• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Wiccans & Gerald Gardner

MrRING

MrRING

Android Futureman
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
6,053
I have a question in all seriousness for Wiccans. It seems from my own reading on Wicca that most of what everybody believes about Wicca is based on Gerald Gardner's work, who in turn "borrowed" ideas and language whole cloth from Crowley's works on magic.

I have heard of covens that supposedly are based in real original traditions, but I've never read anything written that would support that these covens are actual offshoots of genuine European pagan traditions. Since they are contantly guarding their "true" traditions, they are also never open to examination or an attempt to place these beliefs in an anthropological or archaeological context.

I like the idea of paganism, and basically call myself that, but I wonder how Gardnerian Wiccans reconcile the obvious influence of Gardner's peculiarities (skycladism, sadomasocism) and Crowley's Kabbalahistic roots on mainstream Wicca and the feeling that it is a modern mishmash that doesn't really resemble the Old Ways much at all.
 
I think that most Wiccans nowadays accept that their tradition isn't really ancient and that Gardner dreamed up a lot of it himself. However, it is not true that Crowley had any great input into Wicca. Where did you read that? Much of Gardner's 'Book of Shadows' was written (or at least suggested by) Doreen Valiente, who was no friend of Crowley.
There would appear to be some sort of pre-Gardner witchcraft tradition in Britain, according to the latest research. Ronal Hutton has written several books about this, notably 'Stations of the Sun' and 'Triumph of the Moon'. Another useful work is 'The Pickingill Papers: The Origin of the Gardnerian Craft' by W.E. Liddell and Michael Howard.
 
The Crowley reference is that Gardner, from what I read (maybe it was in a Scott Cunningham book, but maybe it was Drawing Down the Moon...) lifted whole sections of language from magical written works of Crowley, but I agree, he doesn't seem to have had any personal influence.

Just for me, I haven't been able to get over the modern origins of the Craft, so that's why I try to read old sources (Homer's work, ancient texts) to try to get an idea of at least Greek paganism.

Thanks for the reply.
 
Annasdottir said:
I think that most Wiccans nowadays accept that their tradition isn't really ancient and that Gardner dreamed up a lot of it himself.
Click to expand...
How did Gardner dream it up? I always get a bit confused when people talk about Wicca, as it is generally perceived to be a practical belief system, i.e. not one in which "living a good life leads to rewards in the afterlife", but one in which ritual is able to affect the physical world. If it was just dreamed up, then why should anyone believe that carrying out these rituals is more likely to achieve a result than any other practice? :confused:
 
Fortean Studies 7 has a long and interesting article on the subject, though I'm not completely sure I agree with some of the conclusions.
 
Fortis - Wicca is very much a modern thing and any rituals pertaining to it are basically not rooted in any old traditions or religions. Same goes for Chaos Magick - it's basically a hodge-podge of what people imagine such things to be. As to how Gardner think it up - well, it's the same for anything like that. Just takes some imagination and perhaps a bit of flawed/florid thinking. IMHO, it's all more of a romantic ideal than anything else. Same goes for alot of other 'occult' or 'pagan' disciplines - they're really just modern constructs.
 
JerryB, that's more or less what I suspected. I guess I'm trying to understand the psychology of the "believers". Why do people believe that these rituals have any chance of working? Is it just part of a continuum stretching from things as simple as keeping your fingers crossed for luck?
 
Tricky question. Why does anyone think any religious practices actually work, whether it's praying in a church or any 'pagan' rituals?
It's probably a matter of choice, preference or faith. The difference with Wiccans is that their cultural heritage is imagined, as it is with modern 'druids' and the like. Their belief system is wholly modern, arising out of various theories, inventions and speculations from the recent, ooh, 100 years or so. There are also those who are trying to recreate the religion of imperial Rome, but at least they have a better chance of getting it 'right' as they have more historical documentation to derive their stuff from. But all in all, they can't really IMHO truly recreate an old pagan religion. I'd argue that this is because the framework of the views is still subliminally referencing Christianity and contemporary science (and one could argue that these are also the things that drive them towards seeking a 'pagan' outlook). The mindset is thus different.
 
I personally don't think it makes any difference if the basis for a religion,magickal system or any belief is 'real' or not.Phil Hine in one of his essays on Chaos Magick recuunts the story of a colleague who created a ritual based around the characters in Star Trek.It worked for him.
I think a lot of beliefs are just a framework to hang a set of practises on to make them more easily identifiable for the mind.
 
That's all fine and dandy, but the thing is that some Wiccans claim that their 'craft' dates back to pre-Christian times (taking their cue from Margaret Murray)...
 
JerryB said:
That's all fine and dandy, but the thing is that some Wiccans claim that their 'craft' dates back to pre-Christian times (taking their cue from Margaret Murray)...
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's only "some" - they are very much in the minority nowadays.
 
Has anybody ever been able to investigate, or does anybody still claim to be, the inheritors of a living tradition?

For me, I've always thought that true European paganism was probably a lot more like shamanistic practices in places where anthropologists have been able to study (North American Native Americans, African animist groups). Thinking that, I've never found a good reconciliation between the idea of a shamanistic religion and the fairly formal, Kabbalah-esq Wiccan ceremonies.

I went out with a practicing Wiccan for a while, and it seemed to me it was more a political/ecological belief for her (a way to get at her rich parents and further marginilize herself - liked being a victim of society in a punk aesthetic kind of way) than a situation where she was a true believer. She described that her group worshiped their good in the person of a wind-up toy that they wound up and put around the fire during Yule & Beltane dances, which to my mind helped cement the fact that she wasn't a real believer. That and the fact that I asked her, and she said that she didn't really believe in anything but the communal meeting aspect and ecological/feminist concerns.

My brother is a follower, but he's also a solitary, so his ideas are more or less his own. And he won't talk to me rationally about the whole history of modern Wicca thing, he just clams up when I try to bring it up.

I think it's great that people are happy with their beliefs, and I should leave it at that, but whenever I see a Llwellan pre-packaged magical text, I want to hurl, and the lack of ancient roots makes me think that it would be nice if the whole religion could be re-examined and maybe a new direction could be found, dropping the Gardnerian excesses in favor of something more anthropologically sound.
 
I think anyone trying to be a shaman is being even more self-deceiving than someone trying to think that they're practicing any form of old pagan religion. It seems that shamen tend to be a particular, if not peculiar, sort of person that act and react within the religious confines of their specific culture. I personally don't think that this can be grasped at all in any religious sense by anyone from our culture. Anthropologists are still getting to grips with what actually defines a shaman, as it seems to vary from the various cultures that create them. I don't think that European paganism was shamanistic - it was more organised than that. Perhaps the religion of the Neolithic, etc. may have been, but again it still seems to have more of a structure to it (hence the construction of various megalithic sites). I think people try to attach too much significance and fancy to what is not really known or knowable - Devreaux etc.'s ideas about sound and megalithic sites are are a good example IMHO. I'm sure you could find odd sound qualities in modern building - doesn't mean it has any significance whatsoever to whoever built and used it.
 
eerievon said:
I personally don't think it makes any difference if the basis for a religion,magickal system or any belief is 'real' or not.Phil Hine in one of his essays on Chaos Magick recuunts the story of a colleague who created a ritual based around the characters in Star Trek.It worked for him.
I think a lot of beliefs are just a framework to hang a set of practises on to make them more easily identifiable for the mind.
Click to expand...
What would count as the minimum set? Do those who carry out rituals see them as all being equally valid? Would they expect to be able to achieve the same magnitude of result by just thinking about something while driving to work, as they would achieve by carrying out a full blown ritual with dancing, gestures, incantations, symbolism, and implements, etc?

It's the apparent plasticity of the subject that confuses me. :)
 
Rituals used during 'magick' are supposed to focus the mind and the imagination of those involved - ultimately to focus the Will so that it acts on the material world. That's one version anyway. But any ritual, occult or religious, is carried out for both the enacter(s) and the observer(s) - the act inspires the Will or the religious feeling.
 
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
I went out with a practicing Wiccan for a while, and it seemed to me it was more a political/ecological belief for her (a way to get at her rich parents and further marginilize herself - liked being a victim of society in a punk aesthetic kind of way) than a situation where she was a true believer. She described that her group worshiped their good in the person of a wind-up toy that they wound up and put around the fire during Yule & Beltane dances, which to my mind helped cement the fact that she wasn't a real believer. That and the fact that I asked her, and she said that she didn't really believe in anything but the communal meeting aspect and ecological/feminist concerns.
Click to expand...

From the Wiccans and pagans (with allied beliefs) I have met over the years, I've come to see that the range and intensity of their beliefs are just as broad as any mainstream 'religion'. It's also fair to say that the majority of Pagans and Wiccans I've met (like the majority of Christians I've met) are in fact lapsed. That is, they seldom practise what they claim to believe in... For them, Paganism or Wiccan beliefs have simply become a way to liven up conversations at parties.

"Yeah, I'm a Wiccan."

"Really ? My cousin is a Wiccan. I'm a Buddhist, but I used to be a Druid." etc, etc
 
My first introduction to the ideas of a Wiccan 'religion' came at the tender age of 12, when I read 'Lid off the cauldron' by Patricia Crowther. As I recall she was a colleague of Gardner.
Then came the work of Robert Graves and Dr Anne Ross...all avidly consumed by a newly awakening eco-pagan!
Unfortunately my experiences of the pagan 'scene' of the eighties made me realise that most people involved were playing at it. They had no more insight into the mystery of life than anyone else. It was a 'lifestyle' choice like buying Ecover products or wearing black every day.
At the time it fit with my own views of the world. Looking back, it was a good alternative to the mainstream...just the thing to get my young mind exploring things. Made me consider the significance of tradition and racial roots.
In the end I think that's the beauty of it though. You do what Gardner (probabley) did...you realise that there's a core of truth and make it your own.
 
I agree that wicca itself is a new religion in its format and it has become abit of a hotpotch of many traditions now but I am one of those people who say my beliefs are pre christian not because I think Wicca as it today is that old but the roots of a pagan belief system are
I think the thing that annoys me most about wicca is Gerald Gardner , admittedly he did make it easier to come out of the broom closet but much of wicca is from his mind and what he borrowed from others. My beliefs and thoughts and feelings on my religion is very much instinctive and what feels right. I was practising an earth based tradition before I had even read anything on wicca as a formal religion. The rituals that Gerald Gardner helped to encourage as part of the wiccan tradition as it is today just annoy me. They are too formal and pompous. As if anyone can honestly believe that "witches" of the past hunted around for the right scourge and athame at the local market because other wise they would not be able to show their face at the next sabbat.
It is definitely true that much of pre Christian european pagan beliefs had much in common with shamanic practises. I think this is the closest we can get to authenticity.
 
Whyteowl, I tend to agree with your interpretations of things, as well as that of David Raven. I'm just glad to know that other people feel the same way; I just wish more of the pagan community would be willing to try and feel their way through life and develope their own beliefs and try them out rather than take a prepackaged religion (Wicca or Christianity or really any organized religion) and just do what seems positive and makes sense to themselves.

I actually figured there would be more angry traditonalists tearing this topic a new posterior, but instead most everybody has been plesant on either side of the fence.
 
whyteowl said:
It is definitely true that much of pre Christian european pagan beliefs had much in common with shamanic practises. I think this is the closest we can get to authenticity.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't agree at all. The evidence for such things is lacking, so IMHO making such links is purely conjectural. Archaeologists are prone to do this as well as those on the fringe of that science (i.e. Devereux). It's trying to lump together many things that we think may have happened, trying to shoe-horn things into patterns we recognise from what exists now.
 
Re: Shamanism

My comment was generalised I admit I was thinking in particular of Pagan Anglo Saxon practises in particular if this clears anything up. I know that we cannot make direct parallels between the two systems of spirtuality but the evidence seems to suggest that there were similarities in the ethnographic studies of shamanistic practises and the system of belief practised in Pagan Anglo Saxon england plus some other periods. The interest of a borderline status of those who practised these activities seems to be one of the similarities for example cross dressing of the priests. I'm not suggesting we can make a direct link but it possibly could tell us more than Gerald Gardners creation of the craft.
 
i don't think it is provable one way or another, but most sociology classes deal with socio-political-religious development among human groups, and if I'm not mistaken, shamanism is supposed to be a common development in religious thought for all peoples.

A better question might be what state various European communities were at before Roman conquest... I could see the Picts still being shamanistic, as would the more sheltered communities most removed from mainstream europe, but the druid cultures seems to have already went into a definative organized religious stage by then (Read the descriptions of the druid's religious rites in the writings of Julius Caesar). Other european groups may have been at many different stages of development and with many outlooks we can't conceive of.

But I do think that studying current shamanism in it's various forms could give an idea about what the earliest european paganism was about. The more organized pagan Roman outlook could also give an idea or indication of other european religious thoughts, at least giving an indication of form and function that could have been similar to it's celtic counterparts.
 
I tend to think that such older religions were probably more animist than shamanist.
 
paganism pe se

Can anyone give me a handle on what paganism really is?
In trying to pin it down, I have found many definitions, the oldest being (paraphrased)
the set of religious beliefs practiced by some soldiers in the Roman army who followed the religion of the countryside rather than the city...
is there a comprehensive definition, and how would a country or planet with paganism as it's official religion conduct itself?
 
Re: paganism pe se

Eburacum45 said:
Can anyone give me a handle on what paganism rally is?
Click to expand...
Paganism is not easy to categorise or classify. However the website of the
Pagan Federation gives as good an explanation as you'll probably get:
Paganism is the ancestral religion of the whole of humanity.... The Pagan outlook can be seen as threefold. Its adherents venerate Nature and worship many deities, both goddesses and gods.....
Click to expand...
 
Hmm - not sure that all pagan religions in the past venerated nature. Still, what the PF says is based on a more modern outlook.
 
Its extremely hard to give a definition for just paganisum or wicca because they are so old. There are no, atleast surviving, religious texts for wicca. So we dont have a set of guidelines to follow. But I do believe strongly that the Ancient wiccans believed very strongly in magical forces. The sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, that was magic to them. Now we know that there is scientific evidence why that happens. So alot of the Old Religions are probably what someone made up.
 
Well, as far as I can see, if the Roman definition of Paganism as the religion of the country has any validity,
the major Roman religions as observed in the cities would not have been seen as Pagan.
It is only the local, disorganised, unwritten religions and mythologies that would count as properly pagan, and have left almost no reliable record.
Still, interesting stuff.
 
Well if you want to get REALLY REALLY picky, you could say that the Romans were the first real Pagans. Wiccans had already been around for centuries. Im not an expert on Roman and Greek life, but I dont believe they had much faith in magic, they left that to thier gods. Speaking for myself, as someone who worships Athena, I can say that they are quite capable of magic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top