Talk:Witchcraft

Witchcraft and the paranormal

I think the section on Witchcraft and the Paranormal is heavy POV influenced. The statement "Modern science has found no evidence to support the claims witchcraft makes about the world or its own efficacy" is not POV free. If fact, modern physics, as well as medicine, accepts almost as axiomatic that observation influences; for this reason, you cannot know both the position and speed of a particle; and all the research showing actual measurable effects of prayer (any flavor) on health, even in double blind situations, also valids some principles of witchcraft. Additionally, the statement about witchcraft and "diabolocal pacts" is NOT a POV free statement, nor representative of common understanding; witchcraft is also seen as using non-malevolent spiritual intervention, or the essence or power of material objects to create its effects. The entire paragraph about traditional European belief seems 1) not to belong to this section and 2) could use a link to blood libel .

way to much christian POV in there, i agree. Gabrielsimon 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New here

Hello, I'm new here and certainly don't know what I'm doing. I added the second paragraph down on the witchcraft page and haven't the faintest clue how to put word links in there or anything if someone wants to clean up the post...or tell me whether or not it's even appropriate? Dissonantia [ps - Re: the Malleus Malificarum page, if one hasn't already been worked on, I'm willing to give it a shot! Will explore this site more on Friday, but this is my first time here, and I think it's a wonderful concept!!]

Witchcraft and belief

I certainly agree that some people do believe in witchcraft. In fact, I explicitly stated this in the material I wrote. I gave examples of two groups of people who used to, and still do, believe that witches can cast magic spells. The problem was that the person who created this entry appeared to strongly believe in the reality of magic witchcraft, and stated the existence of it as definately real. That was not NPOV! I think that if anyone wants to claim that supernatural, magic witchcraft is genuinelly real, they need to demonstrate this, with proper scientific controls to make sure that no fraud or self-deception is taking place. Otherwise, all we can do is say that some people believe in witchcraft, in the same way we say that some people believe in Allah, or Jesus, or Diana, etc. RK

salem witchcraft trials?

Edit: RK, would you go up to a Christian and ask him or her to prove that prayer does indeed work and is valid? Would you require that person to prove that prayer is real? Millions of Christians practice prayer each and every single day. Stating such is a matter of fact and not of opinion. Millions of witches practice magick each and every single day. Stating such is not a matter of opinion but one of fact. Whether we are successful at it or not doesn't matter. That is in fact what we do. Ayla

The trouble with that is that the term 'magic' describes both the activity and the effect, whereas 'prayer' describes only the activity. So, when you say 'witches practice magic' it does carry an implication that magic exists, not merely as a practice but as a force. The challenge will be to come up with some description that documents your beliefs and practices without implicitly validating (or invalidating) them.Cavalorn 16:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to RK,dude, how the heck can you think that you can do magic scientifucally, the two dont reconsile because sciene isnt advanced enough yet. Gabrielsimon 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, right, science isn't advanced enough yet to be on par with magic, and alchemy and werewolves too in fact. Sorry, but you can't fight POV with POV on Wikipedia. Phil Urich 12:07, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

Malleus Malificarum

Anyone want to take the time to do a page on the Malleus Malificarum and then link it to the various witchcraft-related pages? --Dante Alighieri

European witchcraft?

Quite a lot about Jewish/Middle Eastern/Biblical witchcraft and attitudes towards, not a lot on European witchcraft. Anyone want to fill in the gaps? —Ashley Y 08:01, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Rant from article

Moved here by —Eloquence 09:25, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) until it is properly NPOVed and encyclopediafied:

Witchcraft is the practice of folk magic (including herbalism, divination, spellcraft, etc. - sometimes to include midwifery and other "misunderstood" mundane practices), as opposed to a religion in and of itself. That said, however, "modern" Witchcraft (which includes Wicca and other "traditions") is believed by its practitioners to be a religion in and of itself. People have haggled over the term on end, and the best way it may be explained by one of the latter that is fair to the former is that witchcraft (lowercase "w") denotes the practice, while Witchcraft (uppercase "w") refers to the religion. A witch can be of any (or no) religion and is not always necessarily a Pagan. (Someone should clarify this better). Source material for this info includes: The Truth About Witchcraft Today, 1988, Scott Cunningham; The Encyclopedia of Witches & Witchcraft, Second Edition, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, Checkmark Books, 1999, pp. 366, 372-374, 378. ; http://members.aol.com/dissonantia (a large number of the links there are now defunct, but the site includes pertinent snippets from the sites); and various other web sites and book references.

Messy

Kind of a hodge-podge, this article... —Ashley Y 04:32, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have moved text on Neopagan witchcraft here from To The Craft (Religion)because it makes more sense to have distinct entries on this. The way I see it this article should be on the historical, folklore and anthropological defination of witchcraft. Historians and others use the term witchcraft in this sense to mean black magic used to harm others. Thats the way the Britanica article on Witchcraft is defined.

What do other people think?? Obviously this defination has nothing to do with moddern Wicca. Machenphile

Merge

Obviously there was a recent merge with witch, but whoever did it left no notes here about it. In any case, I cleaned up the interwiki links, etc., but there are now two Dutch-language links and two Japanese-language links, and in both cases I don't know which is to be preferred. -- Jmabel 19:04, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did a rather naive merge and there's still a lot of repeated text. —Ashley Y 21:55, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

You also forgot to remove it from Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Now done. Gdr 18:31, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Extremely messy

OMFG This is a real mess. We actually have about 6 different articles horribly mangled here; it is the intellectual equivalent of a motorway pile-up, with the corpses of knowledge and information strewn across the carriageways. I think I will have a look at how we might get some coherence into this over the next few days. Sjc 04:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you recommend spinning off articles for each culture? —Ashley Y 05:25, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

I think we certainly need to decompose it somehow. Cultural / ethnographic splits would be one line of division, also we might think about witchcraft in its historical context etc. Sjc 10:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Partly this is the result of a merge. Perhaps we should consider recasting this as the top level of an article series? -- Jmabel 06:25, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is probably the way to go. I am still thinking about a sensible taxonomy for this as a subject, not the least of my problems being specialist knowledge in a couple of areas of witchcraft, notably Seid (shamanic magic) and wicca, and large blanks in other areas, particularly witchcraft outside of a historical context, e.g. modern notions and implementations of witchcraft etc. Sjc 10:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a location on Lynhaven River In Virginia Beach, VA that was called "Witchduck". I was taken there 80 years ago by my mother and shown where Grace Sherwood was ducked. It seems to me that this information should be incorporated in the discussion on witchcraft. I am now 86 and just can't hack it. Please read about it at:

http://virginiabeachhistory.org/kyle.html

Thank you. Alison Phillips phillipsacp@comcast.net

Article Series

I went ahead and created the template for the Witchcraft article series that was previously discussed here. The current Witchcraft article presents itself as an anthropological/historical overview of the subject, and so I developed the series around that notion. References to modern witchcraft (e.g., Wicca, Druidry) are, of course, appropriate, but the bulk of such information should remain in their individual articles. I believe that I have enough reference material to rewrite the article on European witchcraft, at the very least, but it will definitely take some time. I may also be able to write about African witchcraft and North American witchcraft as well. Spectatrix 02:32, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I outlined what I have in mind for European witchcraft on Talk:European witchcraft. Please comment there or on my talk page regarding the outline that I posted. I very much welcome suggestions on how I could improve it. Spectatrix 17:39, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Anyone know about Anna Godi apparently the last woman to be executed (hanged?) as a witch in UK? Anyone know details ? esp where? Szczels 12:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why would it be relevant? People have been killed by mobs, and arrested, for practicing witchcraft in Africa as of late 2004 (and maybe now in 2005 as well).

i don't get that 'witchcraft series' thing

why is the content from europe also present here? --Jay1 23:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Laws and regulations on witchcraft

There should be a legal section, i.e. when did witchcraft cease to be a crime or if some countries still punish people officially for citing spells or causing "cow's milk to dry up"? Even as late as 1748 people in Europe were burned as witches. That was after Newton, steam engines, etc. Truly incredible!

I agree with your suggestion. In Scotland, witchcraft was a criminal offense between 1563 and 1736. Adraeus 01:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if you want to know what the churches thought of magic and witchcraft, why not look up the maleus malificarun (spelling?)

youll see how poorly thought out it seemed to be, and yet they took it as seriously as possible Gabrielsimon 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Added 'disputed' tag, as the section on European Witchcraft contains many unsubstantiated assertions and theories. One hardly knows where to start. There is no evidence that 'wiccan' (Aelfric) were female, nor that they were 'shamans'. The Church did not attempt to 'exterminate women' (a significant number of witch-hunt victims were men.) There is no evidence that a 'wicce' was ever a healer or counsellor, nor is the comment that all this is 'known from Nordic sagas' at all helpful. The statement that categorising witches into black, white and hedge is misleading is nonsense - hedge witches are a modern invention, whereas 'white witches' or Cunning Folk are the only type of alleged 'witch' for which there is any historical evidence. The whole piece appears to be from a strongly neopagan, feminist POV. It badly needs rewriting. Cavalorn 10:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly bigoted material

Allegedly 'bigoted' material: a section that points out the lack of evidence for commonly asserted theories is being repeatedly removed because, apparently, it does not conform to characteristically neopagan views of the past. This is hardly a neutral point of view. Cavalorn

To claim that "there is no evidence" to support your assertion that witches were not originally healers or shamans requires that you have significantly researched the topic and are the authority on the history of witchcraft. Any such claims require citation regardless. For example, "So-and-so says in his this-and-that book that there lacks evidence..." See Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV. Adraeus 22:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have significantly researched the topic, and I am an authority on the subject, albeit not the authority. I'll cite any such statements, though.Cavalorn 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The proof that witches were historically healers is quite evident. A great deal of witchcraft lore that survives deals with herbs and their uses in healing. If witches weren't healers, they would not have been interested in healing herbs. Example of herblore in witchcraft: http://www.annwnscauldron.com/apothecary/herbs/herbg.html Nortonew

You're seriously citing that as an example? It's a modern compilation with no provenance whatsoever. For that matter, there is no surviving 'witchcraft lore'. The vast majority of what circulates among contemporary pagans is not ancient at all. I refer you to Ron Hutton's work, as well as Owen Davies' Cunning Folk and the compendious Leechcraft by Stephen Pollington [1]. Confusing witches with herbalists is a common mistake. Herbalism was considered Leechcraft, not Witchcraft. Big difference. Cavalorn 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ron huttons work is suspect at best. his research methods are questionable. Gabrielsimon 23:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. He's a Professor of History at the University of Bristol[2]. Anyone who cares to can check his credentials and his research. Cavalorn 23:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several covens have published the books of lore. Every single one of those books contained information on the use of herbs on healing. If you refuse to accept that as proof that witches were involved in healing, that's your right. However, I feel that this is sufficient proof to warrant the removal of your assertion from the article, and thus I will do so whenever you place it there. Nortonew 23:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not one single modern coven can demonstrate any connection to historical witchcraft, so the alleged 'books of lore' are spurious. The earliest one known, Gardner's original BoS, has been taken to pieces and shown to be almost entirely reproduced material. By the way, Wikipedia also has guidelines for the resolution of conflicts of opinion of this kind - you may not have noticed, but the article has already been amended by another Wikipedian. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia some more before making statements like 'I will do so whenever you place it there'. Think about it - if this was really just an endless ping-pong battle of 'yes it is, no it isn't' then nothing would ever get resolved. Cavalorn 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this is exactly why you shouldaccept that you are incorrect, as in the simple factthat your general;ization is ludicrious... how can you know anything about covens of witches if you dont know any witches? any way, my p9int is that you should probably just aknoledge your lack of expertise and move on to another article. Gabrielsimon 00:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's information that is posted regarding the history of witches on The Discovery Channel. This information plainly states "In ancient cultures witches were seen as priestesses or wise women with magical powers, who could foresee the future. They had the power of healing and would make 'unguents' (ointments and potions) from herbs."

I'm sure that you will proclaim this to be revision nonsense or some such thing. However, I think more people will be willing to trust The Discovery Channel than they would be willing to trust some self-proclaimed "expert" such as yourself. [3] Nortonew 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As with much of what gets reproduced in the popular media, this article is full of generalisations and errors, though I've seen worse. You do not seem to understand that it is not a matter of 'who people trust', it is simply a matter of citing sources and providing evidence to back up what is claimed. Cavalorn 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

then tell me how many witches you know. Gabrielsimon 00:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After 10 years of running one of my country's most successful and respected occult bookstores [4], I know literally hundreds of people who call themselves witches. (Whether it then follows that they ARE witches is, of course, another matter.) Cavalorn 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

selling books isnt walking the path. Gabrielsimon 00:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You asked me how many witches I knew, not what paths I have walked.Cavalorn 00:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

knowing witches and having witch customers is differnt. i mean the ones who you know. m sorry, its hard to be clear for me.... Gabrielsimon 00:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know hundreds on a personal level, not just as customers. Having a shop gives you the opportunity to do that. (I've probably served thousands, if we're talking about customers alone.) In any case, you're clearly just looking for some way to persuade yourself that I don't have the right to say what I'm saying, or the expertise to back it up. Well, if it helps, I've presented historical documentaries on TV, lectured all over the country, had articles published and been credited as a contributor in at least one recent book on the origins of Wicca. At the end of the day, though, it's not my opinion that matters, it's the sources I can cite. The only expertise I can really draw on (at least for Wiki purposes) is a broader range of sources than most - sources of better quality than a Discovery Channel webpage. So, never mind my personal views. I've been advised to cite sources for the article, and that's what I'll do. Cavalorn 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wicca is only a part of witchcraft. you may have expertise there, but it might not be sayable for witchcradt as a whole. and no, im not trying to disproove your words,, it sould be plain as da what im trying to do. Gabrielsimon 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok, ill try to be a little clearer, if you dont walk the path then your not very likly to be an expert on said path. no offense, just l;ogic.

thas not to say that every follower of a path is an expert, but you can probly see what im getting at. Gabrielsimon 00:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not true at all. A theologian is an expert on religion - he doesn't have to be a priest. Similarly, you can be an expert on witchcraft without thinking that you are a witch, or even that witches existed. Academic study is from the outside, and that's the kind of study that encyclopedias deal with. Anyway, where did I say I'm not a witch myself?Cavalorn 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a theologan is an expert in religion, but has no access to the oldest texts , or the oral traditions that some keep well guarded. thus, expertise can be said to be lacking. Gabrielsimon 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theologians do have access to the oldest texts, and the 'secret oral tradition' card is really just the last resort of hardcore neopagans who have nothing else to fall back on once every single other claim of historical continuity has been investigated and disproved. In any case, one doesn't need to say much about a supposed oral tradition that supports a view of history that has since been shown to be false. It's wise to be very wary about any alleged tradition that seems to support the Margaret Murray contentions, because they're simply wrong and have been shown to be so.

Let me give you an example of how unreliable 'oral tradition' is. The folk singer Ewan McColl wrote a song about gypsies, called 'The Thirty Foot Trailer', all about how Romany life was changing. Within a few years, gypsies were singing it and claiming it was a traditional song!Cavalorn 19:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Medea, a witch in ancient Greek mythology, used herbs to restore Jason's father to health. Of course, she also did a lot of other things that were rather nasty. However, this is a plain example of an ancient account of a witch being viewed as a healer. Nortonew 00:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a plain example of someone translating a Greek word into English as 'witch', and you drawing erroneous conclusions from that. You're conflating a mediaeval European concept with a classical Greek one. Medea was a priestess of Hecate. Cavalorn 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's plain is the fact that, no matter what evidence anyone produces, you will refuse to accept it. Everyone else in the world accepts that Medea was a witch. You can question that fact if you like, however, I think we are fast approaching the point where every reasonable person will agree that you are wrong. Quite frankly, I don't care what you think. If you post further erroneous statements, I will not hesistate to remove them. Moreover, I'm sure I can easily recruit a thousand or so neo-pagans that would be more than willing to devote a little of their time to keep Wikipedia's entry on witchcraft free of your hostile and inaccurate statements. Nortonew 00:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Everyone else in the world accepts that Medea was a witch?' I'm amazed that you took the time to consult every single human being on the planet. The word 'witch' didn't exist when Euripides wrote Medea. You only think of her as a 'witch' because that's how the play was translated into English. How much do you know about the differences in approach between Greek magical practice and European? Do you even know what Medea's title was? It's surprising that neopagans are very quick to point out when an original term that was later translated as 'witch' has a different meaning in the original text (for example, the Biblical bit about not suffering a poisoner to live, which was translated as 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live') and yet assume that every use of the word 'witch' must refer to the same thing when it serves their own ends. You also seem to think that Wikipedia is some sort of propaganda war, and that you can force your own point of view across by recruiting friends. It doesn't work like that, and you really ought to know that already. Did you read any of the introductory pages when you first created your account? Cavalorn 01:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why must you speak in vulger tones? i thoughtthere was also a civillity policey, so he didnt use the exact phrasing he was supposedto, big deal.... Gabrielsimon 01:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the civility - we could all benefit from toning this down a notch. However, phrasing is a big deal. Over the course of history, diverse words and ideas become intermingled, blending concepts together that were originally quite different. The study of language is vital to the study of history. Cavalorn 01:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i meant no disrespect, but phrasing, in talk pages, well, why cant we just let it slip, and take what is meant, instead of literal meanings? it might save a few edit wars and such.... Gabrielsimon 01:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. In the original Greek, Medea was a pharmakis, a word with the root 'pharma-' meaning drug or poison, as in 'pharmaceuticals'. Medea was a brewer of magic potions, and a priestess of Hecate. That word, pharmakis, was translated into English (much, much later) as 'witch'. So, logically, pointing to Medea as proof that witches were herbal healers is arguing backwards. Cavalorn 01:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to find the truth, often the best way is to look backwards, i see no problem in it, considering thath te link IS there, even in your own words. Gabrielsimon 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

In regards to your latest additions regarding the Pendle witches and such, I would have to agree that those statements are largely correct in their assessment of the common views of witchcraft by people of the dark ages. Gabrielsimon, I would encourage you to leave them intact. Nortonew 00:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hecate was the goddess of witches. Even if Medea was a priestess of Hecate, she would still basically be a witch. Do you think Circe was a witch? Do you believe that the concept of witches even existed in Greek culture?

Medea did more than just brew potions in the Greek myths. She cast spells. Obviously pharmakeåus means more than just a brewer of potions.

The confusion concerning the biblical verse referring witches and/or poisoners is due to the fact that the Greek translation of the verse uses the word pharmakeåus, which can mean either witch or poisoner. This was probably because, as can be seen in Greek mythology, Greek witches often poisoned people, (just like Medea - the supposed non-witch). However, the original Hebrew term, m'ka-shay-fah, is most properly translated as sorcerer, or someone who does magic. The whole upshot of this is that Jehovah really did not like witches, (I can't imagine he was too keen on poisoners either). The fact that Saul ran most of the witches out of Israel shows that the Hebrews of that time were hostile to witches and weren't particularly interested in letting them live. I don't know why some modern witches like to talk about how that verse should say poisoners instead of witches.

In regards to the differences between Greek and European witches, how much do you know about geography? Last time I checked, Greece was in Europe. Therefore, Greek witches ARE European witches.

Also, in regards to Medieval European witches, here is a passage from the text "Dæmonology by King James the First. [1597] With Newes from Scotland [1591]" that shows that even the enemies of witches acknowledged a witch's ability to heal.

PHI. But before yee goe further, permit mee I pray you to interrupt you one worde, which yee haue put mee in memorie of, by speaking of Women. What can be the cause that there are twentie women giuen to that craft, where ther is one man?

EPI. The reason is easie, for as that sexe is frailer then man is, so is it easier to be intrapped in these grosse snares of the Deuill, as was ouer well proued to be true, by the Serpents deceiuing of Eua at the beginning, which makes him the homelier with that sexe sensine.

PHI. Returne now where ye left.

EPI. To some others at these times hee teacheth, how to make Pictures of waxe or clay: That by the rosting thereof, the persones; that they beare the name of, may be continuallie melted or dryed awaie by continuall sicknesse. To some hee giues such stones or poulders, as will helpe to cure or cast on diseases

The fact that they believed that the devil gave witches "such stones or poulders, as will helpe to cure or cast on diseases" shows that they believed witches could heal.

This text can be found at sacred-texts.com. [5] Nortonew 03:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Here's another passage from the same book mentioning healing by witches: "...by these false miracles may be induced or confirmed in the profession of that erroneous Religion: euen as I told you before that he doth in the false cures, or casting off of diseases by Witches."

Even though the writer asserts that the cures are "false", the existence of this passage shows that witches were definitely involved in healing, or at least trying to.

Your statement that there is absolutely no proof that witches were historically seen as healers seems somewhat at odds with these passages. Nortonew 03:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Yet again, it's misleading to claim that 'Hecate was the goddess of witches' when the concept that existed in Greece was not that of a witch as commonly understood, but of one of the ancestors of that concept. Yes, Greece is part of Europe - what I was getting at, as explained earlier, was that you are mixing up a classical Greek idea with a mediaeval northern European one. Your mistake is to think that because dark-age Europeans believed in 'witches' and the word for what Medea was was translated as 'witch', they were therefore the same thing. Similarly, you're acting as if the use of the word 'witch' to describe Biblical figures meant that there were witches in Biblical times - that all these historical witches were the same thing. Go back to the original texts where possible and find out what the writers were actually talking about, not what the translators chose to call them. For example, the 'witch' of Endor was, apparently, more likely to have been the whore of Endor.

When a translator uses 'witch' as the nearest available concept, it blurs the important cultural distinctions between different practitioners of magic and creates the illusion that 'witches' are a continuous presence.

I've never said that witches weren't occasionally believed to have powers that could be used for people's benefit. There's a difference, however, between being able to cure as well as curse (in the beliefs of the people) and being 'a healer', which is a wholly benign societal role. The prevalent belief is that 'witches' were originally wholly benign and were only portrayed as malefic because of Christian propaganda. And the point that I've been driving at is that there is no such benign portrayal of a witch. Historically, the only 'witches' that are benign (though they charge a fee) are the *white* witches or cunning folk.

Incidentally, that excerpt from Demonologie you linked to is actually a deliberate conflation of cunning folk and malefic witches by King James, who wanted to obliterate *any* magical practice and made no distinction between the two. See Owen Davies' Cunning Folk. To quote: 'What forme of punishment think yee merites these magicians and Witches? For I see that ye account them to be all alike guiltee..' Cavalorn 08:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

If one defines a witch solely as the archetypal figure that emerged during the Midde Ages, and was to some extent the creation of the Catholic Church, then it would be impossible to find any references that show that the original concept of the witch was beneficial. You are saying that, by definition, the witch is a malefic figure, and then accusing modern neo-pagans of conspiring to alter your definition.

Modern witches, wiccans, neo-pagans, and such do not define the historical witch solely as the witch figure that emerged during the middle ages. They include in the historical definition all of the diverse pre-christian witch-like figures in history. Figures such as Medea, shamans, priests and priestesses of pagan religions, druids, cunning folk, and many others are included in the diverse entities that were amalgamated together in the Middle Ages into the witch figure.

There were definitely people who used herbs and magical rites in pre-christian Europe in a beneficial fashion. They may not have been literally called "witches", but according to the lore passed down clandestinely during the dark Christian ages amongst those who still worshipped the pre-Christain gods, witchcraft had its origins in them. However, as this lore was, by necessity, hidden and often in oral form, no one is going to be able to reference any well known documentation from the Middle Ages to that effect.

Modern pagans are not conspiring to revise history. They are stating that according to the lore they accept as legitimate, the definition of witchcraft fits the practices of known pre-christian entities who were beneficial. These people may not have had the word "witch" applied to them during their time, but they were the people from which descended the beliefs of the medieval people who were the targets of the Christian witch-hunters.

As for the "witch" of Endor, I'm curious as to why you think that Saul would have sought out a whore if he wanted to consult with the spirits of the dead. The reason that translators used the word "witch" in relation to such figures as Medea, Circe, and the something-or-other of Endor, is because all of those people were engaged in doing witch-like things. Obviously, in the period prior to the invention of the word "witch", it would be impossible to find any people called witches. Therefore, when referring to that period, if one is discussing the history and origins of witchcraft, it is reasonable to apply the word "witch" to people who were involved in witch-like activity. Nortonew 18:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, I am saying that the witch is by definition a malefic figure, because that is exactly what it is, through hundreds of years of history, right back to the first recorded use of the term in Aelfric. The modern revisionist interpretation, in which a witch is held to be a misunderstood pagan figure, is extremely recent and based upon the faulty scholarship of Maragret Murray. It's an article of neopagan faith, not a fact.

From what you write, it is clear that you are accepting many articles of faith as if they were fact. When you refer to 'according to the lore passed down clandestinely during the dark Christian ages amongst those who still worshipped the pre-Christain gods', you are referring to something that does not exist except as an article of faith, which makes me feel like I'm having a discussion with someone who thinks Noah's Ark literally existed. There is simply no evidence for this passing down of clandestine lore at all. The idea was suggested by Margaret Murray and developed by Gerald Gardner, who first claimed to have been the recipient of such lore. However, everything he claimed as ancient proved to be adapted material from other sources. See 'Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration' by Philip Heselton.

The claims for historical continuity of pagan belief as 'witchcraft' have been very thoroughly investigated, by historians, and there isn't any evidence to support them at all. (See 'The Triumph Of The Moon' by Professor Hutton.) The people who were targeted by witch-hunters were not practicing an inherited pagan tradition. That was Margaret Murray's thesis, and it's been discredited. To mention the most obvious flaw in it, Murray took the similarities between the confessions of accused witches as evidence that there was a 'cult' that had consistent characteristics, ranging through western Europe. In fact, the similarities between the confessions are down to the fact that the interrogators employed a checklist, and ticked it off as the victim responded to the accusation.

The point about the whore of Endor is that diviners, sorcerers and the like were often other things as well. To reduce the whole thing to 'witches' is a massive oversimplification.

You can believe what you like about inherited lore in the absence of evidence, but you have no more right to insist that history should be viewed from your faith-based standpoint than a Creationist does. Cavalorn 11:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your original statement claimed "there is no evidence for witches having originally been healers or counselors". Its rather hard to refute this when you claim that every historical reference to a witch wasn't actually talking about witches. However, I'm sure that even you won't have the gall to claim that Shakespeare wasn't talking about witches in his play MacBeth. MacBeth's famous consultation with the witches shows that there must have been at least some cultural history of people seeking out witches for advice.

Another, less known, instance of a character seeking out a witch for advice is in the old legend of the Lambton Worm. There a knight asks a witch for advice in defeating in a dragon.

In both of these tales, the witches aren't portrayed as exactly kind and benevolent, but its definitely an example of witches being sought out as counselors and indicates that witches were considered wise, (if not particularly nice). Nortonew 05:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was my original statement, and I stand by it. If you cast your mind back to the context, it related to a now-deleted assertion that witches were originally pagan healers and counsellors whose role was later distorted by Christians. This is the popular post-Murray belief, and there's no evidence for it.

You have to realise that not every historical reference that seems to be referring to a 'witch' is actually referring to what you are thinking of as a witch. I'd be the last to deny that sifting through the piles of rubbish that have been written about witches is a trying task, but it really is worth doing. Once you've gotten down to the bones, you can clearly see just how much of the popular modern neopagan stance on witches is sheer invention, and how much it depends upon blurring distinctions between different historical figures.

Your sources don't indicate a 'cultural history' in which witches were originally valued counsellors. What they do indicate is a belief that witches had supernatural powers of insight, and a recognition of the use of such a figure as a narrative device. The witches in both the stories you've cited are really there to supply the protagonist with special information. Macbeth suffers the fate of those who consult with malign supernatural powers - the very prophecy he receives proves his undoing. As for John Lambton, the whole obligation to kill the first thing he sees is a familiar folktale ingredient, all the way back to Jepthah in the Bible, and the presence of a 'witch' just makes the resultant curse all the more sinister. So, all that the 'witches' in these stories are doing is fulfilling the familiar narrative role of the Oracle Whose Answer Ends Up Stabbing You In The Back.Cavalorn 09:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've come across a couple of sites online that were supposedly written by women who claim that their families have been practicing traditional witchcraft for centuries. Of course, these are just claims and not documentable facts. However, several of them say that their family and the people who come to them for cures and fortune-telling use the word witch. Others say that they prefer other terms. These people tend to be located in the Appalachians, but I've come across something by one in Ireland too. One rather prevalent use of the word witch in a non-malevolent form seems to be in the term "water-witching", which is another name for dowsing.

However, one interesting thing about these peoples' claims is that they tend to view witchcraft much more as a profession than a religion. They claim that many of their ancestors were devout christians, but still practiced witchcraft. I'm sure that you will say that this is merely an example of folk magic, but these people were actually using the term witchcraft. Also, these people do not claim any sort of link back to a pagan priesthood, but they do state that some of their charms use the names of old pagan gods in them.

Again, this is easily disputed evidence as these are simply sites that make no attempt at historical documentation but simply state the experiences of the writers, or at least what they claim are their experiences. I just thought that the claims were rather interesting. Nortonew 04:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, every time a new theory comes out, people tend to claim to be the representatives of it. Before the publication of The Triumph of the Moon knocked the bottom out of Wicca's claims to antiquity, people were claiming to have practiced Wicca for centuries, exactly as Gardner described it. Then, when so-called 'Old Craft' became popular, people claimed to have been doing that for years, too. Now that recent research has shed far more light on the Cunning Folk, guess what - people are claiming descent from a hereditary 'Cunning Craft', not that there ever was such a thing.

The evidence suggests that claims to have been practicing 'witchcraft' for centuries always base their definition of 'witchcraft' on whatever is current in academic circles at the time. There is not one single account of a witchcraft tradition being passed down anywhere, until Gardner established a fashion for it. Cavalorn 12:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is going to be a huge post, but I've been reading through the Malleus Maleficarum and found a whole bunch of important stuff...

After reading through several parts of the Malleus Maleficarum, I believe there is ample evidence therein to state that the witch-hunters of that time differentiated between cunning-folk and witches. Despite of their recognition of the differences between witchcraft and folk-magic, the writer still aknowledged that witches were sought out as healers and advisers by the common people.

Moreover, there are some passages in the Malleus Maleficarum that seem to indicate that witches may have actually really been some form of clandestine pagan clergy, (probably not all witches were, but some of them may have been). It also explains why the church would not have been willing to recognize witches as pagan priests. Since witches had been baptized into the Catholic church, (albeit as babies), they were NOT pagans according to the church. This meant that if the witches were worshipping pagan gods, (as it appears some did - most notably Diana), then they would have to be considered heretics.

Malleus Maleficarum

Malleus Maleficarum

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/index.htm

Part 3 - Question XIV And without doubt notorious witches, especially such as use witches' medicines and cure the bewitched by superstitious means, should be kept in this way, both that they may help the bewitched, and that they may betray other witches.

--Shows that witches, not just "cunning folk" were considered able to break spells and were used in this fashion. Note it says "notorious witch", much too strong a term to suppose it meant simply cunning folk, especially in light of other passages that speak about folk magic.

Part 3 - Question XXXIV The fifteenth method of bringing a process on behalf of the faith to a definitive sentence is employed when the person accused of heresy is not found to be one who casts injurious spells of witchcraft, but one who removes them.... ...The remedies which she uses will either be lawful or unlawful; and if they are lawful, she is not to be judged a witch but a good Christian.

--Shows obvious differentiation on the part of the writer between folk magic and witchcraft. Thus, the writer does not consider everyone who uses folk magic to be a witch.

But if they are only in some respect unlawful, that is to say, if they are practised with only a tacit, and not an expressed, invocation of devils, such are to be judged rather vain than unlawful, according to the Canonists and some Theologians, as we have already shown.

--Shows that some magic used against witchcraft definitely invoked "devils". Probably not simple folk magic.

For in the Diocese of Spires there is a witch in a certain place called Zunhofen who, although she seems to heal many persons, confesses that she can in no way heal certain others.

-Uses the word witch for a woman that many people go to for aid, despite the fact that the writer has earlier differentiated between witches and people who simply use folk magic.

Who, then, are to be called receivers of such; and are they to be reckoned as heretics? All they, we answer, who receive such archer-wizards, enchanters of weapons, necromancers, or heretic witches as are the subject of this whole work. And such receivers are of two classes, as was the case with the defenders and patrons of such.

-Talks about people not only seeking out witches for occasional healing, but actually keeping them on their payroll!

To sum up. Witch-midwives, like other witches, are to be condemned and sentences according to the nature of their crimes; and this is true also of those who, as we have said, remove spells of witchcraft superstitiously and by the help of devils; for it can hardly be doubted that, just as they are able to remove them, so can they inflict them. And it is a fact that some definite agreement is formed between witches and devils whereby some shall be able to hurt and others to heal, that so they may more easily ensnare the minds of the simple and recruit the ranks of their abandoned and hateful society.

-Witches healing that have committed heresy - probably not simple cunning folk.

Part 2 - Chapter V - Prescribed Remedies for those who are Obsessed owing to some Spell.

But especial care is to be taken that those who are obsessed through witchcraft should not be induced to go to witches to be healed. For S. Gregory goes on to say of the woman we have just mentioned: Her kindred and those who loved her in the flesh took her to some witches to be healed...

-Family takes loved one to witches to be healed of possession.

Part 2 - Chapter I

Devils, therefore, by means of witches, so afflict their innocent neighbours with temporal losses, that they are to beg the suffrages of witches, and at length to submit themselves to their counsels; as many experiences have taught us.

-People seeking counsel from witches, (albeit under duress).

We know a stranger in the diocese of Augsburg, who before he was forty-four years old lost all his horses in succession through witchcraft. His wife, being afflicted with weariness by reason of this, consulted with witches, and after following their counsels, unwholesome as they were, all the horses which he bought after that (for he was a carrier) were preserved from witchcraft.

-Women helped by witches. As the counsels were "unwholesome" its unlikely that the writer meant simple cunning-folk.

they have consulted with suspected witches, and even been given remedies by them, on condition that they would promise something to some spirit; and when they asked what they would have to promise, the witches answered that it was only a small thing, that they should agree to execute the instructions of that master with regard to certain observances during the Holy Offices of the Church, or to observe some silent reservations in their confessions to priests.

-Witches helping people in exchange for those people obeying spirits and disobeying the church. Could this be because the witches were actually some form of pagan clergy trying to convert the people the aided? At any rate, this is not the type of thing simple cunning-folk would ask as payment.

Here it is to be noted that, as has already been hinted, this iniquity has small and scant beginnings, as that of the time of the elevation of the Body of Christ they spit on the ground, or shut their eyes, or mutter some vain words. We know a woman who yet lives, protected by the secular law, who, when the priest at the celebration of the Mass blesses the people, saying, Dominus uobiscum, always adds to herself these words in the vulgar tongue “Kehr mir die Zung im Arss umb.” Or they even say some such thing at confession after they have received absolution, or do not confess everything, especially mortal sins, and so by slow degrees are led to a total abnegation of the Faith, and to the abominable profession of sacrilege.

-Pagans daring to show some slight defiance against a religion they don't believe in? It appears that witches were showing an interest in converting people away from Christianity. This would indicate that they had a motivation to convert people, much like priestesses of a competing faith might.

Part 1 - Question I

...transformed into another kind or likeness, except by the Creator of all things, is worse than a pagan and a heretic. And so when they report such things are done by witches it is not Catholic, but plainly heretical, to maintain this opinion.

-This passage mentions both witches and pagans as if they were not exactly the same thing.

...certain women are condemned who falsely imagine that during the night they ride abroad with Diana or Herodias..

-Witches shown as venerating pagan goddess Diana. So, why did the earlier passage seem to indicate that witches were not pagans?

And those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders are called witches. And because infidelity in a person who has been baptized is technically called heresy, therefore such persons are plainly heretics.

-Indicates that the reason that the writer differentiates between witches and pagans is because the witches had been baptized! Thus, witches could actually have been pagan clergy, but were not considered so by the Catholic priests simply because they had been baptized as babies. In the eyes of the church, the baptism meant the witches were heretics instead of pagans!

Part 1 - Question 2

But natural bodies may find the benefit of certain secret but good influences. Therefore artificial bodies may receive such influence. Hence it is plain that those who perform works of healing may well perform them by means of such good influences, and this has no connexion at all with any evil power.

-Shows that the writer differentiates witchcraft and other influences. The influences might mean the types used by cunning folk, (however he just might mean medicine).

Moreover, it would seem that most extraordinary and miraculous events come to pass by the working of the power of nature. For wonderful and terrible and amazing things happen owing to natural forces....Therefore a man by his mental influence can change a material body into another, or he can change such a body from health to sickness and conversely.

-Definitely sounds like the writer is talking about healing via magic that is not witchcraft. So, the writer does not consider everyone who heals via magic to be a witch.

Nortonew 03:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point here is consider the source! The term 'cunning folk' was of course not in use throughout history, but the term suffices to identify magic-workers who removed magic effects for those who came to them. The great problem is that the authors of a text like the Malleus Malleficarum are likely to lump the whole lot together and call them 'witches'. To take your points in order...

'Shows that witches, not just "cunning folk" were considered able to break spells and were used in this fashion. Note it says "notorious witch", much too strong a term to suppose it meant simply cunning folk, especially in light of other passages that speak about folk magic.' Not sure why you say 'simply' cunning folk, as there's not much 'simply' about them. They were numerous enough to constitute a plague, extremely varied in character and methods and some of them were very notorious. Besides, history shows again and again that where a society believes in magic, two clear archetypes emerge - the witch and the witch doctor. Witches always have outlandish powers, witch doctors always have the remedy for it. To a Christian clergy, they are both merely 'witches' because they both work with powers that are not those of God. As one source put it, the so-called white witches and regular witches were 'merely confederate Witches'.

'hows obvious differentiation on the part of the writer between folk magic and witchcraft...' No it doesn't. The passage refers to 'the remedies that she uses'. These were not necessarily magical in nature at all. It is also unclear whether methods such as those of the toad doctor were considered folk magic, or just something that happened to work.

'Shows that some magic used against witchcraft definitely invoked "devils". Probably not simple folk magic.' Again with the 'simple'. Folk magic was not 'simple' at all, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was. Furthermore, we cannot say what the investigators of the time would have identified as 'an expressed invocation of devils'. If they meant literally calling upon Satan and the like, then these practices would certainly belong in the category of things that it was believed witches did. Can you imagine a magic-worker actually calling devils to her aid? For all we know, it simply referred to any piece of spoken gibberish.

'Uses the word witch for a woman that many people go to for aid, despite the fact that the writer has earlier differentiated between witches and people who simply use folk magic.' Yet again with the 'simply'. There is no 'simply' about it. To the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum, any female magic-worker at all was a 'witch'. You've mistakenly assumed that the 'remedies' described in your very first paragraph were some sort of folk magic that was tolerated by the Church. Since no magic was tolerated at all, one has to find another explanation. One doesn't have to look far for it, since there were herbal and medicinal treatments for ailments believed to be caused by witchcraft. Not every remedy for witchcraft involved magic.

'-Talks about people not only seeking out witches for occasional healing, but actually keeping them on their payroll!' Yep - and places them in the same category as 'archer-wizards' and 'necromancers'. Wouldn't you like to know what an 'archer-wizard' is? I know I would...

'-Witches healing that have committed heresy - probably not simple cunning folk.' Look, would you please go and read Cunning Folk or a similar work of repute on the subject? That ought to cure you of this 'simple cunning folk' misconception.

'People seeking counsel from witches, (albeit under duress).' People went to cunning folk to have stolen items recovered, thieves identified and crimes uncovered. That's what this passage seems to be talking about.

'-Witches helping people in exchange for those people obeying spirits and disobeying the church. Could this be because the witches were actually some form of pagan clergy trying to convert the people the aided?' Only if you have quite staggering powers of imagination. For one thing, this just looks like a regular accusation of the 'naughty things witches did' type. For another, it seems obvious to me that it's a request not to consider the visit a sin and thus not to confess it to the priest, because if that were done, the 'witch' would be in potential trouble.

'At any rate, this is not the type of thing simple cunning-folk would ask as payment.' See above viz. 'simple'. Would it help if we used the more commonly recognised term for a cunning man - white witch?

'Pagans daring to show some slight defiance against a religion they don't believe in? It appears that witches were showing an interest in converting people away from Christianity.' Sorry, but this gave me a real laugh - not at you, but at the passage. The rough translation of the German phrase is 'Put your tongue up my arse', and from the context it doesn't seem the woman saying it knew what it meant. I don't know about you, but I can really see some pissed-off magic worker saying to a client 'And at this point in the Mass, you must say the magic words!' If the practices described even happened - and there is no more reason to suppose they did than to suppose that 'witches' actually celebrated a Black Mass with defiled Hosts and the like - then there is nothing at all pagan about them. They look like mere defiance. (Note that the woman in question did not stop GOING to the Mass.)

'This passage mentions both witches and pagans as if they were not exactly the same thing.' Yes, thankyou. That is exactly what I have been trying to get across. Pagans were merely unenlightened - 'witches' were heretics. Witches were not pagans, nor were they continuing a pagan religion. What they were continuing - at least, the cunning folk / white witches were, since there is no evidence that 'night witches who flew abroad and ate men' existed - was the characteristic pagan approach to MAGIC. In pagan religions, there are magic-workers who help and there are magic-workers who are essentially supernatural monsters. What the Christian church tried to do was wipe out magic completely, because it didn't fit their theology. That meant condemning the white witch and 'satanic' witch alike.

'Witches shown as venerating pagan goddess Diana.' No, you introduced that crucial word 'venerating' yourself. The 'night flight with Diana' was a part of European folklore for centuries. For more information, check out The Emergence of the Christian Witch - there's a link to it in the article.

'Indicates that the reason that the writer differentiates between witches and pagans is because the witches had been baptized! Thus, witches could actually have been pagan clergy, but were not considered so by the Catholic priests simply because they had been baptized as babies. In the eyes of the church, the baptism meant the witches were heretics instead of pagans!' Very creative, but wrong. Let's look at the complete paragraph:

Therefore those err who say that there is no such thing as witchcraft, but that it is purely imaginary, even although they do not :::believe that devils exist except in the imagination of the ignorant and vulgar, and the natural accidents which happen to a man he :::wrongly attributes to some supposed devil. For the imagination of some men is so vivid that they think they see actual figures and :::appearances which are but the reflection of their thoughts, and then these are believed to be the apparitions of evil spirits or :::even the spectres of witches. But this is contrary to the true faith, which teaches us that certain angels fell from heaven and :::are now devils, and we are bound to acknowledge that by their very nature they can do many wonderful things which we cannot do. :::And those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders are called witches. And because infidelity in a person who has :::been baptized is technically called heresy, therefore such persons are plainly heretics.

'Those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders.' The writer is clearly talking about the aspiration to perform magic. This is infidelity against God, because it consorts with other powers. Not a single mention of paganism there, and no indication that baptism is what makes the difference between 'witches and pagans' as you assert.

'-Shows that the writer differentiates witchcraft and other influences. The influences might mean the types used by cunning folk, (however he just might mean medicine).' Exactly! The very use of the words 'natural forces' places this whole section outside of the realm of magic, which was believed to be unnatural.

'Definitely sounds like the writer is talking about healing via magic that is not witchcraft. So, the writer does not consider everyone who heals via magic to be a witch.' No, he's talking about the power of 'natural forces' and 'mental influence'. This is not the same thing as magic. In fact, the reason he's describing it here is in order to distinguish it from magic. The obvious reason would seem to be to make a point of separating alchemy from magic - specifically mentioned here as the transmutation of 'one material body into another'. This is probably because the rulers of the time were all in favour of alchemy, since it had the potential to keep them supplied with gold. Gold meant armies, and armies meant terrestrial power. As one commentator put it, the Philosopher's Stone was the atomic bomb of the middle ages.

Cavalorn 10:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First off, sorry if I offended by my referring to cunning-folk as "simple". I didn't mean the word "simple" to imply stupidity or ineffectiveness, but rather to indicate innocence of wrong-doing, (as in 'I simply borrowed the car, I didn't steal it...').

I was rather surprised to see you make the statement "The term 'cunning folk' was of course not in use throughout history...". If the people the writer of the Malleus Maleficarum was referring to as 'witches' didn't call themselves 'cunning folk', what term did they use? Do we actually know for a fact that none of them used the word 'witch'? Its pretty obvious that the word 'witch' was in use at that time.

One somewhat unsettling point has occurred to me as I waded through literature looking for connections between witchcraft and paganism. There are many historical records regarding rather nasty practices by pagan priests involving human sacrifice and such. Unfortunately, recent archeological findings seem to colloborate some of the historical narratives of those practices, including some practices so gruesome that the reports of them were often considered to have been merely propaganda. This is most notably true in cases involving Aztecs and Phoenician Baal worship, so it might not have a direct bearing on European paganism. However, if the historical narratives were true in those cases, it is reasonable to assume that they might have been true in some of the European cases, too.

In this light, if some witches were actually practicing rudiments of surviving pagan rituals, there is the disturbing possibility that the reports of some witches killing and eating children might have some validity. Certainly some pagan rituals were that horrible.

If that is the case, attempting to form a link from the modern practices of neo-paganism and witchcraft to their supposed earlier roots might not be an effort worth undertaking. In fact, it might be more healthy for modern practioners of Earth-centered religions to just declare that their religions are wholly new creations with no links whatsoever to earlier religions that were tainted by practices that would be judged totally abhorrent by todays standards. Nortonew 14:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regards to witch-archers, I found that section to be very interesting as well. In fact, the Malleus Maleficarum related one account of a witch-archer that bore such a resemblence to the legend of William Tell that I noted it on Wikipedia's entry on William Tell. Nortonew 14:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I spent some more time looking through the Malleus Maleficarum and came across a couple more passages that show more explicitly that the writer believes in magic that is not cast by witches:

But it is expedient to bring these various opinions of the learned Doctors as far as possible into agreement, and this can be done in one respect. For this purpose it is to be noted that the methods by which a spell of witchcraft can be removed are as follows: - either by the agency of another witch and another spell; or without the agency of a witch, but by means of magic and unlawful ceremonies. And this last method may be divided into two; namely, the use of ceremonies which are both unlawful and vain, or the use of ceremonies which are vain but not unlawful.

- This passage definitely states that the writer does not believe that all magic is witchcraft. The statement "...or without the agency of a witch, but by means of magic and unlawful ceremonies..." shows that he believes in magic that is not done by a witch.

We may summarize the position as follows. There are three conditions by which a remedy is rendered unlawful. First, when a spell is removed through the agency of another witch, and by further witchcraft, that is, by the power of some devil. Secondly, when it is not removed by a witch, but by some honest person, in such a way, however, that the spell is by some magical remedy transferred from one person to another; and this again is unlawful. Thirdly, when the spell is removed without imposing it on another person, but some open or tacit invocation of devils is used; and then again it is unlawful.

- This passage again shows a non-witch using magic : "...but by some honest person, in such a way, however, that the spell is by some magical remedy transferred from one person to another..."

Here the writer even called the user of the magical remedy an "honest person", despite the fact that the person was using an unlawful magic.

This demonstrates that the writer did not consider all spell casters to be witches. Yet, in other parts of the Malleus Maleficarum he plainly states that people sought out witches for magical remedies. This is evidence that in this period witches were considered healers. They were plainly considered to be capable of doing nasty things, but they were still sought out as healers. They weren't considered to be solely evil monsters by the entire populace.

The question then is, if a non-witch was considered capable of using magic, and even magic that invokes devils, what was it that was seperating the witches from the magic using non-witches? What was the distinction? As far as I can tell, the main difference was that the witches would curse people for a variety of reasons, while the non-witches would only reflect curses back upon witches.

So it seems that witches were cursers, but were also acknowledged as having the power to heal - some witches even being known for having healed many people, as was seen in other passages earlier. Nortonew 22:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And this is one of those situations where you really wish you had access to what the people thought, as opposed to the clergy who were writing things down. You make your point well - it's clear that the authors of the Malleus were well aware of the complex, tangled nature of the magic debate, and to some extent were trying to solve that debate once and for all.

Note, though, that the only option that does not involve 'devils' has to involve transferring the bewitchment to another person. What I think this may be addressing is whether it is legitimate for the recipient of a curse to try to send that curse back to the sender. This would be a very dicey area, theologically, as it's not technically witchcraft, but it does involve magic and is thus unlawful. I suppose it's the equivalent of 'causing harm in self defence'!

The two options that deal with removing the spell altogether are definitely considered 'witchcraft', presumably since in that philosophy, it takes a devil to undo a devil's work.

I can't think of any other magical remedies that involve transferring the spell from one person to another, though it's quite possible that some existed - it's rather reminiscent of the 'Passing the Runes' bit in M R James. Perhaps some people offered to absorb curses (for a fee) by transferring them to themselves by magic, in much the same way that the sin-eaters took on the sins of the dead by eating food from their bodies?

From the theologians' point of view, I guess the question was 'is it witchcraft to pass a spell on to someone else even if you didn't cast it yourself?' To which the answer was evidently, 'well, no, technically that isn't witchcraft, but you're still not allowed to do it.'Cavalorn 18:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The concept of turning a witch's curse back on them seems to be rather widespread. I've seen something similar in a book I read about the practices of Cherokee shaman. They believe that counteracting a curse will shorten the life of the caster. http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/cher/sfoc/sfoc49.htm

I think that it is especially strange for such a belief to be pervasive considering that I think there is a likelihood that most "curses" were likely the effects of poisons rather than magic. Certainly it would be easier for a wise woman, or cunning-man, to simply cure a person of the effects of poison and declare that the curse was broken, than for them to actually poison the person that they suspected was guilty and then claim that the curse was sent back to them. One would think that they would tend to simply do what was easiest. Nortonew 01:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem with this page

I happened to notice that quite a bit of the section entitled "Witchcraft and the paranormal" seems to have been originally taken from a copyrighted entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some changes have been made, but a lot of the text is exactly the same.

I don't know enough about copyright law to know if this material needs to be removed or not. If anyone has some knowledge about this type of thing, they might want to take a look at this.Nortonew 04:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and so is now public domain. Quite a lot of Wikipedia articles include content from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It should be credited in the references, however - David Gerard 08:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Witchcraft in film, fiction, news, etc.

The subject name characterizes my suggestion.

Some information in this subtopic would include "Hollywood"'s popularization of witchcraft and its effects on the modern view of witchcraft, and perhaps, some information regarding the films featuring witchcraft like The Craft, Hocus Pocus [6], and The Wizard of Oz and its Wicked Witch of the West. Perhaps even the origins of phrases like "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra" could be referenced. Adraeus 11:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get on to it.Cavalorn 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Needs research and clearer definitions

"It appears that suspected witches, far from being a misrepresented pagan clergy, were hated and persecuted by pagans as a matter of course, a situation analogous to the 'witch' killings in present-day Africa [7]."

This sounds like conjecture, so I removed it. The article may well point to present day attitudes towards magical practices in Africa but it certainly doesn't support the allegation that such practices were common amongst pagans in the past.

Additionally this whole article seems to suffer from a disparate definition of witchcraft. Some are writing from the point of view of current neopagan ideas of witchcraft, while others from the view that witchcraft is basically a device for causing harm to others---precious little from a truly neutral point of view.

All these different people attacking the subject with conflicting perspectives on the topic makes the whole thing severely incohesive. Perhaps the article needs to clearly address what definition of witchcraft is being used? Something that has a hope of encompassing all these varying views.

Ø 21:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the incredibly long debate on this talk page, under the headings "Allegedly bigoted material" and "Malleus Maleficarum", was basically about trying to nail down a historically accurate definition of witchcraft. If you look through all of that you will see how difficult it can be to arrive at a proper definition. Nortonew 14:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that but I stopped reading when it started degenerating into a flame-fest. I'll go back and pick through it again when I feel up to wading through the slings to get to the substance.

17:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ø

I'll save you the bother. There is no single, simple, workable definition of witchcraft. The situation is further complicated by the notion of 'witchcraft as pagan survival', which has been academically debunked and yet is still firmly believed in.Cavalorn 13:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I hardly expected something simple, but workable? Yes. At the very least a statement clearly defining the various definitions at work in the article would help. Ø 20:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Merged from The Craft

Completed a merge from The Craft. Tried to put the chunks in the most logical sections. The one section that I definitely think needs looking at is "Theories of Neopagan Witchcraft". Like many of the sections on this page, there's a lot of overlap with others. Take a look at the edit history for where I put various sections of the merge. I did each logical chunk in a separate edit for my own sanity.--MikeJ9919 20:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Lots of cleanup

Lots of cleanup done. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Messy article

I think I why this article is so messy:

• Past merges that were not well done
• Many people who are interested in this article have not written this well
• Messy from the very start

— Stevey7788 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's clean up!

We need to work together and clean this up as a team. First, I recommend organizing the content and then cleaning up the grammar/spelling. Last of all, we need to verify some fishy-looking sections. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved a lot of stuff to the European witchcraft article to avoid clumping up this article. See this diff - drastic change — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: make this a disambiguate page. Dreamingkat 18:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

---

What is up with all the vandalism on this page of late? Are there any provisions for this? Ø 21:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

POV

Now, I am not a neo-pagan, but I am quite familiar with Scandinavian history and with Norse mythology and linguistics. This section looks very POV:

The characterization of the witch in Europe is not derived from a single source. Popular neopagan beliefs suggest that witches were female shamans who were made into malicious figures by Christian propaganda. This is an erroneous oversimplification and presumes that a recognizable folklore figure must derive from a single historical precedent (a female, maligned magic-worker). The familiar witch of folklore and popular superstition is a combination of numerous influences.

This section fails to explain why "witch" is the same word as "wicce", i.e. Völva. Linguistically, there IS "a single historic precedent", and the laws and methods that were undertaken against these wicces give a clear picture of malignment and evolution into the modern concept witch.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Where does the idea come from that wicce equals Völva? Cavalorn 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

References for this statement

Can anyone give a References for this statement ? : Such witch trials are common among African, Native American, and Asian populations. I am not a historican but in the german Wikipedia there is no mention about this. It would be great if there could be al least some historical events that support this statement. --Mononoke 30 June 2005 00:38 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

Unfortunately, I have misplaced my print references for the anthropological work done in this area. However, a quick survey of the web produced the following:

Cherokee - Raven Mocker http://www.aaanativearts.com/article969.html

Witch beliefs among the Caddo http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/caddo/page22.htm

Witch beliefs among the Iroquois http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/cohl015.htm#fr_25 http://sixnations.buffnet.net/Great_Law_of_Peace/ (reference to the witch, Osinoh)

Navajo http://www.draknet.com/proteus/Navajo.htm http://www.diversityresources.com/rc_sample/indian.html (also note that, in this work on diversity, there is the following general statement: In spite of the enormous diversity in tribal cultures, languages, and religious beliefs of the almost 300 American Indian tribes living within the continental United States, these tribes share a number of fundamental health, illness, and illness prevention beliefs. 12. Natural unwellness is caused by the violation of a sacred tribal taboo; unnatural unwellness is caused by witchcraft.

Wyandot/Huron http://www.axel-jacob.de/no_photos04.html (Leatherlips, accused of witchcraft)

In those cultures where the shaman plays a prominent role in the spiritual life of the community, it is common to enlist the shaman in charms of protection against the use of inimical magic. As I spelled out in my intro, the use of magic to harm another is one of the uses of the term witchcraft, even if the community respects and values supernatural powers.

Parker Whittle 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Removed "Who's Who" listing

If a list of notable current-day witches is needed, please maintain it in a separate article. I see that such an article has been started and is undergoing copyright review. I have mentioned the note "By Robert Owen Scott Jr. used here with the permission of the copyright holder." on its talk page, Talk:WHO's WHO Leaders Legends of the witchcraft and Pagan community. Please put any further discussion of copyright issues, as well as other issues with the contents of the article, there. Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

Sorry, hit the "rollback" button and then remembered that it automatically fills in the edit summary. Anyway, as I said, the "Who's who" insertion is too much for this overview article. A separate article has been created for it already at WHO's WHO Leaders Legends of the witchcraft and Pagan community and the various issues associated with it should be discussed there. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

quit changing your reasons, edit summariesand the first entry here are sepaate reasons, pick one, or i, for one, wont take you seriously Gabrielsimon 9 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the conversation to the talk page. For others' reference, the edit summaries referred to here are: (oldest to newest)

18:34, 9 July 2005 FreplySpang (rm overwhelming, POV and stylistically-mismatched list of "Who's Who" - resolve copyright and other issues at its own article please)

18:37, 9 July 2005 Gabrielsimon (removal reason not accurate, POV doesnt seem to be in this section, tho copyright issues might be resolved by the editor who placed it in thie first place)

18:40, 9 July 2005 FreplySpang m (Reverted edits by Gabrielsimon to last version by FreplySpang)

18:41, 9 July 2005 Gabrielsimon (for r the second time i say, change it to suit your view, dont remove it.)

18:44, 9 July 2005 FreplySpang (The removed material has its own article which is linked from this one; please see this article's talk page Talk:Witchcraft instead of discussing in edit summaries.)

My comments in the edit summaries and those here seem reasonably consistent to me. I didn't go into detail about POV and style because I think the important issue is to create a separate article and discuss it there. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)