Evidence for a New Forest 'coven'?.

[David19]

This is, kind of, an extension of my other thread 'did Gardner intend for Wicca to be a religion?', but i didn't want it to get sidetracked or off topic, but some people seem to be, firmly, convinced that there was a coven that Gardner was initiated into, others think he made it all up, and others hold different views, etc, but i was wondering, is there any evidence for a New Forest coven?, i know people quote Gardner as saying there was, but he was the one promoting Wicca, it's not like he'd say 'yeah, i'm a liar, i made it all up', would he.

I know Fred Lamond has a book out that says Gardner never pretended to be initiated into a 'coven' (and it's one i want to get, as it seems one of the better Wiccan history books, along with Triumph of the Moon, and it comes highly respected from people i respect (i'd also like to read Philip Hesselton's(sp?) book, as i've heard that recommended too)), and from what a the answers to a question that someone passed on to him for me, he, basically, said that the material Gardner presented doesn't reflect that of any others (for example, Lamond said that Andrew Chumblet reported that Essex cunning folk have never heard of Gardner and also Gardner's magical techniques didn't include things to control or change the weather, etc which is a common feature of cunning folk and other things (BTW, i haven't got the quote from Lamond on me, but i'll try and post it soon, right now, i don't have access to it)).

According to one person, who i definantly have a respect for, they've said Dafo and Gardner derive their witch status from reincarnation, not a 'pre-Wiccan Wiccan coven', isn't it possible that Gardner, Dafo, and others just got together (maybe they were witches in a past life, who knows?), decided to form a magical group (with a bit of religion (but not too much as people think, IMO) and then the rest got added onto (like, Lamond says the claim about joining a coven was only claimed by E.W. Liddell, in his Lugh papers (about George Pickingill and the 9 covens, i think).

But, does anyone here have any actual evidence that there was a New Forest coven, and i know people use Margerot Murray but she's been completly discredited (not to mention, i think she even said in her books that witches eat babies or something, and i doubt you want that to be true ;)), this isn't meant as an attack on anyone or anyones belief, but i'd like to know and maybe get other people thinking about it.

To me, even if Gardner wasn't initiated into a coven, it doesn't discredit Wicca, it just means Gardner created the religion (with help from others liek Dafo, probably anyway), there's nothing wrong with that, IMO, anyway.

Anyway, i' really interested to hear what other people have to say :).

[covenofkeys]

simply? gerald gardner assimilated other peoples work changing it to suit his way of thinking. i think he wanted to change peoples views from a negative to a possitive. many after gardners time have based their beliefs on his system, although some works have also been adapted. i think he wanted it to be recognised as a faith. some of gardners work was also based on crowley's.
many famous witches: the lovely miss.Doreen Valiente included, has taken some of these ideas and they were then adapted to suit them.
before crowleys time in the oto {ordo templi orientis} crowley had already set up his own ideas gathered from many different cultures. there doesnt seem to be any actual evidence one way or the other to support geralds claims of initiation into a coven in the new forest. other than....

doreen valiente was initiated into his coven in 1953. however one year previous to her initiation she read an article in a magazine on 'witchcraft in britain'. the article spoke of a man who was the owner of a witchcraft museum on the isle of man. he told of the witches in the new forest raising the cone of power to stop hitler from invading britain. it spoke of reference to an 'old' religion. miss valiente saw it and contacted the article editor named cecil williamson to get information on the witches of the new forest, as she was interested. williamson forwarded the message to gardner, who invited her to dafo's house in christchurch. there he gave her a copy of his 'high magic's aid'.later she was initiated.
i can not tell you what magazine or the exact date...but i will try to find out.

[Eran]

I know Fred Lamond has a book out that says Gardner never pretended to be initiated into a 'coven' (and it's one i want to get, as it seems one of the better Wiccan history books,

Actually, no it isn't. Fred is a partisan and his stories have changed over the years as he adapts to whatever is the popular audiance at the time. He is thoroughly unreliable.


(i'd also like to read Philip Hesselton's(sp?) book, as i've heard that recommended too)

Now, this book actually is very well reserached, with a great deal of supporting documentation. In actuality, this is the only book on the subject that actually looked for evidence - most other "reasearchers" simply dismiss or ridicule the idea without actually considering it seriously. Do give it a read.


According to one person, who i definantly have a respect for, they've said Dafo and Gardner derive their witch status from reincarnation, not a 'pre-Wiccan Wiccan coven', isn't it possible that Gardner, Dafo, and others just got together (maybe they were witches in a past life, who knows?), decided to form a magical group (with a bit of religion (but not too much as people think, IMO) and then the rest got added onto (like, Lamond says the claim about joining a coven was only claimed by E.W. Liddell, in his Lugh papers (about George Pickingill and the 9 covens, i think).

I'm afraid I don't understand the phrase 'pre-Wiccan Wiccan' - what does that mean?

Your scenario would be possible, but the weight of evidence is agaisnt it. Do read Hesselton. But at any rate, Gardner's description of the theology and imagery of Medieval craft is far too accurate to be simply a re-creation - there are things which are even today being discovered, not known in Gardner's day, which fit too well with his depictions.

As tot he "amount" of religion - you say, "not too much as people think, IMO" - Gardner was very, very clear, as I've shown on your other thread, that yes, Witchcraft was deeply and primarily religious in nature, its central focus being the needs and worship of specific Gods.

So again, to address your question - Yes, the overwhelming evidence is that a Coven actually did exist prior to Gardner, and that he was initiated into it.

You are correct that reincarnation was also a key - as Bracelin said in Gardner's biography, this is the reason he was accepted and initiated into the Hereditary New Forest Coven.

I do have a question for you - You say you feel the religion of Witchcraft is just as "valid" either way (a sentiment I suspect I agree with - though I am not certain wheat you mean by "valid") . Why, then, do you ask the question? What difference does it make to you?

[Semjaza]

I believe that Gardner was initiated into a coven of witches. I also think that he added a lot to their rituals to create a new system of religious witchcraft. My views are not just because I'm of the 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' school, but because all of the cases for it seemed so much more likely than the cases against it. Even Hutton's work (which I love immensely) was inconclusive in the end.

But anyway, I guess I'll have to go read your other thread before I get too involved in this one... :)

Cheers,

Semjaza
FFFF

[David19]

Actually, no it isn't. Fred is a partisan and his stories have changed over the years as he adapts to whatever is the popular audiance at the time. He is thoroughly unreliable.

I'm not too sure about that, as a lot of people that i respect (other British Gardnerians, Cochrane witches and general Pagans seem to respect him).



Now, this book actually is very well reserached, with a great deal of supporting documentation. In actuality, this is the only book on the subject that actually looked for evidence - most other "reasearchers" simply dismiss or ridicule the idea without actually considering it seriously. Do give it a read.

Thanks i will read it, when i get some money in (i'm a student so who knows when that'll be) :).


You are correct that reincarnation was also a key - as Bracelin said in Gardner's biography, this is the reason he was accepted and initiated into the Hereditary New Forest Coven.

So, if i'm understanding right, reincarnation was one of the most important facts when Gardner met Dafo (like they were witches in a past life or something, and decided to get together again?).


I do have a question for you - You say you feel the religion of Witchcraft is just as "valid" either way (a sentiment I suspect I agree with - though I am not certain wheat you mean by "valid") . Why, then, do you ask the question? What difference does it make to you?

It doesn't make any difference, and i don't think it affects Wicca in any way, but it's something i'm curious about, and i've seen a lot of people say there was a coven that Gardner was initiated into, but a lot of people say there wasn't, and i'd kind of like to see the evidence for a coven.

Hope that made some sense :).

[David19]

I believe that Gardner was initiated into a coven of witches. I also think that he added a lot to their rituals to create a new system of religious witchcraft. My views are not just because I'm of the 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' school, but because all of the cases for it seemed so much more likely than the cases against it. Even Hutton's work (which I love immensely) was inconclusive in the end.

But anyway, I guess I'll have to go read your other thread before I get too involved in this one... :)

I think i agree with you, i think there may have been a group he found (how old it was, i think i'll have to wait till i read Hesselton, and Lamond, and also finish Hutton to see if i have an opinion about that), and like you, i think he used elements from the Golden Dawn (i think that was the order he was a part of?), and other materials (from his research (i think he had an excellant Occult knowledge), travels (e.g. i've heard he learnt some magic from the Malay Indians, etc), etc).

[covenofkeys]

yes, he took the information from crowley, and used it and changed some of it too. although i have not heard of him learning from the malay indians, or any information from them being in his work. where did you hear this?

[Eran]

I'm not too sure about that, as a lot of people that i respect (other British Gardnerians, Cochrane witches and general Pagans seem to respect him).

The British Gardnerians I have talked to have an opinion similar to mine. Perhaps you and I travel in different, uhm, Circles. :)

In discussions here on MW, note that we often stress the idea of obtaining evidence for claims and arguments made (for example, this very thread is about "evidence" for or against the New Forest Coven). So note that Fred gives very little evidence to back up his claims. Most of it is personal anecdote which can't be verified because most of the people in his stories are now dead. If anyone asked him for hard evidence, he'd be unable to provide much new data other than rehashed Kellyisms and Huttonesque arguments.


So, if i'm understanding right, reincarnation was one of the most important facts when Gardner met Dafo (like they were witches in a past life or something, and decided to get together again?).

Well, the question is not a simple one, and I don't think it was quite that straightforward. I'll put it this way: the idea of reincarnation is an important one within the religion of Witchcraft. Gardner says that Witches believe themselves to often be reincarnated into Witch families. (That's one of the reasons why it is sometimes considered important to have "witch blood" in your ancestry - it makes it more likely that you, personally, are a reincarnated Witch from a previous time, possibly one of your own ancestors.) Now, Gardner did have an ancestor who was accused as a Witch (and I think burned, though I can't recall for certain). This is why the New Forest Coven accepted him as a Witch and Initiated him into the Craft.

So, I wouldn't say that he and any other particular member of the New Forest Coven saw themselves as having been together in a previous life (I don't have specific information on that). I would say, rather, that the Coven seems to have acknowledged Gerald as a reincarnated Witch - or at least, as a person with Witch blood, and therefore likely to be a reincarnated Witch.


It doesn't make any difference, and i don't think it affects Wicca in any way, but it's something i'm curious about, and i've seen a lot of people say there was a coven that Gardner was initiated into, but a lot of people say there wasn't, and i'd kind of like to see the evidence for a coven.

Hope that made some sense :).

That does make sense, yes, and thank you for giving me your thoughts!

My feeling is pretty similar to yours, though perhaps not identical. I don't see Gerald's personal history as being all that important to the history of the religion of Witchcraft. While I have a curiosity about Gardner's personal history (and therefore I've looked ito it), I recognize that the religion is much greater and older than Gardner, and he simply did a good job of letting people know a little about it. What really captures me is the evidence about the ancient and Medieval forms of the religion - and I have been inexcusably lax in getting some of that data into my "Witch History" thread.

[covenofkeys]

Witchcraft Is Not A Religion Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaarghhhhhhhhhh!

[Eran]

Witchcraft Is Not A Religion Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaarghhhhhhhhhh!

I understand your viewpoint, and respect your right to hold your definitions. My view is closer to that of Gerald Gardner. 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.

Again, I respect your right to your opinion, and will not try to sway you from it. I assume you will equally respect the viewpoints of others.

[covenofkeys]

absolutely, but youre talking about wicca not witchcraft.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Now, being a mindless Huttonite, I firmly believe that Gardner made it up. Should satisfactory evidence be presented that challenges my claims, I will in all liklihood change my views.
Now, if Gardner *was* initiated into an existing coven, there are two interesting questions. One of them is rarely asked: How old was *that* coven? The other is: How much material did he, and then Valiente, add, change, edit, or omit? Gardner was very open about the fact that he changed, 'reconstructed', and otherwise fiddled with the material he claimed to have recieved. For example, some bits of the Book of Shadows are almost verbatim from Margaret Murray's 'Witch-Cult' - the exact passages I cannot recall, as I noticed this when I was seventeen and have not had access to a copy of 'Witch-Cult' since, but even then I noticed that there were profound and impossible-to-ignore similarities.
As for Mr. Hesselton, he is a charming, absolutely charming man, the living image of Gerald Gardner, a fact I found most disturbing when I had the pleasure of meeting him. Sadly, I've only been able to read one of this book - 'Wiccan Roots' - and while it opened up many fascinating avenues of research and, delightfully, *had pictures*, the conclusion he reached seemed, to me, to be based on very subjective evidence, primarily the fact that Dorothy Clutterbuck's handwriting was 'witchy', and her poetry had 'pagan' themes which, I confess, I was not able to see from the excerpts provided (I would love to see the entire thing published and I believe Mr. Hesselton said that the girl who found the diaries has been told as much). That aside, the amount of information Mr. Hesselton provides about Dafo and the more detailed information to 'supplement' the Idries Shah biography, along with the pictures, more than makes the book worth the price of admission.

*addendum*
David, further evidence *against* Murray may be found in Elliot Rose's 'A Razor for a Goat', which comes to some, ah, odd conclusions, to be sure. However, the information it contains is Quite Useful.
Now, I myself disregard Murray for a very good reason: She trained as an Egyptologist, not an anthropologist; she used very few trial records to paint a picture of a continent-spanning religion, the whole 'Divine King in England' bit is very, um, odd, and, most damning in my eyes, the fact that her books are about a religion centered around a God and not a Goddess; one, furthermore, whose worshippers went to great efforts to *destroy* fertility, employing such methods as killing powders and ligature, not to mention the theft of a man's Virile Member and keeping them in boxes in trees. Simply put, such actions strike me as a strange thing for a fertility-cult to do. Additionally, she chooses very selectively what portions of the records have bearing on her case. She also gives no evidence for the name of the god ('Dianus', 'Janus', etc), relying, I believe, on 'Canon Episcopi'.The problem with 'Canon Episcopi' is that it predates the witch trials at their peak by several hundred years and it has many changes in exactly *whom* those deluded women believe they are travelling with, and it is not about people who believe they ride with the goddess; rather people who believe that people ride at night.

[covenofkeys]

and as i said-y'all need to quit asking these questions-they are never going to be answered publically. therefore, believe whatever you like-everyone else does......so if it aint broke, why fix it?

[Eran]

absolutely, but youre talking about wicca not witchcraft.
Actually, I was quoting Gardner, and he was talking about Witchcraft (hence the titles of his books). I understand that you make a distinction between Wicca and Witch. Gardner didn't, and most Traditionalists don't, since it's the same word.

Darkmoon - there's so much in your post to respond to, where to start?

Now, being a mindless Huttonite, I firmly believe that Gardner made it up.
Well, this certainly is not Hutton's view (though it was Kelly's - note that he has contradicted himself a lot since then). But maybe I'm quibbling.

Now, if Gardner *was* initiated into an existing coven, there are two interesting questions. One of them is rarely asked: How old was *that* coven?
Yes, that is an interesting question. Virtually all recent researchers (even including Kelly and Hutton) agree that the Coven was there at least a few decades before Gardner. Hutton showed its intellectual roots as reaching back a century or more, whether the Coven itself was that old or not. The more people look into it, the older it gets.

The other is: How much material did he, and then Valiente, add, change, edit, or omit? Gardner was very open about the fact that he changed, 'reconstructed', and otherwise fiddled with the material he claimed to have recieved.
No. Valiente (and Lamond) claim Gardner said such things. No one else who knew him has said Gardner ever made such statements, and there is certainly nothing in his own writing which even remotely implies this. (Both Valiente and Lamond, by the way, are very unreliable witnesses; I would be pleased to supply my reasoning, if you want it.)

For example, some bits of the Book of Shadows are almost verbatim from Margaret Murray's 'Witch-Cult' - the exact passages I cannot recall, as I noticed this when I was seventeen and have not had access to a copy of 'Witch-Cult' since, but even then I noticed that there were profound and impossible-to-ignore similarities.
Oddly enough, such similarities would usually considered to be confirmation of the claims made by Gardner and the research done by Murray; it is a pecularity of this field of study that confirmatory data is so often taken as evidence of mere literary plagurism.

As for Mr. Hesselton, ... the conclusion he reached seemed, to me, to be based on very subjective evidence, primarily the fact that Dorothy Clutterbuck's handwriting was 'witchy', and her poetry had 'pagan' themes ...
I take this as a rather simplistic dismissal of his arguments and evidence. In any case, it is very easy to refuse to accept any historical conclusion by merely declaring that one is unconvinced and then demading more evidence. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion on the matter, and we are all able to come to our own conclusions based on the evidence available.

David, further evidence *against* Murray may be found in Elliot Rose's 'A Razor for a Goat', which comes to some, ah, odd conclusions, to be sure. However, the information it contains is Quite Useful.
Rose is indeed well worth the read, mostly because it reveals how shallow the arguments against Murray really are. Rose relies primarly on ridicule and conjecture; he presents almost no actual evidence to dispute Murray, and his own theories are laughable at best.

Now, I myself disregard Murray for a very good reason: She trained as an Egyptologist, not an anthropologist;
Egyptology is a branch of anthropology. The criticism which was usually leveled at her was that she was an anthropologist, not an historian.

she used very few trial records to paint a picture of a continent-spanning religion, the whole 'Divine King in England' bit is very, um, odd, and, most damning in my eyes, the fact that her books are about a religion centered around a God and not a Goddess;
This is indeed one of the areas in which I disagree with Murray, but the reasons for her errors here are understandable. The trial records primarily focus on misrepresenting the Witches' deities as being the Devil in disguise, and since she used the trial records as a primary source, it was natural for her to adopt their language.

one, furthermore, whose worshippers went to great efforts to *destroy* fertility, ... (etc)
Actually, these were the among the ridiculous charges which were made against the accused Witches by the legal authorities. Murray didn't say the Witches did these things. That's what the Inquisitors said they did.

She also gives no evidence for the name of the god ('Dianus', 'Janus', etc), relying, I believe, on 'Canon Episcopi'.
No, she relies on other records for those names. The Canon Episcopi says they worshipped the Goddess Diana.

The problem with 'Canon Episcopi' is that it predates the witch trials at their peak by several hundred years
Yes, it is earlier evidence of a long-lasting pre-Christian Pagan religious sect which was later misinterpreted by the Christian authorities as being Satanic. The older age of the "Canon" is not a "problem". It is further evidence in favor of the central tenets of Murray's theories.

... and it is not about people who believe they ride with the goddess; rather people who believe that people ride at night.
It is, in fact, about both; it claims, quite unequivicably, that there really are such women who claim they themselves travel at night with Diana, the Pagan Goddess. Read about the Canon here: http://esoterica.bichaunt.org/canon.html

[David19]

David, further evidence *against* Murray may be found in Elliot Rose's 'A Razor for a Goat', which comes to some, ah, odd conclusions, to be sure. However, the information it contains is Quite Useful.

Thanks, i'll try and check that out :).


Now, I myself disregard Murray for a very good reason: She trained as an Egyptologist, not an anthropologist

I've also heard that she's an excellant Egyptologist, but as a European 'historian', she, basically, sucks, not sure if anyone else has heard that or would agree with it, though.


she used very few trial records to paint a picture of a continent-spanning religion, the whole 'Divine King in England' bit is very, um, odd, and, most damning in my eyes, the fact that her books are about a religion centered around a God and not a Goddess; one, furthermore, whose worshippers went to great efforts to *destroy* fertility, employing such methods as killing powders and ligature, not to mention the theft of a man's Virile Member and keeping them in boxes in trees. Simply put, such actions strike me as a strange thing for a fertility-cult to do.

It's funny, i bet you won't get SRW saying that :lol:, i can't really imagine her books saying how to destroy fertility, and i've also read Murray says the coven performed human sacrifice, and killed or ate babies or something (correct me if i'm wrong), i wonder if SRW and others read that :) LOL!.

[David19]

and as i said-y'all need to quit asking these questions-they are never going to be answered publically. therefore, believe whatever you like-everyone else does......so if it aint broke, why fix it?

I think i agree with you, 'cause if there are witches, who can trace their generations back to before Gardner, my guess is they're not going to publicize themselves now, they probably don't want the publicity, and they might not want SRW worshippers coming up to their house.

But, that said, and i can only speak for myself, but i think it's a bit like Pandora's box, humans are naturally curious, IMO, and even if we'll never know, that won't stop people guessing and wanting to know, 'cause that's what humans are like.

Kind of like why does evil exist, etc, we'll probably never know, but we'll always want to know and be curious (e.g. we want to know why things like the Holocaust happened, etc).

Not sure if i made any sense there, though :).

[David19]

Actually, I was quoting Gardner, and he was talking about Witchcraft (hence the titles of his books). I understand that you make a distinction between Wicca and Witch. Gardner didn't, and most Traditionalists don't, since it's the same word.

I know people have their own beliefs about whether there's a difference between Wicca and witchcraft (IMO, there is), but i've always thought most Gardnerian knew that there were different witches, that weren't Wiccan, e.g. Cochrane witches, Robert Cochrane was a contemporary of Gardner's, and he started the Clan of Tubal Cain (and indirectly, through Joseph Wilson, the 1734 tradition and others), these aren't Wiccan (and in fact, Cochrane seemed to hate, or at least dislike, some, or most Gardnerian's, and even was the one who created the term Gardnerian as an insult, although he and Vialiente and worked together once she left Gardner (after, basically, i think, calling Gardner a fluff bunny, correct me if i'm wrong?).

So, right there is an example of non-Wiccan witchcraft, Traditional witchcraft, as Cochrane witchcraft is know by.


No. Valiente (and Lamond) claim Gardner said such things. No one else who knew him has said Gardner ever made such statements, and there is certainly nothing in his own writing which even remotely implies this. (Both Valiente and Lamond, by the way, are very unreliable witnesses; I would be pleased to supply my reasoning, if you want it.)

Would you say why you don't think Valiente and Lamond, are unreliable, as i think they seem like cool people (plus Vialiente is probably one of the most famous influences on Wicca, aside from Gardner, and what i've heard of Lamond, i definantly want to get his books).


Egyptology is a branch of anthropology. The criticism which was usually leveled at her was that she was an anthropologist, not an historian.

But, still, the differences between Egypt and Europe are great.


No, she relies on other records for those names. The Canon Episcopi says they worshipped the Goddess Diana.

But, even if there were really witches that that Canon spoke about, the witches would more likely be Strega witches or something, considering Diana is an Italian god (again, you or anyone else, feel free to correct me :)).


It is, in fact, about both; it claims, quite unequivicably, that there really are such women who claim they themselves travel at night with Diana, the Pagan Goddess. Read about the Canon here: http://esoterica.bichaunt.org/canon.html

But, even if there are women who did claim to be able to do those things, how do we know it's truthful, maybe they thought they'd wake up one day and decide to have a little fun with people, and say they were witches and flew around with Diana and on their own, or maybe they were schitzophrenic or something, there were probably many things that were results of mental illnesses and mental imbalences in those days (i doubt that there weren't any schitzoprenic's in those days or other mental illnesses, etc).

I'm not trying to sound rude, and i hope i don't, but i'm just trying to say that even if there were women who claimed to do those things, doesn't mean that it's truthful (maybe they thought they were doing it, but then a lot of schitzophrenic's think their delusions and 'reality' is real too (e.g. some people will think aliens or the government are 'listening' to them or something, etc)).

Anyway, just wanted to say that, and see what people thought or what their replies are :).

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Yes, Murray's work as an Egyptologist has never been cast in doubt, so far as I know. As I myself have not read any of her Egypt books, I will refrain from comment on that area.
The anthropology-history mixup was my fault, sorry :P As for Gardner saying he changed things, I daresay I do believe that through reading something Valiente, or something attributed to her. On this subject, I know why Lamond is disreputable, so why is Valiente? Further information would be appreciated.
I termed byself a modern-origin Huttonite merely because that term has been applied to me and, to be honest, I rather like it :P
As for the similarities between the BoS and 'Witch-Cult', now, I wish I could remember what section exactly I noticed that, so someone else could back it up or at least see what they think. I know it was especially evident to me in the 'On the Calls' portion of the BoS. Another possibility on this topic suggests itself to me; namely that both Murray and the author of the BoS got the same information from the same witch-trial records.
Now, as for those records cited by Murray, I have a few difficulties with them. First - if the scribe present heard the name of a pagan deity and replaced it with 'Satan', the Devil, etc, does this mean that we have records that state they were worshipping a pagan deity, without attaching the name of Satan?
Second, the form of witchcraft and witch-trials in England was so profoundly different from those in Scotland and the Continent that any similarities drawn between what was recorded during the trials and Gardner's Wicca are questionable. Now, I am also leery of any claims that the 'witches' were just *accused* of these activities, and this is why: We draw a lot of information we like from the records, and ignore the bits that we don't like. Murray herself did this, as may be seen on page 13 of the May 2005 issue of 'The Pomegranate'. In this field, ellipses are the Devil's work :P Additionally, the partiality of the records is, well, lets be polite and say 'doubtful'. We cannot say "Oh, the scribe heard the name 'Herne' and replaced it with 'Satan', and now let's go and do this ritual we adapted from the records" because we don't know how much was altered. It may have been partial, it may have been all, or it may have been none, and what's more, we know that people recanted their confessions, changed them, and so on at different stages of the questioning process. If, as the BoS says, accused witches *were* pagans and the ones who were caught lied through their teeth, how are we to sort out the truth from the lies?
A further point David reminded me of - if, indeed, we are practitioners of a religion the like of which is described in Murray, would we *want* to be? There's the whole human sacrifice thing which, as he pointed out, tends to be downplayed an awful lot.
As an aside, I'm quite astonished at how civil this discussion has been ^^ What a delightful change.
*edit*
Thanks, David, for brining up the delusions aspect of the Canon Episcopi. Recall, if you will, the experiments where the demonologists had the accused witch try out the flying ointment in their presence, after which she had such intense hallucinations in her trance that she fell out of her....mixing bowl, was it? Or a kneading-trough? I forget.

[Eran]

I know people have their own beliefs about whether there's a difference between Wicca and witchcraft (IMO, there is), but i've always thought most Gardnerian knew that there were different witches,
This is getting way off topic. But yes, Gardnerians know there are different kinds of Witches. Rest easy on that. "Wicca" is the older form of the word "witch" (older by a few centuries); these are therefore two forms of the same word. As a Traditionalist Gardnerian, I acknowledge the kinship between all the trads you named, by using both forms of the word to include them all.

You're free to use the words differently if you choose - for instance, if you feel like it, no one can stop you from applying "wicca" to a subset of the whole. But please be aware that the use to which you are putting these words is a modern one, and historically inaccurate. It is based on some questionable assumptions, and I think you are misunderstanding the use to which Traditionalists put these forms of the word.

To attempt to relate this to the topic at hand, the New Forest Coven into which Gardner was Initiated apparently used the two forms as synonyms, and used both to refer to the ancient religion from which they believed their Coven was descended. This seems to be the more historically accurate usage.

[Eran]

But, even if there were really witches that that Canon spoke about, the witches would more likely be Strega witches or something, considering Diana is an Italian god (again, you or anyone else, feel free to correct me :)).
I'm not sure I understand your point - What distinction are you makng here? The point is, the Canon was talking about a European Pagan survival that worshipped at least one pre-Christian Goddess, one which fits our understanding of historical Witchcraft.

But, even if there are women who did claim to be able to do those things, how do we know it's truthful, maybe they thought they'd wake up one day and decide to have a little fun with people, and say they were witches and flew around with Diana and on their own, or maybe they were schitzophrenic or something, there were probably many things that were results of mental illnesses and mental imbalences in those days (i doubt that there weren't any schitzoprenic's in those days or other mental illnesses, etc).
Every religion contains elements which seem impossible or silly to other religions. Do bread and wine really become the body and blood of a 2000-year-old murdered Rabbi? Come on. Do tent preachers create miraculaous healings? Obvious nonsense. Does this mean that Christianity doesn't actually exist? Of course not, and saying that Catholic priests and Baptist preachers are really just con-men and schizophrenics does not disprove the historical existence of Christianity.

Yes, Shamans have described experiences which, to the outside, seem impossible. "Rationalistic" outsiders have accused them of being schizophrenic, psychotic, or just plain dishonest. None of which means there aren't Shamans. It means the accusers disapprove of Shamanism.

The people described in the Canon Episcopi, by all available evidence, honestly believed their experiences to be true, in some sense. They though of these experiences as something very much like astral projection perhaps, or trance journeys - just as many Christians and Jews believe the experiences of their prophets and holy men are real and true. If anything, this helps to confirm existence of this ancient cult. A religion which doesn't believe in any "non-rational" realities isn't much of a religion.

[Ben Gruagach]

I just wanted to include a couple of links to websites that will be invaluable to anyone who is reading up on the history of Gerald Gardner and the early days of his involvement in Wicca.

http://www.geraldgardner.com/
http://www.thewica.co.uk/

It's good to see that there is more and more primary evidence being brought forward for examination!

[Eran]

Now, as for those records cited by Murray, I have a few difficulties with them. First - if the scribe present heard the name of a pagan deity and replaced it with 'Satan', the Devil, etc, does this mean that we have records that state they were worshipping a pagan deity, without attaching the name of Satan?
Yes indeed. The Canon Episcopi is one example. There are others on the discussion thread called "Witch History", and others can be found at http://esoterica.bichaunt.org. There are many such examples; and even places where the Medieval witch-hunters specifically compared the Witches to the Scandinavian Shamans, or where they talked about the Witches holding their revels in the painted caves.

The amount of evidence linking (at least some) Medieval Witches to the worship of Pagan deities is enormous, and rather compelling. I don't blame you for being sceptical, because I was rather sceptical myself before I actually read these guys in their original Latin. Much of it has never been translated into English, unfortunately. I'm trying to correct a small part of that oversight (again, see my website).

But there really is very little doubt about the truth of the matter; the Medieval witch-hunters were well aware that they were fighting the remnants of pre-Christian European Paganism. And the more one looks into those remnants, the more credible it becomes to think that at least some of those remnants survived.

Linking then to the subject of this thread, it is certainly not beyond the realm of plausibility that at least one of these remnants became the New Forest Coven, and there is certainly no evidence whatever against this possibility. And as the body of data grows, this possibility looks increasingly likely.

[Cynyr]

Witchcraft Is Not A Religion Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaarghhhhhhhhhh!

I agree with COK. Regardless of what even Gardner himself has said in the past, I would go so far to say that Witchcraft is not even a path - it is a 'way'.

[Carla O'Harris]

First - if the scribe present heard the name of a pagan deity and replaced it with 'Satan', the Devil, etc, does this mean that we have records that state they were worshipping a pagan deity, without attaching the name of Satan?


We do have cases where the scribe records something to the effect of "Queen of Elphin, that is, Satan" that occurs in a couple of cases, and in other cases, it is clear that "Satan" is standing in for an Elfin King.

[David19]

We do have cases where the scribe records something to the effect of "Queen of Elphin, that is, Satan" that occurs in a couple of cases, and in other cases, it is clear that "Satan" is standing in for an Elfin King.

Or, it could also be possible that there were some witches that actually worshipped Satan, or the Great Shaitan (i just love the Islamic pronounciation of it, i don't know why :)), instead of all witches being 'pagan' and only calling their god 'the devil' (like a certain 'Robin Artisson' does) 'cause it 'sounds cool'.

But, like i said before, is it not possible that any of those witches who did actually self-confess as witches, were maybe mad or schitzophrenic, i'm not saying there weren't magical practicioners then, and maybe there were a few actual witches, but couldn't most of them who said 'i flew through the air, and i met fairies' of been schitzophrenic (BTW, i do believe in the Fae, gods, etc, but isn't it possible that those people who say they saw them, were delusional, and it got taken as fact and 'truth' in a time when there weren't exactly that many good psychologists around (or none at all)).

Also, i do have a question for people who say there were witches in the 'burning times', people say that the 'confessions' help prove it and that the parts about Satan, killing babies, drinking blood, and basically being evil are all 'inventions' of Christians, but how can you really know, there are some incredibly sick people out there, and this also applies to magical practicioners (e.g. a sociopath could practice magic if they wanted, probably making them more dangerous, e.g. astral rape, etc), how do you really know that these witches weren't like that, i'm not saying they were, BTW, but it's something i'd like to see others take on, 'cause a lot of people have this view that witches are completly fluffy bunny's, who are 'love and 'light' and 'pure good'', isn't it possible that maybe those 'witch' hunters found some witches, if they were real, and saw that they were basically a bunch of evil, sick witches who enjoyed causing death and spreading terror, etc.

Again, i'd like to hear other peoples take on this, as witches aren't exempt from humanity, there probably are (and were) sociopathic, psychotic, sick, witches, as any other human.

[Eran]

Or, it could also be possible that there were some witches that actually worshipped Satan,...
Possible, but extremely unlikely. No serious historian has suggested such a thing, and all who have looked into the question have come to the conclusion that this is not the case. There is no evidence supporting this possibility, and quite a lot of evidence against it.

But, like i said before, is it not possible that any of those witches who did actually self-confess as witches, were maybe mad or schitzophrenic,
This is one of the explanations that some historians have suggested, in an attempt to address the fact that there were indeed sizable numbers of people who believed they did magical things. Such explanations, of course, apply also in the present day. The same historians who have implied that Witchcraft in the Middle Ages can be explained by madness also say that modern Pagans are equally mad, because we also believe in Magic.

In any case, this "explanation" inherently admits that there really were people who believed themselves to worship Pagan Gods and to do Magic with Their power - in other words, there really was a Witch Cult. This "explanation" simply calls that cult a group of insane wierdos - much as the non-Pagans view us today.

Also, i do have a question for people who say there were witches in the 'burning times', people say that the 'confessions' help prove it and that the parts about Satan, killing babies, drinking blood, and basically being evil are all 'inventions' of Christians, but how can you really know, there are some incredibly sick people out there,
One of the (very few) uses of Norman Cohn's work (see Europe’s Inner Demons), is that he convincingly shows that this sort of propaganda was exactly that - empty propaganda. If there were any such people who egaged in such activities at all, they were damn few, and had nothing whatever to do with the so-called "witch-craze". No, this "explanation" is not useful or applicable.

Oddly enough, all of these suggested "explanations" - that Witches in the Middle Ages were simply loonie, or that they really were Satanists or perverts - all of these ideas are exactly the ways that Christian anti-Pagan Fundamentalists attack modern Witches and other Pagans today. It is interesting to see these ideas apparently seriously proposed by a modern Pagan in an effort to deny that there were any Medieval Witches! I intend no disrespect nor any implication of anything untoward (just as your questions, David, intended no disrespect!), but I do admit to complete confusion...

[Carla O'Harris]

Or, it could also be possible that there were some witches that actually worshipped Satan, or the Great Shaitan (i just love the Islamic pronounciation of it, i don't know why :)), instead of all witches being 'pagan' and only calling their god 'the devil' (like a certain 'Robin Artisson' does) 'cause it 'sounds cool'.


With all due respect, this seems completely illogical to me. You are suggesting that it was the people who worshipped Satan, but the Inquisitors replaced that with a concept "Queen of Elphin"? No, it is the other way around. The fairy-concept was a folk-concept. Satan was the ecclesiastical concept.

[David19]

With all due respect, this seems completely illogical to me. You are suggesting that it was the people who worshipped Satan, but the Inquisitors replaced that with a concept "Queen of Elphin"? No, it is the other way around. The fairy-concept was a folk-concept. Satan was the ecclesiastical concept.

So, are you saying that, despite the beliefs of the majority of people, of the time anyway (Christian), they 'didn't' actually believe in Satan (or, for my preference, Shaitan ;)), 'cause i don't believe that, it seems to be saying that the people weren't 'really Christian', and the names Satan were only used by the Church.

To me, while i'm interested to know if there were 'pagan' witches, and reading the posts here, i still think that there were probably also Satanic witches, i.e. ones who actually worshipped the Great Shaitan (like i said before, i just love the Islamic version for some reason, it seems to sound cooler :)).

[Astara Seague]

to me witchcraft is a lifestyle.. a way of life..
I do not consider it a religion..

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Possible, but extremely unlikely. No serious historian has suggested such a thing, and all who have looked into the question have come to the conclusion that this is not the case. There is no evidence supporting this possibility, and quite a lot of evidence against it.


Heh heh! Take THAT, Montague Summers!
However, I do believe that there may have been at least a few who actually were some kind of diabolists. look, for example, at the Chambre Ardente Affair. I am under the impression that such a thing would have been more prevalent amonst the aristocracy than your average man on the street.
The thing with Robin Artisson is, wasn't that name only brought up in the Alice Kyteler case in Ireland? Or was it Robin Goodfellow? I might be wrong here. However, if that WAS the case, I really don't see what bearing that has on Continental witchcraft, for after all, that was essentially Ireland's only large trial. We only have, what, four recorded executions for Ireland?
....are there any fundies today who propose we're all high on ergot? That explanation always seemed strange to me.

[Eran]

Heh heh! Take THAT, Montague Summers!
:) Yeah, Summers was a certifiable nutcase, and no one in their right mind views him as a "serious historian". I don't even know anyone not in their right mind who takes him seriously. Total whackjob.

However, I do believe that there may have been at least a few who actually were some kind of diabolists. look, for example, at the Chambre Ardente Affair. I am under the impression that such a thing would have been more prevalent amonst the aristocracy than your average man on the street.

Indeed, dabbling in diabolism does seem to have frequently held an interest for overeducated Christian elites with too much time on their hands, and for teenagers anxious to shock their elders. In modern times, you also have folk like Anton LeVey, who actually was surprisingly intelligent. But in the Medieval period, there is no evidence for much of that among the common folk, and historians (for good reason) tend to laugh at suggestions that the commoners accused of Witchcraft were actually Satanists. It's not a credible theory.

The thing with Robin Artisson is, wasn't that name only brought up in the Alice Kyteler case in Ireland? Or was it Robin Goodfellow? I might be wrong here. However, if that WAS the case, I really don't see what bearing that has on Continental witchcraft, for after all, that was essentially Ireland's only large trial. We only have, what, four recorded executions for Ireland?
In the British isles, Witchcraft was mostly treated as a means toward secular crime - that is, for the most part, if you were accused of killing somebody, it didn't matter so much whether the act was done with a knife or with a hex. On the Continent, however, Witchcraft prosecutions were primarily in the hands of eccesiastic authorities or secular judges who were working for the bishops. This explains a large part of the differences in the way it ws handled; aside for the Catholic vs C of E battles, England generally had less in the way of religious persecution than happened in certain other places in Europe.

I can recommend a couple of excellent books on the topic, one dealing with Witch trials in Essex, the other in Germany, which depict this difference starkly. See H.C. Erik Midelfort, Witch-Hunting in Southwestern Germany 1562-1684: The Social and Intellectual Foundations (Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1972) and Alan Macfarlane, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: a regional and comparative study (Harper & Row, New York, 1970). I disagree with a lot of their conclusions, but their data is invaluable. On the Continent, Witchcraft was considered a religious crime, and all teh features of religious intolerance and propaganda and general nastiness were brought to bear; in the Isles, it was mostly a secular matter, and handled very matter-of-factly, and usualy by secular courts with little or no religious axe to grind. (There were occasional exceptions in both places, but this was then general rule.)

....are there any fundies today who propose we're all high on ergot? That explanation always seemed strange to me.
No, pot. :) Yeah, that is a strange explanation, and it doesn't actually explain much of anything. It was some historian's attempt to cast the whole "witch craze" as people simply doing stupid stuff.

[David19]

Heh heh! Take THAT, Montague Summers!
However, I do believe that there may have been at least a few who actually were some kind of diabolists. look, for example, at the Chambre Ardente Affair. I am under the impression that such a thing would have been more prevalent amonst the aristocracy than your average man on the street.

I think you're right, Satanism would probably have been more popular with the aristocracy than the 'ordinary' guy on the street, ironic, IMO, 'cause a lot of the aristocracy 'pride' themselves on giving the 'good Christian image'.

Also, i'll look into that example you gave as i'm really interested in learning about witches who may have actually worshipped Satan or Shaitan (as i like spelling it ;)), maybe i could look into Islamic countries or something?.


The thing with Robin Artisson is, wasn't that name only brought up in the Alice Kyteler case in Ireland? Or was it Robin Goodfellow? I might be wrong here. However, if that WAS the case, I really don't see what bearing that has on Continental witchcraft, for after all, that was essentially Ireland's only large trial. We only have, what, four recorded executions for Ireland?
....are there any fundies today who propose we're all high on ergot? That explanation always seemed strange to me.

I kind of brought up 'Robin Artisson' 'cause he's a 'Traditional witch', (actually that's what he calls himself, but from what other Traditional (Cochrane) witches have told me, people i greatly respect, he's basically a loon.

I know his name 'Robin Artisson' comes from something meaning 'the Devil', but he probably did it for attention.

[David19]

:) Indeed, dabbling in diabolism does seem to have frequently held an interest for overeducated Christian elites with too much time on their hands, and for teenagers anxious to shock their elders. In modern times, you also have folk like Anton LeVey, who actually was surprisingly intelligent.

I just wanted to correct you, while i don't know why the aristocracy were interested in Satanism (probably just to explore new things, as they also used to use prostitutes, drugs like cocaine (and who knows if that still goes on today ;) LOL!), etc).

But, Satanism today (both Laveyan and Theistic, i.e. those Satanists who actually believe in an actual entity called Satan and worship him, for a great one google Diane Vera or the Temple of Set, etc), does meet the spiritual needs of people, and it's not just people who are 'bored' or teens wanting to shock people (i'm sure there are teens doing that, just like teens who become Wiccans, etc).

Anyway, i just wanted to clear that up, 'cause i don't like the way Satanism (especially Theistic Satanism) is treated by people :).

[Eran]

Anyway, i just wanted to clear that up, 'cause i don't like the way Satanism (especially Theistic Satanism) is treated by people :).
Thanks, yeah, that's why I mentioned LeVey, because he really was quite an interesting and intelligent guy. But I think we may be drifting a bit. :)

[Carla O'Harris]

...

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm curious how the material in Leland's "Aradia" is rationalized to not fit the "satanic witch" category. After all, it includes conjurations of Cain, Aradia's father is Lucifer, and Diana and Aradia specifically say they grant their worshippers the power to curse as well as bless. (I find it interesting that the Wiccan Rede or similar idea is noticably absent in "Aradia" too.)

Other examples include things such as the "Black Books of Elverum" which predates Gardner. It's a typical witch's personal grimoire (other similar versions apparently are held in Norwegian, Finn, etc. libraries but this particular one is available in an English translation done by Mary S. Rustad.) It includes spells that call on Christian devils as well as Christian saints, Jesus, etc. and also includes rituals and prayers for summoning devils and causing harm.

Evidence for pre-Gardner "satanic witches" exists outside of questionable sources such as trial records. Things like these written by people who clearly considered themselves to be witches are pretty convincing.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I'm curious how the material in Leland's "Aradia" is rationalized to not fit the "satanic witch" category. After all, it includes conjurations of Cain, Aradia's father is Lucifer, and Diana and Aradia specifically say they grant their worshippers the power to curse as well as bless. (I find it interesting that the Wiccan Rede or similar idea is noticably absent in "Aradia" too.)


Very good point, Ben! After all, isn't Aradia instructed to tell her followers to say to priests that their God, Maria, and Son are 'but three devils'? And you shall do twice the harm you recieve, and so forth:

"And thou shalt teach the art of poisoning,
of poisoning those who are great lords of all;
yea, thou shalt make them die in their palaces;
and thou shalt bind the oppressor's soul
(with power);
and when ye find a peasant who is rich,
then ye shall teach the witch, your pupil, how
to ruin all his crops with tempests dire,
with lightning and with thunder (terrible),
and the hail and wind..."

Most interesting how all this is left out of the Charge of the Goddess, which is ostensibly based on 'Aradia', obviously in the sense that the made-for-tv-movie on TBS - known and loved as 'the stupid station' - is 'based on a true story'. Not that I've anything against the Charge, mind you.
And note also the destruction of crops - most unusual for a fertility religion, isn't it?
See also the Conjuration of Cain.

[David19]

Very good point, Ben! After all, isn't Aradia instructed to tell her followers to say to priests that their God, Maria, and Son are 'but three devils'? And you shall do twice the harm you recieve, and so forth:

"And thou shalt teach the art of poisoning,
of poisoning those who are great lords of all;
yea, thou shalt make them die in their palaces;
and thou shalt bind the oppressor's soul
(with power);
and when ye find a peasant who is rich,
then ye shall teach the witch, your pupil, how
to ruin all his crops with tempests dire,
with lightning and with thunder (terrible),
and the hail and wind..."

Thanks for posting that quote, i've also got Aradia (a PDF version), and it's interesting, 'cause if the person who wrote it was an actual witch, then it's very different to Wicca, despire some Wiccans drawing a lot of parallels between it.

It's funny, the next time a Wiccan goes on about the 3 fold law, and also quotes Aradia (like SRW does, she has the goals or powers of a witch, that i think come from Strega or at least Raven Grimassi's book, i think anyway), maybe remind them that Aradia said to curse, kill, poison(sp?), shows intolerance to Christians, etc.

You know the powers Aradia is said to have taught do sound actually kick ass, to be able to control thunder, lightning, hail, wind, fire, etc.


And note also the destruction of crops - most unusual for a fertility religion, isn't it?
See also the Conjuration of Cain.

That's another interesting thing, and i was also curious by the Cain references, Cain is a Jewish figure, who, i think, is supposed to have been the father of vampires, or possible witches too (but i'm not too sure about the last part), it's said his dad may not have been Adam, but rather Samuel(Samuel, as far as i know, is about the only thing you're going to get in Judaism that's close the Satan of Christianity.

[shuvanilu]

I think you're referring to Samael.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael
And for the Gnostic slant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge#Samael

---shuvanilu

[shuvanilu]

Very good point, Ben! After all, isn't Aradia instructed to tell her followers to say to priests that their God, Maria, and Son are 'but three devils'? And you shall do twice the harm you recieve, and so forth:

"And thou shalt teach the art of poisoning,
of poisoning those who are great lords of all;
yea, thou shalt make them die in their palaces;
and thou shalt bind the oppressor's soul
(with power);
and when ye find a peasant who is rich,
then ye shall teach the witch, your pupil, how
to ruin all his crops with tempests dire,
with lightning and with thunder (terrible),
and the hail and wind..."

Most interesting how all this is left out of the Charge of the Goddess, which is ostensibly based on 'Aradia', obviously in the sense that the made-for-tv-movie on TBS - known and loved as 'the stupid station' - is 'based on a true story'. Not that I've anything against the Charge, mind you.
And note also the destruction of crops - most unusual for a fertility religion, isn't it?
See also the Conjuration of Cain.

I have read through Aradia a number of times, and it never ceases to amaze me that Wiccans are so fond of it...If any non-Wiccan/Pagan/Witch/Insert-alternative-religion-here person read it knowing that many Wiccans claim it as a major inspiration, they would run for the hills. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...) I understand that Valiente was inspired by it (borrowed from it) to write the beautiful Charge of the Goddess, but a more thourough study of it sometimes leaves me shaking in my boots (or inspired to get lemon and some pins, depending on what day it is...) Sorry to waver from the original subject. Just had to give my 2 cents. ---shuvanilu

[Eran]

I'm curious how the material in Leland's "Aradia" is rationalized to not fit the "satanic witch" category. After all, it includes conjurations of Cain, Aradia's father is Lucifer, and Diana and Aradia specifically say they grant their worshippers the power to curse as well as bless. (I find it interesting that the Wiccan Rede or similar idea is noticably absent in "Aradia" too.)
This is easily addressed (not "rationalized" - please be aware, that's kind of an insulting and condescending term to use; I'll ask you not to use it in the future). Lucifer is a pre-Christian Roman demi-god (luci- light -ifer kindler) who has nothing whatever to do with the Christian Devil - except in the minds of Christians. He's related to the dawn and to the planet Venus, to light and knowledge and Good Things like that. The Christians disapproved of enlightenment outside of their religion, and tried to equate him (along with several other Pagan gods) to their devil. The Witches new better.

(This is, by the way, one of the many specific examples of a pre-Christian Pagan God becoming associated with the Devil because of obvious and blatent Christian misuse and propaganda.)

And yes, curse as well as bless - just as a doctor knows how poisons work, and just any Shaman (or policeman, for that matter) is capable of causing damage to someone who really, really needs it (or are policemen really all criminals, simply because they know how to harm people with their pistols, and would actualy be willing to shoot someone under the proper circumstances?). This is not Satanic; it is simply a natural result of a non-dualist worldview that doesn't accept the Chrisitian notion of good vs evil.

You see nothing like the Wiccan Rede in Leland's book - no problem, Leland's book was not an exhaustive listing of all aspects of Italian Witch theology (and besides, Italian Witch theology is not necessarily the same in all aspects as British WItch theology). It's not suprising that some concepts were left out.

Other examples include things such as the "Black Books of Elverum" which predates Gardner. ... It includes spells that call on Christian devils as well as Christian saints, Jesus, etc. and also includes rituals and prayers for summoning devils and causing harm.
I'm not familiar with this book, so I can't comment on it. I will say in general that polytheists have no problem calling on divine beings from other pantheons - this was a very common aspect of ancient religion - so it would not be surprising to find names of entities from the local Christian pantheon within a Witch's spell book. I already addressed above the thought about destructive as well as constructive magic - not at all surprising either, and no necessary assocaition whatever to Satanism.

But as I said, I can't comment on this particular book. Not being familiar with it, I can't even say whether it is a book which I would classify as a Witch's book, or as a book kept by a Christian demonologist who dabbled in magic, so I'm not going to try to explain any specifics you see there.

Evidence for pre-Gardner "satanic witches" exists outside of questionable sources such as trial records. Things like these written by people who clearly considered themselves to be witches are pretty convincing.
Well, Satanists do often consider themselves to be Satanists. The Christian authorities have misused and misapplied the word "witch" for many hundreds of years, equating it to Satanism - so I would not be at all surprised if a Christian Satanist inappropriately called him- or herself a "witch", having bought into the Christian propaganda about the word. That doesn't mean that we are also required to misuse the term that way, and modern Witches have fought very hard since the 1950's to reclaim the word away from the abuses wrought by the Christians.

[Ben Gruagach]

You see nothing like the Wiccan Rede in Leland's book - no problem, Leland's book was not an exhaustive listing of all aspects of Italian Witch theology (and besides, Italian Witch theology is not necessarily the same in all aspects as British WItch theology). It's not suprising that some concepts were left out.

"Aradia" was specifically meant to be the Italian Witches' Bible -- that's the way Maddalena described it to Leland, and the resulting book certainly looks like it was meant that way.

It's very peculiar that a tenet such as the Wiccan Rede, even if it's called something else, would be left completely out of the Gospel of the Witches especially since it's supposed to be so important. It's like Christians leaving the whole forgiveness idea out of their Bible.

The quote from "Aradia" that Silverfire Darkmoon posted in this thread is also rather illuminating especially with regard to the claim that satanist witches (or witches that do evil) are supposedly nonexistent in the historical record. How is this explained?



Well, Satanists do often consider themselves to be Satanists. The Christian authorities have misused and misapplied the word "witch" for many hundreds of years, equating it to Satanism - so I would not be at all surprised if a Christian Satanist inappropriately called him- or herself a "witch", having bought into the Christian propaganda about the word. That doesn't mean that we are also required to misuse the term that way, and modern Witches have fought very hard since the 1950's to reclaim the word away from the abuses wrought by the Christians.

There is no doubt that all witches are clearly not Satanists, but it is also disrespectful of those who came before us to claim that they were all Wiccans when they were not. The issue is not a simple one where the word witch is owned by just one faction and all the rest are not "real" witches.

Another pre-Gardnerian witch of note is George Pickingill. Some have claimed that the group Gardner met in the New Forest were connected to Pickingill, or were descendents of one of his rumoured nine covens. The claim is interesting but is not exactly proven.

Pickingill apparently had a rather intense dislike of Christianity and worked actively against it, even to the point of associating with Satanists (although we don't know if he considered himself to be a Satanist as well.) Some claim that he was also involved with Aleister Crowley at least for a time (some say Crowley was a member of one of Pickingill's covens but was kicked out for his poor attitude towards women). Gerald Gardner was also clearly influenced by Crowley -- there is clear proof that before Gardner went wholeheartedly into promoting Wicca that he was considering devoting his time to promoting Crowley's OTO.

Crowley, needless to say, was pretty heavily into "darker" aspects of occultism including Satanism.

There's lots of information on Pickingill in "The Pickingill Papers" by W. E. Liddell, a brief summary of Pickingill's life and influence at this webpage (http://www.controverscial.com/Old%20George%20Pickingill.htm), and a few snippets regarding alternate opinions of Pickingill's role in Wicca in "The Last Bastion" by Ralph Harvey.

Gardner's involvement with Crowley is well documented in Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" as well as at the website http://www.geraldgardner.com/

Other books on witchcraft and the "darker" (verging on Satanic) side of things include "Masks of Misrule" by Nigel Jackson, and "The Pillars of Tubal-Cain" by Nigel Jackson and Michael Howard. Michael Ford is another current author who has written quite a bit on Satanic witchcraft. And then there's the departed Andrew Chumbley with his Cultus Sabbati which is clearly not Wicca and closer to Satanic witchcraft. (Admittedly the Chumbley and Ford materials are newer branches of the modern witchcraft family tree, but they draw pretty heavily on historical material -- it's hardly something they just made up!)

[David19]

This is easily addressed (not "rationalized" - please be aware, that's kind of an insulting and condescending term to use; I'll ask you not to use it in the future). Lucifer is a pre-Christian Roman demi-god (luci- light -ifer kindler) who has nothing whatever to do with the Christian Devil - except in the minds of Christians. He's related to the dawn and to the planet Venus, to light and knowledge and Good Things like that. The Christians disapproved of enlightenment outside of their religion, and tried to equate him (along with several other Pagan gods) to their devil. The Witches new better.

I was pretty sure that Lucifer wasn't the name of one god, but was more a title that was applied to many gods and beings (e.g. i think Jesus was called Lucifer at some points, etc).


(This is, by the way, one of the many specific examples of a pre-Christian Pagan God becoming associated with the Devil because of obvious and blatent Christian misuse and propaganda.)

Actually, while some 'pagan' gods were associated with Satan or the devil, a lot of Satan's imagery and other things seem to come from Azazel, a Jewish spirit/god/demon and also the Zoroastrian god of darkness, and probably Samuel (maybe), and perhaps a bit of influence came from the decriptions of how Gnostic Christians viewed Yahweh.



Well, Satanists do often consider themselves to be Satanists. The Christian authorities have misused and misapplied the word "witch" for many hundreds of years, equating it to Satanism - so I would not be at all surprised if a Christian Satanist inappropriately called him- or herself a "witch", having bought into the Christian propaganda about the word. That doesn't mean that we are also required to misuse the term that way, and modern Witches have fought very hard since the 1950's to reclaim the word away from the abuses wrought by the Christians.

Again, i kind of don't like the word 'Christian Satanist' as you seem to be saying that Satanist's are still Christian, or a Christian sect or something, when it's not, it obvously has major influences from Christianity, but it's a completly seperate religion, like the way Christianity came out of Judaism but you wouldn't call it just a 'Jewish sect'.

[covenofkeys]

But Dont You All Know.? ''there's No God But God!!''

[Ben Gruagach]

Lucifer is a pre-Christian Roman demi-god (luci- light -ifer kindler) who has nothing whatever to do with the Christian Devil - except in the minds of Christians. He's related to the dawn and to the planet Venus, to light and knowledge and Good Things like that. The Christians disapproved of enlightenment outside of their religion, and tried to equate him (along with several other Pagan gods) to their devil. The Witches new better.

I'm not so certain. Here's a passage right from the start of "Aradia" about Lucifer:

This is the Gospel (Vangelo) of the Witches:

Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer, the god of the Sun and of the Moon, the god of Light (Splendor), who was so proud of his beauty, and who for his pride was driven from Paradise.

The whole thing about Lucifer being proud and for this pride being driven from Paradise is right in line with the Christian mythology, not Pagan myth.

Unless Pagans routinely worship gods who they acknowledge were driven from Paradise? (I can't think of any Pagan myths that line up with that...)

[shuvanilu]

Actually, while some 'pagan' gods were associated with Satan or the devil, a lot of Satan's imagery and other things seem to come from Azazel, a Jewish spirit/god/demon and also the Zoroastrian god of darkness, and probably Samuel (maybe), and perhaps a bit of influence came from the decriptions of how Gnostic Christians viewed Yahweh.

I'm not trying to be nit-picky...But SamUel was a major prophet. SamAel is the "bad" guy.


Again, i kind of don't like the word 'Christian Satanist' as you seem to be saying that Satanist's are still Christian, or a Christian sect or something, when it's not, it obvously has major influences from Christianity, but it's a completly seperate religion, like the way Christianity came out of Judaism but you wouldn't call it just a 'Jewish sect'.

I agree with this, David. I'm sure most Satanists would be quite offended to be referred to as a Christian sect. I have read some interesting articles by Diane Vera referring to just how much it gets under their skins.---shuvanilu

[David19]

There's lots of information on Pickingill in "The Pickingill Papers" by W. E. Liddell, a brief summary of Pickingill's life and influence at this webpage (http://www.controverscial.com/Old%20George%20Pickingill.htm), and a few snippets regarding alternate opinions of Pickingill's role in Wicca in "The Last Bastion" by Ralph Harvey.

It's interesting that you mention W.E. Liddell as some others, on another forum, seem to indicate that he's not very trustworthy and i think even Fred Lamond said something similar about him.


Other books on witchcraft and the "darker" (verging on Satanic) side of things include "Masks of Misrule" by Nigel Jackson, and "The Pillars of Tubal-Cain" by Nigel Jackson and Michael Howard. Michael Ford is another current author who has written quite a bit on Satanic witchcraft. And then there's the departed Andrew Chumbley with his Cultus Sabbati which is clearly not Wicca and closer to Satanic witchcraft. (Admittedly the Chumbley and Ford materials are newer branches of the modern witchcraft family tree, but they draw pretty heavily on historical material -- it's hardly something they just made up!)

I think Michael Ford seems really cool, and i'd like to get his books one day (when i get some money in ;) lol!), but i've also been told by another Cochrane witch that Nigel Jackson isn't really that much of an expert, he's more a 'pop' author, he writes for the audience, and apparantly, he admits this, i think anyway, i've also been told his book 'Horned Piper' is basically a dictation from Evan John Jones.

But, i agree with the rest of your post :).

[Eran]

Again, i kind of don't like the word 'Christian Satanist' as you seem to be saying that Satanist's are still Christian, or a Christian sect or something, when it's not, it obvously has major influences from Christianity, but it's a completly seperate religion, like the way Christianity came out of Judaism but you wouldn't call it just a 'Jewish sect'.
Actually, yeah I would say that Christianity was sort of a Jewish sect (though a rather "heretical" one, just as Satanism is a heretical Christian idea), but I take a very long view of the history of religions! :)

But beyond that, a discussion of the relationship between Satanism and Christianity would certainly be fascinating, but I suspect it's beond the scope of this particular thread, no?

[Eran]

Unless Pagans routinely worship gods who they acknowledge were driven from Paradise? (I can't think of any Pagan myths that line up with that...)
I can think of many. This is a very basic Fire-Stealer myth. Prometheus, Odin, and many of the Shamanic gods, many deities in Native American myth - virtually all pantheons have tales of a God who provided a benefit for humanity, usually against the desires of most of the other gods, and - for a time at least, sometimes permanently - fell out of favor with the other gods. This is a very common notion.

[Eran]

"Aradia" was specifically meant to be the Italian Witches' Bible --
... which doesn't mean that it contains everything there was to know about Italian Witchcraft.

It's very peculiar that a tenet such as the Wiccan Rede, even if it's called something else, would be left completely out of the Gospel of the Witches....
I may seem peculiar to you, but it is not necessarily peculiar to everyone. Not everyone would agree with your assessment of how important information is best to be passed. But as I said, there are undoubtedly differences between Italian Witchcraft and British Witchcraft, so I have no idea whether the Rede is part of Italian Witch theology.

The quote from "Aradia" that Silverfire Darkmoon posted in this thread is also rather illuminating especially with regard to the claim that satanist witches (or witches that do evil) are supposedly nonexistent in the historical record. How is this explained?
I believe I addressed that. I see nothing "Satanic" in the quote Darkmoon presented. "Evil" is a concept from dualist theologies, and isn't a Witch concept at all.

Crowley, needless to say, was pretty heavily into "darker" aspects of occultism including Satanism.
Crowley, however, was neither a Witch nor a Satanist. I'm not sure what he has to do with any of this... could you elaborate?

Gardner's involvement with Crowley is well documented in Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" ...
I believe they met each other twice (maybe three times?) Most occultists in England at that time knew each other. Again, I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Other books on witchcraft and the "darker" (verging on Satanic) side of things ...
"Dark" is not the same as "Satanic."

[Ben Gruagach]

It's interesting that you mention W.E. Liddell as some others, on another forum, seem to indicate that he's not very trustworthy and i think even Fred Lamond said something similar about him.

I don't consider Liddell, at least in "The Pickingill Papers," to be trustworthy at all. From what I've read "The Pickingill Papers" have been largely discredited at least with regard to the claims that Pickingill was supposedly the source of Gardner's system. I mentioned the book because it's the only one I know of that deals exclusively with Pickingill and while the major points are probably untrue I expect lots of the other details about Pickingill's life are probably accurate.




I think Michael Ford seems really cool, and i'd like to get his books one day (when i get some money in ;) lol!), but i've also been told by another Cochrane witch that Nigel Jackson isn't really that much of an expert, he's more a 'pop' author, he writes for the audience, and apparantly, he admits this, i think anyway, i've also been told his book 'Horned Piper' is basically a dictation from Evan John Jones.

It wouldn't surprise me much about what you've said. I'm not a Cochrane witch myself although I've read a bit of the published material about his system (like the two books I mentioned, as well as "The Roebuck In The Thicket" and a few others that I can't remember right now.)

There are authors in every community who just present material that others teach rather than their own original material. But at least they help the material to get out there! (I just hope they don't try to take credit for what is really someone else's work.)

[Ben Gruagach]

"Aradia" was specifically meant to be the Italian Witches' Bible --... which doesn't mean that it contains everything there was to know about Italian Witchcraft.

Perhaps you didn't read the whole sentence? My point was that "Aradia" is presented as the Gospel of the Witches, the rumoured Bible of Italian witchcraft which serves as the foundation of the religion. This document was clearly supposed to be the primary manual used by initiates on the inside of the Italian witch-cult. It's hardly something like a "read it if you feel like it and have the time" sort of thing for Italian witches.

To repeat my previous analogy, leaving a supposedly central universal witch tenet like the Wiccan Rede out of the Gospel of the Witches is like Christians forgetting to include anything about forgiveness in their Old or New Testaments.

It just doesn't make sense if we are to believe that European witches were following a unified formalized religion consistent with what Gerald Gardner taught. The only way I can rationalize this is to accept that either English witchcraft was very different from Italian (and very likely other area) witchcraft to the point that the Wiccan Rede was an English innovation, or else that perhaps scholars like Hutton are right in that it's most likely Gerald Gardner and perhaps a few of his friends were the ones who introduced things like the Rede, the strong insistence on witchcraft as a "good" religion, and who knows what else.



I believe I addressed that. I see nothing "Satanic" in the quote Darkmoon presented. "Evil" is a concept from dualist theologies, and isn't a Witch concept at all.

If we look at the quote from a Wiccan perspective which we are told most certainly includes the Rede (and as a very important central tenet -- those who violate the Rede will suffer the "curse of the Goddess" according to the Laws) then the "Aradia" quotes are pretty much contrary to Wicca. How can one blight crops, poison others, or otherwise cause illness or even death without violating the Rede? [/quote]



Crowley, however, was neither a Witch nor a Satanist. I'm not sure what he has to do with any of this... could you elaborate?

I believe they met each other twice (maybe three times?) Most occultists in England at that time knew each other. Again, I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Please brush up on your English occult history, particularly as pertains to Crowley. He openly reveled in calling himself "The Great Beast 666" and referred to his woman-of-the-moment as his "Scarlet Woman" or alternately as his "Whore of Babylon." For a guy who had nothing to do with Satanism he sure played up the associations in public and in his private life. His writings are filled with Christian and Satanic myth and references.

The Witch connections to Crowley are ones that have been proposed by a number of people within the Wiccan and witchcraft community, not by outsiders. People who promote the claim that Pickingill was the mastermind behind the New Forest coven that initiated Gerald Gardner are one of those sources for the Crowley witch claim -- they count Crowley as one of Pickingill's initiates (although one who apparently fell out of favour.)

Sybil Leek also boasted of her connection to Crowley and stated on a number of occasions that he was a family friend and one who she had learned from.

Gerald Gardner did more than just casually meet Crowley once or twice too. Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" document pretty clearly the extensive involvement Gardner had with Crowley. Gardner even had a charter personally signed by Crowley authorizing Gardner to run an OTO lodge granting the first three degrees of that system! And it's no secret that Gardner included a lot of Crowley's material in his own Wiccan Book of Shadows. It was because the Crowley material was so obvious that Doreen Valiente rewrote Gardner's BOS back in the 1950s when she was working with him. Roger Dearnaly wrote an interesting article (http://www.geraldgardner.com/dearnaley.php) examining Crowley's material found in Gardner's early Books of Shadows.


"Dark" is not the same as "Satanic."

You are right of course. But when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck the chances are it is a duck are pretty high.

Stating that Satanic witches are nothing more than a myth is a pretty clear example of revisionist history.

[Carla O'Harris]

Raven Grimassi needs to be brought into this discussion, as we are now talking about things within his purview.

And I don't see what Satanism has to do with paganism. Can we get back to paganism?

[Carla O'Harris]

Consider that Gardner-- while never approving of curses -- does speak with compassion about those who cursed their oppressors during the Burning Times, so please note that Aradia is advising using maleficia in a class war context, with no indication of any general "war of all against all" nastiness. Aradia is a liberator urging liberation by all means necessary, and in this case that includes magic.


Diana hath power to do all things, to give glory to the lowly, wealth to the poor, joy to the afflicted, beauty to the ugly. Be not in grief, if you are her follower; though you be in prison and in darkness, she will bring light: many there are whom she sinks that they may rise the higher.


"Ye who are poor suffer with hunger keen,
And toll in wretchedness, and suffer too
Full oft imprisonment; yet with it all
Ye have a soul, and for your sufferings
Ye shall be happy in the other world,
But ill the fate of all who do ye wrong!"


And thou shalt bind the oppressor's soul (with power);


But as thy mother did repent her fault, p. 17
And wished to mate thee to a spirit who
Should be benevolent,
And not malevolent!


It was Diana who did come to me,
All in the night in a dream, and said to me:
"If thou would'st keep all evil folk afar,
Then ever keep the vervain and the rue
Safely beside thee!"


Great Diana! thou
Who art the queen of heaven and of earth,
And of the infernal lands--yea, thou who art
Protectress of all men unfortunate,
Of thieves and murderers, and of women too
Who lead an evil life, and yet hast known
That their nature was not evil, thou, Diana,
Hast still conferred on them some joy in life.

(This implies redeeming those in such a position and helping them to find their own.)

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Consider that Gardner-- while never approving of curses -- does speak with compassion about those who cursed their oppressors during the Burning Times

Have you READ the Old Laws? Cursing is condemned quite harshly as an activity that leads to more witch trials. This is the oldest Wiccan reference to 'harm none', the idea being that if no-one curses anyone, no-one will cry 'this be Witches Malice, and the hunt be up again'. The whole idea of 'harm none' in this sense has nothing to do with Wicca as it is today, or Wicca as it was back then, and furthermore, the entire concept is rife with error in many, many places ('The Warning', anyone?).
Oh, yes, Raven Grimassi will be able to shed *such* light on this, what with the New Forest being located several thousand miles away from Italy.

[Eran]

Perhaps you didn't read the whole sentence? My point was that "Aradia" is presented as the Gospel of the Witches, the rumoured Bible of Italian witchcraft which serves as the foundation of the religion.
Even a "bible" cannot be expected to contain all concepts of a religion, nor does every religion need to conform to any particular person's preferred methods of passing information. There may well have be important concepts in Italian Witchcraft which are only passed orally, for example. As I said, I don't know if the Rede is part of Italian Craft theology, but even if it is, it may be passed in a different way than as part of a written document.

You refer to a "unified formalized religion" a concept to which I do not subscribe and will not, therefore, defend.

Please brush up on your English occult history, particularly as pertains to Crowley. He openly reveled in calling himself "The Great Beast 666" and referred to his woman-of-the-moment as his "Scarlet Woman" or alternately as his "Whore of Babylon." For a guy who had nothing to do with Satanism he sure played up the associations in public and in his private life. His writings are filled with Christian and Satanic myth and references.
Indeed. He also uses Egyptian, Bablyonian, Jewish, and Eastern Asian myth and references. He specifically denied belonging to any of these religions paths. And, for our present purposes, it is particularly noteworthy to point out that he was neither a Satanist nor a Witch, as I said.

Gerald Gardner did more than just casually meet Crowley once or twice too. Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" document pretty clearly the extensive involvement Gardner had with Crowley.
I do not believe the word "extensive" is correct. As I said, they met each other two or three times, and no one (certainly not Heselton) has implied otherwise. Nor is there documentation of any "extensive" correspondence between them.

Gardner even had a charter personally signed by Crowley authorizing Gardner to run an OTO lodge granting the first three degrees of that system!
Indeed so, presented to Gardner as a sort of honorarium, in recognition of Gardner's achievements in the occult community, and never actually used by Gardner to create any such lodge.

And it's no secret that Gardner included a lot of Crowley's material in his own Wiccan Book of Shadows.
As I have previously said, I won't comment on any alledged contents of the Book of Shadows because to do so would violate my Oath. But even if you are correct, and even if Crowley was a Satanist (something which he frequently denied), I'm not sure what your argument is here.

Stating that Satanic witches are nothing more than a myth is a pretty clear example of revisionist history.
I must point out this is rather an impolite characterization. You are certainly allowed to hold your opinions, but I will ask you not to be rude about it.

I confess, I'm rather surprised at your statements here. Are we honestly debating the extent of Satanist influence on modern Pagan Witchcraft?

[Eran]

Please allow me to recommend that we return to the subjet of his thread. As fascinating as is the relationship between Satanism and Christianity, and even as important a topic as is the separation between Satanism and the Pagan religion of Witchcraft - I'm not sure what either of these topics have to do with the New Forest Coven. May I recommend these issues be given their own threads?

[Ben Gruagach]

Please allow me to recommend that we return to the subjet of his thread. As fascinating as is the relationship between Satanism and Christianity, and even as important a topic as is the separation between Satanism and the Pagan religion of Witchcraft - I'm not sure what either of these topics have to do with the New Forest Coven. May I recommend these issues be given their own threads?

Since pre-Gardnerian witches who happened to not fit the Wiccan Rede style of things were dismissed as "not real witches" earlier in this thread I can understand how the discussion moved towards examining Satanic witches etc. especially in relation to Gardner and Wicca.

[Eran]

Since pre-Gardnerian witches who happened to not fit the Wiccan Rede style of things were dismissed as "not real witches" earlier in this thread ...
I'm not quite understanding you here, because I don't think the Rede even came up in discussion before you mentioned that it is apparently not quoted in Leland.

Nor can I recall anyone in this thread saying that any particular "pre-Gardnerian witches" were "not real witches". We did touch on Ceremonialist (demonic style) Magic and on Satanism, and some people make distinctions between these and the Pagan traditions (such as the sect of the Canon Episcopi), and some do not.

Also in this thread, pre-Gardnerian Witches who were the forebearers of the New Forest Coven, and who worshipped Pagan deities, were dismissed both as being not really Pagan and as being "not real witches".

But your capsule description which I quote above is more than a little unfair and misleading.

[David19]

Consider that Gardner-- while never approving of curses -- does speak with compassion about those who cursed their oppressors during the Burning Times, so please note that Aradia is advising using maleficia in a class war context, with no indication of any general "war of all against all" nastiness. Aradia is a liberator urging liberation by all means necessary, and in this case that includes magic.

(This implies redeeming those in such a position and helping them to find their own.)

But doesn't Aradia (or whoever wrote it) say to tell Christians their gods (Yahweh, Jesus, Mary, etc) are 'devils', as Silverfire mentioned, or maybe it's ok when a pagan insults another religion or deities.

Plus, i'd like to see the evidence that there were actual witches who were burned in the 'burning times', as i still think it would've been mainly Jews and Christian's who were killed (and, i think, in the Middle Ages, the words Jew and witch were pretty much the same, anyone correct me if i'm wrong?).

[Eran]

But doesn't Aradia (or whoever wrote it) say to tell Christians their gods (Yahweh, Jesus, Mary, etc) are 'devils', as Silverfire mentioned, or maybe it's ok when a pagan insults another religion or deities.
Our modern notions of politically correct speech did not exist in the Middle Ages, or even in the late 1800's. After a couple of millennia of attempted genocide, perhaps the targeted victims could be excused for occasionally saying an uncomplimentary thing about the mass murderers who had been attacking them for so long. I even think that those who commit active and violent persecution might sometimes be seen as deserving of a harsh word or two.

Plus, i'd like to see the evidence that there were actual witches who were burned in the 'burning times', as i still think it would've been mainly Jews and Christian's who were killed (and, i think, in the Middle Ages, the words Jew and witch were pretty much the same, anyone correct me if i'm wrong?).
Actually, I've never heard any historian imply that "Jew" and "witch" were ever thought of as synonyms. Jews were persecuted by the Inquisition in Spain, however, and were sometimes accused of practicing magic, so perhaps that is one source of your confusion.

On the question of Witches being burned - one difficulty with the historical record (and with the people who have written about it) has to do with the historians' understanding of the word "witch". Most historians (see Norman Cohn, H.C. Midelford, Alan Macfarlane, Henry Lea, among others) define a "witch" as a person who worshipped Satan and / or committed destrucive acts through magical means. These historians also insist there were no actual Satanists, and also that it is impossible to cause damage through Magic (since they say Magic cannot actually work). Therefore, they will say there were no Witches.

However, there is quite a bit of evidence for people who seemed to honestly believe that they, personally, practiced Magic and worshipped Pagan Gods, so they are exactly the sort of people whom we modern Witches would see as Witches. And yes, some of them were killed by the Christian authorities.

Also, since the historians define "witchcraft" as being always destuctive, when someone engaged in helpful magical acts, the historians do not see this as "witchcraft". Therefore, when a person is accused of doing helpful things by magic (which was also illegal), the historians tend not to view this as a "witch trial" - even though we modern Witches might view it that way (if there was also evidence of Pagan worship).

So yes, there is evidence of "actual witches who were burned in the 'burning times'" (and being imprisoned, tortured, hanged, etc.). Quite a bit of such evidence. Not everyone who was accused of magical acts or tried by the Inquisition was a Witch. But at least some of them certainly were.

[David19]

Our modern notions of politically correct speech did not exist in the Middle Ages, or even in the late 1800's. After a couple of millennia of attempted genocide, perhaps the targeted victims could be excused for occasionally saying an uncomplimentary thing about the mass murderers who had been attacking them for so long. I even think that those who commit active and violent persecution might sometimes be seen as deserving of a harsh word or two.

That's true, but any witches, but couldn't the same arguement be applied to the reaction of Christians against 'pagans', e.g. in Rome, they were the persecuted ones, more so than anyone else (well, maybe the Jews could beat them to the no.1 spot), Christians were raped by their Roman 'masters' (they were slaves), beaten, massacred, etc, and in fact, i'd say that the real reason for the aversion to sex and darkness, that many people accuse Christians of, comes from the fact, they were forced to remain naked, they were raped in the darkness, etc, after that, probably anyone would fear the dark, and be ashamed of their body (i think in some rape cases, the person doesn't like the sight of their body anymore, 'cause they feel it's been 'tainted', but i don't know too much about that, so anyone feel free to correct me, please).

If 'pagans' were indeed persecuted by the Christians, then, in the logic of your post, wouldn't that excuse the Christians?.

Also, a lot of 'pagans' (mainly modern, though) believe in what goes around, comes around or karma or something, so again, if we're to take that 'pagans' were persecuted, then maybe they were getting a kick up the ass by the universe or the gods, afterall, it's not like ancient 'pagans' (especially in Rome) were too accepting of the Jews (i think it was Peacock, a poster here on Mystic wicks, in another topic ages ago, brought up the fact that an entire Jewish village committed suicide just so they wouldn't have to be raped and pillaged by the Roman army, and i'm sure there are lots more examples).

I'm not saying that any 'pagans', if there were any, deserved to die, but i'm just using the same perspective, if witches of the Middle Ages felt hostile to Christians, and were willing to curse and kill them 'cause of their persecution, then maybe Christians felt the same way about 'pagans'.


Actually, I've never heard any historian imply that "Jew" and "witch" were ever thought of as synonyms. Jews were persecuted by the Inquisition in Spain, however, and were sometimes accused of practicing magic, so perhaps that is one source of your confusion.

I thought the terminology used against witches, was also used against Jews, they were both accused of 'black' magic, both were accused of attending Sabbath's (ironically, they were right about the Jews going to the Sabbath, it's every saturday, lol!), both were accused of blood libel (i think, i know Jews were definantly accused of it, it's a classic insult against them, even going back to 'pagan' times, but i'm not sure if witches were accused of it), etc.

Although the accusation of practicing magic may have stemmed from the Kabalah and also i think, in Judaism, witches were known as the 'daughters of Lilith' (males, may have been, sons of Lilith, although that's just an personal opinion).


However, there is quite a bit of evidence for people who seemed to honestly believe that they, personally, practiced Magic and worshipped Pagan Gods, so they are exactly the sort of people whom we modern Witches would see as Witches. And yes, some of them were killed by the Christian authorities.

Only if you saw the worship of 'pagan' gods as necessary for witchcraft, like my earlier mention of Jewish witches being known as 'daughters of Lilith' or 'children of Lilith', who is definantly not a 'pagan' god (more Jewish than anything else).


Also, since the historians define "witchcraft" as being always destuctive, when someone engaged in helpful magical acts, the historians do not see this as "witchcraft". Therefore, when a person is accused of doing helpful things by magic (which was also illegal), the historians tend not to view this as a "witch trial" - even though we modern Witches might view it that way (if there was also evidence of Pagan worship).

I thought in the Middle Ages, people who did 'positive' or 'beneficial' magic were Cunnging folk, and the witches were their enemies, the 'evil' ones.

I think i've read that the term 'white witch' only came about in Cornwall, maybe in the 18 or 19th century or something?.

I think i've read, in history, a witch is defined as a supernatural being, who went about doing evil, killing people, etc, the Cunning folk were the forces of 'good' that fought them, whether you see the Cunning folk can be defined as witches or whether it's just a modern invention, i guess is another matter.


So yes, there is evidence of "actual witches who were burned in the 'burning times'" (and being imprisoned, tortured, hanged, etc.). Quite a bit of such evidence. Not everyone who was accused of magical acts or tried by the Inquisition was a Witch. But at least some of them certainly were.

I'd be willing to believe that some people who died in the 'burning times' did practice magic, maybe it was folk survivals of 'pagan' things or maybe it was Christian things (e.g. prayers to Saints, other Christian or Catholic folk practices, the Kababalah, etc).

But, IMO, i don't think there were the amount of actual witches or magical people that some Pagans think, i think the majority were Christian, Jewish, maybe Gypsies (although i'm not sure if they were killed?), etc.

[Eran]

That's true, but any witches, but couldn't the same arguement be applied to the reaction of Christians against 'pagans', e.g. in Rome, they were the persecuted ones, more so than anyone else ...
For a period of a hundred years or so, when Christians were actively advocating the overthow of the Pagan emperors, there were Christians in Rome who were treated as enemies of the State, and executed for treason. The fears of the Pagan emperors were certainly shown to have a basis in fact once the Christians took power and spent the next 1500 years actively persecuting Pagans.

I see no reason to get into an argument about who was treated worse; that seems to be beyond the scope of this thread, and I suspect it has nothing to do with the original question about evidence regarding the New Forest Coven. The point for the present discusion is that the Pagans described in Leland's book were reacting to the historical reality of some 1500+ years of genocide directed at them.

I thought the terminology used against witches, was also used against Jews, they were both accused of 'black' magic, [etc]...
Yes, some of the same charges were made against Pagans and against Jews. This doesn't mean "Witch" was ever used as a synonym for "Jew", which was the concept you had raised, and which I was addressing.

Only if you saw the worship of 'pagan' gods as necessary for witchcraft,...
Again, I was speaking in the context of this particular forum, which was seeking the historical antecdents for the New Forest Coven. The Witches in that Coven did indeed see Pagan worship as a central fact of the religion of Withcraft; therefore, in looking at Medieval prosecutions, magic use and worship of Pagan gods would be features that would make note of.

I thought in the Middle Ages, people who did 'positive' or 'beneficial' magic were Cunnging folk, and the witches were their enemies, the 'evil' ones.
That is the terminology usually used by historians today, yes, as part of their effort to claim that "witches" never existed at all - as I mentioned in my previous post. Alan Macfarlane, however, shows that this distinction was not generally held by people in the Middle Ages - in England, the common folk used the word "witch" to apply to all of these people, whether they were believed to do positive or negative magic. This distinction between "witch" and "cunning folk" appears to be an artifact of modern historians, and no such distinction appears to have existed in the minds of the people of the Middle Ages.

I'd be willing to believe that some people who died in the 'burning times' did practice magic, maybe it was folk survivals of 'pagan' things or maybe it was Christian things (e.g. prayers to Saints, other Christian or Catholic folk practices, the Kababalah, etc).

But, IMO, i don't think there were the amount of actual witches or magical people that some Pagans think, i think the majority were Christian, Jewish, maybe Gypsies (although i'm not sure if they were killed?), etc.
With this, I agree. Some of the people who were persecuted and killed under charges of practicing magic or under heresy charges, were indeed Pagans (that is, Witches), and many more were heretics or magic users of other faiths. The point, though, is that some were, indeed, Pagans (that is, Witches).

[Carla O'Harris]

...

[Kaylara]

Reason: what is the point of dialoguing with anyone on mystic wicks?
Ummm... Sharing ideas with people who don't always agree with you?

[Carla O'Harris]

Dime a dozen. One can get that anywhere.

[shuvanilu]

:ugh:

[David19]

For a period of a hundred years or so, when Christians were actively advocating the overthow of the Pagan emperors, there were Christians in Rome who were treated as enemies of the State, and executed for treason. The fears of the Pagan emperors were certainly shown to have a basis in fact once the Christians took power and spent the next 1500 years actively persecuting Pagans.

So that excuses the Christian persecution?.

And, i hope i'm not being rude here, but any persecution faced by 'pagans' pales into the suffering and persecution of Native Americans, Africans (shipped as slaves), Jews, etc.

But that's getting to off topic.



Again, I was speaking in the context of this particular forum, which was seeking the historical antecdents for the New Forest Coven. The Witches in that Coven did indeed see Pagan worship as a central fact of the religion of Withcraft; therefore, in looking at Medieval prosecutions, magic use and worship of Pagan gods would be features that would make note of.

According to Fred Lamond, Gardner's first coven was more about magic than religion, the religion may have been there, in a diluted form, but it wasn't a big a part of it as most people seem to think.


That is the terminology usually used by historians today, yes, as part of their effort to claim that "witches" never existed at all - as I mentioned in my previous post. Alan Macfarlane, however, shows that this distinction was not generally held by people in the Middle Ages - in England, the common folk used the word "witch" to apply to all of these people, whether they were believed to do positive or negative magic. This distinction between "witch" and "cunning folk" appears to be an artifact of modern historians, and no such distinction appears to have existed in the minds of the people of the Middle Ages.

But even if people in the Middle Ages, thought there were 'witches', does it mean there were?, since they had witches be the 'archetypal' bad guy.

Also, and i'm not sure if this adds anything, but the witchcraft law, that was repealed in the 1950s, wasn't against witches or witchcraft, it in fact protected people from being accused of witchcraft, 'cause it said witches didn't exist.


With this, I agree. Some of the people who were persecuted and killed under charges of practicing magic or under heresy charges, were indeed Pagans (that is, Witches), and many more were heretics or magic users of other faiths. The point, though, is that some were, indeed, Pagans (that is, Witches).

But, couldn't there also be those witches who used magic but identified as Christian (there is a lot of evidence for Christian witchcraft and a lot of spells from history with talismans, etc calling on angels, Jesus, Mary, etc).

What makes witchcraft a particularly Pagan thing?.

[Carla O'Harris]

David19, I think you have your mind made up, because despite the fact that we have been providing you with concrete information that shows evidence of pagan witches, you simply don't want to believe it. That's your prerogative, but if so, I don't understand why we're even discussing this any more.

And why you can't believe that pagans suffered persecutions is beyond me. At The Bloody Verdict of Verden, 4500 pagan Saxons were killed.

http://www.octavia.net/vikings/conflictofthegods.htm


Recall that Charlemagne waged a thirty year religious war against the continental Saxons in his zeal to have them convert and his lust to subjugate them. Their resistance was so great that they choose death over conversion. This led to one of the greatest atrocities of the era: the one day slaughter of 4,500 Saxon captive men, beheaded for refusing to accept Christianity. This act of near-genecide at Verden in 782, combined with the desecration and destruction of Irminsul (variously a sacred tree, or possibly a sky-pillar sacred to the Saxons), spelled the end for continental Saxon paganism.

And not just such a massacre, but forced relocations, a la Trail of Tears :

http://san.beck.org/AB16-Franks613-899.html


The Saxon war continued, and 7,000 were deported in 794. Charlemagne spent the winter there in 797-8, deporting every third Saxon family, and the following year 1600 leaders were expelled.


Some historians speculate that the Viking attacks on Europe may have been in vengeance for these attacks on their Saxon cousins.

http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm


The Church History of Eusebius sometimes gives the impression that Christian martyrs were being slaughtered in their thousands for three hundred years. Scholars today take a rather dim view of this idea and accept that persecution specifically aimed at Christians was both rare and highly localised.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/popes_and_church/PandC-1.html


No one questions that the Roman Church had a certain number of martyrs in the days of the genuine persecutions, but nine-tenths of the pretty stories which are popular in Catholic literature — the stories of St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, of St. Lucia and St. Catherine, of St. Lawrence and St. George and St. Sebastian, and so on — are pious romances. Even when the martyrdom may be genuine, the Catholic story of it is generally a late and unbridled fiction.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_15.html#2


Less than one in one hundred of the "early martyrs" can be proved to have died for his religion or even existed in it.

Ninety-nine statements in one hundred, at least, in the lives of the martyrs are lies on somebody's part; and we can prove that the writers were almost always clerics.

The Christians, when they obtained power, made more "martyrs" in a century than they had had in three centuries, and in the next one thousand years they made hundreds of times more martyrs than the Romans had made if we include Jews, witches, Albigensians, etc., as we ought, thousands of times more.



As far as Fred Lamond goes, his notion of the coven being mainly "magical" rather than "religious" is his own viewpoint, and does not reflect what Doreen Valiente and Gardner himself have to say. Eran has given you countless examples of Gardner making it very clear from the very beginning that this was a religion!!!



But even if people in the Middle Ages, thought there were 'witches', does it mean there were?, since they had witches be the 'archetypal' bad guy.

To some they were archetypal bad guys, but not to the witches themselves!

There were most definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt women who considered themselves to go to the Sabbat on special holidays, and who engaged in, or learned, typical witch-activities at these events. Whether you consider these "goings" to be physical or astral, there is no doubt they were supernatural or religious experiences for these people that actually occurred, and we have records of this. The records begin with the early records in Christian Europe and continue for hundreds and hundreds of years. People were engaged in this kind of activity.



But, couldn't there also be those witches who used magic but identified as Christian (there is a lot of evidence for Christian witchcraft and a lot of spells from history with talismans, etc calling on angels, Jesus, Mary, etc).

Couple things. First of all, the strict dividing line being invoked between Christianity and paganism is not entirely appropriate here, as folk religion is often syncretistic. Secondly, many of these "Christian" spells can be traced to pagan spells --- in some cases we have the exact lineage of the charm from a pagan source --- and can show how over time they were "Christianized" to conform outwardly. Yes, there were Christians practicing these things. But there were more pagan-oriented people practicing these things, and even more importantly, there were weird-ass heretical "Christians" practicing these pagan forms in a kind of Christopagan hoodoo that looks nothing like Catholicism as we know it, and that with other heresies, identified against the Catholic Church.

[David19]

David19, I think you have your mind made up, because despite the fact that we have been providing you with concrete information that shows evidence of pagan witches, you simply don't want to believe it. That's your prerogative, but if so, I don't understand why we're even discussing this any more.

It's not that i don't want to believe, but did they actually self-identify as witches, and i don't mean, just what the inquisitors said, what the accused people actually said, and even they admitted they were witches, how can you be sure it wasn't due to hours of torture e.g. the Jews in the Spanish Inquisition and other persecutions 'converted' to Catholicism, due to the torture inflicted on them (then they were killed anyway).



As far as Fred Lamond goes, his notion of the coven being mainly "magical" rather than "religious" is his own viewpoint, and does not reflect what Doreen Valiente and Gardner himself have to say. Eran has given you countless examples of Gardner making it very clear from the very beginning that this was a religion!!!

But the fact that Lamond was in Gardner's original coven gives what Lamond has to say a lot of weight behind it.


There were most definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt women who considered themselves to go to the Sabbat on special holidays, and who engaged in, or learned, typical witch-activities at these events. Whether you consider these "goings" to be physical or astral, there is no doubt they were supernatural or religious experiences for these people that actually occurred, and we have records of this. The records begin with the early records in Christian Europe and continue for hundreds and hundreds of years. People were engaged in this kind of activity.

But, again, these witch Sabbat's were usually depicted where they had orgies, worshipped the devil, killed kids, etc, are you saying that's 'usual' witch activity or is there evidence that doesn't have that in it.


Couple things. First of all, the strict dividing line being invoked between Christianity and paganism is not entirely appropriate here, as folk religion is often syncretistic. Secondly, many of these "Christian" spells can be traced to pagan spells --- in some cases we have the exact lineage of the charm from a pagan source --- and can show how over time they were "Christianized" to conform outwardly. Yes, there were Christians practicing these things. But there were more pagan-oriented people practicing these things, and even more importantly, there were weird-ass heretical "Christians" practicing these pagan forms in a kind of Christopagan hoodoo that looks nothing like Catholicism as we know it, and that with other heresies, identified against the Catholic Church.

Some spells may have had 'pagan' origins, but they were changed that, if it originally called on a 'pagan' god, it now called on Jesus, or Mary, or angels, etc, so the spell wouldn't really be 'pagan' anymore.

Also, there's lots of examples of Christian magic, without mixing with 'pagan' religions e.g. i think a lot of amulets have been found from Gnostic Christian groups, and there's this book called 'Ancient Christian magic' (can't remember the author) which covers ancient, early Christian magic.

Also, prayers to saints were common, and i don't think this is from 'pagan' religions, as in Catholicism, it's the Saint's who take your requests to Yahweh (or whoever the Christian god is), so it's not that heretical, it may have been frowned upon by some, but it's not exactly 'pagan' either (considering the Catholic Church does have a list of patron saints for various occupations, countries, etc).

And, it's not that i don't believe that witches did exist in the Middle Ages, i'm sure there were a few, but what i find hard to believe is that every single witch was 'pagan', how could a family pass on its traditions?, sure you can say blood is thinker than water, but blood isn't thinker than money or whatever, eventually a family member would turn over any witches in their family (it's basic human nature).

Also, why's it hard to believe that there weren't Christian, Jewish and Satanic witches, and others, e.g. Satanism was popular with aristocracy's, is it hard to believe some Satanist also practiced magic (aka witchcraft) or for example, Jewish witches, in Jewish folklore, Jewish witches are known as the 'daughters of Lilith' or 'children of Lilith'(?), there must have been some who identified as both Jews and witches, etc.

[shuvanilu]

Also, there's lots of examples of Christian magic, without mixing with 'pagan' religions e.g. i think a lot of amulets have been found from Gnostic Christian groups, and there's this book called 'Ancient Christian magic' (can't remember the author) which covers ancient, early Christian magic.

"Ancient Christian Magic Coptic Texts of Ritual Power" edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith




Also, why's it hard to believe that there weren't Christian, Jewish and Satanic witches, and others, e.g. Satanism was popular with aristocracy's, is it hard to believe some Satanist also practiced magic (aka witchcraft) or for example, Jewish witches, in Jewish folklore, Jewish witches are known as the 'daughters of Lilith' or 'children of Lilith'(?), there must have been some who identified as both Jews and witches, etc.

IMHO, I believe that there were Pagan witches, Christian witches, Jewish witches, even Satanic witches...you name it. Even if some of the Christian witchcraft spells were inspired by older Pagan spells, that doesn't make them Pagan anymore. If that were true, we would have to then make the leap that all current Christian curches are really Pagan because so much of what they are doing is inspired by old Pagan customs. If I eat my sushi with chopsticks, that doesn't make me Japanese...it just makes me inspired by a Japanese custom. But on the other hand, where I would agree with Carla, is that there were *some* witches who were purposefully practicing a Pagan witchcraft under a thin Christian veneer. However, I also think that there clearly were some Christian (Jewish, etc...) witches who specifically identified as such, and had no intent on hiding a Pagan practice under their magics because they viewed their religion solely as Christian (Jewish, etc...)

My 3 cents---shuvanilu

[Eran]

Let's see if we can address this question while avoiding the semantic argument.

Every religion has magic of one sort or another. There is Christian magic, Jewish magic, Pagan magic, etc., etc. Magic is a tool which is used in many contexts (but always religious ones).

Some Pagan religious sects survived from ancient times into the Middle Ages. This is well-documented and is beyond question.

There is good reason to think that the New Forest Coven is a descendent of one of these Pagan religious survivals.

There is no question whatever that Gardner saw the tradition he was initiated into as being ancient, primarily religious, and Pagan. It used magic as part of its religious activities. It was a religion, first and formost.

The question of the historical existence of Satanism (which all reputable historians agree was never widespread, if it ever existed at all) is separate from questions about the history of the Pagan survivals which led to the New Forest Coven.

Arguments over the meaning of the certain words (such as "witch", "magic", or "Satanist") are unproductive, and are often used as a means of clouding or hiding the simple facts listed above.

[Ben Gruagach]

There is no question whatever that Gardner saw the tradition he was initiated into as being ancient, primarily religious, and Pagan. It used magic as part of its religious activities. It was a religion, first and formost.

I don't think this is much in doubt -- but whether Gardner firmly believed something or not has little bearing on whether those beliefs are supported by historical evidence, or were based on verifiable fact.

Since this thread was started to ask the question of evidence for the New Forest coven that Gardner was initiated into the key thing we need to uncover is the verifiable evidence. Speculation can help us figure out where we might look for evidence but without the actual proof it's still just speculation.

[Carla O'Harris]

Ok, Clutterbuck existed, and had the requisite interests in nature mysticism and pagan holidays to fit the bill.

Dafo existed.

And Heselton has shown the coalescence of others, including the Mason family.

In other words, all the original reasons for doubting the New Forest Coven have been refuted.

At first people said, oh, come on, there's no evidence that Dorothy Clutterbuck ever existed.

Then Valiente found proof of that.

Then Hutton said, well, wait a minute, she was simply a normal Christian.

Then Heselton found proof of her pagan leanings.

The entire basis for doubting the existence of the coven have been refuted. It is simply unreasonable to doubt it any longer. One cannot simply keep raising the bar of proof as each objection gets answered.

The only reasonable question now is how far back does the history of the New Forest coven go? To this, there are several answers :

1. That it dates back to the early 1900's.
2. That it dates back to the Romantic age of the 1800's. (An answer actually supportable by what the witches said of themselves, vis-a-vis Napoleon.)
3. That it dates back to Elizabethan times. (Again, part of the oral history of the group.)
4. That its Elizabethan manifestation has a connection to historical witches, with elements from both Mediterranean mystery cults as well as even possibly Neolithic traces. (This is mainly Gardner's historical speculation plus Murray ; but the cult did recognize commonalities with Mediterranean mystery motifs they were shown.)

All four of these are possible and on the table. I don't think it's reasonable to question any longer that Gardner was introduced to a real tradition that existed outside himself.

The Crowley elements in the Book of Shadows are explained in two ways :

1. That Gardner received rituals that he could not repeat or expose, and so he creatively replaced some of the liturgy with resonant Crowley poetry he found evocative. In this way, the "feel" of the original liturgy was preserved.

Or,

2. Someone in the cult, as much as 20 years before Gardner's initiation, added Crowley poetry from the Equinox, or from oral reports, because the sense of the poetry fit the original liturgy.

You, Ben, might argue that this group was an early 20th century occult group who constructed rituals from Crowley from scratch. (I'm not trying to speak for you.)

In any case, the group existed. Now the question is how far back its history went.

As Eran argues, since things keep folding themselves backwards and keep confirming the history as we go along, let's hold out the benefit of the doubt that many, many more things may come to light. Although the technical historical possibility exists that this was simply a 20th century Romantic revival of some kind, there are strong indications that more will come to light demonstrating its pre-existence.

And some of the research that Eran, myself, and Raven Grimassi have been doing in fact demonstrates that people both in pagan times, and in medieval and early modern times were doing things very, very similar to what we find in the New Forest Coven. Not "identical", but variant. And a series of variations proves the existence of a root being conjugated. I think Eran would join me in arguing that when Margaret Murray spoke of one religion, she referred to the root, and that the variations are only conjugations of that root, albeit it was diverse in many areas. Despite its diversity, there are many elements that hang together.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

The problem with what Hesselton found is that his interpretation of Dorothy's poems is very subjective. To be honest, I saw nothing of paganism in them, although, as I stated earlier, all I've seen of them are the examples provided in 'Wiccan Roots', and Hesselton may well have picked those particular poems because they support his theory.
I cannot stress it enough: Saying that the woman had witchy handwriting does not constitute evidence. That's the same as saying that a girl who dots her 'i's with little hearts is deeply in love with someone.

[Carla O'Harris]

She writes ecstatically about pagan holidays, she identifies strongly with nature, she talks about fairies, she has a vision of a White goddess, she talks about dancing in the woods, she speaks of religion out in the fields, and makes continual reference to a holy Lady "For Life, I love her, and adore ... She will be my Queen...", and she talks about the moon ...

How much more explicit do you expect someone who is shy about publicizing her religion to be in a public diary??

[Carla O'Harris]

It's not that i don't want to believe, but did they actually self-identify as witches, and i don't mean, just what the inquisitors said, what the accused people actually said, and even they admitted they were witches, how can you be sure it wasn't due to hours of torture e.g. the Jews in the Spanish Inquisition and other persecutions 'converted' to Catholicism, due to the torture inflicted on them (then they were killed anyway).

When you say "self-identify as witches", what do you mean? Did they all use the English word "witch"? No, of course not, as this word was translated variously all over Europe. Did they practice a magical religion completely consonant with what we know historically about witchcraft in its first recordings? Absolutely. Did it have strong pagan overtones? Absolutely. Did they themselves see themselves as learning their magic through ecstatic voyages to the lands of these powerful, nonChristian supernatural figures of nature? Absolutely. Did they honor these beings with offerings? Absolutely. So whatever you want to call them, in other words, they match what was said of witches all over Europe. Those who lived in a time period when the word "wicca/wicce" was still a strongly positive if sometimes ambiguous word, suggestive of a priesthood or teachers, would indeed have referred to themselves as witches. Those who lived in a time period where such a word was demonized would either have not used the word, or would not have used the word publicly, for obvious reasons, just as someone would be unlikely to self-describe as a "communist" in a milieu where such self-identification was tantamount to painting a target on one's back.

And the reason we know all of this didn't happen as a mere result of torture is the fact that we have all kinds of confessions outside of torture situations, and beyond that, we have testimony of this kind of activity in everyday life at the folk level.





But the fact that Lamond was in Gardner's original coven gives what Lamond has to say a lot of weight behind it.

Not more weight than what Gardner had to say about his own coven and practice!! That should be obvious. And not more weight than Valiente either. I think far more likely is that Lamond's statement reflects what Lamond's original orientation was, and that over time, it dawned on him how religious it was. In other words, he began with a more occult or magical orientation, and over time, realized how religious it was. In any case, we have documents far older than Lamond's word, from before he was ever a part of Gardner's coven, that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the orientation was religious. The other thing to keep in mind is that Gardner may have marketed the coven slightly differently to each individual, tailoring its appeal to their interests, and so he may have introduced it with a stronger magical emphasis to someone interested in the occult than someone who "got" the religious part, with the faith that they would realize it over time.




But, again, these witch Sabbat's were usually depicted where they had orgies, worshipped the devil, killed kids, etc, are you saying that's 'usual' witch activity or is there evidence that doesn't have that in it.

You are citing the Demonologists' smear-campaign of the Sabbat, yet even their dark propaganda has shadows of the original Fairy Sabbat, which was much more celebratory, light, and delightful. That some people saw themselves as having sexual relationships with fairy-beings is certain. That some groups in the middle ages practiced sexual rituals is also fairly likely. That some sexuality occurred at festival times is also certain. All of this may have contributed to the notion of the "orgies". Most of the Demonological vision derives from bad faith towards the fairy-religion which they little understood, and therefore demonizing it. The child-killing motifs come from the Changeling-theme of the fairy folklore, combined with the miracle of the bones. Children were said to have been dismembered, eaten, and resurrected in the original fairy material. This was a shamanic motif which the Church misunderstood, literalized, and then used as bogey-material to scare people with. The fairies were said to have taken children who died. This was a loving vision. Child mortality was fairly large in those days. The fairies taking people's children is a variant on Odin taking people's best warriors before their time. It is a comforting vision indigenously, that the Church turned into a monstrous vision. When the children joined the fairies, they had joined a wondrous, utopian kingdom where they were well taken care of. Often they would leave a shrivelled, dying, or dead fairy-body in its place, as the child was wisked away. But sometimes fairy-magicians (witches) could intervene in this, and bring about a restoration ; thus, the miracle of the bones whereby they were resurrected and restored to life. This is actually a great mystic sacrament misunderstood. It had nothing to do with child sacrifice. It had everything to do with mitigating child mortality in a pagan-religious context. But the Church was able to combine a bad vision of this with the fact that some witches did indeed practice abortion (sometimes with potions, sometimes with needles, thus the needle-killing motif in the records), and the Church has always seen abortion as "baby killing". With these two facts ready at hand, it was easy to turn things into "baby killing". As far as "worshipping the Devil" goes, that the Church turned any non-Christian deity into a Devil is a practice that goes back not only to Augustine, but even to Paul or Revelations. Thus, the adorations of the Fairy King and Queen were turned into adorations of "the Devil" and his "devils". We even have records in the Scottish witch-trial material of the courts rephrasing the Queen of Faery as "the Devil" (we also have this for the King of Faery as well). Thus you can see that every one of your objections can be readily handled in a rational manner explained by a demonizing of the indigenous fairy-material.


Some spells may have had 'pagan' origins, but they were changed that, if it originally called on a 'pagan' god, it now called on Jesus, or Mary, or angels, etc, so the spell wouldn't really be 'pagan' anymore.

That depends on the context in which it is found. In a highly Christian context, yes, but in a context which was more pagan, it's very easy for people to replace such figures with the native ones. It makes for a good cover, and we would not expect such people to publicly broadcast this tactic. That minority religions practice such a tactic under oppresion is proven by the comparative material within the Yoruba religion of the Americas where publicly the Catholic saints were mentioned, but in private ceremonies, their names were replaced with indigenous Yoruba pagan deity names.




Also, there's lots of examples of Christian magic, without mixing with 'pagan' religions e.g. i think a lot of amulets have been found from Gnostic Christian groups, and there's this book called 'Ancient Christian magic' (can't remember the author) which covers ancient, early Christian magic.

Ok, but the moment you mention Gnostic groups, you are discussing groups who were much, much, much more open to paganism than orthodox Christians, and whose entire metaphysics is pagan down to the core : their NeoPlatonic cosmology traces directly back to the Mystery Religions. Some NeoPlatonic cosmologists were more positive, and therefore affirming of possibilities in the world, while some were more pessimistic ; given how imperialistic and miserable things could be in those ages, who could blame the pessimists? And magic was an inherent part of Mystery Religions.




Also, prayers to saints were common, and i don't think this is from 'pagan' religions, as in Catholicism, it's the Saint's who take your requests to Yahweh (or whoever the Christian god is), so it's not that heretical, it may have been frowned upon by some, but it's not exactly 'pagan' either (considering the Catholic Church does have a list of patron saints for various occupations, countries, etc).


That doesn't follow either. In fact, many saints were not only highly pagan, but mere veneers put over pagan cult-practice with continuity from pagan times. While that may not be true for every saint, it is demonstrably true for many saints, some of whom had extremely strong followings, with legends and rites that were hardly Christian in any meaningful sense. Again, the Santeria-tactics I invoked above apply.


And, it's not that i don't believe that witches did exist in the Middle Ages, i'm sure there were a few, but what i find hard to believe is that every single witch was 'pagan', how could a family pass on its traditions?, sure you can say blood is thinker than water, but blood isn't thinker than money or whatever, eventually a family member would turn over any witches in their family (it's basic human nature).

How could a family pass on its traditions? Fairy folk stories flooded Europe ; as a theology of the indigenous nature-faith, it was a free currency. So the local quasi-Christian culture itself was a carrier for the "scriptures", and all that was necessary within a family tradition was to give special twists on this exoteric material.

There's no reason to assume that eventually a family member would turn over witches in the family for mere money's sake, if they admired and loved those family members and saw them practicing something valuable and with high integrity. Remember that some of the fairy-witches pulled before the Inquisition openly stated that they hadn't thought they were doing anything wrong!!

On the other hand, in families where witches were vindictive, cruel, and cursaholics, we would expect them to get turned over from time to time, and it is precisely these kinds of witches who we do find surfacing in the trial records, which kind of presents the "harm none" dictum of Gardner as a kind of survival of the fittest in a process of cultural selection.




Also, why's it hard to believe that there weren't Christian, Jewish and Satanic witches, and others, e.g. Satanism was popular with aristocracy's, is it hard to believe some Satanist also practiced magic (aka witchcraft) or for example, Jewish witches, in Jewish folklore, Jewish witches are known as the 'daughters of Lilith' or 'children of Lilith'(?), there must have been some who identified as both Jews and witches, etc.

Can you specify your time periods? When do you think that Satanism was popular with the aristocracy? During the late Early Modern era? Or are you suggesting beforehand? In fact, Ginzburg demonstrates the probable existence of some "Satanic" witches, but these are few and far between, and in many cases, it is unclear to what extent their "devil" has been folklorized to fit within a pagan-fairy setting ; in other words, despite the modern Satanists' attempt to subordinate Wicca to Satanism, the relationship is really the other way around, and only under distortive Christian conditions.

That there were Christian lay- or folk- "priests" and especially "priestesses" of a kind highly respected in their communities is also beyond question, and these were also sometimes identified as witches by the Church ; but again, it is difficult to strictly separate this from folkloric material of a more pagan basis in many cases. Undoubtedly there were cases where these Christian lay priest/esses were fundamentally Christian in their approach.

As far as Judaism goes, the logical place to search would be Scholem, where such activity would likely take place within Kabbalism. Keep in mind that even here, at least in Germany, there may very well have been syncretisms with local Germanic paganisms, as the Jewish Lilith was sometimes identified with Herodias and the Germanic Holda ; that folk-Jews picked up folk-culture around them is not surprising, but the result is a creative syncretism.

But given the diversity you've invoked, why wouldn't there also be pagan witches? There is nothing inherently unlikely in the probability, and in fact, we can identify all kinds of possible carriers, even within elite literature. How much of popular culture never passed into the literate record!!! Given that, we must expect even more of the traces that have been able to percolate up to the attention of the top down in the thick of it.

[Carla O'Harris]

Also, a lot of 'pagans' (mainly modern, though) believe in what goes around, comes around or karma or something, so again, if we're to take that 'pagans' were persecuted, then maybe they were getting a kick up the ass by the universe or the gods, afterall, it's not like ancient 'pagans' (especially in Rome) were too accepting of the Jews (i think it was Peacock, a poster here on Mystic wicks, in another topic ages ago, brought up the fact that an entire Jewish village committed suicide just so they wouldn't have to be raped and pillaged by the Roman army, and i'm sure there are lots more examples).

The idea that is mainly modern pagans who believe in karma is absurd. Plato's ideas, which stem directly from the Mystery Religions, are absolutely replete with ideas of karma.

And in terms of pagans and Jews, how accepting were the Jews of pagans? They don't exactly have a great track record with the survivals and revivals of paganism within their own Syriac-Palestinian area, as the Old Testament demonstrates (and which also demonstrates how extremely popular such pagan survivals and syncretisms could be). Consider a cosmopolitan empire like Rome, which was ready to honor the gods of all people (unless such gods demanded politically subversive actions or rebellions) : how vulgar the refusal of the Jews to honor other people's gods must have seemed! Yet it is also clear that many pagans admired the Isaic/Zoroastrian ethical monotheism of the Jews.

In terms of karma, such things need to be taken on a case by case basis. In situations where Roman imperial lords oppressed Jews, why should the average pagan on the street, himself just as powerless if not more so than the Jews, who had nothing to do with oppression of Jews, have to pay anything for the actions of elites? In cases where it was commoners who participated in pogroms or lesser persecutions, it is those commoners who must be held to answer, not all pagans, and not even all pagans in the area. But in actual point of fact, the religious population that has by far been the most persecuting of Jews is Christians.

In terms of the Jewish village and the Roman army (and I would like some footnotes to demonstrate this), there is no doubt that the Roman army was cruel to all kinds of populations they attacked. Such are the effects of imperialism and militarism ; are there any indications that if such positions had been filled by Jews that the behavior would have been substantially different? Militarism affects all parts of a culture, including its religion, but in a polytheistic religion, this does not condemn all aspects of its religion.

[Carla O'Harris]

if witches of the Middle Ages felt hostile to Christians, and were willing to curse and kill them 'cause of their persecution, then maybe Christians felt the same way about 'pagans'.

To me, that's absurd. The persecutions of the Christians by the pagans was so minor as to warrant a small footnote, and such persecutions usually followed activity that was subversive to the Roman State (and thus they were persecuted as subversives not as Christians per se). And to say "subversives" is in some cases being quite kind, as out and out robbers and thugs would apply in many cases. The Christians were highly disrespectful and often quite vandalous towards pagan religions, even while in the minority!! It is well known that the ethical behavior of good numbers of Christians of the time was atrocious. Christians were allowed to be Christians ; it is only when their behavior was that of crazy cult members that they were actively persecuted. On the other hand, when Christians took control of States, they were not tolerant of non-Christian religions, and in fact, not even tolerant of their own variants!! Let's use a comparative example : a Jew might not have felt central or even completely comfortable under an Islamic regime, but in general would not be persecuted (especially under the Islamic rule in Spain), but on the other hand, being a pagan in a Christian State was not a matter of being isolated or uncomfortable, but out-and-out outlawed, and many times, hunted.


Only if you saw the worship of 'pagan' gods as necessary for witchcraft, like my earlier mention of Jewish witches being known as 'daughters of Lilith' or 'children of Lilith', who is definantly not a 'pagan' god (more Jewish than anything else).

All right, well then, let's just call them Wiccans of the Middle Ages, to show their continuity with modern Wiccan ideas of paganism and witchcraft.


I thought in the Middle Ages, people who did 'positive' or 'beneficial' magic were Cunnging folk, and the witches were their enemies, the 'evil' ones.

This is one of the reasons I think you have your mind made up, because I've explained this very point to you several times. In many cases, this is merely a switcheroo based on the demonization of terms.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

She writes ecstatically about pagan holidays, she identifies strongly with nature, she talks about fairies, she has a vision of a White goddess, she talks about dancing in the woods, she speaks of religion out in the fields, and makes continual reference to a holy Lady "For Life, I love her, and adore ... She will be my Queen...", and she talks about the moon ...


Obviously you've read more of the poems than is provided in 'Wiccan Roots'. I'm interested to know where you read them, then, and if so, where I myself could do the same, because, to be honest, 'Wiccan Roots' didn't have a lot and I'd like to read more. They're good poems ^^
I know Hesselton spoke about some people wanting to see them published, and I'd love if that were the case, particularly if they were reproduced with the pictures in a lavishly illustrated coffee-table book. And that way people would be able to determine for themselves their pagan content - Hutton gives no examples to back up his claim, and Hesselton gives very few from hundreds, which may or may not reflect the content of the others.
Even so, I think "Here's to a wizard with a wand!" is stretching it a bit.

[Eran]

I don't think this is much in doubt -- but whether Gardner firmly believed something or not has little bearing on whether those beliefs are supported by historical evidence, or were based on verifiable fact.
You are correct. But of course there have been others on this thread who have been denying that Gardner understood the Tradition he'd been initiated into as being primarily religious. Since Gardner's understanding has been made an issue of, it's worth responding to.

There have been others saying that since it is possible that evidence of historical magical practice really implies Satanism or Ceremonialist (or merely "folk") traditions, then this must have been so (even though I didn't see you - or anyone else - calling for "verifiable fact" regarding these claims). Since these ideas have come up as part of discussing the nature of the New Forest Coven, it makes sense to respond to them - or to ask those advancing such ideas to provide "verifiable facts" supporting them.

Part of my point is that a host of really irrelevant issues are often used to cloud the basic "verifiable facts" that we do have. For example, the question, once again, of who owns the world "witch" is obscuring the fact that there were Pagan religious survivals into the Middle Ages, along with the fact that (as Carla puts it) all of the objections to the existence of the New Forest Coven have been removed.

Since this thread was started to ask the question of evidence for the New Forest coven that Gardner was initiated into the key thing we need to uncover is the verifiable evidence.
Again, agreed. And accomplished. There is a significant (ad growing) amount of "verifiable fact" pointing in that direction, and no "verifiable facts" pointing away from it.

Carla noted:

It is simply unreasonable to doubt it any longer. One cannot simply keep raising the bar of proof as each objection gets answered.
... and this is where I have a disgreement with you, Carla (tongue firmly planed in cheek for this next bit): actually, one can simply keep raising the bar. This is why there is no such thing as "absolute proof" in the field of historical research. One can simply declare oneself to be unconvinced, and then demand more evidence. Believers in the status quo do this all the time.

There does come a point, though, when the evidence is so overwhelming in one direction that it takes a leap of blind faith to insist on contrary positions; and that point is long since passed for most of this question.

Yes, there were Pagan survivals, from ancient times, into Medieval and early modern times. Yes, these survivals fit very well with the picture of Witchcraft-as-Pagan-religion painted by Gardner. No, there is no impediment to the possibility that the New Forest Coven was descended from one such survival. Yes, there is mounting evidence in favor of it. Yes, the New Forest Coven - and Gardner's initial understanding of Witchcraft - was primarily religious (and Pagan) in nature. None of these can be doubted without abandoning - or at least denying - the evidence which actually does exist.

[Eran]

It's not that i don't want to believe, but did they actually self-identify as witches,...
There were people who self-identified as worshipping Pagan gods and doing Magic in Their honor, and that's what we're talking about.

But the fact that Lamond was in Gardner's original coven gives what Lamond has to say a lot of weight behind it.
Gardner was also in Gardner's original coven, and what Gardner says about Gardner's viewpoint has quite a lot more weight.

But, again, these witch Sabbat's were usually depicted where they had orgies, worshipped the devil, killed kids, etc, are you saying that's 'usual' witch activity or is there evidence that doesn't have that in it.
"Usual" Pagan activity in that period probaby involved sexual rites, worship of Pagan deities, possibly animal sacrifices - which would have been intentionally misrepresented by the Christian authorities in exactly the way you describe.

It is worth noting that the early Christians were accused of sexual orgies, worshipping a donkey-headed god, and engaging in human sacrifice. Are you saying that these were the normal activies of Christians? Or are you saying that early Christians did not exist? Or can we agree that one religion might misrepresent a rival religion's actual rites, but that there must have been some actual rites (and, therefore, an actual rival religion) to be misrepresented?

Some spells may have had 'pagan' origins, but they were changed that, if it originally called on a 'pagan' god, it now called on Jesus, or Mary, or angels, etc, so the spell wouldn't really be 'pagan' anymore.
Your argument here is something of a double standard, and is therefore unconvincing. Let's reverse it, and observe what happens:

It is a common thing to pretend that the presence of some Christianized elements negates dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of Pagan elements. Were this tendency reversed, a handful of Pagan element could be seen as wiping out the Christianity of pre-existing Christian rite. Since virtually all Christian rituals contain at least some Pagan elements, we should argue, perhaps, that Christianity does not exist at all, and never did. Why do we never see this argument presented that way? It makes as much sense as does the position you describe.

Also, there's lots of examples of Christian magic, without mixing with 'pagan' religions e.g. i think a lot of amulets have been found from Gnostic Christian groups, and there's this book called 'Ancient Christian magic' (can't remember the author) which covers ancient, early Christian magic.[and so on...]
Sure. There's lots of magic, virtually every religion has magic of one kind or another (and, until very recently, all magic was done only in a religious context). But the existence of magic within Christianity does not imply that Pagan magic (or Paganism) did not exist. In fact, the existence of Christian magic is rather irrelevant to the current discussion.

Also, why's it hard to believe that there weren't Christian, Jewish and Satanic witches,....
If by "witches" you mean no more than "people who used magic", well sure, there were people of all kids who used magic. But this isn't related to the question of the origin of the New Forest Coven, which was Pagan - not Christian, Jewish, or Satanic.

[David19]

"Ancient Christian Magic Coptic Texts of Ritual Power" edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith

Thanks for that, i couldn't remember the author, but that book is definantly something i want to get (i'd like to learn about how magic was practiced in ancient times, and see what you can adapt to the modern world, i may not be Christian, but that doesn't mean there aren't certain things i can use (just like i could use other magical things from other traditions).


IMHO, I believe that there were Pagan witches, Christian witches, Jewish witches, even Satanic witches...you name it. Even if some of the Christian witchcraft spells were inspired by older Pagan spells, that doesn't make them Pagan anymore. If that were true, we would have to then make the leap that all current Christian curches are really Pagan because so much of what they are doing is inspired by old Pagan customs. If I eat my sushi with chopsticks, that doesn't make me Japanese...it just makes me inspired by a Japanese custom. But on the other hand, where I would agree with Carla, is that there were *some* witches who were purposefully practicing a Pagan witchcraft under a thin Christian veneer. However, I also think that there clearly were some Christian (Jewish, etc...) witches who specifically identified as such, and had no intent on hiding a Pagan practice under their magics because they viewed their religion solely as Christian (Jewish, etc...)

I agree with you a lot, especially the part about eating sushi, doesn't make you Japanese, it also doesn't make a Christian using a spell of 'pagan' origin a pagan.

And, i agree with you about the possiblility of Pagan witches existing, i just don't think they were the only witches (considering witchcraft is exactly as it says a craft ;) :)).

[David19]

She writes ecstatically about pagan holidays, she identifies strongly with nature, she talks about fairies, she has a vision of a White goddess, she talks about dancing in the woods, she speaks of religion out in the fields, and makes continual reference to a holy Lady "For Life, I love her, and adore ... She will be my Queen...", and she talks about the moon ...

Or she may have just liked 'pagan' things like deities, there were many people in the romantic era who painted 'pagan' gods such as Apollo, Aphrodite, Roman deities, etc.

Also, believing in fairies doesn't make you 'pagan', there were (and probably are) many Christians who believed in the Fae/fairies, e.g. my dad said in Ireland there are various trees associated with the Fae or Sidhe, and that he and some of his brothers heard something like a Banshee once, but he and his family are Irish Catholic, not 'pagan', does this mean that his family was actually really 'pagan' but 'covered it up'?.

Also, love of nature doesn't have that much to do with all 'pagan' paths and religions e.g. the Aztecs weren't exactly 'nature-based', they were more urban, same with the Canaanite's, the Hebrews/Jews (when they had many gods, which were different to the Canaanite deities), the Sumerians, maybe Kemeticism, etc.

As another Pagan said, how many Pagans do you see 'saving the earth', they may recycle but everyone, including Christians does that (most people anyway), some Christians are probably more loving of nature than Pagans and also i don't think GreenPeace or FriendsoftheEarth are actually 'pagan' organizations.

[David19]

You are citing the Demonologists' smear-campaign of the Sabbat, yet even their dark propaganda has shadows of the original Fairy Sabbat, which was much more celebratory, light, and delightful. That some people saw themselves as having sexual relationships with fairy-beings is certain. That some groups in the middle ages practiced sexual rituals is also fairly likely. That some sexuality occurred at festival times is also certain. All of this may have contributed to the notion of the "orgies". Most of the Demonological vision derives from bad faith towards the fairy-religion which they little understood, and therefore demonizing it. The child-killing motifs come from the Changeling-theme of the fairy folklore, combined with the miracle of the bones. Children were said to have been dismembered, eaten, and resurrected in the original fairy material. This was a shamanic motif which the Church misunderstood, literalized, and then used as bogey-material to scare people with. The fairies were said to have taken children who died. This was a loving vision. Child mortality was fairly large in those days. The fairies taking people's children is a variant on Odin taking people's best warriors before their time. It is a comforting vision indigenously, that the Church turned into a monstrous vision. When the children joined the fairies, they had joined a wondrous, utopian kingdom where they were well taken care of.

So the Fae/fairies don't give a sh*t about their own kids, and they'll just leave their dying bodies for anyone to find?, that adds another perspective to them.

Personally, i doubt that any parent said 'oh well out kid is dead but at least their in (the) fairy land(s), 'cause any parent would want their kid in this life, they'd be too upset about it (that's why they always say 'a parent should never outlive their kid').


That minority religions practice such a tactic under oppresion is proven by the comparative material within the Yoruba religion of the Americas where publicly the Catholic saints were mentioned, but in private ceremonies, their names were replaced with indigenous Yoruba pagan deity names.

But Vodou practicioners, in Haiti, are Catholic, so they believe in Yahweh, Jesus, the Saints, etc as existing, as far as i know, as real beings, as well their Yoruban deities, i think that there's a saying in Haiti, if you want something done, ask a Lwa, if you want spirituality, do to Church and talk to the Saints and YHWH or something like that.

Also, Africans have suffered far worse treatment at the hands of Europeans and Americans than any pagan persecution.


That doesn't follow either. In fact, many saints were not only highly pagan, but mere veneers put over pagan cult-practice with continuity from pagan times. While that may not be true for every saint, it is demonstrably true for many saints, some of whom had extremely strong followings, with legends and rites that were hardly Christian in any meaningful sense. Again, the Santeria-tactics I invoked above apply.

Actually, in most books i've read, most of the Saints had an historical existance, there were definantly some 'pagan' deities that were turned into Saints, but a lot of the Saints are definantly Catholic in nature, not 'pagan' deities.


There's no reason to assume that eventually a family member would turn over witches in the family for mere money's sake, if they admired and loved those family members and saw them practicing something valuable and with high integrity. Remember that some of the fairy-witches pulled before the Inquisition openly stated that they hadn't thought they were doing anything wrong!!

On the other hand, in families where witches were vindictive, cruel, and cursaholics, we would expect them to get turned over from time to time, and it is precisely these kinds of witches who we do find surfacing in the trial records, which kind of presents the "harm none" dictum of Gardner as a kind of survival of the fittest in a process of cultural selection.

Yeah, but humans are humans, money is money, i don't care what anyone says, if you can make money (especially in the Middle Ages, when their lives weren't exactly great), you're not going to get sentimental, you'll go for improving your life.

BTW, are there any examples of witches, who were actually cruel, vindictive, basically 'evil', as i'd like to learn a bit more about that aspect of witches that were in the Middle Ages, like what they did, etc.

Thanks :).


Can you specify your time periods? When do you think that Satanism was popular with the aristocracy? During the late Early Modern era? Or are you suggesting beforehand? In fact, Ginzburg demonstrates the probable existence of some "Satanic" witches, but these are few and far between, and in many cases.

I can't remember where i read it, but it's been in a few books and some documentary programmes, that i saw bits of ages ago, i think it said, Satanism was popular with the aristocracy, maybe in the 18th century or something (that's just a guess, like i said i can't remember the actual time period), i think it said aristocrats were bored (maybe the young ones?) and they got into Satanism, so it's not too hard to believe that those that did, also got into real, hardcore magic, some of them may have just been excuses to get laid and drunk and not actual Satanists, but i think there were a few.

Also, there's the Hellfire club too.


As far as Judaism goes, the logical place to search would be Scholem, where such activity would likely take place within Kabbalism. Keep in mind that even here, at least in Germany, there may very well have been syncretisms with local Germanic paganisms, as the Jewish Lilith was sometimes identified with Herodias and the Germanic Holda ; that folk-Jews picked up folk-culture around them is not surprising, but the result is a creative syncretism.

But Lilith, i think, far pre-dates that, she even goes back to Sumerian times and beliefs (and is how the Jews knew her, the Jews were from Sumeria, Abraham was an Akkadian who worshipped the Sumerian gods, and had Yahweh as a patron, the Jews were polytheistic for a lot of their time, then henotheistic, monotheism was a much later development).


But given the diversity you've invoked, why wouldn't there also be pagan witches? There is nothing inherently unlikely in the probability, and in fact, we can identify all kinds of possible carriers, even within elite literature. How much of popular culture never passed into the literate record!!! Given that, we must expect even more of the traces that have been able to percolate up to the attention of the top down in the thick of it.

Like i said in one of the posts above, i could believe that there were Pagan witches, but i don't believe they were the only types of witches out there, so there may have been (and probably were?) some pagan witches, but i think, there were also Christian, Jewish, Satanist, etc witches too.

[Carla O'Harris]

Or she may have just liked 'pagan' things like deities, there were many people in the romantic era who painted 'pagan' gods such as Apollo, Aphrodite, Roman deities, etc.

No, the poems show a deep spiritual connection to pagan themes. She had a predominantly pagan spirituality. That doesn't prove that she was a witch, but it is the strong, corroborating evidence one would want to back up Gardner's claim. Again, as Heselton points out, we wouldn't expect her to be more explicit publicly. Everything points to the members of the New Forest Coven being very shy and private about their religion. It was something small and special. They were concerned about what would happen if people everywhere learned about them, and how the powers might be abused. (A rational fear, considering how many Wiccans set aside the "harm none" guideline.) People who have a shy, private but vibrant religion are not going to publicly advertise it, but we would expect to see some indications in more exoteric form. These public poems provide that.


Also, believing in fairies doesn't make you 'pagan', there were (and probably are) many Christians who believed in the Fae/fairies, e.g. my dad said in Ireland there are various trees associated with the Fae or Sidhe, and that he and some of his brothers heard something like a Banshee once, but he and his family are Irish Catholic, not 'pagan', does this mean that his family was actually really 'pagan' but 'covered it up'?.

Well, many of these things are not covered through simple either/or's. Many people Christian in one sphere are quite pagan in another. But your example to me shows the power the pagan fairies have even over Christians. It does not prove that all Christians are pagans. But the fact that even Christians pay them heed indicates that there would be others who would be even more hard-core about them. And in fact, that is what the record shows, that there were those who were even more dedicated to them, and they often had a, shall we say, "relationship of tension" with the Church.


Also, love of nature doesn't have that much to do with all 'pagan' paths and religions e.g. the Aztecs weren't exactly 'nature-based', they were more urban, same with the Canaanite's, the Hebrews/Jews (when they had many gods, which were different to the Canaanite deities), the Sumerians, maybe Kemeticism, etc.

When it comes to European pagan paths (which is what we are discussing here), the relationship with nature is absolutely central. (Our terminology here is a little biased, however, because nature was far larger to our ancestors, including both what we call "This world" and "the other world", which were all connected in intimate cycles. A connection to the Other World was critical, for example, in guaranteeing fertility, good harvests, and prosperity in this world.) I suspect that if you peek beneath the surface of the other traditions you invoke, you will find a profound connection to nature as well, albeit in some cases covered over by some alienation due to a troubled connection with the natural world. (When you're busy engaged in multinational logging and export of your Cedars of Lebanon, one wonders about one's connection to the forest ... but then again, the Gilgamesh myth speaks to this alienation as well ... but notably, Gilgamesh didn't find life worth living without his Wild Man companion, showing that disconnecting from one's primal, wild connection to nature produces a terrible alienation ... but I digress ... we can discuss those points in another thread ...) When we are speaking about Celtic, Germanic, Slavic tribes (as well as Greek and Latinate), we are talking about temples that were open groves, where every tree and every spring was so sacred as to be inviolable, and terrible punishments attached to those who violated the groves. Consider to this day people are hesitant and sometimes out and out fearful to chop down a tree or bulldoze a field which are considered to be sacred to the fairies --- how much more so as we go backwards in time! The fairies did indeed hold nature as sacred, and therefore, anyone who held the fairies as sacred had a sacred relationship with nature. Given the intimate relationship between the fairy-faith and Wicca (which I have argued is a variant of the former), the relationship with nature is a central part.


As another Pagan said, how many Pagans do you see 'saving the earth', they may recycle but everyone, including Christians does that (most people anyway), some Christians are probably more loving of nature than Pagans and also i don't think GreenPeace or FriendsoftheEarth are actually 'pagan' organizations.

Well, another indication, as in all religions, that practice needs to catch up with ideals. Do remember that so far as the pagan masses are concerned, this is a tradition essentially recreating itself from the ashes and from barely surviving vestiges, and that its spirituality therefore is going to take time to deepen. How many Christians really live Jesus' words? And for many pagans, it has taken an incredible act of courage just to step outside the predominantly JudaeoChristian religious patterns of their society, and are often quite gingerly in doing so. Deepening takes time.

[Carla O'Harris]

So the Fae/fairies don't give a sh*t about their own kids, and they'll just leave their dying bodies for anyone to find?, that adds another perspective to them.


*Sigh*. I'd be a little more conservative in judging the Fairies, especially as these are religious insights of people living close to the land. Give the ideas some time to mature before judging.


Personally, i doubt that any parent said 'oh well out kid is dead but at least their in (the) fairy land(s), 'cause any parent would want their kid in this life, they'd be too upset about it (that's why they always say 'a parent should never outlive their kid').

Of course!!! I'm not saying this made people happy-go-lucky about losing kids. I'm suggesting that it helped console those who had lost their children. Don't we say to people, "Well, they're in a better place now?"

Of course they wanted to keep their children. That's why they often went to witches, who had a special relationship with the fairies, to see whether a resuscitation was possible, as I have indicated. Someone who could speak with the fairies could often suggest a remedy. Perhaps the parents had violated a fairy-taboo, such as plowing over a fairy-field, in which case restoring it to the fairies, along with some offerings, could help. In general, (I say in general because some parish priests, coming from the folk, could be more sympathetic) one would not get that kind of advice or help from the Church.




But Vodou practicioners, in Haiti, are Catholic, so they believe in Yahweh, Jesus, the Saints, etc as existing, as far as i know, as real beings, as well their Yoruban deities, i think that there's a saying in Haiti, if you want something done, ask a Lwa, if you want spirituality, do to Church and talk to the Saints and YHWH or something like that.

Well, there are degrees along the scale. That there are Yoruba practitioners who know that what they are doing is a Yoruba pagan practice is beyond question, and it is these practitioners I am speaking about. This is commonly accepted in the scholarly material.


Also, Africans have suffered far worse treatment at the hands of Europeans and Americans than any pagan persecution.

Ok, why are we playing the who's-more-persecuted-than-whom game again? The persecution of a particular people is meaningful to them regardless of how they score on the universal persecution scale. Consider, however, that lower-class Europeans, whatever religion you would like to toss them into -- Christian, pagan, or otherwise -- have historically not done so well themselves, either. Consider indentured servants, or enslaved Irish, etc. We needn't compare apples and oranges. The African oppression was terrible, and ought to be considered in its own right, not cheapened by trying to rank it against others. Each must be seen in its own context. In context, the persecution of pagans was indeed terrible.




Actually, in most books i've read, most of the Saints had an historical existance, there were definantly some 'pagan' deities that were turned into Saints, but a lot of the Saints are definantly Catholic in nature, not 'pagan' deities.

Yes, many of the saints are Catholic in nature. Yes, many had a historical existence. But many did not. Many are completely legendary, and of those who are historical, many of their legends have absolutely no or at best a tenuous connection to their real lives, being worked over through tale-telling, and taking on indigenous traditions. I don't care what you or anyone else says, for example, the Saint George of Continental Europe was by far a dying-and-rising god of vegetation and lord of animals, rising in the spring, and I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is just one example of many. It can be rationally argued that essential groups of saints in Medieval times constituted a veritable pantheon comparable to any other pantheon, and yes, they did indeed have a genealogy from pagan deities. This has also been proven in case after case beyond a shadow of a doubt. That doesn't mean all Saints are pagan. It means some, a significant portion, were. Pamela Berger's The Goddess Obscured demonstrates this for several saints.




Yeah, but humans are humans, money is money, i don't care what anyone says, if you can make money (especially in the Middle Ages, when their lives weren't exactly great), you're not going to get sentimental, you'll go for improving your life.

What are you talking about?? Selling out your own family members? Yes, indeed, it happened, and in those cases, the one selling them out was a scumbag, or the person being sold out was pretty damn nasty, but in general, if you are accusing Europeans of being so disloyal and traitorous that it is a general characteristic of them to sell out their family members, I consider that to be highly insulting. It has nothing to do with the mere "sentiment" you invoke ; it has to do with loyalty and love, values strikingly underinvoked by some modern neo-Pagans, but definitely not undervalued by European folk of the time.


BTW, are there any examples of witches, who were actually cruel, vindictive, basically 'evil', as i'd like to learn a bit more about that aspect of witches that were in the Middle Ages, like what they did, etc.

Of course there were! Every age has its antisocial personalities and psychopaths. I'd hate to think what future pagan historians would think if they took Manson as a typical example of the paganism of the 20th century.





I can't remember where i read it, but it's been in a few books and some documentary programmes, that i saw bits of ages ago, i think it said, Satanism was popular with the aristocracy, maybe in the 18th century or something (that's just a guess, like i said i can't remember the actual time period), i think it said aristocrats were bored (maybe the young ones?) and they got into Satanism, so it's not too hard to believe that those that did, also got into real, hardcore magic, some of them may have just been excuses to get laid and drunk and not actual Satanists, but i think there were a few.Also, there's the Hellfire club too.

Ok, but this dates things to the eighteenth century.




But Lilith, i think, far pre-dates that, she even goes back to Sumerian times and beliefs (and is how the Jews knew her, the Jews were from Sumeria, Abraham was an Akkadian who worshipped the Sumerian gods, and had Yahweh as a patron, the Jews were polytheistic for a lot of their time, then henotheistic, monotheism was a much later development).

Indeed, Lilith was a genuine Goddess, and part of the alternative tradition within Judaism. But it's fascinating that they identified this goddess with other similar European goddesses, isn't it?




Like i said in one of the posts above, i could believe that there were Pagan witches, but i don't believe they were the only types of witches out there, so there may have been (and probably were?) some pagan witches, but i think, there were also Christian, Jewish, Satanist, etc witches too.

They were not the only cunning-folk and occult practitioners, no. But as wicce they were the only. So yes, there were diverse practitioners, and at the very least a significant minority of them were pagan, with an even larger proportion being something we might call "Christopagan" or somesuch.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Everything points to the members of the New Forest Coven being very shy and private about their religion. It was something small and special. They were concerned about what would happen if people everywhere learned about them, and how the powers might be abused. (A rational fear, considering how many Wiccans set aside the "harm none" guideline.)

People were concerned about the witches misusing their powers? Yeah, Carla, right. This was in the forties and fifties; rationalism was in. Any secrecy would be aimed at preserving one's social status, and avoiding accusations of, perhaps, diabolism and debauchery - after all, when people like Montague Summers and Margaret Murray write lurid tales about pagan sacrifices and cannibalism, and people read them and believe them, well, who wouldn't be secretive.
And what's more, you still haven't given us any examples of Dorothy's poems that are obviously pagan. You're giving us subjective evidence again.
And incidentally, telling a bereaved parent that their child 'is in a better place' - nay, telling that to ANY bereaved person - is one of the worst things you can possibly say.
And, as always, I really don't see why you keep invoking the fairies into these discussions.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Ok, why are we playing the who's-more-persecuted-than-whom game again? The persecution of a particular people is meaningful to them regardless of how they score on the universal persecution scale. Consider, however, that lower-class Europeans, whatever religion you would like to toss them into -- Christian, People, or otherwise -- have historically not done so well themselves, either. Consider indentured servants, or enslaved Irish, etc. We needn't compare apples and oranges. The African oppression was terrible, and ought to be considered in its own right, not cheapened by trying to rank it against others. Each must be seen in its own context. In context, the persecution of Peoples was indeed terrible.Off-topic, I know, but I just wanted to say that I think this is a very profound statement. A person being persecuted, whether it's with ten of his fellows or ten-thousand, still experiences pain the same, still bleeds the same... Context is incredibly important.

[Carla O'Harris]

People were concerned about the witches misusing their powers? Yeah, Carla, right. This was in the forties and fifties; rationalism was in. Any secrecy would be aimed at preserving one's social status, and avoiding accusations of, perhaps, diabolism and debauchery - after all, when people like Montague Summers and Margaret Murray write lurid tales about pagan sacrifices and cannibalism, and people read them and believe them, well, who wouldn't be secretive.

Well, I don't know. I think I'll take them at their word. They as much tell Gardner in so many words that they are concerned about the power being abused, which is one of the reasons they're so damn secretive. Yes, they also mention being secretive because they didn't want their windows broken, and because people thought of them as pervs, but there is also a strong sense of privacy about their religion.


And what's more, you still haven't given us any examples of Dorothy's poems that are obviously pagan. You're giving us subjective evidence again.

I merely went through the poems in Wiccan Roots and summarized their content. You'll note I made no great or exaggerated claims for them ; nevertheless, their content is significant.


And incidentally, telling a bereaved parent that their child 'is in a better place' - nay, telling that to ANY bereaved person - is one of the worst things you can possibly say.

Well, that may be your experience, but nevertheless, people say it all the time about the loss of loved ones. To many people, it is consoling that their loved ones are in heaven or some better place. That's kinda one of the appeals of religion in general.


And, as always, I really don't see why you keep invoking the fairies into these discussions.


Because they're central to the discussion. Fairies are the beings indigenous witches communed with to learn their magic, and participated in their revels with them. That is what the Sabbat is. The Sabbat, of course, is central to religious witchcraft. Gardnerian Wicca can be described as a strong variant on the fairy-faith. It also establishes its pagan provenance.

[Eran]

People were concerned about the witches misusing their powers? Yeah, Carla, right.
You needn't be sarcastic. Your points are better made if you are polite and respectful.

This was in the forties and fifties; rationalism was in. Any secrecy would be aimed at preserving one's social status, and avoiding accusations of, perhaps, diabolism and debauchery ...
Of course, secrecy in an ancient religion could also be an ancient custom, done for reasons completely unrelated to the social climate which was current in England in the 40s and 50s.

- after all, when people like Montague Summers and Margaret Murray write lurid tales about pagan sacrifices and cannibalism, and people read them and believe them, well, who wouldn't be secretive.
Since hard evidence is important (we are all agreed on that - and you have been insisting upon it in this discussion) please provide hard evidence that this is the only reason a spritual path would have for secrecy at that particuar period in time. (It is also a bit strange that you seem to equate Murray and Summers, when the two of them insisted they were maintaining radically opposed positions.)

And what's more, you still haven't given us any examples of Dorothy's poems that are obviously pagan. You're giving us subjective evidence again.
Actually, yes she has. Your objection to the summaries Carla offered is entirely subjective. You object simply because you, personally, are not convinced, in your own subjective way. That's okay, and you are right; it is a subjective judgement. That's the thing about poetry. It's subjective, and its meaning is never about objective fact.

You subjectively refuse to accept the data and arguments offered, as is your right. That doesn't mean your rejection of the data and arguments is objectively correct. It means you have a different subjective interpretation of these particular bits of Pagan-oriented poetry.

And incidentally, telling a bereaved parent that their child 'is in a better place' - nay, telling that to ANY bereaved person - is one of the worst things you can possibly say.
Can you objectively prove this statement? I can think of a lot of things that would be far worse (for example, "Your loved one is in hell" or "your loved one has simply ceased to exist" or "your loved one deserved to die"). The fact is, "Your loved one is in a better place" is often said in religious contexts, whether you approve or not; and whether or not it is a helpful thing to say is a matter of the subjective experience of the person to whom it is said.

And, as always, I really don't see why you keep invoking the fairies into these discussions.
Because Witches (i.e., Pagan Witches, the remnant of ancient European Shamanic-type religious paths) have long been associated with fairies. There is a deep and undeniable and unbreakable bond between them. At certain times and places during the Middle Ages, the words "witch" and "fairy" were treated as interchangable synonyms. If you talk about the Medieval religion of Witchcraft (i.e., the remnant of ancient European Shamanic-type religious paths) then mention of fairies is nearly essential and unavoidable - unless, of course, you want to abandon the objective evidence.

[David19]

Because Witches (i.e., Pagan Witches, the remnant of ancient European Shamanic-type religious paths) have long been associated with fairies. There is a deep and undeniable and unbreakable bond between them. At certain times and places during the Middle Ages, the words "witch" and "fairy" were treated as interchangable synonyms. If you talk about the Medieval religion of Witchcraft (i.e., the remnant of ancient European Shamanic-type religious paths) then mention of fairies is nearly essential and unavoidable - unless, of course, you want to abandon the objective evidence.

I didn't think witches were shamanic, 'cause from what i've read and heard, the word shaman and shamanic are thrown around a lot, despite not knowing the original cultural context and where the word comes from (Siberia).

Also, Isaac Bonewits (http://www.neopagan.net/), in his recommended list of books on witchcraft (http://www.neopagan.net/Witchcraft-Rec-Books.html) says:


Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, by Mircea Eliade. This is the classic text on the topic, the one that made the term “shaman” well known before Carlos Castenada, Michael Horner, and Lynne Andrews blurred it into uselessness. Why put it here? Because many modern Wiccans incorrectly believe that early witches were shamans.

The bold is mine, BTW.

Also, something just occured to me, if there was a New Forest coven, didn't Gardner say he was initiated into a coven, did he ever say there were lots of covens throughout Europe?, 'cause it just seems, if we take him at his word, that there may have only been 1 coven, 1 pre-Gardnerian coven, which may have been religious, and magical, in nature, but that doesn't mean there were lots of other covens out there, does it?.

Just wanted to get some opinions on this :).

[Eran]

I didn't think witches were shamanic, 'cause from what i've read and heard, the word shaman and shamanic are thrown around a lot, despite not knowing the original cultural context and where the word comes from (Siberia).
I suppose there are people who don't know the original cultural context. There are also people who are unaware that the word has taken on a much larger anthropoligical meaning as an adjective, which is why I refer to "Shamanic-type" traditions and religions - that is, those which exhibit many of the same features. Anthrologists will tell you that there are many indigenous religious/magical traditions all over the world which fall into this general mold.

Also, Isaac Bonewits (http://www.neopagan.net/), in his recommended list of books on witchcraft (http://www.neopagan.net/Witchcraft-Rec-Books.html) says:

So here we have Isaac expressing his opinion, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. (Where are the 'verifiable facts' to support his statement?) To believe him simply becasue he is a Big Name Pagan is a logical fallacy, known as "Appeal to Authority : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

In point of fact, what we know about the Medieval Pagan Witches fits very well with the general style of ecstatic religious and magical practice described by anthropologists as "Shamanic". See, for instance, Ginzburg's books about the benandanti, and his Ecstacies and Night Battles.

Pure and simple, Isaac Bonewits is flat-out wrong here.

Also, something just occured to me, if there was a New Forest coven, didn't Gardner say he was initiated into a coven, did he ever say there were lots of covens throughout Europe?, 'cause it just seems, if we take him at his word, that there may have only been 1 coven, 1 pre-Gardnerian coven, which may have been religious, and magical, in nature, but that doesn't mean there were lots of other covens out there, does it?.
Perhaps you are correct, and the New Forest Coven was the last surviving remnant of this ancient religious tradition. I rather doubt it, but hey, it's possible. I bet Victor Anderson, Robert Cochrane, and others of that ilk might disagree with you, however. But in any case, this is an interesting conjecture of yours - where is your hard evidence and verifiable fact to support this conjecture? If you have no evidence to support it, perhaps we don't need to spend much time worrying about this possibility.

[Eran]

Carla O'Harris had written:

...The child-killing motifs come from the Changeling-theme of the fairy folklore, combined with the miracle of the bones. Children were said to have been dismembered, eaten, and resurrected in the original fairy material. This was a shamanic motif which the Church misunderstood, literalized, and then used as bogey-material to scare people with. The fairies were said to have taken children who died.
...to which David19 replied:

So the Fae/fairies don't give a sh*t about their own kids, and they'll just leave their dying bodies for anyone to find?, that adds another perspective to them.
It is interesting, David, that you here misrepresent the Pagan imagery in exactly the way Carla explains that the 'christians' did. That rather supports Carla's argument, because your statement provides an example of such a thing happening. :)

Personally, i doubt that any parent said 'oh well out kid is dead but at least their in (the) fairy land(s), 'cause any parent would want their kid in this life, they'd be too upset about it (that's why they always say 'a parent should never outlive their kid').
And yet we often have 'christians' comforting each other by saying that a child who had died is now in Heaven with Jesus. Does this prove that 'christians' never existed?

But Vodou practicioners, in Haiti, are Catholic, so they believe in Yahweh, Jesus, the Saints, etc as existing, as far as i know, as real beings, as well their Yoruban deities, i think that there's a saying in Haiti, if you want something done, ask a Lwa, if you want spirituality, do to Church and talk to the Saints and YHWH or something like that.
I'll ask you to provide 'verifiable facts' to support this quote. But at any rate, the quote strongly implies that the Haitians feel the Voundoun deities are far more worthy of their respect than are the 'christian' ones.

Also, Africans have suffered far worse treatment at the hands of Europeans and Americans than any pagan persecution.
The Pagan Witches who were tortured and burned may disagree with you, but I don't think it's a contest.

Actually, in most books i've read, most of the Saints had an historical existance, there were definantly some 'pagan' deities that were turned into Saints, but a lot of the Saints are definantly Catholic in nature, not 'pagan' deities.
Yes, there were some of each - some 'christian' saints had an historical existence, and some were Pagan in origin with a thin coating of 'christian' paint put upon them. You appear to be agreeing with Carla here, and it's good to find common ground!

Yeah, but humans are humans, money is money, i don't care what anyone says, if you can make money (especially in the Middle Ages, when their lives weren't exactly great), you're not going to get sentimental, you'll go for improving your life.
Are you implying here that 'christians' never died for their religious beliefs, and never sacrificed money in favor of their spirituality? I don't think that's true, but I encourage you to supply 'verifiable facts' to support your statement.

BTW, are there any examples of witches, who were actually cruel, vindictive, basically 'evil', as i'd like to learn a bit more about that aspect of witches that were in the Middle Ages, like what they did, etc.
If you find evidence of this - and I agree, there probably is some, because people are, indeed, people - please do post it.

I can't remember where i read it, but it's been in a few books and some documentary programmes, that i saw bits of ages ago, i think it said, Satanism was popular with the aristocracy,
If you remember where you saw this, please do post the references!

Also, there's the Hellfire club too.
...which was primarily satirical in its intent, not Satanic. Ben Franklin was a member, for example, and I have never heard a historian refer to him as a Satanist!

But Lilith, i think, far pre-dates that, she even goes back to Sumerian times and beliefs (and is how the Jews knew her, the Jews were from Sumeria, Abraham was an Akkadian who worshipped the Sumerian gods, and had Yahweh as a patron, the Jews were polytheistic for a lot of their time, then henotheistic, monotheism was a much later development).
Yes, as you say, Lilith was originally Pagan in origin (pre-Jewish, actually, from Sumer and Babylon).

Like i said in one of the posts above, i could believe that there were Pagan witches, but i don't believe they were the only types of witches out there, so there may have been (and probably were?) some pagan witches, but i think, there were also Christian, Jewish, Satanist, etc witches too.
Since you are here using the word 'witch' to mean 'someone who does magic', I think everyone present would agree with you. (Again, it is very nice to find common ground!) And I am pleased to hear you agreeing at this point that there were, indeed, Pagan Witches! Perhaps we're not so far apart on that point? The only question seems to be whether the New Forest Coven was an example of a Pagan Witch tradition that survived into the 20th century - and it appears that yes, indeed, it was.

[David19]

And yet we often have 'christians' comforting each other by saying that a child who had died is now in Heaven with Jesus. Does this prove that 'christians' never existed?

Not saying it didn't happen, but saying you're kid is with the fairies or with Jesus or whoever, isn't much comfort to a parent, unless you lose a kid yourself, you can't know the pain they go through, and that's a fact, ask any parent who's lost a kid.


I'll ask you to provide 'verifiable facts' to support this quote. But at any rate, the quote strongly implies that the Haitians feel the Voundoun deities are far more worthy of their respect than are the 'christian' ones.

Go to Haiti and call them 'pagan', they probably won't like it.


The Pagan Witches who were tortured and burned may disagree with you, but I don't think it's a contest.

It's not a contest, as torturing is torturing and they can't be compared, but what i hate is when people say European 'pagans' or witches have suffered more than anyone, when that is clearly not the case (Africans, Native Americans (both of which are still suffering), Jews (Holocaust, one of the worst, if not the worst, genocides (intent: kill all Jews), etc).


Yes, there were some of each - some 'christian' saints had an historical existence, and some were Pagan in origin with a thin coating of 'christian' paint put upon them. You appear to be agreeing with Carla here, and it's good to find common ground!

Why is Christian put with a small c and Pagan with a capital and also why's Christian in exclamation marks?.

Not being sarcastic, but i'm interested to know.


Are you implying here that 'christians' never died for their religious beliefs, and never sacrificed money in favor of their spirituality? I don't think that's true, but I encourage you to supply 'verifiable facts' to support your statement.

They did, and i'm sure witches and other Pagans did too, but i don't believe that, especially in the Middle Ages, people become purely 'good' and just went 'ok, i don't have anything, i live in sh*t, but at least i have family'!.


If you remember where you saw this, please do post the references!

It was on a documentary here in the UK, so i doubt you can see it in the U.S..


Yes, as you say, Lilith was originally Pagan in origin (pre-Jewish, actually, from Sumer and Babylon).

Actually, Lilith as a goddess is Jewish (basically anyway, although to many she's demon), in Sumeria and Babylon, Lilith was one demon, in a class of demons (that comes from a very knowlegdable Sumerian recon).

Plus, like i said, the Jews are from Sumeria, Abraham was an Akkadian (Sumerian), the Jews weren't monotheistic till much, much, much later, they were polytheistic for a lot of their time.


Since you are here using the word 'witch' to mean 'someone who does magic', I think everyone present would agree with you. (Again, it is very nice to find common ground!) And I am pleased to hear you agreeing at this point that there were, indeed, Pagan Witches! Perhaps we're not so far apart on that point? The only question seems to be whether the New Forest Coven was an example of a Pagan Witch tradition that survived into the 20th century - and it appears that yes, indeed, it was.

[David19]

In point of fact, what we know about the Medieval Pagan Witches fits very well with the general style of ecstatic religious and magical practice described by anthropologists as "Shamanic". See, for instance, Ginzburg's books about the benandanti, and his Ecstacies and Night Battles.

From what i've been told, Ecstacies doesn't mention witches, in a positive light anyway, he talks about the Benandanti, from what i've heard were basically Cunning folk, who fought evil witches, who were intent on destroying the crops, livestock, etc of people.


Pure and simple, Isaac Bonewits is flat-out wrong here.

Although, there's many in the Pagan community who recommend Bonewits (even Deborah Lipp, i think, a Gardnerian Wiccan).


Perhaps you are correct, and the New Forest Coven was the last surviving remnant of this ancient religious tradition. I rather doubt it, but hey, it's possible. I bet Victor Anderson, Robert Cochrane, and others of that ilk might disagree with you, however. But in any case, this is an interesting conjecture of yours - where is your hard evidence and verifiable fact to support this conjecture? If you have no evidence to support it, perhaps we don't need to spend much time worrying about this possibility.

Robert Cochrane and Victor Anderson aren't Wiccan in anyway, i've talked to Traditional (Cochrane) witches, and there's one who i respect a lot and has taught me a lot, so the New Forest coven doesn't fit in at all with Cochrane witchcraft or Victor Anderson, considering Victor and Cora Anderson started the Feri Tradition in the 1920s after years of meeting on the astral plane (i think i've read they fell in love as soon as they saw each other in the flesh), not to mention, the Feri Tradition is in the U.S., you don't get many (or any?) Feri Traditions in the UK.

And it was just an idea, not a fact.

[Eran]

Not saying it didn't happen, but saying you're kid is with the fairies or with Jesus or whoever, isn't much comfort to a parent, unless you lose a kid yourself, you can't know the pain they go through, and that's a fact, ask any parent who's lost a kid.
I have lost a child, and my religious beliefs are and have been a great comfort to me.

Go to Haiti and call them 'pagan', they probably won't like it.
Probably not, but that doesn't change my point at all.

It's not a contest, as torturing is torturing and they can't be compared, but what i hate is when people say European 'pagans' or witches have suffered more than anyone, ...
I can't recall anyone saying that. Can you provide some verifiable evidence that anyone has?

Why is Christian put with a small c and Pagan with a capital and also why's Christian in exclamation marks?.
Not being sarcastic, but i'm interested to know.
I'm just taking my que from you, as you have been capitalizing Christian and putting Pagan in small letters and quotes. Not being sarcastic, just attempting to fit in.

They did, and i'm sure witches and other Pagans did too, but i don't believe that, especially in the Middle Ages, people become purely 'good' and just went 'ok, i don't have anything, i live in sh*t, but at least i have family'!.
I agree. Did anyone say differently?

It was on a documentary here in the UK, so i doubt you can see it in the U.S..
We get a lot of British television here. And even when we don't, there are ways to follow up. So the reference would be useful, and would be appreciated, if you could supply it!

Actually, Lilith as a goddess is Jewish (basically anyway, although to many she's demon), in Sumeria and Babylon, Lilith was one demon, in a class of demons (that comes from a very knowlegdable Sumerian recon).
I have seen a great number of Sumerian and Babylonian references to Lilith and related matters. Which ones are you referring to, specifically?

Plus, like i said, the Jews are from Sumeria, Abraham was an Akkadian (Sumerian), the Jews weren't monotheistic till much, much, much later, they were polytheistic for a lot of their time.
This is mostly true, but no, the Jews were not from Sumer. The Sumerians were non-Semitic, their language was entirely unrelated, and genetically they were unrelated as well. It is true that the Babylonians took a lot of their culture and myth from the Sumerians, but the Jews were actually closer to Canaanites than to Babylonians. But yes, they were polytheist until about the time of Solomon. Not sure what the point here is, though, or how this relates to the New Forest Coven.

[Eran]

From what i've been told, Ecstacies doesn't mention witches, in a positive light anyway, he talks about the Benandanti, from what i've heard were basically Cunning folk, who fought evil witches, who were intent on destroying the crops, livestock, etc of people.
The book was originally written in Italian, and the English translator chose certain words according to his own viewpoint; that's why the destructive forces which the Benandanti fought are called "witches" - in the English translation only. They're not called that in Ginzburg's original text, since, writing in Italian, he didn't use the English word "witch" at all.

You want to say the Benandanti were "cunning folk". That's just playing with semantics, as I said before. The distinction between Witches and "cunning folk" is a modern scholarly conceit. The point here is that the Benandanti were nearly indistinguishable from Gardner's depiction of British Witches in the Middle Ages. They were unquestionably a Shamanic-style religiously Pagan remnant that used magic and was accused by the Inquisition as being Satanic (they weren't). You should read the book, rather than take someone else's word for what it says.

Although, there's many in the Pagan community who recommend Bonewits (even Deborah Lipp, i think, a Gardnerian Wiccan).
Indeed so, which doesn't alter my point in the least. He's still wrong, and you still offered no evidence, no data or logic, to support his viewpoint. (I am also a Gardnerian Witch, by the way - what is the relevance of that?)

Robert Cochrane and Victor Anderson aren't Wiccan in anyway, ...
Let me put this back into context. You had suggested:

Also, something just occured to me, if there was a New Forest coven, didn't Gardner say he was initiated into a coven, did he ever say there were lots of covens throughout Europe?, 'cause it just seems, if we take him at his word, that there may have only been 1 coven, 1 pre-Gardnerian coven, which may have been religious, and magical, in nature, but that doesn't mean there were lots of other covens out there, does it?.
.. and my point was that Cochrane's tradition and Anderson's, both of which have claimed to be descended from very old matters, fit exactly the mold of old pre-Gardnerian Pagan Witch traditions. You had suggested that perhaps the New Forest Coven had been the only one. These others are obvious counterexamples which seem to disprove that suggestion.

[shuvanilu]

To believe him simply becasue he is a Big Name Pagan is a logical fallacy, known as "Appeal to Authority : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

But isn't that what you're doing when you take Gardner at his word about the existance of the New Forest Coven? _inabox_

[Eran]

But isn't that what you're doing when you take Gardner at his word about the existance of the New Forest Coven? _inabox_
Nope, because the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy has to do with whether you accept a person's argument in a logical debate:

# Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
# Person A makes claim C about subject S.
# Therefore, C is true.

I have not made any claim of the form: "We know the New Forest Coven existed because Gardner was an expert and he claimed it existed." I actually rely on Gardner's claims for nothing but a starting point for investigation concerning the New Forest Coven.

I am saying, "We have good reason to believe it existed a. because of the thorough research done by Hesselton, and b. because it fits well with historical evidence of what Pagan survivals in the Middle Ages were demonstrably like."

I'm not taking Gardner at his word for it. Not at all.

However, David's reference to Isaac was of the form, "Isaac is an authority, therefore we should believe him."

[Carla O'Harris]

They did, and i'm sure witches and other Pagans did too, but i don't believe that, especially in the Middle Ages, people become purely 'good' and just went 'ok, i don't have anything, i live in sh*t, but at least i have family'!.


I guess I don't understand why it requires someone to "become purely good" to have loyalty towards one's family. While treason can be found in any time and any place, I actually think that in general, history proves that people are pretty loyal to their families. While it is a completely separate topic, consider how often people are loyal to family members who abused them!!! Often times people will absolutely refuse to speak up about abuse or to turn in a relative precisely because of the family loyalty issue, and that obviously in this case has nothing to do with becoming "purely good". Please don't misunderstand me ; I am not approving of this kind of loyalty that is out of balance with a sense of justice, but I think it does prove the point that in many, many cases, even when a family member has engaged in harmful, even criminal acts, family loyalty is such a strong factor --outside of any imputed "goodness" -- that it often outweighs any profit motive one might get for turning a family member in. If this is true for criminal cases, how much more true for a family member who is basically loving but simply has some interesting, strange, or different practices that are sometimes secretly hinted at?

On the other hand, it is possible that in the "witchhunt atmosphere" (and I use "witchhunt" here in the modern, rationalist "McCarthyist" genre) encouraged amongst neighbors in early Modern times, during times of great social upheaval where there was great material and social disharmony, and no real offered solutions, that amidst the squabbling that happened where all the pettiness came out to the surface, and neighbor accused neighbor (as Briggs and others have shown), that amongst these family-and-neighbor feuds there may have been some genuine pagan-witches who were not only caught in the crossfire, but had ratted each other out. As Eran points out, we would need evidence of such cases so we could examine them in greater depth. That this may have happened under conditions of great stress is possible ; however, to the extent that the pagan-witch religion was actually successful in meeting people's needs, reconciling their inner and outer conflicts, and creating the sense of joy, peace, and well-being that Gardner is always speaking about in relation to the New Forest Coven practices --- and, given the family loyalty points I previously raised --- it is far less likely that members of such families would be turning their families in. (Again, not everyone accused of being a Communist during the Red Scare or the McCarthy times was a Communist, but this does not mean there were no Communists in the United States ; there were.)

Everything I have said about family loyalty should be considered fairly strongly, but we can add another factor on top of that, which is that families which are of a minority, persecuted, or different status, often have a much stronger sense of in-group loyalty. I have a friend of a friend who is a member of a neo-Pagan group that lives out in the rural areas of the woods amongst other non-conformist types, and has since the 60's. This person has communicated that despite differences these motley non-conformists may have amongst each other and within their own community, that outsiders are treated with distrust, and will be given no details about the specifics of the lifestyles of those living within. Turning a family member in under any circumstances --- especially for mercenary reasons --- can be considered pretty atrocious (with exceptions for genuinely criminal behavior) ; but within a group or a family that knows it is already dissident and existing under tenuous circumstances, the sense of betrayal for even considering such an action would be fairly large.

This, again, doesn't mean this kind of thing didn't happen. But it argues for it happening infrequently, which may explain why the Inquisition so seldom caught a genuine pagan-witch. (Not that they minded this infrequency ; after all, with their apparatus they were able to round up, prosecute, and persecute any number of non-conformists and dissidents, and if, in the process, they managed to get information or gain victory over a rival cult, so much the better.)

[Carla O'Harris]

I have not made any claim of the form: "We know the New Forest Coven existed because Gardner was an expert and he claimed it existed." I actually rely on Gardner's claims for nothing but a starting point for investigation concerning the New Forest Coven.

I am saying, "We have good reason to believe it existed a. because of the thorough research done by Hesselton, and b. because it fits well with historical evidence of what Pagan survivals in the Middle Ages were demonstrably like."

I'm not taking Gardner at his word for it. Not at all.


There may also be a psychological as well as a logical component to this.

Gardner made some claims. Logically, of course, we are not required to simply take him at his word. But psychologically how we respond to those claims can be an interesting matter for self-investigation. Is our automatic response to reject the claims out of hand and demand absolute proof positive? If so, what are the reasons for such an automatic rejection. Isn't an automatic rejection as illogical as an automatic acceptance? What are the reasons for assuming that Gardner was such a mastermind liar? (Gardner's life in this regard has been subjected to a scrutiny I doubt few of us could stand up to ; he indicates that witches have always been good at "leg-pulling", and this accusation, along with the fact that he was in the difficult position at times of speaking despite oaths of secrecy, seems to be the reason why he's automatically rejected as a liar.)

It seems to me there are a finite number of possibilities :

1. Gardner was indeed initiated into a pagan-oriented witch-group that went back at least a generation or two, but according to their own oral lore, probably longer.

2. Gardner was never initiated into any kind of pagan-oriented witch-group, and he made the whole thing up to give himself some sense of lineage to promote his new religion that he pieced together from Crowley and other sources.

3. Gardner was initiated into some kind of group that made some of these claims, but they were not a pagan-oriented witch-group, but merely some kind of informal occult-group working with contemporary material.

4. Gardner was initiated into a group which believed they came from a lineage of pagan-oriented witches, but they themselves were deceived or incorrect about this.

Feel free to outline other logical possibilities.

Then we can use the information Heselton has unearthed, as well as the background evidence about medieval and early modern pagan-witches, to get greater closure on which logical possibilities are really grounded in the evidence. In this regard, Eran, it seems to me that evidence about medieval and early modern pagan-witches that was not commonly available before the 1950's, but which corroborates Gardner's testimony about the group he claims he was initiated into, would be of especial help. The Benandanti, for example, were not known of.

It will also be helpful to examine the similarities and differences of the background material with the New Forest material, to demonstrate whether the latter is a variation of the former --- in other words, whether it is a conjugation of the root-form found in many conjugations. If we found a precise one-to-one match, it would be much more likely that someone in the early 20th century who had access to such materials had merely copied such forms. On the other hand, if there are significant similarities amongst differences, this would argue for the genuineness of variation. (Unless one is going to argue that Gardner or one of his predecessors purposely studied ancient material, then created their own variances so that they would not be discovered, but this assumes a burden of proof against them that is so high, it seems unwarranted by the evidence. In this regard, we must delimit our scope to Gardner himself and the people immediately around him before he branched out to create his own coven ; how we feel about the truthfulness of Sanders, Cochrane, or anyone else, for example, including Carlos Castaneda, is strictly not relevant. Yes, there are tricksters and hucksters who will pass their fiction off as fact, but there is no evidence that those extreme cases apply here.)

I am merely trying to outline logical possibilities, and encourage psychological self-examination of which of those possibilities one is drawn towards, and why. Then we can examine where the evidence stands.

In this regard, a demand for strict proof-positive is unreasonable, and we must remember that murder cases are very often solved through a preponderance of circumstantial evidence ; moreover, both prosecutors and scholars who have honestly faced cases where there has been distortion or erasure or lack of direct evidence agree that one must take into account circumstantial evidence. This is especially true if we are dealing with a suspect who had reason or motive to cover his or her tracks. Just because the police select someone as a suspect does not, of course, mean that they did it, but if the police have probable cause to believe that they did, and that there was motive to cover tracks, then the recourse of circumstantial evidence is crucial. In such cases, we are dealing with probabilities and not certainties. Certainties can exist in a small number of cases where there is a confession combined with several eye-witnesses, but this is not the case for people who had reason to cover. And if our "suspect" in this case is a group or groups who had every reason to cover their tracks, then it is completely logical to examine the circumstantial evidence to see where it leads, and what the circumstantial evidence is circumscribing.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

On the other hand, it is possible that in the "witchhunt atmosphere" (and I use "witchhunt" here in the modern, rationalist "McCarthyist" genre) encouraged amongst neighbors in early Modern times, during times of great social upheaval where there was great material and social disharmony, and no real offered solutions, that amidst the squabbling that happened where all the pettiness came out to the surface, and neighbor accused neighbor (as Briggs and others have shown), that amongst these family-and-neighbor feuds there may have been some genuine pagan-witches who were not only caught in the crossfire, but had ratted each other out.

Actually, this is a very good point. And having seen a pagan community at odds with certain of its members, the ratting each other out I can definitely see.

[Carla O'Harris]

David19 said,
According to Fred Lamond, Gardner's first coven was more about magic than religion, the religion may have been there, in a diluted form, but it wasn't a big a part of it as most people seem to think.

I don't think this is an accurate rendition of what Lamond said. Lamond's point is that it was focused as an ecstatic craft, helping to heal people, and to help them channel the Goddess. There's no doubt this craft was always religious, at least according to what Lamond says in Fifty Years of Wicca.

[David19]

I don't think this is an accurate rendition of what Lamond said. Lamond's point is that it was focused as an ecstatic craft, helping to heal people, and to help them channel the Goddess. There's no doubt this craft was always religious, at least according to what Lamond says in Fifty Years of Wicca.

I haven't read his book(s) yet, but i do intend too, but what i've got is he said there were some religous elements but it wasn't as emphasized as later on.

Anyway, i PMed you about the post i made with the reply from Lamond himself in the thread in the History forum called 'False religions' so hopefully that'll shed some light on things, and i think you (and others) will find it interesting :).

[Carla O'Harris]

Read the book. When he distinguishes "craft" from "religion", he is using these words in very specialized senses. "Religion" he is using to mean encrusted, over-formalized, almost magic-less institutions and rites (and by "magic" here I'm not referring to occult techniques, but to true magic, a sense of transformality and wonder), and by "craft" he is referring to techniques of ecstasy. In other words, originally, in his experience, it was about practical techniques of actually experiencing spirit and magic, rather than going through other people's hoops like so many other religions are. In other words, it had a shamanic immediacy that differentiated it from Sunday-religions of going-through-the-motions --- but let us be clear -- this shamanic immediacy if anything made it far more spiritual, and he wants to make sure that that vital spirituality is not replaced by rigor mortis religion. That is his point.

[David19]

Read the book. When he distinguishes "craft" from "religion", he is using these words in very specialized senses. "Religion" he is using to mean encrusted, over-formalized, almost magic-less institutions and rites (and by "magic" here I'm not referring to occult techniques, but to true magic, a sense of transformality and wonder), and by "craft" he is referring to techniques of ecstasy. In other words, originally, in his experience, it was about practical techniques of actually experiencing spirit and magic, rather than going through other people's hoops like so many other religions are. In other words, it had a shamanic immediacy that differentiated it from Sunday-religions of going-through-the-motions --- but let us be clear -- this shamanic immediacy if anything made it far more spiritual, and he wants to make sure that that vital spirituality is not replaced by rigor mortis religion. That is his point.

What do you mean 'true magic', magic is a tool, it's mystical/magical energy, that you use for whatever purpose, 'good' or 'bad' Occult techniques are about using and tapping into this energy, IMO anyway, from telekenisis, to telepathy, to controlling the elements, necromancy, talismans, to even lightning bolts (in Africa, powerful sorcerors can direct lightning and control it, etc).

There's also an African magical tradition, i think, of storing souls in jars (or even capturing other souls) or even parts of the personality.

Kind of destroys all the modern 'New Age' notions of magic as 'subtle'.

[Carla O'Harris]

Note that I was using "magic" in a particular sense, a sense I think is the true one, and that is a power-of-wonder (rather than the wonder-of-power). We speak of experiences being "magical", of there being the right "magic" between people, or in a work of art. Magic is the art of cultivating this kind of power-of-wonder, rather than cultivating the wonder-of-power (even though the power-of-wonder can have powerful effects).

[Eran]

Note that I was using "magic" in a particular sense, a sense I think is the true one, and that is a power-of-wonder (rather than the wonder-of-power). We speak of experiences being "magical", of there being the right "magic" between people, or in a work of art. Magic is the art of cultivating this kind of power-of-wonder, rather than cultivating the wonder-of-power (even though the power-of-wonder can have powerful effects).

Right you are, Carla. There is absolutely no doubt that Gardner understood Witchcraft - from the beginning - as being an ancient spiritual path, dealing with the worship of specific Gods, and accepting and using the gifts provided by those Gods. It was "religious" in the true sense (Latin re-ligio, re-linking), tying humans to the Gods.

Yes, there are people today who want to divorce magic from the Gods, and Witchcraft from the Gods, end even religion from the Gods. Semantic games of all kinds are used in this effort - but putting aside the games and redefinitions and recent historical deconstruction and misrepresentation, the reality of it is pretty clear.

There was an ancient Shamanic-like path which worshipped specific Gods and did its rites and magic in Their honor. Its remnants survived - enhanced by and adapting to time and culture and circumstance, but survived nonetheless - and it still exists today.

It is this extremely ancient spiritual (and, yes, religious) path which Gardner encountered, and into which he was initiated, and about which he wrote and taught. Others have wanted to make it into something else, or to use its terms to describe other things, or even deny its very existence; but that doesn't alter the historical realities which exist despite the semantic obfuscations and disinformation and intentional misdirection.

[David19]

Yes, there are people today who want to divorce magic from the Gods, and Witchcraft from the Gods, end even religion from the Gods. Semantic games of all kinds are used in this effort - but putting aside the games and redefinitions and recent historical deconstruction and misrepresentation, the reality of it is pretty clear.

I just wanted to say that magic can be seperate from religion, it's mystical/supernatural energy that anyone can use, regardless of religion e.g. Chaos magic, the practicioners of this are definantly not religious but still practice magic, plus there are some atheist and agnostic witches.

[Eran]

I just wanted to say that magic can be seperate from religion, it's mystical/supernatural energy that anyone can use, regardless of religion e.g. Chaos magic, the practicioners of this are definantly not religious but still practice magic, plus there are some atheist and agnostic witches.

That is exactly my point. As I said, people today do this. Until very recently, Magic was always performed within a religous context - that is, in reference to gods or spirits or daemons or other spiritual and religious entites - and in conjunction with religious ritual and observance.

This idea, that yo can separate magic from religion, is a very recent and very modern idea.

[David19]

That is exactly my point. As I said, people today do this. Until very recently, Magic was always performed within a religous context - that is, in reference to gods or spirits or daemons or other spiritual and religious entites - and in conjunction with religious ritual and observance.

This idea, that yo can separate magic from religion, is a very recent and very modern idea.

I'm not sure if magic was always part of priesthoods and religion in every single culture, for example, in the Aztec culture, magic and religion were seperated, although the priesthoods performed certain magical acts such as divination, astrology, etc.

And, in Sumeria and Babylon (which weren't the same, as some people think) society, magic was widespread, not only in the religious temples, but also among the ordinary people, in most cities, you could find sorcerors, some may have called upon the gods for certain things, but some used other elements (for example, a large part of Western Occultism such as the Golden Dawn, Sympatheic magic, etc can be traced back to Sumeria).

[Carla O'Harris]

That doesn't change the fact that it was religious/spiritual whereever it was found. The completely secular, agnostic use of magic is by and large a modern invention.

The fact that magic practitioners were often separate from the official cults does not make them into modern secular agnostic magicians calling on constructs for the sake of enacting power ; it makes them into practitioners of "illicit religion" or "chthonic religion" ; in other words, despite attempts to control and contain religion on the parts of authorities claiming cultural authenticity, religion has always spilled out beyond that ecstatically.

[Ben Gruagach]

It premodern times healing was practiced mostly within a religious or spiritual context -- does this mean that medicine is therefore religious?

[Carla O'Harris]

Prior to modern secularity, yes, and furthermore, should not be strictly separated from magic ; but magic more consistently calls upon supernatural entities.

[Carla O'Harris]

Eran said,


Yes, there are people today who want to divorce magic from the Gods, and Witchcraft from the Gods, end even religion from the Gods. Semantic games of all kinds are used in this effort - but putting aside the games and redefinitions and recent historical deconstruction and misrepresentation, the reality of it is pretty clear.
There was an ancient Shamanic-like path which worshipped specific Gods and did its rites and magic in Their honor. Its remnants survived - enhanced by and adapting to time and culture and circumstance, but survived nonetheless - and it still exists today.

It is this extremely ancient spiritual (and, yes, religious) path which Gardner encountered, and into which he was initiated, and about which he wrote and taught. Others have wanted to make it into something else, or to use its terms to describe other things, or even deny its very existence; but that doesn't alter the historical realities which exist despite the semantic obfuscations and disinformation and intentional misdirection. (emphasis mine)


Really well put!

People fail to distinguish between the actual documents, and their modern (re)interpretations. Scholars argue all the time over interpretations of material, but the differing interpretations (which go through phases like fads) should not mislead us into believing that the documents do not say what they actually say!! Nor should they convince us the documents are of no import.

Canon Episcopi and its family of variants exists and makes some very clear statements that no interpretive disappearing act can dismiss. Carlo Ginzburg has analysed precisely why its family of variants do not represent a mere "literary tradition" but in fact represent continuing ethnography backed by precedent. As you have analysed, Burchard's Decretum material may be considered within this family as well. These documents in turn are backed by a number of significant trial records which all demonstrate the same motifs (despite variant differences in detail).

None of this can be erased! The documents stand. All of this, in turn, is backed by countless folkloric documentation demonstrating the same motifs over a vast duration of time. Because these documents cannot be erased, scholars have summoned jesuitical tactics of casuistry to minimize and diminish the importance of them, in an attempt to disappear their true significance. But this is a fundamentally dishonest strategy, and frankly, almost genocidal in its implications, because to diminish some of the few remaining clear documents of a religious/cultural oppressed minority with the purpose of denying their existence is simply dastardly, regardless of the intent. We know that the Inquisition targeted Cathars, Waldensians, Jews, Lutherans, Ritual Magicians, and Canon-Witches, but despite the distortive propaganda, no one denies the existence of the first five groups, but somehow modern scholars see fit to deny the existence of the last group despite the fact that in the face of the former, this represents a case of special pleading. Due to this special pleading, the burden of proof should be upon those who allege that the Inquisition entirely invented rather than slanderously distorted a group, unless one is going to consistently argue that Cathars, Waldensians, Jews, Lutherans, and Ritual Magicians never existed due to the distortive stereotypes of the Inquisitors.

[Carla O'Harris]

In fact, where is the historical evidence that any governmental organization has ever completely invented a group and then used that fiction to prosecute real individuals? (I'm not saying there isn't such evidence, but I have yet to see it. All examples I can think of involve generalizing the characteristics of a real group to dissenters who are made guilty by association.)

This question is extremely important to answer, because if, as I suspect, such evidence is either non-existent or extremely rare, then the special pleading in the case of the witches rises to such absurd proportions that it may be dismissed out of hand without overwhelming evidence outweighing the obvious burden of proof against it.

[Eran]

I'm not sure if magic was always part of priesthoods and religion in every single culture,
Part of "religion" yes, unquestionably. Part of "priesthoods", sometimes not. See below...

for example, in the Aztec culture, magic and religion were seperated, although the priesthoods performed certain magical acts such as divination, astrology, etc.
No, magic and religion were not "separated". Some religious magic was performed by the priesthood, some was performed by private citizens - who still saw it as being connected to thier gods, to the underworld, to their spirits, etc., and, therefore, religious.

In a like way, even today, some Jewish religious rituals are performed by the rabbis, and some by private citizens in thier own homes (the weekly seder is a good example). Just because something isn't done by the priesthood, that doesn't mean it's not "religious".

When a Christian says a prayer before bedtime, that's "religious", even though it isn't performed by a priest.

And, in Sumeria and Babylon (which weren't the same, as some people think) society, magic was widespread, not only in the religious temples, but also among the ordinary people, in most cities, you could find sorcerors, some may have called upon the gods for certain things, but some used other elements (for example, a large part of Western Occultism such as the Golden Dawn, Sympatheic magic, etc can be traced back to Sumeria).
Yes Sumer (not "Sumeria" - that's incorrect) was different from Babylon; among other things, Babylon was significantly later, and the Babylonians were Semitic genetically and spoke a Semitic language. The Sumerians were non-Semetic, and spoke a completely unrelated language. The Babylonians did, however, steal a lot of their culture and myth from the Sumerians, much as the Romans did from the Greeks.

As with the Aztecs, some of the religious magic was performed by the priesthood, some by private citizens, all was in religious context. Until recently, the division between culture and religion did not exist, either. All of the "other elements" you refer to had religious connotations, that is, they were seen as relating to the Gods, to spirits, to daemons, to the Underworld, to souls of the Dead, etc., all of which are religious ideas.

Yes, much of this symbolism has more recently been put to other purposes, some of them secular. As I said, this is a very recent development.

Ben asked,

It premodern times healing was practiced mostly within a religious or spiritual context -- does this mean that medicine is therefore religious?
It means it was religious, yes. As I said, there has been a recent split, people using things which originally had religious meaning, and removing that meaning from them. As I said, this is a recent phenomenon. Yes indeed, until very recently - certainly in "premodern times" - medicine was certainly viewed as religious.

[Eran]

Ben, let me turn your question around - given some randomly-chosen modern magical element which was also used in Medieval or ancient times, are you saying that because you do not view it as "religious" now, that means it was not viewed as "religious" then? - despite immense evidence to the contrary?

[KeaErisdottir]

It premodern times healing was practiced mostly within a religious or spiritual context -- does this mean that medicine is therefore religious?

Well, many people like me who straddle alternative and allopathic medicine will be happy to point out that the latter is simply another belief system....

It is also noted that the power of belief has a strong impact on the effectiveness of medical treatment.

So yes, it is.

[Elderbush]

Since the effectiveness of medicines can be tested and proved in blind tests while UPGs can't, I don't see it as a belief system. Yes, yes, the mind is a powerful thing.

[David19]

Well, many people like me who straddle alternative and allopathic medicine will be happy to point out that the latter is simply another belief system....

It is also noted that the power of belief has a strong impact on the effectiveness of medical treatment.

So yes, it is.

Belief doesn't always cut it, e.g. someone can be shot, and they are not going to get better by 'wishing them better' or 'believing it', they get better through the efforts of the surgeons, doctors, nurses, etc, not through 'visualizing white light', etc.

There was also a time when every government and king was thought of as religious and they were thought of as divine or links to a god or gods, but would you consider Bush to be divine?.

[Eran]

Belief doesn't always cut it, e.g. someone can be shot, and they are not going to get better by 'wishing them better' or 'believing it', they get better through the efforts of the surgeons, doctors, nurses, etc, not through 'visualizing white light', etc.

There was also a time when every government and king was thought of as religious and they were thought of as divine or links to a god or gods, but would you consider Bush to be divine?.

You missed the point. The question here isn't "Which sort of medical approaches are most effective?" The question is "How is medicine viewed?" And that question came about as a result of asking whether Magic in general (and, in this case, healing Magic in particular) was historically embedded in a religious context.

It's important to keep the topic in mind. The answer to the question that was being ask is, Yes, medicine was, historically, seen as an aspect of Magic, and was part of the general world-view which held such things to be religious.

And this question, in turn, was asked as part of exploring the nature of the New Forest Coven, which was one remnant of the ancient Shamanic-stype religious paths that have survived in Europe since very ancient times.

Yes, that coven existed, and yes it was religious.

Please, let's not let an argument over the effectiveness of modern medical techniques sidetrack us away from an investigation into the history of religious thought.

[Elderbush]

You believe that coven existed. Other people disagree.

You believe that it was religious. Others disagree.

You believe it was a remant, others disagree.

Historically, in many past cultures, magic and medicinal treatments were in the same bucket, there is documentation for that. I still don't see what that have to do with whether a New Forrest group existed or not. Could you please restate how that is relevant?

[Eran]

You believe that coven existed. Other people disagree.

You believe that it was religious. Others disagree.

You believe it was a remant, others disagree.
Yes, that's the nature of historical discussion. Someone who doesn't agree can simply maintain disagreement, despite whatever arguments and evidence are presented. The undisputed facts which can be uncovered may present a convincing case to one person, which may or may not be convincing to another.

It's not a question of "belief", however - at least, not for me. I don't "believe" anything in particular here. It's a question of whether the existing collection of undisputed fact provides compelling argument for the exitence of the New Forest Coven, and its nature, and its history and predecessors. Having looked deeply into the logic and the evidence (ancient, Medieval, and modern), I find it all very compelling. Belief doesn't enter into it.

Historically, in many past cultures, magic and medicinal treatments were in the same bucket, there is documentation for that. I still don't see what that have to do with whether a New Forrest group existed or not. Could you please restate how that is relevant?
Sure.

Evidence was offered for the existence of the New Forest Coven. There were questions then raised about the nature of that Coven. An argument was made that since they (and its precursors, the Medieval and ancient traditions from which it is descended) used Magic, perhaps this Magic-use was simply a sort of "secular", non-religious thing. That would mean the New Forest "Coven" was perhaps simply a collection of magical dabblers rather than an actual Pagan religious remnant.

This led to a discussion of the historical nature of Magic, and the documented fact that, until very recently, Magic was always used in a religious context. So the Medieval precursors to the New Forest Coven - whether there was an actual literal tie to them, or whether the New Forest Coven was a re-creation rather than a descendant - in any case, that Medieval magic use was, indisputably, religious.

Ben then asked : But since medicine was once viewed as magical, does that mean we should see medicine as religious? - part of the implication being, a group which does medicinal magic might not necessarily be a religious group.

To some extent, the introduction of a discussion of medicine was topic drift (and, therefore, perhaps an attempt to distract from the very solid and convincing evidence which has indeed been presented for the existence of the New Forest Coven). But in another way, it is very relevant, for medicinal magic is one of the things for which Medieval Witches (and their later descendants, such as the New Forest Coven) were known. Recognizing the nature of medicinal magic - that it was, indeed, religious - helps to establish the nature of this ancient and ongoing Tradition - it was also religious, not simply a collection of magico-technological secular techniques.

Does that help?

[Elderbush]

Of course, compelling proof may be uncovered in the future that will end speculation about the existence of the New Forrest Coven but I don't believe that it has been provided yet. Thank you explaining why the topic of magic and medicine came up. I agree that it is not very relevant.

[Carla O'Harris]

I guess that depends on how one defines "compelling" and "proof". It seems some won't be satisfied unless the members are resurrected, called into court, sworn in, made to produce identification papers, made to show written documents proving their lineage, etc.

Another way to look at it is like this : a claim was made. At first, there was nothing to prove it, but nothing to disprove it. There is still nothing to disprove it. Obviously, lack of a negative is not a positive, but it does allow for the positive. But now the claim has been investigated (by Heselton), and several confirmations have been made, far more than anyone expected. That means that there is no negative evidence against the claim and some positive evidence. That means, in balance, the claims have been verified, which is fairly impressive given that the group in question was extremely private and thus resistant to ordinary historical methods of investigation. Since the claims have been verified, there is no reason to believe scoffers unless they can now provide overwhelming evidence that there was nota New Forest Coven.

[David19]

I guess that depends on how one defines "compelling" and "proof". It seems some won't be satisfied unless the members are resurrected, called into court, sworn in, made to produce identification papers, made to show written documents proving their lineage, etc.

Another way to look at it is like this : a claim was made. At first, there was nothing to prove it, but nothing to disprove it. There is still nothing to disprove it. Obviously, lack of a negative is not a positive, but it does allow for the positive. But now the claim has been investigated (by Heselton), and several confirmations have been made, far more than anyone expected. That means that there is no negative evidence against the claim and some positive evidence. That means, in balance, the claims have been verified, which is fairly impressive given that the group in question was extremely private and thus resistant to ordinary historical methods of investigation. Since the claims have been verified, there is no reason to believe scoffers unless they can now provide overwhelming evidence that there was nota New Forest Coven.

And there are also those scholars who say there wasn't a New Forest coven (Lamond, Hutton, etc), so it's still an open question, IMO, because absolute proof hasn't been given (and i still think, if there is enough proof, then why isn't out there more, why not let Hutton, Lamond, etc look at them, why don't other witchcraft historians such as Jeffery Russell say there was a New Forest coven, etc).

It seems to me, that some Wiccans will see 'pagan' survivals, and evidence for a New Forest coven, the same way as some Christians will read Revelations and say the apocalypse is happening now, etc.

IMO, the 'evidence' can be read either way, and if you're looking for a coven, then you'll see evidence for a coven, just as conspiracy theorists will see 'evidence' for the New World Order and the Illumanati everywhere.

[Protagonist]

In fact, where is the historical evidence that any governmental organization has ever completely invented a group and then used that fiction to prosecute real individuals?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Nuff said.

[David19]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Nuff said.

That i think is the best proof you will find that governments use compleltly fake things to persecute people (and unless you're an anti-Semite, no one will say 'but there's grains of truth in it').

Also the Weapons of Mass Destruction myth could be used too.

[Carla O'Harris]

And there are also those scholars who say there wasn't a New Forest coven (Lamond, Hutton, etc), so it's still an open question, IMO, because absolute proof hasn't been given (and i still think, if there is enough proof, then why isn't out there more, why not let Hutton, Lamond, etc look at them, why don't other witchcraft historians such as Jeffery Russell say there was a New Forest coven, etc).

Because they are committed to their position!! That is why I keep saying that they have an "agenda". They are not "neutral scholars" disinterestedly pursuing "the truth". If you don't understand that, you are going to be vastly misled by them. They have an agenda and a methodology with an agenda that commits them to particular positions that do not allow them to step outside of their paradigm. The issue of pagan survivals, and specifically of pagan-religious witchcraft is not fundamentally an issue of evidence, for which there is plenty ; it is rather a paradigmatic clash, bringing the debate into the realm of the sociology of knowledge.

Secondly, you cannot demand "absolute proof" in this case, because that is an unreasonable demand given the nature of the case. It is an unreasonable demand in most historical questions which do not deal with "absolute proof" but rather with "competitive plausibility", as historians say.

But if you do demand "absolute proof", you are not demonstrating that there was no New Forest Coven nor pagan survivals, but rather, that you are committed to the philosophical school of extreme skepticism, and that you will only accept positivist-styles of evidence as confirmation of any knowledge-claim. It is perfectly acceptable for you to commit yourself to any philosophical school, no matter how extreme, and you may certainly, as a claimant of said sect, make appeals to the "reasonableness" of your position, no matter how extreme, but you will then be speaking from a positioned place with an agenda, and by that very definition have taken yourself outside of any supposed "neutral pursuit of the truth". The fact of the matter is that a reasonable person expects a reasonable level of skepticism relative to the nature of the case at hand, because a reasonable person is not accustomed to just accepting things on hearsay or at face value, but that is a different thing altogether than demanding levels of proof impossible by the nature of the case. Such a demand covers a desire to deny. It is, in truth, a suppressive ideology, because it actually seeks to suppress, and keep from coming-into-the-light anything which does not meet the near-anal demands and criteria. Beyond this, it is not just suppressive, but actually annihilating and erasive as it attempts to transform that which has not met standards of proof into that which "doesn't exist" simply for not meeting said proof!! A reasonable person should be able to hold a construct that does not have absolute proof but does have enough evidence to establish a case of competitive plausibility, and not feel that they have to conform to those with more rigid standards of proof in order for a knowledge-claim to be considered real.

Especially in a spiritual and pagan forum!!!


It seems to me, that some Wiccans will see 'pagan' survivals, and evidence for a New Forest coven, the same way as some Christians will read Revelations and say the apocalypse is happening now, etc.

I'm sorry, but what a bogus comparison!! There is a difference of order between the comparisons. The statements about the New Forest coven are statements about this world. They aren't eschatological, prophetic, or otherworldly. They are statements about this world. A claim has been made, and evidence has been offered. The skeptics simply don't have all the evidence that they want, and they attempt to turn a scarcity of evidence into an argument for evidence-against, which is illogical and fallacious. It may be duly charged that their call for further evidence is unreasonable given the nature of the case, which is dealing with a private group with the intention to keep private, and therefore not producing those kinds of evidence which historians use to verify things. By their nature and intention they are "outside the radar". When something is outside the radar, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist ; it means it is difficult to track. How thinking individuals can miss this point is absolutely baffling. When something is difficult to track and outside the radar, one doesn't give up the search ; one looks for indirect indices which help one to triangulate. Hutton and those of his ilk aren't even trying to do this. The facts of the case are that, given the nature of the case, evidence supportive of the claim has been recorded, while no evidence other than speculation has been recorded against the claim. In a court of law, this will tend to support the claim.


IMO, the 'evidence' can be read either way, and if you're looking for a coven, then you'll see evidence for a coven, just as conspiracy theorists will see 'evidence' for the New World Order and the Illumanati everywhere.

Another straw man. You're comparing people who conclude that there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the claim that there was a New Forest Coven, and nothing but speculation against that claim, with conspiracy theorists. That is really insulting.

Evidence can be read any way. Any evidence can be read any way anyone damn well pleases!! That's because each person has a free choice on how they interpret data, but that does not mean that every free choice is a reasonable choice. People who set unreasonable standards of proof will be satisfied by very little, and their world will be correspondingly small. It is illegitimate to compare those who have reasonable standards of proof with those who have no standards of proof whatsoever! (Or whose standards are very, very low.)

[Carla O'Harris]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Nuff said.

Ok, but the Protocols purported to be about the Jews, right? Supposedly an actually existing group of people? And it tried to connect them to the Freemasons, another actually existing group, right? And tried to connect all this with bankers, another actual existing group, right?

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/protocol.html:


The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hoax document fabricated by the Czarist secret police in the early 1900s to divert grievances caused by an oppressive monarchy toward the scapegoat of Jews.

The Jews are an actual, existing group, who this document was trying to scapegoat with all of the world's ills. We therefore do not buy that Jews are actually as they are portrayed in this document, because they are being stereotyped and scapegoated ; we don't buy that Jews don't exist.

The invocation of this document is actually perfect, because the parallel situation was a conspiracy theory that witches were trying to take over the world and ruin it, so the Protocols are actually generally in line with earlier witch-hunt propaganda. The Protocols targeted and smeared an actual group of people and attributed to them erroneous, sinister plans.

So Protocols is actually not an example of the invention of a group ; it is rather, the smearing of an actual group. The alternative is to apply the logic usually applied to the witch-cult to the Jews in this case. Then we would conclude that since there are no conspiratorial Jews, there are no Jews whatsoever.

The conspiracy theorist/philosopher David Icke has proposed that behind all of the human conspiracies he explores is a race of reptilian aliens who shapeshift and control human politicians and bankers. In my opinion, this is an example of creating a fictional group (or it is simply a brilliant metaphor that has become literalized!) to explain world politics, although I suppose that those who believe in said conspiratorial reptiles would disagree with me. In any case, however, no government has attempted to use this to prosecute individuals or groups.

And even if we were to find examples (say in Africa), we would find such examples not being used to simply round up dissidence, but more importantly to target particular groups, and through the mechanism of mapping the fictional, invented, sinister group onto the actual, existing group, through a twisting of stereotypes, and a bad-faith portrayal of legitimate and truthful themes of the group in question. (Such things are never created whole-cloth but involve twistings of truthful realities.)

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

And let's not forget that Red Scare and Joe McCarthy, either! Gosh, and they even used the phrase 'witch bunt' and everything. My word.

[Carla O'Harris]

Ok, but again, those examples tend to confirm the perspective I'm putting forth. There really were Communists in the United States, and many of those Communists were actually striving to overcome the existing social order. That was a reality, and they were an actual group of people. Yes, in the process, many were made guilty by association, and even liberals could be thrown into the process, and indeed, anyone who was a dissenter. "Witch-hunting" a targeted group is a fantastic way to consolidate power against dissent in general but that does not mean that there was never a targeted group!

[Ben Gruagach]

If we're going to play this game then we have to also be honest and admit that there were historical witches who were evil: who cast spells, brewed potions, etc. in order to try and cause clear harm to others.

It's the same as saying that McCarthy's red scare and other historical "witch hunts" had a grain of truth in them.

[Carla O'Harris]

If we're going to play this game then we have to also be honest and admit that there were historical witches who were evil: who cast spells, brewed potions, etc. in order to try and cause clear harm to others.

It's the same as saying that McCarthy's red scare and other historical "witch hunts" had a grain of truth in them.


I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed here, Ben.

The Communists were opposed to the social order of the ruling class of America, but they were not the villains the Red Scare portrayed them as. (I'm not going to get into a debate about the virtues of Communism here. I'm only pointing out that they indeed differed from the stereotypes, and indeed were real.)

The witches may very well have been opposed to the religion and even the social order of the ruling priesthoods, but that does not mean they were the villains the Inquisition portrayed them as.

Were there some Communists who were more sinister? Sure, just as there are Democrats and Republicans who commit crimes. So there would have been both religious witches who messed up as well as occult practitioners engaged in some rather dubious ethics, but that doesn't touch the issue at hand.

[David19]

Ok, but the Protocols purported to be about the Jews, right? Supposedly an actually existing group of people? And it tried to connect them to the Freemasons, another actually existing group, right? And tried to connect all this with bankers, another actual existing group, right?

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/protocol.html:

The Jews are an actual, existing group, who this document was trying to scapegoat with all of the world's ills. We therefore do not buy that Jews are actually as they are portrayed in this document, because they are being stereotyped and scapegoated ; we don't buy that Jews don't exist.

The invocation of this document is actually perfect, because the parallel situation was a conspiracy theory that witches were trying to take over the world and ruin it, so the Protocols are actually generally in line with earlier witch-hunt propaganda. The Protocols targeted and smeared an actual group of people and attributed to them erroneous, sinister plans.

But the protocols of Zion were made up, they may have included an actual existing group (the Jews), but everything in it was made up (e.g. that there's a conspiriacy of Jews who are going to control the world, make Israel the central power, etc).

The same way the witch trials were made up, yes there were existing people, but they were called 'witches', said they were evil, killers, etc.

But, there's no question that Jews do exist, even if Hitler had wiped out every last Jew (and i guess i wouldn't be here typing this ;)), there would still be references throughout history, from 'pagan' times to Christian times to modern times, and also the Jews had their own alphebet (Hebrew) and the Tankah(sp?) and other holy items, there isn't that much evidence to suggest a witchcraft tradition (witches don't have their own alphebet, etc).

There may be evidence to suggest that there were some witches, and maybe some of them may have indeed worshipped 'pagan' gods (e.g. maybe in during the Romantic period when people looked back at 'pagan' and Classical times, some people began to worship Diana or whoever in secret or something, etc).

But, i just don't see the evidence for a large scale witchcraft tradition, there's evidence for the Jews (obvously, me being 1/2 Jewish is evidence for that!), but i don't see it for witches.

[David19]

The witches may very well have been opposed to the religion and even the social order of the ruling priesthoods, but that does not mean they were the villains the Inquisition portrayed them as.

Were there some Communists who were more sinister? Sure, just as there are Democrats and Republicans who commit crimes. So there would have been both religious witches who messed up as well as occult practitioners engaged in some rather dubious ethics, but that doesn't touch the issue at hand.

But, if there were real witches in the 'burning times', then some of them seem to have basically been psychotic, for example, i've heard about a witch named Isobel Goldie, who, from what i've heard, was a witch (if she was one at all) who, didn't confess under torture, and willingly confessed to being a witch, to sleeping with the devil, to casting spells on people and basically just causing havoc.

If witches did exist then, then it seems to me that there were some witches who did fit the typical image of the 'witch' and i've even heard of some witches using something called elf-shot on humans and other things like that, that, i think, could suck the life force from humans, i don't really think there's anything 'good' in that.

[Carla O'Harris]

But the protocols of Zion were made up, they may have included an actual existing group (the Jews), but everything in it was made up (e.g. that there's a conspiriacy of Jews who are going to control the world, make Israel the central power, etc).

The same way the witch trials were made up, yes there were existing people, but they were called 'witches', said they were evil, killers, etc.

But, there's no question that Jews do exist, even if Hitler had wiped out every last Jew (and i guess i wouldn't be here typing this ;)), there would still be references throughout history, from 'pagan' times to Christian times to modern times, and also the Jews had their own alphebet (Hebrew) and the Tankah(sp?) and other holy items, there isn't that much evidence to suggest a witchcraft tradition (witches don't have their own alphebet, etc).

There may be evidence to suggest that there were some witches, and maybe some of them may have indeed worshipped 'pagan' gods (e.g. maybe in during the Romantic period when people looked back at 'pagan' and Classical times, some people began to worship Diana or whoever in secret or something, etc).

But, i just don't see the evidence for a large scale witchcraft tradition, there's evidence for the Jews (obvously, me being 1/2 Jewish is evidence for that!), but i don't see it for witches.

Key words : you "don't see it". Look more carefully.

[Carla O'Harris]

But, if there were real witches in the 'burning times', then some of them seem to have basically been psychotic, for example, i've heard about a witch named Isobel Goldie, who, from what i've heard, was a witch (if she was one at all) who, didn't confess under torture, and willingly confessed to being a witch, to sleeping with the devil, to casting spells on people and basically just causing havoc.

If witches did exist then, then it seems to me that there were some witches who did fit the typical image of the 'witch' and i've even heard of some witches using something called elf-shot on humans and other things like that, that, i think, could suck the life force from humans, i don't really think there's anything 'good' in that.

I already admitted that just as there are criminals amongst Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Communists, and Jews, one can find criminals amongst Witches as well. But that's a side issue.

[David19]

I already admitted that just as there are criminals amongst Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Communists, and Jews, one can find criminals amongst Witches as well. But that's a side issue.

Although i do think it's interesting, especially if there were real witches during the 'burning times', then maybe the accusations thrown at some or most of them weren't far off the mark (for example, you may know as i think you're a Heathen, but i've read that some witches were said to be allied with trolls or something and could suck the life force out of people, kind of like all the tales of witches draining the life of kids).

But, like i said, i don't know too much about that or how trolls, in Heathenism or whatever were perceived, so you probably would know more about that (like exactly what trolls are, etc).

[Eran]

There may be evidence to suggest that there were some witches, and maybe some of them may have indeed worshipped 'pagan' gods (e.g. maybe in during the Romantic period when people looked back at 'pagan' and Classical times, some people began to worship Diana or whoever in secret or something, etc).
Yes, that's precisely the point. There were some Witches (that is, remnants of a specific European shamanic-type Pagan priesthood dedicate to particular Pagan gods).

Thank you for agreeing with us!

But, i just don't see the evidence for a large scale witchcraft tradition, there's evidence for the Jews (obvously, me being 1/2 Jewish is evidence for that!), but i don't see it for witches.
Please define "large-scale", and please indicate where I have used that phrase to refer to the historical religion of Witchcraft.

[Eran]

Although i do think it's interesting, especially if there were real witches during the 'burning times', then maybe the accusations thrown at some or most of them weren't far off the mark
If you are saying, "Perhaps sometimes, a Pagan broke a law, particularly in response to active persecution and attempts at genocide," then I suspect you may be right. What's you point?

Let's expand this to another religious group... after all, every religion includes some people who are psychotic or who engage in criminal activity. Christians sometimes break laws, and so do Jews, for example. So, to quote you:

"especially if there were real jews during the 'nazi times', then maybe the accusations thrown at some or most of them weren't far off the mark"

Does this prove there were no real Jews? I don't think so.

Does it prove most Jews are Satanic? Probably not.

Do the questions above sound anti-Semitic? I hope not, since they are precisely the questions you have been asking about Pagans.

And what has this got to do with the subject of this thread?

[Eran]

But, there's no question that Jews do exist, even if Hitler had wiped out every last Jew (and i guess i wouldn't be here typing this ;)), there would still be references throughout history, from 'pagan' times to Christian times to modern times, and also the Jews had their own alphebet (Hebrew) and the Tankah(sp?) and other holy items, there isn't that much evidence to suggest a witchcraft tradition (witches don't have their own alphebet, etc).
Actually, 'jews' do not have their own language or alphabet. The Hebrew langauge and alphabet are merely variants on general Semitic language and alphabet, and the reason they are used only by 'jews' today is that the other people who used them (or closely related dialects) have beem mostly killed off (and the language and alphabet have developed and evolved further into various Arab Semitic versions - Arabic, Farsi, etc.). The Hebrew version was originally used by a host of related peoples; modern 'jews' merely continue to use an archaic form, and other Semitic peoples use later forms.

The 'christians' never had their own language or alphabet, so by your logic, they don't exist at all and and never did.

There is no Buddhist alphabet. There is no Hindu language. There is no Voudoun alphabet. Native Americans never had an alphabet. Neither did most native inhabitants of Africa or Australia.

There are, of course, references throughout European history to continuing Pagan Gods, cultures, priesthoods, etc. (see my website for a tiny sampling), so even if the medieval 'christian' authorities had wiped out every last Pagan (in which case, I wouldn't be here!) there would still be plenty of historical proof.

[David19]

Actually, 'jews' do not have their own language or alphabet. The Hebrew langauge and alphabet are merely variants on general Semitic language and alphabet, and the reason they are used only by 'jews' today is that the other people who used them (or closely related dialects) have beem mostly killed off (and the language and alphabet have developed and evolved further into various Arab Semitic versions - Arabic, Farsi, etc.). The Hebrew version was originally used by a host of related peoples; modern 'jews' merely continue to use an archaic form, and other Semitic peoples use later forms.

Considering that the Jews have used Hebrew since Roman times, that it's spoke in Israel, recognized as a Jewish alphebet and has mystical significance in Jewish mysicism (like the Runes are both an alphebet for the Norse and also have mystical uses too), i think it's safe to say that Hebrew may have been influenced by other cultures and languages, it is a Jewish language (just like Latin influenced English, doesn't mean it's not an English language, it doesn't belong to the Romans, does it?).


There is no Buddhist alphabet. There is no Hindu language. There is no Voudoun alphabet. Native Americans never had an alphabet. Neither did most native inhabitants of Africa or Australia.

No, but the Native Americans had their own language, same for Africans, maybe i should have said language then, witches would have spoken different languages (e.g. Italian witches would have spoken Italian, Greek witches would have spoken Greek, British witches would have spoken English, etc, and considering, the age in which they lived (Middle ages), it's doubtful they knew other languages (it's doubtful they were smart back then either considering most couldn't read or write).

Aboriginal's speak Aboriginal (is that the name for their language?), and most Indian Hindu's speak Indian.


There are, of course, references throughout European history to continuing Pagan Gods, cultures, priesthoods, etc. (see my website for a tiny sampling), so even if the medieval 'christian' authorities had wiped out every last Pagan (in which case, I wouldn't be here!) there would still be plenty of historical proof.

But, if Christians wiped out every single 'pagan', in the Middle Ages, you'd still be here (unless you're going to say you're family have a Pagan family going back generations).

Bush could start a genocide against Neo-pagans today (but he won't 'cause he only wants to kill Arab Muslims), but that wouldn't mean 30 years from now, for example, some person could come along and reconstruct a specific 'pagan' religion 'cause Pagans aren't an ethnic group like Jews are (but that's getting away from the point and i'm tired right now, i've just been swimming).

[Carla O'Harris]

Jews are not a specific ethnic group. Judaism is a religion that comprises many ethnic groups.

And if you understand what Eran is saying, the point is that if they were all wiped out, there would be no New Forest Coven to have passed on these traditions. (Likewise for those who follow an Aradian tradition.)

[David19]

Yes, that's precisely the point. There were some Witches (that is, remnants of a specific European shamanic-type Pagan priesthood dedicate to particular Pagan gods).

Thank you for agreeing with us!

But some people say it was a survival right from 'pagan' times, when if anything it would most likely have been when people began looking back at Classical times and maybe felt drawn to 'pagan' gods (in secret), i just don't think that it could have survived, directly, from 'pagan' times.

BTW, when you say a Pagan priesthood to particular gods, would this priesthood be different to the main religions of the area (e.g. would the witches deities be different to the Norse, Greek, Celtic, etc), as i've thought it would mainly be a British one, would they be native British deities?. (if it survived it Britain).


Please define "large-scale", and please indicate where I have used that phrase to refer to the historical religion of Witchcraft.

Like when people say, there were many, many witches from Greece, to Italy, to Germany, to Ireland, etc, who were all part of the same religion and all held the same beliefs (which wouldn't be true, e.g. a Greek witch would most likely, worship Hecate, etc).

I haven't seen you, i don't think, make that claim but some do, maybe in an specific area or country (e.g. England, maybe?).

[Ben Gruagach]

Jews are not a specific ethnic group. Judaism is a religion that comprises many ethnic groups.

And if you understand what Eran is saying, the point is that if they were all wiped out, there would be no New Forest Coven to have passed on these traditions. (Likewise for those who follow an Aradian tradition.)

Sorry, but there are more than just two options.

A number of scholars have suggested that if the pre-Gardnerian New Forest coven existed, then it could just as likely have been self-created rather than an intact continuation of a surviving Pagan religion.

I believe Gardner himself suggested this in one of his books -- that if it wasn't an intact survival, it could have been created by Crowley or one of his pupils, or someone from the Golden Dawn or one of its offshoots, or some other literary figure such as Rudyard Kipling. I'll have to see if I can track the reference for that one down though.

[Carla O'Harris]

Sorry, but there are more than just two options.

A number of scholars have suggested that if the pre-Gardnerian New Forest coven existed, then it could just as likely have been self-created rather than an intact continuation of a surviving Pagan religion.

I believe Gardner himself suggested this in one of his books -- that if it wasn't an intact survival, it could have been created by Crowley or one of his pupils, or someone from the Golden Dawn or one of its offshoots, or some other literary figure such as Rudyard Kipling. I'll have to see if I can track the reference for that one down though.



If the entire fairy-faith had been wiped out, I doubt there'd be much to build on.

If it was constructed, it would have been constructed on that model anyway, with perhaps a few imports.

It is true that Gardner spoke of both Crowley and Kipling as possible authors of the rites (meaning the liturgy) in Witchcraft Today. That is a different thing altogether than suggesting that the group did not pre-exist. In fact, it was oral tradition within the group that it had existed not only since the Napoleonic Age, but since Elizabethan times.

[Carla O'Harris]

But some people say it was a survival right from 'pagan' times, when if anything it would most likely have been when people began looking back at Classical times and maybe felt drawn to 'pagan' gods (in secret), i just don't think that it could have survived, directly, from 'pagan' times.

Why? Large pockets of Europe were only nominally Christian! Large numbers of people almost never attended Church! Some areas didn't even have regular priests! Why wouldn't the preChristian beliefs and customs continue to have effect under such circumstances? It's really counterintuitive to think otherwise, and places the burden of proof on those who would suggest so.

That doesn't mean that the beliefs were identical to those of preChristian times, because religions evolve, but even the adaptation to Christianity was in many cases minimal.

So this had nothing to do with a Classical revival. Priests were not teaching their rural parishioners to call on the name of Wodan in the fields, nor were they teaching them to carry on the folklore and customs of Holda and Perchta.

That those who were familiar with classical lore would have seen reflections of the customs and beliefs of their countrymen is beyond question, but that doesn't alter the legitimacy of the popular beliefs and customs.




BTW, when you say a Pagan priesthood to particular gods, would this priesthood be different to the main religions of the area (e.g. would the witches deities be different to the Norse, Greek, Celtic, etc), as i've thought it would mainly be a British one, would they be native British deities?. (if it survived it Britain).

Since you directed this question at Eran, I will let him answer in the main. But from my perspective, to confine things to nationalist borders is a little narrow, for a couple reasons. First of all, Britain had influxes from Celtic, Germanic, Roman, and Scandinavian sources. Secondly, people have been trading for at least ten thousand years, and ideas, songs, and even customs always accompany material trade. Such trade routes existed even in Europe. Many heresies spread through such trajectories. And those who saw significant similarities between worship figures and practices would recognize a commonality.




Like when people say, there were many, many witches from Greece, to Italy, to Germany, to Ireland, etc, who were all part of the same religion and all held the same beliefs (which wouldn't be true, e.g. a Greek witch would most likely, worship Hecate, etc).

Well, I suppose it hinges on what you mean by the word "same". If you mean substantially similar in the important skeletal points, with each local variation fleshing out differences, then there could be an argument for the "same". If you mean the precise liturgy and names called upon, there's a large argument against the "same".

[Eran]

On language: if we are agreed that a religion must have its own language, then of course 'christianity' does not exist and never did. There is no 'christian' language, and never was.

On borders and religion: if a religon and its gods cannot cross national boundaries, then the only 'jews' there are exist in Israel. According to this viewpoint, the 'jewish' people in other lands must have worshipped the same gods as the people in those other lands.

Both of these are silly arguments.

On Gardner and Crowley: As Carla pointed out, Gardner did speculate on whether Crowley or Kipling (or others) could have contributed to the modern Witches' religious rites. But he also pretty much rejected that idea, so Ben's implication that he might have "suggested" this himself is a little misleading. But Gardner never suggested that Crowley or Kipling could have created (or even re-created) the religion itself. That is entirely off the mark.

Since Aidan Kelly's work, there has been a rather absurd notion that a religion is the same as the rites of the religion. If this is true, then the 'catholic church' is no older than about the early 1960's when the rituals as re-written by the Second Vatican Council were put into effect. Again, an absurd argument.

(And, as a side note, if Kelly's argument is correct, then obviously the only 'true' Witches are the ones who use Gardner's rites; other so-called "Witches" use other rites and therefore would belong to a different religion. I suspect most Eclectic Witches and Wiccans - even most Traditionalist ones - would dispute this idea.)

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread, though - unless the attempt is to argue that if the religion of Witchcraft didn't exist in Medieval times, then the New Forest Coven didn't exist in modern times. But if these are the sorts of arguments which are used in an effort to prove that the religion of Witchcraft didn't exist, well, they are pretty weak and unconvincing arguments. The arguments in favor of the historical existence of the religion of Witchcraft are far more compelling. (I dare you to read my website and offer comments on it.)

And if a attempt is being made to argue that the supposed non-existence of a Medieval Witch religion implies the non-existence of a modern New Forest Coven, then that is an implict acknowledgement that the existence of a New Forest Coven implies the existence of a Medieval Witch religion. And even Aidan Kelly now acknowledges that there was, in fact, a pre-Gardner New Forest Coven (though he coyly calls it a "New Forest group").

[David19]

Jews are not a specific ethnic group. Judaism is a religion that comprises many ethnic groups.

Actually, that's not true, in many countries, including the UK, Jews are considered an ethnic group, although you're right that anyone who wants to (and is deeply dedicated to Judaism) can be Jewish, but, IMO, there are some Jews who are ethnically Jewish, i could be considered Jewish (non-religious, though) 'cause my grandma is Jewish, who had my mum (again, non-religious) who, obvously, had me.

Then there's also a belief that the Jewish group is more mystical, e.g. it's beyond blood and genetics, and Jews are those with a Jewish soul, e.g. Sammy Davies Jr. would have a Jewish soul, etc.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Aboriginal's speak Aboriginal (is that the name for their language?), and most Indian Hindu's speak Indian.Wait a minute here... The only Indian language specifically associated with Hinduism is Sanskrit, which is a classic language (like Greek or Latin). The Vedas (and other religious texts) are in Sanskrit. But India has 22 officially recognized languages. Sanskrit only being one. And Hindu texts and prayers are translated into every single one of those different languages. Brahmans use the Sanskrit, as I understand it, but commonly, people will worship in their own vernacular. This (http://www.nriol.com/indian-languages.asp) lists the most common Indian languages. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India) also discusses Indian languages.

Indians take a LOT of pride in their different languages. It is actually sort of offensive to lump them all together into "Indian". Just for your future reference. ^_^

[Carla O'Harris]

Actually, that's not true, in many countries, including the UK, Jews are considered an ethnic group, although you're right that anyone who wants to (and is deeply dedicated to Judaism) can be Jewish, but, IMO, there are some Jews who are ethnically Jewish, i could be considered Jewish (non-religious, though) 'cause my grandma is Jewish, who had my mum (again, non-religious) who, obvously, had me.

Then there's also a belief that the Jewish group is more mystical, e.g. it's beyond blood and genetics, and Jews are those with a Jewish soul, e.g. Sammy Davies Jr. would have a Jewish soul, etc.


While this might prove fascinating in an in-depth discussion of Judaism, for the sake of the points we're making relative to Wicca, Judaism is not an "ethnicity", but comprises many ethnicities, Sephardic and Ashkenaz being only two of many.

This is an important point to make, because it demonstrates that one cannot overidentify a religion with an ethnicity, because it can spill over boundaries. Therefore a strict ethnic separation of faiths is inappropriate. That doesn't mean we can't note particularist differentiations, but it is a sectarian philosophical choice, rather than a logical necessity, to make categorical separations based on those differentiations.

[Elderbush]

While this might prove fascinating in an in-depth discussion of Judaism, for the sake of the points we're making relative to Wicca, Judaism is not an "ethnicity", but comprises many ethnicities, Sephardic and Ashkenaz being only two of many.

This is an important point to make, because it demonstrates that one cannot overidentify a religion with an ethnicity, because it can spill over boundaries. Therefore a strict ethnic separation of faiths is inappropriate. That doesn't mean we can't note particularist differentiations, but it is a sectarian philosophical choice, rather than a logical necessity, to make categorical separations based on those differentiations.

This seems to change when dealing with the Messianics. They claim that they are ethnically Jewish, which is why some think that it is all right to call themselves Messianic Jews.

[Brock]

Why wouldn't the preChristian beliefs and customs continue to have effect under such circumstances? It's really counterintuitive to think otherwise, and places the burden of proof on those who would suggest so.

The burden of proof in any argument of this sort falls on the person making the novel assertion. One cannot settle an argument (in the academic sense) by saying "I know intuitively that I am right: prove me wrong."

If you have unequivocal evidence for the survival of pagan practices as a functional (if covert,) religion, by all means, trot the evidence out and let us see it. I'll point out in advance, though, that the possibility that a given folk custom may have had an origin in a pagan practice would not, in and iof itself, persuade me of the existence of a sub-rosa religion. For that matter, cherry-picking disparate reports of activities similar to a chosen model, (say, the practices of Siberian shamans,) but which occured in locations that are widely separated by geography or time, (or both,) would not, in my view, be very persuasive in arguing for a widespread survival of a coherent religion.

[Eran]

The burden of proof in any argument of this sort falls on the person making the novel assertion. One cannot settle an argument (in the academic sense) by saying "I know intuitively that I am right: prove me wrong."

If you have unequivocal evidence for the survival of pagan practices as a functional (if covert,) religion, by all means, trot the evidence out and let us see it. I'll point out in advance, though, that the possibility that a given folk custom may have had an origin in a pagan practice would not, in and iof itself, persuade me of the existence of a sub-rosa religion. For that matter, cherry-picking disparate reports of activities similar to a chosen model, (say, the practices of Siberian shamans,) but which occured in locations that are widely separated by geography or time, (or both,) would not, in my view, be very persuasive in arguing for a widespread survival of a coherent religion.
And this indeed is a big part of the problem. People who wish to deny the existence of Pagan religious survivals are always engaging in special pleading to explain why they decline to accept this or that bit of evidence. They can also merely endlessly proclaim, "I'm not convinced yet! Prove it some more!"

You've already expressed that you will accept nothing as proof, other than things which cannot be furnished, due to the nature of the historical problem. Therefore, it would be foolish and useless to attempt to prove it to you.

Instead, those of us who are interested the Pagan survivals which do exist will continue to explore them, and will provide the data and information for those who are undecided.

As I've said, you're welcome to peruse the arguments and data on my website. But since you're looking for documentation which does not exist even for African or Native American or northern Asian traditions, there is no real reason to expect to sway your opinons from their current state.

[Brock]

I'm quite prepared to be convinced. But, as I've previously noted, you aren't going to be able to convince me without plausible evidence. Citing four different events that took place over a period of almost two hundred years and over geographic separations of more than a hundred miles (as a poster did on another forum,) is not what I would consider convincing evidence for a widespread witchcraft religion prior to Gardner, especially when less complicated explanations for the events in question were readily available.

I reiterate that religions leave traces in the societies in which they are practiced. The absence of such traces of a native witchcraft religion in British society (which presumably would have had to have survived not only the Christianization of Britain under the Roman Empire but also the re-introduction of paganism to much of England during the Anglo-Saxon period, followed by the eventual reconversion of England to Christianity after the arrival of Augustine in 597 CE,) is not disposative of the issue, but does rather strongly suggest a flaw in the hypothesis.

Edited to add: Unless, of course, you want to postulate, as some people have, that pagan witchcraft was introduced into England from the Continent some time after England had become Christian again. In which case we would be faced with the knotty problems of identifying both a Continental origin for pagan witchcraft and the means whereby the practice might have been transmitted to England.

Please note that by saying all this that I am NOT arguing that witchcraft was never practiced in Britain, nor am I trying to suggest that folk-magic was not practiced. What I am saying is that in the thirty-odd years that I've been looking at this stuff, I 've not seen what I consider to be any reliable evidence for witchcraft practiced as a pagan religion prior to the second quarter of the 20th Century CE.

That having been said, I'm still open to considering new material.

[Silver Crow2]

She writes ecstatically about pagan holidays, she identifies strongly with nature, she talks about fairies, she has a vision of a White goddess, she talks about dancing in the woods, she speaks of religion out in the fields, and makes continual reference to a holy Lady "For Life, I love her, and adore ... She will be my Queen...", and she talks about the moon ...

How much more explicit do you expect someone who is shy about publicizing her religion to be in a public diary??

Good one!

Of course, now someone will say "oh, she was a lesbian, and all of this is allegorical about a love affair ".

I have to say, having read the thread......there are some - sorry I have to say it - silly semantic arguments going on in it.

There is a ton of documented evidence that "witches" who were actually doing things like spell work, trying to manipulate the weather etc, were around in medieval times and well prior to the 1800s......even good old King James encountered a few when some of his opponents tried to hire witches to conjure up a storm to sink a ship he was sailing on :)

There is a ton of documented evidence that people who were NOT witches were persecuted for being different - witchcraft being used as the legal charge. These persecutions occurred primarily in heavily PROTESTANT areas during the 1500s through theearly 1700s, and included the areas now identified as Germany, Austria, the former Czechoslovakia, Hungary, ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, and, of course, "British" America.

To make an argument that "witchcraft wasn't a religion" one must have a very narrow view of what a "religion" is. To say that no traces are left by "witchcraft" on at least the British and "British" American culture is unwarranted.

[Elderbush]

Isolated practices (like trying to raise a storm which I'd try if I saw a fleet about to attack) do not a religion make, and just because some people do certain things (like make a healthy herbal tea to help someone get well and imbue it with prayer) does not make them a witch practicing a Witchcraft religion. IMO. Otherwise my neighbor is definitely a witch although she would really object to the term and she thinks she is staunch Christian being neighborly.

[Ben Gruagach]

To make an argument that "witchcraft wasn't a religion" one must have a very narrow view of what a "religion" is. To say that no traces are left by "witchcraft" on at least the British and "British" American culture is unwarranted.

Conversely, to expand the definition of "religion" to say that practices which are present in any religion are a religion unto themselves produces very difficult problems of its own. For instance, if witchcraft is to be declared a bona fide religion, then we should probably also call meditation a religion, and medicine, and even cooking. They are all practices which are frequently immersed in a religious context throughout the historical record just like witchcraft and the practice of magick.

Carla's reiteration of Philip Heselton's speculations about the children's author Katharine Oldmeadow are certainly intriguing but unfortunately they aren't conclusive that she was a Pagan, a Witch, or involved with the New Forest coven that Gardner met in the 1930s. The evidence provided about her is all circumstantial.

There is a much stronger case to be made for Dion Fortune being a Wiccan Witch, perhaps even connected to the New Forest coven. She was clearly involved in magickal work (she was a member of one of the Golden Dawn descendant groups), her material published under the name Dion Fortune was overtly magickal and spiritual, and her protagonists in at least a couple of her books ("Moon Magic" and "The Sea Priestess") were clearly Witches very in tune with the Wiccan ideal.

However the flaw in this whole speculation is the plain fact that Dion Fortune was aware of Witches and stated that she was not one. And despite the overt Pagan leanings in her work she also was very insistent that she was Christian and not Pagan herself.

Another example of how making assumptions about an author based on things they have published can be completely off base can be found today. In just one example from the USA, author Mel White made a career writing for people such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and Ollie North. The interesting thing about Mel White though is that he is a gay man and he had a crisis of conscience and finally stopped working with the Religious Right; now he works to further equality for the glbt community. In 100 years from now if we had looked back at the majority of his published work, though, we might have concluded he was a strong Religious Right proponent throughout his life. We could have missed the essence of who he was, and missed the work he's done since he decided to be true to himself rather than just go along with how he was raised.

Speculations about the past are helpful because they can lead us to uncover new evidence. We have to be cautious though to not mistake speculation for the actual proof itself.

[Silver Crow2]

Okay Elder, then the argument is really about the definition of a religion.

What implies religious behavior?

It appears to me that a lot of the folks in this thread are arguing that to be a "religion" you had to have left a building used primarily or exclusively for worship services (complete with a bunch of statues in it) somewhere to qualify.

I say that a fairly consistent set of practices (ie, manipulating the behavior of nature/other humans/"spirits" by use of incantations) constitutes religious behavior.

Any practices that seem to imply that dead humans continue to exist in some form or fashion in ways our 5 senses don't necessarily experience constitutes religious behavior.

Contacting the "dead" constitutes religious behavior.

Viewing areas of the planet as being inhabited or somehow heavily influenced by spiritual entities is religious behavior.

Your own example of a neighbor brewing tea could be construed as the remnant of a superstition or an "old wives tale", could it not?

I think it is unreasonable to assume that a religion had have some multi-national organization behind it (like the Catholic church has had since at least the 4th century CE and like the Lutheran Church has had since even prior to Luther's death) to qualify as a religion and to have had the type of impact on society that is required to be viewed as evidence that it actually existed. It seems to me that is the argument that keeps going round and round in this thread.

Paganism (like politics) is primarily local :) (I know, bad joke)




EDIT @BEN good points. Let me think a bit about them.

[Faol-chù]

Okay Elder, then the argument is really about the definition of a religion.

I think that it is telling that many cultures did not consider themselves to have a 'religion' before contact with Christianity (and/or Rome). (This includes the Gaels, as well as Native Americans here.)

Their practices related to 'unseen entities' and reverence to them was just seen as part of everyday life. Separating something out and calling it 'religion' was not something they did, and many had a hard time understanding the 'necessity' of making something 'sacred' (from the Latin, 'to set apart').




I say that a fairly consistent set of practices (ie, manipulating the behavior of nature/other humans/"spirits" by use of incantations) constitutes religious behavior.

Any practices that seem to imply that dead humans continue to exist in some form or fashion in ways our 5 senses don't necessarily experience constitutes religious behavior.

Contacting the "dead" constitutes religious behavior.

I think it is unreasonable to assume that a religion had have some multi-national organization behind it (like the Catholic church has had since at least the 4th century CE and like the Lutheran Church has had since even prior to Luther's death) to qualify as a religion.

All of this would be *your* opinion, as an English-speaking 'pagan' (wiccan?/witch?). That does not mean that other people, in other times, saw it that way...
No amount of you trying to assert your terminology and worldview assumptions upon those people will make it true.

And, just so you know, very often, what you perceive to be 'religion' was political. The very idea of myth, itself, carried connotations that we, as English-speakers perceive to be both religious and political.

[Elderbush]

You are right because it does go around in circles and at times it become ludicrous. I think religion is a certain core set of practices and beliefs. It isn't an isolated act. An act that is shared in many different religions is not proof that they are Witches practicing Witchcraft. A person who believes most sincerely that they are Christian and they incorporate some magical practices into their religion are not practicing a Witchcraft religion. If they believe that they are practicing a Witchcraft religion and they can tell you what makes their religion different from another religion, then that is different.

[Ben Gruagach]

I say that a fairly consistent set of practices (ie, manipulating the behavior of nature/other humans/"spirits" by use of incantations) constitutes religious behavior.

So when I tell my kids they have to do their chores it's a religion? I'm using verbal statements (which could be called requests, demands, or even "incantations") to manipulate the behaviour of other humans.

Does talking to your houseplants count as a religion? It's the use of spoken words (which some might call an "incantation") to try and manipulate nature.


Contacting the "dead" constitutes religious behavior.

What is it then when an atheist goes to a wake, a funeral, or when they visit the cemetary plot of a departed loved one? What if they say something to the dead person?


I think it is unreasonable to assume that a religion had have some multi-national organization behind it (like the Catholic church has had since at least the 4th century CE and like the Lutheran Church has had since even prior to Luther's death) to qualify as a religion and to have had the type of impact on society that is required to be viewed as evidence that it actually existed. It seems to me that is the argument that keeps going round and round in this thread.

Paganism (like politics) is primarily local :) (I know, bad joke)

It hasn't been explained yet why specific practices like casting spells, performing divination, or healing should be considered part of a specific religion when we know those things all exist in the context of pretty much all religions throughout all history. And as Faol-chù and Brock and others have pointed out, seeing common practices at different points in history in different cultural contexts does not necessarily constitute proof for the existence of a Witchcraft Religion.

(There is no doubt that there are Witchcraft Religions today -- the question is whether any pre-1940s instances of witchcraft were also Witchcraft Religions rather than magickal practices or even witchcraft practices which were really a craft and not a religion.)

[Silver Crow2]

Their practices related to 'unseen entities' and reverence to them was just seen as part of everyday life. Separating something out and calling it 'religion' was not something they did, and many had a hard time understanding the 'necessity' of making something 'sacred' (from the Latin, 'to set apart').

I personally don't believe in the supernatural - I don't see any requirement for or evidence that anything or anybody outside of the natural universe exists.

That doesn't mean that I can't explain my beliefs in terms of what someone else would describe as "supernatural".


No amount of you trying to assert your terminology and worldview assumptions upon those people will make it true.


I can only interpret this statement in one of two ways (1) either a personal attack against me OR
(2) you are saying that if some ancient practioner didn't consider what they did a religion, we can't describe their behavior in religious terms, and therefore NO PRECHRISTIAN RELIGIONS existed.

Which is it?




And, just so you know, very often, what you perceive to be 'religion' was political. The very idea of myth, itself, carried connotations that we, as English-speakers perceive to be both religious and political.

How is that germane to the discussion of this thread?

[Faol-chù]

I personally don't believe in the supernatural - I don't see any requirement for or evidence that anything or anybody outside of the natural universe exists.

That doesn't mean that I can't explain my beliefs in terms of what someone else would describe as "supernatural".

For the record, I never used the term 'supernatural', as I do not personally see these 'unseen entities' (and yes, I do believe in them) as anything other than 'natural'.

I said:


No amount of you trying to assert your terminology and worldview assumptions upon those people will make it true.




I can only interpret this statement in one of two ways (1) either a personal attack against me OR
(2) you are saying that if some ancient practioner didn't consider what they did a religion, we can't describe their behavior in religious terms, and therefore NO PRECHRISTIAN RELIGIONS existed.

Which is it?

It is most definitely not a personal attack against you. As a matter of fact, I meant that statement to apply to anyone, in general.

The statement (combined with the explanation that preceded it) was, in particular, meant, to demonstrate the care which we must use in describing such things as being 'religious', to begin with, and acknowledge that our view is not necessarily 'the final word'. And most certainly, we must take care in characterizing things as being related to a particular religion. (In this particular case, Witchcraft, and/or Wicca.)

I said:


And, just so you know, very often, what you perceive to be 'religion' was political. The very idea of myth, itself, carried connotations that we, as English-speakers perceive to be both religious and political.


You replied:

How is that germane to the discussion of this thread?


I was trying to demonstrate ONE of the difficulties in trying to separate 'religious' from other facets of life.
Most modern people assume that religious is and always has been clearly separate from other areas of life, and I was trying to demonstrate one example of why that was not necessarily so.

[Silver Crow2]

So when I tell my kids they have to do their chores it's a religion? I'm using verbal statements (which could be called requests, demands, or even "incantations") to manipulate the behaviour of other humans.

Okay Ben, so what is religious behavior? What is a religion, or evidence of one?

I am sorry I didn't make my meaning clear - by incantations I meant spoken words or appeals to some other force than the individual concerned to manipulate them.

You telling your kids what to do isn't religious behavior in my opinion. I apologize if we can't even carry on a discussion because we can't agree on what an incantation or a prayer is.




Does talking to your houseplants count as a religion? It's the use of spoken words (which some might call an "incantation") to try and manipulate nature.


No, it just means that you are my mother ;)



What is it then when an atheist goes to a wake, a funeral, or when they visit the cemetary plot of a departed loved one? What if they say something to the dead person?

Definitely an example of religious behavior in my opinion. Ones stated beliefs don't necessarily match what one really falls back on when something you don't like happens, does it? An atheist can rAtionlize it all he wants about "just going through the 5 steps of the grief process".



It hasn't been explained yet why specific practices like casting spells, performing divination, or healing should be considered part of a specific religion when we know those things all exist in the context of pretty much all religions throughout all history. And as Faol-chù and Brock and others have pointed out, seeing common practices at different points in history in different cultural contexts does not necessarily constitute proof for the existence of a Witchcraft Religion.

Okay, first you denigrate my examples of religious behavior, then you say the same practices "exist in the context of pretty much all religions throughout history".

So...which is it? Are said practices examples of religious behavior, yes or no? Not "examples of a witchcraft religion", but just religious behavior in general?

I think the "proof" of a witchcraft relgion comes from the fact that there were recognized spiritual practices (specific ways of worshipping, "praying", communicating with or about the departed, ways of calling upon certain dieties or not etc.) that were considered taboo and "not right" indicates the existence of religious belief systems that had commonalities and roots in the pre christian local religious beliefs and practices.

I AM not saying that everyone persecuted for witchcraft throughout history was in fact a witch.

I think what Brock and FAO and others are arguing is two things (and I may be wrong) -

Brock et al are arguing that a religion has to have left some institutional cultural impact on a culture or society, and has established in my opinion some unreasonable standards to determine said impact.

FAO is arguing that is the practioners don't believe in the concept of "religion" at all or that they don't recognize the distinction between "spiritual" and "natural" we can't even discuss what they did in those terms.




(There is no doubt that there are Witchcraft Religions today -- the question is whether any pre-1940s instances of witchcraft were also Witchcraft Religions rather than magickal practices or even witchcraft practices which were really a craft and not a religion.)

So, Strega(s) invoking Diana - documentation way prior to the 1940s - isn't a witchcraft religion? Are you saying since they called on an ancient Greek/Roman diety, it isn't a witchcraft religion? Carla has sited numerous other examples of textual records (usually left by the opponents of witchcraft, religious or not) citing examples and belief THAT IT EXSITED.

[Silver Crow2]

@FAO

Read it......gotcha.

The modern western world view does tend to draw lines between the natural world and what is "real" in a modern scientific sense, religious belief - whether it is about what is real or what not - and political beliefs.

Most ancients probably didn't make the same distinctions, at least not to the degree we do today.

[Brock]

Okay Ben, so what is religious behavior? What is a religion, or evidence of one?

Religion may be defined as a set of beliefs and practices which address questions that transcend the everyday world. Such questions MIGHT include (but are not limited to,) things like:

How did the world come to be, and we in it?

How shall we live and act in this world?

What happens to us when we leave this world?

Organization and structure are not, in my view, essential to a set of beliefs and practices being religious in nature. By way of example, the native tribes of North America did not have an organized priesthood, but it would be foolish in the extreme to argue that they are or were irreligious.


Okay, first you denigrate my examples of religious behavior, then you say the same practices "exist in the context of pretty much all religions throughout history".

So...which is it? Are said practices examples of religious behavior, yes or no? Not "examples of a witchcraft religion", but just religious behavior in general?

Just because members of a given religious group engange in a particular practice does not automatically mean that that practice is itself religious in nature. A large Christian church not too far from here has a large flagpole from which a HUMONGOUS American flag flies 24 hours a day. Similar flagpoles with similar flags which also fly 24 hours a day are located at a convenience store on a major commercial artery, a pawn shop, and at an automobile dealership. Which of these, if any, is a religious practice?

Purpose and context have a great deal to do with whether a given act is religious in nature, for the same act may be religious in nature in one context and have nothing to do with religion in another. For example, cleaning the kitchen is not something that most people would normally consider a religious act. But to an Orthodox Jew preparing for Passover, the detailed cleaning of the kitchen and everything in it to insure that kashruth is maintained to the highest possible standard during Passover is clearly a religious act, often undertaken in a spirit of joy, anticipation, and celebration.


I think the "proof" of a witchcraft relgion comes from the fact that there were recognized spiritual practices (specific ways of worshipping, "praying", communicating with or about the departed, ways of calling upon certain dieties or not etc.) that were considered taboo and "not right" indicates the existence of religious belief systems that had commonalities and roots in the pre christian local religious beliefs and practices.

By that standard, the members of modern Spiritualist Churches, who regularly hold seances to speak with the dead, are actually practicing pagan witchcraft. I'm certain that they will be glad to know that they've been so woefully misinformed about the true nature of their faith over the past hundred-plus years.


Brock et al are arguing that a religion has to have left some institutional cultural impact on a culture or society, and has established in my opinion some unreasonable standards to determine said impact.

That's not precisely my position. I say that religions leave footprints behind in the societies where they are practiced, even if they are not practiced openly. Records from the Antebellum South are full of references to African-born slaves and their descendents practicing African religions even when such practices were explicitly forbidden by the white ruling class. I've already touched on the Marranos. Yet when we look at the period during which Christianity replaced various pagan or heathen faiths as the primary religion in Northern Europe, (a period for which there is a fairly detailed written record because the monastic instituitions did their best to collect and preserve written records of pretty near everything, and a period where we would expect there to be the highest likelihood of complaints about an ancient witch religion,) we see complaints about people backsliding to return to the worship of their old gods, and we see separate complaints about "witches" because they are using magic to cause harm to others. It is not the magic, per se, that the writers find objectionable, but rather the purpose to which it is being put. Indeed, the earliest known use of the term wicce/wicca in Anglo-Saxon uses the term in a context where it is clear the writer is referring to persons who use magic for the purpose of causing harm. Witchcraft is NOT described as a religion in these early records, and does not even begin to acquire any of the trappings of a religion until much later.


So, Strega(s) invoking Diana - documentation way prior to the 1940s - isn't a witchcraft religion? Are you saying since they called on an ancient Greek/Roman diety, it isn't a witchcraft religion? Carla has sited numerous other examples of textual records (usually left by the opponents of witchcraft, religious or not) citing examples and belief THAT IT EXSITED.

The issue here is possible antecedents to the New Forest Coven and thus to Gardner. If you wish to invoke Stregharia (I may have misspelled the term, ) as such a precursor, you're going to have to develop a plausible explanation as to how those beliefs and practices were transmitted to the South of England. Bear in mind that similarities between Wicca and Stregharia can already be largely explained by the fact that Gardner is KNOWN to have used Leland's Aradia as a source for Ye Boke of Ye Art Magickal. Occam's Razor does suggest, after all, that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is the most likely to be true.

As nearly as I can tell, the approach that you are using is to take practices which are clearly religious then taken in the context of modern pagan witchcraft, and then assuming that these or similar practices must be religious when seen in another context. My objection to this is that I do not think the assumption is valid without actual evidence of religious purpose or intent connected with these practices in those other contexts.

I recognize that this is setting a fairly high threshold, and that the historical record simply may not contain sufficient information to resolve the issue to anyone's satisfaction. On the other hand, I don't have any difficulty with the idea that pagan witchcraft practiced as a religion is a modern phenomenon, and am perfectly content to let the matter rest at that point.

[Faol-chù]

FAO is arguing that is the practioners don't believe in the concept of "religion" at all or that they don't recognize the distinction between "spiritual" and "natural" we can't even discuss what they did in those terms.

I'm guessing that you are referring to me, here...:)

I'd just like to say that it is not my assertion that 'we can't even discuss what they did in those terms (religious), but that we be very cautious in doing so....acknowledging the possibility that we could be misconstruing what we think we see.

I like Brock's example of an (modern) Orthodox Jew preparing for a holiday...Though I think it could be could be easily argued that other people may have viewed 'everyday activities' as requiring the intervention of unseen entities. (Not necessarily "religious".)
One example would be the making of cloth in Gaelic communities. (One of the reasons the idea of textile mills did not catch on very well in Gaelic areas in Scotland initially.) Another example would probably be the making of pots and other tools in so-called 'primitive' cultures. Yet another would be the invocation of spirits during the preparation of food for the family, or even in taking a bath (a common former Native American practice).

[Faol-chù]

Organization and structure are not, in my view, essential to a set of beliefs and practices being religious in nature. By way of example, the native tribes of North America did not have an organized priesthood, but it would be foolish in the extreme to argue that they are or were irreligious.

The lack of an organized 'priesthood' does not necessarily mean a lack of 'organization and structure'. Case-in-point, the Germanic tribes of ancient Europe.

And while I would not necessarily describe the native tribes of North America as being 'irreligious' (in English terminology), because they did, in fact, have (organized) lore about unseen entities attached to them and practices which served to draw upon them, they would NOT have described themselves as having 'religion'.
The living of their lives was their 'religion'. (Much like the Celts of Europe.)

It's just a slippery slope when we, as outsiders, try to decide which things were 'religious' and which were not.

[Brock]

The lack of an organized 'priesthood' does not necessarily mean a lack of 'organization and structure'. Case-in-point, the Germanic tribes of ancient Europe.

And while I would not necessarily describe the native tribes of North America as being 'irreligious' (in English terminology), because they did, in fact, have (organized) lore about unseen entities attached to them and practices which served to draw upon them, they would NOT have described themselves as having 'religion'.
The living of their lives was their 'religion'. (Much like the Celts of Europe.)

It's just a slippery slope when we, as outsiders, try to decide which things were 'religious' and which were not.

All good points. But getting back to the Native American question, every tribe of which I am aware had a body of belief and practices that resolved many of the sort of transcendant questions that religions (at least in my view) arise to explain. Every native tribe of which I am aware has myths that explain the origin of the world, has beliefs that explain what members of the tribe must do to to properly maintain their place in the world, and why this is needful, and has myths that explain what happens when people die. From my perspective, a hunter speaking to the spirit of an animal killed for food is engaging in a practice that is just as religious as a Hasidic boy wearing earlocks.

The key to distinguishing between a religous act and a non-religious act, at least, as I see it, is that in the former there is intent on the part of the actor to connect in some way to something which transcends the ordinary world. Without that intent, no act can be religious.

[Eran]

The key to distinguishing between a religous act and a non-religious act, at least, as I see it, is that in the former there is intent on the part of the actor to connect in some way to something which transcends the ordinary world. Without that intent, no act can be religious.
While this is reasonable enough, one must be careful when dealing with a religion which sees the world itself as sacred, and deity as immanent. A custom which involves something that might seem entirely mundane on the surface, might be intensely spiritual.

One also has to be cautious in dealing with concepts regarding nature spirits - faeries, spirits of trees or streams, etc. Are these things which "transcend the ordinary world" or not? I view them as religious. Members of some other religion might not.

You make a good point, that a religion should indeed address questions such as the afterlife, the origin and nature of the world, and so on. This also means that things which do address these questions, should be viewed as religious. Too often, they are not - observances connected with ghosts, for instance, or with nature (if that's not dealing with "the nature of the world", then what is?) are often dismissed as mere "folklore" or "superstition" or "folk custom".

Definitions: A custom or belief of the elites of a society, if it is respected by an observer, is called "religious".

Such a custom or belief which is not so respected is usually called "myth" and "social custom".

Such a custom or belief, if held by the common folk and respected by the observer, is usually called "folklore" and "habit".

Such a custom or belief, if held by the common folk and not respected by the observer, is usually called "superstition".

In reality, in all cases, these beliefs shape and inform and structure the lives and outlooks and spiritual attutides of the people involved. They affect and control how these people interact with and understand the world, with each other, and with Otherwolds.

In all cases, they are, in fact, "religious". Simply calling them something else doesn't change that - but does allow the speaker to ignore the evidence of religious continuity.

[Brock]

While this is reasonable enough, one must be careful when dealing with a religion which sees the world itself as sacred, and deity as immanent. A custom which involves something that might seem entirely mundane on the surface, might be intensely spiritual.

The same may be said of practices in many religions, and not just just the sort which you describe. Who is having the most spiritual experience: the Asatruar swilling beer at a sumbel, the clostered nun meditaitng on her knees in the convent chapel, or the Zen master washing the dishes? The spiritual nature of ANY act is perfectly clear ONLY in the heart and mind of the actor. Everyone else is capable of misintepretation.


One also has to be cautious in dealing with concepts regarding nature spirits - faeries, spirits of trees or streams, etc. Are these things which "transcend the ordinary world" or not? I view them as religious. Members of some other religion might not.

Granted. But, by the same token, you may therefore be predisposed to attribute spiritual meaning to historical practices where no such meaning was attributed to those practices by the persons who originally practiced them.

I'll grant that some practices which were likely religious or spiritual in nature may have been categorized as superstition or non-religious folk custom. But, at the same time, a number of modern pagans are far to quick to attribute religious or spiritiual significance to historical events solely because they bear a similarity to practices considered to be religious or spiritual in nature within the context of a modern pagan religion, without considering the attitudes of the historical practitioners. As I have noted in other posts, context and the intent of the original actors MUST be taken into account.

And given that most of the "misunderstood" beliefs and practices you outline are known to have been held or done by persons who were indsputably adherents of religions about whose reality there is no question and are therefore not unique to paganism, I would be entirely unwilling to simply assume that they somehow, in and of themselves, are indicative of a pagan survival. On the other hand, if you have less equivocal evidence...

[Eran]

The same may be said of practices in many religions, and not just just the sort which you describe. Who is having the most spiritual experience: the Asatruar swilling beer at a sumbel, the clostered nun meditaitng on her knees in the convent chapel, or the Zen master washing the dishes? The spiritual nature of ANY act is perfectly clear ONLY in the heart and mind of the actor. Everyone else is capable of misintepretation.
I would say none of them are any "less" spiritual. All are certainly evidence of spiritual observance and dedication.

Granted. But, by the same token, you may therefore be predisposed to attribute spiritual meaning to historical practices where no such meaning was attributed to those practices by the persons who originally practiced them.
True. The difficulty, of course, is that, in most cases, all we have is evidence of practice. Since we cannot get into the minds of the people, we have to use other clues.

This problem has been recognized for a very long time. There are several considerations which should be brought to bear. For example: was the practice in question part of a known religious observance which can be reasonable linked (i.e., contemporary, or in the same locale but an earlier date, or among cultural predecessors)? Or: is the practice known as a spiritual practice among other peoples who are similar culturally? (Yes, this is a controversial technique, but is, nonetheless, a common one among anthropologists who often use it to help understand this practice among those people, by illuminating it with a similar practice among a similar people.)

The question was certainly recognized in the Middle Ages. The Inquisition was established to root out heretical beliefs. They went about their task by looking for practices. The idea was: if you engaged in this action, it meant you believed certain things, because you had a reason for engaging in that action. For example: if you left out a meal for the Fates, it meant you believed in the Fates. This is a religious belief. In other words, even if you know only about practices, it is often reasonable to infer beliefs.

I'll grant that some practices which were likely religious or spiritual in nature may have been categorized as superstition or non-religious folk custom. But, at the same time, a number of modern pagans are far to quick to attribute religious or spiritual significance to historical events solely because they bear a similarity to practices considered to be religious or spiritual in nature within the context of a modern pagan religion, without considering the attitudes of the historical practitioners.
A reasonable question. There is, however, no 100% reliable empirical way to answer it. The closest we can get is to approach it with something like the sorts of criteria I describe above, and then make what seems to be a rational probabilistic judgment. If the weight of evidence appears to be pointing in one direction or another, after a while it takes a great leap of faith to hold onto a belief that no religious attitude was involved.

And given that most of the "misunderstood" beliefs and practices you outline are known to have been held or done by persons who were indsputably adherents of religions about whose reality there is no question and are therefore not unique to paganism, I would be entirely unwilling to simply assume that they somehow, in and of themselves, are indicative of a pagan survival. On the other hand, if you have less equivocal evidence...
But by your statement here, you admit the actions may well be religious. The question then is to determine, what type of religion was it? and the answer to that involves looking at other factors - what is the collection of practices implying about belief?

For example - if a group of people commonly engages in magical actions, that implies a belief in the effectiveness of Magic. This is , all by itself, a religious attitude, because (until very recently, and even then only in the West), Magic was always performed within a religious context.

So then we should ask, From where did these people believe the source of the magical power comes? Does it come from the Christian God, from Pagan Gods, from the Devil, from within the practioner, from a sort of natural force (this last implies something like a technological attitude). To determine that, you'd have to look at what else the people did - did they leave food out for the Faeries? Did the Christian priests complain that the people were not attending church? Did the people perform celebrations at wells and stones and trees? - etc. If so, this implies a Pagan religious sensibility. (The preceding was an over-simplified argument to give the general idea. You shouldn't draw conclusions from it; I intend it only as a preliminary guide to a general approach.)

This is the sort of whole-culture research that needs to be done, and this is the sort of work I've been doing.

[Eran]

Okay Elder, then the argument is really about the definition of a religion.

What implies religious behavior?
[snip]
I say that a fairly consistent set of practices (ie, manipulating the behavior of nature/other humans/"spirits" by use of incantations) constitutes religious behavior.

Any practices that seem to imply that dead humans continue to exist in some form or fashion in ways our 5 senses don't necessarily experience constitutes religious behavior.

Contacting the "dead" constitutes religious behavior.

Viewing areas of the planet as being inhabited or somehow heavily influenced by spiritual entities is religious behavior.
These are all excellent examples. Absolutely so. To claim such things as these are not religious behavior borders on the silly.

I think it is unreasonable to assume that a religion had to have some multi-national organization behind it (like the Catholic church has had since at least the 4th century CE and like the Lutheran Church has had since even prior to Luther's death) to qualify as a religion and to have had the type of impact on society that is required to be viewed as evidence that it actually existed.
And let me point out, in fact, that the argument is frequently made the other way as well - Because Witchcraft is often claimed to have been a multi-national and widespread phenomenon, its critics sometimes often claim that proves it cannot have been a religion!

Strangely enough, both arguments are used to "disprove" the existence of an historical religion of Witchcraft - thus actually proving that the critics have an assumption they're following, rather than an argument they're presenting.

I think that it is telling that many cultures did not consider themselves to have a 'religion' before contact with Christianity (and/or Rome). (This includes the Gaels, as well as Native Americans here.)

Their practices related to 'unseen entities' and reverence to them was just seen as part of everyday life. Separating something out and calling it 'religion' was not something they did, and many had a hard time understanding the 'necessity' of making something 'sacred' (from the Latin, 'to set apart').
Precisely. Are you trying to say, therefore, that these cultures had no religion? That would be - extraordinary. No, what this shows is that there was no separation between religious notions and social notions. All aspects of such cultures were steeped in religious significance. Read Joseph Campbell - this separation between "culture" and "religion" is a modern phenomenon. When your culture is based on the idea of all its aspects being provided by the Gods - for instance, the loom was given to your people by a Goddess of the Loom - then religion is constant, and is all around you, and is an everyday part of your life.

[Carla O'Harris]

Since Ginzburg, Pocs, Henningsen, and others, it is now an uncontroversial and widely acknowledged fact that there were various cults of ecstatic visions where people's spirits were said to have left their bodies and joined with various spiritual entities and deities.

The latter is absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt religious.

But even if the only practice was a deliberate OBE-cult, that in and of itself is a spiritual practice of the highest nature! To give people experiences that demonstrate that the soul/spirit can have experiences separate from the human body -- and in some cases, even visiting realms of the dead -- is in and of itself an after-life confirmation, and therefore a religious practice. When these experiences are conducted within a NonChristian Spiritual environment that has substantial connections and continuities with PreChristian practices, we are dealing primarily with a Non/Pre-Christian Religiosity. A frequent word used for that kind of religiosity is "pagan".

Now all of this stands even if one thinks the only thing people were doing was having "vivid dreams" and shamanic-style ecstatic visions, without the real life carnivals of Murrayite or Micheletian Sabbats.

However, given this kind of intense religious-spiritual gnosticism (not in the sense of Zoroastrian dualist -- although some of Ginzburg's findings could support this scenario as well -- but in the more fundamental sense of knowing through experience), it would be surprising if we were not to find some actual ritual enactment as well. In fact, we do find this. "Wild Men" and "Fairies", as well as so-called "demons" which in many cases were merely appropriations of wild fair-folk in the first place, are enacted in costumed parades and dances all over Europe, at precisely the holiday times when the ecstatic visionary voyages would be taking place.

All of this is profoundly spiritual.

[Faol-chù]

I said:



I think that it is telling that many cultures did not consider themselves to have a 'religion' before contact with Christianity (and/or Rome). (This includes the Gaels, as well as Native Americans here.)

Their practices related to 'unseen entities' and reverence to them was just seen as part of everyday life. Separating something out and calling it 'religion' was not something they did, and many had a hard time understanding the 'necessity' of making something 'sacred' (from the Latin, 'to set apart').



Precisely. Are you trying to say, therefore, that these cultures had no religion? That would be - extraordinary. No, .....

I must point out here that you asked me what I "am trying to say", and then you answered it for me...
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you are going to ask me a question, please give me the opportunity to respond.


What you say, below, is not incorrect...

And as much as I like Joseph Campbell, and the fact that he is able to find similarities in spiritual paths from all over the world, he misses a lot of very PERTINENT differentiations by doing so.

"Religion", (or what we describe as "religion" or "religious practices"), by its nature is different from place to place, from people to people to accomodate differences in attitudes.

Might I suggest that "Wicca" is no different in doing that. It has its very own terminology that is very often at odds with that of people who have other worldviews.

I, personally, have issues with 'imperialism', and, to me, the insistence that a particular definition can suitably be applied to 'other people from other times and other places, despite their view of themselves' reeks of imperialistic ideaology.


....what this shows is that there was no separation between religious notions and social notions. All aspects of such cultures were steeped in religious significance. Read Joseph Campbell - this separation between "culture" and "religion" is a modern phenomenon. When your culture is based on the idea of all its aspects being provided by the Gods - for instance, the loom was given to your people by a Goddess of the Loom - then religion is constant, and is all around you, and is an everyday part of your life.

[Silver Crow2]

Faol, all I can gather from your posts (sorry, I may just be dense) is that it is your assertion that if an individual doesn't conciously understand that an action or belief is of a "religious" nature, then it isn't, and can't be viewed by an outsider in that manner.

Therfore, following your logic, my parents, who are fundamentalist Pentecostal evangelical Christians to the extreme, are not religious. They do not consider themselves religious, Jesus is real and beside them and in their hearts literally and at the same time, The Trinity can and does intervene in their everyday lives in space/time helping, protecting, healing etc., heaven and hell are real places that exist dimensionally in the universe, etc.

And, breaking their hearts by the way, is little ole pagan me who is gonna burn in hell.

I realize that virutally any argument or viewpoint can be "refuted" by posting increasingly absurd examples. I know that isn't the best way to get another persons attention.

But do you get my point?

[Faol-chù]

Faol, all I can gather from your posts (sorry, I may just be dense) is that it is your assertion that if an individual doesn't conciously understand that an action or belief is of a "religious" nature, then it isn't, and can't be viewed by an outsider in that manner.

<snip>
But do you get my point?

I got your point, and I actually responded to it in the other thread...

I'll quote myself...


That said...If this is a reference to anything I've said...That is not an adequate summary of my meaning.
I said that we must be very careful in doing so..... not that "we can't discuss those beliefs in terms of religion or spirituality".

I'll further add, that I don't think "spirituality" (in the sense that something is related to or drawing upon the spirit world) is as much of an issue as is "religion". When you start talking about 'religion', you get into things like "which religion", and "intent".

For example, in a thread here about human sacrifice, 'intent' is being discussed. Different cultures have different specific intentions with human sacrifice. As 'spiritual' of an act as appears to be, the context of the religion is, specifically what determines intent...Even though the 'religious' practice may exist and have existed in different places in different times, the reasoning for doing so (as well as the specifics in HOW it is done), and what is perceived to be gained by it is going to vary from place to place, from people to people, from time to time, as determined largely by their particular religion (particularly when it's a community activity).