Opposing Perspectives On Salem Essay, Research Paper

Arthur Miller s The Crucible and Cotton Mather s Wonders of the Invisible World both involve the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692. However, the two pieces are very different. Miller focuses on the emotional tragedies and chaos that resulted from the Salem witch trials and compares the trials to the House Un-American Activities Committee, whereas Mather uses objective court proceedings to inform and entertain his readers.

The tone and style of these two pieces contrast dramatically. The Crucible is critical of the witch trials (and indirectly, the HUAC) because of their poor logic and the resulting panic. Mather, on the other hand, begins his work by saying that he supports the trials and considers them necessary. The tone of the play s dialogue, which reflects the characters emotions, is passionately upset and sad. Conversely, the tone of the main part of Wonders of the Invisible World is objective and unbiased; Mather simply records testimony without adding any opinion or emotion.

The difference in intended audience and meaning accounts for these contrasting tones and styles. Miller wrote The Crucible to compare the HUAC, part of his audience s lives, to one of the past s great errors. He wanted to send his 1950 s audience the message that the HUAC was as illogical and harmful as the Salem witch trials were. Mather s goal was entirely different; he wanted to entertain readers from the late 17th century by telling them what happened during one of the trials. He wrote so that his readers would know exactly what went on in the courtroom, because he knew that s what they wanted to read.

He wrote what the people wanted to read, while Miller wrote what he wanted the people to hear. By telling a story about the witch trials, Miller exposed the ignorance that led up to them and the extensive damage they caused. Doing this put the HUAC in a new light for his audience. Inversely, Mather was hardly more than a court reporter, recording testimony from one of the trials for the public. Clearly, these two men used different means to achieve different ends.