  EXCEPT that they add the names of some who have opposed his views, or some such trifling matters, all the writers of biographical notices of Scot have drawn their information from the account given of him in Wood’s AthenÆ Oxon. Nor, indeed, until lately, unless original search had been made, were other sources available. Hence I, in the first place, give his words verbatim from the edition of 1691.
In 1874 there were privately printed, Memorials of the Scot Family, by Jas. Renat Scott, Esq., and from them I extract the following tables: But as the first part of the ancestry given in this book is not supported by anything beyond possibility and legend, so this latter portion is incorrect in various particulars. Instead, however, of taking each inaccuracy item by item, it will be simpler to give a consecutive account of such facts as to his ancestry, and as to Reginald Scott himself, as can be proved by documentary evidence or rendered probable by deductions therefrom. John Philipot, Rouge Dragon and Somerset Herald, who died in 1645, set forth the pleasant and picturesque, but slightly supported origin of the family. I say pleasant, because the Scotts in the times of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, were a family of large possessions, wealth, and influence, influence so great that it is said that Elizabeth refused the request made by Lord Buckhurst, or the Earl of Leicester, that Sir Thomas Scott should be ennobled, saying that he had already more influence in Kent than she had. She seems also to have had from this, or from some other reason, a personal dislike to them, for in her Progress in 1573, she having passed three days at his father-in-law’s, Sir John Baker, of Sissinghurst Castle, declined to visit Scotts-hall, saying she wished to proceed to her own house, though on her way thither she had to pass Sir Thomas’s gates. In his Villare Cantianum, p. 313, Philipot has these words: “Scotts-hall, which is now and hath been for divers Descents the Inheritance of eminent Gentlemen of that Sirname, whom I dare aver upon probable Grounds were originally called Balioll. William Balioll, second brother to Alexander de Balioll, frequently writ his Name William de Balioll le Scot, and it is probable, that upon the Tragedy of John, Earl of Atholl, who was made prisoner by Edward the first, and barbarously executed, in the year 1307. (whilst he endeavoured more nobly than successfully to defend the gasping Liberty of Scotland against the Eruption of that Prince;) this Family to decline the Fury of that Monarch, who was a man of violent passions, altered the name of This tradition excluded, we find that Sir William Scot of Braberne, now Brabourne, in Kent, is the first of whom we have historical mention. He was knighted in 1336, when the Black Prince was created Duke of Cornwall, and died in 1350: a brass to his memory, being in Weever’s time (1631), the first of the memorials of the Scot family in Brabourne church. According to Philipot, this Sir William was the same with Sir William Scot, then Chief Justice of England; but if Mr. Foss be right in stating that this latter died in 1346, the year of the Black Death, this view cannot be upheld. Another Sir William, apparently a grandson of the above, acquired through his mother the manor of Combe in Brabourne, and through his first wife and her relations—modes of increase in which the family seem to have been fortunate—that of Orlestone, as well as other places; and in 1420 he built Scotshall, in the manor of Hall in Smeeth, and was in 1428 sheriff of the county, and in 1430 knight of the shire in parliament. He died 1433. Scotshall, from time to time enlarged or rebuilt, and especially so by Sir Edward Scot, in the reign of Charles I, became the family seat for twelve generations. Evelyn, under date August 2, 1663, records his visit to it (soon after the young knight’s marriage), and calls it “a right noble seate, The son of this second Sir William, named Sir John, being connected with the Woodvilles, and therefore with the wife of Edward IV, and being a staunch Yorkist, and apparently a man of intelligence, was employed in special embassies to Charles, Duke of Burgundy, especially in 1467, when he went to treat of the marriage of the king’s sister with the duke. He had also various other and more substantial favours conferred upon him from time to time, from 1461 onwards, including that of Chilham Castle for life, as somewhat oddly, and I think wrongly, noted in the extract from Philipot. He died in 1485, and probably intestate, as no will is recorded. To him succeeded his son, the third Sir William in this account, and he dying in 1524, was succeeded by his son, a second Sir John. This last, by his marriage with Anne, daughter of Reginald Pympe, had three sons, and died on the 7th October 1533. The eldest, William, followed his father on the 5th June 1536, and leaving no offspring, his next brother, Sir Reginald, took his place. Of the third brother, Richard, the father of our Reginald, I shall speak presently. Meanwhile, returning to the main line, I would say that Sir Reginald, dying on the 16th October 1554, was succeeded by his son, Sir Thomas, the “cousin” to whom Reginald was much indebted, and one of the four to whom he dedicated his Witchcraft. He was, in his day, a man of note, intelligence, and action. Finding his estate in debt, he yet kept one hundred at his table, was most hospitable, and died owing nothing, though, of course, to provide for the younger of his very numerous progeny, various portions of his estate were by his will sold after his death. He was deputy-lieutenant of his county, sheriff of Kent in 1576, knight of the shire for the Parliaments of 13 and 28 Elizabeth, chief of the Kentish forces at Northbourne Downs, where they were assembled to repel any landing Epitaph on Sir Thomas Scott, as given in the “Memorials of the Scott Family”, and also in Pick’s “Collection of Curious Pieces in the World”, vol. 3. Here lyes Sir Thomas Scott by name; Oh happie Kempe that bore him! Sir Raynold, with four knights of fame, Lyv’d lyneally before him. His wieves were Baker, Heyman, Beere; His love to them unfayned. He lyved nyne and fiftie yeare, And seventeen soules he gayned. His first wief bore them every one; The world might not have myst her!* She was a very paragon The Lady Buckherst’s syster. His widow lyves in sober sort, No matron more discreeter; She still reteiynes a good report, And is a great housekeeper. He (being called to special place) Did what might best behove him. The Queen of England gave him grace, The King of Heav’n did love him. His men and tenants wail’d the daye, His Kinne and countrie† cryed; Both young and old in Kent may saye, Woe worth the day he dyed. He made his porter shut his gate To sycophants and briebors, And ope it wide to great estates, And also to his neighbours. His House was rightly termed Hall Whose bred and beefe was redie; It was a very hospitall And refuge for the needie. From whence he never stept aside, In winter nor in summer; In Christmas time he did provide Good cheer for every comer. When any service shold be doun, He lyked not to lyngar; The rich would ride, the poor wold runn, If he held up his fingar. He kept tall men, he rydd great hors, He did write most finely; He used fewe words, but cold discours Both wysely and dyvinely. His lyving meane,‡ his charges greate, His daughters well bestowed; Although that he were left in debt, In fine he nothing owed. But dyed in rich and happie state, Beloved of man and woman And (what is yeate much more than that) He was envied§ of no man. In justice he did much excell, In law he never wrangled: He loved rellygion wondrous well, But he was not new-fangled. Let Romney Marsh and Dover saye; Ask Norborne camp at leyseur; If he were woont to make delaye To doe his countrie pleasure. But Ashford’s proffer passeth all— It was both rare and gentle; They would have pay’d his funerall T’ have toomb’d him in their temple. * Though a paragon, she lived, he would say, a quiet, retired life, obedient and loving to her husband. † “Countrie”, seems not unlikely to be used here, as in the Discoverie not unfrequently, and twice in Wood’s notice just given, and, as then, for county. ‡ “Meane”, that is, moderate, midway between the very rich and the poor. § “Envied”, most probably in its then frequent sense of hated. Before returning to Richard and Reginald, we may conclude this short notice of their ancestors by mentioning the very probable circumstance that the former were, by the female line, descendants of John Gower, the poet, as explained in the following table: The Pashells, or Pashleys, were descended from Sir Edmund de Passelege, a Baron of the Exchequer, who purchased a manor in Smeeth in 1319; he died 1327. The family resided at Iden, Sussex; and the house there, and the manor in Smeeth, devolved on the Scots, Anne Pympe being her father’s only child. It is true that John Gower, the poet, does not mention any children in his extant will, but he was probably seventy-eight when he died; and, what is more to the purpose, his published will was probably only his testament, the will or declaration of uses of the land being commonly at On p. 500, Scot speaks of “his kinseman M. Deering”, Edw. Dering the divine, a writer on theological subjects and chaplain to her Majesty; but in what way they were kin I have been unable to discover.* * My mother being a Dering, a daughter of the Thomas that was drowned in the West Indies, when trying to reach his vessel H.M.S. Circe, induces me to add, through the courtesy of Sir Edw. C. Dering, that a portrait of this worthy is still to be seen at Surrenden Dering, and that a family tradition has it, that preaching before her Majesty, he had the boldness to tell her, “that she had no more controul over her passions than an untamed heifer.” He was speedily unfrocked, and is said to have emigrated to America, where an Edw. Dering is at this moment the head of that branch, and a large landowner in Maine. Returning now to Reginald’s father, Richard, the youngest of the three sons of that Sir John who died in 1533, we find that he married Mary, daughter of Geo. Whetenall, whose father was sheriff of Kent in 1527, and whose family had lived for three centuries at Hextall’s Place, near Maidstone. She survived her husband; and being remarried to Fulke Onslow, Clerk of the Parliaments, died before him, 8th October 1582, and was buried, as he afterwards was, in Hatfield church, Herts, where a brass to their memory is fixed in the north wall of the chancel. Of Richard himself nothing more is known. He probably died young, and certainly before December 1554, his death being mentioned in the will of his brother Sir Reginald, who died on the 16th of that month. In this will, failing his own issue—a lapse which did not occur—he left his real estate “unto Rainolde Scotte, This Inquisition also gives Reynold’s then age as thirty-eight or more, the words “et amplius” being, as was, usually at least, done in these documents, attached to all the other ages mentioned. Hence he was born in or before 1538 (not in 1541), and as, according to Wood, he entered Hart Hall, Oxford, when about seventeen, he entered it circa 1555; the intention that he should do so having been probably entertained by Sir Reginald, his uncle, who died 16th December 1554, and his expenses borne by his cousin, Sir Thomas. I say probably, because we have seen that, failing his own issue, he was named by Sir Reginald as the next heir to the estate, and also because we know nothing of the circumstances in which his widowed mother was left, nor as yet of the date at which she was re-married to Onslow. On the 11th of October he married Jane—not, as stated in “The Memorials”, Alice—Cobbe, the daughter of an old yeoman family long resident at Cobbe’s Place, in the adjoining parish of Aldington. The entry in the Registers of Brabourne is— “M* Reignold Scott and Jane Cobbe were maryed the xith of October 1658.” The only issue of this marriage, the only issue (that at least survived) of both his marriages—for the Maria in the table of “The Memorials” was the daughter of his second wife by her first husband—was Elizabeth, afterwards married to Sackville Turnor; and the only issue of that marriage, prior at least to Reynold’s death in 1599, was Cicely. Elizabeth’s birth must have been in or before 1574, for in the Inquis. * To this upper portion of the “M” is added a character which may make it “Mr.” or “Married”; but I have not myself yet seen the entry. In this year, 1574, was also published the first issue of his brain, his tractate on The Hoppe-Garden, the first work, I believe, in which not only was the culture of the hop in England advocated, both as having been successfully tried by him, and as against its importation from Poppering, in Flanders, where its mode of culture, etc., was endeavoured to be kept secret; but the whole subject of its growth, culture, drying, and preservation was gone into in a practical manner, and further explained by woodcuts. And here it may be worth noting that in this year Reynold was necessarily absent so far from London that the publisher inserted this apologetic note: “Forasmuch as M. Scot could not be present at the printing of this his Booke, whereby I might have used his advise in the correction of the same, and especiallie of the Figures and Portratures conteyned therein, whereof he delivered unto me such notes as I being unskilfull in the matter, could not so thoroughly conceyve, nor so perfectly expresse as ... the Author, or you ... the Reader might in all poyntes be satisfied [etc., etc.].” In the second edition, however, in 1576, it was: “Now newly corrected and augmented,” the augmentations increasing the book from fifty-three pages, exclusive of the epilogue, to sixty, and the corrections including one added and one emended engraving. As a matter of curiosity, and as showing that neither the publisher nor the author expected a second edition, it may be added that though only two years had elapsed, some at least of the wood engravings required to be re-cut in almost exact facsimile. A third edition was issued in 1578, and from these we can date the commencement of the hop harvests in Kent. In 1575 he succeeded to one moiety of such part of Lady Winifred Rainsford’s estate as was held in gavelkind. Possibly, indeed, we may place his enjoyment of it earlier, for Lady Rainsford was declared insane; and to this, by the way, I am not disinclined to attribute Reynold’s prolonged absence from London in 1572, the attendance of some one of the family being required, and he, being older than the sons of Sir Thomas, and of a junior branch, and a man of business, When his first wife died and when he re-married is as yet unknown to us. But this latter could hardly have taken place until the latter end, at earliest, of 1584, since in that year he, as already quoted, describes himself as, “having his foot under your [Sir Th. Scot’s] table”, etc., or in other words, as being a dependant not worth one groat. Nor do we know more of this second wife beyond these slight particulars that we gather from Reynold’s will: that her Christian name was Alice—given in “The Memorials” instead of Jane, to Cobbe, the first wife—that she was a widow with a daughter by her former husband; and that she had some land, either in her own right or derived from her former husband. That she was a widow at the time of her remarriage is shown by Reynold’s bequest of “six poundes thirteene shillings foure pence to my daughter in Lawe Marie Collyar for apparell [? mourning] desiring that her mother’s hand be not anie thinge the shorter towards her in that respect.” Whether Collyar were this daughter’s maiden name, and therefore the name of her mother’s first Reserving all notice of his Witchcraft till I speak of it under its bibliography, I would say that we know little more of his life. The Rev. Jos. Hunter, in his Chorus Vatum, states that he was “a Collector of subsidies to Q. Elizabeth in 15..., for the county of Kent.” Urged to inquiry by this, my friend, Jas. Gairdner, Esq., kindly examined for me the Exchequer documents in the Public Record Offices, and it appears from them that he was collector of subsidies for the lathe of From the same documents we find that he is twice designated “armiger”, a word agreeing with his 1584 title-page, “by Reginald Scot, Esquire”, though in the editions of his Hoppe Garden his name alone is given. This was for myself an important find; but it will suffice here to say that it confirms Hunter’s supposition that this esquireship was due to his having been made a justice of the peace, though as to the date it can only as yet be said that this dignity was probably granted between 1578 and 1584. In an Accompt of Sir Th. Heanage, knight, Treasurer at Warr, in the Public Record Offices, and printed by J. Renat Scott in the Arch. Canti., vol. xi, p. 388, we find the following entries:
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • •
From the Muster-roll taken on the 25th Jan. 1587–8, and now in the possession of Mr. Oliver, it appears that the county had then furnished 8,201 footmen and 711 horsemen, and that Sir Thomas was captain of the 309 trained foot raised in the lathe of Shepway, with four hundreds of the lathe of Scraye and Romney Marsh. Hence his office as Colonel-General was not given him—indeed, this is shown by the Accompt—until the men had been assembled in camp on the 29th July. In like He made his will on the 15th September 1599, and died twenty-four days thereafter, on the 9th October. Some say that he was either taken ill at Smeeth or died there, probably misinterpreting the words of his will; some also say that he was buried there; while some think that he was buried by the side of and close to Sir Thomas Scott’s tomb in Brabourne church; but all these, like the supposition of Philipot in his Kent Notes, Harl. MS. 3917, fol. 78a, that he erected that tomb, are mere guessings, and as such we leave them. To the few particulars thus gathered together we are obliged, with the exception of two small points, one probable, and the other, I think, certain, to confine ourselves. The first or probable point is, that as his name appears five times as a witness to family business documents between 1566 and 1594, his signature appearing in this last year in Sir Thomas’s will, he must have kept up familiar intercourse with the latter, and was not improbably, in some measure at least, his man of business, and possibly his steward. The second point, which also goes to confirm this first one, as also to confirm the belief that he was made a justice of the peace, as being a person whose attainments, if not his position, would render him useful in such a post, is one to which I was independently led by his writings, and which is, I find, borne out by almost contemporary testimony. He who in his Hoppe Garden showed such practical thought and foresight, and in his Witchcraft such independence of thought, was not a man, especially when married and a father, to live in dependence on a cousin. The wording, as well as the tone of his writings, agree with this. We find in them traces of legal study, a habit of putting things, as it were, in a forensic form, and noteworthy and not unfrequent references to legal axioms or dicta, quoted generally in their original Latin. The Dedication before his Hoppe Garden, and the first before And in taking leave of this portion of my subject, I cannot but reiterate the obligations both the reader and the literary world generally are under to Mr. Edmund Ward Oliver. The suppositions as to the cause of Scot’s loss of his moiety of the estates of Lady Winnifred Rainsford—not, it is believed, a large sum—and as to his law-studentship, based as they are on facts stated by Scot or derived from The following table will bring into one view the pedigree of Reginald Scot given in the previous pages: * It is noteworthy that, notwithstanding the memorial inscription to the first Sir William, Reginald, or whoever was the author of the verses to Sir Thomas, only traces the pedigree to this fourth knight after Sir Reginald. Either then the first Sir William was then accounted somewhat mythical, or not being a knight of fame, he was not recognised as the same with Sir William Scott, the Chief Justice of England. WILL OF RAYNOLD SCOT.
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.
ABSTRACT OF INQUIS. P.M., 45 ELIZ., pars. 1, No. 71.
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 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 “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 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. 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 Ferrarius—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 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 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 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 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 CI? I? 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 s?e?t????e?? ac ??e?t????e?? (ut Libertinis & Semilibertinis infesta est patria nostra) quin eo ignorantiÆ sÆpe prolabi, ut non iniquÈ illis applicari potuerit, quod Sereniss. Rex Jacobus in DÆmonologi 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 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 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 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. —”, 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 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 cofuted 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; 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 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 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 The di?couerie 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 ?ooth?aiers, the impudent fal?- hood of cou?enors, the infidelitie of athei?ts, the pe?tilent practi?es of Pythoni?ts, the curio?itie of figureca?ters, the va- The abhomination of idolatrie, the hor-nitie of dreamers, the beggerlie art of Alcu- my?trie, rible art of poi?oning, the vertue and power of naturall magike, and all the conueiances of Legierdemaine and iuggling are deciphered: Heerevnto is added a treati?e vpon the and many other things opened, which haue long lien hidden, howbeit verie nece??arie to be knowne. nature and ?ub?tance of ?pirits and diuels, &c: all latelie written by Reginald Scot E?quire. 1. Iohn. 4, 1. Beleeue not euerie ?pirit, but trie the ?pirits, whether they are of God; for manie fal?e prophets are gone out into the world, &c. 1584 SCOT’S Di?covery of VVitchcraft: PROVING The common opinions of Witches con- tracting with Divels, Spirits, or Familiars; and their power to kill, torment, and con?ume the bodies of men women, and children, or other creatures by di?ea?es or otherwi?e; their flying in the Air, &c. To be but imaginary Erronious conceptions and novelties; WHEREIN ALSO, The lewde unchri?tian practi?es of Witchmongers, upon aged,melancholy, ignorant, and ?uper?tious people in extorting confe??ions, by inhumane terrors and tortures is notably detected.
very nece??ary to be known for the undeceiving of Judges, Ju?tices, and Juries, and for the pre?ervation of poor, aged, deformed, ignorant people; frequently taken, arraigned, condemned and executed for Witches, when according to a right under?tanding, and a good con?cience, Phy?ick, Food, and nece??aries should be admini?tred to them. Whereunto is added, a treati?e upon the nature, and ?ub?tance of Spirits and Divels, &c. all written and publi?hed in Anno 1584. by Reginald Scot, E?quire. Printed by Richard Cotes. 1651. Size, Fol., 10¼ in. × 6?. THE Di?covery 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. Al?o di?covering, How far their power extendeth, in Killing, Tormenting, Con?uming, or Curing the bodies of Men, Women, Children, or Animals, by Charms, Philtres, Periapts, Pentacles, Cur?es, and Conjurations. WHEREIN LIKEWISE The Unchri?tian Practices and Inhumane Dealings of Searchers and Witch-tryers upon Aged, Melancholly and Super?titious people, in extorting Confe??ions by Terrors and Tortures, and in devi?ing fal?e Marks and Symptoms, are notably Detected. And the Knavery of Juglers, Conjurers, Charmers, Sooth?ayers, Figure?Ca?ters, Dreamers, Alchymi?ts and Philterers; with many other things that have long lain hidden, fully Opened and Deciphered. ALL WHICH Are very nece??ary to be known for the undeceiving of Judges, Ju?tices, and Jurors, before they pa?s Sentence upon Poor, Mi?erable and Ignorant People; who are frequenly Arraigned, Condemned, and Executed for Witches and Wizzards. IN SIXTEEN BOOKS. By Reginald Scot E?quire. Whereunto is added An excellent Di?course of the Nature and Sub?tance of DEVILS and SPIRITS, IN TWO BOOKS: The Fir?t by the afore?aid 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 DISCOVERY. LONDON: Printed for A. Clark, and are to be ?old by Dixy Page at the Turks-Head in Cornhill near the Royall Exchange, 1665. * [Sic.]
|
|
