[75], 21. “We,” so the second; in the third the (,) is rightly placed after “years”. A correction that could have been made by the least intelligent of “readers”.
[168], 31. “Earth read firmament.” Not corrected.
[247], 29. “Write add it.” Not corrected.
[269], 16. “If there be masses delete If.” Retained, but the second attempts to correct by inserting “no” before “masses”, and the third follows suit, though it is as nonsensical as before.
[463], 16. “Their business read that business.” Not corrected.
Beyond these, the limited edition now printed is the only other known to me. As stated in the preface, it is a reprint of the first edition, with some slight alterations in the lettering, but not in the spelling. Besides the few errata that have been found and recorded, the small heading on its left hand pages up to [p. 24] is “Chap. —”, like that on the right hand, instead of being “1 or 2 Booke”. So also in the earlier pages, the marginal references, though correct, are not printed line for line with the original. The pictorial initial letters of the first chapter of each book occupy in the original almost a third of the page. The first word of a chapter has only its first two letters—including its pictorial letter—in capitals, but the remainder, as well as the rest of the first line, is in larger type than the rest. The original being also in black letter was enabled to use both Romans and Italics as variants, whereas the reprint could only use Italics. The rule of the original is, however, in general very simple. “The — Chapter”, the contents of the chapter and proper names are in Romans; “The — Booke” and quotations in Italics; the translations of quotations in Romans. Wherever there can be any doubt the type of the original is marked in the margin, as are occasional uses by the author of [] to distinguish them from the editor’s use of the same. It may be added that “The — Chapter”, and the contents of the chapter, have been transposed. The V like arrangement of the lines at the end of a chapter have not been followed, but been imitated according to the spirit in which they were employed; for, after an investigation made for the purpose, it was found that they do not indicate a division of the text or matter, but were simply compositors’ devices to fill up a page when that page either ended a book, or when its blank space did not allow of the commencement of a new chapter. Similarly, on one page, a (∵) was added to complete the page. And, in like manner, if there was still space at the end of a book, an engraving was inserted. I would add that all the page references that I make are to the pages of the 1584 edition.
I had collected for an appendix various grammatical peculiarities of the age; but they increased the number of pages, and therefore the price of the book, without, as seemed to me, sufficient cause, more especially as the reader can readily consult Dr. Abbot’s Shakesperian Grammar, as well as notices in other books. One point, however, ought to be attended to. Though an educated and University man, accustomed to Latin and Greek, he, like all of his time, followed the then frequent habit of using singular verbs after plural nominatives not immediately preceding them. A close examination of these, both in Scot and Greene, another literate and Utriusque Academiæ in Artibus Magister; and one notable one in Ben Jonson, who elsewhere, so far as I know, avoids this error; as well as those in Shakespeare and others, have shown me that they cannot be explained as is sought in Dr. Abbot’s Shakesperian Grammar, § 333, where the form of the verb is held to be a remnant of the northern early English third person plural in “s”. The instances alone of the auxiliary verbs so used set this theory aside, and show that the custom was due to carelessness, habit, the remoteness or after position of the true nominatives, and to the nearness of another word, sometimes even to a transposed objective; or of a “that” or “which” that had the look of a singular, or in the case of a double nominative, to both words being considered as implying one thought, as indeed they often did, being merely synonyms. Our Elizabethan ancestors would have said: “Pity and compassion moves me,” because they held pity and compassion were one and the same; and the habit of using Saxon and Latin, or other synonyms, led them to use the same construction when the meanings were but allied. This seems to me the more likely explanation: but the reader may prefer this—that our ancestors took the phrase to be elliptical, and that the verb really employed after both substantives was to be understood after the first and before the “and”.
Contemporary Notices of Scot.—Of strictly contemporary notices, I know of but two. In Nash’s Four Letters Confuted, 1593, he asks, ed. Grosart, ii, 252: “How is the Supplication a diabolicall Discourse, otherwise than as it intreats of the diverse natures and properties of Divels and spirits? in that far fetcht sense may the famous defensative against supposed Prophecies, and the Discoverie of Witchcraft be called notorious Diabolicall discourses, as well as the Supplication, for they also intreate of the illusions and sundrie operations of spirits.” The second is in Gabriel Harvey’s Pierce’s Supererogation, 1593, ed. Grosart, ii, 291: “Scottes discoovery of Witchcraft, dismasketh sundry egregious impostures, and in certaine principall Chapters, & speciall passages, hitteth the nayle on the head with a witnesse: howsoever I could have wished, [G. H. is nothing if he be not quasi-critical and emending] he had either dealt somewhat more curteously with Monsieur Bodine, or cōfuted him somewhat more effectually.”
Of course, various of the after-writers on witchcraft, whichever side they took, either spoke of him explicitly, or alluded to him; Webster, Wagstaffe, Ady, and others, on the same side as Scot, and Meric Casaubon, Cotta, etc., ending with Glanvil on the other. But these, the really curious in such matters may be left to search out for themselves. Only I would like to mention John Deacon’s and John Walker’s Dialogicall Discourses of ... Devils [etc.], 1601, both because they, being clergymen, had the boldness—besides adding new arguments of their own, and though their wording is somewhat less decided than their own evident belief—out of three explanations of the case of the Witch of Endor which they set before the reader, to plainly prefer Scot’s view of her ventriloquism, both naming him in the text, and giving the reference to his page in their margin; and secondly, because so far as a hasty look enables one to give an opinion, they spoke more rationally on magical and other points than one would at that date expect. They also quote the opinion of Hippocrates on magical cures, as given by Scot, p. 450, and show that they take it, though not literally, from him, and not from Hippocrates directly, by giving a reference to Scot in the margin. Afterwards they published in 1603, a second large work, A summarie[?] answer to John Darrell, the first work having been also suggested by the same impostor, and his setting forth of himself as a caster out of devils.
I have said on [p. xxii] that the discovery of Scot’s name in the Subsidy Rolls for 1586 and 1587 with the affix of “Armiger” was for me an important find. And now I would explain that it was so, inasmuch as it set my mind at rest as to the oneness of the Raynold of the Hoppe-garden with the Reginald Scot Esquire, of the Witchcraft. Aware that Reynold and Reginald were variants of one name, used of and by the same person, the following facts hindered me for a long time from accepting the common belief that the Raynold and Reginald of these two works were one and the same. First, the author of the Hoppe-garden in each of his signatures to the editions of 1574–6–8, three in each, appears as Raynold. In the marriage entry, in the pay-account of the Kent forces, in the Muster-roll, and in the Will, it is also Raynold. But in 1584, throughout the Witchcraft, that is, four times in all, the name appears as Reginald. Secondly, in the Will of 1599, in accordance with the want of any title on the title-page of the Hoppe-garden, he describes himself as “gent”, and in the Inquisitio p. m., though he is called Reginald, the document being in Latin, he is, as in his Will, “generosus”. But in the title-page of the Witchcraft, he is Reginald Scot Esquire. The finding no evidence of the separate existence of a Raynold and a Reginald, the frequent references to the Scriptures in the Witchcraft, and the very frequent references to the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, in the “Address to the Reader” of the Hoppe-garden, the use in both works, as already quoted, of certain legal phrases, and the occurrence in the prefatory part of the Hoppe-garden of “with the licour (or rather the lucre)”, and “condemne the man, or rather the mynde”, a trick of language not unfrequently repeated in the Discoverie, a trick resulting from his love of irony, shook my doubts. But there were still, the want of any title after the name in the Hoppe-garden, the “gent” of the Will, and the “generosus” of the Inquisitio, as against the “Esquire” of the Discoverie. First, however, Hunter’s suggestion, that his esquireship was due to his having been appointed a Justice of the Peace, and then the discovery of armiger after his name, have removed all reasonable doubts; and to turn our belief to a positive certainty, it only remains to discover that he was a Justice of the Peace.