Wicca: traditional origins?

[DeaconJustin]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Hi DeaconJustin, and welcome to comparative-religion.com!

Some interesting points raised in the above post. I'm especially intrigued by your comments:

I remember visiting York Minster (think: Cathedral) and having a conversation with someone by the admissions desk, who spoke in similar terms. Yet I'm under the impression that the Anglican Chruch is seen more as Apostate rather than Apostolic (if you'll excuse my flippant terminology!). I've seen reports over the past couple of years of moves to reconcile Canterbury and Rome, but there remain differences considered irreconcilable - at least by Rome. I would be interested to read your own perception of the situation.

I consider Ecumenicism to be an important strength in modern Christianity, and reconciliation over denominationalism seems more than long overdue. On that subject, it's interesting to note the specifically recent movements for closer ties between the Anglican and Methodist Churches, which was unfortunately overshadowed over the past month by an internal row within the Anglican Church about the appointment of a gay bishop.

Rome has a bug up its arse about the Pope being the end-all of Bishops in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They like to conveniently ignore centuries of councilar and collegial tradition to give their own Pope more authority than he really has; the Pope is the undisputed head of the Roman-rite Church, but the universal church has no such head aside from Christ himself. The Anglicans as a whole are not seen as apostates, because we adhere to the creeds, and the majority of the councils.

There have been, and still are, many people trying to reconcile Rome and Canterbury with eachother, but the Pope isn't really willing to give up the claim to being the supreme head of the entire Church-- we consider that Christ's role. I imagine the Pope's insistnece on councilar veto power is another issue: he would have far too much power were that to be the case.

I can't remember the name of the poor fellow, just that he was appointed to the See of Reeding. I'm not a member of a group in communion with Canterbury, so I have no interest in toting the party line. My ordination is through the Independent Catholic Union(www.i-c-u.org) in New Rochelle, NY. My theology and liturgical practise are largely Anglican, which is why I fall under that particular label.

Ecumenicism is an important facet of modern Christianity, yes. The Orthodox Rites and the Anglican Rite have made large strides in this area(for instance I tend to hold to a more Orthodox line regarding the blessed virgin and the immaculate conception, as well as the use of leavened bread in the eucharist, not to mention believing in the Real Presence). It's really not a problem, because of the Ecumenicism these things are "out there" and not considered to be herectical.

If you're interrested in more on Orthodox-Anglican relations you might want to find books or articles by Lev Gillet, AKA "The Monk of the Eastern Church" he was the chaplain at the Ecumenical Centre somewhere in England(can't remember -where-, mind you :X) and has produced much literature on Orthodoxy for Western consumption.

[Elizabeth May]

The situation of arguing between denominations is one of the worst failings of Christianity. It's like a form of arrogance like saying that your own tradition is inerrant. I guess the pope breeds bad habits. Humility seems to be one of the most important Christian attributes so easily lost on denominationalism.(I spell that right?)

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth May

The situation of arguing between denominations is one of the worst failings of Christianity. It's like a form of arrogance like saying that your own tradition is inerrant. I guess the pope breeds bad habits. Humility seems to be one of the most important Christian attributes so easily lost on denominationalism.(I spell that right?)

I agree... the whole "One True Way" attitude is one of the big reasons why monotheism isn't my cup of tea.

It annoys me greatly to see this sort of bickering within Pagan traditions like Wicca, too. You'd think that spiritual paths purportedly based on polytheism would be immune to this type of arrogant behaviour, but they're not. Perhaps the arrogance of "I'm right, you're wrong" is a human trait and not really necessarily associated with any particular philosophy (although some sects do seem to make it a central part of their philosophy...)

; )

Ben Gruagach

[Arch]

The bickering is normal. It shows that people are joinnig.

And everyone has their own vision of what they think should be involved and in which direction it should involve them.

[WiccanWade]

Just thought I'd let everyone know about something I recently was told from a British Witch:

She had been visiting the Witchcraft Museum, with another Witch-friend, and the director kindly showed them the museum archives, which contain a lot of papers etc. donated at the death of Witches. Most of it has never been catalogued or published, and they were told that there was a great deal of disputed history that could be proved by the material.

Also, Ronald Hutton is going to be updating his history of the Craft soon; he went down to the Witchcraft Museum in Boscastle last year and opened papers which the owner, Graham King, had inherited from Cecil Williamson, and had to radically re-think a few things. He has already published such an ammendment about The Craft's history (I am told), however, he is re-publishing "The Triumph of the Moon", based on this new research (which will be out in about 18 months).

Yet, one must realize, that...as much as I admire Ron, his research can be a bit "blind", for want of a better word (although, he's a very warm man, and an utter joy to correspond with, very kind, et al.). There are still people around who worked with Gardner, but Hutton rejects much of their testimony, because there is no written documentation. According to his criteria, for example, I was never actually at a recent pagan festival & taught a class earlier this summer, even though I had my picture taken there, and several people saw me and attended the workshop. Because there was no written documentation, which is the key.

A couple other example about his rather "blind" way of viewing things can be found in his book "The Stations of the Sun" when he says that he can find no evidennce for Lughnasadh as a pan-Celtic festival, or evidence for its widespread celebration in Britain. My British Witch-friend uncovered a great deal of evidence in her researches for Lammas, though Llewellyn decided not to publish this respective chapter, citing it as 'too difficult for the reader'. So, when she can, she'll turn this into another book, when time allows. And the following link is a review of his book "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles", where he mistranslated Cerridwen to mean "Crooked Woman", where Celtic Scholar, James Mackillop, who put his book before specialists in their respective Celtic language fields, has translated it as coming from "gwen", which means "white, fair, or holy". In fact, I've found the following in my research, that it comes from: cerdd "song" + gwen "shining, holy"; or cariad "beloved" + gwen "shining, holy". Anyhoo...the site I was just previously speaking of is: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/a...on_review.html

[WiccanWade]

Here is that link, again:

http://www. suppressedhistories .net/ articles/ hutton_review.html

Just remove the spaces.

[WiccanWade]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth May

WHKeith, is there any particular reason why you call yourself 'Wiccan' instead of 'Neo-Pagan' first?
I just don't see the sense of using the title 'Wicca' unless one is following Gardner, really.

Just thought I'd chime in, here. Albeit one would, quite correctly, say that I am a Wiccan and follow the religion of Wicca; I do not use those words. I call myself a Witch, an appelation I first fell in love with after reading Doreen Valiente's "Witchcraft foir Tomorrow". Albeit I referred to myself as a Witch prior to that, upon reading her book was when I truly fell in love with this priestly title. And, I refer to my religion, also, as "Witchcraft".

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by WiccanWade

Also, Ronald Hutton is going to be updating his history of the Craft soon; he went down to the Witchcraft Museum in Boscastle last year and opened papers which the owner, Graham King, had inherited from Cecil Williamson, and had to radically re-think a few things. He has already published such an ammendment about The Craft's history (I am told), however, he is re-publishing "The Triumph of the Moon", based on this new research (which will be out in about 18 months).

This is great news. It's good to see that there is continued work going on to uncover the roots of Wicca and modern witchcraft from a scholarly perspective. Learning more can only help us to better understand where we come from, why we are where we are now, and possibly where we could be headed.

Yet, one must realize, that...as much as I admire Ron, his research can be a bit "blind", for want of a better word (although, he's a very warm man, and an utter joy to correspond with, very kind, et al.). There are still people around who worked with Gardner, but Hutton rejects much of their testimony, because there is no written documentation. According to his criteria, for example, I was never actually at a recent pagan festival & taught a class earlier this summer, even though I had my picture taken there, and several people saw me and attended the workshop. Because there was no written documentation, which is the key.

I would fully expect a scholarly presentation of material to be rather conservative rather than to take a lot of risks making claims which don't really have much evidence to support them. One of the biggest complaints about the vast majority of books out on Wicca and modern witchcraft is that the history, presented as fact, is so often just pure speculation without even the most basic evidence to back it up.

Ronald Hutton's work has done a lot to encourage scholarly examination of Wicca. I doubt, though, that even he would be so foolish as to think that the "whole story" had already been brought to light. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of assumptions and claims which people are making which need to be proven with hard evidence or disproven and abandoned.

I look forward to reading more about the new evidence.

; )

Ben Gruagach
http://www.witchgrotto.com

[WiccanWade]

Originally Posted by bgruagach

I would fully expect a scholarly presentation of material to be rather conservative rather than to take a lot of risks making claims which don't really have much evidence to support them. One of the biggest complaints about the vast majority of books out on Wicca and modern witchcraft is that the history, presented as fact, is so often just pure speculation without even the most basic evidence to back it up.

Ronald Hutton's work has done a lot to encourage scholarly examination of Wicca. I doubt, though, that even he would be so foolish as to think that the "whole story" had already been brought to light. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of assumptions and claims which people are making which need to be proven with hard evidence or disproven and abandoned.

I look forward to reading more about the new evidence.

While one might fully expect him to be so conservative, it really doesn't do much good. Especially by using such sweeping blanket statements as he as (or others have). It's merely like he's towing the line. And, I've really found it irritating (personally) how he brings up these theories (which others buy hook-line-and-sinker*) despite the clear fact that there is no evocende to either prove or disprove it.

* It has been my expoerience, that if one doesn't buy into every one of his baseless theories, they're publically (well, virtually) laughed at! And, that really did shock me! Because, I could clearly see that there WAS no evidence to either support or disprove much of what he had been putting forth. *sigh* So, I, from the very beginning, have kept an open mind. And, oddly enough, it wasn;t even the Wiuccans that were giving me a hard time about this! But, the non-Wiccan pagans.

Anyhoo...I'm all for being conservative, as long as it doesn't make one blind, as a result. However, when it happens, it just seems a bit cowardly, to me. Especially if you have come across some evidence which supports it. And, from what I read, he chucked a lot of evodence, which was clearly throwing out the baby with the bath water. Heh heh heh...

But, I hope to read what these documents are in the Witchcraft Museum which do prove (or disprove) a lot of the disputed Craft history. Because, allegedly, there are still Witches in England, who were trained in the same New Forest Coven in which Old Gerald had been, although, obviously, at a later date.

Nice meeting you! By the way, I hope you had a chance to read my intro. (only 2 folks actually responded to it, so I couldn't tell you who did, and didn't, read it).

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by WiccanWade

And, I've really found it irritating (personally) how he brings up these theories (which others buy hook-line-and-sinker*) despite the clear fact that there is no evocende to either prove or disprove it.

If I remember rightly, that was precisely the charge laid at Gardener in the original link dicussed - the pendulum swings both ways.

I liked WHKieth's earlier commentary on the matter, though - essentially that the burden of proff will always remains individual, and that's part of the power of Wicca.

[WiccanWade]

Oh, I know this is totally off-topic for this thread, but...I just need to vent a bit this morning (quickly). Ya' know that chic I told you whom stalked me all across cyber space (although, Brian knows the far more serious charges)? Well (and I still can't believe that no one stood up to her about it, too!) she actually threatened me with her goddess!!! Simply because The Morrighan is my Matron Deity, and somehow felt threatened... She said something to the effect of "Eris is a battle goddess as well. We'll soon see who's truly protective of her survitor!" ROTFLMWBO!!! Have you heard anything more ridiculous??? However, I took it as a threat, initially (forshadowing future problems she'd no doubt incite). She said it as if The Morrighan is nothing- as if she's playing soe cosmic D&D Campaign, for goodness sake! But, honestly, who says such a thing??? If I were her, I'd be embarassed, and publically humilliated, for saying such a thing!

[Baud]

I fear I don't have very much to add to this thread! WHKeith and bgruagach put my take on the issue in clearer words than I could. Like WHKeith I use the term "Wiccan" to define my beliefs because Neo-Pagan encompasses too many different denominations. Even if Wicca covers a relatively wide range of beliefs, they are still generally similar, and the branches of Wicca usually overlap.

I personnally found Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon" a very good account of the influences and beliefs of Wicca. I found him quite supportive of Wicca as a religion, even if it is a syncretism of (by his account) doubtful sources. I think such books have a higher public opinion impact that Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" because of the fact that they are written by "outside" scholars.

I got the impression (maybe I read part of the book wrong) that what Hutton was saying was that Gardner's Wicca was based among other things on Murray's thesis of witchcraft as a religion, on the theories of folklorists such as Frazer, and on the Goddess theory of a single mother goddess worshispped uniformly throughout Europe in prehistoric times. He argued that, while these three theories were accepted in scholarly circles at the time Gardner created Wicca, further research has shown that no evidence could confirm them, which doesn't mean they are necessarily false, but rather unproven.

Baud

[I, Brian]

The notion of Goddess worship is certainly one I've been confused about. More to the point, I remember well an ex-Christian trying to persuade myself that the prehistoric Goddess belief was one of universal peace and harmony and happiness. Somehow I couldn't but help see a form of dislocation of idealism occuring - whereas Christianity had promised such peace in the future, Wicca now promised it in his past.

I'll see if I can raise the Goddess idea on the Ancient World's section of this forum at some short future date - it's definitely an issue worth dicussing on its own at with much more detail.

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by Baud

I got the impression (maybe I read part of the book wrong) that what Hutton was saying was that Gardner's Wicca was based among other things on Murray's thesis of witchcraft as a religion, on the theories of folklorists such as Frazer, and on the Goddess theory of a single mother goddess worshispped uniformly throughout Europe in prehistoric times. He argued that, while these three theories were accepted in scholarly circles at the time Gardner created Wicca, further research has shown that no evidence could confirm them, which doesn't mean they are necessarily false, but rather unproven.

I think you are interpreting Hutton's work correctly. That's how I understand it, anyways, and it seems to be how others like Isaac Bonewits describe it in his book "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide."

While theories like these might not prove as historically valid as Gardner would have liked, the theories themselves can be very useful as the basis for a spiritual practice. An idea doesn't need to be old to be good.

It puzzles me a bit how often people seem to get hung up on the "universal goddess" part of the goddess-worship idea. I seriously doubt there was a widespread religion of a single universal goddess, but there isn't much doubt at all that there were goddesses worshipped by many many people in the past. Just because the universal goddess claim didn't hold up to scrutiny it doesn't mean that considering any form of the Divine to be female should be considered bunk.

There does appear to be some evidence going quite far back, however, for the idea of a single "great goddess" that is considered to have a multitude of different faces and names which are enumerated from a variety of cultures. In Wicca, we have that idea reinforced in The Charge of the Goddess: "...the Great Mother, Who was of old called among men Artemis, Astarte, Diana, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Dana, Arianrhod, Isis, Bride, and by many other Names." The idea comes across quite clearly in Lucius Apuleius' "Golden Ass" towards the end. In the translation by Robert Graves, it's in chapter 17, "The Goddess Isis Intervenes." Apuleius lived around 120 CE to 170 CE. Copies of the original Latin and another English translation (from 1566) are online at http://www.jnanam.net/golden-ass/#ed

While the specific religion of Wicca does appear to have originated with Gardner, he quite definitely built it up using older bits of information from a wide variety of sources. The mistake is always in assuming that because bits and pieces within Wicca are ancient, that somehow this proves the whole is also ancient. Anyone can create a brand new religion today and put something in it from a truly ancient source; this doesn't make this new religion automatically as old as the oldest component bit.

And just to reiterate... I'm a Wiccan myself, and quite happy practicing Wicca regardless of the age of the religion as a whole, and regardless how ancient any of the ideas might prove to be. If it works for me, that's what is important. History helps us to learn where things came from, and helps us to spot trends in things, but it isn't the sole criteria for whether an idea is useful or not.

[WiccanWade]

Originally Posted by Baud

I personnally found Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon" a very good account of the influences and beliefs of Wicca. I found him quite supportive of Wicca as a religion, even if it is a syncretism of (by his account) doubtful sources. I think such books have a higher public opinion impact that Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" because of the fact that they are written by "outside" scholars.

Interestingly enough, Hutton isn't an "'outside' scholar" being that he's a 3rd. degree Gardnerian!

Originally Posted by Baud

I got the impression (maybe I read part of the book wrong) that what Hutton was saying was that Gardner's Wicca was based among other things on Murray's thesis of witchcraft as a religion, on the theories of folklorists such as Frazer, and on the Goddess theory of a single mother goddess worshispped uniformly throughout Europe in prehistoric times. He argued that, while these three theories were accepted in scholarly circles at the time Gardner created Wicca, further research has shown that no evidence could confirm them, which doesn't mean they are necessarily false, but rather unproven.

To a point, however, there is evvidence for a sngle mother goddess, and similar unison worship of Her by such classical writers as tacitus, with regards to the Celtic tribes. However, much of wicca which is disputed can be proven by many of the archives at the Museum of Witchcraft in England.