Religious Witches in the Middle Ages

[Carla O'Harris]

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_III/mm03_00a.html
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_III/mm03_00b.html


For when the Canon says, as was shown in the first argument, that the Inquisitors or heresy should not concern themselves with soothsayers and diviners unless they manifestly savour of heresy, they say that soothsayers and diviners are of two sorts, either artificial or heretical. And the first sort are called diviners pure and simple, since they work merely by art; and such are referred to in the chapter de sortilegiis, where it says that the presbyter Udalricus went to a secret place with a certain infamous person, that is, a diviner, says the gloss, not with the intention of invoking the devil, which would have been heresy, but that, by inspecting the astrolabe, he might find out some hidden thing. And this, they say, is pure divination or sortilege. But the second sort are called heretical diviners, whose art involves some worship of or subjection to devils, and who essay by divination to predict the future of something of that nature, which manifestly savours of heresy; and such are, like other heretics, liable to the Inquisitorial Court.
And that this is the meaning of the Canon they prove from commentaries of the Canonists on the word “savour.” For Giovanni d’Andrea, writing on this Canon accusatus, and the word “saviour,” says: They savour of heresy in this way, that they utter nefarious prayers and offer sacrifices at the altars of idols, and they consult with devils and receive answers from them; or they meet together to practise heretical sortes, that they may have an answer, re-baptize a child, and practise other such matters.

Many others also they quote in support of their opinion, including John Modestus; S. Raymund, and William de Laudun, O.P. And they refer to the decision of the Church at the Council of Aquitaine, c. 26, q. 5, Episcopi, where such superstitious women are called infidels, saying, Would that these had perished alone in their perfidy. And perfidy in a Christian is called heresy; therefore they are subject to the Court of the Inquisitors of heresy.

(Emphasis Mine)

Giovanni d'Andrea lived from 1270 - 1348, and was one of the most successful canonists and experts in Canon Law.

Please note that d'Andrea states that these heretical diviners meet together, utter prayers, offer sacrifices at altars to representations of their gods ("devils" -- the common Christian term for any non-Christian divinity).

Kramer and Springer make it clear that the "heresy" they refer to is the Canon Heresy ... the Canon Episcopi ... and therefore the "devils" referred to are Diana, Herodias, Holda, and other such heathen goddesses.

To sum up, the claim here is that simple divination is not sufficient to constitute a heresy. A practitioner who simply uses astrology or other means to diagnose is not technically a heretic (even though they may still be in error). What is being targeted is diviners who consult other gods.

Let us recall that "wicca/wicce" (witches) are primarily diviners (gl. "pythoness") connected with pagan worship (as we find in some of the earliest Old English treatises).

The witches especially targeted are those engaged in religious worship. Giovanni d'Andre in the late 13th and early 14th century makes this clear quite early on. The connection Kramer and Springer make to the Canon Episcopi (a connection Eymeric also makes) makes it indisputable. We have here nonChristian worship, real-world group meetings, and consultation of nonChristian deities, including the goddesses catalogued in all the different versions of the Canon Episcopi.

[ancestral_lee]

certainly very interesting. that said, are there other corroborative reports or acccounts or is this the only source?

[Ben Gruagach]

One of the big questions though is whether these non-Christian religious types were actually Witches, or whether the Christian accusers were automatically labelling them as such because they were non-Christian.

Pagan does not equal Witch after all.

[ancestral_lee]

One of the big questions though is whether these non-Christian religious types were actually Witches, or whether the Christian accusers were automatically labelling them as such because they were non-Christian.

Pagan does not equal Witch after all.

indeed. how much of this can we call reliable reporting and how much is spin?

[morganxpage]

It's probably quite likely the non-Christians were Jews, not witches.

[Faol-chù]

One of the big questions though is whether these non-Christian religious types were actually Witches, or whether the Christian accusers were automatically labelling them as such because they were non-Christian.

Pagan does not equal Witch after all.

Yup...and then there's the matter of whether or not the people were actually followers of Christ, but not exactly the same 'brand' as the overwhelming majority (or at least those in 'high places').

[Faol-chù]

It's probably quite likely the non-Christians were Jews, not witches.

Good call...especially considering the reference to 'Zoroaster'....and the time frame.

[David19]

I think Ben, Faul-chu, and morganxpage all said some good things - this doesn't really prove that there were Pagan witches out there, afterall, the inquisitors probably were educated, and knew the names of Pagan gods, so if they had someone who was against their brand of Christianity (or even their own political regime), they may label them Diana worshippers, witches, whatever, etc when they may have been Jews, different Christian sects, even other Catholics or Protestants (i think it was customary for Protestants to say Catholic's were 'devil worshippers' and vice-versa).

[Eran]

It's clear that the people involved here were Pagan. There is quite a lot of collaborative testimony and evidence. Carla presented a single document out of an enormous and inter-referential literature on the subject.

Yes, they were Pagans, not Jews, and not schismatic Christians. Yes, they were Witches, by any reasonable definition of that word (other than the "standard" definition used by historians, which is "Satanist").

I understand the scepticism, given this one document in isolation. But it was not an isolated document.

A small sampling of other such documents is available on my website, at http://esoterica.bichaunt.org and I hope to make more available soon. As I said, the supporting documentation is huge.

[morganxpage]

It's clear that the people involved here were Pagan. There is quite a lot of collaborative testimony and evidence. Carla presented a single document out of an enormous and inter-referential literature on the subject.

Yes, they were Pagans, not Jews, and not schismatic Christians. Yes, they were Witches, by any reasonable definition of that word (other than the "standard" definition used by historians, which is "Satanist").

I understand the scepticism, given this one document in isolation. But it was not an isolated document.

A small sampling of other such documents is available on my website, at http://esoterica.bichaunt.org and I hope to make more available soon. As I said, the supporting documentation is huge.

It's much more likely that this sort of thing was a combination of politico-religious propaganda, fear, lies, and misunderstandings about the practises of Jews and other non-Protestants (and Protestants nobody liked). Certainly NOT witches as we understand the word, and only Pagans in the sense that they weren't Christians (or weren't a specific type of Christian).

[Lolair]

Yes, they were Pagans, not Jews, and not schismatic Christians. Yes, they were Witches, by any reasonable definition of that word (other than the "standard" definition used by historians, which is "Satanist").
That is a big statement. Sources are needed, proof, references, citations etc... The Malleus Maleficarum is a very biased piece of material published to cater to the witchcraze of the times, not to reflect honesty. Just look at the King James version of the bible, he deliberately "changed" the definitions of words in order for verses to be against witchcraft - again to cater to the times and to serve his own motives.

Many "cunning folk" and "wise women" of only a century and less ago were Christian, Christians who practiced folk-magic and healing. While "witches" may have used fairy lore or even pagan gods in their workings, it was more for magic and asking things than it was worship. They would have believed in the Christian god as the wise folk of so many other cultures also adapted to which led to many forms of Catholicised witchcraft. To say that witches in the late middle ages were "Pagan" as in the modern definition of nature-based polytheists etc would be stretching it pretty far in my opinion. The average "witch" in the middle ages would not have been able to read or write. They would not have access to pagan mythologies and information on deities and pantheons. They would have been working with folklore specific to the area they lived in as well as ballads, folklore and fairy tales passed on orally. During the witch trials if you confessed to having any involvement with the fairy world or lore that would have branded you as a witch (as we see in the evidence of many recorded witch trials). Fairy lore does not equal pagan, nor does being branded a witch in the middle ages as most accusations were false and it was very based on associations with the Christian Devil and demonology - which could be seen as anti-christianity rather than proof of Paganism.

I do believe that some of the witches were genuine and included old folklore and fairy beliefs in their workings- perhaps even a pagan deity or two, but I do not think that they were pagan in the modern sense of the word. I do believe that some MAY have been witches in every definition as Eran stated, but witchcraft wouldn't have been their religion, it would have been something they did - like cooking or shoemaking... Religiously I think they would have been Christians who used folk-magic. One has to remember that Christianity used magic once upon a time and there are many folk-beliefs and practices within the religion. Religions evolve over time and now in modern times we have more distinct divisions and definitions for all of them.

What my rambling post is trying to say is that we should look at ALL factors involved, and multiple sources and viewpoints before making any grand assumptions about what witches were or were not in the past.

[Carla O'Harris]

That is a big statement. Sources are needed, proof, references, citations etc... The Malleus Maleficarum is a very biased piece of material published to cater to the witchcraze of the times, not to reflect honesty.

Hello. Please excuse what some find to be a brusque attitude on my part. I will tersely address your points, and I wish that you not find offense in my tone, even where I differ from you.

The source was Giovanni d'Andrea, who was living far before what is now considered the "witchcraze".


Many "cunning folk" and "wise women" of only a century and less ago were Christian, Christians who practiced folk-magic and healing.

Yes, after Inquisitional practices had had centuries of persecution to purge out openly practiced paganism. Using more recent examples won't help us get to the heart of what was happening then.




While "witches" may have used fairy lore or even pagan gods in their workings, it was more for magic and asking things than it was worship.

I call foul here. The distinction between magic and worship is almost entirely a modern distinction, and very recent at that. Magic was a form of worship. Worship is a form of magic.






To say that witches in the late middle ages were "Pagan" as in the modern definition of nature-based polytheists etc would be stretching it pretty far in my opinion.

Not according to the people who were persecuting them. They are quite clear. This involved worship of non-Christian deities.





The average "witch" in the middle ages would not have been able to read or write.

This is completely irrelevant, and carries a heavily literate-supremacist bias with it. Oral cultures are capable of transmitting vast amounts of information over long periods of time relatively "intact" --- sometimes "intact" in a very rigorous sense, if the tradition doesn't change, and "intact" in a traditional sense if the tradition morphs and shifts. In any case, the material stays relevant to the zeitgeist within that specific tradition.




They would not have access to pagan mythologies and information on deities and pantheons.

These things can only be taught through books?



They would have been working with folklore specific to the area they lived in as well as ballads, folklore and fairy tales passed on orally.

And your assumption is ... what? That we have complete literary documentation of what the total oral folklore of Europe was from 1200 to the present? We have hardly bits and pieces. All kinds of traditions existed and we can posit they existed from the fact that we have bits and pieces of their variations.





During the witch trials if you confessed to having any involvement with the fairy world or lore that would have branded you as a witch (as we see in the evidence of many recorded witch trials). Fairy lore does not equal pagan,

It sure did at one point. Certainly attempts at syncretization took place, but you can't assume the modern standpoints on fairies reflect in these times, and even the modern standpoints are often surprisingly pagan. Fairy lore is profoundly pagan, but it is also surprisingly capable of syncretizing in interesting ways.

What is more important is the way the Fairy tradition connected with the Canon Tradition, which was an openly pagan sect.




nor does being branded a witch in the middle ages as most accusations were false and it was very based on associations with the Christian Devil and demonology - which could be seen as anti-christianity rather than proof of Paganism.

Completely irrelevant. The Church was targeting a specific group, heretical diviners, who were those who offered worship to nonChristian deities. In the process, lots of people got drawn in who weren't connected at all, as profit and corruption entered into the mix. But erasing the core target group because of this larger effect is ridiculous.


I do believe that some of the witches were genuine and included old folklore and fairy beliefs in their workings- perhaps even a pagan deity or two, but I do not think that they were pagan in the modern sense of the word.

"The" modern sense of the word? If self-declared modern pagans are any indication, there seems to be a plethora of diverse and even contradictory definitions. They were pagan for their time. If you define paganism meaningfully as dedicated to nonChristian divinities connected with nature and stemming from the preChristian past, they were pagan. If you define them as polytheist, they apparently were able to at least interact with Christians and possibly appreciate some of the Christian mindset in addition to their devotions to their goddess.




I do believe that some MAY have been witches in every definition as Eran stated, but witchcraft wouldn't have been their religion, it would have been something they did - like cooking or shoemaking...

No, you're wrong. I say that unequivocally because the Inquisitors directly distinguished those who practiced this as a secular craft. So long as it did not inherently involve worship of nonChristian deities, it was an error, but not a heresy. In other words, for these specific target-groups, they were acting as oracles for nonChristian deities, and that was precisely the heart of their practice. Separating them is completely artificial.


Religiously I think they would have been Christians who used folk-magic. One has to remember that Christianity used magic once upon a time and there are many folk-beliefs and practices within the religion. Religions evolve over time and now in modern times we have more distinct divisions and definitions for all of them.

That's projecting post-Inquisitional conditions onto the past. Yes, there have been Christians using folk-magic, and that is an important phenomenon. But it is different from the one we are considering. We are considering people who prayed to, sacrificed to, and directly consulted non-Christian deities, and they did so as a group (they met together). There is really no way to be Orthodox Christian and participate in such things. (And no, we are not discussing utilitarian ceremonial magick approaching deities in manipulative ways to achieve desired ends, because the Inquisitional authorities clearly marked that out as a different kind of practice as well. Here they were targeting those who clearly showed signs of devotion. They used very specific terms. Utilitarian ceremonial magicians might have been offering at times dulia, but they were not offering latria in the way these groups were.) On the other hand, if one belongs to a "polytheistic"/"syncretistic" style of religion, one can meaningfully include all kinds of elements of Christian worship and worship other deities as well. It is paganism which tends to be both/and, while Orthodox Christianity has tended to be exclusionary.


What my rambling post is trying to say is that we should look at ALL factors involved, and multiple sources and viewpoints before making any grand assumptions about what witches were or were not in the past.

Absolutely. These assessments are based upon such an analysis.

[Carla O'Harris]

One of the big questions though is whether these non-Christian religious types were actually Witches, or whether the Christian accusers were automatically labelling them as such because they were non-Christian.

Pagan does not equal Witch after all.

But what is meaningful is that they refer here to "diviners", classically what a wicca/wicce is, amongst other things. The distinction here between heretical and non-heretical diviners is of prime importance. Those who were heretical --- through the worship of nonChristian powers --- were the targeted entities, the "witches".

In this case, we have a coincidence of witch and pagan.

[Carla O'Harris]

indeed. how much of this can we call reliable reporting and how much is spin?

One thing you want to do is check the records and see whether the Inquisition is capable of making distinctions between Jews, Muslims, Christian folk-magic practitioners, ceremonial magicians, Christian heretics (Cathars, Waldensians, etc.) and nonChristian pagan practitioners. The answer to that question is that yes, indeed, the Inquisitors did make such distinctions.

[Ben Gruagach]

But what is meaningful is that they refer here to "diviners", classically what a wicca/wicce is, amongst other things. The distinction here between heretical and non-heretical diviners is of prime importance. Those who were heretical --- through the worship of nonChristian powers --- were the targeted entities, the "witches".

In this case, we have a coincidence of witch and pagan.

If all it takes to be classified a witch is to be non-Christian and to perform divination in some form, then it would be pretty easy to say 100% of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, and all Pagans of course) are witches.

After all, pretty much every religious person claims to obtain information from invisible realms -- answers to prayers, omens, signs, portents, etc. and that all counts as divination.

With such a loose definition of witch I'm not sure how it can be useful.

[Carla O'Harris]

It's probably quite likely the non-Christians were Jews, not witches.



they utter nefarious prayers and offer sacrifices at the altars of idols, and they consult with devils and receive answers from them; or they meet together to practise heretical sortes, that they may have an answer, re-baptize a child,

Strange Jews.

It is a fact that Southern France and Northern Spain become areas of concantenation of various heresies, where the Cathar heresy developed, where Kabbalism developed, and where the Pope identified the witchcraft heresy originating from. Clearly marginal groups were communicating and exchanging with each other, and learning from the exchanges.

There were several possible points of connection between Kabbalists and pagan practitioners, and therefore places for fertile cross-pollenization. Some of the Kabbalists worshipped a Goddess figure, engaged in magic, and concealed all this under thick scriptural authority. Certainly this provides connection with what some of the pagan practitioners were engaged in as well. But while very close in some areas (Gardner's New Forest group testified to such close connections), they are not identical.

While Kabbalists may have called upon the Goddess in her Shekinah form, note that d'Andrea testifies that they were engaged with multiple divine beings in a worshipful stance. While a kabbalistic ceremonial magician may have consulted with demons in a theurgic attitude of quasi-dulia, if that individual passed into latria, they would have stepped outside the bounds of Judaism into pagan practice.

Inquisitors were well-capable of saying "Jews" when they meant "Jews". And given the strong anti-Semitism rampant in these times, they certainly would not have wasted an opportunity to slander the Jews any more if they had been able to get away with it. The fact that they do not is very telling in this regard.

[Carla O'Harris]

If all it takes to be classified a witch is to be non-Christian and to perform divination in some form, then it would be pretty easy to say 100% of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, and all Pagans of course) are witches.

After all, pretty much every religious person claims to obtain information from invisible realms -- answers to prayers, omens, signs, portents, etc. and that all counts as divination.

With such a loose definition of witch I'm not sure how it can be useful.

NonChristian divinities, plural. Not Jewish divinity. Not Muslim divinity. Not Christian divinity. Plural non-Abrahamic (as some say) divinities, consulted directly to receive answers.

If you understand the context of the word wicca/wicce in its early literate manifestations, you understand that these diviners were directly connected to the old pagan places of worship, and that their practice was intricately involved in the old pagan worship.

Divination was especially important to European pagan religions where Fate was such an important goddess(es).

[Carla O'Harris]

Yup...and then there's the matter of whether or not the people were actually followers of Christ, but not exactly the same 'brand' as the overwhelming majority (or at least those in 'high places').

Ok, if we're going to use that tactic, then they were of some strange "brand" who worshipped at the altars of nonChristian deities.

There seems to be some misconception that the Inquisitors as a whole were a bunch of bumbling fools who were incapable of making the rational distinctions that we moderns are capable of, and the records do not bear that out at all. Remember that many of these records were inter-Church communications, and not public records, and not public spin. They were inter-Church communications about Church Law, and were often written by people who were scholars who knew how to think clearly. The Inquisition had many different target-groups, and they were well-able to distinguish between them. They were able to distinguish between Christian folk-magic, saint-worship which went beyond the bounds of Church lines into heresy, Judaism, ceremonial magick, and paganism. They were capable, amongst themselves, of saying what they meant. It would be one thing to allege that in a public document meant for spin that they tried to spin things, but it is another thing altogether to allege that within intra-Church communications the same dynamic was going on.

[Carla O'Harris]

I think Ben, Faul-chu, and morganxpage all said some good things - this doesn't really prove that there were Pagan witches out there, afterall, the inquisitors probably were educated, and knew the names of Pagan gods, so if they had someone who was against their brand of Christianity (or even their own political regime), they may label them Diana worshippers, witches, whatever, etc when they may have been Jews, different Christian sects, even other Catholics or Protestants (i think it was customary for Protestants to say Catholic's were 'devil worshippers' and vice-versa).

This doesn't make any sense. They were capable of calling their enemies what they were.

[Carla O'Harris]

It's much more likely that this sort of thing was a combination of politico-religious propaganda, fear, lies, and misunderstandings about the practises of Jews and other non-Protestants (and Protestants nobody liked). Certainly NOT witches as we understand the word, and only Pagans in the sense that they weren't Christians (or weren't a specific type of Christian).

What do Protestants have anything to do with the testimony of a Canon Law Expert from the late 13th and early 14th centuries? Why would a Canon Law Expert be concerned about any practices of Jews whatsoever unless they were somehow affecting the flock?

Why is there an assumption that "propaganda" effectively acts within intra-Church communication? The term functions much better during witch-craze times when pamphlets circulated like crazy. It may apply to what Churchmen told their flocks. But we are witness here to what they were saying amongst themselves within the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

And the targeted groups were pagan in the sense that they sacrificed to and prayed to a multiplicity of nonChristian divinities.

[morganxpage]

Why would a Canon Law Expert be concerned about any practices of Jews whatsoever unless they were somehow affecting the flock?
:lol:

But seriously. It's a known fact that Jews in Europe were often accused of child abduction, murder, and witchcraft. And, if not outright lying, that "Canon Law Expert" may very well have *thought* that they were telling the truth, when in reality they were merely repeating the fearful fantasies of the "flock."

[Carla O'Harris]

:lol:

But seriously. It's a known fact that Jews in Europe were often accused of child abduction, murder, and witchcraft. And, if not outright lying, that "Canon Law Expert" may very well have *thought* that they were telling the truth, when in reality they were merely repeating the fearful fantasies of the "flock."

But seriously. Your evidence for this allegation would be --- what? Your speculations? Versus the evidence we actually have in the forms of the documents?

[morganxpage]

But seriously. Your evidence for this allegation would be --- what? Your speculations? Versus the evidence we actually have in the forms of the documents?

Haven't you previous told both myself and many others on this forum to do our own research when you yourself fail to back up any of your claims with evidence?

One word: Google. Typing the following into popular internet search engine Google will bring up 1,130,000 pages: jews europe persecution middle ages. Don't believe me? I'll give you proof in the form of this fabulous link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=jews+europe+persecution+middle+ages&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

But seriously. Your evidence for this allegation would be --- what? Your speculations? Versus the evidence we actually have in the forms of the documents?

All I have to say to this is contained in the attached image.

[Eran]

All I have to say to this is contained in the attached image.
:yayah: Thank you for that! Quite so - there are very few people today who actually examine the available data. That's why Carla and I (and others) are striving very hard to make the data available. A great number of assuptions are often made - but it is important to question those assuptions, rather than to accept their truth on simple faith.

Again, I invite you (and all others interested) to help comb through, present, examine, and comment upon the available texts. There is an enormous body of interconnected and credible literature, which clearly depicts the ongoing survival of Pagan worship and ceremony - that is, worship of non-biblical deities - which any modern religious Pagan would instantly recognize as closely related to what we do today.

Of course, it is also easy to simply repeat "But it might have been Jews!" (or Moslems, or whatever) without actually examining what the documentation provides, and the context in which it was written. If anyone wants to take that course, they're free to do so.

[Carla O'Harris]

Haven't you previous told both myself and many others on this forum to do our own research when you yourself fail to back up any of your claims with evidence?

One word: Google. Typing the following into popular internet search engine Google will bring up 1,130,000 pages: jews europe persecution middle ages. Don't believe me? I'll give you proof in the form of this fabulous link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=jews+europe+persecution+middle+ages&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

When you follow that search, you will find reference to :

1. The Blood Libel,
2. The Poisoning of Wells
3. Desecration of the Host.

(For example, http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia6.htm,
one of the first sites pulled up by your search)

What you do not find is any widespread documentation that the Jews were witches.

The Malleus Maleficarum distinguishes between Jews and witches. Although it uses examples of the Jews to highlight witch cases, in so doing it differentiates them. This is significant. If they were just targeting Jews, they could much more easily have done so. There was plenty of anti-semitism, and plenty of libels on hand to inspire any kind of persecution they wanted.

I'd like to see more evidence. The reason I ask for evidence in this case is because the burden of proof stands against the conception that it was Jews who were being referred to. It's an interesting concept, but I would like to see it developed. As it stands now, it's nothing but speculation.

[Carla O'Harris]

All I have to say to this is contained in the attached image.

Where's the beef, Silverfire? If you're pitting mere opinion against data, show me the data. Show me significant signs that within intra-Church communication that Jews were regularly confused with witches, and you'll have provided the basis for me to consider changing my opinion.

[Carla O'Harris]

If all it takes to be classified a witch is to be non-Christian and to perform divination in some form, then it would be pretty easy to say 100% of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, and all Pagans of course) are witches.

After all, pretty much every religious person claims to obtain information from invisible realms -- answers to prayers, omens, signs, portents, etc. and that all counts as divination.

With such a loose definition of witch I'm not sure how it can be useful.


"In the third place, as we have already said above, the operations and rites of witches are placed in that second category of superstition which is called Divination; and ... witchcraft is not merely any divination, but it is that divination, the operations of which are performed by express and explicit invocations of the devil; and this may be done in very many ways, as by Necromancy, Geomancy, Hydromancy, etc."
(Malleus Maleficarum (http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_I/mm01_02c.html) Part I, Question 2, emphasis mine)

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Show me evidence that the demonologists of Kramer and Sprenger's time considered the Canon Episcopi anything but a thorn in their side, and show me that Kramer and Sprenger were taken with any degree of seriousness by people within the Church, Carla. Malleus Maleficarum was ridiculed by the ecclesiastical authorities and you *know* it; Kramer and Sprenger were ridiculed and the letter from the University at Koln was a forgery. The demonology and activities attributed to witches in the Malleus were primitive for the time - where is the pact? Where is the Sabbat?

[Carla O'Harris]

Show me evidence that the demonologists of Kramer and Sprenger's time considered the Canon Episcopi anything but a thorn in their side, and show me that Kramer and Sprenger were taken with any degree of seriousness by people within the Church, Carla. Malleus Maleficarum was ridiculed by the ecclesiastical authorities and you *know* it; Kramer and Sprenger were ridiculed and the letter from the University at Koln was a forgery. The demonology and activities attributed to witches in the Malleus were primitive for the time - where is the pact? Where is the Sabbat?

They actually mention the pact several times over, if you've read carefully.

In any case, Kramer and Sprenger are only amplifying the arguments of others. Giovanni d'Andrea (1270 - 1348) was pre-Kramer/Sprenger, and his arguments support theirs when it comes to heretical diviners.

Or we could look at Pope Alexander IV (1258) :

http://www.religionfacts.com/neopaganism/timeline.htm


Pope Alexander IV instructs, "The Inquisitors, deputed to investigate heresy, must not intrude into investigations of divination or sorcery without knowledge of manifest heresy involved." "Manifest heresy" is defined as: "praying at the altars of idols, to offer sacrifices, to consult demons, to elicit responses from them... or associate themselves publicly with heretics." (Emphasis mine)

In other words, it was pagan divination and sorcery that were specifically to be targeted.

And let's see what Henry C. Lea in Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft, Part I, has to say about Eymeric's Directorium inquisitorum (1376) :


Eymeric lays down the rule that divination by natural means, such as chiromancy, etc., and by drawing lots, does not come under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. But he quotes the bull of Alexander IV ... as subjecting to the Inquisition all sorcerers and diviners guilty of heresy by paying to demons the honor of latria or dulia, by rebaptizing children and the like,...not because they are simple sorcerers or diviners, but because these are sortilegia haereticales ... The simple arts of divination are not heretical and the Inquisition has no jurisdiction. When, however, there is invocation of the demon or misuse of the sacraments, such as rebaptizing children, consecrating figurines, and the like, there is heresy subject to the Inquisition. (p. 209, p, 213, emphasis mine)

Let's also add,


About this time [early 14th century] Zanghino gives us the current Italian ecclesiastical view of hte subject. In his detailed description of the various species of magic, vulgar witchcraft finds no place ... All such matters are under episcopal jurisdiction, and the Inquisition cannot meddle with them unless they savor of manifest heresy. But it is heretical to assert that the future can be foretold by such means, as this belongs to God alone ; to receive responses from demons is heretical, or to make them offerings, or to worship sun, moon, or stars, planets or the elements, or to believe that anything is to be obtained except from God, or that anything can be done without the command of God ... All this falls within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.
(Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Volume III, pp. 449 - 450)

You've now been given several examples from the 13th and 14th centuries that it was not simple divination, but heretical divination, involving pagan worship, that was being targeted. Despite your glib and flippant dismissal of Kramer and Sprenger, when they spoke of this topic, they had done their research.

[Faol-chù]

There seems to be some misconception that the Inquisitors as a whole were a bunch of bumbling fools who were incapable of making the rational distinctions that we moderns are capable of, and the records do not bear that out at all. Remember that many of these records were inter-Church communications, and not public records, and not public spin. They were inter-Church communications about Church Law, and were often written by people who were scholars who knew how to think clearly. The Inquisition had many different target-groups, and they were well-able to distinguish between them.


Just because someone--even scholars CAN distinguish between groups, does not mean that they *do*...In fact, historically, 'officials' have purposely conflated groups together for POLITICAL REASONS.

Case-in-point--In Virginia in the 1950's there was segregation.
There were "white" people in the state, there were people of African descent in the state, there were people of Native American descent in the state. There were even Chinese people in the state.
The state took to 'measuring blood'. If you looked "black", then you were "black". If you were white, but were half, one-quarter, or one-eighth "black", then you were black. If you were Native American, you were "black", if you were Chinese, you were "Black" if you were up to 1/8 Native American, you were "Black", and the same if you were up to 1/8 Chinese (even if your appearance did not reflect this). And if you weren't "white", you were "black", and you went to "black" schools.

"Officials", well-read, smart, or whatever, though they may have been (or may be), are perfectly capable of lumping people into the category of "other" with some nearly meaningless label for political and social reasons.

I'm sure you are aware that the attitudes of Christians (particularly the church "officials") to other religions" were AT LEAST as hostile in that era, if not more so, as the attitudes of the so-called "white" majority towards other "races" were in Virginia after the Civil War.

I'm not silly enough to believe that these people were always--or even USUALLY-- accurate (or honorable) in their reporting.

[Carla O'Harris]

Yet in all the examples you adduce, these are real groups --- ie., the categories, however rightly or wrongly used in individual cases, correspond to real entities in the real world. There are blacks, Chinese, Native Americans, etc.

Yes, there was cynical political maneuvres during the Inquisition. No one has denied that. But in the cases we are discussing, any such maneuvres were made on the basis of real pagan-religious witches who the Church felt threatened by.

And in actual point of fact, you can see in the trials and in their intra-Church documents the Inquisition often making fine differentiations.

[Lolair]

Hi Carla,

It doesn't matter to me if you agree or disagree with anything in my post as it was based on my opinions and my foray into research. My post was not a reply to you, but at the quote I took from one of Eran's posts. I admit I have a bad habit of coming off a bit snobby, I'm a leo and it's hard to get rid of that annoying 'tone'.

What I was trying to say about both of you is that you are making large assumptions from small quotes in one text (the first quote you provided from the MM). I did not read into the excerpt the same things that you did. I want to see more similar quotes from more texts to backup what you are trying to say. That is all.

Eran, you are a convincing and passionate writer, but your lack of bibliographies in your articles gives the impression that your information is based on opinion. If your articles do have sources, perhaps let the reader know? It's always something I look for when either purchasing a book or reading a "historical" article.

I think it would be wonderful to discover evidence that elements of pagan religions and practices survived further than the early middle ages (1000-1300's AD - an idea presented by many modern writers and scholars). The only problem is that the recorded accounts are by those who are of strongly biased opinions against anything not related to Christianity. Can we believe what they wrote? Can we sort the truth out of the lies and how? Is the fact that some oral lore survived evidence of a pagan survival? Or evidence that the original meaning was forgotten, thought harmless and that the lore was still passed on simply due to tradition and culture (which coincidentally is done by many modern covens today with old chants)? Would witches who used pagan elements have known that they were of Pagan origin? Or would their practices have been based on learned folklore? Local customs and superstitions are very hard to wipe out, the Church did not fully erase them as we still have pellars and wise folk today, the superstitions and folk-magic are still being practiced - but definately with some of the meanings and origins forgotten.

We can never truly know what happened in the past, all we can do is ask questions and make assumptions based on accounts and written records (which are problematic as I covered above). Can we discuss this as a "maybe" instead of as "I say it is fact"?

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I'd also like to reply to the title of this thread. Of course there were religious witches in the Middle Ages. They were called 'Christians'. Let's say it together, class: CHRIS-TI-ANS. Oh, VERY good! You all get a gold star!
Or I could pull a Montague Summers, if you like.

[Eran]

[Eran, you are a convincing and passionate writer, but your lack of bibliographies in your articles gives the impression that your information is based on opinion. If your articles do have sources, perhaps let the reader know? It's always something I look for when either purchasing a book or reading a "historical" article.
That's one of the reasons I frequently refer people to my website ( http://esoterica.bichaunt.org ). I do carefully document all my sources there. I am less thorough on MW, since the conversation here frequently resembles a barroom brawl more than a scholarly journal :lol: , but rest assured the documentation is all available on my website, or upon request.

I don't always provide footnotes or bibliographies, since I write for readers rather than scholastics; but the credits are all there, within the articles. If you find any missing, please let me know, and I'll be glad to correct any omissions.

[Eran]

Just because someone--even scholars CAN distinguish between groups, does not mean that they *do*...In fact, historically, 'officials' have purposely conflated groups together for POLITICAL REASONS.
Certainly so, which is why the material Carla presents is particularly valuable. She presents quotes and documents wherein all of your objections are either answered or inapplicable.

In other words, you make good points - or rather, points that would be good ones, except that they do not apply to the massive collection of documentation which is actually available in this case, and which you are welcome to examine and comment upon.

[Lolair]

Question, why is this thread in the Wicca forum? Wicca hasn't been mentioned once. How do I ask an admin to move this thread to the history forum?

[Carla O'Harris]

Question, why is this thread in the Wicca forum? Wicca hasn't been mentioned once. How do I ask an admin to move this thread to the history forum?

It is of direct relevance to Wicca. If there were pagan-religious witches in the Middle Ages, they constitute the pre-history of Wicca. In other words, that fact then proves that Wicca was either a revival of something that had once existed, or was a continuation. On the other hand, if there never was a history, as most pagan-witchcraft-deniers allege, that completely pulls out the history from beneath Wicca's feet.

[Eran]

Question, why is this thread in the Wicca forum? Wicca hasn't been mentioned once. How do I ask an admin to move this thread to the history forum?
I thought it was obvious, but then, I realize my brain is wired wierd. :lol:

So maybe we should make it explicit. Here's the mention. The sect which is described in the quote which began this thread - Carla presents the quote here:

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_III/mm03_00a.html
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_III/mm03_00b.html
Giovanni d'Andrea lived from 1270 - 1348, and was one of the most successful canonists and experts in Canon Law.
.... that quote describes a sect of Medieval Wiccans.

[Carla O'Harris]

Hi Carla,


I think it would be wonderful to discover evidence that elements of pagan religions and practices survived further than the early middle ages (1000-1300's AD - an idea presented by many modern writers and scholars).

The first step is to get a sense of how long things can survive underground historically. That answer is reasonably anywhere from 300 to 1000 years, depending on the phenomena. Some historians are more conservative than others in this regard, but several examples of underground survival of various traditions and religious elements can be discovered. Once you have a grasp of those parallel phenomena, it's no longer outrageous to suggest that a pagan religion could have survived underground at least anywhere from 1300 to 1500, and possibly longer. In other words, before one even gets to specific facts, one has to work on the area of possibility ; if something seems absurd from the get-go, the level of supporting documentation will seem to be much higher ; on the other hand, if a comparative approach has cleared the ground for possibility, there is much smoother sailing.

Underground survival is admitted in many areas. The Waldensians survived for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. But of course they are Christians, and so it is readily admitted that they survived. They are mentioned in the Inquisitional records (but so are witches). Why are we willing to admit that a Christian religion can be so tenacious but not a pagan one?

Part of the problem is inaccurate and biased scholarship of the last several generations which has falsely portrayed the Middle Ages as monolithically Christian ; this gives the impression of some sort of nonexistent widespread totality of Christian holiness amongst Europeans, when in fact the indications are that Christianity was far more patchy up to a fairly late period, meaning well past the Middle Ages and into the early Modern era. This is not to say that all of Europe was pagan. It is to say that Christianization was not complete, and therefore the basis for doubting the survival of impulses which were very powerful has been removed.

If you are able to see that things can survive in underground conditions for centuries, and if you are able to know that Christianization was not complete, it is not a leap at all to look for indications that in various locations certain things may have survived, not as fossils, but as living faiths. One indication of that would be persistence in the face of persecution.



he only problem is that the recorded accounts are by those who are of strongly biased opinions against anything not related to Christianity. Can we believe what they wrote? Can we sort the truth out of the lies and how?

A history of how Christian authors treated these kinds of phenomena is preliminary. When you study Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine, and other early "Church Fathers", for example, you can get a sense of how Christians reacted to pagan religions when it is widely admitted that they were thriving about them. You get a sense for the language they use, and the reactions they had. This information is then useful in approaching the problem later on in history.

For example, from the get-go, Christians referred to the gods of pagan religions as devils and demons. In the early work, in general, there is absolutely no mistaking that when a Christian author is referring to someone sacrificing to a demon or devil, they are referring to someone's pagan worship, and that is very clear.

I want to add that if you carefully read Inquisitional documents, you will see, as I have indicated here with documentation, that they carefully sort out their cases. They are not happy with unorthodox practices such as divination or astrology, but they distinguish those from practices in which there is a nonChristian element of worship. Whether others more cynical utilized this to their political advantage is not a smokescreen that should blind us to the fire ; the fact is that their carefulness was planned and deliberate, and not just in these intra-Church documents, but even an examination of the trial process indicates that they were capable of making distinctions.

(It's also important to realize that the Inquisition in this regard was not fundamentally about killing, although plenty of that went on, and not just about imprisonment and torture, although even more of that went on. It was fundamentally about intimidating people away from other expressions of faith through the active persecution of the most blatant examples they could find. In process, however, the most intelligent and careful people would go further underground.)


Is the fact that some oral lore survived evidence of a pagan survival?

How about the fact that every other group the Inquisition went after constituted a real sociological group? That fact alone should make any reasonable person suspect that it is only special pleading that makes witchcraft the exception.


Or evidence that the original meaning was forgotten, thought harmless and that the lore was still passed on simply due to tradition and culture (which coincidentally is done by many modern covens today with old chants)?

Why do you assume that the original meaning was forgotten? A better way of looking at this is to acknowledge that in any religion or tradition, there is a subtle shifting of significance over time where some parts of the tradition become more relevant and other parts seem less relevant. It's a dynamic, not a monolithic process.

What we know for certain is that people continued to have ecstatic experiences directly related to old, pagan themes, and this above anything else is proof that the religiosity survived as a powerful psychological vitality. That is proof that it's not mere repetition of meaningless, forgotten custom, but living, breathing, vital practice --- for some people.



Would witches who used pagan elements have known that they were of Pagan origin? Or would their practices have been based on learned folklore?

I'm not even sure what this means. Would they have used a Latin word (pagan) to describe their practice? Most probably not! Did they know that their practice differed from Orthodox Christianity? In many cases, yes! (One hears reports of the nonChristian deities objecting to Christian sacraments in their presence, for example ; there's also the case of widespread preaching against their practices.) In other cases, people, utilizing a widespread pragmatism and syncretism, didn't feel there was anything wrong or sinful about what they were doing. When you say "learned folklore", if you are asking if people's religiosity was influenced by what was passed down to them, of course it was! But that is a different thing altogether than saying that they studied books of abstract folklore collection! Far more than that can be conveyed in just the way grandma approaches the trees, or sets out food for the spirits, or walks in the vicinity of certain stones. A living vitality is transmitted both verbally and nonverbally.



Local customs and superstitions are very hard to wipe out, the Church did not fully erase them as we still have pellars and wise folk today, the superstitions and folk-magic are still being practiced - but definately with some of the meanings and origins forgotten.

After the Inquisition and witch-hunts. Is it surprising that long and widespread persecution diminishes the living parts of a tradition? If you find fossils, do you assume they were always fossils, or was there once a living creature there? And yet, even with fossils, they function so much like the miracle of the bones, given that, even folklore which may seem mainly superstitious can resurrect and take on a life of its own, so even assuming that folklore we assume to be relatively alienated and fossilized may not be so to certain groups of people. Historiography cautions us against projecting ex post facto conditions into the past of the historical record.


We can never truly know what happened in the past, all we can do is ask questions and make assumptions based on accounts and written records (which are problematic as I covered above). Can we discuss this as a "maybe" instead of as "I say it is fact"?


I make the assumption that persecutions in general are based upon real facts, whether there is distortion and corruption around them or not. That's based on historical fact. There is hardly an exception in history. And in fact, the prototype of these kinds of persecutions was the Roman repression of the Bacchanalia, which is congruent in every way with the phenomenon we are considering, and the same themes emerge time and again with our phenomena. Cohn was wrong in assuming that libel of the Jews came first. It was libel of the Dionysians that preceded the rest.

Time and again we find reference to worship of pagan goddesses, whose names are both classical and local, in the form of ecstatic practices.

That is a fact, with recurrent documentation. Therefore, it is no longer a question of "maybe". It is a question of fact. The only questions are how far past ecstatic phenomena the religiosity extended, and there are indications that it extended quite far beyond those. There are strong indications of group practice and the passing on of tradition. Beyond the ecstatic experiences, I have passed on historical documentation here that some of those involved in these goddess ecstatic traditions were also praying to them, offering sacrifices to them, and consulting them in oracles. That is significant evidence.

[Lolair]

It is of direct relevance to Wicca. If there were pagan-religious witches in the Middle Ages, they constitute the pre-history of Wicca. In other words, that fact then proves that Wicca was either a revival of something that had once existed, or was a continuation. On the other hand, if there never was a history, as most pagan-witchcraft-deniers allege, that completely pulls out the history from beneath Wicca's feet.
.... that quote describes a sect of Medieval Wiccans.So in Medieval times there was a secret never heard of sect of Wiccans who's practices were based on ceremonial magicians who were not yet born (Crowley, Levi, Mathers)? Strict Gardnerian Wicca is much more related to witchcraft and ceremonial magic than to religious paganism. Wicca is a tradition OF witchcraft, it is NOT witchcraft in itself. If that were true than a whole bunch of traditional witches, stregoneria practitioners, cunning folk, and those of the cultus sabbati persuasion would be VERY ticked off to be told they were not witches after all but Wiccans. I know you are not, but I still have to ask: are you guys kidding me?!

The only history of Wicca in its "whole form" dates to right before Doreen Valiente left Gardner's coven in a huff (as well as half the coven) after he "came up with" the infamous witchcraft laws. I state this time because that is when Doreen had finished adding to the book of shadows and the liturgy used. There are so many trustworthy book with evidence that Gardner was making it up as he went along. To put such wild theories as the quotes above as writ on a public forum is to invite danger. When giving out these theories one should have a disclaimer that they are the views of the writer only and are not substantiated by any fact.

For any newbies reading this thread or other threads with similar theories please go to your public library or bookstore and look up these titles for your own sake and learning progess, if others can recommend more books on the history of Wicca please do (if someone mentions the Pickingill material a rant will ensue):
The Rebirth of Witchcraft by Doreen Valiente (right from the horse's mouth)
Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton (take the research on traditional withcraft with a shaker of salt)

[Carla O'Harris]

So in Medieval times there was a secret never heard of sect of Wiccans who's practices were based on ceremonial magicians who were not yet born (Crowley, Levi, Mathers)? Strict Gardnerian Wicca is much more related to witchcraft and ceremonial magic than to religious paganism.


Because Methodists emerged in the 1700's, there was no Christianity before that point, right? Any time a religion changes its liturgy, it becomes a completely new religion? Or any time a religion shows signs of creativity at all it is a completely new religion? Or can religions have periods of renewal? (Especially if they were persecuted and driven underground!?)


Wicca is a tradition OF witchcraft, it is NOT witchcraft in itself. If that were true than a whole bunch of traditional witches, stregoneria practitioners, cunning folk, and those of the cultus sabbati persuasion would be VERY ticked off to be told they were not witches after all but Wiccans. I know you are not, but I still have to ask: are you guys kidding me?!

I don't recall Eran saying that Gardnerian Wicca was being practiced in the Middle and Early Modern Era. He merely said that "Wicca" was. He is using the term to mean "witch" (which is how it is properly pronounced) and to refer to wicca/e/s of that period, who were diviners associated with pagan practices.


There are so many trustworthy book with evidence that Gardner was making it up as he went along. To put such wild theories as the quotes above as writ on a public forum is to invite danger. When giving out these theories one should have a disclaimer that they are the views of the writer only and are not substantiated by any fact.

There's no problem, if one is using one's terms correctly. Eran did not say Gardnerian Wicca. He just said Wicca. If anyone had said that Methodist Christianity existed in the 1200's, we'd have the right to raise our eyebrows and make funny faces. But if someone said that Christianity existed in the 1200's, that shouldn't be surprising at all.

[Lolair]

Than perhaps he should have made it clear what his definition of the word was - especially when capitalizing it!? Otherwise what he said sounds like lunacy. Using an old english word when the modern definition is now pretty different is very misleading, especially to newbies! Were you as well Carla referring to wicca as witchcraft in the quote I included my post? I would see how the survival of paganism in the middle ages is relevant to modern witches in general, but I still do not think this thread should be in the Wicca forum as this forum is specifically meant for the definition of Wicca as from Gardner and not for two people in a minority who still use the old english definition.

[David19]

It is of direct relevance to Wicca. If there were pagan-religious witches in the Middle Ages, they constitute the pre-history of Wicca. In other words, that fact then proves that Wicca was either a revival of something that had once existed, or was a continuation. On the other hand, if there never was a history, as most pagan-witchcraft-deniers allege, that completely pulls out the history from beneath Wicca's feet.

But, even if there were witches in the Middle Ages, that doesn't meant they were related to Wicca, for example, I have seen articles that have kind of conviced me of witches in the Middle Ages, and Family Traditions (i believe I posted an article in this forum once a few weeks ago?), but from what i've seen, most Traditional witches and Family Traditional witches have a problem with Wicca, and most see it as a "lighter" version of their witchcraft.

This site on Cornish witchcraft (http://www.geocities.com/cronnekdhu/index.html) is good, and, IMO, would probably be a more accurate description of any Medevial witches that may have existed (considering, it's somewhat "darker", the magic practiced does involve curses, just take a look at what tools are used for (http://www.geocities.com/cronnekdhu/Pellar_tools.html)and magic powders (http://www.geocities.com/cronnekdhu/Magick_Powders.html).

I'd also say that Medevial witches probably would not have the "3 fold law" (which doesn't appear in any other kind of historical witchcraft e.g. Aradia, as far as I know).

Anyway, just wanted to bring that up, maybe it could be that Wicca is related only partially, and is more a watered down version of the Medevial witches.

[Carla O'Harris]

Than perhaps he should have made it clear what his definition of the word was - especially when capitalizing it!? Otherwise what he said sounds like lunacy. Using an old english word when the modern definition is now pretty different is very misleading, especially to newbies! Were you as well Carla referring to wicca as witchcraft in the quote I included my post? I would see how the survival of paganism in the middle ages is relevant to modern witches in general, but I still do not think this thread should be in the Wicca forum as this forum is specifically meant for the definition of Wicca as from Gardner and not for two people in a minority who still use the old english definition.

We're discussing the prehistory of Wicca. It's of direct relevance to this thread. Go to Eran's site if you'd like to see further evidence of its connections with modern Wicca.

Eran and I have been on this board for quite some time utilizing this terminology, documenting it, and explaining it, so you can't expect us to go back and re-document everything we have said, although we are willing to go back over some things.

[Carla O'Harris]

But, even if there were witches in the Middle Ages, that doesn't meant they were related to Wicca, for example, I have seen articles that have kind of conviced me of witches in the Middle Ages, and Family Traditions (i believe I posted an article in this forum once a few weeks ago?), but from what i've seen, most Traditional witches and Family Traditional witches have a problem with Wicca, and most see it as a "lighter" version of their witchcraft.

The various denominations of Christianity often disagree with each other's emphases. So? Does that prove that they didn't have a common source? If Garderian Wicca is in fact "lighter" than other forms, perhaps this was an emphasis developed within that sub-tradition, or perhaps traditions which are claimed to be "darker" are emphases developed within those traditions, or both. Quakerism doesn't negate Lutheranism.


This site on Cornish witchcraft (http://www.geocities.com/cronnekdhu/index.html) is good, and, IMO, would probably be a more accurate description of any Medevial witches that may have existed (considering, it's somewhat "darker", the magic practiced does involve curses, just take a look at what tools are used for (http://www.geocities.com/cronnekdhu/Pellar_tools.html)and magic powders (http://www.geocities.com/cronnekdhu/Magick_Powders.html).

I would caution against the quite recent and modern assumption that simply because something is "darker" that it therefore must somehow be more "real".


I'd also say that Medevial witches probably would not have the "3 fold law"

I'm not sure how you conclude this. "Three-foldness" is a sacred concept within European paganism, and the idea that actions have consequences, some beyond our foresight, is kind of a no-brainer.

In any case, even if the particular formulation of this particular doctrine was not found amongst some or all of medieval Witches, it's not particularly relevant, as religions diverge, branch, and change all the time.


Anyway, just wanted to bring that up, maybe it could be that Wicca is related only partially, and is more a watered down version of the Medevial witches.

Again, I think this is a modern prejudice. It's based on the idea that something is more "real" the nastier it is ; it's a kind of tabloid-consciousness that revels in the dirty and dark. This type of consciousness revels in the diabolism of the Inquisition's slanders, and unless a manifestation matches the slanders, doesn't feel it's as "real".

Did some witches act with a spirit of vengeance under conditions of persecution and misunderstanding? Undoubtedly. Even Gardner admits of such. So? That's like using excerpts from the Talmud written during times of persecution that express outrage against gentiles as evidence that the Jewish religion must be inherently dark or prejudicial ; these things must be considered in context.

[Lolair]

We're discussing the prehistory of Wicca. It's of direct relevance to this thread. Go to Eran's site if you'd like to see further evidence of its connections with modern Wicca.
I have done that thank you, and was not impressed. While I admire Eran's style of writing it does not mean I have to agree with what he writes.

I have gotten into a discussion with Eran over the use of the word wicca. I am just saying that if one does not explain their definitions when making bold statements those who do not understand will be very confused either thinking that Wicca is centuries old or that someone ate some crazy flakes for breakfast. The fact that the two of you have been here for a long time is not an excuse to ignore ethical responsibilities to other members who may not have done as much research as yourselves.


But, even if there were witches in the Middle Ages, that doesn't meant they were related to Wicca, for example, I have seen articles that have kind of conviced me of witches in the Middle Ages, and Family Traditions (i believe I posted an article in this forum once a few weeks ago?), but from what i've seen, most Traditional witches and Family Traditional witches have a problem with Wicca, and most see it as a "lighter" version of their witchcraft.
I am with you on this David. If there were genuine witches in the middle ages their form of craft would be incredibly different from what we practice and know today. The times were very different, as was the theology. Some elements of Gardnerian Wicca are from witchcraft lore, but the majority is not. It would be quite interesting for a modern witch to meet one from centuries ago face to face! Would they agree on most things, or be completely put off by each other?

[Carla O'Harris]

I am just saying that if one does not explain their definitions when making bold statements those who do not understand will be very confused either thinking that Wicca is centuries old or that someone ate some crazy flakes for breakfast. The fact that the two of you have been here for a long time is not an excuse to ignore ethical responsibilities to other members who may not have done as much research as yourselves.

Then they'll have to learn in context as the discussion evolves. As they do that, they'll learn precisely what we're talking about. This is a discussion board, not a book. In a book, that total context you're talking about is appropriate and necessary. Anyone who is going to take a couple statements from an internet discussion board out of context and run with it has their own intellectual responsibility (or lack thereof) to consider.



I am with you on this David. If there were genuine witches in the middle ages their form of craft would be incredibly different from what we practice and know today. The times were very different, as was the theology. Some elements of Gardnerian Wicca are from witchcraft lore, but the majority is not. It would be quite interesting for a modern witch to meet one from centuries ago face to face! Would they agree on most things, or be completely put off by each other?

If you look at the documentation Eran and I have amassed, you will see that there are many parallels. Would there be mutual recognition? Yes. Would there be identity? No. Identity is not necessary to establish a common source.

But a recognition of the sacredness to be found in natural places, a concern with fate,magic,and fertility and traditional feastings and dancings at sacred sites would most definitely be shared in common

As far as the elements of Gardnerian Wicca which are "not...from witchcraft lore" (and I'm not sure what you mean by that), consider that Gardner was initiated into a coven of witches. If they or he selected elements from various poetry to include in their liturgy, those elements which from your standpoint seem external to the tradition would have been selected precisely for their relevance in context. Interpolations and recastings of a tradition do not negate its history.

[Lolair]

consider that Gardner was initiated into a coven of witches
I consider that he CLAIMED he was, but that the only proof given was in the completely unprovable Pickingill material. The elements and origins of his craft are obvious and well-documented to anyone able to read and write.

Big words doth not an unbiased scholar make. I think it's time for me to move on.

Slainte

[Carla O'Harris]

I consider that he CLAIMED he was, but that the only proof given was in the completely unprovable Pickingill material. The elements and origins of his craft are obvious and well-documented to anyone able to read and write.

Big words doth not an unbiased scholar make. I think it's time for me to move on.

Slainte

He claimed to be, and every challenge to that claim has been answered. Heselton has demonstrated, and Aidan Kelly has admitted (based on an analysis by medieval philologist Robert Mathiesen), that there was a group preceding Gardner, a group who believed themselves to be the descendants of pagan-religious witches. Whether they were correct or no, they believed they were, and the material they selected reflected those beliefs.

But again, this particular thread is not so much about Gardnerian Wicca as it is about its predecessors. Whether you consider Gardnerian Wicca to be a complete re-invocation of witch-religion after its death hundreds of years beforehand, or whether you consider him to be part of a surviving lineage, the pre-history is important.

What is puzzling is why so many people who are both witches and Wiccans have such hardcore resistance to this evidence. Seemingly they don't want to believe, even when there is documentation in the record indicating nonChristian polytheistic religious practice!!! "Give us more information, give us more proof!" How much proof can be reasonably expected from a group that was suppressed and furthermore tended to be secret and initiatic? There's only so much surfacing in the record you are going to see in any case. The surface records are only indices of what was going on beneath the surface.

[Eran]

I have gotten into a discussion with Eran over the use of the word wicca.
Then you know very well that when I say "Wicca" I do not mean "Gardnerianism". So your objections to my statement were rather disingeuous, weren't they?

On the contrary, it is quite obvious that Gardnerianism could not have existed in Medieval times. Therefore, it should also have been obvious that I was making a point - that when people define "Wicca" as "Gardnerianism", they are using the word in a way that does not make sense from an historical viewpoint.

Yes, the religious Pagan magical practioners of the Middle Ages were Wiccans (or Witches - take your pick, its the same word) and the people who deny that today - or who try to hide the facts by inventing new definitions for these words - are simply incorrect, from a historical perspective.

Yes, my statement was intentionally a bit confusing - it was meant to put into stark perspective the intentional confusion which has recently been created through misuse of these words. It was meant also to bring people up short, to provide them with a sudden change of perspective - to make them question the assumptions which have been foisted upon us by scholars and churchmen with a vested interest in making us forget our history.

"Wicca" - in a historical sense (and that's what we're discussing here, the history of this religion) does not mean "Gardnerianism". It only means "Gardnerianism" to the people who want to deny the history of our religion.

[Ben Gruagach]

I consider that he CLAIMED he was, but that the only proof given was in the completely unprovable Pickingill material. The elements and origins of his craft are obvious and well-documented to anyone able to read and write.

For those who are interested in the Pickingill claims and connection, check out this thread (http://www.occultcorpus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=599) and also this thread (http://www.occultcorpus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=721) over on another Occult messageboard where I participate occasionally. There was some interesting discussion about the claims (and possible validity/ debunking) regarding Pickingill as being involved in magick let alone connected in some way to Gerald Gardner via Dorothy Clutterbuck's New Forest coven.

I found it particularly interesting as well because Lugh, the source of most of the Pickingill material (published in the book "The Pickingill Papers") himself participates in the thread.

On the topic of the definition of Wicca, I have to weigh in with my opinion that I understand Carla and Eran have their own definition and that it is key to a lot of what they claim. However, it's also important (and this is where I think Carla and Eran need to be a bit more forthcoming) to acknowledge that their definition is a minority one regardless how they feel personally about how right it might be. Presenting a distinct, and especially minority, definition without identifying it as such (and also one which conflicts with the majority definition) serves to confuse issues much more than it clarifies.

That's probably the main reason why scholarly writers are careful to define their terms at the start of their books -- so that the material that follows makes sense to the reader rather than misleading them to questionable conclusions.

[Eran]

On the topic of the definition of Wicca, I have to weigh in with my opinion that I understand Carla and Eran have their own definition and that it is key to a lot of what they claim.
Actually, no, this is inaccurate. Speaking for myself, I make no "claim" whatever. I present data, and then some interpretations of that data. My definitions are based on the data; it is not true to say I make any "claims" based on my definitions.

However, it's also important (and this is where I think Carla and Eran need to be a bit more forthcoming) to acknowledge that their definition is a minority one regardless how they feel personally about how right it might be. Presenting a distinct, and especially minority, definition without identifying it as such (and also one which conflicts with the majority definition) serves to confuse issues much more than it clarifies.
This is another disingenuous statement, Ben. You know quite well we have been extremely forthcoming in our defintions. Carla and I have both been rather pilloried on a regular basis for discussing the definitions we use. It's odd that you want us to be "more forthcoming", yet object every time we do just that.

The definitions you use are recent and are inconsistent with historical evidence. Presenting such historically inaccurate definitions without identifying them as such - and presenting them as if they were incontrovertibly true - serves to confuse and to derail historical discussions.

We have also discussed the value of "majority" opinions previously. The whole point of presenting the massive evidence on the topic is that the "majority" is unaware of it - as Carla and I have repeated many times. Since "majority" opinion is based on incomplete data, perhaps one should not be quite so quick to present that opinion as if it were established fact.

The point of historical discussions such as this is to describe and to document the historical realities and concepts behind these words. If these things were already known to "the majority", then such discussions would be unnecessary.

So let me say it quite clearly, revealing once again precisely the things you say we should be "more forthcoming" about:

Our use of such words is not a common one - because the realities of the history they refer to are not widely known. The reason for this thread (and others like it) is to make this information more widely available.

Indeed yes, these are things that most people are not aware of. With any luck, those of us doing the research will be able to correct the limited exposure this data has had so far.

So: contrary to common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion"), the religion of Witchcraft (or: Wicca) has been around for a very long time. This religion, historicaly, was not exactly what common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion") thinks it was. We are in the process of documenting the historical realities behind this religion. Not many people are aware of these realities (i.e., the information is, so far, known only to a "minority").

And please note, what I am talking about is "information". Feel free to make what you wish of it. Good researchers carefully distinguish between "information" and "opinion". The "majority definitions" you refer to are opinion; the data and documentation Carla and I present are "information".

Is that better?

[Xirian]

Ya know, I've been following this thread from its inception and I tend to agree with Ben and Lolair about this one. As someone who has almost no knowledge of Wicca, in general, I made the assumption, when I first saw the word Wicca in this thread, that you were talking about Wicca and not witches in general. Even though I have read information that suggests that witch and wicca may mean the same thing to others. It also sort of sounds like wicca was the only word used for the word witch in the Middle Ages everywhere, which I'm sure is not correct.

I think that's the point that Lolair and Ben are trying to make. Someone coming in and starting their research because the title of this thread is interesting to them, might do as I did, which was assume you were talking about modern day wicca. You're trying to make it sound like people who would make that assumption are too lazy to research, but perhaps this thread is the beginning of their research into Wicca and Witches or maybe they're just interested in any topic that has to do with paganism in the Middle Ages. It may have nothing to do with laziness.

At any rate, the majority of people that will read this thread, will probably make the same assumption I did. Perhaps, you can have a disclaimer in your signature so that other members will automatically know what you're talking about when you refer to Wicca and mean witch.

Just some thoughts.

[skilly-nilly]

It is of direct relevance to Wicca. If there were pagan-religious witches in the Middle Ages, they constitute the pre-history of Wicca. In other words, that fact then proves that Wicca was either a revival of something that had once existed, or was a continuation.



.... that quote describes a sect of Medieval Wiccans.




So: contrary to common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion"), the religion of Witchcraft (or: Wicca) has been around for a very long time. This religion, historicaly, was not exactly what common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion") thinks it was. We are in the process of documenting the historical realities behind this religion. Not many people are aware of these realities (i.e., the information is, so far, known only to a "minority").



Sometimes it takes a new opinion to clarify old assertions.

I agree with Lolair, Ben Gruagach, and Xirian.

Eran and Carla O'Harris do seem to be implying (I think disingenuous is the term used) that today's Gardnerian Wicca is in some way connected in a linear sense to general historic Paganish folk practices and more specifically to sbna of those people burned by the Inquisition. The indisputable fact that people, sbna labeled 'Witches', were executed by the Inquisition and that Paganish folk practices do and did exist (what Carla calls "the pre-history of Wicca" and Eran calls "the religion of Witchcraft (or: Wicca)") is then taken by them as documenting the 'fact' that the Wicca of today is an extension of this history.

This is, however, an assumption. And fallacious imo. When one looks at the other active thread on this sub-forum 'Creating a More Cohesive Wicca' it is obvious that Wicca is anything but linear and historical. Even with the safety from persecution that leads to openness about personal beliefs and the technological advances (not to mention general literacy) that allows people from all over the world to join in the open discussion and disclosure of their beliefs it seems that very few 'Wiccans' are able to agree on what they believe and what their beliefs derive from.

Soooooooooooooo, if one allowed that Gardner was initiated into a coven that was in existence before his contact with it, the need on the coven's part for secrecy and the necessary localness of that particular coven's "pre-history" as well as the lack of European-wide communications and smaller percentage of literate people if you extend that supposed coven's tradition back into the Medieval Era make any pre-Xain mythological citations or historical documents from Europe completely moot (the cow's opinion) in 'proving' that that supposed coven was part of a cohesive historical traditional "religion of Witchcraft (or: Wicca)".

Ooooooooooooooor, if Gardner with his general literacy, better education, and personal religious experiences just "selected elements from various poetry to include in their liturgy" then what he was doing was researching a new construct, not attaching himself to an unimaginable historical "religion".

The fact that Pagan remnants exist everywhere does not, imo, justify giving Gardnerian Wicca an ancient lineage.

[Eran]

It also sort of sounds like wicca was the only word used for the word witch in the Middle Ages everywhere, which I'm sure is not correct.
Actually, that is correct. The modern form of the word - "witch" - is relatively recent. For English speakers, until the time the word "wicca/wicce" evolved into the word "witch", wicca/wicce was the only English word they could use when they meant "witch". That is to say, it's the same word, separated only by a couple of centuries of evolution in spelling ("wicca" is even pronounced almost exactly the same as the word "witch").

And that is the point I am making:

In the Middle Ages (and before) there was indeed a survival of Pagan shamanic-style pre-Christian religous practice, belief, and worship. These people were among those persecuted by the Inquisition. They were called "wicca/wicce" in Old English. Based on their model, the word "witch" has more recently come to be used inexactly by some to signify "magic users of any kind". But these Medieval people who were called "wiccan" are the spiritual ancestors of the people whom Gardner encountered, the people whom Gardner called "witches" and "wicca" (he, and those around him, used these two forms of the one word interchangably).

[RainInanna]

It seems that the argument does hinge on terminology - specifically when and how the word "Wicca" came to be used. Whether it was and is synonymous with "Witchcraft". Even arguments that it's disrespectful to insist "all Witches are Wiccan", or whether Eran is talking about Wicca or Witchcraft, are IMHO meaningless, if we understand the terms to be synonymous. I think if we'd all understood that in the beginning it would've stopped a lot of argument.

I have no problem seeing that Witchcraft had existed well before Gardner, and I do appreciate all the research you've shared. I finally understand where people are coming from when they say Wicca predated Gardner.

But I think at some point it's just agreeing to disagree. We do the same thing even now when some people use the terms interchangeably and others don't.

[Xirian]

Actually, that is correct. The modern form of the word - "witch" - is relatively recent. For English speakers, until the time the word "wicca/wicce" evolved into the word "witch", wicca/wicce was the only English word they could use when they meant "witch". That is to say, it's the same word, separated only by a couple of centuries of evolution in spelling ("wicca" is even pronounced almost exactly the same as the word "witch").
So, only English speaking people lived through the middle ages?

What I said was:
It also sort of sounds like wicca was the only word used for the word witch in the Middle Ages everywhere, which I'm sure is not correct.

Notice that I mentioned everywhere. If everywhere is only where English speaking people lived and are, then I think we're have a communcation problem.

I am saying that you are making it sound as if the word "wicca" was the common term for the word "witch" everywhere, which could mean any civilization on this planet, during the Middle Ages. And since it's a foreign word to me, I just assumed it's origins were not from English speakers, which could mean that it could have come from anywhere, especially for someone who had no foreknowledge of the breakdown of the word and how it's come to be the word it is today.

Just saying what it sounds like you're implying. But since I haven't read many threads by you on the subject of Wicca, you might be able to understand my confusion and assumptions.

So you're actually talking about the Old English meaning, not the whole of Europe and Northern Africa or the Middle East for that matter, or are you?

I wouldn't have known that unless you said it at some point during this particular discussion before this post.

But for the most part I was just stating that for someone without a lot of knowledge on the subject, who might be willing to learn more, without the snide comments, that this is really the first time I've actually seen the words used interchangeably, to my knowledge. Which probably means that I've seen you two use the word and assumed you were talking about the religion of Wicca. Perhaps, next time, for the sake of the members who might not know what you're talking about, you could preface your comment with it or put it in your signature.

[David19]

"Wicca" - in a historical sense (and that's what we're discussing here, the history of this religion) does not mean "Gardnerianism". It only means "Gardnerianism" to the people who want to deny the history of our religion.

Actually, Gardnerian/ism was the term Robert Cochrane applied to Gardner's witches, 'cause, from what I've read and heard, he didn't like them as he saw them as publicity seekers (he did have a point, Gardner was always the one courting the media, Cochrane did do the same, but not on the same level, etc).

[David19]

What is puzzling is why so many people who are both witches and Wiccans have such hardcore resistance to this evidence. Seemingly they don't want to believe, even when there is documentation in the record indicating nonChristian polytheistic religious practice!!! "Give us more information, give us more proof!" How much proof can be reasonably expected from a group that was suppressed and furthermore tended to be secret and initiatic? There's only so much surfacing in the record you are going to see in any case. The surface records are only indices of what was going on beneath the surface.

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I find puzzling is why it is only these witches who were hiding, where the evidence has to be really looked for to find evidence of their existence, when other persecuted groups in history never went "into the shadows, never to be seen again".

For example, Jews, Muslims, gay people, Gypsies, Native Americans, etc have all been persecuted to a large extent in the Middle/Medevial times, and while these groups may have hidden from their persurers, they didn't run "into the shadows", did they?.

That's what really has me confused and any help you or Eran or whoever can give me in figuring that out would be appreciated.

Maybe these Witches just lacked balls?.

[skilly-nilly]

. For English speakers, until the time the word "wicca/wicce" evolved into the word "witch", wicca/wicce was the only English word they could use when they meant "witch".

I didn't think this could possibly be correct, since I don't think English (old or new) is such a paltry language.

How about gealdricge/gealdorcraeftigan, scinlÊce/scinlaecan, lyblÊca/Lybbestre?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Etymology
Tha faemnan, the gewuniath onfon gealdorcraeftigan and scinlaecan and wiccan, ne laet thu tha libban.

which comes up twice:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007252.php
"Ða fæmnan þe gewuniað onfon gealdorcræftigan & scinlæcan & wiccan, ne læt þu ða libban."
The other two words combined with it here are gealdricge, a woman who practices "incantations," and scinlæce "female wizard, woman magician," from a root meaning "phantom, evil spirit."

Another word that appears in the Anglo-Saxon laws is lyblæca "wizard, sorcerer," but with suggestions of skill in the use of drugs, since the root of the word is lybb "drug, poison, charm." Lybbestre was a feminine noun meaning "sorceress," and lybcorn was the name of a certain medicinal seed (perhaps wild saffron).
In Anglo-Saxon glossaries, wicca renders Latin augur (c.1100), and wicce stands for "pythoness, divinatricem." One glossary translates Latin necromantia ("demonum invocatio") with galdre, wiccecræft.
But the Anglo-Saxon poem called "Men's Crafts" has wiccræft, which appears to be the same word, and by its context means "skill with horses." And in a c.1250 translation of "Exodus," witches is used as a word for the Egyptian midwives who save the newborn sons of the Hebrews: "Ðe wicches hidden hem for-ðan, Biforen pharaun nolden he ben."


As you can see in the reference cited above, wiccræft is also used to mean "skill with horses" and wicches as "midwives".



http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos620.htm
Doreen Valiente says:
"It will be seen from the above that "Wicca" does not mean "witchcraft"
and never did, in spite of its widespread modern use. So how did this
usage originate?"

[Eran]

It seems that the argument does hinge on terminology - specifically when and how the word "Wicca" came to be used. Whether it was and is synonymous with "Witchcraft". Even arguments that it's disrespectful to insist "all Witches are Wiccan", or whether Eran is talking about Wicca or Witchcraft, are IMHO meaningless,
I agree completely! The important point is not the word used, but the religion itself - whatever one chooses to call it. People are going to use words as they wish. More vital, I think, is to understand the historical realities, apart from the terminology.

You are right that the "argument" hinges on terminology - that is, we're arguing over mere semantics. We should instead, I think, be considering the data and the evidence. This is what I mean when I say that arguments over the words themselves are generally senseless.

I have no problem seeing that Witchcraft had existed well before Gardner, and I do appreciate all the research you've shared. I finally understand where people are coming from when they say Wicca predated Gardner.
That's very cool! Yes, the intended reference is to the older forms of the religion - not the the specific and limited form that we today know as "Gardnerianism".

But I think at some point it's just agreeing to disagree.
And right you are again. Given the same data, reasonable people are going to come to different conclusions. What matters is to honestly and openly and fairly consider the data.

So, let's get back to Carla's fascinating evidence!

[Eran]

How about gealdricge/gealdorcraeftigan, scinlÊce/scinlaecan, lyblÊca/Lybbestre?
Thank you for these references! Indeed, you have documented for us here many of the roles and skills possessed by some of the wicca/wicce.

Some of the words you used (pythoness, for example) are Latin, not English - you will notice in my quote I carefully referred to usage in English. Quite naturally, speakers of other languages would use words in their own tongue.

As for the other terms you provide - note again, I was talking about Pagan shamanic-religious survivals, for which the word used was wicca = witch.

These other terms signify various crafts or skills, which is a slightly different matter. A Wicca could, for instance, also have been a blacksmith, but it would be senseless to confuse those two terms simply because they could both apply to the same individual.

Similarly, a wicce who worked as a midwife would have been called a midwife when she was working in that role - but this doesn't mean "midwife" is in any way a synonym for "witch". Nor does it imply that someone who worked as a midwife could not also have been wicce.

The point here is that the word wicca/wicce was indeed used to signify a member of the Pagan shamanic-style pre-Christian religious path - and that "wicca" and "witch" are the same word - so Gardner's usage is historically accurate, and it is also historically accurate to say the people Carla is documenting were Wiccan.

(Edited - the following was written before I closely examined the entire article by Ms. Valiente from which this quote was taken - please see my later post, below...)

Doreen Valiente says:
That is Valiente's opinion, and she's welcome to it, and her opinion is as reasonable as anyone else's - and carries no more weight than yours or mine. And unfortunately, the historical data does not support her position.

[Eran]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos620.htm
Doreen Valiente says:
"It will be seen from the above that "Wicca" does not mean "witchcraft" and never did, in spite of its widespread modern use. So how did this usage originate?"
Upon actually reading the whole of the article you reference, I'm amused to note that Valiente is not really saying here what this quote, taken out of context, appears to be saying.

Valiente's point here is that the current usage is incorrect - grammatically. That is, she is saying "wicca" means "witch", not witchcraft. She is, in fact, agreeing with me and Carla, that wicca/wicce is the same word as "witch" - and she is denying a common modern notion that "Wicca" = Gardnerianism. She is merely saying that the ancient practioners were known as wicca/wicce. She is stressing that to call the religion "Wicca" is grammatically incorrect - but that it is correct to call a Witch "wicca" (or "wicce" if a female).

[Carla O'Harris]

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I find puzzling is why it is only these witches who were hiding, where the evidence has to be really looked for to find evidence of their existence, when other persecuted groups in history never went "into the shadows, never to be seen again".

For example, Jews, Muslims, gay people, Gypsies, Native Americans, etc have all been persecuted to a large extent in the Middle/Medevial times, and while these groups may have hidden from their persurers, they didn't run "into the shadows", did they?.

That's what really has me confused and any help you or Eran or whoever can give me in figuring that out would be appreciated.

Maybe these Witches just lacked balls?.



Whoah, hold on to those horses, pardner!!

Witches were not the only one to go into the shadows. A parallel phenomenon is that of the Marranos. And at times the Brethren of the Free Spirit were clandestine. And there haven't been tons of gay people who have hidden in the shadows of the closet??

And amongst indigenous peoples, while they as nationalities may not have gone into the shadows, often their shamans did, going so far as to hide their paraphenalia, and hold rituals in secret in the woods.

I also want to add that imputing that they were cowards is somewhat disrespectful, given the machinery that was launched against them. If courage was to expose themselves to complete persecution and annihilation, perhaps a better word would be foolhardiness. Cunning folk did continue to practice, but those who did had to be very careful. Those who were part of the old heathen ethos knew how to read wyrd, and knew how to tell the times. There is a time to openly battle, and a time to be clandestine.

I began this thread by demonstrating that the Inquisition was targeting those diviners who practice their art through the worship and invocation of plural nonChristian deities.

[skilly-nilly]

Some of the words you used (pythoness, for example) are Latin

This is an example of why any discussion is so frustrating----this is deliberate misreading!

In actual fact, it was the source I was referencing, http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007252.php, that used the word pythoness and the specific quote:
"In Anglo-Saxon glossaries, wicca renders Latin augur (c.1100), and wicce stands for "pythoness, divinatricem." "
says that the Anglo-Saxons (I am not one, myself) translated the Latin "pythoness, divinatricem" as wicca.






The point here is that the word wicca/wicce was indeed used to signify a member of the Pagan shamanic-style pre-Christian religious path - and that "wicca" and "witch" are the same word - so Gardner's usage is historically accurate, and it is also historically accurate to say the people Carla is documenting were Wiccan.

In fact, Carla started this thread by quoting the Malleus Maleficarum which was written in Latin in Germany. So the "people Carla is documenting" would have been hexen. Or whatever 'Witch' translates into in Latin.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_maleficarum

"The Malleus Maleficarum ("The Hammer of Witches", “Witch Hammer”, or the "Hexenhammer") is arguably the most important treatise on prosecuting witches to have come out of the witch hysteria of the Renaissance. It is a comprehensive witch-hunter’s handbook first published in Germany in 1487 that grew into dozens of editions spread throughout Europe and had a profound impact on witch trials on the Continent for about 200 years.
Malleus Maleficarum: Forgeries and Translations
The Malleus was originally prefaced by the papal bull Summis desiderantes issued by Pope Innocent VIII on December 5, 1484, the main papal document on witchcraft. It mentions James Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer by name (as Iacobus Sprenger and Henrici Institoris) and directs them to combat witchcraft in northern Germany."



If all that you're saying is "these Medieval people who were called "wiccan" are the spiritual ancestors of the people whom Gardner encountered" than that's reasonable.
But they are also the "spiritual ancestors" of many more non-Gardnerians and people who do not now call themselves Wiccans.

But if you mean to imply by the statement "So: contrary to common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion"), the religion of Witchcraft (or: Wicca) has been around for a very long time. This religion, historicaly, was not exactly what common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion") thinks it was. We are in the process of documenting the historical realities behind this religion." that only today's Wiccans are the spiritual descendants of "these Medieval people who were called "wiccan" " and that that is a direct historical link between the past and the modern groups than I disagree.


And no referencing of the European Witch-hunting craze will connect directly to a tiny group of people in rural England.

[Carla O'Harris]

This is getting ponderous, as most discussions on this largely unproductive forum are. *Sigh*

The main references are to the work of :

Giovanni d'Andrea
Eymeric
Pope Alexander IV
Zanghino.

So yes, in this specific instance, we are discussing Latin and Italian.

Alexander's term is "sortilegia haereticales", heretical prophet/soothsayer/fortune-teller.


Now, let's move to Bosworth and Toller, page 1213 :

http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/html/oe_bosworthtoller/b1213.html

where you can see under the entry "wicca",


Wytche, wyche magus, sortilegus, Prompt. Parv. 526.

The source is the Promptorium Parvulorum et Clericorum. See http://www.umilta.net/promptorium.html


the Promptorium Parvulorum et Clericorum, compiled in 1440 by a Dominican recluse, Galfridus Grammaticus, in Lynn, Norfolk

existing in


six manuscripts

It is the
the first English-Latin Dictionary.

(That doesn't mean it is the first time that Latin words were glossed for English ones, but it does make it a very significant source.)


To read this Dictionary is to enter into the medieval world of Norfolk.

Looks like we managed to connect to a group in rural England.

Please see also http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11694/11694-8.txt :


A momentous advance was made about 1440, when
Brother Galfridus Grammaticus--Geoffrey the Grammarian--a Dominican
friar of Lynn Episcopi in Norfolk, produced the English-Latin
vocabulary, to which he gave the name of _Promptuarium_ or
_Promptorium Parvulorum_, the Children's Store-room or Repository.The _Promptorium_, the name of which has now become a household word
to students of the history of English, is a vocabulary containing some
10,000 words--substantives, adjectives, and verbs--with their Latin
equivalents

In other words, a Dominican (consider the Dominican's direct relationship to the Inquisition) scholar equates sortilegia with witch. It is presented as a direct translation.

We are, in fact, dealing with the same phenomenon.

[Eran]

Let me recommend that I start a thread dealing with the relationship of the Old English word wicca/wicce and the modern English word witch. We can then devote a thread such as this one to its actual topic (the religion itself) and refer all discussions and arguments about witch vs wicca to that other thread. That way, discussions of evidence and history don't need to be derailed by semantic topics.

In fact, that other thread already exists. Please, let's continue the witch vs wicca discussion there -> stirring the wicca vs. witchcraft pot

I began this thread by demonstrating that the Inquisition was targeting those diviners who practice their art through the worship and invocation of plural nonChristian deities.
YES!!! That is what this thread is about.

[Eran]

If all that you're saying is "these Medieval people who were called "wiccan" are the spiritual ancestors of the people whom Gardner encountered" than that's reasonable.
But they are also the "spiritual ancestors" of many more non-Gardnerians and people who do not now call themselves Wiccans.
Thank you, yes, that is my point exactly! :lol: The religion was real, it did survive, it survives still today, and it is larger than Gardnerianism, and it is not true that Wicca = Gardnerianism. You are precisely correct!

But if you mean to imply by the statement "So: contrary to common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion"), the religion of Witchcraft (or: Wicca) has been around for a very long time. This religion, historicaly, was not exactly what common misperception (i.e., "majority opinion") thinks it was. We are in the process of documenting the historical realities behind this religion." that only today's Wiccans are the spiritual descendants of "these Medieval people who were called "wiccan" " and that that is a direct historical link between the past and the modern groups than I disagree.

Disagreement is reasonable. As I said, I also agree with you that not just "today's Wiccans" are descended from the Old Religion (if, by "today's Wiccans", you mean "Gardnerians").

In order to demonstrate a direct link to modern religion(s), the first two steps are 1) demonstrate that the ancient religion did in fact exist at all (a point on which were are in agreement!), and 2) demonstrate that modern Wicca (and perhaps other paths as well) are descended from it, spiritually at least (another point on which we agree!).

And no referencing of the European Witch-hunting craze will connect directly to a tiny group of people in rural England.
Perhaps not in and of itself. But there is far more data than just that. Let's continue.....

[skilly-nilly]

This is getting ponderous, as most discussions on this largely unproductive forum are. *Sigh*


Looks like we managed to connect to a group in rural England.


In other words, a Dominican (consider the Dominican's direct relationship to the Inquisition) scholar equates sortilegia with witch. It is presented as a direct translation.

We are, in fact, dealing with the same phenomenon.

I am sorry to so waste your time.

As you point out "the first English-Latin Dictionary, the Promptorium Parvulorum et Clericorum, compiled in 1440 by a Norfolk Dominican recluse, Galfridus Grammaticus"
was written in Norfolk (a county on the east coast of England) and glosses Pope Alexander IV's term sortilegia with "Wytche, wyche magus".

What connection does this have with a group of people in New Forest, Hampshire (a county on the south coast of England) some 500 years later?

Carla says "It is of direct relevance to Wicca. If there were pagan-religious witches in the Middle Ages, they constitute the pre-history of Wicca. In other words, that fact then proves that Wicca was either a revival of something that had once existed, or was a continuation."

Eran says that the words 'Wicca' and 'Witch' can be used interchangeably.

IMO, today's Wicca is not "the same phenomenon" or "the descendants of [Medieval] pagan-religious witches".

I think it is purposefully misleading to Humpty-Dumpty today's Witches into interchangeability with Wicca and I'm not going to argue about it any longer.

[Eran]

What connection does this have with a group of people in New Forest, Hampshire (a county on the south coast of England) some 500 years later?
It's a step in that direction. Carla has credibly connected Witches on the continent to Wiccans (500 years ago) in England. More work needs to be done, but we're definitely making progress.

Carla says "It is of direct relevance to Wicca. If there were pagan-religious witches in the Middle Ages, they constitute the pre-history of Wicca. In other words, that fact then proves that Wicca was either a revival of something that had once existed, or was a continuation."
Another step in the indicated direction. It has been demonstrated that Witches in the Middle Ages (some of them, at any rate) were a survival of Pagan pre-Chrisitan Shamanic-type religion. It has been demonstrated that (at least one) Old English word for them was "wiccan", and that the Medieval "wiccan" of England were seen as being related to the Pagan pre-Christian Shamanic-type religion on the Continent. This is a far cry from the "Gardner made it all up" stance that many hold.

Eran says that the words 'Wicca' and 'Witch' can be used interchangeably.
Not quite. I've said that, linguistically and historically, it's two forms of the same word, and that, until very recently, the words were often used interchangably. I have also acknowledged that many people today choose to differentiate between these two forms of the one word. For other aspects of the semantic debate, perhaps that should move to the "wicca vs witch" thread, and leave this thread to a discussion of "Religious Witches in the Middle Ages".

IMO, today's Wicca is not "the same phenomenon" or "the descendants of [Medieval] pagan-religious witches".
You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish. Carla is presenting interesting evidence to the contrary.

I think it is purposefully misleading to Humpty-Dumpty today's Witches into interchangeability with Wicca ...
This statement is also not an accurate depiction of Carla's argument. The point is more that historical Witches (at least some of them) were religious, and are the ancestors of some modern religious traditions. That is very different from saying that all of the people who choose to call themselves a "Witch" today are interchangeable with historical Wiccan -- that's a position that no one has advanced.

[Desert_Witch]

I would like to respectfuly ask that Carla and Eran be allowed to finish puting forth their teaching unmolested as I am interested in reading it in its uninterupted entirty. I would also like to invite those who disagree with their position to create ann alternate thread, that will also go uninterupted. Then each individual reader can determin for themselves where they stand. Fair enough?

BB

DW

[_Banbha_]

I would like to respectfuly ask that Carla and Eran be allowed to finish puting forth their teaching unmolested as I am interested in reading it in its uninterupted entirty. I would also like to invite those who disagree with their position to create ann alternate thread, that will also go uninterupted. Then each individual reader can determin for themselves where they stand. Fair enough?

BB

DW

No! What are you even talking about fairness? Fairness to whom? Buy their books when they are published and you can enjoy them in peace.

Caveat emptor! :D

I'm enjoying lurking on this discussion and see value and truth on the other side of the arguement.

[Ben Gruagach]

I would like to respectfuly ask that Carla and Eran be allowed to finish puting forth their teaching unmolested as I am interested in reading it in its uninterupted entirty. I would also like to invite those who disagree with their position to create ann alternate thread, that will also go uninterupted. Then each individual reader can determin for themselves where they stand. Fair enough?

BB

DW

I agree with WyldeDryad.

Sorry, but that is not how forums work. People who want a space to present their viewpoint uninterrupted can:
- get their work published
- make their own website where they present the info whatever way they want
- give lectures (and announce that they will not take questions from the audience)
- present their material in other ways such as through their own radio shows or podcasts, through their own video productions, etc. where they have control over how the info is presented.

Forums on the other hand are specifically designed for alternate viewpoints and discussion. That's why we are able to post replies.

[Toby Stimpson]

FORUM GUIDE MODE

I have been watching this thread and I agree that this is as little about Wicca as it is about Witch History, thread moved to History...

[Elderbush]

Doesn't Eran have his own web site where he presents his ideas and opinions as yet unpublished without interruption or contradiction? I'm sure he will be happy to give you his address. Those who do like the give and take of dialog and differing interpretations can continue here. That way everyone will be happy.

[Phoenix Blue]

I would like to respectfuly ask that Carla and Eran be allowed to finish puting forth their teaching unmolested as I am interested in reading it in its uninterupted entirty. I would also like to invite those who disagree with their position to create ann alternate thread, that will also go uninterupted. Then each individual reader can determin for themselves where they stand. Fair enough?

BB

DW
You don't really get to make that call, DW. When you start a thread, you invite conversation, and you don't get to dictate the direction that conversation takes as long as it stays within the rules.

[Carla O'Harris]

FORUM GUIDE MODE

I have been watching this thread and I agree that this is as little about Wicca as it is about Witch History, thread moved to History...


Ok, whatever, but it baffles me how a thread which is clearly about the history of witches is not about "witch history"...

[David19]

It's a step in that direction. Carla has credibly connected Witches on the continent to Wiccans (500 years ago) in England. More work needs to be done, but we're definitely making progress.

Another step in the indicated direction. It has been demonstrated that Witches in the Middle Ages (some of them, at any rate) were a survival of Pagan pre-Chrisitan Shamanic-type religion. It has been demonstrated that (at least one) Old English word for them was "wiccan", and that the Medieval "wiccan" of England were seen as being related to the Pagan pre-Christian Shamanic-type religion on the Continent. This is a far cry from the "Gardner made it all up" stance that many hold.

I am interested in what you and Carla have to say about this as I find it interesting, but weren't there many religions on the continent of Europe (like in Northern Europe, wasn't it mainly either Norse or Celtic?), I think you and Carla have said Wicca (either the modern or the medevial version) were related to Vanatru, so would it be more connected with the religion of the Norse than the Celts? (I hope that made some sense, BTW).

[Carla O'Harris]

I am interested in what you and Carla have to say about this as I find it interesting, but weren't there many religions on the continent of Europe (like in Northern Europe, wasn't it mainly either Norse or Celtic?), I think you and Carla have said Wicca (either the modern or the medevial version) were related to Vanatru, so would it be more connected with the religion of the Norse than the Celts? (I hope that made some sense, BTW).

Hi David,

This is actually a very intelligent question, but I think you need to understand a couple things, first of all, how wyrd works, and that is through weaving. The mind works through separating, and ontologically, each being creates itself as an in part bounded being with species-specific interactions with the environment, but Wyrd itself does not observe those boundaries, and mixes and matches at will. It is relevant that when Anglo-Saxons were trying to translate "historian", they eked out their best by saying "wyrdwritere", a writer of wyrd. Of course, "historian" doesn't come anywhere close to encompassing the depth of wyrd, but it does underline that amongst other things, Wyrd is a historical process. Wyrd will take things the mind considers separate, and weave them together. So this is the philosophical point. Time moves and changes, things shift and turn, and the wise pay attention to this and adapt themselves. Christians call it "dispensations", but Wyrd has its own dispensations that it is especially the job of the wicca (the diviners) to observe, and these twists and turns may move beyond boundaries that have had their time, and these may include national/ethnic boundaries. Remember that part of being a cunning figure has always been about transcending one's culture (at the same time that one enriches it and the community it is a part of by incorporating learning that has come from the Outside).

The second model that will help fund your understanding in this regard -- and it will not provide a one-to-one correspondence, but it can still be largely useful -- will be to look at the African experience in Latin America, where tribes had to combine knowledge across many different tribal cultures in order to preserve the best of the cores of all of them. Creative adaptation was called for. It is, of course, different in Europe, because Europeans were not massively transported off their continent involuntarily, but there was a situation where there was a "cultural revolution" (perhaps more in the Maoist impositional sense than from within) based on missionary outsiders that itself paid little attention to the national boundaries. Suddenly those who clung to the old ways were outsiders in their own culture despite which of the many different nested cultures in Europe they belonged to. Under these kinds of circumstances, those who are outsiders often tend to share information. We can be fairly certain this happened at the late date of the formation of the Kabbalah in the 1100's and 1200's, the rise of the Cathars, and the further developments of the witch-cult ; undoubtedly, this kind of cross-pollinization happened a lot earlier. Shamans are often interested in what shamans in other cultures are doing. There is an old Anglo-Saxon poem that says something to the effect of "Sages will confer with sages", in a context that suggests that while the mass of people may stay within their political-cultural boundaries, wise people range further. There is precedent for this in the Germanic mythos : Odin, the wise man par excellence, is also "Way-Tamer", the widely travelled wanderer going everywhere for wisdom. There can be a place where you are doing this "for your people" and even using your people's traditional techniques and maps (while developing them further), and yet where you are also "beyond your people". After all, the elves, whatever one's particular culture calls them, do not belong to any one human culture ; they have their own culture(s), and as we have explored, many of the wise people had dealings with them. If they could deal with a whole other nation/species/entity on an everyday level, certainly they had the flexibility to move beyond other boundaries as well.

[Faol-chù]

Hi David,

This is actually a very intelligent question, but I think you need to understand a couple things, first of all, how wyrd works, and that is through weaving. The mind works through separating, and ontologically, each being creates itself as an in part bounded being with species-specific interactions with the environment, but Wyrd itself does not observe those boundaries, and mixes and matches at will. It is relevant that when Anglo-Saxons were trying to translate "historian", they eked out their best by saying "wyrdwritere", a writer of wyrd. Of course, "historian" doesn't come anywhere close to encompassing the depth of wyrd, but it does underline that amongst other things, Wyrd is a historical process. Wyrd will take things the mind considers separate, and weave them together. So this is the philosophical point. Time moves and changes, things shift and turn, and the wise pay attention to this and adapt themselves. Christians call it "dispensations", but Wyrd has its own dispensations that it is especially the job of the wicca (the diviners) to observe, and these twists and turns may move beyond boundaries that have had their time, and these may include national/ethnic boundaries. Remember that part of being a cunning figure has always been about transcending one's culture (at the same time that one enriches it and the community it is a part of by incorporating learning that has come from the Outside).


So, what you're trying to do here is weave the Celts and the the Germanic groups together into one big lump and call it "Wicca"?

I'm glad to see you finally admit it!

The problem is that, for all your talk about "oral tradition", you are completely IGNORING the oral traditions of the Celts...

In their tellings of their own history, they make it clear that they see themselves as a separate entity from the Germanic groups...

And for that matter, from what I've seen of the Germanic groups, they considered themselves to be unique, as well....and regarded their own traditions.

Again, this reeks to me of imperialism.

[raven grimassi]

In their tellings of their own history, they make it clear that they see themselves as a separate entity from the Germanic groups...

And for that matter, from what I've seen of the Germanic groups, they considered themselves to be unique, as well....and regarded their own traditions.

But ironically there are more similarities between such groups than there are unique differences. It is the commonalities that strongly suggest that we are looking at compelling evidence connected to the theme of this thread.

I have come late to this discussion but I have a couple of things to add for consideration. Bernardino of Siena reported that everywhere he travelled in Italy he came upon "seers, sorcerers, diviners, and witches" - the importance of this statement is that he is pointing to a difference between these groups, and so Witches are not simply people who perform magic, have visions, or foretell the future. So, what is left with which to differentiate?

Scholar Franco Mormando notes (Preacher's Demons, page 66) that the Witches' Sabbat "has its roots in pagan mythology, specifically in the un-Christian but non-diabolical Society of Diana". This seems to strongly suggest not only a survival of Witchcraft into Christian times, but also one that maintained a religious focus, evidenced in its veneration of Diana.

Mormando mentions that Witches work with natural forces inherent in the material world (page 53). If I recall correctly someone on this thread stated that the nature connection is modern. This passage suggests otherwise.

[Carla O'Harris]

So, what you're trying to do here is weave the Celts and the the Germanic groups together into one big lump and call it "Wicca"?

No, I'm suggesting that under persecution and difficult historical situations, people may make alliances and connections they might not have under others. (Let's consider that there are several archeologists of repute these days who dispute that there ever was any significant differentiation of Celts and Germans at all, based on the archaeological evidence. Personally, I think that goes too far, but it does act to temper our attempts to draw too strict dividing lines on nationalistic bases. It's also important to point out that through the Roman Empire, which precedes the period of time we are discussing, all kinds of tribes were brought into dynamic interaction in a way they may not have interacted before, and then after that, the Germanic Migrations ensured that Teutonic and Celtic elements were put into juxtaposition as well. When we also take into account that trade-routes have moved up and down the whole of Europe since Neolithic times, and that trade-routes never carry just material goods, but also pass cultural ideas as well, then our strict separations fall apart there too. That is not to say that there are no differentiations to be made, but the strict boundary lines can only be justified in periods of paranoia and hostility --- and even then, some people will cross anyway. (Not to mention that the hagazussa sits on the fence in any case.) We might consider that what some people consider to be an exclusively "Celtic" form of knot art is also found amongst the Germanic/Scandinavian tribes, and even the Gundestrup Cauldron, considered to be "Celtic", was found in Denmark, which is classical Teutonic territory!)



The problem is that, for all your talk about "oral tradition", you are completely IGNORING the oral traditions of the Celts...In their tellings of their own history, they make it clear that they see themselves as a separate entity from the Germanic groups...

Are you referring to modern oral traditions, or the ones that managed to make it into the records? If we're discussing ones that made it into the records, then there were voices that did not make it into the records. Also, many "Celts" didn't have a choice about getting absorbed into a Germanic culture, and undoubtedly brought their cultural ideas into creative interaction with their new spouses and children.



Again, this reeks to me of imperialism.

Only if cultural nationalism is the only alternative to imperialism. Fortunately, it is not. Creative ideas have always interacted across boundaries. Stereotypes about what constitutes a "culture" only give us broad understandings of general tendencies. They cannot describe to us what is happening at the individual level, and that is where creativity ferments.

[Carla O'Harris]

But ironically there are more similarities between such groups than there are unique differences. It is the commonalities that strongly suggest that we are looking at compelling evidence connected to the theme of this thread.

Hi Raven! Good to see you!!! I agree. I think we have a choice to focus on similarities or differences, and I think we can equally choose to look at what connects than what separates. In fact, the ability to see the pattern in the cases we are considering is often dependent upon the will to see connection, because the separative impulse fragments the pattern. (And in some cases, I think that fragmentation is part of the agenda behind the will.)


I have come late to this discussion but I have a couple of things to add for consideration.

You always have positive things to add to any discussion!!!



Bernardino of Siena reported that everywhere he travelled in Italy he came upon "seers, sorcerers, diviners, and witches" - the importance of this statement is that he is pointing to a difference between these groups, and so Witches are not simply people who perform magic, have visions, or foretell the future. So, what is left with which to differentiate?

Well, I think that the notes the Inquisition has left us precisely point to this differentiation, which is the presence of pagan worship amongst some of these magic seers and diviners. Obviously the Inquisition was annoyed by anyone who practiced this kind of thing, but considering that in some of the Romance countries they actually licensed Catholic practitioners, so they could regulate and police them, it wasn't their existence as such which was problematical. It was The Competition. It was a general Catholic practice to co-opt their competition by licensing a watered-down version : the Franciscans were meant to co-opt the Waldensians and Cathars. The existence of the official version is actually evidence of the competition's existence.


Scholar Franco Mormando notes (Preacher's Demons, page 66) that the Witches' Sabbat "has its roots in pagan mythology, specifically in the un-Christian but non-diabolical Society of Diana". This seems to strongly suggest not only a survival of Witchcraft into Christian times, but also one that maintained a religious focus, evidenced in its veneration of Diana.

Carlo Ginzburg has as much as proved this. Even if one disputes whether the goddess worshiped was named "Diana" (and there is no a priori reason to believe that it could not have been) or was simply a convenient label (possibly from Roman Imperial times) for a local goddess with the same characteristics, we're still dealing with a pagan, nonChristian goddess who shares similar traits across Europe.

At this point, the evidence is so glaring that it is really only people's will to disbelieve that keeps them from seeing what is before our eyes.

[Faol-chù]

But ironically there are more similarities between such groups than there are unique differences. It is the commonalities that strongly suggest that we are looking at compelling evidence connected to the theme of this thread.

I do not dispute that there are similarities between Germanic and Celtic groups...

And I think that studying each of them in their own right, and comparing them and contrasting them--AS THEY STAND--can be a useful exercise.

What I dispute is that EITHER of them look significantly like 'Wicca'.

Also, the word 'witch' is BORROWED into Celtic culture ENTIRELY, and being called a 'buidseach' was (is) most definitely an INSULT.

Equating EITHER of these traditions with "wicca" or "witchcraft", in my opinion, only serves to confuse the issue....
And is disrespectful to both sets of extant traditions...

There is a lot there to be gleaned if one will cease and desist on trying to automatically lump them together...

[Faol-chù]

Are you referring to modern oral traditions, or the ones that managed to make it into the records?

I'm referring to modern oral traditions...as well as the ones that managed to make it into the records..



If we're discussing ones that made it into the records, then there were voices that did not make it into the records. Also, many "Celts" didn't have a choice about getting absorbed into a Germanic culture, and undoubtedly brought their cultural ideas into creative interaction with their new spouses and children.

Yes, you are right...many Celts did not have a choice about getting absorbed into a Germanic culture, and, I'm sure the opposite occured, as well.

The problem here is that those who see them as a big 'lump' are, as well, working to take away peoples' voices about WHO THEY ARE AND SEE THEMSELVES TO BE. You are also obscuring the beauty and value in each separate tradition by attempts to 'weave' these things together in the minds of people who are not intimately familiar with EITHER of the traditions.

This process also obscures, in the mind of the monoglot, the important worldview differences that can be observed in people JUST BECAUSE THEY SPEAK A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

There IS an extant oral tradition. One very negative way this process influences that tradition is that it obscures the necessity of learning the language in which a tradition is passed--to the point where young people, who might otherwise have learned it, no longer find it necessary.

If people don't learn the language, it dies...along with its oral tradition, and the many, many things that have never been 'recorded'.
In other words, the very thing you supposedly value (oral tradition) is being killed by obcuring the importance of the language in which it is passed.

[Faol-chù]

BTW...

Historically speaking, the Germanic-speaking groups were a relatively late arrival in Europe (relative even to the Celts)...

Why the insistence upon defining this supposedly singular tradition in a Germanic word..."Wicca", when it did not even exist in that area when this 'singular' tradition supposedly started being practiced?

[Ben Gruagach]

Bernardino of Siena reported that everywhere he travelled in Italy he came upon "seers, sorcerers, diviners, and witches" - the importance of this statement is that he is pointing to a difference between these groups, and so Witches are not simply people who perform magic, have visions, or foretell the future. So, what is left with which to differentiate?

Does Bernardino of Siena actually state that he sees "seers, sorcerers, diviners, and witches" as being quite distinct and individual categories? It's not uncommon for writers to use what they consider to be synonyms when describing what they actually consider to be a single thing or group. For instance, I could say the local elementary school is filled with rugrats, tykes, brats, angels, and kids -- yet despite the various terms I'm really just talking about one thing: children.

To argue that Bernardino of Siena saw a distinction between "seers, sorcerers, diviners, and witches" we need more than just the quote you've provided. Something that is clear that a distinction was meant and that they are not just synonyms is required.


Scholar Franco Mormando notes (Preacher's Demons, page 66) that the Witches' Sabbat "has its roots in pagan mythology, specifically in the un-Christian but non-diabolical Society of Diana". This seems to strongly suggest not only a survival of Witchcraft into Christian times, but also one that maintained a religious focus, evidenced in its veneration of Diana.

I've added a bold emphasis to part of the quote that I think is important to notice. I could see interpreting this quote quite readily to mean not that all Witches (even all religious Witches, completely ignoring non-religious Witches) are defacto Diana devotees, but that one specific thing commonly attributed to Witches, the Sabbat, is descended or inspired or connected (remotely or directly -- we don't know) to the Diana cult in one form or another.

Modern Wicca has a lot of very clear roots in Christian material (the easy to spot ceremonial magick stuff, Hermetic Kabbalah material, Golden Dawn, and Dion Fortune's work just to mention a few.) Philip Heselton has documented in "Wiccans Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" a lot of Gerald Gardner's Christian involvement and inspiration for those who are interested. Yet we don't see people claiming that Wicca is therefore a survival of the Christian religion. Being drawn or inspired or even descended from something does not make it a continuation without a lot more really compelling proof.


Mormando mentions that Witches work with natural forces inherent in the material world (page 53). If I recall correctly someone on this thread stated that the nature connection is modern. This passage suggests otherwise.

I don't think it's an accurate statement either that the connection between Witches and nature is a modern one. However, I do suspect that the nature-reverence emphasis is relatively modern. Pre-Gardnerian Witches were just as likely to be urban as rural and didn't necessarily make worship or even respect for nature a part of their systems. But of course they had a connection to nature -- we all live in the physical realm which is by definition part of nature so it's not really like any of us can work outside of nature even if we wanted to.

If we are to accept Margaret Murray's work as even somewhat accurate in its depiction of pre-Gardnerian Witches it's rather peculiar that she didn't put much (or any?) emphasis on the nature-reverence aspect. I'm not sure if I can think of any pre-Gardnerian texts on witchcraft that identify Witches as nature-revering.

[raven grimassi]

Does Bernardino of Siena actually state that he sees "seers, sorcerers, diviners, and witches" as being quite distinct and individual categories? It's not uncommon for writers to use what they consider to be synonyms when describing what they actually consider to be a single thing or group. For instance, I could say the local elementary school is filled with rugrats, tykes, brats, angels, and kids -- yet despite the various terms I'm really just talking about one thing: children.

That is a reasonable objection. Bernardino does not speak much about sorcerers as his writings are primarily about Witches. We do find the usual accusations that Witches worship the devil (a religious reference). But it is relatively easy to sort things out by looking at what we know from various writings about Witchcraft in Italy (not only during Bernardino's time but in other periods as well).

Scholar David Gentilore (From Bishop to Witch) states that "witchcraft is not synonymous with sorcery" (page 238). One of the differences is that Witchcraft is tied in with the Sabbat, which itself is religious in nature. In several chapters Gentilcore does an excellent job in sorting out the differences between cunning folk, sorcerers and Witches. So it is clear that differences were perceived by the people who lived in this era.


Being drawn or inspired or even descended from something does not make it a continuation without a lot more really compelling proof.

That is true, but in the case of Witchcraft (or at least Italian Witchcraft) there is an unbroken chain of references (in literature and historical documentation) that continues on from the earliest writings into modern times. It begins with the literary tradition of Witches such as Medea and Canidia who call upon Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone), work lunar magic, call upon the forces of nature, and work with spirits of the dead. None of these aspects ever go away nor are absent as the centuries pass; the Church simply changes them into the Devil posing as a goddess.

The persistence is, to me, compelling evidence of survival. For example consider the following:

1006: 19th book of the Decretum (entitled Corrector) associated the worship of Diana with the common Pagan folk.

1280: Diocesan Council of Conserans associates the “Witch Cult” with the worship of a Pagan Goddess.

1310: Council of Trier associated witches with the Goddess Diana (and Herodias).

1313: Giovanni de Matociis wrote in his Historiae Imperiales that many lay people believed in a nocturnal society headed by a queen they call Diana.

1390: A woman tried by the Milanese Inquisition for belonging to the “Society of Diana” confessed to worshipping the “Goddess of Night” and stated that “Diana” bestowed blessings upon her.

1457: Three women tried in Bressanone confessed that they belonged to the “Society of Diana” (as recorded by Nicholas of Cusa).

1519: Girolamo Folengo (Italian poet) associated a “Mistress” known as Gulfora with witches who gathered to worship at Her Court, in his Maccaronea.

1526: Judge Paulus Grillandus wrote of witches in the town of Benevento who worshiped a goddess at the site of an old walnut tree.

1576: Bartolo Spina wrote in his Quaestrico de Strigibus, listing information gathered from confessions, that “witches” gathered at night to worship “Diana,” and had dealings with night spirits.

1647: Peter Pipernus wrote, in his De Nuce Maga Beneventana and De Effectibus Magicis, of a woman named Violanta, who confessed to worshipping Diana at the site of an old walnut tree in the town of Benevento.

1749: Girlamo Tartarotti associated the Witch Cult with the ancient cult of Diana, in his book Del Congresso Nottorno Delle Lammie. In his A Study of the Midnight Sabbats of Witches he wrote: “The identity of the Dianic Cult with modern witchcraft is demonstrated and proven.”

1890: Author Charles Leland associated the Witch Cult with the goddess Diana, as a survival of the ancient ways, in his books: Etruscan Magic & Occult Remedies, Legends of Florence, and Aradia; Gospel of the Witches.


If we are to accept Margaret Murray's work as even somewhat accurate in its depiction of pre-Gardnerian Witches it's rather peculiar that she didn't put much (or any?) emphasis on the nature-reverence aspect. I'm not sure if I can think of any pre-Gardnerian texts on witchcraft that identify Witches as nature-revering.

I would not argue about "nature worship" by ancient Witches as I do not think that they thought about it in the same way many modern Witches do. From the many old references it appears that they called upon the forces of nature, which implies a rapport or alignment with nature as well as a belief in nature as a source of energy. This strongly suggests that Witches held nature in high regard, and if it was not venerated by them it almost certainly was revered.

As to Murray, I think she saw Witchcraft as the remnants of an ancient fertility religion. This is something more complex than simple nature worship.

[*Rasenna*]

Scholar David Gentilore (From Bishop to Witch) states that "witchcraft is not synonymous with sorcery" (page 238). One of the differences is that Witchcraft is tied in with the Sabbat, which itself is religious in nature. In several chapters Gentilcore does an excellent job in sorting out the differences between cunning folk, sorcerers and Witches. So it is clear that differences were perceived by the people who lived in this era.

Yep, and here's something of related interest if we're talking survival themes:


“Professor K. Pearson, in his most suggestive chapters on woman in his Ethic of Free-thought, puts the indictment in a more interesting light. The witches were largely, he thinks, the successors of the “wise women” (the name was given to them, it will be remembered) who were held in such honour among the Germanic peoples before their conversion. Christianity had no further use for them. It brushed them disdainfully aside, and represented their communications with the pagan gods as a social evil. Thus, by the simple process of giving the name of the devils to the gods of the older religion, it turned priestesses into witches, doctors into maleficent hags, and a disposition that had been respected as almost more than human into a less than human viciousness and ugliness” - page 75, The Religion of Woman: an historical study, by Joseph McCabe (University of Stanford Press, 1905)

[David19]

Hi David,

This is actually a very intelligent question, but I think you need to understand a couple things, first of all, how wyrd works, and that is through weaving. The mind works through separating, and ontologically, each being creates itself as an in part bounded being with species-specific interactions with the environment, but Wyrd itself does not observe those boundaries, and mixes and matches at will. It is relevant that when Anglo-Saxons were trying to translate "historian", they eked out their best by saying "wyrdwritere", a writer of wyrd. Of course, "historian" doesn't come anywhere close to encompassing the depth of wyrd, but it does underline that amongst other things, Wyrd is a historical process. Wyrd will take things the mind considers separate, and weave them together. So this is the philosophical point. Time moves and changes, things shift and turn, and the wise pay attention to this and adapt themselves. Christians call it "dispensations", but Wyrd has its own dispensations that it is especially the job of the wicca (the diviners) to observe, and these twists and turns may move beyond boundaries that have had their time, and these may include national/ethnic boundaries. Remember that part of being a cunning figure has always been about transcending one's culture (at the same time that one enriches it and the community it is a part of by incorporating learning that has come from the Outside).

The second model that will help fund your understanding in this regard -- and it will not provide a one-to-one correspondence, but it can still be largely useful -- will be to look at the African experience in Latin America, where tribes had to combine knowledge across many different tribal cultures in order to preserve the best of the cores of all of them. Creative adaptation was called for. It is, of course, different in Europe, because Europeans were not massively transported off their continent involuntarily, but there was a situation where there was a "cultural revolution" (perhaps more in the Maoist impositional sense than from within) based on missionary outsiders that itself paid little attention to the national boundaries. Suddenly those who clung to the old ways were outsiders in their own culture despite which of the many different nested cultures in Europe they belonged to. Under these kinds of circumstances, those who are outsiders often tend to share information. We can be fairly certain this happened at the late date of the formation of the Kabbalah in the 1100's and 1200's, the rise of the Cathars, and the further developments of the witch-cult ; undoubtedly, this kind of cross-pollinization happened a lot earlier. Shamans are often interested in what shamans in other cultures are doing. There is an old Anglo-Saxon poem that says something to the effect of "Sages will confer with sages", in a context that suggests that while the mass of people may stay within their political-cultural boundaries, wise people range further. There is precedent for this in the Germanic mythos : Odin, the wise man par excellence, is also "Way-Tamer", the widely travelled wanderer going everywhere for wisdom. There can be a place where you are doing this "for your people" and even using your people's traditional techniques and maps (while developing them further), and yet where you are also "beyond your people". After all, the elves, whatever one's particular culture calls them, do not belong to any one human culture ; they have their own culture(s), and as we have explored, many of the wise people had dealings with them. If they could deal with a whole other nation/species/entity on an everyday level, certainly they had the flexibility to move beyond other boundaries as well.

Thanks for the explanation, so if I'm understanding right, shamanic-practicioners of the Germanic peoples (not German, as Germany only came into existence in the 19th century under Bismarck), the Wica, would swap ideas with the shamanic practicioners of the Celts (like the Celts and Norse would still be seperate entities, but maybe using each others techniques, maps of the spiritual/supernatural realms, etc?).

I'm not sure if that's a right interpretation of what you were saying, so please correct me if i'm wrong.

Also, this is off topic, but I'm curious about Wyrd actually is (but I'll start another thread in the Recon forum, so the thread doesn't get derailed :)).

[ffetcher]

I've come to this thread late, and spent a lot of time sorting out the arguments about terminology from the arguments about the content of the Malleus and the Canon. I may have missed something, so please bear with me. I fully concur with Carla and Eran's hypothesis that cross-over between Germanic and Celtic (for example) witchcraft is extremely likely - it was certainly happening in other areas such as Christian mystic writing and it would seem odd were it not to have happened here.

But as to specific linkage with England...

On Feb 21, Carla quoted the Promptorium Parvulorum et Clericorum as a very important source for a definition of wicca, quite correctly pointing out that said definition, by a Dominican writing in 1440 includes sortilege.

She further correctly quoted a scholarly review of the book to the effect that:


To read this Dictionary is to enter into the medieval world of Norfolk.adding:


Looks like we managed to connect to a group in rural England.
Then, in response to skilly-nilly, Eran said...


Carla has credibly connected Witches on the continent to Wiccans (500 years ago) in England.I suggest that what she's done is suggest the possibility of such a connection, and that if such a connection existed the English witches would have been pagan diviners, amongst other things, but that ain't quite the same thing. The author of the dictionary could credibly have derived the definitions of all the wicca/e related entries from the Canon Episcopi itself (of which there are several different copies earlier than the Malleus), and be wanting therefore to denounce the belief in witchcraft.

I think that the most that can be said with certainty from this evidence alone is that a belief in witchcraft existed within certain social strata in England in 1440.

However, returning to the Canon itself, it's interesting to note that by the time of the Malleus Holda has been added to the list of deities. Or at least, I find it interesting, because of a conversation I had a couple of years ago in the Tirol. I was discussing the adoption of 'pagan' practices by the Catholic church, certainly still going on in the remoter areas of the Tirol in 1700. The church did this because it needed its tithes and people just didn't go unless they could have 'their' festivals. In fact, one time when a priest from Salzburg was appointed to a remote village and stopped it all, the congregation converted to protestantism overnight and takings plummeted. The priest was withdrawn and replaced by a local; the status quo was restored.

Now, for the church to be 'adopting' pagan practices there must have been some to adopt. And as an aside, the word in the area used to describe these 'pagan' beliefs' translates into English as 'Celtic'.

blessings
ffetcher

[Lolair]

The Orkneys and the rest of Northern Scotland are a good example for the combining of Celtic and Germanic beliefs and folk-magic. The Scots are well known for incorporating other cultures' practices and words into their own. Scots patois is a mish-mash of many dialects, they are magpies of language! So why not of folk-beliefs as well?

Along these subject lines I recommend Jeffrey Burton Russell's Witchcraft in the Middle Ages as it covers the topics discussed in this thread much more in depth, and with much more research (it has an incredible bibliography!):


The foundations of medieval witchcraft consist of cthonic religion, folk traditions, and low magic, all three derived from the source cultures of Western civilization: the ancient Near East, especially Judaism, the Greco-Romans, the early Christians, and the Celts and Teutons. This oldest substratum of witchcraft was then progressively transformed by acculturation.

Christianity, acting as the great agent of synthesis that brought Judeao-Christian, Greco-Roman, and Celtic-Teutonic cultures together and reshaped them into a new society, itself shared the magical conceptions of the time in which it arose, in spite of the fact that it deliberately rejected magic in time became its chief enemy. The New Testament itself contains magical traces - for example, the exorcism of evil spirits - but it is in those apocryphal writings most influenced by gnosticism that magic is most evident... Russell (p.45)Religion and magic would have been quite complex in the Middle Ages, not as cut and dried as either pagan or Christian, but influences of many cultures mixed together - beliefs precariously coexisting until it all toppled when it was decided what was heresy and what wasn't...

[MacMorrighan]

It's much more likely that this sort of thing was a combination of politico-religious propaganda, fear, lies, and misunderstandings about the practises of Jews and other non-Protestants (and Protestants nobody liked). Certainly NOT witches as we understand the word, and only Pagans in the sense that they weren't Christians (or weren't a specific type of Christian).

This is now rather debatible it would seem, M.; and certainly untenible, considering the consensus of European scholars of medieval studies. It appears, now, that medieval Witchcraft belief contained a rather large grain of endemic shamanism that cannot be ignored, and must be acknowledged. :cheers:

Take care,
Wade MacMorrighan

[MacMorrighan]

This is completely irrelevant, and carries a heavily literate-supremacist bias with it. Oral cultures are capable of transmitting vast amounts of information over long periods of time relatively "intact" --- sometimes "intact" in a very rigorous sense, if the tradition doesn't change, and "intact" in a traditional sense if the tradition morphs and shifts. In any case, the material stays relevant to the zeitgeist within that specific tradition.

I gotta' agree with this, Carla (even though many brain-washed scholars refuse to accepot it, showing their biases). Garrett Olmsted is coming out, now, proving that (due to Indo-European studies) written literature can oftentimes drift further than oral traditions from the foundations of the onset of that tradition. This is called orature. This is the latest research, however, many modern scholars (particular British) refuse to acknowledge it due to the training that is their bias.


...nor does being branded a witch in the middle ages as most accusations were false and it was very based on associations with the Christian Devil and demonology - which could be seen as anti-christianity rather than proof of Paganism.

It also bears remembering that we have numerous accounts of individuals that were not "accused" of Witchcraft, but willingly confessed very early on, before the Inquisition was in full swing! And, these accounts simply cannot be so glibbly dismissed as Norman Cohn has done, accusing the women of being sinile just because this evidence counters his oedantic argument. The fact remains, many people freely confessed, entirely uncoerced, of attending a Sabbat meeting after nocturnal transvections of some kind.

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

[Ben Gruagach]

Human nature being what it is, though, there are always people who are willing to come forward and freely admit to doing the most amazing things not because their claims are true but because they enjoy the notoriety.

The whole Jerry Springer brand of television show depends on it!

This makes it problematic accepting even uncoerced testimony at face value. Certainly, some uncoerced testimony is likely true, but we must be careful to not go too far and become gullible any more than we should go too far the other way and assume everything is a lie.

[ffetcher]

The Orkneys and the rest of Northern Scotland are a good example for the combining of Celtic and Germanic beliefs and folk-magic. The Scots are well known for incorporating other cultures' practices and words into their own. Scots patois is a mish-mash of many dialects, they are magpies of language! So why not of folk-beliefs as well?

I sold out and came south many more years ago than I care to remember, but yes the Western Isles in general are a good cross-over point, simply because of the way the trade-routes went. I started to talk about 'the sight' in the lowlands here but for clarity I'll post that separately.


Along these subject lines I recommend Jeffrey Burton Russell's Witchcraft in the Middle Ages as it covers the topics discussed in this thread much more in depth, and with much more research (it has an incredible bibliography!):

It's worth it for the bibliography alone, but yes, a good read.


Religion and magic would have been quite complex in the Middle Ages, not as cut and dried as either pagan or Christian, but influences of many cultures mixed together - beliefs precariously coexisting until it all toppled when it was decided what was heresy and what wasn't...

It clearly wasn't cut and dried in many places much later than that, Scotland and the Tirol being two that have already come up in this thread. And there are cases (for example the Begijns) of a belief being declared sort of heretic and then later being received back into Christianity.

Another useful book here is Keith Thomas's "Religion and the Decline of Magic". As far as I know it's out-of-print and quite expensive if you go through one of the book search people, but there were an enormous number of the second p/b print run (most mediaeval history undergrad courses in the UK had it as a set book) so it often turns up in dealers who've taken a job lot and mark it accordingly.

The writing style is a little dated and because it's a rigorous academic textbook it takes no prisoners, but there's a wealth of well-researched material.

blessings
ffetcher

[ffetcher]

I was busily agreeing with Lolair about the Western Isles as a fertile crossing point for folklore and such, then started talking about 'the sight' and then decided that a separate post was in order.

You don't need to go that as north as the Isles for folk-magic cross-over (as opposed to specifically pagan witchcraft as described at the start of this thread, though). The lowland area of Scotland also has its own patois, with verbs and nouns not found in either adjoining linguistic group, a large chunk of it having been disputed territory for centuries.

'The sight' is a well-attested phenomenon, and taking the material from a folklore perspective, there's a good deal of support for the model Carla draws from the Canon Episcopi section of the Malleus. Up until the mid 1400s at least, 'the sight' within a Christian context was a 'good thing', in much the same way that Hildegard of Bingen had her visions validated by the pope.

Later, there's good (by folklore standards) evidence for a belief in 'the sight' until at least the late 1700s, with a few instances thereafter and some cases where the seer is named and that person can be shown to have existed. This persistence is despite that fact that the Bargarran trial of 1697 caused an upheaval in Scottish opinion and eventually law such that when the laws were finally repealed it was officially laughable to credit the existence of witchcraft (I think that by about 1740 the accused could successfully counter-claim for libel but I'll need to check that).

However, there are a few caveats here. Firstly, I'm unaware of any direct evidence that the named people actually were seers, secondly I'm unaware of any evidence outside the witch-craze period of group workings (the coven appears to be a concept introduced by the witch-hunters) and thirdly, just because some evil seers were referred to as 'witches', doesn't necessarily mean they fit Carla's model, because 'witch' in Lallans (the local patois) is a general pejorative.

Those caveats aside, the folklore element most certainly fits the model of the Canon Episcopi, for individuals. 'The sight' chooses you, you don't choose it - and it's often a curse or a very heavy burden. What you choose to do with it is what counts - use it with a Christian context and it's good. Use it outside that context and it's evil, and some evil practitioners were called 'witches'.

Rather further off-topic, anyone who gets inside the community today will encounter modern stories of 'the sight', though sadly at the remove of 'Urban Myth'. I know several people who know someone who consulted a seer, with good, bad or sometimes hilarious results. But sadly we then hit the usual problems. The seer never seems to be named (whereas it's usually easy enough to find a name for the local drug-dealer). The person involved is usually vaguely 'someone from my seminar group' or 'an old lady at the Church'. and where they do have a name, they're usually for some reason un-contactable: 'Autie Ethel, God rest her soul', 'Old John from down the pub, who moved into a home last year', or 'my sister Jean, the one who went to Australia' are three good models.

But giving credence to a belief in the existence of 'the Sight' is still, if not common, then not rare either. And many families have stories of famous seers in their lineage. My great uncle, for example was big on being descended from a seer from somewhere near Coldstream. However, I never did trace her and sadly, like the other links in the urban myth chains, he's since died.

blessings
ffetcher

[David19]

Human nature being what it is, though, there are always people who are willing to come forward and freely admit to doing the most amazing things not because their claims are true but because they enjoy the notoriety.

The whole Jerry Springer brand of television show depends on it!

This makes it problematic accepting even uncoerced testimony at face value. Certainly, some uncoerced testimony is likely true, but we must be careful to not go too far and become gullible any more than we should go too far the other way and assume everything is a lie.

I agree with you Ben, a lot of people might confess to something, even if they know nothing of it (e.g. there are people who'll confess to murder, even if they're innocent, for various reasons, some might be scared and say anything, others want fame, others are mentally f***ed up, etc).

I've heard about one witch who freely confessed to being a witch, called Isobel Gowdie, she didn't need much/any coercion in confessing, but it could be that she's a witch, but another arguement I've seen is that she had some kind of wierd sexual fantast (so she said she had sex with the devil, how cold his penis was, etc).

Here's a description of a book on her by Emma Wilby (http://www.sussex-academic.co.uk/sa/titles/history/wilbygowdie.htm), it's one I want to get and the description sounds cool:


The confessions of Isobel Gowdie are widely recognised as the most extraordinary on record in Britain. Their descriptive power and vivid imagery have attracted considerable interest on both academic and popular levels. Among historians, the confessions are celebrated for providing a unique insight into the way fairy beliefs and witch beliefs interacted in the early modern mind; more controversially, they are also cited as evidence for the existence of shamanistic visionary traditions, of pre-Christian origin, in Scotland in this period. On a popular level the confessions of Isobel Gowdie have, above any other British witch-trial records, influenced the formation of the ritual traditions of Wicca.

Personally, I haven't read a lot on this, so I haven't looked at the evidence for and against, but this could be proof that there were some witches in the Middle Ages, or it could be that Isobel Gowdie needed a way of getting her sexual fantasies out.

But, I definantly think more people should look into Isobel Gowdie, I'm sure they'd discover something very interesting.

[ffetcher]

The Issobell Gowdie case is a mine of interesting material, but before I go any further, I'll quote the 'party line' from the Scottish Witch-Trials database:


This case could be the source for many of our modern ideas about witches (covens of 13, riding broomsticks, shape-changing, and lurid witches' meetings). But is should be remembered that this case is not typical of most Scottish witchcraft cases.The above quote should explain why I caveated the lack of evidence of covens as 'pre-witch-craze', and I'd suggest that one longer-term result of the Gowdie trial was the deaths of the Bargarran 'witches', in which case the accusers later admitted that they'd made it all up.

Be that as it may, to Gowdie. The fact that the case is fairly abnormal doesn't mean that the evidence is false, but my own reading of at least the the back end of the investigation is that the investigators hit a problem well known to modern anthropologists and those in related disciplines such as folklore. What I think is happening is that the two 'sides' are feeding off each other. It's probably entirely subconscious, but some deep part of the psyches are egging each other on. Issobell gets to stay in the spotlight and the investigators are uncovering (what are to their minds) ever more evil deeds. I'm well outside my field of competence here, but it 'feels like' the equivalents I've seen happen many times in interviewing in many fields. I suspect that by the end everyone believed that Gowdie's testimony was the truth.

That, however, isn't the whole story. Why did she confess at all? The confession does show that belief in witchcraft was so strong that an admission was an instant passport to fame and (ill-)fortune. But why confess: I can think of a number of reasons, not all of which are mutually exclusive.

perhaps she actually was a witch (whether or not part of a larger group);
perhaps, living an otherwise hum-drum life, she was looking for fame;
perhaps she was suffering from what we would now call a mental illness; or
perhaps she was covering up someone or something else.

I await the publication with some interest, but ahead of that I'll nail my colo[u]rs to the mast and solicit feedback, which may throw light on other evidence cited in this thread.

I suggest that the fourth possibility is the least likely because I can't think of anything that couldn't have been covered up by some less extreme course of action. In any case if you take the evidence at face value she was eventually worn down so it didn't work anyway, and anyone would have been aware of that possibility.

I find the first fairly possibility unbelieveable without the presence of the second or third. Why? Assume that the 'group' aspect is factual, and we're talking an 'hereditary' tradition which has been secret for generations, and Gowdie suddenly comes out and admits it. I would expect there to be more such cases if this were true. If she was a solitary, then she may well have been known within the community as a seer or healer, but then I would expect her to be denounced as such, and thus the commission wouldn't have been told not to use torture.

(There's a further argument that she was in fact denounced but the records are missing, but that changes the whole thing back into an 'ordinary' trial.)

So, hypothesising ahead of the evidence, I find it likely that she was suffering from some form of what would now be diagnosed as a mental illness, whether or not she was practicing witchcraft. In that light I suspect that my analysis of the back end of the trial may at least be close to the truth and thus I find at least the 'coven' aspect, but probably more elements, 'not proven'.

Two things are very clear, though. The first is that a belief in the existence of something known locally as 'witchcraft' was quite strong in a number of strata of society: the second is that the interaction between Christianity, lay folk religion and 'witchcraft' is always more complex than it seems when you first look.

blessings
ffetcher

[Elderbush]

But giving credence to a belief in the existence of 'the Sight' is still, if not common, then not rare either. And many families have stories of famous seers in their lineage. My great uncle, for example was big on being descended from a seer from somewhere near Coldstream. However, I never did trace her and sadly, like the other links in the urban myth chains, he's since died.

blessings
ffetcher

Speaking as a genealogist, (one of my professional hats) I have to most gently point out that many families have a rich pool of family myths and while some of them may be true, others may only hold a kernel of truth and some just teach family values and are wholly fabricated. I cringe when I encounter naive and enthusiastic family members bent on "proving" a family myth because sometimes they are terribly disillusioned by the reality. It is why I have a difficult time with oral histories - truly value them! - but realize that the stories can become quickly distorted.

[raven grimassi]

I'm unaware of any evidence outside the witch-craze period of group workings (the coven appears to be a concept introduced by the witch-hunters) and thirdly, just because some evil seers were referred to as 'witches', doesn't necessarily mean they fit Carla's model, because 'witch' in Lallans (the local patois) is a general pejorative.

I cannot speak to the British Isles with any authority, but it is interesting to note that the earliest Latin word for Witch is saga, which means a seer. Prior to this word we find the Greek pharmakis, indicating the knowledge of herbalism.

Historian Franco Mormando (The Preacher's Demons) refers to the sermons of Bernardo of Siena, which predate the "witch-craze" in Italy. Bernardino's writings indicate that Witches gathered in groups and had dealings with spirits of the dead (a form of seership). There is no depiction of Satan at the gatherings, which to me lends credibilty to the accounts.

[ffetcher]

Speaking as a genealogist, (one of my professional hats) I have to most gently point out that many families have a rich pool of family myths and while some of them may be true, others may only hold a kernel of truth and some just teach family values and are wholly fabricated.

Speaking as a serious amateur historian and collector of folklore, I completely agree. I should perhaps have worded the last two paragraphs more carefully.

Firstly, I personally put no credence in the truth any of the modern 'sight' tales, not least because every one I've heard has been at at least one level of remove. They are, however, an important social phenomenon, because most urban myths are about things that subconsciously scare people and because again they indicate a level of belief.

Secondly, the last paragraph was intended as a foil to the 'urban myths' thing. I personally believe that this particular one doesn't fit any of your categories: the tale was probably fabricated as a joke against the more heavily Christian members of that generation. 'I never traced her' and 'sadly ... he's since died' probably don't come over with quite enough irony in American usage.

Since no-one in the family understood what my Grandfather did for a living and thus why he wasn't conscripted in the First World War, after he died a war record was completely fabricated within his near family and handed down. It was only whilst doing a piece for the Flanders Fields museum in Ieper that I discovered that it was totally bogus. I adopted the good magical practice 'Be silent'. :)

However, such things are often worth chasing if, when you get to the end of the road, you are prepared to discard the myth itself. The underlying truth is sometimes much more interesting.

blessings
ffetcher

[ffetcher]

I cannot speak to the British Isles with any authority, but it is interesting to note that the earliest Latin word for Witch is saga, which means a seer. Prior to this word we find the Greek pharmakis, indicating the knowledge of herbalism.

Yep, I'm quite happy with those and other similar derivations. And these are some of the things that were probably included in the catch-all use of the term in Lallans at that time (I'm aware of the concept of linguistic drift, which is why I'm only going so far as 'probably'). I'm not even speaking to the whole British Isles here, simply to the specific borders area where I think I understand the patois. But, in that area, at that time, calling someone a 'witch' didn't necessarily imply that the speaker believed the accused fitted the model postulated at the start of this thread.


Historian Franco Mormando (The Preacher's Demons) refers to the sermons of Bernardo of Siena, which predate the "witch-craze" in Italy. Bernardino's writings indicate that Witches gathered in groups and had dealings with spirits of the dead (a form of seership). There is no depiction of Satan at the gatherings, which to me lends credibilty to the accounts.

Once again, those accounts, in that area, seem entirely credible to me. However, although Eran or others may wish to correct me, it appears to me that evidence for regular gathering in groups in the Scottish Borders only arrives with the 'witch craze'.

blessings
ffetcher

[ffetcher]

I responded earlier to Raven Grimassi's


I cannot speak to the British Isles with any authority, but it is interesting to note that the earliest Latin word for Witch is saga, which means a seer. Prior to this word...with


Yep, I'm quite happy with those and other similar derivations. And these are some of the things that were probably included in the catch-all use of the term in Lallans at that time (I'm aware of the concept of linguistic drift, which is why I'm only going so far as 'probably'). I'm not even speaking to the whole British Isles here, simply to the specific borders area where I think I understand the patois. But, in that area, at that time, calling someone a 'witch' didn't necessarily imply that the speaker believed the accused fitted the model postulated at the start of this thread.

I've since been continuing with research into the Crotona Fellowship and in the course of that found a quote in Philip Hoare's "England's Lost Eden" a wonderful book about an offshoot of Shakerism taking root in the New Forest in mid-late C19. Thomas Carlyle wrote to John Ruskin in 1864 condemning his involvement with what the former considered "real witchcraft, and quite wrong". I've checked the source Hoare quotes and see no reason to doubt that it transcribes the original letter correctly.

These are not 'unlettered' people by any stretch of the imagination, and in this particular case we have many independent accounts of what was going on - spiritualism, complete with table-rapping, ectoplasm and disembodied voices.

Now, first, I have to say that actually, what Carlyle was talking about exactly fits the model that started this thread. Consorting with spirits, gaining information by doing so (sortilege) and the implied malice from the second half of Carlyle's phrase. But secondly, I doubt that anyone much involved with any thread of modern Wicca or witchcraft would consider that Spiritualism and Wicca were synonymous, or that the latter represented a continuation of the former. However, here we have an educated Scot (albeit not from the area I was describing) using the term "witchcraft" to imply both spiritualism and malice, and expecting that an educated Englishman, then resident in London, would understand the meaning. He doesn't feel that he needs to say 'by which I mean...'

It may be that the continuity of the 'cunning-craft' through to modern Wicca was actually via spiritualism into Theosophy and the related movements of the first half C20, but I don't think that's really what Carla or Eran are trying to imply. I'm not saying that the letter refutes a direct contact between hereditary cunning-craft, the ROCF and Gardner, but what I am saying is that in the light of the quote we (a) need to examine more closely the context of the use of terms such as 'witchcraft' by people such as Heselton's informant with regard to the Mason family; and (b) be clear about the difference between the belief that something is happening and what actually is happening.

Heselton's informant could, as I've said before, simply be using the term witch as a general pejorative, or perhaps be classing Theosophy, spiritualism and co-masonry as 'witchcraft'. If so, the term had by then drifted from its original C15 meaning, and has in the last 50-100 years drifted back. Carlyle obviously gave sufficient credence to the reality to be in fear for Ruskin's mortal soul, but the specific case being discussed was later uncovered - and admitted - as a complete fraud. In both cases one needs the wider context in order to interpret the individual references.

blessings
ffetcher

[ajc2184]

One of the big questions though is whether these non-Christian religious types were actually Witches, or whether the Christian accusers were automatically labelling them as such because they were non-Christian.

Pagan does not equal Witch after all.

Are you then implying that the non- christian types were Pagan? Do yo mean that Pagans cant be christians as they have completely different set of beliefs?

[Ben Gruagach]

Are you then implying that the non- christian types were Pagan? Do yo mean that Pagans cant be christians as they have completely different set of beliefs?

Some Christians do actually define Pagan to mean any religion that is not Christian. Personally I prefer to use the definition that Pagan is any religion that is not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. (I know that some religions that fall into the non-Christian, non-Jewish, and non-Muslim category would prefer we not call them Pagan but it is a commonly used definition.)

Because Pagan religions are distinct religions that are not Christian religions I don't see how a person could be Pagan and Christian at the same time. (Pagan is not a single religion either but refers to quite a variety of religions.) Just like you can't be Muslim and Christian, or Christian and Jewish, as those are all distinct religions which do not permit dual-membership among the faithful.