Abigail
Williams, the sly, orphaned niece of Reverend Samuel Parris is clearly one of The Crucible’s central characters. The Crucible portrays Abigail as the
primary instigator of the witch hysteria occurring in Salem during this time,
and it is her actions and influence that allow the symptoms of the “afflicted”
to be appear so compelling to onlookers. Abigail was put in such a light not
necessarily to reflect on the history of her historical self, but as a
character who represented the actions and thoughts that all accusers in Salem
Village possessed. Miller must have known that it would be impossible for his
themes to be heard against the complex historical backdrop of the crucible. So,
he needed to concentrate the elements of the factual account into the actions
of a few characters, especially a character who represented the accusatory
spirit of those living in Salem at the time. He found that character in
Abigail. In some regards, the actual Abigail Williams did fit this definition.
She was one of the original people to be “afflicted” by witchery, and her
actions must have convinced her friends, in a pathological way, to act in a
similar manner. In addition, “The Devil and Salem” (Robbins) states that “led
by Ann Putnam and Abigail Williams, the afflicted cried out periodically
against others”. This is a clear statement that Abigail held a considerable
amount of influence over the actions of the afflicted, and that she could
incriminate those that she (or her uncle, Reverend Parris) disliked - including
the Proctors, who were arrested for identifying the absurdity of the events. It
would take away from Miller’s themes (anti-McCarthyism) of the story to
describe every last detail of the trials, so, in Miller and Hytner’s eyes,
Abigail must represent all accusers of the Salem Witch Trials. To meet this
need for simplification, several changes, both deliberate and undeliberate,
were made to her character. The most obvious example is that her age was
changed. The Crucible depicts Abigail
as being seventeen, when, in actuality, she was only eleven at the time, to
give her the intelligence and intimidation abilities that allowed her to influence
so many. Now seventeen, her character was given the ability to seduce men,
including John Proctor, which would form the basis of the plot, and to form
philosophies including fear (of being alone), selfishness, and envy of
attention. Many of those ideologies were shared by the accusers, but in a more
broad sense, and so Miller was able to communicate his ideas more effectively
by concentrating the accusatory spirit into one person. Abigail, one of the
more prominent accusers, formed an excellent template onto which Miller could
place the spirit of the accuser. However, to make Abigail’s actions more
pronounced, he had to add elements including raising her age, her personality,
and her relationships with others in order to present a more cohesive and
comprehensible story.
Every story
needs a ‘good guy,’ and Miller’s The
Crucible is no exception. Abigail was needed to condense and exemplify the
attitude of intolerance that abounded in Salem. John Proctor was needed not to
replicate the history of what happened during the trials, but to fulfill the
basic needs of any literary work. He was a protagonist, the central character
of the piece who learns and grows to overcome a conflict. Amid the chaos of the
Salem Witch Trials, it would be difficult to identify such a person, and yet,
Miller still required one to make his historical drama a story. John Proctor was a good Puritan man. According to “The Devil
in Salem” the Proctors were only put on trial because they scolded their
maidservant, Mary Warren, for accusing Rebecca Nurse of witchcraft. This
clearly shows that John and Elizabeth were people of honor and reason. The Crucible does use these points as a
basis for many of the couple’s characterizations. For example, in the pond
scene, John openly scolded Mary joining the girls in accusing others of witchery.
Salem, during this time, was a place of
fear and strife. A reasonable person like John Proctor, who, with his actions
against Mary, would have appeared to be an island of reason in a sea of
irrationality. For this reason, the Proctors were upheld in The Crucible as smart, reasonable
people, who refuse to believe in witchcraft, and even, as the final scenes
show, value the integrity of their character over their life. However, it would be impractical and
illogical, in the eyes of a director, to portray the Proctors exactly as they
had been in history. Not only that, but the Proctors were ordinary people, not
the gallant heroes that The Crucible makes
them out to be. So, several changes were
made to their characters. Noticeable is their cold relationship at the
beginning of the play. Elizabeth is very angry with John for having intimate
knowledge of Abigail. Miller not only needed this fictitious storyline to showcase
the selfish and fearful personality of Abigail, but also to show how the even
the best in society are never perfect – a classic quality of a protagonist. John had betrayed his wife, and Elizabeth
remained distant for a while. All of this is fabricated, but serves the purpose
of telling a good story. It allows the protagonists to grow and mature, learn
from their mistakes, while the antagonist only suffers from them, which
ultimately occurred, as John realized how mean-hearted Abigail was, and as he
and his wife passionately forgave each other before his execution. According to
“The Crucible: Fact or Fiction”, very little of this actually happened, and the
very identities of John were different. John, in actuality, was a tavern
keeper, and it could be true that he was not even respected in the
pro-temperance society of the Puritans. Yet, Miller, based on a few qualities
of the Proctors, was still able to take them to the heart of his story, and even
though he was not historically accurate, he did succeed in transforming these
events into an engaging narrative.
Miller and Hytner are well versed in the
creative arts. However, they are not historians. They are able to evoke
emotions from an audience, and they know that that rarely comes from reading a
history book. The Crucible only provides a small, cloudy window into the events
of the trials, and by no means should it ever be considered a credible research
source. Miller needed to tell be able to simplify the events of the trials so
that his audience would have a better grasp of his themes. He changed the
character of the Proctors so that he could transform this political saga into a
drama filled with romance, betrayal, and tragedy. Arthur Miller succeeded in making The Crucible a literary success. But
historically, he failed to accurately depict what occurred in this time period,
and only a small, cloudy window into the events of the trials given. By no
means should The Crucible ever be
considered a credible research source. Historical fiction is a fascinating
topic. Novels such as Johnny Tremain and
films such as Lincoln effectively
entertain audiences. When an audience chooses to delve into historical fiction,
including the aforementioned works and The
Crucible, they must decide their purpose of viewing. Do they wish to learn
of the fascinating events of years ago, or would they rather hear, much like The Crucible, an engaging tale of human
achievement?
No comments:
Post a Comment