I first read this book last year when I began studying Early-Modern Witchcraft at Monash University. Barstow's work was misleading then when I knew little on the topic, and laughable now that I know much, much more. Barstow had a pre-conceived idea of what she she wanted to say, and either didn't bother to find, or omitted anything that didn't fit in with her theory. This book says more about feminist politics than Witchcraft history. Gender was the primary focus of her study, and Barstow's world is only understandable in terms of gender (as opposed to the equally important socio-economic, religious and racial factors). Furthermore she believes that only women have gender, this shows an appaling lack of study for more and more accounts are appearing, not only of male witchcraft, but of male gender history.

Witchcraft was too widespread and went on for too long to be so easily pidgeon-holed into terms as obvious or basic as gender. Historical representations of witchcraft should be taken on a case by case basis. Creating "models" for witchcraft (Barstow's elderly, marinalised female among others) does not help the issue, it confuses it.

Anyone starting out serious study in this field would do better to read works by Dianne Purkiss, Deborah Willis or books pertaining to the case in Salem of Hugh Parsons who was the primary witch, his wife the secondary-where does this fit in to Barstow's model? Also, if you must read Barstow- also read the possession at Loudun(Certeau's or Rapley's) to see a witch trial that is the exact opposite of Barstows "norm". To fellow scholars I'd say read Barstow if only to see how one's political agendas or bias can effect your study. Be objective, keep reading and get all sides of the story!

As others have written, Barstow's book lazily glosses over exceptions to her theory of witch-hunting as woman-hunting. I find this book to be disappointing on an academic level and a personal level. The most common figure one will find in this book lies in the quantitative data presented at the back of the book -- 75%. According to Barstow's sources, around 75%-80% of the people tried and killed were witches. Was there a bias against women? Certainly. Much like the bias against women that made them likely to be mystics of affective piety (something which few men ever were declared). Was witch-hunting woman-hunting? No way. Witch-hunting crossed gender lines, class lines, and religious lines. If witch-hunting were woman-hunting, we should see 100% listed for female prosecutions and executions across the board. To claim otherwise is to cheapen the deaths of thousands of men in a way that, quite frankly, disgusts me. In simple terms, Barstow seems to be unwilling to do what talented academics like Ginzburg demand that we do -- discriminate on the basis of microhistory. If you want to get a good grasp on witch-hunting, read Kors & Peters' compilation of primary source materials ("Witchcraft in Europe,") Edward Peters' "Inquisition," Joseph Klaits' "Servants of Satan," Wunderli's "The Drummer of Niklashausen," Hsia's "Myth of Ritual Murder," Ginzburg's "The Night Battles" and any other book that treats the subject with respect.

I took a course that investigated witch trials, and found this book to be the absolute most informative and responsible investigation.

While Barstow is not claiming misogyny to be the single cause of the European "witchcraze" (as some would believe), she looks at misogyny as key feature of the trials. Her claim is that the arrival of witch trials in Europe presented a means for misogynist acts to take place. In many regions (particularly central Europe) women were specifically targetted for their sins: lustfullness, weak-mindedness, greed, temptresses, sexual infidelity, etc. Women were being targeted in large numbers because they were women. Widows and spinsters were seen to be the most dangerous by the people in charge (men). In areas (Russia) where women weren't so highly targeted, there were other societal mechanisms of misogyny. Also, women weren't seen as capable to perform magic as men.

Barstow sees the witch trials as a past expression of the ! continuing woman-fearing and hating that occurs in our world. Though more subtle forms continue today, she cites that we remain in a world with female-genital mutilation in Africa and wife-burning in India. Widespread rape and wife-beating in the USA would be another form of this. The witch trials were a particularly disturbing form of historical misogyny in early modern Europe.

The witch trials were a phenomenon in which the majority of victims were women. Most scholarly accounts tend to ignore or gloss-over this fact. This original account offers much of which is missing in the rest of the literature.

This is another book which ignores the more objective evidence in favor of the slander promoted by Joan's opponents (i.e., the English and their allies among the Anglo-Burgundian clergy) while adding a large dollop of speculation and New Age philosophy into the mix. Joan was never considered a heretic by anyone except her enemies: for a more balanced selection of the clerical views of that era, see Jean Gerson's treatise in her defense (written in 1429) and Inquisitor Bréhal's declaration of her innocence contained in his "Recollectio" at the end of the Rehabilitation Trial in 1456. Similarly, the notion that 15th century women were a stifled class is rather curious, given that there were so many aristocratic women (Marie de Berri, Jeanne de Montfort, Marcia Ordelaffi, Jeanne de Penthièvre...) who took charge of their families' armies and other affairs during the Hundred Years War period (Joan was not the only woman to be given titular command of an army, by any means); this doesn't fit the model of history which certain modern academics subscribe to, but it's the way the feudal system has traditionally operated (that's why England has a Queen right now). Finally, the book's insistence on calling Joan a "shaman" has provoked justifiable ridicule, and hardly needs to be debunked here (I hope).

It seems that some authors cannot resist the temptation to rewrite Joan's history in terms of their own ideology. The end result hardly qualifies as history.

I think one should question how autonomous a woman is if she listens to the voices which supposedly came from outside of her being. I can understand the shaman relation. Of course anyone from a scientific perspective who has made "standards of proof" their god are never willing to accept the factual existence of other viewpoints, but to each his or her own. Altogether, this work has some interesting points, but comes from a lousy angle. You can't blame them, but several Westerners have been caught in a trend for awhile now to concretize myth and magic in order to satisfy "science-types". It just doesn't work and only draws more criticism. You cannot fit a square peg into a round hole.

Irrespective of the claims of the previous reviewer, this is a book based on scholarship. As early as 1986, Barstow uncovered what so many others are announcing today--that a central question of women's lives is the question of authority. On whose authority does a woman speak when she can not speak on her own? In a world where women were tightly hemmed in by culture and religion, where they had no authority to speak, Joan of Arc discovered a new basis for personal authority. In her case, it was her voices which gave her that authority; once heard, she could do no other than to speak what they commanded. As Barstow says--Joan's story is a that of an autonomous woman, one who broke through the limitations and constraints of her time. In this highly documented book the reader learns of Joan's doubts, her humiliation, her torments. Finally, one learns again about courage against all odds.