INTRODUCTION.✦

————

Except that they add the names of some who have opposed his views, or some such trifling matters, all the writers of biographical notices of Scot have drawn their information from the account given of him in Wood’s Athenæ Oxon. Nor, indeed, until lately, unless original search had been made, were other sources available. Hence I, in the first place, give his words verbatim from the edition of 1691.

“Reynolde Scot, a younger Son of Sir John Scot of Scots-hall, near to Smeeth in Kent, by his Wife, Daughter of Reynolde Pimp of Pimps-court Knight, was born in that County, and at about 17 years of age was sent to Oxon, particularly, as it seems, to Hart hall, where several of his Country-men and name studied in the latter end of K. Hen. 8. and in the Reign of Ed. 6. &c. Afterwards he retired to his native Country without the honour of a degree, and settled at Smeeth, where he found great incouragement in his studies from his kinsman Sir Thos. Scot. About which time taking to him a Wife, he gave himself up solely to solid reading, to the perusing of obscure authors that had by the generality of Scholars been neglected, and at times of leisure to husbandry and gardening, as it may partly appear from these books following.

“A perfect platform of a Hop-garden, and necessary instructions for the making and maintenance thereof, with notes and rules for reformation of all abuses, &c. Lond. 1576. qu. the 2. edit. as it seems.

“The discovery of Witchcraft; wherein the leud dealing of Witches, and Witchmongers is notably detected, the knavery of Conjurers, the impiety of Inchantors, the folly of Southsayers, &c. With many other things are opened, which have long been hidden, howbeit very necessary to be known. Lond. 1584. qu. in 16 books.

“Discourse upon Devils and Spirits.—In this, and the former, both printed together, it plainly appears that the author was very well versed in many choice books, and that his search into them was so profound, that nothing slip’d his Pen that might make for his purpose. Further also in the said Discovery and Discourse, though he holds that Witches are not such that were in his time and before, commonly executed for Witches; or that Witches were, or are not; yet they, which were written for the instruction of all Judges and Justices of that age, (being the first of that nature that were published in the Mother tongue,) did for a time make great impressions in the Magistracy and Clergy, tho afterwards condemned by James King of Scots (the same who succeeded Qu. Elizabeth in the Monarchy of England) in his Preface to Dæmonology, printed under his Name at Edinburgh in 1597. qu. and by several others since, among whom was Rich. Bernard of Batcomb, in his Epist. Ded. before his Guide to Grand Jury-men, &c. Lond. 1627. in oct. What else our author Scot hath written, I cannot yet tell, nor anything else of him, only but that he dyed in Sept. or Oct. in fifteen hundred ninety and nine, and was buried among his Ancestors in the Church at Smeeth before-mentioned.

“In the time of the said Reynold Scot and before, have been conversant among the Muses in Hart hall, the Sackviles of Sussex, the Colepepers of Kent and Sussex, the Sedlies of Kent, and the Scots before mentioned, with others of inferiour note of the said Counties.”

Notes added in Bliss’s Reprint.

“7. The learned author in his Discovery is as vehement against Popery as against witchcraft, and quite indecent in his abuse of the saints of the Romish church.”—COLE. [His indecency being for the most part a narrative of, and obvious reflections on, their indecency. And this I say understanding the sense in which he uses the word.]

“8. See a full account of this curious book, as Mr. Oldys calls it, in his British Librarian, p. 213. All the copies of the first edit. 1584, that could be found were burnt by order of K. James I. an author on the other side of the question.”—Vid. Hist. Dictionary, sub voce “Scot”.

[“REGINALDUS SCOTUS, Anglus, tractatum de Incantamentis scripsit, in quo plerasque traditiones de Magia Melancholiæ, & morbis variis, aut artibus histrionicis adscribit.”] “Hunc in Anglia publica auctoritate combustum, sibi autem nunquam fuisse visum refert Thomasius de crimine magiæ § 3.”—Vide [J. V.] Vogt., Cat. Libr. rar., p. 617 [1713].

“Liber in folio scriptus Anglica lingua a Reginaldo Scoto in quo plurima occurrunt contra magiæ existentiam argumenta. Est ille etiam in Belgicam linguam conversus: sed plenior editio est ultima Anglica.”—Morhof., ii, 459.

[Then a short note on the three editions.]

In 1874 there were privately printed, Memorials of the Scot Family, by Jas. Renat Scott, Esq., and from them I extract the following tables:

Rich. Scott==Mary Whetenhall. | +---------+-------------+------------+-------------------+-+ | | | | | Reginald Richard _ancestor of the Edward==May, d. of [2 d.] author. Scotts of Shrewsbury | John Warren. and elsewhere._ | +----------------------------------------+ | À quo the Scotts of Glemsford Suffolk _and afterwards of Ohio and Massachusetts in America_.

Reg. Scott, b. 1541,==Alice Cobbe, d. of Th. Cobbe of Cobbes mar. 11 Oct. 1568, | Place, Aldington, Kent. died Oct. 1599. | +---------+-----+ | | Collyar==Marie. Elizabeth==Sackville Turnor of Tablehurst, Sussex.

But as the first part of the ancestry given in this book is not supported by anything beyond possibility and legend, so this latter portion is incorrect in various particulars. Instead, however, of taking each inaccuracy item by item, it will be simpler to give a consecutive account of such facts as to his ancestry, and as to Reginald Scott himself, as can be proved by documentary evidence or rendered probable by deductions therefrom.

John Philipot, Rouge Dragon and Somerset Herald, who died in 1645, set forth the pleasant and picturesque, but slightly supported origin of the family. I say pleasant, because the Scotts in the times of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, were a family of large possessions, wealth, and influence, influence so great that it is said that Elizabeth refused the request made by Lord Buckhurst, or the Earl of Leicester, that Sir Thomas Scott should be ennobled, saying that he had already more influence in Kent than she had. She seems also to have had from this, or from some other reason, a personal dislike to them, for in her Progress in 1573, she having passed three days at his father-in-law’s, Sir John Baker, of Sissinghurst Castle, declined to visit Scotts-hall, saying she wished to proceed to her own house, though on her way thither she had to pass Sir Thomas’s gates. In his Villare Cantianum, p. 313, Philipot has these words: “Scotts-hall, which is now and hath been for divers Descents the Inheritance of eminent Gentlemen of that Sirname, whom I dare aver upon probable Grounds were originally called Balioll. William Balioll, second brother to Alexander de Balioll, frequently writ his Name William de Balioll le Scot, and it is probable, that upon the Tragedy of John, Earl of Atholl, who was made prisoner by Edward the first, and barbarously executed, in the year 1307. (whilst he endeavoured more nobly than successfully to defend the gasping Liberty of Scotland against the Eruption of that Prince;) this Family to decline the Fury of that Monarch, who was a man of violent passions, altered the name of Balioll to that of their Extraction and Country, and assumed for the future the Name of Scot. That the Sirname of this Family was originally Balioll, I farther upon these Reasons assert. First, the ancient Arms of Balioll Colledge in Oxford, which was founded by John Balioll, and dedicated to St. Katharine was a Katherin-Wheele, being still part of the paternal Coat of this Family. Secondly, David de Strabogie, who was Son and Heir to the unfortunate Earl above-said, astonished with an Example of so much Terror, altered his name from Balioll to Strabogie, which was a Signory which accrued to him the Right of his Wife, who was Daughter and Heir to John Comin, Earl of Badzenoth and Strabogie, and by this Name King Edward the second, omitting that of Balioll restored Chilham-castle to him for Life, in the fifteenth year of his reign. Thirdly, the Earls of Buccleugh, and the Barons of Burley in Scotland, who derive themselves originally from Balioll, are known at this instant by no other Sirname, but Scot, and bear with some inconsiderable Difference, those very Arms which are at present the paternal Coat of the Family of Scots-hall.”

This tradition excluded, we find that Sir William Scot of Braberne, now Brabourne, in Kent, is the first of whom we have historical mention. He was knighted in 1336, when the Black Prince was created Duke of Cornwall, and died in 1350: a brass to his memory, being in Weever’s time (1631), the first of the memorials of the Scot family in Brabourne church. According to Philipot, this Sir William was the same with Sir William Scot, then Chief Justice of England; but if Mr. Foss be right in stating that this latter died in 1346, the year of the Black Death, this view cannot be upheld.