Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible during the period of time where Americans were scouring for communists hidden within their society. Miller reflects upon those times a few decades later, explaining that “[i]n those years, our thought processes were becoming so magical, so paranoid, that to imagine writing a play about this environment was like trying to pick one's teeth with a ball of wool.” He compares writing about the Red Scare to picking teeth with wool to depict the ineffectiveness of both tasks. Like how wool simply brushes the enamel, authors writing about the Red Scare could only convey the hysteria they felt, and not objective details. Miller therefore states that his memories of those times were largely polluted by fear. The sentiments of the 1950’s is accurately portrayed in Miller’s play. In one court scene, Judge Hathorne tried Sarah Good and found her guilty of witchcraft. Mary Warren described the situation to the Proctor's, explaining that Judge Hathorne had asked Sarah Good to recite the ten commandments, but she failed to do so. She then goes on, excitedly exclaiming that “they had her in a flat lie” and that it was “hard proof, hard as rock, the judges said” (Miller 58). Among all the chaos and fear of the trials, even the reasoning of experienced judges like Hathorne were overridden by emotions. Furthermore, seeing that Mary Warren …show more content…
In an effort to find a solution to their fears, the townspeople in The Crucible frantically searched for someone to blame. The suspicion aroused by this hysteria-induced fear inevitably pitted neighbors and friends against each other. The witch hunt that ensued parallels the hunt for communists during the Red Scare. Arthur Miller elicited these circumstances in “Why I Wrote the Crucible,” recalling that an “old friend of a blacklisted person crossing the street to avoid being seen talking to him” and “the overnight conversions of former leftists into born-again patriots,” were frequently seen images. The existence of a blacklist is a physical representation of the consequences of hysteria, as there was enough mistrust between people to warrant such a list. The “overnight conversions” to patriotism were a method of lessening suspicion against oneself, once again displaying the breakdown of trust. Moreover, these frequent accusations were largely unfounded, meaning they were based upon opinion, and not evidence. The ability for hysteria to induce suspicion is even seen in the “greatest deliberative body in the World,” when the U.S. Senate became a “rendezvous for vilification,” where “unproved charges” were met with “undignified countercharges” (Smith 3). In this context, the Senators were