"To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence, of witchcraft and sorcery is at once flatly to contradict the revealed word of God"

In 1753, noted jurist William Blackstone set down some of his thoughts on the subject of Witchcraft. Several essential points need to be emphasized about what Blackstone had to say:

1. Witchcraft is a religious crime against Christianity.
2. Witchcraft is placed in the general category of magic, without necessarily requiring any qualification that the magic in question be used to cause harm.
3. Witchcraft is placed in the same category as the crime of Heresy, "condemning both to the flames."
4. Special emphasis is placed on the fact that practitioners of Witchcraft are actively sought out by those who wish to employ Witches for their magical services.
5. Divination and love magic are explicitly included in the types of magic included in the prohibition against "witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery."
6. At no point is Witchcraft in particular singled out in any way (for example as somehow worse either from a legal or a spiritual perspective) as opposed to "conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery."
7. Blackstone divides the general category of magical crimes into those that are punishable by death on the first offense, and those that are punishable by death only on the second offense.
8. Magical crimes deserving death on the first offense are further divided into three categories: (i) any and all consorting with "evil spirits", (ii) necromancy, or (iii) killing or causing harm "by such infernal arts".
9. Magical crimes deserving death on the second offense consist of all attempts (whether successful or not) to employ "sorcery" in order to (i) "discover hidden treasure", (ii) "restore stolen goods", (iii) "provoke unlawful love", or (iv) "hurt any man or beast".
10. The fact that Blackstone does explicitly mention the use of magic to cause harm (or even attempting to do so), alongside other specific acts that are all treated as equally deserving of the same punishment, serves to highlight the fact that there was no absolute correlation between Witchcraft as a crime and the use of unlawful magic to cause harm.

CHAPTER IV: 
OF OFFENSES AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 2 [1753]
[Please see the original at the link for notes and sources.]

VI. A sixth species of offence against God and religion, of which our antient books are full, is a crime of which one knows not well what account to give. I mean the offence of witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery. To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence, of witchcraft and sorcery is at once flatly to contradict the revealed word of God, in various passages both of the Old and New Testament: and the thing itself is a truth to which every nation in the world hath in its turn borne testimony, either by examples seemingly well attested or by prohibitory laws; which at least suppose the possibility of commerce with evil spirits. The civil law punishes with death not only the sorcerers themselves, but also those who consult them,(j) imitating in the former the express law of God,(k) “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” And our own laws, both before and since the conquest, have been *equally penal; ranking this crime in the same class with heresy, and condemning both to the flames.(l) The president Montesquieu(m) ranks them also both together, but with a very different view: laying it down as an important maxim that we ought to be very circumspect in the prosecution of magic and heresy; because the most unexceptionable conduct, the purest morals, and the constant practice of every duty in life are not a sufficient security against the suspicion of crimes like these. And indeed the ridiculous stories that are generally told, and the many impostures and delusions that have been discovered in all ages, are enough to demolish all faith in such a dubious crime; if the contrary evidence were not also extremely strong. Wherefore it seems to be the most eligible way to conclude, with an ingenious writer of our own,(n) that in general there has been such a thing as witchcraft; though one cannot give credit to any particular modern instance of it.

Our forefathers were stronger believers when they enacted, by statute 33 Hen. VIII. c. 8, all witchcraft and sorcery to be felony without benefit of clergy; and again, by statute 1 Jac. I. c. 12, that all persons invoking any evil spirit, or consulting, covenanting with, entertaining, employing, feeding, or rewarding, any evil spirit; or taking up dead bodies from their graves to be used in any witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; or killing or otherwise hurting any person by such infernal arts, should be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy, and suffer death. And if any person should attempt by sorcery to discover hidden treasure, or to restore stolen goods, or to provoke unlawful love, or to hurt any man or beast, though the same were not effected, he or she should suffer imprisonment and pillory for the first offence, and death for the second. These acts continued in force till lately, to the terror of all antient females in the kingdom: and many poor wretches were sacrificed thereby to the prejudice of their neighbours and their own illusions; not a few having, by some means or other, confessed the fact at the gallows. But all executions for this dubious crime are now at an end; our legislature having at length followed the wise example of *Louis XIV. in France, who thought proper, by an edict, to restrain the tribunals of justice from receiving informations of witchcraft.(o) And accordingly it is with us enacted, by statute 9 Geo. II. c. 5, that no prosecution shall for the future be carried on against any persons for conjuration, witchcraft, sorcery, or enchantment. But the misdemeanour of persons pretending to use witchcraft, tell fortunes, or discover stolen goods, by skill in the occult sciences, is still deservedly punished with a year’s imprisonment, and standing four times in the pillory.12

"Pan, O Great God Pan, To Thee, Thus Do We Sing" (1608)

"Hail, holy Earth ..." Thus begins John Fletcher's The Faithful Shepherdess, first performed in 1608. This was a crucial time in English history. Elizabeth I had been dead for five years, but the "Elizabethan" era was still going strong. One of the remarkable hallmarks of that Age was a great flowering of pastoralism in literature and the arts. Some of this pastoralism was purely stylistic, and to some extent it was merely one aspect of a broader classicism (for there is much pastoralism in classical Greco-Roman literature). But there was a deeper, spiritual aspect to this Elizabethan pastoralism as well. This was, after all, a time when Alchemy and Astrology were highly valued courtly Arts, even if their practitioners had to live under constant suspicion of being in league with Satan.

"Holy Earth" is mentioned, in those precise words, once more in the play, but another deity is granted pride of place in Fletcher's pastoral tragicomedy. "The Great God Pan" is referred to with those precise words three times. In addition we hear of "great Pan" eight more times, and Pan is referred to as a "great god" three additional times. In all, Pan is mentioned by name over twenty-five times. The play begins and ends with a hymn to Pan, sung by a chorus of shepherds and shepherdesses who are led by a priest of Pan.

For more, check out these two links:

• http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/TextRecord.php?action=GET&textsid=33071
• http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12222/pg12222.txt

.

The Bones of Pagan History and Pagan Identity, Part One

What is the relationship between modern Paganism and ancient Paganism? That question splits people into two camps: 1. First of all there are those who hold that there is a significant relationship between modern and ancient Paganism. These people think of Paganism as "the Old Religion", although they might not use that terminology. 2. And then there are those who hold that there is no significant relationship between modern and ancient Paganism. These people think of modern Paganism as a purely "new" religion, lacking any deep historical roots.

Ronald Hutton famously captured the essence of the second position when he wrote that "the paganism of today has virtually nothing in common with that of the past except the name." (Although it should be noted that Hutton has himself consistently rejected this position at least going back to the publication of his Pagan Religions of the British Isles over two decades ago.)

If one is convinced that there is some significant (leaving aside for now how we define such "significance") commonality between modern Paganism and ancient Paganism, then one must conclude that modern Paganism therefore represents, in some meaningful sense, a survival and/or continuation of ancient Paganism. But it is precisely at this point that the fireworks commence. For there are those, including many who identify as "Pagan", who simply cannot tolerate any suggestion that modern Paganism can, in any way shape or form, be construed as a continuation of ancient Paganism.

To discuss these matters intelligently one must, before going any further, grapple with some thorny problems concerning the definition of terms. But where to begin? One might choose, for example, to quibble over what might be required to qualify as a "significant" relationship between ancient and modern Paganism. But the truth is there is no agreement about what is actually meant by saying that there is any "relationship", significant or otherwise, between one religious tradition that existed two thousand years ago and another one that exists (perhaps with the same name, perhaps not) today. But these are relatively minor questions compared to the core issue of how Paganism itself is to be defined.

It turns out, though, that the issue of how to define Paganism also requires us to investigate the question of relationships between various religious groups. For both modern Paganism and ancient Paganism, considered separately, each represents an extremely heterogeneous amalgam of practices, beliefs and experiences. This realization at first makes the posing of our question even more complex, and yet if we carry through without flinching at a little added complexity, the payoff is a coherent overall strategy for both defining Paganism and also for elaborating on the history of Paganism.

This general approach requires us to ask three questions:

1. What comprises the set of beliefs, practices and experiences that characterize ancient Paganism in general. That is, what did those ancient religious traditions that can be subsumed under the heading of "Paganism" have in common?

2. What comprises the set of beliefs, practices and experiences that characterize modern Paganism in general. That is, what do the modern religious traditions that can be subsumed under the heading of "Paganism" have in common?

3. What is the intersection of the two sets above?

The above three questions constitute a pretty bare bones framework for the elaboration of Pagan history and Pagan identity, and it highlights the fact that "history" and "identity" are simply two ways of looking at the broader issue of "commonality". The specific question of Pagan history approaches the issue of commonality in temporal terms. It will prove useful, at least in my opinion, to borrow from the lexicon of linguistics, and to refer to the problem of Pagan history as a problem of diachronic commonality. We can then also refer to the problem of Pagan identity as a problem of synchronic commonality.

Scholars who study historical linguistics address themselves to the way that languages change over time. This historical approach is referred to as diachronic analysis, a term that is used in contrast to the synchronic analysis of language variation at a given, fixed point in time.

Here is an attempt to illustrate how this combined concept of diachronic and synchronic can be applied to the investigation of Pagan identity and Pagan history:

Synchronic commonality 
Synchronic commonality refers to that which is held in common by groups that exist contemporaneously in time. This concept can be applied to the question of Pagan identity.

Example of synchronic commonality in reference to Pagan identity:  Christine Hoff Kraemer, in her book Seeking the Mystery: An Introduction to Pagan Theologies, has proposed a list of nine "attitudes" that are found widely among modern Pagans. Kraemer is understandably very careful to not overstate her case: "most Pagans hold most of the following attitudes." My own opinion is that she has accurately captured  a significant amount of the very real theological and cosmological common ground that is often difficult to discern just beneath the surface of the chaotic and contentious world of modern Pagandom. Briefly, here are Kraemer's nine areas of common ground shared by many modern day Pagans (in some cases my wording is slightly different from hers):

1. Pantheism
2. Polytheism
3. Reverence toward nature and the body.
4. Looking to pre-Christian religions and to contemporary religions that have resisted Christianization.
5. The importance of ritual practice.
6. Trust in personal experience as a source of divine knowledge.
7. Acknowledgement of the principles of magick.
8. Virtue Ethics and non-harming.
9. Pluralism.

Diachronic commonality
Diachronic commonality refers to that which is held in common by groups that exist at different points in time. This concept can be applied to question of Pagan history.

Example of diachronic commonality in reference to Pagan history: Ronald Hutton, in his paper The New Old Paganism, has proposed that there exist a number of striking similarities between modern Paganism and "certain types of ancient religion" that existed in late antiquity. Here are what I consider to be the eight most important of these similarities that Hutton claims to have found:

1. "Private and avant-garde" in nature.
2. The strong influence of Platonic philosophy, especially that of Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus.
3. The denial or qualification of polytheism.
4. The strong presence of "exotic" (non-European) elements and influences.
5. An emphasis on certain Gods and Goddesses who were not prominent in "traditional" polytheism, such as Dionysos, Pan, Natura and Hekate.
6. The prominence of magic, and especially the positive way in which magic is viewed in general, and even more specifically the way in which Pagan religiosity is viewed as intrinsically "magical".
7. Egyptophilia, Hermeticism, and Theurgy.
8. A focus on "mystery religions" as opposed to more "traditional" cults.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It should be noted that while I largely agree with Kraemer's proposed areas of commonality with respect to modern Paganism, I have serious disagreements with a number of the claims and characterizations made by Hutton with respect to late-antique Paganism. Nevertheless, both of these examples stand on their own to illustrate what I mean by synchronic and diachronic commonality, and especially by how I propose these terms can be usefully applied to the study of Paganism. Not to mention that any serious discussion of Pagan history and Pagan identity (and especially how they are interrelated) must take into account both Kraemer and Hutton.

Although both Kraemer and Hutton provide helpful illustrative concrete examples of the kind of general approach I am proposing, there remains the crucial issue of how one, both in practice and in theory, defines the category of "Paganism". Whatever this thing called "Paganism" is, and even assuming that it really exists at all, it definitely comprises a collection of things that are not all the same. So how do we coherently fashion an overall conception of Pagan commonality without denying the underlying undeniable reality of Pagan diversity?

Critiquing Historical Witchcraft Scholarship: The story so far .....

A little while back I did a whole slew of blog posts concerning modern scholars who focus on historical Witchcraft. The running theme throughout these posts was how these scholars systematically distort the true history of Witchcraft by making one or more of the following overlapping and interrelated claims:

1. The "traditional", or "original", or "historical" meaning of the word "Witch" is unambiguously negative, and, in particular, "Witch" was only and always used to refer to those who practice malefic magic.
2. All positive associations with the word "Witch" are purely modern inventions at odds with the "traditional" use of the word.
3. The "common people" never used the word "Witch" to refer to practitioners of beneficial magic, and, more specifically, such phrases as "good Witch", "white Witch", etc, were not used by the "common people" to refer to magical practitioners who performed healing, divination, love-magic, etc.
4. In common usage, the word "Witch" was clearly distinguished from other terms for magical practitioners in general and from the terms "cunning woman" and "wise woman" in particular. Any notion that "Witch" could be interchageable with "wise woman" or "cunning woman" is a modern misconception.
5. All evidence for positive uses of the word "Witch" prior to the 19th century can be discounted as intentional misrepresentations by churchmen who were intent on maligning all magical practices, including beneficial magic such as healing, by associating such apparently (but not truly, in their opinion) beneficial magic with Witchcraft.

In contrast to these false claims, I have shown that:

1. The word "Witch" has always, throughout it's long history going back to the Anglo-Saxon tongue itself, been used to refer to individuals who were believed to possess the ability to work beneficial magic.
2. Modern positive associations with the word "Witch", including those commonly found today among self-identified Pagans and Wiccans, are seamlessly continuous with the historical usage of that word for the last one thousand years.
3. The historical record is replete with evidence showing that "the common people" did indeed use the word "Witch" to refer to those who were believed to work beneficial magic.
4. The historical record also attests to the fact that the same person could be referred to as a "Witch", a "wise woman", and as a "cunning woman".
5. The evidence for positive uses of the word "Witch" is not limited to religious diatribes written by anti-magical "radical evangelicals".  In fact the evidence comes from a wide variety of different kinds of sources, including court transcripts, the literary works of secular authors (including Thomas Malory, William Shakespeare, John Dryden, Samuel Collins, and Joseph Addison), a number of early English dictionaries, and also from the writings of relatively "moderate" Protestant authors, including Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy, a highly influential anti-Puritan treatise.

The interested reader is encouraged to look through these 42 posts to see for yourself. And be sure to check out the primary sources!

1. Charming and Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland (a la Joyce Miller)
2. Ronald Hutton on Witches. Yet again.
3. "Of good witches falsly so called."
4. "the Curing Witch, comonly called, The good Witch"
5. "The Good Witch, as they are termed, because they doe seeme to helpe."
6. Popular usage of "good Witch" according to ten early modern sources
7. Witchcraft, Magic, and Anglo-Saxon Law
8. "Current Trends in Historical Witchcraft Studies" (a 2011 paper by Jacqueline Van Gest)
9. Witchcraft as Beneficial Magic in Old English Sources
10. The Case of the North Devon White Witch (1877)
11. "Such as they call Witches" (George Gifford and Henry Holland on Witches as practitioners of beneficial magic)
12. "The White Witches Of Our Ancestors": Even More "White Witches" in early (and not so early) modern sources
13. Beneficent Witchcraft: One Hundred And Seven Sources  
14. The White Witch of Waverly, from Grose's Antiquities (1785)
15. "The White-Witch is presently sent for to bless.": John Brinley on White Witches (1680)
16. Of White Witches, Rattlesnakes, David Hume, and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1807)
17. How to Distinguish "Witchcraft" From "Malificium" (with a little help from Jonathan Seitz)
18. "England is indeed the one country outside Italy to display the most obvious similarities with Venice as far as witchcraft practices are concerned."  (from Ruth Martin)
19. "All agreed that it was Witchcraft." (A case of beneficent Witchcraft in Sweden)
20. Witchcraft and Benevolent Magic in Finland
21. Benevolent Magic and "The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft"
22. Julian Goodare Contradicts His Own Data on Witches and Healers
23. Malevolent Magic and "The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft"
24. Witches and Witchcraft in Samuel Collins' "The Present State of Russia", 1671
25. "Witches and other evils": Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud on Witches and Witchcraft
26. Britomart's Glauce as a "Witch or Cunning-Woman", from 1735
27. "She was of the old way of mind [i.e. a Witch]" (1878)
28. Witches, Wise Women, William Shakespeare, and the Lambton Worm
29. "Thou art so wise, people will take you shortly for a Witch"
30. Witches As Healers in Piers Plowman (ca. 1370)
31. Beneficial Witchcraft in John Trevisa's Middle English Translation of Ranulf Higden's Polychronicon (1387)
32. "I have keen perception or discernment." (1828)
33. Cornelius Agrippa on "Witchinge Magick", according to James Sanford's 1569 English translation of "De incertitudine et vanitate omnium scientiarum et artium liber"
34. Looking it up: Witches and Witchcraft in some early English dictionaries
35. The association between beneficial weather magic and Witchcraft on the Isle of Man, according to the Holinshed's Chronicles (1586)
36. Why did the other knights suspect Sir Balin of Witchcraft? (1485)
37. "Witch trials were comparatively rare"? (Or, Shit Malcolm Gaskill says)
38. The "Bought Priesthood" of Historical Witchcraft Scholarship
39. "harnessed for good and evil ends" (Malcolm Gaskill on the ambiguity of Witchcraft)
40. "They hate me not all." Sorcery and Maleficium in "The Pilgrimage of the Life of Man" (1426)
41. "There is no doubt that the ancient pagan and medieval Christian worlds defined magic quite differently."
42. Simon Magus As A Witch In The Wycliffe Bible (1395), The Tyndale Bible (1526), and the Geneva Bible (1599)

More on "Pagan Fundamentalism"

By now, everyone has heard about Sabina Magliocco's keynote address to the 2013 Conference on Current Pagan Studies: "The Rise of Pagan Fundamentalism." But despite all the ensuing discussion, clarifications, criticisms, and accusations, no one, including most especially Magliocco herself, has been willing (or perhaps able?) to say just who these "fundamentalists" are.

Magliocco has given us some hints, though. In particular she has (very vaguely) defined two specific issues in Pagandom that have given "rise" to this supposed "fundamentalism". Here is how she puts it in her own words (source):

"there have been some discussions, mainly on Pagan Internet blogs and responses to them, which show some of the characteristics of fundamentalism, particularly an insistence on a single correct form of belief, and the demonization of those who hold different beliefs and opinions. These have centered around two hot-button topics: the historicity of Wiccan foundational narratives, and the nature of the gods"

Alas, we are not told where to find these mythical "Internet blogs" in which we can witness for ourselves (that is, instead of just taking Magliocco's word for it) "the demonization of those who hold different beliefs and opinions." Magliocco has repeatedly referred to these "blogs" without ever specifying a single url or naming a single blog or blogger in any other way. On top of that, Magliocco has made sweeping accusations against "a few detractors" (again, unnamed) whom she accuses of waging a campaign of "malicious and untrue rumors", impugning her integrity, and accusing her of being an "infiltrator".

A major problem with Magliocco's fanciful tale of "fundamentalists" who are out to get her, is that she assumes that there exist such things as "Wiccan foundational narratives." But, like her Internet "detractors," these "narratives" are never properly identified. This is, in fact, a very common phenomenon among Pagans, especially that tiny band of "Pagan scholars" who have appointed themselves to be the reformers of modern Paganism. The assumption by these academics and their loyal fans is that, in the words of Ronald Hutton, "Modern pagan witchcraft had, after all, appeared as a movement with a very specific historical claim."

So Magliocco's claim is, in essence, that certain "fundamentalist" Pagans are clinging stubbornly to what Hutton has described as a "very specific historical claim," and what Magliocco describes as "Wiccan foundational narratives." Magliocco claims further, as she must in order to make the label of "fundamentalist" stick, that these Pagans not only believe personally in the "factuality of foundational narratives", but in addition they evince an "insistence on a single correct form of belief," while engaging in "the demonization of those who hold different beliefs and opinions."

Therefore we have a grand total of four unanswered question:

1. What are the "foundational narratives" of Wicca?
2. Who today is proposing that these narratives are to be interpreted literally in a way that is inconsistent with historical facts?
3. Who is insisting that such a literal, ahistorical interpretation is the only legitimate version of the history of Wicca?
4. Who is demonizing those who disagree with this literal, ahistorical interpretation?

In a follow-up posts I will look more closely at these questions. In the meantime it is essential to emphasize that neither Magliocco nor anyone else has even come close to properly posing these questions, much less made any serious attempt to answer them. The clear implication is that those who are promoting the "Pagan fundamentalism" meme have made no real effort to carefully think through the serious questions they are raising.

Beneficial Witchcraft in John Trevisa's Middle English Translation of Ranulf Higden's Polychronicon (1387)

.

In 1387, John Trevisa finished his (Middle) English translation of the Polychronicon of Ranulf Higden, a chonicle of "universal history" written in Latin a few decades earlier. In Trevisa's translation one finds multiple examples of the Middle English "wicche".

In one place, Trevisa translates Higden's "sortligeia" and "superstitiones" as "sortilege" and "wicchecraft". This is in reference to the much sought after magical ability that certain women on the Isle of Man were reputed to have. These women sold bundles of "wind" to sailors, and these bundles could be used to raise winds when and where needed during their sea journeys. This is found at the beginning of Chapter XLV. (You can check it out here: http://books.google.com/books?id=4Pg9AAAAcAAJ).

Amazingly, Ronald Hutton stated during a 2010 "research" trip to the Isle of Man that "in the medieval/early modern period people believed witchcraft as something nasty that human beings do to each other"! (see: Manx Witchcraft and Sorcery Probed by Academic, iomtoday.com.im, dated Jan. 21, 2010)

Witches As Healers in Piers Plowman (ca. 1370)

From: A "medicyne of Wordes": Women, Prayer, and Healing in Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-century England, by Stephanie Lynn Volf:

"If bodily illness could prompt emotional disorder of the mind, the Galenic tradition makes clear that corporeal distress could affect one's woul as well. This relationship will become important in the Christian West, since many emotions fell under the heading of sin (anger, jealousy, lust, etc.). Perhaps this explains why so many medieval moral treatises so carefully emphasize patience when suffering. A real fear existed that illness may lead to sin and damnation, as in the case of the character Haukyn in Piers Plowman. Haukyn complains that when his desires are thwarted, he reacts so emotionally that he falls into an illness. This sickness proves so resistant to treatment that he eventually rejects hope in Christ's providence and turns to witchcraft to alleviate it."
[p. 169]

From Piers Plowman, by William Langland:

'Ther is no lif that I lovye lastynge any while;
For tales that I telle no man trusteth to me.
And whan I may noght have the maistrie, swich malencolie I take
That I cacche the crampe, the cardiacle som tyme,
Or an ague in swich an angre, and som tyme a fevere
That taketh me al a twelvemonthe, til that I despise
Lechecraft of Oure Lord and leve on a wicche,
And seye that no clerc ne kan - ne Crist, as I leve -
To the Soutere of Southwerk, or of Shordych Dame Emme,
And seye that [God ne] Goddes word gaf me nevere boute,
But thorugh a charme hadde I chaunce and my chief heele.'
[13.330 - 341]

"Thou art so wise, people will take thee shortly for a Witch" ("The Captain", John Fletcher, 1612)

From The Captain, by John Fletcher and Francis Beaumont, first performed in 1612.

ACT I, SCENE II.

Enter Frank, and Clora.

Clo. Do not dissemble Frank, mine eyes are quicker
Than such observers, that do ground their faith
Upon one smile or tear ; y'are much alter'd.
And are as empty of those excellencies
That were companions to you ; I mean mirth
And free disposure of your blood and Spirit,
As you were born a mourner.

Fran. How I prethee ?
For I perceive no such change in my self.

Clo. Come, come, this is not wise, nor provident
To halt before a Cripple : if you love.
Be liberal to your friend, and let her know it,
I see the way you run, and know how tedious
'Twill prove without a true companion.

Fran. Sure thou wouldst have me love.

Clo. Yes marry would I,
I should not please ye else.

Fran. And who for Heavens sake ?
For I assure my self, I know not yet :
And prethee Clora, since thou'lt have it so
That I must love, and do I know not what :
Let him be held a pretty handsome fellow.
And young, and if he be a little valiant
'Twill be the better ; and a little wise,
And faith a little honest.

Ckr. Well I will sound ye yet for all your craft.

Fran. Heigh ho ! Fie love no more.

Clo. Than one ; and him
You shall love Frank.

Fran. Which him ? thou art so wise
People will take thee shortly for a Witch :
But prethee tell me Clora, if I were
So mad as thou wouldst make me, what kind of man
Wouldst thou imagine him ?

Clo. Faith some pretty fellow.
With a clean strength, that cracks a cudgel well
And dances at a Wake, and plays at Nine-holes.

Witches, Wise Women, William Shakespeare, and the Lambton Worm

Introduction

According to Euclid's "first common notion", "things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other." This post examines two very different cases in which the same (fictional) person is referred to as both a "Witch" and as a "wise woman".

The self-evident conclusion that we can draw from these examples is that if the same person is being referred to as both a "Witch" and a "wise woman", then these two terms are synonymous, or at least they overlap significantly in their meanings.

An important consideration when applying the transitive property of equality in the realm of semantics in this way, is that one must be certain that the two labels are being applied not only to the same person, but to that person acting in the same capacity. Just because one person can be described as both a truck driver and an expert marksman does not mean that "truck driver" is synonymous with "expert marksman". However, it is obvious that "truck driver" and "lorry operator" are synonymous, because they do in fact refer to the same person in the same capacity, and the same is true of the phrases "expert marksman" and "very good shot". It will be shown in both of the examples below that the same person acting in the same capacity is referred to as both a Witch and as a wise woman (and in the second example, that of the legend of the Lambton Worm, she is also referred to as a "white Witch" and as a "sibyl").


The Witch of Brentford in the Merry Wives of Windsor

First up is William Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor. This play showcases one of Shakespeare's more memorable characters, Sir John Falstaff, who, having just recently arrived in Windsor, has decided to make his fortune by marrying a rich woman. The two women that our hero sets his sights on, however, are both married, which rather complicates the logistics of  courtship (which are already complicated enough by the fact that he is pursuing two women at the same time). Neither Mrs. Page nor Mrs. Ford has any intention of returning Falstaff's affections, but once they discover that he has written them both identical love letters, the wives decide to have a bit of merry fun with Sir John. Thus the title of the play.

Fast forward to Act III, Scene III, in which Falstaff believes he is having a secret rendezvous with Mrs. Ford. Suddenly, Mrs. Page "arrives", although in fact she has been there all along, and announces that Mr. Ford is on the way, and in a fury at the news of his wife's dalliance, which he has discovered. The merry wives convince Falstaff to hide in a laundry basket before he is discovered, and then they proceed to cover him in filthy laundry, and then they have the servants dump the contents of the basket into a nearby muddy creek.

The following day, Falstaff has once more been lured to yet another unsecret assignation, which is interrupted by the announcement that master Ford is once again on his way. Falstaff refuses to get into the laundry basket again, and so it is suggested that he disguise himself as the maid's Aunt, visiting while on errands, and in that way to make his escape right under Mr. Ford'd nose. What Falstaff doesn't know is that master Ford despises this particular woman, whom he is convinced is a Witch, and has sworn to beat her if he ever sees her again.

At this point it is important to focus in on the repeated use of the word "witch" to refer to the maid's Aunt, who is also known as "the old woman of Brentford". First, Mrs. Ford informs Mrs. Page, behind Falstaff's back, that her husband "cannot abide the old woman of Brentford; he swears she's a witch." A few lines later, Mrs. Page says, "let's go dress him [Falstaff] as the witch of Brentford." Then when Mr. Ford arrives and is told that the maid's Aunt is in the house he flies into a rage and declaims:

A witch, a quean, an old cozening quean! Have I not
forbid her my house? She comes of errands, does
she? We are simple men; we do not know what's
brought to pass under the profession of
fortune-telling. She works by charms, by spells,
by the figure, and such daubery as this is, beyond
our element we know nothing. Come down, you witch,
you hag, you; come down, I say!

At which point he begins to thrash Falstaff, believing him to be "the witch of Brentford."

Falstaff eventually manages to escape and retreats to his room at the Garter Inn, still wearing his "disguise". When he later exits his room, in his normal attire, he is questioned about his lady friend, who was seen entering Falstaff's room just a little while ago. Sir John is asked by Simple (a servant) "was't not the wise woman of Brentford?" To which Falstaff responds, "what would you of her?" And then Simple explains that his master has pending business with the wise woman, concerning the identification of a suspected thief.

Not only does all of this very clearly attest to the equivalence of "witch" and "wise woman" in late 16th century English (The Merry Wives was probably written around 1598), but in addition, the Bard was kind enough to provide us with very telling details about the nature of the magical services that the Witch/wise-woman in question provided to her clients. Mr. Ford says that the "witch of Brentford" was involved in "fortune-telling", and that "she works by charms, by spells, by figure ...".  Simple, on the other hand, states that the "wise woman of Brentford" has been contracted by his master for her ability to magically identify thieves. Very significantly, neither when she is referred to as a "witch" nor when she is referred to as a "wise woman" is there any mention of her using her reputed magical abilities to cause harm to anyone.


The Lambton Worm

Now let us turn to ten different versions of the tale of the Lambton Worm. This "Worm" was a legendary Dragon that terrorized the good people of County Durham until it was finally slain by young Lord Lambton, freshly back from the Crusades, Once Upon a Time.

1.
The earliest telling of the legend of the Lambton Worm on record appears to be the 1820  prose version attributed to Robert Surtees (http://www.washingtonlass.com/LambtonWormSurtees). According to this version, when John Lambton had already failed several times to defeat the Dragon, he decided to "add policy to courage", and, to accomplish this he "went to consult a witch or wise woman" and thanks to "her judicious advice" the young Lord Lambton was able to finally slay the Dragon. Surtees' version of the story was first published in the 1820 volume of The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham (see previous link). It also appeared later in An historical, topographical, and descriptive view of the county Palatine of Durham in 1834 (link), edited by Eneas McKenzie and Marvin Ross, and also in Surtees' Memoir published in 1852 (link). A very interesting but brief background piece on Surtees and the legend was published by The Northern Echo on march 24, 2011: The Historian and the Lambton Worm. According to the story, Surtees first heard the tale from a woman with the rather suggestive name of Sybil Elizabeth Cockburn. At the Herrington-Heritage.Org.Uk website there is even more background provided on Surtees in an article titled The Surtees Connection.

2.
In 1835, the story of the Lambton Worm was included in William Andres Chatto's Rambles in Northumberland and on the Scottish Border (http://books.google.com/books?id=jBcHAAAAQAAJ). Chatto's version also makes reference to "a witch, or a wise woman".

3.
Next comes a versified version of the story that appeared in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine in 1840 (http://books.google.com/books?id=tS0tAAAAYAAJ). In that version, titled "The Legend of the Lambton Worm", the woman who helps John Lambton to defeat the Dragon  is identified only as "a witch". This version also appears in Joseph Watson's 1877 pamphlet, The Wonderful Tradition of the Lambton Worm.

4.
Then in 1866 we find a version referring to a "sybil or wise woman". This one is found in William Henderson's Notes on the Folklore of the Northern Counties of England and the Borders (http://books.google.com/books?id=o2cAAAAAMAAJ).

5.
In 1867, C. M. Leumane came out with a popular song called "The Lambton Worm" and there is no mention of the Witch (or wise woman, or sybil) in the song's lyrics. (http://www.washingtonlass.com/LambtonWormSong)

6.
Yet another variation occurs in 1868 in the March 14 issue of the illustrated literary weekly "Once a Week", which was edited by Eneas Sweetland Dallas at the time (http://books.google.com/books?id=0RbnAAAAMAAJ). This version makes no mention of a "Witch" or of a "wise woman", but rather refers to a "neighboring sibyl". Interestingly, just two months previously "Once a Week" featured a piece on "Witchcraft in Devon", in which the phrase "white witch" appears numerous times.

7.
The same 1877 pamphlet by Joseph Watson mentioned above (because it contains the 1840 poetic version of the tale), also contains a prose description of the legend in which it is stated that Lord Lambton "consulted a Sibyl on the best means to be pursued to slay the monster." (http://books.google.com/books?id=gKoWAAAAQAAJ)

8.
In 1888 another version of the story appeared in The Monthly Chronicle of North-Country Lore and Legend (http://www.washingtonlass.com/LambtonWormLegend1888.html). In this version there is a whole subsection entitled simply "The Witch", describing how John Lambton sought out and received guidance from said Witch.

9.
A still later version of the story appeared in Baily's Magazine of Sports and Pastimes in 1895. In that 1895 version, John Lambton is assisted by a "wise woman", and there is no mention of a "Witch". (http://books.google.com/books?id=y5cbAQAAIAAJ)

10.
Finally, yet another retelling of the story appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1904 as part of an article by Barbara Clay Finch on "Reptile Lore." (http://books.google.com/books?id=vOIIAAAAIAAJ) In that version, the young Lord Lambton is told how to kill the Dragon by "a notable white witch".


Conclusion

In 1584 Reginald Scot wrote: "At this day it is indifferent to say in the English tongue, 'she is a witch,' or 'she is a wise woman.'"  About a century later Henry More wrote in a letter to his friend Joseph Glanvill:

"As for the words Witch and Wizzard, from the Notation of them, they signifie no more than a wise Man, or a wise Woman. In the word Wizzard, it is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain and least operose deduction of the name Witch, is from Wit, whose derived Adjective might be Wittigh or Wittich, and by contraction afterwards, Witch; as the Noun wit is from the Verb to weet, which is, to know. So that a Witch, thus far, is no more than a Knowing woman; which answers exactly to the Latine word Saga ...."

We need not concern ourselves over the validity (or operosity) of More's etymological analysis, but only with his perception that "Witch" and "wise woman" are essentially synonymous.

The equivalence stated explicitly by Scot and More is demonstrated in practice by no less an authority on the English language than William Shakespeare, in his Merry Wives of Windsor. If these three data points were all we had, there would still be a strong case for the claim that the word "Witch" in the 16th and 17th centuries was not, as some have claimed, an unambiguous designation for malevolent workers of malefic magic who were hated by their neighbors. Rather, these three sources, and a great many more, all attest to the use of the word "Witch" to refer to workers of beneficial magic who were valued and sought out by others for their magical services.

Moving to the case of the Lambton Worm, we find that as the same story is told and retold over the course of 84 years, that the same character is alternatively referred to as a "Witch", a "wise woman", a "sybil" and even a "white witch". In many of the redactions the story teller goes out of his or her way to use both "witch" and either "wise woman" or "sibyl". Not only does this Witch play a very positive role in the story, she provides the knight/hero, who already possesses strength and courage, with the key thing that he is missing, without which it is not possible to defeat the "Worm". This missing ingredient is precisely that which Henry More cited as the defining feature of the "Witch": knowledge. It only remains to add that according to sources from Jacob Grimm's Teutonic Mythology (link) and Joseph Bosworth's Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (link), both published in 1835, up to the Dictionary of English Folklore by Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud, published in 2000: "The Old English word ‘witch’ meant ‘one who casts a spell’. Intrinsically neutral, it could be applied to those using magic helpfully." (link)

In conclusion there is no room for reasonable doubt concerning the meaning of the word "Witch" from pre-Conquest times to the 21st century. This word has from the beginning been used to refer to "those using magic helpfully", and there has never been a period of time over the last 1000 years when this was not the case. Those who claim otherwise are either ignorant of the most basic relevant facts, or they are engaged in a systematic attempt to misrepresent those facts.

"She was of the old way of mind [i.e. a Witch]" (1878)

.
"Kona hét Þórhildur og kölluð Vaðlaekkja og bjó að Naustum. Hún var forn í lund og vinur Guðmundar mikill."

The above is a quote from the Ljósvetninga Saga (the full text in Old Icleandic is at the Icelandic Saga Database), which tells of the story of the chieftain Guðmundr and his descendants. In the course of the story, Guðmundr seeks the assistance of Þórhildur, who is described as "forn í lund", where "forn" means "old" or "ancient", and "lund" means "mind" as in mental disposition (according to Geir T. Zoëga's very handy online Dictionary of Old Icelandic).

In 1878, Guðbrandur Vigfússon and Frederic York Powell published their An Icelandic prose reader, with notes, grammar, and glossary. A note on the passage above states that "forn í lund" means "a witch, one given to the dealings of old days; lit. of the old fashion or mind, opposed to the new faith." Then in 1905, Vigfússon and Powell published a series of translations of Old Icelandic material under the title Origines Islandicae, with the Ljósvetninga Saga being translated in volume two of that series. Here is their translation of the passage in question:

"There was a woman named Thorhild, and she was called Wadle-widow, and dwelt at Naust or Dock. She was of the old way of mind [i. e. a witch] and a great friend of Gudmund."

What did Guðmundr ask of the "Witch" Þórhildur, and how did she respond? Guðmundr wanted to know whether or not "any revenge will ever come to pass for Thorkel Hake"? (Hake was a man that Gudmund had killed.) To answer her friend's question, Þórhildur donned fighting gear, and then waded into the sea slashing at the water with her battle-axe. She returned to report that Guðmundr has nothing to fear and that "thou shalt sit in honor all thy days". But then Guðmundr further asked about his sons. Again the Witch enacted a ritual battle with the churning water, but this time "there was a great crash and all the sea turned bloody", and Þórhildur tells Guðmundr that danger "will steer near one of thy sons." At this point Þórhildur says to Guðmundr that she can tell him no more, and that the effort has already cost her dearly.

So, to sum up, this is clearly a case of a "Witch" who is a good friend to the hero Guðmundr, and who is eagerly sought out by him for her ability to foretell the future. When asked to do so by her friend, she willingly expends herself greatly to help him with her magic. So, while this story comes from Old Icelandic, the fact that an English translator working in direct collaboration with a native Icelander who was one of the 19th century's most celebrated Scandinavian scholars and who, moreover, had lived in England for many decades already, chose in 1878 to refer to Guðmundr as a "Witch" is quite significant. In the first place it directly contradicts the three central tenets of Ronald Hutton's so-called "global definition of witchcraft", according to which a "Witch" is (1) hated by others, (2) malevolent toward others, and (3) uses her magic to harm others. Additionally it provides yet another example of the English word "Witch" being used explicitly to characterize those who resist Christianization and stubbornly persist in the Old Ways.

Britomart's Glauce as a "Witch or Cunning-Woman", from 1735

from:
Some Account of Merlin and the Figures that attend him, in the new erected Cave at Richmond
London Magazine, or Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer, December, 1735
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020077460

"After Merlin, the first Figure that presents itself is the Amazon Britomartis, by whom (as the Name seems to imply) we suppose is meant the martial Spirit of Britannia, as we see her represented on some of our Coins, half Soldier, half Woman, formidably arm'd, but extremely encumber'd with Petticoats.

"She seems to be in a very declining Condition, and (being no Conjurer herself) comes in the most anxious and submissive Manner to enquire her Fate from the Mouth of that Inchanter, who by his Skill in the Black Art had brought it to depend upon him.

"This Britomartis or Britannia is led by a lean elderly Lady whom some stile Glauce, mention'd by Spencer; others Melissa, from Ariosto; and others Mother Shipton, famous in British Story, but her Character and Office are better known, being allowed by all to be a sort of a Witch or Cunning-Woman, and something between Dry-Nurse and Governess to Britomartis, employed by Merlin in the blackest of his Art, viz. as his Priestess or Pope Joan. She is likewise a great Pretender to Science, and Diver into Mysteries."

"Witches and other evils": Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud on Witches and Witchcraft

[Preamble: Many modern scholars of historical Witchcraft are committed to perpetuating a somewhat sanitized and rationalized redaction of the Christian theory of diabolical Witchcraft. The classical form of this theory is that Witches are in league with the Devil and committed to the cause of Evil in general and destruction of the Christian faith in particular. The updated version of this same myth, adjusted to be more palatable to modern intellectual sensibilities, maintains the idea that Witches are in fact "inherently evil", in the words of Ronald Hutton, although not necessarily literally in league with Satan, and, very importantly, not in any way at odds with Christendom. An important feature of the traditional Christian approach toward Witches were the urgent and frequent admonishments of churchmen to the common people to stop relying on Witches for a variety of magical services, especially in the areas of healing, divination, and protective (and/or counter) magic. In an impressive Orwellian twist, the modern purveyors of the theory of the inherently evil Witch adamantly deny that Witches were ever valued for their skill in magic, but that they were rather always and universally and unambiguously hated, and, for good measure, that Witches could never have conceivably provided such beneficial services, for they were filled with hatred toward their neighbors just much as their neighbors were filled with hatred toward them. In their Dictionary of English Folklore, Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud demonstrate what happens when proponents of the modern theory of the inherently evil Witch feel compelled to take into account, or at least to acknowledge the existence of, the large body of evidence that directly contradicts this theory. Time and again they are either forced into the most tortuous circular logic, or they are simply left with no choice but to flatly contradict themselves.]

In their A Dictionary of English Folklore (OUP, 2000) Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud (S&R hereafter) have quite a lot to say about Witches. Almost (but not quite) invariably they manage to stick to a position according to which Witches are implicitly assumed to be hated, malevolent workers of malefic magic. This is evident in entry after entry after entry. Below are three examples. (By the way, the full text of the Dictionary is available as a pdf file here: http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34181/conv_1/file1.pdf.)

1. Under the entry for "charm wands" we are told that these objects "were intended as protection against a witch’s evil eye." But if we look at the entry for "evil eye" we find that it is defined as "The belief that certain people can inflict disease or death simply by a glance."  Later in the definition it is simply asserted that "it was generally regarded as witchcraft, consciously used." [emphases added] This is a clear example of circular logic, where the assumption is that Witchcraft = malefic magic, and, therefore, the "evil eye" (being obviously a form of malefic magic) is "generally regarded as witchcraft". This is also an example of singling out Witches and Witchcraft, as opposed to other magical workers. The evil eye can just as easily be associated with people labeled as "sorcerers", "wizards", "black magicians", etc.

2. Under the entry for "holly" we read: "Holly trees were believed to be generally protective against witches and other evils, and were thus planted near churches and houses." [emphasis added]

3. Under the entry for "superstition" we read that among the many "patterns, formulas, and basic principles controlling modern superstitions" is this one: "Evil forces exist and are actively working to harm you; these may be impersonal, or concentrated in humans (witches, ill-wishers) or other beings (devils, fairies)."

Throughout S&R's Dictionary there is a clear pattern of associating Witches with malefic magic. Any one incident such as the three shown above might be overlooked, and focusing too much attention on it could be justifiably dismissed as niggling. But multiplied over and over again this becomes a systematic pattern of apparently intentional misrepresentation.

Keeping in mind this pattern of, often implicitly, insinuating that Witchcraft=malefic magic, let us see what happens when it comes time to explicitly define "Witch" and two closely related terms: "white Witch", and "cunning men/cunning women".

S&R begin their explicit definition of "Witch" by stating, as casually as possible, that: 

"The Old English word ‘witch’ meant ‘one who casts a spell’. Intrinsically neutral, it could be applied to those using magic helpfully."

But for S&R, such an unexpected flash of honesty is safely embedded inside a strategy of obfuscation. Having allowed the cat briefly out of the bag in the name of plausible deniability, S&R  waste no time in reintering the poor creature by adding the qualification that "in most contexts, however, ‘witchcraft’ means using magic to harm humans, farm animals, or property." In other words, Witches are not by definition malevolent workers of malefic magic, but that won't stop us from acting as if they invariably are. It goes without saying that S&R never even hint at which "contexts" are the ones in which we will find Witches "using magic helpfully" as opposed to those in which Witches are discovered "using magic to cause harm." And it would be simply out of the question to ask how it was determined that one of these sets of contexts so greatly outnumbers the other (or even what that might possibly mean, other than nothing).

Under the entry for 'white witch' the plot thickens considerably. Therein we read that

"This term, together with the equivalent 'good witch', or even 'witch' on its own, might be applied in Tudor and Stuart times to people who used healing spells and performed other useful services. Bishop Latimer complains in 1552 that 'A great many of us, when we be in trouble, or sickness, or lose anything, we run hither and thither to witches, or sorcerers, whom we call wise men ... seeking aid and comfort at their hands'. Reginald Scot notes in 1584 that 'At this day, it is indifferent to say in the English tongue, "she is a witch" or "she is a wise-woman"'."[emphasis added]

Once again, such a momentary lapse into telling the truth about the meaning and the history of the word "Witch" must be immediately followed by yet another exercise in trying to force the facts to fit their theory: "This usage seems rare in later folk-speech, where healers were politely called 'blessers', 'charmers', or 'wise women'. Nevertheless, [John] Brand and some other folklorists adopted the term 'white witch', so it is now widely known."

But it turns out that this "rare" usage actually turns up in quite a few sources from the period in question, including a famous satirical/political poem (by arguably the most famous poet of the times, which some have even called The Age of Dryden), at least three plays, at least two medical treatises, and the transcripts multiple Witchcraft trials, as well as many other works written by authors with widely varying views on the subject of Witchcraft (and who often heatedly criticize each other), but who all explicitly concur that Witches do in fact perform many different kinds of beneficial magic, and are often sought out by their neighbors (as well as by those who live far away) for a variety of magical services.

So, while S&R provide two sources to establish this ("rare") usage, they could have easily provided ten times that many, and more. But what evidence do they provide to substantiate the supposed "rareness" itself? Absolutely nothing. They themselves even feel compelled to admit that it only "seems rare". Perhaps it does not seem quite so rare to anyone who bothers to actually start to tally up just how often this usage is encountered.

And what about the claim that it is only due to John Brand that the specific phrase "white Witch" and the associated perception of Witches as workers of beneficial magic are nowadays "widely known"? Well, John Brand had absolutely nothing original to say about "white Witches", as the long list of sources in my earlier post on Beneficent Witchcraft clearly shows. It is a completely arbitrary and unsupported fantasy to claim that the phrase "white Witch" only became "well known" due to Brand's writings. Also, the contention that "white Witch" was not a part of "later folk-speech" actually amounts to an acknowledgement that it was in common usage ealier, and, furthermore, S&R present not one shred of evidence that the phrase somehow vanished from "folk-speech" while managing to remain ubiquitous in the written language.

A final point that can be made about S&R's definition of "white Witch" concerns one of the sources they cite: J.A. Sharpe's Instrument of Darkness: Witchcraft in Early Modern England, (UPenn, 1996). If we go to the cited pages in Sharpe's book we read about the trial in 1605 of Jone Jurdie. One of those called to testify at the trial was Katherin Dolfin, who swore under oath that she had gone to Jurdie "for helpe for her child", and that Jurdie had insisted Dolfin tell no one about this, lest "I [Jurdie] should be thought to be a Witch [for helping a woman with a sick child]." Sharpe's account of the trial is actually pretty lousy. The full transcript can be found in Volume 3 of the Gentleman's Magazine Library (1884) found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=vUkZAQAAMAAJ

Finally we must now turn to the definition of "cunning men/cunning women". S&R begin this entry by talking very broadly about "people who were employed by others to practise magical skills on their behalf, and were paid in money or small gifts, thus usefully supplementing the income from their regular occupations." Soon after this, S&R broach the subject of what these magical practitioners were called:

"There were various popular names for them: wizards, conjurers, sorcerers, charmers, wise men/women, cunning men/ women, the latter two being the most widespread. ‘White witch’ was a term more used by outsiders than by practitioners and their clients."

The assertion that "‘White witch’ was a term more used by outsiders than by practitioners and their clients," is simply produced out of thin air. No sources are cited to support this assertion, nor is any other kind of evidence provided for this obviously self-serving claim. If one reads carefully, though, one notes that all of the terms listed, except for "cunning men/cunning women" are asserted to be less "widespread" than those two terms. So S&R are in fact claiming a rather detailed three-fold division of the terms used to refer to those who were sought out as providers of beneficial magical services, all without any justification. The fact is that if S&R were at this point to discuss their sources, they would be completely unable to provide any justification whatsoever, based on the very sources that they themselves are using, for the "insider/outsider" claim concerning the use of "white Witch", for there is not a single contemporaneous source which makes such a distinction in how these labels are applied.

So, according to Simpson and Roud the Old English word for "Witch" (wicca) simply meant someone who could perform magic, or, more specifically, a caster of spells (a reasonable, if overly narrow, way of putting it, considering the fact that the earliest texts that we have in which attempts are made to translate the Old English "wiccan" into Latin often render it as "incantores"). Also according to S&R, from the late 15th through the early 18th centuries (Tudor and Stuart periods), the word "Witch" is found (sometimes modified with "good" or "white", but sometimes on its own) being applied to practitioners of beneficial magic. And, finally, the word "Witch" is in fact another name for a cunning-person, that is, someone who performs a variety of much sought-after beneficial magical practices, such as finding lost or stolen objects, healing, foretelling the future, casting horoscopes, love magic, countering curses, etc. In other words, from pre-Conquest times up through and including the period of the early modern Witch-Hunts, "Witch" did not mean a hated, malevolent worker of malefic magic at all!

Witches and Witchcraft in Samuel Collins' "The Present State of Russia", 1671

Below are two excerps from:

 

The Present State of Russia
In a Letter to a Friend at London; 
Written by an Eminent Person residing at the Great Czars
Court at Mosco for the space of nine years.

London, 1671.
by
Samuel Collins

.

"Seldom a Wedding passes without some Witch-craft (if people of quality marry) chiefly acted as tis thought by Nuns, whose prime devotion tends that way. I saw a fellow coming out of the Bride-chamber, tearing his hair as though he had been mad, and being demanded the reason why he did so, he cry'd out: I am undone: I am bewitch'd: The remedy they use, is to address themselves to a white Witch, who for money will unveil the Charm, and untie the Codpiece-point, which was this young mans case; it seems some old Woman had tyed up his Codpiece-point."
[from Chapter II] 

 "Now we are in Chichass Land, it will not be amiss to tell you what people they are, viz. A kind of Tartars, a rude swarthy look'd people; their Women are very unhandsome, gross, and grosly given to drinking; so that at an Entertainment they will be drunk before meat comes on the Table, and with eating recover themselves, and after Dinner be drunk again, and then recover themselves by Dancing, which they love so much, that they count him a mean man who does not keep a Fidler in his house. Their Government is perfectly Anarchical, for upon an Insurreciton they destroy'd all their Nobility and Gentry, and are now govern'd by Collonels of their own chusing, with whom the meanest is Hail Fellow well met Souldiers they call in their Language, Cossacks, which makes some mistake, and think them to be a Nation. These people are much devoted to Witch-craft, and count it an extraordinary piece of learning practiced by the chief Women in the Countrey. They are more hospitable to Strangers than the Russians and their Countrey or Land is better and warmer."
[From Chapter X, Of the Chircasses]

.
Full text online in pdf format: http://myweb.uiowa.edu/mapoe/Publications/Collins.pdf

"Night Witches", aka Ночные ведьмы, aka Nachthexen. Google it.

Malevolent Magic and "The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft"

In a recent post (link) it was shown that of the 876 Scottish Witchcraft cases for which there is data characterizing the accusations, at least 21% of these cases involved some kind of benevolent magic. (To look at this data directly for yourself, see the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft website, the complete citation for which appears at the bottom of this post.)

Now here's an interesting question: in how many of these same 876 cases were people explicitly accused of malevolent magic? Fortunately, maleficium is one of the main "characterizations" used by the researchers at the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft to categorize the cases in their database.

The answer to this particular $64K question is that a grand total of 414 cases involved accusations of maleficium. This means that of all the 3,413 (or so) documented Witchcraft trials in Scotland only 12% are known to have involved explicit accusations of harmful magic. Just to explain (especially for anyone who has been following these posts on Scottish Witchcraft trials closely) 12% is what you get using the same "logic" that the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft applied to their "analysis" of beneficial magic. That is, 12% is the percentage of all cases in the database, not just those cases where we actually have some information about the nature of the charges. (The "grand total" figure of 3,413 is the number of records returned for a search with all of the filters set to "any".)

But if instead of 3,414, we use the total of 876, based on the (much more reasonable, if I do say so myself) methodology that I suggeted in that previous post, to estimate the frequency with which any given "characterization" occurs (that is, only counting those cases for which sufficient information is present to say something meaningful about such "characterizations"), we still end up with the result that less than half, only 47% (about what Mitt Romney got in the last election), of all Witchcraft cases involved explicit accusations of using magic to cause harm.

Could it be that the folks at the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft are using the Latin term maleficium in some very special way that doesn't include all cases of accusations of harmful magic? I have to wonder, because it is widely assumed among scholars of historical Witchcraft that accusations of maleficium were the norm, even the defining feature, of Witchcraft accusations generally. But there is no entry for maleficium in their glossary, nor is there any explanation of the term in the paper "Survey of Scottish Witchcraft Database Documentation and Description" (where one can find an explanation of their use of the term "white magic", which is also missing from the glossary). However, if we make a very quick and dirty search of the writings of lead researcher Julian Goodare, we immediately find two places where he defines maleficium as either "the use of magic to harm one's neighbors", or, more elaborately, as pertaining to cases in which "it was claimed that witches had inflicted harm by supernatural, i.e., diabolical, means." (See, The Scottish Witch-Hunts in Context, page 161 and 179.) So, no, it does not appear that there is any terminological anomaly here. So the 414 cases in the database that are characterized as involving "malefecium" are the only cases for which there is real evidence of an accused Witch who was explicitly accused of using magic to cause harm to others.

Why, then, do so many scholars not only implicitly assume but explicitly assert that maleficium is the essential defining feature of historical Witchcraft? The list of respected academics who have promoted this unfounded view includes some rather well known names in addition to Julian Goodare's, for example: Wolfgang Behringer, Owen Davies, Jacqueline Simpson, Steve Roud, and Ronald Hutton. Hutton has even gone so far as to concoct what he calls a "global definition of witchcraft", which elevates this false equation of Witchcraft with maleficium to the level of metaphysics. Clearly it is high time for scholars of historical Witchcraft to take a much closer look at the hard data concerning both malevolent and benevolent magic.

[Full citation for The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft: Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin, Joyce Miller and Louise Yeoman, 'The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft', http://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/witches/ (archived January 2003, accessed March 2013).]

Benevolent Magic and "The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft"

.

[This post discusses the extraordinarily informative website The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft. Here is how they like to be cited: Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin, Joyce Miller and Louise Yeoman, 'The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft', http://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/witches/ (archived January 2003, accessed March 2013).]

Over at the "The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft" website, one can read the following, on the page "Introduction to Scottish Witchcraft":

"Q. Were the witches midwives or healers?
A. Not usually. We have recorded 9 individuals whose occupation was recorded as being a midwife, and for 10 people midwifery practices were included as part of the accusations of witchcraft levelled against them. This is a tiny percentage of the overall total. Folk healing was more common and featured in the witchcraft accusations of 141 people—about 4%. Even so, it was not something that the typical witch seems to have engaged in—though the beliefs that underpinned folk healing were closely related to witchcraft beliefs. If magic could be used to heal, it could also be used to harm."

On the face of it this seems very straightforward. A simple matter of arithmetic. But if we drill down a little into the database itself, the picture quickly become more interesting.

"Folk healing" and "midwifery" are two of the sixteen different categories that the researchers at the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft call "characterizations". Here are all sixteen in descending order (according to how many cases were found to possess the particular "characterization" in question): 

1. Implicated by another Witch 948
2. Demonic 528
3. Maleficium 414
4. Folk Healing 141
5. Neighborhood dispute 120
6. Fairies 113
7. Unorthodox religious practice 85
8. Demonic Possession 79
9. White magic 70
10. Property Motive 62
11. Political motive 52
12. Consulting 46
13. Other/Unknown 23 
14. Treason  19
15. Refused charity to economic dependent 19
16. Midwifery 10

Right off the bat one can see a major problem, for there is no way that these numbers add up to 3,413, which (apparently) is the total number of cases that was used to arrive at the "about 4%" figure, which in turn was used to justify the claim that magical healing was not something that the "typical" Scottish Witch was involved with. The disparity is even greater when we realize that there is a great deal of overlap due to the fact that many trials involved two or more of the sixteen "characterizations".

Let me put that another way, before getting into the gruesome details: the percentage given ("about 4%") is artificially small because the total number of cases used to calculate the percentage is greatly exaggerated. The total is exaggerated because it is mostly (see below) made up of cases for which we have no idea what the accused Witches in question were actually accused of. It is highly misleading to include those cases in which we have no information of any kind about what the accused person actually did, as if these cases represented positive evidence of what accused Witches did not do.

In fact, it turns out that less than half (1,511) of all the surviving trial records in the database have any information that allows for assigning any of the sixteen categories to them. This is easily verified by going to the "Search the database" page, then selecting "Search for cases of witchcraft by date and characterisation" link. Once there you go to the "characterization" table and select everything except for "any" (that particular selection is fairly misleading, for it does not mean "any characterization" but, rather "any case, regardless of whether or not it has any characterization assigned to it"), and then over to the right be sure to select the "Any selected option (OR)" button. This means you are selecting every case for which at least one of the sixteen different "characterizations" has been assigned. Then you click the 'Search Cases" button and, voila, a list of all cases matching that search appears, with the total number of cases helpfully appearing at the top of the list.

But it gets even worse, because almost half of these 1,511 cases, in turn, have "implicated by another Witch" as the only "characterization" that has been applied to the case, and this obviously has no bearing on what the accused Witch was actually accused of doing (or wasn't accused of doing). And so if we now eliminate those trials for which the only characterization was that it involved "implication by another Witch", which, to repeat, tells us nothing about what the accused Witch was actually accused of, there are only 876 cases left. Here is a brief summary:

3,413 cases total (the number of cases returned with all filters set to "any")
1,511 cases with enough information for one or more "characterization"
876 cases with any "characterization" other than "implicated by another Witch"

This suddenly increases by fourfold (up to 16%) the percentage of Witches involved in folk healing, if we limit ourselves, as we should, to only those cases where we have some factual, documented basis for saying whether or not the accused were involved in such practices.

But there is also another category that demands our attention: "white magic," which is category #9 in the full list of all sixteen "characterizations" listed above. For some reason, the term "white magic" isn't included in the (otherwise) very helpful glossary at the site, but it is discussed in the paper "Survey of Scottish Witchcraft Database Documentation and Description," where one reads that "white magic" encompasses a variety of activities including astrology, love magic, and finding lost goods. The grand total of cases involving either "folk healing", "midwifery", or "white magic" brings us up to 181 cases, which is 21% of all cases for which such information is available.

In other words, the answer to the question "were Witches midwives or healers?" is a simple "yes". This becomes even more the case if we further include other documented cases of beneficial magic ("white magic") along with "folk healing" and "midwifery". And on top of all that we must add the fact that Witches who practiced healing and other forms of beneficial magic tend to be systematically underrepresented in the trial records, because they were less likely to have charges brought against them .

The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft is an extraordinarily informative website. It is a shame that it is to some extent marred by such an egregious misrepresentation of the very data that it provides. The relationship between beneficial magic and Witchcraft is now a very "hot topic" in the scholarly study of historical Witchcraft. Unfortunately, a few scholars involved in this field appear to have an agenda that impels them to exaggerate the malefic characterizations of Witches and Witchcraft, while either denying outright, or systematically trying to diminish the clearly documented historical relationship between Witches and beneficial magic. Because certain widely respected scholars are now very aggressively promoting such an agenda, it is possible even for unbiased researchers, let alone the "lay" public at large, to unintentionally become convinced of (and even complicit in the spread of) crude misrepresentations of historical Witches.