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.

An Extension of the Self, that the Self Cannot Rule

Twins during the Early Modern period were of high interest to the public. People enjoyed hearing and learning things about twins, whether they were conjoined twins, identical twins, or fraternal twins, such as Ferdinand and the Duchess in Webster's The Duchess of Malfi.

Twins share a more intense bond than that of ordinary brother and sister, suggesting a splitting of the self, or one being reflected in two separate bodies. As such, one would expect twins to think similarly to each other and therefore act and behave similarly. One would not assume substantial discord in twins' views, such as what is presented in the differing opinions of Ferdinand and the Duchess.

In Act I, Scene 3 of the play, Ferdinand expresses his desire for his twin sister, the Duchess, to not marry. He explicitly instructs her not to do so, and this direct approach is met with the Duchess's agreement, which upholds the idea of synonymous thinking. However, immediately after this conversation, she marries Antonio, an action which is sure to displease her brothers. Act II, Scene 5 shows Ferdinand's response when he finds that she has had a child; the response is outrageous anger and loathing for his sister accompanied with vast disgrace.

Ferdinand's disgust is highly predictable, however the cause behind it is more than the surface conflict of her disobeying his expressed wishes. As a twin, the two shared a womb before birth and emerged into the world together -- as one, yet as two. Splitting into two bodies, there is still a strong connection, which is clearly felt by Ferdinand. The Duchess's actions make her brother uncomfortable because he feels as though they reflect on him. He does not understand why his sister, as a part of him, is not being properly controlled by his mind, as though she is merely an extension of his body. Despite the fact that the two have been separate human beings from birth, with separate lives and separate growing minds, he still feels that they should be as one. His confusion of why part of his body is acting against his beliefs, noble or otherwise, manifests itself into madness and obsession. Her sexual promiscuity in his eyes is something that he feels he should have control over, and leads him into a downward spiral.

The violent images presented by this scene display his desire to regain control of his other half. Ferdinand's desire is now to purge his sister of her own thoughts and person, to empty out her mind, so that either he can step in and save what is left or completely get rid of her, and thus end the struggle in his own self. Webster's word choices and imagery are full of allusions to this emptying. Ferdinand speaks of rhubarb, as a laxative to purge her. He talks of "rooting up" her territory, suggesting that he even wants to get rid of her political life. He wants to use a "smarting cupping glass," to physically drain her of blood.

Ferdinand speaks as though the reason the Duchess is bad is because she is woman, for nature has placed "women's hearts so far upon the left side," (Act 2, Scene 5, Lines 32- 33) which makes them evil. He is accommodating, making excuses for what went wrong when the twins split into two separate bodies, which makes him feel better about his own self.

He displays his madness and plan to cause tragedy in Lines 48-49, "'Tis not your whore's milk that shall quench my wild fire, But your whore's blood." Ferdinand admits to the fire inside him caused by his anger, and speaks to the woman inside his twin, referring to her as a whore, and expressing his desire to kill her in order to calm his rage.

In these lines, the sole reason of Ferdinand's lifelong internal conflict is addressed: not being able to control his "other half," in that she is woman. A main difference between men and women is woman's ability to produce milk in nurturing children. Anything that does not stop fire only feeds it. If it does not destroy the fire, it becomes consumed by the fire and in turn becomes the fire. Showing that while milk is a liquid, will do nothing but add to Ferdinand's fire, while her blood, her lifeline, will destroy it, shows that he must take her life in order to live his peacefully.

Ironically, Webster uses the word "quench" in destroying the fire. Quench, to me, is more often linked to thirst. If Webster has a double meaning to these lines, which would go along with the twinly theme of two, it expresses the alternate side to Ferdinand's hate. The fire represents his hate, and the opposite of hate is love. Her womanhood, expressed by her milk, does not extinguish the hate, and therefore must extinguish the love.

Either way, Ferdinand is troubled by his inability to control his twin sister in a way that only twins can feel. Webster's portrayal of this character's desire to see her dead in order to feel whole again foreshadows Ferdinand's madness, which arises from the human inner conflict that arises from the idea of wishing another human dead.

Let The Punishment Fit The Crime

Stop crying about Hamlet being a jerk. Sure that's one way to look at it, but I'm sticking to the historical idea that he is a hero. That's how I read the play. It's not that he's mad, it's not that he's a bad guy, it's that he's human. He deserves justification, and it's not rationalizing to explain why he did things, but rationalizing for those who can't understand him.

He doesn't want to hurt anyone except for Claudius, and unfortunately he drives himself mad by trying to control things and ends up hurting other people. Whatever, other people hurt him and made this happen. Whose fault is it initially? --- Claudius. He started this mess before the play began and the whole upheaval and mess caused in the play is his fault. We just don't see the true beginning to this play and come in in the middle.

In one of my other classes, we have been discussing different motivation theories, and the one that truly applies here to Hamlet's choices and reasoning is the Equity Theory, pertaining to choices made when perceived inequity exists.

Hamlet has been dealt a shitty hand. His mother and father's love was his rock, his stability. He comes home from college and his world is turned over. His father has died and his mother has immediately remarried and it is his uncle, his father's brother, who Hamlet already dislikes. His parent's love has been made a joke by this new marriage, and on top of that, he meets a ghost who tells him his father did not simply die, he was murdered. Claudius is not only the one who murdered his father, but also in doing so, murdered their love and turned it into a public joke. Who wouldn't be driven crazy?

It is arguable that he may have had some mental condition arise from all of this, however let's look at it rationally in the perspective of this motivational theory, which is sincerely applicable to much of human decision. Hamlet has been given all of these troubles, piled on him without having done something to deserve them. He perceives the inequity, and without a legal body to represent him and punish Claudius, correcting this imbalance, he must take it into his own hands.

There is no crime scene investigation, no search to find out what caused his death, and the body is already gone, so Hamlet sets up his own creative investigation by using the play to confirm Claudius' guilt. He could have acted solely on the word of the ghost, which may or may not have truly been his father, but he didn't and that's pretty noble. It's not trying to control everything, it's leading an investigation and making sure that you get the right unaffected, unskewed answer.

Then, when he sees his suspicions confirmed as Claudius jumps up at the play-within-a-play's moment of truth, Hamlet follows the [imposter] king into his chambers and finds him praying asking for forgiveness. No matter whether or not Claudius' prayers are received in heaven, Hamlet cannot take the chance of killing him now. By killing him now when he has the chance for diving mercy and everlasting salvation, the imbalance will not be corrected. Claudius not only murdered Hamlet's father, but also took his mother and corrupted the marriage, and in doing so corrupted Hamlet.

Let the punishment suit the crime. A life for a life is an archetypal punishment, but what is the proper punishment for a life plus a whole lot more? Without beleiving in an afterlife, the only viable punishment would be a whole lot of torture and then execution. However, clearly Hamlet and the rest of the play's characters, as well as Shakespeare's audience, beleive in God and in heaven. While it is ultimately God's decision to determine a person's place in Heaven or in Hell, Hamlet can up Claudius' chances for the latter by killing him in a sinful state.

When noticing that despite the unbeleivably tempting opportunity before him, he would be doing Claudius a service by killing him now, he realizes more injustice in his father's murder. Killing Claudius now would be "hire and salary, not revenge," because Claudius would fly right no up to Heaven. At the time of Hamlet's father's murder, he was "full of bread, with all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May"(III, iii, 83-85). On top of all of the other horrible things, his father was not given this chance to ask God for forgiveness.

Passing up the chance to kill Claudius now is heroic, not insane. Hamlet is trying to get revenge, but the revenge must be worth getting. He is not trying to control too much. He can only kill Claudius once, and is only playing it safe in this scene to ensure that when he does kill him, that it be of the proper condition to correct the imbalance in equity.

I don't think people realize just how rational Hamlet's actions are. His thought process is not erratic. He doesn't act impulsively, he plans so that he can ensure perfection. When he acts on impulse rather than planning, bad things happen, such as his accidental murder of Polonius. This just justifies why he must have everythign figured out. He is not a lucky person, and without luck, one must have all of the cards laid out on the table before betting any chips.

So quit attributing ignorance and misunderstanding to be villainry, saying "people don't do that," because they do. People in extreme situations will think differently than people on the outside looking in. To fully understand and be able to critique, you have to get inside and look out.

Only Human

People are half good, half bad. Some show more of the good, some the bad, but every human has both parts in them. It’s called a conscience, and unfortunately in this world, all we can see, hold, and touch is human-related. There are those few parts of the world where someone gets to be the first person to view its beauty, but for the most part, everything has already been seen, been held, and been touched. The world we live in is dominated by human choice and human decision. Some choices and decisions good, some bad.

People hurt people, and people get hurt by people. What good can come out of a world where humans make the choices, and screw everything up: friendships, relationships, even the planet that is our home. Humans essentially have the capability of being good, but often choose the bad as it is more appealing the easy way out and advertises itself as the self-bettering, more life-improving option.

As we have seen in Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, good doesn’t advertise itself with the tricks we see and learn about in marketing classes. The good angel says to repent, that it is not too late to make the right choice. It has the better rewards in the end: the rewards and gifts of heaven, the promise for everlasting happiness after death, and God’s eternal love, which is the greatest gift of all. The evil angel, however, pulls out all the stops: emotional appeal, bribery, and whatever else he can think of to keep Faustus’ mind off of the good angel. And Faustus chooses evil.

“He’s only human,” someone might say, as though it is okay to make bad decisions. Being human, you’re allowed to mess up. Humanity, God’s creation, is reduced down to nothing more than an excuse to sin. Humans are part good and part bad.

During the Early Modern Period, angels were seen as God’s way of putting more good into the world. Miracles were explained by angels. If it couldn’t be explained in human terms, it was believed that the miracle was caused by angelic intervention. If the person/people affected by the intervention were living immoral lives, the event was explained as a “call to repentance as a means of averting divine wrath.” (Marshall, 21)

If people are only half good, and evil tries too hard to make itself appealing, it is fitting that God sends angels to work more good into the world. Even if we can’t see it, we see its results. Heaven’s not on a television commercial, not shown as a beautiful cruise destination of sandy golden beaches and crystal blue waters. Good leaves its mark as angels pass in and out of our lives, fixing some of the bad caused by evil and human mistakes and touches the hearts of so many.

Proof of Angels' Existence?

The world is already difficult enough as it is with human problems, pain and suffering. Throw supernatural angels and demons into it and it just gets even more complicated. What is it that makes humans need to further complicate their lives?

Is it the yearning for external explanations to explain their misfortunes? Is it the need to feel as though their lives mean something beyond wasting space and energy on this planet? Is it the fear of death and the need for hope that life does not end there?

Renaissance Protestants were strong supporters of this last possibility, and were fascinated with death. A 17th century account describes a woman at the edge of death surrounded by loved ones, exclaiming during her last moments that she could see angels standing around her ready to defend her soul. (Oldridge, "Angels on a Pinhead") This idea echoes the philosophies of Jacobus de Voragine, who in the 13th century published The Golden Legend. In this work, he described the existence of a good angel and an evil angel for each person - the evil angel to test him and the good angel to protect him. During sickness and death, the struggle between the two heightens, as the ultimate prize of the person's soul is at its nearest.

Angels in the Early Modern Period existed to reassure people that good could triumph over evil, that God cared about their souls, and that there was purpose in leading godly lives, to live eternally with Him after death. He sent angels to protect them and guide them, and these angels carried the messages of God.

Pictured above is the Enochian alphabet, discovered by Elizabeth I's court astrologer John Dee. Dee used a special crystal and a medium, Kelley, to summon and speak with angels. In many of these "angelic conferences," (Deacon, John Dee, 146) Dee used a chart like the one above to transfer symbols into tables; these tables would then be translated into English. The works produced were believed by Dee and his supporters to be a new scripture that would bring together the two sides of Christianity -- the Catholics and the Protestants -- who were in large conflict at the time.

The fact that these examples of the language of angels and how completely different it is from any other pattern of language created by man gives credibility to Dee's research. Scholars today are still translating his charts, and because the language is so different from any other studied, it is a long and tedious process, however upheld as a true language that can be translated. Is it really the voice of the angels?

The writings not only bring public attention to Dee and his possible corruption, but they highlight angel belief from the time period. Is this the communication and proof of angels' existence? Angels were and are today very important as moral compasses. If they are God's eyes and ears and they're all around, we are more likely to act in ways we would be proud of.

It is important that we have angels because they give us hope. They force us to act wisely and encourage our belief in God. Angels serve an important purpose in our world, and perhaps make it simpler and easier to make the right choices as we navigate through this difficult earthly world.