Recent discussions in another thread got me thinking about what exactly a witch is. Some statements presented there surprised me because I thought I knew ("of course, everyone knows what a witch is"), but this forum shows that there's always more to learn ...
It might help to define what sort of witch we're talking about.
The witches that I'm somewhat familiar with would be historical "witches" and fictional "witches." Another category might be modern day practioners of witchcraft such as Wiccans (not sure if I am using these terms correctly).
The usual thinking in academic literature is that those accused of witchcraft in historic times, as in the Salem trials and in the witch hunts all over Europe that spanned several centuries, were innocent people, often poor and disenfranchised women. It's often claimed that those accused were usually people living on the fringes -- outsiders distanced by their unusual behavior and/or nasty personalities. This definitely wasn't always true, as in the case of the Salem trials. Those events took place in 1692 in Salem Village (which was later renamed Danvers, Mass.).
In contrast to this conventional view, someone on this forum pointed me to the writings of Margaret Murray, whom if I'm not mistaken believed that many of those accused of witchcraft were actually practioners of the old pagan religions. I'm not sure what scholarly opinion has to say about this theory, but it's an interesting one.
It seems highly likely to me that in some cases those accused did deal with old folk beliefs involving things like herbs, charms, and spells. In fact I know this is true in the country of Finland, where the practice of spells was fairly commonplace well into the Middle Ages if not later, and folk beliefs such as charms (both physical talismans and orally recited) continued well into the 20th century. Proceedings against witches in Finland were usually prosecutions for malevolent witchcraft, while more "white Magic" witchcraft was more tolerated. Perhaps uniquely, most of those prosecuted in that country were male, and there may be a connection between these male witches with the vanished shamanistic culture of ancient times. The usual punishment was a hefty fine (such as a horse), although there were some executions too. I believe that I have also read that there were witchcraft prosecutions prior to the Christian era, but I would have to do more checking to verify my memory on this point.
These are some of the historical witches, then. So far this sounds different from witches like Angelique on DS, since the real life witches were human, mortal people who could, let's say, have possibly been lured off a cliff. Whereas Angelique would seem to be far more powerful. I can't think of specific examples offhand, but I think that's how we see Angelique.
I remember being surprised during my first complete viewing of DS during the last run on SciFi when it was said that Angelique was immortal. I had never heard of witches being immortal before. Does anyone know if this is actually common to fictional witches, or was this unique to DS?
Is Angelique the witch
par exemplar, or is she really not all that special in the world of witches? I know it has been pointed out in the past that she makes a lot of mistakes early on, although she is capable of transforming someone into an animal which shows she has some rather out of the ordinary powers, or at least access to them if not fully under control.
My experience with fictional witches that I can think of is mostly of witches as they appear in children's literature. For example, in "Hansel and Gretel," the two children are able to outwit the evil witch and Gretel pushes her into the oven where she is killed. I take it that some DS posters would not want to consider her as a real witch since she is deceived and killed (some indicated that this rules out someone like Joanna Mills from consideration as a witch). Although today we think of fairy tales as for children only, they were originally told as folk tales and were not primarily told for children's enjoyment. I also read an interesting analysis of a fairy tale that may have preserved a more positive view of witches and the apprenticeship to becoming a witch.
The other fictional witches that have stood the test of time that I remember are those in L. Frank Baum's Oz books. Interestingly, Baum populated his magical land with both good witches (such as the unnamed Witch of the North, and Glinda the good witch of the South). Magical practices are widespread in Oz and can be used for good or evil depending on the character of the witch or wizard.
Children's books are filled with witches and my sense is that there are many variations in the literature as to a witch is. But there must be common denominators so that we recognize, yes, that's a witch. I think Baum is somewhat unique in more classical literature for presenting so many positive views of witches.
I just realized that I'm leaving out the whole category of witches in the movies, which have probably shaped our view of witches as much as anything else. My guess would be that these are overwhelmingly negative portrayals, with witches being in league with evil.
Does anyone care to elaborate on what they think a "witch" is, in any of these contexts? I got the impression from some comments that there are certain things that define a witch and other things that rule one out as a witch. If that's the case, what are the rules, and what is the origin of these rules, I wonder. ("Rules" may not be quite the right word. Someone may have a better term but at least you can probably tell what I'm getting at). Are they based on fictional representations I'm not aware of, or might these conceptions stem from the thinking of modern day Wiccans? Or some other source?
