The Discoverie of Motive: Key Events that Motivated Reginald Scot to Write The Discoverie of Witchcraft
Introduction
Behind every conscious decision, there is a motive. It is what drives us all to achieve a better life and world around us. Reginald Scot, an early modern English demonologist, was no different.[1] During the later decades of sixteenth-century England, the height of the witch persecution was impending due to societal ignorance, religious tensions, and poverty.[2] While this era did not see as many witch persecutions as the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, Scot nevertheless set forth a radical treatise titled, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, that argued against women who confessed to causing maleficia, or demonic harm, because they could not have manifested it.[3]
At first glance, Scot seems like a person who was ahead of his time. Indeed, historians of the past have urged the importance of Scot’s work and his forward-thinking during the height of the witchcraft trials.[4] However, Scot has been mislabeled as a person ahead of his time.[5] Instead, I believe Scot was a man who was part of two social-economic worlds and reflected the injustices he witnessed. Therefore, in this article I argue Scot’s reflections and mannerisms are key evidence of his perspective that were on par with those whom he surrounded himself with and a mirror of the mindset of his cultural era.
Title page of the first edition of The Discoverie of Witchcraft by Reginald Scot, printed in 1584 by Henry Denham for William Brome, London from a copy in the Thomas Pennant Barton collection of the Boston Public Library
Insecure Inheritance
Reginald Scot was born at Scot’s Hall in Kent, England, sometime between 1538-1541.[6] Since Scot’s baptism was not recorded at Smeeth parish, the record was probably recorded at Scot’s Hall or has become lost.[7] Thus, Scot’s actual birth year is debatable. Nevertheless, scholars note that Scot was birthed into a gentry-class family.[8] Not only was the family of Scot’s Hall a wealthy, highly influential, and well-respected family, but it also obtained significant power within parliament decisions.[9] In fact, it was well-known that Queen Elizabeth did not particularly like the Scots, especially Reginald Scot’s cousin, Sir Thomas Scot who favored many electoral decisions against Queen Elizabeth and ruled Kent as though he was the monarchy.[10] Records show Reginald Scot was elected to parliament between 1588-1589, [11] which was no doubt through a swayed election by Sir Thomas Scot.
Despite the Scot family’s political power and strength, Reginald Scot lived a quiet life, even at school. Scot had attended Oxford University at Hart Hall.[12] Anthony à Wood, compiler of the Anthenae Oxonienses, stated Scot attended university when he was seventeen, to which Brinsley Nicholson, the editor of the 1886 edition of The Discoverie of Witchcraft, marked the year as 1555 C.E.[13] Regardless of the inconsistency of the year, it is known Scot left university without obtaining a degree.[14] Several chapters in The Discoverie of Witchcraft suggest Scot must have been studying law, as the chapters reflect the knowledge of constructing legal documents at the time.[15] However, when Sir Thomas Scot inherited his father’s title and lands in 1556, Reginald Scot also gained extra responsibility.[16]
Sir Thomas Scot was an important figure in Reginald Scot’s life, often supporting and inspiring him.[17] Reginald Scot not only became the caretaker and custodian of the creeks and ports from Romney Marsh all the way out to the ocean, but he also became a business administrator for his cousin.[18] From later notes, it appears Reginald Scot was also the surveyor and engineer at the sea-wall reconstruction at Dover, and ultimately had grown fond of the laborers there.[19] Since Scot’s birthright to the family inheritance was insecure—merely being a cousin to the inheritor of Scot’s Hall and solely dependent on Sir Thomas Scot—Reginald Scot probably felt more at ease with the working class.[20] However, it should be noted he still saw himself as the laborers’ superior.[21] Nevertheless, his precarious station in life may have driven him to initially write and publish A perfite platforme of a hoppe garden, and in the process of the second edition, met Abraham Fleming.
Working with Clergyman and Editor Abraham Fleming
Abraham Fleming was a well-known English clergyman and editor who worked closely with various printers in the mid to late-sixteenth century.[22] Fleming probably met Scot during the printing of the second edition of Scot’s A perfite platforme of a hoppe garden in 1576.[23] Of note, Scot was absent from the printers during the publication of the first edition.[24] Thus, it is not hard to imagine Scot’s immediate presence and follow-ups with the printer’s corrections during the second edition. By this point in time, Fleming had left Cambridge University without a degree and begun to work for several printing houses.[25] One of the notable printing houses Fleming worked closely with was Henry Denham, the same printing house where Scot had his book on hops printed.[26] Scot’s A perfite platforme of a hoppe garden was written for those who lived in poverty, and it was during the second edition that Fleming probably saw Scot’s “…common humanitie…” and reformed Protestantism that urged him to work closely with Scot during the production of The Discoverie of Witchcraft.[27]
One intriguing thought of Fleming and Scot working closely together comes from historian David Wootton. He suggests Fleming and Scot were part of the same secret religious sect known as ‘The Family of Love.’[28] The indication that suggests Wootton’s belief is that Fleming’s name is written in reverse in the bibliography of Discoverie.[29] In contrast to Wootton, I do not believe Scot was a member of ‘The Family of Love,’ but rather Fleming may have wished to defer attention to his name within the list of Scot’s sources due to Fleming’s work toward English priesthood.[30] During mid-sixteenth century England, the common belief promoted the existence of witchcraft and going against it could mean trouble, especially for that part of the clergy.[31] Since Fleming was involved with the Church, it would have been viewed as a conflict of interest, even though Fleming was known to have verged on subversion.[32] Instead, he hid his name, but nonetheless still included it within the following chapters when an English translation to a Latin source was required.[33]
It is important to note that Discoverie is not even recorded in the Registers of the Company of Stationers, the formal index of printed works of the period.[34] With Discoverie absent from the Stationers list, Scot probably took full responsibility for the production himself.[35] Even the printer’s information is hidden at the back of the treatise, which the company no doubt understood the controversial topic that Discoverie posed.[36] I believe Fleming’s inclusion as the translator would not have had any repercussions due to Fleming’s previous work with the printers. Regardless, one thing is certain, the notes in the margins imply that Fleming and Scot worked closely together and, undoubtedly, shared a common anti-Catholic fervor.[37] But what religion Scot aligned himself with has been a debated topic among historians. This topic will be addressed shortly. Heedless of Scot’s theological outlook, Fleming and Scot clearly got along. Like the Malleus Maleficarum, Scot probably worked with Fleming not only for English translations but also as a controversial figure linked to The Discoverie of Witchcraft to strengthen the overall work.[38]
Obscure Interests and Religious Beliefs
It is clear Scot was fascinated with controversial topics. This is seen in the reference to the sources used at the beginning of Discoverie, which range from classical poets to Biblical references, to Catholic rituals and sly-handed magic.[39] The adversaries that Scot argued in his Discoverie came from the continent and were, at Scot’s time, being translated into English.[40] Scot’s main focus was heavily criticizing Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer's Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches, 1487) and Jean Bodin's Démonomanie des sorciers (The Demon-Mania of Witches, 1580).[41] Besides Scot’s adversaries, Scot compiled a large list of sources to argue against ‘continental’ witchcraft.[42]
Feeding Demonic Imps. Woodcarving print. Uploaded by Alphaios~commonswiki. November 6, 2006. Creative Commons Public Domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feeding_demonic_imps.jpg
One of the most referenced contributors in the list is Johann Weyer.[43] Weyer was a Dutch physician who published many written works arguing against the witch trials, such as his first book De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis, or On devilish delusions and on enchantments and poisonings, published in 1563. In Scot’s Discoverie, he heavily cited Weyer, often referring to Weyer’s De praestigiis daemonum and De lamiis, or On Witches.[44] Similar to Weyer, Scot unapologetically opposed those who supported the persecution of witches and was not afraid to point out the follies of his fellow Protestants in Discoverie.[45] But, unlike Weyer, Scot was careful to not attack those who created Elizabethan statutes. [46] Instead, he concernedly expressed his opinion with respect, stating, “[a]nd most certaine it is, that in what point soever anie of these extremities, which I shall rehearse unto you, be mitigated, it is through the goodnesse of the Queen Majestie, and hir excellent magistrates placed upon us.”[47]
While it is known Scot neither praised nor referenced the English church in his treatise, it is hard to label exactly what religious sect Scot considered himself.[48] Although Scot references John Calvin over a dozen times in his treatise, there is little proof Scot considered himself a Calvinist.[49] First, Scot’s critics were mostly Calvinistic in their theology.[50] Second, Scot’s name does not appear on any Puritan petitions or documents that circled around him from 1570 till his death.[51] Lastly, it is clear Scot’s critics refused to sympathize or view Scot as a misled member.[52] Instead, Scot radically used the word of God as an allegory which ultimately aligned him with other heretics at the time.[53] Again, this does not suggest Scot was part of the secret religious sect ‘The Family of Love,’ as Wootton claims. Scot clearly argues against other religious sects that ‘The Family of Love’ were to be unbiased towards.[54]
Historian Leland L. Estes stated Scot perhaps shared the same spirit as Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus: well-read, used the Bible for good living, and had an interest in classic literature.[55] Estes noted this, too, could be a stretched assumption.[56] Historian Stuart Clark was the closest to consider Scot’s theology as ‘radically unorthodox’ Protestant.[57] Obviously, Scot took a great interest in Weyer’s ideas by building off of them with a rich collection of esoteric works.[58] Scot was clearly a well-researched man, who, according to Wood, “…nothing slip’d his pen that might make for his purpose,” and thus currently makes it difficult for modern historians to categorize Scot into any particular religion.[59] Ultimately, Scot’s precarious station in life mixed with his unique interests appeared in his documentation during his time at Dover.
The Reconstruction Project at Dover
Scot’s insecure inheritance allowed him to reflect more closely on the lower classes than those of his social rank. Scot’s inheritance ultimately lay in the hands of his cousin, Sir Thomas Scot.[60] In 1583, a year before Discoverie was published, Scot and his cousin were sent by Queen Elizabeth to oversee the reconstruction of the sea fence at Dover.[61] Being the surveyor and engineer of Romney Marshworks, Scot documented the progress as an entry into the second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicles, to which Fleming was the chief and perhaps the only editor.[62] Although the Dover reconstruction took place in 1583, this documentation was not included until the very last passage of the Chronicles in 1586 when the Chronicles were coming to an end.[63] It appears Scot’s passage regarding the Dover reconstruction was added last minute.[64]
In addition to Scot’s practical and well-in-depth approach to the engineering technology used at Dover,[65] his anthropological side was beginning to show. According to Annabel Patterson, author of the monograph Reading Holdinshed’s Chronicles, she stated that although Scot was interested in promoting the positive aspects of the Dover project, he unknowingly promoted the opposite.[66] Indeed, Scot recorded the devastating conditions the workers at Dover had to endure: the lack of wages, long and gruesome working hours, and few breaks for the workers to return to their personal businesses.[67] As Patterson noted, quoting Scot, “…did (not seldome times) bestow rewards bountifullie upon the poore workmen, who upon sundry occasions were driven to worke longer than the rest, and with more difficultie…”[68]
Scot’s account at Dover starts off with praise to many officers, including his cousin, claiming the perfection of the reconstruction project.[69] But then Scot’s account bluntly reveals the tragic reality of the working conditions and in the process, he displayed his anthropological reflection on those within the poorer working class.[70] No doubt the workers helped inspire Scot to seek a better solution to the community problems that he witnessed. It should be noted that Scot’s Discoverie was developed over a long period of time.[71] However, Scot’s time at Dover may have further influenced him to publicize his work. Therefore, the combination of Scot’s station in life mixed with his love for obscure topics and the reflection of laborers at Dover Port influenced Scot to further document the injustices that surrounded him, including the witchcraft persecutions.
1587 printing of Holinshed’s Chronicles. Uploaded by Thedarklady154. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1587_printing_of_Holinshed%27s_Chronicles.jpg
Maleficia and Old Women
When the statute of 1563 was passed, it placed a heavy amount of ignorance toward the cruelty and injustices that specifically targeted the poor in England.[72] By this point in time, there were still witch trials taking place.[73] However, as noted before, the witch trials during the sixteenth century were not as common as compared to the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.[74] Nevertheless, the 1563 statute ultimately brought back the rise of the witch trials in England.[75] Historian Vera Hoorens stated that Weyer published his treatise on witchcraft before the beginning peak of the witch persecutions in the seventeenth century.[76] It seems then, along with Weyer, Scot too published his treatise during the early years of the height of the witch persecutions.
Scot boldly wrote against the possibility of magic in Catholicism, often arguing why poor old women confessed to maleficia when they could not manifest it.[77] Scot clearly recognized how the majority of witch persecutions were old women from the lowest ranks of society; [78] a part of society that he may have felt more at ease with due to his station in life. While Scot does defend old women accused of witchcraft, he does not, however, assume that the old women are capable of being witches or practising maleficia.[79] Scot fills his Discoverie with notions on why women cannot be tempted by the devil due to them being ‘ignorant’ and ‘impotent.’[80] During Scot’s time, women were believed to have been the ‘weaker and unintelligible sex.’[81] Thus, Scot’s outlook on the nature of women was in fact par for the early modern mindset.
He reinforced this notion in his treatise, basing it upon the early modern understanding of women, stating, “…women having a mervellous fickle nature, what greefe so ever happeneth unto them, immediatlie all peaceableners of mind departeth; and they are so troubled with evill humors…”[82] Instead of women causing maleficia, Scot believed evil humors were the cause of the melancholic disease that these supposed ‘witches’ had and not the cause of strange words or spirits.[83] Despite Scot denying witchcraft, he does not deny the existence of natural magic, the power of imagination, or the existence of the spirit of the devil, God, and the Holy Spirit.[84] Scot writes:
Surelie the naturall power of man or woman cannot be so inlarged, as to doo anie thing beyond the power and vertue given and ingraffed by God. But it is the will and mind of man, which is vitiated and depraved by the divell : neither dooth God permit anie more, than that which the naturall order appointed by / him dooth require. Which naturall order is nothing else, but the ordinarie power of God, powred into everie creature, according to his state and condition.[85]
The Impracticality of Witchcraft
Scot later confirms that the truth of, “…naturall magicke is nothing else, but the worke of na/ture,” thus stating his belief in natural magic and not denying it as historians, such as Wootton, have suggested.[86] In his own way, Scot researched natural magic to find some way to explain the witch craze phenomena and reduce the ‘miraculous’ to the basic technological foundation of nature.[87] To Scot, witchcraft was simply not practical. As stated before, this does not mean Scot rejected the existence of the devil.[88] Instead, Scot rejected corporal forms of spirits, not the existence of the spirits themselves.[89]
Along with his observations of social analysis, the rejection of corporal forms of spirits became the fundamental argument in his treatise.[90] In this, Scot expressed his beliefs with his personal wit. Scot humorously intersects topics that further reject the Catholic Church’s beliefs, posing comparisons such as, “…if all the old women in the world were witches ; and all the priests, conjurers : we should not have a drop of raine…”[91] Throughout Discoverie, Scot compared the similarities of how the Catholic Church’s priests ‘religiously’ operated to how supposed witches ‘maliciously’ operated.[92] It is clear the humor injected throughout his treatise is Scot’s attempt to not weigh the overall work to the point of blaming the makers of the statute, but instead, to express how Elizabethan statutes have adopted the wrong ideas from old-Catholic tradition.[93]
Ultimately, this was part of the inclusion of the conjuring work at the back of Discoverie; to show others how ridiculous ceremonial magic was and to prove to others how the spells do not work.[94] Even Kramer and Sprenger used jokes and grim humor to convey their ideas in the Malleus Maleficarum.[95] It should be noted these treatises offered a combined space for the author to intersect their humor and dynamic power.[96] Therefore I believe, like Kramer and Sprenger, Scot’s Discoverie was very much a humorous offer as well as an interjection of personal power. Ironically, the cunning folk who later use Scot’s Discoverie for magical purposes failed to recognize Scot’s humor toward the conjuring work.[97] Even particular critics called Scot a ‘Sadducee,’ which references a member of the Jewish faith that did not believe in Jesus’s resurrection, and were angered by Scot’s critical humor toward the common belief in the corporal formation of spirits.[98] Ultimately, Scot delivered a shattering analysis of the ignorance and cruelty toward the poorer social classes by intersecting his knowledge of the law, literature, humanitarianism and observations over several decades.
Brabourne, St. Mary’s Church: The Norman nave by Michael Garlick. November 3, 2016. Uploaded by GeographBot. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brabourne,_St._Mary%27s_Church,_The_Norman_nave_-_geograph.org.uk_-_5180749.jpg
Conclusion
There is no doubt Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft left a huge impact that varied between acceptance and heavy criticism. Although legend states that copies of Discoverie were ordered to be burnt by King James IV of Scotland, it is unlikely that the book was burnt due to the number of first editions found today.[99] More than likely, the first editions were saved by seventeenth-century white witches — those who practice benevolent magic — and cunning folk who used Scot’s treatise as a grimoire, or a book of incantations and invocations.[100] Nevertheless, Scot’s Discoverie has been, along with Weyer, the most quoted treatise for both proof and criticism of the witch persecutions.[101] I could not find any archival evidence that supports if Scot earned anything from its publication. It is hard to assume he did, as by the time he passed in 1599, he barely had enough money to entrust to his wife and family.[102] In the end, perhaps Scot believed his words yielded power and change, more than likely thanks to his family’s authoritarian rule over Kent. No doubt his friendship with clergyman Fleming, his precarious position in life and his love for obscure literature also inspired him to write Discoverie.
Today, Scot rests at his family’s church; St. Mary’s Church, in Brabourne, England; in an altar tomb bearing his family coat of arms.[103] It is doubtful Scot knew of the impact he had made upon the witch trials in the seventeenth-century or even the influence hundreds of years later by modern practitioners and historians. But there is one thing that Scot did know: he knew he would be forever immortal through his words in The Discoverie of Witchcraft.[104] To reiterate, a modern-day person may claim Scot was ahead of his time.[105] Scot was, no doubt, a brilliant man. But I believe his involvement and understanding of the law and his station in life, collaborated with his extensive interest in religious and obscure books made him an excellent candidate to create an anthropological case study on the witchcraft persecutions in sixteenth-century England.
Though historians today continue to promote Scot as being ahead of his time, this was not the case. Instead, Scot was a man who walked the social-economical line of his time. His precarious upbringing allowed him to reflect the requirement for lower classes and eventually feed it into his work. Scot was merely documenting the injustices he had witnessed and implementing his obscure interests into the fold. Nevertheless, Reginald Scot’s work was and is, a grimoire for past conjurers and modern practitioners, a plea for those who can read to fix injustice, and, ultimately, a glimpse into Scot’s reality and to those who motivated him to write about reaching for a better world.
Endnotes:
[1] Philip C. Almond, England’s First Demonologist: Reginald Scot and ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft,’ (London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2011), 1.
[2] Peter Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016), 17, https://academic-oup-com.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/book/5357/chapter/148139505; Vera Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?: How Anti-Catholicism inspired the Landmark Plea for the Witches,” Low Countries Historical Review 129, no. 1, (2014), 10, https://bmgn-lchr.nl/article/view/URN%3ANBN%3ANL%3AUI%3A10-1-110058/6211
[3] Annabel Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994),
226-227; Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 10.
[4] Stuart Clark, Review of England’s First Demonlogist: Reginald Scot and ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft’ by Philip C. Almond, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 8, no. 2 (Winter 2013): 193, https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/article/525981
[5] Clark, Review of England’s First Demonlogist, by Philip C. Almond, 193.
[6] James Renat Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, (London: 1876), 188, https://ia600503.us.archive.org/21/items/memorialsoffamil00scot/memorialsoffamil00scot.pdf; Reginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Brinsley Nicholson, (London: Elliot Stock, 1886), xix, https://archive.org/details/discoverieofwitc00scot
[7] Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, viii; Thomas Philipott, Villare Cantianum: or Kent surveyed and illustrated being an exact description of all the parishes, burroughs, villages and other respective mannors included in the county of Kent; And the Original and Intermediate Possessors of them, even until these Times, collected by John Philipot, (London: William Godbid, 1659), 314, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A54665.0001.001/1:7?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
[8] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 233.
[9] Sir Simonds D’Ewes, The Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth both of the House of Lords and House of Commons, (London: 1682), 403, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2240955351/fulltextPDF/E480FB4E855F4424PQ/1?accountid=14391
[10] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xii; Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 86; D’Ewes, The Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 393-394, 403, 410; Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 86.
[11] M.R.P, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558-1603, ed. by P.W. Hasler, (1981), https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/scott-reginald-1537-99
[12] Joseph Foster, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714: Their Parentage, Birthplace, and Year of Birth, With a Record of Their Degrees, (Oxford: 1892), 1325, https://archive.org/details/alumnioxoniense00fostgoog/page/n57/mode/1up?view=theater
[13] Anthony á Wood, Anthenae Oxonienses: An Exact History of All the Writers and Bishops Who Have Had Their Education in the University of Oxford; To Which are Added the Fasti, or Annals of the Said, Third Edition, Vol. 1, Edited by Philip Bliss, London: 1813, 679-680, https://ia600900.us.archive.org/33/items/athenaeoxoniense01wooduoft/athenaeoxoniense01wooduoft.pdf; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xix.
[14] Foster, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714: Their Parentage, Birthplace, and Year of Birth, With a Record of Their Degrees, 1325, https://archive.org/details/alumnioxoniense00fostgoog/page/n57/mode/1up?view=theater
[15] Reginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Montague Summers, (New York: Dover Publications, 1972), 12-15; Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 179-183.
[16] Public Record Office, Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1555-1557, (1938), 8-9, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02046626f&view=1up&seq=5. This could have been Scot’s reason to leave Oxford.
[17] Reginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, (1584), 9-12, https://www.scribd.com/document/555927266/Reginald-Scot-Discoverie-of-Witchcraft-1584; Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 83, 183. Scot also dedicates Discoverie to three others, however, it is in his dedication to his cousin there is an indication of Scot’s dependence on his cousin on page 11: “…my foot being under your table, my hand in your dish, or rather in your pursse…” Since Scot did not have any siblings, it is fitting his dedicating to his cousin speaks about financial support.
[18] David Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” (Lecture at University of York, April 16, 2008), 60, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2065/pba162p045.pdf; Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 226.
[19] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 95, 97; Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 60.
[20] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 60; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, 9-12; Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 179-183.
[21] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 60.
[22] Miller, “Abraham Fleming: Editor of Shakespeare’s Holinshed,” 89-90; Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 26; William E. Miller, “Abraham Fleming: Editor of Shakespeare’s Holinshed,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 1, no. 1, (Spring, 1959): 90-91, https://www-jstor-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/stable/40753534?sid=primo
[23] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xx.
[24] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xx.
[25] Miller, “Abraham Fleming: Editor of Shakespeare’s Holinshed,” 89; Reginald Scot, A perfite platforme of a hoppe garden and necessarie instructions for the making and mayntenaunce thereof, with notes and rules for reformation of all abuses, commonly practised therein, very necessary and expedient for all men to haue, which in any wise haue to doe with hops, (London: Henrie Denham, 1576), 1, https://www.proquest.com/eebo/docview/2240916093/EBE673778C2C473CPQ/3?accountid=14391
[26] Scot, A perfite platforme of a hoppe garden, 1.
[27] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 60.
[28] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 65-66.
[29] David Wootton, “Reginald Scot / Abraham Fleming / the Family of Love,” in Languages of Witchcraft, ed. Stuart Clark (Basingstoke, 2001), 125, https://www.scribd.com/document/436478965/Languages-of-Witchcraft-Narrative-Ideology-and-Meaning-in-Early-Modern-Culture-pdf. Abraham Fleming is spelt as ‘Gnimelf Maharba.’
[30] Miller, “Abraham Fleming: Editor of Shakespeare’s Holinshed,” 90; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 1; S.F. Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft: Witchcraft, Magic, and Radical Religion” in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 74, No. 3 (July 2013), 400, https://www-jstor-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/stable/43290149?sid=primo
[31] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft,” 382.
[32] Wootton, “Reginald Scot / Abraham Fleming / the Family of Love,” 125.
[33] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 77, 94, 97, 98, 144, 165, 185, 203, 204, 217, 218, 241, 244, 246, 312, 364, 410; Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 4.
[34] Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 4.
[35] Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 4.
[36] Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 4.
[37] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 226.
[38] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft,” 400; Henricus Institoris and Jacobus Sprenger, The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of Malleus Maleficarum, trans. Christopher S. Mackay, (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 5.
[39] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 226; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xxviii, 180.
[40] Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventieth-Century England, (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books 1984), 523.
[41] Institoris and Sprenger, The Hammer of Witches, i; Levack, The Witchcraft Sourcebook, 146; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xxvii.
[42] Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventieth-Century England, 681.
[43] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xxviii.
[44] Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 5.
[45] Leland L. Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft": Religion and Science in the Opposition to the European Witch Craze,” Church History, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Cambridge University Press: December 1983), 448, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3165565
[46] Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 12; Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 228.
[47] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 10.
[48] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 447.
[49] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 82, 85, 86, 125, 126, 136, 260, 420, 424, 432, 451, 452, 453.
[50] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 447.
[51] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 447.
[52] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 447.
[53] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 450.
[54] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 162; Wootton, “Reginald Scot / Abraham Fleming / the Family of Love,” 131. Scot openly critiques the Catholic Church and its use of sacraments, which Wootton states ‘The Family of Love’ kept quiet about open criticism.
[55] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 448.
[56] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 448.
[57] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft,” 397.
[58] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, xxviii.
[59] Wood, Anthenae Oxonienses, 680.
[60] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, 9-12.
[61] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 95.
[62] Miller, “Abraham Fleming: Editor of Shakespeare’s Holinshed,” 94; Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 95.
[63] Miller, “Abraham Fleming: Editor of Shakespeare’s Holinshed,” 93-94; Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 95-96.
[64] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 58.
[65] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 63.
[66] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 96.
[67] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 96-97.
[68] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 97.
[69] Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 63.
[70] Clark, Review of England’s First Demonlogist, by Philip C. Almond, 193; Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 97.
[71] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summer, xxxi.
[72] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 227.
[73] Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 9.
[74] Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 9.
[75] Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 10.
[76] Hoorens, “Why did Johann Weyer write De pragestigiis daemonum?,” 10.
[77] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft,” 394; atterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 226-227.
[78] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 4-5; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 620; Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 60.
[79] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 227.
[80] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 8.
[81] Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 620.
[82] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 227.
[83] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 5.
[84] Clark, Review of England’s First Demonlogist by Philip C. Almond, 194; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 5, 139; Wootton, “Reginald Scot / Abraham Fleming / the Family of Love,” 123.
[85] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 9.
[86] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft: Witchcraft, Magic, and Radical Religion,” 390; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 237; Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 61. Wootton states in footnote 47, “Scot’s denial of magic meant that he held that all apparent magic was really legerdemain.” I do not agree with Wootton’s statement, as he is solely referencing Discourse upon Divels and Spirits, a book with fifteen chapters that was anonymously added to the back of the 1665 edition of Discoverie. Discourse was published well over fifty years after Scot’s death. Plus, there has been no indication prior to Scot’s death that suggested he wrote Discourse. Thus, Davies suggest Discourse was probably added by a radical religious person and sadly reflects the opposition to Scot’s real work in Discoverie.
[87] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 454.
[88] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 455.
[89] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 455.
[90] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft,” 451.
[91] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 2.
[92] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 2.
[93] Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, 228.
[94] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Summers, 127; Wootton, “Deities, Devils, and Dams: Elizabeth I, Dover Harbour and the Family of Love,” 63.
[95] Joy Wiltenburg, “Soundings of Laughter in Early Modern England,” Early Modern Women Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring 2016): 22, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26431395; Institoris and Sprenger, The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of Malleus Maleficarum, 166-167.
[96] Wiltenburg, “Soundings of Laughter in Early Modern England,” 23.
[97] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft,” 394.
[98] Estes, “Reginald Scot and His "Discoverie of Witchcraft",” 454; James RX, Daemonologie : In Forme of a Dialogie, (1597), 1, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25929/pg25929-images.html; Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. by Nicholson, 59.
[99] Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 2. King James IV did ban Discoverie, however, regarding if the copies were burnt remains a historical debate.
[100] Davies, “The Reception of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft,” 394.
[101] Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 2-3.
[102] Almond, England’s First Demonologist, 6; Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 190, 196. Sir Thomas Scot died in 1594 and, according to Memorials…, Thomas was in debt and left his numerous offspring and Reginald to sell off or abandon the thirty country estates to fix the debt. It seems that without Sir Thomas’ support, Reginald did not have anything to entrust his family with. Additionally, Scot wrote his will with his own hand, and states to his wife, “…whome yf I had not matched with all I had not dyed woeth one groate,” stating he would have been much poorer if she had not married him. Not only that, but from Almond’s monograph (p.7) and Brinsley’s edited edition of Discoverie (p. xix), there seems to be a bit of confusion or incorrect documentation, as the date Scot’s first marriage, “…11 October 1658…” It should be noted that a change from Gregorian to Julian calendars did not radically change the date. From what I could find Scot was only married once and historians seem to accidentally confuse Scot with another Reginald Scot from the 1600s.
[103] Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scot’s Hall in the County of Kent, 61; James Renat Scott, “The Scott Monuments in Brabourne Churc,.” Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. 10. (1876), Kent Archaeological Society, 265. Historians and researchers are not certain if this is his tomb, however, it is suggested that it likely is.
[104] Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, 11. Mentioned in The Epistle to his cousin.
[105] Clark, Review of England’s First Demonlogist by Philip C. Almond, 193.
Rebecca Raines
Rebecca Raines is an undergraduate student at Trent University (Peterborough, Ontario). Currently, she is finishing her Bachelor of Arts in History with an Option in Medical Humanities, and Minor in Indigenous Studies. She plans to pursue her Masters in History in Fall 2025. Her research focuses on Western Society, particularly the history of anatomical study, body studies, religious and burial beliefs, institutions, and the intersection of legislation and public opinion in 19th century Canada. She also shares historical fun facts through social media platforms under the name rmraines.