To Page 98

"I pray you, Mr. Parris. Do you know, Mr. Proctor, that the entire contention of the state in these trials is that the voice of Heaven is speaking through the children?"(88)

This quote basically sums up how ridiculous these witch trials have become. A major pattern seen throughout the events of the play show those in charge turning to a select few for all the answers for suspected social woes. As stated in the above quote, children are among that select few. This is unusual, since children are more immature than adults, and they had not suspected that they may be poking fun with their accusations or trying to get at their rivals while in a seeming position of power. Could it be that they would not have the heart to kill a child who had not lived to see very much? Perhaps they had the idea in mind that the children made up what the world would be tomorrow. Apparently, this world of tomorrow might possibly be filled with underhanded liars. Eventually, Danforth thankfully realizes this potential scheme when he says, "I have until this moment not the slightest reason to suspect that the children may be deceiving me"(91).

Why would the children have been seen as the most trustworthy in this case? Why not someone older and wiser?

"No, old man, you have not hurt these people if they are of good conscience. But you must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between."(94)

Again, this is another statement undermining the relevance of the witch trials. This quote relates to the theme of "all or nothing" that has seemed to prevail in the accusations of witches. That is merely concerned with how a person may only take one side or another, not any other side in between. To draw parallels with the previous quote, a select few, notably children, had a bit of an advantage in Salem's society at the time. The courts were not after them as hotly and were free to ramble on as they wished about others, since they were not openly harming themselves. Also, as already mentioned, Salem is a place contaminated with spite. One single person at the time could be seen as both for and against the court, depending on who was judging them as such. A friend would defend them, saying that such a person is for the court. An enemy, in the meantime, would claim the opposite. This points out a problem in the words of Danforth as stated above, if a person may potentially be viewed as both for and against the court, is that not being in a state of betweenness? Sure the state has the final say, but it is all derived from "evidence" and witnesses, of which may be ambiguous and meander off either way.

What was Danforth really trying to get at in this statement?