Wicca & Witchcraft

[~*Sacred*~]

We all know the controversial "wicca & witchcraft origin" debate.

To you, what is the difference between Wicca and what was celebrated back then. What are the key differences that gave us that sudden leap from Paganism to Wicca?


Eh... I hope I'm asking this right. It sounds right in my head at least.:weirdsmil

[Nox_Mortus]

It's hard to say much because we really don't know a whole lot about how it was really done in the pagan era. Some people would say it's exactly the same, or very similar and you can have scholarly arguments going both ways.

Personally I just focus on how it's practiced now and don't really worry about how the ancients did it, it really doesn't matter to me.

[~*Sacred*~]

It's hard to say much because we really don't know a whole lot about how it was really done in the pagan era. Some people would say it's exactly the same, or very similar and you can have scholarly arguments going both ways.

Personally I just focus on how it's practiced now and don't really worry about how the ancients did it, it really doesn't matter to me.

I agree. Focusing on the now and how we do things is important. I simply love history!

[Ben Trismegistus]

To you, what is the difference between Wicca and what was celebrated back then. What are the key differences that gave us that sudden leap from Paganism to Wicca?

Oooh good question! Here's my opinion of the main things that separate Wicca (modern neo-Pagan religion started sometime in the 1930s) and the pagan beliefs that preceded it:

First and foremost, Wicca represents the merging of some pre-existing pagan beliefs with some of the ritual practices of Freemasonry and other modern(ish) "secret societies". All through the late 19th century, esoterics had been borrowing the ritual structures of Freemasonry and integrating them into pagan-like beliefs to create organizations like the Golden Dawn and the Rosicrucians. However, the Golden Dawn and other like organizations concentrated more on the Ceremonial Magick aspects of pre-existing paganism (Enochian magic, Kaballah, etc.), whereas Wicca focused instead on the earthy hedgewitchery of the English quasi-pagan cunning folk (so-called "traditional" witches). I think it was this combination of the organized ritual structure of Freemasonry and the earthy low magic of English witchcraft that makes Wicca so effective and so popular.

So, from Freemasonry, Wicca gets things like the three-degree system and the four quarters.

Another big difference that I see is the Wiccan idea of pantheism - that is, all gods are one (or, everything is god). This was actually a bit of an accident. Gardner was very influenced by the (now discredited) work of anthropologist Margaret Murray, who in the 1920s and 30s postulated that ancient pagans all over the world were part of a singular Great Goddess Cult, and that all ancient representations of goddesses around the world are actually representations of a single Goddess. So, when Gardner used the idea of a single Goddess, being represented by all the goddesses in all the different pantheons (and by borrowing the triple-goddess idea from Graves and Leland), he thought he was doing what the ancients did. In reality, the Celtic Brigid and the Greek Artemis were not representations of the same goddess, because the two cultures hadn't even heard of each other, let alone intermingled religious ideas. In fact, with a few exceptions (the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans seeing analogues in each other's gods, for instance), most ancient pagans saw their gods and goddesses as individuals - they would have no idea who this singular "The Goddess" is that modern Wiccans pray to.

So, those are the differences I see. Hope that helps.

[~*Sacred*~]

Oooh good question! Here's my opinion of the main things that separate Wicca (modern neo-Pagan religion started sometime in the 1930s) and the pagan beliefs that preceded it:

First and foremost, Wicca represents the merging of some pre-existing pagan beliefs with some of the ritual practices of Freemasonry and other modern(ish) "secret societies". All through the late 19th century, esoterics had been borrowing the ritual structures of Freemasonry and integrating them into pagan-like beliefs to create organizations like the Golden Dawn and the Rosicrucians. However, the Golden Dawn and other like organizations concentrated more on the Ceremonial Magick aspects of pre-existing paganism (Enochian magic, Kaballah, etc.), whereas Wicca focused instead on the earthy hedgewitchery of the English quasi-pagan cunning folk (so-called "traditional" witches). I think it was this combination of the organized ritual structure of Freemasonry and the earthy low magic of English witchcraft that makes Wicca so effective and so popular.

So, from Freemasonry, Wicca gets things like the three-degree system and the four quarters.

Another big difference that I see is the Wiccan idea of pantheism - that is, all gods are one (or, everything is god). This was actually a bit of an accident. Gardner was very influenced by the (now discredited) work of anthropologist Margaret Murray, who in the 1920s and 30s postulated that ancient pagans all over the world were part of a singular Great Goddess Cult, and that all ancient representations of goddesses around the world are actually representations of a single Goddess. So, when Gardner used the idea of a single Goddess, being represented by all the goddesses in all the different pantheons (and by borrowing the triple-goddess idea from Graves and Leland), he thought he was doing what the ancients did. In reality, the Celtic Brigid and the Greek Artemis were not representations of the same goddess, because the two cultures hadn't even heard of each other, let alone intermingled religious ideas. In fact, with a few exceptions (the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans seeing analogues in each other's gods, for instance), most ancient pagans saw their gods and goddesses as individuals - they would have no idea who this singular "The Goddess" is that modern Wiccans pray to.

So, those are the differences I see. Hope that helps.
I enjoyed this, thank you!

[Ben Gruagach]

Glad to see Ben T posting again! I've missed your insight.

I'd like to reinforce his excellent post by pointing out that modern Wicca is not really a reconstruction of a pre-Christian religion, because there wasn't really a pre-Christian religion like Wicca in the first place. There were pre-Christian religions of course, Pagan religions, but in all my reading I haven't come across anything historical that comes close to the core of Wicca.

Wicca is an excellent, solid Pagan religion but it is definitely a new one. And while it does have ancient roots (i.e. drawing on lots of ancient sources) it is hardly an intact survival of a pre-Christian religion.

[Lunacie]

We all know the controversial "wicca & witchcraft origin" debate.

To you, what is the difference between Wicca and what was celebrated back then. What are the key differences that gave us that sudden leap from Paganism to Wicca?


Eh... I hope I'm asking this right. It sounds right in my head at least.:weirdsmil

It's a good question. :) And you've gotten some good answers. :)

But I'm curious as to why you believe there was a "sudden leap" from Paganism to Wicca?

In addition to BenT's great post, I would say that religions have been sharing things for most of history. And I would clarify that not all "modern Wiccans" hold a belief in a singular Goddess, although that seems to be what Gardner espoused from his writings that have been made public. Many of us believe there is a divine force in our universe, and that the gods are a more advanced form of that divine energy. Some believe that there may be one greater god(dess) that is above the other gods, but not that all gods are facets or aspects of that Uber God(dess).


Good to see ya again, BenT. :wave:

[talamh]

Another big difference that I see is the Wiccan idea of pantheism - that is, all gods are one (or, everything is god). This was actually a bit of an accident. Gardner was very influenced by the (now discredited) work of anthropologist Margaret Murray, who in the 1920s and 30s postulated that ancient pagans all over the world were part of a singular Great Goddess Cult, and that all ancient representations of goddesses around the world are actually representations of a single Goddess.

It is not accurate to say that the idea of the great Goddess Mother is totally discredited. There has been a concerted (and disconcerting) focus bordering on attack, on the idea of the one Great Goddess. A lot of academic and pagan historical verbage has been devoted to supposedly discrediting the idea, much of it aimed at the work of Marija Gimbutas.

My searching leads me to the conclusion that much of the work aimed at "discrediting" the Great Mother Goddess idea was based on the wrong concept. To me, Gimbutas wasn't saying that many different and diverse cultures were all linked by a common understanding of one identical Great Goddess and that all who honoured the Great Goddess were card-carrying members of Great Goddess International. However many diverse cultures have honoured the Great Goddess archetype - the Divine Feminine - and She has many names and many manifestations. She is honoured as the creator of life, associated with fertility and birth as well as death and is frequently represented as a triple goddess of Maiden, Mother and Crone. She also has manifestation as the Dark Goddess. These four aspects as represented in the four seperate aspects of the Moon which is closely associated with Goddess honouring in many cultures.

In the past 20 years, the attacks against Gimbutas and the Great Goddess Mother archetype have been many and virulent, based on trying to disprove something that Gimbutas didn't postulate in the first place. It reached the level of serious academics offering the theory that the many and ubiquitous examples of the squat, rotund Goddess figures found in archeological digs is an example of "early pornography".

There is another aspect that most academic approaches to the Great Goddess Mother miss entirely because it is intuitive and, as such, completely outside the academic field and that is that many people, women and men, know the Great Goddess personally, intuitively, recognizably, undeniably. At this point is the parting of ways between academic understanding and intuitive understanding. It seems that the two will never meet or even reconcile.. and after much reading and research, I've concluded that that is probably a good thing... but that's a whole different topic.

[Ben Gruagach]

The problem I have with the Great Goddess viewpoint though is that the basic idea is betrayed by simple grammar -- if we're not talking about some postulated universal singular female deity, then we'd see people talking about a Great Goddess, rather than the Great Goddess.

Different cultures can and do have deities for similar things -- a mother goddess, or a goddess of vegetation, or a goddess of the moon. That doesn't mean that these deities are the same thing with different names though. Except to those who are soft polytheists -- but we'd have to first prove the ancient cultures were soft polytheist to confirm that they believed their goddesses were all one and the same.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Oh, A Great Goddess, who has blessed us with Her bounty... just doesn't ring as well...

You don't talk about Your Goddess as if she's just one of a thousand Goddesses... She's THE One for you.

I'm sorry, but... Simple grammar, my foot. Yes, you TALK and WRITE like She's the only one, because, for all your intents and purposes, She is... but that doesn't mean that *literally* she's the only one... just the only one that matters... at a given time. Even if you're not writing hymns at that moment, a religious person (often) still gives deference to their deity, even when writing a more informational, explanatory work... The fact that Deities are Capitalized in formal English is evidence of that.

In some of his writings, Gardner did write as if the Goddess of the Wicca was a singular entity, with aspects as other Goddesses throughout mythology... and then in other places, he wrote about the Gods of the Wicca as "little gods", in contrast with the Supreme Deities of other religions.

So, you can take your pick, I suppose. I see evidence for both arguments.

[Ben Gruagach]

Oh, A Great Goddess, who has blessed us with Her bounty... just doesn't ring as well...

You don't talk about Your Goddess as if she's just one of a thousand Goddesses... She's THE One for you.

I'm sorry, but... Simple grammar, my foot. Yes, you TALK and WRITE like She's the only one, because, for all your intents and purposes, She is... but that doesn't mean that *literally* she's the only one... just the only one that matters... at a given time. Even if you're not writing hymns at that moment, a religious person (often) still gives deference to their deity, even when writing a more informational, explanatory work... The fact that Deities are Capitalized in formal English is evidence of that.

In some of his writings, Gardner did write as if the Goddess of the Wicca was a singular entity, with aspects as other Goddesses throughout mythology... and then in other places, he wrote about the Gods of the Wicca as "little gods", in contrast with the Supreme Deities of other religions.

So, you can take your pick, I suppose. I see evidence for both arguments.

I think I wasn't clear in my post. I wasn't arguing whether Gardner or Wiccans are either hard or soft polytheists, but that the singular Great Goddess theory was in evidence among scholars writing about Paganism... and how they would have used "a" Great Goddess if they actually meant distinct and separate Great Goddesses.

I was responding to talamh's post where she said that those Great Goddess scholars didn't mean a universal singular Goddess.

[talamh]

Different cultures can and do have deities for similar things -- a mother goddess, or a goddess of vegetation, or a goddess of the moon. That doesn't mean that these deities are the same thing with different names though. Except to those who are soft polytheists -- but we'd have to first prove the ancient cultures were soft polytheist to confirm that they believed their goddesses were all one and the same.


That must make me a soft polythaist then... grin. I know this drives some scholars crazy, but to me, a Goddess in one culture can indeed be the same Goddess in another culture. A goddess of fertility is a goddess of fertility. Different cultures can interpret and depict the same Goddess in different ways.... but it seems to be that maybe we're making the same point from two different directions.

Ultimately, while it is interesting to explore what evidence exists as to the role of different Goddesses in different cultures, to me all Goddesses are the One Great Goddess... She of a thousand names ... a thousand different aspects of the Divine Feminine.

And to me it is far more important to honour the Goddesss as a real presence in a real world then to study Her specific role in civilizations past

[Lunacie]

That must make me a soft polythaist then... grin. I know this drives some scholars crazy, but to me, a Goddess in one culture can indeed be the same Goddess in another culture. A goddess of fertility is a goddess of fertility. Different cultures can interpret and depict the same Goddess in different ways.... but it seems to be that maybe we're making the same point from two different directions.

Ultimately, while it is interesting to explore what evidence exists as to the role of different Goddesses in different cultures, to me all Goddesses are the One Great Goddess... She of a thousand names ... a thousand different aspects of the Divine Feminine.

And to me it is far more important to honour the Goddesss as a real presence in a real world then to study Her specific role in civilizations past

I used to wonder about this one, but eventually I realized that my grandmother was not the same person as my best friend's grandmother just because they share the same title and some of the same characteristics. There are certainly general categories like "agricultural goddess" or "mother goddess" just as there are general categories such as "mystery books" and "geography books" but each book is individual and unique, and I believe this to be true of the various gods and goddesses as well.

[Ben Gruagach]

That must make me a soft polythaist then... grin. I know this drives some scholars crazy, but to me, a Goddess in one culture can indeed be the same Goddess in another culture. A goddess of fertility is a goddess of fertility. Different cultures can interpret and depict the same Goddess in different ways.... but it seems to be that maybe we're making the same point from two different directions.

Ultimately, while it is interesting to explore what evidence exists as to the role of different Goddesses in different cultures, to me all Goddesses are the One Great Goddess... She of a thousand names ... a thousand different aspects of the Divine Feminine.

And to me it is far more important to honour the Goddesss as a real presence in a real world then to study Her specific role in civilizations past

You are definitely a soft polytheist. Hard polytheists are quite clear that they do not consider all goddesses of the same type (like fertility goddesses) to be the same being, let alone all goddesses everywhere to be one Great Goddess.

(Personally I'm a soft polytheist too!)

[Ben Trismegistus]

That must make me a soft polythaist then... grin. I know this drives some scholars crazy, but to me, a Goddess in one culture can indeed be the same Goddess in another culture. A goddess of fertility is a goddess of fertility. Different cultures can interpret and depict the same Goddess in different ways.... but it seems to be that maybe we're making the same point from two different directions.

Ultimately, while it is interesting to explore what evidence exists as to the role of different Goddesses in different cultures, to me all Goddesses are the One Great Goddess... She of a thousand names ... a thousand different aspects of the Divine Feminine.

And to me it is far more important to honour the Goddesss as a real presence in a real world then to study Her specific role in civilizations past

I agree with your theology (those are my viewpoints as well), and while I agree that it is more important to honor the Goddess today than to discuss her role in history, I believe that the study of history is both beneficial and rewarding. My personal spirituality has been deepened greatly thanks to the amount I've learned about the history underpinning my beliefs (the real history, not things like Matilda Gage's '9 million women died in the Burning Times').

I know there are some that disagree with me. There is a whole set of pagans who think that Ronald Hutton is the anti-christ (or the pagan equivalent of the anti-christ) because he pokes holes in Wiccan mythology (and it is mythology). Rather, I find that being able to distinguish between true history and mythology focuses my beliefs. Just because Gardner erroneously relies on Margaret Mead's anthropology when crafting Wicca doesn't make the beliefs any less real or worthwhile.

By the way, coming back to the original question, I came up with another difference between Wicca and the paganism that precedes it. Wicca (as a general rule) is concerned with the concept of balance - male/female, light/dark, good/evil, etc. This duality is, in my opinion, the central spiritual tenet of Wicca. That said, not all Wiccans believe in balance - the Dianics definitely favor the Goddess over the God - but by and large I believe that to be true.

Hi Ben G & Lunacie! It's good to be back.

[Lunacie]

The balance of energies in the universe was certainly one of the precepts that drew me to Wicca vs other forms of Paganism.

Where, or from whom, did that precept come to us?

[Ben Trismegistus]

The balance of energies in the universe was certainly one of the precepts that drew me to Wicca vs other forms of Paganism.

Where, or from whom, did that precept come to us?

That's another good question, and Ben G probably knows better than me. I actually think that does not come from Gardner, but developed afterwards. My understanding of early Wicca is that the priestess was superior to the priest, and the feminine was generally emphasized over the masculine. There were some forms of balance, like the Great Rite, etc., but I don't think it was a central goal.

The idea of balance probably came from the growth in the 60s and 70s of Eastern religions like Buddhism and Taoism, where balance is central. I think that the eclectic Wiccans (probably in America) at that time period adopted that sense of balance.

Also, I think that the idea of the God & Goddess being equal sides of the same coin is a relatively new idea, and not one that's shared throughout Wicca. That might be a post-feminist idea responding to the feminist idea of raising women above men.

This is all just a guess, however.

[Lunacie]

That seems sensible. At first I thought maybe the concept of balance came from Druidry, but it doesn't really seem to be core to that belief system. I don't know much about Buddhism and Taoism and balance may be important to them, but I know they don't equate balance with equality. They see the differences between male and female energy, between day and night, between anger and love, between destruction and creation. I do think some people find this confusing because they are equating that balance between men and women as meaning that men and women are essentially equal in all things. Does this make sense to anyone else?

[Ben Gruagach]

My guess would be that Doreen Valiente played a role in emphasizing balance in Wicca. She didn't introduce the strong role of women though as I've seen some suggest in books and articles on Wicca -- she said in one of her books or interviews (I forget where) that the idea of strong women (priestesses as well as Goddesses) were part of what Gardner taught.

Oh, and I think Ben T. meant Margaret Murray, not Margaret Mead in his post a few posts back. Mead is another controversial scholar with her own problems of credibility, but Murray was the one Gardner was relying on.

Getting back to balance though, particularly having a balanced Goddess and God pair, to me that is one of the core elements of Wicca. It's probably the main reason why at least some people say that Dianic Wiccans are not really Wiccans.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Oh, and I think Ben T. meant Margaret Murray, not Margaret Mead in his post a few posts back. Mead is another controversial scholar with her own problems of credibility, but Murray was the one Gardner was relying on.

Thank you Ben, you're absolutely right. I meant Margaret Murray. My brain is full at this point - who knows what might slip out.


Getting back to balance though, particularly having a balanced Goddess and God pair, to me that is one of the core elements of Wicca. It's probably the main reason why at least some people say that Dianic Wiccans are not really Wiccans.

It's entirely possible that we (meaning modern eclectic Wiccans) created the Wiccan idea of balance out of whole cloth. I'm ok with that.

[RainInanna]

That must make me a soft polythaist then... grin. I know this drives some scholars crazy, but to me, a Goddess in one culture can indeed be the same Goddess in another culture. A goddess of fertility is a goddess of fertility. Different cultures can interpret and depict the same Goddess in different ways.... but it seems to be that maybe we're making the same point from two different directions.

I agree with your posts here in general.

I think it has something to do with straddling the line between considering myth to be fact or fiction, and deities to be individual entities or energies. We can consider the gods to be forms of energy and individual entities depending on which way we're looking through the prism - just as I can consider myself Rain the person or Rain the bundle of life energy in a human form, depending on which way I'm looking. Vaguely panentheistic ideas of sacredness mix into polytheistic views. Therefore, seeing deity as individual or as "fertility goddess" are both valid - just different ways to view them. Neither negates the other - after all, if I can accept I am both individual and part of living energy, certainly the sacred can be even more?

After all, this ability to recognize each view of the gods is meaningful, valid, and worthwhile, is one of our greatest strengths, despite that it often leads to entanglements on the exact nature of deity :)

[talamh]

Also, I think that the idea of the God & Goddess being equal sides of the same coin is a relatively new idea, and not one that's shared throughout Wicca. That might be a post-feminist idea responding to the feminist idea of raising women above men.


This is somewhat off topic but.... a feminist is anyone who believes in equality of opportunity for women and men.... not the belief in the superiority of women ... or that men and women are exactly the same in every way.

And another fine point - I don't see balance as a duality. I see it as a polarity. To me the concept of polarity removes the inherent conflict that is part of the idea of opposites. So yes, I see the divine feminine and the divine masculine as part of the same whole rather then as the complete opposite of each other. Many characteristics are intrinsically part of both - such as compassion, strength and protectiveness. The concept of polarity allows for overlapping characteristics while, in my opinion, duality means complete opposites.

[talamh]

Yes... and post feminism is a new age breakfast cereal.

[Lunacie]

This is somewhat off topic but.... a feminist is anyone who believes in equality of opportunity for women and men.... not the belief in the superiority of women ... or that men and women are exactly the same in every way.

And another fine point - I don't see balance as a duality. I see it as a polarity. To me the concept of polarity removes the inherent conflict that is part of the idea of opposites. So yes, I see the divine feminine and the divine masculine as part of the same whole rather then as the complete opposite of each other. Many characteristics are intrinsically part of both - such as compassion, strength and protectiveness. The concept of polarity allows for overlapping characteristics while, in my opinion, duality means complete opposites.

Perhaps the balance is in both duality and polarity. By definition polarity is generally the one that means opposites (sometimes in conflict with each other), while duality means two parts of one whole (most often working together or somehow complementing each other).

But maybe you have a different dictionary than I do?

[Ben Gruagach]

Perhaps the balance is in both duality and polarity. By definition polarity is generally the one that means opposites (sometimes in conflict with each other), while duality means two parts of one whole (most often working together or somehow complementing each other).

But maybe you have a different dictionary than I do?

I think both terms are used interchangeably and with many different shades of meaning. For instance, it's quite common to see Christianity described as a duality, because of the conflict between two opposing forces -- which are described as good and evil.

Polarity can easily be used to apply to Christianity as well if you see good and evil as being the polar opposites.

To me, polarity includes an inherent meaning of opposition while duality does not necessarily have to have that meaning (although many times people do mean it to as in the Christian example.) But since dual means two there isn't really any reason why it has to be two that are in opposition to one another.

It's all semantics.

[Lunacie]

Sounds like once again we are thinking along the same lines, eh BenG?

[RainInanna]

I see your point talamh - duality focuses more on "two", coming from the Latin dualis meaning "two" and often referring to a pair. The idea actually focuses more on the idea of two things, not on two parts of one.

Whilst the etymology of polar shows it comes from the idea of "stake" and "pole" as relating to two ends of one axis. You can't really mistake it for "two things", it requires the idea of two parts of one whole.

Again, at least in my experience, it's a matter of multiple answers being understood as valid, and the idea that there isn't one "true right way" to view it. I personally see them more as polar as well, and focus on them as aspects of a whole, rather then as two different things. But YMMV.

[Gede]

Blessings~
Now my opinion might be more on the controversial side, but I will preface by saying that I too once thought that Wicca and other forms of modern Witchcraft (or revived Craft trads) were all semi-created in the early-mid 1900s. I no longer find this to be completely true.

There is a lot of evidence (a lot of it is expressed beautifully in Raven Grimassi's work) that suggests that the key elements of Wicca and most forms of modern Witchcraft can actually be found in the older Witch traditions of Italy and the Mediterannean. If anyone wishes to dispute this one can speak directly to Grimassi in his own sub-forum here at MysticWicks. His arguments and historical outlook is very convincing and his evidence is often hard to debate. Therefore it makes sense that Gardner was initiated into a real tradition of Witchcraft that had been influenced at least indirectly by Italian Witchcraft (and we know that some Wiccan liturgy reflects Aradian material from Charles Leland); however much of what Wicca has become due to eclecticism may or may not reflect what traditional European Witchcraft actually was/is.

I define (as does my coven) Witchcraft as an ecstasy-driven, Earth-based mystery tradition/s. Therefore we see the key elements of the Craft as being a shamanic-foundation (ecstasy coming from the Greek ek stasis - "to stand outside (of oneself)"; relating, of course, to techniques of trance), a reverence of the Earth and her (related) cycles (and attuning to them) and what we call "the Mystery" (the eternal paradox of things that infuses all things - Magick, Wyrd, Spirit, perhaps...). Does Wicca (a form of NeoPagan religious Witchcraft, as Ronald Hutton would say) contain these key elements. Yes, it does.

Techniques of trance - the Drawing Down ceremony is perhaps the best example of this. What Frederic Lamond (an initiate of Gardner's) would call "ego-transcendence", which is attained through trance.

Reverence of the Earth and her (related) cycles - the Sabbats, the Esbats, herbalism and healing, etc.

The Mystery - the God and the Goddess of Wicca (first think of them individually, then see how they relate), the practise of Magick (the art), the reverence of Dryghten (the Unity of All - Spirit), reincarnation, themes of rebirth, etc.

You will find then that the external/exoteric rituals that embody these things are irrelevant (i.e. their origins). As long as they embody these key themes then it is what I would call traditional Witchcraft.

If you would like to read more about Witchcraft as an "ecstasy-driven, Earth-based mystery tradition/s" here is an article of mine on my website:

http://www.gedeparma.com/?cat=3

Blessings, Eilan~

[Ben Gruagach]

Interesting post, Gede.

With regards to the history of Wicca and pre-Gardnerian stuff, my own outlook is that we will need some pretty serious evidence to prove Gardner was carrying on anything like an intact tradition rather than drawing on existing witch lore and practices and putting it together in his own special way and then passing that on. Just because the ingredients are proven to have existed previously does not mean that the final dish Gardner whipped up is the same as the dish made by anyone else previously.

I don't doubt that Gardner was initiated as a witch by Dafo (Edith Woodford-Grimes) but based on the evidence given by Doreen Valiente, Fred Lamond (both who worked with Gardner back in the early days), Ronald Hutton, Aidan Kelly, and Philip Heselton I have to say it's getting harder and harder to find evidence of what Dafo's teachings actually were apart from the general idea of witches working for good, being spiritual (and likely Pagan), and raising energy through various physical and herbal methods. I'd love for any of the material in Gardner's Book of Shadows to be proven as a prior witchcraft teaching rather than something he clearly borrowed but I suspect we'll wait a long time for that to come. And in the meantime more and more of his teachings are being identified as things he did in fact borrow or introduce himself.

The definition of Witchcraft you gave is what I would call a definition of Wicca and Wicca-derived witchcraft systems. Witches prior to Gardner (and those subsequent to him who are not connected to Gardner) do not necessarily include trancework in their practice. Many do, but it's not universal. The same goes with Earth-reverence. Classical witches were as likely to be urban practitioners as they are to have been rural. The idea of the rural hedgewitch is certainly a romantic notion but again is not historically universal. And (you guessed it) the whole idea of witchcraft being a Mystery religion is not universal either. There are instances in pre-Gardnerian witch lore (even if we restrict our search just to the British Isles) of witches being completely self-taught and solitary practitioners, which means they couldn't have been part of an initiatory Mystery cult.

Your form of Witchcraft/Wicca is pretty much parallel with my own but we have to acknowledge that there are other radically different forms of witchcraft too.

[SoulFire]

Blessings~
I define (as does my coven) Witchcraft as an ecstasy-driven, Earth-based mystery tradition/s. Therefore we see the key elements of the Craft as being a shamanic-foundation (ecstasy coming from the Greek ek stasis - "to stand outside (of oneself)"; relating, of course, to techniques of trance), a reverence of the Earth and her (related) cycles (and attuning to them) and what we call "the Mystery" (the eternal paradox of things that infuses all things - Magick, Wyrd, Spirit, perhaps...). Does Wicca (a form of NeoPagan religious Witchcraft, as Ronald Hutton would say) contain these key elements. Yes, it does.

Techniques of trance - the Drawing Down ceremony is perhaps the best example of this. What Frederic Lamond (an initiate of Gardner's) would call "ego-transcendence", which is attained through trance.

Reverence of the Earth and her (related) cycles - the Sabbats, the Esbats, herbalism and healing, etc.

The Mystery - the God and the Goddess of Wicca (first think of them individually, then see how they relate), the practise of Magick (the art), the reverence of Dryghten (the Unity of All - Spirit), reincarnation, themes of rebirth, etc.

You will find then that the external/exoteric rituals that embody these things are irrelevant (i.e. their origins). As long as they embody these key themes then it is what I would call traditional Witchcraft.

If you would like to read more about Witchcraft as an "ecstasy-driven, Earth-based mystery tradition/s" here is an article of mine on my website:

http://www.gedeparma.com/?cat=3

Blessings, Eilan~

Wow. Excellent post, Gede! I agree with your description of traditional Witchcraft, which is very similar to my own tradition, Anderson Feri (http://www.lilithslantern.com/Faery%20Trad.htm), especially the reverence for the Drygtyn (which we also call the Star Goddess, God Herself, or Father-Mother God), the emphasis on ecstasy and trance states, and magick or sorcery. Also, your definition of "the Mystery" is nearly identical to my own that I teach privately to my students in Vicia (http://lilithslantern.com/vicia.htm), the particular line of my tradition that I co-founded. I have bookmarked your site and look forward to reading your book when it is published.

Slainte!

[RainInanna]

Thank you Gede for sharing something thoughtful and indicative of the beauty and mystery of Wicca & Witchcraft. Conflict and semantics have their place, but thank you for the reminder that magic and spirituality are really what is most important here.

[Gede]

Blessings,

we will need some pretty serious evidence to prove Gardner was carrying on anything like an intact tradition rather than drawing on existing witch lore and practices and putting it together in his own special way and then passing that on.

I never said that the Gardnerian tradition was an intact, whole tradition. And I completely agree with you that Gardner introduced parts of it in the crafting of the tradition. In fact it's plainly obvious which parts do not derive from any kind of overt Witch tradition e.g. the 3 degrees of initiation.


Witches prior to Gardner (and those subsequent to him who are not connected to Gardner) do not necessarily include trancework in their practice.

Hm...I am not so sure. But then again I do not preach my definition of Witchcraft as the be-all, end-all. Every form of Witchcraft I have ever come across works with trance in one form or another, and generally with a shamanic foundation. Or rather, the Craft as it has come down to us contains shamanic elements (whether or not Witchcraft is a shamanic tradition or not can be debated see Witchcraft and the Shamanic Journey by Kenneth Johnson (Llewellyn, 1998)). Trance is an altered state of consciousness - breathing deeply and rhythmically creates an altered state of consciousness. Any form of meditation is an altered state of consciousness; and trance, therefore, is the foundation for most (if not all) magickal work. Degrees of trance-states differ from person to person. Are there any examples of Craft traditions that you know of that do not contain trance?


The same goes with Earth-reverence. Classical witches were as likely to be urban practitioners as they are to have been rural. The idea of the rural hedgewitch is certainly a romantic notion but again is not historically universal.

One can revere the Earth and not live in a rural area. In fact the majority of Witches nowadays do exactly that. Often we hold our gatherings in parks, gardens or at the least in open air on a balcony or verandah. The Earth is right beneath us at all times, it doesn't take much to notice her, even in the city. And you'll find that in classical writings (Lucan, Horace, etc.) Witches are seen to belong to a lunar fringe-cult whose members reject the solar-city cults and travel to the forests and heaths to practise their rites. Raven Grimassi writes of this.


the whole idea of witchcraft being a Mystery religion is not universal either. There are instances in pre-Gardnerian witch lore (even if we restrict our search just to the British Isles) of witches being completely self-taught and solitary practitioners, which means they couldn't have been part of an initiatory Mystery cult.

I will repeat what I said about the Mystery - "the eternal paradox of things that infuses all things - Magick, Wyrd, Spirit, perhaps..." If using that definition of Mystery (and nothing to do with rites of initiation) then all Witches honour the Mystery.

Hope that clears some things up :)

Khaire, Slainte, Blessed Be~

[SoulFire]

Blessings,

In fact it's plainly obvious which parts do not derive from any kind of overt Witch tradition e.g. the 3 degrees of initiation.



I'm not so sure about that these days. In An ABC of Witchcraft, Past & Present, Doreen Valiente writes:

"The existence of these three degrees is seldom mentioned in old literature dealing with witchcraft... Nevertheless, there are some references.

"One is to be found in an old French book about witchcraft... Boissier tells us that there were three 'marks' which were bestowed upon witches, at three different times; but only the older ones had all three, and this made them magicians.

"Another and earlier reference ... comes from Portugal... (I)t is recorded that 'no one can be a witch (bruja) without going through the degrees of feiticeyra and alcoviteyra.

"The fact that these secret degrees existed shows that the society of the witches had knowledge to impart" (pp. 393-394).

But in general, I would tend to agree with you. I am of the opinion that folk Witches of old, if they practiced an initiatory system, typically had only one initiation rite, with few exceptions as noted above.


Every form of Witchcraft I have ever come across works with trance in one form or another, and generally with a shamanic foundation. Or rather, the Craft as it has come down to us contains shamanic elements...

Interestingly enough, while searching for the quoted passage above, I ran across this also, which would seem to support your thesis:

"What traditional witchcraft is really all about on its practical side is the hidden powers of the human mind. These can be aided by traditional knowledge of techniques which will bring them out and develop them; but basically the powers of witchcraft, shamanism, magic, or whatever one likes to call it are latent in everyone" (The Rebirth of Witchcraft 92).

And here's one of my all-time favorite quotes by Valiente, which I like to show to people who insist that Witchcraft is not a religion (emphasis mine):

"The basic origin of the real countryside witchcraft, it seems to me, must lie in the ancient shamanism which predates all the sophisticated techniques of the medieval sorcerer. (The original 'shamans' were the tribal magician-priests and priestesses of Northern Asia; but this word is generally used by anthropologists today to mean the earliest and most primitive forms of religion and magic). Nevertheless, witchcraft can claim to be a religion, because it comes down to use from the days when religion and magic were the two sides of the same coin. People in those days lived close to nature, and nature was the book in which they read" (ibid. 65).

[Gede]

Blessings,
I'm actually of the mind that Witchcraft is not a religion. However my reasoning for this is purely because I detest the modern connotation of the word i.e. authoritative, power-over regimes which insist on priesthood and clergy as intermediataries for the Divine 'Godhead' and who preach dualism - that the Spirit and the Flesh are intrinsically opposed; the former being sacred, and the latter, profane. But that's a little extremist...

I do understand why most Witches think of what they do as religion (from Latin, meaning "to reconnect/link", apparently?; although I believe it has something more to do with "re, ligare" to bind back again). I tend to use the term 'spiritual tradition' when speaking of the Craft. However I do believe that Wicca is a religion. It's all quite trivial in the end, isn't it...it doesn't offend me that someone would call their Craft religion. Not in the least. And more power to you.

- Eilan~

[SoulFire]

Blessings,
I'm actually of the mind that Witchcraft is not a religion. However my reasoning for this is purely because I detest the modern connotation of the word i.e. authoritative, power-over regimes which insist on priesthood and clergy as intermediataries for the Divine 'Godhead' and who preach dualism - that the Spirit and the Flesh are intrinsically opposed; the former being sacred, and the latter, profane. But that's a little extremist...

I do understand why most Witches think of what they do as religion (from Latin, meaning "to reconnect/link", apparently?; although I believe it has something more to do with "re, ligare" to bind back again). I tend to use the term 'spiritual tradition' when speaking of the Craft. However I do believe that Wicca is a religion. It's all quite trivial in the end, isn't it...it doesn't offend me that someone would call their Craft religion. Not in the least. And more power to you.

- Eilan~

I don't have the same knee-jerk reaction to the word. But I understand what you're saying and can respect that. The main reason I posted those quotes is that they seemed to mirror what you were saying about traditional Witchcraft incorporating techniques of shamanism, e.g., trance states, etc. I just thought you'd appreciate that. _witchball

Slainte!

[Lunacie]

And here I thought the Latin equivalent of "religion" was "god fearing", but also "way of life." The first doesn't seem so appropriate these days, but a couple of thousand years ago people were often very afraid of their gods, attributing all kinds of natural occurances including disasters to the wrath of the gods.

However, in those days people believed that the gods were swift to anger and punishment wasn't delayed until long after you were dead and the heavens opened so that the Christian god could sort out the sheep from the goats.

[Ben Gruagach]

Re: trance

If you read Adam Crabtree's excellent book "Trance Zero" we are always in a trance -- there are just a variety of different depths to the trance. With trance being such an all-encompassing thing I'm not sure how trance work is a distinguishing characteristic of witchcraft. Trance (in the form of prayer) is clearly a part of many other religious systems, and meditation (another clear type of trance work) is also used outside religious contexts, all which are also not witchcraft.

Re: witchcraft systems that don't use trance

I'm not an initiate of the system, but from what I've learned about Madeline Montalban's system (which she taught to others largely via a correspondence course) it did not include trance work. Madeline Montalban was the "Mrs. North" witch who worked with Gardner on a number of occasions, and who also proofread and edited Gardner's manuscript for "Witchcraft Today." She was also quite adamant that her system was not Wicca. (Maxine Sanders talks a bit about meeting Madeline Montalban in her new autobiography, "Fire Child.")

Personally I find trancework to be one of the big attractions to Wicca. However, I don't think that because it's common we should assume it is universal or a defining practice in witchcraft as a whole.

[Ben Gruagach]

One can revere the Earth and not live in a rural area. In fact the majority of Witches nowadays do exactly that. Often we hold our gatherings in parks, gardens or at the least in open air on a balcony or verandah. The Earth is right beneath us at all times, it doesn't take much to notice her, even in the city. And you'll find that in classical writings (Lucan, Horace, etc.) Witches are seen to belong to a lunar fringe-cult whose members reject the solar-city cults and travel to the forests and heaths to practise their rites. Raven Grimassi writes of this.

One can live in a rural area and not revere the Earth. (I grew up on a farm and know this first-hand!) And while we do know that in some places witches were stereotyped as being rural practitioners, we have to be careful to not assume that is an accurate depiction for all witches everywhere through all history.

Historical witchcraft practices include a lot of very un-politically-correct stuff including spells to force nature to do things that are very un-natural. Some modern writers have attempted to soften the old vile spells by explaining they were code-words for less offensive ingredients. However, we have examples of truly intact witchcraft traditions from all over the world (Central and South America, Asia, Europe, etc.) where it is clear the vile ingredients were not code-words but the actual ingredients that were intended to be used. Our modern witchcraft doesn't have to be like that or include the use of ethically questionable spells and ingredients, but we also can't redefine witchcraft to exclude what has historically always been part of witchcraft.

Just because many modern Witches do revere the Earth and Nature does not mean that all witches did so throughout history. Let's be careful to not project our modern attitudes and assumptions onto our ancestors.

[Ben Gruagach]

I just remembered another example of a documented witchcraft tradition that doesn't include trancework.

Look for "The Black Books of Elverum" edited by Mary S. Rustad. The witchcraft system described in that book is historically pre-Gardner, and is much closer to pow-wow work than shamanism. It's also pretty close to what a lot of the stereotypes were for witchcraft (unless you go with Margaret Murray's version.)

I wonder too -- does the witchcraft system in "Aradia" count as Earth-revering? It doesn't include much overt mention of trancework (unless someone can point it out -- it's been a while since I read it.) I know that modern witches working with Aradia have incorporated trancework, but my point is that I don't think there's evidence of it in "Aradia" itself.

[SoulFire]

I wonder too -- does the witchcraft system in "Aradia" count as Earth-revering? It doesn't include much overt mention of trancework (unless someone can point it out -- it's been a while since I read it.) I know that modern witches working with Aradia have incorporated trancework, but my point is that I don't think there's evidence of it in "Aradia" itself.

Perhaps that has more to do with the fact that Aradia is presented as a "Gospel" of sorts, "scripture" even, as Leland calls it, of a "Dianic religion". However, there is ample evidence within the text that trancework was utilized, even if there is no overt mention of the word "trance". I'll present three examples and back them up with supporting evidence. YMMV.

A prime example: Many of the incantations and invocations make use of the repetition of certain lines and even entire poems. As with "The Invocation to Aradia", Leland says in the footnote: "This is a formula which is to be slowly recited, emphasising the repetitions." And in the footnotes to the "Invocation to Diana" in Chapter XIII, he writes:

"The most important part of witchcraft is to intone or accent the incantations accurately, in a manner like that of church chanting or Arab recitations. Hence the apparently prose form of most spells."

If we accept Dion Fortune's definition of magic as "the art of changing consciousness at will", then all folk magic inherently has, at its foundation, techniques of trance, whether it's called that or not, through the utilization of chanting and other stimuli. In the new translation of Aradia by Mario & Dina Pazzaglini, Chas Clifton describes how the chants in the text "are performed in a sing-song tonal system, along with a rocking motion (to and fro)..." (p. 88). The repetition and rhythm, of course, focus the attention and build power, but they also induce a trance-like state within the Witch. Some of the chants have a child-like character, like "nursery rhymes" as Leland says. Chas continues (emphasis mine):

"Much of the practitioner's training involves the skills needed to formulate and focus volition. Concentration and mind clearing are facilitated by gesture and chant. Practice is needed to allow these mental attitudes to be called into action when needed. Early in life children are sung chants that encourage, by their nonordinary structure of associations, an ability to focus in a mild trance state, formulate an intention and bring it into action" (100).

This is a technique used in magical traditions of all ages, down to modern times. In the Anderson Feri Tradition, we use symbols, chants, etc. to connect with the Fetch, Vivi, Unihipili, or Younger Self. (We have many names for the parts of the triune soul!) I hesitate to mention it, but trance is also the basis of Laurie Cabot's "Alpha" method of spellcasting, as she explains in her book Power of the Witch.

There is another hint of the use of trance suggested in Chapter II, in "The Conjuration of Meal". In the same chapter, we also have evidence of an Earth-revering, grain cult.


Even as a (golden) glittering grain, even then
The fireflies came to cast on thee their light
And aid thy growth, because without their help
Thou couldst not grow nor beautiful become;
Therefore thou dost belong unto the race
Of witches or fairies...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And because thou for ever art brilliant and fair,
Under a glass I will keep thee; while there,
With a lens I will study thy secrets concealed,
Till all their bright mysteries are fully revealed,
Yea, all the wondrous lore perplexed
Of this life of our cross and of the next.
Thus to all mysteries I shall attain,
Yea, even to that at last of the grain;
And when this at last I shall truly know,
Firefly, freely I'll let thee go!
When Earth's dark secrets are known to me,
My blessing at last I will give to thee!

~Aradia (emphasis mine again)

To aid our understanding of this verse, the Pazzaglinis notes:

"At times fireflies are likened to grains of wheat--both contain a source of light. In June the fireflies over wheat fields would be like flashing blankets of lights. This happens around June 24 the main holiday date of the old religion, St. John's Day. Also a hallucinogenic rust can grow on wheat or rye and can be used to produce a hallucinogen similar to LSD which could produce an inner flight. Fireflies are also used for divination" (footnote 77, p. 364).

So the Witch holds the firefly captive till all Earth's mysteries of the grain--and flight--are revealed, or until the effect wears off. :broomride Can anyone say "Mystery tradition"? ;) Robert E. Chartowich extends the firefly analysis further, in the new translation:

"Lunar and solar, yet also chthonic, fireflies are spirits of Diana (fairies) who, in their dance about the grain, reflect, fertilize, beautify, and enrich the spighe. Certain mushrooms, engendered by their dance, perform the enrichment.

"...So the spigha reflects the Initiate; and as the fireflies chthonically enlighten the grain, so the mushrooms chthonically enlighten the Initiate.

"...And the Initiates stood an excellent chance to be enlightened because the mushrooms were likely claviceps purpurea...and also having the potency of five times that of psilocybin--thanks to their lightning-engendered, chthonic payload of ergotamine, ergonovine, and lysergic acid. Lightning's firefly children, lightning's mushroom children, have brought the psychedelics to the meal--which in the Vangelo, will be ground into crescent cakes and offered to Diana, Queen of the Fairies, the fireflies, the mushrooms, and the grain.

"The greatest gift to the Initiate is flight. Lightning, fairies, mushrooms, fireflies, and grain all possess flight. The firefly, lightning's tiny offspring, ultimately brings this gift to the initiate. Witches (Initiates) dance in circles, and fly. In cultures afraid of flying, the broomstick is a euphemism for the phallus. In cultures afraid of mushrooms, the phallus is a euphemism for the mushroom.

"Diana's fairies (fireflies) summon us to fly to Her Paradise (Fairyland) and dance with Her there" (pp. 458-459).

Gede's definition of Witchcraft, from his Web site, would seem to sum up the methodology presented in Aradia, as exemplified above in Chartowich's firefly analysis, quite well:

"So once again Witchcraft, as I experience it, is an ecstasy-driven, earth-based mystery path. Ecstasy-driven because we yearn for the Self beyond the self that is in truth more than the sum of its parts and equal to it, and we perform rituals harnessing powerful techniques of trance to attain this."

I also personally believe that in the chapter "Diana, Queen of Serpents", the "Invocation of the Serpents' Mother" is suggestive of a trance induction for the purpose of obtaining information through non-ordinary means. The serpent has long been used as a symbol of prophecy and energy by oracles and seers. What's more, the particular method as described in this chapter is strongly reminiscent of incubatory sleep techniques that ancient Greek oracles and Bards supposedly also utilized to achieve enlightenment, illumination, or divine inspiration, known as awen or imbas. "Searles O'Dubhain" writes (emphasis mine):

"Dichetal Do Chennaibh (Illumination by Song) is an altered state that is achieved by chanting or singing a repetitive pattern (usually calling on the gods in some form). This could possibly also have included drumming and dancing as alternative means of achieving the proper altered state. Such activities are now known to synchronize the body and mind to an external rhythm, allowing one to cast off the chains of normal perception. The practitioner of this art must first float at peace within the rhythm of the song (dance, beat, mantra, etc.). The state of inner quietness and focus that was to be achieved by such chanting may well be considered to be an 'altered state'. In such a state, communion with the ancestors and the gods could and did occur more readily, allowing prophecies and insights to be made."
http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/awenimba.htm

Now read the chapter "Diana, Queen of Serpents" from Aradia, and see if that is not what is being described. ;) (See also Mara Freeman's article: "Ecstasy and Madness within Celtic Tradition" (http://druidsegg.reformed-druids.org/newssamhain06.htm).) In fact, many of the chants in Aradia seem designed to induce an altered state of awareness this way, through repetition, rhythm, and motion. I could also point out other instances of Earth- and Nature-reverence within the text of Aradia, but I do not have time at the moment. For now, the three examples I've given illustrate that Maddalena's informants were seemingly well-versed (pun intended) with techniques of trance induction, whether they used that term or not.

[Gede]

Blessings,
Amazing, insightful post SF! :) I agree with you whole-heartedly, especially when framing chants and rhymes (part of the efficacy of spellcraft) as a kind of trance-induction. Rhyme of course comes from the Greek 'rhei', which means 'flow' (Heraclitus: "Panta rhei, ouden menei" - "Everything flows, nothing is static") and to flow is to engage or align with the universal consciousness which many Witches call the Mystery and to entrance onself thereby.

And Ben :) to quote myself "...Witchcraft, as I experience it...". I do not mean to suggest that all Witchcraft is alike or that it even conforms to my definition; however I have yet to come across a tradition, personally, that does not contain Earth-reverence, trance/ecstasy or the Mystery.

Earth-wise, the old spells (which you described as vile) that were employed by the Strega, and other Witch cults, that instruct the Witch/magician to insult or bind a deity/spirit, etc. are not anti-Earth, they are simply techniques of achieving a result. I would never do it because I have a different relationship with my Gods, and am a hard polytheist of sorts, however this familial animistic view of the Gods (all are equal; varying expressions of potency and power) is one grounded in old shamanic traditions. To anthropomorphise this, it would be like taking your younger sibling's favourite toy and not giving it back until they agreed to carry out the task you wish. Other than that foul ingredients? Do many Wiccans today eat meat? I'm a vegan, you see; just to illustrate a point.

Other than all this, I am really enjoying all these insightful and passionate opinions. This is what makes being Pagan a beautiful thing :)

Khaire~