Peas

In the annals of magic, there is an episode where a great Magus resorted to an act of low magic with brilliant success. That such a magus would resort to simple magics was almost unheard of... that it worked was even more so. Samuel Mathers, from his home in France, baptized a handful of peas with the names of his detractors in the London lodge of the HOGD. He then let the peas pass through a seive, and as each one fell through, his enemies faded away.

I understand this sort of magic on an intellectual level. From a CMT point of view it is rather elegant. I haven't done magic like this since I was a teenager. I put away the mojo and the juju some time ago, so long ago that half of what I knew is probably lost. The washes and powders, soaps and gris-gris, the pennies and nickels, all seem to be vague memories.

The other day I was asked "Aren't you a bit too white to know all of that hoodoo stuff?" I had to sit back and think on it for a while. I took to it like a fish to water, but I can't even begin to tell you where most of it came from. A book here, a conversation there, many a lost hour in a botanica just listening and asking questions. I am an absolute dullard when it comes to wort-cunning. I never had a knack for it. I can't tell St. Johns Wort from Orris Root (well, I can but I am trying to make a point here) but when it comes to gris-gris... the mixing of various items to formulate a spell... there are few out there who are my equal.

While I am on this new quest in my life, I think these old skills may be of some use.

I need to buy some red flannel.

Sacerdos Mvliebri Ornatv

Apud Nahanarvalos antiquae religionis lucus ostenditur. Praesidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu, sed deos interpretatione Romana Castorem Pollucemque memorant. Ea vis numini, nomen Alcis. Nulla simulacra, nullum peregrinae superstitionis vestigium; ut fratres tamen, ut iuvenes venerantur.

Amongst the Naharvalians is shown a grove, sacred to devotion extremely ancient. Over it a Priest presides apparelled like a woman; but according to the explication of the Romans, 'tis Castor and Pollux who are here worshipped. This Divinity is named Alcis. There are indeed no images here, no traces of an extraneous superstition: yet their devotion is addressed to young men and to brothers.

Germania, Chapter XLIII - Cornelius Tacitus

This passage from Tacitus' Germania has intrigued me for many years, and more so since I have been focussing on the ancient priesthoods of the Germani and other Indo-European peoples. I have seen how some people have tried to make this a license for transgenderism and transvestitism in Germanic religion, often sighting Saxo's reference to the "unmanly clattering of bells" to further support their often liberal agendas, and to some how de-masculinize the priesthood. This way of thinking seems to have it's genesis in the Ring of Troth when Prudence Priest was its Steersman (and the subsequent influx of all sorts of liberal notions). Now mind you, I could care less what sexual identity a person subscribes to, in fact I find modern notions of "sexuality" just that... modern. I do have an objection when people try to use antiquity and sacral positions to validate their sexuality as something special or sacred. I am sure you can see why I find such notions rather annoying and completely without merit.

P. D. Chantepie De La Saussaye offers the suggestion that "muliebri ornatu"

"probably refers to the hairdress. Among the Lugii and the Vandals the royal family was called Hazdiggôs, i.e. men with the hairdress of a woman, like the Merovingi among the Franks. The priesthood therefore shared this characteristic with the nobility." - The Religion of the Teutons

Now, while this is certainly an interesting proposal, and Krappe does not discredit it in his article "The Bearded Venus" (Folklore, December 1945) but dosen't appear to be so on the idea of "long hair" equals "feminine adornment". I don't buy it either, and I will use Tacitus himself to discredit the notion.

Earlier in the Germania, Tacitus describes the dress of the Germanii as

Tegumen omnibus sagum fibula aut, si desit, spina consertum: cetera intecti totos dies iuxta focum atque ignem agunt. Locupletissimi veste distinguuntur, non fluitante, sicut Sarmatae ac Parthi, sed stricta et singulos artus exprimente. Gerunt et ferarum pelles, proximi ripae neglegenter, ulteriores exquisitius, ut quibus nullus per commercia cultus. Eligunt feras et detracta velamina spargunt maculis pellibusque beluarum, quas exterior Oceanus atque ignotum mare gignit. Nec alius feminis quam viris habitus, nisi quod feminae saepius lineis amictibus velantur eosque purpura variant, partemque vestitus superioris in manicas non extendunt, nudae brachia ac lacertos; sed et proxima pars pectoris patet.

They all wrap themselves in a cloak which is fastened with a clasp, or, if this is not forthcoming, with a thorn, leaving the rest of their persons bare. They pass whole days on the hearth by the fire. The wealthiest are distinguished by a dress which is not flowing like that of the Sarmatae and Parthi, but is tight, and exhibits each limb. They also wear the skins of wild beasts; the tribes on the Rhine and Danube in a careless fashion, those of the interior with more elegance, as not obtaining other clothing by commerce. These select certain animals, the hides of which they strip off and vary them with the spotted skins of beasts, the produce of the outer ocean, and of seas unknown to us. The women have the same dress as the men except that they generally wrap themselves in linen garments, which they embroider with purple, and do not lengthen out the upper part of their clothing into sleeves. The upper and lower arm is thus bare, and the nearest part of the bosom is also exposed.

Germania, Chapter XVII - Cornelius Tacitus

Now, when I read this quote it tells me that the vast majority of the Germanii were garbed in but the barest of clothing (a cloak with a fibula) and perhaps a basic tunic. The wealthy wore clothes as we understand them, conforming to the shape of the body. This is in direct contrast to the Roman way of dress where the wealthy wore flowing garments that did not conform to the legs (bifibrucation) or having sleeves. He then mentions that the women wore a basic tube skirt, sleevless, and with the cleavage showing. Women wore flowing garments of fine materials (we can assume he means wealthy women here) . Now, if Tacitus understood that wealthy men wore form fitting clothing (or at least pants and sleeves) and women wore flowing clothing, then why is it so hard to believe that these priests in muliebri ornatu were simply wearing a flowing robe of some variety? It seems perfectly logical to me, and takes the mans own words into account.

Our priests were not the castrati and transvesti of Cybele.

Extra Spicy

I have been thinking a great deal about the ancient practice of extispicy (not flavour of Popeye's chicken) and its relation to heathen religion. I have a few sources (primary and secondary) that mention the reading of entrails, but there is little operant information available. It seems to be a near universal practice, and cognate forms can be found amongst the Romans through the Etruscans. This ties it back to Western Anatolia for its genesis. Roman extispicy seems to have been more oriented to "yes/no" answers than the Etruscan, and usually involved the confirmation and/or suitability of sacrificial offerings. I read an interesting article on the Bronze Liver discovered in the later part of the 19th century, and the author has some really awesome ideas on how it ties together three forms of divination on one model (bird omens, lightning omens, and haruspicy). This is MOST intriguing because it may provide a frame work for the lost art of reading the birds. This is especially significant when you take into account my theories of Raetti influence on the Southern Germanic tribes and their Etruscan origins. Perhaps I am reading too much into such things, but it seems to "fit".

Dwólma ond Ginning - Confusion and Chaos

I don't participate on email lists very often these days. In all honesty I am tired of going over the same dozen or so topics, and have found that the trouble and energy invested in such discourse far outweighs the return. If your investment surpasses your return, it’s a bad investment. I value my time and try not to squander it.

With that said, I have recently made the online acquaintance of a Mr. Robin Artisson. Robin writes on subjects relating to traditional witchcraft and paganism (paleo, meso, and reconstructionist) and I must say that our interactions have been interesting. I joined one of the lists he hosts, and thus far it has been at least entertaining. The people who engage in discussion seem genuinely nice, and have a good sense of humor.

The other day, someone mentioned a web page purporting to tell the secrets of Anglo-Saxon wiccecræft, so I looked upon it. I recognized it as a work by a Mr. Michael Rayborn, an old acquaintance, and so I responded to the post. I first met Mr. Rayborn when I was a member of Edred Thorsson's Rune-Gild, and my impression of him at the time was less than flattering. Over time I started to see a great deal of potential in the young man, and so I started to pay attention to his ideas and theories. Now mind you, I still think he has a flawed understanding of the way of Wóden, and of Heathenry in general, but there are a few gems in his bag of marbles. This web page is one of them.

Now, if you look to the "soul" of the piece, you will find some very interesting concepts at play. I honestly don't know how old the page is, but I think it was around before I was forced to take a hiatus from the heathen community. Perhaps the most interesting part of the page is Master Rayborn's understanding of the numinous power of creation. Master Rayborn refers to the numinous power of creation as dwólma, and equates it with the Greek xaos. Now many translators have used the word "chaos" as a gloss for dwólma, but this is an essentially flawed connection.

Bosworth and Toller give the following examples Betweox us and eów is mycel dwolma getrymed and translate it into Latin as inter nos et vos chaos magnum firmátum est. I translate this into Modern English as "Between us and you is great confusion confirmed". This sentence does not deal with a notion of unformed power, but a confusion of understanding between two groups of people. Also, Bosworth and Toller give Ða twegen tregan teóþ to-somne wið ðæt mód fóran mistes dwoleman and the equally poetic translation of "the two vexations draw together before the mind a chaos of darkness". Seems pretty good, and my translation is very similar: "The two troubles draw together in front of the mind/mood as mists of confusion". So why do I insists that the word dwólma means "confusion"?

Dwólma doesn’t mean chaos in the sense Michael Rayborn is using it, but is instead related to the archaic but Modern English word "dwale" often glossed as "potion" or "poison", and specifically linked with Atropa Belladonna. It is etymologically related to the word "dull", in the sense that a dull person is befuddled, foolish, and confused. Dwalecræft, or dwólecræft, is the art of making poisons and other chemicals, or enchantments to produce said states. In many ways it is the English version of glamour.

The word for the state Master Rayborn is really trying to explain, in Old English is ginning from which our modern English word "beginning" derives. THE beginning is the unformed mass of potentia which the entire cosmos was formed, and in many ways, the mass of unformed chaos that the ordered universe floats in and continually consumes as it is becoming (weorðan). This is the same ginning that is found in the Old Norse Ginnungagap, or the "chasm of chaos"; a similar idea to the Hellenic xaos. It is this "substance" or æthyr that wicce would use in their workings, according to Master Rayborn.

Further, Michael states on one of his amazon.com lists

"Witchcraft and chaos magic pretty much dovetail each other in almost everyway
and are based on the same theory. In fact, one of the names for witchcraftin
England is *dwolcraft*, which means "the craft of chaos". This points to
theformless and fluid nature of witchcraft."

Now, as I have stated, Master Rayborn's use of language may be imprecise, but he does understand the underlying concepts. If one accepts an ætheric model of magical theory (as good as any other mental construct of how magic works), where an underlying "substance" or æthyr allows for the non-linear connections for magic to occur, as Peter Carrol presents in his book "Liber Null & Psychonaut", and not unlike the mana of Polynesian societies, then this magical substance that was at the beginning (there's that word again) would be the same unformed potentia used in acts of sorcery. Even acts of dwólecræft.

"So, what's the big deal?" you may be asking. The big deal is that language is the bedrock of culture, and the way with which we communicate ideas. Therefore it is imperative that we be as precise as possible in its application. If we were to assume that dwólecræft was in effect "chaos magic" we would loose the potential development of the true dwólecræft, the making of poisons, potions, and befuddling enchantments.

The devil is always in the details.