The Witch of Edmonton

Dog is described as being a dog, though he is played by a human actor. He takes on the role of a familiar to Elizabeth Sawyer. Familiars were a common feature in the folklore surrounding witches—it was believed that a devil, or an incarnation of the Devil himself, appeared in an animal form as a companion to a witch. The familiar was believed to suckle blood from an additional nipple on the witch, something that Dog does onstage to seal their contract and that Elizabeth suggests continues to happen offstage. Dog’s supernatural nature is demonstrated as he flits between being visible and invisible to different characters onstage. He is black for most of the play but changes his color to white in Act V when he abandons Elizabeth, who is taken away to be executed. This follows the account in Goodcole’s pamphlet, but it also reflects Dog’s fickleness. Elizabeth barely recognizes him as the same animal, which shows that she does not see his true shape or character.

Dog is a physically present antagonist, encapsulating the literal belief in the forces of hell that was common in this period. He causes suffering to all: He carries out Elizabeth’s revenge, which both damns her and causes suffering to the village, and he also exacerbates Frank Thorney’s moral corruption. Dog’s stage directions often coincide with action by human characters to imply he has influenced them: For example, he rubs against Frank Thorney before he kills Susan, and he dances joyfully when Katherine finds the murder weapon, condemning Frank to execution. However, the exact nature of his powers relates to the people he is acting on; since Young Banks is not morally compromised, Dog can only play petty tricks on him. This reflects Dog’s complex relationship to the antagonist role: He embodies and facilitates the moral corruption that already exists in the main characters. He only appears to Elizabeth after she fervently wishes for a familiar, thereby representing a manifestation of her darkest instincts.

Frank Thorney is the driving force of the parallel plot to Elizabeth Sawyer’s narrative, positioning him a second tragic protagonist. While this is technically a subplot—given Elizabeth’s titular centrality—it has equal stage time and more complex action. Frank’s plot also opens and closes the play.

Frank’s moral corruption parallels Elizabeth’s. Both are driven to desperation by external factors relating to their socio-economic positions. While Elizabeth wants revenge for the community’s harsh treatment of her, Frank commits bigamy and then murder to protect his inheritance—he is threatened economically as the estate is at risk, and socially, as his father may disinherit him. The play presents him as being multifaceted: He suggests that he is reluctantly forced into his misdeeds by a destiny outside his control, but he also celebrates his successful murder of Susan and subsequent cover up, stating, “how prosperous / And effectual mischief sometimes is” (3.3.73-74). The play’s action suggests that his moral corruption grows between these scenes as his misdeeds accumulate. In the final scene of the play, Frank speaks monologues that poetically express his regret and repentance before he is taken away for execution. The pathos of these speeches gives his character a cathartic redemption arc in keeping with the archetype of the tragic hero: He dies having resolved his conflicts, bound for heaven.

Winnifride represents a narrative foil to Frank Thorney and Elizabeth Sawyer, but she is also a complex, rounded character in her own right. Despite her difficult circumstances, she determines throughout the play to live a morally and spiritually upright life, unlike the two primary characters. She spends Acts III and IV in disguise as a pageboy: The trope of a heroine choosing to cross-dress was common in Elizabethan and Jacobean theater, enabling female characters greater freedom to pursue their aims. However, Winnifride is pressured into doing this by Frank, reflecting her character’s complex relationship to free will and the way her gender shapes her narrative.

According to most early modern iterations of Christianity, Winnifride has sinned by having sex before marriage. Moreover, she has slept with two people: Sir Arthur and Frank. The play views consent and sex through an early modern lens, so it does not suggest she was assaulted: Winnifride claims responsibility for her “sins.” However, Sir Arthur is made to pay a retributory sum to her, and Frank describes her as “much wronged” (5.3.64). Although this was often the social expectation for such interactions, the play signposts that she was a more passive party in these arrangements: She refers to Frank Thorney’s “conquest” of her maidenhood, and there is a clear power imbalance as Sir Arthur is her social superior and employer who provides her lodging and her income.

There is also a power imbalance between Winnifride and Frank—becoming pregnant outside of wedlock means she depends on him marrying her to prevent her social ostracization and to offer her economic security. Once married, social custom dictates that she submit to his leadership, and legally, she would fall under his ownership. The play shows the constraints this places upon her: While Winnifride is unsure of his initial plan for their life and then horrified by his bigamy, she continues to accompany him and obey him. However, the play also shows that despite her difficult situation, she retains her free will. She relays Frank’s confession of murder to secure his arrest, but she claims that due to her emotional distress, she doesn’t know what she’s saying and so isn’t betraying her husband. She ends the play commenting that her “soul is free” (5.3.11): She has asserted her virtue both physically and spiritually, by avoiding further sin and repenting her past actions.

In the character list, Young Banks is referred to as “Young Cuddy Banks, the Clown” (27), reflecting his comedic role in leading the subplot of the troupe of Morris dancers preparing for their performance. The clown was a recognizable archetype featuring in many plays of the period, including tragedies, in which their humor served as a foil to the tragic events, often exploring similar themes through a comedic lens. Young Banks engages in wordplay with the dancers and with Dog, including puns about dogs and bawdy humor playing on double meanings. His character also invites physical comedy in the staging: For example, he rides about on a hobby horse and is led into a pond by Dog while thinking he is wooing Katherine. These activities offer humorous parallels to the main plots. Young Banks embodies a harmless side of the ritualist beliefs of the community. He comments that he only has himself to blame for the tricks Dog plays on him, acknowledging his free will even when supernatural beings lead him astray. Although he is friendly with Dog, his innocence protects him from corruption since Young Banks is fond of Dog for being a dog, rather than a devil.