are these websites traditional witchcraft?

[StormVixen]

not sure if this is the right plase to post...?

what do you think of these sites? is it real or is it made up... ive read every single word of the first one and im still not really sure!

http://elfhame.cjb.net/ (this is linked to the next one)
http://www.hedgewytchery.com/
http://www.thecrookedheath.com/home2.htm

just wanting oppinions really

[Isabella LeCour]

I looked at the websites and with each one of them you have to take it with a grain of salt and common sence plus research. Personally I feel the Crookedhearth.com is right on the money. I don't think any of those sites are about "Traditional Witchcraft" unless you are looking for the latest fad wearing the name. I'm sure some of the site owners would disagree but....hey my view of what it is differs.
BB. Isabella

[SoulHealer]

There are as close to traditional witchcraft as I have seen on the net (and there are certainly worse sites out there). There are a good starting point for the traditional witchcraft -but only a starting point

[raven grimassi]

what do you think of these sites? is it real or is it made up... ive read every single word of the first one and im still not really sure!

http://elfhame.cjb.net/ (this is linked to the next one)
http://www.hedgewytchery.com/
http://www.thecrookedheath.com/home2.htm


just wanting oppinions really

In order to sort things out, I suppose we would first have to come upon an agreement as to what "traditional" Witchcraft is, as opposed to whatever else we may be talking about. From my own perspective, I have disagreements with some of the things stated on the websites you mentioned, and strong disagreements with the last one in particular. I am in closer agreement with the middle one.

Best regards - Raven

[StormVixen]

cheers... one of them... does mention the devil... in a ritual kinda thing... i think its the elfhame one... there is sum info needed to be taken with alil bit of sodium chloride... i guess.....

i do really like the elfame one cos its like a story i you read all the bits in order!

[SoulHealer]

Traditional witchcraft does sometimes deal with the devil/devils/fallen angels but not it the same sense of the word as Christians

[Isabella LeCour]

In order to sort things out, I suppose we would first have to come upon an agreement as to what "traditional" Witchcraft is, as opposed to whatever else we may be talking about. From my own perspective, I have disagreements with some of the things stated on the websites you mentioned, and strong disagreements with the last one in particular. I am in closer agreement with the middle one.

Best regards - Raven


No kidding. :gagged: lol CrookedHearth.com is a hard on this generation of published authors. :weirdsmil
Why? I'll leave that answer for the generation after to answer.

BB. Isabella

[Ben Gruagach]

Raven raised one of the most important points: what exactly do we mean by "traditional witchcraft"?

A lot of people use that phrase to refer to forms of witchcraft that are practiced as formalized systems regardless of how old they are or whether any of the ideas in the system are brand new or of pre-Christian origins. I tend to think it would be better to call it either "sectarian witchcraft" or "denominational witchcraft" rather than "traditional."

Others use "traditional witchcraft" to refer to what they believe are witchcraft practices that predate Gerald Gardner's introduction of Wicca. This really means folk magick practices, though, and doesn't necessarily mean formalized systems of magick although a lot of people seem to purposefully try and confuse the issue by implying that it does. Anyone who practices divination, does folk charms or herbalism, or does any sort of folk magick regardless of their religious affiliation is essentially practicing this sort of "traditional witchcraft."

And while there have been many people claiming to practice pre-Gardnerian forms of denominational or sectarian witchcraft, the historical evidence so far is pretty overwhelming that Gerald Gardner's Wicca was the first of these. Raven Grimassi is one of the most prolific authors attempting to uncover and prove the existence of pre-Gardnerian sectarian witchcraft, but his evidence is currently still considered highly controversial. (I highly respect and admire Raven, but I have to be honest in admitting his work proving pre-Gardnerian sectarian witchcraft has not been vindicated... yet!)

So in evaluating any source of info on witchcraft, regardless whether it claims to be "traditional" or not, we need to look at the claims critically and decide what is fact, what is opinion, and which opinions are supported by the evidence (or are at least more likely to be true based on what we know and what the evidence suggests.) It's certainly romantic thinking that we might be carrying on an intact ancient lineage of magickal spirituality, but we need to be honest too and realize that deceiving ourselves about the facts is not necessarily going to encourage us to grow in positive ways.

Just my opinion, of course! I'd love to hear what others on the board have to say -- Deb Lipp, Isaac Bonewits, Ray Buckland, more of Raven Grimassi's thoughts, etc.

[StormVixen]

i spose all of the pagan "TRADITIONS" are traditional hence the name... but traditional i guess is pre wiccan... maybe...

[DebLipp]

I skipped the first site...too much flash, too difficult to navigate. Whoever designed it really should have his copy of Dreamweaver confiscated.

Basically, these other sites seem to be of the school of thought that Traditional Witchcraft is whatever Cochrane said it was. The second site in particular seems to be of the opinion that the way to prove you're Traditional is to diss Gardner as a fraud while being 100% credulous about Cochrane.

The third site is trying to define Traditional Witchcraft but is selling a personal version of the definition as definitive. The "which witch" page is basically using the unnamed author's own definition and trying to apply it, which is very cool, actually, but nowhere does it say that the definition is the author's own and isn't authoritative or generally agreed-upon.

And I deeply resent anyone who thinks that misspelling adds to clarity. :geez:

[StormVixen]

i just fournd this bit of the site http://www.thecrookedheath.com/argue.htm it shows "HOW TO PROPERLY ARGUE WITH WICCANS AND OTHER NEO-PAGANS"... lol... yeah the mis-spellings are annoyin lol!

ps... the person who did the crooked heath was 19 when he made it...

[Ben Gruagach]

i just fournd this bit of the site http://www.thecrookedheath.com/argue.htm it shows "HOW TO PROPERLY ARGUE WITH WICCANS AND OTHER NEO-PAGANS"... lol... yeah the mis-spellings are annoyin lol!

Gee, they seem to have a severe case of One-True-Way-itis. How unfortunate that they think they represent witchcraft.

[DebLipp]

i just fournd this bit of the site http://www.thecrookedheath.com/argue.htm it shows "HOW TO PROPERLY ARGUE WITH WICCANS AND OTHER NEO-PAGANS"... lol... yeah the mis-spellings are annoyin lol!

ps... the person who did the crooked heath was 19 when he made it...
What an offensive article! And poorly written, too. "Avoid vehemently" LOL! Perhaps if the essayist wasn't avoiding so many authors, he would have a better command of his vocabulary.

He probably doesn't even know that some of the authors he condemns as worthless are highly recommended by some of the authors he praises as reliable and worthy.

The word for James Faulk is "idiot."

[Ben Trismegistus]

What an offensive article! And poorly written, too. "Avoid vehemently" LOL! Perhaps if the essayist wasn't avoiding so many authors, he would have a better command of his vocabulary.

He probably doesn't even know that some of the authors he condemns as worthless are highly recommended by some of the authors he praises as reliable and worthy.

The word for James Faulk is "idiot."Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

Edited to add: Hey look! Raven and Isaac made the list of pagan authors to "vehemently avoid"! Guess you're just not trying hard enough, Deb.

[Dawa Lhamo]

That is quite the offensive article. There are quite a few good down-to-earth authors in his "vehemently avoid" list. It would be nice to know on what basis he considers them so bad.

In fact, his tone makes me want to disregard everything else he has to say. ^_^

"Unless they're from some stoner hippy Wiccan family (which I wouldn't consider witchcraft ANYWAY),"
Grrrrr..... :grrrrr: *takes the article between her teeth and shakes it violently*

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Isabella LeCour]

Currently working as Devils Advocate.

Offensiveness does not negate any valid points if made.
Lack of spelling and grammar is often seen in published books as well.
If one is not following the herd mentality, then hasn't one chosen "one-true-way-itis?"
Personal recommendations does not guarantee quality, accuracy or a good product.
Personal ideas are just that - personal ideas.

Alright, enough of the chest puffing, defending one's bread and not mastering the first emotion one feels before slinging mud. What about the question asked? What site best represents "Traditional Witchcraft?" Guess what..only the person who asked that question can answer it as the definition of "Traditional Witchcraft" is still in social flux. Best next thing to do would be to offer up sites you feel best represents "Traditional Witchcraft" or your own view of what it means.

BB. Isabella

[Ben Gruagach]

If one is not following the herd mentality, then hasn't one chosen "one-true-way-itis?"

Having "One-True-Way-itis" has nothing to do with being independent or following the crowd with one's opinions. It has everything to do with setting yourself up as THE CORRECT AUTHORITY denigrating everyone you disagree with the way that website writer has done.

Lots of "One-True-Way" proponents are members of majority groups (I can think of plenty of Christians who fit this label, for instance.) And there are also people like the guy who wrote that page, who is definitely not a member of a majority group, who is claiming his understanding of witchcraft is the One True and Only Way and all else is crap.

If we define "traditional witchcraft" as folk magick practices (not as established denominations of religious witchcraft) then I think there are many good examples of them in the vast majority of books available on the market -- including all those supposedly garbage books that last website tells us to avoid. All those spellbooks that many dismiss as fluff today are based on pre-Gardnerian folk magick practices although often they are given modern twists. Raven Grimassi in particular has written some excellent books (particularly his "The Witches Craft") which present ways to practice Gardnerian-based Wicca incorporating a wealth of authentic documented pre-Gardnerian folk magick practices and lore. Authors like Dorothy Morrison, Ann Moura, Marian Green, all who are largely dismissed by that website writer, present huge amounts of authentic folk magick practices worked into realistic modern systems.

One thing that really puzzles me about the whole "traditional witchcraft" thing is why something that is purported to be pre-Gardnerian should inherently be considered to be better than things that are demonstrably Gardnerian or post-Gardnerian. Things that are old can be crap just like things that are new. The idea that the world is flat is older than the idea that the world is round -- which of those is incorrect? Ideas need to be confirmed on their own value regardless of how old they are.

[DebLipp]

Offensiveness does not negate any valid points if made.That's true. Nor do valid points excuse offensiveness.

Lack of spelling and grammar is often seen in published books as well.
So what? I wouldn't trust a poorly-written paper book as a source of authoritative information. The author of this essay pretends to be such a wise authority that he can tell us that a whole list of authors, some quite well-respected, are, according to him, NOT respected, not knowledgeable, and not educated. Saying all this while misusing high school vocabulary strongly detracts from his credibility. And a lack of credibility absolutely DOES work toward negating his points, such as they are.


If one is not following the herd mentality, then hasn't one chosen "one-true-way-itis?"Sorry, I don't follow this. The herd mentality means following a crowd. One-true-wayism means believing your path is the only right one. Apples and oranges.


Personal recommendations does not guarantee quality, accuracy or a good product.
Personal ideas are just that - personal ideas.Again, I don't quite get the point here.


Alright, enough of the chest puffing, defending one's bread and not mastering the first emotion one feels before slinging mud.
To "sling mud" is to accuse someone of "dirty" stuff, to fight dirty, to bring up points immaterial to the argument. If, in response to Mr. James Faulk's essay, I said that he had once been accused of child molesting (not true, as far as I know), THAT would be mudslinging. But if I accuse him of writing a wrong-headed essay, and especially if I provide reasons from that essay it's not mudslinging, it's a direct response. A response doesn't have to be positive to be appropriate.


What about the question asked? What site best represents "Traditional Witchcraft?" Guess what..only the person who asked that question can answer it as the definition of "Traditional Witchcraft" is still in social flux. Best next thing to do would be to offer up sites you feel best represents "Traditional Witchcraft" or your own view of what it means.

BB. Isabella
In which case, arguing that these sites represents a sloppy or slanted view of the definition of "traditional witchcraft" is exactly a response to the question asked.

[StormVixen]

"Unless they're from some stoner hippy Wiccan family (which I wouldn't consider witchcraft ANYWAY),"
Grrrrr..... :grrrrr: *takes the article between her teeth and shakes it violently*

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

hey im a STONER HIPPY!(..but not a wiccan family)... um... does YOUR oppinion make me not a witch...! LOL!

[Nemesis Descending]

No kidding. :gagged: lol

Well, being an expert myself at rudeness, I quickly noted your intended insult towards Grimassi. I know he won't stoop to comment, but I don't mind at all. _wedgie_

In Her Service,
Nemesis Descending

[Alkhemia]

Aren't Elfhame and Thecrookedheath owned/run by the notorious "Robin Artisson"? :rolleyes: Frankly, the sites are okay, but (as already pointed out) they are merely a poor rehash of Cochrane material.

After personally witnessing "Robin" make a belligerent fool of himself on many lists and seeing a parade of former associates thoroughly debunk any of his claims to being a "traditional witch" (tm) (c) :lol: - I bemusedly take him with a truckload of salt. But, YMMV...

Alkhemia

[Isa]

Though I wouldn't necessarily say one should "avoid vehemently" the authors listed, I don't entirely disagree with the underlining theme. Books by many Pagan authors should be used for inspiration and reflection, they are frankly no substitution for good scholarly research.

Every dedicated Pagan should and must move beyond the New Age section of the bookstore and explore the areas of history, anthropology, science, etc. I think the author's problem is not with Wiccans persay but with those practitioners who read a few books from X author and then stop there. How many witches today actually know why you use certain plants for certain spells anymore? Too many Pagans read about correspondences, symbols, and format, accept them into their own practices without doing any research as to where these things come from and why we make those connections.

[raven grimassi]

Raven Grimassi is one of the most prolific authors attempting to uncover and prove the existence of pre-Gardnerian sectarian witchcraft, but his evidence is currently still considered highly controversial. (I highly respect and admire Raven, but I have to be honest in admitting his work proving pre-Gardnerian sectarian witchcraft has not been vindicated... yet!)

Ouch ;)


So in evaluating any source of info on witchcraft, regardless whether it claims to be "traditional" or not, we need to look at the claims critically and decide what is fact, what is opinion, and which opinions are supported by the evidence (or are at least more likely to be true based on what we know and what the evidence suggests.) It's certainly romantic thinking that we might be carrying on an intact ancient lineage of magickal spirituality, but we need to be honest too and realize that deceiving ourselves about the facts is not necessarily going to encourage us to grow in positive ways.

I agree with you, and we are just coming from different sides of the debate. In my writings I point to ancient literary references and other sources that contain the concepts that many modern scholars claim are purely 19th century constructions/fabrications (one example being the concept of a triformis goddess associated with Witchcraft, which is found in the works of Lucan) . I see this as my contribution to the jig-saw puzzle of truth. The errors of some scholars, and the flights-of-fancy of some Pagan authors, both contribute to the confusion.

Most scholars who are critical of my work, do acknowledge that I use credible sources in my research, but feel that my interpretation of the information/data is flawed. Often, I feel the same way about these scholars. But I could not be happier that we live in a time when both views are available for the discernment of the reader.

Best regards - Raven

[mothwench]

um... i think all three are... not what you're looking for if you want traditional witchcraft. the first is entertaining in a role-playing novel kind of way, at best. the third is by the same guy that did the first, so i didn't even go there. i've read some extremely nasty things about and by him.
and the second, well... :twitch: i get tired of reading crap like "i'm spelling it this way, cause betty-sue so-and-so corrupted the term when she started her grand poo-bah tradition of wotsit." i'd quote the passage, but the site won't let me right-click, so... i'm sorry, but that is just infantile.

to be honest, if your after "info" about traditional witchcraft, i think the last place you'll find it is the internet. at least not in an organized way. the best you can do on the net is search historical sites for local folklore and superstitions, and if you're lucky you might find something on practices. there will be no traditional witch putting up a website about her path and ways and spells and such because frankly, it wouldn't be their medium.
or, in other words, if you really want to be a witch in the traditional sense of the word, you'd be better off leaving the world of the internet, tv, and instant access info and living in a self-sustaining commune, maybe as a midwife or laundry woman.

[Hedgewytch]

:twitch: i get tired of reading crap like "i'm spelling it this way, cause betty-sue so-and-so corrupted the term when she started her grand poo-bah tradition of wotsit." i'd quote the passage, but the site won't let me right-click, so... i'm sorry, but that is just infantile.

Please allow me to assist you in quoting the passage from my website.

"The meaning of the word Hedgewytchery as I use it is more related to the older praxis of HedgeRiders, MyrkRiders, or even WyrdRiders and is not used as a simple descriptive term that encompasses the somewhat misguided and romantic notions of solitary Wytches tooling about in their gardens by the light of the moon (an idea that is often erroneously coupled with Kitchen Witchery).

I have intentionally replaced the i in the second half of the word with a y as to differentiate it from the meaning that has been somewhat corrupted by Rae Beth and her followers who practice what I believe she terms WildWood Crafting.

My use of the label HedgeWytch is a specific term that draws on the vast knowledge of WortCunning in order to create salves and balms and use of Trance States used for lifting the spirit out of the body - to travel *oot and aboot* as it were. This is hardly the sort of work one would want to be solitary while doing. To even consider it would be foolhardy and potentially dangerous.

The Hedge itself is representative of the boundary, not only of the village or community where the HedgeWytch resides, but the boundaries between this world and the other world, between the mundane and the spirit world."

While I appreciate that you were thoughtful enough to express your opinion in regards to my use of the term hedgewytch as being infantile, I will continue to use that particular phrasing as a continued attempt to distance my self from the narrow scope of ideas and written works of Rae Beth and her followers. Her specific use of the term ignores important aspects in the history of such. In particular she ignores the crucial elements of practice that she finds personally difficult to express and to work with in the larger scope of said practice.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[DebLipp]

I will continue to use that particular phrasing as a continued attempt to distance my self from the narrow scope of ideas and written works of Rae Beth and her followers. Her specific use of the term ignores important aspects in the history of such. In particular she ignores the crucial elements of practice that she finds personally difficult to express and to work with in the larger scope of said practice.

Your technique is misguided at the most basic level. You are not distancing yourself from Rae Beth. In fact, she's right there, next to you, in your own paragraph. Every time you use your bastardized spelling, you must also use Rae Beth's name to explain why. Rather than distancing yourself from her, you are willfully tying yourself to her. What will people think of when they see the word "Hedgewytchery"? "Oh, that's the tradition that has something against Rae Beth" or "That's the tradition that distances itself from Rae Beth." In fact, the easiest way to explain your tradition, as you demonstrate in your one and only post here, is by comparison to Rae Beth. That isn't "distance." In fact, it's intimacy.

You are much better off allowing your tradition to stand on its own feet without regard to someone else, whether that regard is negative or positive.

[Hedgewytch]

Your technique is misguided at the most basic level. You are not distancing yourself from Rae Beth. In fact, she's right there, next to you, in your own paragraph. Every time you use your bastardized spelling, you must also use Rae Beth's name to explain why. Rather than distancing yourself from her, you are willfully tying yourself to her. What will people think of when they see the word "Hedgewytchery"? "Oh, that's the tradition that has something against Rae Beth" or "That's the tradition that distances itself from Rae Beth." In fact, the easiest way to explain your tradition, as you demonstrate in your one and only post here, is by comparison to Rae Beth. That isn't "distance." In fact, it's intimacy.

You are much better off allowing your tradition to stand on its own feet without regard to someone else, whether that regard is negative or positive.

My technique is only misguided in your eyes. I have used the term hedgewtych and hedgewytchery for several years now and in almost every occasion that someone chose to correspond with me in regards to any aspect of this particular strand of faith (both on and off the web) they automatically assumed that I was part and parcel of the Rae Beth camp -- so it appears that as far as the general public was concerned I was already tied to her by however thin a cord. It isn't the length of the distance that I am concerned with, it is that I make the distance apparent, that is my ultimate goal -- hence the reason that this very disclaimer is on the introduction page to my site.

As to the reason that this is my one and only post here that is because I just discovered this conversation quite by accident while reviewing the traffic logs for my website, it looks to be a busy and informative place thus far.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[mothwench]

Your technique is misguided at the most basic level. You are not distancing yourself from Rae Beth. In fact, she's right there, next to you, in your own paragraph. Every time you use your bastardized spelling, you must also use Rae Beth's name to explain why. Rather than distancing yourself from her, you are willfully tying yourself to her. What will people think of when they see the word "Hedgewytchery"? "Oh, that's the tradition that has something against Rae Beth" or "That's the tradition that distances itself from Rae Beth." In fact, the easiest way to explain your tradition, as you demonstrate in your one and only post here, is by comparison to Rae Beth. That isn't "distance." In fact, it's intimacy.

You are much better off allowing your tradition to stand on its own feet without regard to someone else, whether that regard is negative or positive.

thank you, for saying that much more eloquently than i ever could have. :flowers:

[StormVixen]

spelling something different doesnt make it a different word, nor does it make the word any less correct... in the old days when people couldnt write they would just spell the word how it sounded... so... (thats why there are so many spellings of my sirname!) i dunno why people think spelling witch differently makes it less Witch...

that might have made sence... personally tho i just spell it witch cos its easier... but i guess WYTCCHE or any other spelling is just as good, tho a lil' confuzzling...

[mothwench]

spelling something different doesnt make it a different word, nor does it make the word any less correct... in the old days when people couldnt write they would just spell the word how it sounded... so... (thats why there are so many spellings of my sirname!) i dunno why people think spelling witch differently makes it less Witch...

that might have made sence... personally tho i just spell it witch cos its easier... but i guess WYTCCHE or any other spelling is just as good, tho a lil' confuzzling...
but that's beside the point. the whole concept of spelling something different just to be, well, different, speaks for itself. obviously some people are more worried about what they look like to other people when they are doing their thing, rather than concentrating on the essentials, the thing itself.


edited to add: so i don't look the complete bitch that i am: otherwise it's a nice-looking site. love the little black dude with the pointy hat. :smile:

[IvyWitch]

I have intentionally replaced the i in the second half of the word with a y as to differentiate it from the meaning that has been somewhat corrupted by Rae Beth and her followers who practice what I believe she terms WildWood Crafting.
Yeah, just like the feminists use the word "womyn" and some Dianics use the word "wytch". Changing a word doesn't do anything for it's meaning or cedibility....just like many Pagans argue the only reason to call it "magick" is because it looks cool. Personally I think arguing that you have to change the spelling of a word so people don't mistake you for something else is silly.

[Ben Gruagach]

Personally, I think if the goal is to establish one's denomination as distinct and separate from others that might be similar the best way to do that is to invent a brand new name that really is distinct. Using a variation of spelling to another denomination (which you apparently DON'T want to be confused with) just seems counter-productive to me.

[mothwench]

Personally, I think if the goal is to establish one's denomination as distinct and separate from others that might be similar the best way to do that is to invent a brand new name that really is distinct. Using a variation of spelling to another denomination (which you apparently DON'T want to be confused with) just seems counter-productive to me.

:lol: but that's what rae beth did... we can't have that now, can we? ;)

[Twig]

Most scholars who are critical of my work, do acknowledge that I use credible sources in my research, but feel that my interpretation of the information/data is flawed. Often, I feel the same way about these scholars. But I could not be happier that we live in a time when both views are available for the discernment of the reader.

Hmmmmm, I think I resemble that remark.

Interpretation would be the key word here I think. Thats where the fights start. When there is no concrete evidence to look at truth becomes a personal interpretation. And One persons truth is only theirs at that point.

Recon and Neo-druids have oil and water fights thanks to that.

Peace.
Twig
:elf:

[Hedgewytch]

Yeah, just like the feminists use the word "womyn" and some Dianics use the word "wytch". Changing a word doesn't do anything for it's meaning or cedibility....just like many Pagans argue the only reason to call it "magick" is because it looks cool. Personally I think arguing that you have to change the spelling of a word so people don't mistake you for something else is silly.

There is an alternate reason, other than trying to look *kewl*, for placing the k in the word magick, some ceremonialists posit that it has something to do with the study of gematria and of numerology and others thought that it represented the sexual elements of his practice with the k signifying the first letter of the word kteis (the greek word for female sex organs).

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[Hedgewytch]

Personally, I think if the goal is to establish one's denomination as distinct and separate from others that might be similar the best way to do that is to invent a brand new name that really is distinct. Using a variation of spelling to another denomination (which you apparently DON'T want to be confused with) just seems counter-productive to me.


But therein lies the crux, I am not trying to establish a new sort of denomination, the framework of material that I am working with is older than the publication of either of Rae Beth's books.

Why should I have to invent a word that already exists? The use of the Y in the word witch was an accepted spelling of earlier times, I am simply reclaiming that usage for a specific reason.

I'm not trying to build a better mouse trap here or reinvent the wheel, merely working from an older model and schematic of practice that I personally find acceptable.

I'm not trying to change the public use of the term hedgewitch or hedgewytch, simply giving an explanation as to why I use that form of the word.

Hart and Horn,

Dawn

[mothwench]

Why should I have to invent a word that already exists? The use of the Y in the word witch was an accepted spelling of earlier times, I am simply reclaiming that usage for a specific reason.


really? when, and where?

[Lady Truth Seeker]

After reading all four pages of this thread, the original question is sort of a blur :) However, I think it had something to do with whether some websties represtented "traditional" witchcraft properly or not. Now, by trational do you mean, Appalachian Granny Magic, that is the tradition in the hills and hollers of Kentucky, Virginia Tennessee and such, Or the magic of the sweat lodge that is the tradition of the Native Americans, or the or the same of the Irish/Celts (which had some influence on the Appalachian witches). Or are you refering to the magic of a religious order such as Wicca,
Correllian, Gardnerian, or Druidism? In my opinion they are not one in the same.

This brings my mind to an article that I read last night on witchvox about witchcraft vs Wicca. It was called Spell Casting: The Witches' Craft by Inominandum, it was on the front page. Anyway, it was a great article. I see so often the lines of actual witchcraft and the religion of Wicca get crossed. Not to say that you can not practice both, but one doe not necesarily make you the other. You know what I mean? I would be interesed to hear you thoughts on this.

Namaste~
LTS

[Ben Gruagach]

But therein lies the crux, I am not trying to establish a new sort of denomination, the framework of material that I am working with is older than the publication of either of Rae Beth's books.

Why should I have to invent a word that already exists? The use of the Y in the word witch was an accepted spelling of earlier times, I am simply reclaiming that usage for a specific reason.

I'm not trying to build a better mouse trap here or reinvent the wheel, merely working from an older model and schematic of practice that I personally find acceptable.

I'm not trying to change the public use of the term hedgewitch or hedgewytch, simply giving an explanation as to why I use that form of the word.

Hart and Horn,

Dawn

It really doesn't matter what your justification is for wanting to differentiate yourself from others who practice something similar. Whether your version is older, newer, shinier, or whatever really does not matter. If you want your version to be easily differentiated from those other versions which you feel are mistaken for your system, then does it not make sense to create a new and clearly distinct name? Changing a few letters (regardless whether the variant spelling is historical or not) does not help in that differentiation.

If I were to start up a brand new denomination of magickal spirituality today and then decide to call my denomination "Wytchcraeft" I don't think I would come across too well if I started complaining about all those people out there who call their stuff "witchcraft" which is confused with my clearly unique system. Now if I decided to call my system something completely unique it tends to really help with resolving those issues of confusion.

[Hedgewytch]

really? when, and where?


Offhand the most convenient reference to that spelling that I am aware of was in either Masks of Misrule or Call of the Horned Piper by Nigel Jackson, I am not at home at the moment so I can't give you the definitve answer.

The word Wytch shows up in the British Isles place names as another example in such towns as Wytchett and Wytch Heath and Wytch Farm and I am sure there are others out there.

It isn't really much of a stretch to see how the words Witch and Wytch were used interchangebly from other examples of the i/y switch such as Robyn/Robin, as shown by the ballad The Gest of Robyn Hode. or even the way that the word Wyrd drifted into Weird.

Just because you are not able to plug the term into an online search engine and instantly have access to the records of its use does not mean that it did not exist and was not used. I have other references that I will have to dig out and locate to show you examples of the word in use from older texts.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[Hedgewytch]

In order to sort things out, I suppose we would first have to come upon an agreement as to what "traditional" Witchcraft is, as opposed to whatever else we may be talking about. From my own perspective, I have disagreements with some of the things stated on the websites you mentioned, and strong disagreements with the last one in particular. I am in closer agreement with the middle one.

Best regards - Raven

My comment is in regards to the quote at the end of your message, I recently read Kingsley's book Reality and found it an incredible work and one that literally left me overwhelmed by its content. I had previously read In the Dark Places of Wisdom by him and thoroughly enjoyed it as well. Nice to see another person who appreciates his words too.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[mothwench]

Offhand the most convenient reference to that spelling that I am aware of was in either Masks of Misrule or Call of the Horned Piper by Nigel Jackson, I am not at home at the moment so I can't give you the definitve answer.
one author spelling it that way certainly does not make it standard in any era or place.

The word Wytch shows up in the British Isles place names as another example in such towns as Wytchett and Wytch Heath and Wytch Farm and I am sure there are others out there.
yeah... and greenwytch etc., right? :lol: i have no idea where the placenames of wytchett and wytch heath et al stem from etymologically, but i'm pretty sure it can't have anything to do with the word witch. reason being, that witch comes from the anglo-saxon wicce, spelt with an i, and any anglo-saxon word spelt with a y is pronounced similar to the u in french tú or usine, suggesting that if there was a word "wytch", it would be pronounced wootch.


It isn't really much of a stretch to see how the words Witch and Wytch were used interchangebly from other examples of the i/y switch such as Robyn/Robin, as shown by the ballad The Gest of Robyn Hode. or even the way that the word Wyrd drifted into Weird.
wasn't the placing of the y instead of i just a fashion fad of the 19th century? i'm not sure.
as for wyrd... it supports my argument. it comes from old norse urd. there's your u again.
and following through with your logic, weird would be spelt wird. and another thing to note is, that in this case, the y turned into ei, not i into y.


Just because you are not able to plug the term into an online search engine and instantly have access to the records of its use does not mean that it did not exist and was not used. I have other references that I will have to dig out and locate to show you examples of the word in use from older texts.
uh.. no. if i can't find it in an etymological dictionary, i call it bs. i have no problem with that.

[Hedgewytch]

one author spelling it that way certainly does not make it standard in any era or place.

yeah... and greenwytch etc., right? :lol: i have no idea where the placenames of wytchett and wytch heath et al stem from etymologically, but i'm pretty sure it can't have anything to do with the word witch. reason being, that witch comes from the anglo-saxon wicce, spelt with an i, and any anglo-saxon word spelt with a y is pronounced similar to the u in french tú or usine, suggesting that if there was a word "wytch", it would be pronounced wootch.


wasn't the placing of the y instead of i just a fashion fad of the 19th century? i'm not sure.
as for wyrd... it supports my argument. it comes from old norse urd. there's your u again.
and following through with your logic, weird would be spelt wird. and another thing to note is, that in this case, the y turned into ei, not i into y.


uh.. no. if i can't find it in an etymological dictionary, i call it bs. i have no problem with that.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto, let's call the whole thing off.

I never claimed that my spellling of this word was the standard, I said it had been used previously. I find it interesting that despite the fact that you *have no idea* where the places names derived from that you are *certain* that they cannot be related to the word witch.

And you totally ignored the use of the term Robyn and Robin. My using wyrd to weird was an example of the drift in the spelling and may not have been the best one to use.

Even if it was a fad to spell witch as wytch, it does not change the fact *that it was* on occasion spelled that way.

There are quite a few geographic specific and colloquial terms and phrases that you will never see in your eytymological dictionary, that doesn't mean that they didn't exist and were never used. By your reasoning and logic anything you cannot see cannot exist.

I'm pretty much done beating this particular dead horse now, your opinion on this matter has been duly noted, thanks.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[mothwench]

I never claimed that my spellling of this word was the standard, I said it had been used previously.
fair enough. however, if i choose to rename my traditional tradition because of one idiot's spelling error, then is that still traditional? the subject of the thread is traditional witchcraft, right?
I find it interesting that despite the fact that you *have no idea* where the places names derived from that you are *certain* that they cannot be related to the word witch.
i am certain that they can't because it doesn't follow the logic of etymology. which i already explained earlier.

And you totally ignored the use of the term Robyn and Robin.
no i didn't. what are you talking about? i said it was an 19th century fashion thing. and you know it, cause you say so here:

Even if it was a fad to spell witch as wytch, it does not change the fact *that it was* on occasion spelled that way.
no, it was a fad to spell names that way, not change the spelling of already existant words.


There are quite a few geographic specific and colloquial terms and phrases that you will never see in your eytymological dictionary, that doesn't mean that they didn't exist and were never used. By your reasoning and logic anything you cannot see cannot exist.
yeah, you're right. if there's something i can't find good information about, then i will question it. if the questions can't be answered to my satisfaction (which you couldn't) then yes, to me, it does not exist. i really see nothing wrong with that.

[Hedgewytch]

After reading all four pages of this thread, the original question is sort of a blur :) However, I think it had something to do with whether some websties represtented "traditional" witchcraft properly or not. Now, by trational do you mean, Appalachian Granny Magic, that is the tradition in the hills and hollers of Kentucky, Virginia Tennessee and such, Or the magic of the sweat lodge that is the tradition of the Native Americans, or the or the same of the Irish/Celts (which had some influence on the Appalachian witches). Or are you refering to the magic of a religious order such as Wicca,
Correllian, Gardnerian, or Druidism? In my opinion they are not one in the same.

This brings my mind to an article that I read last night on witchvox about witchcraft vs Wicca. It was called Spell Casting: The Witches' Craft by Inominandum, it was on the front page. Anyway, it was a great article. I see so often the lines of actual witchcraft and the religion of Wicca get crossed. Not to say that you can not practice both, but one doe not necesarily make you the other. You know what I mean? I would be interesed to hear you thoughts on this.

Namaste~
LTS

I can obviously only speak for myself here but my use of the term Traditional as I use it refers to a specific European/British Isles frame of reference and encompasses a decidely Non-Wiccan usage. While I do not lay claim to any sort of family line of practice that predates Gerald Gardner, I do work with material in the form of lore and ballads that predates the birth of Wicca in the 1950's.

Distinguising hallmarks to this particular use of Traditional would include the transvective states that are sought out for induction by those Crafters who call themselves Traditional in this same manner by the use of herbs or worts.

This specific form of Traditional Craft is a departure from anything considered New Age as it has for a historical foundation the legends, ballads, and lore from hundreds of years ago that is found in the symbolism of nursery rhymes, faery tales, old wive's tales and the like.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[Hedgewytch]

yeah, you're right. if there's something i can't find good information about, then i will question it. if the questions can't be answered to my satisfaction (which you couldn't) then yes, to me, it does not exist. i really see nothing wrong with that.

While I appreciate your attempt at public decorum in the editing of this post and since the replies to this thread are mailed to me I did see the comment you wrote about *historical accuracy and estoric bullshitters*.

As I stated previously I do think I am done with this conversation with you. I've made the points I wished to and you have made the ones that you wanted to in both subtle and somewhat bellicose terms.

I am not looking for converts nor am I trying to sway anyone's personal beliefs about anything in regards to the concept of Hedgewytchery or Traditional Witchcraft.

Again, thanks for an engaging conversation.

Hart & Horn,

Dawn

[Kern]

This specific form of Traditional Craft is a departure from anything considered New Age as it has for a historical foundation the legends, ballads, and lore from hundreds of years ago that is found in the symbolism of nursery rhymes, faery tales, old wive's tales and the like.

Hart & Horn,
Dawn


Yee Haw I'm a Traditional Wytch,Witch,Wicce,Witcha,Wykka,Weeacth.ughh :wah2:
Dont mind me I am just having some fun. :cheers: