The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. The trials resulted in the executions of twenty people, most of them women. The events began when a group of young girls claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several women of witchcraft. This led to a frenzy of accusations and the arrest and imprisonment of numerous individuals. One of the most famous books about the Salem witch trials is "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller. Published in 1953, "The Crucible" is a fictionalized account of the Salem witch trials, but it draws heavily from historical events and characters.
Witches vs. Sorcerers: What’s the Difference?
For my Mexican Monstresses series, I’ve been reading a fascinating (but quite academic) book called Bloodsucking Witchcraft (Nutini and Roberts, 1993), about a type of Mexican “vampire” in central Mexico. I put vampire in quotes, because even though this creature sucks blood, both Nutini and Roberts, as well as sources on early Mexican folk belief all the way back to the sixteenth century, refer to it (“her” mostly) as a witch (brujo/a).
A bloodsucking shapeshifter is not what I think of as a witch.
And the European conception of a vampire (which is by definition a revenant — that is, the dead revived) isn’t a witch. But the definition that Nutini and Roberts use, and how they distinguish witch (brujo/a) from sorcerer (hechicero/a) calls out some differences I’d never thought about. Before, I’d always considered the terms somewhat interchangeable, and I think in common usage most people do. But the distinction is interesting, and useful.
Note that in the following discussion, I’m referring to witchcraft and sorcery in the folk belief sense of anthropomorphic supernatural beings, not in reference to Wicca or other modern Neopagan religions.
Nutini and Roberts have four criteria to distinguish witches from sorcerers. There are gray areas and exceptions, of course, but this is the basic framework.
1. Innate versus Learned Powers
Witches are born with their supernatural powers. You either have the witchcraft, or you don’t. Sometimes, your powers may come to you late: when you hit puberty, for instance. Sorcerers acquire their powers through training or study, often as an apprentice to another sorcerer. Sometimes a sorcerer-to-be manifests an innate talent or predisposition to magical ability, but to fully take advantage of it requires training (and in some cases, supernatural sponsorship by a local deity or spirit).
Bolobolo Faith Healer. Photo by Renzelle Mae Abasolo, some rights reserved.
Also check out this photo blog for excellent photos and commentary of mananambals in action.
To take examples from my own blog, the mananambal, a kind of folk healer in the Visayan region of the Philippines, is a sorcerer. But a buyag, who curses his or her victims through flattery, is a witch — although anyone can buyag someone else by accident, if the wrong spirit hears what you say.
Witch vs. sorcerer also seems to imply a potential difference in a practitioner’s ethical leanings. A sorcerer can choose to practice either good (white) magic, or evil (black) magic, although from what I’ve read, it’s generally believed that both magics emanate from the same source; it’s what you do with it that makes a difference. Witches are generally believed to be evil, and use their power for harm.
Perhaps this explains the supposedly-powerful-but-amazingly-ineffective-til-she-turned-to-the-dark-side Katrina in Sleepy Hollow. Yeah, I’m gonna go with that.
2. Private versus Public Powers
Witches pretend to be ordinary human beings, and practice their powers in secret (since they’re evil, and all). Sorcerers practice their powers in public, and often in an official capacity. So a “witch doctor” is not a witch, but a sorcerer, if you assume his healing and other abilities come from magic. La Huesuda, who shed her skin in secret to do her crimes, was a witch.
3. Immament versus Manipulative Powers
Witches’ powers are immament, or internal (another way of saying innate?). With some types of witches the exercise of those powers is a compulsion, like a werewolf under a full moon, or semi-voluntary, as with a buyag. With other types of witches the power is exercised at will. Samantha from Bewitched really was a witch (but a good one!!), because all she had to do was twitch her nose — and her powers were private.
A sorcerer’s powers are manipulative. They require props or other external aids: magic incantations or spells, charms, potions. Note that sometimes witches will use manipulative powers (“Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble…”), but for a sorcerer, they are required. Julian Karswell, from M.R. James’ “Casting the Runes” is a sorcerer, as is Mr. Abney from “Lost Hearts”.
4. Dependence or Independence from Ordinary Humans
This is basically a restating of points 1 and 2. Witches practice their powers secretly and in private, independently of other ordinary people, though sometimes they may have conclaves of their own kind. Sorcerers are public practitioners, and generally for hire, as in the case of mananambal, who can be hired either to curse your enemy or to cure you of (usually magical) illness. Therefore, since sorcerers practice magic as a profession, they are dependent on ordinary people and their community for their existence and livelihood.
There you have it! A handy checklist to help you tell a witch from a sorcerer. Where do the magical practitioners you encounter in film, fiction, or folklore fit?
Witch Vs. Sorceress: What Sets Them Apart? (The Key Differences)
All of us must have seen movies based on magic and mystery. Every franchise holds its own definitions for their mystical characters but it leaves us confused sometimes. One such question is the difference between a witch and a sorceress.
While both witches and sorceresses practice some form of magic, their skills and goals differ. A witch is more associated with nature-based or “white” magic. This involves using herbs and spells to protect people, heal the sick or bring good luck. In contrast, a sorceress is more focused on using “dark” magic to control or manipulate people. They might use spells or potions to control people’s minds or even summon dark forces to do their bidding.
In this blog post, we’ll take a closer look at the differences between witches and sorceresses and their powers, goals, and associations so you can gain a better understanding of each character type.
Published in 1953, "The Crucible" is a fictionalized account of the Salem witch trials, but it draws heavily from historical events and characters. The play explores themes of mass hysteria, religious fanaticism, and the power of fear. It also serves as a commentary on the dangers of McCarthyism, the anti-communist movement in the United States during the Cold War.
The Basics of Witchcraft and Sorcery
Witchcraft and sorcery are two terms that often get used interchangeably but there’s actually a big difference between them. In the simplest terms, a witch is someone who practices witchcraft, while a sorceress is someone who practices sorcery.
The Basics of Witchcraft and Sorcery- At their core, witchcraft and sorcery both involve the use of supernatural powers to achieve certain outcomes.
- Witches generally focus on exercising influence over natural forces (such as the elements or animals) while sorceresses typically focus on magical rituals to manipulate or exercise power over others whether it be through healing or hexing them.
- In terms of skills, witches tend to specialize in herbalism, divination (such as tarot readings), and spellcasting. Sorceresses generally have more of an affinity for magical objects such as talismans and amulets, prophetic visions, astral projection, and creating incantations that summon spirits.
It’s important to note that whether it’s witchcraft or sorcery these practices are not necessarily dark arts – in ancient cultures they were rather seen as an essential part of everyday life!
"The Crucible" focuses on the character of John Proctor, a farmer who becomes caught up in the trials after his servant, Abigail Williams, accuses his wife of witchcraft. Proctor must navigate the complex web of lies and deceit that surrounds the trials while struggling with his own guilt and integrity. The play highlights the devastating consequences of baseless accusations and the manipulation of fear for personal gain. Another important book about the Salem witch trials is "A Delusion of Satan: The Full Story of the Salem Witch Trials" by Frances Hill. Published in 1995, this non-fiction book provides a comprehensive and detailed account of the events leading up to and during the trials. Hill's book delves into the social, political, and religious factors that contributed to the hysteria and examines the lives of the individuals involved. She also explores the lasting impact of the trials on American society and the continued relevance of the story today. Other notable books on the subject include "The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-by-Day Chronicle of a Community Under Siege" by Marilynne K. Roach, which provides a chronological account of the trials, and "A Storm of Witchcraft: The Salem Trials and the American Experience" by Emerson W. Baker, which offers a scholarly analysis of the trials and their significance in American history. Overall, books about the Salem witch trials help to shed light on a dark chapter in American history. They serve as a reminder of the dangers of hysteria, prejudice, and intolerance, and the importance of safeguarding justice and individual rights. The trials continue to captivate the public imagination and serve as a cautionary tale for generations to come..
Reviews for "The Salem Witch Trials: Fact vs Fiction"
- Jane - 1 star - I found "Book about Salem Witch Trials" to be a complete letdown. The writing was dry and did not engage me at all. I struggled to keep my focus while reading it and ended up skimming through most of the pages. The author failed to bring the characters and events to life, making it feel like a tedious history lesson rather than an intriguing exploration of the Salem Witch Trials. Overall, I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for a captivating and well-written account of this historical event.
- Mark - 2 stars - I was really looking forward to reading "Book about Salem Witch Trials" as I find the topic fascinating. However, I was disappointed with the execution of this book. The author seemed more interested in listing facts and dates rather than delving into the personal stories and experiences of those involved. The narrative felt disjointed and lacked a clear structure. Additionally, the writing style was overly formal and academic, making it difficult for me to connect with the story. I would have preferred a more immersive and engaging approach to this historical event.
- Sarah - 2.5 stars - "Book about Salem Witch Trials" had the potential to be an interesting read, but I felt that it fell short in various aspects. The author presented the events in a very basic and superficial manner, without offering any new insights or interpretations. The lack of depth made it challenging to fully understand the motivations and context surrounding the witch trials. Additionally, the writing style was rather dry and lacked excitement, which made it feel like a chore to get through the book. Overall, I was left wanting more substance and a more engaging storytelling approach.