Before the trend of Traditional Witchcraft came into being there was a lot of infighting in witchcraft community on which tradition was the oldest. What drew me to Raymond Buckland and Seax Wicca was that they proudly proclaimed they were the newest.
Ronald Hutton said something like "For self proclaimed "traditional witches" to claim that they're somehow more traditional than Gardner's witchcraft, when all the evidence demonstrates Gardner's witchcraft came before them is perpetuating the polemics of the 1950s." I agree with your points very much. It's one of my biggest pet peives when these people try to invalidate Wiccan witchcraft to boost their ego.
Also you're totally right in saying "traditional witchcraft" looks a lot like wicca-- because most of what it is made up from is Wicca in a Halloween costume, dressed up to look older or spookier or more edgy. If you go on Amazon and look at the book "Mastering Witchcraft" by Paul Huson you'll see people praising it as "true traditional witchcraft!" and nestled between all the praise is my review going chapter by chapter pointing out that 90% of the material in the book comes directly from the Gardnerian BoS or is still practiced by Gardnerians or Alexandrians. It shows the naivete of so many people who hate Wicca without knowing anything about it.
Agreed. Very much so. I personally think that as witches (whether traditional or not) we should be building each other up but we choose instead to cut each other down. That's not very wise or cunning in my opinion. Believe me there are plenty of non-witches out there to do that to our community. I was taught by my Mother and Aunt and so was taught that my fellow witches are family. No matter blood or tradition. Family gives support and love. Blessed be!)0(
Austin Shippey I mean considering we don’t follow any of the Wiccan rede, or any Wiccan beliefs, we just aren’t Wiccans. I have a massive respect for Wiccans but not all Wiccans are witches and those who are probably don’t practice the same things as a traditional witch does e.g traditional witches use a blasting rod to hex and Wiccans who follow the Rede won’t hex anyone. We utilise regional folkmagicks, familiars, and we even use different tools than most Wiccans e.g the Stang, the blasting rod ect. We are not just Wicca in a spooky, edgy filter, we are our own identity entirely and I do not appreciate you saying we are not.
I think every one of you, are as good at originating , true intitiation , innovating a style, of the Craft... etc. - as you are at anything else. ' not very ' [Thorn,if you truly KNEW some of the books you own, YOU WOULDN'T BE SOUNDING LIKE A .......... amateur ]
Seriously there are a lot of self proclaimed traditional witches who are like that today. I read a book decades ago that traditional witches in America are those white people who practiced witchcraft and folk magic way back in Europe and brought it to the New World and their descendants inherited that practice and when these descendants discovered who the Wiccans are they viewed them as hippies. Unfortunately not all people who call themselves as traditional witches descended from those lineages and some might just even have powerless muggle ancestors who viewed witchcraft as evil. For me I view traditional witchcraft as lineage thing and not some sort of a choice where a witch-bitch will call his or herself a traditional witch and would start to bitch about wicca. Sure everyone could practice folk magic and there's no problem with that but if it's a lineage thing there has to be a line.
I first encountered you, through Witches and Pagans magazine. I've recently had an argument with a witch, about whether or not to use the devil, in the craft. Which seems to be popular now. She referred me to Roger Horne's books. I'm primarily Wiccan. While I am open to learning about "traditional stuff", my heart is Wicca. I do like eclectic writers. Anyway, I love how you address this here. Blessed be ❤❤❤
I have personally never heard anyone say that Wiccan witches aren't real witches. All the movement is about is not having Wiccan influences in their work. I, myself, prefer this. Not everyone that practices witchcraft believes in Wicca (mysely included, being agnostic). Witchcraft has also been around way longer than Wicca and someone people want to study witchcraft as it was done during the time of the wise woman until the rebirth. Wiccan witches are just as much witches as those, like myself, that study witchcraft from the centuries past.
The snobbery of Wicca backfired. However, there is no excuse for the hatred out there with some witches. It reminds me of traditional religions who are at war. I thought 💭 I got out of that stuff!
There are actually several extant forms of Traditional Witchcraft and Old Craft that do not work in ritual Circles, or with Elements, or with a Lord and Lady, or with Eight Sabbats. Two of which I have been initiated into. Some traditions perform their rites in complete silence, never with a word spoken. Others might like a black candle, sing a hymn, trample a crucifix, call their familiars, and then go into an ecstatic state without ever casting a Circle. Others might indeed have absorbed a four Elements model from Western Occult grimoire traditions (because that's normal) and evolved to relate it to older, more indigenous aspects of bio-regional sorcerous practices. There is a strong emphasis on the Three Worlds often, and on three souls (or something very similar, perhaps related to Cauldrons), a deep immersion and identification with the night-flying witch, the two-handed sorcerer, the Devil, the Fallen Angels and the Fae as central to Stories related to the origins of witches. These seem to form the core of much what often falls under Traditional Witchcraft related to Europe, or European colonisation/empire/migration (i.e. what ends up to be "New World witchcraft" like Anderson Feri and various forms of Appalachian witchery). This seems in contrast to various postulated Gardnerian paradigms, I've checked in with some Gardnerian friends who agree on this. BUT - I don't necessarily think that makes Gardnerian Wicca NOT A form of Traditional Craft insofar as it is likely related to some New Forest witch cultus. A mentor of mine once said... it seems what we now call Traditional Craft is largely folk magic with a bit of grimoire magic. And it seem that Wicca is largely grimoire magic based with a bit of folk magic. I don't know if that's true, but it seemed to speak to a spirit of understanding. I actually feel it has more to do with our Great Spirits or God, our storying of the Witch's Myth, the cosmologies we are embedded in, especially as related to the Fallen Angels or the Watches and the Good Neighbours and what that also might mean for the mythic histories of our planet.
I think people put so much into these arguments because they get stuck on who's tradition is oldest and in their minds it makes their the tradition "the best" or "more real/authentic". For these reasons I've stopped using labels. I consider each label to be a different forms of witch craft, different groups that tweak things a bit so they connect better. Hope your enjoying your research! Sorry for the late post. Some how i was no longer subscribed to you, so i'm catching up on your videos lol. Blessings!! ^_^
Hedge witches, green witches,kitchen witches,wiccan witches,gay witchcraft etc. Witchcraft is fragmented into so many different beliefs and practices that it is hard to choose what to follow or who or what has more power. The true would be witch should follow her witch instincts and go with it. Like I always say;"No matter what the name its still the same game."
I truly enjoy your videos and the intellectual dissection of Wicca.... and in fact, everything you bring to the table. In a perfect world, you could download everything you know and I could just watch it all on youtube videos. Much love
You bring up some excellent topics. Have you read in depth into the dichotomy between sole practitioners v. covens, and how that relates to New Age v. Traditional practice?
When I say Traditional Witchcraft, I'm not implying that Gardnerian Wicca is invalid. but that it is part of a larger context that can include other equally valid approaches to Witchcraft. I think that people feel that when they just say 'Witchcraft' that others will automatically assume that they are referring to the Gardnerian Tradition of Wicca, and so they want to add the 'Traditional' on there. Also, there is info available today that wasn't available to Gardner- about the way that we did things in the old days- when he either formulated or received his form of practice
I've identified as just wiccan for several years. In the past few years I've also noticed people insisting they aren't wiccan when they're pretty much practicing and writing the same stuff. There was even a guy in my circle who said wicca was "christianized" because they read certain books. I think people just really like labels but not for themselves
Hey there, Thorn. Just rewatched this during today's nostalgic youtube binge and wondered what conclusions you reached during the course of your thesis work. Any chance your thesis is published? If so, I'd love to give it a read. Failing that, perhaps you can provide one or two book or article titles that you found were crucial in shaping your analyses and conclusions.
The book 'Traditional Witchcraft: A Cornish Book of Ways' does not have the eight Sabbaths. There are Sabbaths, but their different. Gemma Gary wrote it. You have to order it off the website in order to get it. I read the book and I really liked how it was written. There are a lot of hands on things like powders and oils. I think that you'll like it, if you haven't picked it up already.
Roman Cultus that's a very good book, I finished it in 2 days! My favorite thing about this book is how it's written from her own form, and way of practicing the cunning ways. Alot of people I see take her book as if it's the true "traditional" form of trad craft, she says in her interview her books are written from her own personal beliefs and practices, kind of as a mixture of folk and modern magick. It's amazing
I think that if this is what you’re worried about, you have a lot of things that you need to work on. You don’t get to say what someone else is practicing…because you don’t know…. You don’t get to make a title for someone else’s practice…because whether you agree or disagree, it doesn’t matter.. what someone else chooses to call themself isn’t any of your business… I read down in the comments, and I saw some of the things you were saying… I can almost feel your discontent with anyone that challenges Wicca. You’re arguing with people saying that what they practice and what they believe. It is really a form of Wicca… why do you feel like you get to decide the truth about someone’s practice. How each of us choose to define our craft or belief system is a personal preference. There’s no right or wrong when it comes to what’s best for someone’s path. Any religious ideologies,belief system, spirituality or craft, is a sensitive and personal matter, so it’s important to do what feels right for you. It’s easy to compare ourselves to others, but we are all so different….. Personal experience is subjective and everyone has certain likes, dislikes, quirks and idiosyncrasies… all the qualities that make up your personality, and the things that make you…you. Our introverted intuition should be a guide throughout our journey, as it really is a spiritual pilgrimage. How we choose to define our spirituality or craft has nothing to do with anyone else. Because everyone is unique and finds solace in different things and diverse ways, it’s important to encompass the qualities that make you who you are. Our sacred quest is significant, and we should embrace where each experience takes us. Most importantly, always stay true to yourself. Your spiritual path is the most important journey you will ever take.
Any trace of 'traditional witchcraft' in the US can be found in the Carolinas and not in Salem. I rarely post of this kind of stuff, but from what I've seen over the years, you have George Pickinngill and Cecil Williamson in regard to some link to an older cunning craft tradition. George being an actual cunning man versus what people are calling traditional witchcraft these days. Cecil of course opened Boscastle, his background story also hints at traditional West Country craft. Here in the states, we have Appalachian 'witchcraft', which really is some form of Scots-Irish border reiver spiritual system that survived from the Scottish Marches, to Ulster and then to the Carolinas. Considering almost everyone who is European from the Piedmont there is Scots-Irish by some relation, it doesn't surprise me this system survived in the Appalachians. Asheville's reputation as being a home of witches is not a mere accident. The Cherokee also had their version of 'witches' here already. York County South Carolina's library has a book of spells which date back to the colony's founding, but hints of more of a cunning class system of magic. I personally own a copy of this 'book' (which is a scant few pages.). You can also find traces and hints in the Foxfire books, especially the act of planting by the signs used in Western North Carolina. I don't personally know Ms. Gemma other than writing her over the years, but I do know a number of people from Cornwall. There was something there far past what Gardner proposed. But even then, not everything Gardner presented was from Freemasonry. They drew from something, what that something was, I think Ms. Gary has more of a hold on ... cheers.
This is actually fascinating and pretty much what I've noticed by reading some "trad craft" materials myself. I'd love to read your thesis when you're done if you're willing to make it available.
I think you should check out the work of anthropologists Emma Wilby (especially her work on Isobel Gowdie), Claude Lecouteaux, Eva Pocs, and Carlos Ginzburg. Traditional Witchcraft's practices descend from the folkloric and historic practices of "witches" from the early modern period. Folklore and historical perspective being key, as well as the animist worldview, rather than a specifically "New Age" one. I would argue there is a lot of difference here in the way Traditional Witchcraft is worked compared to specifically Wiccan ritual practice, specifically the motivation.
I'm very familiar with all of those folks (at this point I've moved on the primary sources exclusively, i.e. books by people claiming to be various kinds of witches rather than the historians they're citing). I think you missed where I said that by "Wicca" I mean Gardnerian Wicca, which bears little resemblance to the New Age Wicca that contemporary Traditional Witches rail so hard against. Cochrane and Gardner ran in the same circles and were drawing their material from similar (and many identical) sources, including folkloric and historic practice. And both of them were pretty haphazard about it. Yes, there are ritual differences (though I'm not sure what you mean by motivation--can you say more?), but not so many that it's particularly startling.
Still working through your back catalogue of videos Thorn but I think this is fascinating. Just nearing the end of Valiente’s ‘The Rebirth if Witchcraft’ and it’s interesting to read about people who want to be more authentic than Gardner. I realise this is from 6 years ago and you’ve probably done a much more recent video on it, but I wonder whether this backlash against Wicca has been furthered by instagram, Facebook and even Pinterest groups who use hashtags like #babywitch #witchcore #cottagecore. People like Harmony Nice and such seem to just make witchcraft into ‘how to get likes by cool makeup and how to do a money/love/success spell’. It’s so cringe worthy at times I can almost see why there’s a backlash against what is maybe the ‘new wicca’. I know Ravenwolf was doing a lot that was similar in the 90s but it’s so much worse now with all the online media. Your videos are honestly such a relief of genuine discussion amongst the masses of ‘hi I’m new, how do I curse my noisy neighbour?’. Anyway I wondered if 6 years on you had any thoughts...?
I’ve noticed a backlash because I think a lot of newer people that call themselves wiccans have tried to push Wicca and what it encompasses as the way or else. The amount of times that I’ve seen someone tell another person that has a different practice and isn’t Wiccan that they have to abide by the rule of 3 is silly. Or that it’s all love and light and that if you do hex work or anything considered dark work you’re not a “real witch”. I try to tell myself it’s just because they haven’t delved in and seen there’s other people out there and that there’s cultural practices and it isn’t going to all look the same. There’s still practices that have been passed down through generations that aren’t shared for fear of mainstreaming. Everyone should just find their personal way of connection to what they’re looking for and be happy if others find what they are looking for even if we aren’t looking for the same thing.❤️
Love this video (I know I'm finding this video pretty late in the game, but oh well). I personally identify with "traditional witchcraft," but the reason I do is simply because I identify as more of an agnostic/omnist/universalist rather than believing in duotheism. I feel that, to refer to myself as Wiccan when I don't necessarily uphold the Lord and Lady as divine, is disingenuous. I don't look at Wiccans as being lesser witches, inauthentic, etc. (that would go against the aforementioned agnostic/omnist/universalist tendencies that I have), but witches that are simply using different means to the same end. I'd love to get other witches' thoughts on the matter since this comes up quite a bit.
So, in this eagerness to discredit BTW, are they saying that, in contrast, they are genuinely reconstructing some 'Old Ways' whereas Gardner was a big liar? If so, what are their sources for these old ways? Or am I missing the point? Gardner always claimed he received his info from a coven with major lineage, right? So, if these authors who claim greater legitimacy are practising something which looks a lot like Wicca, maybe Gardner was telling the truth about that..
it would be better to think about what we have in common ,rather than looking for things that divide the community.in this way we advance our practice, devoid of distraction .Wicca is great , so is traditional lets get over the division . what was the inspiration and source for Gardner ...traditional ...blessed be sister
I practice witchcraft based on whatever ancient/old magical material is out there. I run a coven which is “traditional” and when I say that, i mean i practice Witchcraft as a religion of magic, and a mystery tradition. There was magic practiced in my Slavic and Greek parents/And parents/family , They weren’t witches, They were Christians who have held onto pagan charms and practices. My Coven in Sydney is an initiatory Goetic coven, We certainly also embrace the practices Magia/Theurgia and advanced astrological talismanic magic as well; And we utilise many of the practices of Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Cochrane, Alex and Maxine Sanders, and the Farrars... but most of all, Paul Huson, Who is my favourite witch and author. I have 3 Other members in my coven, who have successfully completed the seven-year training program. I’ve had about 12 other people attempt to become initiates, and they have failed. One of them I asked to leave. The other 11 Left of their own accord, because they could not handle the intensity of the training. Many are called, but few are chosen. I make my comments and observations below from an objective standpoint, as I am neither Gardnerian nor Alexandrian. BUT I have huge respect for these traditions, As they are valid initiatory pathways in witchcraft. I just want to make something very clear to people who practice any type of witchcraft and say that Gardnerian and Alexandrian witchcraft is not ‘real’ witchcraft. Stop being wankers and, um, maybe consider getting a university degree in linguistics (or indeed, in anything?). You Are extremely mistaken and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Firstly, the word Wicca Is simply the Anglo-Saxon word for a male witch (female is wicce). The word ‘wiccan’ means a ‘witch’. People who practice witchcraft with ANY English or Anglo-Saxon origin Cannot say that they are “not wiccan”, Because you are simply saying that you are ‘not a witch’. You’re just saying it in Anglo-Saxon English, instead of modern English. People who say stupid things like that are demonstrating that they are very very sadly uneducated and you’re just embarrassing yourself, its very very pathetic, so don’t even bother. Thorn is a real initiate of a proper line of Gardnerian Wicca. If anyone really has a problem with that, then they are simply projecting their inner inferiority complex towards her. I find this very amusing, And honestly feel quite embarrassed for people who say things like that. Really fkn dum, and stupid. People who make stupid and uneducated comments like that would never ever be considered for a position in a Coven like mine, and I can assure you that mine is the real deal, and the members of my coven are wealthy and pretty high up when it comes to ...authority :) Thorn, Your book is excellent, well done. You (and Brian Cain rock). If anyone is considering a proper initiatory path, which is a lot of hard work, believe me, Then consider reading both of these authors books. And don’t waste your time reading books that make slanderous statements Towards a true Gardnerian or Alexandrian initiate, these statements actually don’t make any sense. Have a good day, And keep safe from COVID19 🌹🔮🐉🔥☄️🙏✨🌚
Yes, I would not advise that anyone turn to Morgan for a history lesson. Largely because the material is without citation and the sources that Morgan does acknowledge are so limited. I'm focusing on textual analysis. The project just doesn't allow for much more, given time constraints. Personally, I'd love to sit down and chat with all of these folks!
Just do what feels right to you. Anyone that has been involved in Ceremonial magic or ritual magic,or The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,has basically done what Wicca is,witch was really a rebuilding of Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Freemasonry ,and ritual magic.Many people have done all of that before,and want to try a traditional path.It is not necessarily a jab at Wicca,some folks have done that path already,or just want a complete different experience.There are many types of witchcraft,Voodoun ,the Hindu witchcraft that is related to Gypsy witchcraft.So Wicca is one of many types of magic and witchcraft.
You have an intellectual approach, and at the same time a wonderful energy. Would you ever be open to coaching/tutoring/initiating someone? I've done a range of reading, but I am ready to take the next step.
I think much of the reason why people say they're not Wiccan is because neo-Wicca is so different. Initiatory Wicca such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian do hold a lot in common with Traditional WItchcraft in my opinion.
Totally agree with you that the dynamic between Wicca and Traditional Witchcraft is fascinating. One of the things about Traditional Witchcraft which simultaneously attracts and repels me is the focus on 'darkness'. Sometimes I think it's almost as if Traditional Witchcraft is a practice that is informed by viewing witchcraft from the outside in - like someone watched Rosemary's Baby, read a bunch of witch trial records, and then decided that is the Real witchcraft.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand the great need to distinguish and/or validate your craft.; the main difference between Wicca and Witchcraft is the Rede itself. It is very true that "Traditional Witchcraft" is an initiatory system (in a lot of cases) that don't follow the rule of three or the Rede at all. However, what I do understand is that one of the main goals of the practice within magic(k) is to question and further understand the world on a greater level than just the material plain. Even in "Traditional Witchcraft", every practice would be different in some way, but would ultimately work towards that same goal. The point I am trying to make is that Witches and Wiccans (and the respective words for genderized counterparts) are both practitioners of the magical arts (however it is spelled withing one's tradition) just with differentiating views. However, neither is greater nor lesser than the other. One thing to note, however, this is my personal opinion from my studies of both Wicca and how my practice calls The Old Ways. My family has a rich history in the occult (Especially Witchcraft) but has become a mostly Wiccan oriented majority. I originally started with Wicca then was re-initiated into our more traditional practices by my grandmother. I am sadly one of the few remaining "Traditional Witches" in my family, but I have never considered my Wiccan kin to be "lesser" in their craft. I just feel that the practice I am currently studding has a deeper connection to me and allows me to keep in touch with my roots. This is, however, a very interesting topic and I would love to hear your final findings on this subject. If that is okay with you?
@Alice Fox and I would love to hear more from YOU! You should make a UA-cam channel yourself and share your amazing knowledge ♡♡♡ Blessed be Sister -Ashley Roup
Working on uploading a partial response to you, and part to Annika's vid she posted. I learned not to try and squeeze 2 together! Plus my IPad ran out of memory so it cuts short...I know I'll need to do it "over" to expand (part 2 LOL)
I think the reason this sprang up was because of attitude. The fact that certain writers were trying to "namby-pambyize" the Craft. Taking The Craft seriously is in my opinion, very traditional. And I would take exception to groups cutting out magick or focusing just on religion or trying to make The Craft seem like a mystical variety of Buddhism. However, I agree with you that in comparison there is no great differences between Witchcraft and Wicca. There would be between Witchcraft and Paganism, though. I mean, using a cauldron instead of a chalice and calling yourself "traditional," or cutting out four sabbats because they seem more Saxon than Celtic. I really had to laugh at one writer who insisted that for your magickal tools you should use a drinking horn instead of a chalice because it's more "Pagan," then turn around and says you should a chain swing censer which is used in Christian churches!
Whoops iPad messed up. I've also noticed that Traditional Witches also mistake folk magic for witchcraft. Balkan Traditional Witchcraft by Radomir Ristic describes folk magic practiced in all Slavic countries.
Largely the latter, though they will say both. Most of the traditional witches I'm reading fail to make a distinction. I would argue that "traditional witchcraft" looks more like Gardnerian Wicca (in terms of structure and content, at least superficially) than either resemble "eclectic" Wicca (which is where we see the Rede, the Threefold Law, and all of the "white light" that trad folks of both varieties complain about). Hope you've been well, Anni!
First of all, I have to say that you can't lump together everything that is called, or calls itself Traditional Witchcraft as one homogeneous thing. It isn't and it is something very diverse. Certainly some claimants to tradition are out and out phonies, they are quite likely to attack Wicca as that seems like the authentically traditional sort of thing to do. I can state that what I do, as a practitioner of 1734, is not very much like Wicca either in forms of practice or in beliefs. I know this because, before I got involved in 1734 I was received both Alexandrian and Gardnerian initiations. I need to clarify that MY form of 1734 owes little to Wicca, whereas some other branches of our stream are much closer in at least ritual form. However, none of us would wish to disparage Wicca. In most ways challenging Wicca would seem irrelevant, except in one way; it has become the public perception of what witchcraft is, and too often wiccans assume that every witch subscribes to wiccan beliefs. So it is not Wicca itself that needs to be challenged, but some assumptions about it and the assumptions of some, not all, wiccans. I also think it right to challenge the so-called traditionals who would dismiss Wicca wholesale, often with very little knowledge or understanding of it, or indeed their own craft.
Did your work ever get published or are you still working on it? I found this video, by accident but your premise has me intrigued and I'd love to read what you've found.
This made me curious, after you read all of them, what is your conclusion and what you could say about trad.craft books from wiccan-gardnerian perspective. Please take it unto consideration to make such a video in a future :3 #bookworm #reviewthemplease
@@allexandruned.3666 Well now that makes sense. He's in a lot of dispute with most of my Facebook friends who are also authors of various traditions. I think he has some psychological issues to deal with.
well, I think one thing you are missing is gardnarian wicca changed from when he had the coven to when the farrars were initiated, when gardner had it, it was close to a traditonal witchaft coven. Also, as opposed to the wiccan rede, I would say many traditional witches use the"web of wyrd" aka taking responsibility for your actions and realizing your action will effect other situations, like throwing a stone in a pool of water.
The Farrars were never initiated into Gardnerian Wicca. They've been very influential in eclectic circles, no doubt, but it's relatively easy to pick out the impact they've made. I can assure you that there are Gards out there who are working to preserve the tradition as originally practiced. What people think of as the "Wiccan Rede" is not part of the original tradition. Certainly there are elements of something similar for some individuals (I'm not one of them), but by and large we're doing just as much "taking responsibility for your actions" as anyone.
David Brookes Janet was initiated into the Alexandrian tradition (and pretty publicly), and subsequently Stewart. To my knowledge, neither has ever claimed a Gardnerian lineage. Can you send me a source to reference? I'm going to go poke around now.
***** Sanders was initiated, that's correct, but he did not achieve third and was never a Gardnerian HP, so I think that might be a bit of a stretch. I've only met a handful of Alexandrians over the years, but my experience is that they aren't necessarily concerned about establishing that connection to Gardner (since they're so well-established on their own). My original point was only that it's insufficient to draw conclusions about Gardnerian Wicca based on the work of the Farrars, which I do think is fair. But maybe there's an Alexandrian here that can comment? This is starting to trod into landscapes beyond any kind of authority I might have. Thank you for commenting, Holly!
A bit of both, I've found. Michael Howard, for example, claims a Gardnerian lineage (I don't say "claims" because I doubt him, only that it's not something I can personally verify). Peter Paddon claims an Alexandrian lineage. But many others, from what I can tell, are working off of what they've read about Wicca or what they've experienced in Wiccan and Pagan communities (Ann Finnin comes to mind here).
This a few years old this video. So to up date the info. Michael Howard passed away in 2015. He was initiated into Gardnerian Wicca in the mid 1960s. He was also in the OTO with Andrew Chumbley & knew Kenneth Grant. And a member of Chumbleys group the Cultus Sabbati. He was the author of Pagan magazine The Cauldron from the 1970s. Ill be hanging on to my copies as they're pretty rare now. He was a major force in the British occult scene. Check out his wiki page.
Glad to help! There's a lot of material out there now. You might consider checking out Capall Bann's website for their complete catalogue. Moon Books also publishes several non-Wicca witchcraft titles.
Thanks! And you're totally right. But Gardner really doesn't tell us much more (and I haven't been able to read the book he's referring to myself). We get the idea of the Rede, but not the exact phrasing or the centrality that gets ascribed to it later. One of these days I'd like to sit down and research this more.
I think you're correct: it's rooted in age. Well, and I think that's largely the trad Wiccan argument against traditional witchcraft as somehow more authentic. The Gardnerian can always come out and say, "Yeah, but you don't even know what Wicca is because you're not an initiate." I would argue, either way, that both are derived largely from the same sources and overlap is apparent.
Hi Tara! Thank you! That's very sweet. I'm in religious studies, and specifically American religious history. Puritans and all that. It's pretty cool because I get to do stuff with Wicca, too. Yay Oliver!
If you are still in your research phase you may wish to contact Jon Hanna. He wrote Innovative Trends in Post-Gardnerian Witchcraft and may be able to recommend some sources. He can be reached via A&J. BB, Dave
I don't consider Gardnerianism to be "Wicca" because as Mike Howard points out in Modern Wicca, that word or spelling was originally used in the 1960's and 70's by people who wanted to distance themselves from Gerald Gardner. I also really don't see where Mike Howard has tried to distance himself from, or cast shade on Gardnerianism. If anything, I see him as the defender of Gardnerianism as a form of 'traditional witchcraft', and kind of as the bridge between the two. I mean, this is a man who claimed up until his death, that he knew practitioners of the form of witchcraft that Gerald was initiated into. If you really want to know why there are so many 'traditional witches' around these days who want to distance themselves from Neopagan Wicca, I think that's fairly obvious. Gerald *never* believed that you could teach yourself to be a witch, out of books or whatever. He may have been at odds with much of English witchcraft up until that point in this belief, but it's what he believed just the same. Raymond Buckland was the one who suggested that such a thing was possible, simply by publishing a book about how to practice on your own. What happened next was that a huge cottage industry was born, with people writing books on Neopagan Witchcraft. Llewellyn in particular became the largest purveyor of these books, written by people who had some connection, sometimes direct and often tenuous, to Gardnerianism or another form of British Traditional Witchcraft. Then of course came all of the people who mostly lifted their core ideas from Gardner, whilst claiming to have some connection to some form of witchcraft before Gardner. Clearly, Cochrane was a bit pathological, and not just in his hatred for Gardner and Gardnerians but just in general. At the same time, I find many of his ideas fascinating. At any rate, to move along a bit into the historical narrative, we then get people attaching themselves to ideas like the "threefold law of return" which was obviously gleaned from one of Gerald's novels, but has nothing to do with Gardnerianism per se. Basically, from the 1960's til the late 1990's you get more and more of the "new age" type of wicca & neopaganism. Because we commonly refer to this as Wicca, and what Gerald Gardner did, as Wicca, the two get conflated and Gerald is somehow blamed for what "wicca" became in the minds of most people. Robert Cochrane's insistence on the existence of a "traditional witchcraft" which pre-dates Gardner and has nothing to do with Gardner or what he practiced, just gave a lot of people a convenient bandwagon to hop onto, when they are pouring out their hatred onto 'Wicca'. I would contend that most people who now call themselves "Traditional Witches" at this point don't actually have much of an idea of any of this history, or who Robert Cochrane was. I think a lot of them are actually just Neopagans or even Wiccan-ish, and just don't want to be associated with the post-hippie era new age Neopagan Wicca stuff, which again, gets conflated with Gerald Gardner's material. Maybe they use a bit of folk magic and in their minds that makes them traditional witches, or something. If that's the case, then they aren't necessarily wrong... it's just that the whole terminology is completely confusing and downright stupid at this point, and to a large extent, Cochrane is to blame. On the other hand, it's fairly obvious to me from the historical record, that there is other witchcraft (traditional witchcraft if you like) which pre-dates Gardnerian Witchcraft, and that it was quite available in England when Gerald was alive. If you read Gemma Gary's books for example, she writes tome upon tome of folk spells, often involving Christian or Biblical charms, and material adapted from grimoires to folk magical purposes. I personally find this material to be rather dull after a while, because no matter how "traditional" and extremely cornish it may be, it's basically about doing magic to get stuff you want, curse your enemies, or heal your cow. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can write their own stuff for that, and even if that weren't true, how much of it can you really use? That's what traditional witchcraft mostly means to me. Gerald could've taken an interest in this witchcraft, but he didn't, which I think is interesting in itself. On the other hand, I love books by Andrew Chumbley, Daniel Schulke, Shani Oates etc. which speak of something more mystical and transcendental. This is just my own preference. It's also the main reason why I like Gardnerianism. I would love to see a time when Gardnerians stop identifying with the "Neopagan Movement" and have more dialogue with practitioners of these types of witchcraft, and for Traditional Witches quit conflating the works of Gardner with what I'll call post-hippie-era neopaganism.
@@redstar7292 That's exactly how it seems to me. What I know of his work, as a non-member of one of the branches of his craft, seems to be very inspired. I find it incredibly fascinating.
I have a Greek thing rather than their Luciferian strain. ..but it is very inspired I agree. I love Evan Jones & ShanI Oates. There writing about general pagan subjects certain dieties or certain seasonal sabbats are fantastic.
I agree with you towards the witches who call themselves "traditional witches" just to distance themselves from Wicca. I noticed that most of them would justify the label they put on themselves using excuses like "the Witchcraft we practice is from the old country" and things like that. Most non Wiccans I know either call themselves these days a Eclectic witch or use their ethnic label plus the word witch (e.g. Chinese witch, Italian witch, Japanese witch, just to name a few). Also much as I admire Cochrane's work his attitude towards wicca is 🙄.
@@KyngofJewel + 1 . it doesn't seem to be really understood, what Cochranian Witchcraft is about, nor Gardnerian, might be about, for that matter. Its seen at a surface level that trad w/c seems more hardcore, spookier, than Wicca in it's style. But it's been compared to the pop, book read Wicca stuff. People like this may get a bit disappointed at the lack of how to spell books. Some are also setting themselves up as experts, when - they should just say, they have an interest in it.
I know this is an old video, but I have some thoughts I want to share. I do find this an interesting subject. Perhaps, this backlash of some witches saying Wicca is not authentic arises from a need to feel acknowledged. I remember 20 plus years ago that every time I would go to a pagan gathering someone there would ask my tradition, my initiators, etc. Something that may be necessary when certain groups are working together, but not necessary for general open gatherings. (I don't know how these things go now, as I have not been to a public gathering in at least 20 years.) That approach did lead many solitaries and eclectics (as called at that time) to feel "less than". I think that individuals approaching the Craft should be able to acknowledge their own experiences without having to put down other groups. I know from reading current issues in modern paganism, that my thoughts about this are outdated, but I think that these things may have grown to produce the climate you are speaking of.
It seems that up until a few years there was a lot of elitism in the pagan community. And the people who didnt follow certian rule got shunned a bit. As though they werent doing it right. Even know there seems to be a lot of tension, between the older people and younger of the pagan community. Like we are constantly being tested or something, or being seen as doing something wrong. But things have changed. Also most books widely available a few years ago were mainly wiccan oriented. And that isnt alway what someone is looking for. Since it is more of a religious method practising witchcraft. And even if you look at a lot of books coming out nowadays. With the title witchcraft. They are still heavily wiccan based.
Honestly; I think it boils down to one thing. "My tradition is older than yours". When it comes to the craft, people want to be using the oldest form. The second that something comes up claiming to be more ancient, people will automatically believe it is better. I have always seen Wicca as a progressive spiritual path that can evolve. A perfect example of this is the removal of homophobia as new traditions form. In several letters from G. Gardner to A. Sanders there was much about how homosexuality went against the natural polarity etc~ but then newer forms like R. Buckland's Seax-wica explains that homosexuality is okay because we all have god and goddess energy within us. Witches love old stuff. that's it. lol. Can't wait to hear your further thoughts on this topic. BB
Very interesting. I never knew that the rede and the threefold law haven’t been a part of Wicca from the start. Women of my family have always done divination and folk magic that was part of our culture and space where we live (countries of former yugoslavia) as well ad muslim religion - prayers were used as spells for different purposes, as well as there is a lot of cursing and hexing. I never considered myself a muslim in reality, I was always more inclined towards paganism, nature, i was naturally connected to the earth around me, so when I found out about Wicca i delved into it and “started off” with that and later on I returned to my roots in a sense of searching for the magick that resides in my bloodline and the lands of my ancestors. I still like Wiccan structure, I celebrate the sabbats and connect them to the traditional rodnovery pagan celebrations from our yugo slavic people because there is A TON 😄 So I let those intermingle and just call myself a Witch.
I will admit to having fallen into lazy patterns and not having read some of the works you mention. So my question is coming from that place of ignorance. But are those who are working hard to disassociate their selves from "Wicca" separating their selves from what it has been morphing into ... or are they separating their selves from those who still practice it in traditional covens? ~ Anni ~
My apologies on the perceived "New Age"-Wicca slight. Was not my intention. I have nothing, and can see nothing, against Gardnerian and Alexandrian initiatory Witchcraft. I do have a lot of critiques, valid I think, of the New Age Wicca peddled in books as anything that resembles actual Witchcraft. I think the two works by Emma Wilby are fantastic and on-point. I myself come from Victor Anderson's lineage of Old Craft, sometimes called the Faery tradition or Kruithen or Wicia, to add further confusion between the "kinds" of Craft that are TW and Wicca, in much the same way that some Old Crafters use "Wytcha" to refer to their practice. I find a lot of parallels between the practices of my Alexandrian fellows and the kind of Craft I practice. And yet, many emphases are different. Whereas The Lord and The Lady of Wicca appear in that practice, TW tends to have a "Sacred Four" pattern-Grandfatherly and Grandmotherly beings and the Venusian "Witchmother" and Mercurial "Witchfather" spiritual beings who are the daughter-self and the son-self, respectively, of the former. The primacy of Fate as the Grandmotherly supreme source of all things, the Pale-Faced Woman of folklore, and the dark and fiery Grandfather Time figure similar to Woden/Odin. For me, regarding the "motivation" piece-the aesthetic in TW as I have seen it tends to lend itself to the mythos of a "calling" or "being born a witch"-with lots of talk of the "witch blood"-It has a focus on the Craft being a form of necromantic seership. The Dead are given a primacy, along with a recognition of the Creative Force being inherently sexual and erotic, and actively engaging that as part of practice; you might say that the "active streams" within Old Craft are Mercurial, Venusian, and Saturnian (which harken to the frequent use of the colors White, Red, and Black). It tends towards frenzied and ecstatic practice and the flight of the soul from the body to experience the Sabbat, sharing meals with the Dead/Ancestral Host, being inter-relational with the locality of spiritual ecology, and acting as an agent of Fate Herself, in much the same way that Wilby writes of Isobel Gowdie and her coven.
No apologies necessary! Just wanted to make sure I was on the same page with you before swapping ideas. And I would guess that many of our critiques of what we're calling New Age Wicca are the same (though I've never been willing to go so far as to personally make judgments regarding an inherent, real, essential witchcraft). Yes, I see what you mean now, I think. We certainly do have different gods and spirits (I've always thought of this as akin to something like a tribal difference, though I'm sure that's oversimplifying), and I think our relationships with them are different (at least, I can speak for myself and my own group). And while I can't speak for All Gardnerians Everywhere in terms of actual, individual coven practice, I think there's a lot of overlap in the kind of emphasis on the ecstatic that you discuss. Yes, we have a specific ritual form (which is nonetheless ecstatic), but it's been observed that Wicca is fundamentally about sex and death and I think this is accurate. There are also similar conversations regarding the dead and commensality, if not so much where Fate is concerned (I think you're right about that). [Though I will say that there is an emphasis in some strands of Gardnerian Craft about being called or born to witchcraft (Gardner was himself of this mindset, near as I can tell), as you mention.] The way see it, more and more, is that we have a lot more in common with each other than either does with what usually passes for Wicca. And this is probably why there's always been so much tension between the two camps. We're different enough that we don't often care to be mentioned in the same sentence, but similar enough that we find it worth arguing about. I just see a lot more overlap than not, myself (though, as can be said on both sides, I'm not any kind of initiate/insider into your tradition, so there's only so much I can ever know). I'd just rather be friends than not. Yeah, I love Wilby, too. :) Really fascinating and useful stuff. (And thanks for your very thoughtful comments!)
Many New Religious Movements start out as "oppositional"; that is, they spend more time describing themselves in terms of what they are not - the mainstream - than what they are. Wicca only stopped being oppositional about 15 years ago. Now, as new Craft movements arise, they too start out as oppositional, but this time around Gardnerian Craft is the "mainsteam" against which they define themselves. It's all just growing pains. Don Frew (30 year Gardnerian initiate)
There is a smiliar rift within Druidry. There are Reconstructionist groups who claim that only those who are trying to be priests worshipping the same way the ancient Celts were (or as closely as can be managed) should be allowed to call themselves "Druids". There is a lot of the same claims to bloodlines and knowledge secretly passed down through the ages. Not sure how much is in the literature, but it comes up in the forums constantly. Oddly enough this mostly seems to be Americans, the British seem to be much less uptight about titles, lineage, and arguing about "The One True Way".
People crying about lineage and practicing like the ancients as if the ancients weren't just people like you and I. Lol. I'm spiritual. So what I do is authentic to me and for me. I can study traditions but I certainly would never follow and mimic them like what they did is the only way. That's ridiculous. Their ways are a guide only. Today is the authentic way.
Are some of these witches, in the end, setting their selves as separate from something they have no or limited knowledge of? Or they have knowledge only of what the uninformed have made of it? Do they claim to have been initiated into, for example, a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven? Or are they working off of hearsay (that is what it seems to me). This really is fascinating. I hope that the work you are doing for your thesis will become part of our community's shared knowledge base.
Greetings, keep up the study. I have a lot of respect for our founders. Most people who criticize them never created anything .It is my deepest belief that true paganism can be found around the world and in history. True power and sight is given as a gift at birth to all in measure. The gods reside in us as much as in nature. Religion wants control of that. Religion is but garments and jewelry that we choose to wear . Communion with the forces that they attempt to explain to us is found freely within us. Traditions are as important as clothes we wear.
I would call my self a Traditional Witch, to distance myself from this New Age Wicca after the turn of the millennium. In the core i walk the luciferian Tradition, with strong chaos magic influences, but i always stay fixed in the luciferian core, and this includes (some etruscan, italian, roman, greek, Topics). I see a lot of similarities between the books of Michael Howard, Nigel Jackson, and of course Raven Grimassi, but also a little bit Nigel G. Pearson. If someone here is really interested in my personal explanation about the differences between modern Wicca and the ''Traditional'' Witchcraft, give this comment a thumb up or leave a comment, with 'Yes'.
I am interested! I am starting to explore this path but get annoyed at the new age washing these topics. I have my own prejudices and tend to think of new age and all it touches as pseudo spirituality, like they are treating you as a child and everything has to have positive energies and you must open your chakras... And I don't find anything meaningful in that. So different points of view are welcomed
Maybe Wicca is going through the same thing that Christianity went through in the Middle Ages when Calvin and Martin Luther entered the scene. Perhaps the traditional Garnarian (hope I spelled that right) Wicca is the Roman Catholic equivalent. Things are happening faster due to our world wide media stream.
Hi just wanted to say any true witch is too busy to be bothered with it i am an Alexandrian witch and priestess i was also a gardnerian, there are differences and the newer traditions are nothing like these, its a bit like chinese whispers but in my tradiition we dont think of ourselves as wiccans and we are certainly not fluffy bunnies its hard work and study and a way of life people will always want to be beter than others and lets face it some are very judgemental its something you have to experience not just talk about
also you might enjoy reading biographies a good one is Firechild by Maxine sanders you get insight into what its really about Alex sanders wrote some good stuff too, keep an open mind and explore hope you find what your looking for blessiings
As a traditional witch, I agree and disagree. Not by opinion but by fact. Both , assuming wicca as in what the creator of wicca meant it to be, not how it has evolved, are practiced very differently. I do not feel like one is better or bigger than the other but there are differences and as long as there are differences there will be debate. I mean this most respectfully. Everyone should follow the path best for them. After all we are all brothers and sisters of the world. :)
Sounds as if Raven Grimassi were jealous of Gerald Gardner for achieving what I myself tend to call, the Rebirth of Witchcraft. If Grimassi wants to starts his own type of Witchcraft then so be it let him do that, but he or none of his followers have the right to dismiss something like Gardnerian Wicca or vice versa. I have read various books saying how a Witch practices the craft as he or she wishes. Others that a Witch bows to no gods or goddesses but works with them as an equal. Others that they must worship the two deities while some say that they are Atheist Wiccans. This is where I stop and observe. drawingKenaz Can you help me out on this?
The reality is that no one owns the term "witchcraft," so arguments can be made for practically any definition. My strategy is usually to ask people what they mean when they use the term and then give them the benefit of the doubt. I've met all sorts of people with wildly divergent beliefs and practices claiming the word "witch" over the years, which is one of the reasons why I think it's so silly to argue so heatedly about it (as you can see from the many comments to this video). Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
They are all using the term "traditional" to mean long-established.But on the Wicca bit of it..ask actual covened British Traditional Wiccans and they will for the most part tell you that what people do in the states is not Wicca.There may be some things that are shared as you said but that does not make it the same thing.I happen to agree with that.Its almost cultural appropriation just like adding Native American elements to your practice if you are not Native and things along that line.
From outsiders point of view I would say that it just might to have something to do with the fact that Wiccan is viewed in some degree as an "teenage girl religion" and those people who are attacking toward it are trying to claim some sort of credibility from detaching them self from Wicca. Of course this is an completely uneducated pondering on the issue I don't have enough knowledge on the matter.
And my intent was not to offend wicca or make any claims towards them being less real. I Was writing maybe bit too broadly. For me that those writers talking wicca down have just low self esteem. And for that realization you don't need to be part of either tradition.
Scientiae Magicae he doesn't need to keep silent, this is a public comment section so please don't be rude to anyone because they have a different opinion. Let me guess are you wiccan?
Janne hey man, no matter what someone is gonna get offended, I totally see your point of view, and I want to apologize for the rude person behind the keyboard above you that said to keep silent. You don't have to validate yourself to them. They mean nothing to ya :) blessings
Would you consider Lee Morgan's book a reasonably accurate summary or something to avoided by people looking for facts? The "traditionalists" may be "amoral", but doesn't mean they're not angry. Even pathologically angry. Yikes. Does your study allow you to contact these various authors and essentially interview them? Or are you limited to pre-existing material?
Ugh. I can't stand people who represent traditional witchcraft dogging anyone else. Nothing is more authentic than anything else. Everyone has different viewpoints and experiences.
Interesting video. I'm not really a fan of Wicca, at times it can seem a little pretentious, at other times, aggravatingly so. Like Laurie Cabot in her book, Power of the Witch, who wrote of her coven, going to shop owners during October, trying to discourage them from using the classic, green-face, Halloween witch in their store decorations or how they protested the making of the movie, The Witches of Eastwick, sending each of the actresses in the film, "information packets," explaining to them the folly of their ways. Give me a break!. The world has had it's ideas about what a witch is, long before Wicca came along. One wonders, who died and made it the new authority on the subject? However, even Wicca is composed of individuals and if you ask me, that's the determining factor of authenticity. If you bought it with your own, blood, sweat and tears that's a reality no one can take away.
I don't think of Traditional Witchcraft as any more or less ancient or authentic than Wicca, but it IS and altogether different flavor of the Craft. Forgive me but I can't imagine a modern Wiccan taking flying ointments to fly to the Sabbath and make a pact with the Witch Father. Yes they're similar, there is a Lord and Lady, but the Queen of Elphame and the Man in Black are of a very different understanding of them? I don't think there's an enormous different except perhaps superficially? Traditional witchcraft seems more earthy, and cthonic in nature?
Hi, I think you are trying to hard I studied the craft for over 20 years, Im a christian now. but wicca is a new age term to make non witches feel more comfortable. I think you might look into laurie cabot on line, her definition as I recall was excellent, Ive met several of the people you spoke of. throw away most of the new books written in the 90s they are deceiving and only do it for the money, read all the oldies. I hope you rediscover christianity someday. witcraft is filled with confusion
Before the trend of Traditional Witchcraft came into being there was a lot of infighting in witchcraft community on which tradition was the oldest. What drew me to Raymond Buckland and Seax Wicca was that they proudly proclaimed they were the newest.
Ronald Hutton said something like "For self proclaimed "traditional witches" to claim that they're somehow more traditional than Gardner's witchcraft, when all the evidence demonstrates Gardner's witchcraft came before them is perpetuating the polemics of the 1950s."
I agree with your points very much. It's one of my biggest pet peives when these people try to invalidate Wiccan witchcraft to boost their ego.
Also you're totally right in saying "traditional witchcraft" looks a lot like wicca-- because most of what it is made up from is Wicca in a Halloween costume, dressed up to look older or spookier or more edgy. If you go on Amazon and look at the book "Mastering Witchcraft" by Paul Huson you'll see people praising it as "true traditional witchcraft!" and nestled between all the praise is my review going chapter by chapter pointing out that 90% of the material in the book comes directly from the Gardnerian BoS or is still practiced by Gardnerians or Alexandrians. It shows the naivete of so many people who hate Wicca without knowing anything about it.
Agreed. Very much so. I personally think that as witches (whether traditional or not) we should be building each other up but we choose instead to cut each other down. That's not very wise or cunning in my opinion. Believe me there are plenty of non-witches out there to do that to our community. I was taught by my Mother and Aunt and so was taught that my fellow witches are family. No matter blood or tradition. Family gives support and love. Blessed be!)0(
Austin Shippey I mean considering we don’t follow any of the Wiccan rede, or any Wiccan beliefs, we just aren’t Wiccans. I have a massive respect for Wiccans but not all Wiccans are witches and those who are probably don’t practice the same things as a traditional witch does e.g traditional witches use a blasting rod to hex and Wiccans who follow the Rede won’t hex anyone. We utilise regional folkmagicks, familiars, and we even use different tools than most Wiccans e.g the Stang, the blasting rod ect. We are not just Wicca in a spooky, edgy filter, we are our own identity entirely and I do not appreciate you saying we are not.
I think every one of you,
are as good at originating , true intitiation , innovating a style,
of the Craft... etc.
- as you are at anything else.
' not very '
[Thorn,if you truly KNEW some of the books you own,
YOU WOULDN'T BE SOUNDING LIKE A .......... amateur ]
Seriously there are a lot of self proclaimed traditional witches who are like that today. I read a book decades ago that traditional witches in America are those white people who practiced witchcraft and folk magic way back in Europe and brought it to the New World and their descendants inherited that practice and when these descendants discovered who the Wiccans are they viewed them as hippies. Unfortunately not all people who call themselves as traditional witches descended from those lineages and some might just even have powerless muggle ancestors who viewed witchcraft as evil. For me I view traditional witchcraft as lineage thing and not some sort of a choice where a witch-bitch will call his or herself a traditional witch and would start to bitch about wicca. Sure everyone could practice folk magic and there's no problem with that but if it's a lineage thing there has to be a line.
I first encountered you, through Witches and Pagans magazine. I've recently had an argument with a witch, about whether or not to use the devil, in the craft. Which seems to be popular now. She referred me to Roger Horne's books. I'm primarily Wiccan. While I am open to learning about "traditional stuff", my heart is Wicca. I do like eclectic writers. Anyway, I love how you address this here. Blessed be ❤❤❤
I have personally never heard anyone say that Wiccan witches aren't real witches. All the movement is about is not having Wiccan influences in their work. I, myself, prefer this. Not everyone that practices witchcraft believes in Wicca (mysely included, being agnostic). Witchcraft has also been around way longer than Wicca and someone people want to study witchcraft as it was done during the time of the wise woman until the rebirth. Wiccan witches are just as much witches as those, like myself, that study witchcraft from the centuries past.
The snobbery of Wicca backfired. However, there is no excuse for the hatred out there with some witches. It reminds me of traditional religions who are at war. I thought 💭 I got out of that stuff!
There are actually several extant forms of Traditional Witchcraft and Old Craft that do not work in ritual Circles, or with Elements, or with a Lord and Lady, or with Eight Sabbats. Two of which I have been initiated into. Some traditions perform their rites in complete silence, never with a word spoken. Others might like a black candle, sing a hymn, trample a crucifix, call their familiars, and then go into an ecstatic state without ever casting a Circle. Others might indeed have absorbed a four Elements model from Western Occult grimoire traditions (because that's normal) and evolved to relate it to older, more indigenous aspects of bio-regional sorcerous practices.
There is a strong emphasis on the Three Worlds often, and on three souls (or something very similar, perhaps related to Cauldrons), a deep immersion and identification with the night-flying witch, the two-handed sorcerer, the Devil, the Fallen Angels and the Fae as central to Stories related to the origins of witches. These seem to form the core of much what often falls under Traditional Witchcraft related to Europe, or European colonisation/empire/migration (i.e. what ends up to be "New World witchcraft" like Anderson Feri and various forms of Appalachian witchery). This seems in contrast to various postulated Gardnerian paradigms, I've checked in with some Gardnerian friends who agree on this. BUT - I don't necessarily think that makes Gardnerian Wicca NOT A form of Traditional Craft insofar as it is likely related to some New Forest witch cultus.
A mentor of mine once said... it seems what we now call Traditional Craft is largely folk magic with a bit of grimoire magic. And it seem that Wicca is largely grimoire magic based with a bit of folk magic. I don't know if that's true, but it seemed to speak to a spirit of understanding. I actually feel it has more to do with our Great Spirits or God, our storying of the Witch's Myth, the cosmologies we are embedded in, especially as related to the Fallen Angels or the Watches and the Good Neighbours and what that also might mean for the mythic histories of our planet.
I think people put so much into these arguments because they get stuck on who's tradition is oldest and in their minds it makes their the tradition "the best" or "more real/authentic". For these reasons I've stopped using labels. I consider each label to be a different forms of witch craft, different groups that tweak things a bit so they connect better. Hope your enjoying your research! Sorry for the late post. Some how i was no longer subscribed to you, so i'm catching up on your videos lol. Blessings!! ^_^
Hedge witches, green witches,kitchen witches,wiccan witches,gay witchcraft etc.
Witchcraft is fragmented into so many different beliefs and practices that it is hard to choose what to follow or who or what has more power.
The true would be witch should follow her witch instincts and go with it.
Like I always say;"No matter what the name its still the same game."
I truly enjoy your videos and the intellectual dissection of Wicca.... and in fact, everything you bring to the table. In a perfect world, you could download everything you know and I could just watch it all on youtube videos. Much love
You bring up some excellent topics. Have you read in depth into the dichotomy between sole practitioners v. covens, and how that relates to New Age v. Traditional practice?
When I say Traditional Witchcraft, I'm not implying that Gardnerian Wicca is invalid. but that it is part of a larger context that can include other equally valid approaches to Witchcraft. I think that people feel that when they just say 'Witchcraft' that others will automatically assume that they are referring to the Gardnerian Tradition of Wicca, and so they want to add the 'Traditional' on there. Also, there is info available today that wasn't available to Gardner- about the way that we did things in the old days- when he either formulated or received his form of practice
Cool video Thorn to understand the polemics within the Craft (I was initially trained as a eclectic Wiccan)
I've identified as just wiccan for several years. In the past few years I've also noticed people insisting they aren't wiccan when they're pretty much practicing and writing the same stuff. There was even a guy in my circle who said wicca was "christianized" because they read certain books. I think people just really like labels but not for themselves
Hey there, Thorn. Just rewatched this during today's nostalgic youtube binge and wondered what conclusions you reached during the course of your thesis work. Any chance your thesis is published? If so, I'd love to give it a read. Failing that, perhaps you can provide one or two book or article titles that you found were crucial in shaping your analyses and conclusions.
Also, I've been in The Craft since the 1990s. I grew up on Scott Cunningham, Silver Ravenwolf, Raymond Buckland, and Raven Grimassi.
The book 'Traditional Witchcraft: A Cornish Book of Ways' does not have the eight Sabbaths. There are Sabbaths, but their different. Gemma Gary wrote it. You have to order it off the website in order to get it. I read the book and I really liked how it was written. There are a lot of hands on things like powders and oils. I think that you'll like it, if you haven't picked it up already.
Thanks! Yes, I picked this up recently and have enjoyed it quite a bit.
Troy is the publishing house with Gemma Gary titles including the one discussed above. I find it priceless, but there you go...
Roman Cultus that's a very good book, I finished it in 2 days! My favorite thing about this book is how it's written from her own form, and way of practicing the cunning ways. Alot of people I see take her book as if it's the true "traditional" form of trad craft, she says in her interview her books are written from her own personal beliefs and practices, kind of as a mixture of folk and modern magick. It's amazing
I think that if this is what you’re worried about, you have a lot of things that you need to work on. You don’t get to say what someone else is practicing…because you don’t know…. You don’t get to make a title for someone else’s practice…because whether you agree or disagree, it doesn’t matter.. what someone else chooses to call themself isn’t any of your business… I read down in the comments, and I saw some of the things you were saying… I can almost feel your discontent with anyone that challenges Wicca. You’re arguing with people saying that what they practice and what they believe. It is really a form of Wicca… why do you feel like you get to decide the truth about someone’s practice. How each of us choose to define our craft or belief system is a personal preference. There’s no right or wrong when it comes to what’s best for someone’s path. Any religious ideologies,belief system, spirituality or craft, is a sensitive and personal matter, so it’s important to do what feels right for you. It’s easy to compare ourselves to others, but we are all so different….. Personal experience is subjective and everyone has certain likes, dislikes, quirks and idiosyncrasies… all the qualities that make up your personality, and the things that make you…you. Our introverted intuition should be a guide throughout our journey, as it really is a spiritual pilgrimage. How we choose to define our spirituality or craft has nothing to do with anyone else. Because everyone is unique and finds solace in different things and diverse ways, it’s important to encompass the qualities that make you who you are. Our sacred quest is significant, and we should embrace where each experience takes us. Most importantly, always stay true to yourself. Your spiritual path is the most important journey you will ever take.
Any trace of 'traditional witchcraft' in the US can be found in the Carolinas and not in Salem. I rarely post of this kind of stuff, but from what I've seen over the years, you have George Pickinngill and Cecil Williamson in regard to some link to an older cunning craft tradition. George being an actual cunning man versus what people are calling traditional witchcraft these days. Cecil of course opened Boscastle, his background story also hints at traditional West Country craft. Here in the states, we have Appalachian 'witchcraft', which really is some form of Scots-Irish border reiver spiritual system that survived from the Scottish Marches, to Ulster and then to the Carolinas. Considering almost everyone who is European from the Piedmont there is Scots-Irish by some relation, it doesn't surprise me this system survived in the Appalachians. Asheville's reputation as being a home of witches is not a mere accident. The Cherokee also had their version of 'witches' here already. York County South Carolina's library has a book of spells which date back to the colony's founding, but hints of more of a cunning class system of magic. I personally own a copy of this 'book' (which is a scant few pages.). You can also find traces and hints in the Foxfire books, especially the act of planting by the signs used in Western North Carolina. I don't personally know Ms. Gemma other than writing her over the years, but I do know a number of people from Cornwall. There was something there far past what Gardner proposed. But even then, not everything Gardner presented was from Freemasonry. They drew from something, what that something was, I think Ms. Gary has more of a hold on ... cheers.
This is actually fascinating and pretty much what I've noticed by reading some "trad craft" materials myself. I'd love to read your thesis when you're done if you're willing to make it available.
I think you should check out the work of anthropologists Emma Wilby (especially her work on Isobel Gowdie), Claude Lecouteaux, Eva Pocs, and Carlos Ginzburg. Traditional Witchcraft's practices descend from the folkloric and historic practices of "witches" from the early modern period. Folklore and historical perspective being key, as well as the animist worldview, rather than a specifically "New Age" one.
I would argue there is a lot of difference here in the way Traditional Witchcraft is worked compared to specifically Wiccan ritual practice, specifically the motivation.
I'm very familiar with all of those folks (at this point I've moved on the primary sources exclusively, i.e. books by people claiming to be various kinds of witches rather than the historians they're citing). I think you missed where I said that by "Wicca" I mean Gardnerian Wicca, which bears little resemblance to the New Age Wicca that contemporary Traditional Witches rail so hard against. Cochrane and Gardner ran in the same circles and were drawing their material from similar (and many identical) sources, including folkloric and historic practice. And both of them were pretty haphazard about it. Yes, there are ritual differences (though I'm not sure what you mean by motivation--can you say more?), but not so many that it's particularly startling.
Still working through your back catalogue of videos Thorn but I think this is fascinating. Just nearing the end of Valiente’s ‘The Rebirth if Witchcraft’ and it’s interesting to read about people who want to be more authentic than Gardner. I realise this is from 6 years ago and you’ve probably done a much more recent video on it, but I wonder whether this backlash against Wicca has been furthered by instagram, Facebook and even Pinterest groups who use hashtags like #babywitch #witchcore #cottagecore. People like Harmony Nice and such seem to just make witchcraft into ‘how to get likes by cool makeup and how to do a money/love/success spell’. It’s so cringe worthy at times I can almost see why there’s a backlash against what is maybe the ‘new wicca’. I know Ravenwolf was doing a lot that was similar in the 90s but it’s so much worse now with all the online media. Your videos are honestly such a relief of genuine discussion amongst the masses of ‘hi I’m new, how do I curse my noisy neighbour?’. Anyway I wondered if 6 years on you had any thoughts...?
I’ve noticed a backlash because I think a lot of newer people that call themselves wiccans have tried to push Wicca and what it encompasses as the way or else. The amount of times that I’ve seen someone tell another person that has a different practice and isn’t Wiccan that they have to abide by the rule of 3 is silly. Or that it’s all love and light and that if you do hex work or anything considered dark work you’re not a “real witch”. I try to tell myself it’s just because they haven’t delved in and seen there’s other people out there and that there’s cultural practices and it isn’t going to all look the same. There’s still practices that have been passed down through generations that aren’t shared for fear of mainstreaming. Everyone should just find their personal way of connection to what they’re looking for and be happy if others find what they are looking for even if we aren’t looking for the same thing.❤️
Love this video (I know I'm finding this video pretty late in the game, but oh well). I personally identify with "traditional witchcraft," but the reason I do is simply because I identify as more of an agnostic/omnist/universalist rather than believing in duotheism. I feel that, to refer to myself as Wiccan when I don't necessarily uphold the Lord and Lady as divine, is disingenuous. I don't look at Wiccans as being lesser witches, inauthentic, etc. (that would go against the aforementioned agnostic/omnist/universalist tendencies that I have), but witches that are simply using different means to the same end. I'd love to get other witches' thoughts on the matter since this comes up quite a bit.
You got me really think about this and I thought of some possibilities. But first, can you do a video about what you came up with in the end?
So, in this eagerness to discredit BTW, are they saying that, in contrast, they are genuinely reconstructing some 'Old Ways' whereas Gardner was a big liar? If so, what are their sources for these old ways? Or am I missing the point? Gardner always claimed he received his info from a coven with major lineage, right? So, if these authors who claim greater legitimacy are practising something which looks a lot like Wicca, maybe Gardner was telling the truth about that..
it would be better to think about what we have in common ,rather than looking for things that divide the community.in this way we advance our practice, devoid of distraction .Wicca is great , so is traditional lets get over the division . what was the inspiration and source for Gardner ...traditional ...blessed be sister
I practice witchcraft based on whatever ancient/old magical material is out there. I run a coven which is “traditional” and when I say that, i mean i practice Witchcraft as a religion of magic, and a mystery tradition. There was magic practiced in my Slavic and Greek parents/And parents/family , They weren’t witches, They were Christians who have held onto pagan charms and practices.
My Coven in Sydney is an initiatory Goetic coven, We certainly also embrace the practices Magia/Theurgia and advanced astrological talismanic magic as well; And we utilise many of the practices of Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Cochrane, Alex and Maxine Sanders, and the Farrars... but most of all, Paul Huson, Who is my favourite witch and author.
I have 3 Other members in my coven, who have successfully completed the seven-year training program. I’ve had about 12 other people attempt to become initiates, and they have failed. One of them I asked to leave. The other 11 Left of their own accord, because they could not handle the intensity of the training. Many are called, but few are chosen.
I make my comments and observations below from an objective standpoint, as I am neither Gardnerian nor Alexandrian. BUT I have huge respect for these traditions, As they are valid initiatory pathways in witchcraft.
I just want to make something very clear to people who practice any type of witchcraft and say that Gardnerian and Alexandrian witchcraft is not ‘real’ witchcraft. Stop being wankers and, um, maybe consider getting a university degree in linguistics (or indeed, in anything?). You Are extremely mistaken and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Firstly, the word Wicca Is simply the Anglo-Saxon word for a male witch (female is wicce). The word ‘wiccan’ means a ‘witch’. People who practice witchcraft with ANY English or Anglo-Saxon origin Cannot say that they are “not wiccan”, Because you are simply saying that you are ‘not a witch’. You’re just saying it in Anglo-Saxon English, instead of modern English.
People who say stupid things like that are demonstrating that they are very very sadly uneducated and you’re just embarrassing yourself, its very very pathetic, so don’t even bother.
Thorn is a real initiate of a proper line of Gardnerian Wicca. If anyone really has a problem with that, then they are simply projecting their inner inferiority complex towards her. I find this very amusing, And honestly feel quite embarrassed for people who say things like that. Really fkn dum, and stupid.
People who make stupid and uneducated comments like that would never ever be considered for a position in a Coven like mine, and I can assure you that mine is the real deal, and the members of my coven are wealthy and pretty high up when it comes to ...authority :)
Thorn, Your book is excellent, well done. You (and Brian Cain rock). If anyone is considering a proper initiatory path, which is a lot of hard work, believe me, Then consider reading both of these authors books. And don’t waste your time reading books that make slanderous statements Towards a true Gardnerian or Alexandrian initiate, these statements actually don’t make any sense.
Have a good day,
And keep safe from COVID19
🌹🔮🐉🔥☄️🙏✨🌚
Yes, I would not advise that anyone turn to Morgan for a history lesson. Largely because the material is without citation and the sources that Morgan does acknowledge are so limited.
I'm focusing on textual analysis. The project just doesn't allow for much more, given time constraints. Personally, I'd love to sit down and chat with all of these folks!
Just do what feels right to you.
Anyone that has been involved in Ceremonial magic or ritual magic,or The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,has basically done what Wicca is,witch was really a rebuilding of Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Freemasonry ,and ritual magic.Many people have done all of that before,and want to try a traditional path.It is not necessarily a jab at Wicca,some folks have done that path already,or just want a complete different experience.There are many types of witchcraft,Voodoun ,the Hindu witchcraft that is related to Gypsy witchcraft.So Wicca is one of many types
of magic and witchcraft.
You have an intellectual approach, and at the same time a wonderful energy. Would you ever be open to coaching/tutoring/initiating someone? I've done a range of reading, but I am ready to take the next step.
I think much of the reason why people say they're not Wiccan is because neo-Wicca is so different. Initiatory Wicca such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian do hold a lot in common with Traditional WItchcraft in my opinion.
Totally agree with you that the dynamic between Wicca and Traditional Witchcraft is fascinating. One of the things about Traditional Witchcraft which simultaneously attracts and repels me is the focus on 'darkness'. Sometimes I think it's almost as if Traditional Witchcraft is a practice that is informed by viewing witchcraft from the outside in - like someone watched Rosemary's Baby, read a bunch of witch trial records, and then decided that is the Real witchcraft.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand the great need to distinguish and/or validate your craft.; the main difference between Wicca and Witchcraft is the Rede itself. It is very true that "Traditional Witchcraft" is an initiatory system (in a lot of cases) that don't follow the rule of three or the Rede at all. However, what I do understand is that one of the main goals of the practice within magic(k) is to question and further understand the world on a greater level than just the material plain. Even in "Traditional Witchcraft", every practice would be different in some way, but would ultimately work towards that same goal. The point I am trying to make is that Witches and Wiccans (and the respective words for genderized counterparts) are both practitioners of the magical arts (however it is spelled withing one's tradition) just with differentiating views. However, neither is greater nor lesser than the other.
One thing to note, however, this is my personal opinion from my studies of both Wicca and how my practice calls The Old Ways. My family has a rich history in the occult (Especially Witchcraft) but has become a mostly Wiccan oriented majority. I originally started with Wicca then was re-initiated into our more traditional practices by my grandmother. I am sadly one of the few remaining "Traditional Witches" in my family, but I have never considered my Wiccan kin to be "lesser" in their craft. I just feel that the practice I am currently studding has a deeper connection to me and allows me to keep in touch with my roots.
This is, however, a very interesting topic and I would love to hear your final findings on this subject. If that is okay with you?
@Alice Fox and I would love to hear more from YOU! You should make a UA-cam channel yourself and share your amazing knowledge ♡♡♡
Blessed be Sister
-Ashley Roup
Working on uploading a partial response to you, and part to Annika's vid she posted. I learned not to try and squeeze 2 together! Plus my IPad ran out of memory so it cuts short...I know I'll need to do it "over" to expand (part 2 LOL)
I think the reason this sprang up was because of attitude. The fact that certain writers were trying to "namby-pambyize" the Craft. Taking The Craft seriously is in my opinion, very traditional. And I would take exception to groups cutting out magick or focusing just on religion or trying to make The Craft seem like a mystical variety of Buddhism. However, I agree with you that in comparison there is no great differences between Witchcraft and Wicca. There would be between Witchcraft and Paganism, though. I mean, using a cauldron instead of a chalice and calling yourself "traditional," or cutting out four sabbats because they seem more Saxon than Celtic. I really had to laugh at one writer who insisted that for your magickal tools you should use a drinking horn instead of a chalice because it's more "Pagan," then turn around and says you should a chain swing censer which is used in Christian churches!
The use of a drinking horn actually is of a heathen nature..
so they're getting heathenry confused with wicca
Whoops iPad messed up. I've also noticed that Traditional Witches also mistake folk magic for witchcraft. Balkan Traditional Witchcraft by Radomir Ristic describes folk magic practiced in all Slavic countries.
Largely the latter, though they will say both. Most of the traditional witches I'm reading fail to make a distinction. I would argue that "traditional witchcraft" looks more like Gardnerian Wicca (in terms of structure and content, at least superficially) than either resemble "eclectic" Wicca (which is where we see the Rede, the Threefold Law, and all of the "white light" that trad folks of both varieties complain about). Hope you've been well, Anni!
I just like the word; staaaalking! ;) Anyway, the Crowley picture with the pillow was so hilarious! :D
First of all, I have to say that you can't lump together everything that is called, or calls itself Traditional Witchcraft as one homogeneous thing. It isn't and it is something very diverse. Certainly some claimants to tradition are out and out phonies, they are quite likely to attack Wicca as that seems like the authentically traditional sort of thing to do. I can state that what I do, as a practitioner of 1734, is not very much like Wicca either in forms of practice or in beliefs. I know this because, before I got involved in 1734 I was received both Alexandrian and Gardnerian initiations. I need to clarify that MY form of 1734 owes little to Wicca, whereas some other branches of our stream are much closer in at least ritual form. However, none of us would wish to disparage Wicca. In most ways challenging Wicca would seem irrelevant, except in one way; it has become the public perception of what witchcraft is, and too often wiccans assume that every witch subscribes to wiccan beliefs. So it is not Wicca itself that needs to be challenged, but some assumptions about it and the assumptions of some, not all, wiccans. I also think it right to challenge the so-called traditionals who would dismiss Wicca wholesale, often with very little knowledge or understanding of it, or indeed their own craft.
Did your work ever get published or are you still working on it? I found this video, by accident but your premise has me intrigued and I'd love to read what you've found.
This made me curious, after you read all of them, what is your conclusion and what you could say about trad.craft books from wiccan-gardnerian perspective. Please take it unto consideration to make such a video in a future :3 #bookworm #reviewthemplease
Funny fact . Christian day has been initiated in alexandrian witchcraft so now he's a wiccan =))))))))))
Wait...so he wasn't Wiccan before?
@@KyngofJewel no. He wasn't. He was making fun of wicca and wiccans years ago
@@allexandruned.3666 Well now that makes sense. He's in a lot of dispute with most of my Facebook friends who are also authors of various traditions. I think he has some psychological issues to deal with.
well, I think one thing you are missing is gardnarian wicca changed from when he had the coven to when the farrars were initiated, when gardner had it, it was close to a traditonal witchaft coven. Also, as opposed to the wiccan rede, I would say many traditional witches use the"web of wyrd" aka taking responsibility for your actions and realizing your action will effect other situations, like throwing a stone in a pool of water.
The Farrars were never initiated into Gardnerian Wicca. They've been very influential in eclectic circles, no doubt, but it's relatively easy to pick out the impact they've made. I can assure you that there are Gards out there who are working to preserve the tradition as originally practiced. What people think of as the "Wiccan Rede" is not part of the original tradition. Certainly there are elements of something similar for some individuals (I'm not one of them), but by and large we're doing just as much "taking responsibility for your actions" as anyone.
drawingKenaz actually janet farrar was! that was how she claimed lineage for her and stewarts line.
David Brookes Janet was initiated into the Alexandrian tradition (and pretty publicly), and subsequently Stewart. To my knowledge, neither has ever claimed a Gardnerian lineage. Can you send me a source to reference? I'm going to go poke around now.
***** Sanders was initiated, that's correct, but he did not achieve third and was never a Gardnerian HP, so I think that might be a bit of a stretch. I've only met a handful of Alexandrians over the years, but my experience is that they aren't necessarily concerned about establishing that connection to Gardner (since they're so well-established on their own). My original point was only that it's insufficient to draw conclusions about Gardnerian Wicca based on the work of the Farrars, which I do think is fair.
But maybe there's an Alexandrian here that can comment? This is starting to trod into landscapes beyond any kind of authority I might have. Thank you for commenting, Holly!
In my line (of Gardnerian Wicca), only thirds can initiate. I don't know how we compare in terms of numbers! I'm sure it depends on where you are!
Its my first VR and I think the first on a more "serious" topic, so I'm excited, and nervous! Seems to be a trend in my life lately.
I've been looking for non-wiccan reads. This video was helpful, thank you!
A bit of both, I've found. Michael Howard, for example, claims a Gardnerian lineage (I don't say "claims" because I doubt him, only that it's not something I can personally verify). Peter Paddon claims an Alexandrian lineage. But many others, from what I can tell, are working off of what they've read about Wicca or what they've experienced in Wiccan and Pagan communities (Ann Finnin comes to mind here).
This a few years old this video. So to up date the info. Michael Howard passed away in 2015. He was initiated into Gardnerian Wicca in the mid 1960s. He was also in the OTO with Andrew Chumbley & knew Kenneth Grant. And a member of Chumbleys group the Cultus Sabbati. He was the author of Pagan magazine The Cauldron from the 1970s. Ill be hanging on to my copies as they're pretty rare now. He was a major force in the British occult scene. Check out his wiki page.
Oh wow! Thanks! I don't think it counts as stalking anymore, though. :)
Glad to help! There's a lot of material out there now. You might consider checking out Capall Bann's website for their complete catalogue. Moon Books also publishes several non-Wicca witchcraft titles.
Thanks! And you're totally right. But Gardner really doesn't tell us much more (and I haven't been able to read the book he's referring to myself). We get the idea of the Rede, but not the exact phrasing or the centrality that gets ascribed to it later. One of these days I'd like to sit down and research this more.
Damn it I want to read this thesis :(.
I think you're correct: it's rooted in age. Well, and I think that's largely the trad Wiccan argument against traditional witchcraft as somehow more authentic. The Gardnerian can always come out and say, "Yeah, but you don't even know what Wicca is because you're not an initiate." I would argue, either way, that both are derived largely from the same sources and overlap is apparent.
Hi Tara! Thank you! That's very sweet. I'm in religious studies, and specifically American religious history. Puritans and all that. It's pretty cool because I get to do stuff with Wicca, too. Yay Oliver!
If you are still in your research phase you may wish to contact Jon Hanna. He wrote Innovative Trends in Post-Gardnerian Witchcraft and may be able to recommend some sources. He can be reached via A&J.
BB,
Dave
I don't consider Gardnerianism to be "Wicca" because as Mike Howard points out in Modern Wicca, that word or spelling was originally used in the 1960's and 70's by people who wanted to distance themselves from Gerald Gardner.
I also really don't see where Mike Howard has tried to distance himself from, or cast shade on Gardnerianism. If anything, I see him as the defender of Gardnerianism as a form of 'traditional witchcraft', and kind of as the bridge between the two. I mean, this is a man who claimed up until his death, that he knew practitioners of the form of witchcraft that Gerald was initiated into.
If you really want to know why there are so many 'traditional witches' around these days who want to distance themselves from Neopagan Wicca, I think that's fairly obvious. Gerald *never* believed that you could teach yourself to be a witch, out of books or whatever. He may have been at odds with much of English witchcraft up until that point in this belief, but it's what he believed just the same. Raymond Buckland was the one who suggested that such a thing was possible, simply by publishing a book about how to practice on your own. What happened next was that a huge cottage industry was born, with people writing books on Neopagan Witchcraft. Llewellyn in particular became the largest purveyor of these books, written by people who had some connection, sometimes direct and often tenuous, to Gardnerianism or another form of British Traditional Witchcraft. Then of course came all of the people who mostly lifted their core ideas from Gardner, whilst claiming to have some connection to some form of witchcraft before Gardner.
Clearly, Cochrane was a bit pathological, and not just in his hatred for Gardner and Gardnerians but just in general. At the same time, I find many of his ideas fascinating.
At any rate, to move along a bit into the historical narrative, we then get people attaching themselves to ideas like the "threefold law of return" which was obviously gleaned from one of Gerald's novels, but has nothing to do with Gardnerianism per se. Basically, from the 1960's til the late 1990's you get more and more of the "new age" type of wicca & neopaganism. Because we commonly refer to this as Wicca, and what Gerald Gardner did, as Wicca, the two get conflated and Gerald is somehow blamed for what "wicca" became in the minds of most people. Robert Cochrane's insistence on the existence of a "traditional witchcraft" which pre-dates Gardner and has nothing to do with Gardner or what he practiced, just gave a lot of people a convenient bandwagon to hop onto, when they are pouring out their hatred onto 'Wicca'. I would contend that most people who now call themselves "Traditional Witches" at this point don't actually have much of an idea of any of this history, or who Robert Cochrane was. I think a lot of them are actually just Neopagans or even Wiccan-ish, and just don't want to be associated with the post-hippie era new age Neopagan Wicca stuff, which again, gets conflated with Gerald Gardner's material. Maybe they use a bit of folk magic and in their minds that makes them traditional witches, or something. If that's the case, then they aren't necessarily wrong... it's just that the whole terminology is completely confusing and downright stupid at this point, and to a large extent, Cochrane is to blame.
On the other hand, it's fairly obvious to me from the historical record, that there is other witchcraft (traditional witchcraft if you like) which pre-dates Gardnerian Witchcraft, and that it was quite available in England when Gerald was alive. If you read Gemma Gary's books for example, she writes tome upon tome of folk spells, often involving Christian or Biblical charms, and material adapted from grimoires to folk magical purposes. I personally find this material to be rather dull after a while, because no matter how "traditional" and extremely cornish it may be, it's basically about doing magic to get stuff you want, curse your enemies, or heal your cow. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can write their own stuff for that, and even if that weren't true, how much of it can you really use? That's what traditional witchcraft mostly means to me. Gerald could've taken an interest in this witchcraft, but he didn't, which I think is interesting in itself.
On the other hand, I love books by Andrew Chumbley, Daniel Schulke, Shani Oates etc. which speak of something more mystical and transcendental. This is just my own preference. It's also the main reason why I like Gardnerianism. I would love to see a time when Gardnerians stop identifying with the "Neopagan Movement" and have more dialogue with practitioners of these types of witchcraft, and for Traditional Witches quit conflating the works of Gardner with what I'll call post-hippie-era neopaganism.
Sounds like Cochrane was very frustrated character in some ways. But he was very genuine in his life work.
@@redstar7292 That's exactly how it seems to me. What I know of his work, as a non-member of one of the branches of his craft, seems to be very inspired. I find it incredibly fascinating.
I have a Greek thing rather than their Luciferian strain. ..but it is very inspired I agree. I love Evan Jones & ShanI Oates. There writing about general pagan subjects certain dieties or certain seasonal sabbats are fantastic.
I agree with you towards the witches who call themselves "traditional witches" just to distance themselves from Wicca. I noticed that most of them would justify the label they put on themselves using excuses like "the Witchcraft we practice is from the old country" and things like that. Most non Wiccans I know either call themselves these days a Eclectic witch or use their ethnic label plus the word witch (e.g. Chinese witch, Italian witch, Japanese witch, just to name a few). Also much as I admire Cochrane's work his attitude towards wicca is 🙄.
@@KyngofJewel + 1 . it doesn't seem to be really understood, what Cochranian Witchcraft is about, nor Gardnerian, might be about, for that matter. Its seen at a surface level that trad w/c seems more hardcore, spookier, than Wicca in it's style. But it's been compared to the pop, book read Wicca stuff. People like this may get a bit disappointed at the lack of how to spell books. Some are also setting themselves up as experts, when - they should just say, they have an interest in it.
I know this is an old video, but I have some thoughts I want to share. I do find this an interesting subject. Perhaps, this backlash of some witches saying Wicca is not authentic arises from a need to feel acknowledged. I remember 20 plus years ago that every time I would go to a pagan gathering someone there would ask my tradition, my initiators, etc. Something that may be necessary when certain groups are working together, but not necessary for general open gatherings. (I don't know how these things go now, as I have not been to a public gathering in at least 20 years.) That approach did lead many solitaries and eclectics (as called at that time) to feel "less than". I think that individuals approaching the Craft should be able to acknowledge their own experiences without having to put down other groups. I know from reading current issues in modern paganism, that my thoughts about this are outdated, but I think that these things may have grown to produce the climate you are speaking of.
It seems that up until a few years there was a lot of elitism in the pagan community. And the people who didnt follow certian rule got shunned a bit. As though they werent doing it right. Even know there seems to be a lot of tension, between the older people and younger of the pagan community. Like we are constantly being tested or something, or being seen as doing something wrong. But things have changed. Also most books widely available a few years ago were mainly wiccan oriented. And that isnt alway what someone is looking for. Since it is more of a religious method practising witchcraft. And even if you look at a lot of books coming out nowadays. With the title witchcraft. They are still heavily wiccan based.
You strike me as being open minded, very honest, very real. I trust you. totally.
In my opinion Gramassi's Old World ... book was just Wicca dressed in Traditional clothing in order to get in on the new fad.
It's all authentic really, and I feel over defensiveness shows an insecurity about one's practice. Anyway nice research.
Oh, thank gods! I didn't want Oliver to think I was a creeper.
Honestly; I think it boils down to one thing. "My tradition is older than yours".
When it comes to the craft, people want to be using the oldest form. The second that something comes up claiming to be more ancient, people will automatically believe it is better. I have always seen Wicca as a progressive spiritual path that can evolve. A perfect example of this is the removal of homophobia as new traditions form.
In several letters from G. Gardner to A. Sanders there was much about how homosexuality went against the natural polarity etc~ but then newer forms like R. Buckland's Seax-wica explains that homosexuality is okay because we all have god and goddess energy within us.
Witches love old stuff. that's it. lol. Can't wait to hear your further thoughts on this topic. BB
Very interesting. I never knew that the rede and the threefold law haven’t been a part of Wicca from the start. Women of my family have always done divination and folk magic that was part of our culture and space where we live (countries of former yugoslavia) as well ad muslim religion - prayers were used as spells for different purposes, as well as there is a lot of cursing and hexing. I never considered myself a muslim in reality, I was always more inclined towards paganism, nature, i was naturally connected to the earth around me, so when I found out about Wicca i delved into it and “started off” with that and later on I returned to my roots in a sense of searching for the magick that resides in my bloodline and the lands of my ancestors. I still like Wiccan structure, I celebrate the sabbats and connect them to the traditional rodnovery pagan celebrations from our yugo slavic people because there is A TON 😄 So I let those intermingle and just call myself a Witch.
I will admit to having fallen into lazy patterns and not having read some of the works you mention. So my question is coming from that place of ignorance. But are those who are working hard to disassociate their selves from "Wicca" separating their selves from what it has been morphing into ... or are they separating their selves from those who still practice it in traditional covens? ~ Anni ~
Blessed be!
Found Serpent Songs to be an interesting book.
My apologies on the perceived "New Age"-Wicca slight. Was not my intention. I have nothing, and can see nothing, against Gardnerian and Alexandrian initiatory Witchcraft. I do have a lot of critiques, valid I think, of the New Age Wicca peddled in books as anything that resembles actual Witchcraft.
I think the two works by Emma Wilby are fantastic and on-point. I myself come from Victor Anderson's lineage of Old Craft, sometimes called the Faery tradition or Kruithen or Wicia, to add further confusion between the "kinds" of Craft that are TW and Wicca, in much the same way that some Old Crafters use "Wytcha" to refer to their practice.
I find a lot of parallels between the practices of my Alexandrian fellows and the kind of Craft I practice. And yet, many emphases are different. Whereas The Lord and The Lady of Wicca appear in that practice, TW tends to have a "Sacred Four" pattern-Grandfatherly and Grandmotherly beings and the Venusian "Witchmother" and Mercurial "Witchfather" spiritual beings who are the daughter-self and the son-self, respectively, of the former. The primacy of Fate as the Grandmotherly supreme source of all things, the Pale-Faced Woman of folklore, and the dark and fiery Grandfather Time figure similar to Woden/Odin.
For me, regarding the "motivation" piece-the aesthetic in TW as I have seen it tends to lend itself to the mythos of a "calling" or "being born a witch"-with lots of talk of the "witch blood"-It has a focus on the Craft being a form of necromantic seership. The Dead are given a primacy, along with a recognition of the Creative Force being inherently sexual and erotic, and actively engaging that as part of practice; you might say that the "active streams" within Old Craft are Mercurial, Venusian, and Saturnian (which harken to the frequent use of the colors White, Red, and Black). It tends towards frenzied and ecstatic practice and the flight of the soul from the body to experience the Sabbat, sharing meals with the Dead/Ancestral Host, being inter-relational with the locality of spiritual ecology, and acting as an agent of Fate Herself, in much the same way that Wilby writes of Isobel Gowdie and her coven.
No apologies necessary! Just wanted to make sure I was on the same page with you before swapping ideas. And I would guess that many of our critiques of what we're calling New Age Wicca are the same (though I've never been willing to go so far as to personally make judgments regarding an inherent, real, essential witchcraft).
Yes, I see what you mean now, I think. We certainly do have different gods and spirits (I've always thought of this as akin to something like a tribal difference, though I'm sure that's oversimplifying), and I think our relationships with them are different (at least, I can speak for myself and my own group). And while I can't speak for All Gardnerians Everywhere in terms of actual, individual coven practice, I think there's a lot of overlap in the kind of emphasis on the ecstatic that you discuss. Yes, we have a specific ritual form (which is nonetheless ecstatic), but it's been observed that Wicca is fundamentally about sex and death and I think this is accurate. There are also similar conversations regarding the dead and commensality, if not so much where Fate is concerned (I think you're right about that). [Though I will say that there is an emphasis in some strands of Gardnerian Craft about being called or born to witchcraft (Gardner was himself of this mindset, near as I can tell), as you mention.]
The way see it, more and more, is that we have a lot more in common with each other than either does with what usually passes for Wicca. And this is probably why there's always been so much tension between the two camps. We're different enough that we don't often care to be mentioned in the same sentence, but similar enough that we find it worth arguing about. I just see a lot more overlap than not, myself (though, as can be said on both sides, I'm not any kind of initiate/insider into your tradition, so there's only so much I can ever know). I'd just rather be friends than not.
Yeah, I love Wilby, too. :) Really fascinating and useful stuff. (And thanks for your very thoughtful comments!)
Great! I look forward to it.
Two branches of the same tree
Former. Largely the former. My brain turned off.
Many New Religious Movements start out as "oppositional"; that is, they spend more time describing themselves in terms of what they are not - the mainstream - than what they are. Wicca only stopped being oppositional about 15 years ago. Now, as new Craft movements arise, they too start out as oppositional, but this time around Gardnerian Craft is the "mainsteam" against which they define themselves. It's all just growing pains.
Don Frew (30 year Gardnerian initiate)
I didnt realize this kind of social pattern existed. Thanks.
okay 2nd VR... but it's been 10 months since the last one LOL
Terrific to have to back!
thank you good thought's
There is a smiliar rift within Druidry. There are Reconstructionist groups who claim that only those who are trying to be priests worshipping the same way the ancient Celts were (or as closely as can be managed) should be allowed to call themselves "Druids". There is a lot of the same claims to bloodlines and knowledge secretly passed down through the ages. Not sure how much is in the literature, but it comes up in the forums constantly.
Oddly enough this mostly seems to be Americans, the British seem to be much less uptight about titles, lineage, and arguing about "The One True Way".
People crying about lineage and practicing like the ancients as if the ancients weren't just people like you and I. Lol. I'm spiritual. So what I do is authentic to me and for me. I can study traditions but I certainly would never follow and mimic them like what they did is the only way. That's ridiculous. Their ways are a guide only. Today is the authentic way.
Are some of these witches, in the end, setting their selves as separate from something they have no or limited knowledge of? Or they have knowledge only of what the uninformed have made of it? Do they claim to have been initiated into, for example, a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven? Or are they working off of hearsay (that is what it seems to me). This really is fascinating. I hope that the work you are doing for your thesis will become part of our community's shared knowledge base.
Greetings, keep up the study. I have a lot of respect for our founders. Most people who criticize them never created anything .It is my deepest belief that true paganism can be found around the world and in history. True power and sight is given as a gift at birth to all in measure. The gods reside in us as much as in nature. Religion wants control of that. Religion is but garments and jewelry that we choose to wear . Communion with the forces that they attempt to explain to us is found freely within us. Traditions are as important as clothes we wear.
I would call my self a Traditional Witch, to distance myself from this New Age Wicca after the turn of the millennium. In the core i walk the luciferian Tradition, with strong chaos magic influences, but i always stay fixed in the luciferian core, and this includes (some etruscan, italian, roman, greek, Topics).
I see a lot of similarities between the books of Michael Howard, Nigel Jackson, and of course Raven Grimassi, but also a little bit Nigel G. Pearson. If someone here is really interested in my personal explanation about the differences between modern Wicca and the ''Traditional'' Witchcraft, give this comment a thumb up or leave a comment, with 'Yes'.
I am interested! I am starting to explore this path but get annoyed at the new age washing these topics. I have my own prejudices and tend to think of new age and all it touches as pseudo spirituality, like they are treating you as a child and everything has to have positive energies and you must open your chakras... And I don't find anything meaningful in that. So different points of view are welcomed
@@noe2005 Hey, we can write in skype or discord, do you have one of this things?
Maybe Wicca is going through the same thing that Christianity went through in the Middle Ages when Calvin and Martin Luther entered the scene. Perhaps the traditional Garnarian (hope I spelled that right) Wicca is the Roman Catholic equivalent. Things are happening faster due to our world wide media stream.
Hi just wanted to say any true witch is too busy to be bothered with it i am an Alexandrian witch and priestess i was also a gardnerian, there are differences and the newer traditions are nothing like these, its a bit like chinese whispers but in my tradiition we dont think of ourselves as wiccans and we are certainly not fluffy bunnies its hard work and study and a way of life people will always want to be beter than others and lets face it some are very judgemental its something you have to experience not just talk about
also you might enjoy reading biographies a good one is Firechild by Maxine sanders you get insight into what its really about Alex sanders wrote some good stuff too, keep an open mind and explore hope you find what your looking for blessiings
Vid is up now, since I can only "officially" link to ONE video...lame
As a traditional witch, I agree and disagree. Not by opinion but by fact. Both , assuming wicca as in what the creator of wicca meant it to be, not how it has evolved, are practiced very differently. I do not feel like one is better or bigger than the other but there are differences and as long as there are differences there will be debate. I mean this most respectfully. Everyone should follow the path best for them. After all we are all brothers and sisters of the world. :)
Just started stalking you on instagram. Totally inspirational and awesome! :D
A lot of people drawn to the "witch" label are super contrarian but not necessarily very creative.
Sounds as if Raven Grimassi were jealous of Gerald Gardner for achieving what I myself tend to call, the Rebirth of Witchcraft. If Grimassi wants to starts his own type of Witchcraft then so be it let him do that, but he or none of his followers have the right to dismiss something like Gardnerian Wicca or vice versa. I have read various books saying how a Witch practices the craft as he or she wishes. Others that a Witch bows to no gods or goddesses but works with them as an equal. Others that they must worship the two deities while some say that they are Atheist Wiccans. This is where I stop and observe. drawingKenaz Can you help me out on this?
The reality is that no one owns the term "witchcraft," so arguments can be made for practically any definition. My strategy is usually to ask people what they mean when they use the term and then give them the benefit of the doubt. I've met all sorts of people with wildly divergent beliefs and practices claiming the word "witch" over the years, which is one of the reasons why I think it's so silly to argue so heatedly about it (as you can see from the many comments to this video). Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
They are all using the term "traditional" to mean long-established.But on the Wicca bit of it..ask actual covened British Traditional Wiccans and they will for the most part tell you that what people do in the states is not Wicca.There may be some things that are shared as you said but that does not make it the same thing.I happen to agree with that.Its almost cultural appropriation just like adding Native American elements to your practice if you are not Native and things along that line.
Great! Will do!
Interesting video, Thorn. I
From outsiders point of view I would say that it just might to have something to do with the fact that Wiccan is viewed in some degree as an "teenage girl religion" and those people who are attacking toward it are trying to claim some sort of credibility from detaching them self from Wicca. Of course this is an completely uneducated pondering on the issue I don't have enough knowledge on the matter.
+Janne Probably should of remained silent?
My point was that most of the time defencive people are the most offensive.
And my intent was not to offend wicca or make any claims towards them being less real. I Was writing maybe bit too broadly. For me that those writers talking wicca down have just low self esteem. And for that realization you don't need to be part of either tradition.
Scientiae Magicae he doesn't need to keep silent, this is a public comment section so please don't be rude to anyone because they have a different opinion. Let me guess are you wiccan?
Janne hey man, no matter what someone is gonna get offended, I totally see your point of view, and I want to apologize for the rude person behind the keyboard above you that said to keep silent. You don't have to validate yourself to them. They mean nothing to ya :) blessings
Would you consider Lee Morgan's book a reasonably accurate summary or something to avoided by people looking for facts?
The "traditionalists" may be "amoral", but doesn't mean they're not angry. Even pathologically angry. Yikes.
Does your study allow you to contact these various authors and essentially interview them? Or are you limited to pre-existing material?
hweres the 1 hwere u heep mentioning the hwerwwzzs ?,”?
Ugh. I can't stand people who represent traditional witchcraft dogging anyone else. Nothing is more authentic than anything else. Everyone has different viewpoints and experiences.
Ancient witchcraft!!
Interesting video. I'm not really a fan of Wicca, at times it can seem a little pretentious, at other times, aggravatingly so. Like Laurie Cabot in her book, Power of the Witch, who wrote of her coven, going to shop owners during October, trying to discourage them from using the classic, green-face, Halloween witch in their store decorations or how they protested the making of the movie, The Witches of Eastwick, sending each of the actresses in the film, "information packets," explaining to them the folly of their ways.
Give me a break!. The world has had it's ideas about what a witch is, long before Wicca came along. One wonders, who died and made it the new authority on the subject?
However, even Wicca is composed of individuals and if you ask me, that's the determining factor of authenticity. If you bought it with your own, blood, sweat and tears that's a reality no one can take away.
Just seems like the same 'true Scottsman' BS I had to listen to growing up in a church when Christians argued over who was Really going to heaven.
@@xrystiana3507 That’s mostly all it is, yes!
Thorn, why don't you pronounce the V in De Vries as a F ? It may help.
I don't think of Traditional Witchcraft as any more or less ancient or authentic than Wicca, but it IS and altogether different flavor of the Craft. Forgive me but I can't imagine a modern Wiccan taking flying ointments to fly to the Sabbath and make a pact with the Witch Father. Yes they're similar, there is a Lord and Lady, but the Queen of Elphame and the Man in Black are of a very different understanding of them? I don't think there's an enormous different except perhaps superficially? Traditional witchcraft seems more earthy, and cthonic in nature?
I respect the old European faith but not really like wicca, I find it just a "school for beginners." My critical view makes sense to you?
Good study of all the phony "traditional" nonsense
Why is it nonsense?
Hi, I think you are trying to hard I studied the craft for over 20 years, Im a christian now. but wicca is a new age term to make non witches feel more comfortable. I think you might look into laurie cabot on line, her definition as I recall was excellent, Ive met several of the people you spoke of. throw away most of the new books written in the 90s they are deceiving and only do it for the money, read all the oldies. I hope you rediscover christianity someday. witcraft is filled with confusion
Yay, Christianity is so Pagan! 🏛️