Great review. But I feel like this point "The downside to Stanmore’s emphasis on the practical uses of magic, and the resultant blurring of chronologies and cultures, is that we learn less about the belief systems and intellectual theories underpinning the various strands of magical thought than we might. To the end user, perhaps, it made little difference whether you employed an alchemist to turn base metal into gold or cunning man to persuade the fairies and ghosts protecting grave barrows to give up their treasure. The point was to get rich quick. But those processes are worlds apart in both theory and practice" is so important. The other reviews of this book I've seen haven't articulated that criticism, but it makes me feel like the book would be a fun read, but not necessarily that helpful in making sense of the period!
Thank you! And that's exactly it. It's a fun read. I really enjoyed it. It very effectively makes the point that people relied on or resorted to magic for many things in their lives. But it doesn't really dig any deeper than that. At the other end of the spectrum, Anthony Grafton's book Magus, which came out at the beginning of the year, is really good.
Oh, yeah, my husband is reading that right now. He took advantage of Grafton's presence at grad school to take classes with him, which I neglected to do, to my great regret! I definitely want to check it out as well--I taught Paracelsus in a sixteenth-century survey last year, and I was like, OK, I have to get way deeper into this stuff.
Great review. But I feel like this point "The downside to Stanmore’s emphasis on the practical uses of magic, and the resultant blurring of chronologies and cultures, is that we learn less about the belief systems and intellectual theories underpinning the various strands of magical thought than we might. To the end user, perhaps, it made little difference whether you employed an alchemist to turn base metal into gold or cunning man to persuade the fairies and ghosts protecting grave barrows to give up their treasure. The point was to get rich quick. But those processes are worlds apart in both theory and practice" is so important. The other reviews of this book I've seen haven't articulated that criticism, but it makes me feel like the book would be a fun read, but not necessarily that helpful in making sense of the period!
Thank you! And that's exactly it. It's a fun read. I really enjoyed it. It very effectively makes the point that people relied on or resorted to magic for many things in their lives. But it doesn't really dig any deeper than that. At the other end of the spectrum, Anthony Grafton's book Magus, which came out at the beginning of the year, is really good.
Oh, yeah, my husband is reading that right now. He took advantage of Grafton's presence at grad school to take classes with him, which I neglected to do, to my great regret! I definitely want to check it out as well--I taught Paracelsus in a sixteenth-century survey last year, and I was like, OK, I have to get way deeper into this stuff.
In that case I think you will definitely love it!