Intolerance Under a Theocracy: A Response to Arthur Miller's The Crucible The theme of intolerance under a theocracy is a deep undercurrent

that runs through Arthur Miller's play entitled The Crucible. The play dramatizes the witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts which occurred in 1692. The play anchors its significance on a historical event though as it was pointed out to be an "allegory to McCarthyism" (Blakesley xv) which gripped America in the 1950's. It may be assumed that theocracy had already existed before it was even defined in written history. Theocracy as we know today could well have existed during the reign of priest-kings in the Sumerian civilization, the rule of god-kings in Egypt, the regime of divine emperors in other civilizations and until the Biblical times when the Israelites were welded together under the laws of Moses. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, Driscoll writes that "the earliest recorded use of the term theocracy is found in Josephus", a Jewish historian. Josephus used the term to expound on the structure of Jewish commonwealth which he traces to the Mosaic theocracy. It is thus curious to note that in Act Two of the play, one could find an implied link of the existing theocracy in Massachusetts to the theocratic society of Moses. The following excerpt will illustrate this point: HALE: Do you know your commandments, Elizabeth? ELIZABETH: (Without hesitation, simply, primly.) I surely do. There be no mark of blame upon my life, Mister Hale, I am a covenanted Christian woman. HALE: And you, Mister? PROCTOR: I am sure I do, sir. HALE: Let you repeat them, if you will.

It is worth mentioning that the Ten Commandments which the Reverend John Hale had the Proctor couple recited, are the core tenets of the Mosaic laws. The excerpt amply suggests Hale's role in the theocratic establishment as an authority in checking the compliance of citizens to the dogmas that must be observed. And non-compliance to the dogmas could expose the citizens to persecution as shown in the play through John Proctor's case. To put the play into proper context, it is necessary to go back to the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 2004, Fray writes about how theocracy arrived in America on the Mayflower which through "Pilgrims and Puritans" who fled persecution from England's theocracy represented by the Anglican Church. And what Fray finds ironic is the fact that while those "Pilgrims and Puritans" fled from theocracy, they established one when they have settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This is the same colony where Salem, the setting of Miller's play, is located. Now, theocracy being rooted in the idea of a government ordained by God, seeks religious purity. It is associated with the notion of producing pure and incorruptible individuals. And this notion is taken zealously by theocratic authorities who would often invoke God in a bid to implement their interpretation of the divine plan. In Act One, this is shown by Hale's plea to Tituba: HALE: Take courage, you must give us all their names. How can you bear to see these children suffering? Look at them, Tituba - look at their God-given innocence; their souls are so tender; we must protect them, Tituba; the devil is out and preying on them like a beast upon the flesh of the pure lambGod will bless you for your help

The zeal of theocratic authorities is not without effective influence to ordinary citizens. In Act Two, this could be gleaned from Mary Warren's reply to John Proctor when the latter commanded her to stop attending the court sessions. Warren was defiant and was "amazed" at how Proctor could fail to see "the weighty work" that the court (of which Warren was a member) does. Now, it is therefore ironic that out of this zeal, the perverse passion of intolerance seamlessly attaches itself. In Moses' theocratic society, those who violate the laws would literally risk their lives as death is a common penalty to deviant or "corrupt" practices. Theocracy would not tolerate deviation from the dogmas. And it is here where intolerance comes into full play. Yes, it is astonishing that theocracy's zeal for purity is the backdoor by which corruption could enter. It is because this zeal for purity is coupled with intolerance. Intolerance raises the specter of subversion as shown by Hathorne's insistence that John Proctor is out to overthrow the court. That this could engender paranoia is not unknown to some unscrupulous individuals. The case of Abigail Williams, a major protagonist in the play, suggests this. Her manipulative nature could be seen throughout the trials. Moreover, the case of the Putnam couple is almost in the same vein as Williams's. They were all motivated by their selfish interests and they saw how the witch hunts would benefit them. So instead of producing pure and incorruptible citizens, theocracy in Miller's play achieved the opposite. It bred the vengeful and manipulative Abigail Williams, the dishonest and disloyal Mary Warren, the covetous and envious Putnam couple, the sadistic Judge John Hathorne and the pompous Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth. Miller's The Crucible implies that in a theocracy, the extermination of those who were deemed incorruptible could even happen as illustrated by the case of Rebecca Nurse. And this highlighted the strong link between intolerance and theocracy. Intolerance rings loud in Danforth's

almost maniacal pride of having made people suffer and hanged. To show this, it is necessary to quote at length an excerpt from Act Three: DANFORTH: Peace, Judge Hathorne. Do you know who I am, Mister Nurse? NURSE: I surely do, sir, and I think you must be a wise judge to be what you are. DANFORTH: (Deliberately.) And do you know that near to four hundred are in the jails from Marblehead to Lynn, and upon my signature? NURSE: I DANFORTH: And seventy-two condemned to hang by that signature? Intolerance is further underscored by Danforth's pronouncement, as he spoke to Mr. Nurse, that "a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it; there be no road between". It is sad to observe that Danforth's words still resound in the contemporary times. Intolerance under a theocracy still manifests under what we come to know as religious fundamentalism. This inspired the rise of extremists from both major and minor religions in the world. This phenomenon has even become an object of studies that documented and explored the link between religion and violence. Incidents of violence caused by religious intolerance were well documented in the 2008 Hate Crimes Survey of the Human Rights First (a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in Washington D.C. and New York). A section of the report, aptly entitled Violence Based on Religious Intolerance, listed a number of specific cases that showed the continuing existence of religious intolerance in our time. On the other hand, one notable study that probed the link between religion and violence is Mark Juergensmeyer's Terror in the Mind of God. The following excerpt would show some of Juergensmeyer's points:

In this book it will become clear that, at least in some cases, religion does make a difference. Some of these differences are readily apparentthe transcendent moralism with which such acts are justified, for instance, and the ritual intensity with which they are committed. Other differences are more profound and go to the very heart of religion. The familiar religious images of struggle and transformationconcepts of cosmic warhave been employed in this-worldly social struggles. When these cosmic battles are conceived as occurring on the human plane, they result in real acts of violence. This leads to yet another question: when religion justifies violence, is it simply being used for political purposes? This question is not as simple as it may first appear. It is complicated largely because of the renewed role that religion plays in various parts of the world s an ideology of public orderespecially in movements of religious nationalismin which religious and political ideologies are intertwined. As the cases in this book will show, religion is not innocent. But it does not ordinarily lead to violence. That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstancespolitical, social, and ideologicalwhen religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change. (10) Juergensmeyer's question regarding the political use of religion's justification of violence is instructive in seeing the dual face of theocracy in Act Four of Miller's play. Hale represents the face of tolerance while Danforth epitomizes that of intolerance. But while Hale struggles to assert tolerance, he is not without blame. He is after all at the very beginning of the witch hunts. He could well be the redeeming image of theocracy in the play but he failed. His effort for toleration is not at

all motivated by a sincere desire to rectify but to help preserve the theocratic establishment. On the other hand, Danforth is dogmatically intolerant even before an imminent rebellion. This ugly face of intolerance somehow triumphed at the end of the play. Although foreshadowing elements, like the dagger in Rev. Parris's doorstep and the rumors of rebellion, hint that the theocratic establishment would soon be overthrown (as suggested by the rumor of the Andover incident). In conclusion, intolerance under a theocracy is a continuing reality that threatens not just the civil liberties of citizens but their lives as well. One can find a little comfort however, in the idea (as implied in Act Four) that intolerance can also lead to the possible overthrow of the theocratic establishment.

Works Cited Blakesley, Maureen. "The language of the play". The Crucible, a play in four acts. Oxford: Heinemann, 1992. Print. Driscoll, James F. "Theocracy." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert

Appleton Company, 1912. 27 Apr. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14568a.htm>. Fray, Harold R. Theocracy in America: Its History and Present Danger. 2004. Web. 27 April 2010 <http://www.arockinmyshoe.com/theocracy.html>. Human Rights First. 2008 Hate Crimes Survey. 2008. Web 25 April 2010. <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org >. Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. London: U of California P, 2001.Print. Miller, Arthur. The Crucible (Penguin Classics). London: Penguin Classics, 2003.