The Dual Historical Background
of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible

by

 Kristin Meyer

Table of contents

I. Introduction 1

II. The primary historical context: Salem in 1692 2

II.1. The political situation in 17th century Massachusetts 2
II.2. Miller’s view of 17th century Puritanism 3
II.3. A comparison of historical and dramatic details 5

III. The secondary historical context: America in the 1950s 5

III.1. The McCarthy Era 7
III.2. The impact of McCarthyism on Miller’s personal life 8
III.3. The Reception of The Crucible in the 1950s 9

IV. A psychological approach to the events in 1692 and in the 1950s 10

V. Conclusion 14

Bibliography 15

I. Introduction

As Arthur Miller states in his autobiography,¹ The Crucible has become his most frequently produced play. This great success of a conventional drama can certainly not be explained without regard to its political message. When the play was first performed in 1953, its audiences were quick to recognize the connections between the witch craze in 17th century Massachusetts and the American anti-communist hysteria of their own time. Like any literary text, The Crucible reflects the conditions under which it was produced, and Miller himself says that he could not have written it at any other time.² Since in this case parallels between the events in both times are extremely striking, it seems necessary for the understanding and interpretation of the play to explain its dual historical context. 

At the same time, it would be wrong to interpret Miller’s drama against this background only. Or, as Reitz puts it: “The Crucible ist kein Schlüsseldrama, das auf die vordergründige Aktualität von Wiedererkennungseffekten setzt und zu diesem Zweck Anhänger und Gegner McCarthys als Puritaner (...) kostümiert“.³ Miklos Trocsanyi argues similarly, pointing out that 

Miller was glad, when in the contemporary criticism (…) less and less mention was made of and parallel drawn between the witchcraft hysteria and McCarthyism. It meant that the deeper message was more and more appreciated.⁴

Finding out about this “deeper message” is what the analysis of the dual historical context aims at. Therefore this research paper will, after explaining the historical circumstances of both the Salem witch hunt and the American anticommunism under McCarthy, focus on parallel phenomena underlying the events in both times. This comparison, which will be made from a psychological point of view, is intended to reveal why Miller’s play “is presently being approached more and more frequently as a cultural and historical study rather than a political allegory”.⁵

II. The primary historical context: Salem in 1692

II.1. The political situation in 17th century Massachusetts

The witch hunt which served as a basis for Millers play took place in 1692 in Salem, a New England colony and village inhabited by Puritans. Shortly before it broke out, the colonists had suffered a cruel disillusionment. In 1684, England’s king Charles II recalled the charter that had enabled the settlers to govern themselves, and two years later a royal governor was appointed. Their independence of the English crown being lost, the people in Massachusetts felt betrayed. In 1688, after the English king had been deposed, the colonists threw off the imposed governor. Yet their hope that God would now restore their independence proved false. William III, successor of James II, sent as a new governor Sir William Phips. The results, Morgan points out, were fatal:

[...]

1 Arthur Miller, Timebends (London, 1987) 348.

2 Arthur Miller, quoted in Robert A. Martin, “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Background and Sources,” Critical Essays on Arthur Miller, ed. James J. Martine (Boston, 1979) 93.

3 Bernhard Reitz, afterword, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller (Stuttgart, 1990) 216.

4 Miklos Trocsanyi, “Two Views of American Puritanism: Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Miller’s The Crucible,” The Origins and Originality of American Culture, ed. Frank Tibor (Budapest, 1984) 70f.

5 Martin, 93