Tag: Gerald Gardner

A Year and a Day – Origins and Applications

A Year and a Day – Origins and Applications

Author: del Luna la Madre’ Temple
I have seen the following in many, many posts. Competently trained Priests and Priestesses look at these words, and say to themselves – “Oh, You Truly Have No Idea”. The Phrase that I am referring to is:

“I have been studying for a Year and a Day and so I am now close to being ready for Initiation.” or “I am half way through my Year and a Day and so I now have questions about where do I find a group to Initiate into?”, There are other varying forms of this, and if you read through the many thousands of posts, you will surely come across that variety.

The Truth of the matter is that training in the Crafte does NOT take a Year and A Day. It sometimes takes much longer. Wikipedia lists the following information under a year and a day:

The year and a day rule was a principle of English law holding that a death was conclusively presumed not to be murder (or any other homicide) if it occurred more than a year and one day since the act (or omission) that was alleged to have been its cause. The rule also applied to the offence of assisting with a suicide.

• The period of a year and a day was a convenient period to represent a significant amount of time. Its use was generally as a jubilee or permanence.

• Historically (England) the period that a couple must be married for a spouse to have claim to a share of inheritable property.

• In mediaeval Europe, a runaway serf became free after a year and a day.

• When a judgment has been reversed a fresh action may be lodged within a year and a day, regardless of the statute of limitations. U.S.

• Note: a lunar year (13 lunar months of 28 days) plus a day is a solar year (365 days) . Also those 366 days would be a full year even if a leap day were included.

Magickally speaking- the Year and a Day rule is a hold over from the Masons. Their training period for an Apprentice was a year and a day of service and hard work. Gerald Gardner – the father of the modern day Crafte movement derived much of his early work on the Crafte from his Masonic roots, using the model of the Co-Masonic Lodge and its training as a basis for some of the early rules of the Crafte. It is known that in the early texts that Gardner wrote, that there were EXTREME similarities to Masonry, OTO and Golden Dawn.

As I stated before, A Year and A Day is quite misleading when it comes to serious study within the Crafte. It is a guide that is used by most of the Traditions to indicate that this is the MINIMUM amount of time that can be spent working toward a degree. In some cases, it is the minimum amount of time that one is allowed to spend working on one area of training within the Crafte itself.

So before you embark on telling the world that you have spent the last Year and a Day working on your studies of the Crafte, think, will those who I tell this to take me seriously. Can I really hold my own when questioned about what I have learned? Am I still unsure about the names and purposes of Deity within the Crafte? Do I understand that there is much more to learn and that I have only scratched the tip of the iceberg? Have I investigated books and other learning tools that are not just mainstream Crafte?

These are some serious questions that you need to ask yourself. Why? Because, if you do find others who are serious about their Crafte, be prepared to be asked some serious questions in conversation. Remember, they have studied long, and hard for the information they possess, their Oaths in many cases restrict them from passing on the intricacies of their Faith. Many of them feel that it is NOT their job to school the masses about the simplicities of the Crafte and its terminology.

If you want to be taken seriously, then learn the proper terminology, understand the terminology, and by all means – don’t act like a KNOW IT ALL. No One Knows It All. And a Good Teacher, High Priest or High Priestess will never be ashamed to tell you that they don’t know it all, but by their years of practice, not just studying or reading, have given them sufficient knowledge that they know that there is so much more out there to learn, that they will always be a student and practitioner.

So think before you infer that you have been studying for a year and a day, and that now you are properly prepared in the Crafte and therefore you should be granted all sorts of privileges, because of your studying for that year and a day. You now deserve to be taken as a serious authority on some level.

If you think this, say this, write this, be prepared for a good deal of laughter. But also be aware that there may also be some that are not laughing, and those are the ones that you need to be cautious of, for they are the ones that may see you as their next target of humiliation or degradation.

To ere on the side of humility in this case is a good thing…

Something to also consider is that even after you have studied long and hard, that is no guarantee that the information that you have studied is even correct and can withstand closer scrutiny, that, you are certain to receive if you spout off about ‘studying for a year and a day.’ You may have only read all the information published by one author or one publishing company. There is so much more to the Crafte that is not found in any book.

Nothing can replace pure and sincere experience and practice. So think about your Year and a Day, and ask: How far have I come and how far do I want to go? Have I experienced all that I can or do I need to experience more? Your answers might surprise you!

Wishing you Blessings Upon Your Path!

A Witch’s Charm Twice Told


Author: Zan Fraser

Those who seek clues as to the nature of English witchcraft prior to Gerald Gardner turn their attentions sooner or later to William Shakespeare’s tragedy of Macbeth. “Witch Plays” appear to have been highly popular with Elizabethan/ Jacobean theater-goers; virtually every significant play-writer from the 1580s to the early 1600s contributes a “witchcraft work” and Macbeth’s fame is such that nine people out of ten will cite it as their first association with witches. The virtue presented by these bodies of work is that they describe and demonstrate the puzzling phenomenon known as the “witch’s craft” in a way not found otherwise in period sources.

One should not allow oneself to be distracted by the disagreeable elements of Shakespeare’s presentation, such as the infamous ingredients-litany of the Witches’ Brew (IV.i.1-37) , which starts off with eyes of newts and toes of frogs before culminating in a horrific porridge of body-parts and animal intestines.

Such sections represent Shakespeare’s concessions to the rabidly anti-witch views held by Elizabeth’s successor, the new King James I of England, who ascended following Elizabeth’s death in 1603. As James VI of Scotland, his Majesty had published Daemonologie, an attack on witches as socially corrupt persons and failure to be in endorsement of royal opinion was a severely fraught stance.

Peering through the grotesque but self-protective veil that Shakespeare hangs in front of his work, one finds that the witchcraft depicted by the Bard of Avon nonetheless plays heavily upon two traditional and fundamental concepts- the performance of magic through the creation of charmed, circular space, and the powering of this specialized space by the raising up of magical, charming energies.

Folklorists have long identified the “ring-dance” (holding hands and dancing in a ring) as a particular activity of both faeries and witches; in Witches and Jesuits, Garry Wills interprets the blocking of the Three Witches of Macbeth in terms of their “spinning” or generating a magically charmed precinct through circular motion. (The notorious Cauldron Speech that opens Act IV actually accompanies such an “energy-generating” performance, immediately prior to the Scottish King’s entrance.

It is fascinating to consider that the Witches’ line “Open locks, whoever knocks” [IV.i.45] suggests that they have placed magical protections around their spell-working site- exactly as we ourselves would do- and that it is necessary to “cut” others into the circle. It is also interesting to reflect that they describe Macbeth as the “something wicked” that “this way comes.”) .

The conclusion to the so-called “Witches’ Scene” is another example of a witches’ circle-dance, as the Three launch into an “antic round” (IV.i.130) in mocking contempt for the Scottish King and Murderer: “I’ll charm the air to give a sound while you perform our antic round, that this great king may kindly say, our duties did his welcome pay!” Thus with one final whirling circle, the Three take their last leave of the soon-to-fall tyrant.

The instant before they first greet Macbeth (“A drum- a drum! Macbeth doth come!”) , the Witches (who have been anticipating this encounter since the play’s opening scene) perform a ring-dance (or dance in a witches’ circle) in order to create the charmed atmosphere that the late 1500s and early 1600s considered appropriate for events of a magical nature. As if to remove any doubt about the matter, they helpfully (in fact) inform us so (I.iii.31) :

“The Weird Sisters, hand in hand, posters of the sea and land, thus do go about! About! Thrice to thine and thrice to mine and thrice again to make up nine! Peace- the charm’s wound up.”

As the text makes plain, the Three join hands (“hand to hand”) and “thus do go about”- they go around in a circle (presumably nine times, although one imagines this may be fudged a bit during actual performances) . Their purpose is made explicit when they halt (“Peace”) and judge that their charm is “wound up.”

It is within this mini-arena of charmed and potent space that they greet Macbeth, soon to be the Scottish king through murder and usurpation.

Unique in Shakespeare’s canon is Macbeth’s status as a hexed play with a dark and malevolent curse attached. It plainly is not clear when this superstition might have developed, but within theater communities there is a firm belief against uttering The Name out loud when one is backstage, for to do so is to invite the terrible malignancy of outraged fate. (Productions of the Scottish Play, as it is cautiously called, are famed for plagues of injury and accident.) In sensible and sage manner, a ceremony exists to throw off the dark importuning of the Fateful Word. The rash actor must immediately move herself outside the space of the theater (or at least the dressing room or backstage area) and unwind the grim energies by spinning in a counter-clockwise circle- she must spin widdershins, in other words.

In the movie The Dresser, Albert Finney plays an actor who must perform this ritual when he lets slip the Name of the Scottish King. The superstition is fascinating because it mimics in minor the execution of a witch’s round-dance. However, in this instance, one does not “wind up” a charm- one “unwinds” bad or wicked fortune.

An activity on a par with much documented English folk-magic, the ceremony of “casting off” the dark energies of Shakespeare’s Scottish play has become as intertwined with the play as any portion of its text. How remarkable then, that within the play’s lore, are found two examples of the logic that lies behind the witches’ ring-dance – an express instance of the “winding up” of a witch’s charm and an implicit demonstration of the “unwinding” of ill-omened actions.

In both cases, these seem to me to be examples of the strange and obscure practice attributed to witches and articulated by Gerald Gardner as “raising energy.”

 

Put The Book Down!

Put The Book Down!

Author: Siantia
I quarrel about the meaning of the term ‘Wicca’ or ‘Pagan’. I argue over the rules and structures of the various ‘Wiccan paths’. I label myself with the correct label for my position in the craft and demand others do the same. I adhere to set structures and rituals and judge those that do not. I look to occult figures to gather my instructions on how to worship my Goddess and God. I rely on another human being to give me permission to have a spiritual identity. Does this sound like you? If you have ticked any of the ‘boxes’ above then I urge you to read this article. But I’m warning you – there are no labels here for you. No man/woman to tell you the rules of your religion and no words given to you to describe what you are.

How many books on Wicca/Witchcraft/Paganism and any others of a similar nature do you own?

How many of these books have rituals for you to follow, incantations for you to recite and sabbats for you to adhere to?

How many people do you know that say you MUST be in a coven, or you MUST do that or you HAVE TO think this way?

How often, when engaging in a Wiccan/Magickal discussion or argument have you opened your most prestigious Wiccan book to read the answer and then quoted it and sat back happily knowing you must have won the argument because you used the words of an occult icon?

Quarrels about rules and words feature so strongly in Wicca/Witchcraft, everyone has their own opinion and everyone seems to have their biography of Gerald Gardner or Alex Sanders at the ready to use if the argument gets tough. But I ask you – where is your Goddess and God when you are debating this and arguing about that and proclaiming you know more than this person about that subject?

How many times do you put your book down, step away from the laws of your coven, stop listening to the ‘more experienced’ Witch and look inside your heart to talk to your Mother and Father? What do you think they would tell you about all these rules, paths and words?

“Quarrelling about words only serves to ruin those who listen to them” is one of my favorite quotes, and one I read often when I find myself almost getting involved in an argument. There is no piece of information so grand that you need to quarrel and argue over it. There is no right so right that has not come directly from The Goddess and God. I urge people to put their books down and to talk to the source that can give them all the knowledge they’re looking for. It starts by looking inside yourself and not at your favorite author; once you have looked inside yourself you find the Goddess and the God were there all along.

When you next meet someone that refers to him/herself using certain labels, or when you next are involved in a conversation about the rules of a Wiccan ritual ask the goddess and the god to show you the truth of these man-made creations. Listen and feel what you receive. What do you think your Goddess and God would say to the people arguing over the exact meaning of the term Wiccan? What do you think they would say to the couple trying to win the argument about the importance of initiation? Do you think our loving Mother and Father would see the relevance or importance of any of this?

When you feel afraid that something you are doing is not correct, who are you afraid of? The person who wrote the book you are following? The high priestess of the coven you have just joined? Or the judgmental ‘experienced’ witches you socialize with? Out of all the people you are afraid will judge you if you are not adhering to the label you have been given (or have given yourself) do you think any of them have the authority or power to say anything? Do you believe a man or a woman has more knowledge about The Goddess and The God than the Goddess and The God themselves? And do you believe that anyone but yourself can find the right answer to your problems?

Put the book down, and while you’re at it socialize with less rigid people. We are our own masters, because all of us are children of our Mother and Father. No matter what words you read in books, no matter what ‘high’ priest/ess tells you – no being knows more than The Goddess and God. It is to them you should talk, not to ‘man’.

Religion can be a beautiful life choice that makes your incarnation more colorful and interesting; a way of life that inspires you and makes you feel fulfilled as a human experiencing the Earth, knowing deep inside that it is a creation of man and that simple love of your creators will always triumph. Is this you? Or have you become so consumed with your chosen label, so consumed with the words and their meanings that you have forgotten the simplicity of the universe? What is it they say we have here? Ah yes – free will.

Perhaps you feel your religion and structure, fine details and correct interpretation of words are still important to you? Perhaps you feel that the Goddess and God are with you on that, and they wouldn’t like you to throw away labels and boxes? Then, debate away. Open your forum and join with everyone else that wants words to be important. Words have power after all!

I will go and sit beside the Goddess and The God and we shall watch you in your hall of right and wrong. When you are ready…put the book down, and see what the Goddess and God has to discuss with you.

Merry Meet to all the masters of themselves.

Footnotes:
*This article is intended for thought provoking and not direct insult. The opinions expressed are my own and so of course are not being imposed or ordered onto anyone else. Live and let live after all.

Youth or Truth – Will History Repeat Itself in Wiccan Witchcraft?

Youth or Truth – Will History Repeat Itself in Wiccan Witchcraft?

Author: Roninwolf

Several observations I have made about the religion of Wicca-witchcraft-paganism-neo-paganism or what-you-will have caused me deep distress and I fear for the viability of a path I wish to continue walking upon. Questions have come to me in reading works of the elders that I cannot put aside and I believe must be answered now or in the furtherance of the future.

The first is that Wiccan witchcraft has no mechanism for theocracy. In the tenets of a faith-that-is-many faiths in a faith among all faiths, there is crime and no punishment.

In the few common words of our faith “an it harm none, do what thou wilt, ” there is “harm” which is the acknowledgement of one of the two truths of the human condition — analogous to the building of a prison (along with the building of a cemetery) — yet there is nothing written which says what societal punishment harm shall yield.

Phrases such as “separation of church and state” and “the laws of God are higher than the laws of man” come into my recollection and I wonder why we have no punishments save banishment. Surely theft is a crime we acknowledge as a people, why then is it not mentioned by name? It does fit under the category of harm, and as such is a violation of out tenet “an it harm none”, but nowhere is it written so plainly as “thou shalt not steal” as it is written in the cannons of Christian, Jewish, Islamic and many other religions.

Is it sufficient to say, “harm none” and let it be the whole of the law? Aren’t we simply passing the buck, so to speak, to the state? And if that is so, what state: A state that demands remunerations and fines or a state that demands the hand of the perpetrator?

This and other questions occurred to me when I heard a certain Republican congressman talking about the fact that new and small businesses do not need to concern themselves with retirement benefits. I am concerned that the youth of our faith (or youth of our “organized faith” for those who believe their faith to be pre-historic) may blind us to reality.

Near the subject of crime and punishment, there is also the subject of heresy. To any monotheist’s query, we would flatly reply that we have no heresy, that all paths are equal, valid (for lack of a better term) and right.

Yet, when Christianity was less than a century old, it had no heresy either. Then Titus sacked the second temple of Jerusalem, the cult of Mary (J.C.’s mother) lost power in the city and the cult of Paul grew and flourished. Judeo-Islamism too, had no heresy before the schism between Isaac and Ishmael. I do not know the specifics, but Islam had no heresy before there was a falling out between the descendants of Muhammad. Monothiest-versus-polythiest aside, I believe the same “heretical” schism may befall witchcraft.

Already we have seen something like heresy when Alex Sanders began his own coven using the rituals of Gerald Gardner. Is it the inevitable fate of faith to split and if so, how long will it be before the followers of, for example, Gardner, call the followers of Silver Ravenwolf or Christopher Penzak heretics?

Yes, we believe that all Gods are one God and all Goddesses are one Goddess, but is the strength of our faith in the universality of our pan-fraternal/sororal kinship strong enough to supercede a dissention of faith? I wonder.

Again, I ask these questions because I have asked them of myself and I cannot find answers that do not assuage my fears. It is my hope that these questions are answered before circumstances demand that we answer them hastily.

All faiths, in some manner or another, must answer to one another: That is, what do “we” think of “them”? That question has taken many forms and has been the subject of many debates; such as “are all paths valid”. In the same way that English recognition of the United States in 1783 gave credence to the existence of a new country, one faith’s acknowledgement of another gives tacit approval of that faith.

An example of that is that Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus all consider the others to be “people of the book”; this suggests collusion if not camaraderie between them (despite infighting also between them). What do we say of the follower’s of Heaven’s Gate or the Moonies? We call them cults (in the derisive sense). But what does that say about our tenet “all paths are valid”?

I have been wondering on this subject and believe that no one law can encompass the outlook of our faith on other faiths. Certain paths of Christianity and Islam call us evil agents of the devil. Still others say because their path is right, our must be wrong. Albeit, a certain “sticks and stones” maxim comes to my mind, words other people use to describe us become valid as we all inhabit the same planet.

I thought for a time that the law “all paths are valid that do not contradict the law that all paths are valid, ” but this seems unusable to me. Must we then interview (as it were) each faith and draw our battle-lines in ink? Would we not then be the same as all other faiths?

Even though our faith does not require that others believe as we do in order for it to be valid to us, our inalienable rights as citizens of the world should require us stand up and declare that we are valid and here are our reasons.

The question that faces me is: Whether our faith of non-denominationalism and non-judgementalism allows us to even declare, as a faith, what is right and wrong?

The final question I posit is this: Can we not answer these questions because we are right (and potentially original in the history of religion) or because we are young and cannot look beyond the next ten generations? Civilization and state collapse: are we transplantable or are we flash-in-the-pan?

We know we are a different faith, but are we different because we are unlike any other faith in our acceptance of other paths or are we simply children who cannot accept the positions held by millennia-old religions?

Note: Inasmuch as I write this to flesh out my own thoughts, I write this to invite others to correct me if I have erred.