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
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>.