Crucible - a trial of sins

In science a crucible is a container used to heat substances to great temperatures. If Arthur Miller intended his play, The Crucible to reflect this image, I think he may have misjudged the content of his play. In other words I think the reaction is more of a ‘heated’ debate than the text itself. Granted, Miller chose a historical and contentious setting, but the characters’ are seemingly too static in their motivations to accomplish the “discovery of human nature...” Eric Bentley calls Miller’s play a “melodrama because though the hero has weaknesses he has no faults. His innocence is unreal because it is total” (207). I wonder if the lack of conflict is too intangible for audiences to grasp - as much of it is internal. To compensate for this, Miller possibly over-compensates by materializing outside motives such as land disputes and children dying to give credence to the ‘other-worldly‘ conflict. Interestingly enough, as much as Miller elaborates on his characters, he never further colors the characters of those who are the accusers, such as Abigail and Mary Warren etc.- perhaps, believing that their characters speak for themselves. Going back to the definition of a crucible, I wonder if the title is more of an allusion to the seven deadly sins - wrath, pride, gluttony, lust, envy, sloth, and greed - pride being the most deadly (the one to which one might argue Proctor succumbs to). In this sense Salem becomes hell where each is struggling to get free. No one can escape Salem (if we’re still alluding to hell) as God is not present. Anyone can get in, but no one can get out. Does this allusion force the audience to reconcile with their own inner-conflict? Even the hands of the seemingly innocent are tainted (Abigail), thus perhaps bringing to the forefront a generational struggle? My one concern is that the criticism or allusions etc. is all based on modern thought. I wonder if, similar to the blacklist, we are imposing our own societal/ethical structures and simply can’t take the play for what it is- But then again is this not what drama is all about?

I guess the ultimate question is; does the play provide the conflict or does the audience?