Teaching Guide for Inherit the Wind The following information was put together using the written text of Inherit the Wind and is not specifically about the production taking place at The Segal Centre this fall. Some of the magic of live theatre comes from the fact that every performance is an event unto itself. As a result there may be some differences between the play as it is described here and the performance that you will see at The Segal Centre. Background Information The Place of History in the Play Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The trial resulted in the conviction of John T. Scopes for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to a high school science class, contrary to a Tennessee state law. Inherit the Wind debuted on Broadway in 1955, thirty years after the Scopes trial. Despite the fact that many of the characters in the play exhibit traits that clearly link them to the key figures in the Scopes trial it is important to note that the playwrights, in a statement preceding the published script, make specific mention of the fact that their play is not meant to be journalistic or historical. Inherit the Wind is not history. The events which took place in Dayton, Tennessee, during the scorching July of 1925 are clearly the genesis of this play. It has, however, an exodus entirely its own. Only a handful of phrases have been taken from the actual transcript of the famous Scopes Trial. Some of the characters of the play are related to the colorful figures in that battle of giants; but they have life and language of their own - and, therefore, names of their own. The greatest reporters and historians of the century have written millions of words about the "Monkey Trial." We are indebted to them for their brilliant reportage. And we are grateful to the late Arthur Garfield Hays, who recounted to us much of the unwritten vividness of the Dayton adventure from his own memory and experience. The collision of Bryan and Darrow at Dayton was dramatic, but it was not a drama. Moreover, the issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed at the Rhea County Courthouse. So Inherit the Wind does not pretend to be journalism. It is theatre. It is not 1925. The stage directions set the time as "Not long ago." It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow.
Historical Emphasis This emphasis on the ahistorical quality of the play stems largely from the fact that Lawrence and Lee wanted the play to be less about the issue of teaching evolution in the classroom (in 1955 this was seen largely as a non-issue by the mainstream) and more about free speech and freedom of thought within a democracy. Like Arthur Miller's The Crucible, which debuted two years earlier, Inherit the Wind looked to history to attack McCarthyism and similar anti-communist pursuits from the 1950 s. The play is a parable about freedom vs. ignorance and progress vs. reactionary conservatism, rather than a specific commentary on the central subject of the trial. Given the broadness of these themes the play has remained popular on both stage and screen (large and small). To some, the play has in fact taken on an emblematic significance, appearing on American stages, specifically Broadway, at times when democracy and freedom of thought are seen to be in crisis. Contemporary Thoughts In contemporary versions of the play, oddly, it is the literal subject matter that jumps out at audiences. The debate over the teaching of creationism and evolution in classrooms in the United States is much more in the foreground than when the play was first produced. There are also a number of ongoing debates in society such as legalized abortion and gay marriage which pit fundamentalist Christians against mainstream thinking. In fact, in 2007 when the play last appeared on Broadway, it was widely seen as an indictment of then U.S. President George W. Bush s fundamentalist brand of Christian thought. Time it seems has brought a richness of interpretation to the play which was not in existence in 1955 when it first debuted. Playwrights The playwriting team of Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee was one of the great partnerships in American twentieth-century theatre. Lawrence was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1915, and received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Ohio State University in 1937. Lee was born in Elyria, Ohio, in 1918, and was educated at Northwestern University and Ohio Wesleyan University. The two began working together in radio in 1942. They continued this work in radio for the armed forces during World War II. After the war ended, they continued to work in radio but also branched out into writing for theatre. In 1948 they had their first Broadway production Look, Ma, I'm Dancin'!. The next show they had on Broadway was Inherit the Wind in 1955. This remains the play they are most well known for, and it demonstrates clearly "the theme of the dignity of every individual mind, and that mind's life-long battle against limitation and censorship" which remained a central concern in much of their work. Lawrence and Lee, aside from their writing, were important members of the theatre community because of their work to support and mentor newer generations of artists.
Literary Elements Setting The play is set in and around the Hillsboro Courthouse. It is interesting to note that at one point the stage directions mention that it is as if the town itself is on trial. In many ways this is in fact the case, as the town s own social conventions, mores and religious beliefs are challenged by the trial taking place within its courtroom. The stage directions state that the time is Not too long ago, not necessarily 1925, when the trial the play is based on took place. Characters Bertram Cates is a twenty-four year old school teacher and is the defendant in the trial that is central to the play. He is a quiet, shy and well-mannered young man who was arrested for teaching the theory of evolution in his classroom. He is quiet in his convictions, but steadfast nevertheless. There is some evidence in the play that away from the pressures of this trial, Cates questioning of religion and the nature of the universe has been done with gentle humour and curiosity. Matthew Harrison Brady is a politician from Nebraska who three times ran to be president of the United States and lost each time. He leads the prosecution and is greeted by the townspeople as a celebrity and hero. He has strong Christian beliefs which lead him to oppose the teaching of evolution. He is seen as a man of the people and as the play progresses we see that he has many admirable characteristics. He is a talented orator and his brand of Christianity, while fundamentalist, is a kinder and gentler brand than some. In fact, he is shown in a very positive light when he defends Rachel and Cates against Reverend Brown s calls for damnation and preaches forgiveness instead. He never seems to questions that his victory in the courtroom will be swift and decisive. In the end, the failure represented by his three losses in his attempts to become president foreshadows a less positive outcome. Ultimately, Brady s downfall comes not from losing the case (which he does not do) but in his loss of the support of the people around him. Without the adoration of the masses and the conviction that he is in the right, he cannot continue; however, it is his inability to move forward with the times, and his pride in his own righteousness, which are his real weaknesses. Brady is thought to be based on the real-life prosecutor William Jennings Bryan. Like Brady, Bryan lost three presidential elections and died shortly after the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Henry Drummond arrives in town as an infamous and vilified defense attorney. He is mistaken for the devil in his first appearance on stage, but by the end of the play is seen as a hero, despite having lost the case. Drummond uses humour to gently critique the happenings around him. He stands in stark contrast to Brady in his lack of concern for what people think of him. While he is more low-key in his presentation style, he is passionate in his core belief in the right of all people to make their own decisions about their beliefs. His belief in freedom of thought is revealed both during the trial and at the end of the play. In a speech during the trial he states that he believes passionately in the individual human mind. He is also presented as someone who would rather look at the unpleasant truth than a decorative or pleasant lie. He states that Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis In a later scene he tells Cates whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming all gold, with purple spots look behind the paint! And if it s a lie show it up for what it really is! Drummond shows real compassion and respect for his opponent at the end of the play and states that Brady had the same right as anyone else: the right to be wrong. Drummond is said to be based on the real life figure of Clarence Darrow, the most famous lawyer in America at the time of the Scopes trial. E. K. Hornbeck is a cynical, wisecracking journalist, and critic who speaks in colourful phrases. Hornbeck travels to Hillsboro to cover the trial for the Baltimore Herald. He despises Brady's religious fundamentalism and the townspeople's unquestioning acceptance of Brady's views. In his column, Hornbeck portrays Cates as a hero. Hornbeck is not simply a positive character however. His city ways and his dismissive attitudes contrast with the welcoming, if sometimes simple, ways of the people in the town. Reverend Jeremiah Brown is the representative of fundamentalist Christian belief in the play. He preaches a fire and brimstone brand of Christianity. Rachel Brown is the 22 year old daughter of Reverend Brown. She is a grade two teacher and is very close to Cates, but feels conflicted about his questioning of Christian beliefs. There is a romantic element to their relationship which is not overly explicit in the text, but which has been played up or down by different directors.
Rachel is torn throughout most of the play between her feelings for Cates and her loyalty to, and fear of, her father. She is also deeply concerned that Cates will lose the good opinion of his community. In the end she leaves her father, and while she does not reject her Christian beliefs, she comes to feel that people should be allowed to hold different ideas about the world. The Judge is as impartial as his deep belief in the Bible will allow him to be. He does not allow Drummond to bring forward his expert witnesses concerning science, seriously handicapping the case, but he does give Cates a lenient sentence at the Mayor s suggestion. The Judge brings up interesting questions about impartiality and fairness in a situation where deep-seated beliefs are present. The Townspeople are described in the stage directions as a colourful bunch of people who should not come across as rubes. They at once represent a rural, small town life of conventions and religious belief, while at the same time, through their down to earth attitudes and commercial exploits, showing the way in which the world is moving forward and modernizing.
Plot Act I Scene i The play opens in front of the Hillsboro courthouse on a hot summer morning with an exchange between a 13 year old boy (Howard) and a 12 year old girl (Melinda). Howard, who is on his way to go fishing, uses a simplistic and somewhat literal version of Darwin s theory of evolution to tease Melinda. As Howard and Melinda exit the stage, Rachel a young woman of 22, enters and summons Meeker, the bailiff. She seems concerned that someone will see her. She asks to see Bert Cates, who it becomes clear is the man at the center of the controversy in Hillsboro, and who is currently in jail. Meeker does not want Rachel to have to enter the jail and brings Cates up to see her. This informality and lack of concern for the security of the jail at once speaks to the harmlessness of Bert Cates, but also shows the positive side of small town life, where there s room for a little simple humanity. It also suggests that not everyone thinks Cates crime is so serious. Rachel has brought Cates a suitcase with a change of clothes in it. In the scene between the two of them a number of things become clear. Cates offense appears to have been teaching about Darwin s Origin of Species from a high-school science textbook. It becomes clear that this is illegal, and the excitement this has caused is bringing Matthew Harrison Brady, an important and popular political figure to town. Rachel asks Cates to admit he was wrong. It is clear that her father is set against the teaching of science and evolution and that she is torn between her fondness for Cates and her sense of obligation to her father. Rachel leaves the stage and Meeker discusses Brady, the man who is coming to town to act as the legal prosecution. It s clear that Cates is not in a good financial position as he s had to write to a Baltimore newspaper to send him a lawyer. This indicates both his personal lack of means, but also the interest this case is generating. In the next scene we see the excitement this court case is causing in the town. Journalists, lawyers and politicians are arriving from out of town. The Reverend Jeremiah Brown puts up a banner commanding people to read [their] Bible, so that Brady, and all the others coming to town will see what kind of place they are coming to (a pious community). Everyone else in the town seems to be involved in some sort of commerce, whether it s selling lemonade, or fans for the heat. We are also given a chance to meet some of the colourful inhabitants of Hillsboro. E.K.Hornbeck, a journalist from Baltimore arrives at this point and stands in stark contrast to the townsfolk, though it s not clear that his cynicism and linguistic cleverness are necessarily meant to be seen in a more positive light than the townspeople. It s clear that he believes in evolution.
Brady, the politician, arrives to a warm welcome from the townspeople who make him an honorary Colonel of the state militia and hold a picnic. He offers friendship to Rachel to get her to open up to him about Cates, and then immediately shows his intention to use what she has admitted to him in the case against Cates. Hornbeck announces that the prominent lawyer Henry Drummond will be representing the defense. Drummond is described as someone who upholds the law regardless of the moral implications of doing so. It is suggested he has knowingly allowed murderers to escape punishment. There is an attempt to come up with a way to keep him from entering the town. Rachel has a conversation with Hornbeck where he clearly states his support for Cates and tries to give her a more cynical view of Brady, whom she sees as a hero of the people. At the end of the scene Henry Drummond appears looking much like the devil he has been described as by Rev. Brown. Hornbeck welcomes him, ironically, to Hell. Scene ii In the courtroom the jury is being selected. It is clear that there is a remarked bias towards a religious view of the world and that some of the jurors are illiterate. It is unlikely any of them know anything about Darwin or his theories of evolution. Drummond complains about the fact that Brady is being called Colonel, which could influence the jury. To even the score he is offered the same privilege. Rachel approaches Cates to try to see if he ll admit his wrongdoing if only to allow the case to end. She is worried that people will think Cates is a bad person if he continues. Drummond, who is sympathetic to Cates difficulty, says he will agree to drop the case if Cates really feels he is wrong. Cates agrees to continue, at which point Rachel reveals that she may be called as a witness against Cates and may be asked to reveal details of conversations between them. Drummond tries to give Rachel some assurances that Brady is not as powerful as she thinks he is, and he compliments her for being strong enough to stick by Cates, whom he thinks is a good man. Act II Scene i Outside the courthouse Brady speaks to reporters about his former friendship with Drummond. He then goes on to lead a prayer meeting with the Reverend Brown. Brown begins by reciting the creation story from Genesis but then goes on to whip the crowd up into a frenzy calling damnation down on Cates head. When Rachel protests, he damns her as well. Brady is uncomfortable with the reverend s zeal and interrupts to give a speech about forgiveness. At this point he utters the quotation from the Bible from which the title comes He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind. Brady and Drummond have a quiet moment where they discuss their former friendship and what has moved them so far apart. Drummond suggests that Brady has remained stuck in his views and therefore has been responsible for this distance.
Scene ii This scene opens in the courtroom. Howard is describing how Cates taught that humans descended from Old World Monkeys and that his teachings on creation omitted any reference to God. When Drummond cross examines Howard he tries to establish that this trial is about the basic human right to think. Rachel is then brought forward as a witness and describes how Cates stopped going to church after a boy he was fond of drowned and Reverend Brown said he would suffer eternal damnation because he had not been baptized. Brady tries to push Rachel to reveal more, but she has a breakdown on the stand before either Brady or Drummond can get very far in their questioning. Drummond attempts to bring a series of experts from various scientific fields to the stand but is blocked. Finally, in desperation, Drummond calls Brady to the stand as an expert on the Bible. Drummond asks Brady about a number of instances in the Bible that seem to contradict scientific ideas and/or logic. Slowly the crowd seems to begin to support Drummond, and when he catches Brady in a number of logical contradictions and reveals Brady s pride in his sense of his own righteousness the crowd turns against Brady. It is clear that he has lost the debate with Drummond. Brady is excused and the Judge convenes the court. Mrs. Brady enters and comforts her husband as if he were a child. Act III Scene i The scene opens with Brady eating. Cates and Drummond discuss the juror s likely verdict. Cates worries about jail, but Drummond assures him that there is a lot of attention being paid to the case and so it s hard to say how things will go. A radio reporter comes in with new radio technology to record the verdict and the mayor talks to the judge about letting things simmer down before the elections in November. He asks the judge to go easy on Cates in his sentencing. Drummond loses interest in the radio microphone when it becomes clear that there are certain things he cannot say on air. Brady on the other hand attempts to cater to the radioman to put himself in the best light possible. The jury finds Cates guilty. Brady is relieved, but not triumphant. Cates quietly states that he will continue to fight against a law he finds unjust and the judge fines him 100 dollars. Brady takes issue with the sentence essentially being a slap on the wrist, but Drummond states they will not pay it no matter what it is and appeals the judgement to the state supreme court. Brady then attempts to address the court (and the radio audience) but finds himself without the power to command people s attention. The radio man leaves and Brady collapses.
Drummond explains that in the eyes of the public Cates won and that his fight will make it easier for other people to fight for what they believe in. Hornbeck announces that his paper paid Cates bail so he is free to go. And Rachel appears with a suitcase having left her father. The judge returns and announces that Brady has died. Drummond protests Hornbeck s negative analysis of Brady and states that there was much greatness in the man and that he had the same right as Cates, to have an opinion, whether it was right or wrong. Rachel and Cates head off to catch the train and Drummond is left on stage with the Bible in one hand and Darwin in the other.
Themes Many of the major themes in the play, which is essentially a courtroom drama, are explored through binary relationships. Some of the major conflicts are the following: Freedom of Thought vs. Fundamentalism The central theme of the play is every individual s right to freedom of thought. Drummond repeatedly makes an appeal for a forward thinking philosophy which does not reject one belief system for another, but allows each individual to come to their own conclusions using the power of their own minds. The central subject of this relationship, evolution vs. creationism, which has some contemporary relevance, is in some ways a distraction from this more generalized theme. In the final scene, Drummond stands on the stage with the Bible in one hand and Darwin in the other. Rather than tossing one away in favour of the other he slams them together further reiterating, symbolically, that it isn t the beliefs themselves this play challenges, but the right to hold them freely. Justice vs. Morality Drummond, at the beginning of the play, is accused of having defended people he knew to have been guilty as an exercise in law, rather than in morality. This is part of what leads to the people in the town characterizing him as the Devil. He also states during the trial that he doesn t believe in Right as a concept, but rather in Truth. This opens up an intriguing question surrounding justice and the legal system as it exists in our society. It is obvious that the trial taking place on stage cannot be entirely fair. The jurors are largely illiterate and are not given a chance to learn about evolution. The town the trial takes place in is more concerned with its reputation as a Christian town, than in the individual rights of its citizens, and the judge in the case, while attempting to be fair, obviously shares the bias towards fundamentalist Christian values that the prosecution holds. There is never a clear pitting of one belief system against the other; instead, the lawyers in the trial do their best to win over the jurors to their own viewpoint. In the end it is all a moot point as the sentence handed down is a light one, due in part to political considerations. While we might feel that this is a good ending, it isn t a comforting portrait of a justice system. The Individual vs. Society Cates is the central figure in the trial, but is hardly the most significant personality on the stage. The fight between Drummond and Brady focuses on freedom of thought, but the individual struggle fought by Cates and Rachel is that of the individual vs. society. The main conflict Cates struggles with is whether to continue on in the trial. He wavers in part because the threat of punishment (jail) looms over his head, but also because, by flouting the law and being arrested, he has lost his good standing in his community. Rachel in particular is worried about what people will think of him. In the end he decides to pursue the case because he believes he is right in his beliefs. Drummond commends him towards the end of the play, stating that Cates has made it easer for future generations to continue
to stand up for what they believe in, despite the personal risk. Rachel in the end decides that her own strong beliefs are not threatened by either the condemnation of the society she lives in, or the fact that Cates has a different set of beliefs. Drummond makes a stirring argument at the end of the trial that all progress, from the telephone to women s suffrage to Darwin s theory of evolution, makes us richer as a society, but forces us to leave behind a degree of personal comfort. While this is a different take on the conflict between the individual and society, it is one of the more interesting speeches in the play. The City vs. the Country The particular dichotomy plays out a little less predictably than in some stories. The small-town country folk have all the usual characteristics and small-town charm we might expect. They represent the buckle in the Bible belt, or the core of fundamentalist Christian belief, which is being challenged by the big-city lawyer, paid for by the big-city paper, and would be easy to dismiss them as mostly setting for the battle which is about to unfold. The big-city types don t hold all the positive characteristics however. Hornbeck, as a representative of the big-city, can be a little grating, and many of the townsfolk are both kind and humorous. The time that the play is set in also references many of the changes sweeping North America, and small town life in general. There are a number of references to the very nature of small town life having been changed by the introduction of such inventions as the telephone and by mass commercialization and advertising. It is this in fact, which Hornbeck references when he states that Brady s status as a man of the people is past its prime, as the people don t really exist in the way they once may have. The radio at the end of the play acts as a symbol of this change. The radio brings the goings on in this small town to the larger world, but Brady, whose stage has largely been the pulpit, cannot make this new medium work for him. In the end it helps to add to the impression that he has lost his relevance. No one is listening to him anymore. Comedy and Tragedy: Brady in some ways mimics the hero of classical tragedy in his pride and hubris. While his downfall is not, perhaps tragic, it does come about as a result of his pride and is, given the subtext of progress inherent to the play, inevitable. Cates and Rachel mimic the young lovers of classical comedy, who cannot be together because the older generation and the forces of convention keep them apart. This is not the central plot in the play, but when they depart the stage together at the end of the play they do in some ways represent renewed hope for the future.
Topics for Further Study and Discussion The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 This is the trial the play is based on. There is available an abundance of fascinating information about the trial as well as the differences between Inherit the Wind and the actual trial available. There is a clear opportunity here to discuss the way in which history can be used metaphorically in drama and fiction. Students could discuss the validity of basing a work of fiction on actual events. It is also interesting to contrast the actual people involved in the Scopes trial with the characters created for the play. The motivations of the real-life figures are interesting when compared to their fictional counterparts. There could be room for a discussion of the main theme of the play vs. the complications of real life. It s also interesting to note how closely the playwrights followed the events of the Scopes trial, while clearly stating that that was not their purpose. Darwin Darwin is a fascinating figure to do research on. His own wife was a devout Christian and had serious misgivings about her husband s work. The Darwins also experienced real personal tragedy in their lives which led Charles Darwin to question his own faith. Evolution vs. Creationism It could be interesting to explore the history of the teaching of evolution as well as contemporary arguments about the teaching of evolution and creationism in schools (especially in the United States). Evolution and science have replaced religion as the dominant lens through which we view the world. In relation to the play how can we view religious fundamentalists fight to have creationism included in school curriculums? What place does religion play in education? McCarthyism and Communism in the United States during the 1950 s Since this is largely the political situation the play originally attempted to comment on, it could be interesting for students to have a greater understanding of the political atmosphere which led to the writing of the play. It could be interesting to discuss parallels between religious and moral beliefs and political beliefs as well as contemporary examples of political and social actions that keep the play relevant today. Are there contemporary examples of repression of thought? The Crucible - The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, which explores the Salem Witch trials of the 17 th Century, would make an interesting comparison to Inherit the Wind. Both use
historical events to explore the political situation in the United States in the 1950 s. Both chose to focus on trials with religious overtones as a metaphor for the politically motivated trials taking place under McCarthyism and both can be viewed in the historical context in which they were written, but also in a contemporary context, where they remain relevant. Courtroom Dramas Choose a movie, play, novel or short story which also has a central issue and a courtroom at its center to compare to Inherit the Wind. The following is just a short list of some possible titles (some are both plays/novels and movies). The Crucible Justice by John Galsworthy Twelve Angry Men To Kill a MockingBird Erin Brockovitch A Few Good Men Amistad
Study Questions 1. How does Howard and Melinda s interaction at the beginning of the play foreshadow the major issues of the play? 2. What does Meeker, the bailiff s, willingness to let Cates out of jail to meet with Rachel tell us both about his offence and the town? 3. What kind of town does Hillsboro seem to be in its preparations for Brady s arrival? 4. What does Brady s relationship with his wife tell us about his character? 5. What does Brady s conversation with Rachel, and subsequent behaviour afterwards tell us about his character? 6. How is Drummond characterized by the townspeople? Later when we meet him do they seem to be correct? 7. What role does Hornbeck play in the action of the play? What is the significance of the way he speaks? 8. Do the elements of the trial seem fair to you? Why or why not? 9. What do you think Rachel s motivations for asking Cates to drop the trial and admit his guilt stem from? 10. What does Brady s intervention in Reverend Brown s sermon say about him? Does this contradict what you thought about him as a character? 11. What is the central issue that Drummond is arguing for in the courtroom? 12. Do you think it is fair that none of Drummond s expert witnesses are allowed to act as witnesses? 13. What is it that Brady reveals about his religious beliefs while he is being questioned in court by Drummond? 14. How does Drummond win over the support of the audience in the courtroom in his examination of Brady? 15. What is it that Drummond says about progress? How is this significant to the play s main message? 16. How does Brady react to the courtroom s support of Drummond instead of him? 17. What is the significance of Drummond s story about Golden Dancer?
18. What is the difference in the way the two lawyers, Brady and Drummond respond to the radio? 19. Why is Cates sentenced the way he is? 20. What is Cates statement after the verdict? 21. What happens to Brady after the trial? Was this a surprise? 22. What does Rachel decide at the end of the play? How does this tie into Drummond s message as well as the main theme of the play? 23. What does Drummond say Brady had the right to do or have? 24. What is the significance of the two books Drummond holds at the end of the play? 25. What do you think the main message of the play is? This teaching guide was developed by Aurora Flewwelling-Skup in collaboration with the Segal Centre for Performing Arts. August 2009.