Life, God, the Universe and Mr Kipling…

The history of the "Ouija" board

In 1848, Hydesville, New York, two sisters – Kate and Margaret Fox – made contact with the spirit of a deceased peddler. This sparked off a revolutionary obsession across the U.S. and Europe in modern spiritualism.

Spiritual churches began forming en masse and anyone deemed "gifted" in the ability to contact the dead was given the title of "medium". A variety of methods were invented to allow communication with spirits that initially included table turning (or tilting) and spirit writing.

Table turning involved a medium and sitters placing their fingers lightly on a table to await spirit contact. The table would then rock back and forth, knocking on the floor to letters called from the alphabet, or to yes and no questions. Unfortunately, this form of communication was time consuming, and the chore of interpreting knocks became boring as the novelty wore off during the course of the sitting.

Spirit writing involved placing ones fingers over a small basket with a pencil attached to one end. It is alleged that the basket went on to evolve into a heart-shaped "planchette" by a French medium, M. Planchette. This is highly questionable though, as the word "planchette" derives from the French for "little plank".

Although this method was less noisy than its table turning counterpart, it was still very difficult to keep the planchette centred on the paper, and often the written messages were indecipherable.

Many mediums dispensed with the planchette altogether and developed what we now call "trance mediumship". Others preferred to hold the pencil directly in their own hands to allow "automatic writing" to channel through. There were a few, however, who considered it important in this field of interest to use the "correct" equipment. Thus, the dial plates, or psychographs, were developed.

These were huge, cumbersome items with strange alphanumeric gadgets on large tables with moving needles and wheels. The expense involved with dial plates lead to their decline in usage, but shortly after the planchette arrived in the U.S., a cabinet and coffin maker from Maryland, E. C. Reiche, created a wooden lap tray with alphabet and numbers, and yes and no in each lower corner. He modified the planchette by removing the pencil and adding small wooden pegs underneath it, allowing it to move freely over the board.

Reiche named the board "Ouija", incorrectly believing the name to be the Egyptian word for luck. As the claim was made after a spirit allegedly told him during a contact session, the name was adopted for this tool.

Reiche had little interest in making money from his invention. He sold the idea to his friend, Charles Kennard, founder of the Kennard Novelty Co. Kennard began producing commercial Ouija boards in 1886 and on May 28^th 1890, Charles Kennard and William H. A. Maupin filed the first patent for a "talking board".

Not long after this, William Fuld, who was Kennard’s shop manager at the time, forced Kennard out of the business and renamed the company to the "Ouija Novelty Co.". He produced and successfully marketed the "Fuld’s Talking Board". After 35 profitable years, Fuld’s business suffered a small slump in sales, and in 1927 Fuld was alleged to have committed suicide. His death was more than likely accidental, but the rumours gave the Ouija board a slightly eerie taint in reputation.

In 1966, Fuld’s heirs sold the company to Parker Brothers, an established toy and board games company. Parker Brothers still hold all the trademarks and patents to the board today, and the Ouija board is still as popular as ever.

Much of the bad press surrounding Ouija boards is credited to media sensationalism. The board requires no special talent to use, and its esoteric reputation attracts many young people into "dabbling" with contacting the dead. Although there is no evidence to suggest using the Ouija board can cause problems with "unfriendly spirits" attaching themselves to the sitters, it is perhaps worth mentioning the psychological effects the board can have on those whose minds are more susceptible to the power of suggestion. For this reason alone, it is recommended that the board be used only with the presence and guidance of experienced sitters.

It has also been suggested that the planchette does not move because of any "spirit" activity, but rather due to the power of the mind of the sitters. In other words, by the use of psychokinesis. This in itself is "paranormal", and is also worthy of investigation.

On the whole, it is my personal belief that the Ouija board is no more problematic than any other form of channeling spirits. As with all tools, it is the operation of the users that determines the output and results. My advice to anyone considering using the Ouija board who is a little unsure about it, would be first of all to employ the help of person(s) experienced in using one, and secondly, use some form of mental self protection. The psychology behind this can go a long way in alleviating any "fears" of repercussions from using a board. The Ouija board is not a toy, and should be used with respect. But nor is it some "evil spirit-attracting" tool! The Ouija board should simply be regarded as a method of attempting to communicate with spirits, and can be employed as part of any paranormal investigation with some potentially interesting results.

~ Jo Holness © 2003

No part of this website may be reproduced without the written permission of the owner. Contact psychobunny@gmail.com

The history of Handfastings

Today, there is often a general romanticism associated with the idea of being hand fasted. As paganism continues to grow in modern society, there seems an increasing need to perform “some kind of significant ceremony” that disassociates itself from the legal imposition of civil or church-lead ceremonies. A handfasting does just that. It defines the importance of pagan ceremonies being recognised by their followers as just as valid and binding as any government or canonical ceremony. After all, other belief systems have legally recognised ceremonies (Christian, Buddhist, Hindus, Sikh etc), so why not for paganism? But is this the real intent and origin of handfastings?

Originally, handfastings were not exclusively associated with what we identify as modern-day paganism. The term “pagan” merely defined those not of the Roman Catholic belief, which was the religion of the day in medieval times. Interestingly the concept of what constituted a “marriage” was vastly different in the late middle ages than today. Marriage was based on the exchange of consent. Either the consent was in the present here and now (“I take you to be my husband/wife”) or consent was promised in the future followed by sexual intercourse based on that promise (sex was deemed to be a present consent, therefore as such, made a marriage).

For either of the above to be held as a marriage, witnesses were not required. In fact, witnesses merely made it easier to prove such consent had taken place. Nor was the presence of an officiating priest required either. Advance banns, blessings nor consummation entered into the validity of a marriage. It was a purely consensual agreement between the two people involved.

Strangely enough, the “consent” theory of marriage derived from the Roman Catholic Church itself. Previous to around the 1200, marriages were only deemed valid if there was parental consent and consummation. In Scotland, there was also another type of marriage – that of habit and repute. If a couple had been living together as married and presented themselves as married, they were deemed to have a valid marriage. This was more for existing “marriages” (as proof of marriage) rather than for the creation of “new” marriages. In a society whereby proof may have been required for consent to marriage, this provided an excellent resource to validate existing unions. As it stood, the only real way to annul a marriage in those days was to prove that no real marriage had occurred: e.g. if either or both of the parties were too young (12 years old for women and 14 for men – however, if when the parties came of age they continued to live together as married, this would validate the marriage from then on), insane at the time of the marriage, too closely related, already married or impotent at the time of the marriage – although there are no details that I could find of how that could be proven!

From around the 13th Century, marriage ceremonies began to change. Although all that was necessary for a marriage to be valid was still only consent, periods of betrothal, announcements of banns, official ceremonies conducted by clergy and then the start of living together began to be incorporated within the entire “marriage” package. This seems to have been because although the Roman Catholic Church deemed consensual marriages as valid, they were against the clandestine nature that some of these marriages took on. The church deemed it “proper” that marriages ought to be a ceremonial affair with the clergy present and witnesses.

So why did people choose clandestine marriages as opposed to open ceremonial affairs? Well, history suggests that it wasn’t for the lack of priests to conduct the ceremonies. In fact, many of the reasons seem just as valid today for those who want a “quickie” wedding: it was quick, easy, cheap, less chance of anyone raising objections, and of course, easier to deny should one of the parties want out!

In 1563, Roman Catholic canon law changed, and for catholic countries the simple exchange of present consent no longer validated a marriage. It is interesting to note that Scotland was one of the few countries where consensual marriage remained for a long time after these changes. In fact, it was only in the 18th century that future consent followed by sex marriages were deemed invalid, and as late as 1939 that all previous basic marriage civil laws were changed.

Betrothals in late medieval times were more akin to what we view as handfastings today. Betrothals in those times were a much more formal and significant event than “engagements” are considered today. They were the promise of exchange of future consents and set the ground rules for the contracts of the marriage that was being promised.

The origins of this ceremonial event are explained by A.E. Anton:

“Among the people who came to inhabit Northumbria and the Lothians, as well as among other Germanic peoples, the nuptials were completed in two distinct phases. There was first the betrothal ceremony and later the giving-away of the wife to the husband. The betrothal ceremony was called the beweddung in Anglo-Saxon because in it the future husband gave weds or sureties to the woman's relatives, initially for payment to them of a suitable price for his bride but later for payment to her of suitable dower and morning-gift. The parties plighted their troth and the contract was sealed, like any other contract, by a hand-shake. This joining of hands was called a handfæstung in Anglo-Saxon, and the same word is found in different forms in the German, Swedish and Danish languages. In each it means a pledge by the giving of the hand. ....” (Anton, A. E. "'Handfasting' in Scotland." The Scottish Historical Review 37, no. 124 (October 1958): 89-102.)

If a betrothed couple had sex on the basis of that betrothal or handfasting, they were no longer betrothed, but actually married – legally and bindingly for life. A betrothal didn’t necessarily result in a marriage, but only if there had not been any sexual intercourse between the two parties. If there was, they were married! However, in those cases the church insisted on a formal marriage ceremony to be conducted despite legally being considered already married.

The strange thing about modern day handfastings with the idea of being “married for a year and a day” is that the origins of this belief cannot be traced back beyond the 18th century. In fact, this myth appears to have stemmed from Thomas Pennant, in his document “Tour of Scotland” written in 1790 recounting his tour of 1772. Pennant was ignorant of the fact that clergy were not needed to validate a marriage and attributed the “year and a day” event due to the lack of clergy in remoter parts of the land. This was entirely untrue, however as the evidence suggests that there was no such lack of clergy in those times and that Pennant was merely embellishing his tales through ignorance of facts

By the late 20th century the myth of handfasting as an ancient Celtic practice of a trial marriage for a year and a day seems to have taken hold as a well-established idea, despite no known historical evidence in existence. However, modern paganism has incorporated this ritual as part of its religious practice and ceremonies. Although the original term “handfasting” translates as “hand shake”, modern paganism has altered its practice to re-invent the term as the binding of the hands of the “wedded” couple to signify the joining of the two (often opposite hands to symbolise the lemniscate infinity sign):

So, although the original handfasting concept was based on rules and regulations dictated by the Catholic laws of the time and had a vastly different origin and meaning to that which we usually associate handfastings with today, I feel it does nothing to detract from what the intention of this “binding” of two people actually signifies in modern day paganism.

In many ways, the research I have discovered seems to show we have come full circle in our societal attitudes towards marriage. “Common law” marriages are now legally valid as a “form” of marriage when it comes to certain civil departments (think tax and DSS!) and more rights are being granted to couples who are living together as husband and wife, despite having no formal ceremony, in line with couples who have gone through an “official” state-recognised ceremony or contract. Scotland has recently introduced legislation that validates pagan weddings in the same way as any other civil or canonical wedding.

I suppose, in today’s pagan society, handfastings are really down to individual interpretation and significance. For some, it may be a form of announcement to the world of one’s intent to bind with another free from church dogma and government-imposed legislation. For others it may be a physical manifestation of various symbolically held beliefs – the “tying of the knot” to represent a spiritual binding with the person you love and hold dear, the declaration to the deities or elements of this world and other realms that one’s commitment to another transcends earthly boundaries, or even the inferred sexual union, that is often associated with the broomstick, transferred upon the couple in a physical union of male and female coming together as one by the “jumping of the broomstick”. This last reminds me of the sexual intercourse taking place after promise of consent described at the start of this article.

No part of this website may be reproduced without the written permission of the owner. Contact psychobunny@gmail.com