ipl-logo

Hysteria And Madness In The Crucible By Arthur Miller

1035 Words5 Pages

The Crucible is a play written by Arthur Miller that he used to analogically compare his time period struggle of the McCarthy Communist hunt to the struggle of Salem citizens in 1692, the witch trials. In this play Miller correctly outlines what made this epidemic so infamous and how the characters involved only added to the hysteria and madness. In The Crucible Miller successfully conveys, through the use of Abigail, Danforth, and Parris, that power, when placed in the hands of unjust men and women, conjures hysteria in society and ultimately has the weight to ruin or end innocent lives. Throughout The Crucible Abigail consistently condemns those who oppose her in order to garner hysteria and indirectly execute citizens of Salem, using the …show more content…

Some may say that Danforth was simply a fool who took his job to seriously and didn't understand the gravity of the situation, but even after Abigail fled, indirectly proving that everything was a lie, he continued to inflict the death penalty on innocent people, including John Proctor. “You will give me your honest confession in my hand, or I cannot keep you from the rope” (Miller 144). At the end of it all, when it was clear that no man nor woman had ever been a witch, Danforth remained a weak man. When it was finally abundantly clear that the girls had lied, Danforth continued to crucify those he could take advantage of, only attempting to save Proctor in order to indirectly preserve his own power. Giles Corey also fell victim to Danforth's abuse of power. When Giles refused to give up the name of an informant in order to preserve their safety, he was pressed under rocks until his death, an agonizing and terrible death to put even a guilty man through, much less an innocent man. Danforth could not admit fault in himself, thereby continuing the thread of hysteria, and ultimately ending even more innocent lives even after the truth was already plain to …show more content…

Parris is portrayed throughout the play as greedy and self-serving as demonstrated by his insistence on having golden candlesticks at the altar, his arguing over the 6 pound he is given for firewood, and his demanding of the deed to the free house he is given as Reverend. However, if Parris was simply a foul and greedy man he would probably fit in with many others, even in his time. But what makes Parris especially disgusting is that as a Reverend he has a responsibility to his town to uphold peace and justice. Instead, he does what he needs to to preserve his title, which in the end leads him to his own demise. “Tonight, when I opened my door to leave my house – a dagger clattered to the ground” (Miller 128). The power that he had so desperately tried to maintain was fleeting as the town realized that the crusade against imaginary monsters he had been backing was simply a mechanism for him to obtain more power and influence in Salem. In the end, there is hope to be seen in Parris as he attempts to postpone the hangings and possibly save John Proctor and the last to be executed. However, the little faith there was in him was dashed as it is clear that he only wanted to save them because he understood hanging people such as Rebecca and John

Open Document