Katherine Hindley’s Textual Magic draws on the author’s study of over eleven hundred magic texts from medieval England, focusing on the period from 1100 to 1350. The book is unique not only for its analysis of such a large corpus but also for its treatment of examples spanning a thousand years, from Antiquity to 1500. These examples include texts in Latin, Anglo-Norman, French, and English, as well as magical characters and pseudo-alphabets. They constitute a database that Hindley aims to make public but that was not accessible at the time of this writing. Regarding this large data set, Hindley proposes that, unlike in ancient Rome, spoken and written charms likely had different origins and trajectories. Written and oral charms coexisted, rather than one medium replacing the other. In addition to written charms, where efficacious text produces results, Textual Magic examines the protective and healing power of spoken words.

The book consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion, organized chronologically starting from chapter 2, which covers the pre-Conquest period. Chapter 3 (“1100 to 1350: Charm Language and the Boundaries of Text”) focuses on the Anglo-Norman period, Chapter 4 (“A Fayre Charme on Englysh”) spans 1350-1500, and the conclusion (“The Changing Power of Words”) touches on the early modern period. Throughout the book, Hindley edits and translates numerous charms which readers can study in conjunction with the author’s analysis or use for future scholarship, which alone is an important contribution. Textual Magic does not advance a single thesis, and this is one of its strengths, as it emphasizes how studying the occult can illuminate the ordinary, while showing just how complex the ordinary can be.

One way Hindley connects magic to larger themes in medieval studies is through the notion of literacy, particularly in chapter 1. Although the book’s use of literacy could be more nuanced and the category itself made an explicit object of critique, the magic texts themselves reveal the limitations of this category. Hindley correlates literacy with a person’s capability in a language used by a charm, suggesting that literacy includes the ability to write down this language if required. Textual Magic further explains literacy as a category used to determine whether many people or only the well-educated could perform the charm. Hindley’s discussion of charms thus links literacy to the categories of the popular and the elite. For example, Hindley notes that the basic literacy required to copy certain charms suggests a blurring of the lines between popular and elite (17). This argument could be strengthened with a more robust conceptualization of what “the popular” is or is generally considered to be, or better yet, a deeper discussion of why the framework of “popular” and “erudite” has limited application to magic texts.

Hindley refers to the magic texts examined in Textual Magic as “charms” or “charm texts” with little explanation as to why. The book could nevertheless offer new insights into discussions of magic terminology and its inconsistent use. One way of doing so would be to link magic terminology to the functioning of magic texts. Hindley distinguishes prayers, which have a devotional end, from charms that claim to work only with God's grace. Charms that require God's grace are still considered charms because they have an expected outcome. This type of analysis--exploring the practical and belief-oriented processes of magic text usage--could be applied to examine what different magic terms imply. The potential of a magic object to produce practical results stems from a belief that the object can produce magic in the first place. Does the term “charm,” in its premodern and modern critical use, clarify this practical-belief connection? Or does “textual amulet,” with its explicit reference to text and suggestion of an object conveying power through belief, serve as a better analytical tool?

The theme of belief, though not explicitly framed as such, also appears in Hindley's consideration of how charms differ from prayers. Hindley’s observation about the challenge of separating prayers from spoken charms, or charms meant to be either spoken or sung, raises an intriguing point for written charms and writing on magical objects, particularly the notion of text on charms as being powerful “in itself.” Textual Magic discusses the power of the written word at length, as well as the various forms of engagement with text--or “literacy,” in Hindley’s terms. In chapter 2, the author notes that the presence of seemingly meaningless letters on a ring, for example, could signal that the owner appreciated written text, prized it for prestige, or wanted to feign literacy despite being illiterate and unable to comprehend its literal meaning (88).

If we set aside the notion of literacy, along with categories such as well-educated or high and low culture, more possibilities for meaning and interpretation emerge. It is possible that users of the ring understood its literal meaning through word of mouth or because someone explained it to them. It is also possible that a person unable to read copied a charm, and another person conveyed its content to them despite being illiterate themselves because they knew its meaning by other means. Records from the Spanish Inquisition, including cases of priests accused of forming pacts with the devil, show various ways in which reading and knowledge of magic could be construed. The accused might confess to possessing magic recipes and understanding some of the text but not the magic characters. Some admitted to performing magic but denied possessing the books containing the recipes. One priest, accused of practicing magic and making deals with the devil, confessed to obtaining magic books not to fully understand their content but to perform magic. He admitted to possessing several magic books, but to the accusation that he had read them to perform magic and invoke evil spirits, he responded that he did read the books once but never with the desire to know what they said.

Understanding magic, therefore, involves various types of comprehension. The languages and symbols in magic texts affect their perceived potency and users’ ability to understand them. In chapter 3, Hindley notes that the use of ciphers in some magic instructions indicates an interest in recording and obscuring meaning (128). The idea that something could be literally meaningless but hold significant meaning for its users is one of the fascinating aspects of magic texts. In the introduction, Hindley gives the example of a man named Roger, accused of impersonating a physician. Part of his guilt lay in his inability to read the text of the amulet with which he aimed to cure a woman’s fevers. That an amulet could be fraudulent, as in Roger’s case, and that its user could be punished for not knowing what it said, indicate that not only reading but the very concept of meaning and understanding warrant significant discussion. In chapter 4, Hindley revisits the question of literacy, examining how priests were instructed that charm users with more education were to be trusted more, as they were more likely to understand and avoid unknown words in charms (196). Some instructions indicated that certain characters should be hidden from uneducated users, yet those same users might derive meaning from their pronunciation. That there are many possible ways to glean meaning from magic texts confirms that their use was widespread.

Hindley’s analysis shows that despite the charm texts and magic objects we have lost, much can still be learned from those that remain. The author notes that the instructions for performing charms provide insight into the expected audience for these texts, while the incantations reveal the words and languages people in England believed were powerful enough to cure diseases or protect them from harm. In the final pages, Hindley shifts focus to larger questions raised by the analysis (210). With a wealth of evidence, the author convincingly demonstrates that the study of the occult intersects with key concerns in medieval studies. To frame the study with these questions from the outset would have clarified this connection and its relevance to scholars of the Middle Ages. The concept of “in itself,” invoked in the discussion of efficacious text, encapsulates this complexity: it raises questions about the meaning of reading, the meaning of meaning itself, and what compels us to believe in magic in the first place.