Did Gardner ever intend for Wicca to be a religion?

[David19]

This is something i've heard recently and find it interesting, is that Gardner never intended Wicca to be a religion.

Something that Paracelsus said in the thread, 'Ethics:Black magic' (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=135499&page=26)(in the Magic and Rituals forum):


Maybe so, but I'll stick with Fred Lamond's point of view thanks - "Gerald Gardner never pretended, at least to his early initiates like myself, that he had been initiated into an Old Craft coven. That claim was made on his behalf a decade after his death by E.W. Liddell, who signed himself 'Lugh' in the highly suspect Pickingill Papers, first published in The Cauldron."
Fred, after all, was there, and continues to be an active member of the BTW community, and indeed one of the few with no drum to bang...

This is interesting, IMO anyway, 'cause Fred Lamond was in Gardner's original coven, and i think i've heard Gardner only, really, intended it to be for magic only, the religious aspects, were mostly, added later.

And from what i've heard Fred Lamond is still active in the Wiccan and Pagan community, and still supports it, so it's not like he's trying to 'destroy' Wicca, it just seems to me that if you have someone who knew Gardner, was in his original group, etc saying there wasn't a previous 'Wiccan religion' then it's pretty good evidence for those that say 'there was'.

I haven't read Fred Lamond's book(s), but i definantly want to (but i'm a student so i'll have to wait i guess ;)).

But, if you have read his book(s), what did you think, do you think he makes a good case, and would you believe that there 'still was/is a pre-Gardner 'Wiccan' religion/coven', or do you think Gardner never intended for Wicca to be a religion (and more a magical practice and/or mystery religion).

To me, it's pretty good evidence against a 'pre-Wiccan, Wiccan coven', anyway.

[Kaylara]

Well, we can only really go one what was told publically unless we're Gardnerians. ;) I'd like to find Fred Lamond and invite him here though and see what he has to say on the matter. :)

Edited to say: I googled his name and found This article.
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/3.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/4.html

[Carla O'Harris]

To me, the entire question is phrased incorrectly and inappropriately. It is like asking in court, "When did you stop beating your wife?". The question assumes that Gardner created Wicca, an assumption that by this time with Heselton's work and Kelly's admission should be an outdated assumption.

Gardner was initiated into a religious craft, and he speaks of it as a religion, so there is no doubt that it was.

Fred Lamond may have his own spin, but Gardner's words most certainly take precedence.

[Gede]

Khaire & Blessings~
I have read Gardner's The Meaning of Witchcraft and Lamond's Fifty Years of Wicca as well as Valiente's early books which detail bits and pieces of who Gardner was, what he did and what he intended to achieve through the religion and craft of Wicca. Gardner did practise a religion in my opinion and he did so in full knowledge of he was doing.

Namaste*

[AkashaW]

This is something i've heard recently and find it interesting, is that Gardner never intended Wicca to be a religion.

This is interesting, IMO anyway, 'cause Fred Lamond was in Gardner's original coven, and i think i've heard Gardner only, really, intended it to be for magic only, the religious aspects, were mostly, added later.

And from what i've heard Fred Lamond is still active in the Wiccan and Pagan community, and still supports it, so it's not like he's trying to 'destroy' Wicca, it just seems to me that if you have someone who knew Gardner, was in his original group, etc saying there wasn't a previous 'Wiccan religion' then it's pretty good evidence for those that say 'there was'.

To me, it's pretty good evidence against a 'pre-Wiccan, Wiccan coven', anyway.

I haven't read Fred's books, but I've met him and spoken with him and he's apparently changed his story over the last few years. when I spoke with him he presented himself and GBG as a devoted Priest of the Gods - which would belie the idea that the Craft wasn't thought of as a religion.

[Eran]

On the topic of whether Gardner thought Witchcraft was a religion, it might be interesting to see what Gardner had to say about it.

Chapter 1 of Witchcraft Today (Gardner's first non-fiction book about the Craft) opens with:


THERE have been many books written on witchcraft. The early ones were mostly propaganda written by the various Churches to discourage and frighten people from having any connections with what was to them a hated rival -- for witchcraft is a religion.

On page 23, he says of the Witches,


They may truly be said to be followers of a primitive religion, already disappearing...

On p 33 he writes:


The individual motives which persuaded a person to become a witch, other than those to whom witchcraft was an old religion, must have been fairly complicated.

Page 140, quoting what another Witch told him:


"Ours is a religion of love, pleasure and excitement..."

Or, here, on page 26 of Meaning of Witchcraft:


It must be understood clearly that witchcraft is a religion.

... and so on. The number of times he calls it a "religion", or the "Old Religion" are really too numerous to list. This is not really open to question, not a matter of interpretation or memory or speculation. Gardner viewed Witchcraft as a religion, and he understood it to be a very old one, and he was brought into it (he did not "create" it).

If someone claims that Gardner did not view Witchcraft as a "religion", then such a person is, at best, mistaken.

[Lunacie]

Thanks for looking those paragraphs up for us. However, Gardner based his religion on the old religion of witchcraft and then added on some other things that made it different and quite unique. Therefore he did create something new that was based on several older things, including the religion of witchcraft.

[David19]

Thanks, someone actually got in contact with Fred Lamond for me, and, basically, said that Gardner was presenting a revived worship of 'pagan' gods/

He may have said he was presenting a religion 'going back to ancient 'pagan' times', and maybe he thought this, but that may mean he just convinced himself, or maybe, considering, he wrote books and publicly courted the media (one of the reasons Cochrane hated most Gardnerian's), maybe he thought it would sell more books and get him more famous (i'm not trying to insult him or Wicca, but i think he may have just been reviving the worship of some 'pagan' gods).

You know it'd be great to see if Fred Lamond join Mystic Wicks, 'cause i think it'd be cool to actually have someone who knew Gardner here.

[Ben Gruagach]

I don't doubt that Gardner believed what he was doing was a religion, and that it was based on the religion of Witchcraft which his friend Margaret Murray speculated about.

However...

What Fred Lamond was writing about was whether Gardner had that intact link to the rumoured pre-Christian religion of Witchcraft. What Fred said is that

"Gerald Gardner never pretended, at least to his early initiates like myself, that he had been initiated into an Old Craft coven. That claim was made on his behalf a decade after his death by E.W. Liddell, who signed himself 'Lugh' in the highly suspect Pickingill Papers, first published in The Cauldron."

Fred was talking about the rumoured lineage-by-initiation to an intact pre-Christian religion, not about whether what Gardner was doing was a religion.

The extra bit that David19 got from Fred reinforces this. Whether Gardner thought he was part of an intact lineage to pre-Christian times or was reconstructing what he thought that pre-Christian religion was like, he was still working with the premise that it was a religion.

[Eran]

The question originally asked in this thread was whether Gardner thought of Witchcraft as a religion. The answer is, Yes, he did.

A couple of people have quoted Fred Lamond:


"Gerald Gardner never pretended, at least to his early initiates like myself, that he had been initiated into an Old Craft coven. "

This is inaccurate, as Fred was one of Gardner's later initiates, not one of his earlier ones. I've spoken personally to Fred a few times, and coresponded with him in email. He only met Gardner a couple of times, and his tales of Gardner tend to contradict those of other people who know him better.

A number of people are convinced that Gardner "invented" Wicca. There are, however, fewer scholars every day who think this (even Aidan Kelly admits that the New Forest Coven existed before Gardner, and that Gardner was Initiated into it).

There is no longer any reasonable doubt that Gardner felt he was passing along an ancient religion, reasonably intact, and that the religion was there before he was.

He tried to make the religion of Witchcraft attractive to people of a new generation; but he did not attempt to alter its basic concepts or imagery or essence. Indeed, he viewed what he did as attempting to preserve these things.

His own words make that very plain, and one can dispute this only by ignoring his straightforward and very public statements.

[Carla O'Harris]

Thank you!!

[Greyharp]

Gardner was initiated into a religious craft, and he speaks of it as a religion, so there is no doubt that it was.


If this is the standard of proof, he said it so it is, may the gods help us. The fact that one of his closest followers, Valiente, believed Gardner lied (a debate that has been done to death in previous threads), and helped him "flesh out" this religion, doesn't bode well for this argument.

Sure Gardner believed what he was doing was a religion, but that is not the same as him actually stumbling across an existing religion (another debate that has been done to death). This all comes down to an interpretation of evidence. We can all look at the same evidence and come up with completely different conclusions.

The fact that this issue is still being debated at all must surely point to it not being a black and white, cut and dried matter. If the "facts" were so obvious and incontrovertible, we wouldn't be arguing the issue.

[covenofkeys]

ORIGIONALLY POSTED BY CARLA O'HARRIS:gardner was initiated into a religious craft, and he speaks of it as a religion, so there is no doubt that it was.
WHAT?
JUST BECAUSE OF HIS SAY SO? perhaps it was true for him, although not all see it as such.
for instance myself i do not agree that what i do is in any way religious,although many will disagree. in HIS opinion it was a 'religion', but that does not make it 100percent true.for example: i could say:
in my opinion, i believe that dragons or pixies or little green men exist-does this make it an actual truth, or merely ones opinion?

[Lunacie]

Sure, L. Ron Hubbard believed he was creating a whole new religion, which is certainly not the same thing as stumbling across an existing religion.

I'm not sure what that had to do with Gardner putting some stuff together and calling it a religion, which in my opinion he did.


edited to add: if only a few people follow a religious nut, you've got a cult. If a whole lot of people follow a religious nut, and the government agrees that it's a religion, then you've got a religion.

[Carla O'Harris]

If this is the standard of proof, he said it so it is, may the gods help us. The fact that one of his closest followers, Valiente, believed Gardner lied (a debate that has been done to death in previous threads), and helped him "flesh out" this religion, doesn't bode well for this argument.

Sure Gardner believed what he was doing was a religion, but that is not the same as him actually stumbling across an existing religion (another debate that has been done to death). This all comes down to an interpretation of evidence. We can all look at the same evidence and come up with completely different conclusions.

The fact that this issue is still being debated at all must surely point to it not being a black and white, cut and dried matter. If the "facts" were so obvious and incontrovertible, we wouldn't be arguing the issue.


This doesn't follow at all. The inertia of contentiousness combined with the still-existing motivating-factors for the contentiousness in the first place can explain why we're still debating it.

Both Eran and I have made reference to important sources that demonstrate that there was a pre-Gardnerian group. Heselton has shown that. And I'll bring up an issue I know you hate, but the willingness of people who are Wiccans to slander the character of Gardner and assume the entire thing was a fraud is plainly to me an issue of loyalty and should be adjudged as such, not to mention what it means that someone would follow a movement they consciously acknowledge as having originated in fraud.

The fact that Valiente helped him to "flesh out" the religion doesn't mean it didn't pre-exist. In fact, she believed it did, as she spent some time and effort trying to prove the existence of Old Dorothy. Since her passing, much more has been done to demonstrate the existence of the group.

The fact that my suggestion that we begin with Gardner's words seems so heretical is just a sign of how much slander has been heaped upon something so beautiful.

[Carla O'Harris]

Sure, L. Ron Hubbard believed he was creating a whole new religion, which is certainly not the same thing as stumbling across an existing religion.

I'm not sure what that had to do with Gardner putting some stuff together and calling it a religion, which in my opinion he did.


edited to add: if only a few people follow a religious nut, you've got a cult. If a whole lot of people follow a religious nut, and the government agrees that it's a religion, then you've got a religion.

*Sigh*

Does no one ever read anything posted here? There seems to be an irrational attachment to the Gardner-as-creator-compiler meme despite continued evidence that the thing predated him, and that there are precedents throughout European history, absolutely undocumented by Hutton that form a rational context for the thing. What's the resistance? What will it hurt to acknowledge that Gardner was building upon the ideas and practices of a group that predated him? Can't you at least update your ideas? JFYI, the update is that there was a group that predated him. The most conservative thinking about that update is that the group was a romantic-revivalist group from the late 1800s, but even this highly conservative estimate admits that there was a group that predated him.

[Carla O'Harris]

ORIGIONALLY POSTED BY CARLA O'HARRIS:gardner was initiated into a religious craft, and he speaks of it as a religion, so there is no doubt that it was.
WHAT?
JUST BECAUSE OF HIS SAY SO? perhaps it was true for him, although not all see it as such.
for instance myself i do not agree that what i do is in any way religious,although many will disagree. in HIS opinion it was a 'religion', but that does not make it 100percent true.for example: i could say:
in my opinion, i believe that dragons or pixies or little green men exist-does this make it an actual truth, or merely ones opinion?


These are completely different-order statements.

To assert that one discovered a group practicing a unique religious sensibility is a completely rational, this-world kind of statement that is entirely within the realm of plausibility. Cryptozoological statements, on the other hand, are on a completely different order of assertion, and require a much more rigorous kind of proof. I'm not going to debate with you the validity of your beliefs in this regard, but that they are cryptozoological is fairly clear, and therefore highly differentiated from the quite plausible and rational assertion that there are small groups of people practicing unique religious sensibilities.

It's not a matter of "just because his say-so". He describes concepts and practices which would universally be seen as religious, and the phenomenology of his experience with these concepts and practices is religious.

What other people do with it is their business, as well as their responsibility. The unfortunate thing about Wicca is that it began as an initiate-tradition passed down carefully in intimate groups, and has now become sold on the mass-market for people to freely plunder and modify --- modifications that occur outside the context of the intimate understandings of the original groupings.

[Lunacie]

*Sigh*

Does no one ever read anything posted here? There seems to be an irrational attachment to the Gardner-as-creator-compiler meme despite continued evidence that the thing predated him, and that there are precedents throughout European history, absolutely undocumented by Hutton that form a rational context for the thing. What's the resistance? What will it hurt to acknowledge that Gardner was building upon the ideas and practices of a group that predated him? Can't you at least update your ideas? JFYI, the update is that there was a group that predated him. The most conservative thinking about that update is that the group was a romantic-revivalist group from the late 1800s, but even this highly conservative estimate admits that there was a group that predated him.

Darlin' apparently you haven't read my posts here. I've agreed that Gardner was building on pre-existing stuff. In fact he took a whole lot of previously unconnected stuff and put it together in a new way. That doesn't make what he was calling his 'religion' the same thing as what he learned from earlier groups, eh?

[Carla O'Harris]

Darlin' apparently you haven't read my posts here. I've agreed that Gardner was building on pre-existing stuff. In fact he took a whole lot of previously unconnected stuff and put it together in a new way. That doesn't make what he was calling his 'religion' the same thing as what he learned from earlier groups, eh?

Sorry, my apologies.

But I think the fact that there may be differences is perhaps less important than the issue of fidelity. Gardner gives every impression of trying to be as fidelitous as possible to the original spirit. He speaks of taking what he learned from the New Forest group and attempting to reconstruct its original integrity by supplementing with other sources.

[Lunacie]

Is there any evidence that Gardner was calling his new 'tradition' by the same name as that used by the New Forest Coven? I think the fact that he was supplementing from other sources says that he didn't have the whole package from the NF group as well as saying that he had other interests that he wanted to incorporate into his religious practices. So he knew that he wasn't being entirely faithful to the NF group's practices.

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't think there's any indication that he smuggled other interests in. I do think there is the explicit notion that he was interested in hearing from other witch traditions so that the original can be pieced back together.

[Raven Heart]

Hey. I always believed that Gardner came across an existing religion and added things to it. At the core was this old faith. I read Gardner's work and Murry's God of the Witches(i hope I got the name right.) I would like to know some other books about the history of Witchcraft,pre-Gardner. If someone could give me some ideas I would be really really happy, so I can understand all this.

[Ben Gruagach]

Hey. I always believed that Gardner came across an existing religion and added things to it. At the core was this old faith. I read Gardner's work and Murry's God of the Witches(i hope I got the name right.) I would like to know some other books about the history of Witchcraft,pre-Gardner. If someone could give me some ideas I would be really really happy, so I can understand all this.

There are actually quite a few books that explore the history of witchcraft pre-Gardner. Some of my favourites include Owen Davies' work (such as "Cunning-Folk") and Emma Wilby's "Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits."

And I know Carla will start another of her rants about this, but Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" goes over a lot of the pre-Gardnerian influences. Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" also explore the precursors to Gardner's work.

[Carla O'Harris]

Another one of my rants.

Of course, everything you say is perfectly reasonable and smooth discourse.

Go ahead and read Hutton's book, but be aware that he leaves out fairy-folklore, which is 3/4 of the whole kit and kabootle.

[Lunacie]

I don't think there's any indication that he smuggled other interests in. I do think there is the explicit notion that he was interested in hearing from other witch traditions so that the original can be pieced back together.

So that would mean that Cowley was a member of the witch religion as well? And what about the occult stuff that Gardner studied before returning to England and finding the New Forest folks?

[Bethra]

Please find below a link to a very similar discusion on my forum. I'm not spamming here just don't want to be quoting everyone in that thread when they are not members here. The imformation given in the thread is definatly of relevance and very interesting.
http://www.questingspirit.co.uk/forums/viewthread.php?tid=258

[jetpiston]

The unfortunate thing about Wicca is that it began as an initiate-tradition passed down carefully in intimate groups, and has now become sold on the mass-market for people to freely plunder and modify --- modifications that occur outside the context of the intimate understandings of the original groupings.
The fortunate thing is that there are still intimate groups passing down the practices received from Gardner through initiation and personal training. It seems to me to be self-evident that it has always been a religion.

[Bethra]

I shall just quote from one of our members on my local forum here.


Originally posted by Raven
Hi Bethra

I’m an old fashioned Gardnerian from Patricia Crowther’s coven. She was one of Gerald Gardner’s original High Priestesses. Therefore the answers I will give in regards to your posting concern only the line of the Gardnerian tradition that I am a member of, and not any other tradition of the Craft.

I agree that Wicca is initiatory and oath bound but it is more of a Mystery Tradition and a magical path than a religion, in the usual sense of the word.

[Lunacie]

The Mystery Traditions were for honoring and communing with the gods and goddesses, so although they weren't a lot like modern religions, I think that they represented religion in that time and place.

[Ben Gruagach]

Another one of my rants.

Of course, everything you say is perfectly reasonable and smooth discourse.

We all rant sometimes. (It's even listed as one of the common modes in the Political forum!)

[AkashaW]

Is there any evidence that Gardner was calling his new 'tradition' by the same name as that used by the New Forest Coven? I think the fact that he was supplementing from other sources says that he didn't have the whole package from the NF group as well as saying that he had other interests that he wanted to incorporate into his religious practices. So he knew that he wasn't being entirely faithful to the NF group's practices.

To my knowledge, GBG didn't refer to what he practiced as anything other than "The Craft" or "The Old Religion." At the time of his writing, there was not the division between occult groups in England that there is today. In fact, the term "Gardnerian" was first put forth as kind of an insult - claiming that since GBG opened up "The Craft" to those not provably "of the Blood" such people were not really Craft - just "Gardnerian." BTW, this 'insult' was used almost immediately after GBG's death in 1964, as is attested to by letters in the Pentagram late in that year - which probably means it was used in private for some time before that. Does it need to be said that Gardnerians *don't* consider it an insult?

Further, it has always been acknowledged that what GBG got from the New Forest Coven was fragmentary. Whatever more complete rituals or information that once existed had been lost through centuries of persecution and the sometimes necessary destruction of material that goes along with it. What was left were the ideas, the concepts, and certain techniques used for contacting the gods, along with *pieces* of ritual. What GBG did (as I have said before on other threads) was to find material from other sources which expressed the same concepts and ideas, filling in those missing pieces as best he could. What he received from the New Forest Coven was a religion and a framework. What he added were things intended to complete the framework, and non-oathbound (to him) ways of expressing that religion. Those of us who follow that which he fleshed out honor him for his intent and his willingness to submit himself to ridicule and possible ostracizing in order to open the Craft to more seekers.

[Ben Gruagach]

I shall just quote from one of our members on my local forum here.

Thanks for posting that quote from a 3rd degree Gardnerian initiate, Bethra.

One thing that I thought was quite interesting about the quote is that the person said that they can only really speak based on their own experience within one particular line (Patricia Crowther's) of the Gardnerian denomination.

It leaves things open for differences of opinion!

I highly recommend Fred Lamond's book "Fifty Years of Wicca" as an alternate point of view from someone who was initiated into Gardner's coven back when Doreen Valiente was still the group's high priestess back in the 1950s, before Gardner's later high priestesses such as Patricia Crowther. Fred points out that Gardner appears to have taken a more "hard line" approach to his teachings, passing them on more as dogma than suggestions, in the post-Doreen period of his work.

Oh, and for those interested, there was this other thread here at MysticWicks (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=135392) where we were discussing the lineage/ formal initiation issue with regard to Wicca. The quote from Raven (the 3rd degree Gardnerian initiate) is quite relevant for that discussion too.

[Bethra]

Thanks for posting that quote from a 3rd degree Gardnerian initiate, Bethra.

One thing that I thought was quite interesting about the quote is that the person said that they can only really speak based on their own experience within one particular line (Patricia Crowther's) of the Gardnerian denomination.

It leaves things open for differences of opinion!

I highly recommend Fred Lamond's book "Fifty Years of Wicca" as an alternate point of view from someone who was initiated into Gardner's coven back when Doreen Valiente was still the group's high priestess back in the 1950s, before Gardner's later high priestesses such as Patricia Crowther. Fred points out that Gardner appears to have taken a more "hard line" approach to his teachings, passing them on more as dogma than suggestions, in the post-Doreen period of his work.

Oh, and for those interested, there was this other thread here at MysticWicks (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=135392) where we were discussing the lineage/ formal initiation issue with regard to Wicca. The quote from Raven (the 3rd degree Gardnerian initiate) is quite relevant for that discussion too.


I have only recently become friends with Raven herself and have found her an absolute font of knowledge on the history of Wicca. Since she has studied for her initiation with people so heavely connected to the original coven I tend to believe she knows what she is talking about. :D

[Fiamma]

I don't think there's any indication that he smuggled other interests in. I do think there is the explicit notion that he was interested in hearing from other witch traditions so that the original can be pieced back together.


I'm confused...are you saying "so that the original can be pieced back together" meaning that you believe that somewhere back in time there was one single cohesive tradition that all witches followed...or somethign completely different?

[David19]

There are actually quite a few books that explore the history of witchcraft pre-Gardner. Some of my favourites include Owen Davies' work (such as "Cunning-Folk") and Emma Wilby's "Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits."

And I know Carla will start another of her rants about this, but Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" goes over a lot of the pre-Gardnerian influences. Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" also explore the precursors to Gardner's work.


Hey. I always believed that Gardner came across an existing religion and added things to it. At the core was this old faith. I read Gardner's work and Murry's God of the Witches(i hope I got the name right.) I would like to know some other books about the history of Witchcraft,pre-Gardner. If someone could give me some ideas I would be really really happy, so I can understand all this.

I'm not Wiccan, and i'm only a student so i don't know too much about witchcraft history, (but i'd like to learn a lot more about it).

But i think Ben has some great suggestions, read Philip Heselton's books, Fred Lamond, and Ronald Hutton, who i think is a great author (i haven't read all of his Triumph of the Moon or Witches, Druids, and King Arthur, but from what i've read, they're excellant books, IMO, anyway).

I think maybe read Murray's 'God of the witches' to know the some of the 'myths' behind Wicca and what Gardner read (i think he read Murray's works right?), but don't see her work as literal, as she's been long discredited by the majority of scholars (and it's important to trust scholars, 'cause, IMO, it strengthens a religion, and helps you stay up to date, IMO anyway).

You can also read Margret Murray's 'Witch Cult in Western Europe' (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/wcwe/index.htm)on Sacred texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/index.htm), where you can read a lot about Gardnerian Wicca, pre-Wiccan witchcraft, etc.

Hope this helps :).

[Eran]

Originally Posted by Raven Heart
Hey. I always believed that Gardner came across an existing religion and added things to it. At the core was this old faith. I read Gardner's work and Murry's God of the Witches(i hope I got the name right.) I would like to know some other books about the history of Witchcraft,pre-Gardner. If someone could give me some ideas I would be really really happy, so I can understand all this.

Do read Hutton, whose book portrays well the current standard scholarly view. This view has evolved over the years as more data is uncovered - a few years back, it was pretty much assumed that Gardner made everything up. Now it is recogized that there was a long history of thought before Gardner. As time goes on, scholars are moving closer to Murray, and Hutton displays the current state of that transition.

Hesstleton has proven there was indeed a Coven into which Gardner was Initiated; he represents the next step past Hutton.

Mircea Eliade and Carlo Ginzburg have both written that Murray's theories contained a vital kernal of truth - that indeed there were Pagan suvivals in the Middle Ages, some of which were interpreted by the various Christian Churches as being Satanic (though, to be fair, both Eliade and Ginzburg dispute Murray's methodology). Read Ginzburg's The Night Battles and Ecstacies; Deciphering the WItches' Sabbat for his meticulous research into one such Medieval survival.

I also will immodestly recommend my own website, http://esoterica.bichaunt.org, which contains many essays and carefully researched articles on religion of Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, along with detailed discussions of what's wrong with current scholarship on the topic.

[Ben Gruagach]

Do read Hutton, whose book portrays well the current standard scholarly view. This view has evolved over the years as more data is uncovered - a few years back, it was pretty much assumed that Gardner made everything up. Now it is recogized that there was a long history of thought before Gardner. As time goes on, scholars are moving closer to Murray, and Hutton displays the current state of that transition.

Interesting statement -- that scholars are moving towards agreeing with Murray's witchcraft theories. Time will certainly tell us whether that is the case or not. (I'm afraid I haven't seen the trend!)


Hesstleton has proven there was indeed a Coven into which Gardner was Initiated; he represents the next step past Hutton.

Heselton speculates about who the coven members could have been but that is not the same thing as proving that the coven existed. The only person we know was definitely involved and introduced Gardner was Dafo. We have basically zero evidence regarding anyone else practicing with Dafo in the New Forest apart from what Gardner himself claimed. (And with so many "granny myths" that went around and were shown to be false it's not surprising people expect a bit more proof than just one person's say-so.)


Mircea Eliade and Carlo Ginzburg have both written that Murray's theories contained a vital kernal of truth - that indeed there were Pagan suvivals in the Middle Ages, some of which were interpreted by the various Christian Churches as being Satanic (though, to be fair, both Eliade and Ginzburg dispute Murray's methodology). Read Ginzburg's The Night Battles and Ecstacies; Deciphering the WItches' Sabbat for his meticulous research into one such Medieval survival.

This is quite true... there is all sorts of evidence of Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages. However it is also important to note that this does not prove Murray's claim that Witchcraft was a single unified intact pre-Christian religion. Discovering that the coelocanth is not extinct is not the same as proving that there are living tyrannosaurs lurking in California backyards.

[Eran]

Heselton speculates about who the coven members could have been but that is not the same thing as proving that the coven existed. The only person we know was definitely involved and introduced Gardner was Dafo. We have basically zero evidence regarding anyone else practicing with Dafo in the New Forest apart from what Gardner himself claimed.
Well, we also have Heselton's excellent research, in addiiton to Gardner's word. I think readers can judge for themselves when they read the evidence. It is telling that Heselton was able to uncover so much when he started to seriously look into the question - as compared to the other researchers who simply dismissed it out of hand. I hope other scholars build on this clear success and look farther into it themselves.

... there is all sorts of evidence of Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages. However it is also important to note that this does not prove Murray's claim that Witchcraft was a single unified intact pre-Christian religion. Discovering that the coelocanth is not extinct is not the same as proving that there are living tyrannosaurs lurking in California backyards.
The essense of Murray's theories was exactly that there were "Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages," and this is the most important part of it. The rest is window dressing. These Pagan survivals existed, and they were indeed targetted by Christian authorities as being Satanic. This is precisely what Gardner's critics so often ridicule. Let's start with this admission, start with the acceptance of this historical fact, and then see where that leads us.

The next step would be to investigate the nature of these survivals, and their extent. The deeper one goes into that aspect, the more reasonable one finds the idea of a continuing tradition surviving to the present day. And, to bring it back to the topic of this thread, it is that sort of religious survival that Gardner saw himself as continuing. Did Gardner view Witchcraft as a religion? Yes. And he viewed it as a religion of this type - one of these "Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages."

(The idea of a "a single unified intact pre-Christian religion", by the way, is in no way relevant to the question of whether there were survivals of one or more Pagan traditions into Gardner's time, so I hope that particular red herring doesn't distract the current conversation.)

[David19]

The essense of Murray's theories was exactly that there were "Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages," and this is the most important part of it. The rest is window dressing. These Pagan survivals existed, and they were indeed targetted by Christian authorities as being Satanic. This is precisely what Gardner's critics so often ridicule. Let's start with this admission, start with the acceptance of this historical fact, and then see where that leads us.

The next step would be to investigate the nature of these survivals, and their extent. The deeper one goes into that aspect, the more reasonable one finds the idea of a continuing tradition surviving to the present day. And, to bring it back to the topic of this thread, it is that sort of religious survival that Gardner saw himself as continuing. Did Gardner view Witchcraft as a religion? Yes. And he viewed it as a religion of this type - one of these "Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages."

I hope this doesn't come off as rude 'cause i'm not trying to be, but i'd like to know what the evidence is for 'pagan' survivals into the Middle Ages?, and even if there were, it doesn't mean there were 'pagans' in Gardner's time, 'cause there are such things as plagues, wars, etc that kind of kill large amounts of the population (and 'pagans' aren't 'immune' to those things).

And, even if there were, i'm not sure if i could believe, a group that managed to survive for so long would 'suddenly' be almost dying when Gardner came along, therefore giving him the excuse of publishing books to 'save' the religion, also, how did Gardner manage to find a 'pagan' survival when so many 'witchhunters' couldn't, i'm not saying he wasn't smart, but, how could a 'pagan' survival let themselves be discovered, i know people have said Gardner met them in a theatre where they performed plays from classical times, but what, did he suddenly join, and then they said 'hey, we're witches, wanna join us!'.

[covenofkeys]

blimey-people are obsessed with this pre-gardnerian witches thing-why?

[Eran]

I hope this doesn't come off as rude 'cause i'm not trying to be, but i'd like to know what the evidence is for 'pagan' survivals into the Middle Ages?,
Not rude at all. A legitimate question. Do read Ginzburg's books. Also take a look at my website. You'll find plenty of evidence there for Pagan survivals in the Middle Ages. This is not doubted among historians and scholars - there is absolutely no question that there were Pagan survivals in the Middle Ages, and no reputable historian disputes that.

and even if there were, it doesn't mean there were 'pagans' in Gardner's time, 'cause there are such things as plagues, wars, etc that kind of kill large amounts of the population (and 'pagans' aren't 'immune' to those things).
Yes, these things killed large numbers of the population. But other groups also survived - Jews, Muslims, Cathars, etc., etc. - even Christians.

And, even if there were, i'm not sure if i could believe, a group that managed to survive for so long would 'suddenly' be almost dying when Gardner came along,
Not "suddenly" almost dying out - their numbers had been small and shrinking for a long time. Another such Pagan survival is the Calusari, in Romania, documented by Gail Klingman in the early 20th century, a tiny cult very similar to the Medieval Benandanti studied by Ginzburg. It really isn't a very difficult thing to believe - there are several well-documented examples.

also, how did Gardner manage to find a 'pagan' survival when so many 'witchhunters' couldn't,
I'm not sure what you mean here - the point of Murray's research (and Ginzburg's) is that the Witchhunters did find it, and they mislabled it as Satanic.

i'm not saying he wasn't smart, but, how could a 'pagan' survival let themselves be discovered, i know people have said Gardner met them in a theatre where they performed plays from classical times, but what, did he suddenly join, and then they said 'hey, we're witches, wanna join us!'.
Well, sort of, yes. This is one of the ways they managed to survive - by creating "front groups", as it were, and attracting people of like mind.

[Eran]

blimey-people are obsessed with this pre-gardnerian witches thing-why?
Well, to recap, in the current case --

The thread we're discussing here asked, "Did Gardner ever intend for Wicca to be a religion?" In answering that question, it was pointed out that Gardner was brought into a pre-existing Witch tradition that was, in fact, religious. Gardner did, therefore, present it as being a religion. In discussing this history, it has been natural to touch upon the nature of the religious Witch tradition into which Gardner was brought, and which he sought to pass along to the people he taught.

I'm not sure I would call this an "obesession" - in the current case, the discussion of pre-Gardnerian Witch religion was simply a response to the question that was asked.

I hope that helps!

[Ben Gruagach]

The essense of Murray's theories was exactly that there were "Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages," and this is the most important part of it. The rest is window dressing. These Pagan survivals existed, and they were indeed targetted by Christian authorities as being Satanic. This is precisely what Gardner's critics so often ridicule. Let's start with this admission, start with the acceptance of this historical fact, and then see where that leads us.

The next step would be to investigate the nature of these survivals, and their extent. The deeper one goes into that aspect, the more reasonable one finds the idea of a continuing tradition surviving to the present day. And, to bring it back to the topic of this thread, it is that sort of religious survival that Gardner saw himself as continuing. Did Gardner view Witchcraft as a religion? Yes. And he viewed it as a religion of this type - one of these "Pagan survivals into and through the Middle Ages."

(The idea of a "a single unified intact pre-Christian religion", by the way, is in no way relevant to the question of whether there were survivals of one or more Pagan traditions into Gardner's time, so I hope that particular red herring doesn't distract the current conversation.)

You are misrepresenting Murray's published material about witchcraft. "The Paganism Reader" edited by Chas S. Clifton and Graham Harvey includes a reprint of the famous entry on witchcraft which Murray wrote for the Encyclopedia Britannica. It was considered to be the authoritative summary of witchcraft for quite a number of years.

Here's a quote from it:
"When examining the records of the mediaeval witches, we are dealing with the remains of a pagan religion which survived, in England at least, till the 18th century, 1,200 years after the introduction of Christianity. The practices of this ancient faith can be found in France to the present day, though with the name of the deity changed; and in Italy la vecchia religione still numbers many followers in spite of the efforts of the Christian Church."

She's clearly saying that witchcraft, whether in England, France, or Italy, is a single religion with consistent practices that purportedly has survived intact since pre-Christian times.

In her book "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe" she has this to say in the introduction:
"Ritual Witchcraft--or, as I propose to call it, the Dianic cult - embraces the religious beliefs and ritual of the people, known in late mediaeval times as 'Witches'. The evidence proves that underlying the Christian religion was a cult practised by many classes of the community, chiefly, however, by the more ignorant or those in the less thickly inhabited parts of the country. It can be traced back to pre-Christian times, and appears to be the ancient religion of Western Europe. The god, anthropomorphic or theriomorphic, was worshipped in well-defined rites; the organization was highly developed; and the ritual is analogous to many other ancient rituals. The dates of the chief festivals suggest that the religion belonged to a race which had not reached the agricultural stage; and the evidence shows that various modifications were introduced, probably by invading peoples who brought in -their own beliefs. I have not attempted to disentangle the various cults; I am content merely to point out that it was a definite religion with beliefs, ritual, and organization as highly developed as that of any other cult in the world."

The bulk of Murray's books "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe" (which is available to read for free online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/wcwe/index.htm by the way) and "God of the Witches" go into great detail about precisely what Murray believed constituted the beliefs and practices of this singular intact pre-Christian witch-cult.

To say her work was merely about documenting Pagan survivals is really stretching things.

One other interesting quote from the introduction of Murray's "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe" especially in light of how diverse evidence is used by some to attempt to prove the claim witchcraft is a single surviving pre-Christian religion...

"In order to clear the ground I make a sharp distinction between Operative Witchcraft and Ritual Witchcraft. Under Operative Witchcraft I class all charms and spells, whether used by a professed witch or by a professed Christian, whether intended for good or for evil, for killing or for curing. Such charms and spells are common to every nation and country, and are practised by the priests and people of every religion. They are part of the common heritage of the human race and are therefore of no practical value in the study of any one particular cult."

It seems Murray didn't believe that every magickal or even witchcraft practice was necessarily part of the purported cult, but that "Operative Witchcraft" was something found the world over and was not bound to a single religion. It supports the relatively recent stance that witchcraft refers to magickal practices as distinct from religions such as Wicca which clearly incorporate witchcraft practices in their system.

[Eran]

Let me start by pointing out that Murray's work is not really the issue; the question is whether there were Pagan survivals into the Middle Ages, and then later, into modern times. I will defend Murray to some extent, but not in toto; she was wrong in some places, right in others. Pretending that since she was wrong on point A she must also be wrong everywhere - and that therefore, there can have been no Pagan survivals in Europe into the 20th century - is a logical fallacy we needn't spend any time on.


You are misrepresenting Murray's published material about witchcraft.
That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I beg to differ. The summaries and out-of-context quotes you provide are the misrepresentation.

Here's a quote from it:
"When examining the records of the mediaeval witches, we are dealing with the remains of a pagan religion which survived, in England at least, till the 18th century, 1,200 years after the introduction of Christianity. The practices of this ancient faith can be found in France to the present day, though with the name of the deity changed; and in Italy la vecchia religione still numbers many followers in spite of the efforts of the Christian Church."

She's clearly saying that witchcraft, whether in England, France, or Italy, is a single religion with consistent practices that purportedly has survived intact since pre-Christian times.

...Only if you also maintain that all Christian denominations are really "a single religion with consistent practices". This red herring is a mis-statement of Murray's thesis, which nowhere includes such a sweeping implication of monolithic universal orthodoxy and orthopraxy as you are reading into it. She recognizes the basic similarity in pre-Christian religions throughout Europe; anthropologists have noted much the same in indigineous religions the world over. There is nothing surprising here.

I had said I'd hoped we wouldn't get distracted by this, and I still hope so; it is way off-topic, and in any case, is not relevant to the question of whether some aspects of pre-Christian worship survived into the 20th century.

To say her work was merely about documenting Pagan survivals is really stretching things.
No it isn't. That is the basic, central, and most vital thrust of her work, as it applies to the current discussion.

It seems Murray didn't believe that every magickal or even witchcraft practice was necessarily part of the purported cult,
Of course not (though you are here using the term "witchcraft practice" in a way different from I would). Only those aspects which are part of the cult are part of the cult. Murray was careful and reasoned and rather conservative in her analysis.

... but that "Operative Witchcraft" was something found the world over and was not bound to a single religion. It supports the relatively recent stance that witchcraft refers to magickal practices as distinct from religions such as Wicca which clearly incorporate witchcraft practices in their system.
Not quite. It merely recognizes that all (or at least many) religions have magical practices - which is very different from claiming that magical practices can be separated from religion altogether (they can't be), or that "witchcraft" is a term which should be applied to magic generally, and not to religious practices.

You are improperly using one of her divisions as the whole; claiming that what she called "operative Witchcraft" can now be called "Witchcraft" misses her point entirely, and is a mis-statement of her position. You could as easily go the other way, and say that her mention of "Ritual Witchcraft" justifies insisting that the term "Witchcraft" should be applied only to religious traditions.

In point of fact, her position is far more subtle and complex; but I think I'll see if another thread starts on that since it's drifting 'way off topic from this thread - which is:

Did Gardner "intend" Witchcraft to be a religion?

... the short answert to which is, "Yes." A more complete answer is: He was introduced to an ancient religion that he and its other followers called "Witchcraft" - it wasn't a matter of his "intent", as it was simply what the religion's adherents called themselves.

[covenofkeys]

ah, but people are obsessed with it, -it just seems ridiculous to me, discussing this over and over and over...people need to start worrying about the future and not about our past. why do you think you cant find exact evidence? have you ever thought that actually its supposed to be kept in the shadows?
you can all read your books, or look on the net or find other sources for your 'proofs' but for most even if you do find evidence, it will never answer all your questions,or be enough -so why not give it up? i dont understand why people want this info-to prove what? then what? ok it might very well stop some arguments, but it will not be a good thing in my mind-please do not ask me why-i understand people get curious and want to learn-but some questions just arent meant to be answered.
so i shall now leave this thread with the words 'good luck' if you still wish to carry on about the same old same old.
in fact i dont even know why i bothered coming into this one , seeing as the whole thing is a repitition of at least 4 other forums i can think of. i have said exactly the same, to those, also.
im not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but this whole thing is ridiculous to me.
anyway, i shall go now as i have a coven meet, and need to prepare for it.
blessings,you curious people!
nightshade.x

[Lunacie]

Hmmm, interesting how we all can have such different experiences. I've been following the Wiccan path for about 16 years and this is the first time I've seen this particular question come up. I've been in two covens, two Pagan/Wiccan discussion forums, and a few classes, and yet this is the first time for me. I expect it may be the first time for quite a few others to think about and discuss this. I don't suppose there can ever be a truly definitive answer, all we have are interpretations of what Gardner was trying to do, but it can be interesting to hear or read different interpretations, and that can lead to thinking and growth.

[Carla O'Harris]

ah, but people are obsessed with it, -it just seems ridiculous to me, discussing this over and over and over...people need to start worrying about the future and not about our past. why do you think you cant find exact evidence? have you ever thought that actually its supposed to be kept in the shadows?
you can all read your books, or look on the net or find other sources for your 'proofs' but for most even if you do find evidence, it will never answer all your questions,or be enough -so why not give it up? i dont understand why people want this info-to prove what? then what? ok it might very well stop some arguments, but it will not be a good thing in my mind-please do not ask me why-i understand people get curious and want to learn-but some questions just arent meant to be answered.
so i shall now leave this thread with the words 'good luck' if you still wish to carry on about the same old same old.
in fact i dont even know why i bothered coming into this one , seeing as the whole thing is a repitition of at least 4 other forums i can think of. i have said exactly the same, to those, also.
im not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but this whole thing is ridiculous to me.
anyway, i shall go now as i have a coven meet, and need to prepare for it.
blessings,you curious people!
nightshade.x



Well, I think you bring up a good point. There is a value to remembering Mystery when dealing with a Mystery-Religion. There is much that will remain in shadows.

As to your question, there are many different answers. One of them is an anti-authorian concern. While mystery is good, mystifying often serves abusive ends. I think you are correct that we will never know everything about the history because the records are too fragmentary in many cases to have absolute certainty. But that doesn't mean we can't get a sense of the major possibilities, and place some probabilities upon them.

[covenofkeys]

or perhaps we just dont want people to know...................

[Carla O'Harris]

Why?

[covenofkeys]

a number of reasons mst probably, which im really not going to go into, here.

[Greyharp]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Gruagach View Post
You are misrepresenting Murray's published material about witchcraft.

That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I beg to differ.

It's my opinion too, from my reading of Murray's works she is definitely talking about a single, structured and established religion, not simply discussing pagan survivals in the middle ages. I've yet to see that mainstream academia is leaning towards Murray's theories, quite the opposite. But it should be remembered that her ideas were considered fact in Gardner's day, which would certainly have added a sense of legitimacy in his mind.

[Eran]

But it should be remembered that her ideas were considered fact in Gardner's day, which would certainly have added a sense of legitimacy in his mind.

Well, perhaps we can say "confirmation" rather than "legitimacy". As many have pointed out, the "legitimacy" of a spiritual path is unrelated to the length of its history. Rather, I think Gardner (and many others) would have seen Murray's research as confirming the histories and legends told to them by the Witches they met, i.e., their teachers and initiators.

Bringing this back to the topic of this thread... I don't doubt that Murray's historical work - which attempted to document the existence and survival of Pagan religion in Europe into modern times - was indeed part of Gardner's thought as he presented the religion he had been introduced to. Murray had tried to document Medieval Witchcraft as religious. There is every reason to think this reinforced Gardner's understanding of the religion of Witchcraft to which he had been introduced.

If this is so - if indeed Murray's work influenced Gardner's thinking - that makes it still less likely that Gardner would have thought of Witchcraft in anything other than religious terms.

( On another note, I beg to differ on the idea of Murray's theories have been considered "fact" in the 40's and 50's. There certainly were any number of historians who were loudly disputing Murray, starting from the time of her initial publication. (George Lincolin Burr leaps to mind, for example; a little later we have Elliot Rose, and many others.) True, she also did have those agreeing with her, as, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica asked her to write the article on Witchcraft - in the 1940's sometime, if I recall correctly. But there certainly were disputes about her work all along. Though people today still loudly condemn Murray and insist she's been "discredited", it's interesting to see scholars like Eliade and Ginzburg and Ruggario saying things that sound a lot like Murray's theories - even while they try to distance themselves from her. Apparently her basic thesis was largely right, but standing next to her is considered dangerous.)