Debunked: How Margaret Murray's Witch-Cult Theory Sparked a Century of Study.
Historiography is Important
To most people who study history simply for fun, the term “Historiography” just sounds like boring academic junk. In the field of History, historiography is crucial, right up there with primary sources. Each historian working in a field has to be well-versed on the historiography, meaning the historical interpretations of historians who preceded them. If you don’t familiarize yourself with this stuff, then you can end up re-working a theory that has already been debunked. Sometimes the historiography can spark inspiration, because much of history is either trying to debunk, or add to the work of a previous historian, unless you are just doing something completely original, which is rare. This subject is what drives the historical conversation.
Everyone trained in the field of history, must take several courses on historiography. It is required at the master and Ph.D. level. After that, in any Ph.D. program, historians must take cumulative examinations, covering the history of certain regions and time periods. Mostly this is consisting of historiography. Dozens of books are read by the major authors in these fields, and your job is to cover the change in the conversation over time. This means figuring out the historian’s methods, their sources and the historians they are putting their work up next to. This is as important to the training of professional historians, as learning the skills of research and writing. So, for each history subject, the other historians are important, and this is why I include tidbits about the historical works in my newsletters. That being said, let’s jump over to today’s feature.
Margaret Murray: Egyptologist.
Margaret Murray was an incredibly accomplished academic of her day. Born in 1863, in British-owned Calcutta, India, Murray was born to British parents. Her dad was of Indian descent, so she was partially of that lineage. The part of Calcutta the Murray’s live in was walled off from the rest of Indian society. Eventually Margaret was sent away to Britain where she lived with her Uncle John and Aunt Harriet, in Berkshire, England. Her uncle was a vicar, a local Anglican clergyman. Margaret and her sister Mary were raised under the strictures of a Christian-run household. The devout Christian relatives who took the two Murray daughters in burned the girls out, especially young Margaret, even though she was only 7 years old when she moved in with her aunt and uncle. Margaret, who lived to be 100, wrote an autobiography of her life in her waning moments, and reflected upon this upbringing. Margaret was an active member of early feminist movements, and what she saw as harsh rhetoric towards women in Christianity, drove her away from any organized faith. This was an odd outcome, especially considering her mother was a Christian missionary in India, which explains her mother’s place in India.
Margaret Murray had a long academic career, spread throughout her 100 years of life.
The 1800’s, especially in England, there was a new subject that was the rage as they say. Egyptomania! Sounds exciting right? It does to me, but to many it might seem an odd kind of mania. In the early-1800’s Napoleon’s campaign through Egypt opened the door for documentation of the ancient sites. In 1822, using the Rosetta Stone, Jean-Francois Champollion was the first to decipher Egyptian Hieroglyphs. This sparked a new interest in the glory days of Egyptian dominance, and their relics. Margaret Murray, looking at British monuments, became fascinated by archaeology. With Egyptology, the new thing, Murray’s mother encouraged her to attend the new school of Egyptology at the University College of London (UCL). Lacking a formal education, Margaret did quite well for herself.
Jean-Francois Champollion was the first to interpret Egyptian Hieroglyphs in 1822, using the Rosetta Stone (pictured below).
The Rosetta Stone was accidentally discovered in 1799. The stone was used as material to build Ottoman Fort Rashid, which later became Ford Julien under French occupation. It was during the French occupation the stone was discovered. Formed during the Hellenistic period, the stone matches Ancient Greek, alongside Demotic and Hieroglyphic writing. Giving the scholars a gateway to interpreting the Egyptian writing, by comparing it to the Greek writing.
Margaret, being 30 years old at the beginning of her studies, was seen as a talented academic. William Flinders Petrie, who ran the department at UCL, was paving the way for modern archaeology. Margaret first worked for Petrie as his assistant, and illustrator, before writing her own research articles. Eventually she worked her way up to the position of lecturer, making her the first female professor of archaeology in the UK, in 1898. She eventually moved on to field work, helping Petrie during his study of Abydos. She uncovered the Osireion in Abydos, a temple dedicated to Osiris, and did some more field work near Cairo between 1901-02. She published her findings of this time, and planned for more work in the field, but the First World War hindered any hope of archaeological work for a spell.
The Osireion in Abydos was first discovered by Margaret Murray in 1901-1902.
During the First World War, Margaret became fascinated by English Folklore, and happened upon some studies of the European Witch-Hunts. In 1921 she published The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology. Her book, while often debunked, and seen as controversial, became a conduit for later study of the Witch-Hunts. She continued on her path of academia well into her golden years, publishing her last book in 1963, the final year of her life. Murray was a pioneer for women in academia and was an early proponent of the feminist movement.
The Book: The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology.
Murray’s book is seen as the gateway book by many historians, to the later study of the witch-hunts of the Early-Modern Period. I have to agree with them on this, because her work is almost always cited in any new additions to this field. Granted it’s usually noted as being a debunked piece of historiography, but her work was important anyways.
An early cover of Murray’s book, shows the coven of witches around their horned god, known as Janus or Dianus.
Murray worked through the records of the witch-craze and decided that those accused of witchcraft were actually practitioners of an early fertility cult. This cult, according to Murray, was a religion much older than Christianity itself and was often seen as a target by the church for its paganism. The witches in Murray’s book, she believed, were actually practicing beneficent magic, as proponents of fertility, these women weren’t acting maliciously. In her book she wrote that these “witches” were actually worshipers of a horned god, known as Janus, a relic of ancient Rome. Of course, it made sense that the early Christians would mistake this horned god with the devil, he sure sounds like it.
Her work became more controversial though when she stated that the witches weren’t enticed into admitting guilt. Instead, she believed the witches were actually practicing magic. The acts they were accused of committing, that could be seen as dark magic, were things they actually believed were part of their religious rituals. Last week I covered the Malleus Maleficarum and how that book laid out the beliefs that many would later equate to witches. One of the acts was the so-called Sabbat where witches would meet in groups for satanic ritual. While many thought this simply an illusion, brought on by the devil, Murray wrote that these women actually were working in groups. These groups she called covens. Sounds like some witch stuff to me. According to Murray the Protestant Reformation opened the eyes of Christians to this ancient religion and it was time for the Christians to bring it down.
Murray’s book did find a popular audience, especially in 1931 when she published The God of the Witches which was written for popular reading. Due to this reception, she was chosen to write on the witch-hunts in the Encyclopedia-Brittanica, and her interpretation sparked a popular interest in the craze. The only issue, her book was doctored in favor of her thesis.
In the next several decades her book was dissected by historians. Murray did not like the idea of Inquisitors asking leading questions. Instead, she wanted to prove these women were actually admitting to the things they did, because they were actually practicing their religion. It wasn’t the torture that got them to admit to made-up actions, it was actually happening. To prove this, she only picked a handful of cases where women accused of witchcraft, admitted openly to their crimes. As a historian, choosing snippets of evidence is not a very objective approach. Historians noted that in the massive array of other recorded cases, the torture techniques used, along with the witch-hunting manuals, directed the questions. The witches really just knew what their torturers, and interrogators wanted to hear. That was instrumental in driving these conversations.
Murray’s hypothesis was further negated when these supposed rituals were researched. No European religions practiced them, not even small ones. No mention of a pagan cult, worshiping this horned god, could be found in any large number. There were no mentions of a coven, or an actual Sabbat. These were ideas concocted by the witch-hunters to cause fear, fear that the witches were gathering strength. Her books on the witches of the Early Modern Period have been criticized by most of the major scholars in the field like: Brian Levack, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Keith Thomas, Lyndal Roper and the like. Carlo Ginzburg in the 1960’s did, however, discover that many village healers practiced witchcraft, on a small level. To a small degree, these witches, while not known as witches, but usually as “cunning folk” or other terms, were performing acts of believed magic. This is hardly the widespread religious cult that Murray was a proponent of.
Conclusion: The purveyor of a new field of study.
Murray was an extremely talented academic, and a ground-breaking one at that. Becoming the first woman lecturer on archaeology in the UK, and a writer of many books and articles, she was a major figure of the feminist movement. While her book was broken down, and shown to be poor historical analysis, she did spark a debate. The field of the European Witch-Hunts has grown into a respectable field of history. There are dozens of major scholars, and almost every single one can trace back their historical origins to Murray’s thesis. Her work is cited by almost every author in the field, albeit as a footnote of criticism or skepticism, she still promoted a very important field of study. She was also a very accomplished academic, and discovered many amazing things, and wrote many great books and articles. One disputed book does not tarnish an entire career of solid academic work. Murray is often seen as a motherlike figure in the Wicca religion, as much of her consensus on witch-practices, is practiced by those in the religion.
This week’s newsletter doesn’t delve too deeply into the witch-craze itself, but the foundation of the study is an important thing to note. Margaret Murray deserved recognition for the work she did, and the thing she started. I certainly recommend you check out her book on the subject here. If you don’t have an archive.org account, go and get you one. They are completely free and give you access to millions of books, text sources, video sources, software, websites etc. It’s a great place to do some of your own digging. If you want some more resources on this subject, go look into any of the historians I listed above, look at their books and most importantly look at their notes! Footnotes, Endnotes and Bibliographies are amazing resources for finding sources, and from there you can often dig deeper. Next newsletter we will delve deeper into the actual witch-craze, but for now take some time to honor Margaret Murray!