Dear Melissa, Dave, Felicia, Mogg et al,
(and apologies for my delayed response!)
I no doubt should have qualified my remark! I think Ronald’s phrase is unfortunate (not `erroneous’, Mogg) if taken out of context. This could easily happen in book reviews, on e-lists and even in respect to Triumph itself if read by someone new to the field. By `corpus’ I, of course, meant the Book of Shadows as commonly used today.
I always
have understood that it was well known that if a content analysis be made in terms of derivation, inspiration and practice then much of the BoS could not usefully be described as `British’ however defined. This has been seen by many including e.g. F.King, A.Kelly, Hutton himself in his `The Pagan Religions’and, of course, Philip Heselton. An early analysis was also given in the American Earth Religion News Vol 1, No. 4 (1974).
It would therefore be tedious and unnecessary to reprise such observations here by offering up a checklist. But two areas worth re-visiting briefly are Tantra and Masonry. Geoffrey Samuel in his paper for Nature Religion Today (J.Pearson et al, eds 1998),although not the first to do so, points up
forcefully in my opinion the many parallels between Wiccan practice and Buddhist tantra and suggests they are unlikely to be coincidental.
Re. Masonry, I was instrumental a couple of years ago in helping Philip to get a copy of GBG’s EA certificate. Being a Co-Mason at the time I also hoped I could procure for him proof of Gerald’s membership of that organization as the Grand Commander said he had documentary proof of same. Unfortunately, I left the Order before having sight of this and to my knowledge Philip has not followed up the lead (e-mail from him on this, February 2006). In any event, we know that GBG mixed with co-masons even if he was not one himself. Now in my experience of both co-masonic and Wicca initiations I speculate that GBG may have been more influenced by Co-masonry than by Masonry and
that he creatively turned the gender difference of the former into the sexual polarity of the Wicca. But my main point is that the co-masonic order in question is and was French (as again noted by Philip) with a French name and H.Q. in Paris.
My contention thus remains that if a newcomer is looking to a BoS to contain a fair proportion of `Celtic’, Anglo-Saxon, Arthurian, Shakespeare, Blake, etc, or even some traditional lore from the New Forest they will be disappointed. This is
why I feel that that phrase taken out of context is misleading and unfortunate.
Taken in the wider context, as Chas and Dave point out, then I have no quibble. Nor should the above be taken in any way as being critical of Wicca. I, too,think Philip’s texts are superb. But, to close with a personal anecdote. I have a friend in South West England. He and all members of his group are Gardnerian Wiccans. However, since working in Cornwall they have stopped using Wicca liturgies and practices and have developed what they feel is more in keeping with the ethos of the land and its genus loci. I doubt if they are the only ones to do
so.
best regards,
Ken
Dear Dave, Ken, Felicia, Caroline, Mogg and all
Thanks for the interesting
conversation, and to Dave, Felicia and Caroline
for inviting me to join the debate, I am here but usually just lurk due to
time pressure of being mum-of-small-kids, but this thread was tempting me
already.
Ken, I must admit I was a little perplexed about the 'non-British Wicca'. I've
always seen it as a syncretised living religion that has taken on board
material, influences and ideas from many sources, including classical
influences that would have been part of the education of the people who made
up the magickal milieu from whence Wicca emerged. I would be interested to
hear more on non-British Wicca if possible.
Felicia, I think you particularly hit the nail on the head by saying that
plagiarism does not a corpus make. Regarding the Charge, it was extent, and
more overtly thelemic, before Doreen Valiente rewrote it, but as you said
also included pieces from other sources, including the Aradia. Now the vast
majority of the form and content is in Doreen's words, so it is attributed
to her.
There has indeed been some conjecture that when GG referred to a coven he
was in fact referring to the Rosicrucian Theatre group. However, the
research of Philip Heselton on the roots of Wicca has shown that there may
have been a coven, who were linkede to the theatre, but had their own group.
So much of the mythmaking around the origins of Wicca is indeed conjecture,
which then rapidly becomes 'fact', i.e. the old chestnut that Crowley wrote
the Book of Shadows. For a good read on Wicca's roots I cannot recommend
Heselton's books enough, particularly when read in conjunction with Hutton's
Triumph of the Moon.
Congratulations for your work on Parsons. I too would be interested to know
whether Aleister Crowley or Gerald Gardner were ever in possession of Jack
Parsons' writings regarding witchcraft. I am also curious as to who it is
that suggests Gardner was influenced by Parsons and what evidence they
present to support their claim. I have an idea where this may have come
from, but will wait for Mogg's answer in case I am completely wrong.
Regarding the initiations, I would not say that Gardnerian initiations are
straight out of the OTO's Man of Earth initiations. Like Caroline (hello
again Caroline) I can see where both the OTO and Wicca have borrowed from
Freemasonry, or indeed from archetypal initiation ceremony. Although the two
first degrees have freemasonic elements and some obvious symbology in
common, the rest of the OTO Man of Earth does not, in my opinion, relate to
the Wiccan initiations. I won't go into it any further here, but if
comparisons are to be drawn, from my experience and from what I understand
of the rituals, I would rather tend to see each Wiccan degree to correspond
to a triad of initiations within in the OTO, both in what
is conveyed to the
candidate, and what is expected of them. This also fits with the ethos of
each tradition. Both seek to initiate and empower their initiatory
candidates, and do so via a three part system; however Wicca, the segmented
polycephalus Nature religion, maintains fewer formal degrees and more
individualistic initiation criteria than the OTO, the hierarchical
organisation which splits its grades into a number of subsidiary degrees.
That of course is just my opinion but I hope it is helpful ,or at least
opens up more cordial dialogue on this thread.
With regards
Melissa.
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
