NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ed, rather than as the creator whose achievement was expropriated by those who could not hope to equal it, but only to steal it-and to claim the theft as virtue. [ 435 ] This second trial is the climax of the novel, bringing together all of the several subplots (many of which are unexplored here). Roark's testimony and closing argument constitute the dramatic and philosophical centerpiece of the novel. In a long speech Roark justifies his action, defending not just himself, but the creative impulse and the discipline of reason that permits its productive exercise. Roark is acquitted by a jury.
In the coda that follows the verdict in the second trial, we see Roark triumphant, achieving the success that the novel has led us to conclude is his just reward. III. THE FIRST TRIAL The Stoddard trial was a civil action apparently tried without a jury. The publicity engendered by Toohey ensured a full courtroom, many of whom were Toohey's intellectual disciples. "There was a feeling of 'our bunch, ' 'our boys, ' 'our show. ' " 21 The issue for the court was whether the building Roark had designed met the contractual requirement to erect a "temple. " The plaintiff claimed that the building Roark had designed could not be considered a "temple. " 22 There was no dispute about the journalistic facts: What happened? Who did what to whom? Instead, the question concerned the meaning to be ascribed to the concept "temple. " By centering the trial around the notion of a temple, Rand is able to reveal differences in what is viewed as holy, and thus what sort of souls these differences reveal.
Roark's design is described as scaled to human height in such a manner that it did not dwarf man, but stood as a setting that made his figure the only absolute, the gauge of perfection by which all dimensions were to be judged. When a man entered this temple, he would feel space molded around him, for him, as if it had waited for his entrance, to be completed. It was a joyous place, with the joy of exaltation that must be quiet. It was a place where one would come to feel sinless and strong, to find the peace of spirit never granted save by one's own glory. 23 Toohey led off as the first witness for the plaintiff.
After providing an historical overview of religious architecture, "Toohey proved that the Stoddard Temple contradicted every brick, stone and precept of history. '[T]he two essentials of the conception of a temple are a sense of awe [ 436 ] and a sense of man's humility... tend[ing] to impress upon man his essential insignificance, to crush him by sheer magnitude, to imbue him with that sacred terror which leads to the meekness of virtue. The Stoddard Temple is... an insolent 'No' flung in the face of history. '" 24 Peter Keating testified about Roark's background, his expulsion from architectural school, his work in Keating's office and his attitude toward architecture. While belittling Roark's work, it became obvious that Keating was in the midst of great psychological stress, approaching a breakdown.
Much of Keating's testimony was irrelevant to the issue before the court, but prejudicial on Roark's character and competence; nevertheless, Roark offered no objection. Keating spoke of Roark as one who regarded architecture as a kind of holy crusade and asserted that he was exactly the wrong sort of man who should be given a commission to build a temple. "Only a very human sort of man should be chosen to do that. A man who understands... and forgives. A man who forgives... That's what you go to church for-to be...
forgiven... " 25 There followed a parade of expert witnesses in support of the plaintiff's claim; architects and others that the reader had met in various guises earlier in the story. These witnesses were unanimous in the view that what Roark had designed could not reasonably be called a temple. Ralston Holcombe testified, "[T]he architectural style of the Renaissance is the only one appropriate to our age... [R]e naissance is the only permissible style for all churches, temples and cathedrals. What about Sir Christopher Wren? Just laugh that off. " 26 Gordon Prescott offered a melange of unintelligible abstractions, claiming, "[I]t is impossible to present a dialectic state by covering it up with an old fig leaf of logic... " 27 Finally, Dominique France, passionately in love with Roark, but testifying against him, sums up the conflict: Howard Roark built a temple to the human spirit.
He saw man as strong, proud, clean, wise and fearless. He saw man as a heroic being. And he built a temple to that. A temple is a place where man is to experience exaltation. He thought that exaltation comes from the consciousness of being guiltless, of seeing the truth and achieving it, of living up to one's highest possibility, of knowing no shame and having no cause for shame, of being able to stand naked in full sunlight.
He thought that exaltation means joy and that joy is man's birthright. He [ 437 ] thought that a place built as a setting for man is a sacred place. That is what Howard Roark thought of man and of exaltation. But Ellsworth Toohey said that this temple was a monument to a profound hatred of humanity. Ellsworth Toohey said that the essence of exaltation was to be scared out of your wits, to fall down and to grovel. Ellsworth Toohey said that man's highest act was to realize his own worthlessness and to beg forgiveness.
Ellsworth Toohey said it was depraved not to take for granted that man is something which needs to be forgiven... To glorify man, said Ellsworth Toohey, was to glorify the gross pleasure of the flesh, for the realm of the spirit is beyond the grasp of man. To enter that realm, said Ellsworth Toohey, man must come as a beggar, on his knees. Ellsworth Toohey is a lover of mankind. 28 She then goes on to explain why she has chosen to testify for the plaintiff: I do not condemn Ellsworth Toohey. I condemn Howard Roark. A building, they say, must be part of its site.
In what kind of world did Roark build his temple? For what kind of men? Look around you. Can you see a shrine becoming sacred by serving as a setting for Mr.
Houston Stoddard? For Mr. Ralston Holcombe? For Mr.
Peter Keating? When you look at them all, do you hate Ellsworth Toohey-or do you damn Howard Roark for the unspeakable indignity which he did commit? Ellsworth Toohey is right, that temple is a sacrilege, though not in the sense he meant... When you see a man casting pearls without getting even a pork chop in return-it is not against the swine that you feel indignation. It is against the man who valued his pearls so little that he was willing to fling them into the muck and to let them become the occasion for a whole concert of grunting, transcribed by the court stenographer. 29 During Dominique's testimony, plaintiff's counsel becomes con-corner about the contents of her testimony. She is permitted to continue because the judge "had been bored and he liked to watch Dominique's figure.
Besides, he knew that the audience was enjoying it... " 30 Thus, the sense one gets of this proceeding, from the pre-trial publicity, to the witnesses, to the presiding judge who will decide the case, is that it borders on farce, albeit tragic farce. No one seems to be concerned with doing justice. The media frenzy is an intellectual lynch mob. The crowd in the courtroom seems to have come to watch a show.
The witnesses are a combination of trained seals and guests on a [ 438 ] television talk show. The judge is a leering clown. The system of justice portrayed here is a stage set devoid of real substance. Only Roark (and to some extent Dominique) brings any dignity to the occasion, and Roark does so, essentially, by refusing to participate. Roark does not cross examine any of the plaintiff's witnesses, respond-ing to each invitation to do so with a curt, "No questions. " 31 Similarly, Roark offers no witnesses of his own, nor does he present any verbal argument in opposition to the plaintiff's case.
Instead, he offers photographs of the Stoddard Temple and declares, "The defense rests. " 32 As might be expected, Roark loses the case and is found liable. 33 What are we to make of Roark's refusal to offer a defense, apart from the Temple itself? One possibility is that it suggests Roark's innocence-not in the legal sense, but in the sense of a fundamental inability to comprehend the existence or nature of evil. In this view, all that is required to persuade human beings to behave correctly-in this instance, to bring in a verdict in Roark's favor-is to demonstrate the rightness of one's cause; no argument is necessary. There is some support in the story for such a view: Roark hires a sculptor, Steven Mallory, for a statue to be erected in the Temple as its only ornament. Mallory, Roark's philosophical soulmate, has been beaten down by the same sort of cultural miasma that Roark has been resisting.
In a conversation between them, Roark explains that he sought out Mallory "for a simple selfish reason-the same reason that makes a man choose the cleanest food he can find. It's a law of survival, isn't it? - to seek the best. " 34 After thinking about Roark's explanation, Mallory responds: "The unrecognized genius-that's an old story. Have you ever thought of a much worse one-the genius recognized too well? ... That a great many men are poor fools who can't see the best-that's nothing... But do you understand about the men who see it and don't want it?"No. " [responds Roark] "No, you wouldn't...
Do you know what your secret is? It's your terrible innocence... [ 439 ] It's because of that absolute health of yours. You " re so healthy that you can't conceive of disease. You know of it. But you don't really believe it. " 35 Despite Mallory's view, it is difficult to believe that Roark's innocence is so profound that he doesn't realize the inadequacy-within the culture he finds himself-of simply presenting his work. A less generous interpretation would suggest that Roark understands that the case is lost before it begins and that nothing is to be gained by participating in a sham trial except to give it a certain legitimacy. (Such an interpretation would be consistent with views Rand would later advance in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. 36) In a variant of this explanation, Roark is essentially indifferent to the outcome of the case.
This interpretation, too, has some support in the novel. When one of Roark's friends attempts to persuade him to hire a lawyer to fight the case, arguing that Roark's ignorance of law and courtrooms means that Stoddard will win the case, Roark responds, "Is the case of any im...
Free research essays on topics related to: temple, roark's, roark, peter keating, second trial
Research essay sample on Peter Keating Second Trial
