From: mr happy (ajbehan@tcd.ie)
Date: Thu 18 Jan 1996 - 14:55:00 EET
> From: Argrath@aol.com
>
> In V2 #329, Andrew Behan writes:
>
> > Witches, who turned to magic because they were beyond
> >the pale of normal society, had familiar spirits and behaved like nothing
> >so much as bad shamans.
>
> Yeah, well, one must be careful to distinguish between propaganda about
> witches (both pro and con) and real historical witches (about whom we know
> almost nothing except through propaganda). So medieval European parallels
> are of limited value. I think more of ancient Europe and the mid-east, and
> for comparison Africa and the Far East, when thinking of independent
> magicians.
The documentary evidence for malicious witchcraft in pre-Industrial Europe
is no better and no worse than the documentary evidence for a great many other
areas of fruitful historical research. Do you think that the evidence for
ancient Europe is any better? Caesar's description of the druids isn't
propoganda? "The Golden Ass" is an objective document of the times? Modern
theories about prehistoric ritual activities are bound to be less than
comprehensive because of their reliance on archaelogical evidence.
I suppose Christina Larner, Norman Coehn, Keith Thomas et al were just
misguided by "propaganda".
Anyway there are strong parallels between the use of magic for
maleficent/anti-social purpose in widely disperate culture. Apart from
which there is plenty of non-polemical evidence for non-malicious folk
magic in the Middle Ages, cf "Prayers, Charms and Spells" in "The
Stripping of the Altars" by Eoin Duffy.
(Sorry, rant mode off.)
> BTW, where is the reference to witches in the magic book?
At the start of the spirit magic section.
- ------
Andrew Behan
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:28:58 EEST