Do you consider John Proctor to be a modern tragic hero?

Authors Avatar

“I have given you my soul, leave me my name”

Do you consider John Proctor to be a modern tragic hero?

Aristotle defines a tragedy as a “form of drama defined by seriousness and dignity and involving a great person who experiences a reversal of fortune”. This ‘great’ person is normally held in high regard and possesses a tragic or fatal flaw which contributes to the reversal of fortune. The character must pass through suffering and trials in which they are brought to their limit and, eventually, the character realises their mistake or flaw, and develops as a result of this. Unfortunately, the development invariably comes too late, and the tragedy ends in the character’s death. According to Aristotle, a tragedy must induce fear and pity in the audience. Watching a person held in high regard fall leaves the audience wondering if a single mistake could really lead to such a drastic turn of events.

The Crucible was written at a time when Miller was summoned to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee. During the 1940s and early 1950s, the fear of communist sympathisers became so great that under Senator Joseph McCarthy, the committee   became paranoid in its search for possible communists. As this was happening, Miller began seeing parallels between the actions of the committee and the witchcraft trials in Salem two hundred years ago: “What was manifestly parallel was the guilt, two centuries apart, of holding illicit, suppressed feelings of alienation and hostility toward standard, daylight society”. The possession of lists pertaining to possible offenders is a particular link, and Miller fashioned The Crucible around both the events of his time and the Salem witch trials. Miller wrote the play for modern audiences and while John Proctor's path is similar to the one defined by Aristotle, there are a number of differences.

        John Proctor is described as blunt and honest: “He had a sharp and biting way with hypocrites,” He has a rebellious spirit which leads him to be impulsive and rash on occasions. An example of this is when Parris mentions a faction. Proctor in jest says, “Then I must find it and join it”. This behaviour typical to Proctor differs a great deal from the repressive norm of the time. His behaviour also leads him to trouble later in the play, as others do not appreciate his more liberal thinking. “In Proctor’s presence a fool felt his foolishness instantly-and a Proctor is always marked for calumny therefore.” As a result of his sometimes rebellious attitude, he puts himself in a dangerous position when the hysteria elevates. Proctor is principled and a man of conviction. His refusal to go to church is not motivated by laziness but by a dislike of how Parris runs it. Miller also says that he came to, “regard himself as a kind of fraud”. Proctor understands that he is not the perfect Christian that he appears to be, and while he remains respected in the village, he himself feels undeserving of such respect because of the sins he has committed. As such, his fear of public humiliation is so great that he is reluctant to act when Elizabeth urges him. To Proctor, the risk of Abigail revealing his sins is too great.

Join now!

        Proctor is very weak willed at the start of the play, which highlights his vulnerabilities as a human being while making his change all the more pronounced. He lacks moral courage and strength: strength to do what is right and courage to act, despite the risks on his own reputation. In his actions toward Elizabeth, we see he is loyal and caring. Even though he strayed from his vows, he seeks forgiveness more than anything else and puts off Abigail’s advances, “I will cut off my hand before I reach for you again.” He is protective of his wife's feelings, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay