Ex Libris, Ex Umbris

In darkness the chant begins, first a single voice intoning from the center of the circle. Soon other voices are heard, joining the incantation. Their ululating tones rise, not in unison, but in alternation--the one voice leading, the many responding. As they reach a crescendo a flame is struck and the circle is gradually illuminated. Standing in the center is the priestess. In the ethereal glow she approaches the altar. And there, surrounded by candle flames and incense smoke, is the Book. Thick, leather bound, and filled with pages of ancient parchment, this is indeed a magickal book. Its contents are mysterious, known only to initiates. In this regard it deserves its name: Book of Shadows.

Or at least that is the mental image that many of us have concerning Books of Shadows. The true nature of the Book of Shadows (BoS) is a bit trickier to discern.

Many essays have been written about the BoS, as have whole chapters in a plethora of books on Witchcraft. These articles are usually warmly written--it is quite obvious that the authors (like most Witches) have a great fondness for the very idea of a magickal book. However, such writings are also frequently lacking in historical detail. So what are the facts behind these mysterious volumes?

Most recently the concept of the BoS was popularized in the TV series Charmed. In the series, the Book of Shadows is an ancient tome, passed down by the women of the Halliwell line from time immemorial. Contained within are secrets for vanquishing demons as well as spells (it would seem) for every need. Needless to say, the show presents a fairly inaccurate picture of what it is to be Pagan. However, it does illuminate the current zeitgeist regarding the BoS.

In contemporary Witchcraft, the concept of the BoS--a single, central magickal volume of which each Witch must have her own--is ubiquitous. The most common concept surrounding the BoS seems to be its indispensability. Most books on Witchcraft make the assumption that a Witch must have a BoS. The exact nature of the book, however, varies from author to author.

Some state that a BoS is “part poetry collection, part journal, part dictionary and encyclopedia, part recipe book and part ritual construction guide [1].” Others suggest keeping a separate book for personal observations, usually called a Book of Mirrors to denote reflection [2]. While at least one essay I’ve read claims that the term Book of Shadows refers to the dark color of the book’s cover [3], there is no evidence for this, and few other authors seriously discuss the origins of the name.

The first book we know of to be called a BoS was the Gardnerian BoS [4]. Gardner claimed not to have authored the book, insisting it was the holy book of the ancient tradition into which he had been initiated. After he initiated Doreen Valiente, Valiente confronted Gardner and pointed out that certain elements of the book were clearly of Thelemic origin. Given that Gardner was an acquaintance of Aleister Crowley (and a nominal initiate of OTO) , this is not surprising. In fact, Gardner himself did not deny the charge, claiming that he had used Thelemic and Masonic elements to fill the gaps in the fragmentary tradition that had been handed down to him.

Subsequently, Valiente rewrote large sections of Gardner’s book. Interestingly, Valiente also claimed years later that Gardner had taken the term Book of Shadows from the title of an article on palmistry in the magazine The Occult Observer[5].

Gardner claimed that a BoS was copied at length by hand by each new initiate into the Craft. Given that literacy rates were incredibly low in medieval and early modern England (only 30% of men and 10% of women in Renaissance England could read and write [6]) such transcription seems unlikely. And though an illiterate could perhaps manage to copy the book, he or she would not be able to read the words so laboriously transcribed! Add to this the fact that contemporaries of Gardner outside his tradition often used no such book [7], and it seems most likely that Gardner was the sole author of his first BoS.

But why write such a text? To answer this question, we need to look at the nature of the book. The core material of the Gardnerian BoS is concerned with outlining the primary rituals of a Gardnerian coven. These outlines are given in liturgical form--that is, in a layout of fixed statements and responses to be recited by the officiating priest and priestess, and the other coven members. Gardner probably assumed the necessity of such a book. In his day, the popular conception was that any bona fide religion (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in that mindset) had its central holy text. It is likely therefore that Gardner created the book to legitimize his tradition.

But as I stated, the Gardnerian BoS takes a liturgical form, unlike the Bible or Qur’an. However, this should not be surprising. We should remember at this point that Gardner was an Englishman, which is perhaps why he structured his BoS the way he did. England’s state religion has for many centuries been Christianity. And since the 1600’s, English Christianity has had as its de facto holy book the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) , which lays out all major rituals of the Anglican Church. So important is this book to English culture that the House of Lords must ratify revisions of the BCP to this day. Though by no means a Christian, Gardner quite likely took his inspiration (at least in terms of structure) from the BCP.

Though Gardner was probably first to call his magickal tome a Book of Shadows, the idea of a magickal text predates him by centuries. Mystical grimoires abounded in medieval and Renaissance Europe and Gardner studied at least a few of them. These grimoires were largely concerned with protection from demonic forces and are designed to make sense within the cosmology of Judeo-Christian mysticism. It is unlikely therefore that they have anything to do with any groups of Pagan Witches that may have existed at this time [8], especially considering the low literacy rates among lay peasants.

Prior to the influence of Christianity in the British Isles, Celts, Romans, and Anglo-Saxons, who do not appear to have been fond of writing their lore down, dominated the land. (And if they were, such works were later destroyed or Christianized a la Beowulf by Christian friars.) There is, however, one Celtic text that comes to mind--Barddas. Compiled in the late 1500’s, Barddas is two volumes of Celtic lore. Though heavily Christianized, there are some clearly non-Christian elements, which in many ways resemble Hindu and Gnostic ideas. Significantly some of these teachings take the form of a catechism, which does indeed suggest the induction of initiates into an exclusive group [9].

The absence of pre-Gardnerian Books of Shadows should not bother us. After all, any religious milieu changes over time. And unless we’re all reconstructionists [10], who says all elements of our traditions have to be ancient? Similarly, we should not feel bound to any particular definition of a magickal text or any prescribed form thereof [11].

For instance, some witches replace the book with a filing cabinet (seen note 1) , or a blog, or a hard drive. I for one don’t keep a BoS, but have a small personal library, the books of which are full of bookmarks and notes relating to my magickal practice. Whether you keep a BoS (or two) or not, books in general are and should remain an integral part of neo-Pagan spirituality.

As I’ve heard elders in the Craft say, the true greeting among Witches is not “Blessed Be” or “Merry Meet” but “Have you read…?”

Bright Blessings,

Fiona

Notes:

[1] Forbes, Bronwen. “What Should I Put in My Book of Shadows?”
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usks and c=words and id=13538
[2] Cunningham, Scott. Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner, pp. 79-80.
[3] I’m referring to a Witchvox article here but I can’t find it and can’t remember the author’s name. My apologies to him or her.
[4] The Gardnerian Book of Shadows. (In publication for some time. Generally, initiated Gardnerians will neither confirm nor deny that this is their genuine BoS, though it most likely is.) http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm
[5] Valiente, Doreen. The Rebirth of Witchcraft, p. 51.
[6] It should be noted that London was an exception to this, boasting a literacy rate of about 60%.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~wesmith/214materials.html
[7] Valiente, Doreen. Witchcraft: A Tradition Renewed, p. 8.
[8] Though the Witch-Cult Hypothesis put forward by Margaret Murray and others is largely a confabulation, some small independent groups of peasants performing magickal rites did exist, such as the Benandanti. See the work of Carlo Ginzburg on this subject.
[9] Rolleston, T. W. Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race, p. 257-259. See also Celtic Myths and Legends by Peter Berresford Ellis for insights on the similarities between Celtic and Hindu lore.
[10] Even reconstructionists usually admit that certain elements of ancient practice have to be modified.
[11] At least one known Gnostic sect had a holy book comprised entirely of artwork. See In Search of Zarathustra by Paul Kriwaczek for more on Gnostic sects.

Originally published on Witchvox.com