Gardner's Lack of Credibility

[Carla O'Harris]

Here's your chance!

Please document any and all existences of any proof you have that Gardner's reputation should be called into question. I want all the dirt, but I want it all documented. Please give examples from published sources with page numbers if you can ; if you must provide websites, please include the links.

All evidence of his lying, conniving, duplicitous behavior please lay out for all of us to examine.


I'm sure we'll see things about his degrees, I'm sure we'll hear quotes about "legpulling" and so forth ... lay it all out ... and when you're done laying it out, please explain just why you think each example demonstrates that he cannot be taken at his word in regards to a faith he found so important.

Slanderfest!! All I'm asking for is documentation, and reasoned explanation. We can then let each person decide for their own on the basis of the discussion and the other documented evidence.

[Morgandria]

Strangely enough, I don't think a 'slanderfest' about anyone, living or dead, falls under the MW One Rule. It isn't respectful.

[Carla O'Harris]

It's perfectly respectful, because the intent is to clear him of the charges, and one can't clear one of the charges until the charges are collected together.

[Erincelt]

This does bump up against The Rule, but so far as I can tell, it gets by on a technicality. Although I plan to stay well away from it. Slander is slander is slander.

[Greyharp]

Carla isn't interested in slander, what she is looking for verifiable, documented historical evidence of Gardner's lies. This is to defend her stance that Gardner could be trusted at his word when talking about the religion of Witchcraft/Wicca, and to give cynics like myself a chance to prove our case with facts, and not just vague theories. Slander and historical fact are two totally different things, with two totally different motivations. I don't think this thread would in anyway "bump up against" MW's One Rule.

Dave

[Morgandria]

A poor choice of words, on her part, then. However it's phrased, I won't be taking part. I'm not interested in helping forward anyone's agenda, here or elsewhere.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm reluctant to participate in this thread for the same reasons others have stated.

[Carla O'Harris]

*sigh* Ok, yes, I'm not asking for a "slanderfest", that was more of an expressive joke. I hope my intentions are clear.

Please don't feel you're slandering Gardner by engaging in an examination of his character.

I'm trying to bring this all out into the open and collect it together so it can be evaluated. Instead of "slanderfest", perhaps I should have said, "Come air the dirty laundry". Airing the dirty laundry can have a good effect. First of all, it allows us to see just how dirty the laundry actually is, it also reminds us of our own dirty laundry, and it allows us to do the laundry!!

Complexities of character can then be treated with nuance rather than naive veneration or cynical dismissal, and could potentially become a point of dialogue. Cynics are often driven deeper into entrenchment when they feel like no one is listening to their objections, while the naive often fail to listen to those objections due to the cynical entrenchment, which leads to a vicious cycle. Here's a potential opportunity (I'm not saying it will happen) to break through that cycle.

But in order to do that, all the charges have to be brought forward and documented, so that we are not dealing with rumor and innuendo, but concrete evidence we can each evaluate for ourselves and dialogue about.

[Paracelsus]

Carla, I think it's pretty clear that what you are asking for is just a selection of some of the usual ad hominem arguments that are sometimes put forward to rubbish Gardner's claims about the origins of Wicca. I think that we're all sufficiently sophisticated in our thinking (even those of us who are retrenched in our adherence to orthodox historical discourses) to know that this would be a waste of time. Even if there are lots of records of Gardner being a liar, plagiarist, enthusiastically imaginative inventor, friend of Crowley, enthusiastic flagellator, (or even worse, a participator in amateur dramatics) or whatever, that neither invalidates, nor validates any particular claims that you're interested in, does it?

[Carla O'Harris]

What I find absolutely fascinating is people's unwillingness to actually bring their innuendo out into the open when called on it, yet their willingness to invoke such innuendo bit by bit when the argument calls for it. I'm merely asking for honesty and straightforwardness. I consider when people aren't willing to bring their charges forward in a straightforward manner that they were never serious about them to begin with.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

What I find absolutely fascinating is people's unwillingness to actually bring their innuendo out into the open when called on it, yet their willingness to invoke such innuendo bit by bit when the argument calls for it. I'm merely asking for honesty and straightforwardness. I consider when people aren't willing to bring their charges forward in a straightforward manner that they were never serious about them to begin with.
I could say the exact same thing about the questions I raised in regard to Margaret Murray in another thread, except I raised questions and you evaded them.
I'm not going to go into any 'sexual perversion' theories, because ritual scourging and mortifications of the flesh are widely documented, the scourging seems to work according to its stated purpose, and I really can't claim that a heterosexual male having a taste for nude young ladies is a deviancy.
You want innuendo? Okay, fine. His diplomas from the University of Singapore are fakes. His certificates from the OTO are sketchy at best. His knowledge of the witch-hunts is laughable. His 'Old Laws' are obviously aimed at putting Valiente and her splinter group in their places. Virtually the only account of his life we have is the biography by Idries Shah, and the veracity of a few of the facts in that book have been called into question by both Hutton AND Hesselton. He based his ideas off Graves' 'The White Goddess', and if you say that there's nothing wrong with TWG then there is something plainly wrong with you, Murray's witch books (also insane, but less insane than Graves), and Frazer's 'Golden Bough' (which has been questioned by more modern anthropologists and ethnographers). The exquisitely detailed documentation of heretical sects has NOTHING comparable to Gardner's Wicca; none of its artifacts have ever been documented in inquisitorial trials and they sure caught enough people accused of witchcraft to find some, and perhaps most obviously, THERE IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, no matter WHAT you OR Raven Grimassi have to say. Raven merely talks of ITALY; Gardner's Wicca was BRITISH. And YOU, Carla, have merely engaged in the fine art of circular arguments and I've caught you in a few errors as well.
I find nothing explicitly wrong with Gardner's little tricks, because they haven't exactly hurt anyone, but damn, they've muddled the waters. I find it a testimony to my love of the Gods that I can proudly say that my religion was created in the 1940's and has so far lasted far longer than most home-brewed religions and will hopefully last long into the future. I could say that Gardner was divinely inspired and that the Gods used him as their tool. I could say a lot of things, but to be honest, the only thing I care about in this matter is the sorting of wheat from chaff, and you are kicking up an awful lot of chaff.
*edit*
I said in this post earlier that Carla engaged in 'a sickening attack on Christianity'. I was in error. I confused one post with another and that was a mistake.

[Carla O'Harris]

Thank you for providing some of the accusations :

1. Fake Diplomas.

2. Sketchy OTO certificates.

3. Allegation that he made up the Old Laws for political purposes.

4. Can you be more specific about the biography and its problems?

5. Gardner's dependence on The White Goddess? This must be demonstrated with precise citations ; and, if you're going to call those specific citations into question you must do so individually, not just with a swipe at Graves.

Unfortunately, you've provided no citations for any of this, so this is still pure supposition and innuendo. Can you please provide sources and page numbers?

You claim that Gardner got his ideas from Graves, Murray, and Frazer.

You make the false assumption that because some of Frazer's ideas have been questioned that there must be something wrong with the facts he reported. Much of Frazer's work still stands up to critical judgement.

You call Margaret Murray insane when she was in fact a respected writer. Many of her insights have proven to be true ; her exaggerations are due to the fact that she was a pioneer who became a bit overexcited about the real findings she'd uncovered.

I suggest you update your knowledge of heretical sects and historical witchcraft. It matches in many ways Gardner's structures.

Your analysis in my opinion relies far too much (as Hutton does) on nationalist boundaries which is not relevant to a witchcraft analysis, as people were passing back and forth between various countries for centuries, exchanging stories, lore, etc.

But I do appreciate that you have at least started the ball rolling. Now we just need documentation.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

The diplomas - Hutton states that Valiente proved them false in 'The Rebirth of Witchcraft' (pages 41-42), a book I have not read, but I've seen this claim reinforced elsewhere. Hutton says this on page 207 in 'Triumph'.
OTO certificates: I cannot recall exactly where I first saw this claim. I've seen it put forth in a few places. If I had a copy of 'Wiccan Roots' I think that might help, as it goes into the details of Gardner's life much more than 'Triumph' does. Gardner claimed to be an OTO member, but he gave his signature and degree letters in the Golden Dawn fashion (page 223, 'Triumph'). Hutton also says the certificate granting Gardner the right to start an OTO lodge has disappeared (page 222).
The Old Laws: This is said by many people. A reading of the Laws themselves gives a good impression of this. Numerous references to High Priestesses gracefully retiring in favour of a younger and more beautiful woman are frequent, and the entire view of the witch hunts is bady, badly off (As in, Christian spies running around saying "An I can but catch one of the Wicca I can scape this firey pit", referring to getting out of Hell by catching Wiccans) The Old Laws can be found at the Sacred Texts Archive. Their timing is suspicious, and the fact that they had never been seen before the incident with Valiente's splinter group strongly points to the idea that they were made for the occasion. (Hutton, page 249)
I don't know enough about Gardner's life to pinpoint everything in the biography. However, Adler describes it as 'poorly written' (Drawing Down the Moon, page 60. Chaper: 'The Wiccan Revival'). Apparently Gardner himself was the source of a lot of the information. I suspect 'Wiccan Roots' deals with this problem, but it's been a few months since I've read it.
Murray was indeed a respected writer in her field, which was Egyptology. However, when it came to witchcraft she was, ah, shall we say, 'highly unorthodox'.
Gardner's 'dependency' on TWG - it is entirely possible that I am wrong or misguided on this subject. I believe Gardner was influenced by Graves, but the exact degree of that is questionable. I believe gardner was influenced by Graves, but after looking through my materials, I will say that he might not have been as influenced as I and others often think. I know that Graves and Gardner met, and that Graves knew what Gardner was up to. I think TWG was more of an influence on later Wiccans than Gardner, but when you look at the idea of the dying and ressurected God in Wiccan theology, Graves (and Frazer) are there.

[Ben Gruagach]

The O.T.O. connections are pretty clearly documented in Philip Heselton's "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" and also on the website http://www.geraldgardner.com. And while the location of the O.T.O. charter might have been uncertain when Hutton wrote "Triumph of the Moon" it's been confirmed since then and isn't a mystery. The charter is now apparently in the possession of an American O.T.O. group.

Gardner's visits to Crowley are also documented in Crowley's diaries.

The O.T.O. charter, from what I've heard, is a valid one. However, it only authorizes Gardner to grant the first three degrees of the O.T.O., which has more than just three degrees in its system.

[raven grimassi]

THERE IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, no matter WHAT you OR Raven Grimassi have to say.

Well, we are providing literary and historical references to support our position. How is this verifiable data not some form of evidence?

Raven merely talks of ITALY

Actually my research largely focuses on southern European Witchcraft (with a focus on Italy) as well as on Eastern Europe, but does not ignore the British Isles (nor German Witchcraft). There are a couple of things that are interesting about Witchcraft in England such as the trial evidence depicting the passing on of familiars through family lines and from teacher to student. This strongly suggests the idea of a tradition in and of itself. The 16th century trial of Elizabeth Francis, in Chelmsford England, is one interesting example.

Now as to my talking "merely" about Italy, I think it is noteworthy that European Witchcraft cannot, as a model, be isolated to any single region of Europe in an attempt to define it by area or culture. As scholar Christina Larner writes: "...there is no form of witch belief and no form of witchcraft control that can be described as typically 'Continental' and opposed to those characteristics either of the British Isles or of England or Scotland as separate entities." (Witchcraft and Religion, by Christian Larner).

The commonality of Witchcraft throughout Europe prevents us from dismissing the importance of any singular region, and also supports the idea of something quite organized and widespread. As Larner notes: "This basic structure of peasant witchcraft accusations is similar for all witch-believing societies. The attributes of the witch vary according to the values of the society in question...but the patterns are widely similar." Considering that the Middle Ages had no form of mass media through which to transmit to the uneducated, it is remarkable that peasants in various parts of Europe in remote villages all shared similar (if not identical) beliefs and practices related to Witchcraft. We know this from various sources including the writings of wandering saints such as St. Martin of Braga (noted in The World of Witches, by scholar Julio Caro Baroja).

[Greyharp]

The commonality of Witchcraft throughout Europe prevents us from dismissing the importance of any singular region, and also supports the idea of something quite organized and widespread. As Larner notes: "This basic structure of peasant witchcraft accusations is similar for all witch-believing societies. The attributes of the witch vary according to the values of the society in question...but the patterns are widely similar." Considering that the Middle Ages had no form of mass media through which to transmit to the uneducated, it is remarkable that peasants in various parts of Europe in remote villages all shared similar (if not identical) beliefs and practices related to Witchcraft. We know this from various sources including the writings of wandering saints such as St. Martin of Braga (noted in The World of Witches, by scholar Julio Caro Baroja).

Europe in the Middle Ages DID have a form of mass media - the Church. Until the Reformation, I believe, the Church had a single, central authority - the Pope. From there, laws and "truth" trickled down extremely efficiently through the ecclesiastical chain to the local priests, and on to the lowest portions of society - the peasants. Quite an effective form of mass media I would think, and one which bypassed national boundaries.

Now if this central authority stated that witches and witchcraft were real - the truth - I don't think it's any surprise that the idea would spread throughout Christendom, or in other words Europe, and that stories of witchcraft throughout those nations would be extremely similar. And I don't think this idea is any less reasonable or logical than the ancient witch-cult idea.

I guess it's a bit like the circular argument that the use of the Malleus Maleficarum as a text book for witch hunters would produce the very proof they were after, with similar stories occuring wherever it was used, though probably with some local colour and quirks. I'm quite certain that if I were tortured, I'd happily agree with my torturers if they wanted me to confess to flying naked to a sabbat, having an orgy with other revellers and kissing the Devil's arse. I'd tell them whatever they wanted me to say and Hey Presto! there's the proof. An old argument, but once again no less valid than the opposite theory that the confessions were true or based on truth.

Dave

[misschief]

Here's your chance!

Please document any and all existences of any proof you have that Gardner's reputation should be called into question. I want all the dirt, but I want it all documented. Please give examples from published sources with page numbers if you can ; if you must provide websites, please include the links.

All evidence of his lying, conniving, duplicitous behavior please lay out for all of us to examine.


I'm sure we'll see things about his degrees, I'm sure we'll hear quotes about "legpulling" and so forth ... lay it all out ... and when you're done laying it out, please explain just why you think each example demonstrates that he cannot be taken at his word in regards to a faith he found so important.

Slanderfest!! All I'm asking for is documentation, and reasoned explanation. We can then let each person decide for their own on the basis of the discussion and the other documented evidence.uh... riiiight...

[Greyharp]

Back on the subject of Gardner's alleged lack of credibility, I don't have reams of proof to offer, just my thoughts. As Silverfire Darkmoon mentioned, Doreen Valiente states she proved Gardner's educational qualifications were a lie. I can only take her word for this. In Witchcraft for Tomorrow she writes:

"The question of Gerald Gardner's right to the title of doctor has been raised in recent years. When I got to know him (and we became close friends for many years), I always understood that his degrees were purely honorary. He did not, however, hold a degree from the present University of Singapore, because I communicated with them after old Gerald's death, and asked them this question. The University authorities stated that the University was not even in existence at the time Gerald Gardner was resident in Malaya, where he was employed in the Civil Service as a Custom's officer, before the Second World War. Later, I also got in touch with the University of Toulouse. They informed me that they had never conferred any doctorate of literature upon Gerald Gardner."

So here are my thoughts. When a person lies about their credentials, it's usually motivated by a desire to appear important. Not having known Gardner personally, I can only offer conjecture. However, I do have a life-time of experience during which I have met many people who have lied about their credentials and their experiences. Very rarely does this sort of person stick to one untruth. Often they are very intelligent people, but whether due to some form of insecurity, strange compulsion or whatever else motivates them, they tend to obstinately stick to their story, even when it becomes obvious that those around them no longer believe it.

Now I am not suggesting that Gardner was a compulsive liar. What I am saying is that his lie about his credentials is enough to cause me to doubt his reliability and his many other claims. I can't help this, my experiences with people telling this sort of lie makes me very dubious and cynical. As I have stated in another thread, I have no desire to tear down the man and I am in fact hugely thankful to him for his legacy - Wicca.

[raven grimassi]

Europe in the Middle Ages DID have a form of mass media - the Church. Until the Reformation, I believe, the Church had a single, central authority - the Pope. From there, laws and "truth" trickled down extremely efficiently through the ecclesiastical chain to the local priests, and on to the lowest portions of society - the peasants. Quite an effective form of mass media I would think, and one which bypassed national boundaries.

Hardly the kind of thing that addresses what I was referring to, which is the beliefs and practices of Witchcraft in rural areas among uneducated peasants. These were already well in place before the Church sent out its agents (as evidenced by pre-Christian writings). Also, the process you refer to was much too slow to reach isolated villages by the time the formula you suggest would have had time to contaminate the populace in remote mountain villages and the like (and again, the writings of wandering saints make the chronology very apparent). Bear in mind that it took the Church many centuries just to reach and convert the Pagans of Europe to Christianity (much less accomplish what you suggest, with the short time left once the process you outline was in place).

Now if this central authority stated that witches and witchcraft were real - the truth - I don't think it's any surprise that the idea would spread throughout Christendom, or in other words Europe, and that stories of witchcraft throughout those nations would be extremely similar. And I don't think this idea is any less reasonable or logical than the ancient witch-cult idea.

It is just a matter of what we know about Pagan beliefs and practices, which were pre-existing in terms of Witchcraft as evidenced by ancient pre-Christian writers on the topic as well the wandering saints I have already mentioned. What the Church brought was judgment and persecution, not the notion of beliefs and practices themselves (although it did distort these beliefs with the insertion of the Satanic element).

One good source is the Corrector sive Medicus written by Burchard of Worms in the early 11th century. It presents Pagan beliefs and practices and then lists the punishment for each offense in Christendom. Many scholars use this as source for looking at pre-existing Pagan ways. Here is an interesting passage:

"Have you observed the traditions of the pagans, which , as if by hereditary right, with the assistance of the devil, fathers have ever left to their sons even to these days, that is, you should worship the elements, the moon or the sun or the course of stars, the new moon or the eclipse of the moon..."

The Collector also lists such things as worshipping at the crossroads, venerating wells, making herbal potions, using enchantments, using cords for knot magic, using incantations while weaving, practicing what today we would call astral projection, and many other things.

I'm quite certain that if I were tortured, I'd happily agree with my torturers if they wanted me to confess to flying naked to a sabbat, having an orgy with other revellers and kissing the Devil's arse. I'd tell them whatever they wanted me to say and Hey Presto! there's the proof. An old argument, but once again no less valid than the opposite theory that the confessions were true or based on truth.

Except for the fact that torture was rarely used in Italy and Sicily. Many people freely "confessed" to local priests, something noted by Ginzburg in his Ecstasies, Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath. Despite the absence of torture the accounts are very similar to those in regions where torture was common. However, one primary difference found in the Sicilian and Italian trial material is the reference to a Witch society such as the Society of Diana, and in Sicily the Donna di Fuora, which historian Gustave Henningsen states is remarkably similar to the Witch sect described by Margaret Murray.

So despite the distortions of Witchcraft due to the insertion by the Church of satanic elements, we can still find traces of a Pagan rooted Witchcraft as opposed to the depiction of Witchcraft in Judeo-Christian terms.

[Cerulean_damselfly]

"The question of Gerald Gardner's right to the title of doctor has been raised in recent years. When I got to know him (and we became close friends for many years), I always understood that his degrees were purely honorary. He did not, however, hold a degree from the present University of Singapore, because I communicated with them after old Gerald's death, and asked them this question. The University authorities stated that the University was not even in existence at the time Gerald Gardner was resident in Malaya, where he was employed in the Civil Service as a Custom's officer, before the Second World War."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, in it's present form, the University of Singapore was not in existance, but from what I've read at the home site, the University combined together schools such as the King Edwards College of Medicine (1905, renamed in 1912) and there was a Raffles College (1929) of Arts and Sciences was in existance and it was among these colleges that later formed the University of Singapore. These were based in the British territories occupied in the city.

Here's two links about the University of Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Singapore

http://www.med.nus.edu.sg/corporate/history.shtml

Given that World War II was a time of terrible pain and suffering for those who remained in Singapore (a professor that I interviewed for his life story was a young boy at that time in Singapore and a survivor of death march*), it is likely some of the older school records might have not survived...perhaps the question was never asked what school college prior to World War II (that became Singapore National University) under British authority would have likely awarded Mr. Gerald B. Gardner (G.B.G) a recognition that could have equated to an honorary degree.

A little of Singapore history in WWII.
http://www.visitsingapore.com/WWII/WWIIstory.htm

My suggestion--and I'll try to link if I can find the reference again--is to perhaps see if one can find listings of any correspondence of Mr. Gardner with British authorities at the Museum which is said to house one of his models of an ancient city of Singapore...this was said to be part of the reason he was awarded an honorary degree?

http://www.bcholmes.org/wicca/gardner.html

The link above says Raymond Buckland's research noted the Victoria and Albert Museum and Museum of Singapore for the models and research that G.B.G. contributed...

There might be papers of correspondence with British archeologists or professors affiliated with perhaps the Raffles college of Arts and Sciences or perhaps Singapore insitututions of higher learning under British rule of the time. It might not prove the degree in total, but it might be of assistance to interested researchers trying to validate the claim.

It took me a few minutes to find these above bits of information, as it's easier now than perhaps the time period Ms. Valiente might have originally posed her questions.

(*In one of my undergraduate projects, I interviewed a half-American and half-Chinese professor who lived in Singapore prior to the World War II invasion by Japanese. The city was segregated into zones and after World War II, there was British control, but also movement toward self-rule in the 1960s.) I do not know when Ms. Valiente posed her questions, but perhaps they were not exact enough for her to elicit further suggestions of research.

Regards,

Cerulean_damselfly

[Greyharp]

Thanks for that information Cerulean_damselfly, it is not something I have read before and certainly is food for thought.

Dave :)

[Greyharp]

the process you refer to was much too slow to reach isolated villages by the time the formula you suggest would have had time to contaminate the populace in remote mountain villages and the like.

I'm not convinced that this is the case, but then I'm no expert. Certainly from what I've read of the period, I don't think communication between towns and even countries was something that took long periods. Months at the most, certainly not years.

Are you aware Raven if the text you mentioned (Corrector sive Medicus) is available anywhere on the Net in English? My searches have failed to find anything other than mentions of the document.

Except for the fact that torture was rarely used in Italy and Sicily. Many people freely "confessed" to local priests

Again, something I haven't got the expertise to comment on, but I must say, because I can't resist doing so, I would expect holier-than-thou torturers to say such a thing. But then that is making an assumption, and doing that is bad history in my book.

[Ben Gruagach]

Confessions don't have to be extracted by torture in order to be coerced or false. We have abundant present-day examples where people confess to the most amazing things for a variety of reasons from mental illness to a desire to please others to attention-seeking.

I think that when confessions are the only evidence we have for something we should be reluctant to consider it authoritative unless there is other evidence (from other sources -- not confessions) to back it up.

[Carla O'Harris]

Oh, that is ridiculous, Ben : the level of evidence you are asking for from a forbidden religion that was persecuted for a thousand years by the only record-keeping folks is just absurd.

We know they existed because in modern times they have told us so. The level of evidence then appropriate is to find the small traces almost smudged out in the history books, not to create absurdly high levels of evidence necessary. I really, really doubt that the same level of evidence would be demanded if people from a small Jewish sect had surfaced and spoken of their oppression.

[raven grimassi]

I'm not convinced that this is the case, but then I'm no expert. Certainly from what I've read of the period, I don't think communication between towns and even countries was something that took long periods. Months at the most, certainly not years.

Travel time is not really the issue since we know from pre-Christian writings that the beliefs and practices related to Witchcraft were already in place before the establishment of Christianity.

Are you aware Raven if the text you mentioned (Corrector sive Medicus) is available anywhere on the Net in English?

No, and sorry I cannot help you there. I do not use the Internet for research very much, as there is as much misinformation as there is information on the Internet. I rely upon published academic texts (which unfortunately are very expensive) and University archives.

I think that when confessions are the only evidence we have for something we should be reluctant to consider it authoritative unless there is other evidence (from other sources -- not confessions) to back it up.

I agree, which is why I devote so much time to researching the ethnographical material, folk material, and commentaries in the regions where the "confessions" exist in writing. For example, when I look at the confessions of Witches in Italy who say they worship Diana, I look for earlier evidence of a connection between Witches and Diana, as well as anything suggesting the worship of Diana in general within the Christian era of that region.

In this I have encountered the pre-Christian worship of Diana in Italy, the mention by the Roman poet Horace that Witches call upon Diana, the records of wanderings saints who refer to the worship of Diana in remote villages, and the Witch trial transcripts mentioning claims of worshipping Diana (which span a period of 300 hundred years). When I think about the fact that a Witch’s claim to worship Diana does not fit with the Inquisitor's need to have a confession of Satan worship, I tend to view the data as not inventive on part of the Inquisitor.

[Paracelsus]

We know they existed because in modern times they have told us so.

& this is sufficient?
The same logic can thus be applied to the "truth" of alien abduction experiences, the loch ness monster, Benjamin Creme's "Maitreya", Crop circles as messages from Gaia / Alien intelligences (delete as appropriate), Razor blades staying sharp when kept under pyramids, and all sorts of fortean phenomena.

Indeed, as these are all unpopular, disenfranchised, outsider discourses, the fallacy of this argument is driven deeper.

While I'm acutely aware of the signifiance of ethnographic evidence, I'm also acutely aware of the difficulties of unquestioningly accepting what people say, and you know as well as I do that many of those who claim to be from "ancient family traditions" are either misguided or simply fraudulent power trippers.

I'm not totally averse to the Murrayite thesis, indeed, I would like it to contain truth - but as yet I have to remain unconvinced. As for Gardner's claims, again, it would be nice if they were true, but it takes little more than a light touch with Occam's razor to render them incomprehensible.

I do not see the necessity in establishing authenticity in history (like all those fundamentalist Christians who want to get back to the "early church" - a total non-starter, even given the evidence that historians possess) - spiritual paths must be measured by what they achieve now - indeed, if we all put as much effort into trying to evolve Wicca into something that could do more to serve the people of the 21st century, as we do into bitching about whether it is old or not, we would be performing a far more profound service to the Gods and our ancestors.

[Ben Gruagach]

Oh, that is ridiculous, Ben : the level of evidence you are asking for from a forbidden religion that was persecuted for a thousand years by the only record-keeping folks is just absurd.

We know they existed because in modern times they have told us so. The level of evidence then appropriate is to find the small traces almost smudged out in the history books, not to create absurdly high levels of evidence necessary. I really, really doubt that the same level of evidence would be demanded if people from a small Jewish sect had surfaced and spoken of their oppression.

I fail to see why the level or quality of evidence should be relaxed because someone declares the group under discussion to be a "forbidden religion."

Political correctness doesn't have much weight in providing convincing scholarly arguments about historical claims.

[Carla O'Harris]

Convincing to whom? People with no faith? People who have already made up their minds that the entire thing's a fraud? Why bother? I have better things to do with my life than convince people who are dead set against something. You can't set up the same level of evidence for something that has been systematically erased and maligned. That doesn't mean that you can't ask for a level of rigour and rational examination of the evidence, but it does mean you have to start with the hypothesis and find evidence for it, rather than start with the opposite of the hypothesis and demand that people disprove the antithesis. That's an absurd level of proof to ask for under the circumstances. And it's shocking to me that people considering themselves religiously wiccan would demand anything like that anyway ; with friends like this, who needs Jesuits? How can you prove something to someone who doesn't want to believe it? And what absurd thesis is it that any discourse beyond the bare minimum that can be absolutely proven to all individuals with a predisposition to disbelieve isn't worthwhile discussion or theology? You're saying that in order to engage in theological history at all, we have to submit our work to a panel of skeptics and scholars to see if they will approve? Or should that be a panel of inquisition? Because it seems to me that we've already played that out. Obviously no one can accuse me of being anti-intellectual, nor of discouraging rational questioning. But there's a rigour that comes from within as well as a rigour that comes from without, and trying to sell ourselves to academics is not the end-all and be-all of rigour. I also think it's worthwhile to inquire into the biases and religious background of anyone investigating witchcraft in the first place to examine what motivations may be coloring their investigations. It's not our job to satisfy debunkers, who have a will-to-disbelieve.

And it was the Catholic Church that declared witchcraft a forbidden religion, a "sect" they were trying to eradicate ; so it's not me declaring it --- it's history. Fortunately for groups like the Marranos, there have been much more sympathetic historians willing to listen to them and understand that a great deal has been lost while a great deal has been retained if looked for in the right way, but it requires different hermeneutics than for above-ground groups.

As far as "we know they exist because they say so", this isn't accepted unquestioningly -- far from it. But it is the beginning point of our hypothesis, that we then look into history to see if there are traces that support the hypothesis. In fact, there are such traces. We're at a low level of historical "technology" at this point, in need of developing more sophisticated methodologies that allow the traces to be ferreted out with greater relief. This would be a similar task to the one facing John Dominic Crossan in trying to get a greater grip on the historical Jesus. Someone at least willing to give the hypothesis credit would be working towards developing such historical methodologies, rather than buying the existing level of discredit on faith, or further attempting to reinforce the discrediting. Obviously we have to define our time periods. The first would be up to the 1600's, which is much easier to demonstrate. Tracing various manifestations of the religion as it morphed from the 1600's into the 1900's will require a greater understanding of such phenomena as Freemasonry (whose history is just in its beginning stages in many ways), the interweaving of hermeticism and the Radical Reformation, and the prehistory of Mormonism. As these subjects open up and become clearer, it will become more possible to trace subterranean currents beneath and within these.


As far as the question of evolving the religion, how do you evolve something if you don't even have settled its origins? I think the question of origins is an important one if one is engaging in evolution.

[Greyharp]

I do not see the necessity in establishing authenticity in history...spiritual paths must be measured by what they achieve now - indeed, if we all put as much effort into trying to evolve Wicca into something that could do more to serve the people of the 21st century, as we do into bitching about whether it is old or not, we would be performing a far more profound service to the Gods and our ancestors.

I heartily agree Paracelsus, but I would also hate to see an end to the great hunt for truth and meaning in history, for that would make us like the fundamentalists of the world - held fast in the concrete of our beliefs, unchanging and inviolate.

I'm not totally averse to the Murrayite thesis, indeed, I would like it to contain truth

I think most of us would like that.

but as yet I have to remain unconvinced.

Me too. I truly believe there are many, many things in history that we'll simply never know the truth of, and although that shouldn't stop us from searching, I think we need to be comfortable with the fact that this is so. In the meantime the debate is incredibly interesting and enjoyable.

[Greyharp]

And it was the Catholic Church that declared witchcraft a forbidden religion, a "sect" they were trying to eradicate ; so it's not me declaring it --- it's history.

I don't think most of us Witch-Cult doubters believe there was no such thing as witchcraft. Witchcraft appears in pretty much all cultures, throughout all periods of history. What we do believe is that witchcraft was never a religion or organised entity, certainly not in the Murrayite sense. Not until evidence emerges to convince us otherwise.

Convincing to whom? People with no faith? People who have already made up their minds that the entire thing's a fraud? Why bother? I have better things to do with my life than convince people who are dead set against something. You can't set up the same level of evidence for something that has been systematically erased and maligned. That doesn't mean that you can't ask for a level of rigour and rational examination of the evidence, but it does mean you have to start with the hypothesis and find evidence for it, rather than start with the opposite of the hypothesis and demand that people disprove the antithesis. That's an absurd level of proof to ask for under the circumstances. And it's shocking to me that people considering themselves religiously wiccan would demand anything like that anyway

Once again I think this is a tad unfair. I'm quite certain most of us retain an open mind. The problem with evidence is that we don't all necessarily draw the same conclusions. What seems so obvious and black and white to one person, can be very vague and unclear to another, or can even lead to a seemingly obvious, but contrary conclusion. The evidence you're looking for Carla may simply not exist, which would suggest that your hypothesis would have to be taken on faith. People like Raven and yourself believe the evidence is incontrovertible, people like myself believe the evidence is only strong enough for supposition.

I also think it's worthwhile to inquire into the biases and religious background of anyone investigating witchcraft in the first place to examine what motivations may be coloring their investigations.

And this of course is a two-way street. Anyone approaching the subject with the belief that Murray's theories are without a doubt correct, is hardly going to produce an unbiased result from their investigations.

[Elderbush]

I disagree with the idea that evidence about the history of Wicca cannot (unlike other religions) tolerate historical reviews. If a certain hypothesis about the history of Wicca cannot be proved in the normal manner through historical review then perhaps new hypothesis need to be conceived that can be proved.

Wicca is an established religion with it's own history and does not need to have an ancient and unproved history of witchcraft to back it up in my opinion. Besides that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting speculation about the history of Wicca, or a mythic history of it, as long as one is clear about the speculation part.

[Carla O'Harris]

What we do believe is that witchcraft was never a religion or organised entity,

I don't even understand this. Raven has provided plenty of evidence to show that it was religiously based from the get-go -- it was the illicit religion of marginals.

The Canon Sect is obviously religious, and is obviously a part of the Fairy Faith, which is no doubt religious. How can anyone be doubting this? Do you doubt that Catholicism is religious? Do you doubt that Judaism is religious?

[Carla O'Harris]

I disagree with the idea that evidence about the history of Wicca cannot (unlike other religions) tolerate historical reviews. If a certain hypothesis about the history of Wicca cannot be proved in the normal manner through historical review then perhaps new hypothesis need to be conceived that can be proved.

Wicca is an established religion with it's own history and does not need to have an ancient and unproved history of witchcraft to back it up in my opinion.

You're not getting my point at all. Of course Wicca's history can be looked at with historical eyes, but it is not necessary to prove everything to everyone, precisely for the reason that there are significant blinders and biases that prevent people from seeing what is clearly there.

And since Wicca does have an ancient history, it's curious to me why so many people are trying so desperately to erase it.

[Greyharp]

I don't even understand this. Raven has provided plenty of evidence to show that it was religiously based from the get-go -- it was the illicit religion of marginals.

The key word here being evidence. Look back at my post in which I talk about how people view evidence. WE DON'T ALL DRAW THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. As I said before, just because it is black and white to you, doesn't mean it appears that way to me. I am not convinced and I am not the only one. Not being convinced is not the same as not being convincible.

The Canon Sect is obviously religious, and is obviously a part of the Fairy Faith, which is no doubt religious. How can anyone be doubting this? Do you doubt that Catholicism is religious? Do you doubt that Judaism is religious?

Sorry Carla, you've lost me, what is The Canon Sect? I must've missed something. Please explain. As for Catholicism and Judaism being religious, well I'm pleased to say that I have seen evidence that does convince me that this is so.

[Carla O'Harris]

The Canon Sect is the sect referred to in Canon Episcopi, which we see surfacing again and again in witchcraft history. It has a centuries-long provenance, and has to do with spirit-journeys with a matron goddess and the fairies, and thus is obviously spiritual.

So why don't you share how you do interpret the ancient witchcraft material? It's just "literature" to you, or what? What is your interpretation? Until I'm familiar with it, I cannot address it.

[Greyharp]

And since Wicca does have an ancient history, it's curious to me why so many people are trying so desperately to erase it.

Do you truly believe that? The erasing part I mean. I think it's more a case of wanting some honesty - the honesty to admit a theory is a theory and not fact. The objection is to a hypothesis presented as fact when there is clearly doubt in the minds of many, not the hypothesis itself.

[Greyharp]

The Canon Sect is the sect referred to in Canon Episcopi, which we see surfacing again and again in witchcraft history. It has a centuries-long provenance, and has to do with spirit-journeys with a matron goddess and the fairies, and thus is obviously spiritual.

Luckily for me, the Canon Episcopi is available on the internet and not locked away in some University library on the other side of the world. From my understanding I would say that we see this document "surfacing again and again in witchcraft history. It has a centuries-long provenance" simply because it was, I believe, one of Christianity's earliest references to Witchcraft, and those following over the centuries felt a need or obligation to refer to it.

Certainly in my reading of it, I can find absolutely no references to fairies and I would love you to explain how you came to THAT conclusion Carla.

So why don't you share how you do interpret the ancient witchcraft material? It's just "literature" to you, or what? What is your interpretation? Until I'm familiar with it, I cannot address it.

Well I guess firstly in this specific case, I would take into account the mindset of the author and those who would use the document over the following centuries. I am in no way convinced that the document refers to witchcraft as a pagan religion, let alone proves it. I can see how you could come to that assumption, but I could easily draw several other conclusions equally valid. The motive of Regino in writing this text (which was only a small part of a much larger document), was to expose sin and heresy, of which "the pernicious art of sorcery and malefice invented by the devil" was just one.

Regino's description of "unconstrained women, perverted by Satan, seduced by illusions and phantasms of demons" and their activities could quite easily be based on popular myths. He states quite clearly that these women DID NOT experience these activities in the flesh, but experienced them in their "dreams and nocturnal visions". In other words it was all in their minds. That is how I interpret this document.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

That is quite correct, Greyharp. 'Canon Episcopi' was a constant thorn in the side of later witch-hunters and demonologists, because it was the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove, and it had the advantage of being canon law.
I believe 'Canon Episcopi' was falsely attributed by Regino of the Council of Ancyra. Regino is the first known source of it, but my sources imply that he got it from somewhere else, so its age is questionable. However, it is the oldest Church document referencing witchcraft and, to my knowledge, is the only document from the witch hunts that mentions a pagan goddess.
Wicca most emphatically does not have an ancient history, and to be honest, I suspect almost everyone I see endorsing this theory of anti-Christian bias, which is sadly starting to show in your argument, Carla. You expect us to believe your theory on the flimsiest evidence and then engage in rants about how those who are inclined to objective truth are trying to destroy Wicca? Being faithful in your relgion has an entirely new meaning when you know and accept that it is a created religion, which obviously has power in its message if it has survived this long. Most cults fall apart after a: their first leader dies / is arrested b: Armageddon miraculously fails to happen. Wicca has lasted for fifty years, much longer than most new religions. The fact that we are looking at our objective facts instead of subjective interpretations and ARE STILL DEVOUT is testimony in of itself.
Both you are Raven have proven yourselves to be fundamentalists in your cause.
The problem with your theory is that there is no evidence or lack of evidence. As I have said before, witch hunters were very meticulous in their records. When there is information on exactly how much money was paid to make coats for the victims to be burned in, anything like 'Four books of shadows captured today' or 'two athames found under a haystack, will randomly apply thumbscrews to old women tomorrow' would have been recorded somewhere. The witch-hunters knew full well the difference between witchcraft and paganism, and had they been out to get pagans, they would have said so. Instead they were obviously after Satanic witches. There is just no evidence, no proof, no anything, and therefore, we must declare those people accused of witchcraft innocent of it. Insisting that they practiced a religion they did not merely defiles their memory. They would be horrified at your suggestion that they were anything but good Christians.

[Greyharp]

The problem with your theory is that there is no evidence or lack of evidence.

To be fair Silverfire Darkmoon, Raven and Carla offer up lots of evidence to back up their beliefs. The problem is that this evidence is open to interpretation and not all of us agree with their conclusions.

[Ben Gruagach]

It concerns me that frequently in this debate (here and elsewhere) only two of many possible conclusions are ever brought up, as though those two are the only that exist.
a) That there was no religion based on witchcraft prior to Gardner.
b) That Gardner was passing on an intact, universal and uniform religion of witchcraft.

What about other options, such as
c) Perhaps there have been some religions based on witchcraft that existed in the past but these were hardly a uniform and universal religion
d) Not all witches were practicing witchcraft as a religion
e) Perhaps the dominant real witches during the "burning times" were in fact Satanic witches.

Raven Grimassi does a lot of good in bringing out evidence (as does Philip Heselton, Ronald Hutton, and the many others who have researched and written about witchcraft.) We need to encourage further research and publication of that research. And it is perfectly understandable too that different people might see the same evidence and come to very different conclusions.

Personally I have a hard time accepting Raven's conclusions about the evidence suggesting that witchcraft was a universal uniform intact pre-Christian Pagan religion because so much of the evidence brought out is cherry-picked from sources that don't necessarily go together, and evidence that doesn't fit in is ignored. To make an analogy, it's like I take all the clothes out of my closet, pick the blue threads out of all my different clothes, and then weave those blue threads together into a new cloth and then claim that the fact they're all blue (although maybe different shades) and that they are all in a single cloth now, therefore the places where those threads came from must have been a single large cloth that was all blue.

The logic doesn't hold up I'm afraid. Picking supportive evidence from diverse unrelated sources (no matter how superficially similar they might appear) and ignoring the inconvenient evidence that doesn't support our theory does not make for convincing conclusions.

As an example of evidence that doesn't fit in with the theory of witchcraft as being a uniform universal intact pre-Christian Pagan religion (and where Gardner's Wicca is a clear descendant) we only need to look at the documentation we do have, not from court confessions, of what pre-Gardnerian witches practiced. "The Black Books of Elverum" edited by Mary S. Rustad is a wonderful case in point -- it's a witch's grimoire that dates well before Gardner's time and is one of many similar grimoires which have been unearthed. And the practices described in it have very little in common with Wicca, whether it's Raven Grimassi's depiction of it or Gardner's or even Murray's.

"Pow-wows, or Long Lost Friend" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/pow/index.htm) published in 1820 is another example of what is essentially witchcraft as practiced among German immigrants to the United States. Very unlike Wicca again.

If we go back to things like "The Greek Magickal Papyri in Translation" edited by Hans Dieter Betz, and any of the many books available on historical spellwork such as Idries Shaw's excellent "The Secret Lore of Magic," we also see examples of how magick was done in ancient times which are still in use today around the world, but are clearly not Wiccan in essence although of course they can and have been adapted to Wicca since Gardner. And looking at evidence in books such as Owen Davies' "Cunning-folk" again it gets pretty difficult to conclude that these people who pre-date Gardner were obviously practicing Wicca. Witchcraft, yes, but not Wicca. Witchcraft as a practice, sometimes as a religion, but not as a universal uniform intact pre-Christian religion.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

That is true, Ben. I admit at times I can get carried away, but then, who doesn't? I remember, when reading 'Wiccan Roots', saying to my High Priest: "Holy crap! He suggests an alternative to 'Gardner made it all up' and 'Clutterbuck was his High Priestess'! I never even thought of a third way!"
I believe I have conceded the fact that there is obvious evidence of withcraft in general. Sources such as 'The Golden Ass', for instance, with its ointment-induced therianthropy, point to that. I'm not sure if I consider 'Pow-Wows, or the Long-Lost Friend' as witchcraft, but then, I do at times waffle in ym definitions of the term. It may be helpful to find out exactly what people mean by the word. My ex-girlfriend used it in the anthropological sense (magic practiced in a framework outside the usual magical framework of a culture), some may use it to define Satanic activity as described by the demonologists, some may use it to refer to magic done by Wiccans and others may use ot to define non-ceremonial magic. I admit that I tend to define the word along the lines of non-ceremonial / folk magic most of the time.
Raven does give good evidence, but it's very specific evidence that doesn't have an enromous impact on this topic. Italy didn't have savage witch hysteria like Scotland, France, and Germany did, and our frequently-cited source, Murray, dealt with the witch-cult in *Western Europe*, not southern.
Witchcraft is well documented (and we can thank the demonologists for that) but it bears little no no resemblance to Wiccan practices. I notice that there is little reference to more ceremonial-type magic in the witch records. I have read that sorcery (ie, ceremonial magic of the KoS type) was more of a concern in Spain, whereas witchcraft was not, which is an interesting little fact.
Greyharp, you're right. They do back up their ideas (lavishly so, I might add, and I wish more people - in specific, certain Llewellyn authors - would do the same) but the evidence they give seems to be more on the open-to-interpretation / subjective side. Philip Hesselton claims that Clutterbuck was a witch partially on the fact that her handwriting 'looks witchy' (i would say 'looks illegible' but I'm hardly one to talk there) and there is a 'pagan' element to her poems which I myself did not see from the examples given in 'Wiccan Roots'.
The notion that the people accused during the witch trials were actually guilty is an interesting one, Ben. Are there any books or sites you know of that support / give details on that idea?

[raven grimassi]

Both you are Raven have proven yourselves to be fundamentalists in your cause.

Really, how so? I simply present literary and historical references to support my beliefs. I offer them up as an alternative theory to balance the opposing theory. So, I am curious what you see that leads to you conclude that I am a fundamentalist.

Personally I have a hard time accepting Raven's conclusions about the evidence suggesting that witchcraft was a universal uniform intact pre-Christian Pagan religion because so much of the evidence brought out is cherry-picked from sources that don't necessarily go together, and evidence that doesn't fit in is ignored.

Well, this is certainly an interesting day. First I am depicted as a fundamentalist, and now as someone who ignores contrary evidence. As Spock might say, "I find this fascinating."

As to cherry picking, I see what I do as being very meticulous in discovering tid-bits of micro history. And I respectfully disagree that the things I draw out have no relationship to one another. As to ignoring things, I have no idea what you refer to, so it is difficult to respond to that allegation.

Ben, from several comments by you and others, I am beginning to feel that my contributions here are irrelevant and unwelcome, and so I will take my leave now so you can all discuss this without my adding mud to the water. My apologies.

[Carla O'Harris]

I am not convinced and I am not the only one. Not being convinced is not the same as not being convincible.

Ok, let me switch tactics here. Why don't you describe what it would take for you to be convinced? What would you have to see? What level of evidence do you require? Then we can figure out whether the dialogue is useful. (It may be interesting in any case, but use is another criterium altogether.) In other words, if you ask for a level of evidence that I find neither necessary nor possible, then we can have all kinds of interesting discussions about the evidence and possible interpretations that will never convince you. On the other hand, perhaps there are levels of evidence where we might agree. You tell me.

I'm still really under the weather, so I will address your points about Canon Episcopi asap.

[Greyharp]

Hello Carla, firstly I hope you feel better soon.

Why don't you describe what it would take for you to be convinced? What would you have to see? What level of evidence do you require?

I'm happy with the level of evidence, I just don't feel it conclusively backs up the witch-cult theory.

I will address your points about Canon Episcopi asap

Before you do so, I looked into this further and found an informative website that you're probably familiar with, as the author pretty well sums up your beliefs. In this case he demonstrates that the Canon Episcopi proves the witch-cult theory. The website is:

http://home.mn.rr.com/bichaunt/canon.html

Although I found his argument well thought out, I have to say I believe he bravely makes some quite large leaps in logic. In a couple of areas I believe he twisted the meaning of phrases in the document to mean the opposite of what it was actually saying, while criticising others for doing just that.

I believe he (Eran - David C. Petterson) demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the Christian mind works when making assumptions about what the author of the document was stating, as with his theory that the word "devil" actually is another word throughout the document for Diana.

But anyway, fire away and I'll happily try to explain in more detail why I don't find these conclusions convincing.

Dave

[Elderbush]

Raven, I've found your contributions interesting. If they perhaps do not convince everyone who reads this thread of your hypothesis, they do add to everyone's knowledge since you are careful to give your sources. I've found it very interesting to see how people look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It is a good lesson in logical thinking. My conclusions and personal hypothesis have been affected by the input here, even if I haven't been convinced your hypothesis has been proved.

Ed. to add: This thread has been mostly free of the name calling and general hysteria that has accompanied many discussions like this in the past and I've come to have more respect for people who have differing opinions, or interpretations, about the history of witchcraft and Wicca. I'd like to thank Greyharp for his contributions.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'd like to follow up on a few bits in Silverfire Darkmoon's latest post in this thread.

I admit that I tend to define the word [witchcraft] along the lines of non-ceremonial / folk magic most of the time.

That's pretty much the definition I use as well. It can have some bits of ceremonial magick (as in borrowing bits and pieces from clearly ceremonial sources such as grimoires) but tends to be more about getting results than attempting to stick to a specific ceremonial magick system which tends to be pretty involved.

Another way to look at it might be to say that we have a scale, with completely unstructured folk magick at one extreme, and highly structured and regimented ceremonial magick at the opposite end. To me witchcraft is not really at either extreme although I think it tends more towards the folk magick end than the ceremonial one.

It's on the basis of that understanding, of witchcraft as being more or less about folk magick and magick for getting real-world results, that I classify "Pow-wows or Long Lost Friend" as witchcraft. It's not any different from the magick in "The Black Books of Elverum" or the magick practiced by the English cunning-folk documented in Owen Davies' "Cunning-folk." And it also looks terribly similar to what is described as witchcraft practices the world over, whether we are looking at Mexico or Russia or Africa. (At least if we look at what witches are supposedly and actually doing, rather than whether they are classified as "evil" or not.)

The notion that the people accused during the witch trials were actually guilty is an interesting one, Ben. Are there any books or sites you know of that support / give details on that idea?

I should clarify that I don't believe for a moment that the vast majority of people who were convicted of witchcraft were actually witches. Some might have considered themselves witches and were actively practicing witchcraft (although whether it bore any similarity to Wicca is in serious doubt.)

Some of Raven's research points to evidence from secret-society groups such as the Carbonari as proof of Wicca's existence. While I do think that there is evidence of witchcraft in these sorts of groups I'm not convinced that they support the conclusion that these was an intact Pagan universal uniform religion of witchcraft, let alone one similar to Wicca. From what I've read about secret societies such as the Carbonari ("Secret Societies: A History" by Arkon Daraul for instance was quite interesting) the emphasis was on being rebels rather than on keeping some mythical religion alive. Occult symbolism was definitely used but that was more due to the fact that these sorts of societies were modelling themselves after the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians, and the ritual and symbolism was what secret societies were expected to have. The Carbonari were more about social and political intrigue rather than religion. And I think that a lot of the other small secret societies were also about social and political issues rather than religious ones too.

The whole rebellion thing did manifest as actual Satanic secret societies too such as Sir Francis Dashwood's group (commonly referred to today as the Hellfire Club) back in the late 1700s. The existence of grimoires that are overtly demonic, and the undoubted desire of some people to try anything in order to get what they want, also makes me believe that there were likely some who did practice Satanic witchcraft in pre-Gardner days, even perhaps during the witchhunt times. But I don't think they were the majority of the people who ended up on the wrong side of the witchhunts.

[*Rasenna*]

As I have said before, witch hunters were very meticulous in their records. When there is information on exactly how much money was paid to make coats for the victims to be burned in, anything like 'Four books of shadows captured today' or 'two athames found under a haystack, will randomly apply thumbscrews to old women tomorrow' would have been recorded somewhere.

That's laughable. Ya know, the Nazi's kept pretty good records too but I wouldn't regard them as a reliable study on the truth about Jews. People who actively torture other people are not the most credible people to turn to for a reality check.

Your extremely narrow view dismisses the fact that people with an agenda often manipulate and omit information, if not create it themselves. Do you ever watch the news or read a newspaper?

I am beginning to feel that my contributions here are irrelevant and unwelcome, and so I will take my leave now so you can all discuss this without my adding mud to the water.

Sorry to hear this. One of the values is that Raven has studied texts that many of us will probably never get our hands on. Though we may not agree with some of his conclusions, we can at least benefit from the quotes he provides (pro or con). I think it makes more sense to ask him questions that ferret out more material to examine than it does to waste time calling him names and making statements that equate to character assassination.

[David19]

I don't think that there ever was a 'universal, witchcraft religion', there may have been witchcraft religions in different countries (Greece, Rome, Germany, England, Ireland, and African countries, etc) but that doesn't mean they all worshipped the same beings, mostly they were 'hard' polytheistic and believed the gods to be individual beings, also countries went to war a lot, so i doubt they a minority were worshipping the exact same religion as another country (e.g. the Norse and Greeks both had witches, but i doubt it was the same 'religion', they probably even used magic against each other).

Also i agree with Ben, who says that satanic witches may have been the dominant one at one times (real satanic witches, not just ones who say their worshipping the devil to cover up a pagan god like on www.thecrookedheath.com), also there were Christian witches (and maybe Jewish?).

I think there were witches pre-Gardner, but now wiccan, i've heard that the Nazi's and the Allies used occult groups (and the nazi's officially used witches) in their war, is this true? (this would also show that witches aren't all fluffy, as anyone who works for the nazi's deserves what they get).

[Ben Gruagach]

That's laughable. Ya know, the Nazi's kept pretty good records too but I wouldn't regard them as a reliable study on the truth about Jews. People who actively torture other people are not the most credible people to turn to for a reality check.


The meticulous records are noticeable though for their lack of Wiccan artifacts which you'd think would have been present if the accused were witches. If the records indicated what the accused possessed, why would they omit details like ritual knives, wands, deity figurines, or grimoires and books? Just because the accusers were antagonistic they would need to have a pretty amazing reason to actively try to cover up evidence that proves precisely what they are accusing people of doing.

[Ben Gruagach]

Ben, from several comments by you and others, I am beginning to feel that my contributions here are irrelevant and unwelcome, and so I will take my leave now so you can all discuss this without my adding mud to the water. My apologies.

Your input is valuable and appreciated Raven. Please don't misinterpret disagreement regarding the topic under discussion as personal attacks.

[Ben Gruagach]

I don't think that there ever was a 'universal, witchcraft religion', there may have been witchcraft religions in different countries (Greece, Rome, Germany, England, Ireland, and African countries, etc) but that doesn't mean they all worshipped the same beings, mostly they were 'hard' polytheistic and believed the gods to be individual beings, also countries went to war a lot, so i doubt they a minority were worshipping the exact same religion as another country (e.g. the Norse and Greeks both had witches, but i doubt it was the same 'religion', they probably even used magic against each other).


You've stated one of my main reservations -- that it's a mistake to assume that all witches are the same everywhere, or that one type of witchcraft is "real" and the others are therefore all "fake." The term Pagan covers a huge amount of variety and so does the term witchcraft.

I will add though that I disagree that Pagans were mostly "hard polytheists." The very popular cult of Isis, which spread well out of Egypt and even had at least one temple in the UK during the Roman era, is an example of a "soft polytheism" religion (at least if you go by what is revealed about the cult in Lucius Apuleius' "Golden Ass.") It's also present in Hinduism.

I'm also not sure that it's fair to say that Satanic witches have been the dominant variety -- I think they might have been more common than we might suspect especially during the witch hunt days, but saying they were the main type of witches is stretching credibility at the moment.

[Dawa Lhamo]

I don't think that there ever was a 'universal, witchcraft religion', there may have been witchcraft religions in different countries (Greece, Rome, Germany, England, Ireland, and African countries, etc) but that doesn't mean they all worshipped the same beings, mostly they were 'hard' polytheistic and believed the gods to be individual beings, also countries went to war a lot, so i doubt they a minority were worshipping the exact same religion as another country (e.g. the Norse and Greeks both had witches, but i doubt it was the same 'religion', they probably even used magic against each other). That's my thought as well. I can believe in religious witchcraft, but I just don't see evidence that the witchcraft practiced in region X was the same in region Y. I honestly can't see German witches devoted to Diana. I think that witch cults, if they existed, probably were quite isolated, and quite specific to their region. Sure, there were likely similarities, but I think those probably stem from PRIOR communication, rather than current communication. Like genetic drift. If you take a species of lizards and put them in two different valleys. After several generations, there will be similarities, but there will be new adaptations, new traits, and eventually, there will be enough genetic difference that they become distinct species. Now, I don't think that pre-Christianity there was a one universal Witchcraft religion, either, but there was likely a lot more communication between the witches of various regions... sort of a much milder version of the "melting pot". ^_^ Maybe, melting salad or something. ^_^

Anyway....I think there were witches pre-Gardner, but now wiccan, i've heard that the Nazi's and the Allies used occult groups (and the nazi's officially used witches) in their war, is this true? (this would also show that witches aren't all fluffy, as anyone who works for the nazi's deserves what they get).I would LOVE to discuss this, but it deserves its own thread, don't you think? I'll go digging around (I love thread necromancy), but if I can't find one, can I use this quote to start a new thread?

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

ETA: The brand-spanking-new "Witches in WWII" thread can now be found in the History forum here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2457171#post2457171). Please come by and weigh in with what you think/know. ^_^

[Stephanie Taylor]

One of the values is that Raven has studied texts that many of us will probably never get our hands on. Though we may not agree with some of his conclusions, we can at least benefit from the quotes he provides (pro or con). I think it makes more sense to ask him questions that ferret out more material to examine than it does to waste time calling him names and making statements that equate to character assassination.

Well said, and that's equally true for everyone here on MW.

Raven, I've found your contributions interesting. If they perhaps do not convince everyone who reads this thread of your hypothesis, they do add to everyone's knowledge since you are careful to give your sources.

Your input is valuable and appreciated Raven. Please don't misinterpret disagreement regarding the topic under discussion as personal attacks.

I'll be happy to pass this on to Raven. I'm sure he will appreciate the sentiments.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I'm not saying you thought they accused were actually Satanists, Ben. I meant that you're one of the first people (aside from the demonologists and that weirdo Montague Summers) to suggest that interpretation.
I think it may be valuable to explain exactly how I feel about Raven's evidence at this point.
Raven knows about Italy. He has written a few books on the subject, none of which I have read, so I cannot say anything about them. However, he bases an awful lot of the evidence he gives on this topic on Italian secret societies and heretical groups. Now, the existance of these groups is well documented (otherwise, how could Raven cite them?), and if even small heretical groups and 'secret' societies leave a mark in records and evidence, *why* then is there no evidence of an organized witch-cult?
Second, Italy had a very small witch hysteria (many sources state this, and indeed, had there been one I am certain Leland would have had something to say on the matter). The primary evidence we draw on comes from witch trial records (and I will say again, in church courts evidence and procedures would be noted VERY CAREFULLY, as evidence was paramount and so were legal procedures. The amount of space dedicated to legality in the 'Malleus Maleficarum' is a good case of this) and if Italy had no hysteria, where would records come from?
Third - It is fairly certain that the theoretical witch religion we are debating the existence of in this thread is located in western Europe, as Murray and Gardner dealt primarily with those areas (also, see point two).

[Stephanie Taylor]

Raven knows about Italy. He has written a few books on the subject, none of which I have read, so I cannot say anything about them. However, he bases an awful lot of the evidence he gives on this topic on Italian secret societies and heretical groups.

Yes, he knows about Italy but he's also deeply studied witchcraft in other European regions for over 30 years.

The reason he mentions Italian secret societies, such as the Carbonari, is because to him they form a bridge to England. So one of his theories is that they were influencial on English Masons, who in turn were influential on Gardnerian Wicca. One example is the colored cords associated with the degree structure.

if even small heretical groups and 'secret' societies leave a mark in records and evidence, *why* then is there no evidence of an organized witch-cult?

In Italian records there is evidence, but maybe you're not talking about Italy.

Italy had a very small witch hysteria (many sources state this, and indeed, had there been one I am certain Leland would have had something to say on the matter).

I don't believe that's correct. It's true though that Italy didn't have the degree of violent persecution as other European countries had, but it had centuries of serious witch trials (not a small deal at all).

if Italy had no hysteria, where would records come from?

Again, Italy did, and actually the Inquisitional records in Como Italy were among the largest in Europe. Historian Ruth Martin draws on them frequently, as do many scholars including Ginzburg. The Roman Inquisition was no small time operator.

[*Rasenna*]

I don't believe that's correct. It's true though that Italy didn't have the degree of violent persecution as other European countries had, but it had centuries of serious witch trials (not a small deal at all).

Correct, and it appears that the violence against witches in Italy was a Germanic influence. Note this from - The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, by Jacob Burckhardt (pages 499-500):

“We learn from Sprenger's famous theoretico- practical guide, the 'Malleus Maleficarum,' that forty-one witches were burnt at Como in the first year after the publication of the bull; crowds of Italian women took refuge in the territory of the Archduke Sigismund, where they believed themselves to be still safe. Witchcraft ended by taking firm root in a few unlucky Alpine valleys, especially in the Val Camonica; the system of persecution had succeeded in permanently infecting with the delusion those populations which were in any way predisposed for it. This essentially German form of witchcraft is what we should think of when reading the stories and novels of Milan or Bologna. That it did not make further progress in Italy is probably due to the fact that here a highly developed 'stregheria' was already in existence”

“The primitive and popular form in which the superstition had probably lived on uninterruptedly from the time of the Romans, was the art of the witch (strege). The witch, so long as she limited herself to mere divination, might be innocent enough. were it not that the transition from prophecy to active help could easily, though often imperceptibly, be a fatal downward step. She was credited in such a case not only with the power of exciting love or hatred between man and woman, but also with purely destructive and malignant arts…”

As Grimassi points out, the fact that most Italian witches were either banished from the town or given prison terms (typically 6 months) rather than being put death, allowed the tradition to survive along with its practitioners. But this is not to say that executions did not take place in Italy because we know they did.

[David19]

You've stated one of my main reservations -- that it's a mistake to assume that all witches are the same everywhere, or that one type of witchcraft is "real" and the others are therefore all "fake." The term Pagan covers a huge amount of variety and so does the term witchcraft.

I will add though that I disagree that Pagans were mostly "hard polytheists." The very popular cult of Isis, which spread well out of Egypt and even had at least one temple in the UK during the Roman era, is an example of a "soft polytheism" religion (at least if you go by what is revealed about the cult in Lucius Apuleius' "Golden Ass.") It's also present in Hinduism.

I'm also not sure that it's fair to say that Satanic witches have been the dominant variety -- I think they might have been more common than we might suspect especially during the witch hunt days, but saying they were the main type of witches is stretching credibility at the moment.

Oh sorry, i didn't mean to say Satanic witches were the dominant ones, but i think there were more of them than people think, wasn't George Pickingill a Satanist?

[David19]

That's my thought as well. I can believe in religious witchcraft, but I just don't see evidence that the witchcraft practiced in region X was the same in region Y. I honestly can't see German witches devoted to Diana. I think that witch cults, if they existed, probably were quite isolated, and quite specific to their region. Sure, there were likely similarities, but I think those probably stem from PRIOR communication, rather than current communication. Like genetic drift. If you take a species of lizards and put them in two different valleys. After several generations, there will be similarities, but there will be new adaptations, new traits, and eventually, there will be enough genetic difference that they become distinct species. Now, I don't think that pre-Christianity there was a one universal Witchcraft religion, either, but there was likely a lot more communication between the witches of various regions... sort of a much milder version of the "melting pot". ^_^ Maybe, melting salad or something. ^_^

Anyway....I would LOVE to discuss this, but it deserves its own thread, don't you think? I'll go digging around (I love thread necromancy), but if I can't find one, can I use this quote to start a new thread?

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

ETA: The brand-spanking-new "Witches in WWII" thread can now be found in the History forum here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2457171#post2457171). Please come by and weigh in with what you think/know. ^_^

I've found the thread and it seems cool, i kinda agree with you that witches may have communicated a lot more, but i don't think it equals a 'universal witchcraft religion', maybe it was more sharing ideas (about magic, spells, rituals, ingredients for potions maybe), but i don't think they all worshipped the same gods or even had the same type of rituals, etc, probably the only similarities were doing magic, using supernatural/mystical forces, etc.

Also, when you think that most countries/tribes back then warred with each other, the witches probably fought against other witches or the armies using magic/supernatual events or beings, etc and maybe the only time they talked to other witches were to spy, like on what types of magic they're doing, etc, kind of like governments now spy on other nations and what weapons they have.

Hope that doesn't sound too crazy :).

[Dawa Lhamo]

Also, when you think that most countries/tribes back then warred with each other, the witches probably fought against other witches or the armies using magic/supernatual events or beings, etc and maybe the only time they talked to other witches were to spy, like on what types of magic they're doing, etc, kind of like governments now spy on other nations and what weapons they have. Ah yes, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ^_^ There were battles, yes, but each tribe wasn't enemies with *every* other tribe (otherwise, they'd have wiped themselves out). There must have been alliances as well. At least 'cease-fire' agreements. And I think even if amicable communications were out, there would at least be (as you mentioned) spying, and stealing of secrets... ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[David19]

Ah yes, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ^_^ There were battles, yes, but each tribe wasn't enemies with *every* other tribe (otherwise, they'd have wiped themselves out). There must have been alliances as well. At least 'cease-fire' agreements. And I think even if amicable communications were out, there would at least be (as you mentioned) spying, and stealing of secrets... ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

I think they probably would have allied with each other to either overcome a common enemy or to gain allies (you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours, etc) also spying on other magical techniques to improve their own (and keep ahead of the competition and an eye on potential enemies :)).

This site, wiccecraeft (http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/vanic/witchlord.html), deals with Anglo-Saxon witchcraft, and witches (as well as wizards), it says:

Our Old English ancestors were not afraid to inflict violence on their enemies and those that didn't were deemed cowardly. Witches were no exception to this rule

It should be noted that witches never tried to seperate magical behavior from mundane behavior

[Ben Gruagach]

Carlo Ginzburg's work on the Benadanti reinforces the idea that witches didn't necessarily all get along and willingly share information with each other just because they were all witches or were all doing magick. The main magickal work of the Benandanti was to go to battle with "evil witches" at specific times of year.

The cunning-folk business in the UK was also one where practitioners were in constant competition with each other and often considered their competition to the the "evil witches" who they worked to counteract. Owen Davies' books on cunning-folk provides a good discussion of that.

It's likely there was some cooperation between people who practiced folk magick or who were following minority religions (just like minority groups today often will band together at times.) But it's also true that there was clear conflict among them as well. "Good witches" were just as likely, if not more likely, to reinforce the idea that there were "bad witches" out there (after all, who is putting all these evil curses on people that the "good witches" are removing?) It doesn't make sense to assume that "good witches" and "bad witches" would be on cordial terms to the point of sharing information.

[Carla O'Harris]

These are good points, but I think it's also important to acknowledge the way the Christian legal system exacerbated the indigenous system. There are hints and suggestions, for example, that witches ("cunning-folk" is just a term to confuse things -- I'm going to call them "witches", and we can make judgement calls as to whether they were "good" or "bad") would try to reconcile the parties when allowed to, just as many witch-doctors in Africa do the same thing. It becomes about social reconciliation, and the ability to bridge the tensions existing in a community by identifying them and bringing them together. It's a kind of therapy. I think the diabolization of the entire process by the Church made it much more deadly, and the inquisitional legal spirit rerouted people into its horrendous system while at the same time making it much more tempting to deal with the competition. It is not outrageous to imagine that some cunning folk may have turned in our more pagan ancestral practitioners in order to get the upper hand -- the Sith do tend to work with the Sith after all.

It's also takes a little penetration to imagine what the indigenous system was like beneath the diabolization. Was it really "good" witches versus "bad" witches, or could it have been "left hand" in tension with "right hand" with the idea that both sides had to balance each other out? Perhaps both sides could go too far and take things to extremes. Certainly the ancient law codes prohibit poisoning people through potions or spells, which is understandable --- no community wants to approve of this. For heinous harm or murder the community certainly wanted recourse, and perhaps it was the "right handers" who were expected to carry out the enforcement ; but again, for less heinous crimes, we might imagine attempts at reconciliation.


As far as Satanism, I'm sure it was going on for the simple reason that the Church created it and called it forth with its diabolization campaign --- an evil spell if there ever were one, and through the folk process of ostention, we might imagine that some followed suit. But we have to be careful here. First of all, the trials cast all of this phenomena in an extremely diabolical light --- a case of projection of the shadow. It is the ones projecting who are the more likely to have been the Satanists. Also, what are we calling Satanism? Certainly there was a widespread anti-ecclesiastical and even anti-Christian spirit in a great deal of the masses --- Hutton's "Europe was Christian" be damned, that's nonsense!! Medieval heresy proves that to be the utter lie he knows it is (or he's deluded beyond control). And some of these anti-Christian rebels may indeed have taken on a somewhat more Manichean mindstate whereby they saw the Christian God as the Devil, as the Demi-urge, and rejected him for the other god, the illuminator, the angel of light, the spirit of peace and good. Now, from an orthodox Christian perspective, if you reject "God" for the "other guy", you "must" be worshipping the Devil. And we all know the kind of reappropriating defiance that rebels can challenge their labelers with ; it's easy to imagine mocking retorts dripping with sarcasm, "Yes, we worship the Devil". This applies to both paganesque and Manichean rebels --- and I suspect, as Russell does, that the witchcraft sect the Church identified was precisely this kind of hybrid, a coming together of a Gnostic-Manichean holiness, the antinomianism of the medieval heresies, and the fairy-faith Canon Sect merging syncretically. This should be no surprise, as Gnostic faiths have always been very open to paganism. And while it would be easy for the Church to identify antinomians as satanists, we should not make the same mistake ; while some satanists might be antinomians, that by no means makes many or all antinomians satanists.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Oh my god! Sarcasm! That's twisted enough to have actually been the case in a trial or three, I'd bet.
What's scary is that I can almost see it. I imagine sarcasm wouldn't come into the more, ah, unpleasant trials (where torture was used) but in the case of the self-confessed, like Isobel Gowdie, I can imagine that the 'accused' (for lack of a better word) may well have said things in a sarcastic way which would obviously not come across in the transcripts.

[Ben Gruagach]

Remember that we have more than just trial records to suggest what occultists (whether they were witches or something else) have been practicing. The pre-1900s grimoires for instance were not just used by highly educated ceremonial magickians but also by folk-magick practitioners. Owen Davies discusses this in his book "Cunning-folk" and I've seen various grimoires mentioned in other places where the grimoires were attributed with being the source of the particular witch's knowledge.

Quite a few of the grimoires deal overtly with making pacts with Christian devils, and the whole system of magick itself in most of these grimoires is clearly Christian or even Satanic depending on the particular grimoire.

I doubt that these grimoire-based practitioners made up the majority of those who were accused or convicted of witchcraft but I'd be surprised if the court records and other documents did much to make clear distinctions between them and other types of occultists and witches.

[Greyharp]

While we're talking about Gardner's credibility and the whole question of whether Wicca is descended from an ancient Witch-Cult, or cobbled together from literary sources in the 20th Century, I'd like to ask a question of which I can't recall having read anything about. Do classical texts (Greek and Roman) mention the Witch-Cult?

I take it the Classical writers weren't shy about discussing the subject of religion, their's or other peoples, so did they write about Murray's Witch-Cult? If they did, can we have some references, and if not, maybe an explanation as to how such a universal European belief system escaped the notice of all those literary types for several hundred years.

Most, if not all of the sources I've seen quoted backing up the theory (in its completed form), seem to be from the Christian era. And from what I've read, during the Dark Ages and into the Middle Ages, the Witch-Cult seems to have been wide-spread, well known, and with numerous followers. So much so that we are told it took the Christians a thousand years or so to wipe it out, and even then not successfully. That being the case, and accepting the theory that the Witch-Cult is older than the Greek and Roman civilisations, surely there would be a multitude of Classical sources to be quoted? (I must emphasise that I am not talking about references that are obviously writing about Roman or Greek religions, and showing some similarities to Murray's Witch-Cult.)

[Ben Gruagach]

While we're talking about Gardner's credibility and the whole question of whether Wicca is descended from an ancient Witch-Cult, or cobbled together from literary sources in the 20th Century, I'd like to ask a question of which I can't recall having read anything about. Do classical texts (Greek and Roman) mention the Witch-Cult?

There is definitely mention of witches in classical Roman and Greek literature. Daniel Ogden's "Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in Greek and Roman Worlds" (Oxford University Press: 2002) documents a lot of them in English translations for easy reference.

However, while there is plenty of mention of witchcraft and witches, it doesn't look very much to me like a single universal uniform religion or cult like Margaret Murray's postulated witch-cult. Raven Grimassi often draws on bits from the classical writers in his books but the conclusions he's made about what the evidence means are open to debate. For instance, referring to witchcraft along with religious terminology or in a religious context is not the same thing as overt proof that witchcraft itself is a single uniform universal Pagan religion. References to state religions opposing witchcraft is not a confirmation that witchcraft itself is a single uniform universal Pagan religion. (Some religions condemn homosexuality and always refer to sexual behaviour in religious terms, but that doesn't mean homosexuality is a religion just as a parallel example.)

[Greyharp]

while there is plenty of mention of witchcraft and witches, it doesn't look very much to me like a single universal uniform religion or cult like Margaret Murray's postulated witch-cult.

Thanks Ben, you're right, I should've also pointed out that I wasn't after references to witchcraft as a magical practice, but as a definite religion.

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks Ben, you're right, I should've also pointed out that I wasn't after references to witchcraft as a magical practice, but as a definite religion.

I figured that but wanted to address what evidence we do have that's pre-Christian.

[*Rasenna*]

I should've also pointed out that I wasn't after references to witchcraft as a magical practice, but as a definite religion.

A fair amount of this has been posted by Grimassi on various threads. It's also fleshed out in his books, and The Witches' Craft is probably the most detailed. Let me "quoth the Raven' if I may:

"It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks classified witches among those who practiced "illicit religions." Historian Richard Gordon (in his essay Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) also states that in ancient Aegean/Mediterranean culture "illegitimate religious knowledge" was assigned to women, and since witches were always portrayed as women in classical times we can see why witchcraft was never recognized as a "legitimate" religion. However, we must also understand that in ancient Greek culture a "recognized" sect was required to have an established temple (Historian Georg Luck - Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature). Magicians, diviners, witches, and other subculture figures were comprised typically of the poor segment and had no funds to build and maintain temples. This is one of the chief reasons why witches were not portrayed in ancient times as people of a religious nature but rather as magic users or fortune tellers. This view persisted despite ancient writings that presented stories of the witch Medea who prayed to Hecate, and the witch Canidia who prayed to Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina. Praying is most often associated with religion and there is no unbiased reason to negate this regarding Medea and Canidia."


So, here is a view of witchcraft in a religious context in pre-Christian times. Granted the Greeks viewed witchcraft as an "illicit religion" but a religion nevertheless.

Next we have this:

"The ancient Greek writings of Hesiod and Homer contain the first descriptive accounts of witches and witchcraft. In such tales we find the characters known as Circe and Medea, both sharing a connection to the goddess Hecate. The earliest word used by the Greeks to indicate a witch was pharmakis, from which is derived the modern word pharmacist. Richard Gordon (Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) states that pharmakis "became one of the standard words for 'wise-woman/witch', used as a substantive." He goes on to mention during this same period the word also expressed an association with "drugs and incantations." Later the word pharmakis would translate as venefica in Latin, which is addressed later in this chapter."


Here Grimassi establishes the connection of the witch to specific practices. These later turn out over the centuries to be definers. So, we know what witches were believed to be involved in, we know they worshipped goddesses, and we know the ancients viewed witches as practitioners of illicit religion.

There's more:

"Modern scholars point to the idea that witches ever worshiped a triple aspect goddess as being a totally modern concept and invention. However, Jacob Rabinowitz, in his book The Rotting Goddess, recounts Lucan's ancient tale of a group of witches, written in the first century BCE. In Lucan's work (LUC. B.C. 6:700-01) the witches make the following comment: "Persephone, who is the third and lowest aspect of our goddess Hecate..." This of course portrays the concept of witches having a triformis or three-fold goddess, and the notion appears almost two thousand years prior to Gerald Gardner's time."

"In Ovid's tale (Met. 7:94-95) Jason swears an oath to the witch Medea, saying he would "be true by the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess." Such writings clearly demonstrate that, contrary to scholarly opinion, the basic concept of a triformis goddess venerated in witchcraft is not a modern construction, and pre-exists the Romantic era and the work of Gerald Gardner and his cohorts. Horace writes of Diana as a goddess upon whom witches call, and Catullus wrote of the goddess Diana as a "threefold" goddess. Diana is identified with Hecate by a number of ancient sources."

There's tons more, but I think this answers your basic question - yes there are references in ancient times to the witches' sect.

[David19]

If you're looking for information on witchcraft and religion then this site, wiccecraeft (http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/vanic/witchlord.html) might be interesting, it's about Anglo-Saxon witchcraft (i think it relates to vanic witchcraft or Vanatru), it says what Anglo-Saxon witches believed, the gods they worshipped, the magic used, holidays, interestingly, Anglo-Saxon witches called covens 'rings', since coven is a Christian word (i think from covenent?), try telling that to SRW!, lol. It also talks about wizards, they were different from witches.

But i don't think this means all witchcraft is a religion, since Greek witches and Anglo-Saxon witches would have had entirly seperate beliefs and gods (not the same gods), also it may not be witchcraft that is the religion, it may be a religion that the witches merge with witchcraft, like some Christians that do witchcraft, they still worship the same deities as other Christians, but are also doing magic, maybe it was the same for Greek witches (like Medea, etc) and Anglo-Saxon witches, they worshipped the same as others, except they did witchcraft also (maybe Greek witches were attracted to Hecate more though, she is a god of witches, i think).

I'm hoping i'm making sense, since what i'm trying to say is that they may have mixed their religious beliefs with witchcraft (just like Christians, Jews, muslim, Buddhist, etc witches do), it doesn't make witchcraft the religion.

Hoping some of that made sense :).

[Carla O'Harris]

Ok, see, but the point is, which all these Jesuitical nay-sayers will cry wolf over, is that there was a religiosity going back to the Neolithic that stretched all over Europe and managed to survive multiple waves of invasion and cultural superimposition, regardless of the various renamings that occurred.

This is all documented and can be demonstrated, although the Jesuitical nay-sayers will try to cover it over and make it seem insignificant.

I repeat, it is all documented and can be demonstrated. It reflects predominantly in the fairy folklore that has survived all impositions and imperialisms, including modern industrial changes, which taken all in all have to be considered the most destructive to ancient lifeways --- and yet it has survived even that!

What this means is that whether Gardner was "reviving" or authentically passing on a tradition, there was a genuine witch religion going back in various inflected forms for thousands of years. I don't say that because I'm a "romantic" or because I'm connected to "outdated texts". I say it because it's true.

[David19]

I think Gardner, maybe, had a tradition that had elements of ancient witchcraft religions, but i also think wicca has modern things in and bits of the freemasons (also i think i read somewhere that Gardner's original wicca did have bits of Christian magic in it).

[Carla O'Harris]

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/enlightenment/

Within Masonry were constant splits and tendencies, making it all the more difficult to trace the threads of Atheistic thought. 6 Political and intellectual renegades of every sort, from Atheists to occultists, gravitated toward the lodges. There were the mystical and spiritualist masons of the Rosicrucians, 7 or the followers of the Sweeden-borgian heresy, both of which substituted for orthodox Christianity equally obtuse and absurd hermetic systems. There were lodges where one found somewhat conservative dispositions towards politics and religion, often loyal to the Grand Lodge in London. There were the bored aristocrats who, freed of the onerous task of earning a productive living, dabbled in alchemy, astrology and the search for the elusive Philosopher's Stone. But it was still within the lodges of Freemasonry where the ideas of the Enlightenment, with their siren call of revolution and Utopia, nurtured and spread.


and again, for emphasis,

Political and intellectual renegades of every sort, from Atheists to occultists, gravitated toward the lodges.

A perfect environment for witches seeking protection from Church persecution.

[Elderbush]

and again, for emphasis,



A perfect environment for witches seeking protection from Church persecution.

And a perfect environment for aliens from Mars seeking protection from Church persecution. It is all in the interpretation Carla. Doesn't make witches or aliens exist. Your evidence is open to interpretation, not by so called nay-sayers (also open to interpretation) and by yes-sayers and maybe-sayers. :)

[Carla O'Harris]

"Aliens from Mars" and "witches" are not in the same logical category and therefore the statement is irrelevant to the argument. Witches were real, and many of them were a part of the witch-cult, which was real, while "aliens from Mars" is a hypothetical category, and further, a loaded term often intended to impute ridicule and to marginalize.

But again, since most people in this forum have their mind made up that witches never existed, I'm sure they'll never bother having the devotion to actually follow up on these sorts of leads to do the kinds of micro-histories necessary to bring the traces into the foreground ; at the trial of witch-evidence, they simply refuse to submit any forensic investigation at all and admit the evidence of the opposition without any questioning or investigation. Pathetic.

[Harmony Aurore]

That doesn't mean that you can't ask for a level of rigour and rational examination of the evidence, but it does mean you have to start with the hypothesis and find evidence for it, rather than start with the opposite of the hypothesis and demand that people disprove the antithesis. That's an absurd level of proof to ask for under the circumstances.

I know I'm jumping into this vey late... but I can't help myself. I just wanted to say this.

Statistically that is what you have to do.
You always have to disprove the null hypothesis, that is, that there is no correlation. In this case, you HAVE to disprove the hypothesis that there is no connection between Wicca and an Old Religion in order to have any credibility. Any scientist knows that it's way too easy to prove your alternative hypothesis to come up with the true answer. You can easily make an experiment come out the way you want it... see what you want that way. You always have to try to prove the opposite. Try to prove that there is no relation. If you can't do that, then you might have something.

[Carla O'Harris]

Ok, then, next question : are all of those who are complete skeptics of Wicca also complete skeptics of Judaism and Christianity? In other words, are they aware that Judaism was invented probably in the first couple centuries B.C. or that Jesus may very well have been an amalgam created by literalist theologians in the second or even third centuries? In other words, is the skepticism consistent, or does it merely make Wicca a special case?

Your point may be valid for those outside the religion, but my point is precisely directed to those inside the religion who ought, by nature and reason, to be advocates. What religion is value-neutral? And it's only a rude form of scientism to propose that religion should follow scientific conclusions precisely. That is not to say that scientific conclusions ought to be ignored ; too much of that has been seen in religious history. But it is also true that science has its limitations. And unfortunately, like it or not, history by any definition is not scientific because of the "problem of sources", which in its most generic sense means that not every event which has occurred has been documented and therefore history gives an extremely biased view at what was happening on the ground level.

This inquiry is not devoid of historical processes. Witches have been part of marginal groups attacked by social elites, whose documentation has survived in mainly very oblique sources. Those who consider themselves a part of this group should by necessity be advocates for the history of the group and not apologists for scientific historians who have no inview on the phenomena, nor any passion to motivate further investigation. "Falsification of the null hypothesis" is premature because the proper investigation has not taken place, in large part for two reasons : 1) the materials have not been readily available in translated forms (and properly should be have both the original and the translation so they may be checked, like for example, in some editions of Aradia), and 2) the methodologies for refracting the information from these sources is still at a rudimentary stage. The field of popular social history is still only thirty years old, and mainly this field has not been exploited by witchcraft advocates seeking to investigate the history of their religion through critical and penetrative examination and searching. Rather, a polemic has received official validation through the elevation of one of the proponents of that polemic to an academic position of some prominence (and yes, here I refer to Hutton) which has exaggerated the importance of that particular polemic, and had an active effect in marginalizing those on the other sides of the polemical debate ; and when I say "active" here, I mean that it has had the effect of producing large numbers of people apparently involved within the movement itself who now consider the history of that movement to be entirely false, and that effect can be called nothing but political.

And the "credibility" you invoke is entirely academic ; unfortunately, this standard is far too frequently invoked within witchcraft circles. The day will come when the investigation by the advocates is complete enough that a falsification of the null hypothesis may be attempted. But you can't do that in open court until there's been enough investigation ; otherwise, a mistrial will result. I declare a mistrial has occurred and that the jury should still be considered to be out.

[Elderbush]

Ok, then, next question : are all of those who are complete skeptics of Wicca also complete skeptics of Judaism and Christianity? In other words, are they aware that Judaism was invented probably in the first couple centuries B.C. or that Jesus may very well have been an amalgam created by literalist theologians in the second or even third centuries? In other words, is the skepticism consistent, or does it merely make Wicca a special case?

Your point may be valid for those outside the religion, but my point is precisely directed to those inside the religion who ought, by nature and reason, to be advocates. What religion is value-neutral? And it's only a rude fo