The Crucible

The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, largely conforms to Aristotle's paradigm of tragedy. Aristotle argues that tragedy is a mimesis, which means an imitation of an action, and it "shows" like a drama rather than "tells" like a narrative. In addition, he claimed that tragedy amplifies “what may happen” rather than scribing "what has happened"(McManus, 3). In this novel, the tragedy revolves around a character, John Proctor, who is considered as the anti-hero of the play. With this and many other elements, the play reflects the genre of Aristotle Tragedy. 

The first principle of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy is "the plot". "The plot" contains an arrangement of incidents, which result in a tightly constructed cause and effect chain. This is evidenced in The Crucible that Abigail committed retaliation causing the whole hysteria in Salem as a result of being cast aside by John Proctor.

The beginning of “The plot” is called the “incentive moment” according to Aristotle.  This is when the tragedy is triggered by a particular incident. In The Crucible, this happens when Betty Parris didn’t wake up because she was trying to get attention as women and children were marginalised in Salem. It is also when Abigail scapegoated Tituba as involved in witchcraft and then Tituba scapegoated Goody Good and Goody Osborne who were suggested by Goody Putnam. The people who were accused were brought up for trial, which lead to the arising fear of witchcraft in Salem.

Next comes the “the climax”, which is the pinnacle of the tragedy. The Crucible is at its apex when John Proctor came to court to save his wife and Elizabeth was brought in for questioning but she lied. John Proctor didn’t envisage the situational irony because he thought that his wife never lies so he assumed she would tell the truth. But to save John’s name, she lied and the incongruity causes the erratic contingency of her being hang.

Finally, the tragedy reaches its “denouement”, which is the resolution to the turmoil. John Proctor could no longer abide Danforth’s perversity so he decided to die to protect his name because if he let Danforth hang his blackened name in front of the church door, he would be a bad model to his sons.

Aristotle argues that the plot must be “complete”. This means that it must be “structurally self-contained” and the incidents are bound together by internal necessity, each action leads to the next. John Proctor is an example this. He cared too much about his name that he ignored Elizabeth’s advice and this lead to Abigail accusing Elizabeth for the practice of witchcraft. Later on in the play, every decision that John Proctor made brought him negative consequences such as not confessing of being a lecher.

Aristotle argues that the plot should be complex because more incidents can convene an “organic unity”. This can include the “catastrophe” which a simple plot could also have. The “catastrophe” is when Elizabeth is arrested for witchcraft after being named by Abigail. Elizabeth was a just so being accused for witchcraft is a change of fortune.

The elements that a simple plot doesn’t have but a complex one does are “peripeteia” and “anagnorisis”. Aristotle explains that “peripeteia” occurs when there’s a reversal of intention, and in The Crucible, it is when Mary Warren turned her back on John Proctor and accused him as the Devil because she was being foisted to confess the truth. First she was just helping John Proctor but then she knew that it wouldn’t bring her any good so she could just easily accuse him. “Anagnorisis”, as explained by Aristotle, is the recognition or a change from ignorance to knowledge. This occurs in The Crucible when John Proctor decided to confess his lechery because he recognised that he couldn’t defeat Abigail. It is also when Hale changed his side against the court and believed in John Proctor at the end of Act III.

Aristotle stated that “Character” has the second place in importance. One of the terms that are included in this is “hamartia”. This is the tragic flaw of the character in the play, such as John Proctor’s hubris that exacerbated the tragedy he was dreaded to sabotage his name. “Goodness” of character is also included in the sense of being a realistic character and consistent throughout the play. This matches with John because he didn’t believe in the fraud throughout the whole play and he also confessed to Elizabeth that he committed lechery.

Coming third in importance is the “Thought”. The message of the tragedy in The Crucible is that the whole witch-hunt is a severe trial and that the Salemites are the Devil themselves. Everything developed because of vengeance and that reality is being ignored.

Finally comes the other element of a tragedy. The “diction” (metaphor) is appropriate to the plot such as "There are wheels within wheels in this village and fires within fires." The metaphor suggests that there is retaliation happening from the inside not just how the villagers see the events. Another element is “the spectacle”, which creates a sense of not just the terrible, but of the monstrous. In this case, “the spectacle” is the vengeance of an individual (Abigail) leading to the whole chaos in Salem. Katharsis is also included with a sense of purging and cleansing. An example of this is that with John’s death, he regains his “goodness”.

In conclusion, The Crucible is an allegory of McCarthyism but with the outline structure of an Aristotelian tragedy. Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible in 1952 reflecting the same situation America was in (like Salem): a severe trial by HUAC. McCarthy called up names and accused them for being communist while his evidence was just hasty generalisation and ad ignorantiam. In my opinion, this exquisitely conforms to the tragedy of Aristotle’s style of drama.

Word count: 971

Bibliography

1) McManus, Barbara F. "Outline of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy." Outline of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy. N.p., Nov. 1999. Web. 29 Apr. 2015. <http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html>.