The Discoverie of Witchcraft

The legal theory of witchcraft in Catholic Europe was airtight: It was a capital offense to be a witch, and it was also a capital offense to question whether witchcraft even existed. Had there been no Reformation, European Christians would still be burning witches, since the Roman church still believes in demonolatry. Reginald Scot's "Discoverie of Witchcraft" is one of the few prose books from Elizabethan England that still enjoys an actual readership in the 21st century. It remains well worth reading. Scot, a Kentish gentleman of wide reading, was able, in Anglican England, to attack witchcraft root and branch, and his attack is a mishmash of modern, evidence-based thinking, extreme religious bigotry, reporting from the field and medieval gullibility. In Book XIII, Scot comes close to a statement of experimental investigation: "In this art of natural magicke, God almightie hath hidden manie secret mysteries; as wherein a man may learne the properties, qualities and knowledge of all nature. For it teaches to accomplish maters in such sort and opportunitie, as the common people thinketh the same to be miraculous." This is not far from Arthur Clarke's observation that, to the uninitiated, any sufficiently advanced technology must seem miraculous. Yet on the same page, Scot falls for the classical fable about the remora, the sucking fish that could halt the progress of the largest ship. Scot was not a modern man. Throughout, he considers Holy Scripture the strongest authority, and his argument that so-called witches (and their devils) cannot perform miracles relies on nothing more than an assertion -- not countenanced in scripture -- that the age of miracles was shut down by God's power in apostolic times. This is grasping at straws. However, although he got to his conclusions by reasoning that was far from airtight, he got to the right place. He advises his readers to skip eight books "of bawdie," which of course are some of the most interesting that he penned. He knew conjuring tricks and gave away some of the tricksters' secrets, but not all. It appears he did not understand some of the stunts he had seen, since he often has to fall back on a formula that the last step of the conjuration "is easy to be doone," without saying how. It is interesting to see how much effort he has to give to either debunking the ancient poets who trusted witchcraft, or building up the skeptics. The weight given to the poets, to us, seems contradictory considering the primacy he has already given to scripture. It is not possible to tell whether he understood the contradiction. I think not, but it is possible that he was making a lawyer's brief and felt obliged to take note of evidence that others might find persuasive, even if he didn't. However, I think he was medieval enough that he had not really shaken off the shackles of scholasticism. In the histories of ideas, Francis Bacon, who wrote more than a generation later, gets the credit for stating the mo

Even though this book was made as an effort to disprove witchcraft it still holds genuine information on how magic was practiced in the 1500's. For the grimoire magician it is actually a small treasure. Even if that part only takes up a very small portion of the book it reveals such things as protective circles not seen anywhere else. It describes a very early version of the Goetia for example and suggest that the lion skin girdle could also be made in Harts skin. That is buck skin for those of you that did not know that. Might not sound all that exiting for most people but for a grimoire magician that is a real find. It offers much in the way of those sort of things and also gives us an idea how people actually worked the material in England at that period of time. As a book to disprove witchcraft I do not consider it that good but to show on how magic was practiced it is a great resource.

This is the reprint of the Montague Summers edition of Reginald Scot's "Discoverie of Witchcraft". Scot's treatise was first published in 1584, just at the height of the European witchcraze, and was one of the few published works that argued vehemently against the belief in witches and demons. Scot argued that a belief in witches was fallacy and ran counter to the classical Christian view as given in the Canon Episcopi that stated that belief in witches and demonic magic was a delusion and that witches were not working in league with the Devil but were rather deluded persons who needed guidance in the ways of religion rather than death and torture. Scot goes on at length to discuss the illusion of supposed witchcraft and magic and that God alone, not Devils or witches, controls the elements and that he alone dictates the fate of men. Scot, like his contemporary Johann Weyer, was met with hostility from the learned demonologists and theologians of the day. His work was condemned and ordered burned by King James I of England. Rather than being hailed as a rational and sensible humanist thinker for his valiant atttempt to stem the tide of the burnings of human beings, Scot was accused by some as promoting the heresy of Sadducism (a disbelief in spirits) while others dismissed his arguments and beliefs as being thinly veiled atheism and argued that witches were in fact real and dangerous and that the bonfires of witches must continue. The credulous and eccentric Montague Summers himself argues this viewpoint in his shamelful introduction. Summers even stoops so low as to essentialy accuse Scot and Weyer of Satanism! Nonetheless, Scot's work gave hope that some in the 16th century were not overcome with belief in witches and demonic pacts and was skeptical of the popular fears that devils and demons were lurking around every corner, waiting to inflict evil and death on the unsuspecting populace. Unfortunately, it would be another 200 years before the murderous pyres of the witchhunters were finally snuffed out.

this excellent book got 4 stars from me only because it is a slightly incomplete edition (1930 Rodker ) which omits the final sections on spirits and "divells" as not being compatible with Scot`s outlook. the publishers would have done better to omit the introduction by Montague Summers, a nasty and spiteful piece of nonsense, only worth reading for the biographical info on Scot. Scot`s 16th century language is great to read, but it doesn`t get in the way of his message. Scot is a more modern man than a lot of "thinkers" alive today. His book should be read by anyone even remotely interested in witchcraft, occultism etc. A humane and rational man, he puts a lot of things in perspective. Reginald Scot was nobody`s fool.

This is a classic expose dating back to 1584. Thanks to the author many named witches were spared from being burned at the stake! The author reveals the secrets of so-called witches and explains their supernatural powers as being nothing more than conjuring tricks. If you like magic, or reading about the history of magic then this book is a must have. -Diamond Jim Tyler