Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:01:02.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reginald Scot and his Discoverie of Witchcraft: Religion and Science in the Opposition to the European Witch Craze

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Leland L. Estes
Leland L. Estes
Affiliation:
Mr. Estes is a junior fellow in the Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion in the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent discussions of the major literary works of the witch craze of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have advanced significantly our understanding of this important episode in European history. Clearly, our efforts no longer are controlled by the anticlerical and even antireligious sentiments that corrupted so much late nineteenth-century scholarship on this subject. Yet a more subtle nineteenth-century prejudice still remains with us. We still wish to believe that those who opposed the craze did so because in some fundamental way they were more enlightened, or more rational, or more scientific than those who accepted and even supported witch hunting. Recent anthropological research, however, stressing both the ubiquity and the intellectual integrity of a belief in witches, suggests strongly that this modern viewpoint is probably not correct. Certainly, this prejudice has seriously distorted our understanding of one important contribution to the witch debate, Reginald Scot's The Discoverie of Witchcraft. Modern commentators have invested this book with an aura of scientific rationality that it ill deserves. A closer inspection, I believe, reveals an entirely different source for Scot's ideas and, more importantly, sheds some new light on what it really was that brought witch hunting in Europe to an end.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 444 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sydney, Anglo, ed., The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft (London, 1977).Google Scholar

2. Scot, Reginald, The Discoverie of Witchcraft (London, 1584).Google Scholar There were later London editions in 1651, 1654, and 1665; the 1665 edition had some extra material added to it. Modern editions include those of Nicholson, Brinsley (1886; reprint ed., Totowa, N. J., 1973);Google Scholar Summers, Montague (1930; reprint ed., New York, 1972);Google Scholar and Williamson, Hugh Ross (London and Carbondale, Ill., 1964)Google Scholar. Because of the plethora of editions, I will give book and chapter numbers along with page numbers to the widely distributed Summers edition of 1972. Since this edition did not include A Discourse on Divels and Spirits, I will give the chapter and page numbers for the original 1584 edition of this treatise.

3. Notestein, Wallace, A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558–1718 (1911; reprint ed., New York, 1968), pp. 61, 62;Google Scholar Anglo, Sydney, “Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft: Scepticism and Sadduceeism,” in The Damned Art, p. 134,Google Scholar repeating a similar quotation in idem, “Melancholia and Witchcraft: The Debate between Wier, Bodin, and Scot,” in Folie et Déraison à la Renaissance (Brussels, 1976), p. 222;Google Scholar Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York, 1971), p. 579.Google Scholar Anglo has been cited favorably by several authors: Easlea, Brian, Witch Hunting, Magic, and the New Philosophy: An Introduction to the Debates of the Scientific Revolution, 1450–1750 (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1980), pp. 24–25;Google Scholar Brian P. Copenhaver, review of Witch Hunting, Magic, and the New Philosophy, By Easlea, Brian, American Historical Review 87 (1982): 145;Google Scholar and Clark, Stuart, “Inversion, Misrule, and the Meaning of Witchcraft,” Past and Present 87 (1980): 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 1.

4. Notestein, p. 65.

5. Scot,Discoverie, 13. 21. 181; 13. 31. 193; 13. 34. 199.

6. Ibid., 13. 33. 195–196; 13. 34. 199.

7. Scot, Reginald, A Perfite Platforme of a Hoppe Garden, and Necessarie Instructions for the Making and Mayntenaunce Thereof (London, 1574).Google Scholar There were further editions in 1576, 1578, 1640, and 1654. For the impact of this book and an assessment of its contents, see Fussell, G. E., The Old English Farming Books from Fitzherbert to Tull: 1523–1753 (London, 1947), pp. 11–12;Google Scholar Ernle, Lord, English Farming: Past and Present (London, 1927), p. 92;Google Scholar Curtler, W. H. R., A Short History of English Agriculture (Oxford, 1909), pp. 89–91;Google Scholar Bignell, Alan, Hopping Down in Kent (London, 1977), pp. 23–25.Google Scholar

8. Scot, , Discoverie, 13. 16. 176, 177.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., 3. 6. 27; 13. 13. 174–175.

10. Anglo, , “Scot's Discoverie,” pp. 109, 127–129.Google Scholar

11. Scot, Discoverie, 7. 2. 74; 15. 23. 255; 15. 26. 258; 11. 3. 109; 11. 2. 108; 15. 39. 269; 3. 12. 34; 12. 10. 135; 12. 14. 142; 13. 19. 179; 15. 39. 268; Scot, Discourse, 24. 378. The “anti-sacerdotal, anti-authoritarian, and on occasion anti-sacramental” tendencies of Scot's thought remind one of the Lollards that had once been so influential in his part of Kent; see Thomson, John A. F., The Later Lollards, 1414–1520 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 172–191, 244, 249.Google Scholar

12. Scot, Discoverie, 1. 8. 10.

13. Teall, John T., “Witchcraft and Calvinism in Elizabethan England: Divine Power and Human Agency,” Journal of the History of Ideas 23 (1962): 22–23,CrossRefGoogle Scholar has argued that “there can be little doubt that theologically [Scot's] sympathies ran far in the direction of Geneva.” He bases this opinion on Scot's derogatory remarks about the sacraments, a slighting reference to Luther, a condemnation of the Brownists, and an occasional citation of Calvin. These are weak reads on which to stand. See also Ross, Christina, “Calvinism and the Witchcraft Prosecutions in England,” Journal of the Presbyterian History Society of England 12 (1960): 21–28.Google Scholar

14. Scot, Discoverie, 11. 4. 109; Scot, Discourse, 34. 400.

15. Perkins, William, A Discourse of the Damed Art of Witchcraft (Cambridge, 1608);Google Scholar Holland, Henry, A Treatise Against Witchcraft (Cambridge, 1590);Google Scholar James, VI and I, Daemonologie, ed. Harrison, G. B. (New York, 1966).Google Scholar

16. Scot, Discourse, 34. 400; 27. 382.

17. See, for example, Scot's retelling of the legend of Bishop Sylvanus (ibid., 4. 5. 45).

18. Ibid., 14. 5. 208–213.

19. Trevor-Roper, Hugh R., “The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and Other Essays (New York, 1969), pp. 129–130.Google Scholar Trevor-Roper, pp. 146–149, argues that Weyer was a disciple of Erasmus and that Scot was doing little more than copying his arguments from Weyer. It seems to me that, in fact, Weyer departed rather dramatically from the beliefs of Erasmus. Weyer was a great believer in the reality of demons. It was Scot who was the real disciple of Christian humanism. On the survival of Christian humanism in Elizabethan England, see McConica, James, “Humanism and Aristotle in Tudor Oxford,” English Historical Review 94 (1979): 314–315.Google Scholar McConica notes particularly the close connection in England between this Christian humanism and Aristotelianism (see below).

20. Scot, Discourse, 16. 369; 20. 373; 29. 384; 13. 366; 10. 362; 34. 401.

21. Ibid., 12. 365; 31. 386; Scot, Discoverie, 5. 5. 57; 8. 3. 93; 15. 30. 262; Scot, Discourse, 31. 387; 32. 388; Scot, Discoverie, 1. 7. 9; 15. 26. 258; 10. 5. 103.

22. Scot, Discourse, 14. 368; 13. 366, 367.

23. Ibid., 31. 386.

24. Anglo, , “Scot's Discoverie,” p. 129.Google Scholar “The truth of the matter is that Scot no more accepted the reality of spirits and demons than he accepted the reality of witches.”

25. Scot, Discourse, 2. 353.

26. Scot, Discourse, 1. 7. 9; 13. 21. 181; Scot, Discourse, 13. 367; 14. 367; Scot, Discoverie, 13. 10. 172.

27. Scot, Discoverie, 3. 18. 39; 5. 9. 62; 13. 16. 176; 15. 21. 252.

28. Ibid., 15. 42. 271. It might be worthwhile at this point is my argument to discuss the relationship between Scot and Cornelius Agrippa, whose De occulta philosophia Scot utterly rejected. Instead, he regularly appeals in the Discoverie to Agrippa's De vanitate scientarurn, where Agrippa completely repudiates the doctrines to which his name is usually attached. It is this total rejection of the “spiritual” sciences that Scot finds useful, as also Agrippa's well-known defense of a woman accused of witchcraft. See Scot, Discoverie, 2. 11. 20–21; 3. 5. 27; 5. 6. 58; 11. 21. 120; 15. 32. 263.

29. Scot, Discoverie, 11. 21. 120–122. Without here mentioning the Paduan Aristotelian Pietro Pomponazzi, Scot severely attacks his extreme astrological determinism. Elsewhere in the Discoverie, however, Scot uses Pomponazzi's De naturalium effectuum causis sive de incantationibus to some good effect against the witchmongers (see 7. 10. 81; 13. 4. 165; 13.9. 172). Anglo is wrong, however, in claiming that Scot and Pomponazzi, had a great deal in common (“Scot's Discoverie,” pp. 132–134).Google Scholar No one doubts that Pomponazzi's appeals to the Bible and to Christian tradition were disingenuous. He seems to have been a thoroughgoing atheist. I argue that Scot was nothing of the sort and that his attack on the existence of witches had an entirely different base than that of Pomponazzi.

30. Interestingly enough, all three of these figures, for the most part, were anti-Paracelsians.

31. Scot, Discoverie, 14. 1–8. 204–216.

32. See Scot, Discoverie, 1. 6. 8; 3. 9. 31; 3. 11. 33; 6. 7. 70; 12. 23. 162; 13. 5. 166; 13. 7. 170.

33. The four are Agrippa (see n. 28), Pomponazzi (see n. 29), Cardan (See n. 38), and della Porta (see below). Of course, Scot had to deal with the scientific aspects of the various demonologies that he used. Some commentators on the craze have argued that the Discoverie was little more than a copy of Weyer's De praestigiis daemonum, which deals with demonic diseases in some depth; but I must agree here with Anglo, “Scot's Discoverie,” p. 110–111, that there is not much similarity between the two men's approaches. Scot never dealt in any serious way with the various problems that the craze raised for medical theory and practice.

34. Scot, Discoverie, 12. 23. 162; 15. 30. 261.

35. Ibid., 13. 3. 165; 13. 4. 165.

36. Scot and Bacon had much in common. Bacon's response to the witch craze, however, was decidely ambiguous. See Kittredge, George Lyman, Witchcraft in Old and New England (1929; reprint ed., New York, 1956), p. 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Scot, Discoverie, 13. 11. 174; 13. 3. 164.

38. Scot cites Cardan's two rambling encyclopedias, De subtilitate rerum and De rerurn uarietate, more often than any other works save della Porta's Natural Magic. See Scot, Discoverie, 1. 8. 9; 3. 3. 25; 3. 9. 31; 3. 11. 33; 5. 3. 55; 7. 15. 86–87; 8. 1. 90; 12. 15. 143; 13. 3. 164; 13. 4. 165; 13. 7. 169; 15. 41. 270. Yet there can be little doubt that Scot and Cardan were fundamentally at odds on several important issues. Cardan held that miracles, immortality of the soul, and the reality and corporeality of demons stood together (De rerum varietate, in Opera [Lyon, 1563], 15. 80–81.Google ScholarPubMed And while he did not support the hunting of witches generally, he was unwilling to concede that witches did not really exist.

39. Scot, Discoverie, 12. 3. 124; 16. 9. 281–282; 10. 7. 104; 10. 8. 105.

40. Ibid., 15. 41. 270.

41. Ibid., 13. 8. 170–171; 16. 9. 281–282. I believe that Scot purposely avoided developing a theory of sympathy and antipathy so that he could avoid the difficulties that Cardan and della Porta encountered. Both men ended up providing explanations of witchcraft that witch hunters could use to justify their activities. Both men believed that there existed mechanisms in nature that could explain how old women might be harming their neighbors. Scot certainly wished to avoid this sort of conclusion.

42. Ibid., 13. 6. 166–168.

43. Scot, Discourse, 12. 365; 8. 360.

44. It generally has been supported that Scot's book had been burnt by the public hangman on the accession of James I. This supposition is based on a passage in Voet, Gisbert, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum (Utrecht, 1659), p. 564.Google Scholar However, there is not any other contemporary evidence that this occurred, and it now seems unlikely that such a burning ever took place. Consequently, it could not have had any bearing on the present availabilty of the volume.

45. Weyer, Johann, De praestigiis daemonum et incantationibus ac veneficiis (Basil, 1563),Google Scholar bk. 2, ch. 4.

46. Midelfort, H. C. Erik, Witch Hunting in Southwestern Germany: The Social and Intellectual Foundations (Stanford, Calif., 1972), pp. 25, 56, 66, 194.Google Scholar On Gifford, see Hitchcock, James, “George Gifford and Puritan Witch Beliefs,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 58 (1967): 90–99;Google Scholar Wallace, Dewey D., “George Gifford, Puritan Propaganda, and Popular Religion in Elizabethan England,” Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978): 27–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Macfarlane, Alan D. J., Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study (New York, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.