Wiccans Vs Wiccans

[Silverfangs]

This is something I have observed here in Portugal.
In my country, it seems that the pagan comunity is divided by small conflicts that involve the Wiccan traditions. For instance... one of the most popular themes is the "new" (not so new) wiccan books that have started a more "commercialized" form of Wicca. Authors like Silver RavenWolf, Scott Cunnigham and others seem to atract a lot of "newbies" to the esoteric world starting small (yet in a large number) idealistic conflicts. So it is a "cold war" between Traditionalists and New Agers.

My question is : Is this situation common to other countries, or is it only here?
I would like to ear your opinion about this never ending "conflict". :durrrr:

[Luciferish]

It is VERY common in the USA and in most of Europe. The issues are divided along the lines of validity and credentials. The fact that someone can buy a book and a year or so later call themselves a High Priestess tends to make the traditionalists who take years achieving that level of recognition creates alot of problems. Its not necessarily the material offered in these books as much as the attitude taken by the people reading them, often arrogant and thumbing their noses at people who have been practicing craft since Silver Ravenwolf was a newbie.

[Ben Gruagach]

These sorts of "witch wars" have been going on forever -- in fact I think it could honestly be said they predate modern Wicca altogether.

In Gerald Gardner's day, he had many detractors including Robert Cochrane and numerous and assorted "traditionalists" who saw Gardner as an upstart. Cochrane is often credited with coining the term "Gardnerian" which he originally meant as an insult.

Gardnerians have fought with Alexandrians over which was the legitimate Wiccan/Witch tradition. These days the Gardnerians and Alexandrians appear to have resolved at least some of their differences and now complain about the "newcomers" who are not directly descended from them through formal initiations. Even among the Wiccan groups without formal ties to Gardnerians or Alexandrians, it's common to see one group condemn another group because of disagreements over practices, theology, or just plain old politics.

Back in the pre-Gardnerian days when cunning men and wise women like Pickingill were the public magick practitioners, it was pretty standard for the cunning men and wise women to insist that their competitors were practicing "evil magick" which they could just coincidentally help counteract. If you checked it out with the supposed "evil" practitioner they'd say the same thing about the one who accused them.

Personally I think it's all pretty silly and a waste of energy. There's so much we can learn from each other if we just stopped being so petty. And since Wicca is not based on having a central authority or scripture (no official Pope or Authorized Wiccan Bible) claims that any one group has an exclusive claim to Wiccan truth is pretty meaningless.

There is room in Wicca for all of our diversity. Even if we don't agree. I like to try and encourage people to put more of their energy into strengthening their own traditions and deepening their own practice rather than fussing about what their neighbors might or might not be doing.

[Luciferish]

Ben is right, if people could quit posturing and get to some serious discussions it would be much less trouble. But humans being pompus by nature, Wiccans/Witches being strong individualists and very opinionated I am not very optimistic.

[Ben Gruagach]

Oh, I thought I'd add a link to an interesting and valuable resource on this particular topic:

http://www.witchvox.com/xwars.html

It's the section at Witchvox (an excellent worldwide community resource website for Pagans) that explores "witch wars."

Once you load the page, you navigate through it by using the links at the left side of the screen.

The articles have been online now since at least 1998 so as you can see it's something that has been discussed at some length for a while now.

[HorseCrow]

Yup, very common here (Denmark). There's a division between fluffy-newbie vs. traditionalist going on.

[SqueezetheShaman]

Quick question, sorry a bit OT but was just wondering about this ....do the traditionalists and reconstructionists tend to take a literal view of the gods and goddess, as in real people/gods who lived/exist where as the new-agers/fluffy bunnies/whatever you wanna call them take the more scientific view of it, or the "jungian archetype" in our collective conscious?

if so, it would be so much like the fundies vs "lukewarm" christians arguments that are so frustrating and hopeless...yet so disheartening. Pagans should really be a more accepting group.

oh btw....while being a newbie, I in no way am a fluffy bunny. I hope not all traditionalist spit upon newbies. I have been practicing magic in my own ways for years with no education, and only recently realized there is a path that I can go to for guidance to get me further in it.

[Luciferish]

Quick question, sorry a bit OT but was just wondering about this ....do the traditionalists and reconstructionists tend to take a literal view of the gods and goddess, as in real people/gods who lived/exist where as the new-agers/fluffy bunnies/whatever you wanna call them take the more scientific view of it, or the "jungian archetype" in our collective conscious?

I can't speak for Reconstructionists, but Traditionalists do view the Gods as both Personified and Energy forms... Depending on who you ask. However the major traditions often personify them for sake of the strong connections it creates with a particular Diety. Personification allows us to interract, the other method allows is to absorb. Both have very valid uses and purposes. The major divisions lie somewhere in the Cultural and Religious areas. Traditionalists tend to be a bit more "fundamentalist" in nature, but for the most part should still be accepting of more eclectic paths.

If you look at the two sides of the argument with a little objectivity you can see why. Traditionalist covens and traditions that have been set in practice, some for decades, offer little validation to groups and traditions that are created spontaneously. A group that has practiced the same thing for years gains alot of power in the consistant nature in which they work. Eclectics on the other hand gain power of Expression via creativity. Its kind of a trade off really, but to each side of this debate and many others they often refuse to see eye to eye.

[SylverStar]

Yeah it's common in the states...but I think that the newer generation of Wiccans beats out the old. I've been studying for 9yrs but I would still consider my self in the newer generation. It kind of what's evolved...I think that the newer Wiccans need to get back into the history and practices more and than be an inspiration for those yet to come.

I've noticed (fluffy or not) that more of the newer generation of witchcraft is more about the spirituality than the ritual and do not seem to take ritual, study and practice as seriously (myself included). I think that is true of a lot of things in my generation in general though.

[Seren_]

There's not just a new Wicca/old Wicca divide, it seems to me that there is also very much a Wicca=Witch or Not. In Britain, most people I meet and most magazines I browse through are very much in the "Old Relgion of Witchcraft" - meaning Wicca - style. But like Luciferish said, I think it has a lot to do with lineage and credentials and stuff. It seems a lot more conservative round here than on line.

As for witch wars, I've heard of a few and even got caught in the cross fire of one. It all seemed so pointless - egos agogo.

Quick question, sorry a bit OT but was just wondering about this ....do the traditionalists and reconstructionists tend to take a literal view of the gods and goddess, as in real people/gods who lived/exist where as the new-agers/fluffy bunnies/whatever you wanna call them take the more scientific view of it, or the "jungian archetype" in our collective conscious?


There are a variety of views of deity within Wicca, and outside of it. Some Wiccans define themself as hard polytheists - real gods, who are not "all one" and all that. Others take the archetype view, or maybe somewhere in between - the gods are real, but facets of a greater whole that is unknowable, and so on. There is no universal agreement, really; and within Wicca this can be one of those Wicca vs Wicca things, sometimes. People might argue that Gardner never viewed the gods as archetypes, "so why should we?" Others might argue that things change, and so on...

The same goes for non-Wiccan recons. There is no one defined view of deity/gods, but archetypes aren't that common, if at all. And some recons don't define themselves as pagan either. :) But just because I personally don't understand someone else's point of view, or "feel" the same way, that doesn't mean I think they are wrong or anything like that. There are fundies in any religion...unfortunately it's the negatives that tend to stick in other people's minds. :ugh:

[Amadore]

*REMOVED BY MOL*

No SPAM is allowed in this community. Members may list their site in their signatures and also in the link database. Any site advertisements will be moderated in the thread(s) in question. SPAM sent via PM’s or through the community's email system could result in PM and email priviledges being revoked. NOTE: We do have a marketplace forum for members to advertise actual products they are selling or to advertise shops, etc. This is also a barter/trade forum. Please use this forum!

No off-topic posts and/or thread hijacking is allowed. Conversations are allowed to sway as we do not want to stifle discussion. But, constant posting of off-topic posts will be considered thread hijacking and it will lead to moderation. Constant abuse of this rule can lead to threads being closed.

[DebLipp]

These sorts of "witch wars" have been going on forever -- in fact I think it could honestly be said they predate modern Wicca altogether.

In Gerald Gardner's day, he had many detractors including Robert Cochrane and numerous and assorted "traditionalists" who saw Gardner as an upstart. Cochrane is often credited with coining the term "Gardnerian" which he originally meant as an insult.

I think it was Charles Cardell (Rex Nemorensis) who coined the term, but I could be wrong.

What you'll find is that "witch wars" aren't witchy at all; they are endemic to any small community. There are two distinct things; the original question was specific about broad-based, popular Wicca vs. small, initiatory or exclusive Wicca. This is a 'growing pains' issue found in many communities. As I've said before, it has been a big deal in the tattooing world that tattoos are no longer 'outlaw;' the recent surge in popularity for sailor-style 'Old School' tattoos may serve as a comment on the newer, more artistic tattoos thta are popular. Just as tattooists and the tattooed have to suffer from no longer being outlaws, Wicans have to suffer from no longer having the exclusive cachet that a similar status once afforded us. Swingers and BDSMers bemoan the way that their little tight-knit circles have been watered down by increased popularity as well. Committed Rennies bemoan the loss of serious-minded period recreations. Good PR and popularity are, like most things, two-edged swords. Even message boards tend to freak out when a bunch of newbies arrive that it ain't like the old days.

The other form of witch wars may be about who's realer than whom, but doesn't have that popular vs. exclusive strain. It's just wars. Again, a look at the history of other small movements that meet in small groups of committed people is informative. Witch wars are much like the internecine fighting of political groups so effectively parodied in MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN. For some really eye-opening insight into Wicca, read some of the early history of Alcoholics Anonymous. It's all there—who's real, who's sleeping with whom, who holds the keys to the kingdom. It's the nature of the beast and we'll outgrow it.

[DebLipp]

Yeah it's common in the states...but I think that the newer generation of Wiccans beats out the old.
I can't guess what you mean by "beats out." :whatgives:

[Seren_]

I think it was Charles Cardell (Rex Nemorensis) who coined the term, but I could be wrong.

It was Valiente who credited Cochrane with it, in her Rebirth of Witchcraft. I've never heard of Cardell, so I don't know if he came before that...

Witch wars are much like the internecine fighting of political groups so effectively parodied in MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN. For some really eye-opening insight into Wicca, read some of the early history of Alcoholics Anonymous. It's all there—who's real, who's sleeping with whom, who holds the keys to the kingdom. It's the nature of the beast and we'll outgrow it.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

Help, help I'm being oppressed! (yeah, I know it's the Holy Grail, but it's a good line...)

But I didn't know that about AA. Thanks.

[Ben Gruagach]

Regarding the term "Gardnerian":
I think it was Charles Cardell (Rex Nemorensis) who coined the term, but I could be wrong.

I just looked it up in Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" and he mentions on page 316 that the term "Gardnerian" seems to have been first used in print in the magazine "Pentagram" in an article by "Taliesin." The term was definitely used in a derogatory way.

Hutton says that "Taliesin" was at least one of Cochrane's close friends and was more or less a mouthpiece for Cochrane. I think I've read too that "Taliesin" (or at least some of the stuff written under that name) might have been Cochrane himself.

That section of Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" describes some of the notable witch wars that raged during the 1960s.

[DebLipp]

Regarding the term "Gardnerian":


I just looked it up in Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" and he mentions on page 316 that the term "Gardnerian" seems to have been first used in print in the magazine "Pentagram" in an article by "Taliesin." The term was definitely used in a derogatory way.

Hutton says that "Taliesin" was at least one of Cochrane's close friends and was more or less a mouthpiece for Cochrane. I think I've read too that "Taliesin" (or at least some of the stuff written under that name) might have been Cochrane himself.

That section of Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" describes some of the notable witch wars that raged during the 1960s.

Teehe. I've read Triumph of the Moon twice but still haven't managed to memorize it!

[Ben Gruagach]

It was Valiente who credited Cochrane with it, in her Rebirth of Witchcraft. I've never heard of Cardell, so I don't know if he came before that...

Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" describes Cardell's role in the history of Wicca (his friendships and later outright antagonisms with various notables including Gardner, Valiente, etc.) in some detail. The index lists him under Cardell.

[Ben Gruagach]

Teehe. I've read Triumph of the Moon twice but still haven't managed to memorize it!

Oh, I don't memorize. Books with an index are my friend...

(My sweetie says I really should pursue a career as a research librarian.)

[DebLipp]

Oh, I don't memorize. Books with an index are my friend...

(My sweetie says I really should pursue a career as a research librarian.)
I post from work and my books are at home. Winging it is NOT my friend, apparently. :)

[Seren_]

Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" describes Cardell's role in the history of Wicca (his friendships and later outright antagonisms with various notables including Gardner, Valiente, etc.) in some detail. The index lists him under Cardell.

Just goes to show I need a reread :D
Thanks.

[Ben Gruagach]

Just goes to show I need a reread :D
Thanks.

"Triumph of the Moon" is so full of details I always find stuff I didn't catch on previous reads. Following threads using the index is often interesting too.

I find that's the case with many good books.

[Dark Phoenix]

I think is all part of Wicca's growing process, which involves some growing pains. I really think at the end of the day that the Traditionalists and the fluffy-bunnies need to come together to figure what is truly important for the growth of our religion.

[-Ember]

Of course part of the problem is right there: "our religion." Is it the same religion any more at this point?

[Ben Gruagach]

Of course part of the problem is right there: "our religion." Is it the same religion any more at this point?

That is largely the crux of the matter. What differences are worth fighting over?

Is a homogenous community better than a diverse community? Can a diverse community function on a peaceful and friendly level despite differences?

There are other communities we can look to that have gone through these problems before us. Maybe we can learn from their mistakes.

[Luciferish]

Isn't that the basis of the American Experiment? Yet this country has the most intolerance and infighting of any culture on the planet, we just have laws in place to keep people from killing eachother directly. We aren't far from Croatia or Sudan if it came to blows...

[SylverStar]

I can't guess what you mean by "beats out." :whatgives:
Oh sorry sometimes things sound perfectly clear in my head but don't come out so clear. lol.

I meant size wise. With Wicca growing the newer generation seems to be quite larger than the older generations.

[raven grimassi]

This is something I have observed here in Portugal.
In my country, it seems that the pagan comunity is divided by small conflicts that involve the Wiccan traditions. For instance... one of the most popular themes is the "new" (not so new) wiccan books that have started a more "commercialized" form of Wicca. Authors like Silver RavenWolf, Scott Cunnigham and others seem to atract a lot of "newbies" to the esoteric world starting small (yet in a large number) idealistic conflicts. So it is a "cold war" between Traditionalists and New Agers.

My question is : Is this situation common to other countries, or is it only here?
I would like to ear your opinion about this never ending "conflict". :durrrr:

It is all difficult to sort out, and in part this is because there is no widespread agreement (that I can decipher) on what we are talking about when we say "Wicca" or "Witchcraft."

In the summer of 1969 when I met someone anywhere in the U.S. who was a "Wiccan" I knew their terminology, their pantheon, their symbols, and so forth. We were on the same page. Back then "Wiccan" and "Witch" meant the same thing. This appears to have changed in the early 1980s. Today when I meet a "Wiccan" or a "Witch" I have to ask questions in order to figure out what they mean by that label.

In the 1970s the Witch Wars were more about "My Tradition is older and better than yours." Today the arguments seem more diverse. Today some people believe that Gardner and his cronies invented Wicca in a backroom one cold winter's evening when there was not much else to do that night. Others believe that Wicca is the surviving remnants of an older religion. Some people think that Wicca is something everyone has pulled out of their *** and they are fine with that (while others are not). I doubt this debate will ever truly go away.

As the saying goes: "Ask 3 Wiccans their opinion and you will get 4 different answers."

Best regards - Raven

[SacredWithin]

These sorts of "witch wars" have been going on forever -- in fact I think it could honestly be said they predate modern Wicca altogether.

These "witch wars" are really starting to bother me. Personally, I think something should be done about it. We cannot have religion ru amok like it has in Christianity with 40 million different sects all fighting over whose got the true word of God straightend. But this is what I see happening and it isn't going to be good. Next thing you know, everyone would be casting hexes on each other and it really wont' get pretty.

How will we be able to help people? All I can think of is make websites and start on the schooling and hold weekly or bi-weekly meetings to keep people educated. This can be seperate from a coven if you'd like. But we need focus, SERIOUS FOCUS. I'm not in the Pagan community so I think I'm able to see a little of what's going on. And I don't like this one bit.

Please, it is most important we have something done about this. Encourage people to study study study. And if you need to, hold groups to help people study. Be open.

These groups must go beyond the internet in order for it to work. (my opinion). And I also think we should try even harder not to evangelize...that's a sin. :lol:

Gardnerians have fought with Alexandrians over which was the legitimate Wiccan/Witch tradition. These days the Gardnerians and Alexandrians appear to have resolved at least some of their differences and now complain about the "newcomers" who are not directly descended from them through formal initiations.

And I say something needs to be done. Let the elders teach the non-decendents about the way things were, and if we don't change, the way things will be. The history of things repeating itself is a must to teach.

Personally I think it's all pretty silly and a waste of energy. There's so much we can learn from each other if we just stopped being so petty. And since Wicca is not based on having a central authority or scripture (no official Pope or Authorized Wiccan Bible) claims that any one group has an exclusive claim to Wiccan truth is pretty meaningless.

And I just hope one day that we would never have to deal with a central figure. That'll bring us back to the old primitive days... I'm not looking forward to that part at all. :help:

There is room in Wicca for all of our diversity. Even if we don't agree. I like to try and encourage people to put more of their energy into strengthening their own traditions and deepening their own practice rather than fussing about what their neighbors might or might not be doing.

Yes, I totally agree. Focus, focus, focus.

[grnpuffer]

Is this situation common to other countries, or is it only here?
I think it's an indication of the maturity of the community. Talk to folks from anywhere in the states or in other countries who've been active in their communities for a long times and you will hear a familiar pattern. At a point the community became large enough and diverse enough that the inevitable big conflicts arose. We had the infamous 'witch wars' in my community in the 1970s and the stories that arose from that period are quite hair raising. But the community keeps growing and changing. And just like any country that goes through a civil war, at a point people find reason to move on. There will always be a reason for there to be friction against 'us vs them'. It doesn't matter what label you put on it- traditionalists vs revisionists, gardnerians vs non-gardnerians, this lineage and that lineage.... disagreements will always be there because it's part of human nature. The difference is that the community handles their disagreements in a less volatile manner over time.

IMO a key step in a community developing tolerance is NOT through the establishement of community Counsels or other authorities. The problem is that everybody has an abundance of wanting to be a chief, and I disagree that politics has any place in a spiritual community. Rather, I think that communities that offer many public events... open public classes and rituals, social events, annual festivals, etc... expose new people to a diversity of options and opinions and help to keep individuals within groups from becomming overly isolated or insular. It's all about maintaining an attitude and the means that emphasizes the health of the community rather than power over turf.

[Gede]

MM~
I really think at the end of the day that the Traditionalists and the fluffy-bunnies need to come together to figure what is truly important for the growth of our religion.

Is it just me, or did you just equate the new generation of Wiccans with fluffy-bunnies, because as I understand it, the terms are two very different things. I guess that's where it starts, the belief that the newer generation of Wiccans practice a more watered-down variety of the Craft. Traditionalists adhere to an initiatory mystery religion which generally aims to elevate one's status or rank while simultaneously deepening and refining the spiritual experience of the individual. Both Traditionlists and the Wiccans of the new generation are, in my opinion, following valid paths to spiritual fulfilment. It crosses the line when one or the other condemns or berates the other for pitiful circumstances.

In Australia, or at least in my area of Australia you see little argument between the generations and in fact last Saturday while at QLD Pagan Pride Day there was an open forum on the topic of "Should we have a Pagan Church?" and while there was a diverse attendance of people stretching the generation barriers, there was never any disputing the validity of anyone's input, until of course the question of motherly experience came up when disputing a child's feelings of isolation over being raised Pagan, but that really had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

We truly need to work together to ensure that we safeguard a community of tolerance, teaching and loving acceptance for the next generation of Pagans, and by opening ourselves up to these issues now we are making our mark.

Namaste, Gede...

[Nemesis Descending]

Is it just me, or did you just equate the new generation of Wiccans with fluffy-bunnies, because as I understand it, the terms are two very different things. I guess that's where it starts, the belief that the newer generation of Wiccans practice a more watered-down variety of the Craft. .

I think it's true that the newer generation of Wiccans is involved in a watered-down form of the Craft that predated them. But I wouldn't say that's something bad. It's just something different. The problem, as I see it, is that the newer generation wants to use the same term as the older one was using, but have it be something different. I'm one of those who feel that "Neo-Wicca" should be used for the newer generation in order to distinguish one form from another (and thus lessen the confusion and misunderstandings).

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[lightdragon]

MM~


Is it just me, or did you just equate the new generation of Wiccans with fluffy-bunnies, because as I understand it, the terms are two very different things....
This i have to agree with this statement.

I'm one of those who feel that "Neo-Wicca" should be used for the newer generation in order to distinguish one form from another (and thus lessen the confusion and misunderstandings).
This could work.

[DebLipp]

I think it's true that the newer generation of Wiccans is involved in a watered-down form of the Craft that predated them. But I wouldn't say that's something bad. It's just something different. The problem, as I see it, is that the newer generation wants to use the same term as the older one was using, but have it be something different. I'm one of those who feel that "Neo-Wicca" should be used for the newer generation in order to distinguish one form from another (and thus lessen the confusion and misunderstandings).

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending


I don't see what's wrong with using the words we already have, instead of trying to impose a new coinage. I'm a Gardnerian Witch/Wiccan. By using the full phrase, complete with appropriate modifier, I very clearly delineate what I am for those who care to know. There is no problem with existing modifiers, and I am happy for all of us to use them, and all of us to acknowlege each other as Wiccans.

[Ben Gruagach]

I think it's true that the newer generation of Wiccans is involved in a watered-down form of the Craft that predated them. But I wouldn't say that's something bad. It's just something different. The problem, as I see it, is that the newer generation wants to use the same term as the older one was using, but have it be something different. I'm one of those who feel that "Neo-Wicca" should be used for the newer generation in order to distinguish one form from another (and thus lessen the confusion and misunderstandings).

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

I disagree.

People today who are starting off in Wicca have an enormous amount of information available to them with much more complexity and depth than was ever available to the "old guard" even twenty years ago. Publishing material has been a good thing for Wicca because it allows us to share information and build on what has come before in ways that were much slower when things were all hand-written and passed on orally.

If anything, I think that it is much easier for the "new generation" to practice a more mature form of Wicca than even Gerald Gardner and his first coven practiced. Gardner and his generation were the pioneers laying the foundations. Today's Wiccans are largely building on those foundations and establishing amazing things. If you compare the good books that came out in the past couple of years with even the best books that came out before the 1980s there is a noticeable advance in quality and creativity. Most of the older books were collections of lore strung together with rudimentary philosophical frameworks to try and tie it together as a whole. More recent books have grown off those initial ideas and have moved into much more sophisticated territory. Look at some of Starhawk's later books like "The Pagan Book of Living and Dying" or "The Twelve Wild Swans" for instance.

There is no question that with this growth in the community there has also been a broadening of practice. There is much more diversity in Wicca now than there was in Gardner's day. But does diversity equal "watering down" or "not as good"? I don't think so.

People who prefer following strictly old-style Gardnerian Wicca are perfectly capable of doing so. People who choose to practice one of the other forms of Wicca derived in part from the Gardnerian original are also free to do so. That's what happens when we decide not to establish a central authority or scripture for our religion.

I tend to think the Lady's message in the Charge puts it into perspective pretty well. She tells us that "all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." That leaves a lot of room for variation, don't you think?

[Edited to remove redundant redundancies.]

[Nemesis Descending]

There is no question that with this growth in the community there has also been a broadening of practice. There is much more diversity in Wicca now than there was in Gardner's day. But does diversity equal "watering down" or "not as good"? I don't think so.

People who prefer following strictly old-style Gardnerian Wicca are perfectly capable of doing so. People who choose to practice one of the other forms of Wicca derived in part from the Gardnerian original are also free to do so. That's what happens when we decide not to establish a central authority or scripture for our religion.

I tend to think the Lady's message in the Charge puts it into perspective pretty well. She tells us that "all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." That leaves a lot of room for variation, don't you think?

I agree. But what I referred to is what it's called. I couldn't care less what people choose to practice. It's their rightful choice. Wicca is still practiced by many as it was in Gardners' time (if not before). But that is something different than what many people practice today. It seems illogical to me to call two different things by the same name. Can we call Pepsi "Coke" and still call Coke by its name, and then be puzzled that we cola drinkers are confused or conflicted? :drinking:

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[Gede]

MM~
Can we call Pepsi "Coke" and still call Coke by its name, and then be puzzled that we cola drinkers are confused or conflicted?

Is a Christian who doesn't seek to proselytise or condemn others to hell-fire less of a Christian in the spiritual sense?

Namaste, Gede...

[Nemesis Descending]

MM~


Is a Christian who doesn't seek to proselytise or condemn others to hell-fire less of a Christian in the spiritual sense?

Namaste, Gede...

Well, once again, I'm not talking about comparing practices as an indication of validity. And once again, I'm talking about identifying things by their names.

I don't want to go into a resturaunt and order a ham sandwhich but get served a hamburger instead because the cooks there use the term "ham sandwhich" for a hamburger. And I don't want to get into a debate with them over their "right" to call a hamburger a ham sandwhich. I'm just looking for a ham sandwhich and expect to find some ham in it.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[Ben Gruagach]

I agree. But what I referred to is what it's called. I couldn't care less what people choose to practice. It's their rightful choice. Wicca is still practiced by many as it was in Gardners' time (if not before). But that is something different than what many people practice today. It seems illogical to me to call two different things by the same name. Can we call Pepsi "Coke" and still call Coke by its name, and then be puzzled that we cola drinkers are confused or conflicted? :drinking:

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

I think that the comparison to cola products would be more accurate this way:

cola = Wicca
Coke Classic = Gardnerian Wicca
other cola products (Royal Crown, Diet Coke, Pepsi, etc.) = other variations of Wicca.

What often seems to come up is that the Coke Classic types insist that theirs is the only "true" cola and all the rest are somehow fake. I don't agree with that at all.

I'm also a bit confused by the claim to pre-Gardnerian lineage. Gardner himself admitted that he only got very fragmentary material from the people who supposedly initiated him, and that he had to do a lot of "filling in the gaps" (often with material he borrowed from other sources) to make Wicca a workable system. So if that's the case, and if 99% of current Wiccan groups derive from Gardner directly or indirectly, I'm not sure how the statement that Gardnerian-style Wicca predates Gardner can stand up to scrutiny.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, some people will always be concerned about whether their neighbors are being politically-correct (in this case, politically correct in following the "real" version of Wicca.) Personally I think we can do better things with our energy, like working to help our own particular traditions mature and deepen.

[Tullip Troll]

yes pagans are beant on being the better pagan..it's not new and it's not only where you live it's everywhere...I personally think titles suck...witch just witch...pagan just pagan...suit s me.

MheraPai...

[bridgewitch]

ok as a solitarie, with no locked in path, i.e., ecclectic, I may have a different viewpoint. If I had access to a circle of friends, or was in a location where I had many choices available to me, then perhaps I would call myself by another title. Like say, Born Again Xian as opposed to Xian...when in fact if you think about it, ALL of them were born again in some manner thru baptism, dunking or sprinkling, but I go off on a tangent. The thing is, many of today's practitioners are younger than many of the others were when they entered the craft. Some of the topics are deep for a young untrained mind. Here is where guidance from an established group/teacher is needed. But as in my case, location or social restraints play a big part in this. If you are in the broom closet cuz daddy is a deacon at the local whatever church, then you get what you can where you can and starting off a fluff bunny is better than not starting at all or jumping into Gardernerian practice with no background knowledge. As someone said, the enormous amount of literature available helps this, and hinders it too, with sme truly bad misinformation out there. Thus the need for a board like this for feedback and learning. You learn as you grow and vice versa. And most importantly, what the heck difference does it make what one calls oneself. Labels suck, and do not make whatever is labled any more or any less than it was to begin with.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I think that the comparison to cola products would be more accurate this way:

cola = Wicca
Coke Classic = Gardnerian Wicca
other cola products (Royal Crown, Diet Coke, Pepsi, etc.) = other variations of Wicca.

What often seems to come up is that the Coke Classic types insist that theirs is the only "true" cola and all the rest are somehow fake. I don't agree with that at all.
And what happens when someone hands you lemonade and tells you it's cola? ;)

[Ben Gruagach]

And what happens when someone hands you lemonade and tells you it's cola? ;)

I'd say, "Hmm. I always thought cola was like Coke, Pepsi, Doctor Pepper, or something like that. This doesn't taste or look anything like the many varieties of cola I've encountered in my years as a cola afficionado. Could you tell me more about it, and why you call it a cola?"

That explains that I wasn't born yesterday, that I know a little something about the topic, and puts the onus on the person who is trying to pass off the lemonade as cola to justify their statement.

I really wonder about the motives behind the fuss though. I mean, if I'm happily drinking Coke or whatever how does it really impact me if my neighbor is drinking lemonade under the delusion that it's a variety of cola? If I'm really concerned about my neighbor, I could offer them a taste of my favourite brand of cola and let them make up their own mind about it. I could even invite them to a taste test of a selection of colas and let them decide for themselves if that lemonade really fits in well with the rest of the cola category.

[Aldrick]

And what happens when someone hands you lemonade and tells you it's cola? ;)

Deffinetly OT;
It depends, if the Lemonade in question is Brisk then it's considered a Pepsi product and by deffinition could be called a Coke beverage. Coke can include both Pepsi and Coca. 'Cola' by deffinition would be Coca-Cola or Coca-cola products (Barks, Crush, etc)
Technically

[lightdragon]

Well i agree to Ben Gruagach's solution to the lemonade coke thing. Also if Gardner filled in gaps,shouldn`t Gardnerian Wicca actually be called neo-wicca .

From what i am gathering. i see pre-Gardner wicca/witchcraft as a broken sword.let's say Narsil from LoTR's. Someone comes along(Gardner) and reforges it whole. So should we still call it Narsil or call it Anduril. Or we can say the same for people who took bits and pieces from the Gardnerian wicca and formed the newer generation or neo-wicca. Bottom line is it a new sword or the same old sword patched up.

A little OT: before Pepsi came out. Coca Cola had either one ad or different ones in the daily strips. And it was called the Pespi cola cops in their advertisement for Coca Cola. :D _firedevil

[DebLipp]

Well i agree to Ben Gruagach's solution to the lemonade coke thing. Also if Gardner filled in gaps,shouldn`t Gardnerian Wicca actually be called neo-wicca .

From what i am gathering. i see pre-Gardner wicca/witchcraft as a broken sword.let's say Narsil from LoTR's. Someone comes along(Gardner) and reforges it whole. So should we still call it Narsil or call it Anduril. Or we can say the same for people who took bits and pieces from the Gardnerian wicca and formed the newer generation or neo-wicca. Bottom line is it a new sword or the same old sword patched up.

A little OT: before Pepsi came out. Coca Cola had either one ad or different ones in the daily strips. And it was called the Pespi cola cops in their advertisement for Coca Cola. :D _firedevil

Because there was no Wicca as we know it today prior to Gardner. While we're having fun with analogies, I'll say that before Gardner, it wasn't a sword, it was a plowshare. It was an entirely different thing. Gardner combined folk magic, witchcraft, native Paganism, mystery traditions, and Ceremonial Magic to create what we now know as Wicca. Other inventors threw away the CM and mystery tradition elements (Robert Cochrane) or added more gyno-centricity (Z. Budapest), or beefed up the Ceremonialism (Alex Sanders) but no one has stepped completely away from Gardner's influence in the Wiccan movement. There is no paleo-Wicca by which to contrast neo-Wicca.

And Ben, as to why we care, it's because we want to know, when we go to the store, what we're getting. Some of us care to protect the "consumer."

[Ben Gruagach]

And Ben, as to why we care, it's because we want to know, when we go to the store, what we're getting. Some of us care to protect the "consumer."

Hi Deb.

That was a good post -- I liked the explanation of "paleo-Wicca" compared with Wicca.

I understand the point too about trying to protect the "consumer" with regard to things being sold as Wicca. Unfortunately though Wicca is not a trademark that is owned by any particular corporation -- even though Gardner is likely the originator (until someone comes up with proof otherwise) he tried to pass his product off as something pre-existing and just one variation of a potential many. I understand he did a lot of networking and publicity precisely because he was hoping to come in contact with those out there who might be practicing witchcraft independent from him, so that he could learn more from them. That, in my mind, makes it very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle and change the meaning of Wicca to now mean exclusively Gardnerian or Gardnerian-derived. It is the meaning I prefer to use myself, and is what I generally mean when I use the word Wicca, but I know that others have the right to claim the word too.

If Gardner had done things differently and openly admitted his system was a new one, then there wouldn't be any doubt that Wicca really means just Gardnerian and Gardnerian-derived.

It's one of those sticky situations but as you've pointed out previously, we already have perfectly good ways of dealing with the vagueness of the term Wicca by using modifiers such as Gardnerian or Alexandrian or whatever. When presenting our particular Wicca to the consumers, we can be honest about using the appropriate modifiers so there is little doubt what type of Wicca we mean.

(I still find the modifier "traditional" to be problematic though and prefer to not use it as I feel it's deceptive -- it's like calling Wicca "The Old Religion" when we don't really have any solid proof that it goes back any farther than Gardner. I'll call it "sectarian Wicca" or "denominational Wicca" instead of "traditional Wicca" whenever it comes up.)

[DebLipp]

Hi Deb.

That was a good post -- I liked the explanation of "paleo-Wicca" compared with Wicca.

I understand the point too about trying to protect the "consumer" with regard to things being sold as Wicca. Unfortunately though Wicca is not a trademark that is owned by any particular corporation -- even though Gardner is likely the originator (until someone comes up with proof otherwise) he tried to pass his product off as something pre-existing and just one variation of a potential many. I understand he did a lot of networking and publicity precisely because he was hoping to come in contact with those out there who might be practicing witchcraft independent from him, so that he could learn more from them. That, in my mind, makes it very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle and change the meaning of Wicca to now mean exclusively Gardnerian or Gardnerian-derived. It is the meaning I prefer to use myself, and is what I generally mean when I use the word Wicca, but I know that others have the right to claim the word too.

If Gardner had done things differently and openly admitted his system was a new one, then there wouldn't be any doubt that Wicca really means just Gardnerian and Gardnerian-derived.

It's one of those sticky situations but as you've pointed out previously, we already have perfectly good ways of dealing with the vagueness of the term Wicca by using modifiers such as Gardnerian or Alexandrian or whatever. When presenting our particular Wicca to the consumers, we can be honest about using the appropriate modifiers so there is little doubt what type of Wicca we mean.

(I still find the modifier "traditional" to be problematic though and prefer to not use it as I feel it's deceptive -- it's like calling Wicca "The Old Religion" when we don't really have any solid proof that it goes back any farther than Gardner. I'll call it "sectarian Wicca" or "denominational Wicca" instead of "traditional Wicca" whenever it comes up.)

Well, this whole area of Gardnerian-derived vs. pre-Gardner isn't one I bother with much. It's of little concern to me. Most of the people who claim the word "Wicca" and also claim pre-Gardnerian are using demonstrably Gardnerian-derived rituals. That is, they are using stuff that we know originated with Gardner; that were his additions to the original material.

The trend now among such people is to throw away the word "Wicca" and equate it with Gardner. For example, Cochrane called his tradition (sect) "traditional witchcraft" (which strikes me as hubris equivalent to calling a tribe "the people").

I think the real "lemonade" in Wicca these days is from the opposite end; not from other traditions and sects, but from non-sectarian Wicca; from populist DIY Wicca that is unrecognizably watered-down. And, as we've discussed in the past, the assiduous use of modifiers largely solves the problem.

[lightdragon]

Because there was no Wicca as we know it today prior to Gardner. While we're having fun with analogies, I'll say that before Gardner, it wasn't a sword, it was a plowshare.

Then what was it then? Because i know enough that he couldnt`t just make it up entirely.There had to be at least something there. From your last post i know you don`t bother with this that much. But any little info you can tell me would be helpful.

[Gede]

MM~
Most of the people who claim the word "Wicca" and also claim pre-Gardnerian are using demonstrably Gardnerian-derived rituals.

That is true, but then again who is to say that the older, traditional Ritual used by such groups in comparison with the newly-invented Gardnerian Rituals was recognisably less effective and so they ultimately decided to make the change, seeing enough similarity in Gardner's Ritual to still feel they were practicing Witchcraft, or at least a form of it. It's like the old myth that during the European hysteria of Inquisition the Kabbalists took in those accused of Witchcraft, and who according to this myth were in fact Witches, and taught them of the Kabbalah. The sharing of knowledge is not a new thing, whether or not that did actually happen. Wicca is ultimately a term which applies to those whose practices, beliefs and spirituality were inspired by the original work of Gardner; he was the essential catalyst, at least in the public eye.

Namaste, Gede...

[Nemesis Descending]

Most of the people who claim the word "Wicca" and also claim pre-Gardnerian are using demonstrably Gardnerian-derived rituals. That is, they are using stuff that we know originated with Gardner; that were his additions to the original material.

It would be nice if it were really that easy to unravel. The problem is that Gardner drew from existing concepts and material as his tradition evolved. So when people see something in a different tradition, that also appears in the Gardnerian system, they automatically label it a Gardnerian rip-off. But actually it is the other way around.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[DebLipp]

Then what was it then? Because i know enough that he couldnt`t just make it up entirely.There had to be at least something there. From your last post i know you don`t bother with this that much. But any little info you can tell me would be helpful.

Gardner claimed he was under oath not to reveal the material he was given. Everything of Gardner's that has found its way into print has a traceable printed source.

What it appears is that Gardner took fragmentary folk traditions, charms, spells, dance, trance technique, this sort of thing, added to it similar materials that he learned in his travels in Africa and Asia. To this mix he and the people with whom he worked magically added stuff they knew and understood from Masonic-style ritual and Ceremonial ritual, as well as Mystery Traditions.

[DebLipp]

It would be nice if it were really that easy to unravel. The problem is that Gardner drew from existing concepts and material as his tradition evolved. So when people see something in a different tradition, that also appears in the Gardnerian system, they automatically label it a Gardnerian rip-off. But actually it is the other way around.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

Your use of "actually" implies fact, whereas in the same paragraph you say it is difficult to unravel. Which is it? As to whether this is "actually" true, we'd have to look at specifics. I don't think your sweeping statement proves much of anything.

You will also never find me using the term "Gardnerian rip-off." The term I used was "Gardnerian-derived" which is not inflammatory or insulting the way "rip-off" is.

[Ben Gruagach]

Gardner claimed he was under oath not to reveal the material he was given. Everything of Gardner's that has found its way into print has a traceable printed source.

What it appears is that Gardner took fragmentary folk traditions, charms, spells, dance, trance technique, this sort of thing, added to it similar materials that he learned in his travels in Africa and Asia. To this mix he and the people with whom he worked magically added stuff they knew and understood from Masonic-style ritual and Ceremonial ritual, as well as Mystery Traditions.

This is my understanding too (and I have to admit I'm not a Gardnerian initiate so I'm not privy to oathbound stuff. But I understand you are a Gardnerian initiate, right Deb?)

If Gardner didn't pass on anything he learned from his Wiccan initiators because it was oathbound, then I'm not sure how even the Gardnerian tradition counts in the claim that modern Wicca (which all seems to trace to Gardner) goes back before Gardner.

[DebLipp]

This is my understanding too (and I have to admit I'm not a Gardnerian initiate so I'm not privy to oathbound stuff. But I understand you are a Gardnerian initiate, right Deb?)

I am indeed a Gardnerian initiate. I should add that I chose to become public about that after much thought, in order for my teaching (which is how I view my writing) to be as honest as possible. Contrary to what some people have heard, it is not a violation of my oath to say I am an initiate, although it is the very worst sort of violation to say that another person is an initiate, except with the explicit permission (and even then I'd be careful).

You will never find me discussing oathbound material in public, nor confirming or denying whether or not such-and-such is or is not oathbound, or even addressing the issue of what might be oathbound. Since I am public as an initiate, it would be wrong to lend credibility to discussions that might touch on oathbound material.

BUT we are discussing published materials, and most Gardnerian-derived traditions are derived primarily FROM published materials, so I feel I'm on very safe ground.

[lightdragon]

If Gardner didn't pass on anything he learned from his Wiccan initiators because it was oathbound, then I'm not sure how even the Gardnerian tradition counts in the claim that modern Wicca (which all seems to trace to Gardner) goes back before Gardner.

Well Debra Lipp explained enough. Was gonna add more. But i don`t want to create accusations or conspiracy theories .

Like Ben i don`t want to privy into oathbound material. I want to thank you for discussing what you can say. it was very educational.

[raven grimassi]

If Gardner had done things differently and openly admitted his system was a new one, then there wouldn't be any doubt that Wicca really means just Gardnerian and Gardnerian-derived.

(I still find the modifier "traditional" to be problematic though and prefer to not use it as I feel it's deceptive -- it's like calling Wicca "The Old Religion" when we don't really have any solid proof that it goes back any farther than Gardner. I'll call it "sectarian Wicca" or "denominational Wicca" instead of "traditional Wicca" whenever it comes up.)

What is interesting to me is that (according to Doreen Valiente) Gardner did not think he was creating anything new per se. As I point out (in my book The Witches' Craft) I had the honor of corresponding with Doreen by mail and by phone during the year before she crossed over. She described Gardner as trying to patch the "Old Religion" back together from the fragments he believed had been passed to him.

What I also find interesting is that there is nothing in the published "Gardnerian" concepts that cannot also be found in what we know of ancient secret societies. For example, the four tools (pentacle, blade, wand, chalice) of Witchcraft were known to exist in the ancient cult of Mithras (as was the whip and the sword) which was spread throughout the Roman provinces (including Great Britain). Now that doesn't mean that an ancient sect of Witches used them, anymore than the appearance of the four tools in Gardner's modern system means that ancient Witches could not have employed them. But it does show the concept existing long before Gardner's "imagination."

It is interesting to note that Francesco Guazzo, in his Compendium Maleficarum of 1608, wrote that Witches work with spirits of earth, air, fire, and water. He also depicts them with a black book, gathering in a ritual circle, and having a religious demeanor. This does not prove that such a sect existed, anymore than the modern inclusion of such concepts in the Gardnerian Craft proves the idea to be exclusively contemporary.

It is also interesting to look at the appearance of the Key of Solomon in the Witch trial of Laura Malipero in 1654. In her home was a book of spells into which she was copying bits from the Key of Solomon. This does not prove that a sect of Witches existed that drew upon the Key, anymore than the appearance of Key of Solomon symbols in published elements of the Gardner's material proves that it is a modern concoction in Witchcraft. But it does show a mention of the "Key of Solomon" and "Witchcraft" together in a time period that exists long before Gardner.

The examples and parallels in antiquity are as numerous as the things one can point to in modern systems (including a triformis goddess worshipped by Witches, and ritual nudity). I am not saying that this is conclusive proof of an ancient Witches' sect. But I am saying that the inclusion of a concept in the modern Craft is not proof of its wholly modern application, tenet, or practice. One can argue the lack of historical documentation. But, we know historically that certain secret societies did exist, while at the same time we cannot prove what they did not believe, practice, or profess. A lack of evidence, or even an absence of evidence, is not conclusive proof of non-existence.

With the published Gardnerian material we have at least ancient parallels between elements of ancient secret societies and the same concepts that appear in Gardner's material. Therefore Gardner did not invent the concepts nor their association with ancient Pagan systems. His context and application may have been inventive, just as it may have been something more akin to genetic memory.

Best regards - Raven

[DebLipp]

What is interesting to me is that (according to Doreen Valiente) Gardner did not think he was creating anything new per se. As I point out (in my book The Witches' Craft) I had the honor of corresponding with Doreen by mail and by phone during the year before she crossed over. She described Gardner as trying to patch the "Old Religion" back together from the fragments he believed had been passed to him.

What I also find interesting is that there is nothing in the published "Gardnerian" concepts that cannot also be found in what we know of ancient secret societies. For example, the four tools (pentacle, blade, wand, chalice) of Witchcraft were known to exist in the ancient cult of Mithras (as was the whip and the sword) which was spread throughout the Roman provinces (including Great Britain). Now that doesn't mean that an ancient sect of Witches used them, anymore than the appearance of the four tools in Gardner's modern system means that ancient Witches could not have employed them. But it does show the concept existing long before Gardner's "imagination."

It is interesting to note that Francesco Guazzo, in his Compendium Maleficarum of 1608, wrote that Witches work with spirits of earth, air, fire, and water. He also depicts them with a black book, gathering in a ritual circle, and having a religious demeanor. This does not prove that such a sect existed, anymore than the modern inclusion of such concepts in the Gardnerian Craft proves the idea to be exclusively contemporary.

It is also interesting to look at the appearance of the Key of Solomon in the Witch trial of Laura Malipero in 1654. In her home was a book of spells into which she was copying bits from the Key of Solomon. This does not prove that a sect of Witches existed that drew upon the Key, anymore than the appearance of Key of Solomon symbols in published elements of the Gardner's material proves that it is a modern concoction in Witchcraft. But it does show a mention of the "Key of Solomon" and "Witchcraft" together in a time period that exists long before Gardner.

The examples and parallels in antiquity are as numerous as the things one can point to in modern systems (including a triformis goddess worshipped by Witches, and ritual nudity). I am not saying that this is conclusive proof of an ancient Witches' sect. But I am saying that the inclusion of a concept in the modern Craft is not proof of its wholly modern application, tenet, or practice. One can argue the lack of historical documentation. But, we know historically that certain secret societies did exist, while at the same time we cannot prove what they did not believe, practice, or profess. A lack of evidence, or even an absence of evidence, is not conclusive proof of non-existence.

With the published Gardnerian material we have at least ancient parallels between elements of ancient secret societies and the same concepts that appear in Gardner's material. Therefore Gardner did not invent the concepts nor their association with ancient Pagan systems. His context and application may have been inventive, just as it may have been something more akin to genetic memory.

Best regards - Raven

Although there is room in the scholarly material for intelligent people to believe that Gardner made it all up, there is really NO room to believe that Gardner derived Wicca from his imagination. In fact, the primary evidence that Gardner made it up was that his published materials could have been cribbed from other published sources, including, as we've both pointed out, information about the ancient Mystery Traditions (secret societies, etc.; the scourge is also found in the mysteries of Athena and Orpheus).

Gardner certainly believed that he was reconstructing, and he was certainly willing to insert material and lie about it in order to support a cogent reconstruction. About that there is no doubt, and there are too many living witnesses who can attest to Gardner's enjoyment of a fabulous fib, although none of those witnesses bear the man any animosity and all attribute to him only the highest of motives.

The only real scholarly question is; was his reconstruction entirely from existing published sources or did it also include secret initiatory sources? I am satisfied that the question, when put this way, is minor enough that it is not all that important.

[Nemesis Descending]

Your use of "actually" implies fact, whereas in the same paragraph you say it is difficult to unravel. Which is it? As to whether this is "actually" true, we'd have to look at specifics. I don't think your sweeping statement proves much of anything.

You will also never find me using the term "Gardnerian rip-off." The term I used was "Gardnerian-derived" which is not inflammatory or insulting the way "rip-off" is.

Actually, I didn't say that "it is difficult to unravel." I said "It would be nice if it were really that easy to unravel." My statement was about your perspective, not mine.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[MorningDove030202]

Hey I just started reading this topic, and I find it facinating. I read Triumph of the Moon this summer and it real helped me to understand where Wicca realy came from.

I think another good question to ask is "Is lineage realy that important?" I mean what if new info was found that proved that Gardner was realy initated into a pre-existing witch coven and he took that and added CM and Massonic influences and called it Wicca? How would that info realy make any difference today?

I'm also wondering why we can't all be more united in that we are Witches? Who cares which witch is which!

I'd also like to point out that I dislike all Cola Drinks and that Dr. Pepper is NOT a cola product. Cola products are flavored with the leaves of the coca plant (yes, same as cocain) and Dr. Pepper isn't. It's flavored with prunes! (Get it, Dr. Pepper????) I love Dr. Pepper.

Dove

[DebLipp]

Actually, I didn't say that "it is difficult to unravel." I said "It would be nice if it were really that easy to unravel." My statement was about your perspective, not mine.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending


As to whether this is "actually" true, we'd have to look at specifics. I don't think your sweeping statement proves much of anything.

?

[Ben Gruagach]

I'd like to throw in a few other books that help in the exploration of the roots of Wicca. If anything, the stuff that we think we know just reveals that there is a lot more about our history that we could be exploring. The more answers we think we've found the more questions crop up.

Isaac Bonewits' "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide" is excellent for helping to put some labels to the varieties of witchcraft that exist. Of course the labels are debatable, but they do a good job of helping identify the variations. Isaac also provides some insightful evidence that I haven't seen in print elsewhere (like the role of Llewellyn and Lady Sheba's publication of her Book of Shadows.)

Philip Heselton's "Wiccan Roots" and the newer book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration." The newer book covers a lot of the same material as "Wiccan Roots" but provides a lot of new material which is quite interesting. If you're only able to choose one of the two to read, go with the second.

Heselton makes some conclusions that I'm not convinced are supported by the evidence but he does present a lot of excellent material that clears up a lot of misconceptions. There is a lot in there about Gardner's occult interests and involvements outside of Wicca, which explain where some of the material Gardner included in his Wiccan teachings likely came from. Heselton also does some good detective work uncovering what is likely the direct Golden Dawn connection for Gardner.

I have the greatest respect for Gardner and what he did despite the fact that I don't think he was being honest with identifying what he learned from his Wiccan initiators. Reading Heselton's latest book, it made it pretty clear to me that Gardner's talent was not in inventing things himself (with all respect, that seemed to be a bit too much for him) but rather was a talent for drawing from other sources and blending it into something that made sense.

Tracing the sources of the various components of Wicca is an intriguing and worthwhile task. We just have to be careful to not allow ourselves to come to the false conclusion that evidence that a particular component predates Gardner somehow proves that Gardner's Wicca was some sort of lineal intact transmission of an existing religion. Evidence for that seems to be rather elusive to date despite all the excellent attempts to find it.

Getting back to the main thread topic, which was "witch wars" or conflicts between different Wiccan groups, I wonder how much of the conflict is based on insecurities about Wiccan history. When we invest a lot of our sense of validity upon a particular idea about our history being true, things can get awfully problematic when that history is questioned. And since at least some Wiccan sects rely on traceable lineage to verify their history, it's not surprising that conflicts arise when outsiders step forward with similar practices and also calling themselves similar titles (whether Witch or Wiccan or something else) because it casts our own lineage into question.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Getting back to the main thread topic, which was "witch wars" or conflicts between different Wiccan groups, I wonder how much of the conflict is based on insecurities about Wiccan history. When we invest a lot of our sense of validity upon a particular idea about our history being true, things can get awfully problematic when that history is questioned. And since at least some Wiccan sects rely on traceable lineage to verify their history, it's not surprising that conflicts arise when outsiders step forward with similar practices and also calling themselves similar titles (whether Witch or Wiccan or something else) because it casts our own lineage into question.
I think there are two types of "witch wars" (or at least "Wiccan wars") that can be separated. First, there's the witch wars between groups of Wiccans who each take the religion very seriously, yet are separated by differences in practice and/or perception of legitimacy. For instance, the Gardnerians vs. the Alexandrians, or the Traditionals vs. the Solitaries, or Initiatory Degree-Centric Wicca vs. Free-Form Non-Initiatory Wicca. Each of these individual groups contains at least a kernel of what can be considered the "core" of Wicca (whatever that may be).

Then there are the witch wars between Wiccans who take the religion very seriously, and those who appear to have put no effort or study into the history and/or practices of Wicca throughout the decades -- as Deb puts it, the "populist DIY Wicca that is unrecognizably watered-down". Those who offer you lemonade believing that it's cola, who have no interest in being told that it's lemonade.

These two kinds of witch wars warrant entirely different discussions, in my opinion.

On a side note, I'm also an oathbound Gardnerian initiate. As far as I'm concerned, being an initiate only prohibits me from discussing that which I have been oathbound not to reveal, not the simple fact that I'm an initiate. The same goes for Freemasonry - I can tell you just about everything except what happens during initiation ceremonies.

[MorningDove030202]

AAhhh, Do It Yourself Wicca.... took me a while to figure that out....LOL Well, I personaly am of the opinion that the DIY Wiccans who realy arn't Wiccan will soon realize this for themselves and then stop using Wicca as their lable. I've seen this happen actualy. People don't need me to tell them that their lemonaid isn't cola. One thing that does disapoint me is when people of any religion refuse to study and learn and self edcuate themselves about their religion. That makes me more upset than finding people calling their lemonaid cola.

Dove

[Isa]

I've always seen the DIY Wicca thing as a nonissue, dabblers will dabble no matter what resources are available to them and those who are serious (thanks to the lack of good books about Advanced Level Magick and Ritual) will ultimately seek out others; teachers, covens, study groups, what have you, to develop their knowledge in when they've exhausted the Wicca 101 perspective.

[MorningDove030202]

I've always seen the DIY Wicca thing as a nonissue, dabblers will dabble no matter what resources are available to them and those who are serious (thanks to the lack of good books about Advanced Level Magick and Ritual) will ultimately seek out others; teachers, covens, study groups, what have you, to develop their knowledge in when they've exhausted the Wicca 101 perspective.

I agree. _witchball

[Silverfangs]

I think there are two types of "witch wars" (or at least "Wiccan wars") that can be separated. First, there's the witch wars between groups of Wiccans who each take the religion very seriously, yet are separated by differences in practice and/or perception of legitimacy. For instance, the Gardnerians vs. the Alexandrians, or the Traditionals vs. the Solitaries, or Initiatory Degree-Centric Wicca vs. Free-Form Non-Initiatory Wicca. Each of these individual groups contains at least a kernel of what can be considered the "core" of Wicca (whatever that may be).

Then there are the witch wars between Wiccans who take the religion very seriously, and those who appear to have put no effort or study into the history and/or practices of Wicca throughout the decades -- as Deb puts it, the "populist DIY Wicca that is unrecognizably watered-down". Those who offer you lemonade believing that it's cola, who have no interest in being told that it's lemonade.

These two kinds of witch wars warrant entirely different discussions, in my opinion.


I couldn't agree more. In fact I watched a lot of discussion topics in other foruns or in IRC chats, about this two different kind of Witch Wars. :uzi: :fpcsucks

I personally think that the DIY WICCA is appellative for those who recently discovered Wicca. The idea of a religion\initiative system created from top to bottom by ourselves is something totally new. Unfortunately (or Fortunately), I think that people who follow the DIY WICCA don't really take Wicca very seriously and will soon loose interest about it.


And this is my opinion _catroll_

[Nemesis Descending]

?

It would probably be less time consuming to note the things that are unique to the Gardnerian Craft, than it would be to point out the borrowings. But, since you brought it up again, hey, what the heck.

Here are some me of the things that I've noticed people point to as "Gardnerian markers." Accordingly, if another system also has them then they are accused of being a Gardnerian offshoot, or worse. But Gardner and his cohorts borrowed them from various earlier sources. So the exclusive Gardnerian claim seems unwarranted.

To begin, we have the three colored cords of initiation system (in the published works) and the triangle symbol of first degree initiation. These appear earlier in the secret society known as the Carbonari.

Then there is the "five-fold kiss" which appears to be based upon the "five points of fellowship" embrace found in Freemasonry. The same zones are found earlier in the cult of Mithras symbolism.

Next we have the "secret" name of Aradia, and the "Charge" which is clearly based upon material from the Italian Craft. The opening paragraph is almost verbatim from Leland's earlier presentation of the Aradia text. The ceremony of "cakes & wine" is also found earlier in Leland's Italian material. We can also add to this list the idea of being skyclad.

Additionally, we also have the Crowley verses that Gardner borrowed from his writings, and on and on.

The other so-called "Gardnerian markers" have been touched upon in Grimassi's reply to this thread. He noted the earlier references to the four elemental spirits, ritual circle, black book, and so forth.

So, off the top of my head, there you have it for starters.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[Ben Trismegistus]

Here are some me of the things that I've noticed people point to as "Gardnerian markers." Accordingly, if another system also has them then they are accused of being a Gardnerian offshoot, or worse. But Gardner and his cohorts borrowed them from various earlier sources. So the exclusive Gardnerian claim seems unwarranted. <snip>
No one is saying that everything in Gardnerian Wicca is original material. As you say, much of it is derived from pre-existing sources.

As to whether elements of newer traditions are "Gardnerian-derived" or not, it's a simple matter of where the idea comes from. If another pagan tradition uses a ritual of calling the quarters based on the ritual set down by Gardnerian Wicca (which was in turn compiled from a variety of pre-existing beliefs and practices), then that ritual can be said to be "Gardnerian-derived". If, on the other hand, that pagan tradition creates a new ritual of calling the quarters based upon whatever pre-20th century beliefs and practices Gardner himself consulted when creating his own rituals, that ritual can be said to derived from pre-Gardnerian ideas (but not pre-Gardnerian Wicca, which is an oxymoron). Does that make sense?

[DebLipp]

It would probably be less time consuming to note the things that are unique to the Gardnerian Craft, than it would be to point out the borrowings. But, since you brought it up again, hey, what the heck.

Here are some me of the things that I've noticed people point to as "Gardnerian markers." Accordingly, if another system also has them then they are accused of being a Gardnerian offshoot, or worse. But Gardner and his cohorts borrowed them from various earlier sources. So the exclusive Gardnerian claim seems unwarranted.

To begin, we have the three colored cords of initiation system (in the published works) and the triangle symbol of first degree initiation. These appear earlier in the secret society known as the Carbonari.

Then there is the "five-fold kiss" which appears to be based upon the "five points of fellowship" embrace found in Freemasonry. The same zones are found earlier in the cult of Mithras symbolism.

Next we have the "secret" name of Aradia, and the "Charge" which is clearly based upon material from the Italian Craft. The opening paragraph is almost verbatim from Leland's earlier presentation of the Aradia text. The ceremony of "cakes & wine" is also found earlier in Leland's Italian material. We can also add to this list the idea of being skyclad.

Additionally, we also have the Crowley verses that Gardner borrowed from his writings, and on and on.

The other so-called "Gardnerian markers" have been touched upon in Grimassi's reply to this thread. He noted the earlier references to the four elemental spirits, ritual circle, black book, and so forth.

So, off the top of my head, there you have it for starters.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

What makes Gardnerian and Gardnerian-derived traditions specifically marked as such is, generally, the unique combination of these ingredients. What I find completely implausible is the idea that some other, independent tradition would develop that chose to combine Enochian quarter-callings, Crowley's verse, Italian folk witchcraft, and the Mysteries of Mithras.

[Nemesis Descending]

What makes Gardnerian and Gardnerian-derived traditions specifically marked as such is, generally, the unique combination of these ingredients. What I find completely implausible is the idea that some other, independent tradition would develop that chose to combine Enochian quarter-callings, Crowley's verse, Italian folk witchcraft, and the Mysteries of Mithras.

I don't know of any traditions that have done as you've suggested, and tried to claim that all of these elements pre-existed Gardner together in a singular cohesive tradition. My only point was that many people look at singular themes between Gardner's Wicca and someone else's whatever, and always "credit" Gardner as the origin. It's the same kind of tunnel-vision and blinders approach that we're seeing in the academic community today.

I don't think it's unlikely that earlier traditions had something akin to quarter calls. The Romans had gods of the winds and each one was associated with a quarterly direction. So, I don't think that's a stretch. I don't see a problem finding the same elements of the cult of Mithras in northern and southern European systems. The Roman soldiers belonged to the cult, and both regions were certainly subject to centuries of occupation by the Roman army. But, I agree that Enochian material and Crowley verses would be very suspect as you describe.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[DebLipp]

I don't know of any traditions that have done as you've suggested, and tried to claim that all of these elements pre-existed Gardner together in a singular cohesive tradition.

That's just because you're not horribly old, like me. :) Both Alex Sanders and Lady Sheba produced Gardnerian-derived Books of Shadows, in exactly the manner I described, and claimed they got 'em from their grandmothers and that Gardner was just an upstart. Those were among the first 'witch wars.'

[MorningDove030202]

That's just because you're not horribly old, like me. :) Both Alex Sanders and Lady Sheba produced Gardnerian-derived Books of Shadows, in exactly the manner I described, and claimed they got 'em from their grandmothers and that Gardner was just an upstart. Those were among the first 'witch wars.'


So, basicaly are you saying that there were/are groups that ARE Gardnerian based, but claim to be "non Wicca Witchcraft" who in your opinion realy arn't? I kinda feel that any group who claims Wicca is also claiming Gardner...... or else why would they use the word Wicca?

I am suspicious of the "Non Wicca Witchcraft" groups.......not that it's an invalid path, but just that I'm not sure any group can honestly claim a lineage older than Gardner.....

Dove

[Ben Trismegistus]

I don't think it's unlikely that earlier traditions had something akin to quarter calls. The Romans had gods of the winds and each one was associated with a quarterly direction. So, I don't think that's a stretch. I don't see a problem finding the same elements of the cult of Mithras in northern and southern European systems. The Roman soldiers belonged to the cult, and both regions were certainly subject to centuries of occupation by the Roman army. But, I agree that Enochian material and Crowley verses would be very suspect as you describe.
No one's denying that earlier traditions had something akin to quarter calls. But if another tradition has quarter calls BECAUSE they saw or read about the Wiccans doing them, then that's Gardnerian-derived. If another tradition has quarter calls because they saw or read about pre-Gardnerian traditions doing them, then that's not Gardnerian-derived.

[DebLipp]

So, basicaly are you saying that there were/are groups that ARE Gardnerian based, but claim to be "non Wicca Witchcraft" who in your opinion realy arn't?
In truth, I don't pay a lot of attention to this year's crop of witch wars, so I'm not sure who's claiming what. I am more familiar with the history of witch wars, before I realized how incredibly boring and counter-productive it all was. I think the most important thing is for all of us to be aware of our recent history and then MOVE ON. :) :)

I am suspicious of the "Non Wicca Witchcraft" groups.......not that it's an invalid path, but just that I'm not sure any group can honestly claim a lineage older than Gardner.....


Many of the groups who claim pre-Gardnerian "Non Wicca Witchcraft" lineage are Robert Cochrane lineage, which is to say, contemporary with Gardner.

kinda feel that any group who claims Wicca is also claiming Gardner...... or else why would they use the word Wicca?
That's true TODAY but it wasn't true even as recently as five years ago, when Wicca and Witchcraft were often treated as synonymous.

[raven grimassi]

I don't think it's unlikely that earlier traditions had something akin to quarter calls. The Romans had gods of the winds and each one was associated with a quarterly direction. So, I don't think that's a stretch. I don't see a problem finding the same elements of the cult of Mithras in northern and southern European systems. The Roman soldiers belonged to the cult, and both regions were certainly subject to centuries of occupation by the Roman army. But, I agree that Enochian material and Crowley verses would be very suspect as you describe.

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending


It is interesting to note that in archaic Roman religion we find a classification of spirits known as Lare that share similar elements associated with the "Watchers" of the Gardnerian Craft. The ancient writer Ovid (in his Fausti) states that the Lare are the "night watchmen."

Scholar Georges Dumezil (Archaic Roman Religion) notes that in early Roman religion small "towers" were set to the Lare at the crossroads along with an altar. He refers to the Lare as guardian spirits associated with boundaries (and demarcation in general). He also associates them with the seasonal shifts at solstice and equinox.

This is interesting in conjunction with the stellar cults of Mesopotamia, where we find the "four royal stars" (known as both "Watchers" and "Lords") marking each solstice and equinox. The star Aldebaran was called the "Watcher" when it marked the Spring Equinox. The other "Watchers" were Regulus at the Summer Solstice, Antares at the Autumn Equinox, and Fomalhaut at the Winter Solstice.

So here we have some interesting "coincidental" connections between between the Gardnerian Watcher theme, and ancient practices & beliefs in what is now Italy.

Best regards - Raven

[MorningDove030202]

In truth, I don't pay a lot of attention to this year's crop of witch wars, so I'm not sure who's claiming what. I am more familiar with the history of witch wars, before I realized how incredibly boring and counter-productive it all was. I think the most important thing is for all of us to be aware of our recent history and then MOVE ON. :) :)



Many of the groups who claim pre-Gardnerian "Non Wicca Witchcraft" lineage are Robert Cochrane lineage, which is to say, contemporary with Gardner.


That's true TODAY but it wasn't true even as recently as five years ago, when Wicca and Witchcraft were often treated as synonymous.


That makes sence...a contemporary isn't older......
Dove

[Ben Gruagach]

That makes sence...a contemporary isn't older......
Dove

And saying that Cochrane was a "contemporary" of Gardner is being rather kind I suspect.

Gardner was public with Wicca back in the 1950s when he was involved with the Museum of Magic and Witchcraft around 1951, and then when he first published "Witchcraft Today" in 1954. I understand Cochrane didn't appear on the scene until the 1960s (or the late 1950s at the earliest if we're generous.) They were contemporaries in the sense that Gardner was still alive until 1964, but not if you want to believe that Cochrane was out there doing his promotion of witchcraft as far back as Gardner.

[Ben Gruagach]

It is interesting to note that in archaic Roman religion we find a classification of spirits known as Lare that share similar elements associated with the "Watchers" of the Gardnerian Craft. The ancient writer Ovid (in his Fausti) states that the Lare are the "night watchmen."

A coworker of mine a few years ago in Toronto had immigrated to Canada from eastern Europe (Serbia or Croatia, I believe). One day she was telling me about how her extended family had a big get together every year in honour of, as she described it, "their family's patron saint." She said that it was common where she came from for families to have a "patron saint" that they rever, especially in annual festivities that are sort of like a big birthday party in the saint's honour. They believed that their patron saint was actually the historical matriarch or patriarch for their family. They were Eastern Orthodox Christians -- I don't know enough about Eastern Orthodox Christianity to know if this is actually standard or if it was something particular to where my coworker grew up.

When she told me about this I have to admit it made me think of the Roman lare. The things I've read about the lare always make me think more of familial deities or clan guardian spirits/deities rather than more general elemental or directional deities or guardians.

In any case, I thought it was interesting that something at least similar to the lare (if not a direct descendant of them) is still actively revered in an unbroken tradition to this day in some parts of the world.

[DebLipp]

It is interesting to note that in archaic Roman religion we find a classification of spirits known as Lare that share similar elements associated with the "Watchers" of the Gardnerian Craft. The ancient writer Ovid (in his Fausti) states that the Lare are the "night watchmen."

Scholar Georges Dumezil (Archaic Roman Religion) notes that in early Roman religion small "towers" were set to the Lare at the crossroads along with an altar. He refers to the Lare as guardian spirits associated with boundaries (and demarcation in general). He also associates them with the seasonal shifts at solstice and equinox.

This is interesting in conjunction with the stellar cults of Mesopotamia, where we find the "four royal stars" (known as both "Watchers" and "Lords") marking each solstice and equinox. The star Aldebaran was called the "Watcher" when it marked the Spring Equinox. The other "Watchers" were Regulus at the Summer Solstice, Antares at the Autumn Equinox, and Fomalhaut at the Winter Solstice.

So here we have some interesting "coincidental" connections between between the Gardnerian Watcher theme, and ancient practices & beliefs in what is now Italy.

Best regards - Raven

This is fascinating, but leaves out a well-documented step; the John Dee Enochian material, where we first find the term "Watchtowers."

[MorningDove030202]

In an exploration of my own Tradition, Correllian Wicca, I found this in a biography of one of the founding members..... It's a good example of how Wicca and Traditional Witchcraft have been blended. It's rather facinating to see how things evolve...... It seams that no matter what one thinks of Gardner himself, he did breath new life into the practice of witchcraft in the nick of time.....

http://www.correlliantradition.com/laveda.htm

The Regent LaVeda led the Correllian Tradition from 1566 Pisces until 1579 Pisces (1966 – 1979 AD). These were crucial years for the Correllian Tradition, which was then still known as the Nativist Tradition. During these years the original Correllian lineage and the Correll Mother Temple nearly died out, saving themselves only by union with the related Louisine lineage. During these years too, the Correllian Tradition came to identify itself strongly with the modern Wiccan movement. With its roots in Cherokee religion, Scottish Traditional Witchcraft, and Spiritualism, as well as a strong association with Leland’s Aradians, Nativism was arguably something apart from Wicca until the late ‘70s –depending upon the definition of Wicca one uses. Many people have begun to draw a division between Traditional Witchcraft, such as Nativism, and the modern Wiccan movement, which they see as a development of the 50’s and ‘60s.

The Blv. Caroline’s original teachings were strongly Universalist and socially conscious, based upon the idea of pan-Pagan recognition and co-operation as the only salvation for the world’s Native (ie; Pagan) peoples. The brand of Wicca popular in the ‘70s was strongly similar to this, and drew little distinction between Wicca and Traditional Witchcraft, leading the Blv. LaVeda and other members of the Correll Mother Temple to feel not so much that they were joining a movement as that they were acknowledging an association which had always existed. Contemporary definitions might challenge these conclusions, since many now define Wicca as created by Gardner, but this was not the case in the ‘70s.

[raven grimassi]

This is fascinating, but leaves out a well-documented step; the John Dee Enochian material, where we first find the term "Watchtowers."

The term "Watchtowers" also appears in the works of Dante as a metaphorical group of guardians, which dates it a couple of centuries before Dee. We know historically that the term "watchtowers" (when applied as a personification) refered to a type of local guard that protected a city when the army was off engaged in war. While Dee's later use of the term is perhaps more occult in nature than was Dante's, there is still a connection to its early concept of guardianship.

But, what you suggest is an interesting later development of a particular and yet similar theme, one which seems to have appealed to Gardnerian constructionists. I believe this speaks to the commonality of the human experience, how we as humans conceive in human ways. At the basis of what I referred to, and what you have commented on here, lies the basic concept of guardians/watchers, boundaries, and so forth. The rest seems to be self-styled adaptations or modifications.

People naturally build upon ideas and concepts, and add new to old, and old to new. It is difficult to know from what foundation Dee's Enochian system was established. Even more difficult to say where the older roots of that foundation itself came from.

In the Italian Craft the guardians are called the Grigori, and we do not have the term Watchtower. However, we often use Wiccan terms in public because they are familiar and recognizable. But, I don't see too great a leap of logic here in any case. When I view Ovid's term "Watchmen" for the Lare, and the ancient practice of erecting towers to the Lare, I find it difficult to see that the concept of "Watchtowers" is somehow incongruous. But again, the English words are not part of the Italian system.

As to cultural roots, the concept of the Lare as "night watchmen” and as guardian spirits associated with boundaries seems congruent enough to view the Lare as guardians of the ritual circle in Italian Witchcraft (within an indigenous Italian tradition).

Best regards - Raven

[Nemesis Descending]

The term "Watchtowers" also appears in the works of Dante as a metaphorical group of guardians, which dates it a couple of centuries before Dee. We know historically that the term "watchtowers" (when applied as a personification) refered to a type of local guard that protected a city when the army was off engaged in war. While Dee's later use of the term is perhaps more occult in nature than was Dante's, there is still a connection to its early concept of guardianship.

Oh yeah, wow, Dante! Here is yet another piece that points to large borrowings from Italian Witchcraft by Gardner and his cohorts during the construction phase. I read the letter that Doreen Valiente wrote to you, which appears in your book (where she says that Gerald Gardner gave her a "cimaruta" charm). I was reading about the cimaruta in a 19th century book on Italian lore. Looks like the cimaruta was worn by Italian Witches as a sign of membership in the "Old Religion" of Italy.

Anyway, thanks for more sign posts! :thumbsup:


In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[raven grimassi]

Oh yeah, wow, Dante! Here is yet another piece that points to large borrowings from Italian Witchcraft by Gardner and his cohorts during the construction phase. I read the letter that Doreen Valiente wrote to you, which appears in your book (where she says that Gerald Gardner gave her a "cimaruta" charm). I was reading about the cimaruta in a 19th century book on Italian lore. Looks like the cimaruta was worn by Italian Witches as a sign of membership in the "Old Religion" of Italy.

Anyway, thanks for more sign posts! :thumbsup:


In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

Personally I feel that most of the similarities we find from tradition to tradition stem from the commonality of human conceptualization. We reason, construct, and imagine in human ways. Therefore we create similar rituals, magical systems, deity forms,myths, and so forth.

As to the Italian Craft material that later turns up in Gardnerian Wicca, there are some interesting crossroads. In Gardner's book (The Meaning of Witchcraft) he writes of his belief that Witchcraft in England was a Stone Age cult that evolved into a religion, which he believed was later influenced by the Greek and Roman Mysteries. He also writes of his time in Italy and of his interest in the Mystery murals at Pompeii. Gardner and Valiente''s interest in Leland's work on Italian Witchcraft (including the Aradia material) is clear when we look at such things as the "Charge of the Goddess" and other modifications of the original Italian Craft material.

Best regards - Raven

[TYRRHENUS]

It is interesting to note that Francesco Guazzo, in his Compendium Maleficarum of 1608, wrote that Witches work with spirits of earth, air, fire, and water. He also depicts them with a black book, gathering in a ritual circle, and having a religious demeanor.In addition to worshipping a goat, but except for the religious demeanor, the same also appear in Tertullian as accusations levied against early Christians. Interesting, ay?To begin, we have the three colored cords of initiation system (in the published works) and the triangle symbol of first degree initiation. These appear earlier in the secret society known as the Carbonari.Is this being used to disprove any "Gardnerian markers," or support them? (Where have I read that phrase before ;)) Anyway, it is well known that the Carbonari were a short-lived off-shoot of the Freemasons. For instance, 1st Degree Masons could enter the Carbonari and go right to the 3rd. Another was the Sicilian Calderari.What I find completely implausible is the idea that some other, independent tradition would develop that chose to combine Enochian quarter-callings, Crowley's verse, Italian folk witchcraft, and the Mysteries of Mithras.I couldn't have said it better. Really, I couldn't have.The Romans had gods of the winds and each one was associated with a quarterly direction.This is news to me. Who wrote this?It is interesting to note that in archaic Roman religion we find a classification of spirits known as Lare that share similar elements associated with the "Watchers" of the Gardnerian Craft.I'm learning a lot in this thread. The lares compitales, familiaris, praestites and vicorum all had their functions, but I've never heard of them in the Gardnerian manner. Who wrote of this?So here we have some interesting "coincidental" connections between between the Gardnerian Watcher theme, and ancient practices & beliefs in what is now Italy.This seems a stretch. There are a number of stars which only appear during different seasons, so it is understandable that agrarian cultures all over the planet would associate certain stars with certain seasons. Not to mention the watchmen of Ovid's Fasti are the lares familiaris who watch over the family.In the Italian Craft the guardians are called the Grigori...I'm really trying not to go off-topic here, sorry, but which dialect is this, the singular form and gender? I've checked Devoto's Dizionario della lingua italiana, Muratori's Antichità italiane and Sansoni and I can't find it anywhere.Looks like the cimaruta was worn by Italian Witches as a sign of membership in the "Old Religion" of Italy.Frances Malpezzi, Sabrina Magliocco, Carla Bianco, Phyllis Williams, Guiseppe Pitrè, even Leo Martello (who claimed the word mafia came from an abbreviation of mater + filia :geez: ) have all spent time documenting use of the cimaruta. None of them have ever made the claim that it is a sign of membership in any kind of religion. Beware of revisionist theories.

Silverfangs, this division between Wiccans has been around for some time, as Ben Gruagach pointed out. It does divide most Wiccans I think, but also makes the religion very human. I think it all comes from what people are trying to get out of their religion since most are still not born into it and therefore lack a set of pre-existing dogmas. What I mean is; Wicca really is what you make of it.

[DebLipp]

Personally I feel that most of the similarities we find from tradition to tradition stem from the commonality of human conceptualization. We reason, construct, and imagine in human ways. Therefore we create similar rituals, magical systems, deity forms,myths, and so forth.


This is a lovely theory. It was once quite popular in the academic community. Jung based his theory of archetypes upon it.

Unfortunately, it has less and less credence among scholars. Several famous examples of what once appeared to be spontaneous emergence of similar myths and mythic images have since been demonstrated to be transmission. People traveled much more in the ancient world than was once believed.

I tend to agree with you, I tend to believe that human beings spontaneously find similar ideas. However, it is definitely true that this spontaneous emergence is a much smaller factor than was believed, say 70 years ago. It is very important to look at the tangible evidence before we wax poetic about the commonality of human experience.

[raven grimassi]

This is a lovely theory. It was once quite popular in the academic community. Jung based his theory of archetypes upon it.

Unfortunately, it has less and less credence among scholars. Several famous examples of what once appeared to be spontaneous emergence of similar myths and mythic images have since been demonstrated to be transmission. People traveled much more in the ancient world than was once believed.

I tend to agree with you, I tend to believe that human beings spontaneously find similar ideas. However, it is definitely true that this spontaneous emergence is a much smaller factor than was believed, say 70 years ago. It is very important to look at the tangible evidence before we wax poetic about the commonality of human experience.

Personally, I do not see scholars as infallible, and I personally see no disparity between transmission and commonality. While it is true that ancient people had more contact with one another than was earlier believed, transmission does not negate the commonality of how we view things as a species. It is just as likely that two cultures previously shared the same foundational views related to deity and ritual before they met, as it may be that one passed something unique on to another. That one culture may adapt a unique ritual expression, or an expanded view of deity, from another is not proof that the basic commonality did not already exist. It seems that it would be easier to integrate something familiar in nature into ones religion, ritual structure, and concept of deity, than it would be to embrace something entirely new and different in nature.

Best regards - Raven

[DebLipp]

Personally, I do not see scholars as infallible, and I personally see no disparity between transmission and commonality. While it is true that ancient people had more contact with one another than was earlier believed, transmission does not negate the commonality of how we view things as a species. It is just as likely that two cultures previously shared the same foundational views related to deity and ritual before they met, as it may be that one passed something unique on to another. That one culture may adapt a unique ritual expression, or an expanded view of deity, from another is not proof that the basic commonality did not already exist. It seems that it would be easier to integrate something familiar in nature into ones religion, ritual structure, and concept of deity, than it would be to embrace something entirely new and different in nature.

Best regards - Raven

While transmission doesn't negate commonality, it is important to recognize that spontaneous emergence theories were originally considered an if-therefore conclusion. IF: There had been no contact between cultures, AND IF: Those cultures have similar rituals and myths, THEREFORE: spontaneous emergence is proven.

It is important to understand that the first IF is no longer found to be true anywhere where the second IF is also true. Spontaneous emergence cannot be considered anything but an adjunct to transmission.

[raven grimassi]

Anyway, it is well known that the Carbonari were a short-lived off-shoot of the Freemasons. For instance, 1st Degree Masons could enter the Carbonari and go right to the 3rd. Another was the Sicilian Calderari.I couldn't have said it better. Really, I couldn't have.This is news to me. Who wrote this?I'm learning a lot in this thread. The lares compitales, familiaris, praestites and vicorum all had their functions, but I've never heard of them in the Gardnerian manner. Who wrote of this?This seems a stretch.

I would be happy to repeat the documentation for you here again. Scholar Georges Dumezil (Archaic Roman Religion) talks about the earliest nature of the Lare as guardian spirits who protect boundaries and demarcations in general. He tells us that small "towers" were set to the Lare at the crossroads along with an altar. The mention of a crossroads is important here as the crossroads features prominently in Roman Witchcraft (as well as Greek Witchcraft). Add to this Ovid's remark (in his Fausti) that the Lare are the "night watchmen" and you begin to see a pattern emerge. Therefore, I would not agree with you that the similarities between the Lare and the Gardnerian Watchers/Lords of the Watchtowers is a stretch.

Historian Richard Gordon (in Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome) tells us that the State viewed Witches as practitioners of illicit or illegitimate religion. This unaccepted status caused them to perform their rites away from the cities, which is a common theme we see among Roman writers even as late as Horace Ovid, and Lucan. Historian Albert Grenier (The Roman Spirit in Religion, Thought, and Art) tells us that a Lare cult existed where all the unfavorable people rejected by the State gathered at the crossroads to celebrate in their own ways. He also writes: "History, being wholly aristocratic and political, hardly noticed them..."

So, here we see a connection between the Lare, the crossroads, and Witchcraft. The Lare appear to be a Romanized form of the Etruscan Lasa figures, which were a type of fairy race. The popular Italian notion of the fata (a fairy or nature spirit) seems rooted in this older belief. The Fata and Witch appear together frequently in popular Italian folklore. The whole thing is quite a layered onion, which speaks of its historical and cultural roots.

Regarding the Carbonari, they arose as a separate sect with no previous ties to Freemasonry. Freemasons were allowed to enter the higher degree when they joined the Carbonari out of respect for the commonality of what they shared. The Carbonari claim their origins in the 14th century and they trace it through historical events to the 19th century. If true, then this is not as "short-lived" as you claim.

Best regards - Raven

[Nemesis Descending]

While transmission doesn't negate commonality, it is important to recognize that spontaneous emergence theories were originally considered an if-therefore conclusion. IF: There had been no contact between cultures, AND IF: Those cultures have similar rituals and myths, THEREFORE: spontaneous emergence is proven.

It is important to understand that the first IF is no longer found to be true anywhere where the second IF is also true. Spontaneous emergence cannot be considered anything but an adjunct to transmission.

Wow, that seems to be a rather rigid and extremely narrow view. So, let me get this image of yours right here. Human tribes in various places of the world sat around with no idea of deity, ritual, or religion. Then one day a tribe that does have these ideas meets another tribe. The wandering tribe then imparts its enlightenment to them. And through these "village-to-village religious salesmen" the entire world ends up with the same ideas. Do you suppose they were originally looking for weapons of mass destruction? :rotfl:

But, hey, let’s get real here. You’re not going to find an unbroken chain of direct “transmission” from Stone Age Europeans to the islands of Polynesia, to the aborigines of Australia and New Zealand (certainly not in any timeframe that works to demonstrate a valid chronology).

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

[DebLipp]

Wow, that seems to be a rather rigid and extremely narrow view. So, let me get this image of yours right here. Human tribes in various places of the world sat around with no idea of deity, ritual, or religion. Then one day a tribe that does have these ideas meets another tribe. The wandering tribe then imparts its enlightenment to them. And through these "village-to-village religious salesmen" the entire world ends up with the same ideas. Do you suppose they were originally looking for weapons of mass destruction? :rotfl:

But, hey, let’s get real here. You’re not going to find an unbroken chain of direct “transmission” from Stone Age Europeans to the islands of Polynesia, to the aborigines of Australia and New Zealand (certainly not in any timeframe that works to demonstrate a valid chronology).

In Her service,
Nemesis Descending

I guess it might be a "rigid and extremely narrow view" if I had said anything remotely similar to your interesting and inaccurate distortion.

[Nemesis Descending]

I guess