Mab's MA Blog

Still reading the 'Finding a Folklore' chapter.

Day 28:

Read part of the 'Finding a Folklore' chapter of 'Triumph of the Moon'; read through all the e-mails from pre-accident and was pleasantly surprised at how much 'lost' information was in them. Made notes from Ray Buckland's e-mail and came away from all of them feeling much more positive about this dissertation.

Discussed the origins of Wicca with the WG lot. Marai made a brilliant observation about the size of the Book of Shadows.

Had another think about the structuring of this dissertation. I've got so much information now that there are at least three dissertations in it.

Day 29:

Still reading the 'Finding a Folklore' chapter.

Day 26:

Caroline proofread the introduction to my dissertation and I made those grammatical amendments. Also added a note on the nature of a mystery religion and the implications of that on its 'insider' researchers.

---

Brainstormed content for the what research needs to be done and what has already been done chapters.

---

Read again the 'Triumph of the Moon' section on Wicca.

---

Worked on the overview of sources section, effectively finishing the secondary sources commentary.

---

Re-arranged the order of the chapters and the content therein, so it all made more sense as a building up of a picture.

---

Created a contents page.

---

Sent latest version of all of the chapters to Shonna for proofing.

Day 27:

Skim-read the rest of the pre-history of Wicca in 'Triumph of the Moon', then read properly the chapter on 'Low Magic'. Realized that there were Books of Shadows pre-Gardner and at least one incorporated the Key of Solomon, before Gardner was even born.

---

Read through Shonna's notes and incorporated them.

Day 24:

Worked on the Academic debates chapter and wrote nearly 500 words.

---

Read Colin Wilson's perspective.

---

Day 25:

Had an idea how to amalgamate the Literary Reviews and Academic Debates to avoid duplicity of effort. Just have to read the rules of MA now to see if it's a feasible idea - Put the reviews in boxes around the debates essay.

---

Worked on the introductory chapter and finished the first draft.

---

Now up to 6,173 words

Read Jeffrey Russell's 'The History of Witchcraft'. He's with Aidan Kelly on things, but also believes that Dorothy Clutterbuck didn't exist.

Day 21:

Finished reading the Aidan Kelly book. Added it to the chronology and wrote up an academic review.

---

Read the relevant pages of Frederic Lamond's book and noted his stance on Wiccan origins.

Day 22:

Read and generally reviewed 'Doreen Valiente: Charge of the Goddess'. Noted the two relevant points.

Still reading the Aidan Kelly book and had a rant about it on Witchgrove. I've been reading so much and trying to work out what is proved to have happened that I'm now intensely curious about the origins of Wicca. Before I started this research, I had always assumed that Gardner invented it, Sanders ran with it, and the modern variants are constantly being recreated. However, I keep coming across evidence to the contrary, then evidence which contradicts that evidence. The jury is now wide open.

The Kelly book is frustrating because he has some brilliant research, but then makes giants leaps for mankind. He'll speculate on one page, then a couple of chapters on treat that speculation as if it's now fact. That makes me question what he's put in as fact to start with. The trouble for me is that instinctively I feel like he's onto something, though I'm not 100% about some of his ideas.

An example? Early on, he makes the case that Gardner was dyslexic and therefore couldn't possibly have written anything on his own. Ok, fair enough, we can't double-check his sources because they are in Toronto and haven't been published, but he's seen them and those are his conclusions. Cool. But four chapters on, he's making the case that such and such was written solely by Gardner and presented back as arcane knowledge... in writing. Which one is it? Both support his thesis at the time, but if we're believing the too dyslexic to write theory over there, then we can't believe the able to write all of this on his own theory over here.

yours
Mab
xxxxx

Read a chapter of the Aidan Kelly book.

Went insane.

Day 16:

Started reading Aidan Kelly's 'Crafting the Art of Magic'

---

Worked on the 'Summary of Debates' chapter

---

Sent dissertation so far to Shonna for reading

---

Backed up dissertation so far on disk and also posted it to myself at work

---

Added Aidan Kelly (in part) and Rae Beth (in full) to the chronology

---

Day 17:

Thought of a criticism of Aidan Kelly's methodology.

---

Worked on the 'Summary of Debates' chapter.

---

Worked out how I'm going to do the longitudinal chart and set it up in Excel.

---

Continued reading the Aidan Kelly book.

---

Added Douglas Ezzy, Lois Bourne and Raymond Buckland to the chronology and debates.

Wrote up the notes/thoughts on Ankaloo and Clark's theory. Cut and pasted all of the literary reviews already done into the literary review chapter.

Word count now stands nearly 5000... which is worrying... seeing as I only have 15,000 to start with and I don't feel like I've done anything yet.

Day 11 (Thursday) -

Read Ankaloo and Clark's introduction and part of Ronald Hutton's essay. Wrote a couple of 100 words for the Academic's queries chapter.

---

Day 12 (Friday) -

In my notebook, devoted a page to each chapter and brainstormed things that could go into those chapters. Came up with some thoughts in response to the Ankaloo and Clark theory.

Also came up with another couple of questions for the questionnaire.

---

Day 13 (Saturday)

Discussed the Ankaloo and Clark theory with Nick Cook, and we bounced ideas off each other about how it could be responded to. Later made notes on all of these thoughts about it.

Discussed methodology with Kate Weston, and she suggested that Haralambos might be a good sociological source for the question of what IS a religion.

Bought a book by HR Trevor-Roper and hunted through a couple of Glastonbury book shops to find texts that I'm still missing.

---

Day 14 (Sunday)

Discussed with Branny the origins of Dutch Wicca. She believes that it was a British person who is one of the main Gardnerian people. She is going to look into it for me. Made a note to myself to collate a list of who were the Wiccan pioneers in each country to see if they are all British (plus ask the question on the Grove). This information will be useful in both my introduction and as an item on the Academic queries list, as a future specific study.

Gave some thought to the Academic Questions chapter, and realized that I could develope my brainstorming notes from last November into content for this chapter.

---

Wrote a couple of hundred words in the introductory chapter.

Wrote 440 words (approx) for the 'Questions, Queries and Quandaries for Academia: What's missing?' chapter.

---

Read another essay by Ronald Hutton, from 'Witches, Druids and King Arthur'.

---

Sorted my written pieces so far into the relevant chapters.

Read the chapter, in 'Witches, Druids and King Arthur' by Ronald Hutton, entitled 'Living with Witchcraft'. On the one hand, I'm very smug, because he has reached the same conclusions that I'm rapidly reaching and has the same alternative speculations about Gardner that I have. On the other hand, he's said them first, so does this I have to rewrite that part of my dissertation?

---

Read Gardner's 'Witchcraft Today', made notes, academically reviewed it and added dates to the chronology.

Read Pennethorne Hughes's 'Witchcraft' and made notes.

---

Critical denunciation of Aidan Kelly's work.

---

Reviewed 'witchcraft' by Pennethorne Hughes.

---

Started writing a chronology of Wicca.

Finished reading what Norman Cohn and Keith Thomas had to say.

---

Thinking about the primary evidence. I'm trying to determine how attitudes towards the origins of Wicca have evolved over the years, which could be done with literary sources. But I think that that would be enriched with an audit now of beliefs. I could look at both the patterns revealed in literary sources and the patterns revealed in the contemporary audit, though the latter might tell me more about now than then. I would keep it anonymous to encourage truth, though that's not infallible.

The questions themselves would take some careful wording, but the circulation wouldn't be a problem. I could target both enablers and delivers (yes, I have been paying attention to the Progression Framework audit at work): British moots; word of mouth; Pagan scholars (well, scholars of Paganism); Pagan Federation; Children of Artemis; Witchgrove and associated pagan e-groups; Cauldron; Hedgewytch; and ask if Trevor would have some hard copies in his shop in Glastonbury.

The notes I've made on the questions so far would be:

Personal:

Nationality; tradition; age; length of time as a Wiccan (if converted); any previous traditions.

Which source do you judge to be reliable on the origins of Wicca?

Murray, Gardner, Hutton, Cohn, Heselton etc

Belief in origin of Wicca?

Do this chronologically, perhaps:

Stone Age;
Survival of pre-Christian;
19th century;
Crowley;
Gardner;
Sanders;
Other (please state)

Or I could do that with quotes from scholars/Wiccans about the origins, and a which view do most matches your own, take.

Then the same about witchcraft per se.

I need to get moving on this one if I'm going to do it though, as time is running out to get it organized.

There's a lot of information in Cohn's book about impact of Murray on Wicca (pg 108). Also describes Hughes as a Murrayite. Interesting as Hughes's book is the one to which Gardner is responding in 'Witchcraft Today'.

---

I've finally read the opening shots of Norman Cohn against Margaret Murray. That's not academic, it's personal. If that had been an e-mail on Kindly Ones, I'd have stepped in and had words. He's made broad personal assumptions about her, which shocked me even more because of the context. You just don't expect that in history books. (pg 109)

He's also getting on my nerves with his tone. He finds doing necessary historical research 'tiresome'. (pg 110)

---

Cohn biographical information

More biographical info

---

Margaret Murray

Dr Margaret Murray, formerly Assistant Professor in Egyptology at University College London, endorsed Gardner’s revelations in Witchcraft Today by writing its foreword. This was important to the social acceptance of the religion. In 1971, Keith Thomas wrote that Murray’s theories about witchcraft had ‘made some influential converts.’ This was an observation elaborated upon by Norman Cohn, in 1975, when he noted Murray’s ‘considerable influence’ amongst historians, scholars of witchcraft and ‘more or less serious readers’, whilst holding her responsible for the modern-day proliferation of organised witchcraft. By 1981, Colin Wilson was able to reflect favourably upon the significance of Murray’s involvement in the reception given to Wica, when he concluded that,

‘… the fact that Gardner’s book contained an approving introduction by Margaret Murray indicates that witchcraft has ceased to carry sinister overtones, and can once again be studied with detachment.’

However, an analysis of the foreword leaves the reader with the impression that either Dr Murray hadn’t read the book or else she was dubious about its contents.

The foreword is a mere three paragraphs in length, throughout which she appears dismissive of the worshippers, whom she calls ‘the so-called ‘witches’’ practicising ‘so-called ‘witchcraft’.’ She also implies that the practitioners worship the Christian God, as

‘(their rituals are) the sincere expression of that feeling towards God which is expressed, perhaps more decorously through not more sincerely, by modern Christianity in church services.’

Murray also stated confidentally, ‘(it) has nothing to do with spell-casting and other evil practices.’ This view and tone is at odds with the main body of Witchcraft Today, where the narrative takes as read that witchcraft does exist in the modern day, with its practitioners calling themselves witches; that there is both a God and a Goddess, with the latter taking precedence; and spell-crafting is very much a part of Wica.

However, this differing approach does not appear to have been an issue in the Wiccan debates thereon. Beyond noting that Murray provided the foreword, focus has been directed upon the cross-fertilization of historical/folklore ideas, between the early Wiccans and Murray. Gardner did not claim, as is commonly supposed, that Wica is proven to have survived the millenia with its roots in a prehistoric society. He stated that ‘the witches do not know the origin of their cult. My own theory is… that it is a Stone Age cult of the matriarchal times’. This is a perspective almost certainly adapted from Murray’s previous work, which had been published in The Witch-cult in Western Europe (1921) and The God of the Witches (1933).

In these books, Murray had argued that an indigenious religion, differing slightly in different locations, had survived Christianity in order to continue in secret for centuries.

(Cohn and Thomas)

This invalidation of Dr Margaret Murray, who had, after all, provided the foreword for Witchcraft Today, resulted in an on-going reappraisal of Wiccan history from within the Wiccan community. ‘Just how ancient the tradition was is a subject of much debate,’ wrote Vivianne Crowley in 1997, succinctly summarizing two decades of acrimony, recriminations, side-stepped or simply ignored issues, rewritten histories or defense of the existing history.

K Thomas, ‘Religion and the Decline of Magic’ p 614
N Cohn, ‘Europe’s Inner Demons’ p 108
C Wilson, ‘Witchcraft’ in C Wilson and J Grant (edit), ‘The Directory of Possibilities’ p 88
M Murray, ‘Foreword’, in G Gardner, ‘Witchcraft Today’, p 15
Ibid, p 16
Ibid, p 16
Ibid, p 16
G Gardner, ‘Witchcraft Today’, p 45
Ibid, p
G Gardner, ‘Witchcraft Today’, p 48
V Crowley, ‘Way of Wicca’, p 13.

I've been thinking about original evidence. I think I will go for determining patterns of thinking about the origins of Wicca based on the literature.

**********************************************************************************
Sarah (at work) has a contact in UCL, whom she's going to ask for an appropriate contact about Margaret Murray.
**********************************************************************************
Read through what Douglas Ezzy had to say re Wicca and academia. Not a great deal, but there is an interesting edging bets going on re the origins, which shows the latest twist in the pattern.
**********************************************************************************
Started reading Norman Cohn's 'Europe's Inner Demons'.

yours
Mab
xxxxx

It's been very stop-starty today, mainly because I'm exhausted and got other big things to be looking at. Seriously considered not doing the 'Year of...', not necessarily dropping out of the MA, but postponing the work on it until either work slows down or the WG website is sorted out, whichever happens first.

However, thinking about it counts. I thought on this while driving home from work:

The dissertation should normally include:

* an awareness of differing and competing methodologies (eg Marxist vs Liberal interpretations; quantitative and qualitative issues);
* a critical consideration of the historiographical debate;
* a comprehensive review of the secondary literature;
* the use of primary sources.

Of those, only the last one is giving me pause for thought. The autobiographies count, as do GBG's books on Wica. However, before I even start interrogating the primary sources, I need to research what's actually there. That will be covered in the chapter on the overview of sources.

It did occur to me that Prof Hutton may be able to advise on getting in touch with Patricia Crowther and that Ray Buckland offered his help too, before he was ill. I need to discover how ill Ray is now and then if he's still up for answering some questions.

I'm strong on the historiographical debates, as that's where my focus was in the beginning. I'm not worried overmuch about that. Ditto for the comprehensive review of the secondary literature.

The differing and competing methodologies was well covered in my project, but that doesn't count towards my dissertation, other than as a cross-referencing. Gardnerian v Alexandrian v Traditional... the religion isn't really old enough for the methodologies to have been formed academically, let alone be competing. They can debate theologically, but that's nothing to do with this dissertation.

*************************************************************************************
I also started thinking on Margaret Murray again, but couldn't think where I'd put the notes I made on her. I wanted to e-mail University College London with some questions.

However, went scutting in my e-mails and discovered not only had I already done that, but I e-mailed Witchgrove with my Margaret Murray notes and saved it there. :-D
I've not had a response from the e-mail though.

Notes:

10 March 2004 22:49 (day before the crash...)

Why am I so interested in Margaret Murray, as a Wiccan historian?

She fits into the picture because, in 1921, she wrote a book basically saying that the Pagan Witch Cult survived in Europe in the form of folklore and localized events like the Padstow 'Obby 'Oss or the Abbott's Bromley Horn Dance. She saw confessions of witches under torture, about the Devil, as being disguised stories about rituals in which the High Priest wore antlers. She wrote two more books on a theme, with the final one hypothesizing that the early English kings were Pagans too, and the deaths of some of them (eg William II (Rufus)) were ritual sacrifices of the 7 year King.

She also wrote the preface to Garner's 'Witchcraft Today', as an academic, in the same way as Prof Ronald Hutton nowadays writes prefaces for Philip Heselton.

The Wiccans loved her and she was their Goddess and Queen, because she basically said, as an academic, precisely what they were saying - Wicca is the survival of an ancient religion, stretching back way before Christianity.

Then disaster. Norman Cohn, another academic, wrote in the 1970s basically saying that Murray's work was bollocks. To this day, any Wiccan wanting any credibility for self, or the religion, basically does not touch Margaret Murray's books and ideas.

Ok, I'm with that. I'm trying to be an academic here, so I'll run away from Margaret Murray like a good like student...

Will I like heck!

This is why it's important that I find out if she's a Doctorate or a Professoriate. If we're completely honest, a Doctorate only has to get it right once - their thesis and viva. After that, if they do nothing again for the rest of their lives, they still get to bask in the glory of their Doctorate.

However, a Professor is a whole different kettle of fish. You don't pass exams or write a thesis to be a Professor. What happens is that you apply to become one and then a panel of internal and external people, from a University, decide whether to elevate you to the Professoriate or not. This is based on billions of things, but topmost amongst them, you have to provide a list of all the books, articles, theses etc that you've written. They ALL have to demonstrate your academic standards and your expertize in your field. They stand a better chance of being accepted for Professoriate level if they are also ground-breaking, cutting-edge discoveries. You also have to demonstrate that you have supervised a certain number of students to Doctorate or Master of Philosophy level.

So if Margaret Murray is a Dr, then she was brilliant once.

If she is a Professor, then her academic work is of a standard seen by other Professors as being perfect at the time. It was consistently so; and she was seen as an expert.

Also, if Doreen Valiente is right (sorry, but that's dubious), then Margaret Murray became a Professor AFTER the publication of her first book; and was one during the publications of both of her second books, and for a long time afterwards. If her work wasn't up there with the best, by the standards of her time, then she would have been stripped of the Professoriate status.

Bear in mind that this is 1924. Women didn't even have the vote in Britain at that time. By my reckoning, Margaret Murray would have had to have been stunning to get a Doctorate, let alone a Professoriate. I need to know how many women reached that level at that time, and if she was one of them.

I'm not the first to raise questions about the vilification of Margaret Murray. In 1998, Caroline Oates and Juliette Woods examined her working methods in 'A Coven of Scholars'. They found that her methodology was consistent with her times. Put another way, any scholar researching the same thing at the same time would have done the same, though her scholarship wouldn't have been acceptable today. We are far harder on ourselves today.

Also, though Norman Cohn's book rubbished her completely, thus making her an untouchable for the Wiccans and academics in Britain and America, another historian, the Italian Carlo Ginzburg, looked at her work and, using modern methodology, he concluded that it had a 'kernal of truth'.

There's also a lone voice on the internet, who never signs their name, who keeps arguing that if you compare Norman Cohn's book to the parts he's quoting from Margaret Murray and the primary sources, you'll find that he's lying through his teeth about her. He takes things out of context or accuses her of things that she didn't do, eg missing things out of original texts when it doesn't back up her theories. I haven't got the Norman Cohn book to find out.

It would be a brave British or American historian who went back to rescue Margaret Murray's name; but give me a decade or so. ;-)

yours
Mab
xxxxx

************************************************************************************

And the e-mail:

Dear Mr Harte,

I am an MA History student at the University of Wolverhampton, currently writing my dissertation on the subject of Wicca and academia.

I wondered if you would be able to assist me in finding some statistics? I understand that Dr Margaret Murray was an Associate Professor in Egyptology at UCL in the 1930s and I am trying to ascertain how common this was for a woman. As far as you know, were any other women members of the Professoriate, or otherwise a member of the academic staff, at that time? If they were there, have you any idea of the percentages involved?

Thank you in advance for any invaluable assistance.

yours
Jo Harrington

**********************************************************************************

According to the Times Higher Education, there are only 14% of the Professoriate in the entire of Britain as are female now.

Day one was pretty much a collecting of all the bits of information I've squirrelled away so far; looking back to the 1000 words that I wrote just before the crash; and re-reading the notes I made during discussions with Mike Cunningham. I then made a much clearer list of potential chapters and mini-brainstormed what would be in those chapters. The object being that this would be me seeing what foundations I'd already built before building on them.

Finally I read an article written by Dr Jo Pearson about the academic definition of Wicca.

yours
Mab
xxxxx

* The dissertation should not exceed 15000 words (excluding footnotes and appendices). It has a credit rating of 60 credits.

* The dissertation is a major piece of independent study, normally combining original research with a thorough analysis of the established literature in the relevant area. The ability of the student to complete this successfully is central to demonstrating his/her capacity at Master's level.

* Before the dissertation can be formally registered the proposal must be discussed with the Supervisor and submitted for approval to the Examination Board.

* The dissertation... is a substantial piece of work. It may be conceived of as a 'problem solving' exercise; for example the exploration of a neglected area with a view to contributing to scholarly inquiry or a critical review and adjudication on a topic of scholarly dissension. In either case, a 'narrow' narrative approach is insufficient.

* The dissertation should normally include:

* an awareness of differing and competing methodologies (eg Marxist vs Liberal interpretations; quantitative and qualitative issues);
* a critical consideration of the historiographical debate;
* a comprehensive review of the secondary literature;
* the use of primary sources.

* The dissertation must be typewritten, double or one-and-a-half spacing. Single spacing may be used for footnotes or indented quotations. Pages must be numbered.

* Initially one soft ring-bound copy should be submitted. If it passes, then one hard-bound copy must be submitted.

* The dissertation should be laid out as:

Title Page
Contents
List of Tables (if applicable)
Abbreviations (if applicable)
Acknowledgements
Abstract (approx 300 words)
Main body of work (divided into chapters)
Appendices (if applicable)
Bibliography

Ok, I'm setting myself a challenge to do something towards my MA dissertation every single day for a year. Now this is problematic for a start, considering that my dissertation should be in, marked and me, hopefully, trying on my graduation robes by June. *grin* Therefore my 'Year of...' won't necessarily be a year. It'll be until this thing is done, then a re-think.

Draig Athar told me to set out my guidelines first, so that when the nagging starts, they are all nagging against what I said I'd do.

The criteria for this 'Year(ish) of...' are therefore:

* Something must appear in here for every day. Though it might not necessarily be updated every day, it must show that I did something.

* As it is an academic work, then some days will involve just thinking. This is acceptable as long as the thinking isn't 'OMG! Nobody panic! Nobody panic!' and more along the lines of working out specific things for the dissertation.

* Work such as photocopying, hunting down sources etc counts, as these can be VERY time-consuming.

* Research and note-taking also counts.

* As does writing up.

yours
Mab
xxxxx