequence, he establishes his own tribe for which hunting becomes a “bloodlust” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 42): “Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Spill her blood” (73). As already mentioned above, Jack, however, is not the root of evil as some may think.

12

Roger, one of the hunters, is a close friend of Jack. His sadism and cruelty, or rather brutality, are even more intense. And it is Roger who eventually kills Piggy, throwing a boulder on him--it is the first intentional murder committed on the island. Roger is probably the most wicked one among the boys. The last symbolic characters are Sam and Eric--Samneric--who are a symbol of unity and treachery, as they betray Ralph during the final hunt.

3.6 Moral Lesson and the Absence of Adults Lord of the Flies is a perfect novel about moral values. Especially the way that Golding teaches his moral lesson to the reader, i.e. through little boys who serve as an example, is of considerable interest. He probably chose children, as characters, since their education is not yet completed, and they follow their instinct, rather than any moral principles. In conformity with critics, the novel “shows how intelligence (Piggy) and common sense (Ralph) will always be overthrown in society by sadism (Roger) and the lure of totalitarianism (Jack)” (Tiger 44). Bad qualities of the boys thus seem stronger than good qualities. But why is it so? The anarchy on the island is presumably brought about by the missing civilization. There are no parents to teach them moral principles and though Ralph and Piggy partly take over the role of parents, who moralize and represent an authority, it is not sufficient. Especially Piggy often moralizes: “You’re acting like a crowd of kids. [. . .] Which is better--to be a pack of painted niggers like you are, or to be sensible like Ralph is? [. . .] Which is better--to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill? [. . .] Which is better, law and rescue, or hunting and breaking things up?” (205). Even Ralph himself admits that he is far from acting like an adult: “He was vexed to find how little he thought like a grown-up [. . .]” (156). The main reason for the

13

predominance of bad qualities lies in the fact that the evil forces develop in the majority of the boys and as there is nobody to control their wicked behaviour, they become savages. The minority--Piggy, Ralph and Simon--try to save the situation by presenting their moral views, but they are ignored.

3.7 Grown-ups and the War Golding creates a parallel between the world of the adults and the world of the children, and he demonstrates it by sending signs from the “grown-up-world”--e.g. the parachutist. The children, fortunately, escape from one war, but begin to fight in another one: “The child world is only a microcosm of the adult world,” point out Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor (38). Additionally, the world of grown-ups is still at war--as the corpse of the parachutist indicates. Though it might seem that the children are finally saved from the horrors on the island, it is not a rescue, as a matter of fact. The naval officer takes them into the world that is full of evil, killing, and aggression, i.e. into the world at war. And thus the grown-ups are also not able to save the world from destruction, and the boys are in for another cruelties. It can be said that the boys’ life on the island is a reflection of the life of adult enemies who are fighting in a war outside the island. The war always concerns two antagonistic societies, who are fighting with each other, and these exist on the island--one of Jack and the other one of Ralph. In fact, it is the war that causes the boys’ shipwreck on this island--or to be more precise, the adults. And, interestingly, it is one of these adults who eventually rescues the boys. At the beginning, the children consider their actions, such as hunting a pig, a game but then it is no more game but cruel reality. Some of them, like Piggy, want to stop the emerging savagery: “What are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages? What’s grown-ups going to

14

think? Going off--hunting pigs--[. . .] (99). Even the naval officer thinks they are playing a game when he catches sight of their painted faces. It is clear that the children are aware of the absence of their parents, and some of them also miss them: “‘I wish my auntie was here.’-- ‘I wish my father’ [. . .]” (103). In one passage of the book, a little boy called Maurice thinks about his evil acts--he is touched with remorse and seems to be insecure without the presence of his parents: “Now, though there was no parent to let fall a heavy hand, Maurice still felt the unease of wrong-doing” (64). Most assuredly, the children try to imitate the adults. But still, there is no other possibility. They have to take care of themselves, and on that account they must behave like grown-ups. They establish their own society and laws, and attempt to solve many “adult” problems.

3.8 Instinct and Moral Principles In his novel, Golding deals with moral principles, problems of good and evil, and the fall of civilization. The animal instinct in the boys is still stronger and makes them turn into savages. Anyhow, the intention of this novel is not that without adults the children always turn into savages. This is not any kind of experiment--it is reality. More exact justification of their behaviour is that the children prefer acting according to their instinct to reasonable thinking and respecting moral principles. The author’s intention is to demonstrate, on this example, what the world would look like without ethical norms and moral values that are not inherent within man and that distinguish civilized people from savages. Ralph finally realizes, as well as Simon, that the violence that appears instinctively in human beings cannot be, in some circumstances, controlled by any moral principles or rules. It means that anybody can act evilly, no matter how well he was educated--it only depends on the situation, or rather on the person’s ability to distinguish between good and evil. The evil

15

cannot be entirely eradicated; it can only be diminished. The only three boys on the island who are aware of their acts and who can judge between what is right and what is wrong are Ralph, Piggy, and Simon. They have a possibility to follow their evil instincts, but do not do so, at least to such an extent as Jack and Roger do. They refuse to obey the authority blindly; they rather occupy their mind with the cruelties happening on the island. Over and above, they are aware of the fact that the hunters’ behaviour is more and more evil. To summarize this chapter, the life on the island is a symbolic picture of mankind and its predisposition to evil. It is concerned with corrupt society and destruction of the civilized world, together with its laws.

16

4. Morality and Religious Elements in The Spire (1964) 4.1 The Main Theme of the Novel The Spire is a 14th-century fictional story about a cathedral, similar to the Salisbury Cathedral, and about the construction of its spire. The Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Lady Chapel, whose name is Jocelin, is obsessed with the idea of building a four-hundredfoot spire, as he believes he was chosen by God to accomplish this task--the vision was revealed to him during the prayer at the crossways: “The building is a diagram of prayer; and our spire will be a diagram of the highest prayer of all. God revealed it to me in a vision, his unprofitable servant. He chose me” (120). At first his explanation is full of pride and enthusiasm, for he is about to put his idea into action at any rate. However, his joy soon transforms into fear and desperation, on account of his vain effort: “[. . .] he was like a building about to fall” (222). Moreover, he feels a great responsibility for the construction of the spire: “[. . .] the whole weight of the building was resting on his back” (81-82). Generally speaking, The Spire is an allegory of man’s blind acting and following his vision. The novel is about faith, strong will, sinfulness, and guilt.

4.2 Vision Jocelin’s “vision” appears to him during the prayer and, without any doubt, it is related to a “religious experience” (Cleve 161). But what is the actual incentive for Jocelin’s obsession? When Jocelin explains to Roger the reason for his determination to build the spire, the reader gets to know, at long last: “I’ll tell you a thing. What’s closer than brother and brother, mother and child? What’s closer than hand and mouth, closer than the thought to the mind? It’s vision, Roger. I don’t expect you to understand that--” (85). It is obvious that “this vision is experienced by Jocelin as a revelation from God, whom he addresses as Thee”

17

(Cleve 161). And this is the reason why Jocelin endeavours to construct the spire--he wants to dedicate it to God. The vision of the spire is thus a central theme of the novel. Jocelin is eager to take over the role of God, whom he praises. He is about to create a spire “by a diagram of prayer; glass, stone and steel, not only ‘the constant fabric of praise’” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 206). Anyhow, both his Christian faith and his life are endangered by such a dangerous plan--at the beginning, he is unaware of it and fanatically follows his vision. What are the consequences of Jocelin’s determination? It is the strong will that helps Jocelin realize his vision, although he is considered a fool: “You’ll see how I shall trust you upward by my will. It’s God’s will in this business” (40). Jocelin believes that he was “chosen” (153) by God to realize the vision and he considers his will to be God’s will-accepting no other possible explanations--and therefore, he follows His instructions, taking into consideration only his own needs: “But my will has other business than to help, he thought. I have so much will, it puts all other business by. [. . .] My will is in the pillars and the high wall. I offered myself; and I am learning” (97). Jocelin’s selfish preoccupation with the construction of the spire, his indifference towards other people, and his unwillingness to help them are at variance with Christian principles. Even though Jocelin “is building the spire to the glory of God and in accordance with God’s will” (Cleve 194) it does not seem so, in conformity with his behaviour. Jocelin comments on the people who surround him in the cathedral and he expresses his attitude towards them: “And I can’t pray for them since my whole life has become one prayer of will, fused, built in” (105). Jocelin wants to fulfil his vision of the spire, irrespective of anything that stands him in the way. He cannot see the reality; he seems to be “blind.” His initial pride and joy that are later transformed to desperation and the recognition of truth--i.e. his “self-discovery” (Johnston 69)--describe the continual process of his vision. Later on, Jocelin admits his having been proud: “I was all pride--” (191). The vision and the will are among the most

18

notable things that keep him going on, but that lead him in a wrong way at the same time. The theme of The Spire seems to partly resemble the biblical story about the Tower of Babel. It is obvious from the following passage: “I would like the spire to be a thousand feet high, he thought, and then I should be able to oversee the whole county [. . .]” (106). In the course of time, Jocelin loses both his vision and enthusiasm, and feels only pain and sorrow: “What is terror and joy, how should they be mixed, why are they the same, the flashing, the flying through the panicshot darkness like a bluebird over water?” (223). He was convinced that he would create something great, but the only thing he managed was the destruction of the cathedral and of life in it: “[. . .] the invisible thing up there is Jocelin’s Folly, which will fall, and its fall, bury and destroy the church” (35).

4.3 The Spiritual and Physical World The leading passage of The Spire makes a reference to the contradictory elements of the spiritual and physical world of Jocelin: “God the Father was exploding in his [Jocelin’s] face with a glory of sunlight through painted glass, a glory that moved with his movements to consume and exalt Abraham and Isaac and then God again” (7). Johnson explains that, “here is his [Jocelin’s] habitual distinction between the world of God (the spirit) and that of Abraham and Isaac (the flesh)” (69). Besides, there is also a relation between these two worlds--the spiritual and the physical one. The spiritual world in the cathedral is manifested by God, and the physical world is manifested by the people surrounding Jocelin, by his desires (Goody), by bad foundations of the spire, and, last but not least, by bad weather conditions. Jocelin has to adapt himself to these circumstances, which is extremely difficult. The people do not want to obey his orders and do not wish his dream to come true. “Jocelin’s story [. . .] is a series of events connecting two visions, with both men passing from pridefully narrow vision to humble recognition of the world’s complexity, their own limitations, and

19

their past sins” (Johnston 68). Jocelin dies when he finds out that these worlds intermingle in himself and make him confused. Jocelin’s vision concerns not only the spirituality, but also the physical desire and temptation. He feels a kind of affection for Goody Pangall, his “daughter-in-God” (43), and cannot resist the temptation. Jocelin even arranges marriage between Goody and the caretaker of the cathedral Pangall--probably intentionally, as he wants to have Goody near him. Roger Mason, the master builder, opposes the dean, for he knows the truth about the cathedral’s poor foundations and does not place great importance on Jocelin’s vision. He still attempts to convince Jocelin that his vision is foolish and that building should be stopped before a disaster comes about. Jocelin regards this physical world, which is mostly a pagan world, significant and essential for his vision: “[. . .] Roger and Rachel Mason, Pangall and his Goody, like four pillars at the crossways of the building” (62). As Roger Mason falls in love with Goody, an extramarital affair is about to start. An extremely astonishing fact is that Jocelin keeps overseeing Roger’s adultery, since he wants to keep the master builder in the cathedral. But Rachel, Roger’s wife, discovers the adultery of her husband and puts an end to it. It is only after Goody’s miscarriage and consequent death that Jocelin’s affection turns into guilt. The evil forces, in fact, emerge and penetrate the dean when he starts ignoring the adultery--at this point his Christian faith is doubtful. As if the dean was bewitched by Goody somehow. Nevertheless, Jocelin is aware of the fact that it is Goody who keeps Roger in the cathedral, and thus he does not oppose their evil relationship. In order to complete the construction of the spire, Jocelin must make Roger go on building at any price. When Jocelin decides to ask Roger for forgiveness and tells him that, indeed, it was him who “killed” Goody, Roger is even more enraged: “God damn you Jocelin. [. . .] May you be cursed right through hell” (210).

20

On the one hand, Jocelin expresses his feelings for Goody, which is “a hinted betrayal not only of her and of God, but of himself” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 217), and on the other hand, he utters the following sentence: “This have I done for my true love” (137). These facts clearly affirm Jocelin’s ambiguous affection towards Goody. Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor claim that, “the above-mentioned words of the Easter carol refer directly to the betrayal of Christ, who sacrificed himself for love of fallen man” (217). It follows from this that the mentioned sentence could refer either to Jocelin’s Christian faith and his betrayal of God, or to the earthly love. At the end of the book Father Anselm talks to Jocelin, who is dying in despair, and he hears him cry: “God! God! God!” (223). It is up to the reader to judge, whether Jocelin really cries “God,” or if he rather means “Goody.”

4.4 Morality and Pretended Humanity According to Johnston, “Indeed, Jocelin’s habit is to see people as less than human, as mere instruments of his vision” (71-72). Only two people blindly follow his orders--Gilbert, the mute stonecutter, and Father Adam, the Chaplain. They neither protest, nor suspect him-they simply act just as he wishes, in contrast to Roger who opposes Jocelin. The humanity is “pretended” by Jocelin. His only wishful thinking is to complete the construction of the spire. Regrettably, his manipulation with people leads to his losing friends--e.g. Sacrist Anselm-and it is clear that Jocelin is still not aware of what he is doing. He lets nothing and nobody stay in his way--he is egoistic in his aspiration. Unfortunately, he cannot help it; there is the vision ahead of him. He does not care about people and about keeping them in a safe place-the spire might fall down and kill all of them. Apart from that, the dean accepts various financial contributions, or rather corrupt money, for the construction--e.g. from aunt Alison. His blindness even causes neglecting of his duties, as a dean, especially his church duties--he does not celebrate the services as a proper priest. Jocelin later explains that he actually did 21

not neglect the services: “It was a kind of service. I was there, and they were there, adding glory to the house” (165). He considers the completion of his vision as a particular kind of service.

4.5 The Guardian Angel As far as Jocelin’s “angel” is concerned, he associates it with something, sent by God to him, that guards both himself and the construction: “It is my guardian angel. I do Thy work; and Thou hast sent Thy messenger to comfort me. [. . .] Joy, fire, joy” (22). The dean, however, does not represent Christ, or God, as he regrettably thinks. Furthermore, his angel is not a real angel. This angel is combined with the devil, and it later becomes “dark angel” (Johnston 78) that is the cause of Jocelin’s illness--spinal tuberculosis. Hence his feeling of something warm in his back. Jocelin “has attempted to take upon himself not only the roles of Isaac (the sacrificial victim) and of Abraham (the visionary), but also that of God (the creator)” (Johnston 70). He is a victim of his vision and his own will, he is a visionary, as his idea of the construction of the spire comes to him from God, and he is also a creator, for he tries to create the spire.

4.6 The Symbolic Shape and Symbolic Meaning of the Cathedral The cathedral, in fact, resembles a human being: The model was like a man lying on his back. The nave was his legs placed together, the transepts on either side were his arms outspread. The choir was his body; and the Lady Chapel [. . .] was his head. And now also, springing, projecting, bursting, erupting from the heart of the building, there was its crown and majesty, the new spire. (8)

22

It is of significance that the cathedral symbolizes the body of man, though there can be other interpretations. It might involve either the people buried in the pit of the cathedral, or Jocelin’s body. Another general interpretation--that of a praying man--is given by Jocelin: “The whole building spoke. ‘We are labour’ said the walls. The ogival windows clasped their hands and sang; ‘We are prayer.’ [. . .] I had seen the whole building as an image of living, praying man” (192). The cathedral is also referred to as a “ship” with a “mast” (107). The spire is actually Jocelin’s symbol of prayer. On the whole, Jocelin’s vision is symbolic, but proposes a great number of meanings as well as other elements. Among the most important symbols is the “light” and “darkness.” Light is a symbol of God and darkness, so typical in Golding’s novels, represents the devil. “Sun,” “light,” or “sunlight”--elements symbolizing God--occur frequently throughout the novel. As a contrast, words such as darkness, dust, and fire refer to the devil. These religious elements of sun and light, in common with dust and darkness, mingle in the novel. KinkeadWeekes and Gregor also refer to the mingling contradictory elements, mentioning the term “sundust”: “The novel will turn out to be about seeing in a very literal sense, seeing neither sun, nor dust but ‘sundust’” (204). As a rule, there are always two sides--a good one and a bad one. The symbolic fire, another significant element, either concerns love for God, or is associated with the devil. Jocelin describes the feeling in the presence of his guardian angel: “[. . .] he knew he was not alone. It was not that he saw, or heard a presence. He felt it, like the warmth of a fire at his back, powerful and gentle at the same time [. . .]” (22). As if the angel came not only to guard him, but also to warn him. The “eagle,” according to Bufkin, is “the bird of pride” (Cleve 227)--probably the symbol of Jocelin’s initial pride. Except for that, pride is one of the seven deadly sins--at this point the devil appears again. Being desperate, Jocelin escapes from the problematic world to

23

the tower, and thus isolates himself. There is more light and freedom in the spire--the darkness below him appears to be far away. Johnston points out that “Jocelin’s spire is indeed to be his Tree of Knowledge, like the actual tree of Lok and Fa [in The Inheritors]--or that of the young Golding himself” (74). Eventually, he decides to return, realizing that “no man can live his life with eagles” (110). He ascertains that the world is so complex and the life so uneasy: “I thought it would be simple. I thought the spire would complete a stone bible, be the apocalypse in stone. I never guessed in my folly that there would be a new lesson at every level, and a new power” (108). Gunel Cleve makes a reference to the symbolic “apple tree” at the end of the book: “The term tree was in the Middle Ages a symbol for Christ, and it had at least a two-fold reference: it was used to denote the apple tree of the Song of Songs, or the tree of the cross” (154). Except for that, Jocelin makes a comment about the apple tree that might symbolize knowledge, either: “His head swam with the angels, and suddenly he understood there was more to the apple tree than one branch (204-205). Moreover, one of Jocelin’s last sentences also refers to this symbolic element: “It’s like the apple tree” (223). Other symbolic elements concern a “wildcat,” which represents Satan, “Holy Nail,” that Jocelin received from Bishop Walter from Rome, symbolizing Bishop’s blessing and security that the spire will not fall, “kingfisher,” a symbol of knowledge, and lastly Goody’s red hair that represent the devil that “bewitched” Jocelin (154).

4.7 The Hell, the Devil, the Evil On the one hand, the spire is “a diagram of the highest prayer of all” (120), but on the other hand, it symbolizes “the roof of hell” or “the living, pagan earth, unbound at last and waking” (80). Two contradictory worlds, heaven and hell, meet in The Spire, and Jocelin comes to realize it only gradually. It regards the above-mentioned spiritual world of his

24

vision and the physical world of sin and approaching death: “[. . .] the replaced paving stones were hot to his feet with all the fires of hell” (157). The place, in which a vision came to him at that time, transforms into hell--according to Cleve, “the crossways is equally related to heaven and hell” (203). Jocelin’s concept of the world around him is still more and more pessimistic. At first he admires Goody, but in the end he realizes that she was “the red-hair devil of his dreams” (Johnston 77). This is connected with his physical vision--it is the devil that causes his lust for Goody. Over and above, he finds out that his position in the church, for which he thought he was chosen, was not acquired honestly. And the pillars that he considered as symbols of the first builders’ faith are, as he reveals, fictitious. Jocelin’s angel is accompanied by the devil, and both Jocelin and his angel are fighting with this devil: “He felt his angel and his devil at war behind his back” (171). In a conversation with Jocelin, Roger expresses his opinion of him: “I believe you’re the devil. The devil himself” (123). In any case, the angel starts transforming into the devil, or into the “dark angel,” as the illness is getting worse and worse. This “dark angel,” that symbolises Jocelin’s illness, keeps hurting him: “Then his angel put away the two wings from the cloven hoof and struck him from arse to the head with a whitehot flail. It filled his spine with sick fire and he shrieked because he could not bear it yet he knew he would have to” (188). It can be said that Jocelin’s “dark angel” probably comes to punish Jocelin for his pride and wrong behaviour: “It’s become a race between me and the Devil. We’re going faster, both of us, racing for the line. But I shall win” (160). Simultaneously, the light coming through the windows of the cathedral is replaced by the beasts, or more precisely by the devils: “[. . .] he heard the beasts pawing at the windows of the clerestory, trying to get in. But now there was more than one. They were legion” (161). The beast, as a symbol of evil analysed in the previous chapter, still keeps emerging in the novels of William Golding--every time in

25

another form. This time the beasts tempt the angel. And there is not only one beast, one devil-the number of the beasts is higher. “[. . .] Jocelin finally sees how good and evil, beauty and ugliness, can be one [. . .]” (Johnston 80). Having realized it, he accepts the world together with its obstacles, and his joy of the creation is substituted for fear. Johnston also refers to the theme of morality: “[. . .] not merely Jocelin, but the medieval church, society itself, is involved in tasting of the knowledge of good and evil” (81). Jocelin’s idea of the “devil-worshippers” (Johnston 73) who seem to be good is false: “They are all good men, he thought. They blaspheme and curse and work with their hands, but they are good men” (153). However, the dean’s attitude changes, which is followed by his disillusionment and tears--it might remind of Ralph’s cry “for the darkness of man’s heart.” Jocelin, as well as Simon in Lord of the Flies, talks about his “essential wickedness” (106). And he realizes his own wickedness, either: “[. . .] I’m a building with a vast cellarage where the rats live [. . .]” (210). The corrupt and evil world referring to man’s pride is described by Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor: “The world of man is wholly absurd, irrational, and evil. For in his absurdity and irrationality man is proud. There is no hope of good or beauty; only hell awaiting pride” (231). When Satan reveals himself to Jocelin in a dream, all the problems arise: [. . .] and then he was lying on his back in the marshes, crucified, and his arms were the transepts [. . .] there was Rachel, there was Roger, there was Pangall, and they knew the church had no spire nor could have any. Only Satan himself, rising out of the west, clad in nothing but blazing hair stood over his nave and worked at the building, tormenting him [. . .]. (64-65) Golding’s pessimism, apparent in the majority of his work, is not missing in this novel. From now on, Jocelin’s joy vanishes and his vision is far away. The spire nearly falls down and causes destruction, for the evil spirit is inside: “The Spire is built in heavy stone, in

26

faith, in sin [. . .]” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 235). When Jocelin tells the builders that they must go on building the spire, though it is very dangerous, they become angry, choose a victim to murder, i.e. Pangall, and throw him into the pit: “[. . .] Mason’s workmen, who are actually devil-worshippers, erupt in a ritual frenzy reminiscent of Lord of the Flies and The Inheritors, a frenzy that culminates in the murder of Pangall, whom they bury in the pit as if to appease its gaping maw” (Johnston 73). The mob inflamed with rage attacks Jocelin as well--they are probably angry about what he did to the cathedral. “As so often in Golding-the murder of Simon, the sacrifice of Liku--it is panic which precipitates tragedy,” explain Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor (211). But unlike Simon, Jocelin is not killed.

4.8 God and Religious Elements Two major religious elements appear in this novel--the angel and the devil. The devil had already been mentioned in Golding’s former novel Lord of the Flies, but in a little different form. The vision is also a religious element. Jocelin had written it down in his notebook and then he let Father Anselm read it, before his death: “Take. Read” (190)--this sentence resembles the biblical story of St Augustin who says that once he heard: “Take up and read, take up and read” (Cleve 159), and then he opened the Bible and followed God’s instructions. Nevertheless, Jocelin finally renounces religion that becomes a delusion for him. He alienates himself from God and rejects Him: “If I could go back, I would take God as lying between people and to be found there. But now witchcraft hides Him” (220). God is, according to Jocelin, among people, not in heaven--his faith is becoming weak as he approaches the pagan concepts of the world. Jocelin is so possessed with his angel that he forgets about the relationship with God--he becomes estranged from Him. Jocelin mentions the “devil-worshippers” in the cathedral: “How proud their hope of hell is. There is no innocent work. God knows where God may be” (222). Cleve claims, “This pessimism has

27

been interpreted as a total loss of faith” (220). Except for neglecting his church duties, he also refuses to fast during the Lent, as it exhausts his body that could otherwise do more work. And he is still more and more obsessed with the spire: “[. . .] now there was a kind of necessary marriage; Jocelin, and the spire” (93). The initial joy of Jocelin could be connected with religion, but it is not so in this case. As Cleve explains, “Joy is a feeling man can experience in relation to earthly things, or a feeling existing among men, and occasionally, but very rarely between God and man” (155). Certainly, there are other contradictory elements in The Spire. For instance, the statement of Jocelin, that, “The spiritual is to the material, three times real!” (193), refers to his indecisiveness concerning the spiritual and material world.

4.9 Christianity and Paganism Golding’s works do not speak about Christian traditions or about the obedience of the Christians to God as it might seem at first sight. His works certainly contain particular elements and images corresponding to Christian religion, but they are only used as a tool for expressing the world complexities, good and evil in human beings, and the problems of people’s identity. The “saint,” similar to Simon, who explains the truth about the origins of evil to the people that are unwilling to accept it, appears again in this novel, though not completely in the same situation. People will always fight against the truth and against those who communicate it to them. The Spire is more concerned with religious concepts than Lord of the Flies, but, on the whole, it debates similar themes. Another significant fact is that Golding often uses contradictory symbols in his work, such as good and evil, light and darkness, angel and devil, and so forth. Apart from that, the relation between the spirit and the body is obvious in the novel. Jocelin actually symbolizes the cathedral--his spirit refers to the height of the cathedral and his aching spine resembles

28

the frail foundations of the spire. Jocelin’s explanation, “I have given it my back” (189), confirms it--his health was destroyed together with his angel. Tiger remarks, “Golding’s point is that it is open to every man to affirm/assent in the mind’s dark cellar the god that is both creator and destroyer” (196). Christian symbolism is essential in this novel. One of the most important symbols, the cathedral, is ambiguous--it is beautiful but dangerous, it is built not only out of faith, but also out of pride, and it is built for God, though its origins are corrupt. The hidden meaning of The Spire is also related to the will. Every individual tries to enforce his own will--either by means of good, or bad behaviour. The problems of faith, guilt, and fight between Christianity and pagan “devil-worshippers”--or more precisely, the Christian elements against the pagan elements--are debated in this novel. At first Jocelin sacrifices himself to God and puts all his efforts to the construction of the spire, but then he keeps forgetting to pray and comes to be proud, egoistic, and foolish until he realizes the truth--the truth about himself, about his essential evil and guilt. But it is too late for a new beginning. The devil has already seized him.

29

5. Morality and Religious Elements in The Inheritors (1955) 5.1 The Focus of the Novel The Inheritors is, primarily, a moral fable, or allegory, about the evil deeds of our predecessors. It shows the distinction between a primitive and relatively complex culture, and especially the importance of religion and morality is brought to the fore. The main focus of The Inheritors is the concept of original sin and evil--Golding’s aim of this novel is to analyse these concepts and make the reader contemplate about them. He concentrates mostly on man’s inner nature that is evil. This time, he explores the fall of the “Neanderthal men” and their replacement by “Homo sapiens,” i.e. by a more advanced human species. The Neanderthal men will be referred to as the “People” in this chapter, and Homo sapiens will be termed as the “New People.” The latter are precisely the “Inheritors” that take over the role of the Neanderthal men. Generally speaking, Golding intends to explore the origins of man, paying particular attention to the period of overthrowing the Neanderthal men. According to Tiger, it involves “a dramatic account of the extermination of one species by another” (77). In other words, Golding investigates similar themes as in Lord of the Flies and The Spire. First of all, he attempts to depict the wickedness of our ancestors, and he makes the theme of inherent evil in human beings even deeper in this novel by his dramatic passages. It can be said that the most inhuman and the most evil nature of man is described in the novel, for it concerns not only ritual killing, but also cannibalism. And as well as in Lord of the Flies, the civilized and savage worlds are in contradiction. Through his narration, Golding exemplifies the evil and guilt of the New People and makes an attempt to contrasts them with the good and innocence of the People. Considerable originality of The Inheritors lies in Golding’s intention to portray the life of our ancestors not merely from the anthropological perspective--Golding prefers to explore both human and inhuman nature of these people.

30

As usual, the reader comes to understand the hidden meaning later in the novel. At first, though, his view is fairly limited, as it is perceived from the perspective of the Neanderthals’ primitive mind, i.e. from Lok’s perspective. Only in the last chapters does Tuami’s point of view enable the reader to perceive things differently--the reader is eventually able to observe the world through the eyes of the New People. Advanced verbal communication is missing in the text--there are only “pictures” or “images,” and simple dialogues and sounds: “The People communicate by ‘sharing pictures’ or imagining simultaneously images of events. Through these ‘pictures’ the reader has access to the Neanderthals’ past and tradition” (Tiger 81). Due to these pictures, that do not represent thoughts, they are able to report their past and future events. Additionally, the pictures are never connected to each other, as they are individual events--this fact is stressed by Golding’s use of simple sentences. In compliance with critics, these pictures are “visualizations, not conceptualisations” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 73), or “telepathic snapshots not of an idea but of an entire event” (Tiger 82). Since there is no language, there is no thinking as well. And there is neither logic, nor rationality. What is more, a wide range of descriptions appears in the novel--the reader has to deduce many things, since there is no explanation and the meaning is revealed not until the final chapters.

5.2 A Brief History of the Neanderthal Men The Neanderthal men lived about 250 000-30 000 years ago. They were hunters who became acclimatized to the severe weather conditions of the Ice Age. The real cause of their extinction was modern man who came to Europe 40 000 ago. Unfortunately, the reason why it happened is unclear--there might have been war, illness, or something completely different. Recently, a new theory has come to light, according to which the modern people had a cultural and intellectual edge over the Neanderthal men; and thanks to this they survived. It

31

concerns modern thinking, art, sense of social ties, development of the faculty of speech, and other progresses. The Neanderthal men could not compete with the modern people and were unable to survive in the prevailing weather conditions. These facts were the cause of their extinction.

5.3 The “People” Throughout the initial chapters the reader gets to know what the life of the People is like and what their religious and moral values are. Golding uses quite a simple language, both in dialogues and descriptions--this is probably to portray the way of thinking of the people at that time. It does not imply that the novel, as such, is simple. Rather, it contains a large number of poetic passages. The distinction between the primitive and complex culture is obvious from the use of simple names for the People--such as Ha, Fa, Lok--and more complex names for the New People--such as Tuami, Tanakil, and so forth. Again, diverse symbols are brought to light and apart from that, the novel is full of imagination that enriches the reading. As well as Lord of the Flies, The Inheritors is about “self-discovery.” Not only about the discovery of the People, but also about the discovery of the Inheritors. As a consequence of the Great Fire, there are only eight people left from the People’s tribe. Their existence is thus endangered. Mal, the oldest one and the leader of their tribe, has the ability to see the most pictures, as opposed to the least intelligent of their Tribe, Lok, who “has many words and no pictures” (70). Mal takes decisions and gives orders that must be obeyed. Other members of the tribe include four women--the Old Woman, who guards the fire and takes care of religion, Nil, the mother of the “new one” (18), and Fa--and three men--Liku, Lok, and Ha. We can observe the world from two perspectives--that of the People, i.e. Lok and others, and that of the New People, i.e. Tuami and others.

32

Most assuredly, the People are gentle and peace loving. They are not privy to cruelty, violence, and evil deeds, and in case they meet evil, they cannot comprehend it. They are relatively fearful and instead of acting according to their minds, they prefer following their instinct, as distinct from the New People: “We not only experience a consciousness that twentieth-century man has lost in which instinct, intuition, and pictorialization predominate;” claims Tiger, “we participate in its loss” (84). The People can see evil only in violent nature. For example, when they come across a dead doe that had been killed by an animal, they are disgusted: “The air between the rocks was forbidding with violence and sweat, with the rich smell of meat and wickedness” (54). Even though they eat the meat only in order to survive, they feel guilty about it: “This is bad. This is very bad.” But then Fa justifies their behaviour: “But a cat has killed you [the deer] so there is no blame” (54). In spite of the fact they are a primitive culture, the morality and distinguishing between right and wrong are intrinsic to them. Existence of the People is conditioned by their religion and by laws of the nature--they do not dare to kill animals and eat their meat, only on the verge of starving. When compared to the New People who hunt, kill, and have rituals, they are innocent like the boys at the beginning of Lord of the Flies. Over and above, “People understand each other” (72), and no moral problems arise among them.

5.4 Appearance of the “New People” The breaking point in the novel is the disappearance of a log that the people have used as a bridge on the way to their spring home. Now it was gone. For this reason, they are forced to cross the river using another log. During the journey, Mal falls into the river, which results in his death: “This is the cold of the water where the log was” (34). The people are not yet aware of the presence of the Inheritors who took the log away in order to make up fire, and who caused the death of Mal, though indirectly. The People’s spring home is situated just

33

above the place where the New People are located. When the People run across their camp, Liku and the new one enter it in the middle of a strange ritual worshiping animals. This may remind the reader of Simon in Lord of the Flies who also interrupts the boys’ ritual. Unlike Simon, Liku and the new one are not killed at this point. In the end, however, Liku’s fate is merciless. As Liku and the new one are kidnapped by the New People, Lok and Fa attempt to rescue them, but before they manage, Liku is killed and eaten by the savages, i.e. by the New People. In the end, the Neanderthal men become extinct, since all of the People gradually die-with the exception of the new one, the “little devil” (229), that is adopted by the Inheritors. First and foremost, the New People act individually and not like a community. As far as the Neanderthal men are concerned, it is vice-versa. And there are more differences between the People and the New People. One of them concerns their stature--the New People “walked upright,” and “It was as though something that Lok could not see were supporting them, holding up their heads, thrusting them slowly and irresistibly forward” (143-144). The New People are inventive, intelligent, have more power, and are familiar with property. And apart from that, they are hunters, as one of Marlan’s sentences suggests: “[. . .] his [Marlan‘s] teeth were wolf’s teeth [. . .]” (229). Moreover, they are afraid of the darkness of the forest-the fact that Fa does not seem to understand: “They are frightened of the air where there is nothing” (206). When the New People retreat, Lok describes how fearfully they move: “as though cats with their evil teeth were after them” (209). Not only are the People attracted by the New People, they are also frightened of them: “The other people with their many pictures were like water that at once horrifies and at the same time dares and invites a man to go near it. He [Lok] was obscurely aware of this attraction without definition and it made him foolish” (126). Later in the novel, this opposition is expressed in relation to death: “The people are like honey in the round stones, the new honey that smells of dead things and fire” (195). Additionally, Lok thinks that the

34

New People are like “god”: “They are like Oa” (195), and he tends to associate with them: “With the scent of other I am other. [. . .] I am frightened and greedy. I am strong” (97), “ I am one of the new people” (204). Indeed, his innocence is in danger--as if he were bewitched. Despite the fact that Lok realizes a possible danger presented by the New People, he cannot resist to come near. His pictures show “the new people towards whom both outside- and inside-Lok yearned with a terrified love, as creatures who would kill him if they could” (191). Lok’s fear is confirmed when he is hit by an arrow that the New People shoot at him: “Suddenly Lok understood that the man was holding the stick out to him, but neither he, nor Lok could reach across the river” (106). But it is probably too late when “Lok-other” realizes what is, in fact, going on. It is the point of no return.

5.5 Symbols and Religious Elements The above-mentioned crossing of water and the water itself are very symbolic. Undoubtedly, they are the reason for the subsequent fall of the Neanderthal men--as ensues from the symbolic term of “waterfall” or “fall.” “They are like the river and the fall, they are a people of the fall; nothing stands against them,” states Lok--he refers to the strength and power of the New People (195). As usual, The Inheritors is full of dark and light motifs. Especially the darkness, symbolizing evil, comes into light again: “Lok felt himself secure in the darkness [. . .]” (185), as opposed to the New People who were scared of it. The light from the fire, for example, is a symbol of intelligence. However, the New People utilize the fire not only as a source of heat, but rather, as a protection from the darkness that their plain is surrounded by. They are terribly afraid of the dark. Similarly, the motif of darkness and its opposite is again to be seen on the surface of the river, which is light as well as dark. A symbolical description of the New People’s island, as a “dark island” (79), evokes the wickedness of the people and

35

their evil deeds. At the end of the novel, Tuami also makes a reference to the darkness: “He peered forward past the sail to see what lay at the other end of the lake, but it was so long, and there was such a flashing from the water that he could not see if the line of darkness had an ending” (233). Other symbolic elements include the “ice woman”--“a gully in the cliff loaded with old snow” (27)--that symbolizes People’s religion, the “ravens and hyenas,” symbols of the devil and death, and lastly, the “island,” where the New People reside. It looks like a “seated giant”: “The island was like the whole leg of a seated giant, whose knee [. . .] interrupted the glimmering sill of the waterfall [. . .]. The giant’s thigh that should have supported a body like a mountain lay in the sliding water of the gap” (40). Golding also uses a multitude of metaphors, such as the water that is “asleep” (12), the wall that “speaks” (83), and so on. Everything appears to be alive in the nature. Furthermore, a part of the biblical story about the first people, Adam and Eve, can be depicted in the narration as Fa, representing Eve, persuades Lok, who represents Adam, to climb the “Dead Tree” in order to observe the camp of the Inheritors. On the one hand, the “Dead Tree” symbolizes “the knowledge of good and evil” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 101), and on the other hand it leads to their fall. Moreover, another significant, though indirect, reference from the Bible shows up. The New People resemble a serpent that attracts the People and gives rise to the destruction of Eden and the fall of the Neanderthal men. This serpent acts evilly and attracts the People as well as it attracted Eve who eventually obeyed it and caused her and Adam’s expulsion from Paradise. It was actually the first moment in the history of mankind that the evil awoke in the guise of the devil, i.e. the serpent.

36

5.5.1 Religion, Worship, and Rituals As far as the religion of the “People” is concerned, the tribe worships a primitive fertility goddess called “Oa”: “There was the great Oa. She brought forth the earth from her belly. She gave suck. The earth brought forth woman and the woman brought forth the first man out of her belly” (35). The roles of the People are divided between men and women, and they hold firm to their principles: “A woman for Oa [religious function] and a man for the pictures in his head [rudimentary reasoning ability]” (Johnston 23). Religion is an essential part of their lives. The People have no rituals; they worship their goddess Oa, to whom they give various gifts. They communicate with Oa through the ice woman: “Without help Mal will die. Fa must take a present to the ice woman and speak for him to Oa” (70). The concept of infinity is a part of their religion, either. When Mal finally expires, his body is “folded in a foetal position” (Tiger 97), which implies that his death will be probably followed by another birth. The Old Woman explains this fact: “Oa has taken Mal into her belly” (91). A close connection with nature and the concept of infinity are to be seen in the following passage that describes the body of dying Lok: “It made no noise, but seemed to be growing into the earth, drawing the soft flesh of its body into a contact so close that the movements of pulse and breathing were inhibited” (221). The religion of the New People is different. Their “rituals of the totemic Stag cult” (Tiger 89) are cruel and violent--for instance, their sacrifice of a finger. The ritual murders connected with religious sacrifice appear both in The Inheritors and in Lord of the Flies, but in this novel the murders are intentional.

5.5.2 The Concept of Sin, Innocence, and Guilt In general, Golding describes in The Inheritors “the possible origins of man’s guilt and violence in the evolutionary appearance of homo sapiens” (Tiger 68). The sinfulness of the New People is brought about by their progressive thinking that leads to evil--killing Liku

37

and others--and to the consequent destruction of the People--their fall. There is a great divergence between innocence and guilt--paradoxically, the innocent people are associated with devils, or more precisely, “the innocent and the devil are one” (Johnston 34). Golding’s approach testifies to the fact that those who are guilty are also predisposed to survive, in contrast to the innocent Neanderthal men who are unable to survive. Regrettably, advanced thinking is, in a certain respect, related to sin: “[. . .] the biological evolution is a moral devolution [. . .]” (Tiger 85). It is Tuami who realizes the truth about the evil nature of themselves when they are about to kill Liku: “What was the use of sharpening it [the knife] against a man? Who would sharpen a point against the darkness of the world?” (231). Moral views, such as this, are a frequent motif used by Golding. It also reminds of Ralph and Simon’s discovery of their evil nature in Lord of the Flies.

5.6 Ethics and Humanity In contrast to Sir Harry Johnston, who describes the Neanderthal men as “gorilla-like monsters, with cunning brains, shambling gait, hairy bodies, strong teeth, and possibly cannibalistic tendencies” (A. Johnston 21), James Gindin gives the following account of these people: For all their perceptual and intellectual limitations, the “people” have a code of ethics [. . .] a deep and humble sense of their own limitations, and a faith in the divine power and goodness of the earth. In addition, the “people” enjoy a family life free from fighting, guilt and emotional squabbling. Each has his function, carefully defined and limited, each his respect for the other members of the family. (Johnston 23) This fact implies that the Neanderthal men are, in essence, rather good. As far as the New People are concerned, the opposite is true. Humanity totally fails with them when, as a

38

consequence of starvation, they decide to kill and eat Marlan, their ritual priest, who is to blame for the lack of food. Marlan opposes and suggests that Liku is the reason for their bad luck, and it is her who should be killed and eaten instead of Marlan, as a part of their ritual. The New People would strive for survival by all possible means. The cannibalistic tendencies that eventually become a reality are certainly the sign of missing ethics and humanity. This act is much more cruel, or rather vile, than the deaths of Simon and Piggy in Lord of the Flies, as it concerns inhuman cannibalism that had not appeared in any previous novels of William Golding.

5.7 The Fall of the “People” An important question can be posed at this point: What is the cause of the extinction of the People? There is no wonder they do not survive, for they do not know how to defend themselves. Whereas they praise nature, the New People are in control of it. Most of the time, Lok does not understand why particular things are happening, although he can perceive them very well: “Perception is itself, no more; not what we normally expect it to be, a stepping stone to an idea rapidly transferred from the eye to the mind” (Tiger 77). Lok’s incomprehension presumably consists in his primitive view of the world. Moreover, the People cannot think abstractly. At one point in the novel, Fa comments on this: “To-day is like yesterday and to-morrow” (46). The only time that counts for them is the present. And besides, they neither occupy their mind with the future, nor make any plans: “[. . .] to-morrow was secure and the day after that so remote that no one would bother to think of it” (61). To a certain extent, the thinking of these primitive people is limited. In fact, the novel together with its title, negate the statement from the Bible: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). In this case, the opposite is true: “In Golding’s world the meek

39

cannot inherit the earth” (Johnston 28), only the “killers of the meek” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 69). That is why the People are on the point of becoming extinct.

5.8 Inherited and Inherent Evil Nature In conformity with Golding, “man’s biological and evolutionary superiority in consciousness is an incalculable asset gained at an enormous price” (Tiger 71). This opinion is supported by the fact that the primitive and gentle people were overthrown by more advanced and wicked people. Therefore, the evil nature has remained in man up to now--it was actually “inherited.” Golding stresses the importance of this fact and comments on it: “[. . .] the long course of evolution has brought no fundamental change in human nature,” but rather, “With each cycle of human evolution, the evil nature becomes more and more apparent” (Herraiz, “Golding’s Themes”). The loss of innocence of the New People thus results in guilt and their subsequent fall: “The New People have ochre and hunting spears and a potent honey drink, but the artistic images can be used for savagery, the weapons can be thrust into men’s flesh, and the drink can intoxicate. Their complex power [. . .] is both creative and destructive” (Tiger 95). The novel portrays a wide range of oppositions--light and dark, innocence and guilt, fire and water, forest and plain, the Neanderthal men and the modern men, and so forth. The most important are presumably the contradictory themes of good and evil. Golding’s morality in this novel indicates that, “man abstracts from his own evil--something his nature possesses--and projects it as a fear of something Other which will haunt or destroy him” (Tiger 85). This reminds of the Beast in Lord of the Flies or of the “forest devils” in The Inheritors. The inherent evil of the New People is thus projected into these “forest devils” (224), as they refer to them: Tuami hears Marlan whisper: “‘Liku!’ [. . .] ‘That is the devil’s name’” (228). As the point of view changes over from the People to the New People, Lok is

40

described as a “red creature” (217), which might be compared to the devil’s appearance, either. Golding goes on explaining this fact: “Man’s mind [. . .] deceives itself; man imagines devils who ‘live in the darkness under the trees’ (233) and then tries to destroy the fantasies he has himself created” (Tiger 86). As well as the boys in Lord of the Flies, the New People are not aware of their inherent evil, and for this reason they think up the forest devils--similarly, the boys invent the Beast: “[. . .] knowledge is recognition and it brings with it the necessity to acknowledge in our own nature, the Beast” (Tiger 90). Most of the time this evasion of one’s own evil leads to the transformation of “darkness of the unknown into a threatening ogre, or devil, or external system of evil (Tiger 90). In his novels, Golding attempts to show to the reader, what the impulse for this transformation is, why the evil originates, and what the consequences of man’s evil nature are.

41

6. Conclusion The relation between morality, focusing on the problems of evil, and religion is obvious in the analysed novels. This point of view is supported by Golding himself: “The two signs of man are a capacity to kill and a belief in God” (Tiger 190). Furthermore, he points out, “It is not too much to say that man invented war at the very earliest moment possible. It is not too much to say that as soon as he could leave an interpretable sigh of anything, he left a sign of his belief in God” (Tiger 190). Speaking of religion, Golding’s characters are not model priests or religious fundamentalists. He attempts to present different perspectives on religion--the cruel religion of the savages, primitive religion of the Neanderthal men that praise the nature, and, last but not least, the Christian religion of the dean Jocelin that is endangered by his vision. As far as the analysed novels in this thesis are concerned, all of them involve a sort of sacrifice--Simon, Jocelin, and Liku--though the characters themselves are not aware of the fact that they are actually scapegoats. Through his work, Golding attempts to teach a lesson to certain characters--to the boys in Lord of the Flies, to Jocelin in The Spire, and to Tuami in The Inheritors. Many times in his novels, the characters go through a particular development. For the most part, they solve problems inside themselves--some kind of inner discrepancy. As a rule, it is only at the end, or towards the end of the novel, that the characters reach a certain self-discovery and realize, retrospectively, that evil is not outside, but rather inside them. The characters, such as Simon and Jocelin, usually come to realize the truth, and only when they want to communicate it to others, they fail. Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor describe the self-discovery as “knowledge of good through evil” (116). Evil is thus certainly connected with knowledge. The self-discovery, however, concerns only some of the characters, not all of them. This holds true for the major characters of the novels--Simon, Ralph, Jocelin, and Tuami--who realize their inner evil that is related to the original sin. Even Jocelin admits his wicked

42

behaviour at the end of the novel: “I thought I was doing a great work; and all I was doing was bringing ruin and breeding hate” (209). The human beings are to blame both for evil inherent in themselves and for their evil deeds. Golding explains that using the concept of original sin that is connected with Christianity, the Tree of Knowledge, and the first people--Adam and Eve. The fact that all human beings are evil is for the sake of the first people. Therefore, all human beings have had to tussle with the problem of guilt since that time. In The Inheritors the origins of man’s evil nature are explained on the example of prehistoric people. However, it should be noted that at this point Golding links together the pagan and Christian view of the origins of man. Over and above, similarity between intelligence and evil of the modern man is explored in The Inheritors. The following quotation presents Golding’s approach concerning this element and his pessimistic view of mankind: “But I quite agree that the parallelism between intelligence and evil does come out in my books because it is our [. . .] particular sin--to explain away our own shortcomings rather than remedy them” (Tiger 85). In his novels, Golding uses many contradictory elements and themes--e.g. the concepts of good and evil (Lord of the Flies), angel and devil (The Spire), innocence and guilt (The Inheritors), and others. In addition to that, a lot of related moral end religious elements are brought into light. The element of evil occurs, undoubtedly, in all of his novels. On top of that, Golding’s technique follows a certain structure. The evil is not mentioned at first, but it is revealed progressively during the novel--most of the time by a continuous process, not suddenly. The ending of Golding’s novels is another phenomenon of great significance. Its meaning is essential to the novel, for it usually explains or further develops the main theme. In spite of the fact that most of Golding’s novels portray similar themes, they are different, in essence. On the whole, the style of Golding’s writing is quite different from other novels of that time. Golding explains his intention to write novels that “nobody else has tried

43

before” (Johnston 23). And he goes on explaining his view: “I don’t think there’s any point in writing two books that are like each other. [. . .] I see, or I bring myself to see, a certain set of circumstances in a particular way. If it is the way everybody else sees them, then there is no point in writing a book” (Johnston 23). Another fact of significance is Golding’s ability to identify the reader with a particular character and impose his views upon the reader. Morality is, without any doubt, closely connected with religion--these themes complement each other, and the former is determined by the latter. The concept of morality is portrayed as an essential part of human existence that is not innate but has to be learned by means of education, or religion. Otherwise, human beings turn into savages, since moral principles are the basis of civilized behaviour and civilized world. Without keeping to them, the evil nature, that is common to all human beings, will come to the surface and the mankind will make for destruction.

44

7. Works Cited Primary Sources Golding, William. The Inheritors. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1961. ---. Lord of the Flies. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1999. ---. The Spire. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1965

Secondary Sources Allen, Walter. “War and Post War: British.” Tradition and Dream. London: Phoenix House, 1964. 288-292. Bachmann, Kåre. “Teaching William Golding’s Novel Lord of the Flies at vk I/II Level: A Collection of Students’ Essays.” Lord of the Flies: Turning Paradise into Hell. 29 May 2002. Malvik videregående skole. 27 Sept 2005 . Barnard, Robert. “From the Fifties to the Eighties.” A Short History of English Literature. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. 194. Bayley, John. “No Full Stop: the Movement of Golding’s Fiction.” William Golding 19111993. London: The British Council, 1994. 3-13. Beran, Zdeněk. “Goldingův svět dědičných břemen.” Dědicové. William Golding. Praha: Mladá Fronta, 1996. 216-226. Carter, Ronald, and John McRae. “The Twentieth Century: 1945 to the Present.” The Routledge History of Literature in English. London: Routledge, 1998. 509-510. Cleve, Gunnel. Elements of Mysticism in Three of William Golding’s Novels. Turku: Turun Yliopisto, 1986.

45

“The Companion.” The Penguin Companion to Literature: Britain and the Commonwealth. Ed. David Daiches. London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1971. 215-216. “Essays.” William Golding 1911-1993. 1998-2005. Classics Network. 27 Sept. 2005 . Herraiz Pujante, Juan Javier. “Golding’s Themes.” William Golding: Lord of the Flies. 1995. Daryl L. Houston. 5 Oct. 2005 . Hilský, Martin. “Možnosti a meze románového experimentu.” Současný britský román. Praha: H&H, 1992. 40-50. Hilský, Martin. “Současná britská literatura (1945-1985): Vývojové tendence současné britské prózy.” Dějiny anglické literatury. Eva Oliveriusová et al. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1988. 240-241. Johnston, Arnold. Of Earth and Darkness: The Novels of William Golding. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1980. Kinkead Weekes, Mark, and Ian Gregor. William Golding: A Critical Study. London: Faber and Faber, 1984. Macmillan English Dictionary For Advanced Learners: International Student Edition. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers, 2002. 35, 493. Massie, Allan. “The Novel Today.” The Novel Today: A Critical Guide to the British Novel 1970-1989. London: Longman, 1990. 4-5. “Matthew 5:5.” The New Testament. Bratislava: The Gedeon International, 1994. 4. Medcalf, Stephen. William Golding. Ed. Ian Scott-Kilvert. Harlow: Longman Group, 1975.

46

Monteith, Charles. “Publishing Golding.” William Golding 1911-1993. London: The British Council, 1994. 15-27. Morkesová, Eliška. “The Period from World War II to the Present Times (1939-1990).” An Outline of the Literature of Great Britain and the United States of America. Ostrava: Mgr. Soňa Vysloužilová, KORT - vzdělávání, 1992. 86-87. Munzar, Jiří. “William Golding a jeho román Věž.” Věž. William Golding. Praha: Vyšehrad, 1989. 241-247. Oliveriusová, Eva. “William Golding.” A Survey of English Literature Part I: History of English Literature. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1983. 158-160 Procházka, Martin, and Zdeněk Stříbrný, eds. Slovník spisovatelů. Praha: Libri, 1996. 303304. “Původ člověka.” Člověk. Ed. Robert Winston. Praha: Knižní klub, 2005. 28-29. Slegers, Jake. “Sir William Golding: Lord of the Flies.” Friendship 30. 7 (1997): 4-5. Stephenson, William. “Golding, William.” The Literary Encyclopedia. 7 Mar. 2003. Chester College of Higher Education: The Literary Dictionary Company. 5 Oct. 2005. . Stříbrný, Zdeněk. “Golding.” Dějiny anglické literatury: Svazek 2. Praha: Academia, 1987. 722-724. “Symbolism in Lord of the Flies. Lord of the Flies.” 1999-2003. Scott Gerenser. 27 Sept. 2005 . Thornley, G.C., and Gwyneth Roberts. “Twentieth-century Novels and o Other Prose.” An Outline of English Literature: New Edition. Harlow: Longman, 1984. 151-152. Tiger, Virginia. The Dark Fields of Discovery. London: Calder and Boyars, 1974. “Two Faces of Man.” Biography of William Golding (1911-1993). 1999-2005. GradeSaver LLC. 9 Sept. 2005

47

. Vančura, Zdeněk. “Karikaturisté své doby.” Dvacet let anglického románu: 1945-1964. Praha: Academia, 1976. 61. Wall, Stephen. “Aspects of the Novel 1930-1960.” The Twentieth Century. Ed. Bernard Bergonzi. London: Sphere Books, 1970. 262-266.

48