The High Priestess Anari

I've decided to post an etherealised image of The High Priestess Anari a.k.a Moina Mathers a.k.a. Mina Bergson fading in - or out - of view in her Paris 'Rites of Isis' guise because lately I've been thinking about how much the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn influenced the 20th century Magickal and Pagan revival. Basically, A Lot! The original members of the G:.D:. used to seem rather far away in time from me (us) but now they seem really quite near, it was only a little over 100 years ago after all when the G:. D:. was formulating what would end up influencing the way 'magic' is conceptualised by later groups such as Wicca and Wiccan-derived Neo-Paganism. Whether you belong[ed] to a 'authentic lineage' of the G:.D:. or are familiar with their curriculum through your own research and application, I think we have a lot to thank them for, especially the mammoth research effort put in by S.L. MacGregor Mathers. Although they are generally classified as 'ceremonial magicians' I think the early G:.D:. are as 'Pagan' as contemporary Neo-Pagans really - with all the variations that that title encompasses, i.e. a range from theurgy to devotional approaches to non-Christian deities.

Party Poster Collages by Me

I made these collages for a Samhain party in 1997. We - my friends and I - used to always have a big Samhain party in Melbourne every year but eventually I got burned out and gave up on organising it. However, one of my friends, Philippe, kept the party going on for about ten more years. It might still be going for all I know. These images were on the back of the invitation for 1997 and on the front was a fleshy Witch on a broom image by the artist Coop. The collages were actually black and white - I just did them with a photocopier, scissors and gluestick (I love gluestick!) and I've coloured them for my blog.

I'm in two new Pagan anthologies.

That's right, this image has nothing to do with the two anthologies I'm in and is here simply because I like Louise Bourgeois's sculptures and thought I'd illustrate my post with one of them. So... I'm glad to announce that I'm in two new Pagan anthologies. Green Egg Omelettes is an anthology of art and articles from the legendary US Pagan magzine 'Green Egg', co-edited by Oberon Zell and Chas Clifton and published by New Page Books in the USA. The other is Priestesses, Pythonesses and Sibyls, edited by Sorita d'Este and published by Avalonia Books in the UK. My article in Green Egg Omelettes is on the Australian Pagan artist, Norman Lindsay, and the piece in Priestesses is a historical article on the Delphic Oracle.

Witchcraft and Paganism: What's the difference?

Regarding modern Witchcraft / Wicca and Paganism, and also the attempt to revive actual ancient 'pagan' religions. I think it's a matter of structures. Contemporary Paganism, as I am aware of it, is run on an essentially Wiccan model. That is a 'magic circle' model of 'casting the circle' the Four Elements, and a paired Deity(ies) in the middle. This format generally remains the same across Wiccan and Wiccan-inspired Pagan groups but can be "ethnically different" by swapping the deities around for those of different cultures - using Egyptian deities, Greek deities etc, but in the same 'magic circle' format. You can also combine deities/beings from several cultures in the one ritual format. A lot of people think that this 'magic circle' model *is* the "authentic ancient Pagan way of religious ritual" which under Christianity came to be thought of as "magic" but is "really ancient Pagan religion". When it is not actually ancient Pagan religion at all, but a *magic circle*, derived, I think, from the legacy of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn on 20th century Wicca, Paganism and other types of Ceremonial Magic. I think that the Wiccan format is essentially the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram extended into a religious ritual. It makes sense that Wiccans would be doing the "magic circle" format, because they are essentially Witches doing magic. But for "Pagans" to be also doing the "magic circle" format is less understandable, unless they are the types of "Pagans" who want to be Wiccans (rather than the types of Pagans who want to be non-Wiccan Pagans). Not that I'm saying that modern Paganism is not Paganism, I think it is, but it is a different thing to ancient, and to Reconstructionist, Paganism.

There is a prevalent idea that "Pagans" are "uninitiated Wiccans" which probably derives from the fact that Wiccans were/are the most active in the 20th century Pagan revival (maybe). Anyway, there is an idea that "Pagans" are un-initiated Wiccans, that they are a pool of potential Wiccans and that Wiccans are the "clergy" of this pool of Pagans. Wiccans have higher status in this situation. If the Pagans want to, they can try and join this clergy. Again, it seems to be a general belief that "ancient mystery cults" were part of all ancient paganism (when as far as I know while they were prevalent in Greece, and later Rome, they weren't evident across the board of "ancient Paganism" and the idea that they were characteristic of Egyptian religion is completely wrong) and that the Wiccan initiation is a form of one of these "ancient mystery cults" - among other things. In a (modern) Pagan festival situation it could be *generally* looked at like a "Sabbat" is a big public festival that brings together all sorts of Pagans, you don't have to be an initiated Wiccan to attend. An "Esbat" could be more of a Wiccan-focused event for those who are intending to eventually become initiated, or who are already initiated. Then there might, well there will be, initiates-only rituals that are not public at all, but coven only. So a permanent membership in the mystery cult/clergy. It's three a concentric circles of types of participation, from "Pagans" on the outer, to initiated Wiccans on the inner. But all using the same "magic circle" format. That's just a general diagram that isn't necessarily concretely representative of exactly how Pagans/Wiccans work, but from my experience it seems generally right.

Reconstructionist Pagans are a completely different kettle of fish to Neo-Pagans and/or Wiccans. They research the ancient "pagan" religion(s) of their choice and then attempt to practice it. It usually looks, and is, nothing like Neo-Paganism or Wicca - because it is not about magic, is not designed on a 'magic circle' structure. Nor is it "earth-based" necessarily. Sure, some of the gods, or beliefs or practices are earth-oriented, but others aren't, they are sky-oriented, or culture-oriented. In ancient Rome for example, "magic" was a pejorative label. The Roman magistrates and Flamens, or the Vestal Virgins, were not "doing magic", that wasn't their intention, although from our point of view they might look like they were (probably because Christianity viewed other religions as magical or demonic), but Romans would have been insulted to have been thought of as doing magic when they were trying to perform civic religion. Although of course magic went on, privately. Reconstructionists don't do much in the way of "ancient mystery cults" either, because of a lack of good information on *exactly* what went on - because the ancients were so good at keeping secrets, except for ancient Christian converts who liked to blab. (Although I am more sympathetic to the idea of Recons just doing mysteries anyway, sans good info, just do the best you can - I suppose that's an example of *degrees* of historical correctness).

So... Basically Wicca/Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism are similar to each other, because they both use the 'magic circle' format for their religious/magickal space (and I think Neo-Paganism derived from Wicca, and from where Wicca derived itself from - which was the Golden Dawn) but are they are both very different to ancient "paganism" and forms of Reconstructionist Paganism. I think it is important to distinguish between modern Wiccan-Paganism and ancient pagan religions. And magic of all sorts. I also think that modern Pagans could make a bit more effort to research what they purport to be practising *or* alternatively stop claiming ancient precedents.

Isis-Aphrodite, the cute goddess!

The Hellenised Egyptian cult of Isis originated in Ptolemaic Alexandria from whence it spread out into the Mediteranean. By the 4th century BCE there was an Isiac sanctuary in the Piraeus (Athens' port). During the 3rd until the 1st centuries BCE the Isiac cults practised at Greek trade centres such as Alexandria, Delos and Puteoli spread along sea-trade routes. Delos, a major slave trading emporium, was the main site of Isis worship. From the 2nd century until the sack of Delos in 88 BCE there was uninterrupted contact between the island and Puteoli, the second international Mediterranean port after Delos. By 105 BCE there was a temple of Alexandrian divinities at Puteoli and, more widely, in Campania, at Pompeii, Herculaneum, Stabiae and Naples. Within about five more years it would be in Rome. While there existed a tradition of rather refined sculptures of a Hellenised Isis, based on the iconography of deified Ptolemaic queens, there were also these very cute terracotta popular images of the goddess in her form in which she was syncretised with Hathor-Aphrodite. I've been collecting images of them because I think they are so cute.

Cleopatra = Cliché?

As part of my general interest in Egyptomania, I'm doing an essay on the reception of the Cult of Isis amongst the Roman elite from the Late Republic to the Flavian period. This has led me to an investigation into Julius Caesar's and Mark Antony's relationships with, of course, Cleopatra VII who termed herself the 'New Isis'. I was resisting looking at Cleopatra, having successfully avoided her for my entire life under the assumption that she was too horribly clichéd to bother with. (Is that a word - 'clichéd'?). However, after looking at primary sources about her, Cassius Dio, Appian, Plutarch, I'm finding her much more interesting than I thought she was. Shows that I shouldn't have been relying only on the Cleopatra of rumour (or Hollywood) - not that rumour is absent in ancient authors' stories of her either. I've also been reading up on the Ptolemaic Dynasty - fascinating! lots of killing of relatives and brother-sister marriage - as well as on Ptolemaic Alexandria. I can recommned Joyce Tyldseley's recent book on Cleopatra, as well as Sally-Ann Ashton's, Joann Fletcher's and Diana Kleiner's books as interesting, easy-to-read accounts. Plus, theres a fabulous, enormous book 'Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth' by Susan Walker and Peter Higgs (Eds), published by the British Museum Press (2001) that is full of ace pictures and interesting essays. I'm still a bit sheepish about admitting that I'm looking at Cleopatra... But I shouldn't be. She really is much more interesting than I expected. Plus, there's all that "Was Cleopatra black? No, she was Macedonian" controversy that you can read about in Mary Lefkowitz. Will the ancient world ever cease to amaze and fascinate me? I doubt it.

Pagan Reconstructionism

I discovered Pagan Reconstructionism around 2000. Before that I'd been heavily involved in Neo-Paganism. What is the difference you may ask? Well, Neo-Paganism derives from 20th century Wiccan Witchcraft in that it uses a 'magical circle and four elements' format, believing this to be the "authentic" structure of "Paganism" - as if there is only one "Paganism". Neo-Paganism also tends to act as if it is some sort of "outer court" of Wicca, a first step to Wicca, like the way a congregation is in relation to a priesthood. It makes sense that Wicca uses a magical circle format because Wicca is essentially magical, but "Paganism" is not. Pagan Reconstructionsim generally consists of people either fleeing from Neo-Paganism or coming from a historical re-enactment background. It tries to re-create ancient religion(s) from available primary sources such as texts and archaeology and is not usually focussed upon "magic". While intellectually I prefer Pagan Reconstructionism to Neo-Paganism (although I do agree that the latter has many good points), since going back to University specifically in order to study ancient religions I have actually become less inclined to religious practice or belief at all. In fact I'm rather fond of atheism. That does not mean that I don't still tremble in vertiginous awe at the universe and I'm still incredibly interested in religion(s) from many angles: aesthetic, structural, functional, but I can't say that I'm actually a full-on *believer* in supernatural beings - at least not to the point that I'm going to participate honestly in their cult (not that the Pagan Reconstructionist scene is very big in Australia anyway). I've been thinking that religious experience might very well be *aesthetic* experience for a few years now. I agree that there are many pleasurable sensory aspects about ancient religion and from the point of view of the 'Goddess Movement' certainly the discovery of ancient images of female deities is very empowering for women. It might surprise some people to realise just how huge the Pagan Reconstructionist scene actually is, consisting of types such as Celtic, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Canaanite and Norse Reconstructionism. There are also several umbrella organisations. A lot of this exists on the internet where Yahoo Groups facilitate communication between enthusiasts, and there is also the phenomenon of 'virtual shrines'. Pagan Reconstructionism is also popular in Lithuania, Greece and probably lots of other places too. I have heard that Classicist, Sarah Iles Johnston, is going to write a book on Greek Reconstructionists, who, if you recall newspaper articles about them coming out of Greece in the last few years, are very vocal about having Greek Paganism legalised. This really is quite a fascinating topic that I'm particularly interested in, these days, from the perspective of the uses of "The Past" by contemporary Pagans. One of the useful books that is not exactly on Pagan Reconstructionism but is on the interaction between modern Pagans and Archaeologists and Heritage sites in the UK is Jenny Blain and Robert Wallis "Sacred Sites Contested Rites/Rights". The authors are both academics and Heathens - and this is not an unusual mix if you are aware of Pagan Studies - the academic study of Contemporary Paganism. From another angle, British Archaeologist, Francis Pryor, talks about the problems Archaeologists in the field can have with Pagans who claim "ancestral rights" to a particular ancient site. Then there is Catalhoyuk at which Ian Hodder has actively tried to address the interests of the Goddess Worshippers who frequent the site as part of his Post-Processualist approach. I could write about this all day, citing interesting example after example, but alas - no, actually hooray - I must attend to an essay on the reception of the cult of Isis in Rome.