A Pickingill view 1 - The Miscelleny

Ok I said in my last post that I felt I had been a bit petty and ranty. I will try to be more positive and objective now.

To begin with, please note that I will be using a colour key.

Words in BLUE are my words
Words in GREEN are those I am using in an illustrative fashion (such as Bill's)
Words in RED are those I am taking issue with

This way it might be easier for you dear reader to see at a glance what I am saying and where I am heading ... hopefully! *G*

How many times will you find someone say:

"The Pickingill corpus is a hoax and/or it is disproved? "

Obviously, for my part I will say "far too many for my tastes" but this is not simply because I am of that lineage but rather more because it always seem to fall into the category of:

"I don't believe you because you will not back your words with proof - nor will I but that is different!"

Frankly, this does no one any good. Over the years Bill and I have repeatedly been accused of obfuscation, lying and worse to harvest support for an agenda not of our making at all.

For the record, there are some things that should be said once and for all quite apart from the haggling and debate as facts. These things are facts, irrelevant of what some would have you believe and they are the sort of things that only we and plain common sense can tell you.

1. The texts that were and are collectively entitled the "Lugh Letters" to the Wiccan and the Cauldron (owing to the nom de plume "Lugh" being appended to each) were written by no less than eleven different people.
2. The man who submitted them (Bill) is NOT eleven separate people as some have suggested over the years - nor are they one man.
3. Those people who submitted the articles to Bill to hand on were witch and cunning folk elders of Bill who (perhaps naively) made himself as useful to them as he could by forwarding on these words to the magazines in question.
4. These elders were bent on stirring the pot, on being sensational, and fanning flames to make an increasingly singular new movement aware of the fact that there was more to it's collective past than much of it suspected.
5. Much of that which they were interested in presenting was deliberately the sort of thing that those who were not traditionally connected would have no real hope of verifying.
6. Much of this information could very rightly be considered "hear say" and "gossip" at best and "rumour mongering" at worst - coming as it did from the background of "behind closed doors inside information" spiced heavily with awed "superstition".
7. These elders had each "axes to grind" and even though they provided views and information that they felt or believed to be accurate - not one of them could have been considered omniscient or totally free from biasing what they knew in order to favour their political views and mores.
8. We may never know how much this coloured the final information as by the time of this writing only one of them still lives and that only just.
9. Some of these "positions" and indeed their heralds were at loggerheads and we may be sure that this further makes unclear what the truth of the whole may be - the fact remains that not all lines descended from George practice or even believe the same things!
10. We believe many things pertaining to George Pickingill and his influences (benign and malign) on the shape, views and practices of modern witchcraft, ceremonial magic and occultism because we have investigated them to our satisfaction.
11. There are things we don't believe and that these have come about due to the fact that we have investigated them and have NOT found them proved to our satisfaction.
12. There are some things that we must accept or deny on the notion that there can be no evidence that definitively decides the issue either way and that these must be pursued in ways that will bunacceptablele to those requiring documentary proof.
13. Of the whole, it should be known that, unlike our many detractors we have nothing to gain from your belief.
14. We don't get much that is useful from the public's view - no status at all and we are hardly in any position to influence the whole of the modern movement - even were we inclined to do so.
15. Our only interest is in correcting as far as we are able the things that have been erroneously repeated over the years by design and by ignorance.

This being borne in mind I trust you will bear with me long enough to hear some words on the subject from a point of view you quite probably have never heard before. Obviously I am biased but again, I will gain little from adopting the methods of those who have repeatedly spoken ill of us and will be attempting to simply answer as best I can the major themes and accusations levelled at us.

A simply web search at Yahoo.com reveals the lay of the land ahead of me. Here are some of the contents of one I did in order - this was listed #6 on the page search result

http://www.occultforums.com/printthread.php?t=11738

A question was asked:

Sub Rosa 01-14-2005 10:47 PM

Old George Pickingill
Can anyone tell me more about the life and times of this man.What kind of work did he produce?

To which we have the following responses:

fiat_lux_777
01-15-2005 02:58 AM

93There's a lot of stuff available about George Pickingill - perhaps the following website will be of assistance - http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/A great deal of the George Pickingill story has been proven to be false or inaccurate - but judge for yourselves.93 93/93Todd

Samhain
01-15-2005 10:49 AM

IMO, Bill Liddell's influence on the Pickingill story is unfortunate. However, contrary to the assertions of some academics recently, nobody has ever disproven any of the original material gathered by Eric Maple in the 1950s from people who were then still alive and who had actually known Pickingill. If someone wants to know something about Pickingill, I think that they should ignore Liddell and buy a copy of The Dark World of Witches by Eric Maple or A Razor for a Goat by Eliot Rose, who seems to have used a lot of Maple's original research material in his book. If these books are currently out of print, you can probably find old copies for sale on E-Bay.

Firstly we have a bold statement that the material has been ".. proven to be false or inaccurate" but one could be forgiven for wondering how and by whom as there is no follow up, simply a statement that seems to be repeated almost like a mantra. Todd at least has the good grace and sense to place a link so that those that follow can check what is said on the issue themselves and this marks him as being decidedly fair.

The same arguably cannot be said of the second response. I find that I can not possibly understand how an actual descendant giving some information is "unfortunate". It would seem that this person has not actually read much of the corpus - especially the new information. On the website, (Pickingill.com) Bill addresses the ideas behind and from some of the early reports about Old George. I quote:

"I was investigating George Pickingill a good twelve years before Maple visited Canewdon. 'Old George' was the first-cousin of my paternal great-great grandfather, who adopted the surname of one of his employers. This was standard practice for many members of the widespread Pickingill stock."

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/1.htm

It should also be noted that one needs to be careful when buying "Pickingill materials" from ebay or otherwise. There were several small pamphlets that were distributed without Bill's knowledge and consent. The best bet is to buy the actual book : The Pickingill Papers and read the website other than this one can simply say "Caveat Emptor" and not wryly that it has been said maliciously by certain detractors of ours already to those who have seen their way clear to accessing either.

#16 on the Yahoo Search result was this article:
http://www.tylwythteg.com/WORD/WORDCH01B.html

"It is said that Mike Howard still has some of Liddell's material which he has never published, and there is nobody in the British Craft who has given any credence to Liddell's claims."

This article is pretty good actually but has this small point in it which it would seem stems from Aiden Kelly's work (and of course Julia Philip's talk). The fall out from this is best dealt with by Bill himself. He begins by quoting Kelly:

"Michael Howard, the editor of The Cauldron, eventually stopped publishing them.')"

And then debunks it like so:

"Kelly has demonstrated that he is the purveyor of "hard, verifiable facts" by carefully editing a letter from a highly-respected witch to convince his readers that Mike Howard stopped publishing the 'Lugh' material because it was becoming progressively preposterous. This claim is palpably untrue. Mike Howard has assured me that he honestly cannot remember making such a statement!

Mike Howard was unable to publish the 'Lugh' articles when my Brethren ceased forwarding material to me. The articles stopped abruptly because I had no further material to submit to him after 1981 or 1982. However, Mike had a back-log of my letters which he continued to publish until 1992! This gives the lie direct to Kelly's snide attempt to discredit 'Lugh.'"

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/1.htm

Some have zeroed in on the "nobody in the British Craft" line and there are some pretty obvious problems with it. At the risk of being seen to be applying the same standards to our detractors that they enforce upon us, I feel compelled to ask:

1. Nobody?
2. Who asked the question and who was asked?
3. Who are these experts?
4. Does anyone remember?
5. Does anyone feel brave enough to answer?

I have asked these questions again and again over the years and am still receiverecieve any satisfactory answers which is a pity as were they to be answered who knows what further gems of modern history they may reveal?

There are several in the modern British Craft circles who have a vested interest in refuting the Pickingill material. Problems of the nature of the claims of some traditions aside, several even have quite lengthy status issues that should be borne in mind. To be explicit, there are some in the British Craft scene and in particular in some of it's larger cliques who would be mightily embarrassed were these questions properly and truthfully answered. Quite rightly it is a small number of very vocal individuals whose standings would not be quite so illustrious if the mucky hem of their pristine robes were revealed to a wider audience.

The fact remains that, as has been reiterated time and time again, Traditional British Witch Groups at the time of George Pickingill were openly antagonised by his public behaviour and those groups descended therefrom in Gardner's time were largely agreed that no one should remember him. The same could be said for his practices, which are antithetical in many ways to the practices of Traditional British Witch Groups.

Besides, why would Gardner jeopardise his nice new Wicca with a shady character like George?

#18 on the Yahoo search yields thread upon which George's name creeps in. On the next page of the thread in question,
(http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=85093&page=4&pp=10)
we get this statement from Ben Gruagach, (website: http://www.witchgrotto.com)

"The other references to Jennings and W. J. Hughan just repeat the material from "The Pickingill Papers" which are largely considered to be suspect I understand."

Ben will just have to excuse me using this situation and his words as an example. In this case, (to be fair) he offers no real stance on it either way and is being entirely fair in his appraisal. While Ben is admittedly repeating what he has heard, it is precisely this situation that illustrates why a careful eye and ear must be maintained. This is the end result of Chinese whispers that we are most often confronted with - why should someone interested in a quick answer question further such a response?

People mis-read or mis-comprehend, they offer up a triumphant "I have disproved it, or no one believes it" and then, thereafter, others don't really bother to read the original but simply say they have heard it to be "suspect". The querent sees this over and over and figures it to be true - after all there is nothing for them to weigh up - just a repeated line which they will thereafter have the tendancy to repeat themselves. Should nobody present have seen the website ... well the merry go round continues. In this case we were lucky to have someone who is fair makin the comments as evidenced later @ http://www.mysticwicks.com/printthread.php?t=28253
when Ben says:

"http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/...c/361/page1.htm provides some material and arguments in favour of the claims that George Pickingill had a role in introducing Wicca to Gerald Gardner. For more of this, look for the book "The Pickingill Papers." Just be aware that many of the claims about Pickingill's influence on Gardner have yet to be confirmed as valid. Many historians don't agree with the Pickingill claims."
(#54 on the Yahoo search result)

While the comments or rather the conclusions Ben presents here are arguable it would be a much clearer debate were most of those talking on the subject this even handed. Many don't agree with many of the Pickingill claims. Most of them are a long way from being historians but that is beside the point. Here we have a situation where the querent is given the wherewithal to investigate further and decide for themselves what they think as opposed to being at the mercy of what they believe those better versed than themselves might tell them.

This is ESPECIALLY the case in this situation as dear ol' Ben winds up getting in contact with a one or two removed Wilson mate and eventually winds up repeating the same tired line himself. As per usual the line of most oft repeated party lines can be traced directly back to our dear vociferously vocal clique in the UK Pagan Federation. No surprises there.

#41 on the search reveals http://members.aol.com/gryffin5/web.htm

The Pickingill Papers Bill Liddell published a book about the Pickingill Papers, where claims were made that both Gardner and Crowley had been involved with a person known as "Old George Pickingill." These papers, originally letters written to a British Pagan publication, have been quite controversial. Many people believe them to be a hoax. This webpage has continued information about them, and the story of the supposed Pickingill covens.

Again, here we see no particular stance being given but again a report that many people consider it a hoax. In this case I am including this simply to underline how prevalent this thinking is. It should be obvious even to the most selective how, (given the earlier other examples) how this this could easliy become so prevalent - irrelevant of it's veracity.

The next sections on this subject will cover some of the more common and popular refutations we have been confronted with over the years.

Previous Pickingill Related Article
Next Pickingill Related Article