Old Dorothy

[Elderbush]

Was the role assigned to Dorothy Clutterbuck by Gardner wrong? Was Dafo the really Old Dorothy? Was there a New Forest Coven?

[Ben Gruagach]

There are a lot of questions there and they don't all have the same answer.

Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and the newer one, "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" present a lot of excellent evidence that might help answer your questions. At this time I'm not sure we can say we have definitive answers about Dorothy Clutterbuck and her involvement in a witch coven, who the other members of that coven were, and whether what that coven practiced was anything like what Gardner promoted and what became known as Wicca. But Heselton has done a superb job of helping get us started on that research!

Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" also provides some info but not nearly as much as Heselton regarding Dorothy Clutterbuck and the coven Gardner says initiated him.

[Elderbush]

I was really looking for discussion and opinions, since I too believe that no one can point to definitive proof that decides any of those questions, for once and for all. Yet many of us have read enough to have formed opinions about the likelyhood of this or that.:)

My own belief and practice does not hinge on whether or not the New Forrest Coven existed or there was an Old Dorothy. It is not taboo to discuss it in my group. Perhaps I'm being insensitive? Are there groups, or do some individuals feel this can't be discussed?

[Ben Gruagach]

Well for what it's worth, here's what I think is likely.

I think there was a group of people who considered themselves to be witches who were also involved in the Rosicrucian Theatre group just like Gardner explained. And I do think that Gardner befriended them, and that they did an initiation ceremony and explained at least some of their practices to him.

I do think that Dorothy Clutterbuck was part of that group and was likely the group's leader towards the end of her life.

I also have no doubt that Gardner's friend Dafo was a member of this group. (There isn't really any question that Dafo was a real person and that she did practice some sort of witchcraft, and that she taught Gardner.) Heselton has identified Dafo, and we know from other people (Doreen Valiente for instance) that Dafo was a real person as they have met her. Doreen Valiente explains in her book "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" that it was in Dafo's home where she first met Gerald Gardner in 1952. Dafo is definitely not "Old Dorothy."

With regards to who initiated Gardner, I believe Dafo was the likely candidate for the person who did the ritual. I also believe that it was held at Dorothy's "mill house" although I'm not sure if Dorothy was present at the actual ritual. (She likely was but I don't know for sure.)

What is not clear is whether this group always considered themselves to be witches or whether they took this label on as a recent thing (perhaps not long before Gardner met them.) They might have read Margaret Murray's popular work on witchcraft and then decided that the folk magick things they were practicing, and the Pagan leanings they had, fit under that label and so assumed it.

It's also not clear whether any of the people in that group were practicing things that were taught to them by others as an intact lineage -- or whether the things they were practicing were self-taught and picked up from books and observation and experimentation.

Philip Heselton's "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" also brings up some interesting evidence regarding other likely members of this group. One of the people who I think might be key is the woman Gardner referred to as "old Mother Sabine." Heselton suggests that this was a woman who lived in the area at the time known as Rosamund Sabine (Carnsew) who was an initiate of an offshoot of the Golden Dawn magickal order. Heselton even reproduces the application for her entry to that order. She was clearly quite involved in the order as she even had an article published in a magickal publication regarding the symbolism of a Golden Dawn ritual item.

My guess is that Rosamund Sabine was involved, was likely one of the key sources of magickal information in that group, and was the leader prior to her death in 1948 or so. Old Dorothy would have taken over as the leader after that. Old Dorothy died in the 1950s.

[Elderbush]

That makes a great deal of sense. I have felt, but am quick to point out that I have no proof, that the New Forrest Coven was something that sprang up among people who were interested in the occult and witchcraft and felt compelled to "do something" during (and before) WW II in England. I know if I felt that magic had any chance of helping, I'd have given it a go, and got a group together to help as well. Those were dark days.

I'm sure they weren't the only ones, and perhaps had contacts with others who also felt it was a good idea. There are stories or rumors of that. Initiation would have been natural in the situation, too.

Ed. to add: I don't think that those in the group would have considered themselves as witches but rather occultists who were doing a job. I think that Gardner's great contribution was to turn all that into a religion, adding new gods.

[Ben Gruagach]

Back in those days (and still to some extent today) people who were involved in the occult all knew each other and often were involved in multiple things. Gardner, just as one example, was not only working on getting Wicca going, but was also involved with Aleister Crowley's OTO (he had a charter from Crowley after all to administer the first three degrees!), was involved with the Rosicrucian Theatre where he met the New Forest coven, and was also involved with the Folklore society (where Margaret Murray was also a member.) Plus Gardner had done some investigation of occult topics during his travels before he moved home to England.

I think you are likely right, Elderbush, in your suspicion that the people Gardner called the New Forest coven likely just considered themselves to be occultists rather than witches carrying on an intact ancient lineage. I agree that Gardner's big contribution was introducing a way to really make a religion out of it all (building on Margaret Murray's stuff really... but Gardner put the ideas in practice.)

[RedRaven]

our Wiccan history is really interesting. my take on the history is that Gardner met some people who were basically trying to be Celtic Reconstructionists, but they didnt have the best sources of information to work with. When gardner came along, along with study of ceremonial magic and short affiliation with Aleister Crowley, we ended up with Wicca - a mix of western paganism and GD/OTO ritual.

according to Fredrick Lamond, one of the last surviving members of Gardner`s group, the original idea of the coven wasnt religious like it was seen when it became public. Lamond says in his book "fifty years of wicca" that when gardner joined the aim of the group was strictly magic and magic alone but later the 4 greater sabbats were added and then the lesser sabbats and in time the group went from magic to religion. so really if you look at the mix or western paganism and GD/OTO I wonder if the group started out as maybe some kind of group like Thelema where Celtic deities were the focus instead of the Egyptian ones?

as for gardner`s initiation, in one of my books (i cant remember which one off the top of my head) there is a brief mention that the ritual done for gardner wasnt any kind of "wicca" initiation but instead it was one that came from one of the ceremonial books of the time. ill look for the exact book that states this but if i remember right it says it was one of the books of solomon, greater or lesser key, i cant remember.

RR

[Ben Gruagach]

according to Fredrick Lamond, one of the last surviving members of Gardner`s group, the original idea of the coven wasnt religious like it was seen when it became public. Lamond says in his book "fifty years of wicca" that when gardner joined the aim of the group was strictly magic and magic alone but later the 4 greater sabbats were added and then the lesser sabbats and in time the group went from magic to religion. so really if you look at the mix or western paganism and GD/OTO I wonder if the group started out as maybe some kind of group like Thelema where Celtic deities were the focus instead of the Egyptian ones?

This has been my impression too -- it seemed to me that making a religion based on occult and pagan ideas was really the "special thing" that Gardner brought to the British occult scene. And as you point out, it seems to have been a very evolving thing rather than something that just popped out whole and complete.

as for gardner`s initiation, in one of my books (i cant remember which one off the top of my head) there is a brief mention that the ritual done for gardner wasnt any kind of "wicca" initiation but instead it was one that came from one of the ceremonial books of the time. ill look for the exact book that states this but if i remember right it says it was one of the books of solomon, greater or lesser key, i cant remember.

RR

That's something else that I've long wondered -- did Gardner essentially trigger the introduction of initiation as a key part of witchcraft practice? Were any of the people who were practicing witchcraft (in any form) prior to Gardner formally initiated in any way?

Gardner had a known involvement in occult matters in Britain prior to when he says he met the New Forest witches. Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism were two of them -- and both of these popular systems put a big emphasis on the idea of formal initiation and carry on the idea of formal mystery traditions. Did the New Forest coven put together an initiation ceremony for Gardner because he seemed to want one and therefore introduced initiation as a real component of witchcraft? (Prior to Gardner, the closest thing to an initiation in the popular lore of witchcraft was the idea of being baptised by the Devil and renouncing Christianity... but I'm not sure this was ever a real part of witchcraft apart from the fantasies of anti-witch zealots.)

It would be interesting to see if there is any conclusive evidence regarding all this.

[Elderbush]

Do you know who I wish had written a memoir? Gardner's wife.

[Ben Gruagach]

Do you know who I wish had written a memoir? Gardner's wife.

I agree.

I know she wasn't involved in Gerald's occult activities but she must have had some interesting stories that she could have related.

[David19]

I'm not sure if this is too off topic but have any members of Gardner's original coven survived to the present day, i know Doreen Vialante(sp) died in 1999 but what about the others, were they active in the pagan/occult community since you don't hear much about the other members aside from Doreen Vianlante.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm not sure if this is too off topic but have any members of Gardner's original coven survived to the present day, i know Doreen Vialante(sp) died in 1999 but what about the others, were they active in the pagan/occult community since you don't hear much about the other members aside from Doreen Vianlante.

Fred Lamond is still alive. He was initiated into Gardner's coven back in the 1950s when Doreen Valiente was Gardner's high priestess. Fred is apparently the oldest living Gardnerian today (oldest in having been initiated into Gardner's system the longest ago.) The way it's been described though it could be possible that there are people still alive who worked with Gardner from before Fred's time who no longer consider themselves to be Wiccan. I don't know who they might be though.

Fred's book "Fifty Years of Wicca" is available on places like Amazon.com and gives some interesting material about what it was like working with Gardner.

I believe there are others who worked with Gardner or who knew him personally who are still alive. Patricia Crowther, for instance, was one of Gardner's high priestesses subsequent to Doreen Valiente. I believe she is still alive although I'm not sure how one would go about contacting her. It is true though that many of the people who knew Gardner personally, or who worked with him, have unfortunately passed away.

[DebLipp]

Fred Lamond is the last living member of Gardner's original coven who is still practicing Wicca.

Pat Crowther and Louis Bourne are still alive. Pat is active in the Sheffield Wiccan community, as I understand it.

[Seshata]

Fred isn't the last one from the original coven, but he is a public one, before putting any more info though, I'd have to check if it's ok first.

Pat is certainly still active and Louis is still doing talks etc the last I heard.

Some good books to get on Gerald etc are by Philip Heselton - he's on his third book now.

BB

Seshata

[Ben Gruagach]

Fred isn't the last one from the original coven, but he is a public one, before putting any more info though, I'd have to check if it's ok first.

Pat is certainly still active and Louis is still doing talks etc the last I heard.

Some good books to get on Gerald etc are by Philip Heselton - he's on his third book now.

BB

Seshata

When you say "he's on his third book now" do you mean it's published, or he's working on it?

If it's published could you tell us what the title is?

I loved "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration." I'm really looking forward to Heselton's next book on Wiccan history.

[DebLipp]

Fred isn't the last one from the original coven, but he is a public one, before putting any more info though, I'd have to check if it's ok first.
Fred says he is the last one still practicing. I assume that means he's not the last man standing. I assume he knows what he's talking about, although I'm in no position to check.

[Seshata]

When you say "he's on his third book now" do you mean it's published, or he's working on it?

As far as I know he's still working on it - there are a few bits and pieces that are coming up that need more in depth research, but apart from that I don't know, when I hear from him next I'll see how far along it is!

BB

Seshata

[Elderbush]

How good is Hessleton's research? From what I've seen, it is mostly speculation, is it not? Is there really any hard and firm proof that Dorothy Clutterbuck was involved in more than a passing way?

I've been reading more and finding that the conclusions about Dorothy are very controversial or has this changed lately?

[Seshata]

How good is Hessleton's research? From what I've seen, it is mostly speculation, is it not? Is there really any hard and firm proof that Dorothy Clutterbuck was involved in more than a passing way?
I've been reading more and finding that the conclusions about Dorothy are very controversial or has this changed lately?

Philip's research is very good - he is extremely meticulous. That is why he takes as long as he does to produce the books. He travels around and goes to the places, checks the birth dates etc. It is not mostly speculation, Dorothy was involved in some way and I have seen this from various sources. The conclusions he has made about Dorothy are not controversial - what have you been reading that leads to this thought? Maybe if we take it from there (what you've read) a better reply to this can be made. Have you read the current books?

BB

Seshata

[Ben Gruagach]

I agree with the statement that Heselton's research is meticulous. What is more controversial are the conclusions he has drawn.

You don't have to agree with Heselton's conclusions though to appreciate the great gift he has given our community though in the form of previously unreported evidence. We can look at the evidence he's unearthed and make our own conclusions. And that's why I look forward to Heselton's new books so much -- he is one of the few authors who presents genuinely new information that he's uncovered rather than just repeating old stuff that has been gone over many times over in other books.

[Elderbush]

Thank you. I was not casting asperations on the material he unearthed, although it is good to find that you two think highly of him. I was merely questioning some of the conclusions he has drawn and appreciate that you recognize that it could be controversial. I think that it is important to note that for newcomers to the religion who might be surprised later to find out that not everyone agrees with his conclusions.

[Seshata]

The other good thing about Philip Heselton is that he actually goes and travels to speak to those who are still alive and really tries to dig and investigate as much as physically possible all leads. He is also (as any good researcher) open to getting results that may not be to everyone's (including his own) liking and revealing it.

BB

Seshata

[Carla O'Harris]

"according to Fredrick Lamond, one of the last surviving members of Gardner`s group, the original idea of the coven wasnt religious like it was seen when it became public. Lamond says in his book "fifty years of wicca" that when gardner joined the aim of the group was strictly magic and magic alone but later the 4 greater sabbats were added and then the lesser sabbats and in time the group went from magic to religion. so really if you look at the mix or western paganism and GD/OTO I wonder if the group started out as maybe some kind of group like Thelema where Celtic deities were the focus instead of the Egyptian ones?

as for gardner`s initiation, in one of my books (i cant remember which one off the top of my head) there is a brief mention that the ritual done for gardner wasnt any kind of "wicca" initiation but instead it was one that came from one of the ceremonial books of the time. ill look for the exact book that states this but if i remember right it says it was one of the books of solomon, greater or lesser key, i cant remember."


I find this [I]highly[I] unlikely. Witchcraft Today, published in 1954, makes explicit reference to a Yule ceremony that Gardner witnessed in the New Forest Coven, and makes reference to the four sabbats. Lamond was initiated in the 50's. Gardner was initiated in '39. What Lamond may be remembering is that the first rite Gardner attended was the anti-Hitler rite, which was a magical act, and it may be that Gardner thereafter was introduced to the rest of the rituals.

Gardner does not speak as someone who was merely practicing the occult. He again and again mentions his involvement over his lifetime with the occult, in a manner that expresses his general nonchalance, but when it comes to the witch-cult, he speaks in terms of someone who had a transformative experience, something which changed his life, and which affected him more deeply than any other occult experience of his life, of which he had many.

He reports an oral tradition within the cult stretching back many generations. They speak of a god and a goddess. It definitely has a religious flavor to it, albeit a Mystery religion.

I could buy that the group was practicing Mystery religion, but I could not buy that they were a non-religious magical group. The man speaks in terms that authentically point to an initiation and experience within a group context that was definitely religious. (Of course, separating magic and religion is problematic in the first place. Hutton does this and it's extremely inappropriate. While some may perform magic with technical efficiency and no inherent belief, this doesn't seem to be the norm, except perhaps amongst alienated ritual magicians.)

[Elderbush]

I'm sorry to disagree. There is no evidence for that. There is evidence that Gardner created Wicca. You may believe what you wish without evidence of course. Others will have difference opinions since it is all speculative at this point.

[Seshata]

The best thing may be to quote your sources (if you can) ie which books etc you're going by, that way we can then assertain and help better. Remember also that there may just be some stuff that at present isn't going to be available for all to read, if ever. I personally have read things that I am unable to share and this can be the case for other things. Thus for some certain things might be 'speculative' and for others they may be going by what has been discussed with some face to face or things read.

BB

Seshata

[DebLipp]

I'm sorry to disagree. There is no evidence for that. There is evidence that Gardner created Wicca. You may believe what you wish without evidence of course. Others will have difference opinions since it is all speculative at this point.
Actually, that's not true. There's no evidence that Gardner created Wicca. Gardner creating Wicca is a supposition based on available evidence and (that most dangerous of things) absence of evidence. It's a theory. There's no smoking gun, no footprints at all.

Hutton's argument against is based primarily on absence of evidence, but it is well made. He points out that there is existing evidence for practitioners of witchcraft and magic, and he demonstrates what that evidence looks like, and how it can be found, and why it would be expected to be found if it existed in the case of Wicca.

Heselton's argument for is based primarily on finding the people and locations associated with the beginnings of Wicca; with the New Forest and other British covens that predate Gardner. Like Hutton, he can only find ancillary evidence; it is highly suggestive that so many of the elements that should be in place, should there have been a New Forest coven, are in place. But again, there's no smoking gun, no direct evidence for the coven itself.

Hutton and Heselton are the only worthy historians researching and writing about this issue. Kelly's "research" is without value and has been thoroughly demolished by Don Frew, among others. (I look forward to Frew writing a book.)

[Dawa Lhamo]

Heselton's argument for is based primarily on finding the people and locations associated with the beginnings of Wicca; with the New Forest and other British covens that predate Gardner. Like Hutton, he can only find ancillary evidence; it is highly suggestive that so many of the elements that should be in place, should there have been a New Forest coven, are in place. But again, there's no smoking gun, no direct evidence for the coven itself.I haven't yet read Heselton, only Hutton, but it's always seemed to me that, looking only at history and Wicca itself, disregarding everything Gardner said about the origins, there's still a certain something that can't be traced to Gardner's known associates, nor Gardner himself. There's no direct evidence, no, but there's an implication that *something* else was going on....

But it's like quantum weirdness. Every time we try to look at it, it changes into something else. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Elderbush]

Sorry! The only hard evidence that exists is that Gardner was the first person who practiced and taught others something that actually resembled Wicca, is what I should have said. Is that a more fair statement?

In my opinion, how it began is interesting but not necessary to my belief and practices. The important part is that it did.

[DebLipp]

Sorry! The only hard evidence that exists is that Gardner was the first person who practiced and taught others something that actually resembled Wicca, is what I should have said. Is that a more fair statement?

Right. Absence of evidence; there's no solid evidence linking the practice of Wicca to Gardner's predecessors. It doesn't mean they didn't practice it. Heselton finds the circumstantial evidence persuasive, Hutton does not.

[Ben Gruagach]

I've been rereading bits of Doreen Valiente's excellent "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" and skimming over Heselton's work again (I read it all through when it came out.)

We have to be careful too in what we mean by "Wicca." Are we talking about the specific practices that Gardner passed on, or the ideas of worshipping a God and Goddess, or the idea that a witch isn't necessarily evil (as was the common stereotype for hundreds of years)? What exactly was this Wicca which was taught to Gardner and he in turn taught to his initiates?

Personally I have no doubt that Gardner did meet some people who were involved with the Rosicrucian Theatre group who considered themselves to be witches and who introduced Gardner to the idea that maybe English witches were not the evil stereotype. We don't know though whether these people were self-taught witches or some sort of intact lineage. Based on the fine work of Doreen Valiente, Fred Lamond, and others there seems to be an ever-diminishing possibility that what Gardner was passing on in the way of actual teachings, ways of doing things, etc. were anything more than things which were available in published material at the time and cobbled together into a more or less workable system. And we do know that Gardner was responsible for bringing a lot of those bits and pieces in as he said he needed to "flesh out" what he was taught.

Doreen's account of confronting Gardner over the obvious plagiarism in the Book of Shadows (the material lifted directly from Crowley, for instance) is particularly noteworthy because she points out that precious little seems to have come from that pre-Gardnerian coven. The only real thing that seems to have come from that pre-Gardnerian group from what I can gather is the idea that witches could in fact be good and not evil, and that magick could be worked by dancing around and chanting. But even the magickal technique of dancing around and chanting is not really much of a revelation if you think about it -- it's not like it's much of a secret even before Gardner's time in Wicca.

So it seems to me that the key to the claim that Gardner was passing on something from a pre-Gardnerian coven is identifying what exactly those things were, and then proving that those things were enough to be considered a core of a religion (or even a magickal practice -- perhaps those pre-Gardnerians didn't consider themselves to be a religious group as much as a magickal one.) And we'd have to have evidence that showed this core wasn't something that was just put together by an inspired person based on other available material but was in fact some sort of Old Religion as is often claimed.

I know that the whole oathbound thing is a problem for Gardnerians so we might not see a list of these purported pre-Gardnerian things anytime soon in open discussion. But until we do get those things identified and open for examination in historical context all we can really say is that the pre-Gardnerian origins of Wicca are myth or unsubstantiated speculation. It would be nice to say it's proven history but we can't do that unless we actually prove it.

[Carla O'Harris]

It seems to me that what Gardner did was akin to a kind of translation. He knew that the elderly witches who were a part of New Forest Coven wouldn't be around much longer, and therefore wanted to create a form that would translate for those who hadn't grown up their whole lives within the context of the cult, but would draw them in. I see it as a switching of idioms. He attempted to use existing, known idioms that would express the essence of what he had experienced in the cult. How do you translate an inside-joke? Or a colorful phrase? If you translate it literally, it may not come across to those who speak a different language. What you may have to do is find the heart of the phrase, and then find equivalent phrases in the second language. Are they the "same" phrase? No, but one may give the gist a lot better to someone who doesn't know the first language than a literal translation.

Because he was adapting these rituals for people who hadn't grown up within it, he may have felt it necessary to give them more structure than they had in the original context, which sounds a little more spontaneous : a little invocation, a little psychic concentrating, a little spellcasting, a little dancing, and some feasting. That's all fine and good for people who know the territory and are good at improvising, but complete novices sometimes need things spelled out step by step. Such a step-by-step procedure didn't exist in the New Forest Coven for two reasons : 1) the coven had originally had time to train people from a young age, but 2) they had lost enough to not really have such an advanced initiation structure. Gardner emphasizes again and again how rudimentary what was passed on was --- but clearly it was a life-changing experience for him. I think his goal was to find a way to translate this life-changing essence but to give it some kind of structural form. In so doing, he drew upon what he considered to be the most beautiful of ritual heritages and poetry to find rituals and phraseologies that "felt right" and fit the mood. It may also be that he felt fully justified in so doing given the habit of witches' books that he discusses whereby old teachings are revised each generation by being translated into the modern language. While this particular lineage was at the end of its natural line of tradition, up to that point it was not just a dead tradition, but a living one that like all traditions updated its ideas by translating them into a modern idiom. He may have just been following footstep.

Think about it this way. Suppose a friend came to your family's celebration of Christmas/Yule, and found it so delightful and wondrous that they wanted to celebrate it every year, and furthermore, wanted to make sure other people could experience things how you make them at Christmas. Would a mere literal description suffice, or might it become necessary to translate essences in order to get at the feel?

[Elderbush]

That's all very nice speculation that hinges on the New Forrest Coven existing or being more that a diverse group of people interested in magic coming together to do what they could for England. It could go either way, as you know. The "old witches" might be very surprised and insulted to find out that they are now being called that.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Gardner simply took strands from various places and created something new, spun some good mysterious stories about it, other brilliant people added their spit and polish and slowly a real religion emerged? Sometimes I think that by thinking that Gardner must have gotten it from somene else, one diminishes what the man really did.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Why is it so difficult to believe that Gardner simply took strands from various places and created something new, spun some good mysterious stories about it, other brilliant people added their spit and polish and slowly a real religion emerged? Sometimes I think that by thinking that Gardner must have gotten it from somene else, one diminishes what the man really did.Well he got a lot of things from other people. That's a fact that we all seem agreed upon. Why could not there be a New Forest strand, too? Just sayin'.

One might diminish the role he played by believing that the New Forest coven existed, but if you look at it the other way, you could say that it's extreme flattery to Gardner that people still believe his claims about where he got the core of Wicca, despite the lack of evidence. He was that charismatic.

One way you're saying that he was a great and clever man who deliberately mislead others. The other way, they're saying that he was an honest man who wasn't as great or clever as some think.

You have to be careful if you're going to say that your theory honors Gardner more, because your theory also says that Gardner was a liar. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Elderbush]

Well, that's a given.:) I believe that Gardner lied (and/or was very gullable), and since he did, there really isn't good cause to think he didn't about other things as well. Just because I do not believe that he was a an especially truthful man it does not mean that he wasn't charismatic as well. In my country we have one man who has a national holiday named after him because he was a brilliant charismatic leader who could motivate others like no other but in his private life he was an adulterer many times over and he lied about the things he did. I think that it is a little naive to think that a great man is always a good one or perhaps ethical in all areas is a better way to put it. Besides, I don't think that Gardner believed that the truth would serve Wicca as well as good foundation myths, and who can say he was wrong?

NOTE: Everything that I am writing is speculation and everyone is free to believe what they wish about Gardner and the formation of Wicca.

My only concern is about Wiccans peddling myth as fact. The mythic formation of Wicca is a lovely story and well deserves to be a foundational myth but I feel we have to be careful about it, too. Could not Wiccans feel that they have been lied to when they discover that it isn't provable fact?

[DebLipp]

Why is it so difficult to believe that Gardner simply took strands from various places and created something new, spun some good mysterious stories about it, other brilliant people added their spit and polish and slowly a real religion emerged? Sometimes I think that by thinking that Gardner must have gotten it from somene else, one diminishes what the man really did.
In fact, if you look at the general chatter among Pagans, it's very easy to believe, which is why it's important to point out that this is merely a theory, just as the opposite view is merely a theory, and neither theory is strongly supported by evidence. To give Gardner more credence for having told the truth is not a " mythic formation" or a "lovely story"; it is a theory about what happened that has been neither proven nor disproven, same as yours.

[raven grimassi]

There is evidence that Gardner created Wicca.

To be fair the evidence points to adding and enhancing, not to creating from the ground up. I had the honor of corresponding with Doreen Valiente by phone and mail during the year before she crossed over. Some copies of her letters to me appear in my book The Witches' Craft.

Doreen always spoke to me of Gardner as a man devoted to the Old Ways, and who went to great lengths to "fill in the gaps" of what he believed to be a fragmented surviving tradition of Witchcraft. In the end I think she felt he went in a direction not of her liking.

Actually, that's not true. There's no evidence that Gardner created Wicca. Gardner creating Wicca is a supposition based on available evidence and (that most dangerous of things) absence of evidence. It's a theory. There's no smoking gun, no footprints at all.

Yes, a lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.

Based on the fine work of Doreen Valiente, Fred Lamond, and others there seems to be an ever-diminishing possibility that what Gardner was passing on in the way of actual teachings, ways of doing things, etc. were anything more than things which were available in published material at the time and cobbled together into a more or less workable system.

But it should be noted that available material itself speaks to the existence of what it addresses. The appearance of similar concepts in different traditions does not automatically equate to a direct borrowing. Humans conceive in human ways, and so there is going to be a commonality. Personally I find it confirming that elements of Gardner's Wicca possess known elements of other occult groups/systems/beliefs/practices.

As to the appearance of specific material, I think its existence need not negate the authenticity or antiquity of the borrower's tradition. Take for example the 17th century trial of Laura Malipero. A search of her home finds a copy of the Key of Solomon, and a copy of her own spell book into which she was adding things from the Solomon book. Here we see the evolution of Witchcraft as it takes on other elements. But I do not feel that the Solomon material negates or demeans the tradition that pre-existed with her before she obtained the Key of Solomon.

It seems to me that what Gardner did was akin to a kind of translation. He knew that the elderly witches who were a part of New Forest Coven wouldn't be around much longer, and therefore wanted to create a form that would translate for those who hadn't grown up their whole lives within the context of the cult, but would draw them in. I see it as a switching of idioms. He attempted to use existing, known idioms that would express the essence of what he had experienced in the cult.

I agree with the spirit of what you say, and I know personally that in the end Doreen did not regard Garnder as a fraud, but as a man who breathed new life into Wicca.

Well, that's a given.:) I believe that Gardner lied (and/or was very gullable), and since he did, there really isn't good cause to think he didn't about other things as well.

I think you hit on the core of the problem of accepting that Gardner purposely mislead people. Who wants to practice a religion or spirituality whose founder was a swindler, con, and a liar!?. If this was the legacy of Jesus Christ, would there be a Christianity today?

In fact, if you look at the general chatter among Pagans, it's very easy to believe, which is why it's important to point out that this is merely a theory, just as the opposite view is merely a theory, and neither theory is strongly supported by evidence. To give Gardner more credence for having told the truth is not a " mythic formation" or a "lovely story"; it is a theory about what happened that has been neither proven nor disproven, same as yours.

Excellent point, Deb, thanks. We have two working theories, two schools of thought. I imagine, as with many things in life, that THE truth resides somewhere in the middle.

[Elderbush]

Very true! It is all speculation, but sometimes that is not made clear to newcomers. I look at it as on a par with the Burning Times and Ye Olde Religion. I don't think either of those myths do Wicca any good. The New Forrest Coven and Dorothy Clutterbuck being a witch can't be proven or disproven either. Hm...so maybe it deserves to be in another catagory of "it could go either way."

My comment was that Gardner created a lovely story, which he did, whether or not it was true is another matter.

[Elderbush]

[QUOTE=raven grimassi]

I think you hit on the core of the problem of accepting that Gardner purposely mislead people. Who wants to practice a religion or spirituality whose founder was a swindler, con, and a liar!?. If this was the legacy of Jesus Christ, would there be a Christianity today?[/
QUOTE]


In point of fact Jesus could have been all of those things. Is there any hard evidence of his existance?:)

I am not saying that Gardner was any of those things, and even if he was not perfectly honest that does not make him anything except a complicated person just as most real people are. If he thought he was creating a secret society/religion he would have given it a mythic history because that is what one did. Besides all that he mostly likely believed Murray and the others of his era as did the majority of his friends. That doesn't make him a liar - just a product of his generation.

Jesus' great gift was the founding of a new religion. That is Gardner's gift too.

Ed. to add: I think of myself as a Wiccan rather than a follower of Gardner.

[raven grimassi]

In point of fact Jesus could have been all of those things. Is there any hard evidence of his existance?:)

None that I am aware of, but what I was addressing spoke to the ethical and moral character of a founder of a religion or a spirituality.

Jesus' great gift was the founding of a new religion. That is Gardner's gift too.

I think it is noteworthy that the New Testament states that Jesus did not come to destroy the Old Testament teachings, but to fufill them. In this light he is not inventing a new religion, but is bringing a new understanding. Perhaps this was Gardner's role as well in fleshing out Wicca.

[Zhr Morgana]

I don't know if this issue was addressed or not...I skimmed through this thread and found nothing, so here goes.

As to whether or not "Old Dorothy" existed, it was proven by Doreen Valiente...for those who have a copy of "The Witches Bible" by the Farrars, you'll find an essay she wrote under Appendix A..."The Search for Old Dorothy"...I don't remember if it proves that she was really a witch, but it certainly proves she existed.

[Ben Gruagach]

I don't know if this issue was addressed or not...I skimmed through this thread and found nothing, so here goes.

As to whether or not "Old Dorothy" existed, it was proven by Doreen Valiente...for those who have a copy of "The Witches Bible" by the Farrars, you'll find an essay she wrote under Appendix A..."The Search for Old Dorothy"...I don't remember if it proves that she was really a witch, but it certainly proves she existed.

You are correct that "Old Dorothy" was a real person. Since Doreen Valiente's work which was published in the Farrars' book it's also been discussed in a lot more detail in Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and also in "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration." Heselton does a lot to suggest other people who were possible member of the New Forest coven as well.

Getting back to the discussion of the New Forest coven and what they might have contributed to Wicca, even if Gardner hadn't added a single thing to Wicca but was in fact passing on intact the teaching from the New Forest coven, we still need to have evidence that the pre-Gardnerian New Forest coven was preserving something intact from before them. The evidence so far seems to suggest that they were likely a "bootstrap coven" (self-taught rather than part of a formal lineage) if anything.

One of the things that has always made me think that Gardner knew he wasn't just passing on an intact tradition was his attempts to locate and bring into his coven members of authentic surviving witchcraft traditions. When you read about Gardner and his work that is one of the things that they mention. If Gardner truly was carrying on an intact existing lineage then connecting with others isn't really necessary at all apart from the desire to network. It seems to me that Gardner's motive was more likely based on trying to establish that link to authentic lineage.

[RedRaven]

this is a great thread! :) you know, maybe a group of us should astral project and maybe view the akashic records and get bits of info about those historical uncertainties lol

[raven grimassi]

One of the things that has always made me think that Gardner knew he wasn't just passing on an intact tradition was his attempts to locate and bring into his coven members of authentic surviving witchcraft traditions. When you read about Gardner and his work that is one of the things that they mention. If Gardner truly was carrying on an intact existing lineage then connecting with others isn't really necessary at all apart from the desire to network. It seems to me that Gardner's motive was more likely based on trying to establish that link to authentic lineage.

An alternative view is that Gardner felt these connections would help restore the missing pieces, and that new blood would stimulate things in general. Also, it may have been, in part, a seeking of confirmation as well as possibly thinking he might find some vindication.

[DebLipp]

Very true! It is all speculation, but sometimes that is not made clear to newcomers. I look at it as on a par with the Burning Times and Ye Olde Religion. I don't think either of those myths do Wicca any good. The New Forrest Coven and Dorothy Clutterbuck being a witch can't be proven or disproven either. Hm...so maybe it deserves to be in another catagory of "it could go either way."

My comment was that Gardner created a lovely story, which he did, whether or not it was true is another matter.
The difference (and it's a BIG one), is that the Burning Times, as told in many books (9 million women, etc.), is a proven falsehood. "Ye Olde Religion", by which I assume you mean an ancient, single, unified Paganism that resembled modern Wicca, is also demonstrably false. To lump them in with something that may or may not be true just doesn't stand up.

[DebLipp]

One of the things that has always made me think that Gardner knew he wasn't just passing on an intact tradition was his attempts to locate and bring into his coven members of authentic surviving witchcraft traditions. When you read about Gardner and his work that is one of the things that they mention. If Gardner truly was carrying on an intact existing lineage then connecting with others isn't really necessary at all apart from the desire to network. It seems to me that Gardner's motive was more likely based on trying to establish that link to authentic lineage.
Everyone who knew Gardner in his later years seems to agree that he was obsessed with the idea that witchcraft was dying out and must be preserved and passed on. These behaviors seem more likely to be aimed towards that effort, rather than towards legitimizing. Or perhaps they are both.

[Ben Gruagach]

Everyone who knew Gardner in his later years seems to agree that he was obsessed with the idea that witchcraft was dying out and must be preserved and passed on. These behaviors seem more likely to be aimed towards that effort, rather than towards legitimizing. Or perhaps they are both.

There are other clues that suggest to me Gardner craved some sort of legitimacy. He was definitely seeking attention with his constant press interactions (despite the recommendations against that -- see Doreen Valiente's "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" for her version of the events.) And we also know that Gardner had a tendency to present himself as having more authority than he really had in the form of formal titles like "Doctor" and "MA" from institutions which have disavowed ever granting those titles to Gardner even in an honorary form.

Philip Heselton's book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" is valuable in its presentation of the possible sources of Gardnerian Wicca. I found that there are other general conclusions that could be drawn though. Gardner struck me as a "joiner" type, constantly joining occult groups but then not necessarily sticking with them enough to actually work his way very high up them. The only exception seems to be the O.T.O. thing, but even then Crowley only granted Gardner a charter to administer the first three degrees of a system that has a lot more than just three degrees. (Crowley's O.T.O. was almost defunct at that point in the UK so Crowley might have just been desperate for SOMEONE to try and carry it on. Apparently at that point in his life Crowley was willing to hand out O.T.O. credentials to pretty much anyone for a little monetary compensation.)

We also know that Gardner's involvement with the New Forest coven was not exactly long-lasting. His own working partner, Dafo, pretty much fizzled off on her relationship with Gardner and the Wiccan stuff in particular even though it wasn't because she was his senior -- Dafo was younger than Gardner. We do know that they didn't appreciate Gardner's publicity attempts. Perhaps there was more to it than that such as disapproval over at least some of Gardner's claims about Wicca. I'm not sure we'll ever know one way or the other.

The problem though with theories that don't have evidence to support them is that they are just speculation, no better than other speculations that I doubt we would think add to Wiccan credibility. If we're going to say that something is history then we should be willing to back up our statements with evidence. We're not doing anyone any favours when we claim as history things that have no evidence to support them.

[Gede]

Khairete & Blessings~
For the sake of spurring on more debate/discussion (because as previously mentioned, this thread is a good and informative one) I will play devil's advocate.

Let's say that the New Forest Coven was in fact practising an intact form of religious Anglo-Celtic Witchcraft and that the members or at least a few of them hailed from Fam Trads. Gardner comes along, is "initiated", as he was not born of a Witch family and for that reason an oath is taken not to reveal what has been taught to him. He semi-breaks that oath and the New Forest Coven dissolves in dissent. Gardner, fearing a pox, has to then create a new religious craft on the basis of fragments that are skeletal at that...chanting and dancing to raise energy, folk festivals and rituals that are celebrated, a generic theology that borders on psuedo-mythology...let's play with that shall we? :P :lol:

Namaste, Gede...

[Elderbush]

That sounds like the basis of a fun story.:) In most secret societies, an oath is an important part of the initiation itself. It would be very odd to leave that out.

What about Sybil Leek's claim that she was in the New Forrest Coven that initiated Gardner? That was lately pointed out to me.

[Ben Gruagach]

That sounds like the basis of a fun story.:) In most secret societies, an oath is an important part of the initiation itself. It would be very odd to leave that out.

What about Sybil Leek's claim that she was in the New Forrest Coven that initiated Gardner? That was lately pointed out to me.

I'm not convinced that this is true because some of the stuff that Sybil presented as "traditional Wiccan material" was stuff that was introduced by Doreen Valiente. And since Doreen Valiente was initiated by Gerald Gardner, anything that originated with Doreen's time would by definition be post-Gardner.

There is pretty strong evidence though that Sybil's family was involved in the occult community and practiced witchcraft or magick prior to Gardner. But that is not necessarily the same thing as being Wiccan, now, is it?

[David19]

I always thought that if there was a family tradition, and Gardner broke his oaths, why didn't they curse him or something to shut him up, also i thought that if they were practicing a form of Anglo-Saxon witchcraft then maybe Gardner swore a oath on a oath-ring(used in oath-magic, this is used to swear oaths on.Their is usually a trigger-curse attached to deal if the oathbound individual breaks his promise (the site shows some information on Anglo-Saxon witchcraft) wiccecraeft (http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/vanic/witchlord.html).

I think that if he was initated then i don't think he revealed the whole religion/tradition (just some parts but not enough to trigger any retribution) and then added bits from Ceremonial magic (Kabbalah, Golden Dawn, etc), folklore, mythology, history (like examples of magic practiced) and i think he learned some magic from 'malay indians' (i think it was said on the www.thecrookedheath.com or something) to make a religion.

Anyway, i hope that made sense.

[Elderbush]

As I understand it, a lot of people wanted to shut Gardner up at one time or another and they weren't very sucessful at it. What makes you think that the New Forrest Coven's curses (if such a thing existed) would be any better? Now another way the puzzle could fit together is that it was not a family tradition at all but a group of friends that came together to help England which disbanded afterward. He took some of what he learned there and added it to stuff from other groups as well and slowly Wicca began to form from it.

[David19]

I heard he may and his 'coven' got together to do some kind of magic agaisnt Hitler, so maybe it was him and friends from the theater or his occult groups (or possibly an actual witch coven, but who knows?), Gardner may have used information on magic he got from the people he visited (like the Malay Indians, i think he visited them, and shamans if he met any) also i heard he had a collection of occult items before he even moved down to the New Forest so maybe he met a few magical practicioners then.

Just a quick thing, i thought maybe if he really did meet a pre-existing coven or family tradition, they would be able to magically shut him up, if they were powerful enough to 'survive'.

Hope that i made myself a bit clearer :).

[Dawa Lhamo]

I think that if he was initated then i don't think he revealed the whole religion/tradition It makes sense.

Indeed, it would be curious that no curse ever *seemed* to be enacted against Gardner. One could explain that away by saying that the NFCoven disapproved of Gardner distributing material publicly, but that he had not sworn an oath over that particular material. Maybe he found a loophole in the contract, so to speak? He *was* a clever man...

I would agree. I think that IF the NFCoven existed as a family trad, then what Gardner revealed to the public would not have been the entire thing, but just as much as he could get away with. And who knows what stuff he passed under oath to his initiates? We're not likely to find out on this board anyway. ^_^

It sure is fun to speculate, though. ^_^


Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Dawa Lhamo]

I heard he may and his 'coven' got together to do some kind of magic agaisnt Hitler, so maybe it was him and friends from the theater or his occult groups (or possibly an actual witch coven, but who knows?), Well doesn't the legend go that it was a "Grand Coven" or some such, a large group made up of smaller groups, all working toward the same thing? The NFCoven could've been one of many such groups?

The fellow who brought the Craft over to the States in my tradition claimed, as early as 1972 at least, to have been involved in the "Grand Cone of Power" in WWII against Hitler. Since he was born sometime around 1910, he was at least in the right time and place. Of course, it seems like every occult personality who was alive at the time claims to have been involved. ^_^

Now another way the puzzle could fit together is that it was not a family tradition at all but a group of friends that came together to help England which disbanded afterward. He took some of what he learned there and added it to stuff from other groups as well and slowly Wicca began to form from it. I think this is a distinct possibility. If it involved both romantic pagan sympathizers and occultists, this would make sense...

There were many groups that were occult or pagan sympathetic that formed in the late 1800's, early 1900's too, and I've often thought that the NFCoven might well have been another one.

Anyway...

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Silverlotus]

What do we know for certain about Gardner?

He lived in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) for some time, where he researched and wrote about the kris knife and its ceremonial uses. (There is obviously some interest in the "occult" being expressed here.) He had a great interest in archeology, and travelled Europe quite extensively. And it is all but certain that he found a group of Co-masons in the New Forest. There has also been research to prove that Dorothy Clutterbuck lived in that area too. But, it is said that no articles related to witchcraft were found in her personal effects when she passed in 1951.

In 1949, High Magic's Aid was published, and it supposedly has references to Wiccan-like activities. (I've not read it, so I can't comment on this.) Shortly after, in 1951, he became the "Resident Witch" at the witchcraft museum on the Isle of Man. So, this leads me to conclude that he had been practicing some type of witchcraft/folk magic for some time at least. Whether we would recognize it as Wicca is debatable. (It is interesting to note that some Wiccan rituals are similar to those of Masonry, so we may have seen a lot of similarities.)

We know that in 1953 Doreen Valeinte joined Gardner and helped to expand and improve the Book of Shadows. She has stated several times that there wasn't a lot to work with, just basic outlines. And as for where this Book of Shadows came from, who's to know? Gardner published then Witchcraft Today in 1954, which, to my mind, presents the bare-bones from which Modern Wicca grew. Of course, he supported Margaret Murray's work in that book, and we all know how accurate she was.

Personally, the best I am willing to believe at this point is that Gardner was involved in a Co-masonry group back in the 40's, which may have also dabbled in folk magic and "witchcraft". I think that Gardner expanded on their rites by including some OTO elements, and created (re-created in his mind) what he thought a modern European pagan tradition should be.

[raven grimassi]

I always thought that if there was a family tradition, and Gardner broke his oaths, why didn't they curse him or something to shut him up

There are other methods including denial by the clan members, which leaves the person making claims look like he or she made everything up. Discrediting people takes less effort than cursing them.

i thought maybe if he really did meet a pre-existing coven or family tradition, they would be able to magically shut him up

Or make things turn out so that even into the 21 century no one knows for sure...

[Ben Gruagach]

There was not question that Gardner met people involved in Co-masonry. Philip Heselton points out in his book "Wiccan Roots" that "Mabs" (Mabel Emily Besant Scott) was heavily involved in Co-Masonry. Her mother (Annie Besant) was the leader of the English Co-masons and Mabs herself was very involved.

"Mabs" was also heavily involved in the Rosicrucian Theatre group where Gardner met Dorothy Clutterbuck. Heselton has also confirmed that other people involved with the Rosicrucian Theatre group were Co-masons (he mentions Catherine Chalk on page 78 of "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" as another one who he's confirmed was a Co-mason.)

Hesleton has also confirmed that Gardner was a Freemason (with his first-degree status confirmed but nothing higher seems to be supported in the documentation he was able to find.) Heselton speculates that Gardner might have been a Co-mason but didn't have definitive proof of this.

By the way, this brings up another instance where Gardner tended to take on titles that he hadn't necessarily earned -- when he was dealing with Aleister Crowley, he apparently claimed that he was a "Royal Arch Mason" which was why Crowley would have admitted Gardner into the O.T.O. without much training and authorized him to grant the first three degrees of the O.T.O. "Royal Arch Mason" is considered to be equivalent to the fourth degree in O.T.O. Unfortunately it seems the Freemasons only have records indicating first-degree ("Entered Apprentice") status for Gardner. (This is all detailed on page 194 of Heselton's "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration.")

[Dawa Lhamo]

Or make things turn out so that even into the 21 century no one knows for sure...lol, I've had this thought too. ^_^ It's probably the most difficult, of all the theories, to prove or disprove, though. ^_^ But it would be rather funny. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Elderbush]

Well, then, since it seems pretty clear that Gardner took on titles he had not earned (as far as proof goes), could he have claimed to have been initiated into the only New Forrest coven that was documented as being around at that time (Horsa) and that explains that? Nauturally, they would disavow him and he would be mysterious.

[Nacken]

I sometimes wonder. Gardnerian craft has similarities to OTC (Old Tradition Craft) broadly speaking, but in OTC the correspondences are different, the titles are different. The High Priestess'es role is much smaller in OTC, and the runes they use are unlike what I've seen most wiccans use. That is presuming that the OTC materials that I have seen are genuine rather than faked up. I suppose that if Gerald was in a legitimate coven and took his vows seriously, he might create a set of new specific techniques while trying to make sure that the techniques worked by using the same basic principles.

[raven grimassi]

Well, then, since it seems pretty clear that Gardner took on titles he had not earned (as far as proof goes), could he have claimed to have been initiated into the only New Forrest coven that was documented as being around at that time (Horsa) and that explains that?

Something to consider is that Doreen Valiente, who knew him well, writes: "When I got to know him (and we became close friends for many years) I always understood that his degrees were purely honorary" (Witchcraft for Tomorow, Introduction, page 14).


Gardnerian craft has similarities to OTC (Old Tradition Craft) broadly speaking, but in OTC the correspondences are different, the titles are different. The High Priestess'es role is much smaller in OTC, and the runes they use are unlike what I've seen most wiccans use. That is presuming that the OTC materials that I have seen are genuine rather than faked up. I suppose that if Gerald was in a legitimate coven and took his vows seriously, he might create a set of new specific techniques while trying to make sure that the techniques worked by using the same basic principles.

Or it may be as simple as there being different forms of the Craft in general. What I mean is that the specific material/beliefs/practices of whatever you are calling "OTC" might not be the fount from which all flows or should flow.

[DebLipp]

What about Sybil Leek's claim that she was in the New Forrest Coven that initiated Gardner? That was lately pointed out to me.
I am told that the New Forest is a sizeable area.

There were known to be two active groups in the New Forest at that time. This has been verified by someone who was a member of both. There was Gerald's group from the Rosicrucian Theater, and there was the "Pentagram Club." Sybil Leek's mother was in the latter. So was Gavin Frost. That is why the witchcraft described by Sybil and by Gavin differs so markedly from that described by Gardner.

[Dawa Lhamo]

I am told that the New Forest is a sizeable area.So it would appear. Maps (http://www.hants.org.uk/newforest/maps/mapshome.html). More detailed map (http://www.roomcheck.co.uk/scripts/map_search.asp?dc=nf&wc=nf&css=dms&areaid=1&miles=3). Elsewhere (http://www.thenewforest.co.uk/moreinfo/history/) on the New Forest site, it says that the New Forest is 150 square miles. That could be like 20 covens if they're all a league apart. ;)

Anyway....

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Ben Gruagach]

Something to consider is that Doreen Valiente, who knew him well, writes: "When I got to know him (and we became close friends for many years) I always understood that his degrees were purely honorary" (Witchcraft for Tomorow, Introduction, page 14).

On page 42 of that same book Doreen talks about checking out Gardner's claims of having the title "Doctor" and "MA" (which he also used at various times.) She says that the institutions Gardner had claimed were the source of the titles have disavowed having ever given Gardner these titles, honorary or otherwise.

If they were honorary then they were not given to him by authorized people. I'm afraid it's much more likely Gardner just took the titles himself thinking that no one would bother checking it out.

[Elderbush]

People! The New Forrest could cover 150,000 sq. miles but that does not mean there were more covens because there was more room for more covens.

So Gardner had a history of claiming degrees/experience that he did not have. That kind of makes you think.

[Dawa Lhamo]

People! The New Forrest could cover 150,000 sq. miles but that does not mean there were more covens because there was more room for more covens.lol. I was joking with the "20 covens" thing. It was supposed to be a ridiculous notion. The one league apart thing comes from The Old Laws. ^_^ And if they will not agree with their brothers, or if they say, I will not work under this High Priestess, lt hath always been the old law, to be convenient for the bretherin, and to void disputes, Any of the Third may claim to found a new Coven because they live over a league from the Covenstead, or that they are about to do so. Anyone living within the Covendom wishing to form a new Coven, to avoid strife, shall tell the Elders of his intention And on the instant void his dwelling and remove to the new Covendom. Members of the old Coven may join the New one when it be formed, but if they do, must utterly void the old Coven. The Elders of the New and the Old Covens should meet in peace and brotherly love, to decide the new bounderies.I suppose the winking smilie ;) wasn't enough to show that I was poking fun. Next time I'll go "ZOMG!! lol!! hahaha!!1!!!1one". ;) So Gardner had a history of claiming degrees/experience that he did not have. That kind of makes you think. Everything makes me think. It's an annoying tendency of mine. ;)

Nah, really, it's a good point.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Elderbush]

I hoped you were joking but I was afraid the next person would grab that and run with it.:)

[Dawa Lhamo]

I hoped you were joking but I was afraid the next person would grab that and run with it.:)That's true, that tends to happen in Wicca. Years later I'll stumble onto some website somewhere that talks about "Ye 20 Sacred Covens of the Wica"... ^_^ Oh gods, I can see it now.... *shudder*

Ha, there was a guy in my parents' old coven who wrote this lovely charge to mirror (http://members.tripod.com/~Boadicea_Boad/index-3.html) (Scroll down to the Voice of the God...Warning: there are typos; it's not my site) the Charge of the Goddess, and a few months later, my parents were attending a handfasting and the HP claimed that it was some kind of ancient heirloom poem passed down in an old family tradition. *rolls eyes* You never can tell what people might come up with...

And I'll tie it back in with the thought that this kind of stuff makes it much more difficult for us to determine what actually did happen. Luckily, it *seems* as if there's a much higher emphasis on citing sources nowadays...

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[raven grimassi]

On page 42 of that same book Doreen talks about checking out Gardner's claims of having the title "Doctor" and "MA" (which he also used at various times.) She says that the institutions Gardner had claimed were the source of the titles have disavowed having ever given Gardner these titles, honorary or otherwise.

If they were honorary then they were not given to him by authorized people. I'm afraid it's much more likely Gardner just took the titles himself thinking that no one would bother checking it out.

I will have to check, but a year or two ago at PantheaCon, Don Frew showed a copy of Gerald's degree that turned up in some Gardnerian archives in Canada. I think it was something akin to today's Universal Life Church ordination certificates. Again if memory serves correctly, the University name was the same, but not the actual University everyone assumed he was referrring to (and I think it is fair to say that he probably never corrected anyone's assumption). So the degree is not particularly prestigious, but it was something given to him and not an invented claim. If I can track down the info I will post it here.

[David19]

i've never read Doreen Vialente's books (well i've read one in the library that she wrote with Evan Jones) but she does seem, from what i've heard, to not tolerate bs, since she seemed to investigate a lot of the people she worked with (also she seemed to fall out with a lot of them like Robert Cohrane, Gardner, etc) but she did seem to believe that Gardner had been initated into a coven (or at least discovered one).

I think it was in Hutton's Triumph of the Moon, where he said titles seem to collect around occultists like invoked spirits (or something like that) so Gardner may have made it up (or maybe he was given titles by the coven but couldn't reveal them so he made up some other ones).

I know this might seem dumb, but is there any evidence for covens outside the New Forest since Robert Cohane says he met some and was taught by them, i've heard that he did speak mystically but that he was telling the truth.

If there were covens that initated Garder and another one with Cohrane, do you think they are still in existence today, or just made up by Gardner (& Cohrane)?.

[Ben Gruagach]

It's too bad that Gardner (or anyone) would feel the need to invent titles for themselves, or resort to "diploma mill" degrees, to try and impress people.

As we're seeing it tends to tarnish what would otherwise be a rather impressive reputation. The things Gardner did do are much more impressive than any fake degree or title.

And what witch really needs a piece of paper to indicate that they are a witch anyways?

[Silverlotus]

And what witch really needs a piece of paper to indicate that they are a witch anyways?

I hate to do a "me too" post, but I totally agree with you.

But (there is always a but), when we know he stretched the truth one other issues, it is difficult to trust him on other issues.

[Seshata]

By the way, this brings up another instance where Gardner tended to take on titles that he hadn't necessarily earned -- when he was dealing with Aleister Crowley, he apparently claimed that he was a "Royal Arch Mason" which was why Crowley would have admitted Gardner into the O.T.O. without much training and authorized him to grant the first three degrees of the O.T.O. "Royal Arch Mason" is considered to be equivalent to the fourth degree in O.T.O. Unfortunately it seems the Freemasons only have records indicating first-degree ("Entered Apprentice") status for Gardner. (This is all detailed on page 194 of Heselton's "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration.")

Heselton says that he has not found further proof. What you have to remember that Gerald's Masonic Degrees are not under the UGLE Jurastiction but under Irish Grand Lodge. This makes some difference in trying to find things out. After Heselton's publication of the book, this was pointed out to him, along with a couple of other errors to do with the Masonic citations. These things have been taken on board. Crowley would have had knowledge about these things and would have checked out Gardner appropriately for his level - signs, words and grips that are only known by others of that level or above. I do not think that Crowley (liking as he did to 'test' others) would not have 'tested' Gerald accordingly.

BB

Seshata

[Seshata]

If they were honorary then they were not given to him by authorized people. I'm afraid it's much more likely Gardner just took the titles himself thinking that no one would bother checking it out.

He was definately knowledgeable in certain areas, and if, as Raven Grimassi states there was a certificate, even from a 'less' prestigeous place, it would not be out of place, after all at one point he was the world expert on Malay and Kris Weapons and wrote about the subject. He was also instrumental in the archeological digs in Palestine. As to why he would refrain from saying if it was a 'lesser' place than others thought, we do have to remember what generation he came from. Importance was placed on degrees and other such titles in those days, more so than nowadays. He was from an upper middle class family and also a customs officer, for people in that level of society those things ARE or rather WERE important, especially if at certain points they were associating with upper class citizens.

On another point about Gerald's travels - he did visit the States at one point (1930s).

BB

Seshata

[Ben Gruagach]

On another point about Gerald's travels - he did visit the States at one point (1930s).

I seem to remember reading that some of Gardner's family (a brother?) moved to the US and that there are family members still around. None of them were involved in Wicca though I think.

[Nacken]

Yes his family was in the timber business and an older brother was sent out to the USA to start a business there. I remember reading reminiscences from his niece about him. It was somewhere in the south I think like Georgia. And I believe that he went out to California on the same trip.

[Seshata]

I seem to remember reading that some of Gardner's family (a brother?) moved to the US and that there are family members still around. None of them were involved in Wicca though I think.

Rather than his family being involved was thinking more the case that Gerald being Gerald, he would have found time to look at 'other' things of the occult nature whilst there and also speak to others.

BB

Seshata

[Elderbush]

If it was Georgia he was visitng in the 1930s, I wouldn't be holding my breath about the meeting people interested in the occult. :)

[raven grimassi]

He was definately knowledgeable in certain areas, and if, as Raven Grimassi states there was a certificate, even from a 'less' prestigeous place, it would not be out of place, after all at one point he was the world expert on Malay and Kris Weapons and wrote about the subject.

I sent an email to Professor Sabina Magliocco, a friend of Don Frew's, and she replied this morning. She says:

"Gardner had a diploma from the MetaCollegiate Extension of the Electronic Institute in Nevada, granting him a doctorate for "completion of course and published works." Don hypothesized in his Pantheacon presentation several years ago that perhaps some college official had granted him the degree in recognition of his published works, such as "Kris and other Malay Weapons." If this is true, we have no real evidence of it; no correspondence between Gardner and the institution has survived. The MetaCollegiate Institute was a kind of mail-order diploma mill. I think what Don may have said was that saying one had a doctorate from there was about like saying one is a minister of the Universal Life Church (in other words, anyone could get one). I have a discussion of this in _Witching Culture_, p. 240, note 19."

It appears that I was incorrect in my recollection that the name of the University was similar to the one Gardner claimed had granted the degree.

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks for that follow-up, Raven.

Even ignoring the whole issue of whether the titles were meaningful or not it does bring up the whole question of whether there was much American influence on Gardner in his development of Wicca. As others have pointed out Gardner apparently travelled to the US at some point, and he did have family over here.

Since that "doctorate" came from Nevada I wonder if Gardner happened to travel there or whether he got it through the mail. And I wonder where Gardner's US travels took him. And what people he might have met?

[raven grimassi]

Thanks for that follow-up, Raven.

My pleasure, always happy to stir the cauldron. ;)

Since that "doctorate" came from Nevada I wonder if Gardner happened to travel there or whether he got it through the mail. And I wonder where Gardner's US travels took him. And what people he might have met?

This is interesting as I was not aware that Gardner ever visited the U.S., and it could be very enlightening to know who he was in contact with. Perhaps Masonic ties may be helpful research, as it was the custom for travelling Masons to call upon one another.

[Seshata]

This is interesting as I was not aware that Gardner ever visited the U.S., and it could be very enlightening to know who he was in contact with. Perhaps Masonic ties may be helpful research, as it was the custom for travelling Masons to call upon one another.

I think the trip was primarily to see his family. As far as the records show, there were no Masonic visits on that trip. He did, however, visit New Orleans.

BB

Seshata

[David19]

I know he was a freemason, and i don't know much about them, but do you think that maybe the 'coven' he joined was actually a group of freemasons since there seem to be some parallels between them and what Gardner said he learned from the coven (i've heard that freemasons use the term lord and lady, also i've heard that a lot of Heathen (Anglo-Saxon) lore survived in their lodges) or even if the coven were seperate, do you maybe think the freemasons might know who the coven are (if they do have a lot of surviving lore and, not sure if this is right, are a mystical order or something like it) maybe they were the ones to put Gardner in contact with the coven (probably makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist :)).

Also do you think the coven Gardner joined was a remaining form of Vanatru or the Vanic worship of Anglo-Saxon England since i've read Frey and Freya were actually titles that meant lord and lady and that it was a mystery tradition (just like the coven Gardner may have joined and also Gardnerian covens today).

[David19]

I think the trip was primarily to see his family. As far as the records show, there were no Masonic visits on that trip. He did, however, visit New Orleans.

BB

Seshata

Does anyone know if Gardner has any remaining family left in the world (maybe they could shed some light on things).

[Seshata]

Does anyone know if Gardner has any remaining family left in the world (maybe they could shed some light on things).

I think he has but they probably wouldn't want to and aren't really linked with this side of his life.

BB

Seshata

[Carla O'Harris]

I know he was a freemason, and i don't know much about them, but do you think that maybe the 'coven' he joined was actually a group of freemasons since there seem to be some parallels between them and what Gardner said he learned from the coven (i've heard that freemasons use the term lord and lady, also i've heard that a lot of Heathen (Anglo-Saxon) lore survived in their lodges) or even if the coven were seperate, do you maybe think the freemasons might know who the coven are (if they do have a lot of surviving lore and, not sure if this is right, are a mystical order or something like it) maybe they were the ones to put Gardner in contact with the coven (probably makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist :)).

Also do you think the coven Gardner joined was a remaining form of Vanatru or the Vanic worship of Anglo-Saxon England since i've read Frey and Freya were actually titles that meant lord and lady and that it was a mystery tradition (just like the coven Gardner may have joined and also Gardnerian covens today).


Hutton has mistakenly identified Freemasonic rituals as originating with the early 1700s Speculative Freemasonry. (This is a common misunderstanding amongst modern scholars.) Actually much of what is identified as "Freemasonry" belonged to a common masonic culture of the working class, and therefore what has been identified as freemasonic in Gardner's work may very well be genuine folk expressions.

As far as a Vanic cult surviving into the 1940's, I would be very surprised. However, you are quite correct in seeing Freyr and Freya as a significant strand in the Witchcraft beliefs. Freya was the first to teach the art of seidth (witchcraft), and Freyr was King of the Elves. Much of witchcraft matches the Vanic cult. I would say instead that witchcraft represents a truncated survival of older Vanic cults. Santo Nino de Atoche, by the way, is a modern worship-survival of Freyr, down to the legends themselves. There are other saints who represent survivals of Freyr. These things did significantly survive in many forms.

[Elderbush]

Are you saying that the masons that Gardner joined weren't really the masons we think they are but some folk masons of the working class that existed in the 1930s and 1940s? I am not really following you here.

Are you saying that Freyr and Freya are significant strands in Wicca and that Gardner used them?

[Carla O'Harris]

It's too bad that Gardner (or anyone) would feel the need to invent titles for themselves, or resort to "diploma mill" degrees, to try and impress people.

As we're seeing it tends to tarnish what would otherwise be a rather impressive reputation. The things Gardner did do are much more impressive than any fake degree or title.

And what witch really needs a piece of paper to indicate that they are a witch anyways?

To me, this is an absolute, total non-issue.

Why shouldn't he claim authority for himself? The Wizard of Oz knows that degrees are just pieces of paper people give to each other to recognize what was already there. As a witch, why would he appeal to other's authority? He could claim it for himself. And he was knowledgeable enough on these topics to claim those degrees. As to why he would need to, bootlickers always need some sort of title to give a person credit, especially in a hierarchical society. Gardner spoke about invoking DEITY into oneself. Why couldn't he claim these things?

I don't think his claiming right of fiat means that he is untrustworthy in other areas.

[Carla O'Harris]

Are you saying that the masons that Gardner joined weren't really the masons we think they are but some folk masons of the working class that existed in the 1930s and 1940s? I am not really following you here.

Are you saying that Freyr and Freya are significant strands in Wicca and that Gardner used them?

No, what I'm saying is that masonic symbolism and ritual were everywhere. I'm not saying that the masons he joined weren't masons. I'm saying that it wouldn't be surprising if the New Forest Coven he met was a traditional coven utilizing masonic-style rituals. There is nothing incompatible with that. Guilds had been practicing such things since the Middle Ages.

I am saying that Freyr and Freya are significant strata in the development of witchcraft, along with Roman and Celtic influences. I am not saying that Gardner consciously drew on this lore, however. The survivals of Freyr and Freya in significant ways in European folklore do form a part of witch tradition.

[Carla O'Harris]

I will have to check, but a year or two ago at PantheaCon, Don Frew showed a copy of Gerald's degree that turned up in some Gardnerian archives in Canada. I think it was something akin to today's Universal Life Church ordination certificates. Again if memory serves correctly, the University name was the same, but not the actual University everyone assumed he was referrring to (and I think it is fair to say that he probably never corrected anyone's assumption). So the degree is not particularly prestigious, but it was something given to him and not an invented claim. If I can track down the info I will post it here.

Thanks, Raven! This is good information! If so, it just goes to show the degree of slander and disinfo circulating.

[Carla O'Harris]

[QUOTE=Silverlotus] Of course, he supported Margaret Murray's work in that book, and we all know how accurate she was.
QUOTE]


Very accurate, actually. Her misaligning will be corrected in time. Although not accurate in all the details, her general picture is very correct. It is the scholars covering over the reality of the witchcraft religion in order to erase our important history who are engaging in casuistry.

[Elderbush]

He did track it down if you will read further and it was a mail order type degree mill that was more or less meaningless.

So it is ok for me to tell everyone that I have a doctorate from Harvard since I personally feel that I am smart enough to have one and what does it matter to them anyway? I'm sorry but I feel that is lying and devalues the work others do to get a degree from a particular university. And yes, it is fair to assume that a person who will lie about something like that will lie about other things as well.

[Seshata]

Are you saying that the masons that Gardner joined weren't really the masons we think they are but some folk masons of the working class that existed in the 1930s and 1940s?

Speculative Freemasons apparently are a different 'style' of Freemasons - eg there are Freemasons who are from a style called Royal Arch etc

Hope that helps! (Just consulted with someone who knows about Freemasonry)

BB

Seshata

[Seshata]

So it is ok for me to tell everyone that I have a doctorate from Harvard since I personally feel that I am smart enough to have one and what does it matter to them anyway? I'm sorry but I feel that is lying and devalues the work others do to get a degree from a particular university. And yes, it is fair to assume that a person who will lie about something like that will lie about other things as well.

You seem to be ignoring a couple of other points that have been made. Points I made about his social station etc. I don't think that you'll get what (excuse me if I am wrong in this thinking) - the agreement that Gardner was lying about everything in his life. He was a Mason, and he had a degree (ok not from a big place - he may not even have mentioned what place, and others just speculated). Also, we won't be able to ever totally confirm or deny certain things (unless some interesting documents appear), thus you can't just give that kind of blanket statement. It has been shown how difficult research can be, initial thought of his not being a Mason, to showing that he wasn't linked to the UK one but the Irish one - that makes things a little more complex. Also the fact that he was one whilst working abroad, and I can't recall at present what the records for those are like. He did say he had to add stuff, and I should imagine that due to oaths etc he would not generally come out to everyone and state, "oh by the way, some of them came from Freemasonry". Hopefully with time, more letters etc will become available for Philip Heselton to compare details with, until then many will have to wait. We've (my other half and myself) have been in contact with Philip on and off for a while, and my other half is researching another link that has been found re: different types of people associating with each other, that Philip is unable to do at present. I personally don't hold Gerald up on a pedestal, I see him as very human, with very human flaws, with characteristics which are appropriate to people of that time and social station (sorry if I'm making it sound like eons ago), just like my stepmother's generation had certain ways of thinking (she's nearly 80), linked to her social standing and culture. Gerald wouldn't be the first person who's reached a 'standing' who had things in their background which might not stand up to people's values/thoughts now, they even may not have been as acceptable in those days either, but nontheless those people have given alot. With the older generation, I haven't found this kind of reaction, interesting.

BB

Seshata

[Ben Gruagach]

The thing is that what some are putting forward as speculative are in fact things which we do have actual proof about. Doreen Valiente goes over it all in "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" and Philip Heselton (and Sabina Magliocco) provide more confirming proof and detail in their books.

- Gardner DID claim that he had been given a doctorate by a university which did not give him any sort of title. Sabina Magliocco points out that the only doctorate Gardner got was from a completely different source -- a "diploma mill" where anyone can get any title they want for a small fee. (In other words the doctorate means nothing.)

- Gardner ALSO claimed to have the title "MA" from a different university, which again has been confirmed by Doreen Valiente to have been false.

These things are not just based on someone half-remembering someone else maybe saying something like this. These are based on claims that Gardner made that were put in print -- either by himself (in articles he wrote for the Folklore Society where he listed titles after his name) or else when Gardner spoke with the press and listed his credentials. And confirming the existence or nonexistence of these credentials is just a matter of following the paper trail which Doreen Valiente, Philip Heselton, and Sabina Magliocco have done and documented for us.

Gardner lied and was known for lying about things. He also did some wonderful things in triggering either the birth or rebirth (depending on your point of view) of a meaningful spiritual path in the twentieth century. Wicca wouldn't be where it is today if it hadn't been for Gardner and also the hard work of the unsung heroes who worked with him and who preceded him like Dorothy Clutterbuck and Dafo.

But when we are talking about history and what we do know it's important to try and be clear when things really are more than just idle speculation or half-remembered rumour.

[Elderbush]

I am not devalueing Gardner's contributions to the world and Wicca. I agree that he was a very complicated human as nearly all of us are. I believe the necessity some have to turn him into a saint is something of a holdover from Christianity. Their religion is full of extremes and people who are all good or all evil.

I question the need to whitewash Gardner. Do we need saints since Wicca embraces and believes that everything is a mixture of light and dark? This is certainly true of humans and Gardner was human. He wasn't the son of a god or a god himself. Is there really a need to explain away all of his flaws and faults? It doesn't take a thing away from what he gave to the world.

One can of course try to prove he was right about everything he said as some sort of validation but if the religion works for you is it going to change anything?

[Seshata]

I'm personally not trying to whitewash Gardner, in fact I see him as a very 'human' person. Essentially he was a bit of a showman - like many eg Alex Sanders - now some of the things he said were also rather 'creative'. There is no need to explain away his flaws and faults but then there is also no need to make pronouncements without recognising people as products of their time and society. I don't think anyone is saying everything was 'right' but that there are some things which as yet (if ever) will be able to be confirmed. There are things that have been discussed in smaller groups where fascinating possible links etc have been speculated upon, but that's just it - we're speculating.

BB

Seshata

[Carla O'Harris]

I am not devalueing Gardner's contributions to the world and Wicca. I agree that he was a very complicated human as nearly all of us are. I believe the necessity some have to turn him into a saint is something of a holdover from Christianity. Their religion is full of extremes and people who are all good or all evil.

I question the need to whitewash Gardner. Do we need saints since Wicca embraces and believes that everything is a mixture of light and dark? This is certainly true of humans and Gardner was human. He wasn't the son of a god or a god himself. Is there really a need to explain away all of his flaws and faults? It doesn't take a thing away from what he gave to the world.

One can of course try to prove he was right about everything he said as some sort of validation but if the religion works for you is it going to change anything?

I have no need to turn him into a "saint", but I also caution against using his all-too-humanness to invalidate his most important claims, since the ridiculous consensus these days is that he "made the whole thing up" rather than taking him at his word. He doesn't need to be a saint in order to have stumbled upon an authentic witch-cult and then to have struggled to find ways, without breaking oaths, of retransmitting it in some form.

[Carla O'Harris]

"a "diploma mill" where anyone can get any title they want for a small fee. (In other words the doctorate means nothing.)"

No, that's not what it means. It means what it means to the person. It means "nothing" to people who only believe that universities can confer statuses upon people.

It is possible, of course, for someone to apply to such a mill in a completely fradulent manner, but they also make it possible for people who have really done genuine work to declare fiat for what they have done, and I find nothing invalid about this. I don't worship the supposed monopoly of scholarship the university represents.

[Ben Gruagach]

"a "diploma mill" where anyone can get any title they want for a small fee. (In other words the doctorate means nothing.)"

No, that's not what it means. It means what it means to the person. It means "nothing" to people who only believe that universities can confer statuses upon people.

It is possible, of course, for someone to apply to such a mill in a completely fradulent manner, but they also make it possible for people who have really done genuine work to declare fiat for what they have done, and I find nothing invalid about this. I don't worship the supposed monopoly of scholarship the university represents.

Be careful with this argument. By that logic, I should be able to call myself a Gardnerian High Priest because I feel like it, not because I actually followed the established process of earning that title.

Diploma mills are as valid as anyone printing out their own certificate on their own printer done up in MS Word or whatever. Diploma mills are NOT prestigous and actually cause harm by devaluing and disrespecting those who actually worked for and earned their authentic titles.

[David19]

I think maybe Gardner got a fake diploma because he wanted more respect (and to look good to the general people), that doesn't mean he didn't discover a coven, but maybe because he couldn't reveal the information, he needed to look better so people wouldn't question (at least as much) the material he was putting in to make up for the missing information (like didn't he take from Golden Dawn, Sumerian mythsm i think the descent of the goddess was based on Inanna(sp)).

Anyway, hope that makes sense.

[Elderbush]

Sure it does, David19. It's all speculation and you can find enjoyment in speculation just as anyone else can. Proof is something different as I'm sure you've discovered.

One of the reasons that I think that it is important for Wiccans to discuss the beginnings of Wicca is because, just as scholars thoroughly analyze and dissect other religions, ours will fall under the microscope as well in the years to come. Murray's theories certainly did and they did not hold up well but happily most Wiccans accepted the correction and moved on. Whatever we put forth as fact will be scrutinized just as carefully.

[Carla O'Harris]

Sure it does, David19. It's all speculation and you can find enjoyment in speculation just as anyone else can. Proof is something different as I'm sure you've discovered.

One of the reasons that I think that it is important for Wiccans to discuss the beginnings of Wicca is because, just as scholars thoroughly analyze and dissect other religions, ours will fall under the microscope as well in the years to come. Murray's theories certainly did and they did not hold up well but happily most Wiccans accepted the correction and moved on. Whatever we put forth as fact will be scrutinized just as carefully.


Actually, Murray's theories have held up very well. The idea that they didn't is a lie perpetuated by Cohn and Rose, and REPEATED endlessly by people. That's the way something false can enter the record, and repeated, seems to be fact.

Obviously Murray exaggerated somewhat, especially in her last book. But her first book is still genius, and the general outlines, however blurry the details, are still generally accurate. The idea that it isn't is a matter of very sloppy and biased scholarship.

[Elderbush]

Which historical theory of Murrays, as relates to Wicca, do you think is substantuated by facts?

Ed. to add: I'm tallking about "The Witch Cult in Wester Europe" and her theories and witches, which has been discredited by the majority of historians.

[Greyharp]

I think many people desperately want Wicca to have a long and demonstrable history, as if that would give it credence. The thought that Gardner made the whole thing up fifty years ago makes them feel Wicca is worthless. The fact is that all religions have been started by someone, whether it was fifty years ago, or five thousand. The so-called “revealed” or “book” religions were begun by people, even if they do claim divine inspiration, which they simply can’t prove. Wicca is as valid a religion as any other, with or without a long pedigree. Oh and while we are talking about other religions:

“I think it is noteworthy that the New Testament states that Jesus did not come to destroy the Old Testament teachings, but to fufill them. In this light he is not inventing a new religion, but is bringing a new understanding.” – Raven Grimassi

I’m not sure the followers of Judaism would agree with that statement. But back to the early days of Wicca and Gerald Gardner.

“the ridiculous consensus these days is that he "made the whole thing up" rather than taking him at his word” – Carla O’Harris

Having established as fact that Gardner wasn’t adverse to lying, I think it would be very unwise to take “him at his word” in anything he said. It would be wonderful if scholarly and academic research unearthed new and revealing information about Gardner, Clutterbuck and the New Forest Coven, but I don’t think we should hold our breath waiting for it. One of the things I love about the writings of Ronald Hutton is his concession that while certain theories are possible, the available evidence would suggest otherwise, such as in the case of Margaret Murray.

“Actually, Murray's theories have held up very well. The idea that they didn't is a lie perpetuated by Cohn and Rose, and REPEATED endlessly by people. That's the way something false can enter the record, and repeated, seems to be fact.

Obviously Murray exaggerated somewhat, especially in her last book. But her first book is still genius, and the general outlines, however blurry the details, are still generally accurate. The idea that it isn't is a matter of very sloppy and biased scholarship.” – Carla O’Harris

I think that the available evidence would suggest otherwise. Certainly archaeology doesn’t back up her theories, let alone the subsequent wider studies of witchcraft. And once again, Gardner lied, we know that, and now we see Murray “exaggerated somewhat”, hmm, which once again makes their evidence a tad unreliable. I like Raven Grimassi’s signature in this thread:

“"Academically, doubt is a virtue. It is wise to be cautious, virtuous to allow for different points of view. The problem arises when this attitude hardens: then doubting becomes a certainty in itself, and we forget the importance of doubting our doubt". - Peter Kingsley (historian)”

This is a two-way street, which people on both sides of the Old Religion debate can become guilty of, not just the Wicca is a new religion crew. Without irrefutable proof either way, it is ridiculous to condemn outright the alternate argument, however one doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that any reasonable argument needs reasonable, reliable and believable evidence to back it up. Sadly that is lacking in the subject of this thread, and even more so when we reach back in time to Murray, Charles Leland and such. But that doesn’t really matter if in our minds and hearts we see Wicca as a valid and living religion.

David

[Gede]

Khairete~
Hmmm...let's think about it this way. If the fact that Wicca is little over half a centuy old niggles at some peoples' minds, then try to generalise the entire thing:

Wicca, apparently it means Witchcraft...depending upon which etymological strand you follow, this might or might not be true...(wicce, wicca, vikya, weik, etc.)

Spellcraft...happens in Wicca...happens in Witchcraft (methods vary)

Festivals, they both have them (Sabbats, following old Pagan customs...solstial & Celtic pastoral/agrarian festivals)

Revelry...very much so! Bacchanalli anyone?

Deities...Pagan...Vanic/Celtic/Greek/Roman/Egyptian...polytheism...ditheism...pantheism...animism...

Astral Flight...*nods*...listed in the Gardnerian BOS...documented that Witches used an ointment combining various hallucinogens...

We could go on...to me it all sounds dandy! :hehehehe:

Namaste, Gede...

[David19]

I was just thinking about something and the coven that Gardner may have been initated into. A lot of people say that if it did exist, it proves that pagan religions survived right down to the present day, but what if the 'coven' wasn't a survival but more like a reformation(sp) of an pagan religion, like in the 18th (or 17th?) century, people started looking back at classical times, what if a group (or family) started to look at the older beliefs of England, and decided to try and reform it, by using suriving evidence, (maybe any folklore that survived in the area/family) and using magic from different sources (even Christian magic, or probably Jewish magic, like the Key of Solomon, Kabbalah - Jews and Judaism have always had mystical traditions, etc) and then decided to practice in secret, since witchcraft was still illegal (i think).

Anyway this is just a theory i was thinking of, do you think it makes sense or sounds completly crazy :).

What are your thoughts?

[Ben Gruagach]

David19, you've brought up some things that others have thought about as well. In fact, Gerald Gardner himself suggests in his books that if the coven he met weren't actually an intact continuation of a pre-existing religion that perhaps they had made it up, or someone before them had made it up. He even gives some suggestions about who it could have been:

- Aleister Crowley
- Kipling
- someone from the Golden Dawn

I suspect that Gardner name-dropped Crowley and Kipling because he wanted to justify his inclusion of things he'd lifted from their work in his own Book of Shadows. And according to the evidence that Philip Heselton presents in "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" it is very likely that the pre-Gardner New Forest coven did have a former Golden Dawn member in their group: a woman Gardner referred to as "Mother Sabine."

If Gardner wasn't the one who was responsible for bringing together the majority of the material that went into his Book of Shadows, then it's very possible that someone in the New Forest group did so.

One of the big questions though is whether any of these pre-Gardnerian groups (such as Old Dorothy's group, or the Pentagram Club that Sybil Leek's mom was involved with) was trying to create a religion or a magickal group that really isn't a religion. Margaret Murray's popular work (as well as the work of people such as C.R.F. Seymour, who worked with Dion Fortune in her post-Golden Dawn group, the Society of the Inner Light) were certainly encouraging people to explore the idea of actively practicing Pagan religions (or what they thought Pagan religions could be like) at that time.

[David19]

I've heard that Gardner's coven (i think the one Philip Heselton (sp) was in), was supposed to be only about doing magic, and not a religion, so it makes you wonder why it suddenly changed to a religion, do you think Gardner decided to add it or was it someone else (like maybe Doreen Vialante, i've heard she transformed wicca a lot), speaking of Vialante, was she a part of Gardner's original coven or was it like a second one that Gardner formed.

Also this reminds me of something i've been curious about, people seem to say that the New Forest coven was an example of Traditional witchcraft, but what is Traditional witchcraft as i've heard it mentioned several times, like on the Crooked Heath, (http://www.thecrookedheath.com/witchnf.htm), which lists several examples of 'Traditional Witchcraft' (and the organizations/covens are ones i've never heard of), does it mean witchcraft covens that have survived right to the present day or something else, since it lists the 1734 tradition as Traditional (even though i thought it was created by Robert Cochrane).

BTW, hope that wasn't to off topic.

[Carla O'Harris]

It is correct that Gardner actually left the question open, but there is a general confusion here anyway, and that is between the deeper rites, and the liturgy.

Liturgy is more superficial in any religion and subject to change, inspiration, and borrowing. New hymns are written and included in the services. New sermons are added. But the basic structure is preserved. We can see this in the development of Christianity. Why should it not be true in witchcraft? The fact that someone, either Gardner, or someone in the New Forest Coven before him, included some poems from Crowley (assuming Crowley hadn't lifted some of his material from someone before him, which has been alleged but never demonstrated to any real satisfaction) is kind of a dead issue if one keeps this distinction between liturgy and deep structure in mind.

Of course it is is theoretically poss