Art of the Christian Druids
Will Corley
concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
Any pointers or web site links would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> Could someone check the validity of my site for historical accuracy
> concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
just speculation. Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and
rites to become Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
> Celtic One Design
Ian
Will Corley
Church at that time they were quite "unorthodox". Looking from our eyes in
our
time...they were both.
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
<tre...@ncweb.com> wrote in message news:37C21A...@ncweb.com...
Gray Hodge
"learn not the way of the heathen". However it is sadly true that when the
early celtic christians were swallowed up into Rome, they lost some of the
solid beliefs and doctrines they held while Rome was happy to accept a
merging of paganism and "christianity".
BTW, Wills' site is well put together, quite impressive layout.
--
Gray
Will Corley
failed, no backups and then proceeded to dump my ISP without getting copies.
Strike three!
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
Gray Hodge <camr...@southcom.com.au> wrote in message
news:37c2...@casper.southcom.com.au...
Anon1011648389
newsgroup. But This is somewhat of a sore point for me:
(Checked your page; it does look nice. You did, however, take away my access
to Winamp while viewing your page... (grumble))
Will Corley wrote:
>
> Could someone check the validity of my site for historical accuracy
> concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
Will presupposes a lot, but no-one even looked at his page, did they? It is
upon the ART he dwells, not the Art.
Many may cease reading at this point.
As for "Christian" druids:
>Tredara Wrote:
>>There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there?
>> That's all just speculation. Seems to me that when a Druid gave
>>up his Gods and rites to become Christian, he would no longer
>>have been a Druid.
You, Tredara, are both correct and incorrect.
Will Corley responded with:
>Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian. In the eyes of
> the Roman Church at that time they were quite "unorthodox".
> Looking from our eyes in our time...they were both.
et cetera ad infinitum...
Will:
Do not attempt defend your position upon the Druids; your page stands upon a
merit of its own.
Regradless of Hodges' proposal, quoting the bible (half of which was
assembled AFTER the War of the Trees- during the decrease of Druidism, and
their subsequent submergence from the "light"), you have to remember that most
of what is modern day christianity didn't actually emerge until the (late) days
of Constantine.
The idea of a "Christian" Druid, on the surface, seems plausible. However,
with a bit of research, one will find that, after the official adoption of the
Christ Cult by Constantine, the now militarily embodied (and still fledgling)
Catholic Church pursued most of it's competition in a holy purge. This brought
the druids to the fateful decision of whether to abandon their religion, or
mask it under the invading one (as many suspect has been done in the past).
The druids as we know them (their recorded history, as well as much of their
secret, was on a highly perishable material- tree leaves) had hidden themselves
within the newly budding faith. Their perseverance gives us the mixed holidays
we observe today:
Samhain (Holloween)
Easter (the festival of Istra, or of the vernal equinox)
etc.
Also- only a slight research into history will reveal the saints of
catholicism to be revered "gods" of the druids.
At any rate, I get sidetracked at the late hours... Your page, William, has
an accurate slant on the knotwork of the Celts. I apologise that I hadn't the
time to go over it in detail (I have a penchant for Celtic Knotwork). However,
note well that many Druids were Celts, but not all Celts were Druids. In effect
it is like comparing the mistletoe to the oak.
Anyway. I have not subscribed to this newsgroup to start any Flame Wars. I am
looking for some reliable resources on the Druidic religion, and specifically
an entity with whom I may become an initiate.
-H
Anon1011648389
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian.
Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one. And
don't tell me about the Culdees or the Celtic Church - they fought hard
to destroy the Old Ways.
Ian
> ================================
> SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
> ================================
> Celtic One Design
> Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
> http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
> <tre...@ncweb.com> wrote in message news:37C21A...@ncweb.com...
> > Will Corley wrote:
> > >
> > > Could someone check the validity of my site for historical accuracy
> > > concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
> >
> > There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
> > just speculation. Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and
> > rites to become Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
> >
> > > Celtic One Design
> >
> > Ian
healingline
tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C439...@ncweb.com>...
>Will Corley wrote:
>>
>> Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian.
>
>Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
Preeminent example: St Columba. Look him up.
Others: founders of RDNA, now ordained Episcopal ministers but still
Druids. Ask them.
myself, who be also a Hindu and a Buddhist and a Muslim
and parent and spouse of members of the Native American Church (which
unfortunately excludes non Indians like moi) and a healer.
healingline
Don Kean
tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C21A...@ncweb.com>...
>Will Corley wrote:
>>
>> Could someone check the validity of my site for historical accuracy
>> concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
>
>There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
>just speculation. Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and
>rites to become Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
>
>> Celtic One Design
>
To say that there were never Christian Druids is not being fair. Surely,
everybody knows the Druids came under intense persecution. They had the
foresight to realise the end of an era and the beginning of another.
Quickly, tell me, what would you have done? Been a selfish arsehole, gone to
your death, and left behind no trace of the most glorious traditions that
have ever blessed the face of this earth? The Otherworld pot will not boil
meat for the coward.
They had to cloak their blessed activities under other guises, they took up
the challenge and did so in clever and courageous ways that really did
ensure that the bulk of their traditions continued and so began the rise and
rise of the West. Those who are true Celts instinctively know of the never
ending way of our faith. The Druid walked through this valley of the shadow
of death – and came out of the other side yawning and asking what all the
fuss was about.
Elenos
Glenn McDavid
> Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian.
tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C439...@ncweb.com>...
> Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, healingline wrote:
[snip]
>
> Others: founders of RDNA, now ordained Episcopal ministers but still
> Druids. Ask them.
The Reformed Druids of North America (RDNA) were founded at Carleton
College in the spring of 1963. There certainly were Christians among
them. In fact, for at least a decade afterwards most of the Carleton
members did not consider themselves to be pagans, and resented being
so labeled.
Glenn McDavid
mailto:gmcd...@winternet.com
mailto:glenn....@powercerv.com
http://www.winternet.com/~gmcdavid
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C439...@ncweb.com>...
> >Will Corley wrote:
> >>
> >> Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian.
> >
> >Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
>
St Columba was from a noble family, and may have been a Druid at one
time, but he completely rejected Paganism when he became Christian. He
preached against Paganism at every chance, and persecuted Pagans in
Ireland and Scotland. He may have been Christian, but he was no Druid!
> Others: founders of RDNA, now ordained Episcopal ministers but still
> Druids. Ask them.
I know, but that's modern stuff, with no relation to the Old Ways. The
RDNA folks knew very little about Druidism when they founded their
group. I have all the papers from the RDNA, so I'm pretty familiar with
their history. Good people, but they're clinging to a 'tradition' that
bears no resemblance to what the ancient Druids did.
> myself, who be also a Hindu and a Buddhist and a Muslim
> and parent and spouse of members of the Native American Church (which
> unfortunately excludes non Indians like moi) and a healer.
Well, you can define yourself as you like, of course, but I don't really
see how anyone can reconcile Christianity with Celtic Paganism without
seriously deforming one or the other - or both.
> healingline
Ian
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C21A...@ncweb.com>...
> >Will Corley wrote:
> >>
> >> Could someone check the validity of my site for historical accuracy
> >> concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
> >
> >There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
> >just speculation. Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and
> >rites to become Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
> >
> >> Celtic One Design
> >
>
> To say that there were never Christian Druids is not being fair. Surely,
> everybody knows the Druids came under intense persecution. They had the
> foresight to realise the end of an era and the beginning of another.
That's a Druid pretending to be a Christian, not a Christian Druid.
Folks have often had to pretend to agree with their persecutors to stay
alive, but if they actually come to agree with them, then they've
betrayed their original ways.
Ian
Alexander Maclennan
>>> Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
>> Preeminent example: St Columba. Look him up.
Columba is splendidly enigmatic. There is no real certainty about
just why he was excommunicated. Adamnan is rather cagey on that.
Burying Oran alive to ensure the foundations is not usual christian
practice either so far as I know. Nor is turning women he disliked
into cranes. Even tha name Columba has odd associations, the dove
being both the emblem of Venus and sexiest of birds. They stand
around all day saying screw screw. But whatever it was that Columba
was turned on by it wasn`t women. He seems to have entertained a
cordial dislike for them. He was instrumental in preserving the
rights of the Bards at the Council of Drumceat.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Allan Carpenter
become OBOD. He never gave up Christianity. Acoording to Philip
Carr-Gomm's introduction to "The Book of Druidry'" Ross frequented his
local church and had been ordained a bishop in the Celtic Church
(whatever organization that might be).
Yours under the Oaks,
Allan
\
Don Kean
tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C5F2...@ncweb.com>...
Gosh Ian, I admire your warrior enthusiasm, such bold statements need an
answer. The Druids had no chance when they and their supporters were hunted
down and hanged without trial. Druid influence ended by use of shock
tactics. Claudius issued an edict that outlawed their practices and events
moved swiftly from there. The rule of Roman law that previously prohibited
attacks against priests and their property became suspended with the stroke
of a pen.
All over Europe, gangs of bounty hunters arose to collect the reward of
Roman silver. They broke into Celtic homes and tortured terrified villagers
into giving names and places. The Roman soldiers stood by, in their role of
military police, under Imperial orders not to intervene.
The remaining Druids had a choice; to vanish into far off places, or lose
themselves in the array of fringe movements that clustered around the
cities. Many chose the city option and the young Christian community offered
a convenient haven at the right time. Their effect on early Christianity
appears to lack for written proof. In this era the Christians were
insignificant as a group, they were not being persecuted and had no written
works. However, the source of the time, the letters of St Paul, indicate
dismay over the Christian ‘love feasts’. He accused some early churches of
being pagan for the loving went all the way and makes other telling points
that are of interest .
Perhaps Nero had a point when he blamed Christian groups for the fire of
Rome. What a delicious thought that incognito double agents lived in Rome,
the belly of the beast, and then took the opportunity to torch the
headquarters of the evil empire and all it stood for! Long before the turn
of the Christians, Druids and their followers were the martyrs fed to the
lions in the Roman arenas. One reason, given by official Roman accounts, was
that these criminals had sinned against the heavens for they would not admit
belief in the gods. They had no soul so therefore being killed by animals
was a fit punishment.
The Druids supported many gods? The god-awful system that persecuted them
was all for that sort of thing. It would depend upon what you are talking
about. Do you mean that wherever they went they went they offered different
rituals to suit the local god or goddess of the area? Perhaps we are still
learning to understand how they, as community judges and priests, came into
an area to serve the overall laws of Nature, whatever the local beliefs.
How insensitive to say they pretended, these men and women gave their life
to serve a greater mission than the vagaries of fixed belief systems. These
people blessed the reality of Nature above all else and gained the blessing
of being free. They knew the forces of Nature endlessly weave all that is
behind life in patterns more beautiful than we can ever imagine. They had no
set schemes to pull apart, worship, or profit by - the ongoing body of
Nature was the sacred mystery that we can choose to accept and gain the
fuller life that has nothing to prove. This indescribable heresy remains a
secret, so don’t tell anyone. The mission impossible still is for us to
understand more about our interactions with the environment.
It takes courage to put aside narrow-minded interests, then wholeheartedly
work with the natural forces about us. ‘What does it profit a man to gain
the whole world and yet lose his own soul?’ A Druid would rephrase this and
say, ‘Can we continue to profit by rejecting the whole of natural world for
the gain our own soul?’
Elenos
Marc Lachance
> healingline wrote:
> >
> > tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C439...@ncweb.com>...
> > >Will Corley wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian.
> > >
> > >Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
> >
> > Preeminent example: St Columba. Look him up.
>
> St Columba was from a noble family, and may have been a Druid at one
> time, but he completely rejected Paganism when he became Christian. He
> preached against Paganism at every chance, and persecuted Pagans in
> Ireland and Scotland. He may have been Christian, but he was no Druid!
Weren't the Druids mentioned in the Brehon laws, codified during the
time of St. Patrick? THese laws were still in effect up to the 17th
century English pogroms...
>
> > Others: founders of RDNA, now ordained Episcopal ministers but still
> > Druids. Ask them.
>
> I know, but that's modern stuff, with no relation to the Old Ways. The
> RDNA folks knew very little about Druidism when they founded their
> group. I have all the papers from the RDNA, so I'm pretty familiar with
> their history. Good people, but they're clinging to a 'tradition' that
> bears no resemblance to what the ancient Druids did.
Hear, hear.
>
> > myself, who be also a Hindu and a Buddhist and a Muslim
> > and parent and spouse of members of the Native American Church (which
> > unfortunately excludes non Indians like moi) and a healer.
>
> Well, you can define yourself as you like, of course, but I don't really
> see how anyone can reconcile Christianity with Celtic Paganism without
> seriously deforming one or the other - or both.
Some point to Pelagius as an example. Others point to the suggestion
that the druids weren't a priesthood but more of a caste. After all, the
classical writers never called them "priests" but "philosophers" and
"men and women of high learning"...
--
/\ Marc Etienne Lachance, KSC, LMAA
/<>\ Episkopos without a cabal,
/____\ Non-Leader of Something or Another.
healingline
Don Kean wrote in message <7q5l84$s5h$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au>...>>Don Kean wrote:
>>>
>>> tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C21A...@ncweb.com>
>How insensitive to say they pretended, these men and women gave their life
>to serve a greater mission than the vagaries of fixed belief systems. These
>people blessed the reality of Nature above all else and gained the blessing
>of being free. They knew the forces of Nature endlessly weave all that is
>behind life in patterns more beautiful than we can ever imagine. They had
no
>set schemes to pull apart, worship, or profit by - the ongoing body of
>Nature was the sacred mystery that we can choose to accept and gain the
>fuller life that has nothing to prove. This indescribable heresy remains a
>secret, so don’t tell anyone. The mission impossible still is for us to
>understand more about our interactions with the environment.
>It takes courage to put aside narrow-minded interests, then wholeheartedly
>work with the natural forces about us. ‘What does it profit a man to gain
>the whole world and yet lose his own soul?’ A Druid would rephrase this and
>say, ‘Can we continue to profit by rejecting the whole of natural world for
>the gain our own soul?’
>
>Elenos
>
>
Thank you vastly, Elenos!
Friend Ian has not come down out of his head; no trees there, only concepts
thereof. BTW may I say I have greatly enjoyed dancing these threads ?
More thanks to you all.
healingline
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote:
>
> >>> Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
>
> >> Preeminent example: St Columba. Look him up.
>
> just why he was excommunicated.
He wasn't! He was in good standing with the church as long as he lived.
Ian
Alexander Maclennan
>> Columba is splendidly enigmatic. There is no real certainty about
>> just why he was excommunicated.
> He wasn't! He was in good standing with the church as long as he lived.
You are misinformed on this point. Columba was excommunicated in
his absenceby a synod of the Saints of Ireland at Taillte, convened
for that purpose. He was later reinstated after the pleading of
St.Brendan of Birr who claimed to see a pillar of light preceding
Columba. The precise date is unknown but thought to be after the
Battle of Cul Dreimne.
There is an account, if a pretty guarded one, of all this in Chapter
Three Book Three of Adomnan`s Life.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
David Monks
QuertX wrote:
> How Christian were the poets? is a
> good question, but their were no Christian Druids.
True. But how Christian was/is Christian Ireland? A lot of paganism lurks hardly
under the surface even today. Sure there will be a Christian rationale for it, but
that does not take from the fact that the old traditions are still honored in a
much more pagan way than would be expected after 1700 years.
David
Kevin Jones
As I recall - and I may have misremembered this - Columba was rather
partisan concerning a war in which his family was involved. The upshot
led to his excommunication and his later reinstatement, plus voluntary
exile to Iona.
Kevin
Alexander Maclennan
>>
> As I recall - and I may have misremembered this - Columba was rather
> partisan concerning a war in which his family was involved. The upshot
> led to his excommunication and his later reinstatement, plus voluntary
> exile to Iona.
This is the hypothesis generally accepted by scholars, I believe,
though it is not known with any certainty. There was also the matter
of the surreptitious copying of a book belonging to Finnian which led
to the first recorded copyright case which Columba lost though there
is no reorded of his actually returning his copy and there is some
uncertainty about what he had copied. It may have been the new Jerome
translation of a gospel but it might equally well have been a non
canonical one. quite a lot of which arrived in Ireland. The bit of
psalter which was in the Cathach is probably out. I underatand the
paleographers would date the script a century or so after Columba. It
seems that he actually instigated the battle and may well have
participated. It was triggered by the king executing a boy who was
under Columba`s protection.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
QuertX
>
>That was written by monks, I believe.
According to the webpage below, it was written by an ollav (Arch Poet). I'm
sure there's something besides the Ogham that's important to our study. I can't
remember what it is though. the book looks pretty Christian though.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~jhiggins/book.html
All Yours
John
Don Kean
tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C75B...@ncweb.com>...
>
>Ian said;
>Many of them (the Druids) probably immigrated to Ireland
Why Ireland? The Irish are noted for their tendency to become priests, and
you are right, a large body of Druids did exist in Ireland. They would have
resented an influx of any more – especially if they served one tribe, and
kept it's rituals and ways like you say. The Irish Celts had similarities
but also differences from the Continental Celts, an interesting topic but
away from the point. The Druids trained for many years, Julius Caesar
mentions how they trained since childhood. Do you think that such dedicated
people would throw in their blessed vocation when danger came? Arising to
meet the challenges is the greatest test of any faith.
>Mostly they would have served one tribe, and kept it's rituals and ways.
Nature worshippers lived in country areas and insisted on those who knew all
about religious mysteries, the Druids, coming to them. The Celts in one
settlement did not like the smoke of another on the horizon, so the Druids
travelled around in a wide circuit that took months to complete before
starting over again. Now days, in rural areas of places like Africa and
South America, it is often the one who works as the local teacher,
missionary and doctor that travels about in exactly the same fashion.
The Druids worked around and through the limits of many local religions to
heal both physically and mentally and they set up the world’s first order of
nurses. They were a world apart from witch doctors that shake bones and
throw chicken blood over the sick.
> The Romans weren't particularly villainous, in context of their time.
The ‘Romans’ is a complex term. We can make distinctions between the people
and the rulers who would have nothing to do with the common person. Karl
Marx called these fat cat rulers ‘the hundred families of Rome’; they set up
the world’s first corporations, which controlled the wealth of the
territories they ruled over. The dream of Roman nobles was world rule,
served and paid for by the losers forever. Their story begins with the
conquest and enslavement the Italian countryside and they went on to become
the supreme villains of all time by the brutal conquest of Europe.
>Only a little difference, in the end, between Roman and Druidic religion.
Ahem! Pray tell, what was the Roman religion? History says the Romans took
the Greek gods and then promptly changed the name of the lot of them. To me
this says the revisionist rulers lived and died by the gods of profit. They
worshipped nothing but their own distorted desires under the name of
whatever served their purpose. The Roman games always opened with the dawn
parade of chanting priests that called down the blessing of politically
correct gods and goddesses. They invited them to drink the blood of those
about to die. Enough said, far be it from me to offend anyone’s gods, but
they did and they eventually paid for it.
Julius Caesar became supreme pontiff of Rome, in charge of all religion, at
the age of sixteen because his uncle paid bribes to the right connections in
the Senate and look what happened to him. He said the Druids fight each
other for their position. In typical dictator fashion he wrote about his
known world of spiritual betrayal and blamed all others for it.
Whatever the Druids ‘believed in’ may have been subject to the winds, the
forces of Nature affect us all, but never the winds of political change. The
clever ways of man can appear to be full of good intentions, but if the
overall intentions continue rest on artificial foundations then all our
works will fail.
Elenos
Will Corley
"Prince of Druids".
Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about the
New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
<tre...@ncweb.com> wrote in message news:37C439...@ncweb.com...
> Will Corley wrote:
> >
> > Quite a few examples of both Pagan and Christian.
>
> Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one. And
> don't tell me about the Culdees or the Celtic Church - they fought hard
> to destroy the Old Ways.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > ================================
> > SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
> > ================================
> > Celtic One Design
> > Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
> > http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
> > <tre...@ncweb.com> wrote in message news:37C21A...@ncweb.com...
> > > Will Corley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Could someone check the validity of my site for historical accuracy
> > > > concerning the art of the Christian Druids.
> > >
> > > There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's
all
> > > just speculation. Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and
> > > rites to become Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
> > >
> > > > Celtic One Design
> > >
> > > Ian
Kevin Jones
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C75B...@ncweb.com>...
> >
> >Ian said;
>
> >Many of them (the Druids) probably immigrated to Ireland
>
> Why Ireland? The Irish are noted for their tendency to become priests, and
> you are right, a large body of Druids did exist in Ireland. They would have
> resented an influx of any more
Possibly not. There are indications that some wealthy British Celts fled
to Ireland in the wake of the Claudian conquest. There was also the
migration of academics from Gaul to Ireland round about the time fo the
collapse of the western empire. Some Irish were also going abroad to
study - Faithleen in the Tain went to Alba and Tlachtga in the
Dindsenchas studied 'in the east'.
> > The Romans weren't particularly villainous, in context of their time.
>
> The ‘Romans’ is a complex term. We can make distinctions between the people
> and the rulers who would have nothing to do with the common person. Karl
> Marx called these fat cat rulers ‘the hundred families of Rome’; they set up
> the world’s first corporations, which controlled the wealth of the
> territories they ruled over. The dream of Roman nobles was world rule,
> served and paid for by the losers forever. Their story begins with the
> conquest and enslavement the Italian countryside and they went on to become
> the supreme villains of all time by the brutal conquest of Europe.
A little simplistic but then Marx' views were somewhat simplistic. For a
slightly more complex view try Crawford M (1992), The Roman Republic,
London and Wells C (1992), The Roman Empire, London.
I'm not sure you can argue that the Roman dream was world rule. There
wasn't anything organised about their conquests which were undertaken
for a variety of reasons, some mutually exclusive. They considered that
the gods had given them the right to rule, but that's something else
altogether. In contemporary theory, the emperor ruled everywhere anyway
- they just hadn't bothered to go to some places.
As for enslaving Italy, the earliest wars were against the likes of the
Etruscans, the Italians and the Celts of the Po valley, which could be
considered defensive. Later political developments gave the populace a
voice in political decisions, through the tribunes. This was only wiped
out when Augustus took the office of tribune. The Social Wars were about
giving the rest of Italy the same privileges as Roman citizens, an
argument that had been grumbling on since the tribunate of Tiberius
Gracchus in 133 BC. They were consequently the opposite of enslavement.
> Ahem! Pray tell, what was the Roman religion? History says the Romans took
> the Greek gods and then promptly changed the name of the lot of them.
Not quite. Being stuck between the Etruscans and Greek influence, not
surprisingly the Romans were influenced by both. The gladiatorial games,
for example, started as Etruscan mortuary games in which people fought
in a market place in honour of the recently deceased.
As for Roman religion - there was no one Roman religion. During the
empire there were myriads of cults. For a state religion there was the
Capitoline triad and later the cult of the emperor's genius. In fact the
whole religious picture in Rome is extremely complex.
> They
> worshipped nothing but their own distorted desires under the name of
> whatever served their purpose.
A bit harsh - true of some of them. But then in antiquity it was
considered that those who the gods blessed would achieve their
ambitions, so it's difficult to say where to draw the line.
> Julius Caesar became supreme pontiff of Rome, in charge of all religion, at
> the age of sixteen because his uncle paid bribes to the right connections in
> the Senate and look what happened to him.
Well, he didn't wind up having a bad hair day on the Ides of March
because he was pontiff. He wound up being killed because he was really
stretching the law regarding the position of dictator to the limit and
ignoring Republican sentiment and traditions. Ironically, by bumping him
off, the conspirators left the way open for the even craftier Octavius,
who manipulated the ideas of the Republic into becoming the principate
and eventually the imperium.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
>
> The medieval chronicler, John of Tritheim, refered to St. Columbanus as the
> "Prince of Druids".
>
> Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about the
> New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
Cathbad and Mogh Roth will do for starters.
Kevin
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote:
>
> >> Columba is splendidly enigmatic. There is no real certainty about
> >> just why he was excommunicated.
>
> > He wasn't! He was in good standing with the church as long as he lived.
>
> You are misinformed on this point. Columba was excommunicated in
> his absenceby a synod of the Saints of Ireland at Taillte, convened
> for that purpose. He was later reinstated after the pleading of
> St.Brendan of Birr who claimed to see a pillar of light preceding
> Columba. The precise date is unknown but thought to be after the
> Battle of Cul Dreimne.
>
> There is an account, if a pretty guarded one, of all this in Chapter
> Three Book Three of Adomnan`s Life.
Thanks for tuning me in. A recent read of a summary of his life
mentioned nothing about it.
Ian
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> The medieval chronicler, John of Tritheim, refered to St. Columbanus as the
> "Prince of Druids".
>
> Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about the
> New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
Any pre-Christian Druid would have been Pagan.
Ian
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote in message <37C75B...@ncweb.com>...
> >
> >Ian said;
>
> >Many of them (the Druids) probably immigrated to Ireland
>
> Why Ireland?
Because it was outside the Roman sphere of political influence. In
addition, several Isles tribes had groups in both Britain and Ireland,
and so those Druids would have found a welcome there.
> >Mostly they would have served one tribe, and kept it's rituals and ways.
>
> Nature worshippers lived in country areas and insisted on those who knew all
> about religious mysteries, the Druids, coming to them. The Celts in one
> settlement did not like the smoke of another on the horizon, so the Druids
> travelled around in a wide circuit that took months to complete before
> starting over again.
That's speculation, I think. It seems just as likely that any local
tribal settlement of any size would have had Aes Dana folk, even a
Druid. Ceasar says that families sent many children to be schooled and
implies that there were plenty of Druids.
> The Druids worked around and through the limits of many local religions to
> heal both physically and mentally and they set up the world’s first order of
> nurses.
World's first?! I find it hard to imagine that the 100,000 years of
human history before the Druids produced no groups of full-time healers.
>They were a world apart from witch doctors that shake bones and
> throw chicken blood over the sick.
Why do you think so?
> > The Romans weren't particularly villainous, in context of their time.
>
> The ‘Romans’ is a complex term. We can make distinctions between the people
> and the rulers who would have nothing to do with the common person. Karl
> Marx called these fat cat rulers ‘the hundred families of Rome’; they set up
> the world’s first corporations, which controlled the wealth of the
> territories they ruled over.
Again, business combines go back to Sumer, thousands of years before
Rome.
>The dream of Roman nobles was world rule,
> served and paid for by the losers forever.
No evidence of that at all. Romans conquered for gain, in some cases,
but more often for secure borders. They attacked the Celts in the first
place because the Celts were attacking them, likewise the Germans.
>Their story begins with the
> conquest and enslavement the Italian countryside and they went on to become
> the supreme villains of all time by the brutal conquest of Europe.
Making a group full citizens with full legal rites hardly seems like
enslavement. That's what they did in Italy, then later in Gaul, and
later still in Britain. Rome needed slaves, but it needed citizens at
least as much.
> >Only a little difference, in the end, between Roman and Druidic religion.
>
> Ahem! Pray tell, what was the Roman religion?
I suggest starting with 'History of Pagan Europe', by Pennick and Jones,
for a look at native Roman religion.
> Julius Caesar became supreme pontiff of Rome, in charge of all religion, at
> the age of sixteen because his uncle paid bribes to the right connections in
> the Senate and look what happened to him.
Well, he rejected the job because it forbade him from riding a horse!
> Elenos
Ian
Searles O'Dubhain
recorded had either been written by another scribe or was written down from
listening to the Filidh, the Seanchai/, or a priest. There are many
passages in _The Book of Ballymote_ that are attributed to Ferchertne and
Amergin as well as to Cenn Faelad. All were Ollamh, with only the last
being Christian.
--
Searles O'Dubhain
http://www.summerlands.com
"Athert an Daogdae, 'An cumang arba/gaid-si/, doge/n-sou ule am a/onur.' "
"Then said the Dagda, 'All these powers that you have said that you will
command, I will myself command.'"
QuertX <que...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990828025349...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
healingline
Will Corley wrote in message ...
>The medieval chronicler, John of Tritheim, refered to St. Columbanus as the
>"Prince of Druids".
>
>Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about
the
>New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
>
>================================
>SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
>================================
>
Hee hee hee, hu hu hu , ha ha ha!!!!
healingline
Will Corley
Christian Druids are we to know of them.
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
Kevin Jones <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:37C7D9...@compuserve.com...
> Will Corley wrote:
> >
> > The medieval chronicler, John of Tritheim, refered to St. Columbanus as
the
> > "Prince of Druids".
> >
> > Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about
the
> > New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
>
Kevin Jones
>
> Almost all of the scribes *claimed* to be Christians. What a scribe
> recorded had either been written by another scribe or was written down from
> listening to the Filidh, the Seanchai/, or a priest. There are many
> passages in _The Book of Ballymote_ that are attributed to Ferchertne and
> Amergin as well as to Cenn Faelad. All were Ollamh, with only the last
> being Christian.
The more you dig into the sources of the period, the more ambiguous the
position gets re Ireland, paganism and Christianity. There's a growing
sentiment amongst historians that the conventional view of the success
of Christianity in the country is largely a load of bollocks and the
whole issue needs to be reviewed. It doesn't square with papal decrees
giving Ireland to the English crown because the faith had 'fallen to the
floor' in Ireland. The argument between Mac Con Midhe is another major
case in point, as is the wording of the treaty signed by Tadgh O'Connor.
Again, the filidh could claim eric against the Church collectively or
individual clerics for defaming their profession and its practices,
whatever they thought of them. It's an interesting situation. As is
frequently said by the Irish, 'only in Ireland . . .'
Kevin
Kevin Jones
>
> And how do we know of them? Were they interviewed by CNN? Only by the
> Christian Druids are we to know of them.
Cathbad turns up in the Tain and Mogh Roth in the Dindsenchas. I doubt
if CNN was in operation back then.
Now it's a very moot point as to whether the Irish of the period would
have necessarily seen any antagonism between traditional ways and
Christianity. Looking at the texts, there seems to have been more
antagonism between Rome and the Irish Church, than there was between old
traditions and the Irish Church, Murchu not withstanding. One of the
'reproaches' of Ireland was that there were no martyrs. One of the
frequent accusations was that the Church there did nothing about
heretics or pagans.
Anyway, your point was? Apart from making daft remarks about CNN?
Kevin
Will Corley
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
Kevin Jones <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:37C848...@compuserve.com...
Craig Cockburn
Maclennan <sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk>
>tre...@ncweb.com wrote:
>
>>>> Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
>
>>> Preeminent example: St Columba. Look him up.
>
>just why he was excommunicated.
I thought he was alleged to have copied someone else's work?
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), soc.culture.scottish FAQ author.
Find it at http://www.scot.demon.co.uk or http://scotland.home-page.org
Port na Banrighinn, Alba. (Queensferry, Scotland) PGP key available.
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Kevin Jones
>
> I made mine, have you?
>
Quite adequately I feel.
Kevin
Don Kean
>I'm not sure you can argue that the Roman dream was world rule. There
wasn't >anything organised about their conquests which were undertaken for a
variety of >reasons, some mutually exclusive.
Welcome to the discussion Kevin. You and Ian bring up a wealth of points.
You both chide me for giving simple answers about Druids and the Empire. Did
the Romans kick the stuffing out of Europe? Yes they did. Did they liquidate
the Druids? Yes they did. The ongoing process of justifying their actions by
bringing up this or that event in history reminds me of court cases where
criminal stand sobbing in the witness box about the history of a deprived
childhood. Everybody takes pity and they are let off with a good behaviour
bond. Then they go out and rip off the community all over again.
> Ian said; Romans conquered for gain, in some cases, but more often for
secure >borders. They attacked the Celts in the first place because the
Celts were attacking >them, likewise the Germans.
You seem to imply Pagans, who lived directly from the land, could turn into
howling barbarians, ready at any time to rise up to batter at the gates of
civilisation. Without any provocation at all the young men left behind farms
and families, travelled enormous distances, then sated bestial appetites
before staggering home drunk with their ill-gotten plunder. If you must
mention books please quote those explaining how to do any of this. As for
‘securing borders’, well! That’s what Hitler said when the Panzers rolled
into Poland, and a recent example was the conflict in Serbia.
>Kevin said; They (the Romans) considered that the gods had given them the
right to >rule, but that's something else altogether. In contemporary
theory, the emperor ruled >everywhere anyway - they just hadn't bothered to
go to some places.
I somehow miss the point here. I sense some negative connation. Of course, I
have seen the books you mention further on, and all I gain is a feeling of
profound dissatisfaction with the answers given.
You say the Romans thought the gods gave them the right to rule. And they
went on to reject the laws of living that did not coincide with their fixed
ideals. There never has been an overall right to rule given by the gods,
this is the gist of today’s movement towards democracy in the world. The
Druids taught that no religion could ignore the natural laws that prevail
upon this earth. They knew how those who hold the reins of religious power
resist rather than welcome new truths. Sciences as astronomy, physics, and
biology broke away from those who said they had the final word. Today's
religions are filled with those who continue to reject the beauty of natural
life. They maintain that in the realm of conduct and morals, religion must
have the last word, though that word comes from antiquated ways.
>Kevin said, As for enslaving Italy, the earliest wars were against the
likes of the >Etruscans, the Italians and the Celts of the Po valley, which
could be considered >defensive. Later political developments gave the
populace a voice in political >decisions, through the tribunes. This was
only wiped out when Augustus took the >office of tribune. The Social Wars
were about giving the rest of Italy the same >privileges as Roman citizens,
an argument that had been grumbling on since the >tribunate of Tiberius
Gracchus in 133 BC. They were consequently the opposite of >enslavement.
So endeth the lesson in making despotism sound cute and cuddly? The
‘Compendium of History’ by Velleius Paterulus, tells the actual story in a
more realistic way,
‘In (91 BC.) all of Italy took up arms against the Romans. The rebellion
began with the people of Asculum... it was next taken up by the Marsians,
and then made its way into all the districts of Italy. The fortune of the
Italians was cruel as their cause was just, for they were seeking
citizenship in the state whose power they were defending by their arms.
Every year and in every war they were furnishing a double number of men,
both of cavalry and of infantry. Yet, they were not admitted to the rights
of citizens in the state that through their efforts had reached so high a
position that it could look down upon men of the same stock and blood as
foreigners and aliens.
This war carried off more than 300,000 of the youth of Italy...
>Ian wrote, World's first (order of nurses)?! I find it hard to imagine that
the 100,000 >years of human history before the Druids produced no groups of
full-time healers.
Are you a Theosphist? They are the only group I know that offers such a
generous timeline for human history. Their view (a product of the last
century) maintains that lost civilisations arose and fell in a series of
cataclysmic events that still eludes all modern scientific methods of being
able to prove any of it. We had to come from somewhere and at some point of
time. I agree with present thinking that reaches towards environmental
truth. Even if we did evolve in a faraway galaxy in time long ago the
critical point still is being able to cooperate with the Nature of the world
we are in.
>Ian said, Why do you think so? (That the Druids were a world apart from
witch doctors >that shake bones and throw chicken blood over the sick.)
You interrogate me about trivial healing spells? Don’t expect me to give any
secrets and I will tell you no lies. A Roman story gives an erronous but
amusing account of gathering mistletoe with golden sickles,
‘They believe that the mistletoe, taken in drink, imparts fecundity to
barren animals and that it is an antidote to all poisons. Such are the
religious feelings that are entertained towards trifling things by many
peoples.’
Medical books of the last century still told of a potion made by boiling
mistletoe berries to help the mentally disturbed. This Druidcure was dropped
in favour of electric shock treatment. Extract from mistletoe is still used
by modern day vets to treat animal ailments. But why say when the drug
companies make a dollar out of keeping it quiet?
Depression was treated by blowing power of white hellebore (Xmas Rose) up a
patient's nose with a hollow reed. Hellebore had uses for toothache.
Horehound a remedy for coughs, goose grass for snake bites, mallow for wasp
stings. Willow leaves cured earache and elm for headache and broken bones.
Mandrake root (of the same family of henbane, belladonna, thorn apple and
tobacco) produces a narcotic. The extract can be a painkiller or
sleep-inducer. In other forms, it can be an anti-depressive or aphrodisiac.
It depends upon when the fruits and leaves are picked and prepared. We knew
that plants could produce different chemicals in different stages of growth.
Those others put the growth of plants down to the gods.
Our position has always been the same. How can anyone know of the gods above
if we cannot pay attention to the works of Nature on earth? Perhaps they
give their message to us through Nature - but why should I tell anyone any
more of these secrets. Where all you who have these natural values in life?
Drop me a letter!
Elenos
Will Corley
I thought he started a little fur ball fight (due to that little copy) that
resulted in the death of about 3000 souls. He was sent to Scotland to save
an equal number of souls for Christ as punishment. So the story goes.
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sKaeCUAG...@scot.demon.co.uk...
Will Corley
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote:
>
> >Will Corley wrote:
> >>
> >> The medieval chronicler, John of Tritheim, refered to St. Columbanus as the
> >> "Prince of Druids".
> >>
> >> Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about the
> >> New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
> >
>
Same thing. 'Pagus' means 'small village', as opposed to 'urbs' meaning
'big city'.
Ian
tre...@ncweb.com
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> Kevin Jones <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> <37C7D9...@compuserve.com>...
>
> >I'm not sure you can argue that the Roman dream was world rule. There
> wasn't >anything organised about their conquests which were undertaken for a
> variety of >reasons, some mutually exclusive.
>
> Welcome to the discussion Kevin. You and Ian bring up a wealth of points.
> You both chide me for giving simple answers about Druids and the Empire. Did
> the Romans kick the stuffing out of Europe? Yes they did.
So what? So did the Celts before them - they kicked the stuffing out of
Rome, in fact, though they didn't have the inclination to stay to rule
it.
> > Ian said; Romans conquered for gain, in some cases, but more often for
> secure >borders. They attacked the Celts in the first place because the
> Celts were attacking >them, likewise the Germans.
> You seem to imply Pagans, who lived directly from the land,
As did almost everyone in the Roman Empire, including the leading
families. No one could have wealth without farming.
>could turn into
> howling barbarians, ready at any time to rise up to batter at the gates of
> civilisation. Without any provocation at all the young men left behind farms
> and families, travelled enormous distances, then sated bestial appetites
> before staggering home drunk with their ill-gotten plunder. If you must
> mention books please quote those explaining how to do any of this.
Actually, no-one said any of that. You put the words in my mouth and
then asked me to defend them. No go.
All ancient peoples practiced war and aggression, including the Celts.
Celts regularly raided each other for cattle and booty, and raiding the
Romans and Greeks was just another part of the job of the warriors.
> >Kevin said; They (the Romans) considered that the gods had given them the
> right to >rule, but that's something else altogether. In contemporary
> theory, the emperor ruled >everywhere anyway - they just hadn't bothered to
> go to some places.
> I somehow miss the point here. I sense some negative connation. Of course, I
> have seen the books you mention further on, and all I gain is a feeling of
> profound dissatisfaction with the answers given.
That's because they disagree with you!
> You say the Romans thought the gods gave them the right to rule. And they
> went on to reject the laws of living that did not coincide with their fixed
> ideals.
There are no laws of living outside what the culture teaches.
>The
> Druids taught that no religion could ignore the natural laws that prevail
> upon this earth.
As did Roman wisdom.
>They knew how those who hold the reins of religious power
> resist rather than welcome new truths.
The Druids *were* the reigns of religious power. They held them and used
them to control their people.
> >Ian wrote, World's first (order of nurses)?! I find it hard to imagine that
> the 100,000 >years of human history before the Druids produced no groups of
> full-time healers.
>
> Are you a Theosphist? They are the only group I know that offers such a
> generous timeline for human history.
Nope. Science today suggests that HomoSapiens has been around for around
100,000 years, and of course they would have inherited cultural notions
from the previous honinids - so I was being conservative in my
suggestion of the length of human culture.
I mean come on - Mykenae was 1000 years before the Druids, and they were
a highly developed civilazation. And Egypt and Sumer are older than
that!
>Their view (a product of the last
> century) maintains that lost civilisations arose and fell in a series of
> cataclysmic events that still eludes all modern scientific methods of being
> able to prove any of it.
I'm not talking Atlantis and Mu, I'm talking about the people who(for
instance) built New Grange, some 2,000 years before the coming of the
Druids to Ireland.
> >Ian said, Why do you think so? (That the Druids were a world apart from
> witch doctors >that shake bones and throw chicken blood over the sick.)
Look, 'witch-doctors' (an insulting ans silly term for traditional
healers), know just as much about herbs etc as any Druid ever did.
> Drop me a letter!
Let's talk here :)
> Elenos
Ian
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> And how do we know of them? Were they interviewed by CNN? Only by the
> Christian Druids are we to know of them.
No, we know of them by the writings of Christian monks, who weren't
Druids of any kind.
But we know of the general existence of Pagan Druids by the many
accounts of them in the writings of Pagan Greeks and Roamns, as well.
> > > Can you cite a Pagan Druid? I don't know of one. And don't tell me about
> the
> > > New Age ones - they are too busy reinventing the wheel.
> >
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> Will Corley wrote:
> >
> > And how do we know of them? Were they interviewed by CNN? Only by the
> > Christian Druids are we to know of them.
>
> if CNN was in operation back then.
>
> Now it's a very moot point as to whether the Irish of the period would
> have necessarily seen any antagonism between traditional ways and
> Christianity.
They did indeed. Irish saints preached constantly against the Old Ways,
and did everything they could to see Pagan ways eradicated. Fortunately,
the people knew better, and merged lots of Paganism with their
Christianity.
>Looking at the texts, there seems to have been more
> antagonism between Rome and the Irish Church, than there was between old
> traditions and the Irish Church, Murchu not withstanding.
Again, there's plenty of antagonism of the Irish Church against
Paganism, but when the Roman Church made afinal decision, the Irish
Church always went along. The Irish Church was always a subset of Roman
Christianity.
> Kevin
Ian
Wade Baugher
> ...
> You seem to imply Pagans, who lived directly from the land, could turn
into
> howling barbarians, ready at any time to rise up to batter at the gates of
> civilisation. Without any provocation at all the young men left behind
farms
> and families, travelled enormous distances, then sated bestial appetites
> before staggering home drunk with their ill-gotten plunder.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you just did a pretty good job of
describing the early Celts. They were indeed a raiding based culture.
The warrior aristocracy secured status, slaves, livestock, land and more
by engaging in the *raid*. That bordering territories would have considered
them a threat is not at all unreasonable.
--
Wade Baugher
--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--
Nine knots upo' this thread
Nine Blessings on thy head
Will Corley
--
================================
SAVE THE SNAILS, EAT THE FRENCH!
================================
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
<tre...@ncweb.com> wrote in message news:37C9BE...@ncweb.com...
> Will Corley wrote:
> >
> > And how do we know of them? Were they interviewed by CNN? Only by the
> > Christian Druids are we to know of them.
>
Don Kean
>Don Kean writes:
>>>(My apologies if the threads of Ian and Kevin are mixed.
>>>I should have kept my responses separate.)
>Look, 'witch-doctors' (an insulting and silly term for traditional
healers), know just as much about herbs etc as any Druid ever did.
Must you keep on being so unkind to us? I am rude to those who attack us,
being Pagan means not having to fit in with the rules that others make for
themselves. Are you trying it on by writing to a Druid group praising those
who suppressed our ways? I admire your courage, whatever it is that you
support.
>The Druids *were* the reigns of religious power. They held them and used
them to control their people.
Some say that, others know otherwise. Why do you so disagree with our ways?
>I mean come on - Mykenae was 1000 years before the Druids, and they were a
highly developed civilization. And Egypt and Sumer are older than that!
Which of those civilisations would allow females to act as an equal power in
their own right? They all had many groups of healers dominated by males.
Equality was and still remains a principal article of the Druids. Outsiders
to our ways have yet to understand how the world yearns to return to the
basic principals that we upheld long ago.
>I'm not talking Atlantis and Mu, I'm talking about the people who (for
instance) built New Grange, some 2,000 years before the coming of the Druids
to Ireland.
I am still puzzled by this constant reference to the Irish. The marvellous
achievements by earlier groups are worth talking about, but as I say this NG
is a Druid group. The coming of the Druids to Ireland brought many
blessings. Why separate the Tuatha and their Druids? Perhaps you could share
with us this interesting story you have of times before that.
>(In reference to my ironic statement of the Celts becoming howling
barbarians.) Actually, no-one said any of that. You put the words in my
mouth and then asked me to defend them. No go.
Sorry about that. I made the point of how the Celts did not have the
resources to sustain large-scale attacks. In the big picture, any revolt or
uprising against Roman repression was greatly exaggerated as an excuse to
ethnically cleanse Europe. The Pictish chieftain, Galgacus, summed up the
truth of it all, "To robbery, slaughter and plunder, the Romans give the
lying name of Empire; they make a desert and call it peace."
I said about profoundly disagreeing with some books I read, and you suggest
that they disagree with me. Not at all, every author has some value, even if
for entertainment. Do you believe in every book that you have ever read? I
sense that you are swayed in a certain direction and by certain works.
Unless one is seeking cheap thrills it is not being very nice to attack what
this group stands for. Our alternative ideas about the magic of the Druids
is certainly not covered by conventional history or other ways of living. We
don’t have to prove anything to anyone about our unwritten ways. The essence
of Druid learning is to internalise the world, make it our own in a way that
enhances our life, then gives us that little bit more.
Elenos
Don Kean
Wade Baugher wrote in message <37c95d0a.3199$3...@news.op.net>...
>> Don Kean wrote :
>> ...
>> You seem to imply Pagans, who lived directly from the land, could turn
>into
>> howling barbarians, ready at any time to rise up to batter at the gates
of
>> civilisation. Without any provocation at all the young men left behind
>farms
>> and families, travelled enormous distances, then sated bestial appetites
>> before staggering home drunk with their ill-gotten plunder.
>I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you just did a pretty good job
of
>describing the early Celts. They were indeed a raiding based culture.
>The warrior aristocracy secured status, slaves, livestock, land and more
>by engaging in the *raid*. That bordering territories would have
considered
>them a threat is not at all unreasonable.
>--
>Wade Baugher
>--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--
>Nine knots upo' this thread
>Nine Blessings on thy head
>
Yes, and a knotty thread hangs here, does it suspend the sword of Damocles
over my head? The Celts did raid, and it became a set tradition, a warrior
ritual. The Druids then had the warriors follow set rules of warfare that
did moderate the excesses of earlier activities. Why limit yourself to early
Celts? The Scottish twelve for each side warfares and raids lasted up until
the 17th Century and the clan system continued on because of it.
I know many Celtic scholars that fret over why the Celts were always at
conflict among themselves. Perhaps their system, for all the perceived
violence, kept human numbers in check with their environment, and all had
their chance to be a warrior. Feuding does keep places ‘undeveloped’, but
through whose eyes? Too strong a meat for some. They would rather ‘civilised
warfare’ where millions die in conflict rather than a few dozen at a time.
We know how the simple living Braveheart stirred the clans and kicked the
British butt. The result was always the same, win a war here and war there
to lose the battle. In military terms their supply lines became
overstretched due to lack of overall planning, they were only used to local
engagement, and they could always come out on top as long as it stayed
local.
What does it take to have a successful raid? There are finite limits to how
far you can go and what you can do. Someone has to look after the farm while
you are away. I answered a claim that suggested how the Germans attacked the
Romans. If they attacked Rome itself then how did they get there, use four
wheel drives?
The truth is the Germans and the Celts attacked the Romans in Europe on
territory the Romans falsely claimed as their own. They were the plunderers
who resented groups who moved in to take away what they had stolen. Are you
being like these others in saying the Romans had every right, how they alone
advanced the glorious light of civilisation through the Pagan darkness?
What we need here is Celtic versions of history that tell us the real side,
the magic side of being what we are. Let us with be done with all this gloom
as Merlin casts his spell!
Nine threads, nine guessings
Bring many knots of kinder blessings
Elenos
Kevin Jones
>
> Kevin Jones <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> <37C7D9...@compuserve.com>...
>
> >I'm not sure you can argue that the Roman dream was world rule. There
> wasn't >anything organised about their conquests which were undertaken for a
> variety of >reasons, some mutually exclusive.
>
> Welcome to the discussion Kevin. You and Ian bring up a wealth of points.
> You both chide me for giving simple answers about Druids and the Empire. Did
> the Romans kick the stuffing out of Europe? Yes they did. Did they
> liquidate the Druids? Yes they did.
Well, no they probably didn't. Tiberius forbade Roman citizens from
taking part in the religion and Claudius outlawed it. However, there was
a wealth of difference between an emperor decreeing something - and in
this case it only applied to Gaul - and actually having it carried out.
The Romans did not have the communication infrastructure or the sheer
manpower to liquidate druidism. In fact Roman law really only ran in the
vicinity of the governor or the army.
In fact druids turn up later in the empire. For example, Ausonius
mentions their descendants; Diocletian and one of his co-emperors
dedicated a temple to Belenus, which suggests that it had achieved some
semblance of political recognition.
> You seem to imply Pagans, who lived directly from the land, could turn > into howling barbarians, ready at any time to rise up to batter at the > gates of civilisation.
Well, the Romans were pagans as well. Living off the land or being pagan
does not preclude thinking its a good idea to invade your neighbour.
People have been doing this for millennia.
> As for ‘securing borders’, well! That’s what Hitler said when the
> Panzers rolled into Poland, and a recent example was the conflict in > Serbia.
It always has been a good excuse. However, the Romans had, long before
there was an empire, been having punch-ups with the Celts of the Po
valley and the Etruscans. Since Rome was a single city-state at the
time, it might have some reason to be concerned about, for example, the
Etruscans, who were quite dominant at the time.
>
> >Kevin said; They (the Romans) considered that the gods had given them the
> right to >rule, but that's something else altogether. In contemporary
> theory, the emperor ruled >everywhere anyway - they just hadn't bothered to
> go to some places.
>
> You say the Romans thought the gods gave them the right to rule. And
> they went on to reject the laws of living that did not coincide with
> their fixed ideals.
On the contrary, they were a very conservative society which was always
looking backwards to traditions. The whole art of governing, from their
point of view, was not to change things.
> There never has been an overall right to rule given by the gods,
> this is the gist of today’s movement towards democracy in the world.
Well, that's a rather anachronistic view. It is unlikely to have been
shared in antiquity ever since the days of Alexander.
> >Kevin said, As for enslaving Italy, the earliest wars were against the
> likes of the >Etruscans, the Italians and the Celts of the Po valley, which
> could be considered >defensive. Later political developments gave the
> populace a voice in political >decisions, through the tribunes. This was
> only wiped out when Augustus took the >office of tribune. The Social Wars
> were about giving the rest of Italy the same >privileges as Roman citizens,
> an argument that had been grumbling on since the >tribunate of Tiberius
> Gracchus in 133 BC. They were consequently the opposite of >enslavement.
>
> So endeth the lesson in making despotism sound cute and cuddly?
On the contrary - that's a fairly factual account of the evolution of
the Roman political system.
> The
> ‘Compendium of History’ by Velleius Paterulus, tells the actual story > in a more realistic way, ‘In (91 BC.) all of Italy took up arms > against the Romans. The rebellion
> began with the people of Asculum... it was next taken up by the Marsians,
> and then made its way into all the districts of Italy. The fortune of the
> Italians was cruel as their cause was just, for they were seeking
> citizenship in the state whose power they were defending by their arms.
A reasonably succinct account of the Social Wars. The Latins and the
Italians originally had their positions defined by treaty and by law.
Mind you, the matter was a bit more complex than that since some of the
Italian elites favoured the status quo while the elites of other Italian
tribes pressed for change. Meanwhile the Roman oligarchy - ie the senate
- were trying to preserve their position against the tribunes. The
upshot was a situation that was going to go pop somewhere along the
line. As it happens, the matter was conceded at the start of the Sullan
wars.
> A Roman story gives an erronous but
> amusing account of gathering mistletoe with golden sickles,
Well, chances are a scribe somewhere down the line mistook aereus for
aureus.
> but why should I tell anyone any more of these secrets.
They are not particularly secrets - any halfway competent herbalist
(like me) could say the same.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
> We know how the simple living Braveheart stirred the clans and kicked > the British butt.
He was hardly simple - he was the son of a Falkirk knight.
> If they attacked Rome itself then how did they get there, use four
> wheel drives?
No, they came out of the Alpine passes and a bunch of them were living
in northern Italy, in the Po valley.
> Are you being like these others in saying the Romans had every right, > how they alone advanced the glorious light of civilisation through the > Pagan darkness?
Well, first off, the Romans were pagans themselves. Secondly the term
'civilisation' is rather a value-laden term. And as to whether they had
the right? Guess I might as well quote a Celtic leader, Brennus - Vae
victis. That seems to have been the contemporary Celtic view, at least
after Allia.
Kevin
Don Kean
>>Kevin wrote:
>>Elenos wrote:
>>etc:
>We know how the simple living Braveheart stirred the clans and
>kicked the British butt.
>He was hardly simple - he was the son of a Falkirk knight.
He still lived on a farm, stirred the clans and kicked the British butt;
what is your point?
> If they (the Germans) attacked Rome itself then how did they get
>there, use four wheel drives?
>No, they came out of the Alpine passes and a bunch of them were
>living in northern Italy, in the Po valley.
How far is it from Germany to Rome? Those who could finish such a trip, by
foot and packhorse through the forests of Europe, would hardly have called
themselves German by the time they got there. Then it would have taken quite
a few chicken raffles along the way to finance the outing! Tribal dispersion
is a complex subject. We could go into it and get away from this dreary
parade of Roman propaganda.
>Are you being like these others in saying the Romans had every right,
>how they alone advanced the glorious light of civilisation through the
>Pagan darkness?
>Well, first off, the Romans were pagans themselves. Secondly the term
>'civilisation' is rather a value-laden term. And as to whether they had
>the right? Guess I might as well quote a Celtic leader, Brennus - Vae
>victis. That seems to have been the contemporary Celtic view, at least
>after Allia.
Woe to the vanquished! Behold how the mighty have fallen! They now have to
endure academic cliques like 'civilisation is a value-laden term’ while all
the Mother’s trees continue to fall. Civilisation has become the sword
thrown upon the scales that weigh against Nature.
Pagan was a Latin word to describe those living in the country, as against
the nobles living in the city. And they still are the measure of everything?
Rome was the city of god on earth and somehow the divine will of the great
corporate profit taker in the sky said to these destructive pricks that
every heathen tribe and nation should be brought into the fold.
Elenos
Kevin Jones
>
> >>Kevin wrote:
> >>Elenos wrote:
> >>etc:
>
> >We know how the simple living Braveheart stirred the clans and
> >kicked the British butt.
>
> >He was hardly simple - he was the son of a Falkirk knight.
>
> He still lived on a farm, stirred the clans and kicked the British butt;
And then got himself betrayed by the Scots aristocracy who lured him
back from France to Edinburgh and handed him over to the English.
> what is your point?
A spot of defining terms and historical accuracy, which was rather more
than the film of the same name demonstrated.
> How far is it from Germany to Rome?
Strictly speaking, anything east of the Rhine was German - or north of
the Alps.
>Those who could finish such a trip, by foot and packhorse through the
> forests of Europe, would hardly have called themselves German by the > time they got there.
Don't underestimate the mobility of armies and raiding parties in
antiquity. Even prior to the military reforms of Marius, the Roman army
was quite capable of going overland to Gallia Narbonensis or Spain and
staying in the field for months at a time. Celtic armies were also
capable of covering great distances, and that's not taking into account
migrations or Celts serving as mercenaries. There was the notable
occasion of one Celtic army attempting to sack Delphi and yet another
fighting in the east brought back a large amount of spoil that was
dumped in a lake near Toulouse.
Of course, in the later period, mobility increased - one mixed bunch of
Suebians, Vandals and Alans crossed the Rhine in winter and were across
Gaul and down into Spain in a year. Still, earlier armies could move
nearly as fast.
> Then it would have taken quite a few chicken raffles along the way to >finance the outing!
Probably less than might be thought. Chieftains or kings had their
following and the aristocracy weren't exactly skint. They had their own
weapons, chariots and horses. There was always the possibility of booty
at the end of it and there was the lure of fame and renown
Tribal dispersion
> We could go into it and get away from this dreary
> parade of Roman propaganda.
On the contrary, it isn't a parade of Roman propaganda. It is a
reasonably factual account, unbiased to either side. It just isn't a
parade of 'the Romans were evil sods' propaganda either.
In fact it could be argued that there was a developing vacuum in the Med
due to the wane of Hellenic culture. Somebody inevitably was going to
fill it, whether that was the Romans, the Carthaginians or the
Etruscans. The same thing happened at the end of the Roman period. The
'barbarian' tribes did not dismember the empire - they were sucked in to
the developing vacuum caused by its internal breakdown. In many cases
they took over the existing administrative machinery (eg: Theodosius the
Great, Vandals, Franks). In fact you could probably mark the end of the
empire as being when people considered it no longer being worth while
fighting to be emperor.
Rome at the start of things (round about the time of Polybius) was
probably the least likely contender, particularly since its military and
political organisation was not really geared to dealing with large
areas. The setup prior to the Social Wars was adequate for Italy, but
not for larger areas, particularly since the army was not a professional
one. In fact most of the turmoil of that period was caused by the
contradictions between traditional organisation and the reality of the
expanding area governed. It was exacerbated by internal divisions in the
Senate and between the tribunes and the Senate. Some senators were
definitely for expanding citizenship to the Latins at least, though
there was still debate on the future status of the Italian federates. To
appreciate the political implications of this, the size of someones
clientelae represented the amount of power they held. The larger the
amount of power, the more strain it placed on an oligarchic structure
and a lot of effort ws expended to prevent de facto rule by one man.
Quite a few senators had clients amongst the Latin and Italian
aristocracy. The view prior to the Social War was that were voting
rights extended, they would have an unreasonable amount of power. It
took the effective destruction of oligarchic rule in the second century
to change the situation, which led to the eventual rule by one man.
In fact the situation is one of confusion and stupidity, rather than any
coherent policy. The structure developed as an evolution of traditional
ideas, even if they were bent entirely out of their original shape over
time
Now, you don't have to approve of the ins and outs of Roman history or
even regard them as bringing civilisation to render a factual account of
what happened.
> Woe to the vanquished! Behold how the mighty have fallen! They now have to
> endure academic cliques like 'civilisation is a value-laden term’ while all
> the Mother’s trees continue to fall. Civilisation has become the sword
> thrown upon the scales that weigh against Nature.
Well, civilisation tends, by most people to be considered A Good Thing
and using the term implies that those who don't share that culture are
by definition uncivilised. Me, personally, I think civilisation largely
very uncivilised, but that's me. No doubt Brennus also thought
civilisation (a Roman term) a value-laden term as well, since it implied
the Celts were uncivilised. However, I doubt whether he would have
worried too much about being the winning side in a battle. Perhaps he
would argue that the gods had given him the victory.
As for chopping down trees, the Celts were quite good at land clearance
themselves. Nothing like the modern scale (they didn't have the
technology), but trees needed to be cleared for farming and settlements.
It takes a hell of a lot of trees to build one roundhouse - and fairly
mature trees at that. In fact there had been extensive tree clearance
since the Neolithic period in the UK and Ireland, to judge by the pollen
record and there was an upsurge in places in the Iron Age - better
tools. The major limitation was the type of soil that could be ploughed
by an ard plough - no point in clearing land if you can't use it. When
the coulter plough was introduced, there was a rapid clearance of
woodland on clay soil for ploughing. The ard plough couldn't plough deep
clay soils but the coulter plough could.
> Pagan was a Latin word to describe those living in the country, as
> against the nobles living in the city.
Well, were you using it in the Roman manner or in the modern manner? By
modern terminology, the Romans were pagan in that they followed a
traditional religion or religions that were not Christian. The Roman use
of the word 'pagan' only came in with Christianity to distinguish
Christians, who was originally limited to the towns, from
non-Christians, who were predominantly rural. By later extension it came
to mean any non-Christian.
This did not mean that Christians were nobles - in fact for quite a long
period they were largely limited to the lower middle class. The
situation only chnged with the conversion of Constantine.
In any case, most of the aristocracy of the Roman period spent some
considerable time on their estates which, by modern standards, were
rural and were most definitely not in the towns or the cities. Quite a
few authors make reference to spending time on their estates in the
country. A fair bit of Virgil's poetry concerns rural matters.
> Rome was the city of god on earth
No, that's the later Christian idea. Much, much later.
> and somehow the divine will of the great corporate profit taker in the > sky said to these destructive pricks that every heathen tribe and
> nation should be brought into the fold.
Conquering territory and peoples was something every culture did in
antiquity and had been doing for a very long time. One might note that
the excuse for the Claudian invasion was due to Cunobelinus' sons,
Caradwc and Togodumnus annexing Verica's territory, Verica having a
treaty with Rome at the time. In fact that particular tribe had been
doing a lot of annexing, which is why their territory was extremely
large and quite a few formerly independent peoples were subsumed into
them. The rise of the Ui Niall in Ireland similarly upset the local
political situation. On the continent there is evidence that the rise of
La Tene culture was associated attacks and annexation of the territory
on the edge of the central Hallstatt area. similarly, the trade route
from Masillia to north Gaul broke down in 500 BC because of major
incursions by neighbouring tribes which necessitated the development of
defended oppida. Meantime, there is good evidence of a slave trade
centred on Hengistbury Head in Britain and aggressive slave raids made
on tribes in the interior. The slaves were duly sold off to Europe,
making the aristocracy richer, so warfare was quite profitable. Trading
contacts were controlled by the elites of these Celtic tribes, who were
consequently wealthy.
In short, the Romans were doing nothing unusual - in fact they were
doing more or less what everyone else was doing at the time. There was
in fact only one difference - they were more organised which allowed
them to do it better. The concentration of power and wealth in the hands
of the Celtic aristocracies happens by exactly the same mechanism as it
did in Rome and, had the Celts had an organisation on a par with Rome,
no doubt the scale would have been as great. The Celtic aristocracy was
just as interested in wealth and profit as was the Roman aristocracy. In
fact that is very clear from both sources and the archaeology.
In fact the general Roman idea in antiquity - which wasn't much
different from anyone elses at the time - was that if the gods were
pleased, they'd succeed at whatever it was. If the gods weren't, then
you had to make your peace with them, usually by a sacrifice. Things
going pear-shaped was a sure sign that the gods were pissed off at you.
Kevin
Wade Baugher
> ...
> I answered a claim that suggested how the Germans attacked the
> wheel drives?
> ...
You can't be serious... I'd recommend you read _A History of Pagan Europe_
by
Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick. They take a decidedly pro-Pagan approach
to the subject and have been credited with sound research... though some of
the
conclusions drawn should be considered with caution.
> The truth is the Germans and the Celts attacked the Romans in Europe on
> territory the Romans falsely claimed as their own. They were the
plunderers
> who resented groups who moved in to take away what they had stolen.
See recommendation above .
> Are you being like these others in saying the Romans had every right,
> how they alone advanced the glorious light of civilisation through the
> Pagan darkness?
I don't recall anyone saying that. Seems to me you're putting words in
other peoples mouths again... a tendency you should learn to moderated.
> What we need here is Celtic versions of history that tell us the real
side,
> the magic side of being what we are.
See recommendation above.
> Let us with be done with all this gloom as Merlin casts his spell!
There is nothing gloomy about understanding history. It only becomes
gloomy when the facts don't align with ones preconcieved notions and
one is unwilling to reconsider.
Kevin Jones
Well, despite our occasional disagreements <grin!>, I don't think I
could argue with any of the above! Some damned good points!
Kevin
Don Kean
Wade Baugher wrote in message <37cbea64.17aa$e...@news.op.net>...
>Wade said
>You can't be serious... I'd recommend you read _A History of Pagan Europe_
>By Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick. They take a decidedly pro-Pagan
>approachto the subject and have been credited with sound research...
>though some of the conclusions drawn should be considered with caution.
Be serious? I am ever laughing at the pretensions of this mortal world. What
a joke this all is, my friend. The Celts were master of mocking the absurd
and you cannot see this in me? Has all this reading you boast of so blinded
you eyes that you can’t pick the woods for the trees?
All you and the others have done so far is reveal unsatisfactory positions
that rest upon the shifting quicksands of intellectual pretensions. Have you
read this book, have you read that one, if you haven’t then go away and read
it. What an attitude! More can be gained by going to those who know their
mind and can express it than those who live a life by hiding behind books.
>I don't recall anyone saying that. Seems to me you're putting words in
>other peoples mouths again... a tendency you should learn to moderated.
What a naughty boy, I am. And if I exhibit this incorrect Pagan behaviour
once more, I am expelled from the class?
> Let us with be done with all this gloom as Merlin casts his spell!
>There is nothing gloomy about understanding history. It only becomes
>gloomy when the facts don't align with ones preconcieved notions and
>one is unwilling to reconsider.
History is like the leaves upon the tree that are shed with the seasons of
thought throughout the ages, but never stay part of the eternal tree. Time
changes all things except its Mother source. To look upon mouldering leaves
can only tell us so much before they crumble away. To call upon Merlin is a
cry from the true seeker that reaches out for the Mother source beyond the
annals of sawdust.
The Druid walked the Otherworld path with knowing feet and developed the
strength that cannot be held prisoner by worldly knowledge. They used the
mystery and magic of awakened senses to lead others to the Otherworld
realms, a place beyond our own where nothing unsatisfactory exists.
Say what you will, mock my ‘preconceived notions’, but I know the ancient
Druids did have spiritual secrets that go beyond your doubts. I sat down and
wept to think that such a flowing river of sweet water should be lost to us.
I was the lover in the wilderness crying over the lost love and then a bird
called. I looked up at the living wonder of the trees and the fields around
me and knew that this love of mine is the answer that can never die.
The nine knots mean nine heads
Tied among the nine threads
I see thrice times nine of wisdom.
Elenos
Raven (J. Singleton)
| There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
| just speculation.
Hardly speculation, Ian, if you'll read Peter Beresford Ellis's THE DRUIDS,
which gives historical examples, including Colmcille ("Christ is my Druid").
| Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and rites to become
| Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
And yet they retained their traditional tonsure for generations afterward,
(Ellis finds examples as late as the 14th century), and their special status
in Irish Brehonic law until the English supplanted it (in the 17th century);
even their sunwheel symbol was retained at the heart of the Celtic Cross.
Of course if you *define* "Druid" as being "non-Christian", then to become
Christian is to stop being a Druid. But this does not seem to have been
their definition, and indeed why should they have defined themselves only as
being "non-Christian"? That sounds more like a modern "NeoPagan" fixation.
It bemuses me that so many people do define themselves as being "Pagan"
when that is the *Christian* word for non-Christian (& non-Jew & non-Muslim);
it would make as much sense to define themselves as "Goy" (the Jewish word
for non-Jew) or "Kafir" (the Muslim word for non-Muslim) -- then we could
see all the same squabbles about who is a TRUE Goy/Kafir or Neo-Goy/Kafir.
To me this choice of emphasis reveals precisely their immersion in, and
reaction against, a predominantly Christian culture... as does your seeming
insistence that Druids -- though they could worship any other of the many gods
they actually did worship -- could not worship one *particular* god without
thereby ceasing to be Druids. Why that one in particular, Ian?
Did the Brehons thereby cease to be Brehons? Or the Bards stop being Bards?
--
Raven | , "Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd." (Welsh)
| "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil." (Irish)
raven @ solaria.sol.net | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Raven (J. Singleton)
| The idea of a "Christian" Druid, on the surface, seems plausible. However,
| with a bit of research, one will find that, after the official adoption of the
| Christ Cult by Constantine, the now militarily embodied (and still fledgling)
| Catholic Church pursued most of it's competition in a holy purge. This brought
| the druids to the fateful decision of whether to abandon their religion, or
| mask it under the invading one (as many suspect has been done in the past).
Anon, the Continental and southern British Druids were suppressed by *pagan*
Rome before the birth of Christ. What remained of Druidry, in Ireland and
Scotland, was converted to Christianity peaceably and not by force. The
version of events you are now telling is a widely spread but false history.
This was discussed extensively here on alt.religion.druid about two years ago,
with documentation from many histories to support the statements I make above.
The following URL should bring up most of those posts (among others):
Otherwise, search in DejaNews for my author-ID, this newsgroup, the keyword
"Christian", and the date range Jan 1 1996 - Nov 27 1997.
If after reading these you can refute this position with reliable historical
documentation, I will gladly change my opinion to accord with new facts.
Raven (J. Singleton)
> Can you cite an example of a 'Christian Druid'? I don't know of one.
Again, see the examples given in Peter Beresford Ellis, THE DRUIDS.
> And don't tell me about the Culdees or the Celtic Church -
Of course not, Ian! After all, the Druids were Celts, and when they were
Christianized, it was as part of the Celtic Church, so that's where you'd
look for Christian Druids *IF* you wanted to find them. Since you deny the
possibility, therefore you do not want to be told where all the examples are.
> they fought hard to destroy the Old Ways.
Bilgewater, Ian. Everything recorded about the Irish Druidic culture, from
the Brehonic laws to Bardic lore, Cuchullain and the Cattle Raid of Cooley,
is only recorded because the *Christian* scribes wrote it all down, from
the strictly oral traditions that had come down to them. They *preserved*
these traditions, or else you would know nothing about them at all.
Raven (J. Singleton)
| To say that there were never Christian Druids is not being fair.
Agreed, so far.
| Surely, everybody knows the Druids came under intense persecution.
"Everybody knows"? A red flag. A waving hand. Thick smoke in the eyes.
*Which* Druids were those?
The Druids of Gaul and south Britain were persecuted by *pagan* Romans,
before even the birth of Christ. Christianity came there long afterwards.
The Druids of Ireland and Scotland were never conquered by the Romans.
When they were converted to Christianity, it was not by force of arms,
indeed this is the one consistent comment of the actual historians
who discuss the Irish/Scottish conversions, that it was bloodless, with
no persecution of either side by the other, no martyrs to either faith.
This was extensivlely documented on alt.religion.druid during late 1997.
Raven
| Marc Lachance wrote:
| > Weren't the Druids mentioned in the Brehon laws, codified during the
| > time of St. Patrick? THese laws were still in effect up to the 17th
| > century English pogroms...
|
| Druids were mentioned only to be derided. It mentions poets of many
| kinds, who inherited the non-religious aspects of Druidry.
Quite a novel interpretation of history, Ian. Can you document it?
I refer you once again to Peter Berresford Ellis, THE DRUIDS, p.189 ff.
in the 1994 Eeerdmans edition, for the following:
The Brehonic laws of Ireland were codified into the Senchus Mor by order
of the High King himself, Laoghaire of Tara, who was one of the three kings
on the committee (along with Dara of Ulster and Corc of Munster). Patrick,
Benignus, and Cairnech were the Christian advisers. Dubhtach Maccu Lugir,
Rossa, and Fergus were the Brehon legal advisers. Laoghaire himself never
converted to Christianity; he was pagan to the end of his days. Will you
claim that a committee so constituted rewrote the laws to *deride* Druids,
when those same laws kept the administration of justice in Druidic hands?
Wade Baugher
> ...
> All you and the others have done so far is reveal unsatisfactory positions
> that rest upon the shifting quicksands of intellectual pretensions. Have
you
> read this book, have you read that one, if you haven't then go away and
read
> it. What an attitude! More can be gained by going to those who know their
> mind and can express it than those who live a life by hiding behind books.
Well Don... this is a Druid news group. One thing we know well about the
ancient Druids was their dedication to study and learning. They were the
repository of the knowledge of their people. That people in this group
would have an affinity for scholarly pursuits, like reading, is entirely
predictable.
Recommending basic reading material is a polite way of pointing out
possible gaps in another's knowledge. I love it when people can point
me in the direction of new reading that challenges my previously held
assumptions.
When you try to convince others that reading is not needed and that your
positions are right, just because you say so, I (and many others) will ask
you to defend those positions.
fisherqueene
perhaps a problem on my part?......
Linda
QuertX wrote in message <19990828025349...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>> I believe recorded their arcana in the Book of Ballymote.
>>
>>That was written by monks, I believe.
>
>According to the webpage below, it was written by an ollav (Arch Poet). I'm
>sure there's something besides the Ogham that's important to our study. I
can't
>remember what it is though. the book looks pretty Christian though.
>
>http://homepage.tinet.ie/~jhiggins/book.html
>
>All Yours
>John
Will Corley
You will see similar entries in Brehon laws concerning the Bards and Brehons
themselves as well!
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
Gearóid Mac Cuinneagáin <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
news:37d026f5....@il.news.verio.net...
> Raven (J. Singleton) wrote:
>
> >| Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and rites to become
> >| Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
> >
> >And yet they retained their traditional tonsure for generations
afterward,
> >(Ellis finds examples as late as the 14th century), and their special
status
> >in Irish Brehonic law until the English supplanted it (in the 17th
century);
>
> Brehon Law as early as the 9th century was downgrading druids.
>
> --
> Gerard Phaid Bhilly
> abardubh at wwa dot com
> Tá m'aerbád lán d'eascanna
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> Bilgewater, Ian. Everything recorded about the Irish Druidic culture, from
> the Brehonic laws to Bardic lore, Cuchullain and the Cattle Raid of Cooley,
> is only recorded because the *Christian* scribes wrote it all down, from
> the strictly oral traditions that had come down to them. They *preserved*
> these traditions, or else you would know nothing about them at all.
>
> --
> Raven
In those very tellings they removed everything offensive to their new
religion, rewrote and novelised, altered things to fit biblical
mythology. They removed or degraded every clear reference to the actual
worship of the God/desses, and tended to portray magicians as
evil-doers.
We can be grateful to the tenacity of Irish pride in their ancestors for
preserving anything at all of the lore. But we should see the Celtic
Chirch for what it was - an effort to supplant Paganism with the new
religion of the One God and Saviour, etc. They were, in that sense, the
antithesis of Druids.
It's largely because the material was written down by those that had
abandoned the old ways that we can't treat the Book of Invasions, Ulster
cycle etc as Pagan scripture - not even to the same extent that we can
take Homer, say.
Ian
tre...@ncweb.com
>
> tre...@ncweb.com wrote:
>
> | There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
> | just speculation.
>
> Hardly speculation, Ian, if you'll read Peter Beresford Ellis's THE DRUIDS,
> which gives historical examples, including Colmcille ("Christ is my Druid").
Colmcille was a Druid who became a Christian. When he sid that, he meant
that he no longer needed Druids, and that Christ had become the center
and teacher of his spirituality. In other words, it is his statement
that he has abandoned Druidry.
> | Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and rites to become
> | Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
>
> And yet they retained their traditional tonsure for generations afterward,
> (Ellis finds examples as late as the 14th century), and their special status
> in Irish Brehonic law until the English supplanted it (in the 17th century);
> even their sunwheel symbol was retained at the heart of the Celtic Cross.
A lot of Druidic lore survived outside the church, in the form of the
Poetic schools and the brehons. Those do provide us with some
non-ecclesiastic sources for old lore.
IT seems that Irish clerics did sometimes retain some of the styles and
percs of the position of Druid in celtic culture. IN fact, the general
repect for religion and tradition of the Irish has made them hold even
the Catholic church in great regard. But that's not to say that priests
are Druids, or shamans, or any of that.
> Of course if you *define* "Druid" as being "non-Christian", then to become
> Christian is to stop being a Druid. But this does not seem to have been
> their definition, and indeed why should they have defined themselves only as
> being "non-Christian"?
WEll, I can certainly see a reason to hold to the ways of the ancestors,
and not set them aside for the ideas of a foreign missionary. And the
Irish Christians certainly did actively work to drive out Pagan ways.
> To me this choice of emphasis reveals precisely their immersion in, and
> reaction against, a predominantly Christian culture... as does your seeming
> insistence that Druids -- though they could worship any other of the many gods
> they actually did worship -- could not worship one *particular* god without
> thereby ceasing to be Druids. Why that one in particular, Ian?
Because the God says you can't worship him without abandoning all other
Gods. he said so when the Christian missionaries came, he says so now.
Same with Judaism and Islam - though those may be the only ones...
One can worship something one calls 'Jesus' - I'm sure some folks added
Jesus to their pantheon - but that doesn't make one a Christian, just a
Pagan worshipping some Pagan Jesus.
THose who were actually converted by the missionaries would have learned
that they needed to abandon the old ways, and encourage others to do the
same.
>
> Did the Brehons thereby cease to be Brehons? Or the Bards stop being Bards?
The weren't in the church...
> Raven
Ian
Will Corley
the "blackwashing" of the early Celtic Christian saints. Any ideas
concerning this? I am having a very difficult time on the how the old
stories were "christianized" and at the same time the stories surrounding
the leading figures of the Celtic church were "paganized".
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
<tre...@ncweb.com> wrote in message news:37CF76...@ncweb.com...
QuertX
>John, I can t access the url below - what s up with that? Or is it
>perhaps a problem on my part?......
>
>Linda
>>http://homepage.tinet.ie/~jhiggins/book.html
It's working for me. Will someone else try it?
john
Raven
| Raven (J. Singleton) wrote:
|>
|> tre...@ncweb.com wrote:
|>
|>| There isn't any known example of a Christian Druid, is there? That's all
|>| just speculation.
|>
|> which gives historical examples, including Colmcille ("Christ is my Druid").
|
| Colmcille was a Druid who became a Christian. When he sid that, he meant
| that he no longer needed Druids, and that Christ had become the center
| and teacher of his spirituality. In other words, it is his statement
| that he has abandoned Druidry.
To say "Christ is my Druid; I no longer need Druids" would be to say
"I no longer need Christ". To say "Christ is my Druid; I have abandoned
Druidry" would be to say "I have abandoned Christianity". I very much
doubt that Colmcille made either of these statements.
The problem here, Ian, is a problem of communication at the most basic level,
a confusion of terms. You persist in defining "Druid" was "worshipper (or
priest) of specifically non-Christian gods", and by that definition, yes,
to become Christian is to stop being a Druid. But the Irish themselves
clearly did not use that definition, since Druids who had converted to
Christianity continued to be regarded as Druids thereafter -- by their
contemporaries, even though not by you. Their years of training and their
social role continued, and these were what made them Druids, not the
identity of the deities they happened to worship. It is in the same way
that someone today who has gone through the years of medical training to
become a physician, or of other education to become a scholar, and who has
received the title of "Doctor", and who practices in that medical or
academic field, will continue to be recognized and identified as "Doctor"
even if he or she converts from one religion to another -- even if someone
centuries later should claim that this conversion ended that Doctorate.
|>| Seems to me that when a Druid gave up his Gods and rites to become
|>| Christian, he would no longer have been a Druid.
|>
|> And yet they retained their traditional tonsure for generations afterward,
|> (Ellis finds examples as late as the 14th century), and their special status
|> in Irish Brehonic law until the English supplanted it (in the 17th century);
|> even their sunwheel symbol was retained at the heart of the Celtic Cross.
|
| A lot of Druidic lore survived outside the church, in the form of the
| Poetic schools and the brehons. Those do provide us with some
| non-ecclesiastic sources for old lore.
"Outside the church" in the sense that these were "non-ecclesiastic" (not
members of the clergy), surely. But nevertheless also members of the church
in the sense of being Christian... or do you claim they never converted?
| IT seems that Irish clerics did sometimes retain some of the styles and
| percs of the position of Druid in celtic culture. IN fact, the general
| repect for religion and tradition of the Irish has made them hold even
| the Catholic church in great regard. But that's not to say that priests
| are Druids, or shamans, or any of that.
For them to have retained the "percs of the position", Ian, indicates that
their contemporaries, their society, recognized them as *being* Druids --
by their time's definition, even though not by your own.
|> Of course if you *define* "Druid" as being "non-Christian", then to become
|> Christian is to stop being a Druid. But this does not seem to have been
|> their definition, and indeed why should they have defined themselves only as
|> being "non-Christian"?
|
| WEll, I can certainly see a reason to hold to the ways of the ancestors,
Since the way of the ancestors of that time was to recognize Druids as Druids
whether or not they had converted to Christianity (or in later generations had
even been Christian from the start), why do you not now hold to that way?
| and not set them aside for the ideas of a foreign missionary.
If the ancestors chose to listen to him, why do you deny them that choice?
| And the Irish Christians certainly did actively work to drive out Pagan ways.
I question what you mean by this. Other than theology, the chief practical
change they made in daily life was to end the keeping of slaves. Do you mean
that you wish to re-institute the practice of slavery?
|> To me this choice of emphasis reveals precisely their immersion in, and
|> reaction against, a predominantly Christian culture... as does your seeming
|> insistence that Druids -- though they could worship any other of the many gods
|> they actually did worship -- could not worship one *particular* god without
|> thereby ceasing to be Druids. Why that one in particular, Ian?
|
| Because the God says you can't worship him without abandoning all other
| Gods. he said so when the Christian missionaries came, he says so now.
| Same with Judaism and Islam - though those may be the only ones...
All right, but this begs the question. *Why* does that make one not a Druid?
If one could worship Lugh and not Taranis, yet be a Druid; if one could
worship Taranis and not Lugh, yet be a Druid; if one could worship Erin
or Banba or any of the other goddess-names of the land herself, and not
Lugh or Taranis, yet be a Druid; if one could worship any or all of these
and more, but not the Christian god, yet be a Druid; why cannot one worship
the Christian god and not the others, yet be a Druid?
Again, you seem to define "Druidry" as meaning worship of specific deities,
but that does not seem to have been *their* definition of "Druid".
When all the people worshipped those specific pre-Christian deities, that
did not make them all "Druids". Some were Druids, others (most) were not.
The difference was a specific social role, for which many years of training
were required.
If one had that training and that social role, one was a Druid, otherwise not.
A nationwide change in religion does not seem to change this distinction.
Those who had that training continued to have had that training.
Those who held that social role continued to hold that social role.
By the definition of that culture and its laws, they continued to be Druids.
You are trying to redefine the term retroactively.
You are certainly free to say "What *I* mean by 'Druid' is...".
However, I will take exception to a claim that "the ancestors" meant the same
thing by that term, when the historical evidence so clearly contradicts it.
| One can worship something one calls 'Jesus' - I'm sure some folks added
| Jesus to their pantheon - but that doesn't make one a Christian, just a
| Pagan worshipping some Pagan Jesus.
Does "Christian" also mean something different to you? Something other than
one who "follows Christ"? This would be another case of changed definition.
| THose who were actually converted by the missionaries would have learned
| that they needed to abandon the old ways, and encourage others to do the
| same.
Again, specifically what ways do you mean?
| > Did the Brehons thereby cease to be Brehons? Or the Bards stop being Bards?
|
| The weren't in the church...
Again, are you claiming they didn't convert to Christianity?
C. Leigh MagFhionghaile
> But the Irish themselves
>clearly did not use that definition, since Druids who had converted to
>Christianity continued to be regarded as Druids thereafter -- by their
>contemporaries, even though not by you.
There are Irish grandmothers who persist in referring to the Catholic
Priests as "Druids" even today.
TopazOwl
STEVE
"C. Leigh MagFhionghaile" wrote:
>
> In article <7r2mlk$p...@ns.sol.net>, ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
> > But the Irish themselves
> >clearly did not use that definition, since Druids who had converted to
> >Christianity continued to be regarded as Druids thereafter -- by their
> >contemporaries, even though not by you.
>
> There are Irish grandmothers who persist in referring to the Catholic
> Priests as "Druids" even today.
>
> TopazOwl
There are Irish grandmothers (and others) who persist in practicing
Irish Paganism and refer to it as a form of pseudo-Catholicism (with the
blessings of the local parish), even today. Folklore practices are
usually quite difficult to eliminate when you're talking about a people
(even non-Irish) with strong mythic convictions. To refer to them as
Catholic rites, Druidism, or 'Celtic' Pagan Rites (referring to the
Irish) is probably a misnoemer.
C. Leigh MagFhionghaile
>
>
>"C. Leigh MagFhionghaile" wrote:
>> There are Irish grandmothers who persist in referring to the Catholic
>> Priests as "Druids" even today.
>>
>> TopazOwl
>
>There are Irish grandmothers (and others) who persist in practicing
>Irish Paganism and refer to it as a form of pseudo-Catholicism (with the
>blessings of the local parish), even today. Folklore practices are
>usually quite difficult to eliminate when you're talking about a people
>(even non-Irish) with strong mythic convictions. To refer to them as
>Catholic rites, Druidism, or 'Celtic' Pagan Rites (referring to the
>Irish) is probably a misnoemer.
Exactly my point. However, don't go telling those Irish grandmothers they
aren't Catholic! Don't go saying they are practicing "pagan" ways or call
what they practice "pseudo-Catholicism"! It wouldn't sit well. :-)
TopazOwl
Searles O'Dubhain
called Crane Clerics to distinguish them from those who are "Roman."
--
Searles O'Dubhain
http://www.summerlands.com
"Athert an Daogdae, 'An cumang arba/gaid-si/, doge/n-sou ule am a/onur.' "
"Then said the Dagda, 'All these powers that you have said that you will
command, I will myself command.'"
C. Leigh MagFhionghaile <topa...@dreamscape.com> wrote in article
<rtae2v...@corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <7r2mlk$p...@ns.sol.net>, ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
> > But the Irish themselves
> >clearly did not use that definition, since Druids who had converted to
> >Christianity continued to be regarded as Druids thereafter -- by their
> >contemporaries, even though not by you.
>
Raven
|>> they fought hard to destroy the Old Ways.
|> Bilgewater, Ian. Everything recorded about the Irish Druidic culture, from
|> the Brehonic laws to Bardic lore, Cuchullain and the Cattle Raid of Cooley,
|> is only recorded because the *Christian* scribes wrote it all down, from
|> the strictly oral traditions that had come down to them. They *preserved*
|> these traditions, or else you would know nothing about them at all.
| In those very tellings they removed everything offensive to their new
| religion, rewrote and novelised, altered things to fit biblical mythology.
Not exactly, Ian. There was an attempt to reconcile chronologies, so that
a period in Irish history might be equated to the time of a Biblical event,
but it's the same thing we do when we describe events of Roman history in
years AD or BC rather than AUC (anno urbis conditae, from Rome's founding).
Far from rewriting a text, they recorded it as received from the oral
tradition, which I grant you was itself labile and liable to shifting,
but they restricted themselves to footnotes and marginalia, to the tune
of "I don't believe a word of this, but this is the way I was told it."
The strong historical ethic of the Bards, that a tale might be told in
varying styles but the facts must not be altered, seems to have remained
intact among the scribes. Both traditions, after all, venerate Truth,
and as a corollary seek to display the virtues of honesty and accuracy.
I will recommend to you the study of two books of Irish history, the older
being a notable milestone in the movement toward Irish freedom, for it helped
establish that Ireland *had* a history of its own, and a right to be counted
among the nations of the world, not simply a British province as it was so
widely considered then. Mary Frances Cusack, An Illustrated History of
Ireland, (1868; reprinted 1995, Bracken Books, ISBN 1-85891-378-0).
More recently: Seumas MacManus, The Story of the Irish Race (revised to 1990,
Devin-Adair, ISBN 9992469056).
| They removed or degraded every clear reference to the actual worship
| of the God/desses, and tended to portray magicians as evil-doers.
As to worship, the pagan religion itself forbade writing down its rituals,
or even making them public, so this material was probably not available to
be recorded, and indeed it would have violated that religion to record it.
As to portraying magicians as evil-doers, the tales of conflict often feature
Druids on *both* sides, from the Milesians vs. the Tuatha De Danaan, on down.
Unless you're saying ALL sides were portrayed as evil, this only shows that
membership in differing peoples (presumably with differing religions) did
not prevent these Druids from all being Druids. Though the Irish might well
have more sympathy for one side (e.g. ancestors) in some tales, I see nothing
inherent in the story to make, say, the De Danaans "bad" and the Milesians
"good", even though the Milesians were the eventual winners of that conflict;
but if we do call the Milesians "good", how then are their Druids not "good"?
(However we might view the Nemedians, Fir Bolg, or Fomorians, I don't seem to
recall any Druids among them being singled out as worse than other members.)
| We can be grateful to the tenacity of Irish pride in their ancestors for
| preserving anything at all of the lore. But we should see the Celtic
| Chirch for what it was - an effort to supplant Paganism with the new
| religion of the One God and Saviour, etc. They were, in that sense, the
| antithesis of Druids.
Again you seem to define Druidry as devotion specifically to non-Christian
theology, which from the record is not how the Druids themselves defined it.
Recall that contemporary writers describe them as philosophers, not priests.
They were the people of learning, the intellectuals, the intelligentsia,
the people of the word -- given twenty years or so of training in words
and their use, rhetorically, poetically, legally, and for lorekeeping.
None of that seems to have been changed by the gradual conversion of Ireland.
The openness with which the Druids of Patrick's time greeted him (Laoghaire's
"own chief poet and druid, Dubtach, rose up instantly on the entrance of the
strangers and saluted the venerable apostle with affection and respect"),
gave him hospitality (the Druids Ida and Ono of Corchachlan gave him their
own house), and welcomed him into their society (the High King Laoghaire,
though he never converted, gave Patrick free passage to teach and preach,
and had him on the committee to record the Brehonic laws, the Senchus Mor),
all suggest that the Druids themselves did not see him as their "antithesis".
As the population (Druids among others) gradually converted, and during the
long period of the two religions coexisting, there is no indication of
religious conflict between them, not even to the extent of the pagan Druids
denying the right of Christian Druids to continue wearing the tonsure and
holding the social role, the "percs of the position", as you yourself say.
It follows that the Irish society and culture of that time, both pagan and
Christian, both Druid and non-Druid, did not share your definition of
"Druid" as something explicitly and necessarily "pagan" (NON-Christian).
They had happened to be non-Christian before Christianity came, and they
became Christian thereafter -- but those who were Druids remained Druids.
| It's largely because the material was written down by those that had
| abandoned the old ways that we can't treat the Book of Invasions, Ulster
| cycle etc as Pagan scripture - not even to the same extent that we can
| take Homer, say.
I'd be amazed to learn that the Iliad or the Odyssey, at any point in their
long existence, had ever been regarded as "scripture" by the pagan Greeks.
History, perhaps, or as much to the point a heroic rendering of history,
in the same way that all-star movies about the Alamo are enjoyed in Texas.
Likewise, the Book of Invasions is given as the tale of the succeeding
waves of settlers or conquerors of Ireland, essentially a mythic history.
Even before any Christian gloss could ever have been placed upon it, I very
much doubt that it ever contained the sort of material to be recited at a
religious ritual -- it's just not the kind of text where that would be
appropriate, any more than Christian prayers would be (and they too are
absent, you'll notice).
As mentioned before, the pagan religion itself traditionally had a ban on
writing down its rituals, so I don't think it's fair to blame the relative
absence of written pagan rituals on the Christians, Ian.
Who knows, perhaps the Christian scribes might even have rudely ignored
that ban and transcribed those rituals, only to have the texts lost like
so many others during the English occupation -- or perhaps they sit still
untranslated among heaps of other books moldering in out-of-the-way
libraries -- but then you'd have cause to resent their preserving those
rituals in writing, clearly against the "way" (and wish) of "the ancestors"!
Poor scribes, they can't win either way.
C. Leigh MagFhionghaile
<snipped a lot of stuff I agree with or at least have considered>
>They had happened to be non-Christian before Christianity came, and they
>became Christian thereafter -- but those who were Druids remained Druids.
The traditions preserved in the saints' lives and in the sagas all
indicate that the Druids of pre-Christian Ireland had a similarly high status
to their British and Continental counterparts, the 'druides' of Latin sources.
The druid (Old Irish 'druí' ) was priest, prophet, astrologer, and teacher of
the sons of nobles. According to the 6th century "First Synod of Saint
Patrick," oaths were sworn in the presence of the Druid.
By the time of the Early Irish (Brehon) law-texts (7th-8th centuries) it
is clear that the advance of Christianity had reduced his position to that of
a sorcerer or witch-doctor. He is descriminated against in the law: Bretha
Crólige insists that the Druid (along with the satirist and brigand) is
entitled to sick-maintenance only at the level of bóaire (small farmer,
non-privileged freeman), no matter how great his rank, privilege or other
rights. However, he retains enough influence to secure inclusion among the
'deornemed' ("base nemed," ie.; not ranking or having the same privileges as
full nemed but still privileged, 'nemed' consisting of kings, lords, clerics,
and poets, 'doernemed' including judge, blacksmith, coppersmith, harpist,
carpenter, physician) of Uraicecht Becc.
Something to consider.
TopazOwl
Searles O'Dubhain
official religion. Even at the level that the Brehon Law assigned them
after the coming of Christianity, Druids were still ranked as high as
judges and smiths. It appears that economics would have enticed many a
Druid into either the Church or Poetry. Perhaps this is why the ranks of
the Filidh had grown so much when Columcille came to their defense? It's
certainly interesting that Brehon Law did not outlaw Druids but still
assigned them rights and privileges. Perhaps this is due to the influence
of the Filidh among those who "synchronized" them?
"Athert an Daogdae, 'An cumang arba/gaid-si/, doge/n-sou ule am a/onur.' "
"Then said the Dagda, 'All these powers that you have said that you will
command, I will myself command.'"
C. Leigh MagFhionghaile <topa...@dreamscape.com> wrote in article
<rtbo6j...@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>