Allusions to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a married couple who were controversially convicted of espionage and later executed by electrocution, serve as an important motif in The Bell Jar. Esther repeatedly reflects upon the execution of the Rosenbergs throughout the novel, reflecting her morbid preoccupation with death and complex feelings about morality:
(I knew something was wrong with me that summer, because all I could think about was the Rosenbergs and how stupid I’d been to buy all those uncomfortable, expensive clothes, hanging limp as fish in my closet, and how all the little successes I’d totted up so happily at college fizzled to nothing outside the slick marble and plate-glass fronts along Madison Avenue.)
In this parenthetical statement, Esther states that she could sense that “something was wrong” with her during the summer of 1953 because she could not stop thinking about the Rosenbergs. The execution of the Rosenbergs, for her, marks the general feeling of malaise, anxiety, and depression that she experienced that summer. Later on, she brings up the Rosenbergs again in a conversation with Hilda, a young woman who designs hats:
So I said, “Isn’t it awful about the Rosenbergs?”
The Rosenbergs were to be electrocuted late that night.
“Yes!” Hilda said, and at last I felt I had touched a human string in the cat’s cradle of her heart. It was only as the two of us waited for the others in the tomblike morning gloom of the conference room that Hilda amplified that Yes of hers. “It’s awful such people should be alive.”
She yawned then, and her pale orange mouth opened on a large darkness.
At first, Esther feels that she has made a genuine connection with Hilda when she agrees that the situation with the Rosenberg’s is “awful.” She soon realizes, however, that she and Hilda have very different beliefs and attitudes, as Hilda notes that she supports the execution and feels that it is “awful” that "such people" ever exist at all. This conversation marks, for Esther, the sense of distance between her and others. While she feels empathy for the Rosenberg’s and is horrified by the thought of death by electrocution, Hilda instead cheers on the execution of those deemed enemies of the nation.
Esther alludes to the religious practice of baptism and to the “waters of Jordan” described in the Bible while taking a bath:
I lay in that tub on the seventeenth floor of this hotel for-women-only, high up over the jazz and push of New York, for near onto an hour, and I felt myself growing pure again. I don’t believe in baptism or the waters of Jordan or anything like that, but I guess I feel about a hot bath the way those religious people feel about holy water. I said to myself: “Doreen is dissolving, Lenny Shepherd is dissolving, Frankie is dissolving [...] I have never known them and I am very pure.
Earlier, Esther accompanied Doreen to the apartment of Lenny, but she leaves when Doreen and Lenny begin flirting heavily. Back in her apartment after this awkward social encounter, Esther feels dirty and takes a bath in order to feel clean and pure again. A strong believer in the purifying powers of a bath, Esther notes that she doesn't “believe in baptism or the waters of Jordan or anything like that,” but nevertheless feels “the way those religious people feel about holy water” about taking a bath. Here, she alludes to the Christian practice of baptism as well as the the “waters of Jordan.” In the Bible, Jesus is baptized in the River Jordan by John the Baptist, and the waters of the river are therefore associated both with baptism and with spiritual purification. Throughout the novel, Esther places value in the concept of purity despite having little interest in religion.
In an imagined argument with Buddy, whom she had been dating prior to going to New York, Esther uses both allusion and logos in order to defend poetry from Buddy’s criticism:
I imagined Buddy saying, “Do you know what a poem is, Esther?” “No, what?” I would say. “A piece of dust.” Then just as he was smiling and starting to look proud, I would say, “So are the cadavers you cut up. So are the people you think you’re curing. They’re dust as dust as dust. I reckon a good poem lasts a whole lot longer than a hundred of those people put together.” And of course Buddy wouldn’t have any answer to that, because what I said was true. People were made of nothing so much as dust [...]
Earlier, Buddy insisted that poetry was nothing but “dust,” suggesting that it is meaningless and insignificant. Though Esther did not argue with Buddy, she later resumes their argument in her own mind. Here, she uses logos, arguing that, ultimately, people themselves are also just “dust” insofar as they are composed of matter and, in the end, die. Further, she reasons that poems in fact last longer than humans, as the human body itself is ephemeral.
Esther’s argument that the bodies of people are merely “dust” serves as an allusion to a passage in Genesis that reads "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return"—a passage that emphasizes the cyclical nature of life, touching on the idea that humans came from the earth itself and will eventually return to the earth when they die. However, the common usage of another popular phrase, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust," also probably informs this moment in The Bell Jar. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" isn't actually in the Bible, but it has become something of an idiom that emphasizes the fleeting nature of human life. This, it seems, is what Esther has in mind when she thinks about poems lasting "a whole lot longer" than the cadavers Buddy works with.
Allusions to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a married couple who were controversially convicted of espionage and later executed by electrocution, serve as an important motif in The Bell Jar. Esther repeatedly reflects upon the execution of the Rosenbergs throughout the novel, reflecting her morbid preoccupation with death and complex feelings about morality:
(I knew something was wrong with me that summer, because all I could think about was the Rosenbergs and how stupid I’d been to buy all those uncomfortable, expensive clothes, hanging limp as fish in my closet, and how all the little successes I’d totted up so happily at college fizzled to nothing outside the slick marble and plate-glass fronts along Madison Avenue.)
In this parenthetical statement, Esther states that she could sense that “something was wrong” with her during the summer of 1953 because she could not stop thinking about the Rosenbergs. The execution of the Rosenbergs, for her, marks the general feeling of malaise, anxiety, and depression that she experienced that summer. Later on, she brings up the Rosenbergs again in a conversation with Hilda, a young woman who designs hats:
So I said, “Isn’t it awful about the Rosenbergs?”
The Rosenbergs were to be electrocuted late that night.
“Yes!” Hilda said, and at last I felt I had touched a human string in the cat’s cradle of her heart. It was only as the two of us waited for the others in the tomblike morning gloom of the conference room that Hilda amplified that Yes of hers. “It’s awful such people should be alive.”
She yawned then, and her pale orange mouth opened on a large darkness.
At first, Esther feels that she has made a genuine connection with Hilda when she agrees that the situation with the Rosenberg’s is “awful.” She soon realizes, however, that she and Hilda have very different beliefs and attitudes, as Hilda notes that she supports the execution and feels that it is “awful” that "such people" ever exist at all. This conversation marks, for Esther, the sense of distance between her and others. While she feels empathy for the Rosenberg’s and is horrified by the thought of death by electrocution, Hilda instead cheers on the execution of those deemed enemies of the nation.
Esther alludes to various Catholic beliefs and practices in a passage where she debates converting to Catholicism in order to discourage herself from suicide:
Lately I had considered going into the Catholic Church myself. I knew that Catholics thought killing yourself was an awful sin. But perhaps, if this was so, they might have a good way to persuade me out of it. Of course, I didn’t believe in life after death or the virgin birth or the Inquisition or the infallibility of that little monkey-faced Pope or anything, but I didn’t have to let the priest see this, I could just concentrate on my sin, and he would help me repent.
Here, Esther, who was raised a Protestant, acknowledges that she has no actual faith in Catholic beliefs, alluding to (and expressing no faith in) “life after death or the virgin birth or the inquisition or the infallibility of that little monkey-faced Pope or anything.” Esther, then, presents a long list of ideas generally considered important in Catholicism, such as the immaculate conception of Mary and the “infallibility” of the Pope. Her use of these allusions suggests that her planned conversion is merely strategic, as she believes it might save her from suicide, which is, she believes, regarded “an awful sin” by Catholics.