ing with his art to weave theme and action into our hearts. Montague perhaps puts it more admirably in his Writings and Genius of Shakespeare when he states that, generally, the inclusion of magic, angels, demons, and the like give ö . . . the marvelous, the sublime, and, I may add, that religious air to his work, which enobles the enthusiasm, and sanctifies the fiction of the poetö (Montagu 78). And as for ShakespeareÆs concern of religious order, there can be not doubt. Consequently, all creatures for the artist, men, animals, ghosts, witches, had dramatic effect if not purpose, such was Shakespeare the creator.
However, the reins of character and the national disposition of the times are what give credulity to his use of the supernatural. And in the later poets, such as Shakespeare and his contemporaries, fancy became restrained to what was known, or more accurately, what was believed û this novelty was blended into traditional reality and truth. As a result:
Ghosts, fairies, goblins, elves, were as propitious, were as assistant to Shakespeare, and gave as much to the sublime, and of the marvelous, to his fictions, as nymphs, satyrs, fawns, and even the triple Geryon, to the works of ancient bards. Our poet never carries his praeternatural beings beyond the limits of popular tradition (Montagu 119).
All the spirits of the dead, all the ugly witches, and all the myriad ghost, then, were popular lore of the times. Whether or not Shakespeare actually believed in them, he nevertheless used them actively. They were actable, palpable figures with unseen powers of evil lurking around them. Natural superstition is what gave credence to these creatures of the supernatural. Yet it was for the writer to give them their place and their prophecy. It was for man to destroy himself. Thus, the Elizabethan ô. . . omnivorous appetite for the occult . . .ö (Curry 61) created for the Renaissance mind a spiritual world of ev...