Who Guards the Gate?
Share
Who Guards the Gate?
Witchcraft, Authority, and the Question of Who Gets to Practice
Spend enough time in modern witchcraft spaces and sooner or later you will encounter a gate.
You cannot call yourself a witch unless you were initiated.
You must come from a family line.
You need a teacher.
You cannot practice without years of formal study.
That is not “real” witchcraft.
This is older than that.
That symbol does not belong to you.
Some of those boundaries have legitimate histories behind them. Some protect living initiatory religions, culturally specific traditions, or knowledge that was never intended to be removed from its community.
But others raise a much older question:
Who gets to decide what counts as magic?
The surviving historical record suggests that this question has followed magical practice for centuries.
And interestingly, many of the people doing the deciding were not necessarily the people performing the everyday magic.
First, a necessary distinction
“Gatekeeping” is a modern word, and I am deliberately using it here as an interpretive lens. Medieval villagers, clerics, cunning folk and ritual magicians were not sitting around debating whether someone was “gatekeeping witchcraft.”
But they absolutely lived in societies where access to knowledge, authority, literacy and religious legitimacy determined whose ritual actions were accepted, whose were condemned, and whose were preserved for us to read today.
Even the word magic was not a neutral category.
In Defining Magic, scholars Bernd-Christian Otto and Michael Stausberg point out that “magic” has historically functioned as a way of defining the unacceptable counterpart to legitimate religion. Religion could be understood as authorized sacred practice; magic became, in effect, unauthorized religion.
That difference matters.
Sometimes the line between prayer and charm, miracle and magic, priest and conjurer was not found in the action itself.
It was found in who had the authority to perform it.
The magical world was never just one kind of practitioner
Historical evidence does not reveal one organized, universal “witchcraft tradition” passed unchanged from generation to generation.
Instead, it reveals an enormous landscape of overlapping practices.
Catherine Rider's chapter “Common Magic” in The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West describes magical practices being used by priests and laypeople, educated and uneducated people, men and women, specialists and occasional practitioners.
Healing charms, amulets, divination, protective workings and attempts to influence events were not restricted to one secret class of magical practitioners. Charms and amulets, Rider notes, could be recommended by educated people as well as those without formal education.
Tabitha Stanmore's Love Spells and Lost Treasure goes even further into the everyday world of practical or “service” magic in medieval and early-modern England. Her research examines hundreds of instances in which people sought magical assistance for ordinary problems — lost property, love, illness, uncertainty and needs that other parts of society could not adequately address. She argues that this practical magic was deeply embedded in premodern life and was substantially more common than the malicious spellcasting that dominates popular images of historical witchcraft.
In other words:
Magic was not confined to the dramatic image of the witch.
It existed in kitchens, healing practices, manuscripts, prayers, amulets, astrology, charms, divination, monasteries, villages and scholarly study.
Then there was learned magic
Alongside common magic existed what historians call learned magic.
David J. Collins describes learned magical traditions that included natural magic, astral magic, divination, alchemy, image magic and ritual magic. These systems often depended heavily upon books, specialized education and texts inherited or translated from Greek, Roman, Jewish and Muslim intellectual traditions.
And this is where access becomes particularly interesting.
Literacy was power.
Language was power.
Owning books was power.
Knowing Latin was power.
Understanding the diagrams, astrological correspondences and ritual instructions inside those books was another form of power entirely.
Cambridge University Library actually preserves an extraordinary example.
The Cambridge Book of Magic
Cambridge University Library MS Add. 3544 is catalogued simply as “A Book of Magic.”
The sixteenth-century manuscript contains material dealing with necromancy and spirit conjuration alongside natural magic, herbalism, astrology, magical creatures, illusions and other practices.
Researcher Francis Young describes it as one of only a small number of surviving sixteenth-century British manuscripts containing forbidden necromantic material. The manuscript contains work from multiple writers and includes both Latin and Middle English.
That alone complicates the popular idea that historical magic belonged exclusively to isolated village witches passing oral secrets from grandmother to granddaughter.
Some magical knowledge lived in books.
Some required education.
Some circulated among people capable of reading specialized texts.
Some borrowed from Christian liturgy.
Some crossed between what we would now separate into religion, medicine, astrology, science and magic.
And some was illegal.
Necromancy, Young notes, was outlawed by statute in England in 1542, while church authorities had already pursued people accused of forbidden magical arts for centuries.
So yes — there were gates.
But often those gates were created by law, literacy, institutional authority and access to knowledge.
Sometimes the knowledge itself was hidden
One of my favorite examples from Cambridge's collections comes from medieval healing charms.
Cambridge University Library's work on medieval medical manuscripts documents charms that combined spoken words, religious language, ritual actions and physical objects.
Some included mysterious strings of abbreviated letters — essentially ciphers.
Researchers studying them have suggested several possibilities. Perhaps the abbreviations simply saved the scribe time. Perhaps readers already knew the missing words.
Or perhaps the wording was intentionally concealed so that only someone already “in the know” could understand the charm completely.
We cannot always tell.
And that uncertainty is important.
Secrecy really did exist in historical magical traditions.
Specialized knowledge existed.
Teacher-to-student knowledge existed.
Texts requiring specialized literacy existed.
But secrecy is not the same thing as claiming that all witchcraft everywhere has always required permission from another witch.
History is far messier than that.
Who writes the story decides what the witch becomes
There is another form of gatekeeping hidden inside witchcraft history itself:
Who created the records?
Much of what survives about accused witches comes from courts, clergy, inquisitors and educated writers — people with the ability to write documents that would survive for centuries.
Historian Richard Kieckhefer has studied an especially revealing difference between popular accusations of sorcery and the more elaborate demonological concept of witchcraft promoted by learned authorities.
In surviving records where accusations remained closer to the words of ordinary people, complaints frequently concerned harmful magic: bewitched livestock, sick children, love magic and physical injury.
Charges involving elaborate diabolism and the witches' Sabbath appear more frequently in ecclesiastical courts and in records written in Latin rather than the vernacular.
Kieckhefer argues that this supports the idea that some elements of the elaborate diabolical witch stereotype were introduced or amplified by learned elites — particularly inquisitorial authorities — rather than simply arising intact from ordinary popular belief.
Think about the implication of that for a moment.
The people with the authority to document witchcraft also possessed enormous power to define witchcraft.
The archive is not a perfectly clear window into the past.
Someone was holding the pen.
Even religion and magic shared a very blurry doorway
Modern categories can make medieval practice appear much neater than it actually was.
Cambridge's medieval charm research demonstrates how healing practices could incorporate religious words, sacred stories, ritual gestures and objects infused with protective power. The researchers describe the boundary between official religion and popular magic as remarkably fluid.
Helen Parish similarly describes a contested middle ground in which folklore, magical practice and orthodox Christian devotion could overlap. During the Reformation, even Catholic ritual itself could be attacked by its opponents as magical manipulation.
Again, the question becomes:
When two people perform actions intended to interact with sacred or unseen forces, why is one called religion and the other called magic?
Sometimes theology provides the answer.
Sometimes law does.
And sometimes power does.
And then modern witchcraft changed the gate again
This becomes particularly important when someone claims that modern witchcraft must look a particular way because “this is how witches have always practiced.”
Historical scholarship simply does not support such a neat lineage.
Modern Pagan witchcraft is itself an evolving religious and magical landscape.
Sabina Magliocco describes modern Neopaganism not as one single religion but as a broad collection of movements that revive, reclaim and experiment with pre-Christian and magical traditions.
Recent Cambridge scholarship on Gerald Gardner reaches a similar conclusion about Wicca specifically.
John Callow's 2025 study Gerald Gardner and the Creation of Wicca describes Gardner as a central figure in modern Wicca who fashioned a new synthesis from multiple Eastern and Western magical influences. Callow characterizes the resulting religion as creative, mutable and comparatively undogmatic rather than simply an unchanged survival of one ancient witch religion.
That does not make Wicca less meaningful.
New does not mean false.
Adapted does not mean empty.
Traditions are created because people find meaning in them.
But history becomes distorted when modern rules are projected backward and presented as universal ancient laws.
So… is all gatekeeping wrong?
No.
There is a difference between protecting a tradition and policing an identity.
A living culture saying, “This ceremony belongs to our people,” deserves respect.
An initiatory order saying, “You must be initiated before receiving this specific teaching,” is describing the boundaries of that order.
A teacher saying, “Do not attempt this practice without understanding its risks,” may simply be exercising responsibility.
None of those statements means that one group owns the universal human impulse toward ritual, divination, protection, healing, sacred relationship or magical experimentation.
And none establishes a historical rule that a person must possess the correct ancestry, lineage, coven membership or external permission before exploring witchcraft as a broader spiritual or magical path.
The historical evidence is simply too diverse for that.
Perhaps the better question is not “Who gave you permission?”
Perhaps it is:
What are you practicing?
Where did it come from?
Whose tradition are you touching?
Have you studied its history?
Are you treating the people who preserved it with respect?
And are you willing to admit when you do not know something?
Those questions require more responsibility than demanding somebody produce a magical pedigree.
They also leave room for something the historical record repeatedly shows us:
People have always searched for ways to understand the unseen.
They have carried charms.
Read the stars.
Gathered herbs.
Spoken prayers over wounds.
Consulted diviners.
Written strange symbols in books.
Protected homes.
Called spirits.
Sought lost things.
Asked for love.
Asked for healing.
Asked for answers.
Some were educated.
Some were not.
Some worked inside accepted religion.
Some existed on its edges.
Some practices were public.
Some were secret.
Some were condemned.
Some were tolerated.
Some were performed by exactly the same people doing the condemning.
There has never been only one gate into magic.
Perhaps that is the part of the history worth remembering.
Study deeply. Credit your sources. Respect what is not yours. Protect what has been entrusted to you.
But be cautious whenever someone insists that they alone are standing at the entrance to the Craft with the authority to decide who may pass.
History suggests that people have been fighting over ownership of that gate for a very long time.
Sources & Further Reading
Cambridge University Library Special Collections — “A Book of Magic.” Discussion of Cambridge University Library MS Add. 3544, a sixteenth-century manuscript containing necromancy, natural magic, astrology and related material. Read “A Book of Magic” at Cambridge University Library
Cambridge University Library Special Collections — “Childbirth and Charms: Two New Online Exhibitions.” Examination of medieval healing charms, ritual objects, religious language and magical ciphers preserved in Cambridge manuscripts. Explore Cambridge's medieval charms research
Catherine Rider, “Common Magic,” in The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 303–331. Cambridge Core: Common Magic
David J. Collins, “Learned Magic,” in The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 332–360. Cambridge Core: Learned Magic
Richard Kieckhefer, “Constructing Narratives of Witchcraft,” in Inquisition and Knowledge, 1200–1700 (Cambridge University Press, 2022). Cambridge Core: Constructing Narratives of Witchcraft
Bernd-Christian Otto and Michael Stausberg, eds., Defining Magic: A Reader (Cambridge University Press). Particularly useful for understanding the historical construction of “magic” as a category. Cambridge Core: Defining Magic
Tabitha Stanmore, Love Spells and Lost Treasure: Service Magic in England from the Later Middle Ages to the Early Modern Era (Cambridge University Press, 2022). Cambridge Core: Love Spells and Lost Treasure
Sabina Magliocco, “New Age and Neopagan Magic,” in The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 635–664. Cambridge Core: New Age and Neopagan Magic
John Callow, Gerald Gardner and the Creation of Wicca (Cambridge University Press, 2025). A recent scholarly reassessment of Gardner and the formation of modern Wicca. Cambridge Core: Gerald Gardner and the Creation of Wicca
This article was researched and developed with the assistance of AI and reviewed and edited by The Enchanted Path. Sources are provided for further reading.
