POPULAR HISTORY: Occult and Occulation
An Introductory Note - While this particular number of All About History's History Of series does give individual author citations for each section I have chosen not to refer to them in this review. A fair percentage of the problems with each volume are not necessarily the responsibility of the writers, but of the editors and others within the publisher.
Before beginning this review or deconstruction of All About History’s special edition on the Occult there are couple of things which need establishing before we go any further on this crazy train ride. The first is what is meant by the term ‘occult’. We must first consider that to many the term occult is grounded in the historiographical divisions created during the Renaissance. This divided the world into the Ancient world, the Medieval world (this is the poison spring which gives origin to the highly questionable concept of the ‘dark ages’), and the Modern world (divided by subsequent historians into the Early Modern, Modern, and perhaps Postmodern or Digital Ages). The Renaissance theoreticians saw themselves as superior to their medieval predecessors and as is given away in the term Renaissance, believed themselves to be rediscovering lost ancient knowledge. This same historiography trope has a major impact on the history of the Occult - since those who claimed to have studied or practised ‘occult arts’ often have portrayed themselves as rediscovering ancient knowledge of secret things. It is a unfortunate trope and does little to aid serious historical scholarship on belief systems since it often obscures the actual origins of whatever material is being claimed. The term ‘occult’ itself has its origin in the Latin term occultus - meaning ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’ and thus occult is literally the ‘knowledge of secrets’ or the ‘knowledge of things which are hidden’. The idea of ‘occult sciences’ - magic, astrology (and therefore divination), and alchemy appears in the 16th century and is followed by the term occultism in 19th century France. The term ‘esotericism’ also appears in France in this usage - having it’s origins in a Greek word referring to an ‘inner circle’. The boundary between Western Esotericism and Occultism is a matter of etymological and semiotic debate. It is notable that the general theme between these terms is that of secret, hidden things and of being part of a subgroup with knowledge of said things. There are however numerous semantic boundaries within studies of popular belief, popular religion and the overarching history of magic and folklore. It is notable that many strands of occult science at least referring to knowledge and mental ability would become crystalized in a single area of interest often under the co-opted label ‘parapsychology’ (some would argue in order to attempt to gain some form of credibility within academia). Prior to this it was significant to those exploring occult subjects from the point of belief, to present their work as a rediscovery of ancient knowledge, in line with events that had taken place in philosophy, literature and science, and in line with Enlightenment criticism of organised religion.
The second is that, for the purposes of this piece the intention it to explore the work in two contexts - one analysing its internal consistency in terms of chronology, connections and progression of argument, and the second to analyse the evidence either for or against the narrative and ideas put forward. This two pronged approach is based on my experience deconstructing another issue on ‘History of Witchcraft’ where the constant shifting of time periods and repetitions of the same sources and individuals could be seen as an attempt to prevent an analyse any deeper than the shallowest of waters. To negate this affect I aim to show that not only do these documents spread questionable interpretations of history, but that they do so in many cases by focusing on a very limit range of points of evidence repeated ad nauseam, without consistent internal logic, in the hope that as if by osmosis the remaining material will become accurate based on historicity of a limited set of points. It is notable that this work, unlike others I have so far examined does list the individual article authors - however I have chosen not to share their names here.
Let us now turn to the work itself. In common with the work on Witchcraft we are confronted with questionable image choices immediately. The central image is a 19th century figure of Baphomet - a topic to which we will be return in more detail later. What is notable with this figure is that like many 19th century figures of Baphomet shows exposed breasts. Thus it is immediately obvious that in keeping with the Witchcraft issue there will be a degree of monetisation of female anatomy if not in completely female figures. This appears to be something of a theme within All About History publications. In this cover the only female figure has exposed flesh - and is surrounded by images of fully clothed men (including the typical stereotype photograph of Aleister Crowley). What we can affectively conclude from this that All About History’s producers and editors are using this particular angle in order to sell more copies - a questionable practice to say the least.
We open, perhaps predictably in the Ancient world heavily focused on Egypt. Unfortunately, it we see an immediate shift in terminology, and much of what is discussed would not have been considered Occult at the time - being part of the established Egyptian religion. General discussions of Thoth, Horus and other Egyptian deities already contain more than a strong scent of both the occult studies of the late 1800s, but more than a trace of dubious orientalism.
Predictably for any popular history publication examining the Occult, the next section arrives inexorably at the Knights Templar. It is basically as might be expected - throwing out well known and little evidenced theories and legends which have little baring on historical realities. And in the context of modern geopolitics it cannot be underlined to heavily that this is dangerous. Retreading an unsourced condensed version of the history of the Templars, shot through the highly questionable rumours and legends linking the Templars to The Holy Grail, The Shroud of Turin, and the French Revolution (Yes, it actually does this), is to retell a mystery which imbues the legendary aspects of the Templar history with a status above rumour, legend, and fiction, and casts them as potentially real, if perhaps unpopular, historical truths. Given the frequent misuse of crusade rhetoric by fringe political movements, these are areas of history that should be dealt with in a clear, factual way. Blurring the lines between fact and fiction, evidenced history and legend, coupled with an undertone that the Templars were unjustly persecuted or misunderstood - is irresponsible and dangerous, and something I would hope that historical researchers would not embrace, though sadly some have.
Then changing time period again we switch back into the Ancient World with a turn to the Roman and Hellenic worlds in a section titled ‘Haruspicy’.
Naturally this section uses Haruspicy as a general term for the inspection of all animal anatomy as a method of divination. This is perhaps a forgiveable conflation given that the separation in definition between haruspicy, extispicy and hepatoscopy/hepatomancy are largely down to the nature of the animal or the section of remains being observed. What is perhaps notable here is that the ‘hidden thing’ being examine are rather methods of seeing a hidden thing - ‘the future’. So in this case there are two hidden things - the haruspex art and the future which is revealed by it. Again there is a certain blurring here between established religion and its practices, and what might be termed ‘secret arts’. It is however equally worth noting, as this section does not, that a number of gods and goddesses within the Roman and Hellenic pantheon has attached cults who were initiated by various means into secret knowledge. This led some anthropologists of religion to use the term ‘mystery religion’ - usuually using the Mithraism as an example (though Mithraism is in itself modelled after the Persian religion practiced in what is now Iran). It is worth noting a trend here - just as the Witchcraft number conflated witchcraft and heresy into a singular, this number tends to conflate popular religious practice with occult study - in defiance of its own working definition. This appears to be an unfortunate habitual failure of this publication in general.
We then skip forward to what this work called ‘Renaissance Magic’. As expected it is not long before John Dee makes an appearance, along with the third appearance of Hermes Trismegistus - though with no reference to identify the fact that the evidence for the later is contradictory, and it is here presented as being fact whereas the actual historicity of the individual is questionable. What is perhaps absent from this examination of Renaissance magic is the vexed problems of psuedoepigraphia - where the ascribed author may have nothing to do with the text in question. This is a regular absence from the considerations of these All About History volumes - which for example as noted in a previous post, completely failed to note that the connection of Sprenger to an overemphasized text came years after his death. While the section makes much of the blurring of the lines between science, magic and religion, it fails to establish that to individuals such as Dee, the distinction would have been largely meaningless. Furthermore this section also bases its understanding on characterisations of the era which many historians would recognise as being questionable. For example, without being particularly clear of the period the following description is given - ‘For most people life was, by modern European standards, short and uncomfortable. Average life expectancy was 35. Most people dwelt in what we would think of as slum conditions. Disease was rife...’ Even a casual examination of research renders most of these assertions questionable at best, based on misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. It is, however, on these assertions that the narrative then turns to sources of interaction with the supernatural, divided, according to the author between the Church and ‘folk religion’. The description and characterisation is followed by an examination of this ‘folk religion’ which is undermined heavily by the lack of source references. Many of the things categorised under folk religion would not have been viewed as such. The issues are described as ‘confusing’ - when what is actually lacking here is an understanding that people in both the Medieval and Early modern period lived and moved in a complex and nuanced world, which included overlaps between such practices which were not seen as paradoxical to them but which seem confusing to us. Here the issue if not oversimplification, but an absence of engagement and nuance. This is washed over by retreading the known facts about John Dee and others, without giving much consideration to who authored what we know about these men. (Notably the only female images so far have shown at least some degree of nudity, while no male image has to any great degree).
The next section deals with Kabbalah and it is clear from this that the author is viewing this mystical tradition with its origin in Judaism through the lens of more recent Western writing - much of which blurs the line between Kabbalah and other mystical traditions. It would perhaps be wise were the authors and editors to have consulted with an expert in Judaism with the relevant language skills to explain the topic in a clear manner without recourse to the shallowest of explanations of some areas while allowing others to dominate.
We then move to Paracelsus. It opens with the statement that Paracelsus was considered ‘the Luther of Medicine’ which I must admit was a new one to me as I had not heard this description of Paracelsus before. Paracelsus is considered to by many to be the father of toxicology and the originator of the phrase ‘Sola dosis facit venenum’ - often rendered as ‘the dose makes the poison’. However this section primarily covers the rumours regarding Paracelsus alongside a simplistic overview of his life and of his significance to the Rosicrucians - in this sense it is largely appears to be an extended paraphrase of Paracelsus’ current Wikipedia entry.
From here on the sections become increasingly predictable. Horoscopes follow - with less regard to the fact there were multiple traditions regarding this particular form of occult art. Predictably, Nostradamus appears, to be followed by more about John Dee - largely restating things included in previous sections (it is almost as if Dee is to this issue what the Malleus was to the Witchcraft edition. Alchemy follows - making the point that modern scientific methods owe much to the experiments of Alchemists - which given that it is generally accepted that alCHEMy gave birth to a greater knowledge of CHEMistry is not a particularly difficult assertion to defend. The work then attempts to rewrite the Enlightenment - primarily by highlighting the blurring between science, alchemy and ‘magic’.
Via a two page spread on Palmistry which notes it’s south Asian origins, we then arrive at a section on Cunning Women, followed by another section on Witchcraft, which is sadly predictable. As usual there is a fairly standard retread of popular imagination, and details of supposed practices. However largely this section appears primary to exist to cram in numerous imagines of naked and semi-naked women taken from Early Modern and more recent depictions of witches. It appears the tendency to use witchcraft as an excuse for displaying the naked female figure has survived from early modern art into modern ‘popular history’ magazine publishing.
We return again to Rosicrucianism, and then move forward to two linked sections on Louisiana Voodoo. Personally I do not feel qualified to judge the accuracy of this particular section - particularly since ‘Voodoo’ is a complex syncretic phenomenon taking elements from Western African and other religions along with Catholicism. It should be noted however that the tone seems particularly skewed towards a questionable position.
We then move, via Elphas Levi, to a section on mystics - where we have this issues equivalent of the ‘You might be a witch if’ section of the Witchcraft Issue. Set out in the style of the game Operation! is an image of Gregori Rasputin, with each of his killers given a short profile.
The description of Rasputin’s career is shorn of nuance and the context of Imperial Russia at the time. And just as with the Witchcraft issue, little consideration is given to the fact we are talking about the brutal murder of a human being. The title itself is uses the ‘Mad Monk’ label which more or less says everything about the section itself. It is also notable that this piece, in a number of places, uses the trope of the ‘Evil Soviet Empire’.
The work devotes it’s longest single section to a sensationalised account of the life of Aleister Crowley, which while it attempts to provide context for the various controversies of his life, largely retreads common perceptions. There is some consideration given to events in Crowley’s life which may have influenced him - though notably it appears the deaths of several of his climbing companions are glossed over. What we see instead is the same sensationalism shown in the Witchcraft edition.
After another two page exploration of seances we arrive at the second longest single section - titled ‘Hitler and the Occult’. Despite the title the section does at least make the point that Hitler himself had little connection with the occult fringes of the Germany far right of the time and that to Hitler the supernatural was an element of his own performance. This section may contain at least the most unbiased assessments though sensationalised in some areas out of all recognition. This seems to reflect a generalised reality of popular history where it has been said only two things sell - ‘local history and Nazis - the more lurid the better’. The tone of this section is in places reminiscent of the blur of the early Wolfenstein games, or the Nazisploitation films of the late 20th century. However, as with the Witchcraft Issue, this work does occasionally by the sheer law of averages hit accuracy. It concludes with an assessment of the beginnings of Wicca and some of the more modern iterations of same before concluding with a timeline highlighting much of what has gone before.
There are three major problems with this work. Firstly it fails to acknowledge that it is in effect engaging in retrojecting modern concepts of the occult on to past societies and enforcing divisions which those living at the time would not have recognised. The difference between science and alchemy, between astrology and astronomy, was not a hard dividing line. It appears to be the belief of the editors at least that complexity and nuance are not welcome in popular history.
Secondly there is the distinct gendered nature of representations. Those sections covering any female involvement in the occult is accompanied by a ‘historical’ image of a naked or semi-naked woman. It is predictable and frustrating that this is the only occasion such considerations are given. Little thought is given to how historic misogyny played into the imagery of the witch and the cunning woman. It is notable that in the Middle Ages learned women were not an endangered species. I am reminded of a section on the Now Show, satirising a then recent controversy, presented a short sketch on when nudity was acceptable and it was noted that ‘Middle-class arty boobs’ were always acceptable. And it notable that these images are treated in a completely different way. The double standard, never believed dead, is most certainly alive and well.
The final problem is one which of the historiography contained with in this volume and it is here that the title of this post becomes relevant. Occultation is a phenomenon in optics where an object becomes obscured and hidden by another object. An eclipse is an example of this. Here the object hidden is the actual history, and the object causing the disappearance or blurring of the history, is the absence of a clear consistent definition of what is being discussed. In the absence of a clear, nuanced definition of the occult the work becomes caught up in a confusion of definitions and tone. Given that each section has a different author this is perhaps not surprising however a better briefing of the writing team at the beginning, and closer editing the end, could have avoided this problem. Instead some sections describe practices which would not have been considered occult at the time, without any reference to this fact. Furthermore the issue devoted its longest sections often to the most thinly evidenced or over emphasized area of the topic. In studying the Occult we need to arrive at functional definitions and apply them consistently. Given the consistency with which this publication can present an inappropriate representation of murdered or executed people, or find excuses to display artistic images of naked women, this is perhaps a little surprising. Some might say that this is ‘popular history’ not ‘academic discourse’ however this is a poor excuse for the issues presented here. One of the most essential requirements of historical discourse is evidence and the analysis of evidence - some which these publications seem to often feel is a barrier to their discourse, rather than a foundation. Furthermore the sensationalism of these publications can be dangerous. The under tones of superiority in some sections, the underlying but vert apparent misogyny and its general refusal to explore anything more than those areas convenient with dominant ideologies, while sensationalising the subject matter, is both worrying, concerning, and frankly, dangerous.
Before beginning this review or deconstruction of All About History’s special edition on the Occult there are couple of things which need establishing before we go any further on this crazy train ride. The first is what is meant by the term ‘occult’. We must first consider that to many the term occult is grounded in the historiographical divisions created during the Renaissance. This divided the world into the Ancient world, the Medieval world (this is the poison spring which gives origin to the highly questionable concept of the ‘dark ages’), and the Modern world (divided by subsequent historians into the Early Modern, Modern, and perhaps Postmodern or Digital Ages). The Renaissance theoreticians saw themselves as superior to their medieval predecessors and as is given away in the term Renaissance, believed themselves to be rediscovering lost ancient knowledge. This same historiography trope has a major impact on the history of the Occult - since those who claimed to have studied or practised ‘occult arts’ often have portrayed themselves as rediscovering ancient knowledge of secret things. It is a unfortunate trope and does little to aid serious historical scholarship on belief systems since it often obscures the actual origins of whatever material is being claimed. The term ‘occult’ itself has its origin in the Latin term occultus - meaning ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’ and thus occult is literally the ‘knowledge of secrets’ or the ‘knowledge of things which are hidden’. The idea of ‘occult sciences’ - magic, astrology (and therefore divination), and alchemy appears in the 16th century and is followed by the term occultism in 19th century France. The term ‘esotericism’ also appears in France in this usage - having it’s origins in a Greek word referring to an ‘inner circle’. The boundary between Western Esotericism and Occultism is a matter of etymological and semiotic debate. It is notable that the general theme between these terms is that of secret, hidden things and of being part of a subgroup with knowledge of said things. There are however numerous semantic boundaries within studies of popular belief, popular religion and the overarching history of magic and folklore. It is notable that many strands of occult science at least referring to knowledge and mental ability would become crystalized in a single area of interest often under the co-opted label ‘parapsychology’ (some would argue in order to attempt to gain some form of credibility within academia). Prior to this it was significant to those exploring occult subjects from the point of belief, to present their work as a rediscovery of ancient knowledge, in line with events that had taken place in philosophy, literature and science, and in line with Enlightenment criticism of organised religion.
The second is that, for the purposes of this piece the intention it to explore the work in two contexts - one analysing its internal consistency in terms of chronology, connections and progression of argument, and the second to analyse the evidence either for or against the narrative and ideas put forward. This two pronged approach is based on my experience deconstructing another issue on ‘History of Witchcraft’ where the constant shifting of time periods and repetitions of the same sources and individuals could be seen as an attempt to prevent an analyse any deeper than the shallowest of waters. To negate this affect I aim to show that not only do these documents spread questionable interpretations of history, but that they do so in many cases by focusing on a very limit range of points of evidence repeated ad nauseam, without consistent internal logic, in the hope that as if by osmosis the remaining material will become accurate based on historicity of a limited set of points. It is notable that this work, unlike others I have so far examined does list the individual article authors - however I have chosen not to share their names here.
Let us now turn to the work itself. In common with the work on Witchcraft we are confronted with questionable image choices immediately. The central image is a 19th century figure of Baphomet - a topic to which we will be return in more detail later. What is notable with this figure is that like many 19th century figures of Baphomet shows exposed breasts. Thus it is immediately obvious that in keeping with the Witchcraft issue there will be a degree of monetisation of female anatomy if not in completely female figures. This appears to be something of a theme within All About History publications. In this cover the only female figure has exposed flesh - and is surrounded by images of fully clothed men (including the typical stereotype photograph of Aleister Crowley). What we can affectively conclude from this that All About History’s producers and editors are using this particular angle in order to sell more copies - a questionable practice to say the least.
We open, perhaps predictably in the Ancient world heavily focused on Egypt. Unfortunately, it we see an immediate shift in terminology, and much of what is discussed would not have been considered Occult at the time - being part of the established Egyptian religion. General discussions of Thoth, Horus and other Egyptian deities already contain more than a strong scent of both the occult studies of the late 1800s, but more than a trace of dubious orientalism.
Predictably for any popular history publication examining the Occult, the next section arrives inexorably at the Knights Templar. It is basically as might be expected - throwing out well known and little evidenced theories and legends which have little baring on historical realities. And in the context of modern geopolitics it cannot be underlined to heavily that this is dangerous. Retreading an unsourced condensed version of the history of the Templars, shot through the highly questionable rumours and legends linking the Templars to The Holy Grail, The Shroud of Turin, and the French Revolution (Yes, it actually does this), is to retell a mystery which imbues the legendary aspects of the Templar history with a status above rumour, legend, and fiction, and casts them as potentially real, if perhaps unpopular, historical truths. Given the frequent misuse of crusade rhetoric by fringe political movements, these are areas of history that should be dealt with in a clear, factual way. Blurring the lines between fact and fiction, evidenced history and legend, coupled with an undertone that the Templars were unjustly persecuted or misunderstood - is irresponsible and dangerous, and something I would hope that historical researchers would not embrace, though sadly some have.
Then changing time period again we switch back into the Ancient World with a turn to the Roman and Hellenic worlds in a section titled ‘Haruspicy’.
We then skip forward to what this work called ‘Renaissance Magic’. As expected it is not long before John Dee makes an appearance, along with the third appearance of Hermes Trismegistus - though with no reference to identify the fact that the evidence for the later is contradictory, and it is here presented as being fact whereas the actual historicity of the individual is questionable. What is perhaps absent from this examination of Renaissance magic is the vexed problems of psuedoepigraphia - where the ascribed author may have nothing to do with the text in question. This is a regular absence from the considerations of these All About History volumes - which for example as noted in a previous post, completely failed to note that the connection of Sprenger to an overemphasized text came years after his death. While the section makes much of the blurring of the lines between science, magic and religion, it fails to establish that to individuals such as Dee, the distinction would have been largely meaningless. Furthermore this section also bases its understanding on characterisations of the era which many historians would recognise as being questionable. For example, without being particularly clear of the period the following description is given - ‘For most people life was, by modern European standards, short and uncomfortable. Average life expectancy was 35. Most people dwelt in what we would think of as slum conditions. Disease was rife...’ Even a casual examination of research renders most of these assertions questionable at best, based on misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. It is, however, on these assertions that the narrative then turns to sources of interaction with the supernatural, divided, according to the author between the Church and ‘folk religion’. The description and characterisation is followed by an examination of this ‘folk religion’ which is undermined heavily by the lack of source references. Many of the things categorised under folk religion would not have been viewed as such. The issues are described as ‘confusing’ - when what is actually lacking here is an understanding that people in both the Medieval and Early modern period lived and moved in a complex and nuanced world, which included overlaps between such practices which were not seen as paradoxical to them but which seem confusing to us. Here the issue if not oversimplification, but an absence of engagement and nuance. This is washed over by retreading the known facts about John Dee and others, without giving much consideration to who authored what we know about these men. (Notably the only female images so far have shown at least some degree of nudity, while no male image has to any great degree).
The next section deals with Kabbalah and it is clear from this that the author is viewing this mystical tradition with its origin in Judaism through the lens of more recent Western writing - much of which blurs the line between Kabbalah and other mystical traditions. It would perhaps be wise were the authors and editors to have consulted with an expert in Judaism with the relevant language skills to explain the topic in a clear manner without recourse to the shallowest of explanations of some areas while allowing others to dominate.
We then move to Paracelsus. It opens with the statement that Paracelsus was considered ‘the Luther of Medicine’ which I must admit was a new one to me as I had not heard this description of Paracelsus before. Paracelsus is considered to by many to be the father of toxicology and the originator of the phrase ‘Sola dosis facit venenum’ - often rendered as ‘the dose makes the poison’. However this section primarily covers the rumours regarding Paracelsus alongside a simplistic overview of his life and of his significance to the Rosicrucians - in this sense it is largely appears to be an extended paraphrase of Paracelsus’ current Wikipedia entry.
From here on the sections become increasingly predictable. Horoscopes follow - with less regard to the fact there were multiple traditions regarding this particular form of occult art. Predictably, Nostradamus appears, to be followed by more about John Dee - largely restating things included in previous sections (it is almost as if Dee is to this issue what the Malleus was to the Witchcraft edition. Alchemy follows - making the point that modern scientific methods owe much to the experiments of Alchemists - which given that it is generally accepted that alCHEMy gave birth to a greater knowledge of CHEMistry is not a particularly difficult assertion to defend. The work then attempts to rewrite the Enlightenment - primarily by highlighting the blurring between science, alchemy and ‘magic’.
Via a two page spread on Palmistry which notes it’s south Asian origins, we then arrive at a section on Cunning Women, followed by another section on Witchcraft, which is sadly predictable. As usual there is a fairly standard retread of popular imagination, and details of supposed practices. However largely this section appears primary to exist to cram in numerous imagines of naked and semi-naked women taken from Early Modern and more recent depictions of witches. It appears the tendency to use witchcraft as an excuse for displaying the naked female figure has survived from early modern art into modern ‘popular history’ magazine publishing.
We return again to Rosicrucianism, and then move forward to two linked sections on Louisiana Voodoo. Personally I do not feel qualified to judge the accuracy of this particular section - particularly since ‘Voodoo’ is a complex syncretic phenomenon taking elements from Western African and other religions along with Catholicism. It should be noted however that the tone seems particularly skewed towards a questionable position.
We then move, via Elphas Levi, to a section on mystics - where we have this issues equivalent of the ‘You might be a witch if’ section of the Witchcraft Issue. Set out in the style of the game Operation! is an image of Gregori Rasputin, with each of his killers given a short profile.
The work devotes it’s longest single section to a sensationalised account of the life of Aleister Crowley, which while it attempts to provide context for the various controversies of his life, largely retreads common perceptions. There is some consideration given to events in Crowley’s life which may have influenced him - though notably it appears the deaths of several of his climbing companions are glossed over. What we see instead is the same sensationalism shown in the Witchcraft edition.
After another two page exploration of seances we arrive at the second longest single section - titled ‘Hitler and the Occult’. Despite the title the section does at least make the point that Hitler himself had little connection with the occult fringes of the Germany far right of the time and that to Hitler the supernatural was an element of his own performance. This section may contain at least the most unbiased assessments though sensationalised in some areas out of all recognition. This seems to reflect a generalised reality of popular history where it has been said only two things sell - ‘local history and Nazis - the more lurid the better’. The tone of this section is in places reminiscent of the blur of the early Wolfenstein games, or the Nazisploitation films of the late 20th century. However, as with the Witchcraft Issue, this work does occasionally by the sheer law of averages hit accuracy. It concludes with an assessment of the beginnings of Wicca and some of the more modern iterations of same before concluding with a timeline highlighting much of what has gone before.
There are three major problems with this work. Firstly it fails to acknowledge that it is in effect engaging in retrojecting modern concepts of the occult on to past societies and enforcing divisions which those living at the time would not have recognised. The difference between science and alchemy, between astrology and astronomy, was not a hard dividing line. It appears to be the belief of the editors at least that complexity and nuance are not welcome in popular history.
Secondly there is the distinct gendered nature of representations. Those sections covering any female involvement in the occult is accompanied by a ‘historical’ image of a naked or semi-naked woman. It is predictable and frustrating that this is the only occasion such considerations are given. Little thought is given to how historic misogyny played into the imagery of the witch and the cunning woman. It is notable that in the Middle Ages learned women were not an endangered species. I am reminded of a section on the Now Show, satirising a then recent controversy, presented a short sketch on when nudity was acceptable and it was noted that ‘Middle-class arty boobs’ were always acceptable. And it notable that these images are treated in a completely different way. The double standard, never believed dead, is most certainly alive and well.
The final problem is one which of the historiography contained with in this volume and it is here that the title of this post becomes relevant. Occultation is a phenomenon in optics where an object becomes obscured and hidden by another object. An eclipse is an example of this. Here the object hidden is the actual history, and the object causing the disappearance or blurring of the history, is the absence of a clear consistent definition of what is being discussed. In the absence of a clear, nuanced definition of the occult the work becomes caught up in a confusion of definitions and tone. Given that each section has a different author this is perhaps not surprising however a better briefing of the writing team at the beginning, and closer editing the end, could have avoided this problem. Instead some sections describe practices which would not have been considered occult at the time, without any reference to this fact. Furthermore the issue devoted its longest sections often to the most thinly evidenced or over emphasized area of the topic. In studying the Occult we need to arrive at functional definitions and apply them consistently. Given the consistency with which this publication can present an inappropriate representation of murdered or executed people, or find excuses to display artistic images of naked women, this is perhaps a little surprising. Some might say that this is ‘popular history’ not ‘academic discourse’ however this is a poor excuse for the issues presented here. One of the most essential requirements of historical discourse is evidence and the analysis of evidence - some which these publications seem to often feel is a barrier to their discourse, rather than a foundation. Furthermore the sensationalism of these publications can be dangerous. The under tones of superiority in some sections, the underlying but vert apparent misogyny and its general refusal to explore anything more than those areas convenient with dominant ideologies, while sensationalising the subject matter, is both worrying, concerning, and frankly, dangerous.
Comments
Post a Comment