Judika Illes - The Element Encyclopedia of Witchcraft: The Complete A-Z for the Entire Magical World

For Clara Fisher and Irma Illes, with love
In memory of Zsuzsanna and Margit Grosz

M ost of my clothes are black. I have a black cat. My favorite holiday is Halloween. I have perpetually unruly hair. Given the right company, I will happily chatter on about astrology, magic, herbs, and divination. I write books of magic spells. So perhaps its not surprising that periodically Im asked whether Im a witch.

Invariably, my response is to say that my answer depends upon the inquirers definition of witchcraft. Inevitably this leads to frustration (and often to anger) on the part of the inquirer: they think theyve asked a very simple, straightforward question because, of course, every child, any idiot so to speak, knows the definition of witch. Their perception is that Im being snippy and evasive (stereotypical witch behavior, incidentally) when in fact Im just wary. Ive already experienced too many unpleasant encounters with those whose definitions of witchcraft did not correspond with my ownor with each others for that matter. Ive learned that, just like beauty, what constitutes witchcraft is dependent upon the eye of its beholder.

Dont believe me? Lets look in the dictionary.

The following definition is from Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:

WITCH (n ME wicche fr. OE wicca, masc. wizard and wicce fem. witch; akin to MHG wicken to bewitch, OE wigle divination, OHG wih holymore at victim)

1a. Wizard, Sorcerer

1b. a woman practicing the black arts: SORCERESS

1c. one supposed to possess supernatural powers esp. by compact with devil or familiar

1d. or Witcher: Dowser

2. an ugly old woman: HAG

3. a charming or alluring woman

Oh boy, weve got some contradictions right there. Which witch does my inquirer suppose me to be? Should I take the question as a compliment or as an insult? Its probably safe to presume that most women wouldnt strongly object to the insinuation that theyre charming or alluring but what if the witch this particular questioner has in mind is actually that ugly old hag or Satans minion?

Hags, wizards, compacts with the devil: these definitions, or at least the words used to express them, demonstrate an archaic tone. In all fairness, I grabbed the first dictionary at hand. The definition quoted above comes from a well-worn 1965 edition, not that long ago considering the entire scope of time, but still, perhaps a newer edition might offer a more modern definition. With the wonders of modern technology and automatic updates, Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary is about as up-to-date as dictionaries get, yet its definition of the word witch is similar to the one from 1965 with but one significant addition:

WITCH

1: one that is credited with usually malignant supernatural powers; especially: a woman practicing usually black witchcraft often with the aid of a devil or familiar:

SORCERESScompare WARLOCK

2: an ugly old woman: HAG

3: a charming or alluring girl or woman

4: a practitioner of Wicca

Now in addition to practicing usually black witchcraft the witch may also be a practitioner of Wicca although whether Wicca and black witchcraft are different or synonymous is not addressed.

Both dictionary definitions link witches with women; at least that much seems clear. Or is it? The further one searches for a definitive definition of the witch the more elusive and labyrinthine the subject becomes.

Other references suggest a narrower definition of witchcraft, albeit with greater flexibility regarding gender. According to Dr Margaret Alice Murray, the controversial scholar who wrote a long-standing definition of witchcraft for the Encyclopedia Britannica, the word witch has been used since the fifteenth century almost exclusively to describe persons, either male or female, who worked magic.

Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend further clarifies this issue of gender. That book defines a witch as

a person who practices sorcery; a sorcerer or sorceress; one having supernatural powers in the natural world, especially to work evil and usually by association with evil spirits or the Devil: formerly applied to both men and women but now generally restricted to women. Belief in witches exists in all lands, from earliest times to the present day.

Although Margaret Murrays definition is neutral in tone, the others possess, to varying degrees, an air of malevolency. So perhaps I should be insulted at the suggestion that Im witchy.

You want a really virulent definition of witch? Try this one:

Witches are the devils whores who steal milk, raise storms, ride on goats or broomsticks, lame or maim people, torture babies in their cradles, change things into different shapes so that a human being seems to be a cow or an ox and force people into love and immorality.

Martin Luther, 1522

Perhaps not. Maybe I should be flattered. Author Raymond Buckland, a pivotal figure in the evolution of modern Wicca and an authority on magic, divination, and witchcraft, acknowledges the very same etymology quoted in the dictionaries yet proposes a positive understanding of the word witch:

The actual meaning of the word Witch is linked to wisdom and is the same root as to have wit and to know. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon wicce (f) or wicca (m) meaning wise one, witches being both female and male.

On the other hand, many would advise me to absolutely not engage in discussion with anyone who wishes to know whether Im a witch, not because of any potential insult but because the whole notion of witches and witchcraft is absurd. Their definition of witch doesnt extend to living, breathing human beings. I cant possibly be a witch; its not even worth discussing, because witches are made up, fictional: they dont exist outside fairy tales, stories, and legends. Obviously anyone asking me this question is simple-minded, delusional, mentally ill or just teasing. Those adhering to this definition may in fact love witchcraft very muchin its place, which is fiction. Their witches exist in realms inhabited by trolls, ogres, fire-breathing dragons, and handsome princes who miraculously arrive on white horses at the very last second. They are integral to fairy and folk tales but are not perceived as belonging to real life except as a story-tellers device.

Sophisticated minds, especially those of a Jungian bent, might also dispute the reality of a living, breathing, practicing witchalthough their objection is based on a completely different definition of witch. For them, the witch is not an individual belonging either to real life or fairy tales but is an extremely powerful archetype, a reflection of human fears and desire. That the witch-figure is universally recognized and understood all over the globe is hardly surprising because, of course, human archetypes are universal and shared by all.

In true Jungian terminologyas defined by Carl Jung, a man not averse to metaphysical studywitches are projections of the dark side of the anima, the female side, of human nature.

Furthermore, that archetypal witch, the one so prominently featured in Halloween iconography, is recognizable as a witch virtually everywhere on Earth: the concept of the solitary person (depending upon culture it is not always a woman) in touch with the secret powers of nature and willing to put those powers into practical use resonates around the world, although the general attitude towards this person may differ greatly.

Have we exhausted all possible ways to define