Samuel Harsnett's A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, 1599 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes

Samuel Harsnett's A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, 1599

Background and context

Harsnett's early life and career

Samuel Harsnett came from a modest background in Essex, where he was born in 1561. He studied at Cambridge University and gained his degree before being ordained as a minister in 1583. Following his ordination, Harsnett returned to Cambridge to study divinity, demonstrating his commitment to theological scholarship.

Like Reginald Scot, Harsnett grew up during the period of the dubious Chelmsford witch trials, which likely influenced his later scepticism towards witchcraft accusations. He became deeply religious as a young man and steadily rose through the ranks of the clergy, eventually holding some of the most senior positions in the Church of England:

• Bishop of Chichester (1609)
• Bishop of Norwich (1619)
• Archbishop of York (1629)

However, when he became involved in the John Darrell case, Harsnett held the position of chaplain to Richard Bancroft, who was Bishop of London at the time.

Harsnett's involvement in the Darrell case

Harsnett had direct, first-hand experience of examining the Boy of Burton case and was present at the formal interrogation of both John Darrell and his associate George More. His deep suspicion about Darrell's supposed exorcisms led him to write his influential book, which sparked a major debate about the nature of witchcraft and demonic possession in England.

The structure and arguments of Harsnett's book

Introduction and main thesis

Harsnett's book is divided into five distinct sections. In the introduction, he establishes his central argument: the practice of deceiving people through claims of magic and supernatural powers is nothing new, but can be traced back to ancient times.

Harsnett particularly criticises the Catholic Church, arguing that Catholic priests claim to perform miracles as easily as "a squirrel can crack a nut." He identifies several Catholic practices that he views as fraudulent tricks:

• Using holy water to perform supposed miracles
• Making the sign of the cross to deliver blessings
• Conducting communion with bread and wine

According to Harsnett, Catholics believe that these rituals can solve any problem. However, he reserves his strongest criticism for the practice of exorcism – the casting out of devils through prayer and ritual.

The five sections of the book

Section 1: Survey and interrogation

This opening section provides an overview of all the people John Darrell claimed to have successfully exorcised. Harsnett then recounts his personal interrogation of Darrell, noting that Darrell immediately tried to undermine the reliability of witnesses – a tactic Harsnett claims all guilty men employ.

Harsnett details how Darrell convinced people that William Somers was genuinely possessed by demons. He also attacks Darrell's character, claiming that Darrell was immoral and sinful because he had played blasphemous songs in his spare time as an amateur musician.

Section 2: Conspiracy and deception

The second section outlines how Darrell instructed William Somers to fake the symptoms of demonic possession. Harsnett argues that the two men conspired together to stage a fraudulent exorcism, deliberately deceiving observers.

Section 3: Confession and retraction

This section focuses on the confession made by William Somers, in which he admitted to faking his possession. Harsnett describes how Darrell encouraged Somers to retract his confession initially. Darrell and George More then argued that Somers had been forced to confess through threats or promises.

Harsnett counters these claims by arguing that the fits experienced by Somers were not extraordinary at all, but had simply been misinterpreted by credulous observers.

Section 4: Discrediting the supposed evidence

In the fourth section, Harsnett systematically dismantles the evidence for Somers' supernatural possession. He addresses several key claims:

• The superhuman strength Somers allegedly displayed during his fits was nothing extraordinary
• There was no credible evidence that Somers became fluent in Greek, Latin and Hebrew during his fits, as Darrell had claimed
• When Somers fell into a supposed fit in front of Harsnett himself, he was tested: when asked questions in Greek, he merely laughed; when questioned in Latin, he gave only a few basic words

Section 5: The Boy of Burton and Katherine Wright

The final section examines the Boy of Burton case in detail, explaining how Darrell instructed Thomas Darling to act as if possessed, and how Darling eventually confessed to the deception.

Harsnett also discredits a confession from Katherine Wright, a woman who had been suspected of possession and treated by Darrell years earlier. Wright ultimately revealed that she had been beaten by her father-in-law for many years, which had made her weak and prone to hallucinations. Any supernatural visions she claimed to have seen were fictitious, and she had exaggerated her symptoms to avoid further beatings.

The pamphlet war

Harsnett's book triggered a pamphlet war – a series of published responses and counter-responses that prompted a wider debate about witchcraft, demonic possession, and exorcism in English society.

Darrell's response (1600)

John Darrell himself responded to Harsnett's accusations with a provocatively titled pamphlet: A detection of that sinful, shaming, lying, and ridiculous discours of Samuel Harsnett (1600). The aggressive title reveals Darrell's anger at being publicly accused of fraud.

Deacon and Walker's intervention (1601)

Two ministers with Puritan sympathies, John Deacon and John Walker, entered the debate with their pamphlet Dialogicall discourses of spirits and divels (1601). Their contribution was significant because they questioned fundamental assumptions about possession and exorcism:

• They argued that the Devil was unable to possess people, as only God had this power
• They claimed that new bodies could not be created to do the Devil's work, as God would not allow this
• They demanded proof from Darrell that he actually possessed the power to perform exorcisms
• They questioned whether exorcism was even a miracle or whether it was possible at all

Darrell's second response (1602)

Darrell responded again in The Replie of John Darrell to the answere of John Deacon and John Walker (1602). In this pamphlet, he repeated his claim that he had genuinely witnessed all of the demonic possessions he reported.

Significance of the debate

This pamphlet war was historically important for several reasons. It revealed not only disagreements about whether Darrell's patients were honest, but also questioned the entire possibility of demonic possession and whether it could be cured through prayer and fasting.

However, Darrell continued to have substantial support. Joseph Hall, who later became Bishop of Exeter and Norwich, wrote in Darrell's defence, arguing that Darrell did indeed perform genuine exorcisms through his godly devotion. Hall claimed that Darrell's critics were motivated by jealousy rather than truth.

Religious context and motivations

Harsnett's religious position

Harsnett's own religious beliefs are contradictory and difficult to determine with certainty, but they may help explain his strong opposition to witchcraft beliefs and Darrell's practices.

As a young minister, Harsnett was accused of being sympathetic to the Catholic Church. In 1596, he supported Peter Baro, a Cambridge professor who had shown Arminian tendencies. This religious position may explain his immediate dislike for Darrell, who was a Puritan.

Bishop Bancroft, with whom Harsnett worked closely, was also acknowledged to be a member of the Arminian faction. However, despite these apparent Catholic sympathies, Harsnett's writings reveal that he was deeply anti-Catholic. In his criticism of Darrell and in his later work A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures (1603), he placed sole blame for witchcraft accusations on the Catholic Church.

Factional conflict within the church

Some historians have interpreted the Darrell case as an example of factional fighting within the Church of England:

• Darrell was a Puritan
• Harsnett was a Church of England conformist with Arminian leanings

However, the arguments made by the Puritans Deacon and Walker suggest the truth is more complex than simple factional rivalry.

Keith Thomas's interpretation

The historian Keith Thomas offers an alternative explanation. He argues that the entire controversy centred on whether prayer and fasting were accepted methods of exorcising spirits:

• In Puritan circles, these methods were widely used and accepted
• Among the senior clergy of the Church of England, they had long since been rejected

Historical significance

Harsnett's book is significant because it:

• Challenged the accepted practice of exorcism in late Elizabethan England
• Questioned whether demonic possession was even possible
• Sparked a major public debate through the pamphlet war
• Revealed tensions between different religious factions within the Church
• Represented an early sceptical voice against widespread witchcraft beliefs, though it remained a minority position

The fact that scepticism remained a minority view demonstrates how deeply embedded beliefs in witchcraft and demonic possession were in English society at the turn of the 17th century.