Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Myth and Ritual

The paragraph claiming that an archetypal Triple Goddess theory is abound in the writings of the "Myth and Ritual school" is totally unsourced. We do have a source which explains that the Myth and Ritual school no longer holds any valid position (which for some reason the content was deleted for, and the cite used to back up a claim which does not appear in the source). Can anyone shed any proper light on this before it just gets deleted as speculation? Davémon (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton has a few pages on it; I'll try to provide a more detailed summary later on. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited (and quoted in footnote) Archaeology and Folklore 1999 on the Triple Goddess idea going back to Harrison 1903, and her being a "Cambridge Ritualist". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Added cite/link to Hutton pp.36-38. Will that suffice, Akhilleus? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Hutton oversimplifies (as he must) Harrison's hundreds of pages; her Themis is widely available - there's even a previewable copy at Google books. Tolle, lege - although it will help to know Greek; Harrison is also a major source for triplicity representing an indefinite plural number. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we trust Hutton in making Harrison an important figure in the development of the Triple Goddess idea, though? If so, we can at least let the citation stand in the meantime--I'm not going to read Themis overnight, even though I know parts of it fairly well. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Overnight? What a dreadful thought.

Is Harrison novel? not really. Is she saying what Graves is saying? Certainly not.

But the passage can stand, I think, provided we make the point that Harrison's three were the phases of the Moon and the seasons of the year, not the ages of human life, which she does not say; she is also perfectly happy to recognize two seasons, like Auxo and Hegemone (Themis, 187). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

But archetype must go. The Christian sense is not what Harrison (or indeed Graves) means; the Jungian is an anachronism for a book published in 1903. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if "archetype" in the Jungian sense is an anachronism when applied to anything existing prior to his use of the term, to what could he himself possibly have applied it? Presumably he developed that meaning to express what he perceived beforehand. Likewise, "dinosaur" is anachronistic when applied to dinosaurs, since they lived and died long before the word was invented. But we, now, use the words "archetype" and "dinosaur" to convey the meanings of those pre-existing things to our contemporaries, and this is an entirely appropriate usage. Otherwise I suppose we could not discuss classical religions at all, save in the classical languages. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What source do you have that Harrison, in writing about a triple goddess, is writing about an archetype? She certainly does not say so (Jung, by contrast, does); and she does talk about the well-known mythological triplets (the Graces, the Seasons, the Fates), not a single Goddess. In short, you are imposing a point of view (Graves's) on Harrison; have you read her, as Akhilleus and I have? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As early as page x of her Prolegomena (1903), she speaks of those various trinities as arising from a common source: "In Chapter VI.... The primitive association of women with agriculture is seem to issue in the figures of the Mother and the Maid, and later of the Mother and the Daughter, later still in the numerous female trinities that arose out of this duality." True, she herself does not use the Jungian term; it hadn't been proffered yet. But now that term exists, and fits the social-psychological meaning she was expressing. Or are Harrison's "the slow-moving widespread instinct of a people" (p.257, the first page of Chapter VI) and Jung's "collective unconsciousness" deemed to be unrelated because the two phrases have no words in common? Harrison says, "The matriarchal goddesses reflect the life of women, not women the life of the goddesses." (p.262) Thus maiden, mother, and (as Harrison puts it) "grandmother", reflect the universal experience of women's life cycle. But you knew that, right, since (as you say) you've read her? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Jungian archetypes, and (I'll wager) neither is anyone else writing here. So unless we have a good source telling us that Harrison was writing about archetypes, let's avoid the term. Surely it's not that hard to accurately describe what she was saying without using any potentially misleading language. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

N.b., A review of Annabel Robinson's The life and work of Jane Ellen Harrison in English Literature in Transition (1880-1920) 47.3 (2004) p. 342ff. says: "Too often, as Robinson shows, Harrison tied her arguments to the latest anthropological theories and, when those theories were disproved, her whole thesis was undermined. Harrison would have been better served, her biographer tells us, had she made use of Jung's archetypes and collective unconscious rather than the collective representations of Durkheim." Perhaps it will seem overly subtle to insist that the "collective unconscious" is different than a "collective representation", but the ideas have a distinct disciplinary and intellectual lineage, and shouldn't be indiscriminately mashed together. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

←Harrison's Prolegomena (1903), Themis (1912), and Ancient Art and Ritual (1913), antedate Jung's adoption of the term "archetypes" in Instincts and the Unconscious (1919). So, yes, as Robinson indicates, that term "better serves" her meaning, but she didn't refuse to use it, it simply wasn't available to her. However, it is available to us. We needn't pretend we're now writing pre-1919, just as we needn't write about Chaucer using only Chaucer's English. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnoted: «[ref]Although neither Gerhard nor Harrison used the term "archetype", proffered by Carl Jung in 1919; see Jungian archetypes#Chronology.[/ref]» — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

One secondary source for example, Richard P. Sugg's (1992) Jungian Literary Criticism, Northwestern University Press, pp.368-369, refers to Harrison (along with Joseph Campbell and the Jungs) perceiving certain "complexes of ritual and narrative" (such as the Demeter/Kore rebirth myth) "as archetypal repositories of uniquely feminine and androgynous import." In the case of Harrison, the term "archetypal" can only be intended as having a backward-compatible meaning, not as an actual quote. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, you're misunderstanding what the quote shows--it's not that Harrison lacked the term archetype, but that she used a different concept--she drew upon Durkheim and other anthopological theories rather than psychology. In other words, the difference is not one of terminology, but of thought. For us to use "archetype" of Harrison's work is inaccurate.

Now, if you really want to fight about this, I can probably find lots more about Harrison's influences and the differences between her work and Jungian psychology. But wouldn't it be more productive to just avoid using "archetype" in the article, when we can adequately describe what she thought without it, and move on to something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

«it's not that Harrison lacked the term archetype» — She had a time machine? The term archetype surely existed before Jung's adoption of it, but it didn't mean what he meant by it until 1919, after Harrison wrote the three books cited in this article. Yes, in the preface to Epilegomena (1921) she said she was "largely indebted to the psychology of Jung and Freud", but she did not revise the earlier books to take advantage of the new term. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, I was responding directly to what you wrote above: "So, yes, as Robinson indicates, that term 'better serves' her meaning, but she didn't refuse to use it, it simply wasn't available to her." And you aren't responding to the essential point: that the quote from Robinson tells us that Harrison uses a concept of "collective representation", drawn from Durkheim, rather than a concept of the "collective unconscious", and the two aren't the same. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't available to her, because she wrote these three books before Jung proffered his usage of the term. That much we do know, yes? Accordingly, she can't have "refused" to use it in those books, unless she could foretell the future. So its non-appearance there is not probative. But she does say in 1921 that she's "largely indebted to the psychology of Jung and Freud"; so where is your basis for suggesting that she rejected Jung's ideas? Elsewhere, regarding the source of religion, Harrison prefers "collective conscience" to "collective unconsciousness", in that a moral imperative is thereby better implied, but that's building upon a Jungian background. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In Harrison's 1921 Epilegomena she said (in the Preface): "For the new material offered I am largely indebted to the psychological work of Jung and Freud and to the less well know writings of the greatest of Russian philosophers Vladimir Soloviov." How you can make that a commentary on her earlier work, I do not know. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing The Greek Magical Papyri

The current article claims:

In one hymn, for instance, the "Three-faced Selene" is simultaneously identified as the three Charites, the three Moirae, and the three Erinyes; she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses

This appears to be highly selective in it's selection of evidence and its interpretation. Firstly there is no clear distinction between which goddesses Selene is "simultaneously identified" and "further addressed" as - why is she being "identified" as some, and only "addressed" as others? Further, a meer 34 lines after Selene is called "three-voiced", Selene is called "four-faced, four-named, four-roads' mistress" etc. [1]] which hardly fits with the concept of a Triple goddess at all. Is Selene here an indeterminately-multi-faceted goddess, perhaps? For some reason, Aphrodite, Artemis and other goddesses which are not triple seem to be have been ignored from the summation. The danger of selective quoting is one reason wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to have done the interpretative work for us. Can we get some editorial consensus on how many facets Selene has and what relationship to other deities the Papyri proposed, preferably with some interpretation of what it all means from a reliable source? Final (very) minor point, but the text calls it a spell, not a hymn - is this a distinction we should be sensitive to, as arguably one posits the text as religious and the other as magical? Davémon (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

«highly selective» — Trimmed to the quotes directly relevant... and at that, you're insisting above that it be trimmed even further. Directly quoting worries you due to copyright issues; paraphrasing worries you because it's "interpretation". Apparently nothing would satisfy you but its total exclusion. Quelle surprise.
"identified" vs. "addressed by the titles of" — "You're Justice and the Moira's threads: / Klotho and Lachesis and Atropos / ... you're Persephone*, Megaira, / Allekto" would be cases of "identified". "Dart-shooter... Shooter of Deer" would be cases of "addressed by the titles of".
«hymn» — Where it's metrical verse to be said rather than a prose description of ritual to be done.— Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly method, and a proposal

Here's one problem I see with the secondary sources. The Cambridge Ritualists are dead and gone. Their penchant for elucidating classical cult via New Guinea and Mesoamerica is fascinating as a cultural-intellectual phenomenon of its own time; but this is not contemporary scholarly methodology. One of the reasons contemporary scholars steer clear of talking about the "triple goddess" (and please let's always use lower case if we're talking about the epithet as used in ancient sources) is precisely because the subject has been 'tainted' intellectually by the overambitious claims of earlier scholarship, and Gravesian nuttiness. Robert Graves (let's set aside the marvelous Ms. Harrison for the moment) poisoned the well, not that I'm classifying him among the Ritualists. Whatever he thought himself to be, Graves was a mythographer in the classical tradition of a reinterpreter of myth; he was not a scholar per se. He was a "man of letters," a poet. Look at the subtitle of The White Goddess. The Claudius books are (on one level) satires; that's why his Romans sound exactly like British aristocrats of his own time (take a gander at that mock-pompous note on assegai). Graves is not a source; he is an object of study in his right. His body of work (poetry, fiction, autobiography, essays) has to be understood as just that: a body of work by someone who was primarily a 'creative' writer. Forget Graves in trying to elucidate the PGM and Latin poetry.

I would also point out that Ronald Hutton does not seem to be a classical scholar. He writes about something called "paganism," which did not exist in antiquity and which as a term was invented by Christians to disparage the traditional religions of Greece, Rome, Celtica and Germania. The word "pagan" should not used in connection with the triple goddess in ancient sources, as it elides distinctions among various cults.

Now, let me confess that to me all religious claims are equally valid, because I don't personally "believe" in any of it. Whatever works for you. So I sincerely do not wish to insult or argue with those in our own day who venerate the Triple Goddess, whatever guise she takes for them, because frankly I have more sympathy for Her than Jehovah. I have no desire to shape or control any discussion about this deity or triad or whatever She is. Because it is utterly and chronologically irrelevant to the classical epithet triple as applied to a goddess. (Or allusions in Shakespeare, for instance, which derive from classical sources; but let's take our battles one at a time.)

Here is what I see as the primary stumbling block:

The Triple Goddess is defined here as a 20th-century invention depending on a Maiden-Mother-Crone conception. The ancient references to a triple goddess do not depend on or support this conception. Is there no place on Wikipedia where the ancient conception will be permitted?

When I saw that the triple goddess invoked in antiquity was not welcome on this page, I suggested that we try starting a page "Triple goddess in antiquity"; another editor, whose name I will not invoke but whose work is respected by me and many other Wikipedians, started such a page, which then became a target of the same exclusionist practices as this article. It was given no time to develop properly without what amounts to sheer harassment (deletions and moves contrary to consensus of other participating editors), and it has now been incorrectly merged into an article on triads of both genders. I was perfectly willing to leave this page to the Neopagan and Wiccan conception, as long as I had a place to contribute to an obviously needed article on the ancient conception. "Obviously," because this talk page, its archive, and the article edit history show a series of editors who have attempted to introduce the concept or who have come to the page with questions such as "What about Horace's diva triformis?" That is the consensus: that the classical triple goddess concept needs to be included somewhere.

I got into this debate for one reason: I was writing an article on an aspect of ancient magic, and needed to link somewhere for an explanation of the triple goddess as invoked throughout the PGM and on amulets; such an explanation would be digressive and peripheral in the article I was working on, but needed to be available. I knew of the Neopagan deity and knew that the Maiden-Mother-Crone model was misleading. The only intelligent discussion I found of the classical concept at that time was at Diana Nemorensis, under the heading Qualities (probably still is). But D.N. is a specific cult manifestation of triple 'goddessness', too limited for my purposes and, because attached to a physical cult, not an appropriate place to talk about the invocations to Selene, etc. I just added a user page with notes I took from PGM when I thinking of how to develop a page on the classical triple goddess; anyone who wants to use the material, here it is, though it's a bit of a mess. I'll add my list from Latin poetry. Ask if you want me to fill in something I've noted as forthcoming. I have Preisendanz's Greek text at hand, if anyone wants me to provide a passage; if you're working on Betz via Google Books, and need something from an excluded page, contact me on my talk page and I'll help you if I can.

Readers of this page should read the Diana Nemorensis article (to which I made only minor contributions, mainly by adding the graphics) — and ask yourself, "Is the scholarship competent? Could we entrust a 'Triple goddess in antiquity' to editors who practice this kind of scholarly methodology?"

If the answer is yes, then I have a compromise proposal. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Roald Hutton is a sociologist, who has written several quite reasonable books on the idea of "paganism" in English culture since roughly the beginning of the nineteenth century. In the process, he touches on classical scholarship - which was happening in his time period; English "cunning men"; and the history of Freemasonry.

He did as good a job at summarizing Jane Harrison's opinions on the triple goddess as one sentence is likely to do; our present text does not accurately represent either what Harrison actually said (which was, characteristically, rather vague, scattered over several thick volumes, and largely put by implication) nor what Hutton says about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely; I only glanced at Hutton, and didn't want to say what you said so clearly. Studying the history of classical scholarship is not quite the same thing as generating classical scholarship yourself; I wasn't trying to dismiss the quality of Hutton's work, just its pertinence to the classical texts themselves. Cynwolfe (talk)

Proposal

The 'Triple goddess in antiquity' page exists as a redirect. What if it were reclaimed by Sizzle and others, and developed into the article it was intended to be? (I strongly advise confining yourself narrowly to Greek and Latin sources. Forget the comparative material for now.) For this compromise to work, however, I would also propose one good-faith act on the part of Davémon. If you honestly respect the work of others, I would ask that for a period of one month, you voluntarily as an act of good faith toward others refrain from editing the article 'Triple goddess in antiquity,' and confine your suggestions to the talk page. That would allow a consensus to develop pertaining to content specific to that article, without regard to this one. I know this is a radical thing to ask, but I think it might work. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. The main worry I have about this article is that it might indiscriminately mix a 19th-20th-21st century idea (the Triple Goddess) with ancient religious ideas (triple goddesses, not capitalized). Separating the articles as you have described addresses that worry. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cynewolfe. I think your proposal is a fantastic one, and as long as you keep it firmly in the realm of Classical Antiquity and it doesn't start spilling over into Celtic, Norse, Hindu, Jungian, Chinese, Gravsian and New Age territory, I'll happily refrain from editing it forever. Look forward to seeing the new article develop. Davémon (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly not have anything to say in any of those categories; let's also ban Dumézil and his Indo-Europeans. Maybe it should be renamed "Triple goddess in classical antiquity"? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so why on earth would we not be allowed to mention well-attested and blatantly triadic figures such as the Norse nornic trio of Urðr, Verðandi, and Skuld and the Matres and Matrones? For what it's worth, Indo-European studies most certainly didn't begin or end with Dumézil... :bloodofox: (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it is because Classical Antiquity is a defined area of scholarship which can support the development of an individual article. With regards to naming the article, it would appear that the less ambiguity it has, the better, so "Triple goddesses in Classical Antiquity" is good from that point of view, but it is a little long. Davémon (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Davémon. The "defined area of scholarship" is exactly the point: it emphasizes the scholarly methods that are appropriate for dealing with Greek and Roman antiquity. (Unfortunately, right too about the title, but what else to call it?) The point would be to describe a well-defined phenomenon within a particular religious sphere, based on sources that share a language (or rather two languages, the two dominant languages of the Roman Empire) and a cultural heritage. The Matres/Matronae may be a special case, since I believe the inscriptional and scuptural evidence for them is Gallo-Roman; can't remember whether it's all in Latin, or whether there's some Celtic-language evidence. The article I propose would be like the Diana Nemorensis article, which focuses mainly on presenting the sources, with modest interpretations that are highly culture-specific, rather than large theoretical schema in the manner of, say, Gimbutas. Nordic goddess triads would be extremely tangential to elucidating the diva triformis in Horace's odes, or the Greek Magical Papyri. And you make precisely the error, Bloodofox, that I'm trying to avoid: the "triple goddess" in these sources is a singular noun described with modifiers that emphasize the triplicity of her nature. The diva triformis is not a goddess triad like the Fates, Graces, etc. The phenomenon of triads can illuminate the nature of this being addressed as "triple," particularly because visual representations of the diva triformis have to show the three aspects as three faces or three figures, but it isn't the same thing. And there's already an article on triads of deities. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory regarding the Germanic Matres and Matrones inscriptions. These Latin inscriptions feature numerous Germanic and Celtic names (about half and half, according to Rudolf Simek—more references backing up claims below can be found on their articles—unfortunately, some are of varying quality, but I'm systematically bringing them all up to GA standard).

Regarding the Germanic Matres and Matrones, there is additional evidence for their recognition and veneration among the later pagan Anglo-Saxons (attested by Bede) and into Old Norse sources, where a trio of norns is attested. The Matres and Matrones are considered directly connected to the dísir/idisi. Matrona is noted as perfectly glossing Matrona—meaning that these Germanic Matres and Matrones were likely considered to be dísir by the Germanic peoples who had these inscriptions made and altars raised. There's an evident connection between the norns (attested as a type of dísir), plus the valkyries, who are clearly connected to the norns as fate-deciders, and idisi/dísir (notably, Skuld, one of the norn trio—who Snorri calls "the youngest norn"....—is also attested as a valkyrie).

The difference between the norns, dísir/idisi, and valkyries is sometimes blurry; they may have all once been the same thing. This is mainstream scholarship. Further, in Germanic paganism, the numbers three and nine (which is three thrice) are special.

Anyway, in short, when discussing the Germanic Matres and Matrones, the considerably later Norse norn trio must also be mentioned. Their triple nature is blatant. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, their triadic nature is apparent. They are plurals; you miss my point about the prayer invocation of a goddess (singular) with a modifier referring to triplicity. Not the same thing. There is a particular set of goddesses — Diana/Artemis, Hekate, Selene/Luna, and Persephone/Proserpina — regularly invoked with the epithet "triple goddess" (singular). "Triple goddesses" (plural) do not exist in antiquity as far as I can determine; goddess triads do, but that is not what the prayer epithet means. That's why I said my approach was philological, and why I provided my notes. Where this gets murky is iconography, since pretty much the only way to depict the "triple goddess" (singular) is through three faces (Hekate), or three figures (Diana Nemorensis). That is why the Mothers are a special case; because the textual support for the visual depictions is sparse and non-narrative, it's inconclusive whether they are always the Mothers and a triad like the Fates (most likely), or whether some of the visual depictions from Roman Gaul or Germania are not the triadic Mothers but are representing visually the concept of 'one goddess, three aspects,' more like the triform male sculptural heads from Mediterranean Iron Age Gaul. My question was whether any inscriptions in Celtic refer to the Mothers. My haphazard glance through Lambert's Le langue gauloise doesn't reveal any. The Wikipedia article dates all the inscriptions pertaining to the Mothers to the post-Conquest era; therefore, as you must know if you study this subject more carefully than I would ever claim to, one question scholars ask is whether the Mothers are purely Celtic or Germanic, or whether they arose within the distinct religious culture of Roman Gaul or Germania. Jane Webster has had some interesting things to say about the distinctness of Gallo-Roman culture. It seems evident to me that the "Mothers of the Field" (Campestres), on inscriptions associated with the Roman cavalry, are Celtic, or maybe Germanic, because the cavalry was; but it's extremely hard to prove that if all the evidence dates to the Roman era and is written in Latin. The problems with the Mothers are similar to those of understanding Epona (an excellent site!). That's why I said the Mothers were a special case in relation to the topic as I tried to define it as pertaining to Greek and Latin sources. At any rate, although the Mothers (plural) and the Dea Matrona all appear in Latin inscriptions, they are not necessarily pertinent to describing how the triple goddess (singular) is invoked in texts and inscriptions, unless they appear in inscriptional company with one or more of the goddesses so invoked. I have a suspicion or dim recollection that the Mothers do appear in such company, but I don't have the Latin inscriptions at hand. But my main point is simply that in terms of organizing the material, the triple goddess (singular) as found invoked in magic texts, poetry, and ritual inscriptions (again, see my notes), is not the same topic as goddess triads. I am an avowed inclusionist. This is a matter of how one organizes the material to make the right scholarly distinctions. My topic is narrow, and could be a subsection of another article. But sometimes it's better to keep related topics in separate articles, to avoid just having a jumble of stuff without any coherent methodology. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not discuss this in Matres and Matrones and Norns articles? They seem perfectly suited to discussing these concepts. I certainly can't imagine a casual reader looking for this content anywhere else. Davémon (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Their bearing is on the triple-goddess concept in pagan Europe. Recall that neopagan/Wiccan theology is claimed to derive from ancient pagan religions, which makes the occurrence of its key concepts in actual ancient pagan religions highly relevant. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

.WP:V,WP:RS. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For what? "[Gerald Gardner] claimed that the religion practised by the coven was a survival of a pagan religion of pre-historic Europe" ? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming Gerald Gardner is a reliable source, and we should structure this article after his statements? WP:SOAPBOX. Davémon (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the religion's founder can be cited as to what his religion claims (under WP:SELFPUB if nothing else). You will note at Wicca#Origins that there are still Wiccans maintaining that claim. Since this article is about Wiccan theology, Wicca's claims about its antiquity are relevant. This makes the occurrence of its key concepts in actual ancient pagan religions highly relevant. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, the historical claims of neopagans are relevant to this article, as are their refutations. Not sure Gardner claimed an ancestral Triple Goddess, think that was Alexander, but I take your point. What it is not clear (and requires citation in WP:RS not primary, neopagan, new-age sources) is that these claims have anything to do with the Matres and Norns. Further it is not clear why the claims of neopagans are relevant at all to a historical, scholarly understanding of the Norns or the Matres, which is what bloodofox is championing wikipedias development of. Davémon (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll be happy to see that articles on the Norns and Matres don't discuss the claims of neopagans. This article does, because that's more or less the point according to the present lede. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins must include pre-Graves

Moving "Triple goddesses before Graves" outside the "Origins" section leaves the false impression that Graves was the ultimate origin of the concept. Moving it back where it belongs. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine; then this article is your unsubstantiated and solitary opinion, and you will revert-war for them. Tagging accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It could hardly be either "unsubstantiated" (as the section has been thoroughly referenced) or my "solitary" opinion (as Cynwolfe notes above, the consensus over time has been to cover this topic, and another editor has persistently removed it against that consensus). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I strike this remark, which I already removed; it was posted under a misapprehension. But the section was, and remains, misleading, and the assertion that any of the scholars involved is writing about the Triple Goddess as Graves understood her is a falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That "assertion" is also absent; it would be an anachronism, since they wrote before him, not vice versa. That's why the subsection was titled "Triple goddesses before Graves". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerhardt and Bachofen weren't writing about a Triple Goddess; they were writing about a Goddess (see the difference?). Harrison's vague hints don't add up to a Triple Goddess either; her use of "triple" is always what Cynwolfe calls a triad above - a quite different concept: sisters, not Persons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerhard's and Harrison's concepts are, so to speak, evolutionary predecessors of Graves's; not identical — which would suggest he contributed nothing to the process and so needn't be mentioned at all, save as a popularizer — but key concepts he incorporated and elaborated upon.
Harrison refers to "Women-Trinities" (her own term for them). A trinity has, as you say, Persons. Of their source in earlier dualities (exemplified by Demeter and Kore) she says these are "two persons though one god." (Prolegomena p. 272. Cf. p.274, "They are, in fact, merely the older and younger form of the same person, hence their easy confusion."; p.285, "great Earth-Goddess, Mother and Maid in one".)
Harrison also gives as an example (Prolegomena p.317) the three sanctuaries and three surnames of Hera: "... while yet a girl she was called Child, married to Zeus she was called Complete or Full-Grown, separated from Zeus and returned to Stymphalus she was called Chera (Widow). Long before her connection with Zeus, the matriarchal goddess may well have reflected the three stages of a woman's life." Which is no distance at all from the article's statement of the Neopagan concept, "the normative model of the female life-cycle which is represented by the Triple Goddess." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is one page, out of several thousand; Harrison specialized in inchoate hints. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These quotes (from multiple pages, not just one) don't seem "inchoate", nor merely hinting; she expressly refers to the concept (Persons) you claim she doesn't use. On "several thousand" other pages she discussed other topics (such as male gods), which doesn't justify ignoring or denying the pages where she discusses this one.
(And really, is a statement about one text section, e.g. "The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects freedom of religion", in any way effectively rebutted by the argument "The other nine Amendments don't say anything at all about that"?) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't think Jane Harrison inchoate hasn't attempted to read her. Google searches for selective quotations are not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Given your assertion that she did not use the Persons concept, when a direct and cited quote shows she did, I don't think you're well placed to accuse anyone else of not reading her, let alone the person who provided you with quotes and cites.
And your assumption about Google search is incorrect. (As the edit history of my comment shows, I first incorrectly recalled the quote as "two women but one Goddess", and had to correct that once I paged through and found the actual passage to cite; a Google search wouldn't have helped there.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

The extensive quoting from the Greek Magical Papyri is a clear violation of the authors rights. These need to be edited to a few lines. Davémon (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You expressly refused to accept a summary that The triplicity of the Goddess in these texts is a recurrent theme. Make up your mind. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether the summary of the source is an accurate one is a separate concern. I suggest we remove the quoted text and simply point to the PGM on Google Books. That way the reader gets to read all of the text without endangering the project with legal issues. If permission from the author or publisher is granted at a later date, we can restore the text then. Davémon (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gbook is "limited preview", entirely excluding the entire set of actual texts. Readers cannot see the PGMs there. The closest it offers is short snippets in a text search, which cannot be expanded to show the surrounding texts. So why not allow those quotes strictly limited to relevant text? Copyright permits fair use. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing "limited preview", which simply means there are some pages you can't see, with "snippet view". But our citation should be the printed book; links are merely a convenience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Septentrionalis, see for yourself, it's a "limited preview", which excludes the entire body of text-translations. You can read only the introductory pages (full page view, not snippets); but do a text search, and the search results show up as very short text snippets (not "snippet" pictures like "snippet-view"). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article naming controversy

It seems to me that having the umbrella title covering only one narrow and recent context, relegating everything else to subset titles, is the tail wagging the dog. If this article is to discuss the triple-goddess concept only in the Neopagan/Wiccan context and exclude all other contexts (such the concept's entire prior history), then for truth-in-advertising it should be titled Triple Goddess (Neopaganism) or Triple Goddess (Wicca). An umbrella article Triple Goddess can then discuss the overall concept, with a link to the neopagan subset. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME says that the title should be the most commonly used phrase. In this instance "Triple Goddess" is most commonly used to refer to the neopagan concept (see [2] for the weight). For an alternative example the late singer Michael Jackson is not the first or most important person with the name Michael Jackson (disambiguation) he is, however, the most popular, and that is why that article has that title. Further, the lack of development of the Triple deities article does not support an argument that "generic historical female threeform deities" needs to be recognised as a subject - there aren't any wp:rs in that article which support that view. My suggestion would be to develop the Triple deities article until it becomes obvious (through weight of reliable sources) that it requires a specific article, and then split it off. If enough significant evidence is brought forward that the "generic" is actually more popular than the "specific" then we can address the naming controversy in a sensible manner, but our time really would be better spent actually developing content rather than debating the names. Davémon (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have to agree with Davémon that Triple Goddess (note the capitalization) is the province of the Neopagans. And why, Sizzle, are you wasting your time arguing about the title? Why is it important, as long as people who are looking for information on the topic can find what they need? Is this going to devolve into a petty turf battle about who "owns" the capitalized form of Triple Goddess, after Davémon has been so gracious? You can deal with all this in redirects and 'see also' labels. But let me reiterate: although there are points of contact, and the concepts are mutually illuminating, in the myth, magic, and religion of ancient Greece and Rome, the "triple goddess" (singular) as evidenced in the sources is not the same concept as goddess triads (plurals such as Fates, Graces, etc.). The "triple goddess" addressed in the singular is (as far as I can see) always Artemis/Diana, Hekate, Selene/Luna, or Persephone/Proserpina. The article I propose is specifically about this phenomenon. Other topics should be developed in other articles that already exist or need to exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A useful distinction - although it makes the problem of treating Harrison much harder, since she wrote about both, and her usage of the words triple goddess is largely, if not entirely, about the triads. (I don't see a counter-example, although Prolegomena and Epilegomena do not seem to exist in searchable form.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, with Harrison we are dealing with scholarship that is a century old; that is, it does not reflect current scholarly methodology. Harrison's fascinating, ambitious work, which is a major document of feminist intellectual history in this discipline, is now historical; it is part of the history of scholarship. Her ideas, like those of Jung, Freud, Frazer, Graves, Dumézil, et al., are objects of study in their own right. They belong to a particular time and place that is no longer our own (Bruce Lincoln has had some interesting things to say as a Dumézil apostate). The reason I haven't posted any content on this subject is that it becomes increasingly apparent to me that in the Greek and Latin sources the "triple goddess" (singular noun with modifier) is a prayer epithet that applies only to the set of goddesses I named above, whose relationship to each other requires an understanding of particular cult practices and theologies. That's why I posted my notes. But I haven't had time to spend the hours in the library it's going to take to assemble the secondary sources. Because of the narrowness of the topic, the most likely sources are articles; I don't have JSTOR or ProjectMuse access unless I'm physically in my university library. The topic is just resurrecting over the last decade (in the work of those who study practices of "magic" in antiquity) after being intellectually discredited by the sort of overreaching claims of universality by which we seem tempted here. And the confusion of the singular goddess of the invocation formula and the concept of triads. The current thinking, as in the essay by Fritz Graf, seems to be that the epithet is best understood in the context of magic naming practices; it is not the same thing as the theological concept of the triad, but (sorry, I'm being repetitive) the two things are mutually illuminating. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar for "Triple Goddess", 964 hits. Google Scholar for "Triple Goddess" AND NOT "wicca" AND NOT "neopagan", 686 hits — examples including discussion of Demeter and Persephone, the Morrigan, Kali and Indian Folk Art. It appears the Wiccan/Neopagan context is less than one-third of the total, a minority, not the majority. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That is a very good argument for not renaming the article Triple Goddess (neopaganism) or Triple Goddess (wicca). This article is about the contemporary concept of the Triple Goddess as it appears neopaganism, literary criticism, jungian psychology, eco-feminism, feminist archeology and fiction etc. Most of the results for your search are precisely about these subjects. Can I respectfully suggest rather than continually arguing your point that we use some of the more reliable sources in your search results to expand the article? Davémon (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently hatnoted as specifically "about the neopagan concept", not all "contemporary" concepts (including modern Hinduism and modern classical or Celtic studies). Are you claiming that "discussion of Demeter and Persephone, the Morrigan, Kali and Indian Folk Art" is Neopagan? Because those long predate Neopaganism. If you're widening the topic (with which I would agree), then let's be consistent. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a controversy, it is just a scope issue. Your current article on triple goddesses is at Triple_deity#Triple_goddesses. This article, capital-G Triple Goddess was supposed to be about the Neopagan concept. If you want to {{split}} a standalone triple goddess article out of triple deity, that's just a question of doing it and then fixing disambiguation issues.

Nobody disputes that there are triple goddesses outside of neopaganism. But I don't see the point of creating an article specifically dedicated to the neopagan "Triple Goddess" and then include a lengthy section on triple goddesses in general. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) This article was not created as specifically dedicated to the neopagan concept; in fact, the neopagan concept has usurped the original content, much of which was shoved over to Triple deity. (2) Davémon has now removed the hatnote limiting the article to the neopagan concept. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) See Genetic fallacy. (2) The hatnote was causing confusion. The lede describes the scope of the article adequately, and yes, it is the modern, contemporary conception of the "Triple Goddess" i.e. The Maiden-Mother-Crone/Lunar/pre-"patriarchal" - shorthand "neopagan", Triple Goddess (proper-noun) concept. This actual concept does not appear in any sources anywhere, because Robert Graves made it up (see Hutton et al). Historical conceptions are only useful in is as much as they can be shown through reliable sources to have influenced the development of the modern concept. I appreciate this is quite a difficult idea to grasp. Davémon (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) It is hardly a fallacy to address the preceding argument's premise. (2) So now you are retreating from "the contemporary concept of the Triple Goddess as it appears neopaganism, literary criticism, jungian psychology, eco-feminism, feminist archeology and fiction etc."? Then it follows that those other categories besides neopaganism can't be counted in your weighting, and the neopagan/Wiccan context remains a minority, less than one-third of the hits, so it has no claim to being the "most common" usage, and should be moved to a subset article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article started being about the triple goddess of Graves/Wicca, and then gradually accreted various stuff about every other time "goddess" and "three" appear in the same sentence. All of the latter was removed in a single massive edit, and ever since there has a been a protracted battle to keep the two notions distinct. Personally, I think the current division of triple deity as a separate article makes more sense. I have no problem with documentation of the Wicca triple goddess being identified with other threefold female deity/ies; but we need some notable identification, not just your idea that they have something in common.

For now, I'm striking all the pre-Graves material. If someone can come up with some sources that say "X (whom we care about) identified Y with the triple goddess (give reference)" then there's room for adding such material. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Striking the pre-Graves material from the "Origins" section leaves the utterly false impression that Graves was the ultimate origin of this concept, rather than one step in its evolution. The oft-cited Ronald Hutton says otherwise, at great length, specifically naming Gerhard and Harrison among Graves's predecessors. So you have blanked relevant and referenced material, without discussion at the section on that topic ("Origins must include pre-Graves"). Accordingly, restoring it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He names them, correctly, among Graves' sources; no one seriously contends (with the occasional exception of Graves himself, on poetic inspiration) that Graves made the White Goddess up out of nowhere. To suggest, as this article has from time to time, that Gerhardt or Harrison or Bachofen say what Graves said (as opposed to supplying elements which he used) is misrepresentation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misstating the point of the pre-Graves section, which shows the reader new to the subject what parts Graves didn't "make up out of nowhere" — as otherwise a section on "Origins" mentioning only Graves and no predecessors would suggest precisely what you say no-one contends. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to show " what parts Graves didn't make up out of nowhere", then the correct title would be "Graves Sources" and the content treated accordingly. Davémon (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

triple goddess in Greek and Latin sources

Sizzle, I think one thing that's happening is that your logic is running in the wrong direction. If you read my notes on the primary sources, their unpolished state may have been misleading.

The PGM prayers do not invoke the triple goddess; they use various epithets meaning '"triple goddess" or expressing the triple nature of a (singular) goddess. These epithets are applied in the PGM and Latin poetry to a defined set of goddesses: Artemis/Diana, Selene/Luna, Persephone/Proserpina, and Hekate. The concept of the "triple goddess" is just that: a concept, not a distinct entity or being. The epithet then applies the theological concept to certain deities. I should reproduce my comments at G&R Project Talk, with some changes in the hope of greater clarity:

The primary sources allow you to state that in the PGM, "triple goddess" is an epithet used in invocations of deities including Selene and Artemis. The triplicity is expressed particularly in a series of epithets found at (cite passage). These epithets include (list). This is simply summarizing content. You can't say anything more than this without a secondary source. It is important to understand that "triple goddess" is a descriptive epithet, not a distinct goddess — the epithet "triple goddess" in the PGM is not a euphemistic name for a particular deity in the manner of Bona Dea (always capitalized), but an epithet in the manner of prayers or hymns. But what seems to be happening is that people are misinterpreting the meaning of these lists and associations, because they're not quite understanding naming practice in ancient magic and religion. I've touched on naming practice in other articles, such as Gello, Abyzou, and indirectly Quintus Valerius Soranus (with leads on sources in footnotes 20, 26, and 39), but I don't have the relevant citations from the secondary sources in my triple goddess notes page.

The diva triformis seems to appear suddenly in Augustan Rome, along with Diana Nemorensis; this evidently occurs in the context of Augustus's religious reforms and revivalism, but I haven't found an explanation from a secondary source. Neither the OLD nor Courtney's Fragmentary Latin Poets reveals any trace of the "triple goddess" notion before the Augustans in Latin; that is an argument ex silentio, however, and on Wikipedia constitutes OR. So based on primary sources, one can only state in a Wikipedia article that Latin poets use certain epithets that mean "triple goddess", and that the poets apply this epithet to the same set of individual goddesses as the PGM. The epithet is placed in the mouth of Medea by more than one poet; intriguing, and again a statement of fact, but nothing more can be said of the significance of this fact without a secondary source. And even the chronological relation of the examples from Latin poetry and those of the PGM is difficult.

In my view, the key to using the primary sources is to be as precise as possible, make limited claims, and not cross into the territory of interpretation. With something as wacky as the PGM, your task is more difficult, because you have to understand what this text is, and what its modes of expression are. The absolute minimum is to have read Betz's introduction. And 25 other articles and books. Just kidding. Maybe. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, lots of things appear suddenly in Augustan Rome because of the lack of earlier sources; if something wouldn't appear in inscriptions, and is off-topic for Plautus, Catullus, Lucretius, or Cicero, it won't show up before the Golden Age. But that's OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that if we had the complete works of Varro on religion, or Nigidius Figulus, or even Valerius Soranus, we might have something useful about this concept of triple goddess in ancient Rome. On the other hand, some cults or rituals that Augustus professed to revive appear on closer scrutiny to be his inventions, a way of substituting religion for political participation in holding together the illusion that he was no threat to the mos maiorum. And not to throw kerosene on the fire here after attempting to hose it down, but if I were looking for the theological concept of "triple goddess" in antiquity, I'd be studying everything I could find about the Eleusinian Mysteries — but not in scholarship from a hundred years ago. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not just the Eleusinian Mysteries, but also the Samothracian Mysteries. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cynwolfe: «The PGM prayers do not invoke the triple goddess» — Nor did I knowingly suggest so. The section had been titled "Triple goddesses before Graves", and please note the lowercase "g". The topic was concepts of a triple goddess, as antecedents to the present-day concept. Akhilleus seems to insist that only the single precise "Triple Goddess" as presently defined can be discussed here, and takes every reference to antecedents as either exactly that or else irrelevant and deleteworthy — but that's his argument, not mine. I'd appreciate your not taking his words as coming from my mouth. It seems likely (to me at least) that the present precise concept derived (evolved) from earlier concepts, not just Graves by himself ex vacuo; for example, Harrison's work contains many of the constituent elements. And Wiccans are quite capable of reading, and synthesizing from, other sources on mythology besides Graves (they keep writing articles about it in their magazines), so there's also no basis at all to peremptorily insist that he alone must have been their sole source and that anything in their theology beyond his work is purely a "modern" invention (even if it had also existed in ancient sources). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reproduced from Greece&Rome project page:

«The diva triformis seems to appear suddenly in Augustan Rome,...» — Ermmm, that may be the case, but a more solidly grounded claim might be "Mention of the diva triformis is found, at the earliest, in documents from Augustan Rome." This allows for the possibility of earlier documents being lost, or earlier occurrence being unwritten-about, neither of which can be proven or disproven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't say this in an article; my statement about the diva triformis was made in speculation on a talk page, and was not among those statements I said the primary texts could verify for inclusion in an article. Besides, I'm not talking about the existence of a cult or deity, as you seem to be; I'm talking about the use of a phrase, and when it first appears in a literary source. The primary sources only allow you to say "Latin poets refer to [the specified set of goddesses] with an epithet meaning 'triple goddess.'" If you want to be more specific, you can say "Augustan-era poets such as Horace and Ovid use an epithet meaning 'triple goddess' to refer to [specify deities], and such references are found in later Latin poetry as well." You should not make a claim of "earliest" at all, and then try to imply that there is some unknown tradition for which "we" merely lack the sources. I wasn't trying to make a "solidly grounded claim" about why this epithet seems to appear first in poets of the Augustan era; that is why I used the word "seem," and why I said I hadn't found any explanation of this in the secondary sources, and why I said (to quote myself): 'Based on primary sources one can only state for Wikipedia that the Augustan poets use certain epithets that mean "triple goddess".' You reveal your efforts to construct an argument by saying you're trying to frame the sentence so that it allows for the existence of unknown documents that would support the existence of a "triple goddess" as an entity. That is the work of secondary scholarship. The word "mention" in your sentence is imprecise and not a technical term of analyzing either poetry or prayer; you are trying to say that the poets "mention" a/the "triple goddess", and that is not what the sources do. Both the poets and the magic papyri use "triple goddess" as an epithet, a descriptive epithet, for Artemis/Diana, Selene/Luna, Hekate, and Persephone/Proserpina; they do NOT "mention" or "refer" to a "triple goddess" who exists as a discrete entity, as your sentence above implies. There is no way for you to proceed with any discussion of this topic that is not going to be ripped apart by other editors unless you grasp the distinction and handle it with care. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I appreciate that the straw-man arguments used here may have embedded a false impression of my position in your mind, but when you go to the extent of ignoring what I actually said in favor of some alternate construction, it becomes hard to communicate with you. You are referring to the phrase "diva triformis". You assert its seeming sudden appearance in Augustan Rome; I'm saying all we really know is its sudden appearance in the documents we have. We cannot assert with certainty that it was never written down before that; we haven't seen everything that was ever written, and never will. Still less can we safely assert that it was never spoken before that, without being written down. (As to whether the referent concept might have been around before even that phrase — don't phrases generally get created to refer to something pre-existing?) I'm not "implying" anything about unknown traditions, cults, or grand conspiracies; I'm asking that we acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, and not mistake absence of evidence for evidence of absence. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that the history of scholarship on the creation of Triple Goddess is vexed; however, the only dog I have in this fight is how the ancient sources are handled. All I want is a section or article I can link to that explains why the epithet "triple goddess" appears in English translations of Latin poetry and the PGM, since the Triple Goddess article has claimed that this concept was "invented" in the 20th century. Such a section, if a section, should appear independently of the historical arguments on how Graves, Harrison, et al. used (or not) these ancient primary sources. But I have no patience with sloppy reading and Dan Brownian conjecture about a lost or secret tradition. For the record, it's evident to anyone who's read the ancient and early medieval Greek, Latin, and Celtic material where Graves got his ideas, but the creative processes of an individual are mysterious. And Mr. Graves, he dead. And now I'm banishing this page from my watchlist; if at some point I have time to construct an article that focuses on what the ancient sources actually say, I will, with whatever illumination scholarship of the last 20 or 30 years can provide — under some obscure title that may spare such an article undue attention. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Although his biographers have insight - and data. Graves was not reticent about discussing his creative process, and some of what he said is apparently consistent with other evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dianics, BritTrads, Reconstructionsts, etc

For Feminist Dianic Wiccans - the women-only traditions - the MMC concept is usually a huge part of their theological system. It's one of the traditions in which you often see individual Goddesses from diverse, world cultures described as "aspects" of one Universal Great Goddess, such as, "Brighid is a Maiden aspect of the Great Goddess, Oya is a Crone Goddess, Aphrodite is a Mother, let's invoke them all in a ritual and call the Great Mother Isis."[sic] It's an eclectic approach that prioritizes the modern, MMC idea over the historical understanding of these Goddesses. Literature from the feminist spirituality movement, which overlaps significantly with the women-only stream of Dianic Wicca, covers this. Authors who may source this are Z Budapest and Starhawk (though the latter is not Dianic, but was trained by Budapest, among others), and women's spirituality magazines like Sagewoman, The Beltane Papers, Crone Chronicles, etc. However, most writings from that corner will not challenge whether or not their approach is historical. Many of the older books were written before anyone challenged the accuracy of Graves and Gardner.

Isn't the MMC, paired with the Horned God, central to BritTrad Wicca? While many eclectic Neopagans self-identify as Wiccan, is it accurate to call them Wiccan if their beliefs diverge that much from the trad Wiccans? That's semi-rhetorical; I'm not interested in debating it or even going into how this is interpreted and presented on WP. I'm just not sure there are Wiccans who reject MMC as a core concept.

My point above is that there are many Neopagan groups and traditions who see the MMC thing as a recent invention of Graves, popularized by Gardner and other Wiccans, then adopted by some feminists and Neopagans who base their theology on Wicca, and which has been misrepresented by all of the above as universal and ancient. But this misrepresentation is not accepted by others. For members of Reconstructionist (Neo)Pagan traditions, and members of traditional religions like Hinduism, the phrase "Triple Goddess" does not conjure up a MMC triad, but rather threefold Goddesses specific to their cultural traditions that have nothing to do with the MMC model. I believe Hutton and Adler have gone into this. If I get a chance I'll check later on. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn, where in the Gardnerian Book of Shadows do the word "triple", or the aspects of mother-maiden-crone, even appear? Not in any version of the Charge I've seen, his or Valiente's. Per the document cited in Charge of the Goddess, its sources don't appear to have included Graves. The MMC may have influenced many Wiccans since then, but as a later addition. On Feminist Dianic Wiccans, I would happily take your word for it, but again Dianic Wicca's cited sources like "The Dianic Wiccan Tradition" by Ruth Barrett (founder of the Temple of Diana), and "The Dianic Tradition" by Jade River, don't mention "triple", the MMC, or Graves. This may again be a case of "some". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Starhawk's bio says she's been a member of Covenant of the Goddess for over twenty years. COG's FAQ on "Do you pray? Who do you pray to?" mentions the Triple Goddess only as among the many ways the Goddess "can be seen", along with "the nameless single Goddess" and "under all the names by which she has been known to the ancients: Ishtar, Diana, Ceridwen, Athena, Amaterasu, Brigantia, Venus, Hecate, Isis, Demeter, and more." Again, that suggests that our using the word "some" is very important. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Z Budapest, on the other hand, has a website http://wicca.dianic-wicca.com/ which says: "We believe the Goddess shows herself to us daily through all nature and inspires us through wisdom. The Goddess is the Holy Spirit who embodies and engenders everything. She reveals Herself as creation. She is the original Holy Trinity; Virgin, Mother and Crone. She is the mother of all Gods. She is responsible for the divinity of all birth." So there's an affirmative case of (some) Dianic Wicca adopting the MMC, with a slight change in wording. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added that website to Dianic Wicca's External Links section. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)