In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum
  • H. C. Erik Midelfort
The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. By Christopher S. Mackay. (New York: Cambridge University Press. 2009. Pp. x, 657. $29.95 paperback. ISBN 978-0-521-74787-5.)

Between 1486 and 1669 the famous witch-hunting manual, Malleus Maleficarum, underwent twenty-eight editions, all in Latin. It was for two centuries one of the best known treatises on the nature of witchcraft, recommending harsh investigations and punishment. After 1900 this text had an even wider circulation owing to a spate of (often inadequate) translations into German, English, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Czech, Polish, Croatian, Dutch, and even Vietnamese. On the Internet it is available in Latin, in various translations, and as an audio recording. Parts of it have even been set to [End Page 99] music. Unfortunately, many of these versions appealed to prurient or sensationalist interests; lacked the necessary scholarly apparatus required for understanding a complex late medieval exercise in canon law, theology, and demonology; and were often inaccurate. This was notably true of the English version produced by Montague Summers, the gothic fantasist (London, 1928). Recognizing these difficulties, scholars especially in Germany and the English-speaking world have published reprints of the original Latin edition (Göppingen, 1991; New York, 1992), an improved but abridged English translation by P. G. Maxwell-Stuart (Manchester, UK, 2007), a much improved translation into German by W. Tschacher, Wolfgang Behringer, and Günter Jerouschek (Munich, 2000), and an elaborate (and expensive) two-volume edition of an edited Latin text with introduction, notes, and an English translation by the classicist Christopher S. Mackay (Cambridge, UK, 2006). The massive volume under review is a reasonably priced paperback edition of Mackay's English translation with an abridged but still substantial introduction, improved running heads, and detailed notes. In addition to providing a much more reliable translation into English, Mackay has provided a useful outline, glossary, and detailed notes on the theological and legal sources cited. He has done heroic service in identifying the many ancient and medieval sources quoted or cited in the text, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, but also the Dominicans Johannes Nider; Nicolas Eymeric; and St. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence.

There are, however, a few issues to mention. First, it is noteworthy that Mackay's name appears on the title page as translator but with no original author. On the vexed issue of authorship, scholars are currently divided, but Behringer and Jerouschek have provided a strong argument that the Malleus was very much the product of one author, Heinrich Kramer (Henricus Institoris, O.P.) with no contribution from Jacob Sprenger. Perhaps their most important pieces of evidence are Kramer's claim to have written the book, the anecdotes in the Malleus that emanated from the south German and Austrian territories where Kramer was active as an inquisitor, and Sprenger's denial of authorship (as Servatius Fanckel, his successor as prior of the Cologne Dominican convent, declared one year after Sprenger's death in 1495). Bearing these facts in mind, it seems odd that Mackay declares that Kramer and Sprenger wrote the Malleus, and that arguments to the contrary are "nugatory" (p. 5). For Mackay, it seems decisive that Kramer claimed in a sworn statement that he had written the book in collaboration with Sprenger and that "only an imbecile" (p. 5) would have done so falsely if he knew that Sprenger would learn of this claim. Mackay is also persuaded that Sprenger was the likely author of the scholastic sections of part 1 that dealt with the possibility of sorcery, the nature and goals of the devil, and other theological topics. Perhaps, Mackay concedes, Sprenger merely "vetted" (p. 6) Kramer's arguments here, but it seems unlikely to Mackay that Kramer falsely alleged Sprenger's collaboration. On balance, it seems that this question is not yet decisively settled, but those who argue for Kramer's exclusive authorship have made the better case. [End Page 100]

A second issue arises over how the terms maleficium, maleficus, and malefica should be translated. Mackay generally eschews the terms witch and witchcraft in favor...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 99-101
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.