What were the "fragmentary pieces" Gardner was taught in the New Forest?

[Ben Gruagach]

It's been said a number of times that Gerald Gardner was taught fragmentary material by the coven of Wiccans he met in the New Forest region back in the late 1930s. People who have studied Gardner's Book of Shadows have said that all the things that Gardner added in were necessary to flesh out the fragmentary material and make it useful.

The confusing part is that apparently everything in Gardner's Book of Shadows can be traced to material that was published and available to Gardner at the time he started using that Book of Shadows.

What exactly where those fragmentary teachings? How can we prove that Wicca was an intact Pagan religion that predates Gardner if we don't know what those fragmentary teachings were?

In another thread here, Carla O'Harris stated that the fragmentary teachings include:
- An invocation to the deities,
- the drawing of the circle,
- magical work,
- dancing, and feasting,
- a Mystery Religion myth of the goddess.

What do others think? Are these ideas the fragmentary teachings -- and was it just the ideas of these things, or was there some specific teaching regarding how these things were practiced which constitute the fragmentary teachings?

Personally, I have a hard time accepting that these things (especially if they are just the ideas of them rather than specific practices) constitute proof that Wicca is an intact Pagan religion that predates Gardner. Drawing together those particular ideas into a brand-new religion wouldn't have been hard to do at that time as all those components were available in published material, or could be easily improvised (as with the dancing and feasting part.)

I also have serious doubts about how this supports the claim that these practices, which are indeed part of Wicca, are also proof that witchcraft itself is a universal coherent intact Pagan religion. There are lots of witches that don't do the things listed as the fragmentary practices throughout the historical record.

Thoughts? Explanations? I'm curious to see what others have to say on this.

[Carla O'Harris]

Drawing together those particular ideas into a brand-new religion wouldn't have been hard to do at that time as all those components were available in published material, or could be easily improvised (as with the dancing and feasting part.)

But the same argument could be used to dismiss paganism in almost any time period. The ancient Greeks weren't really religious ; they were only carrying on the literary tradition of Homer. Roman pagans "made the whole thing up" because they had access to the literature of antiquity with which they could have made it up.

And the Mystery Cults must have stolen everything from Christianity, because it's well known that Christians engage in communion with bread and wine.

Jewish scholars once tried to argue that Plato got everything from Moses, because supposedly the writings of Moses predated Plato, and therefore Plato must have been drawing upon Moses.

Or maybe the anthropologists reporting fascinating details about hunter-gatherers made the whole thing up from "Noble Savage" utopian literature of the 1600's and 1700's, which, "of course" was itself entirely "made up" and had no relation at all to experiences with real savages.

Or maybe the Apollo landing was entirely a fake because we had the technology to film it out in the Arizona desert. (*this is but one example amongst many -- I'm not using it in a loaded sense in order to cast aspersion or ridicule upon opposing opinions, but seriously casting it as one example amongst many. If we admit the logic of the one, why not of the other?)

The case has been made that he "could have" made it all up from existing sources, but that is a far, far stretch from proving that he did. Again, one could use the same argument at any point in Christian history to demonstrate that they made the whole thing up from their libraries. Why not? How's this : Christianity as an organized religion did not pre-exist the 1300's --- all that existed prior to that was a literary tradition about a "christianity" that was passed on from author to author in very small circles and libraries that didn't reflect the population as such at all, but during the 1300's, they managed to sell their idea on various power circles enough for them to promote the entire idea as if it had pre-existed. Those documents that didn't preexist as part of the literary tradition were made up and attributed to previous "councils" and so forth. How far do you want to go with this? In fact, this theory I just made up has as much to recommend it in many ways as the Literary Crafting theory of Wicca.

There are some assumptions to the Literary Theory : 1) Literary records are only produced from the minds of elites who keep themselves entirely separate from the population. 2) Information travels, when it does at all, from literary elites to the general populace, and not vice-versa, but 3) literary information tends to stay in a vacuum.

But these are not historically true. Literary records exist in complex interaction with popular life, and to some degree or another usually reflect them. The prevalence of out and out invention is fairly small. Literary records were often read out loud to audiences, and were sometimes drawn from those audiences.

The fairy tradition never passed out of literary tradition, oral tradition, and on the ground practice. It has a theological consistency through the Christian ages.

So, he "could" have made assembled all these ideas merely from literary records, but what's the proof? If but one of the members of the New Forest Coven had had a relative or initiating friend from Ireland, Scotland, or Italy, where these faiths were still fairly alive on the ground, it's quite plausible that a variant of the fairy faith could have been passed intact, with some liturgical supplementation from some pretty poems passing in the occult sphere.

I'm going to start another thread (although I'm fascinated to see the dialogue on this one) asking for all the reasons, concrete, documented reasons, why we should doubt Gardner or his character, just so I can have all the slander in front of me.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I think there was a lot that Gardner borrowed and edited from other sources, and a lot that he made up. A lot of his borrowings are obvious (I just read an essay on where different bits of the Charge come from on Cesiwr Serith's website), however, it may be that what *appear* to be borrowings may be original work that is similar to something Gardner may have had access to.
Okay, so.
Invocation of the deities: I imagine pretty much every religion has something along these lines, because you need to call the god's attention before you can worship him / her. Also, from what I know of early Wiccan ritual texts, there's not a lot of similarity with today's calling of deities. Nowadays we tend to nicely-worded and evocative poems / prose, but I don't see a huge amount of that in early Wiccan texts - more like an invocation of the deity, who is always a Goddess, into the body of a Priestess. Today's callings are, I suspect, designed to give a good impression of exactly who will be worshipped tonight, because it may well be somebody else next week. There is also, I think, an increased amount of formality in modern Wicca. The oldest ceremony for the casting of the Circle is a very simple affair that can be done by one person, whereas at the end of Gardner's life. he had rewritten it and made it more complex several times, and nowadays we often have, in addition to the High Priest/ess, a Maiden (ie, High Priestess' bitch), Summoner (lets everyone know when ritual starts), people who purify the Circle with the elements, etc.
Drawing of the Circle: This is quite probably a borrowing from ceremonial magic. Gardner was rather big on CM and this is borne out by the 'Calling of the Quarters', nine-foot circle, the use of the athame, etc. It is said that ancient peoples did religious rites in circle, but as I don't know too much about those religious practices, I can't say anything concrete about that.
Magical work: See above.
Dancing and feasting: I imagine that Wiccan religious reasons for these were drawn heavily from Frazer.
Mystery Religion Myth of the Goddess: I think a large part of the Myth is from the Descent of Inana (or is it Ishtar? I always get them mixed up). I know Gardner was intested in the Mysteries, as he devotes an good part of 'Witchcraft Today' to them, but I know little about the ancient Mysteries, so I can't make any concrete statements.
There are a few websites out there that catalogue exactly what was in gardner's library, but I can't remember where they are. I imagine the Gerald gardner Archive is a good place to start.

[Carla O'Harris]

Dancing and feasting: I imagine that Wiccan religious reasons for these were drawn heavily from Frazer.

Rightttt ... and where did Frazer get them from? I suppose he "made it all up", too, eh? No, Frazer got it from field reports of actual practices.

There's very early evidence for witches drawing circles with a pointed blade, so that could be witches or ritual magic.

As far as the Myth of the Goddess shows, it certainly shows parallels with the Inanna Myth (which was not known at the time of "Witchcraft Today") as well as parallels and important differences from the Ishtar Myth (which was more well known at that time). But one could also draw parallels with fairy ballads where women go into the underground world of faery and meet up with the underworld king. Initiation by a faery figure is often found in witch lore. In this case, it is a faery figure who rules Death or the realm of Death, and therefore one might suspect a Welsh provenance. All of these parallels are interesting and if anything prove the authenticity of the myth, existing in oral transmission and adaptation. In "Sir Orfeo", Heroudis (re : Herodias/Irodeasa/Aradia) is abducted into the fairyworld by the fairy king.

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/orfint.htm

says of him,

he can serve as an image of fate, a representative of death, an adversary who comes to life to punish sin, a pre-Christian divinity or spirit, a rupture in meaning, the representative of artifice, irrationality, "king of textuality," and more.

A representative of death / pre-Christian divinity / Fate figure, etc. The parallels are not exact but demonstrate a genre in which one would expect to find variations.

See http://www.geocities.com/dagonet_uk/melvasab.htm

for some examples of Gwynn ap Nudd as an abductor of women to his fairy underworld of Annwyn. This is especially relevant as he was leader of the wild hunt, and therefore has correlations with the Herne/Horned God figure.

In none of these cases are the parallels exact. The closest is, of course, the Inanna Myths, which again were not available when Gardner wrote "Witchcraft Today", which just about settles the question of whether he stole the thing, and my demonstration of similar kinds of themes in fairy lore (without exact point for point parallels) demonstrates that a story of this kind was quite possible for the time.

The invocation is unique, because it is concerned with a ceremony of immanence whereby a goddess is called into the body of a woman. This is not usual for JudaeoChristian religions although it is found in pagan religions, and in the fairy tradition, a prominent woman was often thought of as becoming a fairy herself. This accords as well then.

And btw, cataloguing what was in Gardner's library could be an interesting task if done correctly (in other words, you'd have to be so complete that you would have to determine the exact years when those books fell into his hands) but ultimately irrelevant, because its relevance is only based on a belief that he copied things from texts!! But if he was confirming (and/or correcting, although this has yet to be demonstrated) oral texts through literary amplification and citation, then it would make sense that he would have collected a wide variety of works that concerned things that interested him! You can assemble the library catalogue, but it will prove nothing conclusive in this particular argument.

[David19]

I don't think that these things prove there was an intact wicca religion, pre-Gardner:

An invocation to the deities,
- the drawing of the circle,
- magical work,
- dancing, and feasting,
- a Mystery Religion myth of the goddess.

Since invocations have been used by many religions (ancient and modern, and lots of indigineous religions)

drawing a circle is from ceremonial magic isn't it, didn't Gardner get it from the Golden Dawn or something (or freemasons)

Magical work: lots of religions and traditions have this, ancient and modern, including Christianity (saint worship, christian magic, mystical christianity, etc)

Dancing and feasting, has also been part of every (or most religon or tradition) from the Canaanite religion, to Judaism, Christianity, Vodoun(sp), indigenious religions, etc

A mystery religion myth of the goddess, i'm not sure what that is, but i think the descent of the goddess is from Inanna(sp) and the Sumerian religion, plus others in Greek myths like Pershephone, but i don't think that proves there was an intact religion, because Gardner could have easily known all of these (and probably did, he did collect occult and pagan things and was an anthropologist, etc).

If there are fragmentatory pieces he learned from a coven, then maybe their kept secret, in Gardnerian covens and Alexandrian, i've heard that there's a lot more to the magic that Gardnerian's and Alexandrian's practice than what's published so i doubt, unless your an Gardnerian, you'll ever know the 'fragmentory pieces'.

[Elderbush]

And therein lies the problem. There really doesn't seem to be anything in Wicca that Gardner could not have taken from sources available to him. It is the combination of those things that seems to be unique.

[Carla O'Harris]

Therein lies no problem. It's only a problem for those who assume he invented the whole thing. But those who understand that conscientious people often annotate and find citations find no problem with that.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

As far as the Myth of the Goddess shows, it certainly shows parallels with the Inanna Myth (which was not known at the time of "Witchcraft Today")
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ishtar.htm
It says right there:
DESCENT OF THE GODDESS ISHTAR INTO THE LOWER WORLD
[From The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, M. Jastrow, 1915]
On page 41 of 'Witchcraft Today' Gardner says: "It is very easy to say this is only the story of Istar descending into hell, but the point of the story is different." On page 41-42, he says: "It is quite possible that the stories of Istar and Siva have influenced the myth, but I think its origin is more likely Celtic."
A website with a listing of what was in Gardner's library, along with a few caveats, may be found here: http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/gglibrary/index.htm Interestingly, as the authors say, there are no books by Murray or Graves, whereas Judy Harrow states that 'Watch the North Wind Rise' was one of Gardner's sources for 'Witchcraft Today'. A mystery!
As for Frazer: I've read the abridged version of 'The Golden Bough' and consider it the most boring and dry work I've read to date. Of course, now I can say that I've read it *evil grin*. I may have a go at the complete twelve-volume set, as they are to be had at the local library. (curiously, Frazer is ALSO not in the library list on the site I gave), yet it is listed by Harrow in her sources for 'Witchcraft Today' (this list is on pages 166 - 169).
Apparently many of his works are held by the Wiccan Church of Canada, and this is where I have a nifty advantage. I go to the WCC every week and sooner or later Tamarra or Richard will be coming down to Hamilton for rit, or I'll go to rit at the Toronto Temple, and then I can ask pointed questions. All I can say that they have for sure is 'Ye Bok of ye Art Magical', and all I've found out about THAT baby is that it has a green cover.
Frazer got much of his information second-hand, which doesn't in of itself invalidate his theories. There is an interesting article on 'The Golden Bough' here: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM3a1.html

[raven grimassi]

It is said that ancient peoples did religious rites in circle, but as I don't know too much about those religious practices, I can't say anything concrete about that.

Ancient Greek and Roman writers depict Witches drawing a ritual circle on the ground with a beech wand, invoking a goddess (as well as giving offerings to the god Priapus), and using a cauldron and a dagger in their rites. Some good sources for this information can be found in the book Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome (Ankarloo & Clark). Another good source is Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Daniel Ogden).

Rightttt ... and where did Frazer get them from? I suppose he "made it all up", too, eh? No, Frazer got it from field reports of actual practices.

This is something I often wonder about, the fact that people do not recognize that the passing on of themes of antiquity does not equate to ripping off the previous author or inventing the theme itself in a new context. In Frazer's case he is clearly writing about what he believes from a historical and anthropologcal perspective. He is not inventing or fabricating, instead he is collecting and interpreting real data. So if Gardner hits upon the same themes, it can simply mean that the two authors are talking about the same pre-existing beliefs and practices.

drawing a circle is from ceremonial magic isn't it, didn't Gardner get it from the Golden Dawn or something (or freemasons)

The practice is referred to in ancient pre-Christian writings about Witchcraft. Medea, for example, is depicted as drawing a circle on the ground and setting an altar in the center.

And therein lies the problem. There really doesn't seem to be anything in Wicca that Gardner could not have taken from sources available to him. It is the combination of those things that seems to be unique.

I agree that the combination of all ingredients as published to date has not been proven to exist in one sect prior to Gardner. However, Witchcraft like everything else including Christianity has evolved over the centuries. So we need to urge caution when we dismiss the antiquity of the Craft because of additions to its beliefs and practices.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that there is nothing in Gardnerian Wicca that does not also exist in the literature and historical references to Witchcraft or ancient Mystery traditions of the past. This includes the ritual circle, altar, ritual tools, triformis goddess, horned god, black book, four elemental spirits, guardians of the four quarters, degree levels and cords. Personally I find it confirming of Gardner's claims of an ancient sect.

[Ben Gruagach]

A website with a listing of what was in Gardner's library, along with a few caveats, may be found here: http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/gglibrary/index.htm Interestingly, as the authors say, there are no books by Murray or Graves, whereas Judy Harrow states that 'Watch the North Wind Rise' was one of Gardner's sources for 'Witchcraft Today'. A mystery!

The list itemizing Gardner's library at the time of his death doesn't include volumes that he had bequeathed to other people. His Graves and Murray books would have likely been among those most prized and therefore willed to specific individuals.

[DebLipp]

First, there's no reason to believe that Gardner added things he was taught to the published material, or even to things like BAM. He might have taken material such as invocations and modified it. He might have been forbidden to write certain things down. Taboos on writing are fairly common in folk religion.

Second, I'm not convinced that the only possibilities are an "intact Pagan religion" and nothing at all. Surely, a fragmentary set of customs is neither nothing nor intact?

I know there is talk of drumbeats, teaching methods, trance methods, and so on. In fact, I believe that Janet and Stewart Farrar published documents that they claimed were from Gardner's BOS that they thought could be genuinely old. They were of the teaching variety.

[Ben Gruagach]

First, there's no reason to believe that Gardner added things he was taught to the published material, or even to things like BAM. He might have taken material such as invocations and modified it. He might have been forbidden to write certain things down. Taboos on writing are fairly common in folk religion.

I'm curious -- are you meaning that Gardner's Book of Shadows might include zero of the stuff he learned from the New Forest coven, or are you referring strictly to his published books ("A Goddess Arrives," "High Magic's Aid," "Witchcraft Today," and "The Meaning of Witchcraft")?

Second, I'm not convinced that the only possibilities are an "intact Pagan religion" and nothing at all. Surely, a fragmentary set of customs is neither nothing nor intact?

There are most definitely other possiblities. Here are a few that come to mind:
- perhaps Gardner's initiators were the ones who had "recreated" what they thought was authentic Pagan witchcraft but did not have an actual intact link to a pre-Christian religion
- perhaps Gardner's initiators did not consider their system to be a religion at all and Gardner added the religious emphasis (and the initiators still could have self-taught the magick or could have learned it from an intact lineage)
- perhaps Gardner's initiators were practicing an intact (although fragmented) Pagan religion but it wasn't witchcraft at all, and linking it to witchcraft was a recent thing (inspired by Murray's work, or perhaps by Gardner)


All these are just ideas on top of the standard two options that tend to get brought up.

I know there is talk of drumbeats, teaching methods, trance methods, and so on. In fact, I believe that Janet and Stewart Farrar published documents that they claimed were from Gardner's BOS that they thought could be genuinely old. They were of the teaching variety.

Can you suggest which books you think these might be published in? (Are you referring to the Book of Shadows material that is published in "A Witches' Bible"?)

It's hard to prove that things like specific drumbeats, trance methods, teaching methods, etc. are actually part of an intact pre-Christian religion without evidence. We've had lots of examples in the Wiccan community alone where things which were created quite recently (such as specific chants, things like Valiente's version of "The Charge of the Goddess") were passed on in informal ways and often with the claim that they were ancient even though this was not true. Anyone can make something up, or borrow something from other sources, and then pass it on with impressive claims about the source.

It all comes down to whether there is proof to support the historical claim or not. It doesn't mean much regarding the practice's effectiveness of course, but knowing where things really come from can help us track down other things that could also be helpful, and also makes it easier to put things into a larger perspective.

[David19]

I think DebLipp, may be right, because, the pre-Gardner coven may have been a set of beliefs passed on or recreated, not neccesarily a 'intact pagan religion' or, maybe, Gardner's initators were reconstructing, what they thought, an ancient pagan religion was, since, when i did English literature for A level's last year, we learned that around the enlightenment, people began looking back at the past (including the 'pagan' past) so maybe someone or a group of people, liked 'pagan' religions and wanted to do magic, so they got certain folklore, with history, mythology, etc together and formed their coven.


Also, maybe George Pickingill would be a good place to look into, as, i've read that he formed nine covens and one of them (the 3rd one) was the New Forest one, so he could be responsible, although i know some people say that the theory has been discredited.

[DebLipp]

I'm curious -- are you meaning that Gardner's Book of Shadows might include zero of the stuff he learned from the New Forest coven, or are you referring strictly to his published books ("A Goddess Arrives," "High Magic's Aid," "Witchcraft Today," and "The Meaning of Witchcraft")?
I think it's possible that the actual rituals GBG learned from his initiators may never have appeared in any of his BOS's. Certainly techniques and ideas appear to be present.

- perhaps Gardner's initiators were the ones who had "recreated" what they thought was authentic Pagan witchcraft but did not have an actual intact link to a pre-Christian religion
Definitely possible, and something that Heselton explores.
- perhaps Gardner's initiators did not consider their system to be a religion at all and Gardner added the religious emphasis (and the initiators still could have self-taught the magick or could have learned it from an intact lineage)
Also possible.
- perhaps Gardner's initiators were practicing an intact (although fragmented) Pagan religion but it wasn't witchcraft at all, and linking it to witchcraft was a recent thing (inspired by Murray's work, or perhaps by Gardner)
Extremely unlikely; doesn't gibe with what anyone has said about the New Forest group.

(Are you referring to the Book of Shadows material that is published in "A Witches' Bible"?)
Yes.

It's hard to prove that things like specific drumbeats, trance methods, teaching methods, etc. are actually part of an intact pre-Christian religion without evidence.
This is where "absence of evidence" is important, and something that historians would do well to remember.

I remember reading some interesting material about the "Venus figurines" that were so widespread in the Old World. Do they represent matrifocal religion? Another possibility, the article suggests, is that male deities were traditionally carved in wood, and female deities were created in clay, and therefore only the female survived.

It's just speculation, and it's not necessarily meant to be taken literally. It's meant to point out that historians have a bias towards that which lasts and leaves evidence, and that bias may, itself, be distorting.

GBG talks about learning drumbeats in one of his non-fiction books (Witchcraft Today, I think). So we know it's a strong possibility. And yes, we can't prove it, but so what?

We've had lots of examples in the Wiccan community alone where things which were created quite recently (such as specific chants, things like Valiente's version of "The Charge of the Goddess") were passed on in informal ways and often with the claim that they were ancient even though this was not true. Anyone can make something up, or borrow something from other sources, and then pass it on with impressive claims about the source.
And yet there has been a lot of success in tracking down such sources (like Valiente). One technique that Isaac Bonewits has long recommended is to find sources wherever possible and look at what's left.

It all comes down to whether there is proof to support the historical claim or not.
No, it really doesn't, because some things are inherently unprovable, and that doesn't make them ahistoric.

[Elderbush]

Isn't something you can't proove a guess? I read somewhere one person's "guess" about the Venus figures was that they were early porn material. Given the popularity of porn today, that's just as valid a guess as that they are proof of a matriarichal society or goddess worship.


I don't understand the need for acceptance of myths as historical facts but then I don't understand why Evangelical Christians want Creationism taught as scientific truth either.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I read somewhere one person's "guess" about the Venus figures was that they were early porn material. Given the popularity of porn today, that's just as valid a guess as that they are proof of a matriarichal society or goddess worship.
LOL! I;ve had a place in my heart for that theory for years. It was first suggested to me by the short story 'Let's Hear it for Neanderthal Man' and it makes an awful lot of sense to someone who firmly believes in the strangeness of the human mind.

[DebLipp]

Isn't something you can't proove a guess?
Something you can't prove could be a guess if it's pulled out of thin air. If it's got secondary backup, it's more a theory.

[Ben Gruagach]

The "so what" about all this talk of history is that we do ourselves harm when we try and pass off speculation as proven history. If we talk about things with an emphasis on their effectiveness it's one thing. When we present these things along with a claim that they have some sort of direct historical link to pre-Gardnerian Wiccans, or that these things prove the existence of pre-Gardnerian Wiccans, it's something else.

[DebLipp]

The "so what" about all this talk of history is that we do ourselves harm when we try and pass off speculation as proven history. If we talk about things with an emphasis on their effectiveness it's one thing. When we present these things along with a claim that they have some sort of direct historical link to pre-Gardnerian Wiccans, or that these things prove the existence of pre-Gardnerian Wiccans, it's something else.
The "so what" though, is also that we have to acknowledge that the very process of gathering history is flawed, if it fails to include that there are things that have truly happened that do not leave footprints.

[Ben Gruagach]

The "so what" though, is also that we have to acknowledge that the very process of gathering history is flawed, if it fails to include that there are things that have truly happened that do not leave footprints.

There will always be historical mysteries and things which can't be proven because they don't leave footprints. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to make whatever historical claims they want and expect others to just accept those claims as true.

If a historical claim is to be considered valid then it has to be proven.

It does our community no favours when we make unsubstantiated historical claims. Acknowledging speculation as speculation is fine but let's be honest about things.

[Elderbush]

Thank you, Ben! I'm so tired of people thinking that Wiccans are worth a giggle because they can't tell the difference.

[David19]

Maybe people can't know what the fragmentory pieces were, since if Gardner took his oaths seriously, he may not have put them into the public eyes, and the real secrets may be written down in private, guarded notes or other Books of Shadows, or it may be passed on orally, if that's true, then probably the only way you'll know is if you're initated into a Gardnerian coven or some Gardnerian's decide to tell people.

[Ben Gruagach]

Maybe people can't know what the fragmentory pieces were, since if Gardner took his oaths seriously, he may not have put them into the public eyes, and the real secrets may be written down in private, guarded notes or other Books of Shadows, or it may be passed on orally, if that's true, then probably the only way you'll know is if you're initated into a Gardnerian coven or some Gardnerian's decide to tell people.

I sort of covered that in the first post in the thread. I asked for people who would be in the position to know (i.e. Gardnerian initiates) to at least say if the reason they couldn't identify them was because of oaths.

However, suggestions have been made about what the fragmentary material might be and no mention of oaths has been brought up. (Deb Lipp is a Gardnerian so I'd think she'd certainly have mentioned the oaths if it was an issue.)

Philip Heselton is an initiate as well (although I'm not certain that he's Gardnerian -- he might be Alexandrian) and in his books attempting to identify the pre-Gardnerian evidence of an intact Pagan religion he's not said he was forbidden to do the search or share his results because of oaths.

[DebLipp]

I sort of covered that in the first post in the thread. I asked for people who would be in the position to know (i.e. Gardnerian initiates) to at least say if the reason they couldn't identify them was because of oaths.
A Gardnerian initiate avoids saying "that's a secret." The 'neither confirm nor deny' rule precludes it. It's not a question that will ever be answered by an initiate in most cases.

[Ben Gruagach]

A Gardnerian initiate avoids saying "that's a secret." The 'neither confirm nor deny' rule precludes it. It's not a question that will ever be answered by an initiate in most cases.

I would have thought that merely saying "we don't discuss Gardner's teachings because they are oathbound" would cover it.

In any case, wasn't the thing about neither confirming nor denying supposed to be about how to handle being confronted with whether you are a witch? And if it is about the things are are supposed to be oathbound, wouldn't it also mean that initiates who mention these things in the context of trying to claim they prove a historical link to pre-Gardnerian Pagan religions are therefore breaking their oaths because they brought them up?

(I'm not trying to be a troll or anything... it just isn't adding up for me.)

[Cerulean_damselfly]

I've been studying this thread for awhile and would like to join in the discussion.

First, just let me say for personal interest, I just received Gerald B. Gardner's book on Malay daggers (cheap library reprint)--I wanted to approach his writings first from what I know of Eastern-Western cultural interactions in late 19th to 20th century. His time of experience, path from England through the Far East and back again cross times of my own looks into the 100 year journey of Far Eastern heritage and path through the California West.

His work as a thoroughly British gentleman of the Johore Civil Service in 1936 is on Keris and other Malay weapons and his discussion of 'superstitions' touch on the indiginous decoration and terms, which might also include allusions to Muslim religions. His work is well-illustrated and altogether thoughtful--somewhat period and colonial in its attitudes, but I can accept his reflecting the attitudes of his upbringing and British interest circles that he probably was addressing. The book was originally published in 150 copies and addressed to collectors and perhaps ethnologists.

I'm very interested in reading more of his early published work and influences in his circles...to see how he moved to perhaps forming or participating in his own ideas of what he felt was indiginous to New Forest. And how the rituals evolved to feel like what I experience in interfaith events today...

I have to admit, when I attend interfaith events such as Panthecon in Northern California, and smaller circles, the 'public' rituals have a blended flavor that usually involves:

- An invocation to the deities,
- the drawing of the circle,
- magical work,
- dancing, and feasting,

with my own (Cerulean Damselfly's phrasing)
- a (recognition and allusions to) Mystery Religion myth of the deity/goddess.* (see below, slight different from the Dine)

This might be a modern evolution in European-heritage based rituals in public to perhaps be more friendly and intimate?

As I examine papers that are describing translations of modern prayers and rituals in Shinto faith, there's elements of
all the above, as well. Makes me think of how one would plan a small prayer group or gentle spiritual interfaith gathering, to find common denominators. A couple of Dine/Navaho from Arizona's Canyon de Chelly (pronouned Shay) comes once or twice a year to work with my poetry teacher to present healing and gentle presentations to others from their Way of Beauty and the above was also present in their events.

*The only exception is that Dine presentation did not really invoke a tribute to one deity in their public presentation out of respect to how others might feel--but they did speak of all of the commonality of all us being the child of the earth, which is as the mother, and sky, which is the father.

http://mysticcanyon.com/dine.htm

Hope this is not wandering to far off-topic...I guess I'm very interested in Gardner's evolutionary phrases in his spiritual beliefs as we might find in his written work or as expressed in his circles...and how perhaps this might have evolved in the twentieth century and now resonates in some common threads that I see in interfaith events in the twenti-first century.

Perhaps that not really Gardner, more of the commonality of celebrations in NeoPagan revival movements of the 20th century?

Regards,

Cerulean_Damselfly

[DebLipp]

Ben,

A Gardnerian doesn't discuss that which is oathbound. If there is a published source for material that is also oathbound, a Gardnerian is allowed to discuss the material in that context, albeit never mentioning that it is also oathbound. In general, those of us who are very cautious with our oaths will always cite, so that no one wonders if that was an oathbound thing she just said.

Neither confirm nor deny is an excellent rule of thumb to teach people about how to keep their oaths. I don't actually know where it originates. It works.

We do discuss Gardner's teachings. Gardner published four books and was interviewed, and some of his students also published books. There's plenty to discuss. What we don't do is discuss things that are oathbound and cannot be discussed in the context of published sources. Nor do we say that the reason we can't discuss those things is that they're oathbound. As eager as people are for juicy historical tidbits, it would create too much interest in exactly what was left out of the conversation.

[Ben Gruagach]

So I guess I'll repeat my question:

If it's not a violation of anyone's oaths, could someone please help identify what the fragmentary pieces were that Gardner was taught by his initiators in the New Forest?

[Cerulean_damselfly]

Not an answer, but perhaps a related suggestion and a perspective that might assist? It may be very difficult to answer the 'simple question' for the fact there might be more involved in how any oral tradition is passed on and given the span of time involved.

For instance, below...this is a piece of new information to me...which may just be speculation, but the idea of interested parties researching and trying to identify people who might have drawn from local beliefs to New Forest circa 1900 to 1950 and published their writing..this might assist in identifying what inherited 'fragmentary teachings' might have been:

http://www.the-cauldron.fsnet.co.uk/k_l_oldmeadow.html

In other words, as someone suggested in another thread, looking into New Forest locale--but as this researcher did, in the published record of local British writers and creative people who might have lived there at the time and perhaps a generation earlier.

In any oral heritage, tradition or cultural existance, the span of 50 years among so many different teachers and successive students would have many changes. Given that Raymond Buckland transferred G.B.G.'s tradition to the U.S so many decades ago, I don't know that people in the U.S. of Gardnarian training really could identify what was local to New Forest, Great Britain.

I do know while as someone who inherited a different culture and ancestry from a different land, adaptation to local living and a span of two generations, I have to research earlier writers that would have influenced my grandparents parents to find what was 'locally true' to the culture of the time.

Perhaps this would assist in answering questions from a fresh angle..if people can find what was in public record and is unique to New Forest at that time, this might help interested parties rediscover the details of what unique and beautiful continuation of something old, as well as also identifying what was new.

Regards,

Cerulean_damselfly