“Must I be . . . made a common sink?”: Witchcraft and the Theatre in <i>The Witch of Edmonton</i>

Abstract

<jats:p>Les auteurs de The Witch of Edmonton (1621) se servent d’une stratégie d’ambivalence en représentant sur scène Elizabeth Sawyer, qui avait été dernièrement exécutée pour sorcellerie. L’intertissage complexe d’un scepticisme rationnel avec un traitement sensationnaliste et superstitieux à l’égard de la sorcellerie permettait à ces professionnels du théâtre de s’approprier le personnage de la sorcière afin d’explorer leur propre relation à la marginalité, la criminalisation et la transgression sociale.</jats:p>

'An honest dog yet': Performing <em>The Witch of Edmonton</em>

“…'Wench', 'gossips', 'dad': Frank's colloquial language immediately invites his theatrical auditors into a familiar relationship with his mimetic world. Winnifride complains that ''tis an hard case, being lawful man and wife, / We should not live together' (9-10); Frank retorts that they must live apart for a while 'to gain a little time / For our continuing thrift' until they can be assured of Frank's inheritance, which his disapproving father might deny him should he discover his son's alliance with a penniless woman (14)(15). The key preoccupations of modern realist drama -with the minutiae of everyday life, with class and economics, with sexual relationships repressed by rigid moralism, and with the social forces that determine human subjectivity and behaviour -take centre stage in this early modern scene.…”

“…David Stymeist describes this apparent clash between motivating forces as the result of 'a consistent strategy of representational ambivalence' in The Witch of Edmonton, arguing that the play's 'exploration of marginality's link to social and judicial victimization runs up against the playwrights' desire to promote themselves by way of … sensationalist stereotypes of demonism'. 15 In both of these intelligent and historically informed modern readings of The Witch of Edmonton the Dog's role appears as a 'sensational' element at odds with the play's nuanced depiction of hegemonic power relations and their tragic results.…”