Devil, dog, and society

Another aspect of the text worth considering is the dog metaphor. Sawyer often refers to her accusers as a dog(s): “this black cur/ That barks and bites, and sucks the very blood/ Of me and of my credit” (2.1.116-118), “None but base curs so bark at me”

(4.I.76), “I am torn in pieces by a pack of curs” (4.1.151), “These dogs will mad me”

(5.3.41). The first example with its “sucks the very blood” is particularly striking; it brings to mind popular beliefs of the Devil as a witch’s familiar. However Sawyer consistently applies these images to men within the community. Sawyer’s application of the concept of a dog in her description of society and the fact that the Devil comes to her in the guise of a dog, adds another dimension to the plot: it signals the Devil at work on both sides.

Indeed, the dog metaphor ensures that there is little to distinguish Sawyer’s accusers from the Devil himself. If we look closely at both how the Devil and Sawyer’s accusers treat her, the similarities are revealing. Sawyer warms to the Devil initially as he speaks the only warm words to her of the whole play: “I love thee [...]

pitied/ Thy open wrongs and come, out of my love” (2.1.124-127). However much in the same manner as the community “enforce” the scripted role of witch on her, the Devil Dog can be seen to do the same. His words of love are used purely to manipulate. He threatens to “tear thy body into a thousand pieces” (2.1.137) and

“Speak or I’ll tear”, if Sawyer refuses to seal the pact. Not surprisingly, the Devil Dog is also seen to use Sawyer for his own ends. Like the community who use her as a scapegoat for society’s ills, the Devil Dog shares the same final intention, the accusation of witchcraft which leads to her execution and her entry into hell: “the witch must be beaten out of her cockpit” (5.1.48), “Our prey being had, the devil does laughing stand” (5.1.76). He has duped her and she cannot escape her fate. The staging of Act II scene I, which I discussed earlier, also suggests a parallel between society and the Devil: Sawyer is alone, then bullied by Old Banks; Sawyer is alone, then bullied by the Devil.

These similarities between the Devil and society are something Sawyer elaborates on in her exchange with the Justice in Act IV scene I. Confronted with Sawyer facing a lynch mob, the Justice is presented as the voice of reason and of the law. His view of Sawyer distinguishes him from other characters: “Fie! To abuse an aged woman” (4.1.35), “You must not threaten her; ‘tis against law” (4.1.52). He castigates those who are claiming that her appearance at the burning of thatch provides proof of witchcraft. If it achieves anything, it depicts them as fools.

Interestingly he adds, that their attempts to provide proofs are to “turn her into a witch”, a reference which resonates with Sawyer’s soliloquies in Act II. What the play appears to be dramatising here is an increasing scepticism amongst the learned, in the role of the Justice. New scientific lines of enquiry as a way to discover truth brought accusations of witchcraft into question (Purkiss: 231). However, as the play illustrates, this did not mean that popular beliefs necessarily followed this path.

Obeying his orders to go, the men leave and Sawyer finds herself alone with Sir Arthur and the Justice. The playwrights place representatives of the opposite ends of the social hierarchy on stage together and engage them in discussion. This enables Sawyer to further expose the double standards she sees in society. The conversation starts as we might expect, with the Justice asking Sawyer: “are you a witch or no?”

(4.1.73). His phrasing of the question seems to suggest there is a simple answer: yes or no. However Sawyer points to its complexity.

Although the Justice personifies status and authority, Sawyer is the one who holds the floor and what she proposes is particularly challenging: “Men in gay clothes,/ whose backs are laden with titles and honours, are within far/ more crooked than I am, and if I be a witch, more witch-like” (4.1.87-89). She confronts the Justice and Sir Arthur with the idea that it is those who hold the most power in society whom are “more crooked” and “more witch-like”, thereby undermining the notions through which the social hierarchy justifies itself. Considering that this play was written at a time when the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings was in place, and that these words come from the mouth of a supposed “witch”, Sawyer inverts the social order.

Sir Arthur’s strong reaction indicates he sees himself in this reference: “I can, if need be, bring an hundred voices/ [...] that shall proclaim thee for a secret and/ pernicious witch” (4.1.94-96). His inability to offer anything other than a threat to what Sawyer says, suggests he recognises some truth in her argument.

Sawyer continues with her evaluation: “A witch! Who is not?/ Hold not that universal name in scorn then/ What are your painted things in princes’ courts [...] The man of law/ whose honeyed hopes the credulous client draws” (4.1.103-131). Her speeches redefine the term “witch” and apply it to every layer of society: “Rather than being forced to accept the role and identity that society has imposed on her, she forces society, in the form of Sir Arthur and the Justice, to re-evaluate that identity and to engage in debate with her on her terms” (Bonavita: 85). I argue that she also forces the audience to re-evaluate this, for they cannot fail to notice that the Justice appears powerless to oppose her argument. He lacks words, even agreeing with her at one point: “Yes, yes; but the law/ Casts not an eye on these” (4.1.118-119). Yet his response is exposed by Sawyer: For if the law does not “cast an eye” upon these people, “Why then on me/ Or any lean old beldam?” (4.1.120-121). Sawyer highlights

the hypocrisy and injustice in society. She clarifies how they pick on the most vulnerable to scapegoat, whereas the privileged get away with it: “Such so abused/

Are the coarse witches, t’other are the fine,/ Spun for the devil’s own wearing”

(4.1.124-126). Sawyer links society to evil. Perhaps more dangerously she “turns the excluding label of “witch” back against her accusers in a manner which suggests that the evil they are seeking to contain and exclude is in fact endemic in society”

(Bonavita: 84). If we recall Bakhtin’s theory of speech genres, there are expectations of how people will speak in certain situations. Sawyer breaks the conventions here.

The playwrights give her the gift of rhetoric and she turns it against those she is meant to revere. Exasperated with her logic, the Justice tells her to go home and pray, whilst Sir Arthur states the accusation of witchcraft against her is soon to be sworn. Most notably, both men leave the stage unable to find words with which to contest her argument.