was it really witchcraft?

[Ben Gruagach]

I was reading a thread about witchcraft on another messageboard and one poster stated that their particular tradition wasn't called witchcraft at all until Gardner started popularizing things, after which practitioners of said tradition decided to start calling themselves witches.

My question is this: were they really witches at all then if they didn't "realize" it until Gardner's promotion of the topic?

What do people think? Is it fair to retroactively define something like that? Is it fundamentally honest?

(Note: whether or not a particular system works or is meaningful has little or nothing to do with the labels they might or might not assume. I'm not saying that a denomination is invalid because of confusion regarding labels.)

[Phoenix Blue]

What do people think? Is it fair to retroactively define something like that? Is it fundamentally honest?
Consider the context: Witchcraft was illegal in the U.K. until 1951, so it wouldn't have been safe to call oneself a witch until about the same time Gardner did.

[Nox_Mortus]

Consider the context: Witchcraft was illegal in the U.K. until 1951, so it wouldn't have been safe to call oneself a witch until about the same time Gardner did.

the laws in question referred more to fake psychics (maybe some real ones too, since secular governments tend to not acknowledge things like psychic ability), and wasn't enforced very often. I really think people put to much stock into using that as an excuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Act#1735_Act

as for the question, since im not one of those people who claims that wicca and witchcraft are the same thing (regardless of etymology) i'd say they could call themselves witches if they wanted to.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm not sure that the argument works that they didn't call themselves witches because of anti-witchcraft laws. That only applies to being public -- why would those who are witches not even use the word privately in their own secret groups?

[Lolair]

I guess if we were getting into the nitty gritty of definitions, what I practice isn't so much witchcraft as it is folk-magic and folk-belief, superstitions and traditions etc. I would describe a lot of my friends as witches and witchcraft practitioners, but I do know some that call themselves witches that are essentially pagan with no real "craft" aspects to their path. It can get pretty confusing at times, but if the practitioner understands what their own path is I don't think it matters to much how other people define or label it.

[ladyraven]

I know that certain family members of mine, as well as who we were taught everything by, don't and have never called it witchcraft. It's just the old way. If you were to tell them they were practicing witchcraft they'd freak out and tell you how they weren't doing such things, but to be it is, since I've looked for more than what I was taught.

I think there are certain practices that took place and since they didn't fit with the ideas of what had been put out there to be witchcraft then they didn't recognize it as such since all the myths and books about witchcraft were written by people who didn't know anything about the craft. When Gardner put out his ideas on Wicca and witchcraft, then others realized that what they were doing was simular and therefore could be considered as witchcraft, so they decided to call themselves witches.

[Lunar Raven]

I'm not sure I understand this thread. The terms "witch" and "witchcraft" existed long before Gardner. He did not create these terms.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm not sure I understand this thread. The terms "witch" and "witchcraft" existed long before Gardner. He did not create these terms.

I know Gardner didn't invent the terms witch or witchcraft or even Wicca.

However, it is true that some denominations of modern witchcraft didn't self-identify as witches until after Gardner started popularizing witchcraft. These groups claim to have existed before Gardner. If they weren't witches before Gardner came along, then why should these same denominations be witches after?

What does it really mean when people relabel something that's been around for years?

Just as a silly example, what if I started going around saying that any sugary candy is called "chocolate" regardless if it contains any cocoa products at all, and my new label became popular? What if candy-makers who do not use cocoa products decided to join in with the new label and started telling everyone that their candies are chocolate too? Does that mean that non-cocoa candies throughout all history, even before I started promoting my new label, were really chocolate, even though they didn't have cocoa products in them? Were those old-time non-cocoa candies really chocolate even if the candy-makers didn't call them that, and would have denied they were chocolate if you had asked them back then?

[LadyCelt]

I was going to make a post, but I think this would work here. Did people even call themselves "witches" in the past? I was wondering if they were called witches or their practice was called witchcraft of if that came later? thanks

[Ben Gruagach]

I was going to make a post, but I think this would work here. Did people even call themselves "witches" in the past? I was wondering if they were called witches or their practice was called witchcraft of if that came later? thanks


That's the core of this thread -- at least some groups that now call themselves Witches (or even Wiccans) apparently didn't call themselves that at all prior to Gerald Gardner's promotion of witchcraft and Wicca. Before Gardner's involvement, most of these groups were quite adamant that they were not witches and would take offense to be called witches.

What do you think? Does it make sense to retroactively declare something witchcraft like that?

[LadyCelt]

^^^^ Well, I'm a Christian. So, besides (possibly) once a while ago, I can't say I have experience in practicing magic etc. I don't know when the term witch came. Because I know with the killings and trials, there was a concept of witches ad witchcraft. But, I don't know just how and when it went from being a part of who people were to a label (if that makes sense.)

I don't know why they'd take offense to peopel now calling themselves witches. But, maybe because it is so hard to know just what was what etc from the past.

[Elderbush]

I think that it is even a wider question. Folk magic is something practiced by many people regardless of religion and folk practices are handed down in families. They did not call themselves witches or what they were doing witchcraft and would be aghast that people now are calling them "witches". I'm thinking of my mother as an example. She taught me folk magic but it was no big deal, just a way to solve certain problems, something that had a word of mouth success rate.

As for groups that called *themselves* witches after Gardner, as long as they aren't calling other people witches, it is just embracing a new name. I think it is unethical however to label people who would reject the term "witch" witches because they would not in a million years self-identify as such. Am I missing your point, Ben?

[Ben Gruagach]

I think that it is even a wider question. Folk magic is something practiced by many people regardless of religion and folk practices are handed down in families. They did not call themselves witches or what they were doing witchcraft and would be aghast that people now are calling them "witches". I'm thinking of my mother as an example. She taught me folk magic but it was no big deal, just a way to solve certain problems, something that had a word of mouth success rate.

As for groups that called *themselves* witches after Gardner, as long as they aren't calling other people witches, it is just embracing a new name. I think it is unethical however to label people who would reject the term "witch" witches because they would not in a million years self-identify as such. Am I missing your point, Ben?

I'm asking this question for a couple of reasons. One is that in discussions on another forum Lugh (the guy responsible for "The Pickingill Papers" and the main promoter of the Pickingill-as-pre-Gardnerian-witch-leader claim) stated the following:

Many English witches - but not all - used an umbrella term for themselves - the People. The word witch was not used until the Gardnerian era.
(Note: This is at the end of message #243 by Lugh over here (http://www.pagan-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=19416.240), where Lugh is using the pseudonym Barbarosa.)

Lugh's post there isn't the first place I've seen it said that Gardner's influence was what prompted some pre-Gardnerian Pagan practitioners to decide that they were really Witches after all despite prior rejections of that title. Chas Clifton talks about it in North America in his book "Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca and Paganism in America."

The other thing that prompted me to ask these questions was the confusing history that some people elaborate with regards to Wicca and witchcraft. Sometimes the pre-Gardnerian figures that are brought out as proof of Wicca-like witchcraft are these very practitioners who apparently didn't know they were witches until after Gardner suggested the idea. It just seems to me that the historical claims are a bit circular.

I don't question the validity of any of these practices of course -- I just wonder about whether confusion regarding what is and isn't historical witchcraft is contributing to the "watering down" of Wicca and other forms of witchcraft as well as pre-Gardnerian historically solid witchcraft.

[Faol-chù]

What do you think? Does it make sense to retroactively declare something witchcraft like that?


In a word, NO!

:)