Enchants are not what they seem

[Anderlith]

So, in most any game I've played magic items are "enchanted". But if know anything about classical wizardry you should know that enchanted doesn't mean to bind magic to an item. That is Invocation, meaning call within as opposed to Evocation, meaning call forth. Does anyone in the playground know when this trend started & maybe why it happened in the first place?

[Lapak]

So, in most any game I've played magic items are "enchanted". But if know anything about classical wizardry you should know that enchanted doesn't mean to bind magic to an item. That is Invocation, meaning call within as opposed to Evocation, meaning call forth. Does anyone in the playground know when this trend started & maybe why it happened in the first place?

Um. People have been describing 'enchanted castles', 'enchanted swords', 'enchanted forests' and so on in the sense of 'thing inhabited or empowered by magic' for just about as long as the word has existed in modern English. In fairy tales, books, mythology, and stories of all kinds.

So, huh?

[Sudain]

I too am under that impression. What are you referencing? I'm interested; just never encountered it before.

[Jay R]

So, in most any game I've played magic items are "enchanted". But if know anything about classical wizardry you should know that enchanted doesn't mean to bind magic to an item. That is Invocation, meaning call within as opposed to Evocation, meaning call forth. Does anyone in the playground know when this trend started & maybe why it happened in the first place?

Don't take any gaming rule as an indication of classical wizardry, if "classical" means anything before the 1970s. The idea of a clear distinction between invocation, evocation, alteration, charm, enchantment, etc. was invented for AD&D 1E, in the late 1970s.

By contrast, the word "enchanter" is documented in English back to 1297 meaning one who has magical power, and the verb "enchant" goes back at least to 1377. The root word is chant, (Latin incantare), meaning to sing. It came to mean casting magic, but had no particular specific form of magic associated with it (except a verbal component) until Gary Gygax decided to give it one.

[Beleriphon]

Does anyone in the playground know when this trend started & maybe why it happened in the first place?

14th Century.

enchant
late 14c., lit. and fig., from Fr. enchanter, from L. incantare (see enchantment). Related: Enchanting. Enchanted in weakened sense of "delighted" is from 1590s.

enchant
— vb
1. to cast a spell on; bewitch
2. to delight or captivate utterly; fascinate; charm

[C14: from Old French enchanter, from Latin incantāre to chant a spell, from cantāre to chant, from canere to sing]

So based on my cursory results of reading a dictioary I've determined that since sometime in 14th century France the term enchant has meant to cast a spell upon something.

[The-Mage-King]

Also, I'm pretty sure most of it is enhance, not enchant.


Could just be 3.5 D&D, but... Hey, is something.

[Dimers]

On the other hand, "necromancy" has deep etymological problems and has developed a huge divide between pre-RPGing use and current use. It means divination via the dead, not command over life or death energies in any other sense. "Necroturgy" is a better phrasing, or "viviturgy" to put the emphasis on the positive.

[Jay R]

On the other hand, "necromancy" has deep etymological problems and has developed a huge divide between pre-RPGing use and current use. It means divination via the dead, not command over life or death energies in any other sense. "Necroturgy" is a better phrasing, or "viviturgy" to put the emphasis on the positive.

True, but etymology is not definition, or "digital computing" would mean counting on your fingers.

[Jokson]

Yeah, so, I'm confused. If by "classical wizardry" you mean "the designations early D&D put on its spellcasting", then I guess you're right.

But I'm pretty sure the use of "enchanted" to mean "some sort of magical item or place or thing" goes back before D&D. Just a wild guess, you could call it.

[Aron Times]

In 4e, the ritual Enchant Magic Item is all of 3.5's Craft Magic Doodad feats combined into one. There's also Disenchant Magic Item, which lets you recycle magic items, turning them into residuum (powdered magic). The amount you get varies with the type of magic item, with common magic items providing about 20% their cost in residuum, to rarer items providing their full amount in residuum.

Strangely, 4e still refers to plusses as "enhancement" bonuses instead of enchantment bonuses.

[Dimers]

True, but etymology is not definition, or "digital computing" would mean counting on your fingers.

You have insight and precision, sir. Nevertheless, I shall take any opportunity I have to combat the insidious spread of "-mancy"ism. It's all "-turgy" for me (even if I have to mix Latin and Greek to do it, 'cos 'bioturgy' just comes out sounding scatological).

[Anderlith]

By "classical wizardry" I do not mean AD&D or anything. I mean classical Greek elements & The Laws of Contagion. Also as it has been said already Necromancy also suffers from this, I was planning on addressing that one later but oh well.

[Knaight]

By "classical wizardry" I do not mean AD&D or anything. I mean classical Greek elements & The Laws of Contagion. Also as it has been said already Necromancy also suffers from this, I was planning on addressing that one later but oh well.

This ignores the vast, vast majority of magical beliefs. Moreover, neither the classical Greek elements or the Laws of Contagion are the neat and precise concepts as sold today when you actually look at them.

[nyarlathotep]

By "classical wizardry" I do not mean AD&D or anything. I mean classical Greek elements & The Laws of Contagion. Also as it has been said already Necromancy also suffers from this, I was planning on addressing that one later but oh well.

Enchant is not a Greek or Latin word. As stated earlier it is in fact an English language invention. Similar to why inflammable means something that can be lit on fire even though "in" traditionally indicates something cannot be done. It's root is the word inflame rather than flammable.

[Anderlith]

Enchant is not a Greek or Latin word. As stated earlier it is in fact an English language invention. Similar to why inflammable means something that can be lit on fire even though "in" traditionally indicates something cannot be done. It's root is the word inflame rather than flammable.

Yes but this is the because english is a horrible language to have consistent rules for.

[GolemsVoice]

Where are you getting the idea from that enchantment doesn't mean that an item is in a way imbued with magic (thus enchanted)? Isn't that the definition of the word? I'm no native speaker, but from what others have posted, enchant and enchantment seem to have referred to something being bewitched or imbued with magic for about about 800+ years now.

It could also simply be for the sake of clarity, because if somebody told me he would invoke a magic item, I would think he somehow plans on calling upon this item's power, because that's what invoke means, in today's English.

[Jay R]

Yes but this is the because english is a horrible language to have consistent rules for.

While that's true, the real issue in this thread is that magic, which doesn't exist, is a horrible activity to have consistent rules for.

[TheCountAlucard]

While that's true, the real issue in this thread is that magic, which doesn't exist, is a horrible activity to have consistent rules for.

I respectfully disagree. Magic A Is Magic A is a trope for a reason (though I'll save you the need for a Will save by not linking it).

[Knaight]

I respectfully disagree. Magic A Is Magic A is a trope for a reason (though I'll save you the need for a Will save by not linking it).

Exactly. Individual systems of magic within individual works of fiction need to be consistent. Magic as a concept doesn't need to be, by virtue of it being fictional.

[Aron Times]

I respectfully disagree. Magic A Is Magic A is a trope for a reason (though I'll save you the need for a Will save by not linking it).

Fixed.

You're welcome.

[Jay R]

I respectfully disagree. Magic A Is Magic A is a trope for a reason (though I'll save you the need for a Will save by not linking it).

Certainly the magic in a given fantasy world needs to be consistent with itself. But since the Original Poster was explicitly expecting definitions from one source ("classical wizardry") to apply exactly in other fantasy worlds, this trope does not apply to this discussion.

[Analytica]

I've seen it phrased here and there in fiction that certain objects have had rune-songs sung over them, or prayers read over them. This would match the concept of enchanted objects quite well.

[Anderlith]

Certainly the magic in a given fantasy world needs to be consistent with itself. But since the Original Poster was explicitly expecting definitions from one source ("classical wizardry") to apply exactly in other fantasy worlds, this trope does not apply to this discussion.

That's not really my point. It's like everyone making fantasy books wear swords are always called cutlasses regardless of the actual design of the sword

[Knaight]

That's not really my point. It's like everyone making fantasy books wear swords are always called cutlasses regardless of the actual design of the sword

Hardly. Cutlass actually refers to a real sword, with actual historical models to reference. Magic, meanwhile, is entirely fictional, and at the level you've distilled it down to is looking at the names given by one particular system of belief that isn't even all that unified.

[Mewtarthio]

But if know anything about classical wizardry you should know that enchanted doesn't mean to bind magic to an item. That is Invocation, meaning call within as opposed to Evocation, meaning call forth.

I've never heard "invoke" used that way. It's always referred to calling on a higher power (and is, in fact, an English word meaning just that). Are you perhaps thinking of "invest"?

[Anderlith]

Hardly. Cutlass actually refers to a real sword, with actual historical models to reference. Magic, meanwhile, is entirely fictional, and at the level you've distilled it down to is looking at the names given by one particular system of belief that isn't even all that unified.

Not really, they both cross all cultures & have rules written for them etc. etc. Just because it is fictional doesn't mean that it doesn't have facts.

[Beleriphon]

Not really, they both cross all cultures & have rules written for them etc. etc. Just because it is fictional doesn't mean that it doesn't have facts.

Erm... I think you're still missing the point. Enchant as a word means, or can mean, to cast a spell upon something/someone. That is its meaning in English, and has been such for at least several centuries. The root words mean the same thing in even more ancient languages. So functionally the word "enchant" or one of its direct predecessors means to cast a spell upon something, and has for some where around 2500 years now.

[Thinker]

So, in most any game I've played magic items are "enchanted". But if know anything about classical wizardry you should know that enchanted doesn't mean to bind magic to an item. That is Invocation, meaning call within as opposed to Evocation, meaning call forth. Does anyone in the playground know when this trend started & maybe why it happened in the first place?

There is no such thing as classical wizardry. Magic has been interpreted in different forms by practically every culture on earth. As far as I know, breaking magic into specialized schools is a fairly new construct. Languages evolve. Look at the word divination. In the 14th century it meant "to be inspired by god", but has since evolved to include all forms of telling the future.

Ideas about magic have also evolved. To many cultures, there was nothing supernatural about magic; it was a force of the universe as much as any other. In some societies, magic was a birthright, while in others it was learned, and in still others it was constantly being tapped into by everyone. Sometimes magic was the work of the gods, sometimes by the devil, sometimes because of people, and sometimes completely on it's own.

Since you use the word "enchant" to specifically argue your point, we have to assume that you mean magic as interpreted by someone from the 14th Century or later localized to France (or one of the French speaking kingdoms) or to the British Isles. Later on in the thread, you specify the Law of Contagion, which moves our "classical magic" very far forward, to 1890 or later, as written by James Frazer in The Golden Bough.

Are you trying to specify Victorian when you state "classical"? If so, Victorian anthropologists (like Frazer) were notorious for their inaccuracies when trying to purport a specific viewpoint and so later books about the same topic should always be used when possible. Think of The Golden Bough like a starting point, similar to how you might use Wikipedia to find topics and articles as you begin research. If you are trying to refer to the Law itself, as described in The Golden Bough, there is no way to ascribe "classical" to it because far too many disparate cultures believed in some form of contagious magic.

The other topic you bring up is the four classical elements from Greek, which was the basis for how they understood physics to work. Unfortunately, they don't have a word for "enchant", though the four elements were still respected until science learned better.

The fact is, that enchant comes from the Latin word incantare, which literally means "enchant, cast a (magic) spell upon". This fits very well with the notion of magical items being enchanted.

You go on to argue that the correct term should be "invoke", which you correctly state comes from a root meaning "to call forth" or "to call upon". This could only refer to an item imbued with magic under a condition where the item has already been imbued and simply needs to be activated. That could either be in the case of turning on or off an ability, like someone would use a flashlight, or a one-time activation to access the magic, like someone activating Windows for the first time. Neither of those cases seems any more "classical" than any other reference to magic.

[Dimers]

The fact is, that enchant comes from the Latin word incantare, which literally means "enchant, cast a (magic) spell upon".

All that "enchant" or "incantare" means without cultural reference is speak to or speak upon. The key root word also appears in words like "chant", "cant" (e.g. thieves' cant) and "chanteuse". The same is true for "invoke" and "evoke", which descend from the same voc you find in "vocalize" and "voice". The association between magic and speech/chanting in the cultures that inform our linguistic and social paradigm is very, very old, so it may seem that "incantare" has always meant "cast a magic spell". But speaking literally, it does not. That's just a strong association.

[Thinker]

All that "enchant" or "incantare" means without cultural reference is speak to or speak upon. The key root word also appears in words like "chant", "cant" (e.g. thieves' cant) and "chanteuse". The same is true for "invoke" and "evoke", which descend from the same voc you find in "vocalize" and "voice". The association between magic and speech/chanting in the cultures that inform our linguistic and social paradigm is very, very old, so it may seem that "incantare" has always meant "cast a magic spell". But speaking literally, it does not. That's just a strong association.

When a word has been used with a common definition for 2500 years, at what point do we start using it's practical connotation instead of it's root words to decide what it means? As Jay R illustrated above, we recognize the difference between digital computing and computing with one's digits.