Poisonous Vapours: Joseph Glanvill's Science of Witchcraft
2012; Routledge; Volume: 22; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/17496977.2012.693741
ISSN1749-6985
Autores Tópico(s)Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgments This article was produced with the assistance of funding provided through the Melbourne Scholarships Office at the University of Melbourne. Notes 1 Glanvill was appointed to the Abbey on 23 June 1666. See J.I. Cope, Joseph Glanvill Anglican Apologist (St. Louis, MO: Washington University Studies, 1956), 19. 2 The details of the destruction of the 1666 imprint are commonly drawn from A. Wood, Athenae Oxonienses Volume 3, edited by P. Bliss (London, 1817), 1249. Wood's account is supported by a letter from Glanvill to More postmarked 26 April 1667, in which Glanvill writes: ‘I had order'd my Bookseller to send yu a Copy of my Letter of Witchcraft just after it was extant, […] But ye Fatall Fire came on yt putt all things into hurry. My Bookseller among ye rest was almost undone, & my Letter & other things lost […]’. See J. Glanvill, A Letter from Glanvill to More (Cambridge, MA: [s.n.], 1955), fol. 1r. 3 For Pepys first reading on 24 November 1666, see S. Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, edited by R. Latham and W. Matthews, 11 vols (London: Bell, 1972), vol. 7, 382. For the second reading on the 25 December 1667, see Pepys, Diary, vol. 8, 589. For evidence that the Blow at Modern Sadducism was in circulation before its official publication in 1668, see Cope, Joseph Glanvill, 14. 4 There were four major revised editions of Glanvill's witch-book published by 1681 if you include the reworking of the Letter which appeared as the sixth essay in J. Glanvill, Essays on Several Important Subjects in Philosophy and Religion (London, 1676). There were two additional print runs of the A Philosophical Endeavour […] in a Letter to Robert Hunt in 1667 (Wing G832 and Wing G832A) and a second imprint of A Blow at Modern Sadducism in 1668 (Wing G800). The work was also translated into German in 1701 (HAB Wolfenbüttel Hr 167) and large sections pertaining to the Tedworth story were translated into Dutch in: J. Koelman, Wederlegging van B. Bekkers Betoverde wereldt (Amsterdam, 1692). The last complete English edition was published in 1726. 5 More published two further expansions of the Saducismus Triumphatus in 1682 and 1689, with an additional run of the second edition being printed in 1688. However, for the purpose of analysing Glanvill's ideas, I have stopped with the 1681 edition as further editions were not expanded from Glanvill's notes, but included additional material and relations collected in the wake of the publication of the 1681 edition and included by More at his discretion. See ‘An Account of this Second Edition of Saducismus Triumphatus’, in J. Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, edited by H. More (London, 1682), sig. A3r ff. 6 See especially M. Hunter, ‘New Light on the ‘Drummer of Tedworth’: Conflicting Narratives of Witchcraft in Restoration England’, Historical Research, 78:201 (2005), 211–353. 7 See also J. Broad, ‘Margaret Cavendish and Joseph Glanvill: Science, Religion, and Witchcraft’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38 (2007), 493–505; J.E. Lewis, ‘Spectral Currencies in the Air of Reality: A Journal of the Plague Year and the History of Apparitions’, Representations, 87 (2004), 82–101 (87–92). 8 Glanvill's account of the Drummer of Tedworth first appeared in J. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism (London, 1668), Wing G800, 91 ff. 9 G.L. Kittredge, Witchcraft in Old and New England (New York: Athenaeum, 1957), esp. 343–9; M.E. Prior, ‘Joseph Glanvill, Witchcraft, and Seventeenth-Century Science’, Modern Philology, 30:2 (1932), 167–93. 10 J. Tulloch, Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth Century Volume 2, reprinted 1972 (New York, 1874), 445, 448–9. 11 M. Gibson, Witchcraft and Society in England and America, 1550–1750 (Ithaca, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006), 228; R. Crocker, Henry More, 1614–1687: A Biography of the Cambridge Platonist (Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), 133. 12 An Institute of Historical Research funded website, British History Online, lists Glanvill as a Chaplain in Waiting, though the current scholarship only attributes him the status of a Chaplain in Ordinary. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43950, accessed 18 October 2010. This website is based on the records of the Lord Chamberlain held at the National Archives, which do indeed suggest that Glanvill was scheduled as King's Chaplain in January 1681 (see LC3/24 fol. 14). However, Glanvill died in November 1680, hence his name has been crossed out and replaced with another on this list. 13 See especially A.G. Debus, ‘Chemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives on the Scientific Revolution’, Isis, 89:1 (1998), 66–81; S. Clark, ‘The Scientific Status of Demonology’, in The Literature of Witchcraft, edited by B.P. Levack, 12 vols (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1992), vol. 6, 313–36. 14 There have been several facsimile editions of Glanvill's work since this time. However, these are reproductions with basic introductions which do not offer substantial critical appraisals of Glanvill's work. Sascha Talmor also published the following book in 1981, however, Talmor's focus is on the Vanity of Dogmatizing series of texts and the development of Glanvill's prose with little attention paid to the witch-books. See S. Talmor, Glanvill: The Uses and Abuses of Scpeticism (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1981). 15 T.H. Jobe, ‘The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill–Webster Witchcraft Debate’, Isis, 72:3 (1981), 342–56 (343), and Brian Vickers' introduction to Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, edited by B. Vickers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 1–56. 16 W. Notestein, History of Witchcraft in England from 1558–1718 (Washington, DC: American Historical Association, 1911), 101, 285, 288. 17 Jobe, ‘Devil in Restoration Science’, 342. 18 Also referred to as ‘scientific skepticism’ by Prior, ‘Joseph Glanvill’, 189 and ‘moderate empiricism’ by R.M. Burns, The Great Debate on Miracles: From Joseph Glanvill to David Hume (Lewisburg, VA: Bucknell University Press, 1981), 19. 19 Burns, Great Debate, 19–20, 29–32. For Sprat's agreement on this issue see T. Sprat, The History of the Royal-Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (London, 1667), 85, 95ff; J. Glanvill, A Philosophical Endeavour Towards the Defence of the Being of Witches and Apparitions. In a Letter to the Much Honoured, Robert Hunt, Esq. (London, 1666), 4–7, 33–5. 20 Cope, Joseph Glanvill, 17; T. Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London for Improving of Natural Knowledge, from its First Rise Volume 1 (London, 1756), 500–1, 504. 21 J.B. Bury, The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth (London: Macmillan, 1921), 93. 24 Prior, ‘Joseph Glanvill’, 187–93. 22 H.S. Redgrove, Joseph Glanvill: And Psychical Research in the Seventeenth Century (London: W. Rider, 1921), 93–4. In 1900, Ferris Greenslet published his doctoral thesis. However, the characterisation of the Saducismus Triumphatus as ‘an unexplained residuum of variation from the normal Glanvill’ showing the ‘inherent bias of the witchcraft epidemic’ demonstrated that Greenslet himself displayed the ‘inherent bias of post-Enlightenment progressivism’ and thus did not contribute significantly to the revision of Glanvill's reputation. See F. Greenslet, Joseph Glanvill: A Study in English Thought and Letters of the Seventeenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1900), 160. 23 Kittredge, Witchcraft, 343–9. 25 Prior, ‘Joseph Glanvill’, 189; Burns, Great Debate, 48–9. 26 There are minor changes in grammatical style between editions, which do not alter Glanvill's meaning in any significant way. The 1668 edition also introduces headings. However, while enhancing the readability and navigability of the text, the headings do not change the meaning or emphasis of the argument. 27 The majority of the material comprising the relations of contemporary tales of witchcraft appear in the posthumous editions edited by More. While Glanvill has left extensive notes used by More, the fate of these documents is unknown, leaving us unable to judge how More's edition compares to that which Glanvill would have produced. See J. Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, edited by H. More (London, 1681), sig. A3r, 57. 28 J. Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 4, 14; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 4–5, 15; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 4, 13. 29 In the 1666 edition of the witch-book, exegetical arguments were minimal, confined largely to the last third of the Letter, and subsidiary to metaphysical considerations about the nature of spirits. However, Glanvill did incorporate more of the usual theological justifications for the belief in witchcraft into the end of the Letter in the 1668 edition, including a famous analysis of the case of the Witch of Endor. See Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 76 ff; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 64 ff. 30 J. Glanvill and G. Rust, Two Choice and Useful Treatises, edited with annotations by H. More (London, 1682), sig. C2v. 31 Glanvill's authorship of the Lux Orientalis was established in print in More's 1682 edition. This attribution is verified by several extant letters, most notably a letter to Richard Baxter, the Nonconformist preacher, dated 4 August 1662, in which Glanvill confesses his authorship of the work. See Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, edited by N.H. Keeble and G.F. Nuttall, 2 vols (Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 2, 25–6. 32 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 8; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 9; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 8. 33 Glanvill uses the word ‘hypothesis’ regularly throughout the work. See Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 8, 15, 19, 21; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 9, 16, 20, 23; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 8, 14, 18, 20. 34 It is worth bearing in mind that Glanvill was relatively young, only 45, when he succumbed to ill health. It is quite likely that Glanvill's presentation would have become more organised over time. 35 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 4, 14; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 4–5, 15; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 4, 13. 36 Broad, ‘Margaret Cavendish’, 502. 37 J.I. Cope, ‘Joseph Glanvill, Anglican Apologist: Old Ideas and New Style in the Restoration’, PMLA, 69:1 (1954), 223–50 (223). 38 B. Easlea, Witch-Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy: An Introduction to Debates of the Scientific Revolution 1450–1750 (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980), 205. 39 The consequences of failing to be conscious of the limitations of one's own knowledge in seventeenth-century Britain were demonstrated by More who was accused of being dogmatic with increasing frequency and intensity during the 1670s and 1680s. See J. Henry, ‘Henry More Versus Robert Boyle: The Spirit of Nature and the Nature of Providence’, in Henry More (1614–1687): Tercentenary Studies, edited by S. Hutton (Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 55–76 (57–8). 40 For examples of this approach see Broad, ‘Margaret Cavendish’, 502; Cope, ‘Joseph Glanvill’, 254; I. Bostridge, Witchcraft and Its Transformations, c.1650–C.1750 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 57, 75–7, 83; Gibson, Witchcraft and Society, 227–8. For an alternative investigation of the inspiration for seventeenth-century concern over Atheism, see A. Coudert, ‘Henry More and Witchcraft’, in Henry More (1614–1687): Tercentenary Studies, edited by S. Hutton (Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 115–36 (115–23). 41 Glanvill, ‘To the Right Honourable, William Lord Brereton’, in Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 116. 42 M. Hunter, The Occult Laboratory: Magic, Science, and Second Sight in Late Seventeenth-Century Scotland (Woodbridge and Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2001), 7. 43 C. Webster, From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 103 fn. 58. 44 Glanvill died on the 4 November 1680. See A. McConnell, ‘Brereton, William, Third Baron Brereton of Leighlin (Bap. 1631, D. 1680)’, in ODNB (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/39679; W.E. Burns, ‘Glanvill, Joseph (1636–1680)’, in ODNB (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10790. 45 S. Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1997), 306; J. Sharpe, Witchcraft in Early Modern England (Harlow: Longman, 2001), 80; Kittredge, Witchcraft, 335; Jobe, ‘Devil in Restoration Science’, 356; Prior, ‘Joseph Glanvill’, 188. 46 For several examples of spirits and the Devil influencing people's thoughts and actions via humoral manipulation, see J. Glanvill, Some Discourses, Sermons, and Remains of the Reverend Mr. Jos. Glanvil [sic], edited by A. Horneck (London, 1681), 177–9, 230, 384–7, 418–19. 52 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 17–18; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 18-20; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 16-17 (original emphasis). 54 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 18; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 19–20; Glanvill, saducismus triumphatus, 17. 47 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 17–8; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 18–20; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 16–17. 48 J. Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness: Witchcraft in England 1550–1750 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1996), 71. 49 Sharpe, Instruments, 71–2. 50 Sharpe, Instruments, 73; K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 530. 51 Sharpe, Instruments, 94, 180; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 530. 53 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 25; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 27; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 24. 55 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 17; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 18; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 16. 56 Alonso de Salazar Frias, ‘Verdict in a Trial of 1610’, in Witchcraft in Europe, 400–1700: A Documentary History, edited by A.C. Kors and E. Peters, second edition (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 408–9. 57 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 18; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 20; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 17. 58 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 24, 32; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 26–7, 36; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 23, 31. 59 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 25, 30 ff; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 28, 34 ff; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 24, 29 ff. 60 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 30–3; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 34–7; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 29–32. 61 T. Hobbes, Leviathan (London, 1651), 56. 62 O. Davies, ‘The Nightmare Experience, Sleep Paralysis, and Witchcraft Accusations’, Folklore, 114:2 (2003), 181–203 (182–3). 63 R. Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft (London, 1584), 86. 64 See Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches, edited by L. Normand and G. Roberts (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000), 414; Davies, ‘Nightmare Experience’, 187. For Burton's explanation of nightmares see R. Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy (Oxford, 1621), 93. 65 The Athenian Oracle: Being an Entire Collection of All the Valuable Questions and Answers in the Old Athenian Mercuries (London, 1703), 292–3; Davies, ‘Nightmare Experience’, 188. 66 J. Weyer, De Praestigiis daemonum (1583), edited by G. Mora and translated by J. Shea, Witches, Devils, and Doctors in the Renaissance (Binghamton, NY: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1991), 186 (my emphasis). 67 Burton, Anatomy, 200. 68 Burton, Anatomy, 39–54, esp. 52. 69 Weyer, De praestigiis daemonum, 346. 70 H. Hallywell, Melampronoea (London, 1681), 99 ff. 71 Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, 731. 72 Hobbes, Leviathan, 53. 73 In her documentary history of the plague, Rosemary Horrox includes an extract from a report by a doctor in Montpellier in 1349 in which he describes the spreading of the epidemic via ‘the air breathed out by the sick and inhaled by the healthy people round about wounds and kills them […]’. See ‘The Transmission of Plague’, in The Black Death, edited by R. Horrox (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), extract 61. 74 A. Clericuzio, ‘The Internal Laboratory. The Chemical Reinterpretation of Medical Spirits in England (1650–1680)’, in Alchemy and Chemistry in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by P. Rattansi and A. Clericuzio (Dordrecht and Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994), 51–84 (51). 75 See R. Boyle, Suspicions About Some Hidden Qualities of the Air (1674), in The Works of Robert Boyle, edited by M. Hunter and E.B. Davis, 14 vols (Charlottesville, VA: InteLex Corporation, 2003), vol. 8, 122. See also Clericuzio, ‘The Internal Laboratory’, 58. 76 See especially H. More, An Antidote against Atheisme (London, 1653); H. More, The Immortality of the Soul (London, 1659). 77 While an enthusiastic advocate of the possibility of invisible substances and beings, Glanvill expressly states in the Letter that he agrees that the notion of a ‘substance immaterial is as much a contradiction as they [the Sadducees] can fancy’. Indeed, in his dedication to the Scepsis Scientifica published in the previous year, Glanvill describes ‘immaterial Substances’ as ‘unbounded prerogatives’ which ‘are bestowed upon Matter’ and most like ‘branches of a dangerous Cabbala’ (original emphasis). See Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 8; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 9; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 7; J. Glanvill, Scepsis Scientifica (London, 1665), fol. 8r. Though his presence at the Gresham air-pump demonstrations was not recorded, Dorothy Stimson claims that Glanvill was publicly associated with Boyle's experiments through a ballad composed in c.1663 of which he was the likely author. D. Stimson, ‘Ballad of Gresham Colledge’, Isis, 18:1 (1932), 103–17 (103–6); D. Stimson, Scientists and Amateurs: A History of the Royal Society (London: SIGMA, 1949), 57. Regardless of this attribution, Glanvill was certainly familiar with Boyle's work by 1662 when he sent Boyle a copy of his Lux Orientalis. See below and note 89 for further details. 78 For a discussion of the increasing tension over More's desire to use Boyle's hydrostatical experiments as evidence for a Spirit of Nature, see Henry, ‘Henry More Versus Robert Boyle’, 57. 79 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 8–9; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 8–10; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 7–9. 80 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Philosophical Endeavour, 9; Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 9; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 8. 81 R. Boyle to J. Glanvill, 18 September 1677, in The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, Electronic Edition, 6 vols, edited by Michael Hunter (InteLex Corporation, 2004), vol. 4, 456. 82 R. Boyle to J. Glanvill, 18 September 1677, Correspondence, vol. 4, 457. Though this quote follows an analogy made between witchcraft and alchemy, the sentiment is still one of support for Glanvill's work and method. Note also a discrepancy in the qualifying phrase which follows this quote. It reads ‘of the amplitude and variety of the works of gold’ in the Hunter edition; but ‘of the amplitude and variety of the works of God’ in the earlier Birch collection. See R. Boyle, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, edited by T. Birch, 6 vols (London, 1772), vol. 6, 58. 83 Given that the air-pump was being used to demonstrate that air had mass and substance from the time of the publication of Boyle's New Experiments, Physico-Mechanical, Touching the Spring of the Air, and its Effects in 1660, and Glanvill was clearly familiar with Boyle by 1662, it is likely that this intellectual environment contributed to Glanvill's enthusiasm for the aerial theory of spirits and witchcraft. Glanvill's high opinion of this device is emphasised explicitly in his Plus Ultra (1668), in which he writes: ‘These and many more such-like beneficial Observations and Discoveries, hath that great Man [Boyle] made by the help of his Pneumatick Engine; and there is no doubt but more, and perhaps greater things will be disclosed by it, when future ingenuity and diligence hath improved and perfected this invention […] And ’tis like this Instrument hereafter will be used and applyed to things yet unthought of […]'. See J. Glanvill, Plus Ultra (London, 1668), 64; Glanvill, Essays (1676), 29. 84 For a more detailed discussion of the debate between More and Boyle see Henry, ‘Henry More Versus Robert Boyle’, 57. 85 Glanvill, Two Choice and Useful Treatises, 100–1. 86 Glanvill, Two Choice and Useful Treatises, 132. 87 Glanvill's high opinion of Boyle is also evident in the Plus Ultra in which he spends chapters XIII and XIV expressly extolling his virtues and suggesting that, had he lived in classical times, Boyle ‘could not have miss'd one of the first places among their deified Mortals’. Glanvill, Plus Ultra, 93; Glanvill, Essays, 38. 88 J. Glanvill to R. Boyle, [1662], Correspondence, vol. 2, 54–5. 89 The intellectual relationship between Glanvill and Boyle is complex and complicated further by the absence of direct correspondence between the two. However, there are many other indications too numerous to expand on at this time, which suggest, at the least, a mutual respect between the two. There are six extant letters between the two in The Correspondence of Robert Boyle and further letters and meetings are indicated therein. For example, the letter from Boyle to Glanvill of 18 September 1677 begins ‘In the strange story you did me the favour last week to entertain me with […]’. For all extant letters see Correspondence, vol. 2, 54–5; vol. 4, 455–7, 460–1, 467–8; vol. 5, 15–16, 20–1, 37–8. Closer intellectual engagement between the two is also suggested by Glanvill's suggestion to the Marquis of Worcester that he had access to several of Boyle's unpublished treatises prior to writing the Plus Ultra in 1668. Glanvill, ‘The Preface’, Essays, fol. 7r. The Plus Ultra was reworked to become the third essay in the collection dedicated to the Marquis in 1676, though the section on Boyle's air-pump remains unchanged. 90 I would like to thank Constance Blackwell for introducing me to the literature on eclectic philosophy and her assistance in assessing how the concept of methodical doubt as presented in her article could be applied to Glanvill. See C. Blackwell, ‘Aristotle's Perplexity Becomes Descartes's Doubt: Metaphysics 3, 1 and Methodical Doubt in Benito Pereira and René Descartes’, in Skepticism in the Modern Age: Building on the Work of Richard Popkin, edited by J.R.M. Neto, G. Paganini and J.C. Laursen (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 231–48. 91 D.G. Morhof, Polyhistor literarius, philosophicus et practicus, 3 vols (Lubeck, 1732), vol. 2, esp. 196–7. 92 Scot, Discovery of Witchcraft; Weyer, De praestigiis daemonum; J. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (London, 1677). 93 For a more concise account of this tradition see Hallywell, Melampronoea, 99–103. 94 Glanvill describes the author of the letter as ‘Reverend Dr. R. Dean of C.’; see Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 106. However, letters between Henry More and Anne Conway support the identification of this Dean as George Rust, Dean of Connor. See The Conway Letters: The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and Their Friends 1642–1684, edited by M.H. Nicolson, revised by S. Hutton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 208 et passim. 95 N.H. Steneck, ‘Greatrakes the Stroker: The Interpretations of Historians’, Isis, 73:2 (1982), 161–77 (161). 96 Glanvill, ‘Some Considerations About Witchcraft’, in Glanvill, Modern Sadducism, 106–8; Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus, 90–2. 97 L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols (New York: Columbia University Press, 1923–1958), vol. 8, 176; H. Stubbe, The Miraculous Conformist (Oxford, 1666), 10–11. 100 The Scholia were originally appended to the Latin collection of works More published in 1675. They first appeared in English in the 1712 collection. H. More, A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More (London, 1712). For the Latin version see H. More, Henrici Mori Cantabrigiensis Opera Theologica Anglice Quidem Primitùs Scripta (London, 1675). 98 Boyle, Works, vol. 7, 244; Thorndike, History of Magic, vol. 8, 174. 99 Steneck, ‘Greatrakes the Stroker’, 173. 101 For More, these ‘spirits’ are not to be confused with spiritual beings. They are the animating spirits associated with More's Spirit of Nature. H. More, Enthusiasmus triumphatus, second edition (London, 1662), 41. 104 Webster, Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 68. 102 Wagstaffe's arguments against witchcraft were primarily exegetical in nature focusing on the discussion of the Witch of Endor and other biblical passages. See J. Wagstaffe, The Question of Witchcraft Debated (London, 1669). 103 Webster, Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 81. 105 J. Webster to M. Lister, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Lister 34, fols. 145r–148v, 157r. 106 J. Webster, Johann Websters Untersuchung Der Vermeinten Und So Genannten Hexereyen, edited by C. Thomasius (Halle, 1719); Bostridge, Witchcraft and Its Transformations, 126. 108 Boyle, Some Considerations About the Reconcileableness of Reason and Religion, in Works, vol. 8, 278–9. 107 Hunter, Occult Laboratory, 9; W. Whiston, An Account of the Dæmoniacks (London, 1737), 74–5; Webster, From Paracelsus to Newton, 98. 109 R. Boyle to J. Glanvill, 18 September 1677, Correspondence, 455–7. 110 See note 4.
Referência(s)