Posted by Isis at 132.236.35.61 on July 24, 2001 at 11:31:25:
Alright, so I finally got around to reading this NY Times piece and it was very interesting. I've never watched "A Man for All Seasons" before and I plan to watch it now. But I was concerned by a comment Kevin made comparing this play/movie to "The Crucible":
"My feeling is that there are two kinds of people in the world, `Man for All Seasons' people and `Crucible' people, and the difference is what they are willing to die for," Mr. Smith said. "In `The Crucible,' John Proctor gives his life because he doesn't want to stain his name; he doesn't want to be known as a witch, which is just a handle that someone wants to hang on him. So his martyrdom doesn't really impress me. It's never as dramatically interesting as Thomas More, who lays down his life for his soul. It's not about his identity; it's about his soul. Even Norfolk and Meg tell him: `Just sign the oath, what difference does it make? Say it with your mouth but renounce it in your head.'"
I found this somewhat insulting, I have to say, but I believe that this comment is drawn from a misunderstanding of what's going on in "The Crucible" and what happened in Salem.
If John Proctor had confessed to being a witch, he would have earned himself a much easier death; however, to do so would be to deny that he served God, and it seems clear he was Christian. Not only would it be a lie to confess (something I understand to be considered sinful to Christians) but he would be claiming he served the Devil, by the definition of witchcraft the Salem courts set out. His confession would have brought suspicion on his wife and family as well; he would be required to name others, and he would die without proper Christian ceremony or blessing, unsanctified.
By refusing to cooperate with the Salem witch-hunters, Proctor helped bring about the end of that town's witchcraze. Proctor and many others who refused to confess maintained their integrity and their belief in a true, loving God despite religious authorities.
I can't see how ANYONE can claim that Proctor or any other unconfessed person who burned/hung/was crushed for the alleged crime of witchcraft was doing so to "protect their name". Though I'm not as familiar with More's story it seems to me they have more in common than Smith is saying. In fact, Proctor's death prevented the deaths of others, whereas it seems More died solely to protect his own soul.
Some clarification of what is meant would be appreciated.
-- i
Crucible person