ORBIT-OnlineRepository ofBirkbeckInstitutionalTheses Enabling Open Access to Birkbeck’s Research Degree output Rethinking Demonic Possession: The impact of the debates about the John Darrel case on later demono- logical thought, with particular reference to John Dea- con and John Walker https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40033/ Version: Full Version Citation: Bhogal, Harman (2013) Rethinking Demonic Possession: The impact of the debates about the John Darrel case on later demonologi- cal thought, with particular reference to John Deacon and John Walker. [Thesis] (Unpublished) c 2020 The Author(s) All material available through ORBIT is protected by intellectual property law, including copy- right law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Deposit Guide Contact: email Rethinking Demonic Possession: The impact of the debates about the John Darrel case on later demonological thought, with particular reference to John Deacon and John Walker Harman Bhogal Department of History, Classics and Archaeology Birkbeck College, University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2013 1 Abstract The controversy that led to the conviction of the Puritan exorcist John Darrel for fraud in 1599 has mainly been viewed by historians in the context of the struggle between Puritans and the Church of England. Darrel’s activities have been seen as Puritan propaganda, whilst the authorities’ reaction has been seen as part of their campaign against Puritanism. Their clamp down on Darrel’s activities has also been seen as contributing towards increasing scepticism towards demonic possession in early modern England, especially in cases involving witchcraft. This thesis argues that the Darrel controversy cannot be read solely as a manifestation of the Puritan/establishment conflict, as it will demonstrate how the controversy was actually part of the broader re-assessment of the role of the supernatural in the contemporary world following the Reformation, and that anti-Catholicism, in particular hostility towards the Catholic rite of exorcism, played a significant role in informing sceptical attitudes towards demonic possession. Focussing upon the work of the Puritan preachers John Deacon and John Walker, it will also challenge the Puritan/establishment dichotomy over possession. Their work denied the possibility of possession in their own time by drawing on and elaborating existing medical, natural philosophical and theological arguments, particularly the doctrine of the cessation of miracles. Their work was significant because it was the first work that systematically explored the intricacies of the phenomenon of possession, and it offered an alternative way of thinking about demonic affliction, namely the category of obsession. Writings that appeared following the Darrel controversy demonstrate an awareness of Deacon and Walker’s arguments, and also reveal how the idea of obsession was absorbed into broader demonological thought, thus highlighting how Deacon and Walker’s work was much more significant than has previously been thought. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking my supervisor, Professor Michael Hunter, for his insight and questions that led me to focus and refine my work over the course of my research, and for helping hone my writing skills in order to do justice to the ideas and arguments I wanted to present. I am grateful to Professor John Arnold for stepping in as my supervisor following Professor Hunter’s retirement and for the encouragement and suggestions I received from him. Thank you to both supervisors for directing me towards studies that I might have otherwise overlooked. I benefitted hugely from my discussions with Dr. Stephen Clucas that allowed me to sound out my ideas and arguments, and I appreciate him showing an interest in my work. I am also thankful to Professor Philip C. Almond, for allowing me to read the manuscript of his work on cessationism in early modern England, which Professor Hunter made me aware of after I had written my own chapter on the topic. I would like to thank the Birkbeck, University of London, for organising workshops that have helped me develop my research skills, and for the funding offered so that I could attend various conferences and workshops over the course of my study. I would also like to thank those many people at these conferences that discussed my work with me and gave me invaluable feedback on my work. I would also like to thank the Institute of Historical Research for organising many interesting and useful seminars, and for offering courses that I found useful throughout the course of my research. I would also like to thank the staff at the Birkbeck Library, The Senate House Library, The Warburg Institute, University College Library, the British Library and the Surrey Heritage Centre and the National Archives. Thank you to all my friends who have provided me with much needed and much appreciated distractions that have kept me sane during my studies. The same goes for my sisters, brothers-in-law and my wonderful nieces and nephew. Finally, I would like to thank my parents especially, for all their support: not just financial but also moral. I cannot express adequately how much I value their confidence and trust in me and my decision to pursue this project. They have remained my constant source of support and strength. 3 Table of Contents List of abbreviations 5 Introduction 6 Chapter One: 50 Possession before Darrel: the Place of Possession in Post-Reformation England Chapter Two: 95 Denham, Darrel and the Political Problem of Exorcism Chapter Three: 158 Introducing Deacon and Walker: Sources and Methodology Figure 1: Title page of the Dialogicall discourses 172 Chapter Four: 189 Possession Made Incompatible with Natural Philosophy Chapter Five: 235 Deacon and Walker and the Doctrine of the Cessation of Miracles Chapter Six: 292 Possession or Obsession? Conclusion 317 Bibliography 324 4 List of abbrevations BL British Library EEBO Early English Books Online ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography SHC Surrey History Centre 5 Introduction In November 1597, a group of about 150 people gathered in Nottingham to witness the dispossession of a young man named William Sommers at the hands of the Puritan minister, John Darrel. Sommers’ symptoms of possession included extreme fits and contortions of the body, obscene and blasphemous behaviour, and a lump running up and down his body.1 Darrel had been called in because of his involvement in previous well-publicised cases of possession.2 Following the words of Jesus in Mark 9:29, where he instructed that ‘This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting’, Darrel attempted dispossession by these means. However, the Sommers’ case would prove to be deeply controversial. During the course of his possession, Sommers had accused one Alice Freeman of bewitching him. The Freeman family in turn accused Sommers of bewitching an individual called Sterland and in January 1598, Sommers was arrested. During the investigation, Sommers confessed to faking his possession. However, a few months later, he withdrew this confession only to reassert it a few days later. At this point, the central authorities decided to step in. Darrel was summoned to Lambeth by John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, and imprisoned pending investigations of fraud; in May 1599 he was convicted of the same. The controversy has often been seen as a 1 Details of the case can be found in John Darrel, An apologie, or defence of the possession of William Sommers, a yong man of the towne of Nottingham: wherein this worke of God is cleared from the evil name of counterfaytinge, and therevpon also it is shewed that in these dayes men may be possessed with devils, and that being so, by prayer and fasting the vncleane spirit may be cast out (Amsterdam [?], 1598). This book was reprinted in 1641 as A true relation of the grievous handling of William Sommers of Nottingham being possessed with a devill: shewing how he was first taken and how lamentable from time to time he was tormented and afflicted (London: Thomas Harper, 1641) 2 For details on John Darrel’s cases, see Chapter Two 6 turning point in the perception of possession in early modern England: the authorities’ hostility towards dispossessions manifested itself in Canon 72, approved in 1604, which forbade the conducting of dispossession by prayer and fasting without an episcopalian licence. The fact that no such licences were ever issued indicates the official aversion to the phenomenon.3 The authorities’ reaction can be explained with reference to the conflict between the establishment and the Puritans. This is evident in the literature generated by the controversy. In his book A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, Samuel Harsnett, chaplain to the Bishop of London, clearly expressed concern at the propagandist potential of dispossessions. An unregulated practice, dispossession could be used to promote the exorcists’ Puritan agenda. Harsnett stated that if Darrel’s dispossessions had continued, ‘we should have had many other pretended signes of possession: one Devill would have beene mad at the name of the Presbyter: another at the sight of a minister that will not subscribe: another to have seene men sit or stand at the Communion.’4 On the other hand, the works produced by Darrel and his supporters protest against the apparent unfair execution of the trial, and express a sense of victimisation of the godly.5 3 Thomas Freeman, ‘Demons, Deviance and Defiance: John Darrel and the Politics of Exorcism in Late Elizabethan England’ in Peter Lake and Michael Questier (eds.), Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560-1660 (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000), p. 60 4 Samuel Harsnett, A discouery of the fraudulent practises of Iohn Darrel Bacheler of Artes in his proceedings concerning the pretended possession and dispossession of William Somers at Nottingham: of Thomas Darling, the boy of Burton at Caldwall: and of Katherine Wright at Mansfield, & Whittington: and of his dealings with one Mary Couper at Nottingham, detecting in some sort the deceitfull trade in these latter dayes of casting out deuils.