The Crucible - Arthur Miller - Episode 2 - The Witch Hunt and Hysteria Begins!
The Crucible - Arthur Miller - Episode 2 - The Witch Hunt and Hysteria Begins!
The Crucible- Episode 2
HI, I’m Christy Shriver and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.
And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love lit Podcast. Thank you for listening, and please, if you don’t mind, take a minute right now to forward an episode of our show to a friend who may enjoy it. As you know, it’s hard to grow a podcast, and we rely on you to help us. So, if you enjoy what we do, please share the word. Having said that, today is episode 2 of our discussion of the Crucible, Arthur Miller’s allegorical play about two great American hysteria’s – and no- this not about any current moment- this book is about the Salem Witch Hunt of 1692, written to parallel the Red and Lavender Scare of the 1950s. Last week, we got into the background of the early American settlements and set the stage for what is to come in the play- the brutal murder of 25 innocent people- 19 hung, 5 died in jail, and one crushed- literally. What we tried to impart if nothing else is that the social causes of the events of Salem Village are considerably more complex than Miller could have imagined when he started his investigation or any of us probably think of when we think of this incident.
For sure, I think most of us think of it quite one-dimensionally-,a very religious and chauvinistic people scared of females they call witches target and kill underprivileged innocent powerless victims because of paranoia, fear, superstition simple-mindedness and prejudice- things we modern people know better than to do.
Exactly, and what we discussed last week is that that’s not even the beginning. There are family feuds, bitter rivalries, financial interests as stake, and yes- there is also a fear-but it’s not a ridiculous fear- there is a lot of death in the new world, and fear of death is driving a fear of the devil, of the frontier, of the woods and of the the Native Americans who live here- all of this contributes.
Which is why when commenting on the historical accuracy of the play, Miller wrote, “The play is not history in the sense in which the words is used by a historian…however, I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of the events..” And what he means by that is that he wants to get to the heart of the trials- which is not the chronology of names and dates- the heart of the nature of the events- something good artists are always trying to do is in looking at the causes, the humanity, the spirit of the main people- so to speak. Miller said that if you don’t have a very strong moral compass of some kind- you cannot create art. I found that interesting because I have never thought of artists in that way- and maybe it’s dependent on the kind of art you practice- but in his case- He wanted, with his art, for his audience to ask questions about our own individual basic humanity - we are these people – they aren’t so primitive- we are not so evolved- we are them- humans- and as such we too- are capable of great things- great love and sacrifice but also great evil. So, this week, what we’re going to do is step away from the history side of this completely and look at this play- because he is going to juxtapose great love and sacrifice with great evil- and to do this he deviates almost entirely from the facts of history- so today, Garry, we drop history entirely and look at the crucible from the literary perspective- this play is a tragedy with a focus on a single main character, a very traditional tragic hero- John Proctor. This play centers around John Proctor- not because he’s the most influential villager to be hung historically- not because he’s the most innocent- they’re all innocent. In fact, the John Proctor in the play is not at all the John Proctor of history- the historical John Proctor is a 60 year old man who is wealthy; he owns a farm but also several businesses including a tavern, he’s a landlord; he’s an heir to money. Elizabeth, his wife, is his much younger 3rd wife. She’s a working woman, an herbalist. These are not the two we see talking in Act 2- In the play John Proctor is a struggling farmer in his mid thirties, his wife is sickly, but what is most highlighted by Miller is that the John Proctor of the play has committed adultery.
And this twist in the truth has really galled many historians- because that isn’t true- some say it discredits John’s memory, others think it reduces the truth of the hysteria to an oversimplification of revenge instead of the actual complex reality. From a historical standpoint, the arguments make sense, but from a psychological perspective, making Proctor transgress sexually is extremely interesting.
Well, of course those historical points are good points. And I doubt Miller would even argue with that. But by layering the story where it speaks to more than one issue makes the allegory about more than mass hysteria- it makes it more personal. Obviously writing an allegory is not the same thing as making an argument about any one event in history, like you would find in an essay. If that was the goal, Miller would be just as effective writing a comparison/contrast essay about the Salem Trials and McArthurism. A playwright tells the story of humanity because the artist sees the series of events cosmically. I want to argue that Miller absolutely reveals the hysteria of the Salem Witch Trials and parallels it to Senator McCarthy’s persecution of communists and homosexuals- so sure- let’s look at Abigail as a symbol for McCarthy- but let’s do that next week. But when he humanizes the characters- specifically the Proctors, and we see into the struggles of their marriage: Elizabeth’s hurt, John’s guilt- sacrificial choices and finally personal redemption- now we can relate to this personally. We can’t relate to a one-dimenional historical/ political martyr. I have never one time identified with Joan of Arc, Thomas Beckett or Mahatna Ghandi- they are too big for me. But I can identify with John and Elizabeth Proctor Miller carefully crafts a tragic hero that is very Greek as well as very modern and so, just as Aristotle tells all playwrights to do in Poetics- Mille excites both pity and fear in our hearts as we watch an imperfect man, but still a good man- suffer beyond what he should sufffer (if that doesn’t remind you of Oedipus, go back and listen to our series on that play). And let me add one more detail – he starts doing this with the title.
Oh yes- the Title-= The Crucible- a very interesting title that kind of evokes several different things.;
For sure it really does. There’s the literal crucible which is literally a metal or earthen vessel in which metal or stone- are brought to extremely high temperatures for the purpose of changing their properties to produce something else. But the crucible also used here as a metaphor- because all of these characters- will be put unto pressure- extremely high temperatures- so to speak-and they will change to produce something else. Will they be good? Will they burn up? The girls themselves at the beginning of the play when they get busted are put under pressure. Crucibles are extreme tests.
Well, since we’re talking imagery here- is it fair to say that a crucible also conjures up the image of a giant pot- like the kind witches uses to brew their concoctions!!!????
Exactly- so many levels all right there. Every character in the play gets thrown into the cauldron, into the Crucible and we get to see what kind of person they really are when everything else is burned away. And I want to go back to John Proctor and go back to this idea of what constitutes a tragic hero. In classic theater, the tragic hero must be noble- must have something that makes him/her better than us- because if a character getd what’s coming we are happy when they die. Well, you might say, and my students DO say, especially in act 1 and 2 John Proctor is a cheater- he’s definitely NOT a hero!!! In fact- He sucks!! I have heard that so many times- and Miller cleverly starts us right there- John Proctor, the predator. But, just as we are all not one thing, Miller teaches us that neither is Proctor and although he emerges in the story quite low in the estimation of many viewers, even my students who are the most hard-core critics of this, soften over the course of the story because Miller shows us that fallen people can express great nobility as well- and that’s an encouraging thought in itself. John Proctor, before the end of the play but we will see it at the end of Act 2 Scene 1 where we stop today, expresses characteristics that we can admire- even in how he relates to Abigail. He changes through the choices he makes. Outside of his relationship with Abigail, he’s a respectable community member who sees through the nonsense of the witch hunt and the falseness of Putnam and Parris. But as audience members, we see a much more brutal human being. Unlike any other character, Proctor is set apart from everyone else- we see him from the inside, but also see him through the lens of his enemies too- the ones we hate- they envy him for things we respect- so even that details colors our understanding of this central character- read one commentator- say- Proctor’s not a Greek hero, he’s a Byronic hero- but after reading Wuthering Heights and talking about Heathcliff, I don’t want to go that far.
HA!! No, I’d say Abigail is more like Heathcliff.
Ha! Well, there’s a good research paper- all you English students out there-compare those two orphans- but let’s jump into play- and think about this for a second- how would YOU tell this story if you were Miller- think back to all the history we went through last week how do you get background in place- it took us 45 minutes just to start the background and that was telling it straight- I would be overwhelmed immediately. the endless layers of plot intrigue? the political factions- the church dispute? The selfishness of the minister? The financial interests of the Putnams? The bitter family rivalry over a will? The fear of the native Americans from the frontier. The fear of disease? The deeply religious view. There is a lot to fit in the opening scene of this play. If we go back to Freytag’s triangle- we know that every story starts with an exposition- the point in the plot before the action- the exposition is where the characters and settings are established. Miller uses five units of action called French Scenes – in order to quickly get us to the inciting incident or the start of the action- that big moment where Abigail makes her first accusation.
A French scene- what is that?
It’s when the action goes from one place to another on the stage, but you don’t really break into different scenes like a traditional scene change where you change the setting or lighting or something obvious. Very very quickly he’s going to go from spot to spot: First, we meet Betty and Abigail. Betty’s catatonic we understand a couple of girls are sick, we learn Parris has caught several girls with Tituba performing a satanic ritual in the middle of the night in the woods. All the girls are terrified of being at least whipped, but maybe worse. We learn through conversations with Reverend Parris that there is a family, the Putnams who have lots of grudges in town and will draw an alliance with this very unpopular minister. Mrs. Putnam is jealous because she only has one daughter and no grandchildren and her rival, Rebecca Nurse, has 11 with 26 grandchildren. We discover Parris’ orphaned niece Abigail used to work and live with the Proctors but was fired- rumors it was due to an affair. We learn Dr. Griggs has diagnosed the girls with witchcraft- a fact that bothers Reverend Parris not because he fears for the health and safety of his child- this thought is never vocalized not even one time even remotely- he worries that the shame of his daughter being involved in witchcraft is going to get him fired. We are immediately led to understand that both of these men are greedy and selfish. They are not looking at Betty and Ruth’s catatonic states as issues of health, safety or even religion, for them this is political and personal and must be leveraged to their advantage.
Those guys seem like real gems.
Miller really knows how to make you hate someone really quickly. He introduces Abigail slightly more sympatheticly. We learn that Abigail wants to keep her affair going with Proctor, but we aren’t immediately led to fault her for that- she was a virgin girl living in his home. Proctor’s ashamed- but he’s upset for what the affair has done to him, not necessarily to Abigail. We also learn that Proctor is not as diligent at going to church as others in town and he has a public disdain for the minister- something we don’t notice at this point, but will be used against him later in this theocratic society. Parris has called on a scholarly minister from another town- a Reverend Hale-to investigate what happened to the girls- Proctor is against even entertaining these ideas. Reverend Hale is presented as a good and honest person. Finally, we get a little insight into Tituba, the African American slave who took the girls into the woods. She is the most vulnerable character. She knows this and knows her life is in danger. There you have it- I’ve tried to get it all out there.
That’s a lot to uncover in a few pages. And that’s just scratching the surface.
Let’s read this dialogue that gets us to the inciting incident or narrative hook where Abigail throws Tituba under the bus (and for those of you who have never heard that English idiom- that means- you put all the blame on someone. Just as an aside, if you’ve never heard that expression before- it came from Britain likely during the 80s- the idea being, you are no friend if you push your friend in front of one of those big red busses they have in London).
I’ll read the female voices- I know there are more than one- and you can read the men’s parts. Parris, Hale and Putnam- this will be a little confusing, but we should feel the impact
Read pg 1152-
I want to circle back to our primary antagonist, Abigail- although certainly not the only one. First, in the play, she is not 11 like she is in history, she is 17- still a child but not as young. She’s the leader of the girls but we also see even in Act 1 she’s treacherous and self-preserving- she threatens literally to kill the other girls- if they tell on her and then reminds them she watched native Americans kill her parents. It appears she is willing and capable of doing whatever it takes to become Mrs. John Proctor, and we believe her. Abigail believes Elizabeth proctor to be a cold, gossipy woman who not only is in the way between her and a man she wants, but also is keeping her from getting another baby-sitting gig in town.
Sexuality is not an uncommon trope for human fraility. Here Miller is using it as part of a much larger conflict- it sets up these primary characters for the individual crucibles they are getting ready to be passed through- John Proctor is not all good- in fact- I’d say he’s not good at all. - Abigail is not all evil. I’d say she is a victim. Abigail lost her parents. Her uncle, her caretaker, is a pig. That’s sad. She’s 17, this affair would put Proctor in jail in the state of Tennessee, even today. She’s underage. But…she’s not all victim….and she will go through her own crucible. She’s had bad experiences, but what kind of person is she- either by essence of the events of her life. Abigail displays no compassion or empathy towards anyone. To the contrary, she displays malevolence when put in a place of power. She has power to do good or evil here with Tituba, and she uses her power for evil. She is very willing to destroy Sarah Goode and Sarah Osborne in order to save herself- simply because she can. From a literary perspective, this play is very much about power. Every character has power and we see how they use it. When we get in Act 3 to the height of the trials, Mary Warren, one of the little girls screams out, I don’t have power. I don’t have power- but we all know that she does- and we are going to watch her use her power to convict John Proctor. And here at the beginning we watch Abigail seize her personal power at every opportunity but she never uses it for good and as much as we don’t like what Proctor did with Abigail, Miller does not build any empathy towards her.
Christy, do you realize you just spoiled the surprise ending! Now we know Proctor dies.
HA!!! Well, let’s be honest- it’s a tragedy and that’s the thing about tragedy- it involves total hopelessness- no surprises. There is NO hope ever in a tragedy- we know and fully expect to be watching a total descent into destruction- multiple deaths…or at minimum divorce…and in a good tragedy we know it could be us!!! But let me add one more thing- because Miller is writing a tragedy, it’s important that Proctor not be a perfectly good person. When a perfect man is destroyed by pure evil, it’s shocking, but not tragic. For the whole thing to work, we have a human- like us. So, we have Proctor, who we will eventually decide is a good person but not a perfect one.
Psychologically, it’s important that Proctor has violated his OWN code of ethics morally, but he’s honest enough to take responsibility for it. He doesn’t blame his wife or his situation. He has fallen in his own eyes-and because of this- he has created a tragedy but not just for himself. And honesty is something he prides himself with. He tells Elizabeth that he’s honest, even though he has cheated on her AND he lied about talking to Abigail alone in town. So, in that sense, he’s clearly not honestl. But- in another- more important sense- he IS an honest person- he’s honest with himself about himself and later on in the play- we’re going to see that Abigail is absolutely NOT honest. It appears that over the course of time Abigail believes half the stuff she is making up. But, before we end Scene one of Act 2, Proctor is honest enough with himself to understand that If he had not slept with Abigail, she would not have accused Elizabeth. Maybe Elizabeth and he had had marital problems before the affair, Elizabeth hints at this at the end of the play, maybe not. But we NEVER hear a word from John to suggest this. John understands that he has made Elizabeth a victim and created in her a spiritual suffering and as we watch his dialogue through Act 1 and Act 2 -we see how he tries to fix this. And one more thing I want to say- psychologically speaking, it’s interesting that Miller chose to represent this guilt and fallenness with sexuality. Sexuality is the most intimate of human experiences. During sex humans are at their most vulnerable. So, here we see a man- at his most vulnerable – and his most embarrassing because he has violated Abigail, he’s violated Elizabeth, and he’s violated himself.
To me, Proctor holding himself accountable and acting on that is what makes him heroic. If we are honest- sooner or later, all of us do not live up to the standards we’ve set for ourselves- and it is so hard to own that, especially when we hurt the people we love or are responsible for. But even if we can own our own mistakes, that’s only half of it…the problem is…feeling responsible is just a feeling. Now what? What’s it going to take to find redemption? No one wants to self-destruct. Are we brave? Are noble? What will redemption cost?
Yes- nobility always comes at a price, doesn’t it? Proctor has handicapped himself not just in dealing with himself, and not just in dealing not just with Abigail, but with the Parris and Putnam too. We see in Act 1 that Proctor wants to wash his hands of the towns problems. He doesn’t want to have anything to do with any of the political nonsense of the Putnams, the minister, any of it- but Abigail won’t let him off the hook.
Oh no- this is her moment. She has found her power and she’s going to use it. Before we get into Act 2, let’s read the end of Act 1. Abigal has accused Tituba who tries to defend herself, but Putnam cries out that Tituba should hang. He brings up death. What is she to do, well she only has one choice. She confesses, and when she does Hale asks her this question, “When the devil come to you does he ever come with another person? Perhaps another person in the village. Perhaps someone you know.” And when he asks that Putnam interjects and tells her who’s name to call. He says this, “Sarah Good?- did you ever see Sarah Good?”
Let me add- this is one of the most powerful men in town. He has threatened to hang her and has the power to do it. When he suggests a name, she has no choice. Tituba never names anyone without being told who to name. For me, Miller has made only one character totally blameless- and it’s Tituba. She has the least amount of power and agency. She’s the first victim- and ironically- we know from history she survives.
Do you really think she’s any less blameless than Elizabeth Proctor.? Elizabeth is a very noble character.
Oh there’s no doubt, and I really like the way he portrays the marriage between Elizabeth and John. I’m getting into Act 2, obviously, but at this point, it’s been seven months since John’s confession, to use his words. The dialogue between Elizabeth and John where they talk about her killing a rabbit for dinner is so awkward, even just reading the lines in a book, you can feel the tension between these two. I don’t want to comment on how Elizabeth or anyone SHOULD react after such a trauma to a relationship- that’s not my point- I just want to say that Miller has painted their relationship differently than how he’s characterized Tituba. Tituba’s role is not complex or developed, she is the first victim of the hysteria.
And mass hysteria has arrived before Act 2 begin. Hell has literally broken loose. Garry, explain to me a little about the concept of mass hysteria, from a purely psychological stand point- outside of the context of the play. What exactly is that? Is what happened in Salem the usual way mass hysteria’s occur?
Sure- mass hysteria is a common term used to describe a situation when a group of individuals experience collective panic over some occurrence. Often they have actual physical symptons- but with no medical basis. Hysterias occur all over the world all throughout human history completely independent of historical period or cultural setting. Although, I’m sorry to tell you this, Christy, because I know you are going to take personal offense - but it is most common among women and to be more specific – it is most common with young adolescent girls- exactly like we saw in Salem, actually.
Well, as insulting as that is, it’s not surprising. I’ve been a teenager girl. Plus, I took both my daughters to see One Direction, not once, but twice- so I’ve seen mass hysteria- I don’t think I saw 100 men in the entire Bridgestone arena the first time we went. So what sets it off? Why do we fall sucker to it? When I think back at my concert experiences, the girls are often frenzied and a few fall over, but for the most part it’s harmless and fun- I’ll never forget some girls that sat a few rows behind us- literally uncontrolaby sobbing Zayn and Louis came out on stage. I wasn’t drawn in- I just laughed. So, I can see young girls going nuts- it’s the adults going along with it- that’s confusing.
True- there are several factors- and we see this in Salem that take it to the next level, but I want to add that Interestingly enough, there are instances where hysteria actually promotes positive social change- some would say the Gezi Park movement in Turkey is an example- and there have been others. I won’t comment on the One Direction thing because unfortunately I missed that event. But I’ll speak to my own rock concert experience- I’m a fan of a band called Shine Down and I remember going to their concert and being in that mass of people- when you are in a place like that you can feel the energy involved- the energy of the group. There’s excitement, you feel united with others with a single cause, but you also feel fidgety, and you can experience emotional excess- and if you’ve been to a music festival- you’ve likely seen some of that. The big difference though with the concert analogy is that with a concert there is no general anxiety or fear pushing the hysteria forward. A majority of instances of mass hysteria, at least that I know of, are associated with health scares- young girls fainting en masse has happened more than once, but there’s others where people did actually get physically sick just by thinking and believing they were- there is the concept of the hysterical pregnancy where a woman will show all of the signs of being pregnant but she’s not. There’s a famous scare in Jordan where people thought a tdt vaccine was making them sick, in Ohio there was one not too long ago called the Kissing Bug hysteria because people believen they were bitten by a deadly bug. So basically, you take that energy and emotion like we’re talking about from the rock concert and combine that with a real fear- almost always a fear of death- put those two together- even if doesn’t make sense- you can have hysteria.
And I will say, before we move on that some of them that we study in textbooks are actually funny- after they’re over and we can look back at them from the safe distance of history- like the one with nuns meowing, or even the Seattle windshield pitting hysteria one, it’s kind of funny that people thought someone was randomly damaging windshields all over the place. But, getting back to Salem, people ARE afraid for their lives- and this is also true with the Red Scare and the lavender scare we’ll talk about in a different episode- We have to remember that this community has lived in constant fear of a forest that surrounds their town and people have actually died in that forest. They have people in their community, like Abigail, who have been victims of Indian raids. They sincerely believe that the American frontier is the domain of Satan. It’s scary and its close by. Those girls in the story, and I’m not talking about Ruth and Betty from the beginning- now I’m talking about the mass of girls who stand in these court rooms, fall on the floor, like Mary Warren is describing in Act 2. These girls may be faking those physical symptoms, but it’s just as likely that they are actually experiencing symptoms – the way Miller characterizes Mary Warren, I tend to believe she in part is experiencing something. Now, to answer your question- how does it get to the level of hysteria? Beyond fear, beyond excitement – there is one more key ingredient to a hysteria-and it is What we see happening in Act 1 through the character of Mr. Putnam and that the power of suggestion. If you notice, Mr. Putnam, who is a total rat suggests that there are witches. He pushes the narrative forward. In the modern world, the media often performs this function- in some cases the media does this intentionally in others it appears to be accidentally. But in Putnam’s case, he manipulates- through religion and the preacher -the real fears of this community, he manipulates the naivete of this bookish Reverend Hale that comes on the scene, and pushes the narrative forward for what appears to be malevolent intentions of his own…except in this case, as in all cases of mass hysteria, once something gets out of control…other characters take the lead, and in our case, that brings us back to Abigail.
Back to Abigail, where Act 1 is historical, political, clearly allegorical- Act 2 Scene 1 is personal and really more fiction than fact. It’s also where three characters are thrown into this crucible: the dialogue between John and Elizabeth in Act 2, scene 1 is so moving and revealing. It’s been 8 days since the beginning of the hysteria- seven months, since they kicked Abigail out of the house. The hysteria has grown worse and Elizabeth wants John to go to town and testify against Abigail, but he’s hesitant, Elizabeth claims it’s because he has feelings for Abigail. It’s very intense and not funny at all but it has one of my favorite lines in the whole play
What is that?
Well right before Mary Warren walks in to tell them there are now 39 women arrested, Elizabeth and John are talking about the last seven months of their lives and he says this, “Oh Elizabeth, your justice would freeze beer.” I don’t know why that strikes me as funny. I guess because I don’t know the freezing point of beer and that likes makes me wonder- hmmm…how cold does a woman have to be if her attitude could be compared to frozen beer? How cold does beer has to be to freeze? Obviously colder than water.
Well, as I look it up, according to the inter-webs, beer freezes at 28 degrees F or -2.2 Celsius, F…So I guess the suggestion is- colder than normal.
Ha!- Well, not to curtail the discussion-by injecting beer- but here is where the external plot really begins – John Proctor versus Abigail- it’s also where any remaining remnant of sympathy for Abigail dies completely. We get to see a little bit of how malevolent or truly evil Abigail is. It’s no secret she wants to become the next Mrs. John Proctor and she is willing to do a lot to get that. It’s also understandable that she doesn’t want to get in trouble for the stuff in the woods, but it just got real- there is a first victim, Goody Osbourne, who will hang and we know that Abigail has already told Proctor the witch thing is totally made up. Abigail is willing to kill anyone. This is something Elizabeth clearly has understood from the beginning. Elizabeth says this, “She wants me dead. I knew all week it would come to this.” Miller really gives Elizabeth the best lines in this play. Proctor is shocked at how far Abigail is willing to go and Elizabeth says this, “John, grant me this. You have a faulty understanding of young girls. There is a promise made in any bed- John reacts to this- he’s angry but not at Elizabeth- Elizabeth goes on to say, “It is her dearest hope, John,. I know it. There be a thousand names; why does she call mine? There be a certain danger in calling such a name- I am no goody good that sleeps in the ditches, nor Osburne drunk and half-witted.She’d dare not call out such a farmer’s wife but there be monstrous profit in it. She thinks to take my place.” And after Proctor’s next line, Miller adds his own commentary- not for the actor to say but for the actor to read, “He knows it is true”.
Abigail has contrived to kill Elizabeth and she thinks she has enough power to manipulate an entire town. We find out that that day in court Abigail had watched Mary Warren make a doll (their word for that is poppit) during the proceedings. At the end, she watched Mary Warren put the needle in the poppit before leaving,. After Mary Warren leaves, Abigail apparently stabs herself in the stomach and claims Elizabeth has sent her spirit out to murder her. Reverend Hale, the arrogant and naïve scholar who believes everything these girls say, or at least has up until the point- comes out to the Proctor’s farm to confront Elizabeth for her crime- and here we see Miller weave Proctor’s internal conflict with this external conflict with Abigail. There is this ironic discussion about Proctor not being able to remember the commandment “Thou Shalt not Commit Adultury” but by the end of the conversation, Proctor has to decide if he is going to martyr himself by telling the community about the affair and concealing that he has talked to Abigail privately or if he’s going to betray and victimize Elizabeth for the second time and possibly let her die. Proctor makes his decision- he will save Elizabeth’s life- he will take down Abigail, even if he takes himself down in the process. Let’s read the end of Act 2, Hale has put Elizabeth in the back of a wagon to take her to jail---listen to these interesting lines by Hale where Miller reveals to the audience- although unbeknownst to the character Hale, that this is about the power we surrender when we live with a dark secret.
Start with 1180- maybe to the end of the scene if we have time.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free