**Karen, I find it shocking that you claim a Druidic ancestry and are not aware of the differences between a bard, a brehon, and a Druid - the three classes of druids in classical Celtic Druidism. I must say that if I were to claim I was to reinvigorate an ancient religion, I would do my basic homework. **
Well you might **if **I had done so. I don’t claim Druidic ancestry. I am not reinvigorating Celtic Druidism.
You stated “* The same Druids that you invoke in their guise as brehons invoked the law. If all was “do no harm”, what need for brehons?*”
I simply stated that the Wiccan Rede did not exist in that form until the 20th century, therefore it is irrelevant to claim (as I understood the argument) that if the Celts followed the Wiccan Rede there was no need for brehons. I had no intention of getting into the structure of Celtic Druidism.
I do belong to an organization that calls itself Druidic, though that is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion, as not all the members follow a Celtic religious path. Frankly, I find the name confuses people, but it is an organization that I find helpful in my journey, so I deal with it (and I didn’t choose the name, after all
). It’s emphasis is on those societies under the umbrella designation of Indo-European, and places an emphasis on scholarship. If you have further interest, the web address is
www.adf.org.
**This is a basic issue I have had around the campfire over the years. Few, if any, have done the basic homework to discern first the historical reality. **
I sympathize. I have had the same problem, both with SCAdians (I was active for a number of years) and with others, both Christian and non-Christian. Some are called to scholarship and find it a very important part of their faith. Others find it less relevant or even counterproductive. I confess that I don’t really understand the latter point of view, but I realize that it exists. I will freely admit that unfortunately there are many in various Neopagan religions who have done little more than read the latest popular book put out by Llewellyn Press. However, I don’t believe that one could claim with any validity that the majority of those who consider themselves Christians have done extensive scholarly study on first century Palestine, the historical realities of the various denominations of Christianity over the centuries, etc, either.
I will agree with you that I have not done an exhaustive study of the history of Celtic Druids, though I have probably a better than average acquaintance with it compared to the average American. I have read Ellis’ “A Brief History of the Druids,” Piggott’s “The Druids,” as well as “In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth” by Mallory, “A History of Pagan Europe” by Pennick and Jones, and, by Hutton, “The Rise and Fall of Merrie England: the ritual year 1400-1700,” “The Stations of the Sun: a history of the ritual year in Britain,” “Witches, Druids and King Arthur,” and “The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles.”
I have, however, done much more focused study in the area of Greek religion (not surprisingly), the pre-Christian religion that originally worshipped my Gods, in order to learn more about the ways in which they interacted with the Gods. I have found Walter Burkert’s “Greek Religion” to be particularly useful.
The “psychic unity of man” is taught in Anthropology 101. Jung elaborated upon it as did Joseph Campbell. I would highly reccomend reading Campbell or watching his PBS broadcasts.
I have read much of Jung, Campbell, Eliade, Huston Smith, etc. Thank you for the recommendation. My background tends more to the psychology and history end than the anthropology, however. Having read them doesn’t necessarily mean that I agree with them 100%.
I do think that their work really helped lay the groundwork for the flowering of modern Neopaganism. Many Neopagans hold a view of deity that owes a tremendous amount to them, and one that is quite different than the view held by those living in most pre-Christian societies. For the vast majority of history, the Gods were seen as actual separate beings, not as interchangable aspects of a single deity. This is in part why I describe myself as a polytheist rather than a duo- or monotheist.
Have you by chance read Ronald Hutton’s “Triumph of the Moon” on the philosophical, societal, etc trends in the 19th and 20th century that set the stage, if you will, for many new movements, including Neopaganism? I think you would find it very interesting given your background. On the issue of Goddess religion, have you read “The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: why an invented past will not give women a future” by Eller? Or seen this discussion between Anita Louise, a former leader in the Goddess community, and Ian Hodder, head of the excavations at Catalhoyuk
catalhoyuk.com/library/goddess.html?
(cont)
