You can use this video for a jumping-off point about the economic context of the 17th century as a whole if you please!
In the year this play takes place, 1620, England was going through a trade crisis– exports were low, meaning that there was less money being made by merchants, farmers, fishermen, and other folks who weren’t nobility or royalty. Everyone was aware of one’s status, class, and wealth. This economic context makes a lot of sense for Witch, as the effect that class and social status have on a character’s sense of hope is a theme that runs throughout the entire play and works its way into every scene.
Banquet Halls, and Jacobean "huts"-- a juxtaposition
Witch focuses mostly on exemplifying class relations between the nobility and the poor.
A nobleman, such as Sir Arthur, was rich and powerful– and the monarch (at this point, James I) rarely appointed new nobles. A person could become a noble either by primogeniture (birthright) or by a grant from the king or queen.
The gentry were knights, squires, gentlemen, and gentlewomen whose fortunes were great enough that they did not have to work with their hands for a living. They could start as a knight and through generations and marriages they could gradually build wealth and title.
The Yeomanry were the middle or working class. They could live comfortably with the savings they built up, but at any moment, could lose everything. While the gentry spent their wealth building large homes, the yeomen used their wealth more simply and instead worked to expand their land and improve it.
At the bottom were the poor. Poor people at the time were often shunned from interaction with the nobility, but in the world of Witch, we get to see these interactions, and Frank attempting to ascend from the bottom-most class to the highest.
Primogeniture most commonly refers to the right of succession of land, wealth, and assets to the firstborn son, especially in the feudal era.
In Witch, the topic of primogeniture is explored with the storyline of Cuddy and Frank’s casual battle to become the heir of Sir Arthur. Frank began his life with nothing, while Cuddy had everything, therefore Frank thinks he is most deserving of becoming Arthur’s new heir. However, Cuddy is Sir Arthur’s first-born son. If the line of primogeniture is changed from Cuddy to Frank– the fortune will go to different hands, and the construct of “blood money’ will become obsolete within the family.
“With wealth at the roots of political power, when there is a change in the primary source of wealth political power will shift as well, and the effect is amplified if land and capital are subject to different rules of intergenerational transmission, with primogeniture reinforcing wealth inequality in aristocracies.”39
At the time of Witch, most of the wealth in England was curated through old, passed-down money– there was not much “new wealth” coming about during the trade crisis. This is why characters such as Frank and Winnifred have such a drive to integrate themselves into the noble lifestyle– they will be able to integrate themselves with wealth, and in turn, gain political and social power.
________________________
39 Graziella Bertocchi, The Law of Primogeniture and the Transition from Landed Aristocracy to Industrial Democracy (2003), 16.
Mercantilism was an economic theory that, at the time of the trade crisis, was appearing constantly in conversations. This theory was created by Thomas Mun in the 1620s.
Mercantilism is “the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage using protectionism.”40
With the mercantilist movement being discussed, talks of the old ways such as feudalism started to disintegrate.
For Simon Tormey in Anti-Capitalism, this shift was incredibly significant. "Most experts in the field would date [capitalism] from the rise of European mercantile or trading societies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”41
He attributes much economic inequality to the disintegration of feudalism, stating "As feudalism and slavery were overthrown or displaced, so those who were liberated became 'masterless' men (and women), freed to try and procure a living for themselves, usually through selling their labor to someone who needed it for the factories, mines, and workhouses that accompanied the process of industrialization. Here, in short, we see a process by which the economic relation of feudalism, namely control over the person is transformed into the capitalist economic relation in which some people buy other people's labor power."42
This economic crisis prompted a large discussion about economic national identity– not just between the government but also within the public sphere. One of the most common ways to do this was through pamphlet literature– an accessible method for even the lowest of classes to be able to participate in the discussion.
“What is less commonly appreciated is that economic reasoning was not, at that time, exclusively confined to the musings of merchants who sought to influence the course of public policy according to their own practical wisdom or corporate interests. Economic distress was then a central topic for public debate throughout English society at large; it figured prominently both in parliament and at court, thus mobilizing most of the kingdom’s economic and political groups.”43
For some, capitalism and rapid industrialism served as a benefit– but for the lower classes, their labors became more futile than ever.
_____________________________
“Mercantilism” Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com/?tl=true.
Simon Tormey, Anti-capitalism (2013), 2.
Tormey, 4.
Michele Alacevich. “Review of ‘Political Economy and International Order in Interwar Europe’ Edited by Alexandre M. Cunha and Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak.” Center for Open Science, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9j3dn.
In Witch, every character’s storyline is directly influenced by their economic background.
Elizabeth is a poor woman who lives in a hut. It is not disclosed in the script how she earns money. Widespread economic distress became associated with the devil and witchcraft around the 1620s in England– and the women accused were often poor. Therefore, the suspicions toward Elizabeth could stem from her economic background.
Winnifred is a feudal servant, whose labor is exploited by Sir Arthur. There are many instances in the script of Winnifred’s humanity being reduced to the tasks she performs, whether it be by Sir Arthur regarding her labor, or by Cuddy and Frank, regarding her gender. When Winnifred is liberated from Frank, she still needs to sell her soul to get by– however, she does not sell her soul for a different life.
In the final scene, Winnifred states “If I wished for the devil to make me nobility! The top of the heap- the men go out hunting, the men go to war and there I am, sitting alone at the end of a very long table. And the room is very silent, and there’s still nobody listening.”44 Winnifred’s character arc is a direct representation of how capitalism favors a male-dominated society and suggests a feminist critique of capitalism.
Sir Arthur is the character with the highest status and most power. He is a noble and a catalyst for class conflict in the play. He harbors the power to decide on an heir, and both Frank and Cuddy are subordinate to his social and economic capital. “Man cannot be given greatness,' Scratch says about Sir Arthur in scene 6– “he has it or he doesn’t. But he can be given power, with which to exercise his greatness.”45
Frank is a firm believer in that very concept aforementioned by Scratch– Frank believes he is destined for greatness, but does not have the power to exercise that greatness, due to his lack of social capital and disadvantaged background. Frank’s character arc is the most impacted by his class, as he intends to ascend from poverty to nobility.
He has the mindset of a typical capitalist sheep– that he is destined for greatness and that he will achieve it through the acquirement of wealth. He is exploited under Sir Arthur, even though the nature of this exploitation seems to benefit him.
He thinks he is most deserving of becoming Arthur’s new heir, as he has worked his way to the top from a disadvantaged position. Cuddy ultimately puts an end to this plotline by killing Frank, reinforcing the age-old idea perpetuated and supported by the Law of Primogeniture– that the rich will succeed in staying rich by any means necessary.
Cuddy is the son of a nobleman who is born into wealth– yet he is at risk of losing his access to the law of Primogeniture. Cuddy’s effeminate nature and suspected queerness disassociates him from his father’s fortune and assets– meaning that Frank Thorney could be next in line to receive everything that was supposed to be his.
He has more wealth, but Frank has more power– the power to exercise his “greatness,” as previously mentioned, to Sir Arthur, gain his fortune, and become the next heir to the throne.
Cuddy being detached from his wealth and fortune so suddenly adds a sense of urgency to his character and is the main reason why he is so likely to sell his soul to Scratch in the first scene. In a way, Cuddy’s economic woes catalyze many of the events that happen throughout the play.
Scratch is a paranormal being– he is genderless and classless– only choosing to appear as a well-off white male, as it would get him treated best by the people of Edmonton. Scratch choosing to identify this way reveals that the world of Witch has a societal structure much like our own. Scratch often uses capitalist language throughout the play, which shows that although he is not integrated into the status quo, he still reinforces it.
____________________
Silverman, 83
Silverman, 32
During the Middle Ages, banquets were given on such important ecclesiastical feast days as New Year and Pentecost. In royal and noble culture, banquet pageantry was part of everyday life in some way– the same goes for the servants who lived in the castle.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation, guilt around food and eating was being pushed out of major discourse, in the history journals from Cambridge University press, it is stated that “Most obviously, it was to be celebrated because food was a gift from God that allowed life to continue by replenishing the body. Flesh was thought to waste over time and was literally regenerated by food.... In this way, in his Treatise of faith, published in 1631, the nonconformist curate John Ball declared, ‘when we sit downe to meate, we come to a liuely sermon of Gods bountie and loue’. This is because the food that the consumer is faced with ‘is not ours, but the Lords, all the prouision are gifts of his mercie in Iesus Christ.’”46
There were banquets for funerals, the coming of age (or knighting) of a son, or on lesser occasions as a harvest, the feast day of the patron saint of the local parish guild, various civic occasions, or even a tournament. Certain invitations were based on certain events– some people of quite humble status could be considered a guest at a lesser banquet today.
Some banquet table manner rules from Gastronomica by Mark Morton47:
Some thrust so much into their mouths at once, that their cheeks swell like bagpipes. Others open their Jaws so wide that they smoke like Hogges: some blow at the nose. All which are beastly fashions. To drink or speak when thy mouth is full, is not only slovenly, but dangerous. —William Phiston, 1609
It is considered impolite and impure to put too much food into your mouth at a banquet, and it is also impolite to smack, or unhinge your jaw. Speaking with your mouth full is greatly discouraged at a banquet.
Leane not with thine Elbows upon the table, for that is only lawful for old feeble persons: notwithstanding some Courtiers use it, judging all that they doe is to be tolerated. Take heede that thou trouble none of them that sit next thee with thine Elbowes, nor those on the other side the table with thy feete. —William Phiston, 1609
Only old people should put their elbows on the table– you should not trouble the guests you are sitting next to with you elbows, or the ones you are sitting across from with your feet.
If the Banquet be so long that thou canst not well sit it out, arise, take away thy Trencher and Scraps with thy Napkin, making obey- sance toward him that seemeth the worthiest in the company, and come and waite by the Table mannerly. —William Phiston, 1609
After the banquet, take your plate and clean it, and wait by the most important person at the banquet.
No lurching, no snatching, no striving at all, least one go without and another have all. —Thomas Tusser, 1577
It sets a bad example to lurch toward food, snatch food, and strive for food, because it could influence other people to have poor manners as well.
When thou receive anything at the Table with thy Hande, lay holde of it with no more but thy thumbe, and two forefingers, the hinder fingers being bowed in mannerly. In eating, thou must put thy morsels of Bread and Meate being cut, leysurely and modestly into thy Mouth with the Thumbe and forefinger of thy left hand, the other three fingers being bowed in, one beneath the other.
—William Phiston, 1609
Index finger, middle finger, and thumb are the only fingers that should be touching the food while one is eating. You must eat cut up pieces with your left hand and place the food leisurely into the mouth, not aggressively.
__________________
Eleanor Barnett, “Reforming Food and Eating in Protestant England, c. 1560–c. 1640.” The Historical Journal, 507–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X19000426.
Mark Morton and Andrew Coppolino. Cooking with Shakespeare. Greenwood, 2008.