Showing posts with label Conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conspiracy. Show all posts

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Going Down the Rabbit Hole
Gore Vidal loses it.

Gore Vidal


Novelist, Playwright and prolific essay writer the late Gore Vidal, (1925 - 2012)1 could always be counted on for a provocative opinion or two or three. He was also sure to slay the sacred cows of received opinion with his incisive wit. Even if you disagree with him his opinions on literary matters, politics, history, social issues etc., were usually well grounded and if not that at least interesting.

It is however sad to say that late in life Gore Vidal developed a severe case of conspiracy theory thinking. This served to bring his whole oeuvre into disrepute by enabling his critics to label him a crack pot.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Another One Bites the Dust
Thoughts on the fall of Gaddafi

Gaddafi in better days

One of the common historical tropes of the last two centuries or so has been the rise and fall of the dictator. We recently have been given a veritable feast of falling and fallen dictators with the ongoing Arab Spring. Bloody and chaotic though it has been it has removed many of the world’s longest lasting dictators.1

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Fomenko’s Fiction

Anatoly Fomenko

Anatoly Fomenko is a Russian Mathematician who over the last 20 years or so has been putting forward a rather far out theory regarding History it is his belief that ‘History” began c. 800 C.E., and that the Middle ages never happened.

Among many things Fomenko and his disciples believe that English history before the Normans is nothing more than a fiction and that some of Byzantine history is the same. That various dynasties and lists of rulers are nothing more than fictionalizations based on a few models.

That much history of the Ancient world is a creation of fabricators and falsifiers between 1400-1700 C.E. That various methods of dating like dendrochronology (tree rings) and radiocarbon dating are erroneous and useless.

It is of interest that in his new chronology Russia is the center of world history up too seventeen hundred; real Russian history having been falsified by Germans. The obvious hyper nationalism of Fomenko’s ideas is readily apparent.

This approach must of course toss out the astronomical data supplied from ancient Mesopotamian clay tablets and the record of eclipses by the Chinese.

Further all those Greek and Roman statutes are frauds created during the Renaissance.

Ivan the terrible was actually four rulers is another Fomenko “discovery” along with Jesus being a 60 year old Pope, (Gregory VII) and or a Byzantine Emperor (Andronikos I Komnenos).

The Peloponnesian War described by Thucydides occurred in 1384-1387, between the Kingdom of Navarre and the Catalans. And Columbus was a Cossack.1

History is divided into 4 periods. The pre-Christian period is 11th century and earlier; “bacchic” Christianity 11th-12th century, Christianity 12th-16th century and 16th century onwards the modern age.2

Fomenko’s English History, which is supposedly a duplication of Byzantine history, is described as follows:

His [Fomenko] other parallels, even after a double reordering of Byzantine monarchs (they were themselves duplicated twice, you see), are still not very accurate. Beorhtric (ruled 16 years) is equated to Justin I (ruled 9 years), an error of almost 78%. Fomenko links Aethelbert (6 years) to Justin II (13 years), an error of over 113%. He has to combine Zeno's two reigns (over a period of, but not totaling, 17 years) to match the English Cuthread (17 years).

Fomenko does manage, however, a couple of good "hits." He links Egbert, the uniter of England (ruled 38 years), to Justinian the Great, restorer of the Roman Empire (ruled 38 years). But then he combines King Edgar (16 years) with King Edward the Martyr (3 years) and claims they both represent Leo III the Isaurian (24 years). He concludes that the names Edgar and Edward are "similar and consequently their union is natural." (5) Of course, the eleven Emperors Constantine (and the additional Emperors named Constans and Constantius) were apparently readily distinguished by the barbarians.3
To quote another examination of Fomenko’s nonsense:

Fomenko assumes that the researcher can and should distinguish between history and fiction. On the other hand, his methods would not meet with approval from conservative theorists of history such as Keith Windschuttle who maintains that the professional training of historians and peer review of their work pushes history closer to the goal of establishing the truth of the past and of distinguishing what most probably happenned from what could not have happenned. Fomenko is not a historian in this sense. He provides no fair-minded view of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purpose, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to conventional historical literature.4
That is enough for now, since simply listing the conjectures of Fomenko is enough to refute him, there is much more than the above all of it fantastic and quite outrageous. Fomenko has earned some quite well deserved ridicule for his absurd ideas, but has managed to turn the issue into one of proving him wrong. Which is of course a typical pseudoscience method.

Even some people who should know better are publishing books taking this nonsense seriously.5

Sorry but when you are proposing an outlandish idea the onus is on you to prove your idea not on the doubters to prove their doubts and you wrong.

It is impossible to go into detail about what is wrong with Fomenko’s absurd ideas, however a few points are worth looking at.

1, Fomenko deliberately selects data in proving his “statistical” correlation that ‘proves” his theory and ignores data that does not.

2. Fomenko spectacularily massages his data to get his correlations, shifting dates and reign lengths and even the number of monarchs all to fit his theory. To quote Wikipedia:

Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and therefore hinting that his results may have a pathological Science aspect to them akin to N-rays over a century ago and effectively making this whole theory an Ad hoc hypothesis.6
3. Fomenko’s rejection of radio-carbon dating, numsiatics, (coin study), dendrochronology, (tree rings), etc., is tenditious and frequently ignorant. For example with dendrochronology he argues from alleged gaps that it can’t be trusted. In fact secure dendrochronological dates go back more than 10,000 years. Fomenko must exercise a disciplined ignorance for his opinions.7

4. Further Fomenko’s dismissal of retrocalculation of astrnomical dating based on the Babylonioan tablets and Chinese recording of eclipses does not contrary to Fomenko’s assertions get dates all over the place in fact multiple analysis to these multiple recorded observations agrees with the conventional dates. For example the whole sequence of Babylonian observations, of which there are literally dozens, found on Babylonian cuniform tablets agrees with the “conventional” dating, to say nothing of other dating methods like denrochronology and radio-carbon etc.8

5. Further this is frankly an over the top conspiracy theory for which Fomenko just wildly speculates about why anyone would do it and assumes the fabrication of masses of documents, accounts etc., along with masses of inscriptions coins etc. It is frankly incredible. All those allegedly mythical Medieval kings with coins are treated with cries of forgery and fraud including the coins that are to this day being dug up.9 To quote:
For that matter, how can we expect to believe Fomenko's arguments since Imperial coinage that documents the succession of the emperors can be gathered from virtually every year from 27 BCE to 1453 CE? How do we discount written Roman history and the great reigns of the past? Further, if Fomenko is correct, we must ignore the Magna Carta of 1215, since England's King John would have been nothing more than a Byzantine fantasy.10
That Fomenko is motivated by a crude form of nationalism is obvious from his writings as one reviewer of his work has said:

The enemy for Fomenko is always the West and their corrupt Russian minions, most notably the Romanovs and the Yeltsin-era reformers. For Fomenko, World War two lives on in the war against the Germans. Not that other western Europeans are much better. Italians composed false chronicles from antiquity in order to make the Romans appear older and wiser than the rest of Europe, the French sent their mercenaries along with other European powers to protect the first Romanovs, the English and Americans always acted against Russia out odf envy that it was in reality Russia who once ruled the greatest empire the world has ever seen. For Fomenko, the Russians need Asia if they are to maintain their existence in the face of the challenge posed by the West.
...

Fomenkoism is an amalgam of disillusionment with and rediscovery of Soviet ideals, mixed with feelings of lost grandeur, hope, vengence and envy. For Fomenko, the story of Russian greatness has to be told a different way to the version favoured by Romanovs and Communists. The latter ignored the greatness of the Russian horde. All those who lived in the steppe and forests of Eurasia are automatically incorperated into Russia, according to Fomenko’s fantasy. The Russian Horde was, and remains, entitled to demand their loyalty.11
I will now briefly go into a examination of just one small part of Fomenko’s nonsense. Fomenko has the the eruption of Vesuvius occur 1631 C.E. Which faces the problem of having Pliny the Younger's account, which was printed before 1631 in Western Europe. Copies of said editions still exist with the dates. So this eruption was described before it happened!? No doubt this little problem is handeled by saying "forgery" and "fraud" over and over again.12


Vesuvius Erupting

Vesuvius has erupted on numerous occasions frequently with great destructiveness. Fromeko's idea is that the destructive eruption that destroyed Pompeii and Heracleum occurred 1631. Which of course means that Pliny's account must have been written after that eruption. Second if you read Pliny's account you would realize that the eruption described was extrodinarily destructive. It appears to have been a, (what is now called) a "Plinean" eruption. In which large sections of the mountain were destroyed and repeated "Nuee Ardente's" (burning clouds) devastated the surounding area and covered the area under many feet (more than 20 feet in places) of ash and volcanic rubble. There was of course the "Nuee Ardente" that swept across the bay of naples to Miseum and nearly killed Pliny the younger's entire family. This eruption has left massive and abundant traces including in places more than 20+ feet of ash etc. The 1631 eruption has also left traces and in comparison it was minor. One is easily distinguished from the other.13

Pompei was long buried by 1631. In fact it was so well buried that people had only a very poor idea of were it was.

In fact appears that although Vesuvius has in fact erupted on numerous occasions eruptions of the 79 C.E., variety seem to be mercifully rare occurring every few thousand years.

The other common sense problem with Fomenko is the huge difference in culture between the remains of those two cities and what we have from the 17th century. Oh and what about the virtually compete abscence of Christianity from both sites.

Oh and by the way the Laocoon after being lost for over a millenium created quite a stir when it was re-discoverd in 1506 and the result was a series of write ups by the media of the day. Now why is the Laocoon important in the context of Fomenko’s absurdities? It is because Pliny the Elder describes the statute in his massive Natural History. Now since Pliny the younger describes his uncle’s death in the eruption of Vesuvius this must mean that the Natural History was composed before the eruption.


The Laocoon

To quote Wikpedia:

Various dates have been suggested for the statue, ranging from about 160 to about 20 BC. Inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes date Agesander and Athenedoros to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 the most likely date for the Laocoön statue's creation. The statue, which was probably originally commissioned for the home of a wealthy Roman, was unearthed in 1506 near the site of the Golden House of the Emperor Nero (who reigned from 54 to 68 AD), and it is possible that the statue belonged to Nero himself. It was acquired by Pope Julius II, an enthusiastic classicist, soon after its discovery and was placed in the Belvedere Garden at the Vatican, now part of the Vatican Museums.14
Now if Pompeii and Herculaneum had been destroyed in 1631 C.E. that definetly creates a problem. The other one is Pliny the Elder mentions the Laocoön in the palace of the Emperor Titus,Emperor 79 - 81 C.E.

To quote:

Beyond these, there are not many sculptors of high repute; for, in the case of several works of very great excellence, the number of artists that have been engaged upon them has proved a considerable obstacle to the fame of each, no individual being able to engross the whole of the credit, and it being impossible to award it in due proportion to the names of the several artists combined. Such is the case with the Laocoön, for example, in the palace of the Emperor Titus, a work that may be looked upon as preferable to any other production of the art of painting or of statuary. It is sculptured from a single block, both the main figure as well as the children, and the serpents with their marvellous folds. This group was made in concert by three most eminent artists, Agesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus, natives of Rhodes. 15
So in other words someone before the alleged eruption (1631 C.E.) mentions the laocoon being lost, then Pliny mentions it being in the palace of the Emperor Titus at the time of the eruption, which creates a problem if the eruption was in 1631 C.E. And we have copies of Pliny's Natural History which contain the above passage. Oh and we have complete manuscripts of the Natural History, from the 11th century to say nothing of collections of excerpts that are earlier. Opps!16

As mentioned above Pliny the Younger letters which describe the eruption of Vesuvius and were published before 1631 C.E.

From Wikipedia:

In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny's Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.17
Isn't amazing that they were able to write a description of the eruption of 1631 C.E. before it happenned!! Yeah, right!

Fomenko is a total joke. His desperate efforts to escape the inescapable accuracy of the “conventional” history against the serpent of fact and truth are in the end as unavailing as Laocoon and his son’s unavailing struggle against their serpent.

1. New Chronology of the World History, Here. See also the multi volumed, History: Fiction or Science?, Delamere Resources LLC, 2007, Konstantin, Sheiko, Lomonosov's Bastards: Anatolii Fomenko, pseudo-history and Russia's search for a post-communist identity, Phd Dissertation, University of Wollongong, Australia, 2004, pp. 66, 208-226. Copy of Thesis at Here

2. See Wikepedia, New Chronology, Here, See also Fomenko, A. T., Nosovskij, G. V., New Chronology and new concept of the English History, Here.

3. Colavito, Jason, Who Lost the Middle Ages?, Here.

4. Konstantin, p. 21..

5. Diacu, Florin,The Lost Millennium, Knopf Canada, Toronto, 2005.

6. New Chronology.

7. Colavito, New Chronolgy, Dutch, Steven, Is a Chunk of History Missing?, Here.
8. New Chronology, Rawlins, Dennis, Recovering Hipparchos' Last Lost Lustrous Star, in Dio, V. 4. No. 3, December 1994, p. 119, Here. Espenak, Fred, Eclipse Predictions and the Earths Rotation, NASA, Here.

9. Colavito, New Chronolgy, Dutch.

10. Colavito.

11. Konstantin, p. 231 & 232.

12. Pliny, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, Penguin Books, London, 1963. The description can be found in Book Six, letters 16 and 20, pp. 166-168, 170-173.

13. IBID, and Winchester, Simon, Krakatoa, HarperCollins Pub., New York, 2003, p. 11-12, Wikipedia, Mount Vesuvius, Here.

14. Wikipedia, Laocoon and His Sons, Here.

15. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, at Perseus, Here. See Also Pliny the Elder, Natural History A Selection, Penguin Books, London, 1991, Book 36, Ch. 4, s. 37, at p. 347.

16. Wikipedia, Natural History, Here.

17. Wikipedia, Pliny the Younger, Here.

Pierre Cloutier

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Kennedy’s Head Case

John and Jacqueline Kennedy arrive in Dallas

The J.F.K., conspiracy psychosis is one of the most outstanding examples of sheer unadulterated wilful delusion alive today. In a past posting I examined the Kennedy mythos, which created the Kennedy “Holy Family” and turned John Kennedy into St. John of Kennedy; who also was turned into the incarnate son of God.1 Here I will examine just one element of the Kennedy assassination mythos, where conspiracy idiocy combines with scientific idiocy and mythology.

In this case it is what was revealed by the infamous Zapruder film, which seems to show that John Kennedy’s head as the bullet hits it, the head, moves back and to the left. This of course was used by Oliver Stone in the Film JFK to indicate that John Kennedy was killed by a bullet hitting him in the front. Jim Garrison as played in the movie and in real life played the tape over and over again to the jury in the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans.2

It is a common belief that when a bullet hits some one it pushes or knocks the person back. This is the purest nonsense. As it is why do people believe it?

The answer is quite simple people have seen an endless array of Hollywood flicks in which people are knocked backwards by bullets hitting them, often a single one. Thus we see some one running towards someone and they are hit by a bullet that knocks them back. This is very dramatic and quite entertaining to see in a film, it is also total nonsense.3

Why is this total nonsense? It is quite simple, bullets weigh less than a 50 grams, (c. one ounce) the average human body weights well over 50 kilograms, (c. one hundred lbs). The energy of momentum of the bullet given its size will be tiny compared to either the inertia of the body it hits if it is not moving or any motion that the body is undergoing. Thus the momentum imparted by a bullet even if moving very fast will be minimal. To look at it from a different perspective remember according to Newton’s third law there must be an equal and opposite reaction. Thus any bullet that knocks some one off their feet will be enough to knock the shooter back also. Since that does not happen we can dismiss this as Hollywood fantasy.4

The TV show Mythbusters showed that this was nonsense when it fired bullets including by a machine gun into hanging pig carcases and got near zero movement. The firing of more than 50 rounds into a pig carcase with no visible movement resulting is especially effective as a debunking of this myth.5

To quote:
“So the killings that people see on television and in the movies, which is the only type of killings most people ever see, where the person being struck by the bullet very frequently is visibly and dramatically propelled backward by the force of the bullet [sometime to the point of toppling over] is not what happens in life when a bullet hits a human being?”

“No, of course not.”6
Regarding Kennedy’s head since the bullet that hit him weighed about 15 grams, (one third of a ounce), and the weight of a full grown adult human head would weight at least 4 kilograms, (c. 10 lbs), and in Kennedy’s case probably close to if not more than 7 kilograms, (c. 14 lbs).; one would expect that bullet would not move the head very much, if at all. Although interestingly a shot from the back could cause the head to move back due to the eruption of debris from the exit wound.7

Zapruder frame 313 showing moment bullet hits John Kennedy in the head

To quote again:
“So the head snap to the rear could not possibly have been caused by the force of a bullet from the front?” I asked.

He replied, “That’s correct. Kennedy’s head simply would not be pushed anywhere near that far back by one-third of an ounce, even traveling in excess of two thousand feet per second.”8
So the head movement in the Zapruder film proves absolutely nothing about where the bullet comes from and those who think it does have taken Hollywood fantasy as reality.

As for the source of the movement of Kennedy’s head to the back, it could be the debris exploding from the exit wound and / or an involuntary muscle movement it is most definitely not the result of a bullet hitting him in the front.9

Therefore it appears that if you are going to argue that John Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy; the head movements of John Kennedy after he was hit in the head are not evidence of it. They are quite consistent with a shot hitting him in the back of the head.

Diagram showing passage of bullet and damage to John Kennedy's skull

1. For some examinations of the Kennedy mythos and why it is a lie, see Vidal, Gore, The Holy Family, United States: Essays 1952-1992, Broadway Books, New York, 1993, pp. 809-826, (Originally Published in Esquire, 1967), and Hersh’s JFK, The Last Empire: Essays 1992-2000, Vintage Books, 2001, pp. 220-237, (Originally Published in The New Yorker, 1997), Hersh, Seymour M., The Dark Side of Camelot, Little Brown, New York, 1997, Wills, Gary, The Kennedy Imprisonment, Mariner Books, New York, 2002, (Originally published in 1982).

2. Rodgers, Tom, Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics, Source Books Inc, Naperville ILL., 2007, p. 195, Lambert, Patricia, False Witness, M. Evans and Co. Inc., New York, 1998, p. 129. For an analysis that reveals the worthlessness of JFK as a portrayal of the facts see, Lambert, pp. 209-242, and Bulgliosi, Vincent, Reclaiming History, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, 2007, 1347-1436. For how shoddy and abusive Garrison’s investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw was see Bulgliosi above and, Posner, Gerald, Case Closed, Anchor Books, New York, 1993, pp. 421-450, Lambert, especially pp. 95-180, 199-208, 273-282.

3. Rogers, pp. 179-194, Bulgliosi, pp. 488-490.

4. Rogers, pp. 181-182, 202-203.

5. Mythbusters Results, Here.

6. Bulgliosi, p. 489. Bulgliosi is questioning a physics expert here.

7. Bulgliosi, p. 489. Rogers, pp. 196-200.

8. Bulgliosi, p. 488. Bulgliosi is questioning another physics expert.

9. Rogers, p. 202, Poser, pp. 314-315.

Pierre Cloutier

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

X-Lies


The show the The X-Files, (1993-2002)1 gives more than the usual feelings of ambivalence about something that is excellent in execution but at its core is fundamentally rotten.

I was never a great fan of the show although I watched many episodes of the show I never got hooked and was frankly non-plussed by the show.

For reasons that I will go into later I wanted to dismiss the show as garbage and leave it at that but I am unable to do so simply because of the overall excellence of the program. Before I go into my critique I would like to go through the excellent features of the program.

The acting on the show was almost uniformly very good. Both of the leads David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson play their roles with accomplished skill and the acting of the supporting players and guest stars is quite good also. Although the acting did slip when David Duchovny left a regular character, (only to return intermittently until the final episode), it remained at a ,( certainly for a T.V. show) high level through out its run.

The writing varied through out the show. Not surprisingly it is very hard to maintain a high level of skill and craftsmanship for scripts through out at 9 season run of a T.V. show but the writers did over all a very superior job in maintaining a very creative and standard high level. If only all T.V. shows were written this well. Of course there were the occasional clunkers but they remained occasional right to the end.

Finally the aspect of the show that certainly for its time and even today elevates the show to a high standard is its almost uniformly excellent filming and cinematography. The show looked and still looks quite good. The editing, occasional multiple camera shots and some multi screen images are high quality T.V. filming. The various directors and producers did a sterling job in making the show look very good indeed.

It was also a very nice even brilliant decision to make the sceptical, rational investigator Scully a women and go against the stereotype of women being emotional, intuitive and irrational. Mulder the intuitive, irrational investigator was a man and that too was a nice change of pace.

The show had the occasional episode which poked fun at its own premises and sometimes did not take itself seriously, (or at least appeared to not take itself seriously). That does however lead itself into the problems with the show.

The main reason I never became a fan was because the show although it sometimes made fun of the “New Age” paranoia it portrayed in the end pandered to it quite outrageously. Like the character Mulder it validated over and over again his mindless whine “I want to believe!” It validated again and again Mulder’s paranoia and “New Age” stupidities. It stated over and over again that rationality, reason and logic where bad that feelings and imagination and fantasy were valid ways of knowing that reality was a construction to large extent in our heads. The show the great majority of the time said ‘Mulder was right!’. So that doubting Mulder’s fantasies was akin to doubting the revealed truth. Mulder was cast as a later day Galileo persecuted for his courageous advancement of truth.

Scully meanwhile being a woman is of course wrong. Virtually all the time she was wrong. She was the doubting Thomas to Mulder’s Christ, who dared doubt the revealed truth. She dared to use such things as reason, logic and gasp! demand evidence. What is all that against the real truth as revealed by feelings! Scully dared to doubt and doubt is well bad; it hides the truth. A truth revealed as said above by feelings and of course intuition and fantasy. So again and again it is rubbed in that Scully was wrong, way wrong, totally wrong!

So in this way the show pandered to irrational fantasies of all kinds. Alien abductions, cattle mutilations, perfect governmental conspiracies, crop circles and so on and so forth ad infinitum.2 Why was this so? Quite simply the viewers were pandered to because one would not want upset the fans by calling their delusions and fantasies just that delusions and fantasies. After all if you do that the fans might get upset and watch other shows instead of this one. Those people cannot accept that the world is not populated by fairies and goblins and want, no demand, that the fantasy world of T.V. validate their 5 year old perceptions of the world.

Thus grown-up Scully is the party pooper who demands the unacceptable, that children grow up and face reality. Mulder is the wide-eyed 5 year old his mind full of engaging fantasies who knows that Santa Claus exists and who clings to his fantasy by hook or by crook. The world is a much more exciting place if it is full of childish fantasies of UFO’s, alien abductions, crop circles, alien / human hybrids, vast perfect conspiracies etc., etc. Much of the audience like Mulder has the same plaintive cry ‘I want to believe!’

The result was quite absurd. The web became full of websites taking The X-Files seriously. Many people took it with complete seriousness. It was referred to in student essays as a source!3

The numbers of people who took The X-Files seriously was disheartening in the extreme what was further disheartening was that the creator, Chris Carter, of The X-Files, didn’t care. As to why the show was so relentlessly pandering to paranormal, paranoid, conspiracy clap trap he quite candidly said:

My intention, when I first set out to do the show, was to do a more balanced kind of storytelling. I wanted to expose hoaxes. I wanted Agent Scully to be right as much as Agent Mulder. Lo and behold, those stories were really boring. The suggestion that there was a rather plausible and rational and ultimately mundane answer for those things turned out to be a disappointing kind of story telling, to be honest. And I think that’s maybe where people have the most problems with my show…But it’s just the kind of storytelling we do, and because we have to entertain… That’s really the job they pay me for, and that’s the thing I’m supposed to do.4
Those stories are of course boring to those who live in the fantasy world of a 5 year old and don’t want their fantasy disturbed by, oh so “mundane” reality. It is especially boring to those who do not want to see anything even on a fictional T.V. show that says ‘you believe fantasies and delusions!’ What they want is validation of their fantasies and delusions even on a fictional T.V. show. What Mr. Carter does not say is that stories that provided “mundane” explanations upset many of the fans of the show who wanted validation of their delusional nonsense. So rather than alienate this fan base Mr. Carter and his associates decided to quite deliberately pander to it in the interests of prolonging the T.V. life of the show and their pocket books.

As Richard Dawkin’s said:

Each week The X-Files poses a mystery and offers two rival kinds of explanation, the rational theory and the paranormal theory. And, week after week, the rational explanation loses. But it is only fiction, a bit of fun, why get so hot under the collar?

Imagine a crime series in which, every week, there is a white suspect and a black suspect. And every week, lo and behold, the black one turns out to have done it. Unpardonable, of course. And my point is that you could not defend it by saying: “But it’s only fiction, only entertainment.”5
In the end as the title of this post indicates The X-Files lies.

1. See Wikipedia, The X-Files Here

2. For a review of those and other bits of pseudoscience see The Skeptic Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience, (two volumes), ABC-CLIO Inc., Santa Barbara Ca., 2002.

3. Wheen, Francis, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World, Public Affairs, New York, 2004, p. 133-134.

4. IBID. p. 135.

5. IBID. p. 135.

Pierre Cloutier

Saturday, April 11, 2009

The Witch Religion
A Fantasy

 
Witches Sabbat by Goya

A persistent myth in the historiography of Witchcraft and the Witchcraze is the idea that underneath the distortions of the witch hunters and the hysteria of alleged “Devil Worship” was a real “Witch religion” that the Church was suppressing. The idea that the craze was about something that was nonexistent is very hard for a lot of people to swallow.

The modern origin of this notion can be reduced to three figures. The French historian Jules Michelet in his book La Sorciere1, published originally in 1862. Another writer who helped to launch the idea of an organized Witch religion was the writer Montague Summers, who wrote among a number of Books on Witchcraft, including The History of Witchcraft and Demonology, who published translations of many Witch Hunter manuals including the infamous Malleus Maleficarum, published 1486, by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger. 2 The third writer was Margaret Murray, an Egyptologist, who wrote The Witch-cult in Western Europe, (1921) and God of the Witches, (1933).3

To begin with Jules Michelet. His book La Sorciere contains a description of the Black Mass which is a tissue of conjecture and fantasy. It was based on his idea that the “witch” religion was a response to severe oppression by the en-serfed peasant population:
They decked an altar to the arch-rebel of serfs to him who had been so wronged, the old outlaw hunted out of heaven, “the Spirit by whom earth was made, the Master who ordained the budding of the plants.”4
Thus does Michelet begin his description of the Black Mass, which he proposes was an ideological attack against the oppressions inflicted on the peasantry by Church and State.

Michelet goes on to describe the ceremony as being organized by a “Witch”:
At the back of all is the Witch, dressing up her Satan, a great wooden devil, black and shaggy. By his horns, and the goat-skin near him, he might be Bacchus; but his manly attributes make him a Pan or a Priapus. It is a darksome figure, seen differently by different eyes; to some suggesting only terror, while others are touched by the proud melancholy wherein the Eternally Banished seems absorbed.*5
She is described:
The Devil's bride was not to be a child : she must be at least thirty years old, with the form of a Medea, with the beauty that comes of pain; an eye deep, tragic, lit up by a feverish fire, with great serpent tresses waving at their will: I refer to the torrent of her black untamable hair. On her head, perhaps, you may see the crown of vervein, the ivy of the tomb, the violets of death.6
The ceremony then proceeded to the "Black Mass" where challenging the powers that be the peasants under the “Witches” supervision worshiped Satan and really worshipped themselves and heaped contempt on the Church, Nobles and State. In the ceremony were such details as the "Black Mass" being celebrated on a women’s back.7

Michelet than describes the stories of the “orgies” and incest and pronounces them basically and quite justifiably as incredible. But he then goes into a long declamation in explaining why those things may have happened.8

It is all in all a good read but quite fantastic and in fact a complete myth. The ceremony Michelet describes is a reconstructed fantasy with little basis in reality. It is formed from not his reading of the source material but from his deep sympathy for two oppressed groups-peasants and women.9

To quote a modern historian concerning the veracity of this fantasy:
Now none of this figures in any contemporary account of the witches’ sabbat. Not one mentions a priestess, or so much as hints that a single woman dominates the ritual. As for the ‘black mass’ celebrated on a women’s back - that notion was born in an entirely different historical context: the ‘affair of the poisons’, which took place in Paris around 1680. Nor was the sabbat, even at its first appearance, imagined as a festival of serfs – already in 1460, at Arras, rich and powerful burghers were accused of attending it, along with humbler folk. To give his account even a shadow of plausibility, Michelet has to pretend that all extant accounts of the sabbat date from the period of its decadence; the true, original sabbat being something quite different. The argument is not likely to commend itself to historians.10
Michelet’s fantasy did unfortunately bear scholarly fruit.

Witches Sabbat c. 1510
 
Montague Summers is a rather unusual case has a scholar. He was a firm ally of the Witch Hunters of former times and approves with relish and joy their violence, terror and death dealing ways. Regarding the skeptics he says:
For we know that the Continental stories of witch gatherings are with very few exceptions the chronicle of actual fact. It must be confessed that such feeble skepticism, which repeatedly mars his summary of the witch-trials, is a serious, blemish in Professor Notestein's work, and in view of his industry much to be regretted.11
And.
Keen intelligences and shrewd investigators such as Gregory XV, Bodin, Guazzo, De Lancre, D'Espagnet, La Reynie, Boyle, Sir Matthew Hale, Glanvill, were neither deceivers nor deceived.12
And Summer’s states that his purpose is:
In the following pages I have endeavoured 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; an abortionist; the dark counselor of lewd court ladies and adulterous gallants; a minister to vice and inconceivable corruption; battening upon the filth and foulest passions of the age.13
Regarding the “Black Mass” or “Sabbat” Summers says:
The President of the Sabbat was in purely local gatherings often the Officer of the district; in the more solemn assemblies convened from a wider area, the Grand Master, whose dignity would be proportionate to the numbers of the company and the extent of his province. In any case the President was officially known as the “Devil” and it would seem that his immediate attendants and satellites were also somewhat loosely termed “devils” which formal nomenclature has given rise to considerable confusion and not a little mystification in the reports of witch trials and the confessions of offenders. But in many instances it is certain and orthodoxy forbids us to doubt the possibility - that the Principle of Evil, incarnate, was present for the hideous adoration of his besotted worshippers.14
Through it all Summers maintains that the “Witches” were indeed part of a vast Satan worshiping, subversive movement dedicated to the overthrow of Church and State. Summers did not let go of its relevance for his day:
It was far other in the twelfth century; the wild fanatics who fostered the most subversive and abominable ideas aimed to put these into actual practice, to establish communities and to remodel whole territories according to the programme which they had so carefully considered in every detail with a view to obtaining and enforcing their own ends and their own interests. The heretics were just as resolute and just as practical, that is to say, just as determined to bring about the domination of their absolutism as is any revolutionary of to-day. The aim and objects of their leaders, Tanchelin, Everwacher, the Jew Manasses, Peter Waldo, Pierre Autier, Peter of Bruys, Arnold of Brescia, and the rest, were exactly those of Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and their fellows. There were, of course, minor differences and divergences in their tenets, that is to say, some had sufficient cunning to conceal and even to deny the extremer views which others were bold enough or mad enough more openly to proclaim. But just below the trappings, a little way beneath the surface, their motives, their methods, their intentions, the goal to which they pressed, were all the same. Their objects may be summed up as the abolition of monarchy, the abolition of private property and of inheritance, the abolition of marriage, the abolition of order, the total abolition of all religion. It was against this that the Inquisition had to fight, and who can be surprised if, when faced with so vast a conspiracy, the methods employed by the Holy Office may not seem——if the terrible conditions are conveniently forgotten——a little drastic, a little severe? There can be no doubt that had this most excellent tribunal continued to enjoy its full prerogative and the full exercise of its salutary powers, the world at large would be in a far happier and far more orderly position to-day. Historians may point out diversities and dissimilarities between the teaching of the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Henricans, the Poor Men of Lyons, the Cathari, the Vaudois, the Bogomiles, and the Manichees, but they were in reality branches and variants of the same dark fraternity, just as the Third International, the Anarchists, the Nihilists, and the Bolsheviks are in every sense, save the mere label, entirely identical.

In fact heresy was one huge revolutionary body, exploiting its forces through a hundred different channels and having as its object chaos and corruption. The question may be asked——What was their ultimate aim in wishing to destroy civilization? What did they hope to gain by it? Precisely the same queries have been put and are put to-day with regard to these political parties. There is an apparent absence of motive in this seemingly aimless campaign of destruction to extermination carried on by the Bolsheviks in Russia, which has led many people to inquire what the objective can possibly be. So unbridled are the passions, so general the demolition, so terrible the havoc, that hard-headed individuals argue that so complete a chaos and such revolting outrages could only be affected by persons who were enthusiasts in their own cause and who had some very definite aims thus positively to pursue. The energizing forces of this fanaticism, this fervent zeal, do not seem to be any more apparent than the end, hence more than one person has hesitated to accept accounts so alarming of massacres and carnage, or wholesale imprisonments, tortures, and persecutions, and has begun to suspect that the situation may be grossly exaggerated in the overcharged reports of enemies and the highly-coloured gossip of scare-mongers. Nay, more, partisans have visited the country and returned with glowing tales of a new Utopia. It cannot be denied that all this is a very clever game. It is generally accepted that from very policy neither an individual nor a junto or confederacy will act even occasionally, much less continually and consistently, in a most bloody and tyrannical way, without some very well-arranged programme is being thus carried out and determinate aim ensued, conditions and object which in the present case it seems extremely difficult to guess at and divine unless we are to attribute the revolution to causes the modern mind is apt to dismiss with impatience and intolerance.

Nearly a century and a half ago Anacharsis Clootz, "the personal enemy of Jesus Christ" as he openly declared himself, was vociferating "God is Evil," "To me then Lucifer, Satan! whoever you may be, the demon that the faith of my fathers opposed to God and the Church." This is the credo of the witch.15
 
Witches Sabbat c. 1550

Further Summers states that:
Although it may not be generally recognized, upon a close investigation it seems plain that the witches were a vast political movement, an organized society which was anti-social and anarchical, a world-wide plot against civilization. Naturally, although the Masters were often individuals of high rank and deep learning, that rank and file of the society, that is to say, those who for the most part fell into the hands of justice, were recruited from the least educated classes, the ignorant and the poor. As one might suppose, many of the branches or covens in remoter districts knew nothing and perhaps could have understood nothing of the enormous system. Nevertheless, as small cogs in a very small wheel, it might be, they were carrying on the work and actively helping to spread the infection.16
So that Summers concludes:
There can be no doubt—— and this is a fact which is so often not recognized (or it may be forgotten) that one cannot emphasize it too frequently——that witchcraft in its myriad aspects and myriad ramifications is a huge conspiracy against civilization. It was as such that the Inquisitors knew it, and it was this which gave rise to the extensive literature on the subject, those treatises of which the Malleus Maleficarum is perhaps the best known among the other writers.17
For as Summers says elsewhere:
…yet when every allowance has been made, every possible explanation exhausted, there persists a congeries of solid proven fact which cannot be ignored, save indeed by the purblind prejudice of the rationalist, and cannot be accounted for, save that we recognize there were and are individuals and organizations deliberately, nay, even enthusiastically, devoted to the service of evil, greedy of such emotions and experiences, rewards the thralldom of wickedness may bring,…18
It is with very ill disguised relish that Summers describes the horrors of the witch hunt. There can be little doubt as the above quotes show that, Summers firmly believed in a vast conspiracy of Witch Satan-worshipers, against civilization. This leads to him to with, almost speechless credulity to accepting the mad ravings of the Witch Hunters. It is of interest that Summers quite deliberately compared the alleged Witch conspirators with his big bugaboo, the Bolsheviks. Further that he deeply regrets the ending of the inquisition and the drastic curtailing of state terror against “subversives”.

Among the groups Summers approves the violent and murderous suppression of is the Vaudois, also called Waldesians. This is almost funny except that what Summers is approving of is the violent suppression, i.e., torture, mass murder, etc., of a quite harmless group of proto-Protestant “heretics” whose patient endurance of martyrdom and persecution deserve respect not gleeful satisfaction in their misery. What also seems to have escaped Summers is that the Waldesians still exist.19

Summers thus accepts fully the fantasies of the Witch Hunters and approves of their murderous activities.

To quote one writer about Summers:
What is certain is that he [Summers] was a religious fanatic: a Roman Catholic of a kind almost extinct – obsessed by thoughts of the Devil, perpetually ferreting out Satan’s servants whether in past epochs or in the contemporary world; horrified yet at the same time fascinated by tales of Satan-worship, promiscuous orgies, cannibalistic infanticide and the rest.20
Fortunately for us Summers never got to be Grand Inquisitor.
 
Witches Sabbat 1626
 
About Margaret Murray is must be said that an author more different from Summers can hardly be imagined. Whereas Michelet imagined Witchcraft and the “Black Mass” as a form of protest by the powerless, and Summers imagined a vast conspiracy by the forces of darkness; Murray imagined a powerful pre-Christian fertility religion. Now Murray was an Egyptologist and singularly unable to realize that her approach tended to credulity:
I have omitted the opinions of the 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 reference 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.21
Although claiming to be working from contemporary sources it is of interest that Murray admits that she will omit the fantastic features of the testimony and down play their importance. This is fascinating because it is precisely those fantastic features that call into question the entirety of such testimony.

Murray describes her “finds” as follows:
Ritual Witchcraft or, as I propose to call it, the 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 the 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.22
Murray basically was describing a fertility religion and its chief God Murray described as:
The deity of this cult was incarnate in a man, a woman, or an animal; the animal form being apparently earlier than the human, for the god was often spoken of as wearing the skin or attributes of an animal. At the same time, however, there was another form of the god in the shape of a man with two faces. Such a god is found in Italy (where he was called Janus or Dianus), in Southern France (see pp. 62, 129), and in the English Midlands. The feminine form of the name, Diana, is found throughout Western Europe as the name of the female deity or leader of the so-called Witches, and it is for this reason that I have called this ancient religion the Dianic cult. The geographical distribution of the two-faced god suggests that the race or races, who carried the cult, either did not remain in every country which they entered, or that in many places they and their religion were overwhelmed by subsequent invaders.23
Murray conceived of the “Witch Cult” as being organized in a manner similar to a Church complete with record keeping:
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. The officers might be either men or women; their duties were to arrange for meetings, to send out notices, to keep the record of work done, to transact the business of the community, and to present new members. Evidently these persons also noted any likely convert, and either themselves entered into negotiations or reported to the Chief, who then took action as opportunity served. At the Esbats [Sabbats] 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. The principal officer acted as clerk at the Sabbath and entered the witches' reports in his book; if he were a priest or ordained minister, he often performed part of the religious service; but the Devil himself always celebrated the mass or sacrament. In the absence of all direct information on the subject, it seems likely that the man who acted as principal officer became Grand Master on the death of the previous Chief. Occasionally the Devil appointed a personal attendant for himself, who waited upon him on all solemn occasions, but does not appear to have held any official position in the community. 24
It is remarkable that not a single such “record” as been produced or was ever produced at a single Witch trial anywhere in Europe. Neither were any of the “notices”. Murray manages not to explain how this miracle came to pass. And it is clear that Murray’s model for her “Dianic” and its organization is in fact an organized Christian sect.

About the “Black Mass” Murray says:
The exact order of the ceremonies is never given and probably varied in different localities, but the general rule of the ritual at the Sabbath seems to have-been that proceedings began by the worshippers paying homage to the Devil, who sat or stood in a convenient place. The homage consisted in renewing the vows of fidelity and obedience, in kissing the Devil on any part of his person that he chose to indicate, and sometimes in turning a certain number of times widdershins. Then followed the reports of all magic worked since the previous Sabbath, either by individuals or at the Esbats, and at the same time the witches consulted the Master as to their cases and received instructions from him how to proceed; after which came admissions to the society or marriages of the members. This ended the business part of the meeting. Immediately after all the business was transacted, the religious service was celebrated, the ceremonial of which varied according to the season of the year; and it was followed by the ‘obscene’ fertility rites. The whole ceremony ended with feasting and dancing, and the assembly broke up at dawn.25
The actual service, according to Murray, involved a blessing and the partaking of wine and bread that was interpreted has a mockery of the Mass. It included bread wafers, sacramental wine and even a sermon and frequently used a women has an altar.26 Its interesting to speculate why Murray cannot see that this is obviously a parody of the Mass that the Witch Hunters imagined would happen in a obscene Satanic version of Christianity with Satan substituted for Christ. And since they thought that Witches worshipped Satan, so they would of course imagine Satan being worshipped in a “Black Mass”.

Murray even brings child sacrifice into it:
The child-victim was usually a young infant, either a witch's child or unbaptized; in other words, it did not belong to the Christian community. This last is an important point, and was the reason why unbaptized children were considered to be in greater danger from witches than the baptized.27
Aside from the paucity of actual bodies the fact is all sorts of people have been accused of child sacrifice, from Christians in the Roman Empire to the infamous “Blood Libel” against the Jews to modern day fantasies of a vast Satanic conspiracy of child and adult sacrifice.28

In her later books Murray went a little nuts. For example:
In the entire history of Rufus, more particularly in the stories of his death, it is clear that the whole truth is not given; something is kept back. If, however, Rufus was in the eyes of his subjects the God Incarnate, Man Divine, who died for his people, the Christian chroniclers would naturally not record a fact which to them would savour of blasphemy, and the Pagans, being illiterate, made no records.

The date of Rufus's death, August 2nd, seems significant; it is always emphatically called "the morrow of Lammas". Lammas, the 1st of August, was one of the four great Festivals of the Old Religion and there is evidence to show that it was on the great Sabbaths only that the human sacrifice was offered. If then my theory is correct Rufus died as the Divine Victim in the seven−year cycle.29
William Rufus, or William II of England was a son of William the Conqueror and nothing, but nothing, indicates that he was a pagan. Although the chronicles of the time complain that he was not sufficiently respectful of the Church, however that does not make him a pagan it was a common complaint of churchmen about Kings and others who occasionally seized Church property.

In God of the Witches Murray engages in similar fantasizing and historigraphical murder to shoehorn in Joan of Arc and Thomas Becket. Joan of Arc has a pagan is especially risible.

What however makes all of this even more hard to take is that Murray engaged in what amounted to deception in order to make her “Witch-Cult” believable by leaving out the more fantastic parts of the testimony:
The Forfar witches had many feasts; Helen Guthrie says of one occasion: “They went to Mary Rynd's house and sat doune together at the table, the divell being- present at the head of it; and some of them went to Johne Benny's house, he being a brewer, and rought ale from hence . . . and others of them went to Alexander Hieche's and brought aqua vitae from thence, and thus made themselfes mirrie; and the divill made much of them all, but especiallie of Mary Rynd, and he kist them all except the said Helen herselfe, whose hand onlie he kist; and shee and Jonet Stout satt opposite one to another at the table.”30
What did Murray leave out and not record and instead use three dots? Why the following:
…and brought ale from hence, and they (went) through a little hole like bees, and took the substance of the ale…31
 
And another example of Murray engaging in deception by suppression is:
Helen Guthrie of Forfar (1661) said “that her selfe, Isobell Shyrie, and Elspet Alexander, did meit togither at ane aile house near to Barrie, a litle befor sunsett, after they hade stayed in the said house about the spaice of ane houre drinking of thrie pintis of ale togidder, they went foorth to the sandis, and ther thrie other women met them, and the divell wes there present with them all . . . and they parted so late that night that she could get no lodging, but wes forced to lye at ane dyk syde all night”32
What Murray left out by using the three dots is:
…and the Devil was there present with them all, in the shape of a great hoorse; and they decided on sinking of a ship, lying not far off from Barrie, and presently the said company appointed herself to take hold of the cable tow, and to hold it fast until they did return, and she herself did presently take hold of the said cable, and she thought, and about the space of an hour thereafter, they returned all in the likeness as before, except that the Devil was in the shape of a man upon his return, and the rest were sorely fatigued…33
Above I had quoted Murray’s comment in her introduction that she had deliberately excluded “ghosts” and “occult” phenomena which Murray claimed only “confuse” the subject. Of course such features would also make her effort to “rationalize” the subject impossible by revealing the whole “Witch-Cult” to be a fantasy so the irrational features had to be rigorously excluded, downplayed and largely ignored as inconsequential.

As a critic has said:
Murray is of course aware of these fantastic features – but she nevertheless contrives, by the way she arranges her quotations, to give the impression that a number of perfectly sober, realistic accounts of the sabbat exist. They do not; and the implications of that fact are, or should be, self-evident. As soon as the methods of historical criticism are applied to Murray’s argument that women really met to worship a fertility god, under the supervision of the god’s human representatives, it is seen to be just as fanciful as the argument which Michelet had propounded, with far greater poetic power, some sixty years earlier.34
If the Witch religion is a delusion what accounts for the idea that it is for real? Well many people cannot imagine how such a coherent set of beliefs, or why people would conjure up such a fantasy, without some basis.

Given the events of the Twentieth century people should not be surprised. Not only did events like the infamous Great Terror in Russia during the thirties reveal that fear and terror and utter irrationality on the part of those in power could generate seemingly consistent and supposedly logical grand conspiracies with NO basis. In fact that such fear / paranoia could generate “confessions" from un-tortured people who gave “proper” answers from a combination of leading questions and knowing to a large extent what was expected. Torture, the threat of torture and coercion produced seemingly “convincing” evidence of widespread conspiracy. Many people, weak minded, and deluded freely “confessed” to things that never happened also further adding to the flames.35

To cap it off we in fact did see in the late Twentieth century see a reoccurrence of the fantasy of the great conspiratorial Satanic religion in the Satanic Ritual abuse scare. Practically the whole demonology of the Witchcraze was reproduced, including babies bred for sacrifice, a vast Satanic religion conspiring against civilization, the “Black Mass”, the Sabbat, and of course the worship of Satan.36

Like the Witchcraze this modern version of it saw lots of people voluntarily confessing to being abused or in some cases to being abusers and testifying in great depth with lots of consistency to events etc., that never happened. Along with this we also had / have large numbers of people confessing and voluntarily talking about being abducted by Aliens.37

Given that the coherence of the whole intellectual apparatus that seemed to make belief in a vast “Witch” conspiracy / religion collapses if similar fantasies can exist today and people by coercion and delusion aided by true believing “inquisitors” can create seemingly logical and sensible, “facts” despite the sheer absurdity of the idea then the idea that the “Witch” religion / conspiracy is a fantasy should not be so hard to credit.

The three authors writing above were arguing in different ways the argument from incredulity. It was simply incredible to them that so much consistent, seemingly plausible stories could be a fantasy; they must have some basis! They underestimated the human capacity for delusion and forgot that sometimes there is no fire just smoke. If the Twentieth century taught us anything it is that myths can be murderous fantasies. As Trevor-Roper said regarding the times of the Witchcraze:
Unfortunately, we have seen them return. With the advantage of after-knowledge, we can look back and we see that even while the liberal historians were writing., their Olympian philosophy was being threatened from beneath. It was in the 1890’s that the intellectual foundations for a new witch-craze were being laid.38
Thus does Trevor-Roper describe the beginnings of modern day anti-Semitism. We who have lived in a more recent time when supposedly sensible people at large conferences concerning law enforcement actually talked about mass human sacrifice by Satanic covens and conspiracies to take over the world by same should be warned that human delusion is ever present and no joke to its many victims.

Witches Sabbat by Goya
 
1. French version Internet Archive, Here, Translation in English Internet Archive, Here

2. Summers, The The History of Witchcraft and Demonology can be found at The Internet Archive, Here, Summers translation of the Malleus Maleficarum can be found at Sacred Texts, Here.

3. The Witch Cult in Western Europe, can be found at Gutenberg, Here, God of the Witches, can be located at Here.

4. Michelet, Jules, La Sorciere: The Witch of the Middle Ages, Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., London, 1863, p. 149.

5. IBID. p. 150.

6. IBID. p. 151.

7. IBID. p. 150-156.

8. IBID. p. 157-167.

9. Cohn, Norman, Europe’s Inner Demons, Revd Ed., Pimlico, London, 1993, pp. 150-152.

10. IBID. pp. 150-151.

11.Summers, Montague, The History of Witchcraft and Demonology, Alfred A. Knopf, 1926, pp. xi-xii.

12. IBID. p. xii.

13. IBID. p. xiv

14. IBID. p. 133.

15. Summers, Montague, Introduction to the Malleus Maleficarum, in Malleus Maleficarum, See Footnote 2.

16. IBID.

17. IBID.

18. Summers, 1926, p. 4.

19. See Wikipedia Waldensians, Here.

20. Cohn, p. 160.

21. Murray, Margaret Alice, The Witch Cult in Western Europe, Oxford University Press, 1921, p. 11.

22. IBID. pp. 11-12.

23. IBID. p. 12.

24. IBID. p. 186.

25. IBID. p. 124.

26, IBID. pp. 148-151.

27. IBID. p. 156.

28. See Nathan, Debbie & Snedeker, Satan’s Silence, Basic Books, New York,1995, Victor, Jeffrey S., Satanic Panic, Open Court, Chicago, 1993, Hicks, Robert D., In Pursuit of Satan, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1991, Hsia, R. Po-chia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, Yale University Press, New Haven CONN., 1988.

29. Murray, Margaret, Alice, William Rufus, in God of the Witches, in Footnote 3.

30. Murray, 1921, pp. 140-141.

31, Cohn, p. 157.

32. Murray, 1921, p. 98.

33. Cohn, p. 157. For more examples of Murray’s deceptions see Cohn pp. 154-160.

34. IBID. p. 160.

35. Conquest, Robert, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Pimlico, London, 2008, pp. 71-131.

36. See Footnote 28. For a look at the Witch Hunters which reveals, unintentionally, how similar they are to modern investigators of “Satanic Ritual Abuse”, see Trevor-Roper, H. R., The European Witch-Craze of the 16th and 17th Century, Penguin Books, London, 1969, pp. 11-23, See also Crews, Frederick, The Revenge of the Repressed, Part I & II, pp. 91-133, Demonology for an Age of Science, pp. 134-152, The Trauma Trap, pp. 153-170, The Mind Snatchers, pp. 200-216, in Follies of the Wise, Shoemaker & Hoard, Emeryville CA., 2006.

37. IBID.

38. Trevor-Roper, p. 22.
 
Pierre Cloutier

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A Note on Thomas More's
History of Richard III and Richard Marius' View of it

Thomas More (Left) Richard III (Right)


Introduction
But even if More’s interpretation was askew, the consistency of his portrait testifies to determined research, and willy-nilly he gives us a more satisfying and coherent image of Richard than the King’s many modern apologists have managed to create

The History of King Richard III, offers a consistent, detailed and plausible version of events, one not published in his lifetime and consequently less open to the charge of malice that More’s accusers have made. In its general outline, More’s story also enjoys the advantage of agreeing substantially with much other evidence from the time1
 Thus does Richard Marius, More’s best modern biographer, also with one exception2 the biographer least enamored with the legend of Thomas More,3 accept the “black legend” about Richard III. Like so many writers who seem to have a need to accept this vision of Richard III he seems blind to the obvious problems with More’s account.

Marius’ Reasons

Marius’s reasons for accepting the basic truth of More’s account can be briefly summarized:

1, More did a great deal of detailed research.

2, One of More’s sources could have been John Howard, Duke of Norfolk and or his son Thomas Howard.

3, Any distortions or errors in the account of the murder of the Princes in the tower may have been the result of one or both of the Howards trying to cover up their part in the murders.

4, Henry VII would not have invaded England unless the Princes were dead otherwise his invasion would only have served to possibly restore Edward V to the throne.

5, Tyrell, the probable, murderer may have been ambitious and in pursuit of his own ends have murdered the Princes upon Richard’s order, and then informed Henry VII, that this obstacle to him, Henry VII, becoming King of England had been removed. In fact Tyrell may have claimed he did it for Henry.

6, Tyrell may have confessed for the good of his soul in 1502 and Henry VII, given the favour he had shown both Tyrell and the Howards would have suppressed the confession because it would have been obvious that he approved of both doer and deed.

7, More hated Henry VII and would not write a white-wash of Henry VII or be a Tudor propagandist.

8, The discovery of the bones of two children buried in a box beneath a stairway in 1674 is a confirmation of More’s story along with a medical analysis of the bones done in 1933 that confirms that the bones were of the right age.

9, More’s account was not published and in fact its publication would have gotten More into serious trouble, hence once again enhancing the veracity of the account.

10, Richard’s character has described by More is consistent and believable and hence probable and true.4

That is it!

Problems with Marius' Reasoning

The problems with the above are legion the following points should be kept in mind.

1, The bones that are continually trotted out has evidence of Richard’s guilt were not found where More said they were buried. In his account More states that the bones were buried under a stairway and then moved to another spot. The stairway may postdate the reign of Henry VII. The circumstances of the finding of the bones in 1674 were far from ideal which creates problems over what was the actual find. The dating of the age of the bones in 1933 is far from conclusive and likely wrong. Finally other bones of children have been found in the tower including two bodies found in a sealed room in the reign of James I.5

2, In Tyrell’s alleged confession he identifies the men who assisted him as Miles Forest and John Dighton who smothered the children. It appears that when More wrote his account Forest was dead but that Dighton was still alive. In fact according to More’s account he was still free and traveling around the country more than a decade after Tyrell’s confession. This is to put it mildly very hard to believe. We are asked to believe that a man who is accused by a deathbed, sworn confession of involvement in regicide and the murder of then Queen Elizabeth’s two brothers was allowed to stay free and unpunished. (Note: After Bosworth field Henry VII cemented his claim to the throne by marrying the York heiress, Elizabeth, sister of Edward V.) This is hard to swallow.6 The pertinent quote is as follows:

For first to beginne with the ministers, Miles Forest at sainct Martens pecemele rotted away. Dighton in ded walketh on a liue in good possibilitie to bee hanged ere he dye.7
3, Henry VII was claiming the throne and already planing to invade England and marry Elizabeth, Edward V's sister before the Princes were allegedly murdered. So it appears that the continued existence of the two Princes was not a complete bar in Henry’s mind to invading England.8

4, Regarding More’s hatred of Henry VII. This is obviously true from More’s writings yet tells us little about the reliability of More’s account; because regardless of More’s attitude to Henry VII he did not doubt the legitimacy of the Tudor claim to the throne of England. To present a positive account of Richard the Third, especially in relation to the “murder” of the Princes in the tower would have been to cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the throne, i.e., the claim of Henry VIII, More’s sometime patron to rule.9

5, Did More do detailed research? Since he failed to find a copy of the Titus Reglius that ruled Edward IV’s children illegitimate on grounds of a pre-existing valid pre-contract for marriage with another woman named Eleanor Butler, this is doubtful. The “research” is little more than an assertion. The claim his source may have been one or both of the Howards is little more than sheer speculation and proves nothing one way or another. We don’t know if the Howards were or were not one of More’s sources.10

6, Speculation of why Tyrell may have murdered the Princes i.e., that he may have told Henry VII for various reasons, for example Tyrell may have told Henry VII he killed them for him. That Tyrell may have confessed for the good of his soul. All this is once again sheer speculation. The fact is we do not have the “confession”. More admits he never saw it only that sources, unnamed, told him the contents. Vergil’s History of England, which contains a laudatory account of Henry VII and blames Richard III and Tyrell for the Princes death does not mention such a confession. Neither does the death sentence against Tyrell.11

7, The fact that More did not publish the manuscript in his lifetime adds nothing to the question of the veracity of his account of the life Richard III. This is an especially weak argument amounting once again to speculation. It is also possible that More did not publish it because he decided that his account was dubious. As it is this the failure to publish proves nothing. As for the idea it would have gotten More into serious trouble this is again speculation.

8, More’ delineation of Richard’s character shows a striking consistency, and it seems dubious that he manufactured this coherence out of whole cloth.12

Henry VII
The “consistency” of character that More gives Richard III along with the believability of that character prove nothing. Marius seems to be unaware that this may prove nothing but that More was a convincing writer. Also given his errors about Richard’s physical appearance why would More’s description of Richard’s character be any more accurate? The Historian Tacitus created a brilliant image of the Emperor Tiberius that the majority of modern historians believe is wrong. Consistency proves little one way or the other and like many other Historians he ignores the positive image in some contemporary chronicles about Richard III.13

More’s view of Richard’s character; it is a portrait of a dyed in the wool hypocrite, liar and dissembler. It is certainly consistent for what it is a one dimensional villain, not a human being. Neither Marius nor More seems to be worried about the contrast between Richard’s behavior before and after becoming King. Like Tacitus More seems to think that Richard, (like Tiberius), was hiding his real character all along.14

Its of interest that More for all of his so called research has praised by Marius manages to give Richard III a hunchback and a withered arm both of which are false.15

Other Problems

Marius repeatedly makes assertions instead of arguments with little or no evidence. For example his faith in More’s research and the reliability of More’s unnamed sources is curious given that More describes Richard III has a crippled hunchback which is manifestly false.16

Another serious mistake is Marius’ treatment of the whole precontract issue:
Elizabeth Lucy had a child by Edward IV. Edward’s mother, the dowager Duchess of York, was furious with him for marrying Elizabeth Woodville and claimed, so More says, that the marriage was invalid because Edward had promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy. Elizabeth Lucy was thereupon interrogated by a panel of judges and asked if the charge was true. Under oath she said that the king had never made such a promise explicitly.
"Howbeit, she said his grace spoke so loving words unto her that she verily hoped he would have married her, and if it had not been for such kind words she would never have showed such kindness to him to let him so kindly get her with child." (a quote from More)
More’s point was not mere comedy; it was to show that the charge had been made and refuted long before Richard and his cohorts brought it up. Yet the story does let him mock a foolish women.
Richard and Buckingham in some accounts accused Edward IV of making a marriage contract with one Eleanor Butler. More does not mention her but gives instead the humorous story of Elizabeth Lucy, who hoped that the king might wed her if she permitted him to bed her.17
This is really sloppy to put it mildly. Contemporary sources including the Titus Reglius, (Henry VII made great efforts to destroy every copy he could get his hands on), which was the legal basis for Richard III’s denial of his nephew’s right to the throne, only mention a precontract with Eleanor Butler. Elizabeth Lucy’s precontract claim is not known to any contemporary source. Since Eleanor Butler was of the nobility the claim of a precontract may have been valid whereas a precontract with Elizabeth Lucy an alleged whore would be ridiculous to More. Since More did not find out, apparently, about Eleanor Butler one wonders about the depth of More’s research. Marius seems to love a good story. It seems that, despite Marius comment, the alleged pre-contract was with Eleanor Butler not Elizabeth Lucy. It appears that More is simply repeating Tudor propaganda that replaced the respectable Eleanor Butler with the absurd Elizabeth Lucy. Marius second comment about “some accounts” refer to Eleanor Butler ignores the official document that excluded Edward IV children from the throne, (the Titus Reglius) only mentions Eleanor Butler. To quote it:
[A]t the time of … the same pretensed Mariage, and before and longe tyme after, the sed King Edward was and stode maryed and trouth plight to oone Dame Eleanor Butteler, Daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a precontracte of Matrimonie, longe tyme before he made the said pretensed Mariage with the said Elizabeth Grey…18
The fact that this document was suppressed combined with the appearance of the Elizabeth Lucy story, which is only known from More would seem to indicate Tudor propaganda not truth.19

Regarding the repeated speeches that More put into his History of King Richard III, Marius states:
Obviously, too, the long speeches in the work were composed by More for rhetorical effect. He was following a tradition as old as Thucydides, allowing historians to put words to fit the occasion into the mouth of leading characters.20
Marius should then of course examine the very extensive literature about the reliability of those speeches. He would of course find out that those speeches are not reliable instead what people say in those speeches is what the author considered appropriate for those occasions. They tell us next to nothing about what was said and about the person in whose mouth the words are put, but it tells us an enormous amount about what the author believed and felt was appropriate. In those speeches the person uttering the speech is nothing more than a mouth piece for the author. So the speeches given to Richard III tell us nothing about Richard III but tell us a great deal about Thomas More and what he thought about Richard III.21

Instead we have the following bit of nonsense from Marius:
We should recall that he had had occasion to talk to a great many eyewitnesses of the events he reports and the underlying substance of the long speeches may be accurate. This is especially true of Buckingham’s speech in the Guildhall.22
It is of interest that Marius accepts wholly the idea that the Hastings “conspiracy” was a complete invention. Marius thus accepts the tradition of the falseness of the charge. Unfortunately the evidence is frankly entirely consistent with the charge of conspiracy being for real. Certainly the Richard treated the other alleged conspirators quite leniently. Not in keeping with his image of vicious ruthlessness.23

Then Marius’ critical faculties vanish entirely he says:
..the force and animadversions against sexual offences is striking. His attacks on his mother’s morals are more than striking they are shocking. He claimed that both Edward IV and George, duke of Clarence, Richard’s older brothers, were not sons of his father.24
Marius attempt to defend this absurd piece of idiocy by citing various people who allege that Richard’s mother supposedly said something similar. Marius then brings up the case of Isabeau of Bavaria in 1420 C.E., at the signing of the Treaty of Troyes of claiming that Charles VII was not Charles VI’s son but the son of one of her lovers; in this case Charles' brother Louis. The problem with that story is that it is a myth. Isabeau never did that and never denied Charles VII was Charles VI’s son.25

Marius’ further account that Joan of Arc restored Charles VII’s faith in his legitimacy is a nice hoary myth with no foundation and dates well after Charles VII’s lifetime.26

Marius then accepts has genuine all the out bursts of Richard III against sexual license. Marius thus completely abdicates from being a historian just why should we accept this view of Richard anymore than the withered arm or hunchback?

But Marius is in full throttle so he says, to repeat the quote used at the beginning:
But even if More’s interpretation is askew, the consistency of his portrait testifies to determined research, and willy-nilly he gives us a more satisfying and coherent image of Richard than the king’s many modern apologists have managed to create.27
If Marius wants to be take seriously the absurd one dimensional caricature that More gives us and to take More’s alleged detailed research seriously Marius is perfectly entitled to do so; but I for one cannot take Marius on Richard III seriously.

Marius then discusses the murder of the two princes in the tower.28 After going through the principal objections by Historians like Kendal he reluctantly admits that the Tyrell's confession is dubious in the extreme. Although Marius avoids the problem of one of the alleged regicides wondering around England well after the murder after Tyrell’s alleged confession! Marius then makes a whole series of fanciful speculations to rescue the story. I.E., Tyrell sent Henry word that the princes were dead and Henry covered up the confession because it would indicate that he and Tyrell were tainted by the crime. This is all fantasy on par with the most extreme Richardian’s about the death of the two princes in the tower.

The Two Princes Edward V and Richard Duke of York

Marius over and over again talks about the consistency of More’s version of Richard III’s character. Ignoring quite deliberately the historical record. The contrast between what the record shows us concerning Richard III’s character before his taking the throne and after is not consistent with the dyed in the wool one dimensional villain of More’s fantasy. Other interpretations of Richard III are possible and Marius by very consistently ignoring this evidence supports the cartoon of legend.

In the end Richard III remains an enigma, probably no more ruthless than other Kings at his time, but still the disappearance of the two Princes in the tower remains very strange. It remains very mysterious just how and why and stranger still if Richard III ordered them murdered why do they disappear into “night and fog”, why was no cover story concocted? In the past English Kings and others had been murdered and such stories created yet in this case the Princes just vanish. It all very hard to understand. It is of course also strange that Henry VII although married to Elizabeth never seems to have made any sort of search for Elizabeth's two brothers bodies or made any effort to find out what had happened to them. The result is a mystery that will probably never be solved. However it remains that Richard III is the most likely culprit for murdering the Princes.
1. Marius, Thomas More, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984, p. 110, 112. For More’s book see, More, Thomas, The History of King Richard III, Here

2. Ridley, Jasper, The Statesman and the Fanatic, Constable , London,1982.

3. For example the play A Man for all Seasons.

4. Marius, Ch. 7 pp. 98-122.

5. Fields, Bertram, Royal Blood, HarperCollins, New York, 1998, pp.238-257.

6. This has not stopped many writers like Alice Weir, The Princes in the Tower, Ballantine Books, New York, 1995, and Seward, Desmond, Richard III: England's Black Legend, Franklin Watts, London, 1984. Kendal, Richard the Third, Garden City, New York, 1965. See Fields, pp. 230-237.

7. From More, Here.

8. Fields, pp. 133-134.

9. The Tudor claim to the throne was, to put it mildly, dubious, and there were in fact many better claimants in terms of legitimacy. These individuals had a tendency to be executed by Henry VII + Henry VIII. See Fields, pp. 151-153, 197-198.

10. See Fields, pp. 84-87, 97-98, Marius, p. 112.

11. Tyrell was accused of treason against Henry VII the princes were not mentioned. See Fields, pp. 230-237.

12. Marius, p. 109.
13. See Fields, pp. 258-270, and Tacitius, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Penguin Books, London, 1976.

14. IBID, Tacitus, Introduction, pp. 16-22.

15. Fields, pp. 277-278.

16. Fields, pp. 92-93, 277-285.

17. Marius, p. 107, 108, for More’s version see, Here

18. Fields, p. 287.

19. See Fields, pp. 162-163, 285-287.

20. Marius, p. 108.

21. Finley, Ancient History, Chatto & Windus, London, 1985, pp. 12-15.

22. Marius, p. 108 see More, Here

23. Fields, pp. 88-93.

24. Marius, p. 109 see More, Here for examples.

25. Warner, Marina, Joan of Arc, Penguin Books, London, 1981, pp. 58-59, Gibbons, Rachel, Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France (1385-1422): The Creation of an Historical Villainess, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 6, pp. 51-73. 1996. In fact Isabella’s lawyers deprived Charles VII of the crown on the grounds of his involvement in the various crimes, especially the murder of Jean Duke of Burgundy. There was not a breath of talk of Charles VII being illegitimate. Henry V deliberately spread this rumour.

26. Warner, 56-60.

27. Marius, p. 110.

28. Marius, pp. 112-115.

Pierre Cloutier