In their plays The Crucible and Rhinoceros, both Arthur Miller and Eugene Ionesco use political allegory to represent hidden meaning. Through the presentation of abstract ideas, characterization and the narrative structure of both plays, these particular political dramatists are able to successfully comment on, and thus expose the issues of their respective times in an impressively inventive manner. In both instances, the plays come to form a reaction against one government or another. In Miller’s The Crucible, McCarthyism is the main allegorical focal point, where as Ionesco’s Rhinoceros deals with the Nazis occupation of France in World War II, as well as perhaps alluding to some aspects of the extremist right- wing group that originated
…show more content…
Danner proceeds to explain how he feels one should instead look to Ionesco’s play in dualistic terms on the basis of good versus evil, a theme similarly explored in Miller’s The Crucible. However perhaps a more apt interpretation of the dualistic forces at play in Rhinoceros may be found in the notion of nature versus humanity. An example of this interaction is revealed in the significance of the Housewife’s pet cat. The opening stage directions of the play direct that “when the curtain rises, a woman carrying a basket of provisions under one arm and a cat under the other crosses the stage in silence” (Ionesco 9). Here, through clear instruction, Miller intends to firstly present his audience with an image of domesticity symbolized by the cat, a token of modern humanity’s presumed control of the natural world. Significantly, the cat becomes the first unfortunate victim of the rhinoceros’ rampage through the streets- “the Housewife appears without her basket but holding the blood-stained corpse of her cat in her arms” (Ionesco 34). Here, Ionesco presents a powerful and prophetic image to his audience, as the play’s previous symbol of humanity’s control over nature is destroyed. Thus, this can be read as an allegory for the dangers of compliance to ruthless dictatorships that manipulate the masses allowing them to grow into a destructive force capable of abolishing the high principles that once governed
Danner proceeds to explain how he feels one should instead look to Ionesco’s play in dualistic terms on the basis of good versus evil, a theme similarly explored in Miller’s The Crucible. However perhaps a more apt interpretation of the dualistic forces at play in Rhinoceros may be found in the notion of nature versus humanity. An example of this interaction is revealed in the significance of the Housewife’s pet cat. The opening stage directions of the play direct that “when the curtain rises, a woman carrying a basket of provisions under one arm and a cat under the other crosses the stage in silence” (Ionesco 9). Here, through clear instruction, Miller intends to firstly present his audience with an image of domesticity symbolized by the cat, a token of modern humanity’s presumed control of the natural world. Significantly, the cat becomes the first unfortunate victim of the rhinoceros’ rampage through the streets- “the Housewife appears without her basket but holding the blood-stained corpse of her cat in her arms” (Ionesco 34). Here, Ionesco presents a powerful and prophetic image to his audience, as the play’s previous symbol of humanity’s control over nature is destroyed. Thus, this can be read as an allegory for the dangers of compliance to ruthless dictatorships that manipulate the masses allowing them to grow into a destructive force capable of abolishing the high principles that once governed