Phoenix
From the Flame
By Vivianne Crowley
London: Thorsons (1994)
Reviewed by Erica Friedman
This book begins with a completely gagifying introduction that assumes
quite a lot. For one thing, it assumes that the reader has not only
an interest in paganism, but already understands the extremely personal
nature of the beast. Crowley reminisces about her childhood in a way
that make me cringe, but will, Im sure, resonate with many other
pagans. (In fact, not two days after I presented this review at a meeting
of the GOG Dedicants, our Senior Druid received an email that cited
this book as a major influence!)
The book commences with definitions and discussions of some of the aspects
of paganism. While the information is solid, the author tends towards
the prosaic and, at times, the preachy. Crowley also falls prey to a
deadly sin in writing, assuming her point of view is universal. She
makes a few seemingly random statements, then offers no support for
them. The first of these was an assertion that, since Adams and
Eves expulsion from the Garden of Eden represented an important
step in humanitys evolution, so we must therefore return to the
elder gods. This assertion simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Crowleys short discourses on pagan group organization and dogma
were quite excellent. She points out the inherent difficulty with this
kind of overview right off the top, taking care to always express that
each group (or individual) may well have completely different needs.
Nonetheless she insists that there are some defining characteristics
of pagan religion and beliefs, something I dont really
agree with. Crowley also has a tendency to conclude sections of text
with over-arcing pedantic, almost dogmatic statements, in the we
must do this or else tone of voice. This little habit really lessens
the impact of her more objective commentary.
Each chapter and subsection is filled with many quotes from a variety
of sources, all of which are footnoted. However, quotes are inconsistently
attributed directly in the text, which is confusing and weights some
quotes more heavily, since they are given sources, where others appear
to have floated into the discourse from the ether. Eventually, Crowley
confronts the reader with her second disturbing assertionthat
paganism in its ancient form was more about a larger scale, pan-human,
resource-sharing attitude than its monotheistic brethren. I cant
agree with that. Paganism, as it is portrayed in every myth or story
Ive encountered encapsulates the us versus them worldview
I
am at a loss to understand why so few modern pagans understand (or admit
to) this innate tribal structure. Pan-globalism is, as far as I can
tell, a completely 20-21st century concept.
Section Two begins with a quotationfrom the authors own
poetry. This part of the book left me completely confusedare these
the authors opinions, or not? Since she so randomly inserts herself,
Im finding myself left wondering if this book is really more about
how she sees her own personal paganism. From this point on, the scholarship
in the book deteriorates considerably as well. (The section where a
Norse priestess rants against Akhnatens denial of the feminine
principle of deity was just bizarre.) This oddity was followed by a
belated mention of the tribalism of original pagans, which contradicts
her original statement about a universal resource-sharing worldview
among ancient pagans. In what might otherwise be a fascinating delineation
of early Christianitys strictures against pagan worship practices,
Crowley quotes names, places and dateswith no scholarly supportnot
a single footnote. Her discussion of meso-pagan revival is slightly
better than the rest of the book in many ways. She appears to find (as
most modern pagans do) 18th and 19th century romanticism amusing.
The section of pagan traditions vacillates wildly between
actual traditional practices (with an assumed pagan history) and recreated
pagan belief systems. Much of these culturally focused essays focus
not on tradition at all, but on mythologywith a very clear bias
towards goddesses. Crowley also emphasizes the position of women within
the religious hierarchycrowing with delight that women were seen
as having major influence, usually as seers. That religious influence
did not carry at all over to temporal or economic power, or even independence,
doesnt seem to be a point she cares to admit. Where understanding
of god/desses is less well known, as in the Baltic region, she brings
up rather random folk traditions and ties them together using vague
generalities and assumed connections.
Following this comes what, to me, is the strangest of all discussions
so far
that of rites of passage. Crowleys understanding of
rites of passages reeks of pop psychology and her own personal views
(which I felt were conservative and gender-bound, even as she says that
pagans are *not* locked into these roles). Rites are supplied, but no
context for them is givenwas this a ritual that she herself created
or experienced? Or was it taken from a specific source? Who are the
people she is quoting? Why are they to be considered opinion leaders?
The rest of the book continues in the same vein, with discussions of
paganism and modern society, pagan rites, pagan views of sex and sexuality,
good and evil and other broad concepts. The opinions expressed are clearly
personal, but attributed to pagans generally. Quotes are
variably attributed and examples rarely offered. Nowhere is there a
discussion of actual specific pagan groups and their practices, but
neither is her personal view differentiated from her voice as pagan
spokesperson.
Crowleys bias is clearly towards convincing the audience of the
need for Goddess worshipbut exactly who is her audience? I can
only imagine that there are women who are seeking validation in their
pursuit of a goddess-oriented worship, and looking for empiric sources
upon which to base their understanding and validation. In that case,
this book will be more than adequate.
It is, however, my sincere opinion that the only reason this book is
on the ADF reading list is that we are mentioned in the resource guide
at the end of the book. There is nothing like scholarship anywhere in
this book and I humbly suggest that it be removed from the ADF reading
list and added to the list of speculative and spurious scholarly
works. While reading this book will not likely cause any great harm
to the reader, ultimately there are many better resources for this kind
of information.
BACK
TO NEWSLETTER
BACK
TO WELCOME PAGE