Act Three Analysis Context is all The Crucible

Act Three Analysis ‘Context is all’ - The Crucible

Focus • To closely analyse language and dramatic technique • To explore the presentation of character • To make links between this act and the play as a whole • To identify key themes and explore their significance in relation to the play as a whole

Significance of Act Three • The act takes place one week after the events of Act 3 • In this act, the ‘crucible’ is brought to a boiling point: John confesses, Elizabeth lies to save him and Abigail loses the affection and possession of John for good.

Significance of Act Three • Act 3 also introduces the workings of the court and especially, its chief magistrate, Governor Danforth. • This act reveals much about the nature of authority in this play and its wider links to theocracy of Salem and the absolute authority of God.

A logical fallacy? • The link between the court and God was hinted at in Act 2 by Mary’s description of the events in court as first, ‘the court’s work’, then ‘weighty work’ and then ‘God’s work’. • Like most people in Salem, Danforth sees everything in black and white; everyone is good or evil, with God or with the Devil. • The court is divinely sanctioned, therefore belonging to God, so anyone who opposes the court, cannot be an honest opponent, because essentially, they’re opposing God (e. g. Proctor, Giles Corey)

A Logical Fallacy • In a theocracy, you cannot have religious disagreements as God is infallible. As the court is ‘God’ in some senses, anyone who opposes the court, is an enemy of God. • This also means there are no ‘shades’ of justice, hence the fact (regardless of innocence) Rebecca charged with murdering babies and Martha for the death of the pig, are both sentenced to death.

The illogical equation THE COURT DOES GOD’S WORK AN ENEMY OF THE COURT MUST BE A SERVANT OF THE DEVIL

KEY WORDS • Antithesis - (Greek for "setting opposite", from ἀντί "against" + θέσις "position") is a counter-proposition and denotes a direct contrast to the original proposition. In setting the opposite, an individual brings out a contrast in the meaning by an obvious contrast.

Key Words • Juxtaposition - is the placement of two things (usually abstract concepts, though it can refer to physical objects) near each other. • Absolutism – absolute idealism/ belief • Theocracy - a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance

Arthur Miller’s thoughts… • ‘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 churchstate. ’ • ‘the world is still gripped by two diametrically opposed absolutes’

Arthur Miller’s thoughts… • ‘In the countries of the Communist ideology, all resistance of any import is linked to the totally malign capitalist succubi, and in America any man who is not reactionary in his views is open to the charge of alliance with the Red hell. ’

Arthur Miller’s thoughts… • ‘The results of this process are no different now from what they ever were, except sometimes in the degrees of cruelty inflicted. . . Normally, the actions and deeds of a man were all that society felt comfortable in judging. ’

Opposing concepts through character • Bearing this in mind, what relation does John Proctor bear to these ideas? • What is he supposed to represent? • In what ways can we see him as Miller’s ‘hero’? • Who can we see as his conceptual opposite?

Act Three Questions • How does Miller create an atmosphere of fear in the opening of Act 3 (up to the entrance of Giles Corey)? • What are your first impressions of Danforth?

Act Three Questions • In what ways does Miller present conflict and opposition in this section between Proctor, Parris and Danforth? • Can you make any wider thematic links here, either to context or the rest of the play?

Danforth – in history and in the play • Historical fact does suggest that Danforth was wrong in his accusations and handling of evidence. • Miller deliberately exaggerates the ‘evil’ of the real life figure of Danforth to prove his point. • Some critics have said that Danforth is too evil: Kenneth Tynan said that he was presented as a ‘motiveless monster. . . Men are never wholly right or wrong. ’

Danforth – in history and in the play • Miller asserted that he did not make Danforth evil enough! He describes the real acts of Danforth such as dragging an old woman, Rebecca Nurse, from her sickbed as ‘sadism’ at its worst. • However, he also acknowledges his ‘function’ in the drama as ‘the rule-bearer, the man who always guards the boundaries, which if you insist on breaking through them, has the power to destroy you. ’

Act Three Questions • Miller described Danforth’s evil as ‘mythical’ in scale. How does Miller show Danforth’s evil/power in this section? • Can we view him as having human weaknesses or is he simply representative?

Final thought. . . • ‘The burden of guilt must fall not on individuals, but on societies that allow themselves to be seduced by extreme ideology into co-operating in the murder of innocents in the process of self-preservation. ’ HOW FAR DO YOU THINK THIS STATEMENT APPLIES TO THE CRUCIBLE?