Talk:Book of Shadows/Archive 1

Archive 1

Traditional Use

I edited this page because the previous article neglected to present the traditional use of the Book of Shadows. Hopefully, the article will now better explain the Book of Shadows in both the traditional and neo-Wiccan contexts.

-Scypres 3* Alexandrian High Priestess

Move Definition?

I would like to move the definition relating to traditional Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc.) to the top of the article - the usage of the term 'book of shadows' for a journal is a quite recent innovation, and although this usage is becoming reasonably common, many experienced practitioners (of both traditional and non-traditional Wicca or Neopaganism) still consider this to be an incorrect or untraditional usage. Does anyone object?

Fuzzypeg 10:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that your right, but I would like to know what you beleive it is supposed to be used for.Solon Olrek 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had replied to you some time ago. I must never have submitted my comments. The BoS holds certain rituals and materials of the tradition, and in several common branches of initiatory Wicca, it is not altered by the initiate. I've just read that in the early days of the Bricket Wood Coven, Gardner told coveners that they could add or remove what they wanted from their books, however later initiates (who seeded larger family trees) were under the impression that the material should not be altered.

The BoS also serves other purposes which I am not at liberty to explain. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Book of Mirrors

I'd like to know more about the "Book of Mirrors." I've tried searching it, but I haven't found much. I would like to know the origins, a more in-depth definition of its purpose, and if it's just as important as the book of shadows. s LuridLotus 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was probably Scott Cunningham who came up with this innovation, though I'm not sure. It is simply a book of personal reflections. Its name also brings to mind "magic mirrors", and presumably it is intended to be used in a similar way. "Magic mirrors" are traditionally (not in Wiccan tradition per se, but in wider Western Magical tradition) black and white. The black mirror is a list of personal failings, faults and flaws compiled as honestly as possible by the operator and kept up to date throughout magical training. The white mirror is a similarly honest list of positive attributes.

The Book of Mirrors presumably is intended to be written in the same spirit of honesty. It is in no way a traditional concept, although students swould normally be expected to keep personal notes. I see it as just a pretty name for the collection of notes that one would inevitably be making anyway. The BoS however serves quite different (and not entirely obvious) purposes. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Book of Mirrors is, in essence, just a diary fo Wiccans? Solon Ol'rek 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Just a diary" is probably an injustice; however I would guess it serves as a kind of magical diary of items for reflection. It's not something I've ever used. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, if that is the case, anyone could make one, or is there some regulations/procedure that has not been metninoed?Solon Olrek 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I presume there's nothing stopping anyone making something called a "Book of Mirrors". It's just an invented concept, and there's no such thing in Wiccan tradition, so I'm not going to tell you you're doing it wrong. If you want to know more about how it was intended to be used, you'd have to track down the author who invented the concept, and read about it. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you happen to know where I could find that material? It sounds like an interesting read.

To me it sounds as if the Book of Mirrors was intended for a Wiccan to see what was in themselves through their writings and to show them their faults, and where they needed to go next in their studies....am I wrong in this assumtion?Solon Olrek 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this, Socratic questioning? I'm afraid you'll have to do your own search and find what works for you. As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with the Book of Shadows, nothing to do with Wicca, and very little importance to this article. I've given you some possibilities for where to start looking, and those plus google should answer all your questions. It can't be that hard. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't wanting to resort to google, because it often times comes up with fake articles, but I guess I will weed through them. Solon Olrek 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this is any help, but a fellow named Gary Cantrell makes reference to a "Mirror Book" in his book Wiccan Beliefs and Practices. I wasn't terribly impressed with the book, but it might be a place to start if you're looking for a "Book of Mirrors."
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Change

I put the reference to the carmed tv series under a different heading. I thought it was a different topic than the previous information. Does anyone disagree?Solon Olrek 18:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article in the beginning presents the Book of Shadows as the religious text of Wicca, while later it says that it is like a journal for Wiccans, which is the truth. In fact the Book of Shadows is a both personal and religious book that every Wiccan optionally has, and writes in it what they feel like writing. Teo64x 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that what I said above can be read in the links given at the bottom of the page. So, in fact, the article seems to contradict its sources. I'm not an expert on Wicca so I hope the corrections (if needed) will be done by someone else. Teo64x 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll check that the article reflects this clearly, but in fact the term "Book of Shadows" has at least two rather different meanings, as used by different groups. In lineaged forms of Wicca, such as Gardnerian Wicca or Alexandrian Wicca, the Book of Shadows is the religious text of the tradition. Some groups never add or remove; some groups do occasionally add to the book. However in modern eclectic Wicca (which many lineaged Wiccans would contend is not actually Wicca) the Book of Shadows is more often a personal journal. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pagan Is me

Pagan Is me 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)==Making a book of shadows== There isn't really a wrong way about it, some witchs use a three ring binders and while others use a "notebook" as their book of shadows. I use a notebook cause its easy to carry around. heres how I made my own.

First you need a notebook and then you write (book of shadows) on the front cover, and draw pentacle down bottom. call me old fashion but I like it this way cause I want my pages stay were they are and not change anything. while others used wood and lether as there front and back. theres also download your own book of shadows, I gotta warn you now those don't work. you MUST put your enrgies into the book of shadows..NOT the online one. just a heads up. when you add your index heres afew things you can add.

Herbs-page 1 Potions-page 2 History-page 3 Spells-page 4 Chants-page 5 Pendulums-page 6 Tarot-page 7 Symbols-page 8 Signs-page 9 Gemstones-page 10 Rune stones-page 11 Moon terms-page 12 Gods-page 13 Godesses-page 14 Festivals-page 15

These are just some ideas. when you add info on each pages its a good idea to add a number to a page (see list) thats only an example.

Good luck with your book of shadows! Pagan Is me 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Pagan_Is_me

I removed the above from the main text but wanted to preserve it here in case there's something that ca be done wit the info, although it seems unlikely due to WP:NOR concerns. I'll drop a line on their talk page as well. Tarc 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback at User talk:90.199.109.173

I reverted some edits by this new editor and have tried to explain myself on the talk page above. However it's only my opinion! If anyone else sees it differently please pitch in, after all I don't own this article! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted reference

I reverted a link which had been added by LarDur, linking to: How to use a Book of Shadows I did so because on looking at the link it seemed to say very little about the book of shadows (despite the four screens of information having this heading.) Instead it seemed to be more information about spell-casting, magical intent and so on. Not entirely irrelevant, but not perhaps as spot-on as one would want a key external link to be. But thought I should post this here so others can see what I've done, in case people disagree. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanders citation?

Does anyone have access to "A Talk by Maxine Sanders" part 1, which is on p. 4 of Witchcraft and Wicca Issue 3? This edit, while it may be very accurate, needs to get bounced off of what exactly Maxine said in that article, and appropriately worded.--Vidkun (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A fuller quote (this is the magazine's summary of her, not her exact words):

"It was rumoured that Alex copied the Book of Shadows in the garage of the house of a Gardnerian, where a party was being held. If this had been necessary to gain magical experience Alex would have complied. The truth however was more mundane; Alex copied his first Book of Shadows from his initiator, he constantly added to this original book to create the Coven book. This tradition has continued throughout Alexandrian Covens and no two Coven books are the same. This was [sic] proved to be an excellent way of accumulating knowledge and information in the craft. Exchanging that knowledge has nurtured good manners and natural respect between groups; so helping to avoid the egotistical antagonism that at one time pre-occupied the activities and thoughts within many magical groups. The original basic book is the book copied by the new initiates, which they then add to when they set up their own group."

Fuzzypeg★ 05:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical

I edited the Origins section of this article to correct some factual errors:

o The photo is a typescript of a page from the book. The original is completely handwritten. See Philip Heselton's Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspirarion, among other sources.

o There should be no controversy over the title of the book. It was discovered in the Ripley's collection by Aidan Kelly in 1977 and was later purchased from Ripley's by Richard and Tamarra James of the Wiccan Church of Canada (as I have cited). Doreen Valiente never owned it or ever saw it.

Whether or not Gerald Gardner invented the idea of a witch's is very controversial. I edited the paragraph following (previously beginning with "Taking this evidence into account" to produce a more balanced and neutral view.

-Oakseer 03:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by North40 (talk • contribs)

Kipling

The eight lines quoted in Valiente's rewriting, referred to as "the chant" and described as

This version, written by both Gardner and Valiente, but containing sections adopted from various sources, such as Aleister Crowley, Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, and even Rudyard Kipling

and

based upon the poem "A Tree Song" from Puck of Pook's Hill by Rudyard Kipling

are in fact exactly the last stanza of Kipling's "A Tree Song". Perhaps the initial author of this section was aware of that but subsequent editors were not, and the fact was lost in rewriting.

I have

• added the Kipling credit in parentheses directly below the quotation,
• and added "of the ritual" after "This version" in the text just below that, which otherwise seems to refer to the eight-line stanza.

But I'm not a practitioner of Wicca in any of its varieties or particularly familiar with their histories, and someone who knows the field should check this section over. --Thnidu (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Magick"

On 2016.02.14, User 2602:306:bcf8:b569:2c85:fd96:426e:438 changed the spelling of "magic" to "magick," with the following edit summary:

You spelled "magick" without a 'k' and for most people who follow Wicca, that can be found offensive

I undid the change for the following reasons:

• The assertion that it may be offensive to Wiccans is not supported by any kind of reference. FWIW, as a Wiccan for over a quarter-century, I am not aware of any Wiccans who find the spelling offensive. Obviously, if a reliable source can be found that says most Wiccans may find the spelling offensive, it can certainly be updated.
• Even if it were offensive to Wiccans, Wikipedia is not censored; "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content.
• The convention on Wikipedia is generally to spell the word as "magic," whether it refers to Magic (paranormal) or Magic (illusion). In Wikipedia, it is generally only spelled with the "k" in the context of Magick (Thelema). The editing section of the article on Wicca specifically states "The use of the spelling "magick" specifically refers to the magical system of Aleister Crowley and Thelema."

I bring this to the Talk page because I couldn't fit even a short explanation in the edit summary, and did not want to seem arbitrary.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Removed this from the introductory paragraph: "Throughout the centuries many practicing witches would account their knowledge in their Book Of Shadows, however once witches were threatened by the prospect of being executed many, wisely, stopped and destroyed their BoS in order to stay safe and alive."

It was unsourced and directly in contradiction with later, sourced information that the idea of a Book of Shadows didn't even exist until sometime after 1949, far later than the last witch trials. ES9 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book of Shadows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321011436/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/charmedseason1.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/charmedseason1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807164106/http://www.the11thhour.com/archives/112000/moviereviews/blairwitch2.html to http://www.the11thhour.com/archives/112000/moviereviews/blairwitch2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)