Comments on: The Discoverie of Witchcraft, by Reginald Scot (1584)

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:40:06 +0000

Thanks! Fixed.

By: David

David — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:42:09 +0000

There is a typo in the fifth paragraph. The date 1852 should instead be 1582. Just a heads up.

By: Ciaran

Ciaran — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 02:51:16 +0000

Me fail early modern English? That’s unpossible.

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:39:24 +0000

Sure, Scot mentions and describes plenty of rituals — to debunk them. Saying the book is filled with “effective, magickal ritual” is like saying the Harry Potter book is filled with working magic.

“His idea of trying to prove witchcraft does not exist is the most brilliant thing ever to do to defend the witches. ”

You seem to be implying that he himself believed in witches and that his arguments were all a sham. Hopefully you have some evidence to prove your case. The descriptions of magical ritual themselves do not make Scot a follower of magic, any more than my description of Scot’s book makes me one.

By: liyam

liyam — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:02:27 +0000

Actually, Reginald Scot is a mysticist. His idea of trying to prove witchcraft does not exist is the most brilliant thing ever to do to defend the witches. As once the craft to be proven non-existent, acquits all who are accused of witchcraft that time.

And I would agree with Charon Ferryman. I’ve read the book as well. That’s why I don’t understand that you have claimed there is no such thing in the book about the magickal rituals and procedures like creating the holie water.

This book is even considered to be a textbook on conjuring spirits

By: LowOnProzac

LowOnProzac — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:11:58 +0000

Fascinating read. Would that I could see through the fallacies of my own time as well as he did in his.

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:01:43 +0000

Um, no. I actually read the book, cover to cover, and found pretty much none of what you describe.

By: Charon Ferryman

Charon Ferryman — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:51:37 +0000

I hope all of you know that The Discoverie of Witchcraft was actually a book on magick itself (well, parts of it anyway). It provides detailed conjurations to a fair few spirits, shews knowledge of planets and angels, among other things.

When you consider the time (the Inquisition), publishing the rest of the stuff (i.e. juggling) could be considered as a type of misdirection. Make them think it’s not about magic, then throw magic in there.

The strong references to ritual magic contradict what everyone’s talking about. Reginald Scot, by the way, looked like he was trained in Kabbalistic teachings and ceremonial evocation. Don’t believe me? Look it up. The book is riddled with effective, magickal ritual. Even a procedure to make “holie water”.

Surely not what meets the eye.

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:45:40 +0000

Jenna: I didn’t keep track of the pages I used for the post, though the book is relatively short and you should be able to track down the quotes with a minimum of pain. Any other source I used for the post is hyperlinked.

By: jenna mcbroom

jenna mcbroom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:13:49 +0000

do u ahve the bibliograahy or footnotes 4 this? wat pages did u use in reginald scots book?

many thanks