Origins of Wicca

[Pure Ahimsa]

Okay- we all know that Wicca was modernized by Gerald Gardner, etc... but it does have many ancient ties, beliefs from the Celts, Teutons, Britons, Pict, Manx, and Germanic Tribes. Though new things may have been added, Wicca has been a word used for a long time. Wicca is, I guess, reconstructionistic, but yet their has been family traditions for centuries.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I wouldn't call Wicca reconstructionist in the purest sense of the word. The pagan reconstructionists (in general) are reconstructing a SINGLE ancient practice, as accurately as possible. Wicca is, instead, an amalgamation of a variety of different ancient sources, combined with a variety of modern sources. It's like a "best-of" religion.

From a belief standpoint, much of Wicca is ancient. A lot of mythology and theology is borrowed from the Celts and the Greeks (and, to a lesser extent, from the Egyptians and other Europeans cultures). What is modern in Wiccan belief is its universality -- the idea that Isis and Athena and Brigid might be representations of the same goddess (just picked those names at random). That idea would have been blasphemy to most of the ancient world (there was a limited amount of intermingling between Greek, Egyptian, and Roman deities). Also modern in Wiccan belief is the idea that all gods and all goddesses are facets of (or represented by) a singular God and Goddess. The universal Triple Goddess and her consort the Horned God first appeared in their current guises in the late 19th century.

From a practice standpoint, much of Wicca is modern. While there are certain ancient practices, such as the use of circles, oathbound initiations, and quarter calling, the majority of the detail in Wiccan practice comes either from Freemasonry (17th-18th century) or Ceremonial Magic (15th-16th century).

So, I'm unable to answer your poll, because the answer is more complicated than that.

Now, for those that would say that the eclectic nature of Wicca makes it a less valid religion, I'd actually say that the opposite is true. The eclectic nature of Wicca is what makes it a constantly adapting, constantly vital religion.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Ben, I know I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record, but the only thing that Wicca has in common with any Celtic beliefs is the name of four of their Sabbats. The mythology and practices have little to nothing in common. Even the horned god idea present in Wicca has very little to do with the Celtic antlered god Cernunnos from whom this concept is suppossed to come from. They might share the same name, but I've seen little of the same god in that name.

[Ben Gruagach]

I agree with what Ben T. just posted, with a few comments.

The idea that the different gods and goddesses might be manifestations of a single larger deity is not a new idea. It was part of the Isis cult during its heyday when it had spread all over Europe (even to the UK) and is documented in Lucius Apuleius' "The Golden Ass." Apuleius lived c. 123 - c. 170 CE. The bit at the start of the Wiccan "Charge of the Goddess" where the Goddess recites a list of different names She is known by was likely lifted from Apulieus' book by either Gerald Gardner or Doreen Valiente.

Hinduism also includes the idea of deities being aspects of a larger and essentially unknowable deity. In Hinduism this unknowable single deity is sometimes called Brahman. All the other deities, including Kali, Ganesh, Shiva, and every other deity known to humans, are described as being manifestations of Brahman that we mortals are able to approach in a limited fashion. I'm not an expert in Hinduism but I would be surprised if this was a new idea in Hinduism. Wicca includes a lot of Hindu and eastern lore, likely via material from the Golden Dawn and Theosophy, which were both major influences on occultism in the UK and Europe prior to Gardner and his promotion of Wicca.

Ben T. is very right though that Wicca is very much a modern creation that draws from a wide range of ancient sources. The word Wicca itself is an old word that was adopted just like other ancient ideas were adopted. The word Wicca in its pre-Gardnerian context was merely the word for a male witch. It did not refer to a specific religion, although that is what it means now in a modern context.

Claims that Wicca is a religion that Gardner was merely passing on (even if he did add to it considerably) are to date not supported by the historical evidence. If there is proof that an actual religion known at Wicca existed prior to Gardner, it hasn't been uncovered or examined yet. It might exist but it's really doubtful based on the evidence we do have about how Wicca started.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ben, I know I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record, but the only thing that Wicca has in common with any Celtic beliefs is the name of four of their Sabbats. The mythology and practices have little to nothing in common. Even the horned god idea present in Wicca has very little to do with the Celtic antlered god Cernunnos from whom this concept is suppossed to come from. They might share the same name, but I've seen little of the same god in that name.
And? It's still something. Even if they got the details wrong, it's still true that Gardner and his gang borrowed a lot of what they perceived to be the ancient religions of the British Isles. A lot less was known about them then.

The idea that the different gods and goddesses might be manifestations of a single larger deity is not a new idea. It was part of the Isis cult during its heyday when it had spread all over Europe (even to the UK) and is documented in Lucius Apuleius' "The Golden Ass." Apuleius lived c. 123 - c. 170 CE. The bit at the start of the Wiccan "Charge of the Goddess" where the Goddess recites a list of different names She is known by was likely lifted from Apulieus' book by either Gerald Gardner or Doreen Valiente.
Dammit - I keep forgetting that. Thanks for reminding me.

Wicca includes a lot of Hindu and eastern lore, likely via material from the Golden Dawn and Theosophy, which were both major influences on occultism in the UK and Europe prior to Gardner and his promotion of Wicca.
Additional, during Gardner's tenure as a civil servant for the UK, he lived for several years in Asia, and probably picked up some Hindu and eastern influences while there. Additionally, it was while in Ceylon (I think) that Gardner first joined the Freemasons.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

And? It's still something. Even if they got the details wrong, it's still true that Gardner and his gang borrowed a lot of what they perceived to be the ancient religions of the British Isles. A lot less was known about them then.

I point it out because you said "A lot of mythology and theology is borrowed from the Celts" which is quite simply wrong. The only thing they have in common is the name of four festivals. That's it. The theology is so vastly different that I do not comprehend how anyone who knows anything about the religious beliefs of any of the Celtic tribes or Wicca could make the comparison. Gardner and his lot borrowed very little from the religion of the Celtic tribes, though they did make many claims that they were derived from the Celts. Making that claim however, does not make it true. There is far more in common with the Anglo-Saxon beliefs then there ever was with the Celtic tribal beliefs.

Furthermore if the details aren't right, then I absolutely fail to see how it can be seen as being related or even derived from. It is in the details that something is made, not in a few shared words.

[Ben Gruagach]

I point it out because you said "A lot of mythology and theology is borrowed from the Celts" which is quite simply wrong. The only thing they have in common is the name of four festivals. That's it. The theology is so vastly different that I do not comprehend how anyone who knows anything about the religious beliefs of any of the Celtic tribes or Wicca could make the comparison. Gardner and his lot borrowed very little from the religion of the Celtic tribes, though they did make many claims that they were derived from the Celts. Making that claim however, does not make it true. There is far more in common with the Anglo-Saxon beliefs then there ever was with the Celtic tribal beliefs.

Furthermore if the details aren't right, then I absolutely fail to see how it can be seen as being related or even derived from. It is in the details that something is made, not in a few shared words.

I'm with Ben T. on this, Mòrag. You appear to be making an assumption that borrowing from Celtic culture equates with claiming to be practicing the same religion that the Pagan Celts did. The assumption is not correct. Perhaps some of the early Wiccans did claim they were just carrying on an intact pre-Christian religion, but that claim is far from accepted now among Wiccans.

We don't have to claim to be following an authentic intact form of Celtic Paganism in order to borrow from it. Wicca is not a reconstructed form of a pre-Christian religion. Even without claiming to be an intact ancient Celtic religion, modern forms of Wicca can indeed be considered inspired by Celtic myth if they borrow heavily from it. (We Wiccans are a diverse lot -- some draw heavily from Italian lore as in a lot of Raven Grimassi's work, while others focus more on Celtic myths. Some prefer to work mostly with Egyptian myth. Wicca itself includes a lot of cultural emphases as a whole while individual practitioners and groups often do limit themselves to particular myth systems or cultures.)

[ollathair]

Since Witchcraft was outlawed and very few covens were able to continue their practice and then only 'underground', for want of a better term, I believe that the Wicca we practice now is modern. I don't believe that, other than true hereditary Witches who are few and far between, much of the 'old' Witchcraft has survived, even in the hidden covens. Therefore, we are a modern revival of an ancient way of life.

[Pandoras]

I'm not Wicca so I'm hardly an expert, but I'm throwing in my two cents anyway.

I tihnk that Wicca is basically both old and new. Although Gardner claimed that the religion was a survival of matriarchal religions of pre-historic Europe, I'm of the opinion of that he pretty much made it up following the ideas of people like Margaret Murray and Leland. It's my understanding that the ritual aspects of Wicca are styled after Victorian occultism and the practices of Freemasonry and ceremonial magic as well as the work of Aleister Crowley. The spiritual side is inspired by ancient paganism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

[raven grimassi]

the majority of the detail in Wiccan practice comes either from Freemasonry (17th-18th century) or Ceremonial Magic (15th-16th century)

I am curious and interested in what details you mean in this regard. Would you give some examples?

And regarding "ceremonial magic" - it is interesting to note Doreen Valiente's argument that Renaissance magic (and Middle Ages magic) is rooted in earlier (read here - pagan) systems. If so, this can make it difficult to accurately discern who borrowed what when we look to ultimate origins.

I am reminded of the 17th century Witch trial involving Laura Malipero. She was caught copying from the Key of Solomon into her own book of spells and remedies. So, are we seeing the origins of Key of Solomon material entering Witchcraft, or are we seeing the re-introduction of lost elements of pagan material into Witchcraft (modified though it may be). It may be ironic, but I begin to feel that the more we know, the less we KNOW. ;)

Best regards - Raven

[Ben Gruagach]

I am curious and interested in what details you mean in this regard. Would you give some examples?

And regarding "ceremonial magic" - it is interesting to note Doreen Valiente's argument that Renaissance magic (and Middle Ages magic) is rooted in earlier (read here - pagan) systems. If so, this can make it difficult to accurately discern who borrowed what when we look to ultimate origins.

I am reminded of the 17th century Witch trial involving Laura Malipero. She was caught copying from the Key of Solomon into her own book of spells and remedies. So, are we seeing the origins of Key of Solomon material entering Witchcraft, or are we seeing the re-introduction of lost elements of pagan material into Witchcraft (modified though it may be). It may be ironic, but I begin to feel that the more we know, the less we KNOW. ;)

Best regards - Raven

I have no problem believing that there has been a lot of material that jumped from ceremonial magickians to folk magick practitioners, and from folk magick practitioners into ceremonial magick practice. People who practice magick do have a tendency to be willing to borrow ideas from pretty much anywhere they find them. Things that work are kept, and things that don't work for them tend to get left by the wayside.

It's probably a mistake to assume though that following specific ideas to either ceremonial magick or folk magick practitioners somehow proves the claim that a particular spiritual system (such as Wicca) is an intact religion that has been maintained from pre-Christian times. Anyone can start up a religious system and base it on ideas and practices drawn from the historical past.

Many religions have very questionable founding stories. The Mormons, for instance, claim that their religion is an intact spiritual tradition that was given to Joseph Smith by an angel, with the Book of Mormon written on golden tablets which only he could see and only he could translate. The tablets also conveniently disappeared once he had translated them into English.

As Ben T. mentioned (I think in another thread here on MysticWicks) another example is Freemasonry which claims an intact lineage back to ancient Egypt, which has been pretty much impossible to prove and is likely an inspiring but fictional claim. The Golden Dawn is another one that claimed to be just passing on an intact system but that initial link to a previous system (in their case, a mythical German magickal order) has also been shown to be likely fictional.

Religions, spiritual systems, and magickal systems can be valid and effective regardless of whether their foundation claims are true or not. It's good to explore the historical claims and uncover the truth because we can only grow stronger from it... but we also have to be careful to not deceive ourselves into thinking that some things prove historical claims when they are not really proof at all.

[raven grimassi]

Religions, spiritual systems, and magickal systems can be valid and effective regardless of whether their foundation claims are true or not. It's good to explore the historical claims and uncover the truth because we can only grow stronger from it... but we also have to be careful to not deceive ourselves into thinking that some things prove historical claims when they are not really proof at all.

I do not disagree with the essential thrust of your argument, and my earlier point was not to *prove* anything, but instead to simply suggest that things are not always what they seem (no matter which camp one might be in).

Best regards - Raven

[Ben Gruagach]

I do not disagree with the essential thrust of your argument, and my earlier point was not to *prove* anything, but instead to simply suggest that things are not always what they seem (no matter which camp one might be in).

Best regards - Raven

I agree completely. I think that it's really exciting to be involved in Wicca right now with all the historical research going on by talented people like you, Ronald Hutton, Philip Heselton, and the many others who are working on the topic.

There is so much that we don't know about the origins of Wicca and religious witchcraft, let alone specific practices and ideas and the whole field of occultism itself. There are a lot of claims made though that don't have actual proof to back them up. It's frustrating when claims are presented and we're expected to believe them just on some author's assertion that they are correct. But proof is being ferreted out, and I for one am grateful that it is. It's always better to strip away the illusions and focus on the truth behind things. In a lot of ways, that is the essence of the spiritual journey (at least for me anyways!)

[MorningDove030202]

I think there are many thing about Wicca that we will not ever know if they are anicent or modern, because we all have differnt defintions on what constiutes ancient and modern. Is something modern if it's 500 years old? Is it modern if it's 1000 years old? Is it ancient if it's 501 years old? what about 1001 years old? I would agree that many of the beliefs are ancient, but our practice is more recent than ancient. I would guess that most wiccan practices are 1000 years old or younger.

Maybe a better question would be "Why do we have this need to claim the word ancient?"

Dove

[raven grimassi]

There is so much that we don't know about the origins of Wicca and religious witchcraft, let alone specific practices and ideas and the whole field of occultism itself.

Yes, that is true, and I feel that "occultism" itself makes it all that more complex. What I mean is that occult explanations do not hold water with the vast majority of scholars, which may contribute to their dismissal of things that perhaps should be noted. I am referring to such things as "ancestral memory" versus concoction, morphogenetic principles versus fabrication, and so forth.

Historian Diane Purkiss (The Witch in History) wrote:

"It follows that in order to exist according to its own self-definition, history must repress any hint of the supernatural as real or as capable of causing events...This results in a hollowness at the center of historical discourse on the supernatural, which displaces the very subject it promises to address. The supernatural must be transformed into something else so that it can be discussed...history can say nothing about angels or demons or witches until they are psychoanalytic symptoms, chemicals, illnesses, political tools, or social categories".

I think this academic tunnel-vision approach is as much an obstacle to the truth as are the flights of fancy we often encounter in our own community.

There are a lot of claims made though that don't have actual proof to back them up.

Yes, it can be like arguing for the existence of the soul without enough documentation to substantiate such a claim. ;)

It's frustrating when claims are presented and we're expected to believe them just on some author's assertion that they are correct.

No argument here, and I have always held the view that a book is simply a published opinion. I believe in questioning, and I believe in alternative views, which is why I write what I do. The more information we all have, the more able we are to discern. I have always felt that if my writings do nothing more than make someone hold firmer to their contrary position, then I have performed a worthwhile service towards their own convictions.

But proof is being ferreted out, and I for one am grateful that it is. It's always better to strip away the illusions and focus on the truth behind things. In a lot of ways, that is the essence of the spiritual journey (at least for me anyways!)

Sounds good to me.

Best regards - Raven

[Ben Gruagach]

Yes, that is true, and I feel that "occultism" itself makes it all that more complex. What I mean is that occult explanations do not hold water with the vast majority of scholars, which may contribute to their dismissal of things that perhaps should be noted. I am referring to such things as "ancestral memory" versus concoction, morphogenetic principles versus fabrication, and so forth.

Historian Diane Purkiss (The Witch in History) wrote:

"It follows that in order to exist according to its own self-definition, history must repress any hint of the supernatural as real or as capable of causing events...This results in a hollowness at the center of historical discourse on the supernatural, which displaces the very subject it promises to address. The supernatural must be transformed into something else so that it can be discussed...history can say nothing about angels or demons or witches until they are psychoanalytic symptoms, chemicals, illnesses, political tools, or social categories".

You've touched on some important points. It is really frustrating when topics (such as things usually classified as supernatural or occult) are dismissed because of arbitrary value judgements that the phenomena are pathology or symtoms of illness rather than phenomena worth examining in their own right.

Attitudes that things classified as occult or spiritual are hogwash and not worth examining is as intellectually immature as those who take the opposite approach and say because someone says their personal inspiration is Divine Utterance it must be accepted as proven. Both sides are extremes and are not based on actually looking at the phenomena or the specific thing being examined but are rather attempts to appeal to some outside authority to save us all having to actually think.

Inspiration is very important particularly in a spiritual context. It's information that is considered significant by those who are looking at it. Does it really matter if it's an idea I came up with myself or truly is something a Divine figure whispered in my ear? If the information is valid and useful then it will stand on its own.

MorningDove030202's post brings out part of the problem really clearly -- it's all about why we should consider an idea, a practice, or a bit of information important. Some attempt to bolster an idea's importance by appealing to the authority of the idea's age. The common assumption made by some is that if something is old it's therefore more authoritative or better.

Similarly, some attempt to make an idea appear more important by claiming it's Divine Utterance rather than their own idea or something they picked up through a more mundane source. Accepting that claim of authority though means just having to believe and unfortunately it's a gamble that is sometimes (and maybe even in most cases) is a losing proposition.

Scientists and scholars rely on facts and proof that can be confirmed or disproven. If something is to be accepted as fact then it must have that proof. Appeals to authorities might impress some but without that backup of actual proof the appeals don't mean much.

Sure, spirituality and religion has that thing called "faith" and "belief" worked into the whole equation. There is nothing wrong with asking people to have faith or to believe, but there is something wrong with pretending like faith and blind belief are what constitute scientific or scholarly claims. We do our community more harm than good by pretending we have scientific or scholarly backing for something when it's not actually the case. It reinforces animosity towards our community from scientists and scholars, and makes it harder to gain acceptance for our claims that might be valid and supported by fact even among our own community members. People who get caught being deceptive tend to lose respect.

[raven grimassi]

Attitudes that things classified as occult or spiritual are hogwash and not worth examining is as intellectually immature as those who take the opposite approach and say because someone says their personal inspiration is Divine Utterance it must be accepted as proven. Both sides are extremes and are not based on actually looking at the phenomena or the specific thing being examined but are rather attempts to appeal to some outside authority to save us all having to actually think.

Yes, and I feel that balance is always important, which is why I prefer the practice of earth religion. While I do enjoy the intellectual debates, I am also a witch of the heart. This can cause me to intuit that I know something by its feel as opposed to its tangible proof. But again, I always try and balance the mind and the heart.


Inspiration is very important particularly in a spiritual context. It's information that is considered significant by those who are looking at it. Does it really matter if it's an idea I came up with myself or truly is something a Divine figure whispered in my ear? If the information is valid and useful then it will stand on its own.

Sounds reasonable to me.


MorningDove030202's post brings out part of the problem really clearly -- it's all about why we should consider an idea, a practice, or a bit of information important. Some attempt to bolster an idea's importance by appealing to the authority of the idea's age. The common assumption made by some is that if something is old it's therefore more authoritative or better.

There is an old saying that "There is as much ancient folly as there is ancient wisdom". And so the fact that something may be ancient does not, in and of itself, indicate authenticity or value. Ancient people once thought the world was flat and carried on the back of a giant. So, there are some things we need to dismiss among ancient beliefs.

But, our ancestors were also a very practical people, and they tended to pass on things of value, things that stood the test of time. And so there is something of value to be said of rooted beliefs as well.

We do our community more harm than good by pretending we have scientific or scholarly backing for something when it's not actually the case. It reinforces animosity towards our community from scientists and scholars, and makes it harder to gain acceptance for our claims that might be valid and supported by fact even among our own community members. People who get caught being deceptive tend to lose respect.

Yes, there have been incidents where certain authors in our community have been quite sloppy (if not inventive) with their research, and it has been an embarrassment to us all. And as you say, it undermines our credibility. But, I have also seen several respected scholars build their argument in part on errors they themselves have made in their own research.

None of us are infallible, and we will make mistakes, and we will all draw incorrect conclusions from time to time. But I think there is a very real difference between deception and personal conviction. Deception is knowing you are wrong and proceeding anyway. Conviction is knowing that other people think you are wrong, but believing in something anyway and seeing it through to the end. I think such individuals as the latter have made a greater impact on history than have those who stay thinking inside the box.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth. ;)

Best regards - Raven

[blackroseivy]

Hmmmmmmmm... I think that anything truly ancient has survived sealed in the amber of the culture in which it is born. When it migrates, it metamorphoses. Thus, you might trace certain ideas back to ancient Egyptian ones - such as Alchemy & by association, the Tarot - abut they are obviously not manifestations of actual ancient Egyptian culture & thought, only the echoes of memories of such that turn up in very different form far lateron. You might say that Magickal ideas all have ancient DNA, but they are, in the forms we know them now, descendants, even collateral ones, not the thing itself. That pretty much goes for anything in civilization that is more than mere pop-culture, anything handed down for anybody's guess how long. You might ask, how much are we like our Ancestors? Not in superficial ways, but in more fundamental behaviors & appearances.

I once had a vision of a Bronze-Age Celt (whatever she may have been called), & she gave the impression of a stoic personality & being a quick learner. One thing I remember: Colors are different in our modern way of thinking than it was then; they had a more simplistic view of what a color was, whereas we have an incredibly complex spectrum that we recognize. Ok, so all of this is speculation; but it just is my idea that we see things so differently now, it's hard to recognize the ancient in the everyday even when it directly confronts us.

[DebLipp]

Ben, I know I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record, but the only thing that Wicca has in common with any Celtic beliefs is the name of four of their Sabbats. The mythology and practices have little to nothing in common. Even the horned god idea present in Wicca has very little to do with the Celtic antlered god Cernunnos from whom this concept is suppossed to come from. They might share the same name, but I've seen little of the same god in that name.
I think you're picking nits. Wiccans may use the phrase "horned god" (presumably because it scans so nicely and trips so elegantly off the tongue) but, in fact, they worship an antlered god who is substantively the same as the Celtic antlered god. He is cyclic, renewing, and associated with the stag. A lot of Wiccan mythology and theology is straight out of the Mabinogion.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I am curious and interested in what details you mean in this regard. Would you give some examples?
I was offline for the fascinating discussion between you and Ben G, so I'm late in answering your question.

Well, while attempting to skirt around oathbound material (both in Wicca and in Freemasonry), I can tell you that many Wiccan ritual practices are derived from Freemasonry. Both use an initiatory system of three degrees -- the first degree in particular contains numerous shared elements (you'll have to take my word for it). Even the phrase "so mote it be", whatever its origins may be, is found in both Freemasonry and Wicca. Both systems share a reverence of the cardinal directions, and the concept that ritual must be contained within the act of "opening" and "closing" -- a circle in the case of Wicca, a Lodge in the case of Masonry.

As for Ceremonial Magic, I only know what I've read, about the works of John Dee and Edward Kelly traveling down through generations, picking up Eliphas Levi and the Corpus Hermeticum, and finally influencing the Golden Dawn, Crowley, and eventually Gardner.

And regarding "ceremonial magic" - it is interesting to note Doreen Valiente's argument that Renaissance magic (and Middle Ages magic) is rooted in earlier (read here - pagan) systems. If so, this can make it difficult to accurately discern who borrowed what when we look to ultimate origins.
Possible. But, much like Wicca, even if Ceremonial Magic *was* an eclectic construct of previous systems, that doesn't make its unique existence any more difficult to pinpoint.

B

[raven grimassi]

Well, while attempting to skirt around oathbound material (both in Wicca and in Freemasonry), I can tell you that many Wiccan ritual practices are derived from Freemasonry. Both use an initiatory system of three degrees -- the first degree in particular contains numerous shared elements (you'll have to take my word for it).

No worries, I understand the honoring of oaths, and unlike some people I do not view it as a dodge. My own personal theory is that the British Craft and Freemasonry have shared roots, which is why we see the similarities (if not some identical aspects).

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


Both use an initiatory system of three degrees -- the first degree in particular contains numerous shared elements (you'll have to take my word for it).

This is also true of an old non-Masonic society in Italy known as the Carbonari. The secret society of the Carbonari first appears in public records during the early 1700s. The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands, and the order possessed three degrees of initiation marked by colored cords or ribbons: blue, red and black. A triangle marked the first degree level. The members were bound by a serious oath to observe absolute silence concerning their organization. The Carbonari went on to establish a lodge in Scotland in 1820.

Both systems share a reverence of the cardinal directions, and the concept that ritual must be contained within the act of "opening" and "closing" -- a circle in the case of Wicca, a Lodge in the case of Masonry.

It is interesting to note that many other system that are not associated with Freemasonry (and some predating it) also "share a reverence of the cardinal directions". Also noteworthy is the "opening and closing" ceremonies for the Mystery Temples in ancient Greece and Rome.

A couple of years back, I ran across the writings of Albert Mackey, who during the late 1800s was a Mason that served as grand high priest of the Grand Chapter, grand master of the grand council, and general grand high priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States. In the last decade of his life, Mackey served as secretary general of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree. During his lifetime he authored thirteen books on Freemasonry. In his last work, titled The History of Freemasonry, Mackey explores many of the various and differing legends concerning the origins of Freemasonry. His chapter titled Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries is of particular interest when comparing elements of Freemasonry with modern witchcraft.

In his book Mackey examines the theory (one of many) that the origins of Freemasonry as a secret society are rooted in an ancient pagan mystery cult tradition. He states that the foundation of this theory "derives from the most important part of its ritual and the legend of its Third Degree from the initiation practiced in these religious organizations..." The parallels drawn by Mackey are:

1. The Preparation of the initiate by a washing or cleansing that was both physical and symbolic.

2. The Initiation, which passes the initiate through the lesser and greater mysteries. Mackey likens this to that which occurs in Freemasonry concerning the Fellow's Craft and the master's degree.

3. The Perfection, which transmitted the "true dogma" or the "great secret" symbolized by the initiation rite itself. Mackey states that this is identical in Freemasonry.

4. The secret nature of both Freemasonry and the Pagan Mystery Tradition.

5. The use of symbols.

6. The dramatic form of the initiation.

7. The division of both systems into degrees or steps.

8. The adoption by both of secret methods of recognition.

Mackey asks a very interesting question in his chapter:

"Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?" (An interesting side note - in the cult of Mithras we find the use of a chalice, wand, knife, platter, sword and whip, which seems to be remarkably similar to the Gardnerian tools).

The commonality of the human experience and the resulting human expression itself is an important element to consider when comparing belief systems. Mackey himself notes that the only "important difference" between the various mystery cults created by humankind was in the particular/peculiar gods and hero figures, but that "the material points of the plot and the religious design of the sacred drama were identical." Mackey goes on to state that the forms and representations of the allegory employed by the various mystery schools of Greece, Samothrace, Egypt and Persia were "everywhere preserved."

Mackey notes that the Mysteries were divided into two classes called the Greater and Lesser Mysteries. He comments on a preparatory stage in the ancient Mystery tradition, and concludes: "So that there was in the process of reception a system of three steps, which those who are fond of tracing analogies between the ancient and the modern initiations are prone to call degrees."

In the closing of his chapter, Mackey states that the "form and character" of certain Masonic rituals such as the third degree rite were derived from the "funeral legend" of the ancient initiations. According to Mackey, in Freemasonry this theme is stylized to incorporate a mythical history related to Hiram Abiff, the head of the workmen that constructed the ancient temple of King Solomon.

In essence the "funeral legend" appears to be the same classic theme of descent into the Underworld and the retrieval therefrom. It is a foundational theme residing in such mystery traditions as the Eleusinian Mystery Cult of ancient Greece, which focused on the goddess in the Underworld and her return from the Realm of the Dead. In many Witchcraft/Wiccan traditions the same essential mythos can be found within ritual text.

Anyway, some interesting things to note and to muse over.

Best regards - Raven

[DebLipp]

No worries, I understand the honoring of oaths, and unlike some people I do not view it as a dodge. My own personal theory is that the British Craft and Freemasonry have shared roots, which is why we see the similarities (if not some identical aspects).

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




This is also true of an old non-Masonic society in Italy known as the Carbonari. The secret society of the Carbonari first appears in public records during the early 1700s. The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands, and the order possessed three degrees of initiation marked by colored cords or ribbons: blue, red and black. A triangle marked the first degree level. The members were bound by a serious oath to observe absolute silence concerning their organization. The Carbonari went on to establish a lodge in Scotland in 1820.



It is interesting to note that many other system that are not associated with Freemasonry (and some predating it) also "share a reverence of the cardinal directions". Also noteworthy is the "opening and closing" ceremonies for the Mystery Temples in ancient Greece and Rome.

A couple of years back, I ran across the writings of Albert Mackey, who during the late 1800s was a Mason that served as grand high priest of the Grand Chapter, grand master of the grand council, and general grand high priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States. In the last decade of his life, Mackey served as secretary general of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree. During his lifetime he authored thirteen books on Freemasonry. In his last work, titled The History of Freemasonry, Mackey explores many of the various and differing legends concerning the origins of Freemasonry. His chapter titled Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries is of particular interest when comparing elements of Freemasonry with modern witchcraft.

In his book Mackey examines the theory (one of many) that the origins of Freemasonry as a secret society are rooted in an ancient pagan mystery cult tradition. He states that the foundation of this theory "derives from the most important part of its ritual and the legend of its Third Degree from the initiation practiced in these religious organizations..." The parallels drawn by Mackey are:

1. The Preparation of the initiate by a washing or cleansing that was both physical and symbolic.

2. The Initiation, which passes the initiate through the lesser and greater mysteries. Mackey likens this to that which occurs in Freemasonry concerning the Fellow's Craft and the master's degree.

3. The Perfection, which transmitted the "true dogma" or the "great secret" symbolized by the initiation rite itself. Mackey states that this is identical in Freemasonry.

4. The secret nature of both Freemasonry and the Pagan Mystery Tradition.

5. The use of symbols.

6. The dramatic form of the initiation.

7. The division of both systems into degrees or steps.

8. The adoption by both of secret methods of recognition.

Mackey asks a very interesting question in his chapter:

"Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?" (An interesting side note - in the cult of Mithras we find the use of a chalice, wand, knife, platter, sword and whip, which seems to be remarkably similar to the Gardnerian tools).

The commonality of the human experience and the resulting human expression itself is an important element to consider when comparing belief systems. Mackey himself notes that the only "important difference" between the various mystery cults created by humankind was in the particular/peculiar gods and hero figures, but that "the material points of the plot and the religious design of the sacred drama were identical." Mackey goes on to state that the forms and representations of the allegory employed by the various mystery schools of Greece, Samothrace, Egypt and Persia were "everywhere preserved."

Mackey notes that the Mysteries were divided into two classes called the Greater and Lesser Mysteries. He comments on a preparatory stage in the ancient Mystery tradition, and concludes: "So that there was in the process of reception a system of three steps, which those who are fond of tracing analogies between the ancient and the modern initiations are prone to call degrees."

In the closing of his chapter, Mackey states that the "form and character" of certain Masonic rituals such as the third degree rite were derived from the "funeral legend" of the ancient initiations. According to Mackey, in Freemasonry this theme is stylized to incorporate a mythical history related to Hiram Abiff, the head of the workmen that constructed the ancient temple of King Solomon.

In essence the "funeral legend" appears to be the same classic theme of descent into the Underworld and the retrieval therefrom. It is a foundational theme residing in such mystery traditions as the Eleusinian Mystery Cult of ancient Greece, which focused on the goddess in the Underworld and her return from the Realm of the Dead. In many Witchcraft/Wiccan traditions the same essential mythos can be found within ritual text.

Anyway, some interesting things to note and to muse over.

Best regards - Raven

I am fascinated by what you've written here and would like to read more about it. Which of your books would you direct me to?

[Ben Trismegistus]

No worries, I understand the honoring of oaths, and unlike some people I do not view it as a dodge. My own personal theory is that the British Craft and Freemasonry have shared roots, which is why we see the similarities (if not some identical aspects).
Well, in a sense they do. The initiatory concept dates back to the mystery cults of ancient Greece - the idea of certain levels of knowledge being attained in conjunction with certain initiatory rituals. The idea of a cult in which you learn more as you progress through degrees is still present today, in groups such as Scientology.

That said, considering that Freemasonry was wildly popular in England in the 19th and early 20th centuries, birthing a tremendous number of copy-cat secret societies (from the Elks to the Oddfellows to the Golden Dawn), I would wager that it's likely that Gardner got his ritual ideas more from his connection to the Masons than to research he had done regarding mystery cults. I have no doubt that Gardner was well-versed in Greek mythology, but common sense would dictate (in my opinion, at least) that he was still influenced by Freemasonry in particular.

It is interesting to note that Doreen Valiente, in the introduction to her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, states that two Masons (Hargrave Jennings and W. J. Hughan) set out in the mid 19th century looking for "personal verification that the Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Valiente states that as a result these Masons formed a close relationship with George Pickingill (the witch of Canewdon) from the 1850s onward. Doreen notes that Pickingill, a non-Mason, amazed Hargave and Hughan by "expounding the inner secrets of Masonry." This led the team to concede that Witchcraft may have possessed some secret arcane knowledge akin to Freemasonry.
Interesting. Although, considering that much of the mythology surrounding the origins of Wicca are hyperbolic (if not entirely made up), I would wonder whether this story was invented as a way to lend creedence to the combination of the Pickingill's cunningfolk traditions and Freemasonry. A cursory investigation shows that this story doesn't appear to exist outside of Valiente's writings. Hargrave and Hughan were indeed Masons and Rosicrucians, but their biographies (as far as I can tell) make no official mention of a connection to Pickingill.

Not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that my gut leads me to believe that the story is legend rather than truth.

This is also true of an old non-Masonic society in Italy known as the Carbonari. The secret society of the Carbonari first appears in public records during the early 1700s. The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands, and the order possessed three degrees of initiation marked by colored cords or ribbons: blue, red and black. A triangle marked the first degree level. The members were bound by a serious oath to observe absolute silence concerning their organization. The Carbonari went on to establish a lodge in Scotland in 1820.
Interesting -- although, since the Freemasons were believed to be extant in England and Scotland as early as the mid-sixteenth century, it's possible that the Carbonari's rituals were also borrowed from the Masons. They did get around an awful lot.

It is interesting to note that many other system that are not associated with Freemasonry (and some predating it) also "share a reverence of the cardinal directions". Also noteworthy is the "opening and closing" ceremonies for the Mystery Temples in ancient Greece and Rome.
Absolutely true. And I believe that the interest in neoclassicism in the 19th century fueled the popularity of Freemasonry and other secret societies.

"Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?" (An interesting side note - in the cult of Mithras we find the use of a chalice, wand, knife, platter, sword and whip, which seems to be remarkably similar to the Gardnerian tools).
An interesting question, but surely you know that the possibility of an uninterrupted line of succession from ancient pagan to modern Freemasonry (and beyond) is all but impossible.

Current scholarship (I highly recommend David Stevenson's The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century 1590-1710 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521396549/qid=1108403528/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2372644-8223805?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)) would suggest that Freemasonry grew out of medieval guilds of stone masons, and that a simple system of passwords and handshakes (in order to assure that only those with enough guild experience could receive a master's wages) grew, through the influence of nobility and some academics with an interest in classical mythology, into the system that continues to flourish today. Mackey's theories are interesting, but they are also 150 years old, and anchored in a time when every secret society felt the need to claim an ancient history for their society.

In essence the "funeral legend" appears to be the same classic theme of descent into the Underworld and the retrieval therefrom. It is a foundational theme residing in such mystery traditions as the Eleusinian Mystery Cult of ancient Greece, which focused on the goddess in the Underworld and her return from the Realm of the Dead. In many Witchcraft/Wiccan traditions the same essential mythos can be found within ritual text.
Yes, there is definitely an element of religious reconstruction to Freemasonry. The pertinent question is whether Gardner came to a knowledge of ancient paganism through Freemasonry, or vice versa? A semantic argument, surely, but I enjoy semantic arguments. :)

Thanks for a fascinating discussion Raven!

[raven grimassi]

I am fascinated by what you've written here and would like to read more about it. Which of your books would you direct me to?

First, thank you, as truly that is quite a compliment. :)

In my book The Witches' Craft, I have a chapter (The Witches' History) that goes into all of this quite fully. It also explores other early "secret societies" where we find the same core "commonalities". The areas that you might be interested in most begin on page 24. Prior to that you would have to wade through my Aegean/Mediterranean roots theory, and the sound of that old drum. ;)

Best regards - Raven

[Paracelsus]

I'm sure that you're all familiar with Hutton's Triumph of the moon, so I won't dwell on that, but I'm going to see Phillip Hesleton at a Conference next month, speaking about his recent research - would you like me to record / transcribe his talk for you (providing he is agreeable, of course).

[raven grimassi]

Thanks go to you, Ben, for this interesting conversation. I am very interested in your views on Freemasonry, and I respectfully offer the following for your commentaries.

...considering that Freemasonry was wildly popular in England in the 19th and early 20th centuries, birthing a tremendous number of copy-cat secret societies (from the Elks to the Oddfellows to the Golden Dawn), I would wager that it's likely that Gardner got his ritual ideas more from his connection to the Masons than to research he had done regarding mystery cults. I have no doubt that Gardner was well-versed in Greek mythology, but common sense would dictate (in my opinion, at least) that he was still influenced by Freemasonry in particular.

That is certainly not an unreasonable argument, but I wonder if the root similarities were the impetus for any borrowing that may have taken place. According to Valiente (who I corresponded with for a time before her death) Gardner was trying to patch the holes and fill the gaps of what he believed was a surviving tradition (as opposed to pulling Wicca out of his *** one boring cold winter's night when there was little else to do but create a religion. ;)

If so, perhaps we might be looking at the shaving-down of a jig-saw puzzle piece (that looked "close enough" ) so that it fit where the lost original went. And in such an event, I am not sure that the resulting image would be attributed wholly to the shaved piece.

Although, considering that much of the mythology surrounding the origins of Wicca are hyperbolic (if not entirely made up), I would wonder whether this story was invented as a way to lend creedence to the combination of the Pickingill's cunningfolk traditions and Freemasonry. A cursory investigation shows that this story doesn't appear to exist outside of Valiente's writings. Hargrave and Hughan were indeed Masons and Rosicrucians, but their biographies (as far as I can tell) make no official mention of a connection to Pickingill.

Anything is possible here, including that the story is true. And, as is always my annoying position, a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

-- although, since the Freemasons were believed to be extant in England and Scotland as early as the mid-sixteenth century, it's possible that the Carbonari's rituals were also borrowed from the Masons. They did get around an awful lot.

From the available literature it appears that the Carbonari originated without Masonic ties or contacts. But we do know that later they allowed Masons to join at matching degree levels. The writings seem to indicate that it was the noted similarities that allowed for this, and from this view it seems they are talking about independent comparisons and not borrowings.

... but surely you know that the possibility of an uninterrupted line of succession from ancient pagan to modern Freemasonry (and beyond) is all but impossible.

Well, it is like I said earlier, the more I know the less I KNOW. ;) But I would say that the uninterrupted theory is questionable. But, the commonalities need not be from direct lineage in order to demonstrate a mutual source for specific elements appearing in both Freemasonry and Wicca/Witchcraft. It seems to me that many secret societies of the 19th century drew upon the same roots, and therefore have many shared elements from earlier sources. But the root concept remains an independent truth that is open for grabs, shared or otherwise. My point is that the same sources and material for "borrowing from" were available to Gardner and to Freemasons.

Current scholarship...would suggest that Freemasonry grew out of medieval guilds of stone masons, and that a simple system of passwords and handshakes (in order to assure that only those with enough guild experience could receive a master's wages) grew, through the influence of nobility and some academics with an interest in classical mythology, into the system that continues to flourish today. Mackey's theories are interesting, but they are also 150 years old, and anchored in a time when every secret society felt the need to claim an ancient history for their society.

From what I've read, Mackey pretty much spoke of a mythical history for Freemasonry, not a literal lineage. He seems more concerned with a spiritual lineage to rooted concepts.

I am somewhat familiar with the "medieval guilds of stone masons" and I found some interesting references, and would appreciate your views.

In 1924, a Mason named W. Ravenscroft published a book titled The Comacines. This book dealt with the view that the origins of Freemasonry lie in the ancient Roman College of Artificers, whose existence is confirmed in a letter referring to "a college of workmen" written by Pliny to the Emperor Trajan at the end of the first century.
Ravenscroft says this is supported by Professor Baldwin Brown in From Schola to Cathedral (Douglas, Edinburgh, 1886).

According to Ravenscroft, each Roman legion had with it a company of engineers (who would have been responsible for constructing everything from bridges, to siege equipment, to housing for the troops in conquered territory). Ravenscroft writes "...there is conclusive evidence of their survival till the time of the decline and fall of Rome, each legion having a college attached to it, which accompanied it in its various campaigns. Thus they came to Britain, and we are told that in the early 4th century there were no less that fifty-three important cities, each with its Collegium Fabrorum, in England. Some think they became the progenitors of the English Medieval Guild of Artificers..."

Ravenscroft also notes that the writings of Roman authors and inscriptions found on monuments furnish "undeniable proof" that the association of artificers continued amongst the Romans for a considerable period, and existed in Gaul, Brittany, and what is now England.

Following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the British Isles, Ravenscroft states that the Guild of Artificers left and settled in the district of Como, establishing their center on the island of Comacina. He claims that remnant factions of the Roman artificers remaining in the British Isles merged into the great Masonic Guilds of the Middle Ages, and "that as these guilds died out, their forms and ceremonies were preserved to a great extent in our Masonic lodges ..."

I am no authority on the Masons by any means, but I do find some interesting elements associated with things that I do know about. For example, it is known that Roman soldiers in the latter half of the Empire belonged to the cult of Mithras. One example is the 2nd Adiutrix legion (circa 69 CE) which served in Britain and Aquincum on the Danube. There is also some reasonable speculation that the 1st Italica and the 9th Claudia legions may have spread elements of Mithraism throughout the Danubian provinces. Therefore it is relatively safe to conjecture that elements of Mithraic philosophy were introduced into the conquered lands held by the legions of Rome.

Within the cult of Mithras there existed what is referred to as the investiture scenes, which depict ritual images associated with cult symbolism that bear a striking similarity regarding ritual elements within Freemasonry. It is also interesting to compare the "five points of fellowship" in Freemasonry (feet, knees, breast, back, head) to an Orphic statue of Mithras in which the deity is divided into five segments by a serpent coiled around his feet, knees, chest, back and head.

Yes, there is definitely an element of religious reconstruction to Freemasonry. The pertinent question is whether Gardner came to a knowledge of ancient paganism through Freemasonry, or vice versa? A semantic argument, surely, but I enjoy semantic arguments. :)

It is a good "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of debate. ;)

Best regards - raven

[Dawa Lhamo]

Interesting. Although, considering that much of the mythology surrounding the origins of Wicca are hyperbolic (if not entirely made up), I would wonder whether this story was invented as a way to lend creedence to the combination of the Pickingill's cunningfolk traditions and Freemasonry. A cursory investigation shows that this story doesn't appear to exist outside of Valiente's writings. Hargrave and Hughan were indeed Masons and Rosicrucians, but their biographies (as far as I can tell) make no official mention of a connection to Pickingill.

Not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that my gut leads me to believe that the story is legend rather than truth. Ok, well, I did a little looking around, and I found this reference. I don't know the validity of it, as the forward says "We are indebted to Doreen Valiente, Michael Howard and Prudence Jones for their research...etc.", but I thought I'd include it here since it's of interest. First it says that Hargrave Jennings and Minna Bergson were two of George Pickingill's most enthusiastic disciples. Then... "A small coterie of Master Masons established a lengthy and productive relationship with George Pickingill from the 1850s onwards.

These Freemasons entertained Rosicrucian fantasies and sought personal verification that Masonic Crafters and Rosicrucian Crafters were siblings of the Old Religion." Then it goes on to say how Pickingill awed them, and they conceded that the "Witch cult" may have secret knowledge..."Occult-minded Freemasons were to question Old George very thoroughly over a period of many years. Indeed, George Pickingill was their only informant." Then it talks about Rosicrucian orders... "Two Master Masons, who were to become founding members of the Rosicrucian Society of England, had been accepted by Old George as his pupils: Hargrave Jennings and W.J. Hughan." Exchanging ideas... "Hargrave Jennings collaborated with George Pickingill on a very ambitious project -- a Craft ritual which would incorporate the best elements of traditional Witchcraft, accepted Masonic symbolism, and Rosicrucian magic." "There was a third collaborator in what proved to be one of the finest literary hoaxes of the nineteenth century; the French occultist J.B. Ragon....he was a posthumous collaborator." This is from a little pamphlet called Old George Pickingill and the Roots of Modern Witchcraft by Lugh, first American edition - 1984. Again, I don't know the veracity of it, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[raven grimassi]

This is from a little pamphlet called Old George Pickingill and the Roots of Modern Witchcraft by Lugh, first American edition - 1984. Again, I don't know the veracity of it, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

Ah yes, good ol' Lugh. I remember the little booklet, and have a copy stashed away somewhere that I'll have to retrieve now. I cannot speak to the authenticity of his writings as I know very little about him and what he knew or believed, but perhaps others here might.

Best regards - Raven

[Ben Trismegistus]

Thanks go to you, Ben, for this interesting conversation. I am very interested in your views on Freemasonry, and I respectfully offer the following for your commentaries.
The feeling is mutual. :)

That is certainly not an unreasonable argument, but I wonder if the root similarities were the impetus for any borrowing that may have taken place. According to Valiente (who I corresponded with for a time before her death) Gardner was trying to patch the holes and fill the gaps of what he believed was a surviving tradition (as opposed to pulling Wicca out of his *** one boring cold winter's night when there was little else to do but create a religion. ;)

If so, perhaps we might be looking at the shaving-down of a jig-saw puzzle piece (that looked "close enough" ) so that it fit where the lost original went. And in such an event, I am not sure that the resulting image would be attributed wholly to the shaved piece.
That's entirely possible. And in fact, that *does* appear to be what Gardner did -- took what he perceived to be a surviving tradition (that of the English cunningfolk), and expanded upon it using his other experiences -- Greek mythology, Freemasonry, Crowley, etc. I certainly do not believe that he extracted Wicca wholly from his fundament (to use your colorful expression). If I'm stressing the influence of Freemasonry too much, it's only because I know more about it than some of the other influences. But, like you say, it's only one piece of the whole, shaved-down or otherwise.

Anything is possible here, including that the story is true. And, as is always my annoying position, a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.
Yes, I saw that on another thread. I recently read a quote in a Tom Robbins book which basically said (I'm paraphrasing) that those who believed in absolute certainty were every bit as naive as those whose minds were open to absolutely everything. I'm slaughtering it, but that's the gist.

Anyway, yes, it's entirely possible that the story is true. I see no reason, seeing as Freemasonry was born on the British Isles, why some of its ritual practices might not find their way into the ranks of the cunningfolk, or indeed, that some additional precursor influenced them both.

From the available literature it appears that the Carbonari originated without Masonic ties or contacts. But we do know that later they allowed Masons to join at matching degree levels. The writings seem to indicate that it was the noted similarities that allowed for this, and from this view it seems they are talking about independent comparisons and not borrowings.
Well it's certainly interesting. I'll admit that I know absolutely nothing about the Carbonari. I'll have to do more reading.

Well, it is like I said earlier, the more I know the less I KNOW. ;) But I would say that the uninterrupted theory is questionable. But, the commonalities need not be from direct lineage in order to demonstrate a mutual source for specific elements appearing in both Freemasonry and Wicca/Witchcraft. It seems to me that many secret societies of the 19th century drew upon the same roots, and therefore have many shared elements from earlier sources. But the root concept remains an independent truth that is open for grabs, shared or otherwise.
Absolutely. Which is why I'm careful not to talk in absolutes. ;) Easier to save face if I turn out to be wrong. :)

From what I've read, Mackey pretty much spoke of a mythical history for Freemasonry, not a literal lineage. He seems more concerned with a spiritual lineage to rooted concepts.
Yes exactly. It wasn't until recently that the Freemasons themselves began to look beyond the legendary version of their origins and history (Egyptians, Templars, and all that) and began to explore where they actually came from. As I've stated on other threads, in a sense the literal origin is not as important as the mythological origin, in terms of what it says about the group as a whole. I've made the same argument about Wicca and Christianity. That's not to say that it isn't worthwhile to know the literal truth - only that in learning the literal truth, it is dangerous to then ditch the legends.

(snip)
Within the cult of Mithras there existed what is referred to as the investiture scenes, which depict ritual images associated with cult symbolism that bear a striking similarity regarding ritual elements within Freemasonry. It is also interesting to compare the "five points of fellowship" in Freemasonry (feet, knees, breast, back, head) to an Orphic statue of Mithras in which the deity is divided into five segments by a serpent coiled around his feet, knees, chest, back and head.
Definitely some interesting stuff there. However, books on Freemasonry, much like books on Wicca/Witchcraft, must be seen as a product of the time when they were written. You can't, for example, make a direct comparison between Leland's Aradia and one of your own books, as the distance in decades reflects an equal distance in the amount of knowledge and attitude regarding the subject matter. It is the same with Freemasonry. There are many books on Freemasonry from the 19th and early 20th century, containing "histories" that are rife with inaccuracies, or make giant leaps of logic out of disparate elements. I'm unfamiliar specifically with the work of Ravenscroft, but his theories sound like a leap in logic to me. Freemasonry does contain many elements of older traditions -- Egyptian ritual, Greek and Roman mythology, Ceremonial Magic, etc. -- but my personal belief is that this is from design rather than heredity. Meaning that early Freemasons, in forming their fraternity, sought out ancient practices to encorporate into their own, in order to add a feeling of mystery to their rituals. This doesn't rule out a direct connection, but I think it unlikely.

It's a shame, because when I joined the Masons, I really wanted the connection between the Masons and the Templars to be true. As it turns out to be very unlikely, I'm disappointed, but I'm also delighted to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.

It is a good "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of debate. ;)
That it is - and thanks for the intellectual calisthenics - I need it!

Ben

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ok, well, I did a little looking around, and I found this reference. I don't know the validity of it, as the forward says "We are indebted to Doreen Valiente, Michael Howard and Prudence Jones for their research...etc.", but I thought I'd include it here since it's of interest. First it says that Hargrave Jennings and Minna Bergson were two of George Pickingill's most enthusiastic disciples.
Nice, but the mention of Doreen Valiente leads me to believe that the info regarding Hargrave Jennings came from the book of Valiente's that Raven referenced. I couldn't find any mention of a connection between the two in an unconnected source (either neither Valiente nor someone who would have read Valiente's book first).

[DebLipp]

Ah yes, good ol' Lugh. I remember the little booklet, and have a copy stashed away somewhere that I'll have to retrieve now. I cannot speak to the authenticity of his writings as I know very little about him and what he knew or believed, but perhaps others here might.

Best regards - Raven

Nobody can figure Lugh out. I met him, rather full of himself in a nice way. Very much, "Yes, I'm THE Lugh" in order to impress, but also very jolly and friendly. Hutton goes on at some length about how maddening it is to try to figure the guy out.

[Ben Gruagach]

Nice, but the mention of Doreen Valiente leads me to believe that the info regarding Hargrave Jennings came from the book of Valiente's that Raven referenced. I couldn't find any mention of a connection between the two in an unconnected source (either neither Valiente nor someone who would have read Valiente's book first).

I just looked up Hargrave Jennings in Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" and the first mention of him (on page 73) says that it was Jennings who was largely responsible for pushing the idea that the British version of the Rosicrucians had a direct proven intact lineage to the middle ages and even back to pre-Christian Pagan mystery religions. Knowing this, I'm not sure whether I would have a lot of faith in the accuracy of Jennings' statements about the authentic antiquity of other poorly documented groups such as George Pickingill's legendary nine covens.

The other references to Jennings and W. J. Hughan just repeat the material from "The Pickingill Papers" which are largely considered to be suspect I understand.

The material in "The Pickingill Papers" first came out between 1974 and 1994 in the Pagan magazines "The Wiccan" and "The Cauldron." Valiente's book, "Witchcraft for Tomorrow" which also mentions this stuff was published in 1978.

On the topic of the Carbonari, my knowlege of them all comes from the chapter "The Charcoal Burners" in Arkon Daraul's book "Secret Societies: A History." According to this source the Carbonari were primarily a political activist organization created for the purpose of rebelling against unjust authority. Apparently there is a long history of these sorts of groups in Italy and the Carbonari weren't the first group like this to appear. The ideas of formal initiations, claiming inspiration if not lineage from the pre-Christian Pagan mystery cults, and things like oaths of secrecy and loyalty as well as having all sorts of symbolic and occult rituals has been around for quite a while in many places. I'm not sure that proving similarity between groups is proof positive of a direct lineage apart from drawing on similar classical sources when the system was developed.

I'd be curious to find out about any other English print references for the Carbonari. That book by Arkon Daraul is the only one I've been able to find myself.

Another obvious source of the Masonic and other magickal/secret societies material in Wicca is the fact that Gardner was a Mason (which Ben T. mentioned already) and also the fact that the coven which Gardner came into contact with who introduced him to English witchcraft were members of the Rosicrucian Crotona Fellowship. This group had not only Rosicrucian leanings but also Theosophical connections.

Philip Heselton also discusses a possible connection with the Golden Dawn through Rosamund Carnsew, who was a member of that group and also, Heselton believes, possibly the woman they called "Mother Sabine" in the coven that initiated Gardner. Hesleton's book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" has a lot of thought provoking evidence that is worth checking out.

My own opinion is that if Gardner was treating Wicca as a jigsaw puzzle, what he was doing was taking bits and pieces of folk magick practices, secret society ritual ideas and techniques, published Pagan myth and philosophy, and then working those disparate jigsaw pieces together to make a resulting picture that was brand new. I'm not convinced that he was actually recreating (even remotely) an actual pre-Christian religion. The pre-Christian priests of the native religion in the British Isles were the Druids, not the witches. I'm not saying that witches didn't exist, but I think they were much closer to the cunning-man and wise-woman figure, the folk magick worker and healer and diviner, than a priest or priestess. I don't think witches were the priests or priestesses of pre-Christian religions but rather magickians and wise people who were preserving bits and pieces of magickal folklore rather than followers of systemic religions. I think that Gardner was the first one to really put things together and present witchcraft in a way that it could be an actual religion, which we now call Wicca.

Gardner might not have been the one to have started making a religion based on witchcraft either -- but he was the first one to really get it publicized, and added the bits that acted to catalyze it all into a workable system. I suspect the witches he met in the New Forest area who initiated him might have been the ones to try creating an actual religion of witches, but again I suspect they were just doing this based on the idea that it could have been as presented by Margaret Murray and Charles Leland.

But that's just my opinion, based on what I've learned over the years.

[9-2-2]

From my studies and experience, the belief system of Wicca itself is very modern. However, the believer's choice of pantheons (the mythologies themselves) are ancient, of course.

[Erincelt]

However, the believer's choice of pantheons (the mythologies themselves) are ancient, of course. Not neccessarily. The Lycian Pantheon, for example, is entirely new and modern, albeit deriving from ancient and Masonic archetypes. Consider:
http://www.lycianwicca.org/lycianwicca/Deities/deities.htm

[raven grimassi]

Well it's certainly interesting. I'll admit that I know absolutely nothing about the Carbonari. I'll have to do more reading.

I'll go back through my notes and see if I can find some English texts for you. The Internet is not all that helpful because most of the articles are derived from the entry on the Carbonari in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is full of inaccuracies (intentional or otherwise).

However, books on Freemasonry, much like books on Wicca/Witchcraft, must be seen as a product of the time when they were written. You can't, for example, make a direct comparison between Leland's Aradia and one of your own books, as the distance in decades reflects an equal distance in the amount of knowledge and attitude regarding the subject matter.

You make an excellent point there.


There are many books on Freemasonry from the 19th and early 20th century, containing "histories" that are rife with inaccuracies, or make giant leaps of logic out of disparate elements. I'm unfamiliar specifically with the work of Ravenscroft, but his theories sound like a leap in logic to me. Freemasonry does contain many elements of older traditions -- Egyptian ritual, Greek and Roman mythology, Ceremonial Magic, etc. -- but my personal belief is that this is from design rather than heredity. Meaning that early Freemasons, in forming their fraternity, sought out ancient practices to encorporate into their own, in order to add a feeling of mystery to their rituals. This doesn't rule out a direct connection, but I think it unlikely.

Yes, I understand. My uncle Arturo, in Naples, is an Italian Mason, and we have had some interesting conversations on this topic. My personal interest in Freemasonry has to do with references made to older roots (real or imagined) and only because I use them to compare with elements that also appear in Gardner's system (primarily, but not exclusively). My goal is to address commonality versus direct borrowing, in an attempt to demonstrate that other possibilities exist regarding origins. As long as alternative views are kept alive, we still explore. Once the door is closed, we can become complacent and then settle into the "bunker mentality" of personal correctness.

One of the things I love most about Pagans/Witches/Wiccans is that I have never met one who not only had an opinion but also an eagerness to express it! Keeps the blood pumping.

It's a shame, because when I joined the Masons, I really wanted the connection between the Masons and the Templars to be true. As it turns out to be very unlikely, I'm disappointed, but I'm also delighted to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.

Yes, been there and done that too! ;)

That it is - and thanks for the intellectual calisthenics - I need it!

Yes, we all do, and it has been great fun.

Best regards - Raven

[Ben Trismegistus]

I'll go back through my notes and see if I can find some English texts for you. The Internet is not all that helpful because most of the articles are derived from the entry on the Carbonari in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is full of inaccuracies (intentional or otherwise).
Excellent - thanks!

Yes, I understand. My uncle Arturo, in Naples, is an Italian Mason, and we have had some interesting conversations on this topic. My personal interest in Freemasonry has to do with references made to older roots (real or imagined) and only because I use them to compare with elements that also appear in Gardner's system (primarily, but not exclusively). My goal is to address commonality versus direct borrowing, in an attempt to demonstrate that other possibilities exist regarding origins. As long as alternative views are kept alive, we still explore. Once the door is closed, we can become complacent and then settle into the "bunker mentality" of personal correctness.
An excellent point. I have no interest in closing doors, but merely learning which passageways lead to dead ends. :)

Masonry is really a fascinating community, but unfortunately, one which is in decline as much as Neopaganism is on the rise. The last big interest in Masonry was after WWII, but now those members are dying out, and younger people are not joining the Craft to replace them. In the State of New York, where I was initiated, the Freemasons are losing thousands of members a year. I was lucky enough to be a member of a largely esoteric Lodge, which included more than half a dozen Wiccans, as well as a few Ceremonial Magicians and a smattering of New Age types. We strove to recapture the mystical elements of the Fraternity (in recent years, most Lodge meetings around the country have come to resemble a bridge club or VFW house), and have done a pretty good job of it. I hope that more neopagan men will recognize the influence of Freemasonry on their own paths and seek it out. Speech over. ;)

One of the things I love most about Pagans/Witches/Wiccans is that I have never met one who not only had an opinion but also an eagerness to express it! Keeps the blood pumping.
That's true. The cliché is for Jews, but it's equally true for neopagans -- put 5 of us in a room together and you'll get 8 opinions!

[raven grimassi]

I have no interest in closing doors, but merely learning which passageways lead to dead ends. :)

Yes, I knew that. For me, as an Aries, I just ram through "dead ends" until they open to connective tunnels. ;)

Best regards - Raven

[Niamh celtic mist]

I think Wicca is both . It has modern and ancient practices. Now having said that...I believe it depends on the practioner. Wicca today is such a general word. It is an umbrella for so many beliefs. I know many would scream out if you labled them Wiccan...they want to be called a witch....and vice versa...but I know some who follow a very defined ancient path and for the sake of everyday conversation call themselves Wiccan. I think many call themselves Wiccan because it is just easier than trying to explain an ancient practice to a person that has no clue. Also, I believe it is an attempt to be accepted in mainstream society..to be able to practice openly...well somewhat openly...We are all lumped together...many of the legal/activist stress this need in order for legitimcy....In some recent books that I have read there have been statements made in them that encourage the reader to stop trying to find ancient roots and just call our beliefs modern...this is purely being said so we can be accepted by the mainstream...but, statements like this leave me feeling like a square peg in a round hole :awilly: ..My initial search for my path was a journey away from the mainstream...I don't need my beliefs to be validated by anyone else.... :idea:

[Ben Trismegistus]

Yes, I knew that. For me, as an Aries, I just ram through "dead ends" until they open to connective tunnels. ;)
Aha. My son is an Aries, so I recognize the behavior.

As a Sagittarius, I suppose I'm too lackadaisical to want to expend effort on something I don't expend to bear fruit. ;)

[raven grimassi]

I believe it is an attempt to be accepted in mainstream society..to be able to practice openly...well somewhat openly...We are all lumped together...many of the legal/activist stress this need in order for legitimcy....In some recent books that I have read there have been statements made in them that encourage the reader to stop trying to find ancient roots and just call our beliefs modern...this is purely being said so we can be accepted by the mainstream

You make a very good point here. For my part, I find myself very resistant to the idea of compromising my beliefs in order to be politically correct or more palatable to mainstream acceptance.

There was an old cartoon called The Wizard & Tutor Turtle, and my favorite line from this was by the Wizard, and goes something like: "Be what you is, not what you is not. People what is are the happiest lot".

Best regards - Raven

[raven grimassi]

I think that Gardner was the first one to really put things together and present witchcraft in a way that it could be an actual religion

It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks classified witches among those who practiced "illicit religions" (religion not sanctioned by the State, religious in nature but rejected by mainsteam beliefs). It is fascinating that some 3000 years later things remain the same.

Historian Richard Gordon (in his essay Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) also states that in ancient Aegean/Mediterranean culture "illegitimate religious knowledge" was assigned to women, and since witches were always portrayed as women in classical times we can see why witchcraft was never recognized as a "legitimate" religion. However, we must also understand that in ancient Greek culture a "recognized" sect was required to have an established temple (Historian Georg Luck - Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature). Unfortunately, magicians, diviners, witches, and other subculture figures were comprised typically of the poor segment and had no funds to build and maintain temples. This is one of the chief reasons why witches were not portrayed in ancient times as people of a religious nature but rather as magic users or fortune tellers.

I don't think witches were the priests or priestesses of pre-Christian religions but rather magickians and wise people who were preserving bits and pieces of magickal folklore rather than followers of systemic religions.

It is interesting to note that in ancient literature the Witch known as Medea is depicted as a priestess of Hecate. The earliest word used by the Greeks to indicate a witch was pharmakis, from which is derived the modern word pharmacist. Richard Gordon (Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) states that pharmakis "became one of the standard words for 'wise-woman/witch', used as a substantive."

Best regards - Raven

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I'm with Ben T. on this, Mòrag. You appear to be making an assumption that borrowing from Celtic culture equates with claiming to be practicing the same religion that the Pagan Celts did. The assumption is not correct. Perhaps some of the early Wiccans did claim they were just carrying on an intact pre-Christian religion, but that claim is far from accepted now among Wiccans.

We don't have to claim to be following an authentic intact form of Celtic Paganism in order to borrow from it. Wicca is not a reconstructed form of a pre-Christian religion. Even without claiming to be an intact ancient Celtic religion, modern forms of Wicca can indeed be considered inspired by Celtic myth if they borrow heavily from it. (We Wiccans are a diverse lot -- some draw heavily from Italian lore as in a lot of Raven Grimassi's work, while others focus more on Celtic myths. Some prefer to work mostly with Egyptian myth. Wicca itself includes a lot of cultural emphases as a whole while individual practitioners and groups often do limit themselves to particular myth systems or cultures.)

My point was, from what I've learned of Wicca the only thing they've even borrowed is the names of those four days. That was what I was getting at. I see very little in Wicca that can even be called a borrowing beyond that one example.

[Ben Gruagach]

My point was, from what I've learned of Wicca the only thing they've even borrowed is the names of those four days. That was what I was getting at. I see very little in Wicca that can even be called a borrowing beyond that one example.

Perhaps you haven't looked at Wicca in very much more than a surface way. I've been studying Wicca now for twenty plus years, and I think there is a lot more Celtic lore in Wicca than merely the names of four holidays.

A huge amount of the basic folklore of witchcraft which is the basis for Wicca is straight out of the folklore of the UK, which includes Celtic influences as well as others such as Anglo-Saxon etc. Margaret Murray's work, regardless of its unfounded conclusions, is based on beliefs about witchcraft that are right out of the historical record in the UK. The fairy-faith elements too are strong in Celtic flavour and influence. Gardner was also quite familiar with the Druid ideas common at his time; he was a good friend of Ross Nichols, a prominent Druid when Gardner was alive. (There is some interesting commentary on this in Philip Carr-Gomm's book "In The Grove of the Druids: The Druid Teachings of Ross Nichols." Dr. Christina Oakley also has an essay on the connections between Druidry and Wicca in her essay published in "The Rebirth of Druidry" edited by Philip Carr-Gomm.)

I agree completely that Wicca is in no manner a recreation of pre-Christian Celtic religion. I also think it's incorrect to state that the only things Wicca has in common with Celtic myth, folklore, and spirituality is the name of four holidays.

[Ben Gruagach]

It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks classified witches among those who practiced "illicit religions" (religion not sanctioned by the State, religious in nature but rejected by mainsteam beliefs). It is fascinating that some 3000 years later things remain the same.

I've read about witchcraft being called "illicit religion" but my understanding it that it's more about the state-approved religious leaders trying to maintain their authority rather than a recognition of actual competing religions. In the pre-Christian Roman empire, for instance, they were quite happy to embrace foreign religions into the state sanctioned religious community. I think the key was that the official religions wanted to have a monopoly on things like healing, education, community authority, and especially dealing with the unseen realms and they saw witches as rogues who were filling community needs for one or more of these things without going through sanctioned channels (the official religions) in order to be authorized to do so.

In a way I think it's more like a turf war over who gets to provide specific services that aren't necessarily considered religious today, like healing, but were back then. Having a distinct separation between religious authority and political authority, let alone having healers and teachers and counsellors who are not also religious leaders, is something that was not the case in the largest part of the Christian era let alone the pre-Christian era. Remember that for the longest time the only scientists were also either religious authorities themselves or else were priests or at least monks within established religions!

Accusing someone of practicing "illicit religion" back in those days was equivalent to calling them a heretic -- which I think is a little clearer in implying merely being outside the official religious approval system, rather than necessarily a competing religious authority (although that is what the accusers often tried to imply.)

Historian Richard Gordon (in his essay Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) also states that in ancient Aegean/Mediterranean culture "illegitimate religious knowledge" was assigned to women, and since witches were always portrayed as women in classical times we can see why witchcraft was never recognized as a "legitimate" religion. However, we must also understand that in ancient Greek culture a "recognized" sect was required to have an established temple (Historian Georg Luck - Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature). Unfortunately, magicians, diviners, witches, and other subculture figures were comprised typically of the poor segment and had no funds to build and maintain temples. This is one of the chief reasons why witches were not portrayed in ancient times as people of a religious nature but rather as magic users or fortune tellers.

We should be careful to assume that there was overt misogyny in the charge of witchcraft especially in pre-Christian times. In pre-Christian Rome, there were plenty of priestesses in various sanctioned religions, so I have a hard time believing that women who dared to play the role of priestess back then were automatically considered to be witches or illegitimate practitioners of religion.

I think your comment that in ancient times witches were portrayed more as magic users or fortune tellers rather than illegitimate clergy supports my view rather than discredits it.

It is interesting to note that in ancient literature the Witch known as Medea is depicted as a priestess of Hecate. The earliest word used by the Greeks to indicate a witch was pharmakis, from which is derived the modern word pharmacist. Richard Gordon (Imagining Greek and Roman Magic) states that pharmakis "became one of the standard words for 'wise-woman/witch', used as a substantive."

Best regards - Raven

I have no doubt that clergy members (even within Christian churches) have been discovered to have been witches. I'm not convinced though that examples of people identified as clergy (such as Medea) who are also witches means there is automatically an equivalence. I expect there were farmers who were witches, and bakers who were too. Does that mean that witches therefore are the farmers of their era, or the bakers?

It's the same argument in a slightly different form when we claim that there is a God or Goddess of the witches. Sure, there are deities that are known to have lots of magickal influence, so it makes sense that witches would call on them for assistance. Witches also call on other deities all across the board from all sorts of cultures. Some even call on Christian deities even in the pre-Gardnerian era. While it's easy to say that Shiva and Kali are Hindu deities, I'm not sure we can safely say that there are really any specific deities that are Wiccan ones, or even Witchcraft ones. The closest I think are the modern Wiccan threefold goddess (maiden/mother/crone) and Her consort, the dual green man/ horned (antlered) one. Apart from those titles though the actual names used for those modern Wiccan deities are all drawn from other Pagan religions. Perhap Aradia counts as the closest actual witch Goddess we have but even that is debatable I suspect.

We really need stronger proof and stronger arguments to support the theory that witchcraft was an actual religion prior to Gardner if it's to be convincing. I'm a Wiccan, and I think it would be really exciting to have new evidence come out to support this whole idea. But so far I'm afraid the evidence isn't convincing. Regardless if Gardner did just pull it all out his fundament (which I doubt, personally) or if it is an intact or semi-intact pre-Christian religion, it's still a vibrant and meaningful religion which I am proud to practice.

There's so much we still don't know about the origins of Wicca I'm sure scholars will be working at it for a long time to come.

[raven grimassi]

I think your comment that in ancient times witches were portrayed more as magic users or fortune tellers rather than illegitimate clergy supports my view rather than discredits it..

Well, first off, I have no interest in discrediting your view on anything or those of anyone else. I am sharing my views, just as you are yours, and I am offering what I feel are interesting alternatives that appear in literary and historical works. If that is unwelcome or inappropriate, please let me know and I will stop.

And just for clarification, the view of Witches in ancient times as being among the class of magicians and diviners was meant to demean them in ancient Greek and Roman society. It is what allows the Greek and Roman writers to deny that Witches practice religion (despite literary references to Witches praying to various goddesses, and Meda being literally a priestess of Hecate).


I've read about witchcraft being called "illicit religion" but my understanding it that it's more about the state-approved religious leaders trying to maintain their authority rather than a recognition of actual competing religions.

I believe there was an element of that at work, but I think that in the case of Witches it is more about looking down on lower classes. It is not unlike the Roman use of the word pagani to denote the rural people (in a negative way) as opposed to the refined and educated city people.

We should be careful to assume that there was overt misogyny in the charge of witchcraft especially in pre-Christian times. In pre-Christian Rome, there were plenty of priestesses in various sanctioned religions, so I have a hard time believing that women who dared to play the role of priestess back then were automatically considered to be witches or illegitimate practitioners of religion..

hmmm..did someone say that a priestess automatically equated with a Witch? I know that I did not. I simply mentioned that the role of priestess appears in connection with a Witch (the case of Medea) in ancient times, but that was not meant to suggest that any priestess is also a Witch.

I have no doubt that clergy members (even within Christian churches) have been discovered to have been witches. I'm not convinced though that examples of people identified as clergy (such as Medea) who are also witches means there is automatically an equivalence. I expect there were farmers who were witches, and bakers who were too. Does that mean that witches therefore are the farmers of their era, or the bakers?

Ah, I begin to see where our communication is going astray. My mention of Medea as a priestess was not meant to indicate that all Witches were or are clergy. I brought it up, in part, to demonstrate the religious element that existed in some ancient writings regarding Witches. There are those who feel that religion was not a part of the ancient view of Witchcraft, and I am simply offering a reference to show that the view did appear in ancient literature. Hence, the reference to Medea as a priestess.

It's the same argument in a slightly different form when we claim that there is a God or Goddess of the witches. Sure, there are deities that are known to have lots of magickal influence, so it makes sense that witches would call on them for assistance. .

I'm curious, is it your view then that believing in the existence of a god and goddess with whom you can interact has nothing to do with religion?

I'm not sure we can safely say that there are really any specific deities that are Wiccan ones, or even Witchcraft ones. The closest I think are the modern Wiccan threefold goddess (maiden/mother/crone) and Her consort, the dual green man/ horned (antlered) one. Apart from those titles though the actual names used for those modern Wiccan deities are all drawn from other Pagan religions. Perhap Aradia counts as the closest actual witch Goddess we have but even that is debatable I suspect.

I can only point to ancient literary works that mention specific goddesses who are consistently associated with Witchcraft over many centuries. These are Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone).

Some examples:

In Lucan's work (LUC. B.C. 6:700-01) the witches make the following comment: "Persephone, who is the third and lowest aspect of our goddess Hecate..."

In Ovid's tale (Met. 7:94-95) Jason swears an oath to the witch Medea, saying he would "be true by the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess."
She is not named as in the case of Lucan.

Horace writes of Diana as a goddess upon whom witches call, and Catullus wrote of the goddess Diana as a "threefold" goddess in his hymn to Diana (1st century BCE): "Diana whose name is Lucina, lightbringer, who every month restores the vanished moon...threefold Diana, huntress, birth-helper, and Luna shining with borrowed light. Diana, in your monthly circle measuring out the turning year...".

The goddess Diana appears in Witchcraft trials spanning several centuries. from 1310 - 1784


We really need stronger proof and stronger arguments to support the theory that witchcraft was an actual religion prior to Gardner if it's to be convincing. I'm a Wiccan, and I think it would be really exciting to have new evidence come out to support this whole idea. But so far I'm afraid the evidence isn't convincing.

I can understand why you feel the evidence is not convincing, but on this we disagree.

What I find compelling is the appearance of Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina in ancient Witchcraft, and their early identification as a triformis goddess figure. This is followed by Church writings dating from 600 bce that mention the ongoing worship of Diana. Next we have Witchraft trials from 1310 - 1784 that contain references to the worship or veneration of Diana (the element of religion). Here is an overall chronology that I put together in my book The Witches' Craft, which may be of interest to some:


60-64 BCE: Roman Poet Catullus writes of Diana as a "three-fold" goddess.

30 BCE: Roman poet Horace in his Epodes of Horace associates witches with the goddess Diana in a mystery cult. Horace writes that witches worship Hecate, Diana, and Proserpina (Persephone).

1 CE: Roman Poet Ovid (in his work titled Metamorphoses) mentions "the sacred rites of the three-fold goddess" in connection to an oath sworn to the witch Medea, and portrays her as a priestess of the goddess Hecate.

62 CE: Lucan writes (in Book 6 of his Bellum Civile) of witches worshipping Hecate as a triformis goddess, with Persephone being the "lowest of the three aspects."

314 CE: Council of Ancyra labels witches as heretics who believe that they belong to a Society of Diana. Council concludes that they are deceived by Satan. Some scholars question whether this happened at this date in history.

662 CE: Saint Barbato converts Romuald (Duke of Benevento) to Christianity. On Saint Barbato's bidding Romuald has the"witches walnut tree" cut down. This walnut tree was the gathering place of witches who worshipped Diana, well known in the region. In 680 AD Saint Barbato attended the Council of Constantinople where he spoke out against the "witches of Benevento."

906 CE: Regino of Prum in his instructions to the Bishops claims that pagans worship Diana in a cult called the Society of Diana.

1006 CE: 19th book of the Decretum (entitled Corrector) associates the worship of Diana with the common pagan folk.

1280 CE: Diocesan Council of Conserans associates the Witch Cult with the worship of a Pagan Goddess called Benzosia.

1310 CE: Council of Trier associates witches with the goddess Diana (and Herodias).

1313 CE: Giovanni de Matociis writes in his Historiae Imperiales that many lay people believe in a nocturnal society headed by a queen they call Diana.

1390 CE: A woman tried by the Milanese Inquisition for belonging to the Society of Diana confessed to worshipping the goddess of night and stated that Diana bestowed blessings upon her.

1418 CE: Dominican preacher Johannes Herolt writes of women who believe that the goddess Diana gathers women in a nightly procession.

1457 CE: Nicholas of Cusa writes in his sermon of 2 women tried in Bressanone who confessed to worshipping "bona domina" (the good mistress) who they also called Richella.

1519 CE: Girolamo Folengo (Italian poet) associates a "Mistress" known as Gulfora with witches who gather to worship at Her Court, in his Maccaronea.

1526 CE: Judge Paulus Grillandus writes of witches in the town of Benevento who worship a goddess at the site of an old walnut tree.

1576 CE: Bartolo Spina writes in his Quaestrico de Strigibus, listing information gathered from confessions, that witches gather at night to worship Diana, and have dealings with night spirits.

1597 CE: Andrew Man confessed to judges at Aberdeen that he paid homage to the "Queen of the Fairies" and the "devil" who appeared in the guise of a stag.

1612 CE: French Witch Hunter - Pierre de Lancre writes in his Tableau de l'inconstance des mauvais anges of a "Queen of the Sabbat" who is consort to a Goat-Horned deity at the witches gatherings.

1630 CE: "an enchanter from Hesse" confesses to taking a journey "in spirit" to Venusberg, where he encountered the goddess "Fraw Holt" (Ginzburg states this is the goddess Holda or Holle)

1647 CE: Peter Pipernus writes, in his De Nuce Maga Beneventana and De Effectibus Magicis, of a woman named Violanta who confessed to worshipping Diana at the site of an old walnut tree in the town of Benevento.

1749 CE: Girlamo Tartarotti associates the Witch Cult with the ancient cult of Diana, in his book Del Congresso Nottorno Delle Lammie. In his A Study of the Midnight Sabbats of Witches he writes: "The identity of the Dianic Cult with modern witchcraft is demonstrated and proven."

1862 CE: French historian Jules Michelet writes in his book La Sorciere of Witchcraft as a surviving pagan religion that is matrifocal in nature. This work is rejected by modern scholars

1892- 1899 CE: Author Charles Leland associates the Witch Cult with the goddess Diana, as a survival of the ancient ways, in his books: Etruscan Magic & Occult Remedies, Legends of Florence, and Aradia; Gospel of the Witches.

1921 CE: Anthropologist Margaret Murray (in her book The Witchcult in Western Europe) writes of Witchcraft as the survival of an ancient pagan fertility religion based upon the worship of the goddess Diana and her horned-god consort. This is work rejected by modern scholars.

1924 CE: Author Ian Ferguson, in his book The Philosophy of Witchcraft, writes of witches as a "pagan priesthood" of an ancient pre-Christian sect that survived through the Middle Ages.

1954 CE: Author Gerald Gardner writes of Witchcraft as the survival of an ancient pagan fertility cult, focusing on a goddess and god consort pair.

The following "evidence" is from the appendices in my book, and may also be of interest to some:

Carlos Ginzburg (in part 2, chapter one, of his book Ecstasies: deciphering the Witches' Sabbat) brings to light many interesting pieces of information associated with Witchcraft and a goddess figure over the centuries. When not viewed directly as a goddess, this figure is called the Queen of the Fairies. This theme appears throughout much of continental Europe and parts of the British Isles. It is interesting to note that the Goddess and the Fairy Queen in these cases is often accompanied by a male entity appearing as a king, a stag or goat. In this we can see the theme of the consort pair, a long-standing concept associated with Witchcraft.

Ginzburg mentions cases in Scotland, during the 16th & 17th centuries, in which women who were tried as witches describe going "in spirit" with the Queen of the Fairies, who was attended by a king. The trial of Andrew man at Aberdeen mentions the "Queen of the Elves and a stag-horned consort. The goddess Diana, in connection with Witchcraft, often bears the title Queen of the Fairies. St. Gregory of Tours (538-594) wrote of a statue of Diana worshipped in the vicinity of Tours. St. Cilianus noted that the population of Franconia paid homage to the Great Diana.

Ginzburg presents a map on page 98, depicting regions he claims were associated with "female divinities" in Witchcraft trials. These regions include Scotland, France, North-Central Italy, and the Rhineland. Ginzburg notes, in this chapter titled "Following the Goddess" that in Rumania ecstatic rituals are performed "under the protection" of a goddess called Doamna Zinelor, also called Irodiada or Arada. Irodiada also bore the title "Queen of the Fairies." Professor Eva Pocs, in her book Between the Living and the Dead, states that goddesses such as Diana, Hecate, Holda, Perchta, the Celtic Matrae and Matronae, and others appear in data connected to church laws in various regions of Europe.

In chapter 3 of her book, Pocs states that Hungarian witches are associated with Balkan goddess figures of Slavic or mixed origins, which appear in trial transcripts. Pocs also states that all goddess figures in Hungarian trial data carry chthonic features of fertility goddesses and are associated with spinning. She notes that Hungarian witch trials mention witches spinning, weaving, or carrying spindles.

The 16th century trial of Zuan delle Piatte, in Val di Fiemme, bears some interesting elements. Piatte confesses to going to a mountain near Norcia where he was "initiated into the society of witches." Ginzburg notes that Piatte claimed to have been brought before "the woman of the good game." This is not unlike the earlier trial of a woman named Sibillia in 1390. Sibillia confessed to paying homage to a female divinity named Madona Horiente. The Milanese Inquisitor Friar Beltramino recorded that Sibillia confessed to going to the "game of Diana." Maria Panzona, tried by the Inquisition in the 17th century, confessed to paying homage to a "majesty" bearing the title "The Abbess."

Historians tend to view such accounts independently rather than as a body of evidence, which makes it easy to dismiss singular accounts as an anomaly. However, the ongoing appearance of a goddess-figure and a horned consort of one type or another spanning many centuries throughout most of Europe seems to strongly suggest something more substantial.

Best regards - Raven

[fallingwater]

Come on Ben, hang in there.

[Scarlet Witch]

We really need stronger proof and stronger arguments to support the theory that witchcraft was an actual religion prior to Gardner if it's to be convincing. I'm a Wiccan, and I think it would be really exciting to have new evidence come out to support this whole idea. But so far I'm afraid the evidence isn't convincing. Regardless if Gardner did just pull it all out his fundament (which I doubt, personally) or if it is an intact or semi-intact pre-Christian religion, it's still a vibrant and meaningful religion which I am proud to practice. There's so much we still don't know about the origins of Wicca I'm sure scholars will be working at it for a long time to come.

I think that you and Raven are talking about two different things. There's little in the way of compelling evidence for a pre-Gardner witchcraft religion in England, while in southern Europe there's plenty of room for speculation. But, with all due respect to you both, looking at England and Italy in this way is like comparing apples to oranges. What Gardner and Leland wrote about are different (though somewhat related) matters.

Blessed be,
Scarlet Witch

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks for the excellent response, Raven. You've provided a wealth of sources that certainly deserve more study. (I hope your blood pressure didn't go up at all -- I'm enjoying the discussion and am not taking any of this personally myself.)

My main problem is in the claim that witchcraft itself is a specific religion. This claim is presented every time someone says "witchcraft, the Old Religion" or uses the terms Wicca and Witchcraft as interchangeable.

I have no doubt that there are specific religions that incorporate witchcraft in a very integral way. Wicca itself is a perfect example: personally I don't think it's Wicca if we divorce it from the practice of witchcraft. But Wicca isn't the only religion that incorporates witchcraft, or the only form of witchcraft. Witchcraft itself is not a religion. To me the most telling proof of that is that it is very possible to be an atheist witch. If I chose to be an atheist witch, I could practice herbalism, do magick, practice divination, and do it all successfully without having any spiritual element in my philosophy. If I saw divination merely as a way to tap my own subconscious I don't have to believe in spirits or deities. If I consider magick nothing more than a way to work with psychic abilities I don't have to assume that nonphysical entities exist.

We make an error in logic in assuming that we've proven witchcraft itself is a religion by bringing out examples of witchcraft being used in a religious context such as Wicca. Lots of other activities can also be done in a religious context, but we don't assume that those activities themselves then are the religion. If I consider baking bread an important spiritual act, and am a clergy member of an identified religion too, does that mean that baking is therefore a religion? That is essentially what is being implied by pointing to the example of Medea being called a priestess and a witch. Mentioning examples of witches who were also clergy serves no other purpose -- why not then mention examples of witches who were artists, or left-handed, or bakers, or farmers, or lived in certain kinds of homes?

Witchcraft can be (and is) an integral part of some religions such as Wicca. Witchcraft itself though is a practice -- a person can practice witchcraft as part of any religion or no religion.

There is no doubt that witchcraft is often mentioned within a strong religious context, especially in texts from before the twentieth century. Compartmentalizing religion into a tidy box separate from the rest of life is a relatively new thing. If we look at many mundane activities they are often depicted with strong religious overtones as well. It's also no wonder that religious authorities were the main ones attempting to suppress witchcraft as they saw their monopoly on healing, teaching, counselling, and providing guidance and leadership in general as being threatened. Yet we don't also automatically say that medicine itself is a religion, or that teaching is a religion. If the logic to declare witchcraft a religion is to hold, the same arguments must work in other circumstances too.

The references provided are important because they do provide clues to possible religions that incorporated witchcraft, just like Wicca does now, that could have existed prior to Gerald Gardner. As Scarlet Witch mentioned, though, there is little compelling evidence that what Gardner promoted, Wicca, is a continuation of any of these possible religions. And we also have to be careful to stay away from sweeping generalizations that witchcraft itself is a religion when the evidence is pretty strong that it is not.

[raven grimassi]

I hope your blood pressure didn't go up at all -- I'm enjoying the discussion and am not taking any of this personally myself.)

No, I am fine. Many years ago I did have a tendency to get stirred up in a good debate, but rarely so these days. Regretfully my time onlin