Heavenly Necromancers: The Magician in English Renaissance Drama by Barbara Howard Traister (review)

390 Comparative Drama Barbara Howard Traister. Heavenly Necromancers: The Magician in English Renaissance Drama. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1984. Pp. x + 196; 8 illustrations. $21.00. Since magicians in Renaissance plays often pose a separate inter­ pretive problem, this book should prove helpful to those without special­ ized background. The opening chapter not only traces Renaissance philosophical theories of magic but also looks at magicians in medieval and Renaissance romances. There are also chapters on magic in minor Tudor and Stuart plays and in masques. The rest of the book evaluates magicians in Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, Doctor Faustus, Bussy D’Ambois, and The Tempest. As is often the case with overview chapters, even excellent ones, the author is sometimes too anxious to make all cases fit the argument. For instance, the generalization that magicians in medieval romances are not associated with the “learning mandatory in theories of philosophic magic” is worthwhile, but why write off exceptions as being “always casual” about a magician’s learning? The Franklin’s Tale’s learned magician is really similar to such a purveyor of illusion as Friar Bacon: both are situated at universities, both unwisely help illicit lovers, both end well (one forgives a debt, the other repents), and both works draw parallels between magic and illicit love. For whatever reason, Chaucer’s magician could more usefully be discussed in conjunction with Bacon and Prospero than with Merlin and Morgan. The readings of the major works are usually sensitive and intelligent, but the author occasionally overstates in these chapters as well. She is convincing when she writes about the possibility of good magic in Friar Bacon (the contest redounds to England’s credit, and the closing prophe­ cy reveals Bacon performing a traditional and beneficent magical func­ tion). However, the suggestion that Bacon helps Edward’s lust in the first prospective glass scene because “he feels that seeing at a distance is, in this case, the best thing” is totally unwarranted. Since Professor Traister is arguing that all the major characters are mixed, she does not need to prove Bacon’s motive good here; thus the suggestion is also un­ necessary to her argument. A final minor point concerns the fine illustrations which might have been discussed rather than used for decoration alone. Despite these comments, I found this book useful—perhaps more than if I had agreed with every word, for it does indicate the boundaries of the discussion; the decision about where to place a particular work can be left to the reader. Indeed, Professor Traister shows that the period itself did not resolve questions on magic, that is, “whether it was good or evil, demonic or daemonic, effective or mere charlatanism.” The un­ resolved questions allowed each playwright to see magic differently, rais­ ing questions “of how much achievement, power, or knowledge is per­ mitted to man, and what are his possibilities and his human limitation.” Furthermore, the basic questions raised by the Renaissance practitioner of magic are still with us and are not made easier by the substitution of the word “scientist” for “magician.” CECILE WILLIAMSON CARY Wright State University ...