THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

The Familiar Spirit. Julia Kidd.

48 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

THE ROLE OF THE

FAMILIAR SPIRIT
IN THE
GLANVILLE-WEBSTER
WITCHCRAFT
DEBATE

Jason Lee
Written for the Health, Humanism, and Society
Scholars Medical Humanities Practicum
(MDHM 430)
Dr. John Mulligan

Introduction

Recent accounts of scientific advancement from the Middle Ages to the Age
of Enlightenment often overcome a prior scholarly tendency to draw distinctions
between the superstitious practices of the Dark Ages and the rational sciences of
the Enlightenment. Largely discredited nowadays, prior discussions of the decline
in witchcraft in early modern England often glorified the scientific revolution as a
radical break from medieval superstition. 1 An example that seemingly contradicts
the assumption that science became progressively enlightened in early modern
England is the Glanvill-Webster debate, which pitted the Anglican clergyman
Joseph Glanvill against the radical sectarian physician John Webster. Whereas
Joseph Glanvill, who attempted to adhere to the experimental method put forth
by the Royal Society, argued in support of the existence of witchcraft in his 1668
A Blow at Modern Sadducism, John Webster, who was an ardent supporter of
occult practices such as alchemy and astrology, argued against the existence of
witchcraft in his 1677 The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft. In 1681, a year

1. Peter Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2016), 176.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 49

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

after Glanvill’s death, the enlargement of A Blow at Modern Sadducism was

published as the Saducismus Triumphatus.

Given that the Glanvill-Webster debate complicated the simple narrative of

modern scientific progress, historians such as Thomas Jobe have also shifted
away from the assumption that a surge in scientific advances was the main
contributor to the decline in witchcraft. Rather than focusing solely on the science
of early modern England in discussing the shifts in witchcraft, Jobe emphasized
the importance of acknowledging the religion and politics of Restoration
England. 2 In his article, Jobe proposed that paradoxes of the Glanvill-Webster
debate can be resolved by contextualizing the scientific beliefs of this period in
terms of the religious and political alignments of Restoration England. Lasting
from 1660 to 1685, Restoration England was the period after Oliver Cromwell’s
Commonwealth when Charles II returned to the throne. Following his return as
king, Charles II established an exclusive body of Anglican clergy that refused
admittance to Catholics and nonconformists ranging from Presbyterians to
radical sectarians. Within the Anglican clergy, however, a group of clergymen
called latitudinarians was distinguished by their views of religious moderation
and scientific rationality. 3

According to Jobe, previous historians attempted to resolve the paradox by

proposing that the broad explanatory powers of occultism allowed occultists to
provide alternative naturalistic explanations to phenomena that would otherwise
be interpreted as Satan’s influence in the natural world. However, as Jobe pointed
out, this hypothesis does not address why Glanvill sought to defend witchcraft
using mechanical methods. 4 By shifting the focus of the debate to the religious
and political facets of Restoration England, Jobe framed the debate as a conflict
between latitudinarian Anglicans, who favored mechanical philosophy, and
radical sectarians, who favored chemical philosophy. Mechanical philosophy, in
particular, refers to the philosophy that regards the universe as being composed
of small particles governed by mechanical principles. In contrast, chemical
philosophy, rooted in alchemy, is the field of chemistry and medicine that is
primarily concerned with the use of chemical principles and solutions to cure
illnesses. Contending that their differences in scientific beliefs are attributable to

2. Thomas Harmon Jobe, “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,” Isis
72, no. 3 (1981): 343-356, https://doi.org/10.1086/352786, 344.
3. John Spurr, “‘Latitudinarianism’ and the Restoration Church,” The Historical Journal 31, no. 1 (1988): 61-
82, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00011997, 61.
4. Jobe, “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,” 344.

50 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

their theological disagreements, Jobe argued that the separation between spirit
and matter is a critical issue that latitudinarian Anglicans and radical sectarians
heavily disagreed on. Whereas latitudinarian Anglicans posited that spirit and
matter are separate entities, radical sectarians sought to merge the spiritual and
the material. 5 Discussing the beliefs of latitudinarian Anglicans, Jobe stated that:

Their theology was Anglican and their synthesis favored a mechanical

corpuscularism because the philosophy’s separation between spirit and
matter supported the view of God’s presence in nature that was clearly
implied in Anglican theology: one of a cosmos run by a transcendental deity
served by a hierarchy of spirits. 6

Jobe thus argued that Glanvill, a latitudinarian Anglican, subscribed to

mechanical philosophy because he believed that its emphasis on the separation of
spirit and matter is more compatible with his Anglican theology. In turn, Glanvill’s
belief in a universe run by God, who rules over all other spirits, could explain why
he was more likely to believe in the existence of witches and demonic spirits and
used the experimental method of the Royal Society in an attempt to establish the
science of witchcraft as an accredited field of study. 7

However, more recent scholarship has complicated Jobe’s religious-

political explanation of the Glanvill-Webster debate by re-examining its scientific
aspects. In her 2012 article, Julie Davies highlighted the key aspects of Joseph
Glanvill’s poisonous vapors theory, which outlined his scientific explanations as
to why familiar spirits were able to tempt the minds of witches. In brief, Glanvill
proposed that familiar spirits produced poisonous vapors that interacted with the
bodies of air that came out of witches’ bodies. 8 Also referencing Glanvill’s use of
naturalistic explanations such as the poisonous vapors theory, Allison Coudert
argued that Jobe’s interpretation of the debate as a result of conflicts between
latitudinarian Anglicans’ mechanical philosophy and radical sectarians’ chemical
philosophy may be oversimplifying the debate. 9 Specifically, Coudert argued that
Glanvill’s beliefs seemed to contradict those of other mechanical philosophers
whereas Webster’s beliefs also defied those of other occultists. Coudert also

5. Jobe, “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,” 345.
6. Jobe, “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,” 345.
7. Jobe, “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,” 345.
8. Joseph Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism (London: E.C., 1668), 20.
9. Allison Coudert, “Henry More and Witchcraft,” in Henry More (1614–1687) Tercentenary Studies (Dor-
drecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 115-136, 117

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 51

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

contended that the witchcraft debate was neither clear-cut in terms of scientific
theories nor in terms of corresponding religious and political ideologies. Thus,
instead of framing the Glanvill-Webster debate as a conflict between scientific,
religious, and political forces, Coudert used a non-ideological framework that
avoided mapping religious and political ideologies to scientific beliefs. With this
framework, Coudert asserted that Glanvill was not primarily targeting Webster
or occultism but rather atheism and materialism, which were synonymous for
Glanvill. Thomas Hobbes’ 1651 Leviathan, for example, was dangerous in the
eyes of Glanvill as it provided natural explanations for spirits and miracles,
acts that he criticized as atheistic. As a result, Glanvill, who was aware of how
mechanical philosophy could be utilized by materialists like Hobbes, wanted to
use mechanical philosophy to prove the existence of familiar spirits and witches,
which in his mind corroborated the existence of God. 10

The most recent scholarship has further unraveled other societal aspects
of witchcraft in early modern England that have been under-addressed. In
contrast to how Coudert focused primarily on religion and science in her
analysis, Peter Elmer delved further into the political and religious significance
of witchcraft before, during, and after the Restoration. Specifically, Elmer argued
that witchcraft was often used as a political tool by those who were in power
and those who were not. In addition, Charlotte-Rose Millar also provided a
systematic analysis of witchcraft pamphlets published in early modern England
to highlight the widespread beliefs of the familiar spirit. Such studies are critical
in reemphasizing the importance of the politics of Restoration England in the
Glanvill-Webster debate. This paper expands on how science was used in the
Glanvill-Webster debate to rationalize the belief in familiar spirits for political
and religious gains. It also examines how depictions of the familiar spirit in the
Glanvill-Webster debate could have affected how historians analyzed the debate
by comparing Glanvill’s and Webster’s interpretation of the familiar spirit to the
popular conceptions of the familiar spirit as observed in witchcraft pamphlets. As a
corporeal demonic spirit that had a fluid nature, the familiar spirit is an interesting
case in which a popular belief that long pre-existed the Glanvill-Webster debate
was absorbed into the realms of religious theology and scientific theory during
Restoration England. As a popular belief that opposing religious and political
figures, such as Glanvill and Webster, were competing to define using scientific
means, the familiar spirit demonstrates that even though ideological differences
in the separation between spirit and matter cannot resolve the paradox of the

10. Coudert, “Henry More and Witchcraft,” 118-119.

52 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

Glanvill-Webster debate, heightened political and religious disputes during this

period may still provide partial explanations as to why Glanvill and Webster took
their respective nuanced stances on the issue of witchcraft.

Furthermore, considering the gendered biases embedded in Glanvill’s

scientific arguments, analyses of science in the Glanvill-Webster debate can
also provide insights into the gendering of witchcraft. Given that the victims
persecuted for witchcraft in early modern Europe were predominantly women,
previous writers such as Marianne Hester and Anne Llewellyn Barstow have
equated witch-hunting to “woman-hunting.” These writers mostly referenced the
Malleus Maleficarum as the basis for their arguments. Written by German inquisitor
Heinrich Kramer in 1486, the Malleus Maleficarum, or Hammer of Witches, is the

“...demonologists were not

necessarily “arch-misogynists”
who used witchcraft to
denigrate women but conceived
of witchcraft under a binary
classification system that
regarded men as positive and
women as negative.”

demonological treatise most often cited as evidence of misogyny among the elite
that contributed to a top-down persecution of women as witches. 11 Complicating
this narrative, however, historians such as Christina Larner have instead
contended that “witchcraft was not sex-specific, but sex-related,” indicating that
sex, though important, was not the sole factor that determined whether one was
labeled as a witch. 12 Similarly, Stuart Clark also argued that demonologists were
not necessarily “arch-misogynists” who used witchcraft to denigrate women but
conceived of witchcraft under a binary classification system that regarded men as

11. Alison Rowlands, “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2014), 450-466, 450.
12. Rowlands, “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” 453.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 53

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

positive and women as negative. 13 Even though historians nowadays have mostly
refrained from claiming that demonologists were solely motivated by misogyny,
historians such as Alison Rowlands have highlighted how patriarchy in early
modern European societies affected witchcraft accusations and persecutions. In
her 2013 essay, Rowlands contended that “the patriarchal organization of early
modern society was not a cause but a necessary precondition for witch-hunts
that produced predominantly female victims.” 14

As gender was not regarded as a central issue in Glanvill’s texts, the Glanvill-
Webster debate aligns with Clark’s argument that demonologists in early modern
England were not necessarily arguing for the existence of witchcraft to target
women. However, even though Glanvill did not cite gender in his arguments
in support of the existence of witchcraft, his attempt to explain the gendered
nature of witchcraft using his poisonous vapors theory was built on pre-existing
discourses that contributed to the misogynistic nature of witchcraft. In particular,
prior works regarding witchcraft, such as the Malleus Maleficarum, reinforced
dichotomous views of gender to justify why women were more likely to become
witches. In examining the medical concepts that Glanvill drew on to rationalize
why women were more easily tempted by familiar spirits, his scientific framework
provides further insights as to how gender and witchcraft in Restoration England
were mutually constitutive.

Fluidity of the Familiar Spirit

Previous articles on the Glanvill-Webster debate have mainly focused on

their dispute over whether Satan can physically affect the natural world rather
than their dispute over the existence of familiar spirits. Although the argument
over Satan’s influence in the natural world is indeed a central component of
the Glanvill-Webster debate, the role of the familiar spirit in the debate is a
critical issue that still largely remains overlooked even though both Glanvill
and Webster addressed the familiar spirit in their respective works. However,
prior to discussing their respective arguments concerning the familiar spirit, it is
important to understand how the general population perceived the familiar spirit.

According to Millar’s analysis of witchcraft pamphlets, the belief in the

13. Stuart Clark, “Women and Witchcraft,” in Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern
Europe (Oxford: University Press, 1996), 106-133, 115.
14. Rowlands, “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” 453.

54 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

familiar spirit had already been widely circulating in the late sixteenth century.
Despite the widespread belief in the familiar spirit, as observed in the prevalence
of its depiction in pamphlets from the sixteenth century to the eighteenth
century, the origins of the familiar spirit remain unknown. Even though there
are disagreements as to whether the belief in the familiar spirit appeared due
to beliefs in fairies or beliefs in learned magic and conjuration, most historians
nowadays agree that the familiar spirit stemmed from popular English beliefs
rather than the beliefs of prominent theologians. 15

In these pamphlets, familiar spirits were often conflated with Satan or

described as Satan’s demons. As Millar pointed out, witchcraft pamphlets provided
varying depictions of the familiar spirit. For one, pamphlets often used phrases
such as familiar spirits, spirits, the Devil, devils, and imps interchangeably. While
some pamphlets used “the Devil” to imply that the familiar spirit is a corporeal
form of Satan others used terms such as “familiar spirits” or “spirits” to imply that
familiar spirits are Satan’s demons. A pamphlet published in 1619, for example,
stated that “the Devil himselfe will attend in some familiar shape of Rat, Cat,
Toad, Birde, and Cricket etc.” A 1612 pamphleteer, on the other hand, described
the familiar spirits as minions or servants of Satan by referring to Satan as the
“godfather of familiar spirits.” 16

The shape of the familiar spirit also varied throughout various witchcraft
pamphlets. Even though the most common forms of the familiar spirit were
domestic animals such as cats and dogs, there were other cases in which it
appeared as exotic creatures or domestic animals with odd characteristics.
For example, a 1566 pamphlet included an illustration of a dog with horns and
cloven feet. 17 Various accounts in pamphlets also described the familiar spirit as
appearing in human form. In such cases, pamphlets published since the mid-
seventeenth century often included stories of witnesses who claimed to have
seen “the Devil” appear as a human being to tempt witches. Although the familiar
spirit and the witches are usually seen as cooperating entities, some pamphlets
also described the witches themselves morphing into different familiar spirits. 18
Thus, not only was the distinction between the familiar spirit and Satan blurred,
the distinction between the familiar spirit and the witch was similarly blurred.

15. Charlotte-Rose Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England (London: Routledge,
2019), 51.
16. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 66-69.
17. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 60-63.
18. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 67-70.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 55

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

Understanding the fluid characteristic of the familiar spirit is important in

reexamining the Glanvill-Webster debate since the fluidity of the familiar spirit
was reflected in the ways in which Glanvill and Webster depicted the familiar
spirit in their works. In particular, the variety of terminologies that Glanvill and
Webster used to refer to the familiar spirit is akin to the inconsistent usage of
phrases throughout witchcraft pamphlets. Glanvill, in particular, preferred to use

“Not only was the distinction

between the familiar spirit and
Satan blurred, the distinction
between the familiar spirit and
the witch was similarly blurred.”

“Devils,” “Familiars,” “Spirits,” “Familiar Spirits,” and “Demons” when referring to

familiar spirits in A Blow at Modern Sadducism. Although Glanvill’s use of “Devil”
could have implied the familiar spirit is either Satan or a demon, he specifically
defined Devil as “a name for a body politick, in which there are very different
orders and degrees of spirits.” 19 Such a definition of Devil is in line with the lack
of distinction between Satan and demons in witchcraft pamphlets, given that the
word Devil itself can simultaneously refer to Satan or a demon. In the cases in
which Glanvill used “familiars,” however, he described familiar spirits as demonic
spirits ranked far below Satan. Specifically, Glanvill depicted familiar spirits as
vile, inferior spirits that were never “once of the highest hierarchy.” 20

Furthermore, although there was also a conflation between the witch and
the familiar spirit as observed in the witchcraft pamphlets, Glanvill perceived the
two as distinct by arguing that the transformation of witches into the shapes of
animals is not plausible. Nevertheless, Glanvill still attempted to theorize why
there were testimonials of witches becoming animals. Suggesting that the “airy
vehicles” that came out of the bodies of witches are by nature passive and pliable
bodies of air, Glanvill argued that those bodies of air could have been shaped by
familiar spirits into the appearance of animals. Further suggesting that witches
and familiar spirits are distinct, Glanvill also posited that familiar spirits could

19. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 43.

20. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 25.

56 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

have had the ability to induce illusions and therefore trick spectators to see the
bodies of air coming out of witches as animals. 21

Adopting similar phrases that Glanvill used to refer to the familiar spirit,
Webster, also used “Devils” while he referred to the discourses of the familiar
spirit, in addition to “Familiars,” “Familiar Spirits,” and “Familiar Devils.” Arguing
against the existence of the familiar spirit, Webster contended that:

(1) That the Devil doth not make a visible or corporeal League and Covenant
with the supposed Witches. (2) That he doth not suck upon their bodies. (3)
That he hath not carnal Copulation with them. (4) That they are not really
changed into Cats, Dogs, Wolves, or the like. 22

Similar to the confusion surrounding Glanvill’s use of “Devil,” Webster’s use

of “Devil” can be misleading in how it could imply that either the familiar spirit was
Satan or a single demonic spirit. However, while Webster also used “Devils” to
refer to multiple familiar spirits, his use of “the Devil” appeared to refer specifically
to Satan. Pointing out the lack of theological evidence to support the existence of
the familiar spirit, Webster argued that the Bible had “revealed no such thing as
the visible appearing of Satan, much less of his making of a visible League with
the Witches, or the sucking of their bodies, or the having carnal Copulation with
them.”23 Therefore, by describing the familiar spirit as the visible form of Satan,
Webster blurred the distinction between Satan and the familiar spirit. As such,
Glanvill and Webster most likely held different conceptions of what constituted
the popular views of the familiar spirit.

In turn, the fluidity as to what constituted the familiar spirit could be the main
reason as to why the familiar spirit had been underplayed in prior articles on the
Glanvill-Webster debate as well as other works on witchcraft in early modern
England despite its widespread presence. As Millar stated, not only was it difficult
to determine the exact origin of the familiar spirit, sometimes it was also difficult
to comprehend what figures witchcraft pamphlets were actually referring to
since the familiar spirit was oftentimes conflated with Satan. 24 Despite how well-
developed the concept of the familiar spirit was by Restoration England, there
were still coexisting narratives of the familiar spirit as either Satan, a demonic

21. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 18.

22. John Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (London: J.M., 1677), 63.
23. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 48.
24. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 68.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 57

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

spirit, or a witch. Since Glanvill and Webster were addressing different narratives
of the familiar spirit, historians of the Glanvill-Webster debate likely framed the
debate as a dispute over Satan’s ability to physically affect the natural world as a
way to circumvent the figure of the familiar spirit that was specific in its function
yet elusive in its essence.

Corporeality of the Familiar Spirit

In addition to showing how the familiar spirit is fluid in its relation to both
Satan and the witch as well as how varied it is in its appearances, witchcraft
pamphlets often described witches forming “demonic pacts” with familiar
spirits in exchange for supernatural powers. According to Millar, the fact that
witches were perceived as forming pacts with demonic spirits that appeared as
domestic animals demonstrates the merging of learned theology with popular
belief. Specifically, Millar described the demonic pact as the inverse of covenant
theology, which is the belief that one forms a conditional agreement with God
upon getting baptized. Instead of forming covenants with God, witches were
believed to be forming covenants with Satan. Highlighting the corporeal nature of
the familiar spirit, pamphlets also emphasized how demonic pacts can be made
via physical interactions between the witch and the familiar spirit. By sucking
on the bodies of witches, the familiar spirit is regarded as a key agent to form
the demonic pact. As such, witchcraft trials during this time often relied on the
presence of the “Witch’s Mark” on those who were accused of being witches. 25

The corporeality of the familiar spirit, as observed in the distinct ways it can
physically interact with witches, weakens Jobe’s argument that understanding how
mechanical philosophers and chemical philosophers disagreed on the separation
of spirit and matter is key to resolving the paradox of the debate. 26 The case of
the familiar spirit refutes the assumption that Glanvill, a latitudinarian Anglican,
ascribed to mechanical philosophy because he believed that its emphasis on
the separation of spirit and matter was better suited for his Anglican theology.
As opposed to being an incorporeal demonic spirit, which would support Jobe’s
argument that Anglican ideologies of spirit and matter were compatible with the
belief in witchcraft, the familiar spirit was a corporeal spirit that can physically
suck on the body of witches. 27

25. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 59-60.
26. Jobe, “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft Debate,” 345.
27. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 17.

58 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

In contrast, the fact that the familiar spirit was perceived as a corporeal
demonic spirit that can physically tempt a witch might explain why instead of
arguing solely on theological grounds, both of them included some form of a
scientific explanation as to why people in Restoration England were witnessing
familiar spirits. As opposed to being an incorporeal spirit that one would be unable
to explain using scientific
methods, a corporeal spirit
that can physically target
witches and leave visible
marks could be perceived
as an entity that was more
likely elucidated with
science. Whereas Glanvill
used his poisonous vapors
theory to further rationalize
the ritual that familiar spirits
used to form demonic pacts,
Webster used the concept of
the astral spirit, a corporeal
but non-demonic spirit,
to dismiss the testimonial
accounts of familiar spirits.

Although Glanvill mostly

used testimonial evidence
to support his arguments
for the existence of the
familiar spirit, he was aware
of the importance of having
Discerning the Familiar Spirit. Asha Malani.
scientific theories and
experiments to back up his
claims. 28 In particular, the concept of the familiar spirit coincided with Glanvill’s
belief in demonic spirits in the natural world and was therefore adopted into
his scientific theories. As observed in A Blow at Modern Sadducism, Glanvill
appeared to be familiar with the key characteristics of the familiar spirit, such

28. Julie A. Davies, “Poisonous Vapours: Joseph Glanvill’s Science of Witchcraft,” Intellectual History
Review 22, no. 2 (2012): 163-179, https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2012.693741, 164.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 59

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

as how familiar spirits sucked on witches’ bodies as part of the ritual to form
demonic pacts. Noting that the familiar spirits’ sucking on the bodies of witches is
“no great wonder nor difficult to be accounted for,” Glanvill contended that there
was a possibility that the sucking is “only a diabolical sacrament and ceremony to
confirm the hellish covenant.” However, even though Glanvill acknowledged the
main observations of the familiar spirit, he also reinterpreted some of the common

“In brief, Webster explained

how humans are composed of
three components—the physical
body that is returned to the
earth, the corporeal soul, or
‘astral spirit,”that wanders near
one’s body after death, and
the incorporeal spirit that is
returned to God.”

explanations of them. Arguing that it was likely that familiar spirits did not merely
suck on witches’ bodies to form covenants with Satan, Glanvill conjectured that
familiar spirits could also infuse “poisonous ferments” into witches. Subsequently,
the poisonous vapors would taint the spirit and imagination of witches, who by
nature already have “heightened melancholy.” The infection of the imagination
would, in turn, give the melancholic humor a “magical tincture” and allow witches
to become “mischievously influential.” 29

In short, Glanvill argued that the poisonous substances produced by familiar

spirits interacted with the melancholic humor already present in witches, which
in turn allowed witches to gain supernatural powers. Relying heavily on the
concept of Galen’s melancholic humor, which is often associated with physical
pathologies that can lead to mental disorders, Glanvill was trying to incorporate
contemporary views of melancholic humor by referencing Robert Burton’s 1621
The Anatomy of Melancholy. In particular, the notion that melancholic vapors can
cause one to have “absurd thoughts and imaginations” was a dominant theme

29. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 20.

60 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

in The Anatomy of Melancholy. Therefore, by proposing the poisonous vapors

theory, Glanvill was able to combine traditional beliefs of witchcraft with the
newer natural philosophical ideas without suggesting any radically new ideas
that philosophers during this period were not familiar with. 30

Webster, on the other hand, mostly argued on theological grounds to refute

the existence of witchcraft. For one, Webster contended that words from the
Bible that were synonymous with witches or witchcraft were mistranslations
of the original Hebrew text. 31 Additionally, Webster also argued that the Witch
of Endor in the First Book of Samuel was not actually a witch. 32 However, he
seemed to be aware of the importance of having some kind of scientific theory to
back up his claims. As such, in addition to suggesting that the supposed witches
either willingly lied or were coerced, Webster also proposed that witnesses of
familiar spirits could have seen “astral spirits” or “animal spirits” instead. 33 In
brief, Webster explained how humans are composed of three components —
the physical body that is returned to the earth, the corporeal soul, or “astral
spirit,” that wanders near one’s body after death, and the incorporeal spirit that
is returned to God.34 Using this concept, Webster postulated that witnesses of
apparitions might have seen astral spirits, which were corporeal natural spirits
instead of familiar spirits, which were corporeal demonic spirits. 35 Similar to
how Glanvill referenced contemporary works that reinterpreted long-standing
medical theories, Webster cited fellow physician Thomas Willis’ 1672 Two
Discourses Concerning the Soul of Brutes, which provided a novel interpretation
of the animal spirit. 36 Although Galen presented the theory of animal spirits long
before Webster’s time, their actual presence had never been demonstrated even
though their existence was widely believed to be critical for normal neurological
function. 37 Therefore, Willis did not merely reference the presence and activity
of these animal spirits, but sought to explain the animal spirits using principles
of chemical philosophy. 38 Interestingly, similar to the melancholic humor, the
animal spirit was also a well-established medical concept that philosophers

30. Davies, “Poisonous Vapours: Joseph Glanvill’s Science of Witchcraft,” 171-172.

31. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 106.
32. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 165.
33. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 308.
34. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 320.
35. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 292.
36. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 315.
37. M.J. Eadie, “A Pathology of the Animal Spirits – the Clinical Neurology of Thomas Willis (1621–1675)
Part I – Background, and Disorders of Intrinsically Normal Animal Spirits,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
10, no. 1 (2003): 14-29, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0967-5868(02)00165-0, 14.
38. Eadie, “A Pathology of the Animal Spirits – the Clinical Neurology of Thomas Willis (1621–1675),” 16.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 61

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

and physicians were still attempting to rationalize. Just as Glanvill was able to
present an elaborate theory by citing contemporary work on the melancholic
humor, Webster was able to come up with scientific explanations of the familiar
spirit by invoking contemporary work on the animal spirit. Even though both
Glanvill and Webster sought to provide original explanations for the familiar
spirit, both of them referenced long-standing scientific concepts that prominent
philosophers and physicians during their time continued to subscribe to and were
actively defining.

Gendered Implications of the Familiar Spirit

In “Sleeping with Devils,” Millar further analyzed how the demonic pacts
between witches and familiar spirits were often depicted as carnal. Out of the forty-
eight pamphlets she studied, twenty-three described the relationship between
witches and devils as sexual. In particular, Millar noted that the fluid nature of the
familiar spirit affected the nature of the sexual acts between witches and familiar
spirits. In addition to being accused of engaging in non-penetrative acts with
animal-like devils, witches were also accused of engaging in “carnal intercourse”
with man-like devils. Noting that the depiction of witches having sexual relations
with man-like devils mostly appeared in pamphlets published after the 1640s,
Millar argued that the shift in the types of sexual acts depicted represents a
major shift in how the general public perceived witchcraft. Specifically, the fact
that the pamphlets depicted witches as sexually deviant beings that engaged in
a wide range of sexual acts with Satan and familiar spirits suggests that beliefs
in witchcraft in early modern England were more sexualized than previously
described. 39

Considering how the physical interactions with familiar spirits were often
depicted as female witches engaging in sexual acts with animal-like or man-
like spirits, the fact that Glanvill did not center his arguments around gender or
connect femininity directly to carnality supports the notion that demonologists
were not necessarily arguing for the existence of witchcraft to persecute women.
Nevertheless, Glanvill did use the gendered biases embedded in contemporary
scientific discourses to rationalize the gendered nature of witchcraft, in addition
to referencing long-standing scientific concepts due to their credibility. As stated
by Clark, the associations that demonologists made between women and

39. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 117-118.

62 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

witchcraft were based on unoriginal foundations such as Aristotelian physiology. 40

Building on this observation, Laura Apps and Andrew Gow also contended that
a key reason as to why witchcraft was feminized in early modern England was
because demonologists believed that Satan was able to seduce witches due to
their “weak-mindedness,” a characteristic that demonologists strongly, but not
exclusively, associated with women. 41 Such beliefs can be traced back to the
Malleus Maleficarum, in which Kramer argued that women had “insatiable carnal
lust” due to fundamental flaws such as weak-mindedness, which in turn explained
why women were more easily seduced by Satan. 42 As argued by Jennifer
Radden, strong connections were made between sin, carnality, mental disorder,
and witchcraft. 43 In line with Clark’s analysis, such connections reaffirmed the
dichotomous views of men as intellectually strong and morally righteous and
women as intellectually weak and morally corrupt.

In the context of the Glanvill-Webster debate, even though Glanvill did not
explicitly state carnality in his arguments that support the existence of witchcraft,
he still used well-established medical concepts, such as the melancholic
humor, to justify why witches were predominantly women. In A Blow at Modern
Sadducism, Glanvill noted that the people most commonly accused of being
witches were “poor and miserable old women, who are overgrown with discontent
and melancholy.” 44 Connecting the concept of the melancholic humor to why
certain populations were more prone to be infected by the familiar spirit, Glanvill
posited that:

Witches are most powerful upon Children and timorous persons, viz.
because their spirits and imaginations being weak and passive, are not
able to resist the fatal invasion; whereas men of bold minds, who have
plenty of strong and vigorous spirits, are secure from the contagion; as in
pestilential Airs clean bodies are not so liable to infection as other tempers.
Thus then we see ‘tis likely enough, that very often the Sorceress her self
doth the mischief. 45

40. Clark, “Women and Witchcraft,” 114.

41. Lara Apps and Andrew Gow, “Conceptual Webs: The Gendering of Witchcraft,” in Gender at Stake: Male
Witches in Early Modern Europe (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2003), 118-150, 132.
42. Apps and Gow, “Conceptual Webs: The Gendering of Witchcraft,” 132.
43. Jennifer Radden, The Nature of Melancholy: from Aristotle to Kristeva (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2008), 96.
44. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 35.
45. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 29.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 63

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

In order to rationalize why certain categories of people were more susceptible

to the vapors produced by familiar spirits, Glanvill asserted that there were
excessive amounts of melancholic humor in women and children. 46 Claiming that
the spirits and imaginations of women, children, and other “timorous” people are
more “weak and passive” whereas those of men are more “strong and vigorous,”
Glanvill ultimately concluded that healthy males were not as prone to infection
as other groups who have more melancholy. 47 By drawing on the connections
between the melancholic humor and weak-mindedness to explain how one
transforms into a witch, Glanvill’s arguments coincide with Apps and Gow’s
observation that weak-mindedness was inherently linked to witchcraft. 48 By using
the gendered nature of the melancholic humor to rationalize why witches were
mostly women, Glanvill’s arguments also aligned with Apps and Gow’s theory
of the asymmetrical triad between femininity, weakness, and masculinity. 49
In particular, Glanvill’s discussion of the melancholic humor provided him a
physical justification as to how femininity was more closely tied to weakness
than masculinity. Because those with excessive amounts of melancholic humor
were believed to be predominantly, but not exclusively, women, Glanvill was also
able to justify why the people who were accused of witchcraft were mostly, but
not exclusively, female.

Despite attempting to persuade others into believing the existence of

witchcraft, Glanvill’s theory of witchcraft did not center around its carnal
nature. Given the continued prevalence of carnal depictions of familiar spirits
in witchcraft pamphlets, it is most likely that many associated witchcraft with
carnality before and during Glanvill’s time. As observed in works such as the
Malleus Maleficarum, discourses of carnality in witchcraft were often based on
the misogynistic assumption that women’s fundamental weak-mindedness was
the cause of their moral corruption and carnal desires. In turn, this reasoning
was used to argue why women were more likely to engage in sexual acts with
familiar spirits and become witches. Rather than building on these discourses
that associated carnality with femininity and weak-mindedness, Glanvill seemed
to have excluded aspects of carnality from his theories of witchcraft to purify the
science of witchcraft. While depicting the familiar spirit’s act of sucking on the
witch’s body as non-sexual in A Blow at Modern Sadducism, Glanvill concurred
with Webster’s objections to the sexualized depictions of witchcraft by calling

46. Davies, “Poisonous Vapours: Joseph Glanvill’s Science of Witchcraft,” 171.

47. Glanvill, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, 35.
48. Apps and Gow, “Conceptual Webs: The Gendering of Witchcraft,” 131.
49. Apps and Gow, “Conceptual Webs: The Gendering of Witchcraft,” 135.

64 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

the carnal anecdotes of witches “silly lying stories of witchcraft and apparitions
among the vulgar.” 50 In turn, by not depicting the physical acts between the witch
and the familiar spirit as sexual, Glanvill was able to defend the use of science to
study witchcraft since his scientific theory was able to rationalize how witches are
produced without addressing the aspects of it that could come off as repulsive.
However, even by removing misogynistic discourses that accused women
of having insatiable carnal lust, Glanvill still provided a scientific theory that
contributed to the production of female witches. In comparison to the arguments
in the Malleus Maleficarum that discussed weak-mindedness and carnality,
Glanvill’s depiction of weak-mindedness did not appear as “arch-misogynist”
since he did not portray weak-mindedness as an exclusively feminine trait. Even
so, by identifying a physical cause of weak-mindedness and connecting it to the
gendered nature of witchcraft, Glanvill still produced a discourse that could allow
others who sought to maintain the associations between femininity and witchcraft
to strengthen their arguments.

On a similar note, Webster also believed that weak-mindedness was the

reason why supposed witches were displaying signs of witchcraft, acts that he
called impostures. 51 Arguing that Satan could tempt those with more “melancholic
temper,” Webster suggested that some of those accused of being witches were
mentally insane. 52 In contrast to Glanvill, Webster asserted that Satan could
only tempt people mentally and not physically in the form of a familiar spirit. 53
Even though Webster did address the carnal aspects of witchcraft, his main
goal of mentioning carnality was not to reference the misogynistic arguments
similar to those found in the Malleus Maleficium, but to contest the reliability
of the testimonies that Glanvill relied on. Recognizing the sexual nature of the
relationship between witches and familiar spirits, Webster sought to dismiss the
idea of the familiar spirit by exclaiming that “pure and sober minds” should not
seek to understand “unclean stories.” 54 As Davies pointed out, Webster was not
able to come up with a concrete scientific argument to refute Glanvill’s novel
interpretation of the familiar spirit. 55

Although Glanvill and Webster were arguing over the existence of

50. Joseph Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus (London: J.C., 1681), 8.

51. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 8.
52. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 66.
53. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 241.
54. Webster, The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 68.
55. Davies, “Poisonous Vapours: Joseph Glanvill’s Science of Witchcraft,” 178.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 65

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

witchcraft and familiar spirits, they both agreed on similar concepts such as the
melancholic humor and weak-mindedness. Furthermore, they also both seemed
to be wary that others could overrun their theories with arguments of carnality
and condemned these uncontrollable and offensive aspects of witchcraft. The
figure of the familiar spirit, in particular, was of indeterminate form as observed
in the various pamphlets that described its fluidity and carnality. Whereas
Glanvill’s naturalistic interpretations downplayed the sexual nature of familiar
spirit, Webster’s discussion of witches’ carnality mainly centered on its moral

Rationalizing the Spirit. Asha Malani.

offensiveness. In doing so, Glanvill and Webster seemingly purified the discourse
of witchcraft to empower yet defend science.

Political Implications of the Familiar Spirit

The fact that the familiar spirit was a popular belief of witchcraft is crucial in
examining any political motives that Glanvill potentially had to use his scientific
methods to rationalize the familiar spirit. As a belief that did not stem from either
political or religious authorities, the ways in which it merged with religion suggests
that attempting to explain it using scientific methods could be considered a
political act in itself. Given that Restoration England was a period in which the
monarch was simultaneously the head of the restored Anglican Church, religious

66 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

“Whereas Glanvill’s naturalistic

interpretations downplayed the
sexual nature of familiar spirit,
Webster’s discussion of witches’
carnality mainly centered on its
moral offensiveness.”

failures, such as being labeled a witch, were also regarded as political failures
since allegiance to Satan would be regarded as a complete rejection of Christian
society. 56

Concerning the politics and religion of Restoration England, Peter Elmer

argued that disputes over witchcraft are heightened during periods of political
instability. In particular, the ruling elite was more likely to act upon incidents of
witchcraft at times when they perceive threats or challenges to their sense of
religious and political order. Conversely, during periods of political quiescence,
fewer incidents of witchcraft were brought to court. However, Elmer also
proposed that witchcraft functioned in two contradictory ways. On one hand,
witchcraft performed “an integrative role to reinforce normative behaviors
and reaffirm the social, religious and political status quo.” On the other hand,
witchcraft also performed “a subversive role to encourage criticism of the ruling
powers, particularly when they were rendered vulnerable to challenge by broader
political events.” As such, the eventual political and religious outcome was
unpredictable — the politics of witchcraft during this period was dangerous. If its
integrative role prevails, the ruling powers would be strengthened with greater
societal cohesion that reinforces the beliefs of those in power. If its subversive
role prevails, the large presence of witchcraft in society would likely be perceived
as divine disapproval of the ruling powers. 57

In addition to political instability, skepticism over the existence of witches

and the familiar spirit due to the lack of solid evidence to support them further
heightened the dangers of witchcraft. Although the concept of the familiar spirit

56. Millar, Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England, 59.
57. Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, 7-8.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 67

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

was widespread and specific in terms of how it interacted with the witch, people
were still uncertain as to whether the familiar spirit was Satan, a demon, or a witch
as there were widely differing testimonial accounts of the familiar spirit. 58 Despite
widespread skepticism concerning witchcraft in early modern England due to
the inconsistent narratives of the familiar spirit and witches, very few people
dared to publish such views of disbelief due to fear of political and religious
repercussions. This is likely connected to the fact that one could be labeled as
an atheist for not believing in the existence of witchcraft. Similar to how being
labeled as a witch was simultaneously a religious and political failure, being
labeled as an atheist was also considered seditious during a period in which the
Church was also the state. Although Coudert argued that fighting atheism was
likely the key motivation for Glanvill to publish A Blow at Modern Sadducism, the
fact that atheism is also a major political offense suggests that Glanvill could
have also had political intentions in arguing for the support of witchcraft and
equating the denial of witchcraft to atheism.

However, prior to examining Glanvill’s potential political motives, it is critical

to acknowledge that views on witchcraft were not associated directly with
certain religious factions or scientific groups. As discussed by Michael Hunter,
the 16-month delay in The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft receiving an
imprimatur and the suppression of Webster’s dedication to the Royal Society
are possible indications of dispute within the Royal Society over the topics of
witchcraft and occult practices. 59 As Glanvill himself was a vocal advocate of
the Royal Society’s “new science,” the fact that The Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft was still ultimately published by the Royal Society demonstrates
that neither belief nor disbelief in witchcraft was directly associated with certain
scientific or religious ideologies. Therefore, a similar non-ideological framework
that Coudert used is critical in further examining the political incentives that
Glanvill possibly had to argue for the existence of witchcraft as it steers clear of
mapping religious, political, and scientific ideologies to views on the existence
of witchcraft. However, it is also important to recognize that the use of a non-
ideological framework, which avoids discussing theological disputes as the main
factor behind political and scientific differences, should not exclude the tracing
of political forces to different religious factions. Considering that religion and
politics in Restoration England appear to be more interrelated compared to their

58. Millar, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, 50.
59. Michael Hunter, “John Webster, the Royal Society and The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677),”
Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 71, no. 1 (December 2016): 7-19,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0022, 7.

68 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

relations with science, the political motivations of opposing religious factions to

argue for or against the existence of witchcraft should still be accounted for in
discussions on the political implications of the familiar spirit.

In the context of Restoration England, disputes between religious factions

greatly contributed to political instability. During an era in which clergymen in the
restored Church established a strict Anglican orthodoxy, religious nonconformists,
including Presbyterians as well as radical sectarians, were excluded from
political, religious, and legal involvement. As a reaction to this mistreatment,
many nonconformists sought to preserve a worldview that bolstered the
prominent belief in witches, demons, and spirits. Not only did this worldview
reinforce how God allowed evil forces to punish those deemed sinful, but it also

“Glanvill and Webster seemingly

purified the discourse of
witchcraft to empower yet defend
science.”

served as an indirect way for nonconformists to criticize those in power. 60 For a

brief period, some nonconformists found support from latitudinarian Anglians in
the Church due to their sympathy for the nonconformists, many of whom were
their former colleagues. In particular, latitudinarian Anglicans including Joseph
Glanvill were eager to widen and therefore redraw the boundaries of the Anglican
communion in order to make them more inclusive of other religious factions such
as Presbyterians. 61 Although Glanvill highlighted atheism as his main motive in A
Blow At Modern Sadducism, he also argued that the religious divides within the
Church were distracting Christians from more concerning issues such as “modern
sadducism” and how it could potentially lead to atheism. 62 Since the familiar spirit
was such a prominent issue that had not been properly explained with “reason,” it
is likely that Glanvill was politically motivated to use “new science” to corroborate
the existence of the familiar spirit and witchcraft with the ultimate goal of uniting
the Church against a common enemy on moral grounds. Complicating Coudert’s
theory that Glanvill’s main concern was simply atheism and that atheism was a

60. Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, 179.
61. Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, 175.
62. Elmer, Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England, 216.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 69

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

grave concern of Christians regardless of religious faction, Elmer’s analysis of

politics and religion in Restoration England suggests that Glanvill’s interest in
combating atheism was likely not just out of a fear of increasing atheism but also
out of a desire to use atheism as a cohesive tool that can unite several religious
factions with the Church. As such, whereas nonconformists seemed to be arguing
for the existence of witchcraft for subversive purposes, Glanvill appeared to be
arguing for the existence of witchcraft to integrate certain religious factions back
into the Church.

Conclusion

Understanding the fluid, corporeal, and popular nature of the familiar spirit
is key to recontextualizing the Glanvill-Webster debate. The fluid nature of the
familiar spirit, as observed in witchcraft pamphlets as well as Glanvill’s and
Webster’s depictions of the familiar spirit, was likely the key reason why the
familiar spirit was mostly underemphasized in prior discussions of the Glanvill-
Webster debate. Furthermore, the corporeal nature of the familiar spirit was
likely critical in motivating Glanvill and Webster to supplement their arguments
with widely accepted scientific concepts such as the melancholic humor and the
astral spirit. Moreover, by denouncing how the familiar spirit’s physical role in
the formation of the demonic pact was sexualized, both Glanvill and Webster
presented how science can provide cleaner and more impartial explanations of
witchcraft or supposed signs of witchcraft. Nonetheless, although neither Glanvill
nor Webster discussed gender as the main issue in their works, the gendered
nature of the melancholic humor allowed both of them to rationalize why witches
or supposed witches were mostly, but not exclusively, women. Lastly, the popular
nature of the familiar spirit suggests that Glanvill was also politically motivated to
argue for the existence of witchcraft. Specifically, Glanvill’s discussion of “modern
sadducism” and its connections to atheism likely served as an integrative device
to unite certain religious factions with the Church.

This paper highlights the importance of accounting for the multifaceted roles
of the familiar spirit as a political, physical yet fluid figure in the Glanvill-Webster
debate and how a non-ideological framework can be used to demonstrate how
science influenced politics and religion in Restoration England. Coudert was
able to use a non-ideological framework to demonstrate that Glanvill was not
simply trying to attack occultism or Webster, but rather atheism in general. Using
a similar framework, this paper demonstrates, in addition to atheism, Glanvill
likely had political motivations to reintegrate certain religious factions back into

70 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

the Church. As this framework allows for analyses of witchcraft in early modern
England that avoid relying heavily on ideological dichotomies, future work could
benefit from using this framework to further explore the complex relations of
science, politics, and religion in the Glanvill-Webster debate.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 71

 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILIAR SPIRIT

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Apps, Lara, and Andrew Gow. “Conceptual Webs: The Gendering of Witchcraft.” In Gender at
Stake: Male Witches in Early Modern Europe, 118-50. Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 2003.

Clark, Stuart. “Women and Witchcraft.” In Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early
Modern Europe, 106-33. Oxford: University Press, 1996.

Coudert, Allison. “Henry More and Witchcraft.” In Henry More (1614-687) Tercentenary Studies,
edited by Sarah Hutton and Robert Crocker. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1990.

Davies, Julie A. “Poisonous Vapours: Joseph Glanvill’s Science of Witchcraft.” Intellectual History
Review 22, no. 2 (2012): 163-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2012.693741.

Eadie, M.J. “A Pathology of the Animal Spirits – the Clinical Neurology of Thomas Willis (1621-1675)
Part I – Background, and Disorders of Intrinsically Normal Animal Spirits.” Journal of Clinical
Neuroscience 10, no. 1 (2003): 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0967-5868(02)00165-0.

Elmer, Peter. Witchcraft, Witch-Hunting, and Politics in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2016.

Glanvill, Joseph. A blow at modern sadducism in some philosophical considerations about

witchcraft. And the relation of the famed disturbance at the house of M. Mompesson. With
reflections on drollery, and atheisme. London: Printed by E.C. for James Collins at the Kings
Head in Westminster-Hall, 1668.

Glanvill, Joseph. Saducismus triumphatus, or, Full and plain evidence concerning witches and
apparitions in two parts : the first treating of their possibility, the second of their real existence
by Joseph Glanvil. With a letter of Dr. Henry More on the same subject and an authentick but
wonderful story of certain Swedish witches done into English by Anth. Horneck. London: Printed
for J. Collins and S. Lownds, 1681.

Hunter, Michael. “John Webster, the Royal Society and The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft
(1677).” Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 71, no. 1
(2016): 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0022.

Jobe, Thomas Harmon. “The Devil in Restoration Science: The Glanvill-Webster Witchcraft
Debate.” Isis 72, no. 3 (1981): 343-56. https://doi.org/10.1086/352786.

Millar, Charlotte-Rose. Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England. London:
Routledge, 2019.

Radden, Jennifer. The Nature of Melancholy: from Aristotle to Kristeva. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2008.

Rowlands, Alison. “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe.” Essay. In The Oxford
Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, edited by Brian P.

72 SPRING 2021
 JASON LEE

Levack, 450-66. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Spurr, John. “‘Latitudinarianism’ and the Restoration Church.” The Historical Journal 31, no. 1
(1988): 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00011997.

Webster, John. The displaying of supposed witchcraft wherein is affirmed that there are many
sorts of deceivers and impostors and divers persons under a passive delusion of melancholy
and fancy, but that there is a corporeal league made betwixt the Devil and the witch...is utterly
denied and disproved: wherein also is handled, the existence of angels and spirits, the truth of
apparitions, the nature of astral and sydereal spirits, the force of charms, and philters, with other
abstruse matters. London: Printed by J.M. and are to be sold by the booksellers in London,
1677.

JASON LEE (AUTHOR)

Brown College, ‘21
Jason Lee is a senior from Brown College majoring in Sociology
and minoring in Medical Humanities. While not studying the history
of science and medicine, he enjoys learning new languages and
visiting museum exhibits. After graduation, he hopes to attend
medical school and learn more about the social, humanistic, and
policy aspects of medicine.

JULIA KIDD (ARTIST)

Sid Richardson College, ‘21
Julia Kidd is a graduating senior from Sid Richardson College dou-
ble majoring in Art History and Visual and Dramatic Arts with a con-
centration in Studio Art. Julia is also a dedicated writer, which plays
a significant role in her artwork where she utilizes elements of sto-
rytelling to subvert well-known literary and visual symbols as well as
reinterprets contemporary societal issues as an exploration of the
all-consuming facets of human nature. Julia is an incoming student
in UH’s Masters of Fine Arts Painting program, where she hopes to
continue her studio practice as well as become qualified to teach
Studio Arts and Art History at the collegiate level. Make sure to follow
her artistic journey on her Instagram @j.kiddart.

ASHA MALANI (ARTIST-PHOTOGRAPHER)

Will Rice College, ‘23
See page 33.

RICE HISTORICAL REVIEW 73