Characteristics Of John Proctor In The Crucible

A Puritanical, Tragic Hero

John Proctor in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, possesses all of the qualities of a typical tragic hero. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, defined the tragic hero as an authority figure who is grounded morally and possesses a tragic flaw of some sort. As the name suggests, the Tragic Hero undergoes some sort of struggle or tragedy over the course of the drama, which culminates in an epiphany for the character. This sudden realization is marked by the impending death of the Tragic Hero, which is caused by the hero’s own devices. This death is accepted by the character in an honorable fashion. Aristotle postulates that this experience triggers an emotional release known as a catharsis for both the character and the

audience. Proctor’s character undergoes this formulaic change throughout the course of the play.
John Proctor is well established at the beginning of the play to distinguish himself as the Tragic Hero.

He is a man who is inherently in a position of authority. As a farmer, he is a prominent member of the community due to his important position as a local provider. In addition, he is a well respected member of the Salem community, despite his infrequent appearances at church. Being the patriarch of the Proctor family, John Proctor establishes himself even further as a man of authority. These factors all contribute to making Proctor the societal superior to several characters in the book, particularly the women, such as his wife Elizabeth Proctor, as well as Abigail Williams. Proctor, in a certain manner, has influence over the other characters through this, which cements his position as a figure of relative

authority.

“PARRIS, now he's out with it: There is a party in this church. I am not blind; there is a faction and a party.
PROCTOR: Against you?
PUTNAM: Against him and all authority!
PROCTOR: Why, then I must find it and join it.
There is shock among the others.
REBECCA: He does not mean that.
PUTNAM: He confessed it now!
PROCTOR: I mean it solemnly, Rebecca; I like not the smell of this ‘authority.’” (I. 278-285)

In the above scene, Proctor demonstrates his level of independence and social authority. John Proctor is influential enough to challenge Putnam’s authority as a reverend, perhaps the most well-respected position in Puritan society.
Morally, John Proctor is conflicted. Proctor is well regarded as a man of good moral standing and honor. Throughout the play itself, Proctor tries to behave in the most moral manner as possible, despite the carnal sin of adultery he committed with Abigail Williams before the beginning of the play. But, for all purposes, John Proctor is a morally upright character when looking at the events that take place strictly within the events of the play. Although what John Proctor did before the events of the play would mar his character’s moral standing, during the play, he navigates a fine line for what would be considered orthodox in his time and place, versus what would be best for him and his family. For example, Proctor’s irregular church attendance, despite the fact that such a thing was considered to be broaching counter-culturalism, is driven by his dislike for both the preacher and the principles he preaches. This moral “flaw” is in fact driven by a different set of morals that Proctor himself ascribes to instead of the puritanical beliefs and practices his village holds.
Proctor’s pride inhibits his ability to move past his moral failure: the affair. He projects his own self loathing and guilt onto Elizabeth, believing her to be harsher in her judgment of him than she actually was. While their relationship is strained throughout the play, most of this conflict comes from Proctor, and not Elizabeth. She is merely detached, while he is confrontational. He fixates on his tarnished pride and seems unable to move past it.
Should Proctor have admitted to his affair with Abigail and explained that he knew she conjured the witches from her own imagination, the witch hunt would have ended quickly. Instead, Proctor hides all knowledge he has of the whole affair and his literal affair. If not for his fatal flaw, his pride, many lives could have been saved, including John’s. This is a morally ambiguous situation for John Proctor. On the one hand, he could keep this knowledge secret and continue to enjoy a position of authority, as well as be able to provide for his family, keeping them safe. On the other hand, hiding the knowledge forces Proctor to accept the unjust deaths and trials of his fellow villagers.
This idea is made manifest at the culmination of the drama of the play. Proctor, having been broken down by the lengthy and eroding trial process, eventually submits to the will of the powerful and influential men of the town. He signs a document in which he confesses to being a witch. Now, morally this plays in John Proctor’s favor as he can continue to live and provide for both his wife, Elizabeth Proctor, and his children. But things do not unfold in this particular manner, John Proctor’s own pride prevents him from achieving that outcome. Instead of proceeding with the confession process, John Proctor retracts his confession by physically destroying the document. John then achieves a cathartic moment as he explains the importance of his name and reputation. John Proctor, in a fit of emotion, damns himself to the noose. This moment fulfills the requirement for a Tragic Hero to both orchestrate his own death through some facet of his character and to go to that death willingly and with great honor.
“A man will not cast away his good name. You surely know that… [Proctor’s] voice about to break, and his shame great: In the proper place—where my beasts are bedded. On the last night of my joy, some eight months past. She used to serve me in my house, sir.” (III.374-384) In this scene Proctor, with the greatest of difficulty, confesses to his affair with Abigail Williams. It is here, where John Proctor’s own, personal moral compass overcomes his pride, and John willingly tarnishes his name for the greater good. In a way, Arthur Miller has John Proctor on a string in front of the audience, dangling over a fire. In this moment, Arthur Miller is yanking away Proctor from the fire, only to have him slip back into the flames at the conclusion of the play. The author is doing so on purpose. It is an attempt to catalyze the catharsis the audience is supposed to achieve. In this analogy, Arthur Miller’s puppeteering of the situation is comparable to the waxing and waning of the pride of John Proctor. As Proctor’s pride increases, John Proctor becomes more obstinate. John Proctor’s solid sense of pride will always threaten to bring him closer to the flames.
When Proctor does, finally, decide to act on Abigail’s accusations, he does so by using another woman: Mary.

He forces her to go to the court and admit that she knew the girls were making everything up, but the young girl soon breaks under pressure. In doing so, she implicates John himself as a witch. Should he have been brave enough to use his own testimony from the start, rather than relying on that of a young and impressionable girl, he might have been able to convince the town of Abigail’s guilt. Yet he uses Mary instead so the town might not find out about his intimate relationship with Abigail. His own pride, yet again, causes undo conflict within himself and the village.

As the play draws to a conclusion, Proctor was even given the opportunity to live should he confess. He is given a document that testifies his guilt in the crime of witchcraft. The document, once signed, would have been nailed to the doors of the church. Proctor, at first, signs the document, but then he promptly shreds it to avoid naming others as witches and to avoid the public shame the document would have caused. Proctor thereby acts in a moral manner by trying to defeat the harm the witch hunt has brought. This shows how he values his own pride over his own life, which ultimately led to his

death.
In conclusion, John Proctor in Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible is the epitome of a Tragic Hero as described by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. John Proctor’s fatal flaw, or his “hamartia,” is his pride. His pride prohibits him from telling the truth about his affair, it prohibits him from testifying at the start, causes him to tear up the document, and so caused his death. He, like the great heroes described by Aristotle, is damned by a fatal flaw, and willing marches to his death. Aristotle predicts that this is a highly emotional moment for both John Proctor and the audience, as both recognize the inevitability of death but accept it as the final outcome.