The Retail Therapy from Pickingill Plaza

The Famous talk by Julia - A Response:

Poor dear, in terms of alleged Pickingill refutations, once upon a time this was the flavour of the month, now it is being eclipsed by others. Type "Pickingill" into a search engine and you would get notes from this talk over and over and over again. It was re-printed and cherished like some sort of touchstone! While it certainly had some useful information in it, it also had the wonderfully bias coloured section on George and the Pickingill corpus.

This section has any number of problems which Bill has dealt with very fairly to my mind @:

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/2.htm

I on the other hand, am a tad more scathing on that particular section than he. I argue that Julia's stance is made entirely clear and that her particular bias colours the information to such an extent that it could conceivably be imagined that she would even go as far as selective omission to make one thing appear as another.

Consider the statement: "as I think it extremely dubious that he had any connection with Gardner, or any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still in Malaya."

Well duh! So? I mean here we have a statement designed, (it seems) to imply from the outset there is no connection between the two because they never met. I am deliberately NOT going to suggest that Julia is thick witted enough to believe such a daft statement as I can't believe that is the case which unfortunately only leaves me with the possibility that the talk was presented this way for purpose.


From the rest of the section, it seems to me that she seems to believe that George ran nine covens (much like the High Priest of a modern Wiccan coven) and that if Gerald Gardner was an initiate of any of these associated groups he must have therefore met George. Given the fairly obvious time-lines this would indeed by definition be impossible! The fact that George did not run nine covens in this or any other manner is quite beside the point in this case! Where a couple of such assumptions that were made, acted on and disputed with come from I don't know. Perhaps from the magic "cloud-cuckoo" land she so graciously ascribes to Bill (who by the way was publically outed by this talk!!)

No, the problem with Julia's talk is that once again, it seems that a detractor has NOT read what was presented, has then simply come up what they THINK was said and then decided they will run with it for a while and then laughingly dismiss it in public. From past experience in other fields I can well remember how embarrassing this can be. As for her personal problems and the ire that can also be descried in this talk towards Bill and the subject in general? - well I'll leave that between the people involved.

Here, however, in brief are my ideas on this section of Julia’s talk. When I read this section certain ideas occur to me and I reprint them here for your personal interes-amusement:

At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as I think it extremely dubious that he had any connection with Gardner, or any other modern Wiccan.

I doubt that Gardner and George had any actual contact whatsoever – the time line of history would suggest otherwise. The same could be said for “any other modern” wiccan. "Connection" is a suitably nebulous term that can be taken in many ways. Did the work of Pickingill have an impact upon and affect the future form called Wicca? Most certainly. Does this mean that they had a connection in the context of contact even to direct twice removed? Obviously not.


Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still in Malaya.

Exactly - another fine reason why it could not of occured in the manner which several have assumed was the case. The fact that some have done precisely this and then laughed at us because of their misinterpretation is quite bewildering.

Eric Maple is largely responsible for the beginnings of the Pickingill myth, which were expanded by Bill Liddell (Lugh) writing in "The Wiccan" and "The Cauldron" throughout the 1970s. Mike Howard still has some of Liddell's material which he has never published, and I have yet to meet anyone within the British Craft who gives credence to Liddell's claims.


Ok to begin with here are some points that one might have thought someone who was interested in informing might have "made off their own bat".

• Eric Maple's book is The Dark World of Witches (1962) and it gives some small accounts of George Pickingill which is a combination of several half remembered stories from some people he spoke to on the subject. Bill was investigating in this area even prior to then.


• Mike howard would still have material he never published as they had corresponded for years (and I will point out that some of that has found it's way into the magazine as well!)


• That Julia's cicrcle of friends and acquaintances would not give creedence to Liddell's claims is hardly news worthy of surprising and it is presented here in this context simply to suggest it is tenuous at best

Now, it is also worth stating on this very subject:

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

“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.'”


One wonders what the connection between Julia and Kelly is - or does it not exist due to the fact that they may not have ever met?


Furthermore, some have zeroed in on the “nobody in the British Craft” line and there are three major problems with it. I have said this before but it is well worth saying again!

1. Nobody? Well who asked the question and who was asked? Who are these experts? Does anyone remember?
2. There are several in the modern British Craft circles who have a vested interest in refuting the Pickingill material – hell they do talks on it!!
3. As has been reiterated time and time again, Traditional British Groups at the time of George Pickingill were openly antagonised by his public behaviour and those groups descended there from 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?


In the book, "The Dark World of Witches", published in 1962, Maple tells of a number of village wise women and cunning men, one of whom is George Pickingill. There is a photograph included of an old man with a stick, holding a hat, which Maple describes as Pickingill. This photograph has subsequently been re-used many times in books about witchcraft and Wicca.

And quite a fetching photo it is!

Issue number 31 of "Insight" Magazine, dated July 1984, contains a very interesting letter from John Pope: "The photograph purporting to be Old George Pickingill is in fact a photo of Alf Cavill, a station porter at Ellstree, taken in the early 1960s. Alf is now dead, but he was no witch, and laughed over the photograph when he saw it."

So what you are saying is that it is this one letter from John Pope should just on spec be taken at face value against the regional based folk lorist who had been given the picture in the first place by those who knew old George. Well fair enough then I won't bother to suggest the obvious can't prove it is - can't prove it ain't that is so obviously in existence here - it is too obvious.



I will not even go into the fact of the strange story that has surfaced regarding a picture found by Robert Plant which features on Led Zepplin's fourth Album. One observer on their webpage (LED Zeppelin - BACK70: Biography of LED Zeppelin - Curiosities: Symbols of the fourth album) has noted that the picture of the old man has often been claimed to be Crowley but bears no resemblance to him so it is unlikely it is him. He goes on to state that however an uncanny resemblance to George Pickingill is to be seen! I feel certain that this would be dismissed as silly even though if you were to put this famous picture, this one and one of Bill Liddell side to side you'd be as surprised as I was .. but again no that is surely just silliness and not a case of family likeness I am sure!

A very respected Craft authority has told me that he believes the photo, which is in his possession, to be of Pickingill, but like so much to do with Craft history, there is no definitive answer to this one.


Mike Howard is the name of the unnamed craft authority alluded to here in suitably mysterious fashion. The fact stands though, as you say, how to prove and how to disprove? Surely the best course of action when summing up info is to be as objective as possible? I know I have done so for my own benefit and thereby know what *I* believe and why but I think I would be loathe to give a public talk and give so little by way of unbiased speculation presented as fact.

Many claims were made by Liddell; some obviously from cloud-cuckoo land, others which could, by a stretch of the imagination, be accepted.

This makes it quite clear what Julia really thinks - and one might surmise what is the coin of teh realm in the circles she travels. It iw worth noting here also that Julia has "outed" Bill as “Lugh” here. I must say that insults are often the most common preface to such activity so I will not be surprised. At this time not even Bill's wife knew he was "lugh" nor even that he was a witch. *Shakes Head* One finds it difficult to believe that someone like Julia with her background would do this in ignorance - almost as difficult to believe that it would be done at all for any reason. So much for objectivity and your implied desire for definitive answers.

The very idea of Pickingill, an illiterate farm labourer, co-ordinating and supervising nine covens across the breadth of the UK is staggering. To accept - as Liddell avers - that he had the likes of Alan Bennett and Aleister Crowley as his pupils bends credulity even further.

To begin with, that would be George’s SON you are talking about (he was the illiterate!) and secondly, why is it so hard to believe? (You will note studiously here that I am not even bringing up the fact that this was information written by ANOTHER and then given TO BILL – he did NOT write it himself!)



All that aside - let us just set the recod straight. George was NOT illiterate and did NOT co-ordinate or supervise nine covens across the breadth of the UK. These things are said no where and are assumptions one would expect from someone with a standard Wiccan background however that does not make them accurate. That he had pupils the likes of Alan Bennett and Aliester Crowly is not all that difficult to believe either.

The infamous photograph, which Liddell claims, shows Crowley, Bennett and Pickingill together have conveniently disappeared, and no one admits to ever having seen it.

Again, rather should we say: “The infamous photograph, which an associate of Liddell’s claims …..” – while it seems like splitting hairs it really isn’t! If we are going to concern ourselves with facts and correct reporting of the same, such things make a mighty difference. Also, Julia is showing her background here. Some old witches are very picky on the subject of having their photograph taken – even to the point of simple drawn likenesses so I don’t see how this story is unfeasible at all. Even a wiccan should be able to understand how a photo may be used against a witch and well, to have a photo with these three people in it would be worth a small fortune in some circles.

Like most of Liddell's claims, nothing has ever been substantiated, and when pushed, he retreats into the time-honoured favourite of, "I can't reveal that - you're not an initiate"!

"Sour grapes" is a fair way I think to characterise this statement and goes further I feel to validate the wry observation that much "witchcraft study" is simply "the result of not being allowed to join". Furthermore, I must say that to assume a moral high ground is a dangerous thing really, after all in order to “sling mud” one must have a ready supply of it in the first place. Oddly enough, Bill can’t recall ever saying that to you – nor ever even being “pressed” by you on the subject. Perhaps it might be like so many of the problems you point to in this talk, shall we say politely; the result of your own misreading and miscomprehension? Perhaps it is like another famous alleged instance of Bill saying something to someone that has never surfaced?

Here is what I mean when I say reprinted and used like some sort of touchstone. Eight out of nine on this page are references to Julia talk and fully thirty five out of the first hundred are this talk! :

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Pickingill&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=71

71. Untitled Document
... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still ...members.iinet.net.au/~wayland/page43.html - 49k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
72. HISTORY OF WICCA IN ENGLAND: 1939 - present day This talk was given by Julia Phillips at t
The Skeptic Tank text archives. ... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... or any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was ...www.skepticfiles.org/mys5/history.htm - 47k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
73. "Wicca", "Paganism", "New Age", "Counterculture", : SF Bay Area Indymedia
... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still ...www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1557279.php - 73k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
74. History Of Wicca In England: 1939 - Present Day :: Paganality.com :: (yes, it's magik :)
... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still ...paganality.com/pagan-article-historical-events-history-of-wicca-in-... - More from this site - Save - Block
75. CraftSchool
... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still ...www.wicca.utvinternet.com/whistory.htm - 59k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
76. wicca for christians
... character" of the late 19th century named George Pickingill, who publically proclaimed himself a hereditary witch ...www.ncsu.edu/stud_orgs/spm/pub/Wicca - 18k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
77. http://www.witcheswell.com/text/wicca/wicca-18.txt
HISTORY OF WICCA IN ENGLAND: 1939 - Present Day This talk was given by Julia Phillips at the Wiccan Conference in Canberra, 1991. ... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... or any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was ...www.witcheswell.com/text/wicca/wicca-18.txt - More from this site - Save - Block
78. History of Wicca in England
A historical account of the emergence of Wicca within England. ... with Gardner, or any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still in Malaya ... for the beginnings of the Pickingill myth, which were expanded by Bill ...draeconin.com/database/wiccahist.htm - 49k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
79. "Wicca", "Paganism", "New Age", "Counterculture", : SF Indymedia
... At this point, I will just mention George Pickingill, although he is not shown on the tree, as ... any other modern Wiccan. Pickingill died in 1909, whilst Gardner was still ...sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=1557279 - 49k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block
80. Biografie Aleister Crowley
... apparently he was not welcome for long (see 'Old George Pickingill'). It is alleged that he obtained his 'Second Degree ...wicca106.tripod.com/id19.html - More from this site - Save - Block
Results Page:Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next



Faulty first premise is a mother of delusion and here once again we see not simply how one person may be embarrassed at a later date by a simple example of it, but also how it can lead many others way off the track into total confusion and THEN AGAIN how this same can spread like wildfire. The fact remains also that this is all exemplary of how we should be careful to not present opinion and speculation as fact to those who may not know better nor be inclined to question someone p0resented to them as some sort of "authority".



All of this aside, it is further a pity as it certainly makes the rest of the talk seem suspect – even though it is in my opinion, quite good and worthwhile!

Previous Pickingill related Article
Next Pickingill related Article

Views from Pickingill Valley

And we're back again in the same neighborhood but this time hearing from someone else.

In the article presented on the same page as the one previously discussed:

which is presented as:

Earth Religion News, (Vol I No. 1, 2 & 3) Copyright 1976 E.R.N.
Publisher/Editor: Herman Slater

we see some information from various Pickingill articles contained in the Pickingill Papers in disarray and the occasional editorial interjection, (one assumes) by Herman. It seems to be something of a catalogue of the most sensational bits.

After this we see some "Replies" and the second is from the wonderful Leo Martello. It is worth noting and thinking on. Let us take a look at it.

VALIENTE BUT NOT VALIANT
By Dr. Leo Louis Martello

The above Pickingill "plum pudding" from a "well wisher" (Translate: Doreen Valiente) makes a good story.

The unfortunate thing about saying rash things in public is that it is inevitable that we will say something that will later really embarrass us. Gods know I have made my fair share! In this case however I am kermuzzled. I, can vouch for the fact that Bill does not share even a passing resemblance to Doreen Valiente. I will admit that I have never seen Bill in a dress but still - I have seen pictures of Doreen and they don't look a bit alike. Lest it be said my humour here is misplaced I will also stress that they don't sound alike - their writings are very different in tone as well. The fact that these articles have several voices coming through could perhaps account for the confusion except for some points Mike Howard makes out in the Chapter Twelve notes of the Pickingill Papers.

Occasionally I enjoy fiction. However, this is presented as fact. Notice lately how all those who denied any association of Crowley and Gardner are now admitting it, while others who attacked me for mentioning it (One may read Gerald Gardner: Witch by J. L. Bracelin, pub. 1960, England), have never had the decency to apologise.

From this we can infer I guess that the connection between Crowley and Gardner is not one of the points of the Pickingill corpus that Leo takes issue with. As for the statement about a lack of apologies being ever being tendered by members of the international occult and or craft communities for statements made …well we are very aware of this fact, indeed this could even be considered one of those instances!

There is no mention of George Pickingill in Gardner's biography by one of his initiates and heirs. Gardner doesn't mention him in any of his books.

Frankly, nor should or WOULD there be. Not only would Gardner not “out” one of his Elders, it would have been a monumentally stupid move if he wanted to be not only allowed to write his book (he had to ask permission to begin writing about witchcraft!) but also if he wanted it to sell. The less said about how damaging the public shadow of Old George would be to the newly forming Wiccan popularity at the time the better! “’An it harm none” wouldn’t have squared too well with Old George’s well known hatred for the church!

And Doreen Valiente's ABC of Witchcraft, Past & Present, omits him.

It is worth noting that after this time, (this rebuttal was written in response to the original article in 74!) as Mike Howard puts it: “like Doreen Valiente, who was one of Gardner's High Priestesses in the 1950s, initially accepted the claims, but then with hindsight rejected them .. (1978 & 1989)”

Now Valiente has disinterred Pickingill from his grave, writing under the pseudonym of "well wisher", but doesn't hesitate to attack me by name. And her facts are all mixed up. She quotes me out of context, and either hasn't read, or chose to ignore for expediency's sake, what I later wrote on Hereditary Witches (See my "Thoughts On The Third Degree" in issue No. 59 of Green Egg). You may also read my comments on "degrees" and Ms. Valiente's claims, in my Introduction to the Crowthers' book SECRETS OF ANCIENT WITCHCRAFT etc. Now let me quote her: "Martello appears to believe that the Hereditary persuasion speaks of three degrees! . . . I BELIEVE NO SUCH THING as many of my cited writing prove, and I KNOW better, and if Ms. Valiente chooses to become John Score's Craft prostitute and henchwoman because of his deeply repressed homosexuality and her own hang-ups, so be it, but the fact remains that there are at least two Hereditary Witch Covens in Britain who have nothing to do with her or any of the other publicised covens there. And George Pickingill was considered an evil old man who was a Satanist and it's no wonder that he's not mentioned in any of Gardner's writings (if he even knew him), as to the "strange silence" of the East Anglian Witches who still feel that Gardner was not lawfully admitted to the Craft (and in the above diatribe there's no mention of "Old Dorothy" Clutterbuck except to imply that hers was one of the "nine covens" of Pickingill. Others believe that she simply combined Murray and Leland and some local folklore and "did her own thing.") the Witches of Radonshire, especially in Clyro, Hay and Newbridge-on-Wye, who call Halloween-Samhain "Llanhallant Eve" consider the whole lot of them nothing more than Halloween masqueraders.

Personally I have wish to comment on the length, breadth, depth or reason for the ire Leo feels regarding Doreen Valiente or John Score so I won’t even comment on this except to say that here we do have a reason as to why Old George might not have been mentioned by Gardner or his “heirs” and that it is perhaps strange that it is overlooked in one paragraph only to be stated in the next.

Again, Mike howard put it: “(2) In 1974, when the first Lugh articles appeared in The Wiccan, an American-Sicilian strega called Dr Leo Martello, who claimed that the articles had been written by Doreen Valiente (!?), said he was in contact with several Hereditary covens in Herefordshire and Radnorshire. According to Martello these groups considered Pickingill to have been 'an evil old man who was a Satanist.' Martello's belief that the Lugh material originated from Valiente, using a male nom-de-plume, is very strange - especially as Martello had briefly been in correspondence with Bill Liddell and also had some contact with John Score, the then editor of the Wiccan!” (Pickingill Papers, Capall Bann Publishing, 1994 E.W. Liddell & MA. Howard)

Then this article goes on to say all those things that I have in the past: That the Magister in English Hereditary covens could initiate BOTH men and women, that nudity was not a requirement etc. But once again the absurd anti-homosexual bigotry is offered under the archaic and disproved idea that male must initiate female, female initiate male, and such Puritan comments like "This disgusting perversion is a flagrant transgression of Natural Law, and negates the Life Force and FERTILITY ASPECT engendered by the God and Goddess." Crap!

Irregardless of the sexual politics of this issue it is always interesting to note the use (and stark absence!) of witch practices (especially those of a sexual nature) as manifested in the modern Wiccan movement. It seems that irregardless of it’s factual basis in fertility cults, this aspect of it seems to get lost quite often in the modern day in favour of “symbolism”, “magical practice” and “Goddess worship”. How homosexual couples can represent the fertile union of the male and female absolutes is beyond me and is perhaps a situation best explained by its champions rather than myself. It is also worth noting here that the main idea of the section being commented on is a query on the nature of male and female roles in power as it applies to these same fertility cult rites – not necessarily modern ideas on sexual gendering. The ideas that are behind such rejection of homosexuality were further elucidated in The Cauldron in 79 (later reprinted in The Pickingill Papers as “Chapter Ten - The Saracen Mystery Schools & the Medieval Witch Cult”).

Strange that those who stress fertility so much seem to be infertile themselves: I'm not aware if Ms. Valiente has ever born any children! Her anti-homosexualism seems to stem from some kind of personal thing (perhaps rejection by a former beau or husband, who knows?) rather than from any philosophical conviction, since she has been described to be as a "Queen Bee" type once surrounded by the "hairdresser set" and married to (or was) Casimir, a tiny Spanish chef who barely reaches up to her bosoms, who claims a familiar named "Hob" who lives in a monkey head carved out of a coconut, and is called Filia Panos (daughter of Pan) by her coven, and who is believed to have only gotten into the Craft and claimed Witchhood after publication of her first book Where Witchcraft Lives. She is knowledgeable (but so much she doesn't know right in her own country) but has her own axe to grind, and her association with John Score has undermined her stature and authenticity. I will have more to say on the Hereditary English covens, the Continentals, George Pickingill, the Radnorshire Witches, the similarities between East Anglian Witches and certain Italian-Sicilian strege, the Crowley contributions to the Gardnerian Book of Shadows, etc., etc., in the next issues of EARTH RELIGION NEWS.

I will not indulge in associated biographies any more than I will delve any further into the ire between Leo and Doreen save to say that this is all quite irrelevant to us as, we might say in finishing - that Bill Liddell does not a good Doreen Valiente make!

Previous Pickingil related Article

Next Pickingill related Article

More Views from Pickingill Mountain ..

Let the refutations begin ...

At the moment Bill is busy on the English Federation boards wrapping up the final bells and whistles he started all those years ago when he agreed to forward letters to certain magazines for his elders.

I have watched the progress of this and often talked with Bill about the latest abuse he has been given cleverly disguised as a thin veneer of pseudo scholarship and concern for alleged "truth". As much as I have longed in some cases to get in amongst this I have to forebear - frankly I wouldn't dream of "horning" in on Bill's fun. Besides as I say it is a job he has to finish himself.

So it is that I will content myself with dealing with some other bits and bobs that have sprung up over the years and this is the first one.

In the article presented on this page:

http://www.geraldgardner.com/archive/ern/Earth_Religion_News.php

which is presented as:

Earth Religion News, (Vol I No. 1, 2 & 3) Copyright 1976 E.R.N.
Publisher/Editor: Herman Slater

we see some information from various Pickingill articles contained in the Pickingill Papers in disarray and the occasional editorial interjection, (one assumes) by Herman. It seems to be something of a catalogue of the most sensational bits.

After this we see some "Replies" and the first is from none other than Mr F.I Regardie. It is worth noting and thinking on. Let us take a look at it.

Dear Sir:

As far as this idiot's statement that Crowley was a Witch and left the Craft because he couldn't work with the women, this is the rankest type of insanity that finds absolutely no justification except in the psychotic mind of some nut.

With very best wishes,
Very Sincerely yours,
F.I Regardie D.C.

Now to begin with, one of the main problems encountered with the alleged rebuttals of the Pickingill corpus over the years is the seeming inability of those commenting on it to actually read and comprehend what is written. This in the face of the fact that almost to an individual they at the same time stress their scholarly bent. How these two co exist so seamlessly in so many is a mystery to me even now.

In this case, one wonders who was the “psychotic mind of some nut” being aimed at! I assume that Mr Regardie meant this as a dismissive insult to the author of the article he was reading. But who was that author? The presented material is a bit of a muddle really!

Does he mean dear ol' Herman whose name graces it? I expect not. Does he mean Bill? I suspect so. Unfortunately if this IS the case, it is wide of the mark. As even the most cursory reading of The Pickingill Papers reveals that “almost a dozen of my Elders from such disparate factions as a cunning lodge, Pickingill covens and Hereditary 'companies' used me as a letter box”(Preface of the Pickingill Papers) ; one can only hope that the sleight was not aimed at Bill for it would have gone well wide! Careful reading of the article in question and the Pickingill Papers makes the list of people being sprayed by this, (surely by now) fairly thin insult is possibly quite long indeed!

Leaving aside the fairly obvious statement that the article in question must have hit a raw nerve with Regardie; this is a very liberal interpretation of what was written. Indeed with careful reading of the article which contains the commented upon issue in question (First published in The Wiccan 40 & 41, November 1974 - Reprinted in Pickingill Papers Chapter One – Gerald Gardner and his detractors) we can see that the only thing being responded to that was actually written was the Crowley was a Witch – and that this in fact is hardly news being stated as early as Gardner’s Witchcraft Today (1970). I can see it stated nowhere that he left because he could not work with the women and the closest we can come to this is what we will find reading King’s book The Great Beast.

The actual quote from Chapter One of the Pickingill Papers is as follows:

Crowley was allegedly expelled from the Craft because he could not convene regularly. I cite John Symond's biography The Great Beast (1973) to corroborate Crowley's peculiar sexual problems: 'As he grew older, he found that any description of torture or blood aroused his feelings tremendously. He even liked to imagine himself in agony and, in particular, degraded by and suffering at the hands of a woman whom he described as 'wicked, independent, courageous, ambitious'. He never outgrew these fantasies of being hurt, and especially being degraded by a woman of a certain type.' (p23).

This does not square with Crowley's public image. One refers to his claim that he was introduced to a coven of witches when a young man, but refused to join because he could not bear to be bossed around by women. (King 1970) This extraordinary statement was prompted by his shame at being expelled. Crowley was a pervert. He enjoyed being 'punished' by the High Priestess of his parent coven and she denounced him as 'a dirty minded, evilly disposed, vicious little monster'. Crafters will consider this an apt summation.

It would seem that this letter is therefore best categorized as seeing “what was desired and not what was written” and this unfortunately happens a lot when we are discussing the audience of the Pickingill Papers and indeed the articles of which it is comprised. It has been said in some places that this is simply splitting hairs but, in the case of this book wherein words were used advisedly and for effect and that in subsequent "Chinese whispers" style review the bits are changed it is important to be accurate. After all "I will go to the shops" and "I will not go to the shops" are only three letters different in print but worlds apart in meaning.

Previous Pickingill related Article

Next Pickingill related Article