“The obiya is a
forest power. It is also a sorcerous gift and somehow different from
genuine ‘witchcraft’ that is focused on transmission through
blood, while obiya is transmitted by through breath and
spirit. Hence you can find the ‘witch-blood’ in vessels void of
understanding its own blood, as you are born with it, but it is not
like this with a sorcerous transmission as you have to receive it.
There is great truth in a saying like “A witch is born, a sorcerer
is made” and because of this a sorcerer can strictly speaking be
‘unmade’, while a witch cannot really be ‘unborn’ as such.”
- Nicolaj de Mattos Frisvold
I've seen a few
conversations online lately about more clearly defining what is and
what isn't a witch. People seem to finally be done with the silly
idea that we can't define a word and that anyone who wants to call
themselves a witch can be one. Clearly that's not how words work.
Unfortunately, no one is
defining it the way Nicolaj Frisvold is, despite his being the
accurate view historically. People are comfortable with the Neo-Pagan
point of view popularized in books from the 60's up through today.
But we know a lot more about magic now, and we know a lot of what
came from the occult revival, and from Gardner, and from the growth
of NeoPaganism is incomplete. We know we need to move away from a lot
of the practices and ideas popularized in those movements. There's
good stuff there that we need to keep, but we need to critically
review what's there and let go of what's not tenable. Like the idea
that witch is about some sort of feminine empowerment, or worshiping
the god and goddess of nature, or drum circles.
People claim we can't look
at historical evidence about witches because Inquisitors were
mysogynists and medieval people believed things we take as
nonsensical. But the wrongheadedness of some people who used the word
witch doesn't mean witch had no meaning until we assigned it a new
one. People say we can't take historical meanings of the word witch
because witches were supernatural monsters, I say you can't be a
witch if you're not a supernatural monster. If we don't want what the
word meant, worts and all why would you want the word at all? There
are so many other things we as modern magicians can call ourselves
other than witches, words which are more accurate, so why do we need
the word witch?
Witchcraft is only a part of
what I do. It's not the main thing I spend my time on. But it's been
part of it since the beginning. I accept the word, as one of several
that describe me, because when my mom was four years old, she was
routinely locked in a closet by a woman who was punishing her for
being born a witch. And while she wasn't happy when my dad tried to
introduce magic to their relationship early on, because she rejects
her magic, both of my parents shared things that helped me develop
magically as a child. I dismiss the popular view that says that
people want to claim to be born witches because they want to be
special. My mom didn't want to be born a witch and doesn't want to be
a witch. I personally think my upbringing doesn't make a great “old
gramma tale” and is pretty boring, in fact I grew up assuming
everyone was taught the same stuff as a kid. Most of my magic comes
from hard work and study. And my sister readily admits that she
didn't do anything with familial witchcraft, which is a good example of how being born with something doesn't matter if you don't do anything with it. It's like
being born left handed, or with natural musical talent, it's one of many traits, that may or may not result in something.
When I got into magic, a lot
of the serious, knowledgeable, successful magicians I know were from
families that held a belief in witch blood. None of them were people
who needed to claim witch blood to legitimize themselves. They were
all pretty awesome without it. Most of them only talked about it in
private. In fact, that's part of why I'm making this post. Well, for
one, yesterday was Halloween. For two, I was having a conversation
with a friend and my view on traditional witchcraft came up. I ended
up getting a lot more detailed into my point of view and into my own
experiences, and those of my friends, than I normally would. I still
don't intend to get to detailed about myself or my family or my
friends here. But I do want to present in detail my view of what a
witch is.
Historically, there are a
couple ways to become a witch. There are the fully supernatural
varieties, like Circe, where they are semi-divine figures. There are
also the fully supernatural ones that we often see in tribal stories
where the witch is something of an evil sorcerer but is often
described almost as if it is some sort of malevolent fairy or spirit
creature. We also see historically ones that are a little more
tenable. Witches are often born as witches. Either through some
circumstance of the timing of their birth, or coincidental
occurrences that make them a witch, or based on some familial element
such as birth numbering or simply being born into a family of
witches. This idea of being born a witch plays out in folklore with
witches being born with unusual or particular physical features.
We also have stories of
people encountering a faery or spirit and that faery or spirit
offering to serve as a familiar spirit as part of some deal. The
spirit performs magic for the witch and teaches them witchcraft. In
modern pop culture we see this playing out in The VWitch with Black
Phillip.
In stories of conspiratorial
witchcraft, or witchcraft involving covens we see a different sort of
pact. Witches meet the black man in the forest, who incidentally is
very similar to spirits described in some forms of sorcery. Der
Teufel is cast as Satan in the witch trial transcripts, but we can
find non-Satanic antecedent figures who fit this shadowy spirit who
teaches magic, grants power, and binds familiars in various magical
and religious systems.
In history though, the witch
is a witch because of birth or because of a spirit contract. Not
because they just decide they're a witch, or because they dance under
the full moon and love the earth.
What do witches do? Well, in
Thessaly, they mostly did black magic and necromancy. Again, there
seems to be some overlap between the Witch and the sorcerer, but
they're also not precisely the same. The witches trace back to
figures like Circe and Medea, the semi-divine witches of the silver
age and so they seem to avoid some of the problems associated with
necromancers, while still being characters treated pretty
unsympathetically.
In more positive
Mediterranean depictions, and in later folklore and in trial
confessions witches seem to also do stuff that looks like folk magic
and pretty standard sorcery. They don't sing about reincarnation at
drum circles, and reclaim their person-hood with pearl pentacle
rituals. Sometimes they do things for the good of the people in the
community, sometimes they do things for themselves, sometimes those
things are pretty neutral or positive looking, sometimes they're
pretty awful looking, like Isobel Gowdie and her friends killing all
the children of an unjust land owner. In general it looks like
witches in history did what they needed to do, or what they wanted to
do without considering anything other than their own view on what
they should and shouldn't do.
I think this to me gets to
one of the most important parts of the witch. This is one that we see
in the character of the witch in stories, and fairy tales, and in my
own experience what I've seen of real witches. The witch is more than
anything else an example of Otherness. The Other represents an
individual or idea that stands outside the cultural norm and is
potentially disruptive to that norm. The Other is by its nature
transgressive and when approached correctly there is power in that
transgressive nature. Alternatively the witch could be described as
Queer. In cultural and queer studies otherness is often associated
with homosexual figures. In our concept Queer doesn't necessarily
mean homosexual, but more so “blurry” or something which is
between various potentialities and is able to move between them and
inhabit them as they choose to. This ability to choose, to navigate,
to inhabit more than one space at once is a key to the witch's power.
This Otherness addresses
also the difference in modality between a witch's magic and other
systems of magic. Based on what we've touched on so far, witchcraft
involves sorcery and folk magic, necromancy, work with fairies and
nature spirits, and magic taught to the witch by spirits. There is
also an intuitive element. This is actually how I got to discussing
witchcraft with my friend the other day, as the place of intuition in
learning magic came up. I think it has a higher place in witchcraft
than in other systems, where magic is more learned and studied. A
witch, by virtue of being a liminal creature by nature can explore
the spaces between potentialities within his or her own liminal
state, and this gives a certain access to magical awareness, and is
likely why being born a witch historically is associated with being
born with the Sight. A witch also works magic through connecting with
the natural world, not to worship or honor it, but to move and
manipulate it through that connection. Similarly bewitching animals
and people is based on this connection and internal multiplicity.
The word witch does not come
from a word meaning “wise one” but rather a word meaning “to
bend.” A witch is a bender. This multiplicity and the ability to
self select ones state of being is the operant element of witchcraft
outside of what it shares with other systems of magic. The witch
joins him or herself to the object they wish to bewitch or shape, and
the witch changes so that the thing being spelled also changes. This
isn't, in my experience, how most systems of magic work. When I was
about 4, and then again at 6, the first couple pieces of magic my
father taught me were based on this. He didn't describe it in this
way, he simply explained how to lock someone into you (create a
connection) by looking at them, and then how to control them based on
how you felt inside (bend and bewitch). As a boy I didn't think of
this as “magic” or “witchcraft” or anything other than just
stuff dad's teach their kids. But as I hit my twenties and began to
refine my idea of witchcraft from talking with familial witches, and
then studying under one, it became evident that the difference
between witchcraft and other systems I was learning was that a witch
engaged in activities to, as my teacher called it, “become a good
animal” or return to a state of being connected with the natural
world, so that they could shape themselves in a way which would
result in changes in the world around them.
So in short, in my mind, if
you're a witch, you're born a witch. Either because you had witches
in your family, or because of some special thing that happens with
your birth. This idea isn't even foreign to Neo-Paganism, Gardner had
to prove witch blood to join the coven he was in before he started
Wica. Sybil Leek's coven worked the same way. The handful of pre-Wica
covens out there seemed to include proving a witch ancestor as a
standard. If you're not born a witch but wish to be one, you might
also become a witch by making a deal with a fairy, tossing a toad
skeleton in the river, or going to a tree at a crossroads in the
night and making a deal with the Black Man who encounters you there.
The last of these seems to be the easiest and most common. Once you
become a witch, you consort of the dead, maintain business
relationships with underworld gods, talk to nature spirits, fairies,
and potentially other sorts of demons on the regular, and do folk
magic and sorcery. Most importantly, you become something which isn't
what everyone else is, something liminal and queer, and you use that
transgression not to empower yourself, but to have power over other
things around you.
No comments:
Post a Comment