|
|
In their attempts to dissociate themselves from Satanism, Wiccans have
tended to distort their own history. Wicca and Satanism are indeed
very
distinct religious categories. But there are some intimate historical
ties
between the two, as even some Wiccan scholars are finally starting
to
admit. See, for example, Aidan Kelly's book Crafting the Art of Magic
(pp.21-22, 25-26, and 176).
Wicca is not "the Old Religion", though it does draw inspiration from
various old religions. Wicca as we now know it is derived from 19th-century
occult philosophy -- including literary Satanic philosophy, among others
--
projected onto a non-Christian Goddess and God, plus some de-Christianized
Golden Dawn style ceremonial magick, plus assorted turn-of-the-century
British folklore, more recently re-shaped by neo-Pagan scholarship
and by
modern feminist and ecological concerns. At least several different
sides
of Wicca's convoluted family tree can be traced to 19th-century literary
Satanism, some forms of which had more in common with present-day Wicca
than with present-day Satanism.
The prime example of literary Satanism that strongly influenced Wicca,
especially feminist Wicca, is the book La Sorciere by the 19th-century
French historian Jules Michelet (published in English by Citadel Press
under the title Satanism and Witchcraft). Michelet's ideas, as paraphrased
by feminist writers such as Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
in their
booklet Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers (Feminist
Press, 1973), have played an important role today's women's health
movement. (At least Ehrenreich and English were honest enough to list
Michelet in their bibliography.) See especially Michelet's introduction.
Michelet was, as far as I know, the literary origin of today's feminist
image of the Witch as a healer. Among other things, he theorized that
the
witchhunts were used by the emerging male medical profession to wipe
out
their peasant female competition.
According to Jeffrey B. Russell in A History of Witchcraft, pre-feminist
classical Wicca also drew lots of inspiration indirectly from Michelet.
Michelet was a major source of inspiration to Margaret Murray, Charles
G.
Leland, and Sir James Frazer, whom most knowledgeable Wiccans do recognize
as influential. (Russell points this out, yet neglects to inform the
reader
that Michelet's book is full of passionate, sympathetic depictions
of Satan
as well as of the medieval witches. Russell too perpetuates the false
counter-myth that Wicca Has Nothing To Do With Satanism.)
I'll leave it to folks more scholarly than myself to debate just how
indebted Murray and Leland were to Michelet. In any case, the Italian
witch
mythology Leland presented in Aradia: Gospel of the Witches (originally
published 1899), one of Wicca's major sources, contains some
diabolical-witchcraft elements of its own. The very first paragraph
reads:
Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer, the
god of the Sun
and of the Moon, the god of Light, who was
so proud of his
beauty, and who for his pride was driven from
Paradise.
Wiccans usually argue that "Lucifer" is not the Christian Devil but
is just
"the god of the Sun and of the Moon". (I too distinguish between Satan
and
Lucifer, as do many occultists.) Yet the statement that Lucifer was
"driven
from Paradise" for his "pride" is clearly a reference to Christianity's
Devil myth. Aradia contains a mix of mythologies.
Wiccans are correct to say that their Horned God is not Satan. But it
isn't
historically true that the Christian image of Satan is a re-interpretation
of the Wiccan God. On the contrary, the modern Wiccan concept of the
Horned
God has its literary origin in a Paganized re-interpretation of medieval
Christian Devil imagery (as in Margaret Murray's and earlier writings).
It's true that medieval Christian Devil imagery, in turn, incorporates
distorted versions of many ancient Gods (not all of whom were Horned,
e.g.
the trident comes from Poseidon/Neptune). But the Wiccan image of its
Horned God is not a direct continuation of any ancient religion, and
at
least one key aspect does come from no source other than the medieval
Christian Devil concept as manifest in the witchhunts. The idea of
a Horned
God associated specifically with witchcraft is derived from the Christian
witchhunts, and from no previous source. In pre-Christian European
religion, there were Goddesses associated with witchcraft, e.g. Hecate;
but
Pan and other horned male Gods were not associated with witchcraft,
as far
as I know. Much of Wicca's self-image is based on the Paganized
re-interpretation of alleged Devil-worship, rather than on actual ancient
religion. Much of Wicca's terminology and imagery, e.g. the words "witch",
"coven", and "sabbat", are used because of the Wiccan myth that Wicca
is
the survival of an underground medieval religion that was the target
of the
witchhunts. (Regardless of the linguistic origin of the words themselves,
this constellation of terms comes from the witchhunts.) The related
idea
that modern Wiccans too are in continual danger of being confused with
Satanists is at least partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Far fewer
people
would confuse modern Wicca with Satanism if Wicca didn't use so many
witchhunt-derived words and other trappings popularly associated with
diabolical witchcraft.
My point here is not that Wiccans shouldn't use the words "witch", "coven",
and "sabbat". My point is that if they do use these and other
diabolical-witchcraft trappings, they should accept responsibility
for the
consequences. For example, when explaining that Wicca Is Not Satanism,
they
should acknowledge the main real reason for the confusion: that modern
Wiccans have chosen to identify with the victims of European witchhunts
and
have chosen their terminology accordingly. Wiccans certainly should
not
blame Satanists for Wicca's own public-relations difficulties, as some
Wiccans do. It also bothers me when Wiccans, in an attempt to distance
themselves from Satanism, perpetuate popular misconceptions about Satanism,
e.g. saying "We're not Satanists!" in a tone which implies you think
Satanists are monsters, or saying "We're not Satanists!" in the same
breath
as saying "We don't sacrifice babies." (The latter point can be made
separately and is an obvious corollary of the Wiccan Rede and/or the
Threefold Law.)
Back to Wicca's history. Besides Murray, Leland, and other writers on
witchcraft, another of Wicca's main sources is Aleister Crowley. Many
knowledgeable Wiccans (e.g. the Farrars and Doreen Valiente) do realize
that Gardner's rituals were heavily based on Crowley's rituals, though
they
tend to overstate the "Crowley was not a Satanist" disclaimer.
Crowley was not a Satanist per se, but he definitely was into Satanic
symbolism, in addition to the zillion other things he was into. In
some
defensive neo-Pagan writings (e.g. the Church of All Worlds booklet
"Witchcraft, Satanism, and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What"),
it is
claimed that Crowley was neither a Satanist nor a Pagan but was just
into
Judaeo-Christian ceremonial magick. In fact, Crowley was very eclectic.
Even Golden Dawn ceremonial magick included not only Qabalah and the
medieval Christian grimoires, but also Egyptian deities, Greek deities,
and
Yoga. Crowley emphasized the Egyptian elements, downplayed the Christian
elements, and added plenty of other things to the mix, including Satanic
imagery galore (such as his invocation of Satan in Liber Samekh, not
to
mention his constant references to himself as "the Beast 666"). Some
will
insist that Crowley's Satanic symbolism was merely a joke; but Crowley's
attitudes were well within the 19th-century Satanic literary tradition.
(In
most of the more sophisticated forms of Satanism, the name "Satan"
is
understood in an ironic sense.) Others will explain that most of Crowley's
Satanic symbolism can be re-interpreted in Pagan terms, but this too
is
true of many forms of Satanism.
There's also a possibility that Wicca borrowed ideas from writings about
actual Satanists living in the late-19th or early-20th century. In
Crafting
the Art of Magic, Aidan Kelly says Gerald Gardner drew key concepts
from
the description of Ozark folk witchcraft, including folk Satanism,
in the
1947 book Ozark Superstition by Vance Randolph. I'll admit that Kelly's
conclusions have been challenged by other historically-knowledgeable
Wiccans.
Of course, if Gardner was influenced by Randolph's account, Gardner
would
probably have assumed that the Satanic folk witches were "really" Pagans
whom Randolph misrepresented as Satanists. But Gardner's assumption
wouldn't necessarily have been correct. An unlettered folk-witch would
be
far more likely to be either (1) a Satanist or (2) a devout though
unorthodox Christian than to have preserved an ancient Pagan religion
intact. Various Pagan customs have certainly survived, but this is
very
different from the intact survival of a Pagan religion, for which there
is
very little evidence. (For a critique of alleged evidence for Pagan
survival, see A Razor for a Goat by Elliot Rose. Regarding a possible
medieval witch-cult very different from what Murray hypothesized, see
The
Night Battles by Carlo Ginzburg. Regarding contemporary hereditary
witches,
many of whom are Christian, see Bluenose Magic by Helen Creighton.
For an
example of a decidedly non-Pagan grimoire that is very popular among
European folk witches today, see The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses,
available in some botanicas.)
Some forms of Wicca may have been influenced by Satanists more directly
than via Murray, Leland, Crowley, Ehrenreich/English, and possibly
Randolph. Two possible examples:
(1) Historically-knowledgeable Wiccans have debated what role, if any,
was
played in the development of modern Wiccan by a 19th-century English
farm
laborer named George Pickingill who was reputed to be a witch. Aidan
Kelly,
who does not believe Pickingill contributed anything to Wicca, describes
Pickingill as "a garden-variety folk-magic witch and a home-grown
Satanist." The assertion that Pickingill did play a major role was
originally made by "Lugh" in a newsletter called The Wiccan in 1974.
"Lugh", who claimed to be a hereditary witch, described Pickingill
as "the
world's greatest living authority on Witchcraft, Satanism, and Black
Magic"
(quoted by Doreen Valiente in Rebirth of Witchcraft).
(2) Starhawk was initiated by Victor Anderson, who once belonged to
a coven
whose form of witchcraft included a form of "literature-based Satanism"
(or
at least a religion closely akin to "literature-based Satanism"); or
so
says Kelly, based on research by Valerie Voigt.
Whether or not Kelly is correct about Victor Anderson, and whether or
not
Pickingill had anything to do with Wicca, it shouldn't be considered
unlikely that some traditions of Wicca originated as forms of Satanism
and
then gradually grew away from Satanism. To this day, there are occultists
who start out as Satanists and eventually become Wiccans or other types
of
neo-Pagans. It would be very odd if such people's understanding of
Wicca
was not at all influenced by their previous experience with Satanism.
Theistic forms of Satanism have a natural tendency to give birth to
new,
non-Satanic religions. If you reject Christian theology (as nearly
all
intelligent Satanists do), but if you nonetheless venerate Satan as
a real
being or force (not just a symbol as in LaVey Satanism), then the question
inevitably arises: Who and what is "Satan"? Different forms of Satanism
have different answers to this question. One of the easier answers
is to
re-interpret Satan as a pre-Christian deity, usually either Set or
Pan.
However, once you equate Satan with a specific ancient deity, you have
taken the first step away from Satanism. You are no longer venerating
Satan
per se; you are now venerating a Pagan deity with Satanic overtones.
And
then, once you develop your Paganized belief system further, the Satanic
overtones will eventually seem less and less important. Such has apparently
been the case with the Temple of Set, an offshoot of LaVey's Church
of
Satan. (Setians disagree on whether to call themselves "Satanists".)
It
seems not at all unlikely that some forms of Wicca, with all its
diabolical-witchcraft trappings, would have a similar origin. A group
of
theistic Satanists who equated Satan with Pan, as some Satanists do,
would
very likely tend to evolve in a Wicca-like direction.
More about Wicca's diabolical-witchcraft trappings. Wicca's self-image
is
based on the records of witchhunts, re-interpreting the alleged activities
of accused diabolical witches as the worship of a Pagan "Horned God".
Wicca
thus makes a new use of the same source material that Satanists have
been
using for centuries.
An interesting question is: Why reconstruct an "Old Religion" this way,
rather than just going back to the records of actual old religions?
Other
forms of neo-Paganism, e.g. Asatru and neo-Druidism, which do base
themselves more on what's known about actual ancient religions, are
far
less likely than Wicca to be confused with Satanism by outsiders. Why
do
Wiccans insist on using words like "witch" and "coven" when they could
easily use other, more respectable-sounding words?
Despite Wicca's diabolical-witchcraft trappings, or perhaps partly because
of those trappings, Wicca has more popular appeal than any other form
of
neo-Paganism. Certainly Wicca's hot-button terminology has helped Wicca
get
lots more publicity than it otherwise could. Wiccan spokespeople sometimes
bemoan the fact that newspapers interview them only at Halloween, but
most
small religious sects don't get nearly so much free publicity at any
time
of the year, not even on Halloween. And, judging by the way some Wiccans
keep repeating "We're Not Satanists!" far more often than they actually
get
accused of being Satanists, it seems logical to suspect that at least
some
of them are using words and images popularly associated with Satanism
as a
way to attract attention, and/or because they themselves enjoy feeling
naughty. (I've actually heard some Wiccans say that if the word "witch"
ever became too respectable, it would lose some of its power.)
Modern Satanists have long felt that the basis of Wicca's appeal lies
in
the paradoxical (some would say hypocritical) combination of Wicca's
Satanic connotations and the denial of same. Thus, Satanists tend to
regard
Wicca as a ripoff of Satanism.
I personally don't regard Wicca as a ripoff. In my opinion, Wiccans'
use of
witchhunt-derived trappings is neither more nor less legitimate than
the
use of those same trappings by Satanists. And Wicca, as a religion,
does
have much more substance to it than just its deliberately-adopted
superficial resemblances to diabolical witchcraft.
But I'm very irritated by those endless "Wicca Has Nothing To Do With
Satanism!" disclaimers. I wouldn't mind if Wiccans merely said that
Wicca
is not Satanism (at least if they said it without repeating it
unnecessarily). It's true that Wicca is not Satanism, but it isn't
historically true that Wicca "has nothing to do with" Satanism. Nor
is it
true that Wicca has nothing in common with Satanism. Some forms of
Wicca
and neo-Paganism have a lot in common with (some forms of) Satanism.
Oddly enough, of the many Wicca-based forms of neo-Paganism, one of
the
most "Satanic" (in terms of 19th-century literary Satanism) is feminist
Goddess religion, despite its frequent omission of even the "Horned
God".
See, for example, some of Mary Daly's writings. When it comes to inverting
and parodying Christian symbolism, Daly's wordplay does it better than
an
old-fashioned Black Mass. Daly also reclaims and venerates almost every
demonized female category conceivable, from Furies to Hags. And let's
not
forget the many feminists who venerate Lilith, a Jewish folkloric
near-equivalent of the Christian Satan. Lilith never made it to the
status
of a full-fledged anti-god, but otherwise her myth is almost identical
to
the Christian Satan myth: banished for her pride, she became a dreaded
demon and was even blamed for people's sins, especially sexual ones.
To be
fair, I should mention that not all feminist Goddess-worshippers are
into
either Mary Daly's writings or the veneration of Lilith. But the feminist
counterculture, because it is a counterculture, tends generally to
include
an extra dose of demon-reclamation beyond what is found in classical
Wicca,
e.g. magazine titles like Sinister Wisdom. All these parallels to Satanism
reflect the quintessentially Satanic central theme of some forms of
feminist Goddess religion: self-liberation from a socially-imposed
mainstream "spiritual" order -- even though Goddess religion is in
other
ways quite "un-Satanic" by the standards of most modern Satanists.
One of the earliest feminist writers on religion had a much friendlier
attitude toward Satanism than is common today. As far as I know, the
very
first feminist writer on witchcraft and Goddess religion was 19th-century
womens's suffrage leader Matilda Joslyn Gage. Her book Woman, Church,
and
State contains an enthusiastic depiction of a medieval peasant Black
Mass,
based on Michelet's account.
I hope today's Wiccans and feminist Goddess-worshippers will stop fearing
to recognize that, just as Christianity borrowed heavily from Greek
mystery
religion yet is a very different religion from the Greek mysteries,
so too
Wicca and feminist Goddess religion have drawn lots of inspiration
from
Satanism, though they are very different religions. Kelly's honesty
is
refreshing. If today's Satanists are sometimes nasty to Wiccans, well,
how
would you react to a bunch of people who went out of their way to deny
their own roots, just so they could disown you?
What's especially annoying is the way many Wiccans claim the word
"Witchcraft" as a name for their own religion, defining not only "Wicca"
but also "Witchcraft" as a religion distinct from Satanism. Excuse
me, but
witchcraft is not a religion. There are witches all over the world,
in many
different cultures. They don't all belong to one religion. A witch
can be
any religion. One of my great-grandfathers was a "water witch" who
told
people where to dig wells. He was a devout Christian. If a Christian
can be
a witch, then so can a Satanist. There have been both Christians and
Satanists calling themselves witches long before today's Wiccans came
along. (See Randolph's and Creighton's books, for example.) So I really
wish Wiccans would stop using the word "witchcraft" as a name for their
own
specific religion. I don't object to Wiccans calling themselves witches,
but I do object to the idea that all true witches are Wiccan (or at
least
Pagan) and that, therefore, Satanists can't be witches.
Wiccans are welcome to call their specific religion "Wicca", an archaic
word that they themselves resurrected. Another good name for their
specific
religion is "Neo-Pagan Witchcraft", a phrase suggesting that their
religion
is a subcategory of witchcraft, not witchcraft as a whole. Thus, it's
accurate to say, "Neo-Pagan Witchcraft is not Satanism", whereas it's
misleading to say, "witchcraft (in general) is not Satanism".
It would also be nice if Wiccans would stop making inaccurate
pronouncements on what Satanism is, such as, "Satanism is a form of
Christianity" or "To be a Satanist, you must believe in the Christian
God".
Diane Vera
dvera@nycmetro.com
Originally written January 1992.
Revised January 1994, March 1996.