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 thePeriod 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, oftwo papers, one on "The Witches in Macbeth, " and the other on "TheDemonology of Shakspere, " which were read before the New ShakspereSociety in the years 1877 and 1878. The Shakspere references in the textare made to the Globe Edition. 

The writer's best thanks are due to his friends Mr. F. J. Furnivall andMr. 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 oftheir language and ideas. 2. Especially in the case of dramatic poets. 3. Examples. Hamlet's "assume a virtue. " 4. Changes in ideas and lawrelating to marriage. Massinger's "Maid of Honour" as an example. 5. _Sponsalia de futuro_ and _Sponsalia de praesenti_. Shakspere'smarriage. 6. Student's duty is to get to know the opinions and feelingsof the folk amongst whom his author lived. 7. It will be hard work, buta gain in the end. First, in preventing conceit. 8. Secondly, inpreventing rambling reading. 9. Author's present object to illustratethe dead belief in Demonology, especially as far as it concernsShakspere. He thinks that this may perhaps bring us into closer contactwith Shakspere's soul. 10. Some one objects that Shakspere can speakbetter for himself. Yes, but we must be sure that we understand themedia through which he speaks. 11. Division of subject. 

II. 

12. Reasons why the empire of the supernatural is so extended amongstsavages. 13. All important affairs of life transacted undersuperintendence of Supreme Powers. 14. What are these Powers? Threeprinciples regarding them. 15. (I. ) Incapacity of mankind to acceptmonotheism. 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 ofAssisi. Gradually made into a god. 18. (II. ) Manichaeism. Evil spiritsas inevitable as good. 19. (III. ) Tendency to treat the gods of hostilereligions 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 getdegraded in time. Beelzebub, Belial, etc. 23. Early Christians treatgods 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 thebest policy. A policy of compromise. 25. The oracles. Sosthenion and St. Michael. Delphi. St. Gregory's saintliness and magnanimity. Confusion ofpagan gods and Christian saints. 26. Church in North Europe. Thonar, etc. , are devils, but Balda gets identified with Christ. 27. Conversionof Britons. Their gods get turned into fairies rather than devils. Deuce. Old Nick. 28. Subsequent evolution of belief. Carlyle's AbbotSampson. Religious formulae of witchcraft. 29. The Reformers andCatholics revive the old accusations. The Reformers only go half-way inscepticism. Calfhill and Martiall. 30. Catholics. Siege of Alkmaar. Unfortunate mistake of a Spanish prisoner. 31. Conditions that tended tovivify the belief during Elizabethan era. 32. The new freedom. Want ofrules of evidence. Arthur Hacket and his madnesses. Sneezing. Cock-crowing. Jackdaw in the House of Commons. Russell and Drake bothmistaken for devils. 33. Credulousness of people. "To make one dansenaked. " A parson's proof of transubstantiation. 34. But the Elizabethanshad strong common sense nevertheless. People do wrong if they set themdown as fools. If we had not learned to be wiser than they, we shouldhave to be ashamed of ourselves. We shall learn nothing from them if wedon't try to understand them. 

III. 

35. The three heads. 36. (I. ) Classification of devils. Greater andlesser devils. Good and bad angels. 37. Another classification, notpopular. 38. Names of greater devils. Horribly uncouth. The number ofthem. Shakspere's devils. 39. (II. ) Form of devils of the greater. 40. Of the lesser. The horns, goggle eyes, and tail. Scot'scarnal-mindedness. He gets his book burnt, and written against by JamesI. 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 createbodies. 46. Reformers deny this, but admit that he deceives people intobelieving that he can do so, either by getting hold of a dead body, andrestoring animation. 47. Or by means of illusion. 48. The common peoplestuck to the Catholic doctrine. Devils appear in likeness of an ordinaryhuman being. 49. Even a living one, which was sometimes awkward. "TheTroublesome Raigne of King John. " They like to appear as priests orparsons. The devil quoting Scripture. 50. Other human shapes. 51. Animals. Ariel. 52. Puck. 53. "The Witch of Edmonton. " The devil on thestage. Flies. Urban Grandier. Sir M. Hale. 54. Devils as angels. AsChrist. 55. As dead friend. Reformers denied the possibility of ghosts, and said the appearances so called were devils. James I. And hisopinion. 56. The common people believed in the ghosts. BishopPilkington's troubles. 57. The two theories. Illustrated in "JuliusCaesar, " "Macbeth. " 58. And "Hamlet. " 59. This explains an apparentinconsistency in "Hamlet. " 60. Possession and obsession. Again theCatholics and Protestants differ. 61. But the common people believe inpossession. 62. Ignorance on the subject of mental disease. Theexorcists. 63. John Cotta on possession. What the "learned physicion"knew. 64. What was manifest to the vulgar view. Will Sommers. "The Devilis an Ass. " 65. Harsnet's "Declaration, " and "King Lear. " 66. TheBabington conspiracy. 67. Weston, alias Edmonds. His exorcisms. Mainy. The basis of Harsnet's statements. 69. The devils in "Lear. " 70. Edgarand Mainy. Mainy's loose morals. 71. The devils tempt with knives andhalters. 72. Mainy's seven devils: Pride, Covetousness, Luxury, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Sloth. The Nightingale business. 73. Treatment of thepossessed: confinement, flagellation. 74. Dr Pinch. Nicknames. 75. Othermethods. 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 unlessthey renounced God. 79. Witchcraft. 80. People now-a-days can'tsympathize with the witch persecutors, because they don't believe in thedevil. Satan is a mere theory now. 81. But they believed in him once, and therefore killed people that were suspected of having to do withhim. 82. And we don't sympathize with the persecuted witches, althoughwe make a great fuss about the sufferings of the Reformers. 83. Thewitches in Macbeth. Some take them to be Norns. 84. Gervinus. Hisopinion. 85. Mr. F. G. Fleay. His opinion. 86. Evidence. Simon Forman'snote. 87. Holinshed's account. 88. Criticism. 89. It is said that theappearance and powers of the sisters are not those of witches. 90. It isgoing 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, howshe looked into them. 96. Meaning of first scene of "Macbeth. " 97. Witches power to vanish. Ointments for the purpose. Scot's instance oftheir efficacy. 98. "Weird sisters. " 99. Other evidence. 100. WhyShakspere chose witches. Command over elements. 101. Peculiar to Scotchtrials of 1590-91. 102. Earlier case of Bessie Dunlop--a poor, starved, half daft creature. "Thom Reid, " and how he tempted her. Her cannyScotch prudence. Poor Bessie gets burnt for all that. 103. Reason forpeculiarity of trials of 1590. James II. Comes from Denmark to Scotland. The witches raise a storm at the instigation of the devil. How thetrials were conducted. 104. John Fian. Raising a mist. Toad-omen. Shipsinking. 105. Sieve-sailing. Excitement south of the Border. The"Daemonologie. " Statute of James against witchcraft. 106. The origin ofthe incubus and succubus. 107. Mooncalves. 108. Division of opinionamongst Reformers regarding devils. Giordano Bruno. Bullinger's opinionabout Sadducees and Epicures. 109. Emancipation a gradual process. Exorcism in Edward VI. 's Prayer-book. 110. The author hopes he has beenreverent in his treatment of the subject. Any sincere belief entitled torespect. Our pet beliefs may some day appear as dead and ridiculous asthese. 

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 thetowns before the country. Fairies held on a long time in the country. 116. Shakspere was early impressed with fairy lore. In middle life, camein contact with town thought and devils, and at the end of it returnedto Stratford and fairydom. 117. This is reflected in his works. 118. Butthere is progression of thought to be observed in these stages. 119. Shakspere indirectly tells us his thoughts, if we will take the troubleto learn them. 120. Three stages of thought that men go through onreligious 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 currenttradition. 123. The dawn of doubt. 124. Scepticism. Evil spiritsdominant. No guiding good. 125. Corresponding lapse of faith in othermatters. Woman's purity. 126. Man's honour. 127. Mr. Ruskin's view ofShakspere's message. 128. Founded chiefly on plays of sceptical period. Message of third period entirely different. 129. Reasoned belief. "TheTempest. " 130. Man can master evil of all forms if he go about it in theright way--is not the toy of fate. 131. Prospero a type of Shakspere inthis final stage of thought. How pleasant to think this!

ELIZABETHAN DEMONOLOGY. 

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

2. This is a special source of danger in the study of the works ofdramatic poets, whose very art lies in the representation of the currentopinions, habits, and foibles of their times--in holding up the mirrorto their age. It is true that, if their works are to live, they mustdeal with subjects of more than mere passing interest; but it is alsotrue that many, and the greatest of them, speak upon questions ofeternal interest in the particular light cast upon them in their times, and it is quite possible that the truth may be entirely lost from wantof power to recognize it under the disguise in which it comes. A certainmotive, for instance, that is an overpowering one in a given period, subsequently appears grotesque, weak, or even powerless; the consequentaction becomes incomprehensible, and the actor is contemned; and asimile that appeared most appropriate in the ears of the author'scontemporaries, seems meaningless, or ridiculous, to later generations. 

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

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

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

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

4. This is a fair example of the style of error which a readerunacquainted with the history of the changes our language has undergonemay fall into. Ignorance of changes in customs and morals may causeequal or greater error. 

The difference between the older and more modern law, and popularopinion, relating to promises of marriage and their fulfilment, affordsa striking illustration of the absurdities that attend upon theinterpretation of the ideas of one generation by the practice ofanother. Perhaps no greater nonsense has been talked upon any subjectthan this one, especially in relation to Shakspere's own marriage, bycritics who seem to have thought that a fervent expression of acutemoral feeling would replace and render unnecessary patientinvestigation. 

In illustration of this difference, a play of Massinger's, "The Maid ofHonour, " may be advantageously cited, as the catastrophe turns upon thisquestion of marriage contracts. Camiola, the heroine, having beenprecontracted by oath[1] to Bertoldo, the king's natural brother, andhearing of his subsequent engagement to the Duchess of Sienna, determines to quit the world and take the veil. But before doing so, andwithout informing any one, except her confessor, of her intention, shecontrives a somewhat dramatic scene for the purpose of exposing herfalse lover. She comes into the presence of the king and all the court, produces her contract, claims Bertoldo as her husband, and demandsjustice 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 thepresent day under such circumstances, would be an action for breach ofpromise of marriage, and he would probably be aware of the very recentorigin of that method of procedure. The only reply, therefore, that hewould expect from Roberto would be a mild and sympathetic assurance ofinability to interfere; and he must be somewhat taken aback to find thisclaim of Camiola admitted as indisputable. The riddle becomes somewhatfurther involved when, having established her contract, she immediatelyintimates that she has not the slightest intention of observing itherself, by declaring her desire to take the veil. 

5. This can only be explained by the rules current at the time regardingspousals. The betrothal, or handfasting, was, in Massinger's time, aceremony that entailed very serious obligations upon the parties to it. There were two classes of spousals--_sponsalia de futuro_ and _sponsaliade praesenti_: a promise of marriage in the future, and an actualdeclaration of present marriage. This last form of betrothal was, infact, marriage, as far as the contracting parties were concerned. [1] Itcould 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 injuredperson. 

[Footnote 1: Swinburne, A Treatise of Spousals, 1686, p. 236. In Englandthe 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 athird person during the existence of the contract, yet it could bedissolved by mutual consent, and was dissolved by subsequent _sponsaliain praesenti_, or matrimony. But such spousals could be converted intovalid matrimony by the cohabitation of the parties; and this, instead ofbeing looked upon as reprehensible, seems to have been treated as alaudable action, and to be by all means encouraged. [1] In addition tothis, completion of a contract for marriage _de futuro_ confirmed byoath, if such a contract were not indeed indissoluble, as was thought bysome, could at any rate be enforced against an unwilling party. Butthere were some reasons that justified the dissolution of _sponsalia_ ofeither description. Affinity was one of these; and--what is to thepurpose here, in England before the Reformation, and in those parts ofthe continent unaffected by it--the entrance into a religious order wasanother. Here, then, we have a full explanation of Camiola's conduct. She is in possession of evidence of a contract of marriage betweenherself and Bertoldo, which, whether _in praesenti_ or _in futuro_, being confirmed by oath, she can force upon him, and which willinvalidate his proposed marriage with the duchess. Having establishedher right, she takes the only step that can with certainty free bothherself and Bertoldo from the bond they had created, by retiring into anunnery. 

[Footnote 1: Swinburne, p. 227. ]

This explanation renders the action of the play clear, and at the sametime shows that Shakspere in his conduct with regard to his marriage mayhave been behaving in the most honourable and praiseworthy manner; asthe bond, with the date of which the date of the birth of his firstchild is compared, is for the purpose of exonerating the ecclesiasticsfrom any liability for performing the ecclesiastical ceremony, which wasnot at all a necessary preliminary to a valid marriage, so far as thehusband and wife were concerned, although it was essential to renderissue of the marriage legitimate. 

6. These are instances of the deceptions that are likely to arisefrom the two fertile sources that have been specified. There canbe no doubt that the existence of errors arising from the formersource--misapprehension of the meaning of words--is very generallyadmitted, and effectual remedies have been supplied by modern scholarsfor those who will make use of them. Errors arising from the lattersource 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 awriter 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 readwith the help of the light thrown upon them by contemporary history, literature, laws, and morals. The student must endeavour to divesthimself, as far as possible, of all ideas that are the result of adevelopment subsequent to the time in which his author lived, and toplace himself in harmony with the life and thoughts of the people ofthat age: sit down with them in their homes, and learn the sources oftheir loves, their hates, their fears, and see wherein domestichappiness, or lack of it, made them strong or weak; follow them to themarket-place, and witness their dealings with their fellows--the honestyor 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, andbecome acquainted with the springs of their dearest aspirations and mostsecret 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 earnestnessof purpose. For in these days of revival of interest in our elderliterature, it has become much the custom for flippant persons, who arecovetous of being thought "well-read" by their less-enterprisingcompanions, to skim over the surface of the pages of the wisest andnoblest of our great teachers, either not understanding, ormisunderstanding them. "I have read Chaucer, Shakspere, Milton, " is thesublimely satirical expression constantly heard from the mouths of thosewho, having read words set down by the men they name, have no morecapacity for reading the hearts of the men themselves, through thosewords, than a blind man has for discerning the colour of flowers. As aconsequence of this flippancy of reading, numberless writers, whoseworks have long been consigned to a well-merited oblivion, have of lateyears been disinterred and held up for public admiration, chiefly uponthe ground that they are ancient and unknown. The man who reads for thesake of having done so, not for the sake of the knowledge gained bydoing 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 onehaving pretensions to the position of a master, and who is not of ourown generation, to ask himself, "Am I prepared thoroughly to sift outand ascertain the true import of every allusion contained in thisvolume?" 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 thirstfor knowledge, but by impertinent curiosity, or a shallow desire toobtain undeserved credit for learning. 

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

9. The object, therefore, which I have had in view in the compilation ofthe following pages, is to attempt to throw some additional light upon acondition of thought, utterly different from any belief that has firmhold in the present generation, that was current and peculiarlyprominent during the lifetime of the man who bears overwhelmingly thegreatest name, either in our own or any other literature. It may besaid, and perhaps with much force, that enough, and more than enough, has been written in the way of Shakspere criticism. But is it not betterthat somewhat too much should be written upon such a subject than toolittle? We cannot expect that every one shall see all the greatness ofShakspere's vast and complex mind--by one a truth will be grasped thathas eluded the vigilance of others;--and it is better that those who canby 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 remainsquietly to be useful: and it is in reliance upon the justice andcertainty of this law that I aim at bringing before the mind, as clearlyas may be, a phase of belief that was continually and powerfullyinfluencing Shakspere during the whole of his life, but is now well-nighforgotten or entirely misunderstood. If the endeavour is a useless andunprofitable one, let it be forgotten--I am content; but I hope to beable to show that an investigation of the subject does furnish us with akey which, in a manner, unlocks the secrets of Shakspere's heart, andbrings 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 usin his works a biography of far deeper and more precious meaning, if wewill but understand it. 

10. But it may be said that Shakspere, of all men, is able to speak forhimself 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 forall time. " Yet he is so thoroughly imbued with the spirit and opinionsof his era, that without a certain comprehension of the men ofthe Elizabethan period he cannot be understood fully. Indeed, his greatness is to a large extent due to his sympathy with the menaround him, his power of clearly thinking out the answers to theall-time questions, and giving a voice to them that his contemporariescould understand;--answers that others could not for themselvesformulate--could, perhaps, only vaguely and dimly feel after. Tounderstand these answers fully, the language in which they weredelivered must be first thoroughly mastered. 

11. I intend, therefore, to attempt to sketch out the leading featuresof a phase of religious belief that acquired peculiar distinctness andprominence during Shakspere's lifetime--more, perhaps, than it ever didbefore, or has done since--the belief in the existence of evil spirits, and their influence upon and dealings with mankind. The subject will betreated in three sections. The first will contain a short statement ofthe laws that seem to be of universal operation in the creation andmaintenance of the belief in a multitudinous band of spirits, good andevil; and of a few of the conditions of the Elizabethan epoch that mayhave had a formative and modifying influence upon that belief. Thesecond will be devoted to an outline of the chief features of thatbelief, as it existed at the time in question--the organization, appearance, and various functions and powers of the evil spirits, withspecial reference to Shakspere's plays. The third and concludingsection, will embody an attempt to trace the growth of Shakspere'sthought upon religious matters through the medium of his allusions tothis subject. 

 * * * * *

12. The empire of the supernatural must obviously be most extendedwhere civilization is the least advanced. An educated man has to make aconscious, and sometimes severe, effort to refrain from pronouncing adogmatic opinion as to the cause of a given result when sufficientevidence to warrant a definite conclusion is wanting; to the savage, the notion of any necessity for, or advantage to be derived from, suchself-restraint never once occurs. Neither the lightning that strikeshis hut, the blight that withers his crops, the disease that destroysthe life of those he loves; nor, on the other hand, the beneficentsunshine or life-giving rain, is by him traceable to any knownphysical cause. They are the results of influences utterly beyond hisunderstanding--supernatural, --matters upon which imagination is allowedfree scope to run riot, and from which spring up a legion of myths, orattempts to represent in some manner these incomprehensible processes, grotesque or poetic, according to the character of the people with whichthey originate, which, if their growth be not disturbed by extraneousinfluences, eventually develop into the national creed. The mostordinary events of the savage's every-day life do not admit of a naturalsolution; his whole existence is bound in, from birth to death, by anetwork of miracles, and regulated, in its smallest details, by unseenpowers of whom he knows little or nothing. 

13. Hence it is that, in primitive societies, the functions oflegislator, judge, priest, and medicine man are all combined in oneindividual, the great medium of communication between man and theunknown, whose person is pre-eminently sacred. The laws that are toguide the community come in some mysterious manner through him from thehigher powers. If two members of the clan are involved in a quarrel, heis appealed to to apply some test in order to ascertain which of the twois in the wrong--an ordeal that can have no judicial operation, exceptupon the assumption of the existence of omnipotent beings interested inthe discovery of evil-doers, who will prevent the test from operatingunjustly. Maladies and famines are unmistakeable signs of thedispleasure of the good, or spite of the bad spirits, and are to beaverted by some propitiatory act on the part of the sufferers, or themediation of the priest-doctor. The remedy that would put an end to along-continued drought will be equally effective in arresting anepidemic. 

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

15. (i. ) The first of these is the apparent incapacity of the majorityof mankind to accept a purely monotheistic creed. It is a demonstrablefact that the primitive religions now open to observation attributespecific events and results to distinct supernatural beings; and therecan be little doubt that this is the initial step in every creed. It isa bold and somewhat perilous revolution to attempt to overturn thisdoctrine and to set up monotheism in its place, and, when successfullyaccomplished, is rarely permanent. The more educated portions of thecommunity maintain allegiance to the new teaching, perhaps; but amongthe lower classes it soon becomes degraded to, or amalgamated with, someform of polytheism more or less pronounced, and either secret ordeclared. Even the Jews, the nation the most conspicuous for itssupposed uncompromising adherence to a monotheistic creed, cannot claimabsolute freedom from taint in this respect; for in the country places, far from the centre of worship, the people were constantly followingafter strange gods; and even some of their most notable worthies wereliable to the same accusation. 

16. It is not necessary, however, that the individuality andspecialization of function of the supreme beings recognized by anyreligious system should be so conspicuous as they are in this case, orin the Greek or Roman Pantheon, to mark it as in its essencepolytheistic or of polytheistic tendency. It is quite enough that theimmortals are deemed to be capable of hearing and answering the prayersof their adorers, and of interfering actively in passing events, eitherfor good or for evil. This, at the root of it, constitutes the crucialdifference between polytheism and monotheism; and in this sense theRoman Catholic form of Christianity, representing the oldest undisturbedevolution of a strictly monotheistic doctrine, is undeniablypolytheistic. Apart from the Virgin Mary, there is a whole hierarchy ofinferior deities, saints, and angels, subordinate to the One SupremeBeing. This may possibly be denied by the authorized expounders of thedoctrine of the Church of Rome; but it is nevertheless certain that itis the view taken by the uneducated classes, with whom the saints aremuch more present and definite deities than even the Almighty Himself. It is worth noting, that during the dancing mania of 1418, not God, orChrist, or the Virgin Mary, but St. Vitus, was prayed to by the populaceto stop the epidemic that was afterwards known by his name. [1] There wasa temple to St. Michael on Mount St. Angelo, and Augustine thought itnecessary to declare that angel-worshippers were heretics. [2] EvenProtestantism, though a much younger growth than Catholicism, shows aslight tendency towards polytheism. The saints are, of course, quiteout of the question, and angels are as far as possible relegated fromthe citadel of asserted belief into the vaguer regions of poeticalsentimentality; but--although again unadmitted by the orthodox of thesect--the popular conception of Christ is, and, until the masses aremore educated in theological niceties than they are at present, necessarily must be, as of a Supreme Being totally distinct from God theFather. This applies in a less degree to the third Person in theTrinity; less, because His individuality is less clear. George Eliothas, with her usual penetration, noted this fact in "Silas Marner, "where, in Mrs. Winthrop's simple theological system, the Trinity isalways 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 strikingillustration of this strange tendency towards polytheism. Thisextraordinary man received no little reverence and adulation during hislifetime; but it was not until after his death that the process ofdeification commenced. It was then discovered that the stigmata were notthe only points of resemblance between the departed saint and the DivineMaster he professed to follow; that his birth had been foretold by theprophets; that, like Christ, he underwent transfiguration; and that hehad worked miracles during his life. The climax of the apotheosis wasreached in 1486, when a monk, preaching at Paris, seriously maintainedthat St. Francis was in very truth a second Christ, the second Son ofGod; and that after his death he descended into purgatory, andliberated all the spirits confined there who had the good fortune to bearrayed 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 divisionof spirits into hostile camps, good and evil. This is a much more commonbelief than the orthodox are willing to allow. There is hardly anyreligious system that does not recognize a first source of evil, as wellas a first source of good. But the spirit of evil occupies a position ofvarying importance: in some systems he maintains himself as co-equal ofthe spirit of good; in others he sinks to a lower stage, remaining verypowerful to do harm, but nevertheless under the control, in matters ofthe highest importance, of the more beneficent Being. In each of thesecases, the first principle is found operating, ever augmenting theranks; monodiabolism being as impossible as monotheism; and hence theimportance of fully establishing that proposition. 

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

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

20. In the Greek system of theology we find in the first place a numberof deities of varying importance and power, whose special functions aredefined with some distinctness; and then, below these, an innumerableband of spirits, the souls of the departed--probably the relics of anearlier pure ancestor-worship--who still interest themselves in theinhabitants of this world. These [Greek: daimones] were certainlyaccredited with supernatural power, and were not of necessity eithergood or evil in their influence or action. It was to this second classthat foreign deities were assimilated. They found it impossible, however, to retain even this humble position. The ceremonies of theirworship, and the language in which those ceremonies were performed, werestrange to the inhabitants of the land in which the acclimatization wasattempted; and the incomprehensible is first suspected, then loathed. Itis not surprising, then, that the new-comers soon fell into the ranks ofpurely evil spirits, and that those who persisted in exercising theirrites were stigmatized as devil-worshippers, or magicians. 

But in process of time this polytheistic system became pre-eminentlyunsatisfactory to the thoughtful men whom Greece produced in suchnumbers. The tendency towards monotheism which is usually associatedwith the name of Plato is hinted at in the writings of otherphilosophers who were his predecessors. The effect of this revolutionwas to recognize one Supreme Being, the First Cause, and to subordinateto him all the other deities of the ancient and popular theology--toco-ordinate them, in fact, with the older class of daemons; the firststep in the descent to the lowest category of all. 

21. The history of the neo-Platonic belief is one of elaboration uponthese ideas. The conception of the Supreme Being was complicated in amanner closely resembling the idea of the Christian Trinity, and all thesubordinate daemons were classified into good and evil geniuses. Thus, atheoretically monotheistic system was established, with a tremendoushierarchy of inferior spirits, who frequently bore the names of theancient gods and goddesses of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, strikinglyresembling that of Roman Catholicism. The subordinate daemons were notat first recognized as entitled to any religious rites; but in thecourse of time, by the inevitable operation of the first principle justenunciated, a form of theurgy sprang up with the object of attractingthe kindly help and patronage of the good spirits, and was tolerated;and attempts were made to hold intercourse with the evil spirits, whichwere, as far as possible suppressed and discountenanced. 

22. The history of the operation of this principle upon the Jewishreligion is very similar, and extremely interesting. Although they donot seem to have ever had any system of ancestor-worship, as the Greekshad, yet the Jews appear originally to have recognized the deities oftheir neighbours as existing spirits, but inferior in power to the Godof Israel. "All the gods of the nations are idols" are words thatentirely fail to convey the idea of the Psalmist; for the wordtranslated "idols" is _Elohim_, the very term usually employed todesignate Jehovah; and the true sense of the passage therefore is: "Allthe gods of the nations are gods, but Jehovah made the heavens. "[1] Inanother place we read that "The Lord is a great God, and a great Kingabove all gods. "[2] As, however, the Jews gradually became acquaintedwith the barbarous rites with which their neighbours did honour to theirgods, the foreigners seem to have fallen more and more in estimation, until they came to be classed as evil spirits. To this process suchnames as Beelzebub, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and Belial bear witness;Beelzebub, "the prince of the devils" of later time, being one of thegods 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 theGentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils ([Greek: daimonia]), andnot to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship withdevils;"[1] and the Septuagint renders the word _Elohim_ in theninety-fifth Psalm by this [Greek: daimonia], which as the Christianshad already a distinct term for good spirits, came to be applied to evilones only. 

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

Under the influence therefore, of the new religion, the gods of Greeceand Rome, who in the days of their supremacy had degraded so manyforeign deities to the position of daemons, were in their turn deposedfrom their high estate, and became the nucleus around which theChristian belief in demonology formed itself. The gods who under the oldtheologies reigned paramount in the lower regions became pre-eminentlydiabolic in character in the new system, and it was Hecate who to thelast retained her position of active patroness and encourager ofwitchcraft; a practice which became almost indissolubly connected withher name. Numerous instances of the completeness with which this processof diabolization was effected, and the firmness with which it retainedits hold upon the popular belief, even to late times, might be given;but the following must suffice. In one of the miracle plays, "TheConversion of Saul, " a council of devils is held, at which Mercuryappears 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 wascharacteristic of the Christian Church in its infancy only. So long asthe band of believers was a small and persecuted one, no temptation toviolate the rule could exist. But as the Church grew, and acquiredinfluence and position, it discovered that good policy demanded that thesternness and inflexibility of its youthful theories should undergo somemodification. It found that it was not the most successful method ofenticing stragglers into its fold to stigmatize the gods they ignorantlyworshipped as devils, and to persecute them as magicians. The moreimpetuous and enthusiastic supporters did persecute, and persecute mostrelentlessly, the adherents of the dying faith; but persecution, whetherof good or evil, always fails as a means of suppressing a hateddoctrine, unless it can be carried to the extent of extermination of itssupporters; and the more far-seeing leaders of the Catholic Church soonrecognized that a slight surrender of principle was a far surer road tosuccess than stubborn, uncompromising opposition. 

25. It was in this spirit that the Catholics dealt with the oracles ofheathendom. Mr. Lecky is hardly correct when he says that nothinganalogous to the ancient oracles was incorporated with Christianity. [1]There is the notable case of the god Sosthenion, whom Constantineidentified with the archangel Michael, and whose oracular functions werecontinued in a precisely similar manner by the latter. [2] Oracles thatwere not thus absorbed and supported were recognized as existent, butunder diabolic control, and to be tolerated, if not patronized, by therepresentatives of the dominant religion. The oracle at Delphi gaveforth prophetic utterances for centuries after the commencement of theChristian era; and was the less dangerous, as its operations could bestopped at any moment by holding a saintly relic to the god or devilApollo's nose. There is a fable that St. Gregory, in the course of histravels, passed near the oracle, and his extraordinary sanctity was suchas to prevent all subsequent utterances. This so disturbed the presidinggenius of the place, that he appealed to the saint to undo the banefuleffects his presence had produced; and Gregory benevolently wrote aletter to the devil, which was in fact a license to continue thebusiness of prophesying unmolested. [3] This nonsensical fiction showsclearly enough that the oracles were not generally looked upon asextinguished by Christianity. As the result of a similar policy we findthe names and functions of the pagan gods and the earlier Christiansaints confused in the most extraordinary manner; the saints assumingthe duties of the moribund deities where those duties were of a harmlessor 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 missionaryefforts amongst the heathen hordes of Northern Europe. "Do you renouncethe devils, and all their words and works; Thonar, Wodin, and Saxenote?"was part of the form of recantation administered to the Scandinavianconverts;[1] and at the present day "Odin take you" is the Norseequivalent of "the devil take you. " On the other hand, an attempt wasmade to identify Balda "the beautiful" with Christ--a confusion ofcharacter that may go far towards accounting for a custom joyouslyobserved by our forefathers at Christmastide but which the falsemodesty of modern society has nearly succeeded in banishing from amongstus, for Balda was slain by Loké with a branch of mistletoe, and Christwas 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 toChristianity, the native deities underwent the same inevitable fate, andsank into the rank of evil spirits. Perhaps the juster opinion is thatthey became the progenitors of our fairy mythology rather than thesubsequent devil-lore, although the similarity between these two classesof spirits is sufficient to warrant us in classing them as species ofthe same genus; their characters and functions being perfectlyinterchangeable, and even at times merging and becomingindistinguishable. A certain lurking affection in the new converts forthe religion they had deserted, perhaps under compulsion, may have ledthem to look upon their ancient objects of veneration as less detestablein nature, and dangerous in act, than the devils imported as an integralportion of their adopted faith; and so originated this class of spiritsless evil than the other. Sir Walter Scott may be correct in hisassertion that many of these fairy-myths owe their origin to theexistence of a diminutive autochthonic race that was conquered by theinvading Celts, and the remnants of which lurked about the mountains andforests, and excited in their victors a superstitious reverence onaccount of their great skill in metallurgy; but this will not explainthe retention of many of the old god-names; as that of the Dusii, theCeltic nocturnal spirits, in our word "deuce, " and that of the Nikr orwater-spirits in "nixie" and old "Nick. "[1] These words undoubtedlyindicate the accomplishment of the "facilis descensus Averno" by thenative deities. Elves, brownies, gnomes, and trolds were all at one timeScotch or Irish gods. The trolds obtained a character similar to that ofthe more modern succubus, and have left their impression uponElizabethan English in the word "trull. "

[Footnote 1: Maury, p. 189. ]

28. The preceding very superficial outline of the growth of the beliefin evil spirits is enough for the purpose of this essay, as it showsthat the basis of English devil-lore was the annihilated mythologies ofthe ancient heathen religions--Italic and Teutonic, as well as thosebrought into direct conflict with the Jewish system; and also that themore important of the Teutonic deities are not to be traced in thesubsequent hierarchy of fiends, on account probably of their temporaryor permanent absorption into the proselytizing system, or the refusal ofthe new converts to believe them to be so black as their teacherspainted them. The gradual growth of the superstructure it would bewell-nigh impossible and quite unprofitable to trace. It is due chieflyto the credulous ignorance and distorted imagination, monkish andotherwise, of several centuries. Carlyle's graphic picture of AbbotSampson's vision of the devil in "Past and Present" will perhaps do moreto explain how the belief grew and flourished than pages of explanatorystatements. It is worthy of remark, however, that to the last, communication with evil spirits was kept up by means of formulae andrites that are undeniably the remnants of a form of religious worship. Incomprehensible in their jargon as these formulae mostly are, andstrongly tinctured as they have become with burlesqued Christiansymbolism and expression--for those who used them could only supply thefast-dying memory of the elder forms from the existing system--theystill, in all their grotesqueness, remain the battered relics of a deadfaith. 

29. Such being the natural history of the conflict of religions, it willnot be a matter of surprise that the leaders of our English Reformationshould, in their turn, have attributed the miracles of the RomanCatholic saints to the same infernal source as the early Christianssupposed to have been the origin of the prodigies and oracles ofpaganism. The impulse given by the secession from the Church of Rome tothe study of the Bible by all classes added impetus to this tendency. InHoly Writ the Reformers found full authority for believing in theexistence of evil spirits, possession by devils, witchcraft, and divineand diabolic interference by way of miracle generally; and theyconsequently acknowledged the possibility of the repetition of suchphenomena in the times in which they lived--a position more tenable, perhaps, than that of modern orthodoxy, that accepts without murmur allthe supernatural events recorded in the Bible, and utterly rejects allsubsequent relations of a similar nature, however well authenticated. The Reformers believed unswervingly in the truth of the Biblicalaccounts of miracles, and that what God had once permitted to take placemight and would be repeated in case of serious necessity. But they foundit utterly impossible to accept the puerile and meaningless miraclesperpetrated under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church as evidenceof divine interference; and they had not travelled far enough upon theroad towards rationalism to be able to reject them, one and all, as intheir very nature impossible. The consequence of this was one of thosecompromises which we so often meet with in the history of the changes ofopinion effected by the Reformation. Only those particular miracles thatwere indisputably demonstrated to be impostures--and there were plentyof 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 divineCalfhill, supporting this view of the Catholic miracles in his answer toMartiall's "Treatise of the Cross, " points out that the majority ofsupernatural events that have taken place in this world have been, mostundoubtedly, the work of the devil; and puts his opponents into a ratherembarrassing dilemma by citing the miracles of paganism, which bothCatholic and Protestant concurred in attributing to the evil one. Hethen clinches his argument by asserting that "it is the devil's cunningthat persuades those that will walk in a popish blindness" that they areworshipping God when they are in reality serving him. "Therefore, " hecontinues, consciously following an argument of St. Cyprianus againstthe pagan miracles, "these wicked spirits do lurk in shrines, in roods, in crosses, in images: and first of all pervert the priests, which areeasiest to be caught with bait of a little gain. Then work theymiracles. They appear to men in divers shapes; disquiet them when theyare awake; trouble them in their sleeps; distort their members; takeaway their health; afflict them with diseases; only to bring them tosome idolatry. Thus, when they have obtained their purpose that a lewdaffiance is reposed where it should not, they enter (as it were) into anew league, and trouble them no more. What do the simple people then?Verily suppose that the image, the cross, the thing that they havekneeled and offered unto (the very devil indeed) hath restored themhealth, whereas he did nothing but leave off to molest them. This is thehelp and cure that the devils give when they leave off their wrong andinjury. "[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 doctrinecropping up again after centuries of repose: "all the gods of ouropponents are devils. " Nor were the Catholics a whit behind theProtestants in this matter. The priests zealously taught that theProtestants were devil-worshippers and magicians;[1] and the commonpeople so implicitly believed in the truth of the statement, that wefind one poor prisoner, taken by the Dutch at the siege of Alkmaar in1578, making a desperate attempt to save his life by promising toworship his captors' devil precisely as they did[2]--a suggestion thatfailed 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 areconstantly working the extension of the domain of the supernatural asfar as demonology is concerned, without a remembrance of which thesubject itself would remain somewhat difficult to comprehend fully, Ishall now attempt to indicate one or two conditions of thought andcircumstance that may have tended to increase and vivify the beliefduring the period in which the Elizabethan literature flourished. 

32. It was an era of change. The nation was emerging from the dimtwilight of mediaevalism into the full day of political and religiousfreedom. But the morning mists, which the rising sun had not yetdispelled, rendered the more distant and complex objects distorted andportentous. The very fact that doubt, or rather, perhaps, independenceof thought, was at last, within certain limits, treated as non-criminalin theology, gave an impetus to investigation and speculation in allbranches of politics and science; and with this change came, in themain, improvement. But the great defect of the time was that this newlyliberated spirit of free inquiry was not kept in check by any sufficientprevious discipline in logical methods of reasoning. Hence thepossibility of the wild theories that then existed, followed out intoaction 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 yearof grace 1591, and getting himself believed by some, so long as heremained unhanged; or, more pathetic still, many weary lives wasted dayby day in fruitless silent search after the impossible philosopher'sstone, or elixir of life. As in law, so in science, there were nosufficient rules of evidence clearly and unmistakably laid down for theguidance of the investigator; and consequently it was only necessary tobroach a novel theory in order to have it accepted, without any previousserious testing. Men do not seem to have been able to distinguishbetween an hypothesis and a proved conclusion; or, rather, the rule ofpresumptions was reversed, and men accepted the hypothesis as conclusiveuntil it was disproved. It was a perfectly rational and sufficientexplanation in those days to refer some extraordinary event to somegiven supernatural cause, even though there might be no ostensible linkbetween the two: now, such a suggestion would be treated by the vastmajority with derision or contempt. On the other hand, the most trivialoccurrences, such as sneezing, the appearance of birds of ill omen, thecrowing of a cock, and events of like unimportance happening at aparticular moment, might, by some unseen concatenation of causes andeffects, exercise an incomprehensible influence upon men, andconsequently had important bearings upon their conduct. It is solemnlyrecorded in the Commons' Journals that during the discussion of thestatute against witchcraft passed in the reign of James I. , a youngjackdaw flew into the House; which accident was generally regarded as_malum omen_ to the Bill. [1] Extraordinary bravery on the part of anadversary was sometimes accounted for by asserting that he was the devilin the form of a man; as the Volscian soldier does with regard toCoriolanus. This is no mere dramatist's fancy, but a fixed belief of thetimes. Sir William Russell fought so desperately at Zutphen, that he gotmistaken for the Evil One;[2] and Drake also gave the Spaniards goodreason 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 atthe same time combined with the strong man's intellect, permeated allclasses of society. Perhaps a couple of instances, drawn from strangelydiverse sources, will bring this more vividly before the mind than anyamount of attempted theorizing. The first is one of the tricks of thejugglers 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 heundresseth himselfe) to shake, stamp, and crie, still hastening to beunclothed, till he be starke naked; or if you can procure none to go sofar, let him onlie beginne to stampe and shake, etc. , and unclothe him, and then you may (for reverence of the companie) seeme to releasehim. "[1]

[Footnote 1: Scott, p. 339. ]

The second illustration must have demanded, if possible, more credulityon the part of the audience than this harmless entertainment. Cranmertells 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 oftransubstantiation; and, after the manner of his kind, told thefollowing little anecdote in support of it:--"A maid of Northgate parishin Canterbury, in pretence to wipe her mouth, kept the host in herhandkerchief; 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, shelooking in the one pot, found a little young pretty babe, about ashaftmond long; and the other pot was full of gore blood. "[1]

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

34. That the audiences before which these absurdities were seriouslybrought, for amusement or instruction, could be excited in either caseto 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 whenthese things transpired: the actors of them were not knaves, nor weretheir audiences fools, to any unusual extent. If any one is inclined toform a low opinion of the Elizabethans intellectually, on account of thedivergence of their capacities of belief in this respect from his own, he does them a great injustice. Let him take at once Charles Lamb'swarning, and try to understand, rather than to judge them. We, who havehad the benefit of three hundred more years of experience and liberty ofthought than they, should have to hide our faces for very shame had wenot arrived at juster and truer conclusions upon those difficult topicsthat so bewildered our ancestors. But can we, with all our boastedadvantages of wealth, power, and knowledge, truly say that all our aimsare as high, all our desires as pure, our words as true, and our deedsas noble, as those whose opinions we feel this tendency to contemn? Ifnot, or if indeed they have anything whatsoever to teach us in theserespects, let us remember that we shall never learn the lesson wholly, perhaps not learn it at all, unless, casting aside this first impulse todespise, we try to enter fully into and understand these strange deadbeliefs of the past. 

 * * * * *

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

36. (i. ) It is difficult to discover any classification of devils aswell authenticated and as universally received as that of the angelsintroduced by Dionysius the Areopagite, which was subsequently importedinto the creed of the Western Church, and popularized in Elizabethantimes by Dekker's "Hierarchie. " The subject was one which, from itsnature, could not be settled _ex cathedrâ_, and consequently the subjecthad to grow up as best it might, each writer adopting the arrangementthat appeared to him most suitable. There was one rough but popularclassification into greater and lesser devils. The former branch wassubdivided into classes of various grades of power, the members ofwhich passed under the titles of kings, dukes, marquises, lords, captains, and other dignities. Each of these was supposed to have acertain number of legions of the latter class under his command. Thesewere the evil spirits who appeared most frequently on the earth as theemissaries of the greater fiends, to carry out their evil designs. Themore important class kept for the most part in a mystical seclusion, andonly appeared upon earth in cases of the greatest emergency, or whencompelled to do so by conjuration. To the class of lesser devilsbelonged the bad angel which, together with a good one, was supposed tobe assigned to every person at birth, to follow him through life--theone to tempt, the other to guard from temptation;[1] so that a strugglesimilar to that recorded between Michael and Satan for the body of Moseswas raging for the soul of every existing human being. This was not amere theory, but a vital active belief, as the beautiful well-knownlines at the commencement of the eighth canto of the second book of "TheFaerie 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 theorigin of devils from pagan deities, is effected by reference to thelocalities supposed to be inhabited by the different classes of evilspirits. 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 haveincreased with the proximity of their location to the earth's centre;but this classification had nothing like the hold upon the popular mindthat the former grouping had, and may consequently be dismissed withthis 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, haddistinguishing names--strange, uncouth names; some of them telling of aheathenish origin; others inexplicable and almost unpronounceable--asAshtaroth, Bael, Belial, Zephar, Cerberus, Phoenix, Balam (why he?), andHaagenti, Leraie, Marchosias, Gusoin, Glasya Labolas. Scot enumeratesseventy-nine, the above amongst them, and he does not by any meansexhaust the number. As each arch-devil had twenty, thirty, or fortylegions of inferior spirits under his command, and a legion was composedof six hundred and sixty-six devils, it is not surprising that thelatter did not obtain distinguishing names until they made theirappearance upon earth, when they frequently obtained one from the formthey 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 hiscommand, such an adept in the art of necromancy as Owen Glendowershould 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 theclass of greater devils. Hecate, the principal patroness of witchcraft, is referred to frequently, and appears once upon the scene. [1] The twoothers are Amaimon and Barbazon, both of whom are mentioned twice. Amaimon was a very important personage, being no other than one of thefour kings. Ziminar was King of the North, and is referred to in "HenryVI. Part I. ;"[2] Gorson of the South; Goap of the West; and Amaimon ofthe East. He is mentioned in "Henry IV. Part I. , "[3] and "MerryWives. "[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 tobear out the otherwise ascertained chronological sequence of theseplays. The remainder of the devils belong to the second class. Nine ofthese occur in "King Lear, " and will be referred to again when thesubject of possession is touched upon. [6]

[Footnote 1: It is perhaps worthy of remark that in every case exceptthe allusion in the probably spurious Henry VI. , "I speak not to thatrailing Hecate, " (I Hen. VI. III. Ii. 64), the name is "Hecat, " adi-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 rareoccasion upon which he made his appearance upon earth, assumed a formpeculiar to himself; the lesser devils, on the other hand, had anordinary type, common to the whole species, with a capacity for almostinfinite variation and transmutation which they used, as will be seen, to the extreme perplexity and annoyance of mortals. As an illustrationof the form in which a greater devil might appear, this is what Scotsays of the questionable Balam, above mentioned: "Balam cometh withthree heads, the first of a bull, the second of a man, and the third ofa ram. He hath a serpent's taile, and flaming eies; riding upon afurious beare, and carrieng a hawke on his fist. "[1] But it was thelesser devils, not the greater, that came into close contact withhumanity, who therefore demand careful consideration. 

[Footnote 1: p. 361. ]

40. All the lesser devils seem to have possessed a normal form, whichwas as hideous and distorted as fancy could render it. To the conceptionof an angel imagination has given the only beautiful appendage the humanbody does not possess--wings; to that of a devil it has added all thoseorgans of the brute creation that are most hideous or most harmful. Advancing civilization has almost exterminated the belief in a beingwith horns, cloven hoofs, goggle eyes, and scaly tail, that was held upto many yet living as the avenger of childish disobedience in theirearlier days, together perhaps with some strength of conviction of themoral hideousness of the evil he was intended, in a rough way, totypify; but this hazily retained impression of the Author of Evil wasthe universal and entirely credited conception of the ordinaryappearance of those bad spirits who were so real to our ancestors ofElizabethan days. "Some are so carnallie minded, " says Scot, "that aspirit is no sooner spoken of, but they thinke of a blacke man withcloven 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 thecarnal-mindedness of such a belief. He in his day, like those in everyage and country who dare to hold convictions opposed to the creed of themajority, was a dangerous sceptic; his book was publicly burnt by thecommon hangman;[2] and not long afterwards a royal author wrote atreatise "against the damnable doctrines of two principally in our age;whereof the one, called Scot, an Englishman, is not ashamed in publicprint to deny that there can be such a thing as witchcraft, and somainteines the old error of the Sadducees in denying of spirits. "[3] Theabandoned 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 ofa fiend, just as he has enshrined in beauty the belief in the guardianangel. It is worthy of remark that he describes the devil as dwellingbeneath the altar of an idol in a heathen temple. Prince Arthur strikesthe 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 deformčd 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 fearčd nothing ill. 

 "An huge great beast it was, when it in length Was stretchčd 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 thisbelief, but nearly always by way of ridicule. It is hardly to beexpected that they would share in the grosser opinions held by thecommon people in those times--common, whether king or clown. In "TheVirgin 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 "TheDevil is an Ass, " when Fitzdottrell, doubting Pug's statement as to hisinfernal character, says, "I looked on your feet afore; you cannot cozenme; your shoes are not cloven, sir, you are whole hoofed;" Pug, withgreat presence of mind, replies, "Sir, that's a popular error deceivesmany. " So too Othello, when he is questioning whether Iago is a devil ornot, 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 inreality cast himself over the cliff, he describes the being from whom heis 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 wavčd like the enridgčd sea: It was some fiend. "[3]

It can hardly be but that the "thousand noses" are intended as asatirical 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, eachone seems to have had, like the greater devils, a favourite form inwhich he made his appearance when conjured; generally that of someanimal, 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 theshapes of an armed head, a bloody child, and a child crowned, hasShakspere 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 powersand functions exercised by the evil spirits, is by far the mostinteresting and important; and the first branch of the series is onethat suggests itself as a natural sequence upon what has just been saidas to the ordinary shapes in which devils appeared, namely, the capacityto assume at will any form they chose. 

45. In the early and middle ages it was universally believed that adevil could, of his own inherent power, call into existence any mannerof body that it pleased his fancy to inhabit, or that would most conduceto the success of any contemplated evil. In consequence of this beliefthe devils became the rivals, indeed the successful rivals, of Jupiterhimself in the art of physical tergiversation. There was, indeed, atradition that a devil could not create any animal form of less sizethan a barley-corn, and that it was in consequence of this incapacitythat the magicians of Egypt--those indubitable devil-worshippers--failedto produce lice, as Moses did, although they had been so successful inthe matter of the serpents and the frogs; "a verie gross absurditie, " asScot judiciously remarks. [1] This, however, would not be a seriouslimitation upon the practical usefulness of the power. 

[Footnote 1: p. 314. ]

46. The great Reformation movement wrought a change in this respect. Menbegan to accept argument and reason, though savouring of specialpleading of the schools, in preference to tradition, though never sovenerable and well authenticated; and the leaders of the revolutioncould not but recognize the absurdity of laying down as infallible dogmathat God was the Creator of all things, and then insisting with equalvehemence, by way of postulate, that the devil was the originator ofsome. The thing was gross and palpable in its absurdity, and had to bedone away with as quickly as might be. But how? On the other hand, itwas clear as daylight that the devil _did_ appear in various forms totempt and annoy the people of God--was at that very time doing so in themost open and unabashed manner. How were reasonable men to account forthis manifest conflict between rigorous logic and more rigorous fact?There was a prolonged and violent controversy upon the point--theReformers not seeing their way to agree amongst themselves--and tediousas violent. Sermons were preached; books were written; and, whenargument was exhausted, unpleasant epithets were bandied about, much asin the present day, in similar cases. The result was that two theorieswere evolved, both extremely interesting as illustrations of thehair-splitting, chop-logic tendency which, amidst all theirstraightforwardness, was so strongly characteristic of the Elizabethans. The first suggestion was, that although the devil could not, of his owninherent power, create a body, he might get hold of a dead carcase andtemporarily restore animation, and so serve his turn. This belief washeld, amongst others, by the erudite King James, [1] and is pleasantlysatirized 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 thestorm a-brewing) says to Pug (Puck, the lesser devil, who does all themischief; or would have done it, had not man, in those latter times, gotto be rather beyond the devils in evil than otherwise), not without atouch 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 handsomecutpurse that morning hung at Tyburn. 

[Footnote 1: Daemonologie, p. 56. ]

But the theory, though ingenious, was insufficient. The devil wouldoccasionally appear in the likeness of a living person; and how couldthat 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 theinhabitants of the nether world. 

47. The second theory, therefore, became the more popular amongst thelearned, because it left no one point unexplained. The divines held thatalthough the power of the Creator had in no wise been delegated to thedevil, yet he was, in the course of providence, permitted to exercise acertain supernatural influence over the minds of men, whereby he couldpersuade them that they really saw a form that had no material objectiveexistence. [1] Here was a position incontrovertible, not on account ofthe arguments by which it could be supported, but because it wasimpossible to reason against it; and it slowly, but surely, took holdupon the popular mind. Indeed, the elimination of the diabolic factorleaves the modern sceptical belief that such apparitions are nothingmore 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 timemaking its way only amongst the more educated portion of the nation. Themasses still clung to the old and venerated, if not venerable, beliefthat devils could at any moment assume what form soever they mightplease--not troubling themselves further to inquire into the method ofthe operation. They could appear in the likeness of an ordinary humanbeing, as Harpax[1] and Mephistopheles[2] do, creating thereby the mostembarrassing complications in questions of identity; and if this beliefis borne in mind, the charge of being a devil, so freely made, in thetimes of which we write, and before alluded to, against persons whoperformed extraordinary feats of valour, or behaved in a mannerdiscreditable and deserving of general reprobation, loses much of itsbarbarous grotesqueness. There was no doubt as to Coriolanus, [3] as hasbeen said; nor Shylock. [4] Even "the outward sainted Angelo is yet adevil;"[5] and Prince Hal confesses that "there is a devil haunts him inthe 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 anecclesiastic[1]--at least, so the churchmen were careful to insist, especially when busying themselves about acts of temptation that wouldleast become the holy robe they had assumed. This was the ecclesiasticalmethod of accounting for certain stories, not very creditable to thepriesthood, that had too inconvenient a basis of evidence to bedismissed as fabricatious. But the honest lay public seem to havethought, with downright old Chaucer, that there was more in the matterthan the priests chose to admit. This feeling we, as usual, findreflected in the dramatic literature of our period. In "The TroublesomeRaigne of King John, " an old play upon the basis of which Shakspereconstructed his own "King John, " we find this question dealt with insome detail. In the elder play, the Bastard does "the shaking of bags ofhoarding abbots, " _coram populo_, and thereby discloses a phase ofmonastic life judiciously suppressed by Shakspere. Philip sets atliberty much more than "imprisoned angels"--according to one account, and that a monk's, imprisoned beings of quite another sort. "FaireAlice, the nonne, " having been discovered in the chest where the abbot'swealth was supposed to be concealed, proposes to purchase pardon for theoffence by disclosing the secret hoard of a sister nun. Her offer beingaccepted, a friar is ordered to force the box in which the treasure issupposed to be secreted. On being questioned as to its contents, heanswers--

 "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 isordered to execution, not, however, without some hope of redemption bymoney payment; for times are hard, and cash in hand not to be despised. 

[Footnote 1: See the story about Bishop Sylvanus. --Lecky, Rationalism inEurope, 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, thedevil carefully considered the religious creed of the person to whom heintended to make himself known. The Catholic accounts of him show himgenerally assuming the form of a Protestant parson;[1] whilst to thoseof the reformed creed he invariably appeared in the habit of a Catholicpriest. In the semblance of a friar the devil is reported (by aProtestant) to have preached, upon a time, "a verie Catholic sermon;"[2]so good, indeed, that a priest who was a listener could find no faultwith the doctrine--a stronger basis of fact than one would have imaginedfor 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 Moorshould be considered a favourite one with evil spirits. [1] Iago makesallusion to this when inciting Brabantio to search for his daughter. [2]The power of coming in the likeness of humanity generally is referred tosomewhat 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 aphilosopher with two stones more than 's artificial one: he is veryoften like a knight; and, generally, in all shapes that man goes up anddown 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 atthe devils' control. So entirely was this the case, that to Constanceeven the fair Blanche was none other than the devil tempting Louis "inlikeness of a new uptrimmed bride;"[1] and perhaps not without a certainprophetic feeling of the fitness of things, as it may possibly seem tosome of our more warlike politicians, evil spirits have been known toappear 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 thedevils' disposal; and, not content with these, they seem to have soughtfurther for unlikely shapes to assume. [1] Poor Caliban complains thatProspero'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 theaudiences at the Globe--to whom a stray devil or two was quite in thenatural order of things under such circumstances--than it can possiblypossess for us. In this play, Ariel, Prospero's familiar, besidesappearing in his natural shape, and dividing into flames, and behavingin 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 formsof a water-nymph, [5] a harpy, [6] and also the goddess Ceres;[7] whilethe strange shapes, masquers, and even the hounds that hunt and worrythe would-be king and viceroys of the island, are Ariel's "meanerfellows. "

[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 thanAriel's, as might have been expected of that malicious little spirit. Hebeguiles "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 year1584, strange news came out of Somersetshire, entitled "A DreadfulDiscourse of the Dispossessing of one Margaret Cowper, at Ditchet, froma 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 charmsduly mumbled, assumed the appearance of a woman until herreturn. --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 thelikeness of a black dog, and takes his part in the dialogue, as if hispresence were a matter of quite ordinary occurrence, not in any waycalling for special remark. However gross and absurd this may appear, itmust be remembered that this play is, in its minutest details, merely adramatization of the events duly proved in a court of law, to thesatisfaction of twelve Englishmen, in the year 1612. [1] The shape of afly, too, was a favourite one with the evil spirits; so much so that theterm "fly" became a common synonym for a familiar. [2] The word"Beelzebub" was supposed to mean "the king of flies. " At the executionof Urban Grandier, the famous magician of London, in 1634, a large flywas seen buzzing about the stake, and a priest promptly seizing theopportunity of improving the occasion for the benefit of the onlookers, declared that Beelzebub had come in his own proper person to carry offGrandier's soul to hell. In 1664 occurred the celebrated witch-trialswhich took place before Sir Matthew Hale. The accused were charged withbewitching two children; and part of the evidence against them was thatflies and bees were seen to carry into the victims' mouths the nails andpins which they afterwards vomited. [3] There is an allusion to thisbelief 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 toWitchcraft, 1838. ]

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

54. But it was not invariably a repulsive or ridiculous form that wasassumed by these enemies of mankind. Their ingenuity would have been butlittle worthy of commendation had they been content to appear asordinary human beings, or animals, or even in fancy costume. The Swissdivine Bullinger, after a lengthy and elaborately learned argument as tothe particular day in the week of creation upon which it was mostprobable that God called the angels into being, says, by way ofperoration, "Let us lead a holy and angel-like life in the sight ofGod's holy angels. Let us watch, lest he that transfigureth and turnethhimself into an angel of light under a good show and likeness deceiveus. "[1] They even went so far, according to Cranmer, [2] as to appear inthe 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 beassumed by devils was that of a dead friend of the object of thevisitation. Before the Reformation, the belief that the spirits of thedeparted had power at will to revisit the scenes and companions of theirearthly life was almost universal. The reforming divines distinctlydenied the possibility of such a revisitation, and accounted for theundoubted phenomena, as usual, by attributing them to the devil. [1]James I. Says that the devil, when appearing to men, frequently assumedthe form of a person newly dead, "to make them believe that it was somegood spirit that appeared to them, either to forewarn them of the deathof 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 aniethat knoweth that neither can the spirit of the defunct returne to hisfriend, nor yet an angell use such formes. "[2] He further explains thatsuch devils follow mortals to obtain two ends: "the one is the tinsell(loss) of their life by inducing them to such perrilous places at suchtimes as he either follows or possesses them. The other thing that hepreases to obtain is the tinsell of their soule. "[3]

[Footnote 1: See Hooper's Declaration of the Ten Commandments. ParkerSociety. 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 inthe popular mind to be extirpated, or even greatly affected, by adogmatic declaration. The masses went on believing as they always hadbelieved, and as their fathers had believed before them, in spite of theReformers, and to their no little discontent. Pilkington, Bishop ofDurham, in a letter to Archbishop Parker, dated 1564, complains that, "among other things that be amiss here in your great cares, ye shallunderstand that in Blackburn there is a fantastical (and as some say, lunatic) young man, which says that he has spoken with one of hisneighbours that died four year since, or more. Divers times he says hehas seen him, and talked with him, and took with him the curate, theschoolmaster, 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 hadknown how to examine with authority, I would have done it. "[1] Here is alittle glimpse at the practical troubles of a well-intentioned bishop ofthe 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 thesupposed spirits of the departed:--the conservative, which held to theold doctrine of ghosts; and the reforming, which denied the possibilityof ghosts, and held to the theory of devils. In the midst of thisdisagreement of doctors it was difficult for a plain man to come to adefinite conclusion upon the question; and, in consequence, all who werenot content with quiet dogmatism were in a state of utter uncertaintyupon a point not entirely without importance in practical life as wellas in theory. This was probably the position in which the majority ofthoughtful men found themselves; and it is accurately reflected in threeof Shakspere's plays, which, for other and weightier reasons, aregrouped together in the same chronological division--"Julius Caesar, ""Macbeth, " and "Hamlet. " In the first-mentioned play, Brutus, whoafterwards confesses his belief that the apparition he saw at Sardis wasthe 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 entranceof Banquo's ghost--which is probably intended to be a devil appearing atthe instigation of the witches--when he says, with evident allusion to adiabolic 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 thissubject is most clearly reflected; and hardly enough influence has beenallowed to the doubts arising from this conflict of belief, as urgent ordeterrent motives in the play, because this temporary condition ofthought has been lost sight of. It is exceedingly interesting to notehow frequently the characters who have to do with the apparition of thelate King Hamlet alternate between the theories that it is a ghost andthat it is a devil which they have seen. The whole subject has such animportant bearing upon any attempt to estimate the character of Hamlet, that no excuse need be offered for once again traversing suchwell-trodden ground. 

Horatio, it is true, is introduced to us in a state of determinedscepticism; but this lasts for a few seconds only, vanishing upon thefirst entrance of the spectre, and never again appearing. His firstinclination seems to be to the belief that he is the victim of adiabolical 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 "TheNight-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 theopinion that it is really the ghost of the late king that he sees, probably in consequence of the conversation that has taken place sincethe former visitation; and he now appeals to the ghost for informationthat may enable him to procure rest for his wandering soul. Again, during his interview with Hamlet, when he discloses the secret of thespectre's appearance, though very guarded in his language, Horatioclearly intimates his conviction that he has seen the spirit of the lateking. 

[Footnote 1: I. I. 46. ]

[Footnote 2: II. I. ]

The same variation of opinion is visible in Hamlet himself; but, asmight be expected, with much more frequent alternations. When first hehears Horatio's story, he seems to incline to the belief that it must bethe 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 firstbrought 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, thealternative in his mind must have been that he saw a devil assuming hisfather's likeness--a form which the Evil One knew would most inciteHamlet to intercourse. But even as he speaks, the other theory graduallyobtains ascendency in his mind, until it becomes strong enough to inducehim 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'smind, it is fastening itself with ever-increasing force upon the mindsof his companions; and Horatio expresses their fears in words that areworth 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 toprocure the "tinsell" of both body and soul of his victim is herevividly 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 thevictim of malign influences--as far as he is capable of conviction, forhis 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 thisinterview is sufficient to support his certainty of conviction until thetime for decisive action again arrives. It is not until the idea of theplay-test occurs to him that his doubts are once more aroused; and thenthey 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 theentry of the king and his train to witness the performance of theplayers. [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 elementof uncertainty in the complicated problem that presented itself forsolution to Hamlet's ever-analyzing mind; and this being so, an apparentinconsistency in detail which has usually been charged upon Shaksperewith regard to this play, can be satisfactorily explained. Some criticsare never weary of exclaiming that Shakspere's genius was so vast anduncontrollable that it must not be tested, or expected to be foundconformable to the rules of art that limit ordinary mortals; that thereare many discrepancies and errors in his plays that are to be condonedupon that account; in fact, that he was a very careless and slovenlyworkman. A favourite instance of this is taken from "Hamlet, " whereShakspere actually makes the chief character of the play talk of deathas "the bourne from whence no traveller returns" not long after he hasbeen engaged in a prolonged conversation with such a returned traveller. 

Now, no artist, however distinguished or however transcendent hisgenius, is to be pardoned for insincere workmanship, and the greater theman, the less his excuse. Errors arising from want of information (andShakspere commits these often) may be pardoned if the means forcorrecting them be unattainable; but errors arising from merecarelessness are not to be pardoned. Further, in many of these cases ofsupposed contradiction there is an element of carelessness indeed; butit lies at the door of the critic, not of the author; and this appearsto be true in the present instance. The dilemma, as it presented itselfto the contemporary mind, must be carefully kept in view. Either thespirits of the departed could revisit this world, or they could not. Ifthey could not, then the apparitions mistaken for them must be devilsassuming their forms. Now, the tendency of Hamlet's mind, immediatelybefore the great soliloquy on suicide, is decidedly in favour of thelatter alternative. The last words that he has uttered, which are alsothe last quoted here, [1] are those in which he declares most forciblythat he believes the devil-theory possible, and consequently that thedead do not return to this world; and his utterances in his soliloquyare only an accentuate and outcome of this feeling of uncertainty. Thevery root of his desire for death is that he cannot discard with anyfeeling of certitude the Protestant doctrine that no traveller doesafter death return from the invisible world, and that the so-calledghosts are a diabolic deception. 

[Footnote 1: § 58, p. 59. ]

60. Another power possessed by the evil spirits, and one that excitedmuch attention and created an immense amount of strife duringElizabethan times, was that of entering into the bodies of human beings, or otherwise influencing them so as utterly to deprive them of allself-control, and render them mere automata under the command of thefiends. This was known as possession, or obsession. It was another ofthe mediaeval beliefs against which the reformers steadily set theirfaces; and all the resources of their casuistry were exhausted to exposeits absurdity. But their position in this respect was an extremelydelicate one. On one side of them zealous Catholics were exorcisingdevils, who shrieked out their testimony to the eternal truth of theHoly Catholic Church; whilst at the same time, on the other side, thezealous Puritans of the extremer sort were casting out fiends, who boreequally fervent testimony to the superior efficacy and purity of theProtestant faith. The tendency of the more moderate members of theparty, therefore was towards a compromise similar to that arrived atupon the question how the devils came by the forms in which theyappeared upon the earth. They could not admit that devils could actuallyenter into and possess the body of a man in those latter days, althoughduring the earlier history of the Church such things had been permittedby Divine Providence for some inscrutable but doubtless satisfactoryreason:--that was Catholicism. On the other hand, they could not for aninstant tolerate or even sanction the doctrine that devils had no powerwhatever over humanity:--that was Atheism. But it was quite possiblethat evil spirits, without actually entering into the body of a man, might so infest, worry, and torment him, as to produce all the symptomsindicative of possession. The doctrine of obsession replaced that ofpossession; and, once adopted, was supported by a string of thosequaint, conceited arguments so peculiar to the time. [1]

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

61. But, as in all other cases, the refinements of the theologians hadlittle or no effect upon the world outside their controversies. To theordinary 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 questionwhether the evil-doer were actually housed within the sufferer, or onlyhovered in his immediate neighbourhood, seemed a question of such minorimportance as to be hardly worth discussing--a conclusion that the laymind is apt to come to upon other questions that appear portentous tothe divines--and the theory of possession, having the advantage in timeover that of obsession, was hard to dislodge. 

62. One of the chief causes of the persistency with which the old beliefwas maintained was the utter ignorance of the medical men of the periodon the subject of mental disease. The doctors of the time were merechildren in knowledge of the science they professed; and to attribute adisease, the symptoms of which they could not comprehend, to a poweroutside their control by ordinary methods, was a safe method ofscreening a reputation which might otherwise have suffered. "Canst thounot minister to a mind diseased?" cries Macbeth to the doctor, in one ofthose moments of yearning after the better life he regrets, but cannotreturn to, which come over him now and again. No; the disease is beyondhis practice; and, although this passage has in it a deeper meaning thanthe one attributed to it here, it well illustrates the position of themedical man in such cases. Most doctors of the time were mere empirics;dabbled more or less in alchemy; and, in the treatment of mentaldisease, were little better than children. They had for co-practitionersall who, by their credit with the populace for superior wisdom, foundthemselves in a position to engage in a profitable employment. Priests, preachers, schoolmasters--Dr. Pinches and Sir Topazes--became socommonly exorcists, that the Church found it necessary to forbid thecasting out of spirits without a special license for that purpose. [1]But as the Reformers only combated the doctrine of possession uponstrictly theological grounds, and did not go on to suggest anysubstitute for the time-honoured practice of exorcism as a means forgetting rid of the admittedly obnoxious result of diabolic interference, it is not altogether surprising that the method of treatment did notimmediately change. 

[Footnote 1: 72nd Canon. ]

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

[Footnote 1: Ch. 10. ]

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

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

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

66. The year 1586 was probably one of the most critical years thatEngland has passed through since she was first a nation. Standing aloneamongst the European States, with even the Netherlanders growing coldtowards her on account of her ambiguous treatment of them, she had tofight out the battle of her independence against odds to all appearancesirresistible. With Sixtus plotting her overthrow at Rome, Philip atMadrid, Mendoza and the English traitors at Paris, and Mary of Scotlandat Chartley, while a third of her people were malcontent, and James theSixth was friend or enemy as it best suited his convenience, the outlookwas anything but reassuring for the brave men who held the helm in thosestormy times. But although England owed her deliverance chiefly to theforethought and hardihood of her sons, it cannot be doubted that thesheer imbecility of her foes contributed not a little to that result. Toboth these conditions she owed the fact that the great Armada, theembodiment of the foreign hatred and hostility, threatening to breakupon her shores like a huge wave, vanished like its spray. MedinaSidonia, with his querulous complaints and general ineffectuality, [1]was hardly a match for Drake and his sturdy companions; nor were theleaders of the Babington conspiracy, the representatives and would-beleaders of the corresponding internal convulsion, the infatuatedworshippers of the fair devil of Scotland, the men to cope for a momentwith the intellects of Walsingham and Burleigh. 

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

67. The events which Harsnet investigated and wrote upon withpolitico-theological animus formed an eddy in the main current of theBabington conspiracy. For some years before that plot had taken definiteshape, seminary priests had been swarming into England from thecontinent, and were sedulously engaged in preaching rebellion in therural districts, sheltered and protected by the more powerful of thedisaffected nobles and gentry--modern apostles, preparing the way beforethe future regenerator of England, Cardinal Allen, the would-be CatholicArchbishop of Canterbury. Among these was one Weston, who, in hisenthusiastic admiration for the martyr-traitor, Edmund Campion, hadadopted the alias of Edmonds. This Jesuit was gifted with the power ofcasting out devils, and he exercised it in order to prove the divineorigin of the Holy Catholic faith, and, by implication, the duty of allpersons religiously inclined, to rebel against a sovereign who wasruthlessly treading it into the dust. The performances which Harsnetexamined 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 thebeginning of 1586. The possessed persons were Anthony Tyrell, anotherJesuit who rounded upon his friends in the time of their tribulation;[1]Marwood, Antony Babington's private servant, who subsequently found itconvenient to leave the country, and was never examined upon thesubject; Trayford and Mainy, two young gentlemen, and Sara and FriswoodWilliams, and Anne Smith, maid-servants. Richard Mainy, the mostedifying subject of them all, was seventeen only when the possessionseized him; he had only just returned to England from Rheims, and, whenpassing through Paris, had come under the influence of Charles Paget andMorgan; so his antecedents appeared somewhat open to suspicion. [2]

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

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

68. With the truth or falsehood of the statements and deductions made byHarsnet, we have little or no concern. Western did not pretend to denythat he had the power of exorcism, or that he exercised it upon thepersons in question, but he did not admit the truth of any of the moreridiculous stories which Harsnet so triumphantly brings forward toconvict him of intentional deceit; and his features, if the portrait inFather Morris's book is an accurate representation of him, convey animpression of feeble, unpractical piety that one is loth to associatewith a malicious impostor. In addition to this, one of the witnessesagainst him, Tyrell, was a manifest knave and coward; another, Mainy, asconspicuous a fool; while the rest were servant-maids--all of theminterested in exonerating themselves from the stigma of having beenadherents of a lost cause, at the expense of a ringleader who seemed tohave made himself too conspicuous to escape punishment. Furthermore, theevidence of these witnesses was not taken until 1598 and 1602, twelveand sixteen years after the events to which it related took place; andwhen taken, was taken by Harsnet, a violent Protestant and almostmaniacal exorcist-hunter, as the miscellaneous collection of literatureevoked by his exposure of Parson Darrell's dealings with Will Sommersand others will show. 

69. Among the many devils' names mentioned by Harsnet in his"Declaration, " and in the examinations of witnesses annexed to it, thefollowing have undoubtedly been repeated in "King Lear":--Fliberdigibet, spelt in the play Flibbertigibbet; Hoberdidance called Hopdance andHobbididance; 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. Thesetwo latter devils have in the play managed to exchange the final vowelsof their names, and appear as Modo and Mahu. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The events referred to took place at Denham. A halter and someknife-blades were found in a corridor of the house. "A great search wasmade in the house to know how the said halter and knife-blades camethither, 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 thedevil layd them in the gallery, that some of those that were possessedmight either hang themselves with the halter, or kill themselves withthe blades. "[1]

[Footnote 1: Harsnet, p. 218. ]

72. But the bulk of the references relating to the possession of Mainyoccur 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 wordjustly; swear not; commit not with man's sworn spouse;[1] set not thysweet 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 didthe 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 thecontriving of lust, and waked to do it; wine loved I deeply; dicedearly; and in women out-paramoured the Turk: false of heart, light ofear, 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 therustling of silks, betray thy poor heart to woman; keep thy foot out ofbrothels, thy hand out of plackets, [3] thy pen from lenders' books, anddefy 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, theslip 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 himselfsubsequently:--

"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 possesseschamber-maids and waiting-women. "[1]

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

The following are the chief parts of the account given by Harsnet of theexorcism of Mainy by Weston--a most extraordinary transaction, --said tobe taken from Weston's own account of the matter. He was supposed to bepossessed by the devils who represented the seven deadly sins, and "byinstigation of the first of the seven, began to set his hands into hisside, curled his hair, and used such gestures as Maister Edmunds presentaffirmed that that spirit was Pride. [1] Heerewith he began to curse andto banne, saying, 'What a poxe do I heare? I will stay no longer among acompany of rascal priests, but goe to the court and brave it amongst myfellowes, the noblemen there assembled. '[2] ... Then Maister Edmunds didproceede againe with his exorcismes, and suddenly the sences of Mainywere 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 ascrivener to make a bond, swearing that he would not lend his moneywithout a pawne.... There could be no other talke had with this spiritbut money and usury, so as all the company deemed this devil to be theauthor of Covetousnesse.... [3]

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

[Footnote 2: "That ... Swore as many oaths as I spake words, and brokethem 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 hehad not proceeded farre, but up cometh another spirit singing mostfilthy and baudy songs: every word almost that he spake was nothing butribaldry. They that were present with one voyce affirmed that devill tobe the author of Luxury. [1]

[Footnote 1: "Wine loved I deeply; dice dearly; and in womenout-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, asthough 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 distressedyouth: "Whereupon the spirit of Pride departed in the forme of aPeacocke; the spirit of Sloth in the likenesse of an Asse; the spirit ofEnvy in the similitude of a Dog; the spirit of Gluttony in the forme ofa Wolfe. "[1]

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

There is in another part of "King Lear" a further reference to theincidents attendant upon these exorcisms Edgar says, [1] "The foul fiendhaunts poor Tom in the voice of a nightingale. " This seems to refer tothe 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, whereinMaister Dibdale took great delight, and would often be playing with it. This nightingale was one night conveyed out of the cage, and being nextmorning diligently sought for, could not be heard of, till MaisterMainie's devil, in one of his fits (as it was pretended), said that thewicked spirit which was in this examinate's sister[2] had taken the birdout 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 onlysuffering from some harmless form of mental disease, were subjected, washardly calculated to effect a cure. The most ignorant quack wasconsidered perfectly competent to deal with cases which, in reality, require the most delicate and judicious management, combined with theprofoundest physiological, as well as psychological, knowledge. Theordinary method of dealing with these lunatics was as simple as it wasirritating. Bonds and confinement in a darkened room were the specifics;and the monotony of this treatment was relieved by occasional visitsfrom the sage who had charge of the case, to mumble a prayer or mutteran exorcism. Another popular but unpleasant cure was by flagellation; sothat 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 itselfno 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 ofscenes which he had not improbably witnessed, in the country at anyrate, and which bring vividly before us the absurdity of the methods ofdiagnosis 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 inhis conjuration; many of his brethren in art had much more effectiveformulae. It seems that devils were peculiarly sensitive to anyopprobrious epithets that chanced to be bestowed upon them. The skilfulexorcist took advantage of this weakness, and, if he could only manageto keep up a flow of uncomplimentary remarks sufficiently long andoffensive, 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 becredited:--

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

[Footnote 1: The cessation of the pulse was one of the symptoms ofpossession. 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 ofexorcism than those mentioned by Romeo were adopted, especially when theoperation was conducted for the purpose of bringing into prominence somegreat religious truth. The more evangelical of the operators adopted theplan of lying on the top of their patients, "after the manner of Eliasand Pawle. "[1] But the Catholic exorcists invented and carried toperfection the greatest refinement in the art. The patient, seated in a"holy chair, " specially sanctified for the occasion, was compelled todrink about a pint of a compound of sack and salad oil; after whichrefreshment a pan of burning brimstone was held under his nose, untilhis face was blackened by the smoke. [2] All this while the officiatingpriest kept up his invocation of the fiends in the manner illustratedabove; and, under such circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whetherthe most determined character would not be prepared to see somewhatunusual 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 "firingout" the fiend. [1] The holy flame of piety resident in the priest was soterrible to the evil spirit, that the mere contact of the holy hand withthat part of the body of the afflicted person in which he was residentwas enough to make him shrink away into some more distant portion; so, by a judicious application of the hand, the exorcist could drive thedevil 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 fromHarsnet's book will show:--

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

[Footnote 1: This expression occurs in Sonnet cxliv. , and evidently withthe meaning here explained; only the bad angel is supposed to fire outthe 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 thequotation from Cotta's book shows[1], attributed to the same diabolicsource. In an era when the most profound ignorance prevailed with regardto the simplest laws of health; when the commoner diseases wereconsidered as God's punishment for sin, and not attributable to naturalcauses; when so eminent a divine as Bishop Hooper could declare that"the air, the water, and the earth have no poison in themselves to hurttheir lord and master man, "[2] unless man first poisoned himself withsin; and when, in consequence of this ignorance and this falsephilosophy, and the inevitable neglect attendant upon them, thosefearful plagues known as "the Black Death" could, almost without notice, sweep down upon a country, and decimate its inhabitants--it is notwonderful that these terrible scourges were attributed to themalevolence 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 terriblepowers over the bodies and minds of mortals, devils were not believed tobe potent enough to destroy the lives of the persons they persecutedunless they could persuade their victims to renounce God. This theoryprobably sprang out of the limitation imposed by the Almighty upon thepower of Satan during his temptation of Job, and the advice given to thesufferer by his wife, "Curse God, and die. " Hence, when evil spiritsbegan their assaults upon a man, one of their first endeavours was toinduce him to do some act that would be equivalent to such arenunciation. Sometimes this was a bond assigning the victim's soul tothe Evil One in consideration of certain worldly advantages; sometimes aformal denial of his baptism; sometimes a deed that drives away theguardian angel from his side, and leaves the devil's influenceuncounteracted. In "The Witch of Edmonton, "[1] the first act that MotherSawyer demands her familiar to perform after she has struck her bargain, is to kill her enemy Banks; and the fiend has reluctantly to declarethat he cannot do so unless by good fortune he could happen to catch himcursing. Both Harpax[2] and Mephistophiles[3] suggest to their victimsthat they have power to destroy their enemies, but neither of them isable to exercise it. Faust can torment, but not kill, his would-bemurderers; and Springius and Hircius are powerless to take Dorothea'slife. In the latter case it is distinctly the protection of the guardianangel that limits the diabolic power; so it is not unnatural thatGratiano 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 nextto impossible for people in the present day to have any idea what aconsolation this belief in a good attendant spirit, specially appointedto guard weak mortals through life, to ward off evils, and guide toeternal safety, must have been in a time when, according to the currentbelief, any person, however blameless, however holy, was liable at anymoment 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 andmore insidious form of attack upon mankind adopted by the evil spirits. Possession and obsession were methods of assault adopted against thewill of the afflicted person, and hardly to be avoided by him withoutthe supernatural intervention of the Church. The practice of witchcraftand magic involved the absolute and voluntary barter of body and soul tothe Evil One, for the purpose of obtaining a few short years ofsuperhuman power, to be employed for the gratification of the culprit'savarice, ambition, or desire for revenge. 

80. In the strange history of that most inexplicable mental disease, thewitchcraft epidemic, as it has been justly called by a high authority onsuch matters, [1] we moderns are, by the nature of our education andprejudices, completely incapacitated for sympathizing with either thepersecutors or their victims. We are at a loss to understand howclear-sighted and upright men, like Sir Matthew Hale, could consent tobecome parties to a relentless persecution to the death of poor helplessbeings whose chief crime, in most cases, was, that they had sufferedstarvation both in body and in mind. We cannot understand it, becausenone of us believe in the existence of evil spirits. None; for althoughthere are still a few persons who nominally hold to the ancient faith, as they do to many other respectable but effete traditions, yet theywould be at a loss for a reason for the faith that is in them, shouldthey chance to be asked for one; and not one of them would be preparedto make the smallest material sacrifice for the sake of it. It is truethat the existence of evil spirits recently received a tardy andsomewhat hesitating recognition in our ecclesiastical courts, [2] whichat first authoritatively declared that a denial of the existence of thepersonality of the devil constituted a man a notorious evil liver, anddepraver of the Book of Common Prayer;[3] but this was promptly reversedby the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under the auspices oftwo Low Church law lords and two archbishops, with the very vagueproviso that "they do not mean to decide that those doctrines areotherwise than inconsistent with the formularities of the Church ofEngland;"[4] yet the very contempt with which these portentousdeclarations of Church law have been received shows how great has beenthe fall of the once almost omnipotent minister of evil. The ancientSatan does indeed exist in some few formularies, but in such awashed-out and flimsy condition as to be the reverse of conspicuous. Allthat remains of him and of his subordinate legions is the ineffectualghost of a departed creed, for the resuscitation of which no man willmove a finger. 

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

[Footnote 2: See Jenkins v. Cooke, Law Reports, Admiralty andEcclesiastical 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, thehorror and loathing with which good men, entirely believing in theexistence and omnipresence of countless legions of evil spirits, ableand anxious to perpetrate the mischiefs that it has been the object ofthese pages in some part to describe, would regard those who, for theirown selfish gratification, deliberately surrendered their hopes ofeternal happiness in exchange for an alliance with the devils, whichwould render these ten times more capable than before of working theirwicked wills. To men believing this, no punishment could seem too suddenor too terrible for such offenders against religion and society, and nomeans of possible detection too slight or far-fetched to be neglected;indeed, it might reasonably appear to them better that many innocentpersons should perish, with the assurance of future reward for theirundeserved sufferings, than that a single guilty one should escapeundetected, and become the medium by which the devil might destroy moresouls. 

82. But the persecuted, far more than the persecutors, deserve oursympathy, although they rarely obtain it. It is frequently asserted thatthe absolute truth of a doctrine is the only support that will enableits adherents successfully to weather the storms of persecution. Thosewho assent to this proposition must be prepared to find a large amountof truth in the beliefs known to us under the name of witchcraft, if theposition is to be successfully maintained; for never was any sectpersecuted more systematically, or with more relentlessness, than theselittle-offending heretics. Protestants and Catholics, Anglicans andCalvinists, so ready at all times to commit one another to the flamesand to the headsman, found in this matter common ground, upon which allcould 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 theTower, and the smoke and glare of Smithfield, we think with mingled pityand admiration of those brave men and women who, in the sixteenthcentury, enriched with their blood and ashes the soil from whence was tospring our political and religious freedom. But no whit of admiration, hardly a glimmer of pity, is even casually evinced for those poorcreatures who, neglected, despised, and abhorred, were, at the sametime, dying the same agonizing death, and passing through the torment ofthe flames to that "something after death--the undiscovered country, "without the sweet assurance which sustained their better-rememberedfellow-sufferers, that beyond the martyr's cross was waiting themartyr's crown. No such hope supported those who were condemned to diefor the crime of witchcraft: their anticipations of the future were asdreary as their memories of the past, and no friendly voice was raised, or hand stretched out, to encourage or console them during that last sadjourney. Their hope of mercy from man was small--strangulation beforethe application of the fire, instead of the more lingering and painfuldeath at most;--their hope of mercy from Heaven, nothing; yet, underthese circumstances, the most auspicious perhaps that could be imaginedfor the extirpation of a heretical belief, persecution failed to effectits object. The more the Government burnt the witches, the more thecrime of witchcraft spread; and it was not until an attitude ofcontemptuous toleration was adopted towards the culprits that the beliefdied down, gradually but surely, not on account of the conclusiveness ofthe arguments directed against it, but from its own inherent lack ofvitality. [1]

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

83. The history and phenomena of witchcraft have been so admirablytreated by more than one modern investigator, as to render itunnecessary to deal exhaustively with a subject which presents such avast amount of material for arrangement and comment. The scope of thefollowing remarks will therefore be limited to a consideration of suchfeatures of the subject as appear to throw light upon thesupernaturalism in "Macbeth. " This consideration will be carried outwith some minuteness, as certain modern critics, importing mythologicallearning that is the outcome of comparatively recent investigation intothe interpretation of the text, have declared that the three sisters whoplay such an important part in that drama are not witches at all, butare, or are intimately allied to, the Norns or Fates of Scandinavianpaganism. It will be the object of the following pages to illustrate thecontemporary belief concerning witches and their powers, by showing thatnearly every characteristic point attributed to the sisters has itscounterpart in contemporary witch-lore; that some of the allusions, indeed, bear so strong a resemblance to certain events that hadtranspired not many years before "Macbeth" was written, that it is notimprobable that Shakspere was alluding to them in much the sameoff-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 isthe eminent Gervinus. In evident ignorance of the history of witchcraft, he says, "In the witches Shakspere has made use of the popular belief inevil geniuses and in adverse persecutors of mankind, and has produced asimilar but darker race of beings, just as he made use of the belief infairies in the 'Midsummer Night's Dream. ' This creation is lessattractive and complete, but not less masterly. The poet, in the text ofthe play itself, calls these beings witches only derogatorily; they callthemselves weird sisters; the Fates bore this denomination, and thesisters remind us indeed of the Northern Fates or Valkyries. They appearwild and weather-beaten in exterior and attire, common in speech, ignoble, half-human creatures, ugly as the Evil One, and in like mannerold, and of neither sex. They are guided by more powerful masters, theirwork entirely springs from delight in evil, and they are wholly devoidof human sympathies.... They are simply the embodiment of inwardtemptation; they come in storm and vanish in air, like corporealimpulses, which, originating in the blood, cast up bubbles of sin andambition in the soul; they are weird sisters only in the sense in whichmen carry their own fates within their bosoms. "[1] This criticism is soentirely subjective and unsupported by evidence that it is difficult todeal satisfactorily with it. It will be shown hereafter that thisdescription 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 withcontemporary 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 theRev. F. G. Fleay, the well-known Shakspere critic, whose ingeniousefforts in iconoclasm cause a curious alternation of feeling betweenadmiration and amazement. His argument is unfortunately mixed up with aquestion of textual criticism; for he rejects certain scenes in the playas the work of the inferior dramatist Middleton. [1] The questionrelating to the text will only be noticed so far as it is inextricablyinvolved with the argument respecting the nature of the weird sisters. Mr. Fleay's position is, shortly, this. He thinks that Shakspere's playcommenced with the entrance of Macbeth and Banquo in the third scene ofthe first act, and that the weird sisters who subsequently take part inthat scene are Norns, not witches; and that in the first scene of thefourth act, Shakspere discarded the Norns, and introduced threeentirely new characters, who were intended to be genuine witches. 

[Footnote 1: Of the witch scenes Mr. Fleay rejects Act I. Sc. I. , andsc. Iii. Down to l. 37, and Act III. Sc. V. ]

86. The evidence which can be produced in support of this theory, apartfrom question of style and probability, is threefold. The first proof isderived from a manuscript entitled "The Booke of Plaies and Notesthereof, for Common Pollicie, " written by a somewhat famousmagician-doctor, Simon Forman, who was implicated in the murder of SirThomas Overbury. He says, "In 'Macbeth, ' at the Globe, 1610, the 20thApril, Saturday, there was to be observed first how Macbeth and Banquo, two noblemen of Scotland, riding through a wood, there stood before themthree women fairies, or nymphs, and saluted Macbeth, saying three timesunto him, 'Hail, Macbeth, King of Codor, for thou shalt be a king, butthou shalt beget no kings, '" etc. [1] This, if Forman's account heldtogether decently in other respects, would be strong, although notconclusive, evidence in favour of the theory; but the whole note is sofull of inconsistencies and misstatements, that it is not unfair toconclude, either that the writer was not paying marvellous attention tothe entertainment he professed to describe, or that the player's copydiffered in many essential points from the present text. Not the leastconspicuous of these inconsistencies is the account of the sisters'greeting of Macbeth just quoted. Subsequently Forman narrates thatDuncan created Macbeth Prince of Cumberland; and that "when Macbeth hadmurdered the king, the blood on his hands could not be washed off byany means, nor from his wife's hands, which handled the bloody daggersin hiding them, by which means they became both much amazed andaffronted. " Such a loose narration cannot be relied upon if the text inquestion contains any evidence at all rebutting the conclusion that thesisters 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 isnarrated by Holinshed, from which Shakspere derived his material. Inthat account we read that "It fortuned as Makbeth and Banquho journiedtoward Fores, where the king then laie, they went sporting by the waietogither without other companie, saue onlie themselues, passing thoroughthe woods and fields, when suddenlie in the middest of a laund there metthem three women in strange and wild apparell, resembling creatures ofelder world, whome when they attentivelie beheld, woondering much at thesight, the first of them spake and said; 'All haile, Makbeth, thane ofGlammis' (for he had latelie entered into that dignitie and office bythe death of his father Sinell). The second of them said; 'Haile, Makbeth, thane of Cawder. ' But the third said; 'All haile, Makbeth, thatheereafter shall be King of Scotland. ' ... Afterwards the common opinionwas that these women were either the weird sisters, that is (as ye wouldsay) the goddesses of destinie, or else some nymphs or feiries, induedwith knowledge of prophesie by their necromanticall science, becauseeveriething came to passe as they had spoken. "[1] This is all that isheard of these "goddesses of Destinie" in Holinshed's narrative. Macbethis warned to "beware Macduff"[2] by "certeine wizzards, in whose wordshe put great confidence;" and the false promises were made to him by "acerteine witch, whome he had in great trust, (who) had told him that heshould neuer be slaine with man borne of anie woman, nor vanquished tillthe 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 adoptedby Shakspere were derived from three sources; and the contention is thathe has retained two of them--the "goddesses of Destinie" and thewitches; and the evidence of this retention is the third proof reliedon, namely, that the stage direction in the first folio, Act IV. Sc. I. , is, "Enter Hecate and the _other_ three witches, " when three characterssupposed to be witches are already upon the scene. Holinshed's narrativemakes it clear that the idea of the "goddesses of Destinie" wasdistinctly suggested to Shakspere's mind, as well as that of thewitches, as the mediums of supernatural influence. The question is, didhe retain both, or did he reject one and retain the other? It canscarcely be doubted that one such influence running through the playwould conduce to harmony and unity of idea; and as Shakspere, not aservile follower of his source in any case, has interwoven in "Macbeth"the totally distinct narrative of the murder of King Duffe, [1] it ishardly to be supposed that he would scruple to blend these twodifferent sets of characters if any advantage were to be gained by sodoing. As to the stage direction in the first folio, it is difficult tosee what it would prove, even supposing that the folio were the mostscrupulous piece of editorial work that had ever been effected. Itpresupposes that the "weird sisters" are on the stage as well as thewitches. But it is perfectly clear that the witches continue thedialogue; so the other more powerful beings must be supposed to bestanding silent in the background--a suggestion so monstrous that it ishardly necessary to refer to the slovenliness of the folio stagedirections to show how unsatisfactory an argument based upon one of themmust be. 

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

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

[Footnote 1: New Shakspere Society Transactions, vol. I. P. 342; Fleay'sShakspere Manual, p. 248. ]

90. Now, there is a great mass of contemporary evidence to show thatthese supposed characteristics of the Norns are, in fact, some of thechief attributes of the witches of the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies. If this be so--if it can be proved that the supposed"goddesses of Destinie" of the play in reality possess no higher powersthan could be acquired by ordinary communication with evil spirits, thenno weight must be attached to the vague stage direction in the folio, occurring as it does in a volume notorious for the extreme carelessnesswith which it was produced; and it must be admitted that the "goddessesof Destinie" of Holinshed were sacrificed for the sake of the witches. If, in addition to this, it can be shown that there was a verysatisfactory reason why the witches should have been chosen as therepresentatives of the evil influence instead of the Norns, the argumentwill be as complete as it is possible to make it. 

91. But before proceeding to examine the contemporary evidence, it isnecessary, in order to obtain a complete conception of the mythologicalview of the weird sisters, to notice a piece of criticism that is atonce 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 thematerial he used in constructing these characters, and that he derivedthe rest from the traditions of contemporary witchcraft; in fact, thatthe "sisters" are hybrids between Norns and witches. The supposed proofof this is that each sister exercises the special function of one of theNorns. "The third is the special prophetess, whilst the first takescognizance of the past, and the second of the present, in affairsconnected with humanity. These are the tasks of Urda, Verdandi, andSkulda. 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 againasks, 'Where?' The second decides: 'Upon the heath. ' The third, thefuture prophesies: 'There to meet with Macbeth. '" But their _rôle_ ismost 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 thesecond of the above quotations that it is recognizable with anydefiniteness; and this, it must be remembered, is an almost verbaltranscript from Holinshed, and not an original conception ofShakspere's, who might feel himself quite justified in changing thecharacters of the speakers, while retaining their utterances. Inaddition to this, the natural sequence is in many cases utterly andunnecessarily violated; as, for instance, in Act I. Sc. Iii. , whereUrda, who should be solely occupied with past matters, predicts, withextreme minuteness, the results that are to follow from her projectedvoyage to Aleppo, and that without any expression of resentment, butrather with promise of assistance, from Skulda, whose province she isthus 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 itstands in the text. The writer in _The Academy_ has effected arearrangement of the dialogue by importing what might be Macbeth'sreplies to the three sisters from his speech beginning at l. 70, andalternating them with the different "Hails, " which, in addition, are notcorrectly quoted--for what purpose it is difficult to see. It may beadded here that in a subsequent number of _The Academy_, a long letterupon the same subject appeared from Mr. Karl Blind, which seems to provelittle except the author's erudition. He assumes the Teutonic origin ofthe sisters throughout, and, consequently, adduces little evidence infavour of the theory. One of his points is the derivation of the word"weird" or "wayward, " which, as will be shown subsequently, was appliedto witches. Another point is, that the witch scenes savour strongly ofthe staff-rime of old German poetry. It is interesting to find twoupholders of the Norn-theory relying mainly for proof of their positionupon a scene (Act I. Sc. I. ) which Mr Fleay says that the very statementof this theory (p. 249) must brand as spurious. The question of thesisters' beards too, regarding which Mr. Blind brings somewhatfar-fetched evidence, is, I think, more satisfactorily settled by thequotations in the text. ]

92. But this latter piece of criticism seems open to one graveobjection to which the former is not liable. Mr. Fleay separates theportions of the play which are undoubtedly to be assigned to witchesfrom the parts he gives to his Norns, and attributes them to differentcharacters; the other mixes up the witch and Norn elements in oneconfused mass. The earlier critic saw the absurdity of such asupposition when he wrote: "Shakspere may have raised the wizard andwitches of the latter parts of Holinshed to the weird sisters of theformer parts, but the converse process is impossible. "[1] Is itconceivable that Shakspere, who, as most people admit, was a man of somepoetic feeling, being in possession of the beautiful Norn-legend--thesilent Fate-goddesses sitting at the foot of Igdrasil, the mysterioustree of human existence, and watering its roots with water from thesacred spring--could, ruthlessly and without cause, mar the charm of thelegend by the gratuitous introduction of the gross and primarilyunpoetical details incident to the practice of witchcraft? No man with aglimmer of poetry in his soul will imagine it for a moment. Theseparation of characters is more credible than this; but if that theorycan be shown to be unfounded, there is no improbability in supposingthat Shakspere, finding that the question of witchcraft was, inconsequence of events that had taken place not long before the time ofthe production of "Macbeth, " absorbing the attention of all men, fromking 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 intothe region of poetry, that men should wonder and say, "Can this bewitchcraft indeed?"

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

93. In comparing the evidence to be deduced from the contemporaryrecords of witchcraft with the sayings and doings of the sisters in"Macbeth, " those parts of the play will first be dealt with upon whichno doubt as to their genuineness has ever been cast, and which areasserted to be solely applicable to Norns. If it can be shown that thesedescribe witches rather than Norns, the position that Shakspereintentionally substituted witches for the "goddesses of Destinie"mentioned in his authority is practically unassailable. First, then, itis asserted that the description of the appearance of the sisters givenby 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 theconsideration of a single sentence, but of the whole passage from whichit is extracted; and, whilst considering it, it should be carefullyborne in mind that it occurs immediately before those lines which arechiefly 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 sosuddenly, seem to Banquo unlike the inhabitants of this earth. When herecovers from the shock and is capable of deliberate criticism, he seeschappy fingers, skinny lips--in fact, nothing to distinguish them frompoverty-stricken, ugly old women but their beards. A more accuratepoetical counterpart to the prose descriptions given by contemporarywriters of the appearance of the poor creatures who were charged withthe crime of witchcraft could hardly have been penned. Scot, forinstance, says, "They are women which commonly be old, lame, bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles.... They are leane anddeformed, showing melancholie in their faces;"[1] and Harsnet describesa witch as "an old weather-beaten crone, having her chin and kneesmeeting for age, walking like a bow, leaning on a staff, hollow-eyed, untoothed, furrowed, having her lips trembling with palsy, goingmumbling in the streets; one that hath forgotten her Pater-noster, yethath a shrewd tongue to call a drab a drab. "[2] It must be rememberedthat these accounts are by two sceptics, who saw nothing in the witchesbut poor, degraded old women. In a description which assumes theirsupernatural power such minute details would not be possible; yet thereis quite enough in Banquo's description to suggest neglect, squalor, andmisery. But if this were not so, there is one feature in thedescription of the sisters that would settle the question once and forever. The beard was in Elizabethan times the recognized characteristicof the witch. In one old play it is said, "The women that come to us fordisguises must wear beards, and that's to say a token of a witch;"[3]and in another, "Some women have beards; marry, they are halfwitches;"[4] and Sir Hugh Evans gives decisive testimony to the factwhen 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; Ispy 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 ofwitches; nothing in it is incompatible with that supposition. Will itapply with equal force to Norns? It can hardly be that these mysteriousmythical beings, who exercise an incomprehensible yet powerful influenceover human destiny, could be described with any propriety in terms sorevolting. A veil of wild, weird grandeur might be thrown around them;but can it be supposed that Shakspere would degrade them by representingthem with chappy fingers, skinny lips, and beards? It is particularly tobe noticed, too, that although in this passage he is making an almostverbal transcript from Holinshed, these details are interpolated withoutthe 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 inHolinshed, and so entire in itself, that there is some temptation to askwhether it was not so written at first, and the interpolated linessubsequently inserted by the author. Whether this be so or not, thequestion must be put--Why, in such a passage, did Shakspere insert threelines of most striking description of the appearance of witches? Can anyother reason be suggested than that he had made up his mind to replacethe "goddesses of Destinie" by the witches, and had determined thatthere 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 thesight, the first of them spake and said;]

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

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

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

95. The next objection is, that the sisters exercise powers that witchesdid not possess. They can "look into the seeds of time, and say whichgrain will grow, and which will not. " In other words, they foretellfuture events, which witches could not do. But this is not the fact. Therecorded witch trials teem with charges of having prophesied what thingswere about to happen; no charge is more common. The following, quoted byCharles Knight in his biography of Shakspere, might almost havesuggested the simile in the last-mentioned lines. Johnnet Wischert is"indicted for passing to the green growing corn in May, twenty-two yearssince or thereby, sitting thereupon tymous in the morning before thesun-rising, and being there found and demanded what she was doing, thou[1] answered, I shall tell thee; I have been peeling the blades ofthe corn. I find it will be a dear year, the blade of the corn growswithersones [contrary to the course of the sun], and when it growssonegatis about [with the course of the sun] it will be good cheapyear. "[2] The following is another apt illustration of the power, whichhas been translated from the unwieldy Lowland Scotch account of thetrial of Bessie Roy in 1590. The Dittay charged her thus: "You areindicted and accused that whereas, when you were dwelling with WilliamKing in Barra, about twelve years ago, or thereabouts, and having goneinto the field to pluck lint with other women, in their presence made acompass 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 ofthe said hole, and creep over the compass; and next a little worm cameforth, which crept over also; and last [thou] causedst a great worm tocome forth, which could not pass over the compass, but fell down anddied. Which enchantment and witchcraft thou interpretedst in this form:that the first great worm that crept over the compass was the goodmanWilliam King, who should live; and the little worm was a child in thegoodwife's womb, who was unknown to any one to be with child, and thatthe child should live; and, thirdly, the last great worm thouinterpretedst to be the goodwife, who should die: _which came to passafter thy speaking_. "[3] Surely there could hardly be plainer instancesof 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 fullmeaning of the first scene of "Macbeth, " and its necessary connectionwith 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 tothe scene at the commencement of the fourth act. But a long scene onsuch a subject would be tedious and unmeaning at the commencement of theplay. The audience is therefore left to assume that the witches havemet, performed their conjurations, obtained from the evil spirits theinformation concerning Macbeth's career that they desired to obtain, andperhaps have been commanded by the fiends to perform the mission theysubsequently carry through. All that is needed for the dramatic effectis a slight hint of probable diabolical interference, and that Macbethis to be the special object of it; and this is done in as artistic amanner as is perhaps imaginable. In the first scene they obtain theirinformation; in the second they utter their prediction. Every minutedetail of these scenes is based upon the broad, recognized facts ofwitchcraft. 

97. It is also suggested that the power of vanishing from the sightpossessed by the sisters--the power to make themselves air--was notcharacteristic of witches. But this is another assertion that would nothave been made, had the authorities upon the subject been investigatedwith only slight attention. No feature of the crime of witchcraft isbetter attested than this; and the modern witch of story-books is stillrepresented as riding on a broomstick--a relic of the enchanted rod withwhich the devil used to provide his worshippers, upon which to come tohis sabbaths. [1] One of the charges in the indictment against thenotorious Dr. Fian ran thus: "Fylit for suffering himself to be careitto North Berwik kirk, as if he had bene souchand athoirt [whizzingabove] the eird. "[2] Most effectual ointments were prepared foreffecting this method of locomotion, which have been recorded, and aregiven below[3] as an illustration of the wild kind of recipes whichShakspere rendered more grim in his caldron scene. The efficacy of theseointments is well illustrated by a story narrated by Reginald Scot, which unfortunately, on account of certain incidents, cannot be given inhis own terse words. The hero of it happened to be staying temporarilywith a friend, and on one occasion found her rubbing her limbs with acertain preparation, and mumbling the while. After a time she vanishedout of his sight; and he, being curious to investigate the affair, rubbed himself with the remaining ointment, and almost immediately hefound himself transported a long distance through the air, anddeposited right in the very midst of a witches' sabbath. Naturallyalarmed, he cried out, "'In the name of God, what make I heere?' andupon 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, bookiii. Ch. Vii. P. 51. ]

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

"Rx. The fat of yoong children, & seeth it with water in a brazenvessell, reseruing the thickest of that which remaineth boiled in thebottome, 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 useof the term "weird sisters" in describing the witches. It is perfectlyclear that Holinshed used these words as a sort of synonym for the"goddesses of Destinie;" but with such a mass of evidence as has beenproduced to show that Shakspere elected to introduce witches in theplace of the Norns, it surely would not be unwarrantable to suppose thathe might retain this term as a poetical and not unsuitable descriptionof the characters to whom it was applied. And this is the lessimprobable as it can be shown that both words were at times applied towitches. As the quotation given subsequently[1] proves, the Scotchwitches were in the habit of speaking of the frequenters of a particularsabbath as "the sisters;" and in Heywood's "Witches of Lancashire, " oneof the characters says about a certain act of supposed witchcraft, "Iremember that some three months since I crossed a wayward woman; onethat 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 theNorn-theory, it is possible to extract convincing evidence that thesisters are intended to be merely witches. It is not surprising thatother portions of the play in which the sisters are mentioned shouldconfirm this view. Banquo, upon hearing the fulfilment of the prophecyof the second witch, clearly expresses his opinion of the origin of the"foreknowledge" he has received, in the exclamation, "What, can thedevil speak true?" For the devil most emphatically spoke through thewitches; 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 madeinquiry into the amount of reliance that could be placed in theutterances of the witches, "and learned by the perfectest report thatthey had more in them than mortal knowledge. "[1] This would be possibleenough if witches were the subjects of the investigation, for theirchief title to authority would rest upon the general opinion current inthe neighbourhood in which they dwelt; but how could such an inquiry becarried 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 thedevil. After the events recorded in Act IV. Sc. I. , Macbeth speaks ofthe prophecies upon which he relies as "the equivocation of thefiend, "[3] and the prophets as "these juggling fiends;"[4] and withreason--for he has seen and heard the very devils themselves, themasters of the witches and sources of all their evil power. Every pointin the play that bears upon the subject at all tends to show thatShakspere intentionally replaced the "goddesses of Destinie" by witches;and that the supposed Norn origin of these characters is the result of asomewhat 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 thatthese lines were interpolated by Middleton--a method of criticism thathardly 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 isconclusively proved, it now becomes necessary to support the assertionpreviously made, that good reason can be shown why Shakspere shouldhave elected to represent witches rather than Norns. 

It is impossible to read "Macbeth" without noticing the prominence givento the belief that witches had the power of creating storms and otheratmospheric disturbances, and that they delighted in so doing. Thesisters elect to meet in thunder, lightning, or rain. To them "fair isfoul, 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 oneblast of tempest with its attendant devastation. They can loose and bindthe winds, [1] cause vessels to be tempest-tossed at sea, and mutilatewrecked bodies. [2] They describe themselves as "posters of the sea andland;"[3] the heath they meet upon is blasted;[4] and they vanish "asbreath into the wind. "[5] Macbeth conjures them to answer his questionsthus:--

 "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 aprominent feature in the English records of witchcraft. A few isolatedcharges of the kind may be found. In 1565, for instance, a witch wasburnt who confessed that she had caused all the tempests that had takenplace in that year. Scot, too, has a few short sentences upon thissubject, but does not give it the slightest prominence. [1] Nor in theearlier Scotch trials recorded by Pitcairn does this charge appearamongst the accusations against the witches. It is exceedingly curiousto notice the utter harmless nature of the charges brought against theearlier culprits; and how, as time went on and the panic increased, theygradually deepened in colour, until no act was too gross, too repulsive, or too ridiculously impossible to be excluded from the indictment. Thefollowing quotations from one of the earliest reported trials are givenbecause they illustrate most forcibly the condition of the poor womenwho were supposed to be witches, and the real basis of fact upon whichthe 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 theprincipal accusations against her was that she held intercourse with adevil who appeared to her in the shape of a neighbour of hers, one ThomReed, who had recently died. Being asked how and where she met ThomReed, she said, "As she was gangand betwixt her own house and the yardof Monkcastell, dryvand her ky to the pasture, and makand heavy sairdule with herself, gretand[1] very fast for her cow that was dead, herhusband and child that wer lyand sick in the land ill, and she newrisen out of gissane, [2] the aforesaid Thom met her by the way, healsit[3] her, and said, 'Gude day, Bessie, ' and she said, 'God speedyou, guidman. ' 'Sancta Marie, ' said he, 'Bessie, why makes thow sa greatdule and sair greting for ony wardlie thing?' She answered 'Alas! have Inot great cause to make great dule, for our gear is trakit, [4] and myhusband 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 anesair hart?' But Thom said, 'Bessie, thou hast crabit[5] God, and askitsome thing you suld not have done; and tharefore I counsell thee to mendto Him, for I tell thee thy barne sall die and the seik cow, or you comehame; and thy twa sheep shall die too; but thy husband shall mend, andshall be as hale and fair as ever he was. ' And then I was somethingblyther, for he tauld me that my guidman would mend. Then Thom Reed wentaway fra me in through the yard of Monkcastell, and I thought that hegait in at ane narrower hole of the dyke nor anie erdlie man culd havegone throw, and swa I was something fleit. "[6]

[Footnote 1: Weeping. I have only half translated this passage, for Ifeared 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 occasionhe asked her "if she would not trow[1] in him. " She said "she would trowin ony bodye did her gude. " Then Thom promised her much wealth if shewould deny her christendom. She answered that "if she should be riven athorsis taillis, she suld never do that, but promised to be leal andtrew 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, andaccompanied 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, unlessshe kend wherefor. " Thom offered the old inducement, wealth; but shereplied that "she dwelt with her awin husband and bairnis, " and couldnot 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 forherself or any other person. She answered that "when sundrie personscame to her to seek help for their beast, their cow, or ewe, or for anybarne 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 wouldpull 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, andput 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 ishalf marred by the attempt to partially modernize its simple patheticlanguage, and which would probably bring a tear to the eye, if not ashilling from the pocket, of the most unsympathetic being of the presentday, should be considered sufficient three hundred years ago, to convictthe narrator of a crime worthy of death; yet so it was. This sadpicture of the breakdown of a poor woman's intellect in the unequalstruggle against poverty and sickness is only made visible to us by thelight of the flames that, mercifully to her perhaps, took poor BessieDunlop away for ever from the sick husband, and weakly children, and the"ky, " and the humble hovel where they all dwelt together, and from thedaily, heart-rending, almost hopeless struggle to obtain enough food tokeep life in the bodies of this miserable family. The historian--whomakes it his chief anxiety to record, to the minutest and mostirrelevant details, the deeds, noble or ignoble, of those who havemanaged to stamp their names upon the muster-roll of Fame--turnscarelessly or scornfully the page which contains such insignificantmatter 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 withouttheir meaning. 

103. As the trials for witchcraft increase, however, the details growmore and more revolting; and in the year 1590 we find a mostextraordinary batch of cases--extraordinary for the monstrosity of thecharges contained in them, and also for the fact that this feature, soinsisted upon in Macbeth, the raising of winds and storms, stands out inextremely bold relief. The explanation of this is as follows. In theyear 1589, King James VI. Brought his bride, Anne of Denmark, home toScotland. During the voyage an unusually violent storm raged, whichscattered the vessels composing the royal escort, and, it would appear, caused the destruction of one of them. By a marvellous chance, theking's ship was driven by a wind which blew directly contrary to thatwhich filled the sails of the other vessels;[1] and the king and queenwere both placed in extreme jeopardy. James, who seems to have been asperfectly convinced of the reality of witchcraft as he was of his owninfallibility, at once came to the conclusion that the storm had beenraised by the aid of evil spirits, for the express purpose of gettingrid of so powerful an enemy of the Prince of Darkness as the righteousking. The result was that a rigorous investigation was made into thewhole affair; a great number of persons were tried for attempting theking's life by witchcraft; and that prince, undeterred by the apparentimpropriety of being judge in what was, in reality, his own cause, presided at many of the trials, condescended to superintend the torturesapplied to the accused in order to extort a confession, and even went sofar in one case as to write a letter to the judges commanding acondemnation. 

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 4: "Fylit for opening of ane loke be his sorcerie in DavidSeytounis moderis, be blawing in ane woman's hand, himself sittand attthe fyresyde. "--See also the case of Bessie Roy, I. Ii. 208. The Englishmethod of opening locks was more complicated than the Scotch, as willappear 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, anddoo but print certeine floures therein, and tie them in the hinder skirtof your shirt; and when you would undoo the locke, blow thrice therein, saieing, 'Arato hoc partico hoc maratarykin; I open this doore in thyname that I am forced to breake, as thou brakest hell gates. In nominepatris 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 tooka black toad and hung it by the hind legs for three days, and collectedthe venom that fell from it. She said that if she could have obtained apiece of linen that the king had worn, she could have destroyed hislife with this venom; "causing him such extraordinarie paines as if hehad beene lying upon sharpe thornes or endis of needles. "[1] She wentout to sea to a vessel called _The Grace of God_, and when she came awaythe devil raised a wind, and the vessel was wrecked. [2] She delivered aletter from Fian to another witch, which was to this effect: "Ye sallwarne the rest of the sisteris to raise the winde this day at ellewinhouris 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 accompaniedby the parties before speciallie named, took a cat and christened it, and afterwards bounde to each part of that cat the cheefest parts of adead man, and the severall joyntes of his bodie; and that in the nightfollowing the said cat was conveyed into the middest of the sea by allthese 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 hathnot been seene, which tempest was the cause of the perishing of avessell coming over from the town of Brunt Ilande to the town ofLeith.... Againe, it is confessed that the said christened cat was thecause that the kinges Majesties shippe at his coming forth of Denmarkehad 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. Seealso Trial of Ewsame McCalgane, I. Ii. 254. ]

105. It is worth a note that this art of going to sea in sieves, whichShakspere has referred to in his drama, seems to have been peculiar tothis set of witches. English witches had the reputation of being able togo upon the water in egg-shells and cockle-shells, but seem never tohave detected any peculiar advantages in the sieve. Not so these Scotchwitches. 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 ariddle or cive, and went into the same very substantially, with flaggonsof wine, making merrie, and drinking by the way in the same riddles orcives, to the kirke of North Barrick in Lowthian, and that after theylanded they tooke hands on the lande and daunced a reill or shortdaunce. " They then opened the graves and took the fingers, toes, andknees of the bodies to make charms. [1]

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

It can be easily understood that these trials created an intenseexcitement in Scotland. The result was that a tract was printed, containing a full account of all the principal incidents; and the factthat this pamphlet was reprinted once, if not twice, [1] in London, shows that interest in the affair spread south of the Border; and thisis confirmed by the publisher's prefatorial apology, in which he statesthat the pamphlet was printed to prevent the public from being imposedupon by unauthorized and extravagant statements of what had takenplace. [2] Under ordinary circumstances, events of this nature would forma nine days' wonder, and then die a natural death; but in thisparticular case the public interest continued for an abnormal time; foreight years subsequent to the date of the trials, James published his"Daemonologie"--a work founded to a great extent upon his experiences atthe trials of 1590. This was a sign to both England and Scotland thatthe subject of witchcraft was still of engrossing interest to him; andas 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 amountof attention to the subject dealt with. In 1603 he ascended the Englishthrone. His first parliament met on the 19th of March, 1604, and on the27th of the same month a bill was brought into the House of Lordsdealing with the question of witchcraft. It was referred to a committeeof which twelve bishops were members; and this committee, after muchdebating, came to the conclusion that the bill was imperfect. Inconsequence of this a fresh one was drawn, and by the 9th of June astatute had passed both Houses of Parliament, which enacted, among otherthings, that "if any person shall practise or exercise any invocation orconjuration of any evil or wicked spirit, or shall consult with, entertain, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit, [3] or take up anydead man, woman, or child out of his, her, or their grave ... Or theskin, bone, or any other part of any dead person to be employed or usedin any manner of witchcraft, [4] ... Or shall ... Practise ... Anywitchcraft ... Whereby any person shall be killed, wasted, pined, orlamed in his or her body or any part thereof, [5] such offender shallsuffer the pains of death as felons, without benefit of clergy orsanctuary. " Hutchinson, in his "Essay on Witchcraft, " published in 1720, declares that this statute was framed expressly to meet the offencesexposed by the trials of 1590-1; but, although this cannot beconclusively proved, yet it is not at all improbable that the hurry withwhich the statute was passed into law immediately upon the accession ofJames, would recall to the public mind the interest he had taken inthose trials in particular and the subject in general, and thatShakspere producing, as nearly all the critics agree, his tragedy atabout this date, should draw upon his memory for the half-forgottendetails of those trials, and thus embody in "Macbeth" the allusions tothem that have been pointed out--much less accurately than he did in thecase of the Babington affair, because the facts had been far lesscarefully recorded, and the time at which his attention had been calledto 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 wasburned at Edenborough in Januarie last, 1591; which Doctor was Registerto the Deuill, that sundrie times preached at North Barricke kirke to anumber of notorious witches; with the true examinations of the saidDoctor and witches as they uttered them in the presence of the Scottishking: Discouering how they pretended to bewitch and drowne his Majestiein 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 thenotorious 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 wouldculminate 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 evilspirits, implicated to a great extent with the traditions of witchcraft, but nevertheless more suitably handled as a separate subject, which isof so gross and revolting a nature that it should willingly be passedover in silence, were it not for the fact that the belief in it was, asScot says, "so stronglie and universallie received" in the times ofElizabeth and James. 

From the very earliest period of the Christian era the affection of onesex for the other was considered to be under the special control of thedevil. Marriage was to be tolerated; but celibacy was the state mostconducive to the near intercourse with heaven that was so dearly soughtafter. This opinion was doubtless generated by the tendency of the earlyChristian leaders to hold up the events of the life rather than theteachings of the sacred Founder of the sect as the one rule of conductto be received by His followers. To have been the recipients of thestigmata was a far greater evidence of holiness and favour with Heaventhan the quiet and unnoted daily practice of those virtues upon whichChrist pronounced His blessing; and in less improbable matters they didnot scruple, in their enthusiasm, to attempt to establish a rule of lifein direct contradiction to the laws of that universe of which theyprofessed to believe Him to be the Creator. The futile attempt toimitate His immaculate purity blinded their eyes to the fact that Henever taught or encouraged celibacy among His followers, and thisgradually led them to the strange conclusion that the passion which, sublimed and brought under control, is the source of man's noblest andholiest feelings, was a prompting proceeding from the author of allevil. Imbued with this idea, religious enthusiasts of both sexes immuredthemselves in convents; took oaths of perpetual celibacy; and even, incertain isolated cases, sought to compromise with Heaven, and baffle thetempter, by rendering a fall impossible--forgetting that the victoryover sin does not consist in immunity from temptation, but, beingtempted, not to fall. But no convent walls are so strong as to shutgreat nature out; and even within these sacred precincts the asceticsfound that they were not free from the temptations of their arch-enemy. In consequence of this, a belief sprang up, and spread from its originalsource into the outer world, in a class of devils called incubi andsuccubi, who roamed the earth with no other object than to tempt peopleto abandon their purity of life. The cases of assault by incubi weremuch more frequent than those by succubi, just as women were much moreaffected by the dancing manias in the fifteenth century thanmen;[1]--the reason, perhaps, being that they are much less capable ofresisting physical privation;--but, according to the belief of theMiddle Ages, there was no generic difference between the incubus andsuccubus. 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 itwas an almost universal charge against the accused that they offended inthis manner with their familiars, and hundreds of poor creaturessuffered death upon such an indictment. More details will be found inthe 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 thiswas not universally the case. All badly deformed or monstrous childrenwere suspected of having had such an undesirable parentage, and therewas a great tendency to believe that they ought to be destroyed. Lutherwas a decided advocate of this course, deeming the destruction of a lifefar preferable to the chance of having a devil in the family. InDrayton's poem, "The Mooncalf, " one of the gossips present at the birthof 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 asource of this description. It is perfectly clear what was the onething that the foul witch Sycorax did which prevented her life frombeing taken; and it would appear from this that the inhabitants ofArgier were far more merciful in this respect than their Europeanneighbours. Such a charge would have sent any woman to the stake inScotland, without the slightest hope of mercy, and the usual plea forrespite would only have been an additional reason for hastening theexecution 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 themost prominent features of a belief which the great Reformation wasdestined first to foster into unnatural proportions and vitality, and inthe end to destroy. Up to the period of the Reformation, the creed ofthe nation had been practically uniform, and one set of dogmas wasunhesitatingly accepted by the people as infallible, and thereforehardly demanding critical consideration. The great upheaval of thesixteenth century rent this quiescent uniformity into shreds; doctrinesuntil then considered as indisputable were brought within the pale ofdiscussion, and hence there was a great diversity of opinion, not onlybetween the supporters of the old and of the new faith, but between theReformers themselves. This was conspicuously the case with regard to thebelief in the devils and their works. The more timid of the Reformersclung in a great measure to the Catholic opinions; a small band, underthe influence possibly of that knight-errant of freedom of thought, Giordano Bruno, who exercised some considerable influence during hisvisit to England by means of his Oxford lectures and disputations, entirely denied the existence of evil spirits; but the great majoritygave in their adherence to a creed that was the mean between thedoctrines of the old faith and the new scepticism. Their strong commonsense compelled them to reject the puerilities advanced as seriousevidence by the Catholic Church; but they cast aside with equalvehemence and more horror the doctrines of the Bruno school. "That thereare devils, " says Bullinger, reduced apparently from argument toinvective, "the Sadducees in times past denied, and at this day alsosome scarce religious, nay, rather Epicures, deny the same; who, unlessthey repent, shall one day feel, to their exceeding great pain andsmart, both that there are devils, and that they are the tormentors andexecutioners of all wicked men and Epicures. "[1]

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

109. It must be remembered, too, that the emancipation from medievalismwas a very gradual process, not, as we are too prone to think it, arevolution suddenly and completely effected. It was an evolution, not anexplosion. There is found, in consequence, a great divergence ofopinion, not only between the earliest and the later Reformers, butbetween the statements of the same man at different periods of hiscareer. Tyndale, for instance, seems to have believed in the actualpossession of the human body by devils;[1] and this appears to havebeen the opinion of the majority at the beginning of the Reformation, for the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. Contained the Catholic form ofexorcism for driving devils out of children, which was expunged uponrevision, the doctrine of obsession having in the mean time triumphedover the older belief. It is necessary to bear these facts in mindwhilst considering any attempt to depict the general bearings of abelief such as that in evil spirits; for many irreconcilable statementsare to be found among the authorities; and it is the duty of the writerto sift out and describe those views which predominated, and these mustnot be supposed to be proved inaccurate because a chance quotation canbe produced in contradiction. 

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

110. There is great danger, in the attempt to bring under analysis anyphase of religious belief, that the method of treatment may appearunsympathetic if not irreverent. The greatest effort has been made inthese pages to avoid this fault as far as possible; for, without doubt, any form of religious dogma, however barbarous, however seeminglyridiculous, if it has once been sincerely believed and trusted by anyportion of mankind, is entitled to reverent treatment. No body of greatand good men can at any time credit and take comfort from a lie pure andsimple; and if an extinct creed appears to lack that foundation of truthwhich makes creeds tolerable, it is safer to assume that it had ameaning and a truthfulness, to those who held it, that lapse of timehas tended to destroy, together with the creed itself, than to condemnmen wholesale as knaves and hypocrites. But the particular subject whichhas here been dealt with will surely be considered to be speciallyentitled to respect, when it is remembered that it was once an integralportion of the belief of most of our best and bravest ancestors--of menand women who dared to witness to their own sincerity amidst the firesof persecution and in the solitude of exile. It has nearly alldisappeared now. The terrific hierarchy of fiends, which was so real, sofull of horror three hundred years ago[1], has gradually vanished awaybefore the advent of fuller knowledge and purer faith, and is now hardlythought of, unless as a dead mediaeval myth. But let us deal tenderlywith it, remembering that the day may come when the beliefs that arenearest to our hearts may be treated as open to contempt or ridicule, and the dogmas to which we most passionately cling will, "like aninsubstantial 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 thereality of the terror:--

"An infinite number of wicked angels there are, O Lord Christ, whichwithout ceasing seek my destruction. Against this exceeding greatmultitude of evil spirits send Thou me Thy blessed and heavenly angels, which may deliver me from then tyranny. Thou, O Lord, hast devouredhell, and overcome the prince of darkness and all his ministers; yea, and that not for Thyself, but for those that believe in Thee. Suffer menot, therefore, to be overcome of Satan and of his servants, but ratherlet me triumph over them, that I, through strong faith and help of theblessed angels, having the victory of the hellish army, may with ajoyful heart say, Death, where is thy sting? Hell, where is thyvictory?--and so for ever and ever magnify Thy Holy Name. Amen. " ParkerSociety, 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 exercisetheir powers in a manner less terrible and revolting than that depictedby theologians; and for this reason chiefly--that the proposition isalready more than half established when it has been shown that theattributes and functions possessed by both fairy and devil are similarin kind, although differing in degree. This has already been done to agreat extent in the preceding pages, where the various actions of Puckand Ariel have been shown to differ in no essential respect from thoseof the devils of the time; but before commencing to study this phase ofsupernaturalism in Shakspere's works as a whole, and as indicative, to acertain extent, of the development of his thought upon the relation ofman to the invisible world about and above him, it is necessary thatthis identity should be admitted without a shadow of a doubt. 

112. It has been shown that fairies were probably the descendants of thelesser local deities, as devils were of the more important of theheathen gods that were overturned by the advancing wave ofChristianity, although in the course of time this distinction wasentirely obliterated and forgotten. It has also been shown, as beforementioned, that many of the powers exercised by fairies were in theiressence similar to those exercised by devils, especially that ofappearing in divers shapes. These parallels could be carried out to analmost unlimited extent; but a few proofs only need be cited to showthis identity. In the mediaeval romance of "King Orfeo" fairyland hasbeen substituted for the classical Hades. [1] King James, in his"Daemonologie, " adopts a fourfold classification of devils, one of whichhe names "Phairie, " and co-ordinates with the incubus. [2] The name ofthe devil supposed to preside at the witches' sabbaths is sometimesgiven as Hecat, Diana, Sybilla; sometimes Queen of Elfame, [3] orFairie. [4] Indeed, Shakspere's line in "The Comedy of Errors, " had itnot 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 isgiven 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, Battleof Alcazar: "Fiends, fairies, hags that fight in beds of steel. "]

113. The real distinction between these two classes of spirits dependson the condition of national thought upon the subject ofsupernaturalism in its largest sense. A belief which has little or nofoundation upon indisputable phenomena must be continually passingthrough varying phases, and these phases will be regulated by the natureof the subjects upon which the attention of the mass of the people ismost firmly concentrated. Hence, when a nation has but one religiouscreed, and one that has for centuries been accepted by them, almostwithout question or doubt, faith becomes stereotyped, and the mindassumes an attitude of passive receptivity, undisturbed by doubts orquestionings. Under such conditions, a belief in evil spirits ever readyand watching to tempt a man into heresy of belief or sinful act, andthus to destroy both body and soul, although it may exist as a theoreticportion of the accepted creed, cannot possibly become a vital doctrineto be believed by the general public. It may exist as a subject forlearned dispute to while away the leisure hours of divines, but cannotby any possibility obtain an influence over the thoughts and lives oftheir charges. Mental disturbance on questions of doctrinal importancebeing, for these reasons, out of the question, the attention of thepeople is almost entirely riveted upon questions of material ease andadvantage. The little lets and hindrances of every-day life inagricultural and domestic matters are the tribulations that appeal mostincessantly to the ineradicable sense of an invisible power adverse tothe interests of mankind, and consequently the class of evil spiritsbelieved in at such a time will be fairies rather than devils--maliciouslittle spirits, who blight the growing corn; stop the butter fromforming in the churn; pinch the sluttish housemaid black and blue; andwhose worst act is the exchange of the baby from its cot for a fairychangeling;--beings of a nature most exasperating to thrifty housewifeand hard-handed farmer, but nevertheless not irrevocably prejudicedagainst humanity, and easily to be pacified and reduced into a state offawning friendship by such little attentions as could be renderedwithout difficulty by the poorest cotter. The whole fairy mythology isperfumed with an honest, healthy, careless joy in life, and a freedomfrom mental doubt. "I love true lovers, honest men, good fellowes, goodhuswives, good meate, good drinke, and all things that good is, butnothing that is ill, " declares Robin Goodfellow;[1] and this jovialmaterialism only reflects the state of mind of the folk who were notunwilling to believe that this lively little spirit might be seen ofnights busying himself in their houses by the dying embers of thedeserted fire. 

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

114. Such seems to have been the condition of England immediately beforethe period of the great Reformation. But with the progress of thatrevolution of thought the condition changes. The one true and eternalcreed, as it had been deemed, is shattered for ever. Men who havehitherto accepted their religious convictions in much the same way asthey had succeeded to their patrimonies are compelled by this tide ofopposition to think and study for themselves. Each man finds himselfleft face to face with the great hereafter, and his relation to it. Terrible doctrines are formulated, and press themselves with remorselessvigour upon his understanding--original sin, justification by faith, eternal damnation for even honest error of belief, --doctrines that throwan atmosphere of solemnity, if not gloom, about national thought, inwhich no fairy mythology can flourish. It is no longer questions ofmaterial ease and gain that are of the chief concern; and consequentlythe fairies and their doings, from their own triviality, fall far intothe background, and their place is occupied by a countless horde ofremorseless schemers, who are never ceasing in their efforts to dragboth body and soul to perdition. 

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

[Footnote 1: Scot, Introduction. ]

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

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

117. But fortunately we are not left to rely upon any such hypotheticalevidence in this matter, however probable it may appear. Although thegeneral reading public cannot be asked to accept as infallible anychronological order of Shakspere's plays that dogmatically asserts aparticular sequence, or to investigate the somewhat dry and specialistarguments upon which the conclusions are founded, yet there are certaingroupings into periods which are agreed upon as accurate by nearly allcritics, and which, without the slightest danger of error, may beasserted to be correct. For instance, it is indisputable that "Love'sLabour's Lost, " "The Comedy of Errors, " "Romeo and Juliet, " and "AMidsummer Night's Dream" are amongst Shakspere's earliest works; thatthe 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 latestplays which he wrote. [1] Here we have everything that is required toprove the question in hand. At the commencement and at the end of hiswritings--when a youth fresh from the influence of his country nurtureand education, and when a mature man, settling down into the old lifeagain after a long and victorious struggle with the world, with hisaccumulated store of experience--we find plays which are perfectlysaturated with fairy-lore: "The Dream" and "The Tempest. " These are thepoles of Shakspere's thought in this respect; and in the centre, imbedded as it were between two layers of material that do not bear anydistinctive stamp of their own, but appear rather as a medium foruniting the diverse strata, lie the great tragedies, produced while hewas in the very rush and swirl of town life, and reflecting accurately, as we have seen, many of the doubts and speculations that were agitatingthe minds of men who were ardently searching out truth. It is worthnoting too, in passing, that directly Shakspere steps out of his beatenpath to depict, in "The Merry Wives of Windsor, " the happy country lifeand manners of his day, he at the same time returns to fairyland again, and brings out the Windsor children trooping to pinch and plague thetown-bred, tainted Falstaff. 

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

118. But this is not by any means all that this subject reveals to usabout Shakspere; if it were, the less said about it the better. To lookupon "The Tempest" as in its essence merely a return to "The Dream"--theend as the beginning; to believe that his thoughts worked in a weary, unending circle--that the Valley of the Shadow of Death only leads backto the foot of the Hill Difficulty--is intolerable, and not moreintolerable than false. Although based upon similar material, the ideasand tendencies of "The Tempest" upon supernaturalism are no moreidentical with those of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" than the thoughts ofBerowne upon things in general are those of Hamlet, or Hamlet's those ofProspero. But before it is possible to point out the nature of thisdifference, 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 hiswork than that which until recently obtained almost universal credence, and is even at the present time somewhat loudly asserted in somequarters; namely, that he was a man of considerable genius, who wroteand got acted some thirty plays more or less, simply for commercialpurposes and nothing more; made money thereby, and died leaving a will;and that, beyond this, he and his works are, and must remain, aninexplicable mystery. The critic who holds this view, and finds itequally advantageous to commence a study of Shakspere's work by taking"The Tempest" or "Love's Labour's Lost" as his text, is about asjudicious as the botanist who would enlarge upon the structure of theseed-pod without first explaining the preliminary stages of plantgrowth, or the architect who would dilate upon the most convenientarrangement of chimney-pots before he had discussed the laws offoundation. The plays may be studied separately, and studied so arefound beautiful; but taken in an approximate chronological order, like astring of brilliant jewels, each one gains lustre from those thatprecede and follow it. 

119. For no man ever wrote sincerely and earnestly, or indeed ever didany one thing in such a spirit, without leaving some impress upon hiswork of his mental condition whilst he was doing it; and no such manever continued his literary labours from the period of youth rightthrough his manhood, without leaving behind him, in more or less legiblecharacter, a record of the ripening of his thought upon matters ofeternal importance, although they may not be of necessity directlyconnected with the ostensible subject in hand. Insincere men may apesentiments they do not really believe in; but in the end they willeither be exposed and held up to ridicule, or their work will sink intoobscurity. Sincerity in the expression of genuine thought and feelingalone can stand the test of time. And this is in reality nocontradiction to what has just been said as to the necessity of areceptive 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 thisfood, and evolve the result that these influences have producedsubjectively, it is, worse than useless. The two must co-exist and actand react upon one another. Nor must we be induced to surrender theseprinciples, in the present particular case, on account of the usual finebut vague talk about Shakspere's absolute self-annihilation in favour ofthe characters that he depicts. It is said that Shakspere so identifieshimself with each person in his dramas, that it is impossible to detectthe great master and his thoughts behind this cunningly devised screen. If this means that Shakespere has always a perfect comprehension of hischaracters, is competent to measure out to each absolute and unerringjustice, and is capable of sympathy with even the most repulsive, itwill not be disputed for an instant. It is so true, that it is dangerousto take a sentence out of the mouth of any one of his characters and sayfor certain, "This Shakspere thought, " although there are manycharacters with whom every one must feel that Shakspere identifiedhimself for the time being rather than others. But if it is intended toassert that Shakspere has so eliminated himself from his writings as tomake it impossible to trace anywhere the tendencies of his own thoughtat the time when he was writing, it must be most emphatically denied forthe reasons just stated. Freedom from prejudice must be carefullydissociated from lack of interest in the motive that underlies theconstruction of each play. There is a tone or key-note in each dramathat indicates the author's mental condition at the time when it wasproduced; and if several plays, following each other in brisksuccession, all have the same predominant tone, it seems to be pastquestion that Shakspere is incidentally and indirectly uttering his ownpersonal thought and experience. 

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

The natural history of the evolution of opinion upon matters which, forwant of a more embracing and satisfactory word, we must be content tocall "religious, " follows a uniform course in the minds of all men, except those "duller than the fat weed that roots itself at ease onLethe's wharf, " who never get beyond the primary stage. This course isseparable into three periods. The first is that in which a man acceptsunhesitatingly the doctrines which he has received from his spiritualteachers--customary not intellectual, belief. This sits lightly on him;entails no troublesome doubts and questionings; possesses, or appears topossess, formulae to meet all possible emergencies, and consequentlybrings with it a happiness that is genuine, though superficial. But thiscustomary belief rarely satisfies for long. Contact with the worldbrings to light other and opposed theories: introspection andindependent investigation of the bases of the hereditary faith arecommenced; many doctrines that have been hitherto accepted as eternallyand indisputably true are found to rest upon but slight foundation, apart from their title to respect on account of age; doubts follow as tothe claim to acceptance of the whole system that has been so easily andunhesitatingly swallowed; and the period of scepticism, or no-belief, with its attendant misery, commences--for although Dagon has been butlittle honoured in the time of his strength, in his downfall he is muchregretted. Then comes that long, weary groping after some firm, reliablebasis of belief: but heaven and earth appear for the time to conspireagainst the seeker; an intellectual flood has drowned out the old orderof things; not even a mountain peak appears in the wide waste ofdesolation as assurance of ultimate rest; and in the dark, overhangingfirmament no arc of promise is to be seen. But this is a state of mindwhich, from its very nature, cannot continue for ever: no man couldendure it. While it lasts the struggle must be continuous, butsomewhere through the cloud lies the sunshine and the land of peace--thefinal period of intellectual belief. Out of the chaos comes order; ideasthat but recently appeared confused, incoherent, and meaningless assumetheir true perspective. It is found that all the strands of the oldconventional faith have not been snapped in the turmoil; and these, re-knit and strengthened with the new and full knowledge of experienceand investigation, form the cable that secures that strange holyconfidence of belief that can only be gained by a preliminary warfarewith doubt--a peace that truly passes all understanding to those whohave never battled for it, --as to its foundation, diverse to a miraclein diverse minds, but still, a peace. 

121. If this be a true history of the course of development of everymind that is capable of independent thought upon and investigation ofsuch high matters, it follows that Shakspere's soul must haveexperienced a similar struggle--for he was a man of like passions withourselves; indeed, to so acute and sensitive a mind the struggle wouldbe, probably, more prolonged and more agonizing than to many; and it isthese three mental conditions--first, of unthinking acceptance ofgenerally received teaching; second, of profound and agitatingscepticism; and, thirdly, of belief founded upon reason andexperience--that may be naturally expected to be found impressed uponhis early, middle, and later works. 

122. It is impossible here to do more than indicate some of theevidence that this supposition is correct, for to attempt to investigatethe question exhaustively would involve the minute consideration of amajority of the plays. The period of Shakspere's customary orconventional belief is illustrated in "A Midsummer Night's Dream, " andto a certain extent also in the "Comedy of Errors. " In the former playwe find him loyally accepting certain phases of the hereditary Stratfordbelief in supernaturalism, throwing them into poetical form, and makingthem beautiful. It has often before been observed, and it is well worthyof observation, that of the three groups of characters in the play, thecountry folk--a class whose manner and appearance had most vividlyreflected themselves upon the camera of Shakspere's mind--are by far themost lifelike and distinct; the fairies, who had been the companions ofhis childhood and youth in countless talks in the ingle and ballads inthe lanes, come second in prominence and finish; whilst the ostensibleheroes and heroines of the piece, the aristocrats of Athens, arecolourless and uninteresting as a dumb-show--the real shadows of theplay. This is exactly the ratio of impressionability that the threeclasses would have for the mind of the youthful dramatist. The first isa creation from life, the second from traditionary belief, the thirdfrom hearsay. And when it has been said that the fairies are a creationfrom traditionary belief, a full and accurate description of them hasbeen afforded. They are an embodiment of a popular superstition, andnothing more. They do not conceal any thought of the poet who hascreated them, nor are they used for any deeper purpose with regard tothe other persons of the drama than temporary and objectless annoyance. Throughout the whole play runs a healthy, thoughtless, honest, almostriotous happiness; no note of difficulty, no shadow of coming doubtbeing perceptible. The pert and nimble spirit of mirth is fullyawakened; the worst tricks of the intermeddling spirits are mischievousmerely, and of only transitory influence, and "the summer still dothtend upon their state, " brightening this fairyland with its sunshine andflowers. Man has absolutely no power to govern these supernaturalpowers, and they have but unimportant influence over him. They canaffect his comfort, but they cannot control his fate. But all this ismerely an adapting and elaborating of ideas which had been handed downfrom father to son for many generations. Shakspere's Puck is only thePuck of a hundred ballads reproduced by the hand of a true poet; nooriginal thought upon the connection of the visible with the invisibleworld is imported into the creation. All these facts tend to show thatwhen Shakspere wrote "A Midsummer Night's Dream, " that is, at thebeginning of his career as a dramatic author, he had not broken awayfrom the trammels of the beliefs in which he had been brought up, butaccepted them unhesitatingly and joyously. 

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

124. Thus, when next we find Shakspere dealing with questions relatingto supernaturalism, the tone is quite different from that taken in hisearlier work. He has reached the second period of his thought upon thesubject, and this has cast its attendant gloom upon his writings. Thathe was actually battling with questions current in his time isdemonstrated by the way in which, in three consecutive plays, derivedfrom utterly diverse sources, the same question of ghost or devil isagitated, as has before been pointed out. But it is not merely a pointof theological dogma which stamps these plays as the product ofShakspere's period of scepticism, but a theory of the influence ofsupernatural beings upon the whole course of human life. Man is stillincapable of influencing these unseen forces, or bending them to hiswill; but they are now no longer harmless, or incapable of anything buttemporary or trivial evil. Puck might lead night wanderers intomischance, and laugh mischievously at the bodily harm that he had causedthem; but Puck has now disappeared, and in his stead is found amalignant spirit, who seeks to laugh his fiendish laughter over the soulhe has deceived into destruction. Questions arise thick and fast thatare easier put than answered. Can it be that evil influences have theupper hand in this world? that, be a man never so honest, never so pure, he may nevertheless become the sport of blind chance or ruthlesswickedness? May a Hamlet, patiently struggling after truth and duty, beput upon and abused by the darker powers? May Macbeth, who would fain doright, were not evil so ever present with him, be juggled with and ledto destruction by fiends? May an undistinguishing fate sweep away atonce the good with the evil--Hamlet with Laertes; Desdemona with Iago;Cordelia with Edmund? And above the turmoil of this reign of terror, isthere no word uttered of a Supreme Good guiding and controlling theunloosed ill--no word of encouragement, none of hope? If this be soindeed, that man is but the puppet of malignant spirits, away with thislife. It is not worth the living; for what power has man against thefiends? 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 inthat undiscovered country, --that life to come? The dreams that may comegive him pause, and he either shuffles on, doubting, hesitating, andincapable of decision, or he hurls himself wildly against his fate. Ineither 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 scepticismupon questions relating to the immaterial world is only recoil that addsforce to a succeeding wave of cynicism with regard to the physical worldaround. "Hamlet, " "Macbeth, " and "Othello" give place to "Lear, ""Troilus and Cressida, " "Antony and Cleopatra, " and "Timon. " So true isit that "unfaith in aught is want of faith in all, " that in these laterplays it would seem that honour, honesty, and justice were virtues notpossessed by man or woman; or, if possessed, were only a curse to bringdown disgrace and destruction upon the possessor. Contrast the women ofthese plays with those of the comedies immediately preceding the Hamletperiod. In the latter plays we find the heroines, by their sweet womanlyguidance and gentle but firm control, triumphantly bringing good out ofevil in spite of adverse circumstance. Beatrice, Rosalind, Viola, Helena, and Isabella are all, not without a tinge of knight-errantrythat does not do the least violence to the conception of tender, delicate womanhood, the good geniuses of the little worlds in whichtheir influence is made to be felt. Events must inevitably have gonetragically but for their intervention. But with the advent of the secondperiod all this changes. At first the women, like Brutus' Portia, Ophelia, Desdemona, however noble or sweet in character and wellmeaning in motive, are incapable of grasping the guiding threads of theevents around them and controlling them for good. They have to give wayto characters of another kind, who bear the form without the nature ofwomen. Commencing with Lady Macbeth, the conception falls lower andlower, through Goneril and Regan, Cressida, Cleopatra, until in theclimax of this utter despair, "Timon, " there is no character that itwould not be a profanity to call by the name of woman. 

126. And just as womanly purity and innocence quail before unwomanlyself-assertion and voluptuousness, so manly loyalty and unselfishnessgive way before unmanly treachery and self-seeking. It is true that thebad men do not finally triumph, but they triumph over the good with whomthey happen to come in contact. In "King Lear, " what man shows anyvirtue who does not receive punishment for the same? Not Gloucester, whose loyal devotion to his king obtains for him a punishment that isonly merciful in that it prevents him from further suffering the sightof his beloved master's misery; not Kent, who, faithful in hisself-denying service through all manner of obloquy, is left at last witha prayer that he may be allowed to follow Lear to the grave; and beyondthese two there is little good to be found. But "Lear" is not by anymeans the climax. The utter despair of good in man or woman rises higherin "Troilus and Cressida, " and reaches its culminating point in "Timon, "a fragment only of which is Shakspere's. The pen fell from the tiredhand; the worn and distracted brain refused to fulfil the task ofdepicting 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 handof an inferior writer has screened from our knowledge the fulldisclosure of the utter and contemptuous cynicism and want of faith withwhich, for the time being, Shakspere was infected. 

127. Before passing on to consider the plays of the third period asevidence of Shakspere's final thought, it will be well to pause andre-read with attention a summing-up of Shakspere's teaching as it hasbeen presented to us by one of the greatest and most earnest teachers ofmorality of the present day. Every word that Mr. Ruskin writes is soevidently from the depth of his own good heart, and every doctrine thathe enunciates so pure in theory and so true in practice, that adifference with him upon the final teaching of Shakspere's work cannotbe too cautiously expressed. But the estimate of this which he has givenin the third Lecture of "Sesame and Lilies"[1] is so painful, ifregarded as Shakspere's latest and most mature opinion, that everybody, even Mr. Ruskin himself, would be glad to modify its gloom with a fewrays 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 overthe graves of men? Are his words more cheerful than the heathen's(Homer)? is his hope more near, his trust more sure, his reading offate more happy? Ah no! He differs from the heathen poet chiefly inthis, that he recognizes for deliverance no gods nigh at hand, and that, by petty chance, by momentary folly, by broken message, by fool'styranny, or traitor's snare, the strongest and most righteous arebrought to their ruin, and perish without word of hope. He, indeed, aspart of his rendering of character, ascribes the power and modesty ofhabitual devotion to the gentle and the just. The death-bed of Katharineis bright with visions of angels; and the great soldier-king, standingby his few dead, acknowledges the presence of the hand that can savealike by many or by few. But observe that from those who with deepestspirit meditate, and with deepest passion mourn, there are no such wordsas these; nor in their hearts are any such consolations. Instead of theperpetual sense of the helpful presence of the Deity, which, through allheathen tradition, is the source of heroic strength, in battle, inexile, and in the valley of the shadow of death, we find only in thegreat Christian poet the consciousness of a moral law, through which'the gods are just, and of our pleasant vices make instruments toscourge us;' and of the resolved arbitration of the destinies, thatconclude into precision of doom what we feebly and blindly began; andforce us, when our indiscretion serves us, and our deepest plots dopall, 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 "MuneraPulveris, " § 124, et seqq. , but from another point of view. ]

128. Now, it is perfectly clear that this criticism was written with twoor three plays, all belonging to one period, very conspicuously beforethe mind. Of the illustrative exceptions that are made to the generalrule, one is derived from a play which Shakspere wrote at a very earlydate, and the other from a scene which he almost certainly never wroteat all; the whole of the rest of the passage quoted is founded upon"Hamlet, " "Macbeth, " "Othello, " and "Lear"--that is, upon the earlierproductions of what we must call Shakspere's sceptical period. But theseplays represent an essentially transient state of thought. Shakspere wasto learn and to teach that those who most deeply meditate and mostpassionately mourn are not the men of noblest or most influentialcharacter--that such may command our sympathy, but hardly our respect oradmiration. Still less did Shakspere finally assert, although for a timehe believed, that a blind destiny concludes into precision what wefeebly and blindly begin. Far otherwise and nobler was his conception ofman and his mission, and the unseen powers and their influences, in thethird and final stage of his thought. 

129. Had Shakspere lived longer, he would doubtless have left us aseries of plays filled with the bright and reassuring tenderness andconfidence of this third period, as long and as brilliant in executionas those of the second period. But as it is we are in possession ofquite enough material to enable us to form accurate conclusions upon thestate of his final thought. It is upon "The Tempest" that we must inthe main rely for an exposition of this; for though the other plays andfragments fully exhibit the restoration of his faith in man and woman, which was a necessary concurrence with his return from scepticism, yetit is in "The Tempest" that he brings himself as nearly face to face asdramatic possibilities would allow him with circumstances that admit ofthe indirect expression of such thought. It is fortunate, too, for thepurpose of comparing Shakspere's earliest and latest opinions, that thecharacters of "The Tempest" are divisible into the same groups as thoseof "The Dream. " The gross _canaille_ are represented, but now no longerthe most accurate in colour and most absorbing in interest of thecharacters of the play, or unessential to the evolution of the plot. They have a distinct importance in the movement of the piece, andrepresent the unintelligent, material resistance to the work ofregeneration that Prospero seeks to carry out, and which must becontrolled by him, just as Sebastian and Antonio form the intelligent, designing resistance. The spirit world is there too, but they, like theformer class, have no independent plot of their own, and no independentoperation against mankind; they only represent the invisible forces overwhich Prospero must assert control if he would insure success for hisschemes. Ariel is, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary of allShakspere's creations. He is, indeed, formed upon a basis half fairy, half devil, because it was only through the current notions upondemonology that Shakspere could speak his ideas. But he certainly is nota fairy in the sense that Puck is a fairy; and he is very far indeedfrom bearing even a slight resemblance to the familiars whom themagicians of the time professed to call from the vasty deep. He isindeed but air, as Prospero says--the embodiment of an idea, therepresentative of those invisible forces which operate as factors in theshaping of events which, ignored, may prove resistant or fatal, but, properly controlled and guided, work for good. [1] Lastly, there are theheroes and heroine of the play, now no longer shadows, but the centresof interest and admiration, and assuming their due position andprominence. 

[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); heis throughout the play the more-than-half-unwilling agent of Prospero. ]

130. It is probable, therefore, that it is not merely a student's fancythat in Prospero's storm-girt, spirit-haunted island can be seenShakspere'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. Ruskinfinds Shakspere to have returned. Man is no longer "a pipe for fortune'sfingers to sound what stop she please. " The evil elements still exist inthe world, and are numerous and formidable; but man, by nobleness oflife and word, by patience and self-mastery, can master them, bring theminto subjection, and make them tend to eventual good. Caliban, thegross, sensual, earthly element--though somewhat raised--would run riot, and is therefore compelled to menial service. The brute force ofStephano and Trinculo is vanquished by mental superiority. Even thesupermundane spirits, now no longer thirsting for the destruction ofbody and soul, are bound down to the work of carrying out the decrees oftruth and justice. Man is no longer the plaything, but the master of hisfate; and he, seeing now the possible triumph of good over evil, and hisduty to do his best in aid of this triumph, has no more fear of thedreams--the something after death. Our little life is still rounded by asleep, but the thought which terrifies Hamlet has no power to affrightProspero. The hereafter is still a mystery, it is true; he has tried tosee into it, and has found it impenetrable. But revelation has come likean 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 rightwrong, succour the weak, abase the proud, do something to make the worldbetter than he found it; and in the performance of this he finds aholier calm than the vain strivings after the unknowable could everafford. Let him work while it is day, for "the night cometh, when no mancan work. "

131. It is not a piece of pure sentimentality that sees in Prospero atype of Shakspere in his final stage of thought. It is a type altogetheras it should be; and it is pleasing to think of him, in the fullmaturity of his manhood, wrapping his seer's cloak about him, and, whilewaiting calmly the unfolding of the mystery which he has sought in vainto solve, watching with noble benevolence the gradual working out oftruth, order, and justice. It is pleasing to think of him as speakingto the world the great Christian doctrine so universally overlooked byChristians, that the only remedy for sin demanded by eternal justice "isnothing but heart's sorrow, and a clear life ensuing"--a speech which, though uttered by Ariel, is spoken by Prospero, who himself beautifullyiterates 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 andMiranda--for the love of man and woman is pure and holy in thisregenerate world: no more of Troilus and Cressida--upon his patientwaiting for the evolution of his schemes; upon his faith in theirultimate success; and, above all, upon the majestic and unaffectedreverence that appears indirectly in every line--"reverence, " to adaptthe words of the great teacher whose opinion about Shakspere has beenperhaps 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 theliving, great among the dead, and marvellous in the Powers that cannotdie. "

[Footnote 1: V. L. 27. ]