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

To: alt.traditional.witchcraft,alt.pagan,alt.witchcraft,alt.religion.wicca
From: raven@solaria.sol.net (Raven)
Subject: Re: Post-Christian Wiccans and Neuvoreligious Authority
Date: 2 Jan 2004 00:46:44 -0800

"t_naismith"  wrote in message :
> "Raven J. Singleton" wrote:
>> "t_naismith" wrote:
>>> "Raven J. Singleton" wrote:
>>>> "Aetyr" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> But even groups formed in response to such literary works --
>>>> for instance, covens taking Leland's ARADIA as their "gospel" --
>>>> could be unlike what Murray described.  Especially if they
>>>> mixed in contemporary ceremonial-magic practices out of
>>>> Co-Masonry, Golden Dawn and spinoffs, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the term "Classical Wicca" is used to *mean* "Gardnerian
>>>>>> and/or Alexandrian", while "British Traditional Wicca" (or
>>>>>> B.T.*Witchcraft*) is used to mean those two and a few other
>>>>>> closely related trads.
>>>>>
>>>>> BT withcraft, has nothing to do with wicca, except for the bits
>>>>> borrowed off of them.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you are unaware that the term "British Traditional
>>>> Witchcraft" is, just like the term "British Traditional Wicca",
>>>> used to refer to the two "Classical" Wiccan trads (Gardnerian
>>>> & Alexandrian), plus a few closely related trads.  That is,
>>>> the two terms are used to refer to the same groups; the two
>>>> terms are used as synonyms; they are used as two ways of
>>>> saying *the same thing*; as demonstrated by the following:
>
> "Closely related"?  You _are_ reaching, ravin'!

"BTW" groups Gardnerian & Alexandrian (the two "Classical" trads)
together with the Mohsian trad, Central Valley Wicca (Kingstone,
Majestic, Silver Crescent), Blue Star, Georgian, etc.; these are
"closely related" in their coven structures, ritual invocations,
oaths, and so forth -- this is *not* a suggestion that their members
are *physically* related, in case that's how you took it, TN.

If you don't like the links I provided to verify this usage of BTW, try:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gardnerian+mohsian+british-traditional&num=100
(shortened to fit within 80 characters; you can add further search terms).

> ...from your own link:
>>>  (*Gardnerian* site): [...]
> 
> "One can dedicate themselves to the Old Gods as a Pagan in a
> self-dedication ritual or in a dedication ritual performed by
> a group or tradition. Joining a coven or a tradition is not
> necessary and some do choose a solitary path."
> ...
> "An initiation gives one membership into a specific order or
> tradition and therefore must be performed by another person
> who is already a qualified member of that tradition. In BTW,
> initiation is into the Priesthood of the Old Religion and into
> a spiritual family that spans the ages and the continents."

Yes, this is among the groups I mentioned that do not accept entry by
self-initiation as valid.  As I keep telling you, some Wiccans do accept
it and some don't.[*]  It's not a case of one single position being held
universally by all Wiccans; not even all initiated "Classical" Wiccans.

Valiente was initiated by Gardner, was his High Priestess, and wrote
the finished version of the Gardnerian BOS; Buckland was initiated by
Gardner's HPS; the Farrars were initiated by Alex and Maxine Sanders.
The lineage you value so highly doesn't *get* better than that -- yet
these are among the Wiccans who *do* accept self-initiation to Wicca.

[*] For two examples (which you did see and respond to, TN):

"This is a matter on which the various traditions differ.  Some
recognize self-initiation as valid, and others do not.  Some Wiccans
can honestly say '***My tradition*** does not recognize self-initiation
as valid.'  But this does not speak for all Wicca."
--  12/14/2003

"I suggested as a less dogmatic claim that some Wiccans accept self-
initiation as valid (within Wicca), while other Wiccans do not; that is,
there is not one unified opinion about it that all Wiccans agree to."
--  12/25/2003

>>>> Now you might, like TN, insist that this is not the *proper* and
>>>> *correct* usage, and that you yourself use the term "British
>>>> Traditional Witchcraft" to refer to something else instead.
>>>> You are certainly entitled to do so.
> > >>
> 
> Prior to Gardner, "British Traditional Witchcraft" was called "British
> Traditional Witchcraft" and not called 'wicca'.

I eagerly await your presenting any documentation to support this.

Where -- prior to Gardner -- was the phrase "British Traditional Witchcraft"
(capitalized as referring to a group, or even a group of groups) used at all?

As contrasted to the lowercased "British traditional witchcraft", that is?

Even Gardner's witchcraft-religion wasn't called "Wicca" at first, but
rather "witchcraft"; he referred to some people practicing it as "the Wica".

Valiente *still* prefers to call the religion something other than "Wicca";
her books about it, like Gardner's, refer to it in titles as "Witchcraft".

As she points out, the word "Wicca" means "a male witch", not "witchcraft",
so it's a solecism when used to name what she also calls "the Old Religion":




> Any personal preferences implied are red herrings and have nothing to do
> with the sequence of actual usage.  Since ravin' likes posting links to
> diversions, maybe he can post one where a member of 'British Traditional
> Witchcraft' had referred to their practice as "wicca" prior to, say, 1949?

If you can post *any links at all* existing prior to 1949, TN.

More seriously, please show me any text from prior to 1949, referring to
"British Traditional Witchcraft" (capitalized as a group name) at all.

But even "Wicca" wasn't called "Wicca" prior to 1949; therefore, even
"British Traditional Wicca" wasn't called "British Traditional Wicca", so
by your logic, that isn't the same as "British Traditional Wicca", either.

>>>> You may even argue that *many* people use "British Traditional
>>>> Witchcraft" to refer to other things.  They are also certainly
>>>> entitled to do so.
>>>>
>>>> They, and you, *could* also use "British Traditional Witchcraft"
>>>> to label groups and practices that predate Wicca, or that developed
>>>> independently, but that are in some sense "traditions" of "witchcraft"
>>>> in Britain.
> 
> Mislabeling other "traditions of witchcraft" by calling them 'wicca'
> is revisionism, ravin' J.

Mischarging my mention of a term's usage by Wiccans, as though it were a usage
*I* originated, is false attribution, TN.  Misreading that usage of "British
Traditional Witchcraft", in reference to certain groups within Wicca, as
being a usage of "Wicca" in reference to "other 'traditions of witchcraft'",
is simple illogic.  You have managed to commit both errors simultaneously.

With regard to the first of your two errors there, I provided several cites
(and sites) showing that usage by others.  It isn't something I originated.

With regard to the second of your two errors there, read this very slowly:
this usage of the B.T.Witchcraft term is calling *Wicca* a kind (or subset)
of *witchcraft*; it is *not* calling all other types of witchcraft "Wicca".

> You stated elsewhere that you've argued against such 'ancient wicca'
> claims.

Yes.  Gardner's compilation (particularly as edited by Valiente) dates
back to the middle of the 20th century.  It makes *use* of older material
such as Leland's ARADIA (from the late 19th century) and bits and pieces
from texts or pictures of classical-era rituals, along with contemporary
occultist traditions -- but the whole assemblage, which is called "Wicca",
is not an ancient religion, let alone *the* "Old Religion".  It isn't even
the "Old Religion" of just Britain, especially considering how much of it
derives from descriptions of religions in Italy or the Middle East.

In fact, once all the BOS text from such sources is accounted for, there's
little left to have come from any contemporary witch-coven.  Even the name
"Book of Shadows" seems to be from an article on magic in Asia (not by GBG),
in the same magazine issue that advertised GBG's first book -- which makes
it highly unlikely that any pre-Gardnerian FamTrad had old Books of Shadows.

I think it would be very interesting to compare the rituals of the early-20c
"Murrayite" covens, such as Pennethorne Hughes mentions being in at Oxford
in 1928, to those of the New Forest coven (unfiltered through Gardner), but
as yet I've seen no reliable source detailing either one.  Any debate over
whether Wicca owes more to Murray than her quasi-historical premise (or her
introduction to Gardner's WITCHCRAFT TODAY) should wait for such evidence.

> Which time were you lying; then or now?

Neither.  You merely persist in erring, and in blaming your errors on me.