Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ focuses on the core of human nature and motivation, he

explores the discovery of oneself, the difference in communal and individual morality. His illustration
of complex themes and messages invites the audience to question themselves, and their appreciation
of storytelling. Miller’s characters grapple with their ‘moral compasses’, and explore the
consequences of various behaviours as he guides and instructs the audience to learn from his
characters, since “Stories are . . . instruction manuals . . . moral compasses.”(Aleks Krotoski). Miller
conducts a compelling play, an allegory, to reflect the commonality of the human experience.

Miller constructs a discernible inner conflict through characters in the play, as they contend
with the strict expectations of theocratic society. Through this, he uses his story as an ‘instruction
manual’ so that the viewer may learn from the actions of the characters on stage. John Hale is a
character who embarks on a journey of self discovery throughout the duration of the play. He is
introduced in the overture as “a young doctor on his first call . . . feels himself allied with the best
minds of Europe”, a metaphor to show Hale believes his job to be of the utmost importance, which
contrasts greatly with his behaviour in act 3, where he exclaims “I denounce these proceedings! I quit
this court [he slams the door]”, the aggressive use of stage direction and exclamation highlights his
great anger and detest for the standing justice of the court. Hale no longer values his position in the
town, demonstrating a large pivot in character from act 1. His outburst is triggered by his own morals,
“stop now before another is condemned! I may shut my conscience to it no more!” where high
modality of speech establishes the noble decision Hale has come to, which again differs from earlier
in the play. Like how in act 2 Hale appears composed and sensible, “Theology, sir, is a fortress; no
crack in a fortress may be accounted small.”, a metaphor that once seemed to ground Hale, although
he has later come to form the very ‘cracks’ in this ‘fortress’ of theocracy that he was initially so
cautious of. Miller uses the growth of Hale’s character as a moral standpoint, ‘instructing’ the
audience, providing an example of positive development from a harsh experience.
While Hale’s course of morality alters throughout the play, Miller has provided the character
of Rebecca Nurse, who contrasts Hale as she maintains a level head and constant moral conduct.
Through her character Miller offers an alternate perspective. Rebecca is reputable and kind hearted,
introduced on the fact that “the . . . opinion of her character was so high . . . [Gentleness exudes from
her]”, Miller plays on this fact, he uses Rebecca as a voice of reason for the characters on stage, and
for the audience, Rebecca is viewed as a solution, ”there is . . . danger in the seeking of loose spirits . .
. Let us rather blame ourselves”, Miller uses dramatic irony as he provides an opportunity for a
resolution to the conflict before it even begins. Although Hale counters this, “we dare not quail to
follow wherever the accusing finger points!”, and steers the plot away from Rebecca’s reasoning. She
is positioned as a favourable character, through which Miller is able to ‘instruct’ the audience, placing
her actions in a positive spotlight to be learnt from. He uses Rebecca and Hale to prove that the
experience of moral identity is not the same for everyone, there is a variety to the human experience.
This allows Miller to invite the audience to invest themselves in the story and appreciate its value.

Miller also reflects his own experiences through the play, as he constructs an allegory. He uses
character and setting to compare himself and his context to 1692 Salem, making for an extensive text
that demonstrates the variation of humanity. Salem is portrayed as a community “grounded on the idea
of exclusion and prohibition. . . . to prevent any kind of disunity . . . a theocracy.’ This introduction of
the setting as restrictive and disciplined directly provokes emotions in the audience, where empathy is
felt for the characters without power, those prosecuted based on ‘spectral evidence’, “witchcraft is
ipso facto . . . an invisible crime . . . who may possibly be witness to it?" This use of irony evokes
anger and frustration in the viewer, through which Miller shapes the perspective of his characters. It is
said in ‘Why I Wrote the Crucible’ that Miller feels a connection to John Proctor, “Proctor . . . was a
reassurance to me”, Proctor's impression on the audience is carefully constructed by Miller. The
context of his own time proves evident in ‘The Crucible’ as similarities are revealed between the fear
and hysteria of the Salem trials, and the Red scare of impending communism. In act 4 Miller
purposefully exposes Proctor to a ‘crucible’, a severe trial of his character, “What is John Proctor,
what is John Proctor?” This repetition represents inner conflict and chaos in the moments before he
seemingly finds himself, “I am John Proctor!” the use of high modality displays that Proctor now
knows he is worth something. This is a ‘reassurance’ to Miller, he redeems Proctor so that he may feel
he has redeemed himself. Miller's insertion of his own context highlights the commonalities of varied
experiences, exploring the idea that identity is both individual and communal, a concept which Miller
connects to personally, opening the eyes and minds of the audience to powerful storytelling.

Ultimately, Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ works as an ‘Instruction manual’ and ‘moral
compass’ for the audience and even Miller himself. The characters actions and motivations provide
perspective and depth to the play, while they demonstrate a similar experience they all have different
stories. Miller’s reflection of himself in the play conveys the personal power behind a text while the
context and messages of the play demonstrate the wide variety of the human experience. ‘The
Crucible’ is an engaging and meaningful text that connects to the audience through emotions and
ideas, proving the force behind a story deserves to be appreciated.