Witchcraft Is a Rife and Common Sinne in These Our Daies’

‘Witchcraft is a rife and common sinne in these our daies’:

The Powers of Witches in English Demonologies, 1580-1620

Elizabeth Carlson

An increasing concern over the criminality of witchcraft and the persecution of accused witches marked the early modern period of European history between 1450 and 1750. Scholars, both past and present, have been intrigued about this period during which witchcraft was defined as a secular crime and convicted witches were executed.1 Early modern people were beset by concerns about political, religious, social, and economic disorder that stimulated their fears and anxieties to create a situation that I term a “climate of fear.”2 This article examines English demonologies authored by Reginald Scot, William Perkins, George Gifford, and Alexander

Roberts during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to identify both how a pervasive climate of fear helped shape early modern witchcraft beliefs and how demonological treatises contributed to the ongoing early modern dialogue about the connections between witchcraft and fear.3 I contend that a detailed textual analysis of these works displays the complexity of early

1 Modern scholars have coined a number of terms for this time period, including the witch “craze” and the “Burning Times,” reflecting a certain modern perception of the early modern world as superstitious, backward, ignorant, and intolerant, traits revealed in part by the execution of individuals found guilty of witchcraft. For an historiographical overview, see James Sharpe, Witchcraft in Early Modern England (Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2001), “Introduction.”

2 For a further examination of the influence of this climate of fear on how early modern people in England explained their world, especially in terms of the impact of supernatural powers on events, see Elizabeth Carlson, “Studying the „Damned Art‟: Elite Demonologists and the Construction of Witchcraft in England, 1580-1620” (M.A. thesis, Western Illinois University, 2010).

3 Demonologists authored demonologies, tracts concerning beliefs about demons (including the Devil) and human agents of evil such as witches. Reginald Scot (1538-1599), published his Discoverie of Witchcraft without a license 23 modern witchcraft beliefs, as significant divergences among these authors‟ arguments demonstrate that it is impossible to identify a single, “typical” English demonology, or to conclude that “elite” ideas about early modern witchcraft were homogeneous and hegemonic.4

English demonologists did not begin writing on the subject of witchcraft until the second half of the sixteenth century, by which time witchcraft had been established as a criminal act in

England. The most significant statute to define witchcraft as a crime passed in 1563 during the reign of Elizabeth I.5 Another witchcraft statute passed in 1604 under James I added to the acts of witchcraft classified as a capital felony in the Elizabethan statute. Most witchcraft cases were tried in the state‟s assize circuit courts, held twice a year.6 At the assizes, juries presided over by professional judges with legal training, themselves elites with divergent opinions regarding witchcraft, evaluated the evidence presented and determined the guilt or innocence of the accused.7 England, the geographic focus of this article, experienced a relatively small number of

in 1584. William Perkins‟s (1558-1602) A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, So Farre Forth as it is Revealed in the Scriptures, and Manifest by True Experience was published posthumously in 1608. George Gifford (1547/8-1600) published two treatises on witchcraft: A Discourse of the Subtill Practises of Devilles by Witches and Sorcerers (1587) and A Dialogue Concerning Witches and Witchcraftes (1593). Alexander Roberts (d. 1620) published his Treatise of Witchcraft in 1616. For additional biographical and textual information, see the discussion below. I selected these four authors because they produced early English demonological treatises that were easily accessible in modern editions and (except for Roberts‟s text) published in multiple early modern editions.

4 Based on an examination of trial records, modern historian Robin Briggs observes similarly that “there is no such thing as a „typical‟ witchcraft case.” Robin Briggs, “„Many Reasons Why‟: Witchcraft and the Problem of Multiple Explanation,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, ed. Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 54. However, few scholars have addressed the divergent opinions among elite demonologists.

5 The first statute outlawing witchcraft passed in 1542 during the reign of Henry VIII, but this unenforced statute was repealed in 1547 under Edward VI. Sharpe, Witchcraft, 15-16.

6 England was divided into six assize circuit courts, and two judges traveled around these circuits twice a year, once in summer and once in winter. See James Sharpe, Crime in Early Modern England, 1550-1750 (London: Longman, 1999), 32-33. Ecclesiastical courts could also try cases of witchcraft, particularly when they were related to litigation concerning defamatory speech. England‟s central justice system differed from other regions of Europe where trials were conducted by local authorities and local prejudices often influenced the outcomes.

7 Evidence in witchcraft trials typically consisted of testimony from witnesses and the accused. Judicial officials did not subject accused witches to torture as part of the questioning process in early modern England, a policy separating England from many continental states in terms of judicial practice. 24 executions for witchcraft, perhaps linked to the lack of consensus concerning witchcraft beliefs among elites.8

According to scholars who have investigated primary sources such as trial documents and popular literature, early modern people, including elite demonologists, believed that witchcraft could be manifested in a variety of ways. One of these manifestations involved a witch perpetrating acts of maleficia, or harmful magic.9 A witch might also consort with evil spirits by making a pact with the Devil or keeping a familiar, an evil spirit thought to do a witch‟s bidding in return for sucking her blood. 10 Another manifestation of witchcraft could be engaging in beneficent magic, or magical acts not harmful in nature. 11 Using supernatural powers to find lost or stolen goods and curing maleficia served as examples of this type of magic.

In this article I have turned to an alternative set of primary sources, demonologies, because such texts provide a broader sense of the conceptual framework within which early

8 The current scholarly consensus estimates that about 40,000 people were executed for witchcraft between about 1450 and 1750 throughout Europe. Sharpe, Witchcraft, 6. Sharpe notes that some commentators on witchcraft have placed the number of witches as high as nine million. Recent scholarship has re-evaluated this count based upon an increased survey of archival materials and more careful calculations based upon extant records which take the limitations of available source material into account. England experienced only one large-scale witch hunt during the turmoil of the English Civil War. See James Sharpe, “The Devil in East Anglia: The Matthew Hopkins Trials Reconsidered,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, ed. Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 237-54.

9 Another manifestation claimed that a witch participated in a sabbat, a nocturnal gathering of witches. Descriptions of sabbats are rare in English trial records and pamphlets, but more common in Scotland and some areas of continental Europe.

10 The belief that a familiar spirit sucked a witch‟s blood prompted judicial officials to search a suspected witch‟s body for the witch‟s mark, an unnatural protuberance or teat from which the familiar was thought to suckle. Familiars are largely considered to be particular to England. For a discussion of familiar spirits in Germany, see Edward Bever, The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition, and Everyday Life (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); for a discussion of familiar spirits in England, see Emma Wilby, “The Witch‟s Familiar and the Fairy in Early Modern England and Scotland,” Folklore 11, no. 2 (October 2000). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1260607 (accessed October 8, 2008); and Emma Wilby, Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits: Shamanistic Visionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft and Magic (Brighton, England: Sussex Academic Press, 2005).

11 This type of magic can also be referred to cunning magic. See James Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness: Witchcraft in Early Modern England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 66-70. For an example of a prestigious cunning man, see Peter J. French, John Dee: the World of an Elizabethan Magus (London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1972). 25 modern people understood witchcraft. In contrast to the descriptive works discussed above, demonological texts authored by literate elites are prescriptive pieces, focusing largely on the theory rather than the practice of witchcraft. Such prescriptive materials formed an important part of the intellectual milieu of early modern England. Since witchcraft beliefs, as they appear in descriptive (and often polemical) texts such as trial testimony and pamphlets, were an amalgamation of elite and popular beliefs, a study of elite beliefs as articulated in demonological treatises is a pivotal means of understanding the legal, religious, and cultural frameworks of early modern ideas about witchcraft. As Peter Elmer notes, “A close reading of the ideological significance of witchcraft in early modern thought” is necessary to contextualize witchcraft persecution, and demonological texts contribute to an understanding of this ideological significance.12 The writings of the English demonologists considered within this article form part of this corpus of elite beliefs since William Perkins, George Gifford, and Alexander Roberts were clergymen and theologians while Reginald Scot was an educated country gentleman.

Among the issues which formed a part of the underlying framework concerning witchcraft was how early modern people, including elite demonologists, understood the operation of supernatural power. English demonologists grappled in their texts with questions concerning the source of witches‟ powers and the extent of their abilities to cause injury.13

12 Peter Elmer, “Towards a Politics of Witchcraft in Early Modern England,” in Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, ed. Stuart Clark (New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 2001), 103.

13 Current scholarship demonstrates that early modern people understood supernatural power in a manner that is foreign to modern mentalities, including supernatural interventions in everyday life, some of which centered on religious spirits, such as angels and demons, and others of which involved spirits such as fairies and imps, who had the power to shape daily events and interact with humans. This belief in these daily interactions prompted the practice of leaving gifts to encourage these spirits to be friendly rather than malicious. See Diane Purkiss, At the Bottom of the Garden: A Dark History of Fairies, Hobgoblins, and Other Troublesome Things (New York: New York University Press, 2000) 132. See also, for example, Emma Wilby, Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirit; Gary K. Waite, Heresy, Magic, and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Carlo Ginzburg, The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, trans. John and Anne Tedeschi (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). 26

Scholars contend that the main issue in understanding early modern witchcraft accusations and beliefs is not the factual reality of witchcraft, but people‟s perceptions about its reality. Thus, if one seeks to understand the early modern witchcraft phenomenon, one must start by figuring out why early moderns, including demonologists from the educated elite, believed magical acts affected the world around them. For these reasons, this article considers three interrelated issues that received detailed treatment by English demonologists Scot, Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts in their texts on witchcraft: the ability of individuals to draw on supernatural power to do harm, the types of magical acts committed using this power, and the pact with the Devil as the source of this power.14

One potential explanation for the early modern belief that witches could practice harmful magic posits that belief in supernatural activity allowed people to explain events that were otherwise incomprehensible.15 This interpretation finds support from the writings of Scot,

Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts. Despite disagreeing on the extent of supernatural powers able to be exerted by a witch, Scot and Gifford both maintained that people used witches as scapegoats to escape their own sense of guilt for unfortunate occurrences.16 Perkins noted that people‟s curiosity to know more about the secret workings of the world led them to seek answers from the

14 Thus an examination of other points of convergence and divergence in these demonologies, including issues concerning gender, politics, and authority is outside the scope of this article. For an examination of these topics, see Carlson, “Studying the „Damned Art.‟”

15 A broad overview of this topic is provided in Sharpe, Witchcraft, 45.

16 On the scapegoating of witches, see Reginald Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, ed. Brinsley Nicholson (1584; repr., Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1973), 1-3, 5-7; George Gifford, Discourse of the Subtill Practises of the Devilles by Witches and Sorcerers (London: Toby Cooke, 1587), under “Page 5,” http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=witch;idno=wit052 (accessed June 20, 2009); and George Gifford, A Dialogue Concerning Witches and Witchcraftes, Shakespeare Association Facsimiles, 1 (1593, repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), D3 v; An overview of the notion of scapegoating is explored by Brian Levack, The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe (Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman, 2006), 154-59. 27

Devil.17 Roberts‟s text indicates the acceptance of witchcraft as an explanation for otherwise inexplicable events, notably mysterious illnesses and suspicious or unexpected deaths.18

Another explanation offered by scholars for early modern beliefs in witchcraft stemmed from general, widespread fears concerning social, cultural, religious, economic, political, and even environmental disorder. This idea is linked, in part, to the inexplicability of the processes of the natural world in the pre-modern past. Martin Ingram notes that uncertainty surrounding the causes of events (particularly illnesses and death) led to “persistent, perhaps powerful, undercurrents of fears and beliefs about witchcraft.”19 Likewise, Stuart Clark highlights the need for scholars to attend to these fears, noting that witchcraft prosecutions “become intelligible as soon as we pay attention to the ordinary fears and anxieties, and ordinary beliefs and prejudices, expressed by people in everyday situations.”20 Thus ordinary fears about such issues as disease, economic crisis, and interpersonal tensions provided the groundwork for a belief in the existence of witchcraft. When combined with the belief in the presence of capricious supernatural spirits, these fears help explain how early modern people came to believe that malevolent neighbors could access magical power to cause them harm.21

17 William Perkins, A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, So Farre Forth as it is Revealed in the Scriptures, and Manifest by True Experience (Cambridge: Cantrell Legge, 1608), under “Page 10-11,” http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=witch;idno=wit075 (accessed October 13, 2008).

18 Alexander Roberts, A Treatise of Witchcraft (London: N. O. for Samuel Man, 1616), under “Page 23-24” and “Page 55-59,” http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=witch;idno=wit171 (accessed June 20, 2009).

19 Martin Ingram, “From Reformation to Toleration: Popular Religious Cultures in England, 1540-1690,” in Popular Culture in England, c.1500-1850, ed. Tim Harris (New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1995), 106.

20 Stuart Clark, introduction, in Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture (New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 2001), 2.

21 Emma Wilby notes that witches‟ familiars and fairies could engage in both good and evil acts: “The majority of fairies … were considered to be morally ambivalent, capable of both virtue and evil in varying proportions.” Emma Wilby, “The Witch‟s Familiar and the Fairy,” 297-98; Lauren Kassell asserts that supernatural beings widely categorized as fairies came in different types: “Wild ones lived in the woods and occasionally harmed (blasted) people who came across them, and could be enticed into performing magic or sharing their secrets. Domestic fairies were less powerful and less harmful, and punished people who did not keep their houses tidy and servants who 28

A study of early modern published literature on the subject of witchcraft indicates that elites, too, felt the effects of a pervasive climate of fear. In their evaluation of the ability of individuals to access supernatural power, the acts of harmful magic they committed, and their pact with the Devil, the four English demonologists examined here responded to underlying concerns and uncertainty that centered less on explaining misfortunes and more on articulating abstract ideas about God and the Devil. Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts, emphasized the power of the Devil to tempt and corrupt people and used their texts to urge others to guard against falling prey to the Devil. In his treatise on witchcraft, Reginald Scot, attempted to combat the fear of witchcraft encouraged by the theologians to convince people that belief in witches attributed divine power to a purported witch, a circumstance that angered God.

Commentary on the nature of God and the Devil thus formed a central component of these authors‟ works. Each author devoted considerable energy to an explication of the exact nature of the relationships among God, the Devil, and humans, perhaps because they perceived a gap in the official teachings of the Church concerning such relationships. Establishing the official theology of the Church of England during the English Reformation constituted a lengthy process spanning the reigns of multiple monarchs, and because of this, English theologians

(especially adherents to various expressions of Protestantism) attempted to augment and influence religious policy throughout the long English Reformation. A survey of the seminal literature of the Elizabethan Church reveals no clear statement about witches or witchcraft. The

Book of Common Prayer (1559) included a number of prayers for a variety of sinners and exhortations against a variety of sins (adultery, drunkenness, and disobedience) without

neglected their chores.” Lauren Kassell, “„All was this land full fill‟d of faerie,‟ or Magic and the Past in Early Modern England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 67, no. 1 (January 2006): 118, http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.wiu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v067/67.1kassell.pdf (accessed October 8, 2008). See also Purkiss, At the Bottom of the Garden, 116-57. 29 mentioning harmful magic.22 The Thirty-Nine Articles (1562) emphasized the importance of homilies or sermon stories in teaching people faith. 23 However, the Elizabethan Homilies (1623) included only one mention of witchcraft, in the Homily “Against Whoredom and Adultery”:

“And S. Iohn in his Reuelation saith, That whoremongers shall haue their part with murderers, sorcerers, enchaunters, lyers, idolaters, and such other, in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”24 The lack of a Homily dedicated to the sin of witchcraft probably alarmed preachers like Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts, whose works focus on the danger that witches posed to the state, religion, and society. Thus, their treatises on witchcraft sought to compensate for this omission from official doctrine.25

Reginald Scot‟s treatise demonstrates that an interest in theology was not confined to

22 The Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth, 1559 (1559, repr., London: Griffith Farran Okeden & Welsh, 1890), http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/BCP_1559.htm (accessed May 27, 2010).

23 The Victorian Web, “The 39 Articles of Religion,” The Victorian Web, http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html (accessed May 27, 2010).

24 “Homily Against Whoredom and Adultery,” Renaissance Electronic Texts 1.2, ed. Ian Lancashire (1623, repr., Toronto: University of Toronto, 1997): lines 441-444, http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/homilies/bk2hom21.html (accessed May 27, 2010). The Elizabethan Homilies were sermons and prayers to be read during divine service as a means of providing theological instruction to parishioners as well as imparting a broader sense of morality designed to ensure social and political order. The Homilies were published as two separate books by 1571, but the first edition combining the two books with the complete Homilies was published in 1623 during the reign of James I. All references to the Homilies in this article come from the 1623 edition.

25 Both William Perkins and George Gifford wrote extensively on a variety of theological issues and witchcraft treatises formed a part of their broader attempts to establish a comprehensive articulation of religious doctrine. In addition to witchcraft, Perkins‟s approximately three dozen texts included works on scriptural exegesis (explaining biblical passages), conscience, the Christian family, and how to live and die well. These works expressed his interest in promoting the role of ministers in shaping the faith of their (ignorant) flocks, the common folk. Donald Wing, Short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America, and of English books printed in other countries, 1641-1700, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945-51), s.v., “Perkins, William.” Hereafter, the citations to this text will follow scholarly convention and refer to Wing‟s collection as the STC. Gifford also demonstrated his concern with ministering to common people as his approximately twenty printed texts covered issues such as scriptural exegesis, heretics and papists, providence, and, of course, witchcraft. The choice to write both a learned treatise on witchcraft (his Discourse) and a work that would be accessible to a larger number of people (his Dialogue) suggests that he sought to influence both elites and ordinary people. STC, s.v., “Gifford, George.” Alexander Roberts‟s sole publication was his treatise on witchcraft, so it is difficult to access his broader theological positions and concerns or to analyze how his ideas about witchcraft fit into his understandings of sin and temptation. STC, s.v., “Roberts, Alexander.” 30 theologians. Scot‟s treatment of witchcraft rested on a decidedly unorthodox interpretation of the relationships among God, the Devil, and humans, since he forcefully denied the reality of early modern witchcraft, a position underpinned by his assertion that spirits could not assume corporeal forms or operate in the human world. This interpretation stood in direct contrast to the beliefs of most theologians that Devil and other spirits not only assumed physical forms but also intervened directly in people‟s lives. Thus the concerns evident in Scot‟s work differed from the concerns of Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts, who did subscribe to the belief that witchcraft was real. The first two grounded witchcraft within their broader religious beliefs in the attempt to create a comprehensive doctrine to prevent misinterpretations that could threaten religious authority and conformity. All four authors did, however, caution against assigning too much power to a human witch and sought to defend a proper distribution of authority and power, though they disagreed upon the exact nature of this distribution. Scot rejected the attribution of power to the Devil and spirits because he felt it risked denigrating God‟s power, while the three theologians sought to emphasize the power of the Devil to work through witches, although acknowledging that the Devil‟s authority was granted by God. A more detailed exploration of the divergences within these works concerning the allocation of power among God, the Devil, and human beings, as discussed below, provides support for the argument that no single “typical” demonology existed in early modern England.

Possessing Supernatural Powers

Modern scholars have devoted considerable attention to the question of early modern witches‟ purported powers and their alleged relationship with the Devil as the source of those powers, as did their early modern predecessors. Deborah Willis argues that elite demonologists in early modern England sought to shape popular beliefs by establishing a new link between 31 witch and Devil.26 She contends that popular witchcraft beliefs held that witches sent out fearsome spirits, similar to imps and fairies, to do their bidding and in return mothered them, providing food and shelter. According to Willis, however, elite demonologists like Perkins and

Gifford stripped the witch of her power over these spirits by linking such familiar spirits to the

Devil. This arrangement altered the traditional popular understanding of authority involving practitioners of magic by asserting that the Devil commanded the witch to do his bidding.27

In his Discoverie of Witchcraft, Reginald Scot denied that witches performed works of wonder attributed to them by both common folk and learned writers.28 Only God‟s power (not a witch‟s or the Devil‟s) produced supernatural acts. Scot argued that contemporary witches could only practice cozening arts, which were essentially magic tricks. According to Scot, witchcraft beliefs usurped God‟s power and granted it to the witch. He worried about the ramifications of this usurpation, specifically, that through belief in witchcraft, “the name of God is abused, prophaned [sic] and blasphemed, and his power attributed to a vile creature.”29 This conclusion

26 Deborah Willis, Malevolent Nurture: Witch-hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), chap. 3. Willis also asserts that accusations of witchcraft among common people stemmed from concerns surrounding childbearing and childrearing. Accused witches were often suspected of harming children by causing their illness or death, providing poor care when called upon to be caregivers, and usurping the rightful place of a natural mother within the household. Thus, the most fearful characteristics and behaviors of witches recorded in trial documents and pamphlets exemplify those of a bad mother. Willis suggests that English demonologists, especially Perkins and Gifford, transformed the witch from a corrupted mother into a corrupted servant of the Devil. See Willis, Malevolent Nurture, chap. 3.

27 Edward Bever posits that a person with a reputation as a witch could actually inflict damage upon his or her neighbors through malicious words and intent, prompting the victim to suffer from psychosomatic disorders. Bever notes the impact that curses could have on an individual who believes in the power contained within such words. He asserts that purported witches wielded real psychological power against their victims. Edward Bever, The Realities of Witchcraft, passim.

28 Scot extended the arguments that a witch has supernatural power to what he perceived as its logical conclusion: “If either preests, divels, or witches could so doo, the divine power should be checked and outfaced by magicall cunning, and Gods creatures made servile to a witches pleasure.” Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 176. He also accused witchcraft believers of similar crimes to those imputed to witches: “He that attributeth to a witch, such divine power, as dulie and onelie apperteineth unto God (which all witchmongers doo) is in hart a blasphemer, an idolater, and full of grosse impietie.” Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 9.

29 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 397. Quotations employed from the five demonologies considered in this article will maintain early modern spelling and punctuation. 32 seemed obvious to Scot since “all wisemen understand that witches miraculous enterprises, being contrarie to nature, … are void of truth or possibilitie,” and “all Christians see, that to confesse witches can doo as they saie, were to attribute to a creature the power of the Creator.”30 Those who did so incurred God‟s wrath, since acts of witchcraft, like miracles, belonged to an earlier time in history. In other words, Scot believed that those identified as witches in early modern

England were not the same as the ancient witches whose activities were recorded in the holy books describing the early Christian tradition.31 Past instances of witchcraft and miracles had been permitted by God in order to strengthen the foundations of Christian faith and therefore were no longer necessary, since the faith had become well-established.

Scot maintained that suffering and hardship served as punishment and trials sent from

God, and attributing such acts to witches thus denied God this ability to correct people. When misfortunes occurred, either someone was at fault, or the afflicted had incurred God‟s wrath. For

Scot, there were no real alternative explanations.32 As he demonstrated in his work, however, people preferred to explain their misfortunes as the actions of witches as a means to escape their own sense of guilt and responsibility. Essentially, Scot argued that witchcraft provided people with a way to alleviate their fears that their own actions and decisions caused hardship. He declared, “The fables of Witchcraft have taken so fast hold … in the heart of man, that fewe … can (nowadaies) with patience indure the hand and correction of God. For if any adversitie …

30 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 407.

31 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 121-22. Scot used the Biblical witch of Endor as an example of an ancient witch whom God allowed to use witchcraft to strengthen people‟s faith. He also cited apparitions of angels and Christ‟s miracles as uses of supernatural power with the same purpose. Scot emphasized that all of these acts were no longer possible.

32 Sharpe, Witchcraft, 45. 33 happen unto them … they exclaime uppon witches.”33 Belief in witchcraft thus supported an abdication of responsibility and a rejection of God‟s will. This dangerous belief was encouraged by some ministers who “affirme that they have had in their parish … witches…. Whereby they manifested as well their infidelitie and ignorance, in conceiving God‟s word; as their negligence and error in instructing their flocks.”34 Thus Scot implicated clergymen like Perkins, Gifford, and

Roberts in adding to the dangers of witchcraft by propagating a climate of fear that allowed for the abdication of personal responsibility.

While Scot rejected other writers‟ claims about the power of witchcraft, he offered his own explanation for the acts apparently committed by witches. Witches could only create illusions through “the nimble conveiance of the hand.”35 This exposure of so-called juggling provided the heart of the discovery proclaimed in his title: Discoverie of Witchcraft; he explained such tricks and exposed the props used to create such illusions. Thus Scot insisted that witches could cleverly use natural powers to befuddle observers, who then might misinterpret such acts as magic. According to Scot, true supernatural power could only be used by God. Jugglers pretended to possess powers they could not have if they claimed to be using magic to perform their tricks. Scot did not condemn the use of such cozening tricks, rather the pretensions of those who claimed magical abilities. He condemned those who pretended to engage in magical acts because they encouraged misinterpretations of divine power by others.

In contrast to Scot, William Perkins accepted that witches possessed supernatural powers.

Perkins argued that witches accomplished their works of wonder with the help of the Devil, since

33 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 1. This assertion perhaps offers the greatest evidence for Scot‟s skepticism as he chided people for taking the easy way out of personal responsibility.

34 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 3.

35 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 263. 34 such magical acts could not be accomplished by a human witch alone. Perkins acknowledged,

“Witchcraft is a rife and common sinne in these our daies, and very many are intangled with it, beeing either practitioners thereof in their owne persons, or at the least, yeelding to seeke for helpe and counsell of such as practise it.”36 Perkins defended this position against those, like

Scot, who argued that witchcraft was not a genuine threat. He asserted that “there be sundry men who receive it for a truth, that Witchcraft is nothing else but a meere illusion, and … this opinion takes place not onely with the ignorant, but is holden and maintained by such as are learned … that there be no Witches.”37 For Perkins, the denial of witchcraft increased the likelihood of being deluded by the Devil, the figure at the core of the practice of witchcraft. Indeed, witchcraft required both the Devil‟s aid and God‟s permission: “Witchcraft is a wicked Art, serving for the working of wonders, by the assistance of the Devil, so farre forth as God shall … permit.”38

Witches entered into a bargain with the Devil whereby they obtained the power to commit acts of witchcraft.

Perkins contended that witchcraft thrived among people susceptible to the Devil‟s temptations. The Devil preyed on people‟s discontent to convince them to engage in witchcraft.

Perkins attributed two main causes of witchcraft to original sin.39 He asserted that the first sin of man was not a singular event, rather it “contained in it the breach of every Commandment of the

Morall Law.”40 Satan sought especially to encourage the sin of discontentment in man, and “this

36 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 9.” Perkins‟s style of capitalizing the words “Witchcraft” and “Witch” throughout his treatise will be maintained in the quotations in this article.

37 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 9.” This may be a veiled reference to Scot.

38 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 9.”

39 Perkins‟s association of witchcraft and original sin suggests a connection between witchcraft and the fall of Eve, and thus women.

40 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 10.” 35 sinne ... continually is derived from them to all their posterities, and now is become so common

... that there is scarce a man to bee found, who is not originally tainted therewith as he is a man.”41 This sin manifested itself firstly “in mans [sic] outward estate,” especially when a person„s impoverished material condition conflicted with his “love of himselfe, and an high conceit of his own deserving.”42 The Devil exploited this attitude to convince a person to “bee his vassal … in this wicked art, supposing that … he may be able in time to relieve his povertie.”43 The second reason that people turned to the practice of witchcraft was “in the minde and inward man; and that is curiositie.”44 Perkins asserted that men desired to know more about the world around them than they were capable of knowing. The wonders practiced by witches offered the possibility to extend knowledge through supernatural means.

George Gifford cautiously balanced the ideas espoused by both Perkins and Scot. He asserted both that people incorrectly “believed that witches could do great wonders, ascribing such power unto devils as belongeth onely to God” and that “all witchcraft … is no more but either mere cosenage, or poisoning: so that in the opinion of these men, the devill hath never done, nor can do any thing by witches and sorcerers.”45 For Gifford, the temptations of the Devil ensnared people, especially witches. He observed that “many through ignorance … are greatly overreached by Satan, and so entangled and snared with errors that they fal into very foule and horrible sinnes.”46 Gifford, like Perkins, feared the Devil‟s power as the primary force driving

41 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 10.”

42 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 10.”

43 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 10.”

44 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 11.”

45 Gifford, Discourse, under “Page 5.”

46 Gifford, Discourse, under “Page 5.” 36 witchcraft. The Devil could make witches (and others) believe that they committed magical acts, but this was just deceit. Gifford emphasized that God permitted the Devil to work through witches to punish wicked people. Therefore, witches were “instrumentes of Gods [sic] vengance, and executioners of his wrath.”47 He reiterated this point in his Dialogue: “God is provoked by their sinnes to give the devil such instruments to work withal, but [they] rage against the witche, even as if she could do all.”48 Here Gifford echoed Scot‟s argument that people used witchcraft as a means to shift responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Alexander Roberts also emphasized the reality of witchcraft. According to Roberts, people like Scot “perswade themselues, and would induce others to be of the same minde, that there be no Witches at all,” and believed instead that supposed witches were “melancholique, aged, and ignorant Women, deluded in their imagination.”49 Roberts, like Perkins and Gifford, stressed the importance of the Devil in witchcraft, and Roberts also argued that the Devil needed

God‟s permission to operate. Roberts asserted that “God giueth, both the diuell, and his seruants the witches, power sometimes to trouble his owne children.”50 This permission from God was an important component of witchcraft for both Perkins and Roberts because it prevented unorthodox attacks on God‟s power and religious authority that could surface through a consideration of witchcraft.

Theologians feared arguments such as Scot‟s would lead people astray, especially in the absence of any official statement by the Church of England on the dangers of witches. Scot‟s insistence that belief in witches‟ ability to commit supernatural acts usurped God‟s power

47 Gifford, Discourse, under “Page 22.”

48 Gifford, Dialogue, D3 v.

49 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 11.”

50 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 42.” 37 frightened the theologians, who believed Scot‟s ideas undermined the authority of religious leaders and God himself. For these clergymen, the greatest danger posed by witchcraft was that people would misinterpret the actions of witches, thereby turning away from God. Scot sought to counteract the fear of witchcraft, while the other three writers warned people against the grave consequences of rejecting its existence, demonstrating a major difference in the concerns underlying their works. This significant divergence among the four authors supports the notion that demonologies, which are often considered to represent elite opinions (and therefore often juxtaposed collectively against popular opinions), are as complex and varied as individual witch trials. No consensus existed among learned writers about the existence of witchcraft.51

Working Magic through the Devil’s Power

After establishing whether or not a person could access supernatural powers, each demonologist considered both the source of those powers and the types of acts that could or could not be committed using them. Magical acts constituted any action that required the use of power beyond the bounds of nature. For the most part, these four demonologists focused on potential acts of maleficia, or harmful magic. Scot maintained that magical acts could not be committed by a witch. In general, the three theologians, Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts, agreed that such harmful magic could be practiced after a purported witch made a pact with the Devil, although they differed regarding the amount of power a witch could possess directly.

Reginald Scot denied the possibility that individuals could actually commit acts of magic including the ability to uncover “things hidden and lost, and foreshew / things to come,” “raise halie, tempests, and hurtfull weather,” “make a woman miscarrie in childbirth,” or even “with

51 For more on the intellectual discourse among English demonologists, see Ian Bostridge, Witchcraft and its Transformations, c.1650-c.1750 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 139-54; Stuart Clark, Thinking With Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 195-213; Sharpe, Witchcraft, 77-82. 38 their looks kill either man or beast.”52 Scot rejected the notion that supposed witches could engage in such magical acts following an agreement with the Devil, concluding that ordinary people wrongly believed that witches could use magic to afflict those around them. He asserted that “such maner of witchcrafts” were “false and fabulous” because “if all the witches in

England [were] burnt or hanged; I warrant you we should not faile to have raine, haile, and tempests, as now we have.”53 Despite the falsity of witches‟ acts, those who were thought to practice magic contributed to a false understanding of God‟s power. In Scot‟s view, “The illusions of witches … are offensive to the majestie … of God.”54 When witches either claimed to or were believed to possess supernatural powers, they infringed upon God‟s power. Scot feared that such claims of witchcraft encouraged people to misapply God‟s power to a human being, the purported witch. Thus, even untrue claims of witchcraft‟s efficacy detracted from a proper understanding of the nature of the divine.

Another misunderstanding feared by Scot concerned the supposed source of a witch‟s power: a bargain made with the Devil. Unlike the three theologians, Scot denied the possibility of such an agreement. Scot asserted that “in estimation of the vulgar people, it [the pact] is … contrived betweene a corporall old woman, and a spirituall devil,” although “there can be no

52 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 7. Scot also noted that witches were thought to “devoure and eate yong children and infants of their owne kind.” Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 7. The eating of infants is not discussed by any of the other three English demonologists considered in this article and does not appear in the majority of accounts of English witchcraft. Continental demonologies do, however, feature this type of act, most notable in the Malleus Maleficarum. This suggests Scot‟s acquaintance with and perhaps reliance on a wide variety of sources.

53 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 9; Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 2; Scot also refuted acts of what Perkins termed juggling as means of challenging the veracity of the stereotypes attributed to witches. Regarding one example of juggling, Scot asserted that “if they [witches] could transfer corne … from their neighbors field into their owne, none of them would be poore, none other should be rich.” Since all of those accused as witches were not wealthy, they clearly could not accomplish this feat. This argument exemplifies Scot‟s reliance on common sense and logic, usually identified as skepticism, to make his case against witchcraft. Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 176.

54 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 176. 39 such conference between a spirituall divell and a corporall witch.”55 Scot argued that a human being cannot converse with the Devil, who exists only as a spirit without physical form. He asserted “that the joining of hands with the divell, [and] the kissing of his bare buttocks … are absurd lies” since according to the Scriptures, “a spirit hath no flesh, bones, nor sinews, whereof hands, buttocks … and lips doo consist.”56 Since the Devil could not physically interact with a human, a meeting between a witch and a Devil could not have actually taken place.

According to Scot, interrogators investigating charges of witchcraft had themselves created the idea of a pact between the witch and the Devil. Scot cautioned that witches‟ confessions were untrustworthy and that the accounts of the pact with the Devil owed their existence to the persistent examinations and coercion of interrogators. Accused witches‟ confessions could not be trusted because “their confessions are extorted” either through the use of torture or leading questions from the interrogator, “or else proceed from an unsound mind” when the confessed witch suffered from melancholy.57 Despite their lack of credibility, these confessions were believed because “if the league be untrue…the witchmongers [sic] arguments fall to the ground.”58 For Scot, this situation reinforced his broader claim that witchcraft was not real.

Scot also attacked theologians‟ reliance on Scriptural evidence for the Devil‟s pact. He posed an effective rhetorical question: “How chanceth it that we heare not of this bargaine in the

55 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 397; Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 407.

56 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 37.

57 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 46. Scot‟s reference to torture likely stems from his response to continental demonologists and prosecutorial practices. In England, torture was not applied at the assize courts where most witchcraft indictments were held. Sharpe, Witchcraft, 24; Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness, 214. As Malcolm Gaskill comments, “In England plaintiffs had to gather their own evidence to persuade a jury; torture was irrelevant.” In Malcolm Gaskill, “Witchcraft and Evidence in Early Modern England,” Past and Present, no. 198 (February 2008): 51.

58 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 34. 40 scriptures?”59 Scot noted that other demonologists frequently cited the Temptations of Christ where the Devil transported Christ (Matthew 4:8 and Luke 3:9) as proof of the Devil‟s power, to which Scot rejoined, “I hope they will not saie, that Christ had made anie ointments, or entred into anie league with the divell.”60 The focus of “the witchmongers” on the pact with the Devil allowed them to assert that the Devil‟s temptations were powerful, thereby emphasizing the need for godly men (such as Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts) to combat that power.61

In contrast to Scot, William Perkins asserted that witches could and did utilize supernatural power to produce magical effects. Perkins identified three types of maleficia: juggling (creating transformations or illusions), divining (divulging events in the past, present, or future), and enchanting (using spells to commit magical acts).62 Perkins argued that witches actually engaged in these acts through diabolical power. Through enchantments witches conjured storms, destroyed crops and livestock, caused and cured mysterious illnesses in people or animals, and performed exorcisms.63 Perkins displayed his anti-Catholicism by categorizing

“popish remedies,” like exorcisms, as witchcraft.64 This attack on Catholicism demonstrates that the discourse on witchcraft was part of the larger debate over correct theology in early modern

59 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 37.

60 Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 82.

61 Scott McGinnis notes that cunning folk constituted competition for pastors in the counseling of afflicted people. Likely this motivated theologians to emphasize the godly means of resisting the Devil. See Scott McGinnis, “„Subtiltie‟ Exposed: Pastoral Perspectives on Witch Belief in the Thought of George Gifford,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 33, no. 3 (Autumn 2002): 673; See also Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 263-67.

62 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 36;” Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page 19;” Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under “Page32.”

63 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under "Page 31."

64 The use of charges of witchcraft as a means of attacking confessional enemies during the Age of Reformation is discussed by Peter Elmer “„Saints or Sorcerers‟: Quakerism, Demonology and the Decline of Witchcraft in Seventeenth-Century England,” in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, ed. Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 145-80. 41

England.65 Like many English divines, Perkins advocated for his particular type of reform.

Perkins responded to Scot‟s assertion that only God‟s power performed supernatural acts by emphasizing instead a pact between the Devil and the witch. According to him, this pact formalized the collusion between the witch and the Devil and granted the witch access to supernatural power.66 Perkins noted that “it is the practise of the devil to offer to make bargains

... with man” to provide “the Ground of all the practises of Witchcraft ... a league or covenant made between the Witch and the Devil: wherein they doe mutually bind themselves each to other.”67 People entered into this agreement because the Devil offered to alleviate their misfortunes since “the nature of man is exceeding impatient in … afflictions … that some … care not what means they use … to ease and helpe themselves.68

According to Perkins, the Devil created these evil covenants out of anger. Satan sought to

“draw them [witches] from the covenant of God, and disgrace the same.”69 The Devil‟s pact inverted God‟s covenant with His people. Perkins elaborates on this inverted covenant: “as God hath made a Covenant with his Church …. requiring of them … faith and obedience; so doth

Satan indent with his Subjects by mutuall confederacies … whereby they bind themselves … to

65 Elmer notes, “Educated belief in witchcraft and the detailed theories of the demonologists ... was firmly rooted in the early modern preoccupation with order, authority and uniformity. In England, prior to the civil war, support for the godly commonwealth was thus reinforced by the recognition of its opposite, demonic disorder, which for true patriots took the form of devil-worshipping witches, aided and abetted by Catholic fifth columnists.” Elmer, “„Saints or Sorcerers,‟” 162-63; He also documents the appropriation of the label witchcraft for use against one‟s enemies: “During the civil war itself, both sides habitually resorted to the language of witchcraft, most obviously as a form of crude propaganda, but equally as a valuable authorising agent in the struggle to establish the righteousness of one‟s particular cause.” See “„Saints or Sorcerers,‟” 164.

66 Perkins‟s influence on this point is highlighted by Gaskill: “In the seventeenth century, partly due to Perkins‟s ideas, the diabolical pact became the salient characteristic of the witch‟s crime.” In Gaskill, “”Witchcraft and Evidence,” 45.

67 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under "Page 16."

68 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under "Page 17."

69 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under "Page 17." 42 observe his Rules, and he … to accomplish their desires.”70 Thus, Perkins attributed a double purpose to that inverted covenant: disgracing both people and God. He worried that denying the existence of witchcraft would increase the probability the people would be drawn into this disgrace through a pact with the Devil.

Perkins identified two types of pact with the Devil. He termed the first type of pact an open covenant. This open covenant differed from the closed, or secret, pact since it sometimes occurred in the presence of other witches. Perkins divulged his source of knowledge about these agreements: the confessions of accused witches. These witches “have confessed with one consent, that the very ground-work of all their practises in this wicked art, is their league with the devil.”71 Therefore, Perkins knew that witches entered into a pact with the Devil because they openly declared so. In contrast to Scot, then, Perkins accepted the validity of these confessions so long as the accused which had freely confessed following the establishment of strong suspicions against him or her.

When considering the existence and source of harmful magic, George Gifford again balanced the ideas espoused in the texts of Perkins and Scot. Like Perkins and Roberts, he asserted that magical acts could occur, but, unlike them, he maintained that they were not caused by the witch. Like Scot, Gifford denied the ability of a human witch to commit magical acts.

However, in contrast to Scot, he explained that the acts themselves were real; the Devil, rather than the witch, was the source of these acts. Like Scot, Gifford worried that people would incorrectly attribute supernatural power directly to a human witch. However, in contrast to Scot,

Gifford also worried that people would fail to take magical acts seriously, leaving them easy

70 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under "Page 2."

71 Perkins, Discourse of the Damned Art, under "Page 17." 43 targets for the Devil‟s temptations.

Gifford asserted, as Perkins did, that witches derived power from the Devil, although

Gifford did not describe a physical ceremony through which this bargain was formalized. He noted that “it is so evident by the Scriptures, and in all experience, that there be witches which worke by the devil, or rather I may say, that devil worketh by them, that such as go about to prove the contrarie, doe shewe themselves but cavillers.”72 Thus Gifford emphasized that the

Devil was the master and the witch was his servant, though many common people believed the opposite to be true. He argued that the Devil inflamed a witch‟s malice against others, and so the witch appeared to commit magical acts.73 Gifford diverged from Scot in asserting that the Devil could appear to people in a physical form. The Devil or his agents must disguise themselves in order to be able to commune with humans “to cover and hide their mightinessse” in order “to inflames [sic] them unto wrath, malice, envy, and cruell murthers … [and] to entice them unto wantonnessse, and whordomes, and all uncleannesse.”74 This guise allowed the Devil to communicate with people and ensnare witches into his service. Gifford worried that people‟s misconceptions about the nature of witchcraft led them away from God. In contrast to Perkins,

Gifford did not directly acknowledge the pacts described in witches‟ confessions, but like

Perkins, did grant that witches‟ confessions could be credible evidence.

On the issue of witches' powers, the ideas of Alexander Roberts once again most closely conformed to those of Perkins. He maintained that “they [witches] are permissiuely abled through the helpe of the Diuell their maister, to hurt Men and Beasts, and trouble the

72 Gifford, Dialogue, B4 v.

73 Gifford, Dialogue, D3 r. This position seems to give credence to Deborah Willis‟s idea in Malevolent Nuture concerning an elite reconfiguration of the relationship between witch and Devil.

74 Gifford, Dialogue, C2 r. 44 elements.”75 Roberts described how witches could alter people‟s mental states: “In minde, stirring vp men to lust, to hatred, to loue, and the like passions, and that by altering the inward and outward sences.”76 Roberts provided specific examples of one accused witch‟s magical acts in his treatise as he described the acts of witchcraft attributed to Mary Smith. Smith allegedly cursed John Orkton after he hit her son. After this physical attack, she allegedly “came foorth into the streete, cursing … him [Orkton] … and wished in a most earnest and bitter manner, that his fingers might rotte off; wherevpon presently … his fingers did corrupt, and were cut off; as also his toes putrified and consumed in a very strange … manner.”77 Roberts also reported that

Mary Smith caused Elizabeth Hancock to have a “torturing fit” which “so grieuously racked and tormented through all parts of her body, as if the very flesh had beene torne from the bones”78

Roberts‟s focus on the harm that a witch could cause, with the assistance of the Devil, supported his argument that people needed to take witchcraft seriously to avoid all of its perils. These perils included becoming the victim of a witch‟s malice as well as becoming ensnared by the Devil‟s treachery.

Similarly to both Perkins and Gifford, Roberts also emphasized the importance of the

Devil to witchcraft. He declared, “Whatsoeuer the Witch doth, it receiueth his force from that society which she hath with the Diuell … and so they worke together as associates.”79 A human witch did not possess the power to engage in magical acts. If the witch possessed such power,

God‟s authority and power would have been challenged. Like Perkins, Roberts identified two

75 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 23-24.”

76 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 24.”

77 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 55.”

78 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 59.”

79 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 26.” 45 types of pact: secret and manifest. This secret pact was a tacit agreement for the Devil to lend his power to the witch, an interpretation reminiscent of Gifford‟s treatment of the bargain. The manifest pact resembled Perkins‟s open pact, “wherein consent is giuen …whereby they renounce God, and deuote themselues slaues ... vnto the Diuell, hee promising, that … they shall doe wonders.”80 Roberts asserted that information about witchcraft could be revealed through witches‟ “owne voluntary confessions” and accepted the validity of the confession made by

Mary Smith that confirmed the acts of witchcraft of which she had been accused and for which she was executed.81 Unlike Scot, Perkins, or Gifford, however, Roberts underscored the treachery of the Devil. He asserted that the Devil could not be counted upon to uphold his end of the bargain. Roberts admonished, “But herein these seduced wretches are deceiued: for these promises which he makes, are treacherous.”82 Thus people must be on their guard against the

Devil‟s deceptions.

Perkins, Gifford, and Roberts all argued that the Devil provided the source of a witch‟s ability to access supernatural power. The witch gained this ability through the formation of a pact with the Devil whereby the witch pledged allegiance to the Devil, thus renouncing God and following the Devil into the sin of disobedience. The three theologians urged people to take witchcraft seriously and be on guard against the Devil‟s temptations despite disagreeing on the exact nature of the allocation of power among God, the Devil and humans. In contrast, Reginald

Scot asserted that purported witches could not commit magical acts because they could not in fact access supernatural power. Further, he stressed the impossibility of a pact between a witch and the Devil on the grounds that a spiritual being, such as the Devil, could not consort with a

80 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 34.”

81 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 10.”

82 Roberts, Treatise of Witchcraft, under “Page 36.” 46 physical human being. He feared that belief in witchcraft led people astray from God by attributing divine power to a human witch.

Conclusion

Each of these English demonologists responded to a climate of fear surrounding as well as contributing to early modern witchcraft beliefs. However, their responses reflected different concerns, as did their interpretations of the fears that drove contemporary ideas about witchcraft as well as the importance of combating it, indicating a lack of uniformity in the beliefs of the demonologists themselves. As Protestant theologians, William Perkins, George Gifford, and

Alexander Roberts exhibited similar interpretations about the nature of the relationship among

God, the Devil, and humans. Humans could yield to the Devil‟s temptations and commit magical acts only to the extent that God granted permission to do so. These theologians worried that people would misinterpret this relationship, thus challenging God's power, and the lack of official Church of England doctrine regarding witchcraft exacerbated this fear. At the same time, they espoused the notion that a denial of the existence of witchcraft would leave people vulnerable to the power of the Devil. In contrast, Reginald Scot attempted to counteract the effects of the fear of witchcraft advocated by the theologians. Rather, he emphasized that the consequences of this climate of fear perpetrated by such men were more frightening than the prospect of witches causing harm. The theologians encouraged early moderns to be suspicious of their neighbors and potentially to accuse them of witchcraft. The consequences of belief in witchcraft and its resulting tensions included imbuing a witch with God‟s power and denying

God‟s ability to inflict trials and punishments upon His followers.

These authors thus demonstrated a lack of consensus on the main issues considered in this article, especially the formation and operation of the pact with the Devil, an issue which is 47 frequently emphasized as a uniquely “elite” concern by modern scholars.83 Each of the four early modern authors addressed the establishment of religious authority and theological debates during the long English Reformation through a discussion of witchcraft, its dangers, and its associated theological implications. A study of their works reveals the negotiation of witchcraft beliefs among the educated elites in England, partially in response to the absence of a formal statement of proper belief concerning witchcraft from the Church of England.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Gibson, Marion, ed. Witchcraft and Society in England and America, 1550-1750. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Gifford, George. A Dialogue Concerning Witches and Witchcraftes. Shakespeare Association Facsimiles, Number 1. 1593. Reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931.

——— . Discourse of the Subtill Practises of the Devilles by Witches and Sorcerers. London: Toby Cooke, 1587. http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?c=witch;idno=wit052. Accessed June 20, 2009.

Institoris, Heinrich. The Malleus Maleficarum. Edited and translated by P. G. Maxwell-Stuart. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.

Lancashire, Ian, ed. The Elizabethan Homilies. Renaissance Electronic Texts. Toronto: Web Development Group, University of Toronto Library, 1997. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/homilies/elizhom.html. Accessed May 27, 2010.

Perkins, William. A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, So Farre Forth as it is Revealed in the Scriptures, and Manifest by True Experience. Cambridge: Cantrell Legge, 1608. http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=witch;idno=wit075. Accessed October 13, 2008.

——— . Work of William Perkins. The Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 3. Edited by Ian Breward. Appleford, UK: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1970.

83 See, for example, Bostridge, Witchcraft and its Transformations, 139-54; and Clark, Thinking With Demons, 195- 213. 48

The Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth 1559. 1559. Reprint, London: Griffith Farran Okeden & Welsh, 1890. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/BCP_1559.htm. Accessed May 27, 2010.

Roberts, Alexander. A Treatise of Witchcraft. London: N. O. for Samuel Man, 1616. http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=witch;idno=wit171. Accessed June 20, 2009.

Scot, Reginald. The Discoverie of Witchcraft. Edited by Brinsley Nicholson. 1584. Reprint, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1973.

The Victorian Web. “The 39 Articles of Religion.” The Victorian Web. http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html. Accessed May 27, 2010.

The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of Margaret and Phillip Flower. The English Experience: Its Record in Early Printed Books Published in Facsimilie, Number 517. London: 1619. Reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1973.

Secondary Sources

Anglo, Sydney. “„Reginald Scot‟s Discoverie of Witchcraft: Scepticism and Sadduceeism.‟” In The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, edited by Sydney Anglo, 106- 39. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1977.

Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts. San Francisco: Pandora, 1994.

Baxter, Christopher. “Jean Bodin‟s De la Démonomanie des Sorciers: The Logic of Persecution.” In The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, edited by Sydney Anglo, 76-105. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1977.

——— . “Weyer‟s De Praestigiis Daemonum: Unsystematic Pyshopathology.” In The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, edited by Sydney Anglo, 53-75. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1977.

Behringer, Wolfgang. “Witchcraft Studies in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 64-95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

——— . Witches and Witch-Hunts: A Global History. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2004.

Bennett, H. S. English Books and Readers, 1558 to 1603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bever, Edward. The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition, and Everyday Life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

——— . “Witchcraft, Female Aggression, and Power in the Early Modern Community.” Journal of Social History 35, no. 4 (Summer 2002): 955-88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3790618. Accessed March 26, 2010.

Bostridge, Ian. Witchcraft and its Transformations, c.1650-c.1750. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

Bremer, Francis J. Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Briggs, K. M. Pale Hecate’s Team: An Examination of the Beliefs on Witchcraft and Magic among Shakespeare’s Contemporaries and His Immediate Successors. New York: The Humanities Press, 1962.

Briggs, Robin. “„Many Reasons Why‟: Witchcraft and the Problem of Multiple Explanation.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 49-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Broedel, Hans Peter. “The Malleus Maleficarum” and the Construction of Witchcraft: Theology and Popular Belief. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003.

Clark, Stuart. “Inversion, Misrule and the Meaning of Witchcraft” Past & Present, No. 87 (May 1980): 98-127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/650567. Accessed September 28, 2009.

——— . “King James‟s Daemonologie: Witchcraft and Kingship.” In The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, edited by Sydney Anglo, 156-81. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1977.

——— . Thinking With Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

Collins, Randall, and Michael Makowsky. The Discovery of Society. New York: Random House, 1989.

Cressy, David, and Lori Anne Ferrell, eds. Religion and Society in Early Modern England: a Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Cushing, Douglas D. “The Inspiration of Scripture in the Theologies of William Perkins and John Calvin.” Master‟s thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993.

Davies, Horton. From Cranmer to Hooker, 1534-1603. Vol 1 of Worship and Theology in England. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. 50

Davies, Owen. Witchcraft, Magic and Culture, 1736-1951. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.

Davis, Natalie Zemon. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and their Tellers in Sixteenth- Century France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Elmer, Peter. “„Saints or Sorcerers‟: Quakerism, Demonology and the Decline of Witchcraft in Seventeenth-century England.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 145-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

——— . “Science, Medicine and Witchcraft.” In Witchcraft Historiography, edited by Jonathan Barry and Owen Davies, 33-51. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

——— . “Towards a Politics of Witchcraft in Early Modern England.” In Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, edited by Stuart Clark, 101-18. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 2001.

Estes, Leland L. “Reginald Scot and His „Discoverie of Witchcraft‟: Religion and Science in the Opposition to the European Witch Craze.” Church History 52, no. 4 (December 1983): 444-56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3165565. Accessed September 28, 2009.

Ewen, C. L‟estrange. Witchcraft and Demonism: A Concise Account Derived from Sworn Depositions and Confessions Obtained in the Courts of England and Wales. London: Heath Cranton, 1933. Reprint, London: Frederick Muller, 1970.

——— . Witch Hunting and Witch Trials: The Indictments for Witchcraft from the Records of 1373 Assizes Held for the Home Circuit, A.D. 1559-1736. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1929. Reprint, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1971.

French, Peter, J. John Dee: the World of an Elizabethan Magus. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1972.

Gaskill, Malcolm. Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

——— . “The Devil in the Shape of a Man: Witchcraft, Conflict and Belief in Jacobean England.” Historical Research 71, no. 175 (June 1998): 142-71.

——— . “Reporting Murder: Fiction in the Archives in Early Modern England.” Social History 23, no. 1 (January 1998): 1-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4286466. Accessed March 26, 2010.

——— . Witchcraft: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

——— . “Witchcraft and Evidence in Early Modern England.” Past and Present, no. 198 (February 2008): 33-70.

——— . “Witchcraft and Power in Early Modern England: The Case of Margaret Moore.” In Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England, edited by Jenny Kermode and Garthine Walker, 125-38. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

——— . “Witchcraft in Early Modern Kent: Stereotypes and the Background to Accusations.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 257-87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

——— . “Witchcraft, Politics, and Memory in Seventeenth-Century England.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 2 (2007): 289-308.

Gibson, Marion. Reading Witchcraft: Stories of Early English Witches. London: Routledge, 1999.

——— . “Thinking Witchcraft: Language, Literature and Intellectual History.” In Witchcraft Historiography, edited by Jonathan Barry and Owen Davies, 164-81. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke. “The European Witchcraft Debate and the Dutch Variant.” Social History 15, no. 2 (May 1990): 181-94.

Ginzburg, Carlo. The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Translated by John and Anne Tedeschi. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

Gowing, Laura. Domestic Dangers: Women, Words, and Sex in Early Modern London. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

——— . “Language, Power, and the Law.” In Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England, edited by Jenny Kermode and Garthine Walker, 26-47. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

Graves, Michael A. R. Henry VIII: A Study in Kingship. London: Pearson Longman, 2003.

Gregory, Annabel. “Witchcraft, Politics and „Good Neighbourhood‟ in Early Seventeenth- Century Rye.” Past & Present No. 133 (November 1991): 31-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/650766. Accessed March 26, 2010.

Groden, Michael, and M. Krieswirth, eds. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Hall, David, D. “Witchcraft and the Limits of Interpretation.” The New England Quarterly 58, no. 2 (June 1985): 253-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/365516. Accessed March 26, 2010.

Harris, Tim, ed. Popular Culture in England, c.1500-1850. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1995.

Hester, Marianne. “The Dynamics of Male Domination Using the Witch Craze in 16th- and 17th- century England as a Case Study.” Women’s Studies International Forum 13, Issues 1-2 (1990): 1-19.

——— . Lewd Women and Wicked Witches: A Study in the Dynamics of Male Domination. London: Routledge, 1992.

——— . “Patriarchal Reconstruction and Witch Hunting.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 288-306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Holmes, Clive. “Popular Culture? Witches, Magistrates, and Divines in Early Modern England.” In Understanding Popular Culture: Europe from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century, edited by Steven L. Kaplan, 85-111. New York: Mouton Publishers, 1984.

——— . “Women: Witnesses and Witches.” Past & Present, No. 140 (August 1993). http://www.jstor.org/stable/651213. Accessed September 15, 2009.

Ingram, Martin. “From Reformation to Toleration: Popular Religious Cultures in England, 1540- 1690.” In Popular Culture in England, c.1500-1850, edited by Tim Harris, 95-123. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1995.

——— . “Shame and Pain: Themes and Variations in Tudor Punishments.” In Penal Practice and Culture, 1500-1900: Punishing the English, edited by Simon Devereaux and Paul Griffiths, 36-62. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

——— . “„Scolding Women Cucked or Washed‟: A Crisis in Gender Relations in Early Modern England?” In Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England, edited by Jenny Kermode and Garthine Walker, 48-80. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

Jenkins, Richard. “Continuity and Change: Social Science Perspectives on European Witchcraft.” In Witchcraft Historiography, edited by Jonathan Barry and Owen Davies, 203-24. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Johnstone, Nathan. “The Protestant Devil: The Experience of Temptation in Early Modern England.” Journal of British Studies 43, no. 2 (April 2004): 173-205. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838631. Accessed March 26, 2010.

Jones, Karen and Michael Zell. “„The Divels Speciall Instruments‟: Women and Witchcraft before the „Great Witch-Hunt.‟” Social History 30, no. 1 (February 2005): 45-63.

Kassell, Lauren. “„All was this land full fill‟d of faerie,‟ or Magic and the Past in Early Modern England.” Journal of the History of Ideas 67, no. 1 (January 2006): 107-22. http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.wiu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v067/67.1 kassell.pdf (accessed October 8, 2008).

Larner, Christina. Enemies of God: The Witch Hunt in Scotland. London: Chatto & Windus, 1981.

——— . “Witch Beliefs & Witch-hunting in England and Scotland.” History Today (February 1981): 32-36.

——— . Witchcraft and Religion: The Politics of Popular Belief. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.

Levack, Brian P. “Crime and the Law.” In Witchcraft Historiography, edited by Jonathan Barry and Owen Davies, 146-63. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

——— . “State-Building and Witch Hunting in Early Modern Europe.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 96-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

——— . The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman, 2006.

MacDonald, Michael. Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London: Edward Jorden and the Mary Glover Case. London: Travistock/Routledge, 1991.

Macfarlane, Alan. “A Tudor Anthropologist: George Gifford‟s Discourse and Dialogue.” In The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft, edited by Sydney Anglo, 140-55. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1977.

——— . Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1970.

Malcolmson, Cristina, and Mihoko Suzuki, eds. Debating Gender in Early Modern England, 1500-1700. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Marsh, Christopher W. The Family of Love in English Society, 1550-1630. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

McGinnis, Scott. “„Subtiltie‟ Exposed: Pastoral Perspectives on Witch Belief in the Thought of George Gifford.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 33, no. 3 (Autumn 2002): 665-86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4144019. Accessed September 28, 2009.

McKim, Donald K. “The Functions of Ramism in William Perkins‟ Theology.” Sixteenth Century Journal 16, no. 4 (Winter 1985): 503-17. http://www.jstor.org/stable.2541223. Accessed October 8, 2008.

Newton, John, and Jo Bath, eds. Witchcraft and the Act of 1604. Boston: Brill, 2008.

Parkin, Sally. “Witchcraft, Women‟s Honour and Customary Law in Early Modern Wales.” Social History 31, no. 3 (August 2006): 295-318.

Plant, Marjorie. The English Book Trade: an Economic History of the Making and Sale of Books. London: Allen and Unwin, 1965.

Pollock, Linda A. “Anger and the Negotiation of Relationships in Early Modern England.” The Historical Journal 47, no. 3 (2004): 567-90.

Poole, Robert, ed. The Lancashire Witches: Histories and Stories. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Purkiss, Diane. At the Bottom of the Garden: A Dark History of Fairies, Hobgoblins, and Other Troublesome Things. New York: New York University Press, 2000.

——— . The Witch in History: Early Modern and Twentieth Century Representations. London: Routledge, 1996.

Rex, Richard. Henry VIII and the English Reformation. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Roper, Lyndal. Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality and Religion in Early Modern Europe. London: Routledge, 1994.

——— . Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

——— . “Witchcraft and Fantasy in Early Modern Germany.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 207-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Ross, Eric B. “Syphilis, Misogyny, and Witchcraft in 16th-Century Europe,” Current Anthropology 36, no. 2 (April 1995): 333-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744119. Accessed March 26, 2010.

Rowlands, Alison. “Telling Witchcraft Stories: New Perspectives on Witchcraft and Witches in the Early Modern Period.” Gender & History 10, no. 2 (August 1998): 294-302.

Rublack, Ulinka. The Crimes of Women in Early Modern Germany. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. 55

Ruggiero, Guido. Binding Passions: Tales of Magic, Marriage, and Power at the End of the Renaissance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Rushton, Peter. “Texts of Authority: Witchcraft Accusations and the Demonstration of Truth in Early Modern England.” In Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, edited by Stuart Clark, 21-39. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 2001.

Ryan, W. F. “The Witchcraft Hysteria in Early Modern Europe: Was Russia an Exception?” The Slavonic and East European Review 76, no. 1 (January 1998): 49-84.

Sharpe, James. The Bewitching of Anne Gunter: A Horrible and True Story of Deception, Witchcraft, Murder, and the King of England. New York: Routledge, 2000.

——— . Crime in Early Modern England, 1550-1750. London: Longman, 1999.

——— . “The Devil in East Anglia: The Matthew Hopkins Trials Reconsidered.” In Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief, edited by Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts, 237-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

——— . Instruments of Darkness: Witchcraft in Early Modern England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

——— . Judicial Punishment in England. London: Faber and Faber, 1990.

——— . “Witchcraft and Women in Seventeenth-Century England: Some Northern Evidence.” Continuity and Change 6, no. 2 (1991): 179-99.

——— . Witchcraft in Early Modern England. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2001.

——— . “Women, Witchcraft and the Legal Process.” In Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England, edited by Jenny Kermode and Garthine Walker, 106-20. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

Schutte, Anne Jacobson, Thomas Kuehn, and Silvana Seidel Menchi. Time Space and Women’s Lives in Early Modern Europe. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2001.

Spargo, John Webster. Juridicial Folklore in England: Illustrated by the Cucking-Stool. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1944.

Stephens, Walter. Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex, and the Crisis of Belief. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Teall, John L. “Witchcraft and Calvinism in Elizabethan England: Divine Power and Human Agency.” Journal of the History of Ideas 23, no. 1 (January-March 1982): 21-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708055. Accessed October 8, 2008.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Underdown, D. E. “The Taming of the Scold: the Enforcement of Patriarchal Authority in Early Modern England.” In Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Edited by Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson, 116-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Veeser, H. Aram, ed. The New Historicism. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Waite, Gary K. Heresy, Magic, and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Walker, D. P. Unclean Spirits: Possession and Exorcism in France and England in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Watt, Tessa. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

West, Robert H. Reginald Scot and Renaissance Writings on Witchcraft. Twayne‟s English Authors Series. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984.

Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Wilby, Emma. Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits: Shamanistic Visionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft and Magic. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2005.

——— . “The Witch‟s Familiar and the Fairy in Early Modern England and Scotland.” Folklore 11, no. 2 (October 2000). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1260607. Accessed October 8, 2008.

Willis, Deborah. Malevolent Nurture: Witch-hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Wiltenburg, Joy. Disorderly Women and Female Power in the Street Literature of Early Modern England and Germany. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992.

Wing, Donald. Short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America, and of English books printed in other countries, 1641-1700. 3 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945-51.

Wootton, David. “Reginald Scot/Abraham Fleming/The Family of Love.” In Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early Modern Culture, edited by Stuart Clark. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 2001.