In his study of the English demonologist John Darrell, Brendan C. Walsh offers a fresh analysis of an often neglected field of historical inquiry. He “argues that John Darrell's exorcism ministry was the catalyst for a number of significant alterations to demonological and ecclesiastical policy within the early modern Church of England” (1–2). As such, the study has two related foci. The first is a narrative account of the formation of demonological beliefs and the practice of exorcism viewed through the lens of Darrell's writings and the controversy his texts and practices triggered. The second is an attempt to employ demonological perspectives as an identity marker used to distinguish between various warring factions within English Protestantism. The argument has important historiographic dimensions beyond simply illuminating an understudied topic.

Walsh makes two important historiographic decisions that shape the trajectory of his work. Following Francis Young, Walsh depicts “demonic possession as Darrell and his contemporaries did, by framing these spiritual manifestations through their recorded experiences” (19). This is not naïve acceptance of the reality of demonic possession, but an acknowledgement that history must be understood on its own terms. This is a reasonable answer to an intractable historiographical quandary regarding assessment of supernatural events from centuries later, but the debate in Darrell's time centered on his credibility, so Walsh might be a bit generous on this point. The second decision centers on his definition of Puritan. This is a vexing problem. Walsh defines a Puritan as “a minister or layperson of evangelical disposition with strong Calvinist convictions, linked with one of the many ‘nonconformist’ spiritual networks situated throughout central England” (9). There are some layers in this definition and many historians would likely press for a more precise definition. Walsh positions his work within a revisionist historiography that eschews a simple Puritan versus the church binary in favor of viewing Calvinism as common ground among the factions.

Subsequent chapters detail the various rounds of demonological debate that mark Darrell's career, beginning with Darrell's intervention with Katherine Wright in 1586 and continuing on to map Darrell's subsequent influence, culminating in the Witchcraft Act of 1604 that reined in the practice of exorcism. Walsh excels at narrating these events in all their colorful vibrancy. He demonstrates the manner in which Darrell is a catalyst for the development of Protestant demonology, from a rather inchoate set of beliefs to something much more organized and robust. He uncovers some interesting ironies along the way. For example, one might think that ardent religious belief may serve as a talisman against demonic possession, but, on the contrary, “demonic possession functioned as a trial of faith for the Godly” (70–71), effectively becoming a potential sign of election. To give another example: the establishment attack advanced by Samuel Harsnett paints Darrell as Papist for accepting dispossession, even while Puritans and nonconformists critiqued the church for retaining too much of Catholicism (158–62).

This last point gestures toward the historiographic dimension of the study. This is where Walsh's conclusions appear a little less surefooted. He notes that not all Puritans agree with Darrell (161), whose views end up getting condemned by John Deacon and John Walker, described as “ministers of Puritan or nonconformist conviction” (200). That “or” matters quite a bit in this context, as it draws into question the historiographic significance of the Darrell Controversy that Walsh seeks to establish. Much of this disagreement is likely the byproduct of the growing pains Darrell triggered, but it also wreaks some havoc with the framework of Puritan versus establishment, represented by John Whitgift alongside the non-Calvinists Richard Bancroft and Harsnett, which Walsh ends up reconstituting. If Deacon and Walker were sincere and not merely Harsnett's paid henchmen, as Walsh maintains, then it is difficult to sustain the claim that action designed to corral Darrell and the tradition of exorcism he represents is simply a case of anti-Puritanism.

Walsh's study is an invigorating and engaging analysis that will repay the reader, particularly those interested in early modern demonology. More work needs to be done to further substantiate the historiographical dimension, but the sympathetically told narrative of the development of English demonology is rich and rewarding.