What are the strengths and weaknesses of Murray’s approach to witchcraft in the Witch-Cult in Western Europe?

After going through my notes for a chapter write up I found this uni essay I wrote nearly  seven years ago!! I would completely revamp it now but still a bit interesting for anyone with the stomach for some historiography.

‘Miss Murray is as earnest as Trimalchio’[1]. Halliday, reviewing Murray’s Witch-Cult in 1922 compares her to the character of Petronius’ Satyricon, a boastful, wealthy freeman marked for ostentatious and fantastical exhibitions. It is a book whose argument and source technique have caused much heated debate. It was published by Murray in 1921, an Egyptologist of University College London, after World War One had disrupted teaching and archaeology.[2]  Firstly, Murray’s thesis must be outlined and its reception in public and academic audiences must be briefly examined. Then the extensiveness of research will be ascertained by reviewing the source material used. Cohn criticised her quotations for excluding portions of the original source material. The effect of this critique on the Witch-Cult’s reception will be considered. Murray reviewed her sources from the primary assertion that the witch-cult existed. Her analysis of the number of people constituting a coven will illustrate how such assertions directed her conclusions. In this connection, evidence used to affirm the witch-cult’s pre-Christianity foundations will be examined. Evidence from wide ranging chronological and geographical contexts are also engaged for comparison of common conceptual themes. Similar techniques are used by Ginzburg, who persuasively applied his methodology. Finally, anthropology and rationalisation provided alternative explanations for the extraordinary Sabbath accounts offered by the accused during early modern witch trials, involving animal metamorphosis, the devils mark or even flying to an assembly[3].


Firstly, the Witch-Cult’s main arguments, focussed upon by critics for their unconventionality, will be briefly outlined. The argument that witches from early modern witch trials, ‘were members of a huge secret society preserving a prehistoric fertility cult through the centuries’[4], forms the central argument. The rituals conferred in trials were actual ceremonies taking place. Followers worshipped a horned god, who originally presided over ‘the cycle of crops’.[5] However, an inversion occurred influenced by Christians presuming the horned deity was the devil. Christianity attempted ‘to obliterate the already fading remnants of an ancient cult’ during the witch trials. [6] ‘Witchcraft seemed a form of Satan-worship.’[7] Witches hereafter referred to their deity in this manner. The cult degenerated into sacrifice and cannibalism brought about by Christian persecution.[8] The uniform cult followed a number of ‘well defined rites’ and ‘organisation as highly developed as that of any other cult in the world.’[9] Cognate cult practices are traced throughout the Witch-Cult. These are organised around central themes; the God, admission, rites and meetings, organisation, familiars and transformations.



Leading on from the above, the reception of Murray’s work will be discussed.  Burstein notes her theories ‘received both rigorous refutation and enthusiastic support.’[10] Popular audiences mainly positively received her ideas.  Simpson claims these concepts became ‘entrenched in popular culture.’[11] Cohn, although criticising Murray, traces the thesis of pre-Christian witch-cult survival back to the Italian cleric Girolamo Tarotti-Serbati and Jacob Grimm of eighteenth and nineteenth centuries respectively,[12] placing her into an academic tradition with a ‘long pedigree’[13]. Her theories, even considered ‘fashionable’[14], paralleled contemporary academic thought. For example, Frazer’s work the Golden Bough also explored agricultural rituals.[15]  In connection, Hutton argues her hypothesis ‘appealed to so many emotional impulses of the age’, from the mystery of the English countryside to the romantic notion of pagan survival in modern folk customs.[16] Similarly, Wood also argues ‘the idea of a counter-culture working in secret, but espousing remarkably modern, liberal ideas, became popular.’[17] The positive reception of Murray’s arguments is partially explained by their appealing conceptions supported by a pedigree of comparable hypotheses.


Conversely, Murray’s work also suffered wide criticism, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s. New developments in history meant her work became dated. Hutton argues because no systematic local study had occurred by 1921 Murray’s argument seemed worth making.[18] During discussion with journalist Farrell-Roberts, for Cauldron magazine, he notes that studies of local trials, revealing how accusations arose, disproved theories of a homogenous witch cult.[19] Change and development in academic trends altered the acceptance of Murray’s theory. Adding to this her later books, whose theories are more unconventional, have affected the reception of the Witch-Cult. In the Divine King in England she postulates the occurrence of regular ritual sacrifice of the King or a substitute to the horned god. Joan of Arc was one such substitute, which Rose describes as ‘obviously false’.[20] Even Sir Runciman’s foreword to the re-printing of the Witch-Cult mentions the later books’ recklessness.[21] Parrinder believes that ‘no professional historian has accepted such a radical re-writing of the lives of these historical personages.’[22] However, he considered that the Witch-Cult’s value should not be overshadowed by her later ‘dubious re-writing of history.’ However, inevitably her unusual later hypotheses overshadow the Witch-Cult. This is exemplified by Briggs’ recommendation for re-reading the Witch-Cult as  memory ‘is apt to be blurred by Dr. Murray’s later books.’[23] Change in academic practice and the unreliability of Murray’s later books partially contribute to discredit the Witch-Cult.


Murray’s source base will now be reviewed to evaluate the extent of her research. She scarcely supports her work with arguments from scholars of her era. Burr notes a need to regard other scholar’s opinions and ‘fairly to weigh their conclusions against her own in the light of the further evidence they may adduce.’[24]  This would have allowed her to scaffold and refine her theories by building up a dialogue with the contemporary debates. However, her methodology focuses on primary sources and facts, omitting the authors’ opinions.[25] She claims to base her theory ‘entirely on contemporary sources’. Her primary sources comprise of ‘legal records of the trials, pamphlets giving accounts of individual witches, and the works of Inquisitors and other writers.’[26] Thomas notes a dependence on accounts from more famous trials.[27] Printed trial records from nineteenth century editions, are frequently cited.[28] Much evidence from Scotland is also used.[29] For instance, extensive case studies from Kinloch’s Reliquiae Antiquiae Scotiticae and Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials are cited.[30] De Lancre, Boguet and Bodin, are heavily relied on for French source material.[31]  Ewen criticised her for not using ‘newly available archive records.’[32] Murray’s research is extensive even though her use of available sources is not as comprehensive as possible. Her bibliography contains 191 carefully cited sources.[33] Meticulous footnoting occurs throughout the Witch-Cult, allowing easy referral to original source material.  She has also received extensive commendation for her care and learning. Hutton acknowledges her ‘careful cataloguing of data.’[34] Parrinder notes his ‘respect for the breadth of her learning’ in a footnote.[35]  Her use of contemporary scholars is deficient but her primary source research, footnoting and source base cannot be significantly criticised.


Nevertheless, in Europe’s Inner Demons, published in 1975, Cohn criticised Murray’s citation methods. He highlighted significant lacunae in her quotations missing original source material; present the Sabbath as more ordinary and sober. By examining the ‘sources in their original contexts’[36], he repatriates the original material missing from her quote. By way of illustration, Helen Guthrie from Forefar in 1661 relates a meeting of witches in a brewer’s house, making merry and the devil kissing them.[37] Apart from the devil’s presence, which Murray rationalised as the cult leader, this quotation is not fantastical. However, Cohn restores the material Murray excluded ‘… and brought ale from hence, and they (went) through at a little hole like bees, and took the substance of ale.’[38] Farrell-Robert’s, debating with Hutton, criticises Cohn for inaccuracy.[39] However, on closer inspection of Kinloch, the source Murray used, it is evident Cohn accurately located the missing passages.[40] It appears in Kinloch as follows: ‘they [went] threw in at a little hole like bies.’[41] Another example regards the case of the devil entering the sea attached to a cable, removed from evidence of an apparently non fantastical witch assembly.[42] With several other examples Cohn upholds that Murray’s quotations eliminated large sections of text.[43]  He correctly indicates that the removal of parts of citations excludes more extraordinary events. These removals, Cohn highlights, act to misrepresent occurrences. It must be assumed that Murray thought the extraneous material unnecessary for her direct line of argument. However, such large exclusions, apart from being ‘unscholarly procedure’[44], distort the presentation of evidence. This weakens the foundation of Murray’s argument.


Apart from trimming source material many academics criticise Murray’s poor source analysis techniques.[45] At the outset, she holds the witches accounts present genuine reality, counting on the apparent uniformity of confessions to conclude her premise.[46]  In addition to this, Hutton holds she ‘ruthlessly ignored in her sources anything which did not support her case.’[47]  He argues that she begins with the premise that a genuine religion was represented in trial accounts.[48] To enable this line of argument she defines ‘operative witchcraft’, used by all, as a ‘common heritage of the human race’[49]. This is considered nonessential to the study of the witch-cult. Unfortunately a clear demarcation between the two categories is not provided. Therefore any evidence considered not to elucidate the cult’s existence can be categorised as operative magic and excluded.


To illustrate these analysis methods the example of her coven theory, where groups of witches occur in thirteen, will be discussed. This provides a clear example of how evidence is interpreted to fit a central thesis. Parrinder notes, ‘it requires considerable ingenuity to stretch the number thirteen to fit members of all covens that are mentioned.’[50] Keith Thomas considers this assertion contains ‘extremes of distortion’[51].  Murray refers to Bessie Dunlop, a Scottish witch in 1567, taken to meet a group of ‘aught wemene and four men’ by one Thom Reid.[52] Murray designates this as a coven with their officer Thom; creating a total of thirteen people. Several coven examples containing thirteen people are then cited. For example: ‘At Aberdeen (1596-7) sixty-four names of witches occur in the trials; of these, seven were merely mentioned as being known to the accused, though not as taking part in the ceremonies, and five were acquitted; thus leaving fifty-two persons, or four covens.’[53] To conclude this, several assumptions are made. Firstly, that all those acquitted, therefore left out, were done-so accurately. Secondly, that the prosecutions were accurate.  Thirdly, that this total creates several covens. Yet these assumptions seem to be made in light of the numerical dictum that thirteen people make a coven. The evidence is manoeuvred to confirm this. She eliminates some of those accused based on prosecution evidence then divides the remaining individuals by thirteen to create a number of covens.  However, despite this Parrinder notes many covens  generally contain around thirteen people.[54] In appendix III seventeen covens are cited containing thirteen persons.[55] Murray universalises the evidence claiming a ‘fixed number’.[56] She interprets evidence finding similarities  in the original sources which are not in fact as distinct as  she argues.


Criticism of source interpretation issues can be levelled at arguments claiming the direct lineage of Murray’s cult from prehistoric fertility beliefs to early-modern witch trials. She argues that the cult dates ‘back to pre-Christian times, and appears to be the ancient religion of Western Europe.’[57] Creating a chronological link back to pre-Christian times with mainly early modern records is difficult. Rose claims there is ‘a gap from the conversion to the first trials, of something of the order of 1000 years.’[58]  Murray does admit that ‘historical records are silent on the subject.’[59] Murray, to create this link provides a timeline of laws against witch-craft.  However, no specific witch-cults are referred to in these statutes.[60]  Alternatively, this list of laws could be evidence against the use of ‘operative witchcraft’ and heresy rather than the witch cult. The ninth century Council of Ancyra, which claims at night ladies ‘ride abroad with Diana, the god of the pagans’, is also used to help bridge the chronology gap of the witch-cult.[61] Rose criticises this source, applying his occams razor technique which makes few assumptions upon the evidence. He concludes all the source can tell us is ‘some beings rode with some Being; the later was female, immortal, and (in the eyes of the churchmen) non-existent; the former were female, and may or may not have been mortal.’[62] His criticism illustrates that often sources do not elucidate as much detail as Murray argues. By using her witch-cult premise as a foundation, much evidence is considered to substantiate the cult.  Therefore, evidence is augmented to reach conclusions that it does not necessarily allude to.


Consideration of Murray’s evidence interpretation skills has occurred. The techniques she used to present her arguments in the Witch-Cult will now be assessed. Murray copiously quotes evidence; often her quotes are a full side of text.  Briggs states the book is ‘full of excellent raw material.’[63] Even though a lengthy quote is provided often little analysis is supplied. Evidence is categorised into commonly occurring themes, rather than into contexts or chronologies. For instance, when Murray discusses the God as an animal, the source material is placed into categories of different animals.[64] Hutton notes that conclusions are made based on sources ‘scattered across a great extent of space and time.’[65] By way of illustration, the example of the witches dance will be taken. The survival of a contemporary witch dance in the Walloon district of Belgium[66] is confidently compared and contrasted with witches’ dances in Northumberland in 1673,[67] dances in the Basses-Pyrenees discovered by De Lancre writing in 1613[68] and Swedish witch dances quoted from Horneck in 1681[69], amongst others. These sources occur in a large variety of different context and circumstances in space and time. However, Murray connects them around the central theme of witch dancing. Data within categories is often presented in chronological order. In the example of the God as a bull evidence is arranged from 1597-1662 in date order.[70] Despite this commonality of theme is the overarching category of analysis, sought over the chronological or geographical contexts.


Murray’s choice of methodology was not uncommon and is representative of anthropological and folkloric approaches of her era. Simpson argues that Murray’s use of sources from a wide variety of contexts was ‘common practice amongst comparative mythologists of her period and was not criticised at the time, though it is now seen as a serious flaw.’[71] Later developments and changes in technique practices are one reason why her methods faced extensive criticism. Caro Baroja warned against the techniques of the ‘old school’ of anthropology, ‘prepared to find some common ground or transcendental significance behind documents of widely different periods and totally different historical ideas.’[72] Hutton is also critical of this ‘wilful ignorance of context.’[73] Nevertheless, it must be noted similar criticisms of Murray were launched by Halliday in 1922. He notes that ‘documents torn from the background of their own age and divorced from the serious study of their immediate historical antecedents’, give rise to misleading interpretation.[74] Despite this, generally Murray’s techniques were accepted by contemporary mythologists. Consequently, it is unfair to criticise a book written in 1921 for failing to comply with contemporary methodological practice. Later critics of her work fail to make allowances for the academic practices acceptable during this era.


In this connection, a review of the strengths of comparative methodology is necessary. Ginzburg uses a similarly wide base of source material comparing evidence from a large variety of contexts. He focuses on finding analogous cultural connections between sources from a variety of contexts, focusing on their structural similarities. These commonalities are analysed to propose a lost source of ideas, spread through a process of diffusion or from a common hereditary source.[75] For example, he defends the comparison of benandanti in Friuli, a group who believed they defended the fertility of their crops against wizards whilst in a trance, with shamans in Siberia. He supports the comparison of such sources claiming ‘the discovery of analogous phenomena in very distant areas could be explained by cultural contacts dating back to a much more distant time.’[76]  However, while Ginzburg emphasises a loose shared origin to his source material, Murray claims hers are all part of a single shared religion. She emphasises how the similarities in her sources point to one ‘ancient religion of Western Europe.’[77] Her evidence indicates a number of similarities connecting the phenomena of witchcraft over Europe. However, they do not display enough unity to support her singular organised cult thesis. The method of drawing from a wide decontextualised source base to find common themes has been defended by Ginzburg. However, deficient interpretative caution causes Murray to propose arguments that are not sufficiently upheld with evidence.


Finally, by adopting the approaches of anthropology and rationalism Murray brought new advances to the study of witchcraft. Firstly, she claims ‘it is only by careful comparison with the evidence of anthropology that the facts fall into their proper places.’[78]  Attempts are made to interpret evidence in such light. In her appendix, during a study of Joan of Arc, she exclaims: ‘hitherto the anthropological aspect has been disregarded.’[79] Although her conclusions are not always convincing, Simpson notes her methods brought ‘welcome change from conventional wisdom on the subject’[80]. Unlike her other contemporaries, she did not explicate witchcraft as a result of hysteria and ignorance or like Montague Summers, the manifestation of actual devil worship.[81] Secondly, Murray is credited for use of rationalism in her explanations. Burstein claims Murray was ‘firmly pushing her way through the mists of emotion and dogma and obscurantism that envelope so much of the writing on witchcraft.’[82] Simpson states her interpretations, seemed ‘novel and demystifying’ opening ‘the way to more rational discussion.’[83] A rational explanation usefully elucidated certain supernatural elements in Sabbath accounts. In one notable example Murray interprets descriptions of the devils mark into two categories tattoos,[84] and supernumerary nipples.[85] The Journal of Anatomy is the source of a brief medical explanation of the frequency of the occurrence of supernumerary nipples.[86] In her appendices a rationalised explanation of flying ointments by A.J. Clarke is included. The mental effects of the aconite and belladonna, found in recipes for ointments, are described.[87] Modern scientific disciplines were used to shed light on peculiar and seemingly fantastic events. Therefore her explanations to some extent provide clarity and understanding to seemingly unexplainable occurrences, despite the fact they are often presented as ‘proven fact.’[88]


Murray’s book received an initial positive reception from public audiences but, especially since the 1960s, has also caused much controversy in academia. Wide selections of primary sources are employed in the Witch-Cult. However, secondary academic opinions are scarcer, failing to create an extensive dialogue with her contemporaries. Criticism of her source evaluation occurs in view of the fact that evidence is reviewed under the premise of the witch-cult’s existence. Assumptions are strongly made of evidence based on her contentions, rather than information the sources elucidate. Cohn also criticised Murray for leaving lacunae in her quotations changing their meaning. Rather than concentrating on the context of evidence Murray seeks to compare themes and groupings. Commonality of theme is the overarching category of analysis for Murray. This methodology has been used and defended by Ginzburg. Nevertheless, Murray does not cautiously review evidence; analogies are interpreted as confirmation of strong cult links rather than loose cultural connections. Finally, Murray brought the new approaches of rationalism and anthropology to the field of witchcraft. The Witch-Cult is a well researched book, using methodology typical of the era. Her source base, bibliography and footnoting are commendable. However, Murray’s interpretation of evidence makes far reaching assumptions, leading her to create an argument that is not substantially verifiable when based on her research material. Many criticisms occurred in consideration of later developments in historical practice lacking regard for the standards of her era.



Briggs, K. M. ‘Review:  The Witch-Cult in Western Europe by M. A. Murray’ Folklore 74 (1963), 571.


Burr, G. L. ‘Review: The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology by Margaret Alice Murray’ American Historical Review, 27 (1922), 780-3.


Burstein, S. ‘Some Modern Books on Witchcraft’, Folklore 72 (1961), 520-534.


Caro Baroja, J. The World of the Witches (London, 1964), pp.64-6, 242-53.


Cohn, N. Europe’s Inner Demons: an enquiry inspired by the great witch-hunt, (London, 1975).


Ginzburg, C., ‘Deciphering the Sabbath’, in B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen (eds), Early Modern European Witchcraft: centres and peripheries ( Oxford, 1990).


Ginzburg, C., Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches Sabbath (Harmondsworth, 1992).


Halliday, W.R. ‘Review:  The Witch-Cult in Western Europe. A Study in Anthropology by Margaret Alice Murray’, Folklore 33 (1922), 224-30.


Hutton, R., The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy, (Oxford, 1991), pp. 300-7, 330-335.


Hutton, R., The Triumph of the Moon: A history of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (Oxford, 2000).


Hutton, R. Hutton, and Farrell- Roberts, J. Farrell- Roberts, ‘Margaret Murray and the Distinguished Professor Hutton.’ in http://www.vaccines.plus.com/Murray%20and%20the%20Professor.html (Last accessed 01/03/2010).


Kinloch,  G.R.,  Reliquiae Antiquiae Scoticae, (Edinburgh, 1865), p.121-22.


Magliocco, S., Witching Culture: Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America (Philadelphia, 2004), pp.46-49.


Murray, M. A. The Witch-Cult in Western Europe, (Oxford, 1962).


Parrinder, G, Witchcraft (Harmondsworth, 1958).


Rose, E. Rose, A Razor for a Goat: A Discussion of Certain Problems in the History of Witchcraft and Diabolism, (London, 1989).

Runciman, S. ‘Foreword’ in M. A. Murray, The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: (Oxford, 1962) pp. 3-5.


Russell, J. B. Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, (London, 1972), pp.21-23, 36-43.


Simpson, J. ‘Margaret Murray: Who believed her, and why?’, Folklore 105 (1994), 89-96.


Simpson, J. ‘Margaret Murray’ in R. Golden’ (ed.), Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, (4 volumes) (Santa Barbara, 2006), pp.796-7.


Thomas, K. Religion and the Decline of Magic (London. 1991), p. 614-15.


Wood, J.   ‘The Reality of Witch Cults Reasserted: Fertility and Satanism’ in J. Barry, and O. Davies, (ed.), Palgrave Advances in Witchcraft Historiography, (Basingstoke, 2007), pp. 69-85.

[1]W.R. Halliday, ‘Review:  The Witch-Cult in Western Europe. A Study in Anthropology by Margaret Alice Murray’, Folklore 33 (1922), 224.

[2]J. Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray’ in R. Golden’ (ed.), Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Western Tradition, (4 volumes) (Santa Barbara, 2006), p.796.

[3]M. A. Murray, The Witch-Cult in Western Europe,(Oxford, 1962) pp. 60-70, 86-97, 100-106.

[4]J. Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray: Who believed her, and why?’, Folklore 105 (1994), 89.

[5]N. Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons: an enquiry inspired by the great witch-hunt, (London, 1975), p. 109.

[6]J.  Wood, ‘The Reality of Witch Cults Reasserted: Fertility and Satanism’ in J.Barry and O.Davies (ed.), Palgrave Advances in Witchcraft Historiography, (Basingstoke, 2007), p.70.

[7]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, p. 109.

[8]R. Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy, (Oxford, 1991), p.305.

[9]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.12.

[10]S. Burstein, ‘Some Modern Books on Witchcraft’, Folklore 72 (1961), 521.

[11]Simpson, ‘Who believed her’, p.89.

[12]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, p. 103.

[13]Hutton, Pagan Religions, p.300.

[14]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, p.107.

[15]Wood, ‘The Reality of Witch Cult’, p.74.

[16]R. Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon: A history of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, (Oxford, 2000). p.199.

[17]Wood, ‘The Reality of Witch Cult’, p.73.

[18]Hutton, Pagan Religions, p.304.

[19]R. Hutton, ‘Margaret Murray and the Distinguished Professor Hutton.’ in http://www.vaccines.plus.com/Murray%20and%20the%20Professor.html (Last accessed 01/03/2010)

[20]E. Rose, A Razor for a Goat: A Discussion of Certain Problems in the History of Witchcraft and Diabolism, (London, 1989), p.71.

[21]S. Runciman, ‘Foreword’ in M. A. Murray, The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: (Oxford, 1962), p.5.

[22]G. Parrinder, Witchcraft (Harmondsworth, 1958), p.53.

[23]K. M. Briggs, ‘Review:  The Witch-Cult in Western Europe by M. A. Murray’ Folklore 74 (1963), 571.

[24]G. L. Burr, ‘Review: The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology by Margaret Alice Murray’ American Historical Review, 27 (1922), 782.

[25]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.11.

[26]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.11.

[27]K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London. 1991), p.615.

[28]Hutton, Triumph of the Moon, p.195.

[29]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, p. 111.

[30]Murray, Witch-Cult.(footnotes).

[31]Murray, Witch-Cult, (footnotes).

[32]Wood, ‘The Reality of Witch Cult’, p.75.

[33]Murray, Witch-Cult, pp.281-285.

[34]Hutton, Pagan Religions, p.302.

[35] Parrinder, Witchcraft, p.10.

[36]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, p.110.

[37]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.141.

[38]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, p.112.

[39]J. Farrell-Roberts, ‘Margaret Murray and the Distinguished Professor Hutton.’ in http://www.vaccines.plus.com/Murray%20and%20the%20Professor.html (Last accessed 01/03/2010)

[40]G.R. Kinloch,  Reliquiae Antiquiae Scoticae (Edinburgh, 1865) p.121.

[41]Kinloch, Reliquiae Antiquiae Scoticae, p.121.

[42]Kinloch, Reliquiae Antiquiae Scoticae, p.122.; Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 98.

[43]Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons, pp. 110-115.

[44]C. Ginzburg, ‘Deciphering the Sabbath’, in B. Ankarloo and G. Henningsen  (eds), Early Modern European Witchcraft: centres and peripheries ( Oxford, 1990), p.134.

[45]Briggs, ‘Review: The Witch-Cult’, 571.;  Halliday, ‘Review: The Witch-Cult’, 228. ; S. Magliocco, Witching Culture: Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America (Philadelphia, 2004), pp.46-49.; J. B. Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, (London, 1972), p.37.; Thomas, Decline of Magic, p.615., Parrinder, Witchcraft, p.36.

[46]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.16.

[47]Hutton, Triumph of the Moon, p.196.

[48]Hutton, Pagan Religions, p.302.

[49]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.11.

[50]Parrinder, Witchcraft, p.35.

[51]Thomas, Decline of Magic, p.615.

[52]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.191.

[53]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.191.

[54]Parrinder, Witchcraft, p.35.

[55] Murray, Witch-Cult, pp.249-54.

[56]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.191.

[57]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.12.

[58]Rose, Razor for a Goat, p.56.

[59]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.20.

[60]Murray, Witch-Cult, pp.20-26.

[61]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.102.

[62]Rose, Razor for a Goat, p.109.

[63]Briggs, ‘Review: The Witch-Cult’,571.

[64]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.65-70.

[65]Hutton, Triumph of the Moon, p.196.

[66]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.135.

[67]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.134.

[68]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.131.

[69]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.132.

[70]Murray, Witch-Cult, p.64.

[71]Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray’, p.796.

[72]J. Caro Baroja, The World of the Witches, (London, 1964), p.243.

[73]Hutton, Pagan Religions, p.303.

[74]Halliday, ‘Review: The Witch-Cult’, 52.

[75]Ginzburg, ‘Deciphering the Sabbath’, p.128.

[76]C. Ginzburg, Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches Sabbath, (Harmondsworth, 1992), p.41.

[77]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 12.

[78]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 10.

[79]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 270.

[80]Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray’, p.796.

[81]Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray’, p.796.

[82]Burstein, ‘Modern Books on Witchcraft’, p.521.

[83]Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray’, p.797.

[84]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 87.

[85]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 90.

[86]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 90.

[87]Murray, Witch-Cult, p. 279-80.

[88]Simpson, ‘Margaret Murray’, p.796.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s