In 1989, Ruth Martin provided a pioneering and stimulating investigation into the handling of witchcraft and superstition, and those who allegedly practiced them, by the Venetian Inquisition tribunal in Witchcraft and the Inquisition in Venice 1550–1650 (Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell). Jonathan Seitz's similarly titled study is no mere update of that still valuable book. The difference between “the inquisition” and “inquisition” points to a shift in focus from the institutional and who came before the tribunal to the procedural and who provided expertise in judging what was natural and supernatural. That expertise affected what could give rise to charges of witchcraft, magic, and “superstition” (a term that for the Church “mainly referred to those practices that assigned supernatural powers where they did not belong,” 13), and, then, what verdicts resulted. The experts under most discussion are physicians, “healing clerics” or “exorcists” (terms to be used interchangeably, see 96n10), and female healers. Before discussing them Seitz provides a clear guide to the Venetian tribunal within the Holy Office; its composition and procedures; the nature of the documentation, especially in relation to denunciations; and self-denunciations, especially in the context of a highly litigious society in Venice (1). He provides a background analysis of past and present attitudes toward the natural and the supernatural, concluding that a dichotomy between the two is an oversimplification. He postulates a third category of the “preternatural,” which might include natural magic, marvels, or unusual but entirely natural phenomena, following writers like Stuart Clark (20); however, many Venetians did see demonic magic and natural phenomena as opposing categories.

The Venetian tribunal handled about 600 magic-related cases between 1550 and 1650 (including cases sent from other tribunals within the Venetian Republic). About twenty percent of the denunciations alleged “maleficio,” evil intent or effect, but nobody was convicted of such directly. There were no executions for witchcraft in this tribunal and torture was limited. “Nothing proven” was a standard verdict. Contrasting with a Scottish anti-witch procedure, he cites the example of Orsa Chersonera in 1598 hounded by youths accusing her of witchcraft practices behind a high altar and wanting her burned. The tribunal's investigations revealed her as having an “empty-headed and unhealthy mind,” known on the Giudecca as a crazy woman, and dismissed as “there is nothing harmful here, other than that she is out of her mind” (37–38). Seitz argues that denunciations were not coerced and that accusers and witnesses were not driven into stereotypical allegations or top-down pre-conceptual attitudes. Witnesses were not necessarily terrified by the Inquisition and many might have some idea of its procedures, as a Girolama Baglioni showed in her trial in 1638 (84). (Her case is used on several occasions, though unfortunately her name is not given in the rather too cryptic index.) Seitz challenges Adriano Prosperi and others on the effectiveness of social disciplining (92n30), at least in the Venetian world. Seitz risks being attacked by hard-line historians or anti-clericals for being too soft on the Inquisition and inquisitors! But he is right to stress inquisitorial skepticism and mental flexibility at least over witchcraft and superstition accusations.

Jonathan Seitz's main contribution is on the way experts were used, both in the handling of illnesses and behaviors leading up to accusations of magic and in the investigation of the accusations by the tribunal. He is particularly breaking new ground in his discussion of the role of the physicians as the main medical healers involved in the inquisitorial context; midwives and charlatans seemingly were rarely called to give evidence in this context. While we have recently learned something about exorcists in high profile possession cases, this study brings out more widespread consultation of clerical healers, also described loosely as exorcists in the records. (There was no official exorcism ritual until the 1614 Rituale). Seitz indicates that before complaining sufferers or relatives brought accusations of “witchcraft” to the inquisitor, they might have consulted physicians, then clerical healers, then a female healer, seeking verdicts on what might have a natural cause, what supernatural, and what with malice, as in the case of the young painter, Matteo Garzoni in 1620, who claimed the woman finally cured him (101–2). Healers might co-operate to arrive at a verdict. The experts looked for different explanations: the physicians searched for natural causes from medical expertise; the clerical healers looked for “signs,” which might distinguish between the natural and the supernatural and objects that might be used for magical purposes. Seitz shows that physicians and clerical healers cooperated in advising the tribunal, though it favored physicians. The Congregation in Rome warned local inquisitors against excessive reliance on exorcists.

Seitz also notes the probable distrust of Dominican inquisitors towards rival Franciscans and Augustinians, as religious healers or exorcists. Physicians looked for natural causes and proved very reluctant to give a verdict on the supernatural despite some inquisitorial pressure to do so, because it is “not my profession” (163). One physician, Pietro Marcellini, did state in 1617 that a woman's death was due to witchcraft—but he was her husband (169); and he was happy to support “miraculous” healings in sanctity cases. Seitz has sections or chapters on the training of physicians (in Padua especially), and on libraries possibly available to exorcists and inquisitors. Frustratingly, we do not have full inventories of what the Venetian tribunal's book holdings were. The nature of the notarial records also means that tribunal members' views on natural and supernatural causes are largely hidden. They seem to have accepted physicians' views, showing considerable skepticism over “magical” causes and popular “witch” allegations.

Jonathan Seitz's book is a major contribution to the study of inquisition procedures and the role of “expert witnesses.” It has wider value to those interested in debates about the natural and supernatural, medical history, and socio-religious attitudes in Venice.