The following question is taken from the Penguin Study Guide on The Crucible:
Herbert Blau (“Counterforce I: The Social Drama”) says the adultery of John Proctor and Abigail Williams dissipates the force of the “public terror” which it was Miller’s intent to convey. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
I am very interested to know what you think!
Having never read Blau’s full argument, I would interpret his “public terror” to mean the general feeling of tension and fear that the witch trials provoked, not just among those of were accused or afraid of being accused, but also among the accusers and the judges. I justify this interpretation by arguing that, though Abigail is certainly active and malicious in her first accusations, by the end, I believe, she sticks to her story out of fear of being punished or shamed. She has gone to far, and knows it, but her own fear forces her to continue as much as anything else. Regarding Abigail, then, her adultery with John diminishes her terror, because, if we interpret Abigail’s actions to be revenge against John and Elizabeth, then she would feel more motivated by anger than fear of discovery (as much as fear may become more important later). But for us, the origin of the witch hunt doesn’t lighten the anxiety it induces; there is a witch hunt ongoing, and that’s what matters. John’s and Abigail’s adultery may remind our logical selves that there is a vulgar, natural cause to the witch hunt, but in my view this actually magnifies the sense of fear. If a ceaseless inquisition that will not stand questioning of its motives can begin from nothing more than one man’s unfaithfulness and one girl’s desire for revenge, isn’t that a sufficiently hard-hitting statement about the fickle, unpredictable nature of the public will?