Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Symbol image caption

Labelling the symbol as "Wiccan" is somewhat inappropriate, since the symbol is not used by Wiccans only, and no one has presented the slightest evidence that it was invented by Wiccans (something which I strongly suspect not to have been the case, for reasons discussed in the talk page archive). AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the citation, AM does have a point; it doesn't support the caption's claim. (The source also sets off my woo-woo detectors, but....) I believe the symbol is widely used, but we need a better cite than what we have at present. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this [1] a better source? Davémon (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I only get a very limited preview of that source when I click on the link; anyway, the fact that the symbol is used by Wiccans is not at all controversial -- but that's not enough by itself to label it a "Wiccan symbol" full stop. AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The source does identify it as a "Wiccan symbol", although I agree it is used outside of Wicca. I've no idea whether the source is a legitimate guide, or something just pretending to be one. Davémon (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
No one here but yourself has ever disputed that it's a "Wiccan symbol" in the sense of being used by Wiccans, but since the symbol is not used by Wiccans only, and nobody has presented the slightest evidence that it was invented by Wiccans (something which I strongly suspect not to have been the case, for reasons discussed in the talk page archive), therefore the previous wording of the image caption had potentially misleading implications. AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant quotations

According to [|this edit], the quote: "The threefold division [of the year] is inextricably bound up with the primitive form of the goddess Demeter, who was also Hecate, and Hecate could claim to be mistress of the three realms. In addition, her relations to the moon, the corn, and the realm of the dead are three fundamental traits in her nature. The goddess's sacred number is the special number of the underworld: '3' dominates the chthonic cults of antiquity." has " clear and direct bearing on *Triple Goddess*, the topic of this article".As far as I can see it's discussing Hekate and Demeter, not The Triple Goddess, nor archetypal theories relating to that concept and not neopaganism. Can anyone explain how this is relevant the the subject of the Triple Goddess in Neopaganism at all? Cheers!Davémon (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The goddess's sacred number, "3", dominated the chthonic cults of antiquity; Hecate could claim to be the mistress of the three realms. Have we elsewhere seen the term "triple goddess" in relation to Hecate? Oh, I'm sure it's as hard for you to make that out as it is for you to spell your own sources' names correctly, or to fill in complete footnotes (full titles, publishers, publication dates, ISBNs, etc.), which is why I end up doing those things for you too, Davémon. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up my edits. The question was: "Can anyone explain how [the quote] is relevant the the subject of the Triple Goddess in Neopaganism at all?" Davémon (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite some persistent attempts to erase mentions of her modern worship, Hecate is still today venerated by neopagans, Davémon, which makes it relevant that she is a Triple Goddess in her own right,
  • Wilshire, Donna (1993). Virgin, Mother, Crone: Myths & Mysteries of the Triple Goddess. Inner Traditions / Bear & Company. p.165: "the temple of Hekat". ISBN 0892814942, ISBN 9780892814947.
  • Moura, Ann (1999). Green Witchcraft II: Balancing Light & Shadow. Llewellyn. p.224: "Hec'-a-tay". ISBN 1567186890, ISBN 9781567186895.
  • Roderick, Timothy (2005). Wicca, a Year and a Day. Llewellyn. p.207: "Pronounced Heh-KAH-tay". ISBN 0738706213, ISBN 9780738706214.
  • O'Gaea, Ashleen (2004). Celebrating the Seasons of Life: Samhain to Ostara : Lore, Rituals. Career Press. p.29: "The pronunciation of her name varies. Some say Heh-kah-tay, some say Heck-a-tay, and a very few say Heck-ate. Most of the Wiccans I know say Heck-a-tay." ISBN 1564147312, ISBN 9781564147318.
  • Cf. Shakespeare, William (ca.1594-96). A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1, line 384: "By the triple Hecat's team".
thus entitled to be included in this article despite your own persistent erasure of her mentions here. You can hardly claim that this is "unsourced" or "original research" when you yourself have seen and deleted the cited reliable references right here in this article.
Neopagans read these same books, Davémon. Neopagans venerate these goddesses. Again, the article already mentions that "D. J. Conway includes a trinity of the Greek goddesses Demeter, Kore-Persephone, and Hecate, in her discussion of the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype." (footnote: Conway, Deanna J. (1995). Maiden, Mother, Crone: the Myth and Reality of the Triple Goddess. Llewellyn. p.54. ISBN 0875421717, ISBN 9780875421711.) You know this; you've already seen this. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand that some neopagans worship an idea they call Hecate who they believe is an aspect of the Triple Goddess. What is not evident in the article text, nor in the discussion here, is the actual relationship between this neopagan Triple Goddess idea, as applied to Hecate (or Demeter) and the specific text being quoted from Jung. Just assuming there is a connection isn't really adequate rationale for adding a quote, see wp:or. Davémon (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you you get from "I fully understand" to "What is not evident"? If you fully understood, it would be evident! What do you think her "three realms" are? Depending on rendition: Earth, either Sea or Heaven (her claim coming through Poseidon or Zeus respectively), and Underworld (Hades). See Brewer's text above, mentioning the Roman names for her. The neopagans' idea isn't anything new or different, Davémon, it's taken from the ancient descriptions of Hecate, no creativity required. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
All pseudohistory aside, my question remains: how is this specific quotation actually relevant to neopaganism? Davémon (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So underneath a list of neopaganism citations you (1) wave everything all away as wp:or and (2) still ask how is this relevant to neopaganism? This is like shutting your eyes, covering your ears, saying "TELL ME!" and then chanting "NO NO NO NO NO...." — which leaves me doubting your desire to learn.

Neopagans have not just invented entirely modern deities, but adopted ancient deities to worship, including (as D. J. Conway stated) the trinity of Demeter, Kore-Persephone, and Hecate. The Roman Triple Goddess Diana Nemorensis also includes Hecate. You keep trying to separate neopagan deities from ancient deities, but this only shows you haven't read books like Aradia — which linked them, gave them continuity. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Walker

I would seriously consider removing the section on Barbara Walker. If left, it needs to include criticism of her work. While Walker includes lots of footnotes in her books, even a cursory familiarity with the sources cited shows she does not accurately represent those sources, but rather posts her own ideas and divergent interpretations. While her work is WP:V, as it exists in published form, I don't consider her WP:RS for anything but demonstrating the source for some of the more far-fetched Neopagan interpretations of historical goddesses, especially among Goddess Worshippers. While she was very influential in the eighties, for many years now even most Neopagans have known not to rely on her "research". - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree, the article is using Walker to posit dubious historical claims for which she is not a wp:rs, rather it should be purely reporting her opionins as her personal beliefs. Do you have a citation for her being influential in the eighties? That would be useful in establishing whether she represents an extreme minority view, or a more majority view. Davémon (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant quotations

According to [|this edit], the quote: "The threefold division [of the year] is inextricably bound up with the primitive form of the goddess Demeter, who was also Hecate, and Hecate could claim to be mistress of the three realms. In addition, her relations to the moon, the corn, and the realm of the dead are three fundamental traits in her nature. The goddess's sacred number is the special number of the underworld: '3' dominates the chthonic cults of antiquity." has " clear and direct bearing on *Triple Goddess*, the topic of this article".As far as I can see it's discussing Hekate and Demeter, not The Triple Goddess, nor archetypal theories relating to that concept and not neopaganism. Can anyone explain how this is relevant the the subject of the Triple Goddess in Neopaganism at all? Cheers!Davémon (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The goddess's sacred number, "3", dominated the chthonic cults of antiquity; Hecate could claim to be the mistress of the three realms. Have we elsewhere seen the term "triple goddess" in relation to Hecate? Oh, I'm sure it's as hard for you to make that out as it is for you to spell your own sources' names correctly, or to fill in complete footnotes (full titles, publishers, publication dates, ISBNs, etc.), which is why I end up doing those things for you too, Davémon. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up my edits. The question was: "Can anyone explain how [the quote] is relevant the the subject of the Triple Goddess in Neopaganism at all?" Davémon (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite some persistent attempts to erase mentions of her modern worship, Hecate is still today venerated by neopagans, Davémon, which makes it relevant that she is a Triple Goddess in her own right,
thus entitled to be included in this article despite your own persistent erasure of her mentions here. You can hardly claim that this is "unsourced" or "original research" when you yourself have seen and deleted the cited reliable references right here in this article.
Neopagans read these same books, Davémon. Neopagans venerate these goddesses. Again, the article already mentions that "D. J. Conway includes a trinity of the Greek goddesses Demeter, Kore-Persephone, and Hecate, in her discussion of the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype." (footnote: Conway, Deanna J. (1995). Maiden, Mother, Crone: the Myth and Reality of the Triple Goddess. Llewellyn. p.54. ISBN 0875421717, ISBN 9780875421711.) You know this; you've already seen this. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand that some neopagans worship an idea they call Hecate who they believe is an aspect of the Triple Goddess. What is not evident in the article text, nor in the discussion here, is the actual relationship between this neopagan Triple Goddess idea, as applied to Hecate (or Demeter) and the specific text being quoted from Jung. Just assuming there is a connection isn't really adequate rationale for adding a quote, see wp:or. Davémon (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you you get from "I fully understand" to "What is not evident"? If you fully understood, it would be evident! What do you think her "three realms" are? Depending on rendition: Earth, either Sea or Heaven (her claim coming through Poseidon or Zeus respectively), and Underworld (Hades). See Brewer's text above, mentioning the Roman names for her. The neopagans' idea isn't anything new or different, Davémon, it's taken from the ancient descriptions of Hecate, no creativity required. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
All pseudohistory aside, my question remains: how is this specific quotation actually relevant to neopaganism? Davémon (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So underneath a list of neopaganism citations you (1) wave everything all away as wp:or and (2) still ask how is this relevant to neopaganism? This is like shutting your eyes, covering your ears, saying "TELL ME!" and then chanting "NO NO NO NO NO...." — which leaves me doubting your desire to learn.

Neopagans have not just invented entirely modern deities, but adopted ancient deities to worship, including (as D. J. Conway stated) the trinity of Demeter, Kore-Persephone, and Hecate. The Roman Triple Goddess Diana Nemorensis also includes Hecate. You keep trying to separate neopagan deities from ancient deities, but this only shows you haven't read books like Aradia — which linked them, gave them continuity. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Walker

I would seriously consider removing the section on Barbara Walker. If left, it needs to include criticism of her work. While Walker includes lots of footnotes in her books, even a cursory familiarity with the sources cited shows she does not accurately represent those sources, but rather posts her own ideas and divergent interpretations. While her work is WP:V, as it exists in published form, I don't consider her WP:RS for anything but demonstrating the source for some of the more far-fetched Neopagan interpretations of historical goddesses, especially among Goddess Worshippers. While she was very influential in the eighties, for many years now even most Neopagans have known not to rely on her "research". - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree, the article is using Walker to posit dubious historical claims for which she is not a wp:rs, rather it should be purely reporting her opionins as her personal beliefs. Do you have a citation for her being influential in the eighties? That would be useful in establishing whether she represents an extreme minority view, or a more majority view. Davémon (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

D.J. Conway

Same problem. WP:V in that her works exist. But not WP:RS for anything but showing the crap that can get published, and that some people don't care at all about historicity if it "feels right" to them. Absolutely no one in the Celtic field takes her work seriously, and I don't know many Goddess Worshippers or Neopagans who see her as reliable, either. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is limited to using DJC to describe her own beliefs, rather than making claims of historicism, so I don't really see a problem. If there are wp:rs who criticise her writing regarding the Triple Goddess for her lack of historicism, imagination or virtue, then please do add that in. Davémon (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Differing streams?

I think the article should at least indicate that Celtic Reconstructionists (like yourself, Kathryn) don't accept as reliable the New-Age-y, Llewellyn-y, authors like D. J. Conway and Barbara G. Walker — who may possibly share too much of the, um, fashion creativity of earlier Wiccan authors like Gerald Gardner. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We've already got " Celtic Reconstructionist Pagans state that, "[t]he idea that all, or even any, Goddesses fit into a Maiden/Mother/Crone structure is not Celtic", " I think that does the job well enough of defining CRs stance. Davémon (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've removed the mention of Graves in the opening paragraph, as I don't feel it's needed here. He's mentioned later on and has his own section. We can mention that the/a Triple Goddess was written about by him in that section. If the general census it to put the reference back, then I'll gladly go along with it, but as I've said - I don't think it's needed, and it just adds to the length of the article. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed at great length here previously, it is quite dubious whether the specific concept of a new moon / full moon / old moon triad of Goddesses defined as maiden, mother, and crone is attested prior to the "writings of Robert Graves". If you can come up with a valid chronologically prior reference, we would be quite interested in knowing about it. Furthermore, since the Triple Goddess concept was not invented by Wiccans, is not practiced by Wiccans only, and is not really a core essential Wiccan belief (since it does not occur in Gardner's writings), having Wicca be the only specific individual or group being named in the lead paragraph is greatly disproportionate. AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If it have been previously discussed and decided, then I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. Thank you for adding it back in. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Change article title to "Triple Goddess (Criticism)" or "Triple Goddess (Fantasy)"

The tone of this article reads loud and clear and seeing the ridiculous number of citations, I'm not surprised it hasn't been corrected yet. I too have better things to do than micro-battle a bad faith little-caesar.

Review the long list religious on the Neopaganism page, click your heals three times and justify "Modern FANTASY fiction plays a large part in the conceptual landscape of the neo-pagan world". What, exactly is the point of § Fiction, film and literary criticism?

"The priestess is assumed to be functioning as a prophet of the Goddess or her corporeal form. Mel D. Faber explains this in psychological terms of attempting to re-unite with the protective-mother fantasy." The article has just described "Drawing down the moon" without arbitrarily citing an author no one respects. What should I assume comes next? The end? No.

It's rude to characterize a faith's ritual act of devotion as playing out a fantasy. Either 1) demonstrate a range of interpretations from variety of perspectives, 2) explain how it's playing out a protective-mother fantasy, or 3) [no fun] leave it up to the reader to form their own impressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Elf 1735 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have difficulty in discerning any practical proposals for improving the the article in your comments. Classical mythology (Hercules, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief etc. etc.) plays a significant role in "Fiction, film and literary criticism" without thereby undermining Hellenic neopaganism, so why should it be different here? AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi AnonMoos, I remember you from all the great graphics you do. I don't have answers. I think people should do the right thing. If neither of these make you think "hey, ya. i could make it just a little bit better"... ok. I don't know what page you're referring to or what you meant to communicate. Anyway, thanks for responding.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Having edited the two sections, I've removed the POV-section tags which I added. Rather than try show examples, I should simply say the neutrality and focus of the entire article needs attention. (It's beyond my humble skills, please see the archives).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did your edits consist mainly of removing citations? AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Removing citations wasn't the intent. Almost everything is cited. But just having a citation doesn't mean something is good, does it? I found the sentences to be inappropriate and of questionable relevance to the topic.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved summary to §Request for comments—Faber
—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not support the removal of critical viewpoints, or POV Forking them to other articles. We need to ensure the article presents all notable views in a neutral manner. Please stop trying to censor properly cited opinions from experts in the field which you happen to disagree with. Davémon (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah - also just noticed something else. The word "fantasy" in psychoanalysis is a technical term - as it is also in field of literary criticism, it does not simply mean "a made-up falsehood". If you can understand these terms within the contexts they are used, I think you'll see there is no offence meant by it's use.Davémon (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Davemon. The Faber is fringe and offensive. The quote from Wood is taken out of context. I suggested an alternative quote from Wood that seemed more appropriate to me, but I also think it's acceptable to simply remove the sentence.
People who disagree with you aren't censoring properly cited opinions from experts.
—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I see that this article remains a train wreck. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish I knew how to successfully make it a little less grisly. I'm looking at adding a {{rfctag|reli}} tag to this page but I don't know if that's a good thing or if maybe there's a better way to proceed.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You could start by adding some properly sourced information. If you think you can use more of Woods comments in the article, then do so. Faber is a lot less fringey than many of the other sources here. The fact is you have repeatedly stated that you find his POV offensive on this talk page, and subsequently have deleted the content from the article. That is censorship. Perhaps we can work on para-phrasing his comments so that the offense is removed, but ensure the POV is still reflected. --Davémon (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I see all the specific problems you're referring to, but this article does seem to have some "ownership" issues with Davemon. Since Davemon took over control of this article, I've confined my role mainly to staving off any claims of Wicca-exclusivity (or wording which implies Wicca-exclusivity) from the text and title of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Davémon

If either author was using the word "fantasy" as some kind of counter-intuitive jargon, Wikipedia's readers would mistakenly read the edits you made as the English word "fantasy". But that's just crazy talk. You're obviously an intelligent person and speak English well so I have no reason to assume good faith or incompetence on your part. I wonder what you'd be saying if I wasn't "censoring you". It's assumed "censoring you" is a technical term meaning you revert all my edits and I don't even so much as talk about changing anything you've written. Are you originally responsible for linking to Faber rather than citing Adler for the majority of that section? Why here and not the Drawing Down the Moon Article? Do you think Witchcraft Prophets should be held accountable for the "good measure of violence, havoc and suffering" they inflict on "full humans"? Shouldn't society take steps to prevent that kind of havoc? (Why isn't Starhawk being held at Guantanamo?) At the very least you believe Wikipedia should represent this points of view in Triple Goddess (Neopaganism). Anywhere else?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the cited commentary regarding Drawing Down the Moon belongs in that article, not here. I also agree that the views of Faber need clarifying and the fully-justified criticism of his methodology (such as lack of first hand field-study) and criticism of his model (the generally reductionist approach to religion inherent in all Freudian analysis) should be briefly stated and cited in that article. Perhaps if we also wiki-link Woods use of "fantasy" to Fantasy that would help clarify what she means. For the record I don't think you are censoring me or my opinions by removing cited content, but censoring those of the experts in the field. I neither agree nor disagree with Faber or Woods, but do think their points of view are relevant to the areas they discuss and bring context to these materials. Personally I do not have an opinion on the right or wrong of their views, but just want this article to appropriately reflect all available reliable sources who report on this subject. --Davémon (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
↵

As there are no more comments at this time, I'll remove the Faber sentence and change the reference for the remainder of the section to Adler.

Davémon, if you want to remove the entire section, I don't have a problem with that. To clarify, since you mentioned something about WP:POVFORK, I asked why here. I'm glad you "agree", but I'm just trying to reduce the WP:CoatRack problem here in this article. I don't think Faber would be any more notable in Drawing Down the Moon (ritual).

Regarding Woods, I think the alternative quote I suggested has, at least, some relevance to a Triple Goddess article but it wouldn't do much to improve this one.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments—Faber

I think I fixed the problem where the {{rfctag|reli}} in <nowiki> tags was picked up by the bot.

Edits summary, at a glance…
=== Drawing down the Moon ===
"Drawing down the Moon", a Wiccan ritual, involves a high priestess either going into a reverie and speaking as the Goddess, or reciting dramatic prose (different branches of Wicca have different rationales and methodologies). Slightly different rituals are performed at the different phases of the moon. The priestess is assumedsaid to be functioning as a prophet of the Goddess or her corporeal form. Mel D. Faber explains this in psychological terms of attempting to re-unite with the protective-[[mother]] fantasy.<ref>Faber, Mel D. (1993) [http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1FZ2hMl56IC&lpg=PA96&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Modern Witchcraft and Psychoanalysis''.] Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p.96. ISBN 0838634885, ISBN 9780838634882.</ref>
=== Fiction, film and literary criticism ===
…
Modern fantasy fiction plays a large part in the conceptual landscape of the neo-pagan world.<ref>{{cite book|last=Wood|first=Juliette|title=The Concept of the Goddess|editor=Sandra Billington, Miranda Green (eds.) (1999)|publisher=Routledge|date=1999|page=22|chapter=Chapter 1, The Concept of the Goddess|ISBN= 9780415197892|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=IoW9yhkrFJoC&lpg=PP22&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q=&f=false|accessdate=2009-10-08}}</ref> The three supernatural female figures called variously the Ladies, Mother of the Camenae, the Kindly Ones, and a number of other different names in ''The Sandman'' comic books by Neil Gaiman, merge the figures of the Fates and the Maiden-Mother-Crone goddess.<ref> Sanders, Joseph L., and Gaiman, Neil (2006). ''The Sandman Papers: An Exploration of the Sandman Mythology''. Fantagraphics. p.151. ISBN 1560977485, ISBN 9781560977483.</ref> In Alan Garner's ''The Owl Service'', based on the fourth branch of the ''Mabinogion'' and influenced by Robert Graves, clearly delineates the character of the Triple Goddess. Garner goes further, in his other novels making every female character intentionally represent an aspect of the Triple Goddess.<ref name="White">White, Donna R. (1998). ''A Century of Welsh Myth in Children's Literature''. Greenwood Publishing Group. p.75. ISBN 0313305706, ISBN 9780313305702.</ref> In George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, the Maid, the Mother, and the Crone are three aspects of the septune deity in the Faith of the Seven.


The author's statement was taken out of context to serve as a transition from "violent and misandric imagery", "harrowing", and "feminist Shakespeare" selections to DC Comics.
And "melancholy"—I overlooked a selection from "Our ladies of darkness: feminine daemonology in male gothic fiction" regarding DeQuincey's nempholeptic vampire nightmares: Our Lady of Tears, Our Lady of Sighs and Our Lady of Darkness; the Holy/Unholy Trinity as dominatrix aka the Graces, Fates and Furies whom Andriano explains are all aspects of the same Triple Goddess of Robert Graves.
I think the following quote would better introduce the section and better reflect the sophistication of Wood's view. Maybe the final paragraph would work as a transition from feminist Shakespeare to comic books? (I shouldn't try to read constructive intentions into those choices).
“The Goddess-model operates on the level of symbolic discourse.[1] The periphery is metaphorical rather than historical. If we look at the Goddess-paradigm as an exercise in creative history, then we are looking at a view of the past which, however it may fail academic criteria, presents a powerful image of feminine cultural identity.”[2]
Upon further investigation, I've come to realize one of the references I deleted, Mel D. Faber, is profoundly biased against Wicca and spiritual practice in general. A review in the American Journal of Psychoanalysis of one of his more recent books acknowledges that he “apparently has an ax to grind.” Looking at the deleted citation's link to Google Reader, I found these quotes to be indicative of Faber's argument (taken from pages 94-97).
Page 94:
“[The] real danger here, I would submit, is the belief in one's omnipotence, the unwillingness to acknowledge one's limitations—in short, the refusal to grow up and join the human race. In this denial, in this infantile, narcissistic imperviousness to the facts of one's development, there resides a major threat to the welfare and advancement not only of the individual psyche but of the social realm as well: A good measure of the violence, havoc, and general suffering that people have had to endure in this world has stemmed from those grandiose characters who have regarded themselves precisely as our prophetess Simos (1979, 13) urges her follows…”
The author Miriam Simos, Starhawk, and her book The Spiral Dance are frequently addressed by Faber.
“The working of Wiccan spells ultimately calls to mind [a colleague's] observation that disturbed individuals struggle to mature and become fully human without relinquishing their infantile omnipotence.”
For the next one and half pages, Faber quotes Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon, (which canbe used to replace the deleted citation for the article).[3] Various descriptions of the ritual are then provided, followed by Faber's Psychoanalytic Notes and the "psychological explanation" I deleted.
Page 96:
“This metaphor reveals the underlying purpose of the Craft as a whole. The moon is, of course, a projective version of the maternal figure, and the fantasy embedded in the rite is to pull the mother back into the psychological orbit of the individual.”
“The mother moves away, into "outer space" as it were; she is no longer directly in the sphere of the child's will. Thus to "draw the moon down," to bring it back or near with one's willful effort,is to deny and to reverse the central, traumatic event of infancy and childhood. The rite expresses, on the one hand, the individual's belief in his own omnipotent capacity to undo the past, to get the mother back, and it expresses, on the other, the individual's wish and need to have the mother's power, that "stream of force" which "enters him" as he basks in the Moon-Goddess' light." This is, surely, the way the child feels as he participates in the mother's omnipotence, in her magical, immaterial energy…”
Page 97:
“Here is the full breast, the loving, nurturing object for which the practitioner yearns most deeply, and the aim of the rite, quite simply, is to draw this down to the mouth, to get the love and the power inside.”
“Just as the baby-sitter reassures the child who wakes up and finds the parent gone, so does the ritual reassure the Witch.”
“We also see echoed early efforts at specifically transitional phenomena—like the baby's blankie [sic], the Goddess "lies under all and covers all."”
“Taken as a whole, Drawing Down the Moon acts out obsessively several major conflicts of the mother-child relation.”
  1. ^ Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja (1990). Magic, Science, Religion and the Scope of Rationality. England: Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0521376319.
  2. ^ Wood, Juliette (1999). "Chapter 1, The Concept of the Goddess". In Sandra Billington, Miranda Green (eds.) (1999) (ed.). The Concept of the Goddess. Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 9780415197892. Retrieved 2009-10-08.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)
  3. ^ Adler, Margot (2006). Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and other pagans in America (revised, illustrated). Penguin Books. p. 18. ISBN 0143038192.


05:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) and revised—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Names of God

If we are to consider Triple Goddess as belonging to the Names of God category, can we please find some published, reliable sources that explicitly state that the term Triple Goddess is used as a Name of God (as defined by the Names of God article). I understand that some people who use the term Triple Goddess do see it as just the female aspect of a cosmic deity, along with a male aspect The Horned God, but this theology really should be established in the article, using appropriate (secondary or tertiary) sources, before putting the category tag on. As wikipedians we're expected to source the content we add to an article rather than just express our own opinions and experience. Cheers! Davémon (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

connections to other traditions

probablly worthwhile to mention similer triple goddesses from other traditions such as Shakti from Hinduism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.210.76 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Classical Source of Maiden/Wife/Crone

Robert Graves both in his Greek Myths and in White Goddess sources Pausanias 8.22.2 as an example of evidence tending to show the existence of an ancient 3 part goddess. I don't know about Harrison since I have yet to read her. Here is the quote in context:

[8.22.1] XXII. My narrative returns to Stymphalus and to Geronteium, as it is called, the boundary between Stymphalus and Pheneus. The Stymphalians are no longer included among the Arcadians, but are numbered with the Argive League, which they joined of their own accord. That they are by race Arcadians is testified by the verses of Homer,33 and Stymphalus their founder was a grandson of Arcas, the son of Callisto. It is said that it was originally founded on another site, and not on that of the modern city.

[8.22.2] The story has it that in the old Stymphalus dwelt Temenus, the son of Pelasgus, and that Hera was reared by this Temenus, who himself established three sanctuaries for the goddess, and gave her three surnames when she was still a maiden, Girl; when married to Zeus he called her Grown-up; when for some cause or other she quarrelled with Zeus and came back to Stymphalus, Temenus named her Widow. This is the account which, to my own knowledge, the Stymphalians give of the goddess. (http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias8B.html) I suppose it should be part of the referencing to this page,

Another point, Ronald Hutton is so far as I know a scholar of modern neo-paganism not a classical scholar, his use as an authority here is puzzling; and his quote about Graves' "show of erudition" is both uncited (although it could be cited) and taken out of its specific context. Jeremy (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And the references to Robert Graves are inaccurate, perhaps motivated by hostile POV or perhaps just motivated by overreliance on Huttons extended attack on Graves in "Triumph of the Moon".Jeremy (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just been reading an article from the American Journal of Archaeology, American Journal of Archaeology Publication Info American Journal of Archaeology, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503176, 1977, Dragon-Houses: Euboia, Attika, Karia Jean Carpenter and Dan Boyd, which page 208, mentons that Hera was well-known in classical Greece as a goddess worshipped in primitive times on mountaintops by aboriginal groups such as Pelasgians (Pelasgus, mentioned in quote above, was thier eponymous ancestor). The article feely quotes Cambridge Ritualist AB Cook, long after Cook and friends were supposedly "denounced by scholars" if one believes the wikipedia article. There is some sloppy work which has been done here, due in part by taking polemical rants by notably Ron Hutton too uncritically. I will start to edit soon on this, small mistakes to begin with like some of the comments on Robert Graves....Jeremy (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Using Robert Graves as a source is a sure route to sloppy work. The AJA article you mention says nothing about Hera being a triple goddess, does it? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeremytrewindixon said he was going back to the original source, and did so, so there's no need to be pointlessly snippy. The question is whether it has any great signfiicance for Greek mythology, which seems doubtful... AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I started it by my unnecessary reference to "sloppy work". What I meant to say is that scepticism and a willingness to debunk are fine and necessary things but in and of themselves they don't make one right or rational. One has to be sceptical also of scepticism and be willing to debunk debunking.....and a case in point is the often uncritical treatment in recent years of various statements of Professor Ronald Hutton, as exampled in this article. He is a fine scholar in his field, but even in his field he is not writing encyclopedias with their ethos of being fair to all etc but vigorously advancing his own theses. He does this of course within academic norms of integrity and transparency and I repeat he is a fine scholar. But he is in the end a an advocate not a judge. He should not be taken as a sole source or the last word on "what scholars think". When he writes out of his field, which he necessarily does does in "Triumph of the Moon" for example where he needs to cast a wide net for background, then he can give misleading impressions of his sources. That is not unusual or surprising, the references are there so people can check those sources for themselves. In "Triumph of the Moon" Hutton gives a background account of the history of the idea of the Triple Goddess which seems to have been uncritically relied on by some editors for this article. But one really does need to dig a bit deeper.
I'll admit my POV, I am rather fond of Robert Graves, and don't like to see him trashed. But I don't think this is a contest beteeen Graves and Hutton. For one thing, we are trying to write a good article not to promote one man or another, and for another thing Graves was a poet, not an academic scholar.
As to the importance of the triple aspect of Hera to Greek mythology....lets see if it turns out to be important, I rather think it will. At the moment though we're considering its importance to the Triple Goddess of Neopaganism and its importance there will I think turn out to be clearer yet. Jeremy (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Classical Source of Primitive Matriarchy

From Hesiod's "Works and Days" this translation online at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0132:card=109&highlight=silver%2Cage

The Silver Age men, apparently corresponding to the neolithic, are dominated by their mothers in the period before the Olympian gods' Hesiod says:

"First of all [110] the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Cronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods [115] without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all evils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good things, [120] rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods. But after the earth had covered this generation—they are called pure spirits dwelling on the earth, and are kindly, delivering from harm, and guardians of mortal men; [125] for they roam everywhere over the earth, clothed in mist and keep watch on judgements and cruel deeds, givers of wealth; for this royal right also they received;—then they who dwell on Olympus made a second generation which was of silver and less noble by far. It was like the golden race neither in body nor in spirit. [130] A child was brought up at his good mother's side a hundred years, an utter simpleton, playing childishly in his own home. But when they were full grown and were come to the full measure of their prime, they lived only a little time and that in sorrow because of their foolishness, for they could not keep from sinning and [135] from wronging one another, nor would they serve the immortals, nor sacrifice on the holy altars of the blessed ones as it is right for men to do wherever they dwell. Then Zeus the son of Cronos was angry and put them away, because they would not give honor to the blessed gods who live on Olympus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremytrewindixon (talk • contribs) 04:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Jeremy (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all it seems to say is that the period of infancy or childhood was greatly extended... AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC
Well.....it does say that they were under the domination of their mothers for a hundred years, and lived little beyond that. "They" would have on logical grounds to refer just to men, as a moments thought will show; the women become those 100 year ruling mothers....An extended, virtually lifelong, childhood for men but not for women. That certainly implies a society where women are powerful; and it can be and often has been interpreted to mean that the Silver Age society was matriarchal. Other classical source (and "classical" of course covers 1000 odd years) describe this age as the period of invention of agriculture. It is clear enough that what we are talking about is what moderns call the "neolithic" period. Elsewhere (the sources are online) it is remarked in the classical period that this is the age before war was invented (that is attributed to the following Bronze Age) and when the goddess Astraea still walked on the earth....And of course, Hesiod remarks that the Silver Age people did not honour the Olympian Gods...
The classical Greeks and Romans were to be sure not necessarily correct about their own pre-history but they surely have some standing. It is from materials such as this, and the Triple Hera material etc, that the theory of a triple goddess-worshipping substratum underlying Greek myth was sourced. This theory was based on a considerable body of scholarship and evidence; and the fact that modern academics have retreated from such theory-building is no excuse for ignoring that. The continual quoting of the opinions of Ron Hutton is not a good sign, he is a in my opinion a good historian but this is not his area. Jeremy (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
If the period of infancy or childhood was greatly extended, then it's logical that they would be raised by their mothers during the extended period of infancy or childhood. Don't want to needlessly indiscriminately debunk, but this particular passage is too vague and shadowy and inferential, and doesn't seem to have much direct relevance to the topic of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well yeah, but you will see that it means that the period of infancy of women was not extended, just that of men.....personally I think it clear enough that Hesiod was saying that, unfortunately in his view, women were dominant in the Silver Age; especially when one takes into account that Hesiod is the source of the misogynist Pandora myth. But in the end it is not really my opinion that matters on this, I think you will find that this passage has been rather widely taken that way. As to the relevance to an article on the Triple Goddess, I agree it is tangential but I think it is likely to be useful as a reference which is why I posted it here...Jeremy (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia in this whole area has tended to fall far too much under the spell of a shallow "debunking" POV. Ive just been looking at a modern artcle available through JSTOR, "Mapping Utopia: Homer's Politics and the Birth of the Polis Annette Lucia Giesecke 2007" College Literature http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115427, stressing the importance of the "matriarchal threat" in understanding classical Greek myth, and discussing a number of Greek myths in terms familiar to readers of Robert Graves. Yes, I plan to do some editing here soon....Jeremy (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Giesecke is not saying that there was a matriarchy in Greek prehistory. Greek myth is obsessed with the threat of feminine domination (as Giesecke notes), but that doesn't mean that there was actually a period where females were politically dominant. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
No Giesecke certainly doesn't say that. I'm with you there! But the obsession is nevertheless of interest; and can't help but be relevant to the question of goddess worship I would have thought. And it also means that the character of Greek myth does not undermine the obvious interpretation of the Hesiod passage. Incidentally my dictionary, the OED, describes matriarchy as the situation where the mother is the head of the family, and descent is reckoned through the female line. Discussions of matriarchy often seem to confuse it with gynocracy, or even with some bizarre mass tranvestisism where sex roles are reversed...Some clarity here would be helpful Jeremy (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

recent edits

Not entirely sure why you cut out the Golden Bough -- all the prominent personalities in the English-speaking countries who in the 1930s or 1940s were thinking about what would now be called "neopaganism" were familiar with it... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Frazer is still mentioned, and I think you are absolutely right that the Golden Bough is a pivotal document. And I think there is a lot of editing left to go, I'm trying to be very cautious here, I know this area is a POV minefield. But on this specific subject of the Triple Goddess isn't the main relevance of the Golden Bough to the practice of human sacrifice....this aspect of goddess worship of course featured very much in Graves but isn't yet (!) mentioned in the article, the only part coming near is the (I think) not 100% accurate and certainly incomplete reference to her son...Gimbutas was very different here. Jeremy (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure human sacrifice is "featured very much in Graves" -- it's strongly limited to certain specific sacral and royal contexts (see Seven Days in New Crete), but I guess you're right that the triple goddess as such is not in the Golden Bough (I would assume -- I never read the full unabridged version...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've only read the abridged Bough too....I'm pretty sure I stand by my comment about the importance of human sacrifice in Robert Graves' picture of goddess worship, if you look at his Myths and White Goddess. Many myths are interpreted by Graves as telling the story of a king's refusal to be sacrificed at the end of his reign, often substituting a child, Heracles murder of his children is for example interpreted in this light....You may recall Hutton's horror at the matter of fact reference to sacrifices of "animals and children" to the goddess in King Jesus. Anyway, I think it is clear that Graves drew on Frazer here. In his remarks on the Golden Age myth in Greek Myths he says something to the effect that by Hesiod's day the cruelties of this time had been forgotten, elsewhere he refers to this period as one where woman ruled and "man was her frightened victim". Graves was not really what modern pagans sometimes call a "fluffy bunny". He compares warfare to human sacrifice in several places, by implication to the detriment of warfare. (But I'm not suggesting that he advocated human sacrifice, when he calls in the White Goddess for a "practical" form of goddess worship I imagine that by practical he basically means human sacrifice free.) Gimbutas by contrast denied that human sacrifice was an original feature of goddess worship and held that it was introduced by those horse-worshipping patriarchs. (Civilization of the Goddess)Jeremy (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Types of Triple Goddess/Quintupe Goddess

My information to the effect that Graves saw the "triple goddess" as really a quintuple goddess has been removed. Why could that possibly be? The effect is to make the article less accurate. Of course Hutton didn't mention in his summary of the history of the modern Triple Goddess that Graves goddess was a quintuple goddess but I don't know that the facts he chooses to select should be determinative for wikipedia.

Also the article as it stands correctly mentions Skelton's poem and the significance Graves attached to it.....Skelton was close to summarizing a classical belief as anyone can see from the Triple Deity article. But it describes a goddess who is "triple" in the sense of ruling the three worlds. Like Hecate in fact as is attested from Hesiod. (Yeah Hecate was inter alia a moon goddess...) Graves quintuple goddess as I recall was made up of two intersecting triplicities Have yet to find a good quote from his work relating the triple and quintuple aspects, but the quintuple stuff is all over it, we can't just say he talked of a triple goddess and leave it at that, that would be to deliberately falsify the wikipedia information. Jeremy (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In Graves' view, three can expand to 5, 7, or 9 in the appropriate contexts. There's no systematic or central explanation of this that I'm aware of, but from notes I jotted down a while back, it seems that an expansion from 3 to 5 can be done by taking a trio of air, earth, and sea deities and adding to it two further deities of the heavens and of the underworld; by distinguishing additional life stages intermediate between the basic three; or by association with the five "seasons" of the hypothetical 15-month calendar discussed at one point (and the five ogham vowels). I really don't think that Graves believed that five was more basic than three, and if this type of "expansion" is uniqe to Graves personally, and hasn't been taken up by others, then it may not be all that relevant to the article... AnonMoos (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well yes, he did make repeatedly clear in White Goddess that five is more basic than three. Can give clear quotes from White Goddess, his main writing on the subject, to that effect. (You know, the pentacle and all that? as a goddess symbol?....I don't know that "taken up by others" is the quite the right way to put it .) So if Graves is relevant then the Five-fold Goddess has to be relevant Jeremy (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
He mentions the horizontal cross-section of an apple somewhere, but I really don't think he places much emphasis on the pentagram or occultistic (later Wiccan) pentacle as a goddess symbol (in fact, a five-pointed star as a standalone symbol is more likely to refer to the "light" star-demigod of the first half of the year in his system -- see below -- and the words "pentagram" and "pentacle" are not listed in the index to the White Goddess). Certainly the only fivefold diagram in the White Goddess is the 15-month calendar diagram in chapter 16... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually a 13 month calendar AnonMoos. To each month a letter, and an additional doubled letter to two of the months making fifteen. But the calendar is only 13 months, 13x28=364. . I see I am going to have to give verbatim quotes about the underlying importance of the Five-fold Goddess. The article can't avoid mentioning it if it mentions Graves. A matter of geeting together the time, a computer and my WG. Or you could read it yourself of course......No Graves does not much mention the pentagram as a symbol but it is in fact a symbol of the goddess along with much else. The book is about Graves' own speculations not an encyclopedia.....Jeremy (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The thirteen-month calendar is certainly the most prominent one in the White Goddess, but Graves also explores the possibility of a 15-month calendar (with the months each having three 8-day "weeks", and five overall extra intercalary days) about a third of the way through chapter 16, and even provides a little disc diagram of it -- which is the closest thing to a diagram or design with quasi-pentagonical symmetry in the book... I don't know how the book is being published in recent times, but in my large-format U.S. paperback with yellow covers and a stylized reverse-judgement-of-Paris illustration on the cover (rather appropriate as a cover illustration, by the way), the diagram is on page 280. AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
He does mention the 15 month calendar, you got me! Something of a peripheral issue though, which is very objective of me to ackowledge because if it wasn't peripheral that would tend to strengthen the point I am trying to make...A particular reason (ie apart from accuracy in general) why I think the fundamentally quintuple nature of Graves' goddess is important to mention is that otherwise the article gives too much of an impression of essential continuity between Harrison-Graves-Gimbutas.
Here is a fuller quote on the primacy of the Goddess' five-fold nature, from Chapter 26, Return of the Goddess, page 485 in my edition., just befoe the quote of Ramsay's "Goddess of the Slothful". Graves writes:
"How should she then be worshipped?.....She must be worshipped in her ancient quintuple person, whether by counting the petals of lotus or primrose: as Birth, Initiation, Consummation, Repose and Death". This is the last chapter before the Postcript, I think it is fairly clear...
Of course the Goddess triads are also extremely important. In a strict numerological sense I think the connection between the three and the five is that you can form a cross of two triads, the adult form of the goddess is also a triad....but I can't find a good quotation in WG. Jeremy (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In that particular passage, Graves is drawing a connection with the Donne poem, and his "theology" (if you want to call it that), is flexible enough to accommodate five-fold parallels to the Goddess, as well as three-fold parallels. I still think that 5 is an expansion of 3, and does not meaningfully override or overshadow 3. AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

God of Waxing and Waning Year

"and that she has an incestuous relationship with her son, who is the God of the waxing and waning year, an idea that was to become central to initiatory Wicca.[9] Graves goes on to say that the Triple Goddess was an aboriginal deity of Britain, whose worship continued as a witch-cult. ." This also is at best misleading. Lets not fight Davemon, can we agree on the importance of accuracy? Jeremy (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be most clearly explained in "7 Days in New Crete", where the "light" star-demigod of the first half of the year and the "dark" serpent-demigod of the second half of the year are antagonistic twins who compete for the goddess's favor. Not sure if this has any relation to Wicca (certainly not the conventional "horned god"), or if it should be considered part of triple goddess beliefs as such... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the point giving me a bit of a furball was that there are two gods not one, rivals, and this is sort crucial to the whole Graves deal.....Also I wonder is one would say that the Christian Virgin Mary "has an incestuous relationship with her son" because God the Father and God the Son are aspects of the One God. Once could, but would one? How relevant all of this is to Wicca I don't know, I don't think it is all that relevant to Gardnerian (ie original) Wicca at least is it? The Triple Goddess is actually also triple in that she rules the three worlds and I thought the Horned God in Wicca was the underworld god? But I know the Triple Goddess has become important in neopaganism more generally. Jeremy (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the Goddess has multitudinous and various aspects, manifestations, and incarnations, and it would only be considered "incestuous" if you draw up an oversimplified and literalistic genealogical family-tree diagram in a way which Graves probably did not intend. In the "royal performance" at Dunrena in 7 Days in New Crete, the Queen wears completely different outfits in the seduction scene (or "nuptial dance") and the birth scene, indicating that different goddess-aspects are involved... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Im going to have to read 7 days in New Crete again.....Jeremy (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)/Archive_7&oldid=1137267970"