Early Days in BTW Witchcraft - Innovation or Conservation?

Recently, I wrote a blog article that examined whether or not I am relevant, and I looked at how things had changed over the decades, and that in my opinion, traditional witchcraft within the Gardnerian lineages had changed from being innovative to ultra conservative. Someone who goes by the moniker of “MP” somewhat disagreed with what I said, and also pointed out that innovation for the sake of innovation is no more commendable than mindless preservation and rote mimicry.

I would have to agree with some of what MP said, but since I was a witch in the early 1970's, and I was also aware of what was going on in the very late 1960's, I recall a different kind of activity than what MP said regarding the BTW propensity for conservation. As an Alexandrian, I represent a very different kind of witch from the rank and file Gardnerians, especially the American branch, which has it own peculiarities. Here is the article and MP’s comment.

MP wrote in the comments section:

Also, the emphasis has changed from experimentation to the conservative preservation of the core practices and beliefs.

“A number of BTW people I know, who date back to the 70s, as you do, I believe, would disagree that this is a change ... their point is that they have always been focused on orthopraxy, and retention of core practices, and ALSO noting where additions have been made to their praxis, and where it diverges from core.”

When lineages, pedigrees, lineage vouches and staunch, mindless preservation of the lore become far more important than modification, revision and experimentation, then I think that religious conservatism has become the preeminent force in that tradition.

“Again, they would tell you that preservation of the lore, though not mindless preservation, knowing who taught you, and who you taught, are not changes - that they were always there, and that, yes, they are conservative - in that they are conserving, like conservationists, their craft so that it might continue on.

Innovation for the sake of innovation is no more commendable than mindless preservation and rote mimicry.”

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of what was going on during the late sixties in the Witchcraft arena can be summed up by watching a video that has recently been made available. It is called “Legend of the Witches” and I wrote up an article some months ago that examined that film in detail - you can find it here. Needless to say, what the film shows is that Alexander Sanders and his coven at that time were very experimental in their approach to discovering what witchcraft was.

They were not alone, since quite a number of witches were doing the same thing. The reason is very simple, the amount of actual preserved lore in Witchcraft was quite small and for the most part, inadequate for any kind of in-depth practice. The Book of Shadows was not much more than an outline of many of the liturgical rituals (basic coven rites, the Esbat, initiations and the eight Sabbats), but it lacked any kind of theology or specifically, magical rites. Not every tradition used or followed the witches’ law, also known as the “Ardanes,” so there wasn’t really much depth to the basic Book of Shadows.

Typically, a practicing witch had to research and re-write many of the rituals, including writing in the specific coven-based or tradition-based variations. An initiated witch had her Book of Shadows and some lineage specific lore, but the rest of her practice was culled from many different sources. Becoming a witch wasn’t the end but literally the beginning of a master research effort, and that also consisted of a lot of experimentation. If the witchcraft tradition had been a complete and comprehensive system of religion and magic, then very few individuals would have had any need to incorporate other sources. In fact, it was quite incomplete, and in my opinion, it still is. This is one of the reasons why some witches have referred to themselves as being the “people of the library” instead of the “people of the book,” like their Christian and Jewish counterparts.  

I can remember that one thing that characterized my coven experience is that we had to research and build up our own Sabbat rites from the skeleton structures found in the Book of Shadows. We discovered a rich source of lore in British and European Folk traditions, and in many cases, had to write our own Sabbat songs, food recipes, and even music and dances - all of this was missing from the Book of Shadows. We also discovered that the full moons were characterized by the seasons as well as by astrology, and this moon lore was collected and became the foundation for the Esbat. In the BoSh there is no distinction of the different seasonal full moons, there’s just the outline for an Esbat rite, including the various Charges of the Goddess, some of which had been added by Doreen Valiente but seldom credited to her.

When it came down to magical workings, there was also very little in the way of techniques and recipes. Many Gardnerians and Alexandrians embraced the book Aradia, Gospel of the Witches and the Mabinogian, not to mention many other sources, like the Key of Solomon, as representations of additional lore. To master the techniques of meditation and contemplation, we used Eastern techniques, since there wasn’t any traditional techniques elucidated in the Book of Shadows, other than dancing the circle dance. In fact, there wasn’t any directions for assuming a basic trance, but there was a rite used to gain altered states through binding and scourging - although few were a fan of that working.

I could easily point out many other important elements that were missing from either the BoSh or the lineage based lore. During the sixties and seventies, we few members of the BTW were inventing the various traditions that are now being assiduously conserved. I should state that I know all of this first hand and that it is true, because I was there during that time. I lived through it, so I should know what things were like back then.

In the many years that I have been a witch who also practices high magick, I have extended my knowledge and lore of liturgical withcraft to include many different and diverse rituals and practices that were never a part of my original teachings. In fact, I have used the foundation of witchcraft to build what I consider to be a hybrid system of high magick, which is completely harmonious to witchcraft practices and beliefs. I could never have gotten this far with my work if I had been more interested in preserving and perfecting merely what I had been given by my elders. This is especially true since my elders had invented quite a lot of their lore as well, and while I dutifully noted all of this down, I also ceaselessly engaged in researching, building and developing my own new lore. This process continues unabated to this day, and I can say that I am within a decade or so of building a comprehensive system of witchcraft-based high magick. I also believe that this was one of Gardner’s objectives, and he seems to allude to it in his fictional work “High Magic’s Aid.” In that book, ceremonial magic is mixed with pagan witchcraft to produce a methodology that is greater than both traditions. I took that as my guide, and I have proceeded on that pathway ever since.

So, to respond to MP’s statement that conservation was happening at the very beginning of the craft, I believe that this is quite misleading. While it is true that we had to copy our BoSh exactly as the master copy owned by the High Priestess and Priest and we had to learn the basic liturgical lore in order to be elevated to the priesthood ourselves, we understood that we also had begun a spiritual and magical journey that was unprecedented - what we received and learned was just the beginning. We all felt that we were under a powerful obligation to expand our knowledge and add many more pages to our BoSh and lineage lore. Our purpose was to rediscover antique witchcraft and paganism in our own practices, and I believe that process is still mutating and evolving today. For those who believe that their lore is perfected and complete and that the only task that they should and must engage in is to preserve their lore in it’s purest expression, I can only shake my head at their obvious hubris and narrow-mindedness.

Modern Witchcraft is a very young and new religion, and as Ronald Hutton has stated in regards to British Witchcraft, there isn’t likely to be any vestiges of the Old Religion to be found in the historical records. What we have today was cobbled together from various sources a mere sixty years ago. Therefore, we must invent, create, and experiment in order to forge a full and complete tradition. Until that day comes, preservation is nothing more than an historical exercise. It has its value, but the work of creating a fuller and more complete tradition is much more important in my opinion. If the work is halted for any reason or any excuse, then the tradition will begin to die and that death will happen all the more rapidly since Wicca is still in the process of growing and becoming a mature religious tradition.

Now if that seems to be invention and innovation for the mere sake of doing something new and different, then so be it! It is what was done in the sixties and seventies, and there is now more than enough reason to continue this process of development. It is also the unwritten rule that I have followed all of these years, much to my profit and self-mastery.

Frater Barrabbas

A Tale of Three Perspectives

Often when occultists, pagans and witches get into a heated discussion, I have found that the reason for such strong sentiments and strident disagreements is because there are three very different and distinct philosophical perspectives being communicated. If two or more individuals talk at cross purposes with each other, and none of them understand the other person’s basic philosophical foundation, then unresolvable arguments will occur. Of course, there are more than three different philosophical perspectives, but these three usually cause the most egregious misunderstandings.

These three different philosophical perspectives are based on three different approaches to engaging with a tradition. I call these three perspectives “traditional lore,” “reconstructionist” and the middle ground of “objectified traditional lore,” or “revisionism.” If you ever wanted to be entertained, just get together three individuals who are die-hard adherents of these three different perspectives, introduce them to a strategic point of disagreement, and then let the fur fly. This could be a different way of fostering a kind of pagan “fight club.” Now that I have revealed these three perspectives, let me discuss them in detail so you will know  exactly what I am referring to by using these three terms.

Traditional Lore: This is a perspective that consists entirely of esoteric knowledge, occult liturgies, magickal or mystical rites and subjective or experiential commentaries. The only way that an individual can acquire this knowledge is to be indoctrinated or initiated into a very specific tradition, and then incrementally taught various “inside” lore, usually by a teacher or elder. All of the information included within an occult tradition is kept strictly confidential and is warded by oaths of secrecy, even if much of it is already known to the public in books and web-based files. What is important is the context of the information and the personal experiences associated with the techniques and methods taught.

Along with this knowledge and methodology is a historical narrative and an ontology, or world-view, and definitions of what could be called a “true reality.” This world view would contain a mixture of actual history, myth and allegory that is blended together to create an apparent seamless “quilt-work” reality. The context for that world-view is steeped in the lore and the personal experiences of the rites, practices and liturgies of that organization. Any examination of that lore outside of the tradition would violate the context, and render it to be less profound and meaningful than it otherwise might be. It can also make elements of that lore seem ridiculous or even completely mythical, since many traditional occult systems rely on a world-view whose foundation is on the “mind before matter” model.

Groups who espouse traditional lore are numerous, but represent the older occult organizations, such as quasi Masonic occult groups (Golden Dawn, O.T.O., etc.), various Theosophical groups and their associated off-shoot organizations, Eastern mystical traditions transplanted in the West, and even more recent groups, such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian witchcraft. Individuals who are members of such an organization would espouse a world-view and a system of occult beliefs that would be occluded by oaths of secrecy and confidentiality, and they would be highly dependent on a dense context of foundational practices and beliefs. Traditionalists would appear to have a mythical perspective of history and reality to an outsider, even though their perspectives are completely rational and objective when considered through the context of their tradition. Individuals who belong to a tradition are unable to completely justify their beliefs and practices to outsiders because they are unable to reveal the full context and justification for their beliefs. Instead, they often delight in being evasive or mysterious, much to the frustration of others who are outside of that tradition.

Reconstructionism: This is a perspective that is more recent (1990's) but has been building quite an extensive following. Reconstructionism is a methodology that relies heavily on academic writings and research to build a system of beliefs and practices based on a tradition that is either completely extinct or that exists in a very truncated form. This methodology was initially pushed by Northern European and British (Anglo Saxon) Heathenism, Nordic Asatru and Druidism. Now, some twenty years later, reconstructionism has been greatly expanded to include many other renewed pagan traditions, such as Greek, Roman, Slavic, Egyptian, Jewish, Mesopotamian (Akkadian and Sumerian), Native American, and numerous others. Because in many cases the traditional lore has been lost, adherents must rely on academic findings (archeological sites), older ethnographic studies, examination of artifacts, and where possible, written texts and fragments of rites and beliefs. Reconstructionism relies on the most current and up-to-date academic information, and when that information is adjusted or new information becomes available, then the reconstructionists have to adjust their tradition accordingly. So, a reconstructionist is someone who is building and adapting their tradition, using intuition and creative insight when there is a lack of useful or credible information.

A reconstructionist can take a very purist perspective and seek to carefully ensure that their built up tradition is closely based on academic information. Those who are less careful or who create something completely contrived have found their practices and beliefs severely questioned and even rejected by others who are more carefully following that tradition. Thus, reconstructionists will take a very scientific and academic bias and approach to their beliefs and practices. A reconstructionist would therefore find the practices and beliefs of a traditionalist to be at the very least, unwarranted, and at the worst, utter nonsense. This is because a reconstructionist relies heavily on academic information, and everything must be either verifiable, or at the very least, plausible.

What I have found is that reconstructionism has been able to reproduce pagan traditions that are very rational, acceptable and accessible to the average person. There are no secrets or oath bound beliefs and practices, since everything has its source in publically available information. What mysteries do exist in this world-view are based on the experiences of the individual or group who are able to bring an ancient tradition alive so that it can be shared with others. There are often two kinds of adherents in a reconstructed tradition - the creative tradition builder, path maker and pioneer, and the individual who takes this reconstruction and gives it a renewed life within the community. Both of these individuals are important for the successful reconstruction of an antique tradition, but sometimes the creative reconstructionist wears both hats.

As you can see, a traditionalist and a reconstructionist could have a serious problem in understanding each other. Reconstructionists require their lore to be validated by academia or at least shown to be plausible, while a traditionalist must accept most of what they are given by their elders and teachers, even if those beliefs and practices are contradicted by academics.

However, a third perspective can also occur, and that is where a traditionalist begins to validate and augment their lore by researching academic or scientific information - such a one is called a revisionist. This can cause the tradition and its lore to be adjusted, made objective and  more accessible to outside individuals. Often the very beginning of this process is started when someone within a tradition publishes its beliefs and practices, becoming a kind of oath breaker. Some have accused Aleister Crowley or Israel Regardie of being oath breakers with the Golden Dawn tradition, and others have accused Lady Sheba, Alex Sanders, Janet and Stewart Farrar of being oath breakers. Whatever you think of these individuals (and so many others), they have caused the secret lore of a tradition to become preserved for posterity, thus making it more accessible to outsiders, who, in their turn, have used parts of it to build new traditions and practices.

Other members of traditions have used their inside knowledge to gain access to other traditions or obscure academic information so as to more fully develop their own tradition, and then passing that amended lore on to their initiated progeny. Sometimes, the need to develop a hybrid tradition is caused by the fact that the original tradition was incomplete or lacking in a strategic area. This is true of both the Golden Dawn and British Traditional Witchcraft, where many hybrids and derivations have occurred, all of which were incited by the lack of a comprehensive traditional lore. In other cases, some individuals have found that the mythical and allegorical quality of the lore needs to be validated and made more rational through the inclusion and adjustment of academic and scientific information.

Those espousing a traditional occult perspective can either believe that their tradition, in whatever form it exists, must be preserved at all costs, or they can be less conservative, allowing their tradition to be augmented, adjusted and even changed when deemed necessary. Those who are comfortable with a hybridization of their tradition would undoubtedly find themselves in a difficult situation when confronted by a member of their same tradition who was against any form of revisionism. I have seen this kind of dispute rage between adherents of my own Alexandrian witchcraft tradition for days on the “Lexie” e-list, without any kind of resolution, other than the tacit admittance that there are different initiatory lines who do things differently. Some have expressed themselves as indignant protectors of the faith, while others (such as myself) are much more pragmatic.

Correspondingly, a revisionist and a reconstructionist would likely be able to agree on a number topical areas, but at some point, the revisionist would take a stand on some point of traditional lore, and the reconstructionist would not be able to understand why, especially if that bit of lore was contradicted by academia or by science. Conversely, a revisionist could have adopted some practice or lore that can’t be validated, which would then have to be rejected by the reconstructionist. However, if you got a revisionist, a reconstructionist and a hide-bound traditionalist together in a room, and their respective beliefs and practices were analogous, it wouldn’t take much to set off an emotionally heated argument. It could also produce a very enlightening exchange as well, if the individuals involved were willing to respect each others viewpoint. Most of time such an exchange produces a train wreck with a lot of hurt feelings, confusion and misunderstanding.

I believe that one way that such a conflict can be avoided is for individuals to state their perspective in a general manner first before engaging in a heated exchange. If someone tells their fellow occultists that he or she is a strict adherent of British Traditional Witchcraft, then everyone else should realize the scope and nature of the conversation. Those who are involved in a Saxon Heathen reconstruction won’t ridicule some outward belief and practice (that is not oath bound) or require the witch to validate his or her stated beliefs with some kind of academic authority. Likewise, a more lax adherent of a witchcraft tradition who has derived a hybrid system won’t snipe at the traditionalist for continuing to hold certain beliefs and practices, which he or she has abandoned. The traditionalist will understand that the other two require more outside validation than he or she, and is less comfortable with just accepting lore because it has a pedigree.

If the three of these individuals can find a common ground and focus on the fact that they are all modern pagans, then their exchange may be quite illuminating for everyone involved. This is my hope, of course, and why I believe that it’s important for individuals to understand and know where they fit in as regards to traditionalism, revisionism and reconstructionism. All three perspectives are valid and important, and they all produce an authentic experience of magick and the mysteries within a modern pagan world definition.

The bottom line is that we who practice some form of paganism in the western world are a small exclusive minority. We may differ strategically in how we worship and practice our rites, but we are all part of the same general family of religions. Therefore, we should work a little harder to respect and accept each others perspective and at the very least seek to realize that there are three different perspectives - the traditionalist, the revisionist and the reconstructionist.

As Rodney King said so many years ago, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Frater Barrabbas