FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208  
209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   >>   >|  
Ady does not answer. A hundred years of witchcraft history had not brought to light a man who was willing to deny in a printed work the existence of witches. Doubtless such denial might often have been heard in the closet, but it was never proclaimed on the housetop. Scot had not been so bold--though one imagines that if he had been quietly questioned in a corner he might have denied the thing _in toto_--and those who had followed in his steps never ventured beyond him. The controversy, indeed, was waged in most of its aspects along the lines laid down by the first aggressor. Gifford, Cotta, and Ady had brought in a few new arguments to be used in attacking superstition, but in general the assailants looked to Scot. On the other side, only Perkins and More had contributed anything worth while to the defence that had been built up. Yet, the reader will notice that there had been progress. The centre of struggle had shifted to a point within the outer walls. The water ordeal and the evidence of marks were given up by most, if not all. The struggle now was over the transportation of witches through the air and the battle was going badly for the defenders. We turn now to the incidental indications of the shifting of opinion. In one sense this sort of evidence means more than the formal literature. Yet its fragmentary character at best precludes putting any great stress upon it. If one were to include all the references to witchcraft in the drama of the period, this discussion might widen out into a long chapter. Over the passages in the playwrights we must pass with haste; but certain points must be noted. Shakespeare, in _Macbeth_, which scholars have usually placed at about 1606, used a great body of witch lore. He used it, too, with apparent good faith, though to conclude therefrom that he believed in it himself would be a most dangerous step.[51] Thomas Middleton, whose _Witch_ probably was written somewhat later, and who is thought to have drawn on Shakespeare for some of his witch material, gives absolutely no indication in that play that he did not credit those tales of witch performances of which he availed himself. The same may be said of Dekker and of those who collaborated with him in writing _The Witch of Edmonton_.[52] We may go further and say that in none of these three plays is there any hint that there were disbelievers. But when we come to Ben Jonson we have a different story. His various plays
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208  
209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

struggle

 

Shakespeare

 
evidence
 

witchcraft

 
brought
 

witches

 

points

 

disbelievers

 

precludes

 

putting


scholars

 
Macbeth
 

Jonson

 

period

 
discussion
 
references
 
include
 

stress

 

passages

 
playwrights

chapter
 

writing

 

material

 

absolutely

 
Edmonton
 
thought
 

collaborated

 

performances

 

availed

 

credit


indication
 

Dekker

 

written

 

conclude

 

therefrom

 

believed

 

apparent

 

Thomas

 

Middleton

 
dangerous

transportation

 
ventured
 
controversy
 

corner

 

denied

 
aspects
 

arguments

 
attacking
 

Gifford

 
aggressor