Why did Arthur Miller Write the Crucible: Unraveling Historical Patterns

Introduction

Patterns found throughout society and in daily life attest to the truth of the adage, “History repeats itself.” Motivated by the idea that knowledge is critical to progression, twentieth-century American playwright Arthur Miller found inspiration for his works in American history and current events. Intertwining social concerns and commentary with major plot points, his plays The Crucible and The Price examine the extent to which the present-day mimics the past. The plays offer similarities in their usage of satire, characterization, and theme as major components of style.

Body

Satire as a Tool of Social Critique

Satire comes in many shapes and forms, but all types of satire aim to criticize and reform certain aspects of society. In his plays, Miller uses an identical style of satire to expose the injustices seen in the world around him. Menippean satire is a long prose work that scrutinizes social structures and attitudes. It often further includes “miscellaneous contents” and “displays of curious erudition” (“Menippean Satire” 1). Miller used a form of this satire in both of his plays. He drew from the events before and during his lifetime, exaggerating the issues he observed. Both The Crucible and The Price utilize this form of satire to comment on political turmoil and social views. In The Crucible, much of the satire can be summed up by the attack on greed and its relationship to religion.

The search to gain power is a driving force in The Crucible, highlighted in Abigail’s accusations, Parris’s hardheadedness, and most notably, Judge Danforth. Danforth is originally presented as a rigid, intelligent man dedicated to the law (“The Crucible” 5). As the play continues, Danforth’s corruption is brought to light but is justified within Salem due to his religious motivations. Miller drew a comparison between Danforth and McCarthy during the Red Scare. The judges in both eras claimed they wanted to expose the truth, while they instead manipulated facts and placed blame in order to hide their personal agendas for political power. Those who were expected to maintain order became the source of society’s greatest fears and perpetuated chaos instead. This parallel between fiction and reality makes the satire hard-hitting, and the irony of the situation adds to the satire.

Miller uses The Crucible as a political platform to satirically mock the officials during the Red Scare by comparing them to the Puritan reverends and judges. He comments against the hypocritical teachings of Puritanism and Christianity, the scare tactics perpetuated by officials in both eras and the foolishness of ignoring the significant relationship between private and public space to expose corrupt behavior and show society that mistakes made in history continue to occur. Price uses a similar style of satire to expose modern materialism and human foibles. Opening on an apartment packed with old furniture, Miller sets the stage for satirical commentary on materialism. This is accentuated in a dialogue from Gregory Solomon, the furniture dealer, in which he states, “What is the key word today? Disposable. The more you can throw it away, the more it’s beautiful” (Miller, Price 42). Miller uses the furniture as a symbol of the changing opinions of the nation as time progresses. The furniture that once held memories minimized to the price of a few dollars is an example of commentary regarding the decreasing importance of traditional values with the rise of consumerism and materialism in the country.

At the time Miller wrote The Price, the Vietnam War was taking place, and Miller found inspiration for his works. Although not explicitly mentioned within the work, this historical event influenced the world that Miller built in his play. Miller specifically wrote in a way that remains applicable in all aspects of history- the past or present. Both The Crucible and The Price use Menippean satire by discussing social issues in the historical context of the time period through the use of prose and symbolism.

Foil Characters: Unveiling Human Complexity

Miller also uses similar ways of building characters through his plays. His stories are based loosely on the same tropes and have similar character development. Miller crafts characters that are foils of each other, creating tension and a deeper understanding through their contrasting characteristics. In The Crucible, Abigail and Elizabeth Proctor act as foils of each other. The women are similar in their relationships with John Proctor and share traits of both determination and love but differ in their actions and responses to conflict. Abigail tends to be dishonest and jealous. She is manipulative, vengeful, and power-hungry, while Elizabeth displays qualities of honesty, selflessness, forgiveness, and righteousness. Abigail and Elizabeth act as personifications of good and evil. Abigail fuels the evil within Salem, magnifying the effects of the witch trials as she continues to make false accusations. On the other hand, Elizabeth brings out goodness in herself and others. In the final scene, Elizabeth exhibits these characteristics as she reminds John that she is not his judge and he needs to make decisions for himself (Miller, Crucible 138). Elizabeth’s prompting to John to choose goodness and forgiveness for himself exemplifies the differences between Elizabeth and Abigail. In The Price, Victor and Walter, although biologically related, differ greatly. Victor remains passive, nonconfrontational, and dejected, while Walter is displayed as manipulative, greedy, and self-righteous. The brothers’ conflicting personalities are clearly demonstrated when they get into an argument about how to approach an offer made by Solomon. Victor, choosing to “play it safe,” argues for taking the offer given by Solomon, while Walter proposes an alternative to the offer in which, through a legal process, they gain the majority of the perceived cost of the furniture (Miller, Price 65).

Thematic Concepts: Guilt, Deception, and Reputation

This scuff accentuates the foil of the brothers as each reacts in the exact opposite of what the other has done. Miller also subtly promotes ideas of feminism through female characters. In The Crucible, Elizabeth Proctor acts as a beacon of righteousness but also power. While she takes up the stereotypical roles of a wife and mother expected of her in Puritan Salem, John’s reliance on her and her role within their home emphasizes her equality. Elizabeth uses the standards of religion to her advantage and justifies her equality through religion as she points out that each of them within Salem is equal and judged equally under the eyes of God (Miller, Crucible 145). In The Price, Miller uses Esther, Victor’s wife, as an example of “what could have been” (Stewart 2). Throughout the majority of the play, Esther yearns for a better life. She is motivated by the hope of equality which causes her to urge Victor to move on from his past. As they stand in a room of now worthless furniture, Esther focuses on the future possibilities while Victor remains trapped in his past. The greater perspective Esther showcases allows Miller to create a commentary on feminism, also seen in The Crucible, as he modernizes and transforms a woman’s traditional role in a home and in literature.

The theme of guilt is one that is deeply relevant to John Proctor’s character development throughout the play. John is haunted by his affair with Abigail, so he tries to bury it and pretend it never happened. His guilt leads to great tension in interactions with Elizabeth because he projects his feelings onto her, accusing her of being judgmental and dwelling on his mistakes. In reality, he is constantly judging himself, and this leads to outbursts of anger against others who remind him of what he did. Hale also confronts his guilt for his role in condemning the accused witches, who he now believes are innocent. There’s a message here about the choices we have in dealing with guilt. John attempts to crush his guilt instead of facing it, which only ends up making it an even more destructive factor in his life. Hale tries to combat his guilt by persuading the prisoners to confess, refusing to accept that the damage has already been done. Both Hale and Proctor don’t want to live with the consequences of their mistakes, so they try to ignore or undo their past actions.

Deception is a major driving force in The Crucible. This includes not only accusatory lies about the involvement of others in witchcraft but also the lies that people consistently tell about their own virtuousness and purity in such a repressive society. The turmoil in Salem is propelled forward by desires for revenge and power that have been simmering beneath the town’s placid exterior. There is a culture of keeping up appearances already in place, which makes it natural for people to lie about witnessing their neighbors partaking in Satanic rituals when the opportunity arises (especially if it means insulating themselves from similar accusations and even achieving personal gain). The Crucible provides an example of how convenient lies can build on one another to create a universally accepted truth, even in the absence of any real evidence.

Historical Parallels: Linking Past and Present

Concern for reputation is a theme that looms large over most of the events in The Crucible. Though actions are often motivated by fear and desires for power and revenge, they are also propped up by underlying worries about how a loss of reputation will negatively affect characters’ lives. John’s concern for his reputation is strong throughout the play, and his hesitation to reveal Abigail’s true nature is a product of his own fears of being labeled an adulterer.

Once there have been enough convictions, the reputations of the judges also become factors. They are extremely biased toward believing they have made the correct sentencing decisions in court thus far, so they are reluctant to accept new evidence that may prove them wrong. The importance placed on reputation helps perpetuate hysteria because it leads to inaction, inflexibility, and, in many cases, active sabotage of the reputations of others for selfish purposes. The overall message is that when a person’s actions are driven by desires to preserve favorable public opinion rather than do the morally right thing, there can be extremely dire consequences.

Reverend Parris’ concerns about his reputation are immediately evident in Act 1. Parris initially insists that there are “no unnatural causes” for Betty’s illness because he fears that he will lose favor with the townspeople if witchcraft is discovered under his roof. He questions Abigail aggressively because he’s worried his enemies will learn the full story of what happened in the woods first and use it to discredit him. Parris is very quick to position himself on the side of the accusers as soon as Abigail throws the first punch, and he immediately threatens violence on Tituba if she doesn’t confess (pg. 42). He appears to have no governing system of morality. His only goal is to get on the good side of the community as a whole, even in the midst of this bout of collective hysteria. Abigail also shows concern for her reputation. She is enraged when Parris questions her suspicious dismissal from the Proctor household. Abigail insists that she did nothing to deserve it and tries to put all the blame on Elizabeth Proctor. She says, ‘My name is good in the village! I will not have it said; my name is soiled! Goody Proctor is a gossiping liar!’ (pg. 12) The first act of The Crucible clearly establishes the fact that a bad reputation can damage a person’s position in this society severely and irreparably.

Repeated Motifs and Appearances versus Reality

In this act, we learn more details about the accused that paint a clearer picture of the influence of reputation and social standing on the patterns of accusations. Goody Good, an old beggar woman, is one of the first to be named a witch. It’s easy for more respectable citizens to accept that she’s in league with the Devil because she is an ‘other’ in Salem, just like Tituba. When Abigail accuses Elizabeth, a respected farmer’s wife, it shows that she is willing to take big risks to remove Elizabeth from the picture. She’s not a traditionally accepted target like the others (except in her susceptibility as a woman to the misogyny that runs rampant in the play).

In Act 2, the value of reputation in Salem starts to butt heads with the power of hysteria and fear to sway people’s opinions (and vengeance to dictate their actions). Rebecca Nurse, a woman whose character was previously thought to be unimpeachable, is accused and arrested. This is taken as evidence that things are really getting out of control (‘if Rebecca Nurse be tainted, then nothing’s left to stop the whole green world from burning.’ Hale pg. 67). People in power continue to believe the accusers out of fear for their own safety, taking the hysteria to a point where no one is above condemnation. At the end of this act, John Proctor delivers a short monologue anticipating the imminent loss of the disguises of propriety worn by himself and other members of the Salem community. The faces that people present to the public are designed to garner respect in the community, but the witch trials have thrown this system into disarray. Proctor’s good reputation is almost a burden for him at this point because he knows that he doesn’t deserve it. In a way, John welcomes the loss of his reputation because he feels so guilty about the disconnect between how he is perceived by others and the sins he has committed.

John Proctor sabotages his own reputation in Act 3 after realizing it’s the only way he can discredit Abigail. This is a decision with dire consequences in a town where reputation is so important, a fact that contributes to the misunderstanding that follows. Elizabeth doesn’t realize that John is willing to sacrifice his reputation to save her life. She continues to act under the assumption that his reputation is of the utmost importance to him, and she does not reveal the affair. This lie essentially condemns both of them.

Danforth also acts out of concern for his reputation here. He references the many sentencing decisions he has already made in the trials of the accused. If Danforth accepts Mary’s testimony, it would mean that he has wrongly convicted numerous people already. This fact could destroy his credibility, so he is biased toward continuing to trust Abigail. Danforth has extensive pride in his intelligence and perceptiveness. This makes him particularly averse to accepting that he’s been fooled by a teenage girl. 

Unmasking Injustices in Society

Though hysteria overpowered the reputations of the accused in the past two acts, in act 4, the sticking power of their original reputations becomes apparent. John and Rebecca’s solid reputations led to pushback against their executions even though people were too scared to stand up for them in the midst of the trials. Parris begs Danforth to postpone their hangings because he fears for his life if the executions proceed as planned. He says, “I would to God it were not so, Excellency, but these people have great weight yet in the town” (pg. 118).

However, this runs up against Danforth’s desire to preserve his reputation as a strong judge. He believes that “Postponement now speaks a floundering on my part; reprieve or pardon must cast doubt upon the guilt of them that died till now. While I speak God’s law, I will not crack its voice with whimpering” (pg. 119). Danforth’s image is extremely valuable to him, and he refuses to allow Parris’ concerns to disrupt his belief in the validity of his decisions.

Conclusion

In the final events of Act 4, John Proctor has a tough choice to make between losing his dignity and losing his life. The price he has to pay in reputation to save his own life is ultimately too high. He chooses to die instead of providing a false confession because he doesn’t think life will be worth living after he is so disgraced. As he says, “How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!” (pg. 133)

References

1. Miller, Arthur. “The Crucible.” Penguin Classics, 2003.

2. Bloom, Harold, editor. “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations).” Infobase Publishing, 2010.

Did you like this example?

255

13