Talk:Sympathetic magic

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

There's much more to be done here, so please let's no one have a cow just yet over anything I've done here. --DanielCD 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will birth no calves here. Most of the people involved have been dead for 100,000 years. FloNight ^talk 02:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about voodoo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.192.90.48 (talk • contribs)

Origin of the term sympathetic?

It seems that the term sympathetic in relation to types of magic was already used by Adolf Wuttke for example in the first edition (1860, p.147) and more significantly the second edition (1869, p. 173) of his Der Deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart. Richard Andree in Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche refers to the second edition. Wuttke was not the first to have used the term, as he writes in the first edition: "[...] das Gebiet der sogenannten sympathetischen Kuren. Der Ausdruck Sympathie wird da in der allgemeineren Bedeutung: theilnahme, innere Verbindung und Beziehung, gebraucht [...]".

References in popular culture

So a villain can only be killed if a certain object is destroyed. I've seen that in modern movies a lot. Should we maybe make a section somewhere where we list those?
Lord of the rings --> Sauron dies if the One Ring is destroyed
The Return of Jafar (sequel to Aladdin) --> the genie Jafar dies if his lamp is destroyed
Harry Potter --> Voldemort dies if all his horcruxes, which contain pieces of his soul, are destroyed.
--Mithcoriel (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid it being just a trivia list, is there a term for this connection or vicarious representation of the object in terms of villain? Or is it more like an effigy. I might take this to the ref desks and see what happens, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what happened...

Poppets/ensouled objects

When a villain can only be killed if a certain object is destroyed, eg in Lord of the rings, Sauron dies if the One Ring is destroyed; the genie Jafar dies if his lamp is destroyed; and in Harry Potter, Voldemort dies if all his horcruxes, which contain pieces of his soul, are destroyed. Is there a word for this objecting being more than just standing for, (apart from effigy) the villain? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would "soul vessel" or "icon" fit the bill?--71.236.23.111 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about phylactery?--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a medicine bag to me. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all sound like it. I'll put those in a see also at the end of the article and maybe a section with links. Thanks for your help. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are no doubt aware that "phylactery" is a word in its own right having nothing to do with all this, borrowed without permission for the obscure fictional mumbo-jumbo. Frazer could come up with nothing better than "soul-box" (p. 680) to contain the "external soul". Incidentally. in poking around I discovered what I think I used to know, that the "Host" of the Eucharist is not the same word as the ordinary "host" but instead derives from the Latin for "sacrifice". I was hoping it would have to do with "hosting" the soul or something of Christ, but no. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katschei is also famous for this. 134.96.105.72 (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<nitpick alert> Sauron doesn't die. He is just rendered impotent (Viagra endorsement time?). </nitpick alert> Clarityfiend (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the other examples has a similar inaccuracy. Spoiler here. --Anon, 00:06 UTC, May 30, 2008.

This is so helpful, I'm copying the whole thread to the talk page. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a distinction between a character/person choosing to place a piece of their soul in an object for the preservation of their life/power, and this being done by someone else, either for protection or harm. Prince Meleager in the story of Atalanta and the log that represented his life is an example from Greek myth- when the log is thrown into a fire, Meleager dies. (Hyginus, Fabula 171; pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheke 1.8.2.)

The use of poppets in Voodoo is possibly influenced by Scottish and Irish folk magic, and needs to be distinguished from the practice of using fetishes to house spirits that do not currently have physical bodies. ^[1] Sympathetic Magic is an umbrella term that can contain the more specific category of "effigy magic" which is the more appropriate term for the use of poppets.^[2]

References

Sympathetic magic and quantum entanglement?

Quantum entanglement (listed in the "See also" section) has no connection to myth or folklore, and its inclusion here serves only to encourage quantum mystification. Because this Talk page seems to be dead, I am simply going to remove it. --2600:1700:1936:4810:822D:CCC:F7A5:B673 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to create a new section saying that I can't believe there's no mention of quantum entanglement here. I think removing that link was a mistake. Yes, it'd be better to put QE in context (instead of just a bald link), but not mentioning it here at all makes Wikipedia sound like it can't even make the simplest of conceptual links. It's fascinating that people thought of clearly crazy things like weapon salve and powder of sympathy; and yet now we're learning what we're learning about entanglement, which should by rights be equally nuts. But it isn't. Very interesting. Removing that link was a mistake, and a shame. 2601:600:A480:4C20:45C6:BE1:671B:7A9 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/13things/7393.html

[2] ttp://www.badwitch.co.uk/2018/11/magical-dolls-history-of-poppets-effigy.html

[1]

[2]