Talk:George Pickingill

Recent edits modified
This article has has been edited to remove the assertion that Pickingill was in fact a cunning man, replacing it with noting the 'claim' which "has been doubted". I have returned the strong claim which is backed up by Hutton on "Triumph of the Moon" and is not under serious dispute. "Has been doubted" is classic weasel words. Doubted by whom? Certainly not by the foremost scholar currently working in the field, Hutton, who did first-hand research in Canewdon and talked to Maple's sources.

The article does need further work; the main new source being the amateur historian William Wallworth's primary researches through birth deaths and marriage records and the like. Wallworth has shown that it is not entirely true that Pickingill "lived and worked in Canewdon" for example; he was married in Gravesend where there was quite a colony from the environs of Canewdon (ie Rochford County). There is also no mention of Pickingill's connection with white mouse magic; a distinctive feature of East Anglian cunning folk (compare Jabez Few). So the article needs further work on Pickingill's intrinsic interest; it is still too dominated by the Liddell dispute. Granny Garner who was Maple's main source for example should be mentioned. Although when mentioning Liddell his claims should be dealt with fairly; for example it is no part of his claims that Murray's "witch-cult" existed....so I will be back here. Jeremy (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good call with those edits, Jeremy. Great to see someone else taking an interest in this page. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made quite a few further modifications and additions. In these I make clear the argument – now articulated by two separate individuals – that the "Pickingill as cunning-man" story was a hoax created by a number of locals to fool Eric Maple; however, I then outline Hutton's recent criticism of that same position. Thus, I hope that we now have a fair assessment of this particular issue. I should stress, however, that I see this article as a work in progress at present, and any suggestions that you have on improving it would be greatly appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just returning to editing after being distracted for a while. I think some issues have to be addressed. Why are Webster and Ward regarded as usable sources? I'm not saying they are not, I'm just saying it is worth asking. Webster isn't even sourced directly here but through Howard. Quotes would be helpful. The article implies that there is something odd about Pickingill's reputation not appearing in print until Maple's articles which is certainly not the case. Even  cursory research into 19th century trad witchcraft will show there is nothing odd about that.  It is certainly true that stories about Pickingill are similar to stories about other cunning folk. More rather than less stress could be placed on that. Reputed witches wizards and cunning folk were prevalent in the area, and some context would be valuable; Fanny Bird, Bill Spearman etc; and the context of white mouse magic which Maple discusses in Folklore, compare 20th century Jabez Few and his white rats. Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) A large part of Enid Porter's book on Cambridgeshire folkore, including stuff about Jabez Few and others of relevance is no longer accessible. Nuts! Anyway  I will get back to this.....Jeremy (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Jeremy. In your absence I have greatly expanded this article, successfully taken it through GAN, obtained a peer review, and then (un)successfully submitted it to FAC (where the main problem preventing its promotion surrounded the reliability of Wallworth; I'm hoping that in future an academic cites Wallworth's work, thus validating its utility as a reliable source). Regarding Ward, I think that he represents a reliable source because he has been published in The Cauldron (not a peer-reviewed journal, granted, but still a published source), and (perhaps more importantly) because Ronald Hutton has acknowledged Ward's ideas to such an extent that he has publicly responded to them. Regarding Webster, I think that she might be a little less "reliable", but the fact that she is cited in two separate sources testifies to her ultimate reliability for our purposes (on a side note, I believe that she passed on her views to Howard first hand rather than publishing her ideas).
 * As for your statement that "The article implies that there is something odd about Pickingill's reputation not appearing in print until Maple's articles which is certainly not the case", I can see where you are coming from but we should reflect the fact that various writers have thought that there is something odd about the lack of textual sources that can attest to Pickingill's magical activities (compare the lack of textual verification regarding Pickingill's magical activities with the range of contemporary 19th century sources for James Murrell, for instance). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Midnightblueowl, if I had been less rushed I would have taken the time to recognize the fine work you have done on the article. And should have anyway. Did you know Bill Wallworth has also been published in The Cauldron? I think the issue of academic worship will have to be taken on at some stage. Why, Hutton himself has been moved to criticise it. Cunning Murrell was certainly a significant fellow but the main reason for his notoriety is that popular novelist Arthur Morrison liked to holiday in Rochford, and thus heard of him, and chose to write a novel about him, and an article for the Strand magazine.(Which Hutton  would have benefitted from reading, incidentally, before writing TOTM) During his lifetime I believe  there was one (1) mention of him as a cunning man by name as in a newspaper,  concerning his part in the Mrs Mole business. Bill Wallworth found another reference apparently about him where his  name wasn't mentioned. Generally cunning folk don't get mentioned by name in the popular press of the time, still less witches ad wizards. Mainly they turn up, when they do, in the police reports. Due to the wonders of the internet I have been able to do some OR into the subject, not nearly as much as Bill to be sure, and it does get frustrating not being able to use it. There are mistakes and gaps in the academic literature, naturally. Hutton for example doesn't even mentioning the clear link between witchcraft and the Romany, except in the context of Liddell's claims about Pickingill, with the implication that there is something suspect or unusual about the claim of a Romany connection  which there is not.Just for example, Alexander Sanders' grandmother who Hutton describes as a cunning woman was and Sanders described as his initiatrix was "Mrs Bibby" and Bibby is a Romany name. Examples can be multiplied. The Pickingill story of the two workmen from Dengie is a version of an earlier story about Elizabeth Fyson the "celebrated witch of Holme Hale" who deserves either an article of her own or an honourable mention in an overview. The link between witchcraft and prostitution is I think rather clearly there but not yet so to speak fleshed out. No-one academic has noted the clear connection between reputed witches and the Church of England, especially high church i think. Betty Wells a reputed witch actually  read the lesson in church, Pickingill's father was a sexton, numbers of reputed witches were protected by their local vicars including Elizabeth Cooper who appears in a Folklore article as "Mrs Smith". The killing of Dummy is often cited as the last time a witch was swum in England, if you read the contemporary report you will see that he wasn't swum at all. He was put in running water to break his power, quite a different thing. A small point you may think but indicative of the fact that even academics may read primary sources less than they should. Anyway, this stuff, and more, while largely unusable at present because of the OR rule is  a bit of  a foretaste of what will appear in authoritative sources over the next few years. Have you seen all the stuff on Monica English and the fascist Andrew Fountaine that Bill W has dug up?Jeremy (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2015 http://www.pickingill.com/ ....this is Liddell's "Defence of the Pickingill Papers" page and should be available to editors. Jeremy (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the issues that you point out do testify to how little research has actually been carried out into the folk magic practices and beliefs surrounding witchcraft that existed in nineteenth and early twentieth-century Britain. Of course, quite a bit has been done on the Early Modern witch trials since the 1960s and 1970s, and Ronald Hutton has led the way in the study of twentieth-century Pagan witchcraft, yet the world of British folk magic has really not seen anywhere near as much attention: there's the wonderful work of Owen Davies of course, as well as a few bits by Hutton and by Jason Semmens, but very little that has gone beyond that. Hopefully this is an area that will see further academic enquiry in the coming decades and that that will allow the Wikipedia articles on these subjects to be fleshed out accordingly. Until then, we can but wait, sadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Too based on Liddell's claims
OK, let me be the spoilsport. This page is an account of the Pickingill legend as promoted by Bill Liddell without much support. George Pickingill existed and was a cunning man, so much is clear. However all the stuff about the nine covens etc is unverified and very contested. See Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon for an analysis. See also History of Wicca. Jeremy (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start at setting up a fair article. It should recorded that one of Pickingill's sisters married a man called "Wells", given that a mysterious George Wells is supposed to have stood witness to some of Liddel's claims. See the Defense of Pickingill Papers......also  I think some of Liddell's other comments from the Defense, which I have not yet included should be included. Jeremy (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I've sorted this issue out. This article now is based far more upon folklorist Eric Maple's more accurate claims.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

General remarks
The continual references in the first part to Pickingill using different spellings of his name and inflating his age are I think misleading or possibly so. These variations are very common in records of the lower orders, they don't necessarily imply an attempt to mislead, especially variations of the name. So I think the wording should be more neutral. Pickingill signed with a mark, this does not mean he couldn't read (before universal education it was common enough to be able to read without being able to write)but it does mean that variations of the spelling of his name were not likely to be his idea. Ditto his wife. (And I would guess that he didn't give the name "Frederick" to the reporter, who remarked how youthful he seemed. I think it is more likely that the reporter spoke to Pickingill's eldest son! Reporters.)

A couple of issues which I'm not sure how to address but which I think should be kept in mind by anyone interested in this article. The material on Pickingill clearly situates him in two contexts quite separate from Cunning Murrell. He is associated in Maple's article with white mouse magic which clearly puts him on the "witch or wizard" side of the fence dividing witches from "quack doctor" cunning men like Murrell. Maple's articles mention the importance of the white mouse but Hutton doesn't really pick it up. Sometimes it is hard to tell from accounts whether we are talking about flesh and blood mice (or rats) or supernatural creatures but we have the case of the Romany wizard Jabez Few from Cambridgeshire (died in the 1920s) whose white rats were definitely flesh and blood. They seem to have been important, a witch or wizard passed on their power when they died by passing them on, they get mentioned in the records when the nominated successor doesn't want them! Another context which Pickingill seems to have belonged to is the Society of Horsemen, some of the powers atrributed to him are Horseman's Word powers. Again a very separate thing from cunning men such as Murrell. While the Horsemen are known to have existed in an organised form in Scotland their possible organized existence further south is shadowy. But that horseman's word type magic was practiced in East Anglia is very well known, I think the records show it more clearly in Norfolk than in Essex....and the tradition that Pickingill had Norfolk kin may (or admittedly may not) have something to do with that.

Another matter is Pickingill's residence and marriage in Gravesend. Gravesend was a cosmopolitan port and recreational area, with a high Romany population. A London playground. Horse fairs, fortune tellers etc. His residence there makes it much more likely that there is some kernel of truth in Liddell's claims, or in the claims Liddell transmitted. In Gravesend he may well have come in contact with middle or upper class occultists. I think these factors should be kept in mind even if they can't be directly applied at this stage. The last word has not been said. Jeremy (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)