Women's History Resource Site

King's College History Department

Book Review

Willis, Deborah. Malevolent Nurture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.

The infamous Witch Hunts that began in Europe close to 500 years ago is a subject upon which we will never agree on how it began, why it began and how it was able to continue for as long as it did. Deborah Willis, in her book Malevolent Nurture, approaches the subject from the standpoint that feminine, or rather maternal characteristics played a large role in the goings-on of the time. It was the witch’s maternal traits that gave her malevolent power. Willis is a professor at the University of California, Riverside, and published her book about Witch Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England in 1995. She targets any audience who is willing to take note of her explanatory, broadly supported argument that sorcery was a largely gender-related crime. The coverage of her topic is very intensive in that she gathers a wide range of sources for her thesis. But unfortunately, she leaves out some details that could possibly destroy the validity of her argument.

Depending heavily on sources ranging from pamphlets distributed at the time of the Hunts to modern analyses of the subject, from accounts of people directly involved to the research of present-day historians, from statistics to pictures, from psychoanalysts to Shakespeare, Willis determinedly follows all the rules when it comes to giving support of her thesis. She gives an introduction to the book by discussing a brief history of the witch trials: what took place, who they involved and when. She then described the (female) witch: usually older and postmenopausal. Though her breasts can no longer produce milk to feed an infant, she can nonetheless feed, or nurture, a demonic imp. In many cases, this is done by means of a third teat. Professor Willis chose to associate these physical characteristics with the works of psychoanalyst Melanie Klein and her theory involving pre-Oedipal conflict. Willis describes this as a "persecutory anxiety" which originates in infancy and early childhood and results "when the growing child experiences inevitable frustrations and must learn to cope with feelings of anger and aggression toward the mother (or caretakers)."(p.45) In other words, children naturally grow to resent their mothers when their ego-related needs are not sufficiently satisfied (which was frequently the case). So, in a sense, though the witch’s mothering capabilities suffer for her biological child, she instead uses her maternal capacity to nurture the Devil. This is the crime for which a witch was accused.

To help illustrate her ideas, Willis uses the historical character James VI of Scotland. She gives a rather in-depth biography of him, but only to make her argument weightier. James VI was a suitable figure for use because of his somewhat conflicted relationship with his biological mother, Mary, Queen of Scotland and his "mother-like" relationship to his older cousin, Elizabeth of England. The resentment that James felt toward his mothers made him a prime example for Willis’ use. Furthermore, James himself took an active part in pursuing witches, for he conducted trials and even distributed his own witch tract. According to him, "maleficium involved – in fact was made possible by – an act of disloyalty."(p129) Could this result from his own mother-son relationship? Professor Willis logically associates his circumstances regarding his mothers with his attention to the Witch Hunt at the time. 

The author also calls on the works of William Shakespeare, paying special attention to Macbeth. The witches in his plays- Joan La Pucelle, Margery Jourdain and the Weird Sisters, along with the witch-like figures, Margaret and Lady Macbeth create another instance of mothers with malevolent powers. Willis examines the mother-son relationship here as well.

Throughout her book, Willis has a clear focus. She masterfully gathers hundreds of sources; all to strengthen her single argument that witchcraft, though not wholly, was principally a gender-related crime. Willis’ interest in the issue at hand was evident in her writing. It was as though she wanted not only to show the world what she had found, but also to prove to herself that what she believes is accurate. Furthermore, she did not rely too heavily on any particular source. Though she greatly valued the work of Melanie Klein, Willis furthered her theory by offering her own support and analysis, which can be found in her speculation of James VI and Shakespeare’s works. 

While Professor Willis clearly states her points and supplies ample documentation, she has, as I see it, left out the one crucial piece that may invalidate her argument. That is, why did the practice of witchcraft at that magnitude simply appear then disappear only a short time later? And why was it only a problem in certain parts of the world, let alone the continent? Her attribution of sorcery to maternal characteristics does not seem to hold here. Surely, in the present day, mothers do not sufficiently supply their child’s every need. That is not to say that today a child does not resent his mother, but do children view their maternal parents as witches? And do older women nurture demonic imps with their third teat? Possibly, Willis has answers to these questions. But her not addressing them shows a weakness in her claim.

Deborah Willis is definitely on to something. A witch’s primarily female gender cannot be overlooked. And her malevolent nature most certainly plays a role. Her use of James VI as an illustration was warranted. And her mention of Shakespeare at the end was creative. But still, it is very crucial not to attribute such a vast and serious event in history to a single cause.

Annotated Reviews

Clark, Stuart. Review of Malevolent Nurture, by Deborah Willis. Shakespeare Studies 24 (1996): 340-347.
Stuart Clark seems to be very impressed with Willis’s contribution to the research topic of witchcraft. He applauds her clear interpretation of sources, her ability to raise new and thought-provoking questions and her decision not to trust all that has been previously widely accepted as fact. However, in spite of his hearty approval, he does seem dissatisfied with her labeling of "witch-hunting." According to him, there never was a "hunt" at all. Also, her choice of geographical focus concerns Clark. He claims that there were other areas of Europe worth focusing. 

Bever, Edward. Review of Malevolent Nurture, by Deborah Willis. Journal of Social History 30 (Summer 1997): 995-997.
Edward Bever, first of all, admires her "eclecticism" to support her arguments and theories. He also approves of her pre-Oedipal approach to the cause of denouncing women as witches. However, he is not convinced that her use of Klein’s ideas makes a good enough case to prove her point. Neither are her specific cases suggestive enough nor her focus on England broad enough. So though her book contains some "flashes of real insight," for the most part it does not persuade Bever to adopt Willis’s views.

URL: http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/wrevwillis.html Written by Sarah McKelvy Last Revision: 12 November 2001 Copyright © MM Prof. Pavlac's Women's History Site