Valiente's Contributions to BoS

[Carla O'Harris]

This thread is dedicated to collecting quotes with references and page numbers about alleged Valiente contributions to alleged Gardnerian BoS.

My understanding is that the contribution is very small, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this.

(And for clarification's sake, no disrespect whatsoever towards Valiente and her contribution, especially her larger contribution, is intended here. I like Valiente. I'm merely setting up this thread to help distinguish claims about what is hers and what is not within the alleged BoS.)

Also helpful would be discourse about what she wrote, and what she re-worked. The difference between these is also important, although the latter obviously involves an important creative contribution.

Again, in this thread, I am primarily looking for sources.

[Eran]

My understanding is that the contribution is very small, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this.
I can tell you the sum total of what has been alledged. I don't have any quotes however, but quotes people can supply will confirm that these are the pieces claimed.

Of the three Degree rites (initiation, second dgree, third degree) it is alleged that she reworked one of them into a verse form.

There is a piece called "The Charge of the Goddess" which is sometimes said to be part of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows. It has been alleged that Valiente re-edited part of this piece. It has also been said that she re-worked it into a rhyming version.

Of the eight Sabbats, Valiente alleged that she had a hand in writing, editing, or otherwise affecting two of them.

There are also one or two poems that various widely-varying accounts say she helped to write, or to re-edit, or to translate from older Middle English versions.

I believe this is the extent of what Valiente is publically rumored to have done. Certainly no specific claims beyond these have been made that I can recall, and no public evidence has been offered beyond this handful of supposed Gardnerian pieces.

In the last couple of years (mostly since her death) various people have sometimes claimed that she did more than the above, but no evidence (or even testimony) has been offered to support any further claims.

On the handful of items mentioned above, as indicated, the accounts vary widely. Valiente herself sometimes claimed to have "written" this or that, but researchers (such as Kelly or Hutton) have in nearly all cases produced what they claim are pre-Valiente versions - meaning that the most she could have done is to do some editing.

The "Charge of the Goddess" thingie is an excellent example. She (and others) sometimes claimed that she "wrote" the published thing with this name. But as mentioned, Kelly (and other researchers) have produced copies which they claim were in Gardner's possession long before he met Valiente, and which match the published versions very closely for about 50% of the text.

As usual, I can neither confirm nor deny whether any of this has anything whatever to do with actual Gardnerian material. I here relate only the public clams which have been made, and a smattering of the data which has been publically claimed to be relevant.

[RainInanna]

As I said in another thread, I'm interested in how Crowley fit in as well. I had read somewhere that his writing and ideas were included and that she tried to rewrite or discard some of them, and that's the rationale behind some of her work being included?

As usual I leave it to you educated folk though, I'm afraid I can't submit any useful information.

[Eran]

As I said in another thread, I'm interested in how Crowley fit in as well. I had read somewhere that his writing and ideas were included and that she tried to rewrite or discard some of them, and that's the rationale behind some of her work being included?

As usual I leave it to you educated folk though, I'm afraid I can't submit any useful information.
I have heard this as well. It's clear that Crowley had no direct involvement, though some people sometimes claim he might have. Valiente has said that she saw things she thought were from Crowley, and that she worked to remove them - but Oakseeker has shown that some of the material Valiente supposedly added actually contains more Crowley-like material than the pieces she allegedly started with, so I don't know how reasonable this story is.

[Ben Gruagach]

Roger Dearnaley did an excellent examination of Crowley's material as it appeared in Gardner's magickal workbooks (http://www.geraldgardner.com/dearnaley.php). It would be interesting to see the same sort of thing done with Valiente's contributions to Gardnerian Wicca.

[Carla O'Harris]

Ben said,


It would be interesting to see the same sort of thing done with Valiente's contributions to Gardnerian Wicca.

Absolutely. That would be an excellent contribution to the discussion.

[Ben Gruagach]

One resource that can be of great value in this research is Janet and Stewart Farrar's "A Witches Bible" (my set is a two-volume set: vol. 1 was originally "Eight Sabbats for Witches" and vol. 2 as originally "The Witches' Way" but I know it's now sold as a single volume edition.)

The Farrars worked with Doreen Valiente and three versions of Gardner's Book of Shadows which they had access to:

Text A, which was Gardner's original Book of Shadows containing the material he got from Dafo and the New Forest coven along with his own additions.

Text B, a revised version of his Book of Shadows which Gardner was using when Valiente was initiated by him in 1953.

Text C, which was the version produced through Doreen's editing and modifications, which was used subsequently in Gardner's coven and which Gardner presented to subsequent initiates as the authoritative version of the Book of Shadows.

They present major parts of the Book of Shadows along with identification regarding origins (i.e. from Text A, B, or C, along with where it was borrowed from originally) as well as commentary regarding the history, etc.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I am under the impression that Valiente wrote both the prose *and* verse versions of the CotG. The author of the God, and Dark God and Goddesses, I have no clue. There's a rhyming charge of the God out there too - it can be seen in the Grimoire of Lady Sheba.
I once read that she wrote the winter solstice ritual (Queen of the stars, Queen of the Moon, return to us the child of promise!...etc) when Gardner dropped the news to her at lunch. I certainly would have smacked him if I were her :P But then, she was a better poet than I.
There's the Witches' Rune, of course, and I daresay there are bits and pieces scattered through it here and there.
As for removing Crowley, well, I think a lot of the dropped bits were absolutely beautiful. I don't *care* if they were from the Gnostic Mass, they bloody well rang true.
I'd LOVE to know who wrote that bit in the first Third Degree Initiation in the Book of Shadows from Sacred Texts (the Kelley-edited one - http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos05.htm ). You know :


Magus: "Assist me to erect the Ancient Altar, at which in days past all worshipped, the Great Altar of all things. For in the old times a woman was the Altar. Thus was the altar made and so placed [Priestess lies down in such a way that her vagina is approximately at the center of the circle], and the sacred place was the point within the center of the circle, as we of old times have been taught, that the point within the center is the origin of all things. Therefore should we adore it." [kiss]

"Therefore, whom we adore, we also invoke, by the power of the lifted lance." Invokes. "O circle of stars [kiss], whereof our Father is but the younger brother [kiss], "Marvel beyond imagination, soul of infinite space, before whom time is ashamed, the mind bewildered and understanding dark, not unto thee may we attain unless thine image be of love [kiss].

"Therefore, by seed and root, and stem and bud and leaf and flower and fruit do we invoke thee, O, Queen of space, O dew of light, O continuous one of the Heavens [kiss]. "Let it be ever thus, that men speak not of Thee as one, but as none, and let them not speak of thee at all, since thou art continuous, for thou art the point within the circle [kiss], which we adore [kiss], the fount of life without which we would not be [kiss]. "And in this way truly are erected the Holy Twin Pillars Boaz and Joachim [kisses breasts]. In beauty and strength were they erected, to the wonder and glory of all men."

(Eightfold Kiss: 3 points, Lips, 2 Breasts and back to lips; 5 points)

"O Secrets of secrets that art hidden in the being of all lives. Not thee do we adore, for that which adoreth is also thou. Thou art that and That am I [kiss].

"I am the flame that burns in every man, and in the core of every star [kiss].

"I am Life and the giver of Life, yet therefore is the knowledge of me the Knowledge of Death [kiss].

"I am alone, the Lord within ourselves whose name is Mystery of Mysteries [kiss].

"Make open the path of intelligence between us. For these truly are the 5 points of fellowship [on the right appears an illuminated diagram of the point-up triangle above the pentacle, the symbol for the third degree], feet to feet, knee to knee, groin to groin, breast to breast, arms around back, lips to lips, by the Great and Holy Names Abracadabra, Aradia, and Cernunnos.

Magus and High Priestess: "Encourage our hearts, Let thy Light crystallize itself in our blood, fulfilling us of Resurrection, for there is no part of us that is not of the Gods."

It's just beautiful. I'm sure there's some Crowley in there, but is all of it?

[Ben Gruagach]

I'd LOVE to know who wrote that bit in the first Third Degree Initiation in the Book of Shadows from Sacred Texts (the Kelley-edited one - http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos05.htm ). You know :


It's just beautiful. I'm sure there's some Crowley in there, but is all of it?

It was definitely inspired by Crowley's work if not rewritten from Crowley's stuff. Check out the OTO's Gnostic Mass (http://www.hermetic.com/sabazius/gnostic_mass.htm) (or in its more original document form here (http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0015.html)) for instance.

The fivefold kiss sounds suspiciously like a sexualized version of the Masonic five points of fellowship, explained in this poem from 1920 (http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/five_points_of_fellowship_poem.htm). (Crowley and Gardner were both involved with the Freemasons as well as their occult work. Many famous occultists of that era were also Masons -- often quite high ranking ones.)

[Ben Gruagach]

Another interesting and perhaps helpful document in this research would be this interesting collection of notes by Lynna Landstreet (http://www.wildideas.net/cathbad/pagan/notes.html).

There is also this interesting examination of the Charge of the Goddess (http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/wicca/charge.htm) which indicates the origins of various passages, and discusses Valiente's contributions.

[raven grimassi]

Regarding Crowley, one thing that seems often neglected is Crowley's reported membership in a Witchcraft coven in his younger days. If I recall correctly this was one of Pickingill's groups. Although it may be that this has been disproven and I am not aware of it.

Going with the assumption that Crowley was involved with Witchcraft (pre-Gardner) then it is certainly possible that his own writings thereafter were inspired by the earlier Craft material. If so, then this material may have been core to Gardner's material as well (which can suggest a commonality drawn from the same or similar source). I think this is worth considering because another figure - Austin Spare - by his own account states that he was taught by a Witch named Mrs. Patterson. Spare's atavistic drawings are very similar to the mural art that Crowley and his group painted while living in Sicily.

Anyway, just a thought.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Another interesting and perhaps helpful document in this research would be this interesting collection of notes by Lynna Landstreet (http://www.wildideas.net/cathbad/pagan/notes.html).

Lynna is quite amazing, I love when she does ritual. I don't think I've ever seen her perform a scripted one! We had her out for class (on meditation) and rit last week. I've actually stumbled across that page before - I recognize the bit about the chant 'My love is a garden enclosed', which has been my favourite from the time I first heard it.

[Ben Gruagach]

Regarding Crowley, one thing that seems often neglected is Crowley's reported membership in a Witchcraft coven in his younger days. If I recall correctly this was one of Pickingill's groups. Although it may be that this has been disproven and I am not aware of it.

The rumour that Crowley was a member of a witches' coven has been circulating but it doesn't look to be much more than rumour. One big strike against the rumour is that Crowley documented his life in great detail and there isn't any evidence that he ever learned from a witch coven let alone was a member of one for even a short time.

There is clear proof that Crowley was involved (however briefly) with Gardner though -- Gardner's visits are mentioned in Crowley's diaries.

On a side note it seems that there is some doubt whether Pickingill was involved in magick at all let alone a cunning-man leader of witchcraft groups. The earliest mention of Pickingill connecting him to magick comes from a lurid popular-press book in the 1960s about witches written by Eric Maple. Another author (Andrew Collins) who considered writing a book about witchcraft in Essex specifically focussing on Pickingill told me in private correspondence not long ago that he gave up on the project because his research unearthed the fact that the Pickingill stories that Maple presented were the result of locals "pulling his leg" with made up stories.

But it does seem that the things attributed to Pickingill were based on another real cunning-man from the general area named Murrell. (Murrell died around 1860 so Crowley would never have met him -- Crowley was born in 1875.)

[raven grimassi]

Thanks, Ben, interesting reply. I will have to dust off the books and take a look at the Pickingill references I have in my library. It has been a while.

Do you know anything about W.E. Liddell's reference to there having been nine covens founded by Pickingill?

Another question, what do you make of Doreen Valiente's comments in the introduction to her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, where she states that two Masons (Hargrave Jennings and W. J. Hughan) set out in the mid 19th century looking for "personal verification that the Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Valiente states that as a result these Masons formed a close relationship with George Pickingill ("the witch of Canewdon") from the 1850s onward. She notes that Pickingill, a non-Mason, amazed Hargave and Hughan by "expounding the inner secrets of Masonry." This led the team to concede that Witchcraft may have possessed some secret arcane knowledge akin to Freemasonry.

I do not know the accuracy of her statements, anyone else?

[KeaErisdottir]

Again, in this thread, I am primarily looking for sources.

The sources you need would be the two BoS in question, the one before Valiente and the one after, so that you can make comparisons. All else is speculation.

I am also guessing that the chances of finding people on Mysticwicks who can provide you with what you seek is extremely small.

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks, Ben, interesting reply. I will have to dust off the books and take a look at the Pickingill references I have in my library. It has been a while.

Do you know anything about W.E. Liddell's reference to there having been nine covens founded by Pickingill?

Another question, what do you make of Doreen Valiente's comments in the introduction to her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, where she states that two Masons (Hargrave Jennings and W. J. Hughan) set out in the mid 19th century looking for "personal verification that the Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Valiente states that as a result these Masons formed a close relationship with George Pickingill ("the witch of Canewdon") from the 1850s onward. She notes that Pickingill, a non-Mason, amazed Hargave and Hughan by "expounding the inner secrets of Masonry." This led the team to concede that Witchcraft may have possessed some secret arcane knowledge akin to Freemasonry.

I do not know the accuracy of her statements, anyone else?

I'm quite familiar with Liddell's work -- for those who want to read it themselves, look for "The Pickingill Papers" by W. E. Liddell and Michael Howard.

The nine covens claim appears in Liddell's work and perhaps is in Maple's "Dark World of Witches" (which I haven't read but keep in mind Maple's work is the one that apparently has been declared by his informants to have been invented on the spot to suit Maple's questions.)

Doreen Valiente was familiar with Liddell's work as his stuff first appeared in Pentagram magazine which she was involved with in the 1960s.

I believe that Doreen's information regarding Pickingill originated with Liddell.

Liddell's stuff came out in the 1960s after Maple's book did so again we have the problem that the oldest reference to Pickingill as involved with magick comes from Maple's questionable work.

Regarding Freemasons looking for information that might support Margaret Murray's theories (which we must remember were popular when she first published them) it's not surprising but again it doesn't mean that they were therefore historically accurate theories. Many famous occultist of that time were also Freemasons. The founders of the Golden Dawn, for instance, were also high-ranking Masons.

[raven grimassi]

Thanks for the reply, Ben. It is much appreciated, and I will mull it over for awhile. :reading:

[Carla O'Harris]

The sources you need would be the two BoS in question, the one before Valiente and the one after, so that you can make comparisons. All else is speculation.

I am also guessing that the chances of finding people on Mysticwicks who can provide you with what you seek is extremely small.

Well, I wasn't asking for that type of source. Obviously that would settle the argument, but what I meant was published, non-oathed sources.

[Carla O'Harris]

The rumour that Crowley was a member of a witches' coven has been circulating but it doesn't look to be much more than rumour.

Donald Frew claims to have found several references -- up to 5 if I recall correctly -- of Crowley having some involvement with witchcraft when he was younger.

The suggestion is not as foundless as some make it out to be.

[David19]

But there's so much myth that's mixed up with Crowley (or with any occultist really), that you have to sort out the facts from the BS.

Does anyone know if Crowley himself said that he was a member of a witches coven or anything?.

I've heard that one of the members of the New Forest coven was called Ms Sabine (or something, it's probably wrong) who was a member of the Golden Dawn, perhaps that was where the influence came from?.

If there was a witch coven, they may have been influenced by ceremonial magic too (like i think Raven Grimassi mentioned somewhere that there was a witch in Italy who was found copying from a Jewish ceremonial magic source (Lesser key of Solomon or something?) into her private book, and i'm sure there's more, perhaps Raven would know more about that, though?).

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Does anyone know if Crowley himself said that he was a member of a witches coven or anything?.


Crowley briefly mentions in his autohagiography that he was involved for a short time in a 'cult' at school that was called the 'belly banders', although from his description, it sounds more like a fraternity hazing than anything else. Of course, a lot of ceremonial initiations have a lot in common with fraternity hazings, come to think of it. But still, I think that if he had been involved in a witch-cult, he would have recorded it. He was a ceremonialist, and ceremonialists record *everything*.

[KeaErisdottir]

Well, I wasn't asking for that type of source. Obviously that would settle the argument, but what I meant was published, non-oathed sources.

:shrug: I've tracked a number of things through versions of the BoS, and don't really consider public sources to be reliable enough to make a judgement. However, what I have worked with has provided a LOT of insight into the development before and after Valiente's arrival. There were changes, they were significant in important ways.

[Eran]

Donald Frew claims to have found several references -- up to 5 if I recall correctly -- of Crowley having some involvement with witchcraft when he was younger.

The suggestion is not as foundless as some make it out to be.
Exactly so. It is tempting to dismiss evidence which does not conform to one's pre-existing agenda, and so Modernists tend to ignore or denigrate this sort of documentation. More's the pity; an honest and fearless consideration of all the available facts might be very enlightening.

And, in fact, is rather enlightening, for those of us willing to do it.

[Elderbush]

On the other hand Murray-lites usually believe their agenda in the face of little or no evidence.

[cesara]

Some interesting links and commentary!

Before I lose it, here is another article on the Crowley/Gardner front I found helpful:

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/axismundi/2003/The_Founding_Fathers.pdf

[Carla O'Harris]

It was definitely inspired by Crowley's work if not rewritten from Crowley's stuff. Check out the OTO's Gnostic Mass (http://www.hermetic.com/sabazius/gnostic_mass.htm) (or in its more original document form here (http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0015.html)) for instance.

The fivefold kiss sounds suspiciously like a sexualized version of the Masonic five points of fellowship, explained in this poem from 1920 (http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/five_points_of_fellowship_poem.htm). (Crowley and Gardner were both involved with the Freemasons as well as their occult work. Many famous occultists of that era were also Masons -- often quite high ranking ones.)


I don't know why it sounds "suspiciously" like the Masonic five points of fellowship. There is certainly some interesting similarity in the material. How they are related is uncertain ; and there is certainly no a priori reason to assume that the source of the Wiccan ritual is the Masonic ritual, or vice-versa, or whether they stem from a common source. We simply don't know.

[Carla O'Harris]

On the other hand Murray-lites usually believe their agenda in the face of little or no evidence.

What is a Murray-lite? Do we have any on this forum? Who would be examples of them?

[Elderbush]

Yes, we do. They are the people who call people who disagree with them Huttonites.

[Eran]

On the other hand Murray-lites usually believe their agenda in the face of little or no evidence.
Really? Gee, I'm glad I don't know any of them!

Many of the eclectics I know decline to look at evidence at all.

I prefer the discussions which take place between people who are willing to look at evidence of all sorts, and to take it into account in their theories and worldview.

[Eran]

Some interesting links and commentary!

Before I lose it, here is another article on the Crowley/Gardner front I found helpful:

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/axismundi/2003/The_Founding_Fathers.pdf
It's an interesting theory, and one I've read many times before. It certainly hearkens back to Elliot Rose and Aidan Kelly. (I mention this just to put it into context; this is not an unusual or unique presentation.)

One of the main problems with this approach is the assumption that the rituals of a specific denomination within a religion is the same thing as the religion itself. If this were true, then Christianity would have been invented in the 1960s when Catholics re-wrote all their rituals.

There are other serious problems with this idea, too, but they've been well-rehearsed elsewhere. The argument is not very convincing.

I refer readers again to my website, http://esoterica.bichaunt.org I have several times suggested that the Modernists here take a look at the evidence and reasoning I present there and then respond to it. As yet, no one has. Whether that means I am incredibly boring, or stunningly persuasive - or whether it simply means no one has the time or interest to actually examine the evidence - I really don't know. But I make the suggestion here one more time, particularly as a challenge to the Modernists present who are asking for "proof" of an historical Witch-sect.

[Elderbush]

Eran, I think "people" should be substituted in for "eclectics" there because I know an Alexadrian who looks at the evidence with an open mind and has decided that Wicca is not The Olde Religion. He views it as a mythic history and does not feel that is incompatible with a traditional viewpoint. I also know that many eclectics have looked at the evidence and aren't convinced your conclusions are correct while other eclectics (do visit the internet) are sure that the Burning Times happened and that Wicca is The Olde Religion.

That's what makes labeling people who disagree with you Modernists and Eclectics hard to support.

[Ben Gruagach]

Eran, I think "people" should be substituted in for "eclectics" there because I know an Alexadrian who looks at the evidence with an open mind and has decided that Wicca is not The Olde Religion. He views it as a mythic history and does not feel that is incompatible with a traditional viewpoint. I also know that many eclectics have looked at the evidence and aren't convinced your conclusions are correct while other eclectics (do visit the internet) are sure that the Burning Times happened and that Wicca is The Olde Religion.

That's what makes labeling people who disagree with you Modernists and Eclectics hard to support.

I know an Alexandrian high priestess who disputes the claim that Wicca is an intact religion that Gardner was merely passing on.

Fred Lamond, the oldest living Gardnerian today, also disputes the claim.

[David19]

You know with all the information around, and so many different viewpoints (which is good), it'd be great if we could find something that Dafo had written, perhaps it'd reveal a lot about the history, and about Gardner, or i've said this before, i think, but it'd have been cool if Gardner's wife had written something (she wasn't a Wiccan, i don't think?), but she'd have known Gardner intimately, she'd have known if had basically been a conartist or if he was telling the truth, it's a shame she didn't leave anything (like diaries, etc or maybe we just haven't found them yet....).

[Carla O'Harris]

Fred Lamond, the oldest living Gardnerian today, also disputes the claim.

He disputed the claim from the get-go.

[Stormcat]

It is my opinion that Wicca is neither a fully intact ancient religion, NOR a fully modern one. We have roots in both the new and the old. It is fitting.

[Elderbush]

I think yours is the majority opinion, Stormcat, but I think that with Eran and Carla it is black or white. You either believe it is an intact religion and are therefore a traditionalist or you don't believe it and are a modernists.

Hey, Carla and Eran, what do you call all of us who believe something in the middle like Stormcat, Greyharp and myself?

And Ben, of course!

[Ben Gruagach]

I think yours is the majority opinion, Stormcat, but I think that with Eran and Carla it is black or white. You either believe it is an intact religion and are therefore a traditionalist or you don't believe it and are a modernists.

Hey, Carla and Eran, what do you call all of us who believe something in the middle like Stormcat, Greyharp and myself?

And Ben, of course!

I agree with you, Stormcat, and Greyharp. From what I've learned about Gardner (which I think was best expressed in Philip Heselton's books "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration") it seems that Gardner's talents were in joining groups, borrowing ideas from different places, sythesizing it into something workable and then promoting it. The core ideas though did likely come from other people (perhaps the New Forest group, perhaps elsewhere) but what Gardner made of them seems to have been quite different and unique.

I think it is likely that at least some of the people Heselton identifies as possible members of the New Forest group might have been precisely that, but again we are confronted with the question of whether they made up what they were doing or if they learned it from a previous teacher who claimed it was witchcraft. I'm not even sure the New Forest group called themselves witches until Margaret Murray's ideas, and then Gardner came along to push that theory.

Doreen Valiente, on the other hand, does have a clear talent for original writing. Gardner's writing was research-based in that he synthesized other people's material. The rituals he probably wrote were cobbled together from other materials such as Crowley's stuff, Kipling's poetry, etc. Valiente, at least in the ritual things she wrote like "Darksome night and shining moon," was genuinely inspired.

[Stormcat]

Just to be clear, I think that the older sources we have are valid. Some may be older than we think. Gardner brought something forward, but some of the pieces were missing so he found things around him that would work...that had the intent and feel of what he felt was missing, and he syncretized those things into the religion. This is why I say that we have our roots both in the past, and in the modern age.

What Gardner did is no small feat and he made it work. The fact that it DOES work may be because the gods were guiding him in his efforts. Divine inspiration is a gift we all hope to gain.

[Eran]

I know an Alexandrian high priestess who disputes the claim that Wicca is an intact religion that Gardner was merely passing on.

Fred Lamond, the oldest living Gardnerian today, also disputes the claim.
I know Fred pretty well. He is definitely both a Modernist and an Eclectic.

What you believe has nothing to do with what sort of initiation you've had. What sort of initiation you may get has nothing to do with what you believe.

[Eran]

Just to be clear, I think that the older sources we have are valid. Some may be older than we think. Gardner brought something forward, but some of the pieces were missing so he found things around him that would work...that had the intent and feel of what he felt was missing, and he syncretized those things into the religion. This is why I say that we have our roots both in the past, and in the modern age.

What Gardner did is no small feat and he made it work. The fact that it DOES work may be because the gods were guiding him in his efforts. Divine inspiration is a gift we all hope to gain.
Very well put, Stormcat, and very close to my own position.

[Ben Gruagach]

I know Fred pretty well. He is definitely both a Modernist and an Eclectic.

What you believe has nothing to do with what sort of initiation you've had. What sort of initiation you may get has nothing to do with what you believe.

I find it immensely amusing that the Gardnerian who has been Gardnerian longer than anyone else alive is excluded from the "real Wiccan" Traditionalist club.

[Elderbush]

Very well put, Stormcat, and very close to my own position.

Eran, welcome to the Modernist Club! Unless you have a different label for all of us in the middle?

[Ben Gruagach]

Eran, welcome to the Moderist Club! Unless you have a different label for all of us in the middle?

Those who count as Traditionalists seem to be getting fewer and fewer by the minute.

[Elderbush]

I find it immensely amusing that the Gardnerian who has been Gardnerian longer than anyone else alive is excluded from the "real Wiccan" Traditionalist club.

I'm not sure that he would be a Modernist. Did he think Gardner "made it all up" (Modernists as far as I can tell do think that, the way that Eran and Carla are defining it, unless they are including anyone as a Modernist who does not feel this was an intact religion passed on for thousands of years) or does he think that Gardner drew from many places, some of them older? Their definition seems to waffle a bit.

[Eran]

I find it immensely amusing that the Gardnerian who has been Gardnerian longer than anyone else alive is excluded from the "real Wiccan" Traditionalist club.
Has anyone here implied that he is not a "real Wiccan"? Has anyone here implied that someone is only a "real Wiccan" if they are Traditionalist? Or are you simply engaging in more straw-man arguments and blatent misrepresentations?

[SoulFire]

It is my opinion that Wicca is neither a fully intact ancient religion, NOR a fully modern one. We have roots in both the new and the old. It is fitting.


This is generally my opinion as well. To me, Gardnerian Wicca is just one branch of a larger tree with roots in folk lore and folk magic, ceremonial magick, and other sources. Whatever the New Forest coven practiced, we may never know for sure.


Just to be clear, I think that the older sources we have are valid. Some may be older than we think. Gardner brought something forward, but some of the pieces were missing so he found things around him that would work...that had the intent and feel of what he felt was missing, and he syncretized those things into the religion. This is why I say that we have our roots both in the past, and in the modern age.

What Gardner did is no small feat and he made it work. The fact that it DOES work may be because the gods were guiding him in his efforts. Divine inspiration is a gift we all hope to gain.

_handclappBeautifully worded. I agree. I also don't think his branch is more valid than the next, as some purists seem to. According to Sybil Leek, the four alleged covens in the New Forest kept to themselves pretty much. We don't know how much their practices and beliefs diverged; therefore, I don't have a problem with people calling themselves "Wiccan" who are not in Gardner's direct line, if they wish. Apparently, neither did Valiente.

[Ben Gruagach]

Has anyone here implied that he is not a "real Wiccan"? Has anyone here implied that someone is only a "real Wiccan" if they are Traditionalist? Or are you simply engaging in more straw-man arguments and blatent misrepresentations?

How are we to interpret it then when those who fall outside the "Traditionalist Murray-supporting Wiccan" category get called "Neo-Wiccans" or some other moniker?

[SoulFire]

How are we to interpret it then when those who fall outside the "Traditionalist Murray-supporting Wiccan" category get called "Neo-Wiccans" or some other moniker?

I usually think of "Neo-Wiccans" as being post-Cunningham Wiccan. :bigblue:

[Elderbush]

It is an insult.

[Ben Gruagach]

It is an insult.

It's also been used very clearly here on MysticWicks to refer to anyone who does not support Murray's theories and Gardner's claim that he was merely passing on an intact pre-Christian religion.

[SoulFire]

I think yours is the majority opinion, Stormcat, but I think that with Eran and Carla it is black or white. You either believe it is an intact religion and are therefore a traditionalist or you don't believe it and are a modernists.

Hey, Carla and Eran, what do you call all of us who believe something in the middle like Stormcat, Greyharp and myself?

And Ben, of course!

IMHO, Carla (and other Traditionalists) enrich our community with their ideas. There is no need to create an artificial "Us" versus "Them" dynamic. Indeed, personally I find that Hutton is more of the "black or white" variety than Carla! I think Ben even wrote something to that effect about Hutton's conservatism (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2908613#post2908613) in another thread. Just my 2 cents. YMMV. Personally, I consider myself a Traditionalist, yet I do not believe Wicca is an intact religion, and I don't call myself "Wiccan", generally, but I also don't doubt it has very old roots in customs of folk lore and folk magick. How old we may never know. So I guess I'm in the middle, too.

[Elderbush]

I also think that Carla and other people who feel that Gardner was handing over an intact Witch religion enrich our community. I do feel that Carla and Eran are creating a false "us" vs "them" dynamic by labeling those who believe as Carla does Traditionalist and everyone else as Modernist. Using that defintion you aren't a Traditionalist, you are a Modernist. I have not posted that Hutton is black and white. I was asking if it was a black or white termanology - Traditionalist and Modernist - or if there was another term for those who feel as you do.

[Eran]

IMHO, Carla (and other Traditionalists) enrich our community with their ideas. There is no need to create an artificial "Us" versus "Them" dynamic. Indeed, personally I find that Hutton is more of the "black or white" variety than Carla! I think Ben even wrote something to that effect about Hutton's conservatism (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2908613#post2908613) in another thread. Just my 2 cents. YMMV. Personally, I consider myself a Traditionalist, yet I do not believe Wicca is an intact religion, and I don't call myself "Wiccan", generally, but I also don't doubt it has very old roots in customs of folk lore and folk magick. How old we may never know. So I guess I'm in the middle, too.
What a reasonable person you are! It's good to meet someone with a moderate opinion, someone who has clearly thought long and hard about the issues.

Well said, my friend.

I quite agree, there's far too much us-vs-them. Let me recommend that it end now, and we return to discussing ideas and topics.

[Faol-chù]

Stormcat said:

What Gardner did is no small feat and he made it work. The fact that it DOES work may be because the gods were guiding him in his efforts. Divine inspiration is a gift we all hope to gain.


Very well put, Stormcat, and very close to my own position.

I have to wonder if you happen to feel the same way about Christianity...You know...that the gods were guiding the Christians in their efforts...
It *did* work quite well (apparently) for a very long time.

[Elderbush]

Believe it or not, Eran, the vast majority of us have thought long and hard about the issues.

The vast majority of people on this forum as far as I can tell are moderates, too.

So there, most of us have two things in common.

[SoulFire]

What a reasonable person you are! It's good to meet someone with a moderate opinion, someone who has clearly thought long and hard about the issues.

Well said, my friend.

I quite agree, there's far too much us-vs-them. Let me recommend that it end now, and we return to discussing ideas and topics.

Well, I don't know how "reasonable" I am, and I can be very opinionated. :lol: But I appreciate the kind words. Thanks.

B*B,
SF
:viking:

[Eran]

Believe it or not, Eran, the vast majority of us have thought long and hard about the issues.

The vast majority of people on this forum as far as I can tell are moderates, too.

So there, most of us have two things in common.
I'll certainly accept your word for it, and go on from here in peace and brotherhood.

But I will point it out if you or Ben are insulting or divisive again, or if either of you again accuse me of pushing some "agenda" when I merely state my opinions and conclusions, or if either of you again mischaracterize, misstate, or ridicule my position, or engage in straw-man arguments or ad hominem attacks. And I will expect you to do the same for me.

Agreed?

[Elderbush]

Very good, and if you start name-calling again I will point out how insulting it is.

[Eran]

I usually think of "Neo-Wiccans" as being post-Cunningham Wiccan. :bigblue:
Very reasonable definition. I wouldn't view the term as an insult, but simply as a description. People who are proud to have created a "new" version of "Wicca" (and there are people who are proud of this) are neo (new) Wiccans - by self-definition.

Of course, it is possible to take offense at anything, even when none is intended. But offense, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.

[SoulFire]

I just wanted to add that we (as a group) won't (and don't have to) always agree on every point, and it isn't necessary in order to find some common ground. I will certainly speak up if there's something I disagree with, even if it's from someone I respect. Friends may feel like throwing tomatoes at me when I get in a "mood".

_tomatoe_

[Eran]

Very good, and if you start name-calling again I will point out how insulting it is.
Mutual agreement. And I will call you on that as well.

As Don Corleone said - "I will not be the one to break the truce we have made today."

[Eran]

I just wanted to add that we (as a group) won't (and don't have to) always agree on every point, and it isn't necessary in order to find some common ground. I will certainly speak up if there's something I disagree with, even if it's from someone I respect. Friends may feel like throwing tomatoes at me when I get in a "mood".

_tomatoe_
Indeed. Religion is something people do (and should) feel passionately about, and that passion is often (and should be) expressed. We don't have to agree (and we often won't). But we needn't be dishonest or destructive, even when we are passionately disagreeing.

[Elderbush]

Oh for goodness sake, Eran! This isn't a pact and we aren't Mafia! If you slip up I will not put a hit out on you. :)

[Eran]

Oh for goodness sake, Eran! This isn't a pact and we aren't Mafia! If you slip up I will not put a hit out on you. :)
Whew! Thanks for the reassurance! I'll sleep better now ! :)

[Carla O'Harris]

This is getting way too lovey-dove for me.:santasmil

Would anyone like to actually contribute quotes from Valiente that fund our discussion?

[Stormcat]

Stormcat said:




I have to wonder if you happen to feel the same way about Christianity...You know...that the gods were guiding the Christians in their efforts...
It *did* work quite well (apparently) for a very long time.

It works for them. Their god is not my god. Most of what modern Christians practice comes from Paul, who may have either had heat stroke in the desert, or divinely inspired inspiration. I don't know. There are far too many hands in that pot, however.

[KeaErisdottir]

I usually think of "Neo-Wiccans" as being post-Cunningham Wiccan. :bigblue:

Or anyone who uses the phrase 'living room Wicca' to describe Traditional practice. :)

[KeaErisdottir]

I find it immensely amusing that the Gardnerian who has been Gardnerian longer than anyone else alive is excluded from the "real Wiccan" Traditionalist club.

Fred is hyper-liberal in his views about the Craft. This makes some people attempt to deny him, or fling around accusations of oathbreaking to discredit him. I find his views refreshing, frustrating, and possibly more representative of ground truth at the time of his initiation than many people would like to admit.

[Carla O'Harris]

Ground truth of the skepticism he brought in ; skepticism in, skepticism out.


(Nevertheless, with that flaw in mind, I do like a lot of his ideas. They would be worthy of another thread.)

[Eran]

To return to the topic of this thread -

One occasionally hears the claim that Valiente "helped Gardner rewrite (or even 'write') the Book of Shadows," or that she "wrote substantial parts of it," or that she "helped to shape Wicca," and various other such statements. It is interesting that these ideas are expressed mostly by people who don't have access to the primary documents involved; most of the people who do have such access speak much more moderately of Valiante's alleged contributions.

She herself claimed to have had an impact only on the half-dozen or so items I mentioned previously. There is no reason to think her impact on the Gardnerian liturgical material (if indeed she had any impact at all) was any greater than that.

Indeed, her private notebooks indicate that she was not fond of the material Gardner presented to those he taught, and she and Gerald apparently quarreled about it frequently. Her later books make plain that she disapproved of the Gardnerian tradition and its rites, even years alter, after whatever impact she had must have been plain. One would not expect this attitude if she had had a significant hand in shaping the tradition.

We know she worked with Gardner for no more than 4 years in total (from about 1953 or '54 until sometime in 1957). This is hardly enough time to significanly alter the direction of a pre-existing tradition that was quite healthy and growing at the time she joined. Her attitude of disapproval almost from the start might also explain some of the tension between her and Gerald - she seemed to feel she had a better idea of there the tradition should go, even though she was so inexperienced, and could hardly have had the opportunity to explore it thoroughly before starting to suggest alterations. This seems like an arrogant attitude to me, and perhaps it did to Gerald and many of those who worked with him.

She seemed (particularly in her later years) to be good at self-promotion, but all in all, her contributions to either theory or practice do not seem to be as extensive or important as many would have them.

[Carla O'Harris]

According to Valiente, she met Gardner sometime in November or December of 1952, and wasn't even initiated until Midsummer of 1953 ; but keep in mind she didn't even meet the rest of the coven until late 1953. Witchcraft Today came out in 1954 and therefore must have been finished in 1953, probably fairly early, and we know that at least parts of it Gardner was writing in 1952. (It would be nice to know more about the publication of his book, but anyone who works with publishers know that it is often a matter of anywhere from 6 months to two years between acceptance of a manuscript and its publishing. There is approval of proofs, etc. Especially in those days. Gardner would have to write it, and then it would have to be typeset, etc. That involves time. With a publishing date of 1954, we have to assume that most of the book was written well before this.)Therefore, the bulk of it was written before Valiente even would have had a chance to write anything!

And --- I hope the initiated Gardnerians will forgive me for referencing this source --- if we consult http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm, the supposed "Gardnerian Book of Shadows" provided by Aidan Kelly (the website does cite him as the source of this document), we can see that everything from "Casting the Circle" to "The Charge" to three degrees of initiation to the four Sabbat rituals were already in existence in 1949, which is three years before Valiente ever met Gardner. Regardless of whether there is any relationship between these texts and anything actually used in rituals, the public claims about Valiente and the BOS must be directly contradicted by the dates given in this Kelly text.

Everything in this document from "On Chants" to "Skyclad" has dates of 1953. When we remember that Valiente wasn't even initiated until Midsummer of 1953 -- half the year already gone -- and didn't meet the coven until much later in the year, the high likelihood is that most of this material as well has little to do with Valiente. On the other hand, the later 1957/61 could show some signs of Valiente-influence. In her book The Rebirth of Witchcraft she claims credit for rewriting the prose charge and making a verse version of it.

Again, if others would like to list specific pieces they think she wrote, we could narrow this down to the facts as well as we can publicly know them.