Witches, Mná Feasa, and Fairy Doctors, oh my!

A peer reviewed version of this article can be found in the 2014 Lughnasa/Samhain issue of Air n-Aithesc here

Waterhouse, The Mystic Wood, 1917

   In modern American terms we tend to call anyone who works with low magic or folk magic a witch, however from an Irish perspective such people actually fell into roughly three groups: witches called caillí (singular cailleach) in Irish, fairy doctors, and mná feasa (singular ban feasa). It is important to note up front that all three of these terms can be and sometimes are used interchangeably, and a single person, such as Biddy Early may be given all three labels by different people. To give an example, ban feasa means wise woman, but so does cailleach feasa, and both might be called a fairy doctor or a witch in English, depending on context and what they are doing. It's also important to understand that the Irish view of witches is not the same as the more commonly held traditional one; Irish witches were feared because they might steal milk from the family cows or ill-wish people, but they did not have the deeply sinister reputation found elsewhere.
    The final chapter of Kevin Danaher's book Irish Customs and Beliefs begins with an anecdote from the author's youth. He tells of an experience he had upon meeting an old woman named Nellie in Clare, who, he discovers later, is known through the area for her herbal cures and propensity to curse anyone who offended her. He ends the passage by saying:
"On the way home that day I couldn't help thinking that the old lady was very like the witch in the story books; the black cat in the hearth and the heather besom behind the door were just what a witch should have, and when I heard of her cures and curses my suspicion grew. But I soon found out that the classic figure of the witch cleaving the night air on a broomstick with her cat perched on the pillion was not recognized in local tradition. Old Nellie might be a bean feasa, skilled in cures and in divination, or even an old cailleach who stole the cows milk disguised as a hare, but not a witch." (Danaher, 1964, pages 121-122).
    This passage demonstrates a key difference between the Irish view of witches and the commonly understood one, which is based on continental views. While stories from continental and even British folklore depict witches flying through the air, gathering at meetings with the Devil and using their powers to curse and torment their neighbors by withering crops, causing illness, and killing, the figure of the Irish witch is very different. Although still seen as negative and working against the community the Irish witch in folklore is often less severe and less destructive. Most commonly Irish witches are described stealing milk while in the form of a hare or otherwise working magic on the cattle (O hOgain, 1995). These Irish witches may be referred to as “butter witches” to differentiate them from the more sinister continental ones (O Crualaoich, 2003). The more sinister view of witches seems to have been imported from Europe at a later time and never took the strong hold on the country that it did elsewhere, notably in Scotland (Danaher, 1964). Instead of the idea of truly evil witches we see stories of the cailleach, usually an old woman, intent on stealing milk from the cows and disrupting a family's luck.
    Ireland had very few witch trials over the centuries and these were usually within settlements of those of non-Irish descent (Danaher, 1964). The last witch trial on record in Ireland occurred in Carrickfergus in 1711 and resulted in a conviction and a sentence of the pillory and a year in prison (Danaher, 1964). This seems to reflect the different attitude with which the Irish approached the subject, compared to the far more rabid witch-hunting that went on in Europe. Perhaps because the beliefs about witches were not as severe or perhaps because the belief in the supernatural and use of magic in folklore was so strong even after Christianization, the Irish witch never created the hysteria in Ireland that was the hallmark of Europe during this period. 

   What is particularly worth noting though is the connection between Irish and Scottish witches and fairies, something that is shared with bean feasa and fairy doctors. While the latter two use the knowledge they gain from the Other Crowd to heal or cure magical afflictions, the witch uses her fairy-given knowledge to harm. The witch knows how to use elfshot, and does so in ways that - according to the Scottish witch trial records anyway, which we must look to given the scarcity of Irish witch trials - seem to have been an attempt to use supernatural power where social power was lacking. Often in these trial records we see witches confessing to making deals with or consorting with fairies, going to fairies for knowledge, and going to them to obtain elfshot (Hall, 2005). In the Irish we see witches, like fairies, taking the form of hares in order to steal milk from the cows and this may indicate another connection between the two (O hOgain, 1995). 

   The terms bean feasa and fairy doctor are often used interchangeably and indeed there is at best a fine difference between the two. It is highly likely that the two terms, one in Irish one in English, originally were applied to a singular type of practitioner; however in the modern source material we do see a nuanced difference between how the two terms are used. The bean feasa is often called to find lost objects and discern through divination the cause and cure of ailments, from illness to butter failing to churn (O Crualaoich, 2005). The fairy doctor, on the other hand, is called when fairy involvement is known or suspected, especially relating to afflictions caused by them, or when witchcraft is suspected, in order to discern the best cure (Wilde, 1991). The ban feasa was said to never teach her magic to others or preform her charms in front of people, while the fairy doctor could teach others, particularly passing her knowledge on to her child (Wilde, 1991; Locke, 2013). One might argue that the bean feasa is more of a general practitioner while the fairy doctor is a specialist, but both derive knowledge and power from their relationship with the Other Crowd. 

   Bean feasa means wise woman but it has connotations of someone who deals with the Other Crowd (fairies), specifically someone who gains their knowledge from the Gentry and is often away with them. It was believed that a bean feasa gained her power after being taken by the Fair Folk or spending time with them; that they taught her occult knowledge and continued to provide her with information and help (O Cualaoich, 2005). Often such a woman might appear to have knowledge of events occurring at a distance or the location of items, and such knowledge was said to be given to them by the fairies (O Cualaoich, 2003). The bean feasa helped the community with herbal remedies, divination, and advice especially relating to the fairies. Bean feasa were almost always older women, unmarried, who were known to travel (O Crualaoich, 2005). Biddy Early was a notable exception to this being often married and stationary; such was her reputation for curing that people came from all over to see her (Magic and Religious Cures, 2014). Herbal cures are employed by the bean feasa, but generally are used for their magical, more than their medicinal, properties (O Craulaoich, 2005). This can be seen in stories which describe the special way or place the herb must be gathered or include geasa around their use. These geis may include no one watching as they are prepared or given, the herb being brought to the person in total silence, or not looking backwards (O Craulaoich, 2005). Although known for clairvoyance and getting knowledge from the Gentry, the bean feasa were also known to use a form of divination involving dishes, sieves, or bowls, where they would shift or move around a selection of these items and then divine based on how the objects settle (O Crualaoich, 2003). 

   Lady Wilde describes fairy doctors thus: "The fairy doctors are generally females. Old women, especially, are considered to have peculiar mystic and supernatural power. They cure chiefly by charms and incantations, transmitted by tradition through many generations; and by herbs, of which they have a surprising knowledge." (Wilde, 1991). Whereas witches were thought to gain their powers from alliances with spirits and their own will, fairy doctors got theirs from the Good People (Yeats, 1888). Fairy doctors were more specific in what they did than the bean feasa, focusing on things that seemed to have a supernatural cause, and would be called in to discern if that cause was malignant witchcraft or fairies. The fairy doctor was most known for being able to recognize the ill effects of elfshot, the fairy wind, and the evil eye, all of which she could diagnose and then treat with charms or incantations, and less often herbal remedies (Wilde, 1991). Fairy doctors were also thought to be able to have the spirit sight and so could deal with the Fair Folk and see, for example, if a home had been built on a fairy road or near a fairy door.  It was believed that a person, usually but not always a woman, became a fairy doctor after either being away with the fairies or after suffering an illness that brought her near death and so closer to the spirit world (Locke, 2013). This closeness to the fairies granted the fairy doctor a special knowledge of magical afflictions and of herbal cures, and in some cases may have granted some type of psychic power. The fairy doctor used herbs, crystals, chants, charms, and special healing stones to work their cures (Locke, 2013). 

  It is said in many sources that the bean feasa and fairy doctors both would take no money for their charms or spells, but would accept gifts afterwards; money could be taken though for herbal cures (Wilde, 1991). Fairy doctors were known to be paid in barter, especially food and drink (Locke, 2013). It should be kept in mind though that the gifting after a cure was a requirement more than a suggestion; Biddy Early was said to make enough in her curing work that none of her husbands had to work.
   So what we see is a complex belief system that - much like the Fairy Faith's own approach to viewing the Good People - encompasses a selection of titles given to a certain type of magical practitioner whose application varied by circumstance and perspective. One person's cailleach may be another's bean feasa, and a third might describe that person as a fairy doctor - as we see with Biddy Early who bears all three titles. A close look at each shows distinct differences and specific practices and skills that define each one, however in modern pagan practice it is difficult to clearly delineate between the ban feasa and fairy doctor, if the terms are even known, and both might be lumped under the wider term of witchcraft. I believe though that it would do us well to try to return to the more nuanced meanings and get away from a dependence on the more common but less specific term of "witch" for those who do fit the general descriptions of bean feasa or fairy doctor. Certainly both are still here, and as more attention is brought to the old fairy beliefs and practices both the bean feasa and fairy doctor can find a place in the modern world.


References:

Hall, A., (2005) Getting Shot of Elves: Healing, Witchcraft and Fairies in the Scottish Witchcraft Trials. Folklore Vol. 116, No. 1 (Apr., 2005)
O Crualaoich, G., (2005) Reading the Bean Feasa. Folklore Vol. 116, No. 1 (Apr., 2005)
O Crualaoich, G., (2003) The Book of The Cailleach
Magic and Religious Cures (2014). Ask About Ireland. Retrieved from http://www.askaboutireland.ie/reading-room/history-heritage/folklore-of-ireland/folklore-in-ireland/healers-and-healing/magic-and-religious-cures/
Danaher, K., (1964). Irish Customs and Beliefs
Wilde, L., (1991). Irish Cures and Mystic Superstitions
O hOgain, D., (1995). Irish Superstitions

Yeats, W (1888). Fairy and Folktales of the Irish Peasantry 
Locke, T., (2013). The Fairy Doctor. Retrieved from http://www.irishabroad.com/blogs/PostView.aspx?pid=4404

A Dream of Lughnasa

   I had a strange dream last night about a ritual at Lughnasa. In the dream the people had gathered to honor Macha and Nuada at the harvest, which they were calling Brón Trogain. Everyone had met at a recently harvested field, the earth exposed with only a stubble of stems left jutting up in ragged rows. Two horses had been harnessed together with someone walking behind them, driving them. Two older girls walked in front and to each side of the horses tossing handfuls of straw in their path. The horses were driven over the straw as someone prayed to Macha to bless the earth and Nuada to ward it. I do not remember all the words of the dream prayer, only this part - "...walking, may your steps be sacred steps, walking, may Macha, raven of fierceness, bless this earth, walking, may Nuada, hound of battle, ward what we hold dear...".

  When I woke up I remembered the imagery and feeling of the dream quite vividly. I thought it was very odd because, although I know Brón Trogain is an alternate name for Lughnasa* it's not one I ever use. Macha is tied to Lughnasa by the Aontaí (harvest fairs) at Emain Macha, but we don't have, as far as I know, any existing rituals or even hints of rituals for her at that time. Also although there were traditions in the spring of leading horses over fresh planted fields to make the crops grow better (O hOgain, Lore of Ireland mentions that) I don't know of any such rituals in the autumn.
   I decided to do some research into the different parts of the dream and as expected didn't find anything relating to the ritual itself. Weirdly I did find a study showing the agricultural benefits of covering fields in cut straw over the winter, but I don't believe this was an Irish practice in antiquity. Macha is connected to horses, so the idea of the horses as a blessing agent had a certain logic to it. What I found most interesting though was looking up Brón Trogain in Old Irish. Usually the name of the holiday is translated as "sorrow of the earth" because of the phrase given in the Wooing of Emer passage and it is firmly connected to the beginning of autumn and Lughnasa. I decided to look at what the words themselves actually meant to see if that could offer any insight. Brón means sorrow, grief, burden, or lamentation. Trogain not only means earth and autumn but also female raven, so it could be translated as "Sorrow of the (female) raven". Macha, of course, as one of the Morrigans is associated with both the hooded crow and the raven, forms that she was believed to take. Additionally Trogan is associated with childbirth through this expression "used as an imprecation [curse] troigh mhna troghuin foruibh `pangs of a woman in childbirth" (eDIL, n.d.). I have long held the imbas that it was at a Lughnasa aonach that Macha was forced to race the king's horses and gave birth to her twins, and cursed the men of Ulster, so the odd linguistic connections between the name Brón Trogain for the holiday and the translation of "sorrow of the raven", along with the connection of the word trogain, possibly, with a curse relating to women in childbirth seems far from coincidental to me.
   I still don't fully understand what this dream meant or why I had it. But I think I will be calling the holiday I celebrate on August 1st Brón Trogain from now on....

*From the Wooing of Emer:
55. To Brón Trogaill, i.e. Lammas-day, viz., the beginning of autumn; for it is then the earth is afflicted, viz., the earth under fruit. Trogam is a name for 'earth.'’

The Seelie and Unseelie Courts

   By many accounts the beings of Fairy are divided into two courts, the Seelie and Unseelie. This is often simplified as the 'good' and 'bad' fairies, or as F. Marian McNeill says the 'gude wichts'* and the 'wicked wichts' and was initially a Lowland Scottish belief that later spread (McNeill, 1956). I think we lose the nuances between the two when we try to reduce them into such blunt terms as good and bad (or worse good and evil) and also that many modern people may not fully understand the concepts of seelie and unseelie. So let's look at what exactly seelie and unseelie mean, and how the two courts were traditionally understood, as well as the likely original roots of both as a single entity. 

two beeches, one red, one green

The words seelie and unseelie come to us from Scots, itself an amalgam of a variety of languages found in the Lowland areas of Scotland. Although its most often seen today as 'Seelie' it also appears in older texts in a variety of forms including seely, seily, sealy, with seely being the most common (DSL, 2016). It is often a term in Scots dictionaries associated with the fairies and given as an adjective to describe both a fairy court and the disposition of individual fairies themselves. Meanings for seelie are given ranging from happy, blessed, lucky, fortunate, and good natured, as well as having connotations of bringing good luck (DSL, 2016; Jamieson, 1808). In contrast unseelie - also spelled oonseely, onseely, unsealy, or unseely - means dangerous, unlucky, unfavorable, unhappy, unholy, and ungodly (DSL, 2016). The word unseelie, in the form of unsely, can be found as far back as the 16th century meaning unlucky or miserable but has generally been applied to times, places, and animals (DSL, 2016). I have been unable to find any older references to unseelie being applied to fairies. 

The Seelie court is described in relation to the fairies specifically as the "pleasant or happy court, or court of the pleasant and happy people" and is also given as a general term for all fairies (Jamieson, 1808). In folklore the Seelie court can act benevolently at times for no reason other the sake of kindness, as we see in the 1783 ballad of Allison Gross, where the eponymous witch of the story punishes a man who refused her sexual advances by bespelling him into the shape of a worm. The unfortunate man is cursed to circle around a tree every day in this form, until one Halloween "when the seely court was riding by" and the queen stops, picks up the worm, and uses her magic to restore his original shape to him (Child, 1882). They are also know to be extremely generous to those whom they favor and to be kind to the poor, giving bread and grain as gifts (Briggs, 1976). It was believed that members of the Seelie court would help those who propitiated them and that this help took various forms including the fairy doing work for the human around their home or farm (McNeill, 1956).  Despite its reputation as generally kindly the Seelie court was known to readily revenge any wrongs or slights against themselves, and even a fairy who would be considered Seelie, such as a Brownie, could be dangerous when offended or harmed. The Seelie court is not known to harm people without reason though and generally will warn people at least once before retaliating against offenses (Briggs, 1976). 

The Seelie court can also act in ways that go against what we would consider goodness, or at least in ways that bring harm to humans, without a clear reason. We see this in the Ballad of Lady Mary O' Craignethan where the Lord's daughter is quite deviously kidnapped by a man of the sidhe to be his bride; the Lord then curses the fairy folk, wishing that the Devil may take three of them instead of one as his tithe, and swearing to cut down every oak, beech, and ash in the country to which the priest begs him "dinnae curse the Seelie Court" (Sand, Brymer, Murray, & Cochran, 1819). This illustrates that it was in fact the Seelie court that was believed to be behind the kidnapping, although as we shall see later the term Seelie court itself may have served as a euphemism for all fairies, rather than a specific term only for the benevolent ones.

The Unseelie court is for all intents and purposes the antithesis of the Seelie court, as implied by the name. The Unseelie court is described as always unfavorable to humans and is closely linked to the Sluagh sidhe, the malicious Host who torment people and cause illness and death where they visit (Briggs, 1976). The Sluagh itself is strongly tied to the dead and is known to kidnap hapless mortals and force them to help with the Host's entertainment, usually harming other humans, before dropping them in a location far from where they were grabbed. The Unseelie court is comprised of many solitary fairies of a malicious nature, those who feed on or enjoy hurting mortals for sport, although not all Unseelie fairies are solitary (Briggs, 1976). The Unseelie court was seen as constantly ready to cause harm or injury to mortals and were avoided as much as possible, and many different protections existed against them (McNeill, 1956; Briggs, 1976). 

However just as the Seelie court could cause harm if motivated to, and sometimes without having any clear reason at all, so too the Unseelie court's denizens may occasionally  act kindly towards humans without any obvious rhyme or reason. For example Kelpies are usually considered Unseelie by most reckonings, as they trick people into riding them only to kill and eat the person once they have gotten back to their watery homes, however in several stories a Kelpie will fall in love with a mortal girl and put aside his own bloodthirsty nature for her sake. In one such story the Kelpie even put up with being tricked by the girl, captured himself and forced to work in his horse form on her father's farm for a year, and still loved her enough in the end to choose to marry her (McNeill, 2001). So while it may be convenient and often expedient to divide the Other Crowd up into the two courts based on how they relate to us, we should be very cautious about seeing the division as a hard line or seeing a perceived placement in one court or another as a non-negotiable indicator of behavior.   

As mentioned above the term seelie may not have been as specific in the past as it is today and when we look at its usage in older ballads and stories seelie often appears as a euphemism (DSL, 2016). That means that just like calling Themselves 'Good Neighbors', 'Mother's Blessing', or 'Fair Folk' it isn't done because they are those things but because we want them to be those things towards us. In other words we are using a euphemism - a nicer term for something generally considered not nice at all - to try to invoke the nicer aspects of them. To remind them that they can be nice. There is long standing and deep belief that what we choose to call the Fey directly relates to how they will respond to us and interact with us. As this 1842 rhyme illustrates:
"Gin ye ca' me imp or elf
I rede ye look weel to yourself;
Gin ye call me fairy
I'll work ye muckle tarrie;
Gind guid neibour ye ca' me
Then guid neibour I will be;
But gin ye ca' me seelie wicht
I'll be your freend baith day and nicht."
(Chambers, 1842)
[If you call me imp or elf
I counsel you, look well to yourself;
If you call me fairy
I'll work you great misery;
If good neighbor you call me
Then good neighbor I will be;
But if you call me seelie wight*
I'll be your friend both day and night]
It should also be noted that the term unseelie referring to fairies is newer than the term seelie and does not appear in the Scots dictionary at all with this connotation, while seelie clearly does. The oldest reference I could find to seelie for fairies is from a story dated to the late 1500's referenced in a book from 1801; in the 'Legend of the Bishop of St Androis' it says:
"Ane Carling of the Quene of Phareis
that ewill win gair to elphyne careis;
Through all Braid Albane scho hes bene
On horsbak on Hallow ewin;
and ay in seiking certayne nyghtis
As scho sayis, with sur sillie wychtis"
[one woman of the Queen of Fairies
that will take goods to Fairyland
through all broad Scotland she has been
on horseback on Halloween
and always in seeking certain nights
as she says, with our Seelie wights]
This reference uses the term Seelie as a generic for fairy with no obvious distinction as to benevolence or malevolence, as do the other ballad references, supporting the idea that at some point there was likely only the concept of the single Seelie Court, used as a euphemism for all fairies. We see much the same in a 1564 lecture by William Hays discussing woman labeled witches who dealt with fairies where he refers to 'celly vychtis' [seelie wichts] and in a 1572 witchcraft trial account where a woman talks of an infant stolen by the 'sillyie wichts'. In both examples seelie wicht is being used as a general term for fairies, almost certainly in a euphemstic sense, especially in the second case where they were not actung at all benevolently. Much like the Welsh calling their fairies Tylwyth Teg [Fair Family] or the Irish use of the term Daoine Maithe [Good People] the Scottish Seelie Court [Blessed court or Happy court] may initially have been a way to speak of the fairies so that should their attention be drawn they would be more likely to be well disposed towards the speaker. This concept, at some later point was divided into seelie and unseelie to better define those beings who either meant humans well, generally, or meant humans harm, generally. While it may seem strange to us now, it is entirely logical that in the past people would have used the euphemistic Seelie Court when referring to the fairies, but not had an inverse negative concept as it would have been seen as impossibly dangerous to even speak of such a group and risk drawing their attention and facing their wrath for it. This could also explain why the idea of the courts as such is unique to Lowland Scots lore and more generally Scottish folklore. It is not found in Welsh or Irish fairylore** where euphemisms like 'Mother's Blessing' and 'People of Peace' are still used by preference. 


*wicht or wight is a general term in Scots that means both any living being as well as any supernatural being

**although I believe in recent decades the idea of the two courts has spread to Ireland, it isn't found in older material to my knowledge and I was unable to find a single reference to the two courts in any of my Irish folklore books. The Irish system is based on a multitude of sidhe (fairy hills) ruled by different kings and queens, with each being its own kingdom in a way. All the Irish Fair Folk, it seems, are ambivalent in nature and cannot easily be placed into a grouping of 'good' or 'wicked'.

References:

DSL (2016) Dictionary of the Scots Language
Briggs, K., (1976). A Dictionaryof Fairies
McNeill, F., (1956) The Silver Bough
Child, F., (1882) The English and Scottish Popular Ballads
Jamieson, J., (1808) An Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language
Chambers, R., (1842) Popular Rhymes, Fireside Stories, and Amusements of Scotland
Sands, Brymer, Murray, and Cochran, (1819) The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, vol. 83
Dalyell, J., (1801) Scottish Poems of the Sixteenth Century
McNeil, H., (2001). The Celtic Breeze

Practicing Safe Hex

Hexing is one of those things that some people feel comfortable doing and others disagree with. This post isn't about the ethics pro or con, but purely offering some safety tips for people who may feel motivated to hex and who are not well versed in the practice. Like any other magical specialty it is a niche practice that requires its own study - in my opinion - to do well. And like most magical specialties if done wrong a person can potentially cause themselves some serious problems.

Black Nightshade

First lets clarify some terms. Technically hex just means to use magic but it's taken on connotations of harm that make it in common usage synonymous with cursing, ie to use magic to inflict harm or punishment on someone. I use the two terms interchangeably in English. In many views both binding and banishing magic falls under the purview of hexing/cursing because they involve forcibly altering another person's freewill. Binding means magically controlling someone's actions, often by limiting what they can do; banishing means sending them away from an area or keeping them away from a person or situation. Hexing in general terms can be a diverse practice that may involve a wide array of methods intended to affect a person in a negative manner, often as a means to achieve justice*.

So, with that in mind some general tips on how to hex safely:

1. If you are calling on deities of justice or associated with justice, be 100% sure you are innocent in the situation. Generally speaking just because you invoked them doesn't mean they won't weigh your actions as well. Justice is their thing after all.
2. If you are invoking other types of spirits that historically expect to get paid make sure you pay them something. Most spirits don't work for free, unless you go the route of calling them and binding them to your service which is a whole other conversation. Spirits will help you out but they expect something in return, so offer it to them up front. 
3. If you invoke, you dismiss. Don't just open that metaphysical door and leave it swinging in the wind. Make sure you show your guests out and close and lock that door when you are done.
4. Keep your wording consistent. If you are using positive language like 'may he be destroyed, may he lose his prosperity' or whatever then stick with that throughout; if you are using negative language** like 'may she be without rest, may she be without peace' stick with that. Don't mix and match the two, it muddies the waters. 
5. Keep your intent consistent. Focus matters. Don't try to cram in a variety of goals in a single working, just stick with a single strong intention and be clear on exactly what your intended outcome is. 
6. Be really clear with your symbolism and know what you are using, what it represents, what its associated with, and any possible deeper layers of meaning that could apply. Don't use foreign symbols or items that you don't understand or know the meaning of. As long as you believe you know what a symbol means or you have a strong association with it that's fine. 
7. Although there is a lot of historic precedent for using languages you don't speak yourself, I don't personally recommend it. If you don't know what you are saying, don't say it.
8. Be specific in naming your target.
9. Do not use your own name especially if you are invoking spirits. This is what magical pseudonyms are for, and no I don't mean your True Name - you guard that like your ATM pin number - I mean that magical name that you share around like free candy. The one that has no real meaning for you. That one. If you don't have one make one up. Think of it as a hexing code name. 
10. If its a binding be aware you are tying yourself to the person, thing, or situation. Consider whether that's your best option. If its any other type of hex be willing to accept whatever consequence results from it. 
11. Always cleanse afterwards and double down on your own protections. 

A basic classic hex*** would go along the lines of: "Spirit of ---- I call you to punish (person's name) who has (done X) and caused me (this specific harm). May they suffer (lack of sleep and lack of peace, etc.,) until (item is returned/they are sorry/justice is done/etc.,). In the name of --- I offer (specific offering) let (person's name) be brought to justice."

We also have a wide array of maledictions and satire to look to for examples of traditional hexes in Celtic culture. These usually combine physical actions and spoken charms. Similarly the Norse culture offers an array of cursing options we can look to for examples of how it's done in that tradition. These all help provide guidelines for ways to hex safely.

*historic, mythic, and folkloric examples of hexing often are predicated on attempts to restore social order or avenge harm done to people who have no other recourse. Often, but not always.
**some people prefer to avoid negative phrasing altogether but there is some precedent for it, for example in Irish satire practices.
*** based on curse tablets found in healing springs

Saint Patrick, Druids, and Snakes

This is a revised, updated edition of a blog I wrote 5 years ago now with added Jocelin of Furness.

One thing that modern paganism struggles with is history, both its context and accuracy. Many things that are taken as fact in paganism today are not actually supported by historic material, and many things that are believed to be ancient are really modern. This isn't always a judgment on these things, but it points to the ease with which inaccurate information can be proliferated and believed, especially when it has emotional appeal. One prime example of this within the Celtic pagan community is the idea that saint Patrick was some sort of genocidal maniac who slaughtered Druids and that the snakes he drove out in his stories were a metaphor for Druids. So let's take a look at the actual history. 

The historic saint Patrick was not actually Irish by birth. Back somewhere around the end of the 4th century in Britain - no one knows exactly where, except that it was likely on the coast - a boy was born to a wealthy Roman official named Calpurius (Awesome Stories, 2012). He was born into a Christian family but according to his later writings he didn't consider himself especially devout. When he was 16 he was kidnapped, along with many other people from his father's household, and taken into slavery in Ireland where he was made a shepherd (Saint Patrick, nd). Among the hills and sheep he found solace in his father's religion, before eventually escaping after 6 years and making his way, eventually, back to Britain where he joined the church (Awesome Stories, 2012). At some point he took the name Particius, later anglicized to Patrick, and decided that he had a calling from his God to return to Ireland to preach to the people there (Awesome Stories, 2012). 

Unlike the common belief though, Patrick wasn't the first Bishop in Ireland - there were several previous bishops including Palladius who was sent by the Pope in 429 (O hOgain, 1999). At this point in the early 5th century Ireland already had a small but settled Christian population complete with churches, monasteries, priests and bishops (O hOgain, 1999). What distinguished Patrick was that unlike the other Irish priests and bishops he did feel that evangelizing was important. Patrick returned to Ireland and traveled around trying to establish himself. He claims to have had some success and baptized "thousands" of people, although it is impossible to confirm or deny these claims. He also had many difficulties including, apparently, being accused of accepting money for baptisms as well taking other bribes and being beaten and robbed and repeatedly threatened with death (Saint Patrick, nd). Unlike the other Irish Christians of the time Patrick was an evangelist and did seek to convert people, but in his 30 years of ministry in Ireland he did not seem to have had any stunning success; probably because the Irish did not seem overly concerned with or threatened by Christianity and may have initially just incorporated it along with their pagan beliefs (Da Silva, 2009). After Patrick's death, most likely on March 17th 461, very little was written about him for several hundred years. The reality is, despite the later hype, he fell into relative obscurity. 

     Ireland remained pagan for at least another 200 years before the population became mostly Christian, and that was when the tale of Patrick really took off. In the 7th century, about 200 years after Patrick died, his hagiography was written, the Life of Saint Patrick by Muirchu maccu Mactheni, and the Patrick of Muirchu's story was very different than the historical Patrick. The historic Patrick and the Patrick of Miurchu's writing were so different in fact that modern scholars now differentiate between the two (Da Silva, 2009). Muirchu's Patrick was a bold, vindictive, confrontational, wonder-worker who preformed miracles and was said to have destroyed the Druids in Ireland (O hOgain, 1999). This mythic Patrick - unlike the humble historical Patrick who authored the Confessio - lost no opportunity to curse those who defied him or kill those who opposed him. In one of the stories in the Life of Saint Patrick, for example, the saint uses his God's "power" to crush a Druid's skull and calls an earthquake to kill many others (Da Silva, 2009). In another tale Patrick was said to have turned himself and his entire retinue into deer to escape pursuit. It should be pretty obvious that this is pure invention, something to appeal to a 7th century audience looking to hear about wonders and drama on par with the other Irish myths but not anything relating to actual events. In fact some scholars have pointed out that had Patrick actually gone in and tried to convert by the sword he would have ended up martyred for his trouble. To quote the excellent article by  Da Silva "It is clear that the pagan Irish would not have tolerated the behavior of the mythical Saint Patrick. There was no way Patrick could use coercion or the threat of force as part of his strategy to convert the pagans. E. A. Thompson writes that "the pagans were far too powerful and menacing . . . . And he was doubtlessly aware that if he gave any sign of trying to impose his views on the Irish pagans against their will, his mission would come to an abrupt and bloody end" (90)." (Da Silva, 2009). 
  
In the 12th century Patrick's story was written down again, this time by an English monk named Jocelin of Furness who specialized in writing hagiographies. He was known for taking existing material already written about saints and re-working it for the Anglo-Norman elite (Koch, 2005). His 'Life of Patrick' was written for several important Irish figures including the archbishop of Armagh and bishop of Down, and was typical of all of his works. It is in this book that we see for the first time the story of Patrick driving out the snakes, an idea which is strikingly similar to stories from the lives of other previous European saints particularly saint Hilare of France. As Jocelin claimed: "and by the power of his prayers he freed all these likewise from the plague of venomous reptiles. But other islands, the which had not believed at his preaching, still are cursed with the procreation of those poisonous creatures." (O'Leary, 1880). In other words Ireland doesn't have snakes because Patrick drove them out with his piety and his conversion of Ireland but since the rest of the world didn't listen to Patrick we all still have snakes. The reader should also note that according to Jocelin saint Patrick also found the staff of Jesus (yes that Jesus) while he was in Rome, and had a personal tete a tete with God himself in Jocelin's words "even as Moses" had and was assured that God would hear and answer all his prayers (O'Leary, 1880). I'll spare you the rest but let's just say it involves a lot of raising the dead - like a lot - a lot of Druids dying by Patrick's awesome prayers to God and tens of thousands of people converting. Which is my nice way of saying this is neither a trustworthy historical source nor one that shied away from Patrick slaying Druids with his mighty God-prayers, making metaphor really unnecessary. 

The point to all of this is that the Patrick we are familiar with today is mostly a mythic figure, created by a great public relations department. The historical Patrick didn't actually do very much and it wasn't until hundreds of years later, when politics in some of the churches he founded meant the need for a powerful figure, and the Church was looking to complete the conversion of the remaining pagans, that he was reinvented as the super-saint we know today. Many aspects of saint Patrick's story seem as well to involve the saint being inserted into older mythology, such as in some of the stories surrounding Lughnasa where saint Patrick takes over the role of Lugh in fighting off the forces of darkness and chaos to secure the harvest (MacNeill, 1962). This would have been a logical substitution over time as the new religion replaced the old. Beyond that I have my own idea about how a British born Roman ended up as the patron saint of Ireland, but that probably falls into the realm of a conspiracy theory so I'll leave it off this blog. 

    Why does all this matter to me? Well, for one I have always felt strongly that bad history does paganism no favors. For another thing I can't see any purpose to feeling outraged today over something that didn't even actually happen 1560 years ago, or for that matter demonizing someone who didn't actually do very much. I just don't see any point in buying into another faith's mythology in a way that creates feelings of anger and negativity in my own. I am an Irish-focused pagan and I know from studying history that both Irish paganism and Druidism went on well after Patrick, that his life as we know it today is just a fancy story made up to replace older myths, and that in the end Patrick has no more meaning to me than what I give him. Why should I give him power over my life by believing he was greater than he was? I admire his devotion to his own faith and his courage in going back to a country where he had been taken by force as a slave, but beyond that he's just another historical figure in a sea of historical figures. 

   Now on to the snakes. Another big aspect of Saint Patrick's day for pagans is the idea that the story of Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland was actually an allegory for his driving out of the Druids. This idea is pretty well integrated into media and common belief; many people repeat it and there are even modern celebrations of "All Snakes Day" in honor of the triumphant return of the modern Druids. Now,  I am all in favor of the snake as a modern symbol of Druids - plenty of wonderful symbolism there since snakes are energized by the sun and "reborn" each spring out of the earth after hibernating, eat little fluffy things, often are passed by unseen, not to mention the more obvious associations with wisdom and the historic Gaulish Druid's eggs -  and I think the idea of a modern All Snakes Day is pretty cool. The history though just isn't there for any connection either of Saint Patrick with snakes or of the story being about Druids. 

Firstly, Ireland hasn't had snakes since before the last ice age, so there never were any snakes to be driven out by anyone (National Zoo, n.d.). Second of all, and more importantly, common versions of the legend today say that he drove out the snakes and toads (toads being very rare and snakes as we've established being non-existent) (Banruadh, 2006). Jocelin's version has him driving out all the venomous reptiles (O'Leary, 1880). For people living in Ireland after Patrick this story would have been a great explanation of why those animals weren't in Ireland, because there is no reason to think the 7th century or 12th century stories were allegory. Quite frankly the rest of both of Patrick's hagiographies have him dueling Druids right and left, killing those who oppose him with callous righteousness, so why would the story suddenly get cryptic about him driving the Druids out? Every other page was proclaiming it proudly! No, this particular tidbit was always meant to be literal. The earliest reference I have found to anyone thinking the snakes meant Druids (and thanks to the friend who helped me find it) is in the Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries from 1911 where someone states that he believes based on a story that because a certain place was where the Druids last stronghold was and also the place Saint Patrick drove the snakes that the snakes must represent the Druids, but it's just faulty logic (Evans Wentz, 1911). The snakes in the story were just meant to be snakes, a way to explain why Ireland has none and also to give a solid real world example of Patrick's power. 

In saint Patrick's Confessio the man himself is pretty clear that he is uncertain if he had any real effect on Ireland, although he hopes that he did. It reads as a rather humble work written by a very normal person. The later hagiographies written 200 and 700 years after he died are utterly fanciful stories that re-cast the man into the role of a superhero for the Christian faith. They have Patrick murdering Druids with prayer, raising the dead, turning himself and his people into deer, and all manner of fantastic things, including the well known driving out of the snakes and the less well known casting out of demons. Later folklore would expand on this and eventually in the 19th century draw a direct link between the literal snakes and the literal historic Druids to create a modern metaphor that has gained enormous popularity. Its important to understand though that this metaphor is an entirely modern construction and that the history is layered and tells a very different story. As modern pagans I think we do ourselves a disservice to give too much attention to the myths of another religion, created as propaganda to both put down pagan beliefs long after the conversion and for complex political reasons within the Church itself. 

References:
http://www.awesomestories.com/religion/st-patrick-of-st-patricks-day/maewyn-succat--kidnapping-victim
Saint Patrick (n.d.) Saint Patrick's Confessio http://www.cin.org/patrick.html
O'Leary, J., (1880) The Most Ancient Lives of Saint Patrick Including the Life by Jocelin
 B. Da Silva (2009) Saint Patrick, the Irish Druids, and Ireland Conversion to Christianity https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072255/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090727/da_silva-a.shtml
D. O hOgain (1999) the Sacred Isle
Koch, J., (2005). Celtic Culture vol 1
M. MacNeill (1962) The Festival of Lughnasa
W. Y. Evans Wentz (1911). The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries
http://branruadh.blogspot.com/2006/03/so-i-have-promised-so-i-have-done.html
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/NewsEvents/irelandsnakes.cfm

The Bean Tighe, Invention of an 'Irish' Fairy [revised]

 Usually when I write about fairies here (or elsewhere) I'm writing about fairies as they are found in existing material or anecdotal accounts. Today I would like to take a look at a fairy that can be found in multiple 21st century sources online identified as an Irish fairy yet is not to be found anywhere in Irish folklore. I want to point this example out today and talk about how this pseudo-Irish fairy came to be because I think it points to a couple issues that more widely need to be addressed with people outside Irish culture relating to Irish folklore and fairies, namely, appropriation and colonialism. I realize these are unpopular terms in many corners of paganism today but this is a critical conversation that needs to be had.

If you do a quick online search for 'Bean Tighe' you will turn up multiple links to articles and sites from the last decade all of which will describe a gentle friendly fairy, often referring to her as a type of Brownie house spirit*, who cleans around a home and watches over children. Images of her, again found online, depict a plump grandmotherly figure.  All emphasize her Irish folklore and many connect her to the witch hunt period, claiming that human women who had a Bean Tighe in their home would intentionally mess the house up a bit in the morning to hide the thoroughness of the Bean Tigh's cleaning lest other people notice and accuse them of witchcraft for having a fairy helper**.

 I first ran across this fairy when someone mentioned her as the Irish Brownie and was genuinely puzzled for two reasons. Firstly the name literally means 'woman of the house' or 'housekeeper' and is used in modern Irish with absolutely no fairy connotations. Secondly despite being pretty deeply immersed in Irish fairylore I had never heard of this being before. I began asking around of friends and acquaintances in Ireland and quickly found that no one else had heard of this fairy before either, which I found concerning given that the Irishness - alleged Irishness - of this fairy was firmly attached to all the online narratives I was then seeing. So I decided to research, as I do. 

What I found was that there was one reference to a fairy Bean Tighe in a 20th century source but that was far from the modern invention, however since the modern one used the archaic spelling of the 20th century source I felt safe in assuming that the modern idea was based, albeit very loosely, on that older one.  We will begin then with the older source, which is a single paragraph in Evans-Wentz's 'Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries'.

The entire entry about the Bean Tighe in Evans-Wentz's book:
"The Bean-Tighe -The Bean-Tighe, the fairy housekeeper of the enchanted submerged castle of the Earl of Desmond, is supposed to appear sitting on an ancient earthen monument shaped like a great chair and hence called Suidheachan, the 'Housekeeper's Little Seat' [sic literally seat], on Knock Adoon (Hill of the Fort), which juts out into the Lough. The Bean-tighe, as I have heard an old peasant tell the tale, was once asleep on her Seat, when the Buachailleen, or 'Little Herd Boy' [sic little boy] stole her golden comb. When the Bean-Tighe awoke and saw what had happened, she cast a curse upon the cattle of the Buachailleen, and soon all of them were dead, and then the 'Little Herd Boy' himself died, but before his death he ordered the golden comb cast into the Lough."
Evans-Wentz also suggests in a footnote the the Bean-Tighe is elsewhere called the Bean Sidhe and identifies her with Áine. The story as related by Evans-Wentz is far more like a Bean Sidhe story than anything else, even featuring the golden comb, so I'm personally inclined to believe this probably was Bean Sidhe lore rather than a distinct being.
That all said it seems clear that the passage was not meant to refer to a fairy called a 'Bean-tighe' but to a fairy bean tighe, or fairy housekeeper. Just as the Buachailleen mentioned wasn't the name of a type of fairy but simply a term in Irish, although Evans-Wentz also tries to argue that in a footnote. To make either of these terms a fairy being the word sidhe (or sí) would have to be included, hence bean sidhe = fairy woman or cú sidhe = fairy hound; without including that it just means what it means, bean an tí, woman of the house. The fact that the author translates suidheachan (modern Irish suíochán) not as chair or seat but as 'housekeeper's little seat' makes me extremely skeptical that they had any Irish themselves; if they did it shows they were being extremely loose and creative with their translations. This is the sum total of the 1911 source and I am aware of no other references in books on Irish folklore or fairies.

 In Edain McCoy's 1994 book A Witch's Guide to Faery Folk the author includes an entry on the 'Bean-Tighe' fairy which describes this being as a small elderly woman with a kind face who looks for a friendly human house to care for, and emphasizes that they will care for children and pets as well as handle chores left undone by tired mothers. All of this in exchange for a bowl of strawberries and cream left out on occasion. McCoy claims the Bean-Tighe are exclusively Irish fairies but compares them to the Scottish Brownie. She also claims that this fairy was very well known to Irish mothers across the centuries, and that they were common companions to Irish wise women who had to be careful to keep their houses just a bit messy lest they be accused of consorting with fairies and being witches. Suffice to say that is all McCoy's invention but clarifies where the majority of modern ideas about this 'fairy' came from, as we shall see. 

In 2002 Ann Franklin included the Bean Tighe in her illustrated Dictionary of Fairies, largely relying on Evans-Wentz's account but also adding that the Bean Tighe was an "Irish House faerie" who looked like a nice old woman and helped around a home in exchange for a bowl of cream, clearly drawing on McCoy.  In 2006 a website and book 'Creatures of the Celtic Otherworld' by the author Andrew Paciorek shows up with an entry on the Bean Tighe. both Franklin and Paciorek used the same spelling as Evans-Wentz which is different from the modern Irish making it notable and both dropped the dash McCoy used to separate the words, going from Bean-Tighe to Bean Tighe. Subsequent articles about this fairy would preserve the archaic spelling. 

Paciorek's Bean Tighe was different from the 1911 version in almost every detail and made no mention of Evans-Wentz's account, apparently relying largely on McCoy's writing. Whereas Evans-Wentz's Bean-Tighe was like the Bean Sidhe found elsewhere, Paciorek's Bean Tighe was a cross between a Brownie and a live-in nanny. He described an exclusively female fairy that cleaned up houses at night, watched after children, and cared for pets; he compared her to a fairy godmother. He also claimed that during the witch hunts the Bean Tighe's work was so good that women would intentionally disrupt it lest they be thought to be witches trucking with spirits. He specifically mentions that the Bean Tighe loved strawberries with cream. All of these details come from McCoy's 1994 book and would go on in the following decade and a half to be repeated and in some places added to; the repetition of key details again makes it easy to see that this is the root source even on articles that don't cite any references. 

 I just want to digress for a minute to address the particular claim that the Bean tighe fairy is especially fond of strawberries and cream.  I'm really not going to get into whether or not this may be true, if the being exists now due to common belief or not, but I do want to point out that the claim that this food as a preference is another sign of the fairies modern origin. The strawberry as we know it today only dates back to the 18th century and until the early 20th was largely an import to Ireland from the continent.  There is a native strawberry in Ireland,  Sú talún fiáin, but it is very different in appearance from the domesticated version most people are used to today.  In traditional practices relating to house fairies and spirits offerings normally include porridge, cream, milk, or small cakes. The idea that this fairy comes from older Irish folklore should immediately be questioned just for this one detail.  

 So, that is the actual history of the Bean Tighe such as I have found it. The fairy is decidedly not from Irish folklore - the first several authors writing about the Bean Tighe as a fairy were in England and offered no sources for their claims that this being was found in Irish folklore. Franklin's only clear source was Evans-Wentz who as we can see did not describe the fairy housekeeper's appearance and made no mention at all of her being helpful or even attached to human households; he said only that she was the housekeeper in a fairy "castle". The later details that have been added seem to blend existing folklore around Brownies with a more modern view of fairies in general and use little more than the name from Evans-Wentz's account.

How does appropriation and colonialism come into play? Simply put when people outside Irish culture are creating - even from misunderstanding a source - a fairy then adding many details not even found in the one questionable original source and calling it all Irish and Irish folklore. This is rooted in people taking a term from Irish, the bean an tí or more archically Bean tighe, misunderstanding it because they themselves had no Irish and no cultural context for the term and creating something new that they erroneously claimed was from Irish folklore. And to be blunt, people outside the culture do not get to treat the language or folklore like a fancy dress costume or a quick way to legitimize a new story. I realize people make such claims in folklore sometimes because a story has been passed down that way to them, and that's not what I'm talking about here. Here I'm talking about a modern author or authors who chose to create something new and intentionally play off its alleged Irishness, or perhaps created it to fill what they perceived to be a gap in Irish folklore which needed such a helpful home fairy. 

New folklore and new fairies are created - gremlins are one example of such - but no one outside a culture, any culture, should get to control that culture's folklore or redefine it to suit a foreign audience. The growth and evolution of fairy belief should be organic within a culture, and if a new fairy does come to be, as this one perhaps has, it should be treated honestly and not given a false origin story that borrows from a culture that has and is dealing with the long term effects of colonization, anglicization, and romanticization. 

*this is in itself also a gross misunderstanding of what Brownies are and what they do, but that's a bit of a digression
**honestly this is so patently ridiculous I don't even know where to start debunking it. I'll just say that no self respecting house wife or woman of the house would dirty a clean home because it was 'too clean', clean houses were not a sign that witch hunters looked for, and the witch hunts in Ireland were utterly different than elsewhere.

References
Evans-Wentz, W., (1911) The Fairy Faith In Celtic Countries
Paciorek, A., (2006) Domestic Spirits
Franklin, A., (2002) Illustrated Dictionary of Fairies McCoy, E., (1994) A Witch's Guide to Faery Folk

View of Witches in Irish Folklore

  The final chapter of Kevin Danaher's book Irish Customs and Beliefs begins with an anecdote from the author's youth. He relates encountering an old woman named Nellie while on a family vacation in Clare, who, he discovers later, is known through the area for her herbal cures and propensity to curse anyone who offended her. He ends the passage by saying,
            "On the way home that day I couldn't help thinking that the old lady was very like the witch in the story books; the black cat in the hearth and the heather besom behind the door were just what a witch should have, and when I heard of her cures and curses my suspicion grew. But I soon found out that the classic figure of the witch cleaving the night air on a broomstick with her cat perched on the pillion was not recognized in local tradition. Old Nellie might be a bean feasa, skilled in cures and in divination, or even an old cailleach who stole the cows milk disguised as a hare, but not a witch." (Danaher, 1964, pages 121-122).
  This nicely illustrates a key difference between the Irish view of witches and the more well known continental one. While European lore paints a vivid picture of the witch flying through the night to unholy meetings and using her powers to torment her neighbors, wither crops, and generally spread misery, the figure of the Irish witch is markedly different. While still seen as negative and working against the community the tone of Irish witches in folklore is generally less severe. The most commonly written of way that an Irish witch might vex her neighbors is by stealing the milk from their cows or otherwise bewitching the cattle. This would be accomplished by the witch shapeshifting into the form of a hare and sneaking into the field (O hOgain, 1995). The more sinister view of witches seems to have been imported from Europe at a later time and never took the strong  hold on the country that it did elsewhere, notably in Scotland (Danaher, 1964). Rather we see the idea of two types of magic users, the bean feasa (wise woman) who helped the community with herbal remedies, divination, and advice (especially relating to the fairies), and the cailleach who was envisioned as an old woman intent on stealing the milk from the cows and more broadly a family's luck.
   Irish witches were well known to be able to take the shapes of both hares and weasels. There are several stories of farmers or hunters who are out in the early morning and spot a hare in among the cows, shoot it, and find later that a well known neighbor has been injured, having been the witch shapechanged (O hOgain, 1995; Wilde, 1991).  It is perhaps because of this association that is thought to be bad luck for a hare to cross your path (Wilde, 1991). Similarly witches could take the form of a weasel and it was thought to be bad luck to cross paths with any weasel in the morning, although it was equally bad luck to kill it and risk it's spirit seeking revenge (Wilde, 1991). It should be kept in mind though that as with so many things in Irish folklore it could always be the fairies; indeed fairies were known to take the form of hares as well, particularly white ones (O hOgain, 1995).
   Ireland had very few witch trials over the centuries and these were usually within settlements of those of non-Irish descent (Danaher, 1964). The last witch trial on record in Ireland occurred in Carrickfergus in 1711 and resulted in a conviction and a sentence of the pillory and a year in prison (Danaher, 1964). This seems to reflect the different attitude with which the Irish approached the subject, compared to the far more rabid witch-hunting that went on in Europe. Perhaps because the beliefs about witches were not as severe or perhaps because the belief in the supernatural and use of magic in folklore was so strong even after Christianization, the Irish witch never created the hysteria in Ireland that was the hallmark of Europe during this period.

References:
Danaher, K., (1964). Irish Customs and Beliefs
Wilde, L., (1991). Irish Cures and Mystic Superstitions
O hOgain, D., (1995). Irish Superstitions

Cursework and 'Real' Witches

There's a new round of blogs and online commentary about how 'real witches don't hex' going around, spurred it appears by the recent call to hex a public figure and the support and backlash that garnered. The public call for mass hexwork got a lot of attention and the response across social media has been strong, not only about the subject of the hex and whether it's appropriate to hex a political leader, but whether cursework and hexing in general are acceptable to do. Not at all surprisingly there has been a strong thread of disapproval towards the practice and also a very public outcry proclaiming that 'real'* witches don't hex. Period. The end. A variety of arguments are put forth for why 'real' witches don't use baneful magic but generally it boils down to; 1) it's naughty and naughty magic only really hurts the person casting it; 2) hexes don't work anyway; or 3) a 'real' witch is wise enough to know better than to do naughty magic, because vague reasons. 
So let's take a look at this.  
 
I'm not going to speak to whether or not I'm real. I mean I do think a lot which I'm given to understand is one criteria of reality, but for all any of us know we could be a dream within a dream or characters in a story. So let's table the question of reality. I am sure that I'm a witch though, and I do hex. I've talked about it publicly before and I'm not ashamed of it; I don't think it should be done if you aren't willing to own up to doing it. So real or not real, I'm a witch and I hex. I guess that entitles me to an opinion on the subject. I've written about hexing before here and here because its a subject that I feel strongly about. I am not, however, out to convince anyone that they should or should not do it. I believe that it is up to each individual to decide for themselves whether cursework is something they are comfortable doing. What I do want though is to work towards removing the stigma around it that says anyone who hexes is a terrible, morally corrupt person; this is no more or less true than saying a member of the military or a martial artist is inherently violent and dangerous just because they have the skill set to cause harm and an ability to use it if necessary.  

Cursework is a specialty. It requires study just as much as healing or prophecy magic does, and I'd argue that to do it well you have to make it your focus, at least for a time. It isn't something you play with. It has its own rhythms and rules, its own flow and form. It's not for everyone, and not every witch needs to do it, just like anything else. Some people are vegetarians and some are omnivores; some are pacifists and some are fighters; some let energy work itself out and some hex. Different witches have different ethical approaches and beliefs that shape the acceptability of cursework and any kind of magic that  impacts other people's free will. For some people it will always be out of bounds and for others it will be acceptable within certain contexts. I certainly don't know anyone who does serious hexwork who takes it lightly or sees it as a game, for what that's worth. Rather the other people I know who do it approach it very soberly, and often as a last resort when other options have been exhausted. 

Hexing is not inherently dangerous and it isn't a practice that dooms the practitioner to suffer terrible consequences. It is no more or less dangerous to the person doing it than healing is, and just like healing the risk only comes in if the person makes a mistake, which can happen just as easily with blessing magic as baneful magic. I've been at this a long time and I've done more than one hex in my time - and done them knowing exactly what I'm doing and how to do it - and I have never once experienced any negative repercussions on myself, nor has my magic failed to achieve my goal, although it may work faster or slower or stronger than I intended which is exactly why it has to be done with care. This narrative that anyone who hexes will be awash in bad energy, usually described as karma but in the Western sense of instant consequences, is not something I have ever personally seen as true. And I say that as someone who has been practicing witchcraft since the early '90's and admits to hexing, binding, and banishing when necessary. Yes everything we do ultimately affects us but it is far more nuanced and subtle than do good = get equivalent good, do bad = get equivalent bad. And as I like to remind people good and bad are matters of perspective and we must always be careful in judging what is which, especially when it comes to our own actions. 

I've also seen a lot of anti-hex arguments that say that positive magic works but negative does not. By this logic healing spells work, but curses do not, because somehow what helps us and is judged good (remember what I said about judging) is effective but what is judged bad or harmful is seen as impossible or ineffective. It can't be both. Either they both work or neither does. We can't acknowledge the power of one and deny the power of the other, whether or not we ourselves participate in it. To me this just smacks of a way to reassure one's self that good magic works but naughty magic doesn't, as if the Universe only allowed goodness. I think it should be pretty self evident that nothing works that way. I'd also point out as an aside that no type of magic is any more or less addictive than any other, as that has also been mentioned as a reason not to hex. absolute power may corrupt absolutely but this isn't some fictional Dark Side of the Force we're talking about here, where even one slip into practicing it will mean your light saber turning red forever. This is reality, where people are nuanced and complicated and can be good people with functional ethics who still believe its okay to bind a stalker or punish a rapist using magic without plunging into uncontrolled all-Evil-all-the-time-ness.

The third main argument I've seen is that a 'real' witch is wise enough to know better than to hex or curse. Um, in all seriousness why? What exactly is so wrong in hexing or cursing that being 'real' enlightens you so much that you won't do it? Ignoring for a moment the enormous implied insult here that everyone who does hex is not only not a real witch but also unwise or uneducated I genuinely don't understand this argument. I'm impeding someone else's free will. Okay. I'm also impeding their free will when I get a restraining order or use mace to defend myself from a mugger, but I'm going to do both of those things if necessary too, and I don't see how defending myself against someone else's aggression isn't the best course. I suspect this ties back into the assumption that hexing is just done to be mean, but let me tell you something here, the hexing that I've done that falls into the bounds of cursework has usually** been done because I had exhausted all my other options and I was desperate. I or people I cared about were usually in physical danger or other serious situations were occurring that needed an immediate response but for which I had no options.

If you want to argue against hexing then argue against it from a moral standpoint making it clear that you are discussing your own morals or explain your own reasoning for not doing it, but don't use scare tactics that make the practice seem like magical Russian roulette. It isn't. If done with skill and knowledge hexing and cursing are powerful tools and can be useful to achieving goals that otherwise may not be achievable, especially relating to justice and some types of protection. I'm not saying it can't be misused just like anything else, of course, but it can and often is done well and safely for the practitioner. And effectively. And keep in mind that anything is judged good or bad purely based on our own perspective. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to hex because it goes against your own morals or makes you uncomfortable. That's fine. But there's also nothing wrong with deciding that you are morally comfortable with hexing.

 So can we please stop with this divisive 'real witches don't hex' stuff? Yes some 'real' witches do. And some don't. There is no one single type of witchcraft, no single ethic that unites all witches, no agreed on witchcraft code that defines who and what witches are based on what magic they do. What makes a person a real witch isn't whether or not they adhere to one particular moral viewpoint. And cursing and hexing whether anyone likes it or not are deeply ingrained in historic and traditional witchcraft, and in some forms of modern witchcraft as well. If your particular form or tradition of witchcraft doesn't do cursework, that's okay. Don't do it. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to dictate what other witches or witchcraft traditions, or other types of pagans who practice magic for that matter, can and cannot do, or should or should not do. Let us stop with the logical fallacies, the 'no true Scotsman' and the appeals to authority and tradition, that are being used to justify condemning anyone who does things differently or who we disagree with. Witchcraft is dazzlingly diverse in its variety and scope of practice. Let's try celebrating that, even when we don't agree with what other people do in their personal traditional magic, rather than condemning and trying to limit other people to conform to our own expectations and comfort zone. 

I am a witch. I hex. And I'm proud of the knowledge and skill it takes to do that well.


*I'm putting real in quotes here to convey sarcasm. I know that doesn't read well online but I can't type real witch in any seriousness.

**usually