<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not history, but important
Review: Historically speaking, this book deserves a rating of 1. "The God of the Witches" basically re-states the theories of "Witch Cult in Modern Europe" -- in a more extreme and dogmatic form. Murray's theories were conclusively debunked in the 1970's. Scholars demonstrated that she twisted and falsified evidence, that she ignored the vast majority of our data on historical Witchcraft. On the other hand, this book had a profound impact on modern Witchcraft (one might say a profoundly BAD impact, but that's another issue). So this is an important book to read if you want to understand the development of Wicca and modern Paganism. Just don't mistake it for history
Rating: 
Summary: Rejected theory still important in history of world religion
Review: I actually came to this book after reading other scholarly texts that disprove, and books by modern witches that reluctantly admit to, the many unproven and unprovable assertions Margaret Murray made back in 1921. But, still, this book remains fascinating for its role in the growth of modern paganism and witchcraft -- and as a testament to the scholarly brilliance and creative thinking of a woman in what was still very much the male world of reseach and academia.Murray was a brilliant thinker and researcher, but like many such people (male and female) since, and many more to come, her work has fed generations who have grown with her and now beyond her. Disproving her thesis does not denegrate the work or it's role in the history of a modern world religion. I think the most fair assessment of the book's merits and demerits can be found in Jeffrey B. Russell's 1970s "A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics, and Pagans": "Modern historical scholarship rejects the Murray thesis with all its variants. Scholars have gone too far in their retreat from Murray, since many fragments of pagan religion do certainly appear in medieval witchcraft. But the fact remains that the Murray thesis on the whole is untenable. The argument for the survival of any coherent fertility cult from antiquity through the Middle Ages into the present is riddled with fallacies..." That doesn't mean that someone may not come up with a stronger set of theory or evidence later (after standing on the shoulders of a pioneer like Murray), but for now we have to admit the interesting but untenable nature of her sequence of evidence and her bottom-line conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: Hard to believe we're still discussing this
Review: Murray's book actually contains a statement to the effect of "What reason would there have been for anyone to be accused of witchcraft other than that they were a witch?" and its entire argument is based on testimonies extracted under torture by people who were using the _Malleus Maleficarum_ as a guide, and would not accept any answers except what the book told them to expect. The main reason to own this book today is for its place in the history of ideas about European Paganism.
Rating:
Summary: Hard to believe we're still discussing this
Review: Murray's book actually contains a statement to the effect of "What reason would there have been for anyone to be accused of witchcraft other than that they were a witch?" and its entire argument is based on testimonies extracted under torture by people who were using the _Malleus Maleficarum_ as a guide, and would not accept any answers except what the book told them to expect. The main reason to own this book today is for its place in the history of ideas about European Paganism.
Rating:
Summary: Murray's "God of the Witches"
Review: Murray's work was pioneering in the 20's, but her work has been
disproved by later, more careful scholars. New Agers or contemporary pagans are understandably fond of this work because it forms one of the bases of their mythology. Be aware though, that Murray's book itself is mythology, not fact. Read Keith Thomas' _Religion and the Decline of Magic_ for a more realistic introduction to medieval/early modern witchcraft
Rating:
Summary: Not historically accurate.
Review: The basic outline of Murray's arguments are well summarised by the reviewers below. For nearly 50 years, Margaret Murray's intrepretations on the early-modern witch-hunts were the yardstick from which all other contributions in this field were instinctively tested. However, in the 1970's a new generation of historians emerged who challenged Murray's approach and the methods of research she employed into the evidence. Norman Cohn, in his book "Europe's Inner Demons" presented an impressive rebuttal of Murray's ideas on witchcraft. In fact, so compelling was Cohn's dissent that virtually no witchcraft text since has supported Murray. Consequently, if you are looking for a good, definitive text on European witchcraft, don't come here. Instead, here are some books that you might want to look into: Keith Thomas "Religion and the Decline of Magic" which is confined mainly to England, but to this day remains a definitive bible on witchcraft. Robin Briggs "Witches and Neighbours" is a book of major scholarly significance that concentrates on most of Western Europe. Brian Levack "The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe." Like Briggs, Levack covers all of Europe, but according to the former, Levack's approach is "competent, but unadventurous." Nevertheless, for causal readers, Levack's book is well worth a read. Geoffrey Scarre "Witchcraft and Magic in 16th and 17th Century Europe." For all you university students out there who are anxious to get a crash-course introduction to European witchcraft, you can now relax! Good luck and happy reading.
Rating: 
Summary: A very significant history - wrongly attacked by Cohn
Review: This book came out in the 1930s and was one of the firtst to take the testimony of women put on trial as witches seriously - she described a witchcraft practice that may have existed in part in the late medieval period - but which is very different from the Wicca or Craft revived in the 20th century. She may well be wrong in many parts, particularly on Joan - but the defamatory attack by Norman Cohn in his Europe's Innder Demons was completely out of order and wrong. He accused her of omitting from the testimony of the alleged witches that she quoted anything that they had said that would have discredited them. He quoted many samples of this... but I was astonished when I checked him against this book, to find that she had not omitted these passages but had considered them in detail! The passages moreover were not that discrditing - eg "I travelled to the fairy mound and there met the Queen of Elf who rules over the Craft." This is standard folklore and certainly does not prove the accused person was fraudulent in claiming to be in the Craft. Unfortunately Cohn's critique of Murray has been spread far and wide, particularly by Ronald Hutton who in his several books endorses Crohn's critique and says that it destroys Murray's credibility... Hutton was then quoted by many others who trusted him to have checked to see if Cohn was right...
However this does not mean that Murray does not greatly need updating - she wrote after all in the 1930s - particularly she did not understand shamanic language - and much in the witchtrial testimonies reflects shamanistic ideas - see Carlo Ginzburg and also a book entitled Between the Living and the Dead by Pocs - published in 1999 - this is a study of 2000 witchtrials - by far the largest ever done - and she reports that Medieveal witchraft was inseparable from an indigenous local shamanic tradition - this is totally interwoven rigtht throughout her period and probably back to earlier times.
So - `Murray made a start, - read her as a 1930s view.. she was brilliant for her time... - but as for her thesis that a pagan witchcraft survived, it may well be right some of- the witches she quoted may have possessed a truely old shamanic tradition.
Rating:
Summary: A very significant history - wrongly attacked by Cohn
Review: This book came out in the 1930s and was one of the firtst to take the testimony of women put on trial as witches seriously - she described a witchcraft practice that may have existed in part in the late medieval period - but which is very different from the Wicca or Craft revived in the 20th century. She may well be wrong in many parts, particularly on Joan - but the defamatory attack by Norman Cohn in his Europe's Innder Demons was completely out of order and wrong. He accused her of omitting from the testimony of the alleged witches that she quoted anything that they had said that would have discredited them. He quoted many samples of this... but I was astonished when I checked him against this book, to find that she had not omitted these passages but had considered them in detail! The passages moreover were not that discrditing - eg "I travelled to the fairy mound and there met the Queen of Elf who rules over the Craft." This is standard folklore and certainly does not prove the accused person was fraudulent in claiming to be in the Craft. Unfortunately Cohn's critique of Murray has been spread far and wide, particularly by Ronald Hutton who in his several books endorses Crohn's critique and says that it destroys Murray's credibility... Hutton was then quoted by many others who trusted him to have checked to see if Cohn was right...
However this does not mean that Murray does not greatly need updating - she wrote after all in the 1930s - particularly she did not understand shamanic language - and much in the witchtrial testimonies reflects shamanistic ideas - see Carlo Ginzburg and also a book entitled Between the Living and the Dead by Pocs - published in 1999 - this is a study of 2000 witchtrials - by far the largest ever done - and she reports that Medieveal witchraft was inseparable from an indigenous local shamanic tradition - this is totally interwoven rigtht throughout her period and probably back to earlier times.
So - `Murray made a start, - read her as a 1930s view.. she was brilliant for her time... - but as for her thesis that a pagan witchcraft survived, it may well be right some of- the witches she quoted may have possessed a truely old shamanic tradition.
<< 1 >>
| 
