Recommended for every Wiccan.

[SilentWolf]

I just picked up The Wiccan Mysteries by Raven Grimassi. It gives great insight into the inner meanings of rites, beliefs, symbols. A LOT of history.

Some of the history in this book goes back to 7000 BC! And it's all told in a way that makes it completely relevant to Wicca of today.

Then it goes into the deeper meanings of the rituals. And a couple other things such as Planes of Existence and Psychic Centers. (Haven't read that far yet :) )

If you follow the Wiccan path, get this book.

[white_draco]

It is a good book. I saw 1 person picking up that book when I was at the Bookstore, so for a book on Wicca and in a bookstore in the Bible belt that's pretty good.

- White Draco -

[Niamh]

I bought that book a few months ago and started reading it right away... then one thing led to another and it's in one of those boxes upstairs waiting to be moved!

I really enjoyed it while I was reading it and can't wait to get back to it! :)

[Ari]

While Mr Grimassi does get recommended frequently and certain aspects of his books are good, many Pagans with an interest in history of the well-researched and factual sort would take issue with this comment:



A LOT of history.
Some of the history in this book goes back to 7000 BC! And it's all told in a way that makes it completely relevant to Wicca of today.


I would suggest that you take everything Grimassi says about about history (including the history of his own tradition) with not just a grain of salt, but the entire salt-shaker. ;)

Ari

[Vivienne Greenwoode]

I have to agree here, the history pesented in Grimassi's work (and, lamentably, in many other pagan authors) is a reallly very contrived, and a great deal is just pure fiction.

[raven grimassi]

>>While Mr Grimassi does get recommended frequently and certain aspects of his books are good, many Pagans with an interest in history of the well-researched and factual sort would take issue with this comment:<<

This particualr book traces the roots of what is now Wiccan theology, magick, and various tenets of belief. While we cannot prove or disprove how old Wicca is (although we can debate) it is clear that the roots of Wiccan concepts and tenets are quite ancient. That was the point of my book.

>>I would suggest that you take everything Grimassi says about about history (including the history of his own tradition) with not just a grain of salt, but the entire salt-shaker<<

As to your suggested use of salt, I won't take your comments as the insult you seem to have intended. Whenever possible I try and avoid wasting time and energy in such matters. And it has been my experience that often people believe or disbelieve what they need to or want to in accord with their own agenda.

In just about all of my books I draw upon academic sources as well as sound ethnographic, anthropological, and folkloric sources. My research differs primarily in the conclusions and interpretations that I arrive at regarding various sources, but at least my opinions are informed ones (even if someone disagrees with my conclusions and viewpoints).

Regarding your questioning of the accuracy of what you feel that I present as my own Tradition, what is it that you are implying?

- Raven Grimassi

[raven grimassi]

I have to agree here, the history pesented in Grimassi's work (and, lamentably, in many other pagan authors) is a reallly very contrived, and a great deal is just pure fiction.

Interesting. Exactly what do you believe is contrived and pure fiction regarding my published works?

[mol]

Interesting. Exactly what do you believe is contrived and pure fiction regarding my published works?
You mean you don't just make all this stuff up? ;) :D

[DraconisArcanus]

All writings whether based solely on fact or fiction are subject to interpetation by the author. Each has an intent of what they are trying to conclude or information to relate. I have found Mr. Grimassi's works to be based on clearly defined tenets and facts. His opinions and conclusions are his own which any writer is allowed.

You are perfectly within your rights to disagree. I myself do not always agree with some conclusions but I resepct his right to have them. If you have a complaint with something I have always found it helpful to discuss it directly, clearly and based on fact.
Being married to a writer, I can appreciate that we all including Mr Grimassi have our own views on how WE think things should be. I would direct exact problems and not vague generalities.

Peace!

[AterCorax]

".....While we cannot prove or disprove how old Wicca is (although we can debate) it is clear that the roots of Wiccan concepts and tenets are quite ancient......."

Actually, it can be proven that Wicca didn't exist before the 1950s or so. (Just because the word wicce [or something similar] existed before that, doesn't mean the religion did.) As for the beliefs/principles being ancient, well yeah, it's based on older beliefs and the such, doesn't mean it's ancient in itself.

Enough ranting from me, for now! :rant:

I heard 'The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft' by Ronald Hutton is good for the history, but I can't really say since I haven't read it yet.

-Ater

[raven grimassi]

>>Actually, it can be proven that Wicca didn't exist before the 1950s or so. (Just because the word wicce [or something similar] existed before that, doesn't mean the religion did.) As for the beliefs/principles being ancient, well yeah, it's based on older beliefs and the such, doesn't mean it's ancient in itself.<<

With all due respect, it cannot be proven that Wicca or Witchcraft did not exist prior to Gerald Gardner's writings and those of his contemporaries. What can be proven is that he added much to what he claimed was a hereditary tradition, which he further claimed to have been initiated into. So what we can prove is that his presentation of Wicca/Witchcraft is something new or different. That does not prove that older traditions either in England or in other parts of Europe did not exist, or do not exist. And indeed there is a lot of information from folklorists of the 19th century that indicate the existence of people in continental Europe claiming to be witches who practice an old tradition.

>>I heard 'The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft' by Ronald Hutton is good for the history, but I can't really say since I haven't read it yet.<<

Having read it myself, I find it to be an interesting blend of history, speculation, and theory. My book "The Witches' Craft' is a counter to what Hutton presents regarding historical and literary evidence.

Several ancient Greek and Roman writers dismissed Witchcraft as "illicit religion" during their own era. It is interesting to note that the belief of scholars is as ancient as the very things they disbelieve. The literature on Witchcraft spans over 2500 years, which is remarkable for a religion that scholars insist never existed.

Peace - Raven

[raven grimassi]

You mean you don't just make all this stuff up? ;) :D

At the risk of disappointing my critics, I'm afraid that the facts are that I write about what I actually believe based upon my own training, experiences, research and studies. Hey, as the saying goes - Truth is stranger than fiction. :)

[TYRRHENUS]

Several ancient Greek and Roman writers dismissed Witchcraft as "illicit religion" during their own era.Hello & welcome.
If this is off-topic then please ignore. I'm curious which Roman writers dismissed witchcraft as a religion?

[AterCorax]

"...That does not prove that older traditions either in England or in other parts of Europe did not exist, or do not exist. And indeed there is a lot of information from folklorists of the 19th century that indicate the existence of people in continental Europe claiming to be witches who practice an old tradition."

Therein lies our problem of communication. You seem to think that Wicca and witchcraft are the same thing. I was talking about Wicca, the religion, NOT some witchcraft beliefs Gardner took and mixed into his own tradition (aka Wicca). I'm not saying that some of the beliefs/practices aren't ancient, I'm saying that Wicca itself did not exist before Gardner. Wicca and witchcraft are not the same just because Wicca has some witchcraft mixed in it. Just because someone used herbs to heal a thousand years ago, does not prove the existance of Wicca; it proves the existance of someone healing with herbs a thousand years ago (which could be called folk magic or witchcraft).

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

"Having read it myself, I find it to be an interesting blend of history, speculation, and theory."

All history has some intelligent speculation and theories if the historian is not sure about something. Note, I said intelligent, not wishful thinking.

"Several ancient Greek and Roman writers dismissed Witchcraft as 'illicit religion'"

Do you have any sources, so I could check that out myself?

"The literature on Witchcraft spans over 2500 years, which is remarkable for a religion that scholars insist never existed."

Witchcraft is not a religion, although these days many prefer to call their beliefs 'witchcraft.'

-Ater

[raven grimassi]

>>Therein lies our problem of communication. You seem to think that Wicca and witchcraft are the same thing. I was talking about Wicca, the religion, NOT some witchcraft beliefs Gardner took and mixed into his own tradition (aka Wicca).<<

What's interesting here is that Gardner wrote about Wicca and Witchcraft being one and the same thing. This was the view during the 1960s, and largely during the 1970s. Those of us who cut our teeth back then on books by writers of this era naturally took and held the same position. In the 1980s this seemed to change and Wicca began to evolve into what it is now. And I would agree that Wicca, as most people view it and practice it, is different from Witchcraft (I would call them first cousins). I make a distinction between Wicca (as I knew it in the 60s & 70s) and Neo-Wicca (which is what I personally call what most people who call themselves Wiccan are practicing today).

>>I'm not saying that some of the beliefs/practices aren't ancient, I'm saying that Wicca itself did not exist before Gardner. Wicca and witchcraft are not the same just because Wicca has some witchcraft mixed in it.<<

I'd agree that Neo-Wicca and Witchcraft are different, and that Neo-Wicca (as practiced today) did not exist as a cohesive religion priror to Gardner.

>>Just because someone used herbs to heal a thousand years ago, does not prove the existance of Wicca; it proves the existance of someone healing with herbs a thousand years ago (which could be called folk magic or witchcraft).<<

Yes, it is difficult to distinguish between some folk magic systems and Witchcraft practices. The problem may be rooted in the fact that the earilest known word used in Western literature to indicate a Witch was the Greek word "pharmakis" which refers to a person with the knowledge of herbal properties. Historian Richard Gordon (Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) states that pharmakis "became one of the standard words for 'wisewoman/witch', used as a substantive."

>>"Several ancient Greek and Roman writers dismissed Witchcraft as 'illicit religion'"<<
>>Do you have any sources, so I could check that out myself?<<

I've found the book - Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome - to be a good source for early references to Witchcraft. It's a compilation of writings by various scholars, edited by Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark. Here you will find that the ancient Greek and Roman writers depicted Witchcraft as an "illicit religion" among other interesting tid bits.

Historian Richard Gordon (in his essay Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) 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). If a sect could not afford to build and maintain a temple then the sect was viewed as illegitimate.

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. This view persisted despite ancient writings that presented stories of the witch Medea who prayed to Hecate, and the witch Canidia who prayed to Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina. Praying is most often associated with religion and there is no unbiased reason to negate this view regarding Medea and Canidia.

>>Witchcraft is not a religion, although these days many prefer to call their beliefs 'witchcraft.'<<

I would respectfully disagree. As I noted, the earliest writings in Western literature depict Witches as worshippers of such goddesses as Hecate, Diana, and proserpina. It is also interestng to note the following. According to historian Jeffrey B. Russell, in his book A History of Witchcraft, the English word Witch is "ultimately derived from the Indo-European root weik, which has to do with religion and magic." Russell states that this word produced a derivative, wih-l, from which originated the Old English words wigle (sorcery) and wiglera (sorcerer).

Peace - Raven

[raven grimassi]

If this is off-topic then please ignore. I'm curious which Roman writers dismissed witchcraft as a religion?

Ovid, Lucan, and Horace probably head the list, as they seem to be the most critical and skeptical. I think you may find these books to be interesting and helpful regarding the view of ancient:

* Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome - edited by Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).

* Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds, by Daniel Ogden (Oxford University Press, 2002)

Best regards - Raven

[AterCorax]

">>Witchcraft is not a religion, although these days many prefer to call their beliefs 'witchcraft.'<<

I would respectfully disagree. As I noted, the earliest writings in Western literature depict Witches as worshippers of such goddesses as Hecate, Diana, and proserpina. It is also interestng to note the following. According to historian Jeffrey B. Russell, in his book A History of Witchcraft, the English word Witch is "ultimately derived from the Indo-European root weik, which has to do with religion and magic." Russell states that this word produced a derivative, wih-l, from which originated the Old English words wigle (sorcery) and wiglera (sorcerer). "

Interesting point, but that's only one case. I am familiar with Medea in Greek myth and her worship of Hecate, but I don't think that means that witchcraft was a religion. It all depends on the person practicing it. I think it's safe to say that not all witches (or magic users) recognized a certain God or Goddess, or any other divine force. Even if they did, it doesn't mean they decided to worship it. Witchcraft, in my opinion is a craft/practice, but when you add your own ideas in there, it becomes a personal spiritual path. That doesn't mean that witchcraft itself becomes a religion.

I think it's time for us to agree to disagree. : )

-Ater

[raven grimassi]

I think it's time for us to agree to disagree. : )
-Ater
Computed and logged. :)

Peace - Raven

[lightdragon]

What's interesting here is that Gardner wrote about Wicca and Witchcraft being one and the same thing. This was the view during the 1960s, and largely during the 1970s. Those of us who cut our teeth back then on books by writers of this era naturally took and held the same position. In the 1980s this seemed to change and Wicca began to evolve into what it is now. And I would agree that Wicca, as most people view it and practice it, is different from Witchcraft (I would call them first cousins). I make a distinction between Wicca (as I knew it in the 60s & 70s) and Neo-Wicca (which is what I personally call what most people who call themselves Wiccan are practicing today).


Peace - Raven

I agree to agree here. But just curious did you coin the term Neo-Wicca or did someone else did and if you did when???

[Thalias_Smile]

First of all, let me say that I was pleasantly surprised to see Raven Grimassi making posts here at the forum...I don't think I have ever belonged to a pagan forum where there were comments posted by well-known Pagan authors (except for Phyllis Curott's official forum). I have yet to read any of Grimassi's books (there are so many on my list of "to reads" its ridiculous), but I have heard mixed reviews from both Wiccans and ppl who profess to practice "true" Stregheria. I try to keep an open mind about books until I read them--and that is exactly what I plan to do when I read Grimassi's books--but I do agree that ppl who criticise the Italian witchcraft books tend to overlook the simple fact that the author is stating his/her forms of it--the way they were taught, how they incorporated it into their lives, etc.

Wicca and Witchcraft are NOT interchangeable (in my opinion), and should be seen as first cousins, rather than Siamese Twins :lol:

I must admit, that it is usually the cover art that attracts me to certain books--and for years, I have been drawn to the cover art and photography on Grimassi's books, but never bought any :hairraise . It took me years just to finally purchase Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler and Book of Shadows by Phyllis Curott. But now that I have seen this thread, I think I will get at least 1 of Grimassi's books...which one would you recommend 1st?

Thalia's Smile :colorful:

[TYRRHENUS]

--but I do agree that ppl who criticise the Italian witchcraft books tend to overlook the simple fact that the author is stating his/her forms of it--the way they were taught, how they incorporated it into their lives, etc.I agree. But this cuts both ways...
A while ago, Sabrina Magliocco wrote a most excellent article pointing out the differences between Stregheria and stregoneria. She presented nothing but her own ethnographic data, and some of the folks at the vecchia group (not Raven) were practically denouncing her as a heretic!
A Neo-Pagan herself (Gardnerian Wicca I believe), Magliocco held up the olive branch in one hand, while her words drew a line in the sand with the other. She merely demonstrated that the differences between the two were irreconcilable, and some of the people at that group effectively slapped the branch out of her hand. Shame on them.
----------
Neo-Wicca? Oh, Wicca is way too young for prefixes. Maybe in a couple more generations.

[Thalias_Smile]

Raven, since I have never read any of your books--which title would you recommend I start with?

[Thalias_Smile]

Dear Raven:

I recently ordered your book "Italian Witchcraft," which actually has a lovely photo on the front cover--like i said, the cover art/photography attracts me to a book 1st...but I have to say that the best way for me to pick a book is to just let my hand slide past it. When a particular book is ready for me to read it, it will move right into my hand--I am NOT kidding. That book has actually done that to me on a few occasions, but I did not purchase them :O

I look forward to receiving this book within the next few days and will get right on reading it. Also, out of curiosity...have you or any other pagan authors you know ever consider teaching a course on your brand of paganism/witchcraft through the online Barnes & Noble University? I have taken a few courses through them, and wondered why I never saw any mainstream pagan authors such as yourself, teaching a course there---it would be a wonderful opportunity I think to gain a wider audience....just a thought :D

[raven grimassi]

[QUOTE=TYRRHENUS] A while ago, Sabrina Magliocco wrote a most excellent article pointing out the differences between Stregheria and stregoneria. She presented nothing but her own ethnographic data, and some of the folks at the vecchia group (not Raven) were practically denouncing her as a heretic! A Neo-Pagan herself (Gardnerian Wicca I believe), Magliocco held up the olive branch in one hand, while her words drew a line in the sand with the other. She merely demonstrated that the differences between the two were irreconcilable, and some of the people at that group effectively slapped the branch out of her hand. Shame on them.<<

I frequent the list you mention, but I've not seen any personal attack on Magliocco. I think the fervor arose from the fact that someone posted Magliocco's article (or was it a link to it?) as a "Hey, look Grimassi's a fake" type thing. I don't think anyone that I know on the list has anything against Magliocco, and simply accept her opinion as that of an outsider to Italian Witchcraft. There is no reason to trash her as she is entitled to her perspective.

In any event I'm also confused, are you saying that Magliocco was on the list herself? I know Sabina personally and have had several pleasant talks with her. So I'd be surprised to discover that she was on the list and it escaped my notice.

[raven grimassi]

I agree to agree here. But just curious did you coin the term Neo-Wicca or did someone else did and if you did when???

Hmmm, I don't know. I've used it since the early 90s as a personal view, but don't recall getting it from anywhere but the twisted canyons of my mind. I don't claim the term, I just use it. :)

[raven grimassi]

But now that I have seen this thread, I think I will get at least 1 of Grimassi's books...which one would you recommend 1st?

Depends upon what you're interested in. While people usually think of me as the Italian Witchcraft guy, the fact is that out of the 10 books I've written only two are about the Italian Craft.

I'd suggest that you try my book The Witches' Craft, and perhaps also Italian Witchcraft if that subject is of any interest. Pop into a library and you might find a copy there. I donate copies of all my books to the libraries in my own community.

Best regards - Raven

[raven grimassi]

out of curiosity...have you or any other pagan authors you know ever consider teaching a course on your brand of paganism/witchcraft through the online Barnes & Noble University? I have taken a few courses through them, and wondered why I never saw any mainstream pagan authors such as yourself, teaching a course there---it would be a wonderful opportunity I think to gain a wider audience....just a thought :D

I can't speak for any other authors, but I personally did not know such a thing existed. I'll look into it, thanks. :graduate:

BB - Raven

[Dottie]

*Greetings Raven Grimassi,
I just wanted to stop by and say you are one of my favorite authors. I personally own a couple of your books, 'The Wiccan Mysteries' and ‘Hereditary Witchcraft’, and I often recommend them to others. I first read your work about three years ago in an online group, but not to worry; they included credits to you and copyright. After that small taste of your work I had to go out and buy a couple of your books and hope to get a few more. I only hope some day you'll be able to get up to this part of the country (Michigan), I'd love to sit in on one of your seminars!!!
Many Blessings, Dottie

[*Cerridwen*]

Raven, since I have never read any of your books--which title would you recommend I start with?

The Witches Craft is a really good book, I have heard some negative things about Raven (sorry ;) ) but, you don't know til you try right? (figuaritively speaking of course) and really enjoyed it :)

[*Cerridwen*]

...I don't think I have ever belonged to a pagan forum where there were comments posted by well-known Pagan authors (except for Phyllis Curott's official forum


Do you have a link to Phyllis's forum?

:)

[raven grimassi]

The Witches Craft is a really good book, I have heard some negative things about Raven (sorry ;) ) but, you don't know til you try right? (figuaritively speaking of course) and really enjoyed it :)

Thank you for your kind comments regarding my book. As to hearing negative things about me, well, everyone has their agenda I suppose. I think it was Mark Twain who once said that a man who has no enemies has not lived his life well. Like any public figure I have my critics, it goes with the job, I guess.

For my part, I write about what I believe in, and I try and share what I feel may be helpful and of value to others in my writings. If someone wants to be critical of my opinion (and that's all any book is) , well, it's their time and energy to spend as they feel it is best served.

Blessings - Raven

[mol]

At the risk of disappointing my critics, I'm afraid that the facts are that I write about what I actually believe based upon my own training, experiences, research and studies. Hey, as the saying goes - Truth is stranger than fiction. :)
That is the Truth.

:)

Glad to see your forum picking up. It's nice to have you around, Raven.

[DebLipp]

Hmmm, I don't know. I've used it since the early 90s as a personal view, but don't recall getting it from anywhere but the twisted canyons of my mind. I don't claim the term, I just use it. :)

Despite the fact that Wicca in its modern formation hardly seems, chronologically, to need a prefix, I very much appreciate this coinage of "Neo-Wicca" as what you describe is very true -- those of us trained in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s have a very different conception of what "Wicca" and "Witchcraft" are than those who came along in the late 80s and especially in the Internet era. I am gradually learning to adapt my language to a new audience, but like everyone else, I think more or less the way I was taught to think. Your use of a prefix as a distinction is extremely helpful in delineating the different ways of thinking.

[raven grimassi]

Glad to see your forum picking up. It's nice to have you around, Raven.

Thank you, it's my pleasure to be here. Thanks also for the opportunity to chat with the good folks here.

Blessings - Raven

[raven grimassi]

Despite the fact that Wicca in its modern formation hardly seems, chronologically, to need a prefix, I very much appreciate this coinage of "Neo-Wicca" as what you describe is very true -- those of us trained in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s have a very different conception of what "Wicca" and "Witchcraft" are than those who came along in the late 80s and especially in the Internet era. I am gradually learning to adapt my language to a new audience, but like everyone else, I think more or less the way I was taught to think. Your use of a prefix as a distinction is extremely helpful in delineating the different ways of thinking.

Hello, and Merry Meet! Thank you, I appreciate your words. I still struggle with the conversion process. In my youthful Hippie days I never thought I'd grow up to be inflexible. ;) But Wicca today seems to be whatever anyone thinks it is at any given time of the day. I find it hard to keep up. :collapse:

Blessings - Raven

[Kaylara]

:) Raven. I know what you mean, and I'm too young to have had my "hippie days" :)

[Ben Trismegistus]

Despite the fact that Wicca in its modern formation hardly seems, chronologically, to need a prefix, I very much appreciate this coinage of "Neo-Wicca" as what you describe is very true -- those of us trained in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s have a very different conception of what "Wicca" and "Witchcraft" are than those who came along in the late 80s and especially in the Internet era. I am gradually learning to adapt my language to a new audience, but like everyone else, I think more or less the way I was taught to think. Your use of a prefix as a distinction is extremely helpful in delineating the different ways of thinking.
That's an interesting point Deb. But I don't know where I fit in! In chronological terms, I'm a "Neo-Wiccan", but I'm being trained in a tradition (Minoan) that has been extant since the 1960s and has changed relatively little since then. So I feel like a "hippie-style" Wiccan. :) Can I be an honorary member? ;)

Raven, it's a great pleasure to see you posting on this forum. I hope to have more chance to converse with you. :)

[DebLipp]

That's an interesting point Deb. But I don't know where I fit in! In chronological terms, I'm a "Neo-Wiccan", but I'm being trained in a tradition (Minoan) that has been extant since the 1960s and has changed relatively little since then. So I feel like a "hippie-style" Wiccan. :) Can I be an honorary member? ;)

Raven, it's a great pleasure to see you posting on this forum. I hope to have more chance to converse with you. :)

Many traditional-style covens that have lineages that were extant in the 60s or 70s continue to train and produce people the "old" way. [rolling eyes] This weekend I was at the party at the house of a friend, he was introduced to Wicca by me & mine in about 1995. He is very much "hippie-style" and so are his initiates who are even newer.

There used to be a lot of conflict between traditionalists like us and Eclectic Wiccans, but now I think most new Wiccans don't know we exist or don't care. [shrug] It's sort of sad.