\n1720, \u201cmagic, enchantment\u201d (especially in phrase to cast the glamour<\/em>), a variant of Scot. gramarye<\/em> \u201cmagic, enchantment, spell,\u201d alt. of Eng. grammar (q.v.) with a medieval sense of \u201cany sort of scholarship, especially occult learning.\u201d Popularized by the writings of Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832). Sense of \u201cmagical beauty, alluring charm\u201d first recorded 1840. Glamorous<\/em> can be dated to 1882 (slang shortening glam first attested 1936); glamorize<\/em> is dated 1936.<\/p>\n
The etymology is intriguing and a little frustrating. \u201cGammayre\u201d is almost systematically listed as a Sottish variant on \u201cgrammar\u201d (14th century), which is of course from Greek grammatike tekhne \u2018art of letters\u2019, from gramma \u2018letter of the alphabet\u2019. Not much to do with spells, but more with spelling. Hmmm\u2026 spells and spelling\u2026\u00a0 it\u2019s tempting, but a bit of a long-jump of faith, casting spells is not really like spelling correctly, despite the magic of putting names to things.<\/p>\n
Here is what the 1913 Webster\u2019s Dictionary has to say
\nGla”mour (?), n. [Scot. glamour, glamer; cf. Icel. gl\u00e1meggdr one who is troubled with the glaucoma (?); or Icel. gl\u0101m-sni weakness of sight, glamour; gl\u0101mr name of the moon, also of a ghost + sni sight akin to E. see. Perh., however, a corruption of E. gramarye.]<\/p>\n
1. A charm affecting the eye, making objects appear different from what they really are.
\n2. Witchcraft; magic; a spell. Tennyson.
\n3. A kind of haze in the air, causing things to appear different from what they really are.
\nThe air filled with a strange, pale glamour that seemed to lie over the broad valley. W. Black.
\n4. Any artificial interest in, or association with, an object, through which it appears delusively magnified or glorified. Glamour gift, Glamour might, the gift or power of producing a glamour. The former is used figuratively, of the gift of fascination peculiar to women.
\nIt had much of glamour might To make a lady seem a knight. Sir W. Scott.<\/p>\n
Did the word travel to Iceland in a longship and back? Good question. (For the time being, I can\u2019t even get the computer to spell the two Icelandic words in the definition properly.)<\/p>\n
Here is what the same dictionary say about \u201cGrammayre\u201d
\nGram”a*rye (?), n. [OE. gramer, grameri, gramori, grammar, magic, OF. gramaire, F. grammaire. See Grammar.] Necromancy; magic. Sir W. Scott.<\/p>\n
Necromancy? This is getting creepy. (Necromancy is just \u201cblack\u201d art, by the way, the etymology points to \u201cnigromaunce\u201d or black divination<\/em>, not at all the same origin as \u201cnecro\u201d – from Greek nekros \u2018corpse.\u2019)<\/p>\n Back to glamour.<\/p>\n \u201cGlamour\u201d, when you need it to rhyme, goes with the \u201cour\u201d suffixes – amour, clamour, paramour, enamour. While all these are linked in spirit and effect, making them etymological cousins is a little risky. Whatever the case, Glamour is magic. The kind that turns your head, lifts your feet from the ground, makes you forget where you are, who you are with. A spell. In the words of Llewelyn Powys: \u201c…the girls appeared to be under a glamour.\u201d Quite frankly, I\u2019d like to see glamour come back. And add a few verbs with new definitions: Man\u2019s relationship to nature is a paradoxical one. What we know as the modern world displays a dichotomy and an ambiguity proportional to our ability to destroy nature (when we\u2019re not busy demonstrating downright schizophrenia, that is). Urbanization has largely removed \u201cdanger\u201d from nature. It\u2019s no longer hostile or threatening (except to our zero-risk sensibilties, exacerbated by ignoring common sense in most cases). It won\u2019t fall on us or wash us away, freeze us to death or gobble us up unless we leave the beaten path. (The advent of recreational walking is a relatively recent occurence, it\u2019s offspring \u201chiking\u201d even more so, otherwise it\u2019s rare we endanger ourselves of necessity, going from A to B. Besides, the wrong side of the tracks and the bad section of town is now a far more appropriate background for modern Little Red Riding Hoods. The wild side isn\u2019t in the woods any longer.) But, that\u2019s neither here nor there. \u201cFear\u201d of nature (and it\u2019s likely our ancestors were a lot more level-headed, pragmatic and well-equipped than us lot, and even more likely they would scratch their heads and wonder what we are on about) at least meant humans were in touch with nature. And, given the variety and creativity of myth and legend, deeply perceptive of it. Nature has glamour. * There are other old words I\u2019d root for too, like \u201cwyrd\u201d, which has just become a synonym for \u201cstrange\u201d, and lost the sense pertaining to fate.<\/p>\n This said, I do love the calligraphy of fields and trees, especially when a decent mist throws a bit of a wash over everything. Photos on the road to Saint-Ursanne. There was a kind of haze in the air, causing things to appear different from what they really are. <\/p>\n
\nAnd, it is largely lacking the unpleasant connotations of spells cast by greed, envy or wickedness. These are spells closer to nature, closer to the nature of enchantment and faeirie. The peril is simply being human. Limited as we are, even a little glimpse of the sublime puts us out of our heads, puts us under a spell. (Besides, the folktale wicked witch is a simplification of vaster themes to do with diabolizing feminine empowerment.)<\/p>\n
\nBewilder<\/strong><\/em> |biw\u012bld\u0259r| To be lost in the beauty of nature, or entranced and enchanted by the landscape.
\nBemuse<\/strong><\/em> |bi\u02c8myo\u014dz| To place in a state of receptivity to the muse, heightened artistic sensibilty and insight.*<\/p>\n
\nAlso, our perception of nature still is grandly influenced both by Darwinian thought and by the Victorian down-the-nose observation of our ancestors, be they far-flung Neolithic or medieval. We\u2019ve been told that man lived in terror of everything for so long – terror of the night, terror the sun would not rise, fearing fire, beasts, fellow men, the year 1000, the end of the world – that our 21st century civilization is justified just by existing. Lucky us, think of all those things we no longer fear!
\nNaturally, we find, invent and adamantly deny novel predicaments, real or imagined, from nuclear winter to global warming, space aliens to foreigners to unemployment and globalization. (And Y2K bugs – remember those? The grandest high-tech scam in recent history. Hundreds of millions spent to overhaul systems and\u2026 nothing happened, both in countries that spent fortunes and countries where not a finger was lifted or a penny spent.) It\u2019s just as likely that historians a century or two from now will detail our fears as we detail those of our predecessors. Being afraid is in the nature of things.<\/p>\n
\nTo draw it means to be drawn to it, to be drawn out of oneself and towards something far grander. To take a walk in the woods, whether metaphorically or with sturdy boots, depending on location and destination. But wherever it is, to be sure you take a good long look on the way.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe air filled with a strange, pale glamour that seemed to lie over the broad valley.\u201d
\nSounds about right to me.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.john-howe.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/Fog1-port.jpg\" "\\"Fog1-port\\"")
<\/a><\/td>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.john-howe.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/Fog2-port.jpg\" "\\"Fog2-port\\"")
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n