I am posting this “review” again since Tumblr is stupid and makes the other post look like “put the tail on the donkey” off-dash. I might turn off the off-dash version altogether at some point, but until I make up my mind about that, I’d like for it to look okay and be easy to read. So, here it is again, the “review” of Mary Rustad’s book from 1999, The Black Books of Elverum. I have also corrected my misquoting of two titles from the book.

The American Professor of Norwegian, Kathleen Stokker, says in the Foreword that Mary Rustad’s book “reveals a fascinating and important contribution to our understanding of a little known facet of the Norwegian heritage,” and I have to laugh out loud, because there is hardly a single person in Norway who doesn’t know what a black book is.

Also Mary Rustad herself claims in the Editor’s Note that the black books are a “portion of our history that has been swept under the carpet,” and I have to laugh even harder - what is this? Is there some sort of parallel Norway somewhere out there that they go to for their research?! *lol*

Both the legendary black book from the exaggerated not-even-half-true fireside stories (that is, the black book that can’t be burned, that is written in blood on black parchment, that some of our most famous clergy owned a copy of and used, that was found in a marble coffin, that was originally written by Cyprianus himself, etc., etc. - some of this is even written in the forewords of the actual books) and the actual physical black books, like the ones Mary Rustad found in the attic of Nordre Rustad farm, are staples in the cultural fare that most of us got fed as a matter of course through our “mother’s milk”, as the expression goes. Neither Rustad nor Stokker seem to be aware of this fact.

In the Preface, Ronald Grambo (former professor in folklore at the University of Oslo) says something very important that can’t be emphasised enough - he says:

Magic has to be studied in its various contexts. It is certainly dependent on these factors:

The ecological system

The historical background

The social strata

The frame of reference (the knowledge of tradition)

The emotional attitude (hate, envy, expectations, eagerness, neighborly love, determinedness)

Age

Gender

Profession (the knowledge of magic varies from one profession to another)

The victim (whether the victim is a human being, an animal, or a supranormal being)

Value

The literary influence

Of course, not all forms of magic contain all these factors. There are nevertheless certain constant factors; namely, b, d, and j [made bold in the list by Trollkatt].

I see this all the time when non-Norwegians claim “norwegianness” - and particularly when it comes to magic - that they never get it right because they have no clue about all the cultural contexts. All the self-appointed volver, seidmenn, spåkoner and practitioners of trolldom that are littering this place simply have no idea what they are on about, what those titles and practices actually mean.

There isn’t all that much in the material presented in The Black Books of Elverum that is useful - or recommendable - today. We have all kinds of medicines and remedies these days that are more safe to use and surer to work than the advice and recipes found in these pages, and we don’t rip the tongue out of living creatures any more, just to get into the pants of somebody we fancy.

But, some of it is absolutely worth trying out, either “as is” or in modified form to fit modern life and situations, such as

To cure a fever (colla) p. 19

To make ink which only lasts for twenty-four hours p. 43

If a person haunts after death p. 55

To put the eye out of a thief pp. 73-74

To make birds or animals stand still pp. 95-101

To stop a drifter pp. 103-105

Protection for your cows this year against wolves and bears p. 111

Some “characters” or “runes” are badly transcribed. It doesn’t really matter much, as they also in the originals are pure nonsense compared to what they probably are supposed to look like. But it is rather annoying when you see the original says

and it has been rendered

Also the transcription is incorrect some places. In one instance it says “bligvidt” in the facsimile, which I happen to know is supposed to read “blyhvidt” (blyhvitt) - that is, white lead (also known as basic lead carbonate, which was used as a pigment) - because this is a well-known type of spell found all over Scandinavia, and white lead is what you use (or would use, if it didn’t give you lead poisoning)! Unfortunately, it has been understood as “blegevand” (or something like that) by the transcriber and translated “bleach water” (which wouldn’t be much better health-wise even if it was correct).

In another place has “victriolsolie” (vitriololje) - used to drain boils *shudders* - been translated “iron sulfate” when it actually means sulfuric acid. Seriously not the same.

The word “skarn” (something shed, detached, separated) is mysteriously translated “turd” everywhere - which can be correct in the proper context, but not in any of these cases, where it means anything a burglar or a robber might have happened to leave behind after the deed (or that the victim got a hold of), such as a strand of hair, a torn-off piece of clothing, blood from a cut when breaking a window, spittle in the dusty yard or - most often - foot tracks.

I mean, it certainly makes a funny image, and Norwegians do have some weird rituals - I should know, being one - but what kind of burglar or robber pulls down their trousers and takes a crap before leaving the crime scene!? Especially when they know very well - like everybody knew at the time these books were written - that a turd can be used to track them, catch them and even kill them?

Remember what was said about familiarity with the tradition and knowing the cultural context further up? There you have its importance demonstrated!

The book could also have benefited by another round with a proper proofreader. Or with someone somewhat familiar with the Norwegian language. Or just someone who knows how to use a dictionary, really. Misspellings such as “svartebøka” (for svarteboka), Bjorn (for Bjørn) and Osterdalen (for Østerdalen) don’t make a very good impression.