4,019
edits
Difference between revisions of "The Discoverie of Witchcraft"
The Discoverie of Witchcraft (view source)
Revision as of 22:38, 14 March 2022
, 22:38, 14 March 2022no edit summary
Occultwiki (talk | contribs) |
Occultwiki (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 | 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. | ||
==Controversy== | ==Controversy== | ||
William Perkins sought to refute Scot, and was joined by the powerful James VI of Scotland in his ''[[ | 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. | ||