Final answer:
It's uncertain whether Arthur Dimmesdale would have been better off had Hester named him as Pearl's father earlier. While public confession could offer redemption, it could also result in severe social and personal consequences, given their society's unforgiveness.
Step-by-step explanation:
Considering whether Arthur Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter would have been better off had Hester Prynne named him as Pearl's father seven years earlier involves a complex analysis of his character, the Puritanical society they lived in, and the thematic elements of sin, guilt, and redemption explored in the novel.
On one hand, if Hester had revealed Dimmesdale as the father, it might have led to a quicker resolution of his inward torment. The secret sin he carries causes immense psychological distress, and its public confession could have allowed him an opportunity for redemption.
However, Dimmesdale's public reputation as an upstanding minister was central to his identity and societal position. The revelation could have destroyed his career and reputation, possibly leading to even greater suffering.
Furthermore, considering the unforgiving nature of their society, Dimmesdale's exposure could have resulted in severe punishment, not just for him but also for Hester, beyond what she already faced. Therefore, it's uncertain if naming Dimmesdale earlier would have ultimately led to a better outcome for him.
The novel's exploration of private versus public conscience, and the cost of hidden sin versus public shaming, suggests that the consequences of such a revelation are multifaceted and unpredictable.