gothcowgrimm
gothcowgrimm
you can call me grimm or wrenthey/them, it/its, he/him + mush/puff/moon22profile art by my lovely boyfriend, todthegimp
81 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
squilko
SILLY AND FUN
sk8t3r808
Sk8t3r 808
itsmeimmelody
Child of the Tardis
emma-christine-spoole
Emma Christine Spoole
thatsugs
Bo
Text
since the old version of this post was flagged for ‘adult content’…
reblog this post if your account is a trans safe space or owned by a trans person!
along with that, reblog if your account is a non-binary spectrum safe space or owned by someone on the enby spectrum!
164K notes
·
View notes
Text
does anyone call themselves a druid?
im like. genuinely asking.
because if what ive been reading is right, druids studied for like. 20 years before they called themselves druids.
like bro im barely 22 😭😭 what business do i have calling myself a druid if i dont even know what they studied and havent been studying for 20 damn years. like i Just started.
maybe if Other people in the community called me a druid and considered me one then i could maybe then consider giving myself that title. but until then?
maybe im just like. a brythonic polytheist witch or some shit while also being as reconstructionist as i can with what im dealt.
IDK!!!!
31 notes
·
View notes
Text
So if a “true bearer of magic” (through uterus and ovaries of course) decides to cut their reproductive ability off through one of the available options, does the magic dwindle? When you’re on birth control your charge is at 7/10 and when you tie your tubes it’s 5/10, but if you become infertile or take a part of your reproductive system out it becomes 0/10 and they kick your ass out of the magic society? Do people who have some sort of sex development condition get abridged version of magic? So is estrogen and progesterone HRT like a subscription to full pack of magic?
740 notes
·
View notes
Text
id like to add that some people use baneful spells because theyre in bad situations, like domestic abuse.
if you think all baneful magic is inherently bad then your moral compass lacks nuance. life isnt black and white and neither is witchcraft.
Oh for fuck's sake, are we having the curse-shaming argument AGAIN??? Every time I think we're done unteaching this nonsense.....
Arright, quick rundown of the points, more or less in order, because I've already had this discussion a hundred times:
One - There is no universal moral or ethical code in witchcraft. Not every witch is a Wiccan or follows Wiccan principles. Not even all Wiccans follow every Wiccan principle, and that includes the Rule of Three / Threefold Law. The Wiccan Rede is ADVICE, not a set of hard and fast rules or divine mandates. You don't get to tell other witches what types of spells they should and should not cast.
Two - If you think the Rule of Three / Threefold Law means, "Whatever you give out comes back to you times three" or if you think it only applies to baneful magic, you don't understand the rule. The original rule, as stated by Robert Graves in "The White Goddess" (you know, the fictional novel that Gardner used as a model for Wicca) states that whatever a witch is dealt, they should deal back three times over. In fact, the passage cites a particular initiation ritual that involves symbolic flagellation, NOT a code of ethics for witchcraft.
It was picked up by later authors as "Whatever You Give" and popularized by media like The Craft and Charmed and authors like Silver Ravenwolf in the 90s when the modern witchcraft movement was having its' millennial boom. (This is a gross oversimplification, but that's when the concept became common enough in pop culture that non-witches were starting to become familiar with the term.)
Three - Karma has absolutely nothing to do with it. Karma is not instant or sentient and the bastardized version of the concept that's been worked into much of modern witchcraft literature more closely resembles the Christian concept of sin and judgment than what karma actually is. Remove the word from your vocabulary when you're talking about magic. The universe does not give one single flying fuck what you do with your spells.
Four - The word you're searching for when you talk about these concepts is CONSEQUENCES. Every action you take, every spell you cast, everything has consequences and everything has a price. This isn't a divine mandate or a cosmic law either. It's a simple fact of life. BUT. It doesn't mean that baneful spells are morally or ethically wrong or that they're going to blow up in someone's face. The only reason a baneful spell might be more likely to rebound is that it's one of the only types of spells that witches actively ward against.
Five - Witches have a right to use magic for persuasion, defense, justice, retribution, binding, prevention, or outright harm if they so choose. If you don't like those types of spells, then don't cast them.
Six - Moral puritanism is a cancer that will destroy us all. Get off your high horse, drop the holier-than-thou bullshit, and remember that being a witch does not make you immune to propaganda.
Thank you for coming to my Toad Talk.
909 notes
·
View notes
Text
Oh for fuck's sake, are we having the curse-shaming argument AGAIN??? Every time I think we're done unteaching this nonsense.....
Arright, quick rundown of the points, more or less in order, because I've already had this discussion a hundred times:
One - There is no universal moral or ethical code in witchcraft. Not every witch is a Wiccan or follows Wiccan principles. Not even all Wiccans follow every Wiccan principle, and that includes the Rule of Three / Threefold Law. The Wiccan Rede is ADVICE, not a set of hard and fast rules or divine mandates. You don't get to tell other witches what types of spells they should and should not cast.
Two - If you think the Rule of Three / Threefold Law means, "Whatever you give out comes back to you times three" or if you think it only applies to baneful magic, you don't understand the rule. The original rule, as stated by Robert Graves in "The White Goddess" (you know, the fictional novel that Gardner used as a model for Wicca) states that whatever a witch is dealt, they should deal back three times over. In fact, the passage cites a particular initiation ritual that involves symbolic flagellation, NOT a code of ethics for witchcraft.
It was picked up by later authors as "Whatever You Give" and popularized by media like The Craft and Charmed and authors like Silver Ravenwolf in the 90s when the modern witchcraft movement was having its' millennial boom. (This is a gross oversimplification, but that's when the concept became common enough in pop culture that non-witches were starting to become familiar with the term.)
Three - Karma has absolutely nothing to do with it. Karma is not instant or sentient and the bastardized version of the concept that's been worked into much of modern witchcraft literature more closely resembles the Christian concept of sin and judgment than what karma actually is. Remove the word from your vocabulary when you're talking about magic. The universe does not give one single flying fuck what you do with your spells.
Four - The word you're searching for when you talk about these concepts is CONSEQUENCES. Every action you take, every spell you cast, everything has consequences and everything has a price. This isn't a divine mandate or a cosmic law either. It's a simple fact of life. BUT. It doesn't mean that baneful spells are morally or ethically wrong or that they're going to blow up in someone's face. The only reason a baneful spell might be more likely to rebound is that it's one of the only types of spells that witches actively ward against.
Five - Witches have a right to use magic for persuasion, defense, justice, retribution, binding, prevention, or outright harm if they so choose. If you don't like those types of spells, then don't cast them.
Six - Moral puritanism is a cancer that will destroy us all. Get off your high horse, drop the holier-than-thou bullshit, and remember that being a witch does not make you immune to propaganda.
Thank you for coming to my Toad Talk.
909 notes
·
View notes
Text
You don’t need crystals.
And i wont budge on this. you dont need them. you dont need them for your craft, you dont need them to “cure illnesses”, you dont need them to feel better.
and you certainly dont need them to feel more connected to the earth.
why do i say all this?
Much like diamonds, crystal mining is an industry buried in conflict. There are issues around sustainability: crystals are a non-renewable resource. There are issues around labour: most jobs are low paid, unsafe, and sometimes performed by underage workers. And there is an issue around accountability: the industry is unregulated, allowing exploitation to go unchecked.
why would you want or need something rooted in conflict in your craft? i certainly dont.
If you really care about other people and about the earth, you’ll think twice before buying crystals from your favorite metaphysical shop.
if you absolutely feel like you need crystals, like theyre your lifeline, then at the very least check if the crystals are ethically sourced. it doesnt hurt to ask.
but i will stress again. YOU DONT NEED CRYSTALS!!!
12 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Nothing bothers me more than the prevalent and horribly misinformed misconception that ogham is a “tree alphabet.” Countless linguistic scholars have discredited this assumption, which came about through the In Labor Ogaim ‘The Ogam Tract,’ which was written and rewritten countless times by christian monks who have a long standing history of editing the text they are coping and would have little to no first hand knowledge of the ogam alphabet in any mystical sense.
Ironically this misconception has been heavily perpetuated by Robert Graves’ The White Goddess, this is ironic of course because it was Graves’ own grandfather Charles Graves was a recognized Irish academic and was one of the first to dismiss the idea that ogham was a ‘tree alphabet’. However, thanks to modern occultists, witches and ammeter scholars alike relying heavily on Robert Graves’ work and works derived from his fantastical ideas the concept of the ‘tree alphabet’ continues to flourish and grow despite being factually and linguistically wrong.
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
What we know about the Ogham alphabet is wrong.
well, some of it.
We know that a lot of what the Druids practiced is shrouded in mystery because they didn’t use written word. We know they’ve been around since at least the first century BC, but a lot of what we know now is thanks to outsiders, especially the Romans.
That being said, there are modern scholars who have done their due diligence in interpreting Ogham, and there are many theories on what the letters refer to. Of course, the overarching agreement is that each letter refers to a tree, but I think it is important to recognize that that is technically wrong.
According to scholars like McManus, only 8 of the letters actually refer specifically to trees.
While this is true, it is also important to realize that the kennings often allude to trees or possibly allude to them.
A different scholar, MacCoitir, has re-interpreted the old-irish kennings, specifically in reference to trees.
It would certainly be nice to say there is one definitive and correct way to interpret the kennings and what their correspondences are, but the cryptic nature of the Bríatharogam lists leave things somewhat open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the most common Ogham list is based on evaluations of translations of medieval Irish into modern English. This standard list has not been challenged for a long time, but that changed in 2003 with the publication of Niall MacCoitir’s work.
What MacCoitir has done is return to the early legal tracts such as Bretha Comaithchesa, cross-referencing it with the oldest extant versions of the Bríatharogaim Maic ind Óc, Bríatharogaim Con Culainn and Bríatharogaim Morainn mic Moín. He also points out that much of the terminology surrounding Ogham refers specifically to the parts of trees/bushes, which is further indication that the alphabet is almost definitely a tree alphabet.
The letters themselves are referred to as feda or fid in the singular, which means respectively ‘wood’ and ‘tree’. The consonants are also called táebomnai, which translates into ‘The side of a tree-trunk’. The druim (edge/ridge) on which the letters are written was originally vertical, like a tree trunk, with the horizontal druim coming into favour with the use of paper or vellum. The spines or lines that comprise the individual letters (on the druim) are referred to as flesc, which translates as twig. So from the above terminology it is quite clear that the alphabet has a connection with trees and bushes.
Even with this knowledge, the most common Ogham lists include plants - vine, ivy, heather, fern, reed, and honeysuckle. Reed and fern do not have either a trunk or twigs, so we can immediately dismiss them. Heather does not have a trunk, and whether you could define its low, fine growth as twigs remains something to be debated. The remaining plants are not trees. They are parasitic in as much as they need a host to climb up – either a wall or a tree in most cases.
On the basis that the plants mentioned above are not trees and do not possess the qualities associated with the Ogham terminology one is left with the task of looking for viable alternative interpretations, based on the source material – which is exactly what MacCoitir has done.
From here, I will give a simple list of what should be replaced, and what the replacement is. If you would like to read why, you can find the post below
• Nin/Nuin - re-translated to ‘staple enjoyment or supply of the otherworld’, ‘boast of women’ and ‘boast of beauty’. The widely accepted tree for this is Ash, but MacCoitir replaces it with Cherry.
• Muin - re-translated to ‘Strongest in action’, ‘Most noble goodliness’, ‘Proverb of slaughter/rottenness’ and ‘Path of the voice’. Can also mean ‘neck’, ‘love’, ‘trick’ or possibly ‘thicket’. The widely accepted plant for this is Vine, but MacCoitir replaces it with Buckthorn.
• Gort - re-translates to ‘Sweetest grass’, Greenest pasture’, ‘Suitable place for cows’ and ‘Satisfaction of all’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Gorse.
• Onn - re-translates to ‘Wounder/helper of horses’, ‘Smoothest of Craftmanship.’ and ‘Sustenance of warriors’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Ash.
• Úr - re-translates to ‘In cold dwellings’, ‘Most devoted sharing’, ‘Propagation/dripping of plants’ and ‘Shroud of a lifeless one’. The widely accepted plant for this is heather, but MacCoitir suggests Elm.
Of the five supplementary letters, used for rendering Greek and Latin words, MacCoitir disagrees on two of the commonly accepted list.
• Uilen - retranslates to ‘elbow/angle’ and ‘most fragrant tree’. The widely accepted plant for this is honeysuckle, but MacCoitir suggest Juniper.
• Emancholl - re-translates to ‘twin of hazel’. The widely accepted tree for this is Beech, but MacCoitir suggests Hazel.
This list by no means is meant to replace the current meanings, but is meant to encourage a re-evaluation of the most commonly accepted Ogham list(s).
206 notes
·
View notes
Text
What we know about the Ogham alphabet is wrong.
well, some of it.
We know that a lot of what the Druids practiced is shrouded in mystery because they didn’t use written word. We know they’ve been around since at least the first century BC, but a lot of what we know now is thanks to outsiders, especially the Romans.
That being said, there are modern scholars who have done their due diligence in interpreting Ogham, and there are many theories on what the letters refer to. Of course, the overarching agreement is that each letter refers to a tree, but I think it is important to recognize that that is technically wrong.
According to scholars like McManus, only 8 of the letters actually refer specifically to trees.
While this is true, it is also important to realize that the kennings often allude to trees or possibly allude to them.
A different scholar, MacCoitir, has re-interpreted the old-irish kennings, specifically in reference to trees.
It would certainly be nice to say there is one definitive and correct way to interpret the kennings and what their correspondences are, but the cryptic nature of the Bríatharogam lists leave things somewhat open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the most common Ogham list is based on evaluations of translations of medieval Irish into modern English. This standard list has not been challenged for a long time, but that changed in 2003 with the publication of Niall MacCoitir’s work.
What MacCoitir has done is return to the early legal tracts such as Bretha Comaithchesa, cross-referencing it with the oldest extant versions of the Bríatharogaim Maic ind Óc, Bríatharogaim Con Culainn and Bríatharogaim Morainn mic Moín. He also points out that much of the terminology surrounding Ogham refers specifically to the parts of trees/bushes, which is further indication that the alphabet is almost definitely a tree alphabet.
The letters themselves are referred to as feda or fid in the singular, which means respectively ‘wood’ and ‘tree’. The consonants are also called táebomnai, which translates into ‘The side of a tree-trunk’. The druim (edge/ridge) on which the letters are written was originally vertical, like a tree trunk, with the horizontal druim coming into favour with the use of paper or vellum. The spines or lines that comprise the individual letters (on the druim) are referred to as flesc, which translates as twig. So from the above terminology it is quite clear that the alphabet has a connection with trees and bushes.
Even with this knowledge, the most common Ogham lists include plants - vine, ivy, heather, fern, reed, and honeysuckle. Reed and fern do not have either a trunk or twigs, so we can immediately dismiss them. Heather does not have a trunk, and whether you could define its low, fine growth as twigs remains something to be debated. The remaining plants are not trees. They are parasitic in as much as they need a host to climb up – either a wall or a tree in most cases.
On the basis that the plants mentioned above are not trees and do not possess the qualities associated with the Ogham terminology one is left with the task of looking for viable alternative interpretations, based on the source material – which is exactly what MacCoitir has done.
From here, I will give a simple list of what should be replaced, and what the replacement is. If you would like to read why, you can find the post below
• Nin/Nuin - re-translated to ‘staple enjoyment or supply of the otherworld’, ‘boast of women’ and ‘boast of beauty’. The widely accepted tree for this is Ash, but MacCoitir replaces it with Cherry.
• Muin - re-translated to ‘Strongest in action’, ‘Most noble goodliness’, ‘Proverb of slaughter/rottenness’ and ‘Path of the voice’. Can also mean ‘neck’, ‘love’, ‘trick’ or possibly ‘thicket’. The widely accepted plant for this is Vine, but MacCoitir replaces it with Buckthorn.
• Gort - re-translates to ‘Sweetest grass’, Greenest pasture’, ‘Suitable place for cows’ and ‘Satisfaction of all’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Gorse.
• Onn - re-translates to ‘Wounder/helper of horses’, ‘Smoothest of Craftmanship.’ and ‘Sustenance of warriors’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Ash.
• Úr - re-translates to ‘In cold dwellings’, ‘Most devoted sharing’, ‘Propagation/dripping of plants’ and ‘Shroud of a lifeless one’. The widely accepted plant for this is heather, but MacCoitir suggests Elm.
Of the five supplementary letters, used for rendering Greek and Latin words, MacCoitir disagrees on two of the commonly accepted list.
• Uilen - retranslates to ‘elbow/angle’ and ‘most fragrant tree’. The widely accepted plant for this is honeysuckle, but MacCoitir suggest Juniper.
• Emancholl - re-translates to ‘twin of hazel’. The widely accepted tree for this is Beech, but MacCoitir suggests Hazel.
This list by no means is meant to replace the current meanings, but is meant to encourage a re-evaluation of the most commonly accepted Ogham list(s).
206 notes
·
View notes
Text
What we know about the Ogham alphabet is wrong.
well, some of it.
We know that a lot of what the Druids practiced is shrouded in mystery because they didn’t use written word. We know they’ve been around since at least the first century BC, but a lot of what we know now is thanks to outsiders, especially the Romans.
That being said, there are modern scholars who have done their due diligence in interpreting Ogham, and there are many theories on what the letters refer to. Of course, the overarching agreement is that each letter refers to a tree, but I think it is important to recognize that that is technically wrong.
According to scholars like McManus, only 8 of the letters actually refer specifically to trees.
While this is true, it is also important to realize that the kennings often allude to trees or possibly allude to them.
A different scholar, MacCoitir, has re-interpreted the old-irish kennings, specifically in reference to trees.
It would certainly be nice to say there is one definitive and correct way to interpret the kennings and what their correspondences are, but the cryptic nature of the Bríatharogam lists leave things somewhat open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the most common Ogham list is based on evaluations of translations of medieval Irish into modern English. This standard list has not been challenged for a long time, but that changed in 2003 with the publication of Niall MacCoitir’s work.
What MacCoitir has done is return to the early legal tracts such as Bretha Comaithchesa, cross-referencing it with the oldest extant versions of the Bríatharogaim Maic ind Óc, Bríatharogaim Con Culainn and Bríatharogaim Morainn mic Moín. He also points out that much of the terminology surrounding Ogham refers specifically to the parts of trees/bushes, which is further indication that the alphabet is almost definitely a tree alphabet.
The letters themselves are referred to as feda or fid in the singular, which means respectively ‘wood’ and ‘tree’. The consonants are also called táebomnai, which translates into ‘The side of a tree-trunk’. The druim (edge/ridge) on which the letters are written was originally vertical, like a tree trunk, with the horizontal druim coming into favour with the use of paper or vellum. The spines or lines that comprise the individual letters (on the druim) are referred to as flesc, which translates as twig. So from the above terminology it is quite clear that the alphabet has a connection with trees and bushes.
Even with this knowledge, the most common Ogham lists include plants - vine, ivy, heather, fern, reed, and honeysuckle. Reed and fern do not have either a trunk or twigs, so we can immediately dismiss them. Heather does not have a trunk, and whether you could define its low, fine growth as twigs remains something to be debated. The remaining plants are not trees. They are parasitic in as much as they need a host to climb up – either a wall or a tree in most cases.
On the basis that the plants mentioned above are not trees and do not possess the qualities associated with the Ogham terminology one is left with the task of looking for viable alternative interpretations, based on the source material – which is exactly what MacCoitir has done.
From here, I will give a simple list of what should be replaced, and what the replacement is. If you would like to read why, you can find the post below
• Nin/Nuin - re-translated to ‘staple enjoyment or supply of the otherworld’, ‘boast of women’ and ‘boast of beauty’. The widely accepted tree for this is Ash, but MacCoitir replaces it with Cherry.
• Muin - re-translated to ‘Strongest in action’, ‘Most noble goodliness’, ‘Proverb of slaughter/rottenness’ and ‘Path of the voice’. Can also mean ‘neck’, ‘love’, ‘trick’ or possibly ‘thicket’. The widely accepted plant for this is Vine, but MacCoitir replaces it with Buckthorn.
• Gort - re-translates to ‘Sweetest grass’, Greenest pasture’, ‘Suitable place for cows’ and ‘Satisfaction of all’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Gorse.
• Onn - re-translates to ‘Wounder/helper of horses’, ‘Smoothest of Craftmanship.’ and ‘Sustenance of warriors’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Ash.
• Úr - re-translates to ‘In cold dwellings’, ‘Most devoted sharing’, ‘Propagation/dripping of plants’ and ‘Shroud of a lifeless one’. The widely accepted plant for this is heather, but MacCoitir suggests Elm.
Of the five supplementary letters, used for rendering Greek and Latin words, MacCoitir disagrees on two of the commonly accepted list.
• Uilen - retranslates to ‘elbow/angle’ and ‘most fragrant tree’. The widely accepted plant for this is honeysuckle, but MacCoitir suggest Juniper.
• Emancholl - re-translates to ‘twin of hazel’. The widely accepted tree for this is Beech, but MacCoitir suggests Hazel.
This list by no means is meant to replace the current meanings, but is meant to encourage a re-evaluation of the most commonly accepted Ogham list(s).
206 notes
·
View notes
Text
I've noticed that a lot of tea or potion recipes don't mention any safety hazards associated with them. And not just Tumblr posts - I have a shitty tea potion book I got off of Amazon and it doesn't have jack shit about safety or health risks.
It grates on my last damn nerves. Like yes, it probably won't cause any harm, but there's a risk and people should know about those.
49 notes
·
View notes
Text
Friendly reminder that if someone tells you that you need to connect to a "source consciousness" in order to be a "real witch" and ESPECIALLY if that person tells you to stop taking your medication in order to do so....
THAT PERSON IS A FUCKING LIAR.
You are not required to "connect" to anything in order to be a real witch. You are a real witch because you choose to be a witch.
Your meds do not prevent you from being magical or from exploring any kind of greater potential. They are there to keep your body and your brain as healthy and functional as possible. Do not let anyone shame you for needing medication.
Please keep taking your meds!
993 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hopefully, this isn't a stupid question, but how do you use magic powders?
Not stupid at all! It really depends on the powder and what you want to do with it.
Here are some of the ways I use the ones I make:
lining a threshold or a window well
a pinch or two in the corners of a room
component in a jar or bottle charm
set out in a small dish
added to a burning bowl
mixed into powdered incense
dusting my hands (usually for luck in business)
sprinkled over footprints (covering my tracks)
sealing a ritual space (salt-free, outdoors only)
There are others, but these are the most common ones in my practice. Powders are very flexible and can be used pretty much in whatever way suits your needs and the spell you're trying to cast.
The only things I don't recommend are using them as a food additive (unless it's a food-grade seasoning blend) or throwing them at other people (for safety and also legal reasons). They also shouldn't be directly applied to animals, even if they're meant to help the critter in question.
Hope this helps!
53 notes
·
View notes
Text
What we know about the Ogham alphabet is wrong.
well, some of it.
We know that a lot of what the Druids practiced is shrouded in mystery because they didn’t use written word. We know they’ve been around since at least the first century BC, but a lot of what we know now is thanks to outsiders, especially the Romans.
That being said, there are modern scholars who have done their due diligence in interpreting Ogham, and there are many theories on what the letters refer to. Of course, the overarching agreement is that each letter refers to a tree, but I think it is important to recognize that that is technically wrong.
According to scholars like McManus, only 8 of the letters actually refer specifically to trees.
While this is true, it is also important to realize that the kennings often allude to trees or possibly allude to them.
A different scholar, MacCoitir, has re-interpreted the old-irish kennings, specifically in reference to trees.
It would certainly be nice to say there is one definitive and correct way to interpret the kennings and what their correspondences are, but the cryptic nature of the Bríatharogam lists leave things somewhat open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the most common Ogham list is based on evaluations of translations of medieval Irish into modern English. This standard list has not been challenged for a long time, but that changed in 2003 with the publication of Niall MacCoitir’s work.
What MacCoitir has done is return to the early legal tracts such as Bretha Comaithchesa, cross-referencing it with the oldest extant versions of the Bríatharogaim Maic ind Óc, Bríatharogaim Con Culainn and Bríatharogaim Morainn mic Moín. He also points out that much of the terminology surrounding Ogham refers specifically to the parts of trees/bushes, which is further indication that the alphabet is almost definitely a tree alphabet.
The letters themselves are referred to as feda or fid in the singular, which means respectively ‘wood’ and ‘tree’. The consonants are also called táebomnai, which translates into ‘The side of a tree-trunk’. The druim (edge/ridge) on which the letters are written was originally vertical, like a tree trunk, with the horizontal druim coming into favour with the use of paper or vellum. The spines or lines that comprise the individual letters (on the druim) are referred to as flesc, which translates as twig. So from the above terminology it is quite clear that the alphabet has a connection with trees and bushes.
Even with this knowledge, the most common Ogham lists include plants - vine, ivy, heather, fern, reed, and honeysuckle. Reed and fern do not have either a trunk or twigs, so we can immediately dismiss them. Heather does not have a trunk, and whether you could define its low, fine growth as twigs remains something to be debated. The remaining plants are not trees. They are parasitic in as much as they need a host to climb up – either a wall or a tree in most cases.
On the basis that the plants mentioned above are not trees and do not possess the qualities associated with the Ogham terminology one is left with the task of looking for viable alternative interpretations, based on the source material – which is exactly what MacCoitir has done.
From here, I will give a simple list of what should be replaced, and what the replacement is. If you would like to read why, you can find the post below
• Nin/Nuin - re-translated to ‘staple enjoyment or supply of the otherworld’, ‘boast of women’ and ‘boast of beauty’. The widely accepted tree for this is Ash, but MacCoitir replaces it with Cherry.
• Muin - re-translated to ‘Strongest in action’, ‘Most noble goodliness’, ‘Proverb of slaughter/rottenness’ and ‘Path of the voice’. Can also mean ‘neck’, ‘love’, ‘trick’ or possibly ‘thicket’. The widely accepted plant for this is Vine, but MacCoitir replaces it with Buckthorn.
• Gort - re-translates to ‘Sweetest grass’, Greenest pasture’, ‘Suitable place for cows’ and ‘Satisfaction of all’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Gorse.
• Onn - re-translates to ‘Wounder/helper of horses’, ‘Smoothest of Craftmanship.’ and ‘Sustenance of warriors’. The widely accepted plant for this is Ivy, but MacCoitir suggests Ash.
• Úr - re-translates to ‘In cold dwellings’, ‘Most devoted sharing’, ‘Propagation/dripping of plants’ and ‘Shroud of a lifeless one’. The widely accepted plant for this is heather, but MacCoitir suggests Elm.
Of the five supplementary letters, used for rendering Greek and Latin words, MacCoitir disagrees on two of the commonly accepted list.
• Uilen - retranslates to ‘elbow/angle’ and ‘most fragrant tree’. The widely accepted plant for this is honeysuckle, but MacCoitir suggest Juniper.
• Emancholl - re-translates to ‘twin of hazel’. The widely accepted tree for this is Beech, but MacCoitir suggests Hazel.
This list by no means is meant to replace the current meanings, but is meant to encourage a re-evaluation of the most commonly accepted Ogham list(s).
206 notes
·
View notes
Text
id like to start sharing my renewed relationship with witchcraft, and the beginning of my relationship with Druidry/Druidism. so expect some posts abt that alongside my reblogs of other stuff :3
1 note
·
View note
Text
Post Your Practice
Please!
We gotta start posting about our practices more and what we find through research, experimentation, things we experience, etc.
Not the super sacred or private stuff, just like,
that tea spell you did? Write about it.
That glamour for your acne? Spill the beans, bestie!
Learn a new fun fact? Share the info!!
Because it'll inspire others to do the same.
It doesn't have to be super decorative, aesthetic posts! It doesn't have to look like an academic paper!! It can be a picture of a sticky note with a spell idea scribbled on it!!!
I wanna see more people telling us about their tarot readings, their one-off spell that maybe didn't work, the thing they picked up from the thrift store that they plan on using as a spirit vessel, how energy flows for them, how they view magic, and so much more.
And don't think that you can't or shouldn't post because you're new or because you're inexperienced.
Everyone started at the same place: The beginning.
so please, post your practice!! <3
617 notes
·
View notes