Maket 2013:Layout 1.qxd


Inter-Textual Relations between Reginald Scot’s “The

Discoverie of Witchcraft” and Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”

Ani Kojoyan
Yerevan State University 

L
iterature has its specific world, and in that world texts do not exist separately.

They collaborate with one another creating complicated inter-textual dimensions.

Literature also provides a space where the diverse imaginative elements with their inher-

ent and adherent connotations are applied in, and where texts appear in such inter-textu-

al relations that reading and appreciating a piece of literary work becomes more and more

complicated because it requires an ability of creative and analytical disposition to see and

understand more than is directly stated in the context. A literary text is considered a total-

ity, in which several allusive elements are embraced and because of this we should go

into the depth of the text and study it thoroughly to find out those elements which are

taken from another text. This is a way to assimilate the two texts together and to observe

not only allusive elements within the texts but also the influence of one text on the other.

Thus, the present article focuses on the influence of Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of
Witchcraft on William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. We will try to find out in what inter-tex-
tual dimensions these texts appear, and at what specific levels the influence of Scot’s

book can be observed on the above mentioned play. 

The Discoverie of Witchcraft is considered one of the most useful and primary
sources for the study of witchcraft and magic not only for literary, but also for cultural-

anthropological and social-historical studies. The book is a collection of different

sources. Scot used a wide range of both contemporary and ancient materials and stories

from the writers of the inquisition about the so-called supposed witches. Scot was also

familiar with a number of witchcraft pamphlets and trial records which had their mani-

festations in The Discoverie of Witchcraft (Almond 2011:4-5, 16-21).
Scot was a critical and skeptical person toward the issues concerning witchcraft and

magic. The writer’s critical position and his skepticism are emphasized and repeated

again and again throughout the whole work. Even from the very beginning the author’s

position on the subject becomes clear: “The fables of  Witchcraft have taken so fast hold

and deepe root in the heart of man, that fewe or none can (nowadaies) with patience

indure the hand and correction of God. For if any adversitie, greefe, sickness, losse of

childen, corne, cattell, or libertie happen unto them; by & by they exclaim euppon witch-

es. As though there were no God in Israel that ordereth all things according to his will;

punishing both just and unjust with greefs, plagues, and afflictions in maner and forme

as he thinketh good…” (Scot 1972:1).

Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft provides such a wide range of informa-
tion on witchcraft and the occult that it really could serve as a real encyclopedia and a

good sourcebook for several writers. Focusing on our specific topic we should note that

while drawing textual parallels it seems that the following extract taken from Macbeth
has its accurate echoes in Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

166



First witch: Where hast thou been, sister?
Second witch: Killing swine.

(“Macbeth” I.iii.1-2)

A similar narrative of livestock killing by the supposed witches is found in In Scot’s

Book 1, chapter 1  (For if any adversitie, greefe, sicknesse, losse of children, corne, cat-
tell, or libertie happen unto them; by and by they exclaime upon witches (Scot 1972:1-
2).

Moreover, in another chapter of the same book Scot writes: “…sometimes she curs-

seth one, and sometimes another; and that from the maister of the house, his wife, chil-

dren, cattell, etc. to the little pig that lieth in the stie. Thus in the processe of time they

have all displeased hir, and she hath wished evill lucke unto them all …” (Scot 1972:5).

However, in Macbeth the reference to the village witchcraft story of killing domestic
animals by the so-called witches is very brief. It is expressed only within a few lines in

the play. As Diane Purkiss suggests in The Witch in History, it is “condensed into a sin-
gle gesture” (Purkiss 2002:209).

According to the narrative of attacking cattle in villages, the supposed witches were

poor and old women who would usually beg and ask something to eat from their neigh-

bours, and if they were refused, they could take revenge by cursing and killing their

neighbors’ children, domestic animals, etc. (Scot 1972:4-7). In the same chapter of his

book Scot writes that sometimes those miserable and poor women themselves believed

that they could really do such things which he finds to be beyond the abilities of human

nature. Scot states that all those things were the results of people’s fantasies only.

However, Shakespeare’s reference is too short and implicit to enable us to conclude that

Shakespeare was also skeptical on the subject of witchcraft in the same way as Scot was.

And the fact that Shakespeare did not go into the depth of the witchcraft stories in
Macbeth and made only a slight reference to them, might mean that Shakespeare was not
especially interested in an accurate, exact and thorough presentation of witch-lore and

also in the presentation of the social problems of the village women in details on stage.

However, whether he was interested in it or not, through this one-line presentation of vil-

lage witch-lore stories he portrays the figure of the witch in his play. Thus, by “killing

swine”, he automatically endows his witch with attributes which the so-called village

witches were thought to possess in those days. However, as the next examples will show,

the play-witch is not a pure village witch in Macbeth, but a more complicated product, a
compound figure of a “witch” created by the author. 

The act of revenge by the witch for being refused in food is more explicitly revealed

in the next lines within the same scene: 

First witch: A sailor’s wife had chestnuts in her lap, 
And munched, and munched, and munched. ‘Give me’, qouth I; 
‘Aroynt thee, witch’, the rump-fed ronyon cries.
Her husband’s to Aleppo gone, master o’th’ Tiger; 

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

167



But in a sieve I’ll thither sail, 
And like a rat without a tail, 
I’ll do, I’ll do, I’ll do.

Second witch: I’ll give thee a wind.
Third witch: And I another.
First witch: ...I’ll drain him dry as hay;

Sleep shall neither night nor day… 
(“Macbeth” I.iii.4-10; 18-19)

We could consider the following passage an allusive element from Scot’s work as the

archetypes of the witch stories found in the following extract have their traces in The
Discoverie of Witchcraft, and, naturally, for this scene Shakespeare might also consult
Scot’s book. 

In the play the cause of the witch’s revenge is stated more obviously in the present

extract rather than it was in the previous one: the witch asks for chestnuts, she is refused,

and she is ready to revenge.  But at this time the target of her revenge is not a domestic

animal, as it was in the previous example, and neither the victim is directly the sailor’s

wife but it is the sailor. The first witch knows that her husband’s to Aleppo gone, master
o’th’ Tiger, and she decides to sail there and to take revenge. The other Weird Sisters are
going to help her by raising storms. The first witch also decides to drain him dry as hay,
in other words she is going to make the sailor impotent, thus destroying family relation-

ship between the husband and the wife. As for the act of raising a storm, on this Scot also

writes that the witch-hunters believed that the supposed witches were able to raise a

wind, storm, tempest, etc. 

Yet we read In malleomaleficarum of three sorts of witches. “And among the hurtfull
witches he saith there is one sort more beastlie than any kind of beasts …  for these usu-

allie devoure and eate young children … . These be they (saith he) that raise haile, tem-

pests, and hutrfull weather; as lightening, thunder, etc.” (Scot 1972:5).

In the same chapter Scot concludes that all people who believed in all those things

were faithless people, as only God could possess such power to create storms, tempests,

etc. According to another tradition stated in that skeptical book, the supposed witches

could also make men become impotent: 

But here again we may not forget the inquisitors note, “to wit; that manie are so

bewitched that they cannot use their owne wives:  but anie other bodies they maie well

enough away withal” (Scot 1972:45).

Scot finds this ridiculous and writes: “… witchcraft is practiced among manie bad

husbands, for whom it were a good excuse to saie they were bewitched” (Ibid).

In the above extracts taken from Macbeth three village witch-lore stories were com-
bined and expressed simultaneously within a few lines. In all three examples

Shakespeare gives a very short reference to those village witch stories. No direct verbal

borrowings can be noticed from The Discoverie of Witchcraft in Macbeth. Neither
Shakespeare follows any single discourse to present the subject of witchcraft and the fig-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

168



ure of the witch in his play. Most of his references are implicit and very brief which, in

turn, makes it difficult to interpret both the character of the witch in Macbeth and
Shakespeare’s own attitude toward the subject. While Scot’s criticism and skepticism on

the subject of witchcraft are emphasized in each chapter of his book, Shakespeare uses a

laconic style while introducing the notions of witchcraft in his play: he provides as much

information on witchcraft stories as it is necessary for him to create the figure of the

witch in Macbeth. And there is only one instance in the play which could be considered
an explicit allusion from Scot’s book. While drawing parallels between Scot’s text and

the play, it becomes obvious that the physical depiction of the witches in Macbeth stands
very close to the witch description given in Scot’s book. 

Banquo: What are these, 
So withered, and so wild in their attire, 
That look not like th’inhabitantso’th’ earth
And yet are on’t? – Live you, or are you aught
That man may question? You seem to understand me, 
By each at once her choppy finger laying
Upon her skinny lips. You should be women, 
And yet your beards forbid me to interpret 
That you are so.

(“Macbeth” I.iii.39-46)

In Macbeth the secret, black, and midnight hags who are old, ugly, deformed women
with skinny lips remind us those witches that can be found in  The Discoverie of
Witchcraft: “One sort of such as are said to bee wicthes, are women which be common-
ly old, lame, bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles; poore, sullen, superstitious…”

(Scot 1972:4). According to Scot, those women who were old and poor could become

potential targets of supposed witches in villages. The author criticizes severely such kind

of attitude toward those poor, old and vulnerable women who were not even able to pro-

tect themselves from witch-mongers. Scot finds all such stories false and ridiculous. As

for Shakespeare, he very skillfully creates a theatrical figure of a witch without provid-

ing any additional information that could help us to comment on his position toward the

subject in general. Shakespeare leaves a question of the interpretation of the witch figure

open in the play but at the same time he gradually emphasizes the play-witches’ dual

nature which gradually becomes more visible throughout the whole play. 

The next textual parallel between the works that can be observed is the scene of the

cauldron where the witches go into dance:

Third witch: Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf, 
Witch’s mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravined salt-sea shark; 
Root of hemlock, diggdI’th’ dark;
Finger of birth-starngled babe

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

169



Ditch-delivered by a drab:
Make the gruel thick and slab; 
Add thereto a tiger’s chawdron, 
For th’ ingredience of our cauldron.

(“Macbeth” IV.i.22-25; 30-35)

When we draw parallels between the play cauldron scene and that of Scot’s version,

we find out that the cauldron and the dancing-singing rituals around it are typical of con-

tinental witchcraft tradition and not of the English one: “So as, if there be anie children

unbaptised, or not garded with the signe  of the crosse, or orizons; the witches  may  and

doo catch them from  their mothers sides in the night…, or otherwise kill them with their

ceremonies… and seeth them in a caldron, until their flesh be made potable. Of the thick-

est whereof they make ointments, whereby they ride in the aire … these night-walking

or rather night-dansing witches, brought out of Itlalie into France, that danse, which is

called Lsvolta” (Scot 1972:23-4).
In the same chapter Scot writes that all these things are untrue and fake stories creat-

ed by witch-hunters. And finally, Scot denies definitely the existence of witches and

witch stories when he writes:  “But what sorts of witches so ever M. Mal. Or Bodins aie
there are; Mosess pakeonlie of foure kinds of impious couseners or witches (whereof our
witchmongers old women which danse with their fairies, etc; are none” (Scot 1972:62).

Thus, in Macbeth the old and ugly hags are also endowed with continental witches’
features of dancing-singing about the cauldron. But at the same time it seems that

Shakespeare is not interested in presenting the cauldron traditions accurately in the play.

Though he provides a long list of ingredients which should go into the cauldron, none of

those ingredients has its real archetype, and probably they are chosen “to give a frisson

shock rather than to follow English or Continental practice” (Purkiss 2002:212). And

only one of those ingredients, “finger of birth-strangled babe” has its pre-textual arche-

type in Scot’s work. As it can be seen from the above mentioned extract cited from The
Discoverie of Witchcraft, the cauldron ritual is more related to the Continental Sabbaths,
in which unbaptized babies were said to be boiled for making flying-ointments. And

again from the whole narrative of the witchcraft rituals Shakespeare makes a general and

brief hint to those stories in Macbeth.  
Taking into consideration all the above mentioned facts, the analyses of the examples

and textual parallels we may conclude that both direct and indirect brief references can-

not serve as a means for understanding and interpreting the figure of the witch in the play

properly. The figure of the witch created in Macbeth is complicated. The witches have a
dual nature in the play: they are old and poor, but at the same time they dance and sing

happily and actively around the cauldron; they are village witches who are endowed with

features of the continental witchcraft characters and not only of the English ones; they

make prophecies which can be understood or interpreted in terms of failure or success,

truth or lie; they “should be women” and yet their beards give a basis for hesitation.

Throughout the whole play Shakespeare gradually introduces a new type of a witch, a

play-witch which, in turn, due to its mixed and compound character becomes a non-inter-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

170



pretable figure. Interestingly, Shakespeare does not give specific names to the witches

either. They are called as the Weird Sisters, and the word Witchis is mentioned only once
in the play in Act 1, scene 6. Thus, by making them somehow nameless by not exactly

naming them as witches, Shakespeare probably suggests that we think over their dual

nature. He never gives a final solution for the character interpretation of the Weird

Sisters. And it seems that Shakespeare again emphasizes the witches’ dual character in

Macbeth. It is also noticeable through drawing parallels between Macbeth and the
Discoverie of Witchcraft, that, unlike Scot, Shakespeare never expresses, at least, explic-
it skepticism toward the phenomenon of witchcraft. Shakespeare uses witchcraft materi-

al as much as he needs for depicting the figure of a play-witch, and his allusions are too

brief to enable us to conclude anything concerning his position toward witchcraft.

However, the figure of a dual-character witch could be considered a means through

which Shakespeare could “invite” us to see skepticism as a tool of investigation of the

subject, which would allow exploring what was “fair” and what was “foul”. Moreover,

King James, who had been credulous in his work Demonology, gradually adopted a skep-
tical view becoming an exposer of fraud rather than a persecutor of witches (Brooke

1990:20). Hence, Shakespeare’s created figure of the play-witch, the status of which was

not fixed because of its dual and complicated character and because Shakespeare does

not follow any single specific witch-lore tradition while creating the witch’s figure, could

be considered an implicit appeal to James King’s gradual increasing skeptical view

toward the subject.

References:

1. Almond, Ph. (2011) England’s First Demonologist: Reginald Scot and “The
Discoverie of Witchcraft”. London: I.B. Tauris. 

2. Purkiss, D. (2002) The Witch in History, Early Modern and Twentieth-century
Representations. London and New York: Routledge.

3. Scot, R. (1972) The Discoverie of Witchcraft. / Ed. by Summers. New York: Dover. 
4. Scot R. The Discovery of Witchcraft (electronic resource). London: Printed for

Andrew Clark, 1965. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/fulltext?action=byid&warn

=N&id=D10000120436

380421&div=1&sequence=0&SOURCE=config.cfg&file=default>   

5. Shakespeare, W. (1990) Macbeth. / Ed. by N. Brooke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

è. êÏáïÇ ‹‹Î³Ë³ñ¹áõÃÛ³Ý μ³ó³Ñ³ÛïáõÙÁ›› ·ñùÇ ¨ ì. Þ»ùëåÇñÇ ‹‹Ø³Ïμ»Ã››
áÕμ»ñ·áõÃÛ³Ý ÙÇçï»ùëï³ÛÇÝ Ï³åÁ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍÝ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³éÝáõÙ ¿ è»çÇݳɹ êÏáïÇ ‹‹Î³Ë³ñ¹áõÃÛ³Ý μ³ó³-
ѳÛïáõÙÁ››  ·ñùÇ ¨ Þ»ùëåÇñÇ ‹‹Ø³Ïμ»Ã›› áÕμ»ñ·áõÃÛ³Ý ÙÇçï»ùëï³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ñ³-
μ» ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³ÝÁ: ²Ûë »ñÏáõ ï»ùëï»ñÁ ·ïíáõÙ »Ý μ³ñ¹ ÙÇç-

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

171



ï»ùëï³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ñ³μ» ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ù»ç: ²Ûëå»ë, êÏáïÁ Çñ μ³ó³Ñ³Ûï ϳëϳÍ-
Ý»ñÝ ¿ ³ñï³Ñ³Ûïáõ٠ϳ˳ñ¹áõÃÛáõÝ »ñ¨áõÛÃÇ ¨ ϳ˳ñ¹Ý»ñ ѳëϳóáõÃÛ³Ý
ÝϳïÙ³Ùμ:  Þ»ùëåÇñÝ ³Ù»Ý³ÛÝ Ñ³í³Ý³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ùμ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ»É  ¿ êÏáïÇ
ëï»Õͳ·áñÍáõÃÛ³ÝÁ Çñ áÕμ»ñ·áõÃÛ³Ý »ñ»ù ·áõß³Ï-ϳ˳ñ¹ ùáõÛñ»ñÇ Ï»ñå³ñ-
Ý»ñÁ Ï»ñï»ÉÇë ¨ Ýϳñ³·ñ»ÉÇë: àõ û¨ ³ÏÝѳÛï ¿ Þ»ùëåÇñÇ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓÁ êÏá-
ïÇ í»ñáÝßÛ³É ·áñÍÇÝ, ³ÛÝáõ³Ù»Ý³ÛÇí, ÙÇ μ³Ý ÙÝáõÙ ¿ áã ³Û¹ù³Ý å³ñ½.  ¹Åí³ñ
¿ ÙdzÝß³Ý³Ï »½ñ³Ï³óÝ»É, áñ »ñÏáõ ·ñáÕÝ»ñÝ ¿É ÏÇëáõÙ ¿ÇÝ ÙǨÝáõÛÝ Ï³ñÍÇùÁ
ϳ˳ñ¹áõÃÛáõÝ ¨ ÑÙ³ÛáõÃÛáõÝ »ñ¨áõÛÃÝ»ñÇ ÝϳïÙ³Ùμ: ²Û¹áõѳݹ»ñÓ, ϳñ»ÉÇ ¿
»½ñ³Ï³óÝ»É, áñ êÏáïÝ áõ Çñ ëï»Õͳ·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ ϳñ¨áñ ¹»ñ »Ý ˳ÕáõÙ ß»ùë-
åÇñÛ³Ý ëï»Õͳ·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ áõëáõÙݳëÇñ»Éáõ ¨ í»ñÉáõÍ»Éáõ ·áñÍáõÙ:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

172