The history of witchcraft and demonologySummers, Montague
History
The history of witchcraft and demonology
Summers, Montague
Demonology; Demonology -- History; Witchcraft; Witchcraft -- History
In _The Tempest_ Prospero is a philosopher rather than a wizard, and
Ariel is a fairy not a familiar. The magic of Prospero is of the
intellect, and throughout, Shakespeare is careful to insist upon a
certain detachment from human passions and ambitions. His love for
Miranda, indeed, is exquisitely portrayed, and once—at the base
ingratitude of Caliban—his anger flashes forth, but none the less, albeit
superintending the fortunes of those over whom he watches tenderly,
and utterly abhorring the thought of revenge, he seems to stand apart
like Providence divinely guiding the events to the desired issue of
reconciliation and forgiveness. Even so, the situation was delicate to
place before an Elizabethan audience, and how nobly and with what art
does Shakespeare touch upon Prospero’s “rough magic”! In Sycorax we
recognize the typical witch, wholly evil, vile, malignant, terrible for
mischief, the consort and mistress of devils.
There are few scenes which have so caught the world’s fancy as the wild
overture to _Macbeth_. In storm and wilderness we are suddenly brought
face to face with three mysterious phantasms that ride on the wind and
mingle with the mist in thunder, lightning, and in rain. They are not
agents of evil, they are evil; nameless, spectral, wholly horrible. And
then, after the briefest of intervals, they reappear to relate such
exploits as killing swine and begging chestnuts from a sailor’s wife,
to brag of having secured such talismans as the thumb of a drowned
pilot, businesses proper to Mother Demdike or Anne Bishop of Wincanton,
Somerset. Can this change have been intentional? I think not, and its
very violence and quickness are jarring to a degree. The meeting with
Hecate, who is angry, and scolds them “beldames as you are, Saucy and
overbold” does not mend matters, and in spite of the horror when the
apparitions are evoked, the ingredients of the cauldron, however noisome
and hideous, are too material for “A deed without a name.” There is a
weakness here, and it says much for the genius of the tragedy that this
weakness is not obtrusively felt. Nevertheless it was upon this that
the actors seized when for theatrical effect the incantation scenes had
to be “written up” by the interpolation of fresh matter. Davenant also
in his frankly operatic version of _Macbeth_, produced at Dorset Garden
in February, 1672-3 elaborated the witch scenes to an incredible extent,
although by ample conveyance from Middleton’s _The Witch_ together with
songs and dances he was merely following theatrical tradition.[9]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account