With the current debate over the use of the name Warlock I (Matthew
Sandow) am posting this article which I wrote for Web of Wyrd magazine
(Issue 5).
…
It should be noted that this article is a personal view and not a
definitive statement.
Readers may remember the request in our last issue for information
concerning the word WARLOCK. The response was excellent! It seems that
Matthew is not alone in his interest in this word, and its antecedents.
We’d like to thank everyone who wrote to us, or phoned; a selection of
some of the responses appears below.
From David Cooze, New South Wales:
Regarding the origin of the term “Warlock”, I offer the following. As
you would know this title has frequently been identified with a male
witch. More recently many have disputed this due to its possible
reference to a “liar” or “betrayer of trust”, an oath-breaker. Others
choose to dismiss it because of the inclusion of “war” in the name.
Doreen Valiente in her book, “An ABC of Witchcraft” (pub. Hales 1973,
re-printed with corrections, 1984) states that the term has Scottish
origins, but doesn’t enlarge upon this at all. More interestingly, Nigel
Pennick in his, “Practical Magic in the Northern Tradition (pub.
Aquarian 1989) has the following to say:-
The Scots dialect word Warlock, meaning a cunning man or male white
witch, is rarely used today except pejoratively. Because dictionary
definitions have given it meanings like “liar”, it has fallen from use,
but it is clear that in reality it relates to the power to shut in or
enclose, i.e. a person with the capability of making binding spells.
This is found in the Norse tale Eir¡ks Saga Rauda. The story is set in
Greenland, some years after the Christian religion was imposed. A V”lva
(wise woman) conducting a ceremony asks the assembly that a song called
Vardlokkur should be sung to enable the continuation of the ceremony.
No-one knows it, except a girl on a visit from Iceland. She is
Christian, but has been taught it by her nurse. Reluctant at first to
sing the Vardlokkur, knowing it to be Pagan, eventually she is cajoled
into singing, and the ceremony is completed without interference. The
power of the warlock, then, is to ward off evil spirits and to lock or
bind them up.
Along similar lines, the following appeared in Vol IX no 5 (#49) of the
“Pagana” occult magazine:-
Warlock may come from the hypothetical (unattested) Old English waer-
loga, “oath-breaker”, or it may come from the (fully-attested) Old Norse
Vard-lokkur, “caller of spirits”.
Generally when looking at the origins of the words “warlock” and “witch”
(along with others), the Anglo-Saxon and Old English often need to be
traced to the Nordic languages. This makes sense when it is realised
that the Celts of Central Europe originated from the northern tribes,
before their culture mixed with that of the Mediterranean lands and the
aboriginal races of what is now Britain. It is well-known that due to
difficult access of the remote northern areas (i.e., for the Romans),
the Nordic/Saxon cultures retained a greater degree of purity within
their customs and language, so this may also be a contributing factor.
I also found the translation of “binder” for warlock of interest, as
this would seem to relate directly to the term’s usage within the
Alexandrian Book of Shadows, here being used as a reference to both the
action and the role of that person who does the binding of the applicant
during the initiation rite.
From John, South Australia:
I am happy to provide some information on the origin and development of
the word “Warlock” as requested in Web of Wyrd No. 3. According to the
Oxford English Dictionary (1989), the word “Warlock” is derived from the
Old English Waerloga which, in turn, is a compound of two words: waer
(truth, agreement) and loga (liar, deceiver), from the verb leogan (to
lie). Waer is cognate with the Old High German wƒra (truth), the Old
Norse v rar (vow) and the Latin verus (true). Leogan is cognate with the
modern German lgen (to lie). Hence the original meaning of waerloga is
“oathbreaker” – a serious crime in early times.
The earliest recorded use of waerloga dates from about C.E. 900 -
although it was probably in common usage well before that time. In
Middle English it becomes warloghe. The modern form with the “ck” ending
dates from about the 16th century. According to the English Dialect
Dictionary (1905) there are a number of different meanings of “warlock”:
1) A wizard or magician – hence warlock-breef (a wizard’s spell);
warlock-fecket (a magic jacket); warlockin (an imp), and warlock-knowe
(a meeting place of wizards). These words are mainly of Scottish
origin – however the use of the word warlock to mean “wizard” is
widespread from the earliest times. Why? Presumably because the
Christians regarded any practitioner of the Old Religion as a “liar” or
“deceiver” – in this sense, warlock is a derogatory term.
2) A method of tightening a rope or chain which binds the load on a
wagon – hence warlock’t (entangled) and warlock-knot (a hard knot in
timber). This is predominantly a Lancashire, Cheshire and Somerset
dialect. The method of binding is to wind the rope or chain loosely, and
then insert a lever which is twisted until the desired tightness is
achieved. In this sense, presumably it is a waer lock – a true lock; one
that will not come loose. This is, of course, the meaning used in the
Book of Shadows.
3) The common mustard (Sinapis nigra) or – possibly – the wild radish
(Raphanus raphanistrum) – a Suffolk dialect. This rather obscure meaning
of warlock is presumably a corruption of the country name charlock by
which the field mustard (Sinapis arvensis) is also known – not,
incidentally, Sinapis nigra, or black mustard – the dictionary is in
error here. Similarly, the wild radish also goes by the country name,
jointed-podded charlock.
From Bridgit, Western Australia:
I put the question of warlocks to the Cauldron (a regular meeting of
High Priestesses in the Perth area). The general feeling was: Scottish
male witch, taken over by Hollywood/science fantasy. Irrelevant, haven’t
met any! One bright spark suggested that we ask the blokes! I’ll pass on
any further thoughts/research to you.
WARLOCK REVISITED by Matthew Sandow
This discussion about Warlocks developed out of a question that has been
interesting me for considerable time; namely, why do we as men call
ourselves Witches? I have always thought that a Witch was most
definitely a woman, and whilst I am sufficiently sure of my sex to use
the term Witch, I felt that it somehow didn’t quite fit. However when I
first started to ask whether the term Warlock was more accurate, and for
that matter appropriate to the religion, I encountered some very
interesting reactions. These ranged from:
. the term means oath breaker or traitor;
. there is no such person as a warlock. They never existed, or if
they did, then they don’t now;
. they are all satanists, and evil.
Generally people felt that the word was inappropriate, and the use of it
would bring Witches into disrepute. I have always been able to sense
which way the winds blow, so with all this in mind I firmly set off in
the opposite direction. One of the first things I did was to re-read the
section so often quoted to me from the book “Eight Sabbats for Witches”
by Stewart Farrar:
“But `warlock’, in the sense of `a male witch’, is Scottish Late Middle
English and entirely derogatory; its root means `traitor, enemy, devil’;
and if the very few modern male witches who call themselves warlocks
realized its origin, they would join the majority and share the title
`witch’ with their sisters.” (Introduction, note 6)
That all looked pretty definite and damning, and is the source of most
of the correspondence I received. My second piece of research concerned
tribal and primitive societies and their social structure. This was very
illuminating, because the most common factor in the way societies were
run was the principle of elders.
The chief was almost always a hereditary position handed down from
father to son or grandfather to grandson. He was the ultimate leader of
the clan or tribe and its survival was his direct responsibility. The
second principle force was the priest/witchdoctor/shaman, who was the
spiritual focus of the tribe. It may or may not be a hereditary
position, but was generally regarded as being in direct contact with the
gods. He had enormous say in the running of the tribe. The moving of the
tribe required favourable signs, and the interpretation of these was the
direct province of this person. If the signs were misread the tribe
could miss the migration of game, or be struck with unfavourable
weather. It was a great responsibility and the welfare of the tribe
depended on it.
The third principle was the war lord, whose role was the protection and
preservation of the clan and its property. This position was never a
right of hereditary succession, but rather one hard fought for. The war
lord was almost invariably the best and most capable warrior. He led the
fight for food and raids against enemies.
Between these three the clan was run, and run extraordinarily
efficiently. The duties of each were clearly defined and the roles of
each respected by all. That this was the case in primitive societies is
clear, but consider the situation of modern man where the roles are
still retained in different guises. The chief is the Prime
Minister/King/President, whose role is the general welfare of the
country/nation. The priest has not changed much except in dogma, and he
still reads the portends of good and evil to the population. The war
lord is charge of the police and the army.
It was only in the rare cases of one taking over the position of another
that balance was lost. History is full of examples of war lords seizing
power with terrible results, as society splits over loyalties to one or
other lord, and any reference to a modern theocracy shows the
limitations of religion and government.
In more primitive times usurping of a role was rare, because of role
acceptance, and the social security of being within that role. Any
departure from the sociably acceptable was to lead to being outlawed or
simply banished. Yet some did accept banishment or voluntarily left for
various reasons. Tribal legends abound of the shaman or the warrior who
left the security of the tribe to live in the wilderness where they
developed new techniques and philosophies. But as importantly, they
developed their magical abilities to the point of becoming superhuman,
and would come back to the tribe in times of great need as Heroes.
The next thing I thought about was how we as a modern society see
primitive cultures. Consider how fiction and faction portray the tribe.
I remember reading the tales of the white hunter amongst the savages in
Africa/America. The chief and our good clean hero become friends
(usually because the hero saves the chiefs son/daughter at great
personal risk) and everything would be rosy except for the evil
witchdoctor lurking in the background, or the vengeful dumped warrior of
the same saved daughter. These are always spiteful and evil characters
and as such we feel the justification when the hero kills them and leads
the now saved tribe into the modern world. Modern medicine will replace
the witchdoctor and white men with guns will replace the warrior, as the
tribe is put onto the reservation for its own good.
The wise women of the tribes who had been the herbalists and healers,
the mid wives and seers, became the Witches, and the shamans and war
lords became Warlocks. Each preserved and developed their own knowledge,
but also each preserved the gods and the religion of the old ways. By
living apart from the tribe they were able to survive, but the act of
living apart also separated them as a member of the society. Where they
had always been regarded with respect they were now respected with also
with fear, and this fear was certainly used by the Witches and Warlocks
in their own defence.
All this brings us back full circle, namely to the Warlock and our
definition of him. As has been correctly pointed out, the Oxford English
Dictionary defines the Warlock as a traitor or oathbreaker, and this is
certainly true in two ways:
1. The term is Old English, and derives from about 600CE, which is
when the monks were writing the books we now use as reference.
There are no prizes for guessing why these Pagan terms were less
than endearing. Any one who would not accept the new and true faith
of Christianity was evil and dangerous. By equating those who did
not accept the faith with evil, the new lords had the enemy firmly
sighted. The old gods became the new devils, and the followers of
the old ways were heretics and worshipers of demons. To follow the
old ways was dangerous and guarded with secrecy. The Witches and
Warlocks became separate from the general population, and followed
their own paths.
2. Again as has been correctly pointed out, the breaking of an oath
was of extreme importance at a time when a man’s word was his bond.
The making of an oath was done with great care and consideration.
When faced with the annihilation of his tribe by the conquerers,
the Chief has historically taken the option of surrender to
preserve the clan or tribe. An oath taken by the clan leader for
the surrender and saving of his people would only be broken in
great reverence by the younger men of the tribe. Thus the term
oathbreaker would be one of respect amongst the tribe, as these men
left to fight against their conquerers. An example of this is
Chochise who surrendered to the US Cavalry so that the women and
children would be saved, but allowed the young warriors to leave
under the leadership of his most able follower, Geronimo.
However, what most people ignore (or are simply unaware of) is that the
definition of oathbreaker is NOT the only reference to the Warlock, and
indeed the Complete Oxford Dictionary has considerably more information.
“This seems to have been the original sense of the present word,
but the special application to the Devil (either as a rebel, or a
deceiver) was already in OE the leading sense. The applications to
to sorcerers, with especial reference to the power of assuming
inhuman shapes, and to monsters (esp. serpents), appear to be
developments, partly due to Scriptural language, of the sense
“devil”.
“The modern forms with final -(c)k are of obscure origin, for they
appear first in Sc. of the 16th c., and owe their spread to Sc.
writers, and so cannot represent, as has been assumed, a Southern
sound-substitution of (k) for the -ch (x) of some of the rarer
North and Sc. forms. From the first they they have been used in the
sense “wizard”. Some other word, lost or not discovered , has perh.
influenced both form and sense.” (OED 1991)
Thus in the 10th c. the monks had connected the Warlock to those who
worshiped the Old Gods (devils), and who refused to accept the Christian
God, or did so in a superficial manner (deceitful). They had indeed been
recognised as rebels. What is also recognised is that the word was
already old in the 10th c. but its original meaning is lost, or at least
waiting to be rediscovered.
We cannot now discover what the original meaning was, but we can perhaps
get closer to the truth by looking at the “obscure ” refences. Several
people who have contacted me in reference to this article mentioned that
there are many references which do not seem to make any sense. One of
these is the association with the word Charlock which applies to various
field weeds, and especially to species of the genus Sinapis, Mustard.
Mustard is a very common weed and is obviously associated with the Sun
(hot taste, small yellow flowers). It is also a very good blood purifier
and its use as a compress to relieve congestion of the lungs would have
been very handy in cold, misty climates such as Northern European Winter
and Melbourne in Summer.
Another reference is in connection to binding or securing. To warlock
(or warlocke) was to secure (a horse) as with a fetterlock. It is also
used in reference to securing a load onto a cart. In rural South
Australia where I grew up, bales of wool are loaded onto a semi-trailer
and secured with a length of rope, in the very simple but effective
manner of running a loop of rope around the entire load, then tightening
it with a windlass of two short poles set at cross angles to each other.
The rope is looped over the end of one pole and twisted around it with
the other. We call this a Spanish Windlass at home, but it is obviously
the same method with a different name.
A Warlock is also used to mean a cairn or pile of stones (in
Scandinavian regions) which apparently served as beacons (lighthouses)
or as markers of territory. Another use of the term meant that a man
“warlocked” was magically immune to wounds inflicted by certain weapons
(commonly iron), which developed into the idea of being War-lucked.
Lastly the term meant “to bar against hostile invasion”. So a warlocked
nation was one which was protected (by Warlocks) against invasion,
rather than being embroiled in a war inside its territory.
It must be acknowledged that much of my research has shown that the
Warlock was a warrior whose lifestyle was frequently violent and short.
It is easy to either glorify his acts of valour, or accuse him of being
a thug, revelling in bloodshed. What is more difficult is to recognise
the middle path between extremes, and recognise that in the “Good Old
Days” life was extraordinary difficult and frequently short; that
violence was a way of life and death. Men and Women had very different
roles to those of today, and indeed that may be good reason in itself to
repudiate the idea of the Warlock. But I believe that in those days men
and women were more secure in their roles. Women ran the household and
indeed frequently were the owners of the land. Women probably had more
power and control over their lives than they do now.
Since Christianity women have lost their land, their rights, their magic
and their voice. Even today women have not regained what was previously
theirs by right. Men were put into the position of controlling the land
and all it contained. Remember the land given to the Christian Church
was frequently given by the women, and that the Abbeys were often run by
women. Only after the restructure of the Church did women lose all this
to become the subjugated nuns to the religion they helped set up. The
ones who did keep what was theirs became the Witches, and continued to
heal, teach and act as midwives in the more isolated areas. As is
happening in Nicaragua at the moment, the Witches were attacked for
fulfilling the role which was theirs. In 20th centurt Nicaragua Witches
are being taxed, ridiculed and oulawed because of the power and prestige
they hold in the community (and because they are cheaper and more
effetive than the “modern” doctors!).
We must recognise that the Witch and the Warlock are very old terms
which have been tampered with by people with a vested interest in doing
so. History is always written by the victor, but we have the opportunity
to question and change peoples’ attitudes towards us. We are Witches,
and should not change our name because of outsiders’ opinions. We have
all – Witch and non-Witch alike – been subjected to 1000 years or so of
negative influence. Now we have learnt the reality of Witchcraft, and
take pride in it. If we refuse to acknowledge the name Witch, we accept
that what has been written is true. The same holds for Warlock; just as
there are some very dubious people misusing the words Witchcraft and
Witch, so there are also people debasing the word Warlock. A Warlock is
not some plonker doing ritual sacrifice and Satanic worship any more
than is a Witch. Rather he is some one trying very hard to come to terms
with his own inherent powers as a man. By denying him this right we deny
all of the Craft their rights to worship the gods in balance.
The important thing to me personally about this whole issue of Warlocks
can be summed up as:
1. Whatever the word and its origin, the reality is how we use it now.
Many words have changed their meanings over the years to become
something totally different from the original.
2. Warlocks did exist.
3. Warlocks are not satanists or figments of Hollywood any more than
are Witches.
4. Being a Warlock is a legitimate title for a male Witch.
5. Witches and Warlocks are traditionaly outside of general society
and each have their own special brands of magic, neither being
inherently good or evil.
For Witches to denegrate Warlocks as evil or deluded is very dangerously
like using the same dogma that is trotted out by the fundamentalists.
No-one can afford to point fingers or throw stones at each other.
And lastly for those who like pigeon holing people: I am proud to be an
initiated Wiccan; a Priest of the religion; a Pagan; a Witch; and very
much also a Warlock.
BB,
matthew sandow
