Witchcraft

is an insidious and . Throughout the course of the novel, she manipulates her husband, Macbeth, and spurs him to commit his first murder in order for him to ultimately achieve what she believes he deserves. Lady Macbeth is shown to the audience as a loyal wife who wants the best for his husband, but at the same time, she is portrayed as a malicious character from the very beginning of the play. The line between an evil human being, and a scheming witch, is so fine that Lady Macbeth could easily be either.

The fact that the three Weird Sisters’ predictions would not have become true without the supreme influence of Lady Macbeth provokes the thought that, perhaps Lady Macbeth is more than an anti-mother and a schemer, perhaps she is a witch. This possibility would also change the nature of the witches from the future-seers they are portrayed as, to merely influencers of a string of events that they plan. In order to differentiate or associate Lady Macbeth from or to the weird sisters, the similarities and differences of Lady Macbeth and the witches must be explored.

Firstly, Lady Macbeth and the witches both call on to evil forces at times of need, such as when Lady Macbeth cries “Come, you spirits/ That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,”(I, 5, 39-40) to discard her feminine traits in order for her to eventually be successful in fulfilling the witches plan by spurring Macbeth to kill Duncan. This invocation signifies a link between Lady Macbeth and the supernatural, or witchcraft, which is utilized by her and the witches.

Soon after the invocation, she questions Macbeth’s manhood by telling him that “When you durst do it, then you were a man/ And to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man. ”(I, 7, 49-51). As Lady Macbeth discarded her womanish traits and understands the true nature of a man, she began to share a certain gender ambiguity with the witches, Banquo observes the genderless appearance in the witches when he proclaims “You should be women / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret / That you are so. (I, 3, 46-48).

If Lady Macbeth had successfully connected with the evil forces in her invocation scene, then both the witches and Lady Macbeth exhibit an androgynous character, although Lady Macbeth only has masculine mental traits, while the witches have a masculine physical appearance as well as mental character. Another common trait between Lady Macbeth and witches is that both are anti-mothers.

The myths of witches through history are seen as anti-mothers, and Lady Macbeth reveals this evil characteristic rom within herself, and the fact of a previous maternal relationship when she says “I have given suck — I would — have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums,/ And dashed the brains out! ”(I, 7, 54-58). This shocking statement shows Lady Macbeths evil thoughts, which no mother could have for her child, in turn making her an anti-mother, which would probably have been linked to witchcraft by the original audiences in Shakespeare’s day, if not by today’s audiences.

Parallel phrase with Lady Macbeth and the Weird Sisters are also evident in the play. The witches refer to “killing swine” (I, 3, 2) early in the play, and Lady Macbeth unknowingly echoes this when she refers to the two chamberlains as in a “swinish sleep,” (I, 7, 67). The chamberlains are sacrificed by Macbeth, to avoid any fault in their plan of the murder of Duncan. The sacrifice of swine has been known as a common act of mythical witches since before Shakespeare’s day, and again, links Lady Macbeth to witchcraft.

The use of The aforementioned term (“swinish sleep”) corresponding with the sacrifice of the men being described as such, would be a hint to the audience of Lady Macbeth’s witch-like character, and would have, once again, have connected Lady Macbeth to witchcraft for the audience of Shakespeare’s day.

Unlike the witches, Lady Macbeth shows signs of vulnerability, and becomes wracked with guilt. This is evident in her sleepwalking scene, when she says “Out damned spot! Out, I say! (VI, 1, 31) She, at that point in time, was haunted by the sight of blood on her hands, and was convinced the blood was still there, showing signs of as she becomes mentally unhinged.

Lady Macbeth’s recollection of Macbeth’s words after Duncan was murdered also haunted and festered within her as shown when she starts to echo Macbeth’s statements and fears, when she said “To bed, to bed: there’s knocking at the gate! ”(VI, 1, 59) When Lady Macbeth is sleepwalking and imagines that she is in hell, as shown by her statement “Hell is murky,” (VI, 1, 32) she does not appear on stage again, and dies offstage.

The two most likely scenarios for her death would be suicide, or an act involving the doctor and/or the gentlewoman, as they were the only people that witnessed the truth about the murders. If suicide was the cause of Lady Macbeth’s death, as is likely, an even deeper level of guilt is shown and this emotional trauma felt by Lady Macbeth is not felt by the witches. These signs of weakness are contrary to the connection she had with the evil spirits in her evocation scene, and contrary to the behaviour of he witches, as they do not feel, or even show any guilt or sympathy.

Despite not having a masculine appearance and showing signs of guilt and weakness, Lady Macbeth has been cleverly portrayed as the ‘fourth witch’ by Shakespeare. I believe this is so, because at the time this play was written, links such as the ‘swine’ description of the attendants and the calling on evil spirits performed by Lady Macbeth would have been blatant parallels and links to witchcraft for the audience in the Elizabethan era, but are perhaps more rarely understood by today’s audiences.

This may be because the idea of witches has been dismissed by modern society and their characteristics are not as widely known making those links somewhat outdated. Although Lady Macbeth as the ‘fourth witch’ seems less believable as a concept today, we must not look at the play as two dimensional, as it is read today, but instead learn the views of the people of the time when Shakespeare’s plays were written, after all, Shakespeare wrote about what he knew, and Macbeth was written four-hundred and three to four-hundred and seven years ago.

The sources of magic are to be found in passion and ignorance – which make up the greater part of man. Desire, ever reborn, never capable of being sated in the ordinary conditions of life, inspires in the mind the dream of an irresistible power whereby every appetite may be satisfied; and ignorance of the inflexible laws which govern nature suffers one to believe that she can be mastered and modified in conformity with that dream, which, when it has reached a certain degree of intensity, tends spontaneously to transform itself into action.

Love, hatred, the desire for health, for riches, for power, for knowledge itself, are the causes which produce magic, and they are its perpetual incentives; whence it comes that we see magic practiced wherever men are found; in the most remote antiquity, during the Middle Ages, and at the present time; not only among barbarian or savage peoples, but also among those races which call themselves civilized. Magic is, therefore, a social phenomenon. This work will show what place black magic and witchcraft holds among the other social phenomena, for example religion.

The ideas related to a concept of the sacred, as the basis of magic and witchcraft, will be considered. Why do people believe in the powers of black magic and the fearful power of Satan in black magic? How are these practices performed? Here is nothing else that can give so adequate answer as does the history of the witches and black magic and their place in Holy Mother Church. Witchcraft is a complex subject, and has evoked complex responses from many disciplines (Glucklich 391).

There are theological, historical, philosophical, anthropological, legal, literary, pharmacological, and psychological theories of witchcraft, to name some of the major ones. That is the reason why few people today can agree on what witchcraft really is, or was, or what witches really did, or what they do. During the height of the witchcraft scare in Europe, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, almost anything strange and fearful was attributed to witchcraft. A good example is the phenomenon called the poltergeist.

Witchcraft would seem to be a European term of opprobrium which has been used in scattergun fashion for all sorts of threatening manifestations, whether at home or abroad. It is appropriate, and inevitable, that our inquiry should have brought us to the Bible. For while it is false to say, as some writers have, that the witch persecutions were carried on solely by the church, it is nevertheless undeniable that historical witchcraft received its definition from the church. In a sense it may be said that witchcraft as a system was created by the church.

Convenience may be cited: it was convenient for the church to lump its own heresies, rival systems of faith, inexplicable spiritual phenomena – in fact, almost all the threats to its own primacy – into a single opposition, which in the slow course of many centuries took on the shape of a hostile conspiracy and the name of witchcraft. The church had, after all, ready to hand the Supreme Enemy of Man, Satan, acknowledged as the father of all error, the prince of the world’s vanities, and arch rebel against God (Butler 96). There was no fault of logic involved in placing him at the source of trouble.

This is the classical definition of witchcraft: a literally diabolic plot against mankind. For long ages it was almost universally accepted. Running concurrently with it was what we may identify as the skeptical position: that the whole thing was nonsense, and an outrageous calumny on the loving nature of the Deity. This is an honorable and attractive position, and one which is still dominant today. It can trace its origins to a tiny handful of brave men during the Renaissance, men like Reginald Scot and Johan Weyer, who were in considerable danger for their beliefs.

These ideas however gradually won out, by the eighteenth century, and were elevated almost beyond argument by the busy and progressive nineteenth. Today they are coming under renewed question. There are then at present at least seven major schools of witchcraft thought, some of them frankly hostile to the others: the orthodox, skeptical, anthropological, psychological, pharmacological, transcendental, and occultist. The image is to the object as the part is to the whole.

In other words, a simple object, outside all direct contact and all communication, is able to represent the whole. This is the formula which is apparently used in black magic. The image, the doll or the drawing is a very schematic representation, a poorly executed ideogram. Any resemblance is purely theoretical or abstract. Black magic is essentially an individualistic affair. It finds regular and constant use by men and women who work deliberately, by means of the spells they utter, the charms they manipulate, and the rites they perform, to bring misfortunes upon their fellows.

So used it may be licit, reputable, and even praiseworthy, for instance, if the same magical arts that have slain a man are resorted to by an avenger of blood against the slayer. As a rule, however, sorcery is carried on more or less secretly, in defiance of public opinion, and those who practice it are objects of constant suspicion, fear, and enmity. In spite of this radical monotheism, Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, makes allusions to other supernatural entities.

In the case of Islam, these entities are known as jinns and angels (Glucklich 136). Satan also plays an important role in Islam, but is counted among the angels, albeit the most disobedient. The jinns, according to the Qur’an, are not quite angels, but a form of consciousness between human and angels that are also especially prone to disobedience. Given that a basic idea of Islam is “submission” or “obedience” to God, the very act of disobedience is taken very seriously in Muslim teaching as a major form of bad, even sacrilegious, behavior (Brain 241).

The jinn are genii, made out of fire; unlike the angels, they eat, drink, copulate, and die; some are good, and listen to the Koran; most are bad, and spend their time getting human beings into mischief. The leader of the evil jinn is Iblis, who was once a great angel, but was condemned for refusing to pay homage to Adam. The success of Islam in propagating itself, particularly in its Sufic and maraboutic versions, in regions where a direct assault by conquest was impracticable was largely due to its truly catholic recognition of the multiplicity of mystical power.

In the voluminous Quranic store-house of angels, jinns and devils, whose number is legion, many of these traditional powers find a hospitable home; and passages from the Quran are cited to justify their existence as real phenomena. So long as Allah’s lofty pre-eminence was not compromised, many local cults could be accommodated within the realm of alghaib, the ‘unseen’ or ‘hidden’ world (Brain 258). The supreme deities which exist in many pagan traditions could be assimilated to Allah. Lesser local deities could be Islamicized or explained away as vernacular terms for God’s attributes, or as the jinns or spirits of Quranic folklore.

Orders of devils are spoken of in the so-called Book of Enoch, which antedates Christianity; and they are spoken of, later, in the New Testament. Saint Thomas makes express mention of higher and of lower devils, and of systematically established ranks among them; without, however, entering into details on the subject (Waite 356). But such reserve, though it might well become theologians in general, did not at all suit those who were especially classed as demonographers or those who gave attention to the study and practice of magic.

For all these, it was of the utmost importance to become thoroughly acquainted with the diabolic hierarchy and, at the same time, with the condition and the activities of each rank included therein, – nay, as far as might be possible, with those of each individual demon. Furthermore, the principles of their organization were not understood in the same way by all; and while some of the Fathers thought that their rank was determined according to the various kinds of sins that the demons fostered, others believed that this was done according to their degree of power and method of action.

Those who made pacts with the Devil very often did so in order to be able to practice the forbidden arts of magic; but the pact did not always imply this power and the power might be exercised without a pact. There were cases where the Devil voluntarily obligated himself to do whatever the magician should demand of him, on condition that the latter give him his soul in exchange; there were also cases where the magician by virtue of his own art forced the Devil to do what the fiend, of himself, would have been neither obliged nor willing to do.

There were then, as we see, two kinds of magic, which have not been sufficiently distinguished by writers on the subject, but which in their origins, if not in their effects, were entirely distinct; the one produced by a voluntary subjection of the diabolic power to the will of a human being, the other springing from an actual mastery acquired over that power by the human being, and acquired not through divine permission, but through a science and an art which had their own canons, which were learned through a sort of apprenticeship, and which could be more or less fully possessed – the science and the art of black magic.

The theologians and the doctors declare, it is true, that the inventor of this wicked and deceptive science, of this pernicious art, was none other than Satan himself, who was wont to make use of them for the attainment of his own ends; but we begin to suspect that there is some error in this opinion of theirs, when we see this science and this art employed against their supposed inventor in such fashion that he cannot keep from obeying any one who commands him through them (Stave 196).

A great part of magic presupposes the existence in nature, and the knowledge on the part of man, of hidden forces which have power to move the demons and to bind them. But in whatever way the magician had acquired his formidable power, the exercise of it was sinful and unlawful and brought the transgressors in the end to Hell. Speaking generally, and observing the results they produced, we may consider magicians and witches as allies and coadjutors of Satan.

The first of the magical operations, which opens the way for all the others, is evocation, whereby Satan or one of his subordinate devils is compelled to appear – not a difficult operation if one understood the method, but dangerous to any who undertook it carelessly and without having observed all due precautions. This operation is more commonly performed at night, at the exact hour of midnight; but it could also be performed at high noon, this being the hour at which the noonday demon possesses the greatest vigor.

It takes place where two, three, or four roads meet; in the depths of gloomy forests; on deserted heaths; amid ancient ruins. The evocator seat himself inside a circle (or, for greater safety, three circles) traced on the ground with the point of a sword; and he has to exercise the greatest care not to let the slightest portion of himself project beyond this limit and not to agree to any bargain the Devil might seek to make with him. Many and strange are the formulas of evocation, some very lengthy; some more, some less efficacious; nor are all of them addressed to all the devils.

The slightest omission might suffice to render them entirely ineffective if the demon happened to be tired or in a bad humor. An observation is not out of place here. The Devil presents himself willingly and without much importuning, even to one who summons him informally and in every-day language, and that he often presents himself when one has not even thought of calling him. Magicians and witches are not all of equal cleverness or equal might; as in every other condition of men, in theirs also there existed disparities of power and of rank (Dickie 325).

Notwithstanding this, there is no sorceress so insignificant, no wizard so discredited, that with the aid of their art they could not accomplish marvelous things, of a sort far beyond all human power and all human knowledge. Should one care to make a list of all the varied operations of the magic art, he would need to produce a volume; and even then he would not succeed in telling everything, for by this art could almost anything be done that might suggest itself to the imagination or become an object of desire.

With potent philters or by employing the aid of clever demons, the magician could awaken love, transform love into hatred, snatch the loved one from her lover, or cause her to fly by night through the air to her lover’s arms. He avenged himself on his enemies, or on such as betook themselves to him for help, causing fire to consume their houses, bringing down the storm-wind on their fields, sinking their ships in the sea; or he brought about their death, by thrusting into waxen figures made to resemble them a needle.

Now we turn to the last portion of our study, the new witchcraft cult. Two characteristics seem to identify modern British witches: their love of ceremony and their inherent schismatic tendencies. Both points hold true for witches in America and elsewhere. There seem to be hundreds of contending cults, most of which sooner or later make their professions in print, under such titles as The Real Witchcraft, The Truth About Witchcraft, and Witchcraft From the Inside. Indeed, witches, deprived of the unifying force of persecution, are fighting among themselves as never before.

Meanwhile there are as many different kinds of witchcraft in this country, apparently, as there are covens. All these groups publish industriously. One of the partisans of the modern witchcraft cult is Hans Holzer, the well-known psychic investigator. His book The Truth About Witchcraft was brought forward with much din of publicity. And certainly he has penetrated to the heart of the contemporary cult; he has eye-witnesses’ accounts of initiation ceremonies, rites, celebrations, dress, incantations, and every other detail of witchcraft as it is presently practiced, especially in England and the United States.

With the growth and strengthening of the belief in Satan, magic was destined to acquire new credit and new vigor. Everything that was known or thought to be known about the Devil, about his habits and his purposes, naturally tended to produce this result. He was the ever-living, ever-restless force that surrounded and penetrated all things; the prince of this world; the dominator of perverted nature; he was in every place; he had under his orders an innumerable host, always ready for any undertaking.

With the help of his power, there was no task so hard that it could not be accomplished, no miracle that could not be performed; and this help he rendered without excessive solicitation. It was a well known fact that he would cheerfully join forces with a human being in order to reach more easily the fulfillment of his own designs. The majority became wizards or witches merely by entering his flock and enjoying those benefits and powers in which he was willing to make them sharers. Beside this lower magic, the result of a kind of delegation of power, the

The Salem Witch Trials were an extremely controversial period of time in our history. This was a time of suspicion and accusation of many innocent women and men that led to hysteria and complete turmoil in Salem Village. The Crucible portrays the Salem Witch Trials in a dramatic sense, but there are many similarities between the movie and the actual events. We can use these unusual events to compare to our own lives and learn from the mistakes of our past. I’ve found that although many differences are displayed between the movie and the actual events, the overall theme of The Crucible was accurate.

One of the differences was the relationship between John Proctor and Abigail Williams. In the movie, their relationship had a much more intimate history than what actually occurred. They portrayed the pair to have had romantic relations, which created a very large shift in the plot of the movie. In real life, Proctor and Williams had no connection other than living in the same town before the witch trials. Also, another major difference was the character of Giles Corey. In the movie, he was pressed to death because he wouldn’t give up a name.

In the actual events, Giles survived, but he was excommunicated from the church. He was very against the hangings that occurred, however, his name was re-entered onto the church scrolls in later years. The first similarity I noticed was the character of Reverend Hale. In the beginning, all he wanted was to use his church authority to help the people, but after the events got out of hand, he wanted nothing to do with the Salem Witch Trials. He was a large supporter of John Proctor. Another similarity was that all of this hysteria began in the home of Mr.

Samuel Parris, involving his daughters and their friends after incidents of witchcraft in the woods. Arthur Miller, the director of , used an “artistic license” to dramatize the events, and to make the overall movie more interesting to the viewers. Some may find this tactic unjust, however, I find that the changes he made didn’t display an inaccurate version of the Salem Witch Trials. The largest change that he made to the story was the love connection between Abigail Williams and John Proctor, and although that was untrue to the

actual events, I found that it gave the movie an interesting twist. Besides the few differences, Miller stayed along the lines of the true story when it came to the actual hangings, character significances, and the tale of how the hysteria truly began along with who was primarily involved. When comparing the similarities and differences, numerous situations exist where the movie was spot on with the trials in 1692. Although there are significant differences, I believe that this did not take away from the historical facts, and that Miller properly used his artistic license.

The severe lies and accusations which occurred in Salem during these trials appear so extreme that it would be impossible to compare to life today. However, recurrently in our modern day, it seems that some still haven’t learned from the mistakes of the past. Although not as severe as the hangings and false accusations that were shown in the witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, the “breaking of charity” still proves to destroy friendships and relationships today. An example of this kind of situation could be a jealous friend starting a nasty rumour.

Although it may seem harmless at first, the wildfire of gossip can travel even quicker the friend could imagine. If enough people believe and continue to spread the lie, this person could potentially lose many friends and have a lasting effect on their life, causing sadness and unjust treatment. Not to mention, the relationship between the victim and the rumour-starter would be severed until the situation is fully dissolved. Despite the fact that occurrences of this today rarely lead to death or the destruction of a close-knit town, the repercussions of lies can take a harsh effect on relationships to many people.

In conclusion, the details of the actual Salem Trials and the movie The Crucible have many similarities and differences that are portrayed throughout history. I believe that Miller’s use of an “artistic license” is justifiable, and also think that the events of the witch trials can even compare to situations in life today. It’s possible to learn many lessons from this severe religious type of control, and many different opinions are portrayed throughout both the movie and the actual happenings.