Witchcraft is the Craft of the Wise

Donald Michael Kraig

In Jewish tradition, the commandment to "Honor thy Father and thy Mother?" is not limited to relatives. Anyone who raises you is considered to be a parent. This means that friends, acquaintances and even teachers, people who give you wisdom to grow with, should be treated with honor and respect.

And I can understand this. For example, I had met Israel Regardie a few times and we had corresponded for several years. We were certainly not close friends. Yet by the time he died I had been learning from him through his books for almost two decades. His death upset me greatly for he felt like a teacher, and even in some ways like a parent, to me.

As people get older their bodies change. Some people get stuck in their ways, perhaps wishing that their bodies wouldn't change and hoping to create the illusion by trying to stop time through calcification of the mind. This is a terrible thing to see especially when it affects a parent—or a teacher.

That is the story I would like to tell here, the story of a teacher who once had my great respect. His older books still are very good. But I was disappointed with him and his current teachings as a result of his inability to be open to change. It is especially disappointing when it can be shown that he was totally wrong on a point of fact, yet he still refuses to accept that he, the great teacher, could be wrong.

I had the good fortune of seeing an advanced copy of a new book of his. On the first page of his introduction he wrote: the recent supposition, which is taken for granted, [is] that the word Witchcraft means `Craft of the Wise,' it actually derives from the much older meaning of `Craft of the Wicked.' Such a mistake can be directly traced to Leland, an American folklorist of the last century, who confused the Old English root-word wic with wit. This might have been understandable, yet it is now more than regrettable in view of the many blameless and entirely worthwhile people classifying themselves as `Witches' purely because they had not bothered to check the meaning and derivations of that word in accurate etymological dictionaries.

I went to my two sources for the original meaning of words. The first is a huge opus called the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). The other is Skeat's Etymological Dictionary (Skeat's). I discovered that the writer of the above paragraph was absolutely wrong.

I wrote to the publisher and told them about this error. According to both of these sources, Witchcraft comes from the root `Wic,' not `Wit.' Even so, neither the root `Wic' nor `Wit' has anything to do with wickedness. Further, since his error had nothing to do with the content of the book, I suggested that they removed or correct the reference.

The publisher sent a copy of my letter to the teacher. His response included the following:

What the hell is your friend [me] talking about? I did not say `Witch' derived from `Wit', but from `Wic'=`weak'? I checked it in Skeat myself.

In all English writings prior to the last century, usage of the word `witch' was intended in a derogatory fashion, implying wickedness or wrong, or an illegal practice? Where on earth did your friend Don get the idea that I'd said `Wit'? Read it for yourself and see.

What I would suggest is that you get an agreement that the word Witchcraft needs re-spelling to suit modern requirements as Witscraft, which beyond all possible doubt, argument or controversy WOULD mean the Craft of the Wise and nothing else whatsoever. Remember all this fuss is about one single word. Doesn't it strike you as a bit out of all proportion?

I think your friend Don has got it all screwed up, and you can tell him I said so. He might read what I'd written before jumping off the deep end? Who is Don anywise?

The publisher sent me a copy of the letter that I have quoted from for my reply. I wrote back the following comments:

If the teacher wanted to say that Witch is derived from `Wic' and not from `Wit,' then he did so very poorly. Although several people who have read the paragraph agree with my interpretation, upon reading it once again and trying to see his point, I can see that his writing in the paragraph is unclear and could be understood either way.

In the book, the teacher says that `Witch' means `wicked.' In the letter he suddenly changes this to say that it comes from a root meaning weak. In Skeat's, the definitions of the word Witch, in order, are as follows: "A wizard, a witch, to practice witchcraft, a move, turn, push aside; and with weak. Thus `witch' perhaps means `averter.'" Thus, the teacher is the first person I have met to take the 7th of 8 meanings of a word and hold it up as the correct meaning!

He compares this to words that "mean workers of evil" in other languages, saying that it is only in English that this error occurs. Well, aren't we talking about English? Who is he bringing in another language to try to defend his point? It is totally irrelevant.

He says that in "all English writing prior to the last century [hmm, back to English again], usage of the word `witch' was intended in a derogatory fashion, implying wickedness or wrong, or an illegal practice."

The OED gives many usages of the word `Witch' where this statement is not true. For example, from 1712 comes "Am I a witch?" "Can I make easterly winds?" showing that, in this instance, a Witch was seen as a weather worker and not necessarily