When Faith Brings Blood: An Enduring Theme in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

When Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, he was not only attempting to shed a critical light on the "witch hunt" for Communists in the mid-twentieth century by bringing an historical tragedy to life. He had bigger questions in mind that some of society were obviously not prepared to consider. This play shows the power of one individual's conscience as he challenges society's right to demonize citizens on the basis of their beliefs. As Reverend Hale's character in the book warns, "cleave to no faith when faith brings blood" (Bhatia, 63). Written at a point in history that became notorious for its public questioning of anyone who had ever been suspected of involvement in a Communist party, the play was hard for some to digest as a critique of society. It is easy to see how uncomfortable a supporter of the House Un-American Activities Committee's investigation might feel after seeing this play. Not many would want to associate themselves with an oppressive society that would wrongly accuse innocent individuals, punishing them because their beliefs are of the minority.

Several reviews from January 22, 1953, show how The Crucible's original Broadway production was received by New York publications that can serve to represent the mindset of mainstream America at the time. Of four reviews, not one takes a liberal stance regarding Miller's play as a valuable historical model from which to base questions about the right of a society to interfere with the beliefs of an individual. Instead, the reviews take a conservative or naïve approach to the play, either questioning its historical credence like John McClain of the New York Journal American or pretending like the play was just "a tragic drama about the historic Puritan purge of witchcraft" as did John Chapman of the New York Daily News. McClain was clearly attempting to downplay The Crucible's intentions by focusing on the incredulity that any historical fiction faces.

While Chapman's review seems at first to be an attempt to write the play off as nothing but a tribute to a tragedy of America's past, his opinion may have actually the most sympathetic to Miller's. It seems contradictory that he would point out the fact that Miller is an "admitted liberal" from whom one could expect a "political parable," then deny the fact that this play is exactly that. He writes that theatre-goers "will have to read into The Crucible their own implications" suggesting that there are deeper meanings that can be taken from the play. He artfully hints at the possible presence of a political statement by denying that it exists and simultaneously presents the play as harmless. At a time when it may have been dangerous for a reviewer to point out the parallels of Miller's witch-hunt and McCarthy's Red Scare, this strategy may have been Chapman's way of supporting Miller without putting his own career in danger.

Other reviews were more openly critical of the messages sent through Miller's play. Walter Kerr of the New York Herald Tribune calls The Crucible "mechanical parable… the sort of play which lives not in the warmth of humbly observed human souls but in the ideological heat of polemic". Kerr seems to purposefully contrast words with strong connotations to insinuate Miller's communist affiliations. He associates Miller's work with the word "mechanical," which was a common perception of the Communist Party's view of the individual, and he separates this from words that evoke positive connotations to suggest that Miller's work is distinctly not representative of the Christian idea of the individual. (Note: what is referred to as Christian could represent other faiths, but judging from a historical context of conservative America, it is likely that the author was describing ideals based on some form of Christianity.)

Of the four reviewers mentioned, it is arguable that Richard Watts of the New York Post makes the most imperceptive and ignorant claim in regards to this controversial play. He writes that "Miller is chiefly concerned with what happened, rather than why, and this neglect sometimes gives his work a hint of superficiality". Not only is it unlikely that Watts had researched enough of Miller's explanation of the play to make a valid statement on what the author's chief concern was, but this critic seems to assume that a play's meaning is limited to only two simple questions, "what" and "why". If Miller had been so concerned with "what happened", he would have taken more pains to represent his play as historically accurate rather than historically-based. As a 1980 article by Leonard Moss points out they play deals with a "subjective reality… it cannot be judged merely on the literal accuracy or political aptness of its topical allusions" (Moss, 38). Calling The Crucible superficial must have been Watts' attempt at discouraging theatre-goers from going to see this play in a mindset that would encourage the consideration of deeper meanings.

A 1985 article by Santosh Bhatia quotes Miller as he describes his version of the main theme of The Crucible. He explains how this play is not merely a political outcry to defend those of his own time, but a universal questioning of the way society deals with its misfits. Miller's focus is "whether one's vision of truth ought to be a source of guilt at a time when the mass of men condemn it as a dangerous and devilish lie" (Bhatia, 59). He wanted audiences to consider where a government's boundaries lie, not merely in the case of the Salem witch trials or his own experiences, but as a matter of reasonable justice that could be applied to any government or society that expects its members to adhere to a specific set of beliefs and ideals.
One aspect of Miller's play that lends it some credibility in the face of opposition is the way characters are not portrayed as being all good or all bad. He does not romanticize John Proctor as a hero who is free from sin, and many of the villains are represented as ordinary people (Moss, 37). He does not characterize the government as tyrannical or evil, but merely misguided in its principles as they apply to the situation at hand. Danforth may be condemning people to death, but he is only doing his job as he believes he must. When Proctor attempts to reveal the truth, Danforth reminds him that "the entire contention of the state in these trials is that the voice of Heaven is speaking through the children" (88). Also, Reverend Hale's character changes his stance through the course of the play, showing that a rational, educated man could represent both sides of the issue at different points in the play.

While some mistook The Crucible as mere political propaganda, the basic theme that persists throughout the play is universal and enduring. Miller points out that this is a play in which "a political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence" (Moss, 38). This condition is far from being frozen in the context of Salem's witch trials or even the hunt for communists that were taking place while the play was written. President Bush recently made the statement that "every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." How eerie it is that in a country based on ideals of freedom, the problem that Miller pointed out over fifty years ago still exists in America today.