————
P. 99. Bodin’s “asseheaded man”. N. Drake, in his _Shakespeare and his
Times_, vol. ii, p. 351, suggested that Bottom’s “translation” was
derived from p. 315 in Scot, where a receipt for such transformations
is given. This may in part have been in Shakespeare’s memory, as may
the commonly received belief that magicians could do such things.
He may, too, have remembered another tale, told at p. 533, of Pope
Benedict IX having been condemned after death to walk the earth (I
presume at night, after his purgatorial day) in a bear’s skin, with
an ass’s head _in such sort as he lived_. But I incline to think that
these after-statements only caused him to remember the more this first,
full, and remarkable M. Mal-Bodin-Cyprus tale; and more especially this
passage, for in iv, i, 30, Bottom declares—“Methinks I have a great
desire to a bottle of hay: good hay, sweet hay hath no fellow.” So
acute and ready an observer may have the more remembered the epithet
“asseheaded” because, as most readers must observe, Scot uses this
word, though the sailor in the tale is an ass from his snout and ears
down to the end of his tail and the tips of his hoofs.
P. 542. His “white spirits”. Because in the 1623 folio _Macbeth_ we
have in iv, 1, _Musicke and a Song. Blacke Spirits, &c._, and because
in Middleton’s _Witch_ the words are given at length, it has been
held that Middleton was either Shakespeare’s coadjutor, or his after
interpolator, that these lines were his, and were first used in his
_Witch_. But, according to most of Malone’s arguments—for one certainly
is not sound—the _Witch_ was some years later than _Macbeth_, as is
also likely from Middleton’s age. And that it was later is in especial
shown by a hitherto unnoticed passage in ii, 1:
“Some knights’ wives in town
Will have great hope upon his reformation,” etc.
For it is clear that this must have been written when the price and
quality of knighthood had much come down, and its commonness increased
beyond what it was in 1605. Secondly, it is an assumption, and a most
unlikely one, that the _Macbeth_ MS. intimation of the song was due to
the players’ knowledge of it through the _Witch_. It presupposes that
the supernumeraries who played the witches’ parts were the same in
both plays. Also that the writers of the MS. knew that these would be
the same, and would certainly remember the words: for a playhouse copy
is either for the use of the prompter, or a text whence the players’
parts can be extracted. Moreover, the _Witch_ had been, as the author
himself tells us, “an ignorantly ill-fated labour”, in other words, a
failure.
But in reference to the supposed right of Middleton to these lines, we
now find, in 1584, when Middleton was a boy, that the first of the two
lines—or, if one chooses, the first two of the four, the words being in
each half phrase inverted, possibly to vary the too great sing-song of
the sentence—was copied by Scot as part of a known series of rhyming
lines. Shakespeare, who wrote later, has the “Black spirits”, etc.;
Middleton, in his _Witch_, where we find passages taken verbatim and
almost verbatim from Scot, has these and the other rhymes given by Scot
very slightly altered in i, 2, and the “Black spirits”, etc., with
“Mingle, mingle”, and some of the other rhymes in v, 2. Hence they are
neither Shakespeare’s nor Middleton’s. Whose then are they? Scot gives
them as from W. W.’s booklet on the Witches at St. Osees, Essex. But
certainly the lines, nor any of them, are not in that booklet. These
things, however, are there. Ursula Kempe’s little boy deposes, and she
herself, on promise from the Justice, Brian Darcie, Esq., of favour
being shown her—which promise, by the way, both in her case and that of
others, was carried out by their being hanged—that she had two he- and
two she-spirits, the shes being Tyffen, in the shape of a white lamb,
and Pigine, black like a toad; the hes, Tittie, like a little grey cat,
and Jacke, black like a cat. Nor are these merely thus mentioned by
each, but the old woman specifies their doings through three or four
of the earlier pages (A 3, v—A 8). Mother Bennet’s spirits were two,
Suckin, like a black dog, and Lyerd, redde like a Lyon (B 3, etc., B
7). Besides these, but less prominently brought forward, were these.
Mother Hunt had two little things like horses, one white and one black,
kept in a pot amongst black and white wool (A 5, v and 6). Ales Hunt
had also two spirits, one white and one black, like little colts, and
named Jacke and Robbin (C 3). Marg. Sammon had a Tom and a Robyn, but
these were like toads. H. Sellys, aged nine, deposes that his mother
had two imps, one Herculus sothe hons [_sic_] or Jacke, black, and a
he, who, in the night, and in the likeness of his sister, pulled his
younger brother’s leg and otherwise hurt him so that he cried out; the
second, Mercurie, a she and white (D v). Ales Baxter says that the
cow while being milked was viciously unruly, and that something like
a white cat struck at her heart, so that she became so weak that she
could not stand, and being found leaning against a style, was carried
home in a chair (D 4, v). Ales Mansfield had given her by Margaret
Grevell (elsewhere Gravell)—for these imps seem to have been given away
without will of their own, like brute beasts, and being hungry were
fed on milk, beer, bread, oats, hay, straw, and especially a sup of
blood sucked from the body—two he- and two she-spirits, named Robin,
Jack, William, and Puppet, alias Mamet, like black cats (D 6). Mother
Eustace also had three imps, like white, gray, and black cats. Annis
Dowsing, aged seven, base daughter of Annis Herd, tells B. Darcie that
her mother had six Avices or Blackbirds, black speckled with white or
all black. Also six imps like cows, but “as big as rattes”, one of
which, black and white, and named Crowe, had been given to her, while
Donne [? Dun], another, was red and white (G. 4. v). I have, perhaps,
overlengthened this tale through wishing to show that these imps,
besides being hungry, generally took a white or black, and sometimes a
red or grey, colour, and because these notings from this unique book
and authentic record might be otherwise acceptable. So much do the
names and the notice of the colours of the imps strike a reader, that
Bishop Hutchinson, in his Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft, 1718,
says, p. 29, “An account of them was written by Brian Darcie, with the
Names and Colours of their spirits.” But here an end after the remarks.
First, that the chief witnesses, and leaders up to these confessions,
were their own children of from 6¾ to 9 years of age. Secondly, that
these confessions were, as plainly as possible, first made by some and
then followed by others through promises of favour, promises lyingly
carried out to condemnation and death. Thirdly, that, as shown by such
instances as “[she] desired to speake alone with me, the said Bryan
Darcey, whereupon I went into my garden”, etc., and by the frequent
use of “before mee”—the initials W. W. were either fictitious, or not
improbably those of his clerk, and that the real author was Brian
Darcie, Esq., Justice of the Peace, who desired to gain favour from
his kinsman, Lord Darcie, to whom the book was dedicated, or possibly,
through him and it, the notice of her Majesty, as a clever, zealous,
and trustworthy seeker-out of these old-new things.
It need hardly be added that ballading was then a profession, and that
its professors seized upon anything of interest,—an atrocious murder,
the last words of the murderer (spoken or not), unusual floods or
storms, the effects of lightning, the cruise of an adventurous vessel,
shipwrecks, the story of a strange fish “in forme of a woman from the
wast upward”, that appeared “forty thousand fathom above water [or
otherwise], and sang as followeth”. How then should the condemnation of
some sixteen old women for horrible crimes escape being “balletted”?
It was new, rare, came home to all, and was in more senses than one
deadly. The very rhymes in Scot prove it, for they could not be Scot’s
own words, and they have the very rhythm, or rather lilt, of a ballad.
On looking calmly, therefore, at the evidence, I am convinced that
neither Shakespeare nor Middleton could have been the one who tacked
together these rhymes between 1582 and 1584, but that Shakespeare did
here, as he sometimes did, and notably in Ophelia’s madness, quote such
lines as “Black spirits and white”, etc., because the words suited his
scene of devilish enchantment, and gave it reality; while Middleton, in
a Magical Tragi-Comedy, gave, with very slight variation, the whole of
the words quoted by Scot.
I trust my reader will not merely excuse it when it regards Shakespeare
and _Macbeth_, if I go a little out of my present road and add the
few words following. As it has been held that Middleton wrote “Black
spirits”, etc., so it has been supposed that the lines on the “Touching
for the Evil” were interpolated by Middleton or some other, because
negative evidence seemed to show that James did not take upon himself
this custom till a date much later than 1605. Lately, however, Prof.
S. R. Gardiner has discovered that James “touched” and was almost
compelled to “touch” as early as 1603. Its efficacy had been believed
in, and was set forth in books; so that the very assumption of this
prerogative proved its efficacy, and thus proved his rightful heirship
to the English crown,—a proof, I suspect, not lost sight of by the
astute counsellors who counselled its adoption, nor by James himself.
And I think that he must be blind who cannot see how this, added to the
other evidence set forth in the play, and to the true, though somewhat,
and of purpose, indirectly exposed intent of _Macbeth_, proved both
James’s heirship and set forth the certain overthrow of all such
devilishly contrived plots,—such as, to name but three, the attempt at
the Carse of Gowrie; the plot in which Raleigh was, or was supposed
to be, concerned; and lastly, the gunpowder plot—as would alter the
predestinate decree of Heaven, that James I and VI should be King of
Great Britain. Unless, too, I am much mistaken, the fears of James were
the direct or indirect instigators of Shakespeare’s play, and the cause
of that autograph letter to the poet, for which no shadow of a reason
can otherwise be assigned.
For convenience’ sake I here include some notings illustrative of
either Shakespeare’s indebtedness to Scot, or of those beliefs and
forms of expression which led both to write as they did.
P. 10. “They can pull down the moon.” This belief, derived from classic
times, is authority for Prospero’s “A witch ... so strong That could
control the moon” (v, i). So also ii, 1, 174.
——— “Corne in the blade.” There is frequent reference to this in Scot,
as here and at pp. _A_ iiii, _v_, 49, 58, 63, 219, 221, 482, and
elsewhere. But as Staunton saw, this is the nearest to _Macbeth’s_
“though bladed corn be lodged” (iv, 1). Also, though this happens more
or less in several of the instances, yet especially here, the context
agrees with the thoughts and context-words of _Macbeth_.
P. 33. “Anthropophagi and Canibals.” Associated synonymes probably
suggested to both by the same heading in p. 1100 of Seb. Münster’s
_Cosmography_ (Basil, 1550).
P. 42. “Never faile to danse.” An authority for the dancing of
_Macbeth’s_ witches, and a probable authority for the dancing of the
latter with broomsticks headed with brooms in their hands.
P. 54. The “Monarcho” of _L. L. Lost_ appears from this to have been a
madman.
P. 64. “Rime either man or beast to death.” An extension of the
Shakespearean and general belief that they rhymed (Irish) rats to
death. _As You Like It_, iii, 2.
P. 77. “No power to occupy.” Proof that this last word was used in the
sense of to use or be busied with, from which general use it came to be
employed as common slang for a disreputable and vile using.
P. 170. “Chattering of pies and haggisters.” A haggister is the Kentish
term for a pie, or magpie. The passage explains why Duncan (i, 5) is
not welcomed by these, but by the ill-omened raven that is hoarse with
croaking his approach. W. Perkins on _Witchcraft_, works, ed. 1613,
says: “When a raven stands on a high place and looks a particular way
and cries, a corse comes thence soon.”
P. 187. “A thousand for one that fell out contrary.” We would more
correctly write—“A thousand that fell out contrary for one that fell
out rightly or correctly.” But this and others are examples of what we
would call a more than loose way of expressing oneself, though then
it was allowable, for Scot was an educated and intelligent man, who
wrote well. “Each putter out of five for one”, _Tempest_, iii, 2, is
an almost exactly similar instance. The putting out of five for one is
considered as one action, and is—_pace_ Dyce—the receiving, as Malone
says, at the rate of five for one, the putter out being he who puts out
in the hope of receiving five for one.
P. 212. “The blind man ... in killing the crow.” Green’s _Defence of
Cony-Catching_, p. 70, ed. Grosart, gives this proverbial saying—“as
blinde men shoote the crowe”. _Hamlet_, 4to., 1603, has the variant—“as
the blinde man catcheth the hare”.
“A green silk curtain.” These words, also in Middleton’s _Witch_, i,
2, illustrate the custom which led Sir Toby (_Tw. N._, i, 4) to say,
“Wherefore have these gifts a curtain before ’em? Are they like to
take dust like Mistress Moll’s picture?” And these last words, by the
way, prove that this same Moll had, for her own purposes, the portrait
exposed in some painter’s shop, or painters’ shops, or rather free
fronts, without a curtain.
P. 269. “If a soule wander ... by night.” Proof that the wandering of
Hamlet’s father’s ghost was strictly in accordance with traditional
folk-lore. So, p. 462, we have, “How common an opinion ... reveale
their estate”; and p. 535, “They affirme ... soules of saints”.
P. 347. “Bodkin.” The text and margin show that this was used for a
small dagger, and the woodcut on the next page that it was sometimes at
least a rod-like and pointed weapon. Being thus shaped it was small,
more easily carried at the waist, and less readily broken either by a
bone or by an adversary’s stroke.
P. 382. “_Beliall._” This goes to show that he was “the other devil”
whose name had escaped Macbeth’s porter. Its being less common in men’s
and preachers’ mouths would account for his non-remembrance.
P. 416. “_Lignum aloes._” Against any argument drawn from the italic
use of _Hews_ in Son. 20, and its not being italicised in its first
use in the same line, nor anywhere else in Shakespeare, the fact that
_Alloes_ appears in _The Lover’s Complaint_, as well as do other words
in the Sonnets, has been brought forward. But without entering in
detail into the question, I would note that three substantives, all
names of vegetables, are here mentioned, and that this alone is placed
in italics. So, in the Appendix II, 1665, pp. 67-8, we have a number of
aromatics named, but this only, and only on its second occurrence, is
with _Sperma Ceti_ placed in italics—the reason, I presume, being, that
as a medicine, a more strange and less-known name to the commonalty,
and a Latin one, it was treated as a quoted proper name.
P. 497. “He burned his booke.” A precedent, as was Acts ix, 19, for
Prospero’s “I’ll drown my book”, when he left his island.
P. 498. “Bicause they want.” One example, among many, from Elizabethan
and present authors, and from provincial use, where want = “be”, or
“are without”. This in part explains _Macbeth_, iii, 6, where Lennox
exclaims, “Who cannot want the thought?” The true difficulty lies in
the use of the negative “cannot”. But while a more correct style would
have “can”, the more colloquial and hasty use of the former was, I
think, permissible, just as was the use of the double negative where it
was not meant to be, as it usually was, emphatic. Moreover, it gives
here a double or ambiguous sense, such as, I think, Lennox wanted to
express.
P. 504. “One instant or pricke of time.” Illustrates somewhat
differently than I think is usually explained, “the prick of noon”. _R.
and Jul._, and other places.
P. 516. “Diverse shapes and forms.” Shakespeare follows this ruling
when he makes Ariel and his co-spirits assume different shapes, though
some modern critics find fault because he being on some occasions
invisible, these changes are, in their opinion, unnecessary. But
the appearance of these spirits, sometimes as invisible, sometimes
as visible, sometimes in spirit form, sometimes as Juno or Ceres,
sometimes as harpies, is not only in accordance with the then beliefs
as to airy spirits, but to me, and to those who have seen their
representatives, it is more pleasant to see them in forms appropriate
to their office, besides bringing their spiritual existence and power
more vividly before us. Critics here, as well as elsewhere, too often
insist on considering Shakespeare as the author of books to be read,
and not of plays to be acted and seen.
P. 518. “This devil Beelzebub.” So seems to have thought _Macbeth’s_
porter.
P. 520. “The cruell angel.” Here in Prov. 17 [11] we have one of the
principles on which _Macbeth_ was planned and executed.
P. 533. “Soules appeare oftenest by night;... never to the whole
multitude, also may be seene of some[,] and of some other in that
presence not seene at all.” Here is proof of the folk-lore correctness
of the ghost appearing only when Marcellus and Bernardo were alone
on watch, and of his being afterwards invisible to the Queen in her
own chamber, though visible to Hamlet while there in obedience to her
summons.
Appendix II, p. 46, par. 8. “_But it is rarely known._” Though this
is after Shakespeare’s time, the belief, in all probability, was in
existence in his day, and shows how the writer of the first and unknown
_Hamlet_ followed in _Hamlet’s_ ghost the beliefs of his day.
“_Feature._” An example of its being used for the make of a man,
and not merely of the features of his countenance, to which it is
now appropriated; but till I can find—and as yet I have found none,
though I have looked out for it—an example of feature used for things
inanimate, I cannot accept the interpretation of song or sonnet in
Touchstone’s _As You Like It_, iii, 3, 3. Feature here, as any shape
or proportions, is perfectly intelligible. Did it refer to verse we
should expect “features”. From no man, as Touchstone is depicted by
Shakespeare, could we less expect verse-making, and all his reference
to it in this passage may readily have arisen from his reference to his
new situation as like that of the _honest_ poet Ovid among the Goths.
Had he been poetical and given her verses, he could not have explained
to Aubrey that he, being a poet, only feigned to love her.
P. 198. “_Primus secundus._” This goes far to show—proves, I think—that
the Clown’s “Primo, secundo, tertio is a good play” (_Tw. N._, v, 1),
a passage on which no commentator known to me has touched, thinking it
a merely jocular remark, is, in fact, taken from a well-known “play”
or game. What the game was is unknown to me, but children still use
various numerals, provincial or otherwise, mingled with rhyme, to
settle anything, as, for instance, who shall hide in the game of hide
and seek.
P. 471. “Biggins.” Shows, as does 2 _Hy. IV_, iv, 5, 27, that, if not
nightcaps, they meant, among other significations, caps worn at night
and in bed, and that “homely” was not a generic epithet.
Introd. Rainolde Scot’s Will “bank or pond”. I note this because it
may possibly help to some future interpretation of Iris’s words in the
_Tempest_, iv, 1, 64, “The banks with pioned ... brims.”