“I speak my own sins”: Revenge in Four Twentieth-Century American PlaysLeitura em 15 minutos

Over the centuries, women have often suffered for being what they are: women. Condemned as a symbols of disobedience, sin, and damnation—from Lilith, Eva, or Pandora until the “fearful” witches—they were socially conditioned to live subservient lives: they had to be perfect wives and mothers, obedient to their fathers and husbands, negating their desires, dreams, and personalities. Some of these women, however, would grow weary of deferring to men, and rebel. When such women exact their revenge, they demonstrate that they are not weak, easily controlled puppets. This essay intends to analyze the theme of vengeance and the cycle of hatred in four twentieth-century American plays: Trifles (1916), Machinal (1926), The Children’s Hour (1947), and The Crucible (1953).

Before analyzing each play, it is crucial to discuss the relationship between women and the theatre. According to Friedman (1984), prior to the twentieth century women were often excluded from the theatre industry. Women could only get their plays staged either if they had friends or relatives with ties to the theatrical scene, or if they had means to secure financial support. The difficulties women faced in the theatre helped inspire a number of authors who sought to denounce the different abuses women suffered at the time.

Because women playwrights have chosen to work in a form which is intrinsically public and therefore restrictive to women, it is not surprising that the experience of woman as outsider, devalued, objectified and often subservient is a recurrent theme in women’s drama. Indeed, it may be a response to exclusion, a protest to an imposed silence, an expression of the need to create new lives, public lives that underlie the playwrights’ depiction of women’s experience. These concerns constitute feminist themes in that they portray the social and psychological restrictions placed upon women in a male dominant society, as well as the attitudes and values of women who confront these restrictions. (FRIEDMAN, 1984, p. 69-70)

Each of the plays that will be analyzed in this essay touches upon the experiences that women dealt with in their daily lives under the authority of the patriarchy. However, playwrights of the twentieth century went beyond denouncing the neglect and violence suffered by women; they portrayed those women as figures who could take revenge and even kill. Ben-Zvi (1992) analyzes this new role of women in American plays:

Women killing somebody else, especially when that somebody is male, has fascinated criminologists, lawyers, psychologists, and writers. Fascinated and frightened them. […] Women who kill evoke fear because they challenge societal constructs of femininity-passivity, restraint, and nurture; thus the rush to isolate and label the female offender, to cauterize the act. Her behavior must be aberrant, or crazed, if it is to be explicable. And explicable it must be; her crime cannot be seen as societally-driven if the cultural stereotypes are to remain unchallenged. (BEN-ZVI, 1992, p. 141)

Yet, in the vast majority of the plays, women kill not because they are murderers, but rather because society has already slain a part of them. Some of the factors that drove women characters turn to killing will be addressed at in the discussion that follows.

Trifles (1916), by Susan Glaspell

Trifles was written by Susan Glaspell in 1916. According to Ben-Zvi (1992), Glaspell based her play on a real-life incident that occurred in 1900: the murder of John Hossack, a 60-year-old farmer from Iowa. Glaspell was a reporter for an Iowan newspaper at the time. Although the play is based on a true story, there are significant deviations that make the female character in Glaspell’s work more striking. In contrast to Mrs. Hossack, who shared a home with her children and dog, the alleged killer, Mrs. Wright, is a childless farmer’s wife who lives alone with her husband and only has a canary as a pet. Mrs. Wright lacks any potential accomplices, witnesses, or an alibi. Therefore, the only two people who provide the audience with any knowledge of the case are Mrs. Hale, the Wrights’ next-door neighbor, and Mrs. Petters, the wife of the sheriff. While the male characters are inspecting the other rooms in the house, the two women are the ones who find evidence regarding the incident. Although Mrs. Wright’s involvement in her husband’s murder is apparent, the connection between it and the canary’s death is uncertain.

MRS. HALE. Here’s some red. I expect this has got sewing things in it (Brings out a fancy box.) What a pretty box. Looks like something somebody would give you. Maybe her scissors are in here. (Opens box. Suddenly puts her hand to her nose.) Why— (Mrs. Peters bends nearer, then turns her face away.) There’s something wrapped up in this piece of silk.

MRS. PETERS. Why, this isn’t her scissors.

MRS. HALE (lifting the silk.) Oh, Mrs. Peters—it’s— (Mrs. Peters bend closer.)

MRS. PETERS. It’s the bird.

MRS. HALE (jumping up.) But, Mrs. Peters—look at it. Its neck! Look at its neck! It’s all—other side to.

MRS. PETERS. Somebody—wrung—its neck.

(Their eyes meet. A look of growing comprehension of horror. Steps are heard outside. Mrs. Hale slips box under quilt pieces, and sinks into her chair. Enter Sheriff and County Attorney. Mrs. Peters rises.)

COUNTY ATTORNEY (as one turning from serious things to little pleasantries). Well, ladies, have you decided whether she was going to quilt it or knot it?

MRS. PETERS. We think she was going to—knot it.

COUNTY ATTORNEY. Well, that’s interesting, I’m sure. (Seeing the birdcage.) Has the bird flown?

MRS. HALE (putting more quilt pieces over the box.) We think the—cat got it.

(GLASPELL, 1916, p. 8)

There are two possible responses to the query: either Mrs. Wright killed the bird herself while preparing to assassinate her husband, or Mr. Wright killed his wife’s pet and that served as the catalyst for her seeking revenge on him.

Regardless of which account is true, there is no doubt that the intention behind the murder was to take revenge on Mr. Wright. The spectators learn about Minnie Foster’s changes and unhappiness during Mrs. Petters and Mrs. Hale’s conversation in the kitchen. The town girl who used to sing in the church choir turned into a silenced wife who was relegated to taking care of the house and her husband, while having no friends or hobbies other than knitting. Despite their suspicions that Mrs. Wright was guilty, the two women decide to redo the odd ending stitches of the knitting, to destroy the evidence, and to keep information from the male characters. Perhaps this was done not only to protect Minnie Foster, but also because the women knew the men would not believe them. After all, how could two housewives solve a case if men couldn’t? Women would have no say in a public matter. In other words, women were not regarded as reliable sources.

Machinal (1926), by Sophie Treadwell

In Machinal (1926), by Sophie Treadwell, the idea of a wife killing her husband is brought up once again. However, Helen’s biggest issue is not marriage; it is society as a whole. The main character is a young lady who struggles with the expectations placed upon her by gender constructs, including the need to marry early, be a good wife, have children, be a responsible mother, and yet care for her own mother. Her life and her responsibilities are compared to machines that never stop. Because of her oppressive routine, Helen struggles to be herself:

For Treadwell the institutions of work, home, marriage, maternity, motherhood, and even seeking gratification, in the modern world, are all mechanical. Everything around the young heroine is machinal, that is “machine-like” as Treadwell explained in her letter of 1955 to the director Philip S. Goodman (MS 124; Box 11). What we witness is a young woman caught in a “life machine,” as the play was re-titled for the London premiere in 1931. And this “life machine” not only destroys creativity, but more importantly, destroys the life of the young heroine. (WEISS, 2006, p. 6)

As Weiss (2016) points out in her article, Helen’s anxiety reflects the modern world’s oppression of women. Helen has also endured physical pain, but she receives no care as the other characters do not take her feelings into consideration. The only time Helen acted on what she truly desired was when she was with her lover, and her subsequent choices were greatly influenced by this connection. When the strain on her marriage becomes too much for Helen to bear, she kills her husband by smashing his head; the same way her lover had attacked someone before. This act of desperation can be understood as retaliation against the constraints placed upon her, as a woman, than an act of violence towards her neglectful husband. However, Helen’s act of rebellion was not enough to set her free. Betrayed in court by her lover, she is sentenced to death by electric chair. In the moments before her execution, she refuses to comply in the jail, seeking to have one last moment of control over her own life. A priest accuses Helen of not knowing God when she says that her life has been a living misery. Finally, when the guards cut a patch of her hair, there is a sense that they are taking away the only things she still possessed—including her dignity—, as well as the final words she wanted to say to her before being taken to her death. This is how Treadwell’s play concludes, leaving the audience with a bitter taste in their mouths as they are likely to sympathize with the protagonist’s sense of impotence from her birth to the time of her death.

The Children’s Hour (1934), by Lillian Hellman

Over time, American playwrights portraying women began to explore topics beyond marriage and motherhood. In The Children’s Hour, vengeance is explored to highlight various social issues, such as the power disparity between women from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and female homosexuality. Karen, one of the main protagonists, is an independent lady who enjoys her job and loves her fiancé. In fact, one could argue that it is Mary, one of her classmates, is to blame for the start of her troubles when they experience what Armato (1973) refers to as “victim-victimizer syndrome”:

In the first two acts of her play, Hellman develops three relationships which are characterized by the circular form and destructive content of the victim-victimizer syndrome; these pairs are: Karen Wright-Mary Tilford, Martha Dobie-Lily Mortar, and Amelia Tilford-Wright/Dobie. In The Merchant, a Jew who is socially inferior to a Christian is mistreated by the Christian and attempts to use the Duke-the land’s highest authority-as a vehicle for his revenge. In The Children’s Hour, an adolescent pupil who is socially inferior to an adult teacher is mistreated by the teacher and proceeds to use Lancet’s most influential citizen-the powerful matron Amelia Tilford-as a vehicle for her revenge. Finally, in the much criticized third act, Hellman, like Shakespeare, posits mercy as the only solution to the moral dilemma which is created when we deal justly with each other. (ARMATO, 1973, p. 444)

When Mary takes revenge on Karen, the power balance is reversed in the play. Initially, Karen, as a teacher and one of the school’s owners, apparently holds complete authority over Mary. However, Mary seizes an opportunity to turn the tables and get revenge. She overhears a conversation between Martha, one of her teachers, and her aunt, Mrs. Mortar, which hints at Martha’s homosexuality. Aware of the prevailing societal views that deemed homosexuality scandalous and sinful, Mary capitalizes on this information to manipulate the situation. Exploiting her grandmother’s deeply ingrained moral beliefs, Mary weaves a fabricated tale. She convinces Amelia that Karen and Martha deserve severe punishment, as they were engaged in a secret affair. Amelia, driven by a sense of moral duty, believes the story and takes it upon herself to expose the alleged transgressions. Amelia’s social status and influence end up ruining the two women’s reputations, leaving Karen and Martha defenseless against the accusations.

As rumors spread, Karen’s business crumbles, and her relationship with her fiancé disintegrates. Tragically, Martha, unable to bear the immense suffering inflicted upon her, succumbs to despair and dies by suicide. Thus, Mary’s act of revenge not only changes the balance of power but also sets in motion a chain of events that unleashes devastating consequences upon Karen and Martha, forever altering the course of their lives. In that way, in contrast with the previous playwrights, where revenge served as a kind of self-defense, in The Children’s Hour, revenge appears as a weapon to satisfy selfish ambitions.

The Crucible (1953), by Arthur Miller

In The Crucible vengeance is also sought for reasons unconnected to marriage and motherhood. In fact, it is desire and obsession that lead a young girl called Abigail to take cruel revenge on her enemies and turn the city into chaos. Abigail Adams, the antagonist in the play, engaged in a forbidden affair with John Proctor, a married man for whom she worked and ultimately fell in love with. When John’s wife, Elizabeth, discovered their relationship, she promptly dismissed Abigail, tarnishing her reputation in the community. Determined to seek revenge and regain John’s affection, Abigail, accompanied by Tituba, a girl enslaved by Reverend Parris, and a group of girls, ventures into the forest to perform a ritual to kill Elizabeth Proctor. In the forest, the girls engage in singing and dancing while completely naked, a scene witnessed by observers. The following day, one of the girls, Betty, falls mysteriously ill, sparking widespread speculation on her condition. Under intense questioning by Parris and Hale, Tituba confesses to conjuring up evil spirits, driven by the fear of being mercilessly whipped to death. The practice of witchcraft is also admitted by Betty and Abigail. Abigail, who is visibly torn between love and hate, views the Salem witch trials as the ideal setting to exact revenge on Elizabeth and reconcile with John Proctor. According to Ali (2012):

Abigail Williams is the antagonist in The Crucible who brings about the main themes in the play. She is a whore who wants to destroy John and Elizabeth Proctor’s happy family. She has an affair with Proctor and she wants to take Elizabeth’s place in Proctor’s life. She tries to use “witchcraft” to get rid of Elizabeth, so she can be with Proctor. All of the vengeful ideas in Abigail’s mind come about as a result of her painful childhood.

The significance of the extramarital relationship of Proctor and Abigail is the source of the tragedy in the play. Abigail regards the immoral love with Proctor as the most important part of her life. She has never experienced the joy of love, even from her parents or any other family members. Her parents were killed in front of her and Reverend Parris, her uncle, did not care a lot about her. Proctor is the first person she truly loves. Thus, she will pay any price to strive for Proctor to be hers. (ALI, 2012, p. 173)

As a result, Abigail and Betty embark on accusing almost all the women in town of working for the devil. Tragically, Elizabeth is among the many innocent people who are detained as the entire city devolves into chaos. However, Abigail’s plans take an unexpected turn, forcing her to flee by the play’s end. Abigail had imagined Elizabeth would be executed, thus clearing the path for her to be with Proctor. Yet, reality unfolds differently. Not only does Proctor begin to despise her, but he also meets his tragic fate on the gallows. The revengeful girl is compelled to leave her hometown and embark on a new life in an unfamiliar place, carrying the guilt and pain of killing her lover and other innocent people throughout her entire lifetime. These outcomes seem to be a consequence of Abigail’s caprices, which are also the cause of her own personal downfall. In that way, we could argue that Miller depicts revenge as a source of massive destruction in human life.

Ultimately, vengeance and the cycle of hatred appear as common themes in twentieth-century American plays. Under different circumstances women end up taking revenge on their enemies and revolting against social conventions. Trifles (1916), Machinal (1926), The Children’s Hour (1947) and The Crucible (1953) are good examples of works in which readers can experience women’s suffering and its destructive results. While revenge appears as a socially damaging practice, the protagonists in the plays we discussed here pursue it nonetheless, whether to defend themselves from oppression, or to achieve personal goals. In the ever-present unbalance between personal desire and collective good, those works can be read as dramatic investigations of human nature under distress.

REFERENCES

ALI, Basma Abdul Hassan. Revenge in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. د / الاداب كلية مج, p. 165-177. Disponível em: https://iasj.net/iasj/download/4884a71bc90a451c. Acesso em 02 de Julho de 2023.

ARMATO, Philip. M. “Good and Evil” in Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour. Educational Theatre Journal, v. 25, nº 4, p. 443-447. December, 1973.

BEN-ZVI, Linda. “Murder, She Wrote”: The Genesis of Susan Glaspell’s Trifles. Theatre Journal, v. 44, nº 2 American Scenes, p. 141-162. May, 1992.

FRIEDMAN, Sharon. Feminism as Theme in Twentieth-Century American Women’s Drama. American Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, 1984, pp. 69–89. JSTOR. Disponível em: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40641831. Accessed 2 July 2023. Acesso em 02 de Julho de 2023.

GLASPELL, Susan. Trifles. 1916.

HELLMAN, Lillian. The Children’s Hour. 1934.

MILLER, Arthur. The Crucible. Free-eBooks. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.free-ebooks.net/drama-classics/The-Crucible. Acesso em 30 de Maio de 2023.

TITUS, Mary. Murdering the Lesbian: Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour. Tulsa studies in Women’s Literature, v. 10, nº2, p. 215-232. Autumn, 1991.

TREADWELL, Sophie. Machinal. Nick Hern Books. 7ª Ed. London: 2004.

WEISS, Katherine. Sophie Treadwell’s Machinal: Electrifying the Female Body. South Atlantic Review, v. 71, nº 3, p. 4-14. Summer, 2006.