ABSTRACT

How did Sir John Keeling, the disbeliever, and Sir Thomas Browne, the scholarly doctor, come to the parts they played in the Bury St. Edmunds trial? Browne, the intellect and the proclaimed skeptic, might have been presumed to stand back and question the accuracy of the allegations and the integrity of the proceedings, especially the experiment to prove the women guilty. Keeling, fearful, bombastic, and intolerant of opposition, might reasonably have ‘been expected to have taken an aggressive position in condemning the accused women. Both, however, defied such expectations. What might explain the counter-intuitive outcome?