Mammon and the Archer (Criticism)

Criticism

Ryan D. Poquette

Poquette has a bachelor's degree in English and specializes in writing about literature. In the following essay, Poquette examines Henry's hidden meanings in "Mammon and the Archer."

Although Henry's literary reputation has declined since the early twentieth century, his works are starting to be interpreted by select critics. One of these critics, Kent Bales, notes in his American Writers entry that Henry, like Edgar Allan Poe, included hidden meanings in his fiction. However, Bales notes that "Henry keeps his suggested meanings well hidden," as Poe did, so that his message is not immediately apparent to the reader. In "Mammon and the Archer," these hidden meanings can be discovered by examining the story's ending, Henry's distinctive word choice, and his use of contradictions.

In the story, after it has been revealed that Anthony Rockwall has hired Kelly to create the traffic jam, he asks Kelly: "You didn't notice anywhere in the tie-up, a kind of a fat boy without any clothes on shooting arrows around with a bow, did you?" Anthony laughs when Kelly says he has not. Says Anthony, "I thought the little rascal wouldn't be on hand." In Anthony's mind, money has triumphed over love, which he equates with Cupid, the Roman god of love. Likewise, since Ellen does not know that Anthony paid for the traffic jam, she believes that love — as symbolized by the ring — has prevailed. Both are correct. As Bales notes, the story "conceals in its ending a fact that brings that ending into doubt." Bales cites part of Kelly's report, in which the hired man says, "The boys was on time to the fraction of a second." If this is literally true, says Bales, then both the ring (love) and Anthony's traffic jam (money) play a part in Richard's successful engagement. If Richard had not accidentally dropped the ring, the traffic jam would have arrived too late to block them in. And, if there had been no traffic jam, then Richard would have only gained the extra minute that it took him to recover his ring. In other words, neither wealth nor love prevails totally in the end. It takes a balance of both to pull off the engagement.

This tricky ending signals the reader that there may be other aspects of the story that require further exploration. Upon further scrutiny, readers may notice that Henry uses some very odd and distinct words when he is telling his tale. This starts with the very first word of the title, "Mammon," an uncommon word. "Mammon" is the word used to signify wealth in the New Testament of the Bible. The word is used in Jesus' famous sermon on the mount, in which he says that man cannot serve both God and mammon. In addition, in medieval times, scholars defined seven deadly sins, each of which was represented by a corresponding archdemon. For avarice, or greed, the archdemon was named Mammon. By using a word with such religious associations, Henry elevates the stage for the ideological battle between Mammon and the Archer — money and love.

Henry's use of religious references is consistent throughout the story. Early on, Anthony talks about the "Eden Musée," which he says will get his neighbor "if he don't watch out." Musée is the French word for "museum," and Eden is the garden in the Bible where Adam and Eve, the first created man and woman, dwelled until they were expelled for their sins. Although Anthony could just be talking about a real "Eden" museum, other religious references in the story suggest that he chose the word "Eden" to increase the religious quality of the story. For example, later on in the story, Kelly tells Anthony of the traffic jam, "It was two hours before a snake could get below Greeley's statue." The use of the word, "snake," is particularly curious, since New York is a city. Cities, even in the early 1900s, did not often contain snakes, which are generally found in more rural areas. However, since Henry has already refer to Eden, it makes sense to include a reference to a snake — in the Bible, it is a snake that tempts Adam and Eve to sin.

Some of the divine references in the story are coupled directly with the idea of money. The most blatant examples occur when Anthony is trying to convince Richard that he should literally worship money. Says Anthony, "don't forget to burn a few punk sticks in the joss house to the great god Mazuma from time to time." "Mazuma" is Yiddish slang for money, but, in this instance, Anthony is making money a literal god. A "joss house" is a Chinese temple or shrine. Henry includes enough religious references to draw attention to them but seems to want to avoid subscribing to any one religion, and so he includes references from many. In addition to strictly religious references, Anthony includes Father Time, an imaginary personification of time that is often referred to as a god-like being. Says Anthony, in the same conversation to Richard, "I've seen Father Time get pretty bad stone bruises on his heels when he walked through the gold diggings." This comment, which is a response to Richard's statement that one cannot buy time, is an elaborate and heightened way of talking about the power of money to conquer.

This elaborate style of speech is also used when describing some of the characters. Anthony, in particular, is depicted as a god-like figure. In the beginning of the story, Anthony calls for his servant, Mike, "in the same voice that had once chipped off pieces of the welkin on the Kansas prairies." This confusing sentence makes a little more sense once it is deciphered. "Welkin" is another word for the vault of the sky, or heaven. If Anthony's voice is so loud that he has broken pieces off heaven, then he is a very powerful being indeed. As for the "Kansas prairies," Anthony most likely grew up in Kansas. That he has been able to leave the prairie and make his own fortune, and that he now lives among the aristocrats of New York, are further indications of his personal strength.

Anthony is also associated with a number of evils. When Ellen comes to see Anthony at the end of the story, Anthony is "in a red dressing gown, reading a book of piratical adventures." The choice of colors can be very significant in a story. In this case, red, a color often associated with the devil, makes Anthony appear devil-like, especially when he is reading a story about pirates — who are notorious for their crimes such as murder and theft. In fact, when Anthony talks about the pirate story to Ellen, he says, "I've got my pirate in a devil of a scrape. His ship has just been scuttled, and he's too good a judge of the value of money to let drown." The use of the word "devil" is interesting, given Anthony's red gown. Also, normally, a reader does not refer to a character in a book as his own. The fact that Anthony takes ownership of the pirate seems to underscore his association with evil. Furthermore, the story itself is very telling, since the pirate loves money as much as Anthony does. The word "evil" is also used directly in the story in association with Anthony. When describing another one of Anthony's responses to Richard about money, Henry describes Anthony's remark in this way: "thundered the champion of the root of evil." The thunder, like the earlier reference to Anthony's loud voice, is an indication of Anthony's god-like stature. The designation of money as "the root of evil" and of Anthony as its "champion" appears to be a clear labeling of his character.

Anthony is not the only character in the story with unsavory associations, however. Kelly is described as "a person with red hands." Though the red in this case could be another reference to devil-like behavior, Henry could also be using the color in a literal sense, saying that Kelly is red-handed, as in somebody who gets caught red-handed — in other words, a thief. This is highly probable, since Henry says that the man "called himself Kelly," which means that this is not his real name. Kelly does not use his real name in his deceptive dealings with Anthony and others, which is sometimes a sign that somebody is a crook. In addition to his questionable background, Kelly also says that he "can lick the man that invented poverty." In most religions, poverty is considered a good thing, since the poor are less likely to succumb to vices like materialism and greed.

In addition to the evil references, there are references to the divine in the story, namely in the descriptions of Ellen and Richard. When Ellen comes to tell Anthony that love has triumphed, Henry says that she looked "like a gray-haired angel that had been left on earth by mistake." To a lesser extent, Richard's purity is established. When Anthony is comparing Richard to himself, he tells his son, "you're a decent boy. Your hands are clean," implying that his own hands are not.

However, as tempting as it is to label the characters as distinctly good or evil, Henry himself discourages readers from doing this. Nothing is cutand-dry, because Henry plants good qualities in Anthony and bad qualities in Ellen. At one point, Anthony is described as having a "kindly grimace," while Ellen is described as "gentle, sentimental, wrinkled, sighing, oppressed by wealth." If Anthony is truly supposed to be representative of a devil, he would not be "kindly." And if Ellen is supposed to be a perfect angel, she would be poor, not "oppressed by wealth." These opposites exist elsewhere in the story, further prompting the reader to be skeptical of any concrete labeling of characters or situations. For example, when Ellen gives Richard his mother's ring, she takes the "quaint old gold ring from a moth-eaten case." Gold is a sign of wealth, as well as vanity when it is worn as an object. Conversely, a moth-eaten case suggests poverty and humility. The biggest contradiction in the story is in the idea of deception, which is normally considered bad. However, in this case, Anthony uses deceptive methods to do a good deed — secretly helping to buy time for his son to win over his love.

In the end, Henry's story, which on the surface appears to be a simple tale about the power of money, in reality is something much different. After reading through all of the clues that Henry imbeds in his tale, one can see that he is communicating two hidden messages to his readers. First, the forces of good and evil are equally matched and thus cannot succeed on their own. It is only when they work together, albeit unwittingly, that they achieve their goals. Says Bates, "it is left to the reader to see that the story is about Mammon and the Archer, not — as the apparent reversal in the ending suggests — Mammon over the Archer." However, this is not the entire story. Henry is also telling his readers that the definition of evil is a tricky business, since neither Anthony nor Ellen, the two combatants in the ideological battle of money versus love, can be defined as purely evil or good. The idea of what makes a person bad was an important theme in both the writings and life of Henry — an ex-convict who, by most accounts, carried the shame of his prison experience with him for the rest of his life. It must have provided some comfort for him to be able to create characters that had some questionable associations or experiences, but which were not inherently bad, and to share these characters with a reading public who adored him.

Source: Ryan D. Poquette, Critical Essay on "Mammon and the Archer," in Short Stories for Students, Gale, 2003.

David Partikian

Partikian is a freelance writer and English instructor. In this essay, Partikian explains that an epistemological approach to O. Henry's story is more helpful in understanding the story than merely analyzing the triumph of either love or wealth.

In a first reading, "Mammon and the Archer" is a straightforward tale that pits two contradictory characters and philosophies against one another. Anthony Rockwall is a self-made "ex-Soap King" who believes in the supremacy of money, even to the extent that money can buy love. Aunt Ellen, on the other hand, is sentimental and has a more idealistic notion concerning true love. By the end of the tale, both characters believe that their beliefs have been vindicated by the engagement of young Richard and Miss Lantry. However, neither Anthony Rockwall nor Aunt Ellen truly knows all the circumstances; each one has an opinion that is misinformed. The narrative contains lacunae — gaps in knowledge and an absence of adequate description of key events — that do not clarify or allow the reader to make an accurate assessment as to whether money or love triumphs in the end; for example, O. Henry completely neglects portraying what actually takes place in the carriage, the incident which leads to the engagement. The ending is ambiguous, particularly without the depiction of the crucial carriage scene. While the ending is neither an endorsement of the power of true love or money, it is an epistemological homage illustrating the bounds and limits of each character's and each reader's understanding of what has occurred.

Epistemology is the study of the nature and grounds of human knowledge. The theories place particular emphasis on the limits of knowledge and the degree that knowledge can be validated. For instance, an epistemological study of religion would involve exactly how human beings can or cannot prove the existence of God. What are the limitations to a logical attempt to prove God exists? Do these limitations, if sufficient enough, prove that God does not exist? O. Henry's story, with all its gaps and limitations on what is known to the two key characters and the reader, is an epistemological text. Any attempts at proving the superiority of either Mammon or the Archer must begin with a scrutiny of the limitations on knowledge inherent throughout.

Old Anthony Rockwall's entire outlook on life is defined by money. He is a self-made man whose position is validated by his fortune. The allusions to this within the text are so numerous that O. Henry could easily be accused of creating a character who is too one-dimensional. Old Rockwall talks of nothing but money. This obsession is parodied when Old Rockwall measures the "worth" of his son by how much Richard spends on soap: "'You're a gentleman,' said Anthony, decidedly. 'I've heard of young bloods spending $24 a dozen for soap, and going over the hundred mark for clothes.'" He even picks out vague references to money and profit while relaxing with a book: "'Sister,' said Anthony Rockwall. 'I've got my pirate in a devil of a scrape. His ship has just been scuttled, and he's too good a judge of the value of money to let drown. I wish you would let me go on with this chapter.'" This obsession with money limits Anthony's ability to evaluate a situation in any other terms. He knows that money has gained him access into the highest levels of New York society, although he admits that he is not readily accepted: "I'm nearly as impolite and ill-mannered as these two old knickerbocker gents on each side of me that can't sleep of nights because I bought in between 'em." Anthony's status as a parvenu, a nouveau riche member of society, is further emphasized by the narrator snidely referring to him as the "ex-Soap King" and to his home as the "soap palace." While an image of the King of England may command some respect, the image of a soap king living in a soap palace, presumably feverishly hoping that it never rains, invites mockery. Indeed, the descriptions of Anthony may be viewed as mocking in light of the fact that Anthony so clearly holds up wealth as a universal truth, almost a religion.

The very title of the tale includes a synonym for money with negative implications; the word mammon, as used by Matthew in the New Testament (6:24) refers to material wealth or possessions, especially in light of it having a debasing influence: "You cannot serve God and mammon." Considering that Anthony invokes different religions and pagan cultural figures throughout the text in a derogatory way ("But don't forget to burn a few punk sticks in the joss house to the god Mazuma from time to time" and "You didn't notice anywhere in the tie-up, a kind of a fat boy without any clothes on shooting arrows around with a bow, did you?"), O. Henry's use of a derogatory term for money in the title is ironic. Anthony's adamant nature, failing to allow for any other view but his own, is implied in his very name, Rockwall. He is indeed like a rock wall, intractable and unable to allow any concept into his world view except that of wealth. In terms of epistemology, Anthony's monomaniacal obsession with wealth limits his ability to see the truth.

Just as Anthony is obsessed with championing wealth, Aunt Ellen is adamant in her belief that love will triumph in the end. The narrator describes her as "sentimental" and "oppressed by wealth." Her belief that "Love is all-powerful" is partly wishful thinking and based on her ignorance of the mercenary ways of the world. She remains ignorant to the very end as to the cause of the fortuitous traffic jam, preferring her own romantic notion as to the power of a ring. O. Henry does not treat her with kid gloves in his choice of words. While Cupid, the Roman god of erotic love whom Anthony belittles, is usually viewed as a positive romantic figure, his depiction as an archer in the title brings to mind trivial and war-like connotations. Just as mammon is more negative than money, archer is more trite and commonplace than Cupid. The title of the story subtly questions the validity of the respective value systems of both Anthony and Ellen.

So where does the truth lie? If O. Henry is illustrating the limits to acknowledging the truth in the values of his two main characters, what is his solution to the question of money versus love? The question is, perhaps, impossible to answer because O. Henry has left gaps in the narrative and character development, which would have clued the reader into his sentiments and which are exactly what make the tale brilliantly ambiguous.

O. Henry is best remembered as a writer of a specific era and place — New York in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He is known for stories with a surprise ending that unexpectedly tie all the loose ends together. In this sense, he is the quintessential representative of an earlier pragmatic America where everything seemed black and white; there were no ambiguous shades of gray. Most of his body of work is made up of neat, tidy stories that have value as entertainment with neatly summed up conclusions rather than as serious literature with ambiguity that invites lingering questions.

However, in the case of "Mammon and the Archer," the ending is not so neat and tidy because O. Henry has held back information that would enable the reader to better comprehend and judge; the conversation and wooing that takes place in the carriage during the traffic jam is the crucial dialogue of the whole tale. Without an accurate depiction of this scene, one cannot figure out which system triumphs. Yet, it is completely absent from the text. It is lacunae of this sort that often relegates O. Henry's fiction to the second rate but that works so well in this particular tale. An accurate depiction of this conversation would have involved subtle character development as well as hints of the differing classes of society that the two represent. Miss Lantry belongs to old money, long established in New York, while Richard is an upstart son of a parvenu. What did he say in the carriage that could have possibly convinced her of his sentiments towards her? There is nothing in the story to indicate that he is indeed worthy of Miss Lantry and even less of a hint that this busy society lady is worth chasing at all. The modern reader is left wishing that contemporaries of O. Henry, like Henry James and Edith Wharton who both portrayed social classes in New York with all their foibles, had described the carriage conversation between Miss Lantry and Robert with all the subtle ironic allusions to the pettiness and vacuity of New York high society. Instead, readers are left with O. Henry's depiction of the merest of situational factors, the dropping of a ring and the fabricated traffic jam, as the sole combatants that vie for superiority in the question of Love versus Wealth.

O. Henry's avoidance of complicated psychological motives is the reason for the great success he achieved during his lifetime as a short story writer. By keeping his characters one dimensional and his scenarios simple, he is able to manipulate a surprise ending that neatly ties together all the loose ends. Ironically, O. Henry's lack of critical acclaim today is a result of the same ability that made him a great success in his own lifetime. While the entrance of the shady character who "called himself Kelly" does introduce a twist to the end of the tale, the realization that Anthony has fabricated the traffic jam creates an ending not nearly as tidy as O. Henry's other tales. The lack of tidiness is exactly why "Mammon and the Archer" stands out in his body of work today.

"Mammon and the Archer" is an exception in O. Henry's body of work, in that the gaps in the narrative depictions and the inability of both Anthony and Ellen to acknowledge any factors outside their own narrow belief systems have led to a work with marvelously ambiguous epistemological implications. Can one ever really know whether wealth or love is triumphant in the end? The title's mocking allusion to the gods of both Anthony and Ellen leads the reader to believe that neither philosophy reigns supreme without help from the other. In this sense, neither mammon nor the archer is the key word in understanding the title. Rather, it is that largely overlooked conjunction "and." O. Henry was deliberate in titling the work. He did not choose "Mammon or the Archer." The two gods or philosophical systems are not mutually exclusive. They rely on one another to bring about a harmonious solution. Any attempt to define the world or seek truth in one at the exclusion of the other is doomed to a dismal failure.

Source: David Partikian, Critical Essay on "Mammon and the Archer," in Short Stories for Students, Gale, 2003.

What Do I Read Next?

• Although O. Henry's literary reputation is still in question today, his name has been attached to one of the most prestigious short-story contests in the United States: the O. Henry Awards. Each year, stories from this contest are published in a special volume of prize stories. The eighty-first edition of this series, Prize Stories 2001: The O. Henry Awards, was published in 2001 and contains works from established authors and newcomers alike.
• O. Henry's first book, Cabbages and Kings (1904), is referred to by some as a novel, by others as a collection of short stories. O. Henry created the book by combining a number of his previous short stories about Central America — along with some new stories — into one interlinked narrative. The main story concerns a president of a South American country, who flees the country after being deposed in a revolution.
• O. Henry's "The Gift of the Magi" is a Christmas story that was originally published in The Four Million in 1906. This classic story, one of O. Henry's best known, depicts the wonderful — and contradictory — sacrifices that a husband and wife make so that they can give each other special Christmas gifts.
• Although O. Henry is today remembered mainly for New York stories like "Mammon and the Archer," he also wrote a number of western stories, many of which were based on his experiences in Texas and Latin America. He collected almost twenty of these tales in Heart of the West, which was first published in 1907.
• O. Henry also wrote a number of stories for young boys, the most famous of which is The Ransom of Red Chief, which was first published in 1907 and which was collected in Whirligigs in 1910. The story concerns two amateur crooks who kidnap a little boy in an attempt to get ransom money to fund their future crimes. However, in an ironic twist, the child proves to be more trouble than the crooks.
• In Steven W. Saylor's historical novel entitled A Twist at the End: A Novel of O. Henry (2000), O. Henry, as the real-life Will Porter from 1906, tries to solve an actual serial murder from 1885. Through a series of flashbacks, Saylor takes Will, and the reader, back through the past, relying on both fictional and historically accurate details to tell the tale.
• Samuel Langhorne Clemens, who wrote under the well-known pseudonym of Mark Twain, was a contemporary of O. Henry's. Known primarily as a humorist, Twain used his comedic talents in the social satire The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873), a book that he cowrote with Charles Dudley Warner. The book detailed the corruption that was going on in America at the time, when Twain and Warner saw money as the biggest concern for most. The two writers mock many aspects of their society, including the aristocracy.