Wicca: traditional origins?

[WiccanWade]

Here is that link, again:

http://www. suppressedhistories .net/ articles/ hutton_review.html

Just remove the spaces.

 

[WiccanWade]

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.

Just thought I'd chime in, here. Albeit one would, quite correctly, say that I am a Wiccan and follow the religion of Wicca; I do not use those words. I call myself a Witch, an appelation I first fell in love with after reading Doreen Valiente's "Witchcraft foir Tomorrow". Albeit I referred to myself as a Witch prior to that, upon reading her book was when I truly fell in love with this priestly title. And, I refer to my religion, also, as "Witchcraft".

 

[bgruagach]

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).

This is great news. It's good to see that there is continued work going on to uncover the roots of Wicca and modern witchcraft from a scholarly perspective. Learning more can only help us to better understand where we come from, why we are where we are now, and possibly where we could be headed.

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.

I would fully expect a scholarly presentation of material to be rather conservative rather than to take a lot of risks making claims which don't really have much evidence to support them. One of the biggest complaints about the vast majority of books out on Wicca and modern witchcraft is that the history, presented as fact, is so often just pure speculation without even the most basic evidence to back it up.

Ronald Hutton's work has done a lot to encourage scholarly examination of Wicca. I doubt, though, that even he would be so foolish as to think that the "whole story" had already been brought to light. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of assumptions and claims which people are making which need to be proven with hard evidence or disproven and abandoned.

I look forward to reading more about the new evidence.

; )

Ben Gruagach
http://www.witchgrotto.com

 

[WiccanWade]

I would fully expect a scholarly presentation of material to be rather conservative rather than to take a lot of risks making claims which don't really have much evidence to support them. One of the biggest complaints about the vast majority of books out on Wicca and modern witchcraft is that the history, presented as fact, is so often just pure speculation without even the most basic evidence to back it up.

Ronald Hutton's work has done a lot to encourage scholarly examination of Wicca. I doubt, though, that even he would be so foolish as to think that the "whole story" had already been brought to light. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of assumptions and claims which people are making which need to be proven with hard evidence or disproven and abandoned.

I look forward to reading more about the new evidence.

While one might fully expect him to be so conservative, it really doesn't do much good. Especially by using such sweeping blanket statements as he as (or others have). It's merely like he's towing the line. And, I've really found it irritating (personally) how he brings up these theories (which others buy hook-line-and-sinker*) despite the clear fact that there is no evocende to either prove or disprove it.

* It has been my expoerience, that if one doesn't buy into every one of his baseless theories, they're publically (well, virtually) laughed at! And, that really did shock me! Because, I could clearly see that there WAS no evidence to either support or disprove much of what he had been putting forth. *sigh* So, I, from the very beginning, have kept an open mind. And, oddly enough, it wasn;t even the Wiuccans that were giving me a hard time about this! But, the non-Wiccan pagans.

Anyhoo...I'm all for being conservative, as long as it doesn't make one blind, as a result. However, when it happens, it just seems a bit cowardly, to me. Especially if you have come across some evidence which supports it. And, from what I read, he chucked a lot of evodence, which was clearly throwing out the baby with the bath water. Heh heh heh...

But, I hope to read what these documents are in the Witchcraft Museum which do prove (or disprove) a lot of the disputed Craft history. Because, allegedly, there are still Witches in England, who were trained in the same New Forest Coven in which Old Gerald had been, although, obviously, at a later date.

Nice meeting you! By the way, I hope you had a chance to read my intro. (only 2 folks actually responded to it, so I couldn't tell you who did, and didn't, read it).

 

[iBrian]

And, I've really found it irritating (personally) how he brings up these theories (which others buy hook-line-and-sinker*) despite the clear fact that there is no evocende to either prove or disprove it.

If I remember rightly, that was precisely the charge laid at Gardener in the original link dicussed - the pendulum swings both ways.

I liked WHKieth's earlier commentary on the matter, though - essentially that the burden of proff will always remains individual, and that's part of the power of Wicca.

 

[WiccanWade]

Oh, I know this is totally off-topic for this thread, but...I just need to vent a bit this morning (quickly). Ya' know that chic I told you whom stalked me all across cyber space (although, Brian knows the far more serious charges)? Well (and I still can't believe that no one stood up to her about it, too!) she actually threatened me with her goddess!!! Simply because The Morrighan is my Matron Deity, and somehow felt threatened... She said something to the effect of "Eris is a battle goddess as well. We'll soon see who's truly protective of her survitor!" ROTFLMWBO!!! Have you heard anything more ridiculous??? However, I took it as a threat, initially (forshadowing future problems she'd no doubt incite). She said it as if The Morrighan is nothing- as if she's playing soe cosmic D&D Campaign, for goodness sake! But, honestly, who says such a thing??? If I were her, I'd be embarassed, and publically humilliated, for saying such a thing!

 

[Baud]

I fear I don't have very much to add to this thread! WHKeith and bgruagach put my take on the issue in clearer words than I could. Like WHKeith I use the term "Wiccan" to define my beliefs because Neo-Pagan encompasses too many different denominations. Even if Wicca covers a relatively wide range of beliefs, they are still generally similar, and the branches of Wicca usually overlap.

I personnally found Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon" a very good account of the influences and beliefs of Wicca. I found him quite supportive of Wicca as a religion, even if it is a syncretism of (by his account) doubtful sources. I think such books have a higher public opinion impact that Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" because of the fact that they are written by "outside" scholars.

I got the impression (maybe I read part of the book wrong) that what Hutton was saying was that Gardner's Wicca was based among other things on Murray's thesis of witchcraft as a religion, on the theories of folklorists such as Frazer, and on the Goddess theory of a single mother goddess worshispped uniformly throughout Europe in prehistoric times. He argued that, while these three theories were accepted in scholarly circles at the time Gardner created Wicca, further research has shown that no evidence could confirm them, which doesn't mean they are necessarily false, but rather unproven.

Baud

 

[iBrian]

The notion of Goddess worship is certainly one I've been confused about. More to the point, I remember well an ex-Christian trying to persuade myself that the prehistoric Goddess belief was one of universal peace and harmony and happiness. Somehow I couldn't but help see a form of dislocation of idealism occuring - whereas Christianity had promised such peace in the future, Wicca now promised it in his past.

I'll see if I can raise the Goddess idea on the Ancient World's section of this forum at some short future date - it's definitely an issue worth dicussing on its own at with much more detail.

 

[bgruagach]

I got the impression (maybe I read part of the book wrong) that what Hutton was saying was that Gardner's Wicca was based among other things on Murray's thesis of witchcraft as a religion, on the theories of folklorists such as Frazer, and on the Goddess theory of a single mother goddess worshispped uniformly throughout Europe in prehistoric times. He argued that, while these three theories were accepted in scholarly circles at the time Gardner created Wicca, further research has shown that no evidence could confirm them, which doesn't mean they are necessarily false, but rather unproven.

I think you are interpreting Hutton's work correctly. That's how I understand it, anyways, and it seems to be how others like Isaac Bonewits describe it in his book "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide."

While theories like these might not prove as historically valid as Gardner would have liked, the theories themselves can be very useful as the basis for a spiritual practice. An idea doesn't need to be old to be good.

It puzzles me a bit how often people seem to get hung up on the "universal goddess" part of the goddess-worship idea. I seriously doubt there was a widespread religion of a single universal goddess, but there isn't much doubt at all that there were goddesses worshipped by many many people in the past. Just because the universal goddess claim didn't hold up to scrutiny it doesn't mean that considering any form of the Divine to be female should be considered bunk.

There does appear to be some evidence going quite far back, however, for the idea of a single "great goddess" that is considered to have a multitude of different faces and names which are enumerated from a variety of cultures. In Wicca, we have that idea reinforced in The Charge of the Goddess: "...the Great Mother, Who was of old called among men Artemis, Astarte, Diana, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Dana, Arianrhod, Isis, Bride, and by many other Names." The idea comes across quite clearly in Lucius Apuleius' "Golden Ass" towards the end. In the translation by Robert Graves, it's in chapter 17, "The Goddess Isis Intervenes." Apuleius lived around 120 CE to 170 CE. Copies of the original Latin and another English translation (from 1566) are online at http://www.jnanam.net/golden-ass/#ed

While the specific religion of Wicca does appear to have originated with Gardner, he quite definitely built it up using older bits of information from a wide variety of sources. The mistake is always in assuming that because bits and pieces within Wicca are ancient, that somehow this proves the whole is also ancient. Anyone can create a brand new religion today and put something in it from a truly ancient source; this doesn't make this new religion automatically as old as the oldest component bit.

And just to reiterate... I'm a Wiccan myself, and quite happy practicing Wicca regardless of the age of the religion as a whole, and regardless how ancient any of the ideas might prove to be. If it works for me, that's what is important. History helps us to learn where things came from, and helps us to spot trends in things, but it isn't the sole criteria for whether an idea is useful or not.

 

[WiccanWade]

I personnally found Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon" a very good account of the influences and beliefs of Wicca. I found him quite supportive of Wicca as a religion, even if it is a syncretism of (by his account) doubtful sources. I think such books have a higher public opinion impact that Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" because of the fact that they are written by "outside" scholars.

Interestingly enough, Hutton isn't an "'outside' scholar" being that he's a 3rd. degree Gardnerian!

I got the impression (maybe I read part of the book wrong) that what Hutton was saying was that Gardner's Wicca was based among other things on Murray's thesis of witchcraft as a religion, on the theories of folklorists such as Frazer, and on the Goddess theory of a single mother goddess worshispped uniformly throughout Europe in prehistoric times. He argued that, while these three theories were accepted in scholarly circles at the time Gardner created Wicca, further research has shown that no evidence could confirm them, which doesn't mean they are necessarily false, but rather unproven.

To a point, however, there is evvidence for a sngle mother goddess, and similar unison worship of Her by such classical writers as tacitus, with regards to the Celtic tribes. However, much of wicca which is disputed can be proven by many of the archives at the Museum of Witchcraft in England.

 

[bgruagach]

To a point, however, there is evvidence for a sngle mother goddess, and similar unison worship of Her by such classical writers as tacitus, with regards to the Celtic tribes. However, much of wicca which is disputed can be proven by many of the archives at the Museum of Witchcraft in England.

I don't doubt that individual goddesses were considered by their followers to be "the ultimate goddess." And I don't doubt that the idea that "all goddesses are One Goddess" goes back much farther than Gerald Gardner, Dion Fortune, etc. since it seems to be in evidence in Apuleius' "Golden Ass" which was written sometime before 170 CE.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be much evidence for a widespread religion of a single Goddess as some would have us believe.

If there really is all sorts of little-known evidence at the Museum of Witchcraft in England, I really really hope that it is being examined and prepared for inclusion in new publications by scholars like Hutton. I'd certainly spend my money to buy new books on these topics if they had new information to share!

 

[Baud]

Wade wrote: Interestingly enough, Hutton isn't an "'outside' scholar" being that he's a 3rd. degree Gardnerian!

That's interresting! He is very careful not to mention it in his book (unless I missed it, but I think I would have noticed it).

Baud

 

[WiccanWade]

If there really is all sorts of little-known evidence at the Museum of Witchcraft in England, I really really hope that it is being examined and prepared for inclusion in new publications by scholars like Hutton. I'd certainly spend my money to buy new books on these topics if they had new information to share!

Oh, it's been there for years (there was veen some new artifacts and papers willed to the establishment a few years ago). Trouble is, no one's cared to look for it. However, it's not publically displaced, not is it catalogued with the rest of the inventory. And, is only open to those wishing to perform research on the subject at hand. And, one must also remember, that Hutton is VERY biased, to a fault, with regards to the evendence he will accept. After all, there are still people living whom have worked with Old Gerald. But, because there is no written documentation, he refuses to accept it. For example, according to Hutton's criteria, I never gave a wirkshop at a festival last summer, because there is no acceptible documentatiom, even though there are many students to attest to it, and I had my picture taken at the bloody festival. Thus, acording to Hutton, I was never there (period). Here is another article about his blind sided tendancies: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/hutton_review.html Oh, and, for the record, in about a year, Hutton will re-issue "Triumph of the Moon" with some ammendments, as well as, I hear he already has published such ammendments, although I do not know which recent books they would be in!

 

[WiccanWade]

That's interresting! He is very careful not to mention it in his book (unless I missed it, but I think I would have noticed it).

Baud

Oh, no, he hasn't, and he wouldn't. For two reasons (one of which, he told me himself), because he would not be taken seriously by both schoalrs and Wiccans (especially the non-Wiccan var. whom tend to look down on such individuals written about such things) and he believes it would be used by the enemeies of Wiccans for poor means.

 

[beltainelady]

Latecomer to the thread, and newbie to this board, without much to add really, since y'all have pretty well covered anything I might have said

I just thought you'd be interested in knowing that the author from the original link is the originator of the Alexandrian line in the United States. My great-grandfather, craftwise.

Nice to see his words get around.