W&M ScholarWorks

Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects

1987

Arthur Miller: The Individual and Society

Anna Kathryn Thompson
College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd

Part of the American Literature Commons, and the Theatre History Commons

Recommended Citation
Thompson, Anna Kathryn, "Arthur Miller: The Individual and Society" (1987). Dissertations, Theses, and
Masters Projects. Paper 1539625392.
https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-4j65-xd78

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M
ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized
administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 ARTHUR MILLER: THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of English

The College of William and Mary in Virginia

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

by

Kay Thompson

1987
 APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Author

Approved, May 1987

ilip Auslander

Scott Donaldson

Robert Scholnick
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to examine Arthur

M i l l e r ’s fascination with the relationship between the
individual and society. This theme appears in M i l l e r ’s
first three successful plays, All M y S o n s , Death of a
S a l e s m a n , and The C r u c i b l e . In S o n s t Miller portrays a man
who is so concerned with himself as an individual,
especially as a father, he does not fulfill his obligation
to society. Joe Keller sacrifices the safety of the
community for his f a m i l y ’s well-being. In S a l e s m a n , Miller
examines the other side of the relationship. The drama is
about a man who is betrayed by society. Willy Loman plays
a part in his own destruction, but, in this play, Miller
condemns society for betraying the individual. Crucible
deals with both sides of the individual/society
relationship. John Proctor neglects his duty to society by
refusing to condemn the with trials at first. Society, in
the form of the people involved in prosecution at the witch
trails, sends Proctor to his death. Through this play,
Miller shows that one must neither betray society nor o n e ’s
own integrity.

For Miller, the welfare of the individual and society

are inextricably related. M i l l e r ’s vision of life is that
people must realize their commitment to others in the world
and that the community must recognize it is responsibility
toward individuals.
ARTHUR MILLER: THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY
 2

Arthur M i l l e r ’s first three successful plays are quite

similar in theme. All M y S o n s , Death of a S a l e s m a n , and

The Crucible all are about the i n d i v i d u a l ’s place in

society. It seems that Miller could not be satisfied until

he had examined this idea from several angles. The plays

are variations on the theme of the i n d i v i d u a l ’s relatedness

to society. Gerald Weales describes this relatedness,

saying, "man . . . belongs not only to himself and his

family but to the world b ey on d . " 1

Miller pursues this theme in his plays to demonstrate

its validity. As Herbert Blau declares, "What Miller is

after, almost against the evidence of modern experience, is

a drama in which the individual is not an 'individual in

his own r i g h t , ’ but in relation to universal substance and

the polity as a w h ol e. "2

The connection between the individual and society is

examined in M i l l e r ’s three plays, but, in each play, the

special significance of the individual is also apparent.

As Miller says about the plays,

Time, characterizations, and other elements are

treated differently from play to play, but all to
the end that that moment of commitment be brought
forth, that moment when, in my eyes, a man
differentiates himself from every other man, that
moment when out of a sky full of stars he fixes
on one st ar. 3
 3

Couched in the examination of commitment to others is the

commitment to self. The individual's relationship with

society is complicated by the dichotomy Miller sees in

society. People in society fall into two opposing groups:

they can be o n e ’s neighbors or o n e ’s enemies, and are

sometimes in both categories at the same time. This dual

nature of society is the basis for M i l l e r ’s belief in being

responsible for o t h e r s - - o n e ’s neig hbo rs — while, at the same

time, protecting oneself against enemies. The resolution

of this conflict is the basis for M i l l e r ’s drama, and,

through these plays, M i l l e r ’s message is apparent: people

must have a commitment to each other and to their own

integrity.

Raymond Williams says that Miller writes with

a particular conception of the relationship of

the individual to society, in which neither is
the individual seen as a unit nor the society as
an aggregate, but both are seen as belonging to a
continuous and in real terms inseparable
p r o c e s s .4

Such a concept may have little to do with reality.

Tom Driver says that M i l l e r ’s "conception of the ’reality*

with which man must deal is limited."5 But recreating

reality is not M i l l e r ’s purpose. What Miller is after is

reflected in his description of drama: "It can tell, like

science, what is--but more, it can tell what ought to be."6

To Miller, telling an audience what "ought to be" in life

is iiiore important than telling what is.

 4

In All M y S o n s , Miller portrays a man who ought to be

responsible to the world at large and should not sacrifice

the welfare of others for the sake of his own security.

Then Miller changes focus and, in Death of a S a l e s m a n , he

shows that society ought to be more concerned about a man

who has worked all his life trying to be successful

according to the American dream of success. Finally, in

The Crucible, the themes are combined as a man tries to

decide if he ought to be more concerned about himself or

society.

Joe Keller, in All M y Sons, is a man whose love for

his family keeps him from being an integrated member of

society. He defines his individuality too narrowly. He is

so much a father, he cannot be a citizen. Joe sets the

stage for misfortune when he chooses to protect the

business interests of his own family over the lives of

strangers. He is a businessman who wants to maintain a

thriving company for his sons to inherit. During the war,

however, he carries his intention too far by selling the

army defective airplane parts. His action results in the

deaths of twenty-one pilots. Arvin R. Wells, in "The

Living and the Dead in All M y Sons," points out that "Joe

Keller has committed his crimes not out of cowardice,

callousness, or pure self-interest, but out of a too-

exclusive regard for real though limited values. . . ."7

 5

What Joe values is his family, but as Wells further notes,

"a man *s best qualities may be involved in his worst

actions and cheapest ideas. . . ."8 Joe escapes punishment

for his crime by passing the blame on to his partner, Steve

Deever, and after the war the firm still prospers. Chris

fulfills his f a t h e r ’s dream by coming home and taking part

in the business, but J o e ’s other son, Larry, is still

’’missing in action" at the end of the war.

Paul Blumberg feels that Joe, is not "hard or

ruthless" but "is, nevertheless, a man whose sense of human

responsibility has been thrust aside by the every-man-for-

himself individualism rampant in American society."9

Although Joe understands that it is a dog-eat-dog world,

Blumberg is wrong in assuming that subscribing to that

phil osophy is the reason for J o e ’s crime. As Santosh

Bhatia points out:

An excess of love for his sons makes Keller

succumb to the socio-economic pressures of
society. The only motivation with him at the
moment is to provide to his sons a future based
on substantial wealth. . . . Keller is called
upon to play his role as a father on the one hand
and as a citizen on the other, but his one
sidedness and disproportionate allegiance to his
family make him ignore his role as a citiz en .10

Bhatia has the clearer grasp of M i l l e r ’s character. J o e ’s

philosophy is not "every man for himself," as Blumberg

concludes. J o e ’s belief is closer to "every man for his

family," as Bhatia indicates. Joe wants nothing for

 6

himself but the love of his family. He is motivated by a

desire to provide for his family, especially for his sons.

Joe can only identify with his own family, he can see

no further. It is amazing that, having lost a son in the

war himself, Joe gives no indication that he ever thinks

about the enormous loss he caused twenty-one other fathers

to suffer. How is this attitude possible? "Larry never

flew a P-40," is J o e ’s only co nc ern .11

M i l l e r ’s description of setting shows how cut off the

Kellers are from the rest of the world. "The stage is

h e dg e d on right and left by tal l , close ly p lanted poplars

which lend the yard a secluded a t m o s p h e r e ." (Sons 1.5).

Another ma nifestation of J o e ’s exclusive concern for his

family is his ignorance of the world outside his own home.

As the play opens, Joe is sitting in his backyard reading

the newspaper. He likes to read the want ads because he is

amazed at what they contain.

Keller: H e r e ’s another one. Wanted--old

dictionaries. High prices paid. Now w h a t ’s a
man going to do with an old dictionary?

Frank: Why not? Probably a book collector.

Keller: You mean h e ’ll make a living out of

that?

Frank: Sure, t h e r e ’s a lot of them.

Keller: Well, that shows you; . . . Scanning

the page, sweeping it with his hand: You look at
a page like this you realize how ignorant you
are. Softly, with wonder, as he scans the page:
P s s s ! (Sons 1.7-8).
 7

As the drama unfolds, it becomes obvious how closed

Joe is to the concerns of others, especially when they

interfere with the needs of his family. It was one thing

to ship out cracked cylinder heads to people he would never

see, but Joe went much further than that. He told his

partner and friend, Steve Deever, to patch the cracked

cylinder heads, and then Joe put all the blame for the

crime on Steve. The Deevers and the Kellers had lived next

door to each other for years--all the c h i l d r e n ’s lives.

The two families loved each other. Larry Keller and Ann

Deever were to marry. But Joe swept all those

considerations aside in order to protect his business for

his sons.

By adding this betrayal of a friend to the story,

Miller shows just how narrow J o e ’s commitments are. In

J o e ’s conversation with Kate after Chris learns of his

crime, he makes a clear statement of his conviction.

’’N o t h i n ’s bigger than that [the family]. . . . [I]f

t h e r e ’s something bigger than that I ’ll put a bullet in my

head!” (Sons III.83).

Raymond Williams comments on the significance of the

Deevers in Joe K e l l e r ’s life:

[I]f the action had been between strangers or

business acquaintances, rather than between
neighbors, the truth would never have come out.
Thus we see a true social reality, which includes
both social relationships and absolute personal
needs, enforcing a social fact--that of
 8

responsibility and con seq ue nce .12

Joe shirks his responsibility to society with

devastating consequences, not only for others, but finally

for his own family. M i l l e r ’s play clearly expresses what

the playwright sees as the consequences of evading o n e ’s

social responsibility.

J o e ’s son Chris is aware of social responsibility, and

it is through Chris that Miller brings conflict into Joe

K e l l e r ’s life. Chris has always been concerned about the

welfare of others. "In the battalion he was known as

Mother McKeller," his neighbor, Jim, says. C h r i s ’s sense

of connection with the rest of the world was greatly

strengthened in the war. He explains to Ann:

Chris: . . . Everything was being destroyed,

see, but it seemed to me that one new thing was
made. A kind o f - - r e s po ns ib il it y. Man for man.
You understand m e ? — To show that, to bring that
onto the earth again like some kind of a monument
and everyone would feel it standing there, behind
him, and it would make a difference to him.
Pause. And then I came home and it was
incredible. I--there was no meaning in it here;
the whole thing to them was a kind of a--bus
accident. I went to work with Dad, and that rat-
race again. I felt--what you said— ashamed
somehow. Because nobody was changed at all. It
seemed to make suckers out of a lot of guys.
(Sons 1.38)

Through this speech of C h r i s ’s, Miller points out the

dichotomy in society. M i l l e r ’s view is that people have a

dual relationship with society: A person is responsible

for others, but, at the same time, that person should

 9

beware of society because it will often ’’make suckers of a

lot of g u y s . ” Chris is aware of the dichotomy, but J o e ’s

relationship with society is completely one-sided: his only

thought is to protect his own self-interests. This

difference in their basic philosophies leads to conflict.

The audience sees the first hint of conflict between

father and son in the opening scene when Chris asks for his

f a t h e r ’s support in his desire to marry Ann. They overcome

their differences, but Joe is right when he says, "I d o n ’t

understand you, do I?" (Sons 1.19).

Their differing opinions are expressed more sharply

when they discuss the case of Steve Deever.

Chris: He murdered twenty-one pilots.

Keller: What the hell kinda talk is that?

• • •

Keller: . . . Those cylinder heads went into P-

40s only. W h a t ’s the matter with you? You know
Larry never flew a P-40.

Chris: So who flew those P-40s, pigs? (Sons

1.33-34)

They get past this conflict also, but soon A n n ’s

brother George Deever appears. G e o r g e ’s arrival brings on

the climax of the play. He comes to make trouble about

A n n ’s marrying Chris, but is cajoled back to good humor by

the Kellers, Kate especially. He has even agreed to join

them in a celebration dinner, but Kate inadvertently lets

slip that Joe has never been sick in his life. This slip
 10

brings back all of G e o r g e ’s animosity and accusations,

because Joe was supposedly sick the day the cracked

cylinder heads went out, and that left Steve Deever to take

the blame alone. George prepares to leave and demands that

Ann accompany him. Chris insists that Ann stay, and Kate

objects. She will not allow Chris to marry " L a r r y ’s girl."

(Sons 11.74). C h r i s ’s insistence that he will marry Ann

leads to K a t e ’s explosion:

Mother: Chris, I ’ve never said no to you in my

life, now I say no!

Chris: Y o u ’ll never let him go till I do it.

Mother: I ’ll never let him go and y o u ’ll never

let him go!

Chris: I ’ve let him go. I ’ve let him go a long-

Mother, with no less force, but turning from him:

Then let your father go. P a u s e , Chris stands
transfixed.

Keller: S h e ’s out of her mind.

Mother: Altogether! To Chris, but not facing

t h e m : Your b r o t h e r ’s alive, darling, because if
h e ’s dead, your father killed him. Do you
understand me now? As long as you live, that boy
is alive. God does not let a son be killed by
his father. Now you see, d o n ’t you? Now you
see. B e y o n d control, she hurries up and into
house,

K e l l e r - -Chris has not moved. He speaks

insinuatingly, q u e s t i o n i n g l y : S h e ’s out of her
mind .

Chris in a broken w h i s p e r : Then . . . you did

it? (Sons 1,74-75)

This dialogue shows why Kate has always insisted that Larry
 11

will return: Kate associates J o e ’s crime with L a r r y ’s

death. This association indicates that Kate is aware that

Joe did commit the crime for which Deever is in jail. Kate

has kept from facing this knowledge by losing herself in

her obsession with Larry. When Chris threatens her fantasy

by insisting on marrying Ann, Kate reveals the secret of

J o e ’s guilt. Her final line before rushing into the house,

"Now you see, d o n ’t you? Now you see," shows that she

expects Chris to accept J o e ’s guilt as she has. But Chris

cannot accept J o e ’s guilt and a confrontation between

father and son follows immediately. During this exchange,

Joe asks Chris, " W h a t ’s the matter with you?" four times.

Not only can Joe still not see the crime he has committed,

he cannot understand why Chris does not see it his way:

excusable because it was done for the family.

Chris demands that his father explain what he did. As

Joe tries to make excuses for himself, Chris gets more and

more furious until, when Joe exclaims that he did it "for

you," Chris explodes:

Chris, with burning fury: For me! Where do you

live, where have you come from? For m e ! — I was
dying every day and you were killing my boys and
you did it for me? What the hell do you think I
was thinking of, the Goddam business? Is that as
far as your min d can see, the business? What is
that, the world--the business? What the hell do
you mean, you did it for me? D o n ’t you have a
country? D o n ’t you live in the world? What the
hell are you? Y o u ’re not even an animal, no
animal kills his own, what are you? What must I
do to you? I ought to tear the tongue out of
 12

your mouth, what must I do? With his fist he

pounds down upon his father*s s h o u l d e r . He
stumbles away, covering his face as he weeps.
What must I do, Jesus God, what must I do? (Sons
II .77)

Through Chris, in this speech, Miller makes the

statement of this play. People have to "have a country,"

to "live in the world." To Chris, and to Miller, that

means being responsible for others.

Chris stumbles out into the night to try to think

things through and, while Joe and Kate wait up for him,

they talk. Kate suggests that Joe tell Chris that he is

sorry for his crime and will go to jail to repent. But Joe

is " s t r u c k , amazed" by this idea. (Sons III.82). At her

suggestion that perhaps Chris would forgive him, Joe asks,

"He would forgive me! For what?" (Sons III.82). Joe

still does not see his guilt. It is during this

conversation with Kate that Joe says twice, "I'm his father

and h e ’s my son." (Sons III.83). By this, Joe means that,

because of their relationship, Chris should excuse his

f a t h e r ’s crime. It is also J o e ’s statement of who he is.

In each of these three plays, the protagonist, at one

point, proclaims who he is. Willy and John make their

proclamations by stating their names, but Joe does not

declare his name, he declares his relationship. " I ’m his

father" is of supreme importance to Joe--much more

significant than "I am Joe Keller." Knowing oneself is

 13

extremely important to Miller, but Joe does not completely

understand himself. He sees himself only as a father, and

such a narrow definition leads him to commit his crime and

then leads him to his death.

As the conversation continues, Joe uses the absent

Larry to defend himself.

Keller: Goddam, if Larry was alive he wouldn't

act like this. He understood the way the world
is made. He listened to me. To him the world
had a forty-foot front, it ended at the building
line. (Sons 111.83)

The irony is, Larry is dead because he acted exactly as

Chris is acting, and he killed himself because of his

father's crime.

Chris has also been destroyed by learning that his

father really was guilty. He returns from his walk having

made his decision: he will leave and will not report Joe to

the police. Kate asks the same question as Joe:

Mother: What are you talking about? What else

can you do?

Chris: I could jail him! I could jail him, if I

were human any more. But I'm like everybody else
now. I'm practical now. You made me practical.

Mother: But you have to be. (Sons 111. 86)

Although Kate suggested that Joe pretend to Chris that he

is willing to go to jail, this exchange shows she shares

her husband's feelings about his crime: Joe did it for the

family, so he should not be punished.

Kate accepts Chris's decision to "be practical"

 14

gladly, but Ann objects. Ann knows that she will never be

able to make a life with Chris if they have this guilt

hanging over their heads. Chris, who now sees the world

cynically, cannot find a reason to make his father suffer.

Chris: . . . Do I raise the dead when I put him

behind bars? Then w h a t ’ll I do it for? We used
to shoot a man who acted like a dog, but honor
was real there, you were protecting something.
But here? This is the land of the great big
dogs, you d o n ’t love a man here, you eat him!
T h a t ’s the principle; the only one we live by--it
just happened to kill a few people this time,
t h a t ’s all. The w o r l d ’s that way, how can I take
it out on him? What sense does it make? This is
a zoo, a zoo! (Sons III.87)

Here again is the dichotomy in M i l l e r ’s view of

society: this speech condemns society while the play as a

whole condemns a man for betraying society.

After denying for years any special connection with

society, Joe Keller finally does learn, after reading

L a r r y ’s letter, that there is something bigger than the

family. Carrying out his earlier threat, he kills

himself. Critics disagree about the appropriateness of

this act in the context of J o e ’s personality, but Benjamin

N e l s o n ’s point is well taken: "Joe Keller . . . arrives at

a genuine recognition of the meaning of his crime, and then

firmly translates his awareness into a c ti on ." 13 Kate does

not seem to attain the same awareness. As Joe goes

upstairs, presumably to get his jacket so he can accompany

Chris to the police station, Kate is still begging Chris

 15

not to take him. Chris tries to get through to her,

saying, "Once and for all you can know t h e r e ’s a universe

of people outside and y o u ’re responsible to it. . ." (Sons

III.90). At that point a shot is heard. M i l l e r ’s point

in this play is that people are responsible to other

p e op le — even in a money-grubbing, unprincipled society.

Huftel quotes Miller:

In All M y Sons, Joe Keller is a father and a

citizen, but because he could not take the
citizen side seriously he became less of a father
and destroyed his own children. You literally
have to survive with this wholeness because you
c a n ’t survive without it.14

All M y Sons deals with the importance of living up to o n e ’s

social commitments. Commitment to family is important, and

Miller stresses that idea in S o n s , but, at the same time,

he shows that love for o n e ’s family must not overshadow

o n e ’s responsibility to society.

M i l l e r ’s next play, Death of a S a l e s m a n , looks at

another aspect of society. After examining the

i n d i v i d u a l ’s responsibility to society in Sons, he

contemplates s o c i e t y ’s responsibility to the individual in

Death o f a S a l e s m a n . In an interview with Ronald Hayman,

Miller says that "the play was very doubtful about American

mores and the American sy st em. "15

Willy L o m a n ’s catastrophe in Death of a Salesman

arises from his undaunted belief in the myth of an

unchecked rise to success, as in the Horatio Alger

 16

s tor ies .16 He truly believes that a man advances to the

top in business ’’riding on a smile and a s h o e s h i n e .”17 The

dream of prosperity does not really work for Willy,

however, and for years he has been be wildered by his lack

of progress. His method of overcoming his shortcomings is

to pretend they do not exist. He always boasts of his

accomplishments to his family, trying to convince them and

himself that he has attained the American Dream, and Linda

encourages him in his delusions that he is a successful

man. He is not, however, and occasionally that fact is

inescapable. In a scene from the past when the boys are in

high school, Willy exclaims to Linda, ”My God, if business

d o n ’t pick up I d o n ’t know what I ’m gonna d o ! ” (Salesman

1.116). What he does is simply go on believing in the myth

and, with his w i f e ’s encouragement, raising his sons to

have faith in the same false values.

In an article entitled ’’Acres of Diamonds: Death of a

S a l e s m a n ,” Thomas E. Porter writes, ’’The boys have been

brought up to respect the success ideology; their success

will be the s a l e s m a n ’s vin di ca ti on .’’18 Willy keeps hoping

for his justification through his sons, especially Biff.

His final act is to kill himself so that Biff will inherit

twenty thousand dollars; and, as Porter points out, ”he

goes to his death with his goal sparkling before him ." 19

"Can you imagine B i f f ’s magnificence with twenty thousand

 17

dollars in his pocket?" Willy cries to his vision of his

brother Ben (Salesman 11.203). Willy dies, never having

given up the dreams he built on falsehood.

W i l l y ’s success dream is partly based on promises from

the world of advertising. Throughout the play there are

many signs of the Loman f a m i l y ’s acceptance of Madison

A v e n u e ’s message. Their refrigerator "got the biggest ads

of any of them!" (Salesman 1.116). When Willy brings home

a punching bag for the boys, he exclaims proudly, " I t ’s got

Gene T u n n e y ’s signature on it!" (Salesman I. 110). Willy

articulates another facet of the success myth when, in a

flashback, he says to his brother Ben,

. . . [I]t’s not what you do, Ben. I t ’s who you

know and the smile on your face! I t ’s contacts,
Ben, contacts! The whole wealth of Alaska passes
over the lunch table at the Commodore H o t e l , and
t h a t ’s the wonder, the wonder of this country,
that a man can end with diamonds here on the
basis of being liked! He turns to Biff. And
t h a t ’s why when you get out on that field today
i t ’s important. Because thousands of people will
be rooting for you and loving you. To Ben, who
has again begun to l e a v e : And Ben! when he walks
into a business office his name will sound out
like a bell and all the doors will open to him!
I ’ve seen it, Ben, I ’ve seen it a thousand times!
You c a n ’t feel it with your hand like timber, but
i t ’s there! (Salesman 11.160)

Although Willy believes wholeheartedly in the success

myth, he is not the success he claims to be. There are

times when he admits the truth about himself, but such

self-realization is drowned out by protests from his

family. Willy admits that he talks too much, but Linda

 18

remonstrates: "You d o n ’t talk too much, y o u ’re just lively"

(Salesman 1.117). He concedes that he is fat and wonders

if he is "dressing to advantage" (Salesman 1.117). Linda

objects, saying, "Willy, darling, y o u ’re the handsomest man

in the world--" (Salesman 1.117). W i l l y ’s whole family is

caught up in his dream, and often they even sound like

Willy. When Willy returns early from a trip because he is

too weary to drive any more, Linda reassures him, saying,

" Y o u ’ve got too much on the ball to worry about."

(Salesman I . 101). And as Happy tells Biff about their

father confusing the colors at a traffic light, Biff

suggests that perhaps Willy is color blind. Happy replies,

"Pop? Why h e ’s got the finest eye for color in the

business. You know that." (Salesman 1.102). The Lomans

support each o t h e r ’s belief in W i l l y ’s dream.

Biff, like Chris in Sons, is in conflict with his

father. He grew up worshipping Willy, but quit believing

in him after he caught Willy having an affair with a woman

in Boston. Biff left home, and, away from W i l l y ’s

influence, he has learned to be a little more honest in his

assessment of himself. Still, his years in the Loman

household make true self-knowledge difficult to achieve.

At the p l a y ’s beginning, Biff is inching closer to an

understanding of who he is and what he needs out of life.

He hates the idea of pursuing a business career in the

 19

city.

Biff: . . . To devote your whole life to

keeping stock, or making phone calls, or selling
or buying. To suffer fifty weeks of the year for
the sake of a two-week vacation, when all you
really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt
off. (Salesman 1.104)

It becomes obvious that Biff has not completely found

himself, though, when he says to Happy,

This farm I work on, i t ’s spring there now, see?

And t h e y ’ve got about fifteen new colts. T h e r e ’s
nothing more inspiring or--beautiful than the
sight of a mare and a new colt. And i t ’s cool
there now, see? Texas is cool now, and i t ’s
spring. And whenever spring comes to where I am,
I suddenly get the feeling, my God, I ’m not
gettin* anywhere! What the hell am I doing,
playing around with horses, twenty-eight dollars
a week! I ’m thirty-four years old, I oughta be
m a k i n ’ my future. T h a t ’s when I come running
home, And now, I get here, and I d o n ’t know what
to do with myself. A f t e r a pause: I ’ve always
made a point of not wasting my life, and
everytime I come back here I know that all I ’ve
done is to waste my life. (Salesman 1.105)

Happy seems to understand. When Biff asks if he is

content, Happy explains,

All I can do now is wait for the merchandise

manager to die. And suppose I get to be
merchandise manager? H e ’s a good friend of mine,
and he just built a terrific estate on Long
Island. And he lived there about two months and
sold it, and now h e ’s building another one. He
c a n ’t enjoy it once i t ’s finished. And I know
t h a t ’s just what I would do. (Salesman 1.105)

But Happy is exactly like Willy. Although he has moments

of insight, he c a n ’t let go of the dream of success. Biff

suggests that they buy a ranch together. Happy seems

enthusiastic about the idea, but then asks, MThe only thing
 20

is--what can you make out there?" (Salesman 1.106). Biff

replies, "But look at your friend. Builds an estate and

then h a s n ’t the peace of mind to live in it." (Salesman

1.106). But Happy argues, "Yeah, but when he walks into

the store the waves part in front of him." (Salesman

1.106). He sounds just like Willy.

Happy is too immersed in the Loman success dream to

ever get out. Biff gets no cooperation from his brother.

Willy, of course, cannot understand Biff's struggle. In

W i l l y ’s opinion, "Not finding yourself at the age of

thirty-four is a disgrace!" (Salesman 1.99). The irony is

that Willy has never found himself. He has accepted

s o c i e t y ’s version of success and has tried to live up to

it. He wants Biff to do the same. He scorns B i f f ’s lack

of "success": "Biff Loman is lost. In the greatest country

in the world a young man with such--personal

attractiveness, gets lost." (Salesman 1.99). According to

W i l l y ’s code, such personal attractiveness is a one-way

ticket to success. He is convinced that Biff is failing in

life just to spite him, and this notion of W i l l y ’s deepens

the rift between them.

When Biff returns home this time, he finds that Willy

is swiftly losing ground in his struggle to survive. Linda

tells him that W i l l y ’s salary has been taken away; he is on

straight commission. Through L i n d a ’s speech, Miller

 21

comments on a society that will use a man during his good

years and give him nothing in return:

Linda: A small man can be just as exhausted as a

great man. He works for a company for thirty-six
years this March, opens up unheard-of territories
to their trademark, and now in his old age they
take his salary away. (Salesman 1.134)

Miller says in his "Introduction to the Collected P l a y s "

that "Willy Loman has broken a law . . . which says that a

failure in society and in business has no right to live."20

Tom F. Driver, in his essay "Strength and Weakness in

Arthur Miller," objects strongly to M i l l e r ’s use of the

word "law."

There is, in fact, no "law which says that a

failure is society and in business has no right
to l i ve .” It would, indeed, suit M i l l e r ’s
polemic better if there were. There is a
delusion that a failure in society and in
business has no right to live. To some people,
such as Willy Loman, it may indeed seem like a
law. But it is one thing for a character in a
play to act as if something were a law, and quite
another thing for the playwright to believe it.21

It is doubtful that many people other than Drive assume

that Miller believes there is such a law. It seems

perfectly obvious that Miller uses the term metaphorically,

and Drive proves it himself with the rest of his comments:

M i l l e r ’s subsequent remarks in this same section

of his essay make it perfectly clear that he
himself, the audience, and also Willy Loman, do
as a matter of fact have criteria according to
which they suspect that this "law" is a hoax. It
is in fact not a law but a false credo, which
Willy shares with many persons, and the result of
the attempt to make a false credo into a law
results only in pathetic irony.22
 22

D r i v e r ’s harangue results only in pathetic criticism.

The c r i t i c ’s assertion that the law is a false credo is not

a discovery of a flaw in M i l l e r ’s reasoning--it is exactly

the point Miller is making. It is difficult to take

D r i v e r ’s essay seriously, because he often degenerates into

the prissiness displayed in the foregoing example.

Miller explains W i l l y ’s plight further in his essay

entitled "On Social Plays":

The deep moral uneasiness among us, the vast

sense of being only tenuously joined to the rest
of our fellows, is caused, in my view, by the
fact that the person has value as he fits into
the pattern of efficiency, and for that alo ne .23

Through this play, Miller criticizes the aspect of society

that puts such tremendous pressure on people to succeed.

Some critics say that Willy is not the victim of

society, that other people are successful in the same

society, why not Willy? Such an attitude seems to ask,

"What is wrong with Willy that he is not successful?" It

is obvious that something is wrong with Willy, but the fact

C
that others are successful does not mean that Miller uses

them as examples of what a successful person ought to be.

The successful people presented in the play are not always

admirable. There is W i l l y ’s brother Ben whose oft-repeated

song of success is, ". . . when I was seventeen I walked

into the jungle, and when I was twenty-one I walked out.

. . . And by God I was rich." (Salesman 1.127). However,

 23

Ben also offers Biff the advice, "Never fight fair with a

stranger, boy. Y o u ’ll never get out of the jungle that

way." (Salesman 1.128). Also, when the boys are caught

stealing lumber, Willy calls them "fearless characters."

Charley reprimands him by saying, "Willy, the jails are

full of fearless characters," but Ben laughs and replies,

"And the stock exchange, friend." (Salesman 1.129)

W i l l y ’s boss Howard is a successful business man, but

when Willy begs Howard to take him off the road, he fires

Willy instead. Then, as Willy falls apart before his eyes,

H o w a r d ’s only reaction is, "Look, kid, I ’m busy this

morning." (Salesman 11.158). M i l l e r ’s point seems to be

that success in business does not automatically make one a

successful person. There is a trait missing in Ben and

Howard that would make them successful by M i l l e r ’s

definition: a concern for others.

Charley is successful, but he is also concerned. Even

in the face of W i l l y ’s continued insults, Charley still

helps him with money and attempts to give Willy an easier

job. But Charley never examines what is wrong with the

kind of society that would produce a Willy L o m a n . This is

part of M i l l e r ’s message: there may be perfectly nice

people who make it in an uncaring society, even though they

care themselves. But, if no one ever examines the society

and works against its flaws, people like Willy will

 24

continue to be influenced by and devoured by that society.

Admirable or not, Willy sees successful people around

him, and that only adds to his determination to make it in

the system as it is. He manifests his strong desire as

well as his uncertainty in the question he frequently asks

Ben: "Ben, am I right? D o n ’t you think I ’m right?"

(Salesman 11.160).

It is obvious that Willy still does not feel

successful, and this bothers him. As Sheila Huftel points

out:

Unlike M i l l e r ’s other characters, Willy

desperately wants to conform to the way of life
imposed on him. A John Proctor, for instance,
does not believe with the majority, will not
conform to it, and is sustained by the fact that
he is right, but W i l l y ’s enforced nonconformity
brings him only sha me. 24

As Willy seeks to fit in and be successful in society, he

often asks Ben " W h a t ’s the answer?" (Salesman 1.126). He

even asks the grown-up, successful Bernard, the "anemic" of

old, the same question, only, by this time, W i l l y ’s

question is: "Wh at - -w ha t’s the secret?" (Salesman 11.165).

To Willy, the key to success is a secret that he has never

been able to learn.

M i l l e r ’s answer to W i l l y ’s questions is "Know

thyself." That is W i l l y ’s problem--he does not know

himself. Biff does know who he is and who Willy is. He

explains to Linda, "... [W]e d o n ’t belong in this

 25

nuthouse of a city! We should be mixing cement on some

open plain, o r — or carpenters." (Salesman 1.138).

Finally, in the confrontation scene, Biff is

determined that the Lomans will finally face reality. He

says to Linda, "The man d o n ’t know who we are! The man is

gonna know! To Willy: We never told the truth for ten

minutes in this house!" (Salesman 11.200).

He tries desperately to explain his position to his

father:

Biff: . . . What am I doing in an office,

making a contemptuous, begging fool of myself,
when all I want is out there, waiting for me the
minute I say I know who I am! Why c a n ’t I say
that, Willy? He tries to make Willy face him,
but Willy pulls awa y and moves to the l e f t ,
(Salesman 11.201)

Willy still refuses to see the truth, and they have this

exchange:

Willy, with hatred, threateningly: The door of

your life is wide open!

Biff: Pop! I ’m a dime a dozen, and so are you!

Willy, turning on him n o w in an uncontrolled

outburst: I am not a dime a dozen! I am Willy
Loman, and you are Biff L o m a n ! (Salesman 11.201)

Here is M i l l e r ’s use of the i n d i v i d u a l ’s name to signify

his importance. W i l l y ’s outburst will be echoed by John

Proctor. Joe Keller has a similar refrain: " I ’m his

father." Each man signifies his sense of self when he

makes this statement. Joe saw himself only as a father,

hence his version of the "I am" declaration. When Willy

 26

says, "I am Willy L o m a n , ” the implied rest of the refrain

is, ". . . the successful sa l e s m a n . ” Miller includes this

declaration of self in all three plays, indicating the

importance of the individual in the p l a y w r i g h t ’s view of

life. But, even though the protagonist declares his

individuality, there may still be problems with his concept

of himself. Joe Keller defined his role in life too

narrowly, and Willy is completely mistaken about who he is

and what he is.

Biff knows that W i l l y ’s obsession with the dream of

success is dangerous. It is what has led him to attempt

suicide. He begs his father to give it up:

Biff, c r y i n g , b r o k e n : Will you let me go, for

C h r i s t ’s sake? Will you take that phony dream
and burn it before something happens? (Salesman
1 1.202)

Instead of persuading Willy to give up his dream, Biff

convinces him to take it even further than before. The

scene with Biff shows Willy that Biff loves him, and it is

that knowledge that makes Willy decide to kill himself so

Biff will have the money to complete W i l l y ’s dream. "Oh,

Ben, I always knew one way or another we were gonna make

it, Biff and I!" (Salesman 11.204).

In the Requiem, Miller shows us that Biff, the one who

finally knows who he is, is the only one who really

understood the mistake Willy made. "He had the wrong

dreams. All, all, wrong." (Salesman Re qu i e m . 206).

 27

Charley does not understand Willy. His final analysis is,

"A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the

t e rr i t o r y . ” (Salesman R e q u i e m .207). But Biff insists that

Willy did not know who he was.

Biff asks Happy to go with him to the West, but Happy

refuses. " I ’m not licked that easily. I ’m staying right

in this city, and I ’m gonna beat this r a c k e t ! ” (Salesman

R e q u i e m .207). He wants Biff to stay, but Biff now knows

"the s e c r e t ” : ” I know who I am, kid." (Salesman

R e q u i e m .207)

In Death of a Salesman, Miller offers sharp criticism

of a society that treats a man like a piece of fr ui t -- ”eat

the orange and throw the peel a wa y. ” (Salesman 11.156).

Miller criticizes a society that does not fulfill its

responsibility to the individual. This same play, however,

is critical of the individual for failing to fulfill his

own obligation to himself: the obligation to know who he

is.

The Crucible is a combination of the themes in Sons

and S a l e s m a n . Early in the play, John Proctor betrays

society, like Joe Keller, but, by the end of the play,

society destroys Proctor although not in the same way it

does Willy in Salesman. In Cr uc i b l e, the contrasts in

society are very clear: some of the "neighb ors ” in society

become "e nem ie s” as people in Salem use the witch hunts to

 28

get revenge for old feuds and legal disputes. It is the

’’neighbors" part of society that John betrays at the

beginning, and, at the end, society becomes his enemy and

destroys him. Henry Popkin points this out:

The underlying presence of the good community,

however misruled it may be, reminds us that
Miller, even in face of his own evidence,
professes to believe in the basic strength and
justice of the social organism, in the
possibility of good neighbors. If he criticizes
society, he does so from within, as a participant
and a believer in it.25

As the play opens, S a l e m ’s minister, Reverend Parris,

has discovered a band of girls, including his niece Abigail

and his daughter Betty, dancing in the woods. Witchcraft

is suspected, and Reverend Hale, who "has much experience

in all demonic arts," has been summoned.26 Thus begins the

course of events that lead to court trials and hangings.

The community of Salem had always been tight-knit. It

had to be to survive in the harsh North American

wilderness. Times were changing, however. The wilderness

was becoming more civilized and, as a result, people were

claiming more personal freedom. Such events were not

appreciated by the Puritans. Miller explains it this way:

The witch-hunt was a perverse manifestation of

the panic which set in among all classes when the
balance began to turn toward greater individual
freedom. (Crucible 1.216)

As in any small community, people tended to be

particularly interested in each o t h e r ’s business.

 29

According to Miller, it was that "predilection for minding

other p e o p l e d business" that "created many of the

suspicions which were to feed the coming madness."

(Crucible 1.214). Miller goes on to say that Proctor is

not the kind of man to tolerate unwanted interest or

interference from others.

John Proctor is his own man. He "likes not the smell

of this ’a u t h o r i t y ’" that Rev. Parris tries to impose on

him. (Crucible 1.236). There are those, like Giles Cory,

who agree with John, and overall, Proctor is a well-

respected member of the community.

That he is a sensible man is seen in his reaction to

B e t t y ’s "illness." He feels that the girl is just

hysterical about something, and he is not at all ready to

jump to any conclusions concerning witchcraft. Abigail

confirms his suspicions when she tells him about the

dancing in the woods and says, "Oh, posh!" to the idea of

witchcraft. (Crucible 1.228).

This is the first real conversation Proctor has had

with Abigail since their short-lived affair several months

ago. John and Abigail had the affair when she was a

serving girl in the Proctor household. J o h n ’s wife,

Elizabeth, discovered the liaison, dismissed Abigail, and

took John back, but did not let him forget his offense.

John does not let himself forget the offense, either.

 30

As Miller describes him, Proctor "is a sinner, a sinner not

only against the moral fashion of the time, but against his

own vision of decent c o n d u c t . ” Proctor "has come to regard

himself as a kind of fraud." (Crucible 1.227). That

Proctor feels like a fraud is confirmed by Elizabeth when

they argue about Abigail. "I do not judge you," she says.

"The magistrate sits in your heart that judges you."

(Crucible 11.258).

Proctor's guilt is part of the reason he hesitates to

denounce Abigail when he learns how far she has gone in her

protestations of witchcraft. Thinking of himself as a

fraud, it is hard for him to go to town to pronounce

Abigail a fraud.

His main problem in this dilemma, though, is a feeling

that he will probably have to expose his relationship with

Abigail before anyone will believe him. As he says to

Elizabeth, "I am only wondering how I may prove what she

told me, Elizabeth. If the girl's a saint now, I think it

is not easy to prove she's fraud, and the town gone so

silly." (Crucible 11.257).

At this point, John sacrifices the welfare of his

neighbors for his own welfare. He behaves like Joe Keller-

-protecting his own interests even when it means the

community suffers. But soon John's dilemma is brought

closer to home. Even as John and Elizabeth are arguing

 31

over what action he is to take, Rev. Hale enters and

eventually mentions that E l i z a b e t h ’s name has been brought

up at the witch trials. Shortly, Cheever enters with a

warrant for E l i z a b e t h ’s arrest.

At this point, John is desperate to have Abigail

exposed. He still wants to avoid exposing his own sin, so

he uses Mary Warren as away to show that fraud is involved

in the "crying out." John takes Mary Warren into court,

but her testimony crumbles under the remorseless cross-

examination of the clergy judges. Finally, Proctor is

pushed to expose his own sin as the only means of

denouncing Abigail. His testimony is disproved, however,

when Elizabeth lies about his lechery in order to protect

him. Proctor himself is charged with witchcraft.

Through these events, Miller says that, in a situation

like P r o c t o r ’s it may be sensible to weigh o n e ’s own

welfare against the welfare of others, but it is not right

to put o n e ’s own happiness before o n e ’s commitment to

society. As Ferres says,

Miller makes clear that dissent is an obligation

rather than a right when the individual is
confronted with irrational, invidious, and
repressive authority as manifested in the conduct
of the witch trials.27

John Proctor bears out F e r r e s ’s statement through his

actions. Dissention from the court was certainly not a

right Proctor sought. It was more a duty, an "obligation"

 32

that Elizabeth tried to get him to fulfill for the sake of

their neighbors. Proctor balked at the duty, but was

pushed into it when Elizabeth was arrested.

)

One must notice that Miller does not paint a rosy

picture about what happens to someone who fulfills this

type of social obligation. Proctor lands in jail.

Eventually he is executed, but M i l l e r ’s message is clear: a

person must do what is right and bear the consequences.

The final act takes place on the day of execution.

Rev. Hale, who has turned against the witch trials

completely, has been begging Proctor to save himself by

confessing to witchcraft. Proctor is considering doing so.

As he says to Elizabeth, "My honesty is broke, Elizabeth; I

am no good man. N o t h i n g ’s spoiled by giving them this lie

that were not rotten long b e f o r e . ” (Crucible IV . 325).

It is difficult for Proctor to make this decision. He

begs for E l i z a b e t h ’s consent or at least forgiveness. She

cannot bring herself to give assent, and John must decide

for himself. He decides to confess, but it is interesting

to see the course of P r o c t o r ’s weakening in his decision

until he defiantly takes back his confession.

In answer to H a t h o r n e ’s question about confessing,

’'What say you, P r o c t o r ? ” J o h n ’s answer is "I want my life."

(Crucible IV.326-327). He does not say he is a witch.

Hathorne is so surprised, he asks, " Y o u ’ll confess

 33

y o u r s e l f ? ” but P r o c t o r ’s answer again is, "I will have my

life." (Crucible IV . 327). Proctor has made the decision to

confess, but he wants to do it in his own way. As the

scene continues, Proctor objects to every official activity

that occurs. Through each new objection, Miller reveals

that Proctor knows he was wrong to confess, and he balks as

his confession is made official. As Hathorne runs down the

hall calling the news, Proctor shouts, "Why do you cry it?"

(Crucible IV . 327). Hathorne soon returns with the others

and Cheever is appointed to take down the testimony. Again

Proctor is upset and says with "cold horror . . . Why must

it be w r i t t e n ? ” (Crucible I V . 328).

The next hitch in the proceedings occurs when Rebecca

Nurse enters. John is mo rti fi ed to be giving his

confession in front of Rebecca who will die rather than

confess. He adamantly refuses to say he saw her or anyone

else with the Devil. It is at this point that Proctor

mentions a very important issue for him: ”1 like not to

spoil their n a m e s . ” (Crucible IV. 329) This foreshadows

his refusal to spoil his own name later in the scene. It

becomes increasingly obvious how important "name" is to

Proctor.

Next, Hathorne wants Proctor to sign the confession.

Proctor tries twice to avoid signing it, saying that their

witnessing the document is enough. Realizing that he has

 34

no choice, Proctor signs the confession, but as Hathorne

reaches for it, Proctor grabs it, "and n o w a wild terror is

rising in h i m , and a boundless anger." (Crucible IV.330).

He is wild as he refuses to let them have the document.

One of his outbursts provides enlightening insight:

You will not use me! I am no Sarah Good or

Tituba, I am John Proctor! You will not use me!
It is no part of salvation that you should use
me! (Crucible I V.3 31)

Here is the echo of Joe ( " I ’m his fa th e r! ” ) and Willy ("I

am Willy L o m a n ! ” ). In these emotional pronouncements is

seen the importance of "name" to Miller. But one wonders

what "name” means to John Proctor.

Proctor continues in his angry, illogical outburst,

saying that the court may say anything they want about his

having signed, as long as no one sees his signature.

Naturally, Danforth questions this:

Danforth, with s u s p i c i o n : It is the same, is it

not? If I report it or you sign to it?

P r o c t o r — Ae knows it is insane: No, it is not

the same! What others say and what I sign to is
not the s a m e !

Danforth: Why? Do you mean to deny this

confession when you are free?

Proctor: I mean to deny nothing!

Danforth: Then explain to me, Mr. Proctor, why

you will not let--

Proctor, with a cr y of his whole s o u l : Because

it is my name! Because I cannot have another in
my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies!
Because I am not worth-the dust on the feet of
 35

them that hang! How may I live without my name?

I have given you my soul; leave me my name!
(Crucible IV.331-332 )

It seems inexplicable that Proctor will give them his

soul, but not his name. What is the difference? As

M i l l e r ’s description notes, "he knows it is insane."

Proctor realizes how irrational he is being, but what his

’’name" means to him seems to be something that he feels —

not something he has thought out and can articulate.

Whether or not Proctor can rationally explain how he feels,

it is obvious that the thought of his neighbors seeing his

signed confession finally causes him to realize he cannot

go through with it. Miller does not explain the difference

Proctor sees between having his confession reported and

having it seen. The playwright does, however, through the

sustained emotion of the scene, make clear how important

o n e ’s "n ame ,” or integrity, ought to be. As Ferres

explains, "To put it simply, Miller believes a man must be

true to himself and to his fellows, even though being

untrue may be the only way to stay alive."2S

Proctor tears up the confession and is led away to

die. Hale begs Elizabeth to plead with John. He offers

all the "practical" reasons. There is a parallel here

between H a l e ’s question "What profit him to bleed?"

(Crucible IV. 333) and Chris K e l l e r ’s question "Do I raise

the dead when I put him behind bars? Then w h a t ’ll I do it

 36

for?" (Sons III.87). For both Ann and Elizabeth there is

good reason, and Elizabeth's reply to Hale is "He have his

goodness now. God forbid I take it from h i m ! ” (Crucible

IV.333).

In The Crucible, Miller combines the themes from Sons

and Salesman. He examines John P r o c t o r ’s responsibility to

his community and to himself. Miller shows a man who

begins by ignoring his social commitment, but, once he

commits himself to preserving the welfare of others, he

understands that he must be just as committed to his own

integrity.

This intertwining of the commitment to society and to

oneself is the theme that evolves from M i l l e r ’s first three

successful plays. In M i l l e r ’s view, the two

responsibilities are inextricable. He begins exploring

this theme in All M y Sons, but only one part of the idea is

examined--the i n d i v i d u a l ’s responsibility to society. Joe

Keller is a man so committed to being a father that he

cannot see himself as a citizen. When a moral decision has

to be made, Joe chooses to sacrifice s o c i e t y ’s welfare in

order to preserve his f a m i l y ’s prosperity.

Miller presents a different side of the relationship

between society and the individual in Death of a Salesman.

In this play, society does not fulfill its responsibility

to the individual. Willy Loman believes wholeheartedly in

 37

the success myth, but then he is discarded by the system in

which he put so much faith. Willy is partly to blame

because his lack of self-knowledge allows him to accept

without question the myth of the American Dream, even

though he finds it impossible to be a success. Still,

Miller criticizes the callousness of a society that

promises glittering success, and then uses people up,

turning them away in the end with no reward for their

efforts.

The Crucible combines the themes in Sons and S a l e s m a n .

John Proctor betrays society like Joe Keller, but he is

destroyed by society in the end--the fate of Willy Loman.

Through this play, Miller shows that o n e ’s responsibility

to society is absolute and not to be side-stepped. Through

the witch trials, Miller portrays society at its worst--

shirking its responsibility to its citizens by descending

into a policy of persecution. His message is that a

society that betrays its members must be defied. Such

defiance is difficult, but it is the only way one can

preserve o n e ’s integrity.

Miller was fascinated by the relationship between the

individual and society. In his first three successful

plays, he kept returning to the subject to examine

different facets of the relationship. M i l l e r ’s plays offer

guidance for moral dilemmas of modern life. They show how

 38

Miller thinks individuals and society ought to relate to

each other in order for life to be better.

 Notes

1 Gerald Weales, "Arthur Miller's Shifting Image of

Man," in Arthu r M ill er A Collection of Critical E s s a y s , e d .
Robert W. Corrigan (Englewood Cliffs, N J : Pr e nt ic e- Ha l1,
1969), p. 132.

2 Herbert Blau, "The Whole Man and the Real Witch," in

Ar th u r Mil le r A Collection of Critical Essays, e d . Robert W.
Corrigan (Englewood Cliffs, N J : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969), p.
123.

3 Arthur Miller, "Introduction to the Collected Plays,"

in The Theatre Essays of A rt hur Miller, ed. Robert A.
Martin, (New York: Viking Press, 1978), p. 118.

4 Williams, p. 70.

5 Tom Driver, "Strength and Weakness in Arthur Miller,"

in A r t h u r M i l l e r A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Robert
W. Corrigan (Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall, 1969), p.
63.

6 Miller, "Introduction to the Collected Plays," p. 84.

7 Arvin R. Wells, "The Living and the Dead in All M y

Sons," in Critical Essays on A rth ur M i l l e r , ed. James J.
Martine (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1979), p. 6.

8 Wells, p. 5.

9 Paul Blumberg, "Work As Alienation In the Plays of

Arthur Miller," in Ar t h u r M il l e r New Perspectives, ed.
Robert A. Martin (Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall,
1982), p . 53.

10 Santosh K. Bhatia, Arth ur Miller Social Drama as

Tragedy (New Delhi: A r n o l d - H e i n e m a n n , 1985), p. 37.

11 Arthur Miller, All M y S o n s , in Arthur M i l l e r : Eight

Plays (Garden City, NY: Nelson Doubleday, Inc., 1981), Act
I, p. 34. All further references to this work appear in the
text.

12 Raymond Williams, "The Realism of Arthur Miller," in

Ar th u r Mil le r A Collection of Critical E s s a y s , e d . Robert W.
Corrigan (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 72.
 40

13 Benjamin Nelson, Ar th ur M il l e r . . . Portrait of a

Playwright (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970), p.
90.

14 Sheila Huftel, A r t h u r M i l l e r : The Burn ing Glass (New

York: The Citadel Press, 1965), p. 61.

15 Ronald Hayman, Ar th ur M il l e r (New York: Frederick

Unger Publishing Co., 1972), p. 3.

16 Thomas E. Porter, ’’Acres of Diamonds: Death o f a

Salesman, in Critical Essays on A rt h u r Miller, ed. James J.
Martine (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1979), p. 27.

17 Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman, in Arthur

Miller: Eight Plays (Garden City, NY: Nelson Doubleday,
Inc., 1981), Requiem, p. 207. All further references to
this work appear in the text.

18 P o r t e r , p . 31.

19 Porter, p. 37.

20 Arthur Miller, ’’Introduction to the Collected

P l a y s ,” p. 149.

21 Tom Driver, "Strength and Weakness in Arthur

Miller," in A r t h u r M i l l e r A Collection of Critical Essays,
ed. Robert W. Corrigan (Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-
Hall, 1969), p. 64.

22 Driver, pp. 64-65.

23 Arthur Miller, "On Social Plays," in The Theatre

Essays of A rth ur M i l l e r , ed. Robert A. Martin, (New York:
Viking Press, 1978), p. 59.

24 Sheila Huftel, Ar t h u r Miller: The Burning Glass (New

York: The Citadel Press, 1965), p. 120.

25 Henry Popkin, "Historical Analogy and The C r u c i b l e ,"

in Twentieth Cent ur y Interpretations of The C r u c i b l e , ed.
John H. Ferres (Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall, 1972),
p . 84.

26 Arthur Miller, The Crucible, in A r t h u r Miller: Eight

Plays (Garden City, NY: Nelson Doubleday, Inc., 1981), Act
I, p. 222. All further references to this work appear in
the text.
 41

27 John H. Ferres, "Introduction," in Twentieth Century

Interpretations of The Crucible, ed. John H. Ferres,
(Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 18.

2 8 F e r r e s , p . 8.
 Bibliography

Bhatia, Santosh K. Ar thur M il ler Social Drama as Traged y.

New Delhi: A r n o l d - H e i n e m a n n , 1985.

Blau, Herbert. "The Whole Man and the Real Witch." In

Ar th ur Mi ll e r A Collection of Critical Essays, Ed.
Robert W. Corrigan. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-
Hall, 1969, pp. 123-130.

Blumberg, Paul. "Work As Alienation In the Plays of Arthur

Miller." In A r thu r Mi lle r N e w Perspectives, Ed,
Robert A. Martin. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-
Hall, 1982, pp. 48-64.

Driver, Tom. "Strength and Weakness in Arthur Miller." In

A r t h u r M il l e r A Collection of Critical Essays, Ed.
Robert W. Corrigan. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-
Hall, 1969, pp. 59-67.

Ferres, John H. "Introduction," in Twentieth Century

Interpretations o f The Crucible, Ed. John H. Ferres.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972, pp. 1-19.

Miller, Arthur. All M y Sons, In his Ar th ur M i l l e r : Eight

Plays, Garden City, NY: Nelson Doubleday, Inc., 1981,
pp. 1-90.

The Crucible, In his A r t h u r Miller: Eight

Plays. Garden City, NY: Nelson Doubleday, Inc., 1981,
pp. 209-334.

Death of a Salesman. In his Arthur M i l l e r :

Eight Plays. Garden City, NY: Nelson Doubleday, Inc.,
1981, pp. 91-208.

"Introduction to the Collected Plays." In The

Theatre Essays of Art hu r Miller. Ed. Robert A.
Martin. New York: Viking Press, 1978, pp. 113-170.

Nelson, Benjamin. Ar th u r M il ler . . . Portrait of a

Playwright. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.,
1970).

Popkin, Henry. "Historical Analogy and The C r u c i b l e ." In

Twentieth Century Interpretations of The Crucible.
Ed. John H. Ferres. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-
Hall, 1972, pp. 77-85.
 43

Porter, Thomas E. "Acres of Diamonds: Death of a

S a l e s m a n ." In Critical Essays on A r t h u r M i l l e r . Ed.
James J. Martine. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1979,
pp. 24-43.

Wells, Arvin R. "The Living and the Dead in All M y S o n s ."

In Critical Es says on Ar t h u r Miller. Ed. James J.
Martine. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1979, pp. 46-51.

Williams, Raymond. "The Realism of Arthur Miller." In

Ar th ur M il l e r A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed.
Robert W. Corrigan. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-
Hall, 1969, pp. 69-79.
 VITA

Anna Kathryn Thompson

Born in Cairo, Illinois, January 6, 1954. Graduated

from St. Mary High School, Paducah, Kentucky in 1972, B.A.,

Universi ty of Mississippi, 1976. M.Ed. in Education,

Remedial Reading, University of Mississippi, 1977. In

August, 1980, the author entered the College of William and

Mary as an M.A. candidate in the Department of English.