George Pickingill and the New Forest coven

[David19]

I read in this book today in the shops, that the New Forest coven may have been one of George Pickingill's 11 covens (i think it said it was the 3rd coven that he created), has anyone heard this before, i'm not too sure George Pickingill is, but i think he lived in the 1800's or something, so maybe it wasn't an 'ancient' religion/group but that still doesn't invalidate it and i think the book said it George Pickingill was the last decendant(sp) of a witch from Brandon (i think anyway) that lived a thousand years ago (1080 or something).

That might be worth looking into.

I think it was on this forum, that someone said George Pickingill was a satanist, which if he was the founder of the New Forest coven is going to get the fluff bunnies and Silver Raverwolf all wound up :).

Anyway, anyone heard of this, what do you think of it?.

[Ben Gruagach]

I believe the claims that Pickingill was the mastermind behind what Gardner was initiated into has been pretty thoroughly debunked. If I'm remembering correctly Hutton talks about it in "The Triumph of the Moon" although Hutton is not the first person to have debunked the Pickingill connection.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

What Ben said. Hutton talks about this at length in 'Triumph of the Moon' in the chapter 'Old Craft, New Craft'. Doubtless some here will decide Pickingill was involved with the NFC merely because Hutton says he was not, however, that's unrelated.
What book was it that said Pickingill was involved, David? I've read one or two that also suggest it, but I can't for the life of me remember which ones.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, I don't know that Hutton "completely debunked" the Pickingill theory ; reread what he has to say. I believe he just finds it inconclusive and difficult to sort. In other words, he considers it a "problematic source" as historians say. A "problematic source" is not a source that has been proven to be false ; it's just one that no one really knows what to do with. Sometimes they go into the dustbin forever ; sometimes they go there until further reasoning or evidence makes someone take them out of the dustbin because they prove useful again.

The Pickingill material is kind of a mish-mash that could well use the analysis of a good philologist as a preliminary attempt to ferret out what may be of value in it.

At present I would call it a "questionable source", but not debunked by any means ... In other words, many aspects of the theory may well be true, but at this point are difficult to confirm in any satisfying way, and therefore not a very useful source in a debate in any case, except perhaps as a supplementary source.

[DebLipp]

Hutton, by his own admission, didn't "completely debunk" Pickingill. However, he did a good job of saying that, if the Pickingill Papers were accurate, this is what we'd expect to see that we don't see.

The Pickingill Papers claim an enormous and widespread lineage of off "Old George" and there is no evidence that such lineage existed. While the old saw that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is important to remember, Hutton shows us what sort of evidence similarly secretive people do leave behind. There were just too many people for no one to have known nothing.

Besides which, the Pickingill Papers claim a "magisterial" tradition, and what Gardner describes is entirely dissimilar. There's no suggestion of connection at all.

[Ben Gruagach]

What book was it that said Pickingill was involved, David? I've read one or two that also suggest it, but I can't for the life of me remember which ones.

I suspect the book David was looking at was "The Pickingill Papers" by W. E. Liddell and Michael Howard.

[arianrhods_daughter]

I had heard that it was a load of hodge podge but havent really felt the need to investigate it further

[David19]

What Ben said. Hutton talks about this at length in 'Triumph of the Moon' in the chapter 'Old Craft, New Craft'. Doubtless some here will decide Pickingill was involved with the NFC merely because Hutton says he was not, however, that's unrelated.
What book was it that said Pickingill was involved, David? I've read one or two that also suggest it, but I can't for the life of me remember which ones.

The book was The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806524073/qid=1142787497/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-0778611-8152026?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), it seems like a cool one, it has a lot of pagan and occult terms in there, it even introduced new groups, and terms to me, when i have some money, i might get it.

It wasn't based on George Pickingill but it did mention a few things that i thought were interesting.

Also i learnt a lot about Doreen Vialante and Robert Cochrane (like how her magic increased greatly when she learnt from Cochrane and his 'primal' witchcraft.

[Ben Gruagach]

The book was The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806524073/qid=1142787497/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-0778611-8152026?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), it seems like a cool one, it has a lot of pagan and occult terms in there, it even introduced new groups, and terms to me, when i have some money, i might get it.

I really like that book. It's definitely worth getting. I've seen it on the sale piles in places like Barnes & Noble (or was it Border's?) in the US lately too.

In the entry for Pickingill in that book it's interesting too that they mention that Gardner was one of the sources of the claim that there was a link to Pickingill. There was also a refutation of any substantive connection by Ralph Harvey, who actually did work in the Pickingill tradition. Harvey says that Gardner's Wicca is not Pickingill's witchcraft at all.

Pickingill apparently did share some of his knowledge with non-witches in the UK occult community (apparently he was asked to speak to a few different occult groups at various times) so some of his material could have come to Gardner indirectly.

[Edited to correct a typo.]

[David19]

Cool, thanks, i probably will get (when i have some spare money), but do you know if George Pickingill's coven's are still running or did they 'die' out, since from what i've seen on internet sites and books, a lot of people like Gardner and others thought that 'traditional' witchcraft was dying, did that happen with George Pickingill's nine covens or is there any evidence that they survived?.

Thanks.

[Ben Gruagach]

Cool, thanks, i probably will get (when i have some spare money), but do you know if George Pickingill's coven's are still running or did they 'die' out, since from what i've seen on internet sites and books, a lot of people like Gardner and others thought that 'traditional' witchcraft was dying, did that happen with George Pickingill's nine covens or is there any evidence that they survived?.

Thanks.

I'm not sure. I know a bit about non-Wiccan witchcraft but not enough to be able to say whether any of those practitioners today are practicing Pickingill-descended material. It would be interesting to find out if Ralph Harvey, who was mentioned in that Pickingill entry in "The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism," is still alive or taught his practices to anyone who is still alive.

I'm going to ask the question to some British non-Wiccan witches I know. I'll report back what I learn!

[Semjaza]

Is the Ralph Harvey you mentioned the one who wrote The Last Bastion?


I'm fascinated by Pickingill, though to me it seems more likely that there's a connection between his practices and those of Cochrane, rather than his practices and Gardner's. (Off topic: Wasn't Cochrane also a Gardnerian initiate?)


As for what Ronald Hutton said about the Pickingill material, in Triumph of the Moon he writes (my horrible paraphrasing) that he enjoyed conversing with Bill Liddell, and can't find anything that contradicts Liddell's information. However, the sources that should back up the information (such as Bennett's diaries) don't. It's not contradictory evidence, it's just that no evidence has been found in the places where it's most likely to be. Hutton gives three possibilities for the future of the material:
1) That it's fraudulent, though at the moment only Liddell saying so would make it so.
2) That new evidence could be found to vindicate it, but the feeling is that it should have been found already (the likely places have already been searched).
3) That when Liddell dies, the interest will also, and the only the covens that have been built off the material will keep faith in it.


Eric Maple's book, The Dark World of Witches, sensationalized Pickingill. George Pickingill (b. 1816, Hockley, Essex, d. 1909) worked in Canewdon, a village that supposedly always contains 9 witches. Maple describes Pickingill as the "Master of Witches" who could control the witches in the village and force them to reveal themselves. He also threatened to bewitch machinery. Could the 9 witches have become a historical exaggeration of the 9 covens?


The concept of a "witchmaster" interests me because there have been people in my home province of Nova Scotia who were considered "witchmasters" like Pickingill. They had control over other witches (usually women) and were sought out by people who thought that they'd been bewitched. Helen Creighton's book Bluenose Magic goes into more detail on this, but the methods of the "witchmasters" in Nova Scotia are the same as those attributed to the Cunning-man Murrel.


Cheers,

Semjaza (who found a centipede or a milipede or some sort of long, scary, many-legged insect in her jeans this morning, and still hasn't recovered)

FFFF

[Seshata]

It would be interesting to find out if Ralph Harvey, who was mentioned in that Pickingill entry in "The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism," is still alive or taught his practices to anyone who is still alive.

Yes, he's very much alive!

BB

Seshata

[Ben Gruagach]

Yes, he's very much alive!

BB

Seshata

I would love to hear more about what he knows about Pickingill and his magickal career. Do you have any info you can pass on about books that Ralph Harvey has written on the topic or how someone might contact him to find out?

Thanks!

[Edited to add: I've just ordered "The Last Bastion" but am always eager to hear about more that Ralph Harvey might have out there.]

[Eran]

Deb Lipp said,

+++ Besides which, the Pickingill Papers claim a "magisterial" tradition, and what Gardner describes is entirely dissimilar. There's no suggestion of connection at all. +++

One interesting point, though, is that Liddell never claimed personal knowledge of Pickingill's covens, just second-hand (or father) reports. So whether they really were as "magisterial" as all that, we don't really know. If this was a court, most of his descriptions would be considered hearsay, and inadmissable. But anyway, you're right, the evidence in either direction is scanty at best - though Pickengill was apparently a real person, really was involved in something magical and non-Christian, and was rather a controvercial figure.

In the other direction, it's easy to confuse the Hereditary Coven or Covens which Gardner knew with the later Covens that descended from him. There are undoubted simlarities, but there are also undoubted differences. I don't think it'd be fair to say that since modern Gardnerian Covens aren't like the Coven(s) Pickengill apparently was associated with, therefore Gardner had no connection to Pickengill. It's an easy mistake to make, but I think it =is= a mistake.

One thing that does continue to surprise me, though - or, rather, amuse - is the number of people who are not Gardnerians but who seem to feel qualified to comment on what Gardnerianism is or isn't like. (Deb, you know I'm not including you in this!) It's been pointed out more times than can be counted that the public claims which have been made about modern Gardnerianism are all the result of unethical people acting in unethical manner - and, therefore, thoroughly unreliable. Which makes the above argument (modern Gardnerianism isn't like Pickengill, therefore Gardner had no connection to Pickengill) all the more senseless.

I make no claims one way or the other, mind you. I simply am agreeing with Hutton and with Deb on this point - the question remains open, though the lack of hard evidence is striking.

So much for the various claims of it having been "thoroughly debunked". It hasn't been, and no respectible historian has claimed otherwise.

[Ben Gruagach]

In the other direction, it's easy to confuse the Hereditary Coven or Covens which Gardner knew with the later Covens that descended from him. There are undoubted simlarities, but there are also undoubted differences. I don't think it'd be fair to say that since modern Gardnerian Covens aren't like the Coven(s) Pickengill apparently was associated with, therefore Gardner had no connection to Pickengill. It's an easy mistake to make, but I think it =is= a mistake.

This is a real problem. If the covens Gardner founded and those descended from his covens are not actually based on Pickingill's material (or some other authentic prior system) then the whole claim that Gardner's Wicca is a continuation of the mythical Old Religion has nothing to support it.

One thing that does continue to surprise me, though - or, rather, amuse - is the number of people who are not Gardnerians but who seem to feel qualified to comment on what Gardnerianism is or isn't like.

This viewpoint is one I've seen before in other communities. Back in the 1980s when I was in university and active in the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered community it was the height of the "politically correct" era there. One of the arguments that was made was that the only valid arguments about a topic could be made by those who were bona fide members of that community. In other words, no one who wasn't a gay male could say anything of value about gay males, no one who wasn't a lesbian could say anything about lesbians. Taking things further, it was argued that heterosexual actors should not be allowed to play gay roles, etc.

It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now when we switch things around to talk about Gardnerian Wicca or religion in general. Points that are valid are still valid and worth discussing regardless the status of the person who brought up the point.

[Eran]

This is a real problem. If the covens Gardner founded and those descended from his covens are not actually based on Pickingill's material (or some other authentic prior system) then the whole claim that Gardner's Wicca is a continuation of the mythical Old Religion has nothing to support it.

Nonsense. That's like saying that since the Baptist sect is not actually based on Catholicism, any claims of Baptists being Christian have nothing to support them. A silly argument, really.

And I never said they weren't "based on". I said there were differences, like there are between any two denominations of the same religion. Any argument which intentionally misrepresents other people's statements in order to disprove those misstatements is a pretty empty argument.



This viewpoint is one I've seen before in other communities. Back in the 1980s when I was in university and active in the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered community it was the height of the "politically correct" era there. One of the arguments that was made was that the only valid arguments about a topic could be made by those who were bona fide members of that community. <snip>
It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now when we switch things around to talk about Gardnerian Wicca or religion in general. Points that are valid are still valid and worth discussing regardless the status of the person who brought up the point.

If GLBT communities were oathbound, this comparision =might= imply. But they're not. It's an invalid an immaterial comparision. The fact is, there is data you do not have, and therefore cannot make pronouncements on.

There are things I do not pretend to know about Native American religion, and they'd be within their rights to slap me down if I did.

[Ben Gruagach]

Nonsense. That's like saying that since the Baptist sect is not actually based on Catholicism, any claims of Baptists being Christian have nothing to support them. A silly argument, really.

And I never said they weren't "based on". I said there were differences, like there are between any two denominations of the same religion. Any argument which intentionally misrepresents other people's statements in order to disprove those misstatements is a pretty empty argument.

Sorry but the logic in that comparison does not hold. Are the Baptists claiming to be an intact Roman Catholic tradition? Of course not.

Gardner, on the other hand, did claim that the things he was teaching in his covens were an intact continuation of the witch-cult that Margaret Murray described. The whole point of bringing Pickingill into the discussion was to try and provide evidence that Gardner had that link to a prior system -- a link farther back in history to the supposed intact chain of practice.

If GLBT communities were oathbound, this comparision =might= imply. But they're not. It's an invalid an immaterial comparision. The fact is, there is data you do not have, and therefore cannot make pronouncements on.

There are things I do not pretend to know about Native American religion, and they'd be within their rights to slap me down if I did.

If we were speaking exclusively about oathbound material you might have a point. However the topic at hand is not about oathbound material but about claims that have been made in freely available published material. We're talking about issues that are part of the historical record and not oathbound spiritual mysteries.

[Eran]

Sorry but the logic in that comparison does not hold. Are the Baptists claiming to be an intact Roman Catholic tradition? Of course not.

Gardner, on the other hand, did claim that the things he was teaching in his covens were an intact continuation of the witch-cult that Margaret Murray described.

This is a common mistake - to jump back and forth between "intact continuation" and the absurd idea that someone has implied there has been no alteration over the centuries. It is, in fact, an exact comparison. Are the Baptists claiming to be directly connected to the followers of Jesus? Of course they are. Did Gardner - or do modern Witches - claim to be an intact ancient Shamanic practice? Of course they don't. You tend to set up straw men, misrepresent others' arguments, and then decline to respond to the actual issues.


If we were speaking exclusively about oathbound material you might have a point. However the topic at hand is not about oathbound material but about claims that have been made in freely available published material. We're talking about issues that are part of the historical record and not oathbound spiritual mysteries.

And here you artfully slid back and forth between talking about denying a continuity of "practice" between Gardner and Pickengill, to an actual denial of the appliability of practice to the discussion at all. You claim there can be no connection because the practices are different, and when it's pointed out that you don't have the data to make such statements, you denied the importance of practice.

Gardnerian =practice= is exactly what's Oathbound, and is exactly what we =don't= know about Pickengill.

[Elderbush]

I've yet to see any proof that all witchcraft is the "same religion" as you put it, Eran. That implies that there was an original witchcraft religion and all variations of it derive from that common source. My opinion is based upon the evidence that I've seen so far that different groups had different religions in different cultures, geographic areas and time periods that shared a few common features and yet were quite different, with different gods and practices, hardly one continuous practice.

Could you present some evidence to support your opinion? I hardly think the last 2 thousand yeard of history is oathbound.

Ed. to add: In case you think I have misrepresented your words, here they are "I said there were differences, like there are between any two denominations of the same religion."

[Ben Gruagach]

This is a common mistake - to jump back and forth between "intact continuation" and the absurd idea that someone has implied there has been no alteration over the centuries. It is, in fact, an exact comparison. Are the Baptists claiming to be directly connected to the followers of Jesus? Of course they are. Did Gardner - or do modern Witches - claim to be an intact ancient Shamanic practice? Of course they don't. You tend to set up straw men, misrepresent others' arguments, and then decline to respond to the actual issues.

Please don't be insulting. Ad hominem attacks do not impress nor do they make your claims any more convincing.

The issue is that we are being told that Gardner's Wicca is an intact continuation of a prior witchcraft system. This criteria is also used all the time to discount other groups that call themselves Wiccan by saying that because they are not Gardnerian (or in some cases Alexandrian) they therefore are not Wiccan. It doesn't work both ways!

If we are to accept that Gardner's Wicca is an intact continuation of Pickingill's or some other prior system then we can't also say that Gardner's Wicca was his own invention. By saying
modern Gardnerian Covens aren't like the Coven(s) Pickengill apparently was associated with
you are clearly admitting that Gardner didn't pass on an intact prior system. Bringing up Pickingill and any connection Gardner might have had with them does nothing in this light to validate the claim that Gardner's Wicca is an intact ancient religion (evolved or not!)

To repeat the comparison that you brought up before, what Gardner claimed is equivalent to the Baptists claiming they are Roman Catholics. No one doubts that they are both Christian any more than there is doubt that any of the Wiccan (Gardnerian or not) groups are all witchcraft. However, the claim we are being presented with here in regards to Pickingill is that Gardner's Wicca is an intact form of Pickingill's witchcraft.

And you've stated clearly that it is not.

And here you artfully slid back and forth between talking about denying a continuity of "practice" between Gardner and Pickengill, to an actual denial of the appliability of practice to the discussion at all. You claim there can be no connection because the practices are different, and when it's pointed out that you don't have the data to make such statements, you denied the importance of practice.

Gardnerian =practice= is exactly what's Oathbound, and is exactly what we =don't= know about Pickengill.

Please don't put words in my mouth, and please don't resort to ad hominem.

The Baptists clearly drew from Roman Catholic religion as it was a clear prior system. However the Baptists didn't claim that their system was an intact Roman Catholic system, did they?

Another specifically Wiccan example that I find enlightening in this regard is Ray Buckland's Seax-Wicca. Buckland presented it in 1973 as an open and completely public (i.e. no oathbound secret material) system that was clearly based on Gardnerian Wicca of which he was an initiate. Buckland did not claim that Seax-Wicca was an intact continuation of a prior system. He did not claim that Seax-Wicca was an intact lineage of Gardnerian Wicca.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen British Traditional Wiccan initiates (Gardnerians and often Alexandrians too) rush to say that Seax-Wicca is not really Wicca, because it's not BTW and only BTW is real Wicca. It's the same argument that is used all the time to insist that other Wiccan denominations are not really Wiccan at all.

But here we are being told that the same circumstances with regard to Gardnerian Wicca and Pickingill witchcraft prove that Gardnerian Wicca is an intact continuation of Pickingill witchcraft!

It doesn't work both ways.

[AkashaW]

The issue is that we are being told that Gardner's Wicca is an intact continuation of a prior witchcraft system. This criteria is also used all the time to discount other groups that call themselves Wiccan by saying that because they are not Gardnerian (or in some cases Alexandrian) they therefore are not Wiccan. It doesn't work both ways!


If I may ask... who exactly is saying this? NO Gardnerian I know makes that kind of claim. Gardnerianism IS a continuation of the Old Religion and it IS in and of itself an intact system, but what GBG received from HIS initiators was not (and to my knowledge has never been presented as) any kind of systemic written-and-handed-down continuation from the Ancients. What GBG received were pieces and fragments and (IMO most importantly) the IDEAS of the ancient worship of the Horned God and the Earth Mother. To be sure, there are some remnants of very old material and a certain amount of oral tradition (which is not and never has been a game of telephone, as is so often asserted - ask anyone from any true Bardic tradition how carefully and faithfully this kind of information must be learned and repeated) - but that doesn't imply either an intact system, nor that GBG made it all up. It implies, in fact, exactly what GBG claimed - he was given a rudimentary and fragmented system, which he fleshed out in order to a) preserve the ideas as best he could and b) allow those not "of the Blood" to learn of the Old Ways. Gardnerianism is a guide and signpost to the Ancient Mysteries - and there are, of course, many other paths to them.


If we are to accept that Gardner's Wicca is an intact continuation of Pickingill's or some other prior system then we can't also say that Gardner's Wicca was his own invention.

Your emphasis on the word 'intact' is a red herring, my friend. One can pass on something one has learned or received without that thing being an 'intact' system. the IDEAS (again, I emphasize this) ARE a continuation. And frankly, while the exact wording of ritual texts may have been put together by GBG in order to convey as accurately as he could the ideas he had received, that fact in no way discredits the idea that the ideas themselves are, in fact, a continuation from the Ancients.

After all, modern types of Catholic 'guitar' masses are still a continuation of the Catholic system, regardless of the fact that some priest put together lyrics from popular modern songs. What's important in a discussion of 'continuation' is whether or not new material contains the same ideas, not whether or not the exact same words and phrases are used.

And I would ask you to not come back at me with the tired question of why Gardnerian ritual practices are then oathbound. That's an entirely unrelated question. Material being oathbound has nothing whatever to do with whether or not such material is any kind of 'continuation.' If you would like a discussion of why Gardnerian material is oathbound, I'd be happy to start another thread.


you are clearly admitting that Gardner didn't pass on an intact prior system. Bringing up Pickingill and any connection Gardner might have had with them does nothing in this light to validate the claim that Gardner's Wicca is an intact ancient religion (evolved or not!)

And again I'd ask, whoever said he DID pass on an intact prior system?

To repeat the comparison that you brought up before, what Gardner claimed is equivalent to the Baptists claiming they are Roman Catholics. No one doubts that they are both Christian any more than there is doubt that any of the Wiccan (Gardnerian or not) groups are all witchcraft. However, the claim we are being presented with here in regards to Pickingill is that Gardner's Wicca is an intact form of Pickingill's witchcraft.

I swear, I must have missed something. Who's saying that Gardnerianism is an INTACT form of anything?

And as far as the Witchcraft/Wicca debate - that's really nothing more than a matter of semantics. I'd appreciate it if you'd define your terms so we can all know what you mean. Eran has stated that HE uses the terms interchageably. What differences do you see?


The Baptists clearly drew from Roman Catholic religion as it was a clear prior system. However the Baptists didn't claim that their system was an intact Roman Catholic system, did they?

And one more time - WHO is saying that Gardnerians claim such a thing about Pickingill? Let me be absolutely clear - NONE of the Gardnerians I know and have worked with for the past 15 years believe such a thing, or claim it, or would agree with it. Gardnerianism is not an INTACT continuation - but it IS a continuation nonetheless - a fragmentary one where material is concerned, a full and deeply meaningful one where ideas are concerned.

Another specifically Wiccan example that I find enlightening in this regard is Ray Buckland's Seax-Wicca. Buckland presented it in 1973 as an open and completely public (i.e. no oathbound secret material) system that was clearly based on Gardnerian Wicca of which he was an initiate. Buckland did not claim that Seax-Wicca was an intact continuation of a prior system. He did not claim that Seax-Wicca was an intact lineage of Gardnerian Wicca.

Sorry to get snarky here for a minute, but how do you know that Seax-Wicca was "clearly based on Gardnerian Wicca"? Unless you're a Gardnerian Initiate, there's no way you can make that claim. Published alleged 'sources' are unreliable on their face - for they're either the product of an unethical and therefore not to be trusted Initiate (if such a person would break an oath made before the Gods, why would they balk at lying about what they know?), or someone who is NOT an Initiate and therefore can't really know what s/he's talking about.


I can't tell you the number of times I've seen British Traditional Wiccan initiates (Gardnerians and often Alexandrians too) rush to say that Seax-Wicca is not really Wicca, because it's not BTW and only BTW is real Wicca. It's the same argument that is used all the time to insist that other Wiccan denominations are not really Wiccan at all.

Then all these people are bigots and deserve to be ignored. Seax-Wicca is NOT Gardnerian or Alexandrian, but it is a way to worship the Old Gods and so, by my definition, is Wicca. Don't assume that simply because someone acknowledges the differences between Traditions that they are invalidating any but their own.

But here we are being told that the same circumstances with regard to Gardnerian Wicca and Pickingill witchcraft prove that Gardnerian Wicca is an intact continuation of Pickingill witchcraft!

It doesn't work both ways.

No, that's not what you're being told - at least not by me, and from my reading, not by Eran.

[Eran]

The issue is that we are being told that Gardner's Wicca is an intact continuation of a prior witchcraft system.

Please provide a quote for this claim. If by "intact continuation" you mean unchanged and identical rituals, no one is saying that, and you are setting up another straw man.

This criteria is also used all the time to discount other groups that call themselves Wiccan by saying that because they are not Gardnerian (or in some cases Alexandrian) they therefore are not Wiccan.

"All the time"? I've never said it, and frankly, I cannot think of a single Gardnerian who has. Please provide a quote. This is an ad hominem argument which has nothing to do with the current conversation.

you are clearly admitting that Gardner didn't pass on an intact prior system.

If by "intact prior system", you mean "the exact same unchanged rituals," yes, I am not only "admitting" that, I am insisting upon it. In the same way, Baptists did not pass on an "intact prior system" from the Catholics, yet they are obviously related to the Catholics - and are obviously still Christians.

Bringing up Pickingill and any connection Gardner might have had with them does nothing in this light to validate the claim that Gardner's Wicca is an intact ancient religion (evolved or not!)

Since I am not claiming it is an "intact ancient religion," this is another irrelevant straw man.

Ben, please don't put words in my mouth, and please don't resort to ad hominem arguments.

[Elderbush]

Hey, Gardnerians! What you are saying is that it is continuation of an "Old Religion." Prove it! Find that "Old Religon" and prove it existed where, when, who, the gods they worshiped, how they did it. Prove it was in continual existance. Show us the coven the gave Gardner his fragments.

This "intact" stuff is just horse poop. :) Show us the coven that gave Gardner the fragments.

Y'all are big on sidestepping. Very dramatic. Cut to the chase.

[AkashaW]

Hey, Gardnerians! What you are saying is that it is continuation of an "Old Religion." Prove it! Find that "Old Religon" and prove it existed where, when, who, the gods they worshiped, how they did it. Prove it was in continual existance. Show us the coven the gave Gardner his fragments.

This "intact" stuff is just horse poop. :) Show us the coven that gave Gardner the fragments.

Y'all are big on sidestepping. Very dramatic. Cut to the chase.

Please! Read Joseph Campbell. Read Mircea Eliade. Read Carlo Ginzburg. Read Margaret Murray. Read Jones and Pennick.

There has been adequate proof published for the existence of the New Forest Coven. If you don't want to believe it, don't.

The problem we have as Gardnerians is that the proof of the connections is in our material - which is oathbound. This is neither a cop-out nor sidestepping. Whether or not one agrees with the idea of material being oathbound, the fact remains that it IS - and I for one take an oath I gave before the Gods very seriously. I won't violate it just to satisfy your curiousity, nor to defend myself from your attacks nor to appease eclectic apologists. I won't, in fact, violate it for any reason whatsoever.

And frankly, whether or not you believe me is of very little consequence to me. I find your disrespect a mild annoyance, but you are free to choose what you believe.

[Eran]

Hey, Gardnerians! What you are saying is that it is continuation of an "Old Religion." Prove it! Find that "Old Religon" and prove it existed where, when, who, the gods they worshiped, how they did it. Prove it was in continual existance. Show us the coven the gave Gardner his fragments.

It is easy to dismiss any historical proof by simply demanding more evidence. "I don't believe it yet. Prove it some more." It is always possible to dismiss any evidence you don't like, or to claim it as irrelevant.

For instance, I insist that Catholocism was invented in 1963. The Second Vatican Council changed all the rules, so what happened prior to that is not the same religion we see today. Anything that contradicts my thesis must be a historical forgery, and you will never convince me otherwise. See? Easy to do.

The question is not similar to a mathematical proof, where there is no way to dispute the result. It's a matter of presenting a reasonable argument based on reasonably-verifiable evidence. Then reasonable people consider it in reasonable ways.

This "intact" stuff is just horse poop. :) Show us the coven that gave Gardner the fragments.

Read Hestleton's "Roots of Wicca". He did a marvelous job of documenting it.

[Elderbush]

Please been there read that - and not convinced.

Don't want to discuss Christianity.

There is either proof or no proof. If there is no proof then it is something that must be taken on faith. It is ok to say that "I believe!" because you have faith.

[Eran]

There is either proof or no proof. If there is no proof then it is something that must be taken on faith. It is ok to say that "I believe!" because you have faith.

There is =never= "proof" of historical argument. There is evidence, and there are deductions based on that evidence.

I present a great deal of evidence in my articles for an ancient religion of Witchcraft ( = Wicca, it's the same word) which survived until the late 17th century. I am in the process of organizing evidence for the period after that, but I want to start by showing the arguments for there having been such a set of religious paths for modern Witchcraft to be descended from.

[AkashaW]

Please been there read that - and not convinced.

That is, of course, your perogative. Some people still think the world is flat, and some people refuse to accept evolution as a real process and that's fine too. We don't all have to accept the same things, and it's good to know where another's skepticisms lie.

Of course, when someone dismisses the evidence another is relying on to make his/her point, further discussion becomes kind of moot. At that point, people simply have to accept that they don't agree on the basic theory - and demands for "proof' are then a red herring, since the evidence that would provide such 'proof' has already been dismissed.

[Greyharp]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elderbush
Please been there read that - and not convinced.

That is, of course, your perogative. Some people still think the world is flat, and some people refuse to accept evolution as a real process and that's fine too. We don't all have to accept the same things, and it's good to know where another's skepticisms lie.

I love the tactic of insinuation here - the insinuation being that the contrary opinion is linked to a belief in the flat earth theory, or a dismissal of evolution - or in other words, the belief of fools and idiots (some would say). A simple "we have different opinions" would've sufficed. :)

[AkashaW]

I love the tactic of insinuation here - the insinuation being that the contrary opinion is linked to a belief in the flat earth theory, or a dismissal of evolution - or in other words, the belief of fools and idiots (some would say). A simple "we have different opinions" would've sufficed. :)

You have a very suspicious mind, Greyharp. Insinuation is in the eye of the beholder. I meant no more than what I said - note the "and that's fine." It is you who added the insult of fool and idiot. I respect those who do not believe as I do, whether or not I think them wrong.

I DO believe that the evidence for the existence and continuation of the Old Religion in Europe is as convincing as the evidence for a round earth and the theory of evolution - which is why I used those as examples - but I in no way implied that someone who didn't was - to use your insults - a fool or an idiot. That's on you.

[Greyharp]

You have a very suspicious mind, Greyharp. Insinuation is in the eye of the beholder. I meant no more than what I said - note the "and that's fine." It is you who added the insult of fool and idiot. I respect those who do not believe as I do, whether or not I think them wrong.

I DO believe that the evidence for the existence and continuation of the Old Religion in Europe is as convincing as the evidence for a round earth and the theory of evolution - which is why I used those as examples - but I in no way implied that someone who didn't was - to use your insults - a fool or an idiot. That's on you.

Ahh I'm sorry AkashaW, I misunderstood you and you're right, I DO have a suspicious mind. Too many dealings with these agressive, intellectual, "continuation of the Old Religion in Europe" bunch. Just as those who believe the flat earth theory, or don't believe in evolution are depicted as fools, the same sort of thing is happening to those who believe Wicca to be a modern invention, and Witchcraft something very different from a pagan religion. The irony of course is that it is the loud, agressive minority who are tarring us (the majority) with the idiot brush, the unfairness of which gets my back up. So apologies again and shhhh, don't tell the Ancient Religionists that us Modernists have been niggling at each other, they'll have a field day. :)

[AkashaW]

Ahh I'm sorry AkashaW, I misunderstood you and you're right, I DO have a suspicious mind. Too many dealings with these agressive, intellectual, "continuation of the Old Religion in Europe" bunch. Just as those who believe the flat earth theory, or don't believe in evolution are depicted as fools, the same sort of thing is happening to those who believe Wicca to be a modern invention, and Witchcraft something very different from a pagan religion. The irony of course is that it is the loud, agressive minority who are tarring us (the majority) with the idiot brush, the unfairness of which gets my back up. So apologies again and shhhh, don't tell the Ancient Religionists that us Modernists have been niggling at each other, they'll have a field day. :)

My thanks for your understading, but I'd hardly call myself a modernist. As I said, I do firmly believe in the Old Religion and its continuation. I do not accept the premise that GBG 'invented' Witchcraft (or Wicca - I've also said that I use the words interchangeably). What he invented was a particular practice of the Old Ways, based on what he himself was taught. I just don't really feel the need to convert anyone to my belief. As I said, I think those who beleive Wicca/Witchcraft to be modern, and those others who see Witchcraft as devoid of a religious base, or those who hold both beliefs, are wrong - I simply respect their right to be, in my eyes, wrong - and to believe that I'm wrong.

[Ben Gruagach]

My thanks for your understading, but I'd hardly call myself a modernist. As I said, I do firmly believe in the Old Religion and its continuation. I do not accept the premise that GBG 'invented' Witchcraft (or Wicca - I've also said that I use the words interchangeably). What he invented was a particular practice of the Old Ways, based on what he himself was taught. I just don't really feel the need to convert anyone to my belief. As I said, I think those who beleive Wicca/Witchcraft to be modern, and those others who see Witchcraft as devoid of a religious base, or those who hold both beliefs, are wrong - I simply respect their right to be, in my eyes, wrong - and to believe that I'm wrong.

Perhaps I can help cast some more light on this topic.

I agree with you that Gardner did not invent Wicca out of nothing. Witchcraft most definitely existed prior to Gardner as there is abundant evidence going back hundreds if not thousands of years. In my opinion (and others I suspect) Gardner looked to all sorts of sources that he had available and brought it together to try and recreate what a witch religion could have been like.

The sticking point is really about whether Gardner's system was an accurate recreation of a previously existing system or whether it was really different enough to be considered something unique.

The components of Gardner's Wicca all existed in various forms before Gardner came along. I don't think anyone doubts that for a moment. The big doubt though is whether there was anything like an actual surviving Pagan religion known as witchcraft which Gardner had linked into and helped continue.

Part of the difficulty with accepting that there was a prior even semi-organized witch religion is that all the candidates people point to are something else altogether -- usually assorted Pagan religions that may or may not have practiced magick but where the historical practitioners would have denied being witches (as witches historically have almost universally been considered to be outsiders and essentially outlaws.) The Italian Strega (forgive me if I'm spelling that wrong) seem to be the closest to an actual pre-Gardnerian witch religion we have in the historical record but the problem with linking it to Gardner's Wicca is that Gardner's Wicca was not exclusively about Italian witchcraft and those bits that were about Italian witchcraft seem to have been clearly drawn from Leland's "Aradia" which we know Gardner had in his library. The conclusive link for Gardner to actual training originating with the Strega is missing.

Philip Heselton's books are an excellent resource for exploring what we do know about Gardner's sources and influences with some intriguing leads for where we could find more. Unfortunately though we still have an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest Gardner's system was not an intact continuation of a previous system rather than his own attempts to recreate what he thinks such a previous system might have been like. That's a big difference especially in regard to the claim that modern Wicca is an intact continuation of pre-Christian religions (even with the expected evolution through the Christian era when it would be in hiding.)

Wicca is not the pre-Christian Celtic religion, because the Celts prior to Christianity actually practiced a variety of religions (they were not uniform nor universal in the deities they worshipped nor how they worshipped), because we do have information on how the Celts worshipped and it's not like Wicca. Wicca is not the ancient Greek religion because again that was a collection of different cults and what we know about them is not much like Wicca. It's not the religion of the Norse people because again we know what their religions were like and they weren't Wicca. The same with Egyptian religions, and Roman religions. It's getting harder and harder to find where the Wiccan religion actually existed before Christianity if it actually existed.

On the other hand we have plenty of examples of people who followed Greek religions who practiced witchcraft, and people who practiced Norse religions who were witches. But those people were Greek and Norse, and their religions were not witchcraft. Norse witches did not pray to Hecate or Diana or Aradia, and Greek witches were not making sacrifices to Odin or Freya.

Does that help explain other viewpoints on this topic even a bit?

[AkashaW]

Perhaps I can help cast some more light on this topic.


Does that help explain other viewpoints on this topic even a bit?

Please forgive me, but I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't understand the issues. I do, quite well. You choose to disregard some of the evidence which I accept. That's fine. We disagree. As I said, I feel no need to convince anyone of anything. I hope you don't feel the need to convince me of your view.

I do appreciate the time you took, though - especially considering that I've asked you direct questions before and received no repsonse. Perhaps that was just an oversight. At any rate, you have your view and I have mine. Simply because I disagree with you does NOT mean I don't understand what you've been saying, or that I am unaware of the research you refer to.

[Eran]

I agree with Akasha on this one. Ben, I'm aware of the data you present, and there are other factors which I find to be more compelling. It's okay that your interpretations differ from mine, and, like Akasha, I feel no need to convince anyone. I'm content to present my research and reasoning, and let others make of it what they will.

I also reference an article on my website which explains quite a lot about what's wrong with most modern scholarship about Witchcraft (Wicca), and why I don't put much stock in it. I encourage you read that if you want, Ben, and please feel free to comment.

[Ben Gruagach]

I finished reading Ralph Harvey's new book, "The Last Bastion," which has a little bit of information about Pickingill and his possible connection to Gardner and Wicca.

The book actually had just a few short mentions of Pickingill but here's what it did say:

According to Harvey the claim that Pickingill had nine covens was false. It was actually only seven covens, and Pickingill was more of a consultant the covens would turn to for information. Harvey insists that the covens were not founded by Pickingill at all but would send members up to visit Pickingill in order to learn witch lore from him. Harvey also says that Pickingill was illiterate but while unable to read had a lot of folklore and the like that he was willing to share with those who befriended him.

Harvey believes that the group that introduced Gardner to Wicca in the New Forest were one of these seven who had contact with Pickingill but again Pickingill was really just a source for them, not their founder.

This leaves a lot of questions that still need to be answered such as whether any of these seven covens were continuations of something that existed for years before, or whether they were self-started groups that then decided to turn to Pickingill for material to flesh out their own ideas of what a witch coven might be like.

We also don't know where Pickingill's ideas came from. Was any of it authentic witch lore that he learned from someone else or was he making it up as he went along? Some people are quite happy to make up the most amazing things when they have a willing audience to listen (and even better if that audience takes it all seriously!)

As usual the more that appears to be revealed about a historical topic the more we discover we still don't know.