Sunday, May 31, 2026

Trinity Sunday

Omnípotens sempitérne Deus, qui dedísti fámulis tuis in confessióne veræ fídei, ætérnæ Trinitátis glóriam agnóscere, et in poténtia maiestátis adoráre Unitátem: quǽsumus; ut, eiúsdem fídei firmitáte, ab ómnibus semper muniámur advérsis. Per Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum: qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. ℟. Amen.

Almighty and everlasting God, you have given your servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the divine majesty to worship the Unity; keep us steadfast in this faith, that we may be evermore defended from all adversities, through Jesus Christ your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Keynote: Mystical Understanding

The collect for this Sunday, together with the Epistle and Gospel, are so profoundly metaphysical in their significance that at first sight they would appear to be mere words idly strung together. To those, however, who understand the connotation of the symbolism employed, this is far from being the case. Every word in the profoundly mystical passages chosen for this day had its significance, and the collect itself prays that understanding may be given us to penetrate this significance.

The wording of the collect is very pregnant. We are told that "by the confession of a true faith" we are able to "acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the divine majesty to worship the Unity."

Faith we may define as an opinion which is based on intuition rather than upon logical grounds. It is by intuition, not reason, that we gain a realization of the supreme mystery of manifestations the triune nature and functioning of the Logos. [This isn't actually what faith is: most people, including the Church, implicitly understand faith to be belief based not on one's own experience but on the testimony of others. If that belief is true and justified then it may be called knowledge. Our knowledge of the Trinity comes not from experience - since no one can have direct experience of the Trinity - nor from reason - since no one can comprehend the Trinity either - but from our faith in Jesus Christ. Knowledge that comes only from faith is what we call "mystery". - Ed] But, this intuitive realization being gained, we are not left dependent upon blind faith, "in the power of the divine majesty", are able "to worship the Unity."

What is this "power of the divine majesty" which is thus conveyed to us? The collect does not specify, but should we be beyond the range of legitimate speculation if we held that it was the Christ within?

The spirit of man, enabled to function by a faith which dares to trust, and to experiment with an open mind in the things of the Spirit, is not left long without evidence in support of what was originally a working hypothesis; the wakened Christ within is able to worship, to establish contact with the Unity - with the great unmanifest, the source of all existence, the inexaustible fountainhead of power, and this realization enables us to overcome in the name of God all opposition when about our Father's business.

[Dion Fortune, Mystical Meditations on the Christian Collects]

Notes for Sundays after Whitsun in the Sarum Mass


  • 1st after Whitsun: Epistle — 1 John 4:7–21 (God's love commands us to love one another). Gospel — Luke 16:19–31 (Rich man and Lazarus). Connection: Contrast between worldly self-love/neglect and divine/charitable love; warning against loving the world over God.
  • 2nd: Epistle — 1 John 3:13–24 (Do not marvel at worldly hatred; love in deed). Gospel — Luke 14:16–24 (Parable of the Great Banquet). Connection: God's inviting love vs. human excuses/rejection; call to respond with true commitment.
  • 3rd: Epistle — 1 Peter 5:5–11 (Humility, resist the devil, God restores). Gospel — Luke 15:1–10 (Lost Sheep and Coin). Connection: God's seeking mercy for the humble/repentant "lost"; pastoral care and restoration.
  • 4th: Epistle — Romans 8:18–23 (Sufferings vs. future glory; creation groans). Gospel — Luke 6:36–42 (Be merciful, judge not, remove plank). Connection: Mercy over judgment amid present sufferings; patient hope in God's kingdom.
  • 5th: Epistle — 1 Peter 3:8–15 (Unity, blessing persecutors, sanctify Christ). Gospel — Luke 5:1–11 (Miraculous catch; "fishers of men"). Connection: Call to witness and discipleship despite opposition.
  • 6th: Epistle — Romans 6:3–11 (Baptized into death/life). Gospel — Matthew 5:20–26 (Surpassing righteousness; reconciliation). Connection: New life in Christ demands ethical transformation (e.g., anger/reconciliation).
  • 13th: Epistle — Galatians 3:16–22 (Law as tutor to Christ). Gospel — Luke 10:23–37 (Good Samaritan). Connection: Love fulfills the law; mercy to neighbor as true righteousness.
  • 16th: Epistle — Ephesians 3:13–21 (Strengthened in love; comprehend Christ's love). Gospel — Luke 7:11–17 (Raising widow's son). Connection: Christ's compassionate power manifesting divine love.
  • 21st: Epistle — Ephesians 6:10–20 (Armor of God against evil). Gospel — John 4:46–54 (Healing official's son). Connection: Faith as shield; spiritual warfare overcome by trusting Christ's word/power.
  • Later Sundays (e.g., 22nd–25th): Often parables of readiness/judgment (e.g., Talents, Wise/Foolish Virgins). Epistles from Corinthians/Romans on faithfulness, unity. Connection: Growing eschatological focus—stewardship, perseverance, preparation for Christ's return—as Advent approaches.
  • Saturday, May 30, 2026

    Brent Knoll, Somerset

    Tuesday, May 26, 2026

    From Cambridgeshire Live:
    The unusual religious tradition is being enacted at St Ives parish church in 1979, and it’s called bible dicing. It’s nothing to do with slicing up the Good Book with a sharp knife, it’s all about gambling, not something generally encouraged in church. Every Whit Tuesday, children from local schools go to the church and roll a dice on a table to win a copy of the Bible. Remarkably, the custom dates back to 1765, when a parishioner, Dr Robert Wilde, left money in his will to fund copies of the holy writings.

    Legend has it he had been lost in a fog, and was guided to safety by the church bells, so decided to bequeath money to the church to buy an orchard – which itself would provide an income the vicar could use to buy Bibles. The orchard, appropriately called Bible Orchard, is still there.

    Sunday, May 24, 2026

    Richard Hook, 'Fealty is Sworn'
    King Arthur stands upon a sacred stone and accepts the oaths of fealty from Celtic, Pictish and Saxon chiefs. Britain is at peace.

    Whitsun

    And let us do it with no show of fear;
    No, with no more than if we heard that England
    Were busied with a Whitsun morris-dance

    All down the line
    Fresh couples climbed aboard: the rest stood round;
    The last confetti and advice were thrown,
    And, as we moved, each face seemed to define   
    Just what it saw departing: children frowned   
    At something dull; fathers had never known

    Success so huge and wholly farcical;
        The women shared
    The secret like a happy funeral;
    While girls, gripping their handbags tighter, stared   
    At a religious wounding. 

    Whit Sunday

    Deus, qui hodiérna die corda fidélium Sancti Spíritus illustratióne docuísti: da nobis in eódem Spíritu recta sápere; et de eius semper consolatióne gaudére. Per Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum: qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte eiúsdem Spíritus Sancti Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. ℟. Amen.

    God, who as at this time taught the hearts of your faithful people, by the sending to them the light of your Holy Spirit; grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who is alive and reigns with you, in unity with the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

    Keynote: The Perception of the Christ

    The discipline of the master Jesus brings us to the living contact of the Holy Spirit, When our personalities have been purified by this discipline, the light of spiritual understanding illuminates our consciousnesses. If we have done rightly the work demanded of us throughout the period of purgation, if we have shared in our Master's passion and resurrection, then, at Whitsuntide when the great power-tides descend upon the world, we shall receive of the spiritual forces according to our utmost need and capacity. It is for us to prepare our hearts for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; to make them clean and ready; to watch at the door for the first glimpse of the divine visitant, for it is only to the prepared consciousness that the guest comes.

    Let us do the best we know and await with eagerness and confidence the coming in the heart of the Whitsuntide power, and we shall not be disappointed.

    Often, however, a test heralds the coming, as the old stories so often tell; we have to recognize the divine visitant in strange guises. The beggar asks us for alms; we give what we can, and lo, he sheds his ragged cloak and there is the Prince of Peace! The Christ always comes as the man of sorrows, never as the heralded Messiah. We must be faithful over few things before we are made ruler of many. As the collect so truly says, it is to the "faithful people" that the teaching of the Spirit is given, not to the gifted. The Master values fidelity more highly than great gifts.

    Let us, therefore, at the great power-season of Whitsuntide listen mentally for the still small voice of the comforter to speak in our hearts. Let us make ourselves receptive, knowing that the power of the Holy Spirit is pouring through in strong tides upon the earth. According to our faith will it be unto us.

    [Dion Fortune, Mystical Meditations on the Christian Collects]

    Saturday, May 23, 2026

    Dæmonisation

    The village green at Aldbourne, Wiltshire

    'The wisdom of winter is madness in May.'

    Pace the late, great Donald Swan, there's nothing particularly mad about sticking to tweeds and cardies when it's quite as cold as it's been for (most of) the last three weeks. As my old mother would say, ne'er cast a clout... On the other hand though, it does make revisiting Doctor Who's "folk horror" archive all the more appealing. A few weeks ago, seeking for further amusement, I took myself off to a talk about the history of folk horror at Cecil Sharp House. Rather pleasingly, it turns out, people talk a great deal of mumbo-jumbo about the subject. (In the immortal words of Randy Mice-Davies...)

    In practice though, folk horror launched onto the silver screen with The Wicker Man in 1973, and that film subsequently became the "ur-text" of the genre. That film's pre-history moreover is pleasingly complex. Ultimately it goes back to a murder - that is to say the murder on St Valentine's Day 1945 of an elderly rural labourer by the name of Charles Walton, in the village of Lower Quinton in Warwickshire. To this day it is still referred to as England's "oldest unsolved killing". Although there is literally no evidence that Walton's death had to do with anything other than a standard country dispute between a farmer and one of his labourers (see Clarkson's Farmpassim), lurid claims that there had been an occult motive behind it would inspire David Pinner's 1967 novel Ritual, which would in turn inspire Peter Shaffer's 1973 film The Wicker Man, which would itself then be "novelised" by the film's director Robin Hardy in 1978. In the meantime though, it had also inspired the BBC television series Play for the Day's 1970 episode 'Robin Redbreast' which, in my own honest opinion, is where the true history of folk horror as we understand it today really begins.*

    Although he did not invent the term "folk horror", the man who really defined what it meant, and more specifically identified The Wicker Man as the genre's quasi-platonic archetype, was Doctor Who's own Mark Gatiss. Unfortunately, just as he claims that he can't understand why people (i.e. the mainstream "right-wing" press? 🙄) can't stand Keir Starmer, there's a slight worry that in skipping over television and going straight to films like The Wicker Man and The Blood on Satan's Claw Gatiss was being slightly disingenuous. Indeed Doctor Who's own initiation into the world of folk horror seems to have happened almost by accident. The producer at the time was Barry Letts, and he had wanted to introduce occultism and magic into the show for a long time but had been squeamish about it given Doctor Who's official brief as a children's science-fiction show. In retrospect, this seems somewhat overly cautious, given that by this time Quatermass and the Pit (both the BBC and the Hammer Horror versions) had firmly established the idea that demons and devils could be fitted into a sci-fi context, and indeed that magic could be explained away as "science". Terrance Dicks, who was the show's script-editor at the time, reassured Letts that it would be fine, and he even let him write the script. And thus The Dæmons was born.

    Letts's own inspirations as it happens lay not so much with 'Robin Redbreast' or Charles Walton as with Dennis Wheatley's The Devil Rides Out, which had been his favourite book since boyhood. He was also inspired by Erich von Daniken, whose "the gods were really aliens" thesis would go on to be recycled by Doctor Who writers over and over and over again from now on†. And a shoutout should also probably go to Auntie's own sponsorship of the Silbury Hill dig in the late 1960s. What's appealing about The Dæmons in retrospect though is that it works so well. The Doctor it turns out is just as much of a hero when he's battling (or rather outwitting) dark gods and old monsters as he is when he's focusing on little green men. Certainly he's at least as good at dealing with the occult as Quatermass ever was - although in 1979 the Professor himself (now played by Sir John Mills, no less, and having switched from BBC to ITV) would have his own chance catch up with the children of the Age of Aquarius in his fourth and final small-screen outing.††

    It has to be said of course that in The Dæmons there are lapses of artistic judgement here and there. The Doctor telling the children at home that the Devil is "mythical" still leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. The explosion at the end of each story's last episode had by this point become a cliché (as indeed it was in Doctor Who's older brother franchise the Bond films). And that this time it happens to have been a church that was being blown up - and none of the characters batted an eyelid - is somewhat regrettable. But then of course it could have been worse! In early versions of the script the Master's black magic ceremonies were going to take place actually in the church itself. Thankfully someone suggested this might have been going a bit too far. Meanwhile, minor characters are disposed of in a rather off-hand manner, their deaths barely remarked (let alone mourned!). At this stage in Doctor Who's development, of course, unnamed policemen tend to last not much longer than unnamed soldiers. But it's still problematic for a series that's notionally supposed to be educating children about good and evil.

    There's also a sense in which Letts and his co-writer Robert Sloman have rather let themselves go with the standard Doctor Who spooky goings on. What exactly does kill the old man at the beginning of the first episode? It can't have been Azal. Was it the Master? Had the Master already started, er, interfering with Bok all by himself? (Now, there's an image!) And how does he even know Bok's name? (Why does Bok even have to have a name, apart from for the credits?) Why in the first episode does the policeman try to do in Miss Hawthorne and then change his mind? Why does Jo get attacked by a hedge when she's on her way to see Azal? (Literally, what is going on there? What is her motivation? Or anyone else's at that point, for that matter?) And why does Azal only appear three times? (And how does the Doctor know this? We can assume the Master knows about the Dæmons from the files he's stolen from the Matrix, but how is the Doctor so up to speed on their history?) At one point it feels uncomfortably as if Azal's second appearance is only there to provide the story with its most feeble cliffhanger (and even for the series as a whole it's something of a dud, with the person in danger being not the Doctor or even the companion but the Master himself - and shortly into the following episode it turns out he wasn't even in that much danger anyway).

    At the end of the day though, everything's taken care of and the forces of truth and mercy prevail in a way that in retrospect is surprisingly satisfying. The goodies are exceedingly pleased with themselves, the villagers - not to mention the planet Earth generally - are safe and sound, and the baddies - including the villagers who were seduced by the Master - are either vapourised or - in the case of the Master himself - looking forward to some court martial and/or international war-criminal-type justice. The main characters themselves meanwhile are all played to perfection. The Pertwee Doctor is at his ironic, protective, avuncular best. Jo is still everyone's goofy, lovable kid sister. Yates and Benton are clean-cut and dutiful to a fault. The Brigadier (of course!) gets what are almost literally the show's most iconic lines. And the Master gets to be charming and manipulative in a way that we've certainly come to miss in the show's later incarnations. (He's supposed to be mad for power: he's not supposed to be a clown!) 

    Most of all though, it's the setting that stands out - and hence the story's bona fides as a "folk horror" tale! There is of course nowhere in England (even in Wiltshire) actually called Devil's End. But in reality England is full of places with folk names like the Devil's Dyke and the Devil's Den, not to mention the Devil's Punch Bowl and the Devil's Frying Pan - and indeed the Devil's Arse! Silbury Hill itself is supposed to have been created when the Devil dropped a bag of soil whilst on his way to do a mischief to the denizens of Marlborough. (One vaguely wonders where he would have been coming from.) And the village of Devil's End in The Dæmons does feel eerily as if it's the first real English village the show has really visited, in which ordinary English people drink real ale and watch real telly in a real English pub - just like real people! 22nd-century Bedfordshire looking back doesn't really count, and nor does 13th-century Cheshire for that matter, so it's a thought that Doctor Who wouldn't really venture near this sort of environment again until The Android Invasion - in which we'd see the Doctor drinking ginger beer in a fake, alien pub - and then in The Image of the Fendahl, and latterly in The Awakening and Battlefield. For all that we nowadays think of classic Who as being stuffed with "olde worlde" charm, it's surprising how wide a berth the show tended to give to Deep England. Indeed, you can count the number of pubs the Doctor went into between 1963 and 1989 on the fingers of one hand.

    The cast and crew of course loved it. Far from getting cold-shouldered by xenophobic yokels or (more likely nowadays!) snobbish commuters, they were made to feel very welcome indeed. (Did the early 1970s see the last gasp of a spirit of English hospitality, before the individualist cultural revolution of the 1960s had completely run its course - as it would in Ireland in the early 21st century? Who knows?) And then in a strange sort of "death of the author" sort of a way, the Doctor Who production team's fondness for both the production and the product seems to have rubbed off on "the fans". One seriously wonders how much Return to Devil's End in the early 1990s hypnotised those re-watching the serial into believing that it really was not just a Doctor Who classic but a classic example of Doctor Who in the Pertwee era - when in fact it was one of the strangest and most revolutionary Doctor Who stories ever made. After all, normally the more the ladies and gentlemen behind a production enjoy the production process the less enjoyable the finished product actually is. Yes, it's a cliché that the best artists suffer for their art, but apparently the Rat Pack all had a whale of a time making (the original) Ocean's 11 in 1960, only for the film to open to "mixed reviews". And one is tempted to offer Battlefield as an example of another Doctor Who serial, also set in the "folk horror" world of The Dæmons, where everyone who worked on it speaks very fondly of what for them was effectively a jaunt in the country (with a bit of - mostly harmless! - studio work thrown in afterwards): the viewers, on the other hand, were less than impressed, and the fans have been less than kind.

    There is, I think, a riddle to be unpacked here. Pace Sherlock Holmes, there is in reality very little "horror" to be found in one of the most charming parts of the most beautiful country in the world.  So, where then does the "folk" horror come from? As far as the story is concerned, the evil vicar and the evil Morris men are good things that have been corrupted and subverted - which is almost de rigueur in this the most "secret agent/spy thriller" era of Doctor Who - in order to serve the exigencies of the plot. Having demonised soldiers, policemen, politicians, and businessmen, and so on, for Doctor Who to demonise actual demonswas arguably long overdue; and if the local verger and the squire got demonised at the same time it could hardly be helped. But, beneath that, are we also encouraged to think of the village and its inhabitants as intrinsically sinister - in as much as children's Saturday teatime telly would have allowed such things at the time? And could this be more (or less) than just the simple culture shock of townies who've found themselves suddenly in "the country"? For what it's worth, I'd say the answer is a qualified No. And yet May 1971 was still comparatively early days in the history of folk horror - a month before The Blood on Satan's Claw would come out in London (although it had already been released in Birmingham in January, apparently)!

    The point to be made is that every revolution demonises the culture that went before it. In England in the early middle ages, the "old religion" was paganism, as it was in HTV's Arthur of the Britons in the 1970s and in that show's, ahem, "spiritual" sequel Robin of Sherwood††† in the 1980s - not to mention those other vastly inferior Arthurian shows Merlin and The Winter King nearer our own time. In real life, literal demonisation was of course very much part of the western Church's "official theology", and so for Gerald Gardner and Margaret Murray to conjure up horned gods (such as RoS's Herne the Hunter!) out of mediaeval demons through a sort of imaginative reverse engineering - and then indeed to synthesise such images with a (potentially authentic!) shamanic or Indo-European "hunting magic" tradition - was relatively easy. But then of course after the protestant revolution of the sixteenth century it was the turn of Christians themselves to be "demonised" - again quite literally, as icons and holy images were desecrated and destroyed on the grounds that they were "idolatrous". And thus in The Tudors and Wolf Hall (and Gunpowder) the "old religion" becomes not paganism but Roman Catholicism - and all for the delectation of audiences at home who would quite likely have liked to think of Catholic priests as being repressed child-molesters!

    The two essential "claims" of folk horror then are: firstly that "the old religion" has in certain hidden ways survived down the centuries; and secondly that it is, in one sense or another, demonic (or, in the case of Doctor Who, Dæmonic?). Both claims, either individually or in combination, have formed the basis of many folk horror plots and fictional contrivances in British broadcast entertainment over the years. Thanks to Play for the Day, Nigel Kneale, and of course Doctor Who (not to mention occasional Doctor Who-type rip-offs homages such as Children of the Stones), the 1970s was definitely the high point of British folk horror on British telly. In Penda's Fen, for example, 'the old religion [is] the primitive religion of the villages and fields', in the context of the survival and persistence of pre-Christian, pagan beliefs, hidden heresies, and the "flame" of older ways surviving in the English countryside - not to mention St Joan of Arc (who is ret-conned to have been a pagan†††† of some sort by a trendy vicar 🤷). But by the 1990s these basic principles of folk horror had started to seep out even into "mainstream" crime drama fare like Inspector Morse, Midsomer Murders, Hetty Wainthrop Investigates, and (a generation later) Father Brown. In fact you'd be forgiven for thinking that there couldn't be a single village in the whole Cotswolds where the locals weren't all secretly dedicated to "the old ways" and planning dastardly midnight sacrifices to Hecate or Beelzebub. In 'The Day of the Devil' (1993), it's heavily implied that "the old religion" is devil-worship, if only because the villains celebrate the old (Christian! 🙄) Celtic quarter day of Lammas with a Black Mass. (And who came up with this illiterate hokum? Some nobody by the name of Daniel Boyle! At least in Robin Redbreast they were, implicitly, celebrating the "authentically" Anglo-Saxon feast of Easter.) And then in 'Widdershins' (1996) it is quite explicitly claimed that the old religion is witchcraft and that it never died out.

    What then can we say about the rise and growth of the "folk horror" genre in the 1970s, the acceptance of its fundamental principles over the next couple of decades by more mainstream television writers of science fiction and even crime drama, and finally its revival in our own time? My ongoing thesis is that it continues to represent essentially a demonisation of the past. But which past? And by whom? And to what end? In The Wicker Man there's an eerie sense in which the islanders are if not the goodies then at least morally neutral, and indeed if Lord Summerisle hadn't been played by Christopher Lee the audience may well have found it easier to see his point of view. (And of course if they hadn't burnt the policeman to death in the final scene!) The Dæmons introduced folk horror into Doctor Who almost by accident. Barry Letts wanted to write a Dennis Wheatley-type story about the occult, and Wheatley himself was an avowedly conservative reactionary. (And not just in the trendy centrist/Marxist sense that anyone to the right of Sir Tony Blair must be a fascist thug! Wheatley literally thought the French Revolution had been a Bad Thing.) Letts just happened to end up setting it in an idyllic English village. In a similar way, is it possible that the whole genre of folk horror was itself never supposed to be "horror" in the first place?

    Going back to 'Robin Redbreast', again I'd give a qualified No. But it's worth reflecting on where the horror really lies - other than in the visceral fear of gang rape, public homicide, and so forth. The psychological drama of 'Robin Redbreast' revolves partly around universal human fears of old age and loneliness, but these are compounded by the very real horrors of 1960s Britain's cultural revolution - to wit divorce and abortion (as if the latter can even be thought of as a "psychological" horror - though the play does at least acknowledge there was still a quite public squeamishness about it at the time). The very clear thematic follow-on of the story then (the "moral", almost!) is that even if one rejects Christianity and its moral implications - as when Norah very deliberately turns off Malcom Muggeridge, Long Longford, the Very Reverend the Suffragan Bishop of Eatonsville the Right Honorable Justin de Villeneuve, and a doctor, on the television - then the "old ways" (the even older ways!) will still be there underneath - and they'll be considerably more dangerous and frightening than anything Auntie can conjure up for you in the springtime.

    For English people in the 1970s, the deep down essence of the horror of folk horror was still very much a sense that the rejection of Christianity and Christian morality in the 1960s had been a mistake.


    *It was also the subject of the not terribly well received crockumentary The Last Sacrifice a couple of years ago.
    †Not just demons and devils (and Egyptian gods!), but Egyptian gods (again - the Osirians!) and general "occult forces" (thanks to the Fendahl!) would all turn out to have been extraterrestrial in origin. (Did the Daemons know that their "psionic science" was really Fendahl science?) Later on in Doctor Who the Cailleach, the minotaur, the mara, Garm, and Fenrir would all be outed as having been aliens. In fact there have been so many Doctor Who monsters influencing human evolution, mythology and culture generally (i.e. the Daemons, the Osirians, the Fendahl, Scaroth, Fenric, the Beast, the Silents, and so on) than one wonders how they all came up with the same idea but never seem to have got in each other's way.
    ††As it happens, the charge that Kneale intended to demonise the relatively pacifist counterculture of the 1960s is slightly unfair. Although he himself (like Wheatley!) was hardly a progressive, he had originally imagined the delinquent youths of Quatermass as punks rather than hippies, and the decision to change them to more generic "flower power" types was not his.
    †††In Robin of Sherwood of course the old religion is quite specifically not devil-worship. Saxon Christians and Saxon pagans in the show are implicitly on the same side, their common enemy being militaristic Norman barbarism. It's not spelled out whether or not the old gods that are worshipped are Saxon or Celtic - Herne the Hunter himself being neither, and entirely fictional. But, we do hear that Robin Hood's magic sword was made by Wayland. The sword itself has Germanic-style runes on its blade, but also a Latin name (Albion!). We also have throwaway references to Gildas (Celtic but not a pagan), as well as to (the Celtic and ambiguously pagan) Rhiannon and Arianrhod. At other times of course 
    the Celtic god Crom Cruach and the Norse great wolf Fenris himself show up, but they are definitely baddies. (Is "The Time of the Blessing"  Candlemas or May Day? Or Lady Day? 'Lord of the Trees' originally aired on 23 March 1985, but that’s unrelated to the in-story timing. And every now and again of course Robin Hood has to use all his might and main (and magic!) to fight not just demons (such as, er, Azael) but even, in one story, Lucifer himself.
    ††††As an aside, I recently re-watched The Song of Bernadette, and listening closely there are a couple of pleasing references to paganism and magic - not to mention that cornerstone of "Anglo-Saxon theology" the Immaculate Conception.

    Tuesday, May 19, 2026

    Bring flowers of the rarest...

    Four Swords of Wayland

    According to legend, the Great King and Emperor Charlemagne had four swords, each forged by Wayland the Smith. 

    His own sword was called Joyeuse. He wielded it in battle against the Turk, and after his death it became the coronation sword of the Kings of France. After the Revolution it was moved to the Louvre museum, where it remains to this day.

    A second sword, known as Durendal, Charlemagne gave to his most famous paladin Roland, who carried it at the battle of the Roncevaux Pass, where he died. With his last strength Roland cast Durendal away, rather than let it be captured by the Enemy, and there is to this day a sword protruding from the living rock of a cliff-face in Rocamadour in south-western France. It can still be seen by visitors to the region, despite the local tourist board’s insistence that it is not original.

    Also at the Battle of the Roncevaux Pass died Bishop Turpin of Rheims, another ally of Charlemagne, whose sword, though less well known than Durendal, was also forged by Wayland from the same steel. Its name was called Almace.

    A fourth sword, also brother to Durendal, was given by Charlemagne to his former enemy Ogier the Dane, who thereafter became one of the Great King’s most loyal liegemen in the Turkish wars. Its name was Curtana, and it had long before been the sword of Sir Tristan of Lyonesse.

    Ogier is the Danish equivalent of King Arthur, and according to one legend after his last battle he was taken to Avalon by Morgan le Fay. Also like Arthur, as well as like Frederick Barbarossa of Germany and Duke St Wenceslaus of Bohemia, he is thought to be not dead but sleeping under a mountain, waiting to return to his country’s aid in its darkest hour.

    Ogier’s sword Curtana though was broken, much like Siegfried’s sword in The Nibelungenlied (or, if you like, Aragorn's in The Lord of the Rings). It has since become one of the coronation swords of the Kings of England, where it is called the Sword of Mercy, and is borne in the coronation ceremony as one of the three Swords of Justice. According to legend, it was broken by an angel when an attempt was made to use it to commit an unjust act. Some say that the sword that is used to this day was recreated for the coronation of Charles II. Others though maintain that the Swords of Justice were amongst the few royal relics that survived being melted down by Oliver Cromwell.

    The entrance to Wayland's Smithy, Oxfordshire

    Thursday, May 14, 2026

    The Ascension Day

    Concéde, quǽsumus, omnípotens Deus: ut, qui hodiérna die Unigénitum tuum, Redemptórem nostrum, ad cœlos ascendísse crédimus; ipsi quoque mente in cœléstibus habitémus. Per eúndem Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christu Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. ℟. Amen.

    "Grant, we pray, Almighty God, that as we believe your only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens, so we in heart and mind may also ascend and with him contnually dell, who is alive and reigns with you, in unity with the Holy Spirit, on God, now and forever. Amen."

    Keynote: The Vision Beautiful

    This collect contains a profound doctrine concerning the nature of the enlightenment which comes to souls in search of spiritual illumination. Our Lord no longer walks and talks with us as He did with the people of His day in Galilee; He has ascended to the right hand of God, and there functions as a great force in the cosmic polity. If we think we are directly taught of Him, as a child of its tutor, we err in our vanity. It may well be possible for the greatest of human souls, in supreme moments, to so [sic] rise up and contact Him; but those of us, aspirants after the way of the cross, to whom is vouchsafed the wonderful vision of Our Lord, are not meeting Him face to face, but are, in reality, contacting His force and translating it through the imagination as a meeting with His personality. Let us not flatter ourselves with vanities. The things of God are greater than psychic phenomena, and this collect gives us a truer interpretation of our experiences. It is the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth that abides with us and never leaves us comfortless, and that at last brings us to the state of consciousness where we can meet the Master face to face, that is to say, where we can comprehend Him, and know even as we are known. Let us take for our discipline this week the task of rising above the concepts that help the young soul to lay hold on the things of the kingdom, and, foregoing the milk of the word which is for babes, try to assimilate those spiritual verities which, though a hard doctrine, are the strong meat on which souls which have reached their manhood in the spiritual life are enabled to run the race that is set before them. The still small voice of realization, brought through to consciousness by discipline, purification, and sacrifice, can teach us more of the innermost nature of things than any spectacular psychic experience. Let us never forget that the big things are simple and natural, and be content with wholesome spiritual good rather than seek in exotic cults and abnormal manifestations the satisfaction of a depraved spiritual appetite, which seeks after marvels and sees not the Master sitting quietly at the well-head of truth, whence the village women have always drawn their water.

    [Dion Fortune, Mystical Meditations on the Christian Collects]
    Christ's Ascension on the Wirksworth Stone

    Sunday, May 10, 2026

    The Fifth Sunday after Easter

    Deus, a quo bona cuncta procédunt, largíre supplícibus tuis: ut cogitémus, te inspiránte, quæ recta sunt; et, te gubernánte, éadem faciámus. Per Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum: qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. ℟. Amen.

    "O Lord, from whom all good things come, grant to us your humble servants that, by your holy inspiration we may think those things that are good and . by your merciful guiding, may perform the same' through ou Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you, in unity with the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever, Amen."

    Keynote: God's Guidance

    This is a prayer of exquisite simplicity, which all who seek enlightenment through the intellect and who are strong in their own strength would do well to make their own. We are all too apt, when things are going well with us, to think that the circle of our vision circumscribes the universe, and that beyond the horizon there are no forces at work which may overset our plans. But the fathers of the Church, men wise in human nature as well as in spiritual doctrine, knew otherwise, and so we get this exquisite gem of the child-heart, this little prayer for help and guidance to do simple things rightly, the things that look so easy and obvious, and yet which are the acid-tests of the attitude of the soul. If our natural attitude of mind were truly expressed by this prayer, how many errors it would save us from, how much suffering it would guard us from! This should be the daily prayer of the intellectual and strong-willed, for its sweet sanity and deep wisdom are what we need to preserve our souls form contamination from within, where is to be found the most subtle source of spiritual poison.

    This week, therefore, let us not only pray this wonderful prayer, but pray that we may pray it rightly, that its significance may sink into our souls and guard them from spiritual darkness and the falls that come therefrom, and that its profound teaching may penetrate the limitations of our intellect and enlighten us with the wisdom of the spirit which transcends knowledge and enlightens the judgement that is according to reason.

    [Dion Fortune, Mystical Meditations on the Christian Collects]

    Friday, May 8, 2026

    Is magic always sinful?

    A silver talisman from the 6th or 7th century, inscribed with words similar to abracadabra

    I must say, the first answer that springs to mind is Prof Tolkien's dictum Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes. Nevertheless, I would say it is unwise to meddle in the affairs of wizards.

    The simple answer, as it happens, is No. The more complicated answer is No, but... it depends on what you mean by magic.

    The simplest and best definition of magic that I've come across is from Fr Heribert Jone in his classic, masterly little manual Moral Theology*. For him, magic means quite specifically using evidently inadequate means to produce some definite effect.

    The malice of magic as it happens, and inasmuch as it breaks the First Commandment, lies in a deal, implicit or otherwise, with the Devil.

    Even though one protests against the influence of the evil spirit, one still invokes him by using evidently inadequate means to produce some definite effect. If there is a possibility that the effect is the result of some unknown powers of nature, one may use such means if he protests against any diabolical influence. Such a protestation is unnecessary if one is certain the effect is produced by natural causes, even though the respective natural powers are little known, as happens, for example, in the use of the divining rod for the location of water or veins of metal. 

    How exactly does one "protest" against diabolical influence? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm reminded of Professor T reciting the Lord's Prayer (in Gothic) into a tape-recorder the first time he used one - to "exorcise" it, you know, "just in case".

    Fr Jone's key phrase is actually deceptively brief in that it covers two important elements: using evidently inadequate means to produce some definite effect. In other words, an action can be "magical" in two ways - in the cause and in the effect. His definition is also both very broad and quite restrictive in surprising ways.

    Taking the problem of the "definite effect" first, this is really just a case of magic being religion "gone wrong". Any prayer or ritual that promises a "definite" effect is (by definition) magical and as such irreligious, superstitious, and contrary to the First Commandment. Jone himself mentions, as an example, 'inscribing infallible efficacy to a particular prayer or picture'.† "Chain" prayer leaflets, promising particular graces to anyone who copies them and distributes them at the back of so many churches, have been the bane of Catholic sacristans for hundreds of years. And of course, here we come worryingly close to querying Our Lady's "promises" to those (for example) who wear the Scapular (i.e., that they'll live free from mortal sin) or who keep certain devotions (e.g., that they'll die in a State of Grace).

    More problematic though is the "evidently inadequate means" part of the equation, and here Jone has more to say. What about table-turning? What about dowsing? What about hypnotism? Do any of them "work"? And, if so, how? Could there be something to any of them? Because it's in the "well, maybe" that there lies the difference between mere human foolishness (or even innocent experimentation) and Devil-worship.

    Going back to Prof Tolkien, the great man divides magic into "true" magic (or magia) and goesy (or goetia††). By the first he means extraordinary powers of skill or cunning, and by the second he means the summoning up not of demons and devils but merely of illusions - either to deceive or to delight according to the moral bent of the conjurer. Is the latter what our Anglo-Saxon forebears would have called dwimmercraft? And is having a particular but natural skill or craft (being able to make wet wood burn as if it were dry, or to open locked doors without a key) really that "magical"?

    Because the point is well made that there is no Old English term for "magic". Magic itself means simply the (pagan) religious practices of the Magi††† - including of course the Three Kings, righteous amongst gentiles, who visited the baby Jesus. As well as dwimmercraft, the modern term "magic" would have covered a huge range of "crafts", most of which would have included prayers to heathen deities (and to spirits, such as "Elves" and "dwarfs"!), such as dwalecraft (i.e. medicine using potions) and leechcraft (medicine using, er, leeches!) - up to and including presumably what the Vikings knew as seiðr but we would call sorcery and/or necromancy, and our Anglo-Saxon forebears would probably have thought of as witchcraft.

    As it happens, the most normal use for magic in England in the early modern period was for protection against witchcraft, and here I think we need to be a little more precise in our terminology. Though I have little time for the Murray-Gardiner thesis that mediaeval witchcraft was a simple continuation of a pre-Christian heathen cultus, I am open to the suggestion the mediaeval and early modern notions of witchcraft drew on deep folk memories of pre-Christian shamanic practices such as seiðr and skincraft - the quite literally demented rituals of the Berserkir and the Ulfheðnar, with their own roots in hunting magic going back to the Dawn of Man.

    So what is a witch really? Once again, it's philology that comes to our aid. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European root *weyk- meaning 'to separate, to choose' is almost certainly crucial. Choosers of the slain, then - like the Valkyries, or like Ahmad ibn Fadlan's (real-life "Valkyrie"?) "Angel of Death"? Maybe!

    Derived terms[edit]

    • *weyk-o-s
      • Proto-Germanic: *wīhaz (sacred) (see there for further descendants)
    • *wik-néh₂-ti
      • Proto-Germanic: *wikkōną (to practice sorcery) (see there for further descendants)
    • *wéyk-om
      • Proto-Germanic: *wīhą (sanctuary) (see there for further descendants)
    • Unsorted formations:
      • Proto-Italic: [Term?]
        • Latin: victima (see there for further descendants)

    My feeling though is that the connexion - or rather the source of the witch's power - is sortilege. In the northern Bronze Age it was the tribe's witch who would chose whether, where and when they would go a-hunting or to war, just as surely as the Pythia of Delphi (albeit by her ambiguous advice) kicked off Croesus of Lydia's disastrous war against the Persian Empire. And it was a power that came from the distaff and the spindle, from the loom and from the "storied webs" that women weave: both literally in the sense of the tapestries, made for insulation in mead hall and bridal chamber alike, and recording the preliterate histories of their times; and metaphorically, in the sense of the fama and fata that passed from mouth to mouth in their workshops. One cannot overemphasise the power of women's words, in a preliterate society far more even than in our own, to decide the fate of kings.††††

    My point then is that seiðr was the most important and powerful sort of magic not just because it was wielded by the most important and powerful people within the tribe (i.e. the women) but because it purported to do things that other kinds of magic could not - and which are de facto supernatural: to see into the future; and to talk to the dead.

    In broad terms, one can must take it as given that the increased recourse to magic for protection against witchcraft in the early modern era was in part due to a diminished belief in sanctifying grace - that is to say in the objective holiness of sanctified persons (being "in a state of grace" - from christening or from shrift), of holy objects (rosaries and holy water having been disposed of during the protestant revolution, even though the Good Book itself must surely have maintained a certain power until relatively recently), or even (to give an example condemned as superstitious by St Thomas) of divine words written down and worn about the person.

    The Lacnunga, interestingly enough, provides an example of similar magic from the other end of English history - from the 10th century, when pre-Christian beliefs from times before St Columba and St Augustine had started their missions in the Saxon lands were surely not so dim and distant.††††† In all probability, in the original northern imagination dwarfs (or dwarves, if your being Tolkienian) were not miniature Vikings. In fact (like the Elves - which Tolkien did get right) they weren't short of stature. They were almost certainly the same as the "Dark Elves", the so-called svartálfr, and pace Snorri they didn't have black skin (as opposed to the ljósálfar, who were deathly pale - perhaps even ghostlily so). The difference was simply that whereas the "Light Elves" could happily frolic in hedgerows and long grasses by daylight, the dwarfs only left their underground caves at night - which in practice meant that, keeping themselves to themselves, they generally got on much better with men. There are no records of public ceremonies required either to placate them or to repel them. Whereas the álfablót came about as frequently as saints' days (or at least as Hallowe'en), there is no evidence that there was ever any svartálfablót.

    Needless to say, it is very unlikely St Thomas would have approved of the Lacnunga charm for disposing of dwarfs. And whether or not Norse seiðr magic survived into the conversion era we cannot really know. What we do know is that spindle whorls in Iceland, essential for use in seiðr rituals, went from having old Norse protection spells written on them ('Óðinn and Heimdallr and Þjálfa, they will help you', etc.) to having cheery little Latin good luck charms ('Pax Portanti, Salus habenti!') to having finally just one word of protection - 'Maria', followed by the whole of the runic alphabet. (This last is from a spindle whorl made from Icelandic sandstone, found at Stóramörk in Rangárvallasýsla during the summer of 1926 and delivered to the National Museum the following year.) The haunting impression is left that as our northern cousins finally gave up on the Æsir and turned to Christ and His saints, they tended to invoke the aid of their new supernatural allies in much the same way as they always had the old ones.

    Technically speaking, of course, prayers aren't magic, and one must bear in mind Jone's warning about "inscribing infallible efficacy" to them, in order to avoid the equivalent superstition. Nevertheless, it is easy enough to see how prayers to the (real) Divinity can take the place of incantations and pacts (implicit or otherwise) with pagan and/or demonic entities.

    UPDATE: William of Auvergne on the distinction between black magic and natural magic is perhaps worth a thought or two.

    *Paragraph 164, if you're lucky enough to be able to get hold of a copy!
    †Another magical practice, which I'd never heard of, is using the paten as a mirror as a cure for disease.
    ††St Clement of Alexandria uses the word, in some choice remarks (trans, commentary) about Greek paganism.
    †††What did the Magi actually do? According to Herodotus, not a lot. They just sang the necessary incantations after sacrifices had been made. According to Xenophon, similarly, they just guided sacrifices - though the Persians were scrupulous about following their directions.
    ††††Even in the days of The Mabinogion, the fear of satire was hardly less than that of the sword.
    †††††It is just possible that there was only one recorded case of "witchcraft" in the whole of the Anglo-Saxon history. And it wasn't actually witchcraft. It was "balecraft".

    Friday, May 1, 2026

    The Riddle of the Morris

    English window, c. 1550-1621

    Where does the term "Morris dancing" come from? The phenomenon is well documented going back to Tudor and Stuart times, but what does the term itself actually mean?

    One possibility is that the phrase was originally "Moorish dancing". In other words we're meant to imagine it was a style of dancing that was introduced into England from abroad during the late Middle Ages, along with curry and gunpowder.

    Unfortunately this feels like too much of a gotcha from those who would have you believe that Merrie England never really existed and/or that if it did then it wasn't really English anyway. "England's always been multicultural! Diversity is our strength!" And so on.

    Perhaps more to the point, the term was in use all over Europe. If Morris dancing really was copied from "the Moors", it must have been a fashion that caught on in one part of the continent and then spread this way and that. Its arrival in different countries would have been noted at the time, and by the time it had spread from Spain to France, for example, and then from France to Italy or Germany, surely it would have been thought of as "Spanish dancing", and then "French dancing", and so on. Bear in mind that turkeys aren't really from Turkey, but having arrived in England via Turkey that's what they ended up being called. And what the Americans call French fries are in reality Flemish fries, but they got the "French" moniker in much the same way.

    Could "Moorish" dancing just have been introduced into the different nations of Europe all at the same time? After the Crusades, for example? Well, maybe! But there's still a huge problem with this, which is that there's literally no historical evidence for it.

    And at the end of the day there's an even bigger and more obvious problem, which is that Morris dancing is quite literally not actually Moorish. At all! In fact it has nothing in common with any type of Moorish dance whatsoever. Even if Morris dancing started at exactly the same time all over Europe as a mockery of all things Moorish, it wouldn't explain why Morris dancing and the Moorish styles of dancing are different from each in every single way - or indeed why all the different types of "Moorish" dancing found all over Europe are so completely different from each other.

    Another possibility that's been suggested is that "Morris" comes from the Latin word mos (moris, in the genitive), meaning 'custom'. Morris dancing, in other words, meant simply the common vernacular style of dance that was customary in any particular place in late mediaeval Europe. This of course is a slightly more attractive explanation. Unfortunately, it still has the problem that there's no evidence for it. And it also has the other problem, which is that it's too clever by half.

    The real reason Morris dancing was referred to as "Moorish" is almost certainly the same as the reason why sarsen stones are named after Saracens and why King St Edmund the Martyr's Viking executioners are depicted in late mediaeval manuscripts as wearing Turkish helmets. It's because even in the late mediaeval period it was still thought of as an unfashionable relic of pagan past, and as such it belonged to the realm of all things unbaptised - in other words that of "the Moors".*

    The role of Merrie England, as Ronald Hutton has pointed out, was of course to re-purpose crude and old-fashioned things for the good of the Church. In the 15th century, ales and revels and fairs, which had previously simply been condemned by indignant churchmen as occasions for sin and wantonness, were rehabilitated and put to good use raising money for good causes. Seen in this context, Morris dancing is not only a perfectly authentic part of Merrie England but quite possibly a good deal older and perhaps more interesting than one might have thought.

    *It's not even much of a stretch. In both The Song of Roland and The King of Tars, Muslims are portrayed as polytheistic idolaters. 
    ‘What the UK really needs are spring and autumn Olympics.’

    May Day

    Seventh Sunday after Whitsun

    Deus, cuius providéntia in sui dispositióne non fállitur: te súpplices exorámus; ut nóxia cuncta submóveas, et ómnia nobis profutúra concéda...