The Functions of Dramatic Structure in Death of A Salesman

Abstract

Certain branches of scientific literary criticism have not advanced significantly in some two thousand years since Aristotle wrote his Poetics. Consequently, one result of the abundant critical activity carried on during recent centuries has been to consolidate his position as, one might say, the leader in the science. This is in many ways to the good, but one of its stultifying effects has been to give the dignity of aesthetic canon to statements which Aristotle himself may have intended as no more than scientific descriptions of the art forms prevalent in his society. The particular Aristotelian-inspired concept which concerns us here has been held as tenet throughout Western drama up to the present time, despite recent disputations of it. It springs from Aristotle's description of the tragic figure as "highly renowned and prosperous" and "above the common level." The contemporary playwright Arthur Miller, whose work is the subject of this study, seems to be the most important current challenger of this traditional conception of the tragic hero, and it is quite possible that the weight of his drama puts his disputation among the most significant thus far. Neither a summary nor an evaluation of Miller’s work is intended here. Rather, what purports to be simply an examination is made of Miller's basic dramatic theory and the particular form of Death of A Salesman--his most unconventional use of dramatic technique, which is at the same time the closest structural articulation of his theory. However, because such a restriction of subject necessarily obviates wider areas of study, an appendix which briefly indicates some of the literary influences upon Fuller's work has been added. By these means it may be discovered whether or not Miller has worked with a new conception of the tragic hero or tried to adapt the traditional one, and whether the dramatic form which springs most directly from his theory does in fact permit tragic scope. This study has been disciplined by the direction of C. Carroll Hollis, present head of t he University English Department. Its writer is also indebted to Professors Clyde P. Craine and Robert J. Kearns, S. J., who have made detailed suggestions as t o its final form.