20 December 2004
The Letter Burned Scarlet in a Crucible
Ralph Emerson avows that “[s]ociety everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members” (“Self-Reliance”). In literature, readers may discover how humankind operates on this free-for-all type of lifestyle. One may refer to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible to find apposite examples that portray how individuals react to society’s pressures. The Scarlet Letter tells of Hester Prynne’s battle with her town after being publicly branded for adultery. The Crucible also shows a struggle between self and society when John Proctor is accused of sorcery. In both pieces of literature, the plight of distraught characters, the rules of stringent communities, and similarly inspired authors prove Emerson’s individual versus community theory.
The fictional characters from Hawthorne’s novel and Miller’s play utilize different coping techniques to deal with the hardships presented to them. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester first seems resolute by exiting the prison willingly to face the crowd’s condemnation. She naturally draws away from the official who leads the way “by an action marked with natural dignity and force of character” (Hawthorne 60). Her original attitude shows great poise. She grows weary of displaying this pride as she gives up on her struggle with society. She never fights “with the public, but submit[s] uncomplainingly to its worst usage” (Bradley 116). Society degrades her reputation and sense of existence to compensate for her one sin. The Puritans overlook the natural good in Hester and demean her for the one mistake she has made. Accordingly, she begins to conform to their ideas without consideration of her true individuality. She fears passion—the fire that ignited it all—to the point where she regards her simplest passion of needlework as a “morbid meddling of conscience” (Hawthorne 87).
Likewise, the highly religious Puritan community from The Crucible shuns John Proctor when he surrenders to his hopeless efforts and says, “‘God is dead’” (Miller 119). With that one statement and despite Proctor’s previous reputation, society punishes him and accuses him of being the “anti-Christ” (119). Like Hester, Proctor gives in to his community’s beliefs, timidly confessing that he had bound himself “to the Devil’s service” (139). However, Proctor strays away from the community and maintains his individuality by tearing up the document that contains the signature that would save his life.
In The Scarlet Letter, Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale’s action parallels that of Proctor’s because Dimmesdale ultimately approaches the scaffold to confess his sins in front of his entire community. His act contradicts the community’s ideals for pious ministers who should represent the faith virtuously, but his act also enforces his own personal principles, because the community “heard it all, and did but reverence him the more” (Hawthorne 140). To remain quiet and resume a normal life as a saintly minister would be beneficial to the community, but his life would be a lie and a burden to keep the secret. [Refurbished] For the little dignity that Dimmesdale had left, he gives away his life to free himself of deceit like Proctor has done. Along Emerson’s lines, society defeats the individual by imposing an overwhelming pressure that causes gradual deterioration that most men would not be able to handle.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Roger Chillingworth from The Scarlet Letter and Abigail Williams from The Crucible pursue vengeance without consideration of the community’s opinion. Chillingworth wants justice for Dimmesdale committing adultery with his wife, and Abigail wants to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor in order to reclaim John’s love. Although Chillingworth goes overboard with vengeance, society still deems him honest for they only see the façade that is visible to them. For instance, the town admires him as only “an eminent Doctor of Physic from a German university” (120). Since relatively prestigious doctors were uncommon, the colony would certainly accept a member of such rank. Still, his role is to play “Satan’s emissary, in the guise of old Roger Chillingworth” (126). Chillingworth is not an individual; rather, he is a mere image camouflaging into the Puritan community. His reputation does not compensate for the evils he wishes to execute on Dimmesdale.
Much like Chillingworth, Abigail fits into society by pretending to cleanse the town of its witches, claiming that she has done her duty “pointing out the Devil’s people” (Miller 108). Thus, the town deems her as a saint-like figure. Nevertheless, she is untrue to both the community and to herself, yet the community believes her imaginary confessions. She conforms to the lies of society with her own selfish motives, and the Puritans irrationally accept her. [Problems] Both characters are dependent on façades best suitable to hide their inner motives, automatically making them conformists to society.
Subsequent to the hostile individuals, the communities also serve as antagonists to the misguided, despondent, but internally righteous characters. The communities in both The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible function as single entities, bonded by a set of common Puritan beliefs. In The Scarlet Letter, the Puritan populace condemns sinful acts such as adultery. They believe that Hester “‘has brought shame upon [them] all, and ought to die’” (Hawthorne 59). Society thinks little of her even though the members of the community receive her aid. For example, Hester has always been generous enough to “give of her little substance to every demand of poverty” (155) even though she is underprivileged herself.
Furthermore, the community in The Crucible fears the evils and corruption of witchcraft. They believe that the devil possesses certain members of their neighborhood. Although Proctor is a virtuous man, his decision to go against Abigail’s false testimonies brings him under a microscope for investigation. With the town’s paranoia of the “Devil” and “the marks of his presence” (Miller 39), there is no room left for opposition. This popular, uniform belief of Proctor’s community makes his claim invalid and makes him a “Devil’s man” (118). Yet, rebellion and individualism may succumb to death in a united community.
Despite the actual content, the core of these two works lies within the authors’ analogous inspirations. Born in Salem, Massachusetts, Hawthorne had been greatly affected by two major movements: Puritanism and transcendentalism. Thus, he incorporates both his Puritan and transcendentalist beliefs into The Scarlet Letter. Puritans did not allow room for “emotional expression;” they were forced to find other means of venting (Jones) like the sanction that the forest served in the novel. Arthur Miller, on the other hand, disguises his true inspiration of the McCarthyism era as the Salem Witch Trials (The Guardian). McCarthyism was a time period of anti-communism when the government pursued the Communist Party USA and other suspected communist followers (“McCarthyism”). This sudden change from serenity to tension and paranoia can be seen in Miller’s play when the town suddenly goes after possible neighbors accused of witchcraft. In both books, the authors have written works based on alike but personal and deviant experiences that show how even the authors have witnessed times in history that have placed man against his community.
Conclusively, The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible coalesce to illustrate the unique approaches individuals may take in order to manage a community’s burden on them. By incorporating characterization, community development, and the authors’ firsthand experiences, the two pieces are successful in proving Emerson’s belief that the individual frequently struggles against a unified civilization, which ironically consists of individuals itself. Alas, humans “are afraid of truth, afraid of fortune, afraid of death, and afraid of each other” (Emerson).