Wicca: traditional origins?
- Thread starter brian
- Start date
Elizabeth May
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Wicca is an interpretation heavily developed through traditional magickal principles. It isn't a folkloric tradition if that's what you are asking.
WHKeith
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link, brian. Interesting stuff, though much is--shall we say--controversial? Subject to interpretation?
The author IS correct in saying that Wicca is a modern syncretion of various traditions and beliefs. While some Wiccans get very caught up in the romance of "ancient traditions," so-called, and claim lineage with pre-Christian beliefs, one true joy of the religion is that we get to make it up as we go along! [All this, and we get to play with sharp pointy things and fire too!]
Wicca, like most Pagan belief systems, draws heavily on linking with divinity--however we might visualize that--experientially and through the unconscious. Whether we visualize divinity as Goddess and Consort, as Diana, as metaphor, as whole pantheons of gods and goddesses, as The Source, as YHWH . . . it doesn't really matter what the origin is. What works for US as individuals is all that counts.
For those critics who point out that Wicca is only 50-some years old, the invention of a British gentleman with a taste for social nudity, bondage and light flagellation, I'll point out that as a religion it is no less valid than, say, Christianity in the year 80 C.E. ALL religions start somewhere, all reinvent themselves as they go on, all draw heavily on a variety of antecedents. Christianity, for instance, had its roots in messianic Judaism and Essene mysticism, with later-added traditions heavily flavored by contact with Mithraism, pagan belief, and Aristotelian philosophy.
To insist that modern practitioners of Wicca have gotten it wrong, somehow, by mistaking their origins or their etymology, misses the point. The point is our own personal contact with divinity, however we might visualize it. Modern Wicca might have begun as Gardner's invention--drawn from Murray's work, turn-of-the-century ceremonial magick, and edited memories of his New Forest Coven, but since then it has exploded into myriad traditions and systems, with something for everyone, from hardline feminists to New Age fluffy bunnies.
To my way of thinking, that's its strength, not its weakness.
The author IS correct in saying that Wicca is a modern syncretion of various traditions and beliefs. While some Wiccans get very caught up in the romance of "ancient traditions," so-called, and claim lineage with pre-Christian beliefs, one true joy of the religion is that we get to make it up as we go along! [All this, and we get to play with sharp pointy things and fire too!]
Wicca, like most Pagan belief systems, draws heavily on linking with divinity--however we might visualize that--experientially and through the unconscious. Whether we visualize divinity as Goddess and Consort, as Diana, as metaphor, as whole pantheons of gods and goddesses, as The Source, as YHWH . . . it doesn't really matter what the origin is. What works for US as individuals is all that counts.
For those critics who point out that Wicca is only 50-some years old, the invention of a British gentleman with a taste for social nudity, bondage and light flagellation, I'll point out that as a religion it is no less valid than, say, Christianity in the year 80 C.E. ALL religions start somewhere, all reinvent themselves as they go on, all draw heavily on a variety of antecedents. Christianity, for instance, had its roots in messianic Judaism and Essene mysticism, with later-added traditions heavily flavored by contact with Mithraism, pagan belief, and Aristotelian philosophy.
To insist that modern practitioners of Wicca have gotten it wrong, somehow, by mistaking their origins or their etymology, misses the point. The point is our own personal contact with divinity, however we might visualize it. Modern Wicca might have begun as Gardner's invention--drawn from Murray's work, turn-of-the-century ceremonial magick, and edited memories of his New Forest Coven, but since then it has exploded into myriad traditions and systems, with something for everyone, from hardline feminists to New Age fluffy bunnies.
To my way of thinking, that's its strength, not its weakness.
That's the part that really brings my cynicism out. Although I've not yet read Gardner, from what I've read of Wiccan practices and ceremonies, there's no particular resemblance so far that I can see to the real folk beliefs of mediaeval Western Europe – at least, the ones I've researched through my own studies of the mediaeval period.
From a cursory external position Wiccan looks mostly related the general Qabbalistic traditions. In which case Wicca would seem more closely associated with being another branch of Chaldean Mysticism.
Reading Gardner should therefore be very interesting (and from my strong interest in all things Roman, reading Leland should be even more so.
).PS - As to the original linked article itself - it does seem more than a little bitter - and repeatedly suggests there's a general motivation to discredit Wicca as a belief system.
Essentially, though, I posted the link when I was confused about a variety of elements relating to Wicca, and thought I'd use it as a provocation to get some more thoughtful and considered replies on the nature of Wicca itself as a spiritual system. Seems to have worked well - WHKeith's reply was especially interesting.
Essentially, though, I posted the link when I was confused about a variety of elements relating to Wicca, and thought I'd use it as a provocation to get some more thoughtful and considered replies on the nature of Wicca itself as a spiritual system. Seems to have worked well - WHKeith's reply was especially interesting.
WHKeith
Well-Known Member
Thanks, brian.
Gardner stol--I mean BORROWED--a lot from many sources. Obviously. And some of the strangest connections are with turn-of-the-20th-century magickal practices, from the OTO, among others.
My personal recommendation is NOT to read Gardner in order to understand Wicca. If you want a resource that’s fairly close to Gardner’s original tradition, try "A Witches’ Bible: The Complete Witches’ Handbook," by Janet and Stewart Farrar. (Phoenix Publishing, Inc., Custer, Washington. 1996.) The Farrars came out of the Gardnerian tradition, but have done a good job presenting it in readable form.
So far as modern Wicca representing traditional European folk practices . . . no, of course not. There’s no meaningful connection for most people. I, for one, have little interest in driving my cattle between two roaring bonfires on Beltane to insure my herd’s increase. To my way of thinking, the important connections are:
1. Goddess worship. Gardner attempted to reach back and connect with Earth-mother goddess beliefs in a recreation of pre-Christian, even pre-Hellenic religious thought. We know archeologically that mother/fertility/Goddess worship was prevalent throughout Europe, going back as far as c. 20,000 BCE. The exact nature of that worship is lost now, of course, but the *idea* is very old.
2. Sabbats and Lunar cycles. Becoming aware of Earth’s cycles connects us, again, with traditions that are very old. Evidence exists that the oldest cultures focused on the Moon and her phases both to mark time and to work magic. The eight sabbats include four solar holidays and four agricultural markers; again, they help us re-establish a link with the Earth and her cycles long lost by moderns.
3. The importance of ritual. Modern folks—in the West, at least—have lost a lot of the connection with important life markers—coming of age, first menses, motherhood, croning. For most, ritual has become a series of placid routines observed in church, divorced from their original meaning.
4. The importance of myth. Myth is not primitive science, nor is it a misguided attempt to explain things like seasons. It IS a means of looking closely at life and what it means. Some Wiccans believe in a literal Persephone, some see her as metaphor. What most agree on is the deeper truth expressed by her story—one echoed by almost identical myths in ancient Sumer, in Celtic myth, in Scandanavia, even in Japan—of a cyclical sacrificial death/descent to the underworld and rebirth/resurrection linked to the changing of the seasons.
What Gardner sparked was not a revelation that modern traditions were linked in a kind of apostolic chain clear back to the Paleolithic. He showed that any modern person could find such links within him/herself, could find an authentic and satisfying *personal* connection in an Earth-centered worship, and could tap into an overall existing tradition *built upon*--as opposed to continuing from—myths and forms of belief that do have truly ancient roots. Example: I doubt VERY much that any culture on Earth can demonstrate an unbroken belief in and worship of Epona, a Celto-Roman horse goddess. But modern Wiccans can and do find meaningful personal connections with Epona and incorporate her into their worship.
Today, only a tiny, tiny minority of people who call themselves Wiccan have any interest in specifically Gardnerian or Alexandrian traditions. The fact that, in a mere half century, that initial presentation by Gardner has exploded into such a wildly rich and diverse array of different traditions—from Dianic/Feminist to New Age Fluffy Bunny/Eclectic—demonstrates that there was a severe need for such an adaptable, introspective, and personally rewarding set of beliefs.
IMHO.
Gardner stol--I mean BORROWED--a lot from many sources. Obviously. And some of the strangest connections are with turn-of-the-20th-century magickal practices, from the OTO, among others.
My personal recommendation is NOT to read Gardner in order to understand Wicca. If you want a resource that’s fairly close to Gardner’s original tradition, try "A Witches’ Bible: The Complete Witches’ Handbook," by Janet and Stewart Farrar. (Phoenix Publishing, Inc., Custer, Washington. 1996.) The Farrars came out of the Gardnerian tradition, but have done a good job presenting it in readable form.
So far as modern Wicca representing traditional European folk practices . . . no, of course not. There’s no meaningful connection for most people. I, for one, have little interest in driving my cattle between two roaring bonfires on Beltane to insure my herd’s increase. To my way of thinking, the important connections are:
1. Goddess worship. Gardner attempted to reach back and connect with Earth-mother goddess beliefs in a recreation of pre-Christian, even pre-Hellenic religious thought. We know archeologically that mother/fertility/Goddess worship was prevalent throughout Europe, going back as far as c. 20,000 BCE. The exact nature of that worship is lost now, of course, but the *idea* is very old.
2. Sabbats and Lunar cycles. Becoming aware of Earth’s cycles connects us, again, with traditions that are very old. Evidence exists that the oldest cultures focused on the Moon and her phases both to mark time and to work magic. The eight sabbats include four solar holidays and four agricultural markers; again, they help us re-establish a link with the Earth and her cycles long lost by moderns.
3. The importance of ritual. Modern folks—in the West, at least—have lost a lot of the connection with important life markers—coming of age, first menses, motherhood, croning. For most, ritual has become a series of placid routines observed in church, divorced from their original meaning.
4. The importance of myth. Myth is not primitive science, nor is it a misguided attempt to explain things like seasons. It IS a means of looking closely at life and what it means. Some Wiccans believe in a literal Persephone, some see her as metaphor. What most agree on is the deeper truth expressed by her story—one echoed by almost identical myths in ancient Sumer, in Celtic myth, in Scandanavia, even in Japan—of a cyclical sacrificial death/descent to the underworld and rebirth/resurrection linked to the changing of the seasons.
What Gardner sparked was not a revelation that modern traditions were linked in a kind of apostolic chain clear back to the Paleolithic. He showed that any modern person could find such links within him/herself, could find an authentic and satisfying *personal* connection in an Earth-centered worship, and could tap into an overall existing tradition *built upon*--as opposed to continuing from—myths and forms of belief that do have truly ancient roots. Example: I doubt VERY much that any culture on Earth can demonstrate an unbroken belief in and worship of Epona, a Celto-Roman horse goddess. But modern Wiccans can and do find meaningful personal connections with Epona and incorporate her into their worship.
Today, only a tiny, tiny minority of people who call themselves Wiccan have any interest in specifically Gardnerian or Alexandrian traditions. The fact that, in a mere half century, that initial presentation by Gardner has exploded into such a wildly rich and diverse array of different traditions—from Dianic/Feminist to New Age Fluffy Bunny/Eclectic—demonstrates that there was a severe need for such an adaptable, introspective, and personally rewarding set of beliefs.
IMHO.
Thanks for the clarification, WHKieth - much appreciated. I'm also glad you highlighted specific areas of focus. I figure you've give a respectable account of what Wicca represents by far.
Elizabeth May
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
WHKeith, is there any particular reason why you call yourself 'Wiccan' instead of 'Neo-Pagan' first?
I just don't see the sense of using the title 'Wicca' unless one is following Gardner, really.
I just don't see the sense of using the title 'Wicca' unless one is following Gardner, really.
WHKeith
Well-Known Member
Excellent question, Elizabeth. I'm not sure how well I can answer.
The simplest reply, I think, is that I call myself Wiccan because I am currently a member of a Wiccan coven. Even that isn't a completely honest answer, though, because one coven member is a shaman and emphatically rejects the term "Wiccan," another is degree-trained Alexandrian, while several others freely admit they don't know WHAT they are, that they're still searching.
I do believe that it is a historical fact that Wicca as a religion has grown and evolved--or mutated?--far beyond the relatively narrow and rigid boundaries set by Gardner. Hosts of believers today call themselves Wiccan who have NEVER been in a Gardnerian ritual.
I would argue by analogy that Christianity is similar. Historically speaking, Catholicism arose directly from the early Christian church; they claim Peter as their first pope, with the observation that the doctrine of apostolic succession guarantees that every ordained priest is part of a hands-on lineage going back to Christ’s disciples. Many Catholics today do not recognize other Christian sects as “Christian” for that reason. At the same time, numerous Protestant churches hold that Luther performed a valuable correction of certain excesses and heretical beliefs that had crept into the church over the centuries. Today, members of most fundamentalist churches have serious qualms about calling ANY other church “Christian.” On another Internet forum, I followed with some interest a thread—it got pretty nasty at times—questioning whether Catholics could be called Christian. Most of the differences come down to differences in interpretation of scripture—works versus faith, what Christ REALLY meant, that sort of thing. When I was Christian, I had no problem accepting most other Christian faiths as “Christian,” but I DID have serious reservations about a few—the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, to name a few—because their beliefs seemed so far outside what I then considered to be the Christian norm.
The hell with it. They all believe in Christ, so they’re all Christians, simply on the grounds of common popular usage!
I submit that Wicca is a similar case. Gardner wouldn’t recognize most of his progeny today, but they all recognize a connection with him through certain shared characteristics and traditions. I, personally, differentiate between “Wiccan” and “Pagan” or “Neo-Pagan” on the grounds that Wicca is a subset of Pagan—not the other way around—and that Wicca centers (VERY loosely!) on a common set of beliefs that define it as a specific religion. I here define “religion” as a shared set of beliefs and social interplay incorporating specific acts and means of worship, and that definition can not be applied to “Pagan.” For myself, I differentiate between my practices as a witch—I could be a witch without being a Wiccan—and as a Pagan. Those practices include but are not limited to observing the eight sabbats and the observation of certain rituals such as the Chalice and Blade, honoring the quarters, observing the Wiccan Rede, and reading the Charge of the Goddess that come from or through the Gardnerian tradition. I know well that that won’t convince purists, but it’s where I am right now. Some Gardnerian practices my coven explicitly reject; we are a coven of equals, any and all of us conduct ritual at need, and we do not follow the practice of having a high priest or priestess running things.
And to be absolutely honest? Sometimes I question the definition myself. But the term “Wiccan” serves as a focus for me within my spiritual community—both within my coven and throughout the larger community of Wiccans here in Maine—that gives me a sense of connection important to me.
That’s about the only way I can express it. Does that answer your question?
The simplest reply, I think, is that I call myself Wiccan because I am currently a member of a Wiccan coven. Even that isn't a completely honest answer, though, because one coven member is a shaman and emphatically rejects the term "Wiccan," another is degree-trained Alexandrian, while several others freely admit they don't know WHAT they are, that they're still searching.
I do believe that it is a historical fact that Wicca as a religion has grown and evolved--or mutated?--far beyond the relatively narrow and rigid boundaries set by Gardner. Hosts of believers today call themselves Wiccan who have NEVER been in a Gardnerian ritual.
I would argue by analogy that Christianity is similar. Historically speaking, Catholicism arose directly from the early Christian church; they claim Peter as their first pope, with the observation that the doctrine of apostolic succession guarantees that every ordained priest is part of a hands-on lineage going back to Christ’s disciples. Many Catholics today do not recognize other Christian sects as “Christian” for that reason. At the same time, numerous Protestant churches hold that Luther performed a valuable correction of certain excesses and heretical beliefs that had crept into the church over the centuries. Today, members of most fundamentalist churches have serious qualms about calling ANY other church “Christian.” On another Internet forum, I followed with some interest a thread—it got pretty nasty at times—questioning whether Catholics could be called Christian. Most of the differences come down to differences in interpretation of scripture—works versus faith, what Christ REALLY meant, that sort of thing. When I was Christian, I had no problem accepting most other Christian faiths as “Christian,” but I DID have serious reservations about a few—the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, to name a few—because their beliefs seemed so far outside what I then considered to be the Christian norm.
The hell with it. They all believe in Christ, so they’re all Christians, simply on the grounds of common popular usage!
I submit that Wicca is a similar case. Gardner wouldn’t recognize most of his progeny today, but they all recognize a connection with him through certain shared characteristics and traditions. I, personally, differentiate between “Wiccan” and “Pagan” or “Neo-Pagan” on the grounds that Wicca is a subset of Pagan—not the other way around—and that Wicca centers (VERY loosely!) on a common set of beliefs that define it as a specific religion. I here define “religion” as a shared set of beliefs and social interplay incorporating specific acts and means of worship, and that definition can not be applied to “Pagan.” For myself, I differentiate between my practices as a witch—I could be a witch without being a Wiccan—and as a Pagan. Those practices include but are not limited to observing the eight sabbats and the observation of certain rituals such as the Chalice and Blade, honoring the quarters, observing the Wiccan Rede, and reading the Charge of the Goddess that come from or through the Gardnerian tradition. I know well that that won’t convince purists, but it’s where I am right now. Some Gardnerian practices my coven explicitly reject; we are a coven of equals, any and all of us conduct ritual at need, and we do not follow the practice of having a high priest or priestess running things.
And to be absolutely honest? Sometimes I question the definition myself. But the term “Wiccan” serves as a focus for me within my spiritual community—both within my coven and throughout the larger community of Wiccans here in Maine—that gives me a sense of connection important to me.
That’s about the only way I can express it. Does that answer your question?
Elizabeth May
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thank you for giving an interesting reply. I still just don't get why you don't just call yourself neopagan? Somehow saying that wicca has become unrelated to Gardner sounds like people calling themselves Christians without believing in Jesus! Not that the two are on equal footing at all. But when a religion has been so well founded why should a personal belief still use the name? Is it because neopagan as a name lacks the bounce until a better name comes up? Would you actually feel lost if you abandoned only the word 'Wiccan'? If so, why? If not, why keep it? I'm just asking out of real curiosity here. I guess I'm asking what the wiccan identity is and how it applies differentially to neopagan. Do tell me if I'm being offensive.
WHKeith
Well-Known Member
You are most certainly not being offensive. As I understand it, the purpose of this board is to exchange frank views and questions. If someone here doesn't like what others post, or feels offended by it, s/he doesn't have to read them!
You're right in that there's not a good correlation between the relationships of Gardner to Wicca and Christ to Christianity. Or, rather, it's a simile that simply can't be pushed very far, since most Christians accept Christ as divine, and the same can’t be said for Gerald Gardner! I'll use it one last time, however. Isn't it true that, of all the different groups calling themselves Christian, the actual VIEW of Christ each holds is often different, sometimes wildly so?
Most mainstream denominations attempt to reconstruct what they call “the historical Jesus.” Now, most who look at the history admit that there really was a man, a Jew, probably named Yehoshua ben Joseph, an itinerant rabbi who may have been influenced by Essene doctrine, and who lived and taught a more loving view of the Laws of Moses. Through history, however, His followers have taken fairly divergent views about his spiritual nature. The Gnostics and some modern liberal schools of thought emphasize that He was just a man, that if He said “I am the Son of God,” he meant it in the way that we are ALL sons and daughters of God.
Quite a few of the more mystical traditions—Catholicism would be one—admit to His being Man, but emphasize that He is risen and is fully God. Mormons call themselves Christians, but see the Trinity very differently than mainstream churches do. As I understand it, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit become three completely separate deities, the first two with flesh-and-blood bodies, the third without. Christian Science looks at a “Christ Principle.” Most Bible-fundamentalist versions emphasize Christ the Redeemer, who died and rose again for our sins, a sacrificial lamb provided by God to give us entry into heaven. The more liturgical faiths emphasize a gentler, ongoing salvation with a broader and more metaphorical view of the process, though they share most of the fundamentalist language. Or you have the Unitarian/Universalist churches that tend toward the extreme liberal view, but emphasize that you can accept Him in anyway that feels right to you.
Extending the argument from the nature of Jesus to all defining Christian points of belief, you find astonishing variety. Most of what we know as Christian today is derived from what we know as Pauline Christianity, the invention of Saul/Paul of Tarsus who took a minor Jewish sect and gave it to the entire world. Pauline Christianity emphasizes faith over works, a direct salvation experience, and the literal death and resurrection of Jesus. But we also have a host of late Roman to late Medieval sects and heresies that ALL called themselves Christian--Arians, Gnostics, Cathars, Albigensians, Waldensians, Jansensists, Bulgars, Montanists, Manicheists, Pelagians, Bogomils, and many others.
This isn’t the right board on which to go into comparative Christian viewpoints. Sorry. My point is just that all of these views of Jesus we have today or which have existed through history are far indeed from that Aramaic-speaking carpenter’s son and itinerant preacher in first-century Galilee. But they’re all “Christian.”
Okay. (Deep breath.) Gardner. He claimed to have been an initiate of the New Forest Coven, one of a number of covens existing secretly throughout Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century. Though critics dispute it, the existence of the New Forest Coven, the existence of the house where he claimed it met, and the existence of the woman who indoctrinated him have all been verified independently. Anthropologist Margaret Murray had specifically discussed such traditions, describing them as a direct survival of a medieval “witch cult,” as she termed it. Gardner published three books—one, a work of fiction under a pseudonym, in 1949, and the other two after the Witchcraft Act in Great Britain was rescinded (1951.) These works, purporting to go public with the worship and practices of long-secret Craft traditions, became THE basis for the explosion of witchcraft belief in the years following. Alex Sanders was one of Gardner’s disciples, branching off to form Alexandrianism in the late 1950s. HE called himself Wiccan . . . though it’s interesting to note that he assumed the title “King of the Witches,” and extraordinary claim considering the essentially feminist nature of the Craft throughout history. Gardnerian-Alexandrian witchcraft was introduced to the United States by Raymond Buckland—another disciple—who wrote several influential books and went on to establish and practice Seax-Wicca, a form of Wicca purporting to discover or re-establish roots with ancient Saxon belief.
Each group that took the torch, as it were, from Gardner, made its own revisions. And as practitioners of those original traditional religions emerged from the broom closet, it became clear that Gardner had done a fair amount of embellishment. So far as I know, no British famtrad witch supported Gardner in his claim that his version was THE version of traditional British witchcraft. While there were common elements—observation of the eight great sabbats, for example—the famtrads (for FAMily TRADitions, the forms of the Craft passed on in secret for centuries) in general had little in common with what came to be known as Gardnerian Wicca. He’d taken a VERY great deal from the ceremonial magicians—Crowley and Regardie and the Golden Dawn from the beginning of the 20th century. He’d added other elements as well. Comparatively few modern witches did or do worship skyclad (nude) only, for example. The injunction to do so comes from Doreen Valiente’s Charge of the Goddess, itself a reworking of putative earlier traditions and statements of belief supposedly related to Strega, the traditional Italian witchcraft beliefs. The fact is, Gardner was an enthusiastic naturist (nudist) before he wrote his books, and he incorporated his beliefs in social nudity into the religion he was organizing.
The word wicca has been through the etymological mill. The article that started this thread has a discussion—a highly skeptical and, I think, overly-critical one—of the word’s evolution. Essentially, most believe it came either from a root meaning “wise” (the same root that gives us the word “wizard”) or from a root meaning “to bend” (the root that gives us the word “wicker.”) I’m honestly not sure whether or not it was Gardner who introduced the word—I’m pretty sure he did—and I don’t remember which root-definition he used. The etymology is endlessly disputed and impossible to prove; my personal belief—and the one considered most likely both by most linguists and by most practitioners—is that it comes from the Anglo-Saxon wicce, “to bend or shape.” A witch bends and shapes reality through magic. From this basis, I’ll claim for myself the name “Wiccan” as someone who, A., practices witchcraft, AND, B., observes the *religion* of witchcraft.
Of these two, I consider the second the more important defining characteristic by far. Many people call themselves witches but not Wiccan because they do not observe the religious celebrations as such. And there are many Wiccans who observe the religious cycles but do not practice magic, cast spells, or use witchly divining methods.
Okay. In trying to post this epistle, I was told that my message is too long. So here endeth part I! To be continued . . .
You're right in that there's not a good correlation between the relationships of Gardner to Wicca and Christ to Christianity. Or, rather, it's a simile that simply can't be pushed very far, since most Christians accept Christ as divine, and the same can’t be said for Gerald Gardner! I'll use it one last time, however. Isn't it true that, of all the different groups calling themselves Christian, the actual VIEW of Christ each holds is often different, sometimes wildly so?
Most mainstream denominations attempt to reconstruct what they call “the historical Jesus.” Now, most who look at the history admit that there really was a man, a Jew, probably named Yehoshua ben Joseph, an itinerant rabbi who may have been influenced by Essene doctrine, and who lived and taught a more loving view of the Laws of Moses. Through history, however, His followers have taken fairly divergent views about his spiritual nature. The Gnostics and some modern liberal schools of thought emphasize that He was just a man, that if He said “I am the Son of God,” he meant it in the way that we are ALL sons and daughters of God.
Quite a few of the more mystical traditions—Catholicism would be one—admit to His being Man, but emphasize that He is risen and is fully God. Mormons call themselves Christians, but see the Trinity very differently than mainstream churches do. As I understand it, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit become three completely separate deities, the first two with flesh-and-blood bodies, the third without. Christian Science looks at a “Christ Principle.” Most Bible-fundamentalist versions emphasize Christ the Redeemer, who died and rose again for our sins, a sacrificial lamb provided by God to give us entry into heaven. The more liturgical faiths emphasize a gentler, ongoing salvation with a broader and more metaphorical view of the process, though they share most of the fundamentalist language. Or you have the Unitarian/Universalist churches that tend toward the extreme liberal view, but emphasize that you can accept Him in anyway that feels right to you.
Extending the argument from the nature of Jesus to all defining Christian points of belief, you find astonishing variety. Most of what we know as Christian today is derived from what we know as Pauline Christianity, the invention of Saul/Paul of Tarsus who took a minor Jewish sect and gave it to the entire world. Pauline Christianity emphasizes faith over works, a direct salvation experience, and the literal death and resurrection of Jesus. But we also have a host of late Roman to late Medieval sects and heresies that ALL called themselves Christian--Arians, Gnostics, Cathars, Albigensians, Waldensians, Jansensists, Bulgars, Montanists, Manicheists, Pelagians, Bogomils, and many others.
This isn’t the right board on which to go into comparative Christian viewpoints. Sorry. My point is just that all of these views of Jesus we have today or which have existed through history are far indeed from that Aramaic-speaking carpenter’s son and itinerant preacher in first-century Galilee. But they’re all “Christian.”
Okay. (Deep breath.) Gardner. He claimed to have been an initiate of the New Forest Coven, one of a number of covens existing secretly throughout Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century. Though critics dispute it, the existence of the New Forest Coven, the existence of the house where he claimed it met, and the existence of the woman who indoctrinated him have all been verified independently. Anthropologist Margaret Murray had specifically discussed such traditions, describing them as a direct survival of a medieval “witch cult,” as she termed it. Gardner published three books—one, a work of fiction under a pseudonym, in 1949, and the other two after the Witchcraft Act in Great Britain was rescinded (1951.) These works, purporting to go public with the worship and practices of long-secret Craft traditions, became THE basis for the explosion of witchcraft belief in the years following. Alex Sanders was one of Gardner’s disciples, branching off to form Alexandrianism in the late 1950s. HE called himself Wiccan . . . though it’s interesting to note that he assumed the title “King of the Witches,” and extraordinary claim considering the essentially feminist nature of the Craft throughout history. Gardnerian-Alexandrian witchcraft was introduced to the United States by Raymond Buckland—another disciple—who wrote several influential books and went on to establish and practice Seax-Wicca, a form of Wicca purporting to discover or re-establish roots with ancient Saxon belief.
Each group that took the torch, as it were, from Gardner, made its own revisions. And as practitioners of those original traditional religions emerged from the broom closet, it became clear that Gardner had done a fair amount of embellishment. So far as I know, no British famtrad witch supported Gardner in his claim that his version was THE version of traditional British witchcraft. While there were common elements—observation of the eight great sabbats, for example—the famtrads (for FAMily TRADitions, the forms of the Craft passed on in secret for centuries) in general had little in common with what came to be known as Gardnerian Wicca. He’d taken a VERY great deal from the ceremonial magicians—Crowley and Regardie and the Golden Dawn from the beginning of the 20th century. He’d added other elements as well. Comparatively few modern witches did or do worship skyclad (nude) only, for example. The injunction to do so comes from Doreen Valiente’s Charge of the Goddess, itself a reworking of putative earlier traditions and statements of belief supposedly related to Strega, the traditional Italian witchcraft beliefs. The fact is, Gardner was an enthusiastic naturist (nudist) before he wrote his books, and he incorporated his beliefs in social nudity into the religion he was organizing.
The word wicca has been through the etymological mill. The article that started this thread has a discussion—a highly skeptical and, I think, overly-critical one—of the word’s evolution. Essentially, most believe it came either from a root meaning “wise” (the same root that gives us the word “wizard”) or from a root meaning “to bend” (the root that gives us the word “wicker.”) I’m honestly not sure whether or not it was Gardner who introduced the word—I’m pretty sure he did—and I don’t remember which root-definition he used. The etymology is endlessly disputed and impossible to prove; my personal belief—and the one considered most likely both by most linguists and by most practitioners—is that it comes from the Anglo-Saxon wicce, “to bend or shape.” A witch bends and shapes reality through magic. From this basis, I’ll claim for myself the name “Wiccan” as someone who, A., practices witchcraft, AND, B., observes the *religion* of witchcraft.
Of these two, I consider the second the more important defining characteristic by far. Many people call themselves witches but not Wiccan because they do not observe the religious celebrations as such. And there are many Wiccans who observe the religious cycles but do not practice magic, cast spells, or use witchly divining methods.
Okay. In trying to post this epistle, I was told that my message is too long. So here endeth part I! To be continued . . .
WHKeith
Well-Known Member
. . . and here begins Part II. Sorry for the length, everybody!
For me, the terms Pagan and Neo-Pagan, are far too broadly inclusive . . . kind of like a Baptist declaring himself to be a Theist. It’s true, but, ye gods! Something was lost in the translation! (By this I mean no disrespect to my Pagan friends. These are solely my personal views.) The word Pagan comes ultimately from the Latin paganis—a dweller in the countryside, from the time when the cities of Rome were becoming more and more Christian, while the country dwellers continued to observe the old ways. The word “heathen,” for “a dweller on the heath,” is exactly parallel, from the British Isles. “Pagan” and “heathen” had then as they do now the connotation of someone who did not follow Christianity (or, ultimately and more generally, someone who did not possess a monotheistic worldview.)
Do I have a Pagan worldview? Sure! I freely admit I’m a Pagan. But Satan worshippers think of themselves as Pagan too. So do Theosophists—well, some of them. So do most of the odd and eclectic hordes of New Age folk, followers of the Fey (fairy tradition), Druids, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, animists, Native-American shamans, Witta (Irish Wicca), Seax-Wicca (Saxon Wicca), Asetru (a revival of the old Norse religion), Dianists (feminist revivals of certain Greek traditions), Celto-Romans, and quite a large host of others, few if any of which call themselves “just-plain old Wiccans.” Hell, some atheists call themselves pagans—lower-case “c”—because they don’t believe in a monotheistic worldview either.
So, all witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches.
Nor are all witches in the same spiritual boat. Even within Wicca, I’d have to say that if you take any ten practitioners, you’re likely to find thirteen different viewpoints on what the gods and goddesses are and how they relate to humanity . . . and quite a few Wiccans do NOT believe in literal deities, seeing them as externalized expressions of our own unconscious rather than as external noncorporeal entities. Among practitioners of the Craft in general, there ARE some who practice black magic (against the strong recommendation of the Wiccan Rede) and there are many who do not want to identify with a *religion* as such, seeing the Craft more as a purely metaphysical expression of latent or subconscious human power. My daughter thinks of herself as a witch, but is fully committed to the O.T.O. (one of the larger ceremonial magick groups around, a modern semi-descendent of Crowley’s Golden Dawn.) She is emphatically not Wiccan.
Gardner claimed a lineage and authenticity in and through three levels—with the extant covens of Great Britain in the early to mid-twentieth century, and, through them, to the “Middle Ages witch cult” Murray wrote of, and through THEM to pre-Christian Goddess worship extending back to the Paleolithic. Like many people today, he seemed to feel that the more ancient the lineage, the greater its authoritative character.
Of these, the first may or may not have called itself “Wiccan.” Almost certainly not, though Gardner seems to claim this was so at least within the New Forest Coven. That such covens existed is indisputable. I, myself, personally know a witch—she’s in her late 60s and in my Karate class, of all things!—who was eight years old when she was sent north to escape the London Blitz, and lived with a coven in the north of England. That clearly predates Gardner. (Also, for the record, I personally know a witch who is famtrad Strega.) These groups do and have existed, at least as far back as the late 1800s.
The second certainly was not Wiccan in either name or practice. Almost all we have to go on about the practices of the Craft in the Middle Ages comes from the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Torture a person long enough and he or she will admit to ANYTHING, including kissing the devil’s buttocks and murdering babies for their blood. However, there does appear to have been a continuance of a nature-oriented worship claiming descent from pre-Christian times. Strega and the various other European groups APPEAR—though proof is hard to come by—to have drawn upon these earlier traditions rather than simply springing into existence, like Athena, fully armed and armored from the brow of Zeus!
As for the last, well, there’s a solid case for Goddess worship, and both folk tradition and the magalithic calendars such as Stonehenge suggest festivals organized around something corresponding to the eight sabbats and the lunar esbats (a word coined by Murray from the French, incidentally, and not an ancient term at all.) There’s also a solid case for magical practices surrounding hunting, agriculture, and an afterlife. But specific connections with New Age practice and belief are tenuous indeed!
For Gerald Gardner, “Wicca” certainly meant a very specific type of belief and worship. It included a degree system (which does go back in various forms at least as far as the Middle Ages), covens organized around a priest and priestess as leaders who are at least second-degree (that also has Medieval roots), nudity in worship, certain common rituals—such as light bondage, specific challenges, and the five-fold kiss—for initiates at each level, and so on. He would not call my coven Wiccan, certainly; we do not have degrees (though we train in a way that does parallel the degree system); we are all priests and priestesses and we do not have a high priest or priestess, choosing instead to work by consensus as equals; we worship clothed (Hey! Give us a break! This is MAINE fer cryin’ out loud! Though some of us do use nudity at times for particular magical purposes); our initiations include challenges but no bondage or flagellation, and we’ve changed the traditional five-fold kiss (feet, knees, genitals, breasts, mouth) to be less overtly sexual and more respectful of the recipient’s personal boundaries.
Damn. I’m rambling again. Sorry. I think the point of all of this is that Gardner let things out of the box, so to speak. He was the first to write openly of a nature religion he called Wicca, which quite clearly struck a deeply responsive chord within hundreds of thousands (at least!) of people who desired a closer connection to nature and who rejected, for whatever reason, certain dogmas of the Church. Many, many thousands of people now call themselves Wiccan, drawing on the tradition Gardner started, and in many cases elaborating on it and/or editing those beliefs to suit their own needs.
I joke, frequently, that ours is a do-it-yourself religion. It is vital, dynamic, and always changing, a fluid entity that adapts to the needs of the individual, rather than forcing a conformist mold to a One True Way dogma. Critics call the lack of conformal belief a serious weakness; I find it, rather, one of Wicca’s greatest strengths, even if it does challenge those of us who try to define the religion itself.
As for me, personally . . . I could get along perfectly well NOT calling myself Wiccan. The name, while it has an interesting history, is of little importance to me personally. I know (or am learning!) what *I* believe, and choose not to rely solely on Gardner’s admittedly and occasionally kinky worldview to shape my own. However, as a member of my coven and the Maine Pagan community, and as Pagan clergy, I find the tag extremely useful in briefly defining to others who speak a common spiritual language my belief structure; it becomes a spiritual starting point, so to speak, for further discussion. I’m more Wiccan than not, certainly, at least by the COMMON definition of the word. Fifty years after Gardner’s first book, common usage distinguishes clearly between GARDNERIAN Wicca and Alexandrian Wicca, Buckland’s SEAX-Wicca, Irish Witta, Celtic Wicca, Eclectic Wicca, and so many, many others. Gardner intended one thing, perhaps, one tradition, but the rest of us took it and ran with it and made it our own.
And isn’t that the exact same thing that happened to Jesus when Paul took his initial teachings and turned them into what most of us define as “Christian” today?
For me, the terms Pagan and Neo-Pagan, are far too broadly inclusive . . . kind of like a Baptist declaring himself to be a Theist. It’s true, but, ye gods! Something was lost in the translation! (By this I mean no disrespect to my Pagan friends. These are solely my personal views.) The word Pagan comes ultimately from the Latin paganis—a dweller in the countryside, from the time when the cities of Rome were becoming more and more Christian, while the country dwellers continued to observe the old ways. The word “heathen,” for “a dweller on the heath,” is exactly parallel, from the British Isles. “Pagan” and “heathen” had then as they do now the connotation of someone who did not follow Christianity (or, ultimately and more generally, someone who did not possess a monotheistic worldview.)
Do I have a Pagan worldview? Sure! I freely admit I’m a Pagan. But Satan worshippers think of themselves as Pagan too. So do Theosophists—well, some of them. So do most of the odd and eclectic hordes of New Age folk, followers of the Fey (fairy tradition), Druids, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, animists, Native-American shamans, Witta (Irish Wicca), Seax-Wicca (Saxon Wicca), Asetru (a revival of the old Norse religion), Dianists (feminist revivals of certain Greek traditions), Celto-Romans, and quite a large host of others, few if any of which call themselves “just-plain old Wiccans.” Hell, some atheists call themselves pagans—lower-case “c”—because they don’t believe in a monotheistic worldview either.
So, all witches are pagans, but not all pagans are witches.
Nor are all witches in the same spiritual boat. Even within Wicca, I’d have to say that if you take any ten practitioners, you’re likely to find thirteen different viewpoints on what the gods and goddesses are and how they relate to humanity . . . and quite a few Wiccans do NOT believe in literal deities, seeing them as externalized expressions of our own unconscious rather than as external noncorporeal entities. Among practitioners of the Craft in general, there ARE some who practice black magic (against the strong recommendation of the Wiccan Rede) and there are many who do not want to identify with a *religion* as such, seeing the Craft more as a purely metaphysical expression of latent or subconscious human power. My daughter thinks of herself as a witch, but is fully committed to the O.T.O. (one of the larger ceremonial magick groups around, a modern semi-descendent of Crowley’s Golden Dawn.) She is emphatically not Wiccan.
Gardner claimed a lineage and authenticity in and through three levels—with the extant covens of Great Britain in the early to mid-twentieth century, and, through them, to the “Middle Ages witch cult” Murray wrote of, and through THEM to pre-Christian Goddess worship extending back to the Paleolithic. Like many people today, he seemed to feel that the more ancient the lineage, the greater its authoritative character.
Of these, the first may or may not have called itself “Wiccan.” Almost certainly not, though Gardner seems to claim this was so at least within the New Forest Coven. That such covens existed is indisputable. I, myself, personally know a witch—she’s in her late 60s and in my Karate class, of all things!—who was eight years old when she was sent north to escape the London Blitz, and lived with a coven in the north of England. That clearly predates Gardner. (Also, for the record, I personally know a witch who is famtrad Strega.) These groups do and have existed, at least as far back as the late 1800s.
The second certainly was not Wiccan in either name or practice. Almost all we have to go on about the practices of the Craft in the Middle Ages comes from the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Torture a person long enough and he or she will admit to ANYTHING, including kissing the devil’s buttocks and murdering babies for their blood. However, there does appear to have been a continuance of a nature-oriented worship claiming descent from pre-Christian times. Strega and the various other European groups APPEAR—though proof is hard to come by—to have drawn upon these earlier traditions rather than simply springing into existence, like Athena, fully armed and armored from the brow of Zeus!
As for the last, well, there’s a solid case for Goddess worship, and both folk tradition and the magalithic calendars such as Stonehenge suggest festivals organized around something corresponding to the eight sabbats and the lunar esbats (a word coined by Murray from the French, incidentally, and not an ancient term at all.) There’s also a solid case for magical practices surrounding hunting, agriculture, and an afterlife. But specific connections with New Age practice and belief are tenuous indeed!
For Gerald Gardner, “Wicca” certainly meant a very specific type of belief and worship. It included a degree system (which does go back in various forms at least as far as the Middle Ages), covens organized around a priest and priestess as leaders who are at least second-degree (that also has Medieval roots), nudity in worship, certain common rituals—such as light bondage, specific challenges, and the five-fold kiss—for initiates at each level, and so on. He would not call my coven Wiccan, certainly; we do not have degrees (though we train in a way that does parallel the degree system); we are all priests and priestesses and we do not have a high priest or priestess, choosing instead to work by consensus as equals; we worship clothed (Hey! Give us a break! This is MAINE fer cryin’ out loud! Though some of us do use nudity at times for particular magical purposes); our initiations include challenges but no bondage or flagellation, and we’ve changed the traditional five-fold kiss (feet, knees, genitals, breasts, mouth) to be less overtly sexual and more respectful of the recipient’s personal boundaries.
Damn. I’m rambling again. Sorry. I think the point of all of this is that Gardner let things out of the box, so to speak. He was the first to write openly of a nature religion he called Wicca, which quite clearly struck a deeply responsive chord within hundreds of thousands (at least!) of people who desired a closer connection to nature and who rejected, for whatever reason, certain dogmas of the Church. Many, many thousands of people now call themselves Wiccan, drawing on the tradition Gardner started, and in many cases elaborating on it and/or editing those beliefs to suit their own needs.
I joke, frequently, that ours is a do-it-yourself religion. It is vital, dynamic, and always changing, a fluid entity that adapts to the needs of the individual, rather than forcing a conformist mold to a One True Way dogma. Critics call the lack of conformal belief a serious weakness; I find it, rather, one of Wicca’s greatest strengths, even if it does challenge those of us who try to define the religion itself.
As for me, personally . . . I could get along perfectly well NOT calling myself Wiccan. The name, while it has an interesting history, is of little importance to me personally. I know (or am learning!) what *I* believe, and choose not to rely solely on Gardner’s admittedly and occasionally kinky worldview to shape my own. However, as a member of my coven and the Maine Pagan community, and as Pagan clergy, I find the tag extremely useful in briefly defining to others who speak a common spiritual language my belief structure; it becomes a spiritual starting point, so to speak, for further discussion. I’m more Wiccan than not, certainly, at least by the COMMON definition of the word. Fifty years after Gardner’s first book, common usage distinguishes clearly between GARDNERIAN Wicca and Alexandrian Wicca, Buckland’s SEAX-Wicca, Irish Witta, Celtic Wicca, Eclectic Wicca, and so many, many others. Gardner intended one thing, perhaps, one tradition, but the rest of us took it and ran with it and made it our own.
And isn’t that the exact same thing that happened to Jesus when Paul took his initial teachings and turned them into what most of us define as “Christian” today?
Elizabeth May
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
By crikey! That's some long post! Makes for good reading. I can understand now where you're coming from. I especially like the reference you made to christian groups, as I can really relate to the differences there. So thanks for the good explanation.
DeaconJustin
Member
WHKeith said:
I don't know if I would say that Roman-Rite catholicism arose directly from the early church, but rather it arose after "Christianity" underwent a couple centuries of evolution and change. Some people tend to view the early church as a homogenized group of believers with extant creeds and doctrinal statements, but as has been mentioned that's anything but true.
The fullness of what we call Roman-Rite catholicism matured in or shortly before the year 325. At this point the early church was a fairly collegial organization; the bishop and the Patriarches(bishops of patriarchal sees) all stood on relatively equal footing. For Rome to have a measure of supremacy due to the status of that see's capacity as the political capitol of the empire was to be expected, but assertions of Papal Supremacy didn't start in earnest until two or three hundred years later. There were three or four more "minor" schisms before the aptly-named "Great Schism" between the eastern and western churches.
On the topic of Roman-Rite catholics not recognizing some sects as Christian, that's true only to a certain(and blessedly limited) extent. They acknowledge their fellows in the Apostolic Succession(the Orthodox rites, the Anglicans, the Copts, Syrians, etc.), and many protestant non-Apostolic groups. However, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and sects of similar belief aren't seen a Christian for a variety of reasons.
What it really boils down to for those of us in the catholic(note the use of a small "c" throughout) Church is the Nicene Creed, and more pointedly the statement "...he was crucified unter Pontius Pilate, buried, died, and arose on the third day."
The trinity isn't an absolute sticking point for catholic Rites outside of Rome, and some are a bit more lax about it than others. I would argue, however, that it is these key doctrinal statements and beliefs that are the core of the matter between fundamentalist and catholic Christian groups and not so much the fairly secondary concerns over faith versus works and works versus faith.
-- Probably got off on a bit of a tangent here, I apologise ahead of time. :X
Hi DeaconJustin, and welcome to comparative-religion.com!
Some interesting points raised in the above post. I'm especially intrigued by your comments:
I consider Ecumenicism to be an important strength in modern Christianity, and reconciliation over denominationalism seems more than long overdue. On that subject, it's interesting to note the specifically recent movements for closer ties between the Anglican and Methodist Churches, which was unfortunately overshadowed over the past month by an internal row within the Anglican Church about the appointment of a gay bishop.
Some interesting points raised in the above post.
I'm especially intrigued by your comments:I remember visiting York Minster (think: Cathedral) and having a conversation with someone by the admissions desk, who spoke in similar terms. Yet I'm under the impression that the Anglican Chruch is seen more as Apostate rather than Apostolic (if you'll excuse my flippant terminology!). I've seen reports over the past couple of years of moves to reconcile Canterbury and Rome, but there remain differences considered irreconcilable - at least by Rome. I would be interested to read your own perception of the situation.
I consider Ecumenicism to be an important strength in modern Christianity, and reconciliation over denominationalism seems more than long overdue. On that subject, it's interesting to note the specifically recent movements for closer ties between the Anglican and Methodist Churches, which was unfortunately overshadowed over the past month by an internal row within the Anglican Church about the appointment of a gay bishop.
DeaconJustin
Member
I said:Hi DeaconJustin, and welcome to comparative-religion.com!
Some interesting points raised in the above post.
I remember visiting York Minster (think: Cathedral) and having a conversation with someone by the admissions desk, who spoke in similar terms. Yet I'm under the impression that the Anglican Chruch is seen more as Apostate rather than Apostolic (if you'll excuse my flippant terminology!). I've seen reports over the past couple of years of moves to reconcile Canterbury and Rome, but there remain differences considered irreconcilable - at least by Rome. I would be interested to read your own perception of the situation.
I consider Ecumenicism to be an important strength in modern Christianity, and reconciliation over denominationalism seems more than long overdue. On that subject, it's interesting to note the specifically recent movements for closer ties between the Anglican and Methodist Churches, which was unfortunately overshadowed over the past month by an internal row within the Anglican Church about the appointment of a gay bishop.
Rome has a bug up its arse about the Pope being the end-all of Bishops in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They like to conveniently ignore centuries of councilar and collegial tradition to give their own Pope more authority than he really has; the Pope is the undisputed head of the Roman-rite Church, but the universal church has no such head aside from Christ himself. The Anglicans as a whole are not seen as apostates, because we adhere to the creeds, and the majority of the councils.
There have been, and still are, many people trying to reconcile Rome and Canterbury with eachother, but the Pope isn't really willing to give up the claim to being the supreme head of the entire Church-- we consider that Christ's role. I imagine the Pope's insistnece on councilar veto power is another issue: he would have far too much power were that to be the case.
I can't remember the name of the poor fellow, just that he was appointed to the See of Reeding. I'm not a member of a group in communion with Canterbury, so I have no interest in toting the party line. My ordination is through the Independent Catholic Union(www.i-c-u.org) in New Rochelle, NY. My theology and liturgical practise are largely Anglican, which is why I fall under that particular label.
Ecumenicism is an important facet of modern Christianity, yes. The Orthodox Rites and the Anglican Rite have made large strides in this area(for instance I tend to hold to a more Orthodox line regarding the blessed virgin and the immaculate conception, as well as the use of leavened bread in the eucharist, not to mention believing in the Real Presence). It's really not a problem, because of the Ecumenicism these things are "out there" and not considered to be herectical.
If you're interrested in more on Orthodox-Anglican relations you might want to find books or articles by Lev Gillet, AKA "The Monk of the Eastern Church" he was the chaplain at the Ecumenical Centre somewhere in England(can't remember -where-, mind you :X) and has produced much literature on Orthodoxy for Western consumption.
Elizabeth May
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The situation of arguing between denominations is one of the worst failings of Christianity. It's like a form of arrogance like saying that your own tradition is inerrant. I guess the pope breeds bad habits. Humility seems to be one of the most important Christian attributes so easily lost on denominationalism.(I spell that right?)
bgruagach
eclectic Wiccan
Elizabeth May said:
I agree... the whole "One True Way" attitude is one of the big reasons why monotheism isn't my cup of tea.
It annoys me greatly to see this sort of bickering within Pagan traditions like Wicca, too. You'd think that spiritual paths purportedly based on polytheism would be immune to this type of arrogant behaviour, but they're not. Perhaps the arrogance of "I'm right, you're wrong" is a human trait and not really necessarily associated with any particular philosophy (although some sects do seem to make it a central part of their philosophy...)
; )
Ben Gruagach
WiccanWade
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Just thought I'd let everyone know about something I recently was told from a British Witch:
She had been visiting the Witchcraft Museum, with another Witch-friend, and the director kindly showed them the museum archives, which contain a lot of papers etc. donated at the death of Witches. Most of it has never been catalogued or published, and they were told that there was a great deal of disputed history that could be proved by the material.
Also, Ronald Hutton is going to be updating his history of the Craft soon; he went down to the Witchcraft Museum in Boscastle last year and opened papers which the owner, Graham King, had inherited from Cecil Williamson, and had to radically re-think a few things. He has already published such an ammendment about The Craft's history (I am told), however, he is re-publishing "The Triumph of the Moon", based on this new research (which will be out in about 18 months).
Yet, one must realize, that...as much as I admire Ron, his research can be a bit "blind", for want of a better word (although, he's a very warm man, and an utter joy to correspond with, very kind, et al.). There are still people around who worked with Gardner, but Hutton rejects much of their testimony, because there is no written documentation. According to his criteria, for example, I was never actually at a recent pagan festival & taught a class earlier this summer, even though I had my picture taken there, and several people saw me and attended the workshop. Because there was no written documentation, which is the key.
A couple other example about his rather "blind" way of viewing things can be found in his book "The Stations of the Sun" when he says that he can find no evidennce for Lughnasadh as a pan-Celtic festival, or evidence for its widespread celebration in Britain. My British Witch-friend uncovered a great deal of evidence in her researches for Lammas, though Llewellyn decided not to publish this respective chapter, citing it as 'too difficult for the reader'. So, when she can, she'll turn this into another book, when time allows. And the following link is a review of his book "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles", where he mistranslated Cerridwen to mean "Crooked Woman", where Celtic Scholar, James Mackillop, who put his book before specialists in their respective Celtic language fields, has translated it as coming from "gwen", which means "white, fair, or holy". In fact, I've found the following in my research, that it comes from: cerdd "song" + gwen "shining, holy"; or cariad "beloved" + gwen "shining, holy". Anyhoo...the site I was just previously speaking of is: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/hutton_review.html[/COLOR]
She had been visiting the Witchcraft Museum, with another Witch-friend, and the director kindly showed them the museum archives, which contain a lot of papers etc. donated at the death of Witches. Most of it has never been catalogued or published, and they were told that there was a great deal of disputed history that could be proved by the material.
Also, Ronald Hutton is going to be updating his history of the Craft soon; he went down to the Witchcraft Museum in Boscastle last year and opened papers which the owner, Graham King, had inherited from Cecil Williamson, and had to radically re-think a few things. He has already published such an ammendment about The Craft's history (I am told), however, he is re-publishing "The Triumph of the Moon", based on this new research (which will be out in about 18 months).
Yet, one must realize, that...as much as I admire Ron, his research can be a bit "blind", for want of a better word (although, he's a very warm man, and an utter joy to correspond with, very kind, et al.). There are still people around who worked with Gardner, but Hutton rejects much of their testimony, because there is no written documentation. According to his criteria, for example, I was never actually at a recent pagan festival & taught a class earlier this summer, even though I had my picture taken there, and several people saw me and attended the workshop. Because there was no written documentation, which is the key.
A couple other example about his rather "blind" way of viewing things can be found in his book "The Stations of the Sun" when he says that he can find no evidennce for Lughnasadh as a pan-Celtic festival, or evidence for its widespread celebration in Britain. My British Witch-friend uncovered a great deal of evidence in her researches for Lammas, though Llewellyn decided not to publish this respective chapter, citing it as 'too difficult for the reader'. So, when she can, she'll turn this into another book, when time allows. And the following link is a review of his book "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles", where he mistranslated Cerridwen to mean "Crooked Woman", where Celtic Scholar, James Mackillop, who put his book before specialists in their respective Celtic language fields, has translated it as coming from "gwen", which means "white, fair, or holy". In fact, I've found the following in my research, that it comes from: cerdd "song" + gwen "shining, holy"; or cariad "beloved" + gwen "shining, holy". Anyhoo...the site I was just previously speaking of is: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/hutton_review.html[/COLOR]