Henry Charles Lea is the standard by which all studies of the inquisition are measured. His epochal work was brilliant, immense, and frequently definitive. In an important essay, Richard Kieckhefer argued there was no such thing as 'the Medieval Inquisition'. While acknowledging their acumen and contributions, Jill Moore challenges both scholars. Her revisionist monograph is a significant achievement. Where Lea tackled the subject on a European scale and Kieckhefer sought to correct a misapprehension, Moore limited herself to a century of medieval history in Italy. In this way she succeeds in delving deeply into archival materials where she examines the mechanics of inquisitorial activities. Going beyond most historians of heresy, Moore interrogates the development of the Italian inquisition by investigating the lives of individuals who made inquisition possible, Building on the provisions of the thirteenth-century papal bull Ad extirpanda, Moore explores the relationship between inquisitors, local bishops, and immediate civil authorities. She argues the traditional image of the feared and autonomous medieval inquisitor requires nuance. The supporting cast of notaries, messengers, spies, familia, vicars, informers, companions, bankers, jailers, and 'those who served the sacred office' in a variety of ways, enabled the inquisitor to function effectively.