Description
Book SynopsisExamines legal documents and magic texts relevant to two cases where authorities in Tudor England confronted practicing magicians. Explores how magicians thought about the world, where they got their ideas, and how their magic was supposed to work.
Trade Review“This short scholarly study has two key virtues: it teases apart two muddled-up historiographies and unites two unnecessarily distanced ones. First, it clears a distinct space in the historical record for practitioners of magic, who as religious and legal deviants too often get absorbed into the academic discussion of witches and witch-trials. Secondly, it exploits the fact that 16th-century magical texts tell us little about the people who used them, while legal records of prosecution — magic was first criminalised under the 1542 Witchcraft Act — tell us a lot about the magicians but frustratingly little about the technicalities of their offences.”
—Malcolm Gaskill Fortean Times
“Klaassen and Wright deftly lay bare the mechanics of both the prosecution and the practice of the most transgressive forms of magic on the eve of the Reformation. The Magic of Rogues will be essential reading for anyone interested in the social or legal history of supernatural belief in the early modern world.”
—Francis Young Journal of British Studies
“With its innovative combination of magical texts and legal documents, this is an important research contribution and offers an excellent set of annotated sources for teaching not just about magic but also about power, belief, and ambition in Tudor England.”
—Jonathan Barry,author of Witchcraft and Demonology in South-West England, 1640–1789
“The Magic of Rogues undoubtedly enhances our understanding of early Tudor magic, reinforced by a general introduction to the nature of magic in the period and its relationship with the authorities.”
—Ronald Hutton,author of The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present
“This book is a fascinating contribution to historical scholarship on European magic.”
—Patricia Sophie Mayer Religious Studies Review
