LINEBURG


<< . .

 22
( 27)



. . >>

in Early Modern England™, P & P, 120 (1988), pp. 26“52, revised as chapter 10
in The Social Circulation of the Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Woolf identi¬es a growing division between learned and popular views of the
past during the seventeenth century in England.
198 Notes to pages 56“9
9. Satans Invisible World Discovered (1685), pp. 22“3.
10. See Gillian Bennett, Traditions of Belief (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987),
p. 149.
11. As Diane Purkiss comments, this type of appropriation supported the reform-
ers™ assertion that the Mass was nothing but hocus-pocus: Troublesome Things
(London: Penguin, 2000), pp. 130“1.
12. The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 278
(quotation), 283, 285 (on the distinction made in the Malleus Male¬carum
between legitimate and illegitimate uses of charms). On folk healers and mag-
ical cures in medieval and early modern Europe, see also Stephen Wilson, The
Magical Universe (London: Hambledon, 2000), chapter 13. On charms, see
Jonathan Roper (ed.), Charms and Charming in Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave,
2004), and Thomas A. Forbes, ˜Verbal Charms in British Folk Medicine™,
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 115:4 (1971), pp. 293“
316.
13. See Valerie Flint, The Rise of Magic in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Clarendon,
1991), chapter 11; and (for a slightly unsympathetic view) Thomas, Religion,
chapter 2.
14. Valerie Flint has argued that the church conducted prolonged negotiations
with the proponents of pagan cults to bring about an ˜enduring fusion of
religious sensibilities™ and consolidate its position: Rise of Magic, p. 407.
15. See Robert W. Scribner, ˜The Reformation, Popular Magic and the “Disen-
chantment of the World”™, reprinted as chapter 9 in Scott Dixon (ed.), The Ger-
man Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999); Cameron, ˜For Reasoned Faith?™,
p. 171.
16. Cf. the introduction to Elizabeth Mazzola, The Pathology of the English Renais-
sance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998).
17. See Introduction, pp. 3“7, and Eamon Duffy, The Voices of Morebath (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), on the retention of traditional ritual.
18. Hutton, ˜English Reformation™, pp. 96“8.
19. J. C. H. Aveling comments that there is no clear connection between Catholi-
cism and offenders presented for casting spells, crossing, bell-ringing and rush-
bearing: ˜Catholic Households in Yorkshire, 1580“1603™, Northern History, 10
(1980), pp. 83“101 (esp. p. 95). On ˜reformed™ adaptations of earlier Catholic
charms, see Scribner, ˜Reformation™.
20. ˜The Winnowing of White Witchcraft™, [early seventeenth century], BL, MS
Sloane 1954, pp. 3“4. I am grateful to Arnold Hunt for this reference.
21. Anthony Kenny (ed.), The Responsa Scholarum of the English College, Rome.
Part I: 1598“1621, Catholic Record Society, vol. 54 (London: CRS, 1962), under
16 October 1607.
22. Cf. Richard Leighton Greene, The Early English Carols (2nd edn Oxford:
Clarendon, 1977), p. cxxxi.
23. On contemporary representations of the Black Mass, see Stuart Clark, Think-
ing With Demons (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), pp. 14“15, 18, 89, 139“41, 352,
426“7.
Notes to pages 60“2 199
24. On the devil™s abuse of pious prayers, see Clark, Thinking, p. 86.
25. From the de¬nition of ˜charm™ in Rossell Hope Robbins, The Encyclopaedia of
Witchcraft and Demonology (London: Peter Nevill, 1959).
26. From the examination of Anne Whittle, alias Chattox, in Thomas Potts, The
Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the County of Lancaster (1613), fols. E2b“3a.
See also Margo Todd, The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 356.
27. See Thomas, Religion, pp. 31“2, 58“67. On Catholic sacramentalia, see also
Cameron, ˜For Reasoned Faith?™, p. 173.
28. Cf. Ronald Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1991), p. 290: ˜. . . magic did a lot of the work later taken over
by pharmaceutical medicine, fertilisers, insurance schemes and advertisement
columns. Those practising it were generally devout Christians and saw charms
and rituals in the same functional sense as these modern commodities and
services.™
29. John Aubrey, Three Prose Works, ed. John Buchanan-Brown (Fontwell: Centaur
Press, 1972), p. 86.
30. On the altar-controversy, see Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 204“5.
31. This has been intensively discussed. See (e.g.) David Underdown, Revel, Riot
and Rebellion (Oxford: Oxford University Press: this edn 1987); Leah Marcus,
The Politics of Mirth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).
32. Marcus, Politics, p. 14.
33. For details of when Herrick wrote his verse and of his probable audience,
see the introduction to L. C. Martin™s edition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956).
Herrick™s most recent scholarly editor has said that ˜his reputation before 1648
[the publication date of Hesperides] rested almost entirely on manuscripts™
(The Complete Poetry of Robert Herrick, ed. J. Max Patrick (New York: New
York University Press, 1963), p. xi). Martin points to the fact that, in the early
nineteenth century, Herrick™s verse had become part of oral tradition around
his Devonshire parish (p. xix). Marcus, Politics, chapter 5, links Herrick™s views
on the ef¬cacy of traditional pastimes to the struggle to preserve feudalism.
In that she argues for Herrick™s elision of the cultural boundaries between
paganism and Christianity, and the medieval and post-Reformation churches
(p. 158), her emphasis differs from my own; though, as Achsah Guibbory has
commented, ˜the pagan shares space with the Christian™ in Hesperides (Ceremony
and Community from Herbert to Milton (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998), p. 83).
34. Transcription taken from Jane Stevenson and Peter Davidson (eds.), Early Mod-
ern Women Poets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), no. 91 (from BL, MS
Lansdowne 231, in John Aubrey™s autograph). As they comment, the survival
of later versions suggests that it remained in oral circulation long after the early
seventeenth century. Another edition of the Dirge can be found in ˜Remaines™
(in John Buchanan-Brown (ed.), John Aubrey. Three Prose Works (Fontwell:
Centaur Press, 1972), pp. 177“8). For commentary on it, see Peter Marshall,
200 Notes to pages 63“4
Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002), pp. 138“9.
35. See Marcus, Politics, p. 289.
36. I am grateful to Kate Bennett for making this point. However, on Aubrey™s posi-
tive views about medieval England and general distrust of religious controversy,
see Michael Hunter, John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning (London: Duck-
worth, 1975), pp. 40, 176, 215“17 (also chapter 4 for an account of Aubrey™s
methods of recording). Aubrey confessed that his antiquarian interests had
been partly stimulated by old people™s reminiscences of the Catholic past: ˜I
was alwayes enquiring of my grandfather of the old time, the rood-loft, etc.,
ceremonies, of the priory, etc.™ (Brief Lives, ed. Andrew Clark, 2 vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1898), vol. I, p. 36).
37. Subsequently re-edited by John Brand (1777), Sir Henry Ellis (1st edn 1813) and
W. C. Hazlitt (1st edn 1870). See David Vincent, Literacy and Popular Culture
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 6; Richard M. Dorson,
The British Folklorists (London: Routledge, 1968), chapter 1.
38. Cf. Ronald Hutton™s discussion of Bourne™s preface, which comments that,
if Bourne™s attitude was typical of an earlier generation of reformers, they
should be congratulated for displaying a ˜canny sense of priorities™: ˜English
Reformation™ (quotation p. 116). This may be a dif¬cult argument to pursue:
partly because it underplays the high level of generalised suspicion expressed in
polemicists™ writing, partly because the eighteenth century tended to be more
eirenical than the centuries preceding.
39. One possible rival, Sir Thomas Browne™s Pseudodoxia Epidemica, includes crit-
icism of idolatry ˜in some Christian Churches, wherein is presumed an irre-
proveable truth, if all be true that is suspected, or halfe what is related, there
have not wanted, many strange deceptions, and some thereof are still confessed
by the name of Pious fraudes™ (quoted from the edition of Browne™s Works by
Robin Robbins, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), vol. I, p. 19). See Walsham,
˜Reformed Folklore?™.
40. For the latter, see Thomas Ady, A Candle in the Dark (1656: collection of charms
on pp. 55“9).
41. For Catholic prophecy in early modern England, see Alexandra Walsham,
Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),
chapter 4; Howard Dobin, Merlin™s Disciples (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1990), pp. 39“41, 52, 108“10; Janet Cooper, ˜A Royal Imposter (sic) in
Elizabethan Essex™, in Kenneth Neale (ed.), Essex ˜Full of Pro¬table Thinges™
(Oxford: Leopard™s Head Press, 1996), pp. 137“48. For a speci¬c example of an
Elizabethan Catholic prophecy, see CSPD, Addenda (1580“1625), vol. 28, item
58. For Sir John Harington™s comment that Catholics were thought to be more
credulous about prophecies than Protestants, see Jason Scott-Warren, Sir John
Harington and the Book as Gift (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 169;
for an example of the polemical link between Catholics and prophesying, see
Edward Topsell, Times Lamentation (1st edn 1599), p. 63. For general studies
Notes to pages 64“6 201
of the early modern prophecy, see also Rupert Taylor, The Political Prophecy in
England (New York: Columbia University Press, 1911); Thomas, Religion, esp.
chapters 5, 13.
42. Policy and Police (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 46 (and
chapter 2 generally).
43. On post-Reformation English Catholic prophets and visionaries, see Alexandra
Walsham, ˜Miracles and the Counter-Reformation Mission to England™, HJ,
46:4 (2003), pp. 779“815, esp. 805“9.
44. On moldwarps, see Dobin, Merlin™s Disciples, p. 40; Elton, Policy and Police,
pp. 59“60, 72; Taylor, Political Prophecy, p. 50. On prophecy in the 1530s, see
Ethan H. Shagan, ˜Rumours and Popular Politics in the Reign of Henry VIII™,
in Tim Harris (ed.), The Politics of the Excluded, ca. 1500“1850 (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2001), chapter 1 (esp. pp. 41“2, 63).
45. Merlin™s Disciples, p. 41.
46. Garrett Mattingley, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada (London: Jonathan Cape,
1959), chapter 15; Dobin, Merlin™s Disciples, pp. 107“10.
47. BL MS Lansdowne 50, item 77, printed in The Reliquary, II (1861), pp. 198“9.
For the ˜Cock of the North™, see Taylor, Political Prophecy, pp. 56“8, 109, 111“
12. For another example of how possessing prophecies could be incorporated
into charges of subversive Catholic activity, see CSPD Elizabeth (1581“90), vol.
151, item 44 (the Earl of Oxford™s accusations concerning Charles Arundel and
Arundel™s answers).
48. BL MS Lansdowne 96, item 44: printed in Douglas Gray, Themes and Images
in the Medieval English Religious Lyric (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1972), p. 164. The transcription below is based on Gray™s. A version of the
spell is quoted at the trial of James Device: see Potts, Wonderfull Discoverie,
fols. K1b“2a. For a pre-Reformation occurrence, see W. Sparrow-Simpson,
˜On a Magical Roll Preserved at the British Museum™, Journal of the British
Archaeological Association, 48 (1892), pp. 38“54.
49. Another version is quoted in J. Harland and T. T. Wilkinson, Lancashire Folk-
Lore (London: Heywood, 1882), p. 73, as ˜a charm to get drink within one hour™.
The word ˜spell™, which seems so obviously occult to the twenty-¬rst-century
reader, is the victim of a semantic shift, though one which occurred for reasons
that must have included the polemical. The primary medieval sense of ˜spell™ is
that of discourse, only secondarily with the sense of idle talk. Of the examples
given in the online Oxford English Dictionary (accessed May 2006), there are
none between the 1500s and 1579. Its ¬rst post-Reformation quotation is also
the ¬rst where the word clearly refers to a formula possessing magical powers:
suggestively enough, in the modernised medievalism of E. K.™s glosses to The
Shepheardes Calendar. ˜Spell is a kinde of verse or charme, that in elder tymes
they used often to say over every thing, that they would have preserved . . .
And herehence I thinke is named the gospell, as it were Gods spell or worde™
(quoted from Edmund Spenser, Shorter Poems, ed. William A. Oram et al.
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 63“4 (March, gloss to line 54)).
202 Notes to pages 66“8
The examples of the earlier meaning of ˜spell™ given for 1612, 1617 and 1653 all
pre¬x ˜good™ or ˜holy™ to it, suggesting that by this stage the pejorative meaning
was primary.
50. Cf. Miles Mosse, Justifying and Saving Faith (1614), p. 14: ˜My selfe did once
know an aged and impotent woman, so silly as she was not able to give
any reasonable account of her faith, and therefore no likelihood that she
should be indued with a miraculous faith: who notwithstanding only with
a cleane linnen cloth, and a short praier in the form of a riming spell, by
blessing the sore part, cured manifold diseases, creeples, lazers, ulcers, ¬stu-
laes, numnes, lamenes, and what not? The whole countrie sought to her as a
pettie God: but I verily beleeve, that though the cures were temporarily good
to those that enjoyed the[m], yet they were all wrought by the power of the
Devill.™
51. Quoted from John Bale, Complete Plays, ed. Peter Happ´, 2 vols. (Cambridge:
e
D. S. Brewer, 1986), vol. II, ˜Three Laws of Nature™, lines 409“24.
52. The Tavistocke Naboth proved Nabal (1658), p. 40; see Mrs G. H. Radford,
˜Thomas Larkham™, Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 24 (1892),
pp. 96“146, esp. pp. 132“3. On Larkham™s career, see his entry in ODNB.
53. Cf. John Holloway (ed.), The Oxford Book of Local Verse (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987), no. 144.
54. Tavistocke Naboth, pp. 40“1. For a contrasting “ and more mainstream “ puritan
attack on the idea that words had an intrinsic power, see William Perkins, A
Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft (1st edn 1608), pp. 134“8.
55. Anatomie of Abuses (1583), ff. M3b“4a; see Marcus, Politics, p. 151, and Patrick
Collinson, ˜Elizabethan and Jacobean Puritanism as Forms of Popular Culture™,
pp. 32“57 in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of
English Puritanism, 1560“1700 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 35“6, 57.
56. It was available to Lambarde only from oral sources: he comments, ˜Althoughe
I have not hytherto at any time, read any memorable thing recorded in hysto-
rie, touching Chetham it self yet . . . I have often heard (and that consta[n]tly)
reported, a Popish illusion done at the place . . .™ (p. 286), and again, ˜This
tale, receaved by tradition from the Elders, was (long since) both commonly
reported & faithfully credited of the vulgar sort: which although happely you
shal not at this day learne at every mans mouth (the Image being now many
yeres sithe[n]ce defaced) yet many of the aged number remember it well, and
in the time of darkeness, H¦c erat in toto notissima fabula mundo™ (p. 287). Cf.
Walsham, ˜Reformed Folklore?™; Margaret Aston, England™s Iconoclasts, vol. I
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 234, 247“8; and Woolf, ˜“Com-
mon Voice”™, p. 34, who discusses Lambarde™s recording of popish impieties.
57. In The Natural History of Staffordshire (1686) Robert Plot concludes “ probably
ironically “ that if there is any truth in the tradition that fairy rings are caused
by the dances of witches and supernatural beings, it can be so only where the
grass is worn away, rather than where it is green (pp. 9“14).
58. Woolf, ˜“Common Voice”™, p. 31. See also Keith Thomas, The Perception of
the Past in Early Modern England (London: University of London Press, 1983),
pp. 3“9; Jacqueline Simpson, ˜Beyond Etiology: Interpreting Local Legends™,
Notes to pages 69“70 203
Fabula, 24:3/4 (1983), pp. 223“32; Vincent, Literacy, pp. 180“1; Flint, Rise of
Magic, pp. 204“9; and Kent C. Ryden, Mapping the Invisible Landscape (Iowa
City: University of Iowa Press, 1993), p. 26 and chapter 2.
59. Cf. Jacqueline Simpson, ˜God™s Visible Judgements: The Christian Dimension
to Landscape Legends™, Landscape History, 8 (1986), pp. 53“7, and ˜The Local
Legend: A Product of Popular Culture™, Rural History, 2:1 (1991), pp. 25“35.
60. On attitudes towards holy wells, see Alexandra Walsham, ˜Reforming
the Waters: Holy Wells and Healing Springs in Protestant England™, in
Diana Wood (ed.), Life and Thought in the Northern Church, c.1100“c.1700
(Woodbridge: Boydell/Ecclesiastical History Society, 1999), pp. 227“55, and
˜Holywell: Contesting Sacred Space in Post-Reformation Wales™, chapter 11 in
Will Coster and Andrew Spicer (eds.), Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Professor Walsham is cur-
rently engaged on a full-length study of holy wells. James Rattue, The Living
Stream (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1995), chapter 7, suggests that, though there was
a decline in many well-cults after the Reformation, they tended to be ignored
by puritan reformers (cf. note 38 above). However, other natural features could
be mutilated by puritans: for the story of the Glastonbury Thorn, see John
Collinson, The History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, 3 vols. (1791),
vol. I, p. 265, and Alexandra Walsham, ˜The Holy Thorn of Glastonbury: The
Evolution of a Legend in Post-Reformation England™, Parergon, 21 (2004),
pp. 1“26.
61. Sir John Maclean (ed.), The Berkeley Manuscripts . . . With a Description of
the Hundred of Berkeley, 3 vols. (Gloucester: John Bellows, 1883“5), vol. III,
pp. 371“2. Smyth™s MS was ¬nished in 1605. Rattue, Living Stream, gives the
correct derivation of ˜Wanswell™ (p. 41). Woden is a god, not a goddess; though
this seems to be a genuine confusion rather than an attempt to tap into anti-
Marian prejudice, a female dedicatee would have reminded the reader of the
many wells throughout Britain which carried dedications to Mary or female
saints.
62. See Conclusion, esp. pp. 154“5.
63. The Bible and Reason (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985),
pp. 41“2.
64. This is to be distinguished from using the notion of tradition to assert that
illiterates can be saved: see Conclusion, esp. p. 165.
65. On Jackson, see S. Mutchow Towers, Control of Religious Printing in Early
Stuart England, Studies in Early Modern British History, vol. 8 (Woodbridge:
Boydell, 2003), chapter 2; and Sarah Hutton, ˜Thomas Jackson, Oxford Pla-
tonist, and William Twisse, Aristotelean™, Journal of the History of Ideas, 39:4
(1978), pp. 635“52. I am grateful to the late Jeremy Maule for the latter reference,
and to Professor Hutton for discussions about Jackson™s Treatise; the following
paragraphs incorporate several of her insights. On Jackson and idolatry, see also
Reid Barbour, Literature and Religious Culture in Seventeenth-Century England
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 185.
66. Numbers 22“3 (text quoted, 23:27).
67. See also Richard Bovet, Pandaemonium (1684), pp. 37“8, 41.
204 Notes to pages 71“3
68. On Herbert Spencer™s notion of ˜indwelling souls™ as a phase in elemen-
tary religious development, see Malcolm Hamilton, The Sociology of Reli-
gion (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 23“4. Much of the debate described
above and below anticipates notions of animism, a term ¬rst used in 1886
(OED).
69. The marigold was one of many ¬‚owers linked to late-medieval cults of Mary:
see Jack Goody, The Culture of Flowers (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993), p. 156. Jackson™s de¬nition problematises commonplace de¬nitions
such as that in Robert Turner, Botanologia (1687 edn), f. a2a, which compares
the heliotrope turning with the sun to subjects obeying their sovereign. The
heliotrope might have been seen as especially popish after its popularisation as
an emblem for free will in Jeremias Drexelius™s Heliotropium seu Conformatio
Humanae Voluntatis cum Divina (1st edn 1627).
70. See (e.g.) Thomas Adams, Works (1630), fols. I5a“b.
71. Henry Vaughan™s hieroglyphic perception of nature had the effect of privileging
the learned: see Marcus, Politics, pp. 222, 226 (discussing his poem ˜Regener-
ation™). One of the greatest losses which mankind sustained through Adam™s
fall was thought to be a loss of knowledge of the herbal world: see William
Coles, Adam in Eden (1657), introduction, and John Parkinson, Paradisi in
Sole (1629), p. 3. A distinction is sometimes made between similitudes, which
were of moral usefulness, and signatures, which were held to explain plants™
physical ef¬cacy; but more often, the two appear to be used interchangeably.
For a de¬nition of signatures, see Coles, ibid., f. a4a: ˜Books out of which
the Ancients ¬rst learned the Vertues of Herbes; Nature or rather the God of
nature, having stamped on divers of them legible characters to discover their
uses.™
72. Goody, Culture of Flowers, esp. p. 156. In a review of the book, James Fenton
makes some important quali¬cations to Goody™s argument (Times Literary
Supplement, 17 September 1993).
73. Grigson further comments how pious names could be used as an alternative to
occult ones: The Englishman™s Flora (London: Hart-Davis, 1958; this edn 1975),
pp. 146“9. These ¬‚ower names probably owe something to the invention of
tradition, but can nevertheless be paralleled in the usage of early modern
botanists such as Nicholas Culpeper (see below, p. 73).
74. See ˜St John™s Wort™, in Roy Vickery, A Dictionary of Plant Lore (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995). The plant ¬‚owers around the midsummer feast of St
John the Baptist.
75. The English Physitian Enlarged (1656), p. 134.
76. Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World (London: Allen Lane, 1983), pp. 78“
82.
77. See Charlotte F. Otten, ˜Milton™s Haemony™, ELR, 5 (1975), pp. 81“95.
78. English Physitian Enlarged, pp. 11“12. Culpeper is rewriting a more positive
description in John Parkinson, Theatrum Botanicum (1640): ˜This herbe hath
gained many worthy names from sundry worthy persons: . . . but all in generall
call it Angellica from the Angell-like properties therein. All these sorts are so
Notes to pages 74“6 205
called by most Authors as their titles beare, . . . All Christian nations likewise
in their appellations hereof follow the Latine name as neare as their Dialect
will permit . . .™ (p. 941). Cf. also Culpeper™s Pharmacopia Londiniensis (1653
edn), p. 2.
79. The History of the Royal Society, ed. J. I. Cope and H. W. Jones (St Louis:
Washington University Press, 1966), pp. 369“78 (quotation p. 371). The sup-
posed association between Protestantism and empirical enquiry has often been
challenged: for a recent contribution to the debate focusing on Catholic mem-
bers of the Royal Society, see Leo Gooch, ˜The Religion for a Gentleman:
The Northern Catholic Gentry in the 18th Century™, Recusant History, 23:4
(1997), pp. 543“68. For the shift away from tradition to empirical knowledge,
see Thomas, Religion, pp. 509“14, 771“2, 793“4.
80. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: this edn 1980), chapters 4 and 8 generally, and vol. 2, pp. 668“
9.
81. M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record (2nd edn Oxford: Black-
well, 1993), pp. 226“34, explores the question of literacy among the medieval
laity.
82. For a recent census of ¬‚owers mentioned in Greek literary texts, see John
Raven, ˜Plants and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece™, Annales Musei Goulandris,
8 (1990), pp. 129“80, esp. pp. 159 ff.
83. Way to the True Church, fols. **8a. For vervain, see also Grigson, Englishman™s
Flora, pp. 336“9.
84. Purkiss, Troublesome Things and Regina Buccola, Fairies, Fractious Women and
the Old Faith (Selingrove: Susquehanna University Press, 2006) both give full
accounts of the British faery mythology. See also K. M. Briggs, The Fairies
in Tradition and Literature (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967). Floris
Delattre, English Fairy Poetry (London: Frowde, 1912), pp. 66, 71“4, lists literary
equations of fairies with nymphs. See also Thomas Nashe, Terrors of the Night
(1594), in Works, ed. R. B. McKerrow, 5 vols. (London: A. H. Bullen/Sidgwick
& Jackson, 1904“10), vol. I, p. 347.
85. In ˜Herrick™s Fairy State™, ELH, 46:1 (1979), pp. 35“55, Peter Schwenger distin-
guishes between three possible approaches: collecting and classifying informa-
tion, and using popular myth to illuminate the nature of certain English social
structures; an anthropological analysis of the faery kingdom itself, with its
hierarchies, moral codes, customs and taboos; and exploiting literary works
on fairies as ˜storehouses of information about individual folk beliefs and
often as conscious articulations of the fairy kingdom™s nature as a whole™
(p. 35). A seventeenth-century anticipation of this method is Robert Kirk,
The Secret Commonwealth of Elves and Fairies (1691“2), ed. Stewart Sanderson
(Cambridge: D. S. Brewer for the Folklore Society, 1976); see also the discussion
of Hobbes below. Schwenger™s comment that faery lore deserves a thorough
anthropological analysis still holds good, since Purkiss™s Troublesome Things
is more psychoanalytical than anthropological in approach, while Buccola™s
Fairies, Fractious Women . . . is literary in focus.
206 Notes to pages 76“7
86. Three Treatises Concerning Wales, intro. David Williams (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 1960), pp. 32“3.
87. Abbey-lubbers were minor devils who tempted monks to drunkenness,
gluttony and lasciviousness. See Katherine Briggs, A Dictionary of Fairies
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977), p. 1.
88. A Discorsive Probleme Concerning Prophesies (1588), pp. 68“9, quoted by Adam
Fox, ˜Aspects of Oral Culture and its Development in Early Modern England™,
Cambridge PhD thesis, 1993, p. 332 (see also p. 333).
89. The Discoverie of Witchcraft (1st edn 1584), ed. Brinsley Nicholson (Wake¬eld:
EP Publishing, 1973), heading to chapter 4.
90. On Renaissance faery literature, see Warren W. Wooden, Children™s Literature
of the English Renaissance, ed. Jeanie Watson (Lexington: Kentucky University
Press, 1986), chapters 6“7, and Agnes W. Latham, The Elizabethan Fairies
(1936: repr. New York: Octagon, 1972). On faery lore in A Midsummer Night™s
Dream, see Mary Ellen Lamb, ˜Taken by the Fairies: Fairy Practices and the
Production of Popular Culture in A Midsummer Night™s Dream™, Shakespeare
Quarterly, 51:3 (2000), pp. 277“312.
91. Albion™s England (1606: revised and enlarged edition, 1612). This seems the best
explanation of the ˜perverseness™ which Sukanta Chaudhuri identi¬es in the
poem: Renaissance Pastoral and its English Developments (Oxford: Clarendon,
1989), p. 405. On the anti-Catholic satirical use of fairies, see Reid Barbour,
English Epicures and Stoics (Amherst: University of Massachussetts Press, 1998),
pp. 45“6.
92. Quoted from Spenser, Shorter Poems, ed. Oram et al., p. 115 (June, gloss to line
25). See Evelyn B. Tribble, Margins and Marginality (Charlottesville: University
of Virginia Press, 1993), pp. 79“80. For a late seventeenth-century expression of

<< . .

 22
( 27)



. . >>

Copyright Design by: Sunlight webdesign