The Minister’s Black Veil—Nathaniel Hawthorne

Few stories in American literature have been given the scrutiny of this one by Hawthorne. Researchers will find very little trouble in gathering dozens upon dozens of interpretations upon this story. What is perhaps most intriguing is the lengths that various critics will go to in order to strip this story of its most obvious interpretation.
First, let’s briefly summarize the story. The tale opens on a Sunday with morning services about to begin. All seems normal until Rev. Hooper exits the rectory to preach the service, inexplicably wearing a double fold of black crepe over the upper half of his face. The appearance of the minister greatly disturbs his parishioners. After a funeral and a wedding that day, Rev. Hooper meets with his fiancée, Elizabeth. When he refuses to set the veil aside for her, she breaks off the engagement although remaining quite devoted to him.
Years pass by as Hooper maintains the black veil. He becomes a more effective preacher during these years although remaining an enigma to his flock. Finally, as he lies on his deathbed, another minister, Rev. Clark, urges him to finally remove the veil. Hooper refuses, aided by Elizabeth, and dies covered by the black cloth.
In order to understand this story, one must begin and end the interpretation—or at least its heart—with the veil. Why does Hooper wear the veil? Is he hiding something or hiding from something? Alternately, is the veil a tool for concealment or for signification. The most obvious interpretation, and the one that most of the congregation apparently assume to be true, is that Hooper has committed some horrible sin and wears the veil in order to hide his face in shame. Edgar Allan Poe theorized that Hooper had committed a sexual sin with the young woman whose funeral he performs that first day. While such is a possibility, it, I believe, takes the story to a too-literal level. On the other hand, the veil might be a tool to shield Hooper’s eyes from other people.
Looking at the alternate scheme of understanding the veil, we might wonder if Hooper wears to veil to cover something up or to reveal something. Perhaps the veil indicates his awareness of sin. If so, then we might profitably ask whether the sin signified is his own or someone else’s?
Some readers have picked up on a Biblical usage of veils. In II Corinthians 3:13, Paul contrasts the boldness of the believer with Moses, who veiled himself in Exodus 34 after meeting with God on Sinai. As Moses descended from his meetings with God, the glory would gradually fade away from his face. Moses delivered God’s message to the people with an uncovered, radiant face, and then covered his face until the next meeting. As tantalizing as this reference is, one might find it difficult to connect Hooper’s view of the veil with this Mosaic veiling. It seems clear in Hawthorne’s story that the key to the veil is sin. The key to the veil in the Moses story is the glory and radiance of God. These seem to be two wholly different things.
In fact, though, these two things are not nearly as separate as they might appear at first blush. Moses veiled his face in order to hide the contrast between his radiant, God-drenched face and a merely human face. The key to understanding sin in its Biblical form is to see it as separation from God, a deviation from holiness.
Hooper’s veil, whatever its origin, has the effect of emphasizing man’s lack of holiness and separation from God. This is the sort of emphasis that runs through all of Paul’s writings. In fact, this is the realization that emerges in Paul’s Damascus Road experience. Paul, convinced of his righteousness, travels toward Damascus in order to expose the failings of others. Upon encountering Christ on the road, Paul’s eyes are blinded—a sort of veiling—yet his self-perception is opened. He sees himself as a sinful man, hopeless but for the salvation offered through Christ Jesus. We only know these things, of course, because Paul has related them, either directly or by way of Luke. Recall that his fellow travelers could not hear distinct words during the event.
Does Hooper experience his own Damascus Road event? Hawthorne, by his ambiguity, ensures that readers will not know without assistance from Hooper, and the minister is not willing to testify of whatever experience has placed the veil on his face.
What places the veil on Hooper’s face? That is a cause that we will never know. Perhaps Hawthorne intends this ambiguity to allow the reader to interpret it through his own lens. I am reminded here of the many reactions I have witnessed to Paul’s II Corinthians 12 account of his thorn in the flesh. Since Paul leaves the thorn extremely ambiguous, many readers have interpreted it according to their own weaknesses.
In the end, Hawthorne’s story stands as a latter-day account of the Puritan view of man’s sinfulness and need for God. Any interpretation that leaves this aspect out of “The Minister’s Black Veil” is hiding something—or perhaps hiding from something.