Heurismus

I'm closer to the Eastern star than the 'Golden Temple'. Thankyou for all your comments: wasn't Blavatsky et al, just terminally weird? Excesses of irrationality require soft padded cells to my thinking, still the wonders of Humans continually amaze me!!! TTFN H who is G.

Karalora

You probably won't find too many serious Wiccans taking the pseudo-history at face value. Those that do tend to be recent converts from a religion where they were taught that the mythology was literally true, and they'd better believe it. Abrahamic-style religion is so widely considered to be "normal" religion that many people can't imagine a different way of believing, practicing, and worshiping. They can't wrap their minds around the idea that the validity of religion is determined by whether or not it works for the practitioners, not how long ago or by what method it came into practice.

Era

Postcard73

Thank you!

Jon_frum

Thanks, I shall think about buying it. It seems interesting.

Waning Moon Conrad

Well, the sources that I have looked through point out the fact that Gardner was a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn. Nevertheless, thanks for the greeting.

Doctor X

Thanks for the recommendation.

NiceWookie

I never generalized. I never wrote that all Wiccans believe in Wiccan pseudo-history, but that most of them do.
The ‘fakes’ that I wrote about is what is referred as “fluffy-bunny.�
Yes, the majority of Wiccans are fluffy-bunnies, Llewellyn press, Silver Raven Wolf and countless of other books with inaccurate information have not helped to diminish the fluffy-bunnies in the Wiccan community, but to pollute the religion and valid history.
Though, there are some web sites as “Why Wiccans Suck� and “The Ranting Witches,� which have been trying to get rid of the “fluffy-bunny� disease.
If a Wiccan celebrated the sabats and worshiped x or y gods, I would not consider him or her a “fluffy-bunny,� but if that person declared that in the olden days “wiccans� celebrated the sabats and worshiped x or y gods, I would view him or her as a “fluffy-bunny,� as a culturally/historically analphabet and an ignorant person.


Sunfair

As a reply, I would rely on Jackalope’s post.

Nermal

Funny, I thought about mentioning druidism and pseudo-druidism in the Wiccan community, but the post would get so long….
It seems that the Wiccans that you met were fakes (“fluffy-bunnies.�)
I agree with many of your points, yet, I am not sure about the 5th one.
I know that there are orgies conducted by neo-pagans, though, I am sure there are orgies run by non-neo-pagans too. Regarding Wicca, I know that there have been covens where the high priest/priestess may require some kind of sexual involvement from the members as a rite of initiation.

Perhaps, neo-pagans do not see sexual relations as a taboo and inside a conservative spectrum as others may see it. Nevertheless, I am not interested about their views on sexual relations or what they do at all.

*It tickles me too, it is almost as if a person came to you and said that the earth is flat.

Jackalope

I agree with you.

Thanks for the reviews everybody.

Regards,

Era

NiceWookie

With all due respect Era, I ask for proof of your assertion that a majority of Wiccans were fake. Reiterating it does not make it more true or correct.

I would assume you have some sort of statistical data to prove that a majority of Wiccans hold these erroneous historical views in order to back up such a bold assertion.

It is fine to make an opinion on a few books and a few practioners. I have met my share of so called fluffys. Some of them mature into fine dedicated practioners and others go on their way, usually leaving the craft behind for the truly dedicated and inspired.

But to expand this opinion of fakeness to the vast majority without a shred of data to back it up is simply as erroneous as some of the psuedo-history offered in your first post.


Finally, I find the description of someone who simply has some historical information incorrect as an ignorant fluff a bit of an overstatement and a generalization. Pidgeonholing these people and calling them cutesy names certainly doesn't help create a dialouge where newer and/or more accurate information can be shared.

Are you a Wiccan or even a Pagan? Do you have an ear in the community? Do you visit Wiccan or Pagan message boards, attend festivals, or participate in a coven? Have you read many books on the subject besides the ones you have listed? I am skeptical of your motives and I wonder what particular stake you have in the issue.

Doctor X

Jackalope:

Here is an anecdote. I talked to a mentor of mine who is very respected in the study of religions about Frazier. "Come on . . . where did he get those stories?"

Well, it seems he did his Ph.D. on The Golden Bough. He went through the evidence Frazier collected in the complete--multi-volume version and unpublished stuff.

Answer: Frazier was very well documented. He had "levels" of certainty and if he did not have enough confirmatory evidence, he would not use the example. According to my mentor, Frazier had a lot of stuff that would have supported his theories very well, but he chose not to use them because he could not prefer them.

Just an anecdote.

--J.D.

Sunfair

The Charge of the Goddess came from Leland's book, not from Doreen herself. She may have added a line or two, but the majority of it of it is from Aradia, Gospel of the Witches. As a piece that comes from a source from the late 1800s, and which doesn't contain historical claims, I think it qualifies as a piece of Wiccan folklore. (The Charge itself, I mean, not the book.)

I would like to know your source for information on what Gardner had to say. I have found it very difficult to find anything original on the subject. His books are out of print, and theorys about the origin of his ideas are mostly swathed in obscurity and difficult to find information on, in my experience.

I would also like to know your source for what Valiente had to say about her departure from Gardner's coven. Her writings are also scarce, but one thing I have read is that she is the one who proved the exsistence of one Dorothy Clutterbuck by finding her birth certificate. Gardner had stated he was taught by Dorothy Clutterbuck, but it was doubted that the woman even exsisted. (I know her exsistence doesn't prove anything but her exsistence, but it is a step in the right direction.) With Doreen going to the trouble of trying to back up at least one of Gardner's claims about the origins of Wicca, it paints a different picture than what you are saying.

And I have never heard anything about Gardner finding manuscripts, so of course I'd like to know your source for that, too.

[side note] I have read (on a now defunct website) that the dreaded Llewellyn owns the rights to Gardner's books, but is declining to republish them because they don't bear much resemblance to the fluffy Wiccan books that sell so well today. I haven't been able to confirm that, though.

jon_frum

did indeed exist--Ronald Hutton goes into considerable detail about her in the chapter on Gerald Gardner.

He was lucky enough to read three of her diaries from the years 1942-3, when she was allegedly functioning as a witch priestess.

Quote--

"They are not diaries in the conventional sense, but daily poems with accompanying illustrations reflecting an incident or idea which had occured during each date. The woman they reveal is a simple, kindly and pious one. Absolutely none of them--including those at the time of the four major witch festivals--have any relevance to paganism or the occult."

He presents other evidence as well; I really would recommend that you read the book and see for yourself.


Sunfair:

Sunfair

Interesting, thank you, jon_frum. I think I ceased my studies at about the same time that Hutton's book came out. It was partly due to finding answers to questions I had about life the universe and spiritualilty, and it was partly out of frustration at the seemingly vast numbers of -how do I put this- people who weren't drawn to it for what it is, but rather for power or the mystique of "witchyness" or shock value, etc. I just didn't feel comfortable calling myself Wiccan anymore when so many asshats did too. And mass media contributes its own set of problems to it *Llewellyn, I'm looking at you*. So anyway, it sounds like my info is a bit out of date, aside from the bit about the Charge.

I really didn't mean to get drawn into this discussion, but now that I'm here I'd like to offer a viewpoint on "fakeness".

In my opinion there is no such thing as fake Wiccans. How can there be when there is no such thing as blasphemy? There is no one right way to be Wiccan, therefore anyone who claims to be Wiccan is. All the talk about history being false and therefore invalidating the religion as a source of spiritual truth is kind of irrelevant when you're talking about a religion that basically accepts making it up as go along, as long as no one gets harmed by it. (And by spiritual truth I mean how each individual comes to terms with life, ethics, etc.)

Jackalope

Hutton was a close friend of Valiente's, by the way. He was one of the main speakers at her funeral in fact. So when he wrote Triumph of the Moon, he actually went to Doreen and got her side of the story about her time in Gardner's coven. And her later exploits. Damn, it's late and my brain is going. She joined up with another firecracker magus after Gardner, who also had a habit of passing off newly-minted ritual as ancient. Since Valiente was basically too honest to participate in that sort of deception, she left and eventually formed her own coven. I don't have my copy of Triumph of the Moon around, and I can't for the life of me remember the title of Valiente's book right now. Maybe Jon_Frum will remember (or better yet will still have the books lying around), since we read them about the same time.

Dr X: Frazier suffered from the same disease that many of the victorian gentleman scholars did. They tended to re-write their material to match what they thought it should be like. Part of it was class prejudice. There was a notion that the lower classes couldn't possibly have any idea of what they were preserving in degenerate form and that the upper classes should help preserve and shape those traditions. You can see the same pattern with the folk song and dance collectors (I'm still not sure whether to thank or curse Cecil Sharp). You really, really have to take the victorian folk collector's writings with a block of salt. Compare Frazier's methods with someone like Henry Glassie (All Silver and no Brass) and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Sunfair

And since I've put my foot in it already, I may as well dive in.


It is my understanding that it is considered an attempt to return to an older form of religion, as far as reverence to nature, acknowledgement of the cycle of the seasons, and acceptance of females as whole persons in their own right is concerned. These things are considered to have been lost/subdued with the major influence of Christianity on western culture in the last two thousand years.

I don't know why you say there is no such thing as old religion with such finality. What about Hinduism?

As for the rest, I am having a hard time with the phrase "others may say". Who are these others? When did they say? There is a big difference between what folks knew about the Inquisition in the 70s compared to what we know now. I think using out of date sources to support your arguements is unwise, but I don't know if you are because you haven't really given any.

Just off the top of my head, there was the group who tried to kill King James, and the group led by a compatriot of the late Joan of Arc. These were considered Satanic in nature, but I think they do qualify as hidden witch cults.

Sorry, I just don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's not Celtic enough to be considered genuinely Celtic because we don't know that much about the Celts? Maybe the way the word is being used is not absolute as far as description goes. That happens a lot with language. Otherwise, genuine Celticness might involve wearing hide clothing and living in a hut with a central firepit.

Well, it's only 8 if you don't count the Esbats. Four of those eight are to acknowledge the suns orbit at the Solstices and Equinoxes. The others have come from other sources.


I never heard this when I was studying, where did you get these statements from? I have to say if your source for this is from the 70s it's outdated.
And again with the "others may reply"- who are these others?

See above concerning outdated sources.

In nearly everything I have read the idea of "A Wiccan is not necessarily a witch and a witch is not necessarily a Wiccan" has been emphatically stated.

As for what Gardner said, why do you consider him wrong in his assessment of what his practice of his religion (whether he made it up or not) was composed of? If it was witchcraft to him, then how can you say it wasn't? Just because Wicca in general isn't and has further developed away from a major emphasis on it doesn't mean that it wasn't for him.

That's not true. There's no blasphemy. People can blend all they want if that's how they want to be. Too bad if it's not pure enough for you, but there it is.

Have some curry sauce on your french fries, too.