This volume documents the contributions to a conference held in Innsbruck in 2021, which undertook various “historical in-depth explorations” (2) to mark the 500th anniversary of the birth of the ‘Second Apostle of Germany’ Petrus Canisius (1521–1597).

The total of 12 contributions – subsumed under the three categories “framework conditions and resources,” “concerns and activities” and “living on and impact” – are framed by a short introduction (1–5) and a list of sigla and abbreviations (271) as well as an index of persons (273–281).

Markus Friedrich’s introductory contribution (9–34) already sets the coordinates of the entire volume between “traditionality and the ability of innovation” (29), within which the other contributions deal with the person of Canisius in more detail. For Friedrich, the early Societas Jesu was less a pioneer of (theological) modernity, but rather a “continuator of late medieval piety” (23) with contemplative and mysticistic echoes. All in all, according to Friedrich, the Jesuit order is thus quite traditionalist in the three areas of modernity particularly assumed in it – “education, organization, piety” (23).

What Volker Leppin was able to show for Martin Luther – namely his rootedness in late medieval mysticism (cf. his book “Die fremde Reformation,” 2016) – Klaus Unterburger can likewise demonstrate for Canisius (35–51). Canisius was clearly influenced by the ‘Devotio moderna’ and by Tauler’s mysticism. Here, Unterburger explicitly demonstrates Canisius’ “traditionality.”

Wolfgang Behringer’s article (97–136) deserves special mention, as it highlights several features of Canisius’ biography: Canisius was involved in the first major witch-hunt in southern Germany and led the first post-Tridentine princely conversion of Count Ulrich XVII of Helfenstein to Catholicism to a successful end. Canisius was also the first advocate of witch hunts and the first confessor of witches within the Jesuit order. This was another reason why Canisius ultimately remained an “outsider” (126) in the Societas Jesu.

Overall, this accomplished volume shows us Canisius in the field of tension between tradition and innovation on the one hand, and on the other hand it focuses on Canisius as a Jesuit between the Roman center and the German periphery – or in the words of Paul Oberholzer SJ: Canisius represented “Rome in Germany and Germany in Rome” (140).

Alltogether, the volume makes a significant contribution to Canisius research, which has so far been dominated by Jesuit-Catholic scholars. The fact that Canisius and his significance have been made accessible to broader historical research remains the merit of the book under review. Furthermore, the volume tackles “the lack of interdisciplinary dialogue between Catholic church historiography and historiographical research on the empire” (56 note 7).