Truth in Margaret Murray's works

[David19]

This was something MacMorrigan brought up in the Hutton thread, and also others have said Margaret Murray was right, while others say she was wrong, so i thought this might be a good thread to see the evidence for the truth in her work.

I don't know too much about her or her work, so it would also be very helpful for me to see it.

Maybe her basic theory of a witch survival was true, but the rest of her scholarship wasn't good or something.

I don't really believe Witchcraft (as a religio) comes stone age time, and i don't believe it could have been handed down since then (for one, the religion of Sumer is the oldest one we know anything about, and before Sumer, Africa would have the oldest religions, not Europe).

Also, if you really think about it, the stone age was millions of years ago, how could that have been handed down and survive when so many other didn't (e.g. why didn't the Sumerian religion survive or the oldest African religions survive, etc?).

Anyway, i'd like to see what people have to say as it does interest me and i'm interested in learning more about this topic.

Thanks for any help :).

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

The whole of Murray's writings on witchcraft can, essentially, be disregarded, except as an interesting look at what Gerald Gardner was influenced by. Under no circumstances should her wild claims be taken seriously. Even the lightest investigation of her sources and methods of research on that subject will reveal the enormous holes in her idea, her shoddy citations, wild leaps of fuzzy logic, and just downright stupidity on the subject.
Examination of actual trial records over her citations will be more than enough proof, David. Her use of ellipses leaves out an awful lot that she would rather we not read.
Additionally, the entire concept of a fertility religion that for some reason blasts crops, blights livestock, aborts babies, and practices ligature is sort of strange, yes?

[RainInanna]

OT for a sec but I hope you don't mind David.

Are The Golden Bough and The White Goddess in the same group as "just an interesting look at what Gerald Gardner was influenced by"?

[Ben Gruagach]

OT for a sec but I hope you don't mind David.

Are The Golden Bough and The White Goddess in the same group as "just an interesting look at what Gerald Gardner was influenced by"?

The Golden Bough was an attempt to synthesize folklore and mythology from a scholarly anthropological viewpoint. It's been criticized as being nothing more than a summarization of other people's work -- there's no actual fieldwork involved in its creation.

Robert Graves' "The White Goddess" is poetry with very (questionable) creative use of history -- it's art, not science or history.

[RainInanna]

Thanks Ben. I don't want to derail this thread but I have some questions so I hope it's ok that I'm starting a new one over in the Wicca subforum.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

RainInanna, I generally say that there are four major literary influences on Gardner when he was working on Wicca. Those are Witch-Cult in Western Europe, The White Goddess, The Golden Bough, and Aradia or the Gospel of the Witches.
All of these are of doubtful historical value, but if you want to see what Gardner was getting his ideas from, they're something you ought to read.
The Golden Bough and The White Goddess are frightfully dull, though, Graves' fiction was pretty cool, his grammar of poetic myth, not so much.

[Carla O'Harris]

Additionally, the entire concept of a fertility religion that for some reason blasts crops, blights livestock, aborts babies, and practices ligature is sort of strange, yes?

No, not at all. The power over fertility is the power over infertility, and reducing the numbers of your enemies who are like living locusts consuming the earth makes an awful lot of sense.

[Carla O'Harris]

RainInanna, I generally say that there are four major literary influences on Gardner when he was working on Wicca. Those are Witch-Cult in Western Europe, The White Goddess, The Golden Bough, and Aradia or the Gospel of the Witches.
All of these are of doubtful historical value, but if you want to see what Gardner was getting his ideas from, they're something you ought to read.
The Golden Bough and The White Goddess are frightfully dull, though, Graves' fiction was pretty cool, his grammar of poetic myth, not so much.

The Golden Bough is on absolutely solid historical grounds, and its main theses still stand, as I have already demonstrated elsewhere on another thread here.

The White Goddess is peculiar. An annotated version of it should be put out at some point.

Aradia is on solid historical grounds as well (not as well as Golden Bough, but still pretty good). It definitely represents one tradition of witchcraft as it existed in Italy.

The Witch Cult in Western Europe is a fairly good book, but later speculations about royalty, witch kings, and sacrifice ought to be seen as speculations made under the influence of Frazer.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

The Witch Cult in Western Europe is a fairly good book, but later speculations about royalty, witch kings, and sacrifice ought to be seen as speculations made under the influence of Frazer.

This is the second time this week. What DID Satan do to you, that you should freeze his infernal kingdom thus?

[Carla O'Harris]

This is the second time this week. What DID Satan do to you, that you should freeze his infernal kingdom thus?

*shrugs*

I never felt that Rose had completely rebutted Murray ; only trimmed the excess. The core of the theory actually works better without the excess. Obviously there are things that need to be corrected, including the now outdated theory (modern archeological hobbits notwithstanding) about fairies as a pygmie race.

[RainInanna]

All of these are of doubtful historical value, but if you want to see what Gardner was getting his ideas from, they're something you ought to read.
The Golden Bough and The White Goddess are frightfully dull, though, Graves' fiction was pretty cool, his grammar of poetic myth, not so much.

Brilliant, precisely the input I am looking for.

[David19]

No, not at all. The power over fertility is the power over infertility, and reducing the numbers of your enemies who are like living locusts consuming the earth makes an awful lot of sense.

So, basically, it's ok to kill babies, just 'cause they may be Christian?, then i guess, the Witch cult has a lot in common with Nazi Germany.

[MacMorrighan]

The whole of Murray's writings on witchcraft can, essentially, be disregarded, except as an interesting look at what Gerald Gardner was influenced by. Under no circumstances should her wild claims be taken seriously. Even the lightest investigation of her sources and methods of research on that subject will reveal the enormous holes in her idea, her shoddy citations, wild leaps of fuzzy logic, and just downright stupidity on the subject.
Examination of actual trial records over her citations will be more than enough proof, David. Her use of ellipses leaves out an awful lot that she would rather we not read.

No one who's actually read her books, especially when compared with Norman Cohn, as well as those works by leading European scholars would make such an unfortunate claim! Scholars have proven that medieval witchcraft belief contained a core of authentic local shamanistic construct. It is only the Brits that disagree, because they want to impose their cherished ideologies onto the world of academia, and anyone that doesn't agree with their conclusions.

So, it appears that you are supporting Norman Cohn's false accusations?

:rant: Personally, I don't trust Hutton as a scholar, especially when he has been proved to have huge gaps in his knowledge that he passes off (and phrases) as though he has an exhaustive knowledge on the topic, when in fact he doesn't. In essence, he can be written off as greatly inaccurate! But, because most Pagans that read his books are not aware of the numerous scholars and evidence that paiunts a far different picture than he, Huttin get's the following (idiotic!) excuse: so-called "academic riugour". Puh-leeze! :rant:

[MacMorrighan]

The Golden Bough was an attempt to synthesize folklore and mythology from a scholarly anthropological viewpoint. It's been criticized as being nothing more than a summarization of other people's work -- there's no actual fieldwork involved in its creation.

Robert Graves' "The White Goddess" is poetry with very (questionable) creative use of history -- it's art, not science or history.

Please dont short-change The Golden Bough, it still remains an invaluable resource, or compilation, if you will! Two aspects that it proves is the ubiquetous nature of the Corn-spirit, as well as the Drying-and-Rising God(s)! Don't attempt to let other Pagans-- and even some scholars-- bully you into dismissing Frazer's book whole-cloth! Unfortunately, what I so often see amongst Pagans is the following reaction is The Golden Bough is cited or referenced to by ANYONE: "Oh, Gods, what an idiot!!!" Sadly, such individuals don't know what they're talking about...

Personally, I just wish that his multi-volume ed. of TGB were accessible! It's something I'd love to add to my research Library!

[MacMorrighan]

*shrugs*

I never felt that Rose had completely rebutted Murray ; only trimmed the excess. The core of the theory actually works better without the excess. Obviously there are things that need to be corrected, including the now outdated theory (modern archeological hobbits notwithstanding) about fairies as a pygmie race.

:fpraise: Very well put!

[MacMorrighan]

Carla once queried: "What do you find of value in Frazer and consider to still be true?" And, what follows is my responce concerning the unquestionable value of Frazer's work, from another thread:

The Dying-and-Rising God motif, for one: Scholars, when Frazer is discuss, often throw up their straw-man arguments with impossibly narrow criterion where no evidence constitutes proof of any sort and is ceremoniously shot-down!

In essence, the ONLY so-called "Dying-and-Rising God" that may be defined as such (if most reactionary scholars could get their way) is the mythical Christ-figure; whereas any strikingly similar paleo-pagan Deities are thought to be (to quote a heinously out-dated modern Pagan article on the topic) "Pagan content poured into a Christian mold!" How asinine and offensive to these earlier cultures-- especially when many of these cultures posses Deities that are known to die, and then rise from that state of death. However, because of academia's newly adopted impossible standards, these Gods don't count! It aso doesn't allow them to ask rather important questions that we might ask, such as: Well, is it possible there's a relationship between Osiris—a pre-Christian godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in Egyptian "heaven" where He judges the dead, and Jesus—a godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in Christian "heaven" where he, also, judges the dead?

Indeed, a lot of rather idiotic scholars are uncritically accepted by Pagan Christian-Apologists all in the name of so-called "academic rigour" (I never thought I'd see the day)! What tripe! Here are some examples of what I mean:

Let's start with Osiris: One of the most extreme, and frequent, apologists-- J.Z. Smith, from his encyclopedia entry, "Dying and Rising Gods". While he admits that Osiris died, was resurrected [as Egyptologists are keen to emphisize; though "rejuvinated" is the pajoritive term that JZ Smith uses], and that this story is remarkibly consistant for thousands of years, he draws a b.s.-line, however, and says that, "In no sense can Osiris be said to have 'risen' in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event. The repeated formula 'Rise up, you have not died,' whether applied to Osiris or a citizen of Egypt, signaled a new, permanent life in the realm of the dead." Smith (Smoth #1, in this post) doesn't say what would count, however! Like all polemical writers, he doesn't seem to care, nor list reputible scholars witha differing view. Moreover, in the monograph, Osiris, it has been proben that this was an annual event, and that Osis was clearly believed to have both died and resurrected.

Now, Adonis is where it gets FAR more clear: However, because the primary source material for Adonis having died and risen was penned by an early Christian Father by the name of Origen-- because of this, Smith #1 claims, emphatically, that it was either a case of the pagan adopting Christian beliefs, or of Chritian father Origen recording paleo-pagan events through a biblical filter. This thesis fails for two seemingly ignored reasons: The Pagans could not have-- and would not have-- adopted Christian theology in any sense, because, at the time, Christianity was essentially "outlawed" and drastically looked down upon! And, second of all (and arguably more important), Origen could not have been giving pagan events a Christian slant because he was highly educated in Greek paganism; er go, he wouldn't have been that stupid! Moreover, he was recorded by a Greek pagan that knew him as being so highly educated in paleo-paganism that he was (quite the reverse of Smith's thesis) able to understand Christianity at all! So, Smith's thesis is now entirely untenible (hell, I would say, "debunked"!); Origens clearly knew what he was talking about, and was recording them accurately! Be that as it may, Pagans and scholars love his conclusions, but his arguments usually don't get much air-time, because when criticized, they clearly don't hold water! But, I digress...

The passage in question that relates Adonis' rise from death, as recorded by Plutarch, is: "As a memorial of his [Adonis'] suffering each year, they beat their breasts, mourn and...sacrifice to Adonis as if to a dead person, but then, on the next day, they proclaim that he lives and send him into the air" But, one scholar, Mark Smith-- hence forth "Smith #2"-- remains somehow unconvinced. He writes, "the passage is hardly clear," besides, other "rituals accentuate Adonis's death, there is no hint of rebirth."

Ah, but Smith #2's denial doesn't end there, and here's where it gets good (sarcastically-speaking)! There is, recorded in cuneform, a passage relating that an unnamed God in Pyrgi did, in fact, die. The phrase recorded is, "bym qbr 'lm", which means, "the day of the burial of the God." However, despite the fact that everywhere else "'im" means "God", G. Snooper in [I]The God In His Temple plugs his ears, and emphatically proclaims that it actually means, in one solitary instance, "a recently deceased person". Be that as it may, Smith #2 actually finds this reason "clear", and proclaims it to be, "...a very strong challenge to the theory of a dying and rising god." What the...???

(I could go on and on and vidicate the existance of various Dying-and-Rising Gods! And, anyone interested in the topic is recommended a groundbreaking book by Prof. Mettinger that does just that: The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying-and-Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East.)

[David19]

It is only the Brits that disagree, because they want to impose their cherished ideologies onto the world of academia, and anyone that doesn't agree with their conclusions.

I wouldn't go insulting Brits as a whole considering Hesselton is a Brit (and he writes that there was a coven), (and also so was Murray, Gardner, basically all the important people of Wicca, so technically without Brits, Wicca would not be known to the world).

[David19]

In essence, the ONLY so-called "Dying-and-Rising God" that may be defined as such (if most reactionary scholars could get their way) is the mythical Christ-figure; whereas any strikingly similar paleo-pagan Deities are thought to be (to quote a heinously out-dated modern Pagan article on the topic) "Pagan content poured into a Christian mold!" How asinine and offensive to these earlier cultures-- especially when many of these cultures posses Deities that are known to die, and then rise from that state of death. However, because of academia's newly adopted impossible standards, these Gods don't count! It aso doesn't allow them to ask rather important questions that we might ask, such as: Well, is it possible there's a relationship between Osiris—a pre-Christian godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in Egyptian "heaven" where He judges the dead, and Jesus—a godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in Christian "heaven" where he, also, judges the dead?

Does Jesus judge the dead? 'cause i wasn't raised Christian so i'm not too sure, but i didn't think Jesus was the judge of the dead (at least not until the Christian apocalypse).

I hadn't heard there were scholars who say that Christ was the only dying and rising god, so i'll have to take your word on it, but if it's true, then i think their wrong, as there's a lot of gods who die and rise again (Dionysus, Dumuzi, Adonis, Osiris, etc) - although the only thing i don't like is when people say that these are all the same gods (when you really look in detail at them, you'll see the various reasons why they 'die' or rise again are different - Dumuzi gets sent to Kur (the Sumerian underworld) 'cause Inanna gets pissed he doesn't mourn her 'death' so the Galla take him in exchange for her (in Sumerian belief, to get out of Kur, someone has to take your place), then i believe Inanna feels sorry for him (as she still loves him), and get him back out, while his sister takes over for 6 months of the year (and Dumuzi goes back for the other 6 months). Anyway, just wanted to get that bit out of the way :).

Personally, i'd like to read Frazer, but just a question, does he treat all the 'dying and rising' gods as though they were all the same (annoying as it is) and also does he treat them like that's all there is to those gods (e.g. by basically making them 1-dimensional, when in truth, those gods would have multi-faceted personalities, the dying and rising being only a part of their respective personalties).

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I fail to see what Frazer has to do with this discussion, as we're talking about Murray. Yes, she was influenced by his dying-and-rising-God theory, everybody back then was. Now that that is out of the way, back to Murray.
Yes, I have read Murray. More specifically, I read 'witch-Cult in Western Europe' a few years ago, at the tender age of seventeen when I checked it out of my high school library (probably the first person to do so in decades). I saw that it was full of crap then, and I remain convinced that it is full of crap now.
I have browsed extensively through 'The God of the Witches' and 'The Divine King in England'. Both of those are available online but I *hate* reading an entire book online, I can't keep my focus on it.
Being a poor student, I cannot afford the works of European scholars on this matter.

[MacMorrighan]

I wouldn't go insulting Brits as a whole considering Hesselton is a Brit (and he writes that there was a coven), (and also so was Murray, Gardner, basically all the important people of Wicca, so technically without Brits, Wicca would not be known to the world).

Yes, thank you. I was, of course, speaking of British academia. Or, as Hutton phrases it: so-called "most British scholars".

[MacMorrighan]

Does Jesus judge the dead? 'cause i wasn't raised Christian so i'm not too sure, but i didn't think Jesus was the judge of the dead (at least not until the Christian apocalypse).

Well, to most Christians (usually Catholic) Jesus and God are one.


I hadn't heard there were scholars who say that Christ was the only dying and rising god, so i'll have to take your word on it, but if it's true, then i think their wrong, as there's a lot of gods who die and rise again (Dionysus, Dumuzi, Adonis, Osiris, etc)...

Well, in essence, this is what they're saying when they use Christ's mythology as the determinating factor for any God that dies and is reborn. Especially when they claim that we;re pouring Pagan content into pagan moulds.


Personally, i'd like to read Frazer, but just a question, does he treat all the 'dying and rising' gods as though they were all the same (annoying as it is) and also does he treat them like that's all there is to those gods (e.g. by basically making them 1-dimensional, when in truth, those gods would have multi-faceted personalities, the dying and rising being only a part of their respective personalties).

No, he really doesn't, in essence. But, on another level, one might say that he does, though that's probably a bit of a mis-reading of his texts.

[MacMorrighan]

Being a poor student, I cannot afford the works of European scholars on this matter.

I feel that! However, Claude Lecauteux has recently had a book translated into English via Inner Traditions Press. He is a Professor of Medieval Lit. & Mdieval Civilization at the famous academic institute in Paris, France, The Sorbonne. He, of all people, would be one educator that would severely cast doubt onto Ronald Hutton's orking meathods and how he presents history. Honestly, I would LOVE to see a European scholar do precisely to British scademe as the Brits are doing to European academe. *EG* Hell, I would love to seee a European Medievalist explain just how wrong-headed and blind British historians are, and have been. ;) After all...what's good for the goose...!