What do you think?
Rate this book
The Discoverie of Witchcraft
They sacrifice their owne children to the divell before baptisme, holding them up in the aire unto him, and then thrust a needle into their braines … They use incestuous adulterie with spirits … They eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of men and children openlie … They kill mens cattell … They bewitch mens corne … They ride and flie in the aire, bring stormes, make tempests … They use venerie with a divell called Incubus and have children by them, which become the best witches …
In 1584, when there were few who would even defend witches against these charges, Reginald Scot went one step further. He actually set out to prove that witches did not and could not exist! King James later found Scot's opinion so heretical that he ordered all copies of his book to be burned. But so rich and full of data on the charges against witches, on witch trials and on the actual practice of the black arts was Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft that it remained a much-used source throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is still one of the few primary sources for the study of witchcraft today.
At the heart of Scot's book are stories and charges pulled from the writers of the Inquisition about the supposed nature of witches. Scot believed that the utter absurdity of the facts would be enough to stop belief in witchcraft forever. But he also goes on to give opinions of medical authorities, interviews with those convicted of witchcraft, and details about the two-faced practices of those in charge of the inquisitions to show even further why the charges of witchcraft were simply not true. In later chapters Scot details the other side of the question through a study of the black arts that are not purely imaginary. He discusses poisoners, jugglers, conjurers, charmers, soothsayers, figure-casters, dreamers, alchemists, and astrologers and, in turn, sets down the actual practices of each group and shows how the acts depend not upon the devil but upon either trickery or skill. In the process, many of the magician's secrets and much other folk and professional lore of the time is made available to the reader of today.
Shortly after the Spanish Inquisition, directly in the wake of Sprenger and Kramer's Malleus Maleficarum, during the great upsurge of witch trials in Britain, Scot was a direct witness to the witchmonger in one of witch-hunting's bloodiest eras. Whatever your interest in witchcraft — either historical, psychological, or sympathetic — Scot, in his disproof, tells you much more about the subject than the many, many contemporary writers on the other side of the question.
In 1584, when there were few who would even defend witches against these charges, Reginald Scot went one step further. He actually set out to prove that witches did not and could not exist! King James later found Scot's opinion so heretical that he ordered all copies of his book to be burned. But so rich and full of data on the charges against witches, on witch trials and on the actual practice of the black arts was Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft that it remained a much-used source throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is still one of the few primary sources for the study of witchcraft today.
At the heart of Scot's book are stories and charges pulled from the writers of the Inquisition about the supposed nature of witches. Scot believed that the utter absurdity of the facts would be enough to stop belief in witchcraft forever. But he also goes on to give opinions of medical authorities, interviews with those convicted of witchcraft, and details about the two-faced practices of those in charge of the inquisitions to show even further why the charges of witchcraft were simply not true. In later chapters Scot details the other side of the question through a study of the black arts that are not purely imaginary. He discusses poisoners, jugglers, conjurers, charmers, soothsayers, figure-casters, dreamers, alchemists, and astrologers and, in turn, sets down the actual practices of each group and shows how the acts depend not upon the devil but upon either trickery or skill. In the process, many of the magician's secrets and much other folk and professional lore of the time is made available to the reader of today.
Shortly after the Spanish Inquisition, directly in the wake of Sprenger and Kramer's Malleus Maleficarum, during the great upsurge of witch trials in Britain, Scot was a direct witness to the witchmonger in one of witch-hunting's bloodiest eras. Whatever your interest in witchcraft — either historical, psychological, or sympathetic — Scot, in his disproof, tells you much more about the subject than the many, many contemporary writers on the other side of the question.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1584
77 people are currently reading
836 people want to read
About the author
Reginald Scot
20 books4 followersReginald Scot (or Scott) (c. 1538 – 9 October 1599) was an English country gentleman and Member of Parliament, now remembered as the author of The Discoverie of Witchcraft, which was published in 1584. It was written against the belief in witches, to show that witchcraft did not exist. Part of its content exposes how (apparently miraculous) feats of magic were done, and the book is often deemed the first textbook on conjuring.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 17, 2016
Reginald Scot drew up his own will in his handwriting and ended it: Great is the trouble my poor wife hath had with me, and small is the comfort she hath received at my hands, whom if I had not matched withal I had not died worth one groat.
I read that his publisher probably urged him to include the material on the conjuring arts in his book, as the only likely commercial content. Scot was a gentleman-amateur writer, and why he took upon himself to combat the demonologists with this piece of work we don't know, further than what he says himself: he is greatly bothered to have seen in his home county of Kent the impoverished and vulnerable fall afoul of those abeyances of usual judicial procedure that were the witch trials. Scot argues against prosecution in any instance: these were impossible crimes in the first place, there is much 'absurdity' in the great witch-scare -- for which the intellectual demonologists are as responsible as the superstitions our nurses teach us; and legal safeguards have been laid aside in the crisis, a non-existent crisis for Scot.
He uses the sceptic's weapons of wit, sarcasm, pun and your standard anti-Catholic joke (however, let us not forget, he is concerned with the onset of the witch-scare in Protestant England). He also deploys compassion as a goal and as a strategy.
His explanations for witchcraft are psychological and social: he rests on melancholy, that catch-term which covered the mentally ill, the mentally disturbed; he is interesting to read for both or either his study of social vulnerability and for the way symptoms of mental illness were then interpreted and understood.
I read that his publisher probably urged him to include the material on the conjuring arts in his book, as the only likely commercial content. Scot was a gentleman-amateur writer, and why he took upon himself to combat the demonologists with this piece of work we don't know, further than what he says himself: he is greatly bothered to have seen in his home county of Kent the impoverished and vulnerable fall afoul of those abeyances of usual judicial procedure that were the witch trials. Scot argues against prosecution in any instance: these were impossible crimes in the first place, there is much 'absurdity' in the great witch-scare -- for which the intellectual demonologists are as responsible as the superstitions our nurses teach us; and legal safeguards have been laid aside in the crisis, a non-existent crisis for Scot.
He uses the sceptic's weapons of wit, sarcasm, pun and your standard anti-Catholic joke (however, let us not forget, he is concerned with the onset of the witch-scare in Protestant England). He also deploys compassion as a goal and as a strategy.
His explanations for witchcraft are psychological and social: he rests on melancholy, that catch-term which covered the mentally ill, the mentally disturbed; he is interesting to read for both or either his study of social vulnerability and for the way symptoms of mental illness were then interpreted and understood.
May 13, 2014
It’s a funny one, this one. It was written in order to debunk the popular belief in witches in Elizabethan England, but rather than bringing out the cynic in me – it actually frightened me. Not the bits about the witches, as these were just preposterous conjecture– but certain sections about demons.
Now I know that demons probably don’t exist, but I can’t help thinking “What if?” There were a couple of chapters that focused on Incubi and Succubi and by golly did these freak me out! I already had a brief understanding of what these creatures were – I knew that they had it off with you while you’re asleep – but I didn’t know that it was to impregnate you with the spawn of Satan!
There was another quite interesting chapter on demons which basically listed a load of monsters and what they looked like. Goose-feet, serpent-tails, glowing eyes, riding on the backs of crocodiles. It was quite funny at first but it went on for about 30 pages. That’s the problem with this book; it just goes on too much.
I struggled a bit with the Elizabethan language – all of the ‘V’s were ‘U’s and all of the ‘Y’s ‘IE’s. Not to mention all the strange colloquialisms. At one point somebody is being raped and the lexicon chosen is that the perpetrator ‘dallied’ with her breasts. How quaint.
Some of the ways in which witches were caught were pretty funny. In order to find out who has bewitched you, one must put a pair of breeches on a cow’s head and beat him with a cudgel until he runs out of the pasture and straight to the front door of the hag responsible.
Aside from these few (and far between) snippets of mirth, the rest of the book is incredibly boring. Incredibly boring and incredibly difficult.
I am glad I have read it, as I have learnt a lot from it – I just wish that there was a modern translation of the text as I’m not too great at reading in Middle English. I also found it difficult at times to tell where Scot’s principles lay. I didn’t realise that sarcasm was used so far back in history!
I would have given this a higher rating if it wasn't so lengthy.
Now I know that demons probably don’t exist, but I can’t help thinking “What if?” There were a couple of chapters that focused on Incubi and Succubi and by golly did these freak me out! I already had a brief understanding of what these creatures were – I knew that they had it off with you while you’re asleep – but I didn’t know that it was to impregnate you with the spawn of Satan!
There was another quite interesting chapter on demons which basically listed a load of monsters and what they looked like. Goose-feet, serpent-tails, glowing eyes, riding on the backs of crocodiles. It was quite funny at first but it went on for about 30 pages. That’s the problem with this book; it just goes on too much.
I struggled a bit with the Elizabethan language – all of the ‘V’s were ‘U’s and all of the ‘Y’s ‘IE’s. Not to mention all the strange colloquialisms. At one point somebody is being raped and the lexicon chosen is that the perpetrator ‘dallied’ with her breasts. How quaint.
Some of the ways in which witches were caught were pretty funny. In order to find out who has bewitched you, one must put a pair of breeches on a cow’s head and beat him with a cudgel until he runs out of the pasture and straight to the front door of the hag responsible.
Aside from these few (and far between) snippets of mirth, the rest of the book is incredibly boring. Incredibly boring and incredibly difficult.
I am glad I have read it, as I have learnt a lot from it – I just wish that there was a modern translation of the text as I’m not too great at reading in Middle English. I also found it difficult at times to tell where Scot’s principles lay. I didn’t realise that sarcasm was used so far back in history!
I would have given this a higher rating if it wasn't so lengthy.
June 27, 2022
This is a truly fascinating work. Shortly before King James, the notorious hater of witches, took the English throne, Reginald Scott wrote a whole book about how witches aren't real. The Discoverie of Witchcraft has something to surprise everyone - surprisingly modern logic and arguments mixed with purely religious reasoning, a better understanding of false confessions than most police departments, some extraordinary anecdotal accounts of "witchcraft", and a few pieces of biting sarcasm.
It's not, however, a perfect work. Let's face it - this is some extremely dry material. I found it hard to read more than 6 or 7 pages at a time. The last half of the book, roughly speaking, also seems superfluous - it's made of up detailed descriptions of magic tricks (actual magic tricks, the kind you'd see at a show today) in order to debunk them, and even more detailed descriptions of various magical rituals, particularly the summoning of demons, for the same purpose. You'd almost think that Scott was getting paid by the page.
This is a great reference work, and a wonderful look at how people did or didn't think about witches and religion in another era, but it's not really suited for casual reading. It's strictly for professionals and dedicated hobbyists.
It's not, however, a perfect work. Let's face it - this is some extremely dry material. I found it hard to read more than 6 or 7 pages at a time. The last half of the book, roughly speaking, also seems superfluous - it's made of up detailed descriptions of magic tricks (actual magic tricks, the kind you'd see at a show today) in order to debunk them, and even more detailed descriptions of various magical rituals, particularly the summoning of demons, for the same purpose. You'd almost think that Scott was getting paid by the page.
This is a great reference work, and a wonderful look at how people did or didn't think about witches and religion in another era, but it's not really suited for casual reading. It's strictly for professionals and dedicated hobbyists.
January 2, 2025
This is difficult to read, being that it’s written in the 1500s, but the chapters are short and meanings can be parsed out. It’s an interesting historical artifact, to see the tragic practices of witch mongering. This author argues many things to prove witches aren’t real, like wouldn’t Jesus mention them? And why do men cry witchcraft when caught cheating? Seems convenient? And if they were as powerful as they’re said to be, why are so many poor? It also includes explanations of potions, magic tricks, and why confessions under torture can’t be trusted. The poor people who died under this practice is tragic to think about.
June 27, 2025
Really gagged James I with this one
![Profile Image for [ J o ].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1673171874i%2F4639825._UY200_CR4%2C0%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
January 8, 2016
The Discoverie of Witchcraft, wherein the Lewde dealing of Witches and Witchmongers is notablie detected, in sixteen books ... whereunto is added a Treatise upon the Nature and Substance of Spirits and Devils of 1584 is one of the few books written in defence of those who were wrongly accused and punished of witchcraft.
It's a very good reference book for anyone interested in the folklore and mythology of England, especially regarding Witches, Wizards, Mages, Warlocks and other magic users. Best used as a dip-in-and-out kind of book.
It's a very good reference book for anyone interested in the folklore and mythology of England, especially regarding Witches, Wizards, Mages, Warlocks and other magic users. Best used as a dip-in-and-out kind of book.
May 4, 2022
was actually educational, and scot was able to do his 'research' by interviewing the so-called witches/witchmongers and had a scientific view on the matter. He was even trying to defend the witch which might have probably left a bad taste on the governers/lorships at the time, in order to write this 'report' (?). It was also written with a quite unique font and structures that needed quite a level of understanding. It expanded my view on trickery(?), skills, and other things from his interviews with the people of the same practice.
August 16, 2024
1584: everyone around you believes witches are real, and powerful.
Reginald Scot, having as a a JP run a few witch-trials and realised these women are (a) faking it or (b) deluded, decides to investigate what the evidence is that witches are real, and discovers that most of the evidence against witches is made up by men who are (c) misogynists, (d) power-hungry, and (e) Catholics.
He looks at mistranslations of the Bible, ludicrous stories told by witchmongers, and rubbish put out by various Popes, and gets some conmen friends to explain how the tricks are done.
For the sixteenth century, this is a fundamentally rationalist book. From a deeply Protestant perspective (all false belief comes from Papists) he explains how conspiracy theories start, and how magic cannot possibly work: all supernatural power comes from God, therefore if you're not Jesus you can't perform miracles.
Shakespeare knew this book, and it had a massive impact on his writing of Macbeth and King Lear. King James I knew this book, and wanted it banned. King James, to be fair to him, was a twat.
The ludicrous introduction by the Revd Montague Summers from 1930, states that this is an atheist book, because only an atheist wouldn't believe in the power of Devil; Scot, on the other hand, points out that to attribute powers to the Devil denies the power of God, so belief in a Devil with powers is a blasphemy.
I kept wondering what Richard Dawkins would think of this book....
Reginald Scot, having as a a JP run a few witch-trials and realised these women are (a) faking it or (b) deluded, decides to investigate what the evidence is that witches are real, and discovers that most of the evidence against witches is made up by men who are (c) misogynists, (d) power-hungry, and (e) Catholics.
He looks at mistranslations of the Bible, ludicrous stories told by witchmongers, and rubbish put out by various Popes, and gets some conmen friends to explain how the tricks are done.
For the sixteenth century, this is a fundamentally rationalist book. From a deeply Protestant perspective (all false belief comes from Papists) he explains how conspiracy theories start, and how magic cannot possibly work: all supernatural power comes from God, therefore if you're not Jesus you can't perform miracles.
Shakespeare knew this book, and it had a massive impact on his writing of Macbeth and King Lear. King James I knew this book, and wanted it banned. King James, to be fair to him, was a twat.
The ludicrous introduction by the Revd Montague Summers from 1930, states that this is an atheist book, because only an atheist wouldn't believe in the power of Devil; Scot, on the other hand, points out that to attribute powers to the Devil denies the power of God, so belief in a Devil with powers is a blasphemy.
I kept wondering what Richard Dawkins would think of this book....
September 3, 2022
DNF.
Now i have been reading this with excitement, seeing all the raving reviews about and it being a source named in the book Folk Witchcraft: A Guide to Lore, Land, and the Familiar Spirit for the Solitary Practitioner and thus a book I read based on a recommendation by an author I admire.
Sadly, in the end, it wasn't due to the gruesome contents, but the language barrier. My first language is german, my secondary is English and while I think is fair to say that my English skills aren't lacking in day-to-day conversations, they aren't as fluent as those of a native. It takes a really long time to understand several passages, and being dragged down both by the weird language and mannerisms of the author - it just was upsetting to not get a good ground.
The parts i could read were riddled with bible quotes, and Latin and seemed out of place.
Sadly, there is no translation or modernized text available; though shameful, the contents of this book may forever be a mystery to me.
Now i have been reading this with excitement, seeing all the raving reviews about and it being a source named in the book Folk Witchcraft: A Guide to Lore, Land, and the Familiar Spirit for the Solitary Practitioner and thus a book I read based on a recommendation by an author I admire.
Sadly, in the end, it wasn't due to the gruesome contents, but the language barrier. My first language is german, my secondary is English and while I think is fair to say that my English skills aren't lacking in day-to-day conversations, they aren't as fluent as those of a native. It takes a really long time to understand several passages, and being dragged down both by the weird language and mannerisms of the author - it just was upsetting to not get a good ground.
The parts i could read were riddled with bible quotes, and Latin and seemed out of place.
Sadly, there is no translation or modernized text available; though shameful, the contents of this book may forever be a mystery to me.
February 18, 2025
Es un libro escrito en 1500, por lo que está escrito en el inglés de esa época, por lo que leerlo en la actualidad puede ser un dolor de cabeza. Sin embargo, es un libro interesantísimo sobre la historia de la brujería, con datos, fechas y autores citados.
Tiene algunos capítulos con las características de todos los demonios de Solomon; capítulos con hechizos antiguos sobre cómo conseguir amor, dinero y poder. Es una joya para consultar, pero no es una lectura cómoda.
Tiene algunos capítulos con las características de todos los demonios de Solomon; capítulos con hechizos antiguos sobre cómo conseguir amor, dinero y poder. Es una joya para consultar, pero no es una lectura cómoda.
January 3, 2023
Interesting insight into how contemporaries of the Renaissance-era witch-hunts expressed scepticism about the claims of the witch-hunters.
December 5, 2010
Originally written in the late 16th Century: a book on witchcraft by a man who didn't beleive in witches. A bit tough to get into at first, since it is not only witten with Elizabethan grammer/vocabulary, but also with period spelling. Although Scot believed in the literal truth of the bible (allowing for what he felt were common errors in translation/intrepretation), he was also highly skeptical, having no belief in supernatural powers, sorcery, foretelling the future and alchemy - attributing these beliefs to the senile/insane ("melancolicks and those in their dotage), scam artists (coseners), and papists. He also made a point in distinguisihing between sorcery and "natural magic" (science). On the other hand, he was extremely gullible about the properties of animals and minerals, repeating wild stories from bestiaries and the like as if they were solid facts. This book also has several chapters on stage magic (card tricks, sleight of hand, pretending to stick a knife though one's head, making a "severed" head speak, and the like).
February 23, 2009
Although the witch craze did reach into the British Islands, the investigation was more humane and scientific. Scot believed that witches existed; but was skeptical about most of the stories that came to his attention.
January 11, 2014
An interesting book. I think that the most important part was books XIV and XV where it actually explores the goetic demons.
May 11, 2016
Sadly, this is the version Montague Summers got his hands on, and so it isn't the full, original text. But, for a readable and quick-reference-able version, it's perfectly fine.
December 20, 2016
The most entertaining and well-constructed argument I've ever read in a primary source. If you're interested in witchcraft at all, this is essential.
Read
July 27, 20241584
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews