💾 Archived View for polyphanes.smol.pub › 1732981049 captured on 2024-12-17 at 11:33:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
┌─╷─┐ ╵┌┼┐╵ polyphanes.smol.pub ╷└┼┘╷ by polyphanes └─╵─┘
───╢※╟───
To me, the word and idea of "witchcraft" is fundamentally about transgression, which is the big difference that sets it apart from "magic" in general—there are as many laws against witchcraft specifically as there are against fortune-telling and divination or other practices out there. If you're not willing to transgress those…well, what are you actually willing to do then that's witchy? (Yes, I know there are many different opinions on what witchcraft is, this is just my approach to understanding the words "witchcraft" and "witch".)
There's lots of kinds of magic out there, none of which has ever really been socially acceptable on a broad scale when it comes to cultural norms in general. In that light, all magic can be considered transgressive in some sense or another, but this isn't the same kind of transgressive as what I consider witchcraft to be. When I consider witchcraft, I think of the witches of Thessaly who drew down the Moon not to commune with her but to operate in complete darkness to work when the skies weren't right; I think of the various coercive spells of the Greek Magical Papyri where one threatens to bind, abuse, even murder the gods themselves so as to get one's aim done; I think of spells that don't seek to fall under the protection of a god, but to become a god greater than the gods. In other words, if there's a cosmic order of things—a hierarchy of powers that be—then witchcraft is magic that transgresses that cosmic order, and works only within their own order to institute their own order by toppling the existing grander one already at play.
Witchcraft is inherently antinomian in this sense, because it breaks down the proper flow and functioning of the cosmos for one's own ends. This is in distinction to other forms of magic that don't seek to break the flow of things but to go with them and use them as they are, to play by the rules of the game, to follow the structure of the cosmos rather than to upend it. It's not about the aesthetics of magic (rural versus urban, Solomonic wands versus forest-found staves) or the specific practices and technology involved (grimoire-based or inspired), but about the purpose and orientation underlying it all, which can turn any magical practice into witchcraft if it's sufficiently cosmically transgressive. Witchcraft has always been feared above and beyond magic in general, and I don't buy into the notion that it was always just "folksy magic stuff" demonized by the Church.
Sure, this is all my interpretation and understanding of the term, and I know there's always some push-back against it; the boat has already long since sailed on the use and adoption of the terms "witch" and "witchcraft" beyond my specific understanding of it. Most people (especially in Anglophone post-Gardnerian contexts) consider "witch" to be a nature-based/nature-revering magician, potentially with some polytheistic inclinations, but this is a far cry from the usual indications of the word "witch" in any older source (or even most contemporary ones) in most cultures; it's a great PR job, truly! And, in the end, it's not up to me to take away from people the term they've grown up with for the past number of decades. Still, to me, it doesn't seem to resonate with the older historical use of the term, especially considering the various magicians and types of magic that weren't called witchcraft.