In the world of fantasy and folklore, witches have always captivated our imagination. These mysterious and powerful beings are often depicted as women with magical abilities, but exploring the question of "Which witch is which?" can lead us down a path of confusion and ambiguity. From the classic image of the old hag stirring her cauldron to the modern interpretation of the seductive and stylish witch, there are countless variations and representations of witches across cultures and literature. Each witch possesses unique characteristics and abilities that distinguish her from others. In some cultures, witches are seen as wise women who use their knowledge of herbs and potions to heal. These "good witches" are often portrayed as kind and benevolent figures who offer advice and guidance.
All three paintings depict the trio of witches from William Shakespeare's Macbeth who foretell his fate. Looking for a wicked good time? Compare The Huntington's version of Fuseli's Three Witches (above) with the two other versions below. Scholars believe The Huntington’s is a study for the two that followed. Which witch is your favorite?
The Huntington s recently acquired The Three Witches or The Weird Sisters , painted by Henry Fuseli 1741-1825 in about 1785, goes on view tomorrow in the Huntington Art Gallery. Two little witches two little witches Played a little game played a little game They were very good friends very good friends Who looked the same who looked the same.
These "good witches" are often portrayed as kind and benevolent figures who offer advice and guidance. On the other hand, there are "bad witches" who use their magic for destructive purposes, casting harmful spells and curses upon others. These wicked witches are often depicted as old, ugly, and malevolent beings.
Which Witch?
Henry Fuseli (1741-1825), The Three Witches or The Weird Sisters, ca. 1785, oil on canvas, 24 ¾ x 30 ¼ in. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Purchased with funds from The George R. and Patricia Geary Johnson British Art Acquisition Fund.
The Huntington’s recently acquired The Three Witches or The Weird Sisters, painted by Henry Fuseli (1741-1825) in about 1785, goes on view tomorrow in the Huntington Art Gallery. It’s one of three full-size color versions that the artist made. The others are at the Kunsthaus Zürich and the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon, England.
All three paintings depict the trio of witches from William Shakespeare's Macbeth who foretell his fate. Looking for a wicked good time? Compare The Huntington's version of Fuseli's Three Witches (above) with the two other versions below. Scholars believe The Huntington’s is a study for the two that followed. Which witch is your favorite?
The Kunsthaus Zürich’s Witches (1783):
Henry Fuseli, The Three Witches, 1783, oil on canvas, 25 1/2 x 36 in. The Kunsthaus Zürich.
And the Royal Shakespeare Company’s Witches (ca. 1783):
Henry Fuseli, 'Macbeth', Act I, Scene 3, the Weird Sisters, ca. 1783, oil on canvas, 29 1/2 x 35 ½ in. Royal Shakespeare Company Collection.
Why do you think Fuseli made the changes he did? He re-cast and re-costumed the characters for one thing. But there’s more.
Look closely at the upper left corner of the Kunsthaus Zürich painting. What is that winged-skull-demon thing haunting the upper left?! (It’s also in the Royal Shakespeare Company version, but just harder to see.) Hint: It’s on the movie poster for the 1991 thriller “Silence of the Lambs.”
Well, it’s a Death's-head Hawkmoth, a real insect with markings uncannily similar to a human skull. As an element of the painting, it serves as a portentous symbol of the fate awaiting Macbeth.
Death’s-head Hawkmoth (Image from Wikimedia Commons. Acherontia atropos MHNT by Didier Descouens. File is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.)
Thankfully, we don’t have any Death's-head Hawkmoths in North America. Happy Halloween!
Related content on Verso:
A Magic Brew? (Oct. 31, 2014)
More Than Meets the Eye (Dec. 16, 2014)
Thea M. Page is director of marketing communications at The Huntington.
Henry Fuseli (1741-1825), The Three Witches or The Weird Sisters, ca. 1785, oil on canvas, 24 ¾ x 30 ¼ in. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Purchased with funds from The George R. and Patricia Geary Johnson British Art Acquisition Fund.
However, it is important to understand that not all witches fit into these black-and-white categories. In recent years, there has been a shift towards more complex and nuanced portrayals of witches in literature, movies, and television. These modern witches are often depicted as morally ambiguous characters, neither wholly good nor evil. They may use their powers for their own benefit, but they can also show compassion and empathy towards others. Furthermore, the concept of witchcraft itself is varied and diverse. Different cultures have different beliefs and practices when it comes to magic and witchcraft. Some witches rely on spellcasting and potion-making, while others communicate with spirits or practice divination. Some witches focus on the elemental forces of nature, while others delve into the realm of dark magic. There are witches who draw their power from the moon or the stars, and others who tap into ancient rituals and traditions. In conclusion, the question of "Which witch is which?" is a complex one. Witches come in all shapes and forms, each with their own unique abilities and characteristics. They can be portrayed as good or evil, wise or wicked, kind or malevolent. It is important to recognize the diversity and complexity within witchcraft and to appreciate the various interpretations and representations of witches across cultures and literature..
Reviews for "The role of familiars in witchcraft: pets or magical companions?"
1. Samantha - 2 out of 5 stars - I am disappointed with "Which witch is which". The plot was weak and predictable, lacking any surprise or excitement. The characters were one-dimensional and lacked depth, making it difficult for me to connect with them. The writing style was also dull and uninspiring, failing to grab my attention or engage me in any way. Overall, I found this book to be a tedious and unenjoyable read.
2. Michael - 1 out of 5 stars - I couldn't stand "Which witch is which". The story felt juvenile and poorly developed. The humor fell flat, and the attempts at wit were forced. The pacing was slow, and the ending was unsatisfying. I expected more from this book, but it left me feeling disappointed and uninterested. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for a captivating and well-crafted story.
3. Emma - 2 out of 5 stars - "Which witch is which" was a letdown for me. The concept had potential, but it was poorly executed. The dialogue was cheesy and unrealistic, making it difficult to take the characters seriously. The plot twists were predictable, and the story lacked any genuine surprises. I was left feeling underwhelmed and unimpressed. Overall, there are much better witch-themed books out there that I would recommend over this one.