Skip to main content

history of - What is the origin of a phylactery as a soul jar?


The original use of Phylactery is from



Ancient Greek φυλακτήριον phylacterion, form of phylássein, φυλάσσειν meaning “to guard, protect”
Wikipedia



and was originally meant to refer to ‘Tefillin’, boxes that contain script from the Torah.



The first time I heard of it, though, it was as the ‘soul jar’ of a Lich in D&D. I can’t find a reference for this being the first time it was used to mean ‘Soul Jar’. None of the examples of Liches on Wikipedia reference a phylactery at all.


Box of Scripture to Soul Jar seems like a bit of a leap, though not an unimaginable one.


Were there any intervening steps? If not, can it be pinned down to a design choice of a D&D rules writer?


What is its first use in fiction?



Answer



This is an old question, but it's gotten bumped, so I am sharing some old research that I was a part of about twenty-five years ago. There are not (to my knowledge) any archives of the bulletin board where this was discussed, but I remember the rough conclusions that we came to. We were coming to the question from the point of view of Dungeons & Dragons players, and we came to a D&D-related conclusion; however, we were not looking for evidence that had to come specifically from the game.


The word phylactery was based on a previous Greek word meaning, roughly, amulet, indicating a magical protective charm of a size to be carried on one's person. Phylactery was used both in this generalized meaning and in the specific meaning of tefillah, for essentially the entire history of the word. However, there were probably no instances of the soul jar meaning until 1979.


In the AD&D Monster Manual (1977), the lich was described as needing phylactery to maintain its state as a free-willed, thinking undead monster. At that point, the mention of the phylactery was just a bit flavor text, like that found in many of the Monster Manual entries. It is not clear which meaning of phylactery E. Gary Gygax had in mind, although he was extremely erudite and referenced all sorts of miscellaneous trivia in the AD&D game rules, so I suspect that he probably knew of the Jewish meaning. The accompanying artwork by David A. Trampier showed the monster wearing a crown, with a protruding block on the front that could be either a jewel or a tefillah.


*Monster Manual* Lich


While Gygax and Trampier may have known the religious meaning of phylactery, it appears that Len Lakofka may not have. In his article "Blueprint for Lich" (Dragon Magazine #26, page 36; later reprinted in one of the Best of Dragon anthologies), the process he describes (via which a wizard may become a lich) focuses on a soul object that the mage's life energy must be stored in as part of the process. Lakofka never used the word "phylactery" in the article, but it certainly appears that the Monster Manual phylactery and Lakofka's soul jar are meant to be one and the same. The connection was made explicit in the ENDLESS QUEST (like Choose Your Own Adventure) book Lair of the Lich in 1985.



*Lair of the Lich*; a friend and I had an argument about whether the lich in Jeff Easley's cover art had too much flesh and hair remaining on his corpse; we also noted that the cover says that it is a Dungeons & Dragons adventure, but it actually invokes the AD&D rules.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...