The Crucible - Arthur Miller - Episode 2 - The Witch Hunt and Hysteria Begins!

The Crucible - Arthur Miller - Episode 2 - The Witch Hunt and Hysteria Begins!

The Crucible- Episode 2

HI, I’m Christy Shriver and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.

And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love lit Podcast. Thank you for listening, and please, if you don’t mind, take a minute right now to forward an episode of our show to a friend who may enjoy it. As you know, it’s hard to grow a podcast, and we rely on you to help us. So, if you enjoy what we do, please share the word. Having said that, today is episode 2 of our discussion of the Crucible, Arthur Miller’s allegorical play about two great American hysteria’s – and no- this not about any current moment- this book is about the Salem Witch Hunt of 1692, written to parallel the Red and Lavender Scare of the 1950s. Last week, we got into the background of the early American settlements and set the stage for what is to come in the play- the brutal murder of 25 innocent people- 19 hung, 5 died in jail, and one crushed- literally. What we tried to impart if nothing else is that the social causes of the events of Salem Village are considerably more complex than Miller could have imagined when he started his investigation or any of us probably think of when we think of this incident.

For sure, I think most of us think of it quite one-dimensionally-,a very religious and chauvinistic people scared of females they call witches target and kill underprivileged innocent powerless victims because of paranoia, fear, superstition simple-mindedness and prejudice- things we modern people know better than to do.

Exactly, and what we discussed last week is that that’s not even the beginning. There are family feuds, bitter rivalries, financial interests as stake, and yes- there is also a fear-but it’s not a ridiculous fear- there is a lot of death in the new world, and fear of death is driving a fear of the devil, of the frontier, of the woods and of the the Native Americans who live here- all of this contributes.

Which is why when commenting on the historical accuracy of the play, Miller wrote, “The play is not history in the sense in which the words is used by a historian...however, I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of the events..” And what he means by that is that he wants to get to the heart of the trials- which is not the chronology of names and dates- the heart of the nature of the events- something good artists are always trying to do is in looking at the causes, the humanity, the spirit of the main people- so to speak. Miller said that if you don’t have a very strong moral compass of some kind- you cannot create art. I found that interesting because I have never thought of artists in that way- and maybe it’s dependent on the kind of art you practice- but in his case- He wanted, with his art, for his audience to ask questions about our own individual basic humanity - we are these people – they aren’t so primitive- we are not so evolved- we are them- humans- and as such we too- are capable of great things- great love and sacrifice but also great evil. So, this week, what we’re going to do is step away from the history side of this completely and look at this play- because he is going to juxtapose great love and sacrifice with great evil- and to do this he deviates almost entirely from the facts of history- so today, Garry, we drop history entirely and look at the crucible from the literary perspective- this play is a tragedy with a focus on a single main character, a very traditional tragic hero- John Proctor. This play centers around John Proctor- not because he’s the most influential villager to be hung historically- not because he’s the most innocent- they’re all innocent. In fact, the John Proctor in the play is not at all the John Proctor of history- the historical John Proctor is a 60 year old man who is wealthy; he owns a farm but also several businesses including a tavern, he’s a landlord; he’s an heir to money. Elizabeth, his wife, is his much younger 3rd wife. She’s a working woman, an herbalist. These are not the two we see talking in Act 2- In the play John Proctor is a struggling farmer in his mid thirties, his wife is sickly, but what is most highlighted by Miller is that the John Proctor of the play has committed adultery.

And this twist in the truth has really galled many historians- because that isn’t true- some say it discredits John’s memory, others think it reduces the truth of the hysteria to an oversimplification of revenge instead of the actual complex reality. From a historical standpoint, the arguments make sense, but from a psychological perspective, making Proctor transgress sexually is extremely interesting.

Well, of course those historical points are good points. And I doubt Miller would even argue with that. But by layering the story where it speaks to more than one issue makes the a...