Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Crucible Continued
After two days of student-led presentations, we still have a lot to say about The Crucible. While I am asking you to write a formal response as part of your summative grade for the discussion, I also want to encourage you to continue your discussion of the text as a class. Please respond with one specific piece of textual evidence that you think illustrates an important duality or paradox in The Crucible. We have spoken, for example, about light and dark, morals and laws, the Church and witchcraft, the town and the forrest, etc. Jung's archetypes may (or may not) be useful in considering the symbolic nature of some of these dualities, but what does examining these dualities or paradox contribute to your overall understanding of the play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, I view Proctor as perhaps the most paradoxical character throughout the play. Yes, in the end he is our honest hero, but he isn't always that way.
ReplyDeleteI cannot define this paradox in solely one piece of textual evidence, because it is a more situational paradox than one displayed through diction.
Proctor, is viewed, by the townspeople,as a man lacking order. They claim he does not live in an orderly, or 'Christian' way:
"I never heard you worried so on this society, Mr. Proctor. I do not think I saw you at Sabbath meeting since snow flew" - p.27 (Putnam)
He cares little about society and repeatedly creates chaos in their eyes.
However, later in Act 3, we find that he cares the more about society than many of the other townspeople - more than Dunforth, Herrick, Abigail etc.
In Act 3, Proctor claims:
"I have made a bell of my honor! I have rung with the doom of my good name - you will believe me, Mr. Danforth" - p. 103
His will to save the people, and tell the truth is much more than displayed by even Hale.
However, one cannot forget that Proctor, (while his name speaks of creating order), has not always been truthful, and is still marked by this.
Therefore, (as we talked about in class), a gray area forms. Where a man is no longer strictly 'good' or strictly 'bad'. Perhaps it was this ability to find balance that made Proctor our hero. His will to be reasonable, yet truthful creates a balance.
This leads to, as Emma pointed out in class, this idea of Communism, which is all about balance and equality. This in turn leads to, for me at least, a better understanding of "McCarthyism" which is very similar to communism.
McCarthyism talks of politically motivated accusations which are disloyal or treasonous. It displays what could occur when there is a lack of balance - something constantly seen in this book. When trying to force order, it seems to create exactly the opposite(another paradox in itself).
Therefore, this paradoxical image of Proctor, in turn helps better my understanding of the play's allegorical display of McCarthyism.
The aspect of the play that stuck out to me as most paradoxical was the relationship between the church and the devil. The church was meant to create a positive relationship with God, however at the same time it was creating a relationship of fear with the devil. The novel shows that the devil only exists to a person who believes in what the church is saying, which is "good". Therefore, during this time period, by being bound to the church and believing the good of it, also meant believing in the witches and evils of it, creating the devil.
ReplyDeleteBasically, what the play is trying to say is that the good and evil of the church, god and the devil, root from the same source. The church creates both of these ideas, good and evil. A quote that i found that portrayed this was, "The concept of unity, in which positive and negative are attributes of the same force, in which good and evil are relative, ever-changing, and always joined to the same phenomenon-...." (Miller 33).
Along with this more broad interpretation of the overlapping and paradoxical good and evil of the church's beliefs, there is a more specific paradox as well. I saw this in that the young girls who were being "possessed" because of the witches were being believed although they were the ones who were lying and not only that, but causing numerous murders. These were the girls who were apparently speaking from the heavens and God. So, although the church tries to give off good messages generally, in this context, the church is praising fraud, deception and murder, encouraging people to give up others as witches although it was untrue. Even those who admitted to being a witch in order to save their lives were being dishonest in the eyes of god, although it was encouraged by the church. People were being encouraged to lie in order to be accepted, and were being told that they must in order to get into heaven. People either had to "become possessed" which was untrue and an act, or "admit to being a witch" which would have been a lie as well as we know there were no such things.
This paradox of the good and evil being intertwined, connected and of the same origin within the church during this time exhibits the paradoxical form the church took regarding its' good and evil.
As I was reading Beth’s blog I found myself disagreeing. Although Proctor does present us with a sort of paradox, I do not see how he has ever disregarded society then shown his care for it again. I may have interpreted it wrong so if I have let me know, but I only saw him defending his own moral values when he refused to go to church because he was against Parris. However, I can fully agree with Beth that Proctor does present this paradox of truth. He preaches its importance yet keeps a secret of his own—the affair. I also do agree that the paradoxes he presents does make Proctor this “area of gray” because he does have this sense of balance.
ReplyDeleteAs stated before, I believe Proctor presents to the audience several paradoxes, some include what we have previously mentioned in class—morals vs. laws. In Proctor’s society the church and the bible is seen as law. Conflict between what is morally right and what the church orders in society begins during these witch trials. As Beth says, Proctor represents this area of gray because although he still believes in the church and uses the bible to guide him (tells Mary a passage to keep her strong), he is still willing to stand up with his own beliefs. He is not part of the two extremes that the church declares (with church or against church) but instead a person which captures a sense of balance between the two.
“The Salem tragedy, which is about to begin in these pages, developed from a paradox. It is a paradox in whose grip we still live, and there is no prospect yet that we will discover its resolution. Simply, it was this: for good purposes, even high purposes, the people of Salem developed a theocracy, a combine of state and religious power whose function was to keep the community together, and to prevent any kind of disunity that might open it to destruction by material or ideological enemies. It was forged for a necessary purpose and accomplished that purpose. But all organization is and must be grounded on the idea of exclusion and prohibition just as two objects cannot occupy the same space. Evidently the time came in New England when the repressions of order were heavier than seemed warranted by the dangers against which the order was organized. The witch-hunt was a perverse manifestation of the panic which set in among all classes when the balance began to turn toward greater individual freedom. When one rises above the individual villainy displayed, one can only pity them all, just as we shall be pitied someday. It is still impossible for man to organize his social life without repressions, and the balance has yet to be struck between order and freedom.” (7)
ReplyDeleteI know that’s a long quote but it really clearly presents and explains important paradoxes within the play; a paradox of religion and government created to keep order but only raining destruction down onto the community as well as the duality of order/restriction and freedom. Not only does this quote fully explain the paradox I wished to address but also explains how such paradoxes are important to the novel and further my understanding. The Salem witch trials, as this quote states, developed from a paradox itself. This let me see the foundation of which this community was built on and see how this cornerstone in their government might have affected those within the community—leading them to accuse and carry out several paradoxes themselves.
I completely agree with Anna and her paradox of the church and the devil. I think another good quote to go with hers would be the signing at the end. Luke connected that scene really well to the signing of the devil, although it is the church which is driving Proctor to sign it.
Good points so far. I think that the Proctor paradox has to do with his the fact that he has done something that both he and society deem wrong (adultery) but will under no circumstances violate this other thing that he deems is wrong--signing his name to the truly "devilish" book. Proctor IS publicly honest and repentant about his affair eventually (he confesses which is part of what damns both he and Elizabeth) and it is because he has had this affair that he (at first) thinks he is not worthy of being a martyr or saint:
ReplyDelete"It is pretense, Elizabeth... I cannot mount the gibbet like a saint. It is a fraud. I am not that man" (136).
This line raises some interesting questions about what and who has forgiven Proctor... Elizabeth seems to have because she says he has his goodness now, and that she cannot take it from him. Has Proctor forgiven himself? For what sin is he being punished? For what honor is he dying? Are there definitive answers to these questions?
As opposed to discussing the Proctor paradox (which I do think is an entirely valid point), I would like to talk about something different all together. I felt like I didn’t get the chance to emphasize and elaborate on all of the points that I was trying to make during my discussion, so this seems like an excellent medium to do just that.
ReplyDeleteIn case you don’t remember, I was talking about the paradox between the lack of freedom in the play versus the overzealous amount of control. To me, these two ideas are inseparable. With control, comes a lack of freedom, and with a lack of control comes greater freedom. When I tried to verbalize this in class it didn’t work out so well, so maybe I can do a better job of it here.
In the story, we see the two extremes I just highlighted, overzealous control and at the same time an extreme lack of freedom. On the idea of control, with so many people assuming that they have control, where is the power actually coming from? Obviously, it is the church, but how can all of the citizens of Salem believe that they are the one with the power. With these notions of dominance spread out over the entire community, doesn’t that in fact show that there is no control all together? With so many people attempting to force everyone else into the guidelines, how does anyone know whom to respect? The fact that there is a need for order is undisputable, but the reality that so many people are enforcing shows the ultimate lack of control.
If the church were enforcing this, then that would be control. But with so many individuals taking matters into their own hands, that brings to mind a new word, chaos. This in itself is what brings the paradox to the forefront. If this town is being overtaken by chaos then how is there still such a lack of freedom? Does this enforce the other argument that the chaos is in fact control? Yes. However, at the same time it brings to mind an alternative, which is that, the entire basis for the story is a paradox.
“When she come into the court I say to myself, I must not accuse this woman, for she sleep in ditches, and so very old and poor. But then—then she sit there, denying and denying, and I feel a misty coldness climbing up my back, and the skin on my skull begin to creep, and I feel a clamp around my neck and I cannot breathe air…I hear a voice, a screamin’ voice…and all at once I remember everything she done to me!” (Miller, 57).
I definitely agree with the Proctor paradox that Beth mentioned earlier. As we mentioned in our presentation, there is certainly a lack of order and balance within the Puritanical society of Salem, MA. I think that this also relates to what Greg was mentioning about chaos being order, but I don't know if that makes sense or if it's just me making weird sense out of the two ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn any society, it's necessary for there to be chaos for there to be order. There is certainly a sense of recklessness in the play, and this contributes to the lack of order. Because this is a Puritan society we are referring to, we have to take into account what exactly they believe in and in what ways that they executed these ideals. Puritans believe that they and their entire society if governed by god and they church, which is why the Bible is referenced throughout the play. All Puritans believed that everyone should believe in the same ideas, and follow the rules that were set in stone for their society. this goes back to the idea of Communism and McCarthyism that I think Beth? brought up earlier. Because everyone is taught to believe the same things, we can view the characters in the play as characters in a communist society.
The point I'm trying to demonstrate here (although I'm totally rambling, I know, sorry) is that while the Puritans are taught to have the church govern them, in The Crucible, they are allowing the Devil/Hell, the exact opposite of the church to govern them.
The girls who are claiming to be "bewitched" are completely disobeying the "laws of the land" in order to protect themselves. The paradox here is between church and Hell, and the conflict between them. i think Abigail demonstrates this sort of acting out the best, as she seems so innocent, yet she has had an affair with Proctor, and is killing innocent towns people, and then she ends up running away in the end to escape her own death. "I never sold myself! I'm a good girl! I'm a proper girl!" (Miller 43). Instead of admitting her own faults, Abigail blames others, especially the slave in the community, Tituba and Mary Warren.
ReplyDelete"Mr. Danforth, he is lying!" (110)
"A wild thing may say wild things. but not so wild, I think. I habe seen you since she put me out; I have seen you nights" (23).
"She is blackening my name in the village! She is telling lies about me!" (23).
I too agree with Beth, the paradox of Proctor, but i am going to talk about one we have not yet mentioned. I found that there was a strong paradox in freedom itself.
ReplyDeleteFreedom in most situations is not associated with death. Freedom for the most part is associated with life, and for a person to live without fearing truth. Truth should be a freedom for someone to express, as in our first amendment Freedom in Speech seems to express. But in Salem during the witch trials freedom to live comes from lieing and admitting to being a witch, when in acutality none of them are, and the freedom to die with a clear soul comes with sticking to the truth and morals instead of signing their names to lies and the devil. So perhaps it isn't completely paradoxical but more a question to as what freedom really is. When they say they are free to live from confessing, are they truly free? If they live they may never be free of their guilt to lieing and signing their name to their lies, or to the devil, and they will never have the freedom of the truth unless they are willing to loose their lives.
Although death does not seem to fall even remotely in the category of freedom, Proctor who tells the truth and does not lie to live, is the most free of all. He has the freedom of truth in his relationship with God and with the church, which the others who believe they are free, lack.
Ha, the paradox I'm focusing on includes none other than John Proctor.
ReplyDeleteThe word "proctor" is a word used to describe a person who takes charge of a situation or group of people. John Proctor fits this description pretty well due to his taking charge of the belief that the witch activity was all a hoax as well as urging of Mary Warren to confess that she and her friends made false accusations against the townspeople. However, there is a unique instance in act two involving both Proctor and his wife.
The first thing to note about Proctor is that his individual lines of text are presented as "Proctor" and only that, never "John" or "John Proctor." Meanwhile, Elizabeth is simply addressed as "Elizabeth." Though it seems like Miller does this to show John Proctor as the proctoral (I hope that's a word) character, we end up seeing an interesting transition between the two characters. Elizabeth is the one that urges Proctor to go to Salem, saying, "I would go to Salem now, John," and, "...let you go tonight," due to his acknowledgement of the witch business being a lie whilst seeming uneager to do anything about it (Miller 53). Instead of immediately coming up with a plan to execute, Proctor just sits there and angrily says, "I say I will think on it!" showing how he doesn't seem to be as dedicated to the subject as he is later in the play (53).
We see more of this again toward the end of the chapter when Cheever shows up to take Elizabeth into custody due to her being mentioned in the court by a girl. When Proctor becomes infuriated and starts to tear up Cheever's warrant, Elizabeth chooses to go with Cheever in order to prevent the situation from escalating out of control. Despite John's reasonable anger, fighting with the law is something that Elizabeth knows will not help either of them, and that's why she takes control and lets herself be taken. Even more, she manages to give out orders to both Proctor and Mary, telling Mary that she needs to help him "as you were his daughter" and John not to "speak nothing of witchcraft" in front of their children (77). Mary is the clear proctor in this section of the play, and not John.
I think the reason for portraying John Proctor in this instance as anything but a proctor was to add to the main paradox of this novel: in this Puritanical society of strict control, everything is starting to unravel and what little control everyone has ends up being lost. Proctor served as an example of someone losing control of their own title and character.
I would like to focus on the presence of contrasting ideas of perspective in The Crucible. Perspective, or reality, is our personal truth, which we base all decisions on. Actuality is a universal reality which consists of the actual truth. Actuality can never be completely viewed due to personal bias and opinion. Throughout the play, there is a crucial difference between the way characters present themselves for general perception and who they truly are. As Beth said, Proctor had not always been truthful. And as Emma said, he preached the importance of truth, but kept a secret of his own. Characters often believe what they want or what they will, but present themselves to the public in a way that is acceptable to society, while they may be perceived moral and pure. In actuality, no one truly lives up to society’s expectations.
ReplyDelete“‘Nurse, though our hearts break, we cannot flinch; these are new times, sir. There is a misty plot afoot so subtle we should be criminal to cling to old respects and ancient friendships. I have seen too many frightful proofs in court- the Devil is alive in Salem, and we dare not quail to follow wherever the accusing finger points!’” (Miller 71).
This quote embodies my idea because it demonstrates people’s general ability to follow society, even if it means disregarding their morals. This contrast in personality or priorities reminded me of the persona, from Jung’s theories of archetypes. The persona is the mask that people put on to present themselves to the outside world in order to be acceptable. Jung stated that often, people are eventually unable to distinguish the difference between themselves and their persona. In the Crucible, people have their own personal ideas or morals until they enter society and attempt to mold into society’s expectations. And through this unity and control of the people in attempt to raise morality, instead people are led to corruption chaos, as Greg stated. However, no matter how much people appear to be following the law of the bible and society, they will inevitably hold their own personal beliefs. It is strange that society needs and enforces proof to demonstrate morality, when the only person who can determine that is oneself. No one will know whether or not a person is truly Catholic, because they cannot be inside their heads. Although one may appear to be Catholic through their actions, they could be completely unreligious in actuality.
Emma I just wrote my response and now that I’m reading through everything I actually looked at the same quote as you (or at least part of it)! I came at it from a slightly different angle so I’m just going to go with it:
ReplyDelete“Simply, it was this: for good purposes, even high purposes, the people of Salem developed a theocracy, a combine of state and religious power whose function was to keep the community together, and to prevent any kind of disunity that might open it to destruction by material or ideological enemies. It was forged for a necessary purpose and accomplished that purpose. But all organization is and must be grounded on the idea of exclusion and prohibition just as two objects cannot occupy the same space. Evidently the time came in New England when the repressions of order were heavier than seemed warranted by the dangers against which the order was organized. The witch-hunt was a perverse manifestation of the panic which set in among all classes when the balance began to turn toward greater individual freedom” (Miller 7).
A paradox that strongly stood out to me was between individual and community (similarly, public and private). The community of Salem was tight-knit to begin with, as demonstrated on page 5 when Miller narrates, “The predilection for minding other people’s business was time-honored among the people of Salem, and it undoubtedly created many of the suspicion which were to feed the coming madness.” The panic of the witch trials perversely drives the public justice system into the private lives of the people in Salem, like when Hale questions Proctor in his own home, about such private matters as church attendance and religious beliefs. The shift toward greater individual freedom could have also been a cause behind the otherwise powerless girls of Salem to cry witch and gain control. The changing atmosphere focusing less on the collective and more on the individual might have opened up the possibility for the young women of Salem to individualize themselves as holy people calling out sinners and to individualize the sinners from the whole. As private matters are drawn out into the public, the paradox between the two becomes more poignant from the terror that the confusion of such opposites causes for Salem.
Here's one last quote to sum it up:
“The world is still gripped between two diametrically opposed absolutes. The concept of unity, in which positive and negative attributes of the same force, in which good and evil are relative, ever-changing, and always joined to the same phenomenon” (Miller 33)
Along with everyone else in the class. I agree that Proctor is the most paradoxical character, however i see the main paradox made by Arthur Miller in the relationship between John Proctor and Elizabeth. As we spoke about in class, Elizabeth was the most stable and reliable character in the play. Elizabeths' role as being the morality of the play is complete paradox to her husband, John Proctor's personality as the 'paradoxical character of the play. I found this relationship between these two characters very interesting because it shows the tension even between love ones, during this critical period in history.
ReplyDeleteI found in Act IV the tension between Elizabeth and Proctor's personality clear when Proctor is in the process of signing the document claiming that he is in contact with the devil.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth: "I cannot judge you, John, I cannot!"
Proctor: "Then who will judge me?"
It becomes evident that Proctor and Elizabeth have foiling personalities, and their relationship between them is strong because of it. Not to mention, Proctor is able to look for stability using Elizabeth as his support.
MS. PARRISH! DO WE STILL HAVE TO POST THE LINK AND FOLLOW THE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT ON THE HALF SHEET? IT SAYS TO PRINT AND ANNOTATE THE DOCUMENT. OR ARE WE HAVING A RHETORIC ESSAY ON MONDAY? AND IS THE RHETORIC ESSAY ON THE CRUCIBLE OR A DIFFERENT TEXT. SORRY I FEEL LIKE THIS IS 20 QUESTIONS
ReplyDeleteEmma and Maggie, consider the contrasting concepts put forth by the Pauli Exclusion Principle and Schrödinger’s Cat in relation to the paradox you mentioned. That is, without getting into too much quantum physics, the idea that two objects cannot be in the same place at once, and the idea that until an observer decides the outcome, two or more eventualities are possible and coexist at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I choose to focus on how “the people of Salem developed a theocracy, a combine of state and religious power” and how the inherent paradox of that form of government created distinct eventualities for the play. A major conflict in the play is that between religious impulses (devil, witches, etc.) and that of morality (Proctor and Co.). While it is true that these “two objects cannot occupy the same space” (Miller 7) during the events of the play, that was not always so. Indeed, before the girls claimed to be witches, both coexisted. Proctor was able to go about his business without conflict with the church (i.e. not being harassed overmuch for not going to church). However, once a decision was reached, namely choosing to listen to the ‘witches,’ only one eventuality could prevail.
The separation of church and state is an essential one, as proven by the play, for when the two are combined, it is inevitable that one seeks total control. The paradox of the play is that the people of Salem seek unity in that disunity. They turn to the church as their government in their time of crisis when it is the church causing that crisis. Religious and non-religious, they are forced into one group without consideration to differences. Two distinct groups, each having made up their mind to separate, squashed into the same place. It is physically impossible, and conflict is inevitable, as demonstrated in the play.
Well I guess the disadvantage of posting late is that so many ideas are already taken... Therefore I am going to try to discuss something new, so bear with me...
ReplyDeleteAs I believe we talked about in class, I found Judge Hathorne to be a paradoxical character. While a judge is supposed to be impartial to a case and hear all sides of a situation, Hathorne does exactly the opposite, and is angered when presented with evidence going against what he wants to decide. This makes the cases entirely unfair, and goes against the ideals and morals of the judicial system. "Francis: We have proof of it, sir. They are all deceiving you. Hathorne: This is contempt, sir, contempt!" (87) He is simply being presented with evidence against the claims of the girls, and immediately takes it as "contempt" against the court. This is an extremely unfair way to lead a court, as the defense is unable to defend themselves. This is of course not the only instance of unfairness we see Hathorne involved in, as he clearly makes every attempt to disprove those who do not believe in the validity of the "bewitched" girls. For example, when Mary is telling her story, Hathorne makes her try to faint to prove herself, and when Abigail fakes that Mary is haunting her, he says that she if indeed cold to the touch. He refuses to be impartial to any cases presented to him, and thus is paradoxical to what should be expected of a judge.
In general, I suppose the court itself is a paradox of what a court should be in general. Witnesses and evidence are two necessary parts of a trial, and when Giles tried to present evidence at the hearing of his wife, he was escorted out, with Herrick saying, "You cannot go in there Giles; it's a court!" (84). This is almost comically paradoxical, as not only is Herrick saying that they will not hear evidence that Giles claims to have, but they also will not allow the closest thing they have to a witness testify in the court. Overall, I felt that the court and Hathorne were both a paradox to the morals and fairness that should e present in a court of law.
oops! i forgot to site my text evidence, the quote is found on page 138
ReplyDeleteI like Taylor's idea of the separation of church and state, and the paradoxical quality that comes along with it. I think Miller chose to use the Salem witch trials not only because the events and his characters serve as an allegory for the the ideas of McCarthyism and the Red Scare but also for its position in history. One important value the United States of America is based on today is the separation of church and state, and I think Miller attempts to show this importance in his play. Taylor says they are "Two distinct groups, each having made up their mind to separate, squashed into the same place. It is physically impossible, and conflict is inevitable, as demonstrated in the play." I agree with his position, and i feel the Puritan society is an example of the concentration of power in a religious setting. Hale demonstrates the pressure that the church leaders exert on the parishioners by using God as a threat rather than a role model. "Quail not before God's judgement in this, for it may well be God damns a liar less that he that throws his life away for pride.......Woman, before the laws of God we are as swine! We cannot read His will! (Miller, 132). Jonathan Edwards speaks to the same idea in 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' where he is persuading his followers to do good in their lives in order to prove to God that they deserve to go to heaven.
ReplyDeleteSo, the separation/combination of church and state is very prevalent in The Crucible and its subtleties unfold throughout the course of the play
No you don't have to follow the sheet. More to come shortly.
ReplyDeleteI really liked where Taylor and Luke were going with the paradoxical means of law being corrupted by the church throughout the play. I also found this prevalent throughout the play and I want to just take it a step further in applying it to the allegory.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Kara applied the play's demonstration of the corruption of church and state to America's own corrupt judicial system which does the same (she did briefly comment on the Red Scare as well, I know) , I have to disagree as to what she claimed Miller's intentions were in doing so. I think that the paradox of chuch and state within the play works to convey the corruption of the government during the second Red Scare; not corruption in the means of the blending of church and state, but that all individuals who were accused of being communist were guilty until proven innocent, had to defend themselves in court, and if one were to claim innocence, he would have to rat out three other communists. In The Crucible, we see many similar qualities of the American judicial system during the Red Scare in the court in which Proctor is tried: during his final moments, Proctor must admit to being "guilty" of of lying to the court or must admit that he was under the Devil's control. If he is what is considered "innocent", or admitting that he lied, then he must admitt to Danforth his knowledge of who else was under the Devil's control. When accused of being a witch in Salem, there is no being granted innocence without, as John Proctor so well articulates, dishonoring one's name. The paradoxical blending of church and state in The Crucible works to convey the corruption of the U.S government during the second Red Scare in that none accused were ever innocent in law or morals; even if one played into the government's hand by claiming he was not a communist (or not a witch), he would have to suffer the concequences of accusing innocent others.
" Now Mr. Hale's returned, there is hope, I think--for if he bring even one these to God, that confession surely damns the oters in the public eye, and none may doubt more that they are linked to Hell. This way, unconfessed and claiming innocence, doubts are multiplied, many honest people will weep for them, and out good purpose is lost in their tears." Parris, 128
Beth, I think your point about why we can consider Proctor's character heroic is really accurate and also interesting. I think your right; he is heroic because he is "reasonable, yet truthful". I think what also makes Procter heroic is that he is depicted as human. He commits sin in his affair with Abigail, but he is also willing to recognize and admit this sin in an effort to perhaps re-strike the balance in himself (of good and evil, human morality juxtaposed with the expectation of the Christian church) in an effort to uphold his name and perhaps help establish some notion of honesty in the court. I think Proctor could be a demonstrative example of someone in the play who keeps good and evil, the church and its relationship to the devil and fear, all in perspective. Molly said “He has the freedom of truth in his relationship with God and with the church, which the others who believe they are free, lack”, and so I think, like Beth said, Proctor refuses to submit himself to one absolute extreme by not signing the list, and he is in the grey area while the other characters remain fixated on the black and the white: “You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” (Miller, 94).
ReplyDeleteThis also relates to what Nicole said, the characters in the play are governed by the Devil and Hell, the exact opposite of the church- which is also similar to what I took from “Sinners in the hands of an angry god” (I think Kara said this too). This breaches the notion of duality, how one extreme cannot exist without another. Edwards wouldn’t be lecturing if there was no Hell to escape, and the witch trials would not have occurred if Salem wasn’t so concerned with remaining untainted to the devil and the force of evil. But think about it, weren’t they always tainted by the force of evil and the devil? It governs them: “When it is recalled that until the Christian era the underworld was never regarded as a hostile area, that all gods were useful and essentially friendly to man despite occasional lapses; when we see that the steady and methodical inculcation into humanity of the idea of man’s worthlessness- until redeemed- the necessity of the Devil may become evident as a weapon, a weapon designed and used time and time again in every age to whip men into a surrender to a particular church or church- state.”
“Like Reverand Hale and the others on this stage, we conceive the Devil as a necessary part of a respectable view of cosmology. Ours is a divided empire in which certain ideas and emotions are acts of God, and the oppossites are of Luciver. It is as impossivle for most men to conceive of a morality without sin as of an earth without ‘sky’” (Miller, 33) *This is also a part of Anna’s point- “The church creates both of these ideas, good and evil.”
I just thought of something else.
ReplyDeleteThe group that discussed Act two in The Crucible brought up a good point on their handout. While there is "Though shalt not suffer a witch to live" in Exodus (22:18), there is also the commandment "Though shalt not kill" that is a foundation for religious. ( I guess this is morality vs. law)
This relates to what anna said too,"although the church tries to give off good messages generally, in this context, the church is praising fraud, deception and murder, encouraging people to give up others as witches although it was untrue."
The contradictory principles of the bible and how they should be applied to life breeches the question of whether or not it is possible for religious ethics to ever be blended with moral law and make sense in context. And maybe that just goes back to the inability for society to be based on absolutes- Taylor's point about church and state: "for when the two are combined, it is inevitable that one seeks total control. The paradox of the play is that the people of Salem seek unity in that disunity. "...And also Ms. Parrish's point in class about how maybe The Crucible advocates democracy by discouraging the absolutes and pointing out flawed systems and oppositions and dual forces that still influence a lot of things today.