Journal of Geomancy vol. 2 no. 4, July 1978
{101}
A circlet of gold for the first of the new priesthood! Let us rush to the banner of the New Orthodoxy! If we cannot beat the established schools of thought, then let us join them in their games. Let us discard the Pendle, Lamanche and Hebden Bridge Zodiacs, and disregard the work done on them, for they do not fit in with certain arbitrary guidelines founded on traditionalist and conservative principles. Mary Caine’s comments on the finding of a terrestrial zodiac are very reassuring for those of us who worry about the overall presentation of our field of study to ‘the general public’. It would indeed add to our credibility if all landscape zodiacs fell themselves into the same basic patterns, but unfortunately (perhaps) it seems they do not. It is very easy to have one’s credulity stretched by a representation of zodiacal figures in the landscape, and there can surely be very few of us who do not have reservations about certain zodiacs, but as Ms. Caine admits, it may be that there are zodiacs which defy all ‘classical’ identification, and our role, as geomantic researchers, is to find them therefore, and not to retard the process of discovery by setting down conditions outside which a ground configuration will be rejected. The latter course smacks of totalitarian academicism, an all-too-prevalent trait as it is; witness our field’s struggle with the idols of archaeology. I’m sorry if the Hebden Bridge zodiac offends people, but in the revelation of it I feel I had no hand in choosing its form. I would definitely not have been helped by a set of guide-rules unless I was intent on producing a bogus zodiac, and desired the quickest way to acceptance. Of course, Katherine Maltwood’s work is fine, as also is Mary Caine’s, and they should serve to us all as examples – not as a millstone to be hung round our necks by the discoverers of orthodox zodiacs. I was also disturbed by the hint of measuring one’s commitment by the extent of financial expense undergone. It is like measuring the revolutionary’s application by the quantity of blood he spills; and would tend to make us a rich person’s field, tending towards an exclusive club. While the wealthy folk do the research, those who can only afford subscriptions and merely mental commitment must sit back and watch their vital work, their own quests, be derided because they are not expensive enough. This is not the mark of a healthy ‘discipline’. Nor are standards and conditions. Far more are they the telltale signs of a study unsure of its own continuing viability. They are the beginnings of a hierarchical orthodoxy that, in our special case of geomancy, may too easily give rise not only to misguided academic hero-worship, but also to the unwelcome advent of an unwholesome priesthood.
{102}
No doubt there will be many comments about Mrs Caine’s letter (J. Geomancy 2/3, 79), and midst the welter I would just like to point out that while Mrs Caine is obviously perfectly free to interpret her personal search after the terrestrial zodiacs in any way she chooses, I believe that she makes an error of judgement in assuming that others feel and act in the same way in the search as she does. We all have our personal search for the Light – but how many of us in this field? I can speak, of course, only for myself, but certainly in this case my motive in studying the appearance on the ground of large-scale patterns around Bristol, and the study of their relationship with local folklore, was purely scientific curiosity, and the spiritual aspects of the search came later, if at all. I suspect that this is the case with most of the zodiac discoveries; anyway, without being dogmatic, I think it most unwise to pontificate about what other people should discover. Taking for example Robert Lord’s Pendle Zodiac. It is not 10 miles across; the zodiac stars do not correspond with their effigies, and to cut it short, Mrs Caine’s rules number 1, 2 and 8 are also not really applicable. And yet this zodiac is outstandingly well-characterized and convincing. In short, while sympathizing with Mrs Caine’s viewpoints it surely is dangerously close to dogma to say, without qualification, ‘‘Circles should be about 10 miles across”. At this stage, we have not yet scratched the surface in zodiac work, as Mrs Caine would I am sure be the first to admit, and so we do not have (yet) a sufficient number of circles, to see any real trends emerge. Who is to say that Glastonbury is all right, and that Coventry is all wrong? Some zodiacs are ‘fluffier’ than others; no-one could deny that it is inevitable that some dross will be found mixed with the gold in this study. But first we must learn to unwaveringly distinguish the gold.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
re Alan Bullion’s article J. Geomancy 2/3. Lyminster Church (St. Mary Magdalene), at Lyminster, pre-Christian burials have been found. To the NW of the church lies a deep pool (recently measured and found to be 30′) called on the OS map (2½″) Knucker (no ‘L’) hole, but called locally Nucker. There was once, it is said, a dragon who lived in this pool. The dragon did much damage in the surrounding countryside, but at last, according to local tradition, there arose a brave young farmers boy, called Jim Pulk (although others say a gallant knight). Anyway, the dragon was killed, and the hero buried in Lyminster church. His tombstone used to lie just outside the entrance, but was later brought inside for safe-keeping, and now stands to the east of the font. The old Anglo-Saxon word meaning “sea monster” is Nicor. A former vicar, the Reverend Stephen Duval, used to say he heard there was a ghost of a nun from the ancient nunnery that stood to the south of the church and that she haunted the church. There was a church on this site mentioned in 901 when King Alfred bequeathed the manor to his nephew. The following information is from the Place Names of Sussex by Mawer, Stenton and Gover. Lyminster. Lullyngmynster c 880, Lolinminstre 1086, Lileministre 1242, many variations to Limster and Lymister 1617. “Lulla’s Minster” which may not necessarily have been a monastery. “Ing” is used as in the Ingtun-names. Most of the above info. is from the church’s guide-book (10p) which is also quoted (without acknowledgement) in John Wilcock’s Guide to Occult Britain. It would appear the Knuckler as against Knucker spelling comes from the Reader’s Digest Folklore book.