Historical Drama and the Dimensions of Tragedy: A Man For All Seasons and The Crucible A comparison of Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons and Arthur Miller's The Crucible demonstrates the potentiality of historical drama to produce melodrama or tragedy. Written at approximately the same time, both dramas depict a modern "hero of self,' both describe him as reluctant figure who tries to evade martrydom, both conceive of personal character rather than political or social determinism as the chief determinate of action, and both are more concerned with the plight of the individual than with historical process as the nexus of the play. Miller's play, however, moves toward tragedy, especially as it is defined by Robert Heilman: a character divided within the self makes choices, bears the consequences of those choices, gains a new awareness, and suffers victory in defeat Bolt's play depicts melodrama: the hero is the victim of forces acting upon him, suffers no internal division, and consequently does not act against himself. In consequence, Bolt writes significant melodrama and depicts a man for all seasons; Miller transforms historical text into tragedy and writes a drama for all seasons.