The Crucible

The Crucible

1. Language: One of the most remarkable aspects of The Crucible is Miller’s creation of believable dialogue for his seventeenth-century Puritans. Although partly based on what he found in the Salem records, most of it is his own invention. It is convincingly old-fashioned, without being hard to understand. It is a language that carries echoes of the King James Bible; but word by word, apart from a few archaic terms - such as 'harlot' and 'puppet' -the vocabulary is essentially modern.

   • Miller achieves his effect by linking words in an unusual way, using double negatives, changing verb tenses, and other devices of the same kind. Here are some examples: 'He cannot discover no medicine for it in his books'; I know you have not opened with me'; 'Seeing I do live so closely with you, they dismissed it'; 'I am thirty-three time in court in my life'; 'He give me nine pound damages';
     • Within this shared language, Miller varies the way his characters speak to suit their background and personality. Ministers and judges naturally use more elaborate phrases than the villagers; Giles Corey is blunt and even coarse: 'A fart on Thomas Putnam, that is what I say to that!' John Proctor utters some of the most poetic lines in the play, whether describing his delight in the Massachusetts' countryside, or crying out in despair at the end of Act 3.
       • Most characters use simile and metaphor. 'There be no blush about my name, Abigail reassures her uncle. Judge Danforth tells the children, A very augur bit [a corkscrew-like tool] will now be turned into your souls until your honesty is proved'. 'My daughter and my niece I discovered dancing like heathen in the forest'. I know how you sweated like a stallion whenever I come near!'

2. Stracture: The internal structure of The Crucible is of course far more complicated than this. Miller employs a different pattern of pace and climax in each Act, and unifies all four by interweaving John Proctor's personal history with the fate of Salem village. Act 1 is 'an overture'. The main characters introduce themselves as neighbours invading Mr. Parris’s house to ask about the rumours of witchcraft. Their rapid entrances and exits create an atmosphere of anxiety and turmoil. In the midst of this, the scene between John and Abigail alerts us to another storyline, but the topic of witchcraft remains dominant.

   • Act 2, in contrast, opens quietly, and explores at length a different situation: the relationship between John and his wife. These two perspectives are brought together when the court officials burst in to arrest Elizabeth.
     • Structurally, Act 3 is the most complicated section of the whole play. Miller does not place his trial scene in the courtroom itself. We briefly overhear what is happening there, and then, by a natural sequence of events, judges and defendants remove themselves to an anteroom on stage. Thus Miller can bring into play the cut and thrust of legal drama, but in a much freer setting. In this act there is also a striking example of what he calls the holding back of climax.
       • After the uproar of the court, comes the chilly isolation of Salem jail. In Act 4, the witchcraft theme gives way entirely to the resolution of John Proctor’s personal crisis. It is a proof of Miller's dramatic skill in blending the public and personal themes of his play that the transition seems entirely natural.
   • Arthur Miller uses various different techniques in the form and structure of ‘The Crucible’ to create suspense and maintain the audience’s interest. Of course, one of the main factors of the form and structure of the play is its genre. ‘The Crucible’ can be described as being a symbolic play, a tragedy, a political play, an historical play and a narrative play in naturalistic form.

3. The Crucible is a play written by Arthur Miller during the 1950?s, a time of much disruption in the American society due to the Cold War. He wrote the play to warn people of the dangers of mass hysteria, and to attempt to get them to speak out against authority when they are in the wrong. He also wanted to show how people can abuse their power, and that the power of fear can be extremely dangerous. In writing this play he wanted to make people aware of the consequences of their actions, and of their responsibility to speak up in society, in the hope that history would not repeat itself. The result was a powerful play about a puritan, theocratic community during 1692 in Massachusetts awash in lies, denial, and hysteria when a ring of lustful teenage girls begins accusing its citizens of witchcraft.

   • A critical message Miller attempts to portray in The Crucible is that the power that mass hysteria can be dangerous and easily created in an atmosphere of fear. It is vividly shown in the play how hysteria displaces logic, even enabling people to believe that their neighbors, whom they have always considered upstanding people, are committing absurd and unbelievable crimes such as communing with the devil, killing babies, and so on. In The Crucible, the townsfolk accept and become active in the hysterical climate not only out of genuine fear, but also because it gives them a chance to express repressed sentiments and to act on grudges.

4. The Crucible demonstrates just how important it is for people to speak out against authority if they are in the wrong, and shows that it is everyone?s responsibility too keep order within their society. Fear is a very powerful emotion, which can cloud judgement and control a persons logic and thinking. Some people even use fear to gain power. This is what Arthur Miller tried to show when writing The Crucible. Not everyone?s judgement can be trusted when they are scared, people will even falsely accuse others in order to save themselves. This leads to wild finger pointing, and eventually mass hysteria, as shown in the play.