 |
 |
mandrake wrote: > David and Jasmine > > Yes very interesting distinction - > and one that is noted by practitioner historians of witchcraft - I'm > thinking of the "cunning man" Jack Daw for example - > who often points out the importance of "solomonic" grimoires to > eighteenth century witchcraft. > Maybe there is still work to be done on the Saxon and Germano-Celtic > stuff - which is also prone to "political" bias of one sort or another. Oh very much so. The Nazi branches of Asatru anyone... > Interesting though - that RH "debunks" the neo-pagan view that > churches were built on pre-existing pagan sites > (as indeed they were in the classical world) - whereas for example > practitioner/scholar Jan Fries talks about the ephemeral nature > of Germano/Celtic pagans sites that may not > show up in the archeaological record. > So sometimes neopagan "foundation myths" are not so stupid. I don't think stupidity is the issue just different modes of interpretation and a sense that archetypes and empirical history may be related but are not the same thing. I would just argue that we need to be aware of both and not try to confuse the basis by which we are making truth claims. Its funny though the churches built on sacred sites mythology is one of the few areas where I am respectfully skeptical of RH on. This of course is more an issue of local history of a specific church that really isn't served by global analysis but I have seen enough of them with quantifiable evidence and I found the Jan Fries article rather persuasive particularly given the location of many Saxon Churches on natural meeting places when you look at the town layout from the period that can be studied, at least in East Anglia where I've had the chance to do some more detailed examination. Though I would reiterate the only way to deal with it would be on a local history level rather than broad generalizations of churches across the whole of Europe. Cheers David > > "Love and do what you will" > > Mogg > > > > > > wrote: >> I wonder how much of this relates to the issues of historical and >> cultural specific vs broad conceptions of the Paganism of antiquity. >> eg I think very clearly when you look a Wicca as in terms of >> gnosticism and the hermetic traditions developed through the European >> appropriation of Greek and Egyptian thought (influenced by Arabic and >> Jewish mysticism etc etc) it very clearly has aspects which are >> derived from very ancient origins. I don't think this is in dispute >> by anyone seriously. This is why the OTO and Wicca are often seen >> as very close cousins. I would however doubt that Wicca has the >> kinds of rural English Saxon and Germano-Celtic origins its usually >> presented as having (or for that matter the whole Murray Witch Cult >> idea) and this tends to be the problematic aspect of its publically >> presented history at least in the mainstream. It just doesn't gel >> with either history or the archaeological record with the Celtic and >> Saxon origins it is usually linked with let alone the rural tribal >> associations given to it in public discourse. Cheers >> David >> >> mandrake wrote: >>> Dear All >>> >>> Just a thought on the ancient roots of neo-pagan and modern wiccan >>> ritual - >>> Professor Geof Samuel presented a paper on the parallels between >>> "Tantra" and Wicca at a JSM conference in MK. >>> Wiccans often do acknowledge a connection to "Tantra". >>> If "Tantra" - or more accurately "Kaula" is a late classical, >>> magical tradition - with links to the Mediteranean - >>> then maybe modern Wiccan ritual is not so different to ancient modes >>> afterall? >>> Theories come and go - and this is an area where data has often been >>> suppressed and ignored by academics - >>> so hold onto your paradigms : ) >>> >>> "Love and do what you will" >>> >>> Mogg >>> >>> PS: My own slim volume "Tantra Sadhana: a practical introduction to >>> Kaula magick" is just published by Mandrake >>> and I will be discussing and updating some of possible Hermetic >>> elements in Kaula magick at the "Albion OTO Conference" - >>> then on Youtube etc. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >