As Arthur Miller watched “The Crucible” take shape into a film, a wave of memories washed over him, connecting him to the play he had conceived nearly fifty years prior. He reflected on the America of that era, a landscape of fear and paranoia that seemed distant yet echoed powerfully in the present. This reflection brings us to a crucial question: why did Arthur Miller write “The Crucible”? The answer lies deeply embedded in the socio-political climate of the 1950s, a period marked by the chilling rise of McCarthyism.
To truly understand the genesis of “The Crucible,” we must delve into the historical context that served as its crucible. The post-World War II era witnessed the emergence of the Cold War, casting a long shadow of suspicion and fear across the United States. The Soviet Union, once an ally, transformed into a perceived ideological enemy, fueling anxieties about communist infiltration. This fear was skillfully exploited by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose name became synonymous with the era’s anti-communist fervor.
McCarthy’s influence, though built on shaky ground, was potent. He masterfully played on public anxieties, alleging widespread communist conspiracies within the US government, particularly targeting the State Department and intellectual circles. This “Red Scare” created an atmosphere of paranoia where accusations often trumped evidence, and dissent was easily equated with disloyalty. Miller vividly recalls the chilling effect of this climate, where even questioning the prevailing narrative could invite suspicion.
An image from The New Yorker promoting their Books & Fiction Newsletter, placed contextually after a paragraph discussing the socio-political environment relevant to literature and Miller’s work.
The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) further amplified this fear, particularly in Hollywood. Studios, initially resistant, eventually succumbed to pressure and began blacklisting artists suspected of communist sympathies. This created a “holy terror” within the creative community, stifling artistic expression and fostering self-censorship. Miller himself experienced this firsthand when Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Pictures, requested him to change the gangsters in his screenplay to Communists, a request Miller refused as an “idiocy.” This incident highlighted the pervasive and absurd nature of the Red Scare, where even artistic narratives were expected to conform to the prevailing anti-communist ideology.
In this suffocating atmosphere, Miller felt a growing sense of desperation. He observed a paralysis among liberals, who, while uneasy with the blatant violations of civil rights, were afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled communist sympathizers. This moral ambiguity, where neither the left nor the anti-communist liberals could fully address the injustices of the time, deeply troubled Miller. He felt the absence of a clear moral compass, a “still point of moral reference” necessary to navigate the complex ethical landscape of the era.
It was this sense of desperation and moral disorientation that propelled Miller to explore historical parallels, leading him to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. While he had encountered the Salem trials in college, it was Charles W. Upham’s detailed study that truly ignited his imagination. Upham’s work illuminated the intricate personal relationships and societal dynamics within Salem, revealing the human drama behind the historical events.
Miller’s visit to Salem in 1952 further solidified his connection to the historical narrative. In the gloomy courthouse, he immersed himself in the trial transcripts, reading the firsthand accounts of the accusations and testimonies. It was in Reverend Samuel Parris’s report, detailing Abigail Williams’s interaction with Elizabeth Proctor, that Miller found the “human center” of the Salem tragedy. Abigail’s conflicted gesture – attempting to strike Elizabeth but then lightly touching her – revealed the complex web of personal resentments and manipulative accusations driving the witch hunt.
[
Miller recognized the potent parallels between the Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism. Both periods were characterized by mass hysteria, fueled by fear and suspicion, where accusations became evidence, and individual rights were trampled upon in the name of ideological purity. The “spectral evidence” accepted in the Salem trials, where accusations of invisible acts were deemed proof of guilt, mirrored the unsubstantiated accusations and guilt-by-association tactics employed during the Red Scare.
Moreover, Miller’s personal life resonated with the themes of “The Crucible.” His own marriage was faltering, and he grappled with the complexities of blame and personal guilt. He saw in John Proctor, a flawed protagonist wrestling with his past sins yet ultimately standing as a beacon of integrity against the surrounding madness, a reflection of his own internal struggles and a source of hope. Proctor’s journey offered Miller “reassurance” and “inspiration,” demonstrating the possibility of moral courage even from an “ambiguously unblemished soul.”
However, Miller was acutely aware of the potential criticism that his play was a simplistic analogy, equating the very real threat of communism with the nonexistent threat of witchcraft. He addressed this directly, emphasizing that while witches were not real, the belief in witchcraft was undeniably real and potent in 17th-century Salem. Just as the fear of communism was a tangible force in the 1950s, the belief in witchcraft shaped the reality of Salem, leading to persecution and injustice. The play, therefore, was not about literal witches or communists, but about the universal dynamics of fear, paranoia, and the abuse of power that can manifest in any society.
Miller further highlights the cyclical and self-reinforcing nature of mass hysteria. In both Salem and McCarthy-era America, the accusation itself became a form of proof. The very fact of being accused implied guilt, and denying the accusation could be interpreted as further evidence of subversive intent. This “breathtaking circularity” trapped individuals in a web of paranoia, making it nearly impossible to defend oneself against baseless charges.
The societal reactions to injustice also resonated across both historical periods. Miller observed how in Nazi Germany and Soviet Ukraine, people often turned a blind eye to the persecution of their neighbors, driven by fear and a desire to maintain their own sense of security. This tendency to deny the unthinkable, to rationalize injustice in order to preserve a belief in societal order, is a recurring theme in human history, powerfully illustrated in both the Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy era.
Finally, Miller was drawn to the unique language of 17th-century New England. He found the “plain, craggy English” both “liberating” and “sensuous,” appreciating its blend of legalistic precision and metaphorical richness. He collaborated with scholar Kimon Friar to capture the essence of this language, aiming not for mere imitation but for a resonant echo that would feel natural on the tongues of American actors. This linguistic dimension added another layer of depth and authenticity to “The Crucible,” immersing audiences in the world of Salem and enhancing the play’s timeless power.
In conclusion, Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” as an act of “desperation,” born from the suffocating atmosphere of McCarthyism and his own personal grappling with moral ambiguity. By drawing parallels to the Salem Witch Trials, Miller created a powerful allegory for the dangers of mass hysteria, political persecution, and the erosion of civil liberties. “The Crucible” transcends its historical context, remaining a timeless exploration of human nature, fear, and the enduring importance of individual conscience in the face of societal pressure. It serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of justice and the ever-present need for vigilance against the forces of paranoia and oppression.
