The very best of books, at least as far as this reviewer is concerned, are not works of impeccable scholarship that ruffle no feathers, spark no debate and – usually – sink without trace. Rather, they are those provocative thought pieces that inspire admiration and argument in equal measure, that make the reader see the subject in wholly new ways but also, on occasion, spark disbelief and violent disagreement. Works of that sort are the ones most worth reading. Peter Elmer's book certainly deserves to be ranked among them. Indeed, it conceivably might head the list.

The overriding thesis of Witchcraft, witch-hunting, and politics is that ‘the political context, both local and national, … alone … explains the peculiar chronological and geographical pattern of witch trials in England over almost two centuries’. In this age of multi-causal explanations, stressing a single cause may feel like a throwback to an earlier generation of scholarship, but Elmer advances his thesis with considerable sophistication and erudition, based on virtually unrivalled archival scholarship. Similarly, the emphasis on politics may seem topical (historians seem to study the ‘politics of’ just about anything these days) but the book before us is the product of more than two decades of research and builds (as Elmer repeatedly and generously acknowledges) on insights taken from Ian Bostridge's splendid, yet little-read 1997 study, Witchcraft and its transformations, c.1650–c.1750, which charted the political uses of demonological discourse in the first age of party. Bostridge showed how the language of witchcraft could be used not only to demonise opponents but also in attempts to restore communal harmony, by uniting a community against that ultimate outsider, the witch.

Elmer, however, builds upon and expands Bostridge's arguments considerably, in essence turning them into a sophisticated model that seeks to link national and local politics (characterised by religious divisions) both to printed debates, and to actual witch-hunting. Models of this sort, which at the same time work on the micro- and macro-level, are rare (only the Thomas-Macfarlane ‘Charity refused’ model springs to mind), and Elmer's offers rich rewards. The author points out that, links between Puritanism and witch-hunting notwithstanding, it is the context and relative position of the factions that mattered (whether they be Arminians versus Puritans, Presbyterians versus Separatists, Dissenters versus Anglicans, Whigs versus Tories). Equally important was whether witch-hunting functioned as an ‘integrative force in the community, reinforcing normative behaviour and the religious and political status quo’ (for example, Civil War Puritans/Presbyterians using witch-hunts to build a godly community) or ‘act[ed] in a subversive role’ (Puritans promoting witch-hunting during Charles i’s Personal Rule). This model allows Elmer to link witch-hunting and witchcraft accusations to ‘high’ (or at least, higher) politics. In Restoration England, for instance, witch-hunting was embraced by persecuted Dissenters, used by moderate latitudinarian Anglicans seeking to build bridges, and disdained by high Anglicans. It also throws some new light on the great East Anglia witch-hunt, though Elmer's disagreement with Malcolm Gaskill seems rather overstated. In support of his thesis, Elmer offers an impressive number of case studies to the extent that the work feels like a veritable Who's Who of early modern English thinkers, magistrates and witches. Perhaps the most entertaining (and harmless) political analogy with witchcraft was the Puritan ‘ducking’ of a copy of the Book of Common Prayer in a pond (mirroring the ‘swimming’ of suspected witches). The copy was subsequently burned when it was discovered afloat the next day.

Clearly, Elmer's thought-provoking model has considerable explanatory prowess, capable of accounting for both the presence as well as absence of witch-hunting at a particular time and place. Yet Elmer's book provokes not only stimulating new insights but also inevitable and, at times, furious criticisms and objections. Some of these are fairly low-hanging fruit: whether political/religious groups were really that sharply defined in early modern society, and whether the actions of accusers and judges in Elmer's model sound rather too premeditated and inspired by ulterior motives. These are anticipated by the author in a few defensive paragraphs. Another obvious objection is the fact that Elmer seeks to make the facts fit his argument. For instance, the (for Elmer, inconvenient) High Anglican demonologist Meric Casaubon is relegated to the footnotes. Did the witchcraft sceptic Reginald Scot mock Richard Galis's witchcraft pamphlet because Galis's father, a one-time MP, may have been a member of the earl of Leicester's entourage? Other evidence that Scot was hostile to Leicester is more persuasive. In this instance, however, Galis (who believed that he had been bewitched because no one wanted to be friends with him any more) may have been a much more obvious – and easier – target for Scot than the earl (targeted via the son of a long-deceased possible servant). As indicated by phrases such as ‘it is fair to conclude that’, ‘it seems highly probable that’ and (especially frequent) ‘there is little doubt that’, many of the connections proposed can only be highly suggestive, rather than definitive. (Given that witchcraft is the subject matter, it can hardly be otherwise.)

Perhaps a more substantial criticism of Elmer's thesis is its very loose definition of politics, extended to encompass all of religion, science and medicine, as well as neighbourly interactions. Elmer effectively makes everything subservient to high politics by making everything political. Joseph Glanvill's Saducismus triumphatus may well have been part of a ‘moderate’ Anglican project to use witchcraft to reach out to Dissenters, but it was certainly also an attempt to set witchcraft on a new empirical footing, compatible with the new science. Only the historian's adoption of a political prism makes the former inevitably more important than the latter.

These criticisms do not obviate the fact that Elmer's analysis is in many cases illuminating. His insightful comments doubtless contain much truth. We learn a great deal when thinking with Elmer, but we also learn to stick with ‘many reasons why’. Reading Witchcraft, witch-hunting, and politics is a fascinating rollercoaster ride that throws you around and makes you see the history of witchcraft in new ways, if not quite upside-down. It is an experience that is highly recommended for everyone with even the remotest interest in early modern witchcraft.