Some history

I would like to know from you guys what your outlook is on the thesis of Margaret Murray (1863-1963) If you could some up her thesis in a few sentences, how would you state it.

:) Much Love!

Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Most historians of Wicca dismissed the writings of Margeret Murray years ago!

There is no credible evidence that Murray's thesis was correct. Indeed there is also clear evidence that she falsified much of the data she used and ignored data that clearly disproved her theory.

If you want to read a far more accurate accounting then I would suggest "Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton.

yes, I have realised that, just trying to understand because I have read that Murray's ideas had a profound effect on Gardner and many of currently used Wiccan terms derive from or are influenced by her work. Apparently her work became best sellers in 1940's.

Ronald Hutton's Truimph of the Moon continues to expose of Murray's ideas.

Im not supporting her work or anything. One can not always trust what is being read, so I come here to listen what you have to say.

This thread has been moved to Wicca from General Info.

Almost any book on the Occult would have been a best-seller in the 1940s. By far the biggest seller at that time were the fictional books on Black Magic by Dennis Wheatley! And I would doubt that Gardner would have been "profoundly influenced" by Murray. In any case, Murray didn't write in the 1940s; or if she did it would have to be as fiction.Any book on witchcraft was against the law until well after 1941. Even Gardner's first book was written as fiction; although anyone "in the know" knew exactly what it was!

She did write in the 1920s, but did not claim her books were non-fiction until the 1950s! They were mainly about ancient beliefs, such as Egyptology.

I read in two or three Wiccan books that her theory, though beautiful, was discredited a long time ago. Only one book I've read seemed to have agreed with her theory. And it is true that a lot of Wicca is based off of hundreds and maybe even thousands of years old pagan stuff but it's also it's own thing, always frowning and ever evolving.

I said frowning earlier I meant growing it's autocorrect I apologize