Docmadson – “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ...



Name: ______________________________________The CrucibleAct Three: The Witch Trials Ensue… 388620011430000The Bin Laden ItchIn a period spanning October 2001 to June 2002, thousands of primarily elementary-aged students were being afflicted with a skin rash that appeared with no known cause. The rash would last from a few hours up to two weeks, and then disappear as mysteriously as it came. In light of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax scare, was this a successful case of bioterrorism?To answer that question: yes and no. While rashes have always remained endemic to schools, fears of a bioterrorist attack made students pay more attention to their skin, and also prompted school nurses to report a higher number of cases than usual. Officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also noted that a few students went so far as to rub sandpaper on their skin. The effect looked like a severe rash. In many instances, the “rash” resulted in schools shutting down for days at a time. The so-called “Bin Laden Itch”—though ultimately non-existent—grew into a mass hysteria.4114800125730Hysteria: exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people00Hysteria: exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of peopleQuick WriteIn your opinion, why/how did thousands of people experience something that doesn’t exist (in this case, the “Bin Laden Itch”)? To put it another way: How does mass hysteria start and spread? Directions: Analyze moments where a character participates in OR fights against mass hysteria. Mass Hysteria(character, context, and page #)Why do you believe this person is participating in/fighting against the mass hysteria gripping Salem? What does this person potentially gain or lose from the mass hysteria?Giles Corey (the old neighbor)The play starts with Giles rushing into the courtroom demanding that the judge stop the case against his wife. He says he has evidence proving the accusations of witchcraft are all fake.Pages 176, 178Giles Corey is fighting against the hysteria because he realizes that his wife could die. He even says “They’ll be hangin’ my wife!” (178).Giles says that “Thomas Putnam is reaching out for land” (176). Giles realizes that Putnam wants to see Giles and his wife, Martha, jailed (or killed) because they own so much property. Putnam will take Giles land once he is jailed/killed.Giles knows this is all fake and yells in hopes of being heard. Mass Hysteria(character, context, and page #)Why do you believe this person is participating in/fighting against the mass hysteria gripping Salem? What does this person potentially gain or lose from the mass hysteria?Expanding Our Thinking: Who has the most power or influence in Salem? Does mass hysteria give this person more power or put their power at risk (or, does it do both at the same time)? Explain.The Crucible Act Three: The Witch Trials Ensue… (Part 2)3543300114300Globe Photo00Globe PhotoAirport Security in a Post 9/11 WorldToday we will start thinking about how mass hysteria can change how groups of people are treated and the actual laws governing our country. As an example, we will consider the laws that changed airport security.The aftermath of the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001, made America redefine freedom and security. The attacks – and the resulting deserved hysteria in the U.S. – forced the airline industry to renew and strengthen their focus on security. The measures put in place after 9/11 have drawn criticism from legal groups and from tens of thousands of passengers, especially regarding pat-down procedures and x-rays that take pictures of our naked bodies. At the same time, no airplane hijackings have taken place in the U.S. since these laws were introduced.4114800125730Hysteria: exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people00Hysteria: exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of peopleQuick WriteIn your opinion, should the government have passed laws or make big legal changes during the post-9/11 hysteria? Who gained or lost power when the government created Homeland Security and instituted new laws? Power in SalemTo start class, you and your tablemates will be made to come to an agreement as to who has most power and be prepared to defend your answer.Which character has the most power in Salem?How is this person connected to the mass hysteria?How will the passing of new laws outlawing witchcraft – an offense punishable by death – affect this character? Will these laws help or hurt this character? What may be the long-term effects of these laws on this character?Write your answers on a whiteboard.Directions: Investigate moments where a character’s power changes because of the new anti-witchcraft laws being passed in Salem. Power can mean many things, including wealth, gender, race, freedom, legal protection, and ones position in the government.Shifts in Power(character, context, and page #)Investigation How is this character connected to or impacted by the new anti-witchcraft laws being passed in Salem?In what ways has this person’s power changed? Provide evidence. Expanding Our Thinking: Whose power has been most affected by the witchcraft laws and the mass hysteria? How has this character’s power changed? What changed it? What does this mean for the character?4343400-114300Words to KNOWMotivatethe reasons someone does the things they doCharacter Developmentthe ways a character changes or grows over the course of a storyInfer / Inferenceeducated guesses we can make using evidence to support our thinking0Words to KNOWMotivatethe reasons someone does the things they doCharacter Developmentthe ways a character changes or grows over the course of a storyInfer / Inferenceeducated guesses we can make using evidence to support our thinkingBehind the CurtainOur Objective for Today: By the end of today, you should be able to answer the following questions:What motivates my character to make the decisions he/she makes?How does my character develop or change over the course of the play? History?What can I infer – a word that means ‘assume’ – about my character based on what I’ve read read in The Crucible and the historical document about my character?Entrance Task (complete on white board)480060081915REMEMBER: You are thinking and writing as YOUR CHARACTER all day today!0REMEMBER: You are thinking and writing as YOUR CHARACTER all day today!Write your [character’s] name.Update Your Blog What is the biggest challenge you’ve faced in Act 3?Tweet Your FollowersIn 10-12 words send an update explaining how you’re feeling after the weeks events (End of Act 3).EXAMPLE FOR MINI LESSON308610036195Ezekiel CheeverBornOctober 1614London EnglandDied1708 (Age 94)Boston, MAOccupationSchoolmaster, authorKnown?forEducationChildren1100Ezekiel CheeverBornOctober 1614London EnglandDied1708 (Age 94)Boston, MAOccupationSchoolmaster, authorKnown?forEducationChildren11Ezekiel Cheever Sr (1614–1708) was a schoolmaster, and the author of "probably the earliest American school book", Accidence, A Short Introduction to the Latin Tongue. Upon his death, it was said that "New England [had] never known a better teacher." He has been called "the chief representative of the colonial schoolmaster".BiographyCheever came to Boston, Massachusetts in June 1637. Not much later, he went to New Haven, Connecticut and taught school. In 1650, Cheever moved the family back to Massachusetts.On December 29, 1670, Cheever was invited to become Head Master of the Boston Latin School. FamilyEzekiel Cheever Sr and Ellen Lathrop had five children. This was in addition to the six children he had in his first marriage. Ezekiel Cheever Jr. was his second to youngest boy. Ezekiel Jr. was an arresting officer for the Salem Witch Trials. Little else is remembered of him. Decedents of Ezekiel Cheever Sr. include President Roosevelt and J.P. Morgan (a graduate of the English High School).Dialogue from Act IICHEEVER: I do, Proctor, aye. I am clerk of the court now, y‘know. (Takes a warrant from pocket.) I have a warrant for your wife. PROCTOR: What say you? A warrant for my wife? Who charged her? CHEEVER: Why, Abigail Williams charge her.PROCTOR: Abigail Williams? On what proof, what proof! CHEEVER: Mister Proctor, I have little time.... The court bid me search your house, but I like not to search a house. So will you hand me any poppets that your wife may keep here.…CHEEVER: ?Tis hard proof.—I find here a poppet Goody Proctor keeps. I have found it, sir. And in the belly of the poppet a needle stuck. I tell you true, Proctor, I never warranted to see such proof of Hell, and I bid you obstruct me not, for I... (Enter Elizabeth with Mary.) …HALE: Abigail were stabbed tonight; a needle were found stuck into her belly - ELIZABETH: And she charges me? HALE: Aye. ELIZABETH, her breath knocked out: Why! The girl is murder! She must be ripped out of the world! CHEEVER, pointing at Elizabeth: You’ve heard that, sir! Ripped out of the world! Herrick, you heard it! PROCTOR, suddenly snatching the warrant out of Cheever’s hands: Out with you. CHEEVER: Proctor, you dare not touch the warrant.PROCTOR, ripping the warrant: Out with you!CHEEVER: You’ve ripped the Deputy Governor’s warrant, man! HOMEWORK Continue reading historical biographyComplete your character’s Facebook ProfileWrite a 2-paragraph journal entry using one of the following prompts as a sentence starter…My greatest strength as a friend and neighbor is . . . ?If I could go back in time and change one thing about my past, I would change . . .?My promise to myself is . . .Four Corners as Your CharacterClaimEvidencefrom The Crucible or historical documentReasoningWhy would your character respond this way? Connect your answer to the evidence you’ve provided.Satan absolutely exists and can visit people in SalemStrongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeStrongly DisagreeA person’s reputation is more important than anything elseStrongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeStrongly DisagreeI should not be punished for what I’ve doneStrongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeStrongly DisagreeHot Seat ProtocolGreat actors do more than just memorize their lines and wear a costume. Great actors become their character. They think about the character as a living person and imagine what the character thinks and feels. They recreate the emotions and beliefs that motivate that character’s thinking. Oftentimes, they go so far as to visit the places where the character lived and worked.By the end of Act Three of The Crucible, you will take a shot at becoming your character. One way an actor learns to do this is through an activity called the hot seat. You will sit in a chair – the hot seat – and transform into your character.It’s called hot seat because you have to think quickly and respond to your classmates’ questions and comments. Sitting in the hot seat gives you a chance to explore a character, analyze story events, draw inferences, and try out different interpretations.We will each prepare to be one of eight characters. When we engage in the hot seat activity, you are invited to wear a costume, assume the character’s persona, speak in an accent, and carry objects that your character might carry.Here are the steps in the hot seat activity:Learn about the character. Take notes during our reading. Brainstorm. Collect evidence from the play. Create a costume. Design a costume and collect objects or create artifacts to use while in the hot seat.Prepare opening remarks. Think about the most important things you think this character would say to introduce and defend himself or herself. Introduce the character. We will pull names from a hat. When your name is called, you will sit in a chair designated as the “hot seat”. You will introduce yourself.Ask questions and make comments. We will ask thoughtful questions to learn more about the character and offer advice. You will stay in role as your character as you respond to our questions.Summarize the ideas. After you’ve completed your time in the hot seat, you will select a classmate to summarize the important ideas that were presented about the character. You can clarify any misunderstandings and add any big ideas that classmates don’t mention.Actor’s Notes for the Hot SeatYour Character: ___________________________________________________In your own words, who is your character?What position does this person have in town?Who are this person’s enemies and allies? What has this person done to gain these friends? What has this person done to upset others?What is motivating this person to do what they do? What is this person’s end goal?What have we seen or heard this person do in the play? What has surprised you?McCarthyism and Allegorical CritiqueConsidering Our Author’s IntentionsThe Crucible tells the story of a town consumed by the negative effects of mass hysteria in the year 1692. As you all know, in the end, the town collapses upon itself. In an attempt to show themselves loyal to their faith, the people of Salem kill their neighbors and cousins.Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible in 1953. What are some reasons that he may have written this work? What are possible connections you could make between the events in Salem and those in the U.S.?The Cold War and CommunismThis week we will be discussing the anti-communist craziness that gripped America in the late 1940s and 1950s. Over the course of a half-decade, many Americans became convinced that communists had infiltrated the U.S. government and were working to collapse the country from the inside! One of the men who led this movement was a U.S. Senator named Joseph McCarthy.The onset of Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union following World War II had major ramifications for American society, as the problem of how to deal with U.S. citizens accused of being Communists became a major political and social preoccupation.So, what exactly is the Cold War? Take notes as we watch a short video. Be prepared to explain the following terms: The Cold War, Communism, the The House Un-American Activities Committee and McCarthyism.Why Should I Care?Until the Cold War, Communists never made much of an impact on American life. There were never very many of them, and their dream of leading a proletarian revolution in the United States seemed so far-fetched that it bordered on the unthinkable. Most Americans despised the Communists, but weren't particularly preoccupied with them.??Then, a few years after World War II, the United States found itself locked in potentially mortal confrontation with the Soviet Union. Suddenly American Communists, that tiny fringe of wannabe revolutionaries, came to represent a major problem in American society.??There still weren't many of them. They still had little power or influence. They still had a snowball's chance in hell of creating a United Soviet States of America.??But what if they were agents of the Soviets, boring from within our open society to destroy us? What if they were spies? What if they were secretly seeking positions of influence within our society, subverting the work of our government, miseducating in our schools, propagandizing in our movies???Fear.Fear—utterly justifiable fear—transformed American Communists from a minor nuisance into a national obsession. Fear created McCarthyism, an intense effort to root out Communists from every corner of American society by any means necessary—even if those means violated traditional American values: Due process. Civil liberties. Constitutional rights.??The culture of fear created a society of conformity, a politics of repudiation (denying the truth because you want to believe something else). The results weren't always pretty. Senator Joseph McCarthy, the most prominent Communist-hunter of the period, was a reckless alcoholic demagogue. Unknown numbers of innocents had their lives ruined by a loyalty-security apparatus that knew few checks or balances.?But the culture of fear also worked. The Communist Party USA disintegrated. Soviet spies were brought to justice. Leftists were even purged from Hollywood.??Was it worth it???"Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist Party?" Would you answer?A Few of the Actors, Inventors, and Politicians Impacted:Leonard Bernstein, Bertolt Brecht, Charlie Chaplin, W.E.B. Du Bois, Albert Einstein, Lena Horne, Langston Hughes, Thomas Mann, Arthur Miller, Artie Shaw, Orson Welles, and Betty WhiteMany historians and sociologists argue that the scapegoat mentality that came to light during the McCarthy era changed the American mindset. It became increasingly acceptable to blame certain people or groups of people for problems that have nothing to do with them (and sometimes the problems aren’t even real).Reflection QuestionsWhat is one example of a person or group of people scapegoated in the U.S. today?Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible after being accused of being a Communist. How can we begin to read the actions of Abigail Williams as an allegory or example meant to inform or critique us, the reader?Evaluating Historical SourcesToday you will work with a group of 2-3 people. You will receive a packet of four materials: the Speech of Joseph McCarthy (1950); President Truman’s News Conference (1950); Statements from Republican Senators; and, “I Have Here in my Hand,” a cartoon by Herbert Block. Read your historical materialsAnswer the questions using evidence from your sourcesDraft a response to the questions: What was McCarthyism? What caused people to be so afraid that they accused people of committing crimes they did not commit? What were the long-term effects of McCarthyism?QuestionAnswerWhat information did McCarthy cite to show that America was losing the war against Communism?Explain what McCarthy meant when he said “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.”How did McCarthy describe the sorts of people engaged in “traitorous actions” in the United States?What did Truman mean when he claimed that McCarthy was an “asset” to the Kremlin?According to Truman, how did McCarthy fit in with the overall strategy of the Republican Party?Evaluate the five statements by the Republican senators. What was their purpose in issuing these statements?In your opinion, how did partisanship fighting between the Republicans and Democrats interfere with the issue at hand?How does the political cartoon by Herblock portray McCarthy? Why do you think he chose to portray McCarthy this way?Arthur Miller’s Response to McCarthyismEntrance TaskCan you think of a modern day group of people who experiences a type of McCarthyism? Who in our world is accused of doing something they do not do? How does this happen? What is the effect?Quick Write (Think-Pair-Share)Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is a thinly veiled critique of Joseph McCarthy’s witch-hunts for communists in the 1950s. What is Miller’s message to McCarthy and the members of the House Un-American Activities Committee?Read Arthur Miller’s article, “Why I Wrote the Crucible,” and answer the reading questions that follow.The New Yorker, October 21, 1996Why I Wrote The Crucible: An Artist's Answer to PoliticsBy Arthur MillerAs I watched The Crucible taking shape as a movie over much of the past year, the sheer depth of time that it represents for me kept returning to mind. As those powerful actors blossomed on the screen, and the children and the horses, the crowds and the wagons, I thought again about how I came to cook all this up nearly fifty years ago, in an America almost nobody I know seems to remember clearly. In a way, there is a biting irony in this film's having been made by a Hollywood studio, something unimaginable in the fifties. But there they are -- Daniel Day-Lewis (John Proctor) scything his sea-bordered field, Joan Allen (Elizabeth) lying pregnant in the frigid jail, Winona Ryder (Abigail) stealing her minister-uncle's money, majestic Paul Scofield (Judge Danforth) and his righteous empathy with the Devil-possessed children, and all of them looking as inevitable as rain.I remember those years -- they formed The Crucible's skeleton -- but I have lost the dead weight of the fear I had then. Fear doesn't travel well; just as it can warp judgment, its absence can diminish memory's truth. What terrifies one generation is likely to bring only a puzzled smile to the next. I remember how in 1964, only twenty years after the war, Harold Clurman, the director of Incident at Vichy, showed the cast a film of a Hitler speech, hoping to give them a sense of the Nazi period in which my play took place. They watched as Hitler, facing a vast stadium full of adoring people, went up on his toes in ecstasy, hands clasped under his chin, a sublimely self-gratified grin on his face, his body swivelling rather cutely, and they giggled at his overacting.Likewise, films of Senator Joseph McCarthy are rather unsettling -- if you remember the fear he once spread. Buzzing his truculent sidewalk brawler's snarl through the hairs in his nose, squinting through his cat's eyes and sneering like a villain, he comes across now as nearly comical, a self-aware performer keeping a straight face as he does his juicy threat-shtick.McCarthy's power to stir fears of creeping Communism was not entirely based on illusion, of course; the paranoid, real or pretended, always secretes its pearl around a grain of fact. From being our wartime ally, the Soviet Union rapidly became a expanding empire. In 1949, Mao Zedong took power in China. Western Europe also seemed ready to become Red -- especially Italy, where the Communist Party was the largest outside Russia, and was growing. Capitalism, in the opinion of many, myself included, had nothing more to say, its final poisoned bloom having been Italian and German Fascism. McCarthy -- brash and ill-mannered but to many authentic and true -- boiled it all down to what anyone could understand: we had "lost China" and would soon lose Europe as well, because the State Department -- staffed, of course, under Democratic Presidents -- was full of treasonous pro-Soviet intellectuals. It was as simple as that.If our losing China seemed the equivalent of a flea's losing an elephant, it was still a phrase -- and a conviction -- that one did not dare to question; to do so was to risk drawing suspicion on oneself. Indeed, the State Department proceeded to hound and fire the officers who knew China, its language, and its opaque culture -- a move that suggested the practitioners of sympathetic magic who wring the neck of a doll in order to make a distant enemy's head drop off. There was magic all around; the politics of alien conspiracy soon dominated political discourse and bid fair to wipe out any other issue. How could one deal with such enormities in a play?The Crucible was an act of desperation. Much of my desperation branched out, I suppose, from a typical Depression -- era trauma -- the blow struck on the mind by the rise of European Fascism and the brutal anti-Semitism it had brought to power. But by 1950, when I began to think of writing about the hunt for Reds in America, I was motivated in some great part by the paralysis that had set in among many liberals who, despite their discomfort with the inquisitors' violations of civil rights, were fearful, and with good reason, of being identified as covert Communists if they should protest too strongly.In any play, however trivial, there has to be a still point of moral reference against which to gauge the action. In our lives, in the late nineteen-forties and early nineteen-fifties, no such point existed anymore. The left could not look straight at the Soviet Union's abrogations of human rights. The anti-Communist liberals could not acknowledge the violations of those rights by congressional committees. The far right, meanwhile, was licking up all the cream. The days of "J'accuse" were gone, for anyone needs to feel right to declare someone else wrong. Gradually, all the old political and moral reality had melted like a Dali watch. Nobody but a fanatic, it seemed, could really say all that he believed.President Truman was among the first to have to deal with the dilemma, and his way of resolving itself having to trim his sails before the howling gale on the right-turned out to be momentous. At first, he was outraged at the allegation of widespread Communist infiltration of the government and called the charge of "coddling Communists" a red herring dragged in by the Republicans to bring down the Democrats. But such was the gathering power of raw belief in the great Soviet plot that Truman soon felt it necessary to institute loyalty boards of his own.The Red hunt, led by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and by McCarthy, was becoming the dominating fixation of the American psyche. It reached Hollywood when the studios, after first resisting, agreed to submit artists' names to the House Committee for "clearing" before employing them. This unleashed a veritable holy terror among actors, directors, and others, from Party members to those who had had the merest brush with a front organization.The Soviet plot was the hub of a great wheel of causation; the plot justified the crushing of all nuance, all the shadings that a realistic judgment of reality requires. Even worse was the feeling that our sensitivity to this onslaught on our liberties was passing from us -- indeed, from me. In Timebends, my autobiography, I recalled the time I'd written a screenplay (The Hook) about union corruption on the Brooklyn waterfront. Harry Cohn, the head of Columbia Pictures, did something that would once have been considered unthinkable: he showed my script to the F.B.I. Cohn then asked me to take the gangsters in my script, who were threatening and murdering their opponents, and simply change them to Communists. When I declined to commit this idiocy (Joe Ryan, the head of the longshoremen's union, was soon to go to Sing Sing for racketeering), I got a wire from Cohn saying, "The minute we try to make the script pro-American you pull out." By then -- it was 1951 -- I had come to accept this terribly serious insanity as routine, but there was an element of the marvelous in it which I longed to put on the stage.In those years, our thought processes were becoming so magical, so paranoid, that to imagine writing a play about this environment was like trying to pick one's teeth with a ball of wool: I lacked the tools to illuminate miasma. Yet I kept being drawn back to it.I had read about the witchcraft trials in college, but it was not until I read a book published in 1867 -- a two-volume, thousand-page study by Charles W. Upham, who was then the mayor of Salem -- that I knew I had to write about the period. Upham had not only written a broad and thorough investigation of what was even then an almost lost chapter of Salem's past but opened up to me the details of personal relationships among many participants in the tragedy.I visited Salem for the first time on a dismal spring day in 1952; it was a sidetracked town then, with abandoned factories and vacant stores. In the gloomy courthouse there I read the transcripts of the witchcraft trials of 1692, as taken down in a primitive shorthand by ministers who were spelling each other. But there was one entry in Upham in which the thousands of pieces I had come across were jogged into place. It was from a report written by the Reverend Samuel Parris, who was one of the chief instigators of the witch-hunt. "During the examination of Elizabeth Procter, Abigail Williams and Ann Putnam" -- the two were "afflicted" teen-age accusers, and Abigail was Parris's niece -- "both made offer to strike at said Procter; but when Abigail's hand came near, it opened, whereas it was made up, into a fist before, and came down exceeding lightly as it drew near to said Procter, and at length, with open and extended fingers, touched Procter's hood very lightly. Immediately Abigail cried out her fingers, her fingers, her fingers burned... "In this remarkably observed gesture of a troubled young girl, I believed, a play became possible. Elizabeth Proctor had been the orphaned Abigail's mistress, and they had lived together in the same small house until Elizabeth fired the girl. By this time, I was sure, John Proctor had bedded Abigail, who had to be dismissed most likely to appease Elizabeth. There was bad blood between the two women now. That Abigail started, in effect, to condemn Elizabeth to death with her touch, then stopped her hand, then went through with it, was quite suddenly the human center of all this turmoil.All this I understood. I had not approached the witchcraft out of nowhere or from purely social and political considerations. My own marriage of twelve years was teetering and I knew more than I wished to know about where the blame lay. That John Proctor the sinner might overturn his paralyzing personal guilt and become the most forthright voice against the madness around him was a reassurance to me, and, I suppose, an inspiration: it demonstrated that a clear moral outcry could still spring even from an ambiguously unblemished soul. Moving crabwise across the profusion of evidence, I sensed that I had at last found something of myself in it, and a play began to accumulate around this man.But as the dramatic form became visible, one problem remained unyielding: so many practices of the Salem trials were similar to those employed by the congressional committees that I could easily be accused of skewing history for a mere partisan purpose. Inevitably, it was no sooner known that my new play was about Salem than I had to confront the charge that such an analogy was specious -- that there never were any witches but there certainly are Communists. In the seventeenth century, however, the existence of witches was never questioned by the loftiest minds in Europe and America; and even lawyers of the highest eminence, like Sir Edward Coke, a veritable hero of liberty for defending the common law against the king's arbitrary power, believed that witches had to be prosecuted mercilessly. Of course, there were no Communists in 1692, but it was literally worth your life to deny witches or their powers, given the exhortation in the Bible, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." There had to be witches in the world or the Bible lied. Indeed, the very structure of evil depended on Lucifer's plotting against God. (And the irony is that klatches of Luciferians exist all over the country today, there may even be more of them now than there are Communists.)As with most humans, panic sleeps in one unlighted corner of my soul. When I walked at night along the empty, wet streets of Salem in the week that I spent there, I could easily work myself into imagining my terror before a gaggle of young girls flying down the road screaming that somebody's "familiar spirit" was chasing them. This anxiety-laden leap backward over nearly three centuries may have been helped along by a particular Upham footnote. At a certain point, the high court of the province made the fatal decision to admit, for the first time, the use of "spectral evidence" as proof of guilt. Spectral evidence, so aptly named, meant that if I swore that you had sent out your "familiar spirit" to choke, tickle, poison me or my cattle, or to control thoughts and actions, I could get you hanged unless you confessed to having had contact with the Devil. After all, only the Devil could lend such powers of visible transport to confederates, in his everlasting plot to bring down Christianity.Naturally, the best proof of the sincerity of your confession was your naming others whom you had seen in the Devil company -- an invitation to private vengeance, but made official by the seal of the theocratic state. It was as though the court had grown tired of thinking and had invited in the instincts: spectral evidence -- that poisoned cloud of paranoid fantasy -- made a kind of lunatic sense to them, as it did in plot-ridden 1952, when so often the question was not the acts of an accused but the thoughts and intentions in his alienated mind.The breathtaking circularity of the process had a kind of poetic tightness. Not everybody was accused, after all, so there must be some reason why you were. By denying that there is any reason whatsoever for you to be accused, you are implying, by virtue of a surprisingly small logical leap, that mere chance picked you out, which in turn implies that the Devil might not really be at work in the village or, God forbid, even exist. Therefore, the investigation itself is either mistaken or a fraud. You would have to be a crypto-Luciferian to say that -- not a great idea if l you wanted to go back to your farm.The more I read into the Salem panic, the more it touched off corresponding ages of common experiences in the fifties: the old friend of a blacklisted person crossing the street to avoid being seen talking to him; the overnight conversions of former leftists into born-again patriots; and so on. Apparently, certain processes are universal. When Gentiles in Hitler's Germany, for example, saw their Jewish neighbors being trucked off, or rs in Soviet Ukraine saw the Kulaks sing before their eyes, the common reaction, even among those unsympathetic to Nazism or Communism, was quite naturally to turn away in fear of being identified with the condemned. As I learned from non-Jewish refugees, however there was often a despairing pity mixed with "Well, they must have done something." Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.I was also drawn into writing The Crucible by the chance it gave me to use a new language -- that of seventeenth-century New England. That plain, craggy English was liberating in a strangely sensuous way, with its swings from an almost legalistic precision to a wonderful metaphoric richness. "The Lord doth terrible things amongst us, by lengthening the chain of the roaring lion in an extraordinary manner, so that the Devil is come down in great wrath," Deodat Lawson, one of the great witch-hunting preachers, said in a sermon. Lawson rallied his congregation for what was to be nothing less than a religious war against the Evil One -- "Arm, arm, arm!" -- and his concealed anti-Christian accomplices.But it was not yet my language, and among other strategies to make it mine I enlisted the help of a former University of Michigan classmate, the Greek-American scholar and poet Kimon Friar. (He later translated Kazantzakis.) The problem was not to imitate the archaic speech but to try to create a new echo of it which would flow freely off American actors' tongues. As in the film, nearly fifty years later, the actors in the first production grabbed the language and ran with it as happily as if it were their customary speech.The Crucible took me about a year to write. With its five sets and a cast of twenty-one, it never occurred to me that it would take a brave man to produce it on Broadway, especially given the prevailing climate, but Kermit Bloomgarden never faltered. Well before the play opened, a strange tension had begun to build. Only two years earlier, the Death of a Salesman touring company had played to a thin crowd in Peoria, Illinois, having been boycotted nearly to death by the American Legion and the Jaycees. Before that, the Catholic War Veterans had prevailed upon the Army not to allow its theatrical groups to perform, first, All My Sons, and then any play of mine, in occupied Europe. The Dramatists Guild refused to protest attacks on a new play by Sean O'Casey, a self-declared Communist, which forced its producer to cancel his option. I knew of two suicides by actors depressed by upcoming investigation, and every day seemed to bring news of people exiling themselves to Europe: Charlie Chaplin, the director Joseph Losey, Jules Dassin, the harmonica virtuoso Larry Adler, Donald Ogden Stewart, one of the most sought-after screenwriters in Hollywood, and Sam Wanamaker, who would lead the successful campaign to rebuild the Old Globe Theatre on the Thames.On opening night, January 22, 1953, I knew that the atmosphere would be pretty hostile. The coldness of the crowd was not a surprise; Broadway audiences were not famous for loving history lessons, which is what they made of the play. It seems to me entirely appropriate that on the day the play opened, a newspaper headline read "ALL 13 REDS GUILTY" -- a story about American Communists who faced prison for "conspiring to teach and advocate the duty and necessity of forcible overthrow of government." Meanwhile, the remoteness of the production was guaranteed by the director, Jed Harris, who insisted that this was a classic requiring the actors to face front, never each other. The critics were not swept away. "Arthur Miller is a problem playwright in both senses of the word," wrote Walter Kerr of the Herald Tribune, who called the play "a step backward into mechanical parable." The Times was not much kinder, saying, "There is too much excitement and not enough emotion in The Crucible." But the play's future would turn out quite differently.About a year later, a new production, one with younger, less accomplished actors, working in the Martinique Hotel ballroom, played with the fervor that the script and the times required, and The Crucible became a hit. The play stumbled into history, and today, I am told, it is one of the most heavily demanded trade-fiction paperbacks in this country; the Bantam and Penguin editions have sold more than six million copies. I don't think there has been a week in the past forty-odd years when it hasn't been on a stage somewhere in the world. Nor is the new screen version the first. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his Marxist phase, wrote a French film adaptation that blamed the tragedy on the rich landowners conspiring to persecute the poor. (In truth, most of those who were hanged in Salem were people of substance, and two or three were very large landowners.)It is only a slight exaggeration to say that, especially in Latin America, The Crucible starts getting produced wherever a political coup appears imminent, or a dictatorial regime has just been over-thrown. From Argentina to Chile to Greece, Czechoslovakia, China, and a dozen other places, the play seems to present the same primeval structure of human sacrifice to the furies of fanaticism and paranoia that goes on repeating itself forever as though imbedded in the brain of social man.I am not sure what The Crucible is telling people now, but I know that its paranoid center is still pumping out the same darkly attractive warning that it did in the fifties. For some, the play seems to be about the dilemma of relying on the testimony of small children accusing adults of sexual abuse, something I'd not have dreamed of forty years ago. For others, it may simply be a fascination with the outbreak of paranoia that suffuses the play -- the blind panic that, in our age, often seems to sit at the dim edges of consciousness. Certainly its political implications are the central issue for many people; the Salem interrogations turn out to be eerily exact models of those yet to come in Stalin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile, Mao's China, and other regimes. (Nien Cheng, the author of "Life and Death in Shang- hai," has told me that she could hardly believe that a non-Chinese -- someone who had not experienced the Cultural Revolution -- had written the play.) But below its concerns with justice the play evokes a lethal brew of illicit sexuality, fear of the supernatural, and political manipulation, a combination not unfamiliar these days. The film, by reaching the broad American audience as no play ever can, may well unearth still other connections to those buried public terrors that Salem first announced on this continent.One thing more -- something wonderful in the old sense of that word. I recall the weeks I spent reading testimony by the tome, commentaries, broadsides, confessions, and accusations. And always the crucial damning event was the signing of one's name in "the Devil's book." This Faustian agreement to hand over one's soul to the dreaded Lord of Darkness was the ultimate insult to God. But what were these new inductees supposed to have done once they'd signed on? Nobody seems even to have thought to ask. But, of course, actions are as irrelevant during cultural and religious wars as they are in nightmares. The thing at issue is buried intentions -- the secret allegiances of the alienated hearts always the main threat to the theocratic mind, as well as its immemorial quarry.Reading QuestionsOn a separate sheet of paper, please answer the following questions. Your answers should be short-paragraphs. Use evidence from either this article or the play whenever possible.According to Miller, why did he write The Crucible in 1953?Summarize Miller’s analysis of hysteria and witch hunts.When Miller’s play was first produced in New York, how did audiences receive it? What changed in the second production a year later?How does this article reinforce, change, or complicate what you already thought of Miller’s The Crucible?46863000Close ReadingTasksSummarizeWhat is the scene’s tone? The mood?In a short paragraph, explain: What is the aftermath of the mass hysteria that struck Salem? Why is this the outcome? What does it mean? 00Close ReadingTasksSummarizeWhat is the scene’s tone? The mood?In a short paragraph, explain: What is the aftermath of the mass hysteria that struck Salem? Why is this the outcome? What does it mean? The Crucible: Act Four (Resolution…)Close Reading ExerciseA cell in Salem jail, that fall.At the back is a high barred window; near it, a great, heavy door. Along the walls are two benches.The place is in darkness but for the moonlight seeping through the bars. Itappears empty. Presently footsteps are heard com-ing down a corridor beyondthe wall, keys rattle, and the door swings open. Marshal Herrick enters with alantern.He is nearly drunk, and heavy-footed. He goes to a bench and nudges a bundleof rags lying on it.Herrick: Sarah,. wake up! Sarah Good! He then crosses to the other bench.Sarah Good, rising in her rags: Oh, Majesty! Comin.’, comin.’! Tituba, he.’shere, His Majesty.’s come!Herrick: Go to the north cell; this place is' wanted now. He hangs his lanternon the wall. Tituba sits up.Tituba: That don.’t look to me like His Majesty; look to me like the marshal.Herrick, taking out a ask: Get along with you now, clear this.Herrick, grabbing Tituba: Come along, come along.Tituba, resisting him: No, he comin.’ for me. I goin' home!Herrick, pulling her to the door: That.’s not Satan, just a poor old cow with ahatful of milk. Come along now, out with you!Tituba, calling to the window: Take me home, Devil! Take me home!Sarah Good, following the shouting Tituba out: Tell him I.’m goin.’, Tituba!Now you tell him Sarah Good is goin.’ too!In the corridor outside Tituba calls on - .“Take me home, Devil; Devil take mehome!.” and Hopkins’ voice orders her to move on. Herrick returns and beginsto push old rags and straw into a corner. Hearing footsteps, he turns, and enterDanforth and Judge Hawthorne. They are in greatcoats and wear hats againstthe bitter cold. They are followed in by Cheever, who carries a dispatch caseand a flat wooden box containing his writing materials.Today’s Question: What is the aftermath of the mass hysteria that struck Salem? Why is this the outcome? What does it mean?As we read today, we will stop three times. At each ‘Stop and Jot’ you will go back and find a moment that can help us answer this question. Moment/QuoteWhat has happened? Why did this person do this? What was the outcome of this person’s actions?What does this moment tell us about hysteria? What does this moment tell us about Salem after the witch hunts? What does this moment tell us about this character?Herrick, handing her the flask: And where are you off to, Sarah?Tituba, as Sarah drinks: We goin’ to Barbados, soon the Devil gits here with the feathers and the wings.Sarah and Tituba have been in jail for months. They have clearly become friends with Herrick, who is now a drunk. The women joke about being witches and having the power to actually set themselves free. Tituba fantasizes about returning to Barbados. We see women sitting in jail for months after the trials have concluded – clearly these women are not witches, as they are neither free nor have horrific things happened to Salem. The city and it’s people are being held hostage to something that doesn’t even make sense at this point.Moment/QuoteWhat has happened? Why did this person do this? What was the outcome of this person’s actions?What does this moment tell us about hysteria? What does this moment tell us about Salem after the witch hunts? What does this moment tell us about this character?The Crucible: Act Four (Resolution…)Scenario: Imagine that you’ve been convicted of a horrific crime. You did not commit this crime. But, no one cares about that. Here is the deal. If you commit to the crime, your life will be spared, but your reputation will forever be ruined. If you do not commit to the crime, you will die, but you will die with your honor intact. What would you do?I, ________________________, would / would not confess to the crime of ________________________, (your name) (circle one) (most horrible crime you could commit)knowing full well that I did not commit this crime. The reasoning behind my decision is that…Close Reading Read the following passage. Annotate as you read (underline key passages, ask questions, clarify, define terms, decode for meaning, etc).Hale, continuing to Elizabeth: Let you not mistake your duty as I mistook my own. I came into this village like a bridegroom to his beloved, bearing gifts of high religion; the very crowns of holy law I brought, and what I touched with my bright confidence, it died; and where I turned the eye of my great faith, blood flowed up. Beware, Goody Proctor - cleave to no faith when faith brings blood. It is mistaken law that leads you to sacrifice. Life, woman, life is God’s most precious gift; no principle, however glorious, may justify the taking of it. I beg you, woman, prevail upon your husband to confess. Let him give his lie. Quail not before God’s judgment in this, for it may well be God damns a liar less than he that throws his life away for pride. Will you plead with him? I cannot think he will listen to another.What is Reverend Hale’s advice to Elizabeth?What does this passage tell us about the changes that have taken place in Salem?John Proctor can either confess to witchcraft and be with his family or not confess and die with his honor still intact. Which will he chose? Why?Today’s Question: How does Proctor’s character develop over the final pages of The Crucible? What motivates Proctor to make the decisions he does?As we read today, we will stop three times. At each ‘Stop and Jot’ you will go back and find a moment that can help us answer this question. Moment/QuoteWhy what is motivating Proctor’s decision here? What is Proctor’s intention?What does this moment teach us about Proctor? His values? His beliefs?Proctor: I have been thinking I would confess to them, Elizabeth…What say you? If I give them that?Eliz: I cannot judge you, John.Proctor: What would you have me do?Eliz: As you will, I would have it. Slight Pause. I want you living, John. That’s sure.John is torn as to what he should do. He reveals that he’s been tortured that that he is tired. He knows that his boys are safe and that his wife is alive – but everything else he knew in the world is gone. He is trying to decide whether or not to confess. If he doesn’t confess, he will be killed. If he does, his reputation is forever ruined.Proctor: I cannot mount the gibbet [gallows] like a saint. It is a fraud. I am not that man. She is silent. My honesty is broke, Elizabeth; I am no good man. Nothing’s spoiled by giving them this lie that were not rotten long ago.Quick Write: Write a one- to two-paragraph response to the day’s essential question. Incorporate at least two quotes.The Crucible: Final PaperPromptThroughout our study of?The Crucible,?we have witnessed characters choosing to either fight or flee (leave/escape/avoid) during moments of crises. In your final paper, select one character from?The Crucible?and critically examine how and why he/she fights or flees during a moment of crises. Successful papers will clearly identify a crisis and investigate a single’s character’s motivations for either fighting or fleeing using both the play and secondary sources provided in class.??Consider:a.?????How does this person get caught up in the hysteria?b.?????What decisions does this person make in response to the violence of the witch-hunts? What motivates this character to make these decisions? Provide evidence.c.?????What are the outcomes of this person’s choices? Do these outcomes align with what the character wanted to have happen? Provide evidence.d.?????What is Miller’s larger message he is delivering to readers through your character’s decisions?Basic RequirementsPaper will respond to the promptPaper will focus on character development and motivationPaper will compare and contrast and/or investigate in at least three moments from the playPaper will be at least three full pages in length (length will be determined on a person-to-person basis)Criteria for SuccessAn effective essay will include…___ a debatable and substantial thesis statement___ body paragraphs that open with topic sentences (mini-arguments for the paragraph)___ close analysis of evidence that questions character motivations and intentions___ close analysis of evidence that draws inferences about character motivation___ an analysis of your character’s connection to the hysteria gripping SalemQuestions to Ask About a Thesis Statement…The Elements of a Strong Thesis ParagraphIs the thesis debatable? Could you prove this thesis with evidence?Is the thesis is precise (i.e., you only need a few pages to totally prove the claim)Is this thesis substantial? Does it include a “so what?”Opening sentences that introduce the broad topic or tell a related storyContext or summary of the topic or textA thesis statement which is the precise, provocative A road map explaining how you will organize and support your argument. The Crucible: Brainstorming Your Thesis StatementCharacterQuick Character Analysis (What facts do you know about your character?)PromptHow and why does your character choose to either fight or flee during moments of crises? Initial ResponseHow does your character get caught up in the hysteria? Provide at least ONE piece of evidence.What decisions does this person make in response to the violence of the witch-hunts? What motivates this character to make these decisions? Provide at least ONE piece of evidence.What are the outcomes of this person’s choices? Do these outcomes align with what the character wanted to have happen? Provide at least ONE piece of evidence.Constructing a Thesis StatementA THESIS STATEMENT is a sentence (or two sentences) that express the main position that you will support in your paper. Your thesis is the idea that you want your audience to believe or agree with after they read your paper.To develop your thesis, answer the following questions. What was your character like before the mass hysteria consumed Salem?Example: Elizabeth Proctor was a devoted, Christian wife who did not trust her husband. She lived out on her family’s 300-acre farm raising her kids and keeping an eye on John.How does your character EITHER participate in OR feel the impact of the witch-hunts?Example: At first, Elizabeth believes the witch-hunts are ridiculous and she argues with Hale about whether witches even exist (which makes him angry). Then, she is accused of being a witch. What did your character do in response to the mass hysteria?Example: She allows herself to be arrested and she chooses to sit in jail – even though she is pregnant! – instead of signing a document admitting to being a witch. Though she never explicitly states it, Elizabeth chooses to stand by her beliefs. She will not participate in the hysteria. Why did your character make these choices? What can we infer – or guess – about him/her?Example: Elizabeth decides that she would rather die than have either her husband or herself be forced to admit to a sin they haven’t committed. We can infer that Elizabeth values her religious beliefs more than she does the beliefs of her neighbors. She values her connection to God more than her children and husband. She wants to outlast her neighbors in all of bining the Parts…To construct your thesis, take your answers to the questions on the other side of this handout and put them together into a 2- to 3-sentence argument. Sample ThesisEx. Elizabeth Proctor chooses to die as opposed to admit to a crime that she did not commit. Her decision demonstrates her distrust of the community’s connection to a Christian god, while at the same time affirming that her sense of right and wrong outweighs that of the rest of the Puritan community. This paper will argue that Elizabeth’s decision is based in a sense of righteousness with the intention of establishing herself as better than her neighbors.Your ThesisOnce you’ve drafted a thesis, check to make sure that it meets the criteria of an effective argument.Is the thesis debatable? Explain why or why not.Could you prove this thesis with evidence? Provide an example.Explain whether or not the thesis is precise (i.e., you can prove in 2 pages)Is this thesis substantial? What is the “so what?” Explain.Homework: Complete your thesis statement (2-3 sentences) and email to Madson no later than 9 p.m. this evening (cmadson@)Writing the Perfect Body ParagraphYour main goal in writing a solid body paragraph is to do the following:Claim Begin with a discussible point: The topic sentence is like a mini-thesis, it tells us what the paragraph is going to explain, prove, or argue.Ask yourself: What is the purpose of this paragraph (summarize, compare/contrast, define, analyze, evaluating, etc.)? Is your paragraph supporting the paper’s thesis? How so? Sentence starters:One implication of the author’s argument is…In order to prove the claim, it makes sense to first prove…While some readers may not believe X because X, this essay will prove…The allegorical message X has universal appeal because all people can relate to the idea that…Evidence Stick to the point: Provide evidence from a text or from outside sources that will support and prove the argument made in the topic sentence.Ask yourself: Does this evidence best prove my claim? Will my reader understand this quote? Are there other quotes that may work better? Have I provided enough context for the reader to understand why this quote relates to the topic? Remember, 1) quotes should not be more than one or two sentences in length; and 2) a quote MUST have “quotation marks” around it and include a page number (page 3). Sentence starters:In her article X, the author writes, “Blah…” (page X).After X occurs, X [name of character or author] argues, “Blah…” (page X).“Blah…”, says a very X [name emotion] X [name of character or author] (page X).ReasoningProve the point; don’t merely repeat it: Explain how the evidence from the text or outside source proves your claim.Ask yourself: How does this quote connect back to the claim? What is something insightful and new that you can say about this evidence? What might the average reader not notice or think when reading this evidence? How does this quote prove or demonstrate the claim you are making?Sentence starters:The first step in understanding how to…To understand this concept you must understand the importance of…The vital elements/characters/events are…becauseThe important things to remember include…As I consider this evidence it helps me understand that…In examining the evidence I understand why…40005000When choosing a strategy, ask yourself:How does this quote connect back to the claim? What is something insightful and new that you can say about this evidence? What might the average reader not notice or think when reading this evidence? How does this quote prove or demonstrate the claim you are making?0When choosing a strategy, ask yourself:How does this quote connect back to the claim? What is something insightful and new that you can say about this evidence? What might the average reader not notice or think when reading this evidence? How does this quote prove or demonstrate the claim you are making?Analysis StrategiesCreate ConnectionsCreate connections between the work’s ideas and themes and those found in a) other parts of the same work; b) other works (from the same period, genre, author, etc.); c) our contemporary world. Explain a Character’s TraitsAuthors spend a tremendous amount of time and energy choosing just the right words, plotlines, and settings used to paint a picture of a character. What does this character look like? What is the character’s background? What do we know about this person? Why does this matter?Speculate on a Character’s Intentions A good reader acts as a psychoanalyst to characters encountered in a work of literature. Why is this character making the choices he is? What does this character want to have happen? Why does this character treat other characters the way he does? What urges or desires drive this character? What is this character not telling us?Identify and Explain Figurative Language and Extended AllegoriesGood authors often use similes, metaphors, allegories, and allusions in their works. Mark moments of figurative language (a word that means all of these things). Determine what the figurative language means. How do they change the meaning of the poem? Is the author alluding to – or making reference to – an older story or work of literature? If so, how does that change our understanding of the poem? Determine the Author’s IntentionsThis can be related to the author’s biography and it’s impact on the work. But, we can also speculate on the author’s broader intentions based on other works written by the author or other author’s writing during the same period. What do you think the author wants us to walk away thinking after reading this? What does the author want to see change in his or her world?Create Cultural InferencesEach work either reflects or creates a system of values, ethics, and social norms. What can we say about the cultural norms of the author’s world based on this work? In what ways does the work create a unique set of cultural norms? How does the author’s work either reflect back on his world?Explain the Significance of the Work’s ToneA work’s feeling is central to understanding the text’s characters, conflict, and purpose. What feeling is conveyed throughout the work? How does this feeling – or tone – come to define who lives in this story and why they are doing what they do? How is the reader meant to feel after reading this work?Explain the Significance of the Work’s SettingWorks of literature are nearly always set in specific places, time periods, and seasons for a reason. The author may want to reimagine the past, make us think about the present, or provide a warning about what may happen in the future if our society continues down a certain path. Why has this author set his work in this time period? What are we meant to think or imagine?Consider the Author’s Use of Diction, Syntax, and DialectDifferent authors use different words (diction), sentence structures (syntax), and dialects (varying types of speech found in different communities and regions) for literary effect. What does the author’s choice of words and sentence styles tell us about events in the story? The characters? The story’s message? Why does it matter if a character speaks (or doesn’t speak) a certain way? What does this tell us about where the character’s background? Final Paper NotesParaphrase / Quote(summarize an important moment or copy a quote – include the page number)Hysteria / CrisisHow does this moment connect to hysteria or a moment of crisis?Character DevelopmentWhat do we learn about your character in this moment? How does your character grow, reinforce existing beliefs, become more complex? How does your characters actions affect other people?Paraphrase / Quote(summarize an important moment or copy a quote – include the page number)Hysteria / CrisisHow does this moment connect to hysteria or a moment of crisis?Character DevelopmentWhat do we learn about your character in this moment? How does your character grow, reinforce existing beliefs, become more complex? How does your characters actions affect other people?The CrucibleSummary by Act (from SparkNotes)Act OneIn the Puritan New England town of Salem, Massachusetts, a group of girls goes dancing in the forest with a black slave named Tituba. While dancing, they are caught by the local minister, Reverend Parris. One of the girls, Parris’s daughter Betty, falls into a coma-like state. A crowd gathers in the Parris home while rumors of witchcraft fill the town. Having sent for Reverend Hale, an expert on witchcraft, Parris questions Abigail Williams, the girls’ ringleader, about the events that took place in the forest. Abigail, who is Parris’s niece and ward, admits to doing nothing beyond “dancing.” While Parris tries to calm the crowd that has gathered in his home, Abigail talks to some of the other girls, telling them not to admit to anything. John Proctor, a local farmer, then enters and talks to Abigail alone. Unbeknownst to anyone else in the town, while working in Proctor’s home the previous year she engaged in an affair with him, which led to her being fired by his wife, Elizabeth. Abigail still desires Proctor, but he fends her off and tells her to end her foolishness with the girls.Betty wakes up and begins screaming. Much of the crowd rushes upstairs and gathers in her bedroom, arguing over whether she is bewitched. A separate argument between Proctor, Parris, the argumentative Giles Corey, and the wealthy Thomas Putnam soon ensues. This dispute centers on money and land deeds, and it suggests that deep fault lines run through the Salem community. As the men argue, Reverend Hale arrives and examines Betty, while Proctor departs. Hale quizzes Abigail about the girls’ activities in the forest, grows suspicious of her behavior, and demands to speak to Tituba. After Parris and Hale interrogate her for a brief time, Tituba confesses to communing with the devil, and she hysterically accuses various townsfolk of consorting with the devil. Suddenly, Abigail joins her, confessing to having seen the devil conspiring and cavorting with other townspeople. Betty joins them in naming witches, and the crowd is thrown into an uproar.Act TwoA week later, alone in their farmhouse outside of town, John and Elizabeth Proctor discuss the ongoing trials and the escalating number of townsfolk who have been accused of being witches. Elizabeth urges her husband to denounce Abigail as a fraud; he refuses, and she becomes jealous, accusing him of still harboring feelings for her. Mary Warren, their servant and one of Abigail’s circle, returns from Salem with news that Elizabeth has been accused of witchcraft but the court did not pursue the accusation. Mary is sent up to bed, and John and Elizabeth continue their argument, only to be interrupted by a visit from Reverend Hale. While they discuss matters, Giles Corey and Francis Nurse come to the Proctor home with news that their wives have been arrested. Officers of the court suddenly arrive and arrest Elizabeth. After they have taken her, Proctor browbeats Mary, insisting that she must go to Salem and expose Abigail and the other girls as frauds.Act ThreeThe next day, Proctor brings Mary to court and tells Judge Danforth that she will testify that the girls are lying. Danforth is suspicious of Proctor’s motives and tells Proctor, truthfully, that Elizabeth is pregnant and will be spared for a time. Proctor persists in his charge, convincing Danforth to allow Mary to testify. Mary tells the court that the girls are lying. When the girls are brought in, they turn the tables by accusing Mary of bewitching them. Furious, Proctor confesses his affair with Abigail and accuses her of being motivated by jealousy of his wife. To test Proctor’s claim, Danforth summons Elizabeth and asks her if Proctor has been unfaithful to her. Despite her natural honesty, she lies to protect Proctor’s honor, and Danforth denounces Proctor as a liar. Meanwhile, Abigail and the girls again pretend that Mary is bewitching them, and Mary breaks down and accuses Proctor of being a witch. Proctor rages against her and against the court. He is arrested, and Hale quits the proceedings.Act FourThe summer passes and autumn arrives. The witch trials have caused unrest in neighboring towns, and Danforth grows nervous. Abigail has run away, taking all of Parris’s money with her. Hale, who has lost faith in the court, begs the accused witches to confess falsely in order to save their lives, but they refuse. Danforth, however, has an idea: he asks Elizabeth to talk John into confessing, and she agrees. Conflicted, but desiring to live, John agrees to confess, and the officers of the court rejoice. But he refuses to incriminate anyone else, and when the court insists that the confession must be made public, Proctor grows angry, tears it up, and retracts his admission of guilt. Despite Hale’s desperate pleas, Proctor goes to the gallows with the others, and the witch trials reach their awful conclusion. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download