To answer this question, perhaps we ought to look closely at Proctor’s character. He is a strong and powerful character, whose presence could be enough to strike fear into weak minds, such as that of Mary Warren when we first meet John, and she is almost speechless for fear and embarrassment. He is not afraid to speak his mind, and will tell people exactly what he sees exactly how he sees it, regardless of their importance or the support they carry. There is evidence of this in numerous parts of the play, not least in his confrontations with Parris and Danforth. This outspoken manner also helps to settle petty squabbles between villagers, mainly over land issues when the boundaries between people’s farms is not clearly defined. This is illustrated clearly in Act One, in the dispute between Thomas Putnam and Proctor over a tract of land by the riverside. The way in which Proctor handles Putnam, and Parris earlier in the scene, are clear demonstrations of the strength of character in John Proctor, and the way in which he handles people in disputes. This matter-of-fact attitude could cause him to make enemies of other people in the village, particularly those who are on the receiving end of his blunt comments – Putnam in the above-mentioned case.
The power of the character in John Proctor shows through remarkably in the times of the play when anger overcomes him. For instance, when Cheever and Herrick come to the Proctor house with a warrant for Elizabeth’s arrest, John is overcome by his anger. Fearing no authority, however great, he rips the Deputy Governor’s warrant and strikes fear into Cheever. When he becomes angry at seeing his wife about to be taken in all her innocence, he loses his sense of control, and despite the firm knowledge that there is no way he can stop Elizabeth being taken, he is still able to argue that Elizabeth should not go. His inner determination to stand up for his belief in correctness shows through here, and underlines the fact that Proctor is really a very honest and upright man who cannot bear to see things happen that he believes are wrong, and will stand up to these happenings whatever it is that is driving them.
In addition to this, we see John Proctor as a very honest man, and one who intends to keep nothing from Elizabeth, lest his marriage becomes victim to mistrust and suspicion, which he believes is still lurking in his relationship with Elizabeth. He tells Elizabeth plainly at the beginning of Act Two that he will ‘plead my honesty no more’. John has such high standards for himself and others too, and because he has covered over his affair with Abigail to protect his own dignity as well as that of Elizabeth, and to some extent Abigail too, he has come to regard himself as some kind of fraud. Where this does not affect his public life, he feels that he needs the support and forgiveness of Elizabeth, and it angers him that his honesty is doubted.
Another thing that endears an audience of The Crucible to John Proctor is the sense of innocence surrounding him. We know that he has sinned by having the affair with Abigail. However, he believes that, because he has confessed himself to Elizabeth, and allowed her to dismiss Abigail, that she should automatically forgive him, and stop suspecting him all the time. He believes that Elizabeth has judged him, and that ‘her justice would freeze beer’. And this seems to be a typical assumption of a man with the character of John Proctor. However, John Proctor does not see the way the danger that Abigail poses until it is too late. Whereas Elizabeth sees straight away that Abigail is plotting to have her killed so that she may take her place as John’s wife, John is unable to comprehend this, and does not see how much danger Abigail Williams poses to the life of his wife, or the way her intentions could affect him. He simply believes, or wants to believe, that the high court will see that the accusations against Elizabeth are totally unfounded, and she will escape conviction. This naivety and sort of innocence makes us as an audience feel a kind of sorrow for John Proctor, and so it helps his image in our eyes.
Part of John Proctor’s character is his determination to stand up for what he believes to be right, despite the authority of what he faces. By not attending church regularly, he is making a stand against Parris, who he believes to be a bad minister, who is greedy and has a bad attitude to theology. John resents the way in which Parris turns to references to hell in everything he says, and also his demands to own the deeds to the minister’s house and for golden candlesticks in the church. At the end of Act Four, John Proctor is eventually forced to die for what he believes in, and this kind of martyrdom would stand firm in the hearts of any audience. Truthfully, the death of John Proctor at the end of The Crucible shocks the audience, and turns him into some sort of saintly, almost Christ-like character.
***
There are clear themes running through The Crucible, and the morals portrayed by John Proctor and other key characters still hold relevance to us today in our society. One thing we should bear in mind is that this story is not entirely fictional, but based on a true story. The court records from the Salem witchcraft trials, and the parish book of records kept by Reverend Parris at the time were used by Miller to build up as bigger profile as possible of the historical happenings in Salem, and his play is a clear reflection of that. But it holds parallels between the events in Salem and situations in real life, both in Miller’s time and now.
Indeed Miller wrote the play in the middle of the McCarthy political ‘witch-hunt’, and it is true to say that Miller’s writing of this play was partly as a mimic of those political attacks on Communist and un-American activists in the 1940s and 1950s. Although Miller himself tried to play down the parallel to avoid being summoned before the Committee of Communist and Un-American Activities, it is clear that the situation of John Proctor in The Crucible is reflected in that of Miller when he was called before the committee; to name people he had seen at a meeting of communist sympathisers nearly ten years previously.
However, there are parallels between the play and our own 21st century society that are worth noting. In 2000, in the wake of the Sarah Payne murder case, The News Of The World began a campaign to name and shame known paedophiles, in what it believed to be a stand against the way in which such convicted people are able to stay in the thick of society, unknown to the neighbours around them, who may have had children. The rest of the media went along with the campaign, publicising it and in some cases supporting it, and whipping up a similar kind of hysteria and paranoia to the Salem trials, or the McCarthy Communist hunts. In this case the media led along the general public, and because they believed the words in the newspapers, just as the Salem parishioners believed the words of the court, they did not need to see evidence of the suspect’s crimes, nor understand fully what was going on, but were able to develop strong opinions on the subject. Some angered locals in residential areas across the country launched violent campaigns against the named paedophiles, and caused more problems in the process. This raises the question that we see highlighted in The Crucible; shouldn’t people question wild accusations by people and attempt to understand for themselves exactly what has been happening, or should they just take what they are told as the truth, and act on it accordingly?
Another modern situation in which we can see parallels to the Salem witchcraft trials is the current hunt for Al Qa’ida terrorists as part of the War on terrorism initiated by the United States after the appalling attacks on the World Trade Center on 11th September 2001. After those dreadful attacks, in which 6,000 people died, the whole of the civilised world became afraid of the threat terrorists from the sky posed to our society, and the world suddenly became extremely paranoid of the presence of terrorists. The American government promised the harshest punishments for anyone found guilty of working for, or helping the work of Al Qa’ida, and the death penalty for those charged with those particular attacks. However, the media coverage of the events once more generated hysteria amongst the public, and perhaps a more careful approach ought to be taken if we are not to walk closer into the situation faced by the inhabitants of Salem.
***
In conclusion, The Crucible ends on a very shocking and unexpected note with the death of John Proctor, and the fashion in which John Proctor is sentenced manufactures a situation in which we see John Proctor as a hero and a saint. This prompts an angry response from the audience, and delivers strong morals that still have relevance to society today. John Proctor is an innocent and honest man, who falls victim to the spiralling events of a hysterical, paranoid society, taken to the brink of destruction by the witchcraft trials. We see that John Proctor is only getting involved in the trials because he knows they are false, and to save his innocent wife and friends, and in the end, we see him die because he cannot bear to live with the guilt of lying to save his own, sinful life when so many before him had died in pure innocence. Today, we can understand that perhaps we should not be so easily taken in by the hysteria of events, and attempt to understand what is happening before we make judgments, and to know that the power of belief without understanding is a deadly force, which can ruin people’s lives, and also destroy faith in the judiciary system, as it did in 1692 Salem.
