D&D 5E What is a petrified eye of a Newt?

[ECMO3]

This is the spell component for Hex. Is this just a dried mustard seed?

Is it a mustard seed or is it the actual the eyeball of some creature called a "Newt". If it is actually the eyeball of said creature, how is it "petrified" and where can I find information about said Newt?

 

[Umbran]

Newts are real animals - they are amphibians, and look a bit like lizards in general shape.

Newt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We classically get the idea that "eye of newt" is used in magic from the witches in Shakespeare's MacBeth, as they brew something in a cauldron:

"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble. 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."

However texts on herbalism of the time apparently indicate all these as alternate names for various herbs and plants. Historically, "eye of newt" was mustard seed, not the literal eye of a newt, petrified or otherwise. Toe of frog was buttercup, there is an herb commonly called houndstongue, the wool of bat is moss, and so on.

However, most people who have seen or read MacBeth aren't herbalist historians. The common conception is that the witches are putting some seriously nasty things in that cauldron. I expect the game writers are also not herbalist historians. So, their intention was probably more literal.

Note, that as a game spell component, it is listed without a cost - so you don't actually have to worry about it. It is flavor text, and can be assumed to be in any spell component pouch.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

However, most people who have seen or read MacBeth aren't herbalist historians. The common conception is that the witches are putting some seriously nasty things in that cauldron.

I think that was the author's intent. Part of the reason for writing Macbeth was to flatter notorious witch-hater King James I. So he portrayed common herbal remedies as seriously nasty. The audience at the time of writing weren't herbalists either.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that was the author's intent. Part of the reason for writing Macbeth was to flatter notorious witch-hater King James I. So he portrayed common herbal remedies as seriously nasty. The audience at the time of writing weren't herbalists either.

Though Shakespeare - also probably not an herbalist - was either familiar with all these names, or by some tremendous coincidence happened to only pick animal parts that were also the names of herbs. I think the former is far more likely, and if his goal was to present witches as horrible, it seems an odd choice to only list nasty things that could also be read as herbs to have the witches list as ingredients.

I suspect that those were fairly common names used for those herbs at the time, not ones only herbalists would have known, and Shakespeare was deliberately using double-entendre.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Though Shakespeare - also probably not an herbalist - was either familiar with all these names, or by some tremendous coincidence happened to only pick animal parts that were also the names of herbs. I think the former is far more likely, and if his goal was to present witches as horrible, it seems an odd choice to only list nasty things that could also be read as herbs to have the witches list as ingredients.

I suspect that those were fairly common names used for those herbs at the time, not ones only herbalists would have known, and Shakespeare was deliberately using double-entendre.

Shakespeare did huge amounts of research. Most of his plays draw heavily on classical texts, many of which where obscure even at the time of writing. He no doubt read extensively on herbalism before writing those scenes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Shakespeare did huge amounts of research. Most of his plays draw heavily on classical texts, many of which where obscure even at the time of writing. He no doubt read extensively on herbalism before writing those scenes.

And so in pursuit of his goal to present witches as awful he did a ton of research to find actual herbs with names that could be read as nasty things instead of picking nasty sounding things that couldn’t also be read as the names of herbs? I dunno, seems like an odd choice. It seems more reasonable to me to suppose that he intended to present a double-meaning than to suppose that he intended to make witches look bad.

But hey, what do I know? I’m no Shakespeare scholar.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And so in pursuit of his goal to present witches as awful he did a ton of research to find actual herbs with names that could be read as nasty things instead of picking nasty sounding things that couldn’t also be read as the names of herbs? I dunno, seems like an odd choice. I think it’s more likely that he intended to present a double-meaning than that he intended to make witches look bad.

He was a perfectionist. Some authors do research for it's own sake. At that time names for herbs differed widely across the the country, and the urbanite Londoners who where his audience would have known little and cared less.

 

[Charlaquin]

He was a perfectionist. Some authors do research for it's own sake. At that time names for herbs differed widely across the the country, and the urbanite Londoners who where his audience would have known little and cared less.

I don’t dispute that, I just question the idea that the motivation was to vilify witches, as it seems like using ingredients that were also the names of herbs ill-suits that goal. But, again, I’m no Shakespeare scholar. Just seems weird to me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don’t dispute that, I just question the idea that the motivation was to vilify witches, as it seems like using ingredients that were also the names of herbs ill-suits that goal. But, again, I’m no Shakespeare scholar. Just seems weird to me.

It's also an early example of an "in-joke". The new king, like Shakespeare, was widely read, and so would be expected to understand the reference, but most of the audience would not.

In understanding Macbeth, the context is important. James had just become king of England (he was already king of Scotland), and Shakespeare was trying to get in with the new monarch. Thus there is a scene directly connecting the line of "legitimate Scottish kings" to Banquo, one of James's ancestors. James was already established as a persecutor of witches, having written Daemonolgie.

To be fair to James, he mellowed a little as he got older, and eventually added a higher burden of proof to allegations of witchcraft.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The claim that the names of the ingredients in Macbeth's witches brew, including Eye of Newt, represent common plants appears to be a modern falsification: Are the ingredients listed in "Macbeth" common plants?