The Discoverie of Witchcraft - Revision history

Occultwiki at 22:38, 14 March 2022

2022-03-14T22:38:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 14 March 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Scot had studied superstitions respecting witchcraft in courts of law in country districts, where the prosecution of witches was unceasing, and in village life, where the belief in witchcraft flourished in many forms. Scot believed that the prosecution of those accused of witchcraft was irrational and not [[Christianity\|Christian]], and he held the Roman Church responsible.		Scot had studied superstitions respecting witchcraft in courts of law in country districts, where the prosecution of witches was unceasing, and in village life, where the belief in witchcraft flourished in many forms. Scot believed that the prosecution of those accused of witchcraft was irrational and not [[Christianity\|Christian]], and he held the Roman Church responsible.

	He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including [[Jean Bodin]] (1530–1596), author of ''[[De la ~~Démonomanie~~ des ~~Sorciers~~]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).		He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including [[Jean Bodin]] (1530–1596), author of ''[[De la démonomanie des sorciers]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).

	Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De praestigiis daemonum]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.		Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De praestigiis daemonum]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.

Occultwiki at 22:38, 8 March 2022

2022-03-08T22:38:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 8 March 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:

	==Controversy==		==Controversy==
	William Perkins sought to refute Scot, and was joined by the powerful James VI of Scotland in his ''[[~~Dæmonologie~~]]'' (1597), referring to the opinions of Scot as "damnable". John Rainolds in ''Censura Librorum Apocryphorum'' (1611), Richard Bernard in ''Guide to Grand Jurymen'' (1627), Joseph Glanvill in ''Philosophical Considerations touching Witches and Witchcraft'' (1666), and Meric Casaubon in ''Credulity and Uncredulity'' (1668) continued the attack on Scot's position.		William Perkins sought to refute Scot, and was joined by the powerful James VI of Scotland in his ''[[Daemonologie]]'' (1597), referring to the opinions of Scot as "damnable". John Rainolds in ''Censura Librorum Apocryphorum'' (1611), Richard Bernard in ''Guide to Grand Jurymen'' (1627), Joseph Glanvill in ''Philosophical Considerations touching Witches and Witchcraft'' (1666), and Meric Casaubon in ''Credulity and Uncredulity'' (1668) continued the attack on Scot's position.

	Scot found contemporary support in the influential Samuel Harsnet, and his views continued to be defended later by Thomas Ady Candle in the ''Dark: Or, A Treatise concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft'' (1656), and by John Webster in ''The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft'' (1677) and was known to typical lay sceptics such as Henry Oxinden.		Scot found contemporary support in the influential Samuel Harsnet, and his views continued to be defended later by Thomas Ady Candle in the ''Dark: Or, A Treatise concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft'' (1656), and by John Webster in ''The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft'' (1677) and was known to typical lay sceptics such as Henry Oxinden.

Occultwiki: /* Content */

2022-03-08T22:25:49Z

Content

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 8 March 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including [[Jean Bodin]] (1530–1596), author of ''[[De la Démonomanie des Sorciers]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).		He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including [[Jean Bodin]] (1530–1596), author of ''[[De la Démonomanie des Sorciers]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).

	Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De ~~Præstigiis Demonum~~]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.		Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De praestigiis daemonum]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.

	==Controversy==		==Controversy==

Occultwiki at 23:34, 5 March 2022

2022-03-05T23:34:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 5 March 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''''The Discoverie of Witchcraft'''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman [[Reginald Scot]] in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern [[witchcraft]]. It contains a small section intended to show how the public was fooled by charlatans, which is considered the first published material on illusionary or stage magic.		'''''The Discoverie of Witchcraft''''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman [[Reginald Scot]] in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern [[witchcraft]]. It contains a small section intended to show how the public was fooled by charlatans, which is considered the first published material on illusionary or stage magic.

	Popular belief held that all obtainable copies were burned on the accession of James I in 1603.		Popular belief held that all obtainable copies were burned on the accession of James I in 1603.

Occultwiki at 23:33, 5 March 2022

2022-03-05T23:33:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 5 March 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''The Discoverie of Witchcraft''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman [[Reginald Scot]] in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern [[witchcraft]]. It contains a small section intended to show how the public was fooled by charlatans, which is considered the first published material on illusionary or stage magic.		''''The Discoverie of Witchcraft'''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman [[Reginald Scot]] in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern [[witchcraft]]. It contains a small section intended to show how the public was fooled by charlatans, which is considered the first published material on illusionary or stage magic.

	Popular belief held that all obtainable copies were burned on the accession of James I in 1603.		Popular belief held that all obtainable copies were burned on the accession of James I in 1603.

Occultwiki: /* Content */

2022-03-05T23:33:25Z

Content

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 5 March 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Scot had studied superstitions respecting witchcraft in courts of law in country districts, where the prosecution of witches was unceasing, and in village life, where the belief in witchcraft flourished in many forms. Scot believed that the prosecution of those accused of witchcraft was irrational and not [[Christianity\|Christian]], and he held the Roman Church responsible.		Scot had studied superstitions respecting witchcraft in courts of law in country districts, where the prosecution of witches was unceasing, and in village life, where the belief in witchcraft flourished in many forms. Scot believed that the prosecution of those accused of witchcraft was irrational and not [[Christianity\|Christian]], and he held the Roman Church responsible.

	He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including Jean Bodin (1530–1596), author of ''[[Démonomanie des Sorciers]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).		He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including [[Jean Bodin]] (1530–1596), author of ''[[De la Démonomanie des Sorciers]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).

	Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De Præstigiis Demonum]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.		Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De Præstigiis Demonum]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.

Occultwiki: Created page with "'''The Discoverie of Witchcraft''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman Reginald Scot in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern witchcr..."

2022-03-05T23:28:24Z

Created page with "'''The Discoverie of Witchcraft''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman Reginald Scot in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern witchcr..."

New page

'''The Discoverie of Witchcraft''' is a partially sceptical book published by the English gentleman [[Reginald Scot]] in 1584, intended as an exposé of early modern [[witchcraft]]. It contains a small section intended to show how the public was fooled by charlatans, which is considered the first published material on illusionary or stage magic.

Popular belief held that all obtainable copies were burned on the accession of James I in 1603.

==Content==
Scot had studied superstitions respecting witchcraft in courts of law in country districts, where the prosecution of witches was unceasing, and in village life, where the belief in witchcraft flourished in many forms. Scot believed that the prosecution of those accused of witchcraft was irrational and not [[Christianity|Christian]], and he held the Roman Church responsible.

He set himself to prove that the belief in [[witchcraft]] and magic was rejected by reason and by religion and that spiritualistic manifestations were wilful impostures or illusions due to mental disturbance in the observers. His aim was to prevent the persecution of poor, aged, and simple persons, who were popularly credited with being [[witch]]es. The maintenance of the superstition he blamed largely on the Roman Catholic Church, and he attacked writers including Jean Bodin (1530–1596), author of ''[[Démonomanie des Sorciers]]'' (Paris, 1580), and Jacobus Sprenger, supposed joint author of ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]'' (Nuremberg, 1494).

Of [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] and [[Johann Weyer]], author of ''[[De Præstigiis Demonum]]'' (Basle, 1566), whose views he adopted, he spoke with respect. Scot did adopt contemporary superstition in his references to medicine and [[astrology]]. He believed in the medicinal value of the unicorn's horn, and thought that precious stones owed their origin to the influence of the heavenly bodies. The book also narrates stories of strange phenomena in the context of religious convictions. [[The Devil]] is related with such stories and his ability to absorb people's souls. The book also gives stories of magicians with supernatural powers performing in front of courts of kings.

==Controversy==
William Perkins sought to refute Scot, and was joined by the powerful James VI of Scotland in his ''[[Dæmonologie]]'' (1597), referring to the opinions of Scot as "damnable". John Rainolds in ''Censura Librorum Apocryphorum'' (1611), Richard Bernard in ''Guide to Grand Jurymen'' (1627), Joseph Glanvill in ''Philosophical Considerations touching Witches and Witchcraft'' (1666), and Meric Casaubon in ''Credulity and Uncredulity'' (1668) continued the attack on Scot's position.

Scot found contemporary support in the influential Samuel Harsnet, and his views continued to be defended later by Thomas Ady Candle in the ''Dark: Or, A Treatise concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft'' (1656), and by John Webster in ''The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft'' (1677) and was known to typical lay sceptics such as Henry Oxinden.

==Editions==
In 1651 the book was twice reissued in London in quarto by Richard Cotes; the two issues differ slightly in the imprint on the title page. Another reissue was dated 1654. A third edition in folio, dated 1665, included nine new chapters, and added a second book to "The Discourse on Devils and Spirits". The third edition was published with two imprints in 1665, one being the Turk Head edition, the scarcer variant was at the Golden-Ball.

In 1886 Brinsley Nicholson edited a reprint of the first edition of 1584, with the additions of that of 1665. This edition was limited to 250 copies of which the first 50 were numbered restricted editions with a slip of paper inserted by Elliot Stock at the beginning. The binding was also different.

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Witchcraft]]