This book was originally published in 1904 and had famous German Egyptologist, Kurt Sethe, as co-author. Then, it contains the first edition of several important mastabas from Old Kingdom date at Saqqara, including the well-known offering-niche of Khabauseker and his wife Neferuret, both now at Cairo Museum. Texts and representations are all studied in-depth and finely reproduced in line-drawings and photographic plates. Let us note that this edition also includes the work by L. Loat, "Gurob", so that it is two-fold interesting. Take note that the title has been out of print for a long time, so that it is much searched for. O.K., price is high, but contents is invaluable!

Margaret Murray's Witch Cult is classic research into the witch trials of the middle ages and their connection to pre-christian pagan religion. Although some of her conclusions are not controversial the historical research remains must reading for those studying the history of witch trials or modern Wicca. The style is typical of early 20th century English scholarly. There are obscure passages that beg research into the source material, and in fact Ms. Murray might have been better to do more research into sources herself. Nevertheless it is said by some that Gerald Gardner used the Witch Cult descriptions as a pattern for some of his first neo-pagan Wicca ritual outlines. Its good that it has been reprinted, and ought to be in every Wiccan's library.

While it seems to be the case that some pagan beliefs continued to be practiced by a small percentage of families during the medieval era, several generations of historians have pointed out that the more extreme claims made by this book (and its companion) are prime examples of falsification, a fact which becomes clear if you read the medieval source documents which the author misquoted to try to prove her theories.
Perhaps the most egregious falsification occurs in the sections on Joan of Arc. In order to try to link Joan to paganism, Murray made the claim that she never used the phrase "Our Lord" in the original language of the Condemnation Trial transcript, and never identified "the King of Heaven" as Jesus Christ, both of which are patently false: all 5 of the early copies of the transcript do, in fact, quote her as saying "Our Lord" ("Nostre Seigneur" in medieval French) when speaking to the Catholic clergy, and if you look at Article XXII of the first set of charges you will see a copy of a letter in which she not only places the names "Jesus" and "Mary" at the top (as Murray herself acknowledged) but she also identifies the King of Heaven as, quote, "the son of Saint Mary" (i.e., Jesus Christ). Even more specific are the other surviving letters which she dictated (which were all included in the series which Murray claimed to have read): one of these, dated July 17, 1429, contains the phrase "King Jesus, the King of Heaven"; one dated two weeks earlier makes another reference to "King Jesus"; still another, dated March 23, 1430, threatens to lead a crusading army against a group called the Hussites unless they return to orthodox Catholicism, which she describes as, quote, "the original Light", thereby removing any doubt as to her religion. Even English documents confirm what the eyewitnesses said about the actual motive behind her trial, as there are financial records proving that it was the English government which paid and summoned the judges and assessors from among their own cronies (e.g., the chief judge, Pierre Cauchon, was a salaried official of the English occupation government as well as having been appointed as a Bishop through the maneuvers of his secular patrons). She was prosecuted, as the eyewitnesses repeatedly say, because the English wanted to exact revenge for her army's victories against them, not because of any genuine belief that she was a heretic. And as Murray either knew or should have known, even Joan's judges dropped the charges of witchcraft before the final set of 12 articles were drawn up (her conviction was supposedly for alleged heresy, not witchcraft). Contrary to Murray's claims, she had the support of most of the other clergy throughout Europe, such as Jacques Gelu (Archbishop of Embrun), Jean Gerson, and so forth. Her friend Pierronne was executed by the same pro-English faction - not for witchcraft (which was never included in the charges) but merely for having stated that Joan was a devout Christian, which angered the English and their allies.
Murray consistently makes specious arguments based on a hodgepodge of items such as Joan's name (which was virtually _the_ most common female name in that era, not just among "witches". It would be like making assumptions about a man named "Bob" based on his name). She misinterprets Joan's quotes to people like Friar Sequin to pretend that such comments showed "contempt for the clergy", even though historians have viewed this comment about his accent as a light-hearted bit of humor (and Sequin himself couldn't have taken much offense, since he approved her, and in fact declared that she was sent by God). The claim is made that the term "Maiden" ("La Pucelle" - "virgin") could have "no other meaning" than a pagan identification, taking no notice of: 1) Joan's own explanation that she had promised her saints to keep her virginity; and 2) the Catholic Church itself used the term when it canonized her as a "Holy Maiden", a standard category for female saints (does this indicate that the Catholic Church itself is pagan for using such a term?)
Similarly, Gilles de Rais was neither a close associate of Joan (in fact the documents barely mention him), nor was he accused of being a member of a pagan group: the charges brought against him revolved around the murder of large numbers of children, which Rais said had been sacrificed on the command of a "demon" named "Barron". This is what we today would call a 'Satanic cult", not a pagan religion, and Rais himself, as the evidence also proves, said that he didn't adopt this mentality until some point _after_ Joan's death, confirming the many eyewitnesses who say that she tried to force all of her commanders to, quote, "live as good Catholics" while she was with them. Joan had nothing to do with his later crimes, just as she had nothing to do with the later treason committed by another of her commanders, Duke Jean II d'Alencon.
- On other topics: the business about "fairies" allegedly being a race of aboriginal European "pygmies" has justifiably raised a few eyebrows. For having allegedly played such a crucial role in the political history of the continent, it seems that these pygmies were remarkably successful at having escaped detection down to this day.
History is supposed to be based on a rigorous and honest appraisal of the evidence, not misquotation and invention. There are far more accurate treatments of this subject available, founded upon valid scholarship and promoting a far more restrained view.

I actually came to this book after reading other scholarly texts that disprove, and books by modern witches that reluctantly admit to, the many unproven and unprovable assertions Margaret Murray made back in 1921. But, still, this book remains fascinating for its role in the growth of modern paganism and witchcraft -- and as a testament to the scholarly brilliance and creative thinking of a woman in what was still very much the male world of reseach and academia.

Murray was a brilliant thinker and researcher, but like many such people (male and female) since, and many more to come, her work has fed generations who have grown with her and now beyond her. Disproving her thesis does not denegrate the work or it's role in the history of a modern world religion.

I think the most fair assessment of the book's merits and demerits can be found in Jeffrey B. Russell's 1970s "A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics, and Pagans":

"Modern historical scholarship rejects the Murray thesis with all its variants. Scholars have gone too far in their retreat from Murray, since many fragments of pagan religion do certainly appear in medieval witchcraft. But the fact remains that the Murray thesis on the whole is untenable. The argument for the survival of any coherent fertility cult from antiquity through the Middle Ages into the present is riddled with fallacies..."

That doesn't mean that someone may not come up with a stronger set of theory or evidence later (after standing on the shoulders of a pioneer like Murray), but for now we have to admit the interesting but untenable nature of her sequence of evidence and her bottom-line conclusions.

This book came out in the 1930s and was one of the firtst to take the testimony of women put on trial as witches seriously - she described a witchcraft practice that may have existed in part in the late medieval period - but which is very different from the Wicca or Craft revived in the 20th century.

She may well be wrong in many parts, particularly on Joan - but the defamatory attack by Norman Cohn in his Europe's Innder Demons was completely out of order and wrong. He accused her of omitting from the testimony of the alleged witches that she quoted anything that they had said that would have discredited them. He quoted many samples of this... but I was astonished when I checked him against this book, to find that she had not omitted these passages but had considered them in detail! The passages moreover were not that discrditing - eg "I travelled to the fairy mound and there met the Queen of Elf who rules over the Craft." This is standard folklore and certainly does not prove the accused person was fraudulent in claiming to be in the Craft. Unfortunately Cohn's critique of Murray has been spread far and wide, particularly by Ronald Hutton who in his several books endorses Crohn's critique and says that it destroys Murray's credibility... Hutton was then quoted by many others who trusted him to have checked to see if Cohn was right...
However this does not mean that Murray does not greatly need updating - she wrote after all in the 1930s - particularly she did not understand shamanic language - and much in the witchtrial testimonies reflects shamanistic ideas - see Carlo Ginzburg and also a book entitled Between the Living and the Dead by Pocs - published in 1999 - this is a study of 2000 witchtrials - by far the largest ever done - and she reports that Medieveal witchraft was inseparable from an indigenous local shamanic tradition - this is totally interwoven rigtht throughout her period and probably back to earlier times.
So - `Murray made a start, - read her as a 1930s view.. she was brilliant for her time... - but as for her thesis that a pagan witchcraft survived, it may well be right some of- the witches she quoted may have possessed a truely old shamanic tradition.