How is The Crucible “morality” play? Well, to answer that question, you must know what The Crucible and a morality play is. Morality plays have a main character who represents either humanity as a whole or social structure of humanity. They show the dilemmas faced by the average person trying to lead a moral life. The characters are often abstractions that represent qualities of human nature.
The Crucible is a play depicting the Salem Witch trials in 1692. It describes the town of Salem, Massachusetts and its inhabitants experience the trial that unfolds. The Crucible is considered a morality play due to the fact that it was written to highlight the differences between good and evil. One way it is depicted to us is Abigail, Proctor, and Parris represent evil and Giles, Proctor and Rebecca Nurse representing evil towards the end.
Another example is when John calls out Francis Nurse to be too good a man to fail to be shocked at John’s adultery (upon it being confessed) and, in the same way, Elizabeth is corrupted for her loyalty to her husband, as she lies to court on the assumption that her husband had done the same. This is connected to the thesis because Proctor trying to be good and tell the truth, but Elizabeth lied to save her husband’s name. This is a perfect example of how good and evil because they were both present and created conflict. “It is a prostitute’s retribution!”, shouts Proctor in urgency at this situation and with no place else to go however to his transgression. In any case, here retribution, as confirm in the principal Act, was incited by various different things.
Possibly the primary “sin” was one of Reverend Parris’s, in his distorted snooping on the little youngsters (counting his girl and niece), and that the streaming/synchronous “fiendish” demonstrations of the young ladies moving bare without a doubt a reactionary resistance to their puritan childhoods and their conjuring the fallen angel to usurp the exacting principles their troublesome society constrained upon them were likewise usable. Without a doubt, it is then through Tituba’s cross examination by Reverend Hale in the main Act that she thinks up a fiction (by blaming others) to spare her own stow away. Abigail, after seeing the adequacy of such a pass-the-bundle round of laying the finger, endeavors to utilize this weapon for her very own end: to move on Elizabeth Proctor’s grave. It is along these lines toward the part of the bargain Act where the methods are set in Abigail’s grasp to make plans to get her own particular manner.
The Putnams, as well, exploit this accusatory weapon where those doing the denouncing are apparently free from doubt, with all the circularity such a suggestion involves. Sound, particularly, changes his perspectives contrarily to the general public he has happened upon: as the allegorical pot warms up with charge and counter-charge, with acceleration and its expanded expense of move down, Hale progressively understands the franticness he has been employable in achieving. He is a genuine token of Christianity in the play, in any event in how the crowd will pardon him for his prior offenses. In the meantime, Danforth, Hawthorne and Parris when looked with the patent truth that the young ladies, Abigail and her band of cheats, have been only sustaining a “misrepresentation” progressively acknowledge what is in question, thus tot up the expanding costs, with consistently passing and each name transferred ownership of to death, with a watchfulness that when one sets off down this way one can never turn back.