Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Elizabethan Demonology
Author: Spalding, Thomas Alfred, 1850-
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Elizabethan Demonology" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



ELIZABETHAN DEMONOLOGY

An Essay in Illustration of the Belief in the Existence of Devils,
and the Powers Possessed By Them, as It Was Generally Held during the
Period of the Reformation, and the Times Immediately Succeeding;
with Special Reference to Shakspere and His Works

by

THOMAS ALFRED SPALDING, LL.B. (LOND.)

Barrister-at-Law, Honorary Treasurer of The New Shakspere Society

London

1880



TO

ROBERT BROWNING,

PRESIDENT OF THE

NEW SHAKSPERE SOCIETY,

THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED.



FOREWORDS.


This Essay is an expansion, in accordance with a preconceived scheme, of
two papers, one on "The Witches in Macbeth," and the other on "The
Demonology of Shakspere," which were read before the New Shakspere
Society in the years 1877 and 1878. The Shakspere references in the text
are made to the Globe Edition.

The writer's best thanks are due to his friends Mr. F.J. Furnivall and
Mr. Lauriston E. Shaw, for their kindness in reading the proof sheets,
and suggesting emendations.

TEMPLE,
   October 7, 1879.



     "We are too hasty when we set down our ancestors in the gross for
     fools for the monstrous inconsistencies (as they seem to us)
     involved in their creed of witchcraft."--C. LAMB.

     "But I will say, of Shakspere's works generally, that we have no
     full impress of him there, even as full as we have of many men. His
     works are so many windows, through which we see a glimpse of the
     world that was in him."--T. CARLYLE.



ANALYSIS.

I.

1. Difficulty in understanding our elder writers without a knowledge of
their language and ideas. 2. Especially in the case of dramatic poets.
3. Examples. Hamlet's "assume a virtue." 4. Changes in ideas and law
relating to marriage. Massinger's "Maid of Honour" as an example. 5.
_Sponsalia de futuro_ and _Sponsalia de praesenti_. Shakspere's
marriage. 6. Student's duty is to get to know the opinions and feelings
of the folk amongst whom his author lived. 7. It will be hard work, but
a gain in the end. First, in preventing conceit. 8. Secondly, in
preventing rambling reading. 9. Author's present object to illustrate
the dead belief in Demonology, especially as far as it concerns
Shakspere. He thinks that this may perhaps bring us into closer contact
with Shakspere's soul. 10. Some one objects that Shakspere can speak
better for himself. Yes, but we must be sure that we understand the
media through which he speaks. 11. Division of subject.

II.

12. Reasons why the empire of the supernatural is so extended amongst
savages. 13. All important affairs of life transacted under
superintendence of Supreme Powers. 14. What are these Powers? Three
principles regarding them. 15. (I.) Incapacity of mankind to accept
monotheism. The Jews. 16. Roman Catholicism really polytheistic,
although believers won't admit it. Virgin Mary. Saints. Angels.
Protestantism in the same condition in a less degree. 17. Francis of
Assisi. Gradually made into a god. 18. (II.) Manichaeism. Evil spirits
as inevitable as good. 19. (III.) Tendency to treat the gods of hostile
religions as devils. 20. In the Greek theology. [Greek: daimones].
Platonism. 21. Neo-Platonism. Makes the elder gods into daemons. 22.
Judaism. Recognizes foreign gods at first. _Elohim_, but they get
degraded in time. Beelzebub, Belial, etc. 23. Early Christians treat
gods of Greece in the same way. St. Paul's view. 24. The Church,
however, did not stick to its colours in this respect. Honesty not the
best policy. A policy of compromise. 25. The oracles. Sosthenion and St.
Michael. Delphi. St. Gregory's saintliness and magnanimity. Confusion of
pagan gods and Christian saints. 26. Church in North Europe. Thonar,
etc., are devils, but Balda gets identified with Christ. 27. Conversion
of Britons. Their gods get turned into fairies rather than devils.
Deuce. Old Nick. 28. Subsequent evolution of belief. Carlyle's Abbot
Sampson. Religious formulae of witchcraft. 29. The Reformers and
Catholics revive the old accusations. The Reformers only go half-way in
scepticism. Calfhill and Martiall. 30. Catholics. Siege of Alkmaar.
Unfortunate mistake of a Spanish prisoner. 31. Conditions that tended to
vivify the belief during Elizabethan era. 32. The new freedom. Want of
rules of evidence. Arthur Hacket and his madnesses. Sneezing.
Cock-crowing. Jackdaw in the House of Commons. Russell and Drake both
mistaken for devils. 33. Credulousness of people. "To make one danse
naked." A parson's proof of transubstantiation. 34. But the Elizabethans
had strong common sense nevertheless. People do wrong if they set them
down as fools. If we had not learned to be wiser than they, we should
have to be ashamed of ourselves. We shall learn nothing from them if we
don't try to understand them.

III.

35. The three heads. 36. (I.) Classification of devils. Greater and
lesser devils. Good and bad angels. 37. Another classification, not
popular. 38. Names of greater devils. Horribly uncouth. The number of
them. Shakspere's devils. 39. (II.) Form of devils of the greater. 40.
Of the lesser. The horns, goggle eyes, and tail. Scot's
carnal-mindedness. He gets his book burnt, and written against by James
I. 41. Spenser's idol-devil. 42. Dramatists' satire of popular opinion.
43. Favourite form for appearing in when conjured. Devils in Macbeth.
44. Powers of devils. 45. Catholic belief in devil's power to create
bodies. 46. Reformers deny this, but admit that he deceives people into
believing that he can do so, either by getting hold of a dead body, and
restoring animation. 47. Or by means of illusion. 48. The common people
stuck to the Catholic doctrine. Devils appear in likeness of an ordinary
human being. 49. Even a living one, which was sometimes awkward. "The
Troublesome Raigne of King John." They like to appear as priests or
parsons. The devil quoting Scripture. 50. Other human shapes. 51.
Animals. Ariel. 52. Puck. 53. "The Witch of Edmonton." The devil on the
stage. Flies. Urban Grandier. Sir M. Hale. 54. Devils as angels. As
Christ. 55. As dead friend. Reformers denied the possibility of ghosts,
and said the appearances so called were devils. James I. and his
opinion. 56. The common people believed in the ghosts. Bishop
Pilkington's troubles. 57. The two theories. Illustrated in "Julius
Caesar," "Macbeth." 58. And "Hamlet." 59. This explains an apparent
inconsistency in "Hamlet." 60. Possession and obsession. Again the
Catholics and Protestants differ. 61. But the common people believe in
possession. 62. Ignorance on the subject of mental disease. The
exorcists. 63. John Cotta on possession. What the "learned physicion"
knew. 64. What was manifest to the vulgar view. Will Sommers. "The Devil
is an Ass." 65. Harsnet's "Declaration," and "King Lear." 66. The
Babington conspiracy. 67. Weston, alias Edmonds. His exorcisms. Mainy.
The basis of Harsnet's statements. 69. The devils in "Lear." 70. Edgar
and Mainy. Mainy's loose morals. 71. The devils tempt with knives and
halters. 72. Mainy's seven devils: Pride, Covetousness, Luxury, Envy,
Wrath, Gluttony, Sloth. The Nightingale business. 73. Treatment of the
possessed: confinement, flagellation. 74. Dr Pinch. Nicknames. 75. Other
methods. That of "Elias and Pawle". The holy chair, sack and oil,
brimstone. 76. Firing out. 77. Bodily diseases the work of the devil.
Bishop Hooper on hygiene. 78. But devils couldn't kill people unless
they renounced God. 79. Witchcraft. 80. People now-a-days can't
sympathize with the witch persecutors, because they don't believe in the
devil. Satan is a mere theory now. 81. But they believed in him once,
and therefore killed people that were suspected of having to do with
him. 82. And we don't sympathize with the persecuted witches, although
we make a great fuss about the sufferings of the Reformers. 83. The
witches in Macbeth. Some take them to be Norns. 84. Gervinus. His
opinion. 85. Mr. F.G. Fleay. His opinion. 86. Evidence. Simon Forman's
note. 87. Holinshed's account. 88. Criticism. 89. It is said that the
appearance and powers of the sisters are not those of witches. 90. It is
going to be shown that they are. 91. A third piece of criticism. 92.
Objections. 93. Contemporary descriptions of witches. Scot, Harsnet.
Witches' beards. 94. Have Norns chappy fingers, skinny lips, and beards?
95. Powers of witches "looking into the seeds of time." Bessie Roy, how
she looked into them. 96. Meaning of first scene of "Macbeth." 97.
Witches power to vanish. Ointments for the purpose. Scot's instance of
their efficacy. 98. "Weird sisters." 99. Other evidence. 100. Why
Shakspere chose witches. Command over elements. 101. Peculiar to Scotch
trials of 1590-91. 102. Earlier case of Bessie Dunlop--a poor, starved,
half daft creature. "Thom Reid," and how he tempted her. Her canny
Scotch prudence. Poor Bessie gets burnt for all that. 103. Reason for
peculiarity of trials of 1590. James II. comes from Denmark to Scotland.
The witches raise a storm at the instigation of the devil. How the
trials were conducted. 104. John Fian. Raising a mist. Toad-omen. Ship
sinking. 105. Sieve-sailing. Excitement south of the Border. The
"Daemonologie." Statute of James against witchcraft. 106. The origin of
the incubus and succubus. 107. Mooncalves. 108. Division of opinion
amongst Reformers regarding devils. Giordano Bruno. Bullinger's opinion
about Sadducees and Epicures. 109. Emancipation a gradual process.
Exorcism in Edward VI.'s Prayer-book. 110. The author hopes he has been
reverent in his treatment of the subject. Any sincere belief entitled to
respect. Our pet beliefs may some day appear as dead and ridiculous as
these.

IV.

111. Fairies and devils differ in degree, not in origin. 112. Evidence.
113. Cause of difference. Folk, until disturbed by religious doubt,
don't believe in devils, but fairies. 114. Reformation shook people up,
and made them think of hell and devils. 115. The change came in the
towns before the country. Fairies held on a long time in the country.
116. Shakspere was early impressed with fairy lore. In middle life, came
in contact with town thought and devils, and at the end of it returned
to Stratford and fairydom. 117. This is reflected in his works. 118. But
there is progression of thought to be observed in these stages. 119.
Shakspere indirectly tells us his thoughts, if we will take the trouble
to learn them. 120. Three stages of thought that men go through on
religious matters. Hereditary belief. Scepticism. Reasoned belief. 121.
Shakspere went through all this. 122. Illustrations. Hereditary belief.
"A Midsummer Night's Dream." Fairies chiefly an adaptation of current
tradition. 123. The dawn of doubt. 124. Scepticism. Evil spirits
dominant. No guiding good. 125. Corresponding lapse of faith in other
matters. Woman's purity. 126. Man's honour. 127. Mr. Ruskin's view of
Shakspere's message. 128. Founded chiefly on plays of sceptical period.
Message of third period entirely different. 129. Reasoned belief. "The
Tempest." 130. Man can master evil of all forms if he go about it in the
right way--is not the toy of fate. 131. Prospero a type of Shakspere in
this final stage of thought. How pleasant to think this!



ELIZABETHAN DEMONOLOGY.


1. It is impossible to understand and appreciate thoroughly the
production of any great literary genius who lived and wrote in times far
removed from our own, without a certain amount of familiarity, not only
with the precise shades of meaning possessed by the vocabulary he made
use of, as distinguished from the sense conveyed by the same words in
the present day, but also with the customs and ideas, political,
religious and moral, that predominated during the period in which his
works were produced. Without such information, it will be found
impossible, in many matters of the first importance, to grasp the
writer's true intent, and much will appear vague and lifeless that was
full of point and vigour when it was first conceived; or, worse still,
modern opinion upon the subject will be set up as the standard of
interpretation, ideas will be forced into the writer's sentences that
could not by any manner of possibility have had place in his mind, and
utterly false conclusions as to his meaning will be the result. Even the
man who has had some experience in the study of an early literature,
occasionally finds some difficulty in preventing the current opinions of
his day from obtruding themselves upon his work and warping his
judgment; to the general reader this must indeed be a frequent and
serious stumbling-block.

2. This is a special source of danger in the study of the works of
dramatic poets, whose very art lies in the representation of the current
opinions, habits, and foibles of their times--in holding up the mirror
to their age. It is true that, if their works are to live, they must
deal with subjects of more than mere passing interest; but it is also
true that many, and the greatest of them, speak upon questions of
eternal interest in the particular light cast upon them in their times,
and it is quite possible that the truth may be entirely lost from want
of power to recognize it under the disguise in which it comes. A certain
motive, for instance, that is an overpowering one in a given period,
subsequently appears grotesque, weak, or even powerless; the consequent
action becomes incomprehensible, and the actor is contemned; and a
simile that appeared most appropriate in the ears of the author's
contemporaries, seems meaningless, or ridiculous, to later generations.

3. An example or two of this possibility of error, derived from works
produced during the period with which it is the object of these pages to
deal, will not be out of place here.

A very striking illustration of the manner in which a word may mislead
is afforded by the oft-quoted line:

     "Assume a virtue, if you have it not."

By most readers the secondary, and, in the present day, almost
universal, meaning of the word assume--"pretend that to be, which in
reality has no existence;"--that is, in the particular case, "ape the
chastity you do not in reality possess"--is understood in this sentence;
and consequently Hamlet, and through him, Shakspere, stand committed to
the appalling doctrine that hypocrisy in morals is to be commended and
cultivated. Now, such a proposition never for an instant entered
Shakspere's head. He used the word "assume" in this case in its primary
and justest sense; _ad-sumo_, take to, acquire; and the context plainly
shows that Hamlet meant that his mother, by self-denial, would gradually
acquire that virtue in which she was so conspicuously wanting. Yet, for
lack of a little knowledge of the history of the word employed, the
other monstrous gloss has received almost universal and applauding
acceptance.

4. This is a fair example of the style of error which a reader
unacquainted with the history of the changes our language has undergone
may fall into. Ignorance of changes in customs and morals may cause
equal or greater error.

The difference between the older and more modern law, and popular
opinion, relating to promises of marriage and their fulfilment, affords
a striking illustration of the absurdities that attend upon the
interpretation of the ideas of one generation by the practice of
another. Perhaps no greater nonsense has been talked upon any subject
than this one, especially in relation to Shakspere's own marriage, by
critics who seem to have thought that a fervent expression of acute
moral feeling would replace and render unnecessary patient
investigation.

In illustration of this difference, a play of Massinger's, "The Maid of
Honour," may be advantageously cited, as the catastrophe turns upon this
question of marriage contracts. Camiola, the heroine, having been
precontracted by oath[1] to Bertoldo, the king's natural brother, and
hearing of his subsequent engagement to the Duchess of Sienna,
determines to quit the world and take the veil. But before doing so, and
without informing any one, except her confessor, of her intention, she
contrives a somewhat dramatic scene for the purpose of exposing her
false lover. She comes into the presence of the king and all the court,
produces her contract, claims Bertoldo as her husband, and demands
justice of the king, adjuring him that he shall not--

    "Swayed or by favour or affection,
    By a false gloss or wrested comment, alter
    The true intent and letter of the law."

[Footnote 1: Act v. sc. I.]

Now, the only remedy that would occur to the mind of the reader of the
present day under such circumstances, would be an action for breach of
promise of marriage, and he would probably be aware of the very recent
origin of that method of procedure. The only reply, therefore, that he
would expect from Roberto would be a mild and sympathetic assurance of
inability to interfere; and he must be somewhat taken aback to find this
claim of Camiola admitted as indisputable. The riddle becomes somewhat
further involved when, having established her contract, she immediately
intimates that she has not the slightest intention of observing it
herself, by declaring her desire to take the veil.

5. This can only be explained by the rules current at the time regarding
spousals. The betrothal, or handfasting, was, in Massinger's time, a
ceremony that entailed very serious obligations upon the parties to it.
There were two classes of spousals--_sponsalia de futuro_ and _sponsalia
de praesenti_: a promise of marriage in the future, and an actual
declaration of present marriage. This last form of betrothal was, in
fact, marriage, as far as the contracting parties were concerned.[1] It
could not, even though not consummated, be dissolved by mutual consent;
and a subsequent marriage, even though celebrated with religious rites,
was utterly invalid, and could be set aside at the suit of the injured
person.

[Footnote 1: Swinburne, A Treatise of Spousals, 1686, p. 236. In England
the offspring were, nevertheless, illegitimate.]

The results entailed by _sponsalia de futuro_ were less serious.
Although no spousals of the same nature could be entered into with a
third person during the existence of the contract, yet it could be
dissolved by mutual consent, and was dissolved by subsequent _sponsalia
in praesenti_, or matrimony. But such spousals could be converted into
valid matrimony by the cohabitation of the parties; and this, instead of
being looked upon as reprehensible, seems to have been treated as a
laudable action, and to be by all means encouraged.[1] In addition to
this, completion of a contract for marriage _de futuro_ confirmed by
oath, if such a contract were not indeed indissoluble, as was thought by
some, could at any rate be enforced against an unwilling party. But
there were some reasons that justified the dissolution of _sponsalia_ of
either description. Affinity was one of these; and--what is to the
purpose here, in England before the Reformation, and in those parts of
the continent unaffected by it--the entrance into a religious order was
another. Here, then, we have a full explanation of Camiola's conduct.
She is in possession of evidence of a contract of marriage between
herself and Bertoldo, which, whether _in praesenti_ or _in futuro_,
being confirmed by oath, she can force upon him, and which will
invalidate his proposed marriage with the duchess. Having established
her right, she takes the only step that can with certainty free both
herself and Bertoldo from the bond they had created, by retiring into a
nunnery.

[Footnote 1: Swinburne, p. 227.]

This explanation renders the action of the play clear, and at the same
time shows that Shakspere in his conduct with regard to his marriage may
have been behaving in the most honourable and praiseworthy manner; as
the bond, with the date of which the date of the birth of his first
child is compared, is for the purpose of exonerating the ecclesiastics
from any liability for performing the ecclesiastical ceremony, which was
not at all a necessary preliminary to a valid marriage, so far as the
husband and wife were concerned, although it was essential to render
issue of the marriage legitimate.

6. These are instances of the deceptions that are likely to arise
from the two fertile sources that have been specified. There can
be no doubt that the existence of errors arising from the former
source--misapprehension of the meaning of words--is very generally
admitted, and effectual remedies have been supplied by modern scholars
for those who will make use of them. Errors arising from the latter
source are not so entirely recognized, or so securely guarded against.
But what has just been said surely shows that it is of no use reading a
writer of a past age with merely modern conceptions; and, therefore,
that if such a man's works are worth study at all, they must be read
with the help of the light thrown upon them by contemporary history,
literature, laws, and morals. The student must endeavour to divest
himself, as far as possible, of all ideas that are the result of a
development subsequent to the time in which his author lived, and to
place himself in harmony with the life and thoughts of the people of
that age: sit down with them in their homes, and learn the sources of
their loves, their hates, their fears, and see wherein domestic
happiness, or lack of it, made them strong or weak; follow them to the
market-place, and witness their dealings with their fellows--the honesty
or baseness of them, and trace the cause; look into their very hearts,
if it may be, as they kneel at the devotion they feel or simulate, and
become acquainted with the springs of their dearest aspirations and most
secret prayers.

7. A hard discipline, no doubt, but not more hard than salutary.
Salutary in two ways. First, as a test of the student's own earnestness
of purpose. For in these days of revival of interest in our elder
literature, it has become much the custom for flippant persons, who are
covetous of being thought "well-read" by their less-enterprising
companions, to skim over the surface of the pages of the wisest and
noblest of our great teachers, either not understanding, or
misunderstanding them. "I have read Chaucer, Shakspere, Milton," is the
sublimely satirical expression constantly heard from the mouths of those
who, having read words set down by the men they name, have no more
capacity for reading the hearts of the men themselves, through those
words, than a blind man has for discerning the colour of flowers. As a
consequence of this flippancy of reading, numberless writers, whose
works have long been consigned to a well-merited oblivion, have of late
years been disinterred and held up for public admiration, chiefly upon
the ground that they are ancient and unknown. The man who reads for the
sake of having done so, not for the sake of the knowledge gained by
doing so, finds as much charm in these petty writers as in the greater,
and hence their transient and undeserved popularity. It would be well,
then, for every earnest student, before beginning the study of any one
having pretensions to the position of a master, and who is not of our
own generation, to ask himself, "Am I prepared thoroughly to sift out
and ascertain the true import of every allusion contained in this
volume?" And if he cannot honestly answer "Yes," let him shut the book,
assured that he is not impelled to the study of it by a sincere thirst
for knowledge, but by impertinent curiosity, or a shallow desire to
obtain undeserved credit for learning.

8. The second way in which such a discipline will prove salutary is
this: it will prevent the student from straying too far afield in his
reading. The number of "classical" authors whose works will repay such
severe study is extremely limited. However much enthusiasm he may throw
into his studies, he will find that nine-tenths of our older literature
yields too small a harvest of instruction to attract any but the pedant
to expend so much labour upon them. The two great vices of modern
reading will be avoided--flippancy on the one hand, and pedantry on the
other.

9. The object, therefore, which I have had in view in the compilation of
the following pages, is to attempt to throw some additional light upon a
condition of thought, utterly different from any belief that has firm
hold in the present generation, that was current and peculiarly
prominent during the lifetime of the man who bears overwhelmingly the
greatest name, either in our own or any other literature. It may be
said, and perhaps with much force, that enough, and more than enough,
has been written in the way of Shakspere criticism. But is it not better
that somewhat too much should be written upon such a subject than too
little? We cannot expect that every one shall see all the greatness of
Shakspere's vast and complex mind--by one a truth will be grasped that
has eluded the vigilance of others;--and it is better that those who can
by no possibility grasp anything at all should have patient hearing,
rather than that any additional light should be lost. The useless,
lifeless criticism vanishes quietly away into chaos; the good remains
quietly to be useful: and it is in reliance upon the justice and
certainty of this law that I aim at bringing before the mind, as clearly
as may be, a phase of belief that was continually and powerfully
influencing Shakspere during the whole of his life, but is now well-nigh
forgotten or entirely misunderstood. If the endeavour is a useless and
unprofitable one, let it be forgotten--I am content; but I hope to be
able to show that an investigation of the subject does furnish us with a
key which, in a manner, unlocks the secrets of Shakspere's heart, and
brings us closer to the real living man--to the very soul of him who,
with hardly any history in the accepted sense of the word, has left us
in his works a biography of far deeper and more precious meaning, if we
will but understand it.

10. But it may be said that Shakspere, of all men, is able to speak for
himself without aid or comment. His works appeal to all, young and old,
in every time, every nation. It is true; he can be understood. He is,
to use again Ben Jonson's oft-quoted words, "Not of an age, but for
all time." Yet he is so thoroughly imbued with the spirit and opinions
of his era, that without a certain comprehension of the men of
the Elizabethan period he cannot be understood fully. Indeed,
his greatness is to a large extent due to his sympathy with the men
around him, his power of clearly thinking out the answers to the
all-time questions, and giving a voice to them that his contemporaries
could understand;--answers that others could not for themselves
formulate--could, perhaps, only vaguely and dimly feel after. To
understand these answers fully, the language in which they were
delivered must be first thoroughly mastered.

11. I intend, therefore, to attempt to sketch out the leading features
of a phase of religious belief that acquired peculiar distinctness and
prominence during Shakspere's lifetime--more, perhaps, than it ever did
before, or has done since--the belief in the existence of evil spirits,
and their influence upon and dealings with mankind. The subject will be
treated in three sections. The first will contain a short statement of
the laws that seem to be of universal operation in the creation and
maintenance of the belief in a multitudinous band of spirits, good and
evil; and of a few of the conditions of the Elizabethan epoch that may
have had a formative and modifying influence upon that belief. The
second will be devoted to an outline of the chief features of that
belief, as it existed at the time in question--the organization,
appearance, and various functions and powers of the evil spirits, with
special reference to Shakspere's plays. The third and concluding
section, will embody an attempt to trace the growth of Shakspere's
thought upon religious matters through the medium of his allusions to
this subject.

       *       *       *       *       *

12. The empire of the supernatural must obviously be most extended
where civilization is the least advanced. An educated man has to make a
conscious, and sometimes severe, effort to refrain from pronouncing a
dogmatic opinion as to the cause of a given result when sufficient
evidence to warrant a definite conclusion is wanting; to the savage,
the notion of any necessity for, or advantage to be derived from, such
self-restraint never once occurs. Neither the lightning that strikes
his hut, the blight that withers his crops, the disease that destroys
the life of those he loves; nor, on the other hand, the beneficent
sunshine or life-giving rain, is by him traceable to any known
physical cause. They are the results of influences utterly beyond his
understanding--supernatural,--matters upon which imagination is allowed
free scope to run riot, and from which spring up a legion of myths, or
attempts to represent in some manner these incomprehensible processes,
grotesque or poetic, according to the character of the people with which
they originate, which, if their growth be not disturbed by extraneous
influences, eventually develop into the national creed. The most
ordinary events of the savage's every-day life do not admit of a natural
solution; his whole existence is bound in, from birth to death, by a
network of miracles, and regulated, in its smallest details, by unseen
powers of whom he knows little or nothing.

13. Hence it is that, in primitive societies, the functions of
legislator, judge, priest, and medicine man are all combined in one
individual, the great medium of communication between man and the
unknown, whose person is pre-eminently sacred. The laws that are to
guide the community come in some mysterious manner through him from the
higher powers. If two members of the clan are involved in a quarrel, he
is appealed to to apply some test in order to ascertain which of the two
is in the wrong--an ordeal that can have no judicial operation, except
upon the assumption of the existence of omnipotent beings interested in
the discovery of evil-doers, who will prevent the test from operating
unjustly. Maladies and famines are unmistakeable signs of the
displeasure of the good, or spite of the bad spirits, and are to be
averted by some propitiatory act on the part of the sufferers, or the
mediation of the priest-doctor. The remedy that would put an end to a
long-continued drought will be equally effective in arresting an
epidemic.

14. But who, and of what nature, are these supernatural powers whose
influences are thus brought to bear upon every-day life, and who appear
to take such an interest in the affairs of mankind? It seems that there
are three great principles at work in the evolution and modification of
the ideas upon this subject, which must now be shortly stated.

15. (i.) The first of these is the apparent incapacity of the majority
of mankind to accept a purely monotheistic creed. It is a demonstrable
fact that the primitive religions now open to observation attribute
specific events and results to distinct supernatural beings; and there
can be little doubt that this is the initial step in every creed. It is
a bold and somewhat perilous revolution to attempt to overturn this
doctrine and to set up monotheism in its place, and, when successfully
accomplished, is rarely permanent. The more educated portions of the
community maintain allegiance to the new teaching, perhaps; but among
the lower classes it soon becomes degraded to, or amalgamated with, some
form of polytheism more or less pronounced, and either secret or
declared. Even the Jews, the nation the most conspicuous for its
supposed uncompromising adherence to a monotheistic creed, cannot claim
absolute freedom from taint in this respect; for in the country places,
far from the centre of worship, the people were constantly following
after strange gods; and even some of their most notable worthies were
liable to the same accusation.

16. It is not necessary, however, that the individuality and
specialization of function of the supreme beings recognized by any
religious system should be so conspicuous as they are in this case, or
in the Greek or Roman Pantheon, to mark it as in its essence
polytheistic or of polytheistic tendency. It is quite enough that the
immortals are deemed to be capable of hearing and answering the prayers
of their adorers, and of interfering actively in passing events, either
for good or for evil. This, at the root of it, constitutes the crucial
difference between polytheism and monotheism; and in this sense the
Roman Catholic form of Christianity, representing the oldest undisturbed
evolution of a strictly monotheistic doctrine, is undeniably
polytheistic. Apart from the Virgin Mary, there is a whole hierarchy of
inferior deities, saints, and angels, subordinate to the One Supreme
Being. This may possibly be denied by the authorized expounders of the
doctrine of the Church of Rome; but it is nevertheless certain that it
is the view taken by the uneducated classes, with whom the saints are
much more present and definite deities than even the Almighty Himself.
It is worth noting, that during the dancing mania of 1418, not God, or
Christ, or the Virgin Mary, but St. Vitus, was prayed to by the populace
to stop the epidemic that was afterwards known by his name.[1] There was
a temple to St. Michael on Mount St. Angelo, and Augustine thought it
necessary to declare that angel-worshippers were heretics.[2] Even
Protestantism, though a much younger growth than Catholicism, shows a
slight tendency towards polytheism. The saints are, of course, quite
out of the question, and angels are as far as possible relegated from
the citadel of asserted belief into the vaguer regions of poetical
sentimentality; but--although again unadmitted by the orthodox of the
sect--the popular conception of Christ is, and, until the masses are
more educated in theological niceties than they are at present,
necessarily must be, as of a Supreme Being totally distinct from God the
Father. This applies in a less degree to the third Person in the
Trinity; less, because His individuality is less clear. George Eliot
has, with her usual penetration, noted this fact in "Silas Marner,"
where, in Mrs. Winthrop's simple theological system, the Trinity is
always referred to as "Them."

[Footnote 1: Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages, p. 85.]

[Footnote 2: Bullinger, p. 348. Parker Society.]

17. The posthumous history of Francis of Assisi affords a striking
illustration of this strange tendency towards polytheism. This
extraordinary man received no little reverence and adulation during his
lifetime; but it was not until after his death that the process of
deification commenced. It was then discovered that the stigmata were not
the only points of resemblance between the departed saint and the Divine
Master he professed to follow; that his birth had been foretold by the
prophets; that, like Christ, he underwent transfiguration; and that he
had worked miracles during his life. The climax of the apotheosis was
reached in 1486, when a monk, preaching at Paris, seriously maintained
that St. Francis was in very truth a second Christ, the second Son of
God; and that after his death he descended into purgatory, and
liberated all the spirits confined there who had the good fortune to be
arrayed in the Franciscan garb.[1]

[Footnote 1: Maury, Histoire de la Magie, p. 354.]

18. (ii.) The second principle is that of the Manichaeists: the division
of spirits into hostile camps, good and evil. This is a much more common
belief than the orthodox are willing to allow. There is hardly any
religious system that does not recognize a first source of evil, as well
as a first source of good. But the spirit of evil occupies a position of
varying importance: in some systems he maintains himself as co-equal of
the spirit of good; in others he sinks to a lower stage, remaining very
powerful to do harm, but nevertheless under the control, in matters of
the highest importance, of the more beneficent Being. In each of these
cases, the first principle is found operating, ever augmenting the
ranks; monodiabolism being as impossible as monotheism; and hence the
importance of fully establishing that proposition.

19. (iii.) The last and most important of these principles is the
tendency of all theological systems to absorb into themselves the
deities extraneous to themselves, not as gods, but as inferior, or even
evil, spirits. The actual existence of the foreign deity is not for a
moment disputed, the presumption in favour of innumerable spiritual
agencies being far too strong to allow the possibility of such a doubt;
but just as the alien is looked upon as an inferior being, created
chiefly for the use and benefit of the chosen people--and what nation is
not, if its opinion of itself may be relied upon, a chosen people?--so
the god the alien worships is a spirit of inferior power and capacity,
and can be recognized solely as occupying a position subordinate to that
of the gods of the land.

This principle has such an important influence in the elaboration of the
belief in demons, that it is worth while to illustrate the generality of
its application.

20. In the Greek system of theology we find in the first place a number
of deities of varying importance and power, whose special functions are
defined with some distinctness; and then, below these, an innumerable
band of spirits, the souls of the departed--probably the relics of an
earlier pure ancestor-worship--who still interest themselves in the
inhabitants of this world. These [Greek: daimones] were certainly
accredited with supernatural power, and were not of necessity either
good or evil in their influence or action. It was to this second class
that foreign deities were assimilated. They found it impossible,
however, to retain even this humble position. The ceremonies of their
worship, and the language in which those ceremonies were performed, were
strange to the inhabitants of the land in which the acclimatization was
attempted; and the incomprehensible is first suspected, then loathed. It
is not surprising, then, that the new-comers soon fell into the ranks of
purely evil spirits, and that those who persisted in exercising their
rites were stigmatized as devil-worshippers, or magicians.

But in process of time this polytheistic system became pre-eminently
unsatisfactory to the thoughtful men whom Greece produced in such
numbers. The tendency towards monotheism which is usually associated
with the name of Plato is hinted at in the writings of other
philosophers who were his predecessors. The effect of this revolution
was to recognize one Supreme Being, the First Cause, and to subordinate
to him all the other deities of the ancient and popular theology--to
co-ordinate them, in fact, with the older class of daemons; the first
step in the descent to the lowest category of all.

21. The history of the neo-Platonic belief is one of elaboration upon
these ideas. The conception of the Supreme Being was complicated in a
manner closely resembling the idea of the Christian Trinity, and all the
subordinate daemons were classified into good and evil geniuses. Thus, a
theoretically monotheistic system was established, with a tremendous
hierarchy of inferior spirits, who frequently bore the names of the
ancient gods and goddesses of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, strikingly
resembling that of Roman Catholicism. The subordinate daemons were not
at first recognized as entitled to any religious rites; but in the
course of time, by the inevitable operation of the first principle just
enunciated, a form of theurgy sprang up with the object of attracting
the kindly help and patronage of the good spirits, and was tolerated;
and attempts were made to hold intercourse with the evil spirits, which
were, as far as possible suppressed and discountenanced.

22. The history of the operation of this principle upon the Jewish
religion is very similar, and extremely interesting. Although they do
not seem to have ever had any system of ancestor-worship, as the Greeks
had, yet the Jews appear originally to have recognized the deities of
their neighbours as existing spirits, but inferior in power to the God
of Israel. "All the gods of the nations are idols" are words that
entirely fail to convey the idea of the Psalmist; for the word
translated "idols" is _Elohim_, the very term usually employed to
designate Jehovah; and the true sense of the passage therefore is: "All
the gods of the nations are gods, but Jehovah made the heavens."[1] In
another place we read that "The Lord is a great God, and a great King
above all gods."[2] As, however, the Jews gradually became acquainted
with the barbarous rites with which their neighbours did honour to their
gods, the foreigners seem to have fallen more and more in estimation,
until they came to be classed as evil spirits. To this process such
names as Beelzebub, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and Belial bear witness;
Beelzebub, "the prince of the devils" of later time, being one of the
gods of the hostile Philistines.

[Footnote 1: Psalm xcvi. 5 (xcv. Sept.).]

[Footnote 2: Psalm xcv. 3 (xciv. Sept.). Maury, p. 98.]

23. The introduction of Christianity made no difference in this respect.
Paul says to the believers at Corinth, "that the things which the
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils ([Greek: daimonia]), and
not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with
devils;"[1] and the Septuagint renders the word _Elohim_ in the
ninety-fifth Psalm by this [Greek: daimonia], which as the Christians
had already a distinct term for good spirits, came to be applied to evil
ones only.

[Footnote 1: I Cor. x. 20.]

Under the influence therefore, of the new religion, the gods of Greece
and Rome, who in the days of their supremacy had degraded so many
foreign deities to the position of daemons, were in their turn deposed
from their high estate, and became the nucleus around which the
Christian belief in demonology formed itself. The gods who under the old
theologies reigned paramount in the lower regions became pre-eminently
diabolic in character in the new system, and it was Hecate who to the
last retained her position of active patroness and encourager of
witchcraft; a practice which became almost indissolubly connected with
her name. Numerous instances of the completeness with which this process
of diabolization was effected, and the firmness with which it retained
its hold upon the popular belief, even to late times, might be given;
but the following must suffice. In one of the miracle plays, "The
Conversion of Saul," a council of devils is held, at which Mercury
appears as the messenger of Belial.[1]

[Footnote 1: Digby Mysteries, New Shakspere Society, 1880, p. 44.]

24. But this absolute rejection of every pagan belief and ceremony was
characteristic of the Christian Church in its infancy only. So long as
the band of believers was a small and persecuted one, no temptation to
violate the rule could exist. But as the Church grew, and acquired
influence and position, it discovered that good policy demanded that the
sternness and inflexibility of its youthful theories should undergo some
modification. It found that it was not the most successful method of
enticing stragglers into its fold to stigmatize the gods they ignorantly
worshipped as devils, and to persecute them as magicians. The more
impetuous and enthusiastic supporters did persecute, and persecute most
relentlessly, the adherents of the dying faith; but persecution, whether
of good or evil, always fails as a means of suppressing a hated
doctrine, unless it can be carried to the extent of extermination of its
supporters; and the more far-seeing leaders of the Catholic Church soon
recognized that a slight surrender of principle was a far surer road to
success than stubborn, uncompromising opposition.

25. It was in this spirit that the Catholics dealt with the oracles of
heathendom. Mr. Lecky is hardly correct when he says that nothing
analogous to the ancient oracles was incorporated with Christianity.[1]
There is the notable case of the god Sosthenion, whom Constantine
identified with the archangel Michael, and whose oracular functions were
continued in a precisely similar manner by the latter.[2] Oracles that
were not thus absorbed and supported were recognized as existent, but
under diabolic control, and to be tolerated, if not patronized, by the
representatives of the dominant religion. The oracle at Delphi gave
forth prophetic utterances for centuries after the commencement of the
Christian era; and was the less dangerous, as its operations could be
stopped at any moment by holding a saintly relic to the god or devil
Apollo's nose. There is a fable that St. Gregory, in the course of his
travels, passed near the oracle, and his extraordinary sanctity was such
as to prevent all subsequent utterances. This so disturbed the presiding
genius of the place, that he appealed to the saint to undo the baneful
effects his presence had produced; and Gregory benevolently wrote a
letter to the devil, which was in fact a license to continue the
business of prophesying unmolested.[3] This nonsensical fiction shows
clearly enough that the oracles were not generally looked upon as
extinguished by Christianity. As the result of a similar policy we find
the names and functions of the pagan gods and the earlier Christian
saints confused in the most extraordinary manner; the saints assuming
the duties of the moribund deities where those duties were of a harmless
or necessary character.[4]

[Footnote 1: Rise and Influence of Rationalism, i. p. 31.]

[Footnote 2: Maury, p. 244, et seq.]

[Footnote 3: Scot, book vii. ch. i.]

[Footnote 4: Middleton's Letter from Rome.]

26. The Church carried out exactly the same principles in her missionary
efforts amongst the heathen hordes of Northern Europe. "Do you renounce
the devils, and all their words and works; Thonar, Wodin, and Saxenote?"
was part of the form of recantation administered to the Scandinavian
converts;[1] and at the present day "Odin take you" is the Norse
equivalent of "the devil take you." On the other hand, an attempt was
made to identify Balda "the beautiful" with Christ--a confusion of
character that may go far towards accounting for a custom joyously
observed by our forefathers at Christmastide but which the false
modesty of modern society has nearly succeeded in banishing from amongst
us, for Balda was slain by Loké with a branch of mistletoe, and Christ
was betrayed by Judas with a kiss.

[Footnote 1: Milman, History of Latin Christianity, iii. 267; ix. 65.]

27. Upon the conversion of the inhabitants of Great Britain to
Christianity, the native deities underwent the same inevitable fate, and
sank into the rank of evil spirits. Perhaps the juster opinion is that
they became the progenitors of our fairy mythology rather than the
subsequent devil-lore, although the similarity between these two classes
of spirits is sufficient to warrant us in classing them as species of
the same genus; their characters and functions being perfectly
interchangeable, and even at times merging and becoming
indistinguishable. A certain lurking affection in the new converts for
the religion they had deserted, perhaps under compulsion, may have led
them to look upon their ancient objects of veneration as less detestable
in nature, and dangerous in act, than the devils imported as an integral
portion of their adopted faith; and so originated this class of spirits
less evil than the other. Sir Walter Scott may be correct in his
assertion that many of these fairy-myths owe their origin to the
existence of a diminutive autochthonic race that was conquered by the
invading Celts, and the remnants of which lurked about the mountains and
forests, and excited in their victors a superstitious reverence on
account of their great skill in metallurgy; but this will not explain
the retention of many of the old god-names; as that of the Dusii, the
Celtic nocturnal spirits, in our word "deuce," and that of the Nikr or
water-spirits in "nixie" and old "Nick."[1] These words undoubtedly
indicate the accomplishment of the "facilis descensus Averno" by the
native deities. Elves, brownies, gnomes, and trolds were all at one time
Scotch or Irish gods. The trolds obtained a character similar to that of
the more modern succubus, and have left their impression upon
Elizabethan English in the word "trull."

[Footnote 1: Maury, p. 189.]

28. The preceding very superficial outline of the growth of the belief
in evil spirits is enough for the purpose of this essay, as it shows
that the basis of English devil-lore was the annihilated mythologies of
the ancient heathen religions--Italic and Teutonic, as well as those
brought into direct conflict with the Jewish system; and also that the
more important of the Teutonic deities are not to be traced in the
subsequent hierarchy of fiends, on account probably of their temporary
or permanent absorption into the proselytizing system, or the refusal of
the new converts to believe them to be so black as their teachers
painted them. The gradual growth of the superstructure it would be
well-nigh impossible and quite unprofitable to trace. It is due chiefly
to the credulous ignorance and distorted imagination, monkish and
otherwise, of several centuries. Carlyle's graphic picture of Abbot
Sampson's vision of the devil in "Past and Present" will perhaps do more
to explain how the belief grew and flourished than pages of explanatory
statements. It is worthy of remark, however, that to the last,
communication with evil spirits was kept up by means of formulae and
rites that are undeniably the remnants of a form of religious worship.
Incomprehensible in their jargon as these formulae mostly are, and
strongly tinctured as they have become with burlesqued Christian
symbolism and expression--for those who used them could only supply the
fast-dying memory of the elder forms from the existing system--they
still, in all their grotesqueness, remain the battered relics of a dead
faith.

29. Such being the natural history of the conflict of religions, it will
not be a matter of surprise that the leaders of our English Reformation
should, in their turn, have attributed the miracles of the Roman
Catholic saints to the same infernal source as the early Christians
supposed to have been the origin of the prodigies and oracles of
paganism. The impulse given by the secession from the Church of Rome to
the study of the Bible by all classes added impetus to this tendency. In
Holy Writ the Reformers found full authority for believing in the
existence of evil spirits, possession by devils, witchcraft, and divine
and diabolic interference by way of miracle generally; and they
consequently acknowledged the possibility of the repetition of such
phenomena in the times in which they lived--a position more tenable,
perhaps, than that of modern orthodoxy, that accepts without murmur all
the supernatural events recorded in the Bible, and utterly rejects all
subsequent relations of a similar nature, however well authenticated.
The Reformers believed unswervingly in the truth of the Biblical
accounts of miracles, and that what God had once permitted to take place
might and would be repeated in case of serious necessity. But they found
it utterly impossible to accept the puerile and meaningless miracles
perpetrated under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church as evidence
of divine interference; and they had not travelled far enough upon the
road towards rationalism to be able to reject them, one and all, as in
their very nature impossible. The consequence of this was one of those
compromises which we so often meet with in the history of the changes of
opinion effected by the Reformation. Only those particular miracles that
were indisputably demonstrated to be impostures--and there were plenty
of them, such as the Rood of Boxley[1]--were treated as such by them.
The unexposed remainder were treated as genuine supernatural phenomena,
but caused by diabolical, not divine, agency. The reforming divine
Calfhill, supporting this view of the Catholic miracles in his answer to
Martiall's "Treatise of the Cross," points out that the majority of
supernatural events that have taken place in this world have been, most
undoubtedly, the work of the devil; and puts his opponents into a rather
embarrassing dilemma by citing the miracles of paganism, which both
Catholic and Protestant concurred in attributing to the evil one. He
then clinches his argument by asserting that "it is the devil's cunning
that persuades those that will walk in a popish blindness" that they are
worshipping God when they are in reality serving him. "Therefore," he
continues, consciously following an argument of St. Cyprianus against
the pagan miracles, "these wicked spirits do lurk in shrines, in roods,
in crosses, in images: and first of all pervert the priests, which are
easiest to be caught with bait of a little gain. Then work they
miracles. They appear to men in divers shapes; disquiet them when they
are awake; trouble them in their sleeps; distort their members; take
away their health; afflict them with diseases; only to bring them to
some idolatry. Thus, when they have obtained their purpose that a lewd
affiance is reposed where it should not, they enter (as it were) into a
new league, and trouble them no more. What do the simple people then?
Verily suppose that the image, the cross, the thing that they have
kneeled and offered unto (the very devil indeed) hath restored them
health, whereas he did nothing but leave off to molest them. This is the
help and cure that the devils give when they leave off their wrong and
injury."[2]

[Footnote 1: Froude, History of England, cabinet edition, iii. 102.]

[Footnote 2: Calfhill, pp. 317-8. Parker Society.]

30. Here we have a distinct charge of devil-worship--the old doctrine
cropping up again after centuries of repose: "all the gods of our
opponents are devils." Nor were the Catholics a whit behind the
Protestants in this matter. The priests zealously taught that the
Protestants were devil-worshippers and magicians;[1] and the common
people so implicitly believed in the truth of the statement, that we
find one poor prisoner, taken by the Dutch at the siege of Alkmaar in
1578, making a desperate attempt to save his life by promising to
worship his captors' devil precisely as they did[2]--a suggestion that
failed to pacify those to whom it was addressed.

[Footnote 1: Hutchinson's Essay, p. 218. Harsnet, Declaration, p. 30.]

[Footnote 2: Motley, Dutch Republic, ii. 400.]

31. Having thus stated, so far as necessary, the chief laws that are
constantly working the extension of the domain of the supernatural as
far as demonology is concerned, without a remembrance of which the
subject itself would remain somewhat difficult to comprehend fully, I
shall now attempt to indicate one or two conditions of thought and
circumstance that may have tended to increase and vivify the belief
during the period in which the Elizabethan literature flourished.

32. It was an era of change. The nation was emerging from the dim
twilight of mediaevalism into the full day of political and religious
freedom. But the morning mists, which the rising sun had not yet
dispelled, rendered the more distant and complex objects distorted and
portentous. The very fact that doubt, or rather, perhaps, independence
of thought, was at last, within certain limits, treated as non-criminal
in theology, gave an impetus to investigation and speculation in all
branches of politics and science; and with this change came, in the
main, improvement. But the great defect of the time was that this newly
liberated spirit of free inquiry was not kept in check by any sufficient
previous discipline in logical methods of reasoning. Hence the
possibility of the wild theories that then existed, followed out into
action or not, according as circumstances favoured or discouraged:
Arthur Hacket, with casting out of devils, and other madnesses,
vehemently declaring himself the Messiah and King of Europe in the year
of grace 1591, and getting himself believed by some, so long as he
remained unhanged; or, more pathetic still, many weary lives wasted day
by day in fruitless silent search after the impossible philosopher's
stone, or elixir of life. As in law, so in science, there were no
sufficient rules of evidence clearly and unmistakably laid down for the
guidance of the investigator; and consequently it was only necessary to
broach a novel theory in order to have it accepted, without any previous
serious testing. Men do not seem to have been able to distinguish
between an hypothesis and a proved conclusion; or, rather, the rule of
presumptions was reversed, and men accepted the hypothesis as conclusive
until it was disproved. It was a perfectly rational and sufficient
explanation in those days to refer some extraordinary event to some
given supernatural cause, even though there might be no ostensible link
between the two: now, such a suggestion would be treated by the vast
majority with derision or contempt. On the other hand, the most trivial
occurrences, such as sneezing, the appearance of birds of ill omen, the
crowing of a cock, and events of like unimportance happening at a
particular moment, might, by some unseen concatenation of causes and
effects, exercise an incomprehensible influence upon men, and
consequently had important bearings upon their conduct. It is solemnly
recorded in the Commons' Journals that during the discussion of the
statute against witchcraft passed in the reign of James I., a young
jackdaw flew into the House; which accident was generally regarded as
_malum omen_ to the Bill.[1] Extraordinary bravery on the part of an
adversary was sometimes accounted for by asserting that he was the devil
in the form of a man; as the Volscian soldier does with regard to
Coriolanus. This is no mere dramatist's fancy, but a fixed belief of the
times. Sir William Russell fought so desperately at Zutphen, that he got
mistaken for the Evil One;[2] and Drake also gave the Spaniards good
reason for believing that he was a devil, and no man.[3]

[Footnote 1: See also D'Ewes, p. 688.]

[Footnote 2: Froude, xii. 87.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. 663.]

33. This intense credulousness, childish almost in itself, but yet at
the same time combined with the strong man's intellect, permeated all
classes of society. Perhaps a couple of instances, drawn from strangely
diverse sources, will bring this more vividly before the mind than any
amount of attempted theorizing. The first is one of the tricks of the
jugglers of the period.

     "_To make one danse naked._

"Make a poore boie confederate with you, so as after charms, etc.,
spoken by you, he unclothe himself and stand naked, seeming (whilest he
undresseth himselfe) to shake, stamp, and crie, still hastening to be
unclothed, till he be starke naked; or if you can procure none to go so
far, let him onlie beginne to stampe and shake, etc., and unclothe him,
and then you may (for reverence of the companie) seeme to release
him."[1]

[Footnote 1: Scott, p. 339.]

The second illustration must have demanded, if possible, more credulity
on the part of the audience than this harmless entertainment. Cranmer
tells us that in the time of Queen Mary a monk preached a sermon at St.
Paul's, the object of which was to prove the truth of the doctrine of
transubstantiation; and, after the manner of his kind, told the
following little anecdote in support of it:--"A maid of Northgate parish
in Canterbury, in pretence to wipe her mouth, kept the host in her
handkerchief; and, when she came home, she put the same into a pot,
close covered, and she spitted in another pot, and after a few days, she
looking in the one pot, found a little young pretty babe, about a
shaftmond long; and the other pot was full of gore blood."[1]

[Footnote 1: Cranmer, A Confutation of Unwritten Verities, p. 66. Parker
Society.]

34. That the audiences before which these absurdities were seriously
brought, for amusement or instruction, could be excited in either case
to any other feeling than good-natured contempt for a would-be impostor,
seems to us now-a-days to be impossible. It was not so in the times when
these things transpired: the actors of them were not knaves, nor were
their audiences fools, to any unusual extent. If any one is inclined to
form a low opinion of the Elizabethans intellectually, on account of the
divergence of their capacities of belief in this respect from his own,
he does them a great injustice. Let him take at once Charles Lamb's
warning, and try to understand, rather than to judge them. We, who have
had the benefit of three hundred more years of experience and liberty of
thought than they, should have to hide our faces for very shame had we
not arrived at juster and truer conclusions upon those difficult topics
that so bewildered our ancestors. But can we, with all our boasted
advantages of wealth, power, and knowledge, truly say that all our aims
are as high, all our desires as pure, our words as true, and our deeds
as noble, as those whose opinions we feel this tendency to contemn? If
not, or if indeed they have anything whatsoever to teach us in these
respects, let us remember that we shall never learn the lesson wholly,
perhaps not learn it at all, unless, casting aside this first impulse to
despise, we try to enter fully into and understand these strange dead
beliefs of the past.

       *       *       *       *       *

35. It is in this spirit that I now enter upon the second division of
the subject in hand, in which I shall try to indicate the chief features
of the belief in demonology as it existed during the Elizabethan period.
These will be taken up in three main heads: the classification, physical
appearance, and powers of the evil spirits.

36. (i.) It is difficult to discover any classification of devils as
well authenticated and as universally received as that of the angels
introduced by Dionysius the Areopagite, which was subsequently imported
into the creed of the Western Church, and popularized in Elizabethan
times by Dekker's "Hierarchie." The subject was one which, from its
nature, could not be settled _ex cathedrâ_, and consequently the subject
had to grow up as best it might, each writer adopting the arrangement
that appeared to him most suitable. There was one rough but popular
classification into greater and lesser devils. The former branch was
subdivided into classes of various grades of power, the members of
which passed under the titles of kings, dukes, marquises, lords,
captains, and other dignities. Each of these was supposed to have a
certain number of legions of the latter class under his command. These
were the evil spirits who appeared most frequently on the earth as the
emissaries of the greater fiends, to carry out their evil designs. The
more important class kept for the most part in a mystical seclusion, and
only appeared upon earth in cases of the greatest emergency, or when
compelled to do so by conjuration. To the class of lesser devils
belonged the bad angel which, together with a good one, was supposed to
be assigned to every person at birth, to follow him through life--the
one to tempt, the other to guard from temptation;[1] so that a struggle
similar to that recorded between Michael and Satan for the body of Moses
was raging for the soul of every existing human being. This was not a
mere theory, but a vital active belief, as the beautiful well-known
lines at the commencement of the eighth canto of the second book of "The
Faerie Queene," and the use made of these opposing spirits in Marlowe's
"Dr. Faustus," and in "The Virgin Martyr," by Massinger and Dekker,
conclusively show.

[Footnote 1: Scot, p. 506.]

37. Another classification, which seems to retain a reminiscence of the
origin of devils from pagan deities, is effected by reference to the
localities supposed to be inhabited by the different classes of evil
spirits. According to this arrangement we get six classes:--

(1.) Devils of the fire, who wander in the region near the moon.

(2.) Devils of the air, who hover round the earth.

(3.) Devils of the earth; to whom the fairies are allied.

(4.) Devils of the water.

(5.) Submundane devils.[1]

(6.) Lucifugi.

These devils' power and desire to injure mankind appear to have
increased with the proximity of their location to the earth's centre;
but this classification had nothing like the hold upon the popular mind
that the former grouping had, and may consequently be dismissed with
this mention.

[Footnote 1: Cf. I Hen. VI. V. iii. 10; 2 Hen. VI. I. ii. 77;
Coriolanus, IV. v. 97.]

38. The greater devils, or the most important of them, had
distinguishing names--strange, uncouth names; some of them telling of a
heathenish origin; others inexplicable and almost unpronounceable--as
Ashtaroth, Bael, Belial, Zephar, Cerberus, Phoenix, Balam (why he?), and
Haagenti, Leraie, Marchosias, Gusoin, Glasya Labolas. Scot enumerates
seventy-nine, the above amongst them, and he does not by any means
exhaust the number. As each arch-devil had twenty, thirty, or forty
legions of inferior spirits under his command, and a legion was composed
of six hundred and sixty-six devils, it is not surprising that the
latter did not obtain distinguishing names until they made their
appearance upon earth, when they frequently obtained one from the form
they loved to assume; for example, the familiars of the witches in
"Macbeth"--Paddock (toad), Graymalkin (cat), and Harpier (harpy,
possibly). Is it surprising that, with resources of this nature at his
command, such an adept in the art of necromancy as Owen Glendower
should hold Harry Percy, much to his disgust, at the least nine hours

    "In reckoning up the several devils' names
    That were his lackeys"?

Of the twenty devils mentioned by Shakspere, four only belong to the
class of greater devils. Hecate, the principal patroness of witchcraft,
is referred to frequently, and appears once upon the scene.[1] The two
others are Amaimon and Barbazon, both of whom are mentioned twice.
Amaimon was a very important personage, being no other than one of the
four kings. Ziminar was King of the North, and is referred to in "Henry
VI. Part I.;"[2] Gorson of the South; Goap of the West; and Amaimon of
the East. He is mentioned in "Henry IV. Part I.,"[3] and "Merry
Wives."[4] Barbazon also occurs in the same passage in the latter play,
and again in "Henry V."[5]--a fact that does to a slight extent help to
bear out the otherwise ascertained chronological sequence of these
plays. The remainder of the devils belong to the second class. Nine of
these occur in "King Lear," and will be referred to again when the
subject of possession is touched upon.[6]

[Footnote 1: It is perhaps worthy of remark that in every case except
the allusion in the probably spurious Henry VI., "I speak not to that
railing Hecate," (I Hen. VI. III. ii. 64), the name is "Hecat," a
di-syllable.]

[Footnote 2: V. iii. 6.]

[Footnote 3: II. iv. 370.]

[Footnote 4: II. ii. 311.]

[Footnote 5: II. i. 57. Scot, p. 393.]

[Footnote 6: § 65.]

39. (ii.) It would appear that each of the greater devils, on the rare
occasion upon which he made his appearance upon earth, assumed a form
peculiar to himself; the lesser devils, on the other hand, had an
ordinary type, common to the whole species, with a capacity for almost
infinite variation and transmutation which they used, as will be seen,
to the extreme perplexity and annoyance of mortals. As an illustration
of the form in which a greater devil might appear, this is what Scot
says of the questionable Balam, above mentioned: "Balam cometh with
three heads, the first of a bull, the second of a man, and the third of
a ram. He hath a serpent's taile, and flaming eies; riding upon a
furious beare, and carrieng a hawke on his fist."[1] But it was the
lesser devils, not the greater, that came into close contact with
humanity, who therefore demand careful consideration.

[Footnote 1: p. 361.]

40. All the lesser devils seem to have possessed a normal form, which
was as hideous and distorted as fancy could render it. To the conception
of an angel imagination has given the only beautiful appendage the human
body does not possess--wings; to that of a devil it has added all those
organs of the brute creation that are most hideous or most harmful.
Advancing civilization has almost exterminated the belief in a being
with horns, cloven hoofs, goggle eyes, and scaly tail, that was held up
to many yet living as the avenger of childish disobedience in their
earlier days, together perhaps with some strength of conviction of the
moral hideousness of the evil he was intended, in a rough way, to
typify; but this hazily retained impression of the Author of Evil was
the universal and entirely credited conception of the ordinary
appearance of those bad spirits who were so real to our ancestors of
Elizabethan days. "Some are so carnallie minded," says Scot, "that a
spirit is no sooner spoken of, but they thinke of a blacke man with
cloven feet, a paire of hornes, a taile, and eies as big as a bason."[1]
Scot, however, was one of a very small minority in his opinion as to the
carnal-mindedness of such a belief. He in his day, like those in every
age and country who dare to hold convictions opposed to the creed of the
majority, was a dangerous sceptic; his book was publicly burnt by the
common hangman;[2] and not long afterwards a royal author wrote a
treatise "against the damnable doctrines of two principally in our age;
whereof the one, called Scot, an Englishman, is not ashamed in public
print to deny that there can be such a thing as witchcraft, and so
mainteines the old error of the Sadducees in denying of spirits."[3] The
abandoned impudence of the man!--and the logic of his royal opponent!

[Footnote 1: p. 507. See also Hutchinson, Essay on Witchcraft, p. 13;
and Harsnet, p. 71.]

[Footnote 2: Bayle, ix. 152.]

[Footnote 3: James I., Daemonologie. Edinburgh, 1597.]

41. Spenser has clothed with horror this conception of the appearance of
a fiend, just as he has enshrined in beauty the belief in the guardian
angel. It is worthy of remark that he describes the devil as dwelling
beneath the altar of an idol in a heathen temple. Prince Arthur strikes
the image thrice with his sword--

      "And the third time, out of an hidden shade,
      There forth issewed from under th' altar's smoake
      A dreadfull feend with fowle deformèd looke,
      That stretched itselfe as it had long lyen still;
      And her long taile and fethers strongly shooke,
      That all the temple did with terrour fill;
    Yet him nought terrifide that fearèd nothing ill.

      "An huge great beast it was, when it in length
      Was stretchèd forth, that nigh filled all the place,
      And seemed to be of infinite great strength;
      Horrible, hideous, and of hellish race,
      Borne of the brooding of Echidna base,
      Or other like infernall Furies kinde,
      For of a maide she had the outward face
      To hide the horrour which did lurke behinde
    The better to beguile whom she so fond did finde.

      "Thereto the body of a dog she had,
      Full of fell ravin and fierce greedinesse;
      A lion's clawes, with power and rigour clad
      To rende and teare whatso she can oppresse;
      A dragon's taile, whose sting without redresse
      Full deadly wounds whereso it is empight,
      And eagle's wings for scope and speedinesse
      That nothing may escape her reaching might,
    Whereto she ever list to make her hardy flight."

42. The dramatists of the period make frequent references to this
belief, but nearly always by way of ridicule. It is hardly to be
expected that they would share in the grosser opinions held by the
common people in those times--common, whether king or clown. In "The
Virgin Martyr," Harpax is made to say--

        "I'll tell you what now of the devil;
    He's no such horrid creature, cloven-footed,
    Black, saucer-eyed, his nostrils breathing fire,
    As these lying Christians make him."[1]

But his opinion was, perhaps, a prejudiced one. In Ben Jonson's "The
Devil is an Ass," when Fitzdottrell, doubting Pug's statement as to his
infernal character, says, "I looked on your feet afore; you cannot cozen
me; your shoes are not cloven, sir, you are whole hoofed;" Pug, with
great presence of mind, replies, "Sir, that's a popular error deceives
many." So too Othello, when he is questioning whether Iago is a devil or
not, says--

     "I look down to his feet, but that's a fable."[2]

And when Edgar is trying to persuade the blind Gloucester that he has in
reality cast himself over the cliff, he describes the being from whom he
is supposed to have just parted, thus:--

    "As I stood here below, methought his eyes
    Were two full moons: he had a thousand noses;
    Horns whelked and wavèd like the enridgèd sea:
    It was some fiend."[3]

It can hardly be but that the "thousand noses" are intended as a
satirical hit at the enormity of the popular belief.

[Footnote 1: Act I. sc. 2.]

[Footnote 2: Act V. sc. ii. l. 285.]

[Footnote 3: Lear, IV. vi. 69.]

43. In addition to this normal type, common to all these devils, each
one seems to have had, like the greater devils, a favourite form in
which he made his appearance when conjured; generally that of some
animal, real or imagined. It was telling of

           "the moldwarp and the ant,
    Of the dreamer Merlin, and his prophecies;
    And of a dragon and a finless fish,
    A clipwinged griffin, and a moulten raven,
    A couching lion, and a ramping cat,"[1]

that annoyed Harry Hotspur so terribly; and neither in this allusion,
which was suggested by a passage in Holinshed,[2] nor in "Macbeth,"
where he makes the three witches conjure up their familiars in the
shapes of an armed head, a bloody child, and a child crowned, has
Shakspere gone beyond the fantastic conceptions of the time.

[Footnote 1: I Hen. IV. III. i. 148.]

[Footnote 2: p. 521, c. 2.]

44. (iii.) But the third proposed section, which deals with the powers
and functions exercised by the evil spirits, is by far the most
interesting and important; and the first branch of the series is one
that suggests itself as a natural sequence upon what has just been said
as to the ordinary shapes in which devils appeared, namely, the capacity
to assume at will any form they chose.

45. In the early and middle ages it was universally believed that a
devil could, of his own inherent power, call into existence any manner
of body that it pleased his fancy to inhabit, or that would most conduce
to the success of any contemplated evil. In consequence of this belief
the devils became the rivals, indeed the successful rivals, of Jupiter
himself in the art of physical tergiversation. There was, indeed, a
tradition that a devil could not create any animal form of less size
than a barley-corn, and that it was in consequence of this incapacity
that the magicians of Egypt--those indubitable devil-worshippers--failed
to produce lice, as Moses did, although they had been so successful in
the matter of the serpents and the frogs; "a verie gross absurditie," as
Scot judiciously remarks.[1] This, however, would not be a serious
limitation upon the practical usefulness of the power.

[Footnote 1: p. 314.]

46. The great Reformation movement wrought a change in this respect. Men
began to accept argument and reason, though savouring of special
pleading of the schools, in preference to tradition, though never so
venerable and well authenticated; and the leaders of the revolution
could not but recognize the absurdity of laying down as infallible dogma
that God was the Creator of all things, and then insisting with equal
vehemence, by way of postulate, that the devil was the originator of
some. The thing was gross and palpable in its absurdity, and had to be
done away with as quickly as might be. But how? On the other hand, it
was clear as daylight that the devil _did_ appear in various forms to
tempt and annoy the people of God--was at that very time doing so in the
most open and unabashed manner. How were reasonable men to account for
this manifest conflict between rigorous logic and more rigorous fact?
There was a prolonged and violent controversy upon the point--the
Reformers not seeing their way to agree amongst themselves--and tedious
as violent. Sermons were preached; books were written; and, when
argument was exhausted, unpleasant epithets were bandied about, much as
in the present day, in similar cases. The result was that two theories
were evolved, both extremely interesting as illustrations of the
hair-splitting, chop-logic tendency which, amidst all their
straightforwardness, was so strongly characteristic of the Elizabethans.
The first suggestion was, that although the devil could not, of his own
inherent power, create a body, he might get hold of a dead carcase and
temporarily restore animation, and so serve his turn. This belief was
held, amongst others, by the erudite King James,[1] and is pleasantly
satirized by sturdy old Ben Jonson in "The Devil is an Ass," where Satan
(the greater devil, who only appears in the first scene just to set the
storm a-brewing) says to Pug (Puck, the lesser devil, who does all the
mischief; or would have done it, had not man, in those latter times, got
to be rather beyond the devils in evil than otherwise), not without a
touch of regret at the waning of his power--

    "You must get a body ready-made, Pug,
    I can create you none;"

and consequently Pug is advised to assume the body of a handsome
cutpurse that morning hung at Tyburn.

[Footnote 1: Daemonologie, p. 56.]

But the theory, though ingenious, was insufficient. The devil would
occasionally appear in the likeness of a living person; and how could
that be accounted for? Again, an evil spirit, with all his ingenuity,
would find it hard to discover the dead body of a griffin, or a harpy,
or of such eccentricity as was affected by the before-mentioned Balam;
and these and other similar forms were commonly favoured by the
inhabitants of the nether world.

47. The second theory, therefore, became the more popular amongst the
learned, because it left no one point unexplained. The divines held that
although the power of the Creator had in no wise been delegated to the
devil, yet he was, in the course of providence, permitted to exercise a
certain supernatural influence over the minds of men, whereby he could
persuade them that they really saw a form that had no material objective
existence.[1] Here was a position incontrovertible, not on account of
the arguments by which it could be supported, but because it was
impossible to reason against it; and it slowly, but surely, took hold
upon the popular mind. Indeed, the elimination of the diabolic factor
leaves the modern sceptical belief that such apparitions are nothing
more than the result of disease, physical or mental.

[Footnote 1: Dialogicall Discourses, by Deacon and Walker, 4th Dialogue.
Bullinger, p. 361. Parker Society.]

48. But the semi-sceptical state of thought was in Shakspere's time
making its way only amongst the more educated portion of the nation. The
masses still clung to the old and venerated, if not venerable, belief
that devils could at any moment assume what form soever they might
please--not troubling themselves further to inquire into the method of
the operation. They could appear in the likeness of an ordinary human
being, as Harpax[1] and Mephistopheles[2] do, creating thereby the most
embarrassing complications in questions of identity; and if this belief
is borne in mind, the charge of being a devil, so freely made, in the
times of which we write, and before alluded to, against persons who
performed extraordinary feats of valour, or behaved in a manner
discreditable and deserving of general reprobation, loses much of its
barbarous grotesqueness. There was no doubt as to Coriolanus,[3] as has
been said; nor Shylock.[4] Even "the outward sainted Angelo is yet a
devil;"[5] and Prince Hal confesses that "there is a devil haunts him in
the likeness of an old fat man ... an old white-bearded Satan."[6]

[Footnote 1: In The Virgin Martyr.]

[Footnote 2: In Dr. Faustus.]

[Footnote 3: Coriolanus, I. x. 16.]

[Footnote 4: Merchant of Venice, III. i. 22.]

[Footnote 5: Measure for Measure, III. i. 90.]

[Footnote 6: I Hen. IV., II. iv. 491-509.]

49. The devils had an inconvenient habit of appearing in the guise of an
ecclesiastic[1]--at least, so the churchmen were careful to insist,
especially when busying themselves about acts of temptation that would
least become the holy robe they had assumed. This was the ecclesiastical
method of accounting for certain stories, not very creditable to the
priesthood, that had too inconvenient a basis of evidence to be
dismissed as fabricatious. But the honest lay public seem to have
thought, with downright old Chaucer, that there was more in the matter
than the priests chose to admit. This feeling we, as usual, find
reflected in the dramatic literature of our period. In "The Troublesome
Raigne of King John," an old play upon the basis of which Shakspere
constructed his own "King John," we find this question dealt with in
some detail. In the elder play, the Bastard does "the shaking of bags of
hoarding abbots," _coram populo_, and thereby discloses a phase of
monastic life judiciously suppressed by Shakspere. Philip sets at
liberty much more than "imprisoned angels"--according to one account,
and that a monk's, imprisoned beings of quite another sort. "Faire
Alice, the nonne," having been discovered in the chest where the abbot's
wealth was supposed to be concealed, proposes to purchase pardon for the
offence by disclosing the secret hoard of a sister nun. Her offer being
accepted, a friar is ordered to force the box in which the treasure is
supposed to be secreted. On being questioned as to its contents, he
answers--

    "Frier Laurence, my lord, now holy water help us!
    Some witch or some divell is sent to delude us:
    _Haud credo Laurentius_ that thou shouldst be pen'd thus
    In the presse of a nun; we are all undone,
    And brought to discredence, if thou be Frier Laurence."[2]

Unfortunately it proves indubitably to be that good man; and he is
ordered to execution, not, however, without some hope of redemption by
money payment; for times are hard, and cash in hand not to be despised.

[Footnote 1: See the story about Bishop Sylvanus.--Lecky, Rationalism in
Europe, i. 79.]

[Footnote 2: Hazlitt, Shakspere Library, part ii. vol. i. p. 264.]

It is amusing to notice, too, that when assuming the clerical garb, the
devil carefully considered the religious creed of the person to whom he
intended to make himself known. The Catholic accounts of him show him
generally assuming the form of a Protestant parson;[1] whilst to those
of the reformed creed he invariably appeared in the habit of a Catholic
priest. In the semblance of a friar the devil is reported (by a
Protestant) to have preached, upon a time, "a verie Catholic sermon;"[2]
so good, indeed, that a priest who was a listener could find no fault
with the doctrine--a stronger basis of fact than one would have imagined
for Shakspere's saying, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

[Footnote 1: Harsnet, p. 101.]

[Footnote 2: Scot, p. 481.]

50. It is not surprising that of human forms, that of a negro or Moor
should be considered a favourite one with evil spirits.[1] Iago makes
allusion to this when inciting Brabantio to search for his daughter.[2]
The power of coming in the likeness of humanity generally is referred to
somewhat cynically in "Timon of Athens,"[3] thus--

"_Varro's Servant._ What is a whoremaster, fool?

"_Fool._ A fool in good clothes, and something like thee. 'Tis a spirit:
sometime 't appears like a lord; sometime like a lawyer; sometime like a
philosopher with two stones more than 's artificial one: he is very
often like a knight; and, generally, in all shapes that man goes up and
down in, from fourscore to thirteen, this spirit walks in."

[Footnote 1: Scot, p. 89.]

[Footnote 2: Othello, I. i. 91.]

[Footnote 3: II. ii. 113.]

"All shapes that man goes up and down in" seem indeed to have been at
the devils' control. So entirely was this the case, that to Constance
even the fair Blanche was none other than the devil tempting Louis "in
likeness of a new uptrimmed bride;"[1] and perhaps not without a certain
prophetic feeling of the fitness of things, as it may possibly seem to
some of our more warlike politicians, evil spirits have been known to
appear as Russians.[2]

[Footnote 1: King John, III. i. 209.]

[Footnote 2: Harsnet, p. 139.]

51. But all the "shapes that man goes up and down in" did not suffice.
The forms of the whole of the animal kingdom seem to have been at the
devils' disposal; and, not content with these, they seem to have sought
further for unlikely shapes to assume.[1] Poor Caliban complains that
Prospero's spirits

     "Lead me, like a firebrand, in the dark,"[2]

just as Ariel[3] and Puck[4] (Will-o'-th'-wisp) mislead their victims;
and that

    "For every trifle are they set upon me:
    Sometimes like apes, that mow and chatter at me,
    And after bite me; then like hedgehogs, which
    Lie tumbling in my barefoot way, and mount
    Their pricks at my footfall. Sometime am I
    All wound with adders, who, with cloven tongues,
    Do hiss me into madness."

And doubtless the scene which follows this soliloquy, in which Caliban,
Trinculo, and Stephano mistake one another in turn for evil spirits,
fully flavoured with fun as it still remains, had far more point for the
audiences at the Globe--to whom a stray devil or two was quite in the
natural order of things under such circumstances--than it can possibly
possess for us. In this play, Ariel, Prospero's familiar, besides
appearing in his natural shape, and dividing into flames, and behaving
in such a manner as to cause young Ferdinand to leap into the sea,
crying, "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here!" assumes the forms
of a water-nymph,[5] a harpy,[6] and also the goddess Ceres;[7] while
the strange shapes, masquers, and even the hounds that hunt and worry
the would-be king and viceroys of the island, are Ariel's "meaner
fellows."

[Footnote 1: For instance, an eye without a head.--Ibid.]

[Footnote 2: The Tempest, II. ii. 10.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. I. ii. 198.]

[Footnote 4: A Midsummer Night's Dream, II. i. 39; III. i. 111.]

[Footnote 5: I. ii. 301-318.]

[Footnote 6: III. iii. 53.]

[Footnote 7: IV. i. 166.]

52. Puck's favourite forms seem to have been more outlandish than
Ariel's, as might have been expected of that malicious little spirit. He
beguiles "the fat and bean-fed horse" by

    "Neighing in likeness of a filly foal:
    And sometimes lurk I in a gossip's bowl,
    In very likeness of a roasted crab;
    And when she drinks, against her lips I bob,
    And on her withered dewlap pour the ale.
    The wisest aunt, telling the saddest tale,
    Sometime for three-foot stool[1] mistaketh me;
    Then slip I from her, and down topples she."

And again:

    "Sometime a horse I'll be, sometime a hound,
    A hog, a headless bear, sometime a fire;
    And neigh, and bark, and grunt, and roar, and burn,
    Like horse, hound, hog, bear, fire, at every turn."[2]

With regard to this last passage, it is worthy of note that in the year
1584, strange news came out of Somersetshire, entitled "A Dreadful
Discourse of the Dispossessing of one Margaret Cowper, at Ditchet, from
a Devil in the Likeness of a Headless Bear."[3]

[Footnote 1: A Scotch witch, when leaving her bed to go to a sabbath,
used to put a three-foot stool in the vacant place; which, after charms
duly mumbled, assumed the appearance of a woman until her
return.--Pitcairn, iii. 617.]

[Footnote 2: III. i. 111.]

[Footnote 3: Hutchinson, p. 40.]

53. In Heywood and Brome's "Witch of Edmonton," the devil appears in the
likeness of a black dog, and takes his part in the dialogue, as if his
presence were a matter of quite ordinary occurrence, not in any way
calling for special remark. However gross and absurd this may appear, it
must be remembered that this play is, in its minutest details, merely a
dramatization of the events duly proved in a court of law, to the
satisfaction of twelve Englishmen, in the year 1612.[1] The shape of a
fly, too, was a favourite one with the evil spirits; so much so that the
term "fly" became a common synonym for a familiar.[2] The word
"Beelzebub" was supposed to mean "the king of flies." At the execution
of Urban Grandier, the famous magician of London, in 1634, a large fly
was seen buzzing about the stake, and a priest promptly seizing the
opportunity of improving the occasion for the benefit of the onlookers,
declared that Beelzebub had come in his own proper person to carry off
Grandier's soul to hell. In 1664 occurred the celebrated witch-trials
which took place before Sir Matthew Hale. The accused were charged with
bewitching two children; and part of the evidence against them was that
flies and bees were seen to carry into the victims' mouths the nails and
pins which they afterwards vomited.[3] There is an allusion to this
belief in the fly-killing scene in "Titus Andronicus."[4]

[Footnote 1: Potts, Discoveries. Edit. Cheetham Society.]

[Footnote 2: Cf. B. Jonson's Alchemist.]

[Footnote 3: A Collection of Rare and Curious Tracts relating to
Witchcraft, 1838.]

[Footnote 4: III. ii. 51, et seq.]

54. But it was not invariably a repulsive or ridiculous form that was
assumed by these enemies of mankind. Their ingenuity would have been but
little worthy of commendation had they been content to appear as
ordinary human beings, or animals, or even in fancy costume. The Swiss
divine Bullinger, after a lengthy and elaborately learned argument as to
the particular day in the week of creation upon which it was most
probable that God called the angels into being, says, by way of
peroration, "Let us lead a holy and angel-like life in the sight of
God's holy angels. Let us watch, lest he that transfigureth and turneth
himself into an angel of light under a good show and likeness deceive
us."[1] They even went so far, according to Cranmer,[2] as to appear in
the likeness of Christ, in their desire to mislead mankind; for--

    "When devils will the blackest sins put on,
    They do suggest at first with heavenly shows."[3]

[Footnote 1: Bullinger, Fourth Decade, 9th Sermon. Parker Society.]

[Footnote 2: Cranmer, Confutation, p. 42. Parker Society.]

[Footnote 3: Othello, II. iii. 357. Cf. Love's Labour's Lost, IV. iii.
257; Comedy of Errors, IV. iii. 56.]

55. But one of the most ordinary forms supposed at this period to be
assumed by devils was that of a dead friend of the object of the
visitation. Before the Reformation, the belief that the spirits of the
departed had power at will to revisit the scenes and companions of their
earthly life was almost universal. The reforming divines distinctly
denied the possibility of such a revisitation, and accounted for the
undoubted phenomena, as usual, by attributing them to the devil.[1]
James I. says that the devil, when appearing to men, frequently assumed
the form of a person newly dead, "to make them believe that it was some
good spirit that appeared to them, either to forewarn them of the death
of their friend, or else to discover unto them the will of the defunct,
or what was the way of his slauchter.... For he dare not so illude anie
that knoweth that neither can the spirit of the defunct returne to his
friend, nor yet an angell use such formes."[2] He further explains that
such devils follow mortals to obtain two ends: "the one is the tinsell
(loss) of their life by inducing them to such perrilous places at such
times as he either follows or possesses them. The other thing that he
preases to obtain is the tinsell of their soule."[3]

[Footnote 1: See Hooper's Declaration of the Ten Commandments. Parker
Society. Hooper, 326.]

[Footnote 2: Daemonologie, p. 60.]

[Footnote 3: Cf. Hamlet, I. iv. 60-80; and post, § 58.]

56. But the belief in the appearance of ghosts was too deeply rooted in
the popular mind to be extirpated, or even greatly affected, by a
dogmatic declaration. The masses went on believing as they always had
believed, and as their fathers had believed before them, in spite of the
Reformers, and to their no little discontent. Pilkington, Bishop of
Durham, in a letter to Archbishop Parker, dated 1564, complains that,
"among other things that be amiss here in your great cares, ye shall
understand that in Blackburn there is a fantastical (and as some say,
lunatic) young man, which says that he has spoken with one of his
neighbours that died four year since, or more. Divers times he says he
has seen him, and talked with him, and took with him the curate, the
schoolmaster, and other neighbours, who all affirm that they see him.
_These things be so common here_ that none in authority will gainsay it,
but rather believe and confirm it, that everybody believes it. If I had
known how to examine with authority, I would have done it."[1] Here is a
little glimpse at the practical troubles of a well-intentioned bishop of
the sixteenth century that is surely worth preserving.

[Footnote 1: Parker Correspondence, 222. Parker Society.]

57. There were thus two opposite schools of belief in this matter of the
supposed spirits of the departed:--the conservative, which held to the
old doctrine of ghosts; and the reforming, which denied the possibility
of ghosts, and held to the theory of devils. In the midst of this
disagreement of doctors it was difficult for a plain man to come to a
definite conclusion upon the question; and, in consequence, all who were
not content with quiet dogmatism were in a state of utter uncertainty
upon a point not entirely without importance in practical life as well
as in theory. This was probably the position in which the majority of
thoughtful men found themselves; and it is accurately reflected in three
of Shakspere's plays, which, for other and weightier reasons, are
grouped together in the same chronological division--"Julius Caesar,"
"Macbeth," and "Hamlet." In the first-mentioned play, Brutus, who
afterwards confesses his belief that the apparition he saw at Sardis was
the ghost of Caesar,[1] when in the actual presence of the spirit,
says--

     "Art thou some god, some angel, or some devil?"[2]

The same doubt flashes across the mind of Macbeth on the second entrance
of Banquo's ghost--which is probably intended to be a devil appearing at
the instigation of the witches--when he says, with evident allusion to a
diabolic power before referred to--

                "What man dare, I dare:
    Approach thou like the rugged Russian bear,
    The armed rhinoceros, or the Hyrcan tiger,
    Take any shape but that."[3]

[Footnote 1: Julius Caesar, V. v. 17.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. IV. iii. 279.]

[Footnote 3: Macbeth, III. iv. 100.]

58. But it is in "Hamlet" that the undecided state of opinion upon this
subject is most clearly reflected; and hardly enough influence has been
allowed to the doubts arising from this conflict of belief, as urgent or
deterrent motives in the play, because this temporary condition of
thought has been lost sight of. It is exceedingly interesting to note
how frequently the characters who have to do with the apparition of the
late King Hamlet alternate between the theories that it is a ghost and
that it is a devil which they have seen. The whole subject has such an
important bearing upon any attempt to estimate the character of Hamlet,
that no excuse need be offered for once again traversing such
well-trodden ground.

Horatio, it is true, is introduced to us in a state of determined
scepticism; but this lasts for a few seconds only, vanishing upon the
first entrance of the spectre, and never again appearing. His first
inclination seems to be to the belief that he is the victim of a
diabolical illusion; for he says--

    "What art thou, that _usurp'st_ this time of night,
    Together with that fair and warlike form
    In which the majesty of buried Denmark
    Did sometimes march?"[1]

And Marcellus seems to be of the same opinion, for immediately before,
he exclaims--

     "Thou art a scholar, speak to it, Horatio;"

having apparently the same idea as had Coachman Toby, in "The
Night-Walker," when he exclaims--

    "Let's call the butler up, for he speaks Latin,
    And that will daunt the devil."[2]

On the second appearance of the illusion, however, Horatio leans to the
opinion that it is really the ghost of the late king that he sees,
probably in consequence of the conversation that has taken place since
the former visitation; and he now appeals to the ghost for information
that may enable him to procure rest for his wandering soul. Again,
during his interview with Hamlet, when he discloses the secret of the
spectre's appearance, though very guarded in his language, Horatio
clearly intimates his conviction that he has seen the spirit of the late
king.

[Footnote 1: I. i. 46.]

[Footnote 2: II. i.]

The same variation of opinion is visible in Hamlet himself; but, as
might be expected, with much more frequent alternations. When first he
hears Horatio's story, he seems to incline to the belief that it must be
the work of some diabolic agency:

    "If it assume my noble father's person,
    I'll speak to it, though hell itself should gape,
    And bid me hold my peace;"[1]

although, characteristically, in almost the next line he exclaims--

     "My father's spirit in arms! All is not well," etc.

This, too, seems to be the dominant idea in his mind when he is first
brought face to face with the apparition and exclaims--

    "Angels and ministers of grace defend us!--
    Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damned,
    Bring with thee airs from heaven, or blasts from hell,
    Be thine intents wicked or charitable,
    Thou com'st in such a questionable shape,
    That I will speak to thee."[2]

For it cannot be supposed that Hamlet imagined that a "goblin damned"
could actually be the spirit of his dead father; and, therefore, the
alternative in his mind must have been that he saw a devil assuming his
father's likeness--a form which the Evil One knew would most incite
Hamlet to intercourse. But even as he speaks, the other theory gradually
obtains ascendency in his mind, until it becomes strong enough to induce
him to follow the spirit.

[Footnote 1: I. ii. 244.]

[Footnote 2: I. iv. 39.]

But whilst the devil-theory is gradually relaxing its hold upon Hamlet's
mind, it is fastening itself with ever-increasing force upon the minds
of his companions; and Horatio expresses their fears in words that are
worth comparing with those just quoted from James's "Daemonologie."
Hamlet responds to their entreaties not to follow the spectre thus--

          "Why, what should be the fear?
    I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
    And, for my soul, what can it do to that,
    Being a thing immortal as itself?"

And Horatio answers--

    "What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord,
    Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff,
    That beetles o'er his base into the sea,
    And there assume some other horrible form,
    Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason,
    And draw you into madness?"

The idea that the devil assumed the form of a dead friend in order to
procure the "tinsell" of both body and soul of his victim is here
vividly before the minds of the speakers of these passages.[1]

[Footnote 1: See ante, § 55.]

The subsequent scene with the ghost convinces Hamlet that he is not the
victim of malign influences--as far as he is capable of conviction, for
his very first words when alone restate the doubt:

     "O all you host of heaven! O earth! _What else?_ And shall I couple
     hell?"[1]

and the enthusiasm with which he is inspired in consequence of this
interview is sufficient to support his certainty of conviction until the
time for decisive action again arrives. It is not until the idea of the
play-test occurs to him that his doubts are once more aroused; and then
they return with redoubled force:--

                "The spirit that I have seen
    May be the devil: and the devil hath power
    To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and, perhaps,
    Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
    (As he is very potent with such spirits,)
    Abuses me to damn me."[2]

And he again alludes to this in his speech to Horatio, just before the
entry of the king and his train to witness the performance of the
players.[3]

[Footnote 1: I. v. 92.]

[Footnote 2: II. ii. 627.]

[Footnote 3: III. ii. 87.]

59. This question was, in Shakspere's time, quite a legitimate element
of uncertainty in the complicated problem that presented itself for
solution to Hamlet's ever-analyzing mind; and this being so, an apparent
inconsistency in detail which has usually been charged upon Shakspere
with regard to this play, can be satisfactorily explained. Some critics
are never weary of exclaiming that Shakspere's genius was so vast and
uncontrollable that it must not be tested, or expected to be found
conformable to the rules of art that limit ordinary mortals; that there
are many discrepancies and errors in his plays that are to be condoned
upon that account; in fact, that he was a very careless and slovenly
workman. A favourite instance of this is taken from "Hamlet," where
Shakspere actually makes the chief character of the play talk of death
as "the bourne from whence no traveller returns" not long after he has
been engaged in a prolonged conversation with such a returned traveller.

Now, no artist, however distinguished or however transcendent his
genius, is to be pardoned for insincere workmanship, and the greater the
man, the less his excuse. Errors arising from want of information (and
Shakspere commits these often) may be pardoned if the means for
correcting them be unattainable; but errors arising from mere
carelessness are not to be pardoned. Further, in many of these cases of
supposed contradiction there is an element of carelessness indeed; but
it lies at the door of the critic, not of the author; and this appears
to be true in the present instance. The dilemma, as it presented itself
to the contemporary mind, must be carefully kept in view. Either the
spirits of the departed could revisit this world, or they could not. If
they could not, then the apparitions mistaken for them must be devils
assuming their forms. Now, the tendency of Hamlet's mind, immediately
before the great soliloquy on suicide, is decidedly in favour of the
latter alternative. The last words that he has uttered, which are also
the last quoted here,[1] are those in which he declares most forcibly
that he believes the devil-theory possible, and consequently that the
dead do not return to this world; and his utterances in his soliloquy
are only an accentuate and outcome of this feeling of uncertainty. The
very root of his desire for death is that he cannot discard with any
feeling of certitude the Protestant doctrine that no traveller does
after death return from the invisible world, and that the so-called
ghosts are a diabolic deception.

[Footnote 1: § 58, p. 59.]

60. Another power possessed by the evil spirits, and one that excited
much attention and created an immense amount of strife during
Elizabethan times, was that of entering into the bodies of human beings,
or otherwise influencing them so as utterly to deprive them of all
self-control, and render them mere automata under the command of the
fiends. This was known as possession, or obsession. It was another of
the mediaeval beliefs against which the reformers steadily set their
faces; and all the resources of their casuistry were exhausted to expose
its absurdity. But their position in this respect was an extremely
delicate one. On one side of them zealous Catholics were exorcising
devils, who shrieked out their testimony to the eternal truth of the
Holy Catholic Church; whilst at the same time, on the other side, the
zealous Puritans of the extremer sort were casting out fiends, who bore
equally fervent testimony to the superior efficacy and purity of the
Protestant faith. The tendency of the more moderate members of the
party, therefore was towards a compromise similar to that arrived at
upon the question how the devils came by the forms in which they
appeared upon the earth. They could not admit that devils could actually
enter into and possess the body of a man in those latter days, although
during the earlier history of the Church such things had been permitted
by Divine Providence for some inscrutable but doubtless satisfactory
reason:--that was Catholicism. On the other hand, they could not for an
instant tolerate or even sanction the doctrine that devils had no power
whatever over humanity:--that was Atheism. But it was quite possible
that evil spirits, without actually entering into the body of a man,
might so infest, worry, and torment him, as to produce all the symptoms
indicative of possession. The doctrine of obsession replaced that of
possession; and, once adopted, was supported by a string of those
quaint, conceited arguments so peculiar to the time.[1]

[Footnote 1: Dialogicall Discourses, by Deacon and Walker, 3rd
Dialogue.]

61. But, as in all other cases, the refinements of the theologians had
little or no effect upon the world outside their controversies. To the
ordinary mind, if a man's eyes goggled, body swelled, and mouth foamed,
and it was admitted that these were the work of a devil, the question
whether the evil-doer were actually housed within the sufferer, or only
hovered in his immediate neighbourhood, seemed a question of such minor
importance as to be hardly worth discussing--a conclusion that the lay
mind is apt to come to upon other questions that appear portentous to
the divines--and the theory of possession, having the advantage in time
over that of obsession, was hard to dislodge.

62. One of the chief causes of the persistency with which the old belief
was maintained was the utter ignorance of the medical men of the period
on the subject of mental disease. The doctors of the time were mere
children in knowledge of the science they professed; and to attribute a
disease, the symptoms of which they could not comprehend, to a power
outside their control by ordinary methods, was a safe method of
screening a reputation which might otherwise have suffered. "Canst thou
not minister to a mind diseased?" cries Macbeth to the doctor, in one of
those moments of yearning after the better life he regrets, but cannot
return to, which come over him now and again. No; the disease is beyond
his practice; and, although this passage has in it a deeper meaning than
the one attributed to it here, it well illustrates the position of the
medical man in such cases. Most doctors of the time were mere empirics;
dabbled more or less in alchemy; and, in the treatment of mental
disease, were little better than children. They had for co-practitioners
all who, by their credit with the populace for superior wisdom, found
themselves in a position to engage in a profitable employment. Priests,
preachers, schoolmasters--Dr. Pinches and Sir Topazes--became so
commonly exorcists, that the Church found it necessary to forbid the
casting out of spirits without a special license for that purpose.[1]
But as the Reformers only combated the doctrine of possession upon
strictly theological grounds, and did not go on to suggest any
substitute for the time-honoured practice of exorcism as a means for
getting rid of the admittedly obnoxious result of diabolic interference,
it is not altogether surprising that the method of treatment did not
immediately change.

[Footnote 1: 72nd Canon.]

63. Upon this subject a book called "Tryal of Witchcraft," by John
Cotta, "Doctor in Physike," published in 1616, is extremely instructive.
The writer is evidently in advance of his time in his opinions upon the
principal subject with which he professes to deal, and weighs the
evidence for and against the reality of witchcraft with extreme
precision and fairness. In the course of his argument he has to
distinguish the symptoms that show a person to have been bewitched, from
those that point to a demoniacal possession.[1] "Reason doth detect,"
says he, "the sicke to be afflicted by the immediate supernaturall power
of the devil two wayes: the first way is by such things as are subject
and manifest to the learned physicion only; the second is by such things
as are subject and manifest to the vulgar view." The two signs by which
the "learned physicion" recognized diabolic intervention were: first,
the preternatural appearance of the disease from which the patient was
suffering; and, secondly, the inefficacy of the remedies applied. In
other words, if the leech encountered any disease the symptoms of which
were unknown to him, or if, through some unforeseen circumstances, the
drug he prescribed failed to operate in its accustomed manner, a case of
demoniacal possession was considered to be conclusively proved, and the
medical man was merged in the magician.

[Footnote 1: Ch. 10.]

64. The second class of cases, in which the diabolic agency is palpable
to the layman as well as the doctor, Cotta illustrates thus: "In the
time of their paroxysmes or fits, some diseased persons have been seene
to vomit crooked iron, coales, brimstone, nailes, needles, pinnes, lumps
of lead, waxe, hayre, strawe, and the like, in such quantities, figure,
fashion, and proportion as could never possiblie pass down, or arise up
thorow the natural narrownesse of the throate, or be contained in the
unproportionable small capacitie, naturall susceptibilitie, and position
of the stomake." Possessed persons, he says, were also clairvoyant,
telling what was being said and done at a far distance; and also spoke
languages which at ordinary times they did not understand, as their
successors, the modern spirit mediums, do. This gift of tongues was one
of the prominent features of the possession of Will Sommers and the
other persons exorcised by the Protestant preacher John Darrell, whose
performances as an exorcist created quite a domestic sensation in
England at the close of the sixteenth century.[1] The whole affair was
investigated by Dr. Harsnet, who had already acquired fame as an
iconoclast in these matters, as will presently be seen; but it would
have little more than an antiquarian interest now, were it not for the
fact that Ben Jonson made it the subject of his satire in one of his
most humorous plays, "The Devil is an Ass." In it he turns the
last-mentioned peculiarity to good account; for when Fitzdottrell, in
the fifth act, feigns madness, and quotes Aristophanes, and speaks in
Spanish and French, the judicious Sir Paul Eithersides comes to the
conclusion that "it is the devil by his several languages."

[Footnote 1: A True Relation of the Grievious Handling of William
Sommers, etc. London: T. Harper, 1641 (? 1601). The Tryall of Maister
Darrell, 1599.]

65. But more interesting, and more important for the present purpose,
are the cases of possession that were dealt with by Father Parsons and
his colleagues in 1585-6, and of which Dr. Harsnet gave such a highly
spiced and entertaining account in his "Declaration of Egregious Popish
Impostures," first published in the year 1603. It is from this work that
Shakspere took the names of the devils mentioned by Edgar, and other
references made by him in "King Lear;" and an outline of the relation of
the play to the book will furnish incidentally much matter illustrative
of the subject of possession. But before entering upon this outline, a
brief glance at the condition of affairs political and domestic, which
partially caused and nourished these extraordinary eccentricities, is
almost essential to a proper understanding of them.

66. The year 1586 was probably one of the most critical years that
England has passed through since she was first a nation. Standing alone
amongst the European States, with even the Netherlanders growing cold
towards her on account of her ambiguous treatment of them, she had to
fight out the battle of her independence against odds to all appearances
irresistible. With Sixtus plotting her overthrow at Rome, Philip at
Madrid, Mendoza and the English traitors at Paris, and Mary of Scotland
at Chartley, while a third of her people were malcontent, and James the
Sixth was friend or enemy as it best suited his convenience, the outlook
was anything but reassuring for the brave men who held the helm in those
stormy times. But although England owed her deliverance chiefly to the
forethought and hardihood of her sons, it cannot be doubted that the
sheer imbecility of her foes contributed not a little to that result. To
both these conditions she owed the fact that the great Armada, the
embodiment of the foreign hatred and hostility, threatening to break
upon her shores like a huge wave, vanished like its spray. Medina
Sidonia, with his querulous complaints and general ineffectuality,[1]
was hardly a match for Drake and his sturdy companions; nor were the
leaders of the Babington conspiracy, the representatives and would-be
leaders of the corresponding internal convulsion, the infatuated
worshippers of the fair devil of Scotland, the men to cope for a moment
with the intellects of Walsingham and Burleigh.

[Footnote 1: Froude, xii. p. 405.]

67. The events which Harsnet investigated and wrote upon with
politico-theological animus formed an eddy in the main current of the
Babington conspiracy. For some years before that plot had taken definite
shape, seminary priests had been swarming into England from the
continent, and were sedulously engaged in preaching rebellion in the
rural districts, sheltered and protected by the more powerful of the
disaffected nobles and gentry--modern apostles, preparing the way before
the future regenerator of England, Cardinal Allen, the would-be Catholic
Archbishop of Canterbury. Among these was one Weston, who, in his
enthusiastic admiration for the martyr-traitor, Edmund Campion, had
adopted the alias of Edmonds. This Jesuit was gifted with the power of
casting out devils, and he exercised it in order to prove the divine
origin of the Holy Catholic faith, and, by implication, the duty of all
persons religiously inclined, to rebel against a sovereign who was
ruthlessly treading it into the dust. The performances which Harsnet
examined into took place chiefly in the house of Lord Vaux at Hackney,
and of one Peckham at Denham, in the end of the year 1585 and the
beginning of 1586. The possessed persons were Anthony Tyrell, another
Jesuit who rounded upon his friends in the time of their tribulation;[1]
Marwood, Antony Babington's private servant, who subsequently found it
convenient to leave the country, and was never examined upon the
subject; Trayford and Mainy, two young gentlemen, and Sara and Friswood
Williams, and Anne Smith, maid-servants. Richard Mainy, the most
edifying subject of them all, was seventeen only when the possession
seized him; he had only just returned to England from Rheims, and, when
passing through Paris, had come under the influence of Charles Paget and
Morgan; so his antecedents appeared somewhat open to suspicion.[2]

[Footnote 1: The Fall of Anthony Tyrell, by Persoun. See The Troubles of
our Catholic Forefathers, by John Morris, p. 103.]

[Footnote 2: He was examined by the Government as to his connection with
the Paris conspirators.--See State Papers, vol. clxxx. 16, 17.]

68. With the truth or falsehood of the statements and deductions made by
Harsnet, we have little or no concern. Western did not pretend to deny
that he had the power of exorcism, or that he exercised it upon the
persons in question, but he did not admit the truth of any of the more
ridiculous stories which Harsnet so triumphantly brings forward to
convict him of intentional deceit; and his features, if the portrait in
Father Morris's book is an accurate representation of him, convey an
impression of feeble, unpractical piety that one is loth to associate
with a malicious impostor. In addition to this, one of the witnesses
against him, Tyrell, was a manifest knave and coward; another, Mainy, as
conspicuous a fool; while the rest were servant-maids--all of them
interested in exonerating themselves from the stigma of having been
adherents of a lost cause, at the expense of a ringleader who seemed to
have made himself too conspicuous to escape punishment. Furthermore, the
evidence of these witnesses was not taken until 1598 and 1602, twelve
and sixteen years after the events to which it related took place; and
when taken, was taken by Harsnet, a violent Protestant and almost
maniacal exorcist-hunter, as the miscellaneous collection of literature
evoked by his exposure of Parson Darrell's dealings with Will Sommers
and others will show.

69. Among the many devils' names mentioned by Harsnet in his
"Declaration," and in the examinations of witnesses annexed to it, the
following have undoubtedly been repeated in "King Lear":--Fliberdigibet,
spelt in the play Flibbertigibbet; Hoberdidance called Hopdance and
Hobbididance; and Frateretto, who are called morris-dancers; Haberdicut,
who appears in "Lear" as Obidicut; Smolkin, one of Trayford's devils;
Modu, who possessed Mainy; and Maho, who possessed Sara Williams. These
two latter devils have in the play managed to exchange the final vowels
of their names, and appear as Modo and Mahu.[1]

[Footnote 1: In addition to these, Killico has probably been corrupted
into Pillicock--a much more probable explanation of the word than either
of those suggested by Dyce in his glossary; and I have little doubt that
the ordinary reading of the line, "Pur! the cat is gray!" in Act III.
vi. 47, is incorrect; that Pur is not an interjection, but the
repetition of the name of another devil, Purre, who is mentioned by
Harsnet. The passage in question occurs only in the quartos, and
therefore the fact that there is no stop at all after the word "Pur"
cannot be relied upon as helping to prove the correctness of this
supposition. On the other hand, there is nothing in the texts to justify
the insertion of the note of exclamation.]

70. A comparison of the passages in "King Lear" spoken by Edgar when
feigning madness, with those in Harsnet's book which seem to have
suggested them, will furnish as vivid a picture as it is possible to
give of the state of contemporary belief upon the subject of
possession. It is impossible not to notice that nearly all the allusions
in the play refer to the performance of the youth Richard Mainy. Even
Edgar's hypothetical account of his moral failings in the past seems to
have been an accurate reproduction of Mainy's conduct in some
particulars, as the quotation below will prove;[1] and there appears to
be so little necessity for these remarks of Edgar's, that it seems
almost possible that there may have been some point in these passages
that has since been lost. A careful search, however, has failed to
disclose any reason why Mainy should be held up to obloquy; and the
passages in question were evidently not the result of a direct reference
to the "Declaration." After his examination by Harsnet in 1602, Mainy
seems to have sunk into the insignificant position which he was so
calculated to adorn, and nothing more is heard of him; so the references
to him must be accidental merely.

[Footnote 1: "He would needs have persuaded this examinate's sister to
have gone thence with him in the apparel of a youth, and to have been
his boy and waited upon him.... He urged this examinate divers times to
have yielded to his carnal desires, using very unfit tricks with her.
There was also a very proper woman, one Mistress Plater, with whom this
examinate perceived he had many allurements, showing great tokens of
extraordinary affection towards her."--Evidence of Sara Williams,
Harsnet, p. 190. Compare King Lear, Act iii. sc. iv. ll. 82-101; note
especially l. 84.]

71. One curious little repetition in the play of a somewhat unimportant
incident recorded by Harsnet is to be found in the fourth scene of the
third act, where Edgar says--

"Who gives anything to poor Tom? whom the foul fiend hath led through
fire and through flame, and through ford and whirlpool, o'er bog and
quagmire; _that hath laid knives under his pillow, and halters in his
pew_; set ratsbane by his porridge," etc.[1]

[Footnote 1: l. 51, et seq.]

The events referred to took place at Denham. A halter and some
knife-blades were found in a corridor of the house. "A great search was
made in the house to know how the said halter and knife-blades came
thither, but it could not in any wise be found out, as it was pretended,
till Master Mainy in his next fit said, as it was reported, that the
devil layd them in the gallery, that some of those that were possessed
might either hang themselves with the halter, or kill themselves with
the blades."[1]

[Footnote 1: Harsnet, p. 218.]

72. But the bulk of the references relating to the possession of Mainy
occur further on in the same scene:--

"_Fool._ This cold night will turn us all to fools and madmen.

"_Edgar._ Take heed o' the foul fiend: obey thy parents; keep thy word
justly; swear not; commit not with man's sworn spouse;[1] set not thy
sweet heart on proud array: Tom's a-cold.

"_Lear._ What hast thou been?

"_Edgar._ A serving-man, proud in heart and mind, that curled my hair,
wore my gloves in my cap, served the lust of my mistress' heart, and did
the act of darkness with her;[2] swore as many oaths as I spake words,
and broke them in the sweet face of heaven; one that slept in the
contriving of lust, and waked to do it; wine loved I deeply; dice
dearly; and in women out-paramoured the Turk: false of heart, light of
ear, bloody of hand; hog in sloth, fox in stealth, wolf in greediness,
dog in madness, lion in prey. Let not the creaking of shoes, nor the
rustling of silks, betray thy poor heart to woman; keep thy foot out of
brothels, thy hand out of plackets,[3] thy pen from lenders' books, and
defy the foul fiend."[4]

[Footnote 1: Cf. § 70, and note.]

[Footnote 2: Cf. § 70, and note.]

[Footnote 3: Placket probably here means pockets; not, as usual, the
slip in a petticoat. Tom was possessed by Mahu, the prince of stealing.]

[Footnote 4: l. 82, et seq.]

This must be read in conjunction with what Edgar says of himself
subsequently:--

"Five fiends have been in poor Tom at once; of lust, as Obidicut;
Hobbididance, prince of dumbness; Mahu, of stealing; Modo, of murder;
Flibbertigibbet, of mopping and mowing; who since possesses
chamber-maids and waiting-women."[1]

[Footnote 1: Act IV. i. 61.]

The following are the chief parts of the account given by Harsnet of the
exorcism of Mainy by Weston--a most extraordinary transaction,--said to
be taken from Weston's own account of the matter. He was supposed to be
possessed by the devils who represented the seven deadly sins, and "by
instigation of the first of the seven, began to set his hands into his
side, curled his hair, and used such gestures as Maister Edmunds present
affirmed that that spirit was Pride.[1] Heerewith he began to curse and
to banne, saying, 'What a poxe do I heare? I will stay no longer among a
company of rascal priests, but goe to the court and brave it amongst my
fellowes, the noblemen there assembled.'[2] ... Then Maister Edmunds did
proceede againe with his exorcismes, and suddenly the sences of Mainy
were taken from him, his belly began to swell, and his eyes to stare,
and suddainly he cried out, 'Ten pounds in the hundred!' he called for a
scrivener to make a bond, swearing that he would not lend his money
without a pawne.... There could be no other talke had with this spirit
but money and usury, so as all the company deemed this devil to be the
author of Covetousnesse....[3]

[Footnote 1: "A serving-man, proud of heart and mind, that curled my
hair," etc.--l. 87; cf. also l. 84. Curling the hair as a sign of
Mainy's possession is mentioned again, Harsnet, p. 57.]

[Footnote 2: "That ... swore as many oaths as I spake words, and broke
them in the sweet face of heaven."--l. 90.]

[Footnote 3: "Keep ... thy pen out of lenders' books."--l. 100.]

"Ere long Maister Edmunds beginneth againe his exorcismes, wherein he
had not proceeded farre, but up cometh another spirit singing most
filthy and baudy songs: every word almost that he spake was nothing but
ribaldry. They that were present with one voyce affirmed that devill to
be the author of Luxury.[1]

[Footnote 1: "Wine loved I deeply; dice dearly; and in women
out-paramoured the Turk."--l. 93.]

"Envy was described by disdainful looks and contemptuous speeches;
Wrath, by furious gestures, and talke as though he would have fought;[1]
Gluttony, by vomiting;[2] and Sloth,[3] by gasping and snorting, as
though he had been asleepe."[4]

[Footnote 1: "Dog in madness, lion in prey."--l. 96.]

[Footnote 2: "Wolf in greediness."--Ibid.]

[Footnote 3: "Hog in sloth."--l. 95.]

[Footnote 4: Harsnet, p. 278.]

A sort of prayer-meeting was then held for the relief of the distressed
youth: "Whereupon the spirit of Pride departed in the forme of a
Peacocke; the spirit of Sloth in the likenesse of an Asse; the spirit of
Envy in the similitude of a Dog; the spirit of Gluttony in the forme of
a Wolfe."[1]

[Footnote 1: The words, "Hog in sloth, fox in stealth, wolf in
greediness, dog in madness, lion in prey," are clearly an imperfect
reminiscence of this part of the transaction.]

There is in another part of "King Lear" a further reference to the
incidents attendant upon these exorcisms Edgar says,[1] "The foul fiend
haunts poor Tom in the voice of a nightingale." This seems to refer to
the following incident related by Friswood Williams:--

"There was also another strange thing happened at Denham about a bird.
Mistris Peckham had a nightingale, which she kept in a cage, wherein
Maister Dibdale took great delight, and would often be playing with it.
This nightingale was one night conveyed out of the cage, and being next
morning diligently sought for, could not be heard of, till Maister
Mainie's devil, in one of his fits (as it was pretended), said that the
wicked spirit which was in this examinate's sister[2] had taken the bird
out of the cage, and killed it in despite of Maister Dibdale."[3]

[Footnote 1: Act III. sc. vi. l. 31.]

[Footnote 2: Sara Williams.]

[Footnote 3: Harsnet, p. 225.]

73. The treatment to which, in consequence of his belief in possession,
unfortunate persons like Mainy and Sommers, who were probably only
suffering from some harmless form of mental disease, were subjected, was
hardly calculated to effect a cure. The most ignorant quack was
considered perfectly competent to deal with cases which, in reality,
require the most delicate and judicious management, combined with the
profoundest physiological, as well as psychological, knowledge. The
ordinary method of dealing with these lunatics was as simple as it was
irritating. Bonds and confinement in a darkened room were the specifics;
and the monotony of this treatment was relieved by occasional visits
from the sage who had charge of the case, to mumble a prayer or mutter
an exorcism. Another popular but unpleasant cure was by flagellation; so
that Romeo's

    "Not mad, but bound more than a madman is,
    Shut up in prison, kept without my food,
    Whipped and tormented,"[1]

if an exaggerated description of his own mental condition is in itself
no inflated metaphor.

[Footnote 1: I. ii. 55.]

74. Shakspere, in "The Comedy of Errors," and indirectly also in
"Twelfth Night," has given us intentionally ridiculous illustrations of
scenes which he had not improbably witnessed, in the country at any
rate, and which bring vividly before us the absurdity of the methods of
diagnosis and treatment usually adopted:--

    _Courtesan._ How say you now? is not your husband mad?

    _Adriana._ His incivility confirms no less.
    Good doctor Pinch, you are a conjurer;
    Establish him in his true sense again,
    And I will please you what you will demand.

    _Luciana._ Alas! how fiery and how sharp he looks!

    _Courtesan._ Mark how he trembles in his extasy!

    _Pinch._ Give me your hand, and let me feel your pulse.[1]

    _Ant. E._ There is my hand, and let it feel your ear.

    _Pinch._ I charge thee, Satan, housed within this man,
    To yield possession to my holy prayers,
    And to thy state of darkness his thee straight;
    I conjure thee by all the saints in heaven.

    _Ant. E._ Peace, doting wizard, peace; I am not mad.

    _Pinch._ O that thou wert not, poor distressed soul![2]

After some further business, Pinch pronounces his opinion:

    "Mistress, both man and master are possessed;
    I know it by their pale and deadly looks:
    They must be bound, and laid in some dark room."[3]

But "good doctor Pinch" seems to have been mild even to feebleness in
his conjuration; many of his brethren in art had much more effective
formulae. It seems that devils were peculiarly sensitive to any
opprobrious epithets that chanced to be bestowed upon them. The skilful
exorcist took advantage of this weakness, and, if he could only manage
to keep up a flow of uncomplimentary remarks sufficiently long and
offensive, the unfortunate spirit became embarrassed, restless,
agitated, and finally took to flight. Here is a specimen of the
"nicknames" which had so potent an effect, if Harsnet is to be
credited:--

"Heare therefore, thou senceless false lewd spirit, maister of devils,
miserable creature, tempter of men, deceaver of bad angels, captaine of
heretiques, father of lyes, fatuous bestial ninnie, drunkard, infernal
theefe, wicked serpent, ravening woolfe, leane hunger-bitten impure sow,
seely beast, truculent beast, cruel beast, bloody beast, beast of all
blasts, the most bestiall acherontall spirit, smoakie spirit, Tartareus
spirit!"[4] Whether this objurgation terminates from loss of breath on
the part of the conjurer, or the precipitate departure of the spirit
addressed, it is impossible to say; it is difficult to imagine any
logical reason for its conclusion.

[Footnote 1: The cessation of the pulse was one of the symptoms of
possession. See the case of Sommers, Tryal of Maister Darrell, 1599.]

[Footnote 2: IV. iv. 48, 62.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. 95.]

[Footnote 4: Harsnet, p. 113.]

75. Occasionally other, and sometimes more elaborate, methods of
exorcism than those mentioned by Romeo were adopted, especially when the
operation was conducted for the purpose of bringing into prominence some
great religious truth. The more evangelical of the operators adopted the
plan of lying on the top of their patients, "after the manner of Elias
and Pawle."[1] But the Catholic exorcists invented and carried to
perfection the greatest refinement in the art. The patient, seated in a
"holy chair," specially sanctified for the occasion, was compelled to
drink about a pint of a compound of sack and salad oil; after which
refreshment a pan of burning brimstone was held under his nose, until
his face was blackened by the smoke.[2] All this while the officiating
priest kept up his invocation of the fiends in the manner illustrated
above; and, under such circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether
the most determined character would not be prepared to see somewhat
unusual phenomena for the sake of a short respite.

[Footnote 1: The Tryall of Maister Darrell, 1599, p. 2.]

[Footnote 2: Harsnet, p. 53.]

76. Another remarkable method of exorcism was a process termed "firing
out" the fiend.[1] The holy flame of piety resident in the priest was so
terrible to the evil spirit, that the mere contact of the holy hand with
that part of the body of the afflicted person in which he was resident
was enough to make him shrink away into some more distant portion; so,
by a judicious application of the hand, the exorcist could drive the
devil into some limb, from which escape into the body was impossible,
and the evil spirit, driven to the extremity, was obliged to depart,
defeated and disgraced.[2] This influence could be exerted, however,
without actual corporal contact, as the following quaint extract from
Harsnet's book will show:--

"Some punie rash devil doth stay till the holy priest be come somewhat
neare, as into the chamber where the demoniacke doth abide, purposing,
as it seemes, to try a pluck with the priest; and then his hart sodainly
failing him (as Demas, when he saw his friend Chinias approach), cries
out that he is tormented with the presence of the priest, and so is
fierd out of his hold."[3]

[Footnote 1: This expression occurs in Sonnet cxliv., and evidently with
the meaning here explained; only the bad angel is supposed to fire out
the good one.]

[Footnote 2: Harsnet, pp. 77, 96, 97.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. p. 65.]

77. The more violent or uncommon of the bodily diseases were, as the
quotation from Cotta's book shows[1], attributed to the same diabolic
source. In an era when the most profound ignorance prevailed with regard
to the simplest laws of health; when the commoner diseases were
considered as God's punishment for sin, and not attributable to natural
causes; when so eminent a divine as Bishop Hooper could declare that
"the air, the water, and the earth have no poison in themselves to hurt
their lord and master man,"[2] unless man first poisoned himself with
sin; and when, in consequence of this ignorance and this false
philosophy, and the inevitable neglect attendant upon them, those
fearful plagues known as "the Black Death" could, almost without notice,
sweep down upon a country, and decimate its inhabitants--it is not
wonderful that these terrible scourges were attributed to the
malevolence of the Evil One.

[Footnote 1: See §§ 63, 64.]

[Footnote 2: I Hooper, p. 308. Parker Society.]

78. But it is curious to notice that, although possessing such terrible
powers over the bodies and minds of mortals, devils were not believed to
be potent enough to destroy the lives of the persons they persecuted
unless they could persuade their victims to renounce God. This theory
probably sprang out of the limitation imposed by the Almighty upon the
power of Satan during his temptation of Job, and the advice given to the
sufferer by his wife, "Curse God, and die." Hence, when evil spirits
began their assaults upon a man, one of their first endeavours was to
induce him to do some act that would be equivalent to such a
renunciation. Sometimes this was a bond assigning the victim's soul to
the Evil One in consideration of certain worldly advantages; sometimes a
formal denial of his baptism; sometimes a deed that drives away the
guardian angel from his side, and leaves the devil's influence
uncounteracted. In "The Witch of Edmonton,"[1] the first act that Mother
Sawyer demands her familiar to perform after she has struck her bargain,
is to kill her enemy Banks; and the fiend has reluctantly to declare
that he cannot do so unless by good fortune he could happen to catch him
cursing. Both Harpax[2] and Mephistophiles[3] suggest to their victims
that they have power to destroy their enemies, but neither of them is
able to exercise it. Faust can torment, but not kill, his would-be
murderers; and Springius and Hircius are powerless to take Dorothea's
life. In the latter case it is distinctly the protection of the guardian
angel that limits the diabolic power; so it is not unnatural that
Gratiano should think the cursing of his better angel from his side the
"most desperate turn" that poor old Brabantio could have done himself,
had he been living to hear of his daughter's cruel death.[4] It is next
to impossible for people in the present day to have any idea what a
consolation this belief in a good attendant spirit, specially appointed
to guard weak mortals through life, to ward off evils, and guide to
eternal safety, must have been in a time when, according to the current
belief, any person, however blameless, however holy, was liable at any
moment to be possessed by a devil, or harried and tortured by a witch.

[Footnote 1: Act II. sc. i.]

[Footnote 2: The Virgin Martyr, Act III. sc. iii.]

[Footnote 3: Dr. Faustus, Act I. sc. iii.]

[Footnote 4: Othello, Act V. sc. ii. 204.]

79. This leads by a natural sequence to the consideration of another and
more insidious form of attack upon mankind adopted by the evil spirits.
Possession and obsession were methods of assault adopted against the
will of the afflicted person, and hardly to be avoided by him without
the supernatural intervention of the Church. The practice of witchcraft
and magic involved the absolute and voluntary barter of body and soul to
the Evil One, for the purpose of obtaining a few short years of
superhuman power, to be employed for the gratification of the culprit's
avarice, ambition, or desire for revenge.

80. In the strange history of that most inexplicable mental disease, the
witchcraft epidemic, as it has been justly called by a high authority on
such matters,[1] we moderns are, by the nature of our education and
prejudices, completely incapacitated for sympathizing with either the
persecutors or their victims. We are at a loss to understand how
clear-sighted and upright men, like Sir Matthew Hale, could consent to
become parties to a relentless persecution to the death of poor helpless
beings whose chief crime, in most cases, was, that they had suffered
starvation both in body and in mind. We cannot understand it, because
none of us believe in the existence of evil spirits. None; for although
there are still a few persons who nominally hold to the ancient faith,
as they do to many other respectable but effete traditions, yet they
would be at a loss for a reason for the faith that is in them, should
they chance to be asked for one; and not one of them would be prepared
to make the smallest material sacrifice for the sake of it. It is true
that the existence of evil spirits recently received a tardy and
somewhat hesitating recognition in our ecclesiastical courts,[2] which
at first authoritatively declared that a denial of the existence of the
personality of the devil constituted a man a notorious evil liver, and
depraver of the Book of Common Prayer;[3] but this was promptly reversed
by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under the auspices of
two Low Church law lords and two archbishops, with the very vague
proviso that "they do not mean to decide that those doctrines are
otherwise than inconsistent with the formularities of the Church of
England;"[4] yet the very contempt with which these portentous
declarations of Church law have been received shows how great has been
the fall of the once almost omnipotent minister of evil. The ancient
Satan does indeed exist in some few formularies, but in such a
washed-out and flimsy condition as to be the reverse of conspicuous. All
that remains of him and of his subordinate legions is the ineffectual
ghost of a departed creed, for the resuscitation of which no man will
move a finger.

[Footnote 1: See Dr. Carpenter in _Frazer_ for November, 1877.]

[Footnote 2: See Jenkins v. Cooke, Law Reports, Admiralty and
Ecclesiastical Cases, vol. iv. p. 463, et seq.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. p. 499, Sir R. Phillimore.]

[Footnote 4: Law Reports, I Probate Division, p. 102.]

81. It is perfectly impossible for us, therefore, to comprehend,
although by an effort we may perhaps bring ourselves to imagine, the
horror and loathing with which good men, entirely believing in the
existence and omnipresence of countless legions of evil spirits, able
and anxious to perpetrate the mischiefs that it has been the object of
these pages in some part to describe, would regard those who, for their
own selfish gratification, deliberately surrendered their hopes of
eternal happiness in exchange for an alliance with the devils, which
would render these ten times more capable than before of working their
wicked wills. To men believing this, no punishment could seem too sudden
or too terrible for such offenders against religion and society, and no
means of possible detection too slight or far-fetched to be neglected;
indeed, it might reasonably appear to them better that many innocent
persons should perish, with the assurance of future reward for their
undeserved sufferings, than that a single guilty one should escape
undetected, and become the medium by which the devil might destroy more
souls.

82. But the persecuted, far more than the persecutors, deserve our
sympathy, although they rarely obtain it. It is frequently asserted that
the absolute truth of a doctrine is the only support that will enable
its adherents successfully to weather the storms of persecution. Those
who assent to this proposition must be prepared to find a large amount
of truth in the beliefs known to us under the name of witchcraft, if the
position is to be successfully maintained; for never was any sect
persecuted more systematically, or with more relentlessness, than these
little-offending heretics. Protestants and Catholics, Anglicans and
Calvinists, so ready at all times to commit one another to the flames
and to the headsman, found in this matter common ground, upon which all
could heartily unite for the grand purpose of extirpating error. When,
out of the quiet of our own times, we look back upon the terrors of the
Tower, and the smoke and glare of Smithfield, we think with mingled pity
and admiration of those brave men and women who, in the sixteenth
century, enriched with their blood and ashes the soil from whence was to
spring our political and religious freedom. But no whit of admiration,
hardly a glimmer of pity, is even casually evinced for those poor
creatures who, neglected, despised, and abhorred, were, at the same
time, dying the same agonizing death, and passing through the torment of
the flames to that "something after death--the undiscovered country,"
without the sweet assurance which sustained their better-remembered
fellow-sufferers, that beyond the martyr's cross was waiting the
martyr's crown. No such hope supported those who were condemned to die
for the crime of witchcraft: their anticipations of the future were as
dreary as their memories of the past, and no friendly voice was raised,
or hand stretched out, to encourage or console them during that last sad
journey. Their hope of mercy from man was small--strangulation before
the application of the fire, instead of the more lingering and painful
death at most;--their hope of mercy from Heaven, nothing; yet, under
these circumstances, the most auspicious perhaps that could be imagined
for the extirpation of a heretical belief, persecution failed to effect
its object. The more the Government burnt the witches, the more the
crime of witchcraft spread; and it was not until an attitude of
contemptuous toleration was adopted towards the culprits that the belief
died down, gradually but surely, not on account of the conclusiveness of
the arguments directed against it, but from its own inherent lack of
vitality.[1]

[Footnote 1: See Mr. Lecky's elaborate and interesting description of
the demise of the belief in the first chapter of his History of the Rise
of Rationalism in Europe.]

83. The history and phenomena of witchcraft have been so admirably
treated by more than one modern investigator, as to render it
unnecessary to deal exhaustively with a subject which presents such a
vast amount of material for arrangement and comment. The scope of the
following remarks will therefore be limited to a consideration of such
features of the subject as appear to throw light upon the
supernaturalism in "Macbeth." This consideration will be carried out
with some minuteness, as certain modern critics, importing mythological
learning that is the outcome of comparatively recent investigation into
the interpretation of the text, have declared that the three sisters who
play such an important part in that drama are not witches at all, but
are, or are intimately allied to, the Norns or Fates of Scandinavian
paganism. It will be the object of the following pages to illustrate the
contemporary belief concerning witches and their powers, by showing that
nearly every characteristic point attributed to the sisters has its
counterpart in contemporary witch-lore; that some of the allusions,
indeed, bear so strong a resemblance to certain events that had
transpired not many years before "Macbeth" was written, that it is not
improbable that Shakspere was alluding to them in much the same
off-hand, cursory manner as he did to the Mainy incident when writing
"King Lear."

84. The first critic whose comments upon this subject call for notice is
the eminent Gervinus. In evident ignorance of the history of witchcraft,
he says, "In the witches Shakspere has made use of the popular belief in
evil geniuses and in adverse persecutors of mankind, and has produced a
similar but darker race of beings, just as he made use of the belief in
fairies in the 'Midsummer Night's Dream.' This creation is less
attractive and complete, but not less masterly. The poet, in the text of
the play itself, calls these beings witches only derogatorily; they call
themselves weird sisters; the Fates bore this denomination, and the
sisters remind us indeed of the Northern Fates or Valkyries. They appear
wild and weather-beaten in exterior and attire, common in speech,
ignoble, half-human creatures, ugly as the Evil One, and in like manner
old, and of neither sex. They are guided by more powerful masters, their
work entirely springs from delight in evil, and they are wholly devoid
of human sympathies.... They are simply the embodiment of inward
temptation; they come in storm and vanish in air, like corporeal
impulses, which, originating in the blood, cast up bubbles of sin and
ambition in the soul; they are weird sisters only in the sense in which
men carry their own fates within their bosoms."[1] This criticism is so
entirely subjective and unsupported by evidence that it is difficult to
deal satisfactorily with it. It will be shown hereafter that this
description does not apply in the least to the Scandinavian Norns,
while, so far as it is true to Shakspere's text, it does not clash with
contemporary records of the appearance and actions of witches.

[Footnote 1: Shakspere Commentaries, translated by F.E. Bunnert, p.
591.]

85. The next writer to bring forward a view of this character was the
Rev. F.G. Fleay, the well-known Shakspere critic, whose ingenious
efforts in iconoclasm cause a curious alternation of feeling between
admiration and amazement. His argument is unfortunately mixed up with a
question of textual criticism; for he rejects certain scenes in the play
as the work of the inferior dramatist Middleton.[1] The question
relating to the text will only be noticed so far as it is inextricably
involved with the argument respecting the nature of the weird sisters.
Mr. Fleay's position is, shortly, this. He thinks that Shakspere's play
commenced with the entrance of Macbeth and Banquo in the third scene of
the first act, and that the weird sisters who subsequently take part in
that scene are Norns, not witches; and that in the first scene of the
fourth act, Shakspere discarded the Norns, and introduced three
entirely new characters, who were intended to be genuine witches.

[Footnote 1: Of the witch scenes Mr. Fleay rejects Act I. sc. i., and
sc. iii. down to l. 37, and Act III. sc. v.]

86. The evidence which can be produced in support of this theory, apart
from question of style and probability, is threefold. The first proof is
derived from a manuscript entitled "The Booke of Plaies and Notes
thereof, for Common Pollicie," written by a somewhat famous
magician-doctor, Simon Forman, who was implicated in the murder of Sir
Thomas Overbury. He says, "In 'Macbeth,' at the Globe, 1610, the 20th
April, Saturday, there was to be observed first how Macbeth and Banquo,
two noblemen of Scotland, riding through a wood, there stood before them
three women fairies, or nymphs, and saluted Macbeth, saying three times
unto him, 'Hail, Macbeth, King of Codor, for thou shalt be a king, but
thou shalt beget no kings,'" etc.[1] This, if Forman's account held
together decently in other respects, would be strong, although not
conclusive, evidence in favour of the theory; but the whole note is so
full of inconsistencies and misstatements, that it is not unfair to
conclude, either that the writer was not paying marvellous attention to
the entertainment he professed to describe, or that the player's copy
differed in many essential points from the present text. Not the least
conspicuous of these inconsistencies is the account of the sisters'
greeting of Macbeth just quoted. Subsequently Forman narrates that
Duncan created Macbeth Prince of Cumberland; and that "when Macbeth had
murdered the king, the blood on his hands could not be washed off by
any means, nor from his wife's hands, which handled the bloody daggers
in hiding them, by which means they became both much amazed and
affronted." Such a loose narration cannot be relied upon if the text in
question contains any evidence at all rebutting the conclusion that the
sisters are intended to be "women fairies, or nymphs."

[Footnote 1: See Furness, Variorum, p. 384.]

87. The second piece of evidence is the story of Macbeth as it is
narrated by Holinshed, from which Shakspere derived his material. In
that account we read that "It fortuned as Makbeth and Banquho journied
toward Fores, where the king then laie, they went sporting by the waie
togither without other companie, saue onlie themselues, passing thorough
the woods and fields, when suddenlie in the middest of a laund there met
them three women in strange and wild apparell, resembling creatures of
elder world, whome when they attentivelie beheld, woondering much at the
sight, the first of them spake and said; 'All haile, Makbeth, thane of
Glammis' (for he had latelie entered into that dignitie and office by
the death of his father Sinell). The second of them said; 'Haile,
Makbeth, thane of Cawder.' But the third said; 'All haile, Makbeth, that
heereafter shall be King of Scotland.' ... Afterwards the common opinion
was that these women were either the weird sisters, that is (as ye would
say) the goddesses of destinie, or else some nymphs or feiries, indued
with knowledge of prophesie by their necromanticall science, because
everiething came to passe as they had spoken."[1] This is all that is
heard of these "goddesses of Destinie" in Holinshed's narrative. Macbeth
is warned to "beware Macduff"[2] by "certeine wizzards, in whose words
he put great confidence;" and the false promises were made to him by "a
certeine witch, whome he had in great trust, (who) had told him that he
should neuer be slaine with man borne of anie woman, nor vanquished till
the wood of Bernane came to the castell of Dunsinane."[3]

[Footnote 1: Holinshed, Scotland, p. 170, c. 2, l. 55.]

[Footnote 2: Macbeth, IV. l. 71. Holinshed, p. 174, c. 2, l. 10.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. l. 13.]

88. In this account we find that the supernatural communications adopted
by Shakspere were derived from three sources; and the contention is that
he has retained two of them--the "goddesses of Destinie" and the
witches; and the evidence of this retention is the third proof relied
on, namely, that the stage direction in the first folio, Act IV. sc. i.,
is, "Enter Hecate and the _other_ three witches," when three characters
supposed to be witches are already upon the scene. Holinshed's narrative
makes it clear that the idea of the "goddesses of Destinie" was
distinctly suggested to Shakspere's mind, as well as that of the
witches, as the mediums of supernatural influence. The question is, did
he retain both, or did he reject one and retain the other? It can
scarcely be doubted that one such influence running through the play
would conduce to harmony and unity of idea; and as Shakspere, not a
servile follower of his source in any case, has interwoven in "Macbeth"
the totally distinct narrative of the murder of King Duffe,[1] it is
hardly to be supposed that he would scruple to blend these two
different sets of characters if any advantage were to be gained by so
doing. As to the stage direction in the first folio, it is difficult to
see what it would prove, even supposing that the folio were the most
scrupulous piece of editorial work that had ever been effected. It
presupposes that the "weird sisters" are on the stage as well as the
witches. But it is perfectly clear that the witches continue the
dialogue; so the other more powerful beings must be supposed to be
standing silent in the background--a suggestion so monstrous that it is
hardly necessary to refer to the slovenliness of the folio stage
directions to show how unsatisfactory an argument based upon one of them
must be.

[Footnote 1: Ibid. p. 149. "A sort of witches dwelling in a towne of
Murreyland called Fores" (c. 2, l. 30) were prominent in this account.]

89. The evidence of Forman and Holinshed has been stated fully, in order
that the reader may be in possession of all the materials that may be
necessary for forming an accurate judgment upon the point in question;
but it seems to be less relied upon than the supposition that the
appearance and powers of the beings in the admittedly genuine part of
the third scene of the first act are not those formerly attributed to
witches, and that Shakspere, having once decided to represent Norns,
would never have degraded them "to three old women, who are called by
Paddock and Graymalkin, sail in sieves, kill swine, serve Hecate, and
deal in all the common charms, illusions, and incantations of vulgar
witches. The three who 'look not like the inhabitants o' th' earth, and
yet are on't;' they who can 'look into the seeds of time, and say which
grain will grow;' they who seem corporal, but melt into the air, like
bubbles of the earth; the weyward sisters, who make themselves air, and
have in them more than mortal knowledge, are not beings of this
stamp."[1]

[Footnote 1: New Shakspere Society Transactions, vol. i. p.342; Fleay's
Shakspere Manual, p. 248.]

90. Now, there is a great mass of contemporary evidence to show that
these supposed characteristics of the Norns are, in fact, some of the
chief attributes of the witches of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. If this be so--if it can be proved that the supposed
"goddesses of Destinie" of the play in reality possess no higher powers
than could be acquired by ordinary communication with evil spirits, then
no weight must be attached to the vague stage direction in the folio,
occurring as it does in a volume notorious for the extreme carelessness
with which it was produced; and it must be admitted that the "goddesses
of Destinie" of Holinshed were sacrificed for the sake of the witches.
If, in addition to this, it can be shown that there was a very
satisfactory reason why the witches should have been chosen as the
representatives of the evil influence instead of the Norns, the argument
will be as complete as it is possible to make it.

91. But before proceeding to examine the contemporary evidence, it is
necessary, in order to obtain a complete conception of the mythological
view of the weird sisters, to notice a piece of criticism that is at
once an expansion of, and a variation upon, the theory just stated.[1]
It is suggested that the sisters of "Macbeth" are but three in number,
but that Shakspere drew upon Scandinavian mythology for a portion of the
material he used in constructing these characters, and that he derived
the rest from the traditions of contemporary witchcraft; in fact, that
the "sisters" are hybrids between Norns and witches. The supposed proof
of this is that each sister exercises the special function of one of the
Norns. "The third is the special prophetess, whilst the first takes
cognizance of the past, and the second of the present, in affairs
connected with humanity. These are the tasks of Urda, Verdandi, and
Skulda. The first begins by asking, 'When shall we three meet again?'
The second decides the time: 'When the battle's lost or won.' The third,
the future prophesies: 'That will be ere set of sun.' The first again
asks, 'Where?' The second decides: 'Upon the heath.' The third, the
future prophesies: 'There to meet with Macbeth.'" But their _rôle_ is
most clearly brought out in the famous "Hails":--

     _1st. Urda._ [Past.] All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, Thane of
     Glamis!

     _2nd. Verdandi._ [Present.] All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, Thane
     of Cawdor!

     _3rd. Skulda._ All hail, Macbeth! thou shalt be king hereafter.[2]

This sequence is supposed to be retained in other of the sisters'
speeches; but a perusal of these will soon show that it is only in the
second of the above quotations that it is recognizable with any
definiteness; and this, it must be remembered, is an almost verbal
transcript from Holinshed, and not an original conception of
Shakspere's, who might feel himself quite justified in changing the
characters of the speakers, while retaining their utterances. In
addition to this, the natural sequence is in many cases utterly and
unnecessarily violated; as, for instance, in Act I. sc. iii., where
Urda, who should be solely occupied with past matters, predicts, with
extreme minuteness, the results that are to follow from her projected
voyage to Aleppo, and that without any expression of resentment, but
rather with promise of assistance, from Skulda, whose province she is
thus invading.

[Footnote 1: In a letter to _The Academy_, 8th February, 1879, signed
"Charlotte Carmichael."]

[Footnote 2: I have taken the liberty of printing this quotation as it
stands in the text. The writer in _The Academy_ has effected a
rearrangement of the dialogue by importing what might be Macbeth's
replies to the three sisters from his speech beginning at l. 70, and
alternating them with the different "Hails," which, in addition, are not
correctly quoted--for what purpose it is difficult to see. It may be
added here that in a subsequent number of _The Academy_, a long letter
upon the same subject appeared from Mr. Karl Blind, which seems to prove
little except the author's erudition. He assumes the Teutonic origin of
the sisters throughout, and, consequently, adduces little evidence in
favour of the theory. One of his points is the derivation of the word
"weird" or "wayward," which, as will be shown subsequently, was applied
to witches. Another point is, that the witch scenes savour strongly of
the staff-rime of old German poetry. It is interesting to find two
upholders of the Norn-theory relying mainly for proof of their position
upon a scene (Act I. sc. i.) which Mr Fleay says that the very statement
of this theory (p. 249) must brand as spurious. The question of the
sisters' beards too, regarding which Mr. Blind brings somewhat
far-fetched evidence, is, I think, more satisfactorily settled by the
quotations in the text.]

92. But this latter piece of criticism seems open to one grave
objection to which the former is not liable. Mr. Fleay separates the
portions of the play which are undoubtedly to be assigned to witches
from the parts he gives to his Norns, and attributes them to different
characters; the other mixes up the witch and Norn elements in one
confused mass. The earlier critic saw the absurdity of such a
supposition when he wrote: "Shakspere may have raised the wizard and
witches of the latter parts of Holinshed to the weird sisters of the
former parts, but the converse process is impossible."[1] Is it
conceivable that Shakspere, who, as most people admit, was a man of some
poetic feeling, being in possession of the beautiful Norn-legend--the
silent Fate-goddesses sitting at the foot of Igdrasil, the mysterious
tree of human existence, and watering its roots with water from the
sacred spring--could, ruthlessly and without cause, mar the charm of the
legend by the gratuitous introduction of the gross and primarily
unpoetical details incident to the practice of witchcraft? No man with a
glimmer of poetry in his soul will imagine it for a moment. The
separation of characters is more credible than this; but if that theory
can be shown to be unfounded, there is no improbability in supposing
that Shakspere, finding that the question of witchcraft was, in
consequence of events that had taken place not long before the time of
the production of "Macbeth," absorbing the attention of all men, from
king to peasant, should set himself to deal with such a popular subject,
and, by the magic of his art, so raise it out of its degradation into
the region of poetry, that men should wonder and say, "Can this be
witchcraft indeed?"

[Footnote 1: Shakspere Manual, p. 249.]

93. In comparing the evidence to be deduced from the contemporary
records of witchcraft with the sayings and doings of the sisters in
"Macbeth," those parts of the play will first be dealt with upon which
no doubt as to their genuineness has ever been cast, and which are
asserted to be solely applicable to Norns. If it can be shown that these
describe witches rather than Norns, the position that Shakspere
intentionally substituted witches for the "goddesses of Destinie"
mentioned in his authority is practically unassailable. First, then, it
is asserted that the description of the appearance of the sisters given
by Banquo applies to Norns rather than witches--

    "They look not like the inhabitants o' th' earth,
    And yet are on't."

This question of applicability, however, must not be decided by the
consideration of a single sentence, but of the whole passage from which
it is extracted; and, whilst considering it, it should be carefully
borne in mind that it occurs immediately before those lines which are
chiefly relied upon as proving the identity of the sisters with Urda,
Verdandi, and Skulda.

Banquo, on seeing the sisters, says--

                          "What are these,
    So withered and so wild in their attire,
    That look not like the inhabitants o' th' earth,
    And yet are on't? Live you, or are you aught
    That man may question? You seem to understand me,
    By each at once her chappy finger laying
    Upon her skinny lips: you should be women,
    And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
    That you are so."

It is in the first moment of surprise that the sisters, appearing so
suddenly, seem to Banquo unlike the inhabitants of this earth. When he
recovers from the shock and is capable of deliberate criticism, he sees
chappy fingers, skinny lips--in fact, nothing to distinguish them from
poverty-stricken, ugly old women but their beards. A more accurate
poetical counterpart to the prose descriptions given by contemporary
writers of the appearance of the poor creatures who were charged with
the crime of witchcraft could hardly have been penned. Scot, for
instance, says, "They are women which commonly be old, lame,
bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles.... They are leane and
deformed, showing melancholie in their faces;"[1] and Harsnet describes
a witch as "an old weather-beaten crone, having her chin and knees
meeting for age, walking like a bow, leaning on a staff, hollow-eyed,
untoothed, furrowed, having her lips trembling with palsy, going
mumbling in the streets; one that hath forgotten her Pater-noster, yet
hath a shrewd tongue to call a drab a drab."[2] It must be remembered
that these accounts are by two sceptics, who saw nothing in the witches
but poor, degraded old women. In a description which assumes their
supernatural power such minute details would not be possible; yet there
is quite enough in Banquo's description to suggest neglect, squalor, and
misery. But if this were not so, there is one feature in the
description of the sisters that would settle the question once and for
ever. The beard was in Elizabethan times the recognized characteristic
of the witch. In one old play it is said, "The women that come to us for
disguises must wear beards, and that's to say a token of a witch;"[3]
and in another, "Some women have beards; marry, they are half
witches;"[4] and Sir Hugh Evans gives decisive testimony to the fact
when he says of the disguised Falstaff, "By yea and no, I think, the
'oman is a witch indeed: I like not when a 'oman has a great peard; I
spy a great peard under her muffler."[5]

[Footnote 1: Discoverie, book i. ch. 3, p. 7.]

[Footnote 2: Harsnet, Declaration, p. 136.]

[Footnote 3: Honest Man's Fortune, II. i. Furness, Variorum, p. 30.]

[Footnote 4: Dekker's Honest Whore, sc. x. l. 126.]

[Footnote 5: Merry Wives of Windsor, Act IV. sc. ii.]

94. Every item of Banquo's description indicates that he is speaking of
witches; nothing in it is incompatible with that supposition. Will it
apply with equal force to Norns? It can hardly be that these mysterious
mythical beings, who exercise an incomprehensible yet powerful influence
over human destiny, could be described with any propriety in terms so
revolting. A veil of wild, weird grandeur might be thrown around them;
but can it be supposed that Shakspere would degrade them by representing
them with chappy fingers, skinny lips, and beards? It is particularly to
be noticed, too, that although in this passage he is making an almost
verbal transcript from Holinshed, these details are interpolated without
the authority of the chronicle. Let it be supposed, for an instant,
that the text ran thus--

    _Banquo._ ... What are these
    So withered and so wild in their attire,[1]
    That look not like the inhabitants o' th' earth,
    And yet are on't?[2] Live you, or are you ought
    That man may question?[3]

     _Macbeth._ Speak if you can, what are you?

     _1st Witch._ All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis![4]

     _2nd Witch._ All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Cawdor![5]

     _3rd Witch._ All hail, Macbeth! thou shall be king hereafter.[6]

This is so accurate a dramatization of the parallel passage in
Holinshed, and so entire in itself, that there is some temptation to ask
whether it was not so written at first, and the interpolated lines
subsequently inserted by the author. Whether this be so or not, the
question must be put--Why, in such a passage, did Shakspere insert three
lines of most striking description of the appearance of witches? Can any
other reason be suggested than that he had made up his mind to replace
the "goddesses of Destinie" by the witches, and had determined that
there should be no possibility of any doubt arising about it?

[Footnote 1: Three women in strange and wild apparel,]

[Footnote 2: resembling creatures of elder world,]

[Footnote 3: whome when they attentivelie beheld, woondering much at the
sight, the first of them spake and said;]

[Footnote 4: 'All haile, Makbeth, thane of Glammis' (for he had latelie
entered into that dignitie and office by the death of his father
Sinell).]

[Footnote 5: The second of them said; 'Haile, Makbeth, thane of
Cawder.']

[Footnote 6: But the third said; 'All haile, Makbeth, that heereafter
shalt be king of Scotland.']

95. The next objection is, that the sisters exercise powers that witches
did not possess. They can "look into the seeds of time, and say which
grain will grow, and which will not." In other words, they foretell
future events, which witches could not do. But this is not the fact. The
recorded witch trials teem with charges of having prophesied what things
were about to happen; no charge is more common. The following, quoted by
Charles Knight in his biography of Shakspere, might almost have
suggested the simile in the last-mentioned lines. Johnnet Wischert is
"indicted for passing to the green growing corn in May, twenty-two years
since or thereby, sitting thereupon tymous in the morning before the
sun-rising, and being there found and demanded what she was doing,
thou[1] answered, I shall tell thee; I have been peeling the blades of
the corn. I find it will be a dear year, the blade of the corn grows
withersones [contrary to the course of the sun], and when it grows
sonegatis about [with the course of the sun] it will be good cheap
year."[2] The following is another apt illustration of the power, which
has been translated from the unwieldy Lowland Scotch account of the
trial of Bessie Roy in 1590. The Dittay charged her thus: "You are
indicted and accused that whereas, when you were dwelling with William
King in Barra, about twelve years ago, or thereabouts, and having gone
into the field to pluck lint with other women, in their presence made a
compass in the earth, and a hole in the midst thereof; and afterwards,
by thy conjurations thou causedst a great worm to come up first out of
the said hole, and creep over the compass; and next a little worm came
forth, which crept over also; and last [thou] causedst a great worm to
come forth, which could not pass over the compass, but fell down and
died. Which enchantment and witchcraft thou interpretedst in this form:
that the first great worm that crept over the compass was the goodman
William King, who should live; and the little worm was a child in the
goodwife's womb, who was unknown to any one to be with child, and that
the child should live; and, thirdly, the last great worm thou
interpretedst to be the goodwife, who should die: _which came to pass
after thy speaking_."[3] Surely there could hardly be plainer instances
of looking "into the seeds of time, and saying which grain will grow,
and which will not," than these.

[Footnote 1: Sic.]

[Footnote 2: p. 438.]

[Footnote 3: Pitcairn, I. ii. 207. Cf. also Ibid. pp. 212, 213, and 231,
where the crime is described as "foreknowledge."]

96. Perhaps this is the most convenient place for pointing out the full
meaning of the first scene of "Macbeth," and its necessary connection
with the rest of the play. It is, in fact, the fag-end of a witches'
sabbath, which, if fully represented, would bear a strong resemblance to
the scene at the commencement of the fourth act. But a long scene on
such a subject would be tedious and unmeaning at the commencement of the
play. The audience is therefore left to assume that the witches have
met, performed their conjurations, obtained from the evil spirits the
information concerning Macbeth's career that they desired to obtain, and
perhaps have been commanded by the fiends to perform the mission they
subsequently carry through. All that is needed for the dramatic effect
is a slight hint of probable diabolical interference, and that Macbeth
is to be the special object of it; and this is done in as artistic a
manner as is perhaps imaginable. In the first scene they obtain their
information; in the second they utter their prediction. Every minute
detail of these scenes is based upon the broad, recognized facts of
witchcraft.

97. It is also suggested that the power of vanishing from the sight
possessed by the sisters--the power to make themselves air--was not
characteristic of witches. But this is another assertion that would not
have been made, had the authorities upon the subject been investigated
with only slight attention. No feature of the crime of witchcraft is
better attested than this; and the modern witch of story-books is still
represented as riding on a broomstick--a relic of the enchanted rod with
which the devil used to provide his worshippers, upon which to come to
his sabbaths.[1] One of the charges in the indictment against the
notorious Dr. Fian ran thus: "Fylit for suffering himself to be careit
to North Berwik kirk, as if he had bene souchand athoirt [whizzing
above] the eird."[2] Most effectual ointments were prepared for
effecting this method of locomotion, which have been recorded, and are
given below[3] as an illustration of the wild kind of recipes which
Shakspere rendered more grim in his caldron scene. The efficacy of these
ointments is well illustrated by a story narrated by Reginald Scot,
which unfortunately, on account of certain incidents, cannot be given in
his own terse words. The hero of it happened to be staying temporarily
with a friend, and on one occasion found her rubbing her limbs with a
certain preparation, and mumbling the while. After a time she vanished
out of his sight; and he, being curious to investigate the affair,
rubbed himself with the remaining ointment, and almost immediately he
found himself transported a long distance through the air, and
deposited right in the very midst of a witches' sabbath. Naturally
alarmed, he cried out, "'In the name of God, what make I heere?' and
upon those words the whole assemblie vanished awaie."[4]

[Footnote 1: Scot, book iii. ch. iii. p. 43.]

[Footnote 2: Pitcairn, I. ii. 210. Cf. also Ibid. p. 211. Scot, book
iii. ch. vii. p. 51.]

[Footnote 3: "Sundrie receipts and ointments made and used for the
transportation of witches, and other miraculous effects.

"Rx. The fat of yoong children, & seeth it with water in a brazen
vessell, reseruing the thickest of that which remaineth boiled in the
bottome, which they laie up & keep untill occasion serveth to use it.
They put hereinto Eleoselinum, Aconitum, frondes populeas, & Soote."
This is given almost verbatim in Middleton's Witch.

"Rx. Sium, Acarum Vulgare, Pentaphyllon, the bloud of a Flittermouse,
Solanum Somniferum, & oleum."

It would seem that fern seed had the same virtue.--I Hen. IV. II. i.]

[Footnote 4: Scot, book iii. ch. vi. p. 46.]

98. The only vestige of a difficulty, therefore, that remains is the use
of the term "weird sisters" in describing the witches. It is perfectly
clear that Holinshed used these words as a sort of synonym for the
"goddesses of Destinie;" but with such a mass of evidence as has been
produced to show that Shakspere elected to introduce witches in the
place of the Norns, it surely would not be unwarrantable to suppose that
he might retain this term as a poetical and not unsuitable description
of the characters to whom it was applied. And this is the less
improbable as it can be shown that both words were at times applied to
witches. As the quotation given subsequently[1] proves, the Scotch
witches were in the habit of speaking of the frequenters of a particular
sabbath as "the sisters;" and in Heywood's "Witches of Lancashire," one
of the characters says about a certain act of supposed witchcraft, "I
remember that some three months since I crossed a wayward woman; one
that I now suspect."[2]

[Footnote 1: § 107, p. 114.]

[Footnote 2: Act V. sc. iii.]

99. Here, then, in the very stronghold of the supposed proof of the
Norn-theory, it is possible to extract convincing evidence that the
sisters are intended to be merely witches. It is not surprising that
other portions of the play in which the sisters are mentioned should
confirm this view. Banquo, upon hearing the fulfilment of the prophecy
of the second witch, clearly expresses his opinion of the origin of the
"foreknowledge" he has received, in the exclamation, "What, can the
devil speak true?" For the devil most emphatically spoke through the
witches; but how could he in any sense be said to speak through Norns?
Again, Macbeth informs his wife that on his arrival at Forres, he made
inquiry into the amount of reliance that could be placed in the
utterances of the witches, "and learned by the perfectest report that
they had more in them than mortal knowledge."[1] This would be possible
enough if witches were the subjects of the investigation, for their
chief title to authority would rest upon the general opinion current in
the neighbourhood in which they dwelt; but how could such an inquiry be
carried out successfully in the case of Norns? It is noticeable, too,
that Macbeth knows exactly where to find the sisters when he wants them;
and when he says--

    "More shall they speak; for now I am bent to know,
    By the worst means, the worst,"[2]

he makes another clear allusion to the traffic of the witches with the
devil. After the events recorded in Act IV. sc. i., Macbeth speaks of
the prophecies upon which he relies as "the equivocation of the
fiend,"[3] and the prophets as "these juggling fiends;"[4] and with
reason--for he has seen and heard the very devils themselves, the
masters of the witches and sources of all their evil power. Every point
in the play that bears upon the subject at all tends to show that
Shakspere intentionally replaced the "goddesses of Destinie" by witches;
and that the supposed Norn origin of these characters is the result of a
somewhat too great eagerness to unfold a novel and startling theory.

[Footnote 1: Act I. sc. v. l. 2.]

[Footnote 2: Mr. Fleay avoids the difficulty created by this passage,
which alludes to the witches as "the weird sisters," by supposing that
these lines were interpolated by Middleton--a method of criticism that
hardly needs comment. Act III. sc. iv. l. 134.]

[Footnote 3: Act V. sc. v. l. 43.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid. sc. viii. l. 19.]

100. Assuming, therefore, that the witch-nature of the sisters is
conclusively proved, it now becomes necessary to support the assertion
previously made, that good reason can be shown why Shakspere should
have elected to represent witches rather than Norns.

It is impossible to read "Macbeth" without noticing the prominence given
to the belief that witches had the power of creating storms and other
atmospheric disturbances, and that they delighted in so doing. The
sisters elect to meet in thunder, lightning, or rain. To them "fair is
foul, and foul is fair," as they "hover through the fog and filthy air."
The whole of the earlier part of the third scene of the first act is one
blast of tempest with its attendant devastation. They can loose and bind
the winds,[1] cause vessels to be tempest-tossed at sea, and mutilate
wrecked bodies.[2] They describe themselves as "posters of the sea and
land;"[3] the heath they meet upon is blasted;[4] and they vanish "as
breath into the wind."[5] Macbeth conjures them to answer his questions
thus:--

    "Though you untie the winds, and let them fight
    Against the churches; though the yesty waves
    Confound and swallow navigation up;
    Though bladed corn be lodged, and trees blown down;
    Though castles topple on their warders' heads;
    Though palaces and pyramids do slope
    Their heads to their foundations; though the treasure
    Of nature's germens tumble all together,
    Even till destruction sicken."[6]

[Footnote 1: I. iii. 11, 12.]

[Footnote 2: Act I. sc. iii. l. 28.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. l. 32.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid. l. 77.]

[Footnote 5: Ibid. ll. 81, 82.]

[Footnote 6: Act IV. sc. i. ll. 52-60.]

101. Now, this command over the elements does not form at all a
prominent feature in the English records of witchcraft. A few isolated
charges of the kind may be found. In 1565, for instance, a witch was
burnt who confessed that she had caused all the tempests that had taken
place in that year. Scot, too, has a few short sentences upon this
subject, but does not give it the slightest prominence.[1] Nor in the
earlier Scotch trials recorded by Pitcairn does this charge appear
amongst the accusations against the witches. It is exceedingly curious
to notice the utter harmless nature of the charges brought against the
earlier culprits; and how, as time went on and the panic increased, they
gradually deepened in colour, until no act was too gross, too repulsive,
or too ridiculously impossible to be excluded from the indictment. The
following quotations from one of the earliest reported trials are given
because they illustrate most forcibly the condition of the poor women
who were supposed to be witches, and the real basis of fact upon which
the belief in the crime subsequently built itself.

[Footnote 1: Book iii. ch. 13, p. 60.]

102. Bessie Dunlop was tried for witchcraft in 1576. One of the
principal accusations against her was that she held intercourse with a
devil who appeared to her in the shape of a neighbour of hers, one Thom
Reed, who had recently died. Being asked how and where she met Thom
Reed, she said, "As she was gangand betwixt her own house and the yard
of Monkcastell, dryvand her ky to the pasture, and makand heavy sair
dule with herself, gretand[1] very fast for her cow that was dead, her
husband and child that wer lyand sick in the land ill, and she new
risen out of gissane,[2] the aforesaid Thom met her by the way,
healsit[3] her, and said, 'Gude day, Bessie,' and she said, 'God speed
you, guidman.' 'Sancta Marie,' said he, 'Bessie, why makes thow sa great
dule and sair greting for ony wardlie thing?' She answered 'Alas! have I
not great cause to make great dule, for our gear is trakit,[4] and my
husband is on the point of deid, and one babie of my own will not live,
and myself at ane weak point; have I not gude cause then to have ane
sair hart?' But Thom said, 'Bessie, thou hast crabit[5] God, and askit
some thing you suld not have done; and tharefore I counsell thee to mend
to Him, for I tell thee thy barne sall die and the seik cow, or you come
hame; and thy twa sheep shall die too; but thy husband shall mend, and
shall be as hale and fair as ever he was.' And then I was something
blyther, for he tauld me that my guidman would mend. Then Thom Reed went
away fra me in through the yard of Monkcastell, and I thought that he
gait in at ane narrower hole of the dyke nor anie erdlie man culd have
gone throw, and swa I was something fleit."[6]

[Footnote 1: Weeping. I have only half translated this passage, for I
feared to spoil the sad simplicity of it.]

[Footnote 2: Child-bed.]

[Footnote 3: Saluted.]

[Footnote 4: Dwindled away.]

[Footnote 5: Displeased.]

[Footnote 6: Frightened.]

This was the first time that Thom appeared to her. On the third occasion
he asked her "if she would not trow[1] in him." She said "she would trow
in ony bodye did her gude." Then Thom promised her much wealth if she
would deny her christendom. She answered that "if she should be riven at
horsis taillis, she suld never do that, but promised to be leal and
trew to him in ony thing she could do," whereat he was angry.

[Footnote 1: Trust.]

On the fourth occasion, the poor woman fell further into sin, and
accompanied Thom to a fairy meeting. Thom asked her to join the party;
but she said "she saw na proffeit to gang thai kind of gaittis, unless
she kend wherefor." Thom offered the old inducement, wealth; but she
replied that "she dwelt with her awin husband and bairnis," and could
not leave them. And so Thom began to be very crabit with her, and said,
"if so she thought, she would get lytill gude of him."

She was then demanded if she had ever asked any favour of Thom for
herself or any other person. She answered that "when sundrie persons
came to her to seek help for their beast, their cow, or ewe, or for any
barne that was tane away with ane evill blast of wind, or elf grippit,
she gait and speirit[1] at Thom what myght help them; and Thom would
pull ane herb and gif her out of his awin hand, and bade her scheir[2]
the same with ony other kind of herbis, and oppin the beistes mouth, and
put thame in, and the beist wald mend."[3]

[Footnote 1: Inquired.]

[Footnote 2: Chop.]

[Footnote 3: Pitcairn, I. ii. 51, et seq.]

It seems hardly possible to believe that a story like this, which is
half marred by the attempt to partially modernize its simple pathetic
language, and which would probably bring a tear to the eye, if not a
shilling from the pocket, of the most unsympathetic being of the present
day, should be considered sufficient three hundred years ago, to convict
the narrator of a crime worthy of death; yet so it was. This sad
picture of the breakdown of a poor woman's intellect in the unequal
struggle against poverty and sickness is only made visible to us by the
light of the flames that, mercifully to her perhaps, took poor Bessie
Dunlop away for ever from the sick husband, and weakly children, and the
"ky," and the humble hovel where they all dwelt together, and from the
daily, heart-rending, almost hopeless struggle to obtain enough food to
keep life in the bodies of this miserable family. The historian--who
makes it his chief anxiety to record, to the minutest and most
irrelevant details, the deeds, noble or ignoble, of those who have
managed to stamp their names upon the muster-roll of Fame--turns
carelessly or scornfully the page which contains such insignificant
matter as this; but those who believe

    "That not a worm is cloven in vain;
      That not a moth with vain desire
      Is shrivel'd in a fruitless fire,
    Or but subserves another's gain,"

will hardly feel that poor Bessie's life and death were entirely without
their meaning.

103. As the trials for witchcraft increase, however, the details grow
more and more revolting; and in the year 1590 we find a most
extraordinary batch of cases--extraordinary for the monstrosity of the
charges contained in them, and also for the fact that this feature, so
insisted upon in Macbeth, the raising of winds and storms, stands out in
extremely bold relief. The explanation of this is as follows. In the
year 1589, King James VI. brought his bride, Anne of Denmark, home to
Scotland. During the voyage an unusually violent storm raged, which
scattered the vessels composing the royal escort, and, it would appear,
caused the destruction of one of them. By a marvellous chance, the
king's ship was driven by a wind which blew directly contrary to that
which filled the sails of the other vessels;[1] and the king and queen
were both placed in extreme jeopardy. James, who seems to have been as
perfectly convinced of the reality of witchcraft as he was of his own
infallibility, at once came to the conclusion that the storm had been
raised by the aid of evil spirits, for the express purpose of getting
rid of so powerful an enemy of the Prince of Darkness as the righteous
king. The result was that a rigorous investigation was made into the
whole affair; a great number of persons were tried for attempting the
king's life by witchcraft; and that prince, undeterred by the apparent
impropriety of being judge in what was, in reality, his own cause,
presided at many of the trials, condescended to superintend the tortures
applied to the accused in order to extort a confession, and even went so
far in one case as to write a letter to the judges commanding a
condemnation.

[Footnote 1: Pitcairn, I. ii. 218.]

104. Under these circumstances, considering who the prosecutor was, and
who the judge, and the effectual methods at the service of the court for
extorting confessions,[1] it is not surprising that the king's surmises
were fully justified by the statements of the accused. It is impossible
to read these without having parts of the witch-scenes in "Macbeth"
ringing in the ears like an echo. John Fian, a young schoolmaster, and
leader of the gang, or "coven" as it was called, was charged with having
caused the leak in the king's ship, and with having raised the wind and
created a mist for the purpose of hindering his voyage.[2] On another
occasion he and several other witches entered into a ship, and caused it
to perish.[3] He was also able by witchcraft to open locks.[4] He
visited churchyards at night, and dismembered bodies for his charms; the
bodies of unbaptized infants being preferred.[5]

[Footnote 1: The account of the tortures inflicted upon Fian are too
horrible for quotation.]

[Footnote 2: Pitcairn, I. ii. 211.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. 212. He confessed that Satan commanded him to chase
cats "purposlie to be cassin into the sea to raise windis for
destructioune of schippis." Macbeth, I. iii. 15-25.]

[Footnote 4: "Fylit for opening of ane loke be his sorcerie in David
Seytounis moderis, be blawing in ane woman's hand, himself sittand att
the fyresyde."--See also the case of Bessie Roy, I. ii. 208. The English
method of opening locks was more complicated than the Scotch, as will
appear from the following quotation from Scot, book xii. ch. xiv. p.
246:--

"A charme to open locks. Take a peece of wax crossed in baptisme, and
doo but print certeine floures therein, and tie them in the hinder skirt
of your shirt; and when you would undoo the locke, blow thrice therein,
saieing, 'Arato hoc partico hoc maratarykin; I open this doore in thy
name that I am forced to breake, as thou brakest hell gates. In nomine
patris etc. Amen.'" Macbeth, IV. i. 46.]

[Footnote 5:

    "Finger of birth-strangled babe,
    Ditch-delivered by a drab."

Macbeth, IV. i. 30.]

Agnes Sampsoune confessed to the king that to compass his death she took
a black toad and hung it by the hind legs for three days, and collected
the venom that fell from it. She said that if she could have obtained a
piece of linen that the king had worn, she could have destroyed his
life with this venom; "causing him such extraordinarie paines as if he
had beene lying upon sharpe thornes or endis of needles."[1] She went
out to sea to a vessel called _The Grace of God_, and when she came away
the devil raised a wind, and the vessel was wrecked.[2] She delivered a
letter from Fian to another witch, which was to this effect: "Ye sall
warne the rest of the sisteris to raise the winde this day at ellewin
houris to stay the queenis cuming in Scotland."[3]

[Footnote 1: Pitcairn, I. ii. 218.

    "Toad, that under cold stone
    Days and nights has thirty-one
    Sweltered venom sleeping got."

Macbeth, IV. i. 6.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. 235.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. 236.]

This is her confession as to the methods adopted for raising the storm.
"At the time when his Majestie was in Denmarke, shee being accompanied
by the parties before speciallie named, took a cat and christened it,
and afterwards bounde to each part of that cat the cheefest parts of a
dead man, and the severall joyntes of his bodie; and that in the night
following the said cat was conveyed into the middest of the sea by all
these witches, sayling in their riddles or cives,[1] as is afore said,
and so left the said cat right before the town of Leith in Scotland.
This done, there did arise such a tempest in the sea as a greater hath
not been seene, which tempest was the cause of the perishing of a
vessell coming over from the town of Brunt Ilande to the town of
Leith.... Againe, it is confessed that the said christened cat was the
cause that the kinges Majesties shippe at his coming forth of Denmarke
had a contrarie wind to the rest of his shippes...."[2]

[Footnote 1: Macbeth, I. iii. 8.]

[Footnote 2: Pitcairn, Reprint of Newes from Scotland, I. ii. 218. See
also Trial of Ewsame McCalgane, I. ii. 254.]

105. It is worth a note that this art of going to sea in sieves, which
Shakspere has referred to in his drama, seems to have been peculiar to
this set of witches. English witches had the reputation of being able to
go upon the water in egg-shells and cockle-shells, but seem never to
have detected any peculiar advantages in the sieve. Not so these Scotch
witches. Agnes told the king that she, "with a great many other witches,
to the number of two hundreth, all together went to sea, each one in a
riddle or cive, and went into the same very substantially, with flaggons
of wine, making merrie, and drinking by the way in the same riddles or
cives, to the kirke of North Barrick in Lowthian, and that after they
landed they tooke hands on the lande and daunced a reill or short
daunce." They then opened the graves and took the fingers, toes, and
knees of the bodies to make charms.[1]

[Footnote 1: Pitcairn, I. ii. 217.]

It can be easily understood that these trials created an intense
excitement in Scotland. The result was that a tract was printed,
containing a full account of all the principal incidents; and the fact
that this pamphlet was reprinted once, if not twice,[1] in London,
shows that interest in the affair spread south of the Border; and this
is confirmed by the publisher's prefatorial apology, in which he states
that the pamphlet was printed to prevent the public from being imposed
upon by unauthorized and extravagant statements of what had taken
place.[2] Under ordinary circumstances, events of this nature would form
a nine days' wonder, and then die a natural death; but in this
particular case the public interest continued for an abnormal time; for
eight years subsequent to the date of the trials, James published his
"Daemonologie"--a work founded to a great extent upon his experiences at
the trials of 1590. This was a sign to both England and Scotland that
the subject of witchcraft was still of engrossing interest to him; and
as he was then the fully recognized heir-apparent to the English crown,
the publication of such a work would not fail to induce a great amount
of attention to the subject dealt with. In 1603 he ascended the English
throne. His first parliament met on the 19th of March, 1604, and on the
27th of the same month a bill was brought into the House of Lords
dealing with the question of witchcraft. It was referred to a committee
of which twelve bishops were members; and this committee, after much
debating, came to the conclusion that the bill was imperfect. In
consequence of this a fresh one was drawn, and by the 9th of June a
statute had passed both Houses of Parliament, which enacted, among other
things, that "if any person shall practise or exercise any invocation or
conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit, or shall consult with,
entertain, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit,[3] or take up any
dead man, woman, or child out of his, her, or their grave ... or the
skin, bone, or any other part of any dead person to be employed or used
in any manner of witchcraft,[4] ... or shall ... practise ... any
witchcraft ... whereby any person shall be killed, wasted, pined, or
lamed in his or her body or any part thereof,[5] such offender shall
suffer the pains of death as felons, without benefit of clergy or
sanctuary." Hutchinson, in his "Essay on Witchcraft," published in 1720,
declares that this statute was framed expressly to meet the offences
exposed by the trials of 1590-1; but, although this cannot be
conclusively proved, yet it is not at all improbable that the hurry with
which the statute was passed into law immediately upon the accession of
James, would recall to the public mind the interest he had taken in
those trials in particular and the subject in general, and that
Shakspere producing, as nearly all the critics agree, his tragedy at
about this date, should draw upon his memory for the half-forgotten
details of those trials, and thus embody in "Macbeth" the allusions to
them that have been pointed out--much less accurately than he did in the
case of the Babington affair, because the facts had been far less
carefully recorded, and the time at which his attention had been called
to them far more remote.[6]

[Footnote 1: One copy of this reprint bears the name of W. Wright,
another that of Thomas Nelson. The full title is--

"Newes from Scotland,

"Declaring the damnable life of Doctor Fian, a notable Sorcerer, who was
burned at Edenborough in Januarie last, 1591; which Doctor was Register
to the Deuill, that sundrie times preached at North Barricke kirke to a
number of notorious witches; with the true examinations of the said
Doctor and witches as they uttered them in the presence of the Scottish
king: Discouering how they pretended to bewitch and drowne his Majestie
in the sea, comming from Denmarke, with such other wonderfull matters,
as the like hath not bin heard at anie time.

"Published according to the Scottish copie.

"Printed for William Wright."]

[Footnote 2: These events are referred to in an existing letter by the
notorious Thos. Phelippes to Thos. Barnes, Cal. State Papers (May 21,
1591), 1591-4, p. 38.]

[Footnote 3: Such as Paddock, Graymalkin, and Harpier.]

[Footnote 4: "Liver of blaspheming Jew," etc.--Macbeth, IV. i. 26.]

[Footnote 5:

    "I will drain him dry as hay;
    Sleep shall neither night nor day
    Hang upon his pent-house lid;
    He shall live a man forbid:
    Weary se'nnights, nine times nine,
    Shall he dwindle, peak, and pine."

Macbeth, I. iii. 18-23.]

[Footnote 6: The excitement about the details of the witch trials would
culminate in 1592. Harsnet's book would be read by Shakspere in 1603.]

106. There is one other mode of temptation which was adopted by the evil
spirits, implicated to a great extent with the traditions of witchcraft,
but nevertheless more suitably handled as a separate subject, which is
of so gross and revolting a nature that it should willingly be passed
over in silence, were it not for the fact that the belief in it was, as
Scot says, "so stronglie and universallie received" in the times of
Elizabeth and James.

From the very earliest period of the Christian era the affection of one
sex for the other was considered to be under the special control of the
devil. Marriage was to be tolerated; but celibacy was the state most
conducive to the near intercourse with heaven that was so dearly sought
after. This opinion was doubtless generated by the tendency of the early
Christian leaders to hold up the events of the life rather than the
teachings of the sacred Founder of the sect as the one rule of conduct
to be received by His followers. To have been the recipients of the
stigmata was a far greater evidence of holiness and favour with Heaven
than the quiet and unnoted daily practice of those virtues upon which
Christ pronounced His blessing; and in less improbable matters they did
not scruple, in their enthusiasm, to attempt to establish a rule of life
in direct contradiction to the laws of that universe of which they
professed to believe Him to be the Creator. The futile attempt to
imitate His immaculate purity blinded their eyes to the fact that He
never taught or encouraged celibacy among His followers, and this
gradually led them to the strange conclusion that the passion which,
sublimed and brought under control, is the source of man's noblest and
holiest feelings, was a prompting proceeding from the author of all
evil. Imbued with this idea, religious enthusiasts of both sexes immured
themselves in convents; took oaths of perpetual celibacy; and even, in
certain isolated cases, sought to compromise with Heaven, and baffle the
tempter, by rendering a fall impossible--forgetting that the victory
over sin does not consist in immunity from temptation, but, being
tempted, not to fall. But no convent walls are so strong as to shut
great nature out; and even within these sacred precincts the ascetics
found that they were not free from the temptations of their arch-enemy.
In consequence of this, a belief sprang up, and spread from its original
source into the outer world, in a class of devils called incubi and
succubi, who roamed the earth with no other object than to tempt people
to abandon their purity of life. The cases of assault by incubi were
much more frequent than those by succubi, just as women were much more
affected by the dancing manias in the fifteenth century than
men;[1]--the reason, perhaps, being that they are much less capable of
resisting physical privation;--but, according to the belief of the
Middle Ages, there was no generic difference between the incubus and
succubus. Here was a belief that, when the witch fury sprang up,
attached itself as a matter of course as the phase of the crime; and it
was an almost universal charge against the accused that they offended in
this manner with their familiars, and hundreds of poor creatures
suffered death upon such an indictment. More details will be found in
the authorities upon this unpleasant subject.[2]

[Footnote 1: Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages, p. 136.]

[Footnote 2: Hutchinson, p. 52. The Witch of Edmonton, Act V. Scot,
Discoverie, book iv.]

107. This intercourse did not, as a rule, result in offspring; but this
was not universally the case. All badly deformed or monstrous children
were suspected of having had such an undesirable parentage, and there
was a great tendency to believe that they ought to be destroyed. Luther
was a decided advocate of this course, deeming the destruction of a life
far preferable to the chance of having a devil in the family. In
Drayton's poem, "The Mooncalf," one of the gossips present at the birth
of the calf suggests that it ought to be buried alive as a monster.[1]
Caliban is a mooncalf,[2] and his origin is distinctly traced to a
source of this description. It is perfectly clear what was the one
thing that the foul witch Sycorax did which prevented her life from
being taken; and it would appear from this that the inhabitants of
Argier were far more merciful in this respect than their European
neighbours. Such a charge would have sent any woman to the stake in
Scotland, without the slightest hope of mercy, and the usual plea for
respite would only have been an additional reason for hastening the
execution of the sentence.[3]

[Footnote 1: Ed. 1748, p. 171.]

[Footnote 2: Tempest, II. ii. 111, 115.]

[Footnote 3: Cf. Othello, I. i. 91. Titus Andronicus, IV. ii.]

108. In the preceding pages an endeavour has been made to delineate the
most prominent features of a belief which the great Reformation was
destined first to foster into unnatural proportions and vitality, and in
the end to destroy. Up to the period of the Reformation, the creed of
the nation had been practically uniform, and one set of dogmas was
unhesitatingly accepted by the people as infallible, and therefore
hardly demanding critical consideration. The great upheaval of the
sixteenth century rent this quiescent uniformity into shreds; doctrines
until then considered as indisputable were brought within the pale of
discussion, and hence there was a great diversity of opinion, not only
between the supporters of the old and of the new faith, but between the
Reformers themselves. This was conspicuously the case with regard to the
belief in the devils and their works. The more timid of the Reformers
clung in a great measure to the Catholic opinions; a small band, under
the influence possibly of that knight-errant of freedom of thought,
Giordano Bruno, who exercised some considerable influence during his
visit to England by means of his Oxford lectures and disputations,
entirely denied the existence of evil spirits; but the great majority
gave in their adherence to a creed that was the mean between the
doctrines of the old faith and the new scepticism. Their strong common
sense compelled them to reject the puerilities advanced as serious
evidence by the Catholic Church; but they cast aside with equal
vehemence and more horror the doctrines of the Bruno school. "That there
are devils," says Bullinger, reduced apparently from argument to
invective, "the Sadducees in times past denied, and at this day also
some scarce religious, nay, rather Epicures, deny the same; who, unless
they repent, shall one day feel, to their exceeding great pain and
smart, both that there are devils, and that they are the tormentors and
executioners of all wicked men and Epicures."[1]

[Footnote 1: Bullinger, Fourth Decade, 9th Sermon, p. 348, Parker
Society.]

109. It must be remembered, too, that the emancipation from medievalism
was a very gradual process, not, as we are too prone to think it, a
revolution suddenly and completely effected. It was an evolution, not an
explosion. There is found, in consequence, a great divergence of
opinion, not only between the earliest and the later Reformers, but
between the statements of the same man at different periods of his
career. Tyndale, for instance, seems to have believed in the actual
possession of the human body by devils;[1] and this appears to have
been the opinion of the majority at the beginning of the Reformation,
for the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. contained the Catholic form of
exorcism for driving devils out of children, which was expunged upon
revision, the doctrine of obsession having in the mean time triumphed
over the older belief. It is necessary to bear these facts in mind
whilst considering any attempt to depict the general bearings of a
belief such as that in evil spirits; for many irreconcilable statements
are to be found among the authorities; and it is the duty of the writer
to sift out and describe those views which predominated, and these must
not be supposed to be proved inaccurate because a chance quotation can
be produced in contradiction.

[Footnote 1: I Tyndale, p. 82. Parker Society.]

110. There is great danger, in the attempt to bring under analysis any
phase of religious belief, that the method of treatment may appear
unsympathetic if not irreverent. The greatest effort has been made in
these pages to avoid this fault as far as possible; for, without doubt,
any form of religious dogma, however barbarous, however seemingly
ridiculous, if it has once been sincerely believed and trusted by any
portion of mankind, is entitled to reverent treatment. No body of great
and good men can at any time credit and take comfort from a lie pure and
simple; and if an extinct creed appears to lack that foundation of truth
which makes creeds tolerable, it is safer to assume that it had a
meaning and a truthfulness, to those who held it, that lapse of time
has tended to destroy, together with the creed itself, than to condemn
men wholesale as knaves and hypocrites. But the particular subject which
has here been dealt with will surely be considered to be specially
entitled to respect, when it is remembered that it was once an integral
portion of the belief of most of our best and bravest ancestors--of men
and women who dared to witness to their own sincerity amidst the fires
of persecution and in the solitude of exile. It has nearly all
disappeared now. The terrific hierarchy of fiends, which was so real, so
full of horror three hundred years ago[1], has gradually vanished away
before the advent of fuller knowledge and purer faith, and is now hardly
thought of, unless as a dead mediaeval myth. But let us deal tenderly
with it, remembering that the day may come when the beliefs that are
nearest to our hearts may be treated as open to contempt or ridicule,
and the dogmas to which we most passionately cling will, "like an
insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a wrack behind."

[Footnote 1: Perhaps the following prayer, contained in Thomas Becon's
"Pomander," shows more clearly than the comments of any critic the
reality of the terror:--

"An infinite number of wicked angels there are, O Lord Christ, which
without ceasing seek my destruction. Against this exceeding great
multitude of evil spirits send Thou me Thy blessed and heavenly angels,
which may deliver me from then tyranny. Thou, O Lord, hast devoured
hell, and overcome the prince of darkness and all his ministers; yea,
and that not for Thyself, but for those that believe in Thee. Suffer me
not, therefore, to be overcome of Satan and of his servants, but rather
let me triumph over them, that I, through strong faith and help of the
blessed angels, having the victory of the hellish army, may with a
joyful heart say, Death, where is thy sting? Hell, where is thy
victory?--and so for ever and ever magnify Thy Holy Name. Amen." Parker
Society, p. 84.]

       *       *       *       *       *

111. Little attempt has hitherto been made, in the way of direct proof,
to show that fairies are really only a class of devils who exercise
their powers in a manner less terrible and revolting than that depicted
by theologians; and for this reason chiefly--that the proposition is
already more than half established when it has been shown that the
attributes and functions possessed by both fairy and devil are similar
in kind, although differing in degree. This has already been done to a
great extent in the preceding pages, where the various actions of Puck
and Ariel have been shown to differ in no essential respect from those
of the devils of the time; but before commencing to study this phase of
supernaturalism in Shakspere's works as a whole, and as indicative, to a
certain extent, of the development of his thought upon the relation of
man to the invisible world about and above him, it is necessary that
this identity should be admitted without a shadow of a doubt.

112. It has been shown that fairies were probably the descendants of the
lesser local deities, as devils were of the more important of the
heathen gods that were overturned by the advancing wave of
Christianity, although in the course of time this distinction was
entirely obliterated and forgotten. It has also been shown, as before
mentioned, that many of the powers exercised by fairies were in their
essence similar to those exercised by devils, especially that of
appearing in divers shapes. These parallels could be carried out to an
almost unlimited extent; but a few proofs only need be cited to show
this identity. In the mediaeval romance of "King Orfeo" fairyland has
been substituted for the classical Hades.[1] King James, in his
"Daemonologie," adopts a fourfold classification of devils, one of which
he names "Phairie," and co-ordinates with the incubus.[2] The name of
the devil supposed to preside at the witches' sabbaths is sometimes
given as Hecat, Diana, Sybilla; sometimes Queen of Elfame,[3] or
Fairie.[4] Indeed, Shakspere's line in "The Comedy of Errors," had it
not been unnecessarily tampered with by the critics--

     "A fiend, a fairy, pitiless and rough,"[5]

would have conclusively proved this identity of character.

[Footnote 1: Fairy Mythology of Shakspere, Hazlitt, p. 83.]

[Footnote 2: Daemonologie, p. 69. An instance of a fairy incubus is
given in the "Life of Robin Goodfellow," Hazlitt's Fairy Mythology, p.
176.]

[Footnote 3: Pitcairn, iii. p. 162.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid. i. p. 162, and many other places.]

[Footnote 5: Fairy has been altered to "fury," but compare Peele, Battle
of Alcazar: "Fiends, fairies, hags that fight in beds of steel."]

113. The real distinction between these two classes of spirits depends
on the condition of national thought upon the subject of
supernaturalism in its largest sense. A belief which has little or no
foundation upon indisputable phenomena must be continually passing
through varying phases, and these phases will be regulated by the nature
of the subjects upon which the attention of the mass of the people is
most firmly concentrated. Hence, when a nation has but one religious
creed, and one that has for centuries been accepted by them, almost
without question or doubt, faith becomes stereotyped, and the mind
assumes an attitude of passive receptivity, undisturbed by doubts or
questionings. Under such conditions, a belief in evil spirits ever ready
and watching to tempt a man into heresy of belief or sinful act, and
thus to destroy both body and soul, although it may exist as a theoretic
portion of the accepted creed, cannot possibly become a vital doctrine
to be believed by the general public. It may exist as a subject for
learned dispute to while away the leisure hours of divines, but cannot
by any possibility obtain an influence over the thoughts and lives of
their charges. Mental disturbance on questions of doctrinal importance
being, for these reasons, out of the question, the attention of the
people is almost entirely riveted upon questions of material ease and
advantage. The little lets and hindrances of every-day life in
agricultural and domestic matters are the tribulations that appeal most
incessantly to the ineradicable sense of an invisible power adverse to
the interests of mankind, and consequently the class of evil spirits
believed in at such a time will be fairies rather than devils--malicious
little spirits, who blight the growing corn; stop the butter from
forming in the churn; pinch the sluttish housemaid black and blue; and
whose worst act is the exchange of the baby from its cot for a fairy
changeling;--beings of a nature most exasperating to thrifty housewife
and hard-handed farmer, but nevertheless not irrevocably prejudiced
against humanity, and easily to be pacified and reduced into a state of
fawning friendship by such little attentions as could be rendered
without difficulty by the poorest cotter. The whole fairy mythology is
perfumed with an honest, healthy, careless joy in life, and a freedom
from mental doubt. "I love true lovers, honest men, good fellowes, good
huswives, good meate, good drinke, and all things that good is, but
nothing that is ill," declares Robin Goodfellow;[1] and this jovial
materialism only reflects the state of mind of the folk who were not
unwilling to believe that this lively little spirit might be seen of
nights busying himself in their houses by the dying embers of the
deserted fire.

[Footnote 1: Hazlitt, Fairy Mythology, p. 182.]

114. Such seems to have been the condition of England immediately before
the period of the great Reformation. But with the progress of that
revolution of thought the condition changes. The one true and eternal
creed, as it had been deemed, is shattered for ever. Men who have
hitherto accepted their religious convictions in much the same way as
they had succeeded to their patrimonies are compelled by this tide of
opposition to think and study for themselves. Each man finds himself
left face to face with the great hereafter, and his relation to it.
Terrible doctrines are formulated, and press themselves with remorseless
vigour upon his understanding--original sin, justification by faith,
eternal damnation for even honest error of belief,--doctrines that throw
an atmosphere of solemnity, if not gloom, about national thought, in
which no fairy mythology can flourish. It is no longer questions of
material ease and gain that are of the chief concern; and consequently
the fairies and their doings, from their own triviality, fall far into
the background, and their place is occupied by a countless horde of
remorseless schemers, who are never ceasing in their efforts to drag
both body and soul to perdition.

115. But it is in the towns, the centres of interchange of thought, of
learning, and of controversy, that this revolution first gathers power;
the sparsely populated country-sides are far more impervious to the new
ideas, and the country people cling far longer and more tenaciously to
the dying religion and its attendant beliefs. The rural districts were
but little affected by the Reformation for years after it had triumphed
in the towns, and consequently the beliefs of the inhabitants were
hardly touched by the struggle that was going on within so short a
distance. We find a Reginald Scot, indeed, complaining, half in joke,
half in sarcasm, that Robin Goodfellow has long disappeared from the
land;[1] but it is only from the towns that he has fled--towns in which
the spirit of the Cartwrights and the Latimers, the Barnhams and the
Delabers, is abroad. In the same Cambridge where Scot had been educated,
a young student had hanged himself because the shadow of the doctrine of
predestination was too terrible for him to live under;[2] and such a
place was surely no home for Puck and his merry band. But in the country
places, remote from the growl and trembling of this mental earthquake,
he still loved to lurk; and even at the very moment when Scot was
penning the denial of his existence, he was nestling amongst the woods
and flowers of Avonside, and, invisible, whispering in the ear of a
certain fair-haired youth there thoughts of no inconsiderable moment.
And long time after that--after the youth had become a man, and had
coined those thoughts into words that glitter still; after his monument
had been erected in the quiet Stratford churchyard--Puck revelled,
harmless and undisturbed, along many a country-side; nay, even to the
present day, in some old-world nooks, a faint whispering rumour of him
may still be heard.

[Footnote 1: Scot, Introduction.]

[Footnote 2: Foxe, iv. p. 694.]

116. Now, perhaps one of the most distinctive marks of literary genius
is a certain receptivity of mind; a capability of receiving impressions
from all surrounding circumstance--of extracting from all sources,
whether from nature or man, consciously or unconsciously, the material
upon which it shall work. For this process to be perfectly accomplished,
an entire and enthusiastic sympathy with man and the current ideas of
the time is absolutely essential, and in proportion as this sympathy is
contracted and partial, so will the work produced be stunted and untrue;
and, on the other hand, the more universal and entire it is, the more
perfect and vital will be the art. Bearing this in mind, and also the
facts that Shakspere's early training was effected in a little country
village; that upon the verge of manhood, he came to London, where he
spent his prime in contact with the bustle and friction of busy town
life; and that the later years of his life were passed in the quiet
retirement of the home of his boyhood--there would be good ground for an
argument, _a priori_, even were there none of a more conclusive nature,
that his earlier works would be found impregnated with the country
fairy-myths with which his youth would come in contact; that the result
of the labours of his middle life would show that these earlier
reminiscenses had been gradually obliterated by the gloomier influence
of ideas that were the result of the struggle of opposed theories that
had not then ceased to rage in the towns, and that the diabolic element
and questions relating thereto would predominate; and that, finally, his
later works, written under the calmer influence of Stratford life, would
show a certain return to the fairy-lore of his earlier years.

117. But fortunately we are not left to rely upon any such hypothetical
evidence in this matter, however probable it may appear. Although the
general reading public cannot be asked to accept as infallible any
chronological order of Shakspere's plays that dogmatically asserts a
particular sequence, or to investigate the somewhat dry and specialist
arguments upon which the conclusions are founded, yet there are certain
groupings into periods which are agreed upon as accurate by nearly all
critics, and which, without the slightest danger of error, may be
asserted to be correct. For instance, it is indisputable that "Love's
Labour's Lost," "The Comedy of Errors," "Romeo and Juliet," and "A
Midsummer Night's Dream" are amongst Shakspere's earliest works; that
the tragedies of "Julius Caesar," "Hamlet," "Othello," "Macbeth," and
"Lear" are the productions of his middle life, between 1600 and 1606;
and that "A Winter's Tale" and "The Tempest" are amongst the latest
plays which he wrote.[1] Here we have everything that is required to
prove the question in hand. At the commencement and at the end of his
writings--when a youth fresh from the influence of his country nurture
and education, and when a mature man, settling down into the old life
again after a long and victorious struggle with the world, with his
accumulated store of experience--we find plays which are perfectly
saturated with fairy-lore: "The Dream" and "The Tempest." These are the
poles of Shakspere's thought in this respect; and in the centre,
imbedded as it were between two layers of material that do not bear any
distinctive stamp of their own, but appear rather as a medium for
uniting the diverse strata, lie the great tragedies, produced while he
was in the very rush and swirl of town life, and reflecting accurately,
as we have seen, many of the doubts and speculations that were agitating
the minds of men who were ardently searching out truth. It is worth
noting too, in passing, that directly Shakspere steps out of his beaten
path to depict, in "The Merry Wives of Windsor," the happy country life
and manners of his day, he at the same time returns to fairyland again,
and brings out the Windsor children trooping to pinch and plague the
town-bred, tainted Falstaff.

[Footnote 1: For an elaborate and masterly investigation of the question
of the chronological order of the plays, which must be assumed here, see
Mr. Furnivall's Introduction to the Leopold Shakspere.]

118. But this is not by any means all that this subject reveals to us
about Shakspere; if it were, the less said about it the better. To look
upon "The Tempest" as in its essence merely a return to "The Dream"--the
end as the beginning; to believe that his thoughts worked in a weary,
unending circle--that the Valley of the Shadow of Death only leads back
to the foot of the Hill Difficulty--is intolerable, and not more
intolerable than false. Although based upon similar material, the ideas
and tendencies of "The Tempest" upon supernaturalism are no more
identical with those of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" than the thoughts of
Berowne upon things in general are those of Hamlet, or Hamlet's those of
Prospero. But before it is possible to point out the nature of this
difference, and to show that the change is a natural growth of thought,
not a mere retrogression, a few explanatory remarks are necessary.

There is no more insufficient and misleading view of Shakspere and his
work than that which until recently obtained almost universal credence,
and is even at the present time somewhat loudly asserted in some
quarters; namely, that he was a man of considerable genius, who wrote
and got acted some thirty plays more or less, simply for commercial
purposes and nothing more; made money thereby, and died leaving a will;
and that, beyond this, he and his works are, and must remain, an
inexplicable mystery. The critic who holds this view, and finds it
equally advantageous to commence a study of Shakspere's work by taking
"The Tempest" or "Love's Labour's Lost" as his text, is about as
judicious as the botanist who would enlarge upon the structure of the
seed-pod without first explaining the preliminary stages of plant
growth, or the architect who would dilate upon the most convenient
arrangement of chimney-pots before he had discussed the laws of
foundation. The plays may be studied separately, and studied so are
found beautiful; but taken in an approximate chronological order, like a
string of brilliant jewels, each one gains lustre from those that
precede and follow it.

119. For no man ever wrote sincerely and earnestly, or indeed ever did
any one thing in such a spirit, without leaving some impress upon his
work of his mental condition whilst he was doing it; and no such man
ever continued his literary labours from the period of youth right
through his manhood, without leaving behind him, in more or less legible
character, a record of the ripening of his thought upon matters of
eternal importance, although they may not be of necessity directly
connected with the ostensible subject in hand. Insincere men may ape
sentiments they do not really believe in; but in the end they will
either be exposed and held up to ridicule, or their work will sink into
obscurity. Sincerity in the expression of genuine thought and feeling
alone can stand the test of time. And this is in reality no
contradiction to what has just been said as to the necessity of a
receptive condition of mind in the production of works of true genius.
This capacity of receiving the most delicate objective impressions is,
indeed, one essential; but without the cognate power to assimilate this
food, and evolve the result that these influences have produced
subjectively, it is, worse than useless. The two must co-exist and act
and react upon one another. Nor must we be induced to surrender these
principles, in the present particular case, on account of the usual fine
but vague talk about Shakspere's absolute self-annihilation in favour of
the characters that he depicts. It is said that Shakspere so identifies
himself with each person in his dramas, that it is impossible to detect
the great master and his thoughts behind this cunningly devised screen.
If this means that Shakespere has always a perfect comprehension of his
characters, is competent to measure out to each absolute and unerring
justice, and is capable of sympathy with even the most repulsive, it
will not be disputed for an instant. It is so true, that it is dangerous
to take a sentence out of the mouth of any one of his characters and say
for certain, "This Shakspere thought," although there are many
characters with whom every one must feel that Shakspere identified
himself for the time being rather than others. But if it is intended to
assert that Shakspere has so eliminated himself from his writings as to
make it impossible to trace anywhere the tendencies of his own thought
at the time when he was writing, it must be most emphatically denied for
the reasons just stated. Freedom from prejudice must be carefully
dissociated from lack of interest in the motive that underlies the
construction of each play. There is a tone or key-note in each drama
that indicates the author's mental condition at the time when it was
produced; and if several plays, following each other in brisk
succession, all have the same predominant tone, it seems to be past
question that Shakspere is incidentally and indirectly uttering his own
personal thought and experience.

120. If it be granted, then, that it is possible to follow thus the
growth of Shakspere's thought through the medium of his successive
works, there is only one small point to be glanced at before attempting
to trace this growth in the matter of supernaturalism.

The natural history of the evolution of opinion upon matters which, for
want of a more embracing and satisfactory word, we must be content to
call "religious," follows a uniform course in the minds of all men,
except those "duller than the fat weed that roots itself at ease on
Lethe's wharf," who never get beyond the primary stage. This course is
separable into three periods. The first is that in which a man accepts
unhesitatingly the doctrines which he has received from his spiritual
teachers--customary not intellectual, belief. This sits lightly on him;
entails no troublesome doubts and questionings; possesses, or appears to
possess, formulae to meet all possible emergencies, and consequently
brings with it a happiness that is genuine, though superficial. But this
customary belief rarely satisfies for long. Contact with the world
brings to light other and opposed theories: introspection and
independent investigation of the bases of the hereditary faith are
commenced; many doctrines that have been hitherto accepted as eternally
and indisputably true are found to rest upon but slight foundation,
apart from their title to respect on account of age; doubts follow as to
the claim to acceptance of the whole system that has been so easily and
unhesitatingly swallowed; and the period of scepticism, or no-belief,
with its attendant misery, commences--for although Dagon has been but
little honoured in the time of his strength, in his downfall he is much
regretted. Then comes that long, weary groping after some firm, reliable
basis of belief: but heaven and earth appear for the time to conspire
against the seeker; an intellectual flood has drowned out the old order
of things; not even a mountain peak appears in the wide waste of
desolation as assurance of ultimate rest; and in the dark, overhanging
firmament no arc of promise is to be seen. But this is a state of mind
which, from its very nature, cannot continue for ever: no man could
endure it. While it lasts the struggle must be continuous, but
somewhere through the cloud lies the sunshine and the land of peace--the
final period of intellectual belief. Out of the chaos comes order; ideas
that but recently appeared confused, incoherent, and meaningless assume
their true perspective. It is found that all the strands of the old
conventional faith have not been snapped in the turmoil; and these,
re-knit and strengthened with the new and full knowledge of experience
and investigation, form the cable that secures that strange holy
confidence of belief that can only be gained by a preliminary warfare
with doubt--a peace that truly passes all understanding to those who
have never battled for it,--as to its foundation, diverse to a miracle
in diverse minds, but still, a peace.

121. If this be a true history of the course of development of every
mind that is capable of independent thought upon and investigation of
such high matters, it follows that Shakspere's soul must have
experienced a similar struggle--for he was a man of like passions with
ourselves; indeed, to so acute and sensitive a mind the struggle would
be, probably, more prolonged and more agonizing than to many; and it is
these three mental conditions--first, of unthinking acceptance of
generally received teaching; second, of profound and agitating
scepticism; and, thirdly, of belief founded upon reason and
experience--that may be naturally expected to be found impressed upon
his early, middle, and later works.

122. It is impossible here to do more than indicate some of the
evidence that this supposition is correct, for to attempt to investigate
the question exhaustively would involve the minute consideration of a
majority of the plays. The period of Shakspere's customary or
conventional belief is illustrated in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and
to a certain extent also in the "Comedy of Errors." In the former play
we find him loyally accepting certain phases of the hereditary Stratford
belief in supernaturalism, throwing them into poetical form, and making
them beautiful. It has often before been observed, and it is well worthy
of observation, that of the three groups of characters in the play, the
country folk--a class whose manner and appearance had most vividly
reflected themselves upon the camera of Shakspere's mind--are by far the
most lifelike and distinct; the fairies, who had been the companions of
his childhood and youth in countless talks in the ingle and ballads in
the lanes, come second in prominence and finish; whilst the ostensible
heroes and heroines of the piece, the aristocrats of Athens, are
colourless and uninteresting as a dumb-show--the real shadows of the
play. This is exactly the ratio of impressionability that the three
classes would have for the mind of the youthful dramatist. The first is
a creation from life, the second from traditionary belief, the third
from hearsay. And when it has been said that the fairies are a creation
from traditionary belief, a full and accurate description of them has
been afforded. They are an embodiment of a popular superstition, and
nothing more. They do not conceal any thought of the poet who has
created them, nor are they used for any deeper purpose with regard to
the other persons of the drama than temporary and objectless annoyance.
Throughout the whole play runs a healthy, thoughtless, honest, almost
riotous happiness; no note of difficulty, no shadow of coming doubt
being perceptible. The pert and nimble spirit of mirth is fully
awakened; the worst tricks of the intermeddling spirits are mischievous
merely, and of only transitory influence, and "the summer still doth
tend upon their state," brightening this fairyland with its sunshine and
flowers. Man has absolutely no power to govern these supernatural
powers, and they have but unimportant influence over him. They can
affect his comfort, but they cannot control his fate. But all this is
merely an adapting and elaborating of ideas which had been handed down
from father to son for many generations. Shakspere's Puck is only the
Puck of a hundred ballads reproduced by the hand of a true poet; no
original thought upon the connection of the visible with the invisible
world is imported into the creation. All these facts tend to show that
when Shakspere wrote "A Midsummer Night's Dream," that is, at the
beginning of his career as a dramatic author, he had not broken away
from the trammels of the beliefs in which he had been brought up, but
accepted them unhesitatingly and joyously.

123. But there is a gradual toning down of this spirit of unbroken
content as time wears on. Putting aside the historical plays, in which
Shakspere was much more bound down by his subject-matter than in any
other species of drama, we find the comedies, in which his room for
expression of individual feeling was practically unlimited, gradually
losing their unalloyed hilarity, and deepening down into a sadness of
thought and expression that sometimes leaves a doubt whether the plays
should be classed as comedies at all. Shakspere has been more and more
in contact with the disputes and doubts of the educated men of his time,
and seeds have been silently sowing themselves in his heart, which are
soon to bring forth a plenteous harvest in the great tragedies of which
these semi-comedies, such as "All's Well that Ends Well" and "Measure
for Measure," are but the first-fruits.

124. Thus, when next we find Shakspere dealing with questions relating
to supernaturalism, the tone is quite different from that taken in his
earlier work. He has reached the second period of his thought upon the
subject, and this has cast its attendant gloom upon his writings. That
he was actually battling with questions current in his time is
demonstrated by the way in which, in three consecutive plays, derived
from utterly diverse sources, the same question of ghost or devil is
agitated, as has before been pointed out. But it is not merely a point
of theological dogma which stamps these plays as the product of
Shakspere's period of scepticism, but a theory of the influence of
supernatural beings upon the whole course of human life. Man is still
incapable of influencing these unseen forces, or bending them to his
will; but they are now no longer harmless, or incapable of anything but
temporary or trivial evil. Puck might lead night wanderers into
mischance, and laugh mischievously at the bodily harm that he had caused
them; but Puck has now disappeared, and in his stead is found a
malignant spirit, who seeks to laugh his fiendish laughter over the soul
he has deceived into destruction. Questions arise thick and fast that
are easier put than answered. Can it be that evil influences have the
upper hand in this world? that, be a man never so honest, never so pure,
he may nevertheless become the sport of blind chance or ruthless
wickedness? May a Hamlet, patiently struggling after truth and duty, be
put upon and abused by the darker powers? May Macbeth, who would fain do
right, were not evil so ever present with him, be juggled with and led
to destruction by fiends? May an undistinguishing fate sweep away at
once the good with the evil--Hamlet with Laertes; Desdemona with Iago;
Cordelia with Edmund? And above the turmoil of this reign of terror, is
there no word uttered of a Supreme Good guiding and controlling the
unloosed ill--no word of encouragement, none of hope? If this be so
indeed, that man is but the puppet of malignant spirits, away with this
life. It is not worth the living; for what power has man against the
fiends? But at this point arises a further question to demand solution:
what shall be hereafter? If evil is supreme here, shall it not be so in
that undiscovered country,--that life to come? The dreams that may come
give him pause, and he either shuffles on, doubting, hesitating, and
incapable of decision, or he hurls himself wildly against his fate. In
either case his life becomes like to a tale

    "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
     Signifying--nothing!"

125. It is strange to note, too, how the ebb of this wave of scepticism
upon questions relating to the immaterial world is only recoil that adds
force to a succeeding wave of cynicism with regard to the physical world
around. "Hamlet," "Macbeth," and "Othello" give place to "Lear,"
"Troilus and Cressida," "Antony and Cleopatra," and "Timon." So true is
it that "unfaith in aught is want of faith in all," that in these later
plays it would seem that honour, honesty, and justice were virtues not
possessed by man or woman; or, if possessed, were only a curse to bring
down disgrace and destruction upon the possessor. Contrast the women of
these plays with those of the comedies immediately preceding the Hamlet
period. In the latter plays we find the heroines, by their sweet womanly
guidance and gentle but firm control, triumphantly bringing good out of
evil in spite of adverse circumstance. Beatrice, Rosalind, Viola,
Helena, and Isabella are all, not without a tinge of knight-errantry
that does not do the least violence to the conception of tender,
delicate womanhood, the good geniuses of the little worlds in which
their influence is made to be felt. Events must inevitably have gone
tragically but for their intervention. But with the advent of the second
period all this changes. At first the women, like Brutus' Portia,
Ophelia, Desdemona, however noble or sweet in character and well
meaning in motive, are incapable of grasping the guiding threads of the
events around them and controlling them for good. They have to give way
to characters of another kind, who bear the form without the nature of
women. Commencing with Lady Macbeth, the conception falls lower and
lower, through Goneril and Regan, Cressida, Cleopatra, until in the
climax of this utter despair, "Timon," there is no character that it
would not be a profanity to call by the name of woman.

126. And just as womanly purity and innocence quail before unwomanly
self-assertion and voluptuousness, so manly loyalty and unselfishness
give way before unmanly treachery and self-seeking. It is true that the
bad men do not finally triumph, but they triumph over the good with whom
they happen to come in contact. In "King Lear," what man shows any
virtue who does not receive punishment for the same? Not Gloucester,
whose loyal devotion to his king obtains for him a punishment that is
only merciful in that it prevents him from further suffering the sight
of his beloved master's misery; not Kent, who, faithful in his
self-denying service through all manner of obloquy, is left at last with
a prayer that he may be allowed to follow Lear to the grave; and beyond
these two there is little good to be found. But "Lear" is not by any
means the climax. The utter despair of good in man or woman rises higher
in "Troilus and Cressida," and reaches its culminating point in "Timon,"
a fragment only of which is Shakspere's. The pen fell from the tired
hand; the worn and distracted brain refused to fulfil the task of
depicting the depth to which the poet's estimate of mankind had fallen;
and we hardly know whether to rejoice or to regret that the clumsy hand
of an inferior writer has screened from our knowledge the full
disclosure of the utter and contemptuous cynicism and want of faith with
which, for the time being, Shakspere was infected.

127. Before passing on to consider the plays of the third period as
evidence of Shakspere's final thought, it will be well to pause and
re-read with attention a summing-up of Shakspere's teaching as it has
been presented to us by one of the greatest and most earnest teachers of
morality of the present day. Every word that Mr. Ruskin writes is so
evidently from the depth of his own good heart, and every doctrine that
he enunciates so pure in theory and so true in practice, that a
difference with him upon the final teaching of Shakspere's work cannot
be too cautiously expressed. But the estimate of this which he has given
in the third Lecture of "Sesame and Lilies"[1] is so painful, if
regarded as Shakspere's latest and most mature opinion, that everybody,
even Mr. Ruskin himself, would be glad to modify its gloom with a few
rays of hope, if it were possible to do so. "What then," says Mr.
Ruskin, "is the message to us of our own poet and searcher of hearts,
after fifteen hundred years of Christian faith have been numbered over
the graves of men? Are his words more cheerful than the heathen's
(Homer)? is his hope more near, his trust more sure, his reading of
fate more happy? Ah no! He differs from the heathen poet chiefly in
this, that he recognizes for deliverance no gods nigh at hand, and that,
by petty chance, by momentary folly, by broken message, by fool's
tyranny, or traitor's snare, the strongest and most righteous are
brought to their ruin, and perish without word of hope. He, indeed, as
part of his rendering of character, ascribes the power and modesty of
habitual devotion to the gentle and the just. The death-bed of Katharine
is bright with visions of angels; and the great soldier-king, standing
by his few dead, acknowledges the presence of the hand that can save
alike by many or by few. But observe that from those who with deepest
spirit meditate, and with deepest passion mourn, there are no such words
as these; nor in their hearts are any such consolations. Instead of the
perpetual sense of the helpful presence of the Deity, which, through all
heathen tradition, is the source of heroic strength, in battle, in
exile, and in the valley of the shadow of death, we find only in the
great Christian poet the consciousness of a moral law, through which
'the gods are just, and of our pleasant vices make instruments to
scourge us;' and of the resolved arbitration of the destinies, that
conclude into precision of doom what we feebly and blindly began; and
force us, when our indiscretion serves us, and our deepest plots do
pall, to the confession that 'there's a divinity that shapes our ends,
rough-hew them how we will.'"[2]

[Footnote 1: 3rd edition, § 115.]

[Footnote 2: Mr. Ruskin has analyzed "The Tempest," in "Munera
Pulveris," § 124, et seqq., but from another point of view.]

128. Now, it is perfectly clear that this criticism was written with two
or three plays, all belonging to one period, very conspicuously before
the mind. Of the illustrative exceptions that are made to the general
rule, one is derived from a play which Shakspere wrote at a very early
date, and the other from a scene which he almost certainly never wrote
at all; the whole of the rest of the passage quoted is founded upon
"Hamlet," "Macbeth," "Othello," and "Lear"--that is, upon the earlier
productions of what we must call Shakspere's sceptical period. But these
plays represent an essentially transient state of thought. Shakspere was
to learn and to teach that those who most deeply meditate and most
passionately mourn are not the men of noblest or most influential
character--that such may command our sympathy, but hardly our respect or
admiration. Still less did Shakspere finally assert, although for a time
he believed, that a blind destiny concludes into precision what we
feebly and blindly begin. Far otherwise and nobler was his conception of
man and his mission, and the unseen powers and their influences, in the
third and final stage of his thought.

129. Had Shakspere lived longer, he would doubtless have left us a
series of plays filled with the bright and reassuring tenderness and
confidence of this third period, as long and as brilliant in execution
as those of the second period. But as it is we are in possession of
quite enough material to enable us to form accurate conclusions upon the
state of his final thought. It is upon "The Tempest" that we must in
the main rely for an exposition of this; for though the other plays and
fragments fully exhibit the restoration of his faith in man and woman,
which was a necessary concurrence with his return from scepticism, yet
it is in "The Tempest" that he brings himself as nearly face to face as
dramatic possibilities would allow him with circumstances that admit of
the indirect expression of such thought. It is fortunate, too, for the
purpose of comparing Shakspere's earliest and latest opinions, that the
characters of "The Tempest" are divisible into the same groups as those
of "The Dream." The gross _canaille_ are represented, but now no longer
the most accurate in colour and most absorbing in interest of the
characters of the play, or unessential to the evolution of the plot.
They have a distinct importance in the movement of the piece, and
represent the unintelligent, material resistance to the work of
regeneration that Prospero seeks to carry out, and which must be
controlled by him, just as Sebastian and Antonio form the intelligent,
designing resistance. The spirit world is there too, but they, like the
former class, have no independent plot of their own, and no independent
operation against mankind; they only represent the invisible forces over
which Prospero must assert control if he would insure success for his
schemes. Ariel is, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary of all
Shakspere's creations. He is, indeed, formed upon a basis half fairy,
half devil, because it was only through the current notions upon
demonology that Shakspere could speak his ideas. But he certainly is not
a fairy in the sense that Puck is a fairy; and he is very far indeed
from bearing even a slight resemblance to the familiars whom the
magicians of the time professed to call from the vasty deep. He is
indeed but air, as Prospero says--the embodiment of an idea, the
representative of those invisible forces which operate as factors in the
shaping of events which, ignored, may prove resistant or fatal, but,
properly controlled and guided, work for good.[1] Lastly, there are the
heroes and heroine of the play, now no longer shadows, but the centres
of interest and admiration, and assuming their due position and
prominence.

[Footnote 1: It is difficult to accept Mr. Ruskin's view of Ariel as
"the spirit of generous and free-hearted service" (Mun. Pul. § 124); he
is throughout the play the more-than-half-unwilling agent of Prospero.]

130. It is probable, therefore, that it is not merely a student's fancy
that in Prospero's storm-girt, spirit-haunted island can be seen
Shakspere's final and matured image of the mighty world. If this be so,
how far more bright and hopeful it is than the verdict which Mr. Ruskin
finds Shakspere to have returned. Man is no longer "a pipe for fortune's
fingers to sound what stop she please." The evil elements still exist in
the world, and are numerous and formidable; but man, by nobleness of
life and word, by patience and self-mastery, can master them, bring them
into subjection, and make them tend to eventual good. Caliban, the
gross, sensual, earthly element--though somewhat raised--would run riot,
and is therefore compelled to menial service. The brute force of
Stephano and Trinculo is vanquished by mental superiority. Even the
supermundane spirits, now no longer thirsting for the destruction of
body and soul, are bound down to the work of carrying out the decrees of
truth and justice. Man is no longer the plaything, but the master of his
fate; and he, seeing now the possible triumph of good over evil, and his
duty to do his best in aid of this triumph, has no more fear of the
dreams--the something after death. Our little life is still rounded by a
sleep, but the thought which terrifies Hamlet has no power to affright
Prospero. The hereafter is still a mystery, it is true; he has tried to
see into it, and has found it impenetrable. But revelation has come like
an angel, with peace upon its wings, in another and an unexpected way.
Duty lies here, in and around him in this world. Here he can right
wrong, succour the weak, abase the proud, do something to make the world
better than he found it; and in the performance of this he finds a
holier calm than the vain strivings after the unknowable could ever
afford. Let him work while it is day, for "the night cometh, when no man
can work."

131. It is not a piece of pure sentimentality that sees in Prospero a
type of Shakspere in his final stage of thought. It is a type altogether
as it should be; and it is pleasing to think of him, in the full
maturity of his manhood, wrapping his seer's cloak about him, and, while
waiting calmly the unfolding of the mystery which he has sought in vain
to solve, watching with noble benevolence the gradual working out of
truth, order, and justice. It is pleasing to think of him as speaking
to the world the great Christian doctrine so universally overlooked by
Christians, that the only remedy for sin demanded by eternal justice "is
nothing but heart's sorrow, and a clear life ensuing"--a speech which,
though uttered by Ariel, is spoken by Prospero, who himself beautifully
iterates part of the doctrine when he says--

                                  "The rarer action is
    In virtue than in vengeance: they being penitent,
    The sole drift of my purpose doth extend
    Not a frown further."[1]

It is pleasant to dwell upon his sympathy with Ferdinand and
Miranda--for the love of man and woman is pure and holy in this
regenerate world: no more of Troilus and Cressida--upon his patient
waiting for the evolution of his schemes; upon his faith in their
ultimate success; and, above all, upon the majestic and unaffected
reverence that appears indirectly in every line--"reverence," to adapt
the words of the great teacher whose opinion about Shakspere has been
perhaps too rashly questioned, "for what is pure and bright in youth;
for what is true and tried in age; for all that is gracious among the
living, great among the dead, and marvellous in the Powers that cannot
die."

[Footnote 1: V. l. 27.]





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Elizabethan Demonology" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home