Customer Reviews

Celtic Wicca: Ancient Wisdom for the 21st Century

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Very well-written and informative. I enjoyed the book very much, and found the history of the Celtic gods and goddesses, with their complimentary rituals, to be especially good. Also, Ms. Raeburn describes the way the Celtic deities and the Roman deities became intermingled as did the cultures in a way that can help one follow the sometimes tangled web of changing names of various gods, goddesses, and demi-deities.

I didn't come in with very high expectations, being unaware of the author, but very aware of the horrible inaccuracies and random flights of fancy stated as fact, generally associated with anything claiming to be 'Celtic Wicca'.

So, my first words when shoving this book under a friends nose when I read it last year, were:
"Look! And it's not crap!"

I really need to read it again, and give a better review, but I just had to put *something* down here.

This is very nearly Celtic Reconstructionism, as it seems like the author does include what is known of Celtic mythology and ritual practice, but as she puts it, Wicca provides a foundation for the practice - because there's so much we don't know about Celtic religion and spiritual practice. Better to be honest about it.

In reference to an earlier reviewers critique, the book actually has a section on Historical accuracy (which is excerpted on the authors website - [...]), which deals with maintaining historical accuracy, and dicusses the fact that opinions in academic works change constantly.

In fact - the previous reviewers critiques really only deal with points over which many historians have strong, and contradictory opinions, so if anything, the only fault is in not stating that the issues are still controversial (and there's few historical 'facts' that aren't!).
E.g. personally I do believe the Celts practiced human sacrifice at some point, if only because *everyone's* ancestors probably practiced it at some point, not to mention some people attempt to make slightly arbitrary distinctions between say 'killing domestic animals for food' and 'animal sacrifice' and between 'criminal justice' and 'human sacrifice', when the distinction isn't so clear (or there at all!) in the culture concerned, nor should the abhorrence of our culture for such practice be used to evaluate our understanding of another cultures views. Take a further look at the Lindow and Tollund bog men.
I think the previous reviewer would have an apoplexy if they actually read any of the other, so called, 'Celtic Wicca' books. But, that's an aside.

I'd give this book 5 stars for anyone actually interested in practicing a form of Celtic Wicca, and 4 stars (highly recommended) for people practicing Wicca in general, because it has some great content on connecting with Deities, ritual in general, not to mention great little tips such as its suggestions on how to conduct a trance/guided meditation for two people (it can be really hard making sure you're both 'on the same page' as it were, not to mention helping keep the other person close if one person starts experiencing something that deviates from the script).

At last, a book that takes both Wicca and history seriously. You see so many Wiccan books that just mangle historical facts. This one is the real thing. Raeburn is honest about what is and isn't Celtic, and about the fact that Wicca is a modern religion.

I also liked the writing in here very much. Raeburn offers some basic Wicca information for newcomers, but this is more like Wicca 102 - she quickly gets into deeper material and really encourages the reader to explore history and art.

This book is great for someone who is just exploring the possibility of Wicca or the Celtic tradition. However, for someone at the intermediate level, I would recomend something less "generalized" such as one of Fitch's or McCoy's many works. Again, Raeburn's "Celtic Wicca" is a comprehensive, easy to read overview of Celtic Wicca. The author was very good at giving a general sense of the principles of Wicca with a touch of humor on the side. But what I found extremely useful about the book, was that it is a great book to share with someone who is..."uneasy" with the concept of Witchcraft as a religion, but is willing to learn more. Blessed be!

While this book did have it's good points (albeit few & far between), they were off set by much of her historical inaccuracies. In fact, I found them to be worrisom enough to detract one star for each fallacy. So, I would like to take the time and correct those 3 prevaliant issues. However, it is truly sad to see that pagans believe they will not be taken seriously (even by many pagans) if you do not toe-the-line (as suspicious as those "lines" may be). Otherwise, you risk being labled the dreaded "fluffy bunny"!

The first thing which struck me as odd, is that she claimed that we DO know some very controversial claims regarding "the Celts". However, this is not a safe comment to make, due to the basic reason that the Celts left no written records. In other weords, we can't really claim to "know" what we do about the Iron Age tribes. She views historey and scholarship as black and white. However, as any historian will tell you, history consists less of facts, than it does of theories, interpretations, and even innuendo! Until otherwise, I choose to remain open minded. Much of my schoalrly knowledge comes from the works of Miranda Green. Who's books were recommended to me by prof. Ronald Hutton (whom Jane Raeburn seems to fauns over, again & again). Yet, it's clear that Raeburn has read Prof. Green's work (as well as that of Dr. Anne Ross), however, she dismisses most of it as facy! The best description for Hutton's work, who is not an expert in Archaeology, is "Jack of all trades and master of none". Both Max Dashu (a historian) and Asphodel Long have published well researched articles regarding his sometimes sloppy research (and other times narrow or limited, even biased, remembering what I've already said about history).

The first flaw I noticed is her discussion that the Celts DID engaged in ritual human sacrifice as a means of appeasing the Gods. For a variety of reasons, this is a highly suspect claim (always has been). Even prof. Ronald Hutton has been quoted as saying, "The Druids are people who are experts in magick and religion in North West Europe about 2,000 years ago. And, they are very big in what now is the British Isles, France, and the Netherlands. They impressed the heck out of the Greeks and Romans as people of great power & wisdom. Unfortunately, they impressed the heck out of them in different ways. Some Greek and Roman writers said that they are very wise and gentle, deeply in touch with nature and the human soul. And, others said they were blood-thirsty barbarians dyed up to the elbows in human blood, and, experts in sacrifice and all manner of savage and horrible religious rites." So, we have two very contradictory stories, here, already! And, Raeburn further exemplifies these contradictions further, in picking and choosing (badly) certain research to appease modern Pagans at large, rather than stating "We don't know" that they committed ritual human sacrifice for a fact (which we don't)!

Dr. Green goes on to say, which bears one's respect and consideration, that, 4 of the Classical writers (including Ceasar) whom protrayted them as "blood-thirsty barbarians dyed up to the elbows in human blood," are known to have based this "evidence" upon the earlier, but lost, writings of Posidonius. Which is clear, enough, a mark against such actions by any scholarly reasoning. After all, many scholars would dismiss such accounts as "hear-say". Which, even in a court of law, is inadmissible.

However, we also know that Ceasar's motives were certainly a smear campaigne of propaganda! (Heck, the word "Celt" was created by the Clasical writers as a blanket term for a "barbarian"). Because we know that the Romans saught to demonize their opponents as enemies (a common practice). We also know that the Celts once siezed control of Rome for a total of 7 months. I would be mad enough to demonize them and prove what "savages" they were, too! What also bears consideration is that if sacrifice was, in fact, part of their culture, one would expect many references in their literature. There is only one, which apepars to scholars in the field, to be a Christian forgery. However, some remains of executions have been found in the archeological record, but it is not clear whether the victims were executed after a court trial or killed during religious rituals. Given what we DO know (which I have outlined, above), I am betting on the prior belief... However, many try to bring in Tollund Man (a bog mummy) as proof positive. But, Dr. Linnda Caporael has a fascinating new theory for this, and showns repeatible evidence throughout history, and is quite plausible! It all begins with ergot (a fungi which grows on spoiled rye) which was found within the remaining contents of his stomach. And, it has been used to successfully explain much of the Salem trials, & even "The Burning Times". Which all boils down to a bad acid (LSD) trip! She was able to trace break outs of ergot in both the areas of Salem and throughout Europe and the UK. Historian, Mary Matossian, supports her theory, and has shown evidence for it as, perhaps, the leading cause of "Witch" persecutions throughout Europe. However, many of the peat bog bodies, dating from the Iron Age had been found that their last meal had been contamonated by ergot. So, this could strongly link it to the Witch trials, as many historians assert. Perhaps he was murdered because they were thought to gave been possessed. Some exhibit a strong sense of over-kill & have been bound. What better way to "bind" a spirit from ever rising & causing further harm than! It is perfectly plausible, in the words of another Dr., an expert in ergotism, from Switzerland.

She further alleges that Cerridwen was not a Goddess. And, supports her views with no real evidence, other than citing Hutton. However, Celtic scholars, Dr. Miranda Green and Anne Ross (amongst others), believes She was...and supports her views with plenty of evidence. What was so odd is Hutton had Green review his book "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles" to which Raeburn turns, yet forgets that Huttons' theory, here, is way off, and Green obviously didn't read Hutton's views of Cerridwen. In fact, Raeburn (who was trained in a Welsh coven) forgot that Hutton does not accept the historic existence of any Welsh Gods and Goddesses.

Also, no Celtic scholar whose works I've ever read had translated her name as meaning "Crooked Woman" (this stems from "Korrigan" which Hutton contends protrays Her as a stereotypical witch, despite the fact that it refers to drawfism, rather than personal temperment). But, according to several Celtic scholars, her name is firmly believed to come from the following words: "Cerdd" or "Cariad", which mean "song, poetry" and "beloved", respectfully, and "Gwen", which most often, "White", or in other cases, "fair," "shining," or "holy". Celtic scholar, James Mackillop, has also come to this conclusion, as he had his works reviewed by specialists in the Welsh language. Green asserts that "She [Cerridwen] was almost certainly a goddess, a prophet and a creator. The dualism of Her role as a divinity associated with life, death an regeneration is symbolized by Her children Crearwy and Afagddu who, perhaps, represented day and night, light and darkness, and perhaps also the sky and the underworld, summer and winter." Taliasin, Her regenerated son, describes himself as having been present at the Creation and was older than Mabon, described as both the youngest and oldest of beings. In fact, Raeburn seems to dismiss a lot of what very well regarded scholars have to say, throughout her book.

She also alleges that the Goddess, Bridgit, was never a Goddess, but...an actual woman. Now, this may be. But...tell that to the Catholic Church which successfully decannonized Her back in 1996, because there was not enough evidence for Her historical existance. Thus, putting to rest, that She might have been an actual woman/saint, essentially. In fact, there is far more evidence, which points to Her having been a divinity, according to Celtic scholars, than not!

In conclusion, it seems curious that she seems to ommit any contributions to her book, from her "Bibliography" by noted Celtic scholars, whom disagree with her prime theories. Indeed, based on the books in her "recommended reading list" and her "statement" that "Celtic Wicca has history as its foundation," one can easily deduce that it may, in actuallity, be a book concerning Celtic Reconstructionism rather than "Wicca." In fact, she is overtly harsh and uncompassionate when it coms to the works of earlier scholars which made Wicca, as a world religion, what it has been from the very beginning! I have never understood this sad attitude amongsty modern Pagan Witches-- they should give credit to their religion, where it is due: Murray, Leland & Frazier, etrc.! THEY are an INDELIBLE and INTRINSIC part of our religion (period) and deserve our due respect (regardless of the politics involved)!!!