Harsnett's book was the last chapter in the story of Elizabethan witchcraft and exorcism. It is hardly too much to say that it was the first chapter in the literary exploitation of witchcraft. Out of the _Declaration_ Shakespeare and Ben Jonson mined those ores which when fused and refined by imagination and fancy were shaped into the shining forms of art. Shakespearean scholars have pointed out the connection between the dramatist and the exposer of exorcism. It has indeed been suggested by one student of Shakespeare that the great playwright was lending his aid by certain allusions in _Twelfth Night_ to Harsnett's attempts to pour ridicule on Puritan exorcism.[46] It would be hard to say how much there is in this suggestion. About Ben Jonson we can speak more certainly. It is clearly evident that he sneered at Darrel's pretended possessions. In the third scene of the fifth act of _The Devil is an Ass_ he makes Mere-craft say: It is the easiest thing, Sir, to be done. As plaine as fizzling: roule but wi' your eyes, And foame at th' mouth. A little castle-soape Will do 't, to rub your lips: And then a nutshell, With toe and touchwood in it to spit fire, Did you ner'e read, Sir, little _Darrel's_ tricks, With the boy o' _Burton_, and the 7 in _Lancashire_, Sommers at _Nottingham_? All these do teach it. And wee'l give out, Sir, that your wife ha's bewitch'd you. This is proof enough, not only that Jonson was in sympathy with the Anglican assailants of Puritan exorcism, but that he expected to find others of like opinion among those who listened to his play. And it was not unreasonable that he should expect this. It is clear enough that the powers of the Anglican church were behind Harsnett and that their influence gave his views weight. We have already observed that there were some evidences in the last part of Elizabeth's reign of a reaction against witch superstition. Harsnett's book, while directed primarily against exorcism, is nevertheless another proof of that reaction. [1] Sir George Peckham of Denham near Uxbridge and Lord Vaux of Hackney were two of the most prominent Catholics who opened their homes for these performances. See Samuel Harsnett, _Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_ (London, 1603), 7, 8. [2] For a discussion of the Catholic exorcists see T. G. Law, "Devil Hunting in Elizabethan England," in the _Nineteenth Century_ for March, 1894. Peckham's other activities in behalf of his church are discussed by Dr. R. B. Merriman in "Some Notes on the Treatment of English Catholics in the Reign of Elizabeth," in the _Am. Hist. Rev._, April, 1908. Dr. Merriman errs, however, in supposing that John Darrel cooperated with Weston and the Catholic exorcists; _ibid._, note 51. Darrel was a Puritan and had nothing to do with the Catholic performances. [3] It is quite possible to suppose, however, that its course would have been run in much the same way at a later time.