THE MEANING OF
WITCHCRAFT
By
G. B. GARDNER
Introduction
by
Dr. Leo Louis Martello
MAGICKAL CHILDE, INC. 35 W. 19th St.

GARDNER
GRAND OLD MAN OF WITCHCRAFT By
DR. LEO LOUIS MARTELLO
Gerald B. Gardner’s biography has been published many times, including a chapter on him in my own Witchcraft: The Old Religion. For the record his first Craft book was High Magic’s Aid published in 1949, a self-published work. His second was Witchcraft Today in 1954 and his last was The Meaning of Witchcraft, 1959, five years before his death. Prior to these he had written A Goddess Arrives, 1948, and Keris and Other Malay Weapons, 1936. The latter and High Magic’s Aid were published under his pen-name of Scire.
In Witchcraft Today the Bibliography has no listing of Charles Godfrey Leland and in this book he lists only Leland’s Gypsy Sorcery. Yet a careful study of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows reveals that many passages were copied directly from Leland’s Aradia. The secret name of the Goddess used in Gardnerian rites is also most revealing. His new converts shed lots of heat but not too much light, especially in view of all the hagiographical hogwash written about him. Those converts who saw the light preferred to keep others in the dark. This is characteristic of all new converts to any faith. And today none of this matters as the Craft... The Old Religion... Paganism has grown and expanded worldwide where the myths of the past, the factual inconsistencies, the claims and counterclaims fade into insignificance. The stress is on spontaneity rather than rigid rituals.

Gardner was the apostle of modern Witchcraft, whether he was ever given a third degree initiation or not. And many who have claimed to be “Traditional” or “Hereditary” as opposed to “Gardnerian,” give themselves away by both the rites and the "tools” used in their ceremonies, traceable to Gardner’s influence. If Gardner published his books without permission from his High Priestess there are thousands today who can be grateful that he did. Ditto Alex Sanders whose Book of Shadows is a direct replica of Gardner’s, with minor variations. The point is that if one is not initiated into a genuine coven, that doesn’t make their initiation invalid. Attraction to the craft is an inner calling and even self-initiations are valid. As I’ve said many times, an initiation depends more on the one receiving it than on the one giving it.
Pioneer, publicist, advance pressman, Gardner was the right man for the right time, a channel, who tapped the dormant spiritual reservoir of thousands. Not his faults, nor his distortion or omission of certain facts, not the matter of his idiosyncratic existence but the spirit of his life and

works, these live on. Without Gardner there are many today, regardless of what they call themselves, who simply wouldn’t exist... not as Witches or Pagans. For those who believe in “giving the devil his due” the least they can do is pay tribute to Gardner who was neither devil nor saint... just the Grand Old Man of Witchcraft!
Note: For fuller information on Gardner see Dr. Martello’s books WITCHCRAFT: THE OLD RELIGION and BLACKMAGIC, SATANISM & VOODOO.

Chapter I.
THE WITCH CULT IN BRITAIN.
My directorship of the Museum of Magic and Witchcraft at Castletown, Isle of Man, brings me a great deal of correspondence from all parts of the world; some interesting, some abusive (a very little, just enough to enliven matters), some fantastic, and some funny in all senses of the word.
However, my more serious correspondents want to know the origin of witchcraft. Where, they ask, did it come from? What is behind this thing that obsessed the minds of men for centuries? Is it an underground cult of devil-worship? A dark thread running through history? An irruption of the supernatural into normal life? Or is it an enormous delusion? What is the meaning of it all?
This is a matter which of late years has exercised the ingenuity of a number of writers. These may be roughly divided into three schools. Firstly, those who take the severely rationalist view that witchcraft was a kind of mass hysteria, arising from psychological causes. Secondly, those who maintain that witchcraft is real, and that it is the worship and service of Satan, in whom its devotees appear to be great believers. This is the attitude taken by that very prolific writer, the late Montague Summers, and his many imitators. Thirdly, that school, headed by anthropologists like Dr. Margaret Murray, which has tried to look at the subject without either superstitious terrors and theological argument on the one hand, or materialistic incredulity on the other. This school of thought maintains that witchcraft is simply the remains of the old pagan religion of Western Europe, dating back to the Stone Age, and that the reason for the Church’s persecution of it was that it was a dangerous rival. I personally belong to this third school, because its findings accord with my own experience, and because it is the only theory which seems to me to make sense when viewed in the light of the facts of history.
Perhaps I had better state briefly what that experience is. I am at present the Director of the only museum in the world, so far as I know, which is exclusively concerned with magic and witchcraft. I was a Civil Servant in the Far East (Malaya) until my retirement, and I made a large collection of magical instruments, charms, etc., which formed the nucleus of the present collection here. I am an archaeologist and an anthropologist, and through these studies I became interested in the part play in the life of
9

where a witch says a little of what they believe and of how they were persecuted. This was published in 1949 under the title of High Magic’s Aid.
In 1951 a very important event occurred. The Government of the day passed the Fraudulent Mediums Act, which repealed and replaced the last remaining Witchcraft Act, under which spiritualists used to be prosecuted in modern times. This Act is, I believe, unique in legally recognising the existence of genuine mediumship and psychic powers.
I thought that at last common-sense and religious freedom had prevailed; but even so, the passage of this Act was highly obnoxious to certain religious bodies which had been preaching against Spiritualism for years and trying to outlaw it as “the work of Satan,” together with any other societies to which they objected, including Freemasonry and, of course, witchcraft.
About a year previously, this Museum had been opened, and I had flattered myself that showing what witchcraft really is, an ancient religion, would arouse no hostility in any quarter. I was to find out in due course how wrong I was!
Any attempt to show witchcraft in anything even remotely resembling a favourable light, or to challenge the old representation of it as something uniformly evil and devilish, or even to present it as a legitimate object of study, can still arouse the most surprising reactions. The virtues of humanism, which Charles Saltman defined as “sensitivity, intelligence and erudition, together with integrity, curiosity and tolerance,” have still quite a long way to go in their struggle against the mentality which produced the Malleus Maleficarum.
In 1952 Pennethorne Hughes wrote a book, Witchcraft, which gave a very good historical account of witchcraft, but stated that while in mediaeval times witches had a fully worked-out ritual of their own which they performed, modern witches were simply perverts who celebrated “Black Masses,” which he described as being blasphemous imitations of the Christian Mass. This made some of my friends very angry, and I managed to persuade them that it might do good to write a factual book about witchcraft, and so I wrote Witchcraft Today.* In writing this latter book, I soon found myself between Scylla and Charybdis. If I said too much, I ran the risk of offending people whom I had come to regard highly as friends. If I said too little, the publishers would not be interested. In this situation I did the best I could. In particular, I denied that witches celebrated the Black Mass, or that they killed animals—or even unbaptised babies—as blood sacrifices.
Rider, 1954

One of the first questions I had asked witches as soon as I had got “inside” was, “What about the Black Mass?” They all said, “We don’t know how to perform it, and if we did, what would be the point of doing so?” They also said, “You know what happens at our meetings. There is the little religious ceremony, the greeting of the Old Gods, then any business which has to be talked over, or perhaps someone wants to do a rite for some purpose; next there is a little feast and a dance; then you have to hurry for the last bus home! There is no time or place for any nonsense of “Black Masses,” and anyhow why should we want to do one?”
I think this is just common sense. To a Roman Catholic who believes in Transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine of the Mass are literally changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, a ceremonial insult to the Host would be the most awful blasphemy; but witches do not believe this, so it would simply be absurd to them to try to insult a piece of bread.
I am not the first to have pointed this out; Eliphas Levi, the celebrated French occultist, who was also a devote Catholic, stated in his book, Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie, that the first condition of success in the practice of black magic was to be prepared to profane the cultus in which we believed.
Some may hold that anyone who does not believe in Transubstantiation is lacking in the True Faith and doomed to Hell. I am told that certain Nonconformist ministers preaching against Transubstantiation obtained consecrated Hosts and held them up to mockery in the pulpit; but I have never heard that this made them witches.
What about the Christian people who carry such consecrated Hosts about in lockets as personal charms? Are they being reverent or not? And are they witches? (We have some of these charms in this Museum). I know very well that some people would be shocked at this practice, but this does not alter the fact that it is done.
The point which those writers who persistently link the witch cult with the Black Mass fail to appreciate is that they can either maintain that witches are pagans, or that they celebrate Black Masses; but that in the name of logic and common sense they cannot have it both ways.
Unlike a number of sensational writers, I do not wish to convey the impression that there are witches at work in every corner of the land. On the contrary, there are very few real witches left, and those keep themselves very much to themselves. They are generally the descendants of witch families, and have inherited a

Tradition which has been preserved for generations. This is, indeed, the traditional way in which witchcraft was spread and preserved; the children of witch families were taught by their parents, and initiated at an early age. In fact, this is very probably the origin of all those frightful stories of the witches bringing babies to the sabbat to eat them; what really happened was that witch parents dared not omit to have their babies baptised, for fear of instantly arousing suspicion, so they used to bring the babies to the sabbat first, and present them in dedication to the old gods. Then, they felt, it wouldn’t matter if a ceremony of Christian baptism was later gone through “for show.” (“When I bow my head in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon Thy servant in this thing.”). However, as the persecution of the old religion grew more fierce, it became dangerous to admit children. Innocent children prattled among themselves about where their parents went and what they did, and one unlucky word overheard by the wrong person might have meant death to the whole family. There are terrible records of children being hanged or burned with their parents, merely because they were of the witch blood. Margaret Ine Quane, for instance, who was burned as a witch here in Castletown in 1617, had her young son burned with her, simply because he was her son. Hence the custom of initiating the children was less and less observed, and this, coupled with the wholesale extermination policy carried on at the church’s instigation, soon greatly reduced the numbers of the cult.
However, there is one factor in the continuity of the tradition which the opponents of the cult had not reckoned with. The witches are firm believers in reincarnation, and they say that “Once a witch, always a witch.” They believe that people who have been initiated into the cult, and have really accepted the old religion and the old gods in their hearts, will return to it or have an urge towards it in life after life, even though they may have no conscious knowledge of their previous associations with it. There may be something in this; because I know personally of three people in one coven who discovered that, subsequent to their coming into the cult in this life, their ancestors had had links with it, and I have already mentioned the witches who “recommended” me.
Of course, witch rites to-day are somewhat different from what they used to. Be many centuries ago. Then the great meetings, called sabbats, used to be attended by large numbers of the population, who arrived provided with the wherewithal to cook a meal for themselves (hence the “hellish sabbat fires” we have heard so much about), and prepared to spend a night on the heath

in merrymaking, once the more serious rites were over. In fact, most traditional country merrymakings have some connection with the old religion; the Puritan Stubbes, in his Anatomie of Abuses, fiercely denounces the people who stayed out all night in the woods “Maying” on the old sabbat date of May Eve; and Christina Hole, in her English Folklore, notes how the Northamptonshire “guisers “ -- folk-dancers dressed in fantastic costumes-are called “witch-men” to this day. Such instances might be greatly multiplied.
The English climate, of course, did not always permit these gatherings to be held on the heath; and I think that in this event they probably took place in someone’s barn, or in the hall of a great house whose owner was friendly to the cult. In the Basque country of Pays de Labourd in 1609 the official investigator from the Parlement of Bordeaux, Pierre de Lancre, was horrified to find that the sabbat was sometimes held in the local church, apparently with the priest’s consent. He was particularly scandalised to find how many Basque priests sympathised with the Old Religion. *
We are often told horrid tales of witch meetings in churchyards, and of witches who, in the words of Robert Burns, “in kirkyards renew their leagues owre howkit dead.” But in the old times the churchyard was the regular place for village merrymakings. In those days a churchyard was not, as it is to-day, a place of gravestones, but simply a green sward. From M. C. Anderson’s Looking For History In British Churches† we may see that dancing in the churchyard was quite feasible in the old days as the author says that it was not the practice to erect gravestones to those who were buried there. “The great folks were buried beneath sculptured tombs within the church. . . . The little people remained anonymous in death before the 17th century.”
Eileen power, in her book, Mediaeval People‡ says, speaking of the peasants:
They used to spend their holidays in dancing and singing and buffoonery, as country folk have always done until our own more gloomier, more self-conscious age. They were very merry and not at all refined, and the place they always chose for their dances was the churchyard; and unluckily the songs they sang as they danced in a ring were old pagan songs of their forefathers, left over from old Mayday festivities, which they could not forget, or ribald love-songs which the Church disliked. Over and over again we find the Church councils complaining that the peasants (and sometimes the priests, too) were singing ‘wicked songs with a chorus of dancing women’, or holding ‘ballads and dancings and evil and wanton songs and
* De Lancre, Tableau de L’Inconstance des Mauvais, Paris, 1612. † John Murray, 1951.
‡ Penguin Books, 1951.
15

such-like lures of the devil'; over and over again the bishops forbade these songs and dances; but in vain. In every country in Europe, right through the Middle Ages to the time of the Reformation, and after it, country folk continued to sing and dance in the churchyard.
She continues:
Another later story still is told about a priest in Worcestershire, who was kept awake all night by the people dancing in his churchyard, and singing a song with the refrain 'Sweetheart have pity', so that he could not get it out of his head, and the next morning at Mass, instead of saying 'Dominus vobiscurn'. he said, 'Sweetheart have pity', and there was a dreadful scandal which got into a chronicle.*
However, I have never heard of a present-day witch meeting being held in a churchyard; I think those sensation-mongers who have described present-day witches as forgathering in graveyards are guessing, and their guess is a few centuries out.
Actually, witch meetings to-day may take place anywhere that is convenient, and only people who have been initiated into the cult are allowed to be present. The actual proceedings would probably greatly disappoint those who have been nurtured on tales of blood sacrifices, drunken orgies, obscene rites, etc., etc. Witches do not use blood sacrifices; and only the type of mind which considers all recognition of the Elder Gods and their symbols to be "diabolical" would call their rites "obscene". There are, on the other hand, people who consider many of the Church's beliefs and practices to be an insult to Divinity; a woman once told me, for instance, that she thought the Church of England's Marriage Service so disgusting that she could never bring herself to submit to it. Much depends upon one's point of view in these matters.
The taking of wine during the rites is part of the ceremony; it consists usually of two glasses at the most, and is not intended to be a "mockery" of anything, still less a "Black Mass". In fact, witches say that their rite of the "Cakes and Wine" (a ritual meal in which cakes and wine are consecrated and partaken of) is much older than the Christian ceremony, and that in fact it is the Christians who have copied the rites of older religions. In view of the fact that such ritual meals are known to have been part of the Mysteries of the goddess Cybele in ancient times, and that a similar ritual meal is partaken of, according to Arthur Avalon in Shakti and Shakta, by the Tantriks of India, who are also worshippers of a great Mother-Goddess, there seem to be some grounds for this statement.
In the old days, they tell me, ale or mead might be used instead of wine, any drink in fact that had "a kick" in it, because this represented "life". I wonder if this is why Shakespeare used the
* The chronicle in question was that of Giraldus Cambrensis, Gemma Ecclesiastica, pt. I, c. XLII.

expression "cakes and ale" as a synonym for fun which was frowned on by the pious?
It is a tradition that fire in some form, generally a candle, must be present on the altar, which is placed in the middle of the circle, and candles are also placed about the circle itself. This circle is drawn with the idea of "containing" the "power" which is raised within it, of bringing it to a focus, so to speak, so that some end may be accomplished by raising it. This focusing of force is called
"The Cone of Power".
Incense is also used, and I have read in Spiritualist literature that "power" is thought by some
mediums to be given off by naked flames, by a bowl of water, and by incense. All these are present on the witches' altar. I once took a photograph of a witches' meeting-place while a rite was being performed there; this included none of the people present, deliberately, but merely the altar, etc., and part of the circle. When the photograph was developed it showed "extras" in the form of ribbon- like formations, some of which appeared to proceed from the candles. I assured myself that there was nothing in the composition of the candles which could account for this phenomenon, nor was there anything wrong with my camera. A copy of this photograph is on display in the Museum.
The great reservoir of "power", according to the witches, is the human body. Spiritualists generally share this belief. Upon the practical means used to raise and direct this "power" I do not propose to touch; but that it is not a mere flight of fancy to believe in its existence is proved by some of the researches of modern science. The radiesthesia journal, The Pendulum, for March, 1956, carried an article called "Living Tissue Rays", by Thomas Colson, from the Electronic Medical Digest. This told how Professor Otto Rahn of Cornell University had described to a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Syracuse, New York, how yeast cells can be killed by a person looking intently at them for a few minutes. The yeast cells were placed on a glass plate and held close to the person's eyes. The Professor explained this by saying that certain rays were emitted from the human eye which were capable of producing this result. For several years, he said, scientists had been reporting discoveries that living things produce ultra- violet rays. In the human body they had been found coming from working muscles, and in the blood.
The finger-tip rays of several persons at Cornell killed yeast readily The tip of the nose was discovered to be a fine ultra-violet 'tube'. Then came the eye. Human rays are not always harmful. From some persons they are beneficial to tiny plants. There seems to be no

milke were her weeks" and so brightly shining that Orfeo could scarcely behold them.
A. E. Waite, in his introduction to Elfin Music, an Anthology of English Fairy Poetry* says: "The Elizabethan age commonly identified the fairies of Gothic superstition with the classic nymphs who attended Diana, while the elfin queen was Diana herself, and was called by one of the names of that
goddess, that is, Titania, which is found in the Metamorphoses of Ovid as a title of the uranian queen". He states further that ". . . the original fairy of Frankish poetry and fiction was simply a female initiated into the mysteries and marvels of magic."
A third ingredient in the tales of "fairies" is, of course, actual non-human nature spirits which some people claim to be able to see, and it is fascinating for the student of folklore to disentangle these different strands that weave through old stories and beliefs.
The High Priest of a witch coven is, as we have seen, chosen by the Priestess. He is the person whom the Inquisitors and witch-hunters of old times used to call "the Devil", as being either an actual supernatural devil or else his human representative. Witches are constantly being accused of "worshipping the Devil". Now, when we use that word "Devil", what picture automatically forms itself in most people's minds? Is it not that of a strange-looking being who seems to be partly human and partly animal, having great horns on his head, and a body covered with hair, although his face is human? Have you ever stopped to wonder why this picture should automatically come into your mind in this way? There is not one single text in the Bible which describes "the Devil” or "Satan" in this manner. The only place in which you will find such a personage described is, curiously enough, among the gods of the ancient peoples. Here you will find quite a number of Horned Gods, and sometimes Horned Goddesses too, who were not, however, beings of evil, but deities beneficent to man. The reason why people picture "the Devil" in this way is because from the very earliest times the Church has taught that the Old God who possessed these attributes was the enemy of the Christian God, and hence must be Satan; and people have got so used to this concept that they have never stopped to question it.
It is evident from early pictures and descriptions (the earliest being the famous cave paintings found at Ariege in the Caverne des Trois Freres, done by men of the Stone Age), that the High Priest who was the god's representative sometimes wore a ritual disguise, consisting of a head-dress bearing the horns of a stag or a bull, and a kind of robe of animal skins; sometimes, too, a mask
*Walter Scott, 1888.

which concealed his features. This custom seems to have been more particularly followed at the big Sabbats, when many people gathered outside the circle who were not actual initiates of the witches' mysteries, but came "for luck" (i.e. for the blessing of the Old Gods) or simply to enjoy themselves. It made the proceedings more impressive, and at the same time safer, if the god's representative was masked and disguised, so that he could not be recognised. The horned figure, seen dimly by moonlight or by the light of torches, would have seemed to the outsiders to be a supernatural being, and the initiates would not have undeceived them. When only initiates were present, there was less need for the ritual disguise, so the custom of wearing it has tended to fade out.
It will be seen that witchcraft is a system involving both magic and religion. This in itself is an indication of great age, because in primitive times magic and religion were closely inter-related. The priest was also the magician, and the magician had perforce to be a priest. Indeed, when one comes to consider it, many religious rites to-day are directed towards ends which might be called magical. What is the essential difference, for instance, between prayers for rain, or for a good harvest, and the old fertility rites which were directed to the same end? And why must a King or a Queen undergo the ritual of Coronation? With regard to the Church's prayers and a fertility rite, the difference would seem to lie in the latter working on the principle that "God helps those who help themselves", whereas the former is content with petition. The question of the necessity of Coronation ritual raises the whole idea of the Divine King or Queen which has engaged the attention of anthropologists for many years. The idea that there is any connection between religion and magic may be indignantly repudiated by some orthodox believers; nevertheless, both spring from the same root.
As I explained in my previous book, there are certain secrets of the witch cult that I cannot by reason of my pledged word reveal; but many people write to me saying, "You said in your book, Witchcraft Today that all the ancient Mysteries were basically the same; so as we all know what these ancient Mysteries were, we know exactly what the witches' secrets are. So why don't you write another book telling everything?"
Now, while the ancient authors who were initiated into a number of the Mysteries agree that they were all the same basically, and there is a certain amount of agreement among modern authors about what their secrets were, I doubt very much if any of them realises the reason behind them, "what made them work," in fact;