Conference hydra::dejavu

    There is an old joke that when a new soul entered Heaven, it he
    or she was conducted through a hallway with various chambers, and
    when asked to speak quietly, the soul asked "Why?"  St Peter pointed
    to one of the chambers and said t
    "This is where the [fill in your own denomination] are.  They think
    they're the only ones here."
    
    To a certain extent, the same thing is true of witchcraft.  Several
    forms of witchcraft are nonChristian (pagan or equivalent); one
    is Christian (Satanic witchcraft).  Most are benign, Satanic witchcraft
    is evil.
    "White" means roughly "working for positive things"; "black" means
    roughly "working for dark or evil things."  This is true of witchcraft
    or magic.  Thus "black magic" doesn't mean "mysterious magic," it
    means "evil magic."  A white witch, therefore, is one who does her
    or his work for good -- the betterment of all, with harm to none
    (even using witchcraft to harm a bad person is an evil act).  P.
    E. I. Bonewits, the first person to get a college degree in Magic,
    listed about seven different categosies of witch, but as the joke
    goes, virtually every one of them that identifies itself as witchcraft
    thinks it's the _only_ witchcraft.
    
    Wicca is one form of witchcraft, involving goddess/nature worship.
     It is definitely white, and nonChristian.
    
    The instruction, "Thou shalt not suffer a cwitch to live," as I've
    "noted" elsewhere in this file, was generally taken by Christian
    theologians to mean that a witch could not take part in the Eucharist
    (i.e., receive the Life of Christ), snd so would not have eternal
    reward.  Since a Pagan witch doesn't recognize Jesus as the Son
    of God (and I won't argue the pros and cons of that here; those
    who wish to do so can do so in DSSDEV::BIBLE.NOT), they wouldn't
    receive communion; since Satanic witches would deny Christ as their
    Savior, they wouldn't receive it either.  Nobody had to be stoned
    to death.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE: .0
    
    As .1 says, there are a number of things which go under the name
    of witchcraft.  Satanic witchcraft is the worship of Satan, is a
    reaction to Christianity, and is evil.  Another Judeo-Christian
    offshoot are practicioners of the Quabala, who basicly invoke angels,
    demons, etc. while praying for protection of God.  Depending upon
    the angel/demon ratio and how power is used these can be either
    good or evil.  Wicca is a pre-Christian northern European religion,
    which worships both a god and a goddess through nature.  This is
    definitely good.  Witchcraft may mean spell casting within a number
    of spell systems.  People who engage in this may be eithe good or
    evil, depending upon use.  Truely white witchcraft does work for
    good, attempting to make life better for everyone while harming
    no one.  As .1 says, it's evil to harm something evil too.  Then
    there are the tribal witch-doctors from various primitive societies
    who may act as doctor using herbal remedies, and judge over disputes
    in the community.
    
    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", in addition to the
    interpretation offered by Steve, has also been translated to mean
    "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live".  This may have gotten
    translated with the tribal witch-doctor meaning.  If one of these
    herbalists was using his/her skill to make poison to be used to
    kill someone, this may be an offshoot of "Thou shalt not kill".
    
    /Kathleen

    It has been pointed out to me that I made a confusing over
    simplification in .2 in regards to Quabala.  While referencing Quabala
    which is a philosophy of the metaphysical universe, having under
    it a magick system (Enochian magick) which involves invoking angels,
    demons, etc.  Also the practicioners of these arts do not usually
    call themselves witches but rather magicians.  Others call them
    witches sometimes though.
    
    /Kathleen
    

    One of the more interesting witch types is the "Famtrad" (for "family
    tradition") witch.  These are reported by Bonewits to by fairly
    common in England, ane are often the equivalent of lay healers.
    They may have affiliations in religions (usually though not exclusively
    Christianity), but their reputed powers are something that has been
    handed down through the family and is usually of a nonreligious
    nature.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .4: that one struck a chord. My grandmother was the seventh daughter
    of a seventh daughter of a family of Irish descent. She was widely
    reputed to have "the gift", though she mainly stuck to predicting
    weddings, births and so on. To a certain extent I picked up this
    gift. However as I learnt it from her I can vouch for the fact that
    it has little to do with magic, and a lot to do with a well developed
    ability to see and observe. Remember the biblical comments about
    those who have eyes but do not see?
                                     
    
    /. Ian .\

It's refreshing to see so many people give well-informed answers
about such a controversial topic as to what a witch is.  As
someone who has been initiated into one of the many "Craft"
traditions, I thought I would add to the replies. 

The first thought that comes to mind is that a witch is simply
someone who considers him- or herself a witch.  That's part of
the strength and weakness of the tradition.  It's a strength
because (like Digital in some ways, oddly enough) it can foster a
nonhierarchical and individualistic approach--allowing for more
creativity and ability to respond to changing times; but it's a
weakness because the same people who (by just reading "Drawing
Down the Moon" by Margo Adler) go out and start a coven, trying
to teach a tradition that really requires a certain amount of
training to know how to work with people who are opening
themselves up psychically to each other.  As a side note, it's
ironic how much authoritianism exists in witchcraft groups. 

Secondly, the concept of what a witch is continues to go through
its own mutations, for many reasons, but mainly because (in the 
U.S. at least) it's emerging from a grass roots movement to a more 
mature self-understanding.  I know many witches (hundreds 
actually) who are in the process of combining some other 
tradition into their idea of being a witch (such as, native 
American Indian, Buddhism or Shamanism).  Some of these groups 
"work" and some don't.

But I think the one most important aspect that cuts across all 
the hair-splitting distinctions a discussion like this can create 
is that the vast majority of witches I've spoken with over the 
years consider their connection with nature and the planet to be 
the central theme of their belief.  In this sense, I think the 
major energy behind the resurgence of witchcraft today can be 
seen in the neo-pagan movement, which embodies the attitude 
of "planet caretaker and healer."

For me, in addition to a strong connection with the Earth and
Nature, being a witch means belonging to a tradition that values
the psychic, the feminine, the bazaar, the warrior, as well as
our need to celebrate transformation through ritual, through our
bodies and through tribal community.

That should be enough for now.

    re .6:
    
    In a way, the thought that being a witch is self-definitional is
    interesting, but of little use to someone who's trying to differentiate
    what is and isn't a witch, unless we all become telepathic.
    
    Someone I know who's a fairly accomplished practitioner of (real)
    magic doesn't consider himself a witch, but his wife calls what
    he does "witchery."  A paradox.
    
    A book everyone might be interested in is _Brujeria_, published
    by Llewellyn, which discusses the Brujeria or Santeria movement
    in some hispanic quarters, which can be viewed as a rather eclectic
    form of witchcraft.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Re: .7
>In a way, the thought that being a witch is self-definitional is
>interesting, but of little use to someone who's trying to differentiate
>what is and isn't a witch, unless we all become telepathic.

Oh, agreed!  That's the point.  Many Witches really don't care 
that someone can't "differentiate what is and isn't a witch." 

If I say you can recognize that I'm a witch because I do thus and
such, I've set up expectations for how I'm to act.  This is not a
fun place to be coming from (because being preditable is alien to
being spontaneous).  When you're on the fringe of what's
acceptable, it becomes easier to see how we box ourselves in. 
Witches believe and act in all sorts of wonderfully contradictory
ways. 

I should clarify one point though, namely, my reply (.6) was 
talking pretty exclusively about the American phenomenon of 
Wicca, and even at that only one segment of it.

The Llewellyn book sounds very interesting, I was unaware of its
existence. The most complete book available on the market is 
still Adler's _Drawing Down the Moon_.  Last I heard she was in 
the middle of revising it.

    Re .8:
    
    Well, my point was to go back to the base note's question.  Response
    .2 was probavbly the best on Wicca, but the point I was trying to
    make is that to those who consider themselves to be in the Crasft
    it's one thing; to someone who knows little about it, your answer
    may be too vague.
    
    One can sketch outlines without drawing uncrossable borders.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: _Drawing Down the Moon_ is good; _Brujeria_ covers something
    a bit different.  It's a fun read and it means more to those with
    an esoteric background.
    
    SK
    

    RE: .7
    
    In regards to your friend who doesn't consider himself a witch though
    his wife calls his art "witchery", that reminds me of some of the
    definitions during the medieval witch trials.
    
    According to these people a witch could be someone who doesn't go
    along with 100% of the church's teachings, homosexuals, insane persons,
    herbalists, or anyone the establishment of the time wanted rid of
    or wanted their property.  Most of the people who were convicted
    of witchcraft would not have defined themselves as witches.
    
    So what defines a witch?  Defining oneself as a witch or having
    someone else define you as a witch?  Perhaps something in between,
    such as practicing some sort of magic called witchcraft.
    
    /Kathleen
    

    Regarding .10
    Is that to say that wizards,sorcerers, warlocks and witchs are all one and
    the same because they all practice some sort of magic or wield some
    pschic tool for what ever the motive... good or evil?
    
    Found an interesting bit of information which you may or may not
    already know.......
    According to Websters dictionary a witch or a wicca= masculine,wizard
    and Wicce=feminine, is : 1. A woman practicing the black arts
    :sorceress (2):An ugly old woman:hag. C: one supposed to possess
    supernatural powers esp. by compact with the devil or a familiar {what
    ever that is} .......whereas a wizard is and I quote
    "Wizard: 1. A wise man: sage  2:One skilled in magic : sorcerer"
    
    Now before I get everyone's dander up I want to say that the responses
    to the base note have  been very informative.  I for one did not know
    what a witch or wicca really was. I feel more enlightened as a result. 
    Like so many others in today's society I had a preconcieved notion,ie..
    ..."Bubble, Bubble toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble"
    Always the witch depicted as an old hag or diabolical fiend practicing 
    the "Black Art" in legion with the devil himself.
     
    I guess I would like to ask is  where did that image come from and why
    is it that a female branded a witch also known as a wizardess was
    imaged to be the basest of human beings and subjected to prejiduce and
    even tortures beyond description simply because she had a "gift", the
    power of magic or what ever. Were men tortured for bieng sorcerers
    or wizards?  And why is it that even today the distinction between
    the male and female gifted in magic is construed as wise in one
    or maligned in the other.  Should this be further construed as,  pardon the
    expression a "patriarchal" put down that has apparently occured all
    through history which when you think of it by very nature of the
    word is another patriarchal put down? 
    
    I guess the way I would look at this is akin to two sides to a coin,
    good and evil, the good side or the dark side of the force.  If
    a person has powers that are used for the good and betterment of
    humankind then why use the same label for someone who would do just
    the opposite.  Shouldn't there be another word to differentiate
    between the two other than "white witch" or is that what Wicca is
    supposed to do? 
    
    Just my thoughts 
    
    pax
    Addie
    
     
     
     
    
      

    RE: .11
    
    I never meant that wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and witches are
    all the same no matter what the use or motive.  In .10 I was merely
    making a speculation contrary to "A witch is a witch if he/she says
    he/she is", specifically "A witch is what society defines a witch
    to be".  Personally I tend to agree with the former.  Sorry if I 
    was unclear.  For that matter, one can be a witch and have no 
    involvement whatsoever with magic.  The magic/spell casting can be 
    separate from the religion (i.e, one can cast spells and have nothing
    to do with a religion, or one can practice the religion without
    casting any spells). 
    
    Now to answer your other questions.  Yes, men were tortured and
    burned for witchcraft just as women were, but in smaller numbers.
    Your previous "hag witch" stereotype is common in this society.
    The reasons for this are rather complex.  The old nature religion
    that Wicca comes from, like most nature religions, held women in
    higher esteem than it did men.  Thus, most of the leaders were women.
    Also, like most nature religions sexuality was rather open and viewed
    as a good part of nature to be enjoyed.  Now Christianity enters 
    the picture, complete with its patriarchism and prejudice against
    women and sex.  Politically the Roman empire takes over, thus must 
    subdue the people and get them to accept their moral standards.
    Thus they must be converted.  The majority of the people converted,
    but a sizable group continued to worship the Old Religion, particularly
    in rural areas.  Meanwhile, the Inquisition started, first to go
    after heretics without torture, then with torture, then witches
    were included too.  Of course how does one determine a witch?  As
    I said in .10, anyone with peculiar habits was an immediate suspect.
    A major reason that women were particularly suspect was that the
    inquisitors and judges were male, found women physically attractive,
    and believing that sex was evil, were being "tempted by the devil"
    in the form of these attractive women.  Also the inquisititors had
    the opportunity to take sexual advantage of these women, first by
    examining them for "witch marks", and the less scrupulous could
    offer to let them off in exchange for sexual favors.  Of course 
    there were political motives for accusing someone of witchcraft, 
    such as confiscating the person's property.  I'm sure you've read 
    of some of the "tests" for witchcraft.  Using them ANYONE can be 
    proven to be a witch if that's what you want to find out.  As a 
    side note, a common theme in the witchcraft trials was the "murder 
    of infants".  This comes from the fact that herbalists often 
    performed abortions.  The abortion = baby killing issue hasn't been 
    settled yet.  
    
    As to your other question, why are both the good and the bad uses
    for magical powers called by the same word, I'll give you an
    explanation from the Wiccan tradition (as opposed to other people
    that are called witches).  No one is totally good or totally bad,
    but are on a continuem of gray.  Most witches are more good than
    evil because of the Law of Three.  That is anything you do comes
    back on you three fold, be it for good or evil.  Thus, if I do
    something good (magically or not), something three times as good
    will happen to me.  Conversely, if I do something evil, something
    three times as bad will happen to me.
    
    Hope this answers your questions,
    Kathleen
    

    There is a good history of witchcraft written by Charles Williams
    and entitled something original like "Witchcraft."  Williams is
    a Christian and writes from that viewpoint, so you are going to
    hear precious little about white magic and nature magic.  On the
    other hand, he is extreemly fair and evenhanded in examining the
    behavior of both the witch-hunters and the Satanist witches they
    were after.  He is interestingly agnostic on the question of whether
    or not any of this magic worked.
    
    Historical note: For much of the medieval period, magic and witchcraft
    were matters of relative indifference to the church.  They were
    mainly concerned with discouraging superstition, and it was considered
    as wrong and silly to believe in witchcraft as to practice it. 
    Heresy was much more upsetting to the church.
                      
    Earl Wajenberg

    re several:
    
    A person who subscribes to a tradition of witchcraft would be called
    a witch (generally a male witch is _not_ called a "warlock").  A
    person who can cast spells who is not a witch is generally called
    a "magician"; though with stage conjuring opting the title, synonyms
    such as thaumaturge, magus, or sorcerer are used to differentiate
    from stage magicians.  "Wizard" is generally restricted to fiction
    works.
    
    On the Medieval church and magic (as opposed to witchcraft): some
    clerics, such as Roger Bacon, actually were reputed to have practiced
    magic (reports vary on their success rate!).  The Church apparently
    had nothing against magic as long as it wasn't heretical.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: Some Satanists weren't Satanic witches.  Some black sorcerers
    made pacts with Satan or one of his minions (as in the Faust legend)
    without joining covens.
    
    -SK
    

    I tend to think that the "old hag" may have come from different
    sources.  The first probably would have been that old women were
    in desperate need of some source of money so they may have gone
    semi-public.  The maids and the mothers would still have families
    to support them.
    
    The old hag or crone is part of a ceremony celebrating the cycles
    of the moon.  The phases of the moon or aspects are "maid", "mother"
    and "crone".  Each aspect has a meaning to the witch and each
    represents an energy or portion of life.
    
    Wicca is fairly new in its present form.  Gerald Gardner is assumed
    to have revived the Ancient Religion.  With the relaxing or abolishment
    of whichcraft laws in 1955 (?) in Britian, whichcraft began a new
    phase of existance.  Most if not all of the surviving witches were
    famtrads.  These family traditions were passed down within the family
    and much has been obscured by secreacy because of the churches attitude
    concerning witches.
    
    Wicca is in my opinion very romantic.  It does have some problems
    with internal authority.
    
    Would you say Wicca is pantheistic?  Just ask the Green man.
    
                               (*)

    re .15:
    
    Part of the "old hag" as witch imagery might be due in part that
    in olden times women seemed to change more than age than men did.
     Thios is not meant as a sexist statement.  The science (fiction)
    writer and essayist, Isaac Asimov, speculated as follows:
    
    In many cases, particularly in Medieval times, two factyors were
    common: there was a strong liklihood that adults that survived into
    their later years would lose the majority of or all of their teeth.
     This would bring the chin and nose closer together, making the
    face distorted and slightly alien.  However, men of the period wore
    beards for the most part, making the distortion much less pronounced.
     Since a toothless crone was less visually acceptable than a toothless
    bearded man, the women were considered -- different.  As were
    supernatural things.  His argument goes that the two things influenced
    each other.
    
    This has nothing to do with the pros and cons of wiotchcraft _per
    se_: it does illustrate that there might be a mundane explanation
    for a seemingly esoteric situation, however.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Asimov is speculating a little freely, I think.  Beards came and
    went in fashionability all through the middle ages, though it might
    be that the lower class men were almost always bearded, through
    not having anything to shave with.  It would depend on exactly how
    poor they were.
    
    However, a toothless crone might have been distinctive for other
    reasons.  There is an old saying that "You lose a tooth for every
    baby."  A developing baby DOES leech calcium from the mother, though
    well-fed American mothers needn't worry.  Also, I believe old women
    were rarer than old men until modern medicine made childbirth
    relatively safe and infant mortality relatively low (resulting in
    fewer pregnancies necessary to get the same number of chldren).
    
    So old women might have been remarkable for their rarity, and often
    distinguishable by their toothlessness.
    
    However, there were still plenty of (in)famous male witches.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    What are the holidays that the Wiccans celebrate?  I've read about
    two so far in other notes:  Samain and Beltane.  These are half
    a year apart, I notice.  They also correlate astrologically with
    the Sun being in the sign Taurus (Beltane) and the sign Scorpio
    (Samain).  Probably there are holidays for the two solstices, yes?
    Any others?
    
    Marcia

    RE: .18  (Marcia)
    
    Yes, there are eight major holidays during the year.  They are:
    
    December 21	- Yule.  Winter solstice.
    
    February 2	- Commonly called Lady day.  Winter ceremony to the
    		  Goddess.
    
    March 21	- Spring equinox.  Celebrate the start of spring.
    
    April 30	- Beltane.  Celebration that "spring is here".
    
    June 21	- Midsummer.  Summer solstice.
    
    July 31	- Lammas.  Celebrate the summer and pray for the harvest.
    
    September 21 - Fall equinox.  Celebrate the fall, the maturity of
    		  growing things and the harvest.
    
    October 31	- Samain.  Celebrate the harvest and the coming of the
    		  winter.
    
    In addition to the Sabbaths (above holidays), full moons are celebrated.
    
    Hope this is what you wanted,
    Kathleen

    re .19:
    
    Soma allied traditions are a bit different, such as the Gardnerian
    and Alexandrian witch traditions.  So:
    
    Yule may also be celebrated (especially in Northern traditions)
    on 24 December.
    
    Lady Day (2 Feb) is also called "Brigid" and "Candlemas."
    
    Beltane is also called "May Eve"
    
    Lammas (31 July) in some traditions is celebrated on 1 August. 
    It's also sometimes called "Lugnassad."
    
    Samain (31 October) is the Celtic New Year.
    
    The Gardneriand and Alexandrians perform a crop fertility rite called
    "balefire leaping" on May Eve and to a lesser extent at the Fall
    Equinox.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Well, one more area here that might be worth mentioning:
    
    Kathleen pointed out that the herbalist medicione-man "witch doctors"
    were called witches.  
    
    There was a comment about the three old hags chanting "Bubble, bubble,
    toil and trouble..."
    
    A point:  there are many herbs that have names like parts of animals
    (e.g., "deer's tongue").  There is solid speculation that at least
    some of the Macbeth witch formula ("eye of newt, toe of frog...")
    actually referred to local herbs rather than what they seemed.
    
    It would fit.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: I don't think Shakespeare was a serious student of esoterica,
    but if he was well-read at the time, he would have picked up some
    traditional beliefs.
    
    -S
    

    re .22:
    
    For instance, Cinquefiol is also called "five fingers," Elder is
    called "Devils eye," "Old Lady," and "old gal," Marigold is called
    "Summer's Bride," Mugwort is called "old man," Absinthe is called
    "old Woman," asnd so forth.  Further, someone using, sai, a pinch
    of powdered dogwood might say "piece of dog," in a rhyme.  trees
    and non-herbal plants (e.g. Elephant Ears) could also fit here.
    
    Steve Kallis, jr.
    

Associated Press Fri 13-JUN-1986 05:27                          Salem Witches

   Anti-Defamation League for Witches Announced

   SALEM, Mass. (AP) - In fairy tales, witches cast spells. In real
life, they form an anti-defamation league.
   A group of self-proclaimed witches on Thursday announced the
formation of a league to counter ``false and malicious propaganda''
about themselves and to ``protect our religious rights.''
   The announcement came after what they called slanted television
news coverage of their June 5 protest against plans to film ``The
Witches of Eastwick,'' a novel by John Updike, in Massachusetts.
   ``We want an end to the stereotype,'' said Laurie Cabot, 53, a
founder of the new group, Witches' League for Public Awareness.
   The witchcraft instructor and practitioner said witches have been
wrongly portrayed as broom-flying devil worshippers, she said,
adding that they actually cast no evil spells but rather use their
powers for healing.
   While misleading images of blacks, Jews and other minorities have
ended in the news media, she said, misrepresentation continues for
witches who then are wrongly perceived by their neighbors.
   Ms. Cabot said also she was pleased by the publicity generated by
the protest at the Massachusetts Film Bureau's Boston office, which
has been trying to encourage Warner Bros. to film the film in
Massachusetts.
   Film bureau spokeswoman Terry Morris said Warner Bros. was
considering filming in Hingham and Cohasset south of Boston. The
filmmaker already has been turned down by the Rhode Island town of
Little Compton.
   Cabot's newly formed group is demanding that the film company
either not use the word ``witch'' or run a disclaimer that the movie
does not accurately portray witches and their beliefs.
   ``Updike's book depicts women as being frivolous people who take
up satanic practices, conjure up devils and kill people,'' she said.
``Satanism is not witchcraft. The book is anti-women, anti-Christian
and anti-witch.''
   Cabot said her group was formed to protect the religious freedoms
of a ``guesstimated'' 6 million American witches, 2,000 of whom live
in Salem which also boasts a museum about the 17th century witch
trials.
   Particularly hurtful are grotesque pictures of witches used on
Halloween decorations and greeting cards, she said.
   ``On Halloween, you still see green-faced paper cutouts of
witches in people's windows,'' complained Cabot, who was designated
Salem's ``official witch'' by Gov. Michael Dukakis.

    Laurie Cabot was on the _today_ show last year with a group of other
    nonSatanic witches.  She and they claimed credit for dissipating
    the hurricane that went through Springfield.
    
    Can't fault her for her demonstration/"anti-defamation league"
    activities, though the presentation on the local TV stations was
    a wee bit "showy."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Oh I don't know.  I think I could fault her.  "Witch" has been used
    as synonymous with "Satanic magician" in English for about half
    a millenium.  I seriously doubt that most modern covens are lineal
    decendants of pre-Christian, pagan-based witchcraft; I strongly
    suspect they are re-creations by modern folk.  If those folk choose
    to call themselves by a name with known negative connotations, on
    their heads be it -- I don't see that the rest of the populace is
    under any obligation to change the image.  If the "witches" didn't
    like the image, what did they adopt it for?  They could have called
    themselves "enchanters" or "sorcerer" or "wizards" or "mages," none
    of which have the heavily negative connotation of "witch."
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .26:
    
    Can't quite agree.  Whether or not the current crop of nonSatanic
    witches are recreations, lineal descendants, or made up of whole
    cloth, they believe they are the inheritors of a tradition.  They
    deny there are such things as Satanic witches, though history has
    shown strongly otherwise.
    
    The difference between a witch and, say, a sorcerer, is that there
    is a strong religious element (pagan or perverted/inverted
    Christianity) involved, nor does one have to be a spellcaster to
    be a witch: a magician, sorcerer, or the like is one who uses magical
    forces without the worship.  There is a strong overlap, but even
    in the most intolerant (lade Medieval) times, the differentiation
    was made.  Faust, for instance, was a magician who made a pact with
    the Devil, but he never called himself a witch.
    
    Obviously, the nonSatanic witches could make it a lot easier on
    themselves by choosine one of their "traditional" names: Wiccans,
    Famtrads, or Gardnerians (well, that's not _too_ traditional) for
    instance.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .25-.27:
    
    Also, the furor, such as it was, finally convinced me to read the
    book.  Not very good, but given Laurie Cabot's remarks, it's doubtful
    to me if she even read it.  I'll spot her malefic spells in the
    work, but "conjuring up devils" is a bit farfetched.
    
    The book is at best a light read.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Earl,
    
    I think it was the Church that branded people witchs over their
    objections.  This was an effort to associate fear with a name. 
    A name that the Church twisted to their own use.  There should be
    no stigma attached to the noun witch, unless of course stigma should
    be attached to any other religious group.  And not all witches are
    religious either.  

    Hot off the VTX press........
    
    SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - About 250 parents and religious leaders
picketed as self-proclaimed witch Zsuzsanna Budapest talked about
her religion at a library's ``Meet a Real Witch'' lecture on
Saturday.
   ``This is an outrage. It is absolute hypocrisy,'' said the Rev.
Charles Crabtree of the Assemblies of God Bethel Church of San Jose.
``The fact that they paid a witch to come in and speak to very
impressionable teen-agers and do not allow Christian leaders to do
the same is appalling.''
   Crabtree said religious leaders have been banned for several
years from speaking in tax-supported buildings because of a
constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
   But city librarian Homer Fletcher said anyone can speak at the
lectures.
   ``We believe that we have the responsibility to provide as many
different perspectives as possible and allow the people to make up
their own minds,'' Fletcher said. ``Intellectual freedom must not
depend on whose hock is being gored.''
   Religious leaders were allowed to address the group before Ms.
Budapest's presentation in the Santa Teresa branch library.
   An hour before the talk, about 200 people, mostly protesters,
stood in line vying for one of the 112 seats in the small conference
room.
   ``We're not interested in what she has to say,'' said Stacy
Haines, 17, of Cupertino, Calif. ``We're just here to take up seats
so that small children don't get exposed to this.''
   But Jamie Rose, 22, of San Jose said he came to listen.
   ``Everyone here is passing judgment on everyone else,'' said
Rose, who wore a spiked metal bracelet and black leather pants. ``No
one's being very open-minded about this. They're all tripping out
because someone doesn't believe in what they do.''
   Police milled among the demonstrators and two officers escorted
Ms. Budapest into the room.
   She took the podium, closed her eyes and whispered, ``Put to
shame all those who would put down my good name.'' Supporters
answered, ``Blessed be.''
   Ms. Budapest talked about the origin of her worship, showing
pictures of goddesses of the ``earth religion.'' She said she is a
member of the Covenant of the Goddess.
   She said while witches do use incense, candle magic and sometimes
spells, they do not worship the devil.
   ``Only Christians believe in the devil. We celebrate the four
seasons and the earth,'' she said. ``The earth is our mother. There
is no heaven, there is no hell. This is everything. You make it
heaven or hell.''

A few observations:
    
    If the witch was speaking _culturally_, then she was _as legitimate
    a speaker as *any* religious worshipper_, no more, no less.  If
    for instance, a Baptist, spoke on "What is a Baptist?" she or he
    should have been equally well (or ill) received.
    
    Ideally, someone outside the practice(s) of witchcraft should speak
    on what a witch is; only such a person has an unbiased viewpoint.
    
    That some Christian folk are intolerant doesn't mean all are.
    
    That some witches refuse to believe that some Satan worshippers
    perform a perverted form of witchcraft doesn't mean Satanic witches
    don't exist; pretending they don't is as dangerous as others thinking
    all witches are Satanic.
    
    Since the story's not datelined, I wonder what the occasion that
    prompted the lecture was...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Steve,
    
    You're right.  They do exist.  Ms Budapest's "version" is more a
    tradition than a melting pot.  We find the image of Satan and Wicca
    beign associated by such books as "The Satan Seller" by Mike Warnke.
    Mike and his friends were satanist who portrayed themseves as witchs
    to give the effect of a "double whammy", ie, a double stroke against
    their parents and social enviroment.  This is, in my opinion,
    an immature reaction to the religion of their childhood
        
    Even the Wiccan belief systems appropriates items of other systems.

    I hope I'm speaking to open minds...... I don't want to dash any
    mystique here, but I remember reading an article in my local library
    a long time ago, I can't remember who by (if anyone recognizes pls
    enlighten) and it's a bit fuzzy now.  I do remember being quite
    upset at a chunk of British ignorance, it's a sad story really.
    	I guess the researcher took a few points on "whitchy" folklore
    and expanded, such as: covens, riding broom sticks, unapproachable
    old, ugly.  The persecution of these women (predominently) was
    absolutly inhuman i.e. to the "ducking stool", if drowned, the verdict
    was innocence, if survival, they dried the poor dear out in a bonfire.
    	Why? The author reasoned that it could be explained,in main, by
    lesbianism.  Confused? I was, so I read on, and this is wher it
    gets real pathetic.  Think about the period, Chaucer can help us
    by showing that there was a great deal of rampant sexuality especially
    in the church (read as "the power").  Iremember the author making
    various references to "middle English" writings to back this up
    better.  Guys, you must have all been turned down in your time,
    it damages the ego somewhat and the lady goes down in your esteem
    also.  You might call her an ugly old so & so as well.  If she turned
    down all your pals as well you might think her strange......this
    happens unfortunatly.  Take it one step further .....a mechanism to
    get your collective revenge & bye bye one lonley woman whose only
    crime was she didn't like men.  Thus covens, isolation, "riding"
    broom sticks (sexual connotations of self pleasure) it all scans
    & I wish I could remember more of the arguments cos' it was really
    well done.
    		Any more info & I'll post it.
    Yours tearfully
    
    Pete.
    

    Re .33:
    
    What's sadder about a suspected lersbian being hanged or burned
    than a suspected Satanist, Wiccan, or Druid?  Any victim might be
    innocent of being any of the above.
    
    The doggerel:
                     Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
                     Blest be the bed that I sleep on.
    
    Was considered to be evidence of being a witch (and up to no good)
    rather than something Christian-pious.
    
    the lesbian argument may have some validity, but so may some others.
    My mind _is_ open, and for whatever the reason those poor people
    were killed, the tragedy is that they _were_ killed, and obviously
    to the enjoyment of the crowds that came to watch them drown/burn/hang.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    What's even sadder is that a community of mature individuals would
    sponser witch hunts in an effort to take the property of the accused.
    Sadder still are the tortures _dreamed_ up to punish the accused.
    I'm still considering writing something on "The Burning Times" which
    I'll probably put in the religion notesfile under Pagan Poetry,
    Prose and Storytelling.                
    
      Mikie?

    An interesting bit of information:
    
    When the witch hysteria [defined as being so terrified at the tyyhought
    of having witches closeby that anyone who was even suspected of
    being a witch was persecuted] reached England, one Matthew Hopkins
    labeled himself "Witchfinder General[l]" and went through the
    countryside "finding" witches by the simple expedient of browbeating
    and sometimes torturing old women until they "confessed" to being
    witches.
    
    He enjoyed a good career until _he_ was accused of being a witch,
    was "tried," and found guilty.
    
    Poetic justice, one supposes, but only after a lot of innocents
    suffered.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Just a thought:
    
    But I was wondering if you people over the pond use the term "bonfire".
    
    It's a term that is always used for any burn-up we have in gardens
    etc. and my real point being could it's roots be in the French "BON"
    to mean "good"-fire.  Perhaps the term is a leftover from the age
    of persecuting the non-confomist.
    
    As I said....just a thought.
    
    Pete.
    

    yes bonfires are, to me anyway, common. like before football games
    and after raking up all the leafs that fall also in some casies
    just for fun. so "good"fire sounds right to me !
    
    chris

    Could be, but the origin appears to be "bone-fires."  It was from
    a time (Medieval) where a large number of bones was burned in the
    open air.  Any good dictionary gives the derivation.
    
    On the other hand, I, too, find bonfires nice.  I understand in
    certain witch traditions their smaller cousins are used in balefire-
    leaping ceremonies.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr
    

    re: bonfires
    
    I just saw 2 movies about Japan and thought that one of their
    ceremonies was called "Bon".  They light fires on the hillsides
    and send little fires out on the water to help the spirits of the
    dead.  Wonder if it is connected in any way?
    
              Carol

I picked this up offa' Usenet to add into this topic.  Perhaps a good
understanding of Paganism and Neo-Paganism is needed to understand where
Witchs of all types come from.
************************************************************************
                               From Usenet
************************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Path: decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!hoptoad!tim
Subject: Re: Paganism history
Posted: 9 Dec 86 20:35:51 GMT
Organization: Centram Systems, Berkeley
 
Paganism is a loose word for the large variety of polytheistic, shamanistic,
and mystical non-monotheistic religions.  Paganism exists in all cultures,
from paleolithic to technological, but has historically waxed and waned.
The ancient Egyptians are an example of a highly pagan society; so are the
ancient Romans; and all paleolithic cultures from the Old Stone Age to the
present have strong pagan elements.  An example of a less pagan culture
would be the West for the last thousand years or so, since the centuries
following the Fall of Rome.  The domination of the Middle East by Christians
and Moslems has also largely shut out paganism.
 
Characteristic of paganism is a tolerance for other pagnistic ideas, even
those that literally contradict one's own.  Such persecutions as have been
directed against paganistic religions by each other are by-products of
political struggles and mass population movements rather than ideologically
motivated.  The same is to some extent true of early Judaism, which was the
direct inheritor to the traditions of a strongly pagan society.  A slave
revolt apparently led to a few hundred thousand slaves with no place to
live; to get them, they butchered the inhabitants of pagan cities and took
up residence in the cities themselves.  They invoked their war god to
justify this action.  Similarly, when the beginnings of the modern Greek
mythology were laid down, it was as a result of invading Northern barbarians
supplanting the earlier (and somewhat gynocentric) Titan mythology with
their imported religion, which grew more refined and less aggressive later
on, as happened with Judaism.
 
Before it came under the thumb of monotheism, the West was dominated by
the highly civilized Roman culture.  The Roman Republic and Empire were
characterized by an unusually large number of religions together in a
single social whole, frequently sharing the same geography and even
the same temples.  This explicitly eclectic (or "syncretistic", as it is
more usually known in studies of the Romans) synthesis is more similar to
modern neo-paganism than any other form of historical paganism I know of.
However, it ended after the Christian emperors took over and Rome fell.
 
The post-pagan West experienced frequent resurgences of paganism in various
forms.  If we date this at 1000 CE for convenience, we see first the
Inquisitorial period, where paganism was punished with death and torture.
Then there comes the Renaissance, in which pagan symbolism and ideas in art
and philosophy were somewhat more common than explicitly Christian ones.
The Renaissance lasted until the 16th century.  Note that the Inquisitions
lasted effectively until the Enlightenment period, and were bad during the
Renaissance, but ceased to be mostly ideologically motivated after the first
three centuries.  The Inquisition had become a political arm of the Vatican,
a force useful in many ways other than suppressing heresy.  It spent much of
its time accomplishing political, antifeminist, and covert goals of the
Church.  We see in the trial of the Templars in the fourteenth century that
uncommonly faithful people were caught in a secular political struggle
between the King of France and the Pope.  They were routinely tortured, the
usual prompted confessions were given, and they were executed, for reasons
having nothing to do with ideology or heresy except as excuses.
 
It is also during the Renaissance that we begin to have evidence of what we
may consider explicitly religious paganism again.  Most of the grimoires we
have date from this era; alchemists, often overtly Christian but employing
pagan symbolism and texts, were most common during the Renaissance; the
Kabbalah and Tarot originate in the Renaissance, forming the backbone of
modern pagan symbolism.  The Renaissance also saw the obscure origins of a
rebirth, in improved form, of Greek humanism, technically pagan because of
its suppression by Christian Rome and its use of theistic symbols.
 
The Reformation was again a less pagan period; Protestant rulers like
Elizabeth and James carried out their own anti-heresy pogroms, annihilating
most evidence of witchcraft.  Of particular interest in the Reformation is
Scot's "The Discoverie of Witchcraft", which presents the humanist and
rationalist perspective on witches which has generally triumphed today: that
witch accusations were more often driven by factors such as ugliness,
personal enmity, poverty, and so forth than on ideological grounds, and that
in fact there were no witches.  This is probably true only of the later
Inquisitorial period.  Earlier on, the Inquisition certainly did help in the
temporary stamping out of paganism; so if pagans are witches, there were
witches.
 
We need not bother much with Murray's supposedly anthropological study of
English witchcraft in the Inquisitorial period, except to note that it has
been devoutly accepted by many modern pagans, and to point out some of its
flaws.  Based on late Inquisitorial evidence and the consistency of the
confessions obtained by the Inquistors, and tossing in some disjointed
scraps of English folk history and legend, Murray asks us to believe that a
paleolithic subculture lasted in England, living semi-naked in the bushes,
until nearly the beginning of the Reformation at least, and possibly until
the current day.  Of course late Inquistorial confessions were consistent;
they were practically dictated to the torture victim.  A much better account
of the relationship of paganism to Christianity before and during England's
post-pagan period is Jessi Weston's classic "From Ritual to Romance".  Its
conclusions were derived from decades of intense study of the Grail
mythology and its anthropological, mythological, and social context.
 
As a parting note on the Reformation, we may note the peculiar phenomenon of
court astrologers and alchemists and their ilk, the most notable examples
being the sorcerer John Dee and the seer Edward Kelley under Elizabeth.
These were the inheritors of Paracelsus and the other alchemists and
Christian medicine doctors, using pagan symbols and methods with a veil of
Christian symbolism.  Kelley stopped the work of Dee and Kelley under
unknown circumstances; he is said to have been told by the angels to form a
group sex arrangement with Dee and his wife, which they supposedly did for a
while; in another version, Kelley was driven from the work by a prophecy of
a new age dawning, which was heresy.
 
So, on to the Enlightenment of the seventeenth century.  This was more
humanistic than religious, though humanism is a religion on alternate
Tuesdays; it all depends which of the many reasonable definitions you use.
In any case, the seventeenth centuries saw the first applications of the
renewed Greek humanism that originated in the Renaissance.  The
counter-Christian current was running stronger; more and more, people were
beginning to demand equal treatment for all, and freedom from the rigid
boundaries of thought and expression imposed on them by governments and
churches alike.  This humanism has colored most "opposition" religious
movements in America since this time, much for the better in my opinion.
This is because principles of respect for the individual were put into the
American system of government (as an afterthought - the humanistic heyday
had ended in the 1780's in America, and the new would-be ruling class had to
be forcibly reminded), and the governmental structure was such that it was
able to make progress in its understanding of freedom.
 
Things did not work out quite so well in France's humanistic revolution,
largely due to Robespierre, the atheistic moral grandfather of Stalin and
Pol Pot.  He interpreted opposition to monarchy as punishing high birth
with low death, and then set out ruthlessly to purge opposition and
deviation.  Soon monarchy was re-established in France.
 
The nineteenth century was a period of resurgence of paganism.  The
neo-classical movement was explicitly devoted to rediscovering the virtues
of the highly pagan societies Rome and Greece.  This movement was to be by
far the dominant force of the century.  Humanism was further applied to the
institution of slavery, resulting in war and social upheaval.  The
Prometheans such as Blake, Shelley, Byron, and so forth were widely
considered to be among the greatest luminaries of the period.
 
The method of science and its results made available much more information
on religions of the East and of less civilized cultures.  Contact between
religiously different but politically equal forces invariably leads to
mutual excuses for the other, largely to help keep trade going, but also as
a result of time spent in foreign climes observing the practice of religion.
This creates, although not in great numbers at first, a different attitude
toward religions than the dogmatic denial of all other religions possible
only under a large and self-sufficient monolithic theocracy.  Other
religions are seen as not neccessarily conflicting with one's own any more
than another art movement does with one's own favorite.
 
There was a more open resurgence of sorcery in less overtly Christian forms,
particularly in the last half of the century.  This attracted many notable
adherents, and from the publication of "The Magus" by Barrett in 1801,
created a magical library in modern English which is still widely read and
used.  It used the work of Renaissance magicians, court sorcerors,
Kabalists, and so forth, and attempted to apply the psychological principles
of the day in various original fudgings.  There was also the Theosophical
movement, largely discredited by Blavatsky's proven cheating on tests of
psychic powers, and rather more like spiritualism with Eastern allusions
than any Eastern religion.
 
The psychical movement, which changed its name to parapsychology, grew out of
spiritualism, which grew out of mesmerism, which was apparently fairly
original and totally ludicrous, but did yield the secret of hypnotism.
This led legitimate investigators to examining the claims of other groups
usually brushed off as mystical.  The early Society for Psychical Research,
founded in 1882 and led by prominent scientists such as the American
psychologist William James, was formed "first, to carry on systematic
experimentation with hypnotic subjects, mediums, clairvoyants, and others;
and, secondly, to collect evidence concerning apparitions, haunted houses,
and similar phenomena which are incidentally reported, but which, from their
fugitive nature, admit of no deliberate control."
 
It is to be noted that there is still, a century later, no replicable
experiment to demonstrate the existence of anything but hypnotic subjects in
this list.  It is also worth noting that while general models of the layout of
the psyche continue to be employed in psychotherapy, there is still no
generally agreed upon experimental methodology to falsify features of these
models.  Finally, it should be noted that the ritual magic methods employed by
many pagans, in other times as well as today, still have not been placed under
real scientific scrutiny to determine whether or not they produce any physically
measurable effects.  (My feeling is that such effects are limited in scope to
participants in the rituals and people who have knowledge of their occurrence,
whether such knowledge is true or false.)
 
Various factions of magicians struggled to survive in the early half of the
twentieth century, against an increasingly Christian atheist culture; that
is, a materialistic populace considered almost exclusively with day-to-day
life and easy entertainment, but still paying occassional lip service to
Christianity and suspicious of all other religions.  Most of the inheritors
of nineteenth-century magical paganism were hopelessly fragmented and
dogmatized, incapable of working together and resolving their differences.
 
In the late forties, Gerald Gardner began publishing books on witchcraft.
Gardner was a known associate of Crowley's and his rituals use a lot of
symbolism drawn from Crowley, but only a few actual references to Crowley.
He is also reported to have associated with Theosophist groups.  Crowley was
one of the chief inheritors of the jumble left at the end of the nineteenth
century, as well as a traveller and student in Eastern lands.  In any case,
Gardner (after Crowley) called for yet another neo-classicism, following the
pattern of all the other resurgences of Graeco-Roman paganism, but more
explicitly religious.
 
The laudable looseness of Gardner's system was more attractive to magically
inclined people than the Golden Dawn and Theosophy splinters remaining.  It
freed them to create on their own, and they went at it with a vengeance.  One
reason for the greater effective freedom was that Gardner was not as hard an
act to follow as many of the Golden Dawn leaders.  He was soon gone beyond by
his students, many of whom went off to form their own Gardnerian splinters
and mythological histories of their origin.
 
Another reason was the less formidable Gardnerian system of initiation.  Most
magical groups had complex multi-layered spiritual hierarchies.  These were
supposed to represent psychological fact, but little in the way of acceptable
empirical observation was used to correct these schemes, mostly drawn from
loose interpretations of the Kaballa, and they can't be said to have really
compelling inter-individual force.  These were replaced by a simple hierarchy
of three grades.  This was the high-level structure of the Golden Dawn, and
of a number of Masonic groups, which divided their degrees into categories.
The third grade was no longer reserved for secret chiefs who almost certainly
never existed or for mythological prophets, and the initiations had a more
joyful and celebratory character, rather than a system of awful psychological
ordeals.  (I feel that the emphasis on ordeals and spiritual hierarchy was
a product of Christian influence, with the triumph of martyrdom as a supreme
spiritual experience and the hierarchic nature of the Church, and that a
simpler formula based on Thelemic growth, like the dominant neo-pagan formula,
rather than Christian death/rebirth is more appropriate.)
 
A common claim among neo-pagans is that paganism was suddenly revealed to the
world in the fifties after centuries of hiding.  This is demonstrably false;
all that is needed is a bit of history, textual analysis, and symbolic
comparison to see how close neo-paganism (as the movement came to be known in
the sixties) is to its known historical antecedents.  But mythological
histories are themselves traditional in world religions.  While it is important
to know the real history of a religion, this does not invalidate the possible
value of mythological tales of the origin, because these serve as fictional
statements of intent, often incorporating powerful symbolism.  They have
literary value in this respect; and literary or other artistic value is a type
of spiritual value.
 
Modern religious paganism has made a unique contribution.  No eclectic/pagan
movement of the historical past has brought the contributions of paleolithic
shamanism into the fold as well as has neo-paganism.  In large part this is
due to a rise in knowledge of such religions at the same time as the rise of
neo-paganism.  This is an extremely valuable contribution; in shamanism lies
the roots of all human religion.  A coven meeting still resembles a GD lodge
considerably more than it does a shamanistic lodge, despite the valuable
addition of techniques originating in shamanism.
 
This has been a neccessarily brief and incomplete account.  I have not
mentioned Rabelais, the Rosicrucians, the decadent poets, Nietzsche, de
Sade, Levi, Gurdjieff, James, Augustine, Shakespeare, Masonry, Paine, American
utopian communities, Jung, Merlin, art and spirit, or Gnosticism, all of which
are vital elements of the story; I have given short shrift to the psychical
movement and its influence on nineteenth and twentieth century paganism;
and I have neglected many other relevant topics.  But I hope this will
suffice as a brief overview of the pagan history preceding neo-paganism.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
                                                                        
         ********************************************************
         !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mikie? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
         ******************************************************** 

    I found this "brief summary" wonderful.  Thanks for putting it in
    the file.
    
    Marcia

    RE: .1
    
    Going way back, a trivial point is that there are actually *two*
    Christian forms of witchcraft -- one being Satanism, the other being
    the type of witchcraft taught by Gavin and Yvonne Frost. For more
    information on them, from the source, pick up some old copies of
    National Enquirer and look at the back page for their ads for their
    "School of Wicca".  Their way to the bank is paved with National
    Enquirer ads.  And they do claim to see no conflict between
    Christianity and what they teach as witchcraft.
    
    Elizabeth 

    Before anyone else gets a chance to dump (accidently) on Witches I
    would like to say that the recent spate of 'Unidentified Children"
    and "Satanist" are unrelated to Wicca.
    
    These people refered to in the articles are _sick_.  They have no
    respect either for their offspring or of themselves.  Those involved
    in Wicca have (or should have) a deep respect of the Earth, of
    themselves and of their children.

    Re .44:
    
    Treading anwe over somewhat trod-upon ground --
    
    "Witches" can be in a number of flavors, including Satanic.
    
    The majority of witch movements are not evil; at least one is.
    
    However, one need nbot be a witch to be a Satanist.  The Faust of
    legend (as opposed to the historical figure) was a non-Witch sorcerer,
    for instance, and there  are actual worshippers of Satan (and his
    minions) who aren't spellcasters.
    
    Additionally, not all Wiccans are necessarily spellcasters. 
    
    "What is a Witch?" is a complex question indeed.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

The following is from Parapsychology Abstracts International, which is the
output of a project which is attempting to bring together and index in a
single series abstracts for all relevant published materials for
parapsychology.  This is from volume 4, number 1, under the heading
"Books: Consciousness Studies".  This is everything I know about the
following, so I can't recommend it or anything, but I thought people might
be interested.

					Topher 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01774.  Hoyt, Charles Alva.  _Witchcraft_.  Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1981.  166p.  Bibl.: 143-155;  Ind: 156-166

The purpose of this book is to aid students to find the way to asking the
right questions about witchcraft [I suspect the abstracter means
anthropology students -- TC].  The author notes that the problem is not in
finding answers but in judging between them.  He distinguishes seven
schools of witchcraft belief, each with its own set of answers.  Their
arguments are all summarized with the author's comments and references to
pertinent studies, and the reader is directed to the sources of the
arguments and the data upon which they are founded, so that after further
reading he or she will be able to judge.  Among others, there are chapters
on Satanism, the anthropological approach to witchcraft, and the
psychological school, witchcraft and drugs, witchcraft in Salem, and
Witchcraft today.  The relevance of parapsychology to understanding the
nature of witchcraft is touched upon briefly. -- R.A.W. [The initials at
the end indicate that the abstract is by Rhea A. White, who is the editor]. 

    The 8 June 1987 issue of _Insight_, a weekly newsmagazine published
    in Washington, D.C. has in its "religion" section an article, "Inside
    the Circle of Witches Modern," dealing primarily with Wiccan
    witchcraft, though not exclusively.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    There was an article on witchcraft in the September '87 issue of
    _New Woman_ Magazine.  Laurie Cabot was mentioned.  Apparently the
    reporter was invited to one of her ceremonies.  It seemed to be
    a standard, low-power ceremony that only involved women.  She went
    on to find out who these women were.  They were everything from
    housewives to well-respected business women to low-paid workers.
    
    Elizabeth

    I belonged to the "Witches of Salem" many moons ago, and at that
    time the other witches were really nice people.  I have not attended
    any meetings in over 6 yrs because it was too far to drive.  My
    friend Nancy and I asked a few of the members if they wanted to
    have private meetings on our own.  We managed to form a coven and
    would travel to a new meeting place each month, we took turns hosting.
    
    Well, to get to the point....I moved away from the area, so eventually
    the meetings came to an end.  I was talking to my friend a couple
    of weeks ago and she said that she had heard from Laurie a few times.
    Her observation was that a whole new brand of witches had been "reborn"
    and that they really weren't good for Laurie.  She is letting them
    run her life.  She asked Nancy if we'd come back, but she declined.
    
    Blessed be
    Fran
    

    could someone explain what the Hag signifies in Wicca. Is she
    a goddess or part of the goddess?....
    thanks,
    Fran
    

    re: -.1
    
        I don't know about Wiccans, but Lazaris teaches us about the
    Goddess energy being comprised of several archetypes, among them
    is the form of the crone or hag.  (Others are the maiden, the mother,
    and one other which slips my mind at the moment.)
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: the last two replys
    
       The three aspects (or as reply .52 calls archetypes) of the Goddess
       are Maiden, Mother, and Crone.  Some of the attributes are:
    
           Maiden - Birth, childhood, innocence, spring
           Mother - Adulthood, fruitfulness, summer
           Crone  - Old age, death, winter
    
       There are many attributes.  I have just listed a few.
    
    Blessed Be,
    
    Pat

>           Crone  - Old age, death, winter

what if two women, who are trying to take over a third woman, ask her to come 
in to the mountains with them so they can all three be crones?  is this a way 
to vamp energy?

    What?!

    RE:.54
    
    I'm not sure what you're getting at?
    
    Pat

    Re .55 (Mikie?), .56 (Pat):
    
    I _think_ Meredith is asking whether if there are two women who
    somehow manifest the Crone aspect, they can use the energies of
    a third woman by bringing her to a place where removing a portion
    of her energies would effect the transformation.
    
    It's an interesting question, because it suggests a triad relationship
    be established at a "winter"-level energy aspect.  Since a triad
    is a strong and potent mystic number and is used in other ways in
    the tradition being mentioned, the question is a valid one.
    
    The results, though, probably would be unbalanced and hence less
    effective than the more traditional triad.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

>    I _think_ Meredith is asking whether if there are two women who
>    somehow manifest the Crone aspect, they can use the energies of
>    a third woman by bringing her to a place where removing a portion
>    of her energies would effect the transformation.

That is exactly what I was asking.  The two women in question went as far as to 
try and suck the youth off of their adolescent daughters.
    
>    It's an interesting question, because it suggests a triad relationship
>    be established at a "winter"-level energy aspect.  

They wanted to do this "ritual" at Winter Solstice, so this makes still more 
sense.
    
>    The results, though, probably would be unbalanced and hence less
>    effective than the more traditional triad.

They were unbalanced people!  What results would you be tempted to suppose?

thanks, Steve - - 
Meredith

    Re .58 (Meredith):
    
>>    The results, though, probably would be unbalanced and hence less
>>    effective than the more traditional triad.
>
>They were unbalanced people!  What results would you be tempted to suppose?
 
    The problem is that what they'd be doing would be at an energy _ebb_.
    If they were trying to do any significant act, what they'd be doing
    would be to waste all their potential (in the electrical sense)
    getting to a stable state.  It would be less powerful than it would
    be _resistive_; that is, it would be a lousy lever but a great anchor,
    if you get my analogy.
    
    Used in a left-hand-path manner, the results would tend to be more
    self-destructive than outward destructive.  
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

    Shakespeare
    
    To answer the noter in .11 William Shakespeare was the originator of
    the image "Boil, boil, toil & trouble".  I think it's from King Lear.
    For those noters who may still be reading as I am.
    
    -b-

    
    The witches were in Macbeth, and they foretold that he would become
    (eventually) King of Scotland.
    
    Archie
    (Nightshift)

    It's interesting you mention Shakespeare Re: -2 and -1...
    
    when I was in college I took a Shakespeare course and we had to write a
    paper.  I wrote on "Twelfth Night" but a woman on the other side of the
    room wrote about witches and witchcraft, having been inspired by
    "Macbeth"
    
    The teacher flunked her because she said there was no such thing as
    witchcraft.  I raised my voice and informed her that there certainly
    was such a thing as witchcraft and that there were active covens I
    knew of in New Orleans, Detroit, and San Francisco, for starters.  The
    teacher, after much debate, during which I presented witchcraft as a
    form of their own religion and not the spell-casting hocus-pocus that
    Hollywood had made them to be, took back the report and graded it based
    on its content.
    
    After class the woman thanked me and smiled and said, "I know there is
    witchcraft, I am a white witch."  That was where she got a lot of
    the material for her paper.
    
    I visited her in her dorm once and she had all sorts of books and
    symbols (her roommate probably *loved* that...) and she claimed that
    her intentions were for the good of humankind and of the planet.  She
    said her coven had a great respect for the earth and the environment.
    
    She said her coven was not a hierarchy of power with a head witch or
    anything like that but rather a group of women who got together and
    celebrated some of the ancient feasts, like Beltane, etc, although with
    some modifications as to the original traditions.
    
    I found her theories and philosophies fascinating and she held a belief
    in God, although I don't recall if she believed in Jesus or not.
    
    I don't know what the professor's motivation was in flunking that
    paper.  Just because one doesn't believe in something doesn't seem to
    be reason enough.
    
    But it was interesting having known her.
    
     

Shouldn't that have been

"bubble bubble, toil and trouble"

    Would you believe,

    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire, burn, and, caldron, bubble.

    Jamie.

That's it!  That's what I meant.

Listen, I haven't read it since Comprehensive school, okay!

Anyhow, it was crap.

    re -1 "Anyhow, it was crap."
    
    Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!
    you're hurting my ears!!!
    oh noooooooooooooooooooo!  not my most favorite one!!
    
    --angela

    THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ENTERING A NOTE BUT I HAVE BEEN READING LONG
    ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE A FEW NAMES. I WOULD LIKE FOR SOME OF THE REGULARS
    TO GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON QUABALA. IT SEEMS TO FIT A
    LITTLE BETTER WITH CHRISTIANITY THAN DOES WICCA. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANY
    OTHER TRADITIONS WOULD COMPARE BECAUSE WICCA IS THE ONLY ONE I HAVE ANY
    EXPERIENCE WITH.
    
    TIA
    

    Welcome Tia. One thing. Please don't write in all capital letters. It's
    considered shouting and bad form. Don't sweat it. Lot's of folks have
    had to be told this upon their first note. :-)
    
    Quabala (Qabala, kabala or various other spellings.) I can only give
    you the short answer. It's Jewish mysticism. A major part of it
    revolves around the Tree of Life. This tree has been appropriated or
    tied to lots of other things. I've seen it in Mayan books, The Merlin
    Tarot and others. Lots of books on Arthur and Celtic Myths deal with
    it. The Chakras are a part of it. 
    
    I don't have the knowledge to go into the detail that you would like.
    However, I see that your at MKO by the NODE name. If you go into the
    area Metaphysical stores, they usually have at least one book on
    Qabalism and I know that Barnes and Noble in South Nashua and in Salem
    NH have several titles, both in there Metaphysical (New Age) sections
    and in their Religious sections. 
    
    Hope this helps a little.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    Thanks PJ. hey...is this considered whispering since i did not use any
    capital letters? i have a habit of not thinking about punctuation much.
    Anyway I got a book on Qabala that was put out by the Golden Dawn and
    it seems pretty interesting so far.  Thanks for the advice.
    
    Tia