Crucible

Act I~And you must. You are no wintry man. I know you, John. I know you. I cannot sleep for dreamin; I cannot dream but I wake and walk about the house as though Id find you comin through some door.-pg 23 (Abigail)

• **This passage shows repetition, rambling, wondering. It also shows the emotion of Abigail. Telling the reading that Abigail is cunning, deceiving. This sets a soft tone where Abigail is talking to her Proctor who she once had an affair with.

Act II-Oh, Elizabeth, your justice would freeze beer! How do you go to Salem when I forbid it? DO you mock me? Ill whip you if you dare leave this house again.-pg 55 (Proctor)

• **This passage shows how Proctor is very mad at his wife for not trusting him. Elizabeth still has the memory of Abigail and his husbands affair from the pass. This shows how proctor is very mad for things had changed; there are no more connections between Proctor and Abigail.

Act II-Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods, not make unto thee any graven image. Thou shaltK-pg 67 (Proctor)

• **This passage is very ironic because Proctor has forgotten the law that he has just recently broken. He probably forgotten it on purpose for he does not want to remember the law of adultery. He was sweating which shows that he was nervuse.

Act III-Hes come to overthrow this court, Your Honor!-pg 92 (Parris)

• **The significant of this quote is that Reverend Parris repeatedly accuses of Proctor and others for over throwing the court because f Proctor loses his case, everyone who supported him will be destroyed.

Act III-KThe law, based on the Bible, and the Bible, writ by Almighty God, forbid the practice of witchcraft, and describe death as the penalty thereofK-pg 102 (Danforth)

• **This shows how the Puritans believes strongly on God and that the God and the Bible is everything are always right- how narrow minded they are.

Act III~She-dissatisfied meK And my husband.-pg 111 (Elizabeth)

Your husband-did he indeed turns from you?-pg 113 (Danforth)

My husband- is a goodly man, sir.-pg 113 (Elizabeth)

• **The Questioning of Elizabeth from Danforth is an irony. Arthur Miller stated that Elizabeth is an honest woman who never lies, however, she lied in order to defend her husband and to save Proctors name; even though she knows that Proctor had an affair with Abigail.

The Family Crucible: The Intense Experience of Family Therapy

In The Family Crucible, a unique way of looking at family therapy is used. This approach probably would not be something that would be done by therapist now. The more that we study systemic approaches the less I believe that there are any individual problems. With that being said there is a long reach that effects of parenting has on a child.

• Describe how Carolyn and David fit in terms of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive forms of parenting.
• Authoritative parents set clear and consistent limits for children. They are flexible but firm, whichs leads to children who are responsible, cooperative, and self reliant.
• There are almost as many parenting “styles” in the world as there are parents. However, most experts have classified parenting styles into three main categories: authoritarian, permissive and authoritative. If you are aiming to raise a self-reliant, pleasant, well-behaved child, the authoritative parent will generally have the most success.

What is Authoritative Parenting?

Authoritative parents exercise control over their children, without being controlling.

They set rules and guidelines that they expect children to follow. But they also recognize that sometimes flexibility is called for. Authoritative parents often express love and affection to their children, without fear that such expressions of emotion may affect their ability to discipline. As their children get older, authoritative parents encourage more responsibility and freedom, within well-outlined rules. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other children’s health organizations state that children of authoritative parents usually grow up to be independent, socially successful, and respectful of authority. This style is sometimes also referred to as an indulgent or non-directive parenting style.

• The inconsistency of the permissive parenting style often leaves devoted parents grieving for their parenting mistakes.
• Permissive parents have the belief that really showing their child love and feeling their love, in return, is their ultimate goal in parenting.
• They do love their children and are highly bonded to them. But their relationship is one of equals rather than as parents to children.
• To gain compliance from their children they will often resort to gift giving and even out right ribery, rather than setting boundaries and expecting obedience.

Permissive means to be lenient, liberal, lax and hands-off. During the 1960s, developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind described three different types of parenting styles based on her researcher with preschool-age children. One of the main parenting styles identified by Baumrind is known as the authoritarian parenting style. Authoritarian parents have high expectations of their children and have very strict rules that they expect to be followed unconditionally.

According to Baumrind, these parents “are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation. ” People with this parenting style often utilize punishment rather than discipline, but are not willing or able to explain the reasoning behind their rules.

Characteristics of the Authoritarian Parenting Style

Authoritarian parents

• Have strict rules and expectations.
• Very demanding, but not responsive.
• Don’t express much warmth or nurturing.
• Utilize punishments with little or no explanation.
• Don’t give children choices or options.

The Effects of Authoritarian Parenting

Parenting styles have been associated with a variety of child outcomes including social skills and academic performance. The children of authoritarian parents:

• Tend to associate obedience and success with love.
• Some children display more aggressive behavior outside the home.
• Others may act fearful or overly shy around others.
• Often have lower self-esteem.
• Have difficulty in social situations. Understanding Authoritarian Parenting

Because authoritarian parents expect absolute obedience, children raised in such settings are typically very good at following rules. However, they may lack self-discipline. Unlike children raised by authoritative parents, children raised by authoritarian parents are not encouraged to explore and act independently, so they never really learn how to set their own limits and personal standards. While developmental experts agree that rules and boundaries are important for children to have, most believe that authoritarian parenting is too punitive and lacks the warmth, unconditional love and nurturing that children need.

References

1. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child-care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.
2. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
3. Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.
4. Santrock, J. W. (2007). A topical approach to life-p development, third Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

I believe the authors’ were instrumental in providing a clear example of what the family really needed and searched for. The family needed to realize that in order for the family to make a real change they need to utilize a structure that included the entire family. They also needed to know that the therapists were completely serious and in control. Their stance was something I could completely agree upon. However, I do not agree that the family was trying to question their authority or provide a strategy to defeat the new system in which they were beginning to enter.

Barring this, the authors’ posed a series of questions that they strongly believed the family was thinking. Did Don really wonder “will the family undertake changing the whole family without me? ” Therefore, I did not agree with the aspect of “we know what you’re thinking”. I felt that this was too deep of an approach. The basic underlining problem of the family was that they did not know how to communicate and could not establish their own structure to allow their family system to operate in harmony.

Another aspect of the text that I thought was fundamental and provided me with a different outlook on approaching a perceived problem was the way in which the two therapists began the therapy. The family entered into therapy by believing that Claudia was their entire problem and that her actions alone were the root of their dilemma. However, she was just the perceived problem. And in order for the parents to see that Claudia was only the perceived problem the therapists reversed the blame that the parents had projected on to their daughter.

I believe this technique was most attractive. Through the art of helping the family to view their situation differently, the therapists initiated a second-order change allowing the family to step outside their norm and see that their failure in marriage was affecting their parenting. Thus, the therapists gave Claudia meaning while reducing her feeling of failure and at the same time proposed the more serious problem that the parents had slowly began drifting away from each other and suffered the impasse of a deadening marriage.

In my view, once the fundamental problem of the marriage was introduced and the family began to realize that each had a role in a family system that was failing, many changes began to take place. Most importantly, I saw the problems associated with scapegoating the children fall by the wayside that allowed the parents to confront the hard issues they had so skillfully avoided through the dynamics they developed among themselves. It was good to see that confronting the parents with their underlining problem helped to reduce the polarization effect they were projecting on the family members around them.

Now, this is not to say that all the issues disappeared instantly. There was still the fact that the parents triangulated the children in order to get reacquainted with their true feeling about one another. Likewise, a considerable amount of blame lingered throughout the entire therapy. And when the therapists tried to work the issues of blame, I had to disagree with there methods. It seemed as if they were constantly trying to evoke a confrontation between the two blaming individuals in order to get the family to surface their real feelings and issues.

Consequently, when the confrontations turned into physical fights the therapists seemed surprised that such emotional distress took place. What more did they expect. I completely understood what they were trying to accomplish, however, I had a hard time understanding their methodology. As I look back through my notes, I noticed many of the same underlining factors that seemed to keep surfacing. First, both parents were consumed in the self. The father was constantly consumed with his work and the mother seemed completely bored with her life and wanted a change.

Here is where I had difficulty in understanding the authors’ point of view. They thought that the parents were not consumed in the self, but just had difficulty showing affection toward the other. Now, I believe the there was a lack of affection, however, if they were any more consumed in doing what the self wanted this may lead to more difficulty when confronting the Other’s’ wishes and the Self’s wants. I really got lost with this aspect. Another difficulty I have with the authors’ view on family therapy is the fact that they seemed to think that every issue was rooted in past family issues.

This is a great aspect to try and tackle. However, trying to find out which issues in the past are the cause of the present problems can be very time consuming and expensive. I agree that this type of therapy can be revolutionary, but I do not believe that family therapy would be for everyone. Subsequently, I would also agree that this book did a great job illustrating why sometimes family therapy and not individual therapy can be the right solution. Maybe, this mixed message is why I still have opposing emotions about this very intriguing approach.

Developmental psychologists have long been interested in how parents impact child development. However, finding actual cause-and-effect links between specific actions of parents and later behavior of children is very difficult. Some children raised in dramatically different environments can later grow up to have remarkably similar personalities. Conversely, children who share a home and are raised in the same environment can grow up to have astonishingly different personalities than one another. Despite these challenges, researchers have uncovered convincing links between parenting styles and the effects these styles have on children.

During the early 1960s, psychologist Diana Baumrind conducted a study on more than 100 preschool-age children (Baumrind, 1967). Using naturalistic observation, parental interviews and other research methods, she identified four important dimensions of parenting:

• Disciplinary strategies
• Warmth and nurturance
• Communication styles
• Expectations of maturity and control

Based on these dimensions, Baumrind suggested that the majority of parents display one of three different parenting styles. Further research by also suggested the addition of a fourth parenting style (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

The Four Parenting Styles

1. Authoritarian Parenting

In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment. Authoritarian parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, “Because I said so. ” These parents have high demands, but are not responsive to their children. According to Baumrind, these parents “are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation” (1991).

2. Authoritative Parenting

Like authoritarian parents, those with an authoritative parenting style establish rules and guidelines that their children are expected to follow. However, this parenting style is much more democratic. Authoritative parents are responsive to their children and willing to listen to questions. When children fail to meet the expectations, these parents are more nurturing and forgiving rather than punishing. Baumrind suggests that these parents “monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive.

They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative” (1991).

3. Permissive Parenting

Permissive parents, sometimes referred to as indulgent parents, have very few demands to make of their children. These parents rarely discipline their children because they have relatively low expectations of maturity and self-control. According to Baumrind, permissive parents “are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation” (1991).

Permissive parents are generally nurturing and communicative with their children, often taking on the status of a friend more than that of a parent.

4. Uninvolved Parenting

An uninvolved parenting style is characterized by few demands, low responsiveness and little communication. While these parents fulfill the child’s basic needs, they are generally detached from their child’s life. In extreme cases, these parents may even reject or neglect the needs of their children.

The Impact of Parenting Styles. What effect do these parenting styles have on child development outcomes?

In addition to Baumrind’s initial study of 100 preschool children, researchers have conducted numerous other studies than have led to a number of conclusions about the impact of parenting styles on children.

Authoritarian parenting styles generally lead to children who are obedient and proficient, but they rank lower in happiness, social competence and self-esteem.

Authoritive parenting styles tend to result in children who are happy, capable and successful (Maccoby, 1992).

Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation.

These children are more likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school.

Uninvolved parenting styles rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to lack self-control, have low self-esteem and are less competent than their peers.

Why Do Parenting Styles Differ?

After learning about the impact of parenting styles on child development, you may wonder why all parents simply don’t utilize an authoritative parenting style. After all, this parenting style is the most likely to produce happy, confident and capable children.

What are some reasons why parenting styles might vary? Some potential causes of these differences include culture, personality, family size, parental background, socioeconomic status, educational level and religion. Of course, the parenting styles of individual parents also combine to create a unique blend in each and every family. For example, the mother may display an authoritative style while the father favors a more permissive approach. In order to create a cohesive approach to parenting, it is essential that parents learn to cooperate as they combine various elements of their unique parenting styles.

In the play ‘The Crucible’ by Arthur Miller, the author uses characters from the 17th century witch-hunts to show the corruption behind McCarthyism. The play was published in 1953, a time when McCarthyism was actively affecting and contributing to society. The book is filled with false accusations during 1692, in order to relate to the time period it was released. In the play, the character Abigail Williams is in love with John Proctor, a married man, who she had an affair with. Abigail tries to win John over by using witchcraft.

When she is caught by her uncle, Reverend Parris she is afraid of being punished, so she blames their slave, Tituba. This accusation sparks a time of fear and accusation of witches in Salem. When the witch-hunt begins, Abigail realizes that she can use her lies to gain power in Salem. She thinks she can use this power to get rid of John Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth, and that when Elizabeth is gone John will love her. Abigail is driven by fear and envy, and her corrupt decisions lead to the downfall of Salem society.

Abigail Williams is a seventeen-year-old orphan, who lives with her uncle, Rev. Parris. Abigail was fired from her job as a servant by Goody Proctor because she had an affair with John Proctor. She believes that her affair with John Proctor is true love and that the only thing standing between them is his wife. Abigail states in Act 1, “I have something better than hope, I think! ” (Miller 22) because she believes that John has made a promise to her by breaking of chastity for her, that he loves her.

Her envy of Elizabeth leads to her making very bad decisions. These decisions cause Abigail to be afraid of being convicted of witchcraft, so she accuses others, making them scapegoats for her wrong-doings. When Abigail and the other girls go dancing in the woods Abigail tries to drink a charm to kill John Proctor’s wife. When they are caught dancing she forces all the girls to lie about what happened. She puts the blame on Tituba. They continue to make accusations against people in Salem.

“I saw Goody Sibber with the Devil! ”… “I saw Alice Barrow with the Devil! ”… “I saw Goody Hawkins with the Devil! ”… (48) People are hanging because of the girls’ false claims. Abigail then tries to get Elizabeth hanged for witchcraft but Elizabeth is allowed to live because she is pregnant. By the end of the play, Abigail tries to flee with John but his refusal to leave with her finally makes her realize that he will never love her. After this, she only has fear left as a motivator.

She flees with Mercy Lewis on a boat with all of Rev. Parris’ money. John is hanged because he refuses to give up his name. “The legend has it that Abigail turned up later as a prostitute. ”(146) Although most of her actions caused pain for others, it did eventually lead to her own downfall. “Elizabeth Proctor married again, four years after Proctor’s death. ”(126) It is ironic that the person Abigail set out to hurt the most was one of the few people who went on to live a better life.

Since Abigail is motivated by envy and fear, her decision to fuel the witch-hunt creates tragedy by the end of the play. Everything she does causes John’s death as well as the hanging of countless others, the innocent people of Salem. This play really captures the effects of false accusations and theocracy when given power. The witch-hunts, like McCarthyism caused suffering for many without any proof or reason. Abigail proves an example of the consequences when power is given to things that cannot be proven, unsupported theories.

One allusion Miller used is New Jerusalem, meaning the holy city of heaven in the Bible. I believe Miller used this allusion in order to show us how his characters viewed their land in America. They believed that they were the ones who were selected by God to find this New Jerusalem. But I also think Miller had intentions to make this allusion ironic because when they Puritans came to America to pursue religious freedom because they were persecuted for their beliefs in England.

However, they also persecuted others for having different religious views because they thought that other religions would corrupt and bring deceitful ideas to their New Jerusalem. I also believe Miller used this allusion to show the vengeance of the Puritans, since they felt the need to persecute because they themselves were persecuted (Miller 1237). Another allusion used by Miller is the use of Lucifer, which is the Devil. I believe Miller used Lucifer as an allusion because he wanted to express the importance that the Devil had on the characters of The Crucible.

I think Miller thought this was necessary since it shows that they both need and want someone to blame for everything that is goes wrong in Salem (Miller 1260). They accuse people of being witches, who were there because of Lucifer. The use of this allusion several times throughout the Crucible suggests that the Puritans were kind of obsessed with Lucifer, thus revealing that Miller had high regards for the Salem characters religious beliefs..

This also shows that vengeance was very common since envy of the miserable toward the happy resulted in revenge (Miller 1237). Martin Luther, a German theologian who led the Protestant Reformation, was another allusion Miller used in The Crucible. The reason why I believe Miller used Martin was because Martin had an experience that closely resembled that of the Salem witch trials. He too was blamed of being affiliated with Hell and accused of heresy. So Miller wanted to show that trials were not only held in Salem but in other parts of the world.

In the case of Martin, he also then accused his enemies of being in an alliance with Hell, similar to how Tituba accused someone else when she was accused (Miller 1260). But for Luther, his case was more complicated in that he thought that he had contact with the Devil and argued theology with him. So I believe this allusion was ultimately used to provide similar examples of the problems that were happening in Salem. The last allusion that Miller uses is the Inquisition.

I think Miller used this allusion because it sort of resembles the Salem witch hunts of The Crucible. Instead of only mentioning witch hunts in early America, he shows us other examples of people being accused of wrong doings and then blaming it on others. Pope Gregory IX proposed the Inquisition in 1231 and Catholic judges started accused people of treason and heresy (Miller 1253). In both cases there were deaths because of persecutions. So he wanted us to see the similarities between other cases of accusations, vengeances, fear, and greed.

English Controlled Assessment Draft: Conflict in the Crucible The play I am studying for this essay is called “The Crucible” and I will be focusing on Act 1 of the book. The question I will be answering is what’s the most powerful type of conflict in the opening act of the crucible? The word conflict means a state of disharmony, opposition and or fighting. The conflict portrayed in the Crucible is often described as tools used to describe events in Millers time period.

For example, witchcraft doesn’t exist in Salem yet that is the basis of the storyline of the play and many people die as a result of accusations over witchcraft. During the time Miller wrote this book, the cold war was happening and many people in America were accused of communism (including Miller himself), when they were accused they were routinely asked to give names of other communists which is the same as the ‘witches’ in Salem were asked, whether the devil “come-with another person” and many of these people turned out to not be communists in the first place same as the accused ‘witches’.

So it seems that Miller uses the fact there were not any witches in Salem as a metaphor suggesting there were not any communists in America. Miller conveys Putman as a source of conflict as a result of his rivalry for power with Parris. This is demonstrated when Mr Putman is seen as attempting to stir drama over Parris’s daughters situation “No witchcraft! Now look you Mr Parris”.

As Parris is so plainly defiant in his denial of “witchcraft” affecting his daughter, this portrays Mr Putman as deliberately trying to annoy Parris to most likely make him look like a loose cannon in the eyes of Salem to steal his job. Which makes sense as Miller tells us that the Putnam’s resent Parris and Mr Putnam wanted his brother in law to have Parris’s position. The directive “Now look you” magnifies this as although Parris has more authority than him, he is already seen as trying to order Parris around.

This is then amplified when Parris replies stating “They will howl me out of Salem for such corruption in my house” as Mr Putnam is seen as the main rival to Parris, it seems that Parris implies that Mr Putnam is the one who will “howl” him out of Salem. In addition, the word “Howl” at first seems to be a hyperbole as Salem is first thought of as a good religious community, but it then creates contrast towards the end of act one as the town is seen as willing to give the death penalty to children because they think that their witches “This woman must be hanged! . This creates tension throughout the audience as it makes them realize Salem isn’t as united as it first seemed and there is a massive power struggle between the two families as “howl” also portrays Mr Putnam as a monster, more specifically a werewolf which is a mythological predator and predators like to be at the top of the food chain. However, Parris already has a place on top of the metaphorical food chain which places Putnam and Parris as natural rivals.

Also, it creates tension in the audience by showing just how important power is in Salem as Parris and Putman both care more about power and their reputation than their own daughters. Miller’s intentions of this may be to show that people will act in extreme ways to protect themselves including neglecting their daughter, which links back to Millers era as many accused communists were interrogated under torture and many tried to escape leaving behind their families.

In the play “the crucible” Miller portrays a community in conflict when proctor’s commitment to their puritan ideology is doubted. This is demonstrated when Proctor states “No, No, Abby. That’s done with” when Abigail appears to flirt with him. The connotation of “That’s done with” suggests that Proctor once committed the sin of Adultery with her which is a very serious sin to the Puritans. The repetition of “No, No” shows that proctor knows he’s done a bad thing not just in terms of the Puritan Ideology but also in terms with his own morals.

However, the fact Abigail wants to do it again and doesn’t consider it a bad thing shows the conflict and divides between the older and younger generations in Salem as the younger generation’s challenge the Puritans rules without remorse. This creates nervousness within the audience as it demonstrates just how fragile the unity of the community in Salem is. It also links back to Miller’s intentions as he may be trying to suggest that paranoia divided communities as it did in America when many people were being accused of communism over little things.

Miller intensifies a sense of conflict towards the end of act 1 through a fast paced scene when multiple accusation of witchcraft are made. This is started when Abigail exclaims “I want to open myself! ” and from there onwards Betty also takes up the chant and blames people “I saw Martha Bellows with the devil! ” The fact that the curtain descends with “Devil” as the last word spoken reflects the state of fear on stage and the divides caused by this conflict to Salem as normally the people of Salem talk about God but as a result of this conflict they end by talking about he Devil, an abnormal thing for them. The use of Exclamation marks, snappy sentences and the amount of accusations made infers that it is a fast paced, loud scene and reflective of the hysteria on stage. This creates dramatic irony towards the audience as they know the truth which is that witchcraft doesn’t actually exist, the fact witchcraft is punishable by death shows them that the girls are willing to let someone else die to prove themselves innocent thus creating a sense of conflict.

The repetition of the word “Devil” towards the end makes the audience feel sympathy towards the people that are getting blamed as they know that none of it is actually true. This can be linked back to Millers intentions as he may be trying to show that when people fear for their life they are willing to lie and blame others to save themselves which also occurred during the cold war (Millers era) when people lied and blamed other people of being communists to avoid themselves going to prison.

To conclude, there have been many powerful conflicts throughout act 1, my final judgement is the rivalry of power between Parris and Putnam is the most powerful conflict. This is important as it provides the baseline for the story line. Parris states that there are ‘factions’ after his position in Salem, It is likely that he is meaning the Putnam family as they are seen as a main antagonistic rival in ‘The Crucible’ against Parris. He describes calling for Reverend Hale as a “precaution” but denies that “witchcraft” is the reason for his daughter’s problem.

As a result it is likely that he called for Mr Hale just so Mr Putnam doesn’t complain and demand his removal from power, so it is essential that Miller introduced with this conflict as without it the play wouldn’t be as gripping. This conflict effects the audience by making them realize that even before witchcraft entered the picture there was already a fragility in the community relations in Salem and it’s likely that these conflicts would probably at some time be realised and spark irrational action. Witchcraft is seen as just the trigger to this.

Arthur Miller was born in the year 1915 and grew up during the great depression. His fathers business crashed during the great depression, this meant there was no money for Arthur miller to exploit his great talent that was play writing. Fortunately through earning small amounts from odd jobs he was able to save up enough to go to university where he received several awards for his early plays. Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible in the year 1952. He used the play as a way of criticizing the government for what is know as McCarthyism. McCarthyism is a communist witch hunt where anybody could be accused of being communist.

One of the many people to be accused was Arthur Miller; this is why the main themes of the play are justice and truth. Arthur Miller normally uses society and individuals as main themes for his plays this can also be seen in the crucible. A good example of this is how all the other members of the puritan community look down on John Proctor for not being a regular church-goer. This is relevant today because it could be translated into a suppression of individuality and a pressure for people to fit into society. Another area it explores is the increase of tension and panic in a society.

The Crucible is set in a small puritan town where everybody knew each other and it was a very tight community. The despised local preacher called Parris stumbles across several of the village’s girls performing a sinful dance including his own daughter Betty. While the girls are performing the dance with his slave Tituba , Betty falls into an unconscious state causing panic. The girls are accused of witch craft. The girls admit to this but one of the girls called Abigail who had an affair with one of the central characters called John Procter sees a chance to exploit the situation and claims there are more witches in the village.

Abigail still has feelings for John claims that his wife Elizabeth is a witch. John goes to court to appeal against this, he also tells the court about the affair he had with Abigail to ruin her credibility. The court gets Elizabeth to come in and confirm John’s confessions but unfortunately she denies it to save his reputation. John is sentenced to be hung; Elizabeth who has survived so far due to her pregnancy tries to convince John to confess to witchcraft; however he chooses to die with his dignity rather then live without it.

The Salem witch trails was a real event and John , Abigail , Elizabeth and some other characters were real people however a lot of the story was written by Arthur Miller. The language of the play is accurate because it uses the correct accents and the characters would have been played by English actors because the modern American accent would not have developed yet. To show the fact that the characters live in a very religious community the characters often make references to the Bible this can be seen were Elizabeth describes Abigail’s affect on the court as ‘ Parting the sea of Israel. This shows that the bible was part of their every day life. Before Act two starts the audience is aware of the tension between John and Elizabeth because of John’s affair with Abigail. Despite having an affair with Abigail John still loves his wife and wants to protect her. A good example of this is were Abigail accuses Elizabeth of being sickly and John says ‘ You will say nothing of Elizabeth. ‘ Which show he wants to protect her over Abigail . The tone he uses is angry and full of frustration which shows that he is frustrated and ashamed for having an affair.

Read also Intro to Public Relations Notes

The setting of the scene makes the audience question Johns commitment to Elizabeth , the scene is set eight days after Abigail told John that her actions are nothing to do with revealing that in fact there are no witches in the village and they where just dancing sinfully. This show that John is withholding information from Elizabeth and the rest of the community and the audience is aware of this. The room that the scene is set in is described as long, dark with a low ceiling which could be a metaphor for John and Elizabeth’s relationship.

It is also set in this way to create pressure and claustrophobia in the scene ahead which adds to the tension. In contrast to this Elizabeth can be heard singing to the her children which paints a picture of a loving mother in the audiences minds and can create a sense of empathy with the character. It also gives the impression that John and Elizabeth where once a loving couple. The pattern of speech used by the characters increase the sense of tension because it is in short sharp snippets spoken rushed as if not to offend one another by speaking to long.

It is clear that Elizabeth concerned why John is late and she decides to confront him about. She expresses her worry by saying ‘You come so late I thought you’d gone to Salem this afternoon. ‘ John lies and says ‘Why! I have no business in Salem. ‘ Which the audience knows is untrue because he was previously in Salem where he met Abigail, this shows that John feels he has to lie to Elizabeth and that it is easier then telling the truth. John then checks the stew and is displeased with its taste so he proceeds to add more seasoning.

When he is served the stew and tasted it he compliments Elizabeth on the seasoning. These shows how troubled their relationship is because John would rather lie about the seasoning of the stew then tell her it was under seasoned. The couple begin to discuss the witch trials and Elizabeth asks John to go to court and explain to the court about Abigail’s trickery. John dismisses this and says things like ‘I’ll think on it. ‘ And the stage actions show him considering where or not to tell the court.

Elizabeth thinks he is trying to protect Abigail but really he doesn’t want Elizabeth and himself to be accused of witchcraft. The couple begin to argue and use longer sentences to express their true feelings which break the tension that has been built up through out the scene. In this scene the couple are trying to avoid confrontation or trying to please one another we can see this from the stage directions where it says ‘Holding back a full condemnation of her’ and ‘She doesn’t want friction. ‘ Act three is the most important scene involving John and Elizabeth.

John has gone to the court to confess about his affair with Abigail which will discredited her and prove her accusations of witch craft false. To prove Johns confession true Danforth the judge asks Elizabeth to be brought before the court who John claims can never tell a lie. This increase tension because if Elizabeth does lie it will worse because John has put all his trust in Elizabeth’s confession. When Elizabeth goes into the room John and Abigail’s backs are turned, this is so they can’t give hints to Elizabeth but it also is a represent how Elizabeth is feeling about the two.

She thinks that John has turned his back on her. The tension is enhanced by Arthur Miller gives stage direction ‘She glances at Proctor for a clue. ‘ and ‘She turns to Abigail. ‘ This shows how Elizabeth is trouble over making the right decision. When she finally answers we can see that she is still trouble at her decision ‘(in agony) No sir’. With this Elizabeth has condemned many people however she has realized that she still loves John and will even lie ,something that goes completely against her beliefs to save his reputation. It also shows that Elizabeth is not perfect and has begun to forgive John.

In the next scene John is about to be hung however Elizabeth has a chance to convince him to confess which will save his life but ruin his reputation. This instantly creates tension because it gives Elizabeth a chance to save John. The audience wants to see Elizabeth ask John to lie and confess to witch craft but the tension is prolonged because Elizabeth fails to give John a final answer. She puts the decision in his hands by saying ‘do as you will. ‘ John wants Elizabeth to be part of the decision because he says ‘would you give them such a lie. Showing that John respects her feelings and considers her to be his partner raising the tension even more because of the couples new found care for each other. We finally see her true feelings where she tells him ‘and yet you’ve not confessed till now. That speaks goodness in you. ‘ and if she does not give an answer John will continue to deny the charges building more tension because the audience now fears for Johns life. John and Elizabeth’s relationship is still getting better however John still thinks of himself as ‘a fraud’ and a ‘no good man’.

Elizabeth doesn’t want John to think this , this is made clear where she says ‘Do as you will, do as you will. ‘ Which shows that she is giving him space so that he can prove to himself that he is a good man. John decides against confessing and by doing so he now feels he is worthy of Elizabeth. Elizabeth finally forgives John telling him her true feelings ‘John I counted myself so poorly made, no honest love could come to me! Suspicion kissed you when I did; I never knew how to say my love. It was a cold house I kept. ‘ This also shows that she has recognised her own failings.

Despite the fact that John is going to hang the audience now know they both recognise their love for each over which is signified by Johns kiss ‘he lifts her, and kisses her now with great passion. ‘ Showing they are not afraid to love each other. The play shows us that it is dangerous not to speak your mind and that it can lead to great tragedies. It is also dangerous for society to put someone in a position where they cannot speak their mind. John and Elizabeth realized this and if they had talked about their feelings more then Elizabeth would not have had to of lied.

We can also see the parallels the play shares with the McCarthy communist hunt. The death at the end is important because it was preventable the play also shows how lies and deceit can lead to pointless deaths. We can also see the pressure needed for people to talk about there true feelings , only when John was about to hang did the pair express their love for each other and in contrast to this when they where living a comfortable life before the trials they where constantly wanting to please one another and not disrupt their normal everyday existence.