If we are to examine Shakespeare’s use of, and relationship with magic, we must first attempt to understand, as he did, the society to which he belonged. Whether magic was humorous, revered, demonised, or conspiratorial, it was deeply imbedded in a society that for thousands of years had been pagan, and therefore assumed authentic. Queen Elizabeth had ‘a profound sense of the cosmos acting upon her’ and was said to have healing hands, her touch being thought of as ‘vindication’ of her place on the throne and ‘proof that the Pope’s attempt to excommunicate her had been vetoed by God.’ Belief in magic was so fervent it was thought to be a factor in ‘affairs of state’. Elizabeth’s government were so concerned about a ‘crude’ image of the queen which had been was discovered, that they ‘called in John Dee, the master of occult law, to prescribe protective measures.’ Thomas refers to a ‘search being carried out for sorcerers’ after the ‘discovery of a wax doll’ resembling a monarch ‘with pins stuck in it’ such was the momentousness of magic. The understanding of the occult was such that, instead of being the dichotomy by which we have come to understand them, magic and science were synonymous with one another. Paracelsus was a significant influence on Elizabethan occult beliefs. A mathematician, astrologer, alchemist, and doctor, he displayed a steadfast conviction in what currently might seem frivolous:

"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.

The magic used in Shakespeare’s plays spans over the reign of two monarchs. After the death of Elizabeth 1st, James 1st became King of England. The belief in magic remained, however, after 1603, a society led by King James found its Pagan beliefs demonised, and ‘lost its playful interaction with nature’. He not only made it terrifying, but also ‘forcibly maintained’ the belief in witchcraft. Indeed, from his original place as King of Scotland, James was said to participate in a ‘series of witch trials from 1590 in which some 300 people were charged with witchcraft’. It is surmised he was influenced by the European ‘witch craze’ having spent time in Denmark; his ‘accusations included plots to raise storms’ and kill him as he travelled by sea. Soon after he was crowned King of England, James passed laws which made practicing witchcraft punishable by death. He revised the Bible so that anyone who ‘practiced bad magic, or poisoned others’ was referred to as ‘witch’. This ‘may have been done as a deliberate act of propaganda’ but whatever the case, it has been detrimental to witchcraft and magic. Christians today, ‘can still cite the passage at Exodus 22:18 which in the King James Bible reads, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’

King James 1st perpetuated and in time, solidified the connection of witches and witchcraft to malevolence. Whether people were conspiring against him, or if he was merely paranoid and fearful of that which he did not understand we do not know. We do know that James altered the perception of magic to the extent that his influence remains in Christian doctrine today. There is evidence to suggest that he not only made society afraid, but also burdened it with his obsession,

His wondering subjects had their eyes opened to the fact that not a child could talk incoherently or fall into a fit, not a harvest could fail or a vessel be wrecked at sea, not a scarecrow or grimalkin could cross one’s path after dark, but the devil had some hand in it, with a sorceress as his agent.

Toddler’s tantrums and lack of eloquence, failure to reap good harvest, sunken ships, scarecrows and old cats, all the fault of a witch, spurred on by the devil. Any misfortune that society had to endure was laid at the feet of the witch. This blame philosophy was convenient to the likes of physicians who, if unable to diagnose a problem, would claim that the patient was ‘bewitched’. Witchcraft became the scapegoat of Jacobean society.

Shakespeare was undoubtedly conscious of his surroundings, and therefore had to be influenced by these occurrences. This is evident when observing the magic in his plays. The use of the craft and folklore in his work ranges from comedic to evil, from evil to neutral. Shakespeare adapted his portrayal of magic to his surroundings, encompassing that which was popular opinion at the time. A prudent thing to do as it would have pleased the audiences, and in the reign of King James 1st, could very well have kept his status, not to mention, his existence, intact. Did Shakespeare’s own opinion of magic change with the times as it would seem, or did he portray views other than his own to amuse and gratify his audience, and therefore be admired and wealthy? Or as Shakespeare put it, change his ‘state with kings’ (Sonnets, 29, p22). It is acceptable to think so, he was after all a playwright, and made his living from his occupation, namely entertainment. In the playwright’s work we witness him manipulate magic skilfully to fit his purpose. This makes him a literary magus, a magician with words, but there are clues to suggest his ties with magic did not exist only in his works,

"O learn to read what silent love hath writ!
 To hear with thine eyes belongs to love’s fine wit!"
(Sonnets, 23, p21)

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is believed to have been inspired by the ‘late Renaissance magical poem, The Faerie Queen, and was first witnessed at a ‘private performance at a wedding’ a short time before 1600 when it was printed, prior to the first folio in 1623. In a time when ‘widespread dissemination of fairies’ occurred throughout England this play is primarily facilitated by the magic of fairies. They make errors in magic and succeed in repairing them using the very same art. Their depiction however, is somewhat contradictory. While Puck states that he is one of the fairies‘that do run / By the triple Hecate’s team / From the presence of the sun / Following darkness like a dream.’ (5.1.380)

Oberon has illustrated to him previously the distinction between fairies, and spirits of darkness,

"But we are spirits of another sort, I with the morning’s love have oft made sport" (3.2.388)

This is because although amongst the fairies, and thinking of himself as a part of them, Puck is a hobgoblin. This is apparent in the chant ‘Goblin lead them up and down’ (3.2.398) made by puck himself. Hobgoblins have been attributed to everything from a ‘House hob’, a mischievous sprite who if left milk, or clothes which please him will do good deeds, such as ‘sweeping’ in your home, if displeased will ‘curdle your milk’ and ‘bathe your children in beer’, to the ‘Lantern Man’, who both ‘led people astray, and was prone to violence’. If you were to run to The Lantern Man, attracted to his light in the darkness, you were ‘Pouk-ledden’ or ‘Puck-led’. This legend also comes in the less sinister guise of ‘Willow the Wisp’. These amalgamations in folklore all adhere to Shakespeare’s Puck, with his ‘leading’ of men, ability to ‘skim milk’ and tendency to ‘mislead night-wanderers, laughing at their harm’ (1.2.35).

Puck also declares another obligation connected to the Hobgoblin, 'I am sent with broom before, To sweep the dust behind the door.'(5.1.383)

Schlender correctly states that information on ‘Puck’ is ‘scarce’, and that literary reference to the character were created throughout, or latter to, the time in which Shakespeare created his ‘Puck’. He did not use any ‘literary model’ to create his ‘Robin Goodfellow’, but drew on his own folklore knowledge. This makes the ‘Puck’ of a Midsummer Night’s Dream Shakespeare’s own unique interpretation of the tales. Shakespeare is thought to have been responsible for transforming ‘the Pucks’, as there were more than one, to ‘Puck’, the proper noun, the name, of his character, therefore being solely responsible for this deviation from the original folklore. Furthermore, by having Oberon reverse Puck’s enchantment of Bottom, Shakespeare makes a ‘curious distinction’. He does not connect Puck with death; he presents the ‘original’ concept that Puck was intended to ‘torment, but not to hurt.’ This is a positive depiction of Robin Goodfellow compounded by his unwillingness to ‘offend’ his audience, and the declaration of himself as an ‘honest Puck’ and offer of friendship and assistance,

"Give me your hands, if we be friends, And Robin Shall restore amends."(5.1.432)

Schleiner articulates that Puck’s comedy was ‘subtle play with what is deepest taboo’. However, it would be more accurate to state that Shakespeare, given his interpretation of these folklore tales was, in a manner of speaking, charmed, by the notion of Puck. So much so, he placed him amongst fairies, lightening his previous reputation, or as Yates put it, causing Robin Goodfellow’s ‘absorbtion’ in the fairy family. This character, reminiscent of the ‘Green Man’, an ancient Pagan symbol carved into trees and stone, specifically on churches the world over, has come to be thought of a symbol of good luck, and reminds us to appreciate nature. Shakespeare’s character comments on ‘Hecate’, a deity often referred to in Shakespeare whenever magic is present, and with good reason.

Hecate is the ‘Goddess of all magic and witchcraft’ inextricably linked with the night, who ‘predates all Greek deities’, but was ‘adopted’ by Zeus. Hecate appears at the ‘three-way’ crossroads, ‘with hounds’, ‘holding the knife’ or ‘athame’, a tool of witchcraft used in the same way as a staff or wand, to cast circles, a ‘midwife’s tool’, and a ‘torch to light the darkness’. The remarkable thing about Puck’s reference to her is that he states her as ‘triple Hecate’s team’. One of the names by which Hecate is referred is ‘Hecate Trivia’. The word ‘trivia’ does not suggest Hecate is negligible, but ‘literally means ‘three roads’’, this coupled with Hecate being ‘understood to be a triple-Goddess by herself, appearing as maiden, mother and crone’, being symbolic of youth and beauty, motherhood and wisdom and death. Puck’s reference is paramount to understanding Shakespeare’s use of, and relationship with magic because he understood it more intimately than initial examination of the text would imply. This presents in Oberon and Puck’s conversation regarding Cupid,

"But I might see young Cupid’s fiery shaft Quench’d in the chaste beams of the watery moon; And the imperial votress passed on, In maiden meditation, fancy-free."(2.1.363-895)

Yates purports that the depiction of the ‘chaste moon’, is one of Elizabeth as a ‘vestal virgin’ who ‘defeats the assaults of Cupid’ being an ‘imperial votress’. He follows that in a ‘well know portrait’ of Elizabeth she ‘holds a sieve’ symbolic of ‘chastity, and ‘behind her rises the empire’. This is praise of Elizabeth, by Shakespeare, but given the aforementioned reference to Hecate, it is twinned with a deeper, more profound compliment.

The moon to which Shakespeare refers is symbolic of the moon Goddess Diana. Much as Shakespeare blended the legend of ‘Puck’, so mythology has done so with Goddesses. Diana is linked with Hecate in this method. The moon is a symbol of Diana, and therefore Hecate. The three incarnations of Hecate are linked with the lunar cycle, the new moon is the ‘maiden’ the full moon the ‘mother’, and the waning moon, the ‘crone’. If Shakespeare has the intimate knowledge of magic witnessed through Puck’s mention of Hecate, what he is saying is that Elizabeth is akin to a Goddess, not only that, but she is in ‘maiden meditation’, the youngest, most virginal of all her representations. This portrayal corresponds with Yates’ non-magical perspective, which cannot be mere coincidence. Shakespeare is complimenting his queen using Pagan imagery, in addition to the conventional. There is more pagan language apparent in the play; this is without further
mention of Puck’s speeches. Near the end of the play, the fairies bless the wedding bed, with ‘to the best bride-bed will be / which by us shall blessed be.’(5.1.397-912) ‘Blessed be’ is an international phrase used by the Pagan community, and is used in hand-fasting, a symbolic joining of two people much like a wedding. It is also used in ritual as part of the ‘Five fold Kiss’,

The High Priest kneels before the High Priestess and gives her the Five Fold Kiss; that is, he kisses her on both feet, both knees, womb, both breasts, and the lips, starting with the right of each pair. He says, as he does this:

"Blessed be thy feet, that have brought thee in these ways.
 Blessed be thy knees, that shall kneel at the sacred altar.
 Blessed be thy womb, without which we would not be.
 Blessed be thy breasts, formed in beauty.
 Blessed be thy lips, that shall utter the Sacred Names."

For the kiss on the lips, they embrace, length-to-length, with their feet touching each others. When he reaches the womb, she spreads her arms wide, and the same after the kiss on the lips.

This is well known custom and should be present in any self-respecting pagan’s Book of Shadows or Grimoire. It is impossible to tell however, whether Shakespeare was influenced by pagan lore, or was, given his rewriting of Puck, pagan lore was influenced by the playwright. Given that this is a way in which those who are magically inclined wish well on someone, and the ancient roots of paganism, it could well be the former, used in a society still profoundly touched by magic. This playful and magical play is evidence that Shakespeare used magic as a story facilitator, but more than this, he enjoyed folklore, and held more magical knowledge than one would have originally thought. However, with the change in sovereignty, came a change in the perception of magic. This can be distinguished in Macbeth. Yates says of Macbeth, that ‘the magic is bad, an evil necromancy’ and that ‘few escape from this black night of Hell’.

Hunter considers the prologue of Macbeth to be ‘the most ‘non natural prologue unique in all Shakespearian drama. The drumming in the first scene is ‘irresistibly conspiratorial hovering between a ritual and a threat.’ He labelled it a ‘diabolical tattoo’. This stark alteration in Shakespeare’s use of magic in Macbeth echoes King James’ paranoia regarding witchcraft. The witch’s claim that she will cause a ‘tempest’ when slighted by a sailor’s wife, for instance, can be likened to the accusations James made during witch trials in Scotland. The witches are shown as conspiratorial, whereas previously, they were commonly displayed as a solitary practitioner or in the ‘cunning man’ status related to the ‘wise woman’ of the village. This woman or man would offer assistance in medicine and midwifery  to the people in their community. Macbeth shows the witches in coven form, with wicked purpose. 

Willis claims that the witches ‘incite Macbeth to murder’. On the contrary, ‘the weird sisters do not plant the seeds of evil in Macbeth’. It is crucial to remember; they have no power over the innocent; that they are not without human passions.’ Indeed, Macbeth controls, moreover, threatens, the witches during the necromancy ritual later in the play,

"I will be satisfied: deny me this, And an eternal curse fall on you!"(4.1.104-114)

It is Macbeth who ultimately, fuelled by the arrogance of believing he is immortal, presides over the ‘foul anomalies ‘that are Shakespeare’s weird sisters. They warn him ‘Seek to know no more!’ (4.1.103-114), but Macbeth continues, despite their counsel, proceeding to blame them for the horrific vision of Banquo and his offspring which he requested to witness. They initially predict Macbeth’s future, and do not ‘incite’ any action. All that follows is by the actions or request of Macbeth himself. This comparison between the witches’ sisterhood and Macbeth’s behaviour: ‘the sisterly community in which the witches exist revolving around ‘dance, the moon, pre-visions’ is a co-operation that is the feminine opposite of Macbeth’s male egomania’ is crucial to distinguishing what might lie beneath the anti-witchcraft surface of Macbeth.

The ‘Scottish Play’, and its portrayal of witchcraft, is alike that given by King James in Daemonologie. The devil send witches to joint [disjoin] bodies and to make powders thereof, mixing such other things there-amongst as he gives unto them. This is why although the witches are all pursuing ‘separate labours’, they meet on the battlefield with a ‘common purpose’, other that that of meeting Macbeth. Willis writes that ‘no one
in Shakespeare’s time would have had any doubt about the motive’. The witches are portrayed as collecting body parts for spells, specifically those unholy sources or from outside consecrated ground, which are used in the witch’s cauldron later in the play,

"Liver of blaspheming Jew;
 Gall of Goat and slips of Yew,
 Silvered in the moon’s eclipse;
 Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips;
 Finger of birth-strangled babe,
 Ditch-delivered by a drab"
(4.2.26-107)

The body parts are collected from battlefields, the foreign element suggests this, and a ‘drab’ or prostitute has a child who is without baptism, and therefore unable ‘to be buried in consecrated ground’. It is important to express at this point, that there is no real evidence of body parts being used in spells during pre-Christian Paganism. Pagan spells contain many ingredients which could be deemed unpleasant. This includes toenails, hair, body fluids, including the sexual and even excrement. The ‘most powerful magical ingredient on earth’ is considered to be menstrual blood. The connection between ‘menstruation and the lunar cycle’ was noted by John Dee, who kept a ‘detailed coded record’ of his wife Jane’s periods, he also used ‘horse manure and menstrual blood’ during his work.

If Dee possessed this knowledge, it is not unreasonable to assume that Shakespeare, like his intellectual associates, had some magical knowledge; certainly enough to establish that King James’ accusations of body-part use in magic were a fallacy. Sir Robert Cecil was a short man claimed affectionately by Elizabeth to be her ‘elf’, when communicating with Dee, Cecil sent ‘William Hall, a mysterious figure who some have speculated was William Shakespeare under an alias’. This, accompanied by the time in which he lived, is evidence that Shakespeare was aware of such investigation into magic. However, references to James 1st’s Daemonologie are throughout the play,

"It will have blood, they say: blood will have blood" (3.4.122-96)

This fear of Macbeth’s can be illuminated by Wilson referring to James’ work, For as in a secret Murther, if the dead carkasse bee at any time thereafter handled by the murtherer, it will gush out bloud, as if the bloud were crying to heauen for the reuenge of the murtherer.

Willis likens Macbeth to Sir Edward Kelley, an associate of John Dee, by some thought to be a mere conman, stating that Macbeth appealed to the ‘witches in the name of their art, of their dark knowledge, no matter what its source.’ If Shakespeare was referring to Kelley, then surely the character of Macbeth himself would have more than this in common with him. Perhaps in his nature, a tenuous link to Kelley can be found, but there is more to the portrayal of Macbeth. The witchcraft that surrounds Macbeth is the revealing tool used by Shakespeare to establish Macbeth’s true character. This is evident if we examine some anomalies, that is, that which seems exaggerated or inaccurate within the play.

The sisters do not cast a traditional circle, nor do they have an implement of magic such as a wand, athame, broom or indeed, a staff like Prospero in The Tempest. They circle the cauldron, using somewhat overdramatic chanting and dancing, which has been marked, if not as overdramatic, then as unique in Shakespeare’s text. With the exception of Yew, a tree synonymous with death, and hemlock, a poison, the spell ingredients are animal parts. Witchcraft is more inclined to the use of herbs and plants, for instance, ‘wing of bat’ is not an actual wing but a holly leaf. The ingredients are mainly symbolic and little evidence against this, other than after the time of King James 1st, can be established. Another histrionic aspect of the play is a tribute to James 1st,

"The mere despair of surgery, he cures;
 Hanging a golden stamp on their necks,
 Put on with holy prayers: and ‘tis spoken,
 To the succeeding royalty he leaves
 The healing benediction. With this strange virtue,
 He hath the heavenly gift of prophecy;
 And sundry blessings hang about his throne,
 That speak him full of grace."
(4.3.152-131)

James was said to have a healing touch, which he ‘ascribed’ to prayer. This king also claimed in his speech to parliament that, ‘kings are justly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Divine power upon earth.’ This is tantamount to claiming he is himself a God. This was a somewhat megalomaniac statement surely even in Shakespeare’s time. However, it is reflected in Macbeth, and might be taken seriously but for the line, ‘heavenly gift of prophecy’. This is the service which is performed by the weird sisters for Macbeth. The ‘gift’ of prophecy referred to as ‘heavenly’ when associated which the king, highlights the hypocrisy in James’ preaching. With this in mind, the ‘sundry blessings’ which ‘hang about his throne’ and ‘speak him full of grace’ could be perceived as those surrounding James, speaking of him in the same sycophantic manner found in this part of the text. It is allusions such as these which suggest that Macbeth is not a serious tragedy, but a satire of the anti-witchcraft England so rapidly created by James 1st, not only this, but the man himself. His arrogance, paranoia, and his use of the witches as tools, much as James used witchcraft to glorify and sanctify himself, can all be found in Macbeth. This is the genius of Shakespeare, his personal magical skill. In a trick of the eye he appears to be a supporter of the king, agreeing with his inflated opinion of himself and portrayal of magic as evil, and anti-Christian. However, much evidence in the play suggests the contrary, which could well have been Shakespeare’s true view. Had King James 1st been acquainted with genuine pagan magic, not his twisted perception of it, Shakespeare would have been unable to perform this skilful illusion, right before his eyes. The true opinion of the playwright concerning magic may be more evident in The Tempest, ‘the last of the plays attributable wholly or mainly to Shakespeare’.

It is popular belief that Shakespeare’s character, Prospero, a ‘reworking of Oberon in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and of the Duke in Measure for Measure’, was based on the Elizabethan Magus, John Dee. Yates argues that an ‘Elizabethan revival in the Jacobean age’, was partly signified by Shakespeare’s depiction of Prospero and its likeness to John Dee. He claimed that Shakespeare was ‘daring’ to portray a ‘good conjuror’ when conjuring was a ‘dreaded accusation. However, the play depicts ‘good’ magic through Prospero, and ‘bad’ magic through Sycorax, this ‘raises a question which haunts the play’,1 regarding ‘how magic can and should be used’. There can be no doubt that magic is a central theme in the play, the surface story is a comedy, wherein Prospero uses magic to regain his dukedom. The statement of Yates, that Prospero is a ‘good’ magician, is questionable. Some of his actions are deeply unpleasant. Although somewhat understandable
considering his attempt to ‘violate’ Miranda (1.2.361-119), his treatment of Caliban is cruel,

"For this, be sure, tonight though shalt have cramps,
 Side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up; urchins
 Shall, for that vast of night that they may work,
 All exercise on thee; thou shalt be pinched
 As thick as honeycomb, each pinch more stinging
 Than bees that made ‘em."
(1.2.326-117)

He bids his daughter ‘sleep’ for his convenience,

"Thou art inclined to sleep, ‘Tis a good dullness, And give it way; I know thou canst
not choose.’ (1.2.185-108)

It is possible he is protecting her from his conversation from Ariel, but given Prospero’s request, ‘Here cease more questions’, the likelihood is that Miranda’s questions have become tiresome. The most remarkable treatment of another character by Prospero is that of Ariel. If Oberon is a reworking of Prospero, then Ariel is the same of Puck. However, where Puck associates with Oberon by choice, Ariel is bound to Prospero by force and is threatened into submission when requesting his freedom,

"If thou more mumur’st, I will rend an oak
 And peg thee in his knotty entrails till
 Thou hast howled away twelve winters."
(1.2.294-115)

This seems severe before we know the play, being a comedy, has a happy, or ‘complete’ ending. Ariel is set free and Miranda is happily coupled with Ferdinand. What Prospero is, is not outstandingly ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but human, and of great power symbolic of ‘the art’ in which Shakespeare was ‘supreme’, words. If any character is a depiction of ‘good’ in The Tempest, it is likely to be Ariel.

Ariel is an archangel, also known as Uriel or Auriel. This is ‘agreed upon in Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions and probably predates all three’. Unlike his fellow archangels, Micheal, Gabriel and Raphael, he, or she, is yet to be canonised by the Catholic Church. This is probably because very little is known about Auriel in comparison with the others, other than from the book of Genesis, where he wrestled Jacob. Auriel is
thought of as the ‘guardian and representative of the Earth’, and therefore is intrinsically linked with nature, much stronger than Puck’s tenuous link to nature through the legend of the Green Man. When concluding that Ariel is a representative of the Earth, and of nature, one raises the question of why Prospero commands him,

"My industrious servant Ariel!" (4.1.34-181)

‘The immortal portrayal of the benevolent Magus’; Prospero’s powers are such that he can figuratively control the Earth. This could be Shakespeare’s way of illustrating that magic, and words, can be used to control the Earth, and not always harmoniously. If Prospero represents magic and literature, indeed, Shakespeare himself, and Ariel the Earth, the other characters may have some deeper meaning. The superlative place to find this is most likely in the antithesis of Prospero, Sycorax, and her offspring, Caliban. If Prospero is, as Willis calls him, a ‘white witch’ then Sycorax is representative of the black arts.

Sycorax is described by Prospero as a ‘blue-eyed hag’ which suggests a Western origin, he also mentions that Ariel, the Earth, is ‘too delicate’ to oblige to her ‘abhorred commands’.(1.2.269-114) this suggests that the evil requests of the ‘witch’ were too much for the Earth to bear. Caliban mentions his mother in association with a ‘raven’s feather’ (1.2.323-117). This relationship with the raven is notable in Lady Macbeth, when she declares that the ‘raven himself is hoarse’ (1.5.48-29). This is a link to the play Macbeth, which may not be mere coincidence. The foremost play in depiction of ‘evil’ witchcraft was in Macbeth, the weird sisters were the representation of malevolence, and in turn Sycorax is symbolic of them, or indeed, James 1st’s depiction of witchcraft. Caliban therefore, represents the consequences and ugly feeling arising from James’ hatred. The evidence to support this is that Caliban is Prospero’s slave, a portrayal of a foolish man who could not see satire Shakespeare wrote with him in mind, or the meaning behind true, Earth-based magic. Caliban is paranoid and fearful, crying out, ‘The spirit torments me!’ when encountering a drunken Trinculo and Stephano. The only spirit which bothers Caliban at this point is that which the aforementioned duo has imbibed. Caliban states that Prospero cannot be destroyed unless you first take away his magic,

"Remember, First ro possess his books; for without them, He’s but a sot, as I am."(3.2.84-167)

They need to ‘burn his books’ in order to make him fallible like everyone else, and dispose of him. This reflects the control James 1st wished to have over magic, and therefore over free thought. Thomas alludes to the fact that magic was not required by the rich, they had all they needed, but the poor, had little else in hard times when they need to defend themselves. It could be the king believed this himself, and wished to
control rebellion.

The symbolic portrayal of magic being demonised, and James 1st’s need for control, is supported by another factor in The Tempest reminiscent of the ‘dark mood of Macbeth’. Whilst Sebastian and Antonio are plotting to kill Alonso, their conspiracy is similar to that schemed in Macbeth by Macbeth and his Lady,

"My strong imagination sees a crown Dropping upon thy head."(2.1.204-139)

Caliban’s statement prior to the epilogue links directly to Macbeth, and also to James 1st,

"What a thrice-double ass Was I to take this drunkard for a god And worship this dull fool!" (5.1.294-216)

This is a direct link to the weird sisters’ chants,

"Thrice to thine, and thrice to mine" (1.3.35-14)

Also,

"Double, double" (4.1.20-106)

The ‘dull fool’ to which Caliban refers is King James 1st, who was known to have referred to himself as a god. The links to Macbeth in The Tempest are no more accidental than the play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream being akin to Romeo and Juliet. This is a deliberate guide to a deeper meaning, depicting Shakespeare’s dislike of the anti-witchcraft, narrow-minded legislation initiated by James 1st.

Yates stated that, ‘Prospero represents the Elizabethan occult philosophy’, and he could not be more correct. This is a brief account of some of the symbolism pertaining to witchcraft and folklore Shakespeare uses, also of his cunning manipulation of such things to portray his true perspective. When faced with an anti-magic sovereign, Shakespeare used his genius to juxtapose his true opinion through satire, with a sycophantic anti-witchcraft style which would please. Shakespeare, in true pagan tradition, is an advocate of nature, of the Earth, and the legends which it inspires. It is no accident that Malcolm orders the soldiers to cover themselves with Burnham wood (5.4.3-150). The forest comes to Macbeth, symbolic of nature rising up against his arrogance and wickedness. Prospero creates harmony using his magic, how things should be, a true comedy ending wherein all slaves are free, in mind and body, and things to his mind, are perfect. Then why does Prospero renounce his magic? This is because Prospero represents Shakespeare’s ideals, furthermore his gift. Prospero is Shakespeare,

Though Shakespeare never wielded a wand, nor thought of himself as a Magus, he is a magician, master of the spell-binding use of words, of poetry and magic. This was the art in which he was supreme.

It seems fitting then, with his final play, he portrays the positive in magic, and vilifies its harshest critic. Furthermore, he creates a utopian situation from the craft. Prospero’s work is done, as is Shakespeare’s, therefore, he renounces his gift because he has nothing more to achieve,

"To work mine end upon their senses that This airy charm is for, I’ll break my staff, Bury it certain fathoms in the earth, And deeper did ever plummet sound, I’ll drown my book." (5.1.5753-201)

References:

A Treatise on the Archangel Ariel. Accessed at: www.auriel.org/treatis.html  14th December 2006. 20:20

Ady, Thomas. A Candle in the Dark. P115 (cited in Briggs)

Ball, Phillip. (2006) The Devil’s Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science. Random House.

Briggs, Robin. (2002) Witches and Neighbours: the social and cult context of European Witchcraft. Second Edition. Blackwell.

Eagleton, Terry. William Shakespeare, Oxford Blackwell(1986) p 126 Cited in Briggs

Illes, Judika. (2004) The Element Encyclopedia of 5000 Spells. Harper Element.

J. Taylor and Son. (1866) A Brief History of Witchcraft with especial reference to The Witches of Northamptonshire, collected in great part from original sources. Pryor Publications (1998)

Kermode, Frank. (2004) The Age of Shakespeare. Phoenix Paperbacks, Random House.

King James I, Daemonolgie. (Cited in Willis.)

Lindley, David. Ed. (2002) The Tempest. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press.

Muir, Kenneth. (Editor) (1951) The Arden Shakespeare’s  Macbeth. Thompson Learning.

Shakespeare citations to The Arden Shake spare’s Macbeth (Thompson Learning 2002)

Shakespeare citations to: The Tempest. New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press.

Streeter, Micheal. (2002) Witchcraft: A Secret History. Eagle Editions.

The Arden Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Thompson Learning. (2002)

The Tempest, New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press (2002)

Thomas, Keith. (1971) Religion and the decline of magic. Penguin Books

Westwood, Jennifer. & Simpson, Jaqueline. (2005) The Lore of the Land: A Guide to England’s Legends from Spring-heeled Jack to the Witches of Warboys. Penguin Books.

Willis, Gary. (1995) Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Oxford University Press.

Wooley, Benjamin. (2002) The Queen’s Conjuror: The life and times of Dr Dee. Harper Collins

Yates, Frances. A. (1964) Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. The University of Chicago Press.

Yates, Frances. A. (1979) The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. Routledge