THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

[from ftp://ftp.teleport.com/users/rain/wicca/ ]

To: alt.religion.wicca
From: dhf3@aol.com (DHF3)
Subject: A. Kelly IS an oathbreaker
Date: 9 Dec 1995 14:14:11 -0500

Robert Mathiesen (SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu) wrote:

>I have talked with Kelly from time to time about such matters, as we
>have a common academic or scholarly interest in the origins and history
>of Wicca in all its traditions.  On one occasion we discussed how oaths
>of secrecy may limit one as a scholar.  If memory serves me rightly, he
>informed me that he has taken relatively few oaths of secrecy himself,
>and that he construes the ones he has taken as narrowly as their wording
>and their customary interpretation *in the administering tradition*
>allows.  He also told me that all of his Gardnerian oaths, as
>interpreted within the lineage that administered them to him, provided
>that one may discuss an oath-bound text or fact on the condition that
>the text or fact has been published elsewhere, and that one confines
>one's discussion to what has been published.  Indeed, in my own
>conversations with him we have hit points, from time to time, which he
>says he is not free to discuss, as there is no published material about
>which he can speak.  I am, therefore, inclined to wonder whether the
>label "oath-breaker" is really appropriate.

I am the High Priest who initiated Aidan Kelly into the Gardnerian
Tradition.  I administered the oaths of secrecy to which he swore.  I
explained the meaning of those oaths to him myself.  What is represented
above is not true.

In my presence, Aidan swore the standard oaths, which forbid one from
"ever revealing any of the secrets of the art" except to another initiate.


Aidan was specifically told that this meant that if a _version_ of a Book
of Shadows text had been published (e.g. in the Farrars or Lady Sheba),
then that _version_ could be quoted publicly. (All of the actual texts of
the Book of Shadows have yet to be published.) For example, as an initiate
I can publicly quote any of the multitudinous versions of the Charge of
the Goddess EXCEPT the version in the Book of Shadows.  Unpublished BoS
material and oral tradition/instruction was specifically protected.  Aidan
broke this oath and published explanatory material from the BoS and the
Gardnerian oral tradition.  Aidan Kelly is an oath-breaker.

Aidan also swore in my presence, with his full consent, an additional oath
forbidding him from publishing any Gardnerian material to which he gained
access as a result of becoming an initiate.  The specific intent, as we
explained, was that we would not forbid him from republishing his
dissertation, which was work done before swearing any oaths.  Aidan broke
this oath and in updating his dissertation published traditional material
that I and others gave him in absolute traditional confidence.  Aidan
Kelly is an oath-breaker.

Additionally, the oath is interpreted by ALL (and was so explained to him
at the time) as to forbid the exposing of any closeted Witch.  Aidan broke
this oath in publishing the names and home addresses of Witches given to
him in the strictest confidence (information that had NEVER before been
published), exposing these individuals to financial and physical danger.
It was for this that the Covenant of the Goddess stripped Aidan of his
ministerial credentials.  Aidan Kelly is an oath-breaker.

For these reasons, Aidan Kelly is not welcome in the Gardnerian
community.  He has been specifically banished from his parent coven.
For similar reasons involving secrecy and oath-breaking he has been
ostracized from the NROOGD and Faerie tradition communities.

The very first page of the Book of Shadows that Aidan received from me
warns that anyone who misuses its contents and violates that trust
placed in him or her shall suffer the Curse of the Goddess.  Aidan's life
has been on a downward spiral ever since the publication of _Crafting the
Art of Magic vol. 1_.  I have no doubt that he is experiencing the karmic
rewards for his actions.

Donald H. Frew
HP, Coven Trismegiston

---

   From: dhf3@aol.com (DHF3)            Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly's oath/re: Mathiesen's comments
   Date: 14 Dec 1995 10:03:05 -0500

SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) wrote:

>I must also say to Donald Frew and to the unnamed High Priestess
>whom ZardoZ mentioned, that whoever offers an oath to another, and
>does not *try to forsee* the harm that oath may do to the one who
>takes it, has badly misstepped.  Ask yourselves, please, and answer
>in all honesty: "Did you administer that oath for the initiate's own good
>chiefly, or *chiefly* to bind someone whom you feared would harm
>your tradition?" *If the latter*, then your oath-giving is as foul in my
>sight as Kelly's oath-breaking is in yours.  If not, then please disregar
d
>my comment: I will have been speaking merely of general principles,
>not of anyone in this particular case.  The principle in question is that
,
>just as it is wrong to break an oath, so too is it wrong to use an oath
>to trap the foolish or the unwary.  --  Robert

When Aidan Kelly first resurfaced, after years spent away from the Craft,
he approached a local Gardnerian Priestess and asked for training.
She consulted her oracles, which told her "Yes, he should be trained;
no, you should not be the one to do it."  Accordingly, she brought the
matter to her Queen, my working partner at the time.  We met with
Aidan to discuss the matter.

Aidan assured us that he had never really left the Craft, even though he
had spent years as a minor luminary in the Catholic community.  He had
just needed more support for dealing with his alcoholism than could be
found in the Craft years previously.  At heart, he said, he was and had
always been a Witch.  He wanted to get involved in the community again,
but he "just couldn't take seriously a tradition that he knew he had made
up", i.e. the NROOGD tradition; the tradition he had left to rejoin the
Church.  Instead, he wanted to get involved with and learn from "the only
Craft tradition that had real history, the Gardnerian tradition."

What? we said.  Didn't Aidan believe that Gerald had made it all up?  Oh
no, he assured us.  He only felt that Gardner was a great reformer of what
had gone before; a sort of Martin Luther of the Craft.  He pulled out his
dissertation from 1977 and pointed to the title: "The Rebirth of
Witchcraft: Tradition and Creativity in the Gardnerian Reform."  He was
convinced of the antiquity of the core of Gardnerian Craft, only that
Gardner had made a lot of changes.

We expressed some concern that he was just trolling for more information
for a new book.  Absolutely not, he assured us.  He was looking to
reawaken his previous spiritual path.

Based on Aidan's sincerity and the direction of the Oracles, we decided to
proceed with training and initiation.  Others of our peers were horrified.


When Aidan had left the NROOGD tradition, he had given his papers,
including the mundane names of scores of Witches to a local Library, an
act for which most of NROOGD has never forgiven him.  We discussed this
with Aidan and JOINTLY came up with the idea of an additional oath that he
would take at his 1st Degree; an oath that would both reassure the wider
community and not be unduly restrictive if Aidan's intentions were what he
said they were.  The precise wording of the oath was worked out IN ADVANCE
with Aidan's full support, input, cooperation, and consent.

Aidan took the standard 1st Degree oath and this additional one, both of
which I described in my earlier post.  Aidan went on subsequently to not
only break those oaths, but to demonstrate that the pitch he had given us
was a lie.  He had every intention of writing a new book, one that
"proved"  the falsity of Gardner's claims.  I take full responsibility for
having been duped in this way, and it is partly as a result that I felt
the need to address the many false claims in _Crafting the Art of Magic,
vol. 1_.  I am not responsible, however, for elevating Aidan to any
degrees higher than 1st.

No one is forced into the Gardnerian tradition at gunpoint.  Rather, Aidan
practically begged to be initiated, even under conditions including the
oath that Robert finds so objectionable; an oath that Aidan helped write!

Robert wrote... "The principle in question is that, just as it is wrong to
break an oath, so too is it wrong to use an oath to trap the foolish or
the unwary."  I completely agree, but if anyone used an oath in such a way
in this case, it was Aidan himself... creating the very oath for himself
that Robert objects to.  Perhaps some small aspect of Aidan's psyche
recognized the immorality of what he was planning and tried to assert
itself in this way.  If so, I can only lament that Aidan did not have
stronger character.

Donald H. Frew

P.S.  I remain suprised to find Robert describing Aidan as a scholar, even
after my post to ARCANA.  Willfull manipulation and misrepresentation of
source texts to support one's points, a practice in which Aidan blithely
engaged, is not the hallmark of a scholar.

---

   From: fatman@primenet.com (liz)     Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca
   Subject: Re: A. Kelly IS an oathbreaker    Date: 19 Dec 1995 11:50

As long as I have acces to to net again (server problems), let me also res
pond
to some of Robert Mathiesen's statements in defense of A. Kelly. My sincer
e
thanks to all those who took the time to write on this topic.

First, thank you for responding to my posts, Mr. Mathiesen. Now, on with
the fray.

Kelly not only "borrowed" ideas from "low circulation publications" (lcp),
but he did, in fact, reproduce an article without the permission of the
person possessing copywrite of that article. It is frequently refferred to
as a letter, but it was an article in an "lcp" that reverts the copywrite
of all articles to the authors. It is the editor of that "lcp" that I have
my information from.

Next, thank you for allowing me to call Kelly what I choose to. In your
original post you stated, "I am, therefore, inclined to wonder whether the
label 'oath-breaker' is really appropriate.". In your later posts you have
since said that I could call him an oath breaker, while I don't need your
permission, I thank you for the acknowledgement.

On the topic of oath-breaking I disagree with you. Your statement: Kelly
is "a person who obeys a law as he understands it". Bullshit. If the man's
aim is anything like his ability to interpret an oath, then he simply
cannot hit the broad side of a barn.  Further, there is a limit to
interpretation. If I ask someone to draw a blue line and they pick up an
orange marker to draw said line, then misinterpretation HAS occured. Kelly
had done this. He has done this deliberately.

As for the "dime a dozen accusations" you claim that I have referred to,
let me clear up that I was speaking of the founder of a tradition and
members of that tradition and other trads who have interacted with Kelly
and made accusations of oath-breaking against Kelly. I take those
seriously. What I regret about it is that There appear to be so many valid
accusations that they too can be valued at a dime a dozen. In fact I think
that if you had all of those dimes you could bury Kelly in them.

You also stated that a scolar can be a terrible, immoral person doing all
sorts of things ("embezzle", "cheat on taxes") and yet still be a good
scolar producing valid work. My question to you then is this: how the hell
can you tell that the work is valid? In science the results can be
dulplicated, but this is social science, where dulplication is difficult
under the best of circumstances. Studying oath boud trads makes it all the
more difficult. So, if a scolar lies frequently and badly in life, whta
proof can be offered that the habit of lying has not entered his work?
This is a bit moot, Kelly has lied in his work as has been demonstrated in
other people's posts.

To the disscussion of the contents of Gardner's library, an examination of
the contents of that library as recorded by the original purchasers,
Ripley's, will show that none of the books that I listed in a previous
post were in Gardner's library at the time of original purchase.  While
Gadner may have owned some or all of them, they are in no list of the
library's contents.  Further, Kelly wrote that these books are in the
collection as it currently exists in Canada. He LIED. LIED LIED LIED. He
LIES. He lies in his scolarly work, this is poor scolarship.

I was unaware of the owners of that collection have been initiated. I
cannot verify this information, but I thank you for it and will consider
it as possible.

A note on the legality of publishing the works/words and information on
dead people without permission. This is also illegal. The estate of the
individual is responsible for persuing court action. This is rarely done,
and so as an unenforced law it is easy to get away with publishing
slanderous material and information and the works of dead people. Just a
note, though, I DID ask you not to make legal arguements as these are not
legal matters. You cannot do this?? Or do you choose not too?

As for the dissertation that Kelly wrote, it too is crap. I have a thirty
page critique of it on my desk. That critique includes informaiton I
consider oath bound, so it is not availble on this format, or to non
initiates. I also have a short critique here. That I will reproduce
several paragraphs of that here:  (n.b.: I have the author's permission to
do this.)

The following are excerpts from "SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE FOOT: A
Commentary on Aidan Kelly's recent disks Part I"

"For the last couple of years, writer Aidan Kelly has been distributing a
series of disks containing some of his thoughts on the modern history of
the Craft. For the most part, these disks have been ignored by nearly
everyone - and rightly so. Much of the information they contain is
unreliable or demonstrably false, and his historical arguements and
conclusions are unsupportable.

"The current commentary you're now reading is based on a 1993 version of
Kelly's disks. Reportedly, he alters and adds to these disks regularly, so
either an older or more recent version may differ...page numbers, the text
of the short quotations given below, and even the list of works included
may be different in any particular copy. Thought this makes things
difficult for a reviewer or a scolar interested in referencing these
disks, Kelly is certailnly free to fidget with his own works all he wants;
as he repeatedly points out, this is the way an author treats his own
work, as contrasted with how he views something old or valued and
valuable.

"In general: many of Kelly's unstated assumptions are provably wrong, thus
calling his dating of documents into serious question; Kelly ignores,
manufactures, and misinterprets data; he makes false statements in an
effort to support his arguements; he does not understand Gardnerian
thought well enough to make intelligent commentary on it; and he blurs the
very real distinctions between Gardnerianism and the rest of Neopaganism,
thus giving a false impression of both.

"Kelly's chorology for the ritual scripts he presents - both the relative
and the absolute dating - is based on a number of unstated assumptions,
all of which are demonstrably false. Some of them are:

   1) There was only one "live" version of the rituals in use at any one
      time; that is, there is only one textual family, and differences
      between texts are due to the progressive development of that family.


   2) A ritual which appears in a published work was writted at about
      the time it was published.

   3) Published material accurately reflects oathbound material; that is,
      no changes were made specifically for publication.

"There are other unstated assumptions as well.

"Kelly also ignores data he doesn't like. Example: there are many
differences between the published texts ( sic... High Magic's Aid [HMA],
Witchcraft Today, and The Meaning of Witchcraft) and the unpublished texts
(sic... BAM, and the Weschke papers) which obviously disprove his
assumptions. But these pass uncommented, and frequently undocumented.
Example: there are omissions in HMA which prove it does not accurately
reflect BAM, and which Kelly fails entirely to mention.

"In general, Kelly assumes the creation of a set of rituals is the same as
the creation of a religion. This is obviously an untenable position. If
he's right, then the Catholic Church in America is only a few years old,
and is unrelated to any other religion anywhere else.

"Occasionally, Kelly considers the question of the age of Gardnerian
ideas.  However, Kelly knows and understands very little of Gardnerian
views, and frequently misrepresents them. As one simple example of Kelly's
lack of understanding: he says ritual items were added to the Gardnerian
corpus in the 1970's were carefully labeled as to authorship and date so
as to mark them as officially Gardnerian. In fact, the reason for
labelling them was exactly opposite; it was to indicate that they were
later additions, and therefore NOT part of the original and "official"
collection going back to Gardner. There are many other examples of such
misinterpretation on Kelly's part. Since Kelly so deeply misunderstands
Gardnerianism, any conclusions he draws concerning Gardnerian attitudes,
ideas, theology, intent, purpose, etc. are suspect at best."

This was a synopsis of perhaps half of the arguements against Kelly's
"scolarship" in this article, with some of the evidence left out. I hope
you all enjoyed it! liz

-----

   From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen)
   Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly's oath/re: Mathiessen's commen
   Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:35:12 EST

In article <30cb255a.1243721@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, johnshep@ix.netcom.com (
John
Shepard) said:

>On 10 Dec 1995 02:48:13 -0600, holzman@tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman)
>wrote:
>
>>Thank you, Donald Frew, for putting this here.  A thousand questions are
>>thus avoided.
>>
>>Of course, it does not much affect his academic validity, but it is good
>>to have this issue settled.
>
>I disagree. If you can't trust the messenger then you can't trust the
>message. Academics may accept Kelly as "one of their own" and trust
>his so-called scholarship, but many, (dare I say most?) Wiccans do
>not. I also suspect that if a scholar does not have the respect and
>trust of the group he's writing about, then other scholars will count
>that against him, too.

Kelly's major contributions are not in his book, _Crafting the Art of
Magic_, but in his dissertation (which has passed through various forms
over the years).  He was the first to call the attention of academics to
the problem posed by the pseudo-Medieval texts of the _Book of Shadows_,
to point out that the same sort of methods used on Biblical texts might be
helpful here, and to call the attention of non-Wiccan scholars to several
important sources for early versions of these texts, namely: the
manuscript _Ye Bok of ye Art Magical_, the typescripts in the files of
Llewellyn Publications, and the pamphlet _Witch_ by "Rex Nemorensis." He
missed one important early published source, _The Devil's Prayerbook_, and
various Gardnerian manuscripts in England remained out of reach.  All of
this can also be found, though less clearly and com- petently, in his
published book.

It is this sort of thing that academics mostly appreciate, rather than
Kelly's specific conclusions about this or that text or about Gardner's
sex life.  Academics are used to working with untrustworthy sources, to
sifting heaps of dung in order to find a few pearls, and in dealing with
incompetence, folly and outright deceit in the scholarship of their
predecessors.  Nothing new here ...

Theodore Sturgeon once said something like, "90% of everything is BS." If
you take him at his word, then scholarship is the art of modeling
unattainable Truth with BS for the modeling-clay: though the "clay" is BS,
the model you make of it has its real uses.

Nor does scholarship have anything to do with trusting messengers, or the
messages they carry.  All messengers have their own agendas, and all
messages are damaged or distorted in transit.  The issue of trust is a
non-issue, at least for the humanities (and history), though our
undergraduates start out by thinking that it's the most important thing.
Part of a teacher's job is to show students how one can seek Truth in a
world where one does not have the raw materials to find it easily.  --
Robert

(Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM.BITNET)

-----

   From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen)
   Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly's oath/re: Mathiesen's comments
   Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 22:04:54 EST

In article , Antony
Ferrucci  said:

>   I will freely admit that it may just be my interpretation of the "echo
s"
>in Mathiessen's postings, but I keep getting the feeling that, for whatev
er
>reasons of his own, this guy has decided to act as "apologist/defence
>attorney" for Kelly.  Does anyone else get this?

Mostly I didn't like the one-sided evaluations some people -- apparently
not always scholars themselves -- were posting, which concentrated on the
very real faults of his Llewellyn book and ignored the very real virtues
of his dissertation.  I don't much like this sort of one-sidedness any-
where, and I hit it as hard as I can when I find it in one of the fields
of scholarship where I work.  It's particularly revolting when it is mo-
tivated by animosity over issues outside of scholarship.  Let me say it
one more time, as loudly and clearly as I know how: a person whose own
life is irreproachable may write garbage as a scholar, and a person whose
activities can be reproached on many grounds may nevertheless be a paragon
of scholarly competence, whose every book and article should be read and
re-read by anyone who is working in the same field.  Most fall somewhere
between these two extremes.  It is plain stupid to con- fuse scholarly
worth with ethical worth.  Stupidity is not a good thing. Stupidity
combined with animosity is downright dangerous, and is worth fighting
simply on grounds of self-interest.

The field in which I first trained as a scholar, over 30 years ago, was
dominated by senior professors, almost all of whom were refugees from
Middle-European countries after Wordl War II.  About half of them had
feared the Russians more than the Germans; the other half had feared the
Germans more than the Russians.  Most of them carried their sympa- thies
across the Atlantic.  Most of them were simply incapable of im- partially
evaluating the scholarship of those who had been on the other side of the
war.  To me, who regarded the followers of Hitler and the followers of
Lenin as two sides of the same debased political coin, all this animosity
reminded me of nothing so much as two squabbling gangs of adolescent
school-yard bullies, or perhaps bands of chimpan- zees at war with one
another.  Though they were otherwise cultivated, polished, erudite men and
women, as soon as this issue raised its head, they almost ceased to be
human.  I understand why, but I cannot approve.

In addition, I have met and talked with Kelly, whereas I have never met
any of his on-line critics.  I am not a member of the Neo-Pagan commun-
ity, let alone Wiccan.  Nevertheless, I have a great amount of sympathy
for these religions, since I have inherited a tradition of magical pan-
theism on my mother's side; though the differences between your tradi-
tions and mine are very great, I still feel closer to yours than to any of
the main-stream religions in this country.  (And, to avoid the ob- vious
questions from those hunting for traces of old traditions, I ought also to
state that my family's traditions are no more than a century old.  They
were cooked up by my great-grandmother and great- great-grandmother in
California ca. 1880-1900 out of the alternative religious and occult
teachings that were popular back them.  Great- grandmother lived until I
was 9 (in 1951), so I am speaking from direct, first-hand knowledge here.)
When I met Kelly, he represented himself to me as oath-bound, and he had
to decline to discuss certain questions with me because of that.

Because of this, my first instinct was to suppose that all these charges
of oath-breaking were either unfounded or based on genuine misunder-
standings.  In part I assumed this because I could not easily believe that
someone who was so obviously a committed scholar as Kelly was, could have
voluntarily taken such an oath that would "cripple" him as a scholar.  It
seems I was wrong, and as a scholar myself I am glad to have more
information, even though it proves me wrong.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that this oath, which Kelly seems to have
taken of his own free will, put Kelly in a position which I can only see
as tragic.  Scholarship is a high and holy calling for some -- certainly
for me, and I believe also for Kelly.  I agree that one cannot break an
oath without dire consequences.  But also, one cannot deny a calling
without equally dire consequences.  From the moment he took the oaths in
question, Kelly could not avoid dire consequences, no matter whether he
kept his oath or broke it.  This is tragic.  If his life is in a "downward
spiral," as Don Frew phrased it, in consequence, then that downward spiral
would have happened whether he broke his oath or kept it: each would have
equally dire consequences in his case.

These things being so, I continue to sympathize with Kelly somewhat. The
issue of "outing" does not hit me, personally, where I live: in my family
we have always been pretty open about what we are, and tried to deal with
the negative consequences by strength and subtelty, rather than by keeping
secrets.  I *do* know that "outing" is a big issue among Neo-Pagans, and I
am *very* careful not to do it myself; but I don't have any instinctive
fear of those who are less scrupulous.

Because of this, what I notice most strongly when I read the posts against
Kelly, is how "outing" and "oath-breaking" merge into one issue:
oath-breaking is one of *my* personal issues, whereas outing is *other
peoples'* issue for me.  I have to keep reminding myself that others see
them as two aspects of the same thing, and I cannot easily sympathize with
an argument from the one to the other.  (How- ever, they merge -- even for
me -- if one has sworn an oath not to "out" others, as one of the posters
has said Kelly did swear.)

What also strikes me, now that I have this additional information, is the
question whether the HP and HPs who gave oaths to Kelly really un-
derstood the tragedy they set in motion by their action.  You see, at
least for me, when an oath is given, the oath-giver's and oath-taker's
destinies become inextricably intertwined: as one rises, so rises the
other; and as one falls, so falls the other.  To give an oath is no less
fraught with consequences than to take an oath.  I do not understand how
this HP and HPs could have been so *dense* as not to understand the
consequences, for Kelly *and for themselves*, of administering to Kelly an
oath that hindered him in following his own calling.  Thus I ask, in all
sincerity, whether they really thought the matter through, or whether all
they saw was the possibility of binding one who other- wise might reveal
texts that they wished to keep secret.  Or perhaps they merely yielded to
Kelly's own desire for initiation without sufficient foresight.  Either
way, if Kelly has done harm to the hidden members of his Gardnerian
lineage, those same members -- on the principles by which *I* work -- may
legitimately ask whether the HP and HPs in question bear some
responsibility for it by virtue of imprudent oath-giving.  Perhaps
Gardnerian principles are different from mine in this respect; I don't
know, nor do I particularly need to know if it is oath-bound information.
But even so, there is a general issue here to be discussed, namely the
issue of when one should and should not *give* an oath to a would-be
initiate.

Some of the posters seem to advance a very simple argument, as follows.
Oath-breaking and outing are very bad.  Kelly did both.  Thus, (1) Kelly
is very bad.  Thus, further, (2) Kelly's scholarship is not a mixed bag,
but is also very bad.  (Obviously, I simplify the wording, but not, I
think, the structure of the syllogisms.) Now conclusion #2 -- I main- tain
-- does not automatically follow from #1, but has to be argued on its own
scholarly basis.  I think I've expressed my views about this clearly
enough in previous posts.  This principle I apply not only to Kelly, but
in many other fields of scholarship.  As for conclusion #1, it may well be
true *as far as it goes*, but I now suspect that the "bad- ness" is not
Kelly's alone.  The oath-givers have a share of it as well as the
oath-taker, according to my understanding of how an oath works. This
issue, too, is broader than the case of Kelly only.

I hope this provides a sufficiently clear answer to the poster's ques-
tions.  -- Robert

(Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM.BITNET)
-----

   From: robert.mathiesen@corpsoft.com (ROBERT MATHIESEN)
   Newsgroups: 01alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.wicca
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly's oath/re: Mathiesen's comment
   Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 12:47:00 -0600

Thank you, Donald, for clarifying this so thoroughly.  As always, I am
glad to have new information, even when it shows -- as yours does -- that
I was mistaken.  What you say makes perfect sense, in a way that the
earlier information I had did not.  I apologize for my suspicion and the
harsh tone in my earlier posting.  I hopw you will accept my apology.

Did Michael forward to you the gist, at least, of my reply to the mes-
sage from you which he posted on ARCANA?  (ARCANA's rules normally for-
bid forwarding the messages themselves to outsiders without express
permisison of the sender.) In my reply, I argued against your expla-
nation for the Kelly's text of the little treatise, "Of the Ordeal ..." I
think I still have a copy in my files.  Shall I send it along?  (You are
right that Kelly's text is not the text in the Toronto ms., but the
difference is not of Kelly's making -- in this case, at least, I have a
bit of first-hand knowledge of one of the relevant facts.) We can continue
to correspond about it if you like.)

My estimation of Kelly as a scholar rests primarily on his service in
calling to the attention *of outsiders* to the problems connected with
Gardner's Book-of-Shadows texts, in bringing to their attention the
Toronto ms., the Weschcke typescripts, "Rex Nemorensis's" pamphlet
_Witch_, etc., and finally in seeing that the methods already developed
for Biblical criticism could be applied to these texts.  To the best of my
knowledge, he was the first to do these things.  Do you know of anyone who
did this before him?

If you wish to argue, as a Gardnerian, that all of the above were no
service at all, but a disservice, then I certainly can understand your
premise.  But it is a premise that I do not accept myself, as you probably
realize.  My view is that the question of the origins and sources of
Gardner's Wicca is much to interesting and important to be left entirely
to the Gardnerians, or indeed to Wiccans.

As to Kelly's conclusions, I dissent somewhat from his reconstruction of
the history of these texts of Gardner's.  In several respects your own
views, as I know them from an early version of his _CAM_, are right and
Kelly's are wrong; in some respects I have reached slightly different
conclusions than either of you.  I dissent most strongly from Kelly's
reconstruction of Gardner's inner "psycho-dynamics" and his motives in
initiating others into Wicca: Kelly's conclusions *here* seem to me not
merely wrong, but even wrong-headed.

But scholarship is not just a matter of good judgement and sound
conclusions; one can be a good scholar in other respects even if one has
no judgement whatever and wouldn't know a valid argument if it jumped up
and bit one.  It is in these other respects, which I listed above, that I
regard Kelly as a good scholar.  Nor is a good scholar necessarily a
trustworthy person: scholarship is *not* like science, where the expense
of replicating experiments and the interlocking nature of the published
literature really does require that each scientist be trustworthy.  All
this I have said before in my recent posts, and said better than in this
one.  In the humanities, at least, the "default assumption" is that all
scholars are untrustworthy, and all previous scholarship unsound: one
tests everything for oneself in a way that is quite impossible in the
sciences.

The general public, of course, wants to buy reliable books, and it assumes
that scholarly works can be trusted.  No matter what working scholars do
to puncture this illusion, publishers and bookstores promote it, and the
public wants to have authorities and experts.  But the humanities do not
really have authorities and experts of this sort, and cannot have them.
If Kelly is a fraud when judged by these expectations, then pretty near
everyone who writes in the humanities is also a fraud. However, it is the
public's expectations that are mistaken and unreal- istic, since research
in the humanities does not yield the kind of hard knowledge that
scientific research can yield.  -- Robert

(Robert Mathiesen, SL500000@BROWNVM.BITNET)

-----

  From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen)
  Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca
  Subject: Re: A. Kelly IS an oathbreaker   Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995

In article <4b71h9$k9h@nntp3.news.primenet.com>, fatman@primenet.com (liz)
said:

[Some snipping in what follows]

I think I addressed many of your points already in my earlier answer to
you, and also in my conversation on this list with Don Frew.  No point in
repeating what was said clearly there, so I'll touch only on a few matters
.

I'll note at the outset that Don has convinced me that my efforts to make
sense of Kelly's behavior were misguided.  In short, I was -- I will be
frank, though it highlights my own error -- needlessly jumping through
hoops to explain away a situation that I as an outsider did not entirely
understand.  As a scholar myself, I am genuinely glad when someone like
Don persuades me I was in error, either in my supposed facts or in the
conclusions I drew on basis of these supposed facts.

>Next, thank you for allowing me to call Kelly what I choose to. In your
>original post you stated, "I am, therefore, inclined to wonder whether th
e
>label 'oath-breaker' is really appropriate.". In your later posts you hav
e
>since said that I could call him an oath breaker, while I don't need your
>permission, I thank you for the acknowledgement.

This one really puzzles me.  Why would you think that my words "I am
inclined to wonder, etc ..." forbid you or anyone else from calling Kelly
an oath-breaker?  They express a degree of doubt as to the soundness of
your conclusion, which is a *very* different thing from saying that you
should not state that conclusion.

Certainly I have no objection if you or anyone else makes a claim that
turns out to be false when examined.  Why should I?  If there are such

things as "rights," then it seems reasonable for errors to have their own
right to existence and expression.  Without them, we could never begin to
approach the truth.

Has the wrath which is evident in your every word kept you from reading my
own words accurately and carefully?  If so, then why go on talking? Surely
no dialogue is possible unless each listens to what the other actually
says.

>As for the "dime a dozen accusations" you claim that I have referred to,
let
>me clear up that I was speaking of the founder of a tradition and members
 of
>that tradition and other trads who have interacted with Kelly and made
>accusations of oath-breaking against Kelly. I take those seriously. What
I
>regret about it is that There appear to be so many valid accusations that
 they
>too can be valued at a dime a dozen. In fact I think that if you had all
of
>those dimes you could bury Kelly in them.

When I said that false accusations were a dime a dozen, I was not
specifically speaking of accusations against Kelly, but in general of
accusations against all kinds of persons throughout the course of history.

I wished to make a general point, as follows.

At Salem and Andover in 1692 many accusations were made against many
people, including two of my own distant relatives, by people whom any
impartial man or woman of *that time and place* would have been inclined
to respect and trust.  Victims of the alleged witchcraft even displayed in
public their presumed injuries, and did so in so convincing a fashion that
even now scholars are somewhat puzzled to account for all aspects of their
apparently sincere testimony.  Nevertheless, as you know, most -- not all,
in my opinion -- of these accusations were in fact false ones, though
perhaps many were sincere.

Neither the position of the witness, nor the witness's sincerity, is
enough to guarantee the truth of the testimony.  Nor is the number of
witnesses enough, nor the agreement between their testimonies.  All of
these criteria were met at Salem in 1692, and served to convict the
accused of "witchcraft" (which did not mean quite the same thing to the
Salem judges as it does to us).

>From this I deduce the need to mistrust accusations, and to look hard for
evidence that they are false, before one accepts them as true.  If this
counts as "blaming the victim," then so be it.  The "victims" at Salem
were not all shamming, but the explanation of their injuries was not
what they thought and said it was.  If someone back then had blamed
those particular victims sooner, the trials might have stopped sooner,
with fewer false convictions.

It still seems to me to be a good idea to do the same with accusations
against Kelly.  I did so.  Don answered me in ways that I found
persuasive, and I modified my doubts.  Was this not a good thing?

>You also stated that a scolar can be a terrible, immoral person doing all
>sorts of things ("embezzle", "cheat on taxes") and yet still be a good sc
olar
>producing valid work. My question to you then is this: how the hell can y
ou
>tell that the work is valid? In science the results can be dulplicated, b
ut
>this is social science, where dulplication is difficult under the best of
>circumstances. Studying oath boud trads makes it all the more difficult.
So,
>if a scolar lies frequently and badly in life, whta proof can be offered
that
>the habit of lying has not entered his work? This is a bit moot, Kelly ha
s
>lied in his work as has been demonstrated in other people's posts.

Your question here is a good one, but it is not as hard to answer as you
seem to think.  I thought I *had* answered it sufficiently in my earlier
post, but perhaps not.  Anyway, you are right, in this field one does not
have the honest witness of natural phenomena, nor the possibility of
replicating laboratory results.  Instead, one examines primary sources for
oneself as much as one can, and secondary sources also.  This you know.
What you seem not to realize is that the scholar *starts* by mistrusting
every last one of his primary sources, and uses every tool in his
scholar's tool-kit to challenge their plain evidence.  Hardly any source
turns out to be completely trustworthy once you check it out.

So one proceeds somewhat as a judge proceeds in a trial where it is
abundantly clear that every last witness is confused, and also
unconsciously or consciously lying.  In such a case the judge, too, tests
all the evidence by every tool in his judge's tool-kit, and gives the best
verdict he can -- in full and certain knowledge that at least some of his
verdicts over the years will be mistaken, that some innocent will be
punished while some guilty will go free.  And he'll never know which are
which, precisely.  Some of these mistakes may be rectified by the next
highest court on appeal, but an appeals court may also make new mistakes
of its own.  None of this means that we must not have courts, nor not try
to convict lawbreakers.

As with primary sources -- original documents --, so with secondary
sources -- other scholars --, only even more so.  One assumes that every
previous scholar is completely incompetent, entirely biased and wholly
illogical.  Wuth this as one's starting point, one tests every statement
as best one can, in hopes of sorting the wheat from the chaff.  Only after
this testing can one begin to half-way trust a few of one's secondary
sources.

Trust has to be earned, in scholarship as in life.  Scholarship focusses
on the specifics: NOT, "Can X be trusted in general," but "Can X be
trusted when he states Y."  We assume that no one can be trusted in
general, that wholly trustworthy people hardly exist, and even more rarely
write things down.  Sometimes, after testing, we find an exception: Yes, X
can be trusted in general.  More often, X can be trusted on point Y, but
not at all on point Z.

It would take too long to explain each of the tools in the scholar's
tool-kit.  I will say that none of them work quite as well as the tools in
a scientist's tool-kit, for they concern perverse humanity, not simple
inanimate nature.  So we never do get the kind of certainty that
scientists hope to obtain -- and even the scientists have certainty of a
provisional sort.

>To the disscussion of the contents of Gardner's library, an examination o
f the
>contents of that library as recorded by the original purchasers, Ripley's
,
>will show that none of the books that I listed in a previous post were
>in Gardner's library at the time of original purchase.  While Gadner may
have
>owned some or all of them, they are in no list of the library's contents.
>Further, Kelly wrote that these books are in the collection as it current
ly
>exists in Canada. He LIED. LIED  LIED LIED. He LIES. He lies in his
>scolarly work, this is poor scolarship.

As a general principle, a person who lies about X may nevertheless be
genuinely mistaken about Y.  Now, specifically, when I visited the
Jameses, Gardner's books were shelved in the same room as their own, and
there was a copy of _The White Goddess_ in that room when I was working
there.  When I was there, it was among the books that had not been
Gardner's, but the room was used for research by various people.  Can
*you* say with certainty that it might not have been misshelved with
Gardner's books in that same room on whatever day Kelly, or Kelly's
informant, looked for it?  I honestly do not see how you can be so certain
that Kelly lied here, and did not just mistake the case.

And I *do not even come close to seeing* how you can claim as a general
principle that a man who lies about one thing, or twenty things, is more
likely to be lying about the twenty-first thing than honestly mistaken.
This is the part of your argument that I *really* don't get.  It's almost
as if you are assuming that people come in two kinds: honest, trustworthy
folk and dishonest, untrustworthy ones.  In my own experience, almost
everyone is a mixture of these two kinds of behavior, and easily passes
from the one extreme to the other -- often without noticing that he is
doing so.  Truly honest people and truly dishonest people are, in my
experience, so rare as to be a negligible quantity in life.  The few I
have met stand quite outside the norms of their societies.

>I was unaware of the owners of that collection have been initiated. I can
not
>verify this information, but I thank you for it and will consider it as
>possible.

I do not know, and I hope I did not say, that the Jameses *are* initiated.

What I remember saying, and believe I know, is that they led me to think
they were initiated Gardnerians.  Please don't misrepresent me when you
check this out.

>A note on the legality of publishing the works/words and information on d
ead
>people without permission. This is also illegal. The estate of the indivi
dual
>is responsible for persuing court action. This is rarely done, and so as
an
>unenforced law it is easy to get away with publishing slanderous material
 and
>information and the works of dead people. Just a note, though, I DID ask
you
>not to make legal arguements as these are not legal matters. You cannot d
o
>this?? Or do you choose not too?

I thought I answered this one already.  I can speak of my own personal
morality, and tell you that I could not live with myself if I had done
what Kelly is said to have done (and what Don has persuaded me he really
has done).  And, as you noted, I can speak of legalities.  But if you will
grant me a terminological distinction between "morality" (which is
personal, and just for oneself) and "ethics" (which is general, and for
everyone), then I can say that the religious and magical traditions in
which I was raised did emphasize the pragmatic need for developing a
personal morality in line with one's calling in life, but did not have
*any ethical teaching whatever*.  My family lives under society's laws and
ethics much as cats live in houses that they did not build: quietly,
unobtrusively, and with an eye to our own interests, not necesarily the
interests of those who build and maintain the houses.  Even with respect
to other members of our family we behave somewhat like cats: each follows
his own path wherever it leads him or her, and develops his or her own
morality (which need not be like that of others in the family).

Since you asked for an explanation, you have one.  I expect that you will
not like it at all.  That's fine with me.

>As for the dissertation that Kelly wrote, it too is crap. I have a thirty
 page
>critique of it on my desk. That critique includes informaiton I consider
oath
>bound, so it is not availble on this format, or to non initiates. I also
have
>a short critique here. That I will reproduce several paragraphs of that h
ere:
>(n.b.: I have the author's permission to do this.)

I think I've already said several times that I have some substantial
criticisms of Kelly's conclusions -- see, in particular, my most recent
post in reply to Don Frew, where I say that I agree with many of his
criticisms.  (Don, I'll respond further to your most recent post as soon
as I can make the time.) But I also find things of value in his
dissertation, and -- to a lesser extent -- in his book.  I've already said
what these things are several times: in general, they are (1) his call for
outsiders to involve themselves as well as they can in the historical
problem of the origins and sources of what Gardner passed on to his
initiates; (2) his pointing these scholars at a number of relevant primary
sources, published and unpublished; and (3) his general indications about
methods of research.  These lay a good foundation for others to build on,
even if he himself has built on them badly.

More generally, almost nothing that anyone writes is pure "crap," as you
term it; and almost nothing is wholly free of that same "crap."  Again,
you loose me when you assume a sharp division between reliable and
unreliable writing.  I see a continuum, with almost nothing at either end,
and most in the middle.

I hope that this has helped you understand my views better, even though
they may not be to your taste at all.  I'll be happy to respond further is
something needs clearing up, but ultimately it seems we inhabit such
different worlds that we are not likely to agree much with one another.
There's probably no point in either of us trying to convince the other to
change.  -- Robert

(Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM.BITNET)

-----

   From: dhf3@aol.com (DHF3)     Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca
   Subject: Re: A. Kelly IS an oathbreaker    Date: 23 Dec 1995

To all following this thread, some points of information...

Robert wrote...
>As a general principle, a person who lies about X may nevertheless
>be genuinely mistaken about Y.  Now, specifically, when I visited the
>Jameses, Gardner's books were shelved in the same room as their
>own, and there was a copy of _The White Goddess_ in that room
>when I was working there.  When I was there, it was among the books
>that had not been Gardner's, but the room was used for research by
>various people.  Can *you* say with certainty that it might not have
>been misshelved with Gardner's books in that same room on whatever
>day Kelly, or Kelly's informant, looked for it?  I honestly do not see
>how you can be so certain that Kelly lied here, and did not just
>mistake the case.

Yes, the collection in Toronto is somewhat jumbled.  Yes there is a copy
of _the White Goddess_ in the James' library.  But Aidan never examined
the collection at the James' !  He only saw it at Ripley's !  I have
examined Ripley's' inventories both of what they sold to the James' and of
what they still possess, the combination of which is what he examined.
The only book by Robert Graves is _Claudius the God, vol. II_.  There was
NO copy of _The White Goddess in the Gardner collection.

Additionally, Aidan never mentioned that the collection at Ripley's
contained books acquired by Ripley's AFTER the purchase from Gardner's
estate!  This is clearly proven by the inventoried and actual presence in
the "Gardner collection" of books published AFTER Gardner's death, some as
recently as the 1970's!  Just because a book is in the collection does NOT
mean that it was in Gardner's library!

Additionally...
>I do not know, and I hope I did not say, that the Jameses *are* initiated
.
>What I remember saying, and believe I know, is that they led me to
>think they were initiated Gardnerians.  Please don't misrepresent me
>when you check this out.

Tamarra James is a Gardnerian 3rd Degree.  I am not certain about Richard,
but I believe he is as well.

Donald H. Frew

-----
-----
   From: ronjaffe@ix.netcom.com(Ron Jaffe)
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly and His Amazing Book
   Date: 27 Dec 1995 03:40:32 GMT

In <4bpbea$b3j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> albionpeg@aol.com (Albionpeg) writes
:

>i have read this book and thought it very interesting and perhaps one of
>the best things Llewellyn has published in recent years..though i do have
>my doubts about the validity of this guy's methods and his tendency to be
>rather conjectured in his thinking...
>also, if this ia serious book why was it published by one of the fluffies
t
>publishers in the business?   they weren't always so, and still
>occasionally put out something decent..but i won't take anything they
>publish as original, scholarly material, which is what Aidan is apparentl
y
>presenting his work as...
>blessed be
>albion

Yeah, it is definitely one of the more interesting books on Witchcraft but
unfortunately it is shrouded in controversy.  Kelly himself wasn't really
happy
with it as Llewellyn apparently wanted it to fit in more with their "appea
l to
the masses" category wheras Kelly wanted it more like a textbook - as many
 of
us did.  Kelly told me that Llewellyn didn't carry it on to a second print
ing
because of numerous threats of lawsuits by various Gardnerian groups.

If you really want to get in the middle of the controversy around this boo
k,
get Donald Frew's criticial analysis of Aidan's book - it was about 80+ pa
ges
when I got ahold of it. Unfortunately, Kelly does presuppose alot of thing
s
which makes for a nice smooth story about the origins of modern Witchcraft
, but
once you read past those, it only serves to open up more questions.
Fortunately, I've been able to fill in alot of holes by reading books from
Valiente, various biographies of Sanders and Gardner and of course Kelly's
stuff.  It's a fascinating puzzle, really.

I think the bottom line is this - many people are pissed at Kelly for
quoting so many names and dates but that's exactly what Gardner did -
one of the reasons his coven split in 1957 was because Doreen and
several others in the coven didn't like Gerald's enthusiasm with the
media. Gardnerians are upset that Kelly revealed the BOSs, but read
High Magic's Aid and Witchcraft Today - there has already been so much
published that I don't see what difference it makes.  Then there's Alex
Sanders...

Even Kellys latest revisions to "Inventing Witchcraft" have some new
surprises. I think he likes the attention.

Blessed Be.

Ron Jaffe
ronjaffe@ix.netcom.com
-----

   From: dhf3@aol.com (DHF3)   Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly and His Amazing Book      Date: 27 Dec 1995

Ron Jaffe wrote...

>Yeah, it [Crafting the Art of Magic] is definitely one of the more
>interesting books on Witchcraft but unfortunately it is shrouded in
>controversy.  Kelly himself wasn't really happy with it as Llewellyn
>apparently wanted it to fit in more with their "appeal to the masses"
>category wheras Kelly wanted it more like a textbook - as many of
>us did.

Aidan claimed in Gnosis magazine (#22, Winter 1992) that Llewellyn
would not let him publish the academic book he wanted.  Nancy J.
Mostad, Acquisitions and Development Manager for Llewellyn
Publications responded in the following issue (#23, Spring 1992) that
"it was not suggested that he leave anything out of the book that might
not be 'palatable for the general reader', since such technical material
(warts and all) could have appeared in an appendix if it was not suited
to the main body of the book.  In this case, the author [Kelly] did not
elect this option."

>Kelly told me that Llewellyn didn't carry it on to a second printing
>because of numerous threats of lawsuits by various Gardnerian
>groups.

Once again, according to Mostad the reasons for not doing a second
printing were 1) the first printing sold poorly, and 2) the manuscript for
volume 2 was very late and did not appear to be forthcoming.  There
was never any question of a lawsuit, since most of Aidan's revealing of
confidential info (i.e. mundane names and home addresses) took place
in the disks he distributed on his own, not in Llewellyn's book.  No
"Gardnerian groups" were ever in a position to sue Llewelyn over
_Crafting the Art of Magic_.

>If you really want to get in the middle of the controversy around this
>book, get Donald Frew's criticial analysis of Aidan's book - it was
>about 80+ pages when I got ahold of it.

Thanks for the plug.  When I wrote that review, I did not yet have
access to the source materials and so confined myself to 1) internal
contradictions in the book, and 2) claims about occultism and Paganism
that are contradicted by independent scholarship.  For an example of
#1: on page 27 Aidan states *both* that Gardner was privately educated
by a governess and never went to public school *and* that Gardner's
"sexual addiction ... to being whipped ... was forced upon him, as it
was on most Englishmen of his generation, by the English educational
system."

I have since had access to Gardner's papers and library, including the
BAM.  These source documents make it abundantly clear that Gardner's story
of joining a Craft coven is true.  Furthermore, they directly contradict
Aidan on many points.  Contrary to Aidan's bizarre claims about "Gardner's
alleged "sexual addiction ... to being whipped", the earliest versions of
the texts prove that Gardner *reduced* the amount of scourging in the
Craft rituals he received before passing them on to his initiates!  I plan
to cover all of this material and more in my own book on the origins of
the modern Craft movement, currently in preparation.

>I think the bottom line is this - many people are pissed at Kelly for
>quoting so many names and dates but that's exactly what Gardner
>did - one of the reasons his coven split in 1957 was because Doreen
>and several others in the coven didn't like Gerald's enthusiasm with
>the media.

This is not a fair comparison.  Aidan Kelly published the mundane
names and home addresses of closeted Witches.  Gerald Gardner
attracted so much media attention *to himself* that those around him
were in danger of being exposed.  There is a BIG difference!

>Gardnerians are upset that Kelly revealed the BOSs, but read
>High Magic's Aid and Witchcraft Today - there has already been so
>much published that I don't see what difference it makes.

This is not true.  Aidan himself sent me a copy of a letter from Gardner
to Mr. B--- includes the following passage, apparently in reference to
_High Magic's Aid_ (Note: In a few places the combination of handwriting
and many xeroxings make the text difficult to render):

"Actually, I wanted to write about a witch & what she'd told me, & she
wouldn't let me tell anything about Witchcraft, but I said why not let me
write ---- to --- ---- the Witch's point of view.  You are always
persecuted & abused & ---- -----.

So she said I might if I didn't give any Witch's magic, & it must only be
as fiction.  So, as I had to give some magic, I simply copied it from
Jewish Ritual Magic, chiefly "The Key of Salomon the King".

It was thought that King Salomon could command the spirits and make
them work for him.  & if you knew these words & sigils you could do the
same.  This Key is usuly [sic] in Latin or Hebrew, but there is an English
translation by MacGregor Mathers.  But personaly [sic] I don't believe
that it works.  It's all very dificult [sic] & complicated. & the Witch ..
.
[line missing]"

This letter demonstrates several points: 1) Gardner was not dyslexic,
2) High Magic's Aid may not be taken as straight Witch practice, as Kelly
has done when using it to "reconstruct" the Book of Shadows, 3) Gardner
apparently did not himself practice KoS workings after deciding that he
didn't believe they worked, and 4) Gardner freely admitted copying ritual
material from the Key of Solomon.  Why did Kelly spend so many
chapters proving by deduction what he could have proved with a single
page?  Why isn't this letter even mentioned in Kelly's book?  The only
reason that I can think of is that it suits Aidan's purposes to lead the
reader to believe that Gardner concealed the KoS origins of some of the
rituals; a deceit seemingly undiscovered until Aidan's expose'.  In fact,
Aidan knew from the start that Gardner had taken texts from the Key of
Solomon, but by implying that Gardner was hiding the truth about these
Craft origins he can lull the reader into accepting that Gardner was lying
when he made other claims. The material in _High Magic's Aid_ is
FICTION.  It cannot be assumed that just because something is in a
NOVEL by Gardner that it is therefore part of the Gardnerian Book of
Shadows.

I am glad that Ron and others are being provoked to do more research
by Aidan's book.  But this limited utility to _Crafting the Art of Magic_
does not mean that it is worth much more than the paper on which it is
printed.  I cannot say this strongly enough:  NOTHING in Aidan's book
can be trusted without independent corroboration!  This being the case,
his analysis is much more than suspect.

Donald H. Frew
-----

   From: dhf3@aol.com (DHF3)  Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan
   Subject: Re: Aidan Kelly and His Amazing Book     Date: 28 Dec 1995

Dear Michael [Thorn of COG, asking about access to Frew's book], et al.

I am currently debating making my review/critique of Aidan's book
available in some kind of electronic format.  Two things are stopping me:
1) There are about 20 pages of illustrations that would be difficult (for
me) to reporduce, and 2) When I wrote the review, I focused only on
internal contradictions in Aidan's book and places where Aidan's
arguements were contradicted by prevailing scholarship in such fields
as folklore, religion, history, anthropology, etc.

Since that time, I have been researching my own book on the origins of
the modern Craft movement.  In the process I have gained access to
many primary sources.  The result has been the discovery of a true
antiquity to Traditional Craft (some 1700 years, to be precise), and the
discovery that Aidan GROSSLY misquoted and distorted many of his
texts.  I consequently feel that my original review is somewhat
inadequate, as it does not address many serious failings in Aidan's
work, and would prefer to wait and present all of my research and
discoveries as a whole in the completed book.

Even so, I am considering making the review available in some sort of
updated form and will let you know if this happens.  In the meantime,
I will continue to post here when well-meaning, but ill-informed,
statements are made that are contradicted by material I have
uncovered.

Thanks for your interest and patience.

Blessed Be,  Don

---EOF kelly.txt ---