What purpose would Miller have in giving the Crucible a tragic ending?If possible, can you give me specific details in your answer? I understand a...

I think that the choice of a tragic ending was a direct
reflection of the tragedy that was the Salem Witch Trials. Many if the characters in the
play represent actual people who were tried and convicted including the one male
aaccused witch, Giles Cory, who was, in fact, pressed to death. This was a time when
logic and reason did not prevail. For an excellent "real" account of the era, read
Cotton Mather's account of the Trial of Martha Carrier. Mather was a minister, he was
educated, he should have done something to stop the tragedy, but he did not. The reality
wasd that the witch trials brought people back into the folds of the church out of fear
at a time when church attendance was declining. Nothing good at all came out of the
trials, and many innocent people suffered. Nineteen were hanged, Cory was pressed to
death, two people died in prison, and many others spent time in prison for nothing more
than being aaccused of witchcraft, often with no evidence at all (again, look at the
Mather piece and you will see how circumstantial the evidence presented was in the
actual courtroom). I believe that a happy ending would have trivialized the events and
lessened the impact that Miller intended with the piece that serves as not only a social
and historical commentary but also as a warning for future
generations.