Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Centro de Ciências Humanas, Letras e Artes
Departamento de Letras Estrangeiras Modernas
Licenciatura Plena em Letras – Habilitação em Língua Inglesa
PURITANISM AND TRAGEDY IN ARTHUR MILLER’S THE CRUCIBLE
Severino Antônio da Silva Júnior
orientadora: Profª. Drª. Sandra Luna
João Pessoa
Novembro de 2010
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Centro de Ciências Humanas, Letras e Artes
Departamento de Letras Estrangeiras Modernas
Licenciatura Plena em Letras – Habilitação em Língua Inglesa
Severino Antônio da Silva Júnior
PURITANISM AND TRAGEDY IN ARTHUR MILLER’S THE CRUCIBLE
Trabalho apresentado ao Curso de Licenciatura em Letras da
Universidade Federal da Paraíba como requisito para
obtenção do grau de Licenciado em Letras, habilitação em
Língua Inglesa
Profª. Drª. Sandra Luna, orientadora
João Pessoa
Novembro de 2010
SEVERINO ANTÔNIO DA SILVA JÚNIOR
PURITANISM AND TRAGEDY IN ARTHUR MILLER’S THE CRUCIBLE
Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso, aprovado como requisito parcial para obtenção do
grau de Licenciado em Letras no Curso de Letras, habilitação em Língua Inglesa, da
Universidade Federal da Paraíba.
Data de Aprovação:
___/___/___
Banca Examinadora:
____________________________________________
Profª. Drª. Sandra Luna
Orientadora
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
____________________________________________
Prof. Dr. Jeová Mendonça
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
____________________________________________
Prof. Dr. Michael Smith
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank God above all for giving me the strength I needed to finish this work.
I thank my father Severino Antônio, and my mother, Maria Aparecida, for all the
support they gave me throughout the course . My brother Elias Duarte for sharing the
same computer with me. My sister Patrícia Duarte, who listened to every step of the
process, and supported me always.
Special thanks to my girlfriend, Mércia Almeida, my true companion, for all the
words of encouragement, and her tender affection during the production of the present
work. Her understanding has been a key for the conclusion of this work, and she
deserves thanks, and my sincere gratitude.
I cannot forget my sister-in-law Mercione Almeida, my girlfriend’s twin sister,
and my mother-in-law Josilene for being so understanding in the moments of sadness.
I share the merits of this work with my supervisor professor Drª. Sandra Luna for
helping me with dedication, excellent orientation, and above all because her
understanding of how difficult this work had been to me, but never giving me up.
I also thank Dr. Jeová, and Dr. Michael for accepting to be part of my examinee
board.
To my teacher Carla Reichmann by her words of wisdom, and friendship.
To Ribamar for being so important both to my English and to me. I thank
professor Elizabeth for her help lending me books and encouraging me to go further on
my studies. I also thank professor Betânia Medrado for her motivation in class.
To my colleagues, Carlos André, Carolina, Elvis, Felícia, Gabriela, Jade, Juliana,
Karoline , Philipe, Raniere, Renata, Rosy, my special thanks for being part of my course.
To Elani, for her words of encouragement when I need most, thank you! To Cristiane for
her valuable help, and friendship, always ready to help. To Anne Cléa my thanks.
I thank Maria Theresa for her readiness to help me every time I needed.
I cannot forget to mention my thanks to Emilene, and to Rafinha for their
valuable help.
It would be almost impossible to write down the names of every person that
helped me throughout this course. I thank everyone who believed I was able, and I could
not get where I got without the help of so many people that believed in my potential.
ABSTRACT
This research paper aims at investigating the representation of Puritanism in Arthur
Miller's play The Crucible. After situating the reader in the context of Arthur Miller’s
life and the political implications leading him to assume an attitude of resistance in his
dramatic production, we come to study the basic Puritan beliefs and the historical
episode known as the Salem Witch Hunts, a series of events that furnished the theme
for The Crucible. The analysis of the play is based on the theory of the dramatic text,
and we begin with Aristotle's Poetics and by studying important theoreticians such as:
Hegel, Ferdinand Brunetière,William Archer, Lawson, and Arthur Miller, we come to
the genre known as social drama. The main results show that The Crucible is
constructed in the form of a modern tragedy. We have a tragic hero, and the plot is
considered to be complex in Aristotle's sense, which is possible in the play by the
presence of reversal of the action (peripeteia) and recognition (anagnorisis), producing
feelings of pity and fear. We also understood the importance of Puritanism in the
construction of the play, a main force conducting a social drama to the domains of
tragedy.
Keywords: Puritanism, Arthur Miller, social drama, The Crucible.
RESUMO
Esta monografia tem por objetivo investigar as representações do Puritanismo na peça
teatral de Arthur Miller intitulada As Bruxas de Salém. Após situar o leitor no contexto
da vida de Arthur Miller e nas implicações políticas levando-o a assumir uma atitude de
resistência em sua produção dramática, chegamos ao estudo das crenças básicas do
Puritanismo e o episódio histórico conhecido como “Caça às Bruxas”, uma série de
eventos que forneceram o tema para As Bruxas de Salém. A análise da peça é baseada na
teoria do texto dramático partindo da obra de Aristóteles, Poética e através do estudo de
importantes teóricos, a saber, Hegel, Ferdinand Brunetière,William Archer, Lawson e
Arthur Miller, chegamos ao gênero conhecido como drama social.As crenças puritanas
não são ignoradas na análise. Os principais resultados mostram que As Bruxas de Salém
é uma peça construída e identificada como sendo uma tragédia moderna. Temos a
presença do herói trágico e o enredo é complexo segundo os conceitos aristotélicos
presentes na Poética, o que é possível pela presença da mudança da fortuna (peripeteia)
e o reconhecimento (anagnorisis), produzindo sentimentos de medo e piedade. Também
podemos notar a importância do Puritanismo na construção da peça, uma força principal
conduzindo um drama social para os domínios da tragédia.
Palavras-chave: Puritanismo, Arthur Miller, drama social, As Bruxas de Salém.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………… 08
CHAPTER I – POLITICS AND RELIGION IN ARTHUR MILLER’S
CONTRUCTION OF THE CRUCIBLE……………………………………………...….10
1.1 – Miller and the communist hunt……………………………………………… 10
1.2 – Puritanism and the witch hunts………………………………………………14
CHAPTER II – THE FUNDAMENTALS OF DRAMA THEORY:
SOCIAL DRAMA AS MODERN TRAGEDY………………………………………….23
CHAPTER III – PURITANISM AND TRAGEDY IN ARTHUR MILLER’S
THE CRUCIBLE………………………………………………………………………….31
FINAL REMARKS……………………………………………………………………….41
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………...42
INTRODUCTION
This research paper aims at investigating the representations of Puritanism in
Arthur Miller's play The Crucible. This play is constructed based on real events that
happened in the small Puritan community of Salem in 1692.The historical event that the
play represents is known in history as the Salem Witch Hunts, when it was claimed that
Salem was infested by witchcraft. The tragic episode began when some girls from the
religious community were caught by Reverend Parris while dancing in the woods and
playing at conjuring spirits under the leadership of a black slave. From then on, a
hysterical process of witch hunting took place, and this was the main event furnishing
the dramatic plot of the play.
In order to understand the production of the play, we decided to start with a
presentation of Arthur Miller’s life, and the period known in history as “McCarthyism”,
due to its importance in the context of the play's production and reception, especially
because of its similarities with the patterns of political persecution characterizing the
Salem witch hunts presented in the play.
Because of the limits imposed on the extension of this work, in the presentation
of Arthur Miller's life we tried to be as concise as possible, thus some information about
his life may not be found. However, we hope the summarized biography here reported
may help the reader to perceive the connections between his life and the work we are
analyzing.
In the final part of chapter I, we discussed the Puritans and some of their beliefs,
as we consider these principles of vital importance to understand the presence of
Puritanism in the play as a major force of the dramatic composition.
In order to understand the play as a modern tragedy, it was also necessary to discuss
some important theoreticians and the concepts they formulated. Our discussion begins
with the philosopher Aristotle's Poetics, due to its importance in the field of drama
studies. Since the play we are working on is not totally understandable in the light of the
Greek concept of tragedy, we need to search for other theoreticians that dealt with new
forms of tragedy, forms which appeared first in the XVIIIth C, and which actualized in
modern ways the legacy of ancient drama. To understand this change we discuss the
concept of dramatic action beginning with Hegel. We discuss Brunetière’s and Archer's
concepts of conflict, and we also come to Lawson’s and Miller's perceptions of the genre
called “social drama”, in which the play The Crucible perfectly fits in.
In the analysis of the play, we try to show the reader that The Crucible is indeed
a social drama with the structural treatment of its main conflict, however, reproducing
the form of tragedy. Searching for evidences in the written text, according to the
proposed theory, we try to prove this statement. In the analytical process the Puritan
beliefs will act as a major force, a social force in which the characters are deeply
involved, Puritanism providing the leitmotif for the protagonist to struggle against the
excesses of an ideology which will finally convert an ordinary young man into a tragic
hero, thus fulfilling Arthur Miller’s own conception about tragedy and the common man.
CHAPTER I – POLITICS AND RELIGION IN ARTHUR MILLER’S
CONTRUCTION OF THE CRUCIBLE
1.1 – Miller and the communist hunt
In the United States, a country known for its powerful capitalistic system, the
end of the World War I had brought mixed feelings to the population: on one side the
nation had the opportunity to develop its economy; on other side, they became afraid of
the advance of communism in their own country, what made them develop a deep feeling
of nationalism.
The fear of communism is known in history as the "Red Scare", and everyone
who diverged from the United States government was believed to be a communist, or at
least accused of being on the communist side.
The feeling of nationalism would reflect later in the growth of the American
economy, and in 1920, there would be the well-known economic Boom. This just lasted
until 1929, when the Wall Street Crash provoked an economic disaster in the country
and had international repercussions, culminating in unemployment and a profound
social change, since rich people lost almost everything they had achieved through the
years of prosperity. When the World War II took place in 1939, the tension among the
Americans increased.
Arthur Miller was born in 1915, October 17, in Manhattan, New York, to a
family of Jewish origin.
Arthur Miller’s father, Isidore Miller, had come to New York from Poland as a
child, and even so, he achieved great prosperity with a coat business which seemed to
be progressing well in the rising economy. However, Miller and his family were forced
to move to Brooklyn when his family business, Miltex Coat and Suit Company, suffered
the effect of the Wall Street Crash.
Unable to afford studying in a university, Miller had to work at different jobs to
pay his way through the English course at the University of Michigan, as well as to have
money to help his family through the hard times. He tried in 1932 to begin his night
school education, but since he had to work for eight hours a day on a job in an auto
parts warehouse, he was forced to quit his studies because he could “hardly stay
awake”.(MILLER,1987, p. 50).
Talking about his hard work, he also mentions the kind of personal experiences
he had to face:
With a figurative line of eager unemployed waiting to take our jobs
should we ever complain about conditions, we learned to absorb
blows to the ego without flinching. (MILLER, 1987. p. 219)
During the period he attended the University of Michigan, he worked as an
editor for the student paper, The Michigan Daily, and won many Avery Hopwood prizes
in writing. He graduated in 1938 and joined the Federal Theater Project in New York to
write plays adapted to radio, as well as scripts. In New York, he wrote his first play, The
Man Who Had All The Luck (1944), which opened with horrible reviews. Although this
play had been a quick failure, it was an important experience for Arthur Miller as a
writer. In this respect he writes in his autobiography, Timebends(1987):
First as a novel, which I never found a publisher for, then as a play,
The Man Who Had All the Luck hounded me for the next three years,
until its 1944 production, my first on Broadway, which lasted four sad
performances and disappeared. But it was through the evolving
versions of this story that I began to find myself as a playwright, and
perhaps even as a person.(p.88)
The period after World War II brought again a feeling of rising prosperity to the
United States. The American Dream seemed to be closer to reality once more, after a
period of great problems in its economy, as well as in society as a whole.
However, this period also brought fear of losing what was already difficult to
achieve, especially due to the advance of the communist threat in the world. Americans
feared that the communists could impose their form of government, as had happened in
China in 1948.
Although the war was over by the 1950's, the world was facing another kind of
war known as the Cold War, which consisted basically in a power balance between the
capitalist system versus communism, represented by two major powers: the United
States and the Soviet Union, respectively.
In order to combat communism in the United States, the HUAC, “House of UnAmerican Activities” was created in 1948, aiming at the identification of radical
groups.
In the beginning, it consisted in spying at communist meetings, but later, specially in the
1950’s, it expanded its activities to search for communists among artists.
Between 1950 and 1954, the right-wing Joseph McCarthy, a Republican
Senator, began to investigate groups that could have any connections with communism.
Joseph McCarthy began to look for communists among intellectuals such as writers,
actors and directors, not rarely being unfair in his accusations, when they had to
confess what they had not done, besides pointing out the names of friends and
colleagues. The term McCarthyism was widely applied to this era, derived from Joseph
McCarthy’s importance as a leader of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
McCarthyism can be better characterized by its personal attacks on accused
people, tactics of unfair hearings of those who were accused of communist involvement.
In order to exemplify what the McCarthyism era meant, in 1952, Elia Kazan,
Arthur Miller’s friend and director of two of his plays, "All My Sons” (1947) and
"Death of a Salesman”(1949,) was called before the HUAC and did not resist the
pressure of the committee; and among the names he gave the committee were Arthur
Miller’s, who was just returning from Salem after researching for his play, The Crucible
(1953). Among the accused there was, among others, the radical playwright Clifford
Odets, who was also a left-wing dramatist and as politically involved as Arthur Miller.
Christopher Bisby, in his introduction to The Crucible, comments on those
hearings when many accused their friends:
They did so partly out of fear for their careers - uncooperative
witnesses would inevitably find themselves dismissed from their jobs and partly because they genuinely felt guilty about the naïveté of their
earlier commitments. The Committee thus offered what religion
offers: the opportunity for confession and the grace of redemption
(2003, p. xii).
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible(1953) was based on real events that happened in
the Puritan community of Salem in 1692 with the witch trials that took place then, but it
was also influenced by McCarthyism. We can verify this information in Arthur Miller’s
article Are you now or were you ever ...?, published in The Guardian in June, 2000:
It would probably never have occurred to me to write a play about the
Salem witch trials of 1692 had I not seen some astonishing
correspondences with that calamity in the America of the late 40s and
early 50s. My basic need was to respond to a phenomenon which,
with only small exaggeration, one could say paralyzed a whole
generation and in a short time dried up the habits of trust and
toleration in public discourse.
In fact, refusing to name names could be dangerous for the accused and their
careers since those who refused to contribute would be blacklisted from the Hollywood
studios. As a matter of fact, the enemy was as intangible as that of Salem in 1692, when
the proofs did not exist in material terms. This was the context in which Arthur Miller
wrote The Crucible, a play which is an allegory for McCarthyism, and he points out this
parallel:
People were being torn apart, their loyalty to one another crushed
and...common human decency was going down the drain. It's
indescribable, really, because you'd get the feeling that nothing was
going to be sacred anymore. The situations were so exact it was quite
amazing. The ritual was the same. What they were demanding of
Proctor was that he expose this conspiracy of witches whose aim was
to bring down the rule of the Church, of Christianity. If he gave them
a couple of names he could go home. And if he didn’t he was going to
hang for it. It was quite the same excepting we weren't hanged, but
the ritual was exactly the same. You told them anyone you knew had
been a left-winger or a Communist and you went home. But I wasn't
going to do that (MILLER, 2003, p xvi).
Due to the context, and the clear allegory The Crucible presented to
McCarthyism, both the play and its author suffered some consequences. First, its
Broadway production was not a success. Later, Miller was “denied an American
passport to attend the Brussels première of The Crucible”( SHIACH, 2005 p. 32).
Ironically, in 1956, three years after The Crucible was written, Arthur Miller
himself was called before the House Un- American Activities Committee, and as his
tragic hero from The Crucible, John Proctor, he refused to name names, as he writes in
his autobiography Timebends(1987) :
I was warned that I was in contempt of a congressional committeesince I had chosen not to claim the protections of the Fifth
Amendment in the belief that I had done nothing against which I
needed them. After repeating my request not to be asked that question,
which had no conceivable legislative or investigative purpose, I was
warned once more of my jeopardy in refusing to answer it, and that
was that: having claimed no constitutional protections, I could now
be sent to jail. (p.412).
This was the context in which the play was written, as well as the context in
which it was first performed.
In the next section we will discuss Puritanism, its basic ideas and beliefs, and
what moved a group of Englishmen to establish themselves in North America, an
experience that would determine their actions and reactions, leading them to the witch
hunt dramatized in Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible.
1.2 – Puritanism and the witch hunts
The history of the formation of the United States as a country is highly related to
religious controversies. Religion had driven the first settlements, and the settlers had
their ways of thought extremely connected to religion. That is important to consider in
order to understand the historical episode of the Salem Witch Hunts, which happened in
a Puritan community in Massachusetts in 1692. We have to pay close attention to the
origin of these first settlements and to the beliefs that were inspiring those religious
groups.
The religious protestant group considered in the present study was formed by
Puritans. Puritans formed a group of Protestants struggling to make the Church of
England advance in its Protestant reforms.
It must be said that the Church of England had its origin in political problems.
From 1530 to 1534, king Henry VIII wanted the Pope to allow him to divorce his wife
Catherine of Aragon, but the Pope refused, especially due to political issues. Being
denied his divorce, Henry VIII, in 1534, created the Act of Supremacy, which gave him
power and the leadership of the Church of England1.
When Henry VIII took the leadership of the Church of England he did not change
much of the liturgy. As his main concern was political, he remained catholic in his
beliefs.
For more information, see: HOBBS, Jeff. The Religious Policy of King Henry VIII ,
2000
Available online at: <http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html>
1
In the same period, two important reformers had an important role in shaping
the subsequent Puritan ideology: Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) and John Calvin (1509 1564).
While Henry VIII refused to free the Church of England of its Catholic liturgies,
the Puritans, influenced by Calvinistic principles, began to reject the king’s authority.
The term “Puritan” itself was given them due to the fact that this specific group wanted
to change the Church of England of what they thought was still needed to be reformed.
According to them, the Church of England was not completely “purified” of “Romish
creeds”.
Thus, the Puritans tried to change the Church of England, tried to “purify” it,
and the fact was that the church was also a political institution, and any attempt to
change it in any specific way would provoke political effects, which is why many of the
people who belonged to this group were persecuted. Consequently, in 1630, due to
persecution, there occurred the Puritan "Great Migration" to the Massachusetts Bay
Colony in North America.
The concepts that were presented so far are important to understand what moved
the Puritans to settle North America. Now we are going to mention the group of
Puritans known to be Separatists. As we already discussed, Puritans wanted to "purify"
the Church of England. Some did not succeed and decided to separate from it, and that
is why they were called Separatists.
In 1617, a group of Separatists, moved by the doctrine of predestination, decided
to leave England "and settle a New World"(ABRAMS,1974, p.31). In 1619 they
succeeded in obtaining a charter from England, which gave them the right to settle
Virginia. In 1620, this group was supported financially by a company of English
"Merchants Adventurers", in exchange of repayment "with shipments of furs, fish, and
mineral riches"(op. cit. p. 32). Thus, in September 1620, this group, along with
members of the Church of England, crowded the Mayflower. The voyage was not easy,
and as a consequence they were weakened by sickness, crowding, as well as the perils
faced on the Atlantic Sea.
Religiously motivated, this episode was similar to that of the Exodus of the Old
Testament. According to the biblical tradition, Moses was chosen to lead the people of
Israel out of Egypt to the land of Canaan. What had moved them was the motivation of
been elected by God, which assured them that they would succeed in their journey.
As we can see in the fragment below, extracted from William Bradford’s Of
Plymouth Plantation, he presents a clear explanation to their success in arriving in New
England, as we read in Abrams:
Being thus arrived in a good harbor, and brought safe to land, they
fell upon their knees and blessed God of Heaven who had brought
them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the
perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and
stable earth, their proper element. (1974, p.37).
As mentioned before, the group of Separatists had received from England a
charter to settle Virginia. However, due to the perils of the Atlantic Sea, they decided to
remain in New England. As the royal charter could only be applied to Virginia, it was
void in New England. Having being inspired by the concept of election, the group of
Puritans gathered together and "adopted the Mayflower Compact, the earliest effort to
establish formal self-government in British North America".( ABRAMS,1974, p.32).
This document can be understood as a sign of the great influence that the
doctrine of predestination had on their minds. Here we can check an excerpt of the
document:
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We whose names are underwritten,
the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the
grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of
the Faith, etc. Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the
advancement of The Christian Faith and Honour of our King and
Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of
Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence
of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together
into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and
furtherance of the ends aforesaid[…] (op.cit., p.41)
The Mayflower Compact shows us that the first settlements in North America
had not only political connotations, but also religious ones. It also establishes the idea
of a closed tied community.
As a background to inform the Puritans’ basic principles, we have to understand
that the Bible was the book on which they based their beliefs. In other words, the basis
for Puritan thought is found in the Bible. It starts in the book of Genesis. This book
shows how humankind was created, and it also mentions Adam, the first man who
damned mankind by committing the “original sin”.
According to the biblical narration, God had created the whole world, and
afterwards he created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, respectively. Adam was
given the order to live in the Garden of Eden freely, but God established a condition. We
can check that in the book of Genesis, chapter two, from verses fifteen to seventeen:
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of
Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD commanded the man,
saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The biblical narration continues saying that Eve, Adam's wife, deceived by the
Devil in the shape of a snake, eats from the tree. Noticing that nothing wrong had
happened, Eve decides to give Adam the fruit. After eating, they realize they were naked
and God appears in extreme anger, condemning their decedents, now blamed because of
Adam's sin.
This doctrine of the original sin was insistently preached by Calvin, who stressed
that once humankind is cursed, nothing good can come from it, thus giving origin to the
doctrine of “total depravity”.
Being mankind a blamed race, what could save it? Here enters the person of
Jesus Christ, reported in the New Testament. The New Testament alludes to a new
covenant that God has made, and in the Christian tradition this leads us to Jesus Christ.
But what is the importance of Jesus in the Bible? As we have mentioned, in the biblical
narration, Adam brought damnation to mankind. Jesus serves here as a second Adam,
now bringing salvation to the world. A solution had been found: Jesus brought salvation
by his death. Even though that happened, all those who do not accept Jesus as a Savior
would be included in the doctrine of total depravity.
The New Testament also presents a list of what is known as the works of the
human flesh. This can be seen in the book of Galatians as an exhortation to a church in
the biblical times. In it, the apostle Paul distinguishes between the spiritual versus the
carnal works. In Galatians, chapter five, verses nineteen to twenty one:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings,
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell
you before, as I have also told you in the past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God ( p.89).
It is not difficult to associate men’s tendencies to sin with his carnal existence, on
one side, the “original sin” haunting the Puritans, on the other side, a clear rejection of
the flesh and its temptations as a means to escape eternal damnation.
As mentioned before, the Bible presents Jesus Christ as the one who would
redeem mankind. The only problem is that in their view this salvation would not be
applied to everyone. As was said before, Calvin's doctrines highly influenced the
Puritans, and a main doctrine was that of “predestination”.
Predestination moved the Puritans, and as we continue our study, we will see
through the diaries of those Puritan settlers that they carried with them the idea of
being unique, the chosen people. Considering that they were chosen, how could
someone know that? Puritans, or the chosen ones, would present signs of election, and
the need to make signs evident made them struggle to apply the Bible to their everyday
lives, as well as reject the temptations of the flesh, a constant effort presented in their
diaries and sermons.
As we have discussed, the Bible was the main source of the Puritans' beliefs. Still
in the New Testament we have a passage that corroborates the doctrine of
predestination. Let us read what the book of Ephesians, chapter two, verse nine, says
about it:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourself: it is
the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are
his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk on them. (op. cit. p.90).
The fragment above summarizes the concept of predestination. Man would not
be able to save his life by himself, and according to this doctrine, only God has the
power to choose the "elected saints". Good works here are just “signs” that one is an
elect. Even feeling that they were elect, they had to strive to prove to themselves and to
their fellows that they were saved.
Many of the behaviors and doctrines of the Puritans can be found in their
writings, and the way they lived was recorded year after year in the texts they produced
since they first arrived in America.
Having studied some basic doctrines shaping the Puritans’ beliefs, such as
original sin, total depravity, and predestination, we move to the first Puritans’ writings
to reinforce our arguments with textual evidence.
In 1630, their written history began with the diary produced by the Governor of
Plymouth, William Bradford(1621-1656), a text entitled Of Plymouth Plantation, where
he described the perils faced in the expedition to America, and explained how God had
helped them to succeed, showing that they were an elected people. In the following
excerpt we have an idea of the Puritan’s behavior. It mentioned an episode which
happened in the voyage aboard the Mayflower, the first ship to take the Puritans to
America. In the text, we find a report of a young man from a group of settlers who did
not fit in the Puritan lifestyle and was deadly punished by God, as we read in Abrams’
edition:
There was a proud and very profane man, one of the seamen, of a
lusty, able body, which made him the more haughty; he would always
be contemning the poor people in their sickness and cursing them
daily with grievous execrations; and did not let to tell them that he
hoped to help to cast half of them overboard before they came to their
journey's end, and to make merry with what they had; and if he were
by any gently reproved, he would curse and swear most bitterly.[...]
But it pleased God before they came half over seas, to smite this
young man with a grievous disease, of which he died in a desperate
manner[...] (1974, p 35)
As we can notice, the Puritans formed an exclusive group. Although most of the
settlers suffered from some kind of sickness, which was common due to the
circumstances of the voyage, this man is believed to have died because of his immoral
behavior, God playing the part of a judge and Father protecting his blessed children in
their journey to a new land.
The Puritans strongly believed that natural disgraces were originated as a
punishment for bad conduct, as we can see:
A variety of calamity has long followed this plantation, and we have
all the reason imaginable to ascribe it unto the rebuke of heaven upon
us for manifold apostasies. We make no right use of our disasters if
we do not "Remember whence we are fallen, and repent, and do the
first works" (ABRAMS,1974, p.147)
The above excerpt is also taken from the text Of Plymouth Plantation by William
Bradford, where he refers to his personal experiences. At the end of this excerpt, William
Bradford warns people to repent by using a paraphrases of Jesus’ warnings to the
church of Ephesus in the book of Revelation chapter two, verse five: “Remember
therefore from whence thou are art fallen […] (KING JAMES, 2001 p. 111). This excerpt
can be better understood if we consider the church of Ephesus as a whole. In the
Revelation description, this particular church was considered one of the best
concerning its good works. Although this church presented itself as an active church, it
was not free from accusation, i.e., for not working as hard as it used to. This verse was
also powerful for the Puritans due to the fact that it is found in the book of Revelation,
considered in the Christian tradition as the book which presents “Doom” as a
consequence of men’s wicked behavior. Any miscalculated step could lead the Puritans
to hell.
Here we can add that, because the Puritans considered themselves as elected, in
order to prove that, they had to refuse the "works of the human flesh", as we have
already discussed.
It is not surprising to notice that the Puritan lifestyle was tormented by the
unknown, by fear. This can be seen in some of the Puritans’ diaries. Samuel Sewall, for
instance, "chiefly known as a judge in the Salem witchcraft trials"(ABRAMS, 1974,
p.169), presents in his diaries most of the affliction with which he had to combine his
secular life with his religious life:
Saturday [June 20, 1685], P.M. Carried my wife to Dorchester to eat
cherries, raspberries, chiefly to ride and take the air. The time my
wife and Mrs. Flint spent in the orchard, I spent in Mr. Flint's study,
reading Calvin on the Psalms etc... (op. cit. p. 171)
Indeed, the Puritans were extremely afraid of death and life was a preparation
for eternity. Also in Samuel Sewall's diaries we can find an interesting passage that
illustrates how they were afraid of going to hell. In the excerpt we will present, Samuel
Sewall writes about his daughter's fear of hell, which shows us how much the Puritans
were familiar with such beliefs:
January 13, 1696. When I came in, past seven at night, my wife met
me in the entry and told me Betty had surprised them. I was surprised
with the abruptness of the relation. It seems Betty Seawall had given
some signs of dejection and sorrow; but a little after dinner, she burst
out into amazing cry which caused all the family to cry too. Her
mother asked the reason; she gave none; at last said she was afraid
she would go to hell, her sins were not pardoned. She was first
wounded by my reading sermon of Mr. Norton’s about the 5th of
January. Text John 7: 34 “Ye shall seek me and shall not find me."
And those words in the sermon, John 8:21, "Ye shall seek me, and
shall die in your sins," ran her mind and terrified her greatly [...] (op.
cit. p. 173).
With these discussions on the main Puritan ideas, considering the importance of
theocracy, a form of government that is mixed with religion, we can better understand
Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
As mentioned before, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible was based on real events that
happened in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692. In this year, a group of nineteen men and
women were convicted and hanged for witchcraft in the small village of Salem. Reports
tell us that the whole episode started when a group of teenage girls became ill giving
rise to a suspicious attitude on the part of the political and religious authorities who
related their strange symptoms to a possibility of witchcraft. This happened in January.
By March, the investigations started to take place. Over 300 people were in jail the next
month. In June, after the legalization of the death penalty for the crime of witchcraft, the
executions began. John Proctor, one of the accused, struggled to denounce the unfair
conditions of the trials, since he knew that torture was being used to force confessions.
His wife escaped punishment because of her pregnancy, but Proctor himself had a
tragic destiny, being hanged along with four others.
The “witch hunts” were recorded by contemporary writers, among them, by a
Puritan named Cotton Mather, in his text The Wonders of the Invisible World. Here we
have a clear view of the persecutions, and as the title of his text indicates, the “invisible
world” was part of the Puritans’ lives, part of their cosmology. In order to illustrate
how unfair the witch hunts were, we reproduce here two accusations, as we read in
Abrams:
III – There was testimony likewise brought in that a man striking once
at the place where a bewitched person said the shape of this Bishop
stood, the bewitched cried out that he had tore her coat in the place
then particularly specified, and the woman’s coat was found to be
tore.
(…)
V. To render it further unquestionable that the prisoner at the bar was
the person truly charged in this witchcraft, there were produced many
evidences of other witchcrafts, by her perpetrated. For instance, John
Cook testified that about five or six years ago, one morning about
sun-rise, he was in his chamber assaulted by the shape of this
prisoner, which looked on him, grinned at him, and very much hurt
him with a blow on the side of the head, and that on the same day,
about noon, the shape walked in the room where he was, and an apple
strangely flew out of his hand, into the lap of his mother, six or eight
feet from him(1974, p.150)
Most of the accusations were based on the illusionistic experiences of terrified
Puritans. The Salem witch hunt became, thus, a lamentable episode in the history of the
American colonization period, an event that would inspire Arthur Miller’s dramatic
piece.
CHAPTER II – THE FUNDAMENTALS OF DRAMA THEORY: SOCIAL DRAMA
AS MODERN TRAGEDY
Arthur Miller's The Crucible is classified as a social drama. However, as it is
formally structured to produce tragic effects, it can well be considered a modern
tragedy. In order to understand the complexity of this dramatic composition, we begin
our discussion by Aristotle’s Poetics, due to its fundamental importance to the
formulation of concepts in tragic drama theory even nowadays. Although Aristotle
refers to the Greek concepts of tragedy, several of his concepts can be applied to social
drama.
Aristotle proposes to discuss poetry, and in the first chapter he defines it
according to its different forms of imitation as: Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also
and Dithyrambic poetry (BUTCHER, 2007, p.01). The concept of imitation (mimesis)
plays an important role, since it is the basis of poetry.
In Chapter Two Aristotle explains what he understood by imitation. He claims
that the object of poetic imitation is "man in action" and thus "we must represent men
either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are"(op. cit, p. 02). For him,
epic and tragic poetry represent men as better as they are in real life; they are thus
poetic representations of a superior kind.
Aristotle explains the importance of imitation considering it as an instinct that is
part of the human being from childhood, and he complements this by saying that
pleasure is felt in things imitated. Thus, according to Butcher's translation, we have
that: “Thus the reason why men enjoy seeing a likeness is, that in contemplating it they
find themselves learning or inferring”(...)(op. cit. p.03 )
In Chapter VI Aristotle begins a more specific discussion on tragedy. Having
understood that it is an imitation (mimesis) of an action, Aristotle explains more
specifically this kind of action. It cannot be any action, since tragedy is an "imitation of
an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude” (BUTCHER, 2007, p.
05). He emphasizes the concept of “action”, and in tragedy it should provoke the
feelings of "fear and pity" in order to effect a "proper purgation of these emotions" ( op.
cit. p.05). This "purgation of the emotion", is the Greek concept of katharsis.
Every tragedy should have six parts: Plot, Character, Diction, Thought,
Spectacle, and Song. Of these six parts, the structure of the incidents is the most
important to him.
Aristotle defines tragedy, according to Butcher's translation, as follows:
Now, according to our definition Tragedy is an imitation of an action
that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there
may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which
has a beginning, a middle, and an end.(BUTCHER, 2007 p.06)
As we could notice, Aristotle considers the plot the most important element in
tragedy. He exemplifies what he calls “unity of action” with the Odyssey:
In composing the Odyssey he[Homer] did not include all the
adventures of Odysseus- such as his wound on Parnassus, or his
feigned madness at the mustering of the host- incidents between
which there was no necessary or probable connection: but he made
the Odyssey, and likewise the Iliad, to center round an action that in
our sense of the word is one. . As therefore, in the other imitative arts,
the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being
an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole,
the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is
displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For
a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not
an organic part of the whole.( op. cit., p 07)
Aristotle then begins a discussion on the differences between history and fiction.
According to him, the poet dos not have the obligation to relate what has happened, but
what “may happen”, according to the law of probability or necessity. To this concern,
poetry tends to express the universal, whereas history the particular.
In Chapter X he continues his discussion on plot, and he says it can be either
“simple” or “complex”. A “simple plot” is that when the change of fortune takes place
without “reversal of the situation” (peripeteia), and without “recognition”(anagnorisis).
In the case the change is accompanied by such “reversal”(peripeteia), or by
“recognition”(anagnorisis), or by both, the plot is considered to be “complex”.
In Aristotle’s words, “reversal of the situation” is a "change by which the action
veers round to its opposite". He exemplifies the concept of “reversal of the situation”(
peripeteia), using Oedipus: “Thus in the Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer
Oedipus and free him from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is, he
produces the opposite effect”. To Aristotle, “recognition”, as the name indicates, is a
"change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons
destined by the poet for good or bad fortune."(BUTCHER, 2007, p. 09). In an ideal
tragedy, the recognition and the reversal of the situation should bring on us feelings of
"fear and pity". To obtain that, the characters have also to be well constructed. On the
construction of the tragic characters, Aristotle says in Butcher's translation:
It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change of fortune
presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from
prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely
shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to
prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it
possesses no single tragic quality [...](p.10)
The tragic character should be between two extremes: a “man who is not
eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity,
but by some error or frailty”. As we have studied, to Aristotle, tragedy is an imitation of
an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude", and this is also
reflected in the characters. They should be either "highly renowned and prosperous",
and he exemplifies it with Oedipus, Thyestes, or they should be "other illustrious men of
such families"( op. cit., p.10). Characters should also be coherent in their acts,
otherwise the dramatic effect cannot be achieved.
The sense of tragic error is also known as harmatia. Traditionally, tragic error is
an action which is to produce the catastrophe in the tragic structure. In this respect,
Luna comments:
Throughout the centuries, commentators of the Poetics have been
interpreting harmatia under different perspectives. In a general way, it
is possible to simplify the polemics informing that the word has been
traditionally understood as a moral error, indicating, therefore, a vice
in character. But we cannot avoid mentioning that there is also an
opposed view which proposes the meaning of harmatia as an error of
judgment, or better saying, an intellectual error. (LUNA, 2005, p.
262) ( 2008, p.24).(in RANGEL’s translation)
This means that in tragedy, according to Aristotle, a human error is to provoke
the conditions for the tragic action to occur.
Now, after studying the basic ideas of the Poetics we come to other texts which
proved to be important to drama studies. Epistula Ad Pisones, also known as Ars
Poetica, was written by Horace in the Latin context of the 1st Century B.C.,and it
complements Aristotle's ideas. In this text, Horace also discusses poetry, and he is also
concerned with drama. The unity of action, so important in Aristotle's Poetics is also
discussed. Verisimilitude and the importance of decorum (propriety) in the construction
of characters are discussed, as well as the necessity for a successful writer to have both
“innate ability and adequate training”. To Horace, the plot should begin in medias res,
which means in the middle of important events, and he also believed that art had the
aim both to “teach and to please”.
In the Renaissance, patterns to understand the construction of the dramatic text
were searched, thus Aristotle's Poetics was widely translated and studied, serving as a
fundamental text on these studies. However, even if Aristotle’s propositions remained as
basic principles to the understanding of serious drama, it is no wonder that the concepts
of tragedy had changed throughout history.
For instance, we cannot forget that Aristotle associated tragedy to the downfall
of great heroes of aristocratic origins. This relation between noble characters and
tragedy remained as a convention in the dramatic universe. However, in the XVIIIth C.,
according to Lessing, although kings and princes could make the tragedy more majestic,
the lives of ordinary human beings could also be fit for tragic representations. It was
then that a modern counterpart of ancient tragedy appeared in the western culture. It
coincided with the emergency of the bourgeoisie in the XVIIIth century., and with freely
reinvented artistic principles of Romanticism. In that moment, “social drama” emerged
as an equivalent to a “modern tragedy”.
One of the most important theoreticians of tragic drama in the modern world is
certainly Hegel. Following Aristotle's idea that human beings have the instinct of seeing
things “imitated”, Hegel says: the origin of drama lies in our necessity to see the acts
and the situations of human life played by characters.
As we have discussed, to Aristotle, tragedy is an imitation of man in action.
Hegel comments on the "unity of action" in his Aesthetics. To him this is the only
inviolable law in dramatic poetry. "The circumstances of a dramatic action are such
that obstacles oppose themselves to specific end, obstacles that are placed by other
individuals"( Luna, 2008, p.202) ( our translation)
In his conception, conflict is central to drama, since the actions will only be
dramatic when "individual acts, confront obstacles which are coming from other
individuals who aim at opposed ends". Those individuals that are referred to as the ones
who "place obstacles" in the previous quotation, are in Hegel's conception, "pursuing
opposite ends", which consequently results in conflicts.
As we can notice, to Hegel conflict plays an important role in tragedy, and he
considers it as a fundamental condition of dramatic action. Being conflicts the essence
of drama, Hegel proposes a starting point to the representation of the action. If in real
life it is difficult to determine the exact point of any action due to the fact that any action
has an antecedent, this is also reflected in the difficulty to determine where drama
begins (op. cit., p. 205).He seems to agree with the traditionally accepted beginning in
medias res, that is, a beginning in the middle of important events, in a moment close to
the development of the main conflict that will unfold to sustain the dramatic structure.
The end of the action would be easier to determine. It is determined when the definitive
and complete solution of the disagreement between different characters due to opposed
ends is achieved.
Based on Hegel's propositions, in 1894, Ferdinand Brunetière writes his text
Law of Drama. According to Brunetière, what characterizes dramatic action is the idea
of a “conscious will"( CLARK, 1959, p.386). This will in the pursuit of an end makes
the character take an effort to achieve it. Thus, the struggle to succeed in conflictive
situations moved by one’s will is the proposed definition of dramatic action.
So far we can summarize that, whereas Hegel says that conflicts are essential in
drama, to Brunetière the idea of conscious will appears as another important element in
dramatic action. In Luna's words, with Brunetière's principle we have a change in the
conception of tragedy:
"Tragedy could now be redefined in other terms different from the
Aristotelian ones. In this modern conception, tragedy would be the
representation of a conscious will of a hero, struggling against
obstacles to achieve an end [...] (2008. p. 216) (our translation)
In 1912, William Archer in his Playmaking, proposes that the conflict is just "one
of the dramatic elements", not the essence of drama (op. cit, p.216). By using Oedipus,
Archer tries to prove that conflict is not the essence of drama by saying that there is no
struggle in this play, and the hero passively faces his destiny. Archer thus proposes that
the essence of drama is “crisis”, not “conflict”.
In 1932, John Howard Lawson writes The Law of Conflict. He opposes himself
to Archer’s ideas when the latter says there is no conflict in Oedipus and Ibsen’s Ghosts.
Both plays begin in a crisis. To Lawson, this only means that a great part of the action is
previous to the beginning of the play. However, this does not mean that the action is
passive. Lawson adds the idea that the dramatic conflict is inevitably a social conflict,
as we read in his Law of Conflict in Clark’s edition:
We can imagine a dramatic struggle between a man and other men, or
between a man an his environment, including social forces or forces
of nature. But it is difficult to imagine a play in which forces of nature
are pitted against other forces of nature ( 1959, p.505 -506)
Complementing his idea of conflict, Lawson agrees with Brunetière, proposing
that a conscious will has to be present in conflicts. For situations to be dramatic, it is
necessary that the conscious will be directed towards a certain goal.
Lawson explains his position on the meaning of “crisis” and “conflict”,
considering that these concepts do not exclude one another; on the opposite side, for
him, a conflict will be dramatic exactly when it reaches a point of crisis:
"One can readily imagine a conflict which does not reach a crisis; in
our daily lives we take continuous part in such conflicts. A struggle
which fails to reach a crisis is undramatic. Nevertheless we cannot be
satisfied with Archer's statement that "the essence of drama is crisis".
An earthquake is a crisis, but its dramatic significance lies in the
reactions and acts of human beings"( op. cit., p.508)
We can notice that to Lawson, crisis is an important concept, but he does not
follow Archer's concept of crisis. To Lawson:(...) “the crisis, the dramatic explosion, is
created by the gap between the aim and the result - that is, by a shift of equilibrium
between the force of will and the force of necessity”[...] (op.cit. p 508)
With Lawson, we have a clear idea of dramatic action and the role of social
conflict in modern tragedy, that is, in social drama. To finish our theoretical discussion
on tragedy, we propose a study on Arthur Miller's text Tragedy and the Common Man.
Arthur Miller, following Lessing’s suggestion that the common man should be
represented as a protagonist in tragedy, says, according to Clark: "I believe that the
common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were"( 1959,
p.537)
Arthur Miller continues his reflections on tragedy considering the role of human
conscious will in the construction of tragic drama:
As a general rule, to which there may be exceptions unknown to
me, I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the
presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need
be, to secure one thing - his sense of personal dignity. From
Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to Macbeth, the underlying struggle is
that of the individual attempting to gain his “rightful” position
in his society( op. cit. p. 537)
Thus, we have that the tragic hero is a man who is ready to struggle to keep his
sense of personal dignity. Miller continues:
Sometimes he is one who has been displaced from it[“rightful”
position], sometimes one who seeks to attain it for the first time, but
the fateful wound from which the inevitable events spiral is the wound
of indignity, and its dominant force is indignation. Tragedy, then is the
consequence of a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself
justly.(op.cit.,p.537)
It is evident that what in classic tragedy was represented by the status of the
characters, to Miller is represented by a sense of moral dignity. Discussing the concept
of “tragic flaw", Miller says that:
The flaw or crack in the character, is really nothing - and need be
nothing - but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face
of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his
rightful status" (op. cit., p.537)
Finishing this section, we use Arthur Miller’s last words from his Tragedy and
The Common Man:
“It is time, I think, that we who are without kings, took up this bright
thread of our history and followed it to the only place it can possibly
lead in our time – the heart and spirit of the average man.(op. cit., p.
539)
CHAPTER III – PURITANISM AND TRAGEDY IN ARTHUR MILLER’S THE
CRUCIBLE
Arthur Miller, in his autobiography Timebends(1987), expresses his view on
Puritanism:
I was researching The Crucible then, and in this handful of pictures I
suddenly felt a familiar inner connection with witchcraft and the
Puritan Cult, its illusions, its stupidities, and its sublimity too,
something more mysteriously personal than ever a devotion to civil
liberty and justice, reaching back much further into my life. I had all
but committed myself to writing the play, but only at this moment did I
realize that I felt strangely at home with these New Englanders,
moved in the darkest part of my mind by some instinct that they were
putative ur-Hebrews, with the same fierce idealism, devotion to God,
tendency to legalistic reductiveness, the same longings for the pure
and intellectually elegant argument (p.42).
Puritanism is the proper foundation of The Crucible, with the sense of Puritan
community being a key element in the play, since getting together was a good solution to
living in an environment so hostile as North America’s was in the 1600's.
It is important that, before starting our analysis of the play, we present an
introduction to the plot of this dramatic representation of a historical fact in America’s
past.
In the Puritan community of Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692, a group of girls
from the local church are caught by Reverend Parris dancing in the woods in a
seemingly witchcraft ritual under the leadership of his Barbados slave, Tituba. His tenyear-old daughter Betty is also involved in the playing, but at her father’s sight she
faints and enters in a coma state. Abigail Williams, Reverend Parris’ niece, was also
with the group of girls, and affirms that Betty is just faking her illness. When Ann
Putnam, a neighbor, arrives, she says her only daughter is also behaving in a strange
way, and adds that there are rumors of Betty being seen flying like a witch. Ann Putnam
also thinks Tituba had actually introduced the girls to witchcraft rituals.
To put on end to the rumors of witchcraft, Reverend John Hale, an expert on
witchcraft, is called to come and consult Betty to testify whether some evil spirit was
trying to infiltrate in the community. This starts a process of hysteria that will involve
the characters in grave conflicts, eventually leading the action to its tragic outcome.
The play begins in medias res, that means in the middle of important events,
which makes the events more dramatic since that past from which they emerged cannot
be changed. That is, when the play starts, the dancing in the forest had already
occurred, Betty had already fainted, and the first crisis had already started. We can see
that a conflictive situation is already present at the very beginning of the first act, when
Reverend Samuel Parris is at his daughter’s bed praying:
Reverend Parris is praying now, and, though we cannot hear his
words, a sense of his confusion hangs about him. He mumbles, then
seems about to weep; then he weeps, then prays again; but his
daughter does not stir on the bed.( MILLER, 2003, p.07)
The plot of the play is carefully constructed, and in the Aristotelian sense it is
"an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain
magnitude"(BUTCHER, p.05). The dancing, the playing, Betty falling in a coma state
are examples of how the events direct to an increasing crisis that, to Lawson as we have
studied, represented "the dramatic explosion".
Thus, the starting point of the conflicts that would later occur was the dancing
considering the context it was inserted, for instance, the fact it happened in the woods
where puritans feared the devil to live.
As we have studied the main ideas of Puritanism, we understand that, once the
body was corrupted by original sin, anything connected to the body would be
considered evil:
ABIGAIL: Uncle, we did dance; let you tell them I confessed it
- and I'll be whipped if I must be. But they're speakin' of witchcraft.
Betty's not witched.
PARRIS: Abigail, I cannot go before the congregation when I
know you have not opened with me. What did you do with her
in the forest?(op. cit, p. 9)
As we have said, the plot is well arranged, and it aims at a major crisis. If
dancing was considered corruption, what would we say of witchcraft? When we
discussed the Puritan ideology, we came to a specific passage of the Bible that spoke of
“works of the flesh", and witchcraft was present. The alarm of Abigail in relation to
witchcraft was that, even if dancing was wrong, the Bible said that witches should be
killed.
The conflict is present in the play because the characters do not accept things
passively. Abigail begins struggling to affirm her innocence, whereas Reverend Parris
struggles to keep his reputation in the congregation. We can notice that in the following
excerpt:
PARRIS: I cannot blink what I saw, Abigail, for my enemies will
not blink it. I saw a dress lying on the grass.
ABIGAIL, innocently: A dress?
PARRIS: -It is very hard to say: Aye, a dress. And I thought I saw someone naked running through the trees! ( MILLER, 2003, p.10)
When the hysteria proceeding from these accusations of witchcraft explodes, the
community would surely be united, however, as religion played a very important role as
their religious principles abhorred the works of the flesh, the first thing that happens is
that privacy is invaded. People’s lives and habits will be examined, and their virtues
doubted or denied. Arthur Miller gives us a clue to this invasion of private life in the
first act of the play, in a conversation between Parris and Abigail, especially in the
words that Reverend Parris uses to address Abigail:
(..)Your name in town - it is entirely white, is it not?
ABIGAIL, with an edge of resentment: Why, I am sure it is, sir.
There be no blush about my name. (op.cit, p.11)
It must be said, in fact, that private life was very much a public matter for the
Puritans, especially when facing a threatening situation.
Continuing, we are introduced to John Proctor, a farmer in his middle thirties.
He is presented in the play as a much respected man, as we can see in his description:
Proctor, respected and even feared in Salem, has come to regard
himself as a kind of fraud. But no hint of this has yet appeared on the
surface, and as he enters from the crowded parlor below it is a man in
his prime we see, with a quiet confidence and an unexpressed, hidden
force. Mary Warren, his servant, can barely speak for embarrassment
and fear. (op.cit, 2003 p.20)
We understand that John Proctor is our hero, but if he were a passive man who
accepted his destiny without actively reacting, he could not be considered a tragic hero.
It is evident that we are not before a tragedy in the Aristotelian sense in which kings and
aristocracy are the main characters. Although John Proctor is a common man, he is the
tragic hero in Arthur Miller’s sense of the term: a man ready to struggle to keep his
sense of personal dignity.
Arthur Miller used historical events to achieve that dramatic effect. That is quite
acceptable in the Aristotelian sense since poetry has not the obligation to relate what
has happened, but what “may happen”. And, as Aristotle himself puts it, what has
already happened is surely a proper subject for dramatic poetry.
Miller, then, uses historical facts to make his fictional drama, but he does it with
a sense of artistic freedom that allows him to shape the events in a more organic whole
fit for tragic art. Thus, he puts the theme of sexuality between Abigail and John Proctor.
Once this is established, the characters are constructed according to the laws of
causality and verisimilitude; otherwise the dramatic effects would not be achieved.
Sexuality is thus the center of the conflicts that John Proctor and Abigail face
during the play. This theme is presented in the form of adultery, what fits perfectly the
most feared crimes of the flesh leading to sin and damnation. When studying the Puritan
ideology, we have seen a list of works of the flesh, and adultery occupies the first
position. We do not know whether Arthur Miller knew that or not, but the dramatic effect
can be clearly understood. A dramatic conflict arising from an adulterous relation and
inserted in a context of witchcraft will be an almost inevitable path to tragedy, in this
case, to modern tragedy, deriving from social drama.
We understand that John Proctor and Abigail had had an affair as indicated in
the moment they are alone in Act One:
ABIGAIL: I know how you clutched my back behind your house and
sweated like a stallion whenever I come near! Or did I dream that?
It’s she put me out, you cannot pretend it were you. I saw your face
when she put me out, and you loved me then and you do now!(…)
PROCTOR: Abby, I may think of you softly from time to time. But I
will cut off my hand before I’ll ever reach for you again. Wipe it out of
mind. We never touched, Abby.( MILLER,2003, p. 22)
As Hegel suggests, conflict is central since the actions will only be dramatic
whenever "individual acts, confront obstacles which are coming from other individuals
aiming at opposed ends".
As we have seen in the excerpt above, John Proctor struggles to keep his
reputation in the Puritan society, especially when he says, "Abby, I may think of you
softly from time to time"(MILLER, 2003, p.22).
Still considering Hegel's suggestion, in order for the action to be dramatic, it is
necessary that other characters aim at opposed ends. As the play continues, we
understand that Abigail uses the witch hunt to achieve her purpose of getting John
Proctor back to her affection.
As the Puritans strongly believed that witchcraft was considered a crime,
especially because in Salem religion and government formed a theocracy, witchcraft
should be severely punished. Tituba, the Barbados slave, is the first one to confess:
TITUBA: in a fury: He say Mr. Parris must be kill! Mr. Parris no
goodly man, Mr. Parris mean man and no gentle man, and he bid me
rise out of my bed and cut your throat! They gasp. But I tell him “No!
I don’t hate that man. I don’t want kill that man.” But he say, “You
work for me, Tituba, and I make you free! I give you pretty dress to
wear, and put you way high up in the air, and you gone fly back to
Barbados!” And I say, “You lie, Devil, you lie!” And then he come
one stormy night to me, and he say, “Look! I have white people
belong to me.” And I look – and there was Goody Good.( op.cit, p.44)
The excerpt above exemplifies the beginning of the process of mutual
accusations as a means to escape punishment, a process that primarily referred to the
Puritan historical past, but also served as an allegory to Miller’s denouncing the
excesses of political persecution during McCarthy’s period.
As we have been discussing, John Proctor is the tragic hero of the play.
According to what we studied, to Lawson the dramatic conflict should inevitably be a
social conflict, and John Proctor, as the heroic character, struggles to keep his sense of
dignity in the Puritan society. He is the only character who questions the authority of
the religious leader of the community, as we can see when he does not accept Reverend
Parris' use of authority:
PARRIS: There is either obedience or the church will burn like
Hell is burning!
PROCTOR: Can you speak one minute without we land in Hell
again? I am sick of Hell!( MILLER, 2003, p.28)
At the end of Act One, when Tituba and the girls accuse innocent people of
witchcraft, we have a general view of the play. Every character faces a conflict, but all
the conflicts are linked together by a social force, that is a religious force, leading
people to a process of mutual accusations as a means to save their own personal
interests.
Puritanism is the major force in the play, and the characters have to fit in this
society, even if they used their beliefs according to their necessities to accomplish their
personal ends. Thus, we see that the witch hunts act as a form some characters use to
accomplish their personal aims. Abigail wants John Proctor back; Ann Putnam wants to
find who mysteriously killed her seven babies; Thomas Putnam is concerned with
acquiring more land. On the contrary, John Proctor is concerned with revealing Abigail
as a fraud, but at the same time he fights to preserve his sense of dignity and thus his
image as a good husband.
At the beginning of Act Two, we understand that there is a barrier between John
Proctor and his wife Elizabeth Proctor. Both face conflicts: Proctor tries to overcome
his sin of adultery, whereas Elizabeth tries to live according to the roles established to a
Puritan woman. Elizabeth Proctor seems to be quite cold with her husband, probably
judging him too severely since he is trying to overcome a past mistake. However, this is
important, according to Aristotle's ideas on characters: they should be coherent, and
according to the Puritan world view, she is a perfect Puritan woman. This seems to have
been exactly the motive for his adultery, her “cold” behavior towards her husband. We
can better understand this in Act Four when she declares to Proctor:
ELIZABETH: John, I counted myself so plain, so poorly made, no
honest love could come to me! Suspicion kissed you when I did; I
never knew how I should say my love. It were a cold house I kept! In a
fright, she swerves, as Hathorne enters.(op. cit, p.127)
When the witch hunt breaks out, we understand that it was solely based on some
girls’ accusations, although it seemed that the girls did not understand the real meaning
of what was happening, as we can notice in Mary Warren's statement that "they will not
hang them if they confess"( MILLER, 2003 p.56)
We may question why many in the Salem witch trials who were unfairly accused
accepted their tragic fate without “confessing”. A “false confession” would free them,
they would be considered convicted sinners who repented, and this humble and
submissive attitude would restore their rights to live. The explanation for this is that
they were afraid of lying, since liars, according to their beliefs, would not be accepted
by God in heaven. That was a dilemma for them: although telling the truth meant the
death of the body, confessing a lie meant the death of the spirit.
Another important point to mention is the way the hearings progressed. Privacy
was invaded, and all the questions used were related to religion, as can be better
understood in Act Two, when John Proctor is asked by Reverend Hale to say the "ten
commandments" by heart ( op. cit, p.63).
The hearings were totally unfair, since the truth was always with the victims, as
explained by judge Danforth himself:
"In ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused? One calls up
witnesses to prove his innocence. But witchcraft is ipso facto, on its
face and by its nature, an invisible crime, is it not? Therefore, who
may possibly be witness to it? The witch and the victim. None other.
Now we cannot hope the witch will accuse herself; granted?
Therefore, what is left for a lawyer to bring out? I think I have made
my point. Have I not? (op.cit, p 93)
We understand that the judgments were not fair not only because they dealt with
"invisible evidence”, but because they were solely based on frightened girls’ statements.
Of course, mastering the girls, there was Abigail and her desire to involve Elizabeth
Proctor in the witch hunt
John Proctor, as his wife Elizabeth is accused of witchcraft by Abigail, goes to
court to defend her. He intends to save his wife, and at the same time he wants to keep
his sense of himself and a good image. In order to understand the effect of what happens
next, it is necessary that we remember the Aristotelian concept of “harmatia”. As we
have studied, it is a "tragic error", something necessary to the construction of a tragedy.
The construction of characters is also important, so that when we have the harmatia, it
the feelings of "fear and pity" should arise, the main feelings aroused by tragedy
according to Aristotle’s concept of katharsis.
John Proctor and Elizabeth are beloved ones. John, in an attempt to save his
wife, destroys his image in the village, as he says before the judges, acknowledging his
adulterous relation to Abigail, whom he wants to frankly denounce now: "I have known
her sir. I have known her"(MILLER, 2003, p.102). Proctor thought that, since his wife
never lied, she would certainly confirm his confession of adultery, and Abigail would be
revealed as a fraud to the court.
When the judges call Elizabeth to confirm her husband’s words, to defend his
integrity, for the first time in her life she lies and denies his self accusation of adultery.
This is only possible due to verisimilitude: a loving husband, in an extreme situation like
that would condemn himself in order to save a beloved one. In the same way, a loving
wife would do the same. But while he, the former liar, tells the truth, she, the honest and
truthful woman, lies, to preserve her husband’s image. Thus, we this scene produces in
us feelings of pity, since we think the characters do not deserve that end, and at the
same time we fear what happens to them might also happen to us, exactly because it is a
situation based on logic and verisimilitude – it could occur to anyone. Let us check this
passage since it is so relevant in the play:
The door opens. Elizabeth enters with Parris. Parris leaves her. She
stands alone, her eyes looking for Proctor.
Mr. Cheever, report this testimony in all exactness. Are you ready?
(…)
DANFORTH: Come here, woman. Elizabeth comes to him, glacing at
Proctor's back. Look at me only, not at your husband. In my eyes only.
ELIZABETH, faintly: Good, sir.
DANFORTH: We are given to understand that at one time you
dismissed your servant, Abigail Williams.
ELIZABETH: That is true, sir.
DANFORTH: For what cause did you dismiss her? Slightly pause.
Then Elizabeth tries to glance at Proctor. You will look in my eyes
only and not at your husband. The answer is in your memory and you
need no help to give it to me. Why did you dismiss Abigail Williams?
ELIZABETH, not knowing what to say, sensing a situation, wetting
her lips to stall for time: She - dissatisfied me. Pause. And my
husband.
DANFORTH: In what way dissatisfied you?
(...)
ELIZABETH: Your honor, I - in that time I were sick. And I - My
husband is a good and righteous man. He is never drunk as some are,
nor wastin' his time at the shovelboard, but always at his work. But in
my sickness - you see, sir, I were a long time sick after my last baby,
and I thought I saw my husband somewhat turning on me. And this
girl - She turns to Abigail.
DANFORTH: Look at me.
(...)
DANFORTH: Your husband - did he indeed turn from you?
ELIZABETH, in agony: My husband is a goodly man, sir.
DANFORTH: Then he did not turn from you.
ELIZABETH: starting to glance at Proctor. He DANFORTH, reaches out and holds her face, then: Look at me! To
your own knowledge, has Proctor ever committed the crime of
lechery? In a crisis of indecision she cannot speak. Answer my
question! Is your husband a lecher!
ELIZABETH, faintly: No,sir.
DANFORTH: Remove her , Marshal.
PROCTOR, crying out: Elizabeth, I have confessed it!
ELIZABETH: Oh, God! The door closes behind her
PROCTOR: She only thought to save my name!
HALE: Excellency, it is a natural lie to tell; I beg you, stop now
before another is condemned! I may shut my conscience to it
no more – private vengeance is working through this testimony! […]
(2003, p.104-105)
The Crucible can be considered a “complex” play, according to the way the plot
is structured. When Elizabeth knows that Proctor did not lie, but confessed his adultery,
according to Aristotle we have a process of recognition, also known as anagnorisis.
Elizabeth's lie provokes the "reversal of the situation"(peripeteia) since it produces an
opposite effect.
John Proctor ends up being accused of witchcraft, and according to the unfair
judgment of the court, he has to accuse someone else of witchcraft to be set free or he
should confess his own involvement with the “Devil”, which firstly he does in a
desperate attempt to restore his freedom and remain by his wife’s side. But as soon as he
confesses his own “guilt”, the judges oblige him to sign his name upon a written paper
to be publicly exhibited. In this moment, he recovers his heroic power, and as Arthur
Miller himself has theorized, Proctor shows he is ready to face death to defend his
integrity and his name:
PROCTOR: I have confessed myself! Is there no good penitence
but it be public? God does not need my name nailed upon the
church! God sees my name; God knows how black my sins are!
It is enough!
DANFORTH: Mr. Proctor PROCTOR: You will not use me! I am no Sarah Good or Tituba,
I am John Proctor! You will not use me! It is no part of salvation
that you should use me!
DANFORTH: I do not wish to PROCTOR: I have three children - how may I teach them to walk
like men in the world, and sold my friends? ( MILLER, 2003 p.132)
At the end of the play we understand that John Proctor recovers his dignity when
refusing to accuse friends, and spoiling his name:
PROCTOR, with a cry of his whole soul: Because it is my name!
Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign
myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that
hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul;
leave me my name!
DANFORTH, pointing at the confession in Proctor’s hand: Is that
document a lie? If it is a lie I will not accept it! What say you? I will
not deal in lies, Mister! Proctor is motionless. You will give me your
honest confession in my hand, or I cannot keep you from the rope.
Proctor does not reply.[…](op. cit. p.133)
With this quotation above, we have a perfect modern tragedy in Arthur Miller’s
conception. John Proctor is not a king, not a nobleman, but his dignity lies in his
character. He is a dignified common man who refuses to accept his fate passively: he
fights. In a Puritan society, being a confessed lecher was not easy, but even so he
preferred that to seeing his wife dead. His dignity is above what society had thought of
him; he was much more than what corrupted religious and judges could tell. John
Proctor proves not only to others, but to himself that he was a dignified man.
FINAL REMARKS
After studying Arthur Miller's life in relation to “McCarthyism”, after
discussing basic puritan beliefs, and after examining the main concepts related to
drama theory, we have analyzed the play in the light of the proposed theory and have
showed how Puritanism is presented in the play. From this investigative process, we can
draw some conclusions.
First of all, it was evident that The Crucible is a modern tragedy. It tells of
events that present a certain magnitude and are plotted so as to produce unity of action.
The play, based on conflictive situations affecting a Puritan community and leading to a
crisis, focuses on a tragic hero, and we are able to see and understand his trajectory to
preserve his sense of himself, as well as protect his wife's life. He struggles to conform
to that society at the same time he makes the difference in the community.
The play presents a complex plot, as we have studied in Aristotle’s Poetics.
Recognition and reversal of the situation occur simultaneously. The accuser becomes an
accused, and feelings of fear and pity are felt because the characters are well
constructed according to verisimilitude.
Considering all these factors, the most important thing is that a common man is
here represented, elevated to a high position. Proctor does not represent the individual,
as many may think; otherwise, he represents a universal idealized type of man. Mankind
can be related to John Proctor exactly in its most exemplary moments of heroism and
dignity.
Thus, the play goes beyond an allegory of McCarthyism: it is an allegory of the
times.
REFERENCES
ABRAMS, M. H. (Ed.). The Norton Anthology of English Literature. V.1,2. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1974.
ARCHER, William. Playmaking. In: CLARK, Barret H. (org.): European theories of the
drama. With the supplement on the America drama. New York: Crown Publishers, 1959.
ARISTOTLE, Poetics. Translated by S. H. Butcher, eBooks@Adelaide,2007
disponível em: < http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/poetics/ > acesso em
31/10/2010 hora 09:37 eBooks@Adelaide,2007
BIGSBY, C. W. E. Introduction. In: MILLER, Arthur. The Crucible. New York: Penguin
Books, 2003.
BRADFORD, William. Of Plymouth Plantation In: ABRAMS, M. H. (Ed) The Norton
Anthology of English Literature. V.1,2. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1974.
BRUNETIÈRE, F. The Law of Drama. In:CLARK, Barret H. (org.): European theories
of the drama. With the supplement on the America drama. New York: Crown Publishers,
1959. p. 386.
HEGEL, Estética: Poesia. trad. Álvaro Ribeiro. Lisboa: Guimarães Editores, 1964.
HOBBS, Jeff. The Religious Policy of King Henry VIII , 2000
Disponível em <http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html> acessado em:
09/11/2010
LAWSON, John Howard. The Law of conflict. In: CLARK, Barret H. (org.): European
theories of the drama. With a supplement on the American drama. New York: Crown
Publishers, 1959.
LEME, Viviane Maria: A Concepção de Tragédia Moderna em The Crucible e A View
From the Bridge de Arthur Miller. Dissertação de Mestrado. São Paulo, 2007.
LUNA, Sandra. Arqueologia da Ação Trágica: O Legado Grego. João Pessoa,
Idéia,2005 In: RANGEL,Maria Targino de Araújo: History and Fiction In the
Construction of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. João Pessoa, 2008.
______________.A Tragédia no Teatro do Tempo: das origens clássicas ao drama
moderno. João Pessoa: Idéia, 2008.
MATHER, Cotton. The Wonders of the Invisible World. In: ABRAMS, M. H. (Ed) The
Norton Anthology of English Literature. V.1,2. New York: W.W Norton & Company,
1974.
MILLER, Arthur. Timebends: a life. USA: Penguin Books,1995.
______________. The Crucible. New York: Penguin Books, 2003
_____________. Tragedy and the common man. In CLARK, Barret H. (org.): European
theories of the drama. With the supplement on the America drama. New York: Crown
Publishers, 1959
_____________. Are you now or were you ever ...? The Guardian, London,17/06/2000.
Disponível em: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/jun/17/history.politics acessado
em 29/10/2010 hora 09:56
RANGEL, Maria Theresa Targino de Araújo: History and Fiction In the Construction of
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.Monografia de Especialização em estudos linguisticos e
literários em Língua Inglesa João Pessoa, 2008.
SEAWALL, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Seawall In: ABRAMS, M. H. (Ed) The Norton
Anthology of English Literature. V.1,2. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1974.
SHIACH, Don: American Drama 1900 -1990. Series Editor: Adrian Barlow, Cambridge
University Press, 5th printing, 2005.