Honor represents the personality of individuals. Honor varies from person to person it can vary from being a simple piece of morality or it can be a set of rules that guides every action. In the Crucible, the town of Salem abandons all compassion that they once held for their fellow Salemites. In a time of persecution an individual only has one true belonging to defend them, their honor. Throughout the trials time and time again the honor of the townspeople is put to the test. John Proctor, a farmer who lives at the outskirts of town, is at the mercy of the judges and the “legal system” that they uphold. John Proctor upheld his honor throughout the trial. When it met its final test John was forced to decide which he valued more, his honor or
…show more content…
The judges however, do not hold the same standards of morality that Proctor holds. The judges do not see the accused as people they see them as constituents of their trials and treat them closer to inanimate objects than people. The judges seem to harbor bias against the convicted and clearly believe the word of the accuser. In their courtroom one does not use evidence, for one merely needs to accuse another person of being guilty. “‘What say you? If it is a lie I will not accept it! What say you? I will not deal in lies’,”(Miller 212). Miller depicts the judges as men who believe they are morally right. The irony is apparent in Danforth’s statement as he claims to not support lies, but his entire trial is based on dishonesty. Although John Proctor admitted to lying his honor does not put innocent people on the gallows as does the judge’s. In the Crucible John Proctor is the epitome of a falsely convicted man. He represents convicted individuals with his inability to surrender his honor in order to avoid the gallows. John’s sacrifice gives his sons a understanding of the importance of honesty. Although John cheated on his wife he spares her from further dishonesty with his confession of his wrongdoings. Proctor’s morality out matches that of the judges as he sacrifices himself for the truth. The judges in the Crucible are a representation of the ultimate test a man’s honor must
The judges however, do not hold the same standards of morality that Proctor holds. The judges do not see the accused as people they see them as constituents of their trials and treat them closer to inanimate objects than people. The judges seem to harbor bias against the convicted and clearly believe the word of the accuser. In their courtroom one does not use evidence, for one merely needs to accuse another person of being guilty. “‘What say you? If it is a lie I will not accept it! What say you? I will not deal in lies’,”(Miller 212). Miller depicts the judges as men who believe they are morally right. The irony is apparent in Danforth’s statement as he claims to not support lies, but his entire trial is based on dishonesty. Although John Proctor admitted to lying his honor does not put innocent people on the gallows as does the judge’s. In the Crucible John Proctor is the epitome of a falsely convicted man. He represents convicted individuals with his inability to surrender his honor in order to avoid the gallows. John’s sacrifice gives his sons a understanding of the importance of honesty. Although John cheated on his wife he spares her from further dishonesty with his confession of his wrongdoings. Proctor’s morality out matches that of the judges as he sacrifices himself for the truth. The judges in the Crucible are a representation of the ultimate test a man’s honor must