- Home
- Spirituality
- Mysticism
- Magic in Shakespeare
Magic in Shakespeare
- By Karen Wigham
- Published 07/27/2008
- Mysticism
-
Rating:




Karen Wigham
View all articles by Karen Wigham"You know that if a wax image of another person is buried and weighted with stones, then that person will suffer pain in the places where the stones lie and will not recover until the image is unburdened."
(Paracelsus, c. 1520, Volumaen Medicinae Paramirim)
A genius, although also arguably a perfectionist madman, it is no surprise that Paracelsus would have treated such concepts as unambiguous. This was due not to his madness, but to the period in which he lived, and also, that years of practice had proved the theory correct.
Paracelsus was the first ‘isolated and lonely figure’ in a select number of those thought to be ‘Renaissance Magi’. Giordano Bruno, who took the ‘bolder course of maintaining that the magical Egyptian religion of the world was not only the most ancient but also the only true religion, which both Judaism and Christianity had obscured and corrupted’, may well have been correct, but was not allowed time enough to provide evidence being burned as a heretic for his boldness. The aforementioned John Dee, a mathematic genius, ‘enjoyed the favour of Queen Elizabeth’ as we already appreciate, but his ‘anguish’ at the ‘destruction of the monastic libraries’ and his attempt to ‘rescue as much of their contents as possible’, left him labelled a ‘conjuror’ and a sympathiser of the ‘Papist past’ in a Protestant England. These were the foremost Renaissance Magi, men known for magic and science. This juxtaposition of the two, along with the strong belief in magic’s existence
is as much a part of Elizabethan society, as Elizabeth herself.
