Don Frew  made the third Theurgicon
presentation, on “Gardnerian Wica as Theurgic Ascent.”  Frew’s use of the single ‘c’ was
deliberate, as the coven from which Gardner learned spelled the word with a
single ‘c.’ It also helps remind is that what we have today is not exactly what
Gardner learned, a point that is important in Frew’s argument.  

Frew’s presentation made extensive
use of both work on Neoplatonism and research on modern craft origins
especially by himself and Philip Heselton.  As some may know, Frew has argued for some years that textual and testimonial
evidence from Gardner’s files, other surviving sources, including people who
worked with Gardner, as well as the discovery of other Witchcraft lines making
use of the same core material but without a Gardnerian connection, indicates
that Gardner had told the truth, there was a working group that initiated him
into Wica.  Among the resources he
has drawn on are three complete Books of Shadows, apparently compiled at
different times, Gardner’s Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical, over 500 pages of
correspondence, and more. 

He has presented this material at
every opportunity during Pantheacons, but is prevented from actually publishing
some of the most convincing material because of agreements he made with those
who possess it.  Adopting a liberal
interpretation of that agreement, Frew shows pictures of key texts during his
presentations.  Sadly, other
material is oath bound, and while I have seen it, I grant that until it becomes
public it can play no role in making any kind of case on the origins of modern
Craft. To say this is frustrating is an understatement.  But even without it, the evidence is
pretty strong that Gardner was taught a tradition that preceded him. 

But if Gardner did not make it up,
where did the basic material he learned originate? Gardner thought the craft
fit Margaret Murray’s description of a surviving Witch cult with ancient
European, but not Classical, roots. 
In Frew’s perspective, Gardner was a truthful reporter, but not necessarily
very good at interpreting what he learned.  But if Gardnerian Wicca (two ‘c’s) did not have origins in a
Murryite survival, where did it come from?

Frew’s answer is that Gardnerian
and related Wiccan traditions have their deepest origins in late Classical
Neoplatonism, especially in theurgy as taught by Iamblichus and others of his
school.

This is a difficult case to make,
and at most it will probably always be circumstantial.  After all, Pagan practice in any
publicly verifiable form was not only illegal, it was likely punished by death,
for over a thousand years.  So it
seems to me tat all one can do when investigating origins is try and determine
the most likely story.

Frew’s presentation was dense, and
too detailed to describe here (go to Pantheacon! Maybe he’ll write up something
I can present.)  So I will pass on
a few of the most suggestive bits of evidence he gave.  Most explicit is Gardner’s statement
that the description of the Gods and myth presented by the Roman Sallustius was
a perfect description of Witch beliefs. (Meaning of Witchcraft, 186-9, 1959 edition)   

Gardnerianism’s three degree system
makes symbolic sense within a Neoplatonic context.  The First Degree is interpreted as focusing on the elemental
kings and matter, the Second Degree on the Daimones and Anima Mundi, and the
Third ideally on the One.

In addition, as I think I mentioned
once before in this blog, the Dryghton blessing  said at traditional circles has no resemblance at all to folkloric theories of
Pagan reconstruction common at the time Gardner lived.  The notion of a One was regarded as too “advanced.”  Nor does it fit Margaret Murray’s
theories of Witchcraft being a survival from early Celtic times, or even
earlier.  But this blessings
perfectly fits a Neoplatonic model of spiritual reality.  The Dryghton is the One, Goddess and
God are the realm of Mind,  the
Mighty Ones are the daimones in the realm of soul, and the elemental kings are
within the realm of matter. 

Frew also presented a possible avenue
of transmission for Neoplatonic theurgy from the last Pagan intellectual center
in Harran to Europe.  He said his
research had found a pretty clear line of descent not in terms of practicing
groups initiating one another, but rather in the passing on of teachings that
people would occasionally seek to put into practice.

Did he prove it?  Again, I think proof in such matters is
impossible.  But he has
accomplished something pretty impressive in my view. 

He did show it is more reasonable
to believe that Gardner told the truth than that he did not, and that the basic
concepts he described, and that exist in public and not-public teachings are in
close accord with important Neoplatonic outlooks, and that there are
fascinating similarities between Gardnerian Craft and important tenets of
Theurgy, including some that so far as I know make no sense otherwise.

While not proof, when stacked up
against the other explanations that have emerged so far they seem
weightier. 

Frew emphasized a final point of
importance to contemporary Pagans that may [rove vital in evaluating his
thesis.  As has already been
discussed on this blog, over the centuries Neoplatonism has taken on a world
denying tone.  He argued this was
largely if not entirely due to translations and exegesis by Christians.  I remain concerned about Porphyry’s interpretation of Plotinus which Apulieus suggests says more
about Porphyry than Plotinus. 
Maybe.  Plotinus’s attacks
on the Gnostics suggests that unlike them he did not regard the world as a bad
place.  Further, Iamblichus,  who unlike Plotinus advocated Theurgy, argued that there was no deep gap between the “levels” of
reality, from the One to us.  This
was called the “Law of Mean Terms,” 
and I believe was part of his reasoning for practicing theurgy.  I simply pass on the argument being not
so well versed in these matters.

In addition, frequent warnings not
to be led astray by the body, once we see the actual examples these
philosophers gave, seem rather reasonable and even mundane rather than body
hating.  Avoid drunkenness,
licentiousness, and greed.  To
avoid that hardly says the flesh is bad, and there are many teachings that
explicitly deny that kind of interpretation.

Concluding Thoughts

I am a Pagan because for me the
Gods come.  Period.  That is why the mutterings of skeptics
and the arrogant certainty of the Dawkinses and others in our time simply do
not interest me.  Philosophy
neither converted me not maintains my identification with this path.  That said, I like ideas and am
fascinated with our attempts over the ages to make workable road maps of a
reality that exceeds our powers of reason and thought.  But I am not deeply read on
Neoplatonism, and hope to learn from the discussions these posts have
encouraged.

Before the destruction of thousands
of years of study and practice by the annihilation of so much ancient knowledge
by monopolistic monotheists in alliance with mobs and despotism, the
Neoplatonists had become the dominant school to try and understand such a world
while engaging in the common ritual practices of the day.  As such we can learn from them once we
get a sense of their thinking and make allowances for the far less complete
knowledge of the physical world at that time.  My own attitude is to take what makes sense and leave the
rest – which is a kind of description of the rise of Neopaganism in
general. 

If there is also a connection
between those times so long ago and what initially came down to us in England
in the 50s, so much the better! 
But I think we will never know at least until the to me unnecessary
secrecy within the Gardnerian tradition is ended, which is unlikely anytime
soon, and perhaps the city of Harran is excavated. I will not break my oath and
neither will Don Frew or most others. 
It will take a sea change in the hearts of many Gardnerians and other
BTW witches to end the secrecy on these matters.  Even then the connections will be speculative, but perhaps
much less so.