Similarities Between The Crucible And Ozymandias

Representations of people, events and personalities in both Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible 1953 and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s sonnet Ozymandias, reveal the composers personal agenda and effectively demonstrate this in relation to people and politics. Millers The Crucible is a classic parable of mass hysteria drawing a chilling parallel between the Salem witch trials of 1692 and the Congressional hearings of the McCarthy era which griped America in the 1950’s. Shelley’s masterful sonnet is a first person persona describing a meeting with someone who has travelled to a place where ancient civilizations once existed. Both composers even though they have varying contextual eras, both display similar ideals including those with power are deluded

Miller was able to relay these traits through John Procter who first and foremost is a representation of Millers personal ideology and embodiment of his aspirations. Through the use of exclamation, “In her life, sir she have never lied … my wife cannot lie!” we see that Proctors imperfections make him a relatable representation to his audience. His courage to not name his wife Elizabeth ironically demonstrates his goodness as by not naming names in essence equates to her not being guilty. This is representative of Millers political values of the law and 1950’s American Judicial system, as Miller too was fearful of being identified as convert Communist if he should protest strong enough. However in Ozymandias, Shelly’s ridicule of the controlling Egyptian ruler ‘Ramesses III’ with the use of enjambment “a shattered visage lies, whose frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command” was an indirect criticism of the English government under King George III. Shelly believed that by having an element of control and logic in society will essentially result in an unjust authority to be outlived. This is furthered by the alliteration “the lone and level sands stretch far away”, employing that the desert itself outlives the statue. Furthermore, Miller’s representation of Proctors logical control is additionally shown when he becomes

Miller, through Judge Danforth was able to illustrate this individual corruption by his rigidity of purpose, one which we find difficult to sympathise with as he miss uses his power to punish the innocent, in order please the town’s majority. This Is clearly noted at the back end of Act III where he asks a series of short, sharp questions “you are a lecher”, “-do you deny it Mr Parris”, -you deny every scrap and title of this”, in hope the truth will come out. This is significant because he’s combining this illicit fear of the supernatural and political manipulation in order to get a well-regarded individual in John Proctor to confess to witchcraft. With him dealing with political absolutes “witchcraft is an invisible crime … who may possibly be witness to it?” leads to countless flawed and irrational judgements. Similarly in Millers context, he was able challenge 1950’s American humanity, by revealing the corruptness of HUAC members like Senator Joseph McCarthy. Adding on to this, Shelly composes a sense of historical irony as during his lifetime, Ozymandias was a feared and respected leader, showcased through the religious allusion, “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings”. However he has become nothing more than a faint memory, a broken statue in the desert “Nothing beside remains. Round the Decay”. As a Romantic poet, Shelley emphasized the incredible