MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074777955 · doi:10.1353/cdr.2004.0047

Interrogating the Devil: Social and Demonic Pressure in The Witch of Edmonton

2004· article· en· W2074777955 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative drama · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitchDemonologyDepictionSuperstitionSkepticismSophisticationLiteratureHistoryCausationPhilosophyArtAestheticsTheologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interrogating the Devil: Social and Demonic Pressure in The Witch ofEdmonton David Nicol In its tale ofwitchcraft,murder,and bigamy,Thomas Dekker,John Ford and William Rowley's The Witch ofEdmonton (1621) powerfully dramatizes both social and demonic forces operating within a small rural community. Although a number of recent studies have discussed the play's depiction of the social causes of crime and of the witchcraft phenomenon, there has been less interest in its representation of supernatural causation, which is personified by a devil who appears throughout the play in the shape ofa dog and brings about its tragic events. The Dog is often dismissed as a disappointing retreat bythe playwrights into superstition, or else is rationalized awayas an hallucination or as a purely symbolic figure. This essay contends that to downplaythe importance of the Dog is to misunderstand the ways in which skepticism about witchcraft was typically articulated in the period. Reading the play as a demonological study—that is,as a textthat attempts to define theboundary between social and demonic causation—reveals the intellectual sophistication of The Witch ofEdmonton while acknowledging its roots in the beliefsystems of early modern England. My reading ofthe play is inspired by Stuart Clark's important study of demonology, Thinking with Demons, which argues that studies of early modern witchcraft beliefhave tended to construct a simplistic oppositionbetween demonologyandrationalismbyassumingthat anyearly modern writer who discusses the role of demons in the material world must be credulous and retrograde.1 Clark finds that modern historians tend to overemphasize the importance of the few early modern writers 425 426Comparative Drama who appear to pre-empt post-Enlightenment thought on magic and devils .He arguesthatwhen discussing aperiodinwhich almost everythinker believed in the existence ofdemons thatcould influencehuman thoughts and actions, demonological writings must be taken seriously and cannot be disregarded as intellectually unimportant. The problems Clark finds in modern historical scholarship are also discussed in John D. Cox's recent studyofstage devils in medieval and earlymodern drama. Cox contests the influential argument of E. K. Chambers that' the presence of devils on the stage marks the introduction of secular elements to the drama—in other words, that stage devils are symptoms of skepticism about the supernatural. Cox instead makes a powerful case for reading stage devils as dramatizations of sincerely held beliefs about the presence of spirits in the material world that are the enemies of positive values, such as charity and communality.2 Although his discussion of The Witch ofEdmonton is brief, Cox's arguments are highly applicable to the play, which features a splendidly frightening and entertaining devil in the shape of a black dog. Despite the Dog's important role in the play's events, criticism of the play has tended to focus on those elements ofit that seem skeptical about supernatural causation, while leaving comparatively unexamined those elementsthatemphasizetheDog 'sagencyinbringingabouttheplay'sevents. It is certainly true that the play's depiction of Elizabeth Sawyer, an old woman scapegoatedas awitchbyherneighbors,is one ofthemost sober and skeptical accounts of the witch craze in the drama of the period.3 Similarly, the depiction of Frank Thorne/s slide into bigamy and murder emphasizes its origin in his fear ofpoverty and social scandal.4 Yet, as Jonathan Dollimore notes, while the play places"[an] emphasis upon identity as socially coerced," it also depicts Sawyer actually becoming a witch aftermakingapactwiththe Devil,5 andthe same Devil apparently provokes Frank's murder ofhis second wife. For modern readers, these interventions by the Dog may indicate a retreat into superstition, sensationalism , or even silliness,6 and the importance of the Dog's power in the play's intellectual framework may be overlooked. This essay argues that focusing on the social causes of crime at the expenseofthe demonicobscurestheintellectualcomplexityof TheWitch ofEdmonton. The dramatists deliberately highlight the two forms of David Nicol427 causation in order to stage a debate about the location of the boundary between them. In so doing,theydraw on two demonological texts, adapting them to draw their own distinctive conclusions. Furthermore, they use the clown plot,which is usuallydismissed as naïve comedy,to deliver the play's conclusions clearly and inventively. The play is thus carefully constructed to draw a specific conclusion: it...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it