Grimassi, Raven. (2011) Old World Witchcraft. Weiser, San Francisco.
Raven Grimassi’s name crops up in discussions of southern European witchcraft frequently. He has produced a number of books on stregheria, the Italian folk-magic/religion which may or may not have been a major influence on authors like Charles Leland in the 19th century. He also presents a lot of information on Wicca and other neo-Pagan topics to the public through his work. His latest outing, entitled Old World Witchcraft: Ancient Ways for Modern Days, gives readers Grimassi’s system for working herbal shamanic practices into the fabric of his Italian folk religion. If that were all this book did, it would be a spare but somewhat enjoyable look at one man’s practices.
Instead, Grimassi spends the first portion of his book building up a series of arguments against “scholars,” whom he generally does not name or cite claiming that they’ve had it all wrong, and that he has pieced together historical threads to form a tradition similar—though not identical—to the kind of witchcraft done through the centuries by other herbal shamans (who may or may not have called themselves witches). He then proceeds to present a novel form of practice which leans heavily on ritual tools like the mortar and pestle and on plant spirits. Again, not in and of itself a bad thought experiment, but Grimassi certainly goes out of his way to make this seem like the only logical practiced that can be gleaned from historical evidence.
He engages in a number of pseudo-historical fantasies, claiming that no complete history of witchcraft exists because scholars rely almost solely on witch trial evidence to say what witches do or did in the past. He does occasionally name these scholars—Owen Davies being the most notable—but seems to gloss over their arguments and evidence (Davies would hardly suggest that witch trial evidence is a good source of reliable facts, nor would other scholars like Norman Cohn or Keith Thomas who remain unnamed in Grimassi’s text). He also mis-cites or outright fails to cite a number of his sources. For example, he claims early in the book that God limits human lifespans after the “sons of God” mate with mortal women, citing Genesis 5 to support his point. In fact, the passage he is citing appears in the next chapter of Genesis (which he later cites correctly, so this is likely just a failure to proofread on his part). He also quotes from scholar Ronald Hutton at one point, then completely fails to cite Hutton in the bibliography. His endnotes are a joke, often rambling or unrelated to the text at hand, and when he cannot find enough evidence to support his viewpoint, he jams his opinion into an appendix with only the loosest connection to the rest of the book (I’m thinking here of his odd “Appendix A: The Invisible God of Witchcraft” which could have easily been left out of this book without detracting from his points).
Perhaps the most aggravating element of this book for a practical magician are his bizarre claims about tools and ingredients. He says that graveyard dust should not actually be dirt taken from a grave (a practice which can be found in several cultures, such as African American conjure work) but rather it should be the powdered ashes of leaves taken from a tree in a graveyard, which seems to have no basis in historical practice whatsoever. He also tells witches that they should learn to work with poisonous plants not by growing monkshood or belladonna, but by using his sigils to get in touch with the plant’s spirit. I’d be very interested to hear from practical herbal shamans like Sarah Lawless or Harry at The Alchemist’s Garden just what they think of that notion.
All in all, this is a book which suffers from broken clock syndrome (as in, “a broken clock is right twice a day”). He occasionally hits on interesting ideas or brings up worthwhile concepts, but mostly he seems to be posing an elaborate fantasy as a pseudo-historical reality, with very little scholarly backbone to support his claims. When someone prods the gear works, the whole contraption just seems to fall apart. [Full Disclosure Note: I received this book for free as a prize in a contest. I have not been paid or otherwise coerced by the publisher to write this review. No good or bad review was expected by the publisher, and an honest review has been given by the reviewer.]
Filed under: Books - Non Fiction Tagged: | european witchcraft, folklore, herbalism, magical herbalism, mythology, Neo-Paganism, Neopagan, neopaganism, old world witchcraft, Paganism, raven grimassi, Shamanism, stregheria, Wicca, Wicca 101
Having discussed (yelled about) this book with many people, including the author of this review, I must say that this review hit the nail square on the head. The book does have good qualities and may even be a “nice” starting place for someone (many?) but more than once I literally threw this book to the ground. A must have for fans of Grimassi, but this book did not make me one.
“He says that graveyard dust should not actually be dirt taken from a grave (a practice which can be found in several cultures, such as African American conjure work) but rather it should be the powdered ashes of leaves taken from a tree in a graveyard, which seems to have no basis in historical practice whatsoever. ”
I was shaking my head at this crap. Back that up please…in fact please back up anything in the book. You can’t just say something and it’s true for the General Public. If that is how you practice then I am 100% behind you. I may find it “wrong” for me, and in direct conflict with history, but if it works for you…Boss & Bully! To write a book for others to (I can only assume) make use of in their path and not back up some of this with any explanation…it’s a slippery slope. A rolled up newspaper is a magic wand, use Peach Snapple for Peace Water, etc…that may work for you (and heck yeah if it does) but do not instruct readers to do this without context that allows them to decide for themselves if it sounds like a “sound” idea. Some readers have a need to follow an author to a perfect “T” never changing anything…I know I once did.
My rant is over…oh no wait, it’s not:
“He also tells witches that they should learn to work with poisonous plants not by growing monkshood or belladonna, but by using his sigils to get in touch with the plant’s spirit. I’d be very interested to hear from practical herbal shamans like Sarah Lawless or Harry at The Alchemist’s Garden just what they think of that notion.”
You are actually giving him credit by forcing this section of the book into a sentence of review. It is all over the road, seemingly contradictive (of HIMSELF in the SAME BOOK) and sloppy. I have all the faith in the world that people can and do use sigils for some powerful stuff, but I personally think the actual herb is a different beast altogether. I COULD use a sigil for Frankincense to call on his protective and cleaning powers, but I would rather use the actual resin itself. I believe he suggests that Mandrake is Poisonous so you should not work with it directly in any form. I believe that Mandrake root is more powerful than a Mandrake Root Sigil…even if you have spent years talking with and working with Mandrake the sigil is still a representation of the root….WHICH HE SAYS ALL GOOD WITCHES SHOULD HAVE…??? Fat steeped with a Mandrake Root Sigil will not help you “fly” and you would have to be very adept at sigil magic to channel the life of the Mandrake to you.
Again, this is all just what I believe. I have been swayed in the past with good, strong argument…and drink!
Wow, off the dome rant. Some books hit a nerve that gives pleasure. This one did not do that. LOL
[...] buy this book. I’m not even bothering providing a link to it. I’ve done a full review at Pagan Bookworm, but let me just say this text is badly researched, mis-cites or fails to cite sources, argues with [...]
Ummm…are your sure you didn’t read the comic book version? I ask because your comments don’t match the Weiser book. This book is a compelling argument for rethinking the history of witchcraft (both the academic and the Neo-Pagan ones). It also presents an incredible system of magic and spell crafting through plants and their spirits.
It appears you want to force the book to conform to an academic text when it’s not written for that genre, and then you judge it as failing academic standards. You also seem to be side-stepping the value of the book regarding its practical value by cherry-picking isolated bits in an attempt to discredit the overall material. Hmmm….wonder why that is?
It appears that the “review” of this book arises from skim reading the work, as many of the complaints are actually addressed in the book to the degree that misinterpretations such as those in the review are easily resolved.
I think that some corrections are necessary related to the misinformation appearing in the review. First, the book is not about Grimassi’s Italian system at all. He clearly indicates that he’s talking about the Ash, Birch, and Willow tradition (which is non-cultural). Grimassi has over 14 books in print, but only two of them are on the Italian system.
The reviewer states that such scholars as Norman Cohn are “unnamed” in the book, which is entirely untrue. Grimassi refers to Cohn in several places. Cohn and other scholars are referenced in chapter Two. The notes attached to this chapter cite many scholars including Cohn.
As to working with sigils over actual plants, Grimassi makes it clear that he does so because he doesn’t want inexperienced people working with poisonous plants. Nowhere does Grimassi state that sigils are a superior way, he only states they are the safest method. This strikes me as the author being responsible instead of unaware of the importance of using actual plants.
Overall this review seems as misguiding as does the reviewer accusations against Grimassi. The whole review sounds like sour grapes from someone predisposed to dislike this author but bearing little to accurately substantiate anything.
I thought the reviewer gave a pretty good balance of the good and bad of this title. No one book is everyone’s cup of tea after all and reviews are meant to be criticisms and not necessarily adorations. For those who love Grimassi, then a book by him on plants in witchcraft is for them, but for those to whom Grimassi isn’t to taste, there’s always the works of Dale Pendell, Daniel Schulke, or Christian Ratsch in the same vein.
Sarah, I’d agree with you except for the fact that the reviewer makes statements about the book that simply aren’t true. I pointed out a couple of those false statements in my previous post. How statements that are untrue provide “a pretty good balance of the good and bad of this title” escapes me. But that aside, yes, not every author has universal appeal. If Amazon.com is any measure, the book seems well received (except for one nasty “review” by a Christian.
After meeting the author, and reading two of his books, I would never waste my money on his work again. I grow and sell herbs at local festivals. He had the absolutely GALL to argue with me that a plant I grew FROM SEED and had for sale was not in fact Dill but Anise! I found him an arrogant boor.
Well, Gaia IvoryWitch, what you’re saying doesn’t have anything to do with the book here that is the subject of the review. Seems like you got your feelings hurt because someone disagreed with you or misidentified a plant. Really? That doesn’t strike me as a major crime worthy of continued ill feelings. Sounds like a bitter dill situation you’re holding on to.
.
I’m late to the party, but I agree with this review. I’m glad some one else noticed the deeply flawed scholarly work here. I know it’s not a book aimed at scholars, but the entire first half is engaging with the scholarly tradition and he’s not capable of the task he set for himself. While I might not be interested in his Ash, Birch and Willow system, I have no real problem with him creating a system that works for him. But this book isn’t what it promises to be.
If anyone is interested, I posted a review on my own blog on December 2:
http://myownashram.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/book-reviews/