In the world of witches and magic, a cauldron holds an essential role. It is a large pot used for brewing potions, casting spells, and conducting rituals. However, have you ever wondered what witches actually call their cauldron? Well, the answer to that question is not as straightforward as one might think. Throughout history and different cultures, witches have referred to their cauldrons by various names. These names often hold significance and symbolism, adding to the mystical nature of witchcraft. One common name for a witch's cauldron is a "crone's cauldron.
This ingredient refers to lady’s mantle, scientifically known as Alchemilla mollis. Lady’s mantle is a favorite plant for gardens, as it is easy to grow and features clumps of green flowers. Bucking the trend, lady’s mantle is not poisonous and it is even known to attract butterflies.
It s possible Shakespeare is mentioning non-Christian people who would have been seen by his Christian audiences as heathens and heretics because they would be alien, mysterious, or scary to the people of England. Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder s fork and blind-worm s sting, Lizard s leg and owlet s wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
One common name for a witch's cauldron is a "crone's cauldron." The term "crone" refers to an elderly woman who possesses wisdom and power. By associating the cauldron with the crone, witches emphasize the transformative and magical properties it holds.
A Shakespearean recipe for Witch’s Brew
Pharmacy boxes from the Wangensteen artifact collection.
As Halloween nears, staff at the Wangensteen Historical Library are finding inspiration from a Witch’s Brew recipe written in Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
“Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting, Lizard’s leg and owlet’s wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.”
Ingredients from Wangensteen
While gathering ingredients to fill our cauldron, we quickly found that the eye of newt was not to be taken literally but in fact a common name for mustard seed. This was true for some of the other ingredients as well:
- Toe of frog = Buttercup (Ranunculus acris L.)
- Wool of bat = Holly Leaves (Ilex aquifolium)
- Tongue of dog = Gypsyflower from the Genus Hound’s Tounge (Cynoglossum officinale L.)
- Adders fork = Least Adder’s-tongue (Ophioglossum lusitanicum L.)
- Blind-worm = Slowworm (Anguis fragilis)
If you have any intentions of trying your luck at this brew, don’t be fooled, it’s much easier to gather holly leaves than the wool of a bat, as we have learned from experience.
- TAGS
- Wangensteen Historical Library
- WHL collections
RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR
‘Playing Indian’: A retrospective on the YMCA’s Indian Guides program
Using zines to preserve intergenerational memories
The classroom is a laboratory
4 COMMENTS
- Adrian Bott August 23, 2020 At 10:12 am
Can I please ask for some clarification on this? There appear to be no sources that provide ‘eye of newt’ as an alternative name for ‘mustard seed’ prior to the 21st Century. Indeed, the whole idea that the ingredients of the witches’ cauldron are merely herbs and plants (rather than the gruesome items they appear to be) originates with Wiccan author Scott Cunningham writing in 1985. At the time, many modern pagans were concerned to reinvent the negative images of witches found in folklore, and claiming ‘eye of newt’ was a harmless herb was part of that. The proposal that Shakespeare’s witches were really only using herbs doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. While it might be possible to argue that, for example, ‘tongue of dog’ was really the herb houndstongue, there is no way that ‘finger of birth-strangled babe / ditch-deliver’d by a drab’ refers to anything but what it says; and the less said about the human liver, the better. Shakespeare was writing to please James I, who was afraid of witches. His weird sisters were meant to be evil, ghoulishly and exaggeratedly so. Moreover, the use of animal parts in historical magic is, as I’m sure you’re already aware, well documented. Agrippa provides plenty of examples. The motivation behind trying to reinterpret Shakespeare’s malefic witches as harmless herbalists was part of the movement in the 1980s and 90s to reclaim witches in general for benevolent Wiccan purposes.
- Thundal September 4, 2021 At 5:46 pm
Contrarily, Shakespeare’s works are known to be playful and full of double entendre. It’s notable that the “”liver of blaspheming Jew,” is exactly what one would call liver which has been prepared to be eaten… by a jewish butcher, who were the common folk who ate them (as they were seen, culturally, as tasty, while others were weirded out by them; many people despise liver and onions today who didn’t grow up with it). So even in that there are parallels. (All jews are blasphemers, as they don’t believe in the catholic church, under the commons of the story). Given further the context of the ambiguous things the witches give after this scene, if many of these things *were* given to be ambiguous themselves, that would certainly fit in with these themes, aye?
I’d love to know your source that Scott Cunningham made it up? Or that is originates with Cunningham at all. I own Cunningham’s Encyclopedia of Magical Herbs. There is no mention of Eye of Newt in it that I have seen. Adder’s Mouth and Tongue of Dog are mentioned but not Wool of Bat, Eye of Newt or Toe of Frog. I think it is fair to ask which book apparently has this as you are accusing a man of having lack of integrity and making things up. Cunningham in his books generally include information on source material and did his research. So if you have a source that Cunningham is the origin of Eye of Newt = Black Mustard Seed then I’d love to know. I would also point out that 1985 is the 20th century and prior to the 21st century. I realize that isn’t want you mean. You mean before 1950. Under Mustard there is no Mention of Eye of Newt nor is their any listing for it as an alternative name for Mustard seed.
Are you referring to the Roman Agrippa or Heinrich Agrippa? Either way, both of them were biased, in somewhat opposite directions, and we should be skeptical of their reports. While I have no doubt that animal parts were used in occult practices and folk medicine, many plants and their parts were referred to using names easy to memorize. “Heart” referred to the seed, “toe” to the leaf, “guts” to the roots, etc. Here are two citations that might be helpful: Andrew Yang in his work ‘Plant Names in Old and Middle English: Problems and Trends in Taxonomy’ and, more specifically, Oswald Cockayne’s ‘Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England: The History of Science Before the Norman Conquest.’
Additionally, anyone who knows anything about plant based medicine and poison would rather eat a baby’s toe or a bat wing than boiled yew and wormwood. It’s a good way to join the dead, not raise them. A lot of the herbs mentioned in the verse refer to those that cause hallucinatory experiences, but can also be deadly. In my opinion, the modern “Wicca” movement has destroyed and convoluted much of occult history, as so much of their practices seem arbitrary. Frankly, the stereotypical “witch” didn’t exist outside of religious dogma until Wicca. It was a way for the aristocrats and the churches to wrestle the last bit of control of medical treatment from the peasantry. The innocent people painted as evil “witches” deserve to be stripped of the negative, ridiculous stereotype. They were primarily local “granny women” and midwives with any outcast or rebellious thinker thrown in for good measure. So if they tried to make witches seem harmless, I’m glad. Because they were. It was a genocide in some parts of Europe, and we should remember it as such.
This draconic ingredient could refer to Alacosia Baginda, commonly known as the dragon scale plant. True to its name, the leaves of this plant resemble large green dragon scales. Another possible plant that fits the bill is tarragon, a leafy green herb found worldwide that is often referred to as “dragon” or is known by many dragon-themed nicknames.
Another name commonly used by witches for their cauldron is "the vessel of transformation." This name reflects the cauldron's role in brewing potions and concoctions that bring about change and transformation. Witches believe that the cauldron acts as a catalyst, allowing them to harness the energy around them and create powerful potions to alter reality. Furthermore, some witches refer to their cauldron as a "divination pot." Divination is the act of gaining insight or knowledge through supernatural means. By using their cauldrons for divination, witches believe they can tap into the spiritual realm and receive guidance or foresight. The cauldron becomes a conduit between the earthly and spiritual realms, enabling witches to commune with otherworldly forces. Finally, witches may simply call their cauldron by its literal name, "cauldron." This straightforward term acknowledges the traditional and historical significance of the pot in witchcraft. It highlights the practical purpose of the cauldron as a tool for brewing and creating magic. In conclusion, witches have a variety of names for their cauldrons, each carrying its own symbolism and meaning. Whether it is referred to as a "crone's cauldron," "the vessel of transformation," "divination pot," or simply "cauldron," this magical tool holds immense power and significance in the world of witchcraft..
Reviews for "Cauldron Coven: Witches' Gatherings and Rituals"
1. Jessica - 2/5 stars - I was really disappointed by "What do witches call their cauldron". The book had such a promising title and I was expecting some fun and whimsical content about witches and their cauldrons. However, the book fell flat for me. The jokes were not funny and the writing style felt forced. I also found it problematic that the book relied heavily on stereotypes about witches, which I believe perpetuates negative and inaccurate ideas. Overall, I did not enjoy this book and would not recommend it.
2. Michael - 1/5 stars - This book was a complete waste of time. The jokes were incredibly cheesy and not even remotely funny. I expected something clever and entertaining, but instead, I was met with predictable and unimaginative content. The illustrations were also lacking, and didn't add any value to the book. I was really disappointed by "What do witches call their cauldron" and would not recommend it to anyone looking for a good laugh or well-crafted humor.
3. Sarah - 2/5 stars - I had high hopes for "What do witches call their cauldron" but unfortunately, it did not live up to my expectations. The jokes felt forced and I didn't find them funny at all. The book also lacked depth and substance, it felt like a quick cash-grab rather than a well-thought-out piece of work. The illustrations were decent, but they couldn't make up for the lackluster content. Overall, this book was forgettable and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone searching for an enjoyable and engaging read.