Comfort Cube
12-20-2014, 04:18 PM
I'm trying to understand each and every single sentence and word in the play "The Crucible". It gives me a real feel of the literature. Anyways, in the introduction, when Arthur Miller is explaining the setting and background of Salem and the Trials, there's this:
"This predilection for minding other people's business was time-honored among the people of Salem, and it undoubtedly created many of the suspicions which were to feed the coming madness. It was also, in my opinion, one of the things that a John Proctor would rebel against, for the time of the armed camp had almost passed, and since the country was reasonably--although not wholly--safe, the old disciplines were beginning to rankle."
The italics part is what I'm not clear about. Is Miller trying to say that the previous "time of the armed camp" - as in because they moved away from Britain to North America and that brought with it a militant atmosphere - was the reason for the "predilection" and now that the "time" had almost passed, some would no longer see any reason to have this "predilection" and would in fact find it negative and rebel against it? And that in turn would set forth the two sides of the play? Or, am I getting it wrong?
"This predilection for minding other people's business was time-honored among the people of Salem, and it undoubtedly created many of the suspicions which were to feed the coming madness. It was also, in my opinion, one of the things that a John Proctor would rebel against, for the time of the armed camp had almost passed, and since the country was reasonably--although not wholly--safe, the old disciplines were beginning to rankle."
The italics part is what I'm not clear about. Is Miller trying to say that the previous "time of the armed camp" - as in because they moved away from Britain to North America and that brought with it a militant atmosphere - was the reason for the "predilection" and now that the "time" had almost passed, some would no longer see any reason to have this "predilection" and would in fact find it negative and rebel against it? And that in turn would set forth the two sides of the play? Or, am I getting it wrong?