<\/p>\n
Don Frew<\/a> <\/span>made the third Theurgicon<\/a> <\/p>\n Frew’s presentation made extensive He has presented this material at But if Gardner did not make it up, Frew’s answer is that Gardnerian This is a difficult case to make, Frew’s presentation was dense, and Gardnerianism’s three degree system In addition, as I think I mentioned Frew also presented a possible avenue Did he prove it? <\/span>Again, I think proof in such matters is He did show it is more reasonable While not proof, when stacked up Frew emphasized a final point of In addition, frequent warnings not Concluding Thoughts<\/b><\/p>\n I am a Pagan because for me the Before the destruction of thousands If there is also a connection <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Don Frew made the third Theurgicon presentation, on “Gardnerian Wica as Theurgic Ascent.” Frew’s use of the single ‘c’ was deliberate, as the coven from which Gardner learned spelled the word with a single ‘c.’ It also helps remind is that what we have today is not exactly what Gardner learned, a point that is important…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[106,105,108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pagan-culture","category-pagan-spirituality","category-spirituality"],"yoast_head":"\n
\npresentation, on “Gardnerian Wica as Theurgic Ascent.” <\/span>Frew’s use of the single ‘c’ was
\ndeliberate, as the coven from which Gardner learned spelled the word with a
\nsingle ‘c.’ It also helps remind is that what we have today is not exactly what
\nGardner learned, a point that is important in Frew’s argument. <\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nuse of both work on Neoplatonism and research on modern craft origins
\nespecially by himself and Philip Heselton<\/a>. As some may know, Frew has argued for some years that textual and testimonial
\nevidence from Gardner’s files, other surviving sources, including people who
\nworked with Gardner, as well as the discovery of other Witchcraft lines making
\nuse of the same core material but without a Gardnerian connection, indicates
\nthat Gardner had told the truth, there was a working group that initiated him
\ninto Wica. <\/span>Among the resources he
\nhas drawn on are three complete Books of Shadows, apparently compiled at
\ndifferent times, Gardner’s Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical, over 500 pages of
\ncorrespondence, and more. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nevery opportunity during Pantheacons, but is prevented from actually publishing
\nsome of the most convincing material because of agreements he made with those
\nwho possess it. <\/span>Adopting a liberal
\ninterpretation of that agreement, Frew shows pictures of key texts during his
\npresentations. <\/span>Sadly, other
\nmaterial is oath bound, and while I have seen it, I grant that until it becomes
\npublic it can play no role in making any kind of case on the origins of modern
\nCraft. To say this is frustrating is an understatement. <\/span>But even without it, the evidence is
\npretty strong that Gardner was taught a tradition that preceded him. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nwhere did the basic material he learned originate? Gardner thought the craft
\nfit Margaret Murray’s description of a surviving Witch cult with ancient
\nEuropean, but not Classical, roots.
\n<\/span>In Frew’s perspective, Gardner was a truthful reporter, but not necessarily
\nvery good at interpreting what he learned. <\/span>But if Gardnerian Wicca (two ‘c’s) did not have origins in a
\nMurryite survival, where did it come from?<\/p>\n
\nand related Wiccan traditions have their deepest origins in late Classical
\nNeoplatonism, especially in theurgy as taught by Iamblichus and others of his
\nschool.<\/p>\n
\nand at most it will probably always be circumstantial. <\/span>After all, Pagan practice in any
\npublicly verifiable form was not only illegal, it was likely punished by death,
\nfor over a thousand years. <\/span>So it
\nseems to me tat all one can do when investigating origins is try and determine
\nthe most likely story.<\/p>\n
\ntoo detailed to describe here (go to Pantheacon! Maybe he’ll write up something
\nI can present.) <\/span>So I will pass on
\na few of the most suggestive bits of evidence he gave. <\/span>Most explicit is Gardner’s statement
\nthat the description of the Gods and myth presented by the Roman Sallustius was
\na perfect description of Witch beliefs. (Meaning of Witchcraft<\/i>, 186-9, 1959 edition) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nmakes symbolic sense within a Neoplatonic context. <\/span>The First Degree is interpreted as focusing on the elemental
\nkings and matter, the Second Degree on the Daimones and Anima Mundi, and the
\nThird ideally on the One. <\/p>\n
\nonce before in this blog, the Dryghton blessing<\/a> said at traditional circles has no resemblance at all to folkloric theories of
\nPagan reconstruction common at the time Gardner lived. The notion of a One was regarded as too “advanced.” <\/span>Nor does it fit Margaret Murray’s
\ntheories of Witchcraft being a survival from early Celtic times, or even
\nearlier. <\/span>But this blessings
\nperfectly fits a Neoplatonic model of spiritual reality. <\/span>The Dryghton is the One, Goddess and
\nGod are the realm of Mind, <\/span>the
\nMighty Ones are the daimones in the realm of soul, and the elemental kings are
\nwithin the realm of matter. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nof transmission for Neoplatonic theurgy from the last Pagan intellectual center
\nin Harran to Europe. <\/span>He said his
\nresearch had found a pretty clear line of descent not in terms of practicing
\ngroups initiating one another, but rather in the passing on of teachings that
\npeople would occasionally seek to put into practice.<\/p>\n
\nimpossible. <\/span>But he has
\naccomplished something pretty impressive in my view. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nto believe that Gardner told the truth than that he did not, and that the basic
\nconcepts he described, and that exist in public and not-public teachings are in
\nclose accord with important Neoplatonic outlooks, and that there are
\nfascinating similarities between Gardnerian Craft and important tenets of
\nTheurgy, including some that so far as I know make no sense otherwise.<\/p>\n
\nagainst the other explanations that have emerged so far they seem
\nweightier. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nimportance to contemporary Pagans that may [rove vital in evaluating his
\nthesis. <\/span>As has already been
\ndiscussed on this blog, over the centuries Neoplatonism has taken on a world
\ndenying tone. <\/span>He argued this was
\nlargely if not entirely due to translations and exegesis by Christians. <\/span>I remain concerned about Porphyry’s<\/a> interpretation of Plotinus which Apulieus suggests says more
\nabout Porphyry than Plotinus.
\n<\/span>Maybe. <\/span>Plotinus’s attacks
\non the Gnostics suggests that unlike them he did not regard the world as a bad
\nplace. <\/span>Further, Iamblichus<\/a>, <\/span> <\/span>who unlike Plotinus<\/a> advocated Theurgy, argued that there was no deep gap between the “levels” of
\nreality, from the One to us. <\/span>This
\nwas called the “Law of Mean Terms,”
\n<\/span>and I believe was part of his reasoning for practicing theurgy. <\/span>I simply pass on the argument being not
\nso well versed in these matters.<\/p>\n
\nto be led astray by the body, once we see the actual examples these
\nphilosophers gave, seem rather reasonable and even mundane rather than body
\nhating. <\/span>Avoid drunkenness,
\nlicentiousness, and greed. <\/span>To
\navoid that hardly says the flesh is bad, and there are many teachings that
\nexplicitly deny that kind of interpretation.<\/p>\n
\nGods come. <\/span>Period. <\/span>That is why the mutterings of skeptics
\nand the arrogant certainty of the Dawkinses and others in our time simply do
\nnot interest me. <\/span>Philosophy
\nneither converted me not maintains my identification with this path. <\/span>That said, I like ideas and am
\nfascinated with our attempts over the ages to make workable road maps of a
\nreality that exceeds our powers of reason and thought. <\/span>But I am not deeply read on
\nNeoplatonism, and hope to learn from the discussions these posts have
\nencouraged.<\/p>\n
\nof years of study and practice by the annihilation of so much ancient knowledge
\nby monopolistic monotheists in alliance with mobs and despotism, the
\nNeoplatonists had become the dominant school to try and understand such a world
\nwhile engaging in the common ritual practices of the day. <\/span>As such we can learn from them once we
\nget a sense of their thinking and make allowances for the far less complete
\nknowledge of the physical world at that time. <\/span>My own attitude is to take what makes sense and leave the
\nrest – which is a kind of description of the rise of Neopaganism in
\ngeneral. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nbetween those times so long ago and what initially came down to us in England
\nin the 50s, so much the better!
\n<\/span>But I think we will never know at least until the to me unnecessary
\nsecrecy within the Gardnerian tradition is ended, which is unlikely anytime
\nsoon, and perhaps the city of Harran is excavated. I will not break my oath and
\nneither will Don Frew or most others.
\n<\/span>It will take a sea change in the hearts of many Gardnerians and other
\nBTW witches to end the secrecy on these matters. <\/span>Even then the connections will be speculative, but perhaps
\nmuch less so.<\/p>\n