Witch Hunters: Professional Prickers, Unwitchers and Witch Finders of the Renaissance (review)

Martin del Rio, a Belgian Jesuit; Pierre de Lancre, a French lawyer; Battista Codronchi, an Italian doctor; Patrick Morton, the "possessed" son of a Scottish blacksmith; John Kinkaid, a Scottish professional witch pricker; and Elizabeth Jameson, an accused Scottish witch: what do they have in common? All, as P. G. Maxwell-Stuart demonstrates in this book, could recognize witches or their activities. In an early modern world (the term Renaissance in the title is somewhat misleading as the sources cover the period from 1599 to 1704) where appearances often were deceiving, it was important to be able to identify which seemingly normal-looking people actually were witches. How could one identify a person who destroyed the fertility of crops, animals, and humans; both caused and cured illnesses in people and animals; made pacts with the devil and attended sabbaths; caused the possession of a person; manipulated the weather; or even changed shapes? How could one be sure the charges were "true" or that they were not based on some personal grudge alone? Could the accused or the accusers be duped? Each of the persons mentioned above serves the author as an epitome of those who offered various types of guidance to contemporaries concerning the recognition, apprehension, and trial of alleged witches. Maxwell-Stuart, however, goes well beyond the information these individuals provided. In each of the short chapters, centered on one of the above-named individuals, he includes much more information, revealing a thorough knowledge of the early modern sources (and their modern critics) on which ideas concerning witchcraft were based. He argueshere, as he has elsewhere (e.g., Satan's Conspiracy: Magic and Witchcraft inSixteenth-Century Scotland [2001]), that readers must understand witchcraft beliefs and accusations within the context of the early modern period, where many people perceived witchcraft as a real danger to the unity, and even the existence, of a Christian society. The lack of the usual scholarly apparatus, except for the presence of a brief bibliographic note and seven endnotes, makes this book more useful for a general audience, and readers will have a difficult time pursuing further information on the subject. Nevertheless, this idiosyncratic book provides an interesting glimpse into the careers of persons who experienced witchcraft firsthand and who represent a broad range of ideas on the subject. The author has continued the recent scholarly trend to see witchcraft ideas as the center of a wide spectrum of early modern concerns rather than merely marginal to the period. Maxwell-Stuart obviously is familiar with most modern literature on witchcraft as he often succinctly summarizes it. Scholars reading the book will recognize his debts to Stuart Clark, Christina Larner, Keith Thomas, Alan MacFarlane, James Sharpe, and Robin Briggs, to name a few, even where he disputes or goes beyond their findings. His summary refutation of the clichéd pattern of a quarrel between two (or more) people followed by disaster followed by accusation of witchcraft followed by "judicial proof thereof" (144) is especially pertinent to his argument that explaining witchcraft is never going to be monocausal. Most scholars would agree.By showing a number of approaches that make this evident for his readers,Maxwell-Stuart has performed a valuable service for his readers.