Faerie Potter?

So I just noticed that despite the appearance that my blog was finished, I hadn't blogged about Harry Potter!

While sitting in class on Tuesday with my paper ready to hand in, I realized that my title "Faerie Potter and the Sorcerer's Queene - Rowling's Inspiration for her Harry Potter Series," could be taken in a way that I had not intended. I had meant to simply combine the two titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and The Faerie Queene, but inadvertently I had made the allusion to an underlying homosexual tone in the "Faerie" Potter series.

After giggling to myself, I decided to Google the idea, and of course received over four thousand hits. I looked at articles such as "J.K. Rowling Had No Business Infusing 'Harry Potter' With a Minor Homosexual Undertone And Then Telling Us About It" by Debbie Newman of the gossip website Jossip.com and "Is Harry Potter Gay?" by Johann Hari, a homosexual e-journalist who hopes the answer to that question is YES!

The first article dealt with the issue of J.K. Rowling revealing in a press conference that Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts, is a homosexual. Many people were outraged because this came after all seven books of the series were published without that tidbit on Dumbledore's character. They think that because it is so scandalous and not in the books, it was wrong of her to reveal it post-publishing. After all of the bad publicity the books have gotten from their "Anti-Christian" subject matter, the hype had calmed down until Rowling 'outed' Dumbledore, one of the books most beloved characters.

Johann Hari's article was a hilarious read, although I had to shut my eyes for parts of it because he made some explicit connections between Harry's wand and other certain body parts. However, I found some of the other connections quite comical such as the fact the Harry lives in a closet, wears long flowing purple gowns, and feels as though he is different from everyone else. According to Hari, the Harry Potter series is a perfect example of a coming-of-age story combined with coming out of the closet and embracing his newfound world.

The Early Modern Angel - Blog Overview

Pieter Bruegel’s Fall of the Rebel Angels (1564), from the book Angels in the Early Modern World.

My blog is about angels and angel belief in the Early Modern/Renaissance period in England. In class, the topic came from studying Milton’s Paradise Lost. Researching angels has been difficult for a few reasons such as the 1640s attempt to remove angels from the church and the fact that at the same time, a coin was made under Elizabeth’s rule, known today as “the Renaissance angel.” Despite that, I found many resources chronicling people who saw angels and those brave enough to publish their own ideas and opinions on angels’ existence.

This first topic I addressed in my blog was those whose mission was to prove the existence of angels. This topic focused on John Dee, court astrologer to Queen Elizabeth, particularly his famous “angelic conversations.” The conversations occurred through the help of a mediary, and were recorded in Enochian, the language of the angels. I found this language especially alluring because of its uniqueness apart from any other known language man has ever spoken or recorded. Because of this, I feel that despite his expulsion from the church for blasphemy and accusations of dark magic, Dee has found something unlike anything else on this planet. Perhaps these are true accounts of angels, and perhaps the translation of their conversations may reveal what is in store for the Earth and God’s people.

I then found Laurence Claxton’s “Paradisical Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason.” In this, I found it most interesting how Claxton’s independent beliefs and rejection of traditional approaches allowed him to publish something so controversial. The dialogue has minimal references to scripture or even to other intelligent thought. It is completely a work of faith and reason as the name suggests, in which he asks unanswerable questions about religion, and in turn answers them with what he feels in his heart to be the truth.

When I had done my initial research for my in-class presentation, I had come across the story of Dr. John Pordage. Pordage claimed to have had conversations and visits with angels. When he taught of their revelations, he was accused of blasphemy and ejected from the church in a terribly prejudiced trial. After reading both sides of the story, I saw the unfairness of the trial as well as the passionate cause behind those who expelled him.

The basis for the highly conservative radical reformists was in the recent history. At the end of the medieval period, Christians had been led astray due to certain beliefs in angels. There were cults that worshiped angels and even had leaders who were supposed to be angels in human form. Of course, they weren’t really angels, but corruption of the belief in angels. The Church was willing now to do anything in its power to remove the potential for false idolatry, which included removing and forbidding all imagery of angels within the church. It is because of this that few images exist relating to angels in England’s Early Modern Period.

With no imagery allowed of angels, I was curious as to what people believed the angels looked like. Through research, I found many accounts suggesting that angels do not appear to humans. These people believed that the only “angels” we could see were devils in disguise. Others such as John Salkeld believed angels could and did appear to people. These angels came in the bodies made of air. I particularly liked his account on how they communicate to us, that they have no tongues to speak, but rather convey their message through the heart. His “Treatise of Angels” posed many interesting questions that I would like to read more of in the future.

The Early Modern Angel - Bibliography and List of Useful Resources

Bibliography:

Anon. Truth appearing through the clouds of undeserved scandal and aspersion. London, 1654.

Claxton, Laurence. A paradisical dialogue betwixt faith and reason disputing the high mysterious secrets of eternity, the like never extant in our revelation. London: William Lerner, 1660.

Deacon, John. A publick discovery of a secret deceit. Or, The man of sin unmasked, his sheeps-clothing of glorious pretences pulled off; and his wolvish inside set forth in its colours. Where may easily be discerned Satan transformed into the resemblance of an angel... London: The sign of the Bottle neer the great North door of Pauls., 1656.

Deacon, Richard. John Dee: Scientist, Geographer, Astrologer, and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. London: Frederick Muller Ltd., 1968. 141-56, 172-3, 206-213.

Fowler, Christopher. Daemonium meridianum. Satan at noon. Or, Antichristian blasphemies, anti-scripturall divelismes, anti-morall uncleanness, evidenced in the light of truth, and published by the hand of justice. London: Francis Eglesfield, 1655.

Fowler, Christopher. Daemonium meridianum. Sathan at noon. The first hath discovered the blasphemies of J. Pordage, against the Lord Christ, under the pretence of visions, and converse with angles. London: Francis Eglesfield, 1656.

Marshall, Peter, and Alexandra Walsham. "Migrations of angels in the early modern world." Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. 1-22, 32-33.

Marshall, Peter. "Angels in the Early Modern Period." Interview with Lesley Carr. Video blog post. Warwick ICAST. 13 Feb. 2007. 10 Sept. 2008 .

Oldridge, Darren. Strange Histories: The trial of the pig, the walking dead, and other matters of fact from the medieval and Renaissance worlds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005. 20-39.

Raymond, Joad. "'With the tongues of angels': angelic conversations in Paradise Lost and seventeenth century England." Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Patrick Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. 256-81.

Salkeld, John. A treatise of angels Of the nature, essence, place, power, science, vvill, apparitions, grace, sinne, and all other proprieties of angels. Collected out of the holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, and schoole-diuines. London: Thomas Snodham, 1613.

Walsham, Alexandra. "Angels and idols in England's long Reformation." Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. 134-67.

*pink = primary sources commented upon in blog

List of Useful Resources for Someone Interested in Pursuing the Topic:

Everything listed above, and:

Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. This book is full of interesting articles about angels and angel belief during the Renaissance. It focuses mostly on England, but also has articles examining angel belief in the rest of the British Isles and other parts of Europe.

Deacon, John. The grand imposter examined: or the life, tryal and examination of James Nayler, the seduced and seducing Quaker with the manner of his riding into Brystol. London: The Hand in S. Paul's Church-yard, 1656. -- I found this near the end of my research and have not yet read much of it. It is an account of the life of the man who thought to have spoken with angels, but then found that they were the devil in disguise.

Early English Books Online (EEBO) is an incredible resource for finding primary sources, particularly pamphlets from the Early Modern period. When I typed in "angel," I got over a thousand hits! -- however, about 100 of those hits were from a popular salescorner "the Angell," and often didn't relate to angel beliefs.

What Does an Angel Look Like?

People today and back in the Early Modern Period speak of appearances of angels. Questions come to mind from skeptical readers and hopeful believers. Are they real? What do they look like? Who do they appear to? What are they made of?

Today, we dismiss many of these questions because we have separated science and religion, the physical and the metaphysical world to such a great degree. When we hear of angels today, we think of miracles and children's Christmas pageants. Our image of angels is long white robes, white feathery wings, and of course the illuminating halo circling the angel's head. There is no burning curiosity that urgently needs an answer to these questions. However, in the Renaissance era, writers such as John Salkeld and Christopher Fowler had ideas on the form of an angel.

The ideas of angelic form stem from scripture. From the Bible comes the idea and overall acceptance that angels have an anthropomorphic form. In Genesis, they are shown as sword-wielding cherubim barring the way to Eden (Genesis 3.24). In the New Testament, they are portrayed as messengers at Christ’s resurrection in shining white garments (Matthew 28.2). Our society has latched onto these images of angels, but what about the ones from the Renaissance, when the physical and metaphysical worlds were so close that people wanted to know if angels could eat or be touched?

Fowler, who recounted the trials of John Pordage, delivers an account of an angel's appearance. "He was of an incredible beauty, his countenance more white than snow, more ruddy than the rose, cross'don his breast, his locks long and curled, more clear than polished gold, shining with such brightnesse, that she could read her matters at midnight, (Daemonium Meridianum: Sathan at Noon, p.7) Fowler is one of the believers that angels do not appear to humans. Devils appear to humans under the guise of angels.

In John Deacon’s 1656 writing “A Publick Discovery of a Secret Deceit,” a man named James Nayler who had previously claimed to have had conversations with angels found that his angels were truly devils. He was accused, then, of blasphemy “the Man of sin Unmasked, his Sheepskin clothing of glorious pretences pulled off; and his Wolvith inside set forth in its colours,” (Deacon, 1). The man was a Quaker, a religious sect that already suffered from disapproval by other Christians. This mistake of believing Satan to be an angel brought nothing more than more disgrace on the Quakers. Deacon chastises and condemns them, saying “remember Satan hath transformed himself into an Angel of light; and if you be his Ministers as the tree, Antichrist is known by his fruits,” (Deacon, 41).

A more optimistic opinion on the appearances of angels was the belief that they were incorporeal, yet made of an air-like substance and could take on any form that fit the situation. In his 1613 publication "A Treatise of Angels," theologian John Salkeld discusses all imaginable ideas about angels, backed up with other religious figures and scriptural support. Under the belief that God, as the most perfect being, was the only entity that could exist in a completely disembodied form, angels must be of some body, though not of flesh (Salkeld, 31). He later proposes the idea that angels take on bodies made of air, but cannot speak with these air-bodies. They can't speak, however they do communicate to us. “It cannot be declared neyther how the Angels doe outwardly speake into us in our eare; neyther how inwardly in our hearts,” (Salkeld, 117).

While I can understand that skepticism of the age and attempt to eradicate all possibilities of false worship, I find comfort in Salkeld description of the angels. With this account, I picture angels as ethereal beauties who cannot speak, yet speak tons more than imaginable by speaking directly to one's heart. An angel can be all the things that we imagine today, but the most important aspect is how they touch our hearts. Just hope you angel isn't a devil in disguise, a wolf in sheep's clothing!

The Near Loss of Angels

I don't know how to put the video in here, but here's a link!

This video is a Warwick iCast from 2007 about "how angels were nearly purged from our culture and why they survived." It is a short documentary/interview of Professor Peter Marshall of the University of Warwick. Marshall is also a co-editor/author of a book on the subject "Angels in the Early Modern World." This book is a collection of essays on angels, their purposes, and their appearances in Renaissance culture from contemporary authors.

During the late Medieval period, many problems arose because of human dependence on angels. Among these were Angel cults, in which worshipers turned their affections and adoration to angels instead of God, who is the one true divine power. Some of these cults even had leaders who gained power, prestige, and riches by claiming to be angels in corporeal form. Also, there were the Cathar sects who believed that the world had been created by evil angels and that important spiritual figures such as the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist were angels, never existing in flesh (Marshall and Walsham, Migrations of angels in the early modern world, p. 1-22).

The original purpose and existence of angels was corrupted in idolatry and also abused by society as a means of reinforcing the social hierarchy (by example of the celestial hierarchy). To reconstruct the church after these events, the Church tried to completely expel angels from the religion. Marshall describes these actions in his interview as the "sixteenth century protestant reformers attack on the angel." Not only were all angel figures removed from the church, but also holy water, crucifixes, and candles were removed in fear that they too would become the idols of false worship.

People were able to live without these intermediaries, but in order to maintain the feeling of spiritual protection, they needed angels. In the absence of all else, Renaissance England took comfort in knowing that "there were armies of invisible angels which God had sent to protect them," (Marshall). The world was full of evil and evil angels, but God's army of good angels were there to protect the people, despite the Church's attempt to rid the religion. Especially saving was the fact that angels appear throughout the Bible, and the denial of their existence is impossible without completely changing scripture.

I wonder how pure the reformists wanted the religion to become. Should the church be nothing more than an empty building with empty walls in which to worship? God cannot be represented because we cannot comprehend him. He is solely a being and cannot be put into a statue's form or a painting. Therefore one either has to sit and worship in a blank room free of distractions or else look to images which inspire the feeling of God's love such as angels and crosses. Is showing images and symbols of God blasphemous because it makes us think of his messengers instead of Him? I think that a purist religion would be less emotional and too stoic for my own personal spirituality. I need the music and paintings, the images of angels and the illustrated children's Bible. With these tools, religion comes alive and excites the soul, and there is nothing more exciting than nearly crying over a passionate sermon and feeling euphoric singing contemporary praise songs at a youth fellowship meeting.

Also from a contemporary perspective, Marshall poses a question for us today. When asked if he believes that angels are more important in contemporary society, he states that he believes they are, but moreso in a non-Christian way, kind of New Agey with crystals and calling upon your guardian angel, popular culture with Hollywood movies. Does this prove the Protestants’ fear has been made real? Have we fallen back to how the medieval English worshiped angels instead of God? With all of the science believed in today, have we pushed angels into the world of fiction, with TV shows such as Touched by an Angel and Charmed what comes to mind when we think of that image?

John Pordage's Prejudiced Ejectment

This is another pamphlet from the trial and ejectment of John Pordage, who claimed to have had conversations with angels, but was accused of blasphemy and teaching Christians to deny the God-head. However, unlike the "impartial" yet condemning previous texts, this pamphlet from an anonymous author gives a different view of the trial, as a "brief and true account of some particulars."

The main flaw in the case was that the judges were incredibly prejudiced against Pordage, which once again could be due to the fear of the revival of angel cults. These judges "shewed their inward temper with sharp and bitter expressions," (anon. "Truth Appearing thorough the Clouds of Undeserved Scandal and Aspersion," p.6). They hung onto every word that came out of Pordage's mouth during the trial, not to make an educated judgment, but so to find faults and ways to twist his words into distorted paraphrases.

Another flaw in the case was that many of the charges exceeded the normal time span set down by the law for accusing a person of a crime. The law stated six months was the maximum amount of time before an accusation should be made, and most of the actions in the claims against Pordage occurred one to four years prior. On top of this, the judges did not allow Pordage's witnesses to give testimonies, yet a main witness against Pordage highlights the trial's foul play. This woman from Redding, claimed that she and Pordage had had a private conversation at one point a few years back in which he had made blasphemous remarks to her. Her story seemed fabricated and continued to change throughout the case, and on top of that, she was a known perjurer, yet her word was taken by the judges with the utmost respect.

While the author of this pamphlet remains anonymous, I personally think it might be Samuel Pordage, his son, who, after his father's expulsion from the church, recounted his father's angelic visions in literary texts. The author ends his brief account with the hope that the truth will be recognized, condemning those "who think to make their own cause good by representing his as bad. But certainly the time will come, when his pretended guilt will appear to be innocency, and their innocency but vailed guilt." ("Truth Appearing thorough the Clouds," p.6)

"Duty belongs to us, and Events to God"

John Pordage was a minister in Bradfield, England, who claimed to have had conversations with angels. He preached about them in the church, where some followed him and others rejected his new teachings. Those who rejected them condemned him as a blasphemer and a heretic, which led to his Ejectment from the church in a very public and defaming trial, beginning Monday, September 18, 1654.

In the trial, Pordage was accused of (1) Blasphemy, (2) Pretended Visions of Angels, to confirm the blasphemy, (3) The Doctrine and Scandal of Uncleannesse, the Issue of the blasphemy, and (4) Ignorance and Insufficiency (Fowler, "Daemonium Meridianum, part 1").

Among Pordage's specific charges of blasphemy were his teachings from his conversations with the angels. He rejected the Godhead and dirtied the idea of Jesus's purity in its sacred blood. As far as the idea of "vilifying the blood," it seems as though Pordage's teachings suggested that there was nothing special about Jesus's blood running in our veins as well. He compared its mixing to Biblical scriptures of water and wine, and that through mixing, it all becomes the same. Another accusation of Pordage is that he preached a religion with no salvation and corrupted the sacred text.

Important to note of this period is the attempt to rid the world of angels, as they were previously corrupted in the forms of angel cults whose leaders claimed to be angels or have spoken with angels. Because of this, it is no wonder that Pordage's teachings were slammed and he was ejected from the church, because people feared the rise of idols and corruption. However, is it possible that he was actually speaking with angels? The Renaissance popular belief was that he was blaspheming, and that if figures did appear to him, they were the devil in disguise.

“To the second, the Visions of Angels, we believe the Christian Reader will easily persuade himselfe, that the blessed angels would rather lie down in the flames of hell, than come to confirme such wicked, antichristian doctrines, but this is an old fetch of the Prince of darkness."
-- from "Daemonium Meridianum, Sathan at Noon, part 1" Christopher Fowler, p. 5.

The harshness and violence is interesting in this quote. Despite the author's claim to deliver an impartial and unbiased account, it is hard to see this as impartial. Fowler and Pordage's Commissioners believe that angels do not appear to humans, and as such, they follow the scripture that warns of Satan's ability to disguise himself as an Angel of light. However, the imagery in this statement is particularly shocking. In a propagandist manner, the reader now sees Pordage as responsible for the burning of angels in the fires of Hell.

In the second part of Fowler's pamphlet, he uses much more emotional appeal to distinguish between himself, the innocent godly writer and Pordage, the ungodly blasphemer. He constantly apologizes for having to write about this, hoping that Pordage can still repent and expressing pity for those who heard and believed the doctor's teachings.

One last quote from these accounts:

"Duty belongs to us, and Events to God; let us in conscience conform to the will of God revealed, and we shall quietly submit to the secret will of God when it is revealed." (Fowler, B3)

This quote demonstrates Fowler and the Commissioners' firm belief that they need to eject Pordage from the church. God is in charge of Creation and after death He is the judge for which souls go where. However, on Earth, it is the responsibility of good Christians to keep the church pure and eradicate it of any poisons, such as the teachings of John Pordage.

Angel to Devil - Faith and Reason and Individual Thought

“I know that though their spirits were created perfectly pure in their kind and measure, yet if they were not continually supplied with inspiration from that Divine glory which gave them their beings, instead of continuing in their Angelic brightness, their spirits would become nothing else but a bottomless pit of imaginary confused darkness of aspiring wisdom above the Creator.” – from p.30, Laurence Claxton’s “A Paradisical Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason Disputing the High Mysterious Secrets of Eternity.” Publ. 1660

Claxton’s “Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason” tackles questions like ‘how an angel became the devil’ and ‘was this world created before the angels.’ I chose this quote from one of the chapters on angels because it sheds light onto why an angel, created pure, could become something so evil as Satan. Claxton anchors on the idea that there can be only one God, and so his creation of angels were as close to Himself as possible, yet they could not be perfectly like Him.

It is because of this flaw that they had the potential for downfall, and Lucifer did succumb to the desire for being greater than God, an impossibility. Also from this quote, we are told that his loss of the “continual supply of inspiration from Divine glory” he had no way of keeping his brightness, condemned to perfect darkness. No longer supplied with God’s love, Satan was doomed to become eternally tainted in darkness. The only thing remaining from Heaven was his desire to be supreme to God.

Another “Reason” that Claxton displays is his belief that the Earth was created because when Lucifer fell from Heaven he needed somewhere to go. Therefore, God created the Earth for his eternal destination, and that is why the Earth is so full of sin – “This world was prepared for the Devil, so this the Devil’s kingdom,” (Claxton, p.1)

Unlike most theological writers of this period, Claxton does not cite Scripture throughout his works. Rather, he separates paragraph as ‘Reason’ or ‘Faith.’ Upon further research of his spiritual life, I found that he studied many religions before selecting one that fit his beliefs. His choice was Baptist, but later joined the Ranters, which seem to be the exact opposite of the Baptists. They believed in individualism, free thought from all traditional restraints, that private ownership is wrong, and the sin only exists to those who believe it exists (otherwise, not the Ranters). These beliefs make it possible for Claxton’s personal beliefs to be considered truthful explanations.

I believe completely in this style of faith. As under the principle of accommodation, there are certain puzzles in this world that science today still cannot explain, yet the human soul craves answers. One could spend their life searching for these answers, yet without divine intervention, there is no way to know what is truly the truth. One must wait for death in order to find out what happens after death, and one must accept that there is no way to know the one correct answer to any spiritual question.

Maybe when we die, our beliefs determine what happens to our soul. Maybe our afterlife is of our own creation. Maybe we are all nothing more than the creation of someone else, and we exist only as figments of their imaginations. There is no way to tell what is true, and to try to figure this out can only ensure madness.

On an ending note, Claxton later left the Ranters to become a leader in a prestigious sect called the Muggletonians (inspiration for Harry Potter?). Taking the idea of creative belief to an extreme level, the Muggletonians believed that Heaven is approximately six miles above the Earth and the God is between five and six feet tall.

Why a Dog?

During the English Witch Trials, many women who were accused of being witches gave very specific confessions of how the devil came to them, what harm they caused on other people, and what the agreements were between them and the devils. The Devil came to them in animal form, and through a "witch's mark," shaped like a teat, he would suck blood from the witch. These animal forms, called familiars, could be cats, dogs, rats, and even in some accounts, chickens. In The Witch of Edmonton, as in Goodcole's original account of the trial of the real Elizabeth Sawyer, Satan appears as a dog.

Why a dog? Why not a cat? It's funny how certain parts of history stick around in society and are incorporated as cultural ideas. Today's Halloween is strongly characterized by these witch trials, with the picture of a witch being old, ugly, and deformed like the Elizabeth Sawyer in the play, but also the black cat is a strong symbol of Halloween, bad luck, and also the pet of every witch. Despite the fame of The Witch of Edmonton, hardly anyone would associate a dog as being a witch's familiar.

Keeping this in mind, Rowley, Dekker, and Ford, authors of TWoE, seem to have written this play for our time (although of course they wrote it centuries ago!), as it has small subtleties that may subconsciously make the idea of a dog as a familiar more natural. For example, in Elizabeth's cursing speech, she makes no mention of cats at all. Instead, she suggests familiars in the shape of "rats, ferrets, [and] weasels." With the image of familiar beginning to form in the reader/audience's mind, in the same speech, she uses doglike imagery when describing Banks as her personal devil.

As she describes Banks as her version of the devil, he appears in the exact form in each detail: "this black cur that barks and bites, and sucks the very blood of me and my credit." (Act II, Scene i, Lines 116-118). The devil then appears in exact likeness to this description. Coincidence? The devil is known for temptation, as seen in Doctor Faustus, so perhaps listening to her curses, this is how he decides what form to take.

Dog or cat, he is successful. Dog or cat, he still accomplishes Elizabeth's turning to him, becoming the witch that society decided was her identity.

Thoughts on the Witch of Edmonton

In Act 1 , Scene 1, Frank Thorney calls his wife wench, yet later in the scene goes on about how he loves her and will not betray their marriage. In the Early Modern Period, did wench mean something less derogatory than it does now? Also, their parting is sweet with the kiss :) The way that they have to hide their marriage because of the difference in classes is reminiscent of the Duchess of Malfi, in which Antonio and the Duchess hid their marriage but were still very much in love. However, Thorney and Winnifrede seem different, as though Thorney cares more about preserving his reputation than prioritizing love over all.

Sir Arthur chastises Thorney, saying he should have thought things through instead of being ruled by his passion. Maybe their marriage isn't a secret? Sir Arthur had suspicions of Thorney and Winnifrede, and Thorney confirms them. I think everyone will know by the end of the play. He is either terribly conflicted with his feelings or incredibly trusting of Sir Arthur, because he doesn't want his father to find out. Perhaps Thorney sees Sir Arthur as more of a father figure than he does of his own father.

"Get you to your nunnery" seems awfully familiar, as Sir Arthur directs this line to Winnifride in nearly the exact same words as in Hamlet. Clearly the relaitonship between Sir Arthur and Winnifride is not a good one. He thinks she can never change, because he knows her as a whore, despite the honest leaf she claims to have turned over.

Act 1, Scene 2: Thorney clearly is headed down a bad path. When his father is asking him aobut marrying another woman, he avoids answering the questions by responding with rhetoricals, and then when his father accuses him of having married Winnifride already, he denies it with a letter form Sir Arthur. He even admits his mischief to the audience in an aside. It is sad that his father's accusations were correct, yet then he is the one apologizing profusely.

"No man can hide his shame from heaven that views him." This closing line to the plays first act foreshadows Thorney's spiritual downfall, beacuse even if he lies to preserve the peace between father and son, God will see what he is doing, and in the end, it is God's opinion that matters most.

Act 2, Scene 1: In Elizabeth Sawyer's opening monologue as she gathers sticks, I feel sorry for her. She seems depressed, hopeless, upset with how she is treated, saying "why on me?" and comparing herself to a sink where everyone gets rid of their dirt. Just passing by a person, they call her a witch, and declare that if there was something worse, they'd call her that instead. Poor Elizabeth. Does she deserve this? She's beaten, cursed at, called a witch, and inevitable "taught to be a witch." The way she is treated just when she is doing simple chores to keep herself warm, its no wonder that her hopelessness turns her towards witchcraft, of which she is already accused.

Satan in the form of a dog comes to her when she is cursing. Because this play is supposedly based on a true story, this is especially noticeable here. In the witch pamphlets we read, some of the women who confessed to witchcraft said that the first time the devil came to them was when they were cursing. This partly stresses the importance of religion at the time, because cursing is the denial or rebellion against Christianity, which creates an opening for Satan to convince you to turn towards him and in this case become a witch, the opposite of Christian.

Elizabeth turns very quickly and is tempted immediately to command murder of Banks, who beat her just before. However, the dog says he can't kill him, because he can't touch him unless he follows the devil. It seems that Elizabeth is relieved to have turned towards Satan, because she finally has some kind of power in her life and she is anxious to use it.

These father and son relationships are sad. The wrong party keeps getting the short end of the stick. First Old Thorney is apologizing when he was lied to, and now Young Banks is getting tricked into something disastrous because of his father's cruelty. On another note, Elizabeth seems all too proud to actually be a witch after having been mistreated for it when she wasn't one. I thought witches tried to hide it so they wouldn't be accused and hanged. She is blurting it out left and right to Young Banks and she's only been a witch for a few minutes. Even though the end of the play is predictable without reading it, this just goes to show why she will be caught.