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