Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern England: Contemporary Texts and Their Cultural Contexts (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern England: Contemporary Texts and Their Cultural Contexts Moshe Sluhovsky Philip C. Almond Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern England: Contemporary Texts and their Cultural Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. x + 405. Philip Almond renders historians of early modern England an important service. This book offers readers modernized versions of nine pamphlets published in England between 1574 and 1650 addressing different aspects of the contemporary interest in diabolic possession and exorcism. The documents range from naive and pseudostraightforward descriptions of events to theological sermons masquerading as reportages. They present Catholic, Anglican, and Puritan points of view, and each text defends a unique theological perspective on the possibility, causes, authenticity, and unfolding of the interaction between this world and the world of the beyond. Thanks to this collection and to three recent editions of early modern English possession tales—Michael MacDonald’s Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London (1991), F. W. Brownlow’s Shakespeare, Harsnett, and the Devils of Denham (1993), and James A. Sharpe’s The Bewitching of Anne Gunter (1999)—scholars and students of the religious history of England now have access to a significant body of primary sources available in modern and accessible editions. Almond rightly points out that the “symptoms of possession by evil spirits were sufficiently common to make the diagnosis possible” (p. i), and that relatives and neighbors of allegedly possessed people were the first to suspect the supernatural causality of the strange behaviors that demoniacs presented. They were joined by and sought advice and cure from physicians, astrologers, cunning men and women, and curates. The familiarity with the bodily manifestations and the cultural script of possession did not, however, mean consensus. Both lay individuals and professionals—theologians and physicians—debated all the aspects of possession and exorcism. In general, Catholics maintained the traditional view of their church, according to which diabolic possession was a preternatural occurrence and ordained exorcists had unique powers to expel demons. Anglicans did not deny the possibility of diabolic possession, but were likely to diagnose specific cases as resulting from natural rather than supernatural afflictions. Puritans saw in possession an eschatological sign, and believed in communal means of exorcism—fasting and [End Page 242] prayers by the believers, rather than liturgical adjurations by exorcists, were their proposed remedies. But these generalizations should not lead us to equate the Anglican position with a more scientific or medical approach, or to view the Catholics as more traditional and “superstitious.” Each religious denomination had its share of skeptics, and Catholic, Anglicans, and Puritans alike made use of dramatic possessions and exorcisms to prove the truth of their theological interpretation of scripture. In early modern England, natural and supernatural causalities did not exclude one another; natural affliction could be understood as deriving from satanic intervention; and even an admission of fraud by a would-be demoniac could be found to be of diabolic origins and to reinforce a religious truth. Most of Almond’s documents describe Puritan cases of possession and exorcisms, or the exposure of Puritan impostors. Unfortunately, Almond does not explain in his introduction what criteria he used to choose the texts that found their way into his collection, and whether they reflect the over one hundred possessed persons he had found in contemporary documents. The Anglicans in his collection are presented more often as unveiling Catholic and Puritan frauds and simulations than as practitioners of the cultural resource of possession and exorcism. But is this an accurate reflection of the early modern reality? Could we accept Almond’s conclusion that they “drove an Anglican wedge of secularism between papists and Puritans” (p. 7), or is that a result of Almond’s selection? Furthermore, should we view Anglican skepticism as a “secular” tendency, or rather as a strategy to combat the successes of Puritan and Catholic exorcisms? After all, Anglican alleged secularism in such matters did not include the cessation of witch accusations or of the belief in the power of Satan. The celebrated 1598 case of the exposure of William Sommers as a fraud and the conviction of the Puritan exorcist John Darrell for teaching Sommers how to counterfeit possession...