Lee stutters in frustration to Samuel’s ignorance, “Don’t you see?’ He cried. ‘The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel— ‘Thou mayest’—that gives choice…That throws it right back on the man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not” (Steinbeck 303). In the novel, East of Eden, the characteristics of the C and A labels, in reference to the biblical context, offers a view of choice given by God because Steinbeck adopts the tradition of symbolic readings from effect of Cain’s action of evil and the generational stanzas of Genesis with its notion of every mans’ choice. Cain and Abel have been adopted by society to resemble the separate paths of good and bad, yet Steinbeck pushes back on this simplicity by using the motif of names which begin with C and A. As emphasized in Lee’s words about timshel and how ‘thou mayest’ represents the ability to choose—their names don’t bind them to a life of good or evil, but rather emphasize the role of choice that we are gifted from God. The chapters from Genesis obviously highlight God’s gift of choosing by dedicating a large amount of the chapter to the focus on the generational growth beyond Cain and Abel. Both texts emphasize the free will that humanity is given and can harkened and learned today, and the generational knowledge that can be learned from man’s most remote ancestors.
In the second generation of East of Eden, Adam’s twin sons Cal and Aron carry the weight of the A and C names and the difficulty of choice that contrasts the labels, therefore complementing the biblical focus on the generational effect of Cain and the negative connotations that are fought against with the God-given power of free will. Cal attempts to help his father by creating a business of reselling beans. Adam immediately degrades his hard work and does not accept the gift, he responds to Cal, “I would have been so happy if you could have given me—well, what your brother has—pride in the thing he’s doing, gladness in his progress. Money, even clean money, doesn’t stack up with that” (Steinbeck 544). The connotation of money is drawn in with dirtiness and evil, agreeing with the characteristics of the C label that Cal deals with. The direct comparison of his brother’s gift of ‘pride’ and ‘gladness in his progress’ minimizes the effort and pride that Cal also had in ‘his progress’ of working for the money. The immediate reaction and comparison between Cal and Aron highlight the preconceived characteristics and pulls to good and bad that are reiterated and enforced by their father and their names. The specific connection of the monetary gift is written about the generations visited in the book of Genesis. From Cain’s familial line, the Bible specifies some of the works and achievements that came from the seed of Cain. It details: “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch” (Genesis 4:17). The detail of Enoch also being the second generation from his father Cain draws a significant comparison to Cal’s position. Enoch’s building of the city is very similar to the business that Cal grew, due to the lack of respect placed around the motivation of monetary gain that has carried on from biblical times. The largest similarity between the two is that they are not predestined to be evil and fall into the image of Cain—and even though their successes aren’t celebrated in the light of goodness, they still can and prove to create positive change and influence in their lives and successes.
The scene’s continuation proves the existence and difficulty of decision funneled through the pressure and anger of Cal’s character because of Steinbeck’s strong draw on Cain’s decision to commit the first murder and the false notion of predetermined evil it incited. From the after effect of Adam’s rejection in the East of Eden, Lee calms down Cal when he grows angry and upset with his father’s poor response to his gift. As proven before Lee acts as a moral guidance and expands on the biblical notion of choice as Cal is reacting to his father’s rejection. He says, “He couldn’t help it, Cal. That’s his nature. It was the only way he knew. He didn’t have any choice. But you have. Don’t you hear me? You have a choice” (Steinbeck 544). Lee’s differentiation between Adam’s nature and Cal’s choice is evident and emphasized. Due to the extreme comparison between this scene with Adam’s rejection and the Genesis story of God rejecting Cain’s gift, Adam is character has been set at this point, and there is much more emphasis on the opportunity of choice that this has prompted for Cal. Both Lee and Cal acknowledge the weight of the C label that Cal grapples with, so Lee’s repetition and emphasis of the choice when he says, ‘But you have. Don’t you hear me? You have a choice’ is an attempt to free Cal from the pull of denying himself a choice. The refusal of the offering does promote a response of some sort, but there is a push from Lee not to succumb to Cain’s pull. The biblical passage tells Cain’s initial reaction to the rejection: “And unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Genesis 4:5). As his face and expression ‘fell’ with the described ‘wroth,’ it is a direct comparison to Cal’s obvious disappointment from his father’s dismissal. Yet this is the point Lee argues there is a God-given gift of choice between the reaction of good and evil. In the Bible, Cain chooses murder, “And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him” (Genesis 4:8). Although the Cain and Abel story is explored in a few stanzas of a biblical chapter, Steinbeck expands on the choice that Cain and every human makes which is written in between the lines. Lee understands the struggle of this decision and articulates the principle of choice to Cal who will not crack under the pressure of Cain’s metaphorical hold of evilness over him.
The climax of Cal’s guilt and pressure from his overseer highlights the strain of free will and guilt he feels because of his connection to Cain that causes all of humanity to feel a draw from evil due to their distant descendent from the first murderer. In the final scene, the mirror of Cain and Abel becomes even more apparent with Cal believing his brother’s death in war was his fault through the lens of his father—and himself. This coincides with the rapidly declining life of his father, Adam. Cal vocalizes his pain to Abra, “I wanted to run away from my father’s eyes. They’re right in front of me all the time. When I close my eyes I still see them. I’ll always see them. My father is going to die, but his eyes will still be looking at me, telling me I killed my brother” (Steinbeck 598). The ‘father’ Cal is talking about is directly Adam but also represents the ‘eyes’ of God watching over him in a larger sense. This image of the eyes in ‘front of [him] all the time’ highlights the constant ability to choose his path for his future, even though he views it more as pressure from his moral conscious. The notion of the future ties into the themes of the generational change and struggle that will stem from Cal and his father and the father before him all the way back to Cain and Abel. In connection to Cain, the notion of punishment is touched upon in Genesis, “And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear” (Genesis 4:13). Yet this is where the difference between Cain and his descendant, Cal, becomes clear, as Cain has an endless punishment based on the choice to turn to evil and murder. While Cal is actively making the choice to attempt good and deny the evil, which appears to be a punishment, but rather the weight of the ‘eyes’ of constant choice is hard for Cal, and all of humankind to bear. And while Cain whines that his punishment is too great to bear, Cal tolerates and suffers internally with the weight of his life, his father’s life, and his brother’s.
The pull for the future generations that relies of Cal’s freedom from his self-induced guilt marking highlights the significant and pattern of generations attached to the issue of good/bad and the placement of choice. When Cal returns to his home and bears the weight of the ‘eyes’ watching him, Lee has to act as the moral guide to give Adam and Cal the chance of reconciliation. The recognition of generations is brought up to Adam on his death bed. Lee pleads, “I don’t know how long you will live, Adam. Maybe a long time. Maybe an hour. But your son will. He will marry and his children will be the only remnant of you” (Steinbeck 602). This reminder of the generations to follow and his last living son seems to be impactful for Adam. The focus does not fall all on Cal, but ‘his children [which] will be the only remnant,’ which suggests the continuation of life through the pattern of the struggled duality of Charles/Adam and Cal/Aron. The comparison between this scene and the book of Genesis is not fully compatible, as Cal has proved he has not followed the pull of Cain’s choice of evil yet notably feels more guilt than him. Since this scene of growth and reconciliation is not in the Bible, Adam and Eve have another child, Seth. It reads, “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called him Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew” (Genesis 4:25). The role of Seth in East of Eden is unnecessary because of Cal’s continued growth and his representation of an eternal struggle of humanity choosing good and bad decisions. There is no such thing as a perfect son, as Aron himself was also riddled with some poor decisions, but in his father’s eyes Cal is more complicated and is the contrast to his brother. But in this moment, it is realized the future is through Cal’s children, there is the opportunity of progress and more acceptance of complexity. This ties back to Lee’s point of Cal’s children being the ‘remnant’ of him. Although there is only one ‘A’ name left in Adam and only one ‘C’ in Cal, both characters have proven the simplicity of good and bad cannot be cut simply due to the difficult choices one makes in a lifetime. No matter the name of Cal’s children, being a ‘C’ or an ‘A,’ they will be given the choice to be who they want to be and will not have a label determine who they are.
In the dual acceptance of growth between Adam and Cal, the notion that free will denies the simplicity of determined good and evil is established therefore positioning the generations of humanity that stem from the wake of Cain to believe and utilize the power of choice. Until the final lines of the story, Lee continues to beg Adam to accept and forgive Cal as the complex and broken man he is. Lee pleas again, “Your son is marked with guilt out of himself…Help him, Adam—help him. Give him his chance to be free. That’s all a man has over the beasts. Free him! Bless him!” (Steinbeck 602). As Lee is full of educated wisdom, he draws from a lot of references in his words. The marking of guilt is an interesting take on the marking of Cain, since Cal is riddled with guilt, yet it can be removed easily by Adam’s, and his own, acceptance. The marking is self-induced as Cal feels the weight of guilt for his label and the death of his brother. The opportunity to be ‘free’ since that’s ‘all a man has over the beasts’ reiterates the point of free will that God bestowed on all of humanity. Yet the marking of guilt denies this of free will since Cal believes he is predestined to be evil and have blood on his hands. By Adam freeing him and blessing him, Adam is denying the predetermination of good and bad through birth, and as illustrated by ‘C’ and ‘A’ names in the book, and showing his son that free will is granted to everyone. In the last lines of the book, it reads, “Adam looked up with sick weariness. His lips parted and failed and tried again…His whispered word seemed to hang in the air: ‘Timshel!’ His eyes closed and he slept” (Steinbeck 602). The struggle and determination of Adam in his final moments proves his dedication to timshel. This recalls the knowledge of the word’s Hebrew roots and how it symbolizes choice with ‘Thou mayest’ or if ‘Thou mayest not.’ Adam does not choose for him per say, but that word frees Cal by letting him take of the mark of Cain and predestination. Since that is the conclusion of the book, it is assumed that there are generations upon generations to follow and all live by that word and its representation. The gift of choice is hard for humanity to understand, yet it is threaded throughout Genesis and reiterated by the last word of Steinbeck’s Adam. In the Bible it simply reads, “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden” (Genesis 4:16). This east of Eden is where Steinbeck penned the ancestors from the legendary Cain and Abel and let them battle with choice in the same way the second generation of humanity did. In the land of Nod, the east of Eden, and in modern day, there still is choice, and the self-imposed marks are erased by freedom. There is no conclusion of Cal’s story as he will continue to live and create generations with his children and their children and so on—all having the gift of choice from God.
As said in a Steinbeck critical study, “The timshel doctrine enables Steinbeck to broaden an autobiographical kernel into the spiritual autobiography of mankind, of life itself, since all ideas, characters, and events can suggest the vast confusion of life” (Levant 254). As timshel represents free will and the God given gift to choose for humanity, Steinbeck is able to expand upon the few chapters given to the story of Cain and Abel. The result is a text that works with the biblical book of Genesis that emphasizes the ability to choose while also always having the hope and possibility transcend into generations after. Chapter four of Genesis is split between the stanzas detailing Cain’s rejection and then resulting choice to murder Abel with the following stanzas dedicated to the generations of Cain’s lineage. This highlights how significant and large God’s gift of free will was, as Cain’s children and their children were not cursed or predetermined to be evil. Steinbeck plays with this concept and the blurredness of good and evil with the symbolization of the ‘C’ and ‘A’ categorical names. His characters, especially Adam and Cal, are complex and realistic to all of humanity as they fight with their inner selves but keep choosing to grow—denying the predetermination of Cain and Abel and reiterating God’s gift of free will. Both East of Eden and the Bible detail these complexities that we, as humanity, live and grapple with, but there is underlying hope and optimism in both the texts as they remind the reader there is always new life to come in the generations to follow. And in the confusion of choice, it seems humanity resides in this east of Eden.
Works Cited
Levant, Howard. The Novels of John Steinbeck: A Critical Study. University of Missouri Press, 1974.
Steinbeck, John. East of Eden. Penguin Books, 1992.