Abstractly you could situate Ford's views someplace between thinking that witchcraft is a real threat, and the position on that subject that women accused of this crime must be falsely accused because such a crime was absurd. Actually though, the King was James I and he did believe in witchcraft, so the playwright had to be careful dealing with an event so recent. What Ford did was say the woman practised witchcraft but only after she was falsely accused of using it, so the old woman figured she might as well invoke the devil's help to get revenge. Ford knew that people couldn't really get the devil to hurt other people. Our text below is a dialogue between a simpleton, a saint really, and a dog that is a devil. It is a humorous exchange.In the world of the play, Cuddy, the innocent one, is the only character who cannot be affected by the devil's power. Tom is the name of the dog. Tom is invisible to everyone except the old woman [actually and in Ford's play also, named Elizabeth Sawyer] and Cuddy.
My source for the dialogue below is the play The Witch of Edmonton (1621) available now many places but I used the copy in Volume 3 of The Works of John Ford (1895.)
Dog. Ha, ha, ha, ha!
Let not the world witches or devils condemn;
They follow us, and then we follow them.
....Cuddy Banks.
Cud. I would fain meet with ...[the dog once more] he has had a claw amongst 'em.... A kind cur where he takes, but where he takes not, a dogged rascal; ....[Dog barks.] No! art thou there? [Seeing the Dog] that's Tom's voice, but 'tis not he; this is a dog of another hair, this. Bark, and not speak to me? not Tom, then;there's as much difference betwixt Tom and this as betwixt white and black.
Dog. Hast thou forgot me?
Cud. That's Tom again.... is thy name Tom?
Dog. Whilst I served my old Dame Sawyer 'twas; I'm gone from her now.
Cud. Gone? away with the witch, then, too ! she'll never thrive if thou leavest her; she knows no more how to kill a cow, or a horse, or a sow, without thee, than she does to kill a goose.
Dog. No, she has done killing now, but must be killed for what she has done; she's shortly to be hanged.
Cud. Is she? in my conscience, if she be, 'tis thou hast brought her to the gallows, Tom.
Dog. Right; I served her to that purpose; 'twas part of my wages.
Cud. This was no honest servant's part, by your leave, Tom. This remember, I pray you, between you and I; I entertained you ever as a dog, not as a devil.
Dog. True;
And so I us'd thee doggedly, not devilishly;
I have deluded thee for sport to laugh at:
The wench thou seek'st after thou never spak'st with,
But a spirit in her form, habit, and likeness.
Ha, ha!
Cud. I do not, then, wonder at the change of your garments, if you can enter into shapes of women too.
Dog. Any shape, to blind such silly eyes as thine; but chiefly those coarse creatures, dog or cat, hare, ferret, frog, toad.
Cud. Louse or flea?
Dog. Any poor vermin.
.....
Ford here carries out the logical implications of witchcraft to point to its absurdity. In broader terms Ford is asking us to consider whether anyone is responsible for their own actions, or if free will is a phantasm. Ford may have been aware of the real medieval view of witchcraft. Until Aquinas, in the 13th century, talk of witchcraft was a cause for pity at the deluded speaker. The medieval logic was that god created everything, and that to suggest a devil could affect events was to doubt the deity's power. My own view is that we cannot assume the question of free will versus determinism has been settled by modern thinkers.
My source for the dialogue below is the play The Witch of Edmonton (1621) available now many places but I used the copy in Volume 3 of The Works of John Ford (1895.)
Dog. Ha, ha, ha, ha!
Let not the world witches or devils condemn;
They follow us, and then we follow them.
....Cuddy Banks.
Cud. I would fain meet with ...[the dog once more] he has had a claw amongst 'em.... A kind cur where he takes, but where he takes not, a dogged rascal; ....[Dog barks.] No! art thou there? [Seeing the Dog] that's Tom's voice, but 'tis not he; this is a dog of another hair, this. Bark, and not speak to me? not Tom, then;there's as much difference betwixt Tom and this as betwixt white and black.
Dog. Hast thou forgot me?
Cud. That's Tom again.... is thy name Tom?
Dog. Whilst I served my old Dame Sawyer 'twas; I'm gone from her now.
Cud. Gone? away with the witch, then, too ! she'll never thrive if thou leavest her; she knows no more how to kill a cow, or a horse, or a sow, without thee, than she does to kill a goose.
Dog. No, she has done killing now, but must be killed for what she has done; she's shortly to be hanged.
Cud. Is she? in my conscience, if she be, 'tis thou hast brought her to the gallows, Tom.
Dog. Right; I served her to that purpose; 'twas part of my wages.
Cud. This was no honest servant's part, by your leave, Tom. This remember, I pray you, between you and I; I entertained you ever as a dog, not as a devil.
Dog. True;
And so I us'd thee doggedly, not devilishly;
I have deluded thee for sport to laugh at:
The wench thou seek'st after thou never spak'st with,
But a spirit in her form, habit, and likeness.
Ha, ha!
Cud. I do not, then, wonder at the change of your garments, if you can enter into shapes of women too.
Dog. Any shape, to blind such silly eyes as thine; but chiefly those coarse creatures, dog or cat, hare, ferret, frog, toad.
Cud. Louse or flea?
Dog. Any poor vermin.
.....
Ford here carries out the logical implications of witchcraft to point to its absurdity. In broader terms Ford is asking us to consider whether anyone is responsible for their own actions, or if free will is a phantasm. Ford may have been aware of the real medieval view of witchcraft. Until Aquinas, in the 13th century, talk of witchcraft was a cause for pity at the deluded speaker. The medieval logic was that god created everything, and that to suggest a devil could affect events was to doubt the deity's power. My own view is that we cannot assume the question of free will versus determinism has been settled by modern thinkers.
And THAT is the question deviling our dramatist here. If there is no free will, how can anyone be condemned for their actions.
John Ford typically worked in collaboration on his dramas and that was the case with The Witch of Edmonton. The main theme of this story may be sex and real estate. You'll have to read the play to find out why I say that.
No comments:
Post a Comment