Summary
Several days later, the prosecution (Brady and
Davenport) and the defense (Drummond) interview townspeople to serve
as members of the jury. The scene opens during of the prosecution’s
questioning of a local man, Bannister. Davenport asks Bannister
whether he attends church. Bannister answers, “Only on Sundays,”
and Davenport approves him as a juror. Drummond asks Bannister whether
he has read about evolution or Darwin, and whether he reads the
Bible. Bannister says he is illiterate, and Drummond approves him
as a juror.
Before the bailiff calls the next juror, Brady asks the
judge if the people in the courtroom may remove their coats because
of the heat. The judge agrees. When people remove their coats, Drummond’s bright
purple suspenders are revealed, prompting hoots from the crowd.
Brady asks Drummond if his suspenders reflect the latest fashions
in Chicago. To Brady’s embarrassment, Drummond replies that he bought
the suspenders in Brady’s Nebraska hometown.
The judge pounds his gavel and demands order. A man named Dunlap
is next to be interviewed. Davenport asks Dunlap whether he believes
in the Bible. Dunlap replies that he believes in the word of God
and in Brady. The audience cheers Dunlap, and Davenport accepts
him as a juror. Drummond, however, refuses Dunlap without questioning
him. Brady objects. Drummond replies that he wouldn’t object to
Brady dismissing an evolutionist as a juror. To go through the formality
of questioning Dunlap, Drummond asks him, “How are you?” Dunlap
replies “Kinda hot,” and Drummond again dismisses him.
Brady objects to Drummond’s levity. Although the judge
doesn’t sustain Brady’s objection, he admits to agreeing with him.
The judge addresses Brady as “Colonel Brady,” which prompts Drummond
to object to Brady’s title on the grounds that he doesn’t know much about
Brady’s record as a soldier. The judge explains that Brady received
the title as an honor. Drummond claims that Brady’s title harms
Cates’s case. The judge gestures to the mayor, who says that he
can’t take back Brady’s honorary title but says he will temporarily
grant Drummond the title of colonel as well.
The judge calls the court to order. A man named Sillers
is next to be interviewed. Davenport asks Sillers whether he is
religious, and Sillers claims to be as religious as anyone else
in Hillsboro. Brady steps up and asks Sillers whether he has any
children. Sillers replies that he does not. Brady outlines a hypothetical
situation in which Sillers’s child came home describing a “Godless
teacher.” Drummond objects, and the judge sustains the objection.
Brady asks Sillers whether he has any opinions that might prejudice
him in the case. Sillers says he knows Cates only as a customer,
not personally. Brady accepts Sillers as a juror.
Drummond asks Sillers whether he puts much effort into
religion. Sillers says he focuses on his job while his wife tends
to religious matters for both of them. Drummond recasts Sillers’s
response by suggesting that he takes care of the matters of life
on earth while his wife prepares both of them for the afterlife.
Davenport objects, and the judge sustains the objection. Drummond
asks Sillers whether he has ever encountered a man named Charles
Darwin. Sillers says he only lately heard of Darwin. Drummond asks
Sillers whether he would have Darwin over for dinner. Brady begins
to object, but Drummond cuts him off. Davenport also objects, but
Drummond says he is trying to confirm that Sillers puts equally
small effort into matters of religion and evolution. Sillers points
out that he merely works at the feed store. Drummond approves him
as a juror.
Brady starts to retract his approval of Sillers,
but Drummond objects. Brady cites a previous case in which he claims
that Drummond tricked the jury. Drummond counters that he is attempting
to defend the Constitution against those who oppose progress. The
judge points out that constitutional matters are decided in a federal
court. Drummond says he has to defend the Constitution somewhere.
The judge declares both sides out of order, states that
jury selection is complete, and reminds the audience that Reverend
Brown is holding a prayer meeting that evening. Drummond objects,
claiming that the reminder is unfair. The judge says he is not aware
of a meeting of evolutionists. Drummond says that the “Read Your Bible!”
banner should be countered with a “Read Your Darwin!” banner. The
judge calls the idea preposterous and declares recess. A crowd follows
Brady out of the courtroom.
Rachel implores Drummond to call off the trial and asks
Cates to beg forgiveness. Drummond asks Cates what he wants to do,
and Cates says that the trial resembles a circus. Drummond jokes
about the case, and Rachel scolds him for making light of a grave
situation. Drummond apologizes to Rachel and describes his respect
for Cates. He says he will give up the case only if Cates honestly
believes he did wrong. Cates wavers but then firmly states that
he will continue to stand trial. Rachel protests, but Cates asks
her to support him. Upset, Rachel admits that Brady may call her
to testify against Cates. Cates is shocked. As Meeker leads him
back to his cell, Cates cries out that the jury will “crucify” him
if Rachel reveals the content of their private conversations.
Drummond and Rachel talk. Rachel says that Brady scares
her less than her father, Reverend Brown. She recalls being frightened
as a child because she never knew her mother and greatly feared
her father. Rachel asks Drummond if Cates is evil. Drummond calls Cates
a good man and encourages Rachel to lend Cates her support.
The man who has everything figured out
is probably a fool. College examinations notwithstanding, it takes
a very smart fella to say “I don’t know the answer!”
See Important Quotations Explained
Analysis
As in the first scene, the playwrights communicate some
of the key thematic ideas of Inherit the Wind in
its stage directions. As the scene opens on the courtroom, “[t]he
shapes of the buildings are dimly visible in the background, as
if Hillsboro itself were on trial.” Indeed, the drama of the courtroom
scenes plays out against the ever-present backdrop of the town and
its people. This rural, conservative, and religious Southern town
opposes the members of the defense, who must struggle to gain a
voice for their ideas—concepts that much of contemporary society
accepts as elementary biology.
The three potential jurors in this scene are similar,
typical townspeople of Hillsboro. None of them betrays strong convictions
or exceptional intelligence. Although all of them profess to be
Christians, none stand out on the basis of extraordinary faith.
Bannister emphasizes his eagerness to watch the trial from the jury
box, like a show. His illiteracy, like that of the mountain man
Elijah, points to Hillsboro’s backwardness. Dunlap differentiates
himself by professing membership in the Matthew Harrison Brady cult
of personality, and Drummond rejects him on these grounds. Drummond’s
interrogation of Sillers is the first sign that the religious faith
of the Hillsboro townspeople may not run much deeper than simple conformity.
When Sillers admits that he leaves religion to his wife, we see
the townspeople’s Christianity in a new light. We know that people
in Hillsboro go to church and profess a belief in God, but we now
wonder whether such behavior may be mere formality paid as a price
of citizenship in the town, a lip service empty of spiritual meaning.
Drummond exposes Sillers’s flimsy religious faith by probing deeper
than Brady or the other people of Hillsboro are capable. Sillers
may not be an atheist or an agnostic like Drummond, but his convictions
do not run deep.
This first courtroom scene highlights important differences between
Brady and Drummond—in background, perspective, manners, and behavior—that
recur in their interactions throughout the play. They serve as foils
to each other, as each accentuates the distinct traits of the other.
While Inherit the Wind as a whole explores an abstract
conflict between religious fundamentalism and freedom of thought,
the face-to-face conflict between the forceful personalities of
Brady and Drummond lends this conflict a physical embodiment. Because
the trial, in part, depends on the mood of the town and the opinions
of its residents, each attorney attempts to win the audience’s respect,
recognizing that the crowd will influence the judge and jury.
Brady tries to alienate Drummond from the courtroom
crowd by harping on Drummond’s suspenders, attempting to cast him
as a freak from the big city. But Drummond’s fashion choice proves
to be premeditated, for he turns the tables on Brady by telling
the crowd he bought the suspenders in Brady’s Nebraska hometown.
This unexpected twist marks Brady’s first moment of embarrassment
before a crowd that is predisposed to support him. Drummond continues
to use this strategy—turning Brady’s own words and attitudes against
him—to humorous and ironic effect throughout the trial.
Brady enters the trial with a distinct advantage. Reputed
for his fundamentalist Christian principles, he receives a warm
welcome from the townspeople and an honorary title from the mayor. Although
Drummond argues that this title lends the prosecution an unfair
symbolic advantage, his objection is laced with irony and humor.
Whereas Brady clearly enjoys the meaningless distinction and celebrates
it with a swollen sense of self-importance, Drummond chuckles when
the judge reluctantly grants him a similar title. To Drummond, titles
hold little significance in comparison to the reality of action
and deed. Brady, however, leans on these titles for a sense of moral
authority. Drummond’s ironic appropriation of Brady’s title is the
second step in his humiliation of his opponent.
Drummond opposes the “commercial announcement” of the prayer
meeting and the public signs commanding people to read their Bibles.
Although this approach initially strikes the judge and the townspeople
as preposterous, Drummond’s complaints ultimately make the townspeople
reconsider the differences between secular Darwinism and officially
endorsed Christianity. Although Drummond does not mention it explicitly,
he points to one of the founding principles of American democracy—the
separation of church and state. By demanding fair treatment for
evolution theory under the law, Drummond plants in his listeners’
minds the idea that Christian authorities may not have a monopoly
on the truth. He reemphasizes this point later in the trial by demonstrating
the Bible’s inability to explain modern machinery.
After casting Drummond as the devil incarnate, Brady leaves
the courtroom with tremendous public support. Brady departs like
a “shepherd leading his flock” while Drummond leaves alone. But Drummond’s
solitude does not faze him. Although he is vilified before the public,
he remains confident in his convictions because he values his own
search for truth over the opinions of the crowd. In contrast, Brady’s
reliance on public support foreshadows his later collapse after
his humiliation before the courtroom audience.
The scene closes with Rachel’s description of her relationship with
her father, which provides insight into her fear for Cates and her
efforts to convince him to confess his guilt. Rachel’s fear of her father
originated in her early childhood and still runs deep. Given Reverend
Brown’s position of authority in the community, Rachel has never
been able to overcome her fear. Caught between the bond of family
that dictates loyalty to her father and the budding love that pulls
her toward Cates and his cause, Rachel suffers from fear and confusion.
Her confession of fear of her father foreshadows his public disowning
and damning of her in the next scene.
payment page
