Hobbididance is noticed as “prince of dumbness” (iv. 1), and perhaps is the same as Hopdance (iii. 6), “who cries,” says Edgar, “in Tom’s belly for two white herring.”
Mahu, like Modo, would seem to be another name for “the prince of darkness” (iii. 4), and further on (iv. 1) he is spoken of as the fiend “of stealing;” whereas the latter is described as the fiend “of murder.” Harsnet thus speaks of them: “Maho was general dictator of hell; and yet, for good manners’ sake, he was contented of his good nature to make show, that himself was under the check of Modu, the graund devil in Ma(ister) Maynie.”
Obidicut, another name of the fiend known as Haberdicut (iv. 1).
Smulkin (iii. 4). This is spelled Smolkin by Harsnet.
Thus, in a masterly manner, Shakespeare has illustrated and embellished his plays with references to the demonology of the period; having been careful in every case—while enlivening his audience—to convince them of the utter absurdity of this degraded form of superstition.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] “Elizabethan Demonology,” p. 49.
[83] Harsnet’s “Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures,” p. 225.
[84] “Pop. Antiq.,” 1849, vol. ii. pp. 517-519.
[85] Ibid. vol. i. pp. 365-367.