Random Irish Mythology Trivia

* Nuada is left handed - he lost his right arm during the fight with the Fir Bolg warrior Sreng, and we are told it was his shield arm, meaning his sword arm is his left arm 

* Speaking of Nuada's arm, when it is healed it is the original flesh arm that is restored, which Miach acquires and holds against his body for six days, then strikes it with burnt bulrushes for another three. Which makes me wonder where the arm was for the intervening 7 years. 

* When Miach heals Nauda's severed arm by replacing the silver prosthetic with the original flesh arm he is paid with the silver arm - which Nuada has been wearing and using for about 7 years

*The Lia Fail would cry out under every rightful king of Ireland - until Cu Chulain came along and hit it for not crying out under him. The Lia Fail is also the only one of the Four Treasures of the Tuatha De Danann that has no set owner. Each of the other three - cauldron, sword, and spear - belong to someone who is at one point High King of the Gods.

* one of Lugh's epithet's in the Lebor Gabala Erenn is "spear-slaughterous"; the great spear which is one of the four treasures of the Tuatha De Danann belongs to him.

* the Dagda's famous magic club doesn't actually belong to him - its only on loan. He obtained it while searching for a cure for his son Cermait who had been killed by Lugh for sleeping with Lugh's wife. He came across three men who were arguing over their inheritence which included a club which could kill at one end and revive at the other. The Dagda asked if he could borrow it and promptly used it to kill all three and revive his son, who shamed him into reviving the three men as well. After that he basically refused to return it, but an agreement was reached that he would permanently borrow it, giving the sun, moon, sea, and land as sureties against it. 

* In several stories the Dagda is said to be "the king of the sidhe of Ireland" and it's implied he has authority over all the other fairy hills and their rulers.

* Although the Lebor Gabala Erenn gives an extensive list of the Tuatha De Danann and how they each died in myth, in the Cath Maige Tuired's list of battle deaths Macha is the only female listed among the warriors. In every account regardless of source she is always said to have died with Nuada at the hands of Balor of the Evil Eye. 

* At the end of the Tain Bo Cuiligne the two bulls, who are actually cursed swineherds shape-changed, battle and kill each other. In this way the spell binding them is broken and they are freed. 

* The famous Queen Medb of Connacht was killed by a piece of hard cheese - it was used like a sling-stone by a man avenging his mother's death. She was killed while bathing. 

* In some versions of Cu Chulainn's death a crow lands near the hero who has been disemboweled and has tied himself to a pillar stone. The bird begins to peck at his entrails while he is still alive and Cu Chulainn laughs at it before dying. 

References:
Lebor Gabala Erenn
Cath Maige Tuired Cunga
Cath Maige Tuired
How the Dagda Got His Magic Staff
Aided Meidbe
Aided Conculaind
Aislinge Oenguso
De Gabail in tSida

When Fairytales Have Teeth

  I was teaching a class last week about the types of Otherworldly spirits more likely to be found during the winter, and I had one of those moments that will sometimes happen where I opened my mouth and spoke off the cuff, as we were discussing the Unseelie Court. I pointed out to the people attending the class that contrary to what most of the young adult novels and paranormal romance currently on the market like to say, the Unseelie Court aren't the emo bad boys of the Fey world who just need a big hug and some understanding. Although its trendy now to see the darker Fey as just as kind and helpful as the Seelie Court, merely grumpy and misunderstood, in folklore there was usually a good reason people feared them and that reason was their tendency towards homicidal reactions and  eating people.

  Traditionally in some areas, notably Scotland, the Otherworld was divided into two groups, the Seelie or blessed court, who generally mean us well, and the Unseelie, or "unblessed" court, who generally mean us harm. It is of course not nearly that simple and there is a lot of fluidity between the two groups; it is not a set and rigid division. If you offend the Seelie Fey they will not hesitate to harm you, and in some cases the Dark Court can be helpful to an individual. But if we look at the bulk of fairy stories from different cultures over the course of written history it is pretty clear that people feared certain types of the Other Crowd for good reason. 

   Water horses (an each uisce) trick people into riding them only to race back to their watery homes, drown, and eat the people. Red Caps dye their hats in human blood. Bogles can bring blight to crops or attack people. And so it goes, with those who are usually described as Unseelie being found in that court because they are malicious towards people without provocation. Because, you see, its not that you have to worry about transgressing and angering them, or being rude and angering them, or anything like that; all you have to do is be at the wrong place at the wrong time and get their attention and they will be inclined to do you harm. Like a tornado or a hungry apex predator, it won't be personal but it could be deadly. 

  It is possible for an individual to earn the favor of a member of the Unseelie Court, just as its possible for someone to anger the normally benevolent Seelie Court, but generally speaking its dangerous to fall into a mindset of seeing them as safer than traditional folklore paints them, or otherwise Romanticizing them. You can choose to interact with more dangerous spirits, but part of the key to doing so safely is the constant awareness that they are dangerous. If you get too comfortable with those beings who we have the most traditional protections against - and with good reason - then eventually something bad will happen. Because all those myths and stories exist because of people who have learned the hard way, just like the reason we're told not to feed wild bears at parks. 

  Everything in the Otherworld is not safe and not all of the beings who dwell there mean us well. And quite frankly its arrogance on our part to think we know more or better than our ancestors, than the cunning folk and wise people who spent life times practicing their skill. If all these Beings were really so safe and easy to deal with, with just the right attitude, then anyone and everyone would have always done so. And we would have no stories of harm, and maiming and death at the hands of these spirits, nor would witches have been seen as dealing with dangerous things. No, the truth is that we cannot simply decide through positive thinking and a belief in the goodness of all spirits that the Other Crowd are harmless; our opinions do not make them a bunch of watered down angels with angst. 

   I have a lot of respect for grizzly bears and their place in the ecosystem but that doesn't mean I ever for a moment confuse them with teddy bears and think I can walk up and give a wild one a hug. Or one in captivity for that matter. Because a wild bear, no matter how noble and beautiful to our eyes, is still a wild bear and its going to do what its nature tells it to do, which may mean ignoring us or may mean ripping chunks out of us. Just so the Dark Court Fey may ignore us or they may hurt us, and this is why there are so many folk protections against them. 

Fight the Bad Meme - Blog Edition

  I've started a new thing on my social media page, which I call "fight the bad meme", because it seems like every single pagan holiday that rolls around sees an influx of poorly researched memes purporting to 'educate' people about the real history of that holiday and it's traditions. Usually most to all of the information presented in the meme is utter bollocks. So after I've seen the bad info going around enough to think its probably catching on as urban legend-ish fact I'll research the actual history and then post a little educational blurb. After some thought I decided that its worth sharing that information here as well, because really the more the accurate information is spread the better. 

- No, Horus wasn't born on Christmas Day. Neither Horus nor Osiris were born on or around December 25th. As far as I know the major deity births in the Egyptian pantheon were celebrated in early August and were tied to the cyclic flooding of the Nile. There are however more than a dozen figures named Horus in Egyptian mythology so it is not entirely impossible that one could have been celebrated on December 25th but it would have been an odd time given the way the calendar system worked - lunar based would have meant timing to a specific day each year in general would be unlikely*. I have found a reference to one Horus being born on December 25th but I can't date it back earlier than a 1907 book whose purpose was to connect Horus to Jesus so I just don't find it at all credible. I'll keep looking but as of now unless someone can show me actual evidence of an ancient pagan Egyptian festival on that date, I am standing by my statement that Horus was born on an epagomenal day, one of the five extra days in the Egyptian calendar year which occured in late August. Also Horus wasn't born of a virgin - since there's a story about a golden penis being involved in his conception its pretty clear on that point - Horus wasn't baptized, didn't have disciples, didn't raise a dead guy, wasn't crucified, and didn't have all the same epithets as Jesus. Horus does have some very interesting mythology, you should read up on him if it interests you.

- Kissing under the Mistletoe isn't a pagan holdover. Kissing under the mistletoe as far as I can find is a later practice, referenced in print to the 1800's, and is neither specifically Druidic nor Norse. Mistletoe was seen as sacred by the Druids, but we have no sources indicating it was hung up or used in fertility rites, although it was seen as having properties relating to fertility. It was hung in the middle ages by several western European cultures to ward off witches and baneful magic, but again no kissing underneath it. In Norse myth it was the plant used to kill the God Balder, and may or may not have become associated during the pagan period as symbol of peace (I can't track down anything definitive). Only during the Victorian period did a story emerge as far as I can find of Balder not dying/being resurrected and the mistletoe being a symbol of Frigga's joy at his return. And we all know what I think of the Victorians rewriting the myths. What is clear is that it was during this period that it became a Christmas practice to hang mistletoe and kiss beneath it, with a berry being removed for each kiss given, until all the berries were gone.

- There is no Scandinavian fertility God named Yule - Yule, in Norse Jol, is the name of the midwinter holiday and is applied to deities like Odin as byname, as in "Jolfadr" but is not itself the name of a God.

- The Oak and Holly Kings don't pre-date 1948. The oak and holly kings are thoroughly  modern and neither ancient nor Celtic, although they are based on older motifs. The idea for the two kings comes from Robert Graves book "The White Goddess", not from pagan Irish or Celtic culture.
  *I'm editing to clarify for those who may not be understanding my larger point here - I am not contesting that the motif of seasonal rulers fighting for dominion of portions of the year exists historically. However my point remains, and I stand by it, that the Oak King and the Holly King as named personages do not pre-date Robert Graves book. There are multiple memes circulating that claim explicitly that they do, and arguing that a modern creation based on older motifs is itself ancient is akin to arguing that since modern paraffin candles are based on older theories paraffin candles are ancient, even though paraffin wasn't invented until the 1850's. 

- Christmas Trees are a 16th Century Protestant Christian Tradition - I hate to ruin everyone's "they stole our pagan traditions" fun but the Christmas tree as it is today is a Christian thing developed in Protestant Germany circa the 16th century. The practice of bringing in evergreen boughs and such to decorate is far older and can be found in cultures from China to Egypt to Europe, and seems to represent a basic human urge to be reminded that life still exists in the depths of winter. It is also clearly true that trees in general were sacred in several pagan faiths and specific sacred trees, groves of trees and the concept of a world tree can be found in both Celtic and Norse pagan religions, as well as the use of carved God posts or God poles. But the killing an evergreen tree and decorating it at midwinter thing simply has no evidence to back it up prior to about 500 years ago. This does not however diminish the sacred symbolism of trees in paganism, or the value of the practice in modern paganism. I suspect it was a conflation of the older pagan veneration of trees and the practice of decorating with evergreen boughs with the later Christian practice of bringing in a tree and decorating it that caused the confusion with this one.

As an addendum to this there's a particularly atrocious meme going around with a festive Christmas tree picture that claims to explain the Pagan origins of the Christmas tree:
* First of all it claims that a tree was brought in so the wood spirits would be kept warm during the cold winter months. A. Why would you kill a tree to do this? I mean you basically just destroyed their home and killed the spirit of the tree. This is not how animism works. B. Wood spirits living in your house is Not A Good Idea. Seriously there's reams of folklore on how to keep this from happening, why on earth would you think people would do it on purpose? C. Also seriously, why do wood spirits need human help to be kept warm exactly? Also what about prior to December when its cold? Do you keep the tree rotting in your house until spring?
* Next, it says food and treats are kept on the tree to feed the spirits. Awesome, congratulations old school pagan your pre-modern technology home now has mice. Well, probably more mice anyway. Out in the open, crawling on this tree to get to the exposed food. Which is what mice do.
* Next it says bells were hung to chime when an appreciative spirit was present. I'm going to ignore the assumption that bells were common enough to even have to do this with and just point out that in most folklore bells are a protection *against* spirits. So you're covering your tree spirit house in anti-spirit charms. Yeah, this is probably not going to work very well.
* Finally it says a five pointed star called a pentagon is placed on top to represent the five elements. Okay, first a pentagon has five sides, not five points, that's a pentagram. Second not all cultures used five elements, and in particular the Celtic and Norse didn't. So the cultures that had evergreen trees that could have been brought inside, wouldn't have used a five element system.

- Pagan Women Were Equal to Men. This isn't holiday themed but I keep seeing it pop up so I may as well address it. No. Pagan women were not equal socially to men before Christianity took power because every culture was different. We might argue that Pagan Irish women had a pretty good deal but pagan Roman women certainly didn't, so we can't make a broad general statement. 

*the calendar was lunar and also tied to the heliacal rising of Sirius, but neither of these would support the idea of Horus being born on December 25th. 

  References:
Horus:
http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/glossary.aspx?id=148
https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/FDOT.html
https://www.academia.edu/1826559/Egyptian_Religious_Calendar-CDXIII_Great_Year_of_Ra_Wp-renepet 
Mistletoe: (ignore references to Balder being resurrected, that's newer myth) 
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/why-do-we-kiss-under-the-mistletoe
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/whats_the_deal_with_mistletoe.html
http://www.livescience.com/32901-why-we-kiss-under-mistletoe.html
The Oak and Holly Kings:
http://www.maryjones.us/jce/whitegoddess.html
http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/festivals/wheel.shtml
Christmas trees:
http://www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas-trees
http://www.realchristmastrees.org/dnn/education/historyofchristmastrees.aspx
Folkard, P., (2015)  Plant Lore, Legends, and Lyrics Embracing the Myths, Traditions, Superstitions, and Folk-Lore of the Plant Kingdom
Fraser, J., (2002) The Golden Bough
Chamber, R., (1939) Chamber's Journal
Pagan Women:
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women_in_ancient_rome.htm
http://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/III-XV-2.php
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/wedding.shtml

The Value of Darkness

So I write a lot about the value of darkness and recently I've been making memes about it as well, such as this one:

and this one:

  

When I posted the first example on facebook yesterday someone asked me, privately, what exactly I meant by 'darkness' which got me thinking about the larger issue of what I was trying to say and why.

First a bit of backstory. This all began a bit tongue in cheek, because I was tired of seeing so many posts and memes about the Light, be the Light, look for the Light, and so on all of which played into and reinforced the idea that darkness = evil or ignorance. Personally I have very light sensitive eyes and am prone to migraines so the Light (tm) isn't exactly my favorite thing in a physical sense. I also am not a fan of the either/or dichotomy that is so very pervasive and tells us that if light is good then darkness is bad, when the reality is that both contain good as well as bad qualities.

I started to think about how undervalued the Darkness is, how many people fail to appreciate it as a force in itself that has many positive qualities. Our senses are sharper at night and we become more aware, not less, of what's around us. We pay more attention. Many animals are active at night, and some people are naturally nocturnal. the night in many ways is a time of beginnings, and indeed Caesar tells us in his 'Gallic Wars' that the Celts reckoned time as beginning in darkness and proceeding into light: "...they compute the divisions of every season, not by the number of days, but of nights; they keep birthdays and the beginnings of months and years in such an order that the day follows the night" (Gallic wars, 6:18).

This idea of the darkness being the beginning of each new day is related, in Celtic thought, again according to Caesar, to the belief that the tribes of Gaul descended from the god "Dis" or Dis Pater, a chthonic god of the underworld, the dead, fertility, and wealth who is often thought to be Secullos viewed through the lens of the Interpetatio Romana. In Ireland Dis would be equivalent, I think, to Donn, as the primal ancestor and keeper of the house of the dead. Many people these days are at best wary of so-called Dark Gods and at worst phobic of them but the chthonic, psychopomp, and death deities deserve a place as much as any other Gods. They've suffered from the same bad PR that darkness in general has gotten, but rejecting the Gods of the underworld and death doesn't help us in any way, it only encourages us to fear the Powers associated with an inevitable transition that all living things eventually face. I have found an amazing amount of peace in establishing relationships with these deities, and in connecting to them I've come to better understand the connection between the balance of good and bad that is found in all things.

The darkness and dark times are often endings but they are also beginnings, and represent the starting point of new things, the dark of the womb and the dark of the seed buried in the earth. The darkness of the very first stirring of a new idea or project, before it has physically manifested at all. Many death and chthonic Gods are also associated with fertility in one way or another and I think this is a logical association both between the cycle of birth, life, and death and also between the darkness as a source of life and growth.

The darkness is a time of rest and renewal, the time when many people sleep; a time of dreams. There is a healing, soothing quality to darkness both physically and mentally. The night can be a time that offers physical rest from the activities of the day, and the stillness that comes when the rest of the human world is sleeping can offer a time of peace and introspection. And some people find the night and its energy empowering and exciting.

The darkness is strongly associated with the unconscious mind and with the negative qualities people can have or experience including anger, fear, pain, hatred, and jealousy. However rejecting these things doesn't make them disappear, anymore than turning on all the lights in your house makes the night cease to exist - it only creates for us the illusion that the things we fear or dislike about ourselves or others are gone. The only way to truly conquer negative feelings is to confront them directly and own that they are part of us, that we as people are not perfect or filled only with the feelings we want to have. I caused myself more misery when I was younger trying to pretend to be happy when I wasn't than I ever felt when I faced the sadness head on and let myself feel it. We can understand that we have negative aspects to ourselves, that we strongly feel negative things, and that these are part of us but that they don't define or control us.

The darkness represents the unconscious and that's part of why we fear it, I think, because it holds an honesty that the consciousness of light and day do not, but does our fear of what we might find at night, or in our dreams, or in our mind really make the darkness itself bad? Or is it instead a place where we can grow by facing the things within ourselves that, once overcome, can make us stronger? We are taught, many of us, at a young age to avoid pain and fear and negative emotions, as we are taught to fear the dark, but avoiding them only hides them - we must deal with them in order to make them part of us, so that we control them and they don't dictate our actions.

There is as much negative in the Light as there is positive in the Darkness. There is balance. The Light can overexpose and destroy, it can burn, it can dissect what it focus on. The Light in its way is a better illusion than any Darkness, and the monsters of the Light are the fiercer.

To me the Darkness is beautiful. It is comforting, nurturing, protecting, accepting; it offers a chance for growth and empowerment. So I write about the positive qualities of Darkness, how it nurtures, how it strengthens, how it protects. We all begin our lives in Darkness, in the womb, and ultimately return to the Dark in the grave, in death. Darkness is with us throughout our lives, and there is much good to be found in it, if we are willing to see beyond the old ideas of light = good/ dark = bad.




copyright 2015 Morgan Daimler

The Influence of Fiction and Hollywood on Paganism

       I've been pagan for a couple decades now and I've observed a couple trends over that time. One of the most perplexing to me is the way that popular fiction - by which I mean novels, television, and movies - shapes and influences paganism. The reason it perplexes me is because the things that get picked up and absorbed into the pagan paradigm are often based in plot points and rarely fit well or make sense (to me) in actual practice. I've had friends argue, however, that this reflects a normal growth and evolution within the wider community, creating the dynamic which is modern paganism. From this viewpoint modern paganism is woven as much from current fiction and popular culture as it is from past mythology and belief.
     I'll provide a few examples of things that I have noticed and the sources I attribute to them, based on apparent corollary relationships. This isn't a scientific study, just personal observation. 

     Within a few years of the release of the movie The Craft I noticed an upswing in people condemning love magic as dangerous, calling on the made-up deity Manon, and a sudden trend towards people looking for an elemental balance in their groups, either using zodiac signs or affinity to elements. After Practical Magic came out I noticed a huge surge in people claiming to be natural witches. The Mists of Avalon (book and later movie) created a belief in a division between female witches and male druids (exacerbated by another fiction novel marketed as non-fiction), and forehead tattoos . The Charmed television series provided an array of beliefs I've run across in the pagan community, including the belief that magic shouldn't be done for personal gain, that familiars guide and protect new witches, in "whitelighters" as healers, and that each witch has a special power.

    Thor and the Avengers movies as well as the comics are other good examples. How many times have I seen, recently, people saying Thor and Loki are brothers, even though that's a complete modern fiction? That Sif is a warrior? People who have never read the Eddas or any other Norse myth are incorporating Marvel Thor's mythology instead. 

     And then there is the way that some modern pagans have redefined fairylore based on popular fiction and movies, so that fairies become exclusively tiny winged figures, and guardians of nature. I'm giving a side eye to Fern Gully and the Tinkerbell movies here, although they are only the most recent pop culture result of a slightly older trend going back to the Victorian era.
      Why does any of this matter? Well, what I struggle with is the way that many of these beliefs are not rooted in anything and cannot be explained. When I asked someone telling me that Druids had to be men and I should be a witch why that was so he could only say because it was "how it was always done" even though that isn't true outside of fiction. When I asked someone claiming familiars protect and guide new witches how her cat does that she could not explain except to say that it was what her friend told her. When I asked the woman who was lecturing me about never doing magic for personal gain but only ever to help other people why the old cunningfolk were paid for their services; well she just gave me a dirty look and stormed off. When I asked the girl telling me that she needed someone who was an "air" person to complete her Circle why she needed elemental balance - what would happen when she had it? Would the group size be limited to 4? What about traditional covens of 13? - she couldn't tell me.
     Paganism already suffers from a lack of understanding of our own beliefs and cosmology; many people repeat beliefs by rote not from a place of comprehension. And we should understand what we believe, the meaning and purpose behind what we say. We should know why we do what we do. Grafting on beliefs that are rootless, that have nothing behind them except an author's need to forward or complicate a plotline, does not help us; in fact can only hurt by muddying already misunderstood waters. You can't explain a belief that is based in the writers need to keep their characters from solving things too easily, or which was meant to set up the main conflict of the story. That is fiction - our religions aren't.
   The thing is I love pagan fiction and I think its wonderful - I love that it guides people to eventually finding the religions. I love that the quality of pagan fiction is getting better and that we have more and more books and movies which more accurately reflect the real beliefs, especially the old fairy beliefs. But when the line between the entertaining fiction and the actual religion blurs to a degree that people are practicing the fiction, without understanding it for what it is...that's where I see the problem. It frustrates me to see some of it, although it may be an inevitable evolution of religion based on how we tell our stories now - we don't grow up on the old myths and tales we grow up on Charmed and Disney Tinkerbell...and that shapes our beliefs. I enjoy pagan fiction quite a lot, but I understand it for what it is - entertainment.

Modern Prayers in Old Irish

This is something I've been working on to submit for a anthology* which is looking for modern Celtic Reconstructionist prayers. I thought it would be interesting to offer basic prayers in Old Irish to different Gods.
It is still a work in progress, but this is what I have so far:

Guide Nuada 

Nuada Argetlam

Nuada fo dí Ríg

Nuada narsheng

Guidim do a bhennach

Guidim do a eolas

Guidim do a anacht

Do chairdes form

D’ecne lemm

Do sciath úasum

Dobiur sin duit

Bronntas do bronntas

Nuada Ríg mórda

Prayer to Nuada

Nuada Silver Arm

Nuada Twice King

Nuada Noble-fair

I pray for your blessing

I pray for your guidance

I pray for your protection

Your friendship on me

Your wisdom with me

Your shield over me

I give this to you

A gift for a gift

Nuada mighty king

Guide Macha ar Nert 

I pray to you,

Oh Macha,

Sovereign Lady,

Queen by her

own hand,

Deadly crow

of many battles,

May I be fierce

May I be strong

May I be unyielding

In my own strife

Prayer to Macha for Strength

Guidimm cuccut,

a Mhacha,

Banfhlaithes,

Rígan tree

feisin laim,

Fionóg bhadbda

de ilchathaigecht

Beinn adlond

Beinn nert

Beinn taetach

I mu gliada céin

* information on the anthology can be found here, deadline is January 2016

Samhain isn't pronounced Sam-hane and other truths

    I should probably have titled this post "Grumpy Old Polytheist Ramblings". But there's a lot of so-called educational memes floating around the community right now that are a lot more opinion than fact and I finally decided that it was time to address some specific points. With facts.
    Samhain is pronounced "Sow-win" or "Sow-wen" in Irish and Samhuinn is pronounced "Sah-vihn" in Scottish Gaidhlig; there are of course minor variations with different dialects but in no Celtic language is it pronounced "Sam-hane". As far as I can tell pronouncing it that way comes from non-Irish speakers reading the word and applying English phonetic pronunciation rules to it. But lets be honest here - that doesn't make the mispronounced version correct. That's like me pronouncing "America" Uhm-ehr-ee-suh" and saying that's a legit pronunciation that should be accepted because that's how I read it phonetically. Or for that matter like me saying p-hon-eht-ih-cullee is an okay way to say phonetically. At this point there are enough resources and online pronunciation guides that there's no reason for people not to get Samhain correct. I mean seriously people everyone insists on using the Old Irish spelling for Lughnasadh but people manage to say it Loo-nah-sah just fine, so lets stop acting like mispronouncing Samhain is an okay thing to do.
   And no, there is absolutely no Samhain God of the Dead, or Sam Hane God of the Dead either.
   And, for the record, there is no ancient Celtic tree zodiac (or animal zodiac either), and the whole "Tree Calendar" thing was made up in 1948 by Robert Graves - the Druids never used it and wouldn't have had any clue what it was if you could somehow time travel back a couple thousand years and ask them about it. The Tree Ogham is a real thing but it had nothing to do with dates or months, just with associations between Ogham letters and specific trees; there's also a Bird Ogham where each letter is associated with a bird, and Pig Ogham, and so on. I guess Graves didn't think the Pig Ogham was romantic enough to base a calendar system on...
    Speaking of hard truths - let me burst another bubble for everyone. There is no Celtic pantheon. Really it's true. When you see those lists of deities labeled "Celtic pantheon" in all those books its really just a random list of deities from the different Celtic cultures hodge-podged together. But here's the problem inherent in that - a pantheon by definition is the gods of a specific religion or people, and there was *never* a single over-arching Celtic religion or people. Celtic has always been a term of convenience for describing similar groups based on shared cultural themes, art, and related languages. The mythology, even for the so-called Pan-Celtic deities like Lugh/Llew/ Lugus who are found across the different Celtic culture is different. The Morrigan was a major deity in Ireland but there isn't any evidence of her in Gaul; we find Cernunnos in Gaul but not elsewhere. Even within a single culture their were regional Gods who might be known in this location but not over in this other location. The reason that matters is that in a pantheon you should be able to find stories of the Gods interacting with each other, or at least appearing together, there should be a cohesion of belief and cultus that only occurs in groups of deities that have a genuine unifying factor. You might be able to argue for an Irish Pantheon or a Gaulish Pantheon, but understand that Celtic as such is pretty meaningless for religious purposes.
   Also, although we may not like to admit it, yes the ancient Celtic cultures - and pretty much all ancient cultures - practiced human sacrifice. This isn't some kind of nasty propaganda, its just a fact. When we're going around trying to act like that sort of thing never happened because it goes against our modern mores it just makes us look kind of silly.
   And since I'm on a roll, the Good Folk are not elementals and not all of them are nature spirits. That whole twee little garden sprite thing is a very Victorian idea. They aren't angels, and they also aren't our special spirit guide friends. Some of them may care about humanity at large but a great many them don't. Sometimes they help us, but sometimes they harm us and we can't just decide they are all sweet and gentle and make it be so.
   One final note, on the subject of hard truths - there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. An opinion is how you feel about something. In my opinion dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate. A fact is an objective reality. Chocolate is made from cacao beans. The first example is my opinion, other people may disagree or have different opinions and that's fine; the second example is a fact and is not open to someone else's disagreement. In other words you might think milk chocolate is better than dark, and that's your opinion which is fine, but you can't just decide that chocolate is actually made from coffee beans because that simply isn't true. In spirituality some things are opinion, and some things are facts. Its really important to know the difference between the two.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Reflecting Darkness

So Friday is my birthday. I've been thinking a lot about that, and about something that was posted in a group today about the variety of witches out there:

internet meme; anonymous

     There are many, many approaches to witchcraft and some are completely different from others, but it is true that the vast majority of witches in the Western world seem to follow what is generally termed a "right hand path" or benevolent witchcraft. This approach usually adheres to the things mentioned above: a belief in a Westernized understanding of karma, following the Wiccan Rede, and belief in the Rule of Three. Because this is the most popular approach it can sometimes be seen in groups as the only acceptable approach, particularly with an emphasis on witchcraft that focuses on healing, blessing, protection, and a strong ethic of not causing harm.
However....
I'm a witch.* I have been a witch now for more than 24 years.
   I don't believe in karma*, in the sense that what we do comes back to us in a reward/punishment system, or that being good makes good things happen. I do think that being a good person, however you define that, has value and should be strived for. But I don't think there is some universal power which metes out punishment or reward based on an arbitrary system of good or bad actions.
   I don't follow the Wiccan Rede, because I am not Wiccan, firstly, and secondly because I believe that sometimes "harm" is good and necessary. Sometimes a small harm now prevents a greater harm later, or is being done for a larger purpose, such as the "harm" done to my daughter when she had her cardiac procedure in order to correct a dangerous irregular heartbeat. Sometimes its being done to protect something, like when I have to kill a hive of wasps that is above my garage (my husband is severely allergic). Sometimes its simply a matter of deciding that the action is necessary, and taking it.
    I don't believe in the rule of three, in any sense. I do believe that our mindset, be it positive or negative, effects our life, and that how we treat other people directly effects how other people, in a very general sense, treat us (ie if you are nice to people they are usually nice to you, if you are jerk they are generally a jerk in return). But life experience has shown me that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people all the time. And that's not even getting into the stickety-wicket of who decides what is "good" and "bad" to begin with....
   I have hexed. I have done bindings and banishings. I deal with spirits, both on friendly terms and commanding them (usually to leave a place). I am very pragmatic in my magic; I do what needs doing. And there has never been any terrible consequence to me from anything I have done (although I will add here that I am very careful and I know what I am doing). The greatest consequence I have faced is the judgment and censure from some people within the pagan community for being open about the sort of witch that I am. 

   I think, sometimes, that paganism has spent so many decades trying to convince the rest of the world that we are all harmless and safe that anytime someone comes along and says, "No if it needs doing I'll do it, even if its sad or unpleasant or hard" there is an automatic response of immediately rejecting that idea. We don't want to own the dark witch anymore, or we want to make it a clear cut matter of "good/light" and "bad/dark". We have bought into our own PR and we want our witchcraft safe and nice and palatable for the masses of non-pagans. We don't want the dark and scary as a serious practice, only as a sort of juvenile "phase" that we say people will grow out of or as a side-show all-flash-no-substance joke. Its not easy to break out of that mindset, as a community. Heck it was hard for me. Everyone wants to be the hero in the story, not the pragmatist.

   There are all sorts of witches in the world and that's exactly as it should be. We need the variety. Some are very gentle. Some are very loving. Some are very peaceful. Some are all of that but if their back is against a wall they will defend themselves.
   I am not that sort.
    I was told once, in a visionary experience, that I needed to own the idea of being a badb, a bantúaithech, for lack of a better translation an "old school witch". Someone who isn't afraid of doing what needs doing. Who can heal or hex without hesitation. Who isn't afraid to go where other people truly do fear to tread. Who owns their own darkness and understands the balance that is needed between dark and light to preserve Firinne (truth/right order). The word badb itself when applied to a human means a witch of the dark and dangerous sort, the kind who shows up and gives an ill prophecy and then works magic to ensure it happens. A cursing-witch. The word bantúaithech* is related to the word túaithe and has strong negative connotations, being related to túaithbel meaning lefthand-wise, against the sun, to cursing, of working against the positive, and is also related through túath to the aos sidhe who witches were reputed to deal with and get much of their skill and knowledge from. So a badb or bantúaithech is a witch who works against the sun and who deals with the fairy folk, who curses and prophesies.
This was not a message I wanted to hear, nor one I was quick to embrace.
    I really didn't want to be that person.
    Because there is a comfort in acceptance. There is a comfort in staying weak, and avoiding confrontation, and letting other people handle the messy work. There is a comfort in being able to say "I am harmless and good and only ever help everyone".
     But you can't fight dán and a raven can't be a robin no matter how much it wishes it was.
So I have spent a lot of time learning to be a bantuaithech, an old school witch, and learning that you can still be kind and gentle even when you are the one who knows how to hex and does it when it needs doing. Learning that you can still be nice even when you are the one who isn't afraid to walk straight into the darkness and handle what you find there, and you are the one who does the things that generally seem to horrify so many other people. I had to learn that all those frightening connotations with the words badb and bantúaithech nonetheless represent the preservation of right-order, of fírinne - the dark witch doesn't curse for fun or maliciousness but in the myths and stories she does so to bring back order when there is a great imbalance. She uses her own power to correct imbalances, often by bringing down important people - often kings or heroes -  who have abused their power or greatly transgressed the social order. She is not a bad person but she is the one who must do the dirty work in the stories in order to bring back balance. I had to learn not to fear using power when it needed to be used, especially in situations where those who were otherwise powerless needed to have someone act for them. I learned, ultimately that sometimes the only way to preserve right-order is to go against it for a time.
    I am that sort of witch, but it doesn't make me a bad person - if anything it has made me a better person because I understand the fear, and anger, and hatred that far too often drive other people.I embrace the darkness because I don't see it as frightening or dangerous, just as beautiful and empowering. I can empathize with suffering and being broken because I have been there. I appreciate the importance of being good and kind because I am so aware of the reality of the other side of that. I am kind not because I fear the consequences of not being kind - I don't - but because I know the value of kindness for its own sake. 

......but like Al Capone said: "Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me."

*I've discussed in previous blogs that I am both a witch and a Druid. I see the first as a personal practice, a skill, and the second as a role within the community. In my life they provide balance and dovetail nicely with each other, and both work within my Irish Reconstructionist Polytheism.
* okay that's a bit of hyperbole on my part, but its complicated. I've blogged about it previously here
* - I am editing this to clarify a point: the word bantúaithech is Old Irish and is the word used in the myths to describe female magic users, generally translated as "witch". Be Chullie and Dianann are referred to this way in the Cath Maige Tuired when Lugh asks what power they will bring to the fight (they promise to enchant the trees and stones and earth to appear as a great army by the way), and a further list of ten women of the Tuatha De Danann is given and described this way in the Banshenchus. The word, however, did not survive into modern Irish. There is a similar term, tuathánach, which means rustic or country dweller and tuathbheartach means evil-doing. Interestingly túathgeinte, meaning the Good Folk did survive as tuathghinte in modern Irish. Similarly badb, meaning a witch, is Old or middle Irish; in modern Irish babdbh when applied to a human means a scold and only has vague connotations of cursing. 

excerpt from my current work in progress

I'm a bit behind on blogging and translations because I'm in the middle of a new book draft for Pagan Portals: Brigid. The idea of doing more goddess-themed Pagan Portals was suggested by someone on my facebook author page and my publisher really liked it, and asked if I'd be interested in writing about Brigid. I'm about 14,000 words into the 25,000 word draft and its about all I've had time to work on, excluding real life child care (the never ending work-in-progress). So today I thought it would be fun to share a small excerpt from the new book in progress. Although the main focus of the book is specifically on the pagan Goddess Brighid it's inevitable that saint Brigid will have to be discussed too....

Brigid – Goddess and Saint

Our modern understanding of Brigid is largely the result of a blending of the features of the pagan Goddess and Catholic saint (Clark, 1991). There is a sharp divide among scholars on the subject with some like Kim McCone stating that saint Brigid, particularly in her later stories, shows a clear separation from the pagan Brigid, while others like Marie-Louise Sjoestedt say that the saint is an accurate preservation of the Goddess. This makes it difficult and at times almost impossible to untangle one from the other, particularly from material that dates to the transition period when Ireland was still nominally pagan and not yet entirely Christian. We can see this for example in the proliferation of both mythic figures and saints named Brigid as well as the characteristics of the early saint Brigid which clearly reflected earlier mythic patterns, such as providing food and drink to those in need (McCone, 2000). In the Lebor Gabala Erenn we are told that the Dagda is Brigid’s father and that he also had a son named Aed; interestingly saint Brigid also was associated with a person named Aed, in this case a fellow saint. Saint Aed was said to have founded a monastery with buildings dedicated to saint Brigid and saint Brigid was said to have invoked the name of saint Aed to miraculously cure a headache (McCone, 2000).  Those seeking to connect to the Goddess today will have to decide for themselves what they feel genuinely reflects older pagan beliefs and what may have evolved in the later Christian period.

   Saint Brigid was reputed to be the best brewer in Ireland, and her association with beer, ale, and brewing were shared by her counterparts the Welsh Saint Ffraid and the Scottish saint Bride. This particular association may reflect and older pagan belief connected to Brigid of Smithcraft, as it was not uncommon for smith deities to also be Gods of brewing. The Irish smith God Goibniu, for example was associated with brewing as well as smithing. Goibniu had a special mead or ale called the fled Goibnenn, “drink of Goibniu”, that conveyed the gift of youth and immortality to the Tuatha De Danann (O hOgain, 2006). Similarly the Welsh Gofannon was a brewer as well as smith and the Gaulish Secullos, the “Good striker”, although not known explicitly as a smith God was depicted with a hammer and associated with wine.

    Saint Brigid is most strongly associated with Kildare where her church stands near her sacred healing well; the church itself features a perpetual flame tended by Brigadine nuns. Although the perpetual flame cannot be traced with certainty back to the Irish pagan period Brigid’s British counterpart Brigantia had a temple under the guise of Brigantia-Minerva which also featured a perpetual flame (Puhvel, 1987). The Irish saint Brigid and the Scottish saint Bride are believed to be both the midwife and foster-mother of Jesus Christ and both are very strongly connected to childbirth, potentially reflecting older mother Goddess concepts.

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

Personal Boundaries, Sovereignty, and Consent Culture

  I was recently reminded of an older blog post by John Beckett about boundaries and it got me thinking. We all have personal boundaries, of course, but I think too often in interacting with others there is a default assumption that others share either our personal boundaries or else wider cultural boundaries. To me, when we talk about personal boundaries I immediately think about consent culture and the idea of personal sovereignty.
     Whether we like to admit it or not we live in a society that assumes our bodies are not really our own, especially if you are female*. From a young age most of us are taught to hug people whether we want to or not, because it's "polite". Children learn quickly that it doesn't matter whether they want to or not, its expected. Of course some people enjoy this contact and do it by choice, but there is also an underlying assumption that it is a social norm. Women constantly fight against the ideas that being female means owing physical contact to other people usually expressed as intimacy. The whole concept of the "friend zone" exemplifies this because it carries the implicit belief that if someone likes a woman and tries to court her she is somehow being unfair or manipulative to deny that person an emotional or physical response they want. Many pregnant women experience having their belly touched by strangers, without their permission, as if being pregnant in itself ceded such consent away. I have had my hair, tattoos, and (yes, really) breasts touched in public by strangers who believed they had a right to touch me without my permission. In the pagan community there is also often an assumption that physical touch is wanted or accepted so much so that I have sometimes seen people refer to hugging as the pagan handshake, as if it were the default greeting.
   Here's the problem. Not everyone wants to be touched, especially by strangers or people they don't know well. There are many reasons why someone may not want to be touched, but honestly it doesn't matter. The point is that not everyone welcomes casual touching or hugging. For some people there is a strong boundary that exists at the limit of their personal space which says please stay out, in the same way that another person might feel about strangers or acquaintances going through their purse or wallet without asking. To me part of  our right to control our own body and what happens to it includes being able to decide where that boundary of personal touch is.
    What baffles me here is the offense people take when someone who doesn't want to be touched expresses that. People who want to hug seem to believe people who don't want to hug are rejecting them on a personal level, when that is not (generally) the case at all. It isn't a judgment on the hugging individual as a person (again usually) so much as it is an expression of the non-hugging individuals personal comfort levels. I'll use myself as an example. I do not like being touched by most people, and being hugged by people I don't know or don't know very well and trust causes me anxiety. You'll note I said most, so right off I get criticized because I say I don't like being touched but then I do let some people touch me - as if it's only acceptable for me to have this boundary if I make it all or nothing, again removing my ability to choose who I am and am not comfortable being touched by. Most people don't ask, they simply hug, putting me in the extremely awkward position of either letting them violate my personal space in a way that I find upsetting or of ducking away which they find offensive. I usually brace myself and put up with it, because in my experience rejecting unwanted physical contact that is socially acceptable, is ironically not socially accepted. And for those of you reading this and thinking I'm exaggerating, the next time you go to a larger pagan event try to enforce a strict "no touching" rule. When I was at Pantheacon I even wore a ribbon, bright red, which said "No touchy!!" and it made no discernible difference, although several people did apologize after hugging me, then asking permission, and being told I would really prefer not to (and I appreciate the apology, even retrospectively).
 

  I have seen an online discussion about this subject in a pagan group where people argued that hugging shouldn't require consent and that non-huggers needed to conform. One person even went so far as to suggest forcibly hugging people who expressed a desire not to be touched, because they needed to get over it. I've also seen people who don't want to be touched called un-pagan, mean, and heard it said that if you don't like hugs you're missing out on some essential aspect of community building. In the same way that people who are very open to touching are judged negatively, so people who don't like to touch are judged.
   Not wanting to be touched has nothing to do with me judging you. It has everything to do with me needing to feel like I am controlling what is happening to my own body. This is where personal sovereignty comes in, because personal sovereignty, to me, is the idea that we as individuals are in control of what happens to our own bodies; you are the supreme authority of your own flesh. I decide what I am comfortable doing and not doing, and I decide who can and can't enter my personal space and what they can and can't do there. To put a twist on an old saying, however, my sovereignty ends where the next person's begins. Some people have permeable boundaries, and that's fine if that's what they are comfortable with. Some people have rigid boundaries and that should be fine too, if that is what they are comfortable with. The key here is that we each should have the ability to decide for ourselves what happens to our own bodies*.
   Another vital aspect of this, which could really solve many of the problems caused by the assumption that touching as social norms are okay, is the idea of consent culture. Simply put, ask first. If you want to hug someone, ask. And respect their answer, even if it's no. Don't take that no personally or assume anything about why the answer is no, because likely it isn't about you at all. Consent culture is rooted in respect and the idea that by asking first we are acknowledging the other person's sovereignty over their own body, just like we would their car or purse (I hope).
       Consent culture is not something we have right now, it's a work in progress, but it is something we can make a reality. In the same way personal sovereignty is something we each must work to understand and establish for ourselves, because no one can give us sovereignty it is something that we must learn to stand up for. I highly recommend JD Hobbes"The Hug as a Personal Greeting" for guidelines on good etiquette on touching other people at public events. And hopefully as we move forward we can learn to respect each other's limits, instead of judging those who have comfort-zones different from our own.
 


* cis-, trans-, or any other form of female identification are all considered female here
* you can pretty much guess from this view how I feel about most subjects relating to body-choices. I admit though that children are a grey area because they should be raised with a sense of personal sovereignty but also must, by necessity, fall under their parents decision making processes in many things. That's a topic for a blog on it's own however

Read All the Things!

  Those of you who enjoy my translation efforts, don't worry I have some interesting bits about Tech Duinn and Donn coming out tomorrow, but today I wanted to shift back a bit into a more discussion style blog.
    I've noticed a trend lately of people asking for opinions about books and getting some strangely territorial responses. What I mean by that is responses which seem to assume there is one - and only one - book worth getting on a particular subject. It can get very Highlander-esque ("There can be only one!") with people advocating for one book and putting down others like there was some sort of epic prize to be won.

my son with volume 1 of Air n-Aithesc a peer reviewed CR journal. He has good taste in reading material

   First of all, book recommendations will always be highly personal. The book one person loves another person may not be able to finish. So there is that, and we should never forget that a recommendation is really just an opinion about what someone liked. In some cases it isn't even about whether the book is good or bad, just whether it resonated with that person. My preferences tend to extremes - either dry and academic or highly engaging and experiential; some people may like one or the other but many people don't like either. Just like I like chocolate ice cream, but someone else might not; that doesn't mean chocolate ice cream is bad per se.
   Secondly, what a person wants to get out of the book and their own background matters. If someone who is coming from a very neo-pagan background asks me for a book recommendation on Celtic paganism my response will be different than if someone who is coming from a CR approach asks the same question. Context mattes.
   Speaking of context. There's this strange idea that I've seen floating around that if a book is too "Wiccan*" or "New age**" it is somehow flawed or inferior. Let's get something straight here if you are neopagan or worshiping in a neopagan dynamic then there is nothing wrong with books written to cater to that market. While I may be one of the first people to jump on bad scholarship, modern pagan practice is not synonymous with a lack of knowledge of the subject. I have read some very good neopagan books and while that may not be my personal spiritual approach that doesn't detract from the quality of the book itself. I have also read some really awful books and articles written by people claiming a reconstructionist or polytheist approach, so its not as if we can or should assume that neopagan equals poor quality and recon equals good quality. It would be really awesome if we, as a wider community, could cut out the more-pagan-than-thou-better-scholarship-than-thou attitudes. It isn't a competition.

Variety is your friend

   Thirdly, it is entirely possible to recommend a book without putting down every other similar book. It doesn't have to be about how much you loved that one book because everything else ever written about the subject is garbage. I have never seen any subject where there is only one good book in existence on the topic. Also it is possible to recommend a book that you don't like - I do it all the time when I recommend Hutton's 'Blood and Mistletoe' which I can't personally stand but which I admit is a good basic survey of what we do and don't know about the Druids.
   Now in fairness, yes I have written book reviews and publicly said that people should avoid certain books *coughWittacough* for a variety of reasons. And if you have a really valid reason to tell someone not to read something - that it's plagiarism, that it's a disaster of inaccurate info mislabeled, that it has dangerous advice in it - then just be really clear on why you think people shouldn't read it. The reason really should be a lot more than just I didn't like it, or it didn't do anything for me personally.
    In the end it is a truism that we learn from all the sources, good, bad, and blah. Everything we read, every experience we have, contributes to our overall understanding. The key is to keep an open mind and always by willing to re-assess and change your view if you find out a source you liked wasn't accurate, or new information on a subject emerges.
   So read all the things. All of them.
   Ipsa scientia potestas est.

*obviously not referencing British Trad Wicca, but being used as a general term for Wiccan style neopaganism
** also not referencing actual New age material, but apparently being used as a pejorative.

Copyright Morgan Daimler