Essay: Homage to Catalonia (Orwell) and For Whom the Bell Tolls (Hemingway)

It is essential to consider the historical context which underlies both ‘Homage to Catalonia,’ and ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls,’ and how the authors’ personal experience of the Spanish Civil War may affect their portrayal of the varied personalities present in their respective novels. There are parallels between Hemingway and his protagonist, journalist Robert Jordan – Hemingway draws on his experience of reporting for the American Newspaper Alliance during the war – yet Jordan is active in his participation as part of the guerrilla, thus has to evaluate his idea of morality when justifying his own decisions. The nature of ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls,’ being fictional, allows for an omniscient – and therefore legitimately impossible – character to exist, with Jordan being both intellectually and militarily comprehensive. This leads critics such as Erik Nakjavani to argue that Jordan “represents the militant intellectual, a literary myth,” and is therefore “a synthesis of two traditionally different and seemingly contradictory modes of being.” Morality as a whole in ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls,’ is singular and skewed, as Hemingway’s effective characterisation results in everyone reviewing their own definition of morality to best accommodate the choices they make during the war. Orwell differs to Hemingway in the style of ‘Homage to Catalonia,’ which allows a clearer distinction between political analysis and personal recollection – Shelden argues that the novel is fragmented to present the “dichotomy between his sense of collective responsibility and his ideological doubts.” However, despite ‘Homage,’ employing a first-person narrative, Orwell’s status as a member of an organised POUM militia may prompt a more generalised presentation of morality. This idea manifests itself as he struggles to accurately portray the values of the organisation he is affiliated with. Morality, as a notion, is at the heart of both of the novels, and shapes the attitudes of the characters with respect to a few principal concepts – the necessity of war, death and the act of killing, the direct effect of war on morality and the link between love and ideology. Ultimately, the idea that a precise morality does not exist is present in both the guerrilla of Robert Jordan and the militia of Orwell, and this concept is established cogently by the two authors.
Hemingway addresses the importance of the war through the morality presented with regards to its necessity – a majority of the characters accept that the conflict is essential, whether or not their beliefs comply. Hemingway himself wrote that “We know that war is bad, yet sometimes it is necessary to fight,” which reflects the attitude of Robert Jordan, who is therefore going against his own morality by partaking. Jordan evaluates, similarly, that “if you believe in it the whole thing is wrong,” indicating further that his moral stance is far from the values of his side, but that he recognises the need for the war. However, it is perhaps Anselmo who is most significantly disobeying his own moral compass. He has an ideology which can be most closely associated with pacifism, and is repulsed by the idea of killing, but also understands that the struggle is essential for progression to occur. He tells Jordan of this whilst exchanging opinions on the war, explaining that “I will do it [kill] whenever necessary, but I am not of the race of Pablo.” This feeling of obligation to fight over a will to fight is perhaps the reason for the lack of satisfaction in the war being continued – Robert Jordan describes “no sense of glorious victory in battle, no sense of triumph or satisfaction that good prevails and evil is defeated.” When referring back to Hemingway’s quote depicting reactionary morality, it becomes evident that neither Anselmo nor Jordan demonstrate the concept, as they do not morally identify with the cause. In the same way, Orwell, who also originally travelled to Spain as a journalist, feels a moral obligation to join the POUM, believing it to be “the only conceivable thing to do.” Only later does he realise that he was disillusioned about the war being a “moral struggle,” and that his first impressions of Barcelona as a somewhat principled city were misjudged. It is surprising to note that, discordantly, his militiamen comrades do not feel the same obligation – they are simply “passionate youths,” with a lack of discipline and no fixed philosophy, and here Orwell presents the opposing view that morality and war participation can be closely linked, supporting Hemingway’s original theory. The practicality of the war is called into question by both narrators, and a sense of uselessness is created, as Orwell and Jordan feel their belligerent contribution was futile, but that the war allowed them to develop personally and ideologically. Instead of fighting for the ‘antifascist’ cause, most of Orwell’s time was spent trying to survive the bad conditions and avoid being accidentally shot by his own men – in the words of Orwell’s hero in the novel, Georges Kopp, the war is “a comic opera with an occasional death.” Intellectually, however, it is enriching, and this is observed in particular during Orwell’s near-death experience, as he begins to feel at peace with his environment – his second thought turns to “a violent resentment at having to leave this world which, when all is said and done, suits me so well.” In the same way, Robert Jordan, an incredibly stoic character in the beginning, seems to have evolved to accept and profit from the world by the time he is dying – he is described in that moment as “completely integrated now,” demonstrating his personal progression throughout the novel. In this sense, both protagonists seem to initially recognise the necessity for war, though later understand that their contribution was futile, except on a personal level. Though each individual felt a separate moral obligation, there was no established moral reason for the war to occur, and many fighters went against their ideology, contradicting Hemingway’s theory.
The act of killing itself presents a distinct moral argument, and ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls,’ presents a spectrum of beliefs with regards to homicide – Jordan sits somewhere in the centre of said spectrum, believing that killing is never right but sometimes compulsory. He reflects on the order given to him by General Golz to blow up the bridge – already aware that it will cause the collateral death of his comrades – and notes that “You are instruments to do your duty,” and that “you only have one thing to do and you must do it.” Anselmo represents one far end of the spectrum – he is filled with guilt even at the thought of killing, and describes it multiple times as a “sin,” having to suppress this feeling when participating in missions involving the deaths of others. He does, to an extent, demonstrate the idea that even someone completely against homicide can recognise its importance in certain situations. Equally, he is accepting of his own death as part of Jordan’s mission, and expresses early in the novel that he is comfortable with dying in place of killing, stating that “I am an old man who will live until I die.” Jordan and Agustín are also willing to die for the cause, “as all good men should,” and Kashkin seemed to be obsessed with the idea of self-sacrifice, showing that morality is valued over life. At points, Jordan’s insecurity over this idea becomes clear, due to the similar fate of his father, who he believes to be “a coward, the worst luck any man could have.” Pablo, on the other hand, is overcome by bloodlust and this desire to kill overrules any other sense of greater morality. He experiences a thrill from killing, and does not discriminate in his victims, both fascist – as recounted by Pilar in perhaps the most bloodcurdling and infamous passages of the novel – as well as men from the left-wing, whom he kills for his own guerrilla’s benefit, in order to reach a sufficient number of horses for his men’s escape. He is, according to his wife, “very intelligent but very brutal,” and meticulously orchestrates the torture and murder of the fascists in his old village. With regards to responsibility for killing, there is no moral difference between self-interest and a collective – neither is more important than the other. Jordan knows that he is morally obliged to blow up the bridge, but is aware that his comrades, as well as the enemy, may die as a result. Pilar and María’s joint account of the atrocity of the deaths of the Republicans also indicates that, according to the critic Baxter, “a collective goal implies collective responsibility.” The danger of this is that this collective responsibility “can degenerate into a general mob mentality,” and this is perhaps the origin of Pablo’s desire to kill. ‘Homage to Catalonia,’ also presents contrasting views on killing, and Orwell differs from his comrades with respect to the practicalities of war. The POUM militiamen display an overall lack of enthusiasm for fighting and killing, and instead favour the ceremonious elements of war. There is a sense of seclusion from the outside world, as the men rarely take part in killing, but are often hailed as heroic and victorious. Orwell uses a satirical tone to describe this disorganisation, explaining that “the Spaniards are good at many things, but not at making war. All foreigners are alike appalled by their inefficiency, above all their maddening unpunctuality. The one word that no foreigner can avoid learning is mañana.” The novel is also punctuated with comical recollections of self-inflicted injury to emphasise this military carelessness and the incompetence of the men – for example, when Orwell’s entire team shoots at him, and another releases a bullet while he photographs them. There is no sense of morality around killing among these men as they can barely keep themselves alive, and do not consider advancing offensively. Orwell, in spite of the attitude of his allies, considers himself militarily superior and is nonchalant when he thoughtlessly ‘shoots’ at the enemy for the first time. Only afterwards does he realise the gravity of having the power to take a life, and when he himself is hit, he evaluates this feeling of supremacy. Orwell, above all and above his own desire for military success, comprehends the futility of killing in this context, as there was no collective ambition or end goal among the group, and he writes that “I know that in the middle of a huge and bloody war it is no use making too much fuss over an individual death,” and, most significantly, “what angers one about a death like this is its utter pointlessness.” Thus, Orwell and Hemingway assess a range of perspectives concerning killing in their novels, but both conclude that, in the presence of a collective goal, there is a danger of a deteriorating, violent mentality overcoming morality.
The effect of war on individual mindset is profound and the characters of Hemingway and Orwell’s novels are no exception – it is fascinating to note the way in which the conflict changes the morality of the characters and their moral evolution throughout the novel. In ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls,’ this evolution is demonstrated principally through the character of Pablo, who has become a “coward” with no concrete idea of morality – in contrast to Robert Jordan, who upholds a kind of conscience, he is impulsive, with little rationality or reason. The stealing of Jordan’s explosives, the killing of the fascists in Pilar’s tale and the murder of his comrades all depict this. Pilar argues that he has “gone bad” and would no longer commit to the cause as she would, but is instead self-interested. Chiefly, it seems that his fear of death affects his morality, a fear which has developed as the war has progressed. Instead of wishing to fight, Pilar tells Robert Jordan that he is simply waiting for the war to end in order to live a peaceful life, a stark contrast to his actions before joining the guerrilla. Therefore, the longevity and monotony of the war cause Pablo’s morale to drop, and his morality and priorities change as he becomes peaceful and ‘cowardly.’ Hemingway’s original statement still does not apply entirely to Pablo, as he does not feel remorseful for his killing, but simply for the continuation of the war, and thus his morality is affected by outside circumstances, rather than his own reaction to his actions. Robert Jordan evolves morally as an effect of war by moving away from the naive, blind support of Communism he displays upon arrival in Spain – Gaylord’s is essential to this part of Jordan’s narrative, as it symbolises the decay of his ‘political fanaticism.’ Joaquín experiences a similar fall from naivety due to the war and the consequent death of his parents – with his innocence gone, his morals change, and he begins to experience the same so-called “thrill” as Pablo when killing. The war, for Joaquín, is therefore morally destructive.