Open letter, part 3: my response to Matthaios

Hi Matthaios,

I'm not saying that should have no definition. Rather, what I'm saying is that it has always been a broad term, so it's bound to carry additional meanings outside of what you've outlined, just as the word "Christian" can convey meanings outside of what most mainstream Christians would like it to convey. It's regrettable that this causes everyone (including poorly informed teenagers) to be lumped together, but I see this as an inevitable process in the evolution of language.

My only reason for writing to you is that your article cited the same Buckland interview I cited several months ago in one of mine. Because your article was articulate and well thought out, I thought it might be interesting to debate this.

"If there is someone who has put in the years of work yet does not match up to all eight characteristics, then I would have to ask why using the word Wicca and not some other word (even just 'Witch', or 'Magician', or 'Cunning person') is so important. But, that's just my opinion."

Philologically speaking, "witch" and "wicca" are the same word, and actually I probably use witch more often. I never use "magician," but that's more of an aesthetic choice. It's not that I wish to use Wicca and no other label; it's more that I don't like the implications of denying someone a label he/she prefers to carry because of what are (taking the broad spectrum of Paganism into account) small differences.

Fiona

Open letter, part 2: Response from Matthaios

"Words only have power in that they are a product of consensus--that is, they allow ideas to be conveyed."

That a word's power lies in its ability to convey an idea, I agree. If Wicca has no definition, if it conveys nothing, then what power or meaning does it have?

I wonder why you take such offense to what I've written? Who am I to you? Why does my opinion matter to you at all? Why do you care if I'd consider you a Wiccan?

I hold to my opinion because I think there needs to be some distinction between what the stereotypical teenager does after skimming through some poorly made websites on Wicca and what a person who has done some serious magical work over a period of years in honor of the Gods. To say what they're both doing is Wicca and is, therefore, in some way, the same, is a lie to one and an insult to another.

If there is someone who has put in the years of work yet does not match up to all eight characteristics, then I would have to ask why using the word Wicca and not some other word (even just "Witch", or "Magician", or "Cunning person") is so important. But, that's just my opinion.

I'm curious to know what your definition of Wicca would be.

Matthaios

An open letter to Matthaios regarding his recent article on Witchvox

Hi Matthaios,

First let me say that I enjoyed reading your essay. It was well-written, and you obviously have put a lot of thought into your opinion.

However, I found your article sadly lacking. It is clear that you have little if any knowledge of semiotics or the way language functions. Words only have power in that they are a product of consensus--that is, they allow ideas to be conveyed. The idea that words in and of themselves have power is (in my opinion) outdated and overly Platonic. I recommend reading _After God: The Future of Religion_ by Don Cupitt for an erudite and postmodern look at the role of language in the history of religion. Most importantly, Cupitt shows that words are not fixed in meaning, but are fluid and constantly changing.

I also have to say that I take offense at your implication that people who don't subscribe to your definition of Wicca must be using that term with a lack of intent. While this may be true of some people, it is decidedly untrue of many others. There are many people who label themselves Wiccans who possess a vast knowledge of the history and etymology of the word, yet nevertheless would not meet many of the points on your checklist of Wiccan orthopraxy. I know, because I am one such person.

The uncomfortable truth is that the words "wicca" and "witchcraft" both predate Gardner by centuries, and even if Gardner did not create his own tradition, there is no reason to think that the term "wicca" originally implied anything resembling Gardnerian witchcraft or contemporary Wicca. Gardner himself was assigning a new meaning to "witchcraft" and "Wica" (as he spelled it) when he applied these terms to his tradition. In light of this, I find any argument for purity of terminology woefully unpersuasive.

Blessed Be,

Fiona

"Words Have Power--Defining Wicca," by Matthaios:

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usga&c=words&id=13896

How (and When) to Approach a Teacher

Lately, I’ve been reading several books at once. Actually, I have a habit of doing this. It seems I just can’t limit myself to a single volume; as soon as I find one that interests me, I see several others I’d like to read, and I just can’t wait. I’m the proverbial kid in a candy store when I go to the library. Lately, all of the books that I’m reading--one on mythology, one on psychology, one on occult symbolism--seem to touch somehow on the Biblical stories of creation and Adam and Eve.

As a Pagan, I don’t put too much stock in these stories. I’ve read too much about evolution, geologic history, and the dubious historicity of the Bible to take any of it as literal truth. Not only that, I see the vague pre-Jewish paleopagan references in the creation story.

For example, consider the line from Genesis that says “and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” Few people realize that the Hebrew word we translate as “hovering” can also be translated as “brooding, ” suggesting a hen incubating her eggs. And these primordial waters that are mentioned are interesting.

Many other Indo-European cultures also mention the primordial waters--except in these other traditions, the water is linked not to a masculine sky god, but to a (sometimes dark) mother goddess, such as Tiamat or Danu. Likewise, when the Biblical authors say, “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day, ” I can’t help but wonder if this is a remnant of goddess worship. After all, “evening and morning” could refer to the Morning Star and Evening Star, both of which are in fact the planet Venus, which has been associated with goddesses since before the Bible was written.

What truly interests me, though, is the story of Eve eating the apple (well, at least later traditions say it was an apple, which could be another goddess reference*) . It fascinates me, because in many ways it is a tale of initiation. According to the story, Eve ate the apple because she desired knowledge (and the apple looked tasty) . What is curious in this story is the way this comes about. It isn’t Eve who approaches the serpent in the tree, but the serpent who offers her the apple. This is interesting, given that we’re dealing with a Jewish story. ** After all, in Judaism, when a prospective convert comes along, seeking initiation into the faith, it is traditional for the rabbi to refuse her. This is one of the things I admire about Judaism. The refusal isn’t meant to drive students away. Instead, it’s a tool for determining how serious the prospective student is.

Though I’m not--nor have I ever been--Jewish, I can sympathize. As a teacher, it’s impossible to know at first if a student is serious, so you often have to use challenging questions to determine this. Some think about these questions and respond thoughtfully; others disappear, never to be heard from again.

But I also sympathize with students. Finding a teacher is hard enough; often it’s nearly impossible to locate one within a hundred miles of you. Making things more difficult, it might be unclear how to approach a teacher. After all, most Pagan traditions (like Jewish traditions) don’t proselytize. So when you think you’ve found a teacher, how do you begin that relationship? Well, there is no definite set of rules, but here are some suggestions.

1) Before asking for instruction, try mentioning a few books that have influenced your practice, and ask for recommendations for further reading. A good teacher should be able to recommend quite a few books. These books should not be limited to the so-called “Wicca 101” titles; a qualified teacher may also include books on history and mythology, even philosophy and other religions. On that note, I’ve included an example of the type of books I recommend at the end of this article.

2) Explain to the teacher why you feel you need instruction. What do you hope to gain from the experience? Initiation into a tradition? Greater ritual experience? Maybe you’ve read a few books, but have trouble understanding how to translate the knowledge you’ve gained into a working practice. Maybe you’ve been practicing for some time, but haven’t felt the energy or seen any results. Or, maybe you’re simply having trouble with certain things, like meditation. Be honest about what you know and what you don’t.

3) Proceed with caution if a teacher is too eager to teach you. The first teacher I approached was very nice and seemed eager to teach me, but after we met in person, I felt that part of his reason for wanting to teach me was that he was attracted to me. And quite frankly, I knew that would complicate matters, so I didn’t pursue his instruction any more after that.***

4) Remember that no teacher is perfect or infallible. If she isn’t right for you, you can politely tell her so. If something doesn’t feel right, remember that you are free to end your relationship with the teacher at any time. Also, remember that sex-positive religions sometimes attract less than reputable people. If you encounter any kind of sexual coercion or pressure, run the other way.****

5) If a teacher asks you some tough questions (remember that there is a difference between tough and inappropriate) , stand your ground and try to answer them. Most likely, she is trying to figure out if you are the right student, just as you’re figuring out whether she’s the right teacher. Carefully answering these questions helps her decide this, and shows her that you’re serious.

6) And don’t forget: not everyone needs a teacher. That’s right. Many Witches are fulfilled (and quite effective) without ever receiving formal instruction. And, as I point out in another article, we’re all self-initiates in one sense or another. If you choose to go the solitary route, make sure to read broadly, discuss concerns with other Witches, and listen to your instincts.

Reading List:

For beginners, I recommend first tackling Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler. It’s an in-depth read, so it may feel a bit overwhelming at times, but Adler is a top-notch journalist, and I’ve never encountered a comparable study of the history of Paganism in America. (I also have to admit I’m partial to Adler as a fellow New Yorker) .

To actually understand the workings of Witchcraft, try reading Buckland’s Complete Book of Witchcraft (a.k.a. the Big Blue Book) by Raymond Buckland, and Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. For a more feminist perspective, read Starhawk’s classic The Spiral Dance.

For an erudite but brief overview of the practice and history of Neopagan Witchcraft, try Witchcraft: A Concise Guide by Isaac Bonewits. I also highly recommend The Elements of Ritual by Deborah Lipp for an interesting look at the role of the elements in Witchcraft. As a simple desk reference for beginners (or even more advanced Pagans) , I like The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Signs and Symbols by Adele Nozedar.

Now for the non-Pagan books. This list could go on forever, so I’ll try to be brief.

Mythology: Edith Hamilton’s Mythology; Celtic Myths and Legends by Peter Berresford Ellis; Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race by T. W. Rolleston; Joseph Campbell’sThe Hero With a Thousand Faces (I can’t emphasize Campbell’s writings enough) ; Parallel Myths by J. F. Bierlein

History, Philosophy, Archaeology: The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman; The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman; Witches, Druids and King Arthur by British historian Ronald Hutton, as well as his book The Triumph of the Moon; Sacred Britain by Martin and Nigel Palmer. I also recommend The Heroine’s Journey by Maureen Murdock (technically a book of psychology and feminist philosophy) , as a good counterpoint to the masculine biases in Joseph Campbell’s work.

Science: Cosmos, The Demon-Haunted World, and The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan (fair warning: these may challenge many of your core assumptions) . I also recommend the work of the “New Atheists, ” Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, and Christopher Hitchens. To balance them, read The Language of God by Christian biologist Francis Collins (his argument for belief in evolution is elegant; his argument for the Christian god is terribly unimpressive) .

Non-Western Religions: I highly recommend Oxford University Press’s Very Short Introduction series for the basics on various religions. Books pertaining to Eastern religions that may be of particular interest to Neopagans include Tantra: The Path of Ecstasy by Georg Feuerstein (no, it’s not a sex book!) , and The Three Pillars of Zen by Roshi Philip Kapleau.

Despite my ramblings having probably overloaded you, I hope that this article will be of help to beginners, students, and solitaries alike.

Bright Blessings,

Fiona

* Apples were sacred to Aphrodite, and contain a pentagram in their core. Both Aphrodite and the pentagram are associated with the planet Venus.

**Perhaps the Jewish authors meant this to function as a warning against eager teachers?

***There's certainly nothing wrong with finding someone attractive, but it may interfere with the student/teacher relationship.

****See the ABCDEF (Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame version 2.6 by Pagan elder Issac Bonewits) for a method of evaluating new groups and teachers. Link below.
http://neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

Non-Wiccan Wicca

At some point in the past few decades, someone drew a line in the sand, a line that runs right down the middle of the Witchcraft community. Unlike a line drawn in the soil on the eve of battle, however, this line does not dare people on either side to cross. Rather, it walls them in, keeping them in hard and fast positions. In short, it is a line of categorization. The distinction the line makes is best summed up in a question many readers have probably been asked: “Okay, so you’re a Witch. But do you practice Wicca?”

Once upon a time, the system of practices that we now refer to as Wicca was the only system of Witchcraft most people in the western world had ever heard of. For many westerners, this is still true. This is largely due to Gerald Gardner, who had no problem drawing public attention to himself and his tradition of Witchcraft. To be sure, however, there were other traditions of Witchcraft extant in the British Isles at the time.

Take for example Robert Cochrane’s tradition, which is now generally called 1734 in the United States (though technically “1734” refers to a daughter tradition) . Both Cochrane and Gardner claimed not to have created their traditions, stating that their practices were pre-Christian survivals. Incidentally the two hated each other, partly because Gardner chose to court public attention, while Cochrane preferred to remain obscure. But the historicity of these traditions is irrelevant to the topic at hand, the perceived distinction between Witch and Wiccan.

So how can we understand this dichotomy? We would do well to begin with etymology. Most pagans have read at least one of two etymologies for the word Wicca. The first suggests that Wicca comes from the same root as “wisdom.” By this logic, Wicca-craeft (or Witchcraft) would mean something like “the Craft of the Wise.” A nice thought certainly; unfortunately, this etymology is now known to be erroneous.

The second etymology suggests that Wicca is derived from a root meaning “to bend/twist/change.” Therefore, a Wicca (as the term originally referred to a person, not a practice) would be a person who bends or changes something. Humorously, many Wiccan authors seem to bend and twist this etymology to fit their personal perspectives on the Craft!

Some say matter-of-factly (and with no evidence) that the term referred to a person who could change his/her consciousness at the drop of a hat. Others suggest that the term was only applied to early Witches by outsiders who believed Witches could turn people into animals. Monty Python, anyone?

“How do you know that she’s a Witch?”
“She turned me into a newt!”
“A newt?”
“…Well, it got better….”

Unfortunately for us, even this etymology has not been proved definitively, despite being the more contemporary of the two. So how do we understand the meaning of the term? As Mike Nichols points out in his excellent essay “A Witch by Any Other Name, ” we can take our clues from how it was applied. Wicca (or Wicce, in the feminine gender) appears to have been a general label for practitioners of magico-religious systems, regardless of whether these systems were based in Anglo-Saxon lore. Hence, even many people who probably would have called themselves “Druids” would have been labeled Wiccan (the plural of Wicca) by the Anglo-Saxons, both before and after Christianization.

Even this does not give us a full understanding of what Wicca means in the modern sense. To twenty-first century Pagans, the distinction between Wicca and Witchcraft basically comes down to this: Wicca is a religion that employs magick. Witchcraft is a system of magick, not a religion.

As Nichols points out, this categorization doesn’t work because magick and religion are not in fact wholly separable entities. But the modern usage of the term Wicca goes even further. In contemporary usage, Wicca is taken to denote a specific type of witchcraft, the basic formula for which can be found in any of a thousand “Intro to Wicca” books.

The formula goes something like this. All goddesses are one Goddess; all gods are one God. Therefore you have two deities: the God and Goddess, call them what you will. (Many Wiccans tend to view the Goddess as primary, though there are more egalitarian traditions.) The Goddess has three aspects--Maiden, Mother, and Crone. She corresponds to the moon, while the God is linked to the sun.

There are eight Sabbats. Witches use four main tools: athame, wand, chalice, and pentacle. There are four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) and four directions (North, South, East, West) . These three groups of four are usually linked together in a system of fixed correspondences. Though these correspondences vary from tradition to tradition, a common example would be Pentacle-Earth-North, Wand-Air-East, Athame-Fire-South, and Chalice-Water-West. I could go on, but you get the idea. Though the system has grown since Gardner’s day, most of it is built upon the structure that Gardner put forth. And here is where I encounter my problem.

Over the past year, I’ve been sporadically watching ‘Living the Wiccan Life’, a YouTube series created by the Corellian tradition, and hosted by Rev. Don Lewis. Many of the interviews he conducts are very interesting, as he often speaks with great Pagan authors like Margot Adler, Oberon and Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, and Isaac and Phaedra Bonewits. Among the great authors he has interviewed is Raymond Buckland, who is largely responsible for making Wicca accessible to the American public.

While I respect Mr. Buckland greatly, I found one part of his interview offensive. In answering Lewis’s questions, Buckland seems to be saying that only practitioners of traditions like Gardnerian, Alexandrian, and Saxon Wicca (in other words, those traditions arising directly or indirectly from Gerald Gardner) have the right to use the term Wicca. In fact, he goes so far as to say that they are the only people who should be allowed to call themselves Witches. All others, Buckland states, should just call themselves magicians.

Excuse me?

I don’t want to attack Mr. Buckland personally, as he is only expressing the same opinion that many others have put forth. What I would like to do is point out to my readers that the words Wicca and Witchcraft both predate Gardner (and Cochrane and all the others) by centuries. Though they may want to, no one can claim a copyright on either term. At best, we can surmise that Wicca was originally used as a label meaning “person who participates in occult magickal practices.”

I fully understand the human desire to label, codify, and categorize everything. Fitting everything into neat and tidy boxes makes us feel secure in a world of insecurity. The problem is that often the only way something fits into a rigid category is by someone making it fit. Forcing something into a box thusly is a foolproof way to break off many important pieces. But if we don’t have a rigid definition for Wicca and Witchcraft, what then? Does this mean that just anyone can call herself a Witch? That anyone can say he practices Wicca?

In short, yes.

We have all encountered those people we like to call “fluffy bunnies.” You know the stereotype: the rebellious teenager in dark eye makeup, who broadcasts to the entire world that he/she is Wiccan, just to shock parents and teachers. The bored person who reads one book on Wicca and declares herself Lady Athena, Grand High Priestess of blah blah blah. I don’t like these people any more than most other serious Pagans--I much prefer intelligent, well read Pagans like Mike Nichols and Raymond Buckland (even if I don’t always agree with them) .

Am I saying fluffy bunnies should have the right to call themselves Wiccans and Witches? Actually, I wish they wouldn’t, but I’m saying that neither I nor anyone else has a copyright on those names, so no one can tell them not to use them.

In closing, I’d like to remind my readers that there are many Witchcraft traditions that don’t fit the formulaic definition of Wicca, but are nonetheless meaningful and powerful traditions. In Andanti, for example, we acknowledge a host of gods and goddesses, not just two. And as far as correspondences, if you say to an Andanti Witch “East corresponds to Air and the wand, ” s/he will probably answer, “Yes…except when it doesn’t.” Andanti is not the only example. What about Cochrane and all the other non-Gardnerian teachers active in Britain in Gardner’s day? What about the longstanding English tradition of the cunning men? Have we all forgotten about Feri Witchcraft, an American tradition that is at least as old as Gardnerian, if not older?

We’re all humans, even if we don’t all look the same. We’re all Witches, even if our practices don’t look the same.

The Threefold Muse

Some of you may be wondering about the title of my blog, and I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression.

Many of you are no doubt familiar with Robert Graves, having read his famous work The White Goddess. If you know a bit about the history of that book, you'll know he initially considered calling it The Threefold Muse, in reference to the triple nature of the deity it describes.

The title of my blog has nothing to do with this. I don't even work with the tradition Wiccan triple moon goddess. The Threefold Muse of my blog title is a particular figure from Andanti shamanism, related to the Three Paths (more on this later).

No infringement intended.

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