Gabriel Egan . com

[GLOBE LOGO]

www.nickhernbooks.co.uk

This edition of The Witches of Lancashire

first published in Great Britain

as a paperback original in 2001

by Nick Hern Books Limited

14 Larden Road, London W3 7ST

Globe Education

Shakespeare’s Globe, New Globe Walk

London SE1 9DT

Copyright in this edition © 2001

International Shakespeare Globe Centre Ltd

Typeset in Aldine-401 by the editor

Printed by LSL Press, Bedford MK41 0TX

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from

the British Library

ISBN 1 85459 664 0

Over 400 plays written between 1567 and 1642 have survived in print. Few are now read and even fewer are performed. In 1995 Globe Education initiated a 30-year project to stage readings with professional casts of all the surviving texts so that audiences may once again hear plays by Barnes, Haughton, Shirley, Wilkins et al.

In 1997 Mark Rylance, Artistic Director of Shakespeare’s Globe, included full productions of Beaumont and Fletcher’s The Maid’s Tragedy and Middleton’s A Chaste Maid in Cheapside as part of the Globe Theatre’s opening season. Over 30,000 people came to hear and see the two plays.

The popularity of the readings and the productions prompted Globe Education to approach Nick Hern to publish the texts being revived at the Globe to enable more people to read, study and, ideally, to produce them. Developments in computer typesetting have enabled editions to be published economically and quickly as Globe Quartos.

The first Globe Quartos were edited in 1998 by Nick de Somogyi. In 1999 an Editorial Board, composed of David Scott Kastan, Gordon McMullan and Richard Proudfoot, was established to oversee the series.

Globe Education is indebted to all those who have helped give new life to old plays: production teams, actors, audiences, directors, editors, publishers and readers.

The aim of the series is to make once more available English plays of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that have long been out of print in affordable form or have been available to readers only in scholarly editions in academic libraries. The Globe Quartos texts are based on the most reliable surviving forms of these plays (usually the first printed editions). These have been fully edited and modernized so as to make them easily usable by actors and readers today. Editorial correction and emendation are undertaken where required by the state of the original. Extra stage directions added by editors and needed to make the action clear are enclosed in square brackets. Apostrophes in verse speeches indicate elision of syllables and reflect the metrical pattern of the line. Prefatory matter includes notes from the director or co-ordinator of the production or reading of the play at the Globe and a brief factual introduction by the editor. Glossarial notes (keyed to the text by line numbers) explain difficult or obsolete usages and offer brief comment on other points of interest or obscurity. Departures from the wording of the original are recorded in textual notes that identify the source of corrections or editorial emendations. The opening page of the text in the original on which the edition is based is reproduced in reduced facsimile. Extra material relevant to the understanding of the play may occasionally be included in an Appendix.

The editor wishes to thank his postgraduate students on the Globe Education/King’s College London MA ‘Shakespearean Studies: Text and Playhouse’ for their seminar discussions of this play. The early modern performance expertise of the Globe Education practitioners led by James Wallace brought the play to life in a staged reading that illuminated hitherto murky parts of it. Editing those parts afresh after the performance, I was glad to include a number of Wallace’s suggestions. I am grateful to the British Library for permission to reprint the first text page of one of their two copies of the 1634 quarto. The Globe Quartos general editors, past and present, each helped with one or more of the problems I encountered. Most especially, David Scott Kastan and Gordon McMullan comprehensively mixed their labour with mine not only by advising on points of interpretation and editorial procedure, but also by indicating every occasion upon which I had failed to turn this seventeenth-century play script into proper modern English. What they missed, my student Alexandra London-Thompson caught. Having promised to absorb their lessons, I am grateful to be allowed pass off these people’s improvements as my own.

This edition is dedicated to my wife, Joan Fitzpatrick.

My first impression of this play was of an excuse for spectacle and amusement and little else. The witches are not particularly diabolical, as they are in Macbeth, nor is witchcraft placed in a social context of small-town poverty with its attendant prejudice and ignorance, as in The Witch of Edmonton. It neither frightened nor enlightened. That the real women involved were, at the time of writing, still suffering in jail for these supposed crimes seemed to add little urgency to the drama. Nathaniel Tomkyns’s ‘review’ of an early performance at the Globe in 1634 appeared accurate enough: ‘there be not in it . . . any poetical genius, or art, or language . . . or tenet of witches’, but with its ‘ribaldry’, ‘fopperies’, and songs and dances, it is still a ‘merry and excellent . . . play’.

The preparation for, and the experience of, rehearsal and performance of a staged reading revealed much more. The prologue’s modest claim that a lack of foreign news was the occasion for a dramatization of domestic issues is disingenuous: Heywood was known for his domestic drama and, like his master Ben Jonson, Brome used realistic characters in contemporary local settings. Conscious art, not default, selected the dramatists’ material. In all likelihood the labour was divided thus: Heywood wrote the spectacles of witch mischief and ancient village ritual, and Brome wrote about the inversion of social order in the Seely household, which is similar to the fun he had in The Antipodes. Brome’s characteristic humour arising from character interplay is evident also in the subtly-executed scenes of the three young gallants. Whetstone is no caricature of a boasting fool but rather is fully developed, and the differing reactions to him from other characters and from the audience repay careful exploration. Master Generous too revealed more depth than expected. An audience is apt first to regard him as a pompous bore, but will become increasingly engaged with his struggle to think and act in accordance with God’s law for the preservation of a Christian soul. The repentance of Mistress Generous is genuinely moving and her subsequent betrayal is all the more shocking for the effect she produced by her plausible act of contrition. The play is full of ideas about belief and disbelief, lies and truth, appearance and reality, and honest speaking and flattery. Over-credulity can spring from vice (the foolish Whetstone) or virtue (the good-hearted Generous).

Not witchcraft but witch-hunting is the play’s serious matter. Doughty moves from scepticism to determination (his name suits both conditions) when frustrated in his lust for Moll Spencer, whose quarto name ‘Mal’ I kept for its connotation of maleficence. The play darkens with this witch-finder’s zeal to see all the witches ‘handsomely hanged’, and we should credit the dramatists’ observation of the psychosexual impulses underlying the witch-hunting craze.

Witchcraft shares with dramatic performance a concern for fortuitous timing, and our staged reading gained knife-edge immediacy by the presence, hot-foot from the Globe stage, of the First Witch from the Globe Theatre’s 2001 season production of Macbeth. This provided an appropriate analogue to the link between the two King’s men’s plays which was clearly in the dramatists’ conception of their work. The long theatrical tradition of bad luck associated with uttering the ‘Scottish play’ appears to have begun with The Witches of Lancashire: merely mentioning ‘the Scottish wayward sisters’ (as the quarto spelling has it) gives Winny Seely impaired vision and a ‘hiccup’ of the heart. Since they are all from Lancashire, the characters should logically all have northern accents, and I instructed the actors accordingly. The dramatists, however, chose to give only Lawrence and Parnell the necessary and nearly incomprehensible accents. Those wishing to reconstruct the early performances are referred for this detail to the 1634 quarto’s difficult but amusing representation of dialect.

In performance it becomes clear that this is not simply an anti-witch play, since their victims suffer little physical harm. Millers were notoriously corrupt and here one is tied naked to his sails (on a very cold night) and another is pinched and scratched; such indignities scarcely exceed the likely fantasies of their customers. For these misdemeanours the witches suffer a variety of excesses from beating and amputation to arrest and threatened execution. In performance the final scene chilled those on stage and in the audience as the historical reality became immediate. Brome and Heywood explicitly name ‘mercy’ in their epilogue and throughout they present witchcraft unseriously while attending to the excessive response of state power. Perhaps this made a difference: unlike their unfortunate predecessors of 1612, there is no evidence that these Pendle witches were executed.

Cast of the staged reading co-ordinated by James Wallace at the Globe Education Centre on 12 August 2001

On 16 August 1634 Nathaniel Tomkyns wrote a business letter to his acquaintance Sir Robert Phelips, and to lighten the tone at the end Tomkyns turned to some ‘merriment’ which he thought might interest Phelips. In London, he wrote, ‘hath been lately a new comedy at the Globe called The Witches of Lancashire, acted by reason of the great concourse of people three days together’. For a repertory company like the King’s men to perform a play three times in succession indicates enormous popularity, and Tomkyns explained that the subject matter was sensational: ‘the slights and passages done or supposed to be done by these witches sent from thence hither’, and moreover the supposed witches were ‘still visible and in prison here’. Unlike most drama of the period, the play was about contemporary, indeed ongoing, events: the apprehension, conviction, and summoning to London for sentencing of four women from Pendle Forest in Lancashire found guilty of witchcraft at the Lancaster assizes. Tomkyns’s 400-word eyewitness account of the Globe performance is reproduced in Appendix 1.

While the Lancashire women languished in jail in London in the summer of 1634, two seasoned dramatists, Thomas Heywood and Richard Brome, planned a play based on the case. Somehow they obtained transcripts of the witness’s and defendants’ depositions which were intended only for privy council use, and they drew upon these for journalistic details. One of these depositions, as published in 1677, is Appendix 2. When their play was nearly ready, the King’s men successfully petitioned the lord chamberlain to prevent other companies performing witch plays, so preserving their ‘scoop’, and on 11, 12, or 13 August (we cannot be sure which), The Witches of Lancashire opened at the Globe.

In the autumn of 1634 a quarto of the play appeared under the title The Late Lancashire Witches, the word ‘late’ indicating that this was the recent story of Pendle witches, not a similar case originating from the same place in 1612. One of the British Library copies of this 1634 quarto, whose running header ‘The Witches of Lancashire’ confirms the play’s proper title, is the control text for this edition. Brome and Heywood’s play effectively takes the prosecution’s side in the case, showing the women to be guilty of witchcraft and showing those who doubt this or worse, doubt the existence of witchcraft altogether, to be naïve. The most sustained bewitching of which they are guilty is the inversion of social order within the Seely household so that son and daughter (Gregory and Winny) bully their parents but are in turn bullied by their servants (Lawrence and Parnell). Although all the characters are from Lancashire, the dramatists chose to give only Lawrence and Parnell distinctive northern, provincial accents, represented in the quarto by inconsistent use of almost indecipherably non-standard spelling. It seems that a London audience could be expected to delight in regional stereotyping, at least among low class characters.

The Witches of Lancashire is the only surviving collaboration by Brome. Heywood had been writing plays for more than thirty years but Brome’s rise was relatively recent, having had two hits in his first year writing for the stage, 1629: The Lovesick Maid and The Northern Lass, both for the King’s men. To the partnership Heywood brought not only his extensive dramatic experience (he claimed to already have written or contributed to some 220 plays) but also his knowledge of witch-lore. The topsy-turvydom of the Seely household is an exploration of the comedy of inversion which Brome was to develop fully in his The Antipodes.

The play is highly comic but for a modern spectator or reader, knowledge of the serious predicament of the real subjects – most of whom denied the charges – can darken the atmosphere of its reception. Such qualms seem not to have troubled Tomkyns, for whom it was merely ‘full of ribaldry’, ‘fopperies to provoke laughter’, and ‘diverse songs and dances’, making in all a ‘merry and excellent new play’. The historical record of the accused women fades into obscurity; although their accuser confessed to inventing his story, no pardon is recorded and the women were still in jail when they disappear from our view in 1637. Tomkyns’s end is better recorded: on 5 July 1643 he was hanged for counter-parliamentary treason.

OF