In February of 1949, the article Tragedy and the Common Man was published in the New York Times. Arthur Miller, the author of the article, appeals to an educated, well-read audience in his writing. He labels tragedy as a relevant concept, one that utilises optimism and an eventual downfall to evoke emotion from the reader.
The Common Man represents the average person who works and perhaps struggles for his living. Miller’s article emphasizes the point that tragedy is not only reserved for brazen knights or high kings, but also the man you may see working in a corner store. Miller utilises Logos and Pathos in his writing, and relates the concept to his own work; he also analyzes the relation of the common man and the concept of tragedy to mankind today.
Miller dominantly utilised Logos when writing his article. This mode of communication appeals to the audience of the New York Times: educated, deep thinking, and likely affluent. He approaches the subject of tragedy, an admittedly emotional concept with logical reasoning, to prove to his reader that it is still relevant in modern times, and to explain how it had come to be considered archaic. Miller explains how the perspective of tragedy has shifted, stating that “the right of one monarch to capture the domain from another no longer raises our passions, nor are the concepts of justice what they were to the mind of an Elizabethan king” (Miller Paragraph 7). This prompts the reader to consider what the modern tragic equivalent of such trials might be. If one looks at Miller’s life, the era of McCarthyism prompted many tragic scenarios. A good man, persecuted for his political belief that then refused to incriminate another would certainly make for a tragic story. This reflection of self creates a logical pipeline into Miller’s other points that outline the challenges of producing a tragic work. He discusses how the “psychiatric view of life” often restricts authors from writing an emotional work such as a tragedy.
The very definition of the concept of a tragic work is a point Miller was sure to examine. The common understanding of a tragedy “is of necessity applied to pessimism” (Miller paragraph 15). He contradicts this view, stating that tragedy really “implies more optimism than does comedy” (Miller paragraph 15). To truly have a tragic work, the protagonist must have an element of hope that they can cling to. This makes it all the more devastating when they inevitably fail at their initial goal, often at the cost of gaining the dignity and righteousness they had longed for. This sentiment directly relates to Miller’s protagonist in The Crucible, John Proctor. He tries to save Salem from the danger of the witch trials by exposing the fraud behind them, all whilst grappling with self-hatred for his past misdeeds. In the end, he regains his worth by refusing to accuse others of witchcraft, and being executed as a result. This relation of tragedy to his own unpublished work, although unbeknownst to his readers, proves the relevance a tragedy can have in modern society.
In today’s world, tragedy still applies to humans, politically and socially. The true struggle of expressing one in writing is moving past the analytical, sociological lens that most of us produce and consume literature through today. However, the essence of tragedy is just as prevalent as ever. Amongst political strife and social divides, there are many instances of it amongst those who strive to proclaim the truth and unite communities. Miller uses these various rhetorical choices to explain to his reader not only the relevance of tragedy, but how it applies to all of humankind, in every era.