Witch Cult in Western Europe

[Mannun]

I have gotten my hands on this book by Margaret Murray written in 1921. To me it has a plethora of interesting information found within supposedly obtained from Witches throughout history and from many different countries. There are tons of quotes from witches being questioned by the authorities and each time a reference at the bottom of the page shows where to find this information yourself, which most everything you would have to go to a particular church/library of history in that particular country and have a translator available. Anyways, this book gives tons of confirmation of alot of the Wiccan practices of today, i.e. working in circles, a degree system, an entire chapter of The Man in Black or Summoner, The Sabbats celebrated and how, Initiations & Elevations etc etc. In the past Margaret Murray was discredited with her fidings, however I do believe that was because of the day and age she was discredited. What are some of you alls thoughts on her findings now?? For those who have never seen or heard of this old book just Google the title and you can read a PDF version of it.

[Brigid Rowan]

Personally I think Murray is still discredited due to her methods of research, and the conclusions she drew.

[Theres]

i've never had a real problem with her methods (considering the time it was written), it's just her conclusions that are questionable... very questionable.

take this book with a grain of salt.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Margaret Murray was a talented Egyptologist, but when it came to her writings on witchcraft she was at first a hack and later a lunatic. The premise of 'Witch-Cult' is vaguely reasonable if you don't know much about the history of Christianity and you don't have very good critical thinking skills; but 'The Divine King in England' (in which she posits that the murders of a plethora of English monarchs were actually ritual sacrifices) is absolute lunacy.

Murray's research for 'Witch-Cult' was abysmal. She basically came to her conclusion and then went looking for evidence to suit it. Her reliance on trial records and pamphlets from the time of the witch hysteria is deeply flawed in that the confessions and information obtained through confessions were extracted for the most part under torture. The accused would usually recant their confessions of witchcraft, but here Murray takes them at face value - except for the really crazy stuff, which she hides using ellipses.

She also suggests that Thomas Beckett (Archbishop of Canterbury) and Joan of Arc were actually pagans and died as a ritual sacrifice. Because, y'know, the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, arguably one of the most religiously important figures in England, could conceivably have been a pagan.

I could rant about Murray's evils for hours, but I won't. I'll save that for when the Murrayite Defense Brigade shows up, which they *always* do.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

take this book with a grain of salt.

A truckload, or even an entire mine, more likely.

[Theres]

yeah, i had forgotten about the Joan of Arc (etc) stuff... pretty weird.
and i'm usually one of the first to bitch about so-called 'scholars' who develop a theory and then only find evidence to confirm their research (Jacob Rabinowitz and Hutton come to mind here).

but her references to Lascaux and various other artistic sources are reasonable, at least within the context of early 20th century Pagan archeology (Arthur Evans, J.G. Frazer, etc).
now i will readily admit that this context has completely fallen apart in the last 50 years, but that wasn't her fault.

on a related note, i remember reading somewhere not too long ago that, due to recent archeological evidence, Frazer died doubting his own theories.
at least he was that open-minded!

[Brigid Rowan]

Margaret Murray was a talented Egyptologist, but when it came to her writings on witchcraft she was at first a hack and later a lunatic. The premise of 'Witch-Cult' is vaguely reasonable if you don't know much about the history of Christianity and you don't have very good critical thinking skills; but 'The Divine King in England' (in which she posits that the murders of a plethora of English monarchs were actually ritual sacrifices) is absolute lunacy.

Murray's research for 'Witch-Cult' was abysmal. She basically came to her conclusion and then went looking for evidence to suit it. Her reliance on trial records and pamphlets from the time of the witch hysteria is deeply flawed in that the confessions and information obtained through confessions were extracted for the most part under torture. The accused would usually recant their confessions of witchcraft, but here Murray takes them at face value - except for the really crazy stuff, which she hides using ellipses.

She also suggests that Thomas Beckett (Archbishop of Canterbury) and Joan of Arc were actually pagans and died as a ritual sacrifice. Because, y'know, the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, arguably one of the most religiously important figures in England, could conceivably have been a pagan.

I could rant about Murray's evils for hours, but I won't. I'll save that for when the Murrayite Defense Brigade shows up, which they *always* do.


Oh good, for a while, I was worried I was gonna be the only one here that saw her methods as non-valid, scientifically speaking..

[patch]

Her sources and ideas drawn from those in some cases were bunk. Thats the problem.