From: Argrath@aol.com
Date: Fri 19 Jan 1996 - 03:04:55 EET
In Glorantha Digest V2 #332, Andrew Behan writes:
>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?
Ancient European _what_? I'm more inclined to trust historical accounts
about people who weren't being burnt at the stake by the authorities, and
there were lots of magicians in the Roman Republic and Empire. Which reminds
me, I want my next Lunar character to be an extispex, so when the cook asks
me how I want my kukbird prepared, I can say, "extispicy."
>Caesar's description of the druids isn't
>propoganda?
See above.
>I suppose Christina Larner, Norman Coehn, Keith Thomas et al were just
Who?
>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.
I don't think we actually disagree.
- --Martin Crim
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:28:58 EEST