Rising Action In The Crucible

Over the course of history, the structure of a play has continually evolved. Aristotle, renowned Greek philosopher, first introduced the three-act structure which consisted of a beginning, middle, and end. This was further expanded by Aelius Donatus, who named the three divisions protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe. As time has passed, this structure of a drama has been largely replaced by the five-act structure but can still be found in use today. The five-act structure, utilized by numerous famous playwrights including Shakespeare, is compromised of five key components an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement. The Crucible, a play written by Arthur Miller, does not follow the traditional five-act structure as it is composed of only four acts; however, despite having a fewer number of acts it still contains the same five …show more content…
In a play with five acts, Act IV would encompass the falling action, whereas in The Crucible the falling action is split between Act III and Act IV. The portion of the falling action in Act III focuses on how the court officials genuinely refuse to believe Proctor’s claims of lechery because admitting Abigail lied means they are guilt of the wrongfully persecution of Salem citizens; therefore, Proctor himself is condemned. The falling action in Act IV is centered around attempts to receive a confession of witchcraft from Proctor. This part of the plot tries to bring the hangings of those who refuse to admit they are a witch to a close. The turmoil Proctor experiences as he analyzes the value of his reputation and life in order to choose one is an essential aspect of the falling action; briefly he is willing to sacrifice his name, to corrupt his soul in order to live. It is this event that will allow the story to end in the