that prevailed at the time when this play was written, will prove that
Shakespeare was in no danger of such censures, since he only turned the
system that was then universally admitted, to his advantage, and was far
from overburthening the credulity of his audience.

The reality of witchcraft or enchantment, which, though not strictly the
same, are confounded in this play, has in all ages and countries been
credited by the common people, and in most, by the learned themselves.
These phantoms have indeed appeared more frequently, in proportion as
the darkness of ignorance has been more gross; but it cannot be shown,
that the brightest gleams of knowledge have at any time been sufficient
to drive them out of the world. The time in which this kind of credulity
was at its height, seems to have been that of the holy war, in which the
Christians imputed all their defeats to enchantments or diabolical
opposition, as they ascribed their success to the assistance of their
military saints; and the learned Dr. Warburton appears to believe
(_Suppl. to the Introduction to Don Quixote_) that the first accounts of
enchantments were brought into this part of the world by those _who_
returned from their eastern expeditions. But there is always some
distance between the birth and maturity of folly as of wickedness: this
opinion had long existed, though perhaps the application of it had in no
foregoing age been so frequent, nor the reception so general.
Olympiodorus, in Photius's extracts, tells us of one Libanius, who
practised this kind of military magic, and having promised [Greek:
choris opliton kata barbaron energein] to perform great things against
the Barbarians without soldiers, was, at the instances of the empress
Placidia, put to death, when he was about to have given proofs of his
abilities. The empress shewed some kindness in her anger by cutting him
off at a time so convenient for his reputation.