DARRELL, John.

SCARCE ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT

DARRELL, John. Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying, and ridiculous discours, of Samuel Harshnet. entituled: A discoverie of the frawdulent practises of John Darrell.

[England?], Imprinted [by the English secret press?], c.1600.

£8,500.00

FIRST EDITION. 4to. pp. [10], 3-208, [4]. Roman letter, little Italic. Title and following leaf repaired at blank gutter and lower blank margin, small clean tear to lower edge of H2 (just touching text), three blank gutters repaired at end. Upper edge trimmed short, affecting running titles on a couple of ll. A clean copy in modern calf, gilt label to spine, a.e.g., c1900 bookplate of Mechanics’ Institution, Nottingham, to front pastedown, a few lines of ms bibliographical notes by ‘Joseph Smith Rector of [illegible]’ dated 1802 to fly.

First edition of this scarce, most interesting early English work on witchcraft, possession and exorcism, attributed to the northern English secret press. John Darrell (1562-c1602) was a Puritan clergyman, notorious for his practice of exorcism in Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and Staffordshire. This led to a public investigation, the prosecutor, Samuel Harshnet (1561-1631), being then Archbishop of York. Harshnet decried Darrell’s practices in print in his ‘Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of John Darrell’ (1599); there he unmasked as fraud specific cases of possession in which Darrell employed exorcism on people feigning possession – a ‘Popish’ practice – to impress the populace and make them submit more willingly to the Puritan creed. Darrell’s ‘Detection’ was his answer to these accusations, and one of several works published as part of this debate. The more noteworthy case was that of William Somers (Nottingham, 1596-7), allegedly in cahoots with Darrell. ‘Detection’ sought to counterattack Harshnet’s work one sentence at a time, meanwhile providing his own detailed reconstruction and interpretation of the events which had occurred in several places in the north of England in the late 1590s. He clarified the role of his assistant, George More, and his relationship with some of his hosts and the possessed like Thomas Starkey, Thomas Darling, Katherine Wright, and Mary Glover. Darrell also included extensive explanations of Puritan exorcism, its practice, its difference from Popish practices, and the kind of people more likely to require such rituals (‘commonly of the poorer sort’). In order to disentangle Puritan practices from Popish ones, and undo Harshnet’s accusations, Darrell asked ‘why was so much official time and energy being directed against the activities of ministers of the gospels [i.e., Puritans] […] and not deployed to root out and denounce Catholic exorcism’ instead, as the culprits of the latter had never, unlike Darrell, been arrested and imprisoned (Holmes, p.78). A scarce work – a most interesting snapshot of the effects of early witchcraft inquests within small communities caught between Puritanism and Catholicism, in late Tudor England. 

ESTC S109292; STC (2nd ed.), 6283. Not in Thorndike or Caillet. C. Homes, ‘Witchcraft and Possession at the Accession of James I’, in Witchcraft and the Act of 1604 (2008), pp.69-90.
Stock Number: L4487 Categories: , Tags: , ,