The Crucible ActII Reading Questions

1)  How is legal imagery (that of a courtroom) used to examine guilt and judgment (on page 52)?

"Judge me not" is a term that we see used often on page 52 of The Crucible.  We also hear the Proctor say: "I'll plead my honesty no more, Elizabeth."  These two terms bring me back to a courtroom setting, as well as the fact that there seems to be an interrogation of the Proctor going on, even though Elizabeth insists that she does not judge him.  This "legal imagery" seems to set up the opportunity for the reader to be exposed more deeply to the characters.  We, as readers, get to see who is feeling the guilt and scrutiny.  We also can see some more background on the characters (e.g. the type of relationship between this couple).


2)  Who does Elizabeth think accused her of witchcraft?

Elizabeth thinks that Abigail has accused her of witchcraft so that she could supposedly have her killed and she could take her spot with the Proctor (pg 58).  When Elizabeth asks him to talk to her, this only causes his temper to rise even higher.


3)  Who has officially been accused of killing Mrs. Putnam's children?  How is this women "proven" guilty?

I believe it is Rebecca Nurse that has been officially accused of killing Mrs. Putnam's children, since she helped give birth to the babies, who soon after died.  Francis Nurse receives the information that his wife has not only been accused, but also put in jail for this accusation.


4)  What does Proctor have to say about the accusers (pg. 73)? What has he just done as a sign of his faltering faith in his neighbors?

At this point, Proctor has simply lost it with having so many accusations being flung around (including those against his own wife).  He demands that these men get out of his residence.  When they linger around, Proctor even snatches the warrant for his wife and rips it up.  He even asks this question: "Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God's fingers?" This was the man who was always asking for the proof of an accusation, and usually the same man who never got satisfactory evidence for conviction.  And these questions that he asks the accusers establishes a good point in favor of his beliefs.