Margaret Murray

[MaddLlama]

Why does it seem like the memo about Murray's research being bunk hasn't made it's way out to most of the Pagan community? Even in a number of the new "Wicca 101" books that are out there (including "Wicca for One" which was published in '04) reference her as if her research was flawlessly accurate.
How is it that so many Pagans and Pagan authors could either not know that her research was thoroughly discredited, or be so dishonest as to ignore that?

Are her theories and ideas so intertwined into Wicca that they can't be let go?  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

I'd say it's more of an issue of Murray's "research" being necessary to invoke the "common theological ancestry" claims of modern pop-Wiccans. On multiple occasions, I've seen Murray quoted as the reason why any modern witchcraft religion that can trace a history back to Europe is worthy of the title "Wicca". Here's how it tends to go:

1. Given: Per (some interpretation of) Murray, the witch-cult in Western Europe (hereafter WWC) was unified and worshipped the same deities in the same ways.
2. Given: "British Traditional Witchcraft" (hereafter BTW) describes witchcraft religions that originated in Great Britain.
3. Given: The New Forest Coven (hereafter NFC) was a witchcraft religion in Western Europe.
4. Given: Gardner was initiated into the NFC.
5. Given: Gardner then founded a new religion and called it "Wicca", after the use of the word "Wica" in the NFC's rites.
6. The NFC was a part of the larger WWC (by point 1).
7. By further interpretation, any religion that is a part of the WWC is entitled to the name BTW, due to theological equivalence (by points 1 and 2).
8. Wicca is a modern religion that is theologically equivalent to the WWC (by point 7).
9. Hence, any modern witchcraft religion that can trace itself back to Western Europe is a part of the WWC, theologically equivalent to the NFC, entitled to claim BTW, and thus entitled to the name Wicca.

Take out Murray's unified witch-cult and you are forced to admit (if you are being intellectually honest) that not all European witchcraft traditions are theologically equivalent, shattering the claim that any modern witchcraft religion can be called Wicca. I wonder if Janet Farrar was channeling Murray when she made that claim, herself.  

[Starlock]

Once disinformation is widespread, it is difficult to remove it, especially where print records are involved. There is still some question as to whether or not the entirety of her work is bunk, but such assertions tend to get ignored in the wake of the Murray-bashing fad.

At any rate, while the facts may be in doubt the Murraite thesis has become of the mythology of Wicca that defines and identifies the movement. That's how I tend to see it; mythologically rather than factually. I'm not sure if this is the perspective of all the other Neopagan others who cite her works, but I know that's been the perspective of a few of them.  

[MaddLlama]

Henry Dorsett Case

Take out Murray's unified witch-cult and you are forced to admit (if you are being intellectually honest) that not all European witchcraft traditions are theologically equivalent, shattering the claim that any modern witchcraft religion can be called Wicca. I wonder if Janet Farrar was channeling Murray when she made that claim, herself.

I'm not sure I can agree with you on that one. As far as I know, there is no overwhelming evidence that the NFC and Dorothy Clutterbuck even existed, and it's just as plausible to say that Gardener made it all up.

I think it's a better conclusion to say that to dismiss Murray is to admit that Wicca as a religion is only around 50 years old. And, frankly, I don't see what's so terrible about that.  

[maenad nuri]

Part of it is that the discreditation of Murray is rather recent. She's actually still taught in some schools.  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

MaddLlama

I'm not sure I can agree with you on that one. As far as I know, there is no overwhelming evidence that the NFC and Dorothy Clutterbuck even existed, and it's just as plausible to say that Gardener made it all up.

As far as whether or not the NFC existed, that's all but immaterial - its existence in theological history (Wiccan mythology, if you will) is part of the reasoning as to why Murray is used by pop-pagans to co-opt the name "Wicca". If it didn't exist, that's just another link out of the reasoning, but it has little to do with the fact that if you remove Murray, you remove the pop-pagans' flimsy claims of entitlement.

Dorothy Clutterbuck, well, there's no question that she existed. Whether she was "Old Dorothy" or "Dafo" is a question for the ages, but she was indeed a real woman. You can visit her grave if you like.

Quote:

I think it's a better conclusion to say that to dismiss Murray is to admit that Wicca as a religion is only around 50 years old. And, frankly, I don't see what's so terrible about that.

Most Wiccans who are actually entitled to the name as described by Gerald Gardner will admit that the religion is only 50-ish years old, first off. The fluffbunnies who co-opt the name of the religion without entitlement, claiming Murray's unified witch-cult as proof that Wicca is older than Gardner, are often doing so to claim theological equivalence and thus deny Gardner authority over who is and is not Wiccan. This isn't speculation of my part; this is a line of reasoning I have seen come up again and again by some of the most vehement supporters of the "if you say you're Wiccan, you are" and "Gardner named the religion, he didn't found it" mentalities. I don't even want to try to count the number of times I've seen the "Yes, Gardner was the first person to call the religion Wicca, but it was just his take on an ancient religion; haven't you read Murray?" dodge.  

[EternalHearts]

MaddLlama

Are her theories and ideas so intertwined into Wicca that they can't be let go?

Yes, because those that follow the co-opted version of Wicca (thanks for the terminology!), are so loathe to admit that the religion they worship is not only not ancient but also not even real, that they choose to ignore what is not in thier favor.  

[TeaDidikai]

Starlock

There is still some question as to whether or not the entirety of her work is bunk,

Please be kind enough to cite an example. I would really like something of substance from an anthropologist- rather than someone with as much authority as Vince Lambardo.

Quote:

but such assertions tend to get ignored in the wake of the Murray-bashing fad.

Could it have something to do with it being ill cited? Or perhaps shown inaccurate by people who know something about European Pre-Christian theology?

And I would also like to see an example of someone actually bashing Murray herself- instead of simply pointing out that her math, research and UWCOE theory. I mean- really, I have never heard anyone make any comment about her Egyptology. Has anyone else?

Come to think of it, I haven't even heard any mention of her work for women's rights and the like. I am interested in seeing someone pass comment on the person outside of her thesis "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe". And for those who do say ill about her in connection to it- I don't blame them one bit. She took her position of authority and mislead those she sought to educate. She betrayed her position as a teacher by intentionally omitting critical information from the very sources she cited that proved her thesis incorrect.

For a scholar, and educator, that is pretty low in my book.


I guess Ewen's position may be bashing- but I would hardly call it a fad since it was contemporary with her publishing.

I mean, really Starlock- if you can provide the first and well supported retort to Cohn's "Europe's Inner Demons", I would love to look over it.

Don't get me wrong. The idea of the Sacrificial Sacred King as Sir Frazer illustrated as a universal archetype isn't something I have the least trouble swallowing- but that is a far cry from saying Murray's work is anything but inaccurate.

Not to mention the key figure of Murray's work was the "Horned God", something that was far from universal within Europe. Even the works of Edred such as Witchdom of the Tru which acknowledge fertility cults within Vana-trads don't go so far as to make the kinds of claims that Murray did while she misrepresented (through partial quotation) existing texts.

Quote:

At any rate, while the facts may be in doubt the Murraite thesis has become of the mythology of Wicca that defines and identifies the movement.

I have yet to see anyone who is actually a Wiccan assert this.

Just a note. I mean, all the Wiccans I have come across are far more interested in Gardner and Sanders and the like- and have little if anything to say about Murray due to her theory having little with anything to do with the actual structure of Wicca as a ditheistic theology.  

[Starlock]

TeaDidikai

Starlock

There is still some question as to whether or not the entirety of her work is bunk,

Please be kind enough to cite an example. I would really like something of substance from an anthropologist- rather than someone with as much authority as Vince Lambardo.

Well, I was speaking in pretty broad terms here. I doubt if a work exists anywhere that doesn't have at least a grain of truth to it.

What I basically meant was that the general idea of folkloric practices that she decides to label as 'witchcraft' surviving to modern day in some (albiet modified) form holds some water. Murray's problem, from what I understand, is that she draws too strong of a line that just can't be substantited. There's no unbroken line, at least not in the sense most would consider. It's difficult to know if there was or was not a survival with absolute certainty; if there was, it's likely that evidence would be very difficult if not impossible to trace.

It becomes a faith issue of sorts, in a way. Belief in the unbroken line becomes a sort of mythos for some practitioners, even with awareness of the factual dubiousness. How might this influence and enrich their spiritual practice? That's what I think is interesting. whee

Oh, and 'fad' was possibly the wrong choice of word. Heh. I was refering to how I've pretty much only seen scholastic debunkings of Murray's work as opposed to attempts to try and verify what she has said along other avenues. One tends to get the answers one seeks, ya know? But then, I'm sure I haven't looked into this in as much detail as others have so perhaps it isn't as one-sidedly critical as it appears.

To be honest it isn't of much relevance to me personally if her theories are correct or incorrect; I'm more fascinated by the implications of belief and its emergence as a sort of mythos.  

[Daven Moto]

MaddLlama

Are her theories and ideas so intertwined into Wicca that they can't be let go?

I don't know if it is this so much as the "comfort" of having something continuous in Wicca. If a religion is only 60 years old, that's not too old really. If it's thousands of years old, then that has a continuity and a 'correctness' to it that a new faith doesn't.

I find it incomprehensible too.

Some of it, especially in the case of people like Buckland, could be that is what they truly believe. I've spoken to Buckland and while he is a very good person, I feel distressed that he didn't take the opportunity to update the BBB with new information when it was republished. Then he had a class I was in at one point where he taught the same 'facts' that had been debunked. And I understood that he honestly believes this, and to go in and change it for him would be a monumental thing.

So I look at it the way I would granny speaking to the Tea cozy as a friend. It's an eccenctricity that I tolerate and i teach the correct stuff.

Also, all of her research can't be totally dismissed. There are folk magick and sympathetic magick that does predate Judiasm in modern Pagan practice. Granted it's a tiny little bit, but to say that all modern paganism is modern and none of it is old is the same as saying that it's all old and none of it modern. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

There are elements that make up modern practice that can be traced back. That does not invalidate them, indeed it simply confirms them in my opinion. But it also does not make modern practice ancient.

I don't think that Murry was totally wrong, I do think she was working outside her specialty and was looking for evidence. The problem is that the evidence she was working with was flawed and slanted itself, and she didn't seem to know how to remove that bias since she was biased too.

PLUS, it makes good history of where Wicca came from. Not being familliar with Murray's works can mean that the serious student doesn't understand how much influence her work had on the development of wicca and thus they won't understand why this ritual or teaching is there. but once you study those works, their inclusion becomes obvious.  

[TeaDidikai]

Starlock

Well, I was speaking in pretty broad terms here. I doubt if a work exists anywhere that doesn't have at least a grain of truth to it.

Ahem.

Quote:

What I basically meant was that the general idea of folkloric practices that she decides to label as 'witchcraft' surviving to modern day in some (albiet modified) form holds some water.

Which parts?
Can you cite some part of The Witch-Cult in Western Europe which you feel is a good example?

You keep addressing this from "your understanding", but I am curious as to where this understanding comes from. I'll grant you that it has been years since I looked over it in depth, but as I recall- there was nothing but very vague references to rituals that were found in YHVH's religions as well as other faiths.

Quote:

It becomes a faith issue of sorts, in a way. Belief in the unbroken line becomes a sort of mythos for some practitioners, even with awareness of the factual dubiousness. How might this influence and enrich their spiritual practice? That's what I think is interesting. whee

And this is where the rest of us point out that there is a difference between mythos- things that are non-falsifiable, and delusion. People can believe that George Washington killed JFK. That isn't mythos- that's delusion. People can believe that the pre-Christian theologies of Europe worshipped Satan, that doesn't make it so.

Quote:

Oh, and 'fad' was possibly the wrong choice of word.

Yes, it was.

Quote:

Heh. I was refering to how I've pretty much only seen scholastic debunkings of Murray's work as opposed to attempts to try and verify what she has said along other avenues.

That might have something to do with how wrong her assertions are.

What I mean to say is- perhaps there is a reason that the people who actually know what they are talking about are debunking her.

Let me give you an example:

M. Murray: The Witch-Cult in Western Europe

In Great Britain the ceremonies for the reception of children are not given in any detail, though it was generally acknowledged that the witches dedicated their children to the Devil as soon as born;

What part of this can be supported? What does it benefit the Neo-Pagan scene who is so loud in proclaiming that they don't believe in Christian mythos?

Also note that most of the assertions were clearly shown to be drawn through torture. Murray's Witch-Cult is not a pre-Christian European religion, it is a collection of fiction based on confessions from witch trials for the most part.

Quote:

To be honest it isn't of much relevance to me personally if her theories are correct or incorrect; I'm more fascinated by the implications of belief and its emergence as a sort of mythos.

This is the very kind of ignorance that people who know what they are talking about get very annoyed with.

Want to believe in a Pre-Christian Witch-Cult foundation to Wicca? Great- find something other than Murray.  

[Starlock]

TeaDidikai

Quote:

To be honest it isn't of much relevance to me personally if her theories are correct or incorrect; I'm more fascinated by the implications of belief and its emergence as a sort of mythos.

This is the very kind of ignorance that people who know what they are talking about get very annoyed with.

Want to believe in a Pre-Christian Witch-Cult foundation to Wicca? Great- find something other than Murray.

Hmm.. how does saying 'I don't care' exemplify ignorance? I have little want to believe or disbelieve... I don't particularly care as I'm not Wiccan and it isn't of strong relevance to my own spiritual path. If I had to inform someone on it I'd give them the current common consensus: she's bunk; do your own digging if you care to know more.

So I leave it up to you all who DO care about the nitty gritty aspects of this topic to discern it; it isn't my place nor area of interest to go into it in great depth. Sorry I won't be taking up your challenge on this topic, unless someone wants to discuss the spiritual implications of the belief rather than just the factual aspect. Call me on Greek elemental theory, however, and that's another story entirely. wink

Oh, and the website was awesomely funny. Totally bookmarking it. Still has grains of truth, such as the fact D&D exists, one of the player classes is indeed Wizard, and DMs may indeed use cardboard screens, etc. I did say grains of truth, not the whole beach. whee  

[TeaDidikai]

Starlock

Hmm.. how does saying 'I don't care' exemplify ignorance?

I was about to point out that it isn't just that one line- but the fact that you posted paragraphs on something you obviously know absolutely nothing about and seem to be making backhanded insults to people who do know what they are talking about- but the fact of the matter is- you do care just enough to be a problem.

You make a habit of posting "I don't care but... here is my unfounded opinion anyway". This is the problem. If you don't care enough to actually understand the discussion- it would be nice for you not to confuse the real issue in the thread- here and in M&R.

If you really don't care if people believe in a Pre-Christian European Witch-Cult based on Murray's thesis- stop supporting her in ignorance.

You obviously haven't read her work. It's akin to you walking into a thread and saying "Anton LaVey was the love child of Aleister Crowley and Gerald Gardner- but I don't really care what anyone who knows enough about biology to say that it isn't possible, because everyone is free to believe what they want to believe and I am just arguing the point because I am tired of seeing Biologists, Midwives, School Teachers, Parents and Doctors telling people that babies are birthed from a womb, not a scrotum. And anyone who says that a baby cannot be birthed from a scrotum via the urethra is just hating on me and other people who think that science, history and first hand reports are wrong because we don't want to be oppressed by objective reality!".

And it would be nice that if you want to enter a debate and make blanket statements for you to actually be willing to support your assertions. I am getting the sinking suspicion that you haven't even read enough Murray to assert what about her Thesis is accurate- as Murray's work has little to nothing to say about "folkloric" witchcraft and everything to say about the Witch Trials of Europe.

Quote:

I have little want to believe or disbelieve... I don't particularly care as I'm not Wiccan and it isn't of strong relevance to my own spiritual path. If I had to inform someone on it I'd give them the current common consensus: she's bunk; do your own digging if you care to know more.

And yet- you don't. Don't you realize this is a place people come to for information? You are either oblivious to the designs of this guild and the needs of the lurkers or you're being deceptive or perhaps it is simply vanity.

Quote:

So I leave it up to you all who DO care about the nitty gritty aspects of this topic to discern it; it isn't my place nor area of interest to go into it in great depth.

Great. Then why the hell did you post to begin with?

Quote:

Sorry I won't be taking up your challenge on this topic, unless someone wants to discuss the spiritual implications of the belief rather than just the factual aspect.

Oh, I see. You wanted to post mental masturbation uncontested and derail the topic of the thread. Got it.

You know, there is this little button on Gaia that allows you to post your own topics. Might I suggest that if you want to talk about something other than what the topic is about that you use it?

Quote:

Oh, and the website was awesomely funny. Totally bookmarking it. Still has grains of truth, such as the fact D&D exists, one of the player classes is indeed Wizard, and DMs may indeed use cardboard screens, etc. I did say grains of truth, not the whole beach. whee

(Last couple comments edited to be more "Nice")

Ah! Murray mentions people, and Europe. Yeah- that makes her worthy of consideration for truth.

Poor truth. I think she has been horribly raped and desecrated this day to provide people who want to be delusional with a palatable alternative to effort and objective reality.  

[TeaDidikai]

Let us take a critical look at this text and put these issues to bed.

The problem begins in the Preface:

Margaret Murray: The Witch-Cult in Western Europe

THE mass of existing material on this subject is so great that I have not attempted to make a survey of the whole of European 'Witchcraft', but have confined myself to an intensive study of the cult in Great Britain. In order, however, to obtain a clearer understanding of the ritual and beliefs I have had recourse to French and Flemish sources, as the cult appears to have been the same throughout Western Europe. ...

The sources from which the information is taken are the judicial records and contemporary chroniclers. In the case of the chroniclers I have studied their facts and not their opinions. I have also had access to some unpublished trials among the Edinburgh Justiciary Records and also in the Guernsey Greffe.

...

The evidence which I now bring forward is taken entirely from contemporary sources, i.e. the legal records of the trials, pamphlets giving accounts of individual witches, and the works of Inquisitors and other writers.

She claims to be speaking to British Witchcraft, but the sources she uses are on Witch Trials. Not European Folk tradition- which explains how she could get a cross cultural folk tradition to be in the whole of Western Europe. The tradition wasn't that of a Witch-Cult, but of Christians giving statments under torture.

Margaret Murray: The Witch-Cult in Western Europe

...Under Operative Witchcraft I class all charms and spells, whether used by a professed witch or by a professed Christian...

This alone does much to sink the assertions made by the "Old Religion" argument. She is using Christian folk practices to fill out her per-Christian witch cult. She suggests this is possible because these traditions are part of the human experience as a whole:

M. Murray

Such charms and spells are common to every nation and country, and are practised by the priests and people of every religion. They are part of the common heritage of the human race and are therefore of no practical value in the study of any one particular cult.

She goes on to ommitt these from her paper. So there is no real "folkloric" magic to speak of- she didn't find it useful.

She proceeds to speak of what she calls the "Dianic Cult".

M. Murray

Ritual Witchcraft--or, as I propose to call it, the Dianic cult- embraces the religious beliefs and ritual of the people, known in late mediaeval times as 'Witches'. The evidence proves that underlying the Christian religion was a cult practised by many classes of the community, chiefly, however, by the more ignorant or those in the less thickly inhabited parts of the country. It can be traced back to pre-Christian times, and appears to be the ancient religion of Western Europe.

"The Ancient Religion of Western Europe". As if there was only one. Proof that there was more isn't hard to find. Start with the fact that the Eddas and Sagas exist. Go on to mention the temples of the Hellenic pagans, the gods of Celts.

I'll continue to add quotations that show not only is the neo-pagan "pre-Christian Witch-Cult" mythos only loosely based on Murray's Thesis, but that Murray's thesis had good reason for being debunked as time allows.  

[Starlock]

Well then. You've made your intentions clear. It appears the initial instinct I had when you first responded to a post of mine was correct. I'll be sure to follow that instinct next time.

Anyway, back to the OP, I think it still stands that one of the main reasons the misinformation is still out there goes back to the fact that misinformation once in print is difficult to remove. Libraries try their best to keep good, current material on their shelves but it takes lots of time, knowledge, and effort to keep a collection that is devoid of outdated material. Misinformation happens in the sciences too, hence we still have people refering to the 'dinosaur' known as Brontosaurus which was produced from a mis-matched skeleton decades ago. And it gets worse in say, the botanical sciences where things get reclassified and named so often that the general public couldn't possibly keep up with all the changes. xd

Secondarily, there are implications within the mythos that are empowering to some of those who believe it fact. That emotional charge will tend to stick people into believing since it is important to their spirituality. In essence it's the same thing that drives some Abrahamics to believe in Biblical creationism on a literal level. It's a psychological thing, though also somewhat a question of values. Does the person value emotional/spiritual richness over factual accuracy or vice versa on this particular issue? Or is this a false dichotomy? Is it possible to believe in the mythos and attain that richness while also acknowleding the dubious/false literal nature of the claims?

Just somethin' additional to think about for y'all. whee