Black Mass - Book of Shadows
Jenny

Thu Jun 18 13:12:37 1998
Black mass*p*In Christian demonology, a diabolic parody of the Catholic mass reputedly*br*celebrated by Witches and miscellaneous devil-worshippers.  Almost all*br*accounts of black masses come from France, a staunchly Catholic country.*p*Descriptions of black masses vary, but all are simple parodies of the*br*Catholic mass.  Many of the evil deeds attributed to Witches were*br*inversions of Christianity.  The theory behind this was that Christians*br*were good, so evil Witches must do the exact opposite of what they do.  The*br*black mass offers a clear illustration of this.  The following table*br*shows various parts of the Catholic mass, and their diabolic inversions*br*from the black mass:*p**br*Catholic/Diabolic*p**br*Read liturgy of the mass/Read liturgy of the mass backwards*p*Invoke Christ/Invoke Satan*p*Cross is honored and upright/Cross is desecrated and reversed*p*Wine blessed/Urine or foul water blessed*p*Eucharistic wafer made from fine grain/Eucharistic wafer made from*br*various foul objects, such as rotten turnips, spoiled bread, or black*br*leather*p*Consecrated altar/Naked woman's body as altar*p**br*Although black masses are a standard feature of B-grade horror movies, in*br*history they were quite rare.  They first appear in the early 14th century,*br*as the Church's attacks against heresy reached their peak.   In 1306-1314,*br*the Knights Templar, a group of wealthy Christian crusaders, were accused of holding black masses and worshipping Satan.  A few black masses appear*br*during the next 200 years, but they're uncommon.*p*During the 16th century, black masses gained a new life.  Several French*br*priests were executed for performing black masses, often as a means of*br*protest against their corrupt superiors.  Stories of these blasphemous*br*rites shocked and titillated the public, and during this time French*br*Witches begin to be accused of holding black masses, too.*p*However one man's shock is another man's excitement.  The audacity and*br*scandel of the black mass appealed to some jaded aristocrats, and so*br*beginning in the 17th century, holding genuine black masses became quite*br*fashionable amongst the nobility.  In 1680, King Louis of France arrested*br*246 men and women after discovering that his mistress had performed black*br*masses to keep his love.  The black mass remained popular amongst the more daring aristocrats as late as the late 19th century, when the English*br*"Hellfire Club" was said to perform them.*p*What does the black mass mean to modern Witches?  Probably very little. *br*Historically the rite had almost no connection to us.  It was a simplistic,*br*superficial parody of Christian rites, not a Pagan ritual.  It was*br*performed by a Christian/Satanic priest, for the enjoyment of a*br*Christian/Satanic audience.  Witches were not even strongly associated with*br*it until the 16th century, and then only in France.  So despite what the*br*B-grade movie script writers say, black masses are largely the heritage of*br*Satanists, not Witches.*p**p**p*Blasting*p*Destroying the fertility of plants and animals.*p*"Blasting" was a general term for any curse that made a human, animal, or*br*field infertile.  It was one of the oldest and most common accusations*br*leveled against Witches, dating back to pre-Christian times.*p**p**p*Book of Shadows*p*In modern Witchcraft, a book listing the rituals and lore of a coven.*p*Are Books of Shadows ancient?  Are they diaries that the Witches of the*br*Burning Times kept, repositories of pre-Christian lore?*p*The standard historical answer is "no" -- Books of Shadows are entirely*br*modern.  No pre-20th century BoS has ever been found.  Gerald Gardner and Margaret Murray claimed that the "Black Book" of Witchcraft lore was a Book of Shadows.  However this contradicts all of the early evidence:  records from the Burning Times state that the Black Book was a list of names, not a set of spells and rituals.  (See the Black Book entry for more information.)*p*Gardner claimed that he had inheritted his BoS;  most historians insist*br*that he made it up.  Despite its claims to antiquity, the language is*br*transparently modern.  The author added a scattering of archaic English*br*words in an attempt to make the text appear ancient, but syntax and*br*grammar make it quite clear that the author didn't really speak Middle*br*English.  Aiden Kelly (_Crafting the Art of Magic_) argues that much of the*br*material contained in the Gardnerian BoS either developed in the '50's and '60's, or was copied from other sources.  He therefore suggests that*br*Gardner inheritted little or no early material.*p*And logic weighs in against Books of Shadows.  Books are the product of a*br*literate society.  The Witches of the Burning Times were mostly*br*illiterate, and came from a culture where tradition was passed on orally. *br*Why would they use books?  Especially since a BoS would be a death sentence if it was discovered by a Witch hunter.*p*But, as always, there are two sides to the coin.  Despite Murray and*br*Gardner's claims, most Gardnerians who believe in the antiquity of their*br*Book of Shadows say that the earliest parts of the text only date back to*br*the 18th century, *not* the Burning Times.  And this hypothesis is much*br*more probable.*p*First, it disposes of the logical problems.  During the 17th and 18th*br*centuries Protestants pushed for public literacy, since one of their major*br*religious tenets was that all people should be able to read the Bible. *br*Catholics followed suit, and by the 18th century many Europeans and*br*Americans were literate.*p*By the 18th century, the Burning Times were largely over.  A few countries,*br*especially in Eastern Europe, were still trying Witches.  But the great*br*craze had passed.  Owning a Book of Shadows would no longer get you killed.*p*In fact, in Western Europe a minor occult revival followed immediately on*br*the heels of the Burning Times.  During the 18th century a flurry of*br*do-it-yourself guides to "White Magick" appeared in print.  Older grimoires*br*of ceremonial magick, like the Keys of Solomon the King and the Book of*br*Secrets, were re-issued countless times.  *p*This flood of new information had a major impact on traditional "low"*br*magick.  "High" magick (ceremonial magick) is a learned art requiring many*br*texts, ritual tools, magick circles, etc.  "Low" magick ("Witchcraft") is a*br*much simpler lore which requires few tools.  One of the major arguments*br*against Wicca's antiquity is the fact that its magickal system is primarily*br*"high" magick, not "low" magick.  And when you look at the spells from the*br*Burning Times, they're "low" magick -- completely different from Wicca's*br*circles and quarters and ritual knives.*p*Yet if you move your gaze ahead, to the 18th century, this changes.  As*br*ceremonial magickal texts became inexpensive and readily available, "low"*br*and "high" magick began to merge.  Many traditional Witches could now read, and once magickal texts were legal and cheap, they read them and*br*incorporated them into their spells.  For instance, an early 19th century*br*French text called "The Book of Secrets" is approximately 50% "low" magick, 50% direct quotes from a ceremonial grimoire (Albertus Magnus' _The Book of Secrets_).  *p*None of these hybrid texts look much like Wicca.  All are the records of a*br*solitary practitioner, not a coven.  Yet their existance proves that "high"*br*and "low" magick merged long before Gerald Gardner came on the scene.  The fact that the Gardnerian magickal system is largely "high" magick does not prove that Gardner made it up.*p*In the end, one major problem remains:  there is no evidence of*br*pre-Gardnerian Books of Shadows.  Logically speaking, there's no reason why the Gardnerian BoS couldn't come from the 18th century -- by that time, all the social conditions were right for such books.  But possibility and*br*probability are two separate things, and unless better evidence becomes*br*available, early Books of Shadows will remain articles of faith, not*br*history.*p*