THE BUILDER October, 1927

Witchcraft

A Brief Discussion of Two Modern Works
By BRO. ERNEST E. THIEMEYER, Missouri

SHAKESPEARE'S Macbeth brings to mind the three old hags who hover
over the witches' cauldron, and this picture or some derivative of
it illustrates the general conception of the members of what
doubtless was the most sorely persecuted sect in the Middle Ages.
That such a picture is no more than a creation of the fancy may, or
may not, be true, but it is certain that all witches were not of
this kind. In an effort to ascertain the exact status of the people
who were termed witches, their beliefs, acts and deeds, scholars
have written many volumes. A library of witchcraft, if it were
possible to build one, would be of no inconsiderable size. Most of
the works dealing with the subject are either in old English,
French or Latin, and consequently are not available for the general
public, which is perhaps just as well. Aside from this they are
very rare and there are not many who are able to obtain the texts
for study. In the past few years, however, there have appeared two
books dealing with the subject which makes it possible for anyone
sufficiently interested to learn something about the witches
without depending upon the popular superstitions an,d the numerous
references found in literature. Miss M. A. Murray's Witch Cult of
Western Europe was published in 1921, and Mr. Montague Summers'
History of Witchcraft and Demonology appeared in the closing months
of 1926. The books are very different in scope as well as in style,
and of the two doubtless Mr. Summers' work is the one which will
attract the attention of the general reader. Its style accounts for
this in large measure because it is more easily readable than the
work of Miss Murray. Mr. Summers professes to be at variance with
Miss Murray and for the benefit of the reader who does not wish to
become a student of the subject it will be well to come to some
conclusion regarding the evidence offered by both writers.

It is quite possible that much of the supposed difference between
these two scholars hinges on the interpretation of the word Devil.
Mr. Summers takes for granted that the word means the personal
Devil of Mediaeval theology, while Miss Murray has another meaning
to import. In explaining the organization of the cult, Miss Murray
says:

The Cult was organized in as careful a manner as any other
religious community; each district however was independent, and
therefore Mather is justified in saying that the witches "form
themselves after the manner of Congregational Churches."

The Chief or Supreme Head of each district was known to the
recorders as the "Devil." Below him in each district, one or more
officers--according to the size of the district--were appointed by
the Chief. ... At the Esbats (local gatherings) the officer appears
to have taken command in the absence of the Grand Master, at the
Sabbaths the officers were merely heads of their own covens, and
were known as Devils or Spirits, though recognized as greatly
inferior to the Chief (1).

Mr. Summers has taken the language of the records as literally
meaning the personal Devil above mentioned, and in this he follows
those who wrote them. On the basis of this rendering of the word,
Mr. Summers is perhaps entitled to his conclusions, but it has been
shown that the actual meaning of the word was no more than a title
for the Chief of the Coven. In view of the fact that he is
described as appearing at different times to the members of the
cult and in different, though it must be said, similar disguises,
and that the records of the witch trials frequently connect one
appearance in a given costume with another in a different
impersonation as though both manifestations were one and the same
person, it may be safely concluded that the Devil to whom the
witches referred was not the ecclesiastical devil, but the head of
the cult in a particular section, and as such enjoyed the
veneration of the witches in much the same way that the Indian
medicine men were revered by their followers.

While it may appear that we are ready to discard Mr. Summers'
conception of the devil of witchcraft entirely, such is not the
case. Undoubtedly there were certain elements of Satanic worship
which found a place in the witchcult. An investigation of this
phase of the question would be very interesting, but it is not
essential to our argument. It seems hardly fair, and certainly it
is not in accord with the traditions of good scholarship, for a man
who is supposed to be writing a history of witchcraft to give no
credence to the opinion of a contemporary who has supported a
theory with a mass of evidence equal to that brought to bear by
Miss Murray. Doubtless there are some mistakes in the work of Miss
Murray; it hardly seems possible that such a work could be perfect,
but the whole tenor of Mr. Summers' book is to point out the
mistakes, such as they are, with a view to discounting the whole of
Miss Murray's work.

Miss Murray's work was the first of the two to appear and in the
five years since it came from the press it has been very generally
accepted by students. Since her case is backed by detailed evidence
at almost wearisome length to the ordinary reader, it does not seem
unfair to demand of Mr. Summers that he offer proof of his
contention that Miss Murray's theory of the Witch Cult is wrong.
The later writer adheres, or seems at time to do so, to the older
school of thought in regard to witches. Miss Murray, if the
widespread acceptance of her theory can be taken as ground for the
assertion, has proved that the old school was wrong. It now becomes
necessary for the adherents to this line of thought to prove that
they are right.

In an effort to ascertain whether or not this purpose has been
accomplished, it is necessary to present the theory Miss Murray
supports. In her own language,

Ritual Witchcraft--or, as I propose to call it, the Dianic cult--
embraces the religious beliefs and ritual of the people known in
late mediaeval times as "Witches." The evidence proves that
underlying the Christian religion was a cult practiced by many
classes of the community, chiefly, however, by the more ignorant or
those in less thickly inhabited parts of the country. It can be
traced back to pre-Christian times, and appears to be the ancient
religion of Western Europe. The god, anthropomorphic, or
theriomorphic, was worshipped in well-defined rites; the
organization was highly developed, and the ritual is analogous to
many other ancient rituals. The dates of the chief festivals
suggest that the religion belonged to a race which had not reached
the agricultural stage, and the evidence shows that various
modifications were introduced, probably by invading peoples who
brought in their own beliefs. I have not attempted to disentangle
the various cults; I am content merely to point out that it was a
definite religion with beliefs, ritual, and organization as highly
developed as that of any other cult in the world (2).

Such a clear statement of intention needs no elucidation. It may be
as well, however, to point out that Miss Murray sub-titles her work
A Study in Anthropology. Her method of presenting evidence is such
that it would take a student versed at least in the elementary
principles of anthropological research to come to any very clever
understanding of the proof. Miss Murray does not write for the
beginner, and many things are taken for granted which, if
elaborated, might assist the elementary student in forming a more
accurate opinion of the value of her work. On the kind of evidence
presented Miss Murray says:

The evidence which I now bring forward is taken entirely from
contemporary sources, i.e., the legal records of the trials,
pamphlets giving accounts of individual witches, and the works of
Inquisitors and other writers. I have omitted the opinions of
authors, and have examined only the recorded facts, without however
including the stories of ghosts and other "occult" phenomena with
which all the commentators confuse the subject. I have also, for
the reason given below, omitted all references to charms and spells
when performed by one witch alone, and have confined myself to
those statements only which show the beliefs, organization and
ritual of a hitherto unrecognized cult.

In order to clear the ground I make a sharp distinction between
Operative Witchcraft and Ritual Witchcraft. Under Operative
Witchcraft I class all charms and spells, whether used by a
professed witch or by a professed Christian, whether intended for
good or evil, for killing or for curing. Such charms and spells are
common to every nation and country, and are practiced by the
priests and people of every religion. They are a part of the common
heritage of the human race and are therefore of no practical value
in the study of one particular cult. (3)

Mr. Summers is high in his praise of Miss Murray as an investigator
though he has objections to the method followed:

Miss Murray has worked out her thesis with no inconsiderable
ingenuity, but when details are considered, historically examined,
and set in their due proportions, it must be concluded that the
theory of a continuity of an ancient religion is baseless. Her book
is called A Study in Anthropology, and here we can, I think, at
once put our finger upon the fundamental mistake. Anthropology
alone offers no explanation of Witchcraft. Only the trained
theologian can adequately treat the subject. (4)

This seems rather an astounding assertion in view of the fact that
anthropology has taught us all or at least the greater part of what
we know about witchcraft among primitive peoples, to say nothing of
the magic rites and ceremonies which have been unearthed through
the efforts, not of trained theologians, but of anthropologists. It
is true that much of the evidence has been collected by
missionaries doubtless trained in theology and often not directly
interested in anthropology. Trained anthropologists have in many
instances taken the evidence collected by trained theologians and
by proper application of the comparative method have reached
conclusions which few if any theologians, even those who had made
the investigations, would care to contradict. Why then should
anthropologists be excluded from the field of witchcraft ? I think
that no one would doubt the assertion that the witches had a
definite place in the culture of Medieval Europe. If it had, it
certainly falls into the field of anthropologists, since racial
cultures are a part of their realm of activity. It is true,
doubtless, that the mass of material dealing with witchcraft was
compiled under the guidance of the clergy, but that, of itself,
does not preclude the possibility of revision at the hands of
competent scientists. On the whole the statement taken from Mr.
Summers' work seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to qualify the
author for the task to which he has set himself to the exclusion of
those who do not possess similar qualifications.

It is my opinion that Mr. Summers would have done better if he had
produced evidence in support of his assertions instead of directing
his efforts at the disqualification of other students on the ground
of improper training. His arguments would be more convincing if he
produced actual evidence instead of his own word for support. Let
us take the following quotation as an example:

There is in particular one statement advanced by Miss Murray which
goes far to show how in complete unconsciousness she is fitting her
material to her theory. She writes: "There is at present nothing to
show how much of the Witches' Mass (in which the bread, the wine
and the candles were black) derived from the Christian ritual and
how much belonged to the Dianic Cult; it is, however, possible that
the witches' service was the earlier form and influenced the
Christian." This last sentence is in truth an amazing assertion. A
more flagrant case of hysteron-proteron is hardly imaginable. So
self-evident is the absurdity that it refutes itself, and one can
only suppose that the words were allowed to remain owing to their
having been overlooked in the revision of a long and difficult
study, a venial negligence. Every prayer and every gesture of Holy
Mass, since the first Mass was celebrated upon the first Maundy
Thursday, has been studied in minutest detail by generations of
liturgiologists and ceremonialists whose library is almost infinite
in its vastness and extent from the humblest pamphlets to the
hugest folios. We can trace each inspired development when such an
early phrase was added, when such a hallowed sign was first made at
such words in such an orison. The witches' service is a hideous
burlesque of Holy Mass, and, briefly, what Miss Murray suggests is
that the parody may have existed before the thing parodied. It is
true that some topsy-turvey writers have actuaally proclaimed that
magic preceded religion but this view is generally discredited by
authorities of all schools. Sir James Frazer, Sir A. L. Lyall, and
Mr. F.B. Jevons, for example, recognize "a fundamental distinction
and even opposition of principle between magic and religion (5)."

There is too much material in the above quotation to make a
detailed analysis possible. In the main it may be said that his
argument is well-founded. The quotation from Miss Murray is one of
those errors to which we made reference earlier in the discussion.
As a matter of fact it has no direct bearing upon the essentials of
her theory and is relatively unimportant. The main objection is
that Mr. Summers makes assertions without any supporting proof.
Especially is this true when the last part of his statement is
considered. Mr. Summers quotes sir James Frazer in such a manner
that one uninformed would be led to believe that this great
authority holds that religion preceded magic. This is simply a case
of Mr. Summers twisting the evidence to suit his needs, as will be
seen from the following:

Yet this antagonism (between magic and religion), familiar as it is
to us, seems to have made its appearance comparatively late in the
history of religion. At an earlier stage the functions of priest
and sorcerer were often comblned or, to speak perhaps more
correctly, were not yet differentiated from each other (6).

And again in another place:

If an Age of Religion has thus everywhere, as I venture to surmise,
been preceded by an Age of Magic, it is natural that we should
enquire what causes have led mankind, or rather a portion of them,
to abandon magic as a principle of faith and practice to betake
themselves to religion instead. (7)

Truly two astounding statements coming from the man Mr. Summers
quotes in his own favor. Even more astounding indeed, when those
who have read the first two volumes of Mr. Frazer's work know that
they are devoted almost entirely to an attempt to prove that magic
really preceded religion. There is only one conclusion that can be
drawn and that is that the "trained theologian" is not always the
scholar he is supposed to be.

It has come to be a canon of anthropology that myth and ritual are
extremely tenacious. By this it is meant that we find many
instances where the old underlying legends and ritual practices
have been fused into new ones. The events related, the characters,
and the ceremonies persist. The details vary, and the names of
characters are very often changed. Mr. Summers recognized this
changing character of myths and ritual, but his theological
training would not permit him to accept the obvious conclusion
though it is accepted by many who are doubtless as well trained in
theology as he. He says

that here and there lingered various old harmless customs and
festivities which had come down from pre-Christian times and which
the Church had allowed, nay, had even sanctified by directing them
to the right source, the Maypole dances, for example, and the
Midsummer fires which now honor S. John Baptist, is a matter of
common knowledge. But this is no continuance of a pagan cult (8).

What then is it ? Nothing more or less than the absorption by a new
faith of what belonged to an old. The distinction between this and
the anthropological teaching is precisely nothing (9). Sir James
Frazer refutes Mr. Summers in incontrovertible terms. For further
substantiation of the absorption of pagan festivals by the Church
of Rome the reader is referred to Mr. E.K. Chambers' The Medieval
Stage, vol. I, pp. 228-248. These pages do not include all the
references, but will do much to show that Mr. Summers' hypothesis
is untenable. For those who do not care to look further, we may
select a few rather telling quotations:

The position (between the Church and Pagans) was aggravated when,
probably in the fourth century, the Christian feast of the Birthday
of Christ came to be fixed on Dec. 25, in the very heart of the
pagan rejoicings and upon the actual day hitherto sacred to Sol
Invictus (10).

Continuing on the same subject Mr. Chambers offers the following
explanation:

The enemies of Roman orthodoxy were not slow to assert that it
merely continued under another name the pagan celebration of the
birthday of Sol Invictus. Nor was the suggestion entirely an empty
one. The worshippers of Sol Invictus and in particular the Mithraic
sect, were not quite on the level of the ordinary pagans by
tradition. Mithraism had claims to be a serious and reasonable
rival to Christianity, and if its adherents could be induced by
argument to merge their worship of the physical sun in that of the
"Sun of Righteousness," they were well worth winning (11).

That there is nothing here presented to show that the Holy Mass may
have been derived from the ceremonies of the Dianic Cult is
granted, but certainly the evidence bears out Miss Murray's
contention that it is possible. We have seen pagan festivals
incorporated in the celebrations of the church in other respects,
and there seems no reason to doubt that they may have found their
way into the Mass, Mr. Summers' opinion to the contrary
notwithstanding. We have seen something of the evidence on the one
side, but Mr. Summers refrains from making mention of the evidence
to support his thesis. Miss Murray did not say that this was the
line of descent, neither did she state it as a probability, but
only offered it as a possibility; it does seem likely that there is
a chance that Miss Murray's opinion merits consideration.

What has gone before shows the standpoint from which Mr. Summers
considers the subject of witchcraft. It is left for the readers to
decide whether the purely scientific consideration of evidence
followed by Miss Murray, in which she goes back to the actual
records and discards the opinions of the students is to be taken as
the most sensible and the best founded method of research, or
whether Mr. Summers' dogmatic following of the teachings of
scholars, who most modern students believe to have been mistaken,
is to be accepted. There is, I think, only one answer.

The question of Mr. Summers' disqualification of anthropologists as
investigators in the field of witchcraft has been mentioned
earlier. It now becomes evident that more could be said in relation
to this point. To close the argument one question might be asked:
What right has a trained theologian, whose subject is "the science
that treats of the existence, nature and attributes of God,
especially of man's relation of God," to say that none but those
with this training have the equipment to deal with witchcraft?

Unfortunately Mr. Summers is not as definite in his declaration of
purpose as is Miss Murray. There appears in his book no statement
of his theory, unless the following can be so interpreted:

In the following pages I have endeavored to show the witch as she
really was--an evil liver; a social pest and parasite; the devotee
of a loathly and obscene creed; an adept at poisoning, blackmail,
and other creeping crimes; a member of a powerful secret
organization inimical to Church and state, a blasphemer in word and
deed; swaying the villagers by terror and superstition, a charlatan
and a quack sometimes; a bawd, and abortionist, the dark counsellor
of lewd court ladies and adulterous gallants; a minister to vice
and inconceivable corruption, battening upon the filth and foulest
passions of the age (12).

Not one thing therein offers any constructive criticism by which a
new, or even an old, conception of the witch can be placed in the
stead of Miss Murray's idea. Miss Murray's work admits the
degenerate character of the Witch Cult in Medieval times, and she
may even admit, with no harm to her theory, the "powerful secret
organization inimical to Church and state." Mr. Summers'
characterization of the witch and her cult has nothing to do with
its origin. Mr. Summers wants to claim the medieval inquisitors
were right, and that the whole order was invented by the devil,
that is, by Satan. His rhetoric seems intended to produce an
impression favorable to accepting this. It would seem, however,
that the degradation was due, not to the devil, but to the
persecution of the cult and its survival among the poor and
wretched of the age.

Mr. Summers forgets himself when he says:

But it must not for a moment be supposed, as has often been
superficially believed, that Witchcraft was a product of the Middle
Ages, and that only then did authority adopt measures of repression
and legislate against the warlock and the sorceress .... Even pagan
emperors had issued edicts absolutely forbidding goetic theurgy,
confiscating grimoires, and visiting necromancers with death. In
A.U.C. 721 (about 40 A. D.) during the triumvirate of Octavius,
Antony and Lepidus, all astrologers and charmers were banished
(13).

It must be remembered that in pagan times religion and state were
more closely connected than at present, even in Christian history
has this been true. Neither can we forget that the people
legislated against in the edicts mentioned by Mr. Summers were
incomers, Orientals and Greeks. It is quite generally agreed that
the Roman religion was based largely upon magic. It may well be the
case that the persecution of witches in pagan times was due to a
motive similar to that which actuated the Inquisitors. The sect may
have been one which was old even then, anthropology would entitle
us to this conclusion. These practitioners may have been conducting
rites and ceremonies which did not meet with the approval of the
religion of the state and consequently they would be subject to
imperial edicts. The mere fact that it existed in 40 A.D. or
thereabouts would tend to confirm Miss Murray's hypothesis,
especially when it is remembered that Paul, who brought
Christianity to Rome, was in Corinth in 51 A. D. and did not reach
Rome until several years later.

It must be said that when the theological point of view is left out
of consideration there is not one shred of evidence which on its
own merit contradicts Miss Murray. There is, however, much that
tends to confirm it. When it is considered that Mr. Summers is
doubtless writing with the consent of his ecclesiastical superiors,
his treatment of the subject is easily understood and it can be
discounted as you please. The evidence in Mr. Summers' work is of
value in spite of the ex cathedra pronouncements of the author
against any theory that seems to cast the slightest shadow of error
upon the Catholic authorities who were responsible for the
Inquisitorial methods.

NOTES

(1) Murray, M. A., The Witch Cult of Western Europe, p. 186.
(2) Murray, op. cit., pp. 11-12
(3) Murray, op. cit., p. 11.
(4) Summers, Montague, The History of Witchcraft p. 45.
(5) Summers, op. cit., pp. 42-43. The last quotation is from
Frazer's Golden Bough, Part I, vol. I, p. xx. Third Edition, 1911.
(6) Frazer, J.G., The Golden Bough, abr. ed., 1925, p. 52.
(7) Frazer, op. cit., p. 56.
(8) Summers, op. cit., p. 43.
(9) For details in connection with St. John's Day, Midsummer Day,
and Midsummer Fires, see Frazer, op. cit., Index under St. John and
Midsummer Fires.
(10) Chambers, E. K., The Medieval stage, vol. I, p. 238. 
(11) Chambers, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 241-242. 
(12) Summers, op. cit., p. xiv.
(13) Summers, op. cit., p. 11.
