Origins of Wicca [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

Ben Gruagach

February 12th, 2005, 07:35 PM

I am curious and interested in what details you mean in this regard. Would you give some examples?

And regarding "ceremonial magic" - it is interesting to note Doreen Valiente's argument that Renaissance magic (and Middle Ages magic) is rooted in earlier (read here - pagan) systems. If so, this can make it difficult to accurately discern who borrowed what when we look to ultimate origins.

I am reminded of the 17th century Witch trial involving Laura Malipero. She was caught copying from the Key of Solomon into her own book of spells and remedies. So, are we seeing the origins of Key of Solomon material entering Witchcraft, or are we seeing the re-introduction of lost elements of pagan material into Witchcraft (modified though it may be). It may be ironic, but I begin to feel that the more we know, the less we KNOW. ;)

Best regards - Raven

I have no problem believing that there has been a lot of material that jumped from ceremonial magickians to folk magick practitioners, and from folk magick practitioners into ceremonial magick practice. People who practice magick do have a tendency to be willing to borrow ideas from pretty much anywhere they find them. Things that work are kept, and things that don't work for them tend to get left by the wayside.

It's probably a mistake to assume though that following specific ideas to either ceremonial magick or folk magick practitioners somehow proves the claim that a particular spiritual system (such as Wicca) is an intact religion that has been maintained from pre-Christian times. Anyone can start up a religious system and base it on ideas and practices drawn from the historical past.

Many religions have very questionable founding stories. The Mormons, for instance, claim that their religion is an intact spiritual tradition that was given to Joseph Smith by an angel, with the Book of Mormon written on golden tablets which only he could see and only he could translate. The tablets also conveniently disappeared once he had translated them into English.

As Ben T. mentioned (I think in another thread here on MysticWicks) another example is Freemasonry which claims an intact lineage back to ancient Egypt, which has been pretty much impossible to prove and is likely an inspiring but fictional claim. The Golden Dawn is another one that claimed to be just passing on an intact system but that initial link to a previous system (in their case, a mythical German magickal order) has also been shown to be likely fictional.

Religions, spiritual systems, and magickal systems can be valid and effective regardless of whether their foundation claims are true or not. It's good to explore the historical claims and uncover the truth because we can only grow stronger from it... but we also have to be careful to not deceive ourselves into thinking that some things prove historical claims when they are not really proof at all.

raven grimassi

February 13th, 2005, 12:06 PM

Religions, spiritual systems, and magickal systems can be valid and effective regardless of whether their foundation claims are true or not. It's good to explore the historical claims and uncover the truth because we can only grow stronger from it... but we also have to be careful to not deceive ourselves into thinking that some things prove historical claims when they are not really proof at all.

I do not disagree with the essential thrust of your argument, and my earlier point was not to *prove* anything, but instead to simply suggest that things are not always what they seem (no matter which camp one might be in).

Best regards - Raven

Ben Gruagach

February 13th, 2005, 12:16 PM

I do not disagree with the essential thrust of your argument, and my earlier point was not to *prove* anything, but instead to simply suggest that things are not always what they seem (no matter which camp one might be in).

Best regards - Raven

I agree completely. I think that it's really exciting to be involved in Wicca right now with all the historical research going on by talented people like you, Ronald Hutton, Philip Heselton, and the many others who are working on the topic.

There is so much that we don't know about the origins of Wicca and religious witchcraft, let alone specific practices and ideas and the whole field of occultism itself. There are a lot of claims made though that don't have actual proof to back them up. It's frustrating when claims are presented and we're expected to believe them just on some author's assertion that they are correct. But proof is being ferreted out, and I for one am grateful that it is. It's always better to strip away the illusions and focus on the truth behind things. In a lot of ways, that is the essence of the spiritual journey (at least for me anyways!)

MorningDove030202

February 13th, 2005, 01:45 PM

I think there are many thing about Wicca that we will not ever know if they are anicent or modern, because we all have differnt defintions on what constiutes ancient and modern. Is something modern if it's 500 years old? Is it modern if it's 1000 years old? Is it ancient if it's 501 years old? what about 1001 years old? I would agree that many of the beliefs are ancient, but our practice is more recent than ancient. I would guess that most wiccan practices are 1000 years old or younger.

Maybe a better question would be "Why do we have this need to claim the word ancient?"

Dove

raven grimassi

February 13th, 2005, 01:49 PM

There is so much that we don't know about the origins of Wicca and religious witchcraft, let alone specific practices and ideas and the whole field of occultism itself.

Yes, that is true, and I feel that "occultism" itself makes it all that more complex. What I mean is that occult explanations do not hold water with the vast majority of scholars, which may contribute to their dismissal of things that perhaps should be noted. I am referring to such things as "ancestral memory" versus concoction, morphogenetic principles versus fabrication, and so forth.

Historian Diane Purkiss (The Witch in History) wrote:

"It follows that in order to exist according to its own self-definition, history must repress any hint of the supernatural as real or as capable of causing events...This results in a hollowness at the center of historical discourse on the supernatural, which displaces the very subject it promises to address. The supernatural must be transformed into something else so that it can be discussed...history can say nothing about angels or demons or witches until they are psychoanalytic symptoms, chemicals, illnesses, political tools, or social categories".

I think this academic tunnel-vision approach is as much an obstacle to the truth as are the flights of fancy we often encounter in our own community.

There are a lot of claims made though that don't have actual proof to back them up.

Yes, it can be like arguing for the existence of the soul without enough documentation to substantiate such a claim. ;)

It's frustrating when claims are presented and we're expected to believe them just on some author's assertion that they are correct.

No argument here, and I have always held the view that a book is simply a published opinion. I believe in questioning, and I believe in alternative views, which is why I write what I do. The more information we all have, the more able we are to discern. I have always felt that if my writings do nothing more than make someone hold firmer to their contrary position, then I have performed a worthwhile service towards their own convictions.

But proof is being ferreted out, and I for one am grateful that it is. It's always better to strip away the illusions and focus on the truth behind things. In a lot of ways, that is the essence of the spiritual journey (at least for me anyways!)

Sounds good to me.

Best regards - Raven

Ben Gruagach

February 13th, 2005, 02:14 PM

Yes, that is true, and I feel that "occultism" itself makes it all that more complex. What I mean is that occult explanations do not hold water with the vast majority of scholars, which may contribute to their dismissal of things that perhaps should be noted. I am referring to such things as "ancestral memory" versus concoction, morphogenetic principles versus fabrication, and so forth.

Historian Diane Purkiss (The Witch in History) wrote:

"It follows that in order to exist according to its own self-definition, history must repress any hint of the supernatural as real or as capable of causing events...This results in a hollowness at the center of historical discourse on the supernatural, which displaces the very subject it promises to address. The supernatural must be transformed into something else so that it can be discussed...history can say nothing about angels or demons or witches until they are psychoanalytic symptoms, chemicals, illnesses, political tools, or social categories".

You've touched on some important points. It is really frustrating when topics (such as things usually classified as supernatural or occult) are dismissed because of arbitrary value judgements that the phenomena are pathology or symtoms of illness rather than phenomena worth examining in their own right.

Attitudes that things classified as occult or spiritual are hogwash and not worth examining is as intellectually immature as those who take the opposite approach and say because someone says their personal inspiration is Divine Utterance it must be accepted as proven. Both sides are extremes and are not based on actually looking at the phenomena or the specific thing being examined but are rather attempts to appeal to some outside authority to save us all having to actually think.

Inspiration is very important particularly in a spiritual context. It's information that is considered significant by those who are looking at it. Does it really matter if it's an idea I came up with myself or truly is something a Divine figure whispered in my ear? If the information is valid and useful then it will stand on its own.

MorningDove030202's post brings out part of the problem really clearly -- it's all about why we should consider an idea, a practice, or a bit of information important. Some attempt to bolster an idea's importance by appealing to the authority of the idea's age. The common assumption made by some is that if something is old it's therefore more authoritative or better.

Similarly, some attempt to make an idea appear more important by claiming it's Divine Utterance rather than their own idea or something they picked up through a more mundane source. Accepting that claim of authority though means just having to believe and unfortunately it's a gamble that is sometimes (and maybe even in most cases) is a losing proposition.

Scientists and scholars rely on facts and proof that can be confirmed or disproven. If something is to be accepted as fact then it must have that proof. Appeals to authorities might impress some but without that backup of actual proof the appeals don't mean much.

Sure, spirituality and religion has that thing called "faith" and "belief" worked into the whole equation. There is nothing wrong with asking people to have faith or to believe, but there is something wrong with pretending like faith and blind belief are what constitute scientific or scholarly claims. We do our community more harm than good by pretending we have scientific or scholarly backing for something when it's not actually the case. It reinforces animosity towards our community from scientists and scholars, and makes it harder to gain acceptance for our claims that might be valid and supported by fact even among our own community members. People who get caught being deceptive tend to lose respect.

raven grimassi

February 13th, 2005, 03:31 PM

Attitudes that things classified as occult or spiritual are hogwash and not worth examining is as intellectually immature as those who take the opposite approach and say because someone says their personal inspiration is Divine Utterance it must be accepted as proven. Both sides are extremes and are not based on actually looking at the phenomena or the specific thing being examined but are rather attempts to appeal to some outside authority to save us all having to actually think.

Yes, and I feel that balance is always important, which is why I prefer the practice of earth religion. While I do enjoy the intellectual debates, I am also a witch of the heart. This can cause me to intuit that I know something by its feel as opposed to its tangible proof. But again, I always try and balance the mind and the heart.

Inspiration is very important particularly in a spiritual context. It's information that is considered significant by those who are looking at it. Does it really matter if it's an idea I came up with myself or truly is something a Divine figure whispered in my ear? If the information is valid and useful then it will stand on its own.

Sounds reasonable to me.

MorningDove030202's post brings out part of the problem really clearly -- it's all about why we should consider an idea, a practice, or a bit of information important. Some attempt to bolster an idea's importance by appealing to the authority of the idea's age. The common assumption made by some is that if something is old it's therefore more authoritative or better.

There is an old saying that "There is as much ancient folly as there is ancient wisdom". And so the fact that something may be ancient does not, in and of itself, indicate authenticity or value. Ancient people once thought the world was flat and carried on the back of a giant. So, there are some things we need to dismiss among ancient beliefs.

But, our ancestors were also a very practical people, and they tended to pass on things of value, things that stood the test of time. And so there is something of value to be said of rooted beliefs as well.

We do our community more harm than good by pretending we have scientific or scholarly backing for something when it's not actually the case. It reinforces animosity towards our community from scientists and scholars, and makes it harder to gain acceptance for our claims that might be valid and supported by fact even among our own community members. People who get caught being deceptive tend to lose respect.

Yes, there have been incidents where certain authors in our community have been quite sloppy (if not inventive) with their research, and it has been an embarrassment to us all. And as you say, it undermines our credibility. But, I have also seen several respected scholars build their argument in part on errors they themselves have made in their own research.

None of us are infallible, and we will make mistakes, and we will all draw incorrect conclusions from time to time. But I think there is a very real difference between deception and personal conviction. Deception is knowing you are wrong and proceeding anyway. Conviction is knowing that other people think you are wrong, but believing in something anyway and seeing it through to the end. I think such individuals as the latter have made a greater impact on history than have those who stay thinking inside the box.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth. ;)

Best regards - Raven

blackroseivy

February 13th, 2005, 05:02 PM

Hmmmmmmmm... I think that anything truly ancient has survived sealed in the amber of the culture in which it is born. When it migrates, it metamorphoses. Thus, you might trace certain ideas back to ancient Egyptian ones - such as Alchemy & by association, the Tarot - abut they are obviously not manifestations of actual ancient Egyptian culture & thought, only the echoes of memories of such that turn up in very different form far lateron. You might say that Magickal ideas all have ancient DNA, but they are, in the forms we know them now, descendants, even collateral ones, not the thing itself. That pretty much goes for anything in civilization that is more than mere pop-culture, anything handed down for anybody's guess how long. You might ask, how much are we like our Ancestors? Not in superficial ways, but in more fundamental behaviors & appearances.

I once had a vision of a Bronze-Age Celt (whatever she may have been called), & she gave the impression of a stoic personality & being a quick learner. One thing I remember: Colors are different in our modern way of thinking than it was then; they had a more simplistic view of what a color was, whereas we have an incredibly complex spectrum that we recognize. Ok, so all of this is speculation; but it just is my idea that we see things so differently now, it's hard to recognize the ancient in the everyday even when it directly confronts us.

DebLipp

February 14th, 2005, 09:47 AM

Ben, I know I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record, but the only thing that Wicca has in common with any Celtic beliefs is the name of four of their Sabbats. The mythology and practices have little to nothing in common. Even the horned god idea present in Wicca has very little to do with the Celtic antlered god Cernunnos from whom this concept is suppossed to come from. They might share the same name, but I've seen little of the same god in that name.
I think you're picking nits. Wiccans may use the phrase "horned god" (presumably because it scans so nicely and trips so elegantly off the tongue) but, in fact, they worship an antlered god who is substantively the same as the Celtic antlered god. He is cyclic, renewing, and associated with the stag. A lot of Wiccan mythology and theology is straight out of the Mabinogion.

Ben Trismegistus

February 14th, 2005, 10:39 AM

I am curious and interested in what details you mean in this regard. Would you give some examples?
I was offline for the fascinating discussion between you and Ben G, so I'm late in answering your question.

Well, while attempting to skirt around oathbound material (both in Wicca and in Freemasonry), I can tell you that many Wiccan ritual practices are derived from Freemasonry. Both use an initiatory system of three degrees -- the first degree in particular contains numerous shared elements (you'll have to take my word for it). Even the phrase "so mote it be", whatever its origins may be, is found in both Freemasonry and Wicca. Both systems share a reverence of the cardinal directions, and the concept that ritual must be contained within the act of "opening" and "closing" -- a circle in the case of Wicca, a Lodge in the case of Masonry.

As for Ceremonial Magic, I only know what I've read, about the works of John Dee and Edward Kelly traveling down through generations, picking up Eliphas Levi and the Corpus Hermeticum, and finally influencing the Golden Dawn, Crowley, and eventually Gardner.

And regarding "ceremonial magic" - it is interesting to note Doreen Valiente's argument that Renaissance magic (and Middle Ages magic) is rooted in earlier (read here - pagan) systems. If so, this can make it difficult to accurately discern who borrowed what when we look to ultimate origins.
Possible. But, much like Wicca, even if Ceremonial Magic *was* an eclectic construct of previous systems, that doesn't make its unique existence any more difficult to pinpoint.

B

raven grimassi

February 14th, 2005, 12:24 PM

Well, while attempting to skirt around oathbound material (both in Wicca and in Freemasonry), I can tell you that many Wiccan ritual practices are derived from Freemasonry. Both use an initiatory system of three degrees -- the first degree in particular contains numerous shared elements (you'll have to take my word for it).

No worries, I understand the honoring of oaths, and unlike some people I do not view it as a dodge. My own personal theory is that the British Craft and Freemasonry have shared roots, which is why we see the similarities (if not some identical aspects).

It is interesting to note that Doreen Valiente, in the introduction to her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, states that two Masons (Hargrave Jennings and W. J. Hughan) set out in the mid 19th century looking for "personal verification that the Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Valiente states that as a result these Masons formed a close relationship with George Pickingill (the witch of Canewdon) from the 1850s onward. Doreen notes that Pickingill, a non-Mason, amazed Hargave and Hughan by "expounding the inner secrets of Masonry." This led the team to concede that Witchcraft may have possessed some secret arcane knowledge akin to Freemasonry.

Both use an initiatory system of three degrees -- the first degree in particular contains numerous shared elements (you'll have to take my word for it).

This is also true of an old non-Masonic society in Italy known as the Carbonari. The secret society of the Carbonari first appears in public records during the early 1700s. The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands, and the order possessed three degrees of initiation marked by colored cords or ribbons: blue, red and black. A triangle marked the first degree level. The members were bound by a serious oath to observe absolute silence concerning their organization. The Carbonari went on to establish a lodge in Scotland in 1820.

Both systems share a reverence of the cardinal directions, and the concept that ritual must be contained within the act of "opening" and "closing" -- a circle in the case of Wicca, a Lodge in the case of Masonry.

It is interesting to note that many other system that are not associated with Freemasonry (and some predating it) also "share a reverence of the cardinal directions". Also noteworthy is the "opening and closing" ceremonies for the Mystery Temples in ancient Greece and Rome.

A couple of years back, I ran across the writings of Albert Mackey, who during the late 1800s was a Mason that served as grand high priest of the Grand Chapter, grand master of the grand council, and general grand high priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States. In the last decade of his life, Mackey served as secretary general of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree. During his lifetime he authored thirteen books on Freemasonry. In his last work, titled The History of Freemasonry, Mackey explores many of the various and differing legends concerning the origins of Freemasonry. His chapter titled Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries is of particular interest when comparing elements of Freemasonry with modern witchcraft.

In his book Mackey examines the theory (one of many) that the origins of Freemasonry as a secret society are rooted in an ancient pagan mystery cult tradition. He states that the foundation of this theory "derives from the most important part of its ritual and the legend of its Third Degree from the initiation practiced in these religious organizations..." The parallels drawn by Mackey are:

1. The Preparation of the initiate by a washing or cleansing that was both physical and symbolic.

2. The Initiation, which passes the initiate through the lesser and greater mysteries. Mackey likens this to that which occurs in Freemasonry concerning the Fellow's Craft and the master's degree.

3. The Perfection, which transmitted the "true dogma" or the "great secret" symbolized by the initiation rite itself. Mackey states that this is identical in Freemasonry.

4. The secret nature of both Freemasonry and the Pagan Mystery Tradition.

5. The use of symbols.

6. The dramatic form of the initiation.

7. The division of both systems into degrees or steps.

8. The adoption by both of secret methods of recognition.

Mackey asks a very interesting question in his chapter:

"Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?" (An interesting side note - in the cult of Mithras we find the use of a chalice, wand, knife, platter, sword and whip, which seems to be remarkably similar to the Gardnerian tools).

The commonality of the human experience and the resulting human expression itself is an important element to consider when comparing belief systems. Mackey himself notes that the only "important difference" between the various mystery cults created by humankind was in the particular/peculiar gods and hero figures, but that "the material points of the plot and the religious design of the sacred drama were identical." Mackey goes on to state that the forms and representations of the allegory employed by the various mystery schools of Greece, Samothrace, Egypt and Persia were "everywhere preserved."

Mackey notes that the Mysteries were divided into two classes called the Greater and Lesser Mysteries. He comments on a preparatory stage in the ancient Mystery tradition, and concludes: "So that there was in the process of reception a system of three steps, which those who are fond of tracing analogies between the ancient and the modern initiations are prone to call degrees."

In the closing of his chapter, Mackey states that the "form and character" of certain Masonic rituals such as the third degree rite were derived from the "funeral legend" of the ancient initiations. According to Mackey, in Freemasonry this theme is stylized to incorporate a mythical history related to Hiram Abiff, the head of the workmen that constructed the ancient temple of King Solomon.

In essence the "funeral legend" appears to be the same classic theme of descent into the Underworld and the retrieval therefrom. It is a foundational theme residing in such mystery traditions as the Eleusinian Mystery Cult of ancient Greece, which focused on the goddess in the Underworld and her return from the Realm of the Dead. In many Witchcraft/Wiccan traditions the same essential mythos can be found within ritual text.

Anyway, some interesting things to note and to muse over.

Best regards - Raven

DebLipp

February 14th, 2005, 12:56 PM

No worries, I understand the honoring of oaths, and unlike some people I do not view it as a dodge. My own personal theory is that the British Craft and Freemasonry have shared roots, which is why we see the similarities (if not some identical aspects).

It is interesting to note that Doreen Valiente, in the introduction to her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, states that two Masons (Hargrave Jennings and W. J. Hughan) set out in the mid 19th century looking for "personal verification that the Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Valiente states that as a result these Masons formed a close relationship with George Pickingill (the witch of Canewdon) from the 1850s onward. Doreen notes that Pickingill, a non-Mason, amazed Hargave and Hughan by "expounding the inner secrets of Masonry." This led the team to concede that Witchcraft may have possessed some secret arcane knowledge akin to Freemasonry.

This is also true of an old non-Masonic society in Italy known as the Carbonari. The secret society of the Carbonari first appears in public records during the early 1700s. The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands, and the order possessed three degrees of initiation marked by colored cords or ribbons: blue, red and black. A triangle marked the first degree level. The members were bound by a serious oath to observe absolute silence concerning their organization. The Carbonari went on to establish a lodge in Scotland in 1820.

It is interesting to note that many other system that are not associated with Freemasonry (and some predating it) also "share a reverence of the cardinal directions". Also noteworthy is the "opening and closing" ceremonies for the Mystery Temples in ancient Greece and Rome.

A couple of years back, I ran across the writings of Albert Mackey, who during the late 1800s was a Mason that served as grand high priest of the Grand Chapter, grand master of the grand council, and general grand high priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States. In the last decade of his life, Mackey served as secretary general of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree. During his lifetime he authored thirteen books on Freemasonry. In his last work, titled The History of Freemasonry, Mackey explores many of the various and differing legends concerning the origins of Freemasonry. His chapter titled Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries is of particular interest when comparing elements of Freemasonry with modern witchcraft.

In his book Mackey examines the theory (one of many) that the origins of Freemasonry as a secret society are rooted in an ancient pagan mystery cult tradition. He states that the foundation of this theory "derives from the most important part of its ritual and the legend of its Third Degree from the initiation practiced in these religious organizations..." The parallels drawn by Mackey are:

1. The Preparation of the initiate by a washing or cleansing that was both physical and symbolic.

2. The Initiation, which passes the initiate through the lesser and greater mysteries. Mackey likens this to that which occurs in Freemasonry concerning the Fellow's Craft and the master's degree.

3. The Perfection, which transmitted the "true dogma" or the "great secret" symbolized by the initiation rite itself. Mackey states that this is identical in Freemasonry.

4. The secret nature of both Freemasonry and the Pagan Mystery Tradition.

5. The use of symbols.

6. The dramatic form of the initiation.

7. The division of both systems into degrees or steps.

8. The adoption by both of secret methods of recognition.

Mackey asks a very interesting question in his chapter:

"Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?" (An interesting side note - in the cult of Mithras we find the use of a chalice, wand, knife, platter, sword and whip, which seems to be remarkably similar to the Gardnerian tools).

The commonality of the human experience and the resulting human expression itself is an important element to consider when comparing belief systems. Mackey himself notes that the only "important difference" between the various mystery cults created by humankind was in the particular/peculiar gods and hero figures, but that "the material points of the plot and the religious design of the sacred drama were identical." Mackey goes on to state that the forms and representations of the allegory employed by the various mystery schools of Greece, Samothrace, Egypt and Persia were "everywhere preserved."

Mackey notes that the Mysteries were divided into two classes called the Greater and Lesser Mysteries. He comments on a preparatory stage in the ancient Mystery tradition, and concludes: "So that there was in the process of reception a system of three steps, which those who are fond of tracing analogies between the ancient and the modern initiations are prone to call degrees."

In the closing of his chapter, Mackey states that the "form and character" of certain Masonic rituals such as the third degree rite were derived from the "funeral legend" of the ancient initiations. According to Mackey, in Freemasonry this theme is stylized to incorporate a mythical history related to Hiram Abiff, the head of the workmen that constructed the ancient temple of King Solomon.

In essence the "funeral legend" appears to be the same classic theme of descent into the Underworld and the retrieval therefrom. It is a foundational theme residing in such mystery traditions as the Eleusinian Mystery Cult of ancient Greece, which focused on the goddess in the Underworld and her return from the Realm of the Dead. In many Witchcraft/Wiccan traditions the same essential mythos can be found within ritual text.

Anyway, some interesting things to note and to muse over.

Best regards - Raven

I am fascinated by what you've written here and would like to read more about it. Which of your books would you direct me to?

Ben Trismegistus

February 14th, 2005, 01:00 PM

No worries, I understand the honoring of oaths, and unlike some people I do not view it as a dodge. My own personal theory is that the British Craft and Freemasonry have shared roots, which is why we see the similarities (if not some identical aspects).
Well, in a sense they do. The initiatory concept dates back to the mystery cults of ancient Greece - the idea of certain levels of knowledge being attained in conjunction with certain initiatory rituals. The idea of a cult in which you learn more as you progress through degrees is still present today, in groups such as Scientology.

That said, considering that Freemasonry was wildly popular in England in the 19th and early 20th centuries, birthing a tremendous number of copy-cat secret societies (from the Elks to the Oddfellows to the Golden Dawn), I would wager that it's likely that Gardner got his ritual ideas more from his connection to the Masons than to research he had done regarding mystery cults. I have no doubt that Gardner was well-versed in Greek mythology, but common sense would dictate (in my opinion, at least) that he was still influenced by Freemasonry in particular.

It is interesting to note that Doreen Valiente, in the introduction to her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, states that two Masons (Hargrave Jennings and W. J. Hughan) set out in the mid 19th century looking for "personal verification that the Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Valiente states that as a result these Masons formed a close relationship with George Pickingill (the witch of Canewdon) from the 1850s onward. Doreen notes that Pickingill, a non-Mason, amazed Hargave and Hughan by "expounding the inner secrets of Masonry." This led the team to concede that Witchcraft may have possessed some secret arcane knowledge akin to Freemasonry.
Interesting. Although, considering that much of the mythology surrounding the origins of Wicca are hyperbolic (if not entirely made up), I would wonder whether this story was invented as a way to lend creedence to the combination of the Pickingill's cunningfolk traditions and Freemasonry. A cursory investigation shows that this story doesn't appear to exist outside of Valiente's writings. Hargrave and Hughan were indeed Masons and Rosicrucians, but their biographies (as far as I can tell) make no official mention of a connection to Pickingill.

Not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that my gut leads me to believe that the story is legend rather than truth.

This is also true of an old non-Masonic society in Italy known as the Carbonari. The secret society of the Carbonari first appears in public records during the early 1700s. The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands, and the order possessed three degrees of initiation marked by colored cords or ribbons: blue, red and black. A triangle marked the first degree level. The members were bound by a serious oath to observe absolute silence concerning their organization. The Carbonari went on to establish a lodge in Scotland in 1820.
Interesting -- although, since the Freemasons were believed to be extant in England and Scotland as early as the mid-sixteenth century, it's possible that the Carbonari's rituals were also borrowed from the Masons. They did get around an awful lot.

It is interesting to note that many other system that are not associated with Freemasonry (and some predating it) also "share a reverence of the cardinal directions". Also noteworthy is the "opening and closing" ceremonies for the Mystery Temples in ancient Greece and Rome.
Absolutely true. And I believe that the interest in neoclassicism in the 19th century fueled the popularity of Freemasonry and other secret societies.

"Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?" (An interesting side note - in the cult of Mithras we find the use of a chalice, wand, knife, platter, sword and whip, which seems to be remarkably similar to the Gardnerian tools).
An interesting question, but surely you know that the possibility of an uninterrupted line of succession from ancient pagan to modern Freemasonry (and beyond) is all but impossible.

Current scholarship (I highly recommend David Stevenson's The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century 1590-1710 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521396549/qid=1108403528/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2372644-8223805?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)) would suggest that Freemasonry grew out of medieval guilds of stone masons, and that a simple system of passwords and handshakes (in order to assure that only those with enough guild experience could receive a master's wages) grew, through the influence of nobility and some academics with an interest in classical mythology, into the system that continues to flourish today. Mackey's theories are interesting, but they are also 150 years old, and anchored in a time when every secret society felt the need to claim an ancient history for their society.

In essence the "funeral legend" appears to be the same classic theme of descent into the Underworld and the retrieval therefrom. It is a foundational theme residing in such mystery traditions as the Eleusinian Mystery Cult of ancient Greece, which focused on the goddess in the Underworld and her return from the Realm of the Dead. In many Witchcraft/Wiccan traditions the same essential mythos can be found within ritual text.
Yes, there is definitely an element of religious reconstruction to Freemasonry. The pertinent question is whether Gardner came to a knowledge of ancient paganism through Freemasonry, or vice versa? A semantic argument, surely, but I enjoy semantic arguments. :)

Thanks for a fascinating discussion Raven!

raven grimassi

February 14th, 2005, 01:25 PM

I am fascinated by what you've written here and would like to read more about it. Which of your books would you direct me to?

First, thank you, as truly that is quite a compliment. :)

In my book The Witches' Craft, I have a chapter (The Witches' History) that goes into all of this quite fully. It also explores other early "secret societies" where we find the same core "commonalities". The areas that you might be interested in most begin on page 24. Prior to that you would have to wade through my Aegean/Mediterranean roots theory, and the sound of that old drum. ;)

Best regards - Raven

Paracelsus

February 14th, 2005, 01:41 PM

I'm sure that you're all familiar with Hutton's Triumph of the moon, so I won't dwell on that, but I'm going to see Phillip Hesleton at a Conference next month, speaking about his recent research - would you like me to record / transcribe his talk for you (providing he is agreeable, of course).

raven grimassi

February 14th, 2005, 02:51 PM

Thanks go to you, Ben, for this interesting conversation. I am very interested in your views on Freemasonry, and I respectfully offer the following for your commentaries.

...considering that Freemasonry was wildly popular in England in the 19th and early 20th centuries, birthing a tremendous number of copy-cat secret societies (from the Elks to the Oddfellows to the Golden Dawn), I would wager that it's likely that Gardner got his ritual ideas more from his connection to the Masons than to research he had done regarding mystery cults. I have no doubt that Gardner was well-versed in Greek mythology, but common sense would dictate (in my opinion, at least) that he was still influenced by Freemasonry in particular.

That is certainly not an unreasonable argument, but I wonder if the root similarities were the impetus for any borrowing that may have taken place. According to Valiente (who I corresponded with for a time before her death) Gardner was trying to patch the holes and fill the gaps of what he believed was a surviving tradition (as opposed to pulling Wicca out of his *** one boring cold winter's night when there was little else to do but create a religion. ;)

If so, perhaps we might be looking at the shaving-down of a jig-saw puzzle piece (that looked "close enough" ) so that it fit where the lost original went. And in such an event, I am not sure that the resulting image would be attributed wholly to the shaved piece.

Although, considering that much of the mythology surrounding the origins of Wicca are hyperbolic (if not entirely made up), I would wonder whether this story was invented as a way to lend creedence to the combination of the Pickingill's cunningfolk traditions and Freemasonry. A cursory investigation shows that this story doesn't appear to exist outside of Valiente's writings. Hargrave and Hughan were indeed Masons and Rosicrucians, but their biographies (as far as I can tell) make no official mention of a connection to Pickingill.

Anything is possible here, including that the story is true. And, as is always my annoying position, a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

-- although, since the Freemasons were believed to be extant in England and Scotland as early as the mid-sixteenth century, it's possible that the Carbonari's rituals were also borrowed from the Masons. They did get around an awful lot.

From the available literature it appears that the Carbonari originated without Masonic ties or contacts. But we do know that later they allowed Masons to join at matching degree levels. The writings seem to indicate that it was the noted similarities that allowed for this, and from this view it seems they are talking about independent comparisons and not borrowings.

... but surely you know that the possibility of an uninterrupted line of succession from ancient pagan to modern Freemasonry (and beyond) is all but impossible.

Well, it is like I said earlier, the more I know the less I KNOW. ;) But I would say that the uninterrupted theory is questionable. But, the commonalities need not be from direct lineage in order to demonstrate a mutual source for specific elements appearing in both Freemasonry and Wicca/Witchcraft. It seems to me that many secret societies of the 19th century drew upon the same roots, and therefore have many shared elements from earlier sources. But the root concept remains an independent truth that is open for grabs, shared or otherwise. My point is that the same sources and material for "borrowing from" were available to Gardner and to Freemasons.

Current scholarship...would suggest that Freemasonry grew out of medieval guilds of stone masons, and that a simple system of passwords and handshakes (in order to assure that only those with enough guild experience could receive a master's wages) grew, through the influence of nobility and some academics with an interest in classical mythology, into the system that continues to flourish today. Mackey's theories are interesting, but they are also 150 years old, and anchored in a time when every secret society felt the need to claim an ancient history for their society.

From what I've read, Mackey pretty much spoke of a mythical history for Freemasonry, not a literal lineage. He seems more concerned with a spiritual lineage to rooted concepts.

I am somewhat familiar with the "medieval guilds of stone masons" and I found some interesting references, and would appreciate your views.

In 1924, a Mason named W. Ravenscroft published a book titled The Comacines. This book dealt with the view that the origins of Freemasonry lie in the ancient Roman College of Artificers, whose existence is confirmed in a letter referring to "a college of workmen" written by Pliny to the Emperor Trajan at the end of the first century.
Ravenscroft says this is supported by Professor Baldwin Brown in From Schola to Cathedral (Douglas, Edinburgh, 1886).

According to Ravenscroft, each Roman legion had with it a company of engineers (who would have been responsible for constructing everything from bridges, to siege equipment, to housing for the troops in conquered territory). Ravenscroft writes "...there is conclusive evidence of their survival till the time of the decline and fall of Rome, each legion having a college attached to it, which accompanied it in its various campaigns. Thus they came to Britain, and we are told that in the early 4th century there were no less that fifty-three important cities, each with its Collegium Fabrorum, in England. Some think they became the progenitors of the English Medieval Guild of Artificers..."

Ravenscroft also notes that the writings of Roman authors and inscriptions found on monuments furnish "undeniable proof" that the association of artificers continued amongst the Romans for a considerable period, and existed in Gaul, Brittany, and what is now England.

Following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the British Isles, Ravenscroft states that the Guild of Artificers left and settled in the district of Como, establishing their center on the island of Comacina. He claims that remnant factions of the Roman artificers remaining in the British Isles merged into the great Masonic Guilds of the Middle Ages, and "that as these guilds died out, their forms and ceremonies were preserved to a great extent in our Masonic lodges ..."

I am no authority on the Masons by any means, but I do find some interesting elements associated with things that I do know about. For example, it is known that Roman soldiers in the latter half of the Empire belonged to the cult of Mithras. One example is the 2nd Adiutrix legion (circa 69 CE) which served in Britain and Aquincum on the Danube. There is also some reasonable speculation that the 1st Italica and the 9th Claudia legions may have spread elements of Mithraism throughout the Danubian provinces. Therefore it is relatively safe to conjecture that elements of Mithraic philosophy were introduced into the conquered lands held by the legions of Rome.

Within the cult of Mithras there existed what is referred to as the investiture scenes, which depict ritual images associated with cult symbolism that bear a striking similarity regarding ritual elements within Freemasonry. It is also interesting to compare the "five points of fellowship" in Freemasonry (feet, knees, breast, back, head) to an Orphic statue of Mithras in which the deity is divided into five segments by a serpent coiled around his feet, knees, chest, back and head.

Yes, there is definitely an element of religious reconstruction to Freemasonry. The pertinent question is whether Gardner came to a knowledge of ancient paganism through Freemasonry, or vice versa? A semantic argument, surely, but I enjoy semantic arguments. :)

It is a good "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of debate. ;)

Best regards - raven

Dawa Lhamo

February 14th, 2005, 03:09 PM

Interesting. Although, considering that much of the mythology surrounding the origins of Wicca are hyperbolic (if not entirely made up), I would wonder whether this story was invented as a way to lend creedence to the combination of the Pickingill's cunningfolk traditions and Freemasonry. A cursory investigation shows that this story doesn't appear to exist outside of Valiente's writings. Hargrave and Hughan were indeed Masons and Rosicrucians, but their biographies (as far as I can tell) make no official mention of a connection to Pickingill.

Not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that my gut leads me to believe that the story is legend rather than truth. Ok, well, I did a little looking around, and I found this reference. I don't know the validity of it, as the forward says "We are indebted to Doreen Valiente, Michael Howard and Prudence Jones for their research...etc.", but I thought I'd include it here since it's of interest. First it says that Hargrave Jennings and Minna Bergson were two of George Pickingill's most enthusiastic disciples. Then...
"A small coterie of Master Masons established a lengthy and productive relationship with George Pickingill from the 1850s onwards.

These Freemasons entertained Rosicrucian fantasies and sought personal verification that Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Then it goes on to say how Pickingill awed them, and they conceded that the "Witch cult" may have secret knowledge...
"Occult-minded Freemasons were to question Old George very thoroughly over a period of many years. Indeed, George Pickingill was their only informant." Then it talks about Rosicrucian orders...
"Two Master Masons, who were to become founding members of the Rosicrucian Society of England, had been accepted by Old George as his pupils: Hargrave Jennings and W.J. Hughan." Exchanging ideas...
"Hargrave Jennings collaborated with George Pickingill on a very ambitious project -- a Craft ritual which would incorporate the best elements of traditional Witchcraft, accepted Masonic symbolism, and Rosicrucian magic."
"There was a third collaborator in what proved to be one of the finest literary hoaxes of the nineteenth century; the French occultist J.B. Ragon....he was a posthumous collaborator." This is from a little pamphlet called Old George Pickingill and the Roots of Modern Witchcraft by Lugh, first American edition - 1984. Again, I don't know the veracity of it, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

raven grimassi

February 14th, 2005, 03:21 PM

This is from a little pamphlet called Old George Pickingill and the Roots of Modern Witchcraft by Lugh, first American edition - 1984. Again, I don't know the veracity of it, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

Ah yes, good ol' Lugh. I remember the little booklet, and have a copy stashed away somewhere that I'll have to retrieve now. I cannot speak to the authenticity of his writings as I know very little about him and what he knew or believed, but perhaps others here might.

Best regards - Raven

Ben Trismegistus

February 14th, 2005, 03:44 PM

Thanks go to you, Ben, for this interesting conversation. I am very interested in your views on Freemasonry, and I respectfully offer the following for your commentaries.
The feeling is mutual. :)

That is certainly not an unreasonable argument, but I wonder if the root similarities were the impetus for any borrowing that may have taken place. According to Valiente (who I corresponded with for a time before her death) Gardner was trying to patch the holes and fill the gaps of what he believed was a surviving tradition (as opposed to pulling Wicca out of his *** one boring cold winter's night when there was little else to do but create a religion. ;)

If so, perhaps we might be looking at the shaving-down of a jig-saw puzzle piece (that looked "close enough" ) so that it fit where the lost original went. And in such an event, I am not sure that the resulting image would be attributed wholly to the shaved piece.
That's entirely possible. And in fact, that *does* appear to be what Gardner did -- took what he perceived to be a surviving tradition (that of the English cunningfolk), and expanded upon it using his other experiences -- Greek mythology, Freemasonry, Crowley, etc. I certainly do not believe that he extracted Wicca wholly from his fundament (to use your colorful expression). If I'm stressing the influence of Freemasonry too much, it's only because I know more about it than some of the other influences. But, like you say, it's only one piece of the whole, shaved-down or otherwise.

Anything is possible here, including that the story is true. And, as is always my annoying position, a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.
Yes, I saw that on another thread. I recently read a quote in a Tom Robbins book which basically said (I'm paraphrasing) that those who believed in absolute certainty were every bit as naive as those whose minds were open to absolutely everything. I'm slaughtering it, but that's the gist.

Anyway, yes, it's entirely possible that the story is true. I see no reason, seeing as Freemasonry was born on the British Isles, why some of its ritual practices might not find their way into the ranks of the cunningfolk, or indeed, that some additional precursor influenced them both.

From the available literature it appears that the Carbonari originated without Masonic ties or contacts. But we do know that later they allowed Masons to join at matching degree levels. The writings seem to indicate that it was the noted similarities that allowed for this, and from this view it seems they are talking about independent comparisons and not borrowings.
Well it's certainly interesting. I'll admit that I know absolutely nothing about the Carbonari. I'll have to do more reading.

Well, it is like I said earlier, the more I know the less I KNOW. ;) But I would say that the uninterrupted theory is questionable. But, the commonalities need not be from direct lineage in order to demonstrate a mutual source for specific elements appearing in both Freemasonry and Wicca/Witchcraft. It seems to me that many secret societies of the 19th century drew upon the same roots, and therefore have many shared elements from earlier sources. But the root concept remains an independent truth that is open for grabs, shared or otherwise.
Absolutely. Which is why I'm careful not to talk in absolutes. ;) Easier to save face if I turn out to be wrong. :)

From what I've read, Mackey pretty much spoke of a mythical history for Freemasonry, not a literal lineage. He seems more concerned with a spiritual lineage to rooted concepts.
Yes exactly. It wasn't until recently that the Freemasons themselves began to look beyond the legendary version of their origins and history (Egyptians, Templars, and all that) and began to explore where they actually came from. As I've stated on other threads, in a sense the literal origin is not as important as the mythological origin, in terms of what it says about the group as a whole. I've made the same argument about Wicca and Christianity. That's not to say that it isn't worthwhile to know the literal truth - only that in learning the literal truth, it is dangerous to then ditch the legends.

(snip)
Within the cult of Mithras there existed what is referred to as the investiture scenes, which depict ritual images associated with cult symbolism that bear a striking similarity regarding ritual elements within Freemasonry. It is also interesting to compare the "five points of fellowship" in Freemasonry (feet, knees, breast, back, head) to an Orphic statue of Mithras in which the deity is divided into five segments by a serpent coiled around his feet, knees, chest, back and head.
Definitely some interesting stuff there. However, books on Freemasonry, much like books on Wicca/Witchcraft, must be seen as a product of the time when they were written. You can't, for example, make a direct comparison between Leland's Aradia and one of your own books, as the distance in decades reflects an equal distance in the amount of knowledge and attitude regarding the subject matter. It is the same with Freemasonry. There are many books on Freemasonry from the 19th and early 20th century, containing "histories" that are rife with inaccuracies, or make giant leaps of logic out of disparate elements. I'm unfamiliar specifically with the work of Ravenscroft, but his theories sound like a leap in logic to me. Freemasonry does contain many elements of older traditions -- Egyptian ritual, Greek and Roman mythology, Ceremonial Magic, etc. -- but my personal belief is that this is from design rather than heredity. Meaning that early Freemasons, in forming their fraternity, sought out ancient practices to encorporate into their own, in order to add a feeling of mystery to their rituals. This doesn't rule out a direct connection, but I think it unlikely.

It's a shame, because when I joined the Masons, I really wanted the connection between the Masons and the Templars to be true. As it turns out to be very unlikely, I'm disappointed, but I'm also delighted to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.

It is a good "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of debate. ;)
That it is - and thanks for the intellectual calisthenics - I need it!

Ben

Ben Trismegistus

February 14th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Ok, well, I did a little looking around, and I found this reference. I don't know the validity of it, as the forward says "We are indebted to Doreen Valiente, Michael Howard and Prudence Jones for their research...etc.", but I thought I'd include it here since it's of interest. First it says that Hargrave Jennings and Minna Bergson were two of George Pickingill's most enthusiastic disciples.
Nice, but the mention of Doreen Valiente leads me to believe that the info regarding Hargrave Jennings came from the book of Valiente's that Raven referenced. I couldn't find any mention of a connection between the two in an unconnected source (either neither Valiente nor someone who would have read Valiente's book first).

DebLipp

February 14th, 2005, 04:05 PM

Ah yes, good ol' Lugh. I remember the little booklet, and have a copy stashed away somewhere that I'll have to retrieve now. I cannot speak to the authenticity of his writings as I know very little about him and what he knew or believed, but perhaps others here might.

Best regards - Raven

Nobody can figure Lugh out. I met him, rather full of himself in a nice way. Very much, "Yes, I'm THE Lugh" in order to impress, but also very jolly and friendly. Hutton goes on at some length about how maddening it is to try to figure the guy out.

Ben Gruagach

February 14th, 2005, 04:45 PM

Nice, but the mention of Doreen Valiente leads me to believe that the info regarding Hargrave Jennings came from the book of Valiente's that Raven referenced. I couldn't find any mention of a connection between the two in an unconnected source (either neither Valiente nor someone who would have read Valiente's book first).

I just looked up Hargrave Jennings in Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" and the first mention of him (on page 73) says that it was Jennings who was largely responsible for pushing the idea that the British version of the Rosicrucians had a direct proven intact lineage to the middle ages and even back to pre-Christian Pagan mystery religions. Knowing this, I'm not sure whether I would have a lot of faith in the accuracy of Jennings' statements about the authentic antiquity of other poorly documented groups such as George Pickingill's legendary nine covens.

The other references to Jennings and W. J. Hughan just repeat the material from "The Pickingill Papers" which are largely considered to be suspect I understand.

The material in "The Pickingill Papers" first came out between 1974 and 1994 in the Pagan magazines "The Wiccan" and "The Cauldron." Valiente's book, "Witchcraft for Tomorrow" which also mentions this stuff was published in 1978.

On the topic of the Carbonari, my knowlege of them all comes from the chapter "The Charcoal Burners" in Arkon Daraul's book "Secret Societies: A History." According to this source the Carbonari were primarily a political activist organization created for the purpose of rebelling against unjust authority. Apparently there is a long history of these sorts of groups in Italy and the Carbonari weren't the first group like this to appear. The ideas of formal initiations, claiming inspiration if not lineage from the pre-Christian Pagan mystery cults, and things like oaths of secrecy and loyalty as well as having all sorts of symbolic and occult rituals has been around for quite a while in many places. I'm not sure that proving similarity between groups is proof positive of a direct lineage apart from drawing on similar classical sources when the system was developed.

I'd be curious to find out about any other English print references for the Carbonari. That book by Arkon Daraul is the only one I've been able to find myself.

Another obvious source of the Masonic and other magickal/secret societies material in Wicca is the fact that Gardner was a Mason (which Ben T. mentioned already) and also the fact that the coven which Gardner came into contact with who introduced him to English witchcraft were members of the Rosicrucian Crotona Fellowship. This group had not only Rosicrucian leanings but also Theosophical connections.

Philip Heselton also discusses a possible connection with the Golden Dawn through Rosamund Carnsew, who was a member of that group and also, Heselton believes, possibly the woman they called "Mother Sabine" in the coven that initiated Gardner. Hesleton's book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" has a lot of thought provoking evidence that is worth checking out.

My own opinion is that if Gardner was treating Wicca as a jigsaw puzzle, what he was doing was taking bits and pieces of folk magick practices, secret society ritual ideas and techniques, published Pagan myth and philosophy, and then working those disparate jigsaw pieces together to make a resulting picture that was brand new. I'm not convinced that he was actually recreating (even remotely) an actual pre-Christian religion. The pre-Christian priests of the native religion in the British Isles were the Druids, not the witches. I'm not saying that witches didn't exist, but I think they were much closer to the cunning-man and wise-woman figure, the folk magick worker and healer and diviner, than a priest or priestess. I don't think witches were the priests or priestesses of pre-Christian religions but rather magickians and wise people who were preserving bits and pieces of magickal folklore rather than followers of systemic religions. I think that Gardner was the first one to really put things together and present witchcraft in a way that it could be an actual religion, which we now call Wicca.

Gardner might not have been the one to have started making a religion based on witchcraft either -- but he was the first one to really get it publicized, and added the bits that acted to catalyze it all into a workable system. I suspect the witches he met in the New Forest area who initiated him might have been the ones to try creating an actual religion of witches, but again I suspect they were just doing this based on the idea that it could have been as presented by Margaret Murray and Charles Leland.

But that's just my opinion, based on what I've learned over the years.

9-2-2

February 14th, 2005, 05:07 PM

From my studies and experience, the belief system of Wicca itself is very modern. However, the believer's choice of pantheons (the mythologies themselves) are ancient, of course.

Erincelt

February 14th, 2005, 09:47 PM

However, the believer's choice of pantheons (the mythologies themselves) are ancient, of course. Not neccessarily. The Lycian Pantheon, for example, is entirely new and modern, albeit deriving from ancient and Masonic archetypes. Consider:
http://www.lycianwicca.org/lycianwicca/Deities/deities.htm

raven grimassi

February 15th, 2005, 11:22 AM

Well it's certainly interesting. I'll admit that I know absolutely nothing about the Carbonari. I'll have to do more reading.

I'll go back through my notes and see if I can find some English texts for you. The Internet is not all that helpful because most of the articles are derived from the entry on the Carbonari in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is full of inaccuracies (intentional or otherwise).

However, books on Freemasonry, much like books on Wicca/Witchcraft, must be seen as a product of the time when they were written. You can't, for example, make a direct comparison between Leland's Aradia and one of your own books, as the distance in decades reflects an equal distance in the amount of knowledge and attitude regarding the subject matter.

You make an excellent point there.

There are many books on Freemasonry from the 19th and early 20th century, containing "histories" that are rife with inaccuracies, or make giant leaps of logic out of disparate elements. I'm unfamiliar specifically with the work of Ravenscroft, but his theories sound like a leap in logic to me. Freemasonry does contain many elements of older traditions -- Egyptian ritual, Greek and Roman mythology, Ceremonial Magic, etc. -- but my personal belief is that this is from design rather than heredity. Meaning that early Freemasons, in forming their fraternity, sought out ancient practices to encorporate into their own, in order to add a feeling of mystery to their rituals. This doesn't rule out a direct connection, but I think it unlikely.

Yes, I understand. My uncle Arturo, in Naples, is an Italian Mason, and we have had some interesting conversations on this topic. My personal interest in Freemasonry has to do with references made to older roots (real or imagined) and only because I use them to compare with elements that also appear in Gardner's system (primarily, but not exclusively). My goal is to address commonality versus direct borrowing, in an attempt to demonstrate that other possibilities exist regarding origins. As long as alternative views are kept alive, we still explore. Once the door is closed, we can become complacent and then settle into the "bunker mentality" of personal correctness.

One of the things I love most about Pagans/Witches/Wiccans is that I have never met one who not only had an opinion but also an eagerness to express it! Keeps the blood pumping.

It's a shame, because when I joined the Masons, I really wanted the connection between the Masons and the Templars to be true. As it turns out to be very unlikely, I'm disappointed, but I'm also delighted to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.

Yes, been there and done that too! ;)

That it is - and thanks for the intellectual calisthenics - I need it!

Yes, we all do, and it has been great fun.

Best regards - Raven

Ben Trismegistus

February 15th, 2005, 11:43 AM

I'll go back through my notes and see if I can find some English texts for you. The Internet is not all that helpful because most of the articles are derived from the entry on the Carbonari in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is full of inaccuracies (intentional or otherwise).
Excellent - thanks!

Yes, I understand. My uncle Arturo, in Naples, is an Italian Mason, and we have had some interesting conversations on this topic. My personal interest in Freemasonry has to do with references made to older roots (real or imagined) and only because I use them to compare with elements that also appear in Gardner's system (primarily, but not exclusively). My goal is to address commonality versus direct borrowing, in an attempt to demonstrate that other possibilities exist regarding origins. As long as alternative views are kept alive, we still explore. Once the door is closed, we can become complacent and then settle into the "bunker mentality" of personal correctness.
An excellent point. I have no interest in closing doors, but merely learning which passageways lead to dead ends. :)

Masonry is really a fascinating community, but unfortunately, one which is in decline as much as Neopaganism is on the rise. The last big interest in Masonry was after WWII, but now those members are dying out, and younger people are not joining the Craft to replace them. In the State of New York, where I was initiated, the Freemasons are losing thousands of members a year. I was lucky enough to be a member of a largely esoteric Lodge, which included more than half a dozen Wiccans, as well as a few Ceremonial Magicians and a smattering of New Age types. We strove to recapture the mystical elements of the Fraternity (in recent years, most Lodge meetings around the country have come to resemble a bridge club or VFW house), and have done a pretty good job of it. I hope that more neopagan men will recognize the influence of Freemasonry on their own paths and seek it out. Speech over. ;)

One of the things I love most about Pagans/Witches/Wiccans is that I have never met one who not only had an opinion but also an eagerness to express it! Keeps the blood pumping.
That's true. The cliché is for Jews, but it's equally true for neopagans -- put 5 of us in a room together and you'll get 8 opinions!

raven grimassi

February 15th, 2005, 11:56 AM

I have no interest in closing doors, but merely learning which passageways lead to dead ends. :)

Yes, I knew that. For me, as an Aries, I just ram through "dead ends" until they open to connective tunnels. ;)

Best regards - Raven

Niamh celtic mist

February 15th, 2005, 12:16 PM

I think Wicca is both . It has modern and ancient practices. Now having said that...I believe it depends on the practioner. Wicca today is such a general word. It is an umbrella for so many beliefs. I know many would scream out if you labled them Wiccan...they want to be called a witch....and vice versa...but I know some who follow a very defined ancient path and for the sake of everyday conversation call themselves Wiccan. I think many call themselves Wiccan because it is just easier than trying to explain an ancient practice to a person that has no clue. Also, I believe it is an attempt to be accepted in mainstream society..to be able to practice openly...well somewhat openly...We are all lumped together...many of the legal/activist stress this need in order for legitimcy....In some recent books that I have read there have been statements made in them that encourage the reader to stop trying to find ancient roots and just call our beliefs modern...this is purely being said so we can be accepted by the mainstream...but, statements like this leave me feeling like a square peg in a round hole :awilly: ..My initial search for my path was a journey away from the mainstream...I don't need my beliefs to be validated by anyone else.... :idea:

Ben Trismegistus

February 15th, 2005, 12:19 PM

Yes, I knew that. For me, as an Aries, I just ram through "dead ends" until they open to connective tunnels. ;)
Aha. My son is an Aries, so I recognize the behavior.

As a Sagittarius, I suppose I'm too lackadaisical to want to expend effort on something I don't expend to bear fruit. ;)

raven grimassi

February 15th, 2005, 01:14 PM

I believe it is an attempt to be accepted in mainstream society..to be able to practice openly...well somewhat openly...We are all lumped together...many of the legal/activist stress this need in order for legitimcy....In some recent books that I have read there have been statements made in them that encourage the reader to stop trying to find ancient roots and just call our beliefs modern...this is purely being said so we can be accepted by the mainstream

You make a very good point here. For my part, I find myself very resistant to the idea of compromising my beliefs in order to be politically correct or more palatable to mainstream acceptance.

There was an old cartoon called The Wizard & Tutor Turtle, and my favorite line from this was by the Wizard, and goes something like: "Be what you is, not what you is not. People what is are the happiest lot".

Best regards - Raven

raven grimassi

February 15th, 2005, 01:37 PM

I think that Gardner was the first one to really put things together and present witchcraft in a way that it could be an actual religion

It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks classified witches among those who practiced "illicit religions" (religion not sanctioned by the State, religious in nature but rejected by mainsteam beliefs). It is fascinating that some 3000 years later things remain the same.

Historian Richard Gordon (in his essay Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) also states that in ancient Aegean/Mediterranean culture "illegitimate religious knowledge" was assigned to women, and since witches were always portrayed as women in classical times we can see why witchcraft was never recognized as a "legitimate" religion. However, we must also understand that in ancient Greek culture a "recognized" sect was required to have an established temple (Historian Georg Luck - Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature). Unfortunately, magicians, diviners, witches, and other subculture figures were comprised typically of the poor segment and had no funds to build and maintain temples. This is one of the chief reasons why witches were not portrayed in ancient times as people of a religious nature but rather as magic users or fortune tellers.

I don't think witches were the priests or priestesses of pre-Christian religions but rather magickians and wise people who were preserving bits and pieces of magickal folklore rather than followers of systemic religions.

It is interesting to note that in ancient literature the Witch known as Medea is depicted as a priestess of Hecate. The earliest word used by the Greeks to indicate a witch was pharmakis, from which is derived the modern word pharmacist. Richard Gordon (Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) states that pharmakis "became one of the standard words for 'wise-woman/witch', used as a substantive."

Best regards - Raven

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

February 15th, 2005, 04:21 PM

I'm with Ben T. on this, Mòrag. You appear to be making an assumption that borrowing from Celtic culture equates with claiming to be practicing the same religion that the Pagan Celts did. The assumption is not correct. Perhaps some of the early Wiccans did claim they were just carrying on an intact pre-Christian religion, but that claim is far from accepted now among Wiccans.

We don't have to claim to be following an authentic intact form of Celtic Paganism in order to borrow from it. Wicca is not a reconstructed form of a pre-Christian religion. Even without claiming to be an intact ancient Celtic religion, modern forms of Wicca can indeed be considered inspired by Celtic myth if they borrow heavily from it. (We Wiccans are a diverse lot -- some draw heavily from Italian lore as in a lot of Raven Grimassi's work, while others focus more on Celtic myths. Some prefer to work mostly with Egyptian myth. Wicca itself includes a lot of cultural emphases as a whole while individual practitioners and groups often do limit themselves to particular myth systems or cultures.)

My point was, from what I've learned of Wicca the only thing they've even borrowed is the names of those four days. That was what I was getting at. I see very little in Wicca that can even be called a borrowing beyond that one example.

Ben Gruagach

February 15th, 2005, 04:39 PM

My point was, from what I've learned of Wicca the only thing they've even borrowed is the names of those four days. That was what I was getting at. I see very little in Wicca that can even be called a borrowing beyond that one example.

Perhaps you haven't looked at Wicca in very much more than a surface way. I've been studying Wicca now for twenty plus years, and I think there is a lot more Celtic lore in Wicca than merely the names of four holidays.

A huge amount of the basic folklore of witchcraft which is the basis for Wicca is straight out of the folklore of the UK, which includes Celtic influences as well as others such as Anglo-Saxon etc. Margaret Murray's work, regardless of its unfounded conclusions, is based on beliefs about witchcraft that are right out of the historical record in the UK. The fairy-faith elements too are strong in Celtic flavour and influence. Gardner was also quite familiar with the Druid ideas common at his time; he was a good friend of Ross Nichols, a prominent Druid when Gardner was alive. (There is some interesting commentary on this in Philip Carr-Gomm's book "In The Grove of the Druids: The Druid Teachings of Ross Nichols." Dr. Christina Oakley also has an essay on the connections between Druidry and Wicca in her essay published in "The Rebirth of Druidry" edited by Philip Carr-Gomm.)

I agree completely that Wicca is in no manner a recreation of pre-Christian Celtic religion. I also think it's incorrect to state that the only things Wicca has in common with Celtic myth, folklore, and spirituality is the name of four holidays.

Ben Gruagach

February 15th, 2005, 05:09 PM

It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks classified witches among those who practiced "illicit religions" (religion not sanctioned by the State, religious in nature but rejected by mainsteam beliefs). It is fascinating that some 3000 years later things remain the same.

I've read about witchcraft being called "illicit religion" but my understanding it that it's more about the state-approved religious leaders trying to maintain their authority rather than a recognition of actual competing religions. In the pre-Christian Roman empire, for instance, they were quite happy to embrace foreign religions into the state sanctioned religious community. I think the key was that the official religions wanted to have a monopoly on things like healing, education, community authority, and especially dealing with the unseen realms and they saw witches as rogues who were filling community needs for one or more of these things without going through sanctioned channels (the official religions) in order to be authorized to do so.

In a way I think it's more like a turf war over who gets to provide specific services that aren't necessarily considered religious today, like healing, but were back then. Having a distinct separation between religious authority and political authority, let alone having healers and teachers and counsellors who are not also religious leaders, is something that was not the case in the largest part of the Christian era let alone the pre-Christian era. Remember that for the longest time the only scientists were also either religious authorities themselves or else were priests or at least monks within established religions!

Accusing someone of practicing "illicit religion" back in those days was equivalent to calling them a heretic -- which I think is a little clearer in implying merely being outside the official religious approval system, rather than necessarily a competing religious authority (although that is what the accusers often tried to imply.)

Historian Richard Gordon (in his essay Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) also states that in ancient Aegean/Mediterranean culture "illegitimate religious knowledge" was assigned to women, and since witches were always portrayed as women in classical times we can see why witchcraft was never recognized as a "legitimate" religion. However, we must also understand that in ancient Greek culture a "recognized" sect was required to have an established temple (Historian Georg Luck - Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature). Unfortunately, magicians, diviners, witches, and other subculture figures were comprised typically of the poor segment and had no funds to build and maintain temples. This is one of the chief reasons why witches were not portrayed in ancient times as people of a religious nature but rather as magic users or fortune tellers.

We should be careful to assume that there was overt misogyny in the charge of witchcraft especially in pre-Christian times. In pre-Christian Rome, there were plenty of priestesses in various sanctioned religions, so I have a hard time believing that women who dared to play the role of priestess back then were automatically considered to be witches or illegitimate practitioners of religion.

I think your comment that in ancient times witches were portrayed more as magic users or fortune tellers rather than illegitimate clergy supports my view rather than discredits it.

It is interesting to note that in ancient literature the Witch known as Medea is depicted as a priestess of Hecate. The earliest word used by the Greeks to indicate a witch was pharmakis, from which is derived the modern word pharmacist. Richard Gordon (Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) states that pharmakis "became one of the standard words for 'wise-woman/witch', used as a substantive."

Best regards - Raven

I have no doubt that clergy members (even within Christian churches) have been discovered to have been witches. I'm not convinced though that examples of people identified as clergy (such as Medea) who are also witches means there is automatically an equivalence. I expect there were farmers who were witches, and bakers who were too. Does that mean that witches therefore are the farmers of their era, or the bakers?

It's the same argument in a slightly different form when we claim that there is a God or Goddess of the witches. Sure, there are deities that are known to have lots of magickal influence, so it makes sense that witches would call on them for assistance. Witches also call on other deities all across the board from all sorts of cultures. Some even call on Christian deities even in the pre-Gardnerian era. While it's easy to say that Shiva and Kali are Hindu deities, I'm not sure we can safely say that there are really any specific deities that are Wiccan ones, or even Witchcraft ones. The closest I think are the modern Wiccan threefold goddess (maiden/mother/crone) and Her consort, the dual green man/ horned (antlered) one. Apart from those titles though the actual names used for those modern Wiccan deities are all drawn from other Pagan religions. Perhap Aradia counts as the closest actual witch Goddess we have but even that is debatable I suspect.

We really need stronger proof and stronger arguments to support the theory that witchcraft was an actual religion prior to Gardner if it's to be convincing. I'm a Wiccan, and I think it would be really exciting to have new evidence come out to support this whole idea. But so far I'm afraid the evidence isn't convincing. Regardless if Gardner did just pull it all out his fundament (which I doubt, personally) or if it is an intact or semi-intact pre-Christian religion, it's still a vibrant and meaningful religion which I am proud to practice.

There's so much we still don't know about the origins of Wicca I'm sure scholars will be working at it for a long time to come.

raven grimassi

February 16th, 2005, 01:19 AM

I think your comment that in ancient times witches were portrayed more as magic users or fortune tellers rather than illegitimate clergy supports my view rather than discredits it..

Well, first off, I have no interest in discrediting your view on anything or those of anyone else. I am sharing my views, just as you are yours, and I am offering what I feel are interesting alternatives that appear in literary and historical works. If that is unwelcome or inappropriate, please let me know and I will stop.

And just for clarification, the view of Witches in ancient times as being among the class of magicians and diviners was meant to demean them in ancient Greek and Roman society. It is what allows the Greek and Roman writers to deny that Witches practice religion (despite literary references to Witches praying to various goddesses, and Meda being literally a priestess of Hecate).

I've read about witchcraft being called "illicit religion" but my understanding it that it's more about the state-approved religious leaders trying to maintain their authority rather than a recognition of actual competing religions.

I believe there was an element of that at work, but I think that in the case of Witches it is more about looking down on lower classes. It is not unlike the Roman use of the word pagani to denote the rural people (in a negative way) as opposed to the refined and educated city people.

We should be careful to assume that there was overt misogyny in the charge of witchcraft especially in pre-Christian times. In pre-Christian Rome, there were plenty of priestesses in various sanctioned religions, so I have a hard time believing that women who dared to play the role of priestess back then were automatically considered to be witches or illegitimate practitioners of religion..

hmmm..did someone say that a priestess automatically equated with a Witch? I know that I did not. I simply mentioned that the role of priestess appears in connection with a Witch (the case of Medea) in ancient times, but that was not meant to suggest that any priestess is also a Witch.

I have no doubt that clergy members (even within Christian churches) have been discovered to have been witches. I'm not convinced though that examples of people identified as clergy (such as Medea) who are also witches means there is automatically an equivalence. I expect there were farmers who were witches, and bakers who were too. Does that mean that witches therefore are the farmers of their era, or the bakers?

Ah, I begin to see where our communication is going astray. My mention of Medea as a priestess was not meant to indicate that all Witches were or are clergy. I brought it up, in part, to demonstrate the religious element that existed in some ancient writings regarding Witches. There are those who feel that religion was not a part of the ancient view of Witchcraft, and I am simply offering a reference to show that the view did appear in ancient literature. Hence, the reference to Medea as a priestess.

It's the same argument in a slightly different form when we claim that there is a God or Goddess of the witches. Sure, there are deities that are known to have lots of magickal influence, so it makes sense that witches would call on them for assistance. .

I'm curious, is it your view then that believing in the existence of a god and goddess with whom you can interact has nothing to do with religion?

I'm not sure we can safely say that there are really any specific deities that are Wiccan ones, or even Witchcraft ones. The closest I think are the modern Wiccan threefold goddess (maiden/mother/crone) and Her consort, the dual green man/ horned (antlered) one. Apart from those titles though the actual names used for those modern Wiccan deities are all drawn from other Pagan religions. Perhap Aradia counts as the closest actual witch Goddess we have but even that is debatable I suspect.

I can only point to ancient literary works that mention specific goddesses who are consistently associated with Witchcraft over many centuries. These are Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone).

Some examples:

In Lucan's work (LUC. B.C. 6:700-01) the witches make the following comment: "Persephone, who is the third and lowest aspect of our goddess Hecate..."

In Ovid's tale (Met. 7:94-95) Jason swears an oath to the witch Medea, saying he would "be true by the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess."
She is not named as in the case of Lucan.

Horace writes of Diana as a goddess upon whom witches call, and Catullus wrote of the goddess Diana as a "threefold" goddess in his hymn to Diana (1st century BCE): "Diana whose name is Lucina, lightbringer, who every month restores the vanished moon...threefold Diana, huntress, birth-helper, and Luna shining with borrowed light. Diana, in your monthly circle measuring out the turning year...".

The goddess Diana appears in Witchcraft trials spanning several centuries. from 1310 - 1784

We really need stronger proof and stronger arguments to support the theory that witchcraft was an actual religion prior to Gardner if it's to be convincing. I'm a Wiccan, and I think it would be really exciting to have new evidence come out to support this whole idea. But so far I'm afraid the evidence isn't convincing.

I can understand why you feel the evidence is not convincing, but on this we disagree.

What I find compelling is the appearance of Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina in ancient Witchcraft, and their early identification as a triformis goddess figure. This is followed by Church writings dating from 600 bce that mention the ongoing worship of Diana. Next we have Witchraft trials from 1310 - 1784 that contain references to the worship or veneration of Diana (the element of religion). Here is an overall chronology that I put together in my book The Witches' Craft, which may be of interest to some:

60-64 BCE: Roman Poet Catullus writes of Diana as a "three-fold" goddess.

30 BCE: Roman poet Horace in his Epodes of Horace associates witches with the goddess Diana in a mystery cult. Horace writes that witches worship Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone).

1 CE: Roman Poet Ovid (in his work titled Metamorphoses) mentions "the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess" in connection to an oath sworn to the witch Medea, and portrays her as a priestess of the goddess Hecate.

62 CE: Lucan writes (in Book 6 of his Bellum Civile) of witches worshipping Hecate as a triformis goddess, with Persephone being the "lowest of the three aspects."

314 CE: Council of Ancyra labels witches as heretics who believe that they belong to a Society of Diana. Council concludes that they are deceived by Satan. Some scholars question whether this happened at this date in history.

662 CE: Saint Barbato converts Romuald (Duke of Benevento) to Christianity. On Saint Barbato's bidding Romuald has the"witches walnut tree" cut down. This walnut tree was the gathering place of witches who worshipped Diana, well known in the region. In 680 AD Saint Barbato attended the Council of Constantinople where he spoke out against the "witches of Benevento."

906 CE: Regino of Prum in his instructions to the Bishops claims that pagans worship Diana in a cult called the Society of Diana.

1006 CE: 19th book of the Decretum (entitled Corrector) associates the worship of Diana with the common pagan folk.

1280 CE: Diocesan Council of Conserans associates the Witch Cult with the worship of a Pagan Goddess called Benzosia.

1310 CE: Council of Trier associates witches with the goddess Diana (and Herodias).

1313 CE: Giovanni de Matociis writes in his Historiae Imperiales that many lay people believe in a nocturnal society headed by a queen they call Diana.

1390 CE: A woman tried by the Milanese Inquisition for belonging to the Society of Diana confessed to worshipping the goddess of night and stated that Diana bestowed blessings upon her.

1418 CE: Dominican preacher Johannes Herolt writes of women who believe that the goddess Diana gathers women in a nightly procession.

1457 CE: Nicholas of Cusa writes in his sermon of 2 women tried in Bressanone who confessed to worshipping "bona domina" (the good mistress) who they also called Richella.

1519 CE: Girolamo Folengo (Italian poet) associates a "Mistress" known as Gulfora with witches who gather to worship at Her Court, in his Maccaronea.

1526 CE: Judge Paulus Grillandus writes of witches in the town of Benevento who worship a goddess at the site of an old walnut tree.

1576 CE: Bartolo Spina writes in his Quaestrico de Strigibus, listing information gathered from confessions, that witches gather at night to worship Diana, and have dealings with night spirits.

1597 CE: Andrew Man confessed to judges at Aberdeen that he paid homage to the "Queen of the Fairies" and the "devil" who appeared in the guise of a stag.

1612 CE: French Witch Hunter - Pierre de Lancre writes in his Tableau de l'inconstance des mauvais anges of a "Queen of the Sabbat" who is consort to a Goat-Horned deity at the witches gatherings.

1630 CE: "an enchanter from Hesse" confesses to taking a journey "in spirit" to Venusberg, where he encountered the goddess "Fraw Holt" (Ginzburg states this is the goddess Holda or Holle)

1647 CE: Peter Pipernus writes, in his De Nuce Maga Beneventana and De Effectibus Magicis, of a woman named Violanta who confessed to worshipping Diana at the site of an old walnut tree in the town of Benevento.

1749 CE: Girlamo Tartarotti associates the Witch Cult with the ancient cult of Diana, in his book Del Congresso Nottorno Delle Lammie. In his A Study of the Midnight Sabbats of Witches he writes: "The identity of the Dianic Cult with modern witchcraft is demonstrated and proven."

1862 CE: French historian Jules Michelet writes in his book La Sorciere of Witchcraft as a surviving pagan religion that is matrifocal in nature. This work is rejected by modern scholars

1892- 1899 CE: Author Charles Leland associates the Witch Cult with the goddess Diana, as a survival of the ancient ways, in his books: Etruscan Magic & Occult Remedies, Legends of Florence, and Aradia; Gospel of the Witches.

1921 CE: Anthropologist Margaret Murray (in her book The Witchcult in Western Europe) writes of Witchcraft as the survival of an ancient pagan fertility religion based upon the worship of the goddess Diana and her horned-god consort. This is work rejected by modern scholars.

1924 CE: Author Ian Ferguson, in his book The Philosophy of Witchcraft, writes of witches as a "pagan priesthood" of an ancient pre-Christian sect that survived through the Middle Ages.

1954 CE: Author Gerald Gardner writes of Witchcraft as the survival of an ancient pagan fertility cult, focusing on a goddess and god consort pair.

The following "evidence" is from the appendices in my book, and may also be of interest to some:

Carlos Ginzburg (in part 2, chapter one, of his book Ecstasies: deciphering the Witches' Sabbat) brings to light many interesting pieces of information associated with Witchcraft and a goddess figure over the centuries. When not viewed directly as a goddess, this figure is called the Queen of the Fairies. This theme appears throughout much of continental Europe and parts of the British Isles. It is interesting to note that the Goddess and the Fairy Queen in these cases is often accompanied by a male entity appearing as a king, a stag or goat. In this we can see the theme of the consort pair, a long-standing concept associated with Witchcraft.

Ginzburg mentions cases in Scotland, during the 16th & 17th centuries, in which women who were tried as witches describe going "in spirit" with the Queen of the Fairies, who was attended by a king. The trial of Andrew man at Aberdeen mentions the "Queen of the Elves and a stag-horned consort. The goddess Diana, in connection with Witchcraft, often bears the title Queen of the Fairies. St. Gregory of Tours (538-594) wrote of a statue of Diana worshipped in the vicinity of Tours. St. Cilianus noted that the population of Franconia paid homage to the Great Diana.

Ginzburg presents a map on page 98, depicting regions he claims were associated with "female divinities" in Witchcraft trials. These regions include Scotland, France, North-Central Italy, and the Rhineland. Ginzburg notes, in this chapter titled "Following the Goddess" that in Rumania ecstatic rituals are performed "under the protection" of a goddess called Doamna Zinelor, also called Irodiada or Arada. Irodiada also bore the title "Queen of the Fairies." Professor Eva Pocs, in her book Between the Living and the Dead, states that goddesses such as Diana, Hecate, Holda, Perchta, the Celtic Matrae and Matronae, and others appear in data connected to church laws in various regions of Europe.

In chapter 3 of her book, Pocs states that Hungarian witches are associated with Balkan goddess figures of Slavic or mixed origins, which appear in trial transcripts. Pocs also states that all goddess figures in Hungarian trial data carry chthonic features of fertility goddesses and are associated with spinning. She notes that Hungarian witch trials mention witches spinning, weaving, or carrying spindles.

The 16th century trial of Zuan delle Piatte, in Val di Fiemme, bears some interesting elements. Piatte confesses to going to a mountain near Norcia where he was "initiated into the society of witches." Ginzburg notes that Piatte claimed to have been brought before "the woman of the good game." This is not unlike the earlier trial of a woman named Sibillia in 1390. Sibillia confessed to paying homage to a female divinity named Madona Horiente. The Milanese Inquisitor Friar Beltramino recorded that Sibillia confessed to going to the "game of Diana." Maria Panzona, tried by the Inquisition in the 17th century, confessed to paying homage to a "majesty" bearing the title "The Abbess."

Historians tend to view such accounts independently rather than as a body of evidence, which makes it easy to dismiss singular accounts as an anomaly. However, the ongoing appearance of a goddess-figure and a horned consort of one type or another spanning many centuries throughout most of Europe seems to strongly suggest something more substantial.

Best regards - Raven

fallingwater

February 16th, 2005, 01:28 AM

Come on Ben, hang in there.

Scarlet Witch

February 16th, 2005, 09:56 AM

We really need stronger proof and stronger arguments to support the theory that witchcraft was an actual religion prior to Gardner if it's to be convincing. I'm a Wiccan, and I think it would be really exciting to have new evidence come out to support this whole idea. But so far I'm afraid the evidence isn't convincing. Regardless if Gardner did just pull it all out his fundament (which I doubt, personally) or if it is an intact or semi-intact pre-Christian religion, it's still a vibrant and meaningful religion which I am proud to practice. There's so much we still don't know about the origins of Wicca I'm sure scholars will be working at it for a long time to come.

I think that you and Raven are talking about two different things. There's little in the way of compelling evidence for a pre-Gardner witchcraft religion in England, while in southern Europe there's plenty of room for speculation. But, with all due respect to you both, looking at England and Italy in this way is like comparing apples to oranges. What Gardner and Leland wrote about are different (though somewhat related) matters.

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

Ben Gruagach

February 16th, 2005, 02:36 PM

Thanks for the excellent response, Raven. You've provided a wealth of sources that certainly deserve more study. (I hope your blood pressure didn't go up at all -- I'm enjoying the discussion and am not taking any of this personally myself.)

My main problem is in the claim that witchcraft itself is a specific religion. This claim is presented every time someone says "witchcraft, the Old Religion" or uses the terms Wicca and Witchcraft as interchangeable.

I have no doubt that there are specific religions that incorporate witchcraft in a very integral way. Wicca itself is a perfect example: personally I don't think it's Wicca if we divorce it from the practice of witchcraft. But Wicca isn't the only religion that incorporates witchcraft, or the only form of witchcraft. Witchcraft itself is not a religion. To me the most telling proof of that is that it is very possible to be an atheist witch. If I chose to be an atheist witch, I could practice herbalism, do magick, practice divination, and do it all successfully without having any spiritual element in my philosophy. If I saw divination merely as a way to tap my own subconscious I don't have to believe in spirits or deities. If I consider magick nothing more than a way to work with psychic abilities I don't have to assume that nonphysical entities exist.

We make an error in logic in assuming that we've proven witchcraft itself is a religion by bringing out examples of witchcraft being used in a religious context such as Wicca. Lots of other activities can also be done in a religious context, but we don't assume that those activities themselves then are the religion. If I consider baking bread an important spiritual act, and am a clergy member of an identified religion too, does that mean that baking is therefore a religion? That is essentially what is being implied by pointing to the example of Medea being called a priestess and a witch. Mentioning examples of witches who were also clergy serves no other purpose -- why not then mention examples of witches who were artists, or left-handed, or bakers, or farmers, or lived in certain kinds of homes?

Witchcraft can be (and is) an integral part of some religions such as Wicca. Witchcraft itself though is a practice -- a person can practice witchcraft as part of any religion or no religion.

There is no doubt that witchcraft is often mentioned within a strong religious context, especially in texts from before the twentieth century. Compartmentalizing religion into a tidy box separate from the rest of life is a relatively new thing. If we look at many mundane activities they are often depicted with strong religious overtones as well. It's also no wonder that religious authorities were the main ones attempting to suppress witchcraft as they saw their monopoly on healing, teaching, counselling, and providing guidance and leadership in general as being threatened. Yet we don't also automatically say that medicine itself is a religion, or that teaching is a religion. If the logic to declare witchcraft a religion is to hold, the same arguments must work in other circumstances too.

The references provided are important because they do provide clues to possible religions that incorporated witchcraft, just like Wicca does now, that could have existed prior to Gerald Gardner. As Scarlet Witch mentioned, though, there is little compelling evidence that what Gardner promoted, Wicca, is a continuation of any of these possible religions. And we also have to be careful to stay away from sweeping generalizations that witchcraft itself is a religion when the evidence is pretty strong that it is not.

raven grimassi

February 17th, 2005, 02:15 AM

I hope your blood pressure didn't go up at all -- I'm enjoying the discussion and am not taking any of this personally myself.)

No, I am fine. Many years ago I did have a tendency to get stirred up in a good debate, but rarely so these days. Regretfully my time online is more limited than I would like, and I don't want to waste it annoying people. That was the core of my earlier comment to you.

My main problem is in the claim that witchcraft itself is a specific religion. This claim is presented every time someone says "witchcraft, the Old Religion" or uses the terms Wicca and Witchcraft as interchangeable.

Well, for Ol' timers such as myself, we cut our teeth on Wicca & Witchcraft being interchangeable. That is how it was back in the 60s when I first encountered the Wiccan community. A new generation later decided that is no longer the case, and apparently expects folks like me to fall quietly in line. Unfortunately that is not so easy to do. People of this current generation will see what I mean in a couple of decades when another generation redefines their beliefs and terminology for them. ;)

we also have to be careful to stay away from sweeping generalizations that witchcraft itself is a religion when the evidence is pretty strong that it is not.

Well, here is what brings religion to mind when I view the data. What I see are the words religion, priestess, and worship, all used in connection with Witches in pre-Christian writings that span about 600 years. Then I see, in the Christian era, Church writings and trial transcripts using the word worship in connection with a goddess such as Diana (and these writings span from 600 ce through to the 1700s). Next I see writings in the 1800s through to the mid 1900s that present the view of Witchcraft as a peasant religion with Witch priestesses. Whether such beliefs are real or imagined it is a theme that now spans almost 3000 years in an unboken line of such depictions. That is highly remarkable and amazingly consistent.

When I look at the data that indicates Witchcraft is a practice only, I find a short passage of time that pales greatly in comparison to the centuries of references to worship, religion, and priestess in the literature of Witchcraft. This makes me conclude that the view of Witchcraft as only a practice is a relatively modern perspective and phenomena, and I question its authenticity. I am someone who honors roots and long-standing traditions, and so I go with the almost 3000 years in which Witchcraft is depicted in connection with religious concepts.

I will be out of town until next week as I am guest speaker at a convention in the San Francisco area (Pantheacon). I am sure there will be more to address upon my return. ;)

Best regards - Raven

farm girl

February 17th, 2005, 11:15 AM

I believe that Wicca is both modern and ancient. Some of the origins are obviously modern. Some are ancient principles/practices reborn. Witchcraft, IMO, is no different than major world religions, in the sense that it continues to evolve as time continues. Even old religions such as Judaism and Hinduism are not practiced in the manner as they once were.

Anthopologists have shown a strong connection between Vedic practices and Celtic & Norse practices. Even their ancient languages are similar. The assumption is that their was a "way" that was practiced through the Indo-European areas that were quite the same with small cultural changes in each region. We know that the Aryans brought the Vedic religion to the ancient Dravidians in India. Because of the language similaties, there is a theory that the Aryans also went up to the Northern European regions to spread their language/religion as well. The language Sanskrit is very close to ancient Celtic language, Baltic languages, and ancient Persian language. Ancient Celtic practices including deities have amazing similarities to Hindusm.

So, my point is, I believe everyone borrows a little from everyone else. They all are connected. All a little ancient. And all a little modern. As it is said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Scarlet Witch

February 17th, 2005, 12:41 PM

Ben Gruagach

February 17th, 2005, 01:00 PM

True. I suppose that even during the witch trial period we can view the belief that witches "worshipped" the Devil as a religious theme.

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

It still doesn't make sense to me. Witchcraft is a worldwide phenomenon, that has existed in all cultures through all history from what I've seen. It exists in Mexico, in India, in the Middle East, in China, in Australia. It definitely exists in Africa. Yet if we look at these other forms of witchcraft (and yes, they are witchcraft even if the terms used differ because they use different languages) it's very clear that it is not a single religion. It's the practice of folk magick, 99% of the time done without religious sanction (religious authorities in most of these places disapprove of witchcraft), and in many instances the witchcraft is done in a religious context.

But the religious context is so different between the different places that I really can't see how witchcraft itself can be declared a religion.

Witchcraft is a practice, like prayer is a practice. Like prayer, it can be done in many different religious contexts. (Witchcraft is a bit different than prayer, though, in that it can also be practiced divorced from religion -- as psychic powers, as herbalism, etc.) Yet we don't say prayer itself is the religion.

One of the books in my collection is "The Black Books of Elverum" edited by Mary Rustad. It's an English translation of what we would call a witch's spellbook or grimoire that dates back before Gerald Gardner. The original was in Norwegian -- and the English translation includes images of the original pages alongside the English translations. It's a lot like the famous "Pow-Wows or Long Lost Friend" (which is on the web at http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/pow/) which was published in 1820 and was used by the Pennsylvanian Dutch (German) folk-healers. The "Black Books" though dabble in stereotypical witchcraft with spells to conjure demons, where "Pow-wows" deals pretty much exclusively with folk healing using Biblical charms and remedies. To me, these are two clear examples of pre-Gardnerian witchcraft but are so different in their religious outlook from Wicca that there's no way I can see they all represent a single religion, let alone a supposedly intact pre-Christian religion, called Witchcraft. They are excellent examples though of how witchcraft can be practiced in all sorts of different religious contexts -- but again that does not mean witchcraft itself is the religion, any more than prayer is therefore a religion.

The National Geographic series "Taboo" has some good and very real examples of how witchcraft is practiced all over the globe. Don't let the sensational title of the series, or the sensational way they hype up the shows, mislead you to think the actual content is fluff. I know the first season of the series is available on DVD and is likely available in libraries to borrow for those who want to see it. It's worth checking out just to expand our understanding of how witchcraft exists around the world, and that the Wiccan view (of a religious form of witchcraft) is just one view and is not necessarily the definitive view of what witchcraft as a whole is about.

Ben Trismegistus

February 17th, 2005, 01:06 PM

When I look at the data that indicates Witchcraft is a practice only, I find a short passage of time that pales greatly in comparison to the centuries of references to worship, religion, and priestess in the literature of Witchcraft. This makes me conclude that the view of Witchcraft as only a practice is a relatively modern perspective and phenomena, and I question its authenticity. I am someone who honors roots and long-standing traditions, and so I go with the almost 3000 years in which Witchcraft is depicted in connection with religious concepts.
I don't mean to pick on you, but you've got an open mind so I can't resist.

While I recognize your opinion regarding the historical context of Witchcraft and its impact on modern Witchcraft, wouldn't you agree that words have a tendency to adapt over time?

Take, for example, the word "car". From the Latin carra, it originally meant a cart or wagon. Throughout the centuries, it came to mean chariot or carriage, or a segment of a train, or the seating area of a balloon or airship. It's only in the last hundred years or so that the word car has come to mean "automobile". But if you go up to anyone and talk about your car, they'll imagine an automobile, despite 3000 years of history in which a car meant anything but an automobile.

So which is more important -- the historical meaning of a term, or the way that term is used today?

Paracelsus

February 19th, 2005, 06:52 AM

Sorry Junie, I've got to call you on this, you appear to be buying into the largely discredited Aryan invasion theory. It is not, by any means as clear cut as you imply, and it is open to a wide range of possible interpretations and different discourses. Indeed the whole concept of the "Aryans" is based in somewhat dodgy racial theories of the early twentieth century. I would also be interested in the actual similarities that you mention between Vedic and Celtic socieities - other than an interest in war. Where such similarities exist we must also consider if there is a causal link - are they derived from a common ancestry, or is it just coincidence (humans, after all, often duplicate behaviours in any number of societies). The old Brahmins = Druids argument is very slippery, and scholars now tend to suggest that previous ideas of a link are unlikely.

Elderbush

February 19th, 2005, 08:45 AM

Er...replying to something a few pages back. I don't think that trying to establish ancient roots for Wicca is "going against the mainstream." I think that trying to establish ancient roots for Wicca is very much trying to play the Christian game. I think that people who do that are really saying "See, our religion is really older, therefore we are (better)." Or variations on that theme. Substitute in the word of your choice.

I think the true rebels (people who exhibit great independence in thought and action) are the ones who refuse to play that game. They say they practice a new religion and don't care what anyone else thinks.

MorningDove030202

February 19th, 2005, 02:29 PM

That would be me in a nutshell.
Dove

Er...replying to something a few pages back. I don't think that trying to establish ancient roots for Wicca is "going against the mainstream." I think that trying to establish ancient roots for Wicca is very much trying to play the Christian game. I think that people who do that are really saying "See, our religion is really older, therefore we are (better)." Or variations on that theme. Substitute in the word of your choice.

I think the true rebels (people who exhibit great independence in thought and action) are the ones who refuse to play that game. They say they practice a new religion and don't care what anyone else thinks.

raven grimassi

February 22nd, 2005, 03:14 PM

I don't mean to pick on you, but you've got an open mind so I can't resist.

No worries, I do not feel picked on at all. From my perspective we are just having a discussion and sorting things out as we go.

While I recognize your opinion regarding the historical context of Witchcraft and its impact on modern Witchcraft, wouldn't you agree that words have a tendency to adapt over time?

Indeed they do. But the etymology, and therefore the root meaning, remains. In relatively modern slang, the English word "bad" was widely used to mean "good" - as in "Wow, that is really a bad looking car". But, should we dismiss or discontinue the original meaning of bad because of a popular modern usage?

Take, for example, the word "car". From the Latin carra, it originally meant a cart or wagon. Throughout the centuries, it came to mean chariot or carriage, or a segment of a train, or the seating area of a balloon or airship. It's only in the last hundred years or so that the word car has come to mean "automobile". But if you go up to anyone and talk about your car, they'll imagine an automobile, despite 3000 years of history in which a car meant anything but an automobile.

I have no argument with your point. But in the context of the discussion we would have to modify the view. Here the argument would be that Witchcraft is about cars and not about carts. I would argue that ancient sources refer to carts and to Witches who drove carts, and so carts are relevant to a discussion on Witchcraft. Our other buddy Ben would probably come back with pointing out that other people drove carts too, and therefore the ancient references to carts and Witches proves nothing about carts and their relationship to Witches. ;)

So which is more important -- the historical meaning of a term, or the way that term is used today?

That is an excellent question, and I suppose my answer would be that it depends upon what we are talking about at the time. If we are talking about origins and original meanings, then I would say that historical and literary sources override contemporary. If we are talking about something functional in our current culture then I would say that contemporary usage overrides. For example, the use of terms related to devices we use today that had earlier names. One example is an LP or album (meaning a vinyl record) versus a CD. If I ask someone today if they want to listen to an album or an LP, I am not sure they would readily know what I am referring to.

But, I think the topic of discussion on our current thread here on MW, is about Witchcraft not being (and never having been) a religion. What I am saying is that there are old references to religious concepts in the literature on Witchcraft. I understand that some modern people view Witchcraft as a practice, but some people view it as a religion. So, just because in modern times some people (or even a majority of people) view it as a practice and not a religion, does not make it an empirical truth. Heck, the majority of people voted for George Bush, so what does that show us about popular thinking. ;)

I think that trying to establish ancient roots for Wicca is very much trying to play the Christian game. I think that people who do that are really saying "See, our religion is really older, therefore we are (better)." Or variations on that theme.

I cannot speak for others, but when I speak of ancient origins it is definitely NOT about views of superiority. My intent is to demonstrate that the Craft is not an invention or a heresy that perverts Christian religion (a popular view in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance periods). Something pre-dating Christianity negates such an argument.

Older is not automatically better, and as I have noted in earlier posts - there is as much ancient folly as there is ancient wisdom. For me, a demonstration of our antiquity roots is a call for our place among other world religions.

I see the Craft as a religion that has evolved over the course of time. Therefore we find both ancient and modern elements in the Craft. But I do not subscribe to the theory (fostered by some scholars) that we are essentially practicing a religion invented by a retired civil servant in Britain several decades ago, who was trying to deceive the world about Wicca/Witchcraft. For me, this view would bring the spirituality of such a "founder" into question (which would then make me question the validity of our Path in general).

Best regards - Raven

DebLipp

February 22nd, 2005, 04:30 PM

But, I think the topic of discussion on our current thread here on MW, is about Witchcraft not being (and never having been) a religion.

Back In the Old Days™ I was taught, in my very traditional coven, that "witchcraft" was a practice within the religion of "Witchcraft." Now clearly this is confusing (especially in verbal conversation where you can't see the capitalization). So the newer usage, with "Wicca" as the religion and "witchcraft" as the practice, is, I think, an improvement linguistically.

raven grimassi

February 22nd, 2005, 04:46 PM

Back In the Old Days™ I was taught, in my very traditional coven, that "witchcraft" was a practice within the religion of "Witchcraft." Now clearly this is confusing (especially in verbal conversation where you can't see the capitalization). So the newer usage, with "Wicca" as the religion and "witchcraft" as the practice, is, I think, an improvement linguistically.

I see your point, and what you suggest is certainly a useful way to divide things up in an attempt to avoid confusion in modern times.

If not for the influence of my raven totem to keep things stirred up, I might just personally embrace your approach! ;)

Best regards - Raven

Scarlet Witch

February 22nd, 2005, 08:21 PM

It still doesn't make sense to me. Witchcraft is a worldwide phenomenon, that has existed in all cultures through all history from what I've seen. It exists in Mexico, in India, in the Middle East, in China, in Australia. It definitely exists in Africa. Yet if we look at these other forms of witchcraft (and yes, they are witchcraft even if the terms used differ because they use different languages) it's very clear that it is not a single religion. It's the practice of folk magick, 99% of the time done without religious sanction (religious authorities in most of these places disapprove of witchcraft), and in many instances the witchcraft is done in a religious context.

I think that your line of reasoning is exactly that of social anthropologists who equate witchcraft with primitive sorcery (if not shamanism). I'm one of those historians who disagrees. I see witchcraft, from the view of Western culture, as European (with offshoots in the "New World" due to colonization). I see African and aboriginal systems as pure sorcery. European witchcraft is a much more complex subject matter.

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

Ben Gruagach

February 22nd, 2005, 09:38 PM

I think that your line of reasoning is exactly that of social anthropologists who equate witchcraft with primitive sorcery (if not shamanism). I'm one of those historians who disagrees. I see witchcraft, from the view of Western culture, as European (with offshoots in the "New World" due to colonization). I see African and aboriginal systems as pure sorcery. European witchcraft is a much more complex subject matter.

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

Sorry, but I gotta say it...

So if Gerald Gardner's book had been called "Sorcery Today" then we'd be discussing whether sorcery is a practice or a religion?

I think that taking the stance that witchcraft refers to European and British Isles folk magick practices, and the same folk magick practices everywhere else in the world is really not witchcraft but is actually sorcery, is a distinction that is very recent and also very debatable. I don't doubt that there are variations in how folk magick practices are expressed around the world, all sorts of different contexts and rationalizations, but I think there would have to be pretty strong arguments (not based on the questionable motive of trying to "claim" witchcraft for exclusive use by one group) for me to be personally convinced.

Elderbush

February 22nd, 2005, 09:53 PM

For me, a demonstration of our antiquity roots is a call for our place among other world religions.

I see the Craft as a religion that has evolved over the course of time. Therefore we find both ancient and modern elements in the Craft. But I do not subscribe to the theory (fostered by some scholars) that we are essentially practicing a religion invented by a retired civil servant in Britain several decades ago, who was trying to deceive the world about Wicca/Witchcraft. For me, this view would bring the spirituality of such a "founder" into question (which would then make me question the validity of our Path in general).

I see this differently. I don't think insisting that Wicca is old will convince anyone that it has more validity than if it is a young religion. I think that being honest about the lack of evidence for any history before 50 or so years ago is a better course because at least we don't come off as liars, ignorant or nuts.

I'm so glad you brought this up! I feel that it is a very remarkable thing to have a retired civil servant create a religion that works for so many people. How marvelous! By initiating many people he seeded numberous groups and made it impossible for it to be a cult controlled by one leader. There were a number things he did that smacks of genius, including recognizing talent in others. He took elements from various sources and created something entirely new. A masterwork. I'm in awe.

The ah, civil servant bit...a carpenter started the Christians off and they've not done so bad.

Erincelt

February 23rd, 2005, 12:35 AM

I can think of another certain major religion whose founder wasn't an anything; his wife "brought home the bacon". Its really funny when you consider this certain religion is so often chastised for demeaning or oppressing women. Don't judge a book by its cover, as they say.

Ben Trismegistus

February 23rd, 2005, 09:58 AM

raven grimassi

February 23rd, 2005, 12:37 PM

I see this differently. I don't think insisting that Wicca is old will convince anyone that it has more validity than if it is a young religion. .

I guess that we have not attended the same conventions. As a guest speaker at many national conventions, I have observed the negative attitude of the "new kid on the block" directed towards us. However, this is changing, and there have been representatives of Pagan, Wiccans, Witches who have been quite welcome and have been treated with mutual respect at several key World Religions conventions.

I think that being honest about the lack of evidence for any history before 50 or so years ago is a better course because at least we don't come off as liars, ignorant or nuts.

I would agree that acknowledging the lack of acceptable evidence is a noble position. However, as an author who writes on the available evidence for the Craft as a system that has evolved over the centuries (including Gardner's contribution to the ongoing process) I do not feel that I am lying, ignorant or nuts. I simply present the other side of the story in contrast to the accepted academic views. I do not view scholars as infallible.

The ah, civil servant bit...a carpenter started the Christians off and they've not done so bad.

The intent of my phraseology was not meant to demean Gardner as a human being or his position in life. I can see how my words can be taken wrong in this regard, and I regret that. What I meant to point out is that Gardner's background is unlikely as the foundation for the complex system that he presented in his works (and yes, I know of his travels, interests, studies, and organizations). But, that is another topic for discussion. ;)

Best regards - Raven

Scarlet Witch

February 23rd, 2005, 01:22 PM

"European witchcraft is a much more complex subject matter."

Isn't that a rather ethnocentric viewpoint?

Actually it is an ethnographic viewpoint. It takes into account the cultural expressions, lore, and other factors, to distinguish between various systems. In European witchcraft we find a variety of different markers that are not shared by primitive magical systems.

How can you deride someone who considers European witchcraft to be "primitive", and then turn right around and make the same claim about non-European witchcraft?

I'm sorry, I don't recall deriding anyone. Exactly where did I do that?

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

Ben Trismegistus

February 23rd, 2005, 01:32 PM

I'm sorry, I don't recall deriding anyone. Exactly where did I do that?
The word "primitive" is a loaded word with negative connotations. To refer to European systems of magic as "complex" and aboriginal systems as "primitive" is to place one above the other. Additionally, it's incorrect. Some Native American and African systems of magic are VERY complex, and can pervade the practitioner's entire life.

Scarlet Witch

February 23rd, 2005, 02:22 PM

The word "primitive" is a loaded word with negative connotations. To refer to European systems of magic as "complex" and aboriginal systems as "primitive" is to place one above the other. Additionally, it's incorrect. Some Native American and African systems of magic are VERY complex, and can pervade the practitioner's entire life.

Ah, I see the problem. I was using the term "primitive" in the academic sense. Primitive magic is often defined as a system using inanimate objects that are believed to possess inherent powers. It also incorporates spirits, and simple ritual methods (as compared to the more complex components found in European ceremonial magic and witchcraft). Personally, I would not place American Indian systems in the primitive category, although other scholars might.

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

Ben Trismegistus

February 23rd, 2005, 03:00 PM

Ah, I see the problem. I was using the term "primitive" in the academic sense. Primitive magic is often defined as a system using inanimate objects that are believed to possess inherent powers. It also incorporates spirits, and simple ritual methods (as compared to the more complex components found in European ceremonial magic and witchcraft). Personally, I would not place American Indian systems in the primitive category, although other scholars might.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up. I was unaware of the alternate meaning.

Interesting to encounter yet another semantic argument in the midst of another, larger semantic argument. Makes me think that perhaps The Word *is* in fact what's going on in the universe - that only God (or whomever) knows what words are supposed to mean, and the rest of us are just guessing.

raven grimassi

February 23rd, 2005, 07:18 PM

Interesting to encounter yet another semantic argument in the midst of another, larger semantic argument. Makes me think that perhaps The Word *is* in fact what's going on in the universe - that only God (or whomever) knows what words are supposed to mean, and the rest of us are just guessing.

So Ben, it seems we may have come full circle in the discussion of etymology versus usage in any given time period, versus cultural application, versus contemporary views, versus slang, and so on.

:collapse:

Best regards - Raven

Ben Trismegistus

February 24th, 2005, 09:18 AM

So Ben, it seems we may have come full circle in the discussion of etymology versus usage in any given time period, versus cultural application, versus contemporary views, versus slang, and so on.
Looks that way. :) Perhaps we should cease being historical theologians and start being linguists!

Pandoras

February 24th, 2005, 07:16 PM

The discussion about the historical origins regarding the practice and ceremonial aspects of Wicca have been fascinating, but what about the theological aspects?

MorningDove030202

February 25th, 2005, 07:11 AM

I think, and I could be wrong, that most of us agree, that our beliefs are old, but how do you measure the age of a belief?

Dove

Ben Gruagach

February 25th, 2005, 10:28 AM

The discussion about the historical origins regarding the practice and ceremonial aspects of Wicca have been fascinating, but what about the theological aspects?

I think if you pick any theological idea, it would be very possible (and likely) that it traces to all sorts of previous sources.

Gerald Gardner didn't start his occult career with Wicca -- it was just the one that really became the focus for him and was the most successful in lasting. He was involved in all sorts of occult and magickal research before he met the witches who introduced him to the idea that witchcraft itself could be the basis for one's practice. The witches he met were members of the Rosicrucian Theatre after all...

Some of the likely sources for the various ideas Gardner incorporated into Wicca could be identified by looking at the books Gardner owned. There's a listing of the known books he had in his personal library at http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/gglibrary/

Of course for a particular book to have been the source, it would have to be published prior to Gardner's mentioning the idea in a Wiccan context. Some of the books in his collection were published in the late 1950s or early 1960s for instance so they're not likely to have been the source of ideas unless they were just later editions of books he had read earlier but didn't actually own.

In any case, I think it is very possible to do the detective work and trace where different Wiccan theological ideas likely came from.

Ben Trismegistus

February 25th, 2005, 01:16 PM

The discussion about the historical origins regarding the practice and ceremonial aspects of Wicca have been fascinating, but what about the theological aspects?
A discussion of Wiccan theology is difficult because there is so little agreement among Wiccan as to what we believe. The phrase I've used in the past is that Wicca is an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy, meaning that it's a set system of practices rather than a set system of beliefs.

That said, most Wiccan beliefs can be said to predate Wicca itself. As Ben G has pointed out in the past, Wiccans did not invent the concept that all gods and goddesses could be seen as aspects of one God and one Goddess, but they can be said to have popularized it. The specific Wiccan constructs of deity -- the Lord and Lady, Maiden/Mother/Crone and Oak King/Holly King, the Goddess and her Horned Consort, etc. -- are all modern adaptations. They derive in some way from previous sources, but they have been altered in Wiccan theology.

In my opinion, the center of Wiccan theology is balance and polarity -- the God and Goddess, as above so below, light and dark, etc. This is by no means a new idea, but Wicca has run with it, and it's probably the single theological concept that sets Wicca apart from most other neopagan religions.

I'm not an expert by any means, so I'd love to hear what others think.

Nemesis Descending

February 25th, 2005, 04:31 PM

The discussion about the historical origins regarding the practice and ceremonial aspects of Wicca have been fascinating, but what about the theological aspects?

There is some really good material in Grimassi's book The Witches' Craft that deals with the theological roots and the evolution of deity concepts in the Craft dating from antiquity. Maybe Raven will share some of it here. :fpoke:

In Her Service,
Nemesis Descending

Pandoras

February 25th, 2005, 07:39 PM

Keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan (so my experiential knowledge of it is limited), I think that Wiccans are aware of the psychological aspects of their practices more than many other NeoPagans. Many Wiccans I've met approach Wicca from this perspective (particularly Jungian psychology, reminiscent of folks like Vivienne Crowley, I suppose). They see many of the rituals as external expressions of an inner process.

Also, what do you all think of the afterlife? Many Pagans don't believe in the Heaven/Hell and eternal reward/punishment set ups, but many of the ancient Pagans did. The Greeks had Elysium/Hades and Tartarus, the Celts had Annwn and Mag Mell, the Norse had Helheim, and so forth.

What do you think?

TripsieD

February 27th, 2005, 01:49 PM

To date, the discussion in this thread has been incredible and quite the learning experience (I would love to roam through some of your libraries :D), however, there are a few points that I would like to make and see what the response is.

The discussion so far has been largely intellectual dealing with quantifiable facts and histories, which is completely acceptable. What about some of the underlying structure of what is actually going on with ritual?

I am specifically referring to magickal current, which I take to be the underlying "power", "force", what-ever-you-want-to-call-it, etc., that we tap into when performing a specific ritual or series of ritual. Taking this in to account, a religion (with a specified set of rituals) would gather more and more current as time progressed. Much like when you first move into a house and the rooms feel empty, because they have not had time to collect your own specific energies.

One of "the Ben's" had mentioned that it was near impossible for the Masons to be an unbroken line back to the Ancient Egyptians. It may be entirely possible that that is true, it may be that it is not true, Judaism has survived unbroken for how many thousands of years? However, whether the Masons are unbroken or not, is not what I'm driving at. Is it possible that the Masons (one way or another, not sure of specifics) could have preserved (or possibly revived) a magickal current from Ancient Egypt?

Sounds a little odd I realize and I also realize that I don't have data to back it up. I'm simply wondering if it is possible and if it is possible, what are the implications of that?

What got me started on that tangent was a conversation I had had years ago, with a very trusted source. I was told that Gardner had come across "a 2,000(?) year old unbroken line of magickal current" and that some, if not all of the ritual aspects were devised to retain that current. The statement was made without any sources or reference to corrobortating works, it was made as a simple statement of fact. Again I am relying on a conversation with a trusted source, who know had done the requisite research and would have been in the know. I, however, was (and still am) unable to locate any reference to such. I do not know this to be true as an absolute fact, which is why I am asking.

On the premise that it is true, where did the current come from? Could it have been a result of the Masonic connection? Could it have been the result of the Elusinian Mysteries connection? What is its implication in the development of Wicca, if anything at all?

I am most likely not forming these questions very well, due to the fact that there are a number of different things, on many layers going on with this line of questiong, some of which are rather vague and ephemerial (sp??) in nature and quite hard to define.

Perhaps a thread on magickal current might be a good idea. I, for one, would like to get a much better understanding of what it actually is, as I do not see a lot of discussion about it.

DebLipp

February 27th, 2005, 02:56 PM

One of "the Ben's" had mentioned that it was near impossible for the Masons to be an unbroken line back to the Ancient Egyptians. It may be entirely possible that that is true, it may be that it is not true, Judaism has survived unbroken for how many thousands of years? The statement didn't mean that nothing survives that long, simply that Masonry hasn't. In fact, when we talk about whether or not this and that survived, we do so based in large part on what known survivals look like. If you take something that you know has survived for thousands of years, and look at what sort of records, customs, and other evidence did survive, and what did not, then you have something of a guidebook to use when looking at questionable survivals.

What got me started on that tangent was a conversation I had had years ago, with a very trusted source. I was told that Gardner had come across "a 2,000(?) year old unbroken line of magickal current" and that some, if not all of the ritual aspects were devised to retain that current. The statement was made without any sources or reference to corrobortating works, it was made as a simple statement of fact. Again I am relying on a conversation with a trusted source, who know had done the requisite research and would have been in the know. I, however, was (and still am) unable to locate any reference to such. I do not know this to be true as an absolute fact, which is why I am asking.

On the premise that it is true, where did the current come from? Could it have been a result of the Masonic connection? Could it have been the result of the Elusinian Mysteries connection? What is its implication in the development of Wicca, if anything at all?

I am most likely not forming these questions very well, due to the fact that there are a number of different things, on many layers going on with this line of questiong, some of which are rather vague and ephemerial (sp??) in nature and quite hard to define.

Perhaps a thread on magickal current might be a good idea. I, for one, would like to get a much better understanding of what it actually is, as I do not see a lot of discussion about it.
Magical current is an interesting occult concept. It is certainly worth discussing in a separate folder, although there don't seem to be a lot of MWers who might have had exposure to it. But magical current isn't history, it isn't objective, and it doesn't support the discussion we're having.

Magical current is nothing but an energy form; it is like the soul of an occult system. There is no way of telling if it has moved in a linear fashion. Tapping into a legitimate unbroken current from 2000 years ago provides as much evidence for time travel as it does for historical survival. When you meet someone and you recognize their soul, somehow, you don't know if this is evidence of reincarnation or something else, you don't know HOW that soul got to the place and time you encountered it. The same is true for magical current.

TripsieD

February 28th, 2005, 07:03 AM

Magical current is nothing but an energy form; it is like the soul of an occult system. There is no way of telling if it has moved in a linear fashion. Tapping into a legitimate unbroken current from 2000 years ago provides as much evidence for time travel as it does for historical survival. When you meet someone and you recognize their soul, somehow, you don't know if this is evidence of reincarnation or something else, you don't know HOW that soul got to the place and time you encountered it. The same is true for magical current.

That helped out alot, Deb :D "Soul" was what I had been looking for but couldn't seem to find it! I'll post a question about it in Magic and Rituals and see if we can get a discussion going (rather than hijack this thread :D) because I have a few other questions about it.

New Thread: http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=1652646#post1652646

Ben Trismegistus

February 28th, 2005, 11:30 AM

Fascinating theories, Tripsie! I'm heading over to the other thread to discuss.

Kern

March 23rd, 2005, 08:52 AM

Well, first off, I have no interest in discrediting your view on anything or those of anyone else. I am sharing my views, just as you are yours, and I am offering what I feel are interesting alternatives that appear in literary and historical works. If that is unwelcome or inappropriate, please let me know and I will stop.

And just for clarification, the view of Witches in ancient times as being among the class of magicians and diviners was meant to demean them in ancient Greek and Roman society. It is what allows the Greek and Roman writers to deny that Witches practice religion (despite literary references to Witches praying to various goddesses, and Meda being literally a priestess of Hecate).

I believe there was an element of that at work, but I think that in the case of Witches it is more about looking down on lower classes. It is not unlike the Roman use of the word pagani to denote the rural people (in a negative way) as opposed to the refined and educated city people.

hmmm..did someone say that a priestess automatically equated with a Witch? I know that I did not. I simply mentioned that the role of priestess appears in connection with a Witch (the case of Medea) in ancient times, but that was not meant to suggest that any priestess is also a Witch.

Ah, I begin to see where our communication is going astray. My mention of Medea as a priestess was not meant to indicate that all Witches were or are clergy. I brought it up, in part, to demonstrate the religious element that existed in some ancient writings regarding Witches. There are those who feel that religion was not a part of the ancient view of Witchcraft, and I am simply offering a reference to show that the view did appear in ancient literature. Hence, the reference to Medea as a priestess.

I'm curious, is it your view then that believing in the existence of a god and goddess with whom you can interact has nothing to do with religion?

I can only point to ancient literary works that mention specific goddesses who are consistently associated with Witchcraft over many centuries. These are Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone).

Some examples:

In Lucan's work (LUC. B.C. 6:700-01) the witches make the following comment: "Persephone, who is the third and lowest aspect of our goddess Hecate..."

In Ovid's tale (Met. 7:94-95) Jason swears an oath to the witch Medea, saying he would "be true by the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess."
She is not named as in the case of Lucan.

Horace writes of Diana as a goddess upon whom witches call, and Catullus wrote of the goddess Diana as a "threefold" goddess in his hymn to Diana (1st century BCE): "Diana whose name is Lucina, lightbringer, who every month restores the vanished moon...threefold Diana, huntress, birth-helper, and Luna shining with borrowed light. Diana, in your monthly circle measuring out the turning year...".

The goddess Diana appears in Witchcraft trials spanning several centuries. from 1310 - 1784

I can understand why you feel the evidence is not convincing, but on this we disagree.

What I find compelling is the appearance of Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina in ancient Witchcraft, and their early identification as a triformis goddess figure. This is followed by Church writings dating from 600 bce that mention the ongoing worship of Diana. Next we have Witchraft trials from 1310 - 1784 that contain references to the worship or veneration of Diana (the element of religion). Here is an overall chronology that I put together in my book The Witches' Craft, which may be of interest to some:

60-64 BCE: Roman Poet Catullus writes of Diana as a "three-fold" goddess.

30 BCE: Roman poet Horace in his Epodes of Horace associates witches with the goddess Diana in a mystery cult. Horace writes that witches worship Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone).

1 CE: Roman Poet Ovid (in his work titled Metamorphoses) mentions "the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess" in connection to an oath sworn to the witch Medea, and portrays her as a priestess of the goddess Hecate.

62 CE: Lucan writes (in Book 6 of his Bellum Civile) of witches worshipping Hecate as a triformis goddess, with Persephone being the "lowest of the three aspects."

314 CE: Council of Ancyra labels witches as heretics who believe that they belong to a Society of Diana. Council concludes that they are deceived by Satan. Some scholars question whether this happened at this date in history.

662 CE: Saint Barbato converts Romuald (Duke of Benevento) to Christianity. On Saint Barbato's bidding Romuald has the"witches walnut tree" cut down. This walnut tree was the gathering place of witches who worshipped Diana, well known in the region. In 680 AD Saint Barbato attended the Council of Constantinople where he spoke out against the "witches of Benevento."

906 CE: Regino of Prum in his instructions to the Bishops claims that pagans worship Diana in a cult called the Society of Diana.

1006 CE: 19th book of the Decretum (entitled Corrector) associates the worship of Diana with the common pagan folk.

1280 CE: Diocesan Council of Conserans associates the Witch Cult with the worship of a Pagan Goddess called Benzosia.

1310 CE: Council of Trier associates witches with the goddess Diana (and Herodias).

1313 CE: Giovanni de Matociis writes in his Historiae Imperiales that many lay people believe in a nocturnal society headed by a queen they call Diana.

1390 CE: A woman tried by the Milanese Inquisition for belonging to the Society of Diana confessed to worshipping the goddess of night and stated that Diana bestowed blessings upon her.

1418 CE: Dominican preacher Johannes Herolt writes of women who believe that the goddess Diana gathers women in a nightly procession.

1457 CE: Nicholas of Cusa writes in his sermon of 2 women tried in Bressanone who confessed to worshipping "bona domina" (the good mistress) who they also called Richella.

1519 CE: Girolamo Folengo (Italian poet) associates a "Mistress" known as Gulfora with witches who gather to worship at Her Court, in his Maccaronea.

1526 CE: Judge Paulus Grillandus writes of witches in the town of Benevento who worship a goddess at the site of an old walnut tree.

1576 CE: Bartolo Spina writes in his Quaestrico de Strigibus, listing information gathered from confessions, that witches gather at night to worship Diana, and have dealings with night spirits.

1597 CE: Andrew Man confessed to judges at Aberdeen that he paid homage to the "Queen of the Fairies" and the "devil" who appeared in the guise of a stag.

1612 CE: French Witch Hunter - Pierre de Lancre writes in his Tableau de l'inconstance des mauvais anges of a "Queen of the Sabbat" who is consort to a Goat-Horned deity at the witches gatherings.

1630 CE: "an enchanter from Hesse" confesses to taking a journey "in spirit" to Venusberg, where he encountered the goddess "Fraw Holt" (Ginzburg states this is the goddess Holda or Holle)

1647 CE: Peter Pipernus writes, in his De Nuce Maga Beneventana and De Effectibus Magicis, of a woman named Violanta who confessed to worshipping Diana at the site of an old walnut tree in the town of Benevento.

1749 CE: Girlamo Tartarotti associates the Witch Cult with the ancient cult of Diana, in his book Del Congresso Nottorno Delle Lammie. In his A Study of the Midnight Sabbats of Witches he writes: "The identity of the Dianic Cult with modern witchcraft is demonstrated and proven."

1862 CE: French historian Jules Michelet writes in his book La Sorciere of Witchcraft as a surviving pagan religion that is matrifocal in nature. This work is rejected by modern scholars

1892- 1899 CE: Author Charles Leland associates the Witch Cult with the goddess Diana, as a survival of the ancient ways, in his books: Etruscan Magic & Occult Remedies, Legends of Florence, and Aradia; Gospel of the Witches.

1921 CE: Anthropologist Margaret Murray (in her book The Witchcult in Western Europe) writes of Witchcraft as the survival of an ancient pagan fertility religion based upon the worship of the goddess Diana and her horned-god consort. This is work rejected by modern scholars.

1924 CE: Author Ian Ferguson, in his book The Philosophy of Witchcraft, writes of witches as a "pagan priesthood" of an ancient pre-Christian sect that survived through the Middle Ages.

1954 CE: Author Gerald Gardner writes of Witchcraft as the survival of an ancient pagan fertility cult, focusing on a goddess and god consort pair.

The following "evidence" is from the appendices in my book, and may also be of interest to some:

Carlos Ginzburg (in part 2, chapter one, of his book Ecstasies: deciphering the Witches' Sabbat) brings to light many interesting pieces of information associated with Witchcraft and a goddess figure over the centuries. When not viewed directly as a goddess, this figure is called the Queen of the Fairies. This theme appears throughout much of continental Europe and parts of the British Isles. It is interesting to note that the Goddess and the Fairy Queen in these cases is often accompanied by a male entity appearing as a king, a stag or goat. In this we can see the theme of the consort pair, a long-standing concept associated with Witchcraft.

Ginzburg mentions cases in Scotland, during the 16th & 17th centuries, in which women who were tried as witches describe going "in spirit" with the Queen of the Fairies, who was attended by a king. The trial of Andrew man at Aberdeen mentions the "Queen of the Elves and a stag-horned consort. The goddess Diana, in connection with Witchcraft, often bears the title Queen of the Fairies. St. Gregory of Tours (538-594) wrote of a statue of Diana worshipped in the vicinity of Tours. St. Cilianus noted that the population of Franconia paid homage to the Great Diana.

Ginzburg presents a map on page 98, depicting regions he claims were associated with "female divinities" in Witchcraft trials. These regions include Scotland, France, North-Central Italy, and the Rhineland. Ginzburg notes, in this chapter titled "Following the Goddess" that in Rumania ecstatic rituals are performed "under the protection" of a goddess called Doamna Zinelor, also called Irodiada or Arada. Irodiada also bore the title "Queen of the Fairies." Professor Eva Pocs, in her book Between the Living and the Dead, states that goddesses such as Diana, Hecate, Holda, Perchta, the Celtic Matrae and Matronae, and others appear in data connected to church laws in various regions of Europe.

In chapter 3 of her book, Pocs states that Hungarian witches are associated with Balkan goddess figures of Slavic or mixed origins, which appear in trial transcripts. Pocs also states that all goddess figures in Hungarian trial data carry chthonic features of fertility goddesses and are associated with spinning. She notes that Hungarian witch trials mention witches spinning, weaving, or carrying spindles.

The 16th century trial of Zuan delle Piatte, in Val di Fiemme, bears some interesting elements. Piatte confesses to going to a mountain near Norcia where he was "initiated into the society of witches." Ginzburg notes that Piatte claimed to have been brought before "the woman of the good game." This is not unlike the earlier trial of a woman named Sibillia in 1390. Sibillia confessed to paying homage to a female divinity named Madona Horiente. The Milanese Inquisitor Friar Beltramino recorded that Sibillia confessed to going to the "game of Diana." Maria Panzona, tried by the Inquisition in the 17th century, confessed to paying homage to a "majesty" bearing the title "The Abbess."

Historians tend to view such accounts independently rather than as a body of evidence, which makes it easy to dismiss singular accounts as an anomaly. However, the ongoing appearance of a goddess-figure and a horned consort of one type or another spanning many centuries throughout most of Europe seems to strongly suggest something more substantial.

Best regards - Raven
Wow thanks for all the Info Raven,Im going to have to check your books out..

Kern

March 23rd, 2005, 09:38 AM

This is my understanding!
1)Wicca as a religion originated with Gardner and others but adopted practices,terms and beliefs from other sources.

2a)Witchcraft(spellcraft,working with herbs,etc) is a practice but also can be a religion.

2b)Witchcraft in the British Isles was never an organised religion,but people within the organised religion(the Celtic religions or the Anglo Saxon religion and others later on) may have practiced it along with their formal beliefs.

2c) In other areas of Europe(Italy,Greece etc),there were organised sects or cults that practiced witchcraft and worshiped differently than the official religion.Over time these groups adopted practices that later was also adopted in other areas and even being adopted by some Wiccan groups.

This sounds reasonable to me!

depaganel

October 17th, 2006, 02:12 PM

You might be very interested in researching The Four Forces. The Four Forces are: Static-Magnetic Field (SM), as in a bar magnet; Electro-Static Field (ES), as in a charged capacitor; Electro-Magnetic Wave (EM), as radio waves, light, heat, etc.; Resonating Electromagnetic Field (RMF), like that of all celestial bodies (operating in a vortex), space craft propulsion field, the basis of life, the elemental life.

In The Secret Of The Ages, Robert Collier says: "All about you is energy . . . electronic energy . . . exactly like that which makes up the solid objects you possess. The only difference is that the loose energy round about is unappropriated. It is still virgin gold . . . undiscovered, unclaimed. You can think it into anything you wish . . . into gold or dross, into health or sickness, into strength or weakness, into success or failure. Which shall it be? 'There is nothing either good or bad,' said Shakespeare, 'but thinking makes it so.' The understanding of that law will enable you to control every other law that exists. In it is to be found the panacea for all ills, the satisfaction of all want, all desire. It is Creative Mind's own provision for man's freedom. And now man is beginning to get a glimpse of the final freedom that shall be his from all material causes when he shall acquire the complete understanding that mind is the only cause and that effects are what he sees. There is no intelligence in matter . . . whether it be stone or iron, wood or flesh. Matter is Vital Force crystallized into the pattern we have given it. Mind is the only intelligence . . . it alone is eternal . . . it alone is supreme in the Universe. Therefore, all Vital Force is good. It is only our patterns that are at fault."

Best,
DePaganel

David19

October 18th, 2006, 03:44 PM

I agree with what Ben T. just posted, with a few comments.

The idea that the different gods and goddesses might be manifestations of a single larger deity is not a new idea. It was part of the Isis cult during its heyday when it had spread all over Europe (even to the UK) and is documented in Lucius Apuleius' "The Golden Ass." Apuleius lived c. 123 - c. 170 CE. The bit at the start of the Wiccan "Charge of the Goddess" where the Goddess recites a list of different names She is known by was likely lifted from Apulieus' book by either Gerald Gardner or Doreen Valiente.

I agree with the rest of your post, but just wanted to comment on this, i've heard the Isis Cult that Apuleius talked about in 'The Golden Ass' was a bit like the Kabalah Centre of the day, e.g. just as the Kabalah Centre doesn't know sh*t about the real Jewish Kabalah, the Isis Cult didn't know much (or anything?) about the real Isis Cult.

One Kemetic told me (on another board) that the when the Romans came into contact with the Egyptians, they took a lot of things back with them 'cause Egyptian things were trendy, exotic, popular, etc.

And i think Tim (the poster here, a Hellenic recon) said in your thread in the History forum about ''hard' polytheism and the ancient world' (at least, i think that was the title ;)), that the Roman Cult of Isis was more like using Isis's image and mixing her with the First Cause (in Hellenic philosophy and/or belief, i think it's called The One, or in traditional Wicca (i.e. Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc), it's called Dryhten, i think, the source from which all the gods came, not the typical image of gods being 'aspects' but the source of everything, including the mutltiverse, humans, etc.

Maybe that's what Valiente did, maybe she wasn't referring to a specific goddess, but talking about The One/First Cause, and putting it in a female form, i think it makes sense if you look at that way, 'cause it's not saying there's a goddess who 'every other god and goddess is an 'aspect' of', but is more the source saying everything comes from me (and it's not female or male, i think The One (Hellenic recons, correct me if i'm wrong?) doesn't have a gender, and is beyond the universe/multiverse and too distant, the gods, i think, are inbetween it and us (although they are much, much higher than us).

Hinduism also includes the idea of deities being aspects of a larger and essentially unknowable deity. In Hinduism this unknowable single deity is sometimes called Brahman. All the other deities, including Kali, Ganesh, Shiva, and every other deity known to humans, are described as being manifestations of Brahman that we mortals are able to approach in a limited fashion. I'm not an expert in Hinduism but I would be surprised if this was a new idea in Hinduism.

Hindu's can correct me if i'm wrong, but i've always assumed everything was considered a manifestation of Brahman, including humans, and no one would deny humans aren't individuals with their own personalities, desires, plans, individuality, etc.

Anyway, just wanted to add that :).

Carla O'Harris

October 27th, 2006, 05:28 AM

Curious what your continual angst against the Kabalah Centre is. Why do you assume it has no genuine knowledge, rather than representing a variant interpretation?

Faol-chù

October 27th, 2006, 08:20 AM

I know this is an old post, but I felt the need to respond to it, anyway, since new posts have been added and I just read it...;)

Perhaps you haven't looked at Wicca in very much more than a surface way. I've been studying Wicca now for twenty plus years, and I think there is a lot more Celtic lore in Wicca than merely the names of four holidays.

I agree that there *is* more 'Celtic' stuff in Wicca than *just* the holiday names. There is much folklore that has been 'borrowed from', especially depending upon the individual practicing it.

I've been looking at Wicca for the last *8* years, though...And from what I've seen, it can easily be said that 'wiccans' have been looking at Celtic lore in a 'much more surface way'. They borrow the names, and some of the perceived themes. But when it comes down to it, they have no real understanding of function of the things they are encountering in Celtic society (included 'encoded' meanings). They are merely scratching the surface.

That fact, alone, causes people like myself, and apparently, like Mòrag, to question truly how much 'Celtic' ideaology has been 'borrowed'.

A huge amount of the basic folklore of witchcraft which is the basis for Wicca is straight out of the folklore of the UK, which includes Celtic influences as well as others such as Anglo-Saxon etc. Margaret Murray's work, regardless of its unfounded conclusions, is based on beliefs about witchcraft that are right out of the historical record in the UK. The fairy-faith elements too are strong in Celtic flavour and influence.

Don't forget about the Norse influence...
And I'll add that these things have still been interpeted in ways which are completely alien to both of these cultures of 'origin'. To the point where it begins to not look the same at all.

Gardner was also quite familiar with the Druid ideas common at his time; he was a good friend of Ross Nichols, a prominent Druid when Gardner was alive. (There is some interesting commentary on this in Philip Carr-Gomm's book "In The Grove of the Druids: The Druid Teachings of Ross Nichols." Dr. Christina Oakley also has an essay on the connections between Druidry and Wicca in her essay published in "The Rebirth of Druidry" edited by Philip Carr-Gomm.)

Keep in mind, also, that the druid groups in Britain at the time had some ideas which are proveably not in line with Celtic ideaology.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

October 27th, 2006, 08:27 AM

If this post has already been answered, I apologize...

Sorry Junie, I've got to call you on this, you appear to be buying into the largely discredited Aryan invasion theory. It is not, by any means as clear cut as you imply, and it is open to a wide range of possible interpretations and different discourses. Indeed the whole concept of the "Aryans" is based in somewhat dodgy racial theories of the early twentieth century.

The term 'Aryan' here, is not a reference to 'race', but a reference to language and culture. It denotes a language of Indo-European origin.

I would also be interested in the actual similarities that you mention between Vedic and Celtic socieities - other than an interest in war. Where such similarities exist we must also consider if there is a causal link - are they derived from a common ancestry, or is it just coincidence (humans, after all, often duplicate behaviours in any number of societies). The old Brahmins = Druids argument is very slippery, and scholars now tend to suggest that previous ideas of a link are unlikely.

I think not...They are all of Indo-European origin. They have stark commonalities, just due to that...

For mythogical similarities, check out the Rees brothers', Celtic Heritage. It outlines Celtic ideaology, including many similarities between that and Vedic, in detail.

Ben Gruagach

October 27th, 2006, 11:22 AM

I agree that there *is* more 'Celtic' stuff in Wicca than *just* the holiday names. There is much folklore that has been 'borrowed from', especially depending upon the individual practicing it.

I've been looking at Wicca for the last *8* years, though...And from what I've seen, it can easily be said that 'wiccans' have been looking at Celtic lore in a 'much more surface way'. They borrow the names, and some of the perceived themes. But when it comes down to it, they have no real understanding of function of the things they are encountering in Celtic society (included 'encoded' meanings). They are merely scratching the surface.

That fact, alone, causes people like myself, and apparently, like Mòrag, to question truly how much 'Celtic' ideaology has been 'borrowed'.

I agree that the amount of borrowed Celtic (or whatever) material within Wicca doesn't have much to do with whether that borrowed material is faithful to the original context and culture. I don't remember saying anywhere that Wicca was an intact Celtic Pagan religion. I was just responding to the claim that the only Celtic borrowings in Wicca were a few of the sabbat names.

Does it really matter how much or how little Celtic material is present within Wicca? Wicca is still a perfectly worthwhile spiritual path regardless. (So long as Wiccans aren't claiming to be practicing an intact Celtic pre-Christian Pagan religion...)

Don't forget about the Norse influence...
And I'll add that these things have still been interpeted in ways which are completely alien to both of these cultures of 'origin'. To the point where it begins to not look the same at all.

Keep in mind, also, that the druid groups in Britain at the time had some ideas which are proveably not in line with Celtic ideaology.

Le meas,

Wicca has drawn from a wide range of historical and mythological sources -- Celtic, Saxon, Norse, Greek, Roman, Hindu, Native American, etc. I don't doubt that frequently the ideas or practices were understood and employed completely out of their original context.

Borrowing is hardly new though. It's been going on as long as different groups of people have met and shared info. And frequently the things that were borrowed were reworked by the borrower into something completely different. For example it's pretty clear that the gods and goddesses of one culture have frequently been turned into the demons and devils of another. Within ancient Egypt, the god Set was apparently worshipped as a positive being way back when, but His role was transformed into something much darker and more sinister by subsequent Egyptian clans and tribes.

Tracing how ideas and practices jump from one group and place to another, and are often changed in small or large ways, is an interesting academic exercise but in the end it bears little significance to the question of whether a particular manifestation of that idea or belief is meaningful within a specific religion.

Carla O'Harris

October 27th, 2006, 11:31 AM

Good point!!

Faol-chù

October 28th, 2006, 12:13 AM

I agree that the amount of borrowed Celtic (or whatever) material within Wicca doesn't have much to do with whether that borrowed material is faithful to the original context and culture. I don't remember saying anywhere that Wicca was an intact Celtic Pagan religion. I was just responding to the claim that the only Celtic borrowings in Wicca were a few of the sabbat names.

Does it really matter how much or how little Celtic material is present within Wicca? Wicca is still a perfectly worthwhile spiritual path regardless. (So long as Wiccans aren't claiming to be practicing an intact Celtic pre-Christian Pagan religion...)

I apologize for seeming critical...
It is honestly a kneejerk reaction to common claims that 'Wicca is Celtic'. There seems to be a lot of confusion, both in this thread and others, as well, as to how closely the two religions (if you can truly call Celtic ideaology a 'religion') view the things discussed. It's not really you who seems to be confused, although I think you comment about only understanding what is on the 'surface' is a key issue for those who are...
I just thought it was interesting that you were pointing that in the direction of someone who was disputing the similarity between the ideaologies, and I thought it needed to be pointed out that those who find 'so many similarities', are, themselves, only seeing what is on the surface of Celtic ideaology...:)
There is truly so much which has been misunderstood about Celtic ideaology by people who practice Wicca and things like Wicca that it really is not funny in the least.

Wicca has drawn from a wide range of historical and mythological sources -- Celtic, Saxon, Norse, Greek, Roman, Hindu, Native American, etc. I don't doubt that frequently the ideas or practices were understood and employed completely out of their original context.

Massively so!

Tracing how ideas and practices jump from one group and place to another, and are often changed in small or large ways, is an interesting academic exercise but in the end it bears little significance to the question of whether a particular manifestation of that idea or belief is meaningful within a specific religion.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think Wicca can be a fulfilling path...I just wish folks would stop trying so hard to assert that it has more ties to Celtic ideaology than it really does, and back applying things that are, today, seen as 'Wiccan' (or even, for that matter, 'witchcraft') to Celtic ideaologies and the people who practice/have practiced them....when those people would have never, themselves, in a million years, referred to themselves as such.

Le dùrachd,

Ben Gruagach

October 28th, 2006, 08:43 AM

I agree wholeheartedly. I think Wicca can be a fulfilling path...I just wish folks would stop trying so hard to assert that it has more ties to Celtic ideaology than it really does, and back applying things that are, today, seen as 'Wiccan' (or even, for that matter, 'witchcraft') to Celtic ideaologies and the people who practice/have practiced them....when those people would have never, themselves, in a million years, referred to themselves as such.

Le dùrachd,

I think that's the key -- the big problem is that some people seem to feel that Wicca must be proven to be an intact pre-Christian Pagan religion for it to have validity.

It doesn't.

The age of an idea, religion, or spiritual path has very little bearing on whether it is meaningful. It's a logical fallacy that an idea that is old is automatically more correct or valid than one that is new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)

Eran

October 28th, 2006, 07:13 PM

I think that's the key -- the big problem is that some people seem to feel that Wicca must be proven to be an intact pre-Christian Pagan religion for it to have validity.

It doesn't.

The age of an idea, religion, or spiritual path has very little bearing on whether it is meaningful. It's a logical fallacy that an idea that is old is automatically more correct or valid than one that is new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)
This is an interesting idea.

Can you quote anyone at all who feels the way you describe?

I don't recall anyone saying that in order for the religion of Witchcraft to be "valid" it must be "old'".

References, please?

The idea that you create a false argument - or falsely represent someone else's argument - and then destroy that argument (and thereby try to imply that your position is true), is a logical fallacy called a "straw man" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Elderbush

October 28th, 2006, 09:59 PM

I don't think that they were talking about Witchcraft in this thread, Eran. They were talking about the misinformation spread about "Wicca is Celtic" and why some people might want that connection.

Why do you think that some people think try to tie Wicca to Celtic ideology?

Xander67

October 28th, 2006, 10:29 PM

well, I think the confusion lies in the fact that wicca has pretty much split into two branches, Elder and Neo wicca, the Old religion (wicca) does have roots in the Celtic tradition, even Gardner acknowledges it in his books..

Neo Wicca is a much more evolved "new agey" type religion but for the most part, I believe wicca as a whole does indeed have roots in Celtic, Atlantian, and even Egyptian culture... or "European Culture"

Raven Grimassi covers it extensively in his book, "the wiccan mysteries" he gives a very well researched history and follows it as it evolves and splits into the two branches we know today... it is not about misinformation, it is about following a belief through time and different culture.

Xander67

October 28th, 2006, 10:32 PM

This is an interesting idea.

Can you quote anyone at all who feels the way you describe?

I don't recall anyone saying that in order for the religion of Witchcraft to be "valid" it must be "old'".

I will agree, I dont think in order for it to be valid it must be old ...

Modern Wicca has alot of different offshoots today, and if you put three wiccans together in the same room, although they may agree on most of the tennants, each of them may have different belifs... this is what neo wicca (modern wicca) has evolved into..

Faol-chù

October 28th, 2006, 10:44 PM

well, I think the confusion lies in the fact that wicca has pretty much split into two branches, Elder and Neo wicca, the Old religion (wicca) does have roots in the Celtic tradition, even Gardner acknowledges it in his books..

You really should take a look at actual 'Celtic religion' sometime....without the preconceived notions gleaned from a book biased heavily towards calling everything 'witchcraft' and/or 'wicca'.

You would likely come to a different conclusion...

But first, you'd have to drop all the conditioning you've received from 'Wiccan' sources.

There is absolutely NO confusion on my part....

Xander67

October 28th, 2006, 11:06 PM

being Part Irish, I have researched it quite well, I know a little about Celtic Druidism, and how the Mediteranian cult of the dead influenced the Druids during the occupation of England by the Celts circa 600/500 BC

there is no "Conditioning" here

Faol-chù

October 28th, 2006, 11:15 PM

Elderbush

October 29th, 2006, 07:56 AM

That is the danger of trying to force a connection through the ages, in order to give Wicca antiquity.

RainInanna

October 29th, 2006, 08:29 AM

Eran

October 29th, 2006, 10:21 AM

I don't think that they were talking about Witchcraft in this thread, Eran.
Well, Ben certainly was, in the post I was responding to. He had said:

Originally Posted by Ben Gruagach:

I think that's the key -- the big problem is that some people seem to feel that Wicca must be proven to be an intact pre-Christian Pagan religion for it to have validity.

.. so I was responding to his claim that that there were people who feel the religion of Witchcraft must be "old" to be "valid".

Why do you think that some people think try to tie Wicca to Celtic ideology?
I'm not sure. To determine their motives, I suppose you'd have to ask a person who felt that way.

Elderbush

October 29th, 2006, 10:52 AM

I think that you two use different terminology, Eran. He uses Wicca to mean the modern religion that Gardner began/reveiled and does not use Witchcraft to be the same thing. In your personal dictionary, you seem to use the words as to have the same meaning.

Xander67

October 29th, 2006, 12:38 PM

All I can say, Xander, is that there are many Pagans who vehemently dispute the theory you find in the book you mention. I'm sure Ben G. would be the best one to suggest to you other sources if you want to research it further. Personally I'm not so interested in history but I am aware that that theory isn't well accepted in the Pagan community.

well, I just think it makes sense to me, the idea that wicca suddenly appeared recently just doesnt wash, there are a few pagans who happen to support the Idea that wicca has been around for quite a while, (even though it was not called "wicca")
its my beliefs and no anti celtic connection lecture is going to change it. It was one of the options in the poll here, so I chimed in my opinion, I was not aware that this thread was going to be a debate on it... If you want to reject Spence's theory then fine, but I happen to find it interesting..

Eran

October 29th, 2006, 01:03 PM

I think that you two use different terminology, Eran.
Possibly, but that that isn't relevant at the moment. Ben had written,

I think that's the key -- the big problem is that some people seem to feel that Wicca must be proven to be an intact pre-Christian Pagan religion for it to have validity.
I asked him for evidence that anyone actually said anything like this. He can provide evidence for his statement, regardless of whether we use different terminology.

He uses Wicca to mean the modern religion that Gardner began/reveiled and does not use Witchcraft to be the same thing. In your personal dictionary, you seem to use the words as to have the same meaning.
Indeed I do. And in your personal dictionary, they mean different things. What's your point?

But as we have discussed many times (and this should no longer be a surprise, since we have indeed discussed it) until very recently, the words were treated as synonyms, because they are etymolgically the same word. I tend to stick with this old usage.

And since you are speaking of "Wicca" as being "the religion Gardner publicised", note his books were titled "Witchcraft Today" and "Meaning of Witchcraft". He used the words "Witch" and "Wica" interchangably. So if we are indeed speaking of the religion he described, there is no reason to have some other usage.

But again, this is hardly a surprise, since we've had this discussion several times. I think I'm confused, because I don't see how it is related to the current conversation.

Elderbush

October 29th, 2006, 01:26 PM

I disagree with you about Witchcraft and Wicca being used interchangeably. I think that if Witchcraft is an intact religion then Wicca or Gardner's Proto-Witches are an off shoot of that farmily. If Witchcraft isn't an intact primitive religion then Gardner started his own version of Witchcraft. Again an offshoot since there were other practicing Witchcraft apparently. In either circumstance using Witchcraft to mean Wicca and visa versa seems inaccurate to me.

Ben was speculating on why some people think that Wicca is a derivative of Celtic religion. I don't believe that he has to provide the names of people who believe that. I was asking you to speculate as well on why that some people want to believe that.

Eran

October 29th, 2006, 01:55 PM

I disagree with you about Witchcraft and Wicca being used interchangeably. I think that if Witchcraft is an intact religion then Wicca or Gardner's Proto-Witches are an off shoot of that farmily.
In your personal dictionary, "Wicca" and "Gardenrian Witchcraft" seem to be synonyms. (If so, then there are a lot of people who call themselves "Wiccan", yet don't practice anything similar to Gardner's form - would you say they are mis-applying the word?)

You are correct that Gardner's form is one small segment of the much larger thing that is the religion of Witchcraft. But to limit "Wicca" to only apply to Gardner's form seems inaccurate to me, since as I said, historically, "Wicca" and "Witch" are the same word - and since there are many people who call themselves "Wiccans" yet have practices and beliefs nothing like Gardner's.

Ben was speculating on why some people think that Wicca is a derivative of Celtic religion. I don't believe that he has to provide the names of people who believe that. I was asking you to speculate as well on why that some people want to believe that.
Ben didn't present his comment as speculation. He presented it as a "problem" (his word).

Anyway, I can't speculate on the reasons there are theories about the connections between modern Wicca / Witchcraft and old Celtic Paganism - though I would assume people come to that conclusion based on the evidence that they see from their research. Which is pretty much the reason anyone comes to any conclusions about historical matters, isn't it? I assume, for instance, this is the reason you hold your opinions about questions involving these things. You have no motive other than an interest in historical accuracy, right? Why assume anyone else has any motive other than that?

Ben Gruagach

October 29th, 2006, 02:10 PM

I just finished reading the chapter "The Wiccan Revival" in the 2006 (brand new) revised edition of Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon." She discusses the ancient versus new Wicca debate complete with quotes and specific names given. That chapter of her book goes through it all a lot better than I could ever do so I'll recommend people just go read that chapter at the very least if they want names named and an explanation of the debate, along with summaries of what seems to be the majority opinion currently.

Right here on MysticWicks we've also gone through I don't know how many drawn out discussions of the topic in countless threads. Carla O'Harris has posted at great length about her opinion that Gardner was merely passing on an intact ancient Pagan religion. In some of her posts she's been quite clear that she considers anyone who disagrees with her to be "not-real-Wiccans"; she's even come up with a range of labels for her ideological opponents reinforcing her clear opinion of them and their status as Wiccans.

I think people can draw their own conclusions about possible motives and the importance different participants here place on historical claims.

The book "Keepers of the Flame" by Morganna Davies and Aradia Lynch is another interesting resource for people who want to see what various Gardnerian, Alexandrian, and other "traditional Wiccan" elders in the US in particular have to say on these matters. Some of the people quoted in that book are pretty clear in their insistence that Wicca is "the Old Religion" of pre-Christian England and even Europe. Others are not so sure and that too is clear in their quotes.

Getting back to Margot Adler's new version of "Drawing Down the Moon" her chapter on Wiccan history and the debates about its origins also documents how some of the most vocal proponents of the ancient-intact-Wicca stance have softened their opinions and in some cases have even switched over to support the new-Wicca stance. So I guess that while some people might have acted as though their Wiccan faith would have been shattered if the ancient-Wicca claims were disproven, in reality they've discovered their faith survived and perhaps even became stronger despite the shift in historical opinion.

In some eastern religions the faithful are taught that to achieve enlightenment they must learn to overcome their attachments and illusions. Perhaps this is one of those tests that the Gods and Goddesses give to those of us who are Wiccan -- we must learn that investing our sense of spiritual validity in a specific historical claim is a distraction, an illusion, that must be overcome. Seek the truth but realize that it's highly unlikely we'll ever have a complete or 100% accurate picture, and that spiritual validity does not rely on historical claims being true.

RainInanna

October 29th, 2006, 02:14 PM

I think the point is lost in an argument over whether Wicca and Witchcraft are synonymous.

Eran could have just as easily said

This is an interesting idea.

Can you quote anyone at all who feels the way you describe?

I don't recall anyone saying that in order for the religion of Wicca to be "valid" it must be "old'".

References, please?

Eran

October 29th, 2006, 04:32 PM

I think the point is lost in an argument over whether Wicca and Witchcraft are synonymous.

Eran could have just as easily said

I don't recall anyone saying that in order for the religion of Wicca to be "valid" it must be "old'".

Right you are. The terminology debate is not relevant, and is a distraction from my point.

Eran

October 29th, 2006, 04:51 PM

In some eastern religions the faithful are taught that to achieve enlightenment they must learn to overcome their attachments and illusions. Perhaps this is one of those tests that the Gods and Goddesses give to those of us who are Wiccan -- we must learn that investing our sense of spiritual validity in a specific historical claim is a distraction, an illusion, that must be overcome. Seek the truth but realize that it's highly unlikely we'll ever have a complete or 100% accurate picture, and that spiritual validity does not rely on historical claims being true.
It is interesting that you assume the reason someone might be convinced of the reality of an ancient religion of Witchcraft is because of this undefined, nebulous concept of "validity", rather than an honest investigation and assessment of the historical evidence - resulting in a simple and honest disagreement with you. Intelligent and reasonable people can really come to conclusions which differ from yours, even if their motives are simply to get as accurate a picture as possible of the historical realities.

It is equally interesting (and rather insulting) that you imply that anyone who views Witchcraft as having a long religious history is a victim of "attachments and illusions". That doesn't seem terribly respectful. I wil respectfully ask you to reassess your assumptions here.

It is also interesting that you use phrases like "intact ancient Pagan religion" to summarize an opinion you disagree with, a position which I don't believe anyone here has argued, and which seems to be a mis-statement and mis-characterizition of what people have actually said (see my reference earlier to the "straw man" logical fallacy). What Carla and I have talked about is "remnants", which carries very different connotations. You are misquoting and misrepresenting this position.

I am aware that if I were to mis-catagorize your position in these ways, I would be in deep trouble. I respectfully ask you to refrain from such things.

You refer to people who have changed their minds on some of these issues. I am one of those - I started out convinced that Gardner's religion (call it what you want - Witchcraft, Wicca, whatever) was a recent invention. A careful examination of the evidence - ancient, medieval, and modern - has led me to change my mind.

Interestingly enough, my faith was not shattered, but rather was deepend, by this discovery. I found I did not need to cling to the illusion of this being something I could invent as I went along. Getting a sense of spiritual "validity" (whatever that is) from a conviction of this religion being a recent and unprecidented creation is a mistake. We must learn that investing our sense of spiritual "validity" in a specific claim of non-history is a distraction, an illusion, that must be overcome. Seek the truth, but realize that it's highly unlikely we'll ever have a complete or 100% "verifiable proof positive" picture, and that spiritual "validity" does not rely on having something with no historical roots.

Elderbush

October 29th, 2006, 07:51 PM

In your personal dictionary, "Wicca" and "Gardenrian Witchcraft" seem to be synonyms. (If so, then there are a lot of people who call themselves "Wiccan", yet don't practice anything similar to Gardner's form - would you say they are mis-applying the word?)

You are correct that Gardner's form is one small segment of the much larger thing that is the religion of Witchcraft. But to limit "Wicca" to only apply to Gardner's form seems inaccurate to me, since as I said, historically, "Wicca" and "Witch" are the same word - and since there are many people who call themselves "Wiccans" yet have practices and beliefs nothing like Gardner's.

If the person who began the thread would like to step forth and say this is OT I'll be glad to honor that. I think terminology is important and addresses the origins of Wicca but I could be wrong.

In answer to your question, I think of Wicca as an umbrella term for a religion that Gardner began and Gardnerians are a small segment or tradition that falls under that umbrella. It is perfectly correct to say Wiccans when discussing Gardnerians and Electic Wiccans or all the traditions and solitaries under the umbrella. If I wished to discuss a single tradition it is best to mention it by name. You are correct in that Gardnerians and Alexandrians and Georigians and all the rest of the traditions and solitaries do not belong to the same tradition and do have different practices and beliefs. They all did spring from Gardner's Proto-Witches however.

I don't think that Wicca and Witchcraft are the same word today, if they ever were historically. Gardner called his followers Witches and believed that they were one of many different traditions that practiced Witchcraft. His offshoot of Witchcraft evolved until other traditions, those mainly in America, wanted to call themselves Wiccans during the 1960s instead of Witches. It was later adopted by Gardnerians. The word now means a person who follows a tradition or is a solitary practitioner of Wicca, the offshoot of Witchcraft fathered by Gardner. It does not mean a Witch that follows a family tradition that never was connect to Gardner.

We could run a poll if you like and see if there are Witches who are not in any way connected to Gardner's Wiccans and who object to being called Wiccan.

Ben Gruagach

October 29th, 2006, 08:23 PM

I don't think that Wicca and Witchcraft are the same word today, if they ever were historically. Gardner called his followers Witches and believed that they were one of many different traditions that practiced Witchcraft. His offshoot of Witchcraft evolved until other traditions, those mainly in America, wanted to call themselves Wiccans during the 1960s instead of Witches. It was later adopted by Gardnerians. The word now means a person who follows a tradition or is a solitary practitioner of Wicca, the offshoot of Witchcraft fathered by Gardner. It does not mean a Witch that follows a family tradition that never was connect to Gardner.

We could run a poll if you like and see if there are Witches who are not in any way connected to Gardner's Wiccans and who object to being called Wiccan.

I've seen some Gardnerians and Alexandrians (such as a few on the Amber And Jet e-group) who insist that only Gardnerians and those directly connected to them have the right to call themselves Wiccan. Personally, I think that the term is broader than that and should include anyone who practices a witchcraft religion based on Gardner's teachings whether directly connected to Gardner or more through inspiration of Gardner's descendants' work. The idea that Wicca means connected to Gardner is hardly something that was dreamt up or promoted by non-Gardnerians.

Regarding the suggestion for a poll asking whether any witches object to being called Wiccan, I just created a thread with a poll to ask that. (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=142873)

There is another thread that was started a while ago asking people to identify themselves if they consider themselves to be Witches but not Wiccans (and to hopefully talk a bit about their own particular path or tradition.) You can find that poll and thread here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=129447).

Eran

October 29th, 2006, 09:31 PM

Faol-chù

October 29th, 2006, 11:39 PM

This is an interesting conjectural history. I would dispute it on many points. But allow me to stress one aspect of it. Let's assume your history his is correct on every point. You are presenting Gardner's form as one branch out of a much larger and much older spiritual current. I would agree completely. I would furthermore identify this current as very ancient - pre-Christian in fact - Pagan, and religious. Putting the argument about terminology aside, perhaps we disagree only on what to call it.

I have problems with calling this 'current' 'The Olde Religion' (or some such, spelled differently), for the simple fact that it would have to be, in fact, from *one* 'proto-religion' (or preferably a verifiable religion) from which it has all been derived.

Where would you have it pegged as originating?

It seems that the only logical place of origin would be with human religion, in Africa somewhere...As the practices that are mentioned have been utilized, in one form or another all over the world, from a very early period....And they have all had different myths and worldviews connected with them.
To my understanding, a 'religion' is something that requires shared myths, as well as shared practices.

I'm just going to point out here that this way of thinking (of this 'original' religion as witchcraft --or is it 'Wicca'?--Neither seems to really be honest, to me) is quite reminiscent of Christians calling Christianity "The First Religion".

In a way it's blatantly a 'lie'...But if you get right down to it, the early Christians really saw themselves as 'reclaiming' personal spirituality (before the advent of the Roman Catholic church).

I can see both sides of it...
And I guess, I have to ask...if you expect for people to buy your 'spiritual truth' (because it cannot be verified), why do you not buy the 'spiritual truth' of Christians?

Spiritual truth is a wonderful thing...but where do you draw the line?
If you expect others to accept yours, then you are obliged, in turn to accept that of others.
There comes a point where one must ask why one bothers trying to 'define' themselves at all...

Eran

October 30th, 2006, 07:09 AM

Thanks for your questions and thougths!

I have problems with calling this 'current' 'The Olde Religion' (or some such, spelled differently), for the simple fact that it would have to be, in fact, from *one* 'proto-religion' (or preferably a verifiable religion) from which it has all been derived.

Where would you have it pegged as originating?

I'm not talking about any sort of universal "original religion". I'm talking about the native shamanic-style religions of Europe - very similar to the religions of native Americans or Africans or Australians. What I see is not a single, universal Olde Religion, but a set of similar religious patterns (such as exists everywhere else) which merged over time - and the priesthood of one particular pair of deities surviving the persecutions of the Christian era. It's a complex history, which can't easily be summarized here, but the problems you see do not apply.

I can see both sides of it...
And I guess, I have to ask...if you expect for people to buy your 'spiritual truth' (because it cannot be verified), why do you not buy the 'spiritual truth' of Christians?

Spiritual truth is a wonderful thing...but where do you draw the line?
If you expect others to accept yours, then you are obliged, in turn to accept that of others.

I don't expect anybody to "buy" the spritiual truths of my path. If it resonates with them, that's great, and they can follow this path if they wish - and if not, then not, and I hope they find something which does.

The historical research is another question, unrelated to spiritual matters. We can reserach and discuss and verify - and people are free to disagree, and to come up with their own theories about history as well. I don't expect anybody to "buy" that, either; I expect them to do their own research, check my references, and come up with their own conclusions.

As for the spiritual truths of Christians - I do "buy" them, to a great extent. I assume they are true - for Christians. And in the final analysis, the deepest spritual truths, the mystery and spritual ground of being deep underneath, is pretty much the same for all the world's religions.

There comes a point where one must ask why one bothers trying to 'define' themselves at all...
That is one way to look at it, certainly. Another way is to find the patterns and symbols which speak most directly to you. Whatever works, my friend.

Ben Gruagach

October 30th, 2006, 09:28 AM

I'm not talking about any sort of universal "original religion". I'm talking about the native shamanic-style religions of Europe - very similar to the religions of native Americans or Africans or Australians. What I see is not a single, universal Olde Religion, but a set of similar religious patterns (such as exists everywhere else) which merged over time - and the priesthood of one particular pair of deities surviving the persecutions of the Christian era. It's a complex history, which can't easily be summarized here, but the problems you see do not apply.

This is awfully confusing.

Using the term "the Old Religion" is singular which as Faol-chù points out implies a uniform single religion, not "the native shamanic-style religions of Europe." It's misleading to call something "the Old Religion" when what you actually mean is "an Old Religion" or "the Old Religions."

Then we are told that it's not actually a religion but common religious patterns that actually exist everywhere. That's not an "Old Religion" -- that's common patterns or practices or ideas!

Then we're presented with the claim that these "common patterns" merged into a single religion with a particular pair of deities, and that the priesthood of this single specific pre-Christian religion were persecuted during the Christian era (and are presumably the direct-line ancestors of modern Wicca.)

Which is it? Is "the Old Religion" a single pre-Christian Pagan religion that was preserved through the Christian era to be picked up and popularized by Gerald Gardner and modern Wiccans, or is "the Old Religion" really "the Old Religions"?

And I'd also love to hear, as Faol-chù asked, which pre-Christian religion "the Old Religion" is supposed to descend from? Where was its centre of worship? Who were its deities? (Since we have been told they were a specific deity pair worshipped by the priesthood of the Old Religion who were persecuted by the Christians, this should be easy to answer.)

There is no doubt that Wicca contains pre-Christian ideas, practices, and mythology. Having those things incorporated into a religion does not make the religion itself ancient. Anyone can invent a brand new religion today and incorporate ideas, practices, and mythology from the past from any culture or source they choose. If they want people to believe that their religion is an ancient religion they have to have some clear proof that can't be accounted for by clever borrowing.

Elderbush

October 30th, 2006, 10:57 AM

Eran

October 30th, 2006, 05:23 PM

Personally, I am not convinced by the evidence that there was a single Witch religion that is found in many different cultures, times and ages. I think that there were groups at various times and places that had practices that had some points in common with modern Witchcraft. That isn't enough to call it a single religion that goes back thousands of years, in my opinion. New evidence may be found of course.
The idea that there was "a single Witch religion that is found in many different cultures, times and ages" is not an idea I have ever advocated, agreed with, supported, or promoted, so I will not defend it now.

I have been very careful to speak of shamanic-stype religious traditions in Europe, and to speak of one specific priesthood having survived through the persecutions. Gardner encountered one. There may well have been others - in fact I would not be at all surprised of there were many others.

I do believe that today others believe that they have family traditions of Witchcraft, practices that may be combined with different religions, that are different from Gardner's Proto-Witches and did not spring from him.
This is very close to my own feeling, and virtually identical to Gardner's stance. Thank you for acknowleding that the religion of Witchcraft is very ancient, and that there were many forms and branches of this ancient current. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

So...Witchcraft becomes an umbrella term while Wicca is a more specialized and means those whose practices come from Gardner.
You are forcing your own defintiion of "Wicca" into the mix, however. That's your right - but recognize that it is a definition with no historical justification. The word "wicca" is the older form and was used first. For you to restict its use today to a more limited role is up to you - but that is a historically inaccurate usage.

Eran

October 30th, 2006, 06:30 PM

This is awfully confusing.
I'll do what I can to eliminate your confusion. (Be cautious, though - you are close to a common logical fallacy here - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

It's misleading to call something "the Old Religion" when what you actually mean is "an Old Religion" or "the Old Religions."
I have no problem with the terminology you recommend here. Either way, the important point is that there is at least one remnant of pre-Christian European Shamanic-type religion, which still survives today. What you call it is irrelevant.

Your argument over terminology, however, has no effect on my basic position or historical evidence. You are introducing an irrelevant topic, a logicial fallacy known as "red herring". (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

Then we are told that it's not actually a religion but common religious patterns that actually exist everywhere. That's not an "Old Religion" -- that's common patterns or practices or ideas!
This is not at all what I said. I never said "it's not actually a religion". My references to other places with similar religious structures was intended to show only that there is nothing unusual about the claims I am making; there is no special pleading in the situation I am proposing. You are trying to place some different implciation upon my argument. You are mis-representing my position, a logical fallacy known as "straw man" (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

Then we're presented with the claim that these "common patterns" merged into a single religion with a particular pair of deities, and that the priesthood of this single specific pre-Christian religion were persecuted during the Christian era (and are presumably the direct-line ancestors of modern Wicca.)
That is not at all what I said, either (see the above reference for "straw man"). What I said is that at least one of these priesthoods survived. You are, again, misstating my position.

I also said that it contained many elements from the various other, similar priesthoods around them. You see this same effect happening in all polytheist societies, so it is scarecly a confusing or unusual phenomenon. Again, I am proposing something with no special pleading or unusual situations.

Which is it? Is "the Old Religion" a single pre-Christian Pagan religion that was preserved through the Christian era to be picked up and popularized by Gerald Gardner and modern Wiccans, or is "the Old Religion" really "the Old Religions"?
I would say your second option is closer to the truth - that is, there were many, very similar traditions (as occurs in Africa, for example, or among Native Americans, or Austrailians) - and at least one of them (possibly more) survived. But you are presenting my arguments as if they contain a contradiction they do not contain (due to your straw-man misstatements of my position).

And I'd also love to hear, as Faol-chù asked, which pre-Christian religion "the Old Religion" is supposed to descend from? Where was its centre of worship? Who were its deities? (Since we have been told they were a specific deity pair worshipped by the priesthood of the Old Religion who were persecuted by the Christians, this should be easy to answer.)
Indeed it is easy to answer, and I have provided quotes from Gardner in other threads which address this question. Would you like me to repeat them here, or are you able to access my previous quotes?

There is no doubt that Wicca contains pre-Christian ideas, practices, and mythology. Having those things incorporated into a religion does not make the religion itself ancient.
True. But the fact that it is possible to create a brand-new religion that contains ancient elements does not mean that's what happened. Solid research and evidence is required to approach a decision on this - please see my website http://esoterica.bichaunt.org for a great deal of evidence which begins to address this issue.

Anyone can invent a brand new religion today and incorporate ideas, practices, and mythology from the past from any culture or source they choose. If they want people to believe that their religion is an ancient religion they have to have some clear proof that can't be accounted for by clever borrowing.
This argument contains a number of logical fallacies - Burden of proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html - you want to say that I need to prove X, but you are unable and unwilling to prove your position), appeal to common practice (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html - becauset there are many people who invent religions, you claim this must have been what happened here), straw man (see above - you say "If they want people to believe " etc, when there is no reason to think they "want" this at all), and so on.

I hope this helps!

Elderbush

October 30th, 2006, 06:44 PM

This is very close to my own feeling, and virtually identical to Gardner's stance. Thank you for acknowleding that the religion of Witchcraft is very ancient, and that there were many forms and branches of this ancient current. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

You are forcing your own defintiion of "Wicca" into the mix, however. That's your right - but recognize that it is a definition with no historical justification. The word "wicca" is the older form and was used first. For you to restict its use today to a more limited role is up to you - but that is a historically inaccurate usage.

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I do not believe that the religion of Witchcraft is ancient since I do not believe that there was one religion of Witchcraft. I will leave the door open to more proof however. :)

I think that you are forcing your definition of Wicca on others who have never used that term and don't want to start now. It is all very well to say that HISTORICALLY a word meant this but reality is that words shift in meaning over time and someone today does not talk like a person did 500 years ago or more or even a 100 years. If there is a group of Witches that did not spring from Gardner who wish to use the term Wicca for themselves, great. Otherwise, as far as I can see it is the Witches who sprang from the line Gardner started who use it today.

Eran

October 30th, 2006, 07:51 PM

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I do not believe that the religion of Witchcraft is ancient since I do not believe that there was one religion of Witchcraft. I will leave the door open to more proof however. :)
I am content if you wish to remove the word "the" and talk about "various rather similar religions which are collectively known as "Witchcraft" - or some variation on this. My point is not that there was "one religion". My point is that pre-Christian Pagan shamanic-style religious practice survived, in at least one form, and Gardner encountered one of those forms, and referred to it (or them) as "Witchcraft".

My, that's clumsy - being politically correct is a real pain. :)

I think that you are forcing your definition of Wicca on others who have never used that term and don't want to start now. It is all very well to say that HISTORICALLY a word meant this but reality is that words shift in meaning over time and someone today does not talk like a person did 500 years ago or more or even a 100 years.
Yes, it is one thing to say that historically a word meant something, and that is what I'm saying.

I'm not "forcing" my definitions on anyone. I am merely stating my definitions, and describing my reasons and the historical usages. I suggest that you are attempting to "force" your usage on me. Let me recommend instead that we both continue to use words as we will (we're going to do that anyway), and merely try to be clear on the whys and the meanings we intend.

If people wish to use non-historical versions and defintions, that is their choice, and I have no problem with it. But, just as they cannot be expected to follow the historical usage, I feel under no obligation to follow the newer redefinitions.

Suppose people who lived in New York began insisting we stop calling them "Americans". Suppose these New Yorkers insisted that the word "Americans" should only apply to people who live in New Jersey. The New Yorkers might make the argument you're making - yes, historically the term "Americans" did apply to both groups - and other groups besides - but words evolve in meaning, and since there are lots of people who call themselves "New Yorkers" today but who don't wish to also be called "Americans", it's just silly to insist on those outmoded ways of thought.

Well, okay, they're free to make this argument, and they're free to call themselves what they please, and to use words in whatever way they choose. Others have the same rights, and might additionally have historical usage on their side.

Carla O'Harris

October 30th, 2006, 08:39 PM

Brock

October 30th, 2006, 08:54 PM

I'm not talking about any sort of universal "original religion". I'm talking about the native shamanic-style religions of Europe - very similar to the religions of native Americans or Africans or Australians. What I see is not a single, universal Olde Religion, but a set of similar religious patterns (such as exists everywhere else) which merged over time - and the priesthood of one particular pair of deities surviving the persecutions of the Christian era. It's a complex history, which can't easily be summarized here, but the problems you see do not apply.

The problem I have with this position is the lack of evidence for "native shamanic-style religions of Europe." Most of the "evidence" proffered along these lines is specious as in "Greek religion MUST have been shamanic, because the Pythia at Delphi breathed in volcanic fumes in order to make her prophecies, and that's just like a shaman swallowing hallucinogenic herbs in order to give himself visions.

Religions do not exist in a vacuum, but are an integral part of the societies in which they are practiced. Had there been a pagan religion surviving in secret, there would be evidence for it within the society, and within the records we have of that society. Take the Marranos of Spain, the Spanish Jews forced to convert to Christianity after the Reconquista. A number of Marrano families contued to practice Judaism in secret. The fact that some Marranos did this was widely known, but the specific identities of these individuals was kept secret, as, under Spanish law of the period they were considered to be lapsed heretics, for which the penalty was death.

This is precisely the objection Ronald Hutton raises to Rhiannon Ryall's West County Wicca: despite Ryall's claims that the practices she describes were widespread across Somerset, Dorset and into Devon, there is nothing described in any of the extant folklore from that part of England that at all resembles the customs about which Ryall has written.

I'd be far happier if there were evidence for the practice of a "native shamanic-style religion of Europe" within the historical period. So far I've not seen anything to suggestt his to be the case.

Eran

October 30th, 2006, 08:57 PM

By this same criteria, one might argue that there is no such thing as a religion of Christianity, due to the plethora of different variations on it that mutually disagree, sometimes with such hostility that they have attempted to repress or even destroy each other.

To me this is not an argument over evidence. It's a taxonomical debate. The evidence is there. The question is over grouping, nominalization, particularist versus universalist styles of taxonomy. We're arguing over logical categories, not over whether the evidence is there. Clearly there were practices and spiritual-ecstatic beliefs all over Europe that are substantially similar --- so similar that the comparison with Christianity's variation is completely within proportion.
Excellent points. Yes indeed, there is no longer any question but that there were, in fact, survivals of spiritual-ecstatic Pagan religious worship, extending from pre-Christian times until the present. The argument now is simply over what to call them, and whether we should see them as related to each other.

Rather than continue to argue over terminology, why don't we start discussing what was there?

That wasn't a rhetorical question - there is a reason we don't discuss what was there. The reason is, anytime anyone tries, there is the hyperskeptical "modernist" argument made which insists there is nothing really to discuss, and then there is the distraction into taxonomy rather than substance. If an attempt is made to avoid modernist dismissals and taxonomic irrelvancies, then there is an argument over whether one is engaging in censorship or is absurdly gullible or is shallowly attached to mythic, rather than actual, histories. The result is that discussions over substance intevitably get sidetracked, and just don't get too far.

I've started a thread on "Witch history", and posted a few pieces of data and some interpretation. I invite people who actually want to discuss the evidence to participate. I want to suggest an experiment : When the inevitable posts appear on taxonomic arguments, modernist dismissals, and other distractions, let's see if we can ignore them and continue to move on.

Carla O'Harris

October 30th, 2006, 09:00 PM

The problem I have with this position is the lack of evidence for "native shamanic-style religions of Europe." Most of the "evidence" proffered along these lines is specious as in "Greek religion MUST have been shamanic, because the Pythia at Delphi breathed in volcanic fumes in order to make her prophecies, and that's just like a shaman swallowing hallucinogenic herbs in order to give himself visions.

Religions do not exist in a vacuum, but are an integral part of the societies in which they are practiced. Had there been a pagan religion surviving in secret, there would be evidence for it within the society, and within the records we have of that society. Take the Marranos of Spain, the Spanish Jews forced to convert to Christianity after the Reconquista. A number of Marrano families contued to practice Judaism in secret. The fact that some Marranos did this was widely known, but the specific identities of these individuals was kept secret, as, under Spanish law of the period they were considered to be lapsed heretics, for which the penalty was death.

This is precisely the objection Ronald Hutton raises to Rhiannon Ryall's West County Wicca: despite Ryall's claims that the practices she describes were widespread across Somerset, Dorset and into Devon, there is nothing described in any of the extant folklore from that part of England that at all resembles the customs about which Ryall has written.

I'd be far happier if there were evidence for the practice of a "native shamanic-style religion of Europe" within the historical period. So far I've not seen anything to suggestt his to be the case.

You make some excellent points. I would recommend Emma Wilby's Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits : Shamanic Visionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft and Magic. It very persuasively argues for a shamanic provenance of the fairy faith, which is directly relevant to our question of the witchcraft religion.

And in actual fact, the case of the Marranos tends to support the survival of witchcraft. I have studied this topic in some detail for this very reason. The same sorts of survival-patterns one sees amongst Marranos are the very survival patterns one sees in the modern witchcraft movement.

Eran

October 30th, 2006, 09:07 PM

You make some excellent points. I would recommend Emma Wilby's Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits : Shamanic Visionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft and Magic. It very persuasively argues for a shamanic provenance of the fairy faith, which is directly relevant to our question of the witchcraft religion.

And in actual fact, the case of the Marranos tends to support the survival of witchcraft. I have studied this topic in some detail for this very reason. The same sorts of survival-patterns one sees amongst Marranos are the very survival patterns one sees in the modern witchcraft movement.
Additionally, there is quite a lot of evidence within the historical record, from the persecutors of the Witches - the same people who furnished much documentation of the nature of Jews in Spain, or (shortly after) the religions of Native America. I have a sampling of some of that evidence in the Witch History thread, quite a lot more on my website, and more still in my book (peices of which I continue to make available as rapidly as I can).

Brock

November 1st, 2006, 10:48 AM

Additionally, there is quite a lot of evidence within the historical record, from the persecutors of the Witches - the same people who furnished much documentation of the nature of Jews in Spain, or (shortly after) the religions of Native America. I have a sampling of some of that evidence in the Witch History thread, quite a lot more on my website, and more still in my book (peices of which I continue to make available as rapidly as I can).

I'd be very leery of taking the reports of witchcraft tribunals at face value. There is always the question of the reliability of information obtained through torture or other coercive means. And the degree to which certain actions or beliefs on the part of the accused are considered to be evidence of "witchcraft" varied widely over time and space. Ankarloo and Henningsen, in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, make the point that activities dismissed as "superstitious nonsense" by the Inquisition in Sicily got people executed in Germany and Scandanavia a century later. And Brian Levack, in his The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe, does a very nice job of describing how perceptions of what witchcraft was, as well as which crimes the accused were ultimately charged with, changed over time.

Faol-chù

November 1st, 2006, 10:54 AM

Rather than continue to argue over terminology, why don't we start discussing what was there?

May I suggest that if one provides a definition of what they consider to be "shamanism" and/or "shamanistic", and then backs it up, and refrains from calling everything "witchcraft", or "witch religion", that the discussion might be more productive.

Might I also suggest that people refrain from calling everything they see 'faeries'...

I understand that, from a certain perspective, they might be seen that way, but that does not mean that all of the people who interacted with them *did*.
I think it would be helpful to use, or, at least acknowledge the different cultural terms for these entities.

Silver Crow2

November 1st, 2006, 11:00 AM

Faol-chù

November 1st, 2006, 11:10 AM

Why is the fact that something dismissed as "superstitious nonsense" in one area of Europe gets you killed in another not evidence of a spiritual practice?

The reaction of non - practioners should not be part of the criteria as to whether or not a practice exists, should it?

The thing is, context is everything.

For example, leaving milk for the spirits in a Gaelic area would have been considered the doings of a good community member and steward of the area. Doing the same in an English-speaking area would get you labelled a 'witch', and, possibly burned at the stake (or hung).

That does not make the **practice** of it 'witchcraft'.

The very WORD 'witch' is culture-specific and carries baggage with it that people who are calling all that they see 'witchcraft' are not acknowledging.

Again, context is everything.

Dare I say that, to the community where leaving milk for the fairies is commonplace, it might not be considered a 'spiritual practice', at least not as separated from the rest of life. It's just 'necessary'.
Just some food for thought....

Brock

November 1st, 2006, 03:38 PM

Brock, you write well. One of my weaknesses is that - well engineers are great at logical thought, but our grasp of the tools of rhetoric are not always that great.

So, given your last post, it seems to me that you dismiss anything as evidence unless it is consistent in a manner that is simply not logical.

Why is the fact that something dismissed as "superstitious nonsense" in one area of Europe gets you killed in another not evidence of a spiritual practice?

The reaction of non - practioners should not be part of the criteria as to whether or not a practice exists, should it?

I mean, being a Christian used to get you killed, now it gets you elected President. See what I mean?

Well, by training I'm a chemist with some field experience in Chem.E. I suppose that as usual I'm being the exception that proves the rule.

However, getting back to the point of the discussion, as Faol-Chu has already pointed out, and as I have just observed in the other thread, it is context that is everything in this discussion. The "Ladies from Outside," whom the Inquisition in Sicily released because "while being superstitious may be foolish it is not heresy," all reported vivid memories of having "ridden at night with Diana." All of them professed to being sincere Catholics, all of them denied the overt practice of witchcraft or magic, and there were no accusations by their neighbors that they had done anything more serious than to speak of things of which proper Catholic matrons should have no knowledge. In several cases the womens' husbands testified that they had never left their beds the entire night. Since the Inquisition was created to combat heresy, and there was clearly no heresy involved in these incidents, the women were eventually released.

An hundred years later in Germany or Sweden, a similar admission could easily result in execution for witchcraft, as by then it had become widely known that these were the sorts of things that witches DID.

Which of these represents an historical example of actual pagan witchcraft?

The answer, of course, is that neither incident does. The Sicilian episode boils down to a bunch of women mentioning that they had some very odd dreams, and the Inquisition telling them not to talk about the dreams because people will think them foolish old women. The German response to a similar report is to take it as an admission of witchcraft and burn the miscreants at the stake. Please note that in both cases what are being reported are essentially vivid dreams. There is in the historical record NO suggestion by the women making the reports that these dreams have any special spiritual significance, nor any hint that the dreams or visions were part of a non-normative religious practice. Instead, the spiritual meaning is being IMPUTED to these historical events by modern readers who would themselves assume that any similar experience they might have would be of a spiritual nature, and who therefore make a similar assumption about the historical record.

Absent actual evidence of religious purpose or intent associated with these incidents I think that assumption invalid.

Elderbush

November 1st, 2006, 04:39 PM

[QUOTE=Carla O'Harris;2871735]By this same criteria, one might argue that there is no such thing as a religion of Christianity, due to the plethora of different variations on it that mutually disagree, sometimes with such hostility that they have attempted to repress or even destroy each other.

/QUOTE]

I don't believe that I ever said that all people within a religion had to agree on everything about the religion or that they had to be peaceful to each other in order for it to be a religion.

But wouldn't that latter be nice. :)

Eran

November 1st, 2006, 05:05 PM

I'd be very leery of taking the reports of witchcraft tribunals at face value.
Of course you should be leery. That doesn't mean the evidence is worthless. Please see the series about 'Collars and Scholars' on my website.

You are here displaying a common approach to the problem - simply dismissing the evidence without actually considering it. That is the reason why people can falsely maintain that there is no evidence: they refuse to even look at the evidence which does exist.

I challenge you to take a fresh and honest look. You said elsewhere that you are open to being convinced. The burden of proof for your willingness is on you. Actually look at and comment upon the evidence, rather than blithely dismissing it.

Fact: We know Pagan survivals were sometimes persecuted as being "Satanic" by the Christian authorities, even quite late, into the 14th and 15th centuries at least (see Ginzburg's Night Battles and Ecstacies).

Fact: We know that at least some Pagan survivals reached the 20th century (see Gail Klingman's Calus).

Fact: Native Shamanic-style traditions appear all over the world, in every place there are humans; it is merely special pleading to insist they did not also exist in Europe (and interestingly enough, some writers in Medieval times actually compared the Witches to Northern Shamans).

Fact: Even centuries before the "Witchcraft tribunals", we know the Christian authorities were complaining about the practices which later came to be called "Witchcraft" and were specifically tying them to Pagan religion and Pagan observances (see my website for a sampling).

Fact: These same Christian authorities are believed when they talk about every other group they persecuted - the Jews, Islam, the native Africans and Americans and Asians, the Gnostics, the Gypsies - the list here is endless (though of course, the obvious bits of propagandistic nonsense are taken for what they are). The only group on which their descriptions are not believed is the Witches. This is, again, special pleading - and entirely unwarrented.

This is a sampling of a very few facts which are generally ignored completely - or dismissed as irrelevant - by the True Believers of the Modernist schools. Undoubtedly, you will respond, "Yes, but, even that does not prove..." Perhaps not. But A) let us start with an acknowledgement of these facts, and B) know that we are aware of the unwillingness of True Believers to be swayed from their faith in the modern "creation" of the religion of Witchcraft, regardless of the quantity and quality of fact which is presented. You have the opportunity to display a willingness to consider another position.

I myself was swayed from a Modernist belief, after a careful consideration of the facts. I know it is possible to become convinced when faced with compelling evidence in another direction. It requires a willing to consider other possibilities, however, and I invite you to do so. :)

Brock

November 1st, 2006, 05:11 PM

It would probably help if you would provide a link to your Web site. There's no mention of it in your public profile, and my psychic abilities do not extend to divining URL's.

Eran

November 1st, 2006, 05:21 PM

Absent actual evidence of religious purpose or intent associated with these incidents I think that assumption invalid.
Yes, and this is another very common Modernist technique. "Okay, that's true, but unless it also has this and this and this, I remain unconvinced." The bar keeps getting raised.

If one reads the Roman descriptions of early Christian observance, one could make exactly the argument you make here. When a Buddhist read the Christian Bible (Joseph Campbell relates this tale), he could found no evidence of religion within it at all.

Some Christians historically did this as well, depicting the rites and symbols of other peoples as not really being religious at all. It's a common way to deny the religion of other people.

Frequently, someone who is not a member of a given religion cannot see the spiritual significance of that religion's rites and myths and symbols. That doesn't mean it isn't there. It means you decline to see it. And this is another common Modernist argument - "I don't see that as religious - therefore, it wasn't."

Ellliot Rose did this quite a lot in his book attempting to debunk Murray ("Razor for a Goat"). Aidan Kelly did it, Hutton does it, Norman Cohn did it. It's a very common error.

Eran

November 1st, 2006, 05:23 PM

It would probably help if you would provide a link to your Web site. There's no mention of it in your public profile, and my psychic abilities do not extend to divining URL's.
I thought I'd mentioned it to you, but I can understand having missed it. Try this: http://esoterica.bichaunt.org

Brock

November 1st, 2006, 08:50 PM

Eran,

I'm going to tell you now that it may take some time for me to review some of the texts you referenced. Several of them are not presently in my personal library, so I'll need to either depend on the vagaries of interlibrary loan, or look at buying them. Unfortunately, I've just dropped a large chunk of money on a number of other books on religious subjects, and I really need to go through those books before I fly off to the American Academy of Religion annual meeting in DC on the 16th of this month, so even if I can get your references into the house, it's going to be a good while before I spare the time to do much with them.

Brock

November 1st, 2006, 08:58 PM

It's a very common error.

It is just as common, and just as gross an error, to see religion where there is (or was) none.

Would you care to suggest how we might find a middle ground between the two extremes?

Eran

November 1st, 2006, 10:06 PM

It is just as common, and just as gross an error, to see religion where there is (or was) none.

Would you care to suggest how we might find a middle ground between the two extremes?
I have some suggestions in another thread. But let me give you an oversimplified example here. (That's the problem with this sort of research - it can't be redued to soundbites, although criticism of it frequently is so reduced.)

We have ample evidence that worship at standing stones and wells and crossroads and special trees was an aspect of Pagan worship in Greek and Roman times, and also among Celts - in other words, it was a very common element of Pagan worship all over Europe. It was only very seldom an aspect of Christian worship (I say "seldom" for reasons I'll come back to in a moment...)

For the first 1300 years of Christianity, there are writings of Churchmen complaining that there were groups of people who insisted on celebrating rites at standing stones and wells and crossroads and special trees. They frequently labelled these rites as "Pagan". The rites they described included appeals for healings, prayers for the dead, and seasonal rites, often including meals and feasts and dancing. The Church writings often referred to them as "sacrifices made to demons," but also sometimes named these "demons", using such names as Jove or Venus - in other words, they make it quite clear that by "demons" they mean "Pagan Gods." This gives strong indication of a continuation of pre-Christian Pagan worship.

A century or two later, the Church writings depict precisely the same sorts of celebrations, at precisely the same locations (standing stones and wells and crossroads and special trees), and add some obscenities and propagandistic nonsense, and claim the people there are worshipping "the Devil", and those writings call it "Witchcraft." This is an indication that whatever it was that the Church meant by "Witchcraft", they were basing their descriptions on what had been the survivals of Pagan rites.

Then we'd have to attempt a determination of whether such rites were still actually taking place; but that's a slightly different question (let's go one or two steps at a time!)

Now, as I said above, worship at standing stones and wells and crossroads and special trees was "seldom" an aspect of Christian rites. When it was an aspect of Christian observance, this was most commonly because the Christians were trying to claim a sacred spot which the people were still using for Pagan purposes and refused to give up. There is documentation of the Bishops advising parish priests to either destroy these Pagan sites, or to build churches there to draw the people in. Again, even the Christian use of these sites, then, points to a Pagan observance that refused to die out.

All of the above is related here without citations; I provide it mostly as abbreviated summaries of some of the analysis. I provide some examples of the actual data and evidence and citations on my website, and I hope to provide more. All of the above sorts of things are well-documented, and no reputable historian would dispute them. The reason historians don't associate these Pagan survivals with Witchcraft is, again, a complex issue, and one I'll speak to another time.

MorningStar

November 2nd, 2006, 12:31 AM

Eran

November 2nd, 2006, 01:01 AM

This is very similar to what Canaanite Reconstructionalists in Israel do. The complains of the biblical prophets about "Idol Worshipping" is used to decipher as much as possibly can about what ancient Israeli customs and belief were. The difference here is that here the information can be compared the information uncovered in Ugarit (which held a very similar religion) and texts written by ancient scholars such as Lucian of Samosata.
Precisely! It is possible (though difficult) to piece together quite a lot about the beliefs and practices of a people though the condemnations written by their enemies.

For example, both the Spanish Inquisition and the German Nazis condemned the idea of "lighting candles and singing at the dinner table on Friday nights", because this was used as evidence that someone was Jewish. From this, a historian who knew nothing about Jews might come to the conclusion that this custom was part of the practices of Jews - and, further, that it had some significance related to Jewish myth, history, and/or spirituality.

Of course, such a historian could come to other conclusions - for instance, that this was something that the Spanish Inquisition had simply made up and the Nazis copied - maybe no one, ever, lit candles and sang at the dinner table on Friday nights. Or maybe, though this was an actual practice, it really had no religious or cultural significance - maybe it was just done because it was a meaningless folk habit whose roots (if any) had long been forgotten. Or even perhaps it had been a meaningful rite at one time, but no one actually did it any more - the Inquisitors and the Nazis only imagined that people were still doing it. Or any one of a hundred other (wrong) explanations.

The simplist theory, of course, was that it was, in fact, an actual custom, which had both religious and cultural significance, and that was why the enemies of the Jews were looking for it. And that theory would be the true one.

As one reads through the bible (Old Testament, The Tanach), one can see that the prophets don't explain much, and refer to some of the customs as idolatry and belief in false gods, and do not mention a coherent religion. As far as I see it, there was no distinct definition of religion in ancient times
Again, absolutely true. Part of the difficulty which modern historians have in looking at ancient religions is that the relationship between "religion" and "culture" was not the same then as it is today. The relationship of humans and their Gods permeated every aspect of the culture, unlike today where we try to keep the two separate.

This modern separation is mostly due to the fact that our dominant religion - Christianity - was imposed upon Western culture, and is not really related to it. Everywhere else, the culture and the religion - that is, the everyday life of the people, and their relationship to their Gods - grew up together, and were never divided.

Unfortunately, this fact is often (mis)used in an effort to "prove" that this or that people had no religion at all (or that this or that custom had no spiritual significance) precisely because it was not separated from everyday life the way "religious" things are today. But, in most cases, in most societies, through most of human history, everything connected to "everyday life" also had spiritual significance - especially if it was associated with such things as the Afterlife, the Gods, Magic, "supernatural" beings (elves, faeries, nature sprites, etc.), ancestors, moral and ethical codes, and so on.

Carla O'Harris

November 2nd, 2006, 05:26 AM

The "Ladies from Outside," whom the Inquisition in Sicily released because "while being superstitious may be foolish it is not heresy," all reported vivid memories of having "ridden at night with Diana." All of them professed to being sincere Catholics, all of them denied the overt practice of witchcraft or magic, and there were no accusations by their neighbors that they had done anything more serious than to speak of things of which proper Catholic matrons should have no knowledge. In several cases the womens' husbands testified that they had never left their beds the entire night. Since the Inquisition was created to combat heresy, and there was clearly no heresy involved in these incidents, the women were eventually released.

An hundred years later in Germany or Sweden, a similar admission could easily result in execution for witchcraft, as by then it had become widely known that these were the sorts of things that witches DID.

Which of these represents an historical example of actual pagan witchcraft?

The answer, of course, is that neither incident does. The Sicilian episode boils down to a bunch of women mentioning that they had some very odd dreams, and the Inquisition telling them not to talk about the dreams because people will think them foolish old women. The German response to a similar report is to take it as an admission of witchcraft and burn the miscreants at the stake. Please note that in both cases what are being reported are essentially vivid dreams. There is in the historical record NO suggestion by the women making the reports that these dreams have any special spiritual significance, nor any hint that the dreams or visions were part of a non-normative religious practice. Instead, the spiritual meaning is being IMPUTED to these historical events by modern readers who would themselves assume that any similar experience they might have would be of a spiritual nature, and who therefore make a similar assumption about the historical record.

Absent actual evidence of religious purpose or intent associated with these incidents I think that assumption invalid.

I have to take exception to this, because I feel it reduces the richness of the "Ladies from Outside" material. In actual point of fact, these women were not orthodox Catholics, but Syncretists combining some level of pagan devotion with Christian devotion. Some of them may have been full pagans with a Catholic camouflage. And we're not just discussing "dreams" ; in context, we're discussing things that many times much more approximate to deliberate astral projection or OBE's : ecstatic trance experiences which are much more than mere dreams. Even if it were "mere" dreaming, it indicates an unconscious mind populated by pagan spirits and a loyalty towards pagan spirits. We have to understand that human beings are capable of holding simultaneously systems that to the logical mind seem contradictory. Were the people of Medieval and Early Modern Europe "Christians" or "Pagans"? Well, the answer may be that in many cases they were both. In a large number of cases, however, they were only marginally Christian at all.

And it is simply incorrect and an invalid reading of Henningsen's material to suggest that these visions had no spiritual content. In fact, many of them are highly shamanic, and partake of the joys and ecstasies of the Fairy World. I would personally say that nothing could be more spiritual, and let us be clear, to many men and women in Europe, such ecstatic voyages and joyful visions had far greater pull than the Christian religion.

It is not spiritual meaning that is being imputed by modern readers ; quite the contrary. It is modern skeptics who are reading back a reductionism that is quite inappropriate to the material at hand.

Carla O'Harris

November 2nd, 2006, 05:32 AM

The thing is, context is everything.

For example, leaving milk for the spirits in a Gaelic area would have been considered the doings of a good community member and steward of the area. Doing the same in an English-speaking area would get you labelled a 'witch', and, possibly burned at the stake (or hung).

That does not make the **practice** of it 'witchcraft'.

The very WORD 'witch' is culture-specific and carries baggage with it that people who are calling all that they see 'witchcraft' are not acknowledging.

Again, context is everything.

Dare I say that, to the community where leaving milk for the fairies is commonplace, it might not be considered a 'spiritual practice', at least not as separated from the rest of life. It's just 'necessary'.
Just some food for thought....

What cultural baggage would that be? Of Teachers and Priestesses familiar with herbs, spirit-summonings, fairy-wanderings, devotions to pagan gods, hallowings of groves and wells? Because that is the original matrix of the word "witch", that in some contexts continued into the 1400's. Yes, after a deliberate campaign of slanderous propaganda, the word began to take on a much more negative connotation as it was increasingly identified with negative forces, but we are not obligated to buy Catholic propaganda and utilize only their terminology.

The fact of the matter is that there were people all over Europe offering homage, sacrifice, offerings, and pacts to Non-Christian Spiritual Beings (of whatever name you want to call them, "fairy" being a standard name), who often in return taught them Magic and Healing which they practiced in their communities. If you don't want to call these people "witches", that is fine, but it is also perfectly legitimate to call them witches.

And the fact of the matter is that above and beyond such visionary and offeratory practices that people all over Europe also engaged in masquerades on special holidays where they became and embodied these Non-Christian Spiritual Beings, and enacted in physical rituals many of the activities imputed to them in the devotional and visionary context.

These two things fit together hand in glove. Due to her Frazerian excesses, no one wants to admit it, but the basic pattern and core meaning that Murray teased out of the record has been proven to be substantially correct ; the only knitting that needs be done is between the festive, carnivalesque ritual enactments, and the visionary experiences ; and it is only a modern skeptical taboo that demands the two remain separated that remains as the final holdout against seeing that in fact there was a unified and diverse religious practice that included visions and rituals that was connected with NonChristian Spiritual Beings and the practice of both magic and magical healing.

Eran

November 2nd, 2006, 06:12 AM

I have to take exception to this, because I feel it reduces the richness of the "Ladies from Outside" material. In actual point of fact, these women were not orthodox Catholics, but Syncretists combining some level of pagan devotion with Christian devotion. Some of them may have been full pagans with a Catholic camouflage. And we're not just discussing "dreams" ; in context, we're discussing things that many times much more approximate to deliberate astral projection or OBE's : ecstatic trance experiences which are much more than mere dreams. Even if it were "mere" dreaming, it indicates an unconscious mind populated by pagan spirits and a loyalty towards pagan spirits. We have to understand that human beings are capable of holding simultaneously systems that to the logical mind seem contradictory. Were the people of Medieval and Early Modern Europe "Christians" or "Pagans"? Well, the answer may be that in many cases they were both. In a large number of cases, however, they were only marginally Christian at all.

And it is simply incorrect and an invalid reading of Henningsen's material to suggest that these visions had no spiritual content. In fact, many of them are highly shamanic, and partake of the joys and ecstasies of the Fairy World. I would personally say that nothing could be more spiritual, and let us be clear, to many men and women in Europe, such ecstatic voyages and joyful visions had far greater pull than the Christian religion.

It is not spiritual meaning that is being imputed by modern readers ; quite the contrary. It is modern skeptics who are reading back a reductionism that is quite inappropriate to the material at hand.
You are absolutely correct here, particularly in your comment about "reductionism". Elliot Rose (Murray's primary critic) was particularly guitly here. Faced with the incontrovertible evidence of Shaman-type drug use to attain ecstatic states (no rational historian today pretends this wasn't done in the Middle Ages), Rose insisted not that this was proof of Shamanic-ecstatic cults, but merely that there were drug users!

It is a common technique of Modernist True Believers to reduce ritual and cultic acts to the acts themselves, and insist they were acts devoid of meaning. The fact that similar or identical acts are performed the world over -- and always with spiritual meaning -- is ignored, in this one case. This is an instance of special pleading -- "Yes, this act is always done elsewhere for religious reasons -- but not in the case of Medieval Witches."

Carla O'Harris

November 2nd, 2006, 08:12 AM

Claude Lecouteux's Witches, Werewolves, and Fairies : Shapeshifters and Astral Doubles in the Middle Ages (Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, 2003) has an excellent analysis of this OBE-tradition, its rooting in pagan tradition, and how the double was often considered a "demon" by Christianity.

The Double stands at the center of ... the relationship of man with the other world... (p. 147)

The Double does not die with the body. This is the explanation for phantoms and ghosts and the root of necromancy. The Double is capable of changing into other forms, which is the origin of accounts of werewolves and animal metamorphoses. The Double becomes independent once the body is at rest, and it may leave either to go about its business or to fulfill the desires of its possessor. This is the explanation for witches' and magicians' nocturnal and diurnal journeying and for saints' and mystics' ecstatic journeys. (p. 149)

If the Bacchants fast, dance, sing, and shout to achieve divine delirium, it is in order to free their spirit Double from their body, as Maurice Halbwachs has clearly shown. What is this technique if not a variation of the shamanistic ecstatic technique? (p. 157)

This connection of Bacchic dance to ecstatic release of the Double should alert us to the dances reported at the Sabbats.

It is fitting to recall here that for Plato, the Pythagorians, and Empedocles the daimon is a divine principle whose function is to link our individual destiny directly to the cosmic order. (p. 159)

After showing the connection of the Double to Greek Pagan practices, here Lecouteux illustrates that the Double is one of the key religious concepts of some of the most important of the initiates of the Mysteries. What could be more religious than linking individual destiny to the cosmic order?

Lecouteux eruditely connects all of the Double phenomena of Europe and illustrates how there is a connected shamanic pattern here that indeed shows a religious-ecstatic nature.

Silver Crow2

November 2nd, 2006, 09:15 AM

Since the Inquisition was created to combat heresy, and there was clearly no heresy involved in these incidents, the women were eventually released.

An hundred years later in Germany or Sweden, a similar admission could easily result in execution for witchcraft, as by then it had become widely known that these were the sorts of things that witches DID.

What you are not taking into account here is the differences between the Inquisition (in some areas) and early Protestant beliefs and (only in some areas) specific "anti-witch" tactics used.

I think it can be shown that in parts of Protestant Germany at the height of the anti-witch hysteria, accusation was enough. The inquisition tended to allow those who didn't actually advocate fundamentally false doctrine a second chance.

I just don't see different REACTIONS to the same phenonmona as evidence one way or the other.

Instead, the spiritual meaning is being IMPUTED to these historical events by modern readers who would themselves assume that any similar experience they might have would be of a spiritual nature, and who therefore make a similar assumption about the historical record.

Absent actual evidence of religious purpose or intent associated with these incidents I think that assumption invalid.

Well, then we are back to FAO argument, which I think I can summarize as saying "if the ancient wandering aborigine 10,000 years ago didn't distinguish between the physical world and where the faeiries lived, we can't discuss those beliefs in terms of religion or spirituality".

You really think that?

Faol-chù

November 2nd, 2006, 11:21 AM

What cultural baggage would that be? Of Teachers and Priestesses familiar with herbs, spirit-summonings, fairy-wanderings, devotions to pagan gods, hallowings of groves and wells? Because that is the original matrix of the word "witch", that in some contexts continued into the 1400's. Yes, after a deliberate campaign of slanderous propaganda, the word began to take on a much more negative connotation as it was increasingly identified with negative forces, but we are not obligated to buy Catholic propaganda and utilize only their terminology.

The fact that you are using the terms "priestesses" here, and, to some degree, "teachers", is telling, in itself.

In other communities (such as the Gaelic community, since that is one with which I am well familiar), it certainly wasn't only "teachers" who did these things, or for that matter, taught them. It was embedded in the fabric of everyday life, and was done by everyday people going about the business of life (even in Christian times!!)...and it certainly wasn't "priestesses" in Christian times (and in pre-Christian times, it wasn't *only* "priestesses"). For that matter, the very word, "priest" carries with it connotations that are inadequate to describe the role of the *actual* pre-Christian spiritual leaders (fileadh in Gaelic).

For that matter, if there were survivals in England and Protestant areas of Scotland (which I'm sure there were), I have a hard time believing that most of them would have considered themselves to be "priests" or "priestesses" in any fashion.

And I must add that neither am I (or anyone else) "obligated" to buy Protestant (or Gardenarian/Wiccan/Witch) propoganda and use only THOSE terminologies.

The fact of the matter is that there were people all over Europe offering homage, sacrifice, offerings, and pacts to Non-Christian Spiritual Beings (of whatever name you want to call them, "fairy" being a standard name), who often in return taught them Magic and Healing which they practiced in their communities.

Just because an entity is not the subject of catechism in Catholic lore does not mean that they are not, or *were* not *acknowledged* by the Catholic church. I've already mentioned in another post to you, that the Catholic church *did* acknowledge the limitation of their teachings at an early period. They recognized the necessity of a relationship with the land (for agricultural and other purposes), and they ***allowed*** these relationships to continue, albeit in possibly a different format that would have been acceptable within the confines of Christian doctrine.

It is the MO of the Prostestant church to make the division between "Christian" and "other" in this way. This was not the practice of the Catholic church.

It was mostly gods of 'sky' that were supplanted by the Christian god within Catholicism. Propitiation of other entities was allowed to remain. (Understanding a land/sea/sky dichotomy is necessary for this to make sense.)

If you don't want to call these people "witches", that is fine, but it is also perfectly legitimate to call them witches.

You may find it to be "legitimate", but these people would have never, in a million years, callled themselves that, and they would have been upset with you for doing so.
Further, I do not find it respectful, appropriate, or honest to do so. It merely serves to perpetuate misinformation and a lack of understanding of what these people actually were, and did.

Faol-chù

November 2nd, 2006, 11:34 AM

What
Well, then we are back to FAO argument, which I think I can summarize as saying "if the ancient wandering aborigine 10,000 years ago didn't distinguish between the physical world and where the faeiries lived, we can't discuss those beliefs in terms of religion or spirituality".

Firstly, I must say, that if this is a reference to me, I'd greatly appreciate it if you at least spelled out 'Faol'. (I know that not everyone can spell all of my name, or even type it out if they did.) At least that way, I'd know whether or not you are talking to or about me. (Are you?)

That said...If this is a reference to anything I've said...That is not an adequate summary of my meaning.
I said that we must be very careful in doing so..... not that "we can't discuss those beliefs in terms of religion or spirituality".

Silver Crow2

November 2nd, 2006, 01:10 PM

HI Faol

I aplogize for not spelling even part of your name correctly.

Silver Crow2

November 2nd, 2006, 01:18 PM

That is the danger of trying to force a connection through the ages, in order to give Wicca antiquity.

@ everybody -

First of all - this is most fun. Secondly, Elderbush has it right here - trying to make WICCA ancient is a waste of time.

I just want to make it clear that I am not arguing that all the info in Gardner's book of shadows necessarily came from a long, traceable line back to the pre-Christian era.

I don't know, and frankly don't care :)

Witchcraft on the other hand..........

Peace

Silver Crow2

November 2nd, 2006, 01:42 PM

Precisely! It is possible (though difficult) to piece together quite a lot about the beliefs and practices of a people though the condemnations written by their enemies.

For example, both the Spanish Inquisition and the German Nazis condemned the idea of "lighting candles and singing at the dinner table on Friday nights", because this was used as evidence that someone was Jewish. From this, a historian who knew nothing about Jews might come to the conclusion that this custom was part of the practices of Jews - and, further, that it had some significance related to Jewish myth, history, and/or spirituality.

Of course, such a historian could come to other conclusions - for instance, that this was something that the Spanish Inquisition had simply made up and the Nazis copied - maybe no one, ever, lit candles and sang at the dinner table on Friday nights. Or maybe, though this was an actual practice, it really had no religious or cultural significance - maybe it was just done because it was a meaningless folk habit whose roots (if any) had long been forgotten. Or even perhaps it had been a meaningful rite at one time, but no one actually did it any more - the Inquisitors and the Nazis only imagined that people were still doing it. Or any one of a hundred other (wrong) explanations.

The simplist theory, of course, was that it was, in fact, an actual custom, which had both religious and cultural significance, and that was why the enemies of the Jews were looking for it. And that theory would be the true one.

Excellent example.

Part of the difficulty which modern historians have in looking at ancient religions is that the relationship between "religion" and "culture" was not the same then as it is today. The relationship of humans and their Gods permeated every aspect of the culture, unlike today where we try to keep the two separate.

Very true

This modern separation is mostly due to the fact that our dominant religion - Christianity - was imposed upon Western culture, and is not really related to it. Everywhere else, the culture and the religion - that is, the everyday life of the people, and their relationship to their Gods - grew up together, and were never divided.

I don't think this is true at all. Christianity was thoroughly "westernized" even before it was made the "official" religion of the Roman Empire.

There were large numbers of Hellenized Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire - it is obvious from Paul's writings that he was VERY familiar with "Greek" culture and ideas.

Christianity was WIDESPREAD in the Roman Empire by 400 CE - and it spread not by the sword or by legal imposition but by voluntary conversion - long before it was a legal requirement to be one - that's the facts ma'am.

Otherwise I agree with your excellent post.

Faol-chù

November 2nd, 2006, 01:53 PM

@ everybody -

First of all - this is most fun. Secondly, Elderbush has it right here - trying to make WICCA ancient is a waste of time.

I just want to make it clear that I am not arguing that all the info in Gardner's book of shadows necessarily came from a long, traceable line back to the pre-Christian era.

I don't know, and frankly don't care :)

Witchcraft on the other hand..........

Peace

Are you referring to 'Witchcraft' as a 'religion', or 'witchcraft' as your label for a set of practices?

Silver Crow2

November 2nd, 2006, 02:27 PM

Are you referring to 'Witchcraft' as a 'religion', or 'witchcraft' as your label for a set of practices?

either or :)

Why let a good thread die :)

Carla O'Harris

November 2nd, 2006, 07:44 PM

The fact that you are using the terms "priestesses" here, and, to some degree, "teachers", is telling, in itself.

I am using those terms deliberately because there are Medieval manuscripts that refer to the wicca/e as "teachers" explicitly. There are other texts that compare them to Zoroastrian priests. The description of their activity fits the function of a priest- or shaman-hood, probably inclining more towards the latter (which enables us to envision such lineages in a less formal manner, akin to the Germanic difference from more formal Celtic priesthoods).

In other communities (such as the Gaelic community, since that is one with which I am well familiar), it certainly wasn't only "teachers" who did these things, or for that matter, taught them. It was embedded in the fabric of everyday life, and was done by everyday people going about the business of life (even in Christian times!!)

Absolutely true. I absolutely agree that the fairy-faith was woven into the fabric of everyday life, which is one of the reasons why it was so tenacious. It absolutely was a part of the common folk (everyday people). And it had various syncretisms/compromises with Christianity.

...and it certainly wasn't "priestesses" in Christian times

This is taking an unsupported leap from your previous excellent statement. In fact, it is quite arguable that the cunning folk did in fact act as lay priestesses. There are several good scholars who discuss this, and point out that they were seen as priestesses, saints, and holy men amongst the folk. When we connect this fact with the fact that many of these cunning folk were working within the fairy tradition, it becomes obvious that there was a priestesshood of sorts even into Christian times.

(and in pre-Christian times, it wasn't *only* "priestesses").

Again, we are in absolute agreement.

For that matter, the very word, "priest" carries with it connotations that are inadequate to describe the role of the *actual* pre-Christian spiritual leaders (fileadh in Gaelic).

I agree as well, but here we are faced with questions of language and generalization, as well as philosophical questions of nominalization and particularism. Personally, to me, the particularist "zooming in" on these concepts merely gives us more detail and nuance, but from a "zoomed out" perspective (where some of the particular details become more blurred), there are enough commonalities across these various, diverse European practitioners to utilize for common parlance a term that groups them together. I appreciate the point that in different times and different places there were exciting and fascinating nuances.

For that matter, if there were survivals in England and Protestant areas of Scotland (which I'm sure there were), I have a hard time believing that most of them would have considered themselves to be "priests" or "priestesses" in any fashion.

Again, it depends on whether we're discussing cunning folk or common folk. Cunning folk may or may not have seen themselves as priest/esses, but many of the surrounding people definitely did see them as holy (wo)men.

And I must add that neither am I (or anyone else) "obligated" to buy Protestant (or Gardenarian/Wiccan/Witch) propoganda and use only THOSE terminologies.

You are free to use whatever language you wish.

Just because an entity is not the subject of catechism in Catholic lore does not mean that they are not, or *were* not *acknowledged* by the Catholic church. I've already mentioned in another post to you, that the Catholic church *did* acknowledge the limitation of their teachings at an early period. They recognized the necessity of a relationship with the land (for agricultural and other purposes), and they ***allowed*** these relationships to continue, albeit in possibly a different format that would have been acceptable within the confines of Christian doctrine.

Basically to me this means that they consigned themselves to regulating a syncretic tendency they couldn't completely control. Some of that may have been from a loving, tolerant, pluralist, and enlightened perspective, and some of it may have been from a pragmatic perspective, and some of it could even have been from a cynical perspective.

It is the MO of the Prostestant church to make the division between "Christian" and "other" in this way. This was not the practice of the Catholic church.

But we can look at this from the ground-up in a different way. Some of the clinging to "Catholicism" may be precisely because its compromises with existing syncretisms allowed pockets of genuine folk belief to co-exist in some forms, that the new literalist Protestant whitewashing would not. (And some of the appeal of Protestantism could have been the fact that anti-Catholicism was combined with a willingness to syncretize with Hermetic-Occultism, as Frances Yates has documented, as well as the fact that some of the Radical-Reformation sects had a greater "ecstatic", Holy-Rollerish temper that some people of the old faith may have seen as an opportunity to carve out some new space from the Catholics. Boy, did Luther betray them all!!)

It was mostly gods of 'sky' that were supplanted by the Christian god within Catholicism. Propitiation of other entities was allowed to remain. (Understanding a land/sea/sky dichotomy is necessary for this to make sense.)

Well ... this is both true and a little simplistic. The Catholic Church most definitely was troubled by and indeed demonized the other spirits; at times showing a troubled and sometimes patronizing tolerance, and at other times a vicious diabolization and criminalization.

You may find it to be "legitimate", but these people would have never, in a million years, callled themselves that, and they would have been upset with you for doing so.
Further, I do not find it respectful, appropriate, or honest to do so. It merely serves to perpetuate misinformation and a lack of understanding of what these people actually were, and did.

Oh, please.

People who did not live in areas affected by the Anglo-Saxon language would most definitely not have called themselves "witches" (unless in communication with a fellow Anglo-Saxon practitioner). They would have called themselves by the appropriate local term. And they would have seen affinities between themselves and others. And depending on their degree of assimilation of Christian ideology (versus sects that had more resistance), they would have also differentiated themselves to others on this scale. I am most certainly not being disrespectful by using the English language to point out commonalities between practitioners. If the only way to be respectful to all of these different European practitioners is to speak some Pan-European Doggerel, I have a lot of work to do ; in the meantime, I will speak English, engage in generalizations, and try to make up for some of the disadvantages of generalization through the acknowledgement of nuance and variation. Generalization is too important a human faculty of reasoning to abandon.

Faol-chù

November 3rd, 2006, 07:10 AM

I am using those terms deliberately because there are Medieval manuscripts that refer to the wicca/e as "teachers" explicitly. There are other texts that compare them to Zoroastrian priests. The description of their activity fits the function of a priest- or shaman-hood, probably inclining more towards the latter (which enables us to envision such lineages in a less formal manner, akin to the Germanic difference from more formal Celtic priesthoods).

Again, I need to point out that the druids were hardly 'priests' in the way that immediately comes to mind when most people hear the word. That has very often been the term that has been used to describe them, but, I think a better description would be 'lore-keepers'. The druids, themselves, as a group functioned as sort of a human 'bible' (or probably, more appropriately, Torah) because they kept the lineages, the laws, histories (including, but not ONLY that of interaction with the gods), among other things (they also functioned as lawyers, judges, 'scientists', etc.). The Torah, in Jewish communities does not have the same limited function as the Bible does in Christian communities....because every facet of it is the basis upon which society stands.

I need to point out, also, that many parallels have been drawn between Christianity and Zoroastrianism. (Also, some facets of the 'mythology' have similarities to Hebrew mythology. The notion of 'high magic' is derived from this type of 'priesthood'. The 'magic' that we have documentation of by the druids takes quite a different form. We have no documentation, whatsoever of what druids did amongst themselves to be able to compare that with 'high magick' rituals that take place among 'witches' and/or 'Wiccans'.

I said:

...and it certainly wasn't "priestesses" in Christian times

You said:

This is taking an unsupported leap from your previous excellent statement. In fact, it is quite arguable that the cunning folk did in fact act as lay priestesses. There are several good scholars who discuss this, and point out that they were seen as priestesses, saints, and holy men amongst the folk. When we connect this fact with the fact that many of these cunning folk were working within the fairy tradition, it becomes obvious that there was a priestesshood of sorts even into Christian times.

Before I respond, let me put this sentence fragment in context with the rest of what I said:

In other communities (such as the Gaelic community, since that is one with which I am well familiar), it certainly wasn't only "teachers" who did these things, or for that matter, taught them. It was embedded in the fabric of everyday life, and was done by everyday people going about the business of life (even in Christian times!!)...and it certainly wasn't "priestesses" in Christian times (and in pre-Christian times, it wasn't *only* "priestesses"). For that matter, the very word, "priest" carries with it connotations that are inadequate to describe the role of the *actual* pre-Christian spiritual leaders (fileadh in Gaelic).

Note, that I said "In other communities (such as the Gaelic community, since that is one with which I am well familiar),.." at the beginning of that statement.

There is absolutely no record of a priesthood outside of Christianity in Scottish Gaelic Community from the middle ages

I am going to excerpt part of our exchange so that there is a background for what I am about to say:

I said:
Just because an entity is not the subject of catechism in Catholic lore does not mean that they are not, or *were* not *acknowledged* by the Catholic church. I've already mentioned in another post to you, that the Catholic church *did* acknowledge the limitation of their teachings at an early period. They recognized the necessity of a relationship with the land (for agricultural and other purposes), and they ***allowed*** these relationships to continue, albeit in possibly a different format that would have been acceptable within the confines of Christian doctrine.

You said:

Basically to me this means that they consigned themselves to regulating a syncretic tendency they couldn't completely control. Some of that may have been from a loving, tolerant, pluralist, and enlightened perspective, and some of it may have been from a pragmatic perspective, and some of it could even have been from a cynical perspective.

I said:

It is the MO of the Prostestant church to make the division between "Christian" and "other" in this way. This was not the practice of the Catholic church.

You said:

But we can look at this from the ground-up in a different way. Some of the clinging to "Catholicism" may be precisely because its compromises with existing syncretisms allowed pockets of genuine folk belief to co-exist in some forms, that the new literalist Protestant whitewashing would not. (And some of the appeal of Protestantism could have been the fact that anti-Catholicism was combined with a willingness to syncretize with Hermetic-Occultism, as Frances Yates has documented, as well as the fact that some of the Radical-Reformation sects had a greater "ecstatic", Holy-Rollerish temper that some people of the old faith may have seen as an opportunity to carve out some new space from the Catholics. Boy, did Luther betray them all!!)

One thing you need to understand is that Ireland and Scotland (due to its Irish links) took on a form of Christianity at an early stage that was quite different from the Catholicism that is best known to people of English heritage, and, for that matter, even French heritage.

As Christianity spread it was syncretic...and unashamedly so. The factors spreading it still very much understood the need for a relationship with the land. A relationship with Christ was perceived as 'adding' something to the spiritual lives of people, rather than wholly replacing what they knew. Replacement was not the original intent. Christianity as understood by the Irish church, even at a relatively late date (and I'd say, largely, still today if you were to converse with a Gaelic-speaking priest) did not expect people to give up that relationship.

The witnessing that the Anglo-Saxons received by St. Augustine was quite different from the Christianity understood by Celtic language speakers.
(Martin Luther belonged to the order of Augustinians, who adhered to the teachings of Augustine). Among other things, Augustine thought it was an error to believe in 'divine beings other than God'. This should have translated to a lack of belief in the power of 'witchcraft', but, apparently, that effect was delayed.

I said:

It was mostly gods of 'sky' that were supplanted by the Christian god within Catholicism. Propitiation of other entities was allowed to remain. (Understanding a land/sea/sky dichotomy is necessary for this to make sense.)

you said:

Well ... this is both true and a little simplistic. The Catholic Church most definitely was troubled by and indeed demonized the other spirits; at times showing a troubled and sometimes patronizing tolerance, and at other times a vicious diabolization and criminalization.

Your lack of understanding of Gaelic, and, for that matter, Celtic worldview, coupled with limited understanding of the spread of Christianity (and Catholicism) to those areas is clear here.
Again, Anglo-Saxons received a different story from the one that was received by Celtic-language speakers, and understood their religion (both the 'Christian' aspects of it, and the older aspects of it) differently.

I said:

You may find it to be "legitimate", but these people would have never, in a million years, callled themselves that, and they would have been upset with you for doing so.
Further, I do not find it respectful, appropriate, or honest to do so. It merely serves to perpetuate misinformation and a lack of understanding of what these people actually were, and did.

You said:

Oh, please.

People who did not live in areas affected by the Anglo-Saxon language would most definitely not have called themselves "witches" (unless in communication with a fellow Anglo-Saxon practitioner). They would have called themselves by the appropriate local term. And they would have seen affinities between themselves and others. And depending on their degree of assimilation of Christian ideology (versus sects that had more resistance), they would have also differentiated themselves to others on this scale. I am most certainly not being disrespectful by using the English language to point out commonalities between practitioners.

If you were to speak to a Gaelic-speaker, either now, or in the Middle Ages, you would realize how very differently they perceive this. Yes, they *would* have seen the designation of themselves as 'witches' to be disrespectful. This is partly because of their understanding of their own word, buidseach, which means 'witch' in Gaelic, to have very negative connotations...meaning, essentially, 'someone who takes advantage of the institution of community, and, at the same time, exploits it for personal gain'. The ONLY way this word was understood was in a negative fashion, perhaps, partly, because it was gleaned from the English at a relatively late date, when it already carried those connotations, and, perhaps partly, just because it was gleaned from English...

And as far as Gaelic 'practitioners'...Well, first you'd have to find them...And then you'd have to find some way to get them past their notion of the Sassenach (Saxons) as imperialists. That would, in its own right, be a hard fight...

Carla O'Harris

November 3rd, 2006, 07:48 AM

This is absurd. If you translate a positive word, "witch", into a word that is negative in Gaelic, of course people will take offense to it. Translate it into a roughly equivalent positive word, and there will be no problem.

All of this boils down to splitting hairs and arguing nuances. It in no way affects the general thrust of my points.

Faol-chù

November 3rd, 2006, 07:51 AM

All of this boils down to splitting hairs and arguing nuances. It in no way affects the general thrust of my points.

If one is not going to argue 'nuances', why bother trying to isolate a 'religion', in the first place?

I mean, we're all practicing the same thing...Christian, Wiccan, Jew, Zoroastrian, Germanic...

It's all the same!

Carla O'Harris

November 3rd, 2006, 08:06 AM

Faol-chù

November 3rd, 2006, 08:25 AM

That's zooming out too far. To argue that unless one remains at the most particularist focus, one is automatically at the furthest focus is illogical.

Who decides 'how far is too far'?
You?
Or Wiccans, in general.
Exactly who?
And you are deciding for me (and other?) what is 'illogical'?!?!

:fpraise:

:yayah:

Carla O'Harris

November 3rd, 2006, 08:37 AM

No, logic gets to decide what is illogical. It is illogical to say that the subspecies of a species is identical to the kingdom of genera.

Faol-chù

November 3rd, 2006, 08:47 AM

No, logic gets to decide what is illogical. It is illogical to say that the subspecies of a species is identical to the kingdom of genera.

Before you can 'say that the subspecies of a species is identical to the kingdom of genera', first you'd have to define what the 'species' is...and if, in fact, it *is* a 'species', or just several different things with a handful of things in common.

And then you have to realize, that, even at that, it is *all* just a matter of PERCEPTION, and which 'categories' you (a human) choose to put them in.

FOr example, there have been quite a few extinct animals that scientists have insisted were related and/or one derived from the other, only to decide later that they weren't.

Carla O'Harris

November 3rd, 2006, 09:32 AM

Ben Gruagach

November 3rd, 2006, 10:28 AM

This has now become a debate about language and not Wicca. You feel free to use any language you like. I'll do the same. But please spare me the I'm insulting people by using the English language shtick.

It's frustrating but the core disagreements do revolve around definitions of basic terms. One of the main reasons there is such a big debate about Wicca, witchcraft, and the history of both is because people are using the words in conflicting ways.

skilly-nilly

November 3rd, 2006, 11:30 AM

That's zooming out too far. To argue that unless one remains at the most particularist focus, one is automatically at the furthest focus is illogical. Cunning folk practicing with fairy-like beings are found across Europe. You can call them what you will. The nuance only augments and enriches and does not negate the generalization.

I am an English-speaker with only a marginal understanding of Irish Gaelic and I find that I am completely able to understand the point/s Faol-chù is making. And I agree.

The Culdee Church in Ireland (was it also Culdee in Scotland?) was outright syncretic and took a non-Roman stance specifically about communication with Nature. So Carla's story about pockets of hidden Pagans continuing a non-Catholic religion in secret defiance of the Church Fathers was, in Ireland, completely not the case. The Druids and cunning-workers and the common person just put a layer of Catholicism over everything that went before and carried on as Catholics. The whole idea of an us/them antagonism that Carla uses as the first step towards the ancient lineage of Wicca just wasn't the case in Ireland and Catholic Scotland.

I, in both this case and in general, find the assumption of "fairy-like beings" and "fairy faith" as being revered, almost god-like beings that were courted and sought out to be very disturbing. The cultural attitude in Irish folk-lore is completely antithetical to this point of view. Carla can have any attitude towards F***ies that she wishes, but the Tuatha Dé Danann are not 'F***ies' and the Gentry, the Good People, the Neighbors under the hill are not the Tuatha Dé Danann. Read the lore.

I strongly believe that it is the people themselves who get to decide what they are called. If those 'witches' who were burned at the stake said they were good Xians then they were. If those people hung or smooshed with rocks at Salem said they were Calvinists then they were. If my Grandmother said she was a good Irish Cat'lic even though she was fey, then she was. I don't think that we get to co-opt people's descriptions of themselves or their beliefs in order to further our own world-view.

On the zooming-out hand, I believe that human nature makes people act in ways that can be mistaken for conflation. As an obvious example, all societies have SomeOne Who is called upon to aid in mid-wifery because women have babies and are then at risk---the 'Goddess of Mid-Wifery' isn't the same universal Goddess; each culture has its own unique Goddess Who Helps Birthing.

On the zooming-in hand, language and culture create a unique world-view. Faol-chù is completely right---the Gaelic word that means something like 'cunning wort-master' does not translate as 'witch'. What 'witch' translates to in Gaelic means 'someone who manipulates outcome to hir own advantage'. Saying that it you wish it were otherwise doesn't make it so.

On the gripping hand, Navaho culture has a lot of parallels with Irish Gaelic culture. Their word that translates as 'witch' is also negative and also carries the connotation of selfishness because both cultures place a very high value on sharing and supporting family. The Navaho insult "acting like you have no family" exemplifies this.
However, the conclusion that I draw from this is that common human nature and unique world-view in this case create similar ends. I don't fall back with a gasp and say,

"O MY GAWDS!!!111!!! The Irish and the Navahos are reeeeeely THE SAME PEOPLE SECRETLY THROUGH THE AGES!!!11!!!!"
because that would just be silly.

Eran

November 3rd, 2006, 07:52 PM

I strongly believe that it is the people themselves who get to decide what they are called. If those 'witches' who were burned at the stake said they were good Xians then they were.
Some of the Witches who were burned at the stake insisted they were Witches. So, of course, they were, and the discussion is now settled - since people get to label themselves, there were at least some Witches in the Middle Ages. Yes?

I once spoke with someone who had visited rural India shortly after a group of missionaries had come through, sometime in the early 1970's. The missionaries had splashed everyone with holy water, and told them they were Christians now. The local populace (Hindus, all) went along with them, and claimed, ever after, that they were Christians. And, to prove it, they showed off the little statue of Jesus they had set up in their home shrines, right next to the statues of Ganesh and Parvati.

They put out pieces of fruit as offerings to Jesus, just as they did to the other Hindu Gods. They said Hindu prayers to them all, and engaged in all the Hindu celebrations and rites, and now included Jesus along with all the Hindu Gods, because they were Christians now. They had changed not one whit of their observances, worldview, theology, beliefs, practices, culture, or myths. But they were good Christians now, because that's what they'd been told, and they believed it.

Nonsense. They were still Hindus in every way that has any meaning.

The situation is far more complex than mere terminology.

This is particularly true when we talk about something like Witchcraft. By skilly-nilly's above argument, some of the Witches of the Middle Ages were Witches, because that's what they said they were. Of course, the Modernist True Believers will insist they'd been tortured and intimidated into saying they were Witches. And by that argument, the people of Ireland have perhaps been intimidated into saying they're Christians - the intimidation has been going on now for well over a millennium. It's no wonder they now claim to be Christians.

When irrefutible evidence is presented for survivals of non-Christian belief and practice, the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but it's not all that old."

When irrefutible evidence is presented for these survivals to be pre-Christian, the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but it's been Christianized - it's Christian now."

When irrefutible evidence is presented for these Pagan survivals to have only the thinnest gloss of holy water splashed on them - or maybe just the name "Christian" plastered onto them - the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but it's still not Pagan."

When irrefutible evidence is presented for these ancient survivals to be unmistakably Pagan, the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but it's not Witchcraft."

When irrefutible evidence is presented for these ancient Pagan survivals to be clsoely associated with Medieval or ancient Witchcaft, the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but it's not religious."

When irrefutible evidence is presented for these ancient Witch survivals to be religious by any reasonable definition of the word, the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but it's not Wiccan."

When irrefutible evidence is presented for these ancient religious survivals of Medieval Witchcraft to really be very closely allied to Wicca, the Modernists say, "Well, alright, but the people who do them call themselves Christians today."

Let's put the whole terminology argument aside, and instead think about the beliefs involved. The beliefs and practices and wordlview and customs and religious devotion is there, and has been all along. Call it what you want. That doesn't change the fact that it's there.

And on zooming in or out - it is always possible to come up with an example different from some other example. There is no reasonable point to be made there. It doesn't change the fact that there were indeed survivals of ancient Pagan religious customs, beliefs, practices, imagery, devotion, and techniques, and that some of these were closely aligned with what was called Witchcraft in the Middle Ages and is called Wicca today.

Playing with terminology doesn't change that.

I don't fall back with a gasp and say,

"O MY GAWDS!!!111!!! The Irish and the Navahos are reeeeeely THE SAME PEOPLE SECRETLY THROUGH THE AGES!!!!!!!"

because that would just be silly.
Of course it would be silly. And no one here as implied such a thing. To pretend someone has is dishonest at best.

Carla O'Harris

November 4th, 2006, 06:45 AM

So Carla's story about pockets of hidden Pagans continuing a non-Catholic religion in secret defiance of the Church Fathers was, in Ireland, completely not the case. The Druids and cunning-workers and the common person just put a layer of Catholicism over everything that went before and carried on as Catholics. The whole idea of an us/them antagonism that Carla uses as the first step towards the ancient lineage of Wicca just wasn't the case in Ireland and Catholic Scotland.

Actually, I didn't begin with an us/them antagonism. I spoke of the ability of human beings to hold what appear to us to be contradictory realities and beliefs. In some spheres, they were "Christian" ; in other spheres, they were functionally Pagan, and in fact, there are cases where the fairy-folk were seen as hostile to Christianity. Not in every case, but there are significant cases, indicating that beliefs in this regard could differ, from a more assimilationist approach to a more hostile or resentful approach.

As far as assimilation goes, we have to ask Who swallowed whom? Eran's example shows the Hindus swallowing a venier of Christian symbols, and carrying on as before. While Christianization was a little more intense in the West than this, there are modern scholars who have persuasively argued that in many areas, it was a very thin venier indeed.

Obviously the perspectives taken from person to person are going to differ.

Saying that the cunning-folk "carried on as Catholics" is mapping something onto them that one might want to pause before being premature. Some of them carried on as Catholics. Others simply defined Catholicism to include whatever they wanted it to include!!

I, in both this case and in general, find the assumption of "fairy-like beings" and "fairy faith" as being revered, almost god-like beings that were courted and sought out to be very disturbing. The cultural attitude in Irish folk-lore is completely antithetical to this point of view. Carla can have any attitude towards F***ies that she wishes, but the Tuatha Dé Danann are not 'F***ies' and the Gentry, the Good People, the Neighbors under the hill are not the Tuatha Dé Danann. Read the lore.

Be disturbed. People all over Europe sought out the fairies in this context, and Ireland and Scotland were most certainly no exceptions.

As far as my "reading the lore", do you mean lore like this :

https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0105&L=OLD-IRISH-L&P=R3740&I=-3

'Is andsin ro fiarfaig Pátraic do Cháilte: 'in rabatar airfitigh
acuib-se isin Féinn?' 'Do bhí imorro', ar Cáilte, 'in
t-énairfitech is ferr do bhí a n-Éirinn ná i n-Albain.' 'Cá
h-ainm séin?' ar Pátraic. 'Cnú Deróil', ar Cáilte. 'Cáit a
fríth é?' ar Pátraic. 'Eidir Crota Chliach & Síd Ban bh-Fhinn tes',
ar Cailte. 'Crét a thuarascbáil?' ar Pátraic. Ceitri duirn Finn
do bhí ina áirdi & trí duirn do isin crand chiuil do sheinnedh,
& airfitigh Thuaithe Dé Danann do-rinde tnúth ris.'

Then Patrick asked of Caílte, "Were there musicians with the Fían?"
"Of course," said Caílte, "the very musician who was the finest in
Ireland and Scotland." "What was his name?" asked Patrick. "Cnú
Deróil," said Caílte. "Where did you find him?" asked Patrick.
"Between the Mounds of Clíu [Galtee Mountains] and the Síd of the
Fair Women [Slievenamon] in the south," said Caílte. "What did
he look like?" asked Patrick. "He himself was four-handwidths
of Finn in height, and the instrument that he played was three
hands long, and the jealousy of the musicians of the Túatha Dé
Danann had driven him from the síd."
(emphasis mine)

The Tuatha De Danaan are here portrayed in a síd, a fairy-mound, a hill. This belies your statement that they are not the good people under the hill.

Or how about this text :

http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/diarmuid.html

“The fian of Erin and the Tuatha Dé Danann came to that tryst, and these are the noblest and proudest of the Tuatha Dé Danann that came there; namely, the three Garbs of Shiab Mis, and the three Mases of Shiab Luachra, and the three yellow-haired Murcads, and the three Eochaids of Aine, and the three heroic Loegaires, and the three Conalls of Collaman, and the three Finns of Finnmur, and the three Sgals of Brug, and the three Ronans of Ath na Rig, and the three Eogans from Es Ruad mac Badairn, and the Cathbuilleach, and the three Ferguses, and the Gins of Mag Breg, and the Suirgeach Suairc from Lionan, and the Meidir from Benn Liath, and Donn from the fairy-mound of Breg, and the Man of Sweet Speech from the Boyne, and Cohla Crincosach from Bernan Eile, and Donn Dumach, and Donn of the Island, and Donn of Cnoc na n-Os, and Donn of Leincnoc, and Bruitha Abac, and Dolb the Bright-Toothed, and the five sons of Finn of the fairy-mound of Cairn Cain, and Ilbreac son of Manannan, and Neamanach the son of Angus, and Bodb Derg the son of the Dagda, and Manannan the son of Lir, and Abortach the son of Ildathach, and Figmuin of Finnmur, and many others who are not enumerated here.

“...The provisions that the Tuatha De Danann had brought with them from Tir Tairngire (fairyland) were these: crimson nuts, catkin apples, and fragrant berries; (emphasis mine)

Tir Tairngire is the "Land of Promise", a frequent term applied to the Otherworld of the fairies.

Note that the Tuatha are here associated with fairy mounds or sid.

We could also look at this text :

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/celtic/BodbDearg.html

But as to the Tuatha de Danaan after they were beaten, they would not go under the sway of the sons of Miled, but they went away by themselves. And because Manannan, son of Lir, understood all enchantments, they left it to him to find places for them where they would be safe from their enemies. So he chose out the most beautiful of the hills and valleys of Ireland for them to settle in; and he put hidden walls about them, that no man could see through, but they themselves could see through them and pass through them.

It was in Sidhe Femen Bodb Dearg had his house, and he put great enchantments about it.

Again, the Tuatha De Danaan in the hills, in the Sidhe. That's from the lore. Here's a commentary :

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/sidhe.html

Sídhe
SHEE

Old Irish: Hill

While the term sídhe is used to refer to what we call "fairies," the word originally meant "hill." Now, sídhe refers most specifically to the Tuatha De Danann, "The Tribe of Danu"[1], the hero-gods of Ireland, who came from the four cities of Murias, Finias, Gorias, and Falias. When the Milesians arrived after the de Dannan, they drove the gods under the hollow hills, which were called sídhe. Eventually, the hills and the people became one in the minds of the Irish, who refered to them both as sídhe.

We could multiply such commentaries. Obviously the lore supports such commentary. This is not the time and place to get into disputation about exact terms ; it indicates for the non-specialist that a relationship between the Tuatha De Danaan, who went in the Sidhe, and the Sidhe as fairies who lived in the Sidhe makes perfect sense.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/ffcc/ffcc240.htm has,

In the Book of Leinster 1 the poem of Eochaid records that the Tuatha De Danann, the conquerors of the Fir-Bolgs, were hosts of siabra; and siabra is an Old Irish word meaning fairies, sprites, or ghosts.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14672/14672-h/14672-h.htm says,

The Druids also sent forth mischievous spirits called siabra.

So we have a confirmation of Tuatha De Danaan, gods, as fairy-folk living in the Sidhe, as is pretty much common knowledge.

Here's Scotland :

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/ffcc/ffcc122.htm

'The fairy queen who watches over cows is called Gruagach in the Islands, and she is often seen. In pouring libations to her and her fairies various kinds of stones, usually with hollows in them, are used. 2

Libations to a fairy queen ... Y'know, there is just nothing in the Bible about this. There is nothing in Catholic tradition about this.

This is dulia at the very least, arguably hyperdulia, and quite possibly latria to a Non-Christian spirit-entity!! And lest one try to wiggle out of this by arguing that they had been Christianized, the thin "Christianization" consisted in arguing they were fallen angels! Fallen angels -- otherwise known as "demons"! And showing even dulia to demons is definitely non-Catholic or Christian in any way or sense! Besides, where is the Biblical source whereby one could decide that some fallen angels were not destined for Hell but rather to become the spirits of the forest, etc.?

So, we see honor-and-worship forms shown towards preChristian spirit-entities, in complete disregard of Biblical or Catholic tradition. Justify it all you want ; we are justified in seeing this for what it is.

On the zooming-in hand, language and culture create a unique world-view. Faol-chù is completely right---the Gaelic word that means something like 'cunning wort-master' does not translate as 'witch'. What 'witch' translates to in Gaelic means 'someone who manipulates outcome to hir own advantage'. Saying that it you wish it were otherwise doesn't make it so.

Who is translating? Someone who assigns the word "witch" a negative connotation? If you translate it according to its original meaning, you're going to end up a lot closer to the territory of "cunning wort-master".

On the gripping hand, Navaho culture has a lot of parallels with Irish Gaelic culture. Their word that translates as 'witch' is also negative because that would just be silly.

So ... if we go to a Navaho and explain to them the original connotation and meaning of the word "witch/wicce" in the English language, and show its positive connotations of a spirit and herb worker who is a teacher and healer working in the sacred groves, I doubt very much that they are going to identify said person with a selfish evil-eye type practitioner or a jotunn-maid equivalent. They will probably, on introduction to the correct meaning of the word, identify the concept with something akin to their shaman-concepts.

David19

November 5th, 2006, 01:57 PM

Some of the Witches who were burned at the stake insisted they were Witches. So, of course, they were, and the discussion is now settled - since people get to label themselves, there were[/B] at least some Witches in the Middle Ages. Yes?

I could agree with that, if others also said that those people killed who said they were Christians, were in fact Christian, i wouldn't deny that someone who said they were a Witch wasn't a witch, just as i wouldn't deny that a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim, etc) who said they were Christian was a Christian.

I once spoke with someone who had visited rural India shortly after a group of missionaries had come through, sometime in the early 1970's. The missionaries had splashed everyone with holy water, and told them they were Christians now. The local populace (Hindus, all) went along with them, and claimed, ever after, that they were Christians. And, to prove it, they showed off the little statue of Jesus they had set up in their home shrines, right next to the statues of Ganesh and Parvati.

They put out pieces of fruit as offerings to Jesus, just as they did to the other Hindu Gods. They said Hindu prayers to them all, and engaged in all the Hindu celebrations and rites, and now included Jesus along with all the Hindu Gods, because they were Christians now. They had changed not one whit of their observances, worldview, theology, beliefs, practices, culture, or myths. But they were good Christians now, because that's what they'd been told, and they believed it.

Nonsense. They were still Hindus in every way that has any meaning.

I agree with you, that makes them Hindu 'cause the words of imperialistic conquerors doesn't mean BS, IMO (just as i won't believe Alexander the Great when he went to India and said Zeus and Indra were the 'same', or what the Romans said about the Jews and the early Christians, or what Bush says about Arabs, etc).

But, IMO, those Hindu's were Hindu who had adopted Jesus into their pantheon, which some Hindu's have done (there are some who see Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu, this doesn't make them Christian, though, they're still Hindu, just with Jesus as another god they worship).

Eran

November 5th, 2006, 03:47 PM

So ... if we go to a Navaho and explain to them the original connotation and meaning of the word "witch/wicce" in the English language, and show its positive connotations of a spirit and herb worker who is a teacher and healer working in the sacred groves, I doubt very much that they are going to identify said person with a selfish evil-eye type practitioner or a jotunn-maid equivalent. They will probably, on introduction to the correct meaning of the word, identify the concept with something akin to their shaman-concepts.
I used to perform Wiccan ceremonies for Wiccan inmates in prisons in Minnesota and Wisconsin. More than once, I had Native American inmates attend to see what we Wiccans were about. I was told afterward that our attitudes, approaches, sense of spirituality, and general techniques were quite similar to theirs. I was treated as a peer by the Native American medicine people who were performing rites for the Native American inmates (as I was for the Wiccans). My most touching moment was when one of the Native American inmates offered me tobacco as a sign of respect.

My point here is simply that there are similarities which it is appropriate to recognize.

My own pratices came from the Tradition I was taught, rooted in European practice and symbolism. Doubtless, one or another of the Modernists will insist that my own teachers, or thiers perhaps, must have borrowed something from Native American tradition. But there is no evidence for that whatever. Such a theory would require inventing evidence where none exists. The simplier explanation is that there is indeed an underlying similarity, and that European Witch practices may productively be illuminated by comparison to other traditions.

Eran

November 5th, 2006, 04:03 PM

I agree with you, that makes them Hindu 'cause the words of imperialistic conquerors doesn't mean BS, IMO
My point, though, was that these people actually called themselves Christians. And they were not "conquered" in a way that affects this question - Hinduism is still accepted in India, and the British did not force religion upon them the way Christian conquerors forced their religion upon the peoples of Europe. My point is that what someone calls himself or herself is one factor in the mix, but is not the sum total of what you need to look at, as you had previously seemed to imply. This may not even be an important element at all.

But you raise a good point about conquerors. If we cannot simply take at face value someone's self-identification in the case I described, where "conquest" was not a factor in the religious question, how much more careful should we be when it was?

(just as i won't believe Alexander the Great when he went to India and said Zeus and Indra were the 'same', or what the Romans said about the Jews and the early Christians, or what Bush says about Arabs, etc).
Alexander had an excellent relationship with the people in India. Comparing that situation to the Romans and the Jews, or to Bush and the Arabs, is historically way off the mark. Alexander's comments about Zeus and Indra were a sign of respect, and were greeted as such by the people in India. He recognized the kinship which was there. To discount his remarks is to discount the attitudes of both Alexander and the people with whom he was conversing, and to substitute one's own preferences in place of the historical realities.

But, IMO, those Hindu's were Hindu who had adopted Jesus into their pantheon, which some Hindu's have done (there are some who see Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu, this doesn't make them Christian, though, they're still Hindu, just with Jesus as another god they worship).
Precisely. So when we hear of others who use some Christian names and Christian symbolism and even some Christian ritual techniques - even if they call themselves Christians, as these Hindus did in the example we're discussing - we may have to continue to look closer. The situations Carla is discussing are very similar to the situation I described for these Hindus in India. She seems to be describing a genuine survival of Pagan religiousity and spirituality.

Faol-chù

November 5th, 2006, 05:52 PM

[quote]Originally Posted by David19 http://www.mysticwicks.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2879672#post2879672)
I agree with you, that makes them Hindu 'cause the words of imperialistic conquerors doesn't mean BS, IMO

My point, though, was that these people actually called themselves Christians. And they were not "conquered" in a way that affects this question - Hinduism is still accepted in India, and the British did not force religion upon them the way Christian conquerors forced their religion upon the peoples of Europe.

How do you know that the Hindu religion was not forced upon at least some (if not most) people at some point in history?

How do you know that the Celtic 'religion' (and I might add, 'lifestyle') was not forced upon THOSE people at some, if not most people in history?

In order for me (in addition to quite a few others who are learning and/or fluent in Gaelic) to accept the word 'witch' and, even the word 'pagan' is to accept a worldview that uses the words pagan and witch to make my ancestors look like they have been 'hoodwinked' into accepting Christianity....as if it was devoid of spirituality, entirely, and the only way that they would accept it is by force and/or coercion...

I think that is a very bleak outlook on people (our ancestors, for whom some religions find to be deserving of respect), and from that perspective, seems to reek of self-importance.

There is no doubt that, at some point in history, members of every generation at every time in history of our ancestors...Egyptian, Celtic, Roman, what-have-you, were compelled to accept a religion they did not feel 'spiritually'.

The proof is in the pudding. It stuck around for 2,000 years. It's still here. There must have been something to it, for at least A LOT of people at some point. No group of people is absent its dominant forces.
That, of course, does not mean that people have to accept Christianity (or Christ!) for something viable for today, but nor does Christianity need to be viewed as 'the Oppressor'...as this language favors.

To take on the language of oppression is to live it, imho.

For the record, this is exactly what I mean when I refer to cultural baggage.

The words "pagan" and "witch" (right along with the word "barbarian") both carry with them the aura of oppression.

I have no desire to view myself in those terms.

Note that the Hindu are called the "Hindu"....not "pagan", and not "witches".
The term speaks of an entire culture, and does not reek of needing to "rise above".

Precisely. So when we hear of others who use some Christian names and Christian symbolism and even some Christian ritual techniques -

What exactly, are "Christian ritual techniques"?

Christianity is the result of the convergence of cultures...

Le dùrachd,