Final Essay (The Crucible)

John Proctor: A Tragic Common Man

By Peter Joelson

Tragedies have been written throughout history; from the ancient times with Aristotle, to the sixteenth century of Shakespeare, through the twentieth century with Arthur Miller. Since the beginning, people have been trying to analyze and understand them. Aristotle first defined tragedies and is considered the father of tragedies. There is also “Tragedy and the Common Man” by Arthur Miller, a modern interpretation of tragedy. Miller’s own tragedy, The Crucible, contains characters that act consistently with his essay, but his play also roughly follows the outline of Aristotle’s definition, as delineated in Freytag’s Pyramid. However, the two writers do not agree fully on what a tragedy is, who a tragic hero is, and what they should contain. One of the key differences between Aristotle and Miller is in the endings of a tragedy. Miller believes the ending should be optimistic, leaving the audience upset, but with the knowledge that the protagonist came to know himself, or died on his own terms. Meanwhile, Aristotle believes tragedies should end pessimistically, leaving the audience upset and the protagonist without a heroic ending. The Crucible is a tragedy which includes aspects from both Aristotle’s definition and Miller’s essay. But the play proves to be more consistent with the latter than the former; in fact, John Proctor defies the ancient playwright’s opinion of a tragic character, or hero, and supports a “tragic hero” from “Tragedy and the Common Man.” But it is important to recognize that The Crucible is parallel to Aristotle’s definition regarding structure.

Aristotle suggests that a tragedy should have a full plot. This includes the introduction or incentive moment, a climax followed by a quick falling action, and concluding with a resolution. He strongly advises that the plot must have no coincidences (unless they are thematic); the plot must play out so that events in the play are all connected (Aristotle 2). Miller’s, The Crucible, follows Aristotle’s syllabus as delineated in Freytag’s Pyramid. Arthur Miller also follows Aristotle’s suggestion that the plot should be complex for the best results. According to Aristotle, a complex plot is a plot which includes characters that have a “‘reversal of intention’ [known as] peripeteia and ‘recognition’ or anagnorisis” (Aristotle 2). Peripeteia is “when a character produces an effect opposite to which he intended” (Aristotle 2). While anagnorisis occurs when a character changes by then end of the play, “‘from ignorance to knowledge’” (Aristotle 2). The Crucible includes both aspects: Elizabeth Proctor follows anagnorisis, while John Proctor follows peripeteia. In fact, these are the only similarities between Miller and Aristotle pertaining to characters. Ironically, Miller uses John Proctor’s peripeteia to make the ending optimistic; Aristotle mandates that endings must be pessimistic.

John Proctor is a character who, by definition of Arthur Miller, is a “tragic hero.” He is a common man, which is inconsistent with Aristotle’s definition of “tragic hero,” who is living a “flawed” (Miller) life. Arthur Miller defines a “tragic hero” as a character’s “unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status” (Miller). John Proctor fits this definition; he challenges many different events throughout the play that are not recognized by the other characters. He challenges them because he regards pride as an important characteristic, and recognizes that he would be shamed if he were to be passive towards the events. In the beginning, he exclaims that he “see[s] no light of God in [Mr. Parris]” (65). His lack of faith in Parris is outspoken, and because of his opinion of the minister, he does not go to church. He remains active when he acknowledges that going to church would symbolize his support in Parris. His action against Parris quickly shows the audience that John Proctor is different; or compared to the village of Salem, he is active.

He continues to prove that he is the “tragic hero” when he attempts to act against the accusations of witchcraft. While other characters, such as Giles, rebut the accusations, he is the first to do it before his wife is accused; However, Proctor’s most definitive action, and thus his biggest “tragic flaw,” occurs at the resolution of the play.

To conclude the play, John Proctor remains silent to die with honor and his name, rather than confess lies to save his neck. This noble and tragic event proves, John Proctor follows Aristotle’s definition of peripeteia. He has an epiphany and realizes that confessing to a lie would admit he is a wizard and would soil his name. He already admits to being an adulterer, and does not want to continue destroying his name. In his final speech of the play, John Proctor announces,

I do think I see some shred of goodness in John Proctor. Not enough to weave a banner with, but white enough to keep it from such dogs [the town of Salem, and the judge]…Show honor now, show a stony heart and sink them with it!

(144)

After this speech, he is carried to the gallows and hanged. This ending is consistent with Arthur Miller’s belief in ending tragedies with optimism. The “tragic hero” is killed, but he clears his name, and dies with honor; tragic for a character with such high morals to die, but necessary for the play to possess such emotion. In the end, Proctor is a martyr and his death is optimistic.

John Proctor proves himself a “tragic hero” by Miller’s definition. He is a man that acts what he believes is right, rather than standing by and watching. The cost of such nobility results in a tragedy. He is the “tragic hero’ and is not a high king or big official of the church. He is a farmer, he is a regular civilian, and he is a common man. His story proves Aristotle’s definition is outdated for the 20^th century; tragedies are not limited to “tragic heroes” that have a high power or nobility. Miller agrees with Aristotle’s analysis of the plot and structure of a tragedy, but they could not disagree more on the central attributes needed by a “tragic hero.” A tragic hero must be a common man, and his downfall must evoke optimism.