Ellen Cannon Reed has been a visible member of the Wiccan community for years.  She has been a practicing Wiccan since 1975, and was the high priestess of the Sothistar coven in California.  She is the author of “The Witches Qabala” (Weiser: 1997), “Invocation of the Gods” (Llewellyn: 1992), and “The Witches Tarot” (Llewellyn: 1989).  Her tarot deck is probably the best known of her works; it has become a modern standard commonly found among Wiccan working tools.  She passed away in 2003.

“The Heart of Wicca” includes chapters explaining in some detail Ellen Cannon Reed’s personal understanding of the following:

• What Is Wicca?
• Traditions
• Covens and Coven Leadership
• Training and Study
• Initiation
• Symbology
• Deities
• The Sabbats
• Shamanism
• Magic
• The Rede, Karma, and the Law of Three
• Your Own Quest

There are a few bits of extra material at the end, including a message to those who choose to follow the author’s path, along with a list of unfortunately out-of-date internet links, a recommended reading list, index, and brief author bio.

The book starts off with a litany of gripes about how others interpret and practice Wicca, while claiming that her Wicca, which she describes as being “traditional Wicca,” is not at all like those she decries.  For instance, she dismisses people who choose to perform their rituals using clearly modern mythical systems.  She objects to the philosophical perspective that goddesses and gods are aspects or facets of a universal goddess or god, or elements of an all-encompassing divine force that is beyond human understanding in its totality.  She questions whether one can be Wiccan if one doesn’t also practice magick.  And she objects to the idea that you can honor the Lord and Lady if you don’t perform specific rituals such as casting a circle.

The author defines her tradition, which she calls “traditional Wicca,” as an initiatory Mystery religion.  She says that this is very distinct from the social, political, or support types of groups which also claim to be Wiccan, implying that they do not deserve the right to call themselves Wiccan.  She says in her introduction, on page ix:

“We are few, and have looked about us in dismay, realizing that other kinds of covens have proliferated… and that most newcomers to the Craft are not aware that our type of tradition exists.”

Immediately after the introduction the author explores the concept of “tradition,” defining it as “a specific way of doing things within our group” (page 17.)  She makes it clear that her coven, and another coven she feels represents “traditional Wicca” best, are not consensus covens but follow a strict degree structure with High Priestess leading.  She states that people she considers “traditional Wicca”  are all “firm believers in the value of tradition.”  Yet by her own definition, people who practice Wicca using modern mythology systems are traditions as valid as hers despite her claims otherwise – they are, after all, doing things a specific way within their own group.  It might not be the same way that her group practices, but it is a system they have worked out and are following within their practice.  The author can’t really claim that her specific coven’s way of doing things is the only “traditional” way, either, since she freely admits the other coven she holds up as an example of a “traditional” coven, the Coven  Ashesh-Hecat, does not follow the same tradition as hers.  Her definition of “tradition” is so broad that it easily includes anyone who wants to call themselves Wiccan, despite the author’s attempts to assert that there are many Wiccans who are not traditional, or are not following a tradition.

Ellen Cannon Reed states that neither of the covens she holds up as exemplars of “traditional Wicca” are either Gardnerian or Alexandrian (page 17).  She also acknowledges that it is perfectly normal for Wiccans to create, add, and evolve bits and pieces of their practice over time.  No Wiccan group can honestly claim to have a tradition which has been passed down to them in an unbroken line from pre-Christian times.  Yet in her introduction to the book the author talks about “gritting her teeth” in frustration when she hears about other Wiccans who choose to create their own new traditions using modern myths which speak to them.

The topic of initiation is the other key element at the core of her frustration with Wiccans she tries to dismiss.  The chapter on initiation describes the two forms that it takes: “small I initiation” which is a ritual of acceptance into a group, and “big I initiation” which is a personal experience involving a life-changing step in the spiritual maturation process.  While other Wiccans perform the “small I initiation,” only a goddess or god can perform the “big I initiation.”

The author’s hang-up regarding initiation centers on the fact that she feels that to be Wiccan, you must have undergone a “big I initiation.”  You must have achieved a minimal level of spiritual maturity, have undergone a life-changing spiritual experience, in order to call yourself a follower of Wicca.  She feels that any Wiccan groups which are not made up of Initiates (the title she chooses to use to identify those who have experienced a “big I initiation”) are not really Wiccan.  This narrow viewpoint is one which I’m afraid is one which the author must re-examine.  There are a number of reasons for this.

Many people come to the Wiccan religion as the result of personal searching and examination of personal philosophy.  Wicca is not a proselytizing faith – followers are not encouraged to actively recruit others.  Choosing to self-identify as Wiccan is rarely a whim – and for those whom it might be a fashion or political statement, Wiccan involvement is usually brief as they realize it is a faith that requires individual work.  Wicca is a personal faith, not an institutional one.  Answers are not prepackaged for acceptance by the faithful, but something that each of us work out for ourselves.  It could be said that each person who chooses to call themselves “Wiccan” has in fact received a “big I initiation” in order to have the courage to come out of the broom closet to themselves as Wiccan.

An analogy can be drawn from the gay/lesbian/bisexual community.  When someone comes to the realization that their sexual orientation is not strictly heterosexual, they can honestly say that they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual regardless whether they are celibate or not, whether they are “out” to others or not.  That “coming out of the closet” to one’s self is the equivalent of a “big I initiation,” as it is a significant step in one’s path through life.  People who realize that they feel most aligned with Wicca, and who choose to follow this path, have indeed been touched by the divine.  They have searched their hearts, and have uncovered a part of themselves that they might not have paid attention to before.

Wicca as a religion is also more than just a small sect of dedicated mystics, in the same way that in the Roman Catholic faith, all followers are not expected to be nuns or monks.  Within Wicca many groups already recognize this – many follow a degree system, with first degree being “rank and file” Witches, second degree for those worthy of the title “High Priestess” or “High Priest,” and a third degree for “Elder.”  Other traditions within Wicca don’t bother with degree systems, choosing instead to recognize each practitioner as more or less an equal, with plenty of room for different roles which may change over time, and a different focus for worship or practice for each individual as they see fit.  Those who clearly have more advanced understanding might be honored with the title “Elder,” but this is again sometimes done on an individual basis.  Those who start out on the path do not need to be expected to be full-fledged Initiates dedicated to a mystical path, but there is certainly that element at the core of the religion.  The mystical core should be nurtured and encouraged, but it is a mistake to assume that it is the only part of Wicca which is valid as a focus of practice.

If the author’s concern is that the Mystery element of Wicca is being lost, she should perhaps examine her understanding of Mystery.  A good explanation of the Mystery element of Wicca is explained as follows:

“A mystery religion is not like Catholicism where a Priest is the contact point between the worshiper and the Deity, nor like Protestantism where a sacred Book provides the contact and guidelines for being with the divine. Rather a Mystery Religion is a religion of personal experience and responsibility, in which each worshiper is encouraged, taught and expected to develop an ongoing and positive direct relationship with the Gods.”  (from the essay “An Introduction To Traditional Wicca” by Keepers of the Ancient Mysteries, found online at http://www.paganlibrary.com/introductory/introduction_wicca.php)

The vast majority of Wiccan practitioners and groups encourage the understanding that religion is all about a direct relationship between the individual and the divine.  Wicca, in all its many varieties and traditions, “traditional” or not, tends to emphasize this fact over any separation of individual from the divine through the need of an intercessor such as a priest, priestess, or divine scripture.  By this definition of Mystery, Wiccans off all types definitely meet the test as few if any try to establish a requirement of formal intercessors between the individual and divine.  Mystery is not just a specific set of rituals.  Ellen Cannon Reed’s concern that Wicca is losing the Mystery element would have to be based on a completely different understanding of what Mystery is, something which she fails to define in “The Heart of Wicca.”

As a largely ecologically-centered religion, Wicca quite naturally also includes political, social, and ethical concerns which might not be the focus of one following an exclusively mystical path.  Starhawk and her very visible coven Reclaiming are a clear example of a Wiccan group with more than just a mystical focus.  Alex Sanders and Gerald Gardner are also perfect examples of Wiccans who did not have an exclusively mystical focus – they were both heavily involved in documenting and publicizing the existence of Wicca to ensure it did not die out.  Ellen Cannon Reed herself, despite her claim that her own focus in Wicca is as an Initiate, obviously also puts a lot of her energy into attempting to teach others about the Craft through her writing.  The author’s insistence that only the mystical focus is valid rings hollow.  Wicca is a living, organic, growing entity which will naturally encompass numerous elements and goals as it evolves.  To try and force it to not grow would be to force it to fossilize into mere dogma.

With her very restrictive views of what “real” Wicca is all about, I wonder if the author would have considered Gerald Gardner, Alex Sanders, or Doreen Valiente to have been Wiccan.  There is no question in my mind that they were.  Yet each of them were largely responsible for highly eclectic assembling, changing, and reworking of materials into what a lot of us today take for granted as being basic to Wicca.  Gerald Gardner in particular had a very obvious goal of popularizing Wicca in addition to any mystical aspirations he had.  These three very influential founders of Wicca probably wouldn’t fit Ellen Cannon Reed’s narrow definition on what a “traditional Wiccan” is.

Ellen Cannon Reed argues in “The Heart of Wicca” for more scholarly research into the history and mythologies of the cultures on which we are basing our traditions.  On this there is no quibble – our greatest problem in the past and even today is that too often we are sloppy or sometimes outright deceitful in factual claims.  For instance, it is said far too often that Wicca is an old religion, that it is pre-Christian, that it is “old fashioned” (see page 127 of “The Heart of Wicca” for Ellen Cannon Reed’s contribution to this misinformation.)  Historical scholarly works, in particular Ronald Hutton’s excellent book “The Triumph of the Moon” (Oxford University Press: 1999) have made it difficult to maintain the myth that Wicca is a continuation of a pre-existing religion. If anything, the evidence strongly suggests that what we know of as Wicca did not exist prior to Gerald Gardner’s involvement.  He was definitely introduced to some non-Christian ideas and practices, but the religion of Wicca which he presented as whole cloth was largely his own created “tradition.”  He obviously felt a need to flesh out the very rudimentary ideas he had been given by his initiator Dorothy Clutterbuck, which were very likely based on Margaret Murray’s thesis on witchcraft popular at the time.  Gardner enriched it with Aleister Crowley’s ideas (most likely the primary source of “An it harm none, do what you will,”) classical occultism from available printed sources such as the Key of Solomon grimoire, Freemasonry, and other sources available to him at the time.  Wicca is more honestly regarded as a modern religion drawing its sources from ancient as well as modern material.  Ellen Cannon Reed can be forgiven some of her historical mistakes in “The Heart of Wicca” because Hutton’s book came out after hers, but she could have refrained from making historical claims she could not back up.

The author’s view of deity is another example of how she holds a very specific personal definition, which is fine, but feels that her definition is somehow the “correct” one, which means everyone else is wrong.  Wiccans who do not hold her specific philosophy of the divine are therefore classified as not “real” Wiccans.  This is highly questionable.

Ellen Cannon Reed’s insistence that each goddess and god is independent, unique, and definitely not an aspect or face of a greater divine force, is not supported by the earliest established Wiccan practices.  “The Charge of the Goddess,” one of the core ritual pieces from early Gardnerian Wicca, clearly supports the Theosophical idea that all goddesses are one goddess, all gods are one god.  It starts with the statement: “Listen to the words of the Great Mother, who was of old called amongst men Artemis, Astarte, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Diana, Arianrhod, Bride, and by many other names…”  If traditional Wicca consists solely of Ellen Cannon Reed’s view of deity, then “The Charge of the Goddess” can not be considered “traditional Wicca.”  And that would mean that the oldest Wiccan traditions, Gardnerian and Alexandrian, are not “traditional Wicca” since “The Charge of the Goddess” is a central component.  Evidently, “traditional Wicca” must not be defined by a specific philosophy of deity.

It goes along with encouraging honest scholarship that Wiccans should be more rigorous in their research of mythology.  It sets us up as laughingstocks in scholarly circles when we confuse deities, ignorantly giving the attributes of one to another.  On the other hand, we should also be aware that the stories of the gods and goddesses have always evolved.  It is likely only since the advent of the printing press that the whole idea of an “official story” fixed on paper has come about.  Oral transmission is notorious for changing the wording and often the meaning of things from one telling to the next.  Many societies prior to the printing press were eager for new stories and gossip from outside their immediate community; it is easy to see how this would encourage the development of new tales, fabrications and embellishments of historical events, and the development of new myth.  To assume that myth is fixed and unchanging is naïve and perhaps insulting.  The deities, while perhaps eternal, are not necessarily unchanging.

The author does make some other excellent suggestions encouraging Wiccans to take their religion seriously, deepening the meaning to make it more than just a hobby or pass-time.  It really should be a way of life.  Wicca can be a strengthening bond between a practitioner and the place and circumstances of their life.  It is a philosophy of relating to those around us, to our environment, to our lives, and to the unknowable in a way that encourages us to take responsibility for our personal growth.  It can be very hard work but the benefits that come from greater maturity and responsibility for our own lives makes it worth the effort.

Ellen Cannon Reed does a good job of expressing what the core of Wicca is for her personally in “The Heart of Wicca.”   Because she frequently asserts that her way is “traditional Wicca” and attempts to put down other Wiccans who do not practice the way she does, I would not recommend this book to those new to the path.  It could leave the false impression that she is correct – that there is such a thing as a “One True Way” in Wicca.  The myth of the “One True Way” is something I would prefer we leave to the monotheistic religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  As Wiccans, with the lessons of the Burning Times of the Inquisition firmly planted in our philosophical past, we should know better than to fall for the “One True Way” fallacy.

For those who approach the book with a skeptical but open mind, who are willing to question statements presented as fact, “The Heart of Wicca” is an invigorating read to make you think.  For those who are just starting out on the Wiccan journey, I would recommend you leave this one for later, once you have a solid grasp of the basics, have developed a healthy skepticism, and preferably after you’ve read some historical works such as Ronald Hutton’s “The Triumph of the Moon.”

“The Heart of Wicca” is available through Amazon in printed and ebook formats.

Mike Nichols - Image via Wikipedia

Back in the pre-internet days computer geek Pagans like me would use our dial-up modems to connect with bulletin board systems where we could download text files, send and receive email, and participate in online discussion on a wide variety of topics.  There were dozens of different networks that individual BBSs would hook into covering all sorts of interests – including PODSNet, which specialized in Pagan topics.

We didn’t have a lot of material widely available back then.  There were only a handful of relatively good books available on Pagan topics, and they were often hard to find in local bookstores unless you knew the title or author and could special-order them.  If you were lucky enough to have bumped into some Pagan people who lived nearby you might have someone to share with and learn from.  A lot of information was fragmented.

Computer networks such as PODSNet, and then later the Internet, changed everything.  Information became easier to find.  Online stores like Amazon.com made it simple for anyone to find even the most obscure books to purchase.  People shared bits and pieces of things they’d created themselves, or things they were taught or borrowed from others, through email and discussion boards irrespective of geographical boundaries and distances. Since electronic bits of information are so easy to pass along things that were being taught in one community could easily start cropping up all over the place courtesy of computer networks!

Mike Nichols first established himself in the Pagan community in Missouri where he taught Witchcraft classes starting in the 1970s.  He also ran a bookshop and published his own Pagan newsletter.  His famous sabbat essays started as material for his classes and articles in his newsletters.  In those days there wasn’t a lot of information of this sort that was freely available.  Pagans are ever hungry to learn more about our history and ideas about how our ancestors might have practiced so Mike’s essays were eagerly received.  And they weren’t just read and then filed away either – they were shared, and shared widely, until they could be found all over PODSNet and then later all over the internet.

The next stage in the lives of these essays saw them brought together in a single website with Mike’s stamp of approval.  The copied and recopied and rerecopied versions that were floating around sometimes had mistakes in them, omissions, or outright changes.  Mike’s website at http://www.witchessabbats.com/ (originally hosted at Geocities — remember them?) corrected that by making the essays available in their complete form.  The essays remained popular and to this day when you search for “witches sabbats” on Google.com you will get Mike’s website as the first returned result.  Mike’s essays are considered the classic historical explanation of the Wiccan wheel of the year.

In 2005 this important collection of essays was finally put into paper-published form thanks to Acorn Guild Press.  Mike’s essays can reach an even wider audience and will be ensured their rightful place in Wiccan history.

The printed collection of Mike’s sabbat essays goes further than his website, though.  Sure, the essays are there in their intact glory, but Mike’s skilled pen has produced an insightful introduction and further essays to accompany them.  Additional historical context is also provided in a foreword by Wren Walker, one of the founders of the popular Witchvox.com website.  The additional materials alone are worth the price of the book.

Some of the extra essays take the sabbats further by providing insights into larger thematic cycles to tie the holidays together.  We also get a glimpse into Mike’s observations of changes in the Wiccan and Pagan communities, particularly the growth of the festival circuit, from the vantage point of one who has participated for decades.  He also shows us with a gentle sense of humor how we might get bogged down in our own individual opinions of the Divine and need to learn to see the larger picture.  He demonstrates how our spiritual paths can be enriched through examination of specific mythological narratives, and how psychological groundwork such as correspondence tables need to be understood rather than merely accepted as dogma in order to be most effective.

The only weakness with the book, which Mike openly acknowledges, is the lack of sources cited within the original sabbat essays.  The essays were written so long ago, and for a very informal audience at the time, that it’s impossible now to identify all the sources used for the essays.  Instead a bibliography of relevant books is listed so that readers who want to learn more, or who would like to try and track down some of the likeliest sources, can do so.

There are quite a few other books available today that examine the Wiccan sabbats.  Most of them owe a debt of gratitude to Mike Nichols and his original sabbat essays, which started the journey for so many.  “The Witches’ Sabbats” by Mike Nichols is a must-read for anyone involved in Wicca, and should be on the required-reading list for training covens.

“The Witches’ Sabbats” is available directly from the Acorn Guild website, or at Amazon in print and ebook formats.

The Roman Catholic Church has an office within its organization called the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. In previous times this office had another name: the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Despite the name change the office’s role has remained the same. It is responsible for keeping doctrinal discipline and confronting and eliminating deviations in doctrinal thought. It’s all about maintaining the authority of the Vatican and the Pope and ensuring that all Roman Catholics are following the same religion and respecting the established hierarchy.

Wicca is a religion based on autonomy. It draws its basis from Pagan religions of the past but primarily from lore about Witches and Witchcraft. Most today consider Wicca to trace back directly or indirectly to a single man, Gerald Gardner, who promoted the religion starting in the 1940s or early 1950s in Britain. Gardner described Wicca as based on covens with each coven being autonomous. If there was dissent within a coven the rules as Gardner presented them allowed for the dissenting parties to separate and form new covens. This way of dealing with conflict resulted in encouraging diversity within Wicca and reinforced the idea that there was no central authority which would dictate that one coven was wrong and another right on matters of philosophy or practice.

Gardner also insisted that there were other Wiccans out there that he did not know about who had been practicing before he was initiated. He did this partially to promote the debatable claim that he was merely passing on an intact ancient religion. One consequence of this is that it left the door open for others to come forward and claim they were Witches or Wiccans too from a common mythical ancestry and Gardner could not really insist they were wrong. Even if these other Wiccans practiced things differently, Gardner’s “old laws” clearly made it acceptable for variety in the way covens and practitioners did things. He might not have intended to do so but Gardner’s decisions regarding how to handle things in his own group had set the stage for Wicca to become much more than just his own teachings in his own groups.

The result of all this was that Gardner essentially gave away the right to exclusive ownership over the label Wicca for his groups and those directly descended from them. He might not have anticipated this possibility but in any case it is what happened. Many groups, sometimes with conflicting philosophies and ways of doing things, have come forward under the banner of Wicca. New groups have been created and old ones have splintered into other quite distinct groups. Autonomy was there so of course it was exercised!

Not everyone has been happy about this. Some of Gardner’s direct spiritual descendants have argued that only they and a few select groups that they approve of should have the right to call themselves Wiccan. However the autonomous structure had already been set up and no one group has the authority to dictate to the rest of the community. Wicca did not have a central authority structure in the past and it does not have one now. It is highly unlikely at this point that a central authority could be established which the majority of Wiccans would respect.

There have been attempts to seize power and establish a central Wiccan authority but these have all failed. One example is when Alex Sanders proclaimed himself the King of the Witches but it was quickly pointed out, particularly by Gardnerian Wiccans, that he did not have any authority outside of Alexandrian Wiccan covens. Another example is when in 1974 at the Witchmeet gathering in Minnesota, Lady Sheba (a.k.a. Jessie Wicker Bell) declared herself the leader of American Witches and demanded that everyone hand over their Books of Shadows to her so that she could combine their contents and then establish a single authoritative Book of Shadows which all American Witches would be expected to follow. She was laughed at and needless to say was not successful in establishing the central authority she sought.

It was at that same 1974 Witchmeet where we had probably the closest thing to a central Wiccan authority created in the declaration of the Principles of Wiccan Belief. This set of thirteen principles attempted to outline in a very general way the basic foundation of Wiccan philosophy. The concept of autonomy of both groups and individuals is clear in the document. It also specified that lineage or membership in specific groups was not a requirement in order to be Wiccan. Many Wiccans, both as groups and individually, consider the Principles to be the foundation of their spiritual path. However, true to the autonomy inherent in Wicca, there are some Wiccans who do not consider the Principles to be part of their individual or group philosophy.

Some are not satisfied with how things are in the Wiccan community and actively work to establish a central authority with their own particular outlook of course identified as the One True and Only Way. They are not satisfied with the fact that the autonomy they personally enjoy in Wicca also means that other Wiccans are free to follow their own different paths. These are the Wiccan fundamentalists who see variety as heresy. As far as they are concerned, if you’re not practicing things the way they personally do, and don’t believe things exactly the way they personally do, then you must be wrong and should either correct your ways or else stop calling yourself a Wiccan.

Perhaps these attitudes are carried over from previous religious education where the idea of One True Way was key, such as in many varieties of monotheism, particularly the evangelical and literalist varieties. Often the Wiccan manifestation of the One True Way idea comes through as a literal and absolute belief in the truth of a particular teacher’s work. Most often the teacher elevated to the status of never-to-be-questioned guru is Gerald Gardner since he was the one who began the Wiccan movement in the middle of the twentieth century. In the mind of many Wiccan fundamentalists, if Gardner taught it then it must be absolutely true!

Unfortunately for the literalists Gardner has turned out to be a mere human being just like the rest of us. Some things he got right and some things he got wrong. The history of Wicca that Gardner presented, especially the part that explains what came before Gardner was initiated, has proven to be largely speculation with very little evidence to support many of its major claims. Historians aren’t completely ignorant of what happened prior to the 1950s in England. We have enough evidence to know that Gardner’s historical claims were not completely accurate nor were they completely supported by the evidence.

A religion’s value does not depend on the literal truth of its historical claims. Many millions of people find Christianity to be meaningful despite the fact its history is not absolutely settled. Buddhists seem to still find their religion to be valuable despite the questions regarding the provable history of the religion’s founders. Wicca too is a precious treasure for those who practice it even if they don’t believe one hundred percent of the historical claims made by Gardner.

Some religions do consider blind obedience to authority to be a virtue the faithful are expected to cultivate in themselves. Wicca though cherishes autonomy and this is in direct conflict with blind obedience. Wiccans who value blind obedience are welcome to make that a part of their religious practice but they are out of line in expecting others to abide by their dictates. Wicca does not have an Office of the Holy Inquisition and many Wiccans will actively fight against the establishment of such. And that is to be expected.

Wiccans who play the fundamentalist mind-game of proclaiming that those who do not agree with them are not “true Wiccans” deserve the same reaction that Lady Sheba got back in 1974 when she declared herself Witch Queen of America – they should be laughed at and then ignored. Wicca is not a One True Way religion and never has been. Those who would make it over into one are in for a long hard struggle that they will likely never win. Is it really worth it for them? After all, if they wanted a One True Way religion there are plenty of those out there for them to join.

Wicca is for those of us who are free-thinkers, rebels, nature-worshippers, who laugh and love and dance in the name of our Gods and Goddesses in spite of what the stiff-shirt self-declared authorities around us tell us is right and proper. Others can try to co-opt our religion and turn it into yet another fossilized dogma of right and wrong to be blindly followed on pain of excommunication or threats of torment in other lives. The Witch’s cat is already out of the bag and has been for some time now, and we’re all enjoying the nighttime revels and the daytime ignoring of arbitrary conventions too much to just follow what someone else tells us is the One True Way.

Footnotes
Bonewits, Isaac. “Witchcraft: A Concise Guide.” (Earth Religions Press, 2001.)
Heselton, Philip. “Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration.” (Capall Bann Publishing, 2003.)
Hutton, Ronald. “The Triumph of the Moon.” (Oxford University Press, 1999.)
Lamond, Frederic. “Fifty Years of Wicca.” (Green Magic, 2004.)
Valiente, Doreen. “The Rebirth of Witchcraft.” (Phoenix Publishing, 1989.)

Sannion begins by saying that those who challenge Reconstructionism are “fluffy.” It must be pointed out that Neopagans who are not following specifically Reconstructionist paths are not necessarily “fluffy” by default. The term “fluffy” has come to mean Neopagan practitioners who are largely ignorant of their own religion’s history, sources, and often core issues. “Fluffy” Neopagans are thought to be involved in alternative religions for shock value or as a fashion statement rather than out of a desire for spiritual understanding and discipline. “Fluffy” Neopagans are those who accept any claim at face value — apparently lacking critical skills to distinguish objective reality from fantasy. “Fluffy” Neopagans generally lack credibility except amongst other “Fluffy” Neopagans, because they often can’t provide any evidence to support their claims. By clarifying what “fluffy” Neopagans are, it’s easier to recognize that there are indeed Neopagans who aren’t Reconstructionists who are also not “fluffy.” Doreen Valiente, Janet Fararr, Vivianne Crowley, Margot Adler, Starhawk — are these Neopagans “fluffy” because they aren’t specifically Reconstructionists? They are all Wiccans, and Wicca is outside the Reconstructionist category by most determinations.

There are undoubtedly some individuals who are new to Reconstructionist traditions who pick up a single book and then declare themselves “experts,” which easily puts them firmly within the “fluffy” category. And likewise, there are Neopagans who do not belong to Reconstructionist traditions who are thorough scholars, who are realists, who can provide extensive evidence to support claims they make. Being a Reconstructionist does not make you immune from being “fluffy,” and not being a Reconstructionist does not make you “fluffy” automatically either.

Let’s clarify the issue more by making clear distinctions between the two groups that Sannion describes as being at odds, and give them general labels: Reconstructionists and Eclectics. Reconstructionists are those who are basing their religions as closely as possible on a specific historical model. Eclectics are those who do not limit themselves to one specific historical model, but are apt to select influences from a wide range of cultures and historical periods. Eclectics are also just as likely to invent new concepts or practices for inclusion as they are to draw from established systems.

Sannion presented five main objections that Reconstructionist Neopagans hear from Eclectic Neopagans, and attempted to refute each of these. Let’s start by looking at those five objections and Sannion’s arguments and see where they take us.

1. “All Reconstructionists do is study; they don’t actually live the religion.”
Sannion argues that Reconstructionists do tend to be predominantly book-based, but this doesn’t mean they don’t pray to their deities or perform rituals or devotions.

The argument comes across as based on a rather shallow taunt — “my religion is better than yours because we do more ritual than you do.” It also misses the perhaps more subtle point — that a religion is a way of life, a living and breathing part of existence that isn’t experienced primarily through the study of the written word. Study of mythology and history can help us get a better understanding of our ancestors, and hopefully will shed light on ourselves. Eclectics acknowledge that things change, that the things written down in the history books are just the start of the story. The present and the future are just as important as the past. Perhaps the Eclectic complaint is that Reconstructionists are not focusing enough on the present, on their individual and current relationships with the Divine, in favor of focusing almost exclusively on what people did long ago.

It doesn’t really matter who is doing more ritual or more devotions as part of their religion. It doesn’t really matter if the religious practices are strictly individual and private, or public and communal. It does matter if you are living in the present or sacrificing the present for a mythical idealized past.

2. “Reconstructionism is too restrictive and doesn’t allow for personal expression.”
Sannion argues that Eclectic Neopagans are uncritical, that they accept everything without distinguishing good from bad. It is also pointed out that within specific Reconstructionist traditions (for example Greek paganism) there is a lot of room for creativity: Greek Reconstructionism includes Minoan, Myceneaean, Homeric, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods spanning roughly from 1500 BCE through 400 CE. “And yet [Eclectic] Neopagans still want more freedom,” Sannion says.

Eclectic Neopagans mostly work under the idea that they use what works for them. It’s something that varies from group to group, and often from individual to individual. If something doesn’t work for an individual or group, they’ll drop it or ignore it. That does not mean that individuals or groups are not selective, that they do not hold some standards against which philosophies or practices are measured. Eclectic Neopagans, individually and as working groups, can be just as critical as any Reconstructionist. The standards might be different, but different does not mean one standard is necessarily better or worse than another.

Eclectic Neopagans as an entire group can be said to accept everything, because if you look you’ll surely find an Eclectic Neopagan who does believe whatever specific idea is brought forth. The same can be said of Reconstructionists as a whole — pick an idea, and you’re sure to find a Reconstructionist somewhere who believes that particular idea.

The selection of a specific culture and period in history as the basis for a religion is itself artifical and forced. For example, the Celtic peoples were varied and far from homogenous, yet Reconstructionists will just as happily blend different clan or regional deities, myths, and practices. Ancient Greece, as another example, was a land made up of very independent city-states, each with its own set of deities and religious practices. Rome, on the other hand, did its best to institute a “state religion” or collection of religions, and to do this it consciously absorbed and adopted various tribal religions from Italy, Greece, Egypt, and elsewhere. The idea of a “pure culture,” “pure religion,” or “pure ethnic group” is very artificial and arbitrary. Cultures adopt ideas and mythology from each other all the time. To pretend that a religion or culture is “pure” is rather naive.

Many Eclectic Neopagans (although not all, of course) also work under the philosophy that “all gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess,” and often also believe that God and Goddess are merely two gender aspects of a single, all-pervasive Divine that is beyond human understanding as a whole. They believe that we approach and interact with the Divine through distinct “aspects” that appear to human perception as independent individuals. To expect an Eclectic Neopagan who believes “all gods are one God” to limit themselves to an arbitrary group of deities (whether selected by geographic region, historical period, or whatever criteria) is an artificial and unnecessary limitation. Eclectics allow themselves the right to decide how to approach the Divine, which names they feel most comfortable using when speaking with Them, and usually assume the same right to others whether they are Eclectic or not.

Sannion presented an analogy of two musicians to reinforce the idea that limiting study to one cultural and historical period is best. Of course, there are other analogies that can be presented to argue to opposite.

Imagine that there are two chefs. One chef limits herself to just twelve ingredients, selected because they were native to one geographic area and period in history. She also combines and prepares those ingredients only in ways that are historically supported for the time period and location selected. She becomes highly proficient and is satisfied with her achievements in the kitchen. Perhaps she becomes famous for a particular “speciality” dish.

The second chef, however, does not limit herself to a specific set of ingredients, methods of combining, or methods of preparing those ingredients. She feels free to explore other cultures, try new dishes, and incorporate what she likes best into her own familiar menu. Because she is able to explore and test, she invents some new dishes and methods of preparing ingredients that become new delicacies. Those experiments that didn’t work out are discarded in favor of those that succeeded. She learns from her mistakes and sees exposure to new ingredients and methods as a starting place, not the final destination in her culinary life.

Reconstructionists probably do see themselves in the analogy of the two musicians — they are the ones who apply themselves to learning one instrument, immerse themselves in the established understanding of that instrument, and strive to master it. Eclectics, however, probably see themselves in the analogy of the two chefs — they are the ones who allow themselves the freedom to explore, borrow, and invent, and strive to contribute something vibrant and new.

Is one right and the other wrong? Or are they just different approaches for different kinds of people?

3. “Reconstructionists are mean.”
Sannion argues that Neopagans who are not part of Reconstructionist traditions are not critical. “And they [non-Reconstructionist Neopagans] tend to believe that everything is subjective and just a matter of opinion.”

Religion is a subjective thing — it’s far from objective in any sense. Reconstructionist traditions are working from historical opinions that are based on interpretations of archaeological and textual evidence. Religion, like history, is always open to interpretation. New evidence is always being discovered, new circumstances arise which force us to re-evaluate and reconsider.

We humans can rarely agree about absolute determinations of “what really happened” in current events, so what makes us think we can do so for past history where we are often working from fragmented evidence?

There does appear to be a larger emphasis on scholarly standards within the Reconstructionist traditions than in the Eclectic community at large. This does not mean, however, that there are no Eclectic scholars, and that statements made by Eclectics are never critically examined. Religions that are more popular will invariably have more “fluffy” followers. There is a growing push within the Eclectic community as well towards critical scholarship such as the growing attention given to Ronald Hutton’s work, among others. To label a whole group “uncritical” while ignoring the increasingly more prominent critical elements within that group seems premature.

4. “Reconstructionists are too focused on the past.”
Sannion argues that Reconstructionists are not Luddites. They base their traditions on the best from their chosen cultural group and time period, ignoring elements such as slavery and animal or human sacrifice which are incompatible with modern values.

This is one of the strongest arguments for Eclecticism, as it acknowledges that it is impractical and likely impossible to recreate exactly what the ancients did. The difference is that Reconstructionists have chosen to limit their inspiration upon an arbitrary cultural group and time period (which may or may not be accurate in its modern assumptions of homogeneity of that cultural group and time period). This is the gist of this particular argument against Reconstructionism — that the limitation to one group at one time period for the basis of a modern tradition is arbitrary. One group’s or individual’s choice in no way invalidates the choices of others to limit themselves or not in similar fashion.

If Reconstructionists admit, as Sannion does, “…we aren’t pretending to be ancient people… [w]e are moderns, and gladly accept the positive things about modern culture” then why do they condemn Eclectic Neopagans because they aren’t pretending to be ancient people either? If an Eclectic Neopagan isn’t claiming to be carrying on an unchanged tradition from a specific cultural group at a specific time period, then why should a Reconstructionist be concerned? Many Neopagans do not feel drawn to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam specifically because they feel there is no such thing as a “One True Way” for all people. Why should Reconstructionists object when other Neopagans choose to follow their religions with different cultural or historical sources of inspiration?

5. “Reconstructionists are just making it up.”
This argument is the weakest. Sannion attributes this complaint against Reconstructionists to the “fluffiest” of non-Reconstructionist Neopagans — those who claim to carry on a tradition when the historical evidence does not back them up. It becomes an attack on the poor scholarship of the “fluffy” non-Reconstructionist instead of an argument addressing the charge that Reconstructionists aren’t really following an undisturbed ancient tradition, either.

Sannion admitted that Reconstructionists are in fact eclectic in their careful selection of what to include and what to exclude as part of their traditions. They include modern ideas and values, where often the original culture and time period used as the basis for the tradition would have differed. Even the original cultures and historical periods selected are not “pure,” as ancient cultures borrowed, adopted, and changed myth and philosophy from their neighbors the same way modern people do. Some cultures, like the Roman empire, were quite openly eclectic. It is puzzling that today’s Neopagans, especially ones who pride themselves on their thorough scholarship such as Reconstructionists, should try and insist eclecticism should be sneered at. If the ancients did it, and the ways of the ancients are clearly good enough for the Reconstructionists to emulate, then eclecticism should certainly be acceptable for all Neopagans.

The entire argument appears to really be about scholarship within the Neopagan community — what constitutes credibility, and how credible are we to outsiders. There is certainly a problem with what has been termed “fluffy” behavior, where practitioners exhibit little or no attempt to critically examine claims. This is not solely found within the Eclectic Neopagan community despite what some Reconstructionists would claim. We should be encouraging critical thought regardless of the tradition (or lack of one) among all Neopagans. This means that Reconstructionists as well must critically examine their own assumptions and challenge their own beliefs that Eclecticism is suspect.

The modern Pagan community is diverse and growing. Decades ago, there were a few distinct majority segments: Wiccans, Druids, and Asatruers. At the start of the 21st century there is an ever-growing number of non-Wiccan Witches, assorted Pagan groups, and Reconstructionist Pagans who are working to revive ancient Pagan religions.

With growth comes friction between factions, sometimes escalating into conflict. Minority groups sometimes feel offended when they are lumped in with other groups. Individuals are annoyed when others assume that some idea or philosophy might be common among the majority of Pagan groups.

Instead of strengthening one’s group identity by clarifying core ideas, it is common for a group to instead spend a lot of energy saying what it’s not about. Sarah M. Pike explored this in some depth in her book “Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community.” Wiccan groups have worked hard to insist that they are not Satanists. Non-Wiccan Witches insist that they are not at all like Wiccans. Reconstructionist Pagans insist that they are not Wiccans or Satanists, and often insist they are not following “Earth-based” religions as Wiccans do. Within the Wiccan community, there is an insistence by many that they are not “fluffy bunny” Wiccans which they clearly consider to be a perversion of their religion.

It is becoming quite common, at least on the internet, for these attempts to differentiate the “not-me” through what can only be described as bashing. Instead of discussing the issues and sharing different points of view and theories, those who hold whatever idea is not politically correct for the majority in the discussion become the target for personal insult and antagonistic behavior. In other forums, when a participant purposefully misinterprets another’s postings and writes to antagonize, the behaviour would be labeled “trolling” and would be dealt with appropriately. Within many Pagan forums, however, “trolling” appears to be encouraged providing you are politically correct about it and agree with the majority philosophy.

It has become politically correct in many Pagan forums to bash those they label “fluffy bunnies.” The term itself is intended to be insulting — it implies that some people are air-headed idiots more at home in a Walt Disney cartoon than in the Pagan community. Often the label is applied to any group one happens to disagree with. The implication is usually that the “fluffy bunny” hasn’t thought through their religious philosophy, that they are really just concerned about shock value or fashion rather than living a religious philosophy. It is also usually assumed that a “fluffy bunny” has little idea about the historical past and physical reality and accepts any claim that is made at face value.

Some groups, such as Reconstructionist Pagans, strive to match their religions as closely as possible to a specific chosen historical model. They feel that they are therefore immune to being labeled “fluffy,” because they hold scholarly rigor in such high esteem. It also happens sometimes within Reconstructionist discussions that other groups such as Wiccans are labeled automatically as “fluffy” because of specific discredited historical theories. The problem with these blanket labels is that they are not always accurate. Within the Wiccan community, for instance, there is a surge of scholarly historical research which has thrown new light on the origins of the religion. Many resisted this change at the start, but it is quickly changing so that now it is quite common to find Wiccans who freely incorporate the new ideas about the past into their philosophies. To insist that Wicca is “fluffy” is to ignore many scholarly Wiccans.

Similarly, while there is certainly encouragement within the Reconstructionist community towards scholarly rigor, it does happen that blanket statements are made and assumptions proven false. Like any pet theory, it is often hard to give up even when the evidence starts to mount that it might not be correct. The claim that Reconstructionists are “more scholarly” than other Pagans has lead to a growing arrogance by Reconstructionists towards other Pagans. And as so often happens, with arrogance frequently comes sloppy and uncritical thinking, essentially “resting on one’s laurels” from past accomplishments as a substitute for continuing critical work.

It seems rather hypocritical that a community made up of self-professed polytheists (whether “hard polytheists” or not) should be so intolerant of others who have different ideas. It’s not just acknowledging that others have different ideas, or accepting that the historical landscape is evolving. The problem is that some are being disrespectful of others and are actively antagonistic in forums where the stated goal is purportedly to share information and debate ideas in a civilized fashion. Bashing is not debating. Debating involves sharing ideas and evidence and discussing the merits of the different points of view. Debating allows disagreements, but does not allow disrespect. When a discussion transforms into personal insults against select participants, or “bashing fluffy bunnies” as some gleefully call it, it is no longer debate but shameful ego assaults.

Perhaps the conflict is a carry-over from the dominant Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, where it is common for religions to work under the assumption that there is a “One True Way” that is correct while all others are inherently wrong. When there is a “One True Way,” individual religions are in jeopardy whenever alternatives are present. If an alternative proves to be reasonable, it implies that others must be inherently incorrect. When there is “One True Way,” there can truly be only one. All others must be discredited and eliminated.

Polytheists purportedly accept the idea that there are multiple deities. “Hard polytheists” believe that the deities are all distinct, that the Greek Hermes is most definitely not the same thing as the Egyptian Thoth. Today there are many Pagans, commonly Wiccans, who are not “hard polytheists” but instead accept multiple deities as being aspects or faces of a larger deity and often as one ultimate deity. This point of view is often expressed as “all gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess.” Dion Fortune popularized this idea in her works in the first half of the twentieth century. Many early Wiccans, who admired Fortune’s work, adopted this idea into their Wiccan philosophy.

It is rather odd, then, that with the vast majority of Pagans claiming some version of polytheism as the basis of their religious philosophy, that they would also hold onto the idea that there is such a thing as “One True Way.” Some polytheists insist that they do not believe there is “One True Way,” yet when they start talking about other groups or philosophies within the Pagan community they act as if they are all pretenders while their own philosophy is the only “correct” one. The most obvious and frequent example of this is the so-called “fluffy bunny bashing” that occurs. Behavior in this case belies the denials.

Debate is healthy and to be encouraged. Discussion that involves personal attack and antagonism should be discouraged. There is a difference between debates of historical theory or the usefulness of different ideas, and discussion that becomes a reinforcement of disrespect. The Pagan community is varied and changing. No one group has exclusive ownership over the labels “Pagan,” “Witch,” or even “Wiccan.” Arguments over who has the right to those labels within our community are just like the arguments within the Christian community over who is a “real Christian.” The arguments are divisive and destructive. As a self-proclaimed polytheist community, we should be above these sorts of petty concerns.

Let’s resist the shameful bashing that we are committing against each other. Let’s encourage and participate in respectful, honest debate and discussion where we allow our evidence and theories to speak for themselves without allowing over-inflated egos to taint the forums. Let’s act like real polytheists, respecting others’ choices of deities and philosophies. Let’s leave the “One True Way” attitudes and behaviour out of our discussions. Those who are “bashing fluffy bunnies” are not winning the hearts, minds, and souls of the Pagan community — they are defeating the very ideals of polytheism that allow for a multitude of philosophies, deities, and unique paths within our community.

It’s time we grew past pointless infighting and arguments over who is “witchier than thou.” We need to retire the phrase “fluffy bunny” and other terms meant to demean others in our communities. Issues should be raised, discussed, and debated — but without insults and trolling. Scholarly criticism should be encouraged if we are to truly grow. Instead of focusing on what we aren’t, let’s focus on what we are, and respect the diversity that exists within our own community.

Photo copyright Eylon

It has been said by some Wiccan authors that mixing mythological pantheons is bad and should be avoided at all costs. The usual argument given for this admonishment is that each pantheon, indeed each deity, has very specific features and should be treated individually. To equate one goddess with a similar goddess from another pantheon is seen as disrespectful. Each deity, it is argued, deserves to be treated as an individual. Bringing together deities and elements of worship from different pantheons is confusing and results in muddled worship and ritual. ¹

This argument appears, at least on the surface, difficult to refute if we want to honor the deities as vibrant, powerful, and alive.

However, it seems the deities themselves are not so hard and fast about the distinctions between individual deities, not as unforgiving when worshippers use different names for them, as we simplistic modern humans would make them out to be. There is a long history of mixing pantheons that goes back to the dawn of human reverence of the divine. There are gods and goddesses that we take for granted today as being individual which are actually composite deities amalgamated in the distant past from more than one source deity. Why should modern reverence of ancient deities force them to fossilize when they were clearly organic and changeable in the past?

Ancient Egypt, one of the oldest recorded civilizations in human record, developed from various groups into the Upper and Lower Kingdoms prior to their unification around 3100 BCE under the rule of the first pharaoh, Menes. This bringing together of peoples into one nation encouraged religious practices to come together, helping to establish ever greater temples and religious dynasties. Deities were merged, which resulted in combined names in many cases. Amon-Re (or Amun-Ra), Ptah-Nu, and Re-Atum are a few examples.²

The merging of local deities into a larger national deity and the incorporation of foreign deities into a specific pantheon were not limited to Egypt. They happened all around the world any time two groups of people with different deities met. In Mesopotamia, lesser goddesses merged into the great Inanna, who under the Babylonians was known by the name Ishtar.³ The spread of Greek culture, largely due to the conquests of Alexander the Great around the fourth century BCE, resulted in the ‘Hellenizing’ of many cultures and religions — that is, making the local religions and cultures more Greek-like.⁴ With the rise of the Roman Empire, the Greek Artemis became the Roman Diana. Even Christian mythology adopted Pagan deities in a roundabout way, with goddesses like Brigid becoming Saint Brigit.⁵ Imagine that — a Semitic desert religion adopting a fierce Pagan goddess from the Green Isle!

Walter Burkert describes how ancient Greek society included foreign deities: ‘The Greek pantheon is not immutable. Only a small number of the Mycenaean gods are Indo-European, and Apollo and Aphrodite probably arrived only later. The fact that a fixed group of Greek Gods was established at all is due not least to epic art… [for example] The cult of the dying god Adonis is already found fully developed in Sappho’s circle of young girls on Lesbos… For the Greeks it was well known that he was an immigrant from the Semitic world, and his origins were traced to Byblos and Cyprus.’⁶

Today, Wiccan practices most commonly draw upon mythology from the British Isles. Despite the geographical separation from mainland Europe, there has been plenty of opportunity for incorporation of foreign deities. John and Caitlin Matthews wrote: ‘As successive waves of influence have dashed against our shores, so has the existing coastline of the mythic dimension been modified and moulded. Yet the persistent retention of certain characters, archetypes and themes is remarkable, revealing the true nature of British myth. Indigenous features, like our weather (which the Irish call ‘soft’ but which tourists find plain wet), form the prevailing climate of our belief. Sleeping kings who will come again, hags who become gift-bestowing maidens, wild men with staves and other-world women with cups, are all part of our composite tradition. Whatever gods and beliefs have been brought to Britain, they have a way of settling in so that the sharp definition of their origins is gradually blunted until it blends into the ambience of the new homeland.’⁷

Deities from different pantheons were mixed together in more than just the merging of lesser deities into greater deities, or the recognition and often integration of foreign deities into a local or national pantheon. Magickal practices, such as those recorded in the Greek magickal papyri dating back to the second century BCE draw clearly from such diverse sources as Egyptian, Greek, Babylonian, and Jewish mythology to achieve their ends⁸ Witches, wizards, magickians, priestesses, and priests did not shy away from communing with whatever deities they felt would be most effective as each situation warranted.

For example, a love spell includes the following invocation: ‘I entrust this binding spell to you, chthonic gods, Hyesemigadon and Kore Persephone Ereschigal and Adonis the Barbaritha, infernal Hermes Thoouth Phokentazepseu Aerchtathoumi / Sonktai Kalbanachambre and to mighty Anubis Psirinth… ‘⁹ Within this one incantation, we find Kore (Greek), Adonis (Greek, adopted from Semitic), Ereshkigal (Assyro-Babylonian), and Anubis (Egyptian) along with others. The ancient magickian who wrote this spell obviously didn’t think it was a bad idea to mix pantheons!

Modern Wicca continues this tradition of eclecticism at its very root. One of the foundation ritual pieces, the Charge of the Goddess, makes this point clear. It starts:

‘Listen to the words of the Great Mother; she who of old was also called among men Artemis, Astarte, Athene, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Cybele, Arianrhod, Isis, Dana, Bride and by many other names.’ Again, we see within a single ritual passage the presentation of goddesses from various different pantheons all together: Artemis (Greek), Astarte (Canaanite version of Ishtar, also adopted under this name in Greek culture), Athene (Greek), Dione (Phoenician/Greek), Melusine (Irish/Scottish/French, possibly Scythian), Aphrodite (Greek), Cerridwen (Welsh), Cybele (Phrygian/Greek, eventually merged with Rhea), Arianrhod (Welsh)… you get the picture.¹⁰

Getting to know a particular deity or small group of deities thoroughly through the study of their myths is a good way to get started on an intimate relationship with these particular expressions of the Divine. We should be careful to not allow our focused studies to blind us to the larger picture, though, of how our revered deities and pantheons connect with the rest of the mythological world. As the Greco-Egyptian god Hermes Trismegistus put it succinctly, ‘As above, so below.’ The ecology of myth is the same as the ecology of life on Earth: everything is connected.

References:

(1.) ‘Deity’ chapter, Ellen Cannon Reed’s The Heart of Wicca, Weiser: 2000.

(2.) Introduction to Chic and Sandra Tabatha Cicero’s The Magical Pantheons, Llewellyn: 1998.

(3.) ‘Inanna’s Family Tree, ‘ page ix, Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer’s Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth, Harper & Row: 1983.

(4.) Entries on ‘Hellenism’ and ‘Hellenize, ‘ Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, Lexicon Publications: 1988.

(5.) Entry on ‘Brigit/Brigid/Bride, ‘ John and Caitlin Matthews’ The Aquarian Guide to British and Irish Mythology.

(6.) Pages 176-179, Walter Burkert’s Greek Religion, Harvard University Press: English translation 1985.

(7.) Introductory section, pages 12 and 13, John and Caitlin Matthews’ The Aquarian Guide to British and Irish Mythology, Aquarian Press: 1988.

(8.) Introduction to editor Hans Dieter Betz’s The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation, University of Chicago Press: 1992.

(9.) Page 44, lines 335 to 345, editor Hans Dieter Betz’s The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation, University of Chicago Press: 1992.

(10.) See individual entries for each goddess in Janet and Stewart Farrar’s The Witches’ Goddess, Phoenix Publishing Co.: 1987.