_Extracted from the copy, not the original, in the Principal Registry
of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court
of Justice._
S In the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.
In the Name of God Amen. I Raynolde Scott in the Countie of
Kent gent beinge of the Parish of Smeth Doe make and ordaine
and w^{th} myne owne hande doe write this my Last will and
Testament on Saturdaye the fyfteenth of September Anno Dñi
a thousand fyve hundred nyntie nyne and in the fortie one
yeare of the raigne of o^r soveraigne Ladie Queene Elizabeth
Fyrst I bequeath my Sowle to Almightie god and my body to be
buryed as yt shall seeme good to Alice my wiefe whome I make
and ordaine to be myne onely Executrix Item I bequeath to my
sayde wief All my goods and chattells plate housholde stuffe
Juelles and Chaynes with all my leases and goods moveable and
vnmoveable savinge such as I shall by this my Will other Wise
dispose of Item I (for the trust I repose in M^{r.} Edwarde
Hall of Ashforde and of my neighbou^r Raynolde Keale of Smeeth
in countie aforesaide doe make them two the overseers to this
my Last will and gyve to eyther of the_m_ for theire paines and
trouble w^{ch} they ar like to sustaine herebye fyve poundes
Item I bequeath to S^r John Scott my lease of the banke or
pond at Aldinge Item I bequeath to my graund childe Cisley
Turno^r tenne poundes to buy her a little Chaine It_e_m I gyve
to my daughter in Lawe Marie Collyar six poundes thirteene
shillings foure pence to be paide unto her within one quarter
after my decease, to be bestowed in app_ar_ell upon her selfe
as she shall seeme good nether would I have her mothers hand
anie thinge the shorter towardes her in that respect Item I
give to my daughter Turno^r the Covenant that I have of my
Cozen Charles Scott touchinge the renuinge of my lease when his
grace doth renne [_read_ renue] his lease of Braborne Rectorie
provided that my meaninge is, that my said wief shall enioye
the full tearme that I nowe possesse and howsoever yt shalbe
renued my daughter shall have the only renuinge which shalbe in
effecte after the whole tearme w^{ch} I holde now be expired
so as by any meane [intervening] renuinge my saide wief be not
defeated of my true meaninge towardes her Item I do bequeath to
my saied wief and to her heires for ever All my Landes Lyinge
in Aldington and now in thoccupac_i_on of John Pollard and
all my Landes in Ruckinge in thoccupac_i_on of —— Diggons and
all my Landes in Sellenge in the occupac_i_on of —— Coakar All
which Landes lye in the s̶a̶y̶d̶e̶ sayde[*] Countie of Kent
Item I gyve and bequeath to my said wief all my other Landes
in Rumney Marshe or els where in the said countye duringe her
naturall lief[†] Item I doe gyve to my Servante Moyll Smyth the
some of twentie shillinges yearelie duringe his n_atur_all Life
to be paide out of all my Landes halfe yearelie and that for
defaulte of payment yt shalbe Lawfull for him to distraine And
so I ende desyreinge the worlde to iudge the best hereof and of
the consyderac_i_ons for greate is the trouble my poore wief hath
had with me, and small is the comforte she hath receyved at my
handes whome yf I had not matched w^{th} all I had not dyed
worth one groate.—
Ray: Scott.
[*] _Sic_, first at end of line.
[†] _Sic_, to be paide _is interlined above_ this.
By a short notice following the copy of the will, it was proved
on the 22nd November 1599. There is also a document setting forth
that Alicia Scott, relicta, and Elizabetha Turnor, als Scott, filia
naturalis et legitima, had disputed, before certain functionaries named
regarding the will, and that probate was granted as aforesaid on the
22nd November 1599. But as the cause or subject of the dispute is not
mentioned, this, like the short notice, is not given.
————————————
ABSTRACT OF INQUIS. POST MORTEM, 18 ELIZ. P. 1, No. 84.
_Inquisition taken at Maidstone on the death of Lady Wynifred
Rainsfoord, 30 March, 18 Eliz. [1575-6]._
She was seised of the Manors of Nettlested and Hiltes with
appurtenances in E. and W. Peckham, Brenchley, W. Barmling,
Merewood, Marden; also of the Manor of Pympe with appurtenances in
Yaulding, Marden, and Brenchley. Also various other lands, some
of which, called Stockenbury, Motelands, and Souchefields, are in
Brenchley.
She died 17 Oct. last, at Chelmsford in Essex.
Th. Scott, kt., is her next heir, viz., son and heir of Reginalde
Scotte, kt., sonne and heir of Anne Scotte, wife of John Scotte,
kt., daughter and heir of Reginald Pympe, brother of John Pympe,
father of said Lady Winifred.
Thomas Scotte, kt., Charles Scott, Henry Scotte, George Scotte, and
William Scotte [brothers of the first-named Thomas Scotte, kt.],
and Reginald Scotte, are coheirs of the lands held in gavelkind.
One moiety thereof descends to Thomas, Charles, etc. [as named
above], sons and coheirs of Reginalde Scotte, kt., son and heir
of Anne Scotte; and the other moiety to Reginald, son and heir of
Richard Scotte, junior, son of the said Anne.
Thomas miles is 39 et amplius, Charles 34 [etc.], Henry 32 [etc.],
George 30 [etc.], William 22 [etc.], and Reginald 38 years of age
et amplius.
The exact words regarding the co-heirs are: “descendebant et de
jure descendere debent præfato Thomæ Scotte militi, Carolo Scott,
Henrico Scotte, Georgio Scotte et Will’o Scotte, fratribus dicti
Thomæ Scotte militis et Reginaldo Scotte, consanguineo prædicti
Thomæ Scotte militis, ut consanguineis et coheredibus prædictæ
dominæ Winifridæ eo quod prædictæ terræ ... ultimo recitata sunt de
natura de gavelkind.” This disproves the assertion of Mr. J. Renat
Scott in _Arch. Cant._, xi, 388, and repeated in his genealogy of
the Scott family, that the Reginald Scott mentioned in the former
as receiving pay among those appointed in 1587-8 was “a son of Sir
Thomas”.
————————————
ABSTRACT OF INQUIS. P.M., 45 ELIZ., PARS. 1, No. 71.
_Inquisition taken at Maidstone, 2 Dec. [1602], after the death of
Reginald Scot, generosus._
He was seised of a tenement and 20 acres of land called
Graynecourtte, held of Th. Scott, Esq., as of his manor of
Brabourne, a tenement called Essex, and 20 acres of land in two
parcels in Allington [Aldington], held of Edw. Hall, as of his
manor of Pawlson. One parcel of land called Haythorne field,
containing 20 acres in Bonington, held of the Queen in capite, and
a tenement and one parcel of land lying in Barefield, containing
two acres in Brabourne, tenure unknown, and one acre in Brabourne
and 5 acres in Brabourne, and two parcels in Smeeth, and 30 acres
of marsh called Gatesleaf, in Newchurch, held of Martin Barneham,
Esq., as of his manor of Bylsyngton.
He died 9 Oct., 41 Eliz. [1599], at Smeeth.
Elizabeth, wife of Sackville Turner, gent., is his daughter and
next heir, and was 28 years of age and more at his death.
Alice, his widow, has received the rents since his death.
[Elizabeth was the next heir to his own property, but that which
was his own through his wife Alice, he specially devised “to her
and to _her_ heirs”.]
————————————
_The Cause and History of the Work._—That is, what induced Scot to
write it, and why did he set it forth as he did? inquiries which
involve, among other matters, a short notice of the position then and
previously held by witchcraft in England. His _Hoppe-garden_ shows him
to us as a man of intelligence, foresighted and reflective of thought,
and desirous of improving the state of his country and countrymen. It
shows him also as one who could not only seize a thought and commend
it to others, but as one who had perseveringly put his idea into
practice, found it feasible, and then so learnt the processes necessary
for growing the plant, and preparing its catkins and storing them for
use, that a priori one would suppose that he had done what he did not,
namely, visited Holland and learnt the processes on the spot. The same
qualities are seen in his _Witchcraft_, as is also his independence of
thought. No sooner had his suspicions been aroused than he proceeded,
as shown by the work and its references, to investigate the matter
thoroughly and perseveringly. To this also he was encouraged, or rather
led, by yet other two qualities, his straightforwardness or honesty of
purpose, and his compassion, for these taught him that he was engaged
in a righteous work, that of rescuing feeble and ignorant, though it
may be too pretentious and shrewish, old women from false charges and a
violent death, and in a noble work in endeavouring to stem the torrent
of superstition and cruelty which was then beginning to overflow the
land.
Nor was this the result in any way of a mind sceptically inclined.
His book shows that he accepted the opinions of his day, unless he
had been led to inquire into them, and either re-receive them as
facts or discard them. Led doubtless by his academic training, it is
abundantly clear that he had inquired into the grounds of his belief
in the Established Church, and into the additions that had been made
to its faith in the course of illiterate ages by the Popish Church.
He had read Plotina, who taught him that the so-called vicars of
Christ and his vice-gerents on earth were often devils incarnate and
standard-bearers of vice, and that the system which did now and again
produce a St. Francis d’Assis—all reverence to his name—produced
also the congeners of Loyola, and Loyola himself, whose followers,
while assuming to themselves the holy name of Socii Jesu, made that
name famous and infamous, and their tenets execrated throughout the
civilised world. But he accepted with some doubting, having, as he
thought, great authority for it and no means of investigation, the
story of the Remora; and accepted without doubting the beliefs that
the bone of a carp’s head, and none other, staunched blood, the value
of the unicorn’s horn, and the like, and—notwithstanding his disbelief
in astrology—that seed-time and springing were governed by the waxing
and waning of the moon. He also believed that precious stones owed
their origin to the influences of the heavenly bodies; and besides his
credulous beliefs as to certain waters, narrated at the commencement,
he in the next chapter gives the absurdly wonderful virtues of these
stones, some, as he says, believed in by him, “though many things most
false are added”.
How then came he to inquire into and write so strongly against
witchcraft? Before the time of the eighth Henry, sorcerers were dealt
with by the ecclesiastical law, which punished them as heretics.
Moreover, their supposed offences against the person seem, chiefly
at least, to have been taken notice of when they were supposed to
interfere with high or state matters or persons, as in the cases of
Joan of Arc or Dame Eleanor Cobham. But in Henry’s time, probably
through the extension of continental ideas, aided, it may be, by a
desire to restrain the ecclesiastical power, c. 8 of the thirty-third
year of his reign was passed. By this it was enacted, that witches,
etc., who destroyed their neighbours, and made pictures [images] of
them for magical purposes, or for the same purposes made crowns,
swords, and the like, or pulled down crosses, or declared where things
lost or stolen were become, should suffer death and loss of lands and
goods, as felons, and lose the privileges of clergy and sanctuary.
Afterwards, by 1 Edw. I, c. 12, this and other offences first made
felonies in Henry’s time were no longer to be accounted such. Thirdly,
in the fifth year of Elizabeth, Parliament, by its twelfth chapter,
enacted, that whereas many have practised sorceries to the destruction
of people and their goods, those that cause death shall suffer as was
declared by 33 Henry VIII, c. 8, except that their wives and heirs
shall not have their rights affected by such attainder. But that when
a person was only injured, or their goods or cattle destroyed, the
offenders should for the first offence suffer a year’s imprisonment,
and once a quarter be exposed in the pillory in a market town for six
hours, and there confess their offences; and for the second offence
suffer death as felons, with the exceptions before rehearsed. While
any who seek treasure, or would bring about unlawful love, or hurt
anyone in his body or goods, should for a first offence be imprisoned
and suffer as before, and for a second be imprisoned for life and
forfeit his goods and cattle. This, so far as humanity is concerned,
is a distinct advance on Henry’s enactment, though an apparent going
back from that of Edward. Perhaps, as before, it arose from a desire
to remove the offences from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical
law, which would have burnt them, nor, as evidenced by its little
results, does it seem to have been made through any mania or scare in
the matter. This came on later, when, as we are told by Brian Darcie
in 1582, at what time, under pie-crust promises of favour, he was
endeavouring to get women to confess, and then be hanged,—“there is a
man of great learning and knowledge come over lately into our Queenes
Majestie, which hath advertised her what a companie and numbers of
Witches be within Englande: whereupon I and other of her Justices have
received Commission for the apprehending of as many as are within these
limites.” Alas, this man of great learning and knowledge seems to have
been none other than that otherwise light of the English Church, the
great, good, and pious Bishop Jewel, who, having returned from a forced
residence abroad, was speedily promoted by her Majesty, and in a sermon
preached before her, in 1572, brought in the subject as follows:—
“Heere perhaps some man will replie, that witches, and conjurers often
times chase away one Divell by the meane of another. Possible it is so;
but that is wrought, not by power, but by Collusion of the Divels. For
one Divell, the better to attaine his purpose, will give place, and
make as though he stood in awe of another Divell. And by the way to
touch but a word or two of this matter for that the horrible using of
your poore subjects inforceth thereunto. It may please your Grace to
understand, that this kind of people, I meenes witches and sorcerers,
within these few last yeeres, are marvellously increased within this
your Grace’s realme. These eies have seene most evident and manifest
marks of their wickednesse. Your Grace’s subjects pine away even unto
the death, their collour fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is
benummed, their senses are bereft.”
“Wherefore, your poore subjects most humble petition unto your
Highnesse, is, that the lawes touching such malefactours, may be put in
due execution. For the shole of them is great, their doings horrible,
their malice intollerable, the examples most miserable. And I pray God,
they never practise further, then upon the subject. But this only by
the way, these be the scholers of Beelzebub the chief captaine of the
Divels.”
The plantings of the Queen in the commissions of her Justices thus
instigated and encouraged, produced an abundant crop. According to
the Dedications of Scot, Sir Roger Manwood, Lord Chief Baron of the
Exchequer, had had “in these causes such experience”, _A_ ii. v., while
Sir Thomas Scot, as Justice of the Peace, had also had “manie poore
old women convented before him for ... witchcraft”, _A._ vi. Various
booklets also, presently to be spoken of more at large, excited still
more the imaginations of a credulous people, and it had been supposed,
before Scot wrote, as will be seen on p. 473, and in my note on that
page, that the Queen’s person had been aimed at in that way.
It thus appears that though Scot may have been brought up in a
traditional but little-regarded belief in witchcraft, he, when he was
at least thirty-four, was not only unprepared, but startled, to witness
and take part in this new departure from justice and mercy. Witchcraft,
chiefly looked on as useful in discovering things lost, or in bringing
a wished-for sweetheart to return the love of the seeker, or in curing
ailments simple or grievous, became feared, reviled, and sought out:
sought out by Commission of the Queen, sought out by the people as a
great and fearful evil rapidly overspreading the land, and able and
willing, like the Plague and Black Death, to count its victims by
thousands, and from the cottage to the throne itself. He, a man both
intelligent and compassionate, sees poor, old, decrepit creatures eking
out a miserable livelihood by begging an occasional dole from their
better off neighbours; ill-tempered by age and condition, and therefore
abusive when refused such dole, or on slighter causes, sometimes
perhaps through old knowledge or superstition, but probably more often
for the sake of gain, pretending to be wise above what is known; he
sees these accused of selling their souls for the sake of such a
position in the world, he hears them accused sometimes of foul, more
frequently of unlikely, crimes and acts, nay, such as an unprejudiced
common sense must laugh at, while the evidence is nearly always so
faulty that, were the accusation a different one, it would be at once
turned inside out and thrown aside. Unfortunately, too, some of these
old women being more or less mad, and others driven through fear on the
one hand, or through promised favour on the other, confess themselves
capable of doing these things, though any man of sense and observation
could detect their state or motives. Luckily, too, he had had close to
him, and in his wife’s family, the known and talked-of imposture of the
Holy Maid of Kent; and in his own time and close to his own door, the
case of the Pythonist of Westwell, at first carried out triumphantly,
and then, on her own confession and her re-acted acts, branded as an
impostor, like the Holy Maid. The Dutchman, too, at Maidstone, after
being set forth as a worker of miracles and an exorcist, was found to
be a rogue; and “manie other such miracles had beene latelie printed,
whereof diverse had beene bewraied.” He had taken part also—apparently
as one engaged for the defence—in that piece of folly called the trial
of Margaret Simons, and knew the history of Ade Davie, and of her
restoration to sanity without exorcism, hanging, or burning.
Is it not natural that his suspicions, and more than suspicions,
should have been aroused, and that he should have been thus led to
take up the whole subject seriously? One who had given himself up, as
Wood says, to reading and thought as well as to healthy and useful
exercise, must have sought for and obtained books on either side of
the subject, and in especial the known book of Wier; and thoughtful
reading of these, and meditation must have led him to extend his views,
and gather them into a harmonious and consistent whole. Meanwhile,
however, the bloodthirsty superstition daily increased, and there were
published first, the mad book or books of Richard Gallis—spoken of in
pp. 132-3—of the witches at Windsor, now, I believe, unfortunately
lost, where, among other things, he narrates how, at a Sabbath meeting,
he had a hand-to-hand encounter with the devil, and wounded him so
sore that he stank of brimstone; and in 1582, there took place the
wholesale condemnation of the poor old women of St. Osees, thirteen
I believe of whom were hanged. There had been no such condemnation
before in England. It is not unlikely that he himself witnessed their
condemnation—see pp. xxv-vi. So unusual was it, that—as I cannot but
believe on other evidence, as stated in my noting on Macbeth—a ballad
was written on it, which became very commonly known, and was remembered
as late as 1606. This same unusual breadth of punishment also created
so much attention that Justice Brian Darcie thought it worth while to
set forth in print, not the trial, but the depositions taken before
him, and thus inform a too ignorant public that he and he alone was the
primary cause of such a purification.
These facts, and especially this last, aroused, I believe, Scot’s
compassion and indignation, and made both find vent in printed words.
And besides these likelihoods, including that of date, there are two
at first sight seemingly contradictory facts, which made themselves
manifest to me when I first carefully read the book, and before I
had formed any opinion on their causes, and which are on this view
reconciled. These facts are, that while the plan which he has adopted,
and his facts and conclusions, seem to have been deliberately sought
out, thought over, and canvassed, there are evidences throughout of
a feverous haste of composition, such feverous haste as the above
spoken of emotions would excite in a man like Scot, who had witnessed
so horrible and so bloody a perversion of justice. The proof of the
first fact I leave to be observed by the intelligent reader; but while
the second must also be observed by him, it is needful, to the full
exposition of my argument, that I should collect in one view most at
least of the details. This haste is evidenced in some of his corrected
errata, but more in those that he did not correct. Thus we have,
on p. 174, a curious slip, by which Pharaoh becomes a Persian, and
Nebuchadnezzar takes Pharaoh’s place as an Egyptian king, for other
parts of the book prove conclusively that this was an unintentional
lapsus, and one a second time overlooked when the book was re-read
before the title-page and the preliminary leaves were set up. Similar
are his errors as to Haias and Sedaias, for at one time he speaks of
Rabbi Sedaias Haias, repeating it also at the last when he gives his
“forren authors” consulted, and between these speaks of them as two
persons, as they were. More especially would I call attention to his
blunders as to Argerius Ferrerius. He quotes him—yet he is always
Ferr_a_rius—five times in his text, twice in his table of contents, and
once in his “authors used”. So in his translation from him, the “s” of
“verbis” being indistinct in some copies, he read the word as “verbi”,
and thereby translated the sentence into such unmistakable nonsense
that this alone should have shown him his error. So, also, we have the
senseless, because careless, rendering of the sword in hand passage,
p. 257; and with these may be classed his adoption of T. R.’s curious
mistranslations from Wier’s _Pseudomonarchia_, or from another copy of
the _Empto. Salomonis_, for a moment’s consideration would have shown
him their absurdity, and led him to turn to Wier. In p. 19 also, we
find “infants” where, as stated in my note, all the editions of the
_Mal. Malef._ in the British Museum have “infames”; and this, though a
slip of memory, betokens, when taken with the rest, overhaste. These
slips, in an ordinary writer, would lead to another conclusion, but not
in this case, where we have evidence of both ordinary and recondite
knowledge, of conclusions tried by actual experiment, of a quick and
intelligent perception, and of what may be called, in a good sense,
a ready and acute subtlety in refuting or retorting allegations or
objections.
Our author’s indebtedness to Cornelius Agrippa and to Wier has, in a
great measure, been anticipated in what has been said; but a few words
may here be added. Casually coming across their books when he became a
reader of out-of-the-way works, he did not become a follower of theirs,
and then write a book, as the disciples of Pythagoras wrote books to
expound and hand down the doctrines of their master. Wier had written
a book against witchcraft, and a clear and comprehensive book. But
while Scot certainly followed Wier in point of time, and as certainly
was much indebted to him for the perfecting of his book, yet, as I
have said, Scot seems to have taken up his belief against the reality
of witchcraft from what he in his own experience had witnessed; and
my view, that he was then led to read Wier and Cornelius Agrippa, and
the writers on the other side, seems to me confirmed by what we find
as to his indebtedness to Wier. The “Notings on Wier” show that, while
he copied him in some other instances, he borrowed from him mainly
a long list of illustrations, some of which even he may have drawn
independently from the same sources as did Wier.
_Bibliography._—We do not find an entry of Scot’s _Hoppe-garden_ in the
Stationers’ Registers, because the entries about 1574 are wanting. But
why do we not find so large and important a book as the _Witchcraft_
of 1584 so entered, the writer being of a family of no mean repute,
and the head of his house, Sir Th. Scot, being in those days a man
of some mark? The answer, after what has been said, is simple. He
upheld and defended a heresy, the existence and diabolical powers and
practices of witches being believed in and guarded against, by the
Queen, the bishops, and the people. Hence the reply of the Stationers’
Company would most certainly have been—the same as in more trifling
cases—“provided he shall get the bishop of London his alowance to
yt”, words which, under the circumstances, would have been a refusal,
and a refusal which, had any steps been taken against him after its
publication, would have told against him. Hence he resolved to print
it, taking all the blame and responsibility on his own shoulders, no
stationer’s name being connected with it, and the name of the printer
appearing only at the end of the book, without date or place of
address—“Imprinted at London by | _William Brome_.” And here, by the
way, it may be mentioned that though called in catalogues a quarto, its
signatures are in eights. As before stated, both Thomas Ady and Anthony
à Wood tell us that it “did for a time make great impressions on the
Magistracy and Clergy”, and that it did so generally is shown by the
appearance of Webster’s, Ady’s, and other books on the same side, and
those of Gifford, Perkins, and others, on the other, including King
James, who, in 1597, issued his _Dæmonologie_ specially against it.
Whether Elizabeth or the authorities under her took any notice of it is
doubtful, for, as I have said, he was still an Esquire in 1587; and the
last words of his will, “for greate is the trouble my poor wief hath
had with me, and small is the comforte she hath receyved at my hands”,
and his designation of himself as “gent.”, point rather to a voluntary
surrender of his office, through weakness and ill-health, than to a
dismissal.
But zeal for the truth, as he believed it, combined with his fears for
himself, for he believed that he had been the object of witchcraft and
of the machinations of the evil powers more than once, though luckily
in vain, led the royal author on the other side to cause Scot’s book to
be burned by the common hangman; and, as is also said by Cole, not one
copy alone, as significant of its character, and of its being a _liber
prohibitus_ in the eyes of this Protestant Pope, but as many as could
be laid hands upon. While, too, I have as yet found no direct proof
of this latter statement, it is perhaps in some degree confirmatory
of it, that no copies of the book exist in the library of St. Paul’s
Cathedral, nor in that of Lambeth Palace, nor in that of Sion College.
To the same cause is most likely due the exceedingly neat copy of
various chapters, and parts of chapters, contained in the Sloane MS.,
ff. 2189, in the British Museum, its date according to the experts
there being _circa_ 1620. At one time I had suspected that these
extracts had been made with the intent of writing a book either for or
against the truth of witchcraft; but the methodical neatness of all but
the first two or three pages, the manner in which the typographical
form of the book is followed, the consecutive, though broken manner, in
which the extracts follow one another, the absence of any word or any
sign of remark or comment throughout, now cause me to hold that it was
a copy made by or for one who took such portions as he wished from a
book otherwise inaccessible.
Turning back to this burning, I would say also that I have not come
across any English contemporary, or even early statement as to it, much
less as to its date. Perhaps, however, without much fear of error, we
may suppose it to have been done immediately after the Act against
witches, passed in the first year of James’s reign. By it the Act 5
Eliz. was repealed, and any conjuration, etc., of an evil spirit was
made a crime punishable by death as a felon, the culprit losing all
benefit of clergy and sanctuary. The finding of treasure by magical
means, provoking to unlawful love, or destroying of cattle, was for
the first offence to bring with it imprisonment for one year, standing
in the pillory once a quarter for six hours, and confessing his crime,
as in the Act repealed; and for the second offence death as a felon,
though the dowry and the heirship were not attainted. This Act itself
shows how strong were James’s convictions in the matter, as does the
publication in London of his _Dæmonologie_ in the same year, it being
entered on the Stationers’ Registers on the 3rd April 1603. Scot’s book
was therefore against James’s belief, and the esteem in which it was
held against his own powers as a reasoner and author. While, however,
so far as I can find, we owe the knowledge of this burning to a German
source, its extreme likelihood is corroborated by what I have said,
that James’s belief in witchcraft was with him an undoubted Article of
Faith, and by the fact that various books, known and unknown, were at
different times publicly burnt during his reign, though no official
records of these burnings have been preserved.
Cole, as quoted in Bliss’s edition of the _Athen. Oxon._, gives the
account as made by Thomasius de crimine magiæ, a book which I believe
does not exist. There is a Thesis inaugaralis de crimine magiæ
submitted in 1701 by Johan Reiche to the Regia Academia Fredericiana
... præside D. Christiano Thomasio. But Reiche refers to an earlier
writer—“Gisberti Voetii | Theologiæ in Acad. Ultrajectina Professoris
| Selectarum | Disputationum | Theologicarum, | Pars Tertia. | ... |
Ultrajecti, | Ex Officina Johannis à Waesberge, | Anno CIↃ IↃ C LIX, |”
which says, p. 564:
“... _Reginaldus Scot_ nobilis Anglus magiæ crimen aperte negavit, & ex
professo oppugnavit, omnes ejus mirabiles effectus aut ad melancoliam,
aliosve naturales morbos, aut ad artem, industriam, & agilitatem
hominum figmentis & præstigiis suis illudentium, aut ad stolidas
imaginationes, dictorum magorum, aut ad vanas nugas & fictiones
eorundem magorum referens. Ejus _liber_ tit. _Discoverie of Withcraft_
[_sic_] in Anglia combustus est; quem nominatim etiam perstringit
Sereniss. Magnæ Briantniæ [_sic_] _Rex Jacobus in Dæmonologia_, eumque
tangit diffusissimæ eruditionis Theologus _Johannes Raynoldus, in cens.
lib. Apocryph. tom._ 2 _prælect._ 169. In eundem, sed innominatum
calamum strinxit eximius & subacti judicii Theologus, _Guilelm.
Perkinsus in tractatu de Bascanologia_. _Pars libri_ istius _Reginaldi
Scot elenctica_ (nam reliqua in editione Anglicana conjurationes
continebat,) in Belgicum idioma translata est, ante annos aliquot Lugd.
Batav. per Thomam Basson: ex illius libri lectione, seu fonte perenni,
non pauci ab illo tempore docti & indocti in Belgio fluctuare, & de
Magia σκεωτικιζειν ac λιβερτινιζειν (ut Libertinis & Semilibertinis
infesta est patria nostra) quin eo ignorantiæ sæpe prolabi, ut non
iniquè illis applicari potuerit, quod Sereniss. _Rex Jacobus in
Dæmonologiâ_ subdito suo Reginaldo Scot: _esse quasi novos Sadduccæos_:
cum omnes diabolorum operationes & apparitiones suaviter exibilant:
tanquam anicularum, aut superstitionis meticulosæ phantasmata ac
sabellas. Sunt & alii, sed pessimi magiæ patroni, qui ad Deum & divina
charismata seu gratias gratis datas, aut ad angelos bonos, operationes
magicas referunt.”
Dr. W. N. du Rieu, Librarian of the University of Leyden, kindly
informs me, that a translation into Dutch, “omitting some formulæ
of malediction and other matters which would more interest English
readers,” was made and edited by Th. Basson, an English stationer
living at Leyden in 12mo in 1609. It was undertaken at the instigation
of the professors of law and history, and its dedication, dated 10th
January 1609, was to the Curators of the University, and to the
burgomasters of Leyden. A second and corrected edition, published by
his son, G. Basson, was also printed at Leyden in 1637, though the
dedication is dated 8th May 1637, Amsterdam.
Though in various of the notes the passages have been spoken of, yet to
call attention to the matter, and in the hope that others may be more
successful, I would add that I have not discovered the principle on
which he went, nor his authorities, for his Scripture readings. In his
Latin quotations he generally quotes the Vulgate, twice or thrice Beza,
or Beza varied, while at other times he goes by some other translation,
or possibly makes it himself. So his long English quotation, p. 284,
is not taken from Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Coverdale’s,
Matthews’, or from the Genevan, Bishops’, or Rheims versions, though
more like the Genevan, while, curiously enough, it precedes the one of
1611 by one or two verbal coincidences. Hence, I believe that he varied
the Genevan version according to his own views and taste, and am the
more inclined to this in that the passage is not in Italics, the then
type and mark of quotations, but in Romans.
Notwithstanding, however, the decree that had gone forth, and,
notwithstanding the strange Sadducean assertion, not argument, set
forth by James, and followed by John Rainolds, D.D., in his work on the
Apocrypha (_tom._ ii, 1032), and by Gisbert Voet, the book’s inherent
excellency, as reported by Ady, and as evidenced by the notices of
it in the various books on either side that afterwards came forth,
and in part, perhaps, through that decree itself, called for its
reproduction; and in 1651 it was issued with a new title-page, though
naturally it was again not entered on the Stationers’ Registers. This
time it was really—as evidenced by the signatures—a quarto. The text
was one and the same with that printed off by Richard Cotes; but
there were three issues, and three slightly different title-pages.
The first bears—LONDON | Printed by _Richard Cotes_. 1651. The second
has—_Printed by_ R. C. _and are to be sold by_ Giles Calvert, _dwelling
at the | Black Spread-Eagle at the West-end of_ Pauls. 1651. And except
for these final words, separated on both title-pages by a line from the
rest, both are word for word, and even to the misprint “superstions”
identical. The explanation, in all probability, if not certainty, being
that my “first” one was the first issue, when the publisher thought
it more prudent to withhold his name; the other, a second issue of
copies still called for, when, finding no ill results, he had become
bolder. The third has below the line spoken of: _London_ | Printed
by E. [not R.] Cotes and are to be sold by Thomas Williams at the |
Bible in _Little Britain_ 1654. In this “SCOTS” is printed without the
apostrophe, “men”, “women”, and “children”, as also “treatise”, have
capital initials; on both occasions it has “Devils”, not “Divels”;
and the last line but one above the dividing line ends “De-” not
“Divels”, and “superstions” is rightly printed “superstitions”. These
variations in the title-page, and the exact conformity of the text as
to the various peculiarities of the letters, words, and sizes of the
punctuation, show that Williams had come into possession of Calvert’s
remainder, or of his set-up type, and had issued these sheets,
prefixing a new title-page of his own, printed by E. Cotes.
There is not the slightest evidence of a copy of the 1584 edition
having been prepared for the press, beyond the new title-page, and on
two occasions the translation of Latin, that Scot had not—as he had
done in similar instances—translated. The Latin-named ingredients on
p. 184 are Englished, and I have thus been enabled to give them in my
notings with the more probability that they are correct. The second
instance is, as stated in my margin, on p. 416. Two or three press
errors are corrected, one of them not a certain emendation, and all
within the competency of an ordinary compositor or reader; but no
others, not even that of “increase” for “incense”, p. 446, while fresh
errors, indicative of a careless “reader”, are made.
What has been thus said as to the character of this second reprint,
goes to prove that it was a publisher’s venture based upon the demand
for the book, and, therefore, for gain, and one which he carried out
spite of its having been burnt, and placed among the “prohibited
books”. In like manner, and for the like purpose, and as before,
without entry in the Stationers’ Registers, there was brought out
the third, and so-called folio edition of 1665, though the sheets
are in sixes. All but the title-page, which, curiously enough, was
again re-written, though still bearing, like the second, the words,
“By Reginald Scot Esquire”; it is a careless reprint of that second,
with all its errors, and new ones superadded. But as a novelty and
inducement to buy, nine chapters, commencing the fifteenth book, and a
second book of the “Discourse on Devils and Spirits”, were added by an
anonymous author. Who this anonymity was, I have uselessly spent some
little time in inquiring, time that might have been better employed,
even had I found him. But it goes to prove that these additions were
merely made for novelty’s sake, and its glamour and gain, in that
the writer was a believer in, and not improbably, from his minute
directions, as well as from his reticence, a practiser of witchcraft,
or of what he thought to be witchcraft. He also, and I give this as one
possible clue, was a strong believer in the perishable Astral spirit
of a man, as well as of Astral spirits in general, and much of his
“Discourse” is taken up with remarks on these.
I may here add, as showing the carelessness with which these second and
third editions were edited, a note of the errata marked in the first
and not corrected in them.
75, 21. “We,” so the second; in the third the (,) is rightly placed
after “years”. A correction that could have been made by the least
intelligent of “readers”.
168, 31. “Earth _read_ firmament.” Not corrected.
247, 29. “Write _add_ it.” Not corrected.
269, 16. “If there be masses _delete_ If.” Retained, but the second
attempts to correct by inserting “no” before “masses”, and the third
follows suit, though it is as nonsensical as before.
463, 16. “Their business _read_ that business.” Not corrected.
Beyond these, the limited edition now printed is the only other known
to me. As stated in the preface, it is a reprint of the first edition,
with some slight alterations in the lettering, but not in the spelling.
Besides the few errata that have been found and recorded, the small
heading on its left hand pages up to p. 24 is “Chap. —”, like that on
the right hand, instead of being “1 or 2 Booke”. So also in
the earlier pages, the marginal references, though correct, are not
printed line for line with the original. The pictorial initial letters
of the first chapter of each book occupy in the original almost a
third of the page. The first word of a chapter has only its first two
letters—including its pictorial letter—in capitals, but the remainder,
as well as the rest of the first line, is in larger type than the
rest. The original being also in black letter was enabled to use both
Romans and Italics as variants, whereas the reprint could only use
Italics. The rule of the original is, however, in general very simple.
“The — Chapter”, the contents of the chapter and proper names are in
Romans; “The — Booke” and quotations in Italics; the translations of
quotations in Romans. Wherever there can be any doubt the type of the
original is marked in the margin, as are occasional uses by the author
of [] to distinguish them from the editor’s use of the same. It may be
added that “The — Chapter”, and the contents of the chapter, have been
transposed. The V like arrangement of the lines at the end of a chapter
have not been followed, but been imitated according to the spirit in
which they were employed; for, after an investigation made for the
purpose, it was found that they do not indicate a division of the text
or matter, but were simply compositors’ devices to fill up a page when
that page either ended a book, or when its blank space did not allow
of the commencement of a new chapter. Similarly, on one page, a (∵)
was added to complete the page. And, in like manner, if there was still
space at the end of a book, an engraving was inserted. I would add
that all the page references that I make are to the pages of the 1584
edition.
I had collected for an appendix various grammatical peculiarities of
the age; but they increased the number of pages, and therefore the
price of the book, without, as seemed to me, sufficient cause, more
especially as the reader can readily consult Dr. Abbot’s _Shakesperian
Grammar_, as well as notices in other books. One point, however, ought
to be attended to. Though an educated and University man, accustomed to
Latin and Greek, he, like all of his time, followed the then frequent
habit of using singular verbs after plural nominatives not immediately
preceding them. A close examination of these, both in Scot and Greene,
another literate and Utriusque Academiæ in Artibus Magister; and one
notable one in Ben Jonson, who elsewhere, so far as I know, avoids this
error; as well as those in Shakespeare and others, have shown me that
they cannot be explained as is sought in Dr. Abbot’s _Shakesperian
Grammar_, § 333, where the form of the verb is held to be a remnant of
the northern early English third person plural in “s”. The instances
alone of the auxiliary verbs so used set this theory aside, and show
that the custom was due to carelessness, habit, the remoteness or after
position of the true nominatives, and to the nearness of another word,
sometimes even to a transposed objective; or of a “that” or “which”
that had the look of a singular, or in the case of a double nominative,
to both words being considered as implying one thought, as indeed they
often did, being merely synonyms. Our Elizabethan ancestors would
have said: “Pity and compassion moves me,” because they held pity
and compassion were one and the same; and the habit of using Saxon
and Latin, or other synonyms, led them to use the same construction
when the meanings were but allied. This seems to me the more likely
explanation: but the reader may prefer this—that our ancestors took the
phrase to be elliptical, and that the verb really employed after both
substantives was to be understood after the first and before the “and”.
_Contemporary Notices of Scot._—Of strictly contemporary notices, I
know of but two. In Nash’s _Four Letters Confuted_, 1593, he asks, ed.
Grosart, ii, 252: “How is the _Supplication_ a diabolicall Discourse,
otherwise than as it intreats of the diverse natures and properties
of Divels and spirits? in that far fetcht sense may the famous
_defensative against supposed Prophecies_, and _the Discoverie of
Witchcraft_ be called notorious Diabolicall discourses, as well as the
_Supplication_, for they also intreate of the illusions and sundrie
operations of spirits.” The second is in Gabriel Harvey’s _Pierce’s
Supererogation_, 1593, ed. Grosart, ii, 291: “Scottes discoovery of
Witchcraft, dismasketh sundry egregious impostures, and in certaine
principall Chapters, & speciall passages, hitteth the nayle on the head
with a witnesse: howsoever I could have wished, [G. H. is nothing if
he be not quasi-critical and emending] he had either dealt somewhat
more curteously with Monsieur Bodine, or cōfuted him somewhat more
effectually.”
Of course, various of the after-writers on witchcraft, whichever
side they took, either spoke of him explicitly, or alluded to him;
Webster, Wagstaffe, Ady, and others, on the same side as Scot, and
Meric Casaubon, Cotta, etc., ending with Glanvil on the other. But
these, the really curious in such matters may be left to search out
for themselves. Only I would like to mention John Deacon’s and John
Walker’s _Dialogicall Discourses of ... Devils_ [etc.], 1601, both
because they, being clergymen, had the boldness—besides adding new
arguments of their own, and though their wording is somewhat less
decided than their own evident belief—out of three explanations of the
case of the Witch of Endor which they set before the reader, to plainly
prefer Scot’s view of her ventriloquism, both naming him in the text,
and giving the reference to his page in their margin; and secondly,
because so far as a hasty look enables one to give an opinion, they
spoke more rationally on magical and other points than one would at
that date expect. They also quote the opinion of Hippocrates on magical
cures, as given by Scot, p. 450, and show that they take it, though
not literally, from him, and not from Hippocrates directly, by giving
a reference to Scot in the margin. Afterwards they published in 1603,
a second large work, _A summarie_[?] _answer to John Darrell_, the
first work having been also suggested by the same impostor, and his
setting forth of himself as a caster out of devils.
I have said on p. _xxii_ that the discovery of Scot’s name in the
Subsidy Rolls for 1586 and 1587 with the affix of “Armiger” was for me
an important find. And now I would explain that it was so, inasmuch
as it set my mind at rest as to the oneness of the Raynold of the
_Hoppe-garden_ with the Reginald Scot Esquire, of the _Witchcraft_.
Aware that Reynold and Reginald were variants of one name, used of
and by the same person, the following facts hindered me for a long
time from accepting the common belief that the Raynold and Reginald
of these two works were one and the same. First, the author of the
_Hoppe-garden_ in each of his signatures to the editions of 1574-6-8,
three in each, appears as Raynold. In the marriage entry, in the
pay-account of the Kent forces, in the Muster-roll, and in the Will,
it is also Raynold. But in 1584, throughout the _Witchcraft_, that is,
four times in all, the name appears as Reginald. Secondly, in the Will
of 1599, in accordance with the want of any title on the title-page
of the _Hoppe-garden_, he describes himself as “gent”, and in the
Inquisitio p. m., though he is called Reginald, the document being in
Latin, he is, as in his Will, “generosus”. But in the title-page of
the _Witchcraft_, he is Reginald Scot Esquire. The finding no evidence
of the separate existence of a Raynold and a Reginald, the frequent
references to the Scriptures in the _Witchcraft_, and the very frequent
references to the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, in the “Address to the
Reader” of the _Hoppe-garden_, the use in both works, as already
quoted, of certain legal phrases, and the occurrence in the prefatory
part of the _Hoppe-garden_ of “with the licour (or rather the lucre)”,
and “condemne the man, or rather the mynde”, a trick of language not
unfrequently repeated in the _Discoverie_, a trick resulting from his
love of irony, shook my doubts. But there were still, the want of any
title after the name in the _Hoppe-garden_, the “gent” of the Will,
and the “generosus” of the Inquisitio, as against the “Esquire” of the
_Discoverie_. First, however, Hunter’s suggestion, that his esquireship
was due to his having been appointed a Justice of the Peace, and then
the discovery of armiger after his name, have removed all reasonable
doubts; and to turn our belief to a positive certainty, it only remains
to discover that he was a Justice of the Peace.
Possibly the reader may now expect some pages on Scot’s style as a
writer, and on his claim—his claim, yet not one made by himself—to be
considered an English classic. But, besides that, I am not “greatly
æsthetic”, and besides having expressed my opinions in more than
one place in this Introduction, I think that any reader, with any
appreciation of style, and of the manner in which an argument ought to
be carried out, can come to but one conclusion. Such belief, I may add,
is strengthened by this, that most writers whom I have consulted are
of this opinion: and I would conclude with three quotations, chiefly
regarding the way in which he carried out his argument. The Rev. Jos.
Hunter, in his MS. _Chorus Vatum_, ch. v, says: “In fact, I had no
notion of the admirable character of this book till I read it this
September 1839. It is one of the few instances in which a bold spirit
opposes himself to the popular belief, and seeks to throw protection
over a class of the defenceless. In my opinion, he ought to stand very
prominent in any catalogue of Persons who have been public benefactors.”
“To answer his argument was wholly impossible, and though the
publication of his book did not put an end to the notion which
continued very prevalent for a century afterwards [though we know from
Ady that it greatly checked the belief for a time], yet it had, I have
no doubt, much to do with the silent and gradual extinction of it.”
So D’Israeli, in his _Amenities of Literature_, has these words: “A
single volume sent forth from the privacy of a retired student, by its
silent influence may mark an epoch in the history of the human mind.”
“Such a volume was _The Discoverie of Witchcraft_, by Reginald Scot,
a singular work, which may justly claim the honour in this country of
opening that glorious career which is dear to humanity and fatal to
imposture.”
Thirdly, Professor W. T. Gairdner, M.D. and LL.D., thus speaks, in his
address on “Insanity: Modern Views as to its Nature and Treatment”,
read before the Glasgow Medico-Chirurgical Society: “But I cannot
leave it [witchcraft] ... without expressing, more strongly than even
Mr. Lecky does, the unqualified admiration and surprise which arise
in the mind on finding that in 1584 ... there was at least one man in
England ... who could scan the whole field of demonology, and all its
terrible results in history, with an eye as clear from superstition,
and a judgment as sound and unwavering in its opposition to abuses, as
that of Mr. Lecky himself. There is only one book, so far as I know, in
any language, written in the sixteenth or even the seventeenth century,
that merits this praise: and it is a book which, notwithstanding its
wide human interest, its great and solid learning, and a charming
English style that makes it most readable, even at the present day,
has never been reprinted for two hundred years, and is therefore
extremely inaccessible to most readers. Reginald Scot’s _Discoverie of
Witchcraft_ ... stands brightly out amid the darkness of its own and
the succeeding age, as a perfectly unique example of sagacity amounting
to genius.” He adds: “Nothing, however, is more evident than that Scot,
however indebted to Wier (and both of them, probably, to Cornelius
Agrippa ...), was far in advance of either in the clearness of his
views and the unwavering steadiness of his leanings to the side of
humanity and justice.”
————————————
NOTE.—_The italic numerals in the side margins denote the
pages of the first, the ordinary numbers those of the second
edition._
The diſcouerie
of witchcraft,
Wherein the lewde dealing of witches
_and witchmongers is notablie detected, the_
knauerie of coniurors, the impietie of inchan-
_tors, the follie of ſoothſaiers, the impudent falſ_-
hood of couſenors, the infidelitie of atheiſts,
_the peſtilent practiſes of Pythoniſts, the_
curioſitie of figurecaſters, the va-
_nitie of dreamers, the begger_-
lie art of Alcu-
myſtrie,
The abhomination of idolatrie, the hor-
_rible art of poiſoning, the vertue and power of_
naturall magike, and all the conueiances
_of Legierdemaine and iuggling are deciphered:_
and many other things opened, which
_haue long lien hidden, howbeit_
verie neceſſarie to
be knowne.
Heerevnto is added a treatiſe vpon the
_nature and ſubſtance of ſpirits and diuels_,
&c: all latelie written
_by Reginald Scot_
Eſquire.
1. Iohn. 4, 1.
_Beleeue not euerie ſpirit, but trie the ſpirits, whether they are
of God; for manie falſe prophets are gone
out into the world, &c._
1584
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|**********************************************************************|
|*+------------------------------------------------------------------+*|
|*| SCOT’S |*|
|*| Diſcovery of VVitchcraft: |*|
|*| |*|
|*| PROVING |*|
|*| The common opinions of Witches con- |*|
|*| tracting with Divels, Spirits, or Familiars; and |*|
|*| their power to kill, torment, and conſume the bodies of |*|
|*| men women, and children, or other creatures by diſeaſes |*|
|*| or otherwiſe; their flying in the Air, &c. To be but imaginary |*|
|*| Erronious conceptions and novelties; |*|
|*| |*|
|*| WHEREIN ALSO, |*|
|*| |*|
|*| The lewde unchriſtian practiſes of Witchmongers, upon aged, |*|
|*| melancholy, ignorant, and ſuperſtious people in extorting con- |*|
|*| feſſions, by inhumane terrors and tortures is notably detected. |*|
|*| |*|
|*| { The knavery and confederacy of Conjurors. |*|
|*| { The impious blaſphemy of Inchanters. |*|
|*| { The impoſture of Soothſayers, and Infidelity of Atheiſts. |*|
|*| { The deluſion of Pythoniſts, Figure-caſters, Aſtrologers, |*|
|*| ALSO { and vanity of Dreamers. |*|
|*| { The fruitleſſe beggerly art of Alchimiſtry. |*|
|*| { The horrible art of Poiſoning and all the tricks and |*|
|*| { conveyances of juggling and Liegerdemain are fully |*|
|*| { deciphered. |*|
|*| |*|
|*| With many other things opened that have long lain hidden: |*|
|*| though very neceſſary to be known for the undeceiving of |*|
|*| Judges, Juſtices, and Juries, and for the preſervation |*|
|*| of poor, aged, deformed, ignorant people; frequently |*|
|*| taken, arraigned, condemned and executed for Witches, |*|
|*| when according to a right underſtanding, and a good |*|
|*| conſcience, Phyſick, Food, and neceſſaries should |*|
|*| be adminiſtred to them. |*|
|*| |*|
|*| Whereunto is added, a treatiſe upon the nature, and ſubſtance |*|
|*| of Spirits and Divels, &c. all written and publiſhed in |*|
|*| _Anno_ 1584. by _Reginald Scot_, Eſquire. |*|
|*| ---------------------------------------------------------------- |*|
|*| _LONDON_, |*|
|*| Printed by _Richard Cotes_. 1651. |*|
|*+------------------------------------------------------------------+*|
|**********************************************************************|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Size, Fol., 10¼ in. × 6⅛.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|+--------------------------------------------------------------------+|
|| THE ||
|| Diſcovery of Witchcraft: ||
|| ||
|| _PROVING_, ||
|| That the Compacts and Contracts of Witches ||
|| with _Devils_ and all _Infernal Spirits_ or _Familiars_, are but ||
|| Erroneous Novelties and Imaginary Conceptions. ||
|| ||
|| _Alſo diſcovering_, How far their power extendeth, in Killing, ||
|| Tormenting, Conſuming, or Curing the bodies of Men, Women, ||
|| Children, or Animals, by Charms, Philtres, Periapts, Pentacles, ||
|| Curſes, and Conjurations. ||
|| ||
|| _WHEREIN LIKEWISE_ ||
|| The Unchriſtian Practices and Inhumane Dealings of ||
|| _Searchers_ and _Witch-tryers_ upon _Aged_, _Melancholly_ and ||
|| _Superſtitious_ people, in extorting Confeſſions by Terrors ||
|| and Tortures, and in deviſing falſe Marks and Symptoms, are ||
|| notably Detected. ||
|| ||
|| And the Knavery of _Juglers_, _Conjurers_, _Charmers_, ||
|| _Soothſayers_, _Figure⸗Caſters_, _Dreamers_, _Alchymiſts_ and ||
|| _Philterers_; with many other things that have long ||
|| lain hidden, fully Opened and Deciphered. ||
|| ||
|| _ALL WHICH_ ||
|| Are very neceſſary to be known for the undeceiving of _Judges_, ||
|| _Juſtices_, and _Jurors_, before they paſs Sentence upon Poor, ||
|| Miſerable and Ignorant People; who are frequenly Arraigned, ||
|| Condemned, and Executed for _Witches_ and _Wizzards_. ||
|| ||
|| _IN SIXTEEN BOOKS._ ||
|| ------------------------------------------------------------------ ||
|| _By_ REGINALD SCOT _Eſquire_. ||
|| ------------------------------------------------------------------ ||
|| Whereunto is added ||
|| An excellent Diſcourſe of the _Nature_ and _Subſtance_ ||
|| OF ||
|| DEVILS and SPIRITS, ||
|| _IN TWO BOOKS_: ||
|| The _Firſt_ by the aforeſaid _Author_: The _Second_ now ||
|| added in this _Third Edition_, as Succedaneous to the _former_, ||
|| and conducing to the compleating of the _Whole Work_: ||
|| With _Nine Chapters_ at the beginning of the _Fifteenth.[*] Book_ ||
|| of the _D I S C O V E R Y_. ||
|| ------------------------------------------------------------------ ||
|| _LONDON_: ||
|| Printed for _A. Clark_, and are to be ſold by _Dixy Page_ at the ||
|| _Turks-Head_ in _Cornhill_ near the _Royall Exchange_, 1665. ||
|+--------------------------------------------------------------------+|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
[*] [_Sic._]