84. The first critic whose comments upon this subject call for notice is the eminent Gervinus. In evident ignorance of the history of witchcraft, he says, "In the witches Shakspere has made use of the popular belief in evil geniuses and in adverse persecutors of mankind, and has produced a similar but darker race of beings, just as he made use of the belief in fairies in the "Midsummer Night"s Dream." This creation is less attractive and complete, but not less masterly. The poet, in the text of the play itself, calls these beings witches only derogatorily; they call themselves weird sisters; the Fates bore this denomination, and the sisters remind us indeed of the Northern Fates or Valkyries. They appear wild and weather-beaten in exterior and attire, common in speech, ign.o.ble, half-human creatures, ugly as the Evil One, and in like manner old, and of neither s.e.x. They are guided by more powerful masters, their work entirely springs from delight in evil, and they are wholly devoid of human sympathies.... They are simply the embodiment of inward temptation; they come in storm and vanish in air, like corporeal impulses, which, originating in the blood, cast up bubbles of sin and ambition in the soul; they are weird sisters only in the sense in which men carry their own fates within their bosoms."[1] This criticism is so entirely subjective and unsupported by evidence that it is difficult to deal satisfactorily with it. It will be shown hereafter that this description does not apply in the least to the Scandinavian Norns, while, so far as it is true to Shakspere"s text, it does not clash with contemporary records of the appearance and actions of witches.
[Footnote 1: Shakspere Commentaries, translated by F.E. Bunnert, p.
591.]
85. The next writer to bring forward a view of this character was the Rev. F.G. Fleay, the well-known Shakspere critic, whose ingenious efforts in iconoclasm cause a curious alternation of feeling between admiration and amazement. His argument is unfortunately mixed up with a question of textual criticism; for he rejects certain scenes in the play as the work of the inferior dramatist Middleton.[1] The question relating to the text will only be noticed so far as it is inextricably involved with the argument respecting the nature of the weird sisters.
Mr. Fleay"s position is, shortly, this. He thinks that Shakspere"s play commenced with the entrance of Macbeth and Banquo in the third scene of the first act, and that the weird sisters who subsequently take part in that scene are Norns, not witches; and that in the first scene of the fourth act, Shakspere discarded the Norns, and introduced three entirely new characters, who were intended to be genuine witches.
[Footnote 1: Of the witch scenes Mr. Fleay rejects Act I. sc. i., and sc. iii. down to l. 37, and Act III. sc. v.]
86. The evidence which can be produced in support of this theory, apart from question of style and probability, is threefold. The first proof is derived from a ma.n.u.script ent.i.tled "The Booke of Plaies and Notes thereof, for Common Pollicie," written by a somewhat famous magician-doctor, Simon Forman, who was implicated in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. He says, "In "Macbeth," at the Globe, 1610, the 20th April, Sat.u.r.day, there was to be observed first how Macbeth and Banquo, two n.o.blemen of Scotland, riding through a wood, there stood before them three women fairies, or nymphs, and saluted Macbeth, saying three times unto him, "Hail, Macbeth, King of Codor, for thou shalt be a king, but thou shalt beget no kings,"" etc.[1] This, if Forman"s account held together decently in other respects, would be strong, although not conclusive, evidence in favour of the theory; but the whole note is so full of inconsistencies and misstatements, that it is not unfair to conclude, either that the writer was not paying marvellous attention to the entertainment he professed to describe, or that the player"s copy differed in many essential points from the present text. Not the least conspicuous of these inconsistencies is the account of the sisters"
greeting of Macbeth just quoted. Subsequently Forman narrates that Duncan created Macbeth Prince of c.u.mberland; and that "when Macbeth had murdered the king, the blood on his hands could not be washed off by any means, nor from his wife"s hands, which handled the b.l.o.o.d.y daggers in hiding them, by which means they became both much amazed and affronted." Such a loose narration cannot be relied upon if the text in question contains any evidence at all reb.u.t.ting the conclusion that the sisters are intended to be "women fairies, or nymphs."
[Footnote 1: See Furness, Variorum, p. 384.]
87. The second piece of evidence is the story of Macbeth as it is narrated by Holinshed, from which Shakspere derived his material. In that account we read that "It fortuned as Makbeth and Banquho journied toward Fores, where the king then laie, they went sporting by the waie togither without other companie, saue onlie themselues, pa.s.sing thorough the woods and fields, when suddenlie in the middest of a laund there met them three women in strange and wild apparell, resembling creatures of elder world, whome when they attentivelie beheld, woondering much at the sight, the first of them spake and said; "All haile, Makbeth, thane of Glammis" (for he had latelie entered into that dignitie and office by the death of his father Sinell). The second of them said; "Haile, Makbeth, thane of Cawder." But the third said; "All haile, Makbeth, that heereafter shall be King of Scotland." ... Afterwards the common opinion was that these women were either the weird sisters, that is (as ye would say) the G.o.ddesses of destinie, or else some nymphs or feiries, indued with knowledge of prophesie by their necromanticall science, because everiething came to pa.s.se as they had spoken."[1] This is all that is heard of these "G.o.ddesses of Destinie" in Holinshed"s narrative. Macbeth is warned to "beware Macduff"[2] by "certeine wizzards, in whose words he put great confidence;" and the false promises were made to him by "a certeine witch, whome he had in great trust, (who) had told him that he should neuer be slaine with man borne of anie woman, nor vanquished till the wood of Bernane came to the castell of Dunsinane."[3]
[Footnote 1: Holinshed, Scotland, p. 170, c. 2, l. 55.]
[Footnote 2: Macbeth, IV. l. 71. Holinshed, p. 174, c. 2, l. 10.]
[Footnote 3: Ibid. l. 13.]
88. In this account we find that the supernatural communications adopted by Shakspere were derived from three sources; and the contention is that he has retained two of them--the "G.o.ddesses of Destinie" and the witches; and the evidence of this retention is the third proof relied on, namely, that the stage direction in the first folio, Act IV. sc. i., is, "Enter Hecate and the _other_ three witches," when three characters supposed to be witches are already upon the scene. Holinshed"s narrative makes it clear that the idea of the "G.o.ddesses of Destinie" was distinctly suggested to Shakspere"s mind, as well as that of the witches, as the mediums of supernatural influence. The question is, did he retain both, or did he reject one and retain the other? It can scarcely be doubted that one such influence running through the play would conduce to harmony and unity of idea; and as Shakspere, not a servile follower of his source in any case, has interwoven in "Macbeth"
the totally distinct narrative of the murder of King Duffe,[1] it is hardly to be supposed that he would scruple to blend these two different sets of characters if any advantage were to be gained by so doing. As to the stage direction in the first folio, it is difficult to see what it would prove, even supposing that the folio were the most scrupulous piece of editorial work that had ever been effected. It presupposes that the "weird sisters" are on the stage as well as the witches. But it is perfectly clear that the witches continue the dialogue; so the other more powerful beings must be supposed to be standing silent in the background--a suggestion so monstrous that it is hardly necessary to refer to the slovenliness of the folio stage directions to show how unsatisfactory an argument based upon one of them must be.
[Footnote 1: Ibid. p. 149. "A sort of witches dwelling in a towne of Murreyland called Fores" (c. 2, l. 30) were prominent in this account.]
89. The evidence of Forman and Holinshed has been stated fully, in order that the reader may be in possession of all the materials that may be necessary for forming an accurate judgment upon the point in question; but it seems to be less relied upon than the supposition that the appearance and powers of the beings in the admittedly genuine part of the third scene of the first act are not those formerly attributed to witches, and that Shakspere, having once decided to represent Norns, would never have degraded them "to three old women, who are called by Paddock and Graymalkin, sail in sieves, kill swine, serve Hecate, and deal in all the common charms, illusions, and incantations of vulgar witches. The three who "look not like the inhabitants o" th" earth, and yet are on"t;" they who can "look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow;" they who seem corporal, but melt into the air, like bubbles of the earth; the weyward sisters, who make themselves air, and have in them more than mortal knowledge, are not beings of this stamp."[1]
[Footnote 1: New Shakspere Society Transactions, vol. i. p.342; Fleay"s Shakspere Manual, p. 248.]
90. Now, there is a great ma.s.s of contemporary evidence to show that these supposed characteristics of the Norns are, in fact, some of the chief attributes of the witches of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If this be so--if it can be proved that the supposed "G.o.ddesses of Destinie" of the play in reality possess no higher powers than could be acquired by ordinary communication with evil spirits, then no weight must be attached to the vague stage direction in the folio, occurring as it does in a volume notorious for the extreme carelessness with which it was produced; and it must be admitted that the "G.o.ddesses of Destinie" of Holinshed were sacrificed for the sake of the witches.
If, in addition to this, it can be shown that there was a very satisfactory reason why the witches should have been chosen as the representatives of the evil influence instead of the Norns, the argument will be as complete as it is possible to make it.
91. But before proceeding to examine the contemporary evidence, it is necessary, in order to obtain a complete conception of the mythological view of the weird sisters, to notice a piece of criticism that is at once an expansion of, and a variation upon, the theory just stated.[1]
It is suggested that the sisters of "Macbeth" are but three in number, but that Shakspere drew upon Scandinavian mythology for a portion of the material he used in constructing these characters, and that he derived the rest from the traditions of contemporary witchcraft; in fact, that the "sisters" are hybrids between Norns and witches. The supposed proof of this is that each sister exercises the special function of one of the Norns. "The third is the special prophetess, whilst the first takes cognizance of the past, and the second of the present, in affairs connected with humanity. These are the tasks of Urda, Verdandi, and Skulda. The first begins by asking, "When shall we three meet again?"
The second decides the time: "When the battle"s lost or won." The third, the future prophesies: "That will be ere set of sun." The first again asks, "Where?" The second decides: "Upon the heath." The third, the future prophesies: "There to meet with Macbeth."" But their _role_ is most clearly brought out in the famous "Hails":--
_1st. Urda._ [Past.] All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, Thane of Glamis!
_2nd. Verdandi._ [Present.] All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor!
_3rd. Skulda._ All hail, Macbeth! thou shalt be king hereafter.[2]
This sequence is supposed to be retained in other of the sisters"
speeches; but a perusal of these will soon show that it is only in the second of the above quotations that it is recognizable with any definiteness; and this, it must be remembered, is an almost verbal transcript from Holinshed, and not an original conception of Shakspere"s, who might feel himself quite justified in changing the characters of the speakers, while retaining their utterances. In addition to this, the natural sequence is in many cases utterly and unnecessarily violated; as, for instance, in Act I. sc. iii., where Urda, who should be solely occupied with past matters, predicts, with extreme minuteness, the results that are to follow from her projected voyage to Aleppo, and that without any expression of resentment, but rather with promise of a.s.sistance, from Skulda, whose province she is thus invading.
[Footnote 1: In a letter to _The Academy_, 8th February, 1879, signed "Charlotte Carmichael."]
[Footnote 2: I have taken the liberty of printing this quotation as it stands in the text. The writer in _The Academy_ has effected a rearrangement of the dialogue by importing what might be Macbeth"s replies to the three sisters from his speech beginning at l. 70, and alternating them with the different "Hails," which, in addition, are not correctly quoted--for what purpose it is difficult to see. It may be added here that in a subsequent number of _The Academy_, a long letter upon the same subject appeared from Mr. Karl Blind, which seems to prove little except the author"s erudition. He a.s.sumes the Teutonic origin of the sisters throughout, and, consequently, adduces little evidence in favour of the theory. One of his points is the derivation of the word "weird" or "wayward," which, as will be shown subsequently, was applied to witches. Another point is, that the witch scenes savour strongly of the staff-rime of old German poetry. It is interesting to find two upholders of the Norn-theory relying mainly for proof of their position upon a scene (Act I. sc. i.) which Mr Fleay says that the very statement of this theory (p. 249) must brand as spurious. The question of the sisters" beards too, regarding which Mr. Blind brings somewhat far-fetched evidence, is, I think, more satisfactorily settled by the quotations in the text.]
92. But this latter piece of criticism seems open to one grave objection to which the former is not liable. Mr. Fleay separates the portions of the play which are undoubtedly to be a.s.signed to witches from the parts he gives to his Norns, and attributes them to different characters; the other mixes up the witch and Norn elements in one confused ma.s.s. The earlier critic saw the absurdity of such a supposition when he wrote: "Shakspere may have raised the wizard and witches of the latter parts of Holinshed to the weird sisters of the former parts, but the converse process is impossible."[1] Is it conceivable that Shakspere, who, as most people admit, was a man of some poetic feeling, being in possession of the beautiful Norn-legend--the silent Fate-G.o.ddesses sitting at the foot of Igdrasil, the mysterious tree of human existence, and watering its roots with water from the sacred spring--could, ruthlessly and without cause, mar the charm of the legend by the gratuitous introduction of the gross and primarily unpoetical details incident to the practice of witchcraft? No man with a glimmer of poetry in his soul will imagine it for a moment. The separation of characters is more credible than this; but if that theory can be shown to be unfounded, there is no improbability in supposing that Shakspere, finding that the question of witchcraft was, in consequence of events that had taken place not long before the time of the production of "Macbeth," absorbing the attention of all men, from king to peasant, should set himself to deal with such a popular subject, and, by the magic of his art, so raise it out of its degradation into the region of poetry, that men should wonder and say, "Can this be witchcraft indeed?"
[Footnote 1: Shakspere Manual, p. 249.]
93. In comparing the evidence to be deduced from the contemporary records of witchcraft with the sayings and doings of the sisters in "Macbeth," those parts of the play will first be dealt with upon which no doubt as to their genuineness has ever been cast, and which are a.s.serted to be solely applicable to Norns. If it can be shown that these describe witches rather than Norns, the position that Shakspere intentionally subst.i.tuted witches for the "G.o.ddesses of Destinie"
mentioned in his authority is practically una.s.sailable. First, then, it is a.s.serted that the description of the appearance of the sisters given by Banquo applies to Norns rather than witches--
"They look not like the inhabitants o" th" earth, And yet are on"t."
This question of applicability, however, must not be decided by the consideration of a single sentence, but of the whole pa.s.sage from which it is extracted; and, whilst considering it, it should be carefully borne in mind that it occurs immediately before those lines which are chiefly relied upon as proving the ident.i.ty of the sisters with Urda, Verdandi, and Skulda.
Banquo, on seeing the sisters, says--
"What are these, So withered and so wild in their attire, That look not like the inhabitants o" th" earth, And yet are on"t? Live you, or are you aught That man may question? You seem to understand me, By each at once her chappy finger laying Upon her skinny lips: you should be women, And yet your beards forbid me to interpret That you are so."
It is in the first moment of surprise that the sisters, appearing so suddenly, seem to Banquo unlike the inhabitants of this earth. When he recovers from the shock and is capable of deliberate criticism, he sees chappy fingers, skinny lips--in fact, nothing to distinguish them from poverty-stricken, ugly old women but their beards. A more accurate poetical counterpart to the prose descriptions given by contemporary writers of the appearance of the poor creatures who were charged with the crime of witchcraft could hardly have been penned. Scot, for instance, says, "They are women which commonly be old, lame, bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles.... They are leane and deformed, showing melancholie in their faces;"[1] and Harsnet describes a witch as "an old weather-beaten crone, having her chin and knees meeting for age, walking like a bow, leaning on a staff, hollow-eyed, untoothed, furrowed, having her lips trembling with palsy, going mumbling in the streets; one that hath forgotten her Pater-noster, yet hath a shrewd tongue to call a drab a drab."[2] It must be remembered that these accounts are by two sceptics, who saw nothing in the witches but poor, degraded old women. In a description which a.s.sumes their supernatural power such minute details would not be possible; yet there is quite enough in Banquo"s description to suggest neglect, squalor, and misery. But if this were not so, there is one feature in the description of the sisters that would settle the question once and for ever. The beard was in Elizabethan times the recognized characteristic of the witch. In one old play it is said, "The women that come to us for disguises must wear beards, and that"s to say a token of a witch;"[3]
and in another, "Some women have beards; marry, they are half witches;"[4] and Sir Hugh Evans gives decisive testimony to the fact when he says of the disguised Falstaff, "By yea and no, I think, the "oman is a witch indeed: I like not when a "oman has a great peard; I spy a great peard under her m.u.f.fler."[5]
[Footnote 1: Discoverie, book i. ch. 3, p. 7.]
[Footnote 2: Harsnet, Declaration, p. 136.]
[Footnote 3: Honest Man"s Fortune, II. i. Furness, Variorum, p. 30.]
[Footnote 4: Dekker"s Honest Wh.o.r.e, sc. x. l. 126.]
[Footnote 5: Merry Wives of Windsor, Act IV. sc. ii.]
94. Every item of Banquo"s description indicates that he is speaking of witches; nothing in it is incompatible with that supposition. Will it apply with equal force to Norns? It can hardly be that these mysterious mythical beings, who exercise an incomprehensible yet powerful influence over human destiny, could be described with any propriety in terms so revolting. A veil of wild, weird grandeur might be thrown around them; but can it be supposed that Shakspere would degrade them by representing them with chappy fingers, skinny lips, and beards? It is particularly to be noticed, too, that although in this pa.s.sage he is making an almost verbal transcript from Holinshed, these details are interpolated without the authority of the chronicle. Let it be supposed, for an instant, that the text ran thus--
_Banquo._ ... What are these So withered and so wild in their attire,[1]
That look not like the inhabitants o" th" earth, And yet are on"t?[2] Live you, or are you ought That man may question?[3]
_Macbeth._ Speak if you can, what are you?
_1st Witch._ All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis![4]
_2nd Witch._ All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Cawdor![5]
_3rd Witch._ All hail, Macbeth! thou shall be king hereafter.[6]
This is so accurate a dramatization of the parallel pa.s.sage in Holinshed, and so entire in itself, that there is some temptation to ask whether it was not so written at first, and the interpolated lines subsequently inserted by the author. Whether this be so or not, the question must be put--Why, in such a pa.s.sage, did Shakspere insert three lines of most striking description of the appearance of witches? Can any other reason be suggested than that he had made up his mind to replace the "G.o.ddesses of Destinie" by the witches, and had determined that there should be no possibility of any doubt arising about it?
[Footnote 1: Three women in strange and wild apparel,]
[Footnote 2: resembling creatures of elder world,]