I am a proof-reader at the Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders
project, and I have been proofing some of the pages of "The witch-cult in
Western Europe" by Margaret Alice Murray (The Clarendon Press, Oxford
1921), and came across references to De Lancre ("Pierre de Lancre, witch-
hunting judge and demonological author"
Now, that's not the Annotation - he's mentioned in the APF already. My
annotation is something I found elsewhere in the above book:
Mention is made of Margrat Og.... I looked up and found that she was a
witch ... "Margrat Og of Aberdeen, 1597, was 'indyttit as a manifest
witche...'" and she was executed with 12 other witches in the coven.
So: Nanny Og (and Magrat?) are from a C16th witch?
The APF mentions the book, but not about Ms Og... the page I'm proofing
is page 111, and it says:
...art indyttit for the being at the twa devylische dances betuixt
Lumfannand and Cragleauche, with vmquhile Margerat Bane,
vpon Alhalowewin last, quhair thow conferrit with the Dewill.'
[Footnote 1: 1b., i, Issobell Richie, p. 142; Margrat Og, p. 144; Helene
Rogie, p. 147; Jonet Lucas, p. 149; Jonet Dauidsone, p. 150; Issobell
Oige, p. 152; Beatrice Robbie, p. 153.] <<-- all witches in the same
__ _ __
o|\('')/|o |_)|_ _ __ _|_ _ __ _ _|_ _ _ o|\('')/|o
\_ _/ | | |(_|| | |_(_)|||_> |_(/_\_/(/_ \_ _/
/___/ (PhantomSteve - Design : Marion Koslowski) \___\
Remove caps to reply
I think it might be possible to email it directly to Leo, but since
AFAIK his software collects all [A] tagged posts, that's not really
I'd have retagged this [M] but [A] is the only tag used on abp.
I'd read in the APF that he'll accept emails with annotations! The
Pratchett FAQ *does* mention that [A] tagged posts will be picked up by
Surely the [M] tag relates to issues to do with alt.fan.pratchett
itself? Or did I misread the FAQ?
Leo reads everything tagged [A], which is why it's a good idea to
remove it once it's something he mightn't want to read.
The difference, as I see it, between posting and tagging here or on AFP
and simply shooting him an email is that here there's a discussion. So
if you're not sure about whether it's worth an annotation, you can bung
it on USENET and have a lively discussion to determine just that.
(Or, you could learn something about the APF. Either way's good.)
 Leaving it on so he'll find this and, if necessary, correct.
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
> I'd have retagged this [M] but [A] is the only tag used on abp.
No it isn't. [FAQ], [ABP] are also used. [M] simply means it's about the
group, and I wouldn't know why that kind of discussion wouldn't be allowed
Also, the abp posting guide specifically mentions [M] threads to discuss
issues raised in the posting guide. So as far as I know, [M] can be used
here. It won't be necessary so often, because abp is more "narrow" than
afp, but it's still possible. And by keeping the [A] while you *know* Leo
reads those as annotation and it's no longer an annotation, is a bit
silly. The least you could do is remove the [A].
I wasn't saying the discussion was offtopic, just that I had the
impression that the tag wasn't used.
>Also, the abp posting guide specifically mentions [M] threads to discuss
>issues raised in the posting guide. So as far as I know, [M] can be used
Thanks for the clarification.
> And by keeping the [A] while you *know* Leo
>reads those as annotation and it's no longer an annotation, is a bit
>silly. The least you could do is remove the [A].
True, but I kept it mainly because I'm aware that some people have to
use newsreaders that thread only by Subject line instead of by the
References line, and those people miss responses that involve a changed
subject line. It was silly of me to consider that a possible problem on
abp, since traffic is not really a problem here. Unfortunately.
Anybody for a good rousing discussion? "GP is about a religious or
mystical experience"? "Vetinari is/isn't a guru"?
I'd be up for it, if I'd read GP yet... ;-)
Yep, though it calls her Margret in my edition. And elsewhere in the
listings you'll find Garlick and Device.
If you have a searchable document, can you tell me if the spelling
'Magrat' appears? I'll swear I read it in the lists, but I can't find
I've never made a secret of this source; I'm amazed it isn't mentioned
somewhere. Weatherwax came from one of the authors of an old law book I
found (and from the trainer of Lassie, but I did not know it at the
I was surprised it wasn't in the APF already! But sometimes the simple
ones are the ones that get missed!
The versions I've seen have Margrat and Margret, but no Magrat... but
that was only a cursory look, so I can't be definite!
Sorry sir, it doesn't appear to be there. It may have been a misprint,
or a misfire of the synapses.
The full text of Appendix 3 - Names of Witches
It is however noted that in Aberdeen there was an execution of a Margrat Og.
Stop press!!! Witches and Cats pardoned in Scotland...
|A coven of “witches” executed centuries ago were officially pardoned today
|in one of the last acts of ancient baronial powers held by a small
|community in Scotland.
|The 81 were killed in the 16th and 17th century – when people were
|condemned to death as witches on as flimsy evidence as owning a black cat
|or brewing home-made remedies.
|But this Halloween a gathering at Prestonpans in East Lothian has used
|ancient feudal powers, due to be abolished within weeks, to pardon the
|witches – and their cats.
|In a muted ceremony at the Prestoungrange Gothenburg pub, around 32
|descendants, namesakes and supporters came together to mark the occasion,
|which they hope will become an annual Witches’ Remembrance Day to be held
|in the town each Halloween.
|The Barons Courts of Prestoungrange & Dolphinstoun granted the pardons in
|the last session of the courts, which is due to be abolished on November
|The court declared pardon to all those convicted “as well as to the cats
gosh those Scottish courts are slow...
no names mind you... I don't suppose someone from Prestonpans could help us
here now could they???
Margret Og in this ancient OUP edition here. And since that's not the
one I had back in the early 80s, I wonder if the list of names people
didn't know how to spell has been further confused by people not
spelling the wrong spelling right.
As it were...