Black luggie, hammer head,
Rowan tree and red thread,
Put the warlocks to their speed..
-- old rhyme of lore

Witch and Warlock

(This rather long rumination was spurred by discussions on a couple of lists to which I belong. But, beyond that, the tendency of some people to defend one term, while attacking another, had puzzled me for some time previous. I do not suggest that anyone decide whether to use or not use a term because I say so. But I think it is right that I make my feelings known on this subject.)

Over the years I have been part of the on-line pagan community, the use of the word “witch” to describe certain people has intrigued me. Discussion about whom the word properly refers to, and other discussions about the impropriety of the term “warlock” spurred me to do some research and some thinking about the use of the word "witch," by followers of traditional paths.

I will admit, that when I first began to cruise about the web, I used the word "witch" freely, to describe what I was, and "witchcraft" to describe what I did. It seemed easier than trying to explain what a "pellor" was, especially when most of the sites and discussions I visited in the early days were wiccan, and most of the Traditional terms were unknown to them.

But, over time, I have begun to question my decision to use this term, and in fact the propriety of anyone using the terms "witch" and "witchcraft" to describe themselves and what they do.

Why, one must ask, did our ancestors eschew the term entirely, insisting they were "cunning folk," "fairy doctors" "wise men/women," "whisperers," "knockers," "pellors" etc.? Were they simply being cautious, or were they being narrowly correct? Or were they making a clear distinction between whatever it was that they did, as opposed to whatever "witches" did?

There has been a general movement over the past 60 years or so to "reclaim" the word witch -- which has often lead to much publicity and stature for Wiccans, who mostly have lead the movement. Generally, these are attempts to insist that witchcraft is benign, and has only been the victim of a bad press. As part of the campaign which has been waged ever since Gardener those who defend witch also insist the "warlock" is a completely negative term that has nothing whatever to do with witchcraft.

I have come to the conclusion that this is not true, that the terms witch and warlock are related, and that witch is a negative term which should not be used. To understand this, one really must begin with etymology -- please bear with me. I will endeavor to ensure this is not a snoozefest.

At one time, until about 10 years ago, or so, the popular sources said that "witch" was derived from the similarly pronounced, Old English word "wicce." This, they further insisted that this word was derived from the root *wit or *wis, and thus was related to the word "wisdom."

In recent years, however, this etymology has been rejected as erroneous. Possibly the word "Wicce" comes from a Germanic root "weik," and is related to the modern English words "wile" and "guile." Or it may come from the the Anglo-Saxon root "weik," meaning "to bend or twist." The modern English descendants of this root are "wicker," and "twig."

The burden of either of these roots being correct is rather the same. Either a witch is one who uses guile (i.e.: treachery, deceit, underhanded devices), and wiles (i.e.: tricks, artifice), or a witch is one who bends and twists something. In either case, the witch is one who does not approach things directly, but in a surreptitious and dishonest manner.

Now, some might say that some might hope that what is bent and twisted are the powers of nature, or something like that. But it does not seem that is the case, since the same root gave rise to "weak." More likely it indicates that the witch is one who attempts to twist a way out of his sworn word -- that is, a witch is one who lies and uses deceit. (And, in a world where one's word was one's character, to twist out of it would be seen as "weak" indeed!) This leads us back to the first root.

Warlock seems to have a simpler derivation, or at least a more straightforward one. It comes from "waer" meaning "pledge" or "oath," and "loga" meaning "liar; that is, the warlock is one who lies about his pledged word.

Now some suggest that this derivation of the word warlock is erroneous. They point to a song from Norse and Icelandic traditions which is called the “Vardlokkur.” Nigel Pennick is one of those who makes this claim

Not to cast dispersions on anyone’s scholarship, but this appears to be what language teachers call "Faux amis". This is not unusual when non philologists attempt etymology, that finding a very similar word on Norse, Pennick may have assumed that this form was a root of the English and Scots term.

But, from what I remember of the rules of linguistics. the stop D between two semi-vowels R and L, is not likely to be dropped in the development from a Norse root to an English word.

Also, the root of the Norse word is clearly VARD, related to the English WARD, whereas the root of warlock is WAER = oath. Vardlokkur in Modern English would mean "the one who keeps guard at the end", "end-guarder" or (borrowing the football term) "tail guard", and it is difficult, if not damn near impossible, to see how this term could evolve into a term meaning "oath breaker/traitor/liar." (ALSO, and please take note, the Vardlokkur in the Saga is a song or chant, not a person. Whereas a Warlock is always -- in every use I have ever seen -- applied to a person.)

Also, at least as far back as the time of Norse Sagas, Warlock was already being applied in English to Satan. A word with an original meaning something along the lines of "Guardian" (also derivative from the root of VARD/WARD, BTW) is most unlikely to have been applied by Christian monks to a being they were trying to denigrate. It just isn’t logical, since it would hardly serve as a way to persuade the heathen Danes or English or Scots that Satan was a bad guy. ("Reject Satan, Father of Lies, tempter of the innocent, guardian AGAINST evil spirits..." hardly makes for a good sermon, does it??)

So, if warlock means liar, oath breaker, or traitor how different is this from the likely meaning of "witch?" The answer seems to be, not very. Both are terms used to describe people acting in an antisocial way -- deceivers liars and traitors, nothing most people would want to be associated with. The attempt by a wide variety of people to suggest there is some difference between witch and warlock does not stand up. And the use of the word witch to describe people who act (generally) for society cannot be sustained.

And this is born out by the fact that the Christians adopted the word witch to describe those who acted antisocially (as they, in some cases anyway, adopted warlock to describe Satan). But it seems pretty clear that they adopted these terms because they were already used to describe undesirable people -- not the fairy doctors and cunning folk who helped society, but those who afflicted it.

And, whether you think that "witch" should be applied solely to Anglo- Saxon heritage practitioners or not, the fact is that the cognate terms in every other language describe people who act against society. And different terms are used to describe those who act in socially responsible ways. Of course, the average person using these terms may conflate them, or use them interchangeably, but that does not mean they don't know what the terms properly refer to.

At any rate, the use of these terms should be discouraged, politely, but completely if possible, at least by those on Traditional and Hereditary paths. I don't want anyone to think that what I do or believe has to do with deceit and treachery. And, if I wouldn't use Warlock to describe myself or my friends, then I shouldn't use witch, either.

© Eolas Pellor, 2002, 2003