ABSTRACT

Although the que:;tion5 posed hal'e becolll(' less genera!, mostly restricted to a certain regi,-,,-., th is d,y·~ not ,I',\tomati('ally imply sl.If!lci,,'nt dirf('rentiation, First of all, cor:cefltrat, ing on th~ popular qUf,;tion~ about the how <lnd why of fluctuation,' in the intfI03it:-· d witchcraft pro:>ecutions in a certain art'a, most recent studie,; ('ontain more or less clear di"f.jnl,tion~ between the type:S of \vitchnaft and \Iitchtr;\ft pro:;{'cutioil5 to be incll.hLd. However, ap::rt from the already m.:"ntiuned paradigmatic and tnt'thodologi"<11 problel!~~ conneckd with thc propo5cd restrictions - attention being paid rn"inly to h<il"mfu! llnd:or derllonulogical witchcraft - the actual prestTltation of the data seldom quite st"t'nh to corre"pond with the <,uggested demarcatiC)Ps, Th;3 m,~y be attributed to inc()mp1etc-f!.e~;O of the data thcrnseln:~ regarding tht' t~Tc' of witchcraft, tu pro1...ft'ITI5 inherent in tltt, typohg)' itself, or to a cert<lin ambi,'a!ence by :he authors in their desire tn pre.-;ellt their finding,; in their entirety, witl!.)ut di,;tingi):·,h;pg bdween, for eX,lm!':e, harmful and beneficent witchcf<lft. AnY\\i~Y, it would be htlrful if, as h:.\., been dOT"~ in Dutch witchcraft research/2 differentiated li,;t;; of witc:iI:raft ca~{":; and trials \\t'ft? to be prestnted, ill<.:luding inforrnation on the typcs of witchcr'lft and the types of trial.