In the story The Crucible, several girls in the early-colonial town of Salem,
Massachusetts display signs of practicing witchcraft and being possessed by
demons. The ringleader of the girls,
Abigail, accuses a local slave named Tituba, who has slighted her, of being the
instigator of the witchcraft and the one who forced the girls to become
practitioners. Through a dramatic
courtroom show, the girls manage to convince almost the entire town that it is
filled with evil. This kicks off a
literal “witch hunt” in which many townspeople are accused and brought to
trial. The only way the accused can be
saved from a punishment of hanging is to accuse another townsperson of
witchcraft.
The incredibly ironic fact in this
story is that only those who do not confess to witchcraft are sentenced to be
hung; the ones who admit wrongdoing are spared.
This is partially because the theocratic villagers hold that denying
witchcraft also denies the teachings of the Bible, which is heresy punishable
by death. However, a greater reason for
this seems to be the townspeople’s desire for an illusion of control. It is clear there are many internal issues
with the town – many people use the rumor mill and out-of-control trial proceedings
to accuse those who they hold as enemies and advance their own position. However, by going forward with the witch
hunt, accusations, trials and condemnations, the townsfolk are given a sense of
power that is not present in ordinary life – the power over the lives of
others.
Thank you for noting the less immediate, and less-considered impact of the frenzy: the admittance of 'guilty' persons into Salem society, which as you've pointed out is rather backwards. Under the guise of reform, these so-called offenders are given a 'second chance' at life and forgiveness by God. But what one must consider is the more probable likelihood that said confessors will be thrown in jail to rot, or placed in such a state of contempt - such as John Proctor, should he have forfeited his name - that no power of wealth or happiness can come to them. In this way, prosecutors can be sure to eliminate all threats to their power: those who deny guilt will die, and those who confess will be ruined. We can see, particularly in the reactions of the townsfolk at the hangings of John, Rebecca Nurse, and Martha Corey, that the execution of those in which witchcraft is most assuredly absent can be justified by their power of reputation within the community. People such as these are of influence to Salem, and their elimination will maintain ignorance among townspeople and power among the prosecutors who support the pursuit and capture of a phantom crime.
ReplyDeleteYou point out two very major ideas within this play: confession and control, which both come hand in hand. Like Elaine Scarry mentioned, when there is a shaky regime, people will do whatever they can to feel like they have a sense of control whether it be accusing or torturing others. In Salem, we see religious, racial, economic, and political conflict. Prosecuting others gives the people of Salem the chance to influence their flawed society. It gives them a sense a false confidence during a time of instability. Because of this, all of the accusations are not doubted. If the court were to doubt the accusations, it would not only shatter that security, but it would also discredit the integrity of the court. On page 119, Danforth says, “I cannot pardon these when twelve are already hanged for the same crime. It is not just.” If someone was pardoned, the last hangings would become questionable to the public eye. In this situation, assurance is prioritized over the harsh truth of a corrupt court. Like you said, it would also be going against the Christian faith of witchcraft. The court claims to be working under the heavenly law, so if one were to defend the convicted, that person would be an enemy of the court and Christianity as well.
ReplyDeleteI like how you brought up that the only way that the accused could be saved was to accuse someone else. This was essentially what held it all together and made it interesting to me. It was interesting to see how the characters reacted and how there prior controversies carried over. It was also interesting to me that although the theme of two people or groups of people having a rough past and that leading to witchcraft accusations remained the same the reasons were different. The past controversy was seen in forms of wealth, politics, and sexual affairs.
ReplyDeleteYou made an interesting point about how some of the accuse would refuse to confess to practicing witchcraft. This is very strange that someone would not tell a lie in order to save his or her life. However, this crucial decision brings about a moral dilemma in many people. They have to choose between telling a lie and accusing another person of witchcraft or confess and defy their religious beliefs. However, not matter what decision the accused take, they break their desire to be true to their religion.
ReplyDeleteYou identify the irony in the story which, in my opinion, is the heart of Miller's argument that religion (along with other things) can be used as a tool to manipulate others (and can itself be manipulated). Because the townspeople don't want to disobey God, they face not only a "legal" contradiction, but a conflict within themselves. The beauty in the story is that the people, such as John Proctor, who refuse to publicly admit to a crime they did not commit, are seen, after the curtain falls, as heroes. This gives the characters who have died honor, in that their legacy lives on to those who may hear the tale. Honor and a personal sense of power are the motivations for almost every character in the play. Hale and Danforth are mainly trying to protect the court's honor (and therefore their own power). Parris is insecure and mostly tries to protect himself, his power and his land. Abigail is trying to see how much power she can exert so she doesn't lose her own honor by letting John Proctor get away with the affair. Miller has presented us with a story in which every character has a huge power struggle between themselves and with the community, and Miller plays out how far individuals will go to bend or break ties such as religion, laws, friendships, and love for the sake of protecting their own honor and power. This is not a struggle to find a truth, but rather to construct a sense of truth that grants enough power and honor to each individual, and then the individual must decide whether the power and honor is worth this newly constructed "truth".
ReplyDelete