Course Summary

At the beginning of the semester I was nervous about having to write a blog. I have never written one, or even read one really, and I was afraid I was not going to be able to do it correctly. Now that it is the end of the semester I am really glad that we had to do this. Every time I write a blog I find something new in the text I am writing about. If we hadn’t of had to do this blog I don’t think I would have been able to make the connections that I have made.

As I was looking back over my first entries, I can see how little I wrote. I was not too sure about the whole idea of blogging and I think that was what kept me from voicing my opinions more. I chose the topic of witches and witchcraft as my terms project because I have always found the subject to be interesting. When I first began researching I figured that witches in early modern England would be almost the same as the ones from the Salem Witch Trials in America. Little did I know how wrong I was.

Witches in early modern England are not like witches elsewhere; they are the scapegoats for everyday household problems. If your child gets sick or the cow is dry or the butter won’t churn, these are all problems caused by some witch who has put a curse on your home. You probably know the witch; she is in fact most likely the same woman you turned away when she asked for bread last week. Yes, now you remember how she was muttering under her breath as she walked away; she must be the one. And if this woman, who is probably widowed and living in poverty, is a known “trouble maker” in your town, well then she is most likely going to be arrested and charged with witchcraft.

This is how most cases in England were; they were not the crazy broom riding, devil seducing, cauldron brewing witches of continental Europe. They were old women who went against social norms by not being under the control of a man. Many people in this time feared social upheaval and one way they thought it could be prevented was to make sure that the family hierarchy stayed the same. These women were a threat to that hierarchy and therefore must be stopped.

Through this term project, and the reading that we have done, I have learned a lot about the past that I did not know before. Many of my assumptions have been shattered and now I can see how things connect through time. If you had asked me before this semester if J.K. Rowling was influenced by early modern English authors, I would have said maybe a little, but certainly not a lot. I was wrong about that. I hope that I continue to learn more about what other authors throughout time have written and continue to see the connections that they have in the world today.


Bibliography:

• Burns, William E. Witch Hunts in Europe and America; An Encyclopedia. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003.
• Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft. Facts on File, 1999. 2nd ed.
• B., G. A Most Wicked Work of a Wretched Witch. 1592. EEBO. Pro Quest, LLC. 11 Dec. 2008 <http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search?ACTION=GOTO&SOURCE=var_spell.cfg&FILE=../session/1229018071_3568&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&DISPLAY=AUTHOR&ECCO=&SIZE=10>
• Sharpe, James. Instruments of Darkness: Witchcraft in Early Modern England. Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.
• Sharpe, James, and Richard Golden. English Witchcraft 1560-1736. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2003.
• Sharpe, James, and Richard Golden. English Witchcraft 1560-1736: Early English Trail Pamphlets. Vermont: Pickering & Chatto, 2003.
• Willis, Deborah. Malevolent Nurture. United State of America: Cornell University Press, 1995.
• "Witchcraft Act of 1563." Mysterious Britain & Ireland: Mysteries, Legends, and the Paranormal. 9 Dec. 2008 http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/occult/witchcraft-act-1563.html.
  

Other Sources:

• Broedel, Hans Peter. The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft. New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.
• Purkiss, Diane. The Witch in History. New York: Clays Ltd., 1996.
• "Witch Trials in Early Modern Europe." Wikipedia: The Free Encylopedia. 2 Dec. 2008. 16 Nov. 2008 .

Witchcraft Act of 1735

Although this act came after the time period we are studying, I still wanted to say something about it. I could not find an original copy of the text, only an updated one so the spell and some of the language has been lost.

The first part of the act is simply stating that this new act is repealing all the other witchcraft acts that have come before it. Starting on June 24 of 1735, this will be the only legal witchcraft act.

The third paragraph (although the paragraphs are not that long) says that "no Prosecution, Suit, or Proceeding, shall be commenced or carried on against any Person or Persons for Witchcraft, Sorcery, Inchantment, or Conjuration, or for charging another with any such Offence, in any Court whatsoever in Great Britain". This is basically the end of witch hunting in England. The witch craze did not last nearly as long in England as it did in continental Europe, but it lasted long enough to have an impact. Throughout the writings that I have read there seems to have been some skepticism of witches from the start. This was a fairly thought towards the end, as evident from this act.

The last part of the act talks about the punishment for people "pretend[ing] to exercise or use any kind of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Inchantment, or Conjuration, or undertake to tell Fortunes, or pretend, from his or her Skill or Knowledge in any occult or crafty Science, to discover where or in what manner any Goods or Chattels, supposed to have been stolen or lost". Witchcraft was no longer believed to be real, at least in the government's mind, at this point. If people "pretended" to be witches they would be punished beacuse there were no witches. I find it interesting that the punishment for pretending to be a witch is the same punishment that a witch would get, if no deaths were involved, in the Witchcraft Act of 1563. Once found guilty, the person would be sentenced to one year in jail and four times a year would have to stand on the pillory for one hour. I have to think that this was a common punishment for crimes of any kind, because otherwise why would the punishment for being a witch and pretending to be a witch be the same?

This act was shorter than all the other witchcraft acts that I have looked at, which I take to mean that by this time witches were not considered as important as they once were. I like that we can see the evolution of the belief of witches in England through legal and common pamphlets. We can compare the two sources side by side, and in the case of witches I think that they both support the same evolution of witchcraft.


Here is the link to the site that I got the act from: http://www.corvardus.f9.co.uk/religion/wicca/witch1736.htm

The Apprehension and Confession of Three Notorious Witches

This pamphlet is about three different witches; Joan Cunny, Joan Upney, and Joan Prentice. I do not think that the common names are anything other than a coincidence, but that would be cool if it did.


The first part of the pamphlet was Joan Cunney. This pamphlet starts off right away with Joan Cunney being a witch. It seems that she wanted to become a witch because she learned how from another witch, Mother Dumfeye. She was told to draw a circle on the ground, sit inside the circle,to recite the prayer taught to her, and then the spirits would come to her. Once Joan did this, two familiars in the form of frogs named Jack and Jill came to her. These spirits were with her from between 16 to 20 years and she cannot remember how many people she had them hurt. There was a few people that she couldn't hurt, Father Dinther and George Coe. The spirits said that these men's faith in God was too strong for them to hurt the men. This also happens in The Witch of Edmonton and Dr. Faustus. The spirits can only do things to people that do not have God's protection through faith, and the spirits actually seem to end up not being able to do nearly as much as they are told.

At the end of Joan Cunney's part of the pamphlet it seems that her grandson is one of the principle witnesses against her. He says he was told to go gather wood, then some other boy stole the wood, and his grandmother told him to take Jake the spirit and go get the wood. Here is one trail that shows a child testifying. Normally children were not allowed to testify, but in witch trails they could. It also shows that maybe Joan Cunney is not widowed. She can have grandchildren even if her husband died, but she seems to still have pretty strong family ties.


The next section of the pamphlet is on Joan Upney. Her section is very short compared to the other two, it is only about one page. It seems like all her spirits were toads, although it does mention what I think is a goule. This is the first time I have seen that be a spirit, but it could just be that I am not reading the text properly. One of her frogs killed the wife of Harrold by pinching her and sucking her blood until she died. That is a little morbid and I have not seen a description like that before, so it could be a normal thing or just unique to this author. The only other person it mentions her hurting is Richard's wife; the toad pinches her.

In both cases the toads pinch their victims and then never return to them. Also in this part of the pamphlet the word toad is always capitalized. I think that it might give some respect or serve to make the spirits more real, because I cannot think of another reason that they would be capitalized. The toads are never given names, just called toads. At the end of this section it says that Joan Upney's eldest daughter would have nothing to do with the toads, but her youngest daughter would touch them. This might be setting up the youngest daughter to be labeled a witch later on in her life. It is curious that in this pamphlet the witch's family is mentioned again. This time it is daughters, which is more common, but I still think of witches as living alone, but that could simply be naive thinking on my part.


The last witch examined in the pamphlet is Joan Prentice. This case starts off differently because it seems like the familiar, in the form of a ferret, came to Joan without being called. The ferret says that he is Satan and must have Joan Prentice's soul, to which she replies that her soul is Jesus Christ's because he paid for it with his blood. The ferret then says that he must have some of her blood, and she lets him suck blood from her finger. Joan Prentice must have been raised in a Christian household because she knows and believes in Jesus, yet she basically throws it all aside when she lets the ferret suck her blood.

After this first encounter the ferret only returns to her when she is getting ready for bed. The second time the ferret comes is a month later and Joan lets him drink blood from her left cheek. The ferret then tells her that he will reward her and she asks him to make William Adam wife's drink spoil. I think that the spirit always comes to her when she is going to go to bed becuase that is the time for her to say her evening prayers. By coming to her, she forgets about her prayers.

The next thing she asks the ferret to do is to nip Sara, the child of Master Glascocks. She wants the spirit to hurt the child, but not kill her. When the spirit comes back to Joan he tells her that because of the nip the child will die and Joan she was angry that he had killed Sara. The ferret then left her and never came back. Later on the family of Sara realize that the ferret must have caused Sarar to die and they trace it back to Joan Prentice; it is for this that she is charged with being a witch. She does not seem to be the typical witch because the ferret comes to her and she does not actually want anything terrible to happen to the people she sends the ferret after. It almost seems like she is like Elizabeth Sawyer in some way; she became a witch not because she wanted to, but because of her circumstances.

The last part of the pamphlet deals with the sentencing of the three witches. All are sentenced to die and are asked to repent for their sins. Only Joan Upney confesses and asks God to forgive her. Apparently she is the only one who repented and died feeling bad about using witchcraft. Although it appears that the other two women were horrible people because they did not repent, the pamphlet is written for people to read and enjoy, and also to make money for the writers, so we cannot be to sure about the accuracy of the pamphlet. I found this pamphlet to be interseting because you get to compare and contrast the three different witch's actions.

Heroes?

So for my last blog about the writings from the semester I want to focus on heroes. We have been talking about what makes a hero and if some of the character can even be considered heroes. This is one definition od a hero that I found in the OED: "A man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion with any pursuit, work, or enterprise; a man admired and venerated for his achievements and noble qualities."

Let's start with Dr. Faustus. I have never considered him to be a hero. Some people might, but I ask them what qualifies him as one? He makes a pact with the devil because he wants more power; he does not do it so that others will gain knowledge from his experience, he does it because he wants to. In the end it is a warning for others not to follow in Faustus' footsteps, but that is written by the playwright not Faustus. In the end Faustus only cares about what happens to him, which I cannot blame him for because he is about to go to hell. I do not think Faustus was a hero or can ever be considered one. He was a selfish man that others can learn what not to do by his actions.

Then there is Satan in Paradise Lost. While on some level you sympathise with him because he has been cast into hell, he is still not a hero. For the first half of book one the reader wants him to rise up and defeat the one that cast him out of heaven, then you realize that you are rooting against God. Once you realize you have been rooting for Satan, you feel angry. You did not want to root for evil against good, but Milton is an excellent writer and makes you forget that that is what you are doing. I don't think that Satan can ever be considered a hero because he is the antithesis of God.

The next work we read was The Faerie Queene, which I feel has the first real hero. Redcrosse is a young knight trying to prove himself, and although he does make some poor choices, he regrets them and learns from them. Redcrosse is more the typical hero, but I think that is okay. Every once in a while it is nice to see the old heroes again. His quest is more of a spiritual one and that is how he learns who he really is.

Hamlet - tragic hero. I think Hamlet has always been considered a tragic hero, and in some regards he is. He is tortured by his father's death and his mother's marrying his uncle so quickly after the death. Then he learns that it was his uncle that murdered his father and he cracks. I think Hamlet would have turned out to be a perfectly fine prince had these tragedies not happened. I guess he can be considered a tradgic hero, but I think that my personal definition of a hero is pretty high up there because personally I would not classify him as one. If he had found a way to expose his uncle that did not end with everyone dying then I could consider him a hero. Instead he let his grief and want for revenge destroy everyone around him. That is not a hero in my book.

The Duchess of Malfi is interesting because there are two people that I might be able to consider heroes; the Duchess and Antonio. They married each other even though they knew no one would support them and seemed to have a happy life while married. Although they were happy, the Duchess's land was apparently suffering. A real hero would have stepped up and fixed the problems of the people before making sure that their life was picture perfect, although their life was not perfect. If I were compare the Duchess and Antonio to the definition of a hero then they would fall short, although most people would fall if compared to this definition.

I do not think that most of the characters we read would be considered heroes by definition, but they were basically all human. I think that it would be better to have human flaws and learn from them than be perfect. People don't like it when someone is perfect because it magnifies their own flaws, but if they can relate to the person then the deeds of the 'hero' seem that much greater.

Swimming Test

This is a 17th century woodcut by an unknown artist of a trial of a witch by ducking in the mill-stream.

I find this woodcut interesting more because of the background than because of the witch. The witch does appear to be a woman, but all the other people in the picture appear to be men. What I find strange is that there are two dogs in the river with her. I assume that they are supposed to be her familiars, but I don't know. Then there is the man in the washtub. Why would a grown man be in a washtub in the first place? The only reason I can figure out for him being there is that he is supposed to watch and make sure the witch does not use and unnatural means of making herself sink. Since this is a woodcut of a trial, if the witch were to float then there would be some proof that she is not a witch. Although if this is the case he is not doing a very good because he is not facing her. Then there are the two men that are holding her with ropes in the river. I guess I never really thought about how the swimming test would work, but I never pictured ropes being involved. Just to let everyone know what the swimming test is, it is when an accused witch is put into water to see if she will sink or float. The water is supposed to represent baptism water, so if the witch floats the water is rejecting her and if she sinks then she is not a witch. If a witch was to sink, then it was not an automatic acquittal, it was just one suggestion that she was not a witch. When I though about a witch having to do the swimming test, I always pictured the witch just getting in a pond and trying to float on her back. I guess that was a juvenile thought because then the person could escape, but I still never though about people trying to run.

There are also three men watching the swimming test that I assume are people from the courts. I cannot figure why the three of them would be standing in a row watching the test otherwise. If they were just casual observers I would think that they would not be so close to the river and also that there would be more people watching. The only person that I can see that looks to just be there to watch is the little boy on top of the building. I imagine that he is there because he was curious and wanted to see a "real" witch. I would think that there would be more kids there watching and not just the one.

The scene in the background is what really interests me. There is a man trying to catch he horses and cart which has just lost a wheel. The man has lost his all of his bags and is running after the cart. I wonder if the artist is trying to attribute the cart wheel breaking and the witch in the river. If the two were connected then it would suggest that the witch is still doing her evil works, even though she has been arrested. And then there is the wild boar. I do not know why there would be a wild boar roaming around people unless it was supposed to be associated with the witch. The wild boar kind of looks like what I would assume a familiar of one would look like. It has an air about it that does not quite make me believe that it is an actual boar, but something more sinister.

The rest of the woodcut is just scenery, but even the scenery does not lend itself to helping the witch. The sky seems to be cloudy, which suggests that a storm is brewing. If even nature is against this woman, then I would guess that she has no chance of being found not guilty. All of these things, the cart, boar, and storm, could just be coincidences but they would still be taken as signs of the witches guilt. I cannot see this scene turning out in favor of the witch.


Picture:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.foxearth.org.uk/swimming.GIF&imgrefurl=http://www.foxearth.org.uk/SwimmingOfWitches.html&usg=__GKnBaGnWqo6v4F5x6F5xKnLOLc0=&h=506&w=600&sz=19&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=oorIuSEeprvslM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwitch%2Bswimming%2Btest%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS276US281%26sa%3DN

A Most Wicked Work of a Witch

This is a pamphlet I found on Early English Books Online (EEBO). It is about a man names Richard Burt who is cast into hell for four days by Mother Atkins, a witch.

The first part of hte pamphlet is all about why people should be good Christians and how Satan is evil and shuld not be trusted. It is a typical warning of that day; be good or evil things will happen to you.

The next part of the pamphlet is talking about how one day Richard Burt saw some dogs at night, followed them, and they ended up at Mother Atkins house. Mother Atkins was a known witch so Burt did not go any farther. A month later while he was working he gave Mother Atkins the time of day. From what I got out of that section was that Mother Atkins was not appreciative, but instead acted like what you would think a witch would act like, although it does not go into detail. The day after this Burt was working in the field and stopped to eat his lunch. While he was eating a black cat came to him and said put down your food and follow me. As soon as he put down his food he was transported to hell. At first he did not know where he was, put he soon figured it out. He heard all the people of hell crying out and felt the fire burining him and it was terrible. After a time he was sent back to his field.

When he first came back he thought he had only been gone a little while, but in fact he had been gone for four days. The day he came back was a Sunday, and another man who worked with Burt saw him as he was walking to church. He asked Burt where he had been, but Burt could not say. After a little while he wasa able to say that Mother Atkins had bewitched him. This is when the pamphlet ends its part about Richard Burt, but the last page is about Mother Atkins.

When Mother Atkins was bewitching Richard Burt, the creame in the Burbidge house started to swell and turned bad. After this she past Georgie Coulson's house where he was tending to two lambs. She asked him to accompany her and he said no because he was busy. When she had left the lambs started to "skip and frolic" and did not stop until they died. All of these things are the usual things that a witch in England would be blamed for. Normally witches were the cause of household problems, but this is the first time that I have seen one transport someone to hell.

I picked this pamphlet because it is different from others that I have read. For one Richard Burt is taken to hell, which is not normal. Second most of the things that happen are to men and usually witchcraft is against women because it is associated with the household. And the last reason I picked this pamphlet was because Richard Burt worked for a Master Edling of Woodhall and that is my last name. I thought it was interesting that my last name showed up in witch pamphlet. Another thing that was interseting about this pamplet is that they say Mother Atkins is a known witch, yet she is never arrested for being a witch. The pamphlet ends with the lambs dying and does not say anything happened to Mother Atkins. I assume that at some point she was arrested and tried as a witch, but I cannot be sure because the pamphlet does not address this issue.

Harry Potter

So in class we talked about how Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was influenced by the writings that we read this semester. In my paper I talked a lot about the parallel between Harry Potter and The Faerie Queene, but I want to talk about how it relates to Dr. Faustus.

One of the first things we talked about was how Faustus and Voldemort are alike. Both come from poor backgrounds, yet they receive the top education that they can possibly get. The problem with both of them is that they want more than they can humanly obtain, and because of this they turn to evil sources. Faustus turns to the devil and sells his soul for 24 years of Metatophilis' service. Voldemort turns to dark magic in order to fulfill his desire for knowledge. They also both want power that they didn't earn. Although they do both learn an amazing amount, the way that they use their knowledge is not for the benefit of all. Voldemort uses his power to try and control other and in later books you find out he used his power to try and make himself immortal. Faustus also tries to make himself immortal with the selling of his soul. For the 24 years he has left, Faustus says that he does not believe in hell, yet towards the end he is terrified of actually going to hell.

Faustus also can parallel to Harry. Harry spends a lot of time in front of the Mirror of Erised wishing that his parents could come back. Faustus spends his 24 years not really doing anything, but thinking he is learning and doing what he desired. Both of them waste time trying to obtain what they desire. Dumbledore says, "men have wasted before it, entranced by what they have seen, or been driven mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or even possible" (page 213). Although I believe this is true, I feel as though there should be a disclaimer stating that I got this idea from the class discussion today.

Another thing that I found interesting today in class was the names of the characters. I have since looked up what the names mean. Then names of the characters really do fit their personalities and I think that J.K. Rowling did an excellent job of naming her characters. Professor McGonagall's name is the same as the Roman goddess of wisdom because her character is a teacher and is so wise. Voldemort is a combination of the French words Vol de mort which means "theft of death", which is appropriate because throughout the entire series he is looking for a way to become immortal. And then with Draco Malfoy, it parallels to The Faerie Queene in that his first name is like 'dragon' and and Malfoy is like one of the 'foy' brothers. I think that J.K. Rowling must have done a lot of research in order to come up with such remarkably meaningful names for her characters.

I really enjoy the Harry Potter series and think that everyone should read them. They are good books and actually really seem to parallel to a lot of the early modern English works that we read in class this semester.

Witchcraft Act 1563

This act focuses on the act and punishment of witches. Under King Henry the 8th, if a person was found guilty of being a "Practisers of the wicked Offences of Conjuracons and Invocacons of evill Spirites, and of Sorceries Enchauntmentes Charmes and Witchecraftes" they were charged with a felony. This lasted until the statue was repealed by King Edward the 6th. Since

"the Repeale wherof many fantasticall and devilishe psons have devised and practised
Invocacons and Conjuracons of evill and wicked Spirites, and have used and practised
Wytchecraftes Enchantementes Charms and Sorcories, to the Destruccoon of the Psons
and Goodes of their Neighebours and other Subjectes of this Realme, and for other lewde
Intentes and Purposes contrarye to the Lawes of Almighty God, to the Perill of theyr owne
Soules, and to the great Infamye and Disquietnes of this Realme"

I find it interesting that they say once the act was repealed people started practicing witchcraft because it gives a sense that when there was a statue against witchcraft no one practiced it. I also think it is interesting that the act mentions that witchcraft was against God and was putting the witches souls in peril of going to Hell. It shows that the country was pretty religious if they were still worried about witches souls. You would think that they would have given up on people that openly associated with the devil, but instead the act seems like it is using this concern to rationalize making witchcraft illegal.


The next part of the act talks about what will happen if people use witchcraft to kill someone they will be tried as a felon.

"That yf any pson or psons after the first daye of June nexte coming, use practise or
exercise any Invocacons or Conjuracons of evill and wicked Spirites, to or for any Intent
Purpose; or els if any pson or psons after the said first daye of June shall use practise or
exercise any Witchecrafte Enchantment Charme or Sorcerie, wherby any pson shall
happen to bee killed or destroyed, ... shall suffer paynes of Deathe as a Felon or Felons, and
shall lose the Priviledg and Benefite of Sanctuarie & Clergie"

It seems like this act so far is just reinstating the old witchcraft statue. They are starting it on the coming up June 1st, although I do not think that that particular day is special for any reason. Religion also comes up in this passage because if anyone is found guilty of witchcraft they lose their rights to the church. This means that they will not have access to a priest to confess their sins to before being executed, which was very important in those days, and is something still practiced today. If their sins were not forgiven before death then the person could end up going to hell instead of heaven. They would also not be allowed to be buried in the church graveyard. This is something that also appears in Hamlet when the gravediggers are talking about Ophelia being buried in the church graveyard. If a person committed sucide, like Ophelia is suspected to have done, or any other act against God, they were not allowed to be buried in the church's graveyard because it was reserved for good Christian people. The Benefit of Clergy is something that a man can claim saying he is part of the clergy. He has to say a certain Psalm in Latin in order to prove that he is part of the clergy and can only claim Benefit of Clergy once. These terms suggest that this act was written with the thoughts that men were involved in conjours and inchantments, although men were not normally associated with witchcraft specifically.

This act also makes an acception for certain wives whose husbands have been found guilt under this act. It states:
"Saving to the Wief of such persone her Title of Dower, and also to the Heyre and Successour of suche pson his or theyr Tytles of Inheritaunce Succession and other Rightes, as thoughe nu suche Attayndour of the Auncestour or Predecessour had been hadd or made."
The Title of Dower is something that the bride is given like the groom is given a dowry. It entitles the wife to 1/3 of her husbands lands and pocessions if he dies. Normally is you were found guilty under this act all your lands and pocessions would become government property, but this section makes sure that the Title of Dower will be honored. I think it is interesting that this would happen because women did not have much power in this time, yet they probably did this because they did not any more poverty in England than they already had.

The next part of the act deals with people using witchcraft to hurt but not kill:

"That if any pson or psons,...shall use practise or exercyse any Wytchecrafte
Enchauntement Charme or Sorcerie, wherby any pon shall happen to bee wasted
consumed or lamed in his or her Bodye or Member, or wherby any Goodes or Cattles of
any pson shalbee destroyed wasted or impayred, then every suche offendour or
Offendours their Councelloures and Aydoures, being therof laufully caonvicted, shall for
his or their first Offence or Offences, suffer Imprisonment by the Space of one whole Yere,
without Bayle or Mayneprise, and once in every Quarter of the said Yere, shall in some
Market towne, upon the Market Daye or at such tyme as any Fayer shalbee kepte there,
stande openly upon the Pillorie by the Space of Syxe Houres, and there shall openly confesse
his or her Erroure and Offence"

For the first offence the person will recieve a year in prison and will have to stand on the pillory four times to be publicly shamed. I find it interesting that they make sure to state that all of this will happen after the person is lawfully convicted. The creators of the act seem to be level-headed people who want to make sure that people are not punished before receiving a fair trial.

For a second offence "being as ys aforesayd laufully convicted or attaynted shall suffer deathe as a Felon, and shall lose the Privilege of Clergie and Sanctuarye". The punishment is the same as if they had killed someone with their witchcraft. People back then did not get as many chances as they do today. I guess the Parliament figured that if the person did not learn their lesson the first time, then they did not deserve a third chance to repeat the crime.



Link to the entire Witchcraft Act of 1563: http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/occult/witchcraft-act-1563.html


* I have no idea why the quoted material is showing up funny because it is not when I type it so I am sorry.

Economy and Responsibility in The Witch of Edmonton

Economic problems seem to be to blame in The Witch of Edmonton. The play suggests that it is the poverty of Elizabeth Sawyer that makes people first accuse her of being a witch. I just finished reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and in this book there is an example that I think applies to Elizabeth. A young woman is about to be hanged because she stole a piece of cloth to sell for food. The priest at the execution makes a speech saying that yes the woman is guilty, but that she would not have stolen anything if it hadn't been for her poverty, which was a direct result of the unfair laws. I think that this can apply to Elizabeth because she is living in poverty probably because she is a widow and has no way of making a living for herself. Women were almost completely helpless in this time period if they were not married or still living in their father's household. I can feel sorry for Elizabeth because it seems like she might have been driven into being a witch because of her economic situation. And then there is Frank; he uses his financial situation as an excuse to marry two women. While I can see how Elizabeth might have a case with the economic situation, Frank is not taking responsibility for his actions. He also says that "To please a father I have heaven displeased" (Act 4, scene 2, line 102). This is his way of rationalizing why he killed Susan, but he is just using his father as a scapegoat. Frank did married Susan because he wanted a better relationship with his father, yet his underlying reason was so that he would not be cut-off financially. Frank is a character that gets forgiven even though no one forced him to do anything, while Elizabeth is labeled a witch mostly because of her economic situation.

I know that I titled this entry 'Economy and Responsibility", but I am going to talk about other things now. I find it interesting that there are so many parallels to Dr. Faustus in this play. The dog come to Elizabeth right after she has cursed Old Banks and Metastophilis comes to Faustus while he is also cursing. The belief back then was that the devil had greater access to you because of what you said. This was used as a warning to keep people from speaking badly and because they really did believe the devil could come to them. Another parallel is on the stage directions on page 163; "sucks her arm, thunder and lighting". The dog has just sucked blood from her arm and then there is thunder and lighting, which I think symbolizes that nature is against the union. Nature does not want her to fall into such evil and is trying to warn her against going ahead with the partnership. The same thing happens to Dr. Faustus when he is trying to seal the deal with Metastophilis in his blood. His blood clots, which is a warning from nature that he is making an evil deal and should not go on. Both he and Elizabeth do not listen to nature and end up being damned to hell becuase of it. There is one more similiarity that I find interesting; the dog and Metastophilis both say they are the servants to Faustus and Elizabeth, but they do not do most of the things asked of them. The biggest reason that they cannot do all that is asked of them seems to be that it is out of their power, that the request goes over into what God controls. Even though there evil servants say they have a lot of power, they actually only have limited power. Elizabeth and Faustus cannot see this and so they think that now they have unlimited power, although they have less power than their servants.

One last thing about Elizabeth - the real reason I think she was hanged. On page 187 she gets into an argument with the Justice, who had just been defending her. The Justice said that the men needed to get better proof id they were going to accuse Elizabeth of being a witch, and then she goes and is disrespectful. She calls out all the hiprocracy in the society and acts like she did not need the Justice's help. This highly offended the Justice who then puts her in jail. I think that if she had been more respectful and thanked him for his help things might have turned out differently. It is obvious that the Justice was skepetical of witches because he wanted better proof, but Elizabeth's reaction was what got her hanged.

I really enjoyed this play. There were many different sub-plots and I think that by having more than one story it made the play more interesting. The reader can compare the different stories and see how they relate to each other in the entire context of the play.

Familiar Woodcut

This is a woodcut from around 1647 depicting the familiars of Elizabeth Clark. There are five familiars; a cat, two dogs, a polecat, and a rabbit. Familiars are the “historically, low-ranking demons in constant attention to witches for the purpose of carrying out spells and bewitchment's” (Guiley). They are the ones who usually do the physical harm to the person being cursed. The witch would feed them blood, usually from a third 'teat'. This symbolizes the physical bond that the witch has with her familiars.

At the top of this woodcut is Matthew Hopkins, the most famous English witch-hunter. I find it interesting that he is in the woodcut with the familiars because it shows that the familiars must have come to Elizabeth even after she was accused of being a witch. I would think that the familiars would stay away from her while Hopkins was there, because they would be strong proof that she was a witch. If she was found guilty of witchcraft the familiars would have to find another person, usually a woman, to be their sponsoring witch.

In this woodcut Elizabeth also names all of her familiars. The little dog's name is Jamara, the large dog is Vinegar Tom, the cat is Holt, the polecat is Newes, and the rabbit is Sack and Sugar. I find these to be interesting names because they don't all seem to have anything to do directly with witchcraft. I do not know what Jamara means, but I reminds me of Jamaica and the superstitions that the country holds. I know that Jamacia wasn't an influence on early modern England, but I still find it interesting that the two seem to be connected through witchcraft. The other dog's name, Vinegar Tom, seems like it might be a description of the kind of things he does. He, like vinegar, is not sweet but sour. Vinegar Tom would not be appearing to you in order to do something that would benefit you, but something that would sour your life. For the cat, the only thing I can some up with is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word; "a place of refuge or abode; a lurking-place; an animal's lair or den". The cat's name might signify the fact that he is hidden to everyone besides the witch and/or is something that will come lurking around your home and cause harm to you and your family. The polecat, Newes, I find strange all round. I have found that a polecat is related to a weasel and that makes the use of polecats a little clearer in connection to witches. Weasels are considered to be sneaky creatures, and since the polecat is related, they also share that stigma. As for his name, Newes might be for the fact that he brings ill news to the people his master has cursed. There is probably a better explanation, but I cannot think of one. The last familiar in this woodcut is the rabbit; Sack and Sugar. I find it interesting that the name is not 'sack of sugar', although it might just have this curiosity because the English language was different than what it is today. This familiar seems to have a positive connotation as opposed to the negative names of the others. I think this name might be positive because it is positive for the witch. The rabbit helps her do her evil acts and this brings sweetness to the witches life just as sugar sweetens food. Rabbits have been associated with witches for a long time, although today they are basically associated with good magician pulling them out of a hat. I wonder how rabbits became part of the witches association because they do not seem to have anything inherently evil about them. I also find it interesting that the familiars are all named in the woodcut. For some reason I figured that the familiars would not be named because then everyone would know about the familiars and they would somehow not just be the witches 'pets' anymore.

I am also interested in knowing why there are two women in the woodcut and why there names are Ilemauzar and Pyewackett. From what I have found the familiars belong to Elizabeth Clarke and so I don't understand who these women are. Do they have something to do with Elizabeth, or do the familiars belong to them and not to Elizabeth.

This woodcut inspires many questions about witchcraft in early modern England. Some of the aspects of the woodcut seem to inforce what I have learned about witches, but some of the things leave me with more questions than answers.


Picture:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/images/exhibitions/damned/dadisc.gif&imgrefurl=http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/damnedart/index.html&usg=__hHYLXA2pdEwsn1eGk0rWDDnQTtI=&h=1077&w=800&sz=376&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=gGPedMf97AJ06M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhopkins%2Bwitch%2Bwoodcut%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS276US281

The Witch of Edmonton

The play that we are reading now is The Witch of Edmonton. At first I was confused because the witch did not show up until the second act, but I think that they play may have more to do with the atmosphere of the time and how people viewed witches as everyday occurances more than being a play about a witch. Another thing that suprised me was that it reads like a modern play. Some of the other plays we have read are obviously from the Rennassiance, but this play seems like it could have been written not too long ago. In act 3, scene 3 lines 103-104 Old Carter says:

"When I speak I look to be spoken to.
Forgetful slut"

This line seems out of place because Old Carter and Old Thorney have just found Susan dead and Frank tied to a tree. Old Carter was Susan's father, yet he calls her a slut. Maybe it had a different definition back then, but this seems out of character for a grieving father.

The Witch of Edmonton also reminds me of some of the other things we have read in class. In Act 3 when Frank says he will kill Susan, she just accepts it. She seems to be the tragic woman that cannot do anything for herself and will do whatever males tell her. In a way she reminds me of Una from The Faerie Queen. She does not take control of the situation and does not fight anything. She and Una simply let things happen to them and then say "oh well, I cannot do anything about it". I don't really care for Susan's character because she doesn't care about herself. She lets Frank kill her and doesn't do anything to stop him. If she tried to save herself then I would have more respect for her character.

I do feel sorry for Winifride's character. She was more than likely taken advantage of by her master and then her husband marries someone else. In class we talked about her being a victim of her circumstances and I agree with that. She was put in a bad position by her master, who I feel is a creepy older man from what I read in the play. She really couldn't say no because he was her master, but when she actually finds someone she likes he has to keep her a secret. Winnifride loves Frank, but Frank is motivated by money and has to hide their relationship so his father does not cut him off financially. She loves someone who values money more than her, and for that I also feel sorry for her. She does not have many choices because she is a woman in this time period and she does not have any money. I feel that she is a victim of her circumstances and I am interested in knowing what else happens to her charcter.